XTRACT: A Tool for Axial Force - Ultimate Curvature Interactions

C.B. Chadwell1 and R.A. Imbsen2

1Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407: chadwell@calpoly.edu.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2
President, Imbsen & Associates, Inc., 9912 Business Park Drive, Suite 130, Sacra-
mento, CA 95827: raimbsen@imbsen.com.

Abstract

XTRACT (Chadwell and Imbsen, 2002) started as an academic and research tool at the
University of California at Berkeley as a program titled UCFyber. At its infancy,
UCFyber was the first interactive Microsoft Windows based program that performed
moment curvature analysis for reinforce concrete cross sections. The program had the
capability of performing realistic analysis of cross sections incorporating the effects of
increased strength and ductility of confined concrete as well as nonlinear steel behavior
within a graphical environment. While XTRACT has become an invaluable instrument
for concrete research within earthquake engineering, it has also evolved to become a
production tool for analysis and design of concrete systems within design offices
around the World. XTRACT is an important tool for earthquake engineering analysis
when a realistic assessment of moment and curvature capacities of a cross section is
required.

XTRACT has been used on many high profile projects for both buildings and bridges
ranging from analysis of the existing columns for the Salt Lake City, City Hall seismic
upgrade project to analysis of the suspension bridge columns on the new Caquenez
Straits bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, XTRACT is currently being
used in the design of the temporary bypass structure for the new San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge as well as in numerous state transportation agencies across the country.

This paper discusses some of the basic analytical features within XTRACT and intro-
duces some innovative uses of the program for seismic assessment of reinforced con-
crete columns. During seismic excitation of concrete moment resisting frames axial
forces vary due to overturning demands. This, in turn, affects the ultimate curvature
capacity and consequentially, the seismic displacement capacity of the concrete col-
umns. By generating a plot of axial force verses ultimate curvature, curvature demands
can be checked directly for a concrete column within a seismic force resisting frame.
This paper outlines the methodology behind the creation of this type of diagram and
includes example diagrams for both unconfined and confined rectangular concrete
cross sections.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004
 Moment Curvature Analysis Methodology in XTRACT

Moment curvature analysis is often used in earthquake engineering as a necessary step

toward assessment of the displacement capacity of reinforced concrete components. A
moment curvature analysis establishes the ductile capacity of a cross section by plotting
the curvatures against corresponding moments.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Material Models. Analysis begins with the specification of nonlinear material models
as stress-strain diagrams. For reinforced concrete, three typical material models must
be defined: steel, unconfined concrete, and confined concrete. The stress-strain behav-
ior of steel depends on the material type and strength but generally can be described as
a three part relation: linear, constant zero slope (the yield plateau), and a strain harden-
ing branch. Numerous models for confined and unconfined concrete have been pro-
posed by many researchers (Kent and Park, 1971; Vallenas et al, 1979; and Sheikh and
Uzumeri, 1980). Confined concrete mathematical models incorporate effects of
increased compressive strain capacity in addition to an increased compressive strength
as a function of passive confinement from transverse reinforcing steel. One commonly
used model in moment curvature analysis is the Mander Model proposed by Mander et
al (1988). The Mander model accounts for the effects of confinement by variation of
the input parameters such that the same mathematical formulation can be used to
describe unconfined, lightly confined, and heavily confined concrete behavior.

Discretization. With the material models defined, the cross section must be cut into a
series of layers, if moments about one axis are considered, or fibers if moments about
two axes are considered. Tighter mesh sizes will give more accurate results within the
confines of the material models but at the cost of increased computation time. When a
loose (or course) mesh is used, unconservative or incorrect results may ensue. Each
fiber (or layer) within the discretized cross section is associated with a tag identifying
it with a specific material type as defined by the material model.

Analytical Methods. With the materials defined and mapped to the fibers (layers) of
the cross section, an applied axial load is specified along with the analytical method for
finding the moment curvature coordinate pairs. There are two general methods used in
moment curvature analysis: displacement control and force control.

Displacement Control. In displacement control, the curvatures (φx, φy) are imposed
(about the x and/or y axes) and corresponding moments are found. By imposing a cur-
vature, and knowing the centroid of each individual fiber, the strain can be found for
every fiber in the cross section with the assumption that plane sections remain plane.
The strain defined relative to the strain at the (0,0) coordinate (εa). It is often convenient
to set the (0,0) coordinate at the centroid of the cross section as shown in Figure 1 to
avoid eccentricity induced by an applied axial force. Given the strain in each fiber, and
knowing the stress-strain relations from the material models, the corresponding stress
in the fiber can be found. The fiber stress multiplied by the fiber area gives the force in
the fiber (Fi). From equilibrium considerations, the overall axial force (P) and corre-

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004
 y

ε i ( x i, y i ) = ε a – φ y x i + φ x y i ith Fiber in the Discretized

x Cross Section
Geometric Centroid
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Strain Distribution in the Discretized Cross Section.

sponding moments about the X and Y axes (Mx and My) can be found as:

P = ∑ Fi Mx = ∑ –yi Fi My = ∑ xi Fi
i i i

Because the total axial force found from summing the individual forces within each
fiber is not necessarily equal to the applied axial load on the cross section, an iteration
between the applied axial load and resisting axial load (P) is done by changing the strain
at the centroid. Once the applied axial force and resisting axial force matches to within
a defined tolerance, the curvature is incremented and the process is repeated.

Termination of the incrementing curvatures occurs when a desired limit state is reached
within the material. The ultimate limit state is defined for reinforced concrete cross sec-
tions as the curvature at which either fracture of the longitudinal reinforcement or
crushing of the confined concrete occurs as defined by the respective material models.

Force Control. In force control, the forces (or moments) are incremented until a mate-
rial limit state is reached. In force control, there is iteration within each analysis step
using the tangent cross section stiffness in conjunction with a Newton-Raphson type
iteration. XTRACT provides two options for force control, iteration at a minimum
unbalanced displacement normal and iteration at a constant arc length (Clarke and Han-
cock, 1990). In a force control solution strategy, the inverse problem is solved. With
this type of solution, problems with convergence can occur when there are severe dis-
continuities defined within the material models.

Once the series of moment curvature coordinate pairs have been calculated for a target
axial load, using either displacement or force control, a plot of these points is referred
to as a moment curvature diagram. Each moment curvature analysis is performed for a
target axial force. The results reveal the ultimate curvature that corresponds to the spe-
cific axial force as the last point in the analysis. A series of moment curvature analyses
is typically performed to consider a range of axial force-ultimate curvature pairs.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004
 Axial Force-Moment Interaction Diagrams

In addition to moment curvature analyses, XTRACT can perform axial force-moment

interaction diagrams. Using the axial force-moment interaction type analysis, an axial
force-ultimate curvature surface can be found directly.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In XTRACT there is an option for finding axial force-moment interaction surfaces at

target strains. By allowing the input of target strains, XTRACT provides the user with
the capability to generate interaction surfaces for various limit states: i.e. first material
yield, unconfined concrete spalling, etc. The target strains are defined as the limits of
analysis such that for each coordinate pair of axial force and moment, at least one of the
limit strains will be reached but none will be exceeded.

Typical Axial Force-Moment Interaction Surface. An axial force-moment interac-

tion surface for a typical rectangular reinforced concrete cross section is given in
Figure 2. For this analysis the target concrete strain was 0.003 and the target steel strain

Figure 2. Typical PM Interaction Diagram.

was specified as the strain at the onset of strain hardening (.008). The change of the
surface from being controlled by the concrete in compression to being controlled by the
steel in tension is the so called balanced point.

Analysis Methodology. Internally, XTRACT loops through all fibers and reinforcing
steel bars identifying critical fibers (and/or bars) for each material. The critical fibers
(or bars) are defined as fibers (or bars) that are the greatest distance away from the cen-
troid in the four quadrants relative to the geometric centroid - (+x, +y), (-x, +y), (-x, -
y) and (+x, -y). Finding the bounds between pure tension and pure compression, the
top and bottom points of the interaction surface and the range of centroidal strains are
identified. The range of strains is divided by the number of user defined points on the
interaction surface. For each centroid strain, curvatures are found associated for each
of the critical fibers. Using the minimum curvature, a corresponding moment is calcu-

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004
 lated. The axial force associated with the particular strain diagram along with the cor-
responding moment becomes the axial force-moment coordinate pair where a limiting
strain has been reached. Figure 3 depicts a schematic of varying centroidal strains with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Concrete Cross Section

ε = Tensile Strain Capacity in

the Steel - Pure Tension Strain
Profile

Strain Profile for the Balanced Point

ε=0

Varying Imposed Strain ε = Compression Strain Capac-

Profiles each Resulting in ity of the Concrete - Pure Com-
Corresponding Moments pression Strain Profile
and Curvature
εa = Varying Strain at the
Centroid

Figure 3. Consecutive Strain Diagrams for varying Centroidal Strain.

corresponding strain profiles when considering the axial force-moment interaction sur-
face for bending about the y-axis of a symmetric cross section. The strain profile where
both the tension and compression limit is reached simultaneously is, by definition, the
balanced point of the axial force-moment interaction surface. The angle of each strain
profile is the curvature specific to the strain profile, moment, and axial force.

The limiting strains need not be specified solely for two materials (steel and concrete)
as is typically done when generating an axial force-moment interaction surface; but
rather, any number of materials, at any location, with specified limiting strains can be
defined. This will result in a surface defined by multiple governing material limit
states.

Axial Force-Ultimate Curvature Diagram. Using the approach of specifying the

limiting strains, an axial force-ultimate curvature diagram can be generated. By spec-
ifying ultimate strain values for each material model within the cross section, XTRACT
generates an axial force-moment surface where the limiting strain values are reached
but not exceeded. This surface will have a slight variation from the nominal axial force-
moment interaction surface typical of reinforced concrete. However, the output data
will contain moments and curvatures that correspond to this ultimate limit state as
defined by the limiting strains.

By creating the axial force-ultimate curvature diagram using an interaction surface,

there is no iteration which is required when performing a series of moment curvature

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004
 analyses to construct this diagram. Furthermore, it is of interest to note that because the
strain diagram is being varied, the solution strategy is essentially displacement con-
trolled without iteration.

Example
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

To demonstrate, two rectangular sections are created with the same cross section and
longitudinal reinforcement layout. The sections are 76.2cm (30in) by 76.2cm (30in)
with 12 - φ25mm longitudinal reinforcing bars of A615 Grade 60 steel. One of the cross
sections is transversely reinforced with φ13mm reinforcing bars at 10.2cm (4in) on
center (Figure 4). The other section has no transverse reinforcement.

Confined Concrete Core

Unconfined Concrete Cover

Figure 4. Rectangular Example Section.

The unconfined confined concrete model assumes a 27.6MPa (4,000psi) 28-day con-
crete strength used for both cross sections. The confined concrete model, used for the
confined section, and the longitudinal steel reinforcing model, used for both sections,
are shown in Figure 5. The confined concrete model has been reduced to incorporate

Figure 5. Confined Concrete and Longitudinal Reinforcing Steel Models.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004
 the effects of concrete arching action (Paulay and Priestley, 1992).

Two analyses are performed: one with material yield strains set as target strains and the
other with ultimate strains set as target strains.

Results. Figure 6 shows the axial force-yield curvature and the axial force-ultimate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20000 Axial Force (kN)

15000
Ultimate Surface
10000
Yield Surface Curvature (1/m)
5000

0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-5000

Figure 6. Axial Force verses Curvature Diagram for the Confined Concrete
Section.

curvature diagrams found from analysis with the confined cross section. Figure 7

20000 Axial Force (kN)

15000

10000 Ultimate Surface

Yield Surface
5000
Curvature (1/m)
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-5000

Figure 7. Axial Force verses Curvature Diagram for the Unconfined Concrete
Section.

shows results from analysis with the unconfined concrete section. For the confined
concrete cross section, the maximum curvature capacity occurs at low levels of axial
compression; for the unconfined concrete section, the maximum ultimate curvature
capacity occurs when the section is in tension. Figure 8 shows that both ultimate sur-
faces exhibit the same rapid drop in ultimate curvature with increasing axial load, how-
ever, with the unconfined cross section, this occurs at a lower value of axial load. This
result is not unexpected.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004
 20000 Axial Force (kN)

15000
Ultimate Con-
10000 fined Surface
Ultimate Uncon-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fined Surface
5000
Curvature (1/m)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-5000

Figure 8. Comparison of Ultimate Axial Force-Curvature Surfaces for

Unconfined and Confined Concrete.

The alternative to calculation of the axial force-ultimate curvature relation, as described

above, is to perform a sequence of moment curvature analyses with differing axial
forces. To demonstrate this, four moment curvature analyses are performed with four
different axial forces applied to the confined concrete cross section shown in Figure 4:
500kN, 2000kN, 4000kN, and 6000kN. Figure 9 shows the four moment curvature

Moment (kN-m) 2000

1500
1000
500
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -500 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Curvature (1/m)
-1000
-1500 Moment Curvature Analyses
-2000 with 500kN, 2000kN, 4000kN,
Ultimate Surface and 6000kN.
-2500

Figure 9. Moment Curvature Diagrams for Various Axial Loads Plotted with
Moment and Curvature Coordinate Pairs from the Axial Force-Ultimate
Curvature Interaction Surface.

analysis results plotted with moment curvature data output from the axial force-ultimate
curvature surfaces. It is clear from Figure 9 that the axial force-ultimate curvature sur-
face calculated with an axial force-moment interaction analysis, constructed with ulti-
mate strains, does result in the desired failure envelope.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004
 Conclusions

As earthquake engineering design is turning to a displacement based design methodol-

ogy, realistic assessment of the nonlinear behavior of systems is necessary. A highly
important limit state for reinforced concrete components subject to inelastic deforma-
tion demands is the ultimate curvature. It is the ultimate curvature, in part, that deter-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 11/23/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mines the ultimate rotations as well as the ultimate displacement capacity. To

determine this value for different axial loads, a series of moment curvature analyses are
typically performed and the last point calculated within a moment curvature relation is
taken as the ultimate curvature corresponding that particular axial load.

Using the axial force-interaction analysis in XTRACT with target strains set to ultimate
values, an axial force-ultimate curvature diagram can be constructed. This diagram
shows the variation in axial load with corresponding curvatures but the analysis is per-
formed without iteration. Rapid construction of this curve can be executed in XTRACT
for determination of ultimate curvature capacities; which in turn, can be compared to
curvature demands resulting from seismic excitation.

References

Chadwell, C.B., Imbsen & Associates, (2002), "XTRACT - Cross Section Analysis
Software for Structural and Earthquake Engineering". http://www.imbsen.com/
xtract.htm
Clarke and Hancock (1990), "A Study of Incremental-Iterative Strategies for Non-Lin-
ear Analysis", International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol.
29, 1365-1391.
Kent, D.C., and Park, R. (1971), "Flexural Members with Confined Concrete," Pro-
ceeding ASCE, Vol. 97, No. ST7, July 1971: 1969-1990.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988), "Observed Stress-Strain Behavior
of Confined Concrete," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No.
8, Aug. 1988: 1824-1849.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sheikh, S.A., and Uzumeri, S.M. (1980), "Strength and Ductility of Confined Con-
crete Columns, " Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST5, May 1980: 1079-1101.
Vallenas, J.M., Bertero, V.V., and Popov, E.P. (1979), Hysteretic Behavior of Rein-
forced Concrete Structural Walls, Report UCB/EERC-79/20, Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Aug. 1979.

Copyright ASCE 2004 Structures 2004

Structures 2004