Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Filip C. Filippou
Professor of Structural Engineering
at Berkeley
OpenSees (OPEN Software for Earthquake Engineering Simulation)
http://opensees.berkeley.edu (last release 2.2.0, August 2010)
for teaching and concept development
FEDEASMatLab
http://fedeaslab.berkeley.edu (last release 3.1 July 2010)
Criteria
Economy in model development and result interpretation considering parameter
sensitivity and multiple ground motions
Knowledge and experience of analysis team
Detail of response (global, regional or local) and accuracy
Beam-Column Models
N
M
N
M
Advantages:
relatively simple, good(?) for interface effects
(e.g. shear sliding, rotation due to bar pull-out)
Disadvantages:
properties of rotational spring depend on geometry
and moment distribution; relation to strains
requires plastic hinge length;
interaction of axial force, moment and shear ????;
generality??? numerical robustness???
x
Distributed inelasticity models (1d FE model) =
consistent integration of section response at specific
control or monitoring points
Advantages:
versatile and consistent;
section response from integration of material response
thus N-My-Mz interaction (Bernoulli)
(shear and torsion?? Timoshenko, )
thus numerical robustness is possible
Disadvantages:
can be expensive (what is the price $$$$) with wasted
sections for localized inelasticity
inaccuracy of local response (localization)
thus better understanding of theory for interpretation of
local response and damage is necessary
y
z
y
z
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1
-0.5
0.5
a)
b)
MID25
z
u y = u 5 u 2
v
= a gu
u
u x = u 4 u1
u5
Ln
p = aTgu q
u3
k e = k g + a Tgu k t a gu
u4
Y
L
y
u2
i
v1 = Ln L
v 2 = u3
v3 = u6
u1
P,w
120 cm
24 cm
96 cm
2 cm
120
3 cm
100
E = 70608 MPa
80
E H = 01
. E
y = 1020 MPa
y
60
120 cm
40
20
0
-20
-40
-40
-20
20
40
60
x
80
100
120
140
160
A pplied Load P (k N)
15
elas to-plas tic
with k inem atic
hardening
10
-5
propos ed flex . form ul. - 3 elm ts
C ic hon (1983) - 10 elm ts
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
D is plac em ent v (c m )
70
80
90
100
x 10
Linear element
2
Axial Force
1.5
P
0.5
2 E lem ents
4 E lem ents
8 E lem ents
16 E lem ents
32 E lem ents
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
E nd Rotation
10
B u c k lin g B ra c e w it h P -
150
100
Vertical Force
50
-5 0
-1 0 0
-2 . 5
-2
-1 . 5
-1
-0 . 5
0
V e rt ic a l D is p la c e m e n t
0.5
1.5
11
12
Script les
Results
Script les
Results
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
Load factor
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
NR steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Script les
Results
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S t i f U p d t = no ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
modified NR steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Script les
Results
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
S SimpIncrement
S t i f U p d t = no ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
Load factor
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
modified NR steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Script les
Results
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Script les
Results
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
Load factor
0.7
no step = 5;
Dlam0
= 0.2;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Script les
Results
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 10;
Dlam0
= 0.1;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
LF control in incrementation
Stiness parameter
LF control in iteration
Examples
k=5,000
b
1
Load factor
0.8
no step = 23;
Dlam0
= 0.10;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State ;
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S Initialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Increment
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Vertical displacement (downward)
0.4
0.45
Lecture 12 / page 11
LF control in incrementation
Stiness parameter
LF control in iteration
Examples
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
Load factor
0.5
no step = 120;
Dlam0
= 0.10;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State ;
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S Initialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Increment
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Iterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Vertical displacement (downward)
2.5
Lecture 12 / page 18
Many tests have been conducted and more are under way
Before understanding the behavior of assemblies one should understand the
behavior of the constituent parts; not always possible or available
Reduced scale models require attention to scaling laws (e.g. weld fractures,
bond-slip)
Older tests are not complete either for lack of enough channels of
measurement or for lack of reporting (lost data); it is hard to obtain funding to
repeat old tests
Tests may have experimental errors (these are not reported always)
Success or failure can be decided by looking at all experimental data, not a
suitable subset of them
We can learn from failure as much as we learn from success, even though this
is not accepted practice in research publications; better paradigm is necessary
A simple start
13
40
py
30
Px =44.48 kN
51.44 cm
pz
Load y (kN)
20
10
0
-10
-20
experiment
-30
-40
analysis
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Tip Displacement y (cm)
30
Px =44.48 kN
Load z (kN)
20
51.44 cm
pz
10
0
-10
-20
experiment
-30
-40
analysis
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Tip Displacement z (cm)
14
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
Moment Mz (kN-cm)
Moment Mz (kN-cm)
500
0
y
-500
-1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
-2000
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
-2000
-80
40
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
60
80
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
Moment Mz (kN-cm)
Moment Mz (kN-cm)
500
0
y
-500
-1000
500
0
y
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
-2000
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
-2000
-80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
15
Shear Link
Eccentrically Braced Frame
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
W18 40
d = 17.88 in
t f = 0.521 in
b f = 5.985 in
L=28 in
t w = 0.314 in
Loading History
Displacement, in
-2
-4
0
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
4
6
Pseudo time
10
16
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
Experiment
Analysis
-200
-250
-4
-3
-2
-1
Monitoring section
Av f v
Monitoring point
17
M10
D4 ties
D5 ties
D5 ties
M25
M30 M25
Beam A1
Beam A2
M30
M25
M30
Beam A3
600
Experiment
2D-FEM Model
Proposed Model
A1
500
500
Point45
400
Load (kN)
h=561mm
64mm
each
64mm
each
600
b=307mm
b=307mm
M10
A2
400
Point113
Point25
300
Experiment
2D-FEM Model
Proposed Model
300
200
200
Point10
100
100
0
0
10
15
20
Midspan Deflection (mm)
25
30
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Midspan deflection (mm)
35
40
45
500
Point 10
Point45
Load (kN)
400
Point113
Point 25
Point25
300
200
Point10
100
0
0
Point 45
10
15
20
Midspan Deflection (mm)
25
30
Point 113
18
500
Point40
Load (kN)
400
300
Point65
Point25
200
Point 10
100
0
0
Point10
Point 25
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Point 65
200
150
100
50
A
144"
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-100
-50
0
50
50
Top Displacement (mm)
(mm)
100
100
Section A-A
8- #3 bars
#2 bars @7.5"
4"
48"
19
180
160
140
Loading Direction
Shear Force,kN
120
100
80
60
40
Experiment =0
Analysis =0
Experiment =0.1
Analysis =0.1
20
0
0
10
15
Top Displacement,mm
20
25
c) Point 97
b) Point 35
Point35
Point40
Point60
Point97
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
1.2
1
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
Column axis
a) Point 30
Point30
0.9
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
20
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Height 20 m
Flange Wall
Precast
Column
Gravity Column
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
21
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
22
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
f1 = 1.83 Hz (0.55 s)
Beginning of EQ1
f1 = 0.67 Hz (1.43 s)
End of EQ4
23
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Conclusions
24
Continuing Challenges
Effect for shear, torsion and interaction with axial force and bending
moment (3d and not just 2d analysis for shear)
Effect of bond-slip, pull-out of reinforcing steel
3d beam-column joint model that is robust and efficient
3d constitutive model for concrete under large inelastic strains (damage,
dilatation, )
Buckling of reinforcing steel (global and not local)
Low cycle fatigue of structural steel; fracture
Simulation of structural subassemblies and full-scale structures
Many more: partitions, slab-wall-column interactions, cladding, infills
Future outlook
25