Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES

could be important to assess the potential of the proposed model


Discussion of “Nonlinear Uniaxial Material with respect to reinforcing smooth steel bars; this type of bar
Model for Reinforcing Steel Bars” by Sashi characterizes many existing RC-framed structures that have been
K. Kunnath, YeongAe Heo, and Jon F. designed without seismic provisions, and they are now located in
Mohle high seismic zones. The model proposed by the authors is herein
applied to reinforcing smooth steel bars characterized by specific
April 2009, Vol. 135, No. 4, pp. 335–343.
L/D ratios corresponding to absence of buckling 共i.e., L / D = 5兲,
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2009兲135:4共335兲
buckling occurring between yielding and hardening strain 共i.e.,
L / D = 11兲, and buckling occurring close to yielding practically
Edoardo Cosenza1; Fiorenzo De Cicco, Ph.D.2; and with no hardening 共i.e., L / D = 15兲.
Andrea Prota3 The case of L / D = 5 is first discussed comparing 关Fig. 1共a兲兴 the
1
Full Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of Naples model outcomes to the mean experimental behavior of smooth
“Federico II”, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy. E-mail: cosenza@
bars 共Prota et al. 2009兲. The comparison depicted in Fig. 1共a兲
unina.it
2
Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of Naples “Federico II”, Via Clau-
allows observing that the main discrepancy seems to be due to the
dio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy. E-mail: fiorenzo.decicco@unina.it curvatures of half cycles; therefore, the model proposed by the
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of Naples authors could be modified by replacing the curvature parameter
“Federico II”, Italy. E-mail: aprota@unia.it given by Chang and Mander 共1994兲 with that proposed by Mene-
gotto and Pinto 共1973兲. The cyclic curve given by the so modified
model is compared to that experimental in Fig. 1共b兲 in which the
The discussers commend the authors for presenting a stimulating Menegotto and Pinto curvature parameter has been determined
paper on the stress-strain model describing the behavior of rein- using R0 = 20, A1 = 18.5, and A2 = 0.001. Based on the aforemen-
forcing ribbed steel bars that affects the postyield response of tioned comparison, it seems appropriate to suggest that, if no
reinforced concrete 共RC兲 elements. The formulation presented in buckling occurs, the cyclic behavior of smooth reinforcing bars
the paper is based on the Chang and Mander 共1994兲 model in could be simulated by using the model proposed by authors in
which buckling is introduced by adopting the Dhakal and which the Menegotto and Pinto curvature parameter is adopted in
Maekawa 共2002兲 model. The discussers, however, believe that it lieu of that given by Chang and Mander.

1.5 1.5
!"#$ &' ()**+,- #, +$ !"#$ &' ()**+,- #, +$
./0#123#*,+$ ./0#123#*,+$
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0
45678 456788
(a) (a)
-1.5 -1.5

1.5 1.5
!"#$ &' (!)#*+, #- ,$ !"#$ &' ()**+,- #, +$
./0#123#*-,$ ./0#123#*,+$
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0
45678 456789
(b) (b)
-1.5 -1.5

Fig. 1. Comparison for smooth bars with L / D = 5: 共a兲 model pro- Fig. 2. Model proposed by authors versus experimental curves for
posed by authors; 共b兲 model proposed by Cosenza and Prota 共2006兲 smooth bars: 共a兲 L / D = 11; 共b兲 L / D = 15

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 917

Downloaded 03 May 2011 to 137.222.188.34. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
1.5
!"#$ &' (!)#*+, #- ,$
./0#123#*-,$
modeling of smooth steel bars under compression.” J. Earthquake
1.0 Eng., 10共3兲, 313–329.
Dhakal, R., and Maekawa, K. 共2002兲. “Modeling for postyield buckling
0.5 of reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 128共9兲, 1139–1147.
Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E. 共1973兲. “Method of analysis for cycli-
0.0 cally loaded reinforced concrete frames including changes in geom-
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 etry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal
-0.5
forces and bending moment.” IASBE Proc., Lisbon.
Prota, A., De Cicco, F., and Cosenza, E. 共2009兲. “Cyclic behavior of
smooth steel reinforcing bars: Experimental analysis and modeling
-1.0
456788 issues.” J. Earthquake Eng., 13共4兲, 500–519.
(a)
-1.5

1.5
!"#$ &' (!)#*+, #- ,$
./0#123#*-,$ Closure to “Nonlinear Uniaxial Material
1.0
Model for Reinforcing Steel Bars” by Sashi
0.5 K. Kunnath, YeongAe Heo, and Jon F.
Mohle
0.0
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 April 2009, Vol. 135, No. 4, pp. 335–343.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2009兲135:4共335兲
-0.5

-1.0 Sashi Kunnath, M.ASCE1; and YeongAe Heo2


1
456789 Professor, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: skkunnath@
(b) ucdavis.edu
-1.5 2
Graduate Student Researcher, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Fig. 3. Model proposed by Cosenza and Prota 共2006兲 versus experi- E-mail: yaheo@ucdavis.edu
mental curves for smooth steel bars: 共a兲 L / D = 11; 共b兲 L / D = 15
The writers thank the discussers for their interest in our work. In
the following closure, in addition to addressing the particular
issue raised by the discussers of applying the model to simulate
The typical behavior of smooth reinforcing bars in which
the cyclic response of smooth reinforcing bars, the writers also
buckling occurs between yielding and hardening strain or close to
take this opportunity to clarify an additional issue related to the
yielding with no hardening are then discussed with respect to the
use of natural stress-strain coordinates in developing the proposed
cases of L / D = 11 and L / D = 15, respectively. It is recalled that, in
model.
addition to curvature parameter, for the analyzed cases buckling
plays an important role; the proposed model takes it into account
by adopting the Dhakal and Maekawa model. It is also high- Influence of Buckling Model on Cyclic Response
lighted that, as L/D ratio increases, the cyclic behavior tends to
become nonsymmetrical 共Prota et al. 2009兲. The predictions pro- The discussers apply the proposed model to simulate the response
vided by the model proposed by the authors are compared to the of smooth reinforcing bars and show that the initiation of buck-
experimental curves 共Prota et al. 2009兲 in Fig. 2; these compari- ling and the resulting shape of the stress-strain curve on the com-
sons point out that, when buckling occurs, the extension of the pression side are not effectively simulated. This is attributed to
proposed model to smooth reinforcing bars could require some two factors: the parameter that controls the curvature of the
modification not only concerning curvatures but also strength of stress-strain curve in the peak compression region; and the
the compressive branches. Therefore, the following modifications strength of the compressive branch for larger L/d ratios. Hence
are proposed to extend the model proposed by authors to smooth the discussers recommend 共a兲 using calibrated curvature param-
reinforcing bars subjected to buckling, and the outcomes of the so
modified model are compared to the experimental curves in Fig.
3:
1. Predict the compressive envelop curve by replacing the
Dhakal and Maekawa model with that developed for smooth
reinforcing bars by Cosenza and Prota 共2006兲; and
2. Compute the curvature parameters of tensile and compres-
sive branches by means of Chang and Mander, and Mene-
gotto and Pinto relationships, respectively.

References

Chang, G., and Mander, J. 共1994兲. “Seismic energy-based fatigue damage


analysis of bridge columns: Part I—Evaluation of seismic capacity.”
Fig. 1. Effect of curvature parameter on cyclic response without
NCEER Technical Rep. No. 94–0006, Buffalo, N.Y.
Cosenza, E., and Prota, A. 共2006兲. “Experimental behavior and numerical buckling

918 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010

Downloaded 03 May 2011 to 137.222.188.34. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 2. Effect of curvature parameter on cyclic response with buck-
Fig. 4. Variation of tangent modulus in postyield phase
ling

eters in the model developed by Menegotto and Pinto 共1973兲 on curve-fitting and therefore also contains parameters to control the
the compression side and possibly retaining the relationships of shape and curvature of the stress-strain response as described
the Chang and Mander 共1994兲 model on the tension side; and 共b兲 above. It should further be mentioned that the curvature param-
replacing the model of Dhakal and Maekawa 共2002兲 with the eter provides a means to incorporate the well-known “Bausch-
model proposed by Cosenza and Prota 共2006兲 for the case of inger effect”—a feature of steel stress-strain response that was
smooth bars. shown by Restrepo-Posada et al. 共1994兲 to be dependent on the
The writers acknowledge that the details of the curvature pa- carbon content of the steel alloy.
rameters were not specifically described in the paper since com- The writers agree that the strength in compression is influ-
plete information is reported in the work of Chang and Mander enced by the initiation of buckling which in turn is affected by the
共1994兲. It appears that the discussers used the default parameters previous strain history of the bar particularly yielding in tension.
given by Chang and Mander to produce the stress-strain responses These observations are confirmed in tests reported both by Dhakal
whereas the model implemented in OpenSees 共2009兲 contains a and Maekawa 共2002兲 and Prota et al. 共2009兲, the former for the
user-definable parameter R which is composed of three variables case of deformed bars and the latter for smooth bars. The writers
R1, R2, and R3 as follows further agree that the Dhakal–Maekawa model may not be ad-
equate to simulate the buckling response of smooth bars where
R = R2共1.0 − R3␧t兲␧Ry 1 共1兲
strength loss due to softening appears to be less significant than in
where ␧t denotes the total half cycle strain amplitude; and ␧y the case of deformed bars. Likewise the model proposed by the
denotes the strain at yield stress. discussers may not be appropriate to simulate the cyclic response
The resulting parameter R provides greater flexibility in con- of deformed bars. Nevertheless, the writers contend that the
trolling the curvature as a function of the strain amplitude. In all Dhakal–Maekawa model is appropriate for general application
the simulations reported in the paper, default parameters 共R1 since it reasonably represents the buckling behavior of deformed
= 0.333, R2 = 18, and R3 = 4兲 were used. The effect of the curvature bars and can be conservative when applied to smooth bars. More-
parameter R2 is illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. In Fig. 1, we plot a set over, the objective of the paper was to develop a general phenom-
of arbitrary cyclic responses changing the default value of R2 enological model with essential features that characterize the
from 18 to 35. In this case, buckling parameters are not specified. cyclic behavior of reinforcing bars. As indicated in the concluding
The same cyclic responses are replotted in Fig. 2 with the change remarks of the original paper, further enhancements to the buck-
that buckling behavior corresponding to L / d = 11 is incorpo- ling model are still needed to represent more completely the range
rated. of possible responses due to a variety of factors including but not
Hence, the main discrepancy between the prediction using the limited to: the effect of tensile strains on buckling initiation and
proposed model and the smooth bar experimental response is not the role of confining reinforcement in controlling the effective L/d
necessarily due to the curvature parameter. The Chang–Mander ratio of longitudinal bars in reinforced concrete 共RC兲 elements.
model is essentially based on the Menegotto–Pinto approach for The response of individual bars provides only part of the infor-
mation necessary to develop and calibrate cyclic response models
for reinforcing bars in RC structures.

Response in Natural Stress-Strain Coordinates

The writers also wish to use this opportunity to clarify the repre-
sentative bounding stress-strain curves shown in Fig. 1 of the
paper. The figure shows the slope of the curve in natural coordi-
nates to remain positive while softening 共due to necking兲 is ob-
served in the tensile response in engineering coordinates.
Likewise, softening due to buckling is shown in the compression
envelope in engineering space while a positive slope is retained in
natural coordinates. One of the readers asked for clarification of
this behavior 共Restrepo, personal communication, 2009兲.
Fig. 3. Representative stress-strain responses First, the writers wish to make clear that the conceptual repre-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 919

Downloaded 03 May 2011 to 137.222.188.34. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
sentation in Fig. 1 was meant to illustrate basic concepts without that the “engineering” stiffness drops below zero at a strain of
attempting to demonstrate a “true” transformation of the engineer- approximately 0.011 while the stiffness in natural space remains
ing to natural coordinate system. The apparent discontinuity in the positive up to a strain of approximately 0.014.
slopes of the curves at the peak points is misleading. This particu- In the OpenSees implementation of the proposed model, a
lar “conceptual” feature was introduced to indicate that true stress positive postpeak stiffness is used because softening behavior is
and strain are unlikely to exhibit softening though an examination observed only in engineering measures of stress and strain. In an
of the material behavior at the microscopic scale is beyond the effort to replace unrealistic softening behavior at the material
scope of this paper. The actual transformation is shown herein in level in compression, the Dhakal–Maekawa model is incorporated
Fig. 3 where Eqs. 共1兲–共2兲 of the original paper have been applied to represent combined material-geometric effects at the reinforced
to the stress and strain values. As shown in the figure, the stress- concrete section level.
strain curves in the natural coordinate system are symmetric and
the observed softening in the engineering response is also repro-
duced in the natural system. Again it is emphasized that the ap- References
plication of Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 is simply based on preservation of the
volume of the material and not to be interpreted as an exact rep- Chang, G., and Mander, J. 共1994兲. “Seismic energy-based fatigue damage
resentation of behavior in the postpeak range. The postpeak soft- analysis of bridge columns: Part I—Evaluation of seismic capacity.”
ening response is typically observed in a tension test due to NCEER Technical Rep. No. 94-0006, Multi-Disciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York,
necking, which is a localized behavior, while softening in com-
Buffalo, N.Y.
pression can occur only due to buckling 共which is a geometric
Cosenza, E., and Prota, A. 共2006兲. “Experimental behavior and numerical
effect兲. The equations that transform engineering to natural coor- modeling of smooth steel bars under compression.” J. Earthquake
dinates are strictly valid only up to the point where the material is Eng., 10共3兲, 313–329.
not influenced by the effects of localized damage 共such as necking Dhakal, R., and Maekawa, K. 共2002兲. “Modeling for postyield buckling
in tension and buckling in compression兲. Hence, the true material of reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 128共9兲, 1139–1147.
behavior following nonuniform local deformation needs to be es- Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E. 共1973兲. “Method of analysis of cyclically
tablished through different approaches. loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic
The strain-strain data used in the simulation is from an actual behavior of elements under normal forces and bending.” Preliminary
tensile test of a #11 reinforcing bar. It should also be pointed out Rep. No. 13, IABSE, Zurich, Switzerland, 15–22.
that the stiffness of the tensile stress-strain response in natural OpenSees. 共2009兲. “Open system for earthquake engineering simulation.”
Open source software, 具http://opensees.berkeley.edu典.
coordinates is marginally higher but the inflection point from
Prota, A., de Cicco, F., and Cosenza, E. 共2009兲. “Cyclic behavior of
hardening to softening lags behind the corresponding stiffness in smooth steel reinforcing bars: Experimental analysis and modeling
engineering coordinates. The reverse is true for the compressive issues.” J. Earthquake Eng., 13共4兲, 500–519.
stress-strain response. Fig. 4 displays the change in instantaneous Restrepo-Posada, J. I., Dodd, L. L., Park, R., and Cooke, N. 共1994兲.
tensile stiffness 共tangent stiffness Et normalized with respect to “Variables affecting the cyclic behavior of reinforcing steel.” J. Struct.
the initial stiffness兲 as a function of the applied strain. It is evident Eng., 120共11兲, 3178–3196.

920 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010

Downloaded 03 May 2011 to 137.222.188.34. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org