Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Received 25 January 2002; received in revised form 13 May 2002; accepted 21 May 2002
Abstract
In this paper, the formulation and verification of a cyclic stressstrain relationship of reinforcing bars are presented. The tension
envelope comprises an elastic range, a yield plateau and a hardening zone. The compression envelope also includes a linear elastic
range followed by a non-linear buckling model. The cyclic loops follow GiuffreMenegottoPinto equations with some modifications
to account for the effect of buckling. A complete path-dependent cyclic constitutive model is then obtained by combining the
equations representing the two monotonic envelopes and the cyclic loops. Comparison with bare bar test results shows that the
proposed model could reasonably predict the cyclic behaviour of reinforcing bars including the post-buckling loops. 2002 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Buckling; Reinforcing bar; Envelope; Cyclic loop; Path-dependent; Stressstrain relationship
0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 0 - 9
1384 R.P. Dhakal, K. Maekawa / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13831396
of a few cyclic models [1012] that are reported to advantages in any non-linear finite element (FE)
include the effect of buckling. computation based on kinematic approximations, as in
Rodriguez et al. [12] conducted monotonic and cyclic displacement-controlled FE analysis; (3) it is fully path-
tests on deformed steel bars. Based on test results of dependent and covers all possible strain paths; and (4)
several specimens, they proposed equations to locate it is simple in formulation and is based on material para-
onset of buckling during monotonic and cyclic loadings. meters that are readily available, making it easy to
They also proposed a cyclic constitutive model, which implement/encode into any FE analysis program.
is basically the same as that proposed by Mander et al.
[1] for cases without buckling with an additional rec-
ommendation to curtail the model at the onset of buck- 2. Uniaxial monotonic curves
ling. Nevertheless, this model is silent on the post-buck-
ling response of reinforcing bars. Direct measurement of Manufacturers of reinforcing bars usually provide
steel stress inside RC columns [10] and cyclic tests on mechanical properties that partly or completely define
bare bars [11] have shown that reinforcing bars can carry the uniaxial tensile behaviour of their products. Never-
significant tensile stress even after the initiation of buck- theless, values of these parameters in compression are
ling, although the compressive stress-carrying capacity seldom specified, thus implicitly compelling one to
decreases. One of the most informative studies on assume that these properties are isotropic and are equal
reinforcement buckling is that conducted by Suda et al. in tension and compression. This is true when we talk
[10], in which they monitored the stress carried by rein- about the point-wise stressstrain relationships because
forcing bars inside RC columns with a specially the point-wise relationships are not influenced by the
designed stress sensor. With the help of these special change in overall geometry [2]. On the other hand, aver-
test results and some assumptions, they came up with a age tensile and compressive behaviours are not necessar-
cyclic stressstrain relationship of reinforcing bars ily the same, as a geometrical non-linearity exists in
including buckling. However, this relationship suggests compression [13] due to lateral deformation of reinforc-
a common post-buckling behaviour for all bars regard- ing bars; referred to as buckling hereafter. As monotonic
less of their geometrical and mechanical properties. This compression test results [1,11] suggest that the average
does not seem logical, as past studies [6,7,13] have compressive stressstrain curves of reinforcing bar
shown that the buckling initiation point and the post- samples with slenderness ratio small enough to avoid
buckling response are sensitive to the bar length to bar premature buckling are very close to the corresponding
diameter ratio (i.e. the slenderness ratio) and yield tension envelopes, it is assumed in this study that the
strength of the bar. In another genuine effort, Monti and average compressive and tensile envelopes are similar in
Nuti [11] conducted monotonic and cyclic tests on some the absence of buckling.
normal-strength deformed steel bars, and concluded that
buckling takes place in bars only with slenderness ratio 2.1. Tension envelope
greater than 5. Based on the test results, they proposed
equations to relate average compressive response with Accurate representation of the tension envelope
the slenderness ratio. They also theoretically derived becomes indispensable to ensure the accuracy of the
equations for cyclic loops based on different hardening complete cyclic model because both the compression
rules for cases with and without buckling, and modified envelope and cyclic loops are influenced by the tension
an existing cyclic model [14] to represent results of the envelope. Note that specifying only yield strength,
tests that included buckling. However, the equations pro- Young modulus and breaking strength does not com-
posed and the constants included were derived to fit the pletely describe the tensile response of a bar. To trace
test results of normal-strength bars (fy 480 MPa) with the post-yielding tensile response until breaking, it is
slenderness ratio equal to 5, 8 and 11 only. Conse- necessary to specify the range of the yield plateau, the
quently, these equations cannot be general as they cover nature of strain-hardening, the hardening stiffness, and
only a narrow range of geometrical properties and do the breaking strain. The authors are of the view that it
not take into account the effect of yield strength and is not appropriate to extrapolate the hardening behaviour
bar types. of a bar based on its elastic properties. Tensile properties
This paper presents a path-dependent cyclic model for of deformed bars reported in Refs. [8,11,15,16] manifest
reinforcing bars that overcomes the aforementioned that the hardening behaviours of bars with different yield
shortcomings. The model proposed here fulfils the fol- strength and manufactured in different parts of the globe
lowing requirements: (1) it takes into account the effect are significantly different from one another. As the hard-
of geometrical and mechanical properties of the bar on ening behaviour of deformed bars becomes more brittle
its post-buckling response, and is applicable to bars with with increase in yield strength, normalizing the post-
any material properties and any type of hardening mech- yield tension parameters with respect to the yield stress
anism; (2) it is of s f(e) type, which offers significant and yield strain cannot be justified. In order to generate
R.P. Dhakal, K. Maekawa / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13831396 1385
a universal cyclic model that can be used for bars with equal to zero (i.e. Esh 0) represents an elasto-plastic
any type of hardening behaviour, the complete tension bar, and P equal to 1 [i.e. Esh (fufy) / (euesh)] rep-
envelope is used as an input. resents a bar with linear strain-hardening behaviour.
Regardless of the manufacturer and yield strength, the Although the coordinates of the strain-hardening point
tension envelope of all bars can be represented qualitat- and the ultimate point can be located in an envelope, it
ively as shown in Fig. 1(a). The tension envelope con- is not easy to measure Esh correctly. To avoid the uncer-
sists of four parts: an elastic branch (OY), a yield pla- tainty involved in estimating Esh, Rodriguez et al. [12]
teau (YH), a strain-hardening zone (HU) and the post- proposed the following equation that utilizes the coordi-
ultimate descending branch (UF). Although a closer nates of any point (esh1, fsh1) in the strain-hardening zone
look inside the yield plateau is reported to reveal small to evaluate P:
stress undulations [2], it is represented here as a straight
line with the stress equal to the yield strength for sim- fufsh1
log
plicity. As the final post-ultimate descending branch is fufy
P . (5)
of less significance in RC structural analysis, the tension euesh1
envelope only up to the ultimate stress point is usually log
euesh
considered. The tension envelop until the strain-harden-
ing point esh can be represented by the following uniaxial If the correct value of initial hardening stiffness Esh
stressstrain (sstest) relationships: is not known, the authors also prefer to use Eq. (5) as
it provides better control over the shape of the strain-
sst Esest for estey (1) hardening curve. If an intermediate point is selected
and properly, a bilinear approximation as shown in Fig. 1(b)
can also closely represent the hardening curve. However,
sst fy for ey estesh. (2) the selection of the intermediate point (esh1, fsh1) is diffi-
In Eqs. (1) and (2), Es, fy, ey and esh are Youngs cult, when only the extreme points of the strain-harden-
modulus, yield strength, yield strain and strain at the ing curve are supplied and the nature of the hardening
starting point of hardening, respectively. Mander et al. curve in between is not known. In such cases, it is rec-
[1] proposed the following equations to idealize the non- ommended to assume esh1 [0.5(esh eu)] and fsh1
linear strain-hardening branch: [fy 0.75(fufy)].
sst fu (fyfu)
euest P
euesh
for esh esteu (3)
2.2. Compression envelope
P Esh
euesh
fufy
. (4)
buckling is different from the tensile one, although the
point-wise stressstrain relationships in tension and
compression are the same regardless of buckling. In the
Here, fu and eu are respectively the stress and strain past, a few average compressive stressstrain relation-
at the ultimate point, and P is a parameter that describes ships including buckling have been proposed [11,12] to
the shape of the hardening curve. P can be calculated as satisfy the results of the tests, which were conducted
shown in Eq. (4), where Esh is the tangential stiffness of within a small range of slenderness ratio. Because of
the hardening curve at the starting point. Note that P different material properties used in these tests, the
empirical relationships derived differ considerably from strain-hardening behaviour as shown in Fig. 3(a). The
one another. Although the equations proposed could pre- normalized compressive stressstrain curves for these
dict the effect of slenderness ratio in the tested range, bars with slenderness ratios ranging from 5 to 15 for
they do not account for the effect of other parameters yield strengths equal to 200, 400 and 800 MPa are shown
such as yield strength that was not varied in the tests. As in Fig. 3(b)(d), respectively. In this case too, the aver-
a general model has to cover conditions that are hardly age compressive response was found to depend uniquely
reproduced in the tests, the experiments planned for on L / Dfy, irrespective of separate values of L, D and
obtaining widely applicable constitutive models should fy. The past studies could not unearth this unique inter-
consist of test specimens that systematically cover a relationship, which is the backbone of the model pro-
wide range of geometrical as well as mechanical proper- posed in this paper.
ties. Experiments consisting of a few specimens with Through this analytical parametric study, various facts
random properties are, of course, informative, and better regarding the average behaviour of reinforcing bars in
suited to verify proposed models rather than to generate compression are revealed. Some of them are: (1) the
new models based on them. average compressive stressstrain relationship can be
In order to generate data for model formulation, the described completely by L / Dfy; (2) the average com-
authors conducted an analytical parametric study based pression envelope lies below the tension envelope when
on the fibre technique [14], where the elements were plotted together; (3) the trend of average compressive
intentionally chosen to be of small length to ensure that stress degradation depends on the value of L / Dfy and
the behaviour within an element is unaffected by global also on the tension envelope; (4) regardless of L / Dfy,
geometrical alterations. Hence, use of the tension envel- the compressive stress degradation rate in the later stage
ope to represent the compressive stressstrain relation- is nearly constant with a negative slope approximately
ship of fibres in each element regardless of the extent of equal to 0.02Es; and (5) the average compressive stress
buckling is justified. To reproduce actual test conditions, becomes constant after it becomes equal to 20% of the
rotation and displacement at the two extreme nodes were yield strength. Guided by these unique interrelationships,
restrained, and an axial downward displacement was an average monotonic compressive stressstrain
applied gradually at the topmost node. Of course, the relationship is proposed, the general layout of which is
analytical tool was verified experimentally [13] before sketched in Fig. 4. Note that the compressive stresses
and strains specified in Fig. 4 and used in the equations
conducting the extensive parametric study. Length L,
to follow are absolute, and their signs should be changed
diameter D and yield strength fy of the bar were ident-
before merging with the tension envelope and
ified to govern the axial loaddisplacement relationship,
unloading/reloading loops to form a complete cyclic
and these three parameters were varied within wide
model. An intermediate point (ei, fi) is established, after
ranges to investigate their effect on the average com-
which a constant negative stiffness equal to 0.02Es is
pressive response.
applied until the average compressive stress becomes
Detailed discussions on the analytical method and the
equal to 0.2fy. To represent the aforementioned mech-
results are beyond the scope of this paper, and have been anisms, the following compressive stressstrain (sscesc)
reported in another paper [13]. A typical result of the relationships are proposed:
parametric study for an elasticperfectly plastic bar is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The comparative normalized aver- ssc Esesc for escey, (6)
age stressstrain curves for slenderness ratios of 5 and
ssc fi escey
10 and yield strengths ranging from 100 MPa to 1600 1 1 for ey escei (7)
MPa are presented in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. The st fit eiey
results suggest that the critical slenderness ratio below and
which the effect of buckling is negligible depends also
on yield strength of the reinforcing bar. Interestingly, ssc fi0.02Es(escei); ssc0.2fy for esc ei. (8)
two pairs of special cases [(i) fy 100 MPa, L / D Here, st and fit are the stresses in the tension envelope
10 and fy 400 MPa, L / D 5; and (ii) fy corresponding to esc (current strain) and ei (strain at the
400 MPa, L / D 10 and fy 1600 MPa, L / D 5], intermediate point), respectively. To make the model
compared in Fig. 2(c), showed similar average responses applicable to bars with all types of material model, the
for the two cases in each pair, suggesting that the nor- compressive stress ssc at and before the intermediate
malized average compressive response depends only on point is normalized with respect to st. This normaliz-
L / Dfy. The variation of normalized compressive stress ation technique also renders the shape of the average
with L / Dfy is shown in Fig. 2(d). As the value of compression envelope before this intermediate point
L / Dfy increases, the buckling-induced stress degra- look like the tension envelope; a characteristic that was
dation becomes more severe. Next, similar parametric observed distinctly in all analytical results. The coordi-
study was conducted for reinforcing bars with a linear nates of intermediate points in the analytically generated
R.P. Dhakal, K. Maekawa / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13831396 1387
100 D; e 7
ei fy L ei
552.3 (9) Comparison between the average compression envel-
ey y
opes of the elasticperfectly plastic and the linear strain-
and hardening bars revealed that the normalized strain at the
1388 R.P. Dhakal, K. Maekawa / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13831396
b a
L
D
cr
L
D
L
for
D
L
D cr
(13)
Monti and Nutis model predicts steeper softening in
small strain region and restricts the minimum compress-
ive stress to 0.4fy. In contrast, the test result shows a
and sustained softening of the average compressive stress
6fy throughout the applied strain range. As the effect of bar
s . (14) strength was not taken into account and the model was
L/D
developed based on the test results of medium-strength
Although these equations yield good correlation with bars only, the prediction of Monti and Nutis model is
the test results for slenderness ratios of 5 and 11, the far from the actual average behaviour of a bar with lower
case with slenderness ratio equal to 8 cannot be predicted yield strength. On the other hand, the proposed model
due primarily to a large value of gs given by Eq. (12). follows the experimental curve closely throughout the
In fact, Eq. (12) significantly overestimates the value of applied strain range, showing significant improvement
gs for all values of L/D less than 11, forcing the authors over Monti and Nutis model.
to suspect that there must have been a typographical
error. Once the slenderness ratio is equal to or greater
than 11, the compression curve is independent of Eq. 3. Uniaxial cyclic loops
(12) and the other two equations govern the average
compressive stressstrain relationship. Hence, Mander et Although tension and compression envelopes are
als [1] monotonic compression test results of a reinforc- enough to cover monotonic loading that is usually fol-
ing bar with slenderness ratio 15 is chosen here for the lowed in laboratory tests, they cannot handle load rever-
comparison of the proposed model with Monti and sal that is an integral part of seismic loading. Cyclic
Nutis model. Comparison of these two models with the models are a prerequisite to reproduce hysteresis loops
test result and the tension envelope is shown in Fig. 6. that define energy dissipation capacity, which is an
important parameter in seismic performance evaluation
of RC structures. In the past, a few models representing
cyclic stressstrain relationships have been proposed and
verified with test results that did not include buckling
[3,14,15,17]. All of these models proposed an equation
to represent a non-linear transition from the strain-rever-
sal point to the maximum strain in the opposite direction
that was ever reached before. However, some of them
did not include provision to control the approaching
stiffness at the target point. This is acceptable if buckling
is neglected, because tangential stiffness in an average
compression envelope without buckling, which is similar
to the tension envelope, always varies between zero and
a small positive value. Hence, a constant representative
stiffness would represent all cases satisfactorily if buck-
ling is overlooked. Nevertheless, tangential stiffness of
the compression envelope that includes buckling may
Fig. 6. Difference between the proposed model and Monti and not always be positive, and the possible negative stiff-
Nutis model. ness varies widely depending on the geometrical and
1390 R.P. Dhakal, K. Maekawa / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13831396
mechanical properties of the bar. A negative stiffness at and (b) in Fig. 7] and (er, sr) is the origin (point A in
the minimum strain point may generate an unloading Fig. 7). Similarly, R is a parameter that influences the
curve that shows compressive stress reduction even shape of the transition curve, and is expressed as shown
before entering the compressive strain zone. This tend- in Eq. (17). Here, x is the strain difference between the
ency in the cyclic loops can be simulated only if the tangents intersection point and the target point (point B
stiffness at the target point is also taken into account in Fig. 7) normalized with respect to the yield strain. R0
in formulating the trajectory of the loop. Therefore, the is the value of parameter R during the first loading, and
GiuffreMenegottoPinto model [18] that satisfies the should be defined experimentally along with constants
aforementioned condition is adopted in this study, and a1 and a2. These equations represent a smooth transition
some modifications are made to account for the effects from the unloading/reloading stiffness at the origin to
of buckling. the intended approaching stiffness at the target point.
Note that the target point always lies in an envelope
3.1. Original GiuffreMenegottoPinto model although the origin can be inside a loop itself. As the
maximum and minimum strain points are target points
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the GiuffreMenegottoPinto for potential cyclic loops, the stiffness at these extreme
model [18] uses a smooth transition curve asymptotic to points is also stored in the memory in addition to their
the tangents at the strain-reversal point, i.e. the origin, coordinates. These values are updated once the strain
and the maximum strain in the opposite direction ever goes outside the range defined by the positive and nega-
achieved, i.e. the target point. The original model can tive maximum strains. To ensure path dependency, a
be expressed in the form of normalized stressstrain new tangent intersection point is established and the
relationship as in the following equations: value of R is computed for each new strain reversal.
(1b)eeq
seq beeq , (15) 3.2. Experimental constants
(1 eReq)1/R
eser sssr To know the values of the experimental constants R0,
eeq ;s (16) a1 and a2 for a reinforcing bar, cyclic tests on some
e0er eq s0sr
samples are needed. The users would be relieved of this
and inconvenience if values of these constants, which are
a 1x applicable to most bar types, were known beforehand.
R R0 . (17) A parametric investigation targeted to study the influ-
a2 x
ence of these constants on the overall cyclic loop
In Eq. (15), b is the strain-hardening ratio defined by revealed that, with the increase in the positive value of
the ratio between the intended slope at the target point R, the loop becomes closer to the bilinear transition for-
and the unloading/reloading stiffness at the origin. The med by the tangents at the origin and the target points.
normalized strain eeq and the normalized stress seq can Provided that the resulting value of R is positive, the
be calculated according to Eq. (16), where (e0, s0) is the transition becomes smoother if the value of a1 increases
intersection (point I in Fig. 7) of the two tangents [(a) or that of R0 and/or a2 decreases. However, making the
transition smoother will increase the difference between
the stress of the target point and the stress at the same
strain in the cyclic loop, termed as stress shift hereafter.
While assigning the values to these constants, one should
hence be careful not to induce an unreasonably large
stress shift, and should also ensure that the value of R
remains positive. As these constants do not influence the
monotonic curve and small changes in their values affect
the transition shapes only marginally, after extensive
checking the authors found that R0 20, a1 18.5 and
a2 0.15 yield reasonable curves.
It is reported [2] that the unloading stiffness shows a
smin 2
Eb Es ; EbEs for er ey. (18) small recovery for reversals that occur before reaching
stmin the target point. The unloading stiffness is hence
In Eq. (18), smin and stmin are stresses at the minimum assumed to vary only with the maximum plastic strain
regardless of the unloading point, and Eq. (19) is used
for all unloading loops. Similarly, the reloading stiffness
Eb computed by Eq. (18) is also, for convenience, used
for all reloading loops regardless of the reloading point.
To facilitate the path-dependent computation, the
unloading stiffness Eu is updated once the maximum ten-
sile strain is exceeded and the reloading stiffness Eb is
updated once the maximum compressive strain is
exceeded.
Table 1
Material properties of specimens and strain history followed in each test
Test fy (MPa) Es GPa esh (%) esh1 (%) fsh1 (MPa) L/D Strain history (%)
pressive stress after buckling observed in all arbitrary constant strain range, as observed in the experimental
loading tests could be satisfactorily captured by the pro- results of tests C3 and C4, and study to address this issue
posed model. Advocating the experimental facts, the is being planned.
model predictions also indicated that compressive stress
does not soften for slenderness ratio 5, and the effect of
buckling becomes more prominent for larger slenderness 5. Application of the proposed model
ratios. Tensile response was found to be independent of
the extent of buckling achieved in previous cycles. The proposed path-dependent cyclic model is coupled
Nevertheless, the proposed model could not predict with cover concrete spalling criteria [20], and then modi-
stress deterioration due to the repeated cycles within a fied for mesh-size consistency [21]. Next, this enhanced
1394 R.P. Dhakal, K. Maekawa / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13831396
buckling model is installed in the three-dimensional this analysis are fully path-dependent and are verified
finite element analysis program COM3 [22], which is extensively [23] at material and member levels.
used to conduct seismic analyses of a RC column based For experimental verification, a shake table test result
on the fibre technique. The column is discretized into of an eccentrically compressed RC column is adopted
several one-dimensional frame elements and the cross- here [24]. Fig. 13 shows the geometrical details of the
section is divided into many cells. In other words, each column, rebar details in the column cross-section,
element consists of several parallel fibres including applied ground motion and the experimental as well as
either concrete or reinforcing bars or a combination of analytical results. To include the effect of inertia in the
both depending on the location of each fibre. The analysis, the axial compression force was replaced with
material models of concrete and reinforcing bars used in an equivalent mass placed eccentrically at the column
R.P. Dhakal, K. Maekawa / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13831396 1395
top. Time-history seismic analysis is conducted twice, bars including buckling depends only on the product of
with and without using the enhanced buckling model. In slenderness ratio (L/D) and the square root of yield
the experiment, buckling of reinforcing bars and spalling strength (fy). To represent the average compressive
of cover concrete were observed and a large residual stressstrain curves obtained through analysis, equations
displacement remained after the test. Although displace- in the form of s f(e) with the tension envelope and
ment larger than 13 cm could not be recorded in the L / Dfy as variables are formulated. Comparison with
test due to a technical problem with the transducer, the monotonic test results showed that the proposed equa-
maximum and residual displacements are reported to be tions are applicable for reinforcing bars with any geo-
larger than 15 cm [24]. The analysis without incorporat- metrical and mechanical properties. For unloading and
ing the buckling model significantly underestimated the reloading loops, equations proposed by GiuffreMeneg-
maximum and residual displacements, whereas the ottoPinto are supplemented with some additional equa-
inclusion of the enhanced buckling model improved the tions to account for the effect of buckling on the
accuracy of the analytical prediction substantially. The unloading/reloading stiffness at the strain-reversal point
comparison of the experimental and analytical results and also on the approaching stiffness at the target point.
indicates that the proposed buckling model can capture The equations describing monotonic curves and
the buckling-related mechanisms with reasonable accu- unloading/reloading loops are then combined to formu-
racy. An extensive experimental verification of the buck- late a general path-dependent cyclic stressstrain
ling model at member level has been conducted [25] for relationship. Comparison with symmetric and asymmet-
RC and composite columns/piers subjected to pseudo- ric cyclic test results showed good agreement, verifying
dynamic and seismic loadings. the reliability of the proposed cyclic model. Although
there is some room for improvement, this model in its
current form offers significant improvement over the
6. Concluding remarks existing models, and can be readily used as the material
model for reinforcing bars in FE seismic analysis of
A complete path-dependent cyclic constitutive model RC members.
for reinforcing bars is proposed. For the tension envel-
ope, stressstrain equations describing the pre-yield elas-
tic branch, constant-stress yield plateau and non-linear References
strain-hardening zone are presented. The thus defined
[1] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Seismic design of bridge
tension envelope is used as an input to analytically gen- piers. In: Research Report 84-2. Christchurch (New Zealand):
erate the average compression envelope. It was revealed Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
that the average compression envelope of reinforcing 1984.
1396 R.P. Dhakal, K. Maekawa / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 13831396
[2] Dodd LL, Restrepo-Posada JI. Model for predicting cyclic ing seismic actions. In: Bulletin DInformation No. 131. AICAP
behavior of reinforcing steel. J Struct Eng, ASCE CEB Symposium on Structural Concrete Under Severe Seismic
1995;121:43345. Actions, Rome. CEB, Rome. 1979. p. 727.
[3] Balan TA, Filippou FC, Popov EP. Hysteretic model of ordinary [16] Claeson C, Gylltoft K. Slender high-strength concrete columns
and high-strength reinforcing steel. J Struct Eng, ASCE subjected to eccentric loading. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1998;124:28897. 1998;124:23340.
[4] Scribner CF. Reinforcement buckling in reinforced concrete [17] Aktan AE, Karlsson BI, Sozen MA. Stressstrain relationships
flexural members. ACI J 1986;83:96673. of reinforcing bars subjected to large strain reversals. In: Civil
[5] Papia M, Russo G, Zingone G. Instability of longitudinal bars in Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No, 397. Urbana
RC columns. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1988;114:44561. Champaign: University of Illinois, 1973.
[6] Mau ST, El-Mabsout M. Inelastic buckling of reinforcing bars. [18] CEB. RC elements under cyclic loadingstate of the art report.
J Eng Mech, ASCE 1989;115:117. London: Thomas Telford, 1996.
[7] Mau ST. Effect of tie spacing on inelastic buckling of reinforcing [19] Bauschinger J. Variations in the elastic limit of iron and steel
bars. ACI Struct J 1990;87:6718. [summarized translation from Mittheilungen aus dem Mechan-
[8] Watson S, Zahn FA, Park R. Confining reinforcement for con- ischen Technischen Laboratorium der k. Hochschule in
crete columns. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1994;120:1798823. Munchen]. J Iron Steel Inst 1887;1:4424.
[9] Pantazopoulou SJ. Detailing for reinforcement stability in RC [20] Dhakal RP, Maekawa K. Reinforcement stability and fracture of
members. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1998;124:62332. cover concrete in RC members. J Struct Eng, ASCE (in press).
[10] Suda K, Murayama Y, Ichinomiya T, Shimbo H. Buckling [21] Dhakal RP, Maekawa K. Post-peak cyclic response analysis and
behavior of longitudinal reinforcing bars in concrete column sub- energy dissipation capacity of RC columns. J Mater, Concrete
jected to reverse lateral loading. In: Proceedings of the 11th Struct, Pavements, JSCE 2001;51:11733.
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1996 [CD-ROM]. [22] Maekawa K. General information of COM3 (concrete model in
Paper no. 1753. 3-D) version 9a users manual. Tokyo: Department of Civil
[11] Monti G, Nuti C. Nonlinear cyclic behavior of reinforcing bars Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 2000.
including buckling. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1992;118:326884. [23] Okamura H, Maekawa K. Nonlinear analysis and constitutive
[12] Rodriguez ME, Botero JC, Villa J. Cyclic stressstrain behavior models for reinforced concrete. Tokyo: Gihodo Publication,
of reinforcing steel including effect of buckling. J Struct Eng, 1991.
ASCE 1999;125:60512. [24] Kawashima K, Unjou S, Nagashima H, Iida H, Mukai H. An
[13] Dhakal RP, Maekawa K. Modeling for post-yield buckling of experimental study on seismic resistance and seismic perform-
reinforcement. J Struct Eng, ASCE (in press). ance of RC piers subjected to eccentric loading. Tech. Memo.
[14] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis of cyclically loaded PWRI Tsukuba 1995;3319.
RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic [25] Dhakal RP, Maekawa K. Post-peak cyclic behavior and ductility
behavior of elements under normal force and bending. Prelimi- of reinforced concrete columns. Modeling of Inelastic Behaviour
nary Report IABSE 1973;13:1522. or RC Struct under Seismic Loads, ASCE 2001;193216.
[15] Kato B. Mechanical properties of steel under load cycles idealiz-