Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Low-cycle fatigue behaviour of ribbed 1.4362 duplex stainless

steel reinforcement
Jian-Yu Fu a, b, Xiao Ge c, *, Lei Chen c, d, Ying-Xin Hui e, Hui Qian f, Yan-Hui Liu g,
Dong-Sheng Wang a, c
a
Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Hebei University of Science and Technology, Shijiazhuang 050018, China
c
School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China
d
China Railway Design Corporation, Tianjin 300308, China
e
School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China
f
School of Civil Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
g
Earthquake Engineering Research and Test Center, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To investigate the fatigue behaviour of stainless steel (SS) reinforcement, monotonic tensile and
Stainless steel reinforcement cyclic fatigue loading tests on 1.4362 duplex SS bars with diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm, and
Low cycle fatigue 20 mm are conducted. To keep the characteristics of reinforcement used in engineering con­
Cyclic skeleton curve
struction, the specimens remain unprocessed. Two loading schemes for cyclic tests are considered
Strain-based fatigue life
Energy-based fatigue life
in this work: (i) constant strain-amplitude, and (ii) variable strain-amplitude. The Ramberg-Osgood
Steel material model model was used to fit the experimental results. The strain-based and energy-based fatigue life
equations are obtained. The strain-based fatigue life equation is compared with the present fa­
tigue life estimation equations. Moreover, the ReinforcingSteel material model in OpenSees is
calibrated with the experimental data. The results show that SS bars under cyclic experience
hardening followed by softening. The bar diameter does not significantly affect the fatigue life
prediction. The modified fatigue life equation suggests that SS bars have better fatigue resistance
than conventional steel (CS) bars. The numerical analysis indicates that the calibrated steel
material model (i.e. ReinforcingSteel) can produce a good simulation of SS bars under cyclic
loading. It can improve the accuracy of numerical models of concrete components reinforced by
SS bars.

1. Introduction

With the development of infrastructure engineering, particularly bridges in coastal areas, the limitations of conventional steel (CS)
including the susceptibility to corrosion, limited durability, and significant maintenance costs have been a concern. Therefore, it is
difficult to achieve the life expectancy of the bridge design by using conventional reinforcement. Stainless steel (SS) presents better
corrosion resistance and greater strength. It ensures not only structural durability but also meets load design requirements.
Furthermore, the reduced post-construction maintenance costs of SS reinforcement make it increasingly popular in engineering

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiao.ge@aol.co.uk (X. Ge).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03218
Received 8 January 2024; Received in revised form 7 April 2024; Accepted 24 April 2024
Available online 3 May 2024
2214-5095/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

construction [1]. For example, the Stonecutters Bridge in Hong Kong incorporated approximately 2000 tonnes of SS plates and 1250
tonnes of SS reinforcement. Besides, the main structure of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao bridge utilised about 9200 tonnes of SS
reinforcement [2,3].
When earthquakes occur, structures are subjected to cyclic loading. At the material level, this results in the high-strain, low-cycle
fatigue behaviour of reinforcement and concrete. Hence, understanding the low-cycle fatigue performance of materials (e.g. steel
reinforcement) becomes fundamental to seismic performance analysis. Several researchers have conducted low-cycle fatigue tests on
CS bars. Zhang et al. [4] investigated the basic mechanical properties of HRB400 steel bars and fitted its fatigue life equation. Both He
et al. [5] and Yang et al. [6] carried out cyclic tests with constant strain-amplitude and variable strain-amplitude on low yield point
steels (e.g. LYP100, LYP160, and LYP225). They found the pronounced cyclic hardening of low-yield point steel. Both isotropic
hardening and kinematic hardening are observed in their work. The derived hardening parameters can boost the feasibility of the
seismic response analysis of structures made of low-yield point steel. Shi et al. [7] predicted the low-cycle fatigue life for these steels.
Wang et al. [8] simulated a static loading test on a column with high-strength reinforcement as longitudinal reinforcement. They found
that high-strength reinforcement could boost the bearing capacity, deformability and energy dissipation of RC components. Li et al. [9]
undertook a comparative analysis of concrete columns with high-strength reinforcement HRB600E and conventional reinforcement
HRB400. They found that high-strength reinforcement can increase the load-bearing capacity of concrete columns. It also improves the
energy-dissipating capacity and stiffness of the column. Zhuang et al. [10], Sun et al. [11] and Gao et al. [12] experimentally
investigated the fatigue behaviour of HTRB630 steel bars. Li et al. [13] proposed a fatigue life prediction method on common engi­
neering materials by using Tanaka-Mura-Wu Model.
The 1.4362 duplex SS bars, which have been employed as longitudinal reinforcement materials in coastal bridge structures, have
drawn attention due to their high strength and resistance to corrosion. However, research on SS bars is still limited. Annan et al. [14]
conducted large-strain cyclic tests on austenitic SS (304 L) bars. They modified the cyclic constitutive model and fitted the hardening
parameters. Chang et al. [15] performed a set of low-cycle fatigue tests on austenitic and duplex SS specimens. They fitted parameters
of cyclic behaviour and hardening. Zhong et al. [16] developed an energy-based fatigue life prediction method for 316 L SS specimens.
However, the mechanical properties of specimens can be influenced by experimental campaigns (e.g. specimen production or
cutting process) recommended by the code [17]. To avoid this issue, this study focuses on unprocessed 1.4362 duplex SS bar segments.
Monotonic tensile, constant strain-amplitude and variable strain-amplitude cyclic loading tests are conducted to comprehensively
explore the strain-stress relationship, especially the low-cycle fatigue life of SS bars. The Ramberg-Osgood model has been adapted to fit
the cyclic skeleton curve and corresponding parameters. The Manson-Coffin model is employed to fit the fatigue life equation. The
ReinforcingSteel model in the Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) [18] is calibrated and adapted to
simulate the hysteresis behaviour of the SS bar. With the calibrated model, the numerical analysis of SS-reinforced concrete members
can be feasible.

2. Experimental campaign

2.1. Test specimens

Austenitic and duplex stainless steel rebars are most commonly used in engineering construction. In this work, 1.4362 duplex SS
rebars with diameters of 12 mm (D12), 16 mm (D16) and 20 mm (D20) are selected in monotonic tensile and low-cycle fatigue loading
tests (see Fig. 1). Tables 1 and 2 provide details of the primary chemical composition and mechanical properties of the test specimens,
respectively. It worth mentioning that to obtain the accurate stress of the rebar, the calculation of the area of rebar cross-section
considering the effects of the ribs.

2.2. Loading device and instrumentation

The tests are conducted on the MTS Landmark 370.5 servohydraulic test system (see Fig. 2). The peak loading force of the actuator

Fig. 1. Test specimen.

2
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Table 1
Chemical composition of 1.4362 duplex SS reinforcement.
Chemical composition C Si Mn P S Cr Ni Mo N

Ratio /% 0.02 0.5 1.2 0.022 0.001 23.9 4.3 0.44 0.13

Table 2
Mechanical properties of 1.4362 duplex SS reinforcement.
Diameter d / mm Yield strength Tensile strength Elongation/ % fsu / fsy Total elongation aspect ratio
fsy / MPa fsu / MPa /%

12 561 827 40 1.5 24.4 2.08

16 643 833 41 1.3 23.3 1.56
20 587 812 30 1.4 23.4 1.25
mean 597 824 37 1.4 23.7 -

is 500 kN. The extensometer has a scale of 25 mm with a tensile range of 5 mm (20%). During the test, the initial cracking, cracking
expansion, and specimen fracture are observed. The strain and stress are recorded during the test.

2.3. Loading scheme

Both monotonic tensile and low-cycle fatigue loading tests are conducted. In the monotonic tensile tests, displacement-controlled
loading was applied at a rate of 2 mm/min. The strain is recorded by the extensometer from the onset of tension until the specimen is
fractured. The low-cycle fatigue loading test is conducted by strain-controlled loading. Both constant strain amplitude and variable
strain amplitude low-cycle fatigue loading tests are conducted. The loading profile is illustrated in Fig. 3. The constant strain am­
plitudes are from 0.50% to 3.75%, with an increment of 0.25%. Fourteen cases are identified as S1 to S14. The test was terminated
when the specimen is fractured.
This study explored the diameter influence on the low-cycle fatigue performance of the SS rebars. During the test, buckling of
specimens with 12 mm diameter is observed in all the cases except those of 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.5% strain-amplitudes. The SS rebar
with a diameter of 16 mm underwent tests from 0.50% to 3.25% strain amplitudes. 12 sets of results were recorded. Tests including
0.50–3.75% strain amplitudes on the rebar with a diameter of 20 mm were conducted. 14 sets of results were recorded. The loading
details completed of each type of the SS rebar are listed in Table 3.
The variable strain-amplitude low-cycle fatigue loading profile is depicted in Fig. 3. The loading frequency is 0.2 Hz. The sampling
frequency is 32 Hz. Each loading cycle consists of tensile and compressive loading. The strain-amplitude increment of each cycle is
0.25%. The test is terminated when the specimen is fractured. Based on the results of the monotonic tensile tests and constant strain-
amplitude low-cycle loading tests, it was observed that the diameter has an insignificant impact on the mechanical properties of SS
rebars. Consequently, the variable strain-amplitude low-cycle fatigue loading tests were conducted on SS bars with a diameter of
20 mm.

Fig. 2. The experimental setup.

3
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 3. The loading profile of the cyclic fatigue tests.

Table 3
Fatigue cycles of SS bars under constant strain amplitude loading.

3. Monotonic tensile test results and discussion

Monotonic tensile tests on each type of SS bar mentioned above are conducted. Each type of specimen consists of 3 identical bars.
The results of the 3 specimens are averaged. The averaged strain-stress curve is plotted in Fig. 4. The SS bar does not exhibit a yield
plateau. This finding is in agreement with ref [19]. The stress corresponding to residual strain of 0.2% is regarded as yield stress. The
detailed calculation process can be found in ref [20,21]. The SS specimen exhibits good ductility. The ratio between peak strength and

Fig. 4. Monotonic tensile Stress-strain curve of SS reinforcement.

4
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

yield strength is about 1.4, which meets the requirement of seismic design code for reinforcement [22].
The Ramberg-Osgood equation (see Eq. (1)) [21] is the most commonly used model to simulate the strain-stress relationship of
materials with considering yielding. The model can achieve considerable accuracy with limited parameters.
( )n
σ σ
ε = + 0.002 (1)
E σ0.2

where ε is the strain; σ is the stress; E is the Young’s modulus; σ0.2 is the yield stress corresponding to 0.2% of the residual strain; and n is
the strain hardening exponent. The simulation result of SS bars with the Ramberg-Osgood equation can be found in Fig. 4. The simulated
and experimental results are in good agreement before the specimen reaches the peak stress. Specifically, the equation effectively
describes the behaviour of the SS bar when the strain is smaller than 0.2. The experimental results of each type of SS bar are averaged in
the Ramberg-Osgood equation fitting process (see Table 4).

4. Low-cycle fatigue test results and discussion

The fatigue performance tests of SS bars under low cyclic loading can be categorized into two methods: constant strain-amplitude
loading and variable strain-amplitude loading [22]. In this study, the strain-based fatigue life prediction model (i.e. the Coffin-Manson
equation) is derived from the constant strain-variable amplitude fatigue tests conducted on SS bars. Through fitting and determining
the correlation coefficients [23–25], the strain-fatigue life equation for the SS bar is established. This equation is then compared with
results from other known research for validation and consistency.

4.1. Hysteresis behaviour

The fatigue life cycle number (Nf) of each type of specimen with constant strain amplitude is listed in Table 5 The strain-stress
hysteresis loops of low-cycle fatigue loading tests on each type of specimen are presented in Figs. 5–7, respectively.
The hysteresis loops presented in Figs. 5–7 show plumpness, which indicates that the bar has a considerable capacity of energy
dissipation. As the number of loading cycles rises, there is a noticeable growth in plastic strain and cumulative damage. Consequently,
the specimen shows strength reduction, which eventually leads to rebar fracture.
Metal materials under low-cycle loading may either exhibit cyclic hardening or softening. The peak stress and strain in positive and
negative directions, cracking observation and total cycle numbers of D16 and D20 SS bars in cyclic tests with different amplitudes are
recorded (see tables in Appendix). It can be seen that the total cycle number reduces as strain amplitude increases. As strain amplitude
increases, the peak stress values in tensile and compressive directions show an ascending trend except in the final stage of the test,
which indicates the hardening of the SS bars. The relationship between the peak stress and cycle numbers of specimens under different
strain amplitudes is plotted in Fig. 8. The general trend of each specimen is the same. The SS bar exhibits hardening in the initial 5–8
cycles followed by softening in most cycles and eventually fracture. The stress shows a significant drop before bar fracture. The re­
lationships in compressive and tensile directions show the same trend. It is worth mentioning that the area of the cross-section of the
bar increases when it is under compressive loading. Therefore, the compressive stress is greater than tensile stress when the specimen is
under the same strain amplitude. The specimen in the compressive direction has more cycles of hardening than that in the tensile
direction,
The peak tensile and compressive stresses in each loading cycle are normalised by initial peak loading stresses in tensile and
compressive directions. The normalised stress is regarded as the peak stress ratio. The relationship between peak stress ratio and
fatigue life (i.e. cycle number) is plotted in Fig. 9. When the peak stress ratio is close to 0.8, there is a significant stress drop along with
extensive cracking of the bar. Then the specimen is fractured after a few more cycles. It is worth mentioning that the microscopic level
investigation is required to further explain the hysteresis behaviour of the SS bars [26].

4.2. Cyclic skeleton curve

The skeleton curves of SS bars in low-cycle fatigue loading tests are significantly different from the monotonic tensile strain-stress
curves [27]. The skeleton curves of the D20 specimen in constant and variable strain-amplitude low-cycle fatigue tests are fitted by the
Ramberg-Osgood equation separately. The effects of plastic strain on fatigue life are considered (see Eq. 2).

Table 4
Fitted parameters in monotonic tensile loading of SS reinforcement.
Diameter E /×105 MPa σ0.01 /MPa σ0.2 /MPa σu /MPa ε0.2 εu n σu/σ0.2
d / mm

12 1.88 287 559 775 0.00497 0.195 14.7 1.37

16 1.93 336 610 835 0.00426 0.168 14.3 1.38
20 1.90 293 575 778 0.00495 0.192 14.8 1.35
mean 1.90 305 581 796 0.00473 0.185 14.6 1.37

5
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Table 5
The result of fatigue cycles of stainless steel bars under constant strain amplitude loading.
Diameter d / mm Nf

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14

12 - - 698 468 14 - - - - - - - - -
16 3034 996 583 466 248 238 128 108 115 144 90 66 - -
20 3336 1012 653 386 249 208 126 124 112 104 82 75 52 2

Fig. 5. Hysteresis loops in different strain-amplitudes loading tests (d = 12 mm).

Δε Δεe Δεp Δσ ( Δσ )1/n′

= + = + (2)
2 2 2 2E 2K′

where Δε is the total strain amplitude, Δεe is the elastic strain amplitude, Δεp is the plastic strain amplitude, E is the modulus of
elasticity, Δσ is the stress amplitude, K’ is the cyclic strengthening factor, and n’ is the cyclic strengthening index. Due to the lack of a
distinct yield plateau, the stress corresponding with a residual strain of 0.2% of the SS bar is typically designated as the nominal yield
stress (σ0.2). It is equivalent to the yield stress (σy) in this work. The corresponding strain of the yield stress (σy) is regarded as the elastic
strain (εe). The total strain (ε) is the sum of the elastic strain (εe) and the plastic strain (εp).
Based on the experimental data, the Ramberg-Osgood model was adapted to fit both the constant and variable strain amplitude low-

6
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 6. Hysteresis loops in different strain-amplitudes loading tests (d = 16 mm).

7
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 7. Hysteresis loops in different strain-amplitudes loading tests (d = 20 mm).

8
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 8. The relationship between peak stress and loading cycles.

Fig. 9. The relationship between normalised peak stress and loading cycles.

cycle fatigue loading tests. The mean values of the peak tensile and compressive stresses in the constant strain amplitude loading tests
and tensile and compressive stress points in variable strain amplitude loading tests are selected to fit the model. The fitting results are
presented in Fig. 10(a) and (b). The fitted parameters are as follows: K’ = 602 MPa and n’=0.1687 for constant strain-amplitude tests,
K′=498 MPa and n′=0.0847 for variable strain-amplitude tests.
The results demonstrate that the Ramberg-Osgood equation aptly represents the low-cycle fatigue loading skeleton curve of
stainless steel bars. Fig. 10(a) shows that the stress of the skeleton curve of SS bars in the low-cycle fatigue loading with constant strain
amplitude is smaller than that of the monotonic tensile stress-strain curve. It implies that cyclic softening is predominant during the
cyclic test with constant strain amplitude. Fig. 10(b) shows that stress in variable strain amplitude tests is larger than that in monotonic
tensile tests, which suggests the occurrence of cyclic hardening. This finding is in agreement with the result shown in Figs. 8 and 9.

4.3. Strain-based fatigue life prediction

The damage observation of SS bars in cyclic tests is shown in Fig. 11. It consists of three stages: i. initial cracking (Fig. 11(a)), (ii)
extensive cracking (Fig. 11(b)), (iii) buckling or fracture (Fig. 11(c)&(d)). It is worth mentioning that bucking refers to the onset of
sideways movement of specimen under compressive loading, which can lead to rebar failure. Fig. 11(d) shows the post-fracture cross-
section of the specimen. The fractured cross-section aligns in a direction parallel to the rib direction. All the fracture points are within

9
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 10. Skeleton curves in cyclic tests (d=20 mm).

Fig. 11. Damage observation of SS bars (d=12 mm).

Fig. 12. Strain-based fatigue life prediction curves.

10
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

the measurement range of the extensometer. The bar fracture is caused by tensile loading in the test.
The strain-based fatigue life prediction (i.e. Coffin-Manson equation) is used to fit the results of low-cycle fatigue tests on SS bars, as
shown in Eq. 3.

Δε σ′f ( )b ( )e
= 2Nf + ε′f 2Nf (3)
2 E

where Δε is the total cyclic strain amplitude, σ’f is the fatigue strength coefficient; b is the fatigue strength index; ε’f is the fatigue
ductility coefficient; and c is the fatigue ductility index.
The strain-based fatigue life of D16 and D20 specimens in variable strain-amplitude tests is plotted in Fig. 12. The strain-based
fatigue life curves of bars with different diameters are close during the low-cycle fatigue loading tests with constant strain-
amplitude. When the loading strain amplitude (Δε/2) is smaller than 0.4%, elastic strain is predominant in fatigue life estimation.
However, once the loading strain amplitude surpasses 0.4%, the fatigue life is mainly affected by plastic strain. It is worth mentioning
that this threshold is slightly greater than the nominal yield strain (0.2%).
The strain-based fatigue life equation of SS bars under cyclic loading can be derived by fitting the Coffin-Manson equation to
experimental data. The fitted parameters are as follows: σ’f=1506 MPa, ε’f = 0.6599 MPa, b =-0.1061, and c=-0.6572.
Many researchers [4,28–30] have established different strain-based fatigue life equations based on low-cycle fatigue tests of
conventional steel bars. Zhang et al. [4] conducted the tests of the processed HRB400 bars. Sun et al. [28] examined the processed
630 MPa bars. Mander et al. [29] and Kunnath et al. [30] conducted low-cycle fatigue tests on the unprocessed A615 prototype bars.
The strain-based fatigue life prediction equations are listed in Table 6. The curves are plotted in Fig. 13.
It can be seen from Fig. 13 that the strain-based fatigue life prediction results of the prototype bars conducted by Mander et al. [29]
and Kunnath et al. [30] are in agreement. When the strain amplitude is the same, the fatigue life of SS bars is longer than that of
unprocessed CS bars investigated by Mander et al. [29] and Kunnath et al. [30]. It indicates that SS bars have better performance
against low-cycle fatigue than CS bars. When strain amplitude exceeds 3%, the fatigue life of SS bars is at least 30% longer than that of
processed CS bars. It’s worth mentioning that steel bar processing for experiments normally includes the removal of the bar rib. It
mitigates the stress concentration of the ribbed bar, which can increase the fatigue life.

4.4. Energy-based fatigue life prediction

Given the fact that seismic load is dynamic, the fatigue life assessment of reinforcement requires the introduction of Miner’s rule
[32] and the rain flow counting method [33]. Energy-based fatigue life estimation has the advantage of simplicity. The dissipated
energy can be assessed by strain and stress of the bar through Eq. 4.
( )−
(4)
1/β
Wp = W0 2Nf

where Wp is the dissipated energy of plastic strain; W0 is the inherent fatigue damage capacity of the material; 2 Nf is the fatigue life; β
is the damage transfer index. With the same 2Nf, materials with larger W0 have better fatigue resistance and larger energy dissipation
capacity. Normally, β should be greater than 1. When β is 1, it means all the work from the external load transfers directly into effective
damage to the material. As the β increases, it indicates either a reduction of material damage or an improvement of energy dissipation
capacity.
A logarithmic coordinate curve of plastic strain energy dissipation against the fatigue life cycle is fitted by the experimental data of
D16 and D20 bars in constant strain-amplitude tests. The fitted W0 is 178.3 MJ⋅mm− 3. The fitted β is 1.3. The fitted curves are plotted
in Fig. 14. The correlation coefficient (R2) is 0.93. The results indicate that the diameter of the reinforcement exhibits negligible
influence on the fatigue life equation.

5. Finite element simulation

OpenSees is commonly used in earthquake engineering. In this section, we utilize the ReinforcingSteel material model in Opensees to

Table 6
Strain-based fatigue prediction equations and parameters.
Scholars Specimen type Strain-based fatigue equation Fatigue parameter values

Cf Cd α
Zhang et al. [4] Processed HRB400 εp = 0.14001(2Nf ) − 0.38656 0.1400 0.3789 0.3791
⎕
εp = 0.37888(ϕSR )0.37158
Sun, Zhuang, Gao et al. [12,28,31] Processed 630 MPa εp = 0.25922(2Nf )− 0.42377 0.2592 0.9611 0.4494
εp = 0.96111(ϕSR )0.47508
Mander et al. [29] A615 prototype εp = 0.0777(2Nf )− 0.486 0.0777 - 0.4860
Kunnath et al. [30] A615 prototype εp = 0.065(2Nf )− 0.436 0.0650 - 0.4360
The authors 1.4362 prototype εp = 0.6517(2Nf )− 0.64908 0.6517 0.0157 0.6451
⎕
εp = 0.0157(ϕSR )0.64107

11
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 13. Comparison of strain-based fatigue life prediction.

Fig. 14. Energy-based fatigue life estimation of D16 and D20 bars.

simulate the nonlinear behaviour of SS bars under cyclic loading with considering the effects of fatigue. A finite element (FE) model of
1.4362 duplex SS bar is established. Experimental data is used to calibrate the model. In this section, the shape-control parameters (i.e.
Menegotto-Pinto parameters) of the ReinforcingSteel material model are investigated. D20 specimens in cyclic tests with constant and
variable strain amplitude are taken as examples in this section. The calibrated material model can be used to improve the accuracy of
component and structural level numerical models with SS reinforcement.

5.1. Calibration ofReinforcingSteel material model

A finite element model based on the ReinforcingSteel material model in the OpenSees is established to simulate the hysteresis
behaviour of SS reinforcement. The material model is developed based on the uniaxial steel model proposed by Chang & Mander [34].
The fatigue and buckling effects are considered in this model. Detailed properties of the material model can be referenced in ref. [18,
35]. The primary focus of this section is on determining the proper parameters of the material model. The strain-stress relationship of
the SS bar can be determined by Eqs. 5–9.
⎧ Es ε ε < εy
⎨
⃒ ⃒
σs = ( )⃒ εu − ε ⃒p (5)
⎩ fu − fu − fy ⃒⃒ ⃒ ε > εy
uε − ε⃒
y

εu − ε
p = Esh (6)
fu − fy

εp = Cd (ϕSR )α (7)

12
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

( )−
(8)
α
εp = Cf 2Nf
( ) ( − )
f+ + −
max − f min + f max − f min
ϕSR = ( )( + ) (9)
2Nf − 1 f max + f −max

where Es and Esh are the elastic moduli and initial hardening modulus; fy and fu are the yield strength and peak strength; εp is the plastic
strain amplitude (Δε / 2); εy and εu are the yield strain and peak strain; Cd, Cf, and α are the fatigue strength degradation factor, fatigue
ductility factor and damage accumulation factor, respectively; 2 Nf is the fatigue life; ϕSR is the strength damage factor; f +max, f min, are
+

the maximum and minimum values of peak tensile and compressive stresses during cyclic loading, respectively.
The fatigue properties of the rebar, the cyclic strength degradation effects, the buckling behaviour, and the effect of loading history
on the starting point of strain hardening are considered in the ReinforcingSteel material model. The fatigue parameters are based on the
Coffin-Manson equation for plastic strain-based fatigue life [23,24]. It is assumed that fracture occurs when the damage factor D of the
reinforcement reaches 1.0 and the damage factor D is defined as

∑ ( εp )α1
D= (10)
Cf

The strength degradation caused by cumulative damage of the bar is controlled by the strength damage factor ϕSR, which is the ratio
of the degradation value of the material strength to the initial stress peak for each half cycle on average, and is defined in Eq. 11, where
Cd is the parameter calibrated for the reinforcement test.

∑ ( εp )α1
ϕSR = (11)
Cd
With the experimental results, the curves of plastic strain amplitude and fatigue damage coefficient (εp -ϕSR), plastic strain and
fatigue life double logarithmic coordinates (εp-2 Nf) are fitted for D16 and D20 specimens respectively (see Eq. 12 & 13). The fitted
curve is plotted in Fig. 15.
( )− 0.64908
εp = 0.6517 2Nf (12)

εp = 0.0157(ϕSR )0.64107 (13)

The fitted fatigue-related parameters are as follows: Cf =0.6517, Cd =0.0157, α=0.645. The parameters suggested by Brown &
Kunnath [35] for CS bars are as follows: Cf= 0.26, Cd =0.389, and α=0.506. In addition, it can be seen from Fig. 15 that the diameter
effects are insignificant in parameter determination.
The loading and unloading curves of rebars are simulated by the ReinforcingSteel material model based on the Menegotto-Pinto
equation (Eq. 14) [36].
(1 − b)ε∗
σ∗ = bε∗ + (14)
(1 + ε∗R )1/R

where b is the strain hardening ratio; the normalised stress σ * and strain ε* are calculated in Eq. 15, and the parameter R is an offset
function related to the plasticity of the previous loading path.
{ ∗
σ = (σ − σ r )/(σ 0 − σr )
(15)
ε∗ = (ε − εr )/(ε0 − εr )

where σ0 and ε0 are the yield stress and yield strain of the corresponding bilinear hysteresis loop, σr and εr are the stress and strain at the
strain reverse point, and σ and ε are the measured stress and strain.
R affects the shape of the unloading curve and the reloading curve [32,36]. The relationship of R0, cR1, and cR2 is given by Eq. 16:
( )
R2 ζ
R = R1 1 − (16)
R3 + ζ

where R1 is the value of the parameter R at the initial loading; R2 and R3 are the shape-control parameters; and ζ is the normalised
plastic deformation offset (see Eq. 17):
⃒( )⃒/
ζ = ⃒ εtm − εt0 ⃒ εy (17)

where εtm is the maximum strain value in the direction when the reverse loading starts; εt0 is the strain value in the corresponding
direction when the reverse loading starts; εy is the yield strain.
The default values of shape-control parameters for CS bars are R1=0.333, R2=18, and R3=4. With the experimental data, the shape-
control parameters of SS bars under cyclic loading are fitted as follows: R1=0.338, R2=18, and R3=1. The hysteresis loops of the D20
specimen obtained by default and fitted ReinforcingSteel model are plotted in Figs. 16 and 17. It can be seen that the simulated loop with

13
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 15. Plastic strain-fatigue parameters curve.

Fig. 16. Simulation result of default ReinforcingSteel material model.

Fig. 17. Simulation result of fitted ReinforcingSteel material model.

default parameters shows different pinching and peak stress from the experimental results. However, the fitted model can produce a
good simulation. It is worth mentioning that the loop is not completely symmetrical in compressive and tensile parts. Therefore, the
experimental and simulated loading paths in the compressive part are not identical.

14
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

5.2. Simulated hysteresis behaviour

Hysteresis loops of D12, D16 and D20 rebars under cyclic loading with constant strain amplitude are obtained by the fitted
ReinforcingSteel material model in OpenSees. Figs. 18–20 provide comparisons of simulated and experimental results. This comparison
offers compelling insights into the capability of the ReinforcingSteel material model in OpenSees. Although the D12 specimen is only
subjected to low-cycle fatigue loading with three constant strain amplitudes, the numerical simulation and the test results are in good
agreement. Figs. 19 and 20 show the results of the low-cycle fatigue loading tests and numerical simulations with constant strain
amplitudes of D16 and D20 SS bars, respectively. It can be seen that the simulated hysteresis curves of different diameters of SS bars
under different loading conditions are consistent with the experimental results. The simulated results indicate the precision and the
reliability of the model in emulating real-world behaviour.

6. Conclusion

The paper presents the experimental results of ribbed 1.4362 duplex SS bars under monotonic tensile, constant and variable strain-
amplitude cyclic loading. The fatigue behaviour is analysed based on the experimental data. The ReinforcingSteel material model is
calibrated to improve the accuracy of modelling SS reinforcement under cyclic loading. Conclusions can be drawn as following:

• Yield plateau is not observed in the stress-strain curve of 1.4362 duplex SS bar under monotonic tensile loading, which is different
from CS bars.

Fig. 18. Numerical and experimental hysteresis loops (d =12 mm).

15
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 19. Numerical and experimental hysteresis loops (d =16 mm).

16
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Fig. 20. Numerical and experimental hysteresis loops (d = 20 mm).

17
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

• SS bars exhibit hardening first under cyclic loading when the cycle number is smaller. Then, softening of the bar can be observed
when the cycle number is large.
• Strain-based and energy-based fatigue life prediction equations are fitted by the experimental data. In this process, bar diameter
shows insignificant effects. The fitted equation can improve the accuracy of fatigue life prediction of SS reinforcement. The fatigue
life curve indicates that SS bars have better fatigue resistance than CS bars.
• The ReinforcingSteel material model in OpenSees is adapted to simulate the hysteresis behaviour of SS bars under cyclic loading. The
model is calibrated by the experimental data. The calibrated model can improve the accuracy of the numerical model of concrete
components reinforced by SS bars.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Lei Chen: Investigation. Ying-Xin Hui: Investigation. Jian-Yu Fu: Writing – original draft, Investigation. Dong-Sheng Wang:
Writing – review & editing, Investigation. Xiao Ge: Writing – review & editing, Investigation. Hui Qian: Investigation. Yan-Hui Liu:
Investigation.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgement

This work has received financial support from the Scientific Research Fund of the Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China
Earthquake Administration (Grant No. 2019EEEVL0403), the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei (Grant No. E2021202111), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51778206), the Key Research and Development Project in Ningxia Hui
Autonomous Region (Grant No. 2022BEG03062), and the Open Research Fund Program of Guangdong Key Laboratory of Earthquake
Engineering and Application Technology (project number: 2020B1212060071).

Appendix

Table. A1
Low cycle fatigue test of SS bars (d = 16 mm)

Work conditions S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Strain amplitude / % ±0.50 ±0.75 ±1.00 ±1.25 ±1.50 ±1.75 ±2.00 ±2.25 ±2.50 ±2.75 ±3.00 ±3.25
Initial crack / Nf 1800 625 302 285 144 125 80 64 61 75 50 36
Significant crack / Nf 2430 800 453 400 212 210 114 92 95 123 83 59
Specimen fracture / Nf 3034 996 583 466 248 238 128 108 115 144 90 66
f+ max / MPa 611 699 733 738 750 767 781 797 785 794 803 757
f+min / MPa 465 230 297 323 385 366 465 377 411 435 512 599
f-max/ MPa 643 726 746 758 786 822 822 821 842 849 853 794
f-min / MPa 483 471 504 454 583 553 634 613 583 503 644 653
f+N=0.5Nf / MPa 515 605 641 632 663 685 687 693 670 709 714 651
f-N=0.5Nf / MPa -506 -533 -661 -650 -688 -724 -728 -715 -743 -736 -752 -682
ϕSR /(10)− 3 0.035 0.241 0.394 0.517 0.749 0.890 1.238 1.814 1.706 1.500 1.696 1.483
f+max(FEM) / MPa 622 681 706 729 749 767 783 796 807 816 827 830
f-max(FEM) / MPa -647 -708 -738 -764 -789 -810 -830 -846 -861 -874 -887 -896
Nf (FEM) 3439 1211 603 445 251 225 143 122 108 92 85 60
-
Note: f +
max, f min, f max, f min maximum and minimum values of peak tensile and compressive stresses during cyclic reciprocal loading, respectively;
+ –
- -
f+
N=0.5Nf and fN=0.5Nf are the values of tensile and compressive stresses corresponding to half fatigue life, respectively; f max(FEM) and f max(FEM) are
+

the maximum and minimum peak stresses obtained by finite element simulation, Nf (FEM) was low cycle fatigue life obtained by simulation. Initial
and significant cracking are determined by observation.

Table. A2
Low cycle fatigue test of SS bars (d = 20 mm)

Work conditions S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14

(continued on next page)

18
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

Table. A2 (continued )
Work conditions S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14

Strain amplitude ±0.50 ±0.75 ±1.00 ±1.25 ±1.50 ±1.75 ±2.00 ±2.25 ±2.50 ±2.75 ±3.00 ±3.25 ±3.50 ±3.75
/%
Initial crack / Nf 2100 680 264 150 100 112 86 61 52 47 35 33 29 -
Significant crack / 2850 824 423 297 225 179 108 97 88 83 60 46 34 -
Nf
Specimen fracture 3336 1012 653 386 249 208 126 124 112 104 82 75 52 >2
/ Nf
f+ max / MPa 587 631 657 665 681 701 708 718 728 724 737 745 746 -
f+min / MPa 207 329 289 229 425 309 331 420 466 482 474 507 525 -
f-max/ MPa 603 632 677 699 728 743 755 765 792 794 791 803 806 -
f-min / MPa 447 472 425 507 538 545 616 584 657 621 613 632 665 -
f+N=0.5Nf / MPa 487 505 528 535 549 584 592 589 603 616 628 647 661 -
f-N=0.5Nf / MPa -497 -519 -547 -565 -578 -608 -619 -614 -650 -662 -659 -672 -689 -
ϕSR /(10)− 3 0.064 0.18 0.356 0.598 0.638 0.987 1.411 1.313 0.732 1.327 1.782 1.785 2.287 -
f+max(FEM) / MPa 562 592 618 642 663 682 699 713 724 734 740 748 753 761
f-max(FEM) / MPa -588 -620 -649 -676 -700 -721 -740 -757 -771 -784 -793 -805 -813 -824
Nf (FEM) 3875 1154 590 370 257 193 150 122 101 85 72 64 55 47
-
Note: f +
max, f min, f max, f min maximum and minimum values of peak tensile and compressive stresses during cyclic reciprocal loading, respectively;
+ –
- -
f+
N=0.5Nf and fN=0.5Nf are the values of tensile and compressive stresses corresponding to half fatigue life, respectively; f max(FEM) and f max(FEM) are
+

the maximum and minimum peak stresses obtained by finite element simulation, Nf (FEM) was low cycle fatigue life obtained by simulation. Initial
and significant cracking are determined by observation.

References

[1] A. Paul, L.B. Gleich, L.F. Kahn, Structural performance of prestressed concrete bridge piles using duplex stainless steel strands, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (7) (2017)
04017042.
[2] Jing Q., Fang X. Application of Stainless Steel Reinforcements in the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on
Architectural Engineering and Civil Engineering, 2017, Shanghai, China.
[3] Janjic D. Experience from the Global Analysis of Stonecutter’s Bridge and Sutong Bridge. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Bridge Conference, 2008,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
[4] Y.T. Zhang, B.K. Zhao, R.Q. Li, X.J. Du, Monotonic tensile and low cycle fatigue testing and research for HRB400 steel bars, Eng. Mech. 33 (4) (2016) 121–129.
[5] Q. He, Y.Y. Chen, H. Tian, Hysteretic behavior of low yield point steel LYP100 under large inelastic strain, Eng. Mech. 35 (s1) (2018) 27–33.
[6] F. Yang, Y.Q. Liu, H.X. Hou, Experiment on performance of LYP160 steel under monotonic and cyclic loading, Chin. J. Highw. Transp. 30 (3) (2017) 49–55.
[7] G. Shi, Y. Gao, X. Wang, Y. Cui, Energy-based low cycle fatigue analysis of low yield point steels, J. Constr. Steel Res. 150 (2018) 346–353.
[8] J.J. Wang, J.S. Su, W.B. Wang, Z.F. Dong, B. Liu, Experiment on seismic performance of circular concrete columns reinforced with HRB500E, HRB600 steel,
China J. Highw. Transp. 28 (5) (2015) 93–100.
[9] Y.Y. Li, S.Z. Miao, Y.L. Zhang, Experimental research on seismic performance of concrete columns reinforced with HRB600E steel bars. Building, Build. Struct.
50 (15) (2020) 58–69.
[10] M.L. Zhuang, L. Gao, C.Z. Sun, H. Long, S.Z. Su, Tensile and low-cycle fatigue properties of HTRB630 high-strength steel bars after exposure to high
temperatures, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 36 (2) (2024) 04023563.
[11] C.Z. Sun, M.L. Zhuang, Z.B. Wang, L. Gao, M.Q. Hou, Y. Qiao, W.H. Zhang, Experimental and numerical Investigation on high-cycle fatigue properties of
HTRB630 High-strength steel bars, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 35 (8) (2023) 04023222.
[12] L. Gao, C.Z. Sun, M.L. Zhuang, M.Q. Hou, Fatigue life prediction of HTRB630E steel bars based on modified coffin-manson model under pre-strain, Structures 38
(2022) 28–39.
[13] S. Li, X. Wu, R. Liu, Z. Zhang, Full-range fatigue life prediction of metallic materials using tanaka-mura-wu model, SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf. 15 (2) (2022)
133–153.
[14] C.-D. Annan, E. Beau Mont, Low-cycle fatigue of stainless steel plates under large plastic strain demands, J. Build. Eng. 29 (2019) 101160.
[15] Chang Xiao, Yang Lu, Wang Meng, Yin Fei, Study on the constitutive model of austenitic stainless steel and duplex stainless steel under cyclic loading, Eng.
Mech. 36 (5) (2019) 137–147.
[16] W.H. Zhong, G.A. Qian, Z.F. Tong, Wenwang Wu, Shun-Peng Zhu, Chenglong Wang, Fatigue model of domestic 316LN steel in simulated primary coolant
environment of CAP1400, Int. J. Fatigue 130 (2020) 105297.
[17] GB/T 228.1-2021. Metallic materials-Tensile testing-Part 1: Method of test at room temperature. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2021. (in Chinese).
[18] F. McKenna, OpenSees: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation, Comput. Sci. Eng. 27 (4) (2011) 58–66, 13.
[19] E. Cadoni, L. Fenu, D. Forni, Strain rate behaviour in tension of austenitic stainless steel used for reinforcing bars, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 399–407.
[20] X.Q. Wang, Z. Tao, U. Katwal, C. Hou, Tensile stress-strain models for high strength steels, J. Constr. Steel Res. 186 (2021) 106879.
[21] W.M. Quach, J.G. Teng, K.F. Chung, Three-stage full-range stress-strain model for stainless steels, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (9) (2008) 1518–1527.
[22] GB/T 26077-2010. Metallic materials- Fatigue testing – Axial – strain controlled method. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2010. (in Chinese).
[23] L.F. Coffin Jr, A study of the effects of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile metal, Trans. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. 76 (6) (1954) 931–949.
[24] S.S. Manson, Behavior of Materials under Conditions of Thermal Stress, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, 1953.
[25] S.S. Mansion, Fatigue: a complex subject simple approximation, Exp. Mech. 5 (7) (1965) 193–226.
[26] Y.L. Zhang, C. Fang, W. Wang, H.W. Hou, Cyclic plasticity and ULCF behavior of steel butt-joints considering different welding methods, Int. J. Fatigue 173
(2023) 107684.
[27] K.H. Nip, L. Gardner, C.M. Davies, A.Y. Elghazouli, Extremely low cycle fatigue tests on structural carbon steel and stainless steel, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (1)
(2010) 96–110.
[28] C.Z. Sun, C.Q. Miao, A.Q. Li, Y. Qiao, Experimental study on low cycle fatigue properties of 630 MPa high strength steel bar, J. Build. Struct. 42 (4) (2021)
194–202.
[29] J.B. Mander, F.D. Panthaki, A. Kasalanati, Low-cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing steel, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 6 (4) (1994) 453–468.
[30] S.K. Kunnath, Y. Heo, J.F. Mohle, Nonlinear uniaxial material model for reinforcing steel bars, J. Struct. Eng. 135 (4) (2009) 335–343.
[31] M.L. Zhuang, C.Z. Sun, B. Dong, Experimental and numerical investigations on seismic performance of HTRB630 high-strength steel bars reinforced concrete
columns, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 17 (2022) e01185.

19
J.-Y. Fu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03218

[32] M.A. Miner, Cumulative damage in fatigue, J. Appl. Mech. 12 (1945) A159–A164.
[33] Ai Q.H. Numerical evaluation and experimental study of seismic performance for reinforced concrete bridge piers. Dalian: Dalian University of Technology,
2008. (in Chinese).
[34] G.A. Chang, J.B. Mander, Seismic Energy-based Fatigue Damage Analysis of Bridge Columns: Part I-Evaluation of Seismic Capacity, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research Buffalo, NewYork, 1994.
[35] J. Brown, S.K. Kunnath, Low cycle fatigue behavior of longitudinal reinforcement in reinforced concrete bridge columns. at Buffalo, State University of New
York, New York, 2000.
[36] A. Gomes, J. Appleton, Nonlinear cyclic stress-strain relationship of reinforcing bars including buckling, Eng. Struct. 19 (10) (1997) 822–826.

20