Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

An efficient tension-stiffening model for nonlinear analysis of reinforced

concrete members
Renata S.B. Stramandinoli a,∗ , Henriette L. La Rovere b
a Civil Engineering Department, COPEL, Parana, Brazil
b Civil Engineering Department, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

Received 7 November 2006; received in revised form 16 October 2007; accepted 27 December 2007
Available online 25 February 2008

Abstract

A constitutive model for reinforced concrete elements that takes into account the tensile capacity of the intact concrete between cracks, effect
known as tension-stiffening, is proposed in this paper. In the model, the tensile stress–strain curve of concrete displays an exponential decay in the
post-cracking range, defined by a parameter that depends on the reinforcement ratio and on the steel-to-concrete modular ratio. This parameter
was derived taking as a basis the CEB tension-stiffening model. The model was implemented into a computational program that allows for
nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams. The numerical results obtained by the program compared extremely well with
several experimental results from simply supported beams tested under 4-point bending that displayed a dominant flexural behavior. Extension of
the model to members subjected to combined flexural and shear is also presented.
c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tension-stiffening; Finite elements; Reinforced concrete beams; Nonlinear analysis

1. Introduction Several models to represent the tension-stiffening effect have

It is well known that the intact concrete between cracks can
still carry tensile stresses after the onset of cracking in rein-
forced concrete (R/C) elements due to the bond between the re-
inforcing bars and the surrounding concrete. This effect, known
as tension-stiffening, was neglected in the past since it does not
significantly affect the ultimate strength of the reinforced con-
crete members. Since the 70s, however, the tensile behavior of
concrete was introduced in the analysis of load-deflection char-
acteristics of R/C elements, and since the 80s in design code
recommendations for service load level. It is also important to
consider tension-stiffening when evaluating the serviceability
of existing R/C structures. The tension-stiffening effect depends
on several factors, such as member dimensions, reinforcement
ratio, rebars diameters, and the materials elastic modulus and
strength. This effect occurs until yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement takes place, and it tends to increase as the rein-
forcement ratio of the member decreases.
∗ Corresponding address: Rua Pasteur, 413 ap.1502 – Batel, CEP: 80250-
080, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. Tel.: +55 41 91742486; fax: +55 41 33523090.
E-mail addresses: renatastramandinoli@hotmail.com
(R.S.B. Stramandinoli), henriette@ecv.ufsc.br (H.L. La Rovere).
already been proposed, ranging from simple to very refined
models of great degree of complexity. One of the simplest
models, but yet very well accepted by designers for beam
deformation calculations, is the model of Branson [1] which
considers an equivalent inertia for the cracked beam section.
The model developed by Cosenza [2] can also be quoted as a
simplified tension-stiffening model.
Quite a few models that modify the constitutive equation
of steel or concrete after cracking have also been proposed
for nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
structures. Among the models that modify the steel constitutive
equation it can be quoted: Gilbert and Warner [3], Choi and
Cheung [4] and the CEB manual design [5] model; and among
those that modify the concrete constitutive equation: Scanlon
and Murray [6], Lin and Scordelis [7], Collins and Vecchio [8],
Stevens et al. [9], Balakrishnan and Murray [10], Massicotte
et al. [11]. There are more complex models based on the
bond-slip mechanism and on localized phenomena such as
those of: Floegl and Mang [12], Gupta and Maestrini [13], Wu
et al. [14], Russo and Romano [15], Choi and Cheung [16] and
Kwak and Song [17]. These complex models, also known as
“microscopic models”, depend on a series of parameters that

c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.022
2070 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080

stress–strain curve of concrete is modified to take into account

Notation the tension-stiffening effect in an average way, are more widely
used. These so-called “macroscopic” models are easier to
Ac concrete area
implement and, by being simpler than the “microscopic” ones,
Ae f effective concrete area
they can be readily applied to analyze full-scale structures.
As reinforcement area
However, most macroscopic models oversimplify the tension-
d usual effective depth
stiffening effect by considering only one equation to describe
E ccr secant elastic modulus of concrete in the post-
the post-cracking range of the tensile stress–strain curve,
cracking range
independently of the member reinforcement ratio and material
E ci elastic modulus of concrete before cracking
properties.
Es elastic modulus of the reinforcing steel
Seeking a simple model that can represent more realistically
f cc concrete compressive strength
the tension-stiffening effect and at the same time be easily
f ct concrete tensile strength
implemented into finite element programs, we introduce in this
fy reinforcing steel yield stress
work a novel tension-stiffening model.
h nominal depth of the beam
The proposed model uses an exponential decay curve to
` member length
describe the post-cracking range of the tensile stress–strain
∆` total extension of a reinforced concrete member
law of concrete. The exponential decay parameter (α) is a
of length `
function of the member reinforcement ratio (ρ) and of the
N axial force
steel-to-concrete modular ratio (n = E s /E c ), and is derived
Ncr axial force at the onset of cracking
taking as basis the CEB [5] tension-stiffening model. Gupta
Ny axial force at yielding of reinforcement
and Maestrini [13] have also utilized an exponential curve
n steel-to-concrete modular ratio
to formulate a simplified tension-stiffening model and have
sh plastic-to-elastic modular ratio
obtained good correlation with experimental results.
x neutral axis depth
A brief review of the CEB [5] model is initially presented.
α exponential decay parameter of the
Next the model is proposed for members under direct tension
tension-stiffening model
and verified by comparison with other tension-stiffening
ε strain in the R/C member
models and also with experimental results obtained from
εcr strain corresponding to concrete tensile strength
pull-out tests on R/C bars. The proposed tension-stiffening
εs1 strain in the reinforcement in State I
model is then extended to members under bending, assuming
εs2 strain in the reinforcement in State II
that all cracks are orthogonal to the reinforcement. This
εs1r strain in the reinforcement in State I correspond-
model is implemented into a finite element program called
ing to stress σsr
ANALEST that allows for nonlinear analysis of reinforced
εs2r strain in the reinforcement in State II correspond-
concrete beams and plane frames. Application of the model to
ing to stress σsr
simply supported R/C beams tested under 4-point bending in
εsm average strain in the reinforcing steel
different research laboratories are presented in the sequence. In
εy reinforcing steel yield strain
all the examples, shear deformation, stirrups contribution, and
∆εs contribution of the concrete in tension between
geometric nonlinearities are neglected. A simplified approach
cracks
to further extend the tension-stiffening model to members under
∆εsmax maximum variation between the strains εs1 and
combined bending and shear is also described. Concluding
εs2
remarks are given at the end of the work.
ρ member reinforcement ratio
ρef effective reinforcement ratio
2. The CEB manual design model [5]
ρeq equivalent reinforcement ratio
θ angle between the x-direction and the principal
The CEB model developed for reinforced concrete members
direction 1.
subjected to tension considers the tension-stiffening effect
σct concrete tensile stress
through an increase in stiffness of the reinforcement. The
σs2 stress in the reinforcement at a cracked section
cracking mechanism of a reinforced concrete member subjected
under the applied load
to uniaxial tension can be observed in Fig. 1.
σsr stress in the reinforcement calculated on the basis
An equation for determining the stress–strain curve for the
of a cracked section, where the maximum stress
reinforcement is proposed in terms of an average strain, which
in the concrete under tension is equal to f ct
lies between the strain of an uncracked section (State I) and that
of a totally cracked section (State II):
are usually difficult to obtain, requiring specific experiments for
∆`
each particular member, hence they are not usually applied to εsm = = εs2 − ∆εs (1)
full-scale problems. `
Generally, the models that modify the constitutive equation where ∆` is the total extension of a reinforced concrete member
of concrete, in which the descending branch of the tensile of length ` subjected to an axial tensile force N which is
 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080
Fig. 1. Cracking mechanism of a reinforced concrete member subjected to
uniaxial tension: (a) reinforcement stress; (b) bond stress; (c) concrete stress
(CEB [5]).
Fig. 2. Stress–strain curve for the reinforcement (CEB [5]).
greater than the force Ncr which produces the first crack;
∆εs represents the contribution of concrete between cracks
which follows a hyperbolic relationship approaching the line
εs2 asymptotically for stresses in excess of σsr .
In the CEB Manual Design [5], the following expression for
∆εs , based on experimental results, is proposed:
σsr
∆εs = ∆εs max
σs2
where:
σsr is the stress in the reinforcement calculated on the basis
of a cracked section, where the maximum stress in the concrete
under tension is equal to f ct ;
σs2 is the stress in the reinforcement at a cracked section
under the applied load; and
∆εsmax is the maximum variation between the strains εs1
and εs2 which occurs at the beginning of the cracking process.
The definition of all these parameters can be better observed in
Fig. 2.
2071
An expression for the average strain can be obtained by
substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1):
σsr σsr
   
εsm = εs2 − ∆εs max = εs2 − (εs2r − εs1r ) ∴
σs2 σs2
εs2r σsr σsr
    
εsm = εs2 1 − + εs1r ∴
εs2 σs2 σs2
 2 "  2 #
σsr σsr
εsm = εs1 + 1 − εs2 (3)
σs2 σs2
where:
εs1r is the strain in the reinforcement in State I (uncracked
section) corresponding to stress σsr ;
εs2r is the strain in the reinforcement in State II
(totally cracked section without any concrete contribution)
corresponding to stress σsr .
Eqs. (1)–(3) were derived for pure tension, however, as
indicated in the CEB Manual [5], they are also valid for flexure.
Eq. (3) was derived assuming monotonic loading and high-bond
bars, but it was further modified to take into account cyclic
loading and the use of smooth bars.
This model presents a consistent theory to represent
the average post-cracking behavior of a reinforced concrete
member under tension. Since the proposed constitutive
equation is based on experimental results, it is also an accurate
model. However, as it can be observed from Eqs. (1)–(3), it
is difficult to be implemented into a finite element code, since
σs2 cannot be explicitly obtained from the average strain εsm .
A simplification of this model was proposed later on CEB-
FIP Model Code-90 [18] where a trilinear curve was utilized
to represent the “stress–average strain” relationship for the
reinforcement. This curve is an approximation of the original
curve shown in Fig. 2, with a bilinear branch adopted after
cracking instead of a continuous curve. D’Avila and Campos
Filho [19] proposed a trilinear curve for the tensile constitutive
equation of concrete in the post-cracking range, based on this
simplified model from CEB-FIP MC-90. A continuous curve,
however, is more desirable for computational implementation
into nonlinear finite element codes.
3. Proposed model
A novel tension-stiffening model that modifies the tensile
constitutive equation of concrete is proposed in the following.
(2)
The model uses an explicit formulation for the concrete
stress–strain curve and thus can be easily implemented into
a finite element code. Some features of the CEB manual
design [5] model instead of the CEB-FIP MC-90 [18] model are
utilized, therefore a continuous stress–strain curve is obtained
for the concrete in the post-cracking range providing numerical
stability in nonlinear finite element analysis of R/C members.
Concrete is assumed to behave like a linear-elastic material
until its tensile strength is reached, so that a straight line
defines initially the stress–strain curve. In the post-cracking
range, an exponential decay curve is adopted until yielding
of reinforcement takes place, and is defined by the following
2072 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080
equation:

ε
 N
σct = f ct e
−α εcr
where,
f ct is the concrete tensile strength and εcr is the
corresponding strain;
α is an exponential decay parameter to be determined.
In the absence of experimental results, the expression given
by CEB-FIP MC-90 [18] can be used to estimate f ct :
 2/3
fcc (MPa) − 8
fct (MPa) = 1.4 . (5)
10
An alternative way for determining an expression for α
would be by adjusting the experimental results from reinforced
concrete bars subjected to direct tension, by varying the
specimen longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρ) and material
properties. Many authors have conducted parametric studies
to investigate the influence of ρ and of material properties
(fracture energy or specimen diameter-to-length ratio, tensile-
to-bond strength ratio, etc. . . ), on tension-stiffening. Amongst
all properties, the reinforcement ratio is the one that has shown
the greatest influence on the tension-stiffening effect (Hegemier
et al. [20]).
Hence, instead of adjusting the experimental data, an
expression for the parameter α, defined as a function of the
member reinforcement ratio (ρ) and of the steel-to-concrete
modular ratio (n = E s /E c ), is derived in this paper, taking as
basis the CEB [5] model.
The same concept of average deformation (εsm ) and
its definition given by Eq. (3) is adopted. The concrete
stress–strain curve is determined through the analysis of a
reinforced concrete member subjected to direct tension. The
contribution of concrete between cracks can be observed from
the graphs displayed in Fig. 3. In this figure, point “a”
represents the onset of cracking; “b” defines the point where
the strain in the reinforcement for State II reaches the strain
at yield (εs2 = ε y ); and “c” the point where the strain in the
member reaches the strain at yield (ε = ε y ).
Additionally, it is assumed that the strain in the
reinforcement is equal to the strain in the surrounding concrete.
Thus, in the linear-elastic range and before the onset of
cracking, the strain in the R/C member can be determined by:
N yielding an exponential decay parameter α = 0.069.
ε=
E s As + E ci Ac
where:
E s is the elastic modulus of the reinforcing steel;
E ci is the elastic modulus of concrete before cracking;
As is the reinforcement area; and
Ac is the concrete area.
After cracking, the strain in the concrete between points “a”
and “b” in the curve shown in Fig. 3(b) is calculated by Eq. (3):
 2 "  2 #
σsr σsr
εc = εs = ε= εs1 + 1 − εs2 (7)
σs2 σs2
where:
(1 + nρ) f ct
σs2 = and σsr =
(4) As ρ
in which ρ is the reinforcement ratio equal to As /(Ac ).
The strain in the member after cracking is:
N
ε= (8)
E s As + E ccr Ac
where,
E ccr is an equivalent elastic modulus of concrete in the post-
cracking range, defined by the secant modulus:
σct
E ccr = (9)
ε
which varies according to the cracking level in the member.
Substituting Eqs. (7) and (9) into Eq. (8), the stress in the
concrete can be obtained by:
N − εE s As
σct = = σs2 ρ − εE s ρ. (10)
Ac
For tracing the concrete stress–strain curve between points “a”
and “b”, the values of ε are initially calculated using Eq. (6),
by varying the applied force N from Ncr (the axial force at
the onset of cracking) up to N y (the axial force at yielding
of reinforcement). From the obtained values for ε, the stress
in concrete is then calculated by means of Eq. (10). In the
descending branch where εs2 > ε y (from point “b” to point
“c”), a straight line is found until ε reaches the strain at yielding
of reinforcement, where the stress in concrete drops to zero.
Seeking an expression to determine the exponential decay
parameter α, several concrete stress–strain curves were initially
traced using the procedure described above, by varying the
material properties f ct and f y , and by selecting different
values of (nρ) for fixed values of f ct and f y . An exponential
curve, as defined by Eq. (4), was then adjusted to each traced
stress–strain curve. It was then observed that (nρ) was the most
important property to define the exponential decay parameter.
Hence, several exponential curves were fitted to the traced
concrete stress–strain curves by varying only (nρ), and a value
of α was found for each corresponding value of (nρ). The
curve fitting was made using the Mathcad 2001 program for
normalized concrete stress (σct / f ct ) versus strain curves. Fig. 4
illustrates an example of curve fitting obtained for (nρ) = 0.2,
(6)
An expression for the exponential decay parameter was then
derived by using all the obtained values of α for different values
of (nρ), as shown in Fig. 5. The best fit curve achieved was
a third degree polynomial (COR = 0.996), described by the
following equation:
α = 0.017 + 0.255 (nρ) − 0.106 (nρ)2 + 0.016 (nρ)3 . (11)
This tension-stiffening model was derived for R/C members
subjected to direct tension. Extension of the model to R/C
beams under bending, can be done by employing the effective
area concept that corresponds to the tensile zone in the member
 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080 2073

Fig. 3. Tension-stiffening effect in a reinforced concrete member under tension: (a) Applied force × strain curve for the R/C member, (b) Concrete stress–strain
curve.

0.1h, the above expression for the effective area simplifies to:
b.h
Aef ∼
= . (13)
4
Therefore, for R/C beams, an effective reinforcement ratio,
expressed as
As
ρef = (14)
Ae f
must be employed in Eq. (11).

4. Comparison of the proposed model with other

Fig. 4. Curve fitting for tensile stress–strain curve of concrete obtained for tension-stiffening models
nρ = 0.2.
To verify the validity of the proposed model, correlation
studies with other tension-stiffening models are initially
conducted. The proposed model is compared to some refined
tension-stiffening models, such as those of Gupta and
Maestrini [13], Kwak and Song [17], and also the CEB [5]
model that was utilized for deriving the proposed model.
Comparison is made in terms of tensile stress–strain curves
of concrete obtained from R/C bars under direct tension by
selecting two typical values of nρ: (i) nρ = 0.2, the same
value utilized in the previous example which yielded α = 0.064
for the exponential decay parameter in the proposed model
(see Eq. (11)); and (ii) nρ = 0.4, yielding α = 0.103 from
equation. (11). The resulting normalized stress versus strain
curves obtained by the different models for the two examples
Fig. 5. Curve fitting to obtain the exponential decay parameter (α) expression. can be seen in Fig. 6.
Analyzing the graphs of Fig. 6(a) and (b) it can be observed
section. An equation for this effective area is suggested in the that, as expected, the proposed model curves approach the
CEB-FIP MC-90: ones given by the CEB [5] model. For nρ = 0.4 the two
b(h − x) curves are almost coincident, and small differences are found
Ae f = 2.5b (h − d) < (12) for nρ = 0.2, due to the fact that a continuous curve was
3
derived in the proposed model from discrete points, obtained
where, using the CEB [5] model for a given nρ. The proposed model
h is the nominal depth of the beam, d is the usual effective also displays fairly good agreement with the models proposed
depth, and x is the neutral axis depth. by Gupta and Maestrini [13] and Kwak and Song [17].
Recalling that in R/C beams under bending the relationship Next, the model is compared to two simplified models
between nominal and effective depth is usually given by h−d ∼= commonly employed in finite element analysis of R/C
2074 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080

Fig. 6. Comparison of different tension-stiffening models: (a) nρ = 0.2; (b) nρ = 0.4.

Fig. 7. Comparison of tension-stiffening models: (a) Collins and Vecchio [8] and bilinear model [21]; (b) the simplified models and the proposed model for different
values of nρ.

members: Collins and Vecchio [8] and a bilinear model
(Figueiras [21]), shown in Fig. 7(a). Three values of nρ
have been selected for the proposed model application. A
comparison of the tensile stress–strain curves given by the
proposed and other simplified models is shown in Fig. 7(b).
As it can be noted from this figure, the simplified models
are not able to consider the effect of different reinforcement
ratios on tension-stiffening. This fact shows the advantage of
a model such as the present, which takes into account this
effect. Therefore, our model combines an accuracy comparable
to more refined models with the ease of implementation as other
simplified models.
5. Comparison of the proposed model with experiments —
pull-out tests
To further verify the validity of the proposed model,
comparisons with experiments are also performed. Two pull-out
tests on reinforced concrete bars have been selected. The first
one, V3, tested by Rostásy et al., apud Massicotte et al. [11],
uses a bar of 6 m length and cross-section dimensions of
30 cm × 50 cm. The longitudinal steel ratio is 0.67%, and
the material properties are as follows: f ct = 1.17 MPa; E c =
10 GPa; f y = 526 MPa; E s = 197 GPa. The resulting value for
α from Eq. (11) is 0.049. Fig. 8 shows the stress (MPa) versus
strain (h) curves, obtained experimentally and numerically
using Eq. (4).
The second test was conducted by Hwang and Riskalla, apud
Gupta and Maestrini [13], in a study of tension members. The
case chosen for comparison is example number 7, which uses a
bar of 76.2 cm length and cross-section of 17.8 cm × 30.5 cm.
The longitudinal steel ratio is 1.476%, and the materials have
the following properties: f ct = 2.62 MPa; Ec = 27.8 GPa;
f y = 469 MPa; E s = 199 GPa. The resulting value for α from
Eq. (11) is 0.043. Fig. 9 shows the stress (MPa) versus strain
(h) graph, obtained experimentally and numerically using Eq.
(4).
It can be observed from Figs. 8 and 9 that the proposed TS
model can reproduce very well the experimental behavior. The
 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080
Fig. 8. Comparison between numerical and experimental results for V3
member tested by Rostásy et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison between numerical and experimental results for # 7
member tested by Hwang and Riskalla.
model shows only a slightly stiffer behavior at the end of the
tests, near the onset of yielding in the reinforcing steel.
6. Finite element model for R/C beams
The proposed tension-stiffening model was introduced into
a nonlinear finite element model, which was then implemented
into a computational program called ANALEST. The program
allows for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete beams, and
both geometric and material nonlinearity can be considered.
A 2D finite element bar with two external nodes and three
degrees of freedom each, and one internal node with only
one axial degree of freedom is employed (Mari, [22]). As
shown by Chan [23], the internal node needs to be included
to properly capture the variation of the neutral axis position
due to material nonlinearities. Three Gauss points have been
used for the numerical integration of the stiffness matrix and
the restoring force vector along the length of the element.
The fiber model is employed, discretizing the element section
into layers, with each layer assumed to be under a uniaxial
stress-state. The finite element model allows for the complete
response of a reinforced concrete member under bending,
from its elastic phase, passing by cracking of the concrete
and yielding of reinforcement, until collapse is reached. The
model neglects shear deformation and is limited to members
2075
that display dominant bending behavior, with orthogonal cracks
to the longitudinal reinforcement. Either the Hognestad [24]
parabola or the constitutive equations given by the CEB-FIP
MC-90 [18] can be employed for the compressive stress–strain
law of concrete. Confinement provided by stirrups can also
be considered, by using a modified compressive law (Mander
et al. [25]). The proposed tension-stiffening model is utilized
to represent the tensile behavior of concrete, with the slight
modification in the stress–strain curve shown in Fig. 3(b): the
concrete stress drops to zero directly when the strain in the
member reaches the strain at yield of reinforcement, ε = ε y ,
hence a straight line orthogonal to the horizontal axis, between
points b and c, defines the cut-off. This modification simplifies
the numerical implementation and does not significantly alter
the overall behavior of the R/C member. It is assumed that
the reinforcing steel is an elasto-plastic material, modeled by a
bilinear stress–strain curve. To avoid convergence problems and
oscillations in the numerical iterative process, a parabolic curve
is fitted between the elastic and plastic branches of the bilinear
stress–strain curve, between 0.8 and 1.2ε y . Strain hardening of
the reinforcing steel may or may not be considered, through the
use of a coefficient sh , which is the plastic-to-elastic modular
ratio (sh = 0 for perfectly plastic steel). Either the classic
Newton–Raphson iterative Methods (load control) or the Arc-
length Method of Riks in conjunction with Newton iterative
procedures can be employed to solve the nonlinear equilibrium
equations. The convergence criterion is based on the ratio of
the norm of residual forces to the norm of applied forces and
reactions. Several parametric studies have been conducted by
La Rovere et al. [26] to investigate the effect of mesh size,
number of layers for element section discretization, variation
in material properties, etc., in the flexural behavior of R/C
members.
Some conclusions from these studies are reproduced here:
(1) no dependence on mesh size was observed when tension-
stiffening is included, showing objectivity of results; (2) fewer
elements are needed to model the members when the internal
node with axial degree of freedom is included; (3) 12 layers
are usually sufficient to discretize the member section; (4)
the tension-stiffening parameter α usually plays a significant
role in the post-cracking response of the member; and (5) no
significant difference is observed when different equations (the
Hognestad parabola or the equation from CEB-FIP MC-90) are
employed to describe the compressive constitutive behavior of
concrete.
7. Comparison of FE analyses with experiments — beam
tests
To investigate the reliability of the finite element model and
ANALEST program, comparisons with experimental tests on
reinforced concrete beams have been performed. Since the FE
model is limited to members that display dominant bending
behavior, beams subjected to 4-point bending that displayed
a typical flexural failure, without significant development of
shear cracks, were selected for the comparison. Four beams
tested by different researchers from different countries were
2076 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080

Fig. 10. Tested beam (VRE) geometry, load application and support positions (Ferrari [27]).

Fig. 11. Tested beams (VT1 and VT2) geometry and reinforcement; load application and support positions (Beber [28]).

selected, taking also as basis a certain variation on the α
parameter (ranging from 0.037 to 0.094), in order to validate
the proposed tension-stiffening model. Larger values of α
parameter need not to be considered, since when α > 0.1 the
tension-stiffening effect becomes very small.
The beams analyzed are:
– VRE tested by Ferrari [27], at the Federal University of
Santa Catarina, Brazil.
– VT1 and VT2 tested by Beber [28], at the Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil;
– VB6 and VC3 tested by Juvandes [29], at the University of
Porto, Portugal;
Figs. 10–13 illustrate the beam dimensions, reinforcing
detailing, the tests set-up showing the load application and
support positions, and the finite element meshes adopted for
the beam models.
Two analyses were performed with ANALEST program for
each example, one considering the proposed tension-stiffening
model and the other without tension-stiffening consideration.
In all analyses, geometric nonlinearities are neglected and the
Newton–Raphson Method (tangent stiffness) was employed.
Confinement provided by stirrups is disregarded, with the
Hognestad parabola being adopted for the compressive
constitutive law of concrete.
The material properties used in the finite element models are
condensed in Table 1. Comparison between FE analyses and
experiments are shown in Figs. 14–17, for the beams VRE, VT1
and VT2, VB6 and VC3, respectively, in terms of total applied
vertical load versus mid-span vertical displacement graphs.
A close agreement between numerical and experimental
results is observed for the beam VRE, in both the elastic
and the post-cracking range of the beam. The yield load
 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080 2077

Fig. 12. Tested beam (VB6) geometry and reinforcement; load application and support positions (Juvandes [29]).

Fig. 13. Tested beam (VC3) geometry and reinforcement; load application and support positions (Juvandes [29]).

Table 1
Material properties utilized in the finite element analyses of beam examples

Concrete Tension-stiffening Steel

Beam f cm (MPa) f tm (MPa) εo n ρeff (%) α φ (mm) f y (MPa) E s (GPa) s.h.
VRE 30.7 2.95 0.0020 6.19 1.33 0.037 6 767.5 210 0.016
8 545.8 210 0.01
VT1/VT2 33.5 2.62 0.0020 6.39 1.50 0.040 6 738 214.8 0.016
10 565 214.8 0.000
VB6 37.9 2.90 0.0023 5.37 4.47 0.072 3 192 174 0.001
8 497 195 0.0042
VC3 20.7 1.60 0.0020 9.00 3.80 0.093 12.5 507 184.6 0.0014

predicted analytically was 34 kN, while in the experiment
the measured value was between 33 and 35 kN. When no
strain hardening is considered, no convergence of the iterative
procedure could be achieved in the analysis after yielding of
the steel reinforcement, either using the Newton–Raphson or
the Arc-length Method. By adopting a small strain hardening
coefficient for the longitudinal reinforcement, sh = 0.01,
three more load increments of 0.5 kN could be applied after
yielding, reaching an ultimate displacement of 30 mm. For
the analysis without considering the tension-stiffening effect
(NO T.S.), a much more flexible response is observed, however
yielding of reinforcement could be captured and an horizontal
load-displacement threshold is displayed, as it can be seen in
Fig. 14. In the experimental test, Ferrari reported yielding of
reinforcement and large deflections of the beam near to failure,
as it can be observed from Fig. 14; however, the instruments
have been removed from the specimen prior to failure, thus
hindering the measurement of ultimate displacement.
For the beams VT1 and VT2, it can be observed from
Fig. 15 that the FE model can capture very well the ascending
branch of the curve and approaches well the experimental
curves after the onset of cracking when tension-stiffening of
concrete is considered. The numerical model shows a slightly
stiffer response until a total applied load of 30 kN is reached,
but beyond that load a close agreement to the experimental
curves is observed. For the analysis without tension-stiffening
(NO T.S.) consideration, the finite element model shows a
much more flexible response as compared to the experimental
2078 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080
Fig. 14. Comparison between numerical (ANALEST) and experimental results
for the beam VRE.
Fig. 15. Comparison between numerical (ANALEST) and experimental results
for the beams VT1/VT2.
Fig. 16. Comparison between numerical (ANALEST) and experimental results
for the beam VB6.
curves. The onset of yielding of reinforcement was accurately
captured by the finite element model, corresponding to a total
applied load of 44 kN. However, the post-yielding response
of the beams and the ultimate displacement could not be
measured experimentally, since the instruments have been
removed from the specimens to avoid damage. The ultimate
total load measured experimentally was 47 kN, while the
Fig. 17. Comparison between numerical (ANALEST) and experimental results
for the beam VC3.
numerical value obtained at failure by the program ANALEST
was 46 kN.
An excellent agreement can be observed from Fig. 16
by comparison between the numerical analysis and the
experimental test on the beam VB6. The numerical model
is only a little stiffer at the beam elastic range, before the
onset of cracking, region more susceptible to instrumentation
imprecision. For the analysis without considering tension-
stiffening (NO T.S.), a more flexible response is again observed,
showing the importance of considering the tension-stiffening
effect in the beam post-cracking behavior. The finite element
model predicted very well the ultimate load, but a smaller
value for the corresponding displacement was obtained by the
ANALEST program.
For the beam VC3, the comparison between analysis and
experiment shows an excellent agreement in the elastic range
(see Fig. 17), but beyond that, for loads higher than 25
kN, the numerical model becomes slightly stiffer than the
experimental model. In this example, the analytical curves
obtained considering and not considering tension-stiffening
(NO T.S.) are very close, since for this beam the elastic modulus
of concrete is low, yielding a high value for the modular ratio n,
which results in a high value for the α parameter, and therefore
the tension-stiffening effect becomes very small.
8. Extension of the TS model to 2D constitutive models
In order to extend the TS model to allow for the use in 2D
constitutive models, by taking into account the angle between
the cracks and the reinforcing bars, a simplified approach is
introduced. The tensile constitutive equation for concrete is
defined in the principal direction 1, hence in Eq. (4) σc1 should
be used instead of σct , and the α parameter is calculated from
Eq. (11) by using an equivalent reinforcement ratio, ρeq , defined
by:
ρeq = ρx cos2 θ + ρ y sin2 θ (15)
where: ρx is the reinforcement ratio in the x-direction;
ρ y is the reinforcement ratio in the y-direction and
θ is the angle between x-direction and principal direction 1.
 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080
Fig. 18. 2D cracking parameters.
These parameters are illustrated in Fig. 18.
With this modification the TS model can also be applied
to beams (or planar elements) subjected to combined bending
and shear. This modified TS model was implemented more
recently into the ANALEST program, by considering the
Timoshenko beam theory in the FE formulation, which takes
shear deformation into account. Each section layer is then
considered under a biaxial stress state, and the 2D constitutive
model developed by Collins and Vecchio [8] is adopted. This
Timoshenko beam element is more suitable for members where
significant shear cracks develop, and it has shown excellent
correlation with experimental results from 3-point bending tests
on beams with low transverse reinforcement ratio (Bresler and
Scordelis [30]) and also from plane frame tests (Vecchio and
Balopolou [31]; Ernst et al. [32]).
9. Conclusions
In this work a novel tension-stiffening model for reinforced
concrete members is developed. An exponential decay curve is
utilized for the concrete tensile stress–strain curve in the post-
cracking range. The exponential decay parameter (α) is defined
as a function of the reinforcement ratio (ρ) and of the steel-
to-concrete modular ratio (n), and is derived taking as a basis
the CEB [5] tension-stiffening model. The model is initially
validated by comparison with other tension-stiffening models
and also with experimental pull-out tests on R/C bars. The
proposed tension-stiffening model is implemented into a finite
element program, named ANALEST, that allows for nonlinear
analysis of reinforced concrete beams that display a dominant
flexural behavior. The program is then applied to analyze
several beams tested under 4-point bending in different research
laboratories. Comparison between numerical and experimental
results, in terms of load-displacement curves, showed very good
agreement. The analyses showed that the tension-stiffening
effect plays an important role in the post-cracking behavior,
especially for the beams with α ≤ 0.072. The proposed tension-
stiffening model proved to be very efficient allowing both,
easy implementation and numerical stability and, additionally,
representing the concrete tension-stiffening effect in reinforced
concrete members with different reinforcing and modular
ratios. The proposed tension-stiffening model can also be
extended to planar members when the crack angle with respect
to the longitudinal rebars is different from 90◦ by means of
an equivalent reinforcing ratio. The ANALEST program has
2079
already been extended for planar members under combined
flexural and shear (Stramandinoli [33]), by using a Timoshenko
beam element in conjunction with the 2D smeared and rotating-
cracked model, proposed by Collins and Vecchio [8], and the
modified TS model proposed in this work. Very good results
have then been obtained by comparison with experimental
testing on beams and planar frames that showed significant
shear distress. For those examples of beams under combined
bending and shear where flexural cracks are dominant, the
Bernoulli beam element still gives very good results in the post-
cracking range, at service loads. The ANALEST program is
currently been extended to also allow for the analysis of 3D
reinforced concrete frames.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the scholarship granted
by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientı́fico e
Tecnológico (CNPq) to the first author of this paper. Thanks
are also due to researchers Juvandes, L.F.P.; Beber A.J. and
Ferrari, V.J. for making available the experimental data used
in this work.
References
[1] Branson DE. Design procedures for computing deflection. ACI Journal
1968;65(8):730–42.
[2] Cosenza E. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete elements in a
cracked state. Computers and Structures 1990;36(1):71–9.
[3] Gilbert RI, Warner RF. Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete slabs.
Journal of the Structural Division ASCE 1978;104(2):1885–900.
[4] Choi CK, Cheung SH. A simplified model for predicting the shear
response of reinforced concrete membranes. Thin-Walled Structures
1994;19:37–60.
[5] CEB. Cracking and deformation. Bulletin d’information N ◦ 158. Paris,
France; 1985.
[6] Scanlon A, Murray DW. Time-dependent reinforced concrete slab
deflections. Journal of the Structural Division 1974;100(8):1911–24.
[7] Lin CS, Scordelis AC. Nonlinear analysis of RC shells of general form.
Journal of the Structural Division ASCE 1975;101(3):523–38.
[8] Collins MP, Vecchio FJ. The modified compression-field theory for
reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Journal 1986;83(2):
219–31.
[9] Stevens NJ, Uzumeri SM, Collins MP. Analytical modeling of reinforced
concrete subjected to monotonic and reversed loadings. Report. Canada:
University of Toronto; 1987.
[10] Balakrishnan S, Murray DW. Concrete constitutive model for NLFE
analysis of structures. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1988;
114(7):1449–66.
[11] Massicote B, Elwi AE, MacGregor JG. Tension-stiffening model for
planar reinforced concrete members. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 1990;106(11):3039–58.
[12] Floegl H, Mang HA. Tension stiffening concept based on bond slip.
Journal of the Structural Division ASCE 1982;108(12):2681–701.
[13] Gupta A, Maestrini SR. Tension-stiffness model for reinforced concrete
bars. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1990;116(3):769–91.
[14] Wu Z, Yoshikawa H, Tanabe T. Tension stiffness model for cracked
reinforced concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1991;
117(3):715–32.
[15] Russo G, Romano F. Cracking response of RC members subjected to
uniaxial tension. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1992;118(5):
1172–90.
[16] Choi CK, Cheung SH. Tension stiffening model for planar reinforced
concrete members. Computers and Structures 1996;59(1):179–90.
2080 R.S.B. Stramandinoli, H.L. La Rovere / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 2069–2080
[17] Kwak HG, Song JY. Cracking analysis of RC members using polynomial
strain distribution function. Engineering Structures 2002;24:455–68.
[18] CEB-FIP Model Code 90. Design code. London (England); 1993.
[19] D’Avila VMR, Campos Filho A. Estudo Comparativo entre as Formas
Distribuı́da e Incorporada de Representação da Fissuração em Peças de
Concreto Armado via Método dos Elementos Finitos. Paper presented
at V Simpósio EPUSP sobre Estruturas de Concreto. São Paulo (Brazil);
2003.
[20] Hegemier GA, Murakami H, Hageman LJ. On tension stiffening in
reinforced concrete. Mechanics of Materials 1985;4(2):161–79.
[21] Figueiras JA. Practical approach for modeling the nonlinear response of
RC shells. Computational Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures
1986;217–53.
[22] Mari AR. Nonlinear geometric, material and time dependent analysis of
three dimensional reinforced and prestressed concrete frames. Report.
Berkeley (California): University of California; 1984.
[23] Chan EC. Nonlinear geometric, material and time dependent analysis
of reinforced concrete shells with edge beams. Ph.D thesis. Berkeley,
(California): University of California; 1982.
[24] Hognestad E. A study of combined bending and axial load in reinforced
concrete members. Bulletin Series 1951, 399:128. Urbana (Illinois):
University of Illinois.
[25] Mander JB, Priestley JN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for
confined concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1988;14(8):
1804–26.
[26] La Rovere HL, Chimello AA, Stramandinoli RSB. Modelo de Elementos
Finitos de Barra (2D) para Análise Não Linear de Vigas de Concreto
Armado. Paper presented at XXIV CILAMCE (Iberian Latin American
congress on computational methods in engineering). Ouro Preto, Minas
Gerais, Brazil; 2003.
[27] Ferrari VJ. Reforço à Flexão em Vigas de Concreto Armado com
Manta de Fibras de Carbono: Mecanismos de Incremento de Ancoragem.
Disseration. Florianópolis (Brazil): Federal University of Santa Catarina;
2002.
[28] Beber AJ. Avaliação do Desempenho de Vigas de Concreto Armado
Reforçadas com Lâminas de Fibra de Carbono. Dissertation. Porto Alegre
(Brazil): Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul; 1999.
[29] Juvandes LFP. Reforço e Reabilitação de Estruturas de Betão Usando
Materiais Compósitos de “CFRP”. Ph.D. thesis. Portugal: University of
Porto; 1999.
[30] Bresler B, Scordelis AC. Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams.
ACI Journal 1963;60(1):51–74.
[31] Vecchio FJ, Balopolou S. On the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete
frames. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1990;17:698–704.
[32] Ernst GC, et al. Basic reinforced concrete frame performance under
vertical and lateral loads. ACI Journal 1973;70(4):261–9.
[33] Stramandinoli RSB. Modelos de elementos finitos para análise não linear
fı́sica e geométrica de vigas e pórticos planos de concreto armado.
Ph.D. thesis. Florianópolis (Brasil): Federal University of Santa Catarina;
2007.