Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Beam–Column Elements
Michael H. Scott1 and Gregory L. Fenves2
Abstract: A new plastic hinge integration method overcomes the problems with nonobjective response caused by strain-softening
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
behavior in force-based beam–column finite elements. The integration method uses the common concept of a plastic hinge length in a
numerically consistent manner. The method, derived from the Gauss–Radau quadrature rule, integrates deformations over specified plastic
hinge lengths at the ends of the beam–column element, and it has the desirable property that it reduces to the exact solution for linear
problems. Numerical examples show the effect of plastic hinge integration on the response of force-based beam–column elements for both
strain-hardening and strain-softening section behavior in the plastic hinge regions. The incorporation of a plastic hinge length in the
element integration method ensures objective element and section response, which is important for strain-softening behavior in reinforced
concrete structures. Plastic rotations are defined in a consistent manner and clearly related to deformations in the plastic hinges.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2006兲132:2共244兲
CE Database subject headings: Beam columns; Finite elements; Earthquake engineering; Nonlinear analysis; Plastic hinges;
Simulation models.
beam–column elements and cross section of element The axial force and bending moment at location x along the ele-
ment for a two-dimensional simply supported basic system is
given by the following equilibrium interpolation matrix:
continuum finite elements was investigated by de Borst et al.
共1994兲 and Bazant and Planas 共1998兲. Consistent with their find-
ings in the continuum context, the displacement-based approach
b= 冋 1 0 0
0 x/L − 1 x/L
册 共2兲
causes localization of response over a single displacement-based Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 can be extended to include member loads and
beam–column element. The length of the element undergoing section shear. From the principle of virtual forces, the compatibil-
softening response controls the structural response, thus leading ity relationship between the section and element deformations is
冕
to nonobjectivity because the structural response depends on the L
choice of the characteristic length in the finite element discretiza-
v= bTe dx 共3兲
tion. In contrast, with force-based beam–column elements defor- 0
mations localize at a single integration point rather than across an
entire element, making the characteristic length equal to the inte- The linearization of Eq. 共3兲 with respect to the basic forces gives
gration weight associated with the section undergoing strain soft- the element flexibility matrix
冕
ening. This leads to a loss of objectivity because the response L
v
changes as a function of the number of element integration points f= = bTfsb dx 共4兲
rather than as a function of the element length. To address local- q 0
ization in force-based elements, Coleman and Spacone 共2001兲
The section stiffness matrix is ks = s / e, and its inverse gives the
developed a constant fracture energy regularization technique to
section flexibility matrix, fs = ks−1. The element stiffness matrix, k,
maintain objective response for strain-softening behavior as the
in the basic system is the inverse of the element flexibility matrix,
number of integration points changes. This regularization method,
k = f−1, as given in Eq. 共4兲. Details of the implementation of the
however, requires a modification of the stress–strain properties in
force-based beam–column element for use in a general finite ele-
the element based on the number of integration points.
ment analysis framework using the direct stiffness method are
To address this problem, this paper presents a new element
given by Neuenhofer and Filippou 共1997兲.
integration method that confines nonlinear constitutive behavior
The compatibility relationship in Eq. 共3兲 is evaluated by nu-
to plastic hinge regions of a specified length while maintaining
merical quadrature
numerical accuracy and objectivity. The force-based formulation
is ideal for this approach because the deformations in the plastic Np
hinge regions are computed such that the corresponding section v= 兺 共bTe兩x= 兲i i
共5兲
forces are in equilibrium with the element end forces. The paper i=1
begins with the force-based beam–column element using the stan- where and ⫽locations and associated weights, respectively, of
dard Gauss–Lobatto integration rule for distributed plasticity. the N p integration points over the element length 关0,L兴. In a simi-
Then, the concept of plastic hinge integration is presented. Three lar manner, the element flexibility matrix in Eq. 共4兲 is evaluated
plastic hinge integration methods are investigated to arrive at a numerically
new, optimal approach based on Gauss–Radau quadrature. This
Np
paper concludes with numerical examples that demonstrate the
differences between the plastic hinge integration methods and f= 兺
i=1
共bTfsb兩x= 兲i i
共6兲
show how the inclusion of a plastic hinge length in the element
integration rule enables objective response for the beam–column Gauss–Lobatto quadrature is used in force-based elements be-
sections, element, and ultimately the structure. cause it places integration points at the element ends, where the
bending moments are largest in the absence of member loads. A
graphical representation of the four-point 共N p = 4兲 Gauss–Lobatto
Force-Based Element Formulation quadrature rule applied to Eq. 共5兲 is shown in Fig. 2, where the
integrand, bTe, is evaluated at the ith location i and treated as
Force-based beam-column elements 共Spacone et al. 1996兲 are for- constant over the length i. The highest order polynomial inte-
mulated in a basic system without rigid-body displacement grated exactly by the Gauss–Lobatto quadrature rule is 2N p-3,
modes. The element deformations, in the vector v, are assumed which is two orders lower than Gauss–Legendre quadrature
small compared to the element length. There are three element 共Hildebrand 1974兲. For a linear-elastic, prismatic beam–column
deformations for two-dimensional elements, as shown in Fig. 1 element without member loads, quadratic polynomials appear in
for a simply supported basic system, and six for three- the integrand of Eq. 共3兲 due to the product of the linear curvature
evaluate force-based element compatibility relationship force-based elements. For the l p implied by the number of Gauss–
Lobatto integration points, 20 must be modified according to
Eq. 共7兲 in order to maintain a constant energy release
distribution in the vector e with the linear interpolation functions Gcf 0.8f ⬘c
20 = − + c 共8兲
for the bending moment in the matrix b. Therefore, at least three 0.6f ⬘c l p Ec
Gauss–Lobatto integration points are required to represent exactly
a linear curvature distribution along the element. To represent Although this approach maintains objective response at the global
accurately the nonlinear material response of a force-based beam– level, it affects the local section response through an unnatural
column element, four to six Gauss–Lobatto integration points are coupling of the concrete material properties to the element inte-
typically used 共Neuenhofer and Filippou 1997兲. gration rule. A second regularization is required to correct for the
loss of objectivity in the section response that results from this
approach 共Coleman and Spacone 2001兲.
For the plastic hinge integration methods presented in this
Loss of Objectivity in Force-Based Beam–Column
paper, l p is specified as part of the element integration rule and it
Elements
becomes a free parameter. Therefore, it is possible to determine a
plastic hinge length that will maintain a constant energy release
The primary advantage of the Gauss–Lobatto integration rule is it
without modification to the concrete stress-strain relationship, al-
permits the spread of plasticity along the element length. For
leviating the need for a subsequent regularization of the section
hardening section behavior, the computed element response will
response. For example, using the approach of Coleman and
converge to a unique solution as the number of integration points
Spacone, the plastic hinge length can be determined from the
increases. On the other hand, for softening section behavior where
concrete properties using Eq. 共7兲
deformations localize at a single integration point, a unique solu-
tion does not exist and the computed response depends on the Gcf
characteristic length implied by the integration weights of the lp = 共9兲
0.6f ⬘c 共20 − c + 0.8f ⬘c /Ec兲
Gauss–Lobatto quadrature rule. This leads to a loss of objectivity,
where the element response will change as a function of N p. The introduction of a plastic hinge length, such as that computed
To address the loss of objectivity in force-based beam–column by Eq. 共9兲, to the element integration rule maintains the logical
elements, Coleman and Spacone 共2001兲 developed a regulariza- separation of the material properties from the element integration
tion technique that modifies the material stress–strain behavior to rule.
maintain a constant energy release after strain-softening initiates. Alternatively, the plastic hinge length can be specified using
Coleman and Spacone applied this method to the Kent–Park con- an empirically validated relationship, such as the Paulay and
crete model 共Kent and Park 1971兲 shown in Fig. 3, where the Priestley 共1992兲 equation for reinforced concrete members
shaded area is equal to the energy released after the onset of strain
softening l p = 0.08L + 0.022f ydb 共kN, mm兲 共10兲
where L⫽length of the member; and f y and db⫽yield strength and
diameter, respectively, of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The
advantage of this approach is that the plastic hinge length in-
cludes the effect of strain softening and localization as determined
by experiments.
冕 冕 冕
l pI L−l pJ L
v= bTe dx + bTe dx + bTe dx 共11兲
0 l pI L−l pJ
v= 兺
i=1
共bTe兩x= 兲i + feintq
i
共12兲
冕
L−l pJ
Midpoint Integration
feint = bTfseb dx 共13兲
l pI The most accurate one-point integration method is the midpoint
rule, for which the integration points are located at the center of
The matrix fse contains the elastic flexibility coefficients at a cross each plastic hinge region, = 兵l pI / 2 , L − l pJ / 2其, and the weights are
section of the interior equal to the plastic hinge lengths, = 兵l pI , l pJ其. The midpoint rule
冤 冥
is illustrated in Fig. 4共a兲. A major drawback to the midpoint rule
1
0 is the integration points are not located at the element ends where
EA the maximum bending moments occur in the absence of member
fse = 共14兲
1 loads. As a result, the element will exhibit a larger flexural capac-
0 ity than expected, which in fact will be a function of the plastic
EI
hinge lengths. Furthermore, the midpoint rule gives the exact in-
with the elastic modulus E, the cross-sectional area A, and the tegration of only linear functions, thus there is an error in the
second moment of the cross-sectional area I. Eq. 共14兲 assumes integration of quadratic polynomials. In summary, the midpoint
the coordinate axis is located at the centroid of the section. The plastic hinge integration method satisfies criterion 共3兲, but not 共1兲
linearization of Eq. 共12兲 with respect to the basic forces gives or 共2兲.
the element flexibility as the sum of numerical integration over
the plastic hinge regions and the flexibility of the element interior
Endpoint Integration
Np
兺
The integration points can be located at the element ends,
f= 共bTfsb兩x= 兲i + feint i
共15兲 = 兵0 , L其, while the integration weights remain equal to the plastic
i=1
hinge lengths, = 兵l pI , l pJ其, as shown in Fig. 4共b兲. However, an
As a limiting case, the numerical integration for distributed plas- order of accuracy is lost with this endpoint integration approach,
ticity in Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲 is recovered from Eqs. 共12兲 and 共15兲 because it is only capable of the exact integration of constant
when the sum of the plastic hinge lengths is equal to the element functions, which produces a significant error in the representation
length, l pI + l pJ = L. In this case, the matrix feint is zero. of linear curvature distributions. Therefore, the endpoint plastic
To represent strain softening in the plastic hinge regions of the hinge integration method meets criteria 共1兲 and 共3兲, but it fails 共2兲.
element, it is desirable to use a plastic hinge integration rule for
Eqs. 共12兲 and 共15兲 that satisfies the following criteria:
Two-Point Gauss–Radau Integration
1. Sample section forces at the element ends where the bending
moments are largest in the absence of member loads; From the previous two methods, it is not possible to perform
2. Integrate quadratic polynomials exactly to provide the exact one-point integration for each plastic hinge region and satisfy the
solution for linear curvature distributions; and three criteria. As a result, it is necessary to investigate two-point
3. Integrate deformations over the specified lengths l pI and l pJ integration methods. Two-point Gauss–Legendre integration over
using a single section in each plastic hinge region. each plastic hinge region gives the desired level of element inte-
The Gauss–Lobatto integration rule for distributed plasticity sat- gration accuracy; however, there are no integration points at the
isfies criteria 共1兲 and 共2兲, but it does not satisfy 共3兲 because the element ends. Two-point Gauss–Lobatto integration over the
plastic hinge lengths are implied by the number of integration hinge regions places integration points at the element ends, but is
points, N p. Note that if an integration rule satisfies the three cri- not exact for the case of a linear curvature distribution.
teria, strain hardening can be represented, but it does not spread An alternative two-point integration rule is based on Gauss–
past the specified plastic hinge lengths. In the following subsec- Radau quadrature 共Hildebrand 1974兲. It is similar to Gauss–
tions, three plastic hinge integration methods are investigated to Lobatto, but it has an integration point at only one end of an
arrive at a fourth method that meets the three criteria for strain- interval rather than at both ends. This gives Gauss–Radau quadra-
softening response. ture an accuracy of 2N p − 2, one order higher than that for Gauss–
冕
L−4l pJ
feint = 共bTfseb兩x=8/3lpI兲3l pI + bTfseb dx + 共bTfseb兩x=L−8/3lpJ兲3l pJ
4l pI
共17兲
With this modification of Gauss–Radau, plasticity is confined to a
single integration point at each end of the element. The represen-
tation of linear curvature distributions is exact, including the case
where 4l pI + 4l pJ ⬎ L, because a definite integral is additive over its
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Numerical Examples
冋册冋 册
hardening behavior because plasticity is confined to a single in-
Ip − p兩x=0l pI tegration point at each end of the element.
= 共23兲 The single integration point in each plastic hinge region with
Jp p兩x=Ll pJ
the modified Gauss–Radau method is beneficial for the case
Eq. 共23兲 demonstrates that the plastic curvatures can be obtained where deformations localize due to softening flexural behavior.
through a scaling of the plastic rotations computed with the modi- The moment-rotation response for the beam with softening be-
fied Gauss–Radau plastic hinge integration method. This simple havior 共␣ = −0.03兲 is shown in Fig. 8共b兲. When yielding occurs at
relationship between plastic rotation for the element and the plas- the element ends, the flexural deformations localize at a single
tic curvature is a major advantage of the new integration method. integration point, and the interior of the beam must unload to
concrete properties
bridge pier, computed by Eq. 共18兲, is shown in Fig. 13. When the
lateral load capacity of the bridge pier decreases by 20% due to
strain softening in the concrete, the plastic rotation is p = 0.04.
v ⫽ element deformation vector; Kent, D. C., and Park, R. 共1971兲. “Flexural members with confined
⫽ integration point location; and concrete.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 97共7兲, 1969–1990.
⫽ integration point weight. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1988兲. “Theoretical
stress–strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114共8兲,
1804–1826.
McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L., Scott, M. H., and Jeremić, B. 共2000兲.
References “Open system for earthquake engineering simulation 具http://
opensees.berkeley.edu典
Bazant, Z. P., and Planas, J. 共1998兲. Fracture and size effect in concrete Neuenhofer, A., and Filippou, F. C. 共1997兲. “Evaluation of nonlinear
and other quasibrittle materials, CRC, Boca Raton, Fla. frame finite-element models.” J. Struct. Eng., 123共7兲, 958–966.
Clough, R. W., Benuska, K. L., and Wilson, E. L. 共1965兲. “Inelastic Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. 共1992兲. Seismic design of reinforced
earthquake response of tall buildings.” Proc., 3rd World Conf. on concrete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand. Powell, G. H., and Chen, P. F. 共1986兲. “3D beam-column element with
Coleman, J., and Spacone, E. 共2001兲. “Localization issues in force-based generalized plastic hinges.” J. Eng. Mech., 112共7兲, 627–641.
frame elements.” J. Struct. Eng., 127共11兲, 1257–1265. Simo, J. C., and Hughes, T. J. R. 共1998兲. Computational inelasticity,
de Borst, R., Feenstra, P. H., Pamin, J., and Sluys, L. J. 共1994兲. “Some Springer-Verlag, New York.
current issues in computational mechanics of concrete structures.” Spacone, E., Ciampi, V., and Filippou, F. C. 共1996兲. “Mixed formulation
Computer Modelling of Concrete Structures, Proc., EURO-C, of nonlinear beam finite element.” Comput. Struct., 58, 71–83.
H. Mang, N. Bićanić, and R. de Borst, eds., Swansea, U.K. Stoer, J., and Bulirsch, R. 共1993兲. Introduction to numerical analysis, 2nd
El-Tawil, S., and Deierlein, G. G. 共1998兲. “Stress-resultant plasticity for Ed., Springer, New York.
frame structures.” J. Eng. Mech., 124共12兲, 1360–1370. Tanaka, H., and Park, R. 共1990兲. “Effect of lateral confining reinforce-
Federal Emergency Management Agency 共FEMA兲. 共2000兲. “Prestandard ment on the ductile behaviour of reinforced concrete columns.”
and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” FEMA Rep. No. 90-2, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury,
356, Washington, D. C. Canterbury, U.K.
Filippou, F. C., and Fenves, G. L. 共2004兲. “Methods of analysis for Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L. 共2000兲. The finite element method:
earthquake-resistant structures.” Earthquake engineering: From engi- The basis, 5th Ed., Vol. 1, Butterworth, Stoneham, Mass.