7 Ai Buse 2900 13° A9¢E ENS. MECH DNS CONFRGNCE, BAIT) MORE, AD 1999 A MATLAB-Based Tool for Nonlinear Structural Analysis Y. Ohtori! and B. F. Spencer, Jr., M. ASCE University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556-0767 yotori@nd.edu, spencer@nd.edu Abstract: ‘A MATLAB-based tool for nonlinear structural analysis has been developed for vibration control simulation of seismically excited nonlinear buildings. The MATLAB environment has been chosen because it is widely available and has very powerful analysis routines. The tool consists of two parts: one assembles the structural models to be analyzed, while the other performs time-step inte- gration of the governing equations of motion. Both 2 spread plasticity model and a concentrated plasticity model are available to model the behavior of the structural members. The tool has been implemented as a system function within SIMULINK. Finally, the accuracy of the tool is verified against IDARC2D. Introduction Recently many control strategies and devices have been proposed for mitigating structural damage and/or securing comfort during severe earthquakes. Each has certain advantages, but itis difficult to compare and/or evaluate the efficacy of their relative merits. To do this, several benchmark prob- lems have been developed (Spencer, et al., 1998a,b, 1999) in which the structures were assumed (0 be linear elastic. Yet itis well known that structural members exceed the elastic limit during large earthquakes, such as the 1994 Northridge and the 1995 Kobe earthquakes. To evaluate the control efficiency during such severe earthquakes, nonlinear effects of the members should be taken into account. This study reports on the development of a MATLAB-based nonlinear structural analysis tool for simulation of seismically excited structures. The MATLAB environment is chosen because it is widely available and has very powerful graphics and numerics routines. In the program, a spread plasticity model and a concentrated plasticity model, which have been considered in IDARC2D (Valles, et al., 1996), are used for expressing the nonlinear behavior of members. The analysis pro- gram has been implemented as a system function in MATLAB's SIMULINK so that the dynamic behavior of the structure can be effectively calculated ‘Nonlinear Structural Analysis, In nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures the incremental equation of motions are often solved using the Newmark-B method in conjunction with the pseudo force method, which is reviewed in detail in Subbaraj, ct al. (1989). The incremental equation of motion for the nonlinear structural system takes the following form jecric Power tndustry in Japan.[a}{ a} + [C]{ Au} + [K1{Au}= - [MIP }AE, + PAP} + Coo f AP ay where, [M), [C], and [A] are the mass, damping and stiffngss matxic6s of the building, {Au}is the incremental response vector, A¥, is the ground acceleratipartficrement, {AF} is the incremen- tal control force, {1°} is a load vector to the structure ] is a vector defining how the control forces produced by attached control devices are appied to the structure, C..,, is a correc efficient for the unbalanced forces, and {AF} is the vector of the unbalanced forces. The unbal- anced force is the difference between the restoring force evaluated using the hysteresis model and the restoring force assuming constant linear stiffness at time ¢ during the time interval (t~2+ Ar). ‘This unbalanced force is handled as pseudo force at the next time step. Because the floor slab is assumed to be rigid in the horizontal plane, the nodes associated with each floor have the same horizontal displacements. Therefore, the dependent (slave) horizontal DOFs ‘on each floor slab can be expressed in terms of a single active horizontal DOF. Thats, the displace- ments {Aw} can be expressed using those of the active nodes, { Ati,.¢} - This relation can be writ- ten as following equation. {Au} = [Te] Auge} Q) in which [Tg] is a transformation matrix for expressing the full response vector in terms of the active degrees of freedom. The following two expressi rBproposed by Newmark are employed to solve Eq. (1): = {wu u},> Aloe ii i (3 Wealunrics (hegay = tut Arta), + (00) -B) ta), + BE.) @ See rear = rear? AM}, +1, ad @ in which Af is the calculation time interval, { },4 4, and { }, are the responses at 1+ Ar and ¢, respectively, and B, y are Newmark parameters. Usually, B=1/4 and y=1/2 are adopted. Substi- tuting Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) into Eq. (1) and introducing the relation in Eq. (2), the following equa- tions can be derived: {AFp} 6) Ez where Near Face (clei + aK 6 on SEAR SMT LINEAR PART a Q ~tmieryax,+(Lo+ (1-1 )acr ei, 8 \2I Ls (ap pata) es corr AF, 3 + (Bal+ FICT), ar PHEAPY +,UC) = Urge] ® ‘The damping matrix [C'}-tn Eq. (8) is defined based on the reduced system. Modal damping, mass/ stiffness proportional damping and Rayleigh damping can be used in the analysis. Note that the lin- ear part [Ko] of thestiffness and the nonlinear part [AK] of the stiffness are separately handled in the program to avoid matrix reconstruction. Both a spread plasticity model and a concentrated plasticity model have been implemented for modeling the material nonlinearity in the structural members. The coefficients of the spread plas- ticity model were derived (Lobo, 1994) and then rewritten for improved numerical stability in Vall- al. (1996). These models use a flexural formulation to derive the element stiffness of the nonlinear elements. For the spread plasticity model, the following stiffness matrix is used for ex- pressing the material nonlinearity is dian tal (°4 » ob Kon kon] On Where o I2EToEI Ely a Ean = pat mw Gal” + 12EFQEIAE Ty) (10) * I2EIgEI El, 2 Pot AU apGAzL? + 12EIgEl ,ETy) (i) Pak I2EIgE I.E ‘beg FU anG Arh? + 2ETEI El) (12) Le LEGS 00 -Fa0)+ T2EMGEI,Ela( Pant fg fap) (13) Pixs = 4EVEIy + (Ely— El, JEM (601, — 400%, + oF) + (Ely — Ely)EI 0 (4 (5) a ae uel Pqy > ~2EI EI ~ (El ~ Ely El y(204 — 064) ~ (Eg ~ Ely) El ,(205, - 024) - 3 2 tay = SEI Ely + (Ely — El) El g0ty + (Ely - Ely) El ,(60y 4023 + 03) 16) in which M,, and My are the moments at the ends A and B of the element, respectively; 8, and Oy are the rotations at the ends A and B; EV, and Ely, are flexural stiffness atthe ends of the mem- ve Ma fcoNEATRAED PASTICNY. bers at A and B, respectively; Ef, is the center stiffness of the member; GA, is the shear stiffness of the member; L is the length of the member; 0, and O, are yield penetration parameters which are determined by using yield penetration model. Further details regarding the spread plasticity ‘model are presented in Valles, et al. (1996). With the concentrated plasticity model the members are assumed as elastic body and yielding occurs only at the ends. This is done by adding rotational springs at the ends of the members. Matlab Implementation ‘The MATLAB-based tool shown in Fig. | consists of 2 programs and 3 data sets. One program assembles the mass, damping and stiffness ma- trices and calculates the control pa- sm rameters for matrix handling and so forth. The other program, which is implemented as a SIMULINK sys- tem function (S-Function), performs us the nonlinear dynamic analysis. Pare Roan Siac "Anup Bock Tal Daa ree The tool is implemented into a vi nt a bration control simulator for seismi- cally excited nonlinear buildings. Figure 1. Schematics of MATLAB-Based Tool. Figure 2 shows the vibration control simulator, in which a nonlinear anal- ysis block accepts earthquake record a FS a] oe on ico emeitegen ae een Py Ease Fee ere cae ‘ teats a esar tsa ee temsniertneare rine, Ha sow renlel Ty] Tea + <4 ones EL ie ea or Figure 2. SIMULINK Block Diagram for Vibration Control Simulator.data and control forces produced by control device model. The block evaluates the nonlinear dy- namic responses using this information and the structural data. The response is marched in time using the Newmark-B.. It then passes the structural responses for evaluation, as observed data at sensor positions and as raw data for connection points of passive and semi-active devices, Example Calculation ‘The 2-bay 2-story building model shown in Fig. 3 is used for example calculations and verifica- tion. The structure is assumed to be a concrete frame, so the spread plasticity model is em- ployed. The flexural stiffness (EI) of the col- umns and beams are 20E8 and 1,0E8 KN-cm?, respectively. The axial stiffness of the columns is 4,.0B8 KN. The yielding curva- ture of the members is 5.0B-4 cm-l. The post yielding stiffness of the columns and beams is 10% of the initial stiffness. The N-S component (Fig. 4) of the El Centro earthquake strong mo- tion recorded at the Imperial Valley Irrigation District substation on May 18th, 1949, is used. for the example calculations. The magnitude of the earthquake record is adjusted to 1500 gal to ensure inelastic deformation in the members. Mass proportional damping of 2% is used for this example, The time interval is set at 0.001 : sec. The comparison results are calculated by using IDARC2D under the same calculation conditions. Figure 4. El Centro Record. The first 2 natural periods of the structure evaluated by the MATLAB-based tool are 0.8842 sec. and 0.2353 see. The differences with the results of the IDARC2D are negligible. Figure 5 shows the time history of the response acceleration and displacement. Excellent comparison is seen. The hysteresis loops of the beams and columns are shown in Fig. 6. Small differences can be seen in both of the hysteresis loops. Minor differences in how the programs calculate the hysteretic forces and moments cause this discrepancy. There effect on the response of the building is minimal. Conclusion ‘The MATLAB-based nonlinear structural analysis tool simulation of the seismic response of build- ing structures has been developed and implemented as a SIMULINK system function. The accu- racy of the tool has been verified with the IDARC2D. Any control algorithms and control devices for active, passive and semi-active control methods for the seismically excited nonlinear structure can be implemented into the vibration control simulator, allowing for the effectiveness of various control method to be evaluated and comparedAsslinsiick —B a cma Figure 5. Responses at the Top of the Building. ()Colums No.1 (Bouom) Figure 6. Comparison of Hys- teresis Loops with IDARC2D. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the partial support of this research by the National Science Foundation under grants No. CMS 95-00301 and CMS 95-28083 (Dr. S. C. Liu, Program Director) and the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry in Japan. We also wish to thank A. M. Reinhorn, S. H. Kunnath and M. V. Sivaselvan for their assistance during this study. Reference Lobo, R.F. (1994), “Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures in Three Di- mensions.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engrg., State Univ. of New York at Butfalo. Spencer Jt, B.E, Dyke, S.J. and Deoskar, H.S. (1998a,b). “Benchmark Problems in Structural Con- trol — Part I: Active Mass Driver System; Part I: Active Tendon System.” Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn. , Nol. 27, No. 11, pp-1127-2247. Spencer Jr., B.F., Christenson, RE, and Dyke, S.J. (1999), “Next Generation Benchmark Control Problems for Seismically Excited Buildings.” Proc., 2nd World Conf. on Structural Control , (T. Kobori, et al., eds., Wiley), Vol2, pp.1135-1360. ‘Subbaraj, K. and Dokainish, M.A. (1989), “A Survey of Direct Time-Integration Methods in Con putational Structural Dynamics - Il. Implicit Method.” Comp. and Struct., Vol.32, No. 6. pp.1387-1401. Valles, R.E., Reinhorn, A.M.,.Kunnath, S.K., Li, C. and Madan, A. (1996). “IDARC2D Version4.0: ‘A Computer Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of the Buildings.” Technical Report NCEER-96-0010, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., Buffalo, New York. MATLAB (1997), The Math Works, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts