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-
ling
eters in the model developed by Menegotto and Pinto 共1973兲 on
the compression side and possibly retaining the relationships of
the Chang and Mander 共1994兲 model on the tension side; and 共b兲
replacing the model of Dhakal and Maekawa 共2002兲 with the
model proposed by Cosenza and Prota 共2006兲 for the case of
smooth bars.
The writers acknowledge that the details of the curvature pa-
rameters were not specifically described in the paper since com-
plete information is reported in the work of Chang and Mander
共1994兲. It appears that the discussers used the default parameters
given by Chang and Mander to produce the stress-strain responses
whereas the model implemented in OpenSees 共2009兲 contains a
user-definable parameter R which is composed of three variables
R1, R2, and R3 as follows
R = R2共1.0 − R3␧t兲␧Ry 1
where ␧t denotes the total half cycle strain amplitude; and ␧y
denotes the strain at yield stress.
The resulting parameter R provides greater flexibility in con-
trolling the curvature as a function of the strain amplitude. In all
the simulations reported in the paper, default parameters 共R1
= 0.333, R2 = 18, and R3 = 4兲 were used. The effect of the curvature
parameter R2 is illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. In Fig. 1, we plot a set
of arbitrary cyclic responses changing the default value of R2
from 18 to 35. In this case, buckling parameters are not specified.
The same cyclic responses are replotted in Fig. 2 with the change
that buckling behavior corresponding to L / d = 11 is incorpo-
rated.
Hence, the main discrepancy between the prediction using the
proposed model and the smooth bar experimental response is not
necessarily due to the curvature parameter. The Chang–Mander
model is essentially based on the Menegotto–Pinto approach for
Fig. 3. Representative stress-strain responses
Downloaded 03 May 2011 to 137.222.188.34. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 4. Variation of tangent modulus in postyield phase
curve-fitting and therefore also contains parameters to control the
shape and curvature of the stress-strain response as described
above. It should further be mentioned that the curvature param-
eter provides a means to incorporate the well-known “Bausch-
inger effect”—a feature of steel stress-strain response that was
shown by Restrepo-Posada et al. 共1994兲 to be dependent on the
carbon content of the steel alloy.
The writers agree that the strength in compression is influ-
enced by the initiation of buckling which in turn is affected by the
previous strain history of the bar particularly yielding in tension.
These observations are confirmed in tests reported both by Dhakal
and Maekawa 共2002兲 and Prota et al. 共2009兲, the former for the
case of deformed bars and the latter for smooth bars. The writers
further agree that the Dhakal–Maekawa model may not be ad-
equate to simulate the buckling response of smooth bars where
共1兲
strength loss due to softening appears to be less significant than in
the case of deformed bars. Likewise the model proposed by the
discussers may not be appropriate to simulate the cyclic response
of deformed bars. Nevertheless, the writers contend that the
Dhakal–Maekawa model is appropriate for general application
since it reasonably represents the buckling behavior of deformed
bars and can be conservative when applied to smooth bars. More-
over, the objective of the paper was to develop a general phenom-
enological model with essential features that characterize the
cyclic behavior of reinforcing bars. As indicated in the concluding
remarks of the original paper, further enhancements to the buck-
ling model are still needed to represent more completely the range
of possible responses due to a variety of factors including but not
limited to: the effect of tensile strains on buckling initiation and
the role of confining reinforcement in controlling the effective L/d
ratio of longitudinal bars in reinforced concrete 共RC兲 elements.
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.
First, the writers wish to make clear that the conceptual repre-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010 / 919
sentation in Fig. 1 was meant to illustrate basic concepts without
attempting to demonstrate a “true” transformation of the engineer-
ing to natural coordinate system. The apparent discontinuity in the
slopes of the curves at the peak points is misleading. This particu-
lar “conceptual” feature was introduced to indicate that true stress
and strain are unlikely to exhibit softening though an examination
of the material behavior at the microscopic scale is beyond the
scope of this paper. The actual transformation is shown herein in
Fig. 3 where Eqs. 共1兲–共2兲 of the original paper have been applied
to the stress and strain values. As shown in the figure, the stress-
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-
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-
resentation of behavior in the postpeak range. The postpeak soft-
ening response is typically observed in a tension test due to
necking, which is a localized behavior, while softening in com-
pression can occur only due to buckling 共which is a geometric
effect兲. The equations that transform engineering to natural coor-
dinates are strictly valid only up to the point where the material is
not influenced by the effects of localized damage 共such as necking
in tension and buckling in compression兲. Hence, the true material
behavior following nonuniform local deformation needs to be es-
tablished through different approaches.
The strain-strain data used in the simulation is from an actual
tensile test of a #11 reinforcing bar. It should also be pointed out
that the stiffness of the tensile stress-strain response in natural
coordinates is marginally higher but the inflection point from
hardening to softening lags behind the corresponding stiffness in
engineering coordinates. The reverse is true for the compressive
stress-strain response. Fig. 4 displays the change in instantaneous
tensile stiffness 共tangent stiffness Et normalized with respect to
the initial stiffness兲 as a function of the applied strain. It is evident
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
that the “engineering” stiffness drops below zero at a strain of
approximately 0.011 while the stiffness in natural space remains
positive up to a strain of approximately 0.014.
In the OpenSees implementation of the proposed model, a
positive postpeak stiffness is used because softening behavior is
observed only in engineering measures of stress and strain. In an
effort to replace unrealistic softening behavior at the material
level in compression, the Dhakal–Maekawa model is incorporated
to represent combined material-geometric effects at the reinforced
concrete section level.
References
Chang, G., and Mander, J. 共1994兲. “Seismic energy-based fatigue damage
analysis of bridge columns: Part I—Evaluation of seismic capacity.”
NCEER Technical Rep. No. 94-0006, Multi-Disciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York,
Buffalo, N.Y.
Cosenza, E., and Prota, A. 共2006兲. “Experimental behavior and numerical
modeling of smooth steel bars under compression.” J. Earthquake
Eng., 10共3兲, 313–329.
Dhakal, R., and Maekawa, K. 共2002兲. “Modeling for postyield buckling
of reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 128共9兲, 1139–1147.
Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E. 共1973兲. “Method of analysis of cyclically
loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic
behavior of elements under normal forces and bending.” Preliminary
Rep. No. 13, IABSE, Zurich, Switzerland, 15–22.
OpenSees. 共2009兲. “Open system for earthquake engineering simulation.”
Open source software, 具http://opensees.berkeley.edu典.
Prota, A., de Cicco, F., and Cosenza, E. 共2009兲. “Cyclic behavior of
smooth steel reinforcing bars: Experimental analysis and modeling
issues.” J. Earthquake Eng., 13共4兲, 500–519.
Restrepo-Posada, J. I., Dodd, L. L., Park, R., and Cooke, N. 共1994兲.
“Variables affecting the cyclic behavior of reinforcing steel.” J. Struct.
Eng., 120共11兲, 3178–3196.