Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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
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
References
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 − R3t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.
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-
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.
Downloaded 03 May 2011 to 137.222.188.34. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org