Performance Modeling Strategies

Performance Modeling Strategies

for Modern Reinforced Concrete
for Modern Reinforced Concrete
Bridge Columns
Bridge Columns
Michael P. Berry
Marc O. Eberhard
University of Washington
Project funded by the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)
UW
UW
-
-
PEER Structural
PEER Structural
Performance Database
Performance Database
Nearly 500 Columns
spiral or circular hoop-reinforced columns (~180)
rectangular reinforced columns (~300)
Column geometry, material properties,
reinforcing details, loading
Digital Force-Displacement Histories
Observations of column damage
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd
Users Manual (Berry and Eberhard, 2004)
Objective of Research
Objective of Research
Develop, calibrate, and evaluate column modeling
strategies that are capable of accurately
modeling bridge column behavior under seismic
loading.
Global deformations
Local deformations (strains and rotations)
Progression of damage
Advanced Modeling Strategies
Advanced Modeling Strategies
F
Force-Based Fiber
Beam Column Element
(Flexure)
Lumped-
Plasticity
Force-Based Fiber
Beam Column Element
(Flexure)
Fiber Section at each
integration point with
Aggregated Elastic
Shear
Zero Length Section
(Bond Slip)
Elastic Portion of Beam
(A, EI )
to Plastic Hinge
eff
Lp
Distributed-
Plasticity
Cross
Cross
-
-
Section Modeling
Section Modeling
Cross
Cross
-
-
Section Modeling Components
Section Modeling Components
Concrete Material Model
Reinforcing Steel
Material Model
Cross-Section
Discretization Strategy
Concrete Material Model
Concrete Material Model
Popovics Curve with Mander et. al. Constants and
Added Tension Component (Concrete04)
Reinforcing Steel Material Models
Reinforcing Steel Material Models
Giufre-Menegotto-Pinto
(Steel02)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0
0.5
1
1.5

/
f
y

s
Bilinear
Measured
E
s
* b
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0
0.5
1
1.5

s

/
f
y ,
Measured
Kunnath
Mohle and Kunnath
(ReinforcingSteel)
Section Fiber
Section Fiber
Discretization
Discretization
Objective: Use as few fibers as possible to eliminate the effects
of discretization
Cover-Concrete
Fibers
Core-Concrete
Fibers
Longitudinal Steel
Fibers
0 1 2 3 4
x 10
-4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
x 10
5
(1/mm)
M
o
m
e
n
t

(
K
N
-
m
m
)
Radial
Unilateral

y
Ratio
M
5
y
Ratio
M
10
y
Ratio
Cross
Cross
-
-
Section Fiber
Section Fiber
Discretization
Discretization
Uniform (220 Fibers)
10
20
r
c
t
c
n
n
=
=
1
20
r
u
t
u
n
n
=
=
Confined
Unconfined
Reduced Fiber
Reduced Fiber
Discretization
Discretization
Uniform (220 Fibers)
Nonuniform Strategies
Cross
Cross
-
-
Section Fiber
Section Fiber
Discretization
Discretization
5
20
2
10
r
fine
t
fine
r
coarse
t
coarse
n
n
n
n
=
=
=
=
1
20
r
u
t
u
n
n
=
=
Confined Unconfined
Uniform (220 Fibers)
Reduced (140 Fibers)
10
20
r
c
t
c
n
n
=
=
1
20
r
u
t
u
n
n
=
=
Confined
Unconfined
r/2
Modeling with Distributed
Modeling with Distributed
-
-
Plasticity Element
Plasticity Element
Model Components
Model Components
Force-Based Fiber
Beam Column Element
(Flexure)
Fiber Section at each
integration point with
Aggregated Elastic
Shear
Zero Length Section
(Bond Slip)
Flexure Model (Force-Based
Beam-Column)
nonlinearBeamColumn
Fiber section
Popovics Curve (Mander constants)
Giufre-Menegotto-Pinto (b)
Number of Integration Points (Np)
Anchorage-Slip Model
zeroLengthSection
Fiber section
Reinforcement tensile stress-
deformation response from Lehman
et. al. (1998) bond model ()
Effective depth in compression (d
comp
)
Shear Model
section Aggregator
Elastic Shear ()
Model Optimization
Model Optimization
Objective: Determine model parameters such that the error between
measured and calculated global and local responses are minimized.
( )
( ) ( )
2
1
2
max
n
meas calc
push
meas
F F
E
F n

( )
( ) ( )
2
1
2
max
n
meas calc
strain
meas
E
n

Model Evaluation
Model Evaluation
. .
meas
calc
K
S R
K
=
_ 4%
_ 4%
. .
meas
calc
M
M R
M
=
mean 14.89 6.73 7.78 14.4 1.02 1.03
cov (%) 15 8
total
E
push
E
(0 / 2) D
strain
E
( / 2 ) D D
strain
E

. . S R
. . M R
Optimized Model:
Strain Hardening Ratio, b = 0.01
Number of Integration Points, N
p
= 5
Bond-Strength Ratio, = 0.875
Bond-Compression Depth,
d
comp
=1/2 N.A. Depth at 0.002 comp
strain
Shear Stiffness = 0.4
Modeling with Lumped
Modeling with Lumped
-
-
Plasticity Element
Plasticity Element
Lumped
Lumped
-
-
Plasticity Model
Plasticity Model
Fiber Section assigned
to Plastic Hinge
Elastic Portion of Beam
(A, EI )
Lp
eff
Hinge Model Formulation:
beamwithHinges3
Force Based Beam Column Element
with Integration Scheme Proposed by
Scott and Fenves, 2006.
Fiber Section
Elastic Section Properties
Elastic Area, A
Effective Section Stiffness, EI
eff
Calculated Plastic-Hinge Length
L
p
Section Stiffness Calibration
Section Stiffness Calibration
mean 1.00 1.00
cov (%) 19 16
Stiffness Ratio Stats
eff
EI =
sec sec
calc
EI
calc
g c g
E I
Plastic
Plastic
-
-
Hinge Length Calibration
Hinge Length Calibration
Cyclic Response
Cyclic Response
Cyclic Material Response
Cyclic Material Response
Cyclic response of the fiber-column model depends
on the cyclic response of the material models.
Current Methodologies
Do not account for cyclic degradation steel
Do not account for imperfect crack closure
Giufre-Menegotto-Pinto (with
Bauschinger Effect)
Steel02
Reinforcing Steel Confined and Unconfined Concrete
Karsan and Jirsa with Added
Tension Component
Concrete04
Evaluation of Response
Evaluation of Response
Lumped-Plasticity
Distributed-
Plasticity
E
f orce
(%) E
f orce
(%)
mean 16.13 15.66
min 6.63 6.47
max 44.71 46.05
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
/
y
F
o
r
c
e

(
K
N
)
Lehman No.415
Measured
OpenSees
Kunnath
Kunnath
and
and
Mohle
Mohle
Steel Material Model
Steel Material Model
Cyclic degradation according to Coffin and Manson Fatigue.
Model parameters:
Ductility Constant, C
f
Strength Reduction Constant, C
d
Preliminary Study with
Preliminary Study with
Kunnath
Kunnath
Steel
Steel
Model
Model
Ductility Constant, C
f
=0.4
Strength Reduction Constant, C
d
=0.4
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
/
y
F
o
r
c
e

(
K
N
)
Lehman No.415
Measured
OpenSees
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
/
y
F
o
r
c
e

(
K
N
)
Lehman No.415
Measured
OpenSees
Giufre-Menegotto-Pinto (with
Bauschinger Effect)
Kunnath and Mohle (2006)
Giufre-Menegotto-
Pinto
Kunnath and
Mohle
E
f orce
(%) E
f orce
(%)
mean 16.13 11.98
min 6.63 5.15
max 44.71 29.45
Continuing Work
Continuing Work
Imperfect Crack Closure
Drift Ratio Equations
Distributed-Plasticity Modeling Strategy
Lumped-Plasticity Modeling Strategy
Prediction of Flexural Damage
Key Statistics
Fragility Curves
Design
Recommendations
Evaluation of Modeling-Strategies for
Complex Loading
Bridge Bent (Purdue, 2006)
Unidirectional and Bi-directional Shake Table
(Hachem, 2003)
Thank you