See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304395262

Mixed Lagrangian Formulation in Analysis of Collapse of Structures

Chapter · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 71

1 author:

Andrei M Reinhorn
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
325 PUBLICATIONS   9,537 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shake table controls for testing nonlinear inelastic structures View project

Seismic Retrofit of Electrical Transformer Bushing Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrei M Reinhorn on 04 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 20

Mixed Lagrangian formulation in

analysis of collapse of structures
Andrei M. Reinhorn
University at Buffalo (SUNY), Buffalo, USA

Mettupalayam V. Sivaselvan
University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, USA

Gary F. Dargush
University at Buffalo (SUNY), Buffalo, USA

Oren Lavan
Technion - Israel Institute o(Technology, Haifa, Israel

ABSTRACT: A Lagrangian approach was developed, which is a mixed method, where in

addition to the displacements, the stress-resultants and other variables of state are primary
unknowns. This formulation consists of two sets of equations: equilibrium and compatibility
of displacement rates (velocities), while its primary unknowns are forces and velocities. For
numerical solution, a discrete variational integrator is derived starting from the weak formu-
lation. This integrator inherits the energy and momentum conservation characteristics. The
integration of each step is a constrained minimization problem and it is solved using an Aug-
mented Lagrangian algorithm. In this chapter, details of the formulation and computational
algorithms are presented, as well as the examples of a simple structure and a sixteen-story
building emphasizing on convergence and computational efficiency issues.

Introduction
Nonlinear analyses of structural response to hazardous loads such as earthquake
and blast forces should include (i) the effects of significant material and geometric
nonlinearities (ii) the phenomenological models describing the behavior of struc-
tural components and (iii) the energy and momentum transfer to different parts of
the structure when structural components fracture. Computer analysis of structures
has traditionally been carried out using the displacement method, combined with an
incremental iterative scheme for nonlinear problems wherein the displacements in the
structure are treated as the primary unknowns. In this paper, an alternative method is
proposed for the analysis of structures considering both material and geometric nonlin-
earities. The formulation attempts to solve problems using a force-based approach in
which momentum appears explicitly and can be potentially used to deal with structures
where deterioration and fracture occur before collapse. In conventional formulations,
the response of the structure is considered as the solution of a set of differential equa-
tions in time. Since the differential equations hold at a particular instant of time, they
310 Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering

provide a temporally local description of the response and are referred to as the strong
form. In contrast, in this chapter, a time integral of functions of the response over
the duration of the response is considered. Such an approach presents a temporally
global picture of the response and is referred to as the weak form. The kernel of the
integral mentioned above consists of two functions - the Lagrangian and the dissi-
pation functions - of the response variables that describe the configuration of the
structure and their rates. The integral is called the action integral. In elastic systems,
the configuration variables are typically displacements. It is shown here, however, that
in considering elastic-plastic systems it is natural to also include the time integrals of
internal forces in the structure as configuration variables. The Lagrangian function is
energy-like and describes the conservative characteristics of the system, while the dis-
sipation function similar to a flow potential describes the dissipative characteristics. In
a conservative system, the action integral is rendered stationary (maximum, minimum
or saddle point) by the response. In analytical mechanics, this is called Hamilton's
principle or more generally the principle of least action. For non-conservative systems
such as elastic-plastic systems, such a variational statement is not possible, and only a
weak form which is not a total integral is possible. It is shown moreover that the form
of the Lagrangian is invariant under finite deformations. Such a weak formulation
enables the construction of numerical integration schemes.

2 Simple phenomenological models of reciprocal

structures
A complex structural system, such as frame structures representing buildings, bridges
or mechanical systems, can be assembled from components which are formulated
as reciprocal structures. Reciprocal structures are those structures characterized by
convex potential and dissipation functions (Stern, 1965). In this section, the concept
of reciprocal structures is explained using simple spring-mass-damper-slider models
shown in Figure 1. Mixed Lagrangian and Dissipation functions of such systems are
derived for various structural components.

(a) Mass with Kelvin type resisting (b) Mass with Maxwell type resisting (c) Dual of (b)
system and force input system and velocity input

(d) Combined Kelvin-Maxwell system (e) Elastic-viscoplastic system (f) Elastic-ideal plastic system

Figure I Simple phenomenological models.

 Mixed Lagrangian formulation in analysis of collapse of structures 311

(a} Mass with Kelvin type Resisting System: Consider a spring-mass-damper system
with the spring and the damper in parallel (Kelvin Model shown in Figure 1(a}}
subjected to a time-varying force input P(t}. The equation of motion is given by:

mit + cit+ ku = P (1}

where m is the mass, k is the modulus of the spring, c is the damping constant, u is
the displacement of the mass and a superscripted "." denotes derivative with respect
to time. The well known approach in Analytical Mechanics is to multiply equation (1)
by a virtual displacement function 80 , integrate over the time interval [O,T] by parts to
obtain the action integral, I, in terms of the Lagrangian function, C and the dissipation
function, q;, as shown below (see for example, Jose and Saletan (1998)}:
T T T
8'L = -8 f0
.C(u, it) dt + f a~~it}
0
8u dt- f
0
P8u dt = 0 (2}

where 8 denotes the variational operator, and the Lagrangian function, C, and the
dissipation function, qJ, of this system are given by:

(3)

Notice that due to the presence of the dissipation function and because the force P(t}
can in general be non-conservative, equation (2} defines 8I and not I itself.
(b) Mass with Maxwell type Resisting System: Consider on the other hand, a spring-
mass-damper system with the spring and the damper in series (Maxwell Model- shown
in Figure 1(b)) subjected to a time varying base-velocity input, vm(t}. The formulation
requires obtaining a Lagrangian function and a dissipation function for this system
that determine the equations of motion as above. Formulation of compatibility of
deformations results in:

Vjn
F
+-k +-c =U
F .
(4}

where F is the force in the spring and damper. Writing the equation of equilibrium
of the mass, mit+ F = 0, solving for the velocity and substituting in equation (4 }, we
have:

1. 1 1
-F+-F+-
k c m
f t

Fdr=-V;n-Vo (5)
0

J;
where vo is the initial velocity of the mass. Defining I= F dr (as suggested by El-
Sayed et al. 1991}, the impulse of the ford~ in the spring and damper, equation (5} can
be written as: '
1·· 1. 1
-I+ -I + -I = -V;n - Vo (6)
k c m
312 Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering

From the correspondence between equations (6) and (1), we conclude that the
Lagrangian function, £, the dissipation function, q, and the action integral, oi of
this system are given by:

'"(] J.) 11 .2 1 1 2 miT) __ _1_1 .2

,_, ' = 2k1 - 2 m 1 -rv 2 c1

. T T . T

and oi = -8 f
0
C(j,j) dt + f a~~)if
0
of dt + f
0
[v;n(t) + vo]o] dt (7)

(c) Mass with Combined Kelvin and Maxwell Resisting Systems: Consider now the
combined Kelvin-Maxwell system shown in Figure 1(d) subject to a Force Input. (Note
that the velocity input has been excluded for the sake of simplicity). The forces in the
springs are denoted by F1 and F2 respectively and their impulses by J1 and J 2. If we
define the flexibilities of the springs as a 1 = 1/k1 and a 2 = 1/k2, then the Lagrangian
function can be given by

(8)

or in matrix notation:
. 1 2 1-T . T T
C(J,u,J) =
2mu + 21 AJ + J B u (9)

where J = U1 J2]T, A= diag(a1,a2), the flexibility matrix and B = [11], the equilibrium
matrix. The equilibrium matrix operates on the vector of internal forces to produce the
vector of nodal forces. The compatibility matrix, BT, operates on the velocity vector
to produce the rate of change of deformation. As a consequence of the Principle of
Virtual Work, the transpose of the compatibility matrix is the equilibrium matrix, B.
The dissipation function is given by:

(10)

The Euler-Lagrange equations are:

-d (ac)
-. -(ac) aq; P =}mu+cu+
- +---:-= .. . BJ. = P
dt au au au
(11)

The mixed Lagrangian of equation (9) and the Dissipation function of equation (10)
form the basis of further developments in this chapter. It should be noted that the
Lagrangian does not contain the displacement, u explicitly; therefore the momentum,
a.c;au, is conserved (see for example Scheck, 1994), which leads to the idea of the
generalized momentum, Pu = a.c;au = mu + ]1 + ]2.
 Mixed Lagrangian formulation in analysis of collapse of structures 313

(d) Elastic-viscoplastic Dynamic System: Consider the elastic-viscoplastic dynamic

system of Figure 1(e). This is in fact a viscoplastic representation of the elastic-ideal-
plastic system of Figure 1(f). Let the yield force of the slider be Fy, so that that force
Fslider in the slider is such that IFslider!= Fy. If the force in the spring is F and its impulse J,
then the rate of deformation of the slider-dashpot combination is:

(12)

where <x> is the Macaulay Bracket, equal to the value of x for positive quantities
and equal to zero for negative values of x. and sgn(x), the signum function. The above
constitutive equation can be obtained from the following:

. 1 2 1 "2 . 1 . 2
.C(it,]) = mu + a] ; rp(]) = 277 (II - Fy} ;
2 2 1

I I a~~)if I
T T • T

and 8I = -8 .C(], u,j) dt + 8] dt - p 8u dt (13)

0 0 0

(e) Elastic-Ideal Plastic Dynamic System: Figure 1(f) shows an elastic-ideal plastic
dynamic system. As noted above, this system is obtained from the viscoplastic one in
the limit of the representative viscous coefficient, 71, in Equation 18 going to zero. The
dissipation function rp of equation (13) then becomes:

(j) = { 0 if Ill ~ Fy (14)

rp 00 if III > Fy
i.e., rp(j) = Uc (j) where Uc is an indicator function of the set C which is the elastic
domain, C = {x: lxl < Fy }. The Lagrangian formulation of the elastic-ideal plastic
system is then the same as that of the elastic viscoplastic system, i.e. Equations (13),
with the dissipation function suitably interpreted using Equations (21).

3 Governing equations of skeletal structures

The governing equations of the structure consist of the equilibrium equations, the
compatibility equations and the constitutive equations. The equilibrium equations
including momentum effects are:

Mii + Cu + Bj - F = 0 (15)

where M, C and B are the mass, damping and equilibrium matrices respectively F is the
vector of element internal forces and J, its impulse. Let A be the block diagonal assembly
of the element elastic flexibility matrices. The compatibility equation is similar to
Equation (24):

(16)
314 Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering

Internal imposed displacements within elements, such as resulting from pre-stressing

or thermal loads have been neglected here for the sake of simplicity. However, the
forcing term in equations (25) and (16) can be adjusted to include such effects. The
action integral for the entire structure is obtained as:

(17)

with the Lagrangian and the dissipation function given by:

. 1 T 1 ·T . T T . 1 T .
L(J, ti,J) = :fu Mti + 2:J AJ + J B ti and q5(ti,J) = lu Cti + ~J) (18)

4 Effect of geometric nonlinearity on the Lagrangian

function
Having examined the structural dynamic problem under small deformations, it is now
desired to consider equilibrium in the deformed configuration with large deforma-
tions. The effect of large structural displacements is considered, while that of large
deformations within the corotational frames of elements is ignored. This seems to be
justified for elastic-plastic frame elements where significant displacements occur after
yielding when hinges form, thus not accompanied by large deformations within the
element corotational frame. The effect of the change of length on the flexibility coef-
ficients of beam-column members is neglected since this is a higher order effect. Large
deformations may be included by proceeding from the Lagrangian of an infinitesimal
element and performing spatial discretization such as by Finite Element Method. Some
remarks on this formulation are presented in the next section. The difference in for-
mulation of the large displacement case from the previous case is only the fact that the
equilibrium matrix, B, is a function of displacement, B(u). However, the equilibrium
equations (15) being in global coordinates an~ the compatibility equations (16) being
incremental (compatibility of deformation anc~ displacement rates) must both remain
unchanged by this additional consideration. It is demonstrated (see Sivaselvan and
Reinhorn, 2004) that the spatially pre-discreti~ed Lagrangian of equation (18) holds
in the deformed configuration as well:

(19)

Since all other terms of the Euler-Lagrange equations remain unaffected, it is sufficient
to examine the resulting generalized equilibrium equations obtained from the above
Lagrangian:

(20)
 Mixed Lagrangian formulation in analysis of collapse of structures 315

It can be shown (Sivaselvan and Reinhorn, 2006) that (dBjdt)- Ou (tiTB) = 0. Having
recognized the symmetry in B, the above result may also be proved using index notation
as follows:

Thus the formulation remains unchanged when geometric nonlinearity is included.

5 Extension to continuum formulation

Sivaselvan and Reinhorn (2004) have shown that weak formulations analogous to
equations (17) through (18) can be obtained for continua. The final formulation
derived elsewhere (Sivaselvan and Reinhorn, 2004) is presented below. For a three
dimensional continuum, ~he Lagrangian formulation is given by:

T T
8I = -8II 0 Q
po.C dr?. dt + II :~
0 Q
p0 8uk dQ dt

T T T

+I IPo:~.
o Q 1},
II
8]i;dr?.dt-
o Q
Pofk 8uk dr?.dt- II
o r
Tk 8uk drdt (22)

The analogy with equations (17) and (18) is seen easily.

6 Time discretization -discrete calculus of variations

The numerical integration of the Lagrangian equations by discrete variational integra-
tors is developed next for the time integration of the governing equations (15) and
(16) of the structure. This development consists of two stages: (1) The action integral
of equation (17) is discretized in time to obtain an action sum. Using discrete calcu-
lus of variations (Cadzow, 1970), finite difference equations are obtained, which are
the discrete counterparts of the Euler-Lagrange equations. (2) The task in each time
step is shown to be the solution of a constrained minimization problem for which an
Augmented Lagrangian algorithm is developed. The action integral of equation (17)
is discretized using the midpoint rule and a time step h, using central differences. It is
assumed in this process, that the J and u are twice continuously differentiable functions
and P is a once continuously differentiable function of time, and that the dissipation
function is continuously differentiable with respect to j. It is shown in Simo and Govin-
djee (1991) using geometric arguments, that the O(h2 ) accuracy holds in the limiting
case of rate-independent plasticity when the viscous coefficient TJ--+ 0. Starting from
action sum, and performing a series of summation by parts (Marsden and West, 2001),
316 Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering

we obtain (Sivaselvan and Reinhorn, 2006):

M (uk+1- 2uk + Uk-1) C (uk+l- uk-1) B (1k+1- 1k) = (pk+! + pk-!)

h2 + 2h + 2h 2

A(Jk+t-2Jk+Jk-1)+_!_(a~~ +a~~ )-BT(uk+l-uk-l)=O (23 )

h2 2 a} k+.!2 a} k-.!2 2h

Using Discrete Variational Calculus results in an integrator with vastly better perfor-
mance. It is also seen in the following that this results in a form similar to the classical
Newmark family of integration schemes. Such variational integrators are symplectic
and momentum preserving and often have excellent global energy behavior (Kane et al.
2000).

7 Time-step solution
Introducing the notation, Vn and Fn as the Central Difference approximations of the
velocity and the internal force respectively, Eq. (23) then becomes:

A (Fn+1- Fn) + _!_ ( aq; I + aq; I ) - BT (Vn+1 + Vn) = 0 (25)

h 2 aF n+ 1 aF n 2

where n = k -1/2, Vn = (un+(1/2)- Un-(1/2))/h and Fn = (Jn+(1/2) - Jn-(1/2))/h. It is

common in modeling frame structures for dynamic analyses to use a lumped mass
matrix and to ignore rotational inertia. Hence the mass matrix could in general be
singular. Similarly, the damping matrix could also be singular, for example when using
mass proportional damping. Thus, consistent with the convexity assumptions and
without loss of generality, equation (24) can be rearranged and partitioned as follows:

~ M
0
h 0
0
0
0
0
Ol{v1}
0 V2
0 V3
+ rC11
Ci2
0
0 V2 }
0 0l{v
0 0 V3
1
+ [B~]T
B2
Bj
F = {P
1
p2 }
p3 h 0
1
0 ,n}
+ ~ {Mv
r0 0 0 0 V4 0 0 0 V4 BT p4 0
4
(26)

where the partitions 1 through 4 represent respectively (i) degrees of freedom with mass,
(ii) those with damping but no mass, (iii) those with prescribed forces and (iv) those
 Mixed Lagrangian formulation in analysis of collapse of structures 317

with prescribed displacements (or velocities). Following some algebraic manipulations,

we obtain:

Minimize TI (Fn+t) = ~Fr+ 1 AFn+1- Fr+1b

Subject to (i) B3Fn+1 = P 3 (27)

and (ii) ~¢; (Fn+l) ::::: 0 i = 1, 2, ... , Ny

where

(28)

(29)

This is the Principle of Minimum Incremental Complementary Potential Energy which

can be stated as: Of all the forces at step n+1, Fn+t. satisfying equilibrium with pre-
scribed external forces at the un-damped quasi-static degrees of freedom and satisfying
the yield conditions, the one that minimizes the incremental complementary potential
energy I1 is the one that satisfies equilibrium and compatibility in the other degrees of
freedom.
An Augmented Lagrangian algorithm is used for the solution of the minimization
problem (27). For a detailed treatment of the Augmented Lagrangian formulation,
the reader is referred to Glowinski and Tallec (1989). The problem (27) is reduced
to a sequence of linearly constrained sub-problems using the Augmented Lagrangian
regularization:

(30)

where {A.= A.t,A2, ... , ANy}T is the vector of plastic multipliers, vis a penalty parameter
and < > denotes the Macaulay Bracket. The Augmented Lagrangian regularization
is a combination of the usual Lagrangian term, A.;¢;(Fn+1) and the penalty function
v/2 < ¢;(Fn+1) > 2. The latter helps accelerate convergence while the former elim-
inates the need for the penalty parameter to be large, which leads to numerical
ill-conditioning. Both terms vanish at a feasible point. The solution is obtained in
318 Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering

two nested stages. In the inner stage or primal stage, the dual variables, i.e. the
plastic multipliers A. are held fixed and the primal variables, i.e. the forces Fn+l are
obtained by solving the above equality constrained problem. In the outer, or dual
stage, the forces are held fixed and the plastic multipliers are updated using the
formula:

(31)

The superscripts new and old have been used, rather that iteration indices, to
denote values at the beginning and at the end of an iteration, to avoid the prolif-
eration of subscripts and superscripts. Due to the Central Difference approximation,
(h /2)A.;( a¢;(Fn+l) jaFn+l) is the plastic strain increment. In physical terms, therefore, the
Augmented Lagrangian process is equivalent to relaxing the regularizing dashpot and
allowing the frictional slider to incrementally develop plastic strain in each iteration.
A dense matrix algorithm for the solution of equation (30) is presented in Sivaselvan
and Reinhorn (2001). When considering large displacements, as stated above when
describing the effect of geometric nonlinearity, the equilibrium matrix B depends on
displacement. It is therefore updated at every step using the newly computed displace-
ments. Strictly, this requires an iterative procedure because the matrix B has to be
evaluated at time n + 1j2.

8 Numerical example
The example structure is shown in Figure 2. It is a portal frame consisting of three
elements. The connections are assumed rigid. The stress-strain curve of the mate-
rial is assumed bilinear with the following properties: E= 199955 kN/mm2 and
ay = 248.2 kN/mm2. In order to show the feasibility of this formulation as an alter-
native to existing programs, the results are compared with the program DRAIN-2DX
(Allahabadi and Powell, 1988). The example although very simple, is used to illustrate
the method and its applicability to collapse simulations.

Node2 Node3
Properties !-section
i
i Columns
i
i
i
i ......
I
W12X40
d=203.2mm
tw = 7.2mm

HE~ ~H b1 = 203.1 mm
0
! w
0
\0
<') ft= 11.1 mm
l
i Beam

--
i
i d= 303.3mm
Node 1 i Node4 fw = 7.5mm
..... """' b1 = 203.3mm
7200 ft= 13.1 mm

Figure 2 Portal frame Example

 Mixed Lagrangian formulation in analysis of collapse of structures 319

0.00
f---'--'--...._ ... J •••••• L••••• I ••••• J ••••••
I I -5.00
I
--~--+--+--~
I I I
-
I I
--~--~---
I

1
- -100.0 1 I I I I I

l
1 I I I I I I
-200.0 -10.00 __ L--L--~--J--~ -~--~---
1 I I I I I I
~ -300.0 I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I
-400.0 0 -15.00 --r--r--T--1--l--~- ----
32" -500.0 '2 ' I I I I I
·-e -20.00 -
I
-
I
--
I
--,--,--,--,-
I I I I
-
:il"" -600.0 ~ -LagrangianMelhod I I I I
I I I I
-1oo.o L!::::=i:=::i:::==L__;_ _;__ _;__;_ _J -25.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time(s) Time(s)
(a) Horizontal displacement (b) Vertical displacement

0.005 80.0
0.004
60.0
~
0.003
0.002
~ ..,
"
s 0.001
0

~
.,
."
0 0.000 ~
s0 -0.001 g 0.0

-~"
~
-0.002 -20.0
0
-0.003 :r: -40.0
-0.004
-0.005 -60.0 L'==~==::!___;___;___ _;__ _J
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -250.0 -200.0 -150.0 -100.0 -50.0 0.0 50.0
Time(s) Horizontal Displacement (mm)
(c) Joint rotation (d) Column shear force-displacement

Figure 3 Results with external axial force.

A dynamic analysis is performed with an axial force of 731.05 kN on each column,

corresponding 50% of the yield force. In this case there is significant geometric nonlin-
earity. Figure 3(a) and Figure 3(b) show that the horizontal and vertical displacements
continue to grow. Figure 3(c) shows the joint rotation. The point marked "collapse"
in Figure 3(d) is the point beyond which an external horizontal force is required to
pull the structure back to keep displacements from growing autonomously under the
vertical loads acting on it. During a dynamic analysis, when this point is crossed,
displacements continue to grow without reversal even when the input reverses; the
analysis is terminated at this point. It is also noticed that under load reversal, the yield
force in the opposite direction is higher than the original yield force.
Dynamic analyses were made on large frame structures exceeding 2,500 degrees of
freedom (see Figure 4a) and up to 30,000 DOF subjected to ElCentro 1940 accelero-
gram. The results in Figure 4b show stable response under large deformations m
presence of material and geometric nonlinearities.

9 Concluding remarks
The evolution of the elastic-plastic structural state in time is provided a weak formu-
lation using Hamilton's principle. It is shown that a certain class of structures called
reciprocal structures has a mixed weak formulation in time involving Lagrangian and
dissipation functions. The new form of the Lagrangian developed in this work involves
320 Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering

0.6 0.6
:§: :§:
0.4 0.4
"
!
a -0.2
0.2

0 2 4 6
Time(s)
10
I 0.2

-0.2
0 2 4 6
Time(s)
10

l
:§:
0.5
g
I 0.5

a -0.5 0!-~---7--6-!-----!::--:'10 ! -0.5 OL___i2_ __;_4_ _.i__ _;___l!O

Time (s) Time (s)

10
Time(s)

(a) Structural Model (b) Displacement histories of selected nodes

Figure 4 Application of the Lagrangian formulation to a large-scale structure.

not only displacements and velocities but also internal forces and their impulses leading
to the concept of the generalized momentum for framed structures. The derivative of
the compatibility operator with respect to displacements possesses a symmetry that
renders the Lagrangian invariant under finite displacements. The formulation can
therefore be used in geometric nonlinear analysis. A discrete time integrator has been
derived starting from a weak formulation. The integration of each step has been shown
to be a constrained minimization problem- the principle of incremental minimum com-
plementary potential energy. An Augmented Lagrangian algorithm and a dense matrix
implementation have been derived for the solution of this problem. Since the matrix
of the minimization problem of Eq. 27 is positive definite, the solution is globally con-
vergent, allowing for larger time steps for computation. The examples show that this
method can provide as good or better information than a widely used displacement
based inelastic analysis solutions. The examples also show that the method is stable
and efficient for large structures. However, the power of the method presented herein
is in evaluating structures where various elements collapse, and forces and momentum
have to be redistributed in the remaining system.

References

Allahabadi, R. & Powell, G.H. 1988. Drain-2DX user guide, University of California at
Berkeley.
Cadzow, J.A. 1970. Discrete Calculus of Variations. International Journal of Control, 11(3):
393-407.
 Mixed Lagrangian formulation in analysis of collapse of structures 321

El-Sayed, M.E.M., Marjadi, D. & Sandgren, E. 1991. Force Method Formulations Based on
Hamilton Principle. Computers & Structures, 38(3): 301-316.
Glowinski, R. & Le Tallec, P. 1989. Augmented Lagrangian and operator-splitting methods in
nonlinear mechanics, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Kane, C., Marsden, J.E., Ortiz, M. & West, M. 2000. Variational integrators and the New-
mark algorithm for conservative and dissipative mechanical systems. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 49: 1295-1325.
Jose, J.V. & Saletan, E.J. 1998. Classical dynamics : a contemporary approach, Cambridge
University Press.
Marsden, J.E. & West, M. 2001. Discrete mechanics and variational integrators. Acta Numerica,
10: 357-514.
Scheck, F. 1994. Mechanics :from Newton's laws to deterministic chaos, ed. 2nd carr. and enl.,
Springer Verlag.
Simo, J.C. & Govindjee, S. 1991. Non-linear B-stability and symmetry preserving return
mapping algorithms for plasticity and viscoplasticity. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 31(1): 151-176.
Sivaselvan, M.V. & Reinhorn, A.M. 2004. Nonlinear structural analysis towards collapse sim-
ulation - a dynamical systems approach, Technical Report, Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research.
Sivaselvan, M.V. & Reinhorn, A.M. 2006. Lagrangian approach to structural collapse
simulation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics-ASCE, 132(8): 795-805.
Stern, T.E. 1965. Theory of nonlinear networks and systems; an introduction, Addison-Wesley.
Computational Structural
Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering

Edited by

Manolis Papadrakakis 1
,

Dimos C. Charmpis2 ,
Nikos D. Lagaros & 1

Yiannis Tsompanakis 3
1
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
2
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
3 Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece

0 ~~~,~~:~~.,.
Boca Raton london New York leiden
.
CRC Press is an imprint of the
Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

A BALKEMA BOOK
Colophon

Book Series Editor:

Dan M. Frangopol

Volume Editors:
Manolis Papadrakakis, Dimos C. Charmpis, Nikos D. Lagaros & Yiannis Tsompanakis

Cover illustration:
Minoan palace ruins, Knossos, Crete, Greece
Nikos D. Lagaros
September 2006

Taylor & Francis is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,

an informa business

© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK

Typeset by Charon Tee Ltd (A Macmillan company), Chennai, India

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe (a CPI Group company),
Chippenham, Wiltshire

All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information

contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior
permission from the publishers.

Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this
publication and the information herein, no responsibility is
assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the
property or persons as a result of operation or use of this
publication and/or the information contained herein.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering I Manolis Papadrakakis ... [et al.].

p. em. - (Structures and infrastructures series, ISSN 1747-7735)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-415-45261-8 (hardcover: alk. paper) I. Structural dynamics-Mathematics. 2. Earthquake

engineering-Mathematics. 3. Engineering mathematics-Formulae. I. Papadrakakis, Manolis. II. Title. Ill. Series.

TA654.C633 2009
624.1 1 71-dc22
2008044127

Published by: CRC Press/Balkema

P.O. Box 447, 2300 AK Lei den, The Netherlands
e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com
www.crcpress.com - www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk - www.balkema.nl

ISBN 13 978-0-415-45261-8(Hbk)
ISBN 13 978-0-203-88163-7(eBook)
Structures and Infrastructures Series: ISSN 1747-7735
Volume 2
Table of Contents

Editorial XI
About the Book Series Editor XIII
Foreword XV
Preface XVII
Brief Curriculum Vitae of the Editors XXXI
Contributors List XXXIII
Author Data XXXVII

PART I
Computational Structural Dynamics

1 Computational stochastic dynamics - some lessons learned 3

Gerhart I. Schueller, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

2 Finite element response sensitivity, probabilistic response and

reliability analyses 21
Joel P. Conte, University of California, San Diego, USA
Michele Barbato, Louisiana State University, Louisiana, USA
Quan Gu, AMEC Geomatrix, Newport Beach, USA

3 Energy-momentum algorithms for nonlinear solid dynamics and their

assumed strain finite element formulation 43
Francisco Armero, University of California, Berkeley, USA

4 Energy conservation and high-frequency damping in numerical

time integration 57
Steen Krenk, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
VI Table of Contents

5 Computational elastoacoustics of uncertain complex systems and

experimental validation 71
Christian Soize, Universite Paris-Est, Marne-/a- Vallee, France
Chahoui Chen, Universite Paris-Est, Marne-/a- Vallee, France
Jean-Fran<;ois Durand, Universite Paris-Est, Marne-/a- Vallee, France
Denis Duhamel, Ecole des Ponts, Marne Ia Vallee, France
Laurent Gagliardini, PSA Peugeot-Citroen, Velizy- Villacoublay
Cedex, France

6 Structural dynamics design validation and optimisation of structures

with imprecise parameters using the fuzzy finite element method 85
David Moens, K. U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Dirk Vandepitte, K. U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Hilde De Gersem, K. U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Maarten De Munck, K. U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Wim Desmet, K. U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
7 Morphological indicators and the prediction of the first natural frequency
of a lightweight structure 109
Willy Patrick De Wilde, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Jan Van Steirteghem, Besix Belgium, Brussels, Belgium
8 Dynamic analysis of plates stiffened by parallel beams with
deformable connection 123
Evangelos J. Sapountzakis, National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
Vasilios G. Mokos, National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece

9 Impacts on beams: Uncertainty in experiments and numerical simulation 137

Werner Schiehlen, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Robert Seifried, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
10 Rational derivation of conserving time integration
schemes: The moving-mass case 149
Elias Paraskevopoulos, Aristotle University Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece
Christos Panagiotopoulos, Aristotle University Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece
Demosthenes Talaslidis, Aristotle University Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece

11 Classical and soft robust active control of smart beams 165

Georgios K. Tairidis, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece
Georgios E. Stavroulakis, Technical University of Crete,
Chania, Greece
Daniela G. Marinova, Technical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
Emmanuel C. Zacharenakis, Technological Educational Institute
of Crete, Heraklion, Greece
 Table of Contents VII

12 Rail vibrations caused by ground stiffness transitions 179

Hakan Lane, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Per Kettil, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Nils-Erik Wiberg, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden
13 Development and applications of a staggered FEM-BEM methodology
for ground vibrations due to moving train loads 189
Dimitris C. Rizos, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA
John O'Brien, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA
Evangelia Leon, Geomech Group Inc., Columbia, USA
14 Vibration monitoring as a diagnosis tool for structural
condition assessment 203
Guido De Roeck, K. U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Edwin Reynders, K. U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

PART II
Computational Earthquake Engineering

15 Multi-resolution distributed FEA simulation of a 54-story RC building 223

Jun Ji, Kal Krishnan Consulting Services, Inc., Oakland, USA
Oh-Sung Kwon, Missouri University of Science and Technology,
Missouri, USA
Amr S. Elnashai, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Illinois, USA
Daniel A. Kuchma, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Illinois, USA
16 Simplified probabilistic seismic performance assessment of buildings 241
Matjaz Dolsek, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Peter Fajfar, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
17 Computational simulation of the seismic response of buildings with
energy dissipating devices 255
Alex H. Barbat, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
Pablo Mata, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
Sergio Oller, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
Juan C. Vielma, Lisandro Alvarado University, Barquisimeto, Venezuela
18 Structural health monitoring by Bayesian updating 275
Enrico Sibilio, Universita di Roma TRE, Rome, Italy
Marcello Ciampoli, Sapienza Universita di Roma, Rome, Italy
James L. Beck, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA

19 A multiphase model with hypoplastic formulation of the solid phase

and its application to earthquake engineering problems 293
Konstantin Meskouris, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Stefan Holler, Airbus Deutschland GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
VIII Table of Contents

Christoph Butenweg, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Daniel Meiners, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
20 Mixed Lagrangian formulation in analysis of collapse of structures 309
Andrei M. Reinhorn, University at Buffalo (SUNY), Buffalo, USA
Mettupalayam V. Sivaselvan, University of Colorado at Boulder,
Boulder, USA
Gary F. Dargush, University at Buffalo (SUNY), Buffalo, USA
Oren Lavan, Technion -Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
21 Nonlinear models and nonlinear procedures for seismic analysis
of reinforced concrete frame structures 323
Enrico Spacone, University of Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy
Guido Camata, University of Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy
Marco Faggella, University of Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy;
University of California San Diego, California, USA
22 Modelling inelastic buckling of reinforcing bars under earthquake loading 347
Michalis Fragiadakis, National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece; University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
Rui Pinho, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of
Seismic Risk (ROSE School), Pavia, Italy
Stelios Antoniou, SeismoSoft-Software Solutions for
Earthquake Engineering, Chalkida, Greece
23 Analyzing steel moment-resisting connections using finite element
modeling 363
Chris P. Pantelides, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA
Lawrence D. Reaveley, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA
Scott M. Adan, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., San Francisco, USA
24 Earthquake damage scenario software for urban areas 377
Atilla Ansal, Bogazir;i University, Istanbul, Turkey
Ash Kurtulu§, Bogazir;i University, Istanbul, Turkey
Gok~e Toniik, Bogazir;i University, Istanbul, Turkey

25 Nonlinear performance assessment of bridges with Incremental Response

Spectrum Analysis (IRSA) procedure 393
M. Nuray Aydmoglu, Bogazir;i University, istanbul, Turkey
Goktiirk Onem, Bogazir;i University, istanbul, Turkey
26 The equivalent modal damping concept and its use in seismic design
of steel structures 401
George A. Papagiannopoulos, University of Patras, Rio, Greece
Dimitri E. Beskos, University of Patras, Rio, Greece
27 Bayesian updating and model class selection of deteriorating hysteretic
structural models using recorded seismic response 413
James L. Beck, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
Matthew M. Muto, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
 Table of Contents IX

28 Parallel soil-foundation-structure interaction computations 427

Boris Jeremic, University of California Davis, California, USA
Guanzhou Jie, Wachovia Corporation, New York, USA
29 Dynamic interaction of retaining walls and retained soil and structures 44 7
Yiannis Tsompanakis, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece

30 Earthquake response of liquid tanks installed in saturated

transversely isotropic soil 463
Jae Kwan Kim, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
Jin Ho Lee, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
31 Advances in design optimization of reinforced concrete structural systems 477
Chara C. Mitropoulou, National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
Nikos P. Bakas, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Nikos D. Lagaros, National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
Manolis Papadrakakis, National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
32 Robust stochastic optimal control of seismically excited buildings 507
Jorge E. Hurtado, Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Manizales, Colombia
Naile Aguirre, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Manizales, Colombia
33 A multi-objective robust criterion for tuned mass dampers optimal design 531
Giuseppe Carlo Marano, Technical University of Bari, Taranto, Italy
Rita Greco, Technical University of Bari, Taranto, Italy
Sara Sgobba, Technical University of Bari, Taranto, Italy
34 Performance-based seismic optimization implementing neural networks 547
Oscar Moller, University of Rosario, Rosario, Argentina
Laura Quiroz, University of Rosario, Rosario, Argentina
Marcelo Rubinstein, University of Rosario, Rosario, Argentina
Ricardo 0. Foschi, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
35 A very efficient computational procedure for the reliability-based
optimization of uncertain stochastic linear dynamical systems 5 65
Hector A. Jensen, Santa Maria University, Valparaiso, Chile
Marcos A. Valdebenito, University of Innsbruck,
Innsbruck, Austria
References 579
Author index 611
Subject index 613

View publication stats