Nonlinear Frame Finite Elements in OpenSees

Nonlinear Frame Finite Elements in OpenSees
Michael H. Scott
Associate Professor
School of Civil and Construction Engineering
OpenSeesDays Users Workshop

Richmond, CA
September 26, 2014
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSees Frame Elements
OpenSeesDays 2014
1 / 40
Types of Nonlinearity
Two sources of nonlinear frame element response:

Material yielding, strain hardening, crushing of concrete, etc.
Geometry loss of stability due to loads acting through large
displacements
An analysis can account for each source of nonlinearity

separately, giving four possible approaches
Material Linear (ML)
Material Nonlinear (MN)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
Geometry Linear (GL) Geometry Nonlinear (GN)

ML, GL
ML, GN
MN, GL
MN, GN
OpenSeesDays 2014
2 / 40
Steel Frame Pushover Analysis

150 kip
150 kip
1.33
300 kip
300 kip
15 ft
E
E
0.67
Beams: W18x76
Columns: W14x90
15 ft
y =36 ksi
E =30,000 ksi
=0.02
Vb = 2
30 ft
Simple steel frame model analyzed under four approahces

Relatively large column axial loads will intensify both material
and geometric nonlinear response for demonstration purposes
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
3 / 40

200
ML, GL
ML, GN
150
800
Base Shear (kip)
Base Shear (kip)
1000
600
400
200
0
0
MN, GL
100
MN, GN
50
MN, GL
MN, GN
10
20
Roof Displacement (in)
30
0
0
5
10
15
20
We observe the following:

Material nonlinearity kicks in well before geometric nonlinearity
Geometric nonlinearity allows for prediction of loss of stability for
increasing displacement
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
4 / 40
Section Force-Deformation Response

At each cross-section along a frame element, we must determine
the section forces for any given section deformations
Material nonlinearity eminates from the stress-strain response in
each frame element
Heuristic approach through stress-resultant section models, e.g.,
moment-curvature; or
Integrate stress-strain response via fiber section approach
y
x
Ai
(yi , zi )
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
5 / 40
Commands for Section Definition

uniaxialMaterial modelName $tag ...
Define uniaxial stress-strain models for use in Bernoulli beam
elements
Elastic, Steel01, Steel02, Concrete01, Concrete02, etc.
nDMaterial modelName $tag ...
Define multiaxial stress-strain models for use in Timoshenko
beam elements
ElasticIsotropic, J2Plasticity, ConcreteMCFT, etc.
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
6 / 40
Commands for Section Definition

General definition of Bernoulli cross-section using patches and
layers of fibers whose stress-strain response is defined by
uniaxialMaterial objects
section Fiber $tag {
patch $type $matTag ...
layer $type $matTag ...
fiber $matTag ...
...
}
Use NDFiber with nDMaterial objects instead of Fiber with
uniaxialMaterial objects for Timoshenko beams
Specific cross-sections obtained with canned models
section WFSection2d $tag $matTag ...
section RCSection2d $tag $matTag ...
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
7 / 40
Rectangular Steel Section

Rectangular section with EPP uniaxial stress-strain response
Compute moment-curvature response for increasing number of
fibers
Exact solution for My = fy bd 2 /6 and Mp = bd 2 /4
Nfiber
..
.
i
yi
d
..
.
d /2
2
1
b
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
8 / 40
Rectangular Steel Section

x 10
Moment (kip-in)
3
Yield
2
1
Exact
Computed
0
0
Moment (kip-in)
Nfiber = 2
0.2
x 10
0.4
0.6
Curvature (1/in)
0.8
Exact
Computed
0.4
0.6
Curvature (1/in)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
0.2
Yield
0.2
Exact
Computed
x 10
0
0
Yield
Nfiber = 4
Nfiber = 8
x 10
0
0
Moment (kip-in)
Moment (kip-in)
0.8
x 10
0.4
0.6
Curvature (1/in)
0.8
1
x 10
Nfiber = 16
3
Yield
2
1
0
0
x 10
Exact
Computed
0.2
0.4
0.6
Curvature (1/in)
0.8
OpenSeesDays 2014
1
x 10
9 / 40
Reinforced Concrete Section

EPP steel and Concrete01 concrete
Using canned RCSection2d command
Confined and unconfined concrete
24 in
2 in
Stress, fc
fcc
2 in
cc
cu
Strain, c
24 in
M.H. Scott (OSU)
fcu
OpenSeesDays 2014
10 / 40
Reinforced Concrete Section

Moment-curvature response for increasing levels of axial load
With and without confining effects of transverse reinforcement
Modify the Concrete01 input parameters for confined concrete
12000
10000
= 0.1
0.0
=
5000
= 0.2
Moment (kip-in)
Moment (kip-in)
15000
10000
= 0.3
= 0.2
= 0.1
8000
= 0.0
6000
4000
2000
0
0
0.5
1
Curvature (1/in)
= 0.3
1.5
x 10
(c) Without Confining Effects

M.H. Scott (OSU)
0
0
0.5
1
Curvature (1/in)
1.5
x 10
(d) With Confining Effects
OpenSeesDays 2014
11 / 40
Numerical Integration of Element Response

For most material nonlinear element formulations, cross-section
response is integrated numerically along the frame element
length in order to determine element force-deformation response
Sections located at discrete points along the element length,
each with a prescribed weight
Highly accurate Gauss-based quadrature commonly used
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
w1
w2
w3
w4
w5
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
12 / 40
Displacement-Based Frame Element

element dispBeamColumn $tag $ndI $ndJ $transfTag Legendre $secTag 2
Strict compatibility
Linear axial and cubic Hermitian transverse displacement fields
Constant axial deformation and linear curvature along element
length
Weak equilibrium
Equilibrium satisfied only at the nodes, not at every section
along the element
Two-point Gauss-Legendre integration along element length
Improve numerical solution by using more elements per member

(mesh- or h-refinement)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
13 / 40
Propped Cantilever
Constant axial load and increasing moment applied at propped
end
Fiber-discretized section response with strain-hardening
stress-strain
Two Gauss-points per element
Investigate refinement for increasing number of elements
M
y
N
E
E
100 in
10 web fibers
1
...
2 fibers each flange

Nele -1
Nele
W14x90
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
14 / 40
Global Response
Moment, M (kip-in)
Nele = 1
Nele = 1
15000
15000
10000
10000
5000
0
0
5000
Computed
Exact
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
Deflection, U (in)
Moment, M (kip-in)
Nele = 2
15000
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0
0.4
Moment, M (kip-in)
Nele = 4
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0.05
0.1
0.15
Rotation, (rad)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
0.3
0.2
Nele = 4
15000
0
0
0.2
Nele = 2
0.2
0
0.4
OpenSeesDays 2014
15 / 40
Local Flexural Response

x 10
Computed
Exact
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
5
0
20
40
60
x (in)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
80
100
80
100
80
100
80
100
60
Nele = 2
20
40
60
Nele = 4
40
Nele = 4
20
x 10
1
0
M(x) (kip-in)
10
x 10
Nele = 2
x 10
1
0
M(x) (kip-in)
(x) (1/in)
10
x 10
Nele = 1
5
0
(x) (1/in)
Nele = 1
M(x) (kip-in)
(x) (1/in)
10
x 10
1
0
1
0
20
40
60
x (in)
OpenSeesDays 2014
16 / 40
Local Axial Response

Nele = 1
Nele = 1
N(x) (kip)
a (x) (in/in)
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0
Computed
Exact
20
40
60
80
200
400
0
100
20
Nele = 2
N(x) (kip)
a (x) (in/in)
0.01
100
20
40
60
80
80
100
80
100
200
400
0
100
20
Nele = 4
40
60
Nele = 4
N(x) (kip)
a (x) (in/in)
80
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.015
0
60
Nele = 2
0.015
0
40
20
M.H. Scott (OSU)
40
60
x (in)
80
100
200
400
0
20
40
60
x (in)
OpenSeesDays 2014
17 / 40

Investigate refinement of load-displacement response for
increasing number of displacement-based elements per member
150 kip
150 kip
1.33
300 kip
300 kip
15 ft
E
E
0.67
Beams: W18x76
Columns: W14x90
15 ft
y =36 ksi
E =30,000 ksi
=0.02
Vb = 2
30 ft
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
18 / 40
Base Shear (kip)
Coarse mesh over-predicts strength unconservative

Improved solution with refined mesh
200
Nele = 1
150
Nele = 2
Nele = 4
100
50
0
0
M.H. Scott (OSU)
10
20
30
40
OpenSeesDays 2014
19 / 40
Force-Based Frame Element

element forceBeamColumn $tag $ndI $ndJ $transfTag Lobatto $secTag $Np
Average compatibility
Nodal displacements are balanced by weighted integral of
section deformations
Complex state determination
Use Gauss-Lobatto integration so that extreme flexural response
captured at element ends
Strong equilibrium
Equilibrum of nodal and section forces satisfied at all points
along element
Constant axial force and linear bending moment in absence of
member loads
Straightforward to include member loads
Improve numerical solution by using more integration points per

element while maintaining mesh of one element per member
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
20 / 40
Propped Cantilever
Constant axial load and increasing moment applied at propped
end
Fiber-discretized section response with strain-hardening
stress-strain
Investigate refinement for increasing number of Gauss-Lobatto
point using one element
M
y
N
E
E
100 in
1
...
Np -1
Np
10 web fibers
2 fibers each flange
W14x90
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
21 / 40
Global Response
Moment, M (kip-in)
Np = 3
Np = 3
15000
15000
10000
10000
5000
0
0
5000
Computed
Exact
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
Deflection, U (in)
Moment, M (kip-in)
Np = 4
15000
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0
0.4
Moment, M (kip-in)
Np = 5
15000
10000
10000
5000
5000
0.05
0.1
0.15
Rotation, (rad)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
0.3
0.2
Np = 5
15000
0
0
0.2
Np = 4
0.2
0
0.4
OpenSeesDays 2014
22 / 40
Local Flexural Response

x 10
Computed
Exact
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
5
0
20
40
60
x (in)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
80
100
80
100
80
100
80
100
60
Np = 4
20
40
60
Np = 5
40
Np = 5
20
x 10
1
0
M(x) (kip-in)
10
x 10
Np = 4
x 10
1
0
M(x) (kip-in)
(x) (1/in)
10
x 10
Np = 3
5
0
(x) (1/in)
Np = 3
M(x) (kip-in)
(x) (1/in)
10
x 10
1
0
1
0
20
40
60
x (in)
OpenSeesDays 2014
23 / 40
Local Axial Response

Np = 3
Np = 3
190.8
N(x) (kip)
a (x) (in/in)
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0
Computed
Exact
20
40
60
80
190.8
190.8
0
100
20
N(x) (kip)
a (x) (in/in)
0.005
0.01
20
40
60
80
190.8
0
100
100
20
40
60
80
100
80
100
Np = 5
190.8
N(x) (kip)
a (x) (in/in)
80
190.8
Np = 5
0.005
0.01
0.015
0
60
190.8
0.015
0
40
Np = 4
Np = 4
20
M.H. Scott (OSU)
40
60
x (in)
80
100
190.8
190.8
0
20
40
60
x (in)
OpenSeesDays 2014
24 / 40

Investigate refinement of load-displacement response for
increasing number of Gauss-Lobatto integration points per
element
Maintain one element per member
150 kip
150 kip
1.33
300 kip
300 kip
15 ft
E
E
0.67
Beams: W18x76
Columns: W14x90
15 ft
y =36 ksi
E =30,000 ksi
=0.02
Vb = 2
30 ft
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
25 / 40

Same yield point predicted in all cases
Post-yield stiffness more flexible with fewer integration points
Base Shear (kip)
200
100
50
0
0
M.H. Scott (OSU)
N
Npp =
= 54
Np = 3
150
10
20
30
40
OpenSeesDays 2014
26 / 40
Force-Based Plastic Hinge Frame Element

element forceBeamColumn $tag $ndI $ndJ $transfTag HingeRadau $secTagI $lpI
$secTagJ $lpJ $secTagE
or
element beamWithHinges $tag $ndI $ndJ $secTagI $lpI $secTagJ $lpJ $E $A $I
$transfTag
Control integration weights at element ends

Important for strain-softening section response
x1
x2
x3
x4
x6
x5
J
lpI
3lpI
L 4(lpI + lpJ )
3lpJ
lpJ
L
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
27 / 40
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier

550mm x 550mm square
12 bars, db = 20 mm
40 mm clear cover
P = 0.3fc Ag
L = 1.65 m
V, U
V = Base Shear
M.H. Scott (OSU)
Tanaka and Park (1990)

Specimen 7
OpenSeesDays 2014
28 / 40
Displacement-Based Elements
Post-peak response is mesh-dependent
Function of element length
Base Shear (kN)
800
400
36
200
0
0
M.H. Scott (OSU)
600
20
40
60
Displacement (mm)
80
OpenSeesDays 2014
29 / 40
Force-Based Element
Post-peak response depends on number of integration points
Function of integration weight at base of column
Base Shear (kN)
800
600
400
200
0
0
M.H. Scott (OSU)
6 5
20
40
60
Displacement (mm)
80
OpenSeesDays 2014
30 / 40
Force-Based Plastic Hinge Element

Post-peak response controlled by plastic hinge length
lp = 0.22L from empirical equation
Base Shear (kN)
800
600
400
200
0
0
M.H. Scott (OSU)
20
40
60
Displacement (mm)
80
OpenSeesDays 2014
31 / 40
Drawback to Force-Based Plastic Hinge Element

For strain-hardening section behavior, post-peak response is too
flexible
15
Load
10
5
Computed
Exact
0
0
M.H. Scott (OSU)
5
10
Displacement
15
OpenSeesDays 2014
32 / 40
Modeling Recommendations
Theres no silver bullet
Strain-Hardening Section Response
Use mesh of displacement-based elements
Use one force-based elements with 4 to 6 Gauss-Lobatto points
Plastic hinge element not recommended because post-peak
response will be too flexible
Strain-Softening Section Response
Use force-based plastic hinge element
Response with displacement-based elements is mesh dependent
Response with Gauss-Lobatto force-based element depends on
number of integration points
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
33 / 40
Geometric Transformation of Element Response

Element formulation of material nonlinearity inside the basic
system (free or rigid body displacement modes)
Element formulation of geometric nonlinearity outside the basic
system
Basic System
ul3
uly
ub2
I
ub3
Ln
ul6
ul5
L + ulx
ul2
I
J
L
ul1
M.H. Scott (OSU)
Local Coordinate System

ul4
OpenSeesDays 2014
34 / 40
Geometric Transformation
geomTransf Linear $tag
Small displacement assumptions in local to basic transformation
Linear transformation of forces and displacements
geomTransf PDelta $tag
Small displacement assumption transformation of displacements
Account for transverse displacement of axial load in equilibrium
relationship
geomTransf Corotational $tag
Fully nonlinear transformation of displacements and forces
Exact in 2D but some approximations in 3D
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
35 / 40

Examine pushover response for different levels of gravity load
50 kip
50 kip
100 kip
100 kip
12 ft
V
Beams: W18x76
Columns: W14x90
y =36 ksi
E =30,000 ksi
=0.02
M.H. Scott (OSU)
12 ft
OpenSeesDays 2014
36 / 40

P and Corotational similar results for lateral displacement
= 2
400
300
300
Base Shear (kip)
Base Shear (kip)
= 1
400
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
Roof Disp (in)
80
200
100
0
0
100
20
400
300
300
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
Roof Disp (in)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
80
100
80
100
= 4
400
Base Shear (kip)
Base Shear (kip)
= 3
40
60
Roof Disp (in)
80
100
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
Roof Disp (in)
OpenSeesDays 2014
37 / 40

Exact Corotational predicts change in vertical displacement
Important for collapse prediction and post-buckling capacity
= 2
400
300
300
Base Shear (kip)
Base Shear (kip)
= 1
400
200
P -
P -
Corotational
100
0
0
10
Roof Disp (in)
15
200
100
0
0
20
400
300
300
Base Shear (kip)
Base Shear (kip)
400
200
100
0
0
10
Roof Disp (in)
M.H. Scott (OSU)
10
Roof Disp (in)
15
20
15
20
= 4
= 3
15
20
200
100
0
0
10
Roof Disp (in)
OpenSeesDays 2014
38 / 40
Elastic Buckling
Use mesh of corotational frame elements to simulate buckling
Simply-supported W14x90, L=100 in, Pcr =29579 kip
L/r =16.26: short column, but demonstrates point
Imperfection applied to nodes, u(t) = 0.1 sin(x/L) in
Axial Load (kip)
x 10
Nele =2
Nele =8
=4
N
ele
29579 kip
3
2
1
0
0
4
6
8
Axial Deflection (in)
10
Concept works well for inelastic buckling too

M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
39 / 40
Summary
Material and geometric nonlinearity treated separately for frame

finite elements in OpenSees
Only scratching the surface other element formulations and
models of nonlinear stress-strain response
Other Resources
OpenSees wiki
OpenSees message board
OpenSees YouTube videos
Course assignments
M.H. Scott (OSU)
OpenSeesDays 2014
40 / 40

Nonlinear Frame Finite Elements in OpenSees

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nonlinear Frame Finite Elements in OpenSees

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nonlinear Frame Finite Elements in OpenSees

OpenSeesDays Users Workshop

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Two sources of nonlinear frame element response:

An analysis can account for each source of nonlinearity

M.H. Scott (OSU)

Geometry Linear (GL) Geometry Nonlinear (GN)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Steel Frame Pushover Analysis

Simple steel frame model analyzed under four approahces

OpenSees Frame Elements

Steel Frame Pushover Analysis

Base Shear (kip)

Base Shear (kip)

We observe the following:

OpenSees Frame Elements

Section Force-Deformation Response

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Commands for Section Definition

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Commands for Section Definition

OpenSees Frame Elements

Rectangular Steel Section

OpenSees Frame Elements

Rectangular Steel Section

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Reinforced Concrete Section

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Reinforced Concrete Section

(c) Without Confining Effects

(d) With Confining Effects

OpenSees Frame Elements

Numerical Integration of Element Response

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Displacement-Based Frame Element

Improve numerical solution by using more elements per member

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

2 fibers each flange

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Local Flexural Response

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Local Axial Response

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Steel Frame Pushover Analysis

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Steel Frame Pushover Analysis

Base Shear (kip)

Coarse mesh over-predicts strength unconservative

M.H. Scott (OSU)

OpenSees Frame Elements

Force-Based Frame Element