PAPER

Ductility and Hysteresis Model of Steel Column Members

Manabu IKEDA Atsushi ICHIKA

ICHIKAW WA Masato Y AMADA
YAMADA
Engineer, Professor, Construction Dept.,
Steel & Hybrid Structure G., Dept. of Civil Engineering, East Japan Railway Company
Structure Technology Development Div. Tokyo Institute of Technology

Akira T AIRA
TAIRA Masato Y ASUHARA
YASUHARA
Engineer, Technical Div.,
Steel & Hybrid Structure G., Central Japan Railway Company
Structure Technology Development Div.

To design steel structures more efficiently, it is necessary to appropriately evaluate the

earthquake resistance performance of steel structures. In this study, we conducted cyclic
loading tests of steel column members and steel frame pier models. Based on the test
results, we investigated a quantitative evaluation method of steel members load carrying
capacity and ductility and their hysteresis property. In addition, we investigated a method
for evaluating earthquake resistance performance of steel rigid frame piers by using a
simple analytical model.

Keywords : Steel column member, Steel rigid frame pier, Ductility, Earthquake resistance
performance, Hysteresis model

1. Introduction N/N y : axial force ratio

The new seismic design code for railway structures
represents a system for checking whether or not the re-
sponse values calculated through dynamic analysis sat-
isfy the earthquake resistance performance set in the
structure in advance1). The earthquake resistance per-
formance of structures evaluated relevant to the dam-
age level of the members that compose the structure.
The damage level is the index that expresses the degree
of damage of the members. In order to conduct such
evaluations properly, it is necessary to quantitatively
calculate the bearing capacity and ductility of the mem-
bers.
In this study, we investigated methods for setting
the damage level of steel members, methods for evaluat-
ing steel member bearing capacity and ductility, meth-
ods for evaluating the earthquake resistance perfor-
mance of steel rigid frame piers and hysteresis models
of steel members based on the results of cyclic loading
tests of column and rigid frame pier specimens 2), 3).
2. Steel column member cyclic loading tests
2. 1 A summary of the tests
A summary of the tests is given in Fig. 1 and the speci-
fications of the specimens are shown in Table 1. Param-
eters in Table 1 indicate below.
Rr : width-thickness ratio parameter of plate panel be-
tween longitudinal stiffeners
－
λ: slenderness ratio parameter
γ/γ* : longitudinal stiffener rigidity ratio parameter
－
λs : slenderness ratio parameter of longitudinal stiff-
ener
The definitions of these parameters refer to reference
4).
A-1 is a specimen with the parameters of existing
standard railway steel rigid frame piers scaled to about
1/3rd of the actual size of the structure. A-2 - A-4 are
specimens with parameters set so that they have improved
earthquake resistance performance compared to A-1.
SM490 was used as the steel of all of the specimens.
We applied a constant load in the vertical direction
and a cyclic load in the horizontal direction through dis-
placement control. The yield point was defined as the
point at which strain at the base of the specimen reached
the yield strain obtained from the results of steel mem-
ber tensile tests. Yield point displacement was set at δy
and, thereafter, 2 δy, 3 δy... with 3 cycles of cyclic load-
ing at each step.
2. 2. Test results
Test
As an example of the test results, the horizontal load
(P)-horizontal displacement ( δ) hysteresis curve at the
top of the column of A-3 is shown in Fig. 2. The condi-
tions of specimen damage in positive side are also de-
scribed in Fig. 2. While the damage conditions of the
specimens differed somewhat depending on column pa-
rameters, those for specimens A-2 - A-4 were generally
as given below. First of all, the edge of the column base
section showed compressive yield and, slightly before
reaching maximum load, local buckling occurred in the
column flange at base side. The load subsequently de-
creased as local buckling progressed and, at the point
when it decreased to about yield load, cracking occurred
at the peak of the local buckling wave.
In Fig. 3, the envelope curve of the load (P)-displace-
ment (δ) hysteresis loop in the positive side is indicated

QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 3, Oct. ’99 177

 Table 1 Steel column specimen parameters

;
Dimension

; ;
;;;
Specimens h (mm) b f (mm) t f (mm) b w (mm) t w (mm) b s (mm) t s (mm)
A-1 1500 450 8 450 7 43 4.5

;;
A-2 1500 410 12 380 12 - -

;;;;;
A-3 1500 450 9 420 9 75 8
A-4 1500 450 9 420 9 50 4.5
Parameters

;
－ －
Specimens Rr λ γ/γ* λs N/N y Section type
A-1 0.532 0.197 0.627 0.711 0.20 Stiffened section
A-2 0.604 0.227 - - 0.16 Unstiffened section

;
A-3 0.464 0.216 3.31 0.295 0.16 Stiffened section
A-4 0.464 0.211 2.92 0.147 0.18 Stiffened section
※ Yield stress...309.2(N/mm 2) [t = 7mm], 305.7(N/mm 2) [t = 8mm], 302.4(N/mm 2) [t = 9mm], 298.4(N/mm2) [t = 12mm], here t : thickness
※ Lateral diaphragm spacing...500mm (A-1 ～ A-3), 250mm (A-4)

;;;
;;
Fig. 1 Steel column specimen and loading method
Fig. 2 Horizontal load (P)- horizontal displacement ( δ )
hysteresis curve of A-3

Fig. 3 Non-dimensional P- δ envelope curves Fig. 4 Envelope curve of test results and skelton curve

non-dimensionalized at the yield point. Py and δy means
the yield point load and displacement respectively. The
following tendencies can be recognized based on Fig. 3.
(1) A-2 - A-4 showed somewhat of an improvement in
bearing capacity and ductility compared to A-1.
(2) A-3, in which Rr is smaller and γ/γ* is greater, dem-
onstrated the most outstanding ductility in the
present series of tests with a gentle decrease in bear-
ing capacity also after the peak.
3. The steel column damage level
mum bearing capacity is based on references 4)-6); in
the tests, however, local buckling was observed at this
stage and it is possible that bearing capacity could sub-
sequently drop rapidly as local buckling progresses de-
pending on column proportions. In addition, this point
essentially corresponds to the point at which there is a
rapid increase in displacement in the vertical direction.
Based on these, we set the ultimate point at 95% of maxi-
mum load.
It is possible to categorize the steel member damage
level as shown in Table 2 based on the load-displacement
relationship and conditions of specimen damage.

It is possible to create a tri-linear model of the load-

displacement envelope curve in the present tests as indi-
cated in Fig. 4. The setting of the ultimate point as the
point at which the load decreased to 95% of the maxi-

178 QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 3, Oct. ’99

 Table 2 Damage level of steel members
Property of load-displacement envelope
Damage level Example of member damage conditions Example of repair methods
curve
Yield at edge side in the section at the
1 No damage No repair
limit point of this level (point Y)
Maximum displacement to retain nearly
2 maximum load (P m) at the limit point of Local Buckling occurrence Repair of local buckling when necessary
this level (point M)
Maximum displacement to retain 0.95P m Local buckling development Repair of local buckling according to its
3
at the limit point in this level (point N) degree
Local buckling development and, in some Repair or replacement of the damaged
4 After point N
cases, crack occurrence member when necessary

(1) Unstif fened section

Unstiffened

(2) Stiffened section

Stiffened
Fig. 5 Comparison of calculated and test results

4. Quantitative evaluation of steel member bearing

capacity and ductility My = My 0 1 – N
Ny
We examine calculation methods of the break points θy : θ y = 1 + 3EI ⋅ M y ⋅ θ y 0
2 My 0
of the skeleton curve, especially points M and N. In ex- GAw h
amining calculation methods, we also used the test data
recorded in references 4), 5) due to the small number of (2) Maximum load point (point M)
specimens involved in the results of the present tests.
Based on those results (Fig. 3) and existing research 4), 5), M
Mm : M = 0.0936(R r ⋅ λ ⋅ λs)
m – 0.5
+ 1.12 [stiffened]
the parameters shown in Table 1 are thought to affect y
the bearing capacity and ductility of steel members after Mm
= 0.0690(R r ⋅ λ) + 1.23
– 1.0
the yield point. We then introduced our proposed formu- My [unstiffened]
lae, while referring to references 4)-6), taking into con-
sideration factors that affect bearing capacity and ductil- θ
θm : m = 0.150(R r ⋅ λ ⋅ λs)
– 1.0
+ 2.21 [stiffened]
ity of each parameter. Methods for calculating each break θy
point of the skeleton curve in Fig. 4 are indicated below θm – 3.5
= 0.0288(R r ⋅ λ ) + 1.92 [unstiffened]
along with the relationship between bending moment (M) θy
and member angle of rotation ( θ).
(3) Ultimate point (point N)
(1) Yield point (point Y)
M y : smallest value from the following formulae2) Mn : Mn = 0.95Mm
θ – 1.0
θm : θ = 0.246 (1 + N/N y)R r ⋅ λ ⋅ λs
n
My 0 + 2.48
My = 1– N 1– N y
0.85 NE Nu [stiffened]

QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 3, Oct. ’99 179

Fig. 6 A steel rigid frame pier specimen and loading Fig. 7 Horizontal load (P)- displacement ( δ ) hysteresis
method curve of the steel rigid frame pier specimen

Table 3 Steel rigid frame pier specimen parameters

Flexural
Column section Beam section Connection Column parameters rigidity
ratio
－
Bf × t f Bw × t w Bf × t f B w × tw tf / t w Rr λ Kb / Kc
410 × 12 380 × 12 410 × 12 380 × 16 16/16 0.670 0.290 1.16
・Dimension (mm)
・Yield stress...437 (N/mm 2)[t = 9mm], 364 (N/mm 2)[t = 12mm], here t : thickness
・Kb : Flexural rigidity of beam, Kc : Flexural rigidity of column

θn – 3.5
= 0.0471 (1 + N/N y)R r ⋅ λ + 2.94 5. Evaluation of steel rigid frame pier earthquake
θy
resistance performance
[unstiffened]
Where, 5. 1. A Cyclic loading test of a steel rigid frame pier
My0 : yield moment without the action of axial force specimen
Nu : strength of the central axis compressive column
NE : Euler buckling load of cantilever column In steel railway structures, there are extremely few
θy0 : rotation corresponding to My0 column piers, while, on the other hand, the rigid frame
E : Young’s modulus, G : shear modulus pier is utilized widely. We conducted the cyclic loading
I : cross-sectional secondary moment test using the model steel rigid frame pier specimen. A
Aw : web cross-sectional area summary of the specimen is given in Fig. 6 and the speci-
h : height of the column fications are shown in Table 3. We made the specimens
[Stiffened] and [unstiffened] refer to stiffened and as relatively thick unstiffened sections, assuming a scale
unstiffened sections, respectively. The method of calcu- of about 1/3rd of the actual size of the structure. Since
lation of the maximum load point and ultimate point is column-beam connections in ordinary railway structures
based on the test results and the range of applicability is commonly have haunches, haunch plates are installed on
as indicated below. the inside.
－
[Stiffened] : 0.3 －< Rr －
< 0.7, 0.2 －
< λ－< 0.5, As indicated in Fig. 6, we applied a constant load in
0.0 －
< N/Ny － < 0.3, γ/γ* －> 1.0 the vertical direction (vertical load that is 0.05 relative
－
[Unstiffened] : 0.3 － < Rr －
< 0.9, 0.2 －
< λ－< 0.5, to the axial force of the column) and a cyclic load through
0.0 －
< N/N y －
< 0.2 displacement control in the horizontal direction (in-plane
Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the proposed formulae direction), the same as column members, on load beams
and test results for deformation at the time of maximum giving pin support at two points. The yield point was
load and maximum bearing capacity and deformation at considered to be the point which strain measured in the
the ultimate point. Based on Fig. 5, although disparities column reached yield strain.
can be observed to a degree, the proposed formulae are Fig. 7 indicates the load-displacement hysteresis
thought to accurately grasp the affects on bearing capac- curve at the central point of the load beam in cyclic load-
ity and ductility of each parameter. ing. The major damage conditions of the specimen col-
umns are indicated in the diagram.
The degree of specimen damage is as indicated be-
low. The axial direction strain of the flange on the lower
part of the southern column reached compressive yield
strain first. We set this point as 1δy and local buckling

180 QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 3, Oct. ’99


Fig. 8 A simple analytical model
then occurred in the column base at about 4 δy, maxi-
mum load was essentially reached at about 5 δy and lo-
cal buckling also occurred at the top of the column. Sub-
sequently, the load gradually decreased as local buckling
progressed and, at 8 δy, cracking occurred in the loca-
tions where buckling had occurred in the column base.
This relation of load-displacement relationship and de-
gree of specimen damage are thought to be nearly the
same as in column member tests. Damage was concen-
trated in the column members and no external damage
was recognized in the beam and column-beam connections
until the final loading stage.
5. 2. Pushover analysis using a simple analysis model
We conducted pushover analysis using a simple analy-
sis model and compared it to the load-displacement enve-
lope line in the test results. As indicated in Fig. 8, we
developed the analysis model with linear beam members
and beam elements with non-linear stiffness springs at
the end of column members, taking into consideration the
damage conditions in the tests. The skeleton curve of the
member hysteresis model was formed as a tri-linear
model, as indicated in Fig. 4. The break points of the
skeleton curve were calculated based on the procedures
presented in section 4 (Quantitative evaluation of steel
member bearing capacity and ductility) above. In addi-
tion, regarding the column members, since the axial force
fluctuated, we set the interaction curve of bending mo-
ment and axial force, taking their affects into account.
Fig. 9 shows a comparison of the results of pushover
analysis and the envelope curve in the test results. The
points that are labeled as damage level limiting points 1,
2 and 3 in the diagram indicate the points at which col-
umn members reached the limiting points in the push-
over analysis. In addition, the damage that appeared
earliest in the envelope line is also indicated. The follow-
ing tendencies were recognized based on Fig. 9.
(1) The displacement at damage level limiting point 2 in
the analysis results essentially coincided with the
displacement at the maximum load point in the tests.
The load was somewhat smaller than that in the test
results.
(2) The displacement at damage level limiting point 3 in
QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 3, Oct. ’99
Fig. 9 Pushover analysis result
the analysis results generally coincided with the point
at which load decreased to about 95% of the maxi-
mum load. The load generally coincided.
In the case of rigid frame piers having the same struc-
ture parameters as the test specimens, it is thought pos-
sible to evaluate the earthquake resistance performance
of the structure using the simple analysis model indicated
here.
6. Hysteresis models
It is necessary when conducting dynamic analysis to
use a hysteresis model appropriately expressing the hys-
teresis characteristics of the member.
Models capable of analysis with good precision as far
as the post-peak zone after maximum load have been pro-
posed as steel member hysteresis models 4), 7). These mod-
els, however, are not incorporated in universal analysis
software. Since the decline in unloading stiffness is
thought to be small at the point at which the load de-
creases to 95% of maximum load, we examined standard
hysteresis models in which unloading stiffness was
equivalent to initial stiffness. We examined 2 standard
models without unloading stiffness decrease, one in which
the skeleton curve is bi-linear and the other in which it is
tri-linear. The standard bi-linear model is a model that
has a bi-linear skeleton curve (Fig. 10) directed from the
point at which the yield point is extended by 1.3 times to
the point at which the load decreases to 95% of maximum
load. The setting of this break point takes into account
the fact that bearing capacity also increases a certain
degree at about initial stiffness after the yield point (Fig.
3). The standard tri-linear model basically has a skel-
eton curve in which the break points are joined as indi-
cated in Fig. 11; however, we set the load of break point 2
at 95% of maximum load and the gradient thereafter at
zero.
Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the load-displacement
hysteresis curve in the test results for A-3 and the hys-
teresis model. Fig. 11 also shows a comparison with ac-
cumulated hysteresis absorption capacity (area included
within the load-displacement hysteresis curve). Based
on Fig. 10, if we include the point at which the load de-
creases to 95% of maximum load, the bearing capacity is
underestimated with the standard bi-linear model, though
181
 1000 P(kN) 1000 P(kN)
3.5
800 800 test
600 3 bi-linear model
600

ǛE*1.0E5(kN㨯mm)
400 2.5 tri-linear model
400
200 200 2
Ǭ(mm) Ǭ(mm)
0 0
-40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40 1.5
-200 -200
1
-400 -400
-600 0.5
-600
-800 test test
-800 0
calculation calculation 0 10 20 30
-1000 -1000 Ǭ(mm)

(1) Bi-linear model (2) Tri-linear model

Tri-linear (3) Accumulated hysteresis
absorption capacity ( Σ E)
Fig. 11 Comparison of test results and calculations of load-displacement hysteresis curve
11

8. Acknowledgement

We would like to express our appreciation to Prof.

Fig. 10 Skelton curve of bi-linear model
Usami of Nagoya University, who offered many sugges-
tions as well as valuable test data for this research, and
to Mr. Yasunami, Mr. Terada and Mr. Tominaga of Nippon
Steel Corp., who were also very helpful and gave us vari-
ous suggestions.
This research was conducted as a part of the Surveys
and Research for the Development of Basic Railway Tech-
nology commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation.

hysteresis absorption capacity is essentially equivalent.

The standard tri-linear model is incapable of expressing
the swelling of the hysteresis loop at the time of reload
and there is a tendency to underestimate. It is therefore
thought possible to use these standard models in dynamic
analysis as long as the ultimate point is set as the point
at which load decreases to 95% of maximum load.
7. Conclusion
Our conclusions are given below.
(1) From the results of cyclic loading tests of the steel
column members, ductility is improved by reducing
the width-thickness ratio and enlarging the longitu-
dinal stiffener rigidity ratio.
(2) Based on the load-displacement relationship in the
results of the cyclic loading tests and the conditions
of specimen damage, the steel member damage level
was divided into 4 steps.
(3) We added the test data conducted by other organiza-
tions to the results of the present tests and proposed
formulae for steel member bearing capacity and duc-
tility.
(4) It is possible to evaluate the earthquake resistance
performance of steel rigid frame piers using the simple
analysis model described in this paper.
(5) It is possible to use standard models for steel mem-
ber hysteresis models when conducting dynamic
analysis.
References
1) Railway Technical Research Institute : Earthquake
resistant design standard for railway structures
(draft), 1998.11
2) Ikeda, M., Ichikawa, A., Yamada, M., Taira, A. and
Yasuhara, M. : “Study on Ductility and Hysteresis
Model of Steel Column Members”, RTRI report, pp.29-
34, Vol.13, No.4, 1999.4
3) Yamada, M., Ichikawa, A., Ikeda, M. and Yasuhara,
M. : “Test of Seismic performance of Steel Rigid Frame
Piers”, RTRI report, pp.47-52, Vol.13, No.4, 1999.4
4) Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Committee of New
Technologies for Steel Structures : Proposal of
Aseismic Design Code of Steel Bridge and New Tech-
nologies of Aseismic Design, 1996.5
5) Suzuki, M. and Usami, T. : “Basic study on the be-
havior of steel piers during severe earthquake”, NUCE
Research Report, 1997.3
6) Gee, H., Shengbin and Usami, T. : “Nonlinear analy-
sis and ductility evaluation of stiffened box-sectional
steel bridge piers”, Proceeding of Nonlinear Numeri-
cal Analysis and Seismic Design of Steel Bridge Piers,
pp. 81-94, 1997.5
7) Kindaichi, T., Usami, T. and Kumar, S. : “A Hyster-
esis model based on damage index for steel bridge
piers”, Journal of Structural Engineering, pp.667-678,
Vol. 44A, 1998.3

182 QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 3, Oct. ’99