ACI JOURNA TECHNICAL PAPER Title no. 83.22, The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear Ra by Frank J. Vecchio and Michael P. Collins An analytical mode! is presented that is capable of predicting the Toad-deformation response of reinforced concrete elements subjected to in-plane shear and normal sireses In the model cracked concrete Is treated as @ ew material with its own strexstrain characters. Equilibrium, compatibility, and stress-strain relationships are for- ‘mulated in terms of average stresses and average sirains. Considers tion is also given 10 loca stress conditions at crack locations. ‘The strese-strain relationships forthe cracked concrete mere deter ‘mined by testing 30 reinforced coneete panels under a variety of wel: defined uniform biaxial stresses including pure shear. It was found ‘thot eracked concrete subjected to high tensile strains inthe direction ‘normal tothe compression is softer and weaker In compression than concrete in a standard eylindr test. Additionally, significant tensile streses were found inthe concrete between the cracks even at very high values of average tensile train, Keywords gasp neck al loud ods cracking rata: cack with and spacing ite element metho shore s¥ctues ee force concrete; shear stegih illoes Siesta etalon: anal enon: test ‘The safety of large-scale, complex civil engineering structures such as offshore oil platforms, containment structures for nuclear power plants, high-rise buildings, and long-span bridges depends on the designer’s ability to predict how such structures will respond under ex- treme environmental and man-made hazards. In mak- ing this prediction, the designer typically conceptual- izes the actual structure as an assemblage of simpler elements. Predicting the structural response then in- volves the two interrelated tasks of determining how the load is shared among the elements of the structure (global analysis) and how each element responds to its applied loads (clement analysis). During the last 25 years, techniques have been devel- oped for global analysis which are truly impressive in their power and elegance." Unfortunately, the models available for reinforced concrete element analysis*” match neither the sophistication of the global struc tural analysis procedures nor the computational power now available to the structural engineer. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 Fig. 1 — Structures idealized as an assemblage of ‘membrane elements This paper will focus on the response of rectangular reinforced concrete elements subjected to in-plane shear and axial stresses (i.e., membrane stresses). Such a membrane element may be used in modeling the re~ sponse of such structures as those shown in Fig. 1, Where the load is primarily carried through the action of in-plane stresses. Predicting the response of the simple reinforced con- crete element shown in Fig, 1 is not as straightforward a task as it would first appear. Under a particular set of loads, new cracks may form, pre-existing cracks may propagate or close, and the forces will be resisted by a structural system consisting of concrete bodies joined by reinforcing bars. The stresses in the reinforcing bars will vary along the lengths of the bars, and will be highest at the crack locations. The concrete bodies will copyright 8 i, amesan Cont ns, lat see lng 219“ACI member Frank 1. Vachs a estan professor i the Department of Civ naincering a the Unrsiy of Toronto Prior oinig the uiversiy he war gvrctra research engine? with Ontario Mo. where he wa ‘edn rear lated 10th anasis and dsm of reinforced eoneree me Cine power plat sacar. He ta member of ACI Commitee 48, Deflee ton of Since, Micha P. Clin, FACI. 9 profesor mth Deparment of ii Engineer Ine a ibe Univerty of Faron Hes chien of Jit ACL ASCE Comm {te 44, Shor and Toron charm ofthe Canaan Standards Asseaion {1€34) Technol Commitee S474 Corte Oftivoe Stace, o Canadian (deez o Com Euro-Inenational tu Beton: e member of CSA Technica! CComminee A2tt.Refored Cont Design anda member of ACI Comi- lee 8, Conte Gaiden, ond ED), Scholarship: and of Subcommee TSE, Shear ond Toston te hs ate constant he sear even of Conder concrete oie platforms. be bounded by rough crack surfaces capable of trans- mitting shear and compression at the contact locations, but not capable of transmitting tension. However, ten- sile stresses will exist in the concrete lying between the cracks. To date, there is no accepted theory capable of predicting the full load-deformation response of such aan element. This was made evident in a recent interna- tional competition’ in which 43 leading researchers from 13 different countries attempted to predict the Toad-deformation response of 4 of the reinforced con- crete panels which were tested in this investigation. For ‘one of the elements (PV2S in Table 1), the ratio of the highest to lowest prediction of strength was six to one. Not even the best entry was capable of predicting strengths ¢0 within 15 percent for each of the four panels. It should be emphasized that in choosing the four elements for the competition, elements whose be- havior would be difficult to predict were deliberately chosen; thus, in none of the elements was the load ca- pacity governed by overall yielding of the reinforce- ment. The predictions were strongly dependent on the assumed stress-strain characteristics of the concrete. While such heavily reinforced elements subjected to high shear are unusual in typical buildings, they often ‘occur in offshore platforms and nuclear containment structures. The modified compression-field theory presented here has been developed from the compression-field theory" for reinforced concrete in torsion and shear. In both models, the cracked concrete is treated as a new ‘material with its own stress-strain characteristics. Equi- librium, compatibility, and stress-strain relationships are formulated in terms of average stresses and average strains. While the original compression-field theory ignored tension in the cracked concrete, this model takes into account tensile stresses in the concrete be- tween the cracks, and employs experimentally verified average stress-average strain relationships for the cracked concrete. DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM ‘The membrane element shown in Fig. 2 represents a portion of a reinforced concrete structure. It is taken to be of uniform thickness and relatively small size, and Table 1 — Summary of experimental program Tomstadloat [rransene we! | Cone Experimental obarvaions 2 si wes Lee, [7] _ Commens 0.0168) 221 0.91] 1.04] 0.48 | Edge failure Sons ii O38) 885] 80 |Presattel warps oon te tgs] 093] ar | Sera ate Slee 1% {Si Sa] oi Hea iB G90] 0391 030 | ede ature 0079 2.00 a6] 58] 0.23 201 is agi] 098] 038 |e ature ote fe 36] 889] 08 [Ese are oon (38 133] 043) Pos [Pobayen— via Sle tas Amer eS oor 1.66 128| 237]oa1 teas ts aio] 331) 834 ° iB tal] 36) 037 asin 13s 033], 836) 027 leds ature Sonne 2 =33|_ O14) 038 |Lontine stopp 0.00 har aa) aa tone zs isi] Oa Sons a0 ae) 835 econ i 33] 338 sites an | ade | 8] S55)? Pyai 00 ‘53 [ooro! 235 | 303 | 039] 3s9foan Fvz| toe SF [oni EQ | eer | O83] 338i) 03 FYB 1-0.9-039 Se [ooi| 3H | 8m | of) 024/233 Frai|tos-aes ae (dois 292 | =4i5e | -0'8] -0°08] 033 | oon ca — vids PVE L068: 08 [poi Phe eA Pv] oar 56 [oo 20 | sa | ose] isl oss Fat] toe. loos] 2S [oor 38 | 83h | 038] ad8/ 0 Pv28| 1052032 nol] 43 [oor ise | $80 | S33] O83] 38 PV39| ‘Changing |0.0179| at |O.000 2S | Sm | 033] To] oat Fvso| SEsee [oor] Sy [osior £38 | 9313 | S81] 038] 039 [ede ature ‘Precracked a Waal eson ‘ater. Notes MES = 145 ps 220 ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986ey HL Fig. 2 — Membrane element contains an orthogonal grid of reinforcement with the longitudinal (x) and transverse (») axes chosen to coin- cide with the reinforcement directions. Loads acting on the element's edge planes are assumed to consist of the uniform axial stresses f, and f, and the uniform shear stress v,,. Deformation of the element is assumed to oc- cur such that the edges remain straight and parallel. The deformed shape is defined by the two normal strains ¢, and ¢, and the shear strain, 7... ‘The problem at hand is to determine how the three in-plane stresses f, , and v,, are related to the three in- plane strains ¢, ¢,, and 7,. In solving this problem, the following additional assumptions will be made: 1. For each strain state there exists only one corre- sponding stress state; situations in which the influence of loading history is significant will not be treated. 2. Stresses and strains can be considered in terms of average values when taken over areas or distances large ‘enough to include several cracks. 3. The concrete and the reinforcing bars are per- fectly bonded together at the boundaries of the element (e., no overall sip). 4" The longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars are uniformly distributed over the element. Tensile stresses and tensile strains will be treated as positive quantities while compressive stresses and strains will be taken as negative. COMPATIBILITY CONDITIONS Having assumed that the reinforcement is anchored to the concrete, compatibility requires that any defor- ‘mation experienced by the concrete must be matched by an identical deformation of the reinforcement. Any ‘change in concrete strain will be accompanied by an ‘equal change in steel strain. ‘Nomprestressed reinforcement has the same initial strain as the surrounding concrete. Hence wo and @ ACI JOURNAL J March-April 1986 (a) Average Strains in Cracked Element (b) Mohr’s Gircle for Average Strains Fig. 3 — Compatibility conditions for cracked element If the three strain components ¢,, ¢,, and 7,, are known, then the strain in any other direction can be found from geometry. The Mohr’s circle of strain shown in Fig. 3 elegantly summarizes the transforma tions involved. Useful relationships which can be de- rived from its geometry include e 4) 6) 221(©) Principal st in Concrete Fig, 5 — Stresses in cracked concrete 222 where ¢; is the principal tensile strain and ¢ is the pri cipal compressive strain. EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS ‘The forces applied to the reinforced concrete element are resisted by stresses in the conerete and stresses in the reinforcement. For the free-body diagram shown in Fig. 4, the requirement that the forces sum to zero in the x-direction can be written as [ida = [faa + [i.dA, © Ignoring the small reduction in concrete cross-sectional area due to the presence of reinforcing bars, Eq. (6) becomes So Son + Oa Sow o In a similar fashion, the following equilibrium condi- tions can be derived Se = Say t+ Py Sy @) Yo = Ven + Pas” Yo 0 and Vy + Bo Ys (19) Assuming that the stress conditions in the conerete are fully defined if fu Son and Va, are known. ‘The Mohr’s circle for the concrete stresses shown in Fig. 5 yields the following useful relationships Sas = fn ~ Veo! tan, ay fy — Nog * tan, «zy and Sa = fa ~ Vay? (tand, + V/tanb) (13) STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS Constitutive relationships are required to link aver- age stresses to average strains for both the reinforce- ment and the concrete. These average stress-average strain relations may differ significantly from the usual local stress-local strain relations determined from stan- dard material tests. Furthermore, the average stress-av- cage strain relationships for the reinforcement and for the concrete will not be completely independent of each other, although this will be assumed to maintain the simplicity of the model. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986‘The axial stress in the reinforcement will be assumed to depend on only one strain parameter, the axial strain in the reinforcement. It will be assumed further that the average shear stress on the plane normal to the rein. forcement resisted by the reinforcement is zero. In re- lating axial stress to axial strain, the usual bilinear uni axial stress-strain relationship shown in Fig. 6 will be adopted. Thus So = Be SS, a4) fe Bash as) .=0 06) In regard to the concrete, it will be assumed that the principal stress axes and principal strain axes coincide a=6 a To complete the model, relationships between the prin pal compressive stress and the principal compressive strain and between the principal tensile stress and the principal tensile strain are required, EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM To obtain the necessary information, 30 reinforced concrete elements were subjected (0 simple well-defined loading conditions (see Table 1). While the majority of the tests were conducted in monotonic pure shear, some elements were subject bined biaxial compression and shear, combined biaxial tension and shear, reversed cyclic shear, and changing load ratios. In addition to loading conditions, the prime variables included percentage of transverse reinforce ment, percentage of longitudinal reinforcement, and conerete strength. The test specimens were 890 mm square x 70 mm thick (35 x 35 x 2.75 in.), They were reinforced with two layers of welded wire mesh with the wires running parallel 10 the edges of the element. The smooth wire ‘meshes typically had a $0 mm (2 in.) grid spacing, were heat-treated, and showed a ductile response. A clear cover of 6 mm (0.25 in.) was provided over the longi- tudinal bars. Maximum aggregate size was 6 mm (0.25 in.), Five steel “shear keys"” were cast into each of the four edges of the test specimen and were anchored to the concrete by shear studs. The specimens were loaded by forces applied to the shear keys using 37 double-act ing hydraulic jacks and a network of links as shown in Fig. 7. To house the jack-and-link assembly, a steel box-section reaction frame was built (see Fig. 8). A lat eral support frame was provided to resist any out-of plane displacements of the specimens. Any combina- tion of shear and tension or compression could be ap- plied to the test specimens by varying the magnitude and direction of the forces in various groups of links. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 6.) is So Jo Tee, CO TRANSMITTING LOADS ACROSS CRACKS ‘The stress and strain formulations described deal with average values and do not give information re- garding local variations. At a crack, the tensile stresses the reinforcement will be higher than average, while midway between cracks they will be lower than aver- age. The concrete tensile stresses, on the other hand, will be zero at a crack and higher than average midway between cracks. These local variations are important because the ultimate capacity of a biaxially stressed ele- ment may be governed by the reinforcement's ability to transmit tension across the cracks. Fig. 12 compares the calculated average stresses (Plane 1) with the actual local stresses that occur at a crack (Plane 2). The critical crack direction is assumed normal to the principal tensile strain direction. While the calculated average shear stress on Plane 1 is zero (in ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986sate OH] Fig. 11 — Stress-strain relationships for cracked concrete terms of average stresses it is a principal plane), there ‘may be local shear stresses on Plane 2. These shear stresse5 ¥qy may be accompanied by small local com- pressive stresses f, across the crack. ‘As the applied external stresses f, Jr, and v, are fixed, the two sets of stresses shown in Fig. 12 must be statically equivalent. Assuming a unit area for both Plane 1 and Plane 2, the requirement that the two ses of stresses produce the same force in the x-direction is buSux Sind + fsind = PafarSind ~ fysind — v,cosd (21) ‘The requirement that the two sets of stresses on Plane 1 produce the same force in the y-direction is Pafgo0S0 + f.c050 = PofynC0S0 ~ f,cost + v,sind (22) Eq. (22) can be rearranged as Pol Soce ~ Su) = Sa + fa ~ ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 yetan (23) While Eq. (21) can be rearranged as Pan Sar ~ Su) = Sa + fu + Yaltand (24) Equilibrium Eq. (23) and (24) can be satisfied with no shear stress on the crack and no compressive stresses on the crack only if Poy Sune ~ fa) = Pu Siar ~ fa) = Sa 25) However, the stress in the reinforcement at a crack ‘cannot exceed the yield strength, that is Soace SI 26) and Soe < Sy en Hence, if the calculated average stress in either rein- forcement is high, it may not be possible to satisfy Eq. 25). In this case, equilibrium will require shear stresses fon the crack. 225For the vast majority of coneretes, cracking will oc- cur along the interface between the cement paste and the aggregate particles. The resulting rough cracks can transfer shear by aggregate interlock (see Fig. 13). The Toe (a) Stresses Applied to Cracked Eloment fw relationships between the shear across the crack v,, the crack width w, and the required compressive stress on the crack f,, have been experimentally studied by a number of investigators, including Walraven. Based ‘on Walraven's work, the following relationship was derived (see Fig. 14) Vy = O18 Vanas + 1.64 f, ~ 0.82 where Re Yon: = O31 4 24 w/a + 16) 29) and where a is the maximum aggregate size in milli- ‘meters and the stresses are in MPa. If inch and psi units are being used, the numerator of Eq. (29) should be multiplied by 12, and 16 in the denominator should be replaced by 0.63. The crack width w to be used in Eq. (29) should be the average crack width over the crack surface. It can be taken as the product of the principal tensile strain and the crack spacing 5; that is & (30) where ep (6) Local Stresses ata Crack (2) Calesiates Average. Stresses Fig. 12 — Comparison of local stresses at a crack with calculated average stresses Fig. 13 — Transmitting shear stresses across crack by ‘aggregate interlock 226 002 04 06 08 1.0 foi!oi max Fig. 14 — Relationship between shear transmitted ‘across crack and compressive stress on crack ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986points cracking o 246810 a gy #108 Fig. 1S — Comparison of calculated and observed re- ‘sponse of Specimen PV20 (1 MPa = 145 psi) and where s., and s,, are the indicators of the crack control characteristics of the x-reinforcement and the y- forcement, respectively. Thus, in checking stress conditions at the crack sur- faces, a combination of the shear and compressive stresses v, and f,, must be determined to satisfy Eq. (23) through (29). if, because of steel yielding at the crack, a solution is not possible, then the calculated average principal tensile stress f, must be reduced until a solu- tion is possible. SOLUTION TECHNIQUE Given the strains in a reinforced concrete element, it is a reasonably direct procedure to calculate the stresses which cause these strains. The only iteration that may be required is that involved in determining f, if the re- inforcement is not capable of transmitting the tension in the conerete across the cracks. ‘To find the elements strains, given the stresses, is a more difficult problem that requires a trial and error solution. The Appendix presents a suitable computa- tional procedure to determine the response of a biaxi- ally loaded element, EXAMPLE OF PREDICTION RESPONSE Specimen PV20 was loaded in pure shear (see Table 1). For this specimen, the crack control parameters were estimated to be Sq, = 47 mm (1.9 in.) and s., = 44 mm (1.7 in.), and the cracking strength of the con- crete was taken to be 0.33 V=J! = 1.47 MPa (210 psi). Using the solution procedure outlined in the Appendix, the element’s response was calculated as described in Table 2 and Fig. 15. Note that at failure, the principal compressive stress in the concrete was only about 45 percent of the cylinder strength, and that even for ten- sile strains as high as 0.0075 the average tensile stress in the cracked concrete is predicted to be 0.66 MPa (95 psi), Fig. 16 shows the appearance of the specimen af- ter failure. The failure can be described as a concrete shear failure, ACI JOURNAL | March-April 1986 SPECIMEN PVZ0' Loan sTace 10 Fig, 16 — Specimen PV20 after failure Table 2 — Predicted response of PV20 ew) 8 | Se | Se | Ses |v fom ow. eo ee] sa] ao] lene) a6 [ut1|tasfouo] a7 Jo io | 96| 2m [aralioe_[oay|senfoa|vo fo [nea] wo [229 [= 500 faralanJoaz|sosfosr|an [esol [3s [3.0] 7 = son [rslam [ozs|«srfoanfe [oars [ref 570 790 frslar [ous esloasoe [oss [an | am [ses owes MPa = 185 SHEAR STRENGTH-AXIAL STRENGTH INTERACTION DIAGRAMS In the test program previously described, four speci- mens (PV23, PV25, PV27, and PV28) with nearly identical properties were loaded at different ratios of shear stress {0 axial stress. In each case, J, =f. The average material properties of the four specimens were Sf = ~19.8 MPa (~2870 psi) and J, = ff = 477 MPa (69 ksi). Fig. 17 shows the predicted cracking loads and the predicted failure loads for elements containing 1.79 percent of both x- and y-reinforcement and having the verage material properties. Also shown in Fig. 17 are the observed cracking loads and the observed failure loads for the four specimens tested. [Note that there are three rather distinct regions in the shear strength-axial strength interaction diagrams shown in Fig. 17: (1) at high biaxial tensions, yielding of the reinforcement at the cracks controls failure; (2) concrete shear failures govern in the middle regions, 227-20 24-20-16 13 oa eae tg=te ty (MPD Fig. 17 — Shear strength-axial strength interaction dia- ‘gram (1 MPa = 145 psi) Stor a Y cracking toad / oa 08a Parl tte Fig. 18 — Shear strength variation as both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement are increased with concrete failing at compressive stresses consider- ably less than f", and (3) at high biaxial compression levels, failure is controlled by fz reaching f. INFLUENCE OF REINFORCEMENT RATIOS ON ‘SHEAR STRENGTH Approximately two-thirds of the specimens described in Table 1 were loaded in pure shear and had x- and y- reinforcement consisting of wires near each face at 50 mm @ in.) centers. A study of two series of these panels will be made to learn more about how the reinforce- ment ratios influence shear strength. In the first series of five tests (PV2, PV3, PV4, PV6, and PV27), the amount of transverse reinforcement was always equal to the amount of longitudinal reinforce- ment, but this amount varied from 0.18 to 1.79 per- cent. The predicted strengths were based on the follow- ing average material properties: f; = -25.4 MPa (- 3680 psi) and J, = f,, = 442 MPa (64 ksi. Fig. 18 shows the predicted strengths together with the observed failure loads. For very small amounts of reinforcement (py. < f/f), the cracking load will be the maximum load which can be carried by the ele- 228 ¥ Steel not yietaing o Ot 020304 Fig. 19 — Shear strength variation as transverse rein- forcement only is increased ments. Beyond that, for a wide range of reinforcement ratios, steel yielding will govern the failure, i.e., », bu * Sue For very large amounts of reinforcement, con- crete shear failures will govern. Note that for these ele- ‘ments the ACI Code* approach of determining the ul- timate shear capacity by adding the steel contribution to the cracking load would be unconservative. In the second series of seven tests (PV13, PV12, PVI9, PV20, PV21, PV22, and PV27), the longitudi- nal reinforcement was kept constant at 1.79 percent while the amount of transverse reinforcement was var- ied. The predicted strengths were based on the follow- ing material properties: f7 = - 18.9 MPa (~ 2740 psi) and fy, = fo, = 430 MPa (62 ksi Fig. 19 compares the observed and predicted ulti mate shear strengths. Note that now even very small amounts of transverse reinforcement are beneficial in increasing shear strength. Yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement at the cracks limits f, and hence con- trols the strength for small amounts of transverse rein- forcement, while concrete shear failures control the strength for larger amounts of transverse reinforce- ment. CONCLUDING REMARKS ‘The modified compression-field theory is capable of predicting the response of reinforced concrete elements to in-plane shear and axial stresses by considering equi- librium conditions, compatibility requirements, and stress-strain relationships, all expressed in terms of av- ‘erage stresses and average strains. Consideration is also given to local stress conditions at crack locations. Fur- ther, newly formulated and experimentally verified constitutive relationships for cracked concrete are in- corporated for principal compressive stress-principal compressive strain response, and for principal tensile stress-principal tensile strain response. The theory is schematically summarized in Fig. 20. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986‘The modified compression-field theory is a powerful analytical tool, but is simple enough to be programmed with a handheld calculator. Not only is it capable of predicting the test results reported in this paper, but it thas been used by other researchers to successfully pre- dict their test results." In addition, it has proved suit able for predicting the response of beams loaded in shear, flexure, and axial loads, and as a basis for non- linear finite element analysis programs, A large-scale test program is now underway to ex- tend the theory to elements subjected to combined membrane stresses, bending stresses, and out-of-plane shear (see Fig. 21). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research at the Unversity of Toronto which led 10 the Mod fied Compression Field Theory was made possible by a series of rants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Covel ff Canada and by a grant from Ontario Hydro. The considerations were developed by the second author while he was on research leave atthe University of Canterbury. This por ton ofthe work was funded by the Road Research Unit of the Na tional Roads Board of New Zealand. The authors would like 10 ex ‘bres ther gratitude fo all thre organizations for thet suppat NOTATION = maximum aggregate size modulus of elasticity of concrete (initial tangent stiffness) ‘modulus of elasticity of reinforcement maximum compressive siress observed in a cylinder test (negative quaniy) = principal tensile sess in concrete Principal compressive stress in concrete (negative quantity) = compressive stress on crack surface (positive quantity) stress in conecete at cracking stress in concrete in xdrection stress in concrete in rection = normal sress applied t element = average stress in reinforcement Stress in areinforcement at crack location = average stress in yteinforcement fess in pteinforcement at crack location = stress applied to element in x-direction = stress applied to element in y-direction eld sees of seeinforcement yield stress of y-reinforcement = spacing of crack inclined a 8 average spacing of cracks perpendicular to the reinforce = average spacing of cracks perpendicular tothe reinforce: son crac surfaces ‘maximum shear stress a crack of piven width can resist shear stres on face of conerete shear stress on concrete relative fo. aes hear sess on -face of sonerete shear sexs on sreinforcement & shear sexton yreinforcement maximum shear stress element can resist = shear stress on element relative fo, 9 aXes = crack width = principal tensile strain in concrete (positive quantity) Principal compressive strain in concrete (negative quantity) ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 Some] “eoiie_ | =| | Fig. 20 — The modified compression-field theory for ‘membrane elements Fig, 21 — The shell element tester 2291 = strain in concrete cylinder at peak stress f° (negative quan ty) 6 = strain in concrete at cracking CL = strain in concrete in s-direction strain in conetetein y-direction strain in reinforcing stee! in xdirection strain in reinforcing Stee in y-direction © rin in eirestion strain in ydirection = yield strain of eteinforcement ©) = Yield strain of y-reinforcement Y= shear strain relative tox,» axes 2° = angle of inclination of principal strains to axis 4 © angle of inclination of principal streses in coneete to Pe = teinforcement ratio for reinforcing tel in sdirection 2. © reinforcement rato for reinforcing seein y-direction REFERENCES 1. Zienkiewiez, O. C., The Finite Element Method, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, 1977, 787 pp. 2. Brebbia, C. A., A Handbook of Finite Element Systems, 2nd Edition, CML Publications, Southhampton, 1983, 500 pp. 3 Logoher, R.D., etal, “ICES STRUDL-Il, The Structural De- sign Language, Engineering User's Manval—V. 1—Frame Anal '8." Report No. 68-91, Department of Civil Enginering, Massachu- seit Insitute of Technology, Cambridge, Nov, 1968, 26 pp. 44. “Rules for Design, Construction, and Inspection of Offshore Structures, 1977, Appendix D, Concrete Structures," Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, 1980, 22 pp. 5. ACL-ASME Commitee 359, ‘Code for Conerete Reactor Ves sels and Containments,”” ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Il, Divison 2, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1983, 376 pp. 6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requtements for Rein- forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)" American Conerete Institute, De- ‘rot, 1983, 111 pp. 7. Gupta, A. K., “Membrane Reinforcement in Concrete Shells: A Review." Nuclear Enginering and Design, Elsevier Science Publish es, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 63275 8, Collins, M. P.; Vecchio, FJ; and Mehlhora, G., “An Inter national Competition o Predict the Response of Reinforced Con- crete Panels” Canadian Journal of Civil Enginering (Ottawa), V. 12, No.3, Sept 198S, pp. 26-644. 9. Mitchell, Denis, and Collins, Michael P., “Diagonal Compres- sion Field Theory—A Rational Mode! for Structural Concrete in Pure “Torsion,” ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. Tl, No. 8, Aug. 1974, pp. 396-408 10. Collins, Michael P., “Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members in Shear,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 104, ST4, Apr. 1978, Pp. 649.666. Il, Veechio, FJ. and Collins, M. P. “Response of Reinforced ‘Concrete to In-Plane Sheat and Normal Sreses," Publication No. 82.03, Department of Civil Engineering, Univesity of Toronto, Ma. 1982, 332 pp. 12, Walraven, Joost C., “Fundamental Analysis of Aggregate In- terlock," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 107, STI, Nov. 1981, pp. 2248- 270, 13. lida, T.; Sumi, K.; and Kawamata, S., “Behavior of Orthos- nally Reinforced Walls Subjected to In-Plane Shear Force—Effec iveness of F. J. Veschio and M, P. Collins’ Theory,” Proceedings, ‘Annual Mectng, Architectural Insitute of Japan, Yokohama, Oe 1988, pp. 1807-180, 14. Ang, B. G., “Seismic Shea Strength of Circular Bridge ies PAD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Universiy of Canter. bury, Christchurch, 1985, 230 ‘APPENDIX — SOLUTION TECHNIQUE FOR DETERMINING RESPONSE OF BIAXIALLY STRESSED ELEMENTS: 11 willbe assumed that f, and f, are constant and that it is desieed to find the relationship between shear stress and the resulting shear sirtn 7. For simplicity, assume no prestressed reinforcement, Step 1 — Determine the erck control characteristics of the xen forcement and the y reinforcement. Use more refined empirical ‘equations, of Sq) = 18% maximum distance from xbars ands, 1LS x maximum distance from y-bar. Step 2 — Choose & value of «, at which to perform the calcula ‘Step 3 — Esimae principal compressive ses diretion 8 ‘Step 4 — Calculate average crack with w using Eq. (31) and (30). Step $— Estimate average sizes in weaker reinforcement; assume ‘tha this isthe reinforcement, Hence, estimate f ‘Step 6 — Calculate average tension inthe concrete , using Ea. (19) and (2), subject tothe conaition that LoS aw 018 + 03K) tan8 + 9, U, ~ 1 Where k = 1.64 — 1/tand, but k > 0: and where. given by Ee, >. ‘Slep 7 — Calculate shear sess v, fom equilibrium = eh ve = Uy = fant Step 8 — Calculate fom equilibrium using Ea. (13). Step 9 — Calculate fy for given ¢ using Ea. (1) Step 10— Chock that 7/Tnu © 10. If greater than 1.0, then so Iution is not possible; return to Step 3 and choose 8 closer to 48 des ‘or return to Step 2 and choose a lower « ‘Step 11 — Calculate e using Ea (180) eee Tom Step 12 — Cautatee, from geometry using Ea. (5) +e ton 1 ta Step 13 ~ Calculate f, wing Ea. (19. ‘Step 14 — Check iff. calculated agrees with estimated ff no, return to Step $ with new estimate of ‘Step 15 — Calculate, fom seometey using Ea. (4 ‘Step 16 — Calculate fusing Eq. (14) Step 17 — Calculate f, from equilibrium = sy/tane Son bot babe ‘Step 18 — Check iff calculated agres wth given f. IF nt, return to Step 3 and make new estimate of #. Increasing # increases J. ‘Step 19 — Caleuate stresses on crack v, and f, Ah = Si ~ Palle = 19 Af, <0, then v, = Oand f, = 0. Go wo Step 20. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986IE O,then f, = Oand y, = af, /¢ans Otherwise 1 82/oq, and B= A=. a= 168 ~~ JP ATV24 my =U + af itan8 ‘Step 20 — Calculate reinforcement sreses at crack f.. and taney So Sat Us th. Son Lot Got fot vant ‘ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 Step 21 — Check that reinforcement can carry sreses a crack Because of the way in which », and J, were calculated, fll not ‘exceed f,, However, the ealeulated value off. may exceed. Ii does, the reinforcement is not capable of transiting the loads across the crack asume a lower J, and retrn to Step 7. ‘Step 22 — Calculate shear strain y, from geometry 2 = «tant ‘To obtain the complete rexponse ofthe element, these calculations ace repeated for a range of values of «, starting from «less than tracking («, = 0.05 10 °) and increasing until the maximum shea is obtained Wat file: i. limited by the condition in Step 6 then slipping on the ‘rack governs the faire Tif 18 limited By Jon then crushing or shear failure of the concrete governs ‘ik fi limited by the eequirement that fu. < fa then vieling ‘of the reinforcement a the erack governs 231