MEng - Huang - Utoronto - Fibre Section Modeling of RC Columns Subjected To Cyclic Loading - 2012

Applicability Criteria Of
Fiber-Section Elements For The Modelling Of
RC Columns Subjected To Cyclic Loading
By
Xu Huang
A report submitted in conformity with requirements
for the degree of Master of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
ABSTRACT
Numerous modeling strategies were developed for nonlinear analysis of reinforced

concrete (RC) structures, but few efforts were made to systematically assess those models.
This project mainly focuses on modeling strategies based on the fiber-section element for
RC columns subjected to cyclic loads. The force-based beam-column element and the
lumped plasticity column model combined with two different confined concrete models
(Mander's model and Braga's model) were established and applied to 353 tests of RC
M
columns in PEER database. An error indicator I (  ) and several measures of accuracy
VL
were defined for statistic analyses of discrepancies between numerical and experimental
results. Based on that, a guideline for practitioners for modeling RC columns with
fiber-section elements was finally established.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ v
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Context ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Modeling Strategies .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Discrete finite element models .................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 Lumped models .............................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Distributed models ......................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Modeling of RC elements ......................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1 Beam-column element ................................................................................................... 5
1.4.2 Beam-column joints ....................................................................................................... 8
1.4.3 RC shear walls ............................................................................................................... 9
1.5 PEER Database ....................................................................................................................... 10
1.6 Objective and Scope................................................................................................................ 12
Chapter 2: RC Column Behavior and Modeling ................................................................................... 14
2.1 Material Constitutive Relationships ........................................................................................ 14
2.1.1 Concrete ....................................................................................................................... 14
2.1.2 Reinforcing Steel .......................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Strain Penetration .................................................................................................................... 19
2.3 Shear deformation ................................................................................................................... 21
2.4 Hysteretic Deterioration .......................................................................................................... 21
2.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 3: Modeling Strategies ............................................................................................................. 23
3.1 Force-based Beam-Column Model ......................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Apply Loads ................................................................................................................. 25
3.2 Lumped-Plasticity Column Model .......................................................................................... 26
3.2.1 Effective Stiffness Ec I eff ............................................................................................ 27
3.2.2 Determination of Plastic hinge length .......................................................................... 28
3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 29
Chapter 4: Modeling Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Measures of Accuracy ............................................................................................................. 30
M
4.2 I (= ) Value ........................................................................................................................ 32
VL
ii
4.2.2 Shear capacity V .......................................................................................................... 34
4.3 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 36
4.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 55
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 57
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX A: OpenSees Script........................................................................................................... 63
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- 1 Input Data .................................................................................................................... 10

Table 1- 2 Column Property Statistics .......................................................................................... 11
Table 4- 1 Statistic results of the Model 1 .................................................................................... 51

iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1- 1 A three-story RC building represented by the global model ............................................ 3

Fig. 1- 2 Lumped model developed by Clough and Johnston (1967) ............................................. 4
Fig. 1- 3 Fiber-section model .......................................................................................................... 5
Fig. 1- 4 Subelements in the model developed by Filippou and Issa (1988) .................................. 6
Fig. 1- 5 Beam with plastic hinges element .................................................................................... 7
Fig. 1- 6 RC beam-column joint model by Lowes and Altoontash (2003) ..................................... 9
Fig. 1- 7 Macro-modeling of shear walls ...................................................................................... 10

Fig. 2- 2 Stress-strain relationship of Concrete02 material. .......................................................... 15
Fig. 2- 3 Type of sections in BGL model ...................................................................................... 18
Fig. 2- 4 Stress-strain relationship of Steel02 material in OpenSees ............................................ 19
Fig. 2- 5 Deformations of RC columns ......................................................................................... 20
Fig. 2- 6 Force-based beam-column element with bond-slip component ..................................... 20

Fig. 3- 1 Force-based beam-column element ................................................................................ 23
Fig. 3- 2 Test configurations in PEER database ............................................................................ 25
Fig. 3- 3 Lumped-plasticity column model ................................................................................... 26
Fig. 3- 4 Experimental and Numerical results of column No.3 (Tanaka and Park 1990) ............. 28
Fig. 3- 5 Estimation of plastic hinge length .................................................................................. 29

Fig.4- 1 Illustration of error parameters ........................................................................................ 30
Fig.4- 2 Reinforced concrete column with several reinforcement layers...................................... 33
Fig.4- 3 Scatters of Fcal / Fexp versus I ...................................................................................... 37
Fig.4- 4 Numerical and experimental force-displacement curves of ............................................ 38

Fig.4- 5 Scatters of Dcal / Dexp versus I ..................................................................................... 39
Fig.4- 6 Scatters of Ecal / Eexp versus I before reaching positive and negative peak forces........ 40
Fig.4- 7 Scatters of Ecal / Eexp versus I after reaching positive and negative peak forces............. 40
Fig.4- 8 Scatters of Ebackbone versus I before reaching positive and negative peaks .................. 41
Fig.4- 9 Scatters of Ebackbone versus I after reaching positive and negative peaks ......................... 42
Fig.4- 10 Numerical and experimental force-displacement curves of .......................................... 43
v
Fig.4- 11 Scatters of K cal / K exp versus I................................................................................... 44
Fig.4- 12 Numerical and experimental force-displacement curves of .......................................... 44

Fig.4- 13 Values represented in Origin's default Box Plot ............................................................ 45
Fig.4- 14 Boxplot of Fcal / Fexp versus I .................................................................................... 46
Fig.4- 15 Boxplot of Dcal / Dexp versus I................................................................................... 46
Fig.4- 16 Boxplot of Ecal / Eexp versus I before reaching peaks in both directions................... 47
Fig.4- 17 Boxplot of Ecal / Eexp versus I after reaching peaks in both directions ..................... 48
Fig.4- 18 Boxplot of Ebackbone versus I before reaching peaks in both directions ...................... 49
Fig.4- 19 Boxplot of Ebackbone versus I after reaching peaks in both directions ......................... 49
Fig.4- 20 Boxplot of K cal / K exp versus I .................................................................................. 50
Fig.4- 21 Comparison of models with different confined concrete models .................................. 56
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Context
Although the traditional seismic design has significantly reduced the casualties, damages
caused by some resent events of earthquake indicate that, the economic losses are
incredibly high due to inadequate understanding of structural performance especially
under failure level loads. This understanding, therefore, prompts engineers to develop
performance-based seismic design (PBSD) guidelines to provide an alternative to the
current code based practices. The performance-based seismic design process explicitly
evaluates the performance of a structure under certain potential hazard, considering
uncertainties inherent in the quantification of potential hazard and uncertainties in
assessment of the actual building response (FEMA-445, 2006). Therefore, a realistic
understanding of the risk of casualties, occupancy interruption, and economic loss can be
obtained for either new buildings or existing buildings subjected to future earthquakes.
One of the key steps to complete a performance assessment is to establish the response
function which mathematically expresses building response under different levels of
ground shaking intensity. Numerous well developed modelling strategies can be served
for such goal. Due to the complexity of actual structures, however, no single solution can
be found. A more practical way is thus to take full advantage of existing nonlinear
analytical techniques. From systematically assessments of these numerical models,
application scopes of each method can be obtained thereby aiding practitioners to adopt
proper modelling strategies with respect to different circumstances.
1.2 Modeling Strategies
Currently, both experimental and analytical approaches are well established to accurately
predict the response of structures under dynamic loads. Well designed experiments
ranging from component tests to large scale shaking-table tests enable us to simulate the
1
actual dynamic behaviors of components and structures. However, such approach is only
suitable for components, subassemblies or reduced scale structures due to the limitations
of equipment size and corresponding testing technology. Therefore, the numerical
modeling is still the most cost-effective method for dynamic analysis of the large-scale
buildings.
Although numerous modeling strategies are available right now for the seismic
simulation, the complex nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) structures
especially when it is subjected to random load reversals still lead to large discrepancies
among these models. As a result of that, the need for more reliable and practical
numerical tools to predict inelastic seismic response of RC structures is both critical and
relevant. Taucer et al. (1991) roughly divide modeling strategies for R/C structure into
three categories in accordance with the increasing level of refinement and complexity:
global models, microscopic finite element models and discrete finite element models.
In global models, regardless the complexity of the structures, all of them can be simply
represented by models with selected degrees of freedom, which thus can only provide
approximate prediction to global response of the structure. Fig. 1-1 shows a 3-story
building simulated by the global model. Due to its low accuracy, it is only useful in
preliminary design stage for estimating displacement ductility demands. On the other
hand, microscopic finite element models look deeply into the response of the structure so
as to establish more sophisticated models, which can provide better physical and
mechanical explanations for factors such as cracking, bond-slip and aggregate
interlocking between reinforcing steel and concrete. Take the advanced nonlinear FE
analysis (ANFEM) for example, three-dimensional (3D) elements of concrete models
describe the constitutive relationship and smeared or discrete crack approach to represent
the cracking process. Nevertheless, most of them are not suitable for analysis of
large-scale structure due to their high demands in computational resources. Moreover,
any hysteretic laws defined in those models are bound to be approximate due to
simplifications to aid numerical algorithms.
2
(a)
Fig. 1‐ 1 A three‐story RC building represented by the global model
This project focuses on the discrete finite element models which neglect those unpractical
parts of the micro-modeling without sacrificing the accuracy. For example, springs can be
added to beam and column so as to consider shear-related impacts on global
force-deformation behavior of the component in fiber-section element. Although the
simplified models are incapable of capturing the local behavior of critical regions in the
structure such as the stress-strain relationship of the concrete near cracks, it is a very
practical and flexible analytical procedure for practitioners to study the seismic response
of the whole structure.
1.3 Discrete finite element models
Discrete finite element models can be roughly subdivided into two categories: the lumped
models and the distributed models.
1.3.1 Lumped models
Since the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete structures mainly concentrates at some
critical regions such as column ends, beam-column joints as well as locations near
midspan, lumped models was firstly developed by centralizing all inelasticity of the
elements into these critical regions. The first parallel element was proposed by Clough
and Johnston (1967). Elastic and inelastic behaviors of elements are considered by using
two components acting in parallel. One is elastic-perfectly plastic and one is linear elastic
3
to represent before-yielding and after-yielding, respectively, see Fig. 1-2. Later Giberson
(1969) modify the model by using one component with two lumped rotational springs at
the ends of the element. Therefore, any kind of hysteretic laws can be assigned to the
springs so as to consider stiffness deterioration due to cracking. Subsequently, this model
was enhanced by a increasing number of empirical and phenomenological hysteretic
models developed to consider stiffness degradation in flexure and shear (Clough and
Benuska 1966; Takeda et al. 1970), pinching under reversal (Banon et al. 1981), as well
as fixed-end rotation (Otani 1974).
Fig. 1- 2 Lumped model developed by Clough and Johnston (1967)
1.3.2 Distributed models
A better description of the element inelastic behavior should account for the spread of
inelastic deformations into the member since nonlinearity may occur at any element
section. The first distributed model was introduced by Soleimani et al. (1979a). In this
model, a zone of inelastic deformation spreads from the beam-column interface into the
member as a function of loading history. The first element with distributed nonlinearity
was formulated with the classical stiffness method, also called displacement method,
using cubic Hermitian polynomials. The main shortcoming is that displacement-based
element will encounter numerical instability problems and obtain inaccurate results when
elements are suffered from high level of nonlinearity (Taucer et al. 1991; Spacone et al.
1996). Therefore, recent efforts on the distributed nonlinear mainly focus on another
method called force-based or flexibility-based model which strictly satisfies the
equilibrium of internal forces along the element even as strain softening occurs. Similar
to displacement-based elements, reinforced concrete element can be subdivided into
4
longitudinal fibers represented by uniaxial constitutive relationships of concrete and
reinforcing steel (see Fig. 1-3). Section behavior is determined implicitly by integration
of the fibers. Due to its plane section assumption, it is able to consider the shear related
behaviors without adding extra elements.
Fig. 1‐ 3 Fiber‐section model
1.4 Modeling of RC elements
As mentioned above, distributed models especially the force-based element provide a

cost-effective approach to simulate nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete elements
even if the nonlinearity travels through the whole elements. Since the project focuses on
the force-based element, mainly distributed models for reinforced concrete elements are
summarized as follows.
1.4.1 Beam-column element
Beams and columns are subjected to multi-axial stresses from moment, axial force, and
shear force. Numerical models for beam and column should be capable of considering the
interactions of those combined forces. Besides, other physical phenomena observed in
experiments such as bond-slip, fixed-end rotation, local buckling and fracture of
reinforcing steel and shear effect should be reflected in the models in a proper way to
simulate exact structural behavior.
5
Takayanagi and Schnobrich (1979) proposed to divide an element into several short parts
represented by a nonlinear rotational spring. In order to consider the interaction of axial
force and bending moment, a three dimensional limit surface was added to those springs.
Filippou and Issa (1988) decomposed an element into a number of sub-elements
connected in series (see Fig. 1-4) to consider elastic flexural behavior, spread inelastic
deformation, fixed-end rotation, shear deformation, etc.
Fig. 1- 4 Subelements in the model developed by Filippou and Issa (1988)
Force-based element developed by Spacone et al. (1996) enables material nonlinear

response of a frame element to be represented by only one element rather than several
displacement-based elements described above. Later, Scott and Fenves (2006) indicated
the limitations of the original force-based beam-column elements such as loss of
objectivity which means calculated response changes as a function of number of
integration points. A new plastic hinge integration method which composed of two
defined hinges at the ends and a linear-elastic region in the middle (see Fig. 1-5), was
developed to overcome these problems.
6
Fig. 1- 5 Beam with plastic hinges element
Since cyclic load reversals will deteriorate bond interaction between concrete and
reinforcing steel, fixed-end rotation due to bond-slip or pull out of the reinforcing steel
plays an important role in determining the response of RC beams and columns. Several
analytical methods are available to consider these effects. (Eligehausen et al. 1983; Shima
et al. 1984; Gilard and Bastien, 2002; Monti and Spacone, 2000). In fiber-based analysis,
a zero-length element combined with the relationship between bond stress and bar slip
has been established (Zhao and Sritharan, 2007; Lehman and Moehle, 2000). By using
the stress-slip law to represent the constitutive relationship for reinforcing steel at the
column ends, analytical processes are not changed a lot.
Columns subjected to lateral forces will introduce both shear and flexure deformation. In
fact, it is also well known from experimental studies that shear effect will bring obvious
impact on response of beams with short span or with a higher nominal shearing stress
(Popov et al. 1972). Shear behavior of a reinforced concrete element is typically modeled
by continuum elements which have good accuracy but higher computational requirements.
Later development of beam-column elements especially the force-based fiber elements is
more computationally efficient. Nevertheless, shear deformation is not inherently
considered in those models since the assumption that plane sections remain plane is used.
Therefore, several modifications were carried out to compensate such drawback. Ranzo
and Petrangeli (1998), and Shirai et al. (2001) proposed a shear element in series with
force-based fiber models. Marini and Spacone (2006) introduced a force-based fiber
element with a nonlinear shear force-shear deformation law used at the section level.
Petrangeli et al (1999) extended original fiber section formulation to account for shear
effect by applying a microplane theory based concrete law. Mostafaei and Kabeyasawa
(2007) presented an axial-shear-flexure interaction approach for RC columns. By adding
7
a shear model based on the modified compression field theory (MCFT) developed by
Vecchio and Collins(1986) to the conventional section analysis, the model enable
accurate prediction of responses of columns dominated in shear or shear-flexure. Setzler
and Sezen (2008) used a set of springs in series to simulate total lateral response of a
reinforced concrete column where flexure, bar slip and shear deformation can be taken
into consideration simultaneously. Mullapudi and Ayoub (2010) described the
formulation of an inelastic nonlinear beam element with axial, bending, and shear force
interaction.
Bar buckling is commonly observed in RC columns when subjected to cyclic loading due
to the spalling of cover concrete and high axial load ratio. Numerous approaches have
been proposed to model the bar buckling in reinforced concrete columns. Early models
used small-deformation, Euler buckling theory to simulate reinforcing bar subjected to
uniaxial, monotonic compression, restrained laterally by elastic ties (Bresler and Gilbert
1961; Scribner 1986; Papia and Russo 1989). More recent models have considered various
details of the complex interaction between the concrete cover, concrete core, confining
reinforcement, and longitudinal bars (Pantazopoulou1998; Dhakal and Maekawa 2002;
Mohle and Kunnath 2006).
1.4.2 Beam-column joints
Reinforced concrete beam-column joint is considered to be very critical when structure

subjected to cyclic load reversals since all factors such as moment, shear, bond-slip and
confinement are concentrated in this region. For simplicity, earlier models of beam
column joints were assumed to be rigid. In order to capture response of joints up to
failure, more sophisticated models should be established for simulation of the local
inelastic response of the RC joints. The first related model was introduced by Giberson
(1969), where two inelastic rotational spring elements were adopted to represent joint
behavior. Alath and Kunnath (1995) recommended using zero-length rotational spring
element to control relative rotational deformation between beams and columns. Fleury et
al. (2000) summarized all response contributions in RC joints and proposed a global
component-based model which explicitly combines the modeling of concrete, steel, and
8
steel/concrete bond. Recently a more efficient one was proposed by Lowes and
Altoontash (2003). Cyclic loaded RC joints are represented as a four-node
12-degree-of-freedom element with one shear panel, eight bar-slip springs, and four
interface-shear spring elements, which can be seen in Fig. 1-6. Later, such model was
modified by Mitra and Lowes (2007) to extend original model to a wide range of
applications.
Fig. 1- 6 RC beam-column joint model by Lowes and Altoontash (2003)
1.4.3 RC shear walls
RC shear walls are considered to be one of the most effective lateral force resisting
system. However, nonlinear analysis procedures for such type of element are much less
well developed than those for frame elements due to the difficulty in considering its
pinched hysteretic behavior. Two main approaches for nonlinear analysis of shear walls
are micro-modeling and macro modeling. Micro-modeling such as the finite element
analysis or fiber analysis is considered to be unpractical for modeling of shear walls due
to its complexity and high numerical demand. Therefore, the macro modeling focusing on
overall behavior of the RC element is more widely used and numerous efforts have been
done in such modeling strategy. Earlier model is based on the equivalent beam element
with one linear elastic member with nonlinear rotational springs attached at the element
ends as shown in Fig. 1-7(a). Hiraishi and Kawashima (1989) proposed a truss model
with a non-prismatic member and rigid members to describe the deformation mechanism
in the stable region of shear walls, which can be seen in Fig. 1-7(b). Kabeyasawa et al.
(1982) introduced a three vertical line element (TVLE) shown in Fig. 1-7(c). This model
9
was later modified by Vulcano (1988), Linde and Bachmann (1994) and Kim and Foutch
(2007) to overcome the difficulty in determining the properties of the springs in the
original model.
(a)
(b) (c)
Fig. 1- 7 Macro-modeling of shear walls
(a) Equivalent beam element
(b) Hiraishi and Kawashima (1989)
(c) Kabeyasawa et al. (1982)
1.5 PEER Database
The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) database established by Berry et al.
(2004) tried to provide researchers with the data for further seismic investigation of
reinforced columns. The database describes 253 rectangular-reinforced columns and 163
spiral-reinforced columns with various reinforcing details, load conditions, section shapes,
and failure types. All input data available in the database to establish the numerical
models in this project can be listed in Table 1-1.
Table 1- 1 Input Data
10
LCol: Length of the equivalent cantilever
HCol: Column depth
BCol: Column width
fc: Characteristic compressive strength of concrete
fy: Yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement
fyh: Yield stress of transverse reinforcement
fu: Ultimate steel strength for longitudinal reinforcement
philon: Diameter of longitudinal reinforcement
phis: Diameter of transverse reinforcement
Ss: Spacing of transverse reinforcement
Numbars: Number of longitudinal reinforcing bars
Ps: Volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio
NumTrans: Number of transverse shear bars in cross section
Numtop: number of transverse reinforcing bars in half side of the
section perpendicular to load
Nummid: number of intermediate bars parallel to load
coverCol: width of the concrete cover
PCol: Axial load
Alr: Axial load ratio
It is worth nothing that regardless of different testing configurations, all columns were
reduced to the case of an equivalent cantilever column which allows comparison of column
behavior for a wide range of testing configurations. Additionally, since only lateral force
and top tip displacement histories are available for all columns in the database, the
developed model mainly concentrates on investigation of the global column behavior.
Neglecting columns with octagonal sections and those without enough data to develop a
numerical model, this project totally considered 253 rectangular columns and 102 circular
columns. Statistics are provided for the column depth, aspect ratio, axial-load ratio,
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios. More details can be seen in Table 1-2.
Table 1- 2 Column Property Statistics
11
1.6 Objective and Scope
This project focuses on analyses of reinforced concrete columns using fiber-section

elements. Although several related modeling strategies are well established to accurately
capture the seismic behavior of RC element, few conclusions are made on the reliability
of fiber-section elements in modeling RC structures without any sophisticated
calibrations. Therefore, the objective of this project is trying to set up criteria for
practitioners to guide them more confidently use the fiber-section elements in future
modeling of RC elements.
Two column modeling strategies are developed and applied to model totally 251
rectangular and 102 circular shaped RC columns available in PEER database. One
method is based on the standard force-based beam-column element (flexure deformations)
and the second one utilizes plastic hinge integration method developed by Scott and
Fenves (2006). For simplicity, deteriorations, local buckling, and fracture of reinforcing
steel are not considered in both models. However, discussions on confined concrete
models, effective stiffness and plastic hinge length are provided in detail.
M
In the post-analysis, I value (I= , where M and V are columns' flexure and shear
V L
capacities; L is the equivalent column length) of each column is calculated. Besides,
several error indicators are also defined to measure the accuracy of the numerical models.
Finally, a table visually showing error of columns within different I value ranges are
established.
This project is mainly composed of following parts:
 Chapter 1. Introduction: Review historical development of numerical modeling for

reinforced concrete structure. Introduce current applications of force-based element
to simulation of various RC components and define objective of this project.
 Chapter 2. RC Column Behavior and Modeling: Summarize column behavior and
12
corresponding modeling issues when it is subjected to cyclic loading reversals.
 Chapter 3. RC Column Modeling Strategies: Two modeling strategies are developed

to simulate RC columns subjected to constant axial load and horizontal cyclic
loading reversals simultaneously.
 Chapter 4. Modeling Evaluation: The error indicator I and several error parameters
to measure the accuracy of the developed modeling strategies are defined and be
used to evaluate the efficiency of the fiber-section element in modeling of RC
columns. Finally, a guideline is established for future modeling of RC columns by
using fiber-section element.
 Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations: Summarize major achievement of

the project and provide some recommendations for practitioners to use the
fiber-section element in future structural analysis.
13
Chapter 2: RC Column Behavior and Modeling
The difficulty in analyzing reinforced concrete structural members arises from many
factors such as combined axial load and flexure, bond failure between concrete and
reinforcement, confinement effect, spalling of the cover concrete, local buckling of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars, etc. For columns subjected to cyclic load reversals, the
problem is more complicated. This chapter introduces how these factors contribute to the
behavior of RC columns and provide summary of reviews for modeling approaches.
2.1 Material Constitutive Relationships
The analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) structures requires the accurate constitutive
relationships of concrete and reinforcing steel especially for the fiber elements approach
where uniaxial constitutive relationships of both constituent materials should be assigned
to each element fiber.
Similar to other composite materials, reinforced concrete exhibits specific mechanical

behaviors due to complex interactions between its concrete and reinforcing steel. Among
those interactions, confinement applied by reinforcing steel and stress penetration caused
by bond slip between reinforcing and surrounded concrete strongly influent both global
and local behaviors. It is worth noting that those interactions are implicitly considered
within material stress-strain relationships.
2.1.1 Concrete
It has been widely proved that the transverse reinforcement confines core concrete which
increases strength and ductility. (Sheikh and Uzmeri 1980; Scott et al. 1982; Mander et al.
1988). Although such enhancement may not be significantly observed when columns are
subjected to a small axial load, it governs the behavior of those under high axial loads or
severe cyclic loadings conditions. Therefore, constitutive relationships should consider
14
the confinement effect. In this project, two confined concrete models are used.
One is modifying the Concrete02 material model available in OpenSees by amplifying

the strength and corresponding strain based on the confined concrete model developed by
Mander et al (1988). Concrete02 in OpenSees is based on the uniaxial Kent-Scott-Park
concrete material object with degraded linear unloading/reloading stiffness according to
the work of Karsan-Jirsa (1969) and linear tension softening. Its stress-strain relationship
can be seen in Fig. 2-1.
Fig. 2- 1 Stress-strain relationship of Concrete02 material.
In Mander’s concrete model, the stress-strain relationship of confined concrete is

presented as following equations:
7.94 f l ' fl'

f  f (1.254  2.254 1 
'
cc
'
co 2 ' ) (2-1)
f co' f co
f cc'
 cc   co [1  5( '  1)] (2-2)
f co
where f co' and  co' are unconfined concrete compressive strength and its corresponding
strain respectively; f cc' and  cc' are confined concrete compressive strength and its
corresponding strain respectively; f l ' is the lateral pressure applied by transverse rebars
which can be obtained as follows (Mander et al. 1988):
For spirals or circular hoops
15
1
fl '  ke  s f yh (2-3)
2
s'
1
2d s
ke  (2-4)
1   cc
Aspd s
s  (2-5)
 2
d s
s
4
where ke is the effectiveness coefficient to consider ineffectively confined concrete at
the midway between two adjacent transverse reinforcement; s ' is the clear vertical
spacing between spiral or hoop bars; d s is the diameter of spiral between bar centers;
Asp is the area of transverse reinforcement bar;  cc is the ratio of area of longitudinal
reinforcement to area of core of section;  s is the ratio of the volume of transverse
confining steel to the volume of confined concrete core and f yh is the yielding strength
of the transverse reinforcement.
For rectangular hoops

f lx'  ke  x f yh
(2-6)
f ly'  ke  y f yh
Asx
x  (2-7)
sd c
Asy
y  (2-8)
sbc
n
( wi' ) 2 s' s'
(1   )(1  )(1  )
i 1 6bc d c 2bc 2d c
ke  (2-9)
1   cc
Where  x and  y are the ratios of the volume of transverse confining steel to the
volume of confined concrete core in x and y directions, respectively; bc and d c are the
core dimensions to centerlines of perimeter hoop in x and y direction, respectively and
bc  d c ; Asx and Asy are the total area of transverse bars in the x and y direction,
16
respectively and wi is the ith clear distance between adjacent longitudina bars.
Based on that the above, confinement effect of columns in PEER database with any
general section shapes and confinement types: either spiral or circular; or rectangular
with or without supplementary ties can be modeled easily.
The other one is based on the work of Braga et al. (2006) (BGL model) to account for
confinement effect of various arrangements of transverse reinforcement or external
wrapping in any material and both rectangular and circular sections which can be see in
Fig. 2-2. Such model is based on the elasticity theory and the key assumption of plane
strain condition. In addition, the stress-strain relation for cyclic loading is also based on
the work of Karsan and Jirsa (1969). Currently, this model is implemented in OpenSees.
Therefore, rather than manually calculate the enhancement factor, ConfinedConcrete01
material in OpenSees based on BGL model can be used to determine the confinement
automatically by just inputting reinforcing details.
However, only 8 types of section shown in Fig. 2-2. can be considered in BGL model. It
can be seen that BGL model may not be able to simulate rectangular columns with
additional internal ties.
17
Fig. 2- 2 Type of sections in BGL model
In addition to compressive strength and corresponding strain, it also requires to provide a

reasonable assumption for the crushing strain value which is essentially related to the
nonlinear descending branch. In this project, Scott et al. (1982) model is used to calculate
the ultimate strain  cu :
f yh
 cu  0.004  0.9  s (2-10)
300
Where  s is ratio of the volume of the transverse confining steel to the volume of the
confined concrete core; and f yh is the yield strength of steel stirrups. In this expression,
 cu of the unconfined concrete is assumed to be 0.004.
2.1.2 Reinforcing Steel
Most cases, the reinforcing steel is assumed to be an elastic-perfectly plastic material.

This assumption is true only when columns subjected to loadings limited to small
inelastic deformations. In order to capture the whole response of columns up to failure,
strain-hardening of the reinforcing steel must be considered.
Therefore, in this project, the Steel02 material in OpenSees, which was used to construct
a uniaxial Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto steel material with isotropic strain hardening effect, is
adopted to represent nonlinear transition from elastic stage to strain hardening stage (see
Fig. 2-3). The transition can be adjusted manually in OpenSees by using different R value.
For the hardening ratio, 2% is assumed in this project which is suitable for most mild
steel rebars.
18
Fig. 2- 3 Stress-strain relationship of Steel02 material in OpenSees
2.2 Strain Penetration
In order to capture the structural response, specifically for total tip displacement of
columns, two types of deformation required to be considered (Zhao and Sritharan, 2007):
1) the flexural deformation that causes inelastic strains in reinforcing steel and concrete;
and 2) member end rotation due to reinforcement slip which can be seen in Fig. 2-4. This
slip occurs not only at large inelastic stage but also during the elastic response of columns.
Experimental studies have shown that the end rotation produced by strain penetration
may occupy up to 35% of the total lateral deformation of flexural members. (Kowalsky et
al. 1999; Saatcioglu et al. 1992). In other words, ignoring the strain penetration will
underestimate the column drift as well as overestimate the stiffness and strains of the
reinforcing steel and concrete.
19
Fig. 2- 4 Deformations of RC columns
Numerous investigations have been made to simulate the bond-slip effect and as
summarized by Zhao and Sritharan (2007), these efforts range from high computationally
demanding methods based on element level to lower computational cost approaches on
section level. In fiber-section element, the basic assumption that plane sections remain
plane implies perfect bond condition between concrete and embedded reinforcement.
Therefore, proper measures are required to consider such deformation contribution in
fiber-based modeling. A common approach is to utilize zero-length element at the base of
column where a proper stress-displacement relationship rather then stress-strain
relationship is assigned to the zero-length element (Berry 2006; Zhao and Sritharan 2007).
Fig. 2-5. shows a typical fiber-based model with zero-length element.
(a) (b)
Fig. 2‐ 5 Force‐based beam‐column element with bond‐slip component
(a)Fiber-based model for RC columns
(b) Stress-displacement relationship developed by Zhao and Sritharan (2007)
20
Although several stress-displacement relationships have been developed for modeling
bond-slip effect, the accuracy largely depends on the model parameters used to define the
relationship curve such as Sy and Su in Fig. 2-5 (b). Therefore, for simplicity, this project
did not include special treatment for bond slip effect but only consider initial deformation
due to bond slip before yielding by using effective stiffness illustrated in Chapter 4.
2.3 Shear deformation
The total lateral deformation of a column is composed of three contributions: flexure,

bond slip at the column end(s), and shear. Shear deformation can be neglected when
flexure dominants the total response. But for columns with small aspect ratio or without
adequate shear-resisting reinforcement, shear deformation governs the total response and
finally lead to unexpected shear or shear-flexure failure. Shear may not only lead to
abruptly brittle facture but also bring difficulties to numerical modeling since fiber-based
model is mainly based on the plane section assumption which does not allow out-of-plane
deformations. As mentioned in the Chapter 1, shear elements such as springs can be
added to consider shear effect in fiber-based models. However, most of them are
experimentally calibrated which constrain their applications. Therefore, without adopting
any sophisticated element, this project only implicitly includes the elastic shear
deformation in the effective stiffness. More details can be seen in Chapter 3.
2.4 Hysteretic Deterioration
Structure exhibits inelastic behavior under severe ground motion when partial or almost
all structural and nonstructural components enter inelastic state. Therefore, quite different
from linear analysis, such cyclic inelasticity introduces more complicated hysteretic
deteriorations in terms of strength degradation and stiffness deterioration to the modeling.
As for cyclic loaded columns, hysteretic deterioration can be attributed to the complex
interactions of local buckling of longitudinal reinforcement, bond failure between
concrete and reinforcing bars, spalling of the concrete and etc. Due to its complexity, no
widely accepted hysteretic model is available right now. Therefore, this project just
neglects all of these deterioration contributes.
21
2.5 Summary
This chapter summarizes several important factors when modeling the RC columns such
as confined concrete, cyclic behavior of the reinforcing steel, bond slippary, shear effect
as well as other hysteretic deterioration contributions, and introduces corresponding
modeling issues in this project. Shear deformation and hysteretic deteriorations in
strength and stiffness due to strain penetration, local buckling of longitudinal rebars and
fracture of the transverse rebars are not included in this project. It can be seen that it is
challenging even to simulate a simple RC column.
22
Chapter 3: Modeling Strategies
Based on the factors described above, two modeling strategies are developed in this
section. One is distributed-plasticity column model and one is lumped-plasticity column
model. Both models are built in the Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(OpenSees) which is a software framework for simulating the seismic response of
structural and geotechnical systems (Mazzoni et al. 2007). In order to apply each model
to analyses of totally 251 rectangular section and 102 circular section RC columns in
PEER database, a general script in OpenSees for each model is implemented.
3.1 Force-based Beam-Column Model
In this strategy, force-based beam-column element called Force-based Beam-Column

Element in OpenSees with two types of confined concrete models (BGL model and
Mander model) is applied to each column. It is assumed that columns are fixed to the
ground and each column is represented by a single fiber element which can be seen in Fig.
3-1.
Fig. 3- 1 Force-based beam-column element
23
Force-based element allows the plasticity to spread along the length of the column by
using a number of integration points shown in Fig. 3-1. Since the column ends are
considered to be critical, integration points should be placed at the end of the element.
Berry (2006) carried out investigations on the influence of the number of integration
point on global and local response of the columns. It was found that for columns with
perfectly plastic, the global response is not sensitive to the number of integration points,
but the local behavior vary significantly. As for columns with a hardening behavior, both
global and local responses do not vary a lot with the number of integration points when at
least four integration points are assigned. However, if the column has softening behavior,
the number of integration points will have a great impact on both global and local
responses. Since the project mainly focuses on the global force-deformation of the
columns, five integration points are used.
Column section at each integration point is divided into several fibers to represent
concrete cover, concrete core and reinforcing steel. A proper number of fibers is also
important to minimize the computational demand without reducing the accuracy. For
circular section, it is recommended to use the uniform radial discretization scheme to
divide the section into 20 core transverse subdivisions, 10 core radial subdivisions, 20
cover transverse subdivisions and 1 cover radial subdivision (Berry 2006), which can be
seen in Fig. 3-1. As for the rectangular section, core concrete and cover concrete are
subdivide into 15 and 1 layers in y and z directions, respectively.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, two confined concrete models are assigned to section fibers:
BGL model and Mander model. Both models use the same relation for cyclic loadings
which was developed by Karsan and Jirsa (1969) and the elastic modulus of concrete Ec
adopted in modified form by the ACI Code can be calculated by the following equation:
Ec  4700 f c' ( MPa ) (3-1)
Where f c' is the specified 28-day compressive strength of concrete, MPa.
24
3.1.1 Apply Loads
Test configurations of RC columns in the PEER database include cantilever (Fig. 3-2 (a)),
double-curvature (Fig. 3-2 (b)), double-ended (Fig. 3-2 (c)), hammerhead (Fig. 3-2 (d))
and flexible-base (Fig. 3-2 (e)). For better comparisons, the equivalent cantilever length L
was defined to transfer different columns into equivalent cantilever columns. Additionally,
due to various loading programs, it will be quite time-consuming to apply each type of
loading program to the corresponding column. Therefore, loads were applied by directly
inputting measured displacement histories. By doing so, converge problem may be occur
when the displacement step is too large. It can be solved by evenly subdividing each step
into several steps.
Fig. 3- 2 Test configurations in PEER database
25
3.2 Lumped-Plasticity Column Model
In order to solve the problem that the force-based beam-column element leads to loss of
objectivity which means the response of the element will vary with the number of
integration points, Scott and Fenves (2006) developed a lumped-plasticity formulation
suitable for implementation in a standard displacement-based finite-element environment.
The formulation utilizes the force-based fiber beam column element formulation, and
introduces a modified integration scheme, in which inelastic deformations are confined to
an assigned plastic-hinge length. The curvature distribution is linear above the
plastic-hinge, and within the plastic-hinge the curvature is calculated with
moment-curvature analysis similar to the force-based beam-column element (see Fig.
3-3).
Fig. 3- 3 Lumped-plasticity column model
Two confined concrete models were used to define core concrete within the plastic-hinge
length whilst elastic segment were defined by concrete elastic modulus Ec and initial
stiffness I c . Therefore, different from the case in the force-based beam-column element
where the stiffness of the element is obtained by integration of section fibers, the lumped
plasticity model allow users to modify the stiffness by changing Ec I c of the elastic
segment. The accuracy of the model mainly relies on proper definitions of the stiffness
26
Ec I c and plastic hinge length L p .
3.2.1 Effective Stiffness Ec I eff
The displacement of a column can be considered as the sum of the displacements due to
flexure, bar slip, and shear. Firstly for simplicity, bar slip and shear deformation are not
included in the model even though they may dominate the after-yielding behavior of the
column. Here, only elastic shear deformation and bar slip before yielding are considered by
reducing the initial moment of inertia to some extent. For engineering practice, the
response of a column prior to yielding can be approximated as linear-elastic with a single
effective stiffness Ec I eff .
In the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 356 seismic rehabilitation

guidelines (ASCE 2000), the effective stiffness can be calculated as follows which
P
 0 .5  0 .3
A f'
g c
P  0 .3 Af'
g c P
EI / EI  0 .5  0 .3   0 .5 (3-2)
e ff g A f' A f'
g c g c
P
 0 .7  0 .5
A f'
g c
Where I g is the moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis,
neglecting reinforcement; P is the constant axial force; Ag is the gross area of section.
Based on the PEER Structural Performance Database (Berry et al. 2004), Elwood and
Eberhard (2006) found that the FEMA 356 overestimates the stiffness of columns with low
axial loads below 0.3 Ag f c' due to significant bar slip and recommended following
equations for columns with normal-strength concrete:
27
P
EI / EI  0 .2  0 .2
eff g
A f'
g c (3-3)
5 P 4 P
  0 .2   0 .5
3 A f ' 30 A f'
g c g c
P
 0 .7  0 .5
A f'
g c
However, after applying this stiffness to the lumped plasticity model, it is found that the
initial stiffnesses of the columns with low axial load ratio are underestimated. Fig. 3-4.
shows experimental and numerical results of the No.3 column with 0.2 axial load ratio
tested by Tanaka and Park 1990. The numerical curve is distorted by the underestimated
stiffness (0.3 I g ) and better result can be obtained by using stiffness (0.5 I g ) defined by
FEMA 356. Therefore, this project still uses the effective stiffness proposed in FEMA
356.
200
200
Experimental Experimental
Numerical 150
Numerical
150
100 100
50 50
Force/kN
Force/kN
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement/mm Displacement/mm
(a) Elwood and Eberhard model (b) FEMA 356

Fig. 3- 4 Experimental and Numerical results of column No.3 (Tanaka and Park 1990)
3.2.2 Determination of Plastic hinge length
Numerous expressions for determination of plastic hinge length have been suggested
(Baker 1956; Park and Paulay 1975; Sakai and Sheikh 1989). However, few of them do
explicitly include the impact of axial load on plastic hinge length since most expressions
were developed based on concrete beams. Bae and Bayrak (2008) systematically evaluated
the performance of different expressions and proposed a new analytical approach to
28
estimate l p which can be expresses as follows:
lp P A L
 [0.3( )  3( s )  0.1]( )  0.25  0.25 (3-4)
h P0 Ag h
Where h is overall depth of column; P0  0.85 f c' ( Ag  As )  f y As is the nominal axial
load capacity as per ACI 318-05; As is the area of tension reinforcement; L is the distance
from critical section to point of contra-flexure.
The expression is composed of four parts which explicitly consider the three parameters
P L A
( , , and s ) and 0.25h shift in the location of the critical section due to confinement
P0 h Ag
effect of the stub which can be seen in Fig. 3-5.
Fig. 3- 5 Estimation of plastic hinge length
3.3 Summary
This chapter describes two modeling strategies in details. For lumped plasticity column
model, specific measures are adopted to better determine the effective stiffness and
plastic hinge length. Those two models will be applied to RC columns in PEER database
and the comparisons of the numerical and experimental results are illustrated in the
following sections.
29
Chapter 4: Modeling Evaluation
In this chapter, numerical cyclic responses obtained from two modeling strategies are
evaluated with experimental data from the PEER database. Several measures of accuracy
are defined to quantify the numerical errors. Different confined concrete models and
modeling elements are compared within each column. It can be seen that both confined
concrete models can accurately capture the enhancement that the transverse
reinforcement applied to the core concrete. Lumped plasticity model shows better
performance in simulation of RC column subjected to cyclic load reversals.
4.1 Measures of Accuracy
Herein, 5 types of parameters are defined to measure the accuracy of the modeling in
peak loads, initial stiffness, energy dissipation as well as the backbone curve (see Fig.
4-1).
Fig.4- 1 Illustration of error parameters

Fcal
Peak force ratio is the ratio of experimental peak forces in both positive and
Fexp
negative directions to calculated peak forces.
30
Dcal
Ratio of displacement at peak force is the ratio of measured displacement to
Dexp
calculated displacement at the peak force.
Ecal
Energy ratio is the ratio of measured area surrounded by hysteretic curve to the
Eexp
calculated area.
Backbone error Ebackbone
Without actual pushover data, manually obtained envelopes of the numerical and
experimental hysteretic curves are compared. The corresponding error parameter is
expressed as:
n
 (F i
exp  Fcal
i 2
)
Ebackbone  i 1
(max( Fexp )) 2 n
(4-1)
Where Fexp and Fcal are the measured and calculated forces at each reversal points,
and n is the number datapoints in the envelope curve.
K cal
Stiffness ratio is the ratio of measured stiffness to calculated stiffness, where
K exp
Fcal 0.001 Fexp 0.001

K cal  and K exp  . Fcal 0.001 and Fexp 0.001 represent calculated and
 0.001  0.001
experimental lateral forces at 0.1% column drift and  0.001 is the tip displacement at
0.1% column drift.
Since deterioration contributions such as local buckling of longitudinal rebars, fracture of

the transverse bars as well as after-yielding shear deformation were not included,
numerical models are not expected to capture the response after reaching peak forces.
Ecal
Therefore, comparisons of the energy ratio and the backbone error Ebackbone are
Eexp
31
divided into two parts: one is for the response before reaching peak forces and one is after
reaching peak forces.
M
4.2 I (= ) Value
VL
This project tries to find out a specific range where practitioners can confidently use the
fiber-section elements to simulate RC element (here only for columns) under cyclic
loading condition in the future. Therefore, a indicator should be defined to quantify such
scope of application. Generally, any parameters which will significantly affect the
response of the RC columns, such as aspect ratio (L/H), axial load ratio (P/P0),
reinforcing ratio (As/Ag) and etc., can be used as the indicator. However, in most cases,
using only one of them is inefficient. For example, a column with a low aspect ratio is
prone to fail in shear only if the transverse reinforcing ratio is inadequate as well. Thus, a
M
single indicator I= is defined in this project, where M and V is the flexure and shear,
VL
respectively; L is the length of equivalent cantilever. Since the indicator I implicitly
contain the effect of aspect ratio, axial load ratio and reinforcing ratio, it is considered to
be ideal for decision making in practice.
4.2.1 Moment capacity (M)
Moment capacity M is determined based on the Canadian Code (CSA Standard

A23.3-04). All columns are seems as short columns, so the moment resistance is decided
by cross-section analysis. The design of reinforced concrete column for axial load and
flexure according to CSA A23.3-04 is based on the following design assumptions:
1. Plane sections remain plane. Out-of-plane deformation is ignored.

2. Perfect bond assumption.
3. Stress-strain relationship. An equivalent rectangular stress block instead the actual
stress distribution of concrete is used and the confinement effect is neglected. (Fig. 4-2)
32
4. Concrete tensile strength. The tensile strength of concrete is neglected.
5. Maximum concrete compression strain. The strength is controlled by the maximum
compressive strain of concrete  c which is taken as 0.0035.
Fig.4- 2 Reinforced concrete column with several reinforcement layers
Based on above assumptions, a script was written in Matlab in following processes

(Brzev and Pao 2009):
1.Estimate the neutral axis depth c;
2.Compute the strain in all reinforcement layers using following equation
di
 si   c max (1  ), i  1 to n (4-2)
c
3.Compute the stresses in all reinforcement layers (1 to n).
If  si   y , then f si  f y
If  si   y , then f si  E si  f y
4.Calculate the stress resultants in concrete and steel.

Cr  11c f c'cb (4-3)
is the stress resultant in concrete, and
Frsi  s f si Asi (4-4)
is the force in the reinforcement layer of area Asi , i=1 to n.
Where 1 is the ratio of average stress in rectangular compression block to the specified
concrete strength; 1 is the ratio of depth of rectangular compression block to depth to
the neutral axis; c is the resistance factor for concrete. As it is desired to estimate the
33
actual member strength, the capacity reduction factors c will be taken as unity.
According to the code, 1 and 1 can be obtained by:

1  0.85  0.0015 f c'
(4-5)
1  0.97  0.0025 f c'
5.Calculate the force Pr based on the force equilibrium equation
n
Pr  Cr   Frsi (4-6)
i 1
6.Calculate the factored moment resistance ( M r ) from the moment equilibrium equation
around the point CG; assume that the centroid of the column cross-section is located at a
distance h/2 from the column face:
n
M  M c   M rsi (4-7)
i 1
Where
h c
M rc  Cr (  1 )
2 2
(4-8)
h
M rsi  Frsi (  d i )
2
All equations described above are mainly for rectangular section columns. But similar
processes can be deduced for columns with circular section. For simplicity,
Response-2000 is used to determine the moment capacity of circular section columns.
4.2.2 Shear capacity V
The CSA standard A23.3-04 provides two different methods of designing for shear: the
sectional method for typical flexure regions and strut-and-tie method appropriate for
regions near discontinuities. Here, the sectional method based on the ''modified
compression field theory'' (MCFT) (Vecchio and Collins 1986) is adopted.
According to Clause 11.3, the factored shear strength V of a non-prestressed section
34
with a web width of bw and effective shear depth of d v is expressed as:
V  Vc  Vs (4-10)
Where Vc and Vc represent shear resistance provided by concrete and shear reinforcement,
respectively.
and
Vc  c  f c' bw d v (4-11)
As
Vs  s f y d v cot  (4-12)
s
Where  represents the ability of cracked concrete to transmit shear by aggregate
interlock stresses and  is the angle of inclination of the diagonal compressive stresses.
Both of these parameters are functions of the longitudinal strain,  x , at the mid-depth of
the section and are given as:
0 .4 1300
  (4-13)
(1  1500 x ) 1000  s ze
  29  7000 x (4-14)
M f / d v  V f  0.5 N f
x  (4-15)
2 Es As
where c and s represent the resistance factors for concrete and shear reinforcement,
respectively which should be taken as unity in this project;  is the factor to account for
low-density concrete; s ze is the equivalent crack spacing parameter which can be taken
as equal to 300mm; As is the area of longitudinal reinforcement on the flexure tension
side of the member; E s is the modulus of elasticity of non-prestressed reinforcement
which can be taken as equal to 200000 MPa; M f , V f , and N f represent factored
moment, shear, and axial force that the column withstood and N f should be negative
when axial force is compression force.
Based on that, iterations are needed to solve out the shear strength. Firstly assuming a
value of  x say 0.001,  and  can be calculated by Eq. 4-13 and Eq. 4-14. After
35
that, an initial estimate of shear strength can be obtained and is substituted into Eq. 4.15.
A new calculated value of  x can be used for the next iteration.
4.3 Results
By comparing with the experimental results, the measures of modeling accuracy of each
column are calculated and plotted versus I. The main variables for comparisons are two
confined concrete models (Mander's model and BGL' model) and two modeling strategies
(force-based beam-column element and lumped plasticity element). For better
explanation, models are classified as follows:
Model 1: Lumped-plasticity element with BGL confined concrete model;

Model 2: Lumped-plasticity element with Mander's confined concrete model;
Model 3: Force-based beam-column element with BGL confined concrete model;
Model 4: Force-based beam-column element with Mander's confined concrete model;
JSCE-7
3.5 3.5
Model N1 Positive direction Positive direction
Negative direction Negative direction
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
Fcal/Fexp
Fcal/Fexp
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(a) (b)
36
3.5 3.5
Positive direction Positive direction
3.0
Negative direction 3.0
Negative direction
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
Fcal/Fexp
Fcal/Fexp
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
AA2
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 3 Scatters of Fcal / Fexp versus I
(a) Lumped-plasticity element with BGL concrete model

(b) Lumped-plasticity element with Mander's concrete model
(c) Force-based beam-column element with BGL concrete model
(d) Force-based beam-column element with Mander's concrete model
Fig. 4-3. shows Fcal / Fexp versus I of in each model. Black and red colors present results
in positive direction and negative direction, respectively. It can be seen that, most
columns with I value less than 1.0 have Fcal / Fexp close to 1.0. With the increase of I,
points tend to scatter and gradually deviate from 1.0. Additionally, peak forces of most
columns are overestimated in both force-based element model and lumped-plasticity
model. Force-based beam-column model shows better performance in predicting the peak
forces than the lumped-plasticity element where more deviated points can be found even
for columns with very small I value (points surrounded by red circles in Fig. 4-3 (a) and
(c)). Numerical and experimental force-displacement curves of these points are shown in
Fig. 4-4. It can be seen that, overestimated peak forces are mainly attributed to the unreal
hardening behavior of columns in numerical models. On the other hand, two confined
concrete models exhibit quite similar performances except the cases when BGL concrete
model is applied to the force-based beam-column element (Model 3). Combination of
BGL concrete model and the force-based beam-column element will not only lead to
terrible convergency problem but also significantly distort the column behavior such as
the case shown in Fig. 4-3 (c) and Fig. 4-4 (c).
37
300 120
250 100
Numerical Numerical
200 80
150 60
100 40
50 20
Force/kN
Force/kN
0 0
-50 -20
-100 -40
-150 -60
-200 -80
-250 -100
-300 -120
-125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125
(a) (b)
150
Experimental
Numerical
100
50
Force/kN
-50
-100
-150
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement/mm
(c)
Fig.4- 4 Numerical and experimental force-displacement curves of
(a) Takemura and Kawashima, 1997, Test 4 (JSCE-7) (Model 1)
(b) NIST, Model N1 (Model 1)
(c) Galeota et al. 1996, AA2 (Model 3)
7
Positive direction 7
Negative direction Positive direction
Negative direction
6 6
5 5
4 4
Dcal/Dexp
Dcal/Dexp
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(a) (b)
38
7 7
Positive direction Positive direction
Negative direction Negative direction
6 6
5 5
4 4
Dcal/Dexp
Dcal/Dexp
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(c) (b)
Fig.4- 5 Scatters of Dcal / Dexp versus I

Similarly, Ecal / Eexp of four models are plotted versus I in Fig. 4-5. Scattered points
indicate that the numerical models are failed to capture the displacements at
corresponding peak forces. There is no clear correlation between I value and Fcal / Fexp .
8 8
Energy ratio before peaks Energy ratio before peaks
7 7
6 6
5 5
Ecal/Eexp
Ecal/Eexp
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(a) (b)
39
8 8
Energy ratio before peaks Energy ratio before peaks
7 7
6 6
5 5
Ecal/Eexp
Ecal/Eexp
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 6 Scatters of Ecal / Eexp versus I before reaching positive and negative peak forces

16 16
Energy ratio after peaks Energy ratio after peaks
14 14
12 12
10 10
Ecal/Eexp
Ecal/Eexp
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(a) (b)
16 16
Energy ratio after peaks Energy ratio after peaks
14 14
12 12
10 10
Ecal/Eexp
Ecal/Eexp
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 7 Scatters of Ecal / Eexp versus I after reaching positive and negative peak forces
40
As mentioned before, evaluation of the energy dissipation will be separately considered

as shown in Fig. 4-6 and Fig. 4-7. Better performance is obtained in predicting the energy
dissipated at lower cycles. Additionally, with the increase of I, energy will excessively
overestimated especially at larger deformations and increased cycling.
1.1 1.1
Positive backbone before peaks Positive backbone before peaks
1.0 Negative direction before peaks 1.0
Negative direction before peaks
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
Ebackbone
Ebackbone
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(a) (b)
1.1 1.1
Positive backbone before peaks Positive backbone before peaks
1.0 Negative direction before peaks 1.0 Negative direction before peaks
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
Ebackbone
Ebackbone
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 8 Scatters of Ebackbone versus I before reaching positive and negative peaks
41
Positive backbone after peaks
Positive backbone after peaks
2.4 2.4 Negative direction after peaks
Negative direction after peaks
2.0 2.0
1.6 1.6
Ebackbone
Ebackbone
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(a) (b)
Positive backbone after peaks Positive backbone after peaks
2.4
Negative direction after peaks
2.4 Negative direction after peaks
2.0 2.0
1.6 1.6
Ebackbone
Ebackbone
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 9 Scatters of Ebackbone versus I after reaching positive and negative peaks
For backbone error, points shown in Fig. 4-8 And Fig. 4-9 are also very scattered. Errors
are mainly attributed to models' inefficiencies in predicting of the initial stiffness (see Fig.
4-10.(a)) and complex deterioration effects (see Fig. 4-10.(b)) described in Chapter 2.
42
500 250
400 Numerical 200 Numerical
300 150
200 100
100 50
Force/kN
Force/kN
0 0
-100 -50
-200 -100
-300 -150
-400 -200
-500 -250
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
Displacement/mm Displacement
(a) (b)

(a) Aboutaha and Machado 1999, ORC3 (Model 2)
(b) Calderone et al. 2000, 828 (Model 4)
10 10
Stiffness ratio Stiffness ratio
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
Kcal/Kexp
Kcal/Kexp
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(a) (b)
43
10 10
Stiffness ratio Stiffness ratio
9 9
8 8
7 7
Kcal/Kexp 6 6
Kcal/Kexp
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
I value I value
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 11 Scatters of K cal / K exp versus I

The stiffness ratio versus I is described in Fig. 4-11. As seen in the Fig., several trends
can be observed. K cal / K exp tends to increase with an increase in I. In addition, the
lumped-plasticity model with effective stiffness defined in Chapter 3 exhibits better

performance than that of the force-based beam-column element model, see Fig. 4-12.
300 300
Numerical Numerical
200 200
100
100
Force/kN
Force/kN
0
0
-100
-100
-200
-200
-300
-300
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
(a) (b)

(a) Paultre et al., 2001, No. 1005540 (Model 2)
(b) Paultre et al., 2001, No. 1005540 (Model 4)
44
In order to better interpret and quantify the data, statistical analyses by using the box and
whisker plot were also carried out. The boxplot, developed by John W. Tukey, is a
convenient way to graphically depicting large number of numerical data. Typically, the
values represented by five-number summary: the smallest observation (sample minimum),
25th percentile, median, 75th percentile, and the maximum observation (sample
maximum). Besides, additional values can be added such as 5th and 95th percentiles as
well as mean. Fig. 4-13. shows these values in Origin's default box plot.
Fig.4- 13 Values represented in Origin's default Box Plot

Therefore, scatter diagrams are transferred into corresponding Boxplots shown from Fig.
4-14 to Fig. 4-20. Detailed statistic results are described in Table. 4-1 To Table. 4-4.
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
Fcal/Fexp
Fcal/Fexp
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(a) (b)
45
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
Fcal/Fexp
Fcal/Fexp
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 14 Boxplot of Fcal / Fexp versus I

7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
Dcal/Dexp
Dcal/Dexp
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(a) (b)
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
Dcal/Dexp
Dcal/Dexp
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 15 Boxplot of Dcal / Dexp versus I
46
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
Ecal/Eexp
Ecal/Eexp
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(a) (b)
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
Ecal/Eexp
Ecal/Eexp
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 16 Boxplot of Ecal / Eexp versus I before reaching peaks in both directions

47
16 16
14 14
12 12
Ecal/Eexp 10 10
Ecal/Eexp
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(a) (b)
16 18
14 16
14
12
12
10
10
Ecal/Eexp
Ecal/Eexp
8
8
6
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 17 Boxplot of Ecal / Eexp versus I after reaching peaks in both directions

1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
Ebackbone
Ebackbone
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(a) (b)
48
1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
Ebackbone
Ebackbone
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 18 Boxplot of Ebackbone versus I before reaching peaks in both directions
2.4 2.4
2.0 2.0
1.6 1.6
Ebackbone
Ebackbone
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(a) (b)
2.4 2.4
2.0 2.0
1.6 1.6
Ebackbone
Ebackbone
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 19 Boxplot of Ebackbone versus I after reaching peaks in both directions
49
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
Kcal/Kexp
Kcal/Kexp
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(a) (b)
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
Kcal/Kexp
Kcal/Kexp
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0 0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
(c) (d)
Fig.4- 20 Boxplot of K cal / K exp versus I

50
I range
Error
0-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
Parameters
Num Min Max Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD
Fcal/Fexp 0.766 2.237 1.155 0.227 0.786 2.214 1.178 0.205 0.791 2.504 1.155 0.232 0.876 1.725 1.177 0.222 0.556 3.125 1.387 0.418
Dcal/Dexp 0.245 5.907 1.216 0.888 0.254 6.737 1.461 1.149 0.221 6.269 1.139 0.796 0.218 4.057 1.155 0.712 0.038 5.237 1.486 0.954
Ecal/Eexp
Before 0.284 3.114 1.023 0.477 0.211 6.001 1.467 0.995 0.511 3.973 1.760 0.798 0.852 5.804 2.041 0.986 1.120 5.827 2.648 1.016
Reaching
51
Ecal/Eexp
After 0.414 2.088 1.021 0.356 0.286 3.257 1.358 0.580 0.624 3.953 1.711 0.745 0.660 6.389 2.642 1.635 1.143 14.14 5.067 2.963
90 87 90 31 49
Reaching
Ebackbone
Before 0.015 0.589 0.149 0.095 0.006 0.539 0.158 0.091 0.007 0.735 0.179 0.109 0.028 0.508 0.213 0.117 0.012 0.990 0.332 0.128
Reaching
Table 4- 1 Statistic results of the Model 1
Ebackbone
After 0.025 1.222 0.366 0.236 0.023 1.111 0.346 0.246 0.008 1.587 0.307 0.262 0.015 1.086 0.326 0.272 0.053 2.138 0.615 0.390
Reaching
Kcal/Kexp 0.412 3.029 1.188 0.480 0.559 4.970 1.532 0.704 0.663 3.819 1.676 0.657 1.051 5.408 2.235 1.030 1.013 8.249 3.302 1.705
I range
Error
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
Parameters
Num Min Max Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min Max Mean SD
Fcal/Fexp 0.773 2.515 1.171 0.251 0.741 2.331 1.213 0.234 0.836 2.365 1.187 0.242 0.873 1.917 1.212 0.242 0.613 3.478 1.485 0.419
Dcal/Dexp 0.246 5.907 1.366 1.010 0.335 6.737 1.520 1.130 0.334 6.269 1.410 0.949 0.398 4.057 1.281 0.833 0.009 5.238 1.620 0.940
Ecal/Eexp
Before 0.291 3.118 1.013 0.477 0.217 6.427 1.484 1.032 0.538 4.006 1.789 0.814 0.913 5.827 2.066 0.985 1.077 5.845 2.691 1.014
Reaching
52
Ecal/Eexp
After 0.415 2.205 1.064 0.356 1.087 1.466 1.256 0.105 1.481 2.435 1.878 0.274 2.442 3.988 3.109 0.480 4.073 14.493 6.829 2.163
90 87 90 31 49
Reaching
Ebackbone
Before 0.010 0.546 0.150 0.095 0.003 0.485 0.156 0.091 0.007 0.666 0.176 0.109 0.022 0.498 0.212 0.117 0.022 0.987 0.342 0.219
Reaching
Ebackbone
After 0.024 1.349 0.348 0.261 0.011 1.176 0.316 0.227 0.016 1.451 0.313 0.253 0.010 1.206 0.350 0.284 0.026 2.441 0.094 0.430
Reaching
Kcal/Kexp 0.278 3.276 1.156 0.514 0.494 5.663 1.521 0.753 0.667 3.912 1.669 0.674 1.050 5.559 2.225 1.062 0.858 8.139 3.289 1.631
I range
Error
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
Parameters
Num Min Max Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD
Fcal/Fexp 0.275 1.607 1.127 0.161 0.068 1.528 1.105 0.202 0.453 2.074 1.138 0.211 0.369 1.945 1.226 0.267 0.902 3.130 1.484 0.376
Dcal/Dexp 0.003 3.759 0.956 0.732 0.005 4.344 0.914 0.874 0.079 4.707 1.196 1.034 0.289 4.169 1.497 0.973 0.021 5.238 1.894 1.051
Ecal/Eexp
Before 0.566 3.096 1.133 0.423 0.222 6.921 1.566 1.353 0.799 3.887 1.747 0.754 0.615 3.622 2.031 0.858 0.512 5.488 2.709 1.151
Reaching
53
Ecal/Eexp
After 0.432 2.205 1.032 0.319 0.312 3.464 1.343 0.634 0.687 4.144 1.774 0.766 0.885 6.677 2.922 1.549 1.142 15.62 5.576 3.160
90 87 90 31 49
Reaching
Ebackbone
Before 0.004 0.804 0.221 0.153 0.011 0.807 0.305 0.196 0.009 0.627 0.235 0.145 0.076 0.599 0.305 0.139 0.038 0.890 0.345 0.180
Reaching
Ebackbone
After 0.044 1.157 0.386 0.221 0.002 1.217 0.347 0.232 0.526 1.157 0.302 0.212 0.003 1.001 0.409 0.274 0.022 2.158 0.731 0.391
Reaching
Kcal/Kexp 0.413 2.923 1.606 0.592 0.737 4.088 2.043 0.895 0.927 5.494 2.075 0.844 1.386 6.015 2.564 1.224 0.808 7.620 3.536 1.846
I range
Error
0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 >1.0
Parameters
Num Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD Num. Min. Max. Mean SD
Fcal/Fexp 0.787 1.799 1.140 0.163 0.811 1.608 1.151 0.152 0.807 2.142 1.164 0.199 0.829 1.773 1.250 0.223 0.895 3.267 1.531 0.367
Dcal/Dexp 0.289 4.441 1.072 0.687 0.259 6.737 1.349 1.091 0.173 6.269 1.499 1.213 0.289 4.169 1.497 0.974 0.325 5.238 1.974 0.934
Ecal/Eexp
Before 0.454 3.208 1.126 0.444 0.283 7.509 1.512 0.063 0.845 3.904 1.788 0.749 0.494 4.613 2.101 0.911 0.527 5.491 2.783 1.086
Reaching
54
Ecal/Eexp
After 0.484 2.267 1.118 0.316 0.594 3.647 1.408 0.528 0.717 4.280 1.775 0.746 1.061 6.699 2.884 1.564 1.237 15.78 5.565 3.116
90 87 90 31 49
Reaching
Ebackbone
Before 0.017 0.674 0.181 0.110 0.013 0.620 0.202 0.131 0.021 0.654 0.219 0.129 0.101 0.696 0.289 0.132 0.042 0.972 0.359 0.188
Reaching
Ebackbone
After 0.015 1.395 0.325 0.225 0.015 0.770 0.283 0.185 0.156 1.226 0.296 0.219 0.041 1.008 0.398 0.266 0.069 2.268 0.747 0.409
Reaching
Kcal/Kexp 0.392 3.667 1.532 0.73 0.608 6.475 1.870 0.989 0.872 5.760 2.074 0.886 1.372 4.818 2.363 0.822 0.806 8.723 3.604 1.960
4.4 Summary
The proposed force-based beam-column element and the lumped-plasticity column are
evaluated in this chapter. With the aid of the indicator I and various measures of accuracy,
the efficiency of the numerical models can be quantified and thus facilitate future
simulations based on the fiber-section element. All observations can be concluded as
follows:
1. Using the Model 3 (force-based beam-column element with BGL concrete model) to
simulate hysterical response of RC columns will encounter terrible convergence problem.
Therefore, it is not recommended to use such model for the simulation of RC columns
subjected to cyclic load reversals.
2. Indicator I is capable of roughly identifying whether a column is shear-critical or

flexure-critical. Clear trend can be observed in figures of the peak force ratio, energy
ratio, and stiffness ratio versus I. Specifically, the proposed fiber section models tend to
overestimate peak force, energy dissipation and initial stiffness of RC columns with
higher I values.
3. Mander's concrete model and Braga's concrete model exhibit quite similar
performances on predicting the enhancement applied by transverse reinforcement to the
confined concrete. However, subtle differences still exist when predicting the
after-yielding hysteresis response of RC columns. Fig. 4-21shows lateral force-tip
displacement curves of a flexure-critical RC cantilever column subjected to lateral cyclic
load reversals obtained by force-based beam-column element model with two different
confined concrete models. It can be found that both models have similar responses before
reaching peak forces. However, the deterioration rate of the Braga's model is higher than
that based on the Mander's model.
55
150 150
Numerical Numerical
100 100
Force/kN 50 50
Force/kN
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
(a) (b)
Fig.4- 21 Comparison of models with different confined concrete models
(a) Force-based beam-column element with Mander's model
(b) Force-based beam-column element with Braga's model
4. The force-based beam-column element is only good at prediction of the peak forces.
When it comes to other aspects like energy dissipation and initial stiffness, results tends
to scatter and are completely overestimated. On the contrary, comprehensively
considering all measures of accuracy, the lumped-plasticity column model shows better
performance, especially on the initial stiffness which will directly or indirectly affect the
calculated peak force, absorbed energy as well as backbone.
56
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
As a part of study to understand accuracy and statistical variation of commonly available

numerical models for RC frame elements, this project was to develop and evaluate
fiber-section element in modelling RC columns subjected to cyclic loading. Without any
calibrations, the models were compared with observed cyclic global force-deformation
responses of 353 RC columns in PEER database. Several measures of accuracy and an
error indicator I were defined for quantification of the observations. These quantified
results can thus be easily utilized by practitioners for future modelling.
In this project, two modeling strategies were developed and compared with each other.
One is the force-based beam-column element and the other is the lumped plasticity
element. In addition, two widely used confined concrete models were also discussed.
Following conclusions and recommendations are made about the cyclic response of the
proposed models, which can also be used as a guideline for practitioners in modelling RC
columns with fiber-section elements.
1. With quite similar performance on considering strength enhancement of the confined

concrete, both Mander's model and Braga's model can be adopted to the fiber-section
models.
2. Regardless good prediction of the force-based beam-column element in peak forces,

the lumped plasticity element exhibit better performance on predicting the hysteretic
response of RC columns from low cycles up to comparatively large deformation.
3. Higher I value indicates higher probability of a column to fail in shear. With the
increase of I, numerical results tend to deviate from the actual ones. Therefore,
reasonable results can only be obtained for columns with I values less than 0.75.
4. Statistic analyses of columns within different I ranges are shown in Fig. 4-14 to Fig.
4-20 and Table 4-1 to Table 4-4. If the I value of a column is obtained, approximate
57
modelling errors by using fiber-section element can be directly found from the figures
and tables without running analysis.
5. Analytical procedures are established for decision-making:

a) Determine moment and shear capacities (M and V) of the column based on the
Canadian Code (CSA Standard A23.3-04).
M
b) Calculate I  ;
V L
c) Based on the indicator I, possible errors can be obtained by checking corresponding
figures and tables.
d) Detailed analytical procedures can be undertaken thereafter if the predicted errors are
acceptable. Otherwise, other modelling approaches should be used.
It is worth nothing that factors such as bar slip, buckling, and opening and closing of
cracks with recovery of stiffness are not included in the proposed models. Therefore, the
proposed models and criteria can be modified and improved to account for those
phenomena in the future.
58
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318. (2005). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (318R-05).” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
CSA Standard A23.3-04. (2006). Concrete Design Handbook. Cement Association of Canada.
Alath, S., Kunnath, S. (1995). “Modeling Inelastic Shear Deformation in RC Beam-Column Joints.”
Proceeding of the 10th Conference on Engineering Mechanics, University of Colorado at Boulder,
Boulder, CO, 822- 825.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). “FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for The
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.” FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2006). “FEMA 445: Next-Generation Performance-Based

Seismic Design Guidelines.” FEMA 445, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Bae, S., and Bayrak, O. (2008). “Plastic Hinge Length of Reinforced Concrete Columns.” ACI Structural
Journal, 105(3), 290-300.
Baker, A. L. L. (1956). “Ultimate Load Theory Applied to The Design of Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Frames.” Concrete Publications Ltd., London, UK.
Banon, H., Biggs, J. and Irvine, M. (1981). “Seismic Damage in Reinforced Concrete Frames.” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 107(ST9), 1713-1729.
Berry, M., Parrish, M., and Eberhard, M. (2004). “PEER Structural Performance Database User’s Manual.”
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Braga, F., Gigliotti, R., and Laterza, M. (2006). “Analytical stress-strain relationship for concrete confined
by steel stirrups and/or FRP jackets.” Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 132(9), 1402-16.
Bresler, B., and Gilbert, P. H. (1961). “Tie Requirements for Reinforced Concrete Columns.” ACI Journal,
58(5), 555-570.
Brzev, S., and Pao, J. (2009). Reinforced Concrete Design: A Practical Approach. Pearson Education
Canada, Inc. Toronto, Ontario.
Clough, R. and Benuska, L. (1967). “Nonlinear Earthquake Behavior of Tall Building.” Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, ASCE, 93(EM3), 129-146.
Clough, R. and Johnston, S. (1996). “Effect of Stiffness Degradation on Earthquake Ductility

Requirements.” Transactions of Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, 195-198.
Dhakal, R., and Maekawa, K. (2002). “Reinforcement Stability and Fracture of Cover Concrete in
Reinforced Concrete Members.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(10), 1253-1262.
Eligehausen, R., Popov, E., and Bertero, V. (1983). “Local Bond Stress-Slip Relationships of Deformed
Bars under Generalized Excitations,” UCB/EERC Report 83-23, University of California, Berkeley.
59
Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. O. (2006). “Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns.”
Research Digest of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2006-01, March 2006.
Filippou, F.C, and Issa, A. (1988). “Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames under Cyclic Load
Reversals.” EERC Report 88-12, Earthquake Engineering. Research Center, Berkeley.
Fleury, F., Reynouard, J. M., and Merebet, O. (2000). “Multicomponent Model of Reinforced Concrete
Joints for Cyclic Loading.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(8), 804-811.
Giberson, M. (1967). “The Response of Nonlinear Multi-Story Structures Subjected to Earthquake

Excitations.” Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, Pasadena.
Gilard, C., and Bastien, J. (2002). “Finite-Element Bond-Slip Model for Concrete Columns under Cyclic
Loads.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128(12), 1502-1510.
Hiraishi, H., and Kawashima T. (1970). “Deformation Behavior of Shear Walls after Flexural Yielding.” 9th
WCEE, Tokyo, Kyoto, 8, 653-658.
Kabeyasawa, T. H., Shiohara, S., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H. (1982). “Analysis of The Full-Scale 7-Story
R.C. Test Structure.” The 3rd Joint Technical Coordinating Committee, U.S. Japan Cooperative
Earthquake Research Program, Building Research Institute, Tsukuba.
Karsan, I. D., and Jirsa, J. O. (1969). “Behavior of Concrete under Compressive Loadings.” Journal of
Structural Division ASCE, 95(12), 2543-63.
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. (1999). “Shear and Flexure Behavior of Lightweight
Concrete Bridge Columns in Seismic Regions.” ACI Structural Journal, 96(1), 136-148.
Linde, P., and Bachmann, H. (1994). “Dynamic Modeling and Design of Earthquake-Resistant Walls.”
Journal of Earthquake and Structural Dynamics, 23(12), 1331-1350.
Lowes, L. N., and Altoontash, A. (2003). “Modeling Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Subjected
to Cyclic Loading.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(12), 1686-1697.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined
Concrete.” Journal of structural Engineering ASCE, 114(8), 1804-1825.
Marini, A., and Spacone, E. (2006). “Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Elements Including Shear Effects.”
ACI Structural Journal, 103(5), 545-55.
Mazzoni, S., Mckenna, F., Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. (2007). “Opensees Command Language
Manual.”
Mitra, N., and Lowes, L. (2007). “Evaluation, Calibration, and Verification of A Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joint Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 133, 105-120.
Mohle, J., and Kunnath, S. (2006). “Reinforcing Steel: OpenSees User’s Manual.”
http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Monti, G., and Spacone, E. (2000). “Reinforced Concrete Fiber Beam Element with Bond-Slip.” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 126(6), 654-661.
60
Mostafaei, H. (2006). “Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction Approach for Displacement-Based Evaluation of
Reinforced Concrete Elements.” PhD dissertation, Faculty of Engineering, Architrave Department,
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Mullapudi, T. R., Ayoub, A. S., and Belarbi, A. (2008). “A Fiber Beam Element With Axial, Bending and
Shear Interaction for Seismic Analysis of RC Structures.” Proceeding of the 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Otani, S. (1974). “Inelastic Analysis of R/C Frame Structures.” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
100(ST7).
Pantazopoulou, S. J. (1998). “Detailing for Reinforcement Stability in Reinforced Concrete Members.”

Journal of the Structural Engineering, 124(6), 623-632.
Papia, M., and Russo, G. (1989). “Compressive Concrete Strain at Buckling of Longitudinal
Reinforcement.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 115(2), 382-397.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Petrangeli, M., Pinto, P.E., and Ciampi, V. (1999). “Fiber Element for Cyclic Bending and Shear of RC
Structures, I: Theory.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 125(9), 994-1001.
Popov, E., Bertero, V., and Krawinkler, H. (1972). “Cyclic Behavior of The R.C. Flexural Member with
High Shear.” UCB/EERC Report 72-5, University of California, Berkeley.
Saatcioglu, M., Alsiwat, J., and Ozcebe, G. (1992). “Hysteretic Behavior of Anchorage Slip in R/C
Members.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(9), 2439-2458.
Sakai, K., and Sheikh, S. A. (1989). “What Do We Know About Confinement in Reinforced Concrete
Columns? (A Critical Review of Previous Work and Code Provisions).” ACI Structural Journal,
86(2), 192-207.
Scott, M., and Fenves, G. (2006). “Plastic-Hinge Integration Methods for Force-Based Beam-Column
Elements.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 132(2), 244-252.
Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982). “Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete Confined by
Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates.” ACI Journal, 79(2), 13-27.
Scribner, C. F. (1986). “Reinforcement Buckling in Reinforced Concrete Flexure Members.” ACI Journal,
83(6), 966-973.
Setzler, E.J., and Sezen, H. (2008). “Model for The Lateral Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns
Including Shear Deformations.” Earthquake Spectra, 24(2), 493-511.
Sheikh, S. A., and Uzmeri, S. M. (1980). “Strength and Ductility of Tied Concrete Columns.” ASCE
Journal of Structural Division, 106(5), 1079-1102.
Shima, H., Chou, L., and Okamura, H. (1987). “Bond-Slip-Strain Relationship of Deformed Bars
Embedded in Massive Concrete,” Concrete Library of JSCE, 10, 79-94.
61
Shirai, N., Moriizumi, K., Terasawa, K. (2001). “Cyclic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns:
Macro-Element Approach, Modeling of Inelastic Behavior of RC Structures under Seismic Load.”
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 435-453.
Soleimani, D., Popov, E.P. and Bertero, V.V. (1979). “Nonlinear Beam Model for R/C Frame Analysis.”
7th ASCE Conference on Electronic Computation, St. Louis
Spacone, E., Ciampi, V., and Filippou, F. C. (1996). “Mixed Formulation of Nonlinear Beam Finite
Element.” Computer & Structures, 58, 71-83.
Taucer, F.F., Spacone, E., and Filippou, F.C. (1991). “A Fiber Beam-Column Element for Seismic
Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures.” UCB/EERC Report 91/17, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Takayanagi, T., and Schnobrich, W. (1979). “Non Linear Analysis of Coupled Wall Systems.” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 7, 1-22.
Takeda, T., Sozen, M.A. and Nielsen, N. (1970). “Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated
Earthquakes.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 96(ST 12), 2557-2573.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986). “The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced
Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear.” ACI Journal, Proceedings 83(2), March-April, 219-231.
Vulcano, A., Bertero, V. V., Colotti, V. (1988). “Analytical Modeling of RC Structural Walls.” The 9th
World Conference o Earthquake Engineering, V. 6, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 41-46.
Zhao, J., and Sritharan, S. (2007). “Modeling of Strain Penetration Effects in Fiber-Based Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Structures.” ACI Structural Journal, 104(2), 133-141.
62
APPENDIX A: OpenSees Script
wipe;
file mkdir Data;
model BasicBuilder -ndm 2 -ndf 3;
set LunitTXT "mm";
set FunitTXT "MPa";
set TunitTXT "sec";
set ACol [expr $BCol*$HCol];
set y1 0.;
set y2 $LCol;
node 1 0 $y1;
node 2 0 $y2;
fix 1 1 1 1;
set IDctrlNode 2;
set IDctrlDOF 1;
set iSupportNode "1";
set ColSecTag 1;
set IDconcCover 1;
set IDconcCore 2;
set IDreinf 3;
set IDconcConfined1 4
set barAreaCol [expr 3.141*pow($philon,2)/4];

set bc [expr ($BCol-2*$coverCol)-$phis];
set dc [expr ($HCol-2*$coverCol)-$phis];
set Wtb [expr $bc/($numBarsColtop-1)-$philon];
set Wmid [expr $dc/($numBarsColmid+1)-$philon];
set Ssc [expr $Ss-$phis];
set AlongBars [expr 3.14*pow($philon,2)/4];
set AtransBars [expr 3.14*pow($phis,2)/4];
set Pcc [expr $numBars*$AlongBars/($bc*$dc)];
set KE [expr
(1-(($numBarsColtop-1)*2*pow($Wtb,2)+($numBarsColmid+1)*2*pow($Wmid,2))/(6*$bc*$dc))*(1-$Ss
c/(2*$bc))*(1-$Ssc/(2*$dc))/(1-$Pcc)];
set ph [expr $numBarstransh*$dc]
set pb [expr $numBarstransb*$bc]
set transleng $ph
if {$ph < $pb} {
set transleng $pb
};
set P1 [expr $transleng*$AtransBars/($bc*$dc*$Ss)];

set fl [expr $KE*$P1*$fyh];
set Kfc [expr 2.254*pow((1+7.94*$fl/(-1*$fc)),0.5)-2*$fl/(-1*$fc)-1.254];
set Kres 0.2;

set fc1C [expr $Kfc*$fc];
set eps1C [expr -1*0.002*(1+5*($Kfc-1))];
set fc2C [expr $Kres*$fc1C];
63
set eps2C [expr -1*(0.004+0.9*$ps*$fyh/300)];
if {$eps2C > -0.02} {
set eps2C -0.02
}
set lambda 0.1;
set fc1U $fc;

set eps1U -0.002;
set fc2U [expr 0.2*$fc1U];
set eps2U -0.02;
set lambda 0.1;
set ftU [expr -0.10*$fc1U];
set Ets [expr $ftU/0.002];
set fpc $fc
set ec $Ec
set epscu [expr 0.004+0.9*$ps*$fyh/300]
if {$epscu < 0.02} {
set epscu 0.02
}
if {$SecType == 1} {
set SecType S1
} elseif {$SecType == 2} {
set SecType S2
set SecType S3
set SecType S4a
set SecType S4b
set SecType S5
set SecType R
}
set Eso 200000

set haratio 0.02
set mu 1000
set Es 200000;
set Bs 0.02;
set R0 18;
set cR1 0.925;
set cR2 0.15;
set Abar [expr 3.14*pow($philon,2)/4]
set Lpi [expr (0.3*$alr+3*$numBars*$Abar/$ACol-0.1)*$LCol+0.25*$HCol];
if {$Lpi < [expr 0.25*$HCol]} {
set Lpi [expr 0.25*$HCol]
}
set IzCol [expr (1./12.*$BCol*pow($HCol,3))];

if {$alr <= 0.2} {
set Ieff [expr $IzCol*0.2]
} elseif {$alr > 0.2 && $alr <= 0.5} {
set Ieff [expr $IzCol*(5/3*$alr-4/30)]
64
} elseif {$alr > 0.5} {
set Ieff [expr $IzCol*0.7]
}
uniaxialMaterial Concrete02 $IDconcCover $fc1U $eps1U $fc2U $eps2U $lambda $ftU $Ets;
uniaxialMaterial Concrete02 $IDconcCore $fc1C $eps1C $fc2C $eps2C $lambda $ftU $Ets;
uniaxialMaterial Steel02 $IDreinf $Fy $Es $Bs $R0 $cR1 $cR2;
if {$L2 != 0 && $L3 != 0} {

uniaxialMaterial ConfinedConcrete01 $IDconcConfined1 $SecType $fpc $ec -epscu $epscu -varub $L1
$L2 $L3 $phis $Ss $fyh $Eso $haratio $mu $philon
} elseif {$L2 == 0 && $L3 != 0} {
$L3 $phis $Ss $fyh $Eso $haratio $mu $philon
} elseif {$L2 != 0 && $L3 == 0} {
$L2 $phis $Ss $fyh $Eso $haratio $mu $philon
} else {
$phis $Ss $fyh $Eso $haratio $mu $philon
}
set ColSecTagFiberC1 1;
set ColSecTagFiberU 2;
set ColSecTagFiberC0 3;
set coverY [expr $HCol/2.0];
set coverZ [expr $BCol/2.0];
set coreY [expr $coverY-$coverCol]
set coreZ [expr $coverZ-$coverCol]
set midpoint [expr ($HCol-2*$coverCol-$phis)/($numBarsColmid+1)+$coverCol+$phis/2]
set coremidY [expr $coverY-$midpoint]
set nfCoreY 15;

set nfCoreZ 15;
set nfCoverY 15;
set nfCoverZ 15;
section fiberSec $ColSecTagFiberC1 {
patch quadr $IDconcCore $nfCoreZ $nfCoreY -$coreY $coreZ -$coreY -$coreZ $coreY
-$coreZ $coreY $coreZ
patch quadr $IDconcCover 2 $nfCoverY -$coverY $coverZ -$coreY $coreZ $coreY $coreZ
$coverY $coverZ
patch quadr $IDconcCover 2 $nfCoverY -$coreY -$coreZ -$coverY -$coverZ $coverY
-$coverZ $coreY -$coreZ
patch quadr $IDconcCover $nfCoverZ 2 -$coverY $coverZ -$coverY -$coverZ -$coreY
-$coreZ -$coreY $coreZ
patch quadr $IDconcCover $nfCoverZ 2 $coreY $coreZ $coreY -$coreZ $coverY -$coverZ
$coverY $coverZ
layer straight $IDreinf $numBarsColtop $barAreaCol $coreY $coreZ $coreY -$coreZ; # top
layer reinfocement
layer straight $IDreinf $numBarsColbot $barAreaCol -$coreY $coreZ -$coreY -$coreZ; #
bottom layer reinforcement
if {$numBarsColmid != 0} {
layer straight $IDreinf $numBarsColmid $barAreaCol -$coremidY $coreZ $coremidY $coreZ;
# top layer reinfocement
layer straight $IDreinf $numBarsColmid $barAreaCol -$coremidY -$coreZ $coremidY
-$coreZ; # top layer reinfocement
65
}
};
set ColTransfTag 1;
geomTransf PDelta $ColTransfTag ;
set numIntgrPts 5;
element beamWithHinges 1 1 2 $ColSecTagFiberC1 $Lpi $ColSecTagFiberC1 0 $Ec $ACol $Ieff
$ColTransfTag
recorder Node -file Data/DFree.out -node 2 -dof 1 disp; # displacements of free nodes
recorder Node -file Data/RBase.out -node 1 -dof 1 reaction; # support reaction
pattern Plain 1 Linear {

load 2 0 -$PCol 0
}
set Tol 1.0e-8;

constraints Plain;
numberer Plain;
system BandGeneral;
test NormDispIncr $Tol 6 ;
algorithm Newton;
set NstepGravity 10;
set DGravity [expr 1./$NstepGravity];
integrator LoadControl $DGravity;
analysis Static;
analyze $NstepGravity;
loadConst -time 0.0
puts "Model Built"

set Fact $LCol ;
pattern Plain 3 Linear {;

load 2 300000 0.0 0.0;
}
variable constraintsType Lagrange;

constraints $constraintsType;
variable numbererType Plain

numberer $numbererType
variable systemType BandGeneral;

system $systemType;
variable Tol 1.e-8;

variable maxNumIter 10;
variable printFlag 0;
variable testType NormDispIncr;
test $testType $Tol $maxNumIter $printFlag;
variable algorithmType Newton;

algorithm $algorithmType;
66
set fmt1 "%s Cyclic analysis: CtrlNode %.3i, dof %.1i, Disp=%.4f %s";
set zeroD 0
set D0 0.0
foreach Dstep $iDstep {
set D1 $Dstep
set Dincr [expr ($D1 - $D0)]
set NstepsPeak 1;
set dx [expr $Dincr/$NstepsPeak]
for {set i 1} {$i <= $NstepsPeak} {incr i 1} {;
integrator DisplacementControl $IDctrlNode $IDctrlDOF $dx

analysis Static
set ok [analyze 1]
if {$ok != 0} {
if {$ok != 0} {
puts "Trying Newton with Initial Tangent .."
test EnergyIncr $Tol 6000 0
algorithm Newton -initial
set ok [analyze 1]
test $testType $Tol $maxNumIter 0
algorithm $algorithmType
}
if {$ok != 0} {
puts "Trying Broyden .."
algorithm Broyden 8
set ok [analyze 1 ]
}
if {$ok != 0} {
puts "Trying NewtonWithLineSearch .."
algorithm NewtonLineSearch 0.8
set ok [analyze 1]
}
if {$ok != 0} {
puts "Trying ModifiedNewton"
algorithm ModifiedNewton
set ok [analyze 1]
}
if {$ok != 0} {
set putout [format $fmt1 "PROBLEM" $IDctrlNode $IDctrlDOF [nodeDisp
$IDctrlNode $IDctrlDOF] $LunitTXT]
puts $putout
return -1
};
};
}
set D0 $D1;
};
if {$ok != 0 } {
puts [format $fmt1 "PROBLEM" $IDctrlNode $IDctrlDOF [nodeDisp $IDctrlNode $IDctrlDOF]
$LunitTXT]
67
} else {
puts [format $fmt1 "DONE" $IDctrlNode $IDctrlDOF [nodeDisp $IDctrlNode $IDctrlDOF]
$LunitTXT]
}
68

MEng - Huang - Utoronto - Fibre Section Modeling of RC Columns Subjected To Cyclic Loading - 2012

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MEng - Huang - Utoronto - Fibre Section Modeling of RC Columns Subjected To Cyclic Loading - 2012

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Applicability Criteria Of

Fiber-Section Elements For The Modelling Of

RC Columns Subjected To Cyclic Loading

A report submitted in conformity with requirements

for the degree of Master of Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

Numerous modeling strategies were developed for nonlinear analysis of reinforced

Table 1- 1 Input Data .................................................................................................................... 10

Table 4- 1 Statistic results of the Model 1 .................................................................................... 51

Fig. 1- 1 A three-story RC building represented by the global model ............................................ 3

Fig.4- 4 Numerical and experimental force-displacement curves of ............................................ 38

Fig.4- 10 Numerical and experimental force-displacement curves of .......................................... 43

Fig.4- 12 Numerical and experimental force-displacement curves of .......................................... 44

Fig.4- 15 Boxplot of Dcal / Dexp versus I................................................................................... 46

Fig.4- 20 Boxplot of K cal / K exp versus I .................................................................................. 50

Fig.4- 21 Comparison of models with different confined concrete models .................................. 56

1.2 Modeling Strategies

1.3 Discrete finite element models

1.3.1 Lumped models

Fig. 1- 2 Lumped model developed by Clough and Johnston (1967)

1.3.2 Distributed models

Fig. 1‐ 3 Fiber‐section model

1.4 Modeling of RC elements

As mentioned above, distributed models especially the force-based element provide a

1.4.1 Beam-column element

Fig. 1- 4 Subelements in the model developed by Filippou and Issa (1988)

Force-based element developed by Spacone et al. (1996) enables material nonlinear

1.4.2 Beam-column joints

Reinforced concrete beam-column joint is considered to be very critical when structure

Fig. 1- 6 RC beam-column joint model by Lowes and Altoontash (2003)

1.4.3 RC shear walls

1.5 PEER Database

Table 1- 1 Input Data

Table 1- 2 Column Property Statistics

This project focuses on analyses of reinforced concrete columns using fiber-section

This project is mainly composed of following parts:

 Chapter 1. Introduction: Review historical development of numerical modeling for

 Chapter 2. RC Column Behavior and Modeling: Summarize column behavior and

 Chapter 3. RC Column Modeling Strategies: Two modeling strategies are developed

 Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations: Summarize major achievement of

2.1 Material Constitutive Relationships

Similar to other composite materials, reinforced concrete exhibits specific mechanical

One is modifying the Concrete02 material model available in OpenSees by amplifying

Fig. 2- 1 Stress-strain relationship of Concrete02 material.

In Mander’s concrete model, the stress-strain relationship of confined concrete is

7.94 f l ' fl'

For spirals or circular hoops

reinforcement to area of core of section;  s is the ratio of the volume of transverse

of the transverse reinforcement.

For rectangular hoops

In addition to compressive strength and corresponding strain, it also requires to provide a

 cu of the unconfined concrete is assumed to be 0.004.

2.1.2 Reinforcing Steel

Most cases, the reinforcing steel is assumed to be an elastic-perfectly plastic material.

2.2 Strain Penetration

2.3 Shear deformation

The total lateral deformation of a column is composed of three contributions: flexure,

2.4 Hysteretic Deterioration

3.1 Force-based Beam-Column Model

In this strategy, force-based beam-column element called Force-based Beam-Column

Fig. 3- 1 Force-based beam-column element

Ec  4700 f c' ( MPa ) (3-1)

Where f c' is the specified 28-day compressive strength of concrete, MPa.

set P1 [expr $transleng$AtransBars/($bc$dc*$Ss)];

set IzCol [expr (1./12.$BColpow($HCol,3))];