HYSTERETIC MODEL OF ORDINARY AND HIGH-STRENGTH REINFORCING STEEL By Toader A. Balan, Member, ASCE, Filip C. Filippou,? Associate Member, ASCE, and Egor P. Popov,’ Honorary Member, ASCE AmsTRACT: The hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete structures depends toa large extent on the hysteretic behavior of reinforeing steel. An accurate and computationally efficient numerical model of reinforcing steel is, ‘thus, very important in the analysis and evaluation of these structures under cyclic loads, including earthquake Toads. A new macroscopic hysteretic model of the short-term cyclic behavior or ordinary and high-strength reinforcing stel is presented. The model is based on a uniaxial stress-strain relation that is expressed in terms ‘of natural stresses and strains, so that a single envelope curve govern the monotonic behavior in tension and Compression. The hysteretic model accounts for the degradation of strength properties with accumulation of plastic strains, The material parameters of the model are calibrated with monotonic tests of coupon specimens, ‘while strength degradation relations are derived from cyclic test data. Correlation studies of the model with lable experimental data for ordinary and high-strength reinforcing steel demonstrate the ability of the model to simulate the hysteretic behavior of all types of reinforcing steel over a wide range of srain variations. INTRODUCTION ‘The evaluation of the nonlinear hysteretic response of re- inforced concrete structures under cyclic excitations and, in particular, severe earthquake excitations necessitates the de- ‘velopment of accurate and computationally efficient models of ‘components and constituent materials. While component mod- tls might suffice forthe determination of global parameters of structural response, constitutive material models become nec~ ‘essary in the local response evaluation and damage assessment ‘of existing and new structures, In well-designed new structures and retrofitted old structures, steel dominates the response ei- ther in the form of reinforcing steel or in the form of steel jackets for columns and beam-column joints. The development fof an accurate and computationally efficient model for ordi- nary and high-strength steel is, therefore, an important task in the nonlinear response evaluation of these structures by fnite- clement methods. ‘Several models ofthe cyclic stress-strain response of metals have been proposed in the last two decades, Following Popov and Ortiz (1979), these can be generally classified in two ma- jor categories: (i) Macroscopic models, based on measured stress-strain relations; and (2) microstructure or microscopic ‘models, based on dislocation theories. Discussions on existing ‘models can be found in “Response"’ (1983), Bate and Wilson (1986), Chang and Mander (1994), Dodd and Restrepo-Posada (1995). Microscopic models are typically derived from sound theories, but are overly complex for use in the nonlinear anal ysis of large-scale structures. On the other hand, macroscopic ‘models are relatively simple and fail to represent important features of the hysteretic behavior. In the latter ease, accuracy is increased by the introduction of many parameters, with no ‘lear physical significance and with significant penalty in com- ‘putational efficiency. “The most widely used reinforcing stee! models describe the "Prof, Dept of Gv. Engr Tesh, Univ of Moldova, Kisbinew, Mar ova 277066. "Arsoe. Prof, Dep. of Civ. and Envir. Eagrg, Univ of California, Berkeley, CA 9472051710 "Prof, Grad. School, Dep. of Civ. and Envi. Engrg, Un. of Cali fornia, Berkeley. CA. ‘Note. Assoelate Bator: fbn B. Mander. Discussion open val August 1, 1998, To extend the closing date one mond a woten request must be fled withthe ASCE Manager of Journals, The tanuseript for tis Diper was submited or review and posible publicton on June 10, 1996. This paper i prt of the Journal of Strucaral Engineering. Vol 124, No, 3, Masch, 1998. ASCE, ISSN 0733-5445960000 0288 (0297184. 00 + 8.50 per page, Paper No. 13404, 208/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1996 hysteretic behavior by explicit functions of stress or strain. In this context there are two approaches: one using the consti- tutive relation in the form € = f(a) (Ramberg and Osgood 1943); the other, in the form o = f(€) (Menegotto and Pinto 1973; Chang and Mander 1994; Dodd and Restrepo-Posada 1995). The latter offers significant computational advantages When the finite-element formulation is based on geometric (Kinematic) approximations, as is the case in displacement based finite elements and cross-section models with geometric ‘constraints, like the widely used Bernoulli hypothesis of beam section deformations. The Ramberg-Osgood form of the ex- plicit relation offers computational advantages when the fnite- clement formulation is based on force approximations, as is the case in flexibility-based finite elements. ‘A new, simple macroscopic constitutive model for ordinary and high-strength reinforcing steels is presented here. The ‘model has the following characteristics: (I) It can be formu lated as ether an explicit function of strain or an explicit func- tion of stress; (b) itis based on material parameters that are readily available from monotonic coupon tests; (c) itis com- putationally efficient and displays excellent agreement available experimental data over a wide range of strain his tories and plastic strains. The mode! is based on an uniaxial stress-strain relation that is expressed in terms of natural stress and strain, so that a single envelope curve governs the mon- ‘tonic behavior in tension and compression. The same func tion governs the monotonic and hysteretic behavior of the ‘model by appropriate coordinate transformations. The hyster- ‘etic model accounts forthe degradation of strength properties with accumulation of plastic strains. The material parameters Of the model are calibrated with monotonic tests of coupon specimens, while strength degradation relations are derived from cyclic test data, The effects of local buckling and low cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing steel are outside the Scope of this paper. Future developments will extend the ‘model to include these effects. MONOTONIC STRESS-STRAIN RESPONSE OF REINFORCING STEEL ‘Tension and Compression Respont ‘The general shape of the uniaxial stress-strain diagram for ‘a mild reinforcing steel bar loaded in tension to failure is well ‘established from numerous experimental studies (Leonhardt 1980; Naaman 1982; Nawy 1995; Dodd and Restrepo-Posada 1995). As shown in Fig. 1, it can be represented by four well- ‘pronounced regions:0002 008 006 008 01 012 Stel san vn) FIG. 1. Monotonic Curve for Mild Reinforcing Stee! in Tension 1. The linear elastic region, defined for 0 =e, =e where represents the generic steel strain and e, is the yield strain. This region of the tensile stress-strain curve is, defined by a straight line f, = E,e,, where f, represents the steel stress and £, is the inital elastic modulus. The yield strain ¢, is defined as €, = f/E,, where fis the yield stress. 2. The Liders or yield plateau, defined for €, < €, = Em where € marks the beginning of the strain hardening region. The plateau, shown in the inset of Fig. 1, is typ- ically assumed to be horizontal, although small sess fluctuations are observed. The yield stress, f, is com- puted as an average value of the observed fluctuations. 3. The strain-hardening region, defined {0r Ey < & = Ee ‘where & is the strain corresponding to the ultimate stel stress, The definition of the strain eq is not a straight. forward mater. A dip is generally observed atthe end of the yield plateau before the stress begins increasing as the response stabilizes along a smooth strain hardening ‘curve. This implies that the assumption of the yield stress land of the strain hardening model affects the strain €y at initiation of strain hardening (See Fig. 1). 4, The postultimate stress or strain-softening region, de- fined for ¢, > eq. In this region the stress-strain curve depends on the Tocation and gauge length over which experimental data are collected (Marin 1962). It is com- ‘monly assumed that beyond the ultimate point C(éw. fa) the stress-strain curve does not provide any usable in- formation, Even though measured data on reinforcing bars show some difference in the responses in tension and compression, it is ‘commonly assumed that the monotonic stress-strain compres- sion and tension curves are identical (Park et al. 1972; Aktan et al. 1973; Geniev et al. 1974; Karpenko 1976; Ma et al 1976; Filippou et al. 1983). More recently, some researchers have suggested a modified tension envelope to model the com- pression behavior of reinforcing steel. Mander et al. (1984), for example, relate the compression parameters to the tension parameters using empirical equations. In order to include the {theoretical difference between the erost-sectional azea of the ‘bar at equivalent compressive and tensile strains, Spurr and Paulay (1984) propose that the compressive stess at a given strain be defined as the corresponding tension stress multiplied by (1 = 26). ‘The difference in the tension and compression responses of steel specimens is affected by the coordinate system Used {0 represent the measured data. Experimental data are typically presented in engineering coordinates. I stresses and strains are defined in the natural, or true, coordinate system, the differ- fences basicaly disappear. Data for monotonic loading of duc- tile reinforcing steels (Aktan etal. 1973; Kent and Park 1973; Ma et al. 1976; Panthaki 1991; Dodd and Cooke 199; Restrepo-Posada etal. 1994; Dodd and Restrepo-Posada 1995) assert that the tension and compression stress-strain curves practically coincide up to the ultimate stress (point of plastic instability when necking/barreling develops in the tensioa/ compression test. Engineering and Natural Coordinates Engineering stress and strain, and ¢, respectively, are re~ led to the original configuration of the specimen and are cere Se Se vLetfatted 6 ee ee imen, respectively; AL = change in length of the specimen ‘with respect to its initial length; F = axial force on the spec- jmen; and Ay = initial cross-sectional area. ‘According to the original definition by Ludwik (1909), the natural strain, &, isthe sum of the incremental strains AE: oS aee Se ® In the limit, as AL —» 0, the natural strain corresponding to the instantaneous length L becomes ee fene(é [Natural and engineering strains are related by the simple equa- tion o esi +0) O} In the plastic region of the stress-strain response of a spec- imen subjected to axial tension (compression), the cross-sec- tional area gets smaller (increases) asthe specimen elongates (shortens). These behaviors are considered in the definition of the true stress 2: s o “where A = instantaneous cross-sectional area ofthe specimen. ‘Assuming that the plastic strain involves no volume change, it follows that Ay/A = Lily = (1+ €), which allows one 10 relate true and engineering stresses as follows: aaa +e) o "The tangent modulus in natural coordinates &, is obtained upon differentiation of & with respect to &: | 2. (£+ tare o (e+ -B)ore © where , = do/de = tangent modulus of the reinforcing steel in engineering coordinates. ‘The main advantage of the natural coordinate system is that the compression and tension stress-strain curves practically co- incide, whereas the two curves are quite differen in engineet- ing coordinates. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows in the same quadrant compression and tension mono- JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998 /209‘Stel Sess) ‘0002008005008 0.1 are ‘Ste! San (| FIG. 2. Tension and Compression Monotonic Curves tonic stress-strain envelopes in both natural and engineering ‘coordinate systems. The figure is only qualitative and data are hot represented to scale. Natural compression and tension sess-strain curves are very similar until buckling of the bar becomes noticeable at a compression strain of approximately ‘6%. In tension the natural stress is larger than the engineering ‘stress (as the specimen elongates, the cross-sectional area de~ creases), while in compression the true stress is smaller than the corresponding engineering stress (as the specimen short- ens, the cross-tectional area increases). Proposed Monotonic Stress-Strain Curve ‘The formulation of the proposed ste! model is based on the assumption that in te natural coordinate system the ‘monotone curve in compression is equal and oppoite to the tension curve (Nadai 1950; Marin 1962; Dodd and Restepo- Posada 1995). The response of a reinforcing steel bar in ten- sion is defined with respect tothe following parameters: the inital clastic modulus, the slope ofthe symptote in the fain hardening region, or strain hardening modulus, Ey; the Sield ses and stain, jy and ty respectively, ém strain atthe Snset of stain hardening: fu ultimate sess; ad ey, ulate Strain. These parameters ar all defined inthe engineering co- crdinate system with respect to the monotonic curve in ten- Sion. The corresponding curve In tensfon and compression in ‘the natural coordinate system is obtained from (4) and (6), ‘which are then used to find the monotonic curve in compres. Hon inthe engineering coordinate system "The proposed monotoni stress-stun relation for renfor- ing steel th tension is based onthe following funtion, for ulated in the engincering coordinate sytem ap fees. Gtee le a ) 5 Ke GO| Se fa) +s] @ ‘where p = E/E, = hardening ratio; and = model parameter defined later in’ this section. Eq, (8) represents a hyperbola Sri two asympfotes,one with slope Ey and the ther wih Slope Ey as shown in Fig. 3 This equation describes a family ‘of eparaie!” hyperbolas with wo asymptotes that intersect st Point A. They afe parallel inthe senge tat the slopes ofthe {vo asymptots, and Ey, are the same forall curves, These parallel curves depend on parameter 8, defined by ao -? ‘where By can be interpreted as the area of the triangle bounded by the to asymptotes and the tangent to the hyperbola at its '290/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1098, Sia ess) o6 001 00200308 ‘tot Sa en) FIG, 3, Strose-Strain Curve Defined by Ea. (8) vertex point (shadowed region in the inset of Fig. 3). When {y= 0, the hyperbola defined by (9) degenerates into a bilinear curve. The definition of asymptotes to the stress-strain monotonic curve has already been proposed by Dafalias and Popov (1975) and Stanton and McNiven (1976) for an arbi- trary envelope curve. "Eq. (9) can be inverted and expressed as a strain-stress re- lation in the form sh TEED] ay where & onttt, pate zh anpte a2) In the preceding expression, the strain hardening ratio in the ders plateau should be set equal 10a very small positive number rater than zero in order to avoid numerical problems Eq, (11) may be useful in fexibilty-based elements, where the strains are computed from know siesss, In the remainder Of the paper the proposed hysteretic model willbe based on the suessstain relation defined by 9). “The relation of (9) can be extended to generate the idealized teasion and compression monetonie curves. In single equa tion the following expression defines the linear elastic region, the yield plateau and the strain-hardening region: sttmece ese] ye te oes for > Em > a “Hef woeFIG. 4, Monotonic Strese-Strain Curve for Relnforcing Stoat [Ww A) ~ Cn ~ endo] (18) Ea-e) ‘The curve defined by (13) is ilustrated in Fig. 4, which shows all the parameters used in the definition. The tension curve is first defined in the engineering coordinate system, and then ‘converted to the natural coordinate system using (4) and (6), Which are applied once again to obtain the monotonic curve in compression. Eq. (13) will be used as "backbone" for the ‘general hysteretic material model for reinforcing steel pre- sented hereafter. CYCLIC BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCING STEEL Several uniaxial models have been proposed to simulate the cyelic behavior of reinforcing steel (Park etal. 1972; Aktan et al. 1973; Ma et al. 1976; Filippou et al. 1983; Chang and Mander 1994), These models are typically based on either the Ramberg-Osgood law, or on the Menegotto-Pinto curve. Both approaches, however, present some difficulties in describing the cyclic behavior of different types of reinforcing steels un- der generalized loading histories ‘This section introduces a general purpose cyclic material model for ordinary and high-strength reinforcing stecl bars ‘The proposed model is a rule-based model withthe following basic components + Envelope curves, which are assumed to be identical to the ‘monotonic stress-strain curves in the engineering stress coordinate system, Starting from the tension envel ‘curve in engineering coordinates given by (13), (4) and (© ae used frst to obtain the two identical tension and compression curves in the natural system, and then to ‘compute the compression envelope in engineering coor- dinates. These curves are the “backbones of the model, Shifting is used to simulate cyclic strength degradation, Shifting implies that the point of return to an envelope curve is different from the point where the last reversal started Reversal branches, which are used to model unloading and reloading within the envelope curves. + Loading function, which is used to establish whether the material is loading or unloading. Cyclic Envelope Curves ‘The compression and tension envelopes of the cyclic stress- strain curve are defined by the monotonie stress-strain relation cof (13), whose origin is shifted to point (@, 0) in order to describe cyclic response (Fig. 5). In the following develop- ‘ments the strain & will represent the generic origin shift. Take FIG. 5. Tension and Compression Envelopes for e~ Sen for e,~e0>€ Go) fo for -esty Be wee fle.) (e-em ener efeg OO [fe f)- Cu EEL 4) Eg, (19) provides a single expression forthe cyclic envelopes in tension and compression defined in terms of engineering ‘coordinates. Differentiation of (19) with respect to €, yields the tangent modulus E, on the envelope branches in terms of the engineering coordinates I is important to note that in Fig. $ the tension and com- pression envelopes are represented with respect to the engi- neering coordinates. Up to the end of the Lders plateau the two envelopes are identical. In the strain hardening regions, the engineering stresses corresponding to identical engineering strains are larger on the compression envelope. JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998 /291Reversal Branches ‘When a load reversal takes place, the stress-strain behavior is described by an unloading-reloading branch, or reversal branch. The reversal branch is approximated by a hyperbola that begins atthe reversal stain €, (Fig. 6). The hyperbola has ‘wo asymptotes. The first one, with slope E,, describes the initial untoading phase and its position depends on the reversal point. The second asymptote, with slope Ey, has a fixed po- sition and defines the envelope curve in the opposite loading direction. In engineering coordinates, the reversal branch is ‘obiained by rewriting (9) in the following recurrence form: ozof.wenes' i=» VEE where superscript & indicates the unloading-reloading cycles: p= E,rE,, = instantaneous hardening: "E, = unloading mod- ‘lus; and ¥f, and "e, = instantaneous yield stress and strain, respectively. All the parameters carrying superscript k are up- dated after each load reversal. The instantaneous yield stress 4p is defined by the following expression: Yyatide, k= 01.00) an ‘where ‘to = strain atthe intersection of the instantaneous un- Toading asymptote with the stain axis after the k-reversal €, = initial engineering yield strain; and 'f, and "e, = stress and ‘rain, respectively, at A-reversal point. The yield stress", and the yield strain °e are the coordinates of the point where un loading and strain hardening asymptotes intersect. Tn (26), "8 is the parameter that shapes the transition be- tween the two asympiotes and allows for a good representation of the Bauschinger effect. The parameter "8 is also called the degradation parameter because it takes into account the eyelic strength degradation of the material. Degradation of the strength properties is directly associated with plastic defor- ‘mation, and the value of "8 is assumed to depend on the ratio between the plastic strain amplitude and the instantaneous yield strain ",. The following expression, which proved to be General Load Reversal Curve 1292/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1908, applicable to both normal and high strength ste! bars, is used Siu(s)] wean a where 'e, = 'e, ~ *'e, = plastic strain amplitude defined as the strain difference between two consecutive reversal points 6); 8 = initial value of 8; and ‘a = amplification factor that will be defined later. Calibration of 8 was based on the statistical analysis of available experimental tests on reinfore~ ing steel bars (Aktan etal. 1973; Kent and Park 1973; Ma et al. 1976; Panthaki 1991), Based on this analysis, the following Values of €) were selected: a= [00 rot egos) gy ‘6. (0.010 for high-strength ste! (higher grade) ‘The tangent modulus "Eis obtained upon differentiation of (26) with respect t0 ep As reported by Bauschinger (1887), the ste! modulus re Yom loading: 7 Yom unloading (420.6) where You = maximum value of the loading function during the loading history of the material. Under conditions of ma- terial loading, the current stess f, and the tangent modulus E, to the current steel strain e, are determined ac- cording to (19) and (25), respectively. Under conditions of unloading and subsequent reloading, f, and E, are obtained from (26) and (31), respectively, where the degradation param- ter "8 and the amplification factor ‘a are updated after every Toad reversal. MATERIAL MODEL VERIFICATION A set of comrelation studies between experimental data and. analytical results on ordinary and high-strength reinforcing steel bars under cyclic loading was performed to assess the accuracy of the proposed model for reinforcing steel. The anal- yses were conducted using a computer program that runs under imposed strain histories. Input material data include all the parameters that describe the tensile envelope curve in engi- neering coordinates, The reported studies are all based on the following assumptions: + The number of cycles, including those of large strain am- plitude, is too small for low-cycle fatigue to have an im. ortant influence on the ultimate state of the tested specimens + Buckling of the specimen has no effect on the test results «+ Strain aging effects do not develop in any of the tests ‘The first set of analyses refers to a series of tests on normal sirength reinforcing stel coupons performed by Kent and Parke (1973). The tests are designated as specimens 6, 8, 1, and 17 in the original work of Kent and Park. For these analyses, the tensile steel material properties are as follows: f, = 45.0 ks Sou = 50.0 ksi E, = 29,000.0 ksi, Ey = 290.0 ksi By = 0.008; ‘Ex = 0.0155; and ¢, = 0.14. Experimental and analytical re- silts from the cyclic tests are illustrated in Fig. 10. The tests fon specimens 6 and 8 consider a single half-cycle with a large maximum stain. While a simple half-cycle was applied to specimen 6, specimen 8 was subjected to some unloading be- fore being stressed {o a maximum strain of 2%. Specimens 15, and 17 were also loaded to a large maximum strain, but in- complete stress reversals (one for specimen 15 and four for specimen 17) were applied before loading to the maximum stain, For all four specimens, the stress-strain responses pre- dicted by the proposed model are in good agreement with the experimental results 'A second set of analyses was performed based on experi- mental results from cyclic tests on machined ordinary rein- forcing steel coupons tested by Ma etal, (1976). Numerical and experimental results for specimens 1, 3, 4, and $ are il- Iustrated in Fig. 11. For these specimens the analytical predic~ tion is based on the following model parameters: f, = 66.0 sis f, = 95.0 ksi; EZ, = 29,000.0 ksi; B, = 580.0 Ksi; By 0.005! ey = 0.014; and €, = 0.123. In specimens 1 and 4 the strain hardening envelope is clearly visible after the yield plateau. Specimens 3 and 5 were subjected to several load ‘ycles of strain magnitude up to approximately 4.5 and 4%, respectively. In spite of the complexity of the imposed strain histories, the results obtained with the proposed model match 1204/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998 ‘St Sts) azese bbetic Se Sees) sheeessoszess a Gees oo Gas aa Boas St an ') Experimental and Analytical Response for Spelmen 3 Sil a ©) Expertoental and Analytical Response for Specimen 15 is I: iz 4) Experimental and Analytcal Response for Specimen 17 FIG. 10. Mesoured and Modeled Stress-Straln Responses for ‘Tata by Kent and Park (1973)set Svs) *) Experimenta and Anelytcal Response fr Specimen 1 set Ses ') Experimental and Analytical Response for Specimen ¢ ©) Experimental and Analytical Response for Specimen 3 sesh o383s8 E ‘8 OF Gone O08 Gags 0 Bas Oe OME 00 ‘Sense fn) « 0) “O02 G51 0 Oat 08 GOs Gor OOS 06 GOT Be 110) « a0 2 7 o> Sema Ror oor 00e 008 O04 O08 ‘Sin Sel ivi “hor 0 oot ‘St Sey Stn Sav) Experimental and Analytical Response fr Specimen 5 the measured data well. Suain hardening, Bauschinger effect, and unloading stifness are all closely traced. ‘The results of an extensive test program on the behavior of ordinary reinforcing steel bars subjected to cyclic loading are reported by Panthaki (1991). The comparison between experi- ‘mental and analytical results from cyclic tests on ordinary re~ inforcing steel coupons, denoted as specimens R1 and RS, is illustrated in Fig. 12. For these specimens the stee! material properties are defined by the following model parameters; f= 480 kaif = 820 1,200.0 isi; Ey = 580.0 ksi; B, = 0.005; €u'= 0.0091; and e, = 0.144. Both tests consist ‘of two complete cycles between fixed strain amplitudes, =39 for specimen RI and 2% for specimen RS. Predicted and ‘measured experimental stress-strain responses are in good agreement for both specimens. Panthaki (1991) also reports on «8 series of experiments on high-strength reinforcing steel bars under cyclic loading. Experimental and analytical results for specimens P2 and P16 are illustrated in Fig. 13. For these specimens, the ste] material properties are defined by the fol- ‘tensile model parameters: f; = 126.0 ksi; fu = 1639 32,1000 ksi: Ey = 700.0 iki, By = 0.01; € = 0.0039; 0.063. While specimen P2 was subjected to a single full cycle in tension, compression, and reloading in tension, specimen P16 was cycled in tension only. For these compar- isons on high-strength stcel bars, simulated and measured re- sults are in good agreement. ‘The resulls of an extensive experimental investigation on the behavior of ordinary reinforcing steel bar coupons sub- Jected to large strain reversals are discussed by Aktan et al (1973). The comparison between experimental and analytical results for reinforcing steel bar coupons, labeled as test 5 and 6 in the original report by Aktan et al. (1973), are illustrated in Fig. 14, For both specimens the analytical prediction is stot Ste 8) a Bopass “Row aos S00 ani 0 aa1 902 ana con Sin Si iy ‘) Experimental and Analytical Response for Specimen RI = set Svs) ssebsousssa Si Stan | >) Experimental and Analytical Response for Specimen RS FIG. 12. Measured and Modeled Strese-Strain Response for ‘Testa on Ordinary Reinforcing Steel Bars by Panthakl (1001) JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1996 /295a a ‘Sal Sain Ge ’) Experimental and Analytical Response for Specimen P16 FIG. 13. Mossured and Modeled Strese-Strain Response for {eels on High Strength Mentoring See! Bare by Panna (903 based on the following model parameters: f, = 70.0 ksi f, 1000 ks 005: ea, O.011; and €,, = 0.29. A large number of plastic cycles were applied in both tests, and in both cases the yield plateau and the strain hardening regions are clearly visible in the results. Predicted and experimental stress-strain responses are once again in close agreement. However, as the eycles progress, some discrepancies appear, probably related to the fact that low-cycle fatigue is ignored in the proposed model. CONCLUSIONS {A general-purpose hysteretic material model is proposed for the simulation of the cyelic response of different types of or- inary and high-strength reinforcing steels. The model is sim- ple and is formulated in terms of natural stresses and strains, ‘The formulation is based on the assumption that the cyclic ssress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel in the natural coor- dinate system is identical in tension and compression up to the point of plastic instability when necking (barreling) de- ‘yelops in the tensile (compression) test. ‘Avsimple hyperbolic curve describes the entire envelope ccurve, including both the yield plateau and the strain hardening branch. This curve is simply redefined and shifted during the load reversal cycles. Formulation of the model requires steel ‘material properties in tension only, thus making the model par- ticularly easy to program and use for any study that requires fan uniaxial constitutive law for reinforcing steel. The accuracy of the proposed model has been verified through comparisons With several experimental tests on steel coupons. Further studies are necessary to calibrate the model pa rameters governing material strength degradation. Limited ex- 296/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998 ome Ba aa 0 o08 000008 San) ‘Sie Sean ny 1) Experimental and Analytical Response for Test § 100| ‘eases ‘Sie sala ) Experimental and Analytical Response for Test 6 FIG. 14. Measured and Modeled Strese-Strain Response for ‘Testa by Aktan otal (1973) perimental data are presently available and a larger database 's needed for a precise definition of the degradation parame- ters, Low-cycle fatigue (Aktan et al. 1973; Panthaki 1991; ‘Chang and Mander 1994) and buckling ofthe reinforcing bars (Monti and Nuti 1992) will also be important enhancements of the proposed model that will allow for the realistic analysis of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic loading, ‘These extensions of the basic model proposed in this paper are presently under investigation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ‘The research reported Ia this paper was cared out while the fest wter was. visitng scholar at the Civil Enginering Departnent ofthe Unversity of Caiforaia, Beceley. This research was sopported By the ‘Techical University of Moldova (UTM). The writers would keto grate: fully scknowiedge fon A. Bostan, president of UTM, fr his supp The ‘Suggestont of E- Spacone fom the Deparment of Civil, Archer 4nd Enviromental Engineering atthe University of Colorado, Boulder 4nd his valuable comments about te model description ae much pre ‘ated APPENDIX!, REFERENCES ‘Alan, A. E, Kasson, B. 1, and Sozen, M.A. (1973) “Suess-staln ‘elaonshipe of reinforcing bare subjecied to irge stain reveals" Fes Rep. NSFRG Cl 29954, Dept. of Civ. Bag, Ualv. of Minos, ‘Urban ‘Bate, P'S. and Wilson, D.V. (1986). “Analysis of Bauchinger effect.” ‘Acta Metallurgica, 346), 1097110. BBeuschinger, J CLB87). "Variations inthe elastic Himit of iron and see, (summusied tapsatioa)"J. ron and Stel Inst 1, SA2= 444, ‘chang, G- A. and Mander, 1B. (1994), "Solum energy bese fatigue ‘mage analyst of bridge color. Pan Tr Evaloaton of pct” Res Rep. NCEER 94-0005, Dept. of Cs. Engr. State Ua oF Now York at Buffalo, NXDodd, LL. and Cooke, N. (1992). “The dynamic behavior of reinforced concrete fridge ples subjected to New Zealand seismicity.” Res. Rep. 52:04, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. Univ, of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Pesta, Dodd, LL, and Resepo-Posada J 1. (1998) "Model for preicing tycie behavior af roinforlng steel” J Struct. Engrg, ASCE, 1210), ‘Saas, Flippou, FC, Popov, E.R and Beraro, V.V. (1983). “Effet of boad ‘eteriration on hysteretic behavior of selaforced concrete Joins TEERC Rep. 83-18, Barnquake Engr. Res Cc, University of Califor ni, Beetaey, Cali Geniev, G. A. Kis, V. Nand Tapia, GA. (1974). Theory ofp Teiy of concrete and renfored concrete. Swoliat, Moscow, Rusia (ia Russian). -Kurpenko,N. I. (1976), Theor of deformation of enforced concrete with ‘cracks, Suolzdat, Moscow, Rusia in Rusia), ‘Kent, D.C. and Park, R. (1973). "Cylic load behavior of reinforcing ‘see. Stain J. British Soc Jor Strain Measurement, 93), 98-103. Leonhard, F (1980). Vorlesungen ber Masivbau, Vol 1-6, Springer "Belin, Germany. Lagwik,P(1909), Elemente der technolgischen Mechanik, Veg Julius ‘Spinget, Berlin, Germany. Ma, 5-¥. M., Bereto, V.V, and Popo, E.P (1976). “Experimental and ‘Shalycal stoies onthe hysteretic behavior of reifored concrete ro {angular and T-beams'” ZERC Rep. 76-02, Earhquake Engg. Res. Gar University of California, Berkeley, Cale Mander, J. MJ Nand Pak, R (1984). “Seismic design of bridge piers” Res. Rep. 402, Dept of Cv. Engrg, Univ of Can terbury, Chistcurch, New Zealand. ‘Marin, (1962) Mechanical Dehaviour of englneering materials. Pres tice Hall Inc, Englewood Chit, N. ‘Menegots, M, and Pint, PE. (1973), “Method of analyse for cyl Call loded reinforced Concrete plane fames including changes ia s©- ‘metry and onelastic behavior of elements under combined normal force tnd bending” Proc. JABSE Symp. of Resistance and Ultimate DeformabilyofSiractres Acted on by We-Defined Repeated Load, International Associaton of Bridge and Suuctural Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal 15-22, Mont and Nt ‘bars including 3284, Naaman, A. B.(1982) Preresed concrete analysis and design. Me ‘Graw-Hill Book Co. Ine, New York. NY. Nadal A. (1950). Theory of flow and fracture of solids, 208 Bd, Vol. 1, “McGraw-Hill Book Co. Ine, New York, NY. Naw, EG. (1995). Presresed concrete: fundamental approach, 2nd Ed, Prentice-Hall, nc, Upper Sade River, NJ. Panthak, FD. (1991). “Low cycle fig behavior of high srength and ‘ordinary reinforcing steslg”” MS thesis, Dep. of Civ. Engrg Site Univ. of New York at Buffalo, NY, Park, R, Ken, D. and Sampson, R (1972) “Reinforced concrete mem ‘bets with eyeic fading" J. Struct. Dis, ASCE, 98(7), 13611360. Popo, EP, and Ore, M (1979) "Macroscopic and microscopic eycic ly” Proc ed Bara, Meck Di Specialy Conf ASCE 203~ Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W. R. (1943). “Description of sueee-ain curves by tee prametr.* NACA Rep. TN'902, Neonal Advisory ‘Commitise om Atronautc, Westington, DC C. (1992), "Nonlinear cycle behavir of reiforcing ling.” J. Stract Engr, ASCE, T1812), 3268 “Response of RC crical regions under large amplitude reversed ac ‘ons (1983). ullD'Informatin No. 161, Corte Euronternational 440 Beton, Lasagne, Swizerand Resuepo-Posada, JL, Dodd, LL, Park, R, and Cooke, N. (1994). “Variblesafecting cyelie behavior of relnoreng mel” J. Sract. Engrg, ASCE. 120(1), 3178-3196, Spur, D.D, and Paulay, (1988) "Postelasc behavior of renfored concrete fame-wall components and assemblages subjected to simu lated seismic loading” Rex. Rep. 64-19, Dept. of Cl. Eng. Unv of Canterbury, Cestchureh, New Zealand Santon, J. F, and McNiven, H.D. (1979). "The development of « math- ‘matical model fo predit the flexural response of reinforced conrete beams to eelic Toads, using sytem idenicaon "Rep. No. BERC Fon, Unis of California Beeley, Calif. ‘Thompson, K.J, and Park, R. (1978) “Stess-train model for grade 275 ‘einforcng eth with eye loading Bull. New Zealand Nat Soc. for Earthquake Engr, Wakanae, New Zealand, 112), 101-108. APPENDIX!I, NOTATION The following symbols are used in this paper: ‘A = instantaneous cross-sectional area; Ay = inital cross-sectional area; amplification factor inthe definition ofthe degradation pa- rameter 8; slope ofthe asymptote tothe strain hardening region; Initial modulus of elasticity: {angent modulus of elasticity in engineering coordinates; unloading modulus of elasticity; tangent modulus of elasticity in natural coordinates; axial force: ‘model loading function; ‘maximum value ofthe loading function ft engineering stress at koreversal point; steel sess; Steel ullimate stress; steel yield stress; left superscript of model parameters indicating the number of load reversals; = instantaneous specimen length; intial specimen length; change in length of the specimen; incremental natural strain; cyclic strength degradation parameter ener sain shift of the stress-strain envelope; amplitude of engineering plastic sain strain at reversal point, steel bar engineering stain; nginecting stain atthe beginning ofthe strain hardening region; yield strain; natural strain; hardening ratio; engineering stress; and atu stress JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998 / 297