Scribd
Upload
5 views

Inelastic structural component models

Uploaded by

Ganesh Raj Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views

Inelastic structural component models

Uploaded by

Ganesh Raj Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Types of plasticity in structural element

Inelastic structural component models can be differentiated by the way that plasticity is distributed
through the member cross sections and along its length. For example, shown in Figure 2-1 is a
comparison of five idealized model types for simulating the inelastic response of beam-columns.
Several types of structural members (e.g., beams, columns, braces, and some flexural walls) can be
modeled using the concepts illustrated in Figure 2-1:

The simplest models concentrate the inelastic deformations at the end of the element, such as
through a rigid-plastic hinge (Figure 2-1a) or an inelastic spring with hysteretic properties (Figure 2-
1b). By concentrating the plasticity in zero-length hinges with moment-rotation model parameters,
these elements have relatively condensed numerically efficient formulations.

The finite length hinge model (Figure 2-1c) 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. The inelastic hinge length
may be fixed or variable, as determined from the moment-curvature characteristics of the section
together with the concurrent moment gradient and axial force. Integration of deformations along
the hinge length captures the spread of yielding more realistically than the concentrated hinges,
while the finite hinge length facilitates calculation of hinge rotations.

The fiber formulation (Figure 2-1d) models distribute plasticity by numerical integrations through
the member cross sections and along the member length. Uniaxial material models are defined to
capture the nonlinear hysteretic axial stress-strain characteristics in the cross sections. The plane-
sections-remain-plane assumption is enforced, where uniaxial material “fibers” are numerically
integrated over the cross section to obtain stress resultants (axial force and moments) and
incremental moment-curvature and axial force-strain relations. The cross section parameters are
then integrated numerically at discrete sections along the member length, using displacement or
force interpolation functions (Kunnath et al. 1990, Spacone et al. 1996). Distributed fiber
formulations do not generally report plastic hinge rotations, but instead report strains in the steel
and concrete cross section fibers. The calculated strain demands can be quite sensitive to the
moment gradient, element length, integration method, and strain hardening parameters on the
calculated strain demands. Therefore, the strain demands and acceptance criteria should be
benchmarked against concentrated hinge models, for which rotation acceptance criteria are more
widely reported.

The most complex models (Figure 2-1e) discretize the continuum along the member length and
through the cross sections into small (micro) finite elements with nonlinear hysteretic constitutive
properties that have numerous input parameters. This fundamental level of modeling offers the
most versatility, but it also presents the most challenge in terms of model parameter calibration and
computational resources. As with the fiber formulation, the strains calculated from the finite
elements can be difficult to interpret relative to acceptance criteria that are typically reported in
terms of hinge rotations and deformations.

Concentrated and finite length hinge models (Figures 2-1a through Figure 2-1c) may consider the
axial force-moment (P-M) interactions through yield surfaces (see Figure 2-2). On the other hand,
fiber (Figure 2-1d) and finite element (Figure 2-1e) models capture the P-M response directly. Note
that while the detailed fiber and finite element models can simulate certain behavior more
fundamentally, they are not necessarily capable of modeling other effects, such as degradation due
to reinforcing bar buckling and fracture that can be captured by simpler phenomenological models
(Sidebar 3).

You might also like