Review of Previous Research

Chapter 2 PHYSICS-BASED DEGRADING MATERIAL MODELS

2.5 Poisson Effect and Transformation to Crack Coordinates

2.7.1 Review of Previous Research

Kunnath et al. (2009) proposed a generic reinforcing ribbed steel model, primarily based on the existing phenomenological hysteresis models such as those by Menegotto and Pinto (1973) and Chang and Mander (1994), and they incorporated advanced concepts including the initiation of compressive buckling (along the line of Dhakal and Maekawa, 2002a), low-cycle fatigue fracture, and cyclic strength degradation.

In terms of postyield buckling, through comprehensive parametric study, Dhakal and Maekawa (2002a) suggested a simple buckling model which primarily requires only a few parameters–the yield strength 𝑓_𝑦 and slenderness ratio 𝐿/𝐷 as major factors, covering a wide range of strengths and hardening behaviors. They proposed an intermediate point (𝜀^∗,𝜎^∗) at which substantial softening due to buckling takes place:

𝜀^∗

𝜀_y= 55−2.3� 𝑓^𝑦 100

𝐿 𝐷; 𝜀^∗

𝜀_y ≥7, ^(2.58)

𝜎^∗

𝜎_l^∗=𝛼 �1.1−0.016� 𝑓^𝑦 100

𝐿

𝐷�; 𝜎^∗≥0.2𝑓_y, ^(2.59) where 𝜀_y is the strain at the yield strength 𝑓_y [MPa]; 𝐿 is bar length [m]; 𝐷 is diameter of the cross section [m]; 𝜎_l^∗ is the stress from the stress-strain relationship without consideration of buckling;

𝛼 is the factor for linear hardening (= 1.0) and perfectly plastic (= 0.75). Once the current strain exceeds this intermediate point, the stress is suggested to decrease with the slope, 2% of initial stiffness until it reaches residual strength, 20% of yield strength, and thereafter stress is assumed to remain constant as illustrated in figure 2.23. The notable outcome of their study is that the initiation of buckling is dependent not only on L/D but also on the yield strength of the steel, as reflected in eq. (2.58) and eq. (2.59). It should be noted, however, that all their parametric studies are relying on some idealized premises: fixed ends boundary condition, monotonic axial loading, and a fiber section-utilizing FEA program with a predefined hysteretic steel model.

Dhakal and Maekawa (2002b) derived a simple method for estimating buckling length of longitudinal steels, with emphasis on RC column members. In their attempt, the horizontal reinforcing elements such as stirrups and ties were replaced by springs, and a predefined cosine function is used for representing deformation profile of longitudinal steel. Through a large number of validations against experimental results, they proposed a reliable, yet simple, method

to handle with buckling problem and effective tie spacing. However, the fact that this method is primarily restricted to one type of structural elements (i.e., RC column), and some underlying assumptions–exclusion of accurate damage state of confined concrete, idealized deformation mode shape of longitudinal steel, and horizontal ties with fixed end–altogether preclude this method from having general applicability.

Figure 2.23. Initiation of compressive buckling and postbuckling behavior of longitudinal steel bar under compression (adapted from Dhakal an Maekawa 2002a).

Rodriguez et al. (1999) paid considerable attention to the postbuckling stress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel under cyclic loading, mainly in terms of the reduced modulus theory and a parameter pertaining to the maximum tensile strain ever reached. The suggested method appears to be capable of reproducing the buckling phenomenon, even at the unanticipated state (i.e., state of positive strain and negative stress) after reversal from excessive tension, which is consistent with the conclusion from many experimental results by Suda et al. (1996).

Monti and Nuti (1992) combined plasticity theory and empirical buckling model so as to cover various hardening models in the generic formulation, for the reinforcing steel subjected to both monotonic and cyclic loading. Their work markedly revealed the significant correlation between L/D and the onset of buckling; specifically, the buckling behavior appeared to be pronounced for the steels with L/D larger than 5. It should be stressed, however, that this approach was

essentially restricted to the longitudinal steel bar with short length of single tie spacing, and all other major factors were neglected for the clarity of the study.

Pantazopoulou (1998) pointed out the significant role of properties of surrounding system (e.g., material property and amount of tie, compressive strain of core concrete, etc.) around the

longitudinal steel bar after extensive review of confined RC column tests. He proposed an interrelationship among concrete deformation, required effective confinement and allowable tie spacing, mainly through mathematical and mechanical derivations as well as empirical model. It is noteworthy that he tried to describe the buckling and postbuckling behavior of longitudinal steel as a problem of entire system surrounding the longitudinal bar, not as a problem of the bar

𝜎s

𝜀s

(𝜀^∗,𝜎^∗) 0.2𝑓y

0.02𝐸s

𝑓_y 𝜀_y

without buckling

itself. To elucidate the main goal of his research, however, he intentionally excluded the effect of cover concrete and shear distortion of the RC member.

Bae et al. (2005) performed a multitude of experiments on the buckling of reinforcing bars under monotonic loading condition, and presented intriguing factors such as initial geometric imperfection (in terms of eccentricity over diameter) and the ratio of the ultimate strength to the yield strength. This markedly implies that actual buckling can take place at lower stress or strain level than that of laboratory test since significant imperfection in geometry and interaction with surrounding element are most likely to exist in real RC structures exposed to cyclic loading.

It is of great importance to note, however, that all of existing formulations as to reinforcing bar buckling commonly rely on key assumptions–namely, ideally assumed deformation shape of longitudinal steel (mostly regarded as harmonic function), horizontally fixed ties, firmly fixed two ends of longitudinal steel bar allowing no horizontal displacement. In reality, the initially vertical alignment of longitudinal steel deforms in a very complicated way due to the rigorous interaction with surrounding system: cover and core concrete, horizontal steels such as ties and stirrups, and other longitudinal steels. This implies that longitudinal steel deforms in a rather arbitrary way, not in accordance with the idealized shape, and considerable horizontal movement of any segments of longitudinal steel are always predominant prior to the onset of buckling. Due to significant damage on cover and core concrete, the buckling appears to allow some movement of horizontal ties and stirrups. These deviations from the key premises of previous researchers becomes more pronounced when we include shear distortion of the RC member, which is essential in general three-dimensional RC elements such as relatively deep beam-column and shear wall system exposed to cyclic/seismic loading. All of these realistic phenomena render the previous formulations less effective in applications to general, real-scale RC structures exposed to cyclic/seismic loading.