NCES Title no. 94-822 TECHNICAL PAPER Crack Angle and Strain Compatibility for Shear Resistance in Reinforced Concrete Panel by Tetsuya Yamada and Theodor Krauthammer Two existing theories for shear design of RC panel structures were invest ‘gated It was found that the frst theory to obtain the crack angle included a theoretical mistreatment and in the second (Modified Compression Field Theory), the strain compatibility is equivalent to the assumption of no shear slips across crack interfaces. The fst finding indicated thatthe crack ‘angle cannot be used as an independent variable to determine uniquely the state of stresses, strains and crack configuration. However, the strain com: patibility can be used instead. Also, it was noted that aggregate interlock «and dowel action have small effect on the shear resistance of RC panels Keywords: aggregate interlock; crack angle; dowel effect; minimum Potential energy; reinforced concrete panels; shear resistance; stain com- patibility; variational calculus INTRODUCTION Research on reinforced concrete (RC) structures may be classified as either experimental or theoretical. The former has contributed much more than the latter to the practical field of RC because of the material and structural com- plexity. Theoretical approaches can be used to expand ex- isting applications. For example, to explore the use of higher strength material and new combinations of structur- al elements ‘Theoretical studies of shear mechanisms in structural con- crete were conducted by Ritter! and Mérsch? who first de- veloped the truss analogy. Other theoretical studies in the last 20 years resulted in the development of the Modified Compression Field Theory? (MCFT) and the Strut-and-Tie-Method.* The former is applied for B-regions, the latter is used for D-regions. This paper is aimed at the analysis of B-regions in RC pan- el structures by using the principle of minimum potential en- ergy. The corresponding approach is expected to be more general and rational than existing theories. This approach is based on the method proposed by Fialkow® but it includes an important correction of a theoretical mistreatment. Further- ‘more, it was combined with the strain compatibility assump- tion proposed in the Modified Compression Field Theory? to determine the crack angle, Consequently, the physical mean- ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997 Structures ing of strain compatibility in a smeared cracked body has been clarified. Additionally, the role of aggregate interlock and dowel ac- tion for shear resistance was investigated. These mecha- nisms were not considered in Fialkow’s study.> A modified model was developed by enhancing the approach proposed by Buyukozturk et al.® The modified model was then used to study the contribution of thes nisms to shear resis- tance at crack interfaces. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE This research identified a theoretical mistreatment of vari- ational calculus in a previous study,’ and enabled an altern tive way to correct the problem. Although the findings of this study do not affect existing design methods, they provide a better understanding of the principles that contribute to shear resistance in structural concrete. Furthermore, this study helped to define how the crack angle should be considered to estimate the shear strength. At issue is the role of the crack angle in a smeared cracked reinforced concrete body. The previous approach? consid- cred the crack angle as one of the generalized displacements that determine the solution. If left uncorrected, the approach attributed to the crack angle properties that cannot be sup- ported by theory. This study has shown that the crack angle is not a generalized displacement and that an alternative method to complete the design procedure is required. That was achieved with the strain compatibility relationship used in the Modified Compression Field Theory. Consequently, the physical meaning of that relationship was clarified. {AC Siractral Journal, V.94 No.3, May-June 197 KReetved Api 4,196, and reviewed under Isat publication pois. Copy tuna Canine Al aha rsd ing male 1 copies ants permisom i baie from the Copytight poplin. Fete di asin ite pi nth Mac Ape 158 ACT Smet! Jura ied py Now 1 997 239Tesaya Yamada ls a research engineer atthe Technical Research Into, Misa Contraction Co. Japan. He receved his MS in cl engineering at Pennsylvania ‘Site Universit in 199, Hi current research interest iin theoretical anabats of ‘shear behavior in forced concrete src ‘Theodor Krauthammer is Profesor of Ci Engincering at Pennsylvania Sate Un vers He iva member of ACI Commitee 370, short Duration Dynamics and Vibra tory Load Eets, and ira member of joint ACEASCE Commies 421, Design of Reinforced Concrete Slab; 44, Experimental Analysis or Concrete Structures: and ‘48, Shear and Torsion, andl an asocote member of ist ACLASCE Commitee 1352, Joins and Connection in Monolith Concrete Sractres, Hi esearch acti. ties include america and eseremmial evaluation of stra concrete response 10 severe lads, ASSUMPTIONS The Modified Compression Field Theory? and Fialkow’s work* were considered in this study. These include two com- mon assumptions: Structures are limited to RC panels, and cracks are straight and uniformly distributed over the panel. ‘Other assumptions on bond between reinforcing bar and con- crete, crack direction, shear resistance along cracks, and ten- sion normal to a crack constitutive laws were presented in those approaches.>> Although in this study the material properties of concrete and steel were limited to the elastic domain, the findings can be used to explain the roles that var- ious shear resistance mechanisms play. METHODOLOGY Initially, the principle of minimum potential energy was applied to specify the crack configuration, shown in Fig. 1, that corresponds to the stationary state, The previous study® ‘was similar, but it considered the crack angle as a general- ized displacement. This study has shown that the crack angle cannot be considered as a generalized displacement, and it ‘was required to apply strain compatibility to specify the sta- tionary state. Strain compatibility was studied futher to ad- dress its physical meaning in RC panel structures. These findings are discussed next, and a relationship between the crack angle and strain compatibility is presented. Finally, the effect of aggregate interlock and dowel action was invest gated using the modified shear model ROLE OF CRACK ANGLE ‘The principle of minimum potential energy was applied to ‘obtain the stationary state under the applied load. The irrele~ vance of including the crack angle as a generalized displace- ments is explained deductively. Then, in the inductive explanation, the inconsistency with the principle of mini- ‘mum potential energy is demonstrated using an example which was presented previously.5” Deductive explanation In variational calculuses,® a function q is obtained by ex- ‘remizing a functional, some physical value J, which is an i tegral of a function F. In static mechanics, J is a total Potential energy IT which comprises a strain energy Vand a work energy Q. 11 should have the following form: 240 m= [FGoa. oar wo where independent spatial variable (i depends on the problem dimension) 4g: function of x; spatial derivative of g ‘The necessary condition to extremize m is given by the Eu- ler-Lagrange equations and natural boundary condition as follows: a (amt)_an 2() a. a an aq @ In static mechanies, these conditions lead to the governing differential equations of equilibrium, and the boundary con- ditions comprise Cauchy's formula.? q is recognized as a generalized displacement, and usually expresses a displace- ment field. Fig. 1—Crack configuration by Fialkow* ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997Here, an investigation of q is necessary. Although the gen- eralized displacements can be arbitrary, they should be inde- pendent of each other. Fialkow° chose four generalized displacements, e,, ey €2, 0, as shown in Fig. 1, (in which e,, ey, €7 are the X, ¥, and crack direction components of total crack displacement per unit length, and @ isthe crack angle). ‘The uniqueness in that approach stems from treating the crack angle @ as a generalized displacement. In variational calculus, if ¢ (the spatial derivative of q) is not involved in the function F, the Euler-Lagrange equation gives only an al- gebraic equation but not a differential equation. The derived algebraic equation does not satisfy boundary conditions in general. In Fialkow’s approach,’ the function F does not in- volve the spatial derivative of the crack angle @, and the crack angle is used only as a transformation angle. Further- ‘more, its spatial derivative does not have a physical meaning while the spatial derivatives of the other generalized dis- placements, e,, éy, €2 fepresent strain field properties. Con- sequently, based on Variational calculus, the selection of the crack angle @ as a generalized coordinate leads to an irrele- ‘ant treatment of the problem. This issue can be addressed also differently as shown next. Inductive explanation This discussion employs the same parameter definitions as used in the previous study.* Fialkow” assumed the crack pat- tern and derived a kinematic condition ofthe panel, as shown in Fig. 1. The cracks were assumed to be straight and uni- formly distributed. The crack configuré included com- pressive strain in concrete (¢), crack width (8,), slip (6,) and angle (8). Instead of crack width and slip, Fialkow* used two ‘components in the X and ¥ directions (6,, 8,). The relation- ships between 6,, 8, and 8,, 8, are shown, as follows: 8, = -8,sin® + 3,cos0 @ 8,c0s0 +8, sind © ey)» reg Were the total crack displacements within a panel while 8,, 8,8, 8, were used for a single crack. This condi- tion leads to the relationships between the crack configura- tion and the overall panel displacements, as follows: X, = e,cos6 + We,cos“@—e,sin70 © €,c080 + }(\We, + €,)sin20 oO e,sin® + }(We, + e,)sin20 (8) sin + He,sin’® ~ cos" ) ‘where [tis Poisson's ratio, X,, Yyy Xy, ¥_ denote the normal and shear displacements in the X and Y directions, respec- tively. The first term represents the effect of displacements due to cracks. The other terms represent the effect of the clastic deformation of concrete between cracks. ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997 ‘The axial strains of steel in the X and ¥ directions are ex- pressed, as follows: &, = €,0050 + He,cos"@ ~e,sin"® (10) e,sin@ + jte,sin’@— e,cos’6 a) Fialkow® formulated the total potential energy (m) using these values, as follows. The total potential energy was the summation of the strain energy (V) and work energy (2): T= V4+Q=V,+V,42 (12) ‘The strain energy consisted of the energy of uniaxial ten- sion and compression in the reinforcement (V,) and com- pression in concrete (V,) |p,hE,e2 + Ip hE, (13) AE e} (4) where P, Py are the reinforcement ratios in the X and ¥ di- rections, £,, £, are the Young’s modulus of a steel and a con- crete, and h is the panel thickness. ‘The work energy is the summation of three terms, the nor- mal components in the X and ¥ directions and the shear com- ponent, as follows: D = -N,X,-N,Y,- Ny (X,Y) as) ‘The necessary conditions of the principle of minimum po- tential energy are discussed next. The first variation of IT, B17, needs to be zero.® In other words, the first derivatives of IT with respect to the generalized displacements q should be ze- 1. on 0 fFtewm 6) Oe seated Furthermore, the second variation of IT, 8°11, needs to be positive. In other words, the second derivatives of I with respect to the generalized displacements q, should be pos- itive. If there are n generalized displacements, one needs to check the sign of the determinant of the n x n Hessian matrix. an 241‘The reinforced concrete panel (PV20) tested by Vecchio and Collins? was analyzed by Fialkow,*” and the same ex- ample was used here to illustrate this issue. FialkowS took derivatives of the total potential energy (IT) with respect to the four generalized displacements (q; = €,, €€9, 0). A set of nonlinear simultaneous equations was ob- tained by equating each derivative to zero. In the present study,|° Fialkow’s iterative approach’ was used to derive the results that were also confirmed numerically (Newton's method), !” as follows: Given load: Nyy = 1.0 Nimm Answer: e,=9.69 um y= 8.29 pm = 138m 0.708 radians Define this point as Xo, where (Xo} = {€,, &» €2, 8} = {9.69 x10, 8.29 x 10°, 1.38 x 10°, 0.708) Xo is guaranteed to be an extremal point, Next, one must consider a step overlooked by Fialkow.° One needs to check the characteristics of the hyper surface in the neighborhood of Xo, In other words, one must confirm that this point is a local minimum point, rather than a local maximum or a sad- dle point. To do that, one needs to check the determinant of the Hessian matrix. The Hessian matrix in this case is ex- pressed as follows an en an an Qe? ede, ede, de,00 gn on an ‘Jet 9e,0e 9,00 an an ae? 9¢,08 ab = ais) " om ae" 7.210% 0 -3.2x10* 2.1 "| 11x10" -84x10' 28 1sx10° -0.7 am. 3x 107] and the determinant is non-positive det[ F(X] = -12x10"<0 i,j = 1,234 (a9) ‘This means that the point Xo is not on a convex surface and, therefore, itis not a minimum point. This fact does not satisfy the principle of minimum potential energy. Next, inthis investigation, the crack angle @ was excluded from the generalized displacements. Instead of that, @ was used as a parameter, 0 = 0.708 radians, the same value de- 242 rived by Fialkow.” Again, check the determinant of the Hes- sian matrix in the neighborhood of X, given below: 1} = le eyeg) = 8.69 x 10°$829%10%, 138410 @ = 0.708 radians an en an Det de,de, de,9e;) an an 2 ae 9¢,0e, fab = an (20) sm en T2x108 0,-3.2 10° 1.1.x 10° -8.4x 104) sym. 15x 10° and the determinant is positive. det[Faa(X)] L1x10%>0 f= 1,23 QD This condition is necessary for a local minimum point, ‘and it means that the point Xp gives a stationary condition, when the parameter @ is 0.708 radians. This conclusion is different from that obtained in the previous case. In other words, a stationary point exists at any crack angle @ as shown in Fig. 2, and the point at @ of 0.708 radians is not a unique solution. The value of the total potential energy with the variation of the crack angle is shown in Fig. 3. This concave curve leads to the proof of Fialkow’s* mistreatment of the mini- mum potential energy principle. Fialkow’s approach? im- ied that this curve was convex with a minimum at Xo. Furthermore, one can plot the value of slip with the variation of the crack angle, as shown in Fig. 4. The slip value (8, is 3.08.05 & tz = 106-08 soca] \_ 0.06400 [o os. 08.06 | is rack Angle ada) Fig, 2—Stationary states versus crack angle (PV20)° ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997(0.08400, $s ° +. 08 3 1s a) pad conan curve Re — j eoecn \ Nr] \ Fig. 3—Total potential energy versus crack angle (PV20)° toa | 8.06.05 - ent (mm) Crack Angle (rian) 2.0605 '0 os 18 4.08.05 ~ 3 0.708 8.06.05 ~ 8.06.05 = 1.08.04 ~ \ Fig. 4—Crack slip displacement versus crack angle (PV20)5 zero at 0 of 0.708 radians, according to Fialkow’s solutio while slips occur at other angles. ‘The mistreatment in Fialkow’s approach’ leads to the ‘wrong conclusion that there are never slips and shear resist- ing forces at cracks. However, there might be shear res tance mechanisms like aggregate interlock and dowel effect. PHYSICAL MEANING OF STRAIN COMPATIBILITY Strain compatibili It was shown above that the crack angle cannot be speci- fied by the principle of minimum potential energy. One needs to develop other methods to find a specific crack an- gle. Strain compatibility was applied in this study. Strain compatibility is used in the Modified Compression Field ‘Theory? to transfer values of strain between the Cartisian and the principal coordinate systems. Here, the state of cracked reinforced concrete is analyzed by ‘combining the principle of minimum potential energy and strain compatibility. One can obtain the relationship between the crack angle @ and ¢,, €,, €, a8 shown in Fig. 2, where it, ‘was noted that there are infinite combinations of {¢,,€,.€2,0}. According to the Modified Compression Field Theory, strain compatibility is expressed as follows: ete = e+e, and 22) ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997 tan? = 1 23) = where 1: _ principal tensile strain in conerete (positive quality) ex: principal compressive strain in concrete (negative quality) €,: _ strain in the X direction €: strain in the Y direction 9: angle of inclination of principal strain to the X axis ‘Comparing Fialkow’s approach’ with the Modified Com- pression Field Theory, {e,, e} do not correspond to {€,, €,)} while (¢9, 8} correspond to (€), 9}. Although the definitions of the crack angle are different in both methods, they will co- incide if the coordinate axes are turned by 90 deg in the Mod- ified Compression Field Theory.) Nevertheless, the counterparts of {€,,€,} can be obtained from {e,¢,) in Fi alkow's® approach, One can define € from strain compati- bility, even though €; is not used in Fialkow’s® approach. ‘The physical meaning of e is the average principal tensile strain in the Modified Compression Field Theory. One can define €, from Eq. (22) and (23), as follows: e =e = + E,+8y-e) (24) £,-£, tan’ ese = ee 25) 1-tan’p Both values of e should be the same, and one can find a corresponding crack angle: 6 = 90-. One can compare ¢2 from Fialkow's° approach with € from strain compatibility, as follows e,-e,tan"@ = & 26) tang ‘The behaviors of these variables are shown in Fig. 5. Itis confirmed that the crack angle @, when e; from Eq. (24) and (25) are the same, is identical to @ when e) and €) are the same. Through this method, using Fig. 5, one can specify the state of the cracked panel to satisfy the principle of minimum potential energy and strain compatibility. The solution for the same example (PV20) by this approach becomes Answer: e,= 9.69 um ey = 8.29 um = 138 um @ = 0.708 radians Define this point as Xo, where {Xo} = {ep €yy €25 8} = (9.69% 10, 8.29 x 10%, 1.38 x 10%, 0.708} Comparison with Fialkow's approach® ‘X, from the present study and Xp from Fialkow’s study® are identical, although the methods of specifying the crack angle © are different. Because no tangential displacement existed along the crack, Fialkow* concluded that no crack-shear force developed even if crack-shear resistance existed. Also, 243,singularity point at 0.785 rad. 40 20 20 10 Strain (x10%6) i 0 02 crosspoint | 20 Fig. S—Strain compatibility check Fialkow® assumed that no strain energy was contributed by the shear force transmitted across the crack. Atthe crack angle ob- tained from both studies, itis true that no slip existed atthe crack surfaces, as was shown in Fig. 4. This fact leads to the conclusion that introducing strain compatibility is identical to the assumption of no slip atthe crack surface. Discussion ‘One can obtain the stationary state, strains, stresses and crack angle in a RC panel structure under pure shear. This corresponds to the condition of no slip at the crack surface. However, the result seems to be inconsistent with observa~ tions from tests. In fact, aggregate interlock and dowel action are known as shear resistance mechanisms at crack surfaces, One needs to develop an approach to include them. Strain compatibility was used to specify the crack angle in this study. However, strain compatibility is based on Mohr's Circle for strain which is valid for continuum mechanics. If strain compatibility is used for a smeared cracked body which is not a continuum, no slip at the crack surface is con- sequently assumed. This may cause a problem when aggre- gate interlock and dowel action are taken into account. The same approach is used next to investigate the role of aggre- gate interlock and dowel action. CRACK SURFACE SHEAR RESISTANCE ‘Modeling of crack surface shear resistance ‘Aggregate interlock and dowel action are considered as shear resistance mechanisms at crack surfaces, as studied previously by others.°+!!"!7 In this study, the effect of the ag- sgregate interlock and dowel action was applied based on Buyukozturk et al.© This model is relatively simple for appli- 244 et=Eq, (24) —x— ot=Eq. (25) —4— e2eEq. (26) Crack Angle (radian) = 02 i re ee ee ‘A cation and it enables one to compute a related strain energy (crack energy). The constitutive law of the crack surface shear resisting partis expressed, as follows. t= Gey @) where: : average shear stress, ¥: average shear strain ‘The corresponding crack energy is Verack = 3hGgt" 28) in whieb, Gs) 29) Gp (Buyukozturk et al. total shear stiffness) is composed of three stiffnesses, K y (normalized extensional stiffness), Kp (normalized dowel stiffness) and G, (concrete shear stiff- ness) as well as two other parameters, Sj, (average crack spacing) and B (function related to crack width). Also: [cksifin.yiin?] 30) where Ky is an extensional stiffness, Kp is a dowel stiffness, and A, is a crack shear area (width x length in the associated direction). ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997The dowel stiffness Kp is expressed as follows: (kipfin) 31) r=4 fs where E, is the bar's Young's modulus, Ky was defined® as the foundation modulus of the concrete surrounding the rein- forcing bar, f, is the concrete compressive strength and d is the bar diameter. Kj was defined'® as follows, “Modulus Ky is approximately equal to 3,000 ksi/in. for no direct tension in the reinforcement, but it decreases almost linearly with tensile stress to a value of about 1,500 ksi/in. at 50 ksi” (see Ref. 16, p. 1314). ‘Although the extensional stiffness Ky can be evaluated in three ways,® the simplest form was used in the following analysis. That is 2600nd” Ky < (kipfin) 32) ‘The range of reinforcement diameter d by Eq. (32) did not ccover the value used in the present analysis. However, this, issue was addressed by parametric studies!” and found to be acceptable. ‘Similarly the function can be expressed by two forms,° and the simpler one was selected, as shown: B = 6248, (dimensionless) (33) Where the unit of the crack width 6, is one inch, The average crack spacing sq, followed the CEB-FIP Code! as, G4) Where Sq, and Spy are the crack spacings indicative of the crack my control characteristics of the X and ¥ direction re- inforcement. @ is a crack angle, relative to the X axis. One needs to develop an equivalent shear modulus for a reinforced concrete element with smeared cracks and sev- eral bars. In other words, one must consider the number of cracks and bars within the element. The Buyukozturk et al. shear model is based on the assumption that the crack di- rection is perpendicular to the bar direction. To treat in- clined cracks, decomposition and superposition with respect to the stiffinesses, the number of cracks and rein- forcing bars, stresses and strains were used in this study and are shown in the Appendix.” *The Append issuable in xerograpic oslo frm ACT eadguarts where ti be ket permanently on fe. a charge cult the cot of reproduction ls handing at ue of rogues. ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997 Investigation of the shear mod. The investigation of the validity of the shear model was conducted, and the analytical procedure employed the varia- tional approach shown previously. The crack energy (Veract) was added to Eq. (12) as follows: Tl = Verack + Vs+Ve+2 @s) This model varies its total shear stiffness Gz (refer to Ap- pendix) according to the displacement magnitude, since the stiffness is a function of the crack width. It means that the state of the panel is not proportional until the steel yields in the weaker direction. Here, the states were checked at two levels of load, Nj, of 100 and 200 N/mm. These levels corre spond tothe stress levels nearly after cracking and before the first yielding, respectively. The variations of the crack angle @ for each displacement state is shown in Fig. 6. The relation- ships between each displacement component at both load levels are similar. The magnitude of displacements at 200 N/ mm is twice that at 100 N/mm. In Fig. 7, several stiffnesses with the variation of crack angle at both load levels are com- pared with each other. GP?" (crack stiffness in the X direc- tion) and G®* (crack stiffness in the ¥ direction) denote the 0.003 + 0.0028 0.002 0.0015 0.001 + 0.0005 + Displacement (mm) 0.0008 0.001 Crack Ange (an) 0.0015 \ 4) Nay=100 (N/mm) 0.003, 0.0028 0.002 0.0015 0.001 0.0008 Digplacement (nn) 0.0005 0.001 -o.0015 1 b) Nay=200 (N/mm) Fig. 6—Stationalry states versus crack angle 24516000 =| 12000 + wee \, s0000 f z 8000 —— or e000 | =o wo +g =| ; L “Sesce Crack og can) ° 8) Ny=100.(Nimm) ‘Show Stihoss MPs) 16000 14000 F 12000 & 10000 | 00 + e000 | ‘Shear Sttiness 4000 2000 ° Crack Ange (aan) ° os. 1 18 ) Ney=200 (N/mm) Fig. 7—Shear stfnesses versus crack angle stiffnesses in the X and ¥ directions due to cracks. Gre (crack stiffness) denotes the summation of GP" and Gr fora parallel coupling. Gr (total shear stiffness) denotes the summation of Gand G, for a series coupling, where G. is the shear modulus of concrete, as defined in the Appendix. Therefore, Gr, as defined in Eq. (A.10), replaces Gp, as shown in Bq, (29). The crack stiffness Gat 100 N/mm is larger than G, while G2" at 200 Nimm is less than Ge. ‘Comparing Gr atthe oad levels of 100 and 200 N/mm, the total shear stiffness Gis about 5000 and 4000 MPa for crack angles between 0.4 and 1.0 radians, respectively. In Fig. 8, several energy terms are compared with each other. The crack energy (Vergck) is obtained from the total shear stiffness and shear strain Gr is substituted into Eq. (28), as follows: Veract = Gry? 36) Other energies follow the models proposed by Fialkow,> ‘as was shown before. The crack energy was not so dominat- ing but it was not zero at both Toad levels. The effect of the crack energy on the summation of the strain energy (concrete and steel energies) and the crack energy is shown in Fig. 9. ‘The effect decreases as the applied load increases from 100 246 8) Ney=100 (N/mm) 1) Ney=200 (N/mm) Fig. 8 Energy types versus crack angle oe > Verse VeoverVerack) on y= 100N/mm i aoe 06 acme Mog 0 ye 20080 Crack Ani aan) Fig. 9—Effect of additional shear part on strain energy to 200 N/mm, Although this effect varies with the crack an- zgle, the minimum ratios at load levels of 100 and 200 N/mm become about 6 and 4 percent, respectively. The minimum ratios occur at a crack angle of about 0.7 radians, as derived previously by applying strain compatibility. This angle cor- responds to the angle when the slip becomes zero, as one can see in Fig. 6. ‘ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997Discussion Th this analysis, strain compatibility is also applied to the specified crack angle. As mentioned before, it is equivalent to the assumption of no slip at crack surfaces. The fact that some, but not much, effect due to interface resistance to the total strain energy exists seems to be inconsistent with the no slip assumption. But, when the crack direction is not perpen- dicular to the reinforcement, some resistance occurs in both the normal and tangential directions. Consequently, it pro- duces some effect, as shown above The contribution is about 6 percent. Fialkow’s analysis” did not take into account the effects of the aggregate inter- lock and dowel action. However, based on these findings, these effects are negligible in reinforced concrete panel structures, as long as the strain compatibility condition is used. CONCLUSIONS ‘The following conclusions are derived from this study. 1. This study showed that the crack angle is only a param- eter, and it cannot be used as a generalized displace- ment to specify the stationary state of a cracked body. 2, The combination of the minimum potential energy ap- proach with strain compatibility provided an improved procedure to assess the shear strength of reinforced con- crete panels. 3. It was found that the application of strain compatibility in the Modified Compression Field Theory? is equiva- lent to the assumption that slip is not allowed at the crack surfaces. 4, The results obtained by correcting the mistreatment of the crack angle were the same as those obtained by Fialkow. Nevertheless, this correction was important and it re~ stored the general approach to a sound physical bass. 5. The effects of the aggregate interlock and dowel action were considered, and their contribution to the total strain energy did not exceed 6 percent for the mode! used, Their contribution decreased as the applied load increased. ACKNOWLEDGMENT ‘Tetsuya Yamada wishes to thank Mitsui Construction for giving him the ‘opportunity to study at The Pennsylvania State Univesity ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1997 REFERENCES je Bauweise Hennebique,” Schweizerische Bauzeitung 1. Rite, W. (ric), Feb. 1899. 2, Morsch, E,, Concrete-Steel Construction (Der Elsenbeton-bau) English translation of the 3rd German edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, 1909, 368 pp. 3. Vecchio FJ, and Collins, M. P, “The Modified Compression-Feld ‘Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear.” ACI JOUR- INAL, Vol. 83, No.2, Mar-Apr, 1986, pp. 219-231 4, Shlaich, J, Schafer, K., and Jennewein, M., “Towards a Consistent Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures.” PCI Journal, Vol. 32, No May-June, 1987, pp. 74-150. 5, Fialkow, M.N., "Compatible Stess and Cracking in Reinforced Con crete Membranes with Multidirectional Reinforcement” ACI Structural Journal, Vo. 88, Jly-Aug., 1991, pp. 445-457 6. Buyukozturk, 0; Connor, J.J; and Leombruni, P, “Research on Mod- cling Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete Nuclear Suctures,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 9, No.1, 1980, pp. 67-83 7. Falkow, M. N., “Behavior of Reinforcement Concrete Membranes with Compatible Stress and Cracking.” ACI Structural Journal, ol. 87, Sept-Oct, 1990, pp. 571-582. 8. Troutman, J. L., “Variational Calculus with Elementary Convexit Spring-Verlag, 1983, 364 pp. 9, Shames, I H., Dym, Clive L., “Energy and Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics,” Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1985, 757 p. 10. Yamada, ., “Variational Approach for Shear Resistance in Rein forced Concrete" Master's Thess, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 1995, 119 pp, 11, Bazan, Z.P, and Gambarova, P, “Rough Cracks in Reinforced Con- crete Journal ofthe Structural Division, ASCE, Vol 106, 1980, pp. 819-842. 12. Walraven, J.C, and Reinhardt, H. W, “Theory and Experiments on the Mechanical Behaviour of Cracks in Plain and Reinforced Concrete ‘Subjected to Shear Loading,” Heron, Vol. 26, No.1a, 1981, 63 pp. 13, Walraven, J. C, "Fundamental Analysis of Aggregate Interlock,” ournal ofthe Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. ST1, Nov, 1981, pp. 2245-2270. 14, Reinhardt, H. W., and Walraven, J. C., “Cracks in Concrete Subject 1 Shear" Joumal ofthe Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. STI, Jan, 1982, pp. 207-224 15. Faris, M.N., and Buyukoztur, 0, “Shear Transfer Model for Rein forced Concrete Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. EM2, Ape, 1979, pp. 255-275. 16, Fardis, M. N,, and Buyukozturk, 0, “Shear Stiffness of Concrete by Finite Elements," Jowmal ofthe Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. 'ST6, June, 1980, pp. 1311-1327, 17, Taubaki, T, “Shear Transfer and Strength of Cracked Reinforced Concrete” (in Japanese) Journal of Structural Engincering, Vol. 27, Feb., 1981, pp. 129-136. 18, CEB-FIP, Model Code for Concrete Structures: CEB-FIP Interna tional Recommendations, 3d ed., Comité Euro-Interational du Béton, Paris, 1978, 48 pp. 247