A one hour course on

Nonlinear Modeling of Structures

Filip C. Filippou
Professor of Structural Engineering

University of California, Berkeley

Computational framework for earthquake simulation

at Berkeley
• OpenSees (OPEN Software for Earthquake Engineering Simulation)
http://opensees.berkeley.edu (last release 2.2.0, August 2010)
• FEDEASMatLab for teaching and concept development
http://fedeaslab.berkeley.edu (last release 3.1 July 2010)

1
 Element Selection in EQ Engineering Practice

• 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
• Selection (in decreasing popularity and increasing cost and expectations)
– Linear elastic elements of any type (1d, 2d, 3d)
– Nonlinear beam and column elements with “plastic hinges”
– Nonlinear beam and column elements with material response integration
(fiber, fiber-hinge, inelastic beam-column finite elements)
– 2d and 3d finite elements (few robust constitutive models, few advanced
features when compared with expectations: e.g. bond-slip, buckling of
reinforcement, large discrete cracks, shear sliding, local buckling, fatigue,
tearing of steel, etc)

Beam-Column Models

• Concentrated plasticity models = one rotational spring at each end + elastic

element
– Advantages: relatively simple, good for interface effects (e.g. bar pull-out)
– Disadvantages: force-deformation of rotational spring depends on geometry and
moment distribution; relation to strains requires “plastic hinge length”; interaction
of axial force, moment good for “metallic” elements; more complex interaction
questionable; numerical robustness difficult
• Distributed inelasticity models (FE model) = consistent integration of section
response at specific “control” or monitoring points
– Advantages: versatile and consistent; material response can be incorporated in
section response; interaction of axial force and moment (and shear and torsion)
can be rationally developed, thus numerical robustness is possible
– Disadvantages: can be expensive (not clear), require good understanding of
integration to determine validity of strains and local response

2
 Structural Beam-Column Models

Distributed inelasticity models

• 2 monitoring points usually at element ends = inelastic zone model

- Good for columns and girders with low gravity loads
- Consistent location of integration point?
- Value of fixed length of inelastic zone?
- Good for softening response (Fenves/Scott, ASCE 2006)
- Variable inelastic zone element (CLLee/FCF, ASCE 2009); good for hardening
response
- >2 monitoring points
- Good for girders with significant gravity loads
- 4-5 integration points are advisable (“good plastic hinge length value with
corresponding integration weights)
- One element per girder -> avoid very high local deformation values

3
 Beam-Column Models: Concentrated Inelasticity

• Concentrated plasticity models =

one or more rotational springs at each end +
elastic element
– 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
N
requires “plastic hinge length”;
interaction of axial force, moment and shear ????;
M
generality??? numerical robustness???

Beam-Column Models: Distributed Inelasticity

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)
y thus better understanding of theory for interpretation of
local response and damage is necessary
z

4
 “Economic” Distributed(?) inelasticity models for Columns

x
• 2 monitoring points at element ends =
inelastic zone model
- Good for columns and girders with low gravity loads
- N-My-Mz interaction straightforward
- shear and torsion ???
- Consistent location of integration point?
- Value of fixed length of inelastic zone?
- Good for softening response
(Fenves/Scott, ASCE 2006)
y - Hardening response Æ Spreading inelastic zone
element SIZE (CL Lee/FCF, ASCE 2009 to appear)
z without N-M interaction; is generalization possible??

Good Distributed inelasticity models for Girders

- For girders with significant gravity loads

- 4-5 integration points are advisable (“good plastic hinge length value with
corresponding integration weights)
- One element per girder -> avoid very high local deformation values

5
 Section Response for Distributed Inelasticity Models

• Section resultant formulation based on plasticity theory, damage, etc, etc

– Relatively economical, effects can be “lumped” in a composite section response
– Generalization and extension to other than the calibrated cases may not be
straightforward; hardening is very difficult to incorporate let alone softening
– Section geometry must always be accounted for (are limit capacities sufficient?)
• Integration of 1d, 1 ½ d, 2d, and 3d material response
– For midpoint integration the name fiber model is used; but other integration
methods are possible
– For many fibers it can be expensive; how many fibers should be used?

Section Response for “Distributed” Inelasticity Models

• Section resultant formulation based on

plasticity theory, damage, etc, etc
x 2 + 3.5 x 2 y 2 + 1.2 y 2 = 1
– Relatively economical, effects can be
1 “lumped” in a composite section
numerical solution
0.8 analytical solution response
polynomial approximation
0.6 – Generalization and extension to other
0.4 than the calibrated cases may not be
0.2
straightforward; hardening is difficult to
incorporate, let alone softening
0
– Section geometry must always be
-0.2
accounted for (are limit capacities
-0.4
sufficient?)
-0.6
– Hardening ???
-0.8
– RC section, softening ???
-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

6
 Section Response for “Distributed” Inelasticity Models

• Integration of 1d, 1 ½ d, 2d, and 3d

material response a) y b) y

– For midpoint integration the name

fiber model is used; are other
integration methods better?? z z
– how many fibers should be used and
for what purpose?

y y
MID25

z z

7
 Two key ideas for beam-column elements

• How to incorporate nonlinear geometry under large displacements?

– Formulate the element in the basic reference system without rigid body modes
– Use corotational formulation to transform basic variables to global system
– Keep element force-deformation relation in basic system simple: use linear
geometry under small deformations
– Use one element per structural member (see point below)
– If second-order effects within structural member are significant, break structural
member into 2 elements by inserting middle node
• How to formulate a robust frame element?
– Use Hu-Washizu functional with independent interpolation of forces (exact under
certain conditions), displacements and section deformations
(Taylor/Filippou/Saritas Comp Mech, 2003)
– No need for mesh refinement; keep integration points to 4, or 2 with variable
integration weight (5 respectively 3 points for girders under large element loads)

Advantages of Mixed Formulation in Corotational Framework

• Nonlinear geometry is uncoupled from basic element response; thus,

geometric transformation classes (e.g. large displacements, P-Δ, linear) can
be implemented once for all user frame elements (OpenSees, FEDEASLab)
• Force interpolation functions are exact under certain conditions
• Element deformations arise in weak form and represent well the inelastic
strain distribution (see next point)
• Without need for mesh and integration point refinement there is no danger
of localization; local strains are relatively accurate as long as the “plastic
hinge length” is accurate ( = integration weight of end points) – fiber hinge is
a good choice for columns under plastic or softening response
• The effect of distributed element loads can be accounted for exactly with the
force interpolation functions

8
 Corotational formulation for large displacement geometry

u6
Δu y = u 5 − u 2
∂v
Δu x = u 4 − u1
= a gu
∂u
Ln u5
p = aTgu q
β
u3 L j u4 k e = k g + a Tgu k t a gu

Y
L
v1 = Ln − L
y u2
x v 2 = u3 − β
i X
v3 = u6 − β
u1

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Nonlinear geometry with large displacements

Frame by Lee et al. (1968)

Lee`s Frame
P,w
2 cm 120
24 cm 96 cm
3 cm
100
120 cm

E = 70608 MPa
80
E H = 01
. E
σ y = 1020 MPa 60
y

120 cm 40

20

-20

-40
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
x

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

9
 Lee Frame (Lee et al. 1968)

Lee`s F ram e
20

linear elas tic

15

elas to-plas tic

with k inem atic
10
A pplied Load P (k N)

hardening

-5
propos ed flex . form ul. - 3 elm ts
C ic hon (1983) - 10 elm ts
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
D is plac em ent v (c m )

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Force-displacement of eccentric column (basic element)

P
4
x 10
2.5

Linear element

1.5
Axial Force

0.5 2 E lem ents

4 E lem ents
8 E lem ents
16 E lem ents
32 E lem ents
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
E nd Rotation

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

10
 Brace buckling (Black and Popov 1980)

B u c k lin g B ra c e w it h P - δ
150

100

50
Vertical Force

-5 0

-1 0 0
-2 . 5 -2 -1 . 5 -1 -0 . 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
V e rt ic a l D is p la c e m e n t

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Brace buckling (Black and Popov 1980)

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

11
 P. Uriz and S. Mahin
UC Berkeley

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Lateral Buckling: CST and Quad element in 3d space

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

12
General multi-step analysis Analysis with scripts Script files NR and its Variants Results

Newton-Raphson algorithm and its variants

The Newton-Raphson algorithm requires that a new tangent stiffness matrix

be assembled at every iteration of every load step. This means that the linear
system of equations for the displacement correction needs to be solved from
scratch at every iteration of every load step. For very large structural models
this is a very expensive proposition.
In the modified Newton-Raphson method the tangent matrix is not updated
at every iteration, but only once at the beginning of each load step. In the
initial stiffness method, the initial stiffness is used throughout the incremen-
tal analysis. Alternative strategies that update the stiffness matrix every so
often are also possible. If the stiffness matrix is not updated, the last de-
composition of the stiffness matrix is used for the solution of the linearized
equilibrium equations and only the load changes at each iteration.
Finally, quasi-Newton methods do not use the tangent stiffness matrix of
the structure but obtain secant stiffness approximations of the inverse of
the stiffness matrix from the displacement vectors of previous iterations.
Among the best known quasi-Newton methods is the BFGS method, which
was originally developed for nonlinear optimization problems. For a brief
description of the method consult Bathe’s 1982 book pp. 759-761.
Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 14

General multi-step analysis Analysis with scripts Script files NR and its Variants Results

Response of 2-dof truss under 2 load increments with Δλ = 0.5

8 1

k=5,000 EA=25000
b
3 1 0.9
1
a 2
0.8
8

0.7
no step = 2; 0.6
Load factor λ

Dlam0 = 0.5;
tol = 1 . e −16; 0.5
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State 0.4
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize 0.3
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ; 0.2
S SimpIncrement
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ; numerically exact solution
0.1 NR steps
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag ) final result for algorithm
0
S Update State 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
end Vertical translation (downward)
end

Figure: Newton-Raphson method

Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 15
General multi-step analysis Analysis with scripts Script files NR and its Variants Results

Response of 2-dof truss under 2 load increments with Δλ = 0.5

8 1

k=5,000 EA=25000
b
3 1 0.9
1
a 2
0.8
8

0.7
no step = 2; 0.6

Load factor λ
Dlam0 = 0.5;
tol = 1 . e −16; 0.5
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State 0.4
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize 0.3
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ; 0.2
S SimpIncrement
S t i f U p d t = ’ no ’ ; numerically exact solution
0.1 modified NR steps
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag ) final result for algorithm
0
S Update State 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
end Vertical translation (downward)
end

Figure: Modified Newton-Raphson method

Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 16

General multi-step analysis Analysis with scripts Script files NR and its Variants Results

Response of 2-dof truss under 2 load increments with Δλ = 0.5

8 1
k=5,000 EA=25000
b
3 1 0.9
1
a 2
0.8
8

0.7
no step = 2;
0.6
Load factor λ

Dlam0 = 0.5;
tol = 1 . e −16;
0.5
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
0.4
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
0.3
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ;
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
0.2
S SimpIncrement
S t i f U p d t = ’ no ’ ; numerically exact solution
0.1 modified NR steps
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag ) final result for algorithm
0
S Update State 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
end Vertical translation (downward)
end

Figure: Initial stiffness method

Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 17
General multi-step analysis Analysis with scripts Script files NR and its Variants Results

Response of 2-dof truss under 2 load increments with Δλ = 0.5

8 1

k=5,000 EA=25000
b
3 1 0.9
1
a 2
0.8
8

0.7

no step = 2; 0.6

Load factor λ
Dlam0 = 0.5;
tol = 1 . e −16; 0.5
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State 0.4
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize 0.3
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ; 0.2
S SimpIncrement
S Update State numerically exact solution
0.1 steps
end
final result for algorithm
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Vertical translation (downward)

Figure: Incrementation without correction

Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 18

General multi-step analysis Analysis with scripts Script files NR and its Variants Results

Response of 2-dof truss under 5 load increments with Δλ = 0.2

8 1
k=5,000 EA=25000
3 1 0.9
b
1
a 2

0.8
8

0.7
no step = 5;
0.6
Load factor λ

Dlam0 = 0.2;
tol = 1 . e −16;
0.5
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
0.4
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
0.3
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ;
0.2
S SimpIncrement
S Update State numerically exact solution
end 0.1 steps
final result for algorithm
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Vertical translation (downward)

Figure: Incrementation without correction

Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 19
General multi-step analysis Analysis with scripts Script files NR and its Variants Results

Response of 2-dof truss under 10 load increments with Δλ = 0.1

8 1

k=5,000 EA=25000
3 1 0.9
b
1
a 2
0.8
8

0.7

no step = 10; 0.6

Load factor λ
Dlam0 = 0.1;
tol = 1 . e −16; 0.5
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State 0.4
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize 0.3
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ; 0.2
S SimpIncrement
S Update State numerically exact solution
0.1 steps
end
final result for algorithm
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Vertical translation (downward)

Figure: Incrementation without correction

Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 20

LF control in incrementation Stiffness parameter Algorithm with LF Control LF control in iteration Examples

Response of 2-dof truss under 22 load increments with Δλ = 0.1

k=5,000 EA=25000
3 1
b
1
a 2 1
8

0.8
no step = 23;
Load factor λ

Dlam0 = 0.10;
tol = 1 . e −16; 0.6
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State ;
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S Initialize 0.4
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ;
LoadCtrl = ’ yes ’ ; 0.2
S Increment
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ;
S SimpIterate 0
i f ( ConvFlag ) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
S Update State Vertical displacement (downward)
end
end
Figure: Load factor control during incrementation; only
21 steps are able to complete; the last step ”flip-flops”

Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 12 / page 11
LF control in incrementation Stiffness parameter Algorithm with LF Control LF control in iteration Examples

Response of 2-dof truss under 120 load increments with Δλ = 0.1

8 1.5

k=5,000 EA=25000
3 1
b
1
a 2 1
8

0.5
no step = 120;

Load factor λ
Dlam0 = 0.10;
tol = 1 . e −16; 0
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State ;
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S Initialize -0.5
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ;
LoadCtrl = ’ yes ’ ; -1
S Increment
StifUpdt = ’ yes ’ ;
LoadCtrl = ’ yes ’ ; -1.5
S Iterate 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
i f ( ConvFlag ) Vertical displacement (downward)
S Update State
end
end Figure: Response of 2-dof truss with load factor control

Filip
c C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 12 / page 18
 Correlation studies of analysis with experiment: important but …

• 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 …

RC columns with biaxial bending and variable axial force

13
Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Load-Displacement Response in y

40 y py
x Px =44.48 kN

30 z

pz
51.44 cm

20

10
Load y (kN)

-10

-20
experiment
-30 analysis

-40
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Tip Displacement y (cm)

Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Load-Displacement Response in z

40
y py
30 x Px =44.48 kN
z

pz
20 51.44 cm

10
Load z (kN)

-10

-20
experiment
-30 analysis

-40
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Tip Displacement z (cm)

14
 Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Reinforcing Steel Strain History

2000 2000

y
1500 1500

1000 1000
z
Moment Mz (kN-cm)

Moment Mz (kN-cm)
500 500

0 0

-500 y
-500

-1000 -1000
z
-1500 -1500

-2000 -2000
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Steel Strain (mil-cm/cm) Fiber Strain (mil-cm/cm)

Effect of reinforcing bar pull-out from base

Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Reinforcing Steel Strain History

2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000
Moment Mz (kN-cm)

Moment Mz (kN-cm)

500 500

0 0

y y
-500 -500

-1000 -1000
z z

-1500 -1500

-2000 -2000
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Steel Strain (mil-cm/cm) Fiber Strain (mil-cm/cm)

15
 Eccentrically braced steel frames

Shear Link
Eccentrically Braced Frame
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Shear Link Experiment (Hjelmstad/Popov 1983)

Equal moments at member ends
δ W18 × 40

d = 17.88 in
t f = 0.521 in
L=28 in b f = 5.985 in t w = 0.314 in

Imposed vertical displacement at the right end of the element.

4

2
Displacement, in

Loading History 0

-2

-4
0 2 4 6 8 10
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting Pseudo time

16
 Shear Link Experiment (Hjelmstad/Popov 1983)
250

200

150

100
Shear Force (kips)

50

-50

-100

-150

-200 Experiment
Analysis
-250
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Imposed Displacement δ (in)

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Concrete shear model

Monitoring section
b Av f v
σ1 σ2

Monitoring point

s
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

17
 Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beams A1 and A2 (shear-compresion)
P
b=307mm b=307mm b=307mm

M10 M10 M10

D5 ties D5 ties D4 ties h=561mm

64mm 64mm
each each
L=3660 mm (Beam A1) M25 M30 M25 M25 M30
M30
L=4570 mm (Beam A2)
L=6400 mm (Beam A3) Beam A1 Beam A2 Beam A3

600 600
Experiment Experiment
2D-FEM Model 2D-FEM Model
500 A1 Point45
Proposed Model 500 A2 Proposed Model

400 Point113 400

Load (kN)

Point25
300 300

200 200
Point10

100 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan deflection (mm)

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beam A1 (shear-compresion failure)

600
Experiment Point 10
2D-FEM Model
500 Proposed Model
Point45

400 Point113
Load (kN)

Point25 Point 25
300

200
Point10

100
Point 45

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Midspan Deflection (mm)

Point 113

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

18
 Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beam A3 (compression failure)
600
Experiment
2D-FEM Model
Proposed Model
One element per half span with 5
500
Lobatto integration points is used
Point40 Point65 The cross-section is divided into 10
400 midpoint layers
Basic concrete material parameters are
Load (kN)

300 taken from Vecchio-Shim

Point25

200
Point 10
Point10
100

Point 25
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Midspan deflection (mm)

Point 40

Point 65

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Thomsen-Wallace (2004) Slender Shear Walls

48"
200

150

100
Shear Force (kN)

50 A A

144"
0

-50

-100

-150

-200
-100 -50 0 50
50 100
100
Top Displacement (mm)
(mm) Section A-A
8- #3 bars #2 bars @7.5"

4"

48"
(Concrete cover 0.75")
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

19
 Lefas-Kotsovos-Ambraseys (1990) Shear Walls

•Shear walls SW21 and SW22 have aspect ratio L/h=2.0

d 180

160

Loading Direction 140

120

Shear Force,kN
100

L
80

60

40 Experiment ν=0
Analysis ν=0
20 Experiment ν=0.1
Analysis ν=0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Top Displacement,mm

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Evolution of shear wall cracking – Tensile damage

a) Point 30 b) Point 35 c) Point 97

0.9 Point30 Point35 Point40 Point60 Point97
0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
0.7 1 1 1 1 1
0.6
Column axis

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.5
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.2
-0.2 0 0.2 -0.2 0 0.2 -0.2 0 0.2 -0.2 0 0.2 -0.2 0 0.2
0.1
Column depth Column depth Column depth Column depth Column depth
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

20
Analytical Model of Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Reinforced Concrete Walls FCF, University of California, Berkeley

Full scale 7 story wall building (Panagiotou, Restrepo, Conte, UCSD)

Flange Wall Height ≈ 20 m

Weight ≈ 226 tons

Web Wall

Gravity Column Precast

Column

Table motion direction

Analytical Model of Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

Reinforced Concrete Walls FCF, University of California, Berkeley

Confined and unconfined zones in the web wall

21
Analytical Model of Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Reinforced Concrete Walls FCF, University of California, Berkeley

Interstory drift and displacement envelopes

• Excellent agreement in terms of interstory drift and displacement

• Increasing damage due to increasing intensity motions is visible

Analytical Model of Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

Reinforced Concrete Walls FCF, University of California, Berkeley

Residual displacement and floor acceleration envelopes

• Good agreement in terms of residual displacement

• Satisfactory results in terms of floor acceleration

22
Analytical Model of Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Reinforced Concrete Walls FCF, University of California, Berkeley

Story shear and overturning moment envelopes

• Good agreement also in terms of internal forces

• Maximum discrepancy during last motion at shear wall base

Analytical Model of Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

Reinforced Concrete Walls FCF, University of California, Berkeley

Experimental and analytical frequency spectrum

f1 = 1.83 Hz (0.55 s) f1 = 0.67 Hz (1.43 s)

Beginning of EQ1 End of EQ4

• Significant lengthening of fundamental period of specimen (> than 2.5 x)

• Damage evolution tracked with remarkable accuracy

23
Analytical Model of Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Reinforced Concrete Walls FCF, University of California, Berkeley

Top displacement time history

Conclusions

• Nonlinear Analysis is gradually going to become a designer’s tool for the

evaluation of existing structures and the design of new important structures
• It can offer significant insights into the global, but particularly into the local
response of structures and, thus serve for the identification of local failure
mechanisms
• The current state of the art permits the simulation of the hysteretic behavior
of structural elements with limited success; deeper understanding of
material behavior under cyclic loading is, however, indispensable in order to
arrive at failure mode prediction
• Thorough correlations between numerical models and specimens of
increasing complexity are indispensable; limited progress has been made to
date, particularly regarding 3d response

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

• Much work needs to be done before nonlinear analysis can have

widespread use, because of the complexity of nonlinear solution algorithms
and the lack of training of modern engineers; thus researchers and
educators need to redouble their efforts in clarifying the concepts
• I hope that with the contributions of all those present in an open forum
(open platform) we will be able to experience significant progress in the
nonlinear simulation of concrete structures in the future

25