Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler

24 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
(b) Bilin model. (c) Peak-Oriented mode. (d) Pinching model. Deterioration mechanisms: ➢ Basic strength (b,c,d). ➢ Post-yielding ratio (b,c,d). ➢ Post-capping ...
OpenSees Days Italy 2015

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MODIFIED IBARRAMEDINA-KRAWINKLER MODELS FOR CONCENTRATED PLASTICITY MODELS AND FINITE LENGTH PLASTICITY MODELS Filipe L. A. Ribeiro (1) André R. Barbosa (2) Luís C. Neves

(3)

(1) Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal (2) School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, U.S.A. (3) Nottingham Transportation Engineering Centre, University of Nottigham, U.K.

Fisciano, Italy June 2015

Scope

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

Concentrated plastic hinge (CPH) formulation Finite-length plastic-hinge (FLPH) formulation

Images adapted from: NIST GCR 10-917-5. “NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4”. 2010

Mod IMK Models

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

 The original Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler (IMK) model is based on a backbone curve that represents the behavior for monotonic loading and defines the limits for cyclic loading and accounts for four main deterioration modes (total of six modes)

Images adapted from: Lignos (2008). “Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations”. PhD Thesis. Stanford University.

Mod IMK Models

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

 Models implemented in OpenSees (a) (b) (c) (d)

Backbone curve Bilin model Peak-Oriented mode Pinching model

Deterioration mechanisms:

 Basic strength (b,c,d)  Post-yielding ratio (b,c,d)  Post-capping strength (b,c,d)  Unloading Stiffness (b,c,d)  Reloading stiffness (c,d)  Pinching(d)

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

Mod IMK Models  Modeling the rate of deterioration

The rates of cyclic deterioration are controlled by a characteristic total hysteretic energy dissipation capacity Et and an energy based rule developed by Rahnama and Krawinkler (1993)

    Ei  i   i   Et   E j  j 1  

c

Et    Fy

Ei

In general, a parameter X, which can represent any of the six deterioration modes (e.g., basic strength) and can include a stiffness parameter or a strength parameter, can be updated through:

X i  1  i  X i 1

1  i  Fy

FLPH formulation

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

 What is it? FLPH formulation is an efficient distributed plasticity formulation with designated hinge zones at the member ends. Cross sections in the inelastic hinge zones are characterized through either nonlinear moment-curvature relationships or explicit fiber-section integrations that enforce the assumption that plane sections remain plane.

 Integration scheme Scott and Fenves (2006) proposed a Modified Gauss-Radau integration scheme in order to avoid localization issues

FLPH formulation

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

 Advantages  Avoid localization issues (occurs in distributed plasticity elements)

 When compared to the concentrated plasticity formulation:  Lower modeling effort (less nodes and elements)  Lower computational cost  Allows for clear separation between member and connection nonlinearity  Disadvantages  Not possible to directly use empirically calibrated moment-rotation relationships (such as the ones provided by ModIMK models)  Needs a plastic hinge length to be assigned (empirical or based on moment gradient – afternoon)

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

FLPH formulation  How to use ModIMK models in FLPH elements?

 Converting a moment-rotation relationship into moment-curvature:

M

M

K M    K M   Lp

Et    Fy

   / Lp θ

 M     M  / Lp

 The moment-curvature relationship can then be assigned to define the nonlinear hinge sections

χ

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

FLPH formulation  How to use ModIMK models in FLPH elements?  However, that is not enough M

Ke 

6 EI Lp L

χ

Lp

L  2Lp

Lp

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

FLPH formulation  How to use ModIMK models in FLPH elements?  However, that is not enough

Thinking about the elastic region Original member

EI EI

EI EI

EI EI

FLPH member

6EI Lp EI L

EI EI

EI 6EI Lp L

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

FLPH formulation  How to use ModIMK models in FLPH elements?  Proposed calibration procedure

Ribeiro, F.L.A.; Barbosa, A.R.; Scott, M.H. and Neves, L.A.C. (2014). “Deterioration Modeling of Steel Moment Resisting Frames Using FiniteLength Plastic Hinge Force-Based Beam-Column Elements. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.

FLPH formulation  How to use ModIMK models in FLPH elements?  Proposed calibration procedure

If LpI  LpJ  Lp :

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

CPH formulation  What is it? Linear elastic element

Rigid-plastic zero-length springs

 How to overcome the additional flexibility?  Increase the elastic stiffness of the springs

Consequently, change the post-yielding ratios

K e, s  n

'

6EI L

KT , s   K e,s 1  n  (1   )

Change the stiffness of the element interior

EI mod  EI 

n 1 n

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

CPH formulation  Advantages:

 “Directly” assign moment-rotation relationships to the zero-length springs.  Disadvantages:

 The ideal n value is not trivial, as low values lead to erroneous results and high values result in numerical instability.  The use of the parameter n, which modifies the elastic stiffness and the post-yielding ratios does not allow for direct use of expression proposed by Rahnama and Krawinkler (1993) for update of model parameters due to deterioration

X i  1  i  X i 1

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

CPH formulation  Problems due to the parameter n

 Take the unloading stiffness update (due to deterioration) as an example

 Elastic stiffness:

Ke

 Energy dissipated: Es  100kNm  Deterioration: i 

Ei i

Et   E j



100  0.1 1000 0

j 1

 Updated unloading stifffness:

Ku  1  i  K e  0.9  K e

In the case of a CPH formulation: Ke  n  Ke Thus: Ku  1  i  n  K e  0.9  n  K e If n=100: Ku  90  K e  K e

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

CPH formulation  Problems due to the parameter n

 Take the unloading stiffness update (due to deterioration) as an example

 Deterioration parameter 1  i  should be seen as a post-yielding ratio thus being computed through:

KT , s  '  K e,s 1  n  (1   ) '

Ku (1  i )  K e 1  n  (1  (1  i ))

CPH formulation

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

 Problems due to the parameter n Deterioration mechanisms:

 Basic strength  Post-yielding ratio  Post-capping strength  Unloading Stiffness  Reloading stiffness  Pinching

Ribeiro, Neves, Barbosa (2015). Implementation and calibration of nite-length plastic hinge elements for use in seismic structural collapse analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering (in press)

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

CPH formulation  Proposed implementation

 Implemented ModIMK models should be prepared to be used with any formulation

 Add an additional input parameter n (default value is 0) Internal amplification of the elastic stiffness Ke  (n 1)  Ke Modification of the post-yielding ratios due to parameter n

'

KT   K e 1  n  (1   )

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

CPH formulation  Proposed implementation  Unloading stiffness

(1i(1i ) K u ,i 1 KKuu,i,i  j j )  K0 In case of CPH formulation:

 ij (1   j ) K u ,i    1  n  1  ij (1   j ) 





   K0  

CPH formulation  Proposed implementation  Post-yielding stiffness

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

Implementation

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

 How to use ModIMK models in OpenSees? Bilin02 model: uniaxialMaterial Bilin02 $matTag $Ke0 $as_Plus $as_Neg $My_Plus $My_Neg $Lamda_S $Lamda_C $Lamda_A $Lamda_K $c_S $c_C $c_A $c_K $theta_p_Plus $theta_p_Neg $theta_pc_Plus $theta_pc_Neg $Res_Pos $Res_Neg $theta_u_Plus $theta_u_Neg $D_Plus $D_Neg

nFactor = 0 (by default)

No Changes introduced (backwords

ModIMKPeakOriented02 model: and $My_Plus FLPH implementation) uniaxialMaterial ModIMKPeakOriented02 $matTag $Ke0compatibility $as_Plus $as_Neg $My_Neg $Lamda_S $Lamda_C $Lamda_A $Lamda_K $c_S $c_C $c_A $c_K $theta_p_Plus $theta_p_Neg nFactor >$Res_Pos 0 Change model properties (for use in $theta_pc_Plus $theta_pc_Neg $Res_Neg $theta_u_Plus $theta_u_Neg $D_Plus $D_Neg CPH models) ModIMKPinching02 model: uniaxialMaterial ModIMKPinching02 $matTag $Ke0 $as_Plus $as_Neg $My_Plus $My_Neg $FprPos $FprNeg $A_pinch $Lamda_S $Lamda_C $Lamda_A $Lamda_K $c_S $c_C $c_A $c_K $theta_p_Plus $theta_p_Neg $theta_pc_Plus $theta_pc_Neg $Res_Pos $Res_Neg $theta_u_Plus $theta_u_Neg $D_Plus $D_Neg

Validation Example  Simply supported beam

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

Validation Example  3-Story steel frame

Beam B1

Conclusions

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

 Accurate results can be achieved either by using FLPH models or CPH models, since the proposed algorithm is used if the CPH models are employed  A significant reduction in model complexity is obtained when FLPH models are employed  The implementation procedure for FLPH models is significantly simpler than that required for the CPH models and the use of ad-hoc parameters simulating rigid plastic behavior can be avoided  Current implementation in OpenSees (Bilin02, ModIMKPeakOriented02, ModIMKPinching02) accurately reproduce Modified Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler model laws for both CPH and FLPH models  Further work is needed in order to quantify errors associated with nonconsideration of nFactor in the update of model parameters

OpenSees Days Italy 2015

Thank you Filipe L. A. Ribeiro [email protected]

Fisciano, Italy June 2015