Cent. Eur. J. Eng.

DOI: 10.2478/s13531-011-0055-0

Central European Journal of Engineering

A simplified shear model for reinforced concrete
elements subjected to reverse lateral loadings
Research article
Hugo Rodrigues , Humberto Varum, Anbal G. Costa
University Aveiro in Portugal,
Civil Engineering Department, 3810 Aveiro, Portugal

Received 9 May 2011; accepted 13 September 2011

Abstract: The response of reinforced concrete elements to earthquake loads can be controlled by bending or shear behaviour,
depending on the geometrical characteristics of the elements and on the reinforcement detailing. To represent the
shear behaviour, in elements where shear is not negligible, it was developed and implemented in the VisualANL
a non-linear shear model. Finally, in this paper are presented and discussed the results of a set of numerical
calibration analyses based on tests on full-scale frames.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete Shear behaviour Non-linear behaviour Cyclic loading Global models Seismic analysis

Versita sp. z o.o.

1.

Introduction

Observations from collapsed and severely damaged structures following recent earthquakes reveal the complex behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings under seismic
actions [1, 2]. RC elements with insufficient reinforcement
and/or inadequate detailing may be vulnerable to shear
failure when subjected to earthquakes. Shear failure of
columns leads to the reduction of buildings lateral capacity,
by changing the inelastic structural deformation mechanism
to the reduction of buildings axial load-carrying capacity,
and ultimately, building collapse [3, 4].
Numerical modelling of reinforced concrete sections can
be handled by different analysis models, ranging from
simple to more detailed and refined strategies [5]. Several
models have been developed in the last 20 years with high

E-mail: hrodrigues@ua.pt

capability of reproducing axial force and flexure effects.

On the other hand, the coupling between the effects of
normal and shear forces is not straightforward, and hence
only few available modeling strategies have taken it into
account [6]. As examples of non-linear models that take into
account the influence of shear in the non-linear response
of frame structures we cite the following models: the fibre
element model [711], the continuum damage models [12],
the modifed compression field theory model [13], and several
other simplified models [1418].
In this paper, we present a numerical model implemented in
a structural analysis program (VisualANL). In the analysis
of RC structures subjected to seismic actions, the use of
non-linear models (monotonic behaviour laws combined
with appropriate hysteretic rules) allow a more rigorous
representation of the response [19].
As a matter of fact, the original version of the VisualANL
program was able to represent the non-linear bending
behaviour of RC elements (beams and columns). Each RC
structural element is modelled by a macro-element defined

A simplified shear model for reinforced concrete elements subjected to reverse lateral loadings

Lp

Lp

Figure 1.

Frame macro-element available in VisualANL.

as the association of three-bar finite elements, two with

non-linear behaviour at its extremities (plastic hinges), and
a central element with linear behaviour, as represented in
Figure 1 [20]. The non-linear behaviour of the plastic hinge
sub-elements is controlled through a modified hysteretic
procedure, based on the Takeda model, as illustrated in
Figure 2. This model developed by Costa and Costa [22, 23]
represents the response of a RC cross-section to seismic
actions and contemplates typical mechanical behaviour
effects as stiffness and strength degradation, pinching,
slipping, internal cycles, etc.

2. Typical causes of damage and

failure of RC buildings under seismic
loads
2.1.

Introduction

There are many reasons that justify the damages and

failures of RC buildings under seismic action (Figure 3).
The most common courses are associated with: i) stirrups/hoops, confinement and ductility; ii) bond, anchorage,
lap-splices and bond splitting; iii) inadequate shear capacity and failure; iv) inadequate flexural capacity and failure;
v) inadequate shear strength of the joints [25, 26, 28]; vi)
influence of infill masonry [31]; vii) vertical and horizontal
irregularities; viii) higher modes effect; ix) strong-beam
weak-column mechanisms [21], and, x) structural deficiencies due to architectural requirements [27]. However, it
should be noted that sometimes the damages and failures
are associated to a combination of these factors. In this
paper, two models are proposed, one for the simulation of
infill masonry panels, and the other for the simulation of
the non-linear shear behaviour. Next are presented some

aspects relation to the seismic behaviour associated with

these phenomenons.
During earthquakes, the failures of beams and beam-tocolumn connections are most commonly related to inadequate use of transverse reinforcement for shear strength
and confinement 3(b). These are typically local beam
failures and will not necessarily lead to collapse of the
building [29]. A common structural problem in buildings
is inadequate transverse confinement reinforcement in the
beam plastic hinging zones.
It is not worthwhile using strong, stiff and ductile structural
members if they are not properly connected. Beam-tocolumn connections can suffer a significant loss of stiffness
due to inadequate shear strength and anchorage capacity
in the connection. Both of these failure modes are related
to inadequate use of confinement reinforcement in the
connection, and improper detailing of main reinforcement
anchored in or passing through the connection [29].
Also the amount and correct detailing of the reinforcing
steel plays an important role in the seismic response of
a RC structure. Therefore, for regions of moderate to
high seismic risk it is necessary to reinforce the concrete
structural members adequately. The designers goal is to
prevent the brittle crushing of concrete in compression prior
to the stage when substantial yielding in tension reinforcement occurs [21]. The masonry infill in structural RC frames,
even if they are relatively weak, can drastically modify the
intended structural response, attracting forces to parts of
the structure that have not been designed to resist them
[4]. The examples provided below illustrate the relevant influence of the infill masonry in the behaviour of the frames
3(a). Masonry infill panels can increase substantially the
global stiffness of the structure. Consequently, the natural
period of the structure will decrease and, depending on the
spectrum shape at the natural period of the bare structure,
the seismic forces will correspondingly increase.

H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, A.G. Costa

13

13A

12

12A
8
23
18

17

20

+
Dy

+
Dc

11

16

10

Bending hysteretic model for RC elements [24].

Also the presence of structural irregularities can lead to an

inadequate behaviour of structures. The abrupt changes
in stiffness, strength or mass in structural and/or element
properties of a building, either in plant or in elevation, can
result in distributions of lateral loads and deformations
very different from those that are anticipated for uniform
structures [30]. As evidenced by several recent earthquakes,
structural configuration plays an important role in the
buildings behaviour.

2.2.

14

15

Figure 2.

Dc

Dy

19
22

21

Inadequate shear behaviour

Typical gravity and wind load designs normally results

in a design shear force significantly lower than the shear
force that could be developed in a column during seismic
loading. Therefore, shear limit states should be avoided in
the seismic resistant structures. For this goal, the shear
demand should be limited or shear capacity should be
enhanced.
Corner columns in buildings may suffer more severe damage
due to insufficient shear strength and/or poor confinement.
Particularly, for irregular buildings with significant eccentricity between the centre of mass and the centre of
resistance, where the torsional effects may impose higher
demands in corner columns, the torsional actions associated to other forces in these columns may weaken its
response, anticipating the damage for lower inter-storey
drift demands. Rectangular columns loaded mainly in its
strong axis direction tends to fail in shear (see Figure 4(a)).
In current buildings, the presence of infill masonry with
apertures may creates the short-column mechanism, associ-

ated to the partial lateral displacement restrained, inducing

a stiffer columns behaviour, attracting higher shear forces
than the considered at the design phase [32]. Examples of
columns failures in shear associated to the short-column
mechanism are shown in Figure 4(b).
It should be said that many RC building structures collapse
during seismic events associated with inadequate shear
reinforcement of beam-column joints [26, 37]. Recent earthquakes, as LAquila, Lorca, showed that deficiencies in the
detailing of beam-column joints (i.e. the lack of transverse
reinforcement, poor anchorage of the beam longitudinal
bars in the joint core and use of reinforcement with poor
bond conditions, as the plain round bars) may induce a
non-ductile brittle failure of the joints. Experimental research has been recently developed to study solutions for
the improvement of RC bema-column joints performance,
see for example the work developed by Tsonos, Fernandes
et al., and Rodrigues et al. [3336].

3. Model for shear behaviour of RC

elements
3.1.

Introduction

The seismic response of slender RC structural elements is

dominated by flexure behaviour. But, when the slenderness drops to a certain level, the behaviour is controlled
by shear. Shear behaviour is characterised by very low
ductility and, generally, by poor performance under cyclic
loading. In RC building structures, it is common to use RC

A simplified shear model for reinforced concrete elements subjected to reverse lateral loadings

(a)

(a)

(b)

(b)

Figure 4.

Examples of column shear failure [1].

(c)

Figure 3.

Damage on RC structures after the April 2009 LAquila

Earthquake: a) influence of infill masonry; b) inadequate
detailing of the joints; c) Formation of a soft and weak
storey.

walls to increase the global stiffness of the structure, and

therefore, control the deformation demands. Current analysis programs support non-linear models just in bending. A
new non-linear shear behaviour model was proposed, and
implemented in the PORANL computer program [20].

3.2.

Proposed macro-model

The non-linear shear behaviour model was implemented

based on the frame macro-model available in the PORANL
program for bending. Therefore, each RC structural el-

ement is modelled as the association of three-bar finite

elements, two with non-linear behaviour at its extremities,
and a central element with linear behaviour, as represented
in Figure 1. The non-linear monotonic behaviour curve
of an element is characterized through a tri-linear forcedistortion relationship. The hysteretic rules are controlled
by three additional parameters, namely: -stiffness degradation; -pinching effect; and, -strength degradation.

3.3.

Hysteretic rules

In the shear model, the non-linear behaviour is characterized by hysteretic rules based on the Takedas model [39],
allowing the computation of the response to cyclic loads
depending on the materials behaviour (defined by the
envelop curve and hysteretic parameters). The hysteretic
rules are briefly exemplified in Figure 5.

H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, A.G. Costa

Post-yield strength and stiffness degradation with cycling

is modeled by directing the reloading branch, after modification for pinching, towards a point at a displacement
0
equal to dmax and at a force Fmax = (1 ) Fmax , where
is the Wang and Shah damage index [23], Figure 7. After
reaching this terminal point of the reloading branch, further
loading takes place parallel to the post-yielding stiffness
of the virgin loading curve.
When a load inversion takes place before the maximum
force or the maximum displacement is reached, the model
is able to reproduce the so-called internal cycles, with all
the effects described above.

J
K

Figure 5.

Hysteretic rules for the proposed shear model.

Fy

The loading stiffness depends on the maximum force and

displacement value reached in the previous cycle (Fmax
and dmax ). The loading begin at the point corresponding to
null-force (dr ) and its stiffness is defined by the Equation 1:
Fmax
Kr =
dmax dr

Fcr .Fy
K0 .dcr + .Fy

Kd =

K0 .dcr +

.Fy
K0

dy dp

du11

.K0

Figure 6.

Pinching effect.

Figure 7.

Strength degradation.

(2)

If the maximum displacement reached is larger than dcr , the

unloading stiffness (Kd ) will depend only on the parameter
. The unloading stiffness is given by Equation 3:
Fcr .Fy

du2

(1)

The unloading happens when a load inversion occurs. The

unloading stiffness depends on the maximum displacement
reached. Before the yielding point has been reached, the
unloading stiffness (Kd ) will be equal to the initial stiffness
(K0 ). If the maximum displacement reached is larger than
the yielding displacement, but smaller than dcr (cracking
displacement), the unloading stiffness (Kd ) will depend
on the parameter , and on the maximum displacement
reached in that cycle, defined by Equation 2.
Kd =

Fp=.Fy

(3)

The "Pinching" effect is important for elements where the

shear behaviour is dominant. The pinching effect is represented dividing the reloading branch in sub-two branches
with different stiffness (Figure 6). The pinching effect is
controlled through the parameter , and depends on the
maximum displacement reached previously. The strength
degradation, for repeated cycles of certain distortion amplitude, was implemented considering interaction between
the degradation in shear of one direction in the other (see
Figure 7).

4. Calibration of the proposed shear

model
4.1.

Introduction

The proposed macro-model to simulate the shear behaviour

were calibrated using results obtained from a experimental
campaign at the research network ICONS, addressing the
seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing structures.

A simplified shear model for reinforced concrete elements subjected to reverse lateral loadings

The experimental research work includes several studies

carried out at the ELSA laboratory, at the JRC. Two fullscale four-storeys, three-bays reinforced concrete frames
representative of the existent RC structures (one as a bare
frame and other as a infilled frame), were designed, constructed and tested in sequence using pseudo-dynamic
testing procedures. The frames were subjected separately
to pseudo-dynamic tests to assess the earthquake performance of each, the bare concrete frame and the frame
structure with infill masonry walls (Figure 8) [21].

the late 1970s. The geometric characteristics column and

reinforcement details are shown in Figure 9(c).
The reinforcement steel used in the construction of the
frames had an average Young modulus of 204.5 GPa and
a min yielding strength of 343.6 MPa and the compressive strength tests on concrete reference specimens were
performed presents a mean value of 16.6 MPa [40].
The studied column was exhaustively instrumented (see
Figure 9(a)). For the tests, a set of 27 relative displacement transducers were installed on the column, located
as represented in Figure 9(a), witch allows to capture the
column deformation (in bending and in shear) at three
levels. To reproduce the measured deformations during the
tests, a simplified model of the column was built.

a)

(a)

Figure 8.

General view of the full-scale 4 storey RC frames.

The structure is represented by a plane frame model (considering three DOFs per node, i.e. two translations and
one rotation) with four storeys and three bays. The crosssections geometrical characteristics and the reinforcement
detailing of the columns and beams as well as the infill
masonry properties can be found in the literature [21].

4.2.

Results

To illustrate the ability of the proposed shear model, it was

simulated the response of the first storey strong column of
the ICONS frame [21]. The strong-column is characterized
a)
by a rectangular cross-section with dimensions of 0.60 m
0.25 m. The column reinforcement splicing, joints and
stirrup detailing should be noted in particular, as they
are representative of the lack of confinement common in
non-ductile reinforced concrete structures constructed until

b)
(b)

Figure 9.

(c)

Studied column: a) The storey instrumentation; b) Model

studied; c) Column reinforcement details

H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, A.G. Costa

200

The column was simulated with the following boundary

conditions (9(b)): a) displacements and rotations blocked
at the base; b) compression axial force was applied, corresponding to the vertical loading; c) imposed lateral displacement (Figure 10) and rotation (Figure 11) at the top
of the column, according to the measured results (local
instrumentation) during the tests. For the imposed conditions, it was performed two series of analysis. First, it was
considered only the bending behaviour. Secondly, it was
considered the bending and shear behaviour.

Experimental
Numeric

Shear (k N)

100

-100

-200
-2.00E-02

-1.00E-02

0.00E+00
Drift (m)

1.00E-02

2.00E-02

(a)

2.E-02

200

Displacement (m
D
m)

2.E-02
Experimental

1 E-02
1.E-02
5.E-03

100

Numeric

0.E+00
-5.E-03
5 E 03

10

20

-1.E-02
-2.E-02

Time (s)

-100

Figure 10.

Horizontal displacement imposed at the top of the column.

-200
-7.50E-03

-5.00E-03

-2.50E-03

0.00E+00

2.50E-03

5.00E-03

7.50E-03

(b)
8.E-03
6.E-03

Figure 13.

Rotation (rads)

4.E-03
2.E-03
0.E+00
-2.E-03 0

10

Shear-Top-Displacement, considering only bending behavior: (a) complete test; (b) detail.

20

-4.E-03
-6.E-03
-8.E-03

T ime (s)

Rotations imposed at the top of the column.

From the experimental results, the shear force attracted to

the strong-column was estimated as a parcel of the total
storey shear with simplified processes [38].
In the first analysis was modelled only the bending behaviour. Figure 12 illustrates the evolution of the shear
force in the column (numerical and experimental results).
Moreover Figure 13 shows the column shear-drift results.
200

Experimental

150

Numeric

Shear (kN)

100
50
0
-50 0

10

20

-100
-150
-200
Time (s)

200

Experimental

150

Numeric

100
Shear(kN)

Figure 11.

50
0
-50 0

10

20

-100
-150
-200
Ti (s)
Time
( )

Figure 14.

Column shear evolution in time considering bending and

shear behavior.

mechanism may not be able to accurately reproduce their

behavior under earthquake loading, particularly for higher
demands. The numerical results presented illustrates that
the combination of the bending and shear behavior provides
a better representation of the experimental results.

Column shear evolution considering only bending behavior.

In fact, from the analysis of the results, a close matching between the experimental results and the analytical
simulations with the model combining bending and shear
non-linear behavior was observed.

For the second analysis, it was modeled the response of

the strong column to the imposed boundary conditions,
considering the shear and bending behavior. Figure 14 is
presented the evolution of the shear force in the column
(numerical and experimental results). In Figure 15 are
represented the column shear-drift results.
From the results obtained, it can be concluded that in
RC columns with significant shear stiffness the bending

For the lower drift demand levels (see Figures 13(b) and
15(b)) both analyses, with and without considering the
shear contribution to the response, gives an approximate
representation of the strength and stiffness evolution observed in the test. However, the prediction of maximum
strength and post-yielding stiffness is not captured with the
model without considering the shear contribution, leading
to an error of about 35% in terms of maximum strength.

Figure 12.

A simplified shear model for reinforced concrete elements subjected to reverse lateral loadings

200

ric analyses to understand the influence of shear in the

behaviour of RC building subjected to earthquake loads.

p
Experimental
Numeric

Shear (kN
N)

100

Acknowledgments

-100

-200
-2.00E-02

-1.00E-02

0.00E+00

1.00E-02

2.00E-02

Drift (m)

(a)

The experimental data used in this paper was obtained

from two testing campaigns. The fist one developed at
laboratory of LNEC, in Lisbon, and the second at the ELSA
Laboratory of the Joint Research Centre, financed by the
European Commission, under the Training and Mobility of
Researchers programme, the TMR-Large-Scale Facilities
and the ICONS TMR-Network.

200
Experimental
Numeric

100

This paper reports research developed under financial

support provided by FCT Fundao para a Cincia e
Tecnologia, Portugal, through the PhD grant of the first
author, with reference SFRH/BD/63032/2009.

-100

-200
-7.50E-03

-5.00E-03

-2.50E-03

0.00E+00

2.50E-03

5.00E-03

7.50E-03

(b)

Figure 15.

5.

Column shear-drift results considering bending and shear

behaviour: (a) complete test; (b) detail.

Conclusions

Structural analysis programs that include non-linear models are valuable tools in the analysis and verification of
structural safety, providing the engineer with the capacity to represent more precisely the real behaviour of the
structures. For the design of new structures or capacity
assessment of existing ones, nonlinear analyses allow for
a better representation of the structural response under
any loading condition, and under earthquake loading in
particular.
The proposed shear model was able to accurately reproduce the experimental results, not only in terms of the
maximum shear and deformation values, but also in terms
the dissipated energy and hysteretic behaviour.
it is recognised that very limited information is available
on the hysteresis rules for shear response of RC columns.
Based on cyclic testing results available in the literature
on RC columns, and adopting a parametric simulation
analysis, best-fitting empirical expressions may be derived.
These expressions may be used in the simulation of the
shear behaviour of columns in the assessment of existing
building structures.
However, a more exhaustive testing campaign would help
to calibrate the proposed model. The program is now able
to take into account the shear behaviour of RC elements,
which can allow the development of exhaustive paramet-

References
[1] R. Vicente, H. Rodrigues, A. Costa, H. Varum, J.A.R.
Mendes da Silva, Masonry Enclosure Walls: Lessons
learnt from the recent Abruzzo Earthquake ECEES,
14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2010, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia, 30 August
03 September 2010
[2] H. Sezen, A.S. Whittaker, K.J. Elwood, K.M. Mosalam, Performance of reinforced concrete buildings
during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Turkey, Eng. Struct., Vol. 25, Issue 1 (January 2003), Pages 103114, ISSN 0141-0296, DOI:
10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00121-9
[3] H. Sezen, J.P. Moehle, Shear Strength Model for
Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns, J. Struct. Eng.,
ASCE, Vol. 130, Issue 11 (2004), pp. 16921703, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:11(1692)
[4] Paulay T., M.J.N. Priestly M.J.N., Seismic design of
reinforced concrete and masonry buildings, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. 1992
[5] R. Delgado, P. Delgado, N. Vila-Pouca, A. Arede, P.
Rocha, A. Costa, Shear effects on hollow section piers
under seismic actions: experimental and numerical
analysis, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Springer
Netherlands, Vol. 7, Issue 2 (2009), pp. 377389, Issn:
1570-761X, DOI: 10.1007/s10518-008-9098-x
[6] P. Ceresa, L. Petrini, R. Pinho, Flexure-Shear Fiber
Beam-Column Elements for Modeling Frame Structures Under Seismic Loading, State of the Art, J. Earthquake Eng., Vol. 11, Issue 1 (2007), supp. 1, pp. 1363
2469

H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, A.G. Costa

[7] Guedes J., Pegon P., Pinto A.V., A Fibre/Timoshenko

Beam Element in CASTEM 2000. Special Publication
Nr. I.94.31 Applied Mechanics Unit, Safety Technology Institute, Commission of the European Communities, Joint Research Centre, Ispra Establishment, Italy,
1994
[8] Ranzo G., Petrangeli M., A fibre finite beam element
with section shear modelling for seismic analysis of RC
structures. J. Earthquake Eng. 2 (1998), pp. 443473
[9] Martinelli L., The behavior of reinforced concrete
piers under strong seismic actions. Proceedings of the
Twelfth Word Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Auckland, New Zealand, 2000
[10] Karayannis C.G., Izzuddin B.A., Elnashai A.S., Application of adaptive analysis to reinforced concrete frames,
Journal of structural engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120,
N 10 (1994), pp. 29352957
[11] Melo J., Fernandes C., Varum H., Rodrigues H.,
Costa A., Arde A., Numerical modelling of the
cyclic behaviour of RC elements built with plain
reinforcing bars, Engineering Structures, Elsevier,
Vol. 33, Issue 2 (February 2011), pp. 273286, DOI:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.005
[12] Faria R., Oliver J., Cervera M., A strain-based plastic
viscous-damage model for massive concrete structures,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 35,
Issue 14 (1998), Pages 15331558, ISSN 0020-7683,
DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7683(97)00119-4
[13] Vecchio F.J., Collins M.P., Predicting the response of
reinforced concrete beams subjected to shear using
the modified compression field theory, ACI Structural
Journal 85 (1988), pp. 258268
[14] K. ElMandooh Galal, A. Ghobarah, Flexural and shear
hysteretic behaviour of reinforced concrete columns
with variable axial load, Eng. Struct., Vol. 25, Issue
11 (2003), Pages 13531367, ISSN 0141-0296, DOI:
10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00111-1
[15] DAmbrisi A, Filippou FC., Modeling of cyclic shear
behavior in RC members, J. Struct. Eng., Vol. 125 Issue
10 (1999), pp.11431150
[16] Shi-Yu X., Zhang J., Hysteretic shear-flexure interaction model of reinforced concrete columns for
seismic response assessment of bridges, Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 40, Issue 3 (2010), DOI:
10.1002/eqe.1030
[17] Belmouden Y., Lestuzzi P., Analytical model for predicting nonlinear reversed cyclic behaviour of reinforced concrete structural walls, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, Issue 7 (2006), pp.12631276, ISSN
0141-0296, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.08.014
[18] M.J. Favvata, B.A. Izzuddin, C.G. Karayannis, Modelling exterior beam column joints for seismic analysis of RC frame structures, Journal Earthquake Engi-

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]
[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

neering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 37 (2008), pp.

15271548
Rodrigues H., Romo X., Costa A., Varum H., (2009),
Integrated User-friendly Environment for A 2-D Nonlinear Analysis Program, International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, IJASE, ISSN 20083556, Vol. 1, N 2 (December 2009), pp. 111134
H. Varum, Modelo Numrico para a Anlise de Prticos Planos de Beto Armado, MSc Thesis, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Porto (in Portuguese), 1996
H. Varum, Seismic Assessment, Strengthening and
Repair of Existing Buildings, PhD Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Aveiro, 2003
A.G. Costa, Analise Sismica de Estruturas Irregulares
PhD Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University
of Porto (in Portuguese), 1989
CEB. Rc frames under earthquake loading. Technical
Report Bulletin 220, 1996
Costa A.C., Costa A.G., Hysteretic model of forcedisplacement relationships for seismic analysis of
structures National Laboratory for Civil Engineering,
Lisbon, 1987
Tsonos A.G., Cyclic load behavior of RC beam-column
subassemblages of modern structures, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 104, N 4 (2007), pp. 468478
Fernandes C., Melo J., Varum H., Costa A., Comparative
analysis of the cyclic behavior of beam-column joints
with plain and deformed reinforcing bars, IBRACON
Structures and Materials Journal, Vol. 4, N 1 (2011),
pp. 147172
Rodrigues H., Varum H., Costa A., A Non-Linear Masonry Infill Macro-Model to represent the Global Behaviour of Buildings under Cyclic Loading, Int. J. Mech.
Mater. Des., Springer Netherlands, ISSN 1569-1713
(Print) 15738841 (Online), Vol. 4, N 2 (2008), pp.
123135
J. Saravanan, G. Kumaran, Joint shear strength of FRP
reinforced concrete beam-column joints, Cent. Eur. J.
Eng., CEJE, Vol. 1 N 1 (2011), pp. 89102
FEMA-274, NHERP Commentary on the guidelines
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Applied Technology
Council, Washington, DC, October 1997
Moehle J.P., Mahin S.A., Observations on the
behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings during
earthquakes, ACI publication SP-127, EarthquakeResistant Concrete Structures: Inelastic Response
and Design, Ghosh, S.K. (ed.), 1991
Rodrigues H., Varum H., Costa A., Simplified MacroModel for Infill Masonry Panels, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 14, Issue 3 (2010), pp. 390416, DOI:
10.1080/13632460903086044

A simplified shear model for reinforced concrete elements subjected to reverse lateral loadings

[32] Galal K., Arafa A., Ghobarah A., Retrofit of RC square

short columns, Eng. Struct., Vol. 27, N 5 (2005), pp.
801813
[33] Tsonos A.G., Lateral load response of strengthened
reinforced concrete beam-to-column joints, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, N 1 (1999), pp. 4656
[34] Tsonos A.G., Improvement of the earthquake resistance
of R/C beam column joints under the influence of PDELTA effect and axial force variations using inclined
bars, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 18,
N 4 (2004), pp. 389410
[35] Fernandes C., Melo J., Varum H., Costa A., Cyclic
behavior of a two-span RC beam built with plain
reinforcing bars, Periodica Polytechnica (Civil Engineering), Vol. 55, Issue 1 (2011), pp. 2129, DOI:
10.3311/pp.ci.2011-1.03
[36] Rodrigues H., Arde A., Varum H., Costa A., Behaviour
of RC building columns under cyclic loading: experimental study, Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, JET,
World Scientific Publishing (in press).

[37] Chalioris C.E., Favvata M.J., Karayannis C.G., Reinforced concrete beam-column joints with crossed
inclined bars under cyclic deformations, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 37, N 6
(2011), pp. 881897x
[38] H. Rodrigues, Desenvolvimento e Calibrao de Modelos Numricos para a Anlise Ssmica de Edificios,
MSc Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University
of Porto, 2005 (in Portuguese)
[39] T. Takeda, M.A. Sozen, M.N. Nielsen, Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated Earthquakes, Journal
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 36 (1970), N ST12
[40] A.V. Pinto, G. Verzeletti, F.J. Molina, H. Varum,
E. Coelho, R. Pinho, Pseudo-dynamic tests on
non-seismic resisting RC frames (bare and selective
retrofit frames), EUR Report 20244 EN, ELSA,
JRC-Ispra, EC, Italy, 1999