Nonlinear Modeling of Structures Course

A one hour course on
Nonlinear Modeling of Structures
Filip C. Filippou
Professor of Structural Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Computational framework for earthquake simulation
at Berkeley
OpenSees (OPEN Software for Earthquake Engineering Simulation)
http://opensees.berkeley.edu (last release 2.2.0, August 2010)
for teaching and concept development
FEDEASMatLab
http://fedeaslab.berkeley.edu (last release 3.1 July 2010)
Element Selection in EQ Engineering Practice
Criteria
Economy in model development and result interpretation considering parameter
sensitivity and multiple ground motions
Knowledge and experience of analysis team
Detail of response (global, regional or local) and accuracy
Selection (in decreasing popularity and increasing cost and expectations)

Linear elastic elements of any type (1d, 2d, 3d)
Nonlinear beam and column elements with plastic hinges
Nonlinear beam and column elements with material response integration
(fiber, fiber-hinge, inelastic beam-column finite elements)
2d and 3d finite elements (few robust constitutive models, few advanced
features when compared with expectations: e.g. bond-slip, buckling of
reinforcement, large discrete cracks, shear sliding, local buckling, fatigue,
tearing of steel, etc)
Beam-Column Models
Concentrated plasticity models = one rotational spring at each end + elastic

element
Advantages: relatively simple, good for interface effects (e.g. bar pull-out)
Disadvantages: force-deformation of rotational spring depends on geometry and
moment distribution; relation to strains requires plastic hinge length; interaction
of axial force, moment good for metallic elements; more complex interaction
questionable; numerical robustness difficult
Distributed inelasticity models (FE model) = consistent integration of section

response at specific control or monitoring points
Advantages: versatile and consistent; material response can be incorporated in
section response; interaction of axial force and moment (and shear and torsion)
can be rationally developed, thus numerical robustness is possible
Disadvantages: can be expensive (not clear), require good understanding of
integration to determine validity of strains and local response
Structural Beam-Column Models
N
M
Distributed inelasticity models
2 monitoring points usually at element ends = inelastic zone model

-
Good for columns and girders with low gravity loads

Consistent location of integration point?
Value of fixed length of inelastic zone?
Good for softening response (Fenves/Scott, ASCE 2006)
Variable inelastic zone element (CLLee/FCF, ASCE 2009); good for hardening
response
>2 monitoring points

- Good for girders with significant gravity loads
- 4-5 integration points are advisable (good plastic hinge length value with
corresponding integration weights)
- One element per girder -> avoid very high local deformation values
Beam-Column Models: Concentrated Inelasticity
Concentrated plasticity models =

one or more rotational springs at each end +
elastic element
N
M
Advantages:
relatively simple, good(?) for interface effects
(e.g. shear sliding, rotation due to bar pull-out)
Disadvantages:
properties of rotational spring depend on geometry
and moment distribution; relation to strains
requires plastic hinge length;
interaction of axial force, moment and shear ????;
generality??? numerical robustness???
Beam-Column Models: Distributed Inelasticity
x
Distributed inelasticity models (1d FE model) =
consistent integration of section response at specific
control or monitoring points
Advantages:
versatile and consistent;
section response from integration of material response
thus N-My-Mz interaction (Bernoulli)
(shear and torsion?? Timoshenko, )
thus numerical robustness is possible
Disadvantages:
can be expensive (what is the price $$$$) with wasted
sections for localized inelasticity
inaccuracy of local response (localization)
thus better understanding of theory for interpretation of
local response and damage is necessary
y
z
Economic Distributed(?) inelasticity models for Columns

x
2 monitoring points at element ends =

inelastic zone model
-
y
z
Good for columns and girders with low gravity loads

N-My-Mz interaction straightforward
shear and torsion ???
Consistent location of integration point?
Value of fixed length of inelastic zone?
Good for softening response
(Fenves/Scott, ASCE 2006)
- Hardening response Spreading inelastic zone
element SIZE (CL Lee/FCF, ASCE 2009 to appear)
without N-M interaction; is generalization possible??
Good Distributed inelasticity models for Girders
For girders with significant gravity loads

- 4-5 integration points are advisable (good plastic hinge length value with
corresponding integration weights)
- One element per girder -> avoid very high local deformation values
Section Response for Distributed Inelasticity Models
Section resultant formulation based on plasticity theory, damage, etc, etc

Relatively economical, effects can be lumped in a composite section response
Generalization and extension to other than the calibrated cases may not be
straightforward; hardening is very difficult to incorporate let alone softening
Section geometry must always be accounted for (are limit capacities sufficient?)
Integration of 1d, 1 d, 2d, and 3d material response

For midpoint integration the name fiber model is used; but other integration
methods are possible
For many fibers it can be expensive; how many fibers should be used?

Section resultant formulation based on
plasticity theory, damage, etc, etc
x 2 + 3.5 x 2 y 2 + 1.2 y 2 = 1
1
numerical solution
analytical solution
polynomial approximation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1
-0.5
0.5
Relatively economical, effects can be

lumped in a composite section
response
Generalization and extension to other
than the calibrated cases may not be
straightforward; hardening is difficult to
incorporate, let alone softening
Section geometry must always be
accounted for (are limit capacities
sufficient?)
Hardening ???
RC section, softening ???

Integration of 1d, 1 d, 2d, and 3d
material response
a)
For midpoint integration the name

fiber model is used; are other
integration methods better??
how many fibers should be used and
for what purpose?
b)
MID25
z
Two key ideas for beam-column elements
How to incorporate nonlinear geometry under large displacements?

Formulate the element in the basic reference system without rigid body modes
Use corotational formulation to transform basic variables to global system
Keep element force-deformation relation in basic system simple: use linear
geometry under small deformations
Use one element per structural member (see point below)
If second-order effects within structural member are significant, break structural
member into 2 elements by inserting middle node
How to formulate a robust frame element?

Use Hu-Washizu functional with independent interpolation of forces (exact under
certain conditions), displacements and section deformations
(Taylor/Filippou/Saritas Comp Mech, 2003)
No need for mesh refinement; keep integration points to 4, or 2 with variable
integration weight (5 respectively 3 points for girders under large element loads)
Advantages of Mixed Formulation in Corotational Framework
Nonlinear geometry is uncoupled from basic element response; thus,

geometric transformation classes (e.g. large displacements, P-, linear) can
be implemented once for all user frame elements (OpenSees, FEDEASLab)
Force interpolation functions are exact under certain conditions
Element deformations arise in weak form and represent well the inelastic
strain distribution (see next point)
Without need for mesh and integration point refinement there is no danger
of localization; local strains are relatively accurate as long as the plastic
hinge length is accurate ( = integration weight of end points) fiber hinge is
a good choice for columns under plastic or softening response
The effect of distributed element loads can be accounted for exactly with the
force interpolation functions
Corotational formulation for large displacement geometry

u6
u y = u 5 u 2
v
= a gu
u
u x = u 4 u1
u5
Ln
p = aTgu q
u3
k e = k g + a Tgu k t a gu
u4
Y
L
y
u2
i
v1 = Ln L
v 2 = u3
v3 = u6
u1
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Nonlinear geometry with large displacements

Frame by Lee et al. (1968)
Lee`s Frame
P,w
120 cm
24 cm
96 cm
2 cm
120
3 cm
100
E = 70608 MPa
80
E H = 01
. E
y = 1020 MPa
y
60
120 cm
40
20
0
-20
-40
-40
-20
20
40
60
x
80
100
120
140
160
Lee Frame (Lee et al. 1968)

Lee`s F ram e
20
linear elas tic
A pplied Load P (k N)
15
elas to-plas tic
with k inem atic
hardening
10
-5
propos ed flex . form ul. - 3 elm ts
C ic hon (1983) - 10 elm ts
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
D is plac em ent v (c m )
70
80
90
100
Force-displacement of eccentric column (basic element)

P
2.5
x 10
Linear element
2
Axial Force
1.5
P
0.5
2 E lem ents
4 E lem ents
8 E lem ents
16 E lem ents
32 E lem ents
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
E nd Rotation
10
Brace buckling (Black and Popov 1980)
B u c k lin g B ra c e w it h P -
150
100
Vertical Force
50
-5 0
-1 0 0
-2 . 5
-2
-1 . 5
-1
-0 . 5
0
V e rt ic a l D is p la c e m e n t
0.5
1.5
Brace buckling (Black and Popov 1980)
11
P. Uriz and S. Mahin

UC Berkeley
Lateral Buckling: CST and Quad element in 3d space
12
General multi-step analysis
Analysis with scripts
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
Newton-Raphson algorithm and its variants

The Newton-Raphson algorithm requires that a new tangent stiness matrix
be assembled at every iteration of every load step. This means that the linear
system of equations for the displacement correction needs to be solved from
scratch at every iteration of every load step. For very large structural models
this is a very expensive proposition.
In the modied Newton-Raphson method the tangent matrix is not updated
at every iteration, but only once at the beginning of each load step. In the
initial stiness method, the initial stiness is used throughout the incremental analysis. Alternative strategies that update the stiness matrix every so
often are also possible. If the stiness matrix is not updated, the last decomposition of the stiness matrix is used for the solution of the linearized
equilibrium equations and only the load changes at each iteration.
Finally, quasi-Newton methods do not use the tangent stiness matrix of
the structure but obtain secant stiness approximations of the inverse of
the stiness matrix from the displacement vectors of previous iterations.
Among the best known quasi-Newton methods is the BFGS method, which
was originally developed for nonlinear optimization problems. For a brief
description of the method consult Bathes 1982 book pp. 759-761.
c
Filip
C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 14
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
Response of 2-dof truss under 2 load increments with = 0.5

1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
Load factor
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
NR steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Figure: Newton-Raphson method

c
Filip
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results

1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S t i f U p d t = no ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
modified NR steps
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Figure: Modied Newton-Raphson method

c
Filip
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S t i f U p d t = no ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
Load factor
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
modified NR steps
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Figure: Initial stiness method

c
Filip
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results

1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
steps
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Figure: Incrementation without correction

c
Filip
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
Load factor
0.7
no step = 5;
Dlam0
= 0.2;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
steps
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3

c
Filip
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results

1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 10;
Dlam0
= 0.1;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
steps
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3

c
Filip
LF control in incrementation
Stiness parameter
Algorithm with LF Control
LF control in iteration
Examples

8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
Load factor
0.8
no step = 23;
Dlam0
= 0.10;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State ;
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S Initialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Increment
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Vertical displacement (downward)
0.4
0.45
Figure: Load factor control during incrementation; only

21 steps are able to complete; the last step ip-ops
c
Filip
LF control in incrementation
Stiness parameter
Algorithm with LF Control
LF control in iteration
Examples

1.5
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
Load factor
0.5
no step = 120;
Dlam0
= 0.10;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State ;
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S Initialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Increment
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Iterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Vertical displacement (downward)
2.5
Figure: Response of 2-dof truss with load factor control

c
Filip
Correlation studies of analysis with experiment: important but
Many tests have been conducted and more are under way
Before understanding the behavior of assemblies one should understand the
behavior of the constituent parts; not always possible or available
Reduced scale models require attention to scaling laws (e.g. weld fractures,
bond-slip)
Older tests are not complete either for lack of enough channels of
measurement or for lack of reporting (lost data); it is hard to obtain funding to
repeat old tests
Tests may have experimental errors (these are not reported always)
Success or failure can be decided by looking at all experimental data, not a
suitable subset of them
We can learn from failure as much as we learn from success, even though this
is not accepted practice in research publications; better paradigm is necessary
A simple start
RC columns with biaxial bending and variable axial force
13
Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Load-Displacement Response in y
40
py
30
Px =44.48 kN
51.44 cm
pz
Load y (kN)
20
10
0
-10
-20
experiment
-30
-40
analysis
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Tip Displacement y (cm)
Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Load-Displacement Response in z

40
py
30
Px =44.48 kN
Load z (kN)
20
51.44 cm
pz
10
0
-10
-20
experiment
-30
-40
analysis
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Tip Displacement z (cm)
14
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
Moment Mz (kN-cm)
Moment Mz (kN-cm)
Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Reinforcing Steel Strain History
500
0
y
-500
-1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
-2000
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
-2000
-80
40
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
60
80
Fiber Strain (mil-cm/cm)
Steel Strain (mil-cm/cm)
Effect of reinforcing bar pull-out from base
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
Moment Mz (kN-cm)
Moment Mz (kN-cm)
Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Reinforcing Steel Strain History
500
0
y
-500
-1000
500
0
y
-500
-1000
-1500
-1500
-2000
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
Steel Strain (mil-cm/cm)
20
30
40
-2000
-80
-60
-40
-20
20
40
Fiber Strain (mil-cm/cm)
15
Eccentrically braced steel frames
Shear Link
Eccentrically Braced Frame
Shear Link Experiment (Hjelmstad/Popov 1983)

Equal moments at member ends
W18 40
d = 17.88 in
t f = 0.521 in
b f = 5.985 in
L=28 in
t w = 0.314 in
Imposed vertical displacement at the right end of the element.
Loading History
Displacement, in
-2
-4
0
4
6
Pseudo time
10
16
Shear Link Experiment (Hjelmstad/Popov 1983)

250
200
150
Shear Force (kips)
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
Experiment
Analysis
-200
-250
-4
-3
-2
-1
Imposed Displacement (in)

Concrete shear model
Monitoring section
Av f v
Monitoring point
17
Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beams A1 and A2 (shear-compresion)

P
b=307mm
M10
M10
D4 ties
D5 ties
D5 ties
L=3660 mm (Beam A1)

L=4570 mm (Beam A2)
L=6400 mm (Beam A3)
M25
M30 M25
Beam A1
Beam A2
M30
M25
M30
Beam A3
600
Experiment
2D-FEM Model
Proposed Model
A1
500
500
Point45
400
Load (kN)
h=561mm
64mm
each
64mm
each
600
b=307mm
b=307mm
M10
A2
400
Point113
Point25
300
Experiment
2D-FEM Model
Proposed Model
300
200
200
Point10
100
100
0
0
10
15
20
Midspan Deflection (mm)
25
30
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Midspan deflection (mm)
35
40
45
Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beam A1 (shear-compresion failure)

600
Experiment
2D-FEM Model
Proposed Model
500
Point 10
Point45
Load (kN)
400
Point113
Point 25
Point25
300
200
Point10
100
0
0
Point 45
10
15
20
Midspan Deflection (mm)
25
30
Point 113
18
Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beam A3 (compression failure)

600
Experiment
2D-FEM Model
Proposed Model
500
Point40
Load (kN)
400
300
One element per half span with 5

Lobatto integration points is used
The cross-section is divided into 10
midpoint layers
Basic concrete material parameters are
taken from Vecchio-Shim
Point65
Point25
200
Point 10
100
0
0
Point10
Point 25
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Midspan deflection (mm)

Point 40
Point 65
Thomsen-Wallace (2004) Slender Shear Walls

48"
200
150
Shear Force (kN)
100
50
A
144"
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-100
-50
0
50
50
Top Displacement (mm)
(mm)
100
100
Section A-A
8- #3 bars
#2 bars @7.5"
4"
48"
(Concrete cover 0.75")
19
Lefas-Kotsovos-Ambraseys (1990) Shear Walls

Shear walls SW21 and SW22 have aspect ratio L/h=2.0
d
180
160
140
Loading Direction
Shear Force,kN
120
100
80
60
40
Experiment =0
Analysis =0
Experiment =0.1
Analysis =0.1
20
0
0
10
15
Top Displacement,mm
20
25
Evolution of shear wall cracking Tensile damage
c) Point 97
b) Point 35
Point35
Point40
Point60
Point97
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
1.2
1
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
Column axis
a) Point 30
Point30
0.9
-0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
20
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

FCF, University of California, Berkeley
Full scale 7 story wall building (Panagiotou, Restrepo, Conte, UCSD)
Height 20 m
Flange Wall
Weight 226 tons

Web Wall
Precast
Column
Gravity Column
Table motion direction
Analytical Model of

Confined and unconfined zones in the web wall
21
Analytical Model of

Interstory drift and displacement envelopes
Excellent agreement in terms of interstory drift and displacement

Increasing damage due to increasing intensity motions is visible
Analytical Model of

Residual displacement and floor acceleration envelopes
Good agreement in terms of residual displacement

Satisfactory results in terms of floor acceleration
22
Analytical Model of

Story shear and overturning moment envelopes
Good agreement also in terms of internal forces

Maximum discrepancy during last motion at shear wall base
Analytical Model of

Experimental and analytical frequency spectrum
f1 = 1.83 Hz (0.55 s)
Beginning of EQ1
f1 = 0.67 Hz (1.43 s)
End of EQ4
Significant lengthening of fundamental period of specimen (> than 2.5 x)

Damage evolution tracked with remarkable accuracy
23
Analytical Model of

Top displacement time history
Conclusions
Nonlinear Analysis is gradually going to become a designers tool for the

evaluation of existing structures and the design of new important structures
It can offer significant insights into the global, but particularly into the local
response of structures and, thus serve for the identification of local failure
mechanisms
The current state of the art permits the simulation of the hysteretic behavior
of structural elements with limited success; deeper understanding of
material behavior under cyclic loading is, however, indispensable in order to
arrive at failure mode prediction
Thorough correlations between numerical models and specimens of
increasing complexity are indispensable; limited progress has been made to
date, particularly regarding 3d response
24
Continuing Challenges
Effect for shear, torsion and interaction with axial force and bending
moment (3d and not just 2d analysis for shear)
Effect of bond-slip, pull-out of reinforcing steel
3d beam-column joint model that is robust and efficient
3d constitutive model for concrete under large inelastic strains (damage,
dilatation, )
Buckling of reinforcing steel (global and not local)
Low cycle fatigue of structural steel; fracture
Simulation of structural subassemblies and full-scale structures
Many more: partitions, slab-wall-column interactions, cladding, infills
Future outlook
Much work needs to be done before nonlinear analysis can have

widespread use, because of the complexity of nonlinear solution algorithms
and the lack of training of modern engineers; thus researchers and
educators need to redouble their efforts in clarifying the concepts
I hope that with the contributions of all those present in an open forum
(open platform) we will be able to experience significant progress in the
nonlinear simulation of concrete structures in the future
25

Nonlinear Modeling of Structures Course

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonlinear Modeling of Structures Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A one hour course on

Nonlinear Modeling of Structures

University of California, Berkeley

Computational framework for earthquake simulation

Element Selection in EQ Engineering Practice

Selection (in decreasing popularity and increasing cost and expectations)

Concentrated plasticity models = one rotational spring at each end + elastic

Distributed inelasticity models (FE model) = consistent integration of section

Structural Beam-Column Models

Distributed inelasticity models

2 monitoring points usually at element ends = inelastic zone model

Good for columns and girders with low gravity loads

>2 monitoring points

Beam-Column Models: Concentrated Inelasticity

Concentrated plasticity models =

Beam-Column Models: Distributed Inelasticity

Economic Distributed(?) inelasticity models for Columns

2 monitoring points at element ends =

Good for columns and girders with low gravity loads

Good Distributed inelasticity models for Girders

For girders with significant gravity loads

Section Response for Distributed Inelasticity Models

Section resultant formulation based on plasticity theory, damage, etc, etc

Integration of 1d, 1 d, 2d, and 3d material response

Section Response for Distributed Inelasticity Models

Relatively economical, effects can be

Section Response for Distributed Inelasticity Models

For midpoint integration the name

Two key ideas for beam-column elements

How to incorporate nonlinear geometry under large displacements?

How to formulate a robust frame element?

Advantages of Mixed Formulation in Corotational Framework

Nonlinear geometry is uncoupled from basic element response; thus,

Corotational formulation for large displacement geometry

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Nonlinear geometry with large displacements

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Lee Frame (Lee et al. 1968)

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Force-displacement of eccentric column (basic element)

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Brace buckling (Black and Popov 1980)

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Brace buckling (Black and Popov 1980)

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

P. Uriz and S. Mahin

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

Lateral Buckling: CST and Quad element in 3d space

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

General multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

NR and its Variants

Newton-Raphson algorithm and its variants

General multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

NR and its Variants

Response of 2-dof truss under 2 load increments with = 0.5

Figure: Newton-Raphson method

General multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

NR and its Variants

Response of 2-dof truss under 2 load increments with = 0.5

Figure: Modied Newton-Raphson method