Issue 47

R. Fincato et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 47 (2019) 231-246; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.47.18 239 parameters in Tab. 3 were adjusted a posteriori to fit both the uniaxial tensile test and the pier behavior. Secondly, the contribution of the tangential plastic term is negligible during the monotonic uniaxial tensile test. The parameters T 1 , T 2 and T 3 were calibrated during the pier analysis. The material constants c , χ, u , R e regulate the amount of inelastic strain in the sub-yield state and, in general, are calibrated by means of a cyclic loading analysis to fit the material ratcheting [21,23,27]. In the present study, they were calibrated by minimizing the difference of the normalized horizontal load vs. normalized horizontal displacement in the steel pier analysis without taking into account the effect of the damage, see Fig. 5a. h 3,403 [mm] t 8.70 [mm] D 891.3 [mm] P/P y 0.124 H y 414.9 [kN] δ y 10.5 Table 1: Structural parameters of the steel bridge pier. Young’s modulus 206000 [MPa] Poisson’s ratio 0.3 u 750 F 0 294 [MPa] R e 0.4 H p 0.0183 K , h 1 , h 2 140 [MPa], 0.30, 17.0 C 1 , B 1 2755 [MPa], 23.01 C 2 , B 2 590 [MPa], 22.84 c 400 χ 0.9 Table 2: Material parameters for the DSS model A 700 [MPa] N 0.25 c 1 0.15 c 2 480 [MPa] d 1 0.0183 T 1 0.99 T 2 1.0 T 3 0.6 Table 3: Damage material constants for the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, Eqn. (12) and Eqn. (15).