12/14/2014

Table of contents
Introduction: Sources of nonlinearity
Material nonlinearity, Section nonlinearity and Member 
Nonlinear modelling of frame‐ nonlinearity
shear wall buildings Concept of chord rotation 
Behaviour of steel and RC frames
Behaviour of braced and infilled frames
Behaviour of shear walls
Yogendra Singh, Ph.D. Behaviour of beam‐column joints in steel and RC frames
Professor, Deptt. of Earthquake Engg.
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India Modelling parameters as per ASCE 41
Moment and shear capacity
Indo‐Norwegian Training Programme on  Plastic deformation capacity
Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response  Backbone curves
Evaluation of Structures
December 14‐16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee

Nonlinear Modelling Material Nonlinearity
 During earthquakes, the structures undergo:
1. Large displacements  triggering geometric nonlinearity
2. Stresses beyond yield  material nonlinearity
 Linear modelling is limited to simulation of stiffness of different components;
Information required  Sectional dimensions 
 Elastic material properties
 Cracking of RC members (reinforcement details?)
 Nonlinear modelling involves simulation of stiffness, strength and ductility
 All the information required in linear analysis
 Strength in different failure modes (reinforcement in case of RC members)
 Reinforcement detailing, confinement, anchorage and splicing, axial force
ratio, shear force ratio
 Understanding of behaviour and failure modes and mechanisms is the key to 
successful modelling
Unconfined and confined concrete

Material Nonlinearity Material Nonlinearity

Reinforcing Steel Reinforcing Steel

1
 12/14/2014

Section Nonlinearity Section Nonlinearity

y fy
dp

d d'

dp
y

RC Sections Steel Sections

Section Nonlinearity Member Nonlinearity

RC Sections RC Sections

Member Nonlinearity Member Nonlinearity

L p  kL c  L sp  2 L sp

Lsp  0.022 f ye d bl

 f 
k  0.2 u  1  0.08
f 
 y 

Lc = length from the critical section to the

point of contra-flexure

RC Sections RC Sections

2
 12/14/2014

Member Nonlinearity Member Nonlinearity
c s c  s
  
c d  c  d
 cy  sy
y  or
c d  c 
 cc  su
u  or
c d  c 
 y H  Lsp 2
y 
3

 u   y  u   y L p H

RC Sections RC Sections

Chord Rotation Chord Rotation


θ



θ
θ


Usable strain limits Effect of cyclic loading
ASCE 41‐2013 ASCE 41‐2013

10.3.3.1 Usable Strain Limits Without confining

transverse reinforcement, the maximum usable strain at
the extreme concrete compression fiber shall not exceed
0.002 for components in nearly pure compression
and 0.005 for other components,… Maximum
compressive strains in longitudinal reinforcement shall not
exceed 0.02, and maximum tensile strains in longitudinal
reinforcement shall not exceed 0.05. Monotonic coupon
test results shall not be used to determine reinforcement
strain limits. If experimental evidence is used to determine
strain limits, the effects of low-cycle fatigue and transverse
reinforcement spacing and size shall be included in testing
procedures.
RC Sections Backbone curve

3
 12/14/2014

Backbone curve Behaviour of frames

ASCE 41‐2013

Behaviour of frames Behaviour of frames

Behaviour of frames Behaviour of frames

Columns can yield under 
Axial‐Flexure (P‐M‐M) 
interaction or Shear
Beams can yield in 
Flexure or Shear

Joints (panel 
zones) can yield 
in Shear

BMD SFD

4
 12/14/2014

Behaviour of frames Behaviour of frames

Behaviour of joints Behaviour of joints

Behaviour of joints Behaviour of joints

V jh  C  T  Vc V jh  C  T  Vc  R cos 

5
 12/14/2014

Lumped plasticity model of a frame Concentrically braced steel frames

Moment
Hinges

Single Diagonal Inverted V- Bracing V- Bracing

Shear
P-M-M Hinges
Hinges

X- Bracing Two Story X-

Bracing

Concentrically braced steel frames Concentrically braced steel frames

Tension Brace: Yields Compression Brace:

Buckles

Columns and beams: remain essentially elastic

Concentrically braced steel frames Eccentrically braced steel frames
e e e e

e
e


P

6
 12/14/2014

Eccentrically braced steel frames Eccentrically braced steel frames

p

p = link plastic rotation angle (rad)

Eccentrically braced steel frames Behaviour of RC shear‐walls

e

M M
Shear yielding occurs when:
p
V V V = Vp = 0.6 Fy (d - 2tf ) tw

Flexural yielding occurs when:

V M = Mp = Z Fy

p = link plastic rotation angle (rad) M

Behaviour of RC shear‐walls Behaviour of infilled frames

e

2M
M M e
V
V V

1.6 M p
PREDOMINANTLY SHEAR YIELDING LINK: e 
Vp

2.6 M p
PREDOMINANTLY FLEXURAL YIELDING LINK: e 
Vp

1.6 M p 2.6 M p
COMBINED SHEAR AND FLEXURAL YIELDING: e
Vp Vp

7
 12/14/2014

Effective Stiffness of URM Infills Failure modes in infilled frames
Infills have been modelled as Equivalent Diagonal
Compressive Strut having width
a  0 . 175 1 h col  0 .4 rinf Failure of
Tension Compression Short- shear failure Flexural
beam-
Reference failure of failure of column of failure of
where, 1 columns columns effect beam/column columns
column
joints
 Emetinf sin 2  4
1   
 4E fe I col hinf 
Smith (1967) ● ○ ○ ● ○ ○
Smith and Carter
(1969) ● ○ ○ ● ○ ○
hcol =column height between centerlines of beams Paulay and Priestley
(1992) ● ○ ● ● ● ○
hinf =height of infill panel
Mehrabi et al. (1996) ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○
E fe
=expected modulus of elasticity of frame material (concrete)
Fiorato et al. (1970) ● ● ○ ● ○ ○
Eme =expected modulus of elasticity of infill material
I col =moment of inertia of column
El-Dakhakhni et al.
(2003) ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ●
Linf
=length of infill panel ● – Failure mode considered; ○ – Failure mode
rinf =diagonal length of infill panel not considered
tinf =thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut

Failure modes in infills Realistic model of infills
Identified failure modes of infill panels
Sliding
Sl. no. Reference Diagonal Diagonal Corner  Infills are constructed after completion of frame
shear
tension compression crushing Construction sequence does not allow a full contact between infill
failure 
1 Smith (1967) ○ ● ● ○ and soffit of the beam above
2 Smith and Carter (1969) ● ● ● ○
3 Mainstone (1971) ○ ● ○ ●
4 Wood (1978) ● ● ○ ●
5 Liauw and Kwan (1985b) ○ ○ ● ●
6 Smith and Coull (1991) ○ ○ ○ ●
7 Priestley and Calvi (1991) ● ● ● ○
8 Paulay and Priestley (1992) ● ○ ● ○
9 Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) ● ● ● ●
10 Flanagan and Bennett (1999) ○ ○ ○ ●
11 Al-Chaar (2002) ● ○ ● ○
12 ACI 530 (2005 ) ● ○ ● ●
13 ASCE-41 (2007) ● ○ ○ ○
○ – Failure mode not considered; ● – Failure mode considered

Evaluation of efficacy of 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐strut  Shear Failure of RC columns caused due to 
models of infills strut action of URM infill
Shear force applied to column
Column
(kN)
shear Experimental
Reference of experimental study
strength 1-strut 2-strut 3-strut observation
(kN) model model model

RC frame with unreinforced solid

Shear failure of
concrete block masonry infill 92.95 130.98 65.49 32.74
columns
(Mehrabi et al. 1996)
(Mehrabi et al. 1996)
RC frame with burnt clay brick Shear cracks in
29.06 124.41 62.20 31.1
infill (Al-Chaar 1998) column
RC frame with concrete masonry Shear cracks in
29.06 345.55 172.77 86.39
infill (Al-Chaar 1998) column
Non ductile RC frame with burnt
Shear cracks in
clay brick infill (Kaushik and 51.14 57.75 28.88 14.44
columns
Manchanda 2010)
Ductile RC frame with URM Failure of exterior & interior column
Columns suffer observed in 2003 Bingöl earthquake
infill (Kaushik and Manchanda 60.31 66.00 33.00 16.50
2010)
shear damage
(Özcebe et al. 2003) (Kaushik and Manchanda
2010)

8
 12/14/2014

Modelling of URM infills Effective stiffness
ASCE 41‐2013

Plastic hinge properties Plastic hinge properties
ASCE 41‐2013 ASCE 41‐2013

Plastic hinge properties Plastic hinge properties
ASCE 41‐2013 ASCE 41‐2013

9
 12/14/2014

Plastic hinge properties Plastic hinge properties
ASCE 41‐2013 ASCE 41‐2013

Plastic hinge properties Nominal strength vs. expected strength
ASCE 41‐2013 n

Nominal or Mean or f
characteristic Expected
strength, fck strength,
fe=fmean

f e  f ck  1.64

Nominal strength vs. expected strength Nominal strength vs. expected strength

Concrete and Reinforcement

Structural 
Steel

10
 12/14/2014

Shear strength models of RC columns Shear strength models of RC 
beam‐column joints 

Modeling of Beam‐Column Joints Behaviour of shear‐walls

Boundary confinement Plastic hinges in shear‐walls
ASCE 41‐2013

Boundary 
Elements

12/14/2014

11
 12/14/2014

Flat slab systems Flat slab systems

Drop Panel

Column Head

12/14/2014 12/14/2014

Flat slab systems Flat slab systems

12/14/2014 12/14/2014

Flat slab systems Failure of flat slab systems

• Flexural failure of slab

• Flexural failure of slab-column
connection
Ductile mode of failure
Cracks appear on bottom surface

• Punching shear failure

Brittle mode of failure
Cracks appear on top surface

12/14/2014 12/14/2014

12
 12/14/2014

Flat slab systems Flat slab systems

• Out of total unbalanced moment, part

is transferred through flexure and part
is transferred through torsion  v  1  f  f = factor for
• Shear stress at critical section is unbalanced moment
resultant of gravity and torsional transferred by flexure at
1
actions f  slab-column connections
2 b1
Vg  vMu c 1  v = factor for
vn   3 b2 unbalanced moment
b0 d J transferred by torsion at
slab-column connections
12/14/2014 12/14/2014

Modelling of flat slab systems Modelling of flat slab systems
•Explicit Transverse Torsional Element Model
•Equivalent width of slab
 l1 
•Interior Supports   l 2   2 c1  
 3

 l1 
•Exterior Supports   l 2   c1  
 6

Modelling of flat slab systems Modelling of flat slab systems

•Stiffness of Torsional Element 5

Maximum Inter Storey Drift (%)

Hueste and Wright

ASCE/SEI 41 [NC]
4
9 EC
Kt  
ASCE/SEI 41 [C]

l 2 1  c 2 l 2 
ACI 318-05
3 3

 xx y 3
C   1  0.63  1

 y 3 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Gravity Shear Ratio
12/14/2014

13
 12/14/2014

Modelling of flat slab systems
THANK YOU !

12/14/2014

14