Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

Published online 30 July 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eqe)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1030
Hysteretic shearflexure interaction model of reinforced concrete

columns for seismic response assessment of bridges
Shi-Yu Xu and Jian Zhang , ,
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
This paper presents the methodology, model description, and calibration as well as the application of a
coupled hysteretic model to account for nonlinear shearflexure interactive behavior of RC columns under
earthquakes, a critical consideration for seismic demand evaluation of bridges. The proposed hysteretic
model consists of a flexure and a shear spring coupled at element level, whose nonlinear behavior are
governed by the primary curves and a set of loading/unloading rules to capture the pinching, stiffness
softening, and strength deterioration of columns due to combined effects of axial load, shear force, and
bending moment. The shearflexure interaction (SFI) is considered both at section level when theoretically
generating the primary curves and at element level through global and local equilibrium. The model is
implemented in a displacement-based finite element framework and calibrated against a large number of
column specimens from static cyclic tests to dynamic shake table tests. The numerical predictions by the
proposed model show very good agreement with experimental data for both flexure- and shear-dominated
columns. The application of the proposed model for seismic assessment of bridges has been successfully
demonstrated for a realistic prototype bridge. The factors affecting the SFI and its significance on bridge
system response are also discussed. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 25 July 2009; Revised 6 May 2010; Accepted 13 May 2010
KEY WORDS:
shearflexure interaction; hysteretic rule; primary curve; seismic response; column; bridge
1. INTRODUCTION
Reinforced-concrete columns are in general the most critical components of highway bridges.
They play very important roles in overall structural performance of bridges and their failures often
result in bridge collapse or expensive repair cost. A significant number of bridges in current bridge
inventory, built and constructed before the introduction of modern seismic codes in the 1970s, are
vulnerable to damage and collapse during major earthquakes, as evidenced by the observed severe
damage and collapse of several bridges in the recent earthquakes [13]. One major deficiency of
those older columns is the insufficient transverse reinforcement which will result in degradation
of shear and axial load capacity as well as impacting the nonlinear flexural behavior of columns
when subject to cyclic lateral loads [4].
The bridge columns are normally under the complex load combinations of bending, shear, axial
load, and torsion due to the multi-directional earthquake motions and constraints of structural
or geometric configurations (e.g. short columns, uneven spans, skewed or curved bridges, etc.).
Correspondence
to: Jian Zhang, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los
Angeles, CA, U.S.A.
E-mail: zhangj@ucla.edu
Graduate Student Researcher.
Assistant Professor.
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
316
S.-Y. XU AND J. ZHANG
Under the combined loadings, the columns inevitably experience considerable nonlinear inelastic
behavior, involving yielding, inelastic deformation, strength, stiffness degradation, etc. Therefore,
the bridge responses need to be evaluated more realistically with the consideration of the material
damage (including the strength deterioration and stiffness degrading due to increasing loading
cycles, as well as pinching behavior resulted from the crack opening and closing during loading
reversals) and the axialshearflexure interaction in columns since neglecting the combined effects
will likely result in overestimation of lateral load capacity and underestimation of lateral deformation demand.
This paper presents the methodology, model description, and calibration as well as the application of a coupled hysteretic model to account for nonlinear shearflexure interactive behavior
of RC columns under constant axial load when subjected to horizontal earthquake excitations.
The proposed hysteretic model consists of a flexure and a shear spring coupled at element level,
whose nonlinear behaviors are governed by their respective primary curves and a set of improved
loading/unloading rules to capture the pinching, stiffness softening, and strength deterioration of
columns due to combined effects of axial load, shear force, and bending moment. The shearflexure
interaction (SFI) is considered both at section level when theoretically generating the primary
curves and at element level through local and global equilibrium. The model is implemented as
an user element (UEL) in a displacement-based finite element program, ABAQUS [5], and calibrated against a large number of column specimens from static cyclic tests to dynamic shake table
tests showing very good agreement with experimental data for both flexure- and shearflexuredominated columns. The proposed model is computationally effective and reliable in conducting
realistic seismic assessment of bridges. The significance of considering material damage and SFI
is demonstrated for a realistic prototype bridge.
2. HYSTERETIC SFI MODEL DESCRIPTION

2.1. The need for nonlinear SFI model
Ozcebe and Saatcioglu [6] reported that shear displacement can be significant even if a RC member
is not governed by shear failure. They also indicated that RC members with higher shear strength
than flexural strength do not guarantee an elastic behavior in shear deformation. Based on their
observations, RC members controlled by flexural behavior (as is the case in most of the current RC
design codes) may still have significant shear displacement which goes into the inelastic stage and
thus should not be left ignored. ElMandooh and Ghobarah [7] further pointed out that the variation
of axial force in RC columns will cause significant change in the lateral hysteretic moment
curvature relationship and consequently the overall structural behavior. These observations dictate
the importance of including nonlinear SFI in the analyses of RC columns with the consideration
of varying axial load effects.
The numerical models for RC columns in the past have focused primarily on the inelastic flexural
behavior and usually decoupled with axial, shear, and torsion behavior. The shear and torsion
behavior are often modeled with a linear decoupled spring in many analysis software packages. For
example, the typical concentrated plastic hinge model for flexural behavior uses predefined sectional
response independent of columns aspect ratio (which reflects the level of SFI in the column), the
applied axial load (which changes the lateral response), and the loading history. On the other hand,
the classical flexural fiber section model [8] as implemented in OpenSees program [9], although
couples the axial and flexural behavior at material level, does not include the shear deformation and
shear capacity degrading thus incapable of accounting for the accumulated damage resulted from
the propagating flexural and shear cracks in columns under cyclic loads. Both of these approaches
appear to be inadequate for modeling the columns dominated in shear or shearflexure behavior
since the stiffness degradation, pinching behavior, and strength deterioration as a result of SFI are
not captured [10]. Inelastic shear behavior has been included with the nonlinear flexural behavior
in several previous studies ([1114] among others). Improvements have been made to include the
SFI effects for fiber-based element [1518] and Macro-element model [19]. They represent a few

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
HYSTERETIC SHEARFLEXURE INTERACTION MODEL
317
advanced models to account for shear effects where different conceptual backgrounds (bi-axial
fiber constitutive model, link shear and flexure through kinematic assumptions, etc.) and solution
strategies (displacement or flexibility based) as well as varying implementation complexity and
calibration requirements are involved. A detailed state-of-art review on fiber elements is offered
by Ceresa et al. [20]. Nevertheless, this paper is focused on the concentrated plastic hinge-type
model that can be used in displacement-based finite element programs. Although empirical and
approximate, this type of model is relatively easy to be implemented and computationally efficient
for the purpose of conducting seismic assessment of bridges compared to the flexibility-based
spread plastic hinge models and the fiber models.
Similar to the well-known interactive axialflexure capacities expressed in terms of PM interaction curve, interactive relationship also exists between the shear and flexure capacities of RC
columns. In a cantilever column, although the axial and shear forces along the element might be the
same, the induced bending moment at each section is different. Therefore, the derived nonlinear
moment-to-curvature (M) and nonlinear shear force-to-shear strain (V ) curves are indeed
different at each section due to the varying combinations of axial, shear, and moment loads. The
effect of M/V ratio on the shear capacity of the RC sections has been experimentally reported
earlier by Ozcebe [21]. In general, larger M/V ratios will result in larger moment capacity but
smaller shear capacity for a given cross section under constant axial load. As a result, the bottom
section of cantilever beam (largest moment) becomes the critical section, whose average bending
moment-to-shear force ratio (M/V ) and associated M and V curves will govern the response
of column. This is the main reason why columns with same cross section but various aspect ratios
(H/D) display quite different behaviors and failure modes. Based on this understanding of the
column behavior and to mend for the deficiencies in the current models, a computationally effective analytical approach based on concentrated plastic hinge concept is developed to include the
nonlinear SFI of columns. As pointed out by Martinelli [16], even if shear effects actually spread
throughout the element, the SFI is more pronounced in limited zones, for example, the fixed-end
region in a cantilever.
2.2. The methodology for considering SFI of columns
In this study, the proposed scheme couples the axial force, shear force, and the bending moment at
the section level, similar to the advanced fiber section formulation, pairs with modified hysteretic
rules, and produces much improved results. The basic idea is to incorporate the interaction between
axial load, shear force, and bending moment into the primary curves as the overall responses resulted
from the combined stress and strain fields due to various load combinations, and subsequently to
enforce the interaction by the requirements of local and global equilibrium at any given time.
The total primary curve of a column is equivalent to its monotonic pushover curve by considering
the combined effects of axial, shear, and moment loads, and it defines the envelope of hysteresis
loops of the column. The total primary curves are best derived empirically from column test
programs, or as an alternative, theoretically by applying the modified compression field theory
(MCFT) [22], which takes into account the compatibility condition, equilibrium condition, and
nonlinear stressstrain relationship when subject to combined axial, shear, and bending loads.
After separating the shear displacement from the flexural deformation, the total primary curve is
broken into a flexural and a shear primary curve. The decoupled primary curves then serve as the
boundaries for the nonlinear flexural and shear springs (described below) in the proposed scheme.
Figure 1 describes the general procedure of the proposed SFI scheme where MCFT is used to
obtain the primary curves for flexural and shear springs in the coupled hysteretic SFI model. Given
the geometry of the target RC section, the reinforcement configuration, the material properties,
and the applied external loads, MCFT can yield the moment-to-curvature (M) and the shear
force-to-shear strain (V ) relationships of the section subject to the combined loading conditions.
The software Response-2000 [23], which has incorporated the MCFT theory, is used in this study
to generate these curves, and one of the column specimens (see Table I below) used for model
calibration in this paper is presented here as an example. Figure 2(a) shows the average moment
to shear force ratio (M/V ratio) in each section along the column height of the PEER-93 column

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
318
Loading conditions
Section profile
V
h
MCFT
yi
dy
F-UEL
S-UEL
Integrate curvature and shear strain to get the

tip displacement of the cantilever column.
=
dy yi
Flexural deformation
Rigid Column
S-UEL
F-UEL
FNDN
SSI spring
=
=
DECK
+
+
dy
V
S-UEL
Shear deformation
f
Break a RC column at its inflection point into

two cantilever columns.
Input the V- s curve to shear spring (S-UEL) &
M- curve to flexure spring (F-UEL).
M
F-UEL
Figure 1. Implementation of the SFI scheme.
specimen [24]; Figures 2(d, e) display the corresponding V and M curves in each section.
It can be observed that with M/V ratio increasing toward the column base, the shear capacities
of the sections decrease whereas the moment capacities increase until reaching the pure bending
limit, agreeing with the previous experimental observation [21]. The flexural deformation (f ) and
shear deformation (s ) can then be obtained by integrating the curvature and shear strain in each
section along the column length, and results are shown in Figure 2(b). Subsequently, one can
obtain the bending moment-to-rotation angle (M) and shear force-to-shear displacement (V s )
relationships, and at the same time track the shear-to-total displacement ratio until it reaches the
ultimate strength (see Figure 2(c)). The M and V s relationships can be regarded as the primary
curves for the flexure and shear springs, respectively. If the inflection point of a RC column is
known (or simply assumed to be at the mid-height of the column), the column can be broken at
its inflection point into two cantilever columns and simulated by a rigid bar and a combination of
flexure springs (F-UELs) and shear springs (S-UELs), as demonstrated in Figure 1.
The MCFT theory, however, has the following limitations. First of all, it is a force-based approach
which will stop once the peak strength of the section is reached. Second, although in general
MCFT is considered as capable of accounting for the SFI at section level due to combined loads, it
may not be sufficient for extremely short columns with aspect ratio equal to 2.5 or smaller since it
tends to underestimate the ultimate capacity and overestimate the stiffness. Moreover, in essence
it is a sectional analysis tool and thus it does not include the bar slip deformation. To estimate
the yielding platform and softening branch of the primary curves or the response of extremely
short columns, empirical equations [25] for flexural and shear displacement (or experimental data
if available) can be used as alternatives. Contribution of the bar slip deformation can be added to
the flexural primary curve by applying any of existing prediction models [26]; or it can be singled
out by adding a pullout sub-element [27] in series with the flexure spring.
To accurately predict column responses under earthquake loadings, robust hysteretic models are
needed to simulate the concrete damage, including strength deterioration, stiffness degrading, and
pinching behavior. It is often difficult to simulate these damages using fiber section models since
it involves advanced plasticity theory which requires multiple yielding surfaces, appropriate flow
rules, return mapping algorithm, and damage mechanics for the concrete material. Therefore, the
study builds upon the pioneering shear hysteretic model by Ozcebe and Saatcioglu [6] and wellknown flexure hysteretic model by Takeda et al. [28] to develop two improved hysteretic models for
flexure and shear responses, respectively. To minimize the complexities of computational coding

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
TP-021
TP-031
TP-032
PEER-53
PEER-54
PEER-62
PEER-93
PEER-105
PEER-121
PEER-122
PEER-158
PEER-160
PEER-163
UNR-9F1
UNR-9S1
Bridge #4
Column
index
400 circ.
400400
400400
1520 circ.
1520 circ.
250250
305 circ.
610 circ.
696 circ.
696 circ.
406.4 circ.
406.4 circ.
609.6 circ.
406.4 circ.
406.4 circ.
1219.2 circ.
Column
size
(mm)
1350
1350
1350
9140
4570
250
1372
914.5
1828.8
4876.8
1854.2
1047.75
1219.2
1828.8
1219.2
6096.0 (full h.)
Column
height
(mm)
12
20
20
25
25
8
21
24
28
28
12
14
20
20
16
34
Number
of steel
rebars
16
13
13
43
43
9.5
9.5
12.7
19.05
19.05
12.7
12.7
15.875
12.7
19.05
35.81 (#11)
Longitud.
steel
diameter (mm)
6
6
6
15.9
19.1
8.9
4
6.4
6.4
6.4
4.5
4.5
4.9
6.35
6.35
15.9 (#5)
Transverse
steel
diameter (mm)
1.89
1.58
1.58
1.99
1.99
1.01
2.00
1.04
2.73
2.73
1.17
1.37
1.36
1.95
3.50
2.93
Longitud.
reinforce.
ratio (%)
0.26
0.79
0.79
0.63
1.49
4.27
0.93
0.17
0.89
0.89
0.53
0.10
0.13
1.00
0.92
0.63
Transverse
reinforce.
ratio (%)
374
374
374
475
475
375
448
462
441
441
458.5
458.5
454
448
448
414
fy
(MPa)
Table I. Geometry, reinforcement, material properties, and applied load of examined columns.
30.0
22.9
23.0
35.8
34.3
26.5
29.0
30.0
34.5
34.5
36.5
34.7
29.8
37.4
37.0
27.6
fc
(MPa)
185
470
170
4450
4450
322
200
503
911.84
911.84
0
0
18.8
355.86
355.86
3825.5
Axial
load
(kN)
5.0
12.8
4.6
7.0
7.0
19.4
9.4
6.0
9.0
9.0
0
0
0.0
10.0
10.0
11.87
Axial
load
ratio (%)
319

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
320
1.4
M/ V =0.076(m)
70
0.06
60
0.055
M/ V =0.229(m)
1.2
Shear-to-Total Displ. Ratio
Column Height (m)
M/ V =0.381(m)
50
Shear (kN)
M/ V =0.534(m)
4
0.8
M/ V =0.686(m)
5
M/ V =0.838(m)
0.6
6
M/ V =0.991(m)
0.4
40
30
20
total displ.
M/ V =1.143(m)
8
0.2
shear displ.
10
M/ V =1.296(m)
(a)
1.5
10
(c)
10
15
Total Displ. (mm)
90
VV-
200
VV-
150
VV-
100
VV-
50
V-
M-1
1
2
Moment (kN-m)
250
Shear (kN)
15
Total Displacement (mm)
300
3
4
5
6
M-2
60
M-3
M-4
M-5
M-6
30
M-7
M-8
M-9
0
0
(d)
0.03
0.02
0
(b)
M/ V ratio
0.035
0.025
0
0.5
0.04
flexural displ.
0.05
0.045
10
Shear Strain (mm/m)
12
(e)
10
15
20
25
30
Curvature (rad/km)
Figure 2. The primary curves for column specimen PEER-93 (P/P0 = 9.44%) derived by MCFT:
M/V ratio (a), shear forceshear strain (d), and momentcurvature (e) relationships for each
section along the column height; shear and flexural contribution to total primary curve (b) and
shear-to-total displacement ratio (c).
and implementation for the flexure and shear plastic hinge subroutines, it is preferred to compose
the subroutines for both springs using the same numerical model framework, with the least amount
of modification made to each spring to account for its specific unloading/reloading characteristics.
For this reason, the Ozcebe and Saatcioglus shear model is selected as the basis, combined with
the Takeda model and some improvements, to make up two new hysteretic models for the flexural
and shear responses as outlined later.
2.3. Description and model defects of hysteretic shear model by Ozcebe and Saatcioglu [6]
Ozcebe and Saatcioglus hysteretic shear model was originally established by statistic regression of experimental data, and it is revised and re-calibrated in this study to allow for possible
larger ductility levels, to improve numerical stability, and to expand its application to the flexural
responses. Ozcebe and Saatcioglus shear model consists of three major parts: primary curve,
unloading branches, and reloading branches. The model is illustrated in Figure 3 and summarized
by the following rules:
1. Initial loading and uncracked unloading/reloading follow the primary curve.
2. For pre-yield cracked unloading from points above the cracking load (e.g. AB; ST ),
the unloading stiffness is given by Equation (1), and from points below cracking load (e.g.
CD; LM) equal to k1 . The reference stiffness k1 is the slope connecting origin to the
crack point, as shown in Figure 5(b).
k = k1
cr
(k1 k2 )
y cr
(1)

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Shear Force
maximum peak ( m,Vm)

hardening reference point
( m,Vm)
Vy
F
321
V
O
previous peak ( p,Vp)

pinching reference point ( p,Vp)
Vcr
U
N
Shear Displacement
Figure 3. Illustration of the shear hysteretic model by Ozcebe and Saatcioglu [6].
3. Unloading stiffness of post-yield unloading branches above the cracking load (e.g. I J ;
OP) is given by Equation (2) and below (e.g. J K ; PQ) by Equation (3). The
reference stiffness k2 is the slope connecting the yield point to the crack point on the opposite
side, as shown in Figure 5(b). The normalized stiffness degrading with respect to ductility
level is shown as the solid lines in Figure 5(a).
kuld1 = k2 (10.05/y )
(2)
kuld2 = 0.6k2 (10.07/y )
(3)
4. Reloading in a direction where its cracking load has never been exceeded, the reloading
branch aims at its crack point (e.g. BC; K L; QR).
5. Reloading goes back to the onset point of unloading branch (e.g. H G) if the preceding
unloading branch is completed before it reaches the zero shear force level (e.g. GH ).
6. Cracked reloading branches up to the cracking load (e.g. DE; MN ; T U ) point to
the pinching reference point, whose shear force (Vp ) is a fraction of the peak shear of the
previous unloading branch (i.e. previous peak, Vp ) and is given by Equation (4).
Vp = Vp e[0.82(N /N0 )0.14](p /y )
(4)
where N /N0 is the ratio of applied load to nominal compressive capacity of column and
0.82(N /N0 )0.14 < 0.0.
7. Cracked reloading branches beyond the cracking load (e.g. EF; N O; U V ) reload
straightly toward the hardening reference point until reaching primary curve, whose shear
force (Vm ) is a fraction of the shear force on primary curve (i.e. maximum peak, Vm )
corresponding to the maximum displacement level (i.e. m ) and is given by Equation (5).
(5)
Vm = Vm e[0.014n m /y 0.010 n(m /y )]
where n is number of cycles in one direction within its max displacement range, m cr .
The Ozcebe and Saatcioglus hysteretic shear model depicts the general rules for hysteretic shear
reversals; however, to put the model into FE applications, the potential discontinuities resulting
from some specific loading conditions must be precluded. According to Equations (2) and (3),
the unloading stiffness above and below the crack shear load will become zero or negative when

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
322
shear
shear
Vy
Vcr
Vcr
deflection
deflection
(a)
(b)
shear
shear
max peak
max peak
hardening reference pt
Vcr
previous peak
Vcr
previous peak
pinching reference point

deflection
(c)
deflection
(d)
Figure 4. Examples of model defects in Ozcebe and Saatcioglus shear hysteretic model [6]: (a) negative
unloading stiffness at large ductility level; (b) negative residual in a positive unloading branch; (c) nearly
zero pinching stiffness; and (d) negative hardening stiffness.
the ductility level is equal to or greater than 14.29 (Figure 4(a)). These equations for unloading
stiffness must be revised first to allow for possible larger ductility levels. In addition, depending
on the shape of the primary curve and the locations of crack and yield points on it, it is possible in
the model that the residual displacement of a positive unloading branch turns out to be negative,
and vice versa, due to an inadequate small unloading stiffness (Figure 4(b)). Moreover, when the
element is reloaded previously from the opposite side, the pinching stiffness is controlled by a
reference point (Vp ) as a function of the previous peak shear (Vp ) given by Equation (4). If this
previous peak is very small, the calculated pinching stiffness will be very close to zero and thus not
reasonable (Figure 4(c)). Finally, for the cases when the pinching reference point falls below the
cracking shear level, resulting in a very large crack closing displacement, the hardening stiffness
might become negative and cause serious errors (Figure 4(d)). All of these model defects (as
depicted in Figure 4) will induce convergence problems in the FE programs and fail the analyses
accounting for SFI.
2.4. Improved shear and flexure hysteretic models
The problem with Ozcebe and Saatcioglus shear reversal model of yielding a zero or negative
stiffness when ductility level is equal to or greater than 14.29 is fixed by introducing a new set
of stiffness degrading equations. For shear model, the revised unloading stiffness above the crack
shear level is given by Equation (6), and below the crack shear level by Equation (7). The new
equations extend the maximum allowable ductility level to 50.0, while maintaining the stiffness
very close to Ozcebe and Saatcioglus original model under low ductility level. Comparisons of the
normalized unloading stiffness between revised and original equations are displayed in Figure 5(a).
kuld1 = k2 1.4e0.35(/y )
0.01
(10.02/y )3.5
kuld2 = 0.6k2 1.3e0.35(/y )

0.01
(10.02/y )5.5
(6)
(7)

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
323
Normalized Unloading Stiffness, k/k2
1.2
above
below
above
below
force
Vcr, Ozcebe's
Vcr, Ozcebe's
Vcr, proposed
Vcr, proposed
0.8
onset point of unloading branch
My, Vy
0.6
kuld1
0.4
k2
k3
Mcr, Vcr
0.2
k1
k4
kuld2
0
k5
-0.2
0
10
12
14
16
kp
deflection
18
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. (a) Comparison between revised and original unloading stiffness and (b) reference stiffnesses.
Similar equations for flexure reversal model based on Ozcebe and Saatcioglus shear model are
also proposed and calibrated with over 20 static cyclic column tests data. For unloading above the
crack moment level, the stiffness is given by Equation (8), and below by Equation (9). Since there
is no significant pinching behavior in the flexural response, the pinching stiffness in the original
shear model is replaced by Equation (10) (the reloading stiffness from M = 0 to M = Mcr ] in the
proposed flexure reversal model, subjected to a minimum stiffness k5 . As for the reloading branch
), accounting for the strength deterioration due to
above Mcr , the reloading reference point (Mm
loading cycles, is a fraction of the maximum peak point (Mm ), and is given by Equation (11).
kuld1 = k2 1.2e0.125(/y )
0.25
(10.016/y )3.5
kuld2 = 0.70k2 1.2e0.125(/y )
0.35
(8)
(10.020/y )4.5
(9)
kp = 0.56k2 1.2e0.125(/y ) (10.020/y )4.5

Mm
= Mm e[0.002n m /y 0.010 n(m /y )]
(10)
0.35
(11)
where n is the number of cycles in one direction within its max rotation range, m cr , and Mm
is the bending moment on flexural primary curve corresponding to m .
Minimum unloading stiffnesses, k3 and k4 (see Figure 5(b)) applied to both hysteretic models
and k5 applied to the flexural model, are used to prevent the extraordinary flat unloading slopes.
The stiffness k3 is the slope connecting the onset point of unloading branch to the crack point on
the opposite side; the stiffness k4 is the slope connecting the point on the current unloading branch
at the crack force level to the crack point on the opposite side; and the stiffness k5 is the slope
connecting the point on the current unloading branch at the zero force level to the crack point on
the opposite side. Unlike k1 and k2 , which are constants, k3 , k4 , and k5 are variables depending
on the location of the onset of current unloading branch, and none of the k3 , k4 , or k5 should be
taken larger than k1 which might take place when unloaded from points above the primary curve
at small ductility.
To prevent the error of nearly zero pinching stiffness in the shear hysteretic model from occurring,
the improved model checks the situations when the peak shear of previous unloading branch is
smaller than the crack shear, under which the last peak point whose shear is larger than the crack
shear level should be used as the previous peak instead. Regarding the fourth source of the
aforementioned model defects (Figure 4(d)), a make-up rule is applied that should the pinching
reference point fall below the crack shear level, the previous peak is enforced to serve as the
pinching reference point. This additional make-up rule is appropriate, because in around 95% of

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
324
shear
shear
last peak whose V>Vcr
max peak

Vcr
Vcr
deflection
(a)
previous peak serves as

deflection
(b)
Figure 6. Remedies for the defects in shear hysteretic model: (a) fix for nearly zero pinching stiffness
and (b) fix for negative hardening.
the cases it takes place at the locations where the unloading shear forces (i.e. Vp in Equation (4))
barely exceed the crack load. For the rest 5% of cases in which the column is seriously damaged
(e.g. low cycle fatigue at large displacement ductility level) or it undergoes considerable softening
so that the pinching reference point falls below the crack shear level, the make-up rule should not
be applied and can be opted out in the program. The FE program, however, in such cases will fail
very soon due to convergence difficulty, and it can be perceived as the failure of the RC column.
Figure 6 schematically illustrates the remedies for these two model defects.
3. IMPLEMENTATION AND CALIBRATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL

3.1. Model implementation
The hysteretic models and interactive scheme described above have been implemented as an UEL
in the commercial FE analysis software, ABAQUS, as illustrated in Figure 7 (the linear axial spring
is present but not shown in Figure 7 since it is not part of the UEL). The realistic and idealized
configurations of bridge deck-column are displayed in Figures 7(a, b). The shearflexure interaction
user-element (SFI-UEL) (Figure 7(c); j and j is the same node) comprises two springs, F-UEL
and S-UEL, controlling the flexural and shear responses of the cantilever column, respectively. The
element allows a displacement-controlled analysis with an input displacement time history, which
in the displacement-based FE program is a trial vector consisting of four global displacement
degree-of-freedoms (DOFs) (as shown in Figure 7(d)) passed in from the main program during
every time increment. The task of the SFI-UEL is to return to the main program the corresponding
force vector and tangent stiffness matrix, subject to the past deformation history. There are only
two effective DOFs in the SFI-UEL, the relative nodal displacement and rotation (u and ),
and the incremental forcedisplacement relationship of SFI-UEL is given by:

V (t)
dV /du dV /d
u(t)
=
(12)
M(t)
dM/du dM/d
(t)
The diagonal terms (i.e. dV /du and dM/d) in Equation (12) are time-history dependent and are
determined by the proposed shear and flexure hysteretic models, respectively. The off-diagonal
terms (i.e. dV /d and dM/du) which couple together the flexural and shear responses, on the other
hand, are derived from the assumption that in a cantilever column, the end moment is equal to the
shear force times the column height (i.e. M = V h), and given by dV /d = d(M/ h)/d = (dM/d)/ h
and dM/du = d(V h)/du = (dV /du)h. This assumption works fine in the static analyses. However,
it is found to yield incorrect solutions in the transient time-history analyses if there are masses
distributed along the column height. In a transient time-history analysis, due to the inertia forces

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
325
Deck
Deck
j
SFI-UEL
Rigid
column
j'
i
Inflection
point
(a)
F-UEL
S-UEL
i
2
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 7. Implementation of proposed shearflexure interaction model: (a) realistic configuration; (b)
idealized configuration; (c) SFI User Element (SFI-UEL); and (d) effective DOFs in SFI-UEL.
contributed from the distributed masses, there are additional shear forces acting on the cantilever.
As a result, the end moment of a cantilever column becomes:

(13)
M = V h + (m i ai yi )
Equation (13) is a key to capture the SFI effects, for it provides the relationship between the
flexural and shear responses. Since the assumption of M = V h does not hold any more, the SFI-UEL
becomes quite unstable so that sometimes it fails to converge whereas at other times it converges
at a higher mode of deformation in which the flexure spring rotates in the opposite direction to
that of the stretched shear spring. For modeling techniques adopting the concentrated plastic hinge
approach, it is very difficult to account for the second term in Equation (13) and consequently
difficult to couple together the flexural and shear responses directly in the tangent stiffness matrix.
To resolve this issue, in this study the masses of columns are lumped to the ends (i.e. node
j in Figure 7) such that off-diagonal terms derived according to M = V h can still be valid. In
other words, the accuracy of the SFI-UEL under transient analysis is slightly sacrificed to ensure
the column to be deformed in the first vibration mode generating a conservative estimation on
displacement demand and to capture the SFI at the element level through the tangent stiffness
matrix. It is later noticed that with the simplification of lumping the column mass to the ends,
the requirements of local and global equilibrium alone are sufficient to enforce the relationship
that M = V h to be hold, making the entire system to converge at the same solution regardless the
off-diagonal terms being exist or not. In fact, the FE program took only two to three iterations
to achieve the convergence when the off-diagonal terms are removed, compared to four to five
iterations when those terms are added. Therefore, in the final SFI-UEL formulation, only the two
diagonal terms are used.
The shear and flexural primary curves obtained by the approach illustrated in Figures 1 and 2
are input into the UEL along with the constant axial force ratio as well as the critical points
for cracking (Vcr and Mcr ) and yielding (Vy and My ). The cracking load is defined as the point
on primary curve where the strain of the outermost tensile concrete fiber exceeds the concrete
crack strain, and the yielding load is the point where the outermost stretching rebars first yield.
Nevertheless, considering the fact that the ascending branch of total primary curve defines the
reference stiffnesses, k1 and k2 , and therefore affects the hysteretic responses very much, in these
verifications the envelops of experimental hysteretic loops are used directly as total primary curves
of the column specimens to filter out the possible error introduced by the inaccurate prediction of
analytical primary curves.
3.2. Model calibration
To validate the UEL, comparisons of the hysteretic loops under both static cyclic pushover tests
and dynamic shake table tests have been made. Table I summarizes the geometry, reinforcement,
material properties, and applied axial load of the examined column specimens. The first 13 specimens are from static cyclic pushover experiments whereas the rest three are from shaking table tests

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
326
4000
150
Stone and Cheok [30]

(PEER-54 [NIST-Shear])
H/D=3.0
Shear (kN)
Shear (kN)
2000
100
0
-2000
Test NIST-Shear
Flex. spring
-4000
-400 -300 -200 -100
(a)
100
200
300
50
H/D=3.375
0
-50
Test TP-021
Flex. spring
-150
-60
400
-40
-20
(b)
100
20
40
60
Displacement (mm)
1500
Hamilton et al. [32]
Cheok and Stone [33]
1000
(PEER-158)
H/D = 4.56
Shear (kN)
Shear (kN)
(TP-021)
-100
Displacement (mm)
50
Yoneda et al. [31]
0
-50
Test PEER-158
Flex. spring
-100
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100
(c)
-50
50
500
(PEER-53 [NIST-Flex])
H/D=6.0
0
-500
Test NIST-Flex
Flex. spring
-1000
-1500
-600
100
-400
(d)
Displacement (mm)
-200
200
400
600
Displacement (mm)
Figure 8. Performance of proposed hysteretic flexure model for flexure-dominated columns.
200
600
BRI [34]
(PEER-62)
400
H/D=1.0
Shear (kN)
Shear (kN)
100
0
Priestley and Benzoni [35]

(PEER-105)
H/D=1.5
200
0
-200
-100
Test PEER-62
Shear spring
-200
-30
-20
(a)
-10
10
20
Shear spring
-600
-20
30
500
-5
10
15
20
200
Hamilton et al. [32]
(PEER-163)
100
H/D = 2.0
Shear (kN)
Shear (kN)
-10
Displacement (mm)
McDaniel [36]
-20
-10
10
Displacement (mm)
20
(PEER-160)
H/D=2.578
0
-100
Test PEER-163
Shear spring
(c)
-15
(b)
Displacement (mm)
-500
-30
Test PEER-105
-400
-200
-15
30
(d)
Test PEER-160
Shear spring
-10
-5
10
15
Displacement (mm)
Figure 9. Performance of proposed hysteretic shear model for columns with significant SFI.
(UNR-9F1 and UNR-9S1) and a prototype bridge (Bridge #4), respectively. Majority of the cyclic
column specimens are selected from the PEER column database (http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/)
[29]. Experimental results are consistently plotted in solid (blue) lines and simulated results in
dotted (red) lines for all comparisons (Figures 814).

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
327
t;
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Test PEER-93
-60
ABAQUS UEL
-80
-80
-60
(a)
-40 -20
0
20 40
Column Total Drift (mm)
t;
60
80
40
20
0
-20
-40
Test PEER-93
-60
ABAQUS UEL
-60
-40 -20
0
20 40
(b)
t;
60
80
t (rigid)
80
Reaction Force at Ground
Node (kN)

Node (kN)
60
-80
-80
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Test PEER-93
-60
ABAQUS UEL
-80
-80
80
Node (kN)

Node (kN)
80
-60
(c)
-40 -20
0
20 40
60
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Test PEER-93
-60
ABAQUS UEL
-80
-80
80
-60
(d)
-40 -20
0
20 40
60
80
200
200
150
150
100
100
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)
Figure 10. Hysteretic responses of PEER-93 assuming different shear-to-total displacement ratios.
50
0
-50
-100
(a)
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-80
50
-150
Test TP-031
ABAQUS UEL
-60
-40
-20
20
40
Column Tip Displacement (mm)
60
-200
-80
80
(b)
Test TP-032
ABAQUS UEL
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
Column Tip Displacement (mm)
Figure 11. Prediction of cyclic responses of columns under different axial loads: (a) TP-031, axial
load = 12.8% compression and (b) TP-032, axial load = 4.6% tension.
3.2.1. Cyclic tests of columns Figure 8 compares the experimental and simulated results of four
cyclic column tests [3033] as listed in Table I whose behavior is dominated by flexural response
without significant SFI. On the other hand, Figure 9 compares the experimental and simulated
results of the other four cyclic column [32, 3436] tests whose behavior is dominated by shear
response showing significant pinching behavior. As the experimental envelope curves are input as
the primary curves of the numerical model, the good agreement in hysteresis loops validates the
proposed hysteretic flexure and shear models.
As aforementioned in the methodology section, the shear and flexural primary curves for the
proposed SFI scheme can be theoretically derived, as demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2. Experimental

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
328
250
Reaction Force at Ground Node (kN)
Reaction Force at Ground Node (kN)
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
Test PEER-121
ABAQUS UEL
-600
-150
(a)
-100
-50
50
100
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-250
-800
150
(b)
Test PEER-122
ABAQUS UEL
-200
-600
-400 -200
0
200
400
600
Figure 12. Predicted cyclic responses of columns with different aspect ratio: (a) PEER-121, aspect ratio = 3
and (b) PEER-122, aspect ratio = 8.
150
0.1
shear (kN)
displacement (m)
100
0.05
50
0
-50
-0.05
UNR Test
UNR Test
-100
ABAQUS UEL
ABAQUS UEL
-0.1
0
10
20
30
40
(a)
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
-50
-100
0.02 0.04
0.06
0.02
0.06
0
-50
-100
-150
0
(c)
(b)
shear (kN)
shear (kN)
-150
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02
10
20
30
time (sec)
-150
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02
40
(d)
0.04
displacement (m)
Figure 13. Predicted dynamic responses of column 9F1 subject to 2.5 1940 El Centro earthquake:
(a) displacement time history; (b) hysteretic response at current stage; (c) shear force time history; and
(d) accumulated hysteretic response.
evidences and Figure 2(c) both indicate that the shear-to-total displacement ratio increases as the
displacement ductility increases. In practice, however, it is desired to directly break out the shear
primary curve and flexural primary curve from the total primary curve by specifying a constant
shear-to-total displacement ratio over the entire curve. This simplification is especially useful when
the total primary curve is obtained through real column test programs.
Figure 10 compares the hysteretic loops of PEER-93 column using the proposed shear and
flexure plastic hinge models and SFI scheme, presuming the shear-to-total displacement ratio
equal to 7, 20, 40, and 100%, respectively. The results show that with shear-to-total displacement
ratio increasing, the pinching behavior becomes more and more significant. However, even if the
presumed shear-to-total displacement ratio is increased from 7 to 40%, the difference between

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
329
400
0.03
200
0.01
shear (kN)
displacement (m)
0.02
0
-0.01
-0.02
-200
UNR Test
-0.03
UNR Test
ABAQUS UEL
ABAQUS UEL
-400
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
-0.04
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(b)
400
400
200
200
shear (kN)
shear (kN)
(a)
-200
-400
10
(c)
-200
15
20
25
30
time (sec)
35
-400
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
40
(d)
displacement (m)
Figure 14. Predicted dynamic responses of column 9S1 subject to 2.5 1940 El Centro earthquake:
(a) displacement time history; (b) hysteretic response at current stage; (c) shear force time history; and
(d) accumulated hysteretic response.
predicted loops is still insignificant, given the same total primary curve, crack, and yield points. It
implies that this ratio, as long as remaining within a reasonable range, is a less important factor as
it merely affects the pinching behavior of the response. Therefore, for the rest calibration results
shown, the shear and flexural primary curves are generated by assuming the shear and flexural
displacements accounting for 7 and 93% of the column total lateral deflection, respectively. (In
the case of the PEER-93 specimen, the shear-to-total displacement ratio is changing with lateral
ductility but in general less than 6% (see Figure 2(c)) according to MCFT.) This is consistent with
the previous finding that the contribution of the shear deformation is less than 10% of the total
deformation for a properly designed column [37]. However, shear deformation can be significant
for older columns with poor reinforcement details and it can increase to approximately 40% of total
displacement at larger displacement ductility level [25]. The presumed shear-to-total displacement
ratio (7%) can be changed easily under the proposed analytical scheme, and its effect is minor for
the given total primary curve as has been observed in Figure 10.
The specimens TP-031 and TP-032, tested by Sakai and Kawashima [38], have identical geometry and reinforcement details but with different axial loads (12.8% compression for TP-031 and
4.6% tension for TP-032, respectively). The aspect ratio is about 3.375 for these two specimens
indicating moderate SFI. Figure 11 compares the computed cyclic shear force-column tip displacement loops of column tests TP-031 and TP-032 using the SFI-UEL with the experimental loops.
The experimental results indicate that the variation in axial force has a significant effect on the
lateral hysteretic response of RC columns. The small tension force considerably reduces the ultimate capacity but increases the lateral deformation of the columns. The good comparison between
the computed and experimental results shows that the developed analytical approach is able to
accurately model the nonlinear response as well as the strength degradation and pinching behavior
due to the cyclic loading with either compressive or tensile axial loads.
Figure 12 compares the computed cyclic shear forcetotal displacement loops of column tests
PEER-121 and PEER-122 [39] using the UEL with the experimental loops. These two columns are
essentially identical to each other except the aspect ratio (i.e. height/diameter ratio). The aspect
ratio of the former is 3, which will demonstrate higher level of SFI, and the latter is 8, which

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
330
is primarily flexure dominant. The good agreement between experimental and numerical results
shown in Figure 12 validates that the implemented UEL is able to capture the cyclic responses of
either shearflexure- or flexure-dominant columns corresponding to the different aspect ratios.
3.2.2. Dynamic shake table tests of columns. Dynamic validation of the UEL is demonstrated
in Figure 13 by comparing the predicted displacement and shear force time history as well as
hysteretic loops of the column 9F1 with the experimental data obtained in a shake table test program
conducted at the University of Nevada, Reno [40]. In the test program, the column specimen 9F1
is subject to multi-event of earthquakes with increasing motion intensity ranging from 0.33 to
4.0 times the ground motion of the 1940 El Centro earthquake record. The simulation was also
conducted sequentially with the increasing intensity of the earthquake input motion. The numerical
predictions at each intensity level are very close to the experimental results. The comparison
presented here is the sixth stage of the shake table test whose intensity is 2.5 times the original
El Centro earthquake record.
Figure 14 plots the predicted displacement and shear force time history as well as hysteretic
loops of a similar column shake table test program, the column specimen 9S1 conducted by the
same research team [41], together with the experimental results. Column specimen 9S1 has the
same diameter as that of 9F1 but only two-thirds of its height, thus it exhibits a higher level
of SFI than 9F1. The column is again tested sequentially under multi-event of earthquakes with
increasing motion intensity ranging from 0.25 to 3.25 times the ground motion of the 1940 El
Centro earthquake record, and so is the numerical simulation. The results shown in Figure 14 are
the sixth stage of the shake table test with input ground motion intensity equal to 2.5 times the
El Centro earthquake record. It is seen that the proposed model is able to predict the peak displacement and shear force responses reasonably well although the computed hysteresis loops show some
visible difference with the experimental results. The acceptable comparisons again validate that
the developed user element is capable of modeling the dynamic SFI behavior of columns.
4. FACTORS AFFECTING SFI OF COLUMNS

4.1. Influences of column aspect ratio on total primary curve
Columns having the same cross section but with different aspect ratios demonstrate very interesting self-similarity, which can be clearly identified through their normalized primary curves. For
example, by normalizing Equations (4) and (5) with respect to Vy and Equation (6) with respect to
ky (defined as Vy /y ), Equations (4)(6) can be re-written in dimensionless forms as shown below:
Vp
Vp
Vy
Vp [0.82(N /N0 )0.14](p /y )

e
= Vp e[0.82(N /N0 )0.14](p /y )
Vy
V
Vm [0.014n m /y 0.010n(m /y )]
Vm m =
e
Vy
Vy
= Vm e[0.014n m /y 0.010 n(m /y )]
(14)
(15)
(Vcr + Vy )/Vy
kuld1
kuld1
0.01
=
=
1.4e0.35(/y ) (10.02/y )3.5
kuld1
ky
Vy /y (cr +y )/y
0.01
= k2 1.4e0.35(/y ) (10.02/y )3.5
(16)
Equations (14)(16) imply that if two columns share the same normalized primary curve (i.e.
V and are normalized with respect to Vy and y , respectively) and normalized critical points,
they will produce identical dimensionless unloading and pinching stiffness on the dimensionless
coordinates (i.e. V /Vy vs /y ) when subject to the same ductility history. Figure 15(a) shows

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
331
250
1.6
H/D=1.249 (M/V=0.381)
Normalized Shear Force (V/Vy)
H/D=2.249 (M/V=0.686)
H/D=3.249 (M/V=0.991)
200
Shear (kN)
H/D=4.249 (M/V=1.296)
150
100
50
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
H/D=1.249 (M/V=0.381)
0.4
H/D=2.249 (M/V=0.686)
H/D=3.249 (M/V=0.991)
0.2
H/D=4.249 (M/V=1.296)
0
0
(a)
1.4
Column Tip Drift (mm)
10
12
0.5
1.5
2.5
(b)
Figure 15. Variation of primary curve with aspect ratio and the normalized primary curves of column:
(a) primary curves for different aspect ratios and (b) normalized primary curves.
the total primary curves of columns having same cross section as the specimen PEER-93 [24] but
with various heights, derived theoretically using the approach introduced in Figure 1. The crack
loads are marked with circles and yield loads with squares on the corresponding primary curves. It
can be observed that columns with smaller aspect ratio are relatively stronger (i.e. higher ultimate
capacity) and stiffer (i.e. smaller lateral displacement) than those with larger aspect ratios, and
that the curve changes drastically when aspect ratio changes. However, if the vertical axes of these
curves are normalized by their own yielding shear forces and the horizontal axes by their own
yielding displacements, the ascending branches as well as the critical points of the normalized
primary curves become almost identical, regardless of their aspect ratios, as shown in Figure 15(b).
This interesting similarity indicates that for columns with the same cross section and under the
same axial load, they will have almost identical normalized primary curves and critical points, and
thus demonstrate very similar hysteretic behaviors on the dimensionless coordinates. It explains
why the equations can work for both shear-dominant and flexure-dominant columns, as is the
comparison of column tests PEER-121 and PEER-122 shown in Figure 12, and it justifies the use
of a single set of unloading and reloading rules to simulate the responses of a wide spectrum of
RC columns. Nevertheless, the similarity among columns does not eliminate all the diversities in
an individual column. For example, columns with smaller aspect ratios will have larger normalized
strength (i.e. larger Vm in Equation (15), as displayed in Figure 15(b)), and consequently according
to the hysteretic shear model they will have larger dimensionless hardening stiffness, demonstrating
more significant pinching behavior.
4.2. Effects of axial load variation on total primary curve
Similar to aspect ratio, axial load variation also has substantial effects on total primary curve.
Recalling the comparisons presented in Figure 11, the difference in axial load considerably influences the lateral hysteretic responses of RC columns in terms of strength and stiffness change as
well as the significance of pinching phenomena. Figure 16(left) further displays the theoretically
derived total primary curves of PEER-93 subjected to different level of axial loads ranging from 5%
tension to 20% compression of its nominal axial capacity. As the compressive axial load increase,
lateral resistance of the column becomes stronger and stiffer. Unlike the effects of aspect ratio,
normalization of primary curves under different axial load levels does not conclude a unique curve,
as shown in Figure 16(right). It can be observed that under larger tensile axial force, the crack
point on the primary curve is lower. It is then concluded that the tensile axial load is detrimental
to RC columns, making the columns weaker (lower ultimate shear capacity), softer (larger column
drift), and easier to be damaged (lower cracking shear force).
The effects of above two factors, namely, the aspect ratio and axial load level unveil why the
traditional modeling techniques with fixed momentcurvature relationship unable to simulate well

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
332
1.5
70
Shear (kN)
60
50
40
P/P0=-5% (T)
P/P0=-2% (T)
P/P0=0 (-)
P/P0=5% (C)
P/P0=10% (C)
P/P0=20% (C)
30
20
10
Normalized Shear Force (V/Vy)
80
P/P0=-5% (T)
P/P0=-2% (T)
P/P0=0 (-)
P/P0=5% (C)
P/P0=10% (C)
P/P0=20% (C)
0.5
0
0
(a)
10
15
20
25
Column Tip Drift (mm)
30
35
0.5
1.5
2.5
(b)
Figure 16. Primary curves of PEER-93 subjected to different level of axial loads: (a) primary curves for
different axial loads and (b) normalized primary curves.
the behaviors of RC columns. To sum up, consideration of nonlinear SFI is not simply replacing
the linear shear spring with a nonlinear one. The most important point is that the adopted method
must be able to adequately reflect the changes in the primary curve (including the ultimate capacity,
crack and yield points, and softening branch) at the columns critical section due to the complex
axialshearflexure interaction, and to account for the accumulation of material damage (including
strength deterioration, stiffness degrading, and pinching) induced by cyclic loading reversals.
5. SEISMIC RESPONSE ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES CONSIDERING SFI

The developed UEL has been successfully applied to evaluate the seismic responses of three
prototype bridges [10] using the commercial FE software, ABAQUS. The bridge system simulations
consider the criteria for selection of ground motions (representative of the possible future excitations
caused by the dominant adjacent faults of the site), the complex soilstructural interaction effects at
the bridge abutments and foundations, the modeling of the whole bridge systems, and the modeling
of nonlinear behavior of column elements. Numerical model and structural characteristics of one
of the prototype bridges, Bridge #4, whose linear elastic model was originally reported in FHWA
publication [42], is illustrated and summarized in Figure 17. This prototype bridge represents a
typical old design bridge with fundamental structural period of 0.8 s. Details of the column cross
section in bent 1 of the bridge are listed in Table I. Transient time history analyses are conducted
with all three directions of input ground motions (two horizontals + one vertical).
Figure 18 compares the transverse and longitudinal column drift and section force time histories
of the column in bent 1 of Bridge #4, using the developed user element (UEL model) and the
nonlinear M model. Nonlinear M model in ABAQUS adopts the 3D Timoshenko beam
element theory with user-assigned nonlinear momentcurvature relationship and constant transverse
shear stiffness. Comparison of the hysteretic loops of the nonlinear M and the UEL models are
demonstrated in Figure 19. The results show that the UEL in general yields larger column drift
and smaller section forces than that of the nonlinear M model. The differences in responses
are largely due to the distinctive hysteretic rules employed by these two models. Furthermore,
the difference between these two models becomes more significant at larger displacement level
as can be observed from the longitudinal direction in this case. It is noteworthy that in this
direction, the nonlinear M model by applying the traditional plasticity theory overestimates the
residual displacement during the major shock of earthquake due to failure of capturing the stiffness
softening in unloading branches, resulting in an even larger absolute displacement in the following
aftershock, whose effective amplitude is merely one-third to one-half of that of the major shock.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
333
- 320 ft long 30 skewed bridge with 3 continuous spans

- Pier Type: two-column integral bent, monolithic at
column top while pinned at base
- Foundation Type: spread footing
- Expansion Joints: expansion bearings & girder stops
- Force Resisting Mechanism:
[Longitudinal] intermediate bent columns &
free longitudinal movement at abutments
[Transverse] intermediate bent columns & abutments
Figure 17. Numerical model in ABAQUS and structural details of Bridge #4.
Transverse
Longitudinal
200
Column Drift (mm)
Column Drift (mm)
200
100
0
-100
-200
10
15
20
0
-100
25
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
Time (sec)
25
(b)
2000
Section Force (kN)
2000
Section Force (kN)
100
-200
(a)
1000
0
-1000
-2000
10
(c)
UEL
1000
0
-1000
-2000
15
20
Time (sec)
25
(d)
Figure 18. Comparison of column drift and section force time histories in Bent 1 of Bridge #4, using
nonlinear M (Timoshenko beam) model and UEL model under 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake.
This observation discloses the fact that the traditional Timoshenko beam theory may not predict
well even the responses of RC columns without significant SFI (H/D = 5.0 in this bridge).
Figure 20 plots separately the shear and flexural responses of the same column using the UEL
model, including the time histories of shear displacement, shear force, rotation, bending moment,
and the correspondent hysteresis loops as the bridge is subject to the ground motions of the
1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake recorded at ComptonCastlegate St station. It is seen that
the proposed SFI scheme and the implemented UEL successfully model the nonlinear shear and
flexural responses of the bridge (a MDOF system) under seismic loadings.
As the axial load variation has noticeable effects on the SFI behavior of columns and vertical
ground motion component is present during earthquakes, the effect of axial load variation should
be considered carefully in the seismic evaluation of RC bridges. Although the proposed SFI
scheme and the developed UEL in this paper have included the influence of axial load on lateral
responses, they are not able to account for axial load fluctuation in a transient time history analysis.
An axialshearflexure interaction model is currently under development to account for the axial
load variation through parameterized primary curves and consistent damage indexes to enable the
transition of loading and unloading branches between different primary curves corresponding to
variable axial load levels.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
334
Longitudinal
2000
1000
1000
Shear (kN)
Shear (kN)
Transverse
2000
0
-1000
-2000
-150
-100
-50
50
100
-100
100
200
(b)
2000
2000
1000
1000
Shear (kN)
Shear (kN)
-1000
-2000
-200
150
(a)
0
-1000
0
-1000
UEL
-2000
-150
-100
-50
(c)
50
100
UEL
-2000
-200
150
-100
(d)
Column Drift (mm)
100
200
Column Drift (mm)
Figure 19. Hysteretic loops in bent 1 of Bridge #4 adopting nonlinear M and UEL models.
1500
-10
10
15
20
25
V (kN)
2000
Shear Force (Longi.), V (kN)
10
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-10
-2000
10
15
20
8000
0.02
6000
0
-0.02
M (kN-m)
x 10
15
20
25
Bending Moment, M (kN-m)
0.04
10
-5
10
25
4000
2000
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-1
10
15
20
25
-8000
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
Time (sec)
Figure 20. Shear and flexural responses in bent 1 of Bridge #4 using UEL model (in longitudinal direction).
6. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a coupled hysteretic SFI model to efficiently simulate the nonlinear behavior of
RC columns under combined axial, shear, and bending moments for seismic assessment of bridges.
The important SFI is introduced through primary curves at the section level with considerations

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
335
of combined loadings and enforced by the local and global equilibrium requirements during the
time history analysis. The hysteretic flexure and shear springs are coupled at the element level and
are implemented as a single UEL in a displacement-based finite element program, ABAQUS. The
improved hysteretic rules are developed for better numerical implementations and can realistically
capture the pinching, stiffness softening, and strength deterioration of columns due to cyclic load
reversals. The proposed model was calibrated against column specimens tested under static cyclic
and dynamic loadings. The good agreement between the numerical prediction and experimental
data can be observed for both flexure- and shear-dominant columns. The proposed model has
been successfully applied to evaluate the seismic response of a realistic prototype bridge. It is
shown that considering nonlinear SFI in general yields larger column drifts and smaller section
forces than the case when only nonlinear flexural behavior is considered. Two factors, namely the
aspect ratio and axial load level, aside from the section properties are found to affect significantly
the SFI behavior of columns. In summary, the proposed model accounts for the SFI behavior of
columns in a simple and computationally efficient way. Future study will extend to include the
effects of variable axial load due to vertical ground motions and to improve the analytical method
to derive total primary curve of columns with consideration of axialshearflexure interaction and
bond-slip.
NOTATION

m
y

cr
f
p
s
t
m
y
ai
h
mi
n
yi
M
Mm

Mm
My
N
N0
V
Vm
Vm
Vp
Vp
Vy
average shear strain on column cross section

rotation angle in the flexure spring
maximum rotation angle experienced in the flexure spring
yielding rotation level defined on the flexural primary curve
curvature of column cross section
shear displacement in the shear spring
cracking displacement level defined on the shear primary curve
flexural contribution to total displacement
displacement on previous unloading branch in the shear spring corresponding to Vp
shear contribution to total displacement
total displacement or total column tip drift
maximum displacement experienced in the shear spring
yielding displacement level defined on the shear primary curve
acceleration of ith column element
height of cantilever column
mass of ith column element
number of cycles in one direction at its maximum deformation range m cr or
m cr
distance from reflection point (or from the free end of cantilever column) to ith column
element
moment in the flexure spring
the bending moment on flexural primary curve corresponding to m
reference bending moment for reloading above cracking load
yielding moment level defined on the flexural primary curve
applied axial load
nominal axial compressive capacity of the column section
shear force in the shear spring
the shear force on shear primary curve corresponding to m
hardening reference shear force
peak shear force on previous unloading branch in the shear spring
pinching reference shear force
yielding shear level defined on the shear primary curve

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
336
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research presented here was funded by National Science Foundation (NSF) through the Network
for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research Program, grant CMMI-0530737, Joy Pauschke, program
manager. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors thank Dr. David H. Sanders
for providing the shaking table test results for model calibration. We greatly appreciate two anonymous
reviewers for their valuable comments that helped to improve the paper.
REFERENCES
1. Jennings PC, Wood JH. Earthquake damage to freeway structures, Engineering Features of the San Fernando
Earthquake, 9 February 1971. Report EERL 71-02, California Institute of Technology, Earthquake Engineering
Research Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, 1971.
2. Seible F, Priestley MJN. Lessons learned from bridge performance during Northridge earthquake. Seismic Response
of Concrete Bridges 1999; 187:2956. ACI International: Farmington Hills, MI.
3. Hsu YT, Fu CC. Seismic effect on highway bridges in Chi Chi earthquake. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facility 2004; 18(1):4753.
4. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. Wiley: New York, NY, 1996.
5. ABAQUS V6.8. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.: Providence, RI, 2008.
6. Ozcebe G, Saatcioglu M. Hysteretic shear model for reinforced concrete members. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1989; 115(1):132148.
7. ElMandooh GK, Ghobarah A. Flexural and shear hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete columns with variable
axial load. Engineering Structures 2003; 25(11):13531367.
8. Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF. Fiber beam-column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: part I.
Formulation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996; 25(7):711725.
9. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open System for Earthquake Simulation (OpenSees) Command
Language Manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California: Berkeley, CA,
2006.
10. Zhang J, Xu SY. Seismic response simulations of bridges considering shearflexural interaction of columns.
Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2009; 31(5):545566.
11. Filippou FC, DAmbrisi AD, Issa A. Nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete subassemblages.
Report UCB/EERC-92/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
1992.
12. Pincheira JA, Dotiwala FS, DSouza JT. Seismic analysis of older reinforced concrete columns. Earthquake
Spectra 1999; 15(2):245272.
13. Lee DH, Elnashai AS. Seismic analysis of RC bridge columns with flexuralshear interaction. Journal of Structural
Engineering 2001; 127(5):546553.
14. DAmbrisi A, Filippou FC. Modeling of cyclic shear behavior in RC members. Journal of Structural Engineering
1999; 125(10):11431150.
15. Petrangeli M, Pinto PE, Ciampi V. Fiber element for cyclic bending and shear of RC structures, I: theory. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics 1999; 125(9):9941001.
16. Martinelli L. Modeling shearflexure interaction in reinforced concrete elements subject to cyclic lateral loading.
ACI Structural Journal 2008; 105(6):675684.
17. Mullapudi RS, Ayoub A, Belarbi A. A fiber beam element with axial, bending and shear interaction for seismic
analysis of RC structures. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China,
2008.
18. Ceresa P, Petrini L, Pinho R, Sousa R. A fiber flexure-shear model for seismic analysis of RC-framed structures.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 38(5):565586.
19. Mergos PE, Kappos AJ. A distributed shear and flexural flexibility model with shearflexure interaction for R/C
members subjected to seismic loading. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37(12):13491370.
20. Ceresa P, Petrini L, Pinho R. Flexure-shear fiber beam-column elements for modeling frame structures under
seismic loading-state of the art. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2007; 11:4688.
21. Ozcebe G. Inelastic response of reinforced concrete columns under uni-directional and bi-directional load reversals.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1987.
22. Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Predicting the response of reinforced concrete beams subjected to shear using modified
compression field theory. ACI Structural Journal 1988; 85(3):258268.
23. RESPONSE-2000. Available from: http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/bentz/r2k.htm [May 2006].
24. Kunnath SK, El-Bahy A, Taylor A, Stone W. Cumulative seismic damage of reinforced concrete bridge piers.
Technical Report NCEER-97-0006, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 1997.
25. Sezen H. Shear deformation model for reinforced concrete columns. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2008;
28(1):3952.
26. Alsiwat JM, Saatcioglu M. Reinforcement anchorage slip under monotonic loading. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1992; 118(9):24212438.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
337
27. Mostafaei H, Kabeyasawa T. Axialshearflexure interaction approach for reinforced concrete columns. ACI
Structural Journal 2007; 104(2):218226.
28. Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN. Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. Journal of Structural
Division ASCE 1970; 96(12):25572573.
29. PEER Column Database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Available from: http://nisee.berkeley.
edu/spd/ [June 2009].
30. Stone WC, Cheok GS. Inelastic behavior of full-scale bridge columns subjected to cyclic loading. NIST-BSS-166,
Building Science Series, Center for Building Technology, National Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1989.
31. Yoneda K, Kawashima K, Shoji G. Seismic retrofit of circular reinforced bridge columns by wrapping of carbon
fiber sheets. Proceedings of JSCE 2001; 682:4156.
32. Hamilton CH, Pardoen GC, Kazanjy RP. Experimental testing of bridge columns subjected to reversed-cyclic and
pulse-type loading histories. Report 2001-03, Civil Engineering Technical Report Series, University of California,
Irvine, CA, 2002.
33. Cheok GS, Stone WC. Behavior of 1/6-scale model bridge columns subjected to cycle inelastic loading. NBSIR
86-3494, Center for Building Technology, National Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1986.
34. Building Research Institute (BRI). Kenchiku Kenkyu Shiryo No. 21: Aseismic Analysis of Building Structural
Members: a List of Experimental Results on Deformation Ability of Reinforced Concrete Columns under Large
Deflection (No. 3). Ministry of Construction, Japan, 1978.
35. Priestley MJN, Benzoni G. Seismic performance of circular columns with low longitudinal reinforcement ratios.
ACI Structural Journal 1996; 93(4):474485.
36. McDaniel C. Scale Effects on the Shear Strength of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns. University of
California: San Diego, CA, 1997.
37. Lehman DE, Moehle JP. Seismic performance of well-confined concrete bridge columns. Report No. PEER-98/01,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
38. Sakai J, Kawashima K. Effect of varying axial loads including a constant tension on seismic performance of
reinforced concrete bridge columns. Report No. TIT/EERG 00-2, Tokyo Institute of Technology Tokyo, Japan,
2000.
39. Calderone AJ, Lehman DE, Moehle JP. Behavior of reinforced concrete bridge columns having varying aspect
ratios and varying lengths of confinement. Report No. PEER-00/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
40. Laplace P, Sanders D, Saiidi MS, Douglas B. Shake table testing of flexure dominated reinforced concrete bridge
columns. Report No. CCEER 99-13, California Department of Transportation, 1999.
41. Laplace P, Sanders D, Saiidi MS. Experimental study and analysis of retrofitted flexure and shear dominated
circular reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to shake table excitation. Report No. CCEER 01-6, California
Department of Transportation, 2001.
42. FHWA. Seismic design of bridges: design example No. 4three span continuous CIP concrete bridge. Publication
No. FHWA-SA-97-009, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1996.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

Hysteretic shearflexure interaction model of reinforced concrete

S.-Y. XU AND J. ZHANG

2. HYSTERETIC SFI MODEL DESCRIPTION

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

HYSTERETIC SHEARFLEXURE INTERACTION MODEL

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

S.-Y. XU AND J. ZHANG

Integrate curvature and shear strain to get the

Break a RC column at its inflection point into

Figure 1. Implementation of the SFI scheme.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

HYSTERETIC SHEARFLEXURE INTERACTION MODEL

Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

S.-Y. XU AND J. ZHANG

Shear-to-Total Displ. Ratio

Column Height (m)

Total Displ. (mm)

Total Displacement (mm)

Shear Strain (mm/m)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

HYSTERETIC SHEARFLEXURE INTERACTION MODEL

maximum peak ( m,Vm)

previous peak ( p,Vp)

kuld2 = 0.6k2 (10.07/y )

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

S.-Y. XU AND J. ZHANG

pinching reference point

pinching reference point

kuld2 = 0.6k2 1.3e0.35(/y )

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

HYSTERETIC SHEARFLEXURE INTERACTION MODEL

Normalized Unloading Stiffness, k/k2

onset point of unloading branch

kuld2 = 0.70k2 1.2e0.125(/y )

kp = 0.56k2 1.2e0.125(/y ) (10.020/y )4.5

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

S.-Y. XU AND J. ZHANG

hardening reference point

hardening reference point

previous peak serves as

3. IMPLEMENTATION AND CALIBRATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

HYSTERETIC SHEARFLEXURE INTERACTION MODEL

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

S.-Y. XU AND J. ZHANG

Stone and Cheok [30]

Hamilton et al. [32]

Cheok and Stone [33]

Yoneda et al. [31]

Figure 8. Performance of proposed hysteretic flexure model for flexure-dominated columns.

Priestley and Benzoni [35]

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

HYSTERETIC SHEARFLEXURE INTERACTION MODEL

Reaction Force at Ground

Reaction Force at Ground

Shear Force (kN)

Column Tip Displacement (mm)

Column Tip Displacement (mm)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:315337

S.-Y. XU AND J. ZHANG

Reaction Force at Ground Node (kN)