Steel Dispensa 07 05 13

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dipartimento di
Strutture
T. ALBANESI – C. NUTI
REINFORCING STEEL BAR MODEL
Dispensa
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Maggio 2007
Tommaso Albanesi and Camillo Nuti 1
reinforcing steel bar model
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA TRE
Dipartimento di Strutture
Via Corrado Segre n° 6 - 00146 Roma - Italia
Dispensa su
REINFORCING STEEL BAR MODEL
Tommaso Albanesi1 e Camillo Nuti2
Maggio, 2007
1
Ricercatore, Dipartimento di Strutture, Università di Roma Tre, Via Corrado Segre n. 6, 00146 Roma, Italia, t.albanesi@uniroma3.it
2
Professore ordinario, Dipartimento di Strutture, Università di Roma Tre, Corrado Segre n. 6, 00146 Roma, Italia, c.nuti@uniroma3.it
_________________________________________________________________________________________
2 Department of Structures – University Roma Tre – Rome - Italy
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Indice:
1 PREMESSA ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
2 CLASSICAL EXPLICIT MODELS ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1 GIUFFRÈ AND PINTO (1970) ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 MENEGOTTO AND PINTO (1973) ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 BRISEGHELLA (1988) ...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 MONTI AND NUTI (1991, 1992) ..................................................................................................................... 12
3 ALBANESI-BIONDI-NUTI MODEL (2001) ............................................................................................... 16
3.1 TERMINOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 MONOTONIC CURVE ...................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.1 Tension and compression monotonic curve in absence of buckling ................................................... 17
3.3.2 Compression monotonic curve in presence of buckling ..................................................................... 20
3.4 CYCLIC CURVE .............................................................................................................................................. 21
3.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4.2 Cyclic curve in absence of buckling.................................................................................................... 24
3.4.3 Cyclic curve in presence of buckling .................................................................................................. 26
3.5 STEEL BAR MODEL VALIDATION: COMPARISON BETWEEN PROPOSED MODEL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS . 28
4 APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.1 ENGINEERING AND NATURAL COORDINATES ................................................................................................. 30
5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 32
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 PREMESSA
Questa dispensa riguarda la modellazione del comportamento monotono e ciclico di barre in acciaio da cemento
armato.
Non intende essere un testo esaustivo sull’argomento ma una guida introduttiva per chi si accosta al problema
mentre si rimanda a testi specializzati per eventuali approfondimenti.
Vengono brevemente richiami i classici modelli espliciti (capitolo 2) e si presenta un modello alquanto raffinato
recentemente proposto da Albanesi, Biondi e Nuti (2001) in grado di cogliere il comportamento delle barre in
acciaio anche in presenza di instabilità post-elastiva (capitolo 3).
Il problema viene affrontato anche dal punto di vista analitico descrivendo in dettaglio le relazioni necessarie per
implementare i modelli presentati in codici di calcolo agli elementi finiti a fibre o più semplicemente per l’analisi di
sezioni in cemento armato.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 CLASSICAL EXPLICIT MODELS
2.1 Giuffrè and Pinto (1970)
Giuffrè and Pinto (1970, [6]) suggest a relationship to describe the behaviour of elasto-perfectly plastic (without
hardening) steel (Fig. 2.1):
ε s*
σ s* = 1/ R
⎛1 + ε * R ⎞ (2.1)
⎜ s ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where strains and stresses are normalized accordino to Masing’s hypotesis:
- for first loading curve:
εs σs
ε s* = σ s* = (2.2)
ε sy σ sy
- after first reversal:
εs −εr σs −σr
ε s* = σ s* = (2.3)
2ε sy 2σ sy
where (εsy, σsy) is the yielding point.
Eq. (2.1) represents a curve with tangent line slope at the origin Es0=σsy/εsy and with horizontal asymptote line
(εs*→ ∞) σs=σsy.
The parameter R governs the curvature around the intersection point between the two lines.
INSERIRE UNA FIGURA CON CURVA Giuffrè-Pinto (da trovare o da fare)

Fig. 2.1 Giuffrè and Pinto model: stress-strain cyclic curve. (Giuffrè and Pinto, 1970 [6]).
2.2 Menegotto and Pinto (1973)
The Menegotto-Pinto model [9] is an evolution of the model proposed by Giuffrè and Pinto (1970, [6]). M-P
modify Eq. (2.1) to make it useful also for hardening steel.
The general Menegotto-Pinto law is written as follows:
σ s = E ∞ε s +
(E s 0 − E∞ )ε s
[1 + (ε s ε 0 )R ]1/ R (2.4)
This equation represents a curve with tangent at the origin:
σ s = E s 0ε s (2.5)
and with a straight line asymptote for εs→∞:
σ s = E ∞ ε s + (E s 0 − E ∞ ) (2.6)
where Es0=initial tangent modulus of the stress-strain curve, E∞=secondaary tangent modulus (for large strain),
R=independent parameter which defines the curvature, ε0=σ0/Es0=strain at the intersection point between the tangent
at the origin and the asymptote (Fig. 2.2). σs and εs are the “engineering” stress and strain, respectively.
The Menegotto-Pinto model has two distinct advantages with respect to the implicit Ramberg-Osgood law
(1943, [14]).
First, each parameter (E0, E∞, σ0, ε0, R) in Eq. (2.4) defines a separate aspect of the curve’s geometry, so these
can be manipulated independently and easily identified on an experimental diagram. Second, good initial estimates
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
of the three of the four independent parameters (note that σ0=E0ε0,) can be obtained by taking measurement directly
from the experimental curve.
Finally, MP model is defined by the following parameters: R0, ε0, σ0, A1, A2 e b.
Fig. 2.2 Menegotto-Pinto model.
M-P law (2.4) can be written in an adimentional form also useful to describe the cyclic response:
(1 − b )ε s*
σ s* = bε s* + 1/ R
⎛⎜1 + ε * R ⎞⎟ (2.7)
s
⎝ ⎠
where:
ε s − ε sr σ s − σ sr
ε s* = σ s* = (2.8)
ε 0 − ε sr σ 0 − σ sr
σ0, ε0=stress, strain at the point where the initial tangent and the asymptotes of the curve meet;
σsr, εsr=stress, strain at the last reversal point.
The equation represents a curved transition from one straight line asymptote (E0) to another (E∞), where:
E∞ σ0 −σr
b= =hardening ratio E0 = (2.9)
E0 ε0 − εr
R=independent parameter which defines the curvature of the transition according to Eq. (2.12).
This equation represents a curve with origin at (εr, σr), initial tangent:
σ s* = ε s* (at εs*=0) (2.10)

and with the straight line asymptote:
σ s* = bε s* + (1 − b ) (for ε s*→∞) (2.11)

and is illustrated in Fig. 2.3.
Stanton-McNiven, fig.4.8
Fig. 2.3 Menegotto-Pinto equation.
In case of monotonic response, eq. (2.7) reduses to eq. (2.4) simply by setting σsr=εsr=0.
Fig. 2.4 shows some of the curves which the model can assume (elastic-perfectly plastic, elastic-strain
hardening, elastic-strain softening) by varing the value of the parameter b.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 2.4 Possible shape for Menegotto-Pinto curves by varing the value of the parameter b.
The final asymptote is a straight line, and this is definitely not the shape of the dynamic envelope curve for a
typical steel. As shown in experimental tests this curve almost coicides with the monotonic one so that it can assume
different shapes according to the type of steel.
In case of cyclic response (without buckling), after each reversal the curvature R reduces with the previous
plastic excursion ξp, according to the following expressons (Fig. 2.5):
A1ξ pn
R = R0 −
n
(2.12)
A2 + ξ pn
σ srn − σ srn −1
ξ pn = ε srn − ε srn −1 + (2.13)
E s0
where R0= value of R during first loading (R0=20 for ordinary steel and R0=6 for prestressing steel), A1 and A2 =
experimentally determined material dependent parameters, (εsrn-1, σsrn-1) and (εsrn, σsrn) are two consecutive reversal
points and Es0 is the elastic modulus of the material.
With respect to R-O model, this formulation allows to modify the shape of the braches at each cycle depending
on the plastic excursion of the previous cycle: the memory of this law also includes the previous branch.
Finally, notice that this model does not include isotropic gardening.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.3 Briseghella (1988)
The Briseghella model (1988, [3]) is based on a subdivision in constitutive branches, keeping the memory of the
skeleton curve and of the current branch.
The monotonic curve is used as skeleton curve and the shape of the skeleton curve does not change as the
number of cycles increase but it is shifted depending on the load history.
Mander et al. (1984, [8]) law is assumed for the skeleton curve (Fig. 2.7):
⎧
⎪ E s 0ε s ε s < ε sy
⎪
⎪
⎪
σ s = ⎨σ sy ε sy < ε s < ε sh (2.14)
⎪
⎪ ε −εs
p
⎪σ su + (σ sy − σ su ) su ε sh < ε s < ε su
⎪⎩ ε su − ε sh
The exponent p is defined as floows:

ε su − ε sh
p = E sh (2.15)
σ su − σ sy
where Esh=tangent at the origin of the hardening branch.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 2.7 Monotonic σ-ε curve.
The tangent to the hardening branch is espresse as follows:

1−1 p
σ −σs
E t = E sh su ε sh < ε s < ε su (2.16)
σ su − σ sy
The origin (εmo, 0) of the skeleton curve changes at each reversal depending on the previous plastic strain history
and on whether reversal at (εsr, σsr) starts a) from the skeleton curve or b) from a softened branch.
a) reversal from skeleton curve: εmo is defined as follows (Fig. 2.8a):
σ sr
ε mo = ε sr − + ε shift (2.17)
Es0
where:
εshift=0 if reversal occurs from the plastic plateau (in this case Eq. (2.17) coincides with Thompson and Park
relationship Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.);
ε ss 2σ sy
ε shift = ε ss + if reversal occurs from the hardening branch (εshift>0 for the tensile skeleton curve and
ε su Es0
εshift<0 for the compressive one);
the strain εss is given by:
ε ss = ε b − ε mo (2.18)
where εb is the abscissa of the point where the softened branch tangentially joins to the skeleton one (Fig. 2.8a). If
the unloading takes place from the plastic plateau (σsr=σsy):
ε b = ε ss − ε mo σ b = σ sy (2.19)
otherwise if the unloading takes place from the hardening branch (σsy<σsr<σsu).
p
ε − ε ss
ε b = ε ss − ε mo σ b = σ su + (σ sy − σ su ) su (2.20)
ε su − ε sh
Thus the connection with the skeleton curve occurs when the strain εss is equal to the strain reached on the
opposite skeleton in the previous half-cycle (Fig. 2.8a).
b) Reversal from softened branch: εmo depends on the maximum stress point (εmax, σmax) in the previous half-
cycles according to the following relationship (Fig. 2.8b):
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
⎧ε su (ε sr − ε b ) se ε max < ε sh
⎪ σ
ε mo = ε shift =⎨
ε su (ε sr − ε b ) − 0.5 sy se ε max > ε sh (2.21)
⎪⎩ Es0
In this case (εb, σb) is given by the following relationships:
ε b = ε max + ε shift σ b = σ max (2.22)
Softened branches are described by a M-P law:
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
1−Q
σ s = σ sr + (ε s − ε sr )Em ⎢Q + ⎥ (2.23)
⎢ ⎛ R 1/ R ⎥
⎞
⎢ ⎜1 + E ε s − ε sr ⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎜ m
σ ch − σ sr ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦
where Em is the modified elastic modulus that makes the curve passing through the fictitious yielding point (εsr+εsy,
σsr+σsy); σsh is a stress level comprised between σsy and σb previously defined; Q is the ratio between the tangent at
the reversal point and the tangent of the hardening branch at large deformations; R governs the curvature of the
transition branch as in the original M-P law.
Fig. 2.8 Reversal from a) skeleton branche and b) softened branch (Briseghella model (1988, [3]).
Found, as described above, the intial point (εsr, σsr) and the final point (εb, σb) of the softened branch, the
parameters Em, Q and R, that define its shape, are evaluated by mean of the interative procedure summarized in what
follows.
a) To impose a tangential connection with the skeleton curve at the point (εb, σb), it is necessary to determine the
tangent slope Et of the curve in that point.
If the point (εb, σb) belongs to the hardening branch, Et can be easily obtained by substituting in (2.16):
1−1 p
σ −σb
E t = E sh su (2.24)
σ su − σ sy
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
If the point (εb, σb) belongs to the plateau (Fig. 2.8a), the connection is no more tangential and Et is defined by
the slope of the line passing through that point and (εj, σj):
σb −σ j
Et = (2.25)
εb − ε j
where:
σ sy − E sh ε sh
εj = σ j = E s 0ε j (2.26)
E s 0 − E sh
(εj, σj) is the intesection point (Fig. 2.8a) between the line with slope Es0 passing through the reversal point and
the line with slope Esh passing through the initial hardening point of the shifted skeleton curve.
In this case the branch follows the skeleton curve and the following step are not performed.
b) calcolate σch with the following relation:

E s 0 (ε b − ε sr ) − (σ b − σ sr )
σ ch = σ b − Q (2.27)
E s 0 − Et
σch represents the ordinate of the intersection point between the line with slope Es passing through the point (εsr,
σsr) and the tangent line of the skeleton curve at the connection point (εb, σb)
c) approximally evaluate Q and Em.: Q=0.5Et/E and Em=E.
d) calcolate R as follows:
E sec − Et
ln
Et − QEm
R= (2.28)
ε − ε sr
ln Em b
σ ch − σ sr
with:
σ b − σ sr
E sec = (2.29)
ε b − ε sr
e) update the value of Q as Q’:
ε b − ε sr
K Em −1
σ b − σ sr Q (2.30)
Q′ = +
2(K − 1) 2
where:
R 1R
⎛ ε − ε sr ⎞
K = ⎜1 + E m b ⎟ (2.31)
⎜ σ ch − σ sr ⎟
⎝ ⎠
f) update the value of Em as E’m:
Es
Em′ =
1− Q
Q+
R 1R
⎛ ⎞ (2.32)
⎜1 + σ sy Em E s 0 ⎟
⎜ σ ch − σ sr ⎟
⎝ ⎠
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
g) since a tangential connection between the softened branch and the skeleton curve is needed, the check of
convergence is performed by comparing the value E’t of the tangent of the softened curve at the connection point
with the previously calculated value Et of the tangent of the skeleton curve at the same point:
E t − E t′
≤δ (2.33)
Et
where δ=0.005 is suggested and E’t is determined by derivating the softened branch equation:
E sec − QEm
Et′ = E sec − −R
ε − ε0 (2.34)
1 + Em s
σ ch − σ sr
The values of Q and Em are used in the iterations from step c) to step f) until convergence is reached.
The model is accurate but with high computational costs, thus other models are preferred mostly when included
in computer programs for reinforced concrete section or element analysis.
2.4 Monti and Nuti (1991, 1992)
Monti e Nuti 1992 [13] proposed an analytical model for predicting the cyclic behaviour of reinforcing bars
including buckling. The model is based on results of a series of monotonic and cyclic tests on steel rebars ([12]).
They found that non linear bar buckling occurs when the geometrical slenderness ratio λ=ls/ds between the length
(ls) and the diameter (ds) of longitudinal bar, is higher then the critical value λ=5.
900
ds = 16 mm
ds = 20 mm
ds = 24 mm λ=5
600
Tensione [MPa]
λ=8
300
λ = 11
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deformazione [%]
Fig. 2.9 Monotonic stress-strain model by Monti and Nuti (1992)
Monotonic behaviour
From their experimental tests, Monti and Nuti (1990 [11], 1991 [12]) observed that (Fig. 2.9):
1) In absence of buckling (λ≤5) compressive and tensile monotonic curves essentially coincide. In case of
buckling (5<λ<11), only a short superposition length γs=ε5%-εsy is experimentally observed between the compressive
monotonic curve and the tensile one, where ε5%=strain at which the compressive curve diverges more than 5% from
the tensile one towards lower values; for λ=11 as soon as the yield point is reached buckling starts and the
compressive monotonic curve departs from the tensile one (γs=0). The following empirical relation was found for γs:
11 − λ
γs = ≥ 0 for 5<λ≤11 (2.35)
e cλ − 1
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
in which c=0.57 for the tested bars.

2) In case of buckling (λ>5), a softening branch (b-<0) in compression is experimentally observed after
yielding; b- increases with increasing λ and is not affected by the hardening ratio b+ of the material:
b − = a (λcr − λ ) (2.36)
in which, for the tested bars, a=0.006 yields the secant slope ratio (from εsy to 10εsy), while a=0.008 gives the initial
tanget slope ratio b+0.
3) In case of buckling (λ>5), softening branches tend to an asymptotic value which reduces with increasing λ
according to the following relation:
f sy
σ s∞ = 6 (2.37)
λ
where fsy=yield stress.
Cyclic behaviour
The model consists of a finite σ-ε relationship for branches between two subsequent reversal points (loading
branches). The parameters involved are updated after each load reversal (not at each deformation increment). The
updating is performed by means of four hardening rules (kinematic, isotropic, memory and saturation) and can be
easily extended to the case of inelastic buckling.
The MP analytical expression (eq. (2.7)) is used to describe the loading branches:
(1 − b)ε s*
σ s* = bε s* + 1/ R
⎛⎜1 + ε * R ⎞⎟ (2.38)
s
⎝ ⎠
with:
ε s − ε srn σ s − σ srn
ε s* = σ s* = (2.39)
ε syn +1 − ε srn σ syn +1 − σ srn
where b=hardening ratio (b+ for the tensile branch, b- for the compressive branch), R=curvature parameter, (εsrn,
σsrn)=last reversal point, (εsyn, σsyn)=updated yield point.
The plastic excursion at the n-th half-cycle is evaluated as:
ξ pn = ε srn − ε syn (2.40)

(2.41)
where εsr =strain of the last reversal point and
n
σ syn − σ srn −1
ε syn = ε srn −1 + (2.42)
Es
is the strain corresponding to the current yield stress σsyn, σsrn-1=stress of the last reversal point and Es=elastic
modulus.
The additional plastic excursion is defined as:
γ np =< ξ pn − ξ pmax > sign ξ pn { } (2.43)

where <u>=uH(u) (H=Heaviside step function). If |ξpn|>ξpmax then γpn≠0, else γpn=0.
The half-cycle plastic work is defined as:
Φ np =
2
(
1 n
σ sr − σ syn ξ pn ) (2.44)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
In tension and in compression in absence of buckling: Φpn>0; in presence of buckling: Φpn<0. In absence of
buckling b=b+=b-.
Cyclic behaviour in absence of buckling

a) in absence of buckling (λ<5), a good approximation of the experimental envelope is obtained with a variable
parameter b defined by the following exponential expression:
b0 EΣγ ( f sy −σ s∞ )
b = b0 e (2.45)
where Σγ=Σni=1γpi and b0=initial tangent slope ratio of the hardening branch and σs∞=1.5fsy.
Stanton and McNiven (1979) solved the same problem by evaluating b as the tangent to the shifted monotonic
σ-ε curve at the corresponding strain. They obtained very accurate results but at the expense of not negligible
computational effort. The present approach results in an accurate approximation without the need of an analytical
expression describing the monotonic curve.
b) R in Eq. (2.38) is determined as follows:
A1ξ max
R = R0 − (2.46)
A2 + ξ max
where R0=initial value of R (R0=20 for ordinary steel bars), A1, A2=constants depending on steel mechanical
properties (A1=18.45, A2=0.001), and ξmax=max{|ξpn|} being ξpn=plastic excursion at the n-th half-cycle.
c) (εsyn+1, σsyn+1) in Eq. (2.39) are determined as follows:
( )
σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sign − ξ pn + ∆σ KIM
n
(2.47)
where:
∆σ KIM
n
= P∆σ Kn + (1 − P )∆σ IM
n
= PΓ np + (1 − P )Λ pn ⋅ sign − ξ pn ( ) (2.48)
with:
n
Γ np = ∑ bEξ pi (2.49)
i =1
n
Λpn = ∑ bEγ ip ⋅ sign Φ ip
i =1
( ) (2.50)
and P is a weighing coefficient (0≤P≤1) that is easily calibrated from an experimental single-cycle test.
The strain corresponding to σsyn+1, εsyn+1, is given in Eq. (2.42) where Es=Es0.
Cyclic behaviour in presence of buckling

a) in case of buckling (λ>5), a softening branch in compression is experimentally observed after yielding:
⎧⎪b0+ if Σγ ≤ γ s
b = ⎨ − b− EΣγ (σ −σ ) (2.51)
⎪⎩b0 e 0 sy s∞
if Σγ > γ s
where Σγ=Σni=1γpi and b0-=initial tangent slope ratio of the softening branch:
b0− = a (λcr − λ ) (2.52)

with a=0.008; γs is given in (2.35) and σs∞ in (2.37).
Thus, a constant positive slope b0+ for a length γs is obtained, followed by a varying negative slope b0-.
b) R in Eq. (2.38) is determined as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
A1bξ max
R = R0b − > R1b (2.53)
A2b + ξ max
where, on the basis of the experimental results, A1b=A1+1; A2b=10A2; R0b=R0-2(λ-λcr) and R1b=10(λ-λcr)b+.
c) After reversals from compression, elastic modulus Es is reduced, as the plastic excursion increases, as
follows (Monti and Nuti 1990, [10]):
E s = E s 0 ⎡ A5 + (1 − A5 )e ⎤
− A6ξ p2
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ (2.54)
where A5=(λcr-λ)/7.5+1 and A6=620.

The plastic excursion at n-th half-cycle ξpn is determined through Eq. (2.42) by using Eq. (2.54) for Es.
d) (εsyn+1, σsyn+1) in Eq. (2.39) are determined as follows:
( )
σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sign − ξ pn + ∆σ KIM
n
,b (2.55)
where:
∆σ KIM
n
,b = P∆σ KM ,b + (1 − P )∆σ I = PΛ p + (1 − P )Γ p ⋅ sign − ξ p
n n n n n
( ) (2.56)
with:
n
Γ pn = ∑ bEξ pi ⋅ sign Φ ip
i =1
( ) (2.57)
n
Λ np = ∑ bE s γ ip (2.58)
i =1
and P is a weighing coefficient (0≤P≤1) that is easily calibrated from an experimental single-cycle test.
The strain corresponding to σsyn+1, εsyn+1, is given in Eq. (2.42) where Es is given in Eq. (2.54).
e) Eq. (2.51) causes a discontinuity in the compressive asymptote of MP’s expression that can be eliminated by
shifting the asymptote with slope b- of a quantity:
b+ − b−
σ sh = γ s E s− (2.59)
1 − b−
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
3 ALBANESI-BIONDI-NUTI MODEL (2001)
3.1 Terminology
In the following, traction is conventionally assumed to be positive and compression negative. For the sake of
conciseness, unloading from traction to compression is simply defined unloading and unloading from compression
to traction is simply defined reloading.
Half-cycle is the path between two subsequent load reversals.
Plastic excursion is the strain amplitude beyond yielding of the previous half-cycle (it is positive or negative in
case of reloading or unloading half-cycle respectively); maxium plastic excursion is the maximum strain amplitude
beyond yielding of half-cycle over the whole load history (always positive) thus it is not the maximum difference
between strain at the onset of unloading and strain at the onset of reloading of different half-cycles.
n-1=previous
n=current
n+1=updated
3.2 General
Accurate representation of the tension envelope becomes indispensable to ensure the accuracy of the complete
cyclic model because both the compression envelope and cyclic loops are influenced by the tension envelope. Note
that specifying only yield strength, Young modulus and strength at failure does not completely describe the tensile
response of a bar. To trace the post-yielding tensile response until breaking, it is necessary to specify the range of
the yield plateau, the nature of strain-hardening, the hardening stiffness, and the strain at failure. The authors are of
the view that it is not appropriate to extrapolate the hardening behaviour of a bar based on its elastic properties.
Tensile properties of deformed bars reported in Refs. (Watson et al. 1994, [16]; Monti and Nuti 1992, [13]; Kato
1979, [7]; Claeson and Gylltoft, 1998; [4]) manifest that the hardening behaviours of bars with different yield
strength and manufactured in different parts of the globe are significantly different from one another. As the
hardening behaviour of deformed bars becomes more brittle with increase in yield strength, normalizing the
postyield tension parameters with respect to the yield stress and yield strain cannot be justified. In order to generate
a universal cyclic model that can be used for bars with any type of hardening behaviour, the complete tension
envelope is used as an input.
ABN nonlinear cyclic model for reinforcing bars including buckling is based on the following rules:
Menegotto-Pinto (1973 [9]) model is used in order to describe the path of a loading branch between two
subsequent reversal points. The slope of the second asymptote is defined as the tangent to envelope curves.
Envelope curves are assumed to be identical to the monotonic stress-strain curves in the engineering coordinate
system based on Briseghella (1988 [3]) exponential proposal. Starting from the tension envelope curve in the
engineering coordinates, (4.4), (4.6) and (4.8) are used to compute the engineering compression envelope. These
curves are the backbones of the model. Compression behaviour in presence of buckling (λ>5) has a different
exponential relationship.
Modified Monti-Nuti hardening rules are used to simulate cyclic behaviour. Controlling parameters of the
envelope curves are correlated with the parameters of the hardening rules.
Elastic modulus reduction after reversals models unloading and reloading branches within the envelope curves.
Loading function is used to establish whether the material is loading or unloading.
Menegotto-Pinto (1973 [9]) analytical expression, used to describe the path of a loading branch between two
subsequent reversal points, is the following explicit type one:
(1 − b ) ε s
σ s = bε s +
(1 + ε )
R 1R
(3.1)
s
with:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
ε s − ε srn σ s − σ srn
εs = σs = (3.2)
ε syn +1 − ε srn σ syn +1 − σ srn
where ( ε sr , σ sr )=last reversal point, ( ε sy , σ sy )=updated yield stress, b=hardening ratio, R=curvature parameter.
n n n +1 n +1
In case of monotonic response ( ε sr , σ sr )=(0, 0) and ( ε sy , σ sy )=(εsy, fsy).

n n n +1 n +1
According to the proposed model b varies with the current strain as the tangent to the envelope curves.
Envelope curve in traction is not affected by buckling (only cycles translation according to Monti-Nuti
hardening rules and peak of compressive strength variation occur) and hysteretic cycles expansion is observed
(isotropic hardening) as in case of compression with λ≤5. Unloading branch slope is practically coincident with the
initial one but it is modified as a function of plastic excursion. This variation is more significant in case of
reloading.
For higher slendernesses, λ>5, envelope curve in compression is defined in the same way as the monotonic one
but cycles contraction occurs (isotropic softening). Briseghella curve, used as the skeleton one, is built from the
intersection point between the first unloading asymptote and the second asymptote defined according to Monti-Nuti
rules (σshift) holding the ultimate strain at failure fixed (εsu) as chosen from different options.
Peak compressive strength (ft) modifies according to maximum plastic excursion; unloading branch curvature
and reloading branch slope reduce as cycle amplitude increases. In case of cyclical behaviour, plateau disappears
according to Baushinger effect.
In case of high slendernesses λ≥11 softening branch in compression starts just after yielding. For 5<λ<11 a
superposition length γs between the compression and tension curve is observed: γs=ε5%-εsy where ε5% is the strain at
which the compressive curve experimentally differs from the tensile one more than 5%. In the model, compressive
and tensile curves are assumed coincident in the range γs.
3.3 Monotonic curve
3.3.1 Tension and compression monotonic curve in absence of buckling
The formulation of the proposed steel model (2001, [1]) is based on the assumption that in the natural coordinate
system the monotonic curve in compression is equal and opposite to the tension curve.
The response of a reinforcing steel bar in tension is defined by the following parameters: Es0=initial elastic
modulus, Esh=strain hardening modulus, fsy/εsy=yield stress/strain, εsh=strain at the onset of hardening,
fsu/εsu=ultimate stress/strain. These parameters are all defined in the engineering coordinate system with respect to
the monotonic curve in tension.
The proposed monotonic stress-strain relation for reinforcing steel in tension consists of three branches defined
by Eq. (3.3), formulated in engineering coordinate system.
⎧E ε 0 ≤ ε s < ε sy
⎪ s0 s
⎪
σ s = ⎨ f sy + Esy ( ε s − ε sy ) ε sy ≤ ε s < ε sh (3.3)
⎪
⎪⎩σ B ( ε1 , ε s , σ 1 , f st , E1 , ε s ) ε sh ≤ ε s ≤ ε su
(i ) ∗ (i ) (i ) (i )
where εs=current strain, Es0=initial elastic modulus, fsy/εsy=yield stress/strain, Esy=initial elastic modulus of plateau,
εsh=strain at the onset of hardening, εsu(i)=ultimate strain (defined according to the following options), (ε1(i),
σ1(i))=point of the Briseghella curve with slope E1(i) (defined according to the following assumptions), (εs*, fst)=peak
strength with null slope.
Notice that peak strength with null slope (εs*, fst) does not necessary coincide with ultimate value. Briseghella
curve for positive and negative hardening branches is defined as:
p
ε2 − ε
σ B ( ε1 , ε 2 , σ 1 , σ 2 , E10 , ε ) = σ 2 − (σ 2 − σ 1 ) (3.4)
ε 2 − ε1
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exponential branch (3.4) is characterized by the initial slope E10 and current secant slope
Esec = (σ 2 − σ 1 ) ( ε 2 − ε1 ) by mean of the exponent:
E10
p = p ( E10 , Esec ) = (3.5)
Esec
In (3.3), the strain hardening modulus in the Lüders plateau is set equal to a positive number rather than zero in
order both to have a more general model for this region and to avoid potential numerical problems.
This exponential formulation (Briseghella 1988 [3]), having curvature of the same sign in the validity field, is
preferred to others because overcomes inherent difficulties in polynomial models.
At peak strength after hardening, real failure experimentally occurs, after a softening branch, at higher strain.
That branch is usually neglected and the validity range limited to strain at peak strength.
Different monotonic curves can be defined as a function of peak εs* and ultimate strain εsu(i) by defining the
parameters ε1(i), σ1(i), E1(i) according to the following three options (i=1, 2, 3).
Option 1:
Strain at peak is assumed to be equal to the ultimate one; then, if εs>εsu, the bar is assumed to fail according to
the classical criteria (Dodd & Restrepo Posada 1995 [5]):
ε s∗ = ε su(1) = ε su (3.6)
In this case, the parameters which defines the relationship are: ε1(1)=εsh, σ1(1)=fsy+Esy(εsh-εsy) and E1(1)=Esh thus
the third branch in (3.3) becomes (Fig. 3.1, opz. 1):
(
σ s = σ B ε sh , ε su , f sy + Esy ( ε sh − ε sy ) , f st , Esh , ε s ) ε sh ≤ ε s ≤ ε su (3.7)
Option 2:
A peak strain εs*=εsm<εsu corresponding to the peak stress fst is defined whereas the ultimate stress fsu occurs at
strain εs=εsu(2)=εsu with slope Esu.
Post-elastic branch consists of two parts where the exponent p distinguishes according to (3.5).
In this case, the parameters which defines the relationship are: ε1(2)=εsh, σ1(2)=fsy+Esy(εsh-εsy), E1(2)=Esh if
εsh≤εs<εsm and ε1(2)=εsu, σ1(2)=fsu, E1(2)=Esu if εsm≤εs<εsu thus the third branch in (3.3) becomes (Fig. 3.1, opz. 2):
σs = ⎨
(
⎧⎪σ B ε sh , ε sm , f sy + Esy ( ε sh − ε sy ) , f st , Esh , ε s ) ε sh ≤ ε s < ε sm
(3.8)
⎪⎩σ B ( ε su , ε sm , f su , f st , Esu , ε s ) ε sm ≤ ε s ≤ ε su
The trend of this branch is non symmetric with respect to the peak strength but can be completely defined by the
user.
Option 3:
A symmetric post-elastic branch with respect to strain at peak strength is defined.
Eq. (3.6) still holds true but the hardening curve σB(εsh, εsu, fsy+Esy(εsh-εsy), fst, Esh, εs) develops until σs≥max(fsy,
fsu) (i.e. εsu(3)=min(2εsu-εsh, εs | σs(εs)=fsu)), being fsu an assigned ultimate strength value, with a symmetric trend with
respect to the point (εsu, fst).
In this case the parameters which define the relationship are: ε1(3)=εsh, σ1(3)=fsy+Esy(εsh-εsy) and E1(3)=Esh thus the
third branch in (3.3) becomes (Fig. 3.1, opz. 3):
(
σ s = σ B ε sh , ε su , f sy + Esy ( ε sh − ε sy ) , f st , Esh , ε s ) ε su < ε s ≤ 2ε su − ε sh (3.9)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Es0 Esh Esu Es0 Esh

opz. 2 opz. 1
fst fst
fsu opz. 3
fsy fsy
fsu
εsy εsh εsm εsu εsy εsh εsu 2εsu-εsh
Fig. 3.1 Hardening branches in compression in absence of buckling: without softening, option 1 (3.6), with non-symmetric softening,
option 2 (3.8),and symmetric softening, option 3 (3.9).
Eq. (3.3), with the three options, is used to define the slope of the second asymptote of a Pinto-Menegotto model
which is defined as the tangent on the envelope curve. Being E0=Es0 the first asymptote slope, the second asymptote
slope E1 is a function of the current strain εs. Differentiation of (3.3) with respect to εs yields the tangent modulus on
the envelope branches in terms of engineering coordinates:
⎧E 0 ≤ ε s < ε sy
⎪⎪ s0
E1 = ⎨ Esy ε sy ≤ ε s < ε sh (3.10)
⎪
⎪⎩ EB ( ε1 , ε s , σ 1 , f st , E1 , ε s ) ε sh ≤ ε s ≤ ε su
(i ) ∗ (i ) (i ) (i )
where Esy is the tangent modulus of the plastic zone.

The slope of the second asymptote E1 in the range εsy≤εs<εsh is set equal to a non null positive number rather
than zero in order to obtain a smoother trend and to avoid numerical problems. This second asymptote disappears in
case of cyclic response since the yield plateau is eliminated. In the strain hardening branch the general expression of
the tangent modulus is obtained upon differentiation of (3.4) with respect to εs:
p −1
ε −ε
EB ( ε1 , ε 2 , σ 1 , σ 2 , E10 , ε ) = E10 sgn ( ε 2 − ε ) 2 (3.11)
ε 2 − ε1
In case of non symmetric compression (option 2) and according to (3.8), the tangent modulus varies in the two
range considered:
E1 = ⎨
(
⎧⎪ EB ε sh , ε sm , f sy + Esy ( ε sh − ε sy ) , f st , Esh , ε s ) ε sh ≤ ε s < ε sm
(3.12)
⎪⎩ EB ( ε su , ε sm , f su , f st , Esu , ε s ) ε sm ≤ ε s ≤ ε su
The proposed model with variable tangent needs the intersection point (ε0, σ0) between the two asymptotes E0
and E1 (being e0=E0/(E0-E1)) to be defined as a function of the current strain:
σ 0 ( ε s ) = f sy + σ sh ( ε s ) ε 0 ( ε s ) = σ 0 ( ε s ) E0 (3.13)
where:
σ sh ( ε s ) = k0 n {⎡⎣σ B ( ε1 , ε 2 , σ 1 , σ 2 , E1 , ε s ) − E1ε s ⎤⎦ e0 − σ sy } (3.14)

which define the shifting of the asymptote with varying slope and can be determined on simple geometrical
considerations. Index k0n defines the load direction: k0n>0 for loading or reloading; k0n<0 for unloading.
This expression has a general validity and can be detailed for each case by defining σB and E1. It should be
noticed that, in the first branch of the envelope curve, E1=E0=Es0 therefore (3.14) has no meaning and σsh=0. In the
other cases (3.14) applies. In particular, in the hardening range, rearranging (3.4) and using (3.11) it follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
ε 2 − ε E1 1
σ B ( ε1 , ε 2 , σ 1 , σ 2 , E10 , ε ) = σ 2 − (σ 2 − σ 1 ) (3.15)
ε 2 − ε1 E10 sgn ( ε 2 − ε )
that substitutes in (3.14), yields:
⎡ ⎛ ε2 − εs ⎞⎤
σ sh ( ε s ) = k0 n e0 ⎢σ 2 − σ sy − E1 ⎜ sgn ( ε 2 − ε1 ) + ε s − ε sy ⎟ ⎥ (3.16)
⎣ ⎝ p ⎠⎦
where the point (ε2, σ2) and the tangent modulus E1 can be differently defined for each option, according to (3.8)
and (3.10), thus it is a function of the chosen option.
Notice that up to the end of the elastic branch the two envelope curves in tension and compression are identical
but in the strain hardening regions, the engineering stresses corresponding to identical engineering strains are larger
on the compression envelope.
According to Dodd and Restrepo-Posada (1995 [5]), the envelope stress-strain curve has been related to the
corresponding parameters in tension through eqs. (4.4), (4.6) and (4.8).
The tension and compressive yield stress in the engineering coordinate system have been assumed identical
because the difference between both yield stresses is of the order of 1-2% at the end of the yield plateau which is
smaller than the real fluctuation of the stresses observed in a test.
3.3.2 Compression monotonic curve in presence of buckling
In presence of buckling, a short superposition length γs between the compression and tension curve is observed.
Monti and Nuti (1992 [13]) defined this length as follows:
11 − λ
γs = for 5<λ≤11 (3.17)
ecλ − 1
The value of γs quickly diminishes as slenderness increases. In order to have a mode general expression, the
factor c is redefined as:
1 ⎛ 6 ⎞
c = ln ⎜ + 1⎟ (3.18)
5 ⎜ ε su − ε sy ⎟
⎝ ⎠
For εsu=50⋅εsy with εsy=0.002, (3.18) yields γs≅2⋅εsy≅0.004 if λ=8, γs=εsu-εsy if λ=5 and γs=0 if λ=11.
For εs>εsy+γs compression curve decreases with exponential law with the current strain εs and tends to an
asymptotic value σs∞:
5
σ s∞ = f st ⋅ (3.19)
λ
Envelope branches depend on the maximum stress reached at the strain εsy+γs, i.e. σsm=σs(εsy+γs), and not on the
corresponding value on the monotonic curve. Elastic modulus of reloading branch from compression differs from
the initial elastic modulus and depends on σsm too: E0=E0(εs)≤Es0.
Es0
σsm
fsy
σs∞
Eno
εsy εsy+γs
Fig. 3.2 Hardening branches in compression in presence of buckling.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
In presence of buckling, softening branch expression is:

(ε sy +γ s ) −ε s
σ n ( ε sy , γ s , σ sm , σ s∞ , En 0 , ε s ) = σ s∞ + (σ sm − σ s∞ ) ⋅ e
En 0
σ s∞ −σ sm (3.20)
where En0 is the initial slope of the softening branch defined as:
En 0 = bn 0 Es 0 (3.21)
being:
bn 0 = a ( 5 − λ ) (3.22)
with a=[6⋅10-3, 8⋅10-3] (Monti & Nuti 1992 [13]).
This curve is used to define the slope of the second asymptote of a Pinto-Menegotto model which is defined as
the tangent on the envelope curve
Differentiation of (3.20) with respect to εs yields the tangent modulus En on the compressive envelope branch in
presence of buckling in terms of engineering coordinates:
(ε sy +γ s )−ε s
En ( ε sy , γ s , σ sm , σ s∞ , En 0 , ε s ) = En 0 ⋅ e
En 0
σ s∞ −σ sm (3.23)
Finally, second tangent slope of compressive branch in presence of buckling coincides with expressions in
(3.10) until εs<εsy+γs, then it is expressed by (3.23):
⎧⎪ E1 ε s < ε sy + γ s
E1b = ⎨
⎪⎩ En ( ε sy , γ s , σ sm , σ s∞ , En 0 , ε s ) ε sy + γ s ≤ ε s ≤ ε su
(i ) (3.24)
Also in this case the proposed model with variable tangent needs the intersection point (ε0, σ0) between the two
asymptotes E0 and E1 (being e0=E0/(E0-E1)) to be defined as a function of the current strain using (3.13).
In particular, if εs≥εsy+γs (3.14) yields:
σ sh ( ε s ) = k0 n {⎡⎣σ n ( ε s ) − E1ε s ⎤⎦ e0 − σ sy } (3.25)

From (3.20) and using (3.23) it follows:
E1
σ n ( ε s ) = σ s∞ + (σ sm − σ s∞ ) ⋅ (3.26)
En 0
Setting:
E1 = En 0 ⋅ EXP (3.27)
it follows:
⎡ σ s∞ + (σ sm − σ s∞ − bn 0 Es 0 ⋅ ε ) ⋅ EXP ⎤
σ sh ( ε ) = k0 n ⎢ −σ sy + ⎥ (3.28)
⎣ 1 − bn 0 ⋅ EXP ⎦
3.4 Cyclic curve
3.4.1 General
The path of loading branch between two subsequent reversal points ((εsrn-1, σsrn-1) and (εsrn, σsrn)) is described by
Menegotto-Pinto expression with second asymptote slope varying according to envelope curves. Envelope curves in
tension and compression at the nth half-cycle are defined as the monotonic ones with the following characteristics:
envelope curve origin is placed at the load reversal point (εsrn, σsrn);
the yield plateau is assumed to vanish, except in case of sharp yield point;
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
after reversal, initial elastic modulus Es0n depends on the maximum plastic excursion ξmax=max|ξpn| in absence of
buckling and on the current plastic excursion in presence of buckling;
current yield stress at the nth half-cycle σsyn is updated according to Monti-Nuti hardening rules (kinematic,
isotropic, memory and saturation). Differently from the original model where the relations were fixed at the
beginning of each half-cycle as a function of the slenderness, these are defined as a function of the sign of the
plastic work thus including the case that also for λ>5 hardening branches may occurs;
current yield strain at the nth half-cycle εsyn (i.e. strain corresponding to σsyn) is defined as follow:
ε =ε
n
sy
n −1
sr + (3.29)
Esn0
current compressive peak strength at the nth half-cycle is:
σ st( − ) n = s f 1 f st( − ) (3.30)

where compressive strength reduction coefficient sf1∈[0.70, 0.80] depending on steel type (calibrated against
Monti-Nuti experimental tests).
εsu coincides with the monotonic one: ε sun = k0 n ⋅ ε su ;
Current strain at peak strength at the nth half-cycle is defined to keep the following strain ratio constant:
ε sm
n
− ε syn ε sm − ε sy
= (3.31)
ε sun − ε syn ε su − ε sy
then:
ε sm − ε sy n
ε sm
n
= ε syn + (ε − ε syn )
ε su − ε sy su
(3.32)
Parameters involved in the proposed model are updated by means of Monti-Nuti hardening rules which require
the following quantities to be identified.
The plastic excursion at the nth half-cycle ξpn;
⎛ n −1 σ syn − σ srn −1 ⎞
ξ = ε − ε = ε − ⎜ ε sr +
n n n n
⎟⎟ (3.33)
p sr
⎜ sy
E
sr
⎝ s 0 ⎠
the plastic work Φpn at the nth half-cycle are evaluated as:
σ srn − σ syn
Φpn = ξ pn (3.34)
2
Notice that in tension Φpn > 0 and in compression Φpn > 0 ( Φpn < 0 ) in absence (presence) of buckling.
Notice also that in case of reversal from elastic branch ξ pn = 0 .
Small amplitude cycles check

For cyclic branches, a rule to control cycles amplitude is introduced to avoid problems related to the very high
slope of the asymptote Es0. Considering the value of Es0=E0(εs)≤Es, problems may arise when, during a very wide
half-cycle with very small instantaneous slope, a small cycle occurs. This leads to unrealistic increase of the element
stiffness, mainly in case of numerical fluctuation of the neutral axis in a fibre approach. To overcome this problem a
minimum cycle amplitude εˆ n = ε srn − ε srn −1 is defined; smaller cycles moves on rectilinear branches, with slope Kˆ n ,
passing trought two subsequent inversion points and then going to the backbone curve.
σ n − σ srn −1
Kˆ n = srn (3.35)
ε sr − ε srn −1
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Current stress is thus defined as: σ s = Kˆ n ⋅ ( ε s − ε srn −1 ) + σ srn −1 . The model has memory of the two previous
branches to eliminate small cycles effects.
Setting:
εˆ ≥ n
(3.36)
Esn0
plastic excursion values are obtained which satisfy the condition: ξ pn ⋅ sgn ( ε srn − ε srn −1 ) ≥ 0 .
Eq. (3.36) can be simplified in εˆ = εˆ = α ⋅ ε sy (with α=2) in order to have a constant value during the whole
n
load history. This semplification makes numerical codes based on Monti-Nuti model more efficient in particular
when used for real structural response evaluation.
Anomalia nell’effetto Bauschinger

Experimentally Stanton and McNiven (1979 [15]) noticed that a compressive strain just lightly higher than
yielding causes the yielding knee in tension to disappear (Bauschinger effect). Instead compressive yielding point in
reloading branch may be or not well defined. Stanton and McNiven observed that until tensile strain is less than
compressive one or this latter is lower than 3.5×10-3, yielding point remains sharp. Monti-Nuti experimental tests
show that this holds true even if the first load direction is in traction, thus confirming what Stanton and McNiven
supposed but also show that their conclusions are not completely right. In particular, it can be observed that also for
strain higher than 3.5×10-3 (see S2 and S3 tests) the yield point remains sharp. For this reason a meaningful
amplitude value equal to εsh in the opposite direction to the first load one is proposed. S2 test lead to another
condition: if the distance between two subsequent reversal points is less than σsrn-1/(0.9⋅cE1⋅Es0) the sharp yielding
point in the first load direction is maintained a part from the number of reversals. This value is also applied to define
the gap to avoid small cycles problem. Roughly speaking branches of cyclic curves in first load direction maintain a
sharp yielding point until reversal points satisfy the following conditions:
σ srn −1
ε n −1
sr < ε sh & ε n
sr < ε sy & ε − ε n
sr
n −1
sr < (3.37)
0.9 ⋅ cE1 ⋅ Es 0
The gap is also useful when the steel model is used in finite element fiber programs where unreal small
inversions may occur during interations needed to get equilibrium.
Parameters updating
At each load reversal, the following parameters are updated:
• kon;
if the reversal point is inside the gap:
• K (che praticamente resta identico poiché i cicli avvengono sulla retta);
if reversal point is outside the gap:
• epsLEIinf ed epsLEIsup;
• plastic excursion ξ;
• reversal point;
• steel history variables at previous reversal point;
• additional plastic excursion γp;
• Σγp;
• maximum plastic excursion of previous semicycle ξmax;
• hardening as a combination of kinematic and isotropic hardening ∆σ KI
n
;
• degrading stiffness Esn0 ;
• new yield point (stress and strain) (ε n
sy ; σ syn ) ;
• curvature of branch Rn;
At each load increment, the following parameters are updated:
• hardening ratio b accounting for the presence of buckling;
• asymptote shift σsh;
• current stress σs;
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
• incremental plastic excursion ∆ξ;

• incremental additional plastic excursion ∆γp;
• incremental plastic work ∆Φp ;
n
• stress variation ∆σ Kn and ∆σ In due to ∆ξ and ∆γp accounting for the presence of buckling according to
Monti-Nuti hardening rules;
• transfer all variables to history vector.
3.4.2 Cyclic curve in absence of buckling
Branch curvature
Curvature parameter for loading and unloading branches is Rn=R0, in case of sharp yield point, otherwise it
varies according to the following law:
cR1ξ max
R n = R0 − (3.38)
cR 2 + ξ max
On the basis of experimental results it follows that, for ordinary steel bars, R0=20 while the values of the
parameters cR1 and cR2 depend on steel mechanic properties. From Monti-Nuti experimental tests it follows that in
loading branches (kon>0) cR1 ∈ [18.40, 19.20], cR2 = 1.0⋅10-3 and in case of unloading cR1 ∈ [18.75, 19.70], cR2 =
1.0⋅10-4.
Unloading and reloading stiffness

From experimental tests it follows that, also in absence of buckling, unloading and reloading branches slope
decreases with exponential trend as a function of the maximum plastic strain to a asymptotic value depending on
steel type. In particular, elastic modulus reduction is usually about 80-90% of the initial elastic modulus (Es0) but,
when unloading starts from high compressive strain, slope reduction is about 50%.
Degrading stiffness in absence of softening behaviour in previous half-cycle (i.e. reversal from tension or from
compression without buckling) is defined as a function of the maximum plastic excursion at current half-cycle:
Esn0 1− c
= cE 1 + c ξ E 1 (3.39)
Es 0 e E 2 max
Values of the parameter cE1 and cE2 depends on steel type. Values calibrated according to Monti-Nuti tests varies
in the following ranges: cE1∈[0.58, 0.98] and cE2=200 in loading branches in traction; cE1∈[0.70, 0.98] and cE2=50
in loading branches in compression. Optimal values for the considered experimental tests are cE1=0.94 and cE2=50 in
case of reversal from tension and cE1=0.90 (cE1=0.60 if ε srn −1 < −ε sh ) and cE2=200 in case of reversal from
compression without buckling.
Hardening rules in absence of buckling

Hardening rules can be classified in four levels of increasing complexity of formulation and of decreasing
importance for modeling purpose: kinematic (K), isotropic (I), memory (M) and saturation (S) rules. M and S rules
modifies the “classical” hardening K and I rules in order to account for material’s memory of the plastic path
followed and for the asymptotic character of the hardening phenomena, respectively.
Kinematic rule
Yield stress σsy is updated as follows:
σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ Kn (3.40)

where:
n
∆σ Kn = ∑ bEξ pi = Γ pn (3.41)
i =1
Γpn is the plastic stress path. Kinematic hardening is linearly related to ξpi and the contribution of each half-cycle has
the same sign of ξpi (being b and E positive).
Isotropic rule
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yield stress σsy is updated as follows:
σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ In (3.42)

where:
⎡ n ⎤
∆σ In = ⎢ ∑ bEξ pi ⋅ sgn (Φpn ) ⎥ ⋅ sgn (−ξ pn ) = Γ pn ⋅ sgn (−ξ pn ) (3.43)
⎣ i =1 ⎦
Γ pn is the absolute plastic stress path. Isotropic hardening is linearly related to ξpi and the contribution of each half-
cycle has the same sign of the plastic work Φpi. The sign of ∆σIn depends on the last plastic excursion.
Mixed rule
Hardening can be considered as contributed by a combination of K and I part. Yield stress σsy is updated as
follows:
σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ KIn (3.44)

where:
∆σ KI
n
= P∆σ Kn + (1 − P ) ∆σ In (3.45)
P can be easily calibrated from an experimental single-cycle test.
Memory rule
Experimental tests show that no isotropic hardening (i.e. no cycles expansion) develops in half-cycle with plastic
excursion equal or lower than the maximum previous one ξpmax=max(|ξpi|). A memory rule of ξpmax is obtained by
defining an additional plastic excursion:
⎪
γ =⎨
n
( )
⎧ ξ pn − ξ pmax ⋅ sgn (ξ pn ) if ξ pn > ξ pmax
p (3.46)
⎪⎩0 if ξ pn ≤ ξ pmax
Then (3.43) is modified as follows:
⎡ n ⎤
∆σ IM
n
= ⎢ ∑ bEγ ip ⋅ sgn (Φpi ) ⎥ ⋅ sgn (−ξ pn ) = Λnp ⋅ sgn (−ξ pn ) (3.47)
⎣ i =1 ⎦
Λnp is the absolute additional plastic stress path. Λnp is always lower than Γ pn , being Φpi>0 in absence of buckling,
therefore (not considering sgn(-ξpn)) ∆σIMn results smaller than ∆σIn.
Substituting ∆σIMn with ∆σIMn, (3.44) and (3.45) become:
σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ KIM

n
(3.48)
where:
∆σ KIM
n
= P∆σ Kn + (1 − P ) ∆σ IM
n
(3.49)
In absence of buckling each half-cycle contributes to kinematic hardening whereas only half-cycles having γp≠0
contribute to isotropic hardening.
Saturation rule
In case of a strongly nonlinear behaviour after yielding, a good approximation of the experimental monotonic
envelope is obtained with a variable parameter b expressed with an exponential relation:
b0
∑γ
σ sy −σ s∞ (3.50)
b = b0 ⋅ e
∑γ = ∑
n
where i =1
γ ip , b0=initial slope ration of the hardening branch.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shifted yield point

Modified Menegotto-Pinto expression with variable asymptote, used to define loading branches between
subsequent reversal points, needs the intersection point (ε0n, σ0n) between the two asymptotes E0n and E1n to be
defined as a function of the current strain (setting e0n=E0n/(E0n-E1n)):
σ 0n ( ε s ) = σ syn + σ shn ( ε s ) ε 0n ( ε s ) = σ 0n ( ε s ) E0n (3.51)

with:
{
σ shn ( ε s ) = k0 n σ srn −1 − σ syn − ⎡⎣σ srn −1 − σ B ( ε1 , ε 2 , σ 1 , σ 2 , E10n , ε s ) − E1n ( ε srn −1 − ε s ) ⎤⎦ e0n } (3.52)
which define the shifting of the asymptote with varying slope and can be determined on simple geometrical
considerations. In the general expression (3.52) σB and E1n are defined according to the selected option as discussed
in monotonic case.
Notice that (3.51) and (3.52) reduce to (3.13) and (3.14) respectively if the reversal point is (0, 0).
After some algebra (3.52) simplifies in:
⎡ ⎛ ε2 − εs ⎞⎤
σ shn ( ε s ) = k0 n e0n ⎢σ 2 − σ syn − E1n ⎜ sgn ( ε 2 − ε1 ) + ε s − ε syn ⎟ ⎥ (3.53)
⎣ ⎝ pn ⎠⎦
3.4.3 Cyclic curve in presence of buckling
In presence of buckling the following modifications are needed:

• Asymptotic value σs∞ of the softening branch in compression varies as a function of the slenderness
and of the maximum plastic excursion accordino to the following relation:
⎛5 s ⋅ξ ⎞
σ s∞ = f st ⋅ min ⎜ ,1 − 1nb max ⎟ with s1nb=0.80; s2nb=0.002 (3.54)
⎝λ s2 nb + ξ max ⎠
Degrading branch slope has the same trend already described for the monotonic case.
Reloading branch curvature is still defined by (3.38) whereas unloading branch curvature is defined as:
⎧ c ξ ⎫
R n = max ⎨ Rb 0 − Rb1 max ; Rb1 ⎬ (3.55)
⎩ cRb 2 + ξ max ⎭
where Rb 0 = R0 − c0 ( λ − 5 ) and Rb1 = c1 ( λ − 5 ) b with b=Esh/Es0. The value of the parameters c0, c1, cRb1 and
cRb2 depends on steel type. Values calibrated according to Monti-Nuti tests varies in the following ranges: c0=2.00,
c1∈[5.00, 16.00], cRb1∈[18.75, 19.70], cRb2=1.0⋅10-4 (coincident with those in absence of buckling).
Unloading branches slope is defined by (3.39) whereas reloading branches slope decreases with exponential
trend as a function of the maximum plastic strain to a asymptotic value depending on steel type.
Degrading stiffness in presence of softening behaviour in previous half-cycle (i.e. reversal from compression
with buckling) is defined as a function of the plastic excursion at current half-cycle (Monti-Nuti, 1992 [13]):
Esbn 0 1− c
= cEb1 + c ξEb2 1 (3.56)
Es 0 e Eb 2 p
I Values of the parameter cEb1 and cEb2 depends on rebar slenderness and steel type. Values calibrated according
to Monti-Nuti tests with λ=11 are: cEb1 = 0.20 and cEb2 = 1200.
The parameter cEb1 depends on the slenderness λ:
5−λ
cEb1 = 1 + (3.57)
7.5
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hardening rules in presence of buckling

Hardening rules are modified as follows.
Kinematic rule
(3.40) and (3.41) apply as well with ∆σK,bn in place of ∆σKn. In presence of buckling b(-)<0, therefore b⋅ξpi>0
both in tension and compression. ∆σK,bn is always positive (i.e. upwards cycles translation).
Isotropic rule
(3.42) and (3.43) apply as well with ∆σI,bn in place of ∆σIn. In presence of buckling Φpn<0, therefore half-cycles
towards compression give a negative contribution to ∆σI,bn. Thus, a reduction of yield stress in tension due to
spftening behaviour in compression (i.e. isotropic softening) is obtained.
Mixed rule
(3.44) and (3.45) hold with the aforementioned observations.
Memory rule
Experimental tests show that no kinematic hardening (i.e. no upwards cycles translation) occurs in half-cycles
with |ξpn|≤ξpmax. This phenomenon is the complementary of that occurring in absence of buckling. In presence of
buckling the same memory rule is applied to kinematic hardening by introducing γpn in (3.41):
n
∆σ KM ,b = ∑ bEγ p = Λp
n i n
(3.58)
i =1
Λpn is the additional plastic stress path.

Therefore:
σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ KIM

n
,b (3.59)
where:
∆σ KIM ,b = P ∆σ KM ,b + (1 − P ) ∆σ I
n n n
(3.60)
In presence of buckling each half-cycle contributes to isotropic hardening whereas only half-cycles having γp≠0
contribute to kinematic hardening.
Saturation rule
In case of high λ values the compressive monotonic curve has a strongly nonlinear behaviour. Therefore it is
convenient to adopt a variable slope b(-) for the degrading branch:
( −)
⎧
⎪
b0( )
+
f ∑γ ≤ γ s
b =⎨ b0( )
− ∑γ (3.61)
⎪ ( )
∑γ > γ
− σ −σ s∞
⎩b0 ⋅ e if
sy
s
∑γ = ∑
n
where i =1
γ ip , b0(-)=initial tangent slope ration of the softening branch.
Shifted yield point

Modified Menegotto-Pinto expression with variable asymptote to be used needs the intersection point (ε0n, σ0n)
between the two asymptotes E0n and E1n, given by (3.51), to be defined as a function of the current strain. In
particular, if εs≥εsyn+γs, (3.52) yields:
{
σ shn ( ε s ) = k0 n σ srn −1 − σ syn − ⎡⎣σ srn −1 − σ n ( ε s ) − E1n ( ε srn −1 − ε s ) ⎤⎦ e0n } (3.62)
Setting:
En 0
(ε n
sy + γ s ) −ε s
σ sn∞ −σ sm
n (3.63)
EXP = e n
it follows:
⎧
⎪ n −1 σ srn −1 − σ sn∞ + ⎡⎣σ sn∞ − σ sm
n
− bn 0 Es 0 ( ε srn −1 − ε s ) ⎤⎦ EXP n ⎫⎪
σ ( ε s ) = k0 n ⎨σ sr − σ sy −
n
sh
n
⎬ (3.64)
⎪⎩ 1 − bn 0 EXP n ⎪⎭
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Notice that (3.64) reduces to (3.28) if the reversal point is (0, 0).
3.5 Steel bar model validation: comparison between proposed model and experimental
results
numerical model vs experimental results numerical model vs experimental results

0 0
-100
-100
-200
-200
-300
-400 -300
-500
-400
-600
-500
-700
-600
-800
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 -0.045 -0.04 -0.035 -0.03 -0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0
Fig. 3.3 mono5 and mono11 tests.

800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-800 -800
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Fig. 3.4 da0p and dc0p tests.

800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-800 -800
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-800 -800
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Fig. 3.7 dc3p and dc4p tests.

800
700
600
600
400
500
200
400
0
300
-200
200
-400
100
-600
-800
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Fig. 3.8 S2 and S3 tests.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
4 APPENDIX
4.1 Engineering and natural coordinates
Engineering stress and strain, σ and ε, are related to the original configuration of the specimen and are defined
as:
F 1 L L − L0 ∆L
σ=
A0
ε=
L0 ∫
L0
dL =
L0
=
L0
(4.1)
where L0/L = initial/istantaneous length of the specimen, ∆L=change in length of the specimen with respect to its
initial length, F=axial force on the specimen, A0=initial cross-sectional area.
According to the original definition by Ludwik and Leon (1909), the natural strani, ε , is the sum of the
incremental strains, ∆ ε :
∆L
ε = ∑ ∆L = ∑ (4.2)
L
In the limit, as ∆L→0, the natural strain corresponding to the instantaneous length, L, becomes:
L dL ⎛ L⎞
ε =∫ = ln ⎜ ⎟ (4.3)
L0 L
⎝ L0 ⎠
Natural and engineering strains are related by the simple equation:
ε = ln (1 + ε ) or ε = eε − 1 (4.4)
In the plastic region of the stress-strain response of a specimen subjected to axial tension (compression), the
cross-sectional area gets smaller (increases) as the specimen elongates (shortens). These behaviours are considered
in the definition of the natural stress:
F
σ= (4.5)
A
where A=instantaneous cross-sectional area of the specimen.
Assuming that the plastic stain involves no volume change (i.e. Poissons’ ratio ν=0.50 which is quite reasonable
for metals in the plastic region), it follows that A/A0=L/L0=1+ε, which allows one to relate natural and engineering
stresses as follows:
σ σ
σ = σ (1 + ε ) = σ eε or σ = = (4.6)
e ε
1+ ε
The tangent modulus in natural coordinates, E t , is obtained upon differentiation of σ with respect to ε :
d σ ⎛ dσ σ ⎞ dσ ⎛ d σ ⎞
=⎜ + ⎟ (1 + ε ) or =⎜ − σ ⎟ e −2ε
2
(4.7)
d ε ⎝ dε 1 + ε ⎠ dε ⎝ d ε ⎠
σ ⎞
⎛
E t = ⎜ Et +
⎝
⎟ (1 + ε ) or Et = E t − σ e
1+ ε ⎠
2 −2ε
( ) (4.8)
where Et=dσ/dε=tangent modulus of reinforcing steel in engineering coordinates.

The main advantage of the natural coordinate system is that the compression and tension stress-strain curves
practically coincide, whereas the two curves are quite different in engineering coordinates. This concept is
illustrated in Fig. 4.1 which shows in the same quadrant compression and tension monotonic stress-strain envelopes
in both natural and engineering coordinate systems. The figure is only qualitative and data are not represented to
scale.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
In tension the natural stress is larger than the engineering stress (as the specimen elongates, the cross-sectional
area decreases), while in compression the natural stress is smaller than the corresponding engineering stress (as the
specimen shortens, the cross-sectional area increases).
Balan et al. (1998 [2]) observe that natural compression and tension stress-strain curves are very similar until
buckling of the bar becomes noticeable at a compression strain of approximately 6%.
Fig. 4.1 Tension and compression monotonic stress-strain curves.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
5 REFERENCES
[1] Albanesi T, Biondi S, Nuti M. Influenza dell'instabilità delle armature longitudinali sulla risposta d'elementi in
c.a.. In: Proceedings of the 10th Italian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Potenza, Italy. Rome:
Anidis, 2001.
[2] Balan, T. A., Filippou, F. C., and Popov, E. P. (1998). “Hysteretic model of ordinary and high-strength
reinforcing steel.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 124(3), 288-297.
[3] Briseghella, L. (1988). “Behaviour and analysis of R.C. structures under alternate actions including inelastic
response.” In: Proceedings of CEB Group, GTC/22, Roma, Italy, June.
[4] Claeson, C. and Gylltoft, K. (1998). “Slender high-strength concrete columns subjected to eccentric loading.”
J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 124(3): 233-240.
[5] Dodd, L.L. and Restrepo-Posada, J.I., (1995). “Model for predicting cyclic behaviour of reinforcing steel.” J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 121(3), 433-445.
[6] Giuffrè, A., and Pinto, P. E. (1970). “Il comportamento del cemento armato per sollecitazioni cicliche di forte
intensità.” Giornale del Genio Civile, Maggio.
[7] Kato, B. (1979). “Mechanical properties of steel under load cycles idealizing seismic actions.” Bulletin
D’Information No. 131, Comité Euro-International du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland.
[8] Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1984). “Seismic design of bridge piers.” Research Rep. 84-02,
Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
[9] Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E. (1973). “Method of anaysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane
frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force
and bending.” Proc., IABSE Symp. of Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well-
Defined Repeated Loads, International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering, Libson, Portugal,
Vol. 13: 15-22.
[10] Monti, G. and Nuti, C. (1990). “Numerical model for steel bars under cyclic loading including post-elastic
buckling.” In: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Moscow, USSR,
EAEE Ed.; 5: 231-240.
[11] Monti, G. and Nuti, C. (1990). “Modellazione del comportamento ciclico di barre in acciaio per armature di
elementi in cemento armato.” Studi e Ricerche 1/90, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica,
Università degli Studi “La Sapienza”, Roma.
[12] Monti, G. and Nuti, C. (1991). “Un modello analitico del comportamento ciclico di barre in acciaio con
svergolamento post-elastico.” Studi e Ricerche 6/91, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica,
Università degli Studi “La Sapienza”, Roma.
[13] Monti G, Nuti C. (1992). “Nonlinear cyclic behaviour of reinforcing bars including buckling.” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118 (12), 3268-3284.
[14] Ramberg, W., and Osgood, W. R. (1943). “Description of stress-strain curves by three parameters.” Technical
Note 902, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, July.
[15] Stanton, J. F., and McNiven, H. D. (1979). “The development of a mathematical model to predict the flexural
response of reinforced concrete beams to cyclic loads, using system identification.” EERC Rep. No. 79-02,
Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
[16] Watson, S., Zahn, F., and Park, R. (1994). “Confining reinforcement for concrete columns.” J. of Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 120(6), 1798-1824.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Steel Dispensa 07 05 13

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Steel Dispensa 07 05 13

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA TRE

Tommaso Albanesi1 e Camillo Nuti2

2 CLASSICAL EXPLICIT MODELS

2.1 Giuffrè and Pinto (1970)

INSERIRE UNA FIGURA CON CURVA Giuffrè-Pinto (da trovare o da fare)

2.2 Menegotto and Pinto (1973)

This equation represents a curve with tangent at the origin:

Fig. 2.2 Menegotto-Pinto model.

σ s* = ε s* (at εs*=0) (2.10)

σ s* = bε s* + (1 − b ) (for ε s*→∞) (2.11)

Fig. 2.5 Menegotto-Pinto model.

Fig. 2.6 Menegotto-Pinto model.

2.3 Briseghella (1988)

The exponent p is defined as floows:

Fig. 2.7 Monotonic σ-ε curve.

The tangent to the hardening branch is espresse as follows:

ε b = ε max + ε shift σ b = σ max (2.22)

Softened branches are described by a M-P law:

b) calcolate σch with the following relation:

c) approximally evaluate Q and Em.: Q=0.5Et/E and Em=E.

2.4 Monti and Nuti (1991, 1992)

in which c=0.57 for the tested bars.

The plastic excursion at the n-th half-cycle is evaluated as:

ξ pn = ε srn − ε syn (2.40)

The additional plastic excursion is defined as:

γ np =< ξ pn − ξ pmax > sign ξ pn { } (2.43)

The half-cycle plastic work is defined as:

Cyclic behaviour in absence of buckling

b) R in Eq. (2.38) is determined as follows:

c) (εsyn+1, σsyn+1) in Eq. (2.39) are determined as follows:

Cyclic behaviour in presence of buckling

b0− = a (λcr − λ ) (2.52)

b) R in Eq. (2.38) is determined as follows:

where A5=(λcr-λ)/7.5+1 and A6=620.

d) (εsyn+1, σsyn+1) in Eq. (2.39) are determined as follows:

3 ALBANESI-BIONDI-NUTI MODEL (2001)

In case of monotonic response ( ε sr , σ sr )=(0, 0) and ( ε sy , σ sy )=(εsy, fsy).

3.3 Monotonic curve

3.3.1 Tension and compression monotonic curve in absence of buckling

Es0 Esh Esu Es0 Esh

εsy εsh εsm εsu εsy εsh εsu 2εsu-εsh

where Esy is the tangent modulus of the plastic zone.

σ sh ( ε s ) = k0 n {⎡⎣σ B ( ε1 , ε 2 , σ 1 , σ 2 , E1 , ε s ) − E1ε s ⎤⎦ e0 − σ sy } (3.14)

3.3.2 Compression monotonic curve in presence of buckling

Fig. 3.2 Hardening branches in compression in presence of buckling.

In presence of buckling, softening branch expression is:

σ sh ( ε s ) = k0 n {⎡⎣σ n ( ε s ) − E1ε s ⎤⎦ e0 − σ sy } (3.25)

3.4 Cyclic curve

σ st( − ) n = s f 1 f st( − ) (3.30)

Small amplitude cycles check

Anomalia nell’effetto Bauschinger

• incremental plastic excursion ∆ξ;

3.4.2 Cyclic curve in absence of buckling

Unloading and reloading stiffness

Hardening rules in absence of buckling

σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ Kn (3.40)

Yield stress σsy is updated as follows:

σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ In (3.42)

σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ KIn (3.44)

Then (3.43) is modified as follows:

σ syn +1 = σ sy0 ⋅ sgn ( −ξ pn ) + ∆σ KIM

Shifted yield point