OTC 3979

INELASTIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF BRACED

PLATFORMS FOR SEISMIC LOADING

by Victor A. Zayas, Stephen A. Mahin, Egor P. Popov,

and Pui-Shum B. Shing, University of California

Copyright1981 Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 13th Annual OTC In Houston, TX, May 4-7, 1981. The material Is sUbject to correction by the author, Per-
mission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT design considerations of the American Petroleum

Institute (API RP 2A) [1] stipulate that such offshore
A review of state-of-the-~rt computer analysis of facilities be sufficiently ductile to remain stable
the seismic response of braced steel offshore struc- under rare and unusually intense earthquake ground
tures is presented. The response of such structures motions. To satisfy this ductility level requirement a
is strongly dependent on nonlinear buckling behavior designer must be able to demonstrate that a fixed off-
of the diagonal braces. Although analysis of this shore platform is capable of absorbing at least four
type have recently been used in the offshore industry, times the amount of energy absorbed under the strength
their reliability and limitations have not been veri- level design criteria with the structure remaining
fied against experimental data. Analyses results are stable.
compared herein with experimentally determined behavior
of two X-braced tubular frame models. E~erimental and analytical studies on the inelas-
tic behavior of braces and braced structures have been
Several analytical brace models are reviewed with carried out in the past few years [2 - 17]. With the
comments on their theoretical bases, correlation with results of these studies and the advancement of non-
experimental results, and practicality. The important linear programming techniques [18 and 19], analytical
member properties and deformations are identified based models for predicting the behavior of braces and braced
on experimental brace results. A particular phenomen- frames in the inelastic range have been proposed and
ological brace model is selected and implemented in a applied. The reliability of predictions of structure
manner representing the best of the available ideali- behavior depends i~ large part on the accuracy of the
zations, and the required parameters are indicated. brace model used. An ideal brace model is one having
the capability of properly describing ax~al force-
From the comparison of analytical and experimental deformation hysteretic loops, and which accounts for
results it is concluded that the overall behavior of damage and loss of load capacity under repeated cyclic
an offshore frame subjected to cyclic inelastic load- loading. The most useful brace models are those which
ing can be reasonably well represented using the imple- are practical for computer analysis of complete
mented model and analyses. Differences in the inter- structures.
nal distributions of member inelastic deformations
were noted in the frame analyses compared to the ex- In this paper results are summarized from a study
perimental results. This resulted in somewhat differ- of computer models for predicting the nonlinear res-
ent deterioration of frame lateral load capacities ponse of braced offshore platforms [2]. State-of-the-
compared to those experimentally observed. The dis- art analytical models for predicting inelastic braced
crepancies in internal inelastic deformations can be structure behavior are assessed and compared to exper-
principally attributed to limitations of the modeling imental results. The study is an analytical follow-up
which ignores inelastic brace axial deformations prior to experimental investigations on inelastic brace and
to achieving the buckling load, and to the numerical braced frame behavior performed at the University of
problems associated with analysing two co-linear California, Berkeley [3,4]. 'The objective is to
buckling elements. assess the capabilities of analytical models to pre-
dict such inelastic responses.
INTRODUCTION The basic considerations, member parameters and
deformations affecting brace inelastic behavior are
As the need for and development of energy and oil discussed. A brief review of existing post-buckling
resources continues, it becomes increasingly necessary models is made. A representative brace model is
to build offshore drilling and production fa-cilides in chosen for implementation in frame analyses and is
locations susceptible to seismic disturbances. Current verified against cyclic inelastic tests of two one-

References and illustrations at end of paper.

259
sixth scale frame models of an X-braced tubular steel
offshore platform. The analytical model's performance
in predicting the principal experimental findings is
evaluated, and its limitations are discussed.
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS OF BRACE HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR
To simplify the following discussion, it is use-
ful to introduce a number of definitions. The axial
force-axial displacement response of a brace when
subjected to cyclic inelastic loads is refered to
herein as the brace hysteretic loops, or hysteretic
behavior. The axial displacement ductility applied
to the brace Jlb is defined as the axial displacement
o divided by the displacement at tension yielding oy.
Normalized brace hysteretic loops are ones in which
the axial force P is divided by the tension yield
force Py and the displacement 0 is divided by the ten-
sion yield displacement oy. It should be noted that
within a braced frame at a given lateral displacement
the brace axial displacement ductility Jlb will gen-
erally differ from the frame lateral displacement
ductility Jlf, where framedgctility is defined as the
lateral displacement ~h divined by the lateral dis-
placement to cause first yielding or buckling of a
member in the frame ~hy. For the more severely loaded
members Jlb can be considerably higher than Jlf
In recent years it has been generally accepted
by investigators that brace hysteretic behavior may
be represented experimentally or analytically using
the effective length concept [4,5,6]. In this con-
cept a brace is represented by a pinned-end member
with equal slenderness ration (KL/r), and the axial
force-axial displacement hysteretic loops are normal-
ized with respect to yield force and yield displacement.
The normalized hysteretic loops for members with equal
slenderness ratios are generally equivalent, provid-
ing the material property characteristics are similar
and no local failures occur. The concept is supported
through arguments of symmetry of the deflected shape
and statics, and has been verified by experimental
results. The effective length concept leads to
greatly simplified analyses of braced structures
because the braces can be modeled as single degree
of freedom truss elements.
The presence of brace end moments and joint
rotations within an offshore structure would not be
expected to invalidate the effective length concept.
Comparisons of in-situ brace response to those of
braces with idealized pinned and fixed-end conditions
demonstrate this point [4]. The effective length
factor, k, however, should be chosen with due consi-
deration for the axial force-moment interaction as
well as any inelastic action in the joints [4].
Material property characteristics influence the
response of a brace in a variety of ways. The shape
of the material stress-strain curve changes with
inelastic load reversals, and is referred to as the
Bauschinger effect. This was demonstrated to cause
a reduction in brace buckling load during repeated
inelastic cycles [3]. The initial shape of the
stress-strain curve, the fracture strain, and the
ultimate stress also influence the occurrence of
local buckling, tearing, and the ultimate loss of
capacity of the brace. Analytical models should
account for these effects. When choosing input par-
ameters for a brace model based on experimental
260
results, the material property characteristics of the
test specimens and real structures should be similar
to avoid unrealistic results. Normalizing the hyster-
etic loops with respect to yield load and yield dis-
placement is generally not sufficient when the mater-
ial characteristics are significantly different [3].
The principal member parameters to consider when
analytically modeling the cyclic inelastic response
of a brace are: effective length; yield load; yield
displacement; susceptibility to local buckling (D/t,
diameter to thickness ratio); and material property
characteristics including, shape of the stress-strain
curve, ultimate stress, and fracture strain.
Physical idealization of inelastic brace behavior
in an analytical model should include the important
deformations. Experimental results have helped to
identify the important physical responses of braces
subjected to cyclic inelastic buckling. One such
response is the formation of plastic hinges; that is,
regions where inelastic deformations concentrate [3].
The principal deformations which occur in a pin-ended
brace are plastic axial and flexural strains in the
center plastic hinge, and elastic axial and flexural
strains along the length of the brace (Fig. lb). The
inelastic axial strains as well as inelastic curva-
tures are observed to concentrate in the plastic
hinge. This is due to the nature of axial force-
moment interaction in the hinge region. Moreover,
plastic axial deformations contribute significantly
to the total deformations of braces with low slender-
ness ratios (kL/r < 60) and have a major effect on
the magnitude of midspan lateral deflections which
occur [3]. Plastic axial deformations also influence
the behavior of members with intermediate and high
slenderness ratios (kL/r > 60). Experimental inves-
tigators have noted that during hysteretic loading
brace specimens would appear to elongate ~,11,12,13,
17]. This hysteretic growth can be attributed to
plastic axial strains in the hinges that occur during
tension loading while re-straightening a previously
buckled member; larger plastic axial strains occur
when loading in tension as opposed to compression
since the buckling load is generally smaller.
The above considerations are intended to provide
a brief background of definitions and concepts in
cyclic inelastic brace behavior, which have an in-
fluence on inelastic braced frame behavior. A review
of available analytical and empirical brace models
follows.
AVAILABLE BRACE MODELS
The earliest elements used for nonlinear analysis
of braced structures were simple modifications of
elastic truss elements: for example, yield in tension
and elastic buckling in compression, tension only
neglecting compressive resistance, and yield in
tension and compression. More recently, three types
of brace modeling techniques have been used to pre-
dict the post-buckling behavior of braces and columns:
detailed finite element models; physical theory brace
models; and phenomenological brace models.
The technique employed in detailed finite el-
ement modeling is to subdivide a brace longitudinally
into a series of elements (Fig. 1a) and employ a
large displacement analysis with the stiffness of
the structural system updated each incremental step.
Riahi, et al., used a series of general purpose three
dimensional beam-column elements with end plastic
hinges and geometric stiffness to model brace behavior
in this manner [7] . Marshall [8] , and Sherman et
al. [9] used a series of beams and nonlinear springs
to model brace buckling. Fujimoto subdivided the
cross-section of longitudinal elements into fibers
with elasto-plastic properties [10]. The advantages
of detailed finite element techniques are their gen-
eral applicability to many types of problems and that
only the ~ember geometry and material properties need
to be defined. A limitation of this approach is that
it is computationally expensive. Moreover, given the
large number of degrees of freedom in each member and
the large storage requirements for element property
variables, the method is impractical for the nonlinear
dynamic analyses of large structures. For most braced
structures, and particularly for the analysis of
braced offshore towers, a simpler brace model is
advantageous.
Physical theory brace models provide simpler and
more specialized techniques for predicting the post-
buckling and cyclic inelastic behavior of braces.
Higginbotham [11], Nilforoushan [12] and Singh [13]
used a pin-ended model with equivalent effective
length and a plastic hinge at the center (Fig. Ib).
The analytical formulations are based on assuming an
axial force-moment interaction curve and an elasto-
perfectly plastic moment-curvature relationship at
the center hinge. Because of the assumptions and
idealizations involved the models available-give
accurate results only for members with high slender-
ness ratios (KL/r> 120). Advantages of the physical
theory models are that the computational simplifica-
tions allow analyses of complete braced structures,
and that only the cross-section properties and effec-
tive lengths of the braces need to be defined.
Phenomenological brace models are presently the
most commonly used type for nonlinear computer an-
alysis of braced structures. Most of the available
models are similar in concept and application, however,
they offer differences in features, refinements, and
in the number and range of cases for which input
parameters have been defined. The basis of these
models is to pre-define the shape of the axial force-
axial displacement response of a truss element repre-
senting the brace by employing either mathematical
or empirical results. Models of this type have been
developed by Higginbotham [11], Nilforoushan [12]
Singh [13], Marshal [14], Roeder [15], Jain [16],
and Maison [17]. Marshall's model [14] is the post-
buckling brace element used in the offshore industry
nonlinear analysis program INTRA [19]. This model
employs a seven segment piece-wise linear representa-
tion of a brace axial force-axial deformation hyster-
etic loop (Fig. Ie) and has an algorithm which defines
failure of the brace based on estimating the onset of
local buckling. Maison's model has been implemented
in ANSR-I, a general purpose nonlinear analysis pro-
gram, and is used for the analyses reported in this
paper. His model employes a nine-segment hysteretic
loop representation with gradual buckling load deter-
ioration capabilities, and a parameter to account for
growth in brace length during buckling and re-
straightening (Fig. 2). This model has the capability
to simulate the responses of the other models, and is
implemented in a manner to represent the best of the
available idealizations.
261
Accurate representations of member responses are
possible with phenomenological models when the shapes
of the brace hysteretic loops are known. Advantages
of these models are: they are practical for analysis
of complete structures; large displacement analysis is
not required; there are a small number of degrees of
freedom; and small storage is required for element
property parameters. The inavailability of appro-
priate experimental hysteretic loops, or accurate
analytical hysteretic loops for selecting input par-
ameters is a limitation of these models. The approach
is discussed further in the following section.
SELECTION OF INPUT PARAMETERS
As experimental brace hysteretic loops have
become available [3,4,5,6,11,12,13,15 and 17] , they
appear to be the more accurate and prefered way to
define input parameters for the phenomenological
models. The experimental results used should be for
members with equal slenderness ratios (KL/r), similar
compactness with regard to local buckling (D/t),
similar material properties (i.e. mild ductile steel),
similar axial displacement ductilities, and similar
lateral loads due to buoyancy, wave forces, local
inertial forces, etc. For selecting input parameters
the hysteretic loops should be normalized with respect
to axial yield load and yield displacement.
In the analyses herein, experimental 'brace hys-
teretic loops for members with mild ductile steel
characteristics, and no lateral loads are used to
select input parameters for Maison's model. For such
members, the most important property determining the
post-buckled hysteretic behavior is the slenderness
ratio. The Dlt ratio has major influence on the
occurrence of local buckling and therefore the deter-
ioration of compressive strength and post-buckling
hysteretic behavior under repeated cycles [3,4].
General guidelines for using Maison's model are
available in Ref. 2. The selected input parameters
for six experimental braces are listed in Table 1.
The procedure used to select parameters is to plot
each successive cycle shifted such that the points
of initial compressive loads have the same origin,
then draw the enclosing envelope, and choose the input
parameters such that the model response will be
approximately bounded by the envelope. Envelopes
for Struts C and D are shown in Fig. 3. The cycle
with the largest displacement determines ~b (max)
listed in Table 1. If during an analysis the ductil-
ities exceed this value, errors will occur if zone
5 crosses the zero load axis (Fig. 2). However,
choosing ~b (max) larger than necessary will usually
sacrifice modeling accuracy at smaller ductilities.
MODELING OF FRAMES
Experimental results of two one-sixth scale frame
models of an X-braced tubular steel platform [4] are
used to evaluate and verify the performance of non-
linear frame analyses using the Maison post-buckling
element. The frames are subjected to cyclic inelastic
lateral displacements, simulating severe seismic
motions. The model used to analyse the frames is
shown in Figure 4 and the elements are described in
Table 2. The upper X-braced panel of Frames I and II
have slenderness ratios of 25, and D/t rRtios of 48
and 33, respectively, which exactly match those of
Struts C and D in Table 1. The lower panel of Frames
I and II have slendernessratios of 20 and 23, and D/t at the nodal points whenever there is a load reversal
ratios of 24 and 42, respectively. The material prop- or an element changes state. These unbalancedloads
erties of all the frame braces and those of Struts C are correctedduring the next step by adding balancing
and D are the same, and the maximum ductilitiesare loads to the joints. The magnitude of the imbalances
similar. are controlledby using a small step size. Step sizes
of approximately0.1 in. were used in the frame
Modeling of the frames is greatly aided by the analyses. The largest imbalancesoccurredduring steps
availabilityof results for Struts C and D which have with load reversals (EuclidianNorm of the unbalanced
such similarpropertiesto those of the frame braces. loads about 0.5% of the norm of the applied loads).
Since the major limitationof Maisons element,and However, within 1-2 steps the imbalancesare restored
other phenomenologicalmodels, is the availabilityof to within reasonablylow levels (Euclidiannorm of the
appropriatebrace hystereticloops for definingthe imbalance loads of about 0.02%).
input parameters the brace modeling describedherein
representsthe best obtainableusing the element. For path-dependentiterationstrategies,like the
Newton-Raphsonmethod, the loading and unloadingof the
The brace model input parameterswere verified element which may occur during iterationscan result in
by comparingpredictedhystereticloops to those of the elements followingimproperpaths. Even though the
brace members within the experimentalframes. In Fig. analysismay convergeat a step, the states of stress
5, the brace model predictedhystereticloops for an in the members may be totally unrealisticand the
analysis of a single brace are comparedto those of errors will be carried over to the next step. This may
brace 2 from Frame I. The input parametersfor Strut cause a larger imbalancefor the next step, until fin-
C are used scaled to the appropriateyield load and ally the analysis fails to convergeor even worse, the
yield displacement,the axial displacementsare those solutionsobtainedmay be misleading. The iterations
measured for brace 2. The loops are in generallygood required to balance the braces in one panel will some-
agreement,however, it is noted that the analytical times unload the braces in the other panel of the frame
model remains linearlyelasticuntil the buckling load and this,unloadingcauses similar convergenceproblems.
is reached and that the model deterioratesmore rapidly Since substantialchanges in stiffnessoccur between
than the experimentalloops. some regions of this multilinealmodel, constant stiff-
ness iterationschemeshave convergenceproblems also.
The parametersobtained for Struts C and D are The most suitable scheme seems to be the step-by-step
used for the post-bucklingelements in the analysesof method without iterations.
Frames I and II, respectively(Fig. 4). One brace of
each full diagonal is modeled as a post-bucklingele-
~is COMPARISONSOF ANALYTICALAND EXPERIMENTALRESULTS
ment, and the other is an elastic truss element.
modeling agrees with the observedphysical response
The overall behavior of the frame models may be
that buckling and inelasticdeformationstend to con-
convenientlypresented as lateral load-lateraldis-
centrate in the weaker brace, since the first brace to
placementhystereticloops (Figs.7 and 8). The
buckle will deterioratefaster than the other [4]. elastic stiffnessof the analyticalmodel is about
Moreover, seriousnumericalproblems are encountered
16% higher than the experimentalone for Frame I, and
during analysis,when both braces are modeled as co-
9% for frame 11. This may be due to idealizations
linear post-bucklingelements. The stiffnessmatrix in the elastic range in the analyticalmodels, or
becomes singularor the solutionsunstable when both
initial imperfections,residual stressesand joint
braces yield or buckle simultaneously.
deformationsin the experimentalmodel. (Support
flexibilitywas measured and correctedfor in the
The horizontalbraces are modeled as beam-column experimentalresults.]
elements since the frames were designed to limit the
axial forces in these members below the buckling loads. The shapes and the areas inside the hysteretic
The vertical jacket legs are also modeled as beam-
loops are similar for the analyticaland experimental
columns. The deck for practicalpurposes is an infin- results The analyticalmodel tends to overestimate
.
ately stiff member. Basically,the frames were de- the energy dissipationin the early cycles (5 and 7),
signed so that the failuremechanismwould be con-
and underestimateit in the later cycles (12 and 14).
trolled by yielding or buckling of the diagonalbraces.
The differencesin elastic lateral stiffness
NONLINEARSOLUTIONPROCEDURE contributeto the higher frame loads predicted in
cycles 2, 5 and 7, for both frames. Another factor
Cyclic displacementsare imposed at the deck is that the brace model remains linearlyelastic until
level of the analyticalmodel to match those of the the buckling load is reached, thus tending to overest-
experiments,so that direct comparisonscan be made. imate brace forces at low ductilities (Fig. 5b and c).
The analysesare carried out using ANSR-I [18].
Because ANSR-I has only a force control loadingpro- Deteriorationof the lateral load capacityof
cedure, a linear elastic truss element (element25) Frame I is illustratedin Fig. 9 which plots loads
is added to achieve an effectivedisplacementcontrol at maximum displacementsin push and pull of the
(Fig. 4). This element has a stiffnessof 10,000 K/in. individualcycles. The maximum load capacityoccurs
verses 52 and 71 K/in. for frames I and II, respec- during cycle 7 for the experimentalframe and
tively. The load applied at node 4 is selectedto during cycle 4 for the analyticalmodel, both coin-
achieve the desired displacement. The Force applied cident with lateralbuckling of an upper panel brace.
to the frame is monitored with element 24. The braces in the analysis buckled earlier than their
correspondingexperimentalcounterparts. During
A step-by-stepprocedurewithout iterations,and cycles 7 through 12 the loads of the analyticalmodel
with path dependentstate determinationis used to are noted to deterioratemore rapidly than those of
analyse the frames (Fig. 6). Unbalancedloads occur

262
the experimentalframe. After cycle 12 the loads for The brace model neglects the observed softening
the analyticalmodel increasedue to the frame and inelasticdeformationsthat occur prior to
action of the jacket legs. The tension tearing of attainingmaximum compressiveor tensile forces.
braces which start in cycle 13, is not accountedfor This limitationof the brace model contributesto the
in the analyticalmodel. overestimationof brace capacitiesin the early cycle!
to the numericaldifficultiesof analysingtwo co-
One factor contributingto the earlier rapid linear buckling elements,and to the concentrationof
deteriorationof the analyticalmodel is that no inelasticdeformationsin the buckling elements.
axial yielding is allowed in the non-bucklingelements These factorsconstitutethe major cause of the more
(No.1,4,5,7). Consequently,all inelasticstraining rapid deteriorationof frame capacitythan experi-
is concentratedin the buckling elements (No. 2,3,6 mentally observed.
and 8). Although lateralbuckling was generally
observed to concentratein one brace, in the exper- Another limitationof the brace model is that tht
iments tensile and compressiveaxial yielding is algorithmas implementedoverestimatesthe loss of
obseived in both bracesy particularlyduring cycles compressivecapacity,and this also leads to an in-
3-9[4]. Since the deteriorationof the buckling correct distributionof inelasticdeformations. More
load of the brace model depends on the maximum prior over, loss of tensile capacity is neglected.
compressivedisplacementexperienced,the initial
concentrationin the analysis of yielding in only one Although internal inelastic deformationin the
brace along a diagonalresults in a more rapid deter- ffame analysesare not correct,the shapes and areas
iorationof the buckling braces. Moreover, for a inside the hystereticloops are similar for the
given displacementhistory the brace model over- analyticaland experimentalresults. The model as
estimatesthe reduction in compressivecapacity. implementedappears sufficientlyaccurate for general
seismic analysis,provided caution is taken to
Another factor contributingto rapid deteriora- account for possible tension failure of a brace.
tion in the analyticalmodel is that none of the lower
paneI braces in the analysisdevelopedaxial yielding
CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
during cycles 1 through 5, Thus, all inelasticdefor-
mations in the model concentratedin the upper panel
1. The reliabilityof analyticalpredictionsof
during these cycles. However, experimentalinelastic
the inelasticstructural behavior of braced offshore
deformationsmeasured in the lower panel during cycles
towers depends on the accuracy of modeling the brace
1 through 5 were approximately67% of those observed
hystereticbehavior. At present the phenomenological
in the upper panel. This contributedto a more rapid
type of models are the best availablefor analysisof
deteriorationof the braces in the upper panel for the
completestructures,providingthe input parameters
analyticalmodel.
can be appropriatelydefined.
A consequenceof the above factors is that the
analyticallypredicteddisplacementsin upper panel 2. Input parametersshould be defined for brace.
with differentslendernessratios, D/ts, material
brace 2 are greater during cycles 5 through 9 than
experimentallyobserved (Fig. 10). However, during properties,ductilityratios and lateral loads.
cycle 14 axial displacementsin brace 2 are smaller Current phenomenologicalmodels depend heavily on
empiricaldata for selectingthese parameters.
in the analysis than those in the experiment, This
is because the lower paneI braces buckle earlier in Appropriatedata are limited and the parametersare
sensitiveto the loading history.
the analysis and a larger portion of the total lateral
frame displacementis taken by the lower panel in the
3. An importantlimitation?f availablepheno-
analysisthan in the experiment. This earlier buck-
menologicalbrace models is the fact that they ignore
ling of the lower panel reduces the deformations
inelasticaxial deformationsprior to achieving
required of the braces in the upper panel. Thus,
the buckling load. This results in discrepancies
there can be significantinteractionbetween the
in the distributionof internal inelasticdeforma-
behavior of the elementsin adjacentpanels.
tions within a structure,and causes numerical
problems associatedwith analysingtwo co-linear
The maximum analyticaland experimentalloads
in each cycle for Frame II are compared in Fig. 11. buckling elements.
The previouslynoted tendency for the analysis to
4. The availabilityof a brace model that in-
overestimateloads in the early cycles, and underesti-
cludes inelasticdeformationsunder increasingloads
mate them in the later cycles is also clearly observ-
prior to buckling would result in a more accurate
able in this figure. The occurrencesof brace
distributionof inelasticdeformationsin a frame,
buckling in the analysisof Frame II were similar to
and would alleviategome of the numericalproblems.
the experimentalevents.
5. Since the concentrationsof displacements
EVALUATIONAND LIMITATIONS
OFTHEANALYTICALMODEL
among some members and the ultimate failureof the
structuredepends on the deteriorationof brace
The principal limitationsof the modeling are
capacity,improvementsin modeling brace deterioration
concernedwith the incorrectinternaldistribution
and failure are necessary [2].
of inelasticdisplacements. The numericalproblems
associatedwith using two co-linearbuckling elements
6. The devel~pmentof several generationsof
interferewith obtaininga more realisticmodel.
These numericalproblemspersist even if one of the phenomenologicalmodels has led to the incorporation
of several refinementsand features. However,
co-linearbucklingelements is restrictedto axial
several limitationsand discrepancieswith actual
yielding in compressionand tension.

263
behavior still remain which prevent accuratemodeling
and analysisof frames. It would appear that a
developmentof a more rationalbrace model would be
advantageous.
7. A consistentand rationalbrace model would
reduce the need for empiricaldata and input parameter
required. As a result of this study a developmentof
a center plastic hinge physical theory mode~,which is
practical for analysisof large structures,was under-
taken [2]. The model differs from the previous
physicalbrace models in that plastic axial strains
are accountedfor, a plastic flow rule is used to
define the inelasticdeformationvector, and more
realisticmaterialpropertiessuch as strain hardening
and the Bauchingereffect can be accountedfor. A
model such as this may be presented in a subsequent
paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financialsupportof the American Petroleum
Instituteunder a grant for PRAC 79-25 Modelingof
InelasticCyclic Behaviorof Tubular Frames is
greatfullyacknowledged. The authors thank the
Advisory Committeemembers, and chairmanp. W.
Marshall, for their encouragementand assistance
with this project.
REFERENCES
1. American Petroleum Institute,ltRecommendedPrac-
tice for Planning,Designing,and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms/Dallas,Texas, 8th
Ed., 1977; 9th Ed., 1977; 10th Ed., 1979.
-2. Zayas, V.A., Shing, P.S.B., Mahin, S.A.,
E.P., rlInelastic Modeling of Braced
structural
Offshore Platformsfor Seismic Loading,Report
No. UCB/EERC-81/04,EarthquakeEngineeringRe-
=ar~C=x~U=ve?sity of California,Berkelq
January 1981.
3. .zayas,V.A., Popov, E.P. and Mahin, S.A.,
f!CYc~icInelastic Bucklingof Tubular Steel
Braces,Report No. UCB/EERC-80/16, Earthquake
EngineeringResearch_n~ =i=rsity of
California,Berkeley,June 1980.
4. Zayas, V.A., Mahin, S.A., POPOV, E.p., CYclic
InelasticBehaviorof Steel Offshore Structures
Report No. UCB/EERC-80/27,EarthquakeEngineerin
Researc~Ce=r~i~r=ty of California,
Berkeley,August 1980.
5. Jain, A.K., Goel, S.C., and Hanson, R.D.,
llHystere~is Behaviorof BracingMembers and
Seismic Response of Braced Frames with Different
proPortions~7t university of Michigan Research
Report UMEE 78R3, Ann Arb~, July 1978.
6. Black, R.G., Wenger, W.A., Popov, E.P., Inelas-
tic Bucklingof Steel Struts Under Cyclic Load
Reversals,Report No. UCB/EERC-80/40,Earthquak
Engineering=c~Ce=r7i=r~ty of
California,Berkeley,October 1980.
7. Riahi, A., powell, G.H., Mondkar, D.p., 3 D
Beam-ColumnElement (Type 2-ParallelElement
Theory) For the ANSR-11 Program. Report No.
UCB/EERC-79/31,EarthquakeEngineeringResearch
~t~,U~v~sity of California,Berkeley,CA.,
December 1979.
8. Marshall,P.W., I!post-yield Capacity of Tubular
Members,Presentationat the 1974 Annual !deetin~
of the Column Research Council,Houston.
9. Sherman,D.R., Erzur~lu, H., WJltirnateCapacitY
of Tubular Beam-ColumnsJ
presentedat the ASCE
National StructuralEngineeringConference,
Madison, Wisconsin,August 1976.
10. Fujimoto,M., Aoyagi, T., Ukai, K., Wada, A.,
Saito, K., IIstmcturalCharacteristicsof Eccen-
tric K-Braced Frames,TransactionsAIJ, No. 195,
May 1972.
11. Higginbotham,A.B., !!~e InelasticCyclic Beha-
vior of Axially-LoadedSteel Members,Disserta-
tion, Universityof Michigan,Ann Arbor,
January 1973.
12. Nilforoushan,R., T!Seismic Behavior Of Multi-
story K-Braced Frame Structures,University
of Michigan Research=UMEE ~, Ann Arborj
=vember 1973.
13. Singh, p., f!seismic Behaviorof Braces and Brace(
Steel Frames,t!Dissertation,Universityof
Michigan,Ann Arbor, July 1977.
14. Marshall, P.W., !!DesignConsiderationsfor
Offshore StructuresHaving NonlinearResponse
to Earthquakes,Preprint,ASCE Annual Convention
and Exposition,Chicago, October 1978.
Popov,
15. Roeder, C.W., and Popw, E.P., Inelastic Be-
havior of EccentricallyBraced Frames Under
Cyclic Loading, EERC Report No. 77-:8, Earth-
quake EngineeringResearch Center, Unlverslty
of California,Berkeley,CA., August 1977.
16, Jain, A.K., and Goel, S.C., Hysteresis Models
for Steel Members Subjectedto Cyclic Buckling
or Cyclic End Moments and Buckling,University
of Michigan Research Report UMEE ~, Ann Arbor
=cember 1978.
.
17. Maison, B., and pOpOV, E.P., tCyclicResponse
Predictionfor Braced Steel Frames,!! Journal of
the StructuralDivision,ASCE, July 1980.
18. Mondkar, D.P., and Powell, G.H., ANSR-I General
Purpose Program for Analysis of NonlinearStruc-
tural Response, Report No. 75/37, Earthquake
EngineeringResearch Center,~i=rsity of
California,Berkeley,December 1975.
19. Litton, R.W., Pausey, S.F., Stock, D.J., Wilson,
B.M.> !tEfficientN~erical Proceduresfor Non-
linear Seismic Response of Braced Tubular
Structures,M preprint,AScE Annual convention
and Exposition,Chicago, October 1978.
264
 Tsble 1 - Element Input Parameters Namslized with Respect to Py snd 6
Y

STRUT A [31 s [31 c [3] D [3] E [6] F [El

Section 4 x .083 4sx Jza 4 x .083 4 x 120 4 x .337 4X .33-r

kL/r 54 54 25 25 80 40

D/t 48 33 48 33 12 12

OJksi) 30 30 30 30 24 24

o It(ksi) 52 52 52 52 48 48

&f (in/in) 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29

ub (max) 10 10 14 14 12 16

U34 -1.00 -1.55 -4.05 -2.97 -1.00 -4.00

PCR1 -0.76 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00

U45 -2.41 -3.79 -13.5 -16.5 -4.00 -16.0

P45 -0.27 -0.31 -0.3.6 -0.37 -0.30 -0.30

U6 0.86 0.69 6.76 6.76 1.00 7.00

P6 1.93 1.63 7.41 6.03 1.20 12.0

U7 0.86 0.69 6.76 6.76 1.00 7.00

P7 1.52 1.41 7.18 4.99 1.10 9.50

us 0.0 -0.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

P8 0.71 0.64 0.95 0.84 0.75 0.93

-0.46 -0.55 -0.16 -0.37 -0.48 -0.30

C5 -0.027 -O.
O25 :%31 %!%
-0.012 ::31
C8 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.08

U8 yes yes yes yes yes yes

moves?

U6 & U7
yes yes yes yes yes yes
move ?

Growth
Factor
0.13 0.3.3 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.3.3

1 tangent modulus prediction [31

Tsble 2 - Frsme Nedel Elements

Member No.
,
Element Modelling I Comments
I
I 1,4,5>7 I Linearly elastic ! ~~ members are assumed to never yield !
truss elements or buckle.
2,3,6,8 Postbuckling The postbuckling behavior concentrates
element in these members

9-13 Besm-column Since they tske only a moderate amount of axial

elements force, they sre @odelled as beam-column elements
J
14 - 21 Beam-column very stFOng columns
elements
22,23 Besm-column very stiff I-beam
elements

24,25 Linear3y elastic 2h- frsme load indicator

elements 25- displacement control
 a) FINITE ELEMENT MOUELS

PLASTIC HINGE
/
d-----
~_o--- --<::,,. ---O+ P

b)PHYSICAL THEORY MOOELS

LOAD
I

DISPL

(c) INTRA ELEMENT

Fig. 1 Avatlabl e Types of Brace ,Wdels.

LOAD , P
~ ,0 W7, P7)

F
@l
E
@ I AXIAL DISPL ,8-
(U45,P45)I
D C57
@ c

I
U34
I

Fig. 2 Maison )bdel.


D/t 4a
D/t 33

kL/r 25

Fig. 3 Envelopes of Brace Hysteretic Loops.

PUSH + PULL
*H

o 22 @ 23 @@@

T
9
60 14

@
\
t
\~ I
60 \

16
/
t / -POSTBUCKLING
2, ELEMENTS
60
/
/

t
60

IS
+ 6,
/\
,8
60
/ \
/ \
13
@ ~o
-1-
30 20 21

I=-k--l
Fig. 4 Frame t+odel
 ~
EXPERIMENTAL 40- -
----- ANALYTICAL

-
-0!2 0,2 8[IN)

-401 -401
(o)cy.5
(b) CY.7

40 +
0.
EXPERIMENTAL
---- ANALYTICAL

1-
,/
! I

t
L

-40 1 -40 1
(c)cy.9 (d) Cy.12

EXPERIMENTAL
--.------.
--- ANALYTICAL

-1,2
~
__-- .. . -
.

Fig. 5 Comparison of Hysteretic Loops for Brace

2 in Frame I with Analytical ,Model (1 kip
= 4.45kN; 1 in. = 25.4mrn).
 LOAD
I r COMPUTED
CURVE
FORCE-DISPLACEMENT

STEP 3

STEP 2 ACTUAL FORCE -DISPL ,ACEMENT CURVE

/
STEP I

DISPLACEMENT

Fig. 6 Step-by-Step Method for Iionl inear Analysis.

&
60 ANSR 60 60
:
---- EXPERIMENT ,1
~
:~

g 30
: .3,0 Ah(IN) -20 /! 20 -2.0 2.0
/
,, /
//
g r ///
~ 1

+* -60 -60 -60

(a)Cy.2 (b) CY.5 (c)cy.7

!
ANSR
----- ExPERIMENTAL
60 60 I 60 !
~..
,,
/ /
30 ,
/

/i / ,,0
z
% -2,Q Ah(IN)
:

/ -33
/
#-.
1.60 1.60 bo
(dl Cy,9 (e)cy,12 (f)cy.14

Fig. 7 - Comparison of Frame Hysteresis for Frame I

(1 kip = 4.45kN; 1 in. = 25.4nm).
 Fig. 8 - Comparison of Frame Hysteresis for Frame II
(1 kip = 4.45kti; 1 in. = 25.4MII).

Y -COMPRESSIVE AXIAL YIELD

80 B - BUCKLE WITH LOSS OF
CAPACITY

B2-BRACE 2 (TYPICALI
[

60

40

20

OF I I I I I I I I i~/+J
0123457 89 17
CYCLE

Fig. 9 - Load at Maximum Displacements for Frame I

(1 kip = 4.45kN).
 P(KIPS)
40
ANSR +
-- EXPERIMENTAL

, *
-04 0,4 8(IN)

I
-40+

(a)cY5

~P(KIPS)
4.0- -
ANSR
- EXPERIMENTAL

/_ _
/
I

I
, .
I
-08 02 S(IN)
/
// 1
I
[-<
L-
-\\ /
\ /
-----

-4.0 +

(b)CY9
PIKIPS)) ~

I
4,0- -
ANSR
EXPERIMENTAL

_ -

// -0.s
/_ .. _/
.

-4,0- -

[c) CY 14

Fig. 10 - Comparison of Hysteresis of Brace 2 of Frame I

(1 kip = 4.45kN; 1 in. = 25.4mm).
 Y- COMPRESSIVE AXIAL YIELD
B- BUCKLE WITH LOSS OF
80 CAPACITY

B6-BRACE 6 (TYPICAL)

80
(n >+ ---- .,
&
x

n
a
q 40

5
r
L
20

o 1 /+-&+-4~/+J
012345 17
CYCLE

Fig. 11 - Load at Maximum Displacements for Frame II

(1 kip = 4.45kN).