Efecto Del Pandeo y Fatiga en El Desempeño Sismico Del Acero de Refuerzo en Seccion Critica

EFFECTS OF BUCKLING AND LOW CYCLE FATIGUE ON SEISMIC
PERFORMANCE OF REINFORCING BARS AND MECHANICAL COUPLERS

FOR CRITICAL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
A Technical Report Submitted to the California Department of Transportation

under Contract 59A0539
Sashi K. Kunnath
Amit Kanvinde
Yan Xiao*
Guowei Zhang*
* University of Southern California
June 2009
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics
University of California at Davis
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
TR0003 (REV. 10/98)
1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER
CA/UCD-SESM-08-01
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
June 2009
Effects of Buckling and Low Cycle Fatigue on Seismic Performance of
Reinforcing Bars and Mechanical Couplers for Critical Structural Members 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
CA/UCD-SESM-09-01
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Sashi Kunnath, Amit Kanvinde, Guowei Zhang, Yan Xiao CA/UCD-SESM-08-01
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER

Department of Civil Engineering
University of California, Davis
11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
Davis, CA 95616
59A0539
12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
California Department of Transportation Final Technical Report (2004 – 2007)
Engineering Services Center
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
1801 30th Street 913
Sacramento, CA 95816
15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Since modern provisions for the design of reinforced concrete (RC) bridge columns require high degree of
confinement, the inelastic action in these regions can lead to low-cycle fatigue failure of the reinforcement.
Current seismic provisions are based on cyclic tests of scaled columns with smaller bar diameters. Results of
previous testing suggest that fatigue life may be influenced by bar diameter and other material parameters. This
research seeks to investigate the low-cycle fatigue characteristics of large diameter reinforcing bars and
couplers that experience inelastic strain reversals in the plastic hinge regions of critical structural members.
While the original scope of work included testing of #18 reinforcing bars and typical couplers used to splice bars
in bridge columns, the available budget and initial difficulties in designing the test setup and finalizing the test
protocols precluded testing of #18 bars and couplers. Therefore, the results presented in this report is limited to
evaluating the cyclic axial stress-strain response of ASTM A-615 #11 and ASTM A-706 #14 steel reinforcing
bars to various loading histories. In particular, the low-cycle fatigue behavior of #14 bars for three different heats
were established. A special-purpose rebar-grip was designed to facilitate large-amplitude cyclic testing of bars.
Issues related to fatigue testing and the development of fatigue-life expressions for reinforcing bars is identified.
Another objective of this study is to develop a cyclic testing protocol that accurately represents the expected
strain history during a design event. A series of analytical simulations of typical bridge columns were conducted
to determine the rotation or curvature histories of potential plastic hinge (yielding) zones and corresponding
strain histories have been established. These studies will provide the basis for establishing the range of strain
amplitudes as well as the number of cycles that typical reinforcing bars experience under earthquake loads. The
proposed research will provide fundamental knowledge on the inelastic properties of reinforcing bars and the
research outcomes will aid in developing new cyclic testing protocols, provide a more rational approach to post-
earthquake damage assessment and enhance the safety of highway bridge construction in California.
17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Experimental testing; low-cycle fatigue; reinforcing No restrictions. This document is available to the
bars public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (of this report) 20. NUMBER OF PAGES 21. PRICE
Unclassified 69 + viii
Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii
Disclaimer
The results, recommendations and opinions presented in this report are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the California Department of Transportation or
the State of California.
iii
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
under Contract No.59A0539 is gratefully acknowledged. Input and comments from Peter Lee
and Issam Noureddine throughout the project are sincerely appreciated. We also acknowledge
the donation of the reinforcing bars from TAMCO, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
iv
Abstract
Since modern provisions for the design of reinforced concrete (RC) bridge columns require high
degree of confinement, the inelastic action in these regions can lead to low-cycle fatigue failure
of the reinforcement. Current seismic provisions are based on cyclic tests of scaled columns
with smaller bar diameters. Results of previous testing suggest that fatigue life may be
influenced by bar diameter and other material parameters. This research seeks to investigate the
low-cycle fatigue characteristics of large diameter reinforcing bars and couplers that experience
inelastic strain reversals in the plastic hinge regions of critical structural members.
While the original scope of work included testing of #18 reinforcing bars and typical
couplers used to splice bars in bridge columns, the available budget and initial difficulties in
designing the test setup and finalizing the test protocols precluded testing of #18 bars and
couplers. Therefore, the results presented in this report is limited to evaluating the cyclic axial
stress-strain response of ASTM A-615 #11 and ASTM A-706 #14 reinforcing bars to various
loading histories. In particular, the low-cycle fatigue behavior of #14 bars for three different
heats were established. A special-purpose rebar-grip was designed to facilitate large-amplitude
cyclic testing of bars. Issues related to fatigue testing and the development of fatigue-life
expressions for reinforcing bars is identified.
Another objective of this study is to develop a cyclic testing protocol that accurately
represents the expected strain history during a design event. A series of analytical simulations of
typical bridge columns were conducted to determine the rotation or curvature histories of
potential plastic hinge (yielding) zones and corresponding strain histories have been established.
These studies will provide the basis for establishing the range of strain amplitudes as well as the
number of cycles that typical reinforcing bars experience under earthquake loads. The proposed
research will provide fundamental knowledge on the inelastic properties of reinforcing bars and
the research outcomes will aid in developing new cyclic testing protocols, provide a more
rational approach to post-earthquake damage assessment and enhance the safety of highway
bridge construction in California.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ...................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Scope of work ............................................................................................................... 3
2 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ............................................................. 5
2.1 Test Parameters and Protocol........................................................................................ 5
2.2 Experimental Setup ....................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Design And Fabrication Of Rebar Grip ........................................................................ 8
3 TESTS ON ASTM A-615 #11 REINFORCING BARS ............................................ 11
3.1 Control Tests ............................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Cyclic Fatigue Testing ................................................................................................ 14
3.2.1 Phase II Fatigue Testing .................................................................................. 16
4 RESULTS OF TESTING OF ASTM A-706 #14 BARS............................................ 20
4.1 Control Testing ........................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Low Cycle Fatigue Testing ......................................................................................... 28
4.3 Investigation of Model Properties ............................................................................... 42
4.4 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 46
4.4.1 Observed Reinforcing Steel Behavior from Monotonic Tests ........................ 47
4.4.2 Observed Reinforcing Steel Behavior from Cyclic Tests ............................... 48
5 IMPLICATIONS OF TEST RESULTS ON SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGE
COLUMNS ................................................................................................................. 53
5.1 Strain Demands in Reinforcing Bars in Typical Bridge Columns .............................. 53
5.2 Ground Motions .......................................................................................................... 55
5.3 Strain Histories............................................................................................................ 57
5.4 Transforming Random Histories To Equivalent Cycles At Constant Amplitude…... 62
6 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 63
6.1 Recommendations for future work ............................................................................. 64
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 66
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Effect of bar size on fatigue life of reinforcing bars (Brown and Kunnath, 2004) . 2
Figure 2-1: Elevation and plan view of test setup ...................................................................... 7
Figure 2-2: Actuator and Guiding System ................................................................................. 8
Figure 2-3: View of one section of the gripping device............................................................. 9
Figure 2-4: Photograph showing one end of grip with reinforcing bar in place ........................ 9
Figure 2-5: Complete grip with specimen secured to loading system ....................................... 9
Figure 2-6: Final test setup ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4-1: Fatigue life model for #14 bars (Heat 1) ............................................................... 29
Figure 4-2: Fatigue life model for #14 bars (Heat 2) ............................................................... 29
Figure 4-3: Fatigue life model for all #14 bars (average from both heats) .............................. 30
Figure 4-4: Computation of effective single cycle strain for bars subjected to positive strains
............................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 4-5: Fatigue life model for #14 bars subjected to positive strains only ........................ 38
Figure 4-6: State of fractured specimens (N14H3F3S1 & N14H3F3S2) ................................ 40
Figure 4-7: Monotonic response in tension and compression of reinforcing steel .................. 47
Figure 4-8: Cyclic response of reinforcing bar demonstrating (a) shrinking yield plateau,
hardening and growth of curvature; (b) close-up of yield plateau region ............. 48
Figure 4-9: Low-cycle fatigue response – (a) strain history; (b) stress-strain response .......... 50
Figure 4-10: Stress relaxation under fatigue loading at varying strain amplitudes.................. 51
Figure 4-11: Cyclic loading of bars including buckling .......................................................... 52
Figure 5-1 - Elevation and sectional details of typical over-crossing in California................. 54
Figure 5-2 – Computer modeling of typical over-crossing ...................................................... 55
Figure 5-3 - Time history of axial strain in #11 reinforcing bar (EQ # 2) ............................... 57
Figure 5-6 - Time history of axial strain in #11 reinforcing bar (EQ # 12) ............................. 58
Figure 5-10 - Time history of axial strain in #14 reinforcing bar (EQ # 12) ........................... 59
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Original Test Matrix ......................................................................................... 4
Table 3-1: Summary of #11 Bars (Single heat only)....................................................... 11
Table 3-2: Summary of Chemical Composition and Specified Strengths of #11 Bars 12
Table 4-1: Summary of Chemical Composition and Specified Strengths of #14 Bars 21
Table 4-2: Summary of Monotonic Testing of #14 Bars ................................................ 21
Table 4-3: Summary of Cyclic Testing of #14 Bars (Heats 1 & 2)................................. 28
Table 4-4: Low-Cycle Fatigue Testing of #14 Bars (Heat 3) .......................................... 37
Table 4-5: Summary of Model Parameter Testing of #14 Bars .................................... 42
viii
1 INTRODUCTION
Current provisions for the design of reinforced concrete (RC) members subjected to severe
seismic loading rely on proper detailing of well-defined plastic hinge regions where most of the
inelastic deformation is expected to occur. A great deal of experimental work in the past has
focused on improving seismic detailing to prevent loss of confinement and to avoid buckling of
longitudinal reinforcement in compression members. The inelastic action in the plastic hinge
regions of critical components results in significant tension and compression strain reversals in
the longitudinal reinforcing steel. Therefore, the critical failure mode of a well-detailed
reinforced concrete structural member may eventually be controlled by low-cycle fatigue of the
longitudinal steel.
When a reinforced concrete bridge column is subjected to cyclic loading, the concrete
cover will typically spall at fairly small strains (below the yield strain of the reinforcing steel).
As the spalling progresses, the reinforcing steel is exposed to the air. The cyclic response of
exposed reinforcing bars in the inelastic strain range can be reasonably reproduced in a fatigue
test of an individual bar without the presence of concrete. During cyclic reversals, the bar will
eventually buckle under compression. This buckling, however, can extend beyond single hoop
spacing. Buckling leads to weakening (embrittlement) of the material which in turn translates
into reduced fatigue life. Hence, low-cycle fatigue failure of longitudinal reinforcement is a
critical failure mode that deserves more attention.
Most fatigue tests carried out in the past have been medium- to high-cycle fatigue with
strain amplitudes less than 1% and failure occurring between 103 - 107 complete cycles
(Helgason, 1976). These studies revealed that both bar diameter and grade of bar influenced the
finite-life fatigue strength of reinforcing bars. More importantly, however, was the finding that
the lug geometry factor r/h (lug base radius to lug height) played an important role in altering the
fatigue resistance of the steel. Rolled-on deformations lead to regions of stress concentration
which then become initiators of fatigue cracks. Deformation patterns were also found to
influence fatigue life (Kokubu and Okamura, 1969; MacGregor et al., 1971). Other high-cycle
fatigue studies on reinforcing bars have identified the effect of bar size on fatigue life with larger
diameter bars displaying decreased fatigue resistance (Hanson et al., 1968; Pfister and
Hognestad, 1964). Many of these findings will also be relevant in studies of low-cycle fatigue.
1
A series of low-cycle fatigue tests were performed at the State University of New York, Buffalo
(Mander et al., 1994). The unsupported length (s) of the specimens tested was equivalent to six
or larger bar diameters (db). Results indicated that s/db ratios larger than six led to a reduction in
strength below the yield value as large compressive strains (i.e. deformations normalized by
unsupported length approximately equal to 0.06) were imposed. This was a result of severe
inelastic buckling. However, Mander's tests were limited to small bar sizes (#5) not typically
used for longitudinal reinforcement.
The most recent published work on fatigue behavior of reinforcing bars is the work
supervised by the lead PI at NIST (Brown and Kunnath, 2004). Additionally, there exists
unpublished data by manufacturers of reinforcing steel on fatigue life characteristics of these
components. The tests by Brown and Kunnath indicate that bar size is a factor that influences
fatigue life (as shown in Figure 1-1). These findings are based on a limited study of bar sizes # 6
through #9. If the fatigue life of longitudinal bars used in bridge construction in high seismic
zones is influenced by the diameter of the bar, this effect must be investigated and documented.
10000
Half cycles to failure

#6 1000
#7
#8 100
#9
10
1
0.00 0.01 0.10
Total Strain, ε a
Figure 1-1: Effect of bar size on fatigue life of reinforcing bars (Brown and Kunnath, 2004)
Similarly, current seismic provisions for transverse reinforcement in plastic hinge zones
are mostly based on testing done for scaled columns containing small diameter bars. While some
tests on large scale and full scale columns do exist, they are inadequate to fully quantify low-
cycle fatigue effects on reinforcing bars for the range of parameters of interest.
2
A clearer understanding of the low-cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing steel used in RC
bridge construction in California is crucial to the development of design criteria for performance
assessment of RC bridges in seismic applications. The proposed study will provide new
experimental and analytical data on the buckling and low-cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing
bars and consequently provide a basis for developing design criteria as well as a methodology for
damage assessment of bridge columns after a major seismic event.
1.1 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of the original work included testing of #18 reinforcing bars and typical couplers used
to splice bars in bridge columns. The proposed test schedule is shown in Table 1-1. However,
the available budget and initial difficulties in designing the test setup and finalizing the test
protocols precluded testing of #18 bars and couplers. Some of the issues related to developing an
appropriate test protocol in terms of stress and strain control are discussed in this report. The
work presented in this report is limited to preliminary tests on ASTM A-615 #11 bars so as to
verify the adequacy of the test setup, additional testing on ASTM A-706 #14 bars to establish
acceptable testing protocols and finally low-cycle fatigue testing of three sets of A-706 #14 bars
from different heats.
3
Table 1-1: Original Test Matrix
Test Min. No. Min. No. Min. (Possible)

Rebar/Coupler Strain Tests Tests No. of Max.
(%) #18 #14 Tests No. of
Bars Bars Tests
Heat A 1 2 2 4 6
Upper Limit 2 2 2 4 6
Strength 4 2 2 4 6
6 2 2 4 6
Heat B 1 2 2 4 6
REBARS
Lower Limit 2 2 2 4 6
Strength 4 2 2 4 6
6 2 2 4 6
Heat C 1 2 2 4 6
Intermediate 2 2 2 4 6
Strength 4 2 2 4 6
6 2 2 4 6
TOTALS(Bars) 24 24 48 72
Bar Splice 6 2 2 4 6
BPI-GRIP XL
Bar Splice 6 2 2 4 6
Taper Thread Grip-Twist
Dayton/Richmond 6 2 2 4 6
US/MC
Dextra 6 2 2 4 6
Bartec
COUPLERS
Dayton Superior 6 2 2 4 6
Bar-Lock XL
Erico/Lenton 6 N/A 2 2 3
Plus Std. Coupler A12
Erico/Lenton 6 N/A 2 2 3
Plus Position Coupler P14L
HRC 6 2 2 4 6
Std. Coupler HRC 410/420
HRC 6 2 2 4 6
Position Coupler HRC 410/490
HRC 6 N/A 2 2 3
Std. Coupler Xtender 510
4
2 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The experimental setup comprises two parts: the design and construction of the test
frame for physical testing of the reinforcing bars, and the design and fabrication of the
special grips to be used in anchoring the ends of the reinforcing bars without altering the
deformations on the bar.
2.1 TEST PARAMETERS AND PROTOCOL

1. L/d ratio: In the case of deformed reinforcing bars without couplers, tests will be
conducted on unaltered (non-machined) specimens with a fixed aspect ratio. While
the hoop spacing in RC members in potential plastic hinge zones is specified in
design, the actual buckled profile may spread beyond one hoop spacing. Based on
preliminary analysis and observed experimental data, the L/d ratio selected for the
testing is 6.0.
2. Strain amplitude: The amplitude of the imposed strain will vary between 1.0% and
4.0% at intervals of 1.0%.
3. Strain rates: Imposed strain rates will be realistic and correspond to typical
frequencies in RC bridge columns.
The proposed testing will include direct tension, compression and cyclic tests.
Control tests – pure tension only: The stress-strain response under direct tension will
first be established.
Compression tests: The importance of performing pure compression tests is to gain a
better understanding of the buckling behavior of bars. Additionally, the stress-strain
response can be compared to the behavior in pure tension.
Model parameter tests: These tests were carried out to establish certain critical cyclic
model parameters to enable development of analytical constitutive models of
reinforcing steel.
Constant amplitude cyclic tests: These tests provide critical fatigue life relationships for
use in modeling fracture and failure.
5
2.2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The experiments were performed in the Structural Testing laboratory at the University of
Southern California. A schematic of the test frame is shown in Figure 2-1. The setup is
composed of a steel reaction frame and a concrete block rigidly attached to the frame as
shown in the figure. The actuators are mounted to the concrete block. For testing of #14
bars, a single 300 kip actuator is adequate while testing of #18 bars would require that two
actuators (as shown in Figure 2-1) be used in parallel. The specimen mounted on the rebar
grips is placed between the actuator and an L-frame which is rigidly connected to the heavy
floor beam. Both vertical and lateral supports are provided to maintain stability of the
system during loading.
Following preliminary tests of the system it was found that an additional constraint
beam was necessary to prevent out-of-plane movement of the setup in the horizontal plane.
Hence, the testing apparatus was modified by adding a guiding system, and a reaction
mechanism for the steel box on the other side of specimen. The guiding system restrains the
actuator joints from out-of-plane movement during loading process, allowing the specimen
to be loaded in a purely axial manner. The key components of the guiding system are a
steel “C” channel welded on backing plate and a steel bar welded on the attachment of the
actuator.
Figure 2-2 illustrates how the guiding system works during loading. The steel bar
welded on actuator attachment is placed inside the “C” channel, transferring the total
weight of actuator and its attachment to the “C” channel and then to the back plates.
Approximately 400 lbf friction was observed from a free run of the actuator. Measures to
counter this minimal friction included: adding Teflon pads between the sliding bar and the
channel; adding some lubricant oil to the contact area inside the “C” channel. The total
force lost to friction is estimated to be less than 0.1% of the applied force and hence
considered to be negligible.
6

Notes:
1. Vertical supports are provided to
keep the actuators horizontal during Reaction frame
loading process.
2. Lateral supports are provided to
avoid lateral instability of the actuators
during loading process.
Concrete block
Stackable grips
L shape frame
Loading beam
Actuator
Specimen
Floor beam
SIDE VIEW
Figure 2-1: Elevation and plan view of test setup
7
Figure 2-2: Actuator and Guiding System
2.3 DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF REBAR GRIP

A special purpose grip consisting of high-strength stackable blocks and grooved
wedges was designed and fabricated for the testing of large diameter bars. A view of the
grip for one of the bar ends is shown in Figure 2-3. A similar grip is used at the other end
to complete the specimen attachment to the test assembly shown previously in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-4 shows a view of the reinforcing bar secured to one end of the grip. The
complete grip with the bar firmly secured after tightening the bolts and mounted on the
loading system is shown in Figure 2-5.
8
Figure 2-3: View of one section of the gripping device
Figure 2-4: Photograph showing one end of grip with reinforcing bar in place
Figure 2-5: Complete grip with specimen secured to loading system
9
The final view of the test setup is shown in Figure 2-6.
Figure 2-6: Final test setup
10
3 TESTS ON ASTM A-615 #11 REINFORCING BARS
Preliminary testing was carried out on #11 reinforcing bars to check the robustness of the
test setup and to examine issues related to cyclic testing of bars using strain and stress
control as well as issues related to strain measurements in the presence of bar buckling.
Since a reinforcing bar will buckle in compression and the stress at the initiation of
buckling can vary from cycle to cycle, it is difficult to predict the buckling stress prior to
testing. Furthermore, the measured strain is a function of the gage length. Standard strain
measurements are based on a gage length of 2 inches. However, these strains become
erratic when the bar begins to buckle accompanied by a reduction in measured stress.
Table 3-1 presents a summary of the 11 bars (from the same heat) that were tested in this
phase. The chemical composition of the bar material is listed in Table 3-2. Detailed
information on the test results is presented in subsequent sections of this chapter.
Table 3-1: Summary of #11 Bars (Single heat only)
Specimen Average strain

Test type L/D
Designation* (%)
1 N11T1 Monotonic 7 15.5
2 N11T2 Monotonic 7 21.0
3 N11T3 Cyclic 7 24.6
4 N11Y1 Cyclic 7 10
5 N11Y2 Cyclic 7 10
6 N11Y3 Cyclic 7 5 to 3
7 N11Y4 Cyclic 7 ±2 and ±4
8 N11Y5 Cyclic 7 2 to 0
9 N11Y6 Cyclic 7 1
10 N11Y7 Cyclic 7 5
11 N11Y8 Cyclic 7 ±2 and 0 to 4
* Notation: First 3 letters – Bar No (e.g. N11 – Number 11 reinforcing bar)

Next letter – Type of test: T = Monotonic tension test; Y = Cyclic
Next number – Test or specimen number
Example: N11T1 = No.11 bar subjected to monotonic tension (Specimen #1)
N11Y2 = No.11 bar subject to cyclic (Specimen #5)
11
Table 3-2: Summary of Chemical Composition and Specified Strengths of #11 Bars
Strength Chemical Composition
(ksi) C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Cu Mo V CE
Yield: 70.5 0.38 0.95 0.02 0.086 0.32 0.21 0.38 0.32 0.06 0.015 0.58
Ultimate: 103.0
3.1 CONTROL TESTS

The first series of tests consisted of control tests to establish the typical monotonic stress-
strain response for the batch of reinforcing bars. The obtained stress-strain relationship will
then form the basis of determining the protocols for the low-cycle fatigue testing.
Measured yield stress values for the three specimens were: 70.1, 71.5 and 70.0ksi,
respectively with corresponding strains of 0.00275, 0.003 and 0.0028. The mean values for
the material properties of the specimens are summarized below:
Yield Strain: 0.00285
Yield Stress: 70.7 ksi; Peak Stress: 95.2 ksi
Ultimate strain at failure: 0.193
Specimen name: N11T1 HEAT #1

-2
Stress – Strain (10 ) relationship
Summary: The rebar was tested under pure axial tension with strains measured across
a gage length of 2” at the center of the specimen. Rupture of the bar occurred outside
the measured gage length; hence the measured strain beyond yield does not precisely
indicate the inelastic behavior.
12
Stress – Strain (10-2) relationship
Summary: The bar ruptured within the measured gage length at a strain corresponding
to approximately 21%.
Stress – Strain (10-2) relationship
Summary: The bar ruptured within the measured gage length at a strain corresponding
to 24.6%. However, it is possible that there was some slip after 15% strain; hence the
failure strain value is not entirely reliable.
13
3.2 CYCLIC FATIGUE TESTING
The next series of tests investigated the fatigue behavior of #11 bars. As discussed at the
start of this section, numerous problems were encountered in the cyclic tests as a result of
compression buckling. A summary of the test results are presented in this section.
Specimen: N11Y1 HEAT #1

-2
Stress-strain (10 ) relationship
Overall view of final condition of the bar
Summary: The rebar was tensioned to an average strain of 0.10 and then subjected to
compressive load. The rebar began to buckle when the tension strain reduced to 0.09.
After the compressive stress increased to about 60 ksi, the strain data from extensometer
indicated that the deformation in the gage length across which the strain was being
measured did not change any further because of seriously buckling. Testing was stopped
at this stage since it was not possible to acquire reliable data beyond this point.
14
Specimen name: N11Y2 HEAT #1
-2
Stress – Strain (10 ) relationship
Overall view of final condition of the bar
Summary: As in the case of the previous test, the reinforcing bar was subject to tensile
force up to a recorded strain of 0.10 (10%) and then subjected to compressive loading.
Once again, the rebar buckled when the tension strain reduced to 0.09. Serious
buckling (as shown in the figure above) prevented the test from continuing since the
total deformation across the bar length and the measured strains in the strain gage was
not correlated to the overall buckling deformation.
15
3.2.1 PHASE II FATIGUE TESTING
The bar was subjected to an initial tension strain of 0.02 and then subjected to compression
until buckling was initiated. The load was reversed from compression to tension each time
that buckling was visibly observed on the compression side.
Stress (ksi) – Strain (10-2) relationship
Overall view of final condition of the bar (side view)
Observations: Note that the compressive stress at buckling reduced with each successive
cycle – this is partly due to the fact that the measured strain across the buckled region is
not accurate.
After 6 cycles, the rebar ruptured during the tension cycle.
16
Stress (ksi) –Strain (10-2) relationship
Final condition of the bar
Summary: The rebar was tested using the strains measured across the entire specimen
length including buckling deformations. It was original compressed to a strain -0.02
and then tensioned to a deformation 0.02. After eight constant cycles from -0.02 to
0.02, the imposed strain was increased to 0.04. After three constant cycles from -0.04
to 0.04, the rebar ruptured during the final tension cycle.
17
-2
Stress (ksi) – Strain (10 ) relationship
Summary:
Once again, the bar was tested using measured strains across the entire bar length.
Cyclic strain between 0.02 in tension and zero strain in compression were applied.
After 35 constant cycles, the tensile strain was increased to 0.04. At this stage, control
of the linear potentiometer was lost and the test had to be stopped.

-2
Stress (ksi) – strain (10 ) relationship
Summary:
This test explored the idea of using either stress or the total bar strain as a control
method. At first, the bar was subjected to an axial tension of 1% based on the strain
measured by the strain gage. The experiment was then controlled using the measured
strain in the linear potentiometer across the full gage length of the specimen.
It was observed that the average strains across the entire bar length gradually
increased though the strain in the extensometer was nearly constant. The loading was
reversed from compression to tension either when the strain reached zero strain or
when any sign of buckling was observed. The bar ruptured after 22 cycles.
18
Summary: In an attempt to establish some correlation between strains measured in the

extensometer (gage length = 2”) and strains in the linear potentiometer (gage length =
7”), the bar was initially subjected to cyclic strains of +/- 2% followed by strains
corresponding to 4% tension and 0% compression (for an average +/- strain
corresponding to 2%). Rupture of the bar occurred after 5 full cycles.
Summary: The specimen was subjected to full cyclic strains corresponding to +/- 5%
strain. Strain measurement was based on the strain in the extensometer across a 2”
gage length. Failure occurred during the 3rd cycle in tension.
19
4 RESULTS OF TESTING OF ASTM A-706 #14 BARS
Findings from the preliminary series of tests on #11 reinforcing bars highlighted the
following issues:
• The fatigue life is influenced by bar buckling that occurs during compression
loading
• Bar buckling leads to errors and inconsistencies in measured strain across a
gage length that is fixed at the center of the specimen
Hence, it was necessary to conduct testing of the bars using multiple measurements.
Initially, the project was conceived, in accordance with Caltrans specifications at the start
of the project, to be conducted under stress control. However, the two concerns listed above
and additional issues that arose during testing of the bars required repetition of the low-
cycle fatigue testing. Results of the testing and relevant findings are described in the
following sections.
4.1 CONTROL TESTING

The first series of five tests were designed to establish the basic monotonic stress-
strain behavior of #14 bars. This was followed by 21 low-cycle fatigue tests at various
strain amplitudes and various strain ranges. Finally, four additional tests were carried out
the assist in modeling the cyclic behavior of reinforcing bars under random cyclic loading.
The actual strain histories experienced by a reinforcing bar in a bridge column during a
seismic event is random and therefore, results from this set of tests is expected to enable
improved modeling of rebars and facilitate inelastic response prediction of highway bridges
subjected to severe seismic loads.
Table 4-1 provides the chemical composition of the reinforcing bars obtained from
three different heats. In the first phase of testing, three types of tests were conducted: the
first set comprised direct tension tests, the next set consisted of limited pure compression
tests followed finally by some controlled cyclic tests to establish model parameters for
describing the cyclic constitutive behavior of the bars. Details of the test protocols are
provided in Table 4-2.
20
Table 4-1: Summary of Chemical Composition and Specified Strengths of #14 Bars
Heat Strength Chemical Composition

# (ksi) C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Cu Mo V CE
1 Yield: 74.0 0.28 0.98 0.015 0.031 0.23 0.14 0.10 0.39 0.02 0.044 0.47
Ultimate: 98.5
2 Yield: 68.5 0.27 0.94 0.011 0.025 0.26 0.09 0.07 0.34 0.01 0.046 0.44
Ultimate: 93.0
3 Yield: 73.0 0.27 0.99 0.012 0.039 0.25 0.13 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.046 0.45
Ultimate: 97.5
Table 4-2: Summary of Monotonic Testing of #14 Bars
Heat No. Ultimate

No. Test type L/D Strain
(%)
1 N14H1T1 1 Tension test 6 14.8
7 N14H1C1 1 Compression test 6 14.0
Bar Designation: N##H#Q#

Notation - N##: Bar Number
H#: Heat Number
Q#: Test type (T= Tension; C= Compression; Y = Cyclic) & specimen #
Example: N14H1T2 (No.14 bar from heat #1 subject to direct tension, test #2)
N14H1C3 (No.14 bar from heat #1 subject to direct compression, test #9)
21
The first series of tests were conducted to establish the backbone stress-strain relationships
in both tension and compression. Results of the monotonic testing are presented in this
section beginning with the tension tests. Two specimens were tested for each heat in the
case of tension tests.
Specimen name: N14H1T1 Heat #1, Specimen #1

Stress (ksi) – Strain relationship
Photo-1, rupture section (side view) Photo-2, rupture section (top view)
Summary:
The rebar was tested under control of the extensometer. Tensile force was applied at a
constant rate until failure. The location of rupture was outside the gage length of the
extensometer. Hence, during necking there was no increase in strain as the stress level
started to drop.
22
Specimen name: N14H1T2 Heat #1, Specimen #2
Summary:
The rebar was tested under control of the extensometer. As in the case of the previous
specimen, a tensile force was applied until failure of the specimen. Tensile rupture
occurred as a measured strain of approximately 28%.
Results of the tensile tests for the bars from heats #2 and #3 are presented in the next set of
figures. The curves in some of these tests have been smoothed to remove the noise in the
data which results from machine vibrations and also the fact that the imposed strains on the
specimens was carried out in stages to avoid sudden failure and damage to the
extensometer.
23
Stress-Stress Relationship
Specimen name: N14H2T1, Specimen name: N14H2T2,
Heat #2, Specimen #1 Heat #2, Specimen #2

Specimen name: N14H3T1 Specimen name: N14H3T2,
Heat #3, Specimen #1 Heat #3, Specimen #2
24
The next series of specimens (all from Heat #1) were subjected to purely compressive
forces to establish the stress-strain relationship in compression. Results are presented in the
next three figures.
Specimen name: N14H1C1

Summary: The length of the rebar between the two grips was 9.75 inch which
corresponds to an L/d ratio of approximately 5.5. Buckling initiated at a stress of about
82 ksi. When the compressive strength dropped to 60 ksi (corresponding to a strain of
0.14), the extensometer was removed since the measured strains were not representative
of material strain and the test was stopped. The rebar ruptured when the compressive
force was unloaded.
25
Summary: This specimen also had a similar L/d ratio as the previous specimen. The
measured peak stress was 82.0 ksi followed by buckling of the bar. When the
compressive strength dropped to 62.7 ksi at a strain of 0.135, the test was stopped. The
rebar ruptured when the compressive force was unloaded.
26
Summary:
The length of the rebar between two grips was reduced to 6.5 inch to avoid buckling of
the specimen. To protect the extensometer, the test was stopped when the peak stress
reached about 110 ksi at a compressive strain of 0.143. The rebar ruptured when the
compressive force was unloaded.
27
4.2 LOW CYCLE FATIGUE TESTING
Low-cycle fatigue tests were carried out on #14 bars under constant strain amplitudes. The
test protocol was derived based on the experience and observations from the cyclic tests on
the #11 bars. The following procedure was adopted: The bar was initially stressed in
tension up to the target strain using the extensometer as the control instrument. The strain
at this stage in the linear potentiometer was recorded across the full gage length of the
reinforcing bar. Control of the test was then transferred to the potentiometer. The cyclic
testing then continued by removing the extensometer and using strain control for the
remainder of the experiment. Details of the test specimens are provided in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Summary of Cyclic Testing of #14 Bars

(Heats 1 & 2)
Strain range Cycles to

No. Heat No
(%) failure
1 N14H1F1S1 1 ±1 45
2 N14H1F1S2 1 ±1 41
3 N14H1F2S1 1 ±2 16
4 N14H1F2S2 1 ±2 13
5 N14H1F4S1 1 ±4 4.0
6 N14H1F4S2 1 ±4 4.5
7 N14H2F6S1 1 ±6 1.0
8 N14H2F6S2 1 ±6 1.0
9 N14H2F1S1 2 ±1 42
10 N14H2F1S2 2 ±1 46
11 N14H2F2S1 2 ±2 14
12 N14H2F2S2 2 ±2 15
13 N14H3F4S1 2 ±4 5.0
14 N14H3F4S2 2 ±4 4.0
15 N14H3F6S1 2 ±6 1.0
16 N14H3F6S2 2 ±6 1.0
Notation: N##H#F#S# Æ Bar#, Heat#, Fatigue test strain amplitude in %, Specimen #

Example: N14H2F4S1 = Bar #14, Heat 2, Fatigue test at strain of 4%, specimen 1
28
Results of the low-cycle fatigue tests provided the following fatigue life expressions:
−2.02
Heat 1: N f = 0.0046 ( ε m )
(4-1)
−2.00
Heat 2: N f = 0.0047 ( ε m )
(4-2)
In the above expression, ܰ௙ is the number of cycles to failure and ߝ௠ is the peak or total
strain (equal amplitude in both tension and compression). Figure 4-1 shows the life curve in
log space for the #14 bars corresponding to Heat 1. A similar curve for Heat 2 is displayed
in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-1: Fatigue life model for #14 bars (Heat 1)
Figure 4-2: Fatigue life model for #14 bars (Heat 2)
29
If the average response of all #14 bars from both heats is considered, the fatigue life
expression will transform to the following equation:
−2.03
N f = 0.0047 ( ε m )
(4-3)
100
-2.03
y = 0.0047x
Cycles to failure
10
1
0.01 Strain 0.1
Figure 4-3: Fatigue life model for all #14 bars (average from both heats)
Sample plots and figures of typical stress-strain responses for the low-cycle fatigue tests
and the failure state of the ruptured bar are in the following section.
30
Specimen name: N14H1F1S1 Heat 1
Stress – Strain Response
Summary:
Constant amplitude strain between +0.01 and -0.01 was applied to the specimen. For the
first half cycle the rebar was tensioned under the control of the extensometer. After the
average strain reached the expected value, the test was continued under the control of
linear potentiometer (which measured strain across the full gage length).
The bar ruptured after 45 cycles of loading.
31
Summary:
The L/d ratio of the specimen was 5.5. The gage length for strain measurement was the
full bar length.Constant amplitude strain between +0.02 and -0.02 was applied to the
specimen. The bar ruptured after 16 full cycles.
32
Summary:
The L/d ratio of the specimen was 5.5.
Constant amplitude strain between +0.04 and -0.04 was applied to the specimen. The bar
ruptured after 4 full cycles. The gage length was the full bar length.
33
Summary:
Constant amplitude strain between +0.06 and -0.06 was applied to the specimen. The bar
ruptured after a single cycle of loading.
34
Summary:
Constant amplitude strain between +0.01 and -0.01 was applied to the specimen. For the
first half cycle the rebar was tensioned under the control of the extensometer. After the
average strain reached the expected value, the test was continued under the control of
linear potentiometer (which measured strain across the full gage length).
35
Summary:
Constant amplitude strain between +0.02 and -0.02 was applied to the specimen. For
the first half cycle the rebar was tensioned under the control of the extensometer and
the test was continued under the control of linear potentiometer (which measured
strain across the full gage length).

Summary:
The rebar was tested under the control of the linear potentiometer – hence the gage
length was equal to the total bar length between the grips.
Constant amplitude strain between +0.04 and -0.04 was applied to the specimen.
The bar ruptured after almost 5 cycles of loading.
36
Summary:
Constant amplitude strain between +0.06 and -0.06 was applied to the specimen.
The bar ruptured after 1 cycle of loading.
In the case of Heat 3, the bars were cycled between zero strain in compression and
the target strain in tension. This was done to possibly avoid the significant effects of
localized strain resulting from buckling of the specimen. Since the average tensile strain is
larger in this case than in the previous sets of experiments, these results and the resulting
fatigue life models are presented separately. Table 4-4 summarizes the specimens tested in
this phase of the project.
Table 4-4: Low-Cycle Fatigue Testing of #14 Bars (Heat 3)
Strain range Cycles to

No. Heat No
(%) failure
1 N14H3F2S1 3 0–2 17
2 N14H3F2S2 3 0–2 20
3 N14H3F3S1 3 0–3 8
4 N14H3F3S2 3 0–3 7
5 N14H3F4S1 3 0–4 4
6 N14H3F4S2 3 0-4 3
Notation: N##H#F#S# Æ Bar#, Heat#, Fatigue tension strain in %, Specimen #
Example: N14H3F4S1 = Bar #14, Heat 2, Max tension strain of 4%, specimen 1
37
In developing the fatigue-life expression for the tests conducted in this phase, the effective
single cycle strain was set equal to half the imposed strain 2εt (see Figure 4-4). The
resulting fatigue-life expression for these tests is given below:
−2.4
N f = 0.0003( ε t )
(4-4)
ܰ௙ is the number of cycles to failure and ߝ௧ is the peak tensile strain (zero strain in
compression). Figure 4-5 shows the resulting low-cycle fatigue life curve.
2εt
Figure 4-4: Computation of effective single cycle strain for bars subjected to positive strains
Figure 4-5: Fatigue life model for #14 bars subjected to positive strains only
38
Stress-strain responses for each of the tested specimens are presented below.
Specimen: N14H3F2S1 Specimen: N14H3F2S2

Summary:
The bar was subjected to low-cycle fatigue loading corresponding to a tension strain of
2% and a compression strain of 0%. Specimen 1 ruptured after 17 full cycles of loading
while specimen 2 ruptured after 20 cycles of loading.
39
Summary:
3% and a compression strain of 0%. Specimen 1 ruptured after 8 full cycles of loading
while specimen 2 ruptured after 7 cycles of loading.
Figure 4-6: State of fractured specimens (N14H3F3S1 & N14H3F3S2)
40
Specimen N14H3F4S1 – specimen shape after rupture
Summary:
4% and a compression strain of 0%. Specimen 1 failed after 4 full cycles while specimen
2 failed after only 3 cycles of load. Buckling was unavoidable at this strain range as is
evident from the bar shape after rupture.
One final specimen was tested at a peak tensile strain of 4% and unloaded to 0% on the
compression cycle – this specimen failed on the return tensile strain.
41
4.3 INVESTIGATION OF MODEL PROPERTIES
This phase of the study was aimed at investigating the cyclic behavior of reinforcing steel
bars under random cyclic loads so as to provide input into improving existing constitutive
models. The tests were designed to provide input on three specific aspects of cyclic
response: (i) Bauschinger effect; (ii) effect of cyclic strains on the yield plateau; and (iii)
strength deterioration under cyclic strains. Table 4-5 lists the 4 specimens
Table 4-5: Summary of Model Parameter Testing of #14 Bars
No. Test type L/D Strain (%)

1 N14H3M1 Model testing 6 Various
Bar Designation: N##H#Mn

Notation - N##: Bar #, H#: Heat #, Mn: Model test specimen #
Example: N14H3M1 (#14 bar from heat 3 subject to various cyclic strains, specimen #1)
Specimen name: N14H3M1 Heat #3

(a) Strain across full bar length (b) Strain across gage length of 2 inch
Summary:
This test was designed to establish the correlation between strains across different
gage lengths (linear potentiometer used across full bar length and extensometer
mounted in middle of specimen at a 2 inch gage length).
42
Summary:
This objective of this test was to confirm observe aspects of cyclic behavior of
reinforcing steel. Cycling of the steel after yielding has an influence on Bauschinger
effect. The rebar was tested under control of extensometer. It was first tensioned to a
strain of 10% and then compressed to the initiation of buckling. The load was
reversed to achieve approximately the same tensile stress. The process was repeated
till failure of the specimen.
43
Summary:
The rebar was tested under control of the extensometer. To establish the cyclic
behavior of the material starting with compression loading, the following loading
protocol was applied:
1. Load in compression up to 0.35%
2. Unload in tension up to 0.1%
3. Load in compression up to 0.6%
4. Unload in tension to same 0.1% (as in step 2)
5. Load in compression to approx total strain of 1% strain
6. Unload in tension to same strain as in steps 2 and 4
7. Load in compression up to 2%
8. Unload in tension to -0.5%
9. Reload in compression to 4%
10. Load in tension till failure
44
Stress-Strain Response
Summary:
The rebar was tested under control of the extensometer. To establish the cyclic behavior
of the material starting with compression, the following strain history was imposed:
1. Load in compression to a strain of 0.35%
2. Unload in tension up to 0.1%
3. Reload in compression to 0.6%
4. Unload in tension to 0.1% strain (as in step 2)
5. Load in compression to 1% strain (about 0.25% after strain hardening)
6. Unload in tension to 0.1% strain (as in steps 2 and 4)
7. Load in compression up to 2%
8. Unload in tension to -0.5%
9. Reload in compression to 4%
10. Load in tension till failure
There was necking before the rebar rupture (as seen in figure)
45
4.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following statements summarize the essential findings of the study.
Effect of Chemical Composition:

• As identified in Table 4-1, the chemical composition of the steel for the different
heats is quite similar; hence there was no obvious difference in the low-cycle fatigue
behavior of reinforcing bars from different heats. In fact, since no clear change in
response was observed in the number of cycles to failure between heat #1 and heat
#2, the test protocol was changed for the next heat in order to observe the influence
of compression buckling on fatigue life.
Test Methodology:
• Stress-controlled testing is not a feasible method for low-cycle fatigue testing since
the magnitude of strain is not constant at constant stress as the bar undergoes
yielding and buckling. In fact, post-buckling behavior results in a loss of strength,
and thus it may be physically unrealistic to apply pre-determined stress amplitudes
if buckling is expected. Variations in the magnitude of strain from cycle to cycle
during a stress-controlled low-cycle fatigue test will not yield consistent results.
• Strain controlled testing, on the other hand, is a function of gage length. That is, the
measured strain is in fact a pseudo-strain, which reflects normalized deformation,
rather than the material strain which may vary over the gage length. It is essential to
establish a reasonable gage length (with or without buckling) for measuring strains
in a low-cycle fatigue test.
Definition of Rebar Strain:

• Measurement of strain across the full gage length is more reliable since buckling
deformations will be incorporated directly; however, since strain is a function of
gage length, the estimated fatigue life will also be a function of the gage length
across which rebar strains are measured.
46
• It is necessary to develop different fatigue life expressions for different strain
measurements.
Influence of Buckling:
• Finally, since buckling is unavoidable unless a very small gage length is used, the
stress concentration resulting from buckling can significantly alter the fatigue life of
reinforcing bars.
4.4.1 Observed Reinforcing Steel Behavior from Monotonic Tests

Prior to cyclic tests, monotonic tests were carried out to obtain the tension and compression
bounding curves, which can be used as a basis for comparison with the deteriorated
responses of reinforcing steel during cyclic loading. Although the cross section and the
length between the two grips varies during the loading, the stress and strain response is
computed using the initial cross section and length, which results in overestimation in
compression and underestimation in tension as shown in Figure 4-7. Evidently, in true
stress-strain space, the two curves would be identical before the effect of buckling controls
the compressive response of reinforcing steel or the effect of necking controls the tensile
response.
Figure 4-7: Monotonic response in tension and compression of reinforcing steel
47
4.4.2 Observed Reinforcing Steel Behavior from Cyclic Tests
Diminishing Yield Plateau: The yield plateau is a very unique feature in the response of
reinforcing steel, which never appears in other metals and high carbon steels as observed by
some researchers (Bertero and Popov, 1976; Seyed-Ranjbari, 1986; Dodd and Cooke,
1992). In engineering stress-strain space, the plateau is characterized by constant stress
with increasing strain. This feature brings about an interesting observation during a cyclic
test as shown in Figure 4-8. The dotted line shows the response from a typical cyclic test,
where the hardening initiation point is marked with a circle (Figure 4-8b) on the solid line
which represents the monotonic tensile envelop curve. During cyclic loading, the elastic-
perfectly-plastic region (or the size of the yield plateau) on the monotonic envelope curve
for the first loading branch is seen to diminish after a few cycles till the accumulated plastic
strain reaches a certain limit value. Hence, the onset of hardening occurs earlier, which
results in a diminished yield plateau during cyclic loading accompanied by strain
hardening. This mechanism is strongly associated with Bauschinger effect and the growth
of the curvature during cyclic loading, which are discussed in the following section.
(a) (b)
Figure 4-8: Cyclic response of reinforcing bar demonstrating (a) shrinking yield plateau,
hardening and growth of curvature; (b) close-up of yield plateau region
Bauschinger Effect and Growth of Curvature: The Bauschinger effect is associated with the
phenomenon of the size of elastic range getting smaller whenever the direction of straining
is reversed during the cyclic test of ductile materials, and this is generally observed in most
metals. On the other hand, the curvature of the stress-strain curve during each cycle keeps
48
getting larger. The degree of the reduction of elastic ranges and the growth of the curvature
(Seyed-Ranjbari 1986) varies as a function of the accumulated plastic strain.
This mechanism can be described as the process of strain hardening (cold-working)
beyond the elastic range of the first cycle. As strain increases in one direction, the atoms of
crystalline materials begin to be dislocated on a microscopic scale. Due to piling up of the
dislocations, it becomes harder to increase the deformation in that direction, known as
strain hardening. While reversal loading in the opposite direction is applied to the same
specimen, however, it would be much easier to attract dislocations in the opposite direction,
and the strength is reduced not only because of local back stresses but also due to defects
during the previous cycles. Therefore, it yields earlier during the reversal loading
(Bauschinger effect). In other words, the larger deterioration inside the material influences
the reduction of the elastic range (yield surface) and also the growth of curvature depending
on the accumulated plastic strain, which results in strain hardening upon loading as shown
in Figure 4-8 and strain softening during the reversed loading.
Low-Cycle Fatigue and Strength Degradation: Bar rupture due to low-cycle fatigue and the
associated strength degradation is one of the common features of reinforcing steel observed
during cyclic loading, which the material model ought to be capable to capture, if fatigue
crack growth is not explicitly modeled. Repeated loading and unloading reduces the
strength of reinforcing steel in each cycle and eventually leads the material to reach its
failure limit even if it never reach the ultimate strength as shown in Figure 4-9. The rebar
response shown in the figure was subjected to tension and compression cycles in the strain
range from 0.2% to -0.2%, and it failed after 33 half cycles.
The fatigue strength is mainly controlled by the number of cycles and strain
amplitude. Coffin (1954) and Manson (1953) developed the well-known fatigue life
formula using two material parameters to facilitate prediction of bar rupture. Also it was
demonstrated by Kunnath et al. (2009) that strength degradation can also be expressed
using Coffin-Manson’s fatigue life expression. Therefore, assuming that cumulative
strength degradation and cumulative fatigue damage has linear relationship, this feature
was successfully incorporated into a proposed constitutive model for reinforcing steel by
Kunnath et al. (2009).
49
(a) (b)
Figure 4-9: Low-cycle fatigue response – (a) strain history; (b) stress-strain response
Cyclic Stress Relaxation under Constant Strain Amplitude: In addition to strength

degradation due to low-cycle fatigue, another phenomenon associated with constant
amplitude loading is stress relaxation. At the microscopic level, once the yield point is
reached, metallic bonds are broken, resulting in structural line defects and pile-up of
dislocations. The degree of dislocation accumulation controls the process of stress
relaxation. To illustrate this concept, consider the stress-strain history shown in Figure 4-
10a. The material is first subjected to tensile strain beyond yielding. If the material is now
subjected to low-amplitude cyclic loading, upon reversal from a compression cycle a lower
stress level is attained for the same strain amplitude. This is because the unloading strain in
compression was limited and additional pile-up of dislocations in that direction is avoided
thereby reducing the resistance to deformation in the tension cycle. Also, on the
compression side, stress hardening is observed since less accumulation of dislocation
during the tensile loading makes more room to accumulate dislocations in that direction.
This phenomenon is also described in terms of the decrease in the average mean stress by
Ma et al. (1976). The average mean stresses denoted by σm1, σm2, and σm3 for each cycle are
seen to systematically reduce under the limited strain amplitude as shown in Figure 4-10b.
Depending upon the average strain range, the responses will be totally different as shown in
Figure 4-10 (d) and (f) even if it has the same type of constant amplitude loading because it
depends on the degree of plastic strain accumulation. The solid and dotted lines represent
the first and the subsequent cycles respectively in Figure 4-10 (d) and (f). Experimental
50
results obtained from the strain history shown in Figure 4-10c is plotted in Figure 4-10d. In
the next set of results presented in Figures 4-10 e-f, the specimen is first subjected to 6%
strain in tension and then unloaded to zero strain. This is a fairly significant compression
strain which leads to buckling of the bar specimen and increased strength degradation.
Repeated cycling of the bar at this strain range leads to bar rupture after 13 cycles.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 4-10: Stress relaxation under fatigue loading at varying strain amplitudes
51
Buckling: Buckling is a type of geometric nonlinearity caused by compressive loading and
occurs both during monotonic and cyclic loading. Once an initial imperfection appears, this
geometric effect significantly influences the strength of the specimen. Therefore, the
initiation and effect of buckling must be included in any constitutive model of reinforcing
steel in a practical and efficient manner. For buckling to occur, the aspect ratio (bar length
to diameter ratio: L/d) has to exceed a critical value and the strain range on the compression
side must also be of sufficient magnitude. In the results shown above, the strain range for
the response given in Figure 4-10(d) is small enough to avoid buckling. However, in the
case of Figure 4-10(f), there is evidence of strength degradation due to buckling. In Figure
4-11, the cyclic response of a reinforcing bar (with an aspect ratio L/d = 6) is shown for
two strain ranges: in the first case the bar is subjected to equal tension and compression
cycles at 3% strain while in the second case the cyclic loading is imposed over a strain
range from 0 – 4.0% strain. In each case, the solid line represents the first cycle, and the
dotted lines show the remaining cycles. The rebar was ruptured during the second cycle due
to larger accumulation of plastic strain for the case of +/- 3% strain while the bar sustains
four cycles before failure in the second test (Figure 4-11b). The observed responses
demonstrate not only the effect of buckling but also the combined outcome of Bauschinger
effect, strain softening in compression, strain hardening in tension, low-cycle fatigue, and
strength degradation.
(a) (b)
Figure 4-11: Cyclic loading of bars including buckling
Therefore, all the features discussed in this section should be incorporated in a constitutive
model for capturing the cyclic behavior of reinforcing steel material.
52
5 IMPLICATIONS OF TEST RESULTS ON SEISMIC DESIGN OF
BRIDGE COLUMNS
The extension of the obtained test results to provisions in seismic design of highway
bridges requires an understanding of the expected strain histories in reinforcing bars in
bridge columns under seismic loading. To facilitate this understanding, two separate tasks
were undertaken in parallel. The first task consisted in estimating typical strain histories
including peak magnitude and number of cycles during a severe seismic event. The second
effort was directed towards gaining an understanding of the reversed cyclic behavior under
random loading so as to improve modeling of reinforcing steel bars.
5.1 STRAIN DEMANDS IN REINFORCING BARS IN TYPICAL BRIDGE COLUMNS
A portion of the widening project of Camino Del Norte Bridge was used as a typical
ordinary standard bridge and representative of a reinforced concrete over-crossing designed
according to post-Northridge Caltrans specifications. It is a single bent reinforced concrete
bridge with two spans of 101.5 and 100.0 feet in length. The single bent is composed of
two octagonal columns with spiral reinforcement. Figure 5-1 shows the elevation view of
the Camino Del Norte Bridge along with the column reinforcement details. The piers of the
bridge are modeled as nonlinear columns resting on an elastic soil-foundation system
supporting an elastic superstructure. Figure 5-2 presents the simulation model of the typical
two-column over-crossing. The approximation of the longitudinal box girder as a line
element was verified independently using a full 3D representation of the deck with shell
elements.
The columns are modeled as nonlinear beam-columns with plastic hinges at the ends
equal to the depth of the section. Again, this assumption has been verified independently
with experimental observation. Each plastic hinge is modeled as a fiber section thereby
enabling the estimation of the strains in each reinforcing bar.
53
52'
7.9" Y 7.9"
69" X
A A
RC Pile Footing
24” CIDH Concrete Piles
#8 hoops @ 4"
16.5"
3"
66" 31" clear cover
16.5"
25 #11 bars
16.5" 31" 16.5"
Section A-A
Figure 5-1 - Elevation and sectional details of typical over-crossing in California
54
L2
Support
y
S
x
L1
Span
Figure 5-2 – Computer modeling of typical over-crossing
5.2 GROUND MOTIONS

A set of earthquake records with horizontal PGA greater than 0.5g was selected from
the PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research) NGA (Next Generation Attenuation)
project database. All ground motions were scaled to match the ARS spectrum (Caltrans
2006) used in the design of Ordinary Standard Bridges at the longitudinal period of each
bridge configuration. The ARS spectra specified in SDC-2006 are based on earthquake
magnitude, soil type and peak ground acceleration (PGA). Simulations presented in the
next section correspond to response statistics for the bridge configurations subjected to
ground motions scaled to the ARS spectra for a magnitude 8.0 earthquake, soil type D and
peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.5g, respectively. Figure 5-3 displays the spectra of the
horizontal component of the ground motions scaled to match the ARS curve. Table 5-1
summarizes the properties of the ground motions used.
55
Soil D 0.5g Horizontal
4.5
4.0 Individual Spectra
3.5 Target Spectrum
Mean
3.0
Sa (g)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (s)
Table 5-1: Summary of ground motions

Distance Site PGA PGV PGD
# Earthquake Year Station Mw
(km) Class (g) (cm/s) (cm)
1 Duzce, Turkey 1999 Bolu 7.1 12.04 D 0.71 27.14 6.41
Imperial
2 1979 Bonds Corner 6.5 2.68 D 0.52 51.59 33.90
Valley-06
3 Kobe, Japan 1995 Nishi-Akashi 6.9 7.08 C 0.69 76.30 21.13
4 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.3 2.19 C 0.56 49.88 11.05
5 Loma Prieta 1989 Corralitos 6.9 3.85 C 0.58 69.42 21.76
Mammoth
6 1980 Long Valley Dam 5.9 14.04 D 0.61 31.27 4.51
Lakes
Coyote Lake Dam
7 Morgan Hill 1984 6.2 0.53 C 0.96 64.54 10.72
(SW Abut)
N. Palm
8 1986 North Palm Springs 6.1 4.04 D 0.64 49.69 6.67
Springs
Castaic - Old Ridge
9 Northridge-01 1994 6.7 19.72 C 0.54 51.90 11.74
Route
10 Northridge-01 1994 Newhall - Fire Sta 6.7 5.92 D 0.59 85.17 26.00
11 Northridge-01 1994 Rinaldi Receiving Sta 6.7 6.5 D 0.63 110.01 23.69
12 Northridge-01 1994 Tarzana - Cedar Hill 6.7 15.6 D 1.33 91.94 31.65
56
5.3 STRAIN HISTORIES
In order to derive typical strain histories for different bar diameters, the reinforcing
bars in the columns of the bridge overcrossing shown in Figure 5-1 were replaced by #11
and #14 bars without altering the reinforcement ratio. Shown in the following figures are
the strain histories recorded in the extreme reinforcing bar in the column section that also
experiences the maximum strain.
Figure 5-3 - Time history of axial strain in #11 reinforcing bar (EQ # 2)
57
58
59
5.4 TRANSFORMING RANDOM HISTORIES TO EQUIVALENT CYCLES AT
CONSTANT AMPLITUDE
The strain histories experienced by a reinforcing bar during a seismic event consist of
random cycles of varying amplitude as shown in Figures 5-3 to 5-10. In order to utilize the
fatigue relationships developed in Section 4, it is necessary to develop a procedure to
convert these random cycles into equivalent cycles at some fixed strain amplitude. This is
achieved as follows:
• First, the fatigue life model for #14 bars (Equation 4-3) for full-cycles are converted
into expressions for half-cycles. Since the relationship is linear (there will be twice
as many half-cycles as full cycles), the new expression for half cycles will be:
−2.03
N 2 f = 0.0094 ( ε m ) (5-1)
The notation N2 f is the number of half-cycles to failure
• For any 2 strain amplitudes ε m1 and ε m2 the number of half-cycles to failure are
determined from Equation (5-1) as follows:
−2.03 −2.03
N 2 f 1 = 0.0094 ( ε m1 ) and N 2 f 2 = 0.0094 ( ε m 2 )
• The damage to the reinforcing bar in a single half-cycle can be estimated as follows
ε m2.03
For strain amplitude ε m1 , D1 = 1/ N 2 f 1 = 1
0.0094
ε m2.03
For strain amplitude ε m2 , D2 = 1/ N 2 f 2 = 2
0.0094
• If we want to convert 1 half-cycle at strain ε m2 to nx equivalent cycles at strain ε m1 ,
the final damage resulting from both loads should be identical. Hence
2.03
ε m2.03
2 ε m2.03
1 ⎛ε ⎞
= nx or nx = ⎜ m 2 ⎟
0.0094 0.0094 ⎝ ε m1 ⎠
To demonstrate the validity of the above procedure, consider a bar subjected to a half-
cycle amplitude of 0.015. To convert this to equivalent half-cycles at a strain of 0.01
2.03
⎛ 0.015 ⎞
nx = ⎜ ⎟ = 2.28 half-cycles
⎝ 0.010 ⎠
60
This means that a bar subjected to 2.28 half-cycles at a strain of 0.01 will sustain the
same damage as a bar subjected to a single half-cycle strain of 0.015. To check this,
estimate the damage due to 1 half-cycle at strain amplitude of 0.015
(0.015)2.03
D2 = 1/ N 2 f 2 = = 0.0211
0.0094
Now estimate the damage due to 2.28 half-cycles at strain amplitude of 0.01
(0.01)2.03
D1 = 2.28 / N 2 f 1 = (2.28) = 0.0211
0.0094
The above hypothesis is based on the linear damage rule proposed by Miner (1945).
According to Miner’s rule, the total damage due to a series of random amplitudes in a
cyclic history can be estimated by linear summation of the damage imposed in each cycle.
The above procedure can be utilized to convert any random strain history into equivalent
number of cycles at any specified strain. For each of the strain histories shown in Figures 5-
3 to 5-10, it is possible to break down the random amplitudes into a series of half-cycles
(by evaluating the peak-to-valley or valley-to-peak amplitude as shown in Figure 5-11). In
this example, AB, BC, CD… each represents the double amplitude of a half-cycle. Hence
ε1 = AB/2, ε2 = BC/2, ε3 = CD/2…
amplitude
D
L
B
H
F
E
A
J
C
Figure 5-11 – Establishing half-cycle strains from random history
61
Using the above procedure, the following equivalent cycles were established from the
analytical study:
• #11 reinforcing bars will undergo 8 cycles of fatigue loading at a strain of 0.01.
• #14 reinforcing bars will sustain 10 cycles of fatigue loading at a strain of 0.01.
Comprehensive analytical studies can thus be carried out to estimate equivalent

number of cycles at target strain amplitudes to determine the design requirements for
reinforcing bars subjected to strong ground motions.
62
6 CONCLUSIONS
Results from the analytical and experimental study provided the following insights into the
low-cycle fatigue response of reinforcing bars in the context of seismic response of typical
bridge columns designed to current SDC provisions in California:
1. Computed peak strains in reinforcing bars in typical bridge columns subjected to a

set of earthquakes varied from 0.01 to 0.015 for the particular column section and
selected ground motions.
2. Since the measured strains in the numerical simulations represent average strains
across the plastic hinge length, these strains include the effect of buckling which
may occur over several hoops. Hence it is reasonable to assume that the fatigue life
estimated over the full gage length in the present testing would be a reasonable
measure of the expected behavior of the bars. Using the derived fatigue life
relationship, the following conclusions may be derived from the analytical study:
a. #14 reinforcing bars may experience up to 2.5 cycles of fatigue loading at a
strain of 0.02
b. #14 reinforcing bars may experience up to 10 cycles of fatigue loading at a
strain of 0.01.
3. The numerical simulations indicate that larger diameter bars typically exhibit
slightly larger strain demands for the same seismic input. Further work is needed to
more accurately quantify this trend.
4. Based on the low-cycle fatigue tests carried out on ASTM A-706 #14 reinforcing
bars, it was determined that stress-controlled testing is not a feasible method since it
was difficult to achieve control over the strain magnitude. Hence it is not possible to
achieve consistent results for use in the development of seismic design guidelines.
5. Strain controlled testing, on the other hand, will yield results that are sensitive to the
gage length employed in testing.
6. Since the chemical composition of the different heats were quite similar, there was
no conclusive finding on the effect of chemical composition on fatigue life.
7. Measurement of strain across the full gage length is more reliable since buckling
63
deformations will be incorporated directly; and the stress concentration resulting
from buckling can significantly alter the fatigue life of reinforcing bars.
8. It is necessary to develop different fatigue life expressions for different strain
measurements.
9. However, it was also found that the initial strain that caused yielding of the rebar is
a critical parameter in estimating fatigue life. A bar that is subject to an initial
compression strain leading to yielding has a more severe and adverse effect on
fatigue life. Hence it is recommended that two sets of fatigue life expressions are
needed to completely define the fatigue life of reinforcing bars.
6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

The present study has provided valuable information on both testing protocols as well as
critical factors influencing low-cycle fatigue of reinforcing bars. If the results of low-cycle
fatigue tests are to be used in seismic design practice, the following recommendations are
made:
• Since inelastic behavior in a reinforced concrete member occurs within a plastic
hinge zone, it is essential to first gain an understanding of the inelastic strain
demands in the plastic hinge zone. Under large inelastic cyclic deformations
resulting from severe earthquakes, the reinforcing bars in the plastic hinge zone will
undergo buckling. Hence, it is recommended that the buckling deformations be
included in the rebar testing. Any attempt to avoid rebar buckling will not reproduce
the true field conditions in a reinforcing bar.
• Since the measured strain is a function of the gage length, a proper choice of the
gage length for measuring strains is critical. Since plastic hinge lengths may vary as
a function of imposed loading and cross-sectional details, it may be necessary to
compare the fatigue life of specimens with different gage lengths.
• It is further proposed to calibrate the strains measured across a smaller gage length
(using typical extensometers) with the strains measured across the full plastic hinge
length. Most fatigue tests in the past have been carried out using strains measured in
a limited gage length. Additionally, the specimen lengths and sections are typically
64
selected to avoid buckling. While this provides a measure of the fundamental
material behavior, additional work is needed to transform such data into practical
strain measures that occur in reinforcing bars in bridge columns and other RC
members.
• The present study considered only #14 bars. Additional testing of bars of various
diameters is needed.
• A parallel analytical study to establish the range of plastic hinge lengths and
expected peak strains in typical reinforcing bars is equally important.
• Finally, information from cyclic tests can provide invaluable information to
improve existing constitutive models of steel reinforcing bars.
65
REFERENCES
Brown, J. and Kunnath, S.K. (2004). “Low-cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing bars.”
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 101, No.6, 457-466.
Coffin, L. F. Jr. (1954) “A study of the effect of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile
metal,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 76, pp. 931-950, 1954.
Hanson, J.M., Burton, K.T. and Hognestad, E. (1968). “Fatigue Tests of Reinforcing Bars
– Effect of Deformation Pattern.” Journal of PCA Research & Development
Laboratories, Vol.10, No.3, pp.2-13.
Helgason, T., Hanson, J.M., Somes, N.F., Corley, G. and Hognestad, E. (1976) “Fatigue
Strength of High-Yield Reinforcing Bars.” NCHRP Report 164, Transportation
Research Board, Washington D.C.
Kokubu, M. and Okamura, H.(1969). “Fatigue Behavior of High Strength Deformed Bars
in Reinforced Concrete Bridge Design.” ACI Special Publication SP-23, American
Concrete Institute, pp.301-316.
Krawinkler, H., Parisi, F., Ibarra, L., Ayoub, A., Medina, R., (2001). “Development of a
Testing Protocol for Woodframe Structures.” Report W-02, CUREE Woodframe
Project, CA.
Kunnath, S.K., Heo, Y. and Mohle, J.F. (2009). „Nonlinear Uniaxial Material Model for
Reinforcing Steel Bars.“ Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135 (4), 335
– 343.
L.L. Dodd and N. Cooke (1992). The dynamic behavior of reinforced concrete bridge
piers subjected to New Zealand seismicity, Research Report 92-04, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand.
Ma, S-Y., Bertero, V. and Popov, E. (1976). Experimental and Analytical Studies on the
Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular and T-Beams, Report No.
EERC 76-2, University of California at Berkeley, USA.
MacGregor, J.G., Jhamb, I.C. and Nuttall, N. (1971). “Fatigue Strength of Hot-Rolled
Deformed Reinforcing Bars.” ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol.68, No.3, pp.169-179.
Mander, J.B., Panthaki, F.D., and Kasalanti, A. (1994) "Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of
Reinforcing Steel," Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 6, No. 4.
Manson, S. S. (1953). “Behavior of materials under conditions of thermal stress.” Heat
Transfer Symposium, University of Michigan Engineering Research Institute, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 1953.
Miner, M.A. (1945). “Cumulative damage in fatigue,” J . Appl. Mech., 12 (3):A159-
A164.
OpenSees (2008). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, http://opensees.
berkeley.edu
Pfister, J.F and Hognestad, E. (1964). “High Strength Bars as Concrete Reinforcement,
Part 6: Fatigue Tests.” Journal of PCA Research & Development Laboratories, Vol.6
(1), pp.65-84.
Seyed-Ranjbari, M. (1986). Further Development, Multiaxial Formulation, and
Implementation of the Bounding Surface Plasticity Model for Metals, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California at Davis, USA.
66
APPENDIX
Mill Certification: #11 Bar
67
Mill Certifications: #14 Bars (Heat 1)
68
Mill Certification: #14 Bars (Heats 2 & 3)
69

Efecto Del Pandeo y Fatiga en El Desempeño Sismico Del Acero de Refuerzo en Seccion Critica

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

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

Efecto Del Pandeo y Fatiga en El Desempeño Sismico Del Acero de Refuerzo en Seccion Critica

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EFFECTS OF BUCKLING AND LOW CYCLE FATIGUE ON SEISMIC

PERFORMANCE OF REINFORCING BARS AND MECHANICAL COUPLERS

A Technical Report Submitted to the California Department of Transportation

* University of Southern California

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER

17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Half cycles to failure

1.1 SCOPE OF WORK

Test Min. No. Min. No. Min. (Possible)

2.1 TEST PARAMETERS AND PROTOCOL

Figure 2-1: Elevation and plan view of test setup

2.3 DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF REBAR GRIP

Figure 2-5: Complete grip with specimen secured to loading system

Figure 2-6: Final test setup

Table 3-1: Summary of #11 Bars (Single heat only)

Specimen Average strain

* Notation: First 3 letters – Bar No (e.g. N11 – Number 11 reinforcing bar)

3.1 CONTROL TESTS

Specimen name: N11T1 HEAT #1

Specimen name: N11T3 HEAT #1

Stress – Strain (10-2) relationship

Specimen: N11Y1 HEAT #1

Overall view of final condition of the bar

Overall view of final condition of the bar

Specimen name: N11Y3 HEAT #1

Stress (ksi) – Strain (10-2) relationship

Overall view of final condition of the bar (side view)

After 6 cycles, the rebar ruptured during the tension cycle.

Stress (ksi) –Strain (10-2) relationship

Final condition of the bar

Specimen name: N11Y6 HEAT #1

Stress (ksi) – Strain (10-2) relationship

Summary: In an attempt to establish some correlation between strains measured in the

Specimen name: N11Y8 HEAT #1

Stress (ksi) – Strain (10-2) relationship

4.1 CONTROL TESTING

Heat Strength Chemical Composition

Table 4-2: Summary of Monotonic Testing of #14 Bars

Heat No. Ultimate

Bar Designation: N##H#Q#

Specimen name: N14H1T1 Heat #1, Specimen #1

Stress (ksi) – Strain relationship

Stress (ksi) – Strain relationship

Specimen name: N14H1C1

Stress (ksi) – Strain relationship

Stress (ksi) – Strain relationship

Table 4-3: Summary of Cyclic Testing of #14 Bars

Strain range Cycles to

Notation: N##H#F#S# Æ Bar#, Heat#, Fatigue test strain amplitude in %, Specimen #

Figure 4-1: Fatigue life model for #14 bars (Heat 1)

Figure 4-2: Fatigue life model for #14 bars (Heat 2)

The bar ruptured after 45 cycles of loading.

Stress – Strain Response

The bar ruptured after 42 cycles of loading.

Specimen name: N14H2F4S1 Heat 2

Table 4-4: Low-Cycle Fatigue Testing of #14 Bars (Heat 3)

Strain range Cycles to

Specimen: N14H3F2S1 Specimen: N14H3F2S2

Figure 4-6: State of fractured specimens (N14H3F3S1 & N14H3F3S2)

Specimen N14H3F4S1 – specimen shape after rupture

Table 4-5: Summary of Model Parameter Testing of #14 Bars

No. Test type L/D Strain (%)

Bar Designation: N##H#Mn