ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 99-S48

TECHNICAL PAPER

Softened Membrane Model for Reinforced Concrete Elements in Shear

by Thomas T. C. Hsu and Ronnie R. H. Zhu
Biaxial stress and strain conditions are produced in reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. Current shear theories, which neglect the Poisson effect (mutual effects of the two normal strains), can reasonably predict the ascending branches of the response curves, but give descending branches that are either irrational or inaccurate. This paper presents a new theory, the softened-membrane model, that can confidently predict the entire behavioral history including both the prepeak and the postpeak behavior. In this general theory, the postpeak behavior is rationally predicted by taking into account the stresses and strains caused by Poisson effect. The Poisson effect is characterized by two Hsu/Zhu ratios, defined as the Poissons ratios of cracked reinforced concrete based on the smeared-crack concept. In the smeared-crack concept, cracked reinforced concrete is treated as a continuous material, and the constitutive laws of concrete and steel bars are expressed in terms of smeared (average) stresses and smeared (average) strains. As a result, the Hsu/Zhu ratios are the same for both the smeared concrete and the smeared steel bars. The experiments to measure the two Hsu/Zhu ratios are reported in a companion paper.
Keywords: load; reinforced concrete; shear; strain; stress.

version of the SMM was very complicated to use, however, because the constitutive relationship of cracked concrete in shear was based on a complicated empirical formula. This difficulty was overcome by the theoretical derivation of a rational shear modulus (Zhu, Hsu, and Lee 2001). In this study, the SMM is greatly simplified and its accuracy is improved by using the rational shear modulus. The derivation of the biaxial stress-strain relationships in SMM is also simplified by presenting it in the context of continuum mechanics. This improved version of SMM can now be used to predict and evaluate all the available panel tests in the literature, including those tested at the University of Toronto (Vecchio and Collins 1982). RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE This paper presents a rational and general theory, the SMM, which can predict the entire shear behavior of membrane elements, including the postpeak response. The postpeak response is predicted by taking into account the Poisson effect (mutual effects of the two normal strains). The Poisson effect of cracked reinforced concrete composites is characterized by two Hsu/Zhu ratios (given in a companion paper) that are determined experimentally using a unique panel testing facility with strain-control features. RATIONAL THEORY FOR MEMBRANE ELEMENTS A rational theory for reinforced concrete membrane element must satisfy Naviers three principles of mechanics of materials: stress equilibrium, strain compatibility, and material constitutive laws. The equations for stress equilibrium and strain compatibility are given by Pang and Hsu (1996) as follows Stress equilibrium
2 c 2 c l = c 2 cos 2 + 1 sin 2 + 21 2sin2cos2 + l fl (1) 2 c 2 c t = c 2 sin 2 + 1 cos 2 21 2sin2cos2 +t ft c c 2 2 lt = ( c 2 + 1 )sin2cos2 + 21(cos 2 sin 2)

INTRODUCTION Three rational analytical models have been proposed over the past two decades to predict the nonlinear shear behavior of reinforced concrete membrane elements. These models are the compression field theory (CFT) (Vecchio and Collins 1981), the rotating-angle softened truss models (RA-STM) (Hsu 1993; Belarbi and Hsu 1994 and 1995; Pang and Hsu 1995), and the fixed-angle softened truss model (FA-STM) (Pang and Hsu 1996; Hsu and Zhang 1997). These models can predict the prepeak ascending branches of the response curves, but not the postpeak descending branches. The inability of all of the current rational models to predict the descending branches was caused by the common assumption that the stresses and strains due to the Poisson effect could be neglected in a biaxial stress-and-strain condition. Twelve panels were tested from 1997 to 1999 (Zhu 2000) to determine the Poissons ratio using the universal panel tester (Hsu, Belarbi, and Pang 1995). This test facility was upgraded in 1993 with the addition of a servo-control system (Hsu, Zhang, and Gomez 1995), and in 1996 with the addition of a data management system. These 12 strain-controlled panel tests produced a postyield Poissons ratio of 1.9 (Zhu and Hsu 2002), which was outside the valid range of zero to 0.5 for the Poissons ratio of continuous materials. To differentiate this newly observed Poissons ratio of cracked reinforced concrete from the traditional Poissons ratio of continuous materials, the new term Hsu/Zhu ratio was created (Hsu and Zhu 1999). A new softened membrane model (SMM) was developed that incorporated the new Hsu/Zhu ratios. The basic idea of SMM was first presented at the 1999 U.S.-Japan Joint Seminar in Lake Yamanaka (Hsu and Zhu 1999 and 2001). This early 460

(2) (3)

Strain compatibility

21 l = 2cos2 2 + 1sin22 + ------2 sin 2 cos 2 2

(4)

ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-August 2002. MS No. 01-306 received September 30, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 2003 ACI Structural Journal if received by January 1, 2003.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Thomas T. C. Hsu, FACI, is a Moores Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Tex. He received his MS and PhD from Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., in 1960 and 1962, respectively. He is a member of ACI Committee 215, Fatigue of Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 343, Concrete Bridge Design; and 445, Shear and Torsion. He was the recipient of ACIs Wason Medal for Materials Research in 1965 and the Anderson Award for Research in 1991. Ronnie R. H. Zhu is a research associate in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston. He received his BS in structural engineering from Tongji University, Shanghai, China, in 1983; his MS in earthquake engineering from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 1994; and his PhD in structural engineering from the University of Houston in 2000. His research interests include analytical modeling, nonlinear finite element modeling, and design of reinforced concrete structures.

21 t = 2sin22 + 1cos22 ------2 sin 2 cos 2 2

(5)

21 l t 2 2 ( cos 2 sin 2 ) (6) ---- = ( 2 + 1 ) sin 2 cos 2 + -----2 2

Symbol definitions are given in the Notation section. Constitutive models The six basic equilibrium and compatibility equations, Eq. (1) through (6), are the same in the FA-STM and the c SMM, except that the five constitutive relationships ( 2 c c versus 2; 1 versus 1; 21 versus 21; fl versus l; and ft versus t ) which relate the stresses in the equilibrium Eq. (1) through (3), to the strains in the compatibility Eq. (4) through (6), are interpreted in a different way, as described as follows. FA-STMThe strains 2, 1, 21, l , t, and lt in the compatibility Eq. (4) through (6) represent uniaxial strains, because the five constitutive relationships are uniaxial stress-strain relationships obtained directly from the uniaxial testing of panels. In other words, the Poisson effect is neglected and the Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero in FA-STM. SMMThe strains 2, 1, 21, l , t, and lt in the compatibility Eq. (4) through (6) represent biaxial strains, so that the five constitutive relationships are biaxial stress-strain relationships, which cannot be obtained directly from the panel tests. In other words, the stresses and strains due to the Poisson effect (characterized by the Hsu/Zhu ratios) are taken into account in the SMM. The material properties, which consider the Hsu/Zhu ratios and the relationship between the biaxial and uniaxial strains, will now be derived. MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR SMM USING SMEARED-CRACK CONCEPT Constitutive matrix of smeared materials A constitutive matrix of smeared concrete subjected to biaxial loading, as defined in the principal 2-1 coordinate (Fig. 1), can be written as
c c c 0 2 2 E2 21 E 2 c c c 1 = 12 E 1 E1 0 1 c c 21 0 0 G 21 21

Fig. 1Coordinate systems for steel bars and principal applied stresses.
c in the 2-1 coordinate. In the past, G21 was thought to be an independent material property that had to be established from experiments. The resulting experimental expressions c were often very complicated and made the analytical for G21 method very difficult to apply. One great advantage of using the smeared-crack concept is that the cracked concrete can be treated as a continuous material, which requires only two independent moduli, rather than three. Following this conc , cept, Zhu, Hsu, and Lee (2001) derived a rational G21 which is shown in a following section in Eq. (21) as a funcc c and E 1 . tion of E 2 c and E c in Eq. (7), The two off-diagonal elements, 21E2 12 1 represent the Poisson effect, or the mutual effect of normal strains in the 2-1 coordinate. The symbol 21 is the ratio of the resulting strain increment in the 2-direction to the source strain increment in the 1-direction, and the symbol 12 is the ratio of the resulting strain increment in the 1-direction to the source strain increment in the 2-direction. The ratios 21 and 12 are the well-known Poissons ratios for continuous, isotropic materials, which vary from zero to 0.5. In a linear isotropic unit cube subjected to triaxial compressive stresses, the volume will expand if the Poissons ratio is larger than 0.5 (Boresi, Schmidt, and Sidebottom 1993). For cracked reinforced concrete, however, Eq. (7) is assumed to have the form of a constitutive matrix for continuous orthotropic materials, so that the smeared (or average) behavior of this cracked composite can be evaluated by continuum mechanics. In this case, 21 and 12 are the Hsu/Zhu ratios, and 12 is allowed to exceed 0.5 due to the smeared cracks. It should be noted that the two Hsu/Zhu ratios are both assumed to be zero in all of the current rational theories, including the CFT, the RA-STM, and the FA-STM. The constitutive matrix for steel bars, which form the l-t coordinate (Fig. 1) is

(7)

In the 3 x 3 matrix of Eq. (7), the first two diagonal elements c and E c are the secant moduli of concrete in Directions 2 E2 1 and 1, respectively, when an element is subjected to biaxial c is the shear modulus loading. The third diagonal element G21 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

l f l l E ls 0 0 l t ft = 0 t E ts 0 t 0 0 0 0 0

(8)

where the two moduli E ls and E ts must also take into account the Hsu/Zhu ratios 21 and 12 (to be derived in Eq. (20)). The 461

Fig. 2Biaxial strains versus uniaxial strains. creation of the new term Hsu/Zhu ratio in place of Poissons ratio helps to emphasize the smeared-crack concept when dealing with the steel bars in cracked reinforced concrete. Constitutive matrix of concreteA two-dimensional concrete element defined in the 2-1 coordinate is subjected to c two stresses c 1 and 2 as shown in Fig. 2(a). The length of the side is taken as unity. When the Hsu/Zhu ratios (12 and 21) are considered, the strains 1 and 2 are expressed as
c c 2 1 1 = ----- 12 ----c c E2 E1 c c 1 2 2 = ----- 21 ----c c E1 E2

12 1 - 1 = ---------------------- + ----------------------1 12 21 1 1 12 21 2 21 1 - + ---------------------- 2 = ---------------------- 1 12 21 1 1 12 21 2

(13)

(14)

c c c Substituting 2 = c 2 / E 2 and 1 = 1 / E 1 into Eq. (14) and (13), respectively, gives

(9)
c c 21 E 2 E2 ----------------------- ----------------------- 0 2 1 12 21 1 12 21 c c c 1 = 1 12 E 1 E1 ----------------------- ----------------------- 0 c 1 12 21 1 12 21 21 21 c 2

(10)

(15)

c c and E 2 = moduli of concrete in Directions 1 and where E 1 2, respectively, when a panel is subjected to uniaxial loading, or is subjected to biaxial loading, assuming the Hsu/Zhu ratios to be zero. c c c Defining 1 = c 1 / E 1 and 2 = 2 / E 2 in Eq. (9) and (10) as the uniaxial strains, the two equations can now be written as

c G 21

1 = 1 122 2 = 2 211

(11) (12)

where 1 and 2 = smeared (average) strains in Directions 1 and 2, respectively, when a panel is subjected to biaxial loading, taking into account the Hsu/Zhu ratios; and 1 and 2 = smeared (average) strains in Directions 1 and 2, respectively, when a panel is subjected to uniaxial loading, or is subjected to biaxial loading, assuming the Hsu/Zhu ratios are zero. c As illustrated in Fig. 2(b), the stresses c 2 and 1 are simply related to the uniaxial strains 2 and 1 by the uniaxial moduli c c and E 1 , respectively. Equation (11) and (12) show that E2 when the Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero, 1 = 1 and 2 = 2. Solving Eq. (11) and Eq. (12) gives 462

c where c 2 , 1 = smeared (average) stresses of concrete in c Directions 2 and 1, respectively. The symbols c 2 and 1 represent both the biaxial and uniaxial stresses. Comparing Eq. (7) with Eq. (15) gives the relationships c and E c and the uniaxial between the biaxial moduli E 2 1 c and E c . moduli E 2 1 In the solution algorithm of SMM, the biaxial strains 1 and 2 are given first. In this case, the uniaxial strains 1 and 2 can be calculated from Eq. (13) and (14), and the concrete c stresses c 2 and 1 can be obtained directly from the constic tutive laws of concrete (the c 2 -versus-2 curve, and the 1 versus-1 curve) established in uniaxial tests. Constitutive matrix of steel barsIn the SMM, the constitutive matrix of steel bars is derived from the compatibility Eq. (4) and (5) for biaxial strains l , t, 1, and 2. Substituting Eq. (11) and (12) into Eq. (4) and (5) results in a set of two long equations, each with six terms. This set of two long equations can be separated into two sets of short equations. The first set of two short equations is

21 2 2 l = 2 cos 2 + 1 sin 2 + ------2 sin 2 cos 2 2

(16)

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

 21 2 2 t = 2 sin 2 + 1 cos 2 ------2 sin 2 cos 2 2

(17)

where l and t = smeared (average) strains of steel bars in the l- and t-directions, respectively, when the Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero. Equation (16) and (17) are the compatibility equations of uniaxial strains l, t , 1 , and 2 when the Hsu/Zhu ratios are taken to be zero. The second set of two short equations is

l = l 12 2 sin 2 21 1 cos 2 t = t 12 2 cos 2 21 1 sin 2

2 2

(18) (19)

These equations show that the biaxial steel strains l and t are the uniaxial steel strains l and t, minus two strain terms. These two additional steel strains are the components of the products of Hsu/Zhu ratios and concrete strains (122 and 211). Substituting l = f l /E ls and t = f t /E ts into Eq. (18) and (19) results in

l f l l E ls 0 0 l t ft = 0 t E ts 0 t + 0 0 0 0 0 12 ( l E ls 2 sin 2 ) + 21 ( l E ls 1 cos 2 ) ( E ts cos2 ) + ( E ts sin2 ) 12 t 2 2 21 t 1 2 0

2 2

(20)

Fig. 3Constitutive relationship of materials in SMM. where fl and ft = smeared steel stress of steel bars embedded in concrete in the l- and t-directions, respectively. The symbols fl and ft represent the biaxial as well as the uniaxial steel stresses; and E ls and E ts = secant modulus of steel bars embedded in concrete in the l- and t-directions, respectively, calculated from the constitutive law of embedded steel bars (smeared stress versus smeared strain) obtained under uniaxial loading. Equation (20) shows that under the biaxial stress condition, the smeared steel stresses in the longitudinal direction l fl and the transverse direction t ft are each made up of two parts. The first part is the steel stresses using the uniaxial steel moduli without taking into account the Hsu/Zhu ratios. The second part is the steel stresses produced by the two Hsu/Zhu ratios and the two uniaxial strains. If the Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero, then the second part will disappear, and Eq. (20) will be reduced to the familiar expression of smeared steel stress under uniaxial conditions (It should be noted that l becomes l , and t becomes t). Comparison of Eq. (8) with Eq. (20) gives the relationships between the biaxial steel moduli E ls and E ts and the uniaxial steel moduli E ls and E ts . In the solution algorithm for SMM, the biaxial strains 1 and 2, and the shear strain 21 are given first. In this case, the uniaxial strains 1 and 2 can be calculated from Eq. (13) and (14), and the uniaxial steel strains l and t from Eq. (16) and (17). The steel stresses fl and ft can then be obtained directly from the constitutive laws of embedded steel bars ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002 (the fl-versus-l curve and the ft-versus-t curve) established in uniaxial tests. CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONSHIPS OF MATERIALS IN SMM Constitutive relationships under biaxial loading In the SMM, the stress-strain relationships of concrete and steel are based on the set of biaxial strains 2 , 1 , l, and t . c The set of stresses c 2 , 1 , fl, and ft cannot be calculated directly from the biaxial strains using the biaxial constitutive c relationships ( c 1 versus 1, 2 versus 2, fl versus l , and ft versus t ). This is because these relationships depend on the Hsu/Zhu ratios and, therefore, cannot be uniquely established from tests. The bridge that connects the biaxial stresses to the biaxial strains is the set of Eq. (13), (14), (16), and (17). Using these four equations, the set of uniaxial strains (1, 2 , l , and t) can be calculated from the set of biaxial strains 1 , 2 , l, and c t. Then, the set of stresses c 1 , 2 , fl, and ft can be calculated from the set of uniaxial strains using the set of uniaxial c constitutive laws ( c 1 versus 1 , 2 versus 2, fl versus l , and ft versus t ) that have been established directly from tests. Constitutive relationships under uniaxial loading The uniaxial constitutive relationships of the concrete and steel bars are given below, with emphasis on the recent 463

Also, the symbol in the equation for (Fig. 3(a)) equals or its reciprocal, whichever is less than unity. The parameter , which should not be less than 0.2, is used to take care of the weakening effect of shear stresses on the concrete struts when the rotating angle deviates from the fixed angle. The parameter given in Fig. 3(a) is expressed in terms of the difference of smeared steel stresses in the l- and t-directions (t fty and l fly), because the smaller the , the larger the shear stresses on the concrete struts; 2. Tensile stress-strain relationship of concrete This relationship is given by Fig. 3(b); 3. Tensile stress-strain relationship of steel bars embedded in concreteIn Fig. 3(c), l replaces s in the subscripts of the symbols for longitudinal steel, and t replaces s in the subscripts of the symbols for transverse steel. The steel ratio in Parameter B is limited to 0.5%. It should be noted that the kinking factor suggested by Pang and Hsu (1996) in the original FA-STM is omitted in Fig. 3(c) based on the results of the strain-control tests. 4. Stress-strain relationship of concrete in shearThe rational shear-stress versus shear-strain relationship (c 21 versus 21) was given by Zhu, Hsu, and Lee (2001) as
c c 1 2 c = ----------------------- 21 2 ( 1 2 ) 21

(21)

where the biaxial strains 1 and 2 are related to the uniaxial strains 1 and 2 by Eq. (11) and (12). SOLUTION ALGORITHM The solution algorithm for the SMM is given by the flow chart in Fig. 4. To make the solution procedure more efficient, the two basic equilibrium Eq. (1) and (2) are summed and subtracted to obtain two replacement equations as follows
c l fl + t ft = (l + t) ( c 2+ 1)

Fig. 4Flow chart of solution procedures for softenedmembrane model.

(22)

c c l fl t ft = (l t) ( c 2 1 )cos22 2 21sin22 (23)

Fig. 5Error in tensile strain 1 when secant value of Hsu/ Zhu ratio 12 is replaced by tangential value. improvements. These improvements were the results of more accurate strain-control tests of panels due to the use of a servo-control system. 1. Compressive stress-strain relationship of concreteIt should be noted that the constant 4 in the descending-branch equation in Fig. 3(a) replaces the old constant 2 in the FA-STM (Pang and Hsu 1996). This revision is intended to take care of a long plateau after the peak point that was observed in the strain-control tests. 464

The SMM algorithm has a significant advantage over the FA-STM algorithm (Hsu and Zhang 1997). The first phase of the FA-STM algorithm is no longer required because a rational shear modulus Eq. (21) is used instead of a complicated experimental formula. When compared with the second phase of the FA-STM procedure, the SMM algorithm requires only one additional step to calculate the uniaxial strains (1, 2 , l , and t) from the biaxial strains (1, 2 , 21) and the Hsu/Zhu ratios (12, 21) using Eq. (13), (14), (16), and (17). The Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 is given in the companion paper (Zhu and Hsu 2002) as

12 = 0.2 + 850sf 12 = 1.9

sf y

(24a) (24b)

sf > y

where sf is the smeared (average) tensile strain of steel bars that yields first, taking into account the Hsu/Zhu ratios. The Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 can be taken as zero. Hsu/Zhu ratios are defined as the secant ratios in SMM. Because the secant Hsu/Zhu ratios cannot be measured directly from the panel testing, the tangent Hsu/Zhu ratios were instead ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Table 1Computer-calculated results of Panel B2

Calculated values Point 4 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Variable Equation first yield second yield peak point descending* 2 selected 1 last assumed 21 last assumed l t 12 1 2 l t Eq. (4) Eq. (5) Eq. (24) Eq. (13) Eq. (14) Eq. (16) Eq. (17) Fig. 3(a) 0.00035 0.00470 0.00042 0.00197 0.00238 1.9 0.00403 0.00035 0.00163 0.00205 0.479 11.139 0.429 0.477 326.044 408.834 10.710 0.956 10.709 0.955 5.784 0.00505 0.00042 0.00645 0.00118 0.00242 0.00361 1.9 0.00565 0.00042 0.00202 0.00320 0.423 12.492 0.375 1.109 400.581 414.895 12.116 2.217 12.117 2.217 6.433 0.00687 0.00068 0.01485 0.00259 0.00579 0.00838 1.9 0.01357 0.00068 0.00515 0.00774 0.294 12.937 0.264 1.103 415.822 438.693 12.673 2.205 12.672 2.205 6.600 0.01552 0.00225 0.01915 0.00276 0.00707 0.00983 1.9 0.01488 0.00225 0.00493 0.00769 0.282 12.012 0.255 0.791 372.806 426.458 11.757 1.582 11.758 1.581 6.133 0.02140

c 2 , MPa Fig. 3(a) c 1 , MPa Fig. 3(b) c 21 , MPa Eq. (21) Fig. 3(c) Fig. 3(c) Eq. (22) Eq. (23) Eq. (3) Eq. (6)

fl, MPa ft, MPa (l fl + t f t )1 (l fl t f t )1 (l fl + t f t )2 (l fl t f t )2 l t , MPa lt

*Typical

point chosen in descending branch.

1 (the same errors were found for the steel strains l and t). The error before the peak point is also very small because the compressive strain 2 is small. This explains why the predictions of SMM and FA-STM are essentially the same before the peak point. Finally, in the last step of the flow chart in Fig. 4, it should be noted that the postpeak predicted curves are terminated when the shear stress lt drops more than 25% of the maximum shear stress lt, max; that is, lt < 0.75lt,max.
EXAMPLE Panel B2 can be taken as an example to illustrate the calculation procedure. Its material properties are as follows: concrete cylinder strength fc = 44.08 MPa; compressive strain at maximum stress 0 = 0.00235; yielding strengths of bare steel bars f ly and f ty = 446.5 and 462.7 MPa, respectively; steel ratios l and t = 0.01789 and 0.01193, respectively, in the longitudinal and transverse directions; and elastic modulus of steel bars Es = 200,000 MPa. Table 1 gives the calculated results for four characteristic points. Point 1 represents the first yielding of transverse steel, Point 2 the second yielding of longitudinal steel, Point 3 the peak point, and Point 4 a typical point in the descending branch. The calculated results for Panel B2 are plotted in Fig. 6. Figure 6(a) shows that the SMM can indeed predict the 465

Fig. 6(a) Applied shear stress l t versus shear strain l t curve; (b) concrete compressive stress c 2 versus compressive strain 2 curve; (c) concrete shear stress c 21 versus shear strain 21 curve; (d) longitudinal steel stress f l versus biaxial steel strain l curve; and (e) longitudinal steel stress f l versus uniaxial steel strain l curve. measured as shown in Eq. (24a) and (24b). Fortunately, replacing the secant ratios by the tangent ratios in SMM will cause only a very small error in the tensile strain 1 and the steel strains l and t. The error of 1 reduces with the increase of shear strain as shown in Fig. 5. In the postpeak descending branch, the error is less than 2% in the tensile strain ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

of 10 panels tested by Pang and Hsu (1995). These 10 panels, made of normal-strength concrete of approximately 40 MPa, were tested by the load-control method before and after yielding. The four panels in Series A have the same steel ratios in the transverse and the longitudinal directions. Panel A1R was tested in 1997 to replace Panel A1. Panel A1 was discarded because defects in either manufacturing or testing were suspected. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the agreement between the SMM predictions and the experimental results was excellent for Panels A2 and A3, especially in the postpeak descending regions. Panel A4 failed abruptly without a descending branch because its steel ratio was greater than the balanced shear steel ratio, and because the servo-control system was not available at that time. For Panel A1R, the predicted yield point was slightly more conservative than the experimental result, but should be quite acceptable considering the small steel ratio. The six panels in Series B had different steel ratios in the transverse and longitudinal directions. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the predictions are reasonably good. Panels tested by Zhang and Hsu (1998) The applied shear-stress versus shear-strain curves predicted by the SMM are compared with the experimental results of Zhang and Hsu (1998) in Fig. 8. These nine panels, made with high-strength concrete of approximately 100 MPa, were tested using the stress-control method before yielding, and using the strain-control method after yielding. Therefore, the descending branches for these panels (except for VA4) could be obtained despite the relatively brittle nature of highstrength concrete. The panels in Series VA have the same steel ratios in the transverse and longitudinal directions, and the steel ratios vary from 0.0060 to 0.0524 in each direction. The panels in Series VB have different steel ratios in the transverse and longitudinal directions. The ratios for the four panels VB1, VB2, VB3, and VB4 are 0.546, 0.332, 0.189, and 0.332, respectively. Even with such a wide range of steel ratios and ratios, Fig. 8 shows that the SMM predictions for highstrength concrete panels are excellent for panels VA2, VB1, and VB2, and are quite satisfactory for the remaining panels. It should be noted that the large differences between the predicted and the experimental ultimate strains of Panels VA0, VA4, and VB4 were caused by experimental limitations. In Panel VA0, with a very small steel ratio of 0.0060 in each direction, the ultimate strain reached a very high strain of 4% when the jacks ran out of strokes. In Panel VA4, with a very high steel ratio of 0.0524 in each direction, the failure was associated with an explosive crushing of concrete. The servocontrol system (which was very expensive) could not respond fast enough to the sudden and rapid increase of the concrete strain. The testing of Panel VB4 was terminated at a strain of approximately 2.3% to prevent the LVDTs from being damaged when severe cracks destroyed their anchors. The SMM prediction of Panel VA0, which had a small steel ratio of 0.596%, gave conservative yield strengths similar to the prediction of Panel A1R. These conservative predictions are caused by the fact that the steel ratio does have a small effect on the softened coefficient , but is not taken as a variable for simplicity. When the steel ratio decreases, the concrete struts sustain less stress and less deterioration, and the concrete contribution increases. The calibration of the softened coefficient was aimed to best fit the test results ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 7Comparison of SMM with test results by Pang and Hsu (1995). fc 40 MPa. Point 1 represents transverse steel yield; Point 2, longitudinal steel yield; and Point 3, peak point. descending branch of the l t- l t curve after the concrete compressive strength reaches the peak point in Fig. 6(b), and after the concrete shear strength is exhausted in Fig. 6(c). Figure 6(d) and (e) give the steel stress-strain curves in the longitudinal direction. The steel strains in Fig. 6(d) are biaxial (that is, measured in biaxially loaded panels), whereas the steel strains in Fig. 6(e) are uniaxial (that is, measured in uniaxially loaded embedded steel bars). It can be seen that, after the peak point, the measured biaxial steel strain continues to increase in Fig. 6(d), while the corresponding uniaxial steel strains decrease in Fig. 6(e). A similar trend is observed in the stress-strain curves of transverse steel. Because the steel stresses are determined by the uniaxial steel strains using the uniaxial constitutive relationships, the descending branches are realistic when plotting steel stresses versus biaxial strains (Fig. 6(d)). Because of the decrease of steel stresses after the peak point, equilibrium requires that all of the internal concrete stresses and external applied stresses must also decrease. Therefore, when stresses are plotted against strains as shown in Fig. 6(a), (b), and (c), descending branches should exist as long as the stresses and strains due to the Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 are taken into account. COMPARISON OF SMM PREDICTIONS WITH TEST RESULTS Panels tested by Pang and Hsu (1995) The applied shear-stress versus shear-strain relationships predicted by the SMM are compared in Fig. 7 with the results 466

Fig. 8Comparison of SMM with test results by Zhang and Hsu (1998). fc 100 MPa. Point 1 represents transverse steel yield; Point 2, longitudinal steel yield; and Point 3, peak point. over the whole range of steel ratios, which resulted in a small underestimation of concrete contribution for very small steel ratios. Panels tested by Vecchio and Collins (1982) The predictions of the SMM are also compared with the test results of the Vecchio and Collins panels with concrete strengths of 16 to 30 MPa (1982). Out of the 22 panels that are subjected to pure shear, only 9 failed by the predicted modes of yielding of steel bars or the compression crushing of concrete. The remaining 13 panels failed prematurely due to such factors as edge failure, brittle fracture of steel, bond failure, and shear failure of concrete. The SMM predictions of the nine valid panels were compared with the test results in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the predicted shear strengths and their corresponding shear strains agree very well with the test results of the three Panels PV19, PV20, and PV21. The prediction of Panel PV6 was also good before the yield point. Figure 9, however, reveals three disturbing observations: 1. None of the experimental curves exhibits a usable descending branch. This is caused by two factors: (a) the test facility was not equipped with a servo-control system; and (b) the steel reaction frame was very flexible, allowing a large amount of energy to be stored in the frame. The release of this stored energy shortly after the peak point would crush the panel suddenly; 2. For Panels PV4, PV11, and PV16, the curves after yielding seemed shorter than expected. Examination of the test photos reveals that their final failures could have been ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 9Comparison of SMM with test results by Vecchio and Collins (1982). fc = 16 to 30 MPa. Point 1 represents transverse steel yield; Point 2, longitudinal steel yield; and Point 3, peak point. caused by premature failures at the edges and corners. Of the 22 panels, six were damaged by edge failures, according to the researchers. Test photos showed that most of the remaining panels failed at least partly due to edge or local failure. The problems may be traced to the shear keys at the edges of the panels; and 3. The postcracking stiffnesses of most of the panels were higher than predicted. Three problems may be involved in this observation: a) Stronger concrete at edgesThe unexpected high stiffnesses had been pointed out and explained by Kaufmann (1998) as follows: the experimental response of the panels in Series PV is stiffer than predicted; this can be attributed to the fact that to avoid corner and edge failures, stronger concrete was cast around the perimeter of these specimens, resulting in a certain amount of restraint for the central portion of the panels and somewhat stiffer response; b) Strain-measurement methodThe strains in the Vecchio and Collins panels were measured by mechanical dial gages on a grid of buttons located in the middle of a panel. Since many more cracks occurred at the corner and edge regions than in the middle, the dial gages measured less-than-average strains caused by the cracks, thus producing smaller shear strains lt and higher stiffnesses; and c) Scale or size effect The panels tested by Vecchio and Collins (1982) are 890 x 890 x 70 mm (35 x 35 x 2.76 in.), and are reinforced with 467

small wires. In contrast, the panels tested by Pang and Hsu (1995) and Zhang and Hsu (1998) are 1397 x 1397 x 178 mm (55 x 55 x 7 in.), and are reinforced with deformed steel bars up to 1 in. in diameter. CONCLUSIONS From the results of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Although cracked reinforced concrete membrane elements (panels) behave in a very complicated way, their overall smeared (average) behavior can be predicted by treating this cracked composite as a continuous orthotropic material. The Poisson effect of such a cracked composite can be characterized by two Hsu/Zhu ratios (Zhu and Hsu 2002). The proposed SMM, which incorporates the Hsu/Zhu ratios, can predict not only the prepeak behavior, but also the postpeak behavior of cracked reinforced concrete membrane elements (panels); 2. The SMM is a rational theory that satisfies Naviers three principles of mechanics of materials (the stress equilibrium, the strain compatibility, and the constitutive models of materials). The constitutive models of concrete include a rational shear modulus, Eq. (21), which is derived from the smeared-crack concept. This new shear modulus greatly simplifies the SMM solution algorithm and improves its accuracy; and 3. The predictions of the SMM agree very well with the experiments of all of the panels tested by Pang and Hsu (1995) and Zhang and Hsu (1998), including both the ascending and the descending branches of the load-deformation curves. This model is shown in Fig. 7 and 8 to be applicable to membrane elements with concrete strengths of up to 100 MPa and steel ratios in the range of 0.6 to 5.24% in each direction. Explanations were given to explain the discrepancies observed between the predictions and the experiments on the panels tested by Vecchio and Collins (1982). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant CMS-9700401. The steel bars used in this research were specially made and donated by Chaparrel Steel Co. of Midlothian, Tex.

fn fs ft fty fy l t c G21 2 0 1 1 2 2 cr l l n s sf t t y 21 lt c 1 c 2 l t c 21 lt l t 12 21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = =

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

NOTATION
12Ec c E1
c E1

= = = = =

c E2 c E2

= =

Es Els Els
s Et s Et

= = = = = = = = =

fc fcr fl fly

direction of applied principal tensile stress direction of applied principal compressive stress elastic modulus of concrete secant modulus of concrete in Direction 1 when panel is subjected to biaxial loading, considering Hsu/Zhu ratios secant modulus of concrete in Direction 1 when panel is subjected to uniaxial loading, or subjected to biaxial loading, assuming Hsu/Zhu ratios to be zero secant modulus of concrete in Direction 2 when panel is subjected to biaxial loading, considering Hsu/Zhu ratios secant modulus of concrete in Direction 2 when panel is subjected to uniaxial loading, or subjected to biaxial loading, assuming Hsu/Zhu ratios to be zero elastic modulus of bare steel bars secant modulus of steel in Direction l when panel is subjected to biaxial loading, taking into account Hsu/Zhu ratios secant modulus of steel bars embedded in concrete in Direction l when Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero secant modulus of steel in Direction t when panel is subjected to biaxial loading, taking into account Hsu/Zhu ratios secant modulus of steel bars embedded in concrete in Direction t when Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero cylinder compressive strength of concrete cracking tensile strength of concrete smeared (average) steel stress in longitudinal direction (l-axis) yield stress of longitudinal bare steel bars

smeared (average) tensile steel stress at first yield smeared (average) stress in embedded mild steel bars; becomes f l or ft when applied to longitudinal and transverse steel, respectively smeared (average) steel stress in transverse direction (t-axis) yield stress of transverse bare steel bars yield stress of bare steel bars direction of longitudinal steel bars direction of transverse steel bars secant shear modulus of concrete in 2-1 coordinate of applied stresses angle of applied principal compressive stress (2-axis) with respect to longitudinal steel bars (l-axis) concrete cylinder strain corresponding to peak cylinder strength fc smeared (average) strain in principal 1-direction when Hsu/Zhu ratios are considered; or biaxial strain in 1-direction smeared (average) strain in 1-direction when Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero; or uniaxial strain in 1-direction smeared (average) strain in principal 2-direction when Hsu/Zhu ratios are considered; or biaxial strain in 2-direction smeared (average) strain in 2-direction when Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero; or uniaxial strain in 2-direction cracking tensile strain of concrete smeared (average) strain in l-direction of longitudinal steel bars when Hsu/Zhu ratios are considered; or biaxial strain in l-direction smeared (average) strain of steel bars in l-direction when Hsu/ Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero; or uniaxial strain of longitudinal steel bars smeared (average) tensile strain of steel bars at first yield when Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero; or uniaxial yield strain of steel bars smeared (average) strain in embedded mild steel bars when Hsu/Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero; s becomes l or t when applied to the longitudinal and transverse steel, respectively smeared (average) strain of steel bars that yield first, taking into account Hsu/Zhu ratios smeared (average) strain in t-direction of transverse steel bars when Hsu/Zhu ratios are considered; or biaxial strain in t-direction smeared (average) strain of steel bars in t-direction when Hsu/ Zhu ratios are assumed to be zero; or uniaxial strain of transverse steel bars yielding strain in bare steel bars smeared (average) shear strain in 2-1 coordinate of applied stresses smeared (average) shear strain in l-t coordinate of steel bars smeared (average) tensile stress of concrete in 1-direction smeared (average) compressive stress of concrete in 2-direction applied normal stress in l-direction of steel bars applied normal stress in t-direction of steel bars smeared (average) shear stress of concrete in 2-1 coordinate of applied stresses applied shear stress in l-t coordinate of steel bars parameter defined as (t fty t)/(l fly l) or its reciprocal, whichever is less than unity; 0.2 longitudinal steel ratio transverse steel ratio Hsu/Zhu ratio (ratio of resulting tensile strain to source compressive strain) Hsu/Zhu ratio (ratio of resulting compressive strain to source tensile strain) softened coefficient of concrete in compression when peak stress-softened coefficient is equal to strain-softened coefficient

REFERENCES
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1994, Constitutive Laws of Concrete in Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 465-474. Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1995, Constitutive Laws of Softened Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 562-573. Boresi, A. P.; Schmidt, R. J.; and Sidebottom, O. M., 1993, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 110 pp. Hsu, T. T. C., 1993, Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Fla., 336 pp. Hsu, T. T. C.; Belarbi, A.; and Pang, X. B., 1995, A Universal Panel Tester, Journal of Testing and Evaluations, ASTM, V. 23, No. 1, Jan., pp. 41-49. Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhang, L.-X., 1997, Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane Elements by Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss Model, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 483-492.

468

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Hsu, T. T. C.; Zhang, L. X.; and Gomez, T., 1995, A Servo-Control System for Universal Panel Tester, Journal of Testing and Evaluations , ASTM, V. 23, No. 6, Nov., pp. 424-430. Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhu, R. R. H., 1999, Post-Yield Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Membrane ElementsThe Hsu/Zhu Ratios, Proceedings, U.S.Japan Joint Seminar on Post-Peak Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic LoadsRecent Advances and Challenges on Analysis and Design, Tokyo/Lake Yamanaka, Japan, V. 1, Oct., pp. 43-60. Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhu, R. R. H., 2001, Post-Yield Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements The Hsu/Zhu Ratios, ASCE Publication: Modeling of Inelastic Behavior of RC Structures under Seismic Loads, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., Apr., pp. 139-157. Kaufmann, W., 1998, Strength and Deformations of Structural Concrete Subjected to In-Plane Shear and Normal Forces, Report No. 234, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 61-62. Pang, X.-B., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1995, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements in Shear, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 6, Nov.Dec., pp. 665-679. Pang, X.-B., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1996, Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss Model for Reinforced Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 197-207.

Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1981, Stress-Strain Characteristic of Reinforced Concrete in Pure Shear, LABSE Colloquium, Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Delft, Final Report, International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 221-225. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1982, The Response of Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane Shear and Normal Stresses, Publication No. 82-03, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Zhang, L. X., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1998, Behavior and Analysis of 100MPa Concrete Membrane Elements, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 1, Jan., pp. 24-34. Zhu, R. R. H., 2000, Softened-Membrane Model of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Considering Poisson Effect, PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Tex. Zhu, R. R. H., and Hsu, T. T. C., 2002, Poisson Effect in Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements. (companion paper to be published in the ACI Structural Journal ) Zhu, R. R. H.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Lee, J.-Y., 2001, Rational Shear Modulus for Smeared Crack Analysis of Reinforced Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 443-450.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

469