Coupled Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction Hysteretic Model For Seismic Response Assessment of Bridges

10/08/2010
Coupled Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction Hysteretic

Model for Seismic Response
Assessment of Bridges
Shi-Yu Xu, Ph.D. Student

Jian Zhang, Assistant Professor
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of California, Los Angeles
Quake Summit 2010
Outline
Introduction
Motivation & Objectives

Shear-Flexure Interaction Under Constant Axial Load
Proposed Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction (ASFI) Scheme
Primary Curves and Hysteretic Models Considering Combined Actions

Generation of Primary Curve Family
Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach
Model Verification
Static Cyclic Tests

Comparison with Fiber Section Model under Seismic Loadings
Limitations and Known Issues
Factors Affecting ASFI & Effects on Bridge Responses
Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion

Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio
Summary
Quake Summit 2010
Introduction
Motivation
Bridge columns are subjected to combined actions of
axial, shear and flexure forces due to structural and
geometrical constraints (skewed, curved etc.) and the
multi-directional earthquake input motions.
Axial load variation can directly impact the ultimate
capacity, stiffness and hysteretic behavior of shear and
flexure responses.
Accurate seismic demand assessment of bridges needs
to realistically account for combined actions.
Objectives
An efficient analytical scheme considering axial-shearflexural interaction
Shear and flexural hysteretic models reflecting the
effects of axial load variation and accumulated material
damage (e.g. strength deterioration, stiffness degrading,
and pinching behavior)
Quake Summit 2010
Axial-Shear-Flexural Interaction
Significance of Non-linear Shear-Flexural Interaction

(Ozcebe and Saatcioglu 1989)
Shear displacement can be significant -- even if a RC member is not
governed by shear failure (as is the case in most of RC columns).
Inelastic shear behavior -- RC members with higher shear strength
than flexural strength do not guarantee an elastic behavior in shear
deformation.
Coupling of Axial-Shear-Flexural Responses

(ElMandooh and Ghobarah 2003)
Dynamic variation of axial force -- will cause significant change in
the lateral hysteretic moment-curvature relationship and
consequently the overall structural behavior in RC columns.
Quake Summit 2010
Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction at Material Level
MCFT
Modified Compression Field Theory

(Vecchio and Collins 1986)
fy
fc1
vxy
fx
fsx
vcxy
fsy
f cr
f c1 1 200
1
2
2
2
f c 2 f c 2,max 2 ' '
c c
f sx Es x f y , x
f sy Es y f y , y
fcx
fc2
fcy
Equilibrium
Strain Compatibility
Constitutive Law
Quake Summit 2010
Derivation of Flexural and Shear Primary Curves
Discretize RC member into small pieces. For each piece of RC element,

estimate M- and - relationship by Modified Compression Field Theory
(MCFT, Vecchio and Collins 1986).
M
M=V*h
DECK
F-UEL
S-UEL
Integrate curvature and shear

strain to get displacement.
h *
F-UEL
FNDN
SSI spring
Input the V-s and M- curve to

Shear-UEL & Flexural-UEL.
V
S-UEL
Flexural deformation Shear deformation
= { i*dy*yi + i*dy }
Rigid Column
S-UEL
dy
MCFT
yi
M
F-UEL
Quake Summit 2010
70
0.06
70
60
0.06
0.055
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
total displ.
20
10
10
0
M/V ratio
shear
displ.
total
displ.
flexural
displ.
shear displ.
flexural displ.
5
10
15
Total5Displacement10
(mm)
15
Total Displacement (mm)
300
90
300
90
250
VV-23
200
Moment
(kN-m)
Moment
(kN-m)
Shear
(kN)(kN)
Shear
0.025
0.02
Larger moment capacity

Smaller shear capacity
0
5
10
15
0.02Maximum
moment
capacity is
Total
Displ.
(mm)
0
5
10
15
Total Displ. (mm)
bounded
by pure bending case
M- 1
VV-12
200
VV-3
150
VV-45
150
VV-56
100
VV-67
100
VV-78
50
VV-89
50
0
0.03
0.025
V- 1
250
Sections with different M/V ratio

0.055
0.05
(level of shear-flexural interaction)
0.05
0.045
demonstrate different mechanical
0.045
0.04
properties and behaviors
0.04
0.035
0.035Section with higher M/V ratio:
0.03
Shear-to-Total
Displ.
Ratio
Shear-to-Total
Displ.
Ratio
1.4 M/V =0.076(m)

1.4 1 M/V =0.076(m)
M/V =0.229(m)
1.2 1
2
M/V
=0.229(m)
1.2
M/V =0.381(m)
1 23
M/V =0.381(m)
M/V =0.534(m)
1
3
4
M/V =0.534(m)
0.8
M/V =0.686(m)
4
5
0.8
M/V =0.686(m)
M/V =0.838(m)
0.6
5
6
M/V =0.838(m)
0.6
M/V =0.991(m)
6
0.4
7
M/V =0.991(m)
M/V =1.143(m)
0.4
7
8
0.2
M/VM/V
=1.143(m)
=1.296(m)
89
0.2
M/V =1.296(m)
0
0
0.59
1
1.5
2
0
M/V
ratio
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Shear
(kN)(kN)
Shear
Column
Height
(m) (m)
Column
Height
Shear-Flexure Interaction (SFI) under Constant Axial Load
4
6
8
Shear
Strain
(mm/m)
4
6
8
Shear Strain (mm/m)
10
10
V- 9
12
12
MM-12
60
MM-23
60
MM-34
MM-45
MM-67
30
M=V*h
dy
MM-78
yi
MM-56
30
MM-89
0
10
15
20
Curvature
(rad/km)
10
15
20
Curvature (rad/km)
25
25
M-9
M
30
30
Quake Summit 2010
Improved Hysteretic Rules for Shear & Flexural Springs

Unloading & reloading stiffness depend on:
Xu and Zhang (2010 ), EESD
Structural characteristics
Damage in the column
Primary curve (Kelastic, Crack, & Yield)

Cracked? Yielded?
Shear force level
Max ductility experienced
Loading cycles at max ductility level
Axial load ratio
Loading history
Varying during earthquake !!
Shear Force
Hysteretic Loop
25
20
15
Vy
I maximum peak (m,Vm)

hardening reference point
(m,Vm)
G
F
10
V
O
Shear Force
previous peak (p,Vp)

pinching reference point (p,Vp)
Vcr
-10
D
-15
-20
-25
-80
U
N
-5
Shear Displacement
R
-60
-40
-20
0
Shear Displacement
20
40
60
80
(Ozcebe and Saatcioglu,1989)

Quake Summit 2010
Outline
Introduction


Model Verification
Static Cyclic Tests


Summary
Quake Summit 2010
Effects of Axial Load Variation on Total Primary Curves
PEER-93
100
PEER-121
700
600
80
PEER-122
250
200
P/P0=-5%(T)
40
P/P0=-2%(T)
P/P0= 5%(C)
P/P0=20%(C)
10
20
30
Column Tip Drift (mm)
Kunnath et al.
H/D=4.5
300
P/P0=-5%(T)
P/P0=-2%(T)
P/P0= 0 (-)
P/P0= 5%(C)
P/P0=10%(C)
100
P/P0=10%(C)
0
400
200
P/P0= 0 (-)
20
40
Shear (kN)
60
Shear (kN)
Shear (kN)
500
10
15
Calderone-328
H/D=3.0
20
P/P0=-5%(T)
P/P0=-2%(T)
P/P0= 0 (-)
P/P0= 5%(C)
P/P0=10%(C)
100
50
P/P0=20%(C)
0
150
25
P/P0=20%(C)
0
50
100
150
Calderone-828
H/D=8.0
Ultimate capacity and stiffness increase with compressive axial load level.
Yielding displacement is almost fixed, regardless of applied axial load.
Cracking point is getting smaller as axial force decreasing, implying the
column being relatively easy to be cracked.
Quake Summit 2010
10
Normalization of Primary Curves

Vcr(P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10
2
Vy (P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)
Y = 0.68*(X+0.25)2+0.01
10
20
30
P/P0 (%), Compression is "+".
1.5
1
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
2.5
Y =-2.15*(X-0.60)2+1.65
0
-10
Y = 1.47*(X+0.25)2+0.02
0
-10
40
Vu(P/P0=n%) / Vy (P/P0=5%C)
(P/P =n%) / (P/P =5%C)

cr
0
y
0
0.5
10
20
30
40
(c) yield load
10
20
30
40
Y =-3.20*(X-0.60)2+2.32
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10
10
20
30
40
(d) ultimate capacity
cr ( P / P0 n%)
P
0.68*( 0.25) 2 0.01
y ( P / P0 5%)
P0
Vcr ( P / P0 n%)
P
1.47 *( 0.25) 2 0.02
Vy ( P / P0 5%)
P0
Vy ( P / P0 n%)
Vu ( P / P0 n%)
P
3.20*( 0.6) 2 2.32
Vy ( P / P0 5%)
P0
Vy ( P / P0 5%)
2.15*(
P
0.6) 2 1.65
P0
Quake Summit 2010
11

Objective: Generating the primary curves related to various axial load levels
from a given primary curve subject to an initial axial load
loading
I% critical points, on initial primary curve

I% initial primary curve (given)
a
n% primary curve (predicted)
DL def .level
(Ii%)
SL stress.level
a
b
(i) 0crack: straight line
b
deflection
i
ii
iii
iv
V(iI)%
VcrI %
(ni%) DL * crn %
V(ni )% SL *Vcrn %
(ii) crackyield: interpolation

DL def . level
n% critical points, predicted from equations
I%
cr
SL stress level
(Iii%) crI %
*y crI %
V( iiI %) VcrI %
VyI % VcrI %
(nii%) DL * (*y crn % ) crn %

V(nii%) SL * (Vyn % Vcrn % ) Vcrn %
(iv) ultimatefailure: constant residual strength ratio

ductility unchanged
n%
( iv )
RSR residual strength ratio

V(niv%) RSR *Vun %
I%
( iv )
V(ivI %)
VuI %
(iii) yieldultimate: interpolation

ductility unchanged
SL stress level
(niii%) (Iiii%)
V(iiiI %) VyI %
VuI % VyI %
V(niii%) SL *(Vun % Vyn % ) Vyn %
Quake Summit 2010
12

Assumption:
Effective stress level of a loaded column at
fixed ductility is independent of axial load.
Effective Lateral Load, Veff
c
Stress Level Index
Lateral Capacity at max , Vm d

Equivalent
stress level
10%
Vm10%
Vy10%
Veff10%
Equivalent
stress level
Vm0%
Vy0%
Veff0%
0%
c
y
max
max
Keep , change N: 10% -5%
-5%
Vm5%
Vy5%
Veff5%
c
y
d
max
Keep N, change : 1 2
Veff10%
10%
Veff10%
10%
Veff5%
-5%
Veff5%
-5%
c
d
c
1
max
Quake Summit 2010
13
Outline
Introduction


Model Verification
Static Cyclic Tests


Summary
Quake Summit 2010
14
Cyclic Test: Experimental Program TP031 ~ TP034

TP-033
TP-034
Height
Diameter
Quake Summit 2010
15
Verification of Primary Curve Prediction

Hysteretic Loop
200
150
TP-031
Given the primary curve of TP032, predicts the response of TP031.

Hysteretic Loop
50
200
0
-50
100
-100
-150
-200
-80
TP-031
Sakai and Kawashima
H/D=3.375
150
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)
Given the primary curve of TP031, predicts the response of TP032.
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)
100
TP-032
Sakai and Kawashima
H/D=3.375
50
Analytical
Experimental
0
40
60
80
-50
TP-032
-100
-150
-200
-80
Analytical
Experimental
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)
40
60
Quake Summit 2010
80
16
Verification of Mapping between Different Axial Load Level

Hysteretic Loop
200
150
50
TP-031
Axial load
increasing
150
-50
100
Axial load decreasing
-100
-150
-200
-80
Hysteretic Loop
200
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)
100
TP-034
TP-033
Sakai and Kawashima
H/D=3.375
Axial load
increasing
TP-034
Sakai and Kawashima
H/D=3.375
50
Analytical
Experimental
0
40
60
80
-50
TP-032
-100
TP-033
Axial load decreasing
-150
-200
-80
Analytical
Experimental
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)
40
60
80
Quake Summit 2010
17
Dynamic Validation with Fiber Section Model

ABAQUS ASFI Model
100
Shear (kN)
50
0
-50
Axial Force (kN)
1000
-100
500
OpenSees w/ V-EQ
OpenSees w/o V-EQ
ABAQUS w/ V-EQ
ABAQUS w/o V-EQ
-150
0
-200
-500
-20
2
-10
6
0
10
10
Tip Displ. (mm)
200
Tip Displ. (mm)
Considering only the SFI

can yield good prediction on
the displacement demand.
150
Shear (kN)
Vibration frequencies of the

two models agree with each
other indicating reasonable
prediction on the tangent
stiffness of the proposed
ASFI model.
OpenSees Fiber Model
200
Proposed ASFI model in

general produces larger
displacement demand than
the fiber section model.
-200
4
6
Time (s)
10
20
30
20
0
-20
0
4
6
Time (s)
Quake Summit 2010
10
18

Estimation on post-peak stiffness of primary curve family
may not be adequate.
May converge at an incorrect solution for systems with
yielding platform.
May converge at an inconsistent deformed configuration
for softening systems.
Use of full stiffness matrix can somehow improve the
above-mentioned convergence issues, however, it is an
asymmetric matrix which offsets most of the advantages.
V
Quake Summit 2010
19
Outline
Introduction


Model Verification
Static Cyclic Tests


Summary
Quake Summit 2010
20
Factors Affecting ASFI: Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion
0.02
w /o V-EQ
no shift on V-EQ
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s
0
V
4
6
Time (s)
(a) Horizontal:
Vertical:
10
WN22 (Tp=0.488s);
WN22 (Tp=0.138s)
8
6
4
(b) Horizontal:
Vertical:
w /o V-EQ
0.5352(g)
0.4521(g)
no shift on V-EQ
4
6
Time (s)
0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s
10
x 10
8
6
4
2
10
WN22 (Tp=0.488s);
NO4 (Tp=0.322s)
x 10
no shift on V-EQ
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s
0.08
w /o V-EQ
tpeak
- tpeak
V
H
no shift on V-EQ
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s
tpeak
- tpeak
V
H
0
-0.5
w /o V-EQ
x 10
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s
0.5
10
Max Base Moment (N-m)
tpeak
- tpeak
V
H
w /o V-EQ
no shift on V-EQ
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s
0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s
tpeak
- tpeak
V
H
(a) H: WN22; V: WN22
Max Column Drift (m)
-0.4432(g)
0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s
x 10
tpeak
- tpeak
V
H
H
-0.5
Acceleration (g)
0.04
Max Base Shear (N)
0.4521(g)
0.06
Max Base Shear (N)
Acceleration (g)
0.5
0.08
No significant correlation is found.
0.06
0.04
0.02
w /o V-EQ
no shift on V-EQ
0
-0.4s -0.3s -0.2s -0.1s 0.0 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 0.4s
tpeak
- tpeak
V
H
(b) H: WN22; V: NO4
Quake Summit 2010
21
Factors Affecting ASFI: Vertical-to-Horizontal PGA Ratio
Column of Bridge#4 (H/D=2.5, P/P0=15%)

subject to WN22 (T&V)
Max
0
-1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H
(a) Horizontal:
Vertical:
0.8
1.0
WN22 (Tp=0.488s);
WN22 (Tp=0.138s)
Max
min
1
0
-1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H
(b) Horizontal:
Vertical:
0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
WN22 (Tp=0.488s);
NO4 (Tp=0.322s)
0.2
0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
x 10
8
6
4
2
w /o V-EQ
0.2
0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H
0.8
10
x 10
8
6
4
2
w /o V-EQ
0
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.0
w /o V-EQ
0
0.0
0.08
subject to WN22(T) & NO4(V)
Axial Force (N), comp. is "+"
x 10
10
0
0.0
Column of Bridge#4 (H/D=2.5, P/P0=15%)

2
0.2
x 10
min
w /o V-EQ
x 10
0
0.0
Axial Force (N), comp. is "+"
x 10
Max Base Shear (N)
No significant correlation exists with

drift demand.
tVpeak tHpeak = -0.1s
3
Max Base Shear (N)
Larger PGAV/PGAH ratio tends to have

larger influence on force demand.
w /o V-EQ
0.2
0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H
0.8
(a) H: WN22; V: WN22
1.0
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.0
w /o V-EQ
0.2
0.4
0.6
PGA V / PGA H
(b) H: WN22; V: NO4
Quake Summit 2010
22
C2@B2
-0.02
0
Column Drift (m)
0.02
0.04
0.06
Force-Displacement //Trans.
x 10
-3
-0.04
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
Column Drift (m)
0.02
0.03
Force v.s. total column drift (H/D=2.5)
0.04
2
0
10
10
-0.005
0
0.005
Rotation Angle @ F-UEL (rad)
6
Moment-Rotation @Trans.
x 10
4
2
10
10
10
10
10
x 10
3
2.5
2
1.5
x 10
10 0.01
8
6
4
-2
-4
1 -8
-0.025
1
3.5
2 -6
x -8
10
15 -0.01
1
6
0.5 -4
1
2
-6
-0.03
1 -2
10
1.5
-2
5Moment-Rotation
6
7
8
9
@Longi.
x 10
6
-1
0.01
Max Section Moment (N-m)
-0.04
H only
0.02
Max Section Force (N)
C2@B1
C1@B2
2.5
2 6
x 10
V+H
0.03
Max Section Moment (N-m)
-2
-0.06
Bridge #4, H/D=2.5
0.04
-0.02
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005

0
0.005
Rotation Angle @ F-UEL (rad)
4
5
6
7
Earthquake Index Number
10
Max Deck Acc. (g)
C1@B1
Shear Force (N)
Moment (N-m)
-1
Max Section Force (N)
0.02
Max Deck Acc. (g)
Shear Force (N)
-3
-0.08
H only
V+H
0.04
Force-Displacement //Longi.
x 10
Bridge #4, H/D=5.0
0.06
Moment (N-m)
Max Column Drift Ratio
Considering axial variation does not

change overall bridge responses
much.
Max Column Drift Ratio
Bridge Responses Considering ASFI
0.01
3
2
1
0
0.015
4
5
6
7
Earthquake Index Number
Quake Summit 2010
23
Summary
Axial load considerably affects the lateral responses of RC

columns.
Primary curves of the same column under different axial loads
can be predicted very well by applying the normalized primary
curve and parameterized critical points.
Mapping between loading branches corresponding to different
axial load levels is made possible by breaking the step into two
stages: constant deformation stage and constant loading stage.
Model verification shows that the proposed method is able to
capture the effects of axial load variation on the lateral responses
of RC columns.
Transient time analysis on individual bridge column and on
prototype bridge system shows that considering axial load
variation during earthquake events does not change the drift
demand significantly.
Quake Summit 2010
24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The research presented here was funded by National

Science Foundation through the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation Research Program, grant CMMI0530737, Joy Pauschke, program manager.
Thank You!
Thanks for your attention !
Quake Summit 2010
25
Analytical Models for RC Columns

Plastic Hinge Models
Elastic or rigid beam
Using equivalent springs to simulate shear

and flexural responses of columns at the
element level
Empirical and approximate
Difficult to couple together the axial, shear,
and flexural responses
Numerical instability in the adopted
hysteretic models may induce convergence
problem
Linear or Nonlinear
spring elements
y
fiber
Fiber Section Formulation

Controlling the element responses directly at
the material level
Coupling the axial-flexural interaction
Rotation of principal axes in concrete (as
large as 30) due to the existence of shear
stress is not considered
z
y
x
z
Quake Summit 2010
26
Deficiencies of Current Numerical Models

Deficiencies of Current Models
Non-linearity in shear deformation is not accounted for.
Material damage (strength deterioration and pinching) due to cyclic loading is not considered.
Axial-Shear-Flexural interaction is not captured.
(a) Nonlinear Timoshenko Beam Element
100
100
50
50
0
-50
0
-50
-100
-150
-60
(b) OpenSees Fiber Element
150
Shear (kN)
Shear (kN)
150
-100
Test TP-021
nonLinear M-
-40
-20
0
20
Displacement (mm)
40
60
-150
-60
Test TP-021
OpenSees Fiber
-40
-20
0
20
Displacement(mm)
40
Quake Summit 2010
60
27
Comparison of Primary Curve Family with Fiber Model

TP033: Axial Load= -10(-0.3%) ~ +310(+8.5%) kN
predicted by equations
25.0%
200
100
-10.0%
0
EXP
-100
0%
P/Po= 12.80%
proposed Eq's
-200
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
100
-10.0%
50
P/P0= 12.80%
OpenSees
0
10
20
30
40
200
Lateral Load (kN)
Lateral Load (kN)
150
200
150
100
50
0
25.0%
200
10%
Lateral Load (kN)
Lateral Load (kN)
Primary Curve Family of TP-033
10
15
20
150
100
50
0
5
10
15
Similar trends are observed except post-yield response.

Fiber Section Model overestimates initial stiffness.
Fiber Section Model underestimates axial load effects.
Quake Summit 2010
28

Coupled Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction Hysteretic Model For Seismic Response Assessment of Bridges

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

Coupled Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction Hysteretic Model For Seismic Response Assessment of Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/08/2010

Coupled Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction Hysteretic

Shi-Yu Xu, Ph.D. Student

Quake Summit 2010

Motivation & Objectives

Proposed Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction (ASFI) Scheme

Primary Curves and Hysteretic Models Considering Combined Actions

Static Cyclic Tests

Factors Affecting ASFI & Effects on Bridge Responses

Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion

Quake Summit 2010

Significance of Non-linear Shear-Flexural Interaction

Coupling of Axial-Shear-Flexural Responses

Quake Summit 2010

Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction at Material Level

Modified Compression Field Theory

Quake Summit 2010

Derivation of Flexural and Shear Primary Curves

Discretize RC member into small pieces. For each piece of RC element,

Integrate curvature and shear

Input the V-s and M- curve to

Flexural deformation Shear deformation

Quake Summit 2010

Larger moment capacity

Sections with different M/V ratio

1.4 M/V =0.076(m)

Shear-Flexure Interaction (SFI) under Constant Axial Load

Shear Strain (mm/m)

Quake Summit 2010

Improved Hysteretic Rules for Shear & Flexural Springs

Xu and Zhang (2010 ), EESD

Primary curve (Kelastic, Crack, & Yield)

I maximum peak (m,Vm)

previous peak (p,Vp)

(Ozcebe and Saatcioglu,1989)

Motivation & Objectives

Proposed Axial-Shear-Flexure Interaction (ASFI) Scheme

Primary Curves and Hysteretic Models Considering Combined Actions

Static Cyclic Tests

Factors Affecting ASFI & Effects on Bridge Responses

Arrival Time of Vertical Ground Motion

Effects of Axial Load Variation on Total Primary Curves

Normalization of Primary Curves

(P/P =n%) / (P/P =5%C)

(c) yield load

(d) ultimate capacity

Quake Summit 2010

Generation of Primary Curve Family

I% critical points, on initial primary curve

n% primary curve (predicted)

(i) 0crack: straight line

(ii) crackyield: interpolation

n% critical points, predicted from equations

(nii%) DL * (*y crn % ) crn %

(iv) ultimatefailure: constant residual strength ratio

RSR residual strength ratio

(iii) yieldultimate: interpolation

V(niii%) SL *(Vun % Vyn % ) Vyn %

Quake Summit 2010

Stress Level Index & Two-stage Loading Approach

Effective Lateral Load, Veff

Lateral Capacity at max , Vm d

Keep , change N: 10% -5%