CALIBRATION OF

MATERIAL MODELS FOR

NLFEA OF SEISMICALLY
DEFICIENT RC BEAM-
COLUMN JOINTS

J. Ben Deaton, Ph.D. 19 April 2016

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger ACI Spring Convention

Kenneth M. Will, PhD.

Georgia Institute of Technology Milwaukee, WI
Perspectives on Concrete Modeling
All models are wrong. Some models are useful. George Box
Uses of NLFEA of concrete
Component evaluation for special cases (common)
Developing simplified / fast-running models for performance-based simulation
Perspective of practitioner
Demanding budget and schedule
Array of software options:
Abaqus, LS-DYNA, DIANA, ATENA, ANSYS, ADINA, VecTor, etc.
Array of constitutive theories
Smeared crack, microplane, LDPM, discrete crack, cohesive element, 2-5 parameter plasticity models
Uncertainty in material parameter selection
What behavior do you need to capture?
Global response (strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, failure hierarchy, etc.)
Local response (crack propagation, strain in specific bars, etc.)
How can you trust the results?
1. Hand calculations
2. Comparison with experimental data
3. Comparison with other software
4. Parameter sensitivity studies
5. Extensive experience needed to qualify by inspection
2
 Project at Hand Beam-Column Joints
Goal:
Evaluate use of NLFEA to characterize the
seismic response of pre-1970s beam-
column joints under bidirectional cyclic
loading
Why?
Expensive to test
Can perform parameter studies efficiently
Calibrate simplified material models
(e.g. IMK hysteresis model)
Method of approach:
Understand material behaviors
Apply to small components
Apply to beam-column joints of increasing
complexity
2D, 3D, w/ & w/o slab, uni/bi-directional load
3
Constitutive Model Selection

Reviewed ~60 papers related to beam-column joint modeling

DIANA Release 9.4.4
Total strain rotating crack model by Selby & Vecchio (1997)
Stress-strain relationships evaluated in the principal directions of the
strain tensor
Crack orientations allowed to rotate during analysis
Common approach for shear-dominated failure mechanisms
Evolution of compressive strength
4-parameter Hsieh-Ting-Chen plasticity model
Increase due to later confinement (Selby 1996)
Decrease due to prior lateral cracking (Vecchio 1993)
Cyclic response
Unloading/reloading follows secant stiffness

4
 Uniaxial Compression and Tension Response
Thorenfeldt (1997) compression hardening model

Karsan and Jirsa (1969) Sinha et al. (1964)

Hordijk (1991) tension softening model, MC90 tensile strength, Remmel (1994) Gf

Gopalaratnam and Shah (1985) Reinhardt (1984)

5
Sensitivity to Material Parameters

6
Steel Reinforcement Model

Von Mises plasticity

Kinematic hardening
Bauschinger effect
ignored

Ma, Bertero & Popov (1976) Ma, Bertero & Popov (1976)

7
Bond-Slip: CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Guidelines

Viwathanatepa (1979) Hawkins et al. (1987)

8
Cyclic Shear Response
Vecchio (1999)

Vecchio (1999)

9
Analysis of Deficient Beam-Column Joints

10
Pantelides et al. (2002) Specimen

11
Akguzel et al. (2011) Specimen

12
Park et al. (2010) Specimen

13
Engindeniz et al. (2008) Specimen

14
Other Observations from Experience

Modeling the stiffness of boundary conditions

can be important depending on relative stiffness
of the test frame
Axial load and confinement effects are significant
Converged correct
Beware the influence of numerical stabilization
techniques on results ( reactions applied load)
Influence of parameters on failure hierarchy not
always obvious a priori
15
Recommendations

Reseachers:
Industry practitioners need constitutive theories with parameters that
can be understood physically and numerically validated.
Provide tools and accessible documentation that will educate and
support the defensible use of complex models.
Following publication, make model inputs available for others to
download and run locally. Increases your credibility and education of
readers.
Practitioners:
Invest money for internal research to understand the models you are
using, perform material parameter sensitivity studies, and validate
modeling approaches against relevant experimental data.
Budget to allow for suitable calibration for project-specific needs.
Bound simulations to acknowledge uncertainty, which also increases
credibility of both the conclusions and the practitioner.

16
 THANK YOU

JBDeaton@sgh.com

J. Ben Deaton, Ph.D. 19 April 2016

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger ACI Spring Convention

Kenneth M. Will, PhD.

Georgia Institute of Technology Milwaukee, WI