Analytical exploration of γ-function explicit method for pseudodynamic testing of nonlinear systems

It has been well studied that the γ-function explicit method can be effective in providing favorable numerical dissipation for linear elastic systems. However, its performance for nonlinear systems is unclear due to a lack of analytical evaluation techniques. Thus, a novel technique is proposed herein to evaluate its efficiency for application to nonlinear systems by introducing two parameters to describe the stiffness change. As a result, the numerical properties and error propagation characteristics of the γ-function explicit method for the pseudodynamic testing of a nonlinear system are analytically assessed. It is found that the upper stability limit decreases as the step degree of nonlinearity increases; and it increases as the current degree of nonlinearity increases. It is also shown that this integration method provides favorable numerical dissipation not only for linear elastic systems but also for nonlinear systems. Furthermore, error propagation analysis reveals that the numerical dissipation can effectively suppress the severe error propagation of high frequency modes while the low frequency responses are almost unaffected for both linear elastic and nonlinear systems.

Analytical investigations of seismic responses for reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to strong near-fault ground motion

Strong near-fault ground motion, usually caused by the fault-rupture and characterized by a pulse-like velocity- wave form, often causes dramatic instantaneous seismic energy （Jadhav and Jangid 2006）. Some reinforced concrete （RC） bridge columns, even those built according to ductile design principles, were damaged in the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. Thus, it is very important to evaluate the seismic response of a RC bridge column to improve its seismic design and prevent future damage. Nonlinear time history analysis using step-by-step integration is capable of tracing the dynamic response of a structure during the entire vibration period and is able to accommodate the pulsing wave form. However, the accuracy of the numerical results is very sensitive to the modeling of the nonlinear load-deformation relationship of the structural member. FEMA 273 and ATC-40 provide the modeling parameters for structural nonlinear analyses of RC beams and RC columns. They use three parameters to define the plastic rotation angles and a residual strength ratio to describe the nonlinear load- deformation relationship of an RC member. Structural nonlinear analyses are performed based on these parameters. This method provides a convenient way to obtain the nonlinear seismic responses of RC structures. However, the accuracy of the numerical solutions might be further improved. For this purpose, results from a previous study on modeling of the static pushover analyses for RC bridge columns （Sung et al. 2005） is adopted for the nonlinear time history analysis presented herein to evaluate the structural responses excited by a near-fault ground motion. To ensure the reliability of this approach, the numerical results were compared to experimental results. The results confirm that the proposed approach is valid.

Investigations of nonlinear performances of implicit pseudodynamic algorithms

Although it has been shown that the implementation of the HHT-α method can result in improved error propagation properties in pseudodynamic testing if the equation of motion is used instead of the difference equation to evaluate the next step acceleration, this paper proves that this method might lead to instability when used to solve a nonlinear system. Its unconditional stability is verified only for linear elastic systems, while for nonlinear systems, instability occurs as the step degree of convergence is less than 1. It is worth noting that the step degree of convergence can frequently be less than 1 in pseudodynamic testing, since a convergent solution is achieved only when the step degree of convergence is close to 1 regardless of whether its value is greater or less than 1. Therefore, the application of this scheme to pseudodynamic testing should be prohibited, since the possibility of instability might incorrectly destroy a specimen. Consequently, the implementation of the HHT-α method by using the difference equation to determine the next step acceleration is recommended for use in pseudodynamic testing.