Ravi 

Mullapudi and Ayoub 
Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 International Journal of Concrete
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0286-z
Structures and Materials

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access

Fiber Beam Analysis of Reinforced

Concrete Members with Cyclic Constitutive
and Material Laws
T. Ravi Mullapudi1 and Ashraf Ayoub2* 

Abstract 
This paper presents a non-linear Timoshenko beam element with axial, bending, and shear force interaction for
nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete structures. The structural material tangent stiffness matrix, which relates the
increments of load to corresponding increments of displacement, is properly formulated. Appropriate simplified cyclic
uniaxial constitutive laws are developed for cracked concrete in compression and tension. The model also includes
the softening effect of the concrete due to lateral tensile strain. To establish the validity of the proposed model, cor-
relation studies with experimentally-tested concrete specimens have been conducted.
Keywords:  combined loading, Timoshenko beam, R/C beams, uni-axial constitutive relations, tangent stiffness

1 Background analysis of shear-critical concrete elements. Later, the

The response of reinforced concrete (RC) structures is
affected by the combined effect of bending, shear, and
axial loads. Accurate constitutive model of RC elements
for combined loadings is essential for reliably predict-
ing structural behavior. In the past decades constitutive
models have markedly improved, thereby improving the
accuracy and efficiency of modeling complex RC struc-
tures. Efficient constitutive models for concrete and rein-
forcing bars are typically established from large-scale
panel testing, and assuming a smeared cracked behavior.
Belarbi and Hsu (1995) developed the Rotating-Angle
Softened-Truss Model (RA-STM). They assumed that
shear stresses exist along the crack direction, and pro-
posed a tension stiffening function to account for this
effect. This model was further improved by Pang and Hsu
(1996), who developed the Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss
Model (FA-STM). In this model, cracks were assumed
to be oriented at a fixed angle. Zhu et al. (2001) derived
a proper shear modulus compatible with the FA-STM
model and proposed a robust solution algorithm for
*Correspondence: Ashraf.Ayoub.1@city.ac.uk
2
Dept. of Civil Engineering, City University of London, Northampton
Square, London EC1V OHB, UK
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Journal information: ISSN 1976-0485 / eISSN 2234-1315
authors evaluated the Hsu/Zhu Poisson’s Ratio (Poisson’s
ratio for cracked concrete) (Zhu and Hsu 2002), which
resulted in the Softened Membrane Model (SMM). The
SMM proved to be able to simulate both the pre-peak
and post-peak behavior of concrete elements.
Accurate modeling of the complex behavior of RC
structures is typically performed with two-dimen-
sional membrane elements. However, these elements
are computationally very expensive, which renders the
analysis time-consuming. Unlike membrane elements,
fiber beam elements proved to provide a good balance
between accuracy and numerical efficiency (Belarbi and
Hsu 1995). In fiber-based beam elements, the spread of
inelasticity along the depth is evaluated through discre-
tization of the section into a large number of fibers with
appropriate material models. Typical fiber elements
account for the axial-flexural interaction effect owing to
the assumption that plane sections remain plane after
deformation. Lately, Mullapudi and Ayoub (Mullapudi
and Ayoub 2010) developed a fiber-based beam element
that accounts for shear-axial-flexure interaction effects
and further improved the element to account for full
three-dimensional effects, including the combined bend-
ing, axial, shear and torsional interaction (Mullapudi and
Ayoub 2013).

© The Author(s) 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made.
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 2 of 16

2 Research Objective the effect of VC; because the cracks are assumed to be
The main objective of this paper is to derive an appro- oriented at a fixed angle and the proper concrete shear
priate material tangent stiffness matrix for fiber beam- stress term (τc) is accounted for.
column element formulation of shear-critical concrete To formulate the SMM model with the inclusion of
members (Fig.  1). The developed stiffness matrix does FRP, three coordinate systems are defined as shown in
not account for material nonlinearity. Simplified cyclic Fig.  2: the first (x, y) represents the local coordinate of
uniaxial constitutive laws are developed for concrete the fiber; the second (1, 2) defines the principal stresses;
in both compression and tension. The formulation of while the third system (r, d) defines the concrete princi-
the proposed element is based on the flexibility method pal coordinate system in which the concrete shear stress
of analysis. Flexibility-based formulations (Mullapudi c =0
τ12  . In the figure, α1 is the angle between the x- and
and Ayoub 2009; Labib et  al. 2013) are used to over- 1-axes, and αr is the angle between the x- and r-axes
come most of the locking difficulties associated with the (Fig. 2).
standard displacement model. Shear effects is simulated
through a Timoshenko-based approach (Mullapudi and
Ayoub 2009). The concrete constitutive law is based on
the aforementioned SMM model with Hsu/Zhu ratios. 2 y r
The work also attempts to improve the development of d
the concrete uni-axial constitutive relations. The model σy
αr1
is added to the library of the finite element program τxy 1
FEAPpv (Taylor 2005).
τ c
12
α1
σ 2c αr
3 Concrete Constitutive Model τxy σx x
The ACI 318 (American Concrete Institute 2008) build- τ 12
c
σ1c
ing code suggests that the shear strength of an RC mem- σ 2c
ber is the combination of concrete strength (VC) and σ1c
transverse reinforcement strength (VS). The value of VC
cannot be calculated in the RA-STM model, because the
crack angle is assumed to be rotating. However, the FA- Fig. 2  Local coordinate (x, y); principal stress directions (1, 2); and
STM and SMM theories are capable of accounting for concrete principal coordinate system (r, d) of RC elements.

Reinforcing Steel

f C' Z

Concrete i
σ P = ξ fC'
X
ε P = ξε 0 ε 0

Fig. 1  Fiber model discretization.

Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 3 of 16

To following matrix R(θ) is used to rotate the stress and where fsx and fsy are the reinforcing bar stresses in the x
strain vectors from one coordinate system to another: and y directions respectively, and ρsx, ρsy are the smeared
steel ratios in the x and y directions respectively.
cos2 θ sin2 θ
 
2 cos θ sin θ The lateral strain ɛy in fiber i is calculated from the
[R(θ)] =  sin2 θ cos2 θ −2 cos θ sin θ  second of Equations in (4), knowing that the value of σy
− cos θ sin θ cos θ sin θ cos2 θ − sin2 θ equals zero. In order to evaluate the value of the lateral
(1) strain ɛy, an iterative procedure is needed owing to the
where θ is the angle between the two coordinate systems. nonlinear behavior of the materials used (Mullapudi
The compatibility equations in the x–y system are: and Ayoub 2010).
T T
(2)
 
εx εy 0.5γxy = [R(−α1 )] ε1 ε2 0.5γ12
5 Uni‑Axial Constitutive Relationships
Similar to the strain transformations, stress transfor- of the Materials T
mation equations in the x–y system are: The biaxial strains in the x–y direction εx εy γxy


need to be converted to equivalent uniaxial

T strains in
the principal 1–2 direction ε̄1 ε̄2 γ12 in order to
T T 
= [R(−α1 )] σ1c σ2c τ12
c
(3)
 
σx σy τxy
evaluate the concrete stresses as explained in (Mul-
The transformation equations are graphically repre- lapudi and Ayoub 2010).
sented by Mohr’s stress and strain circles in Fig. 3. To evaluate the rotating crack angle, αr corresponding
For a fiber Timoshenko-type beam element formula- to a concrete shear stress τ12
c =0
(Fig. 3) the following
tion, the state determination at the fiber level uses the expression is used:
strain state {ɛx, ɛy, γxy} to evaluate the fiber stresses {σx, γxy
σy, τxy}. In this case, the values of ɛx, γxy are given, but the tan 2αr = (5)
εx − εy
lateral strain ɛy value is unknown and has to be calculated
from the equilibrium equations as described next.
The calculation of the rotating angle, αr is dependent
4 Process to Evaluate Lateral Strains on the strain state. The calculation of the trial rotating
To evaluate the lateral strain, the equilibrium equations angle, αr∗ from the Mohr circle (Fig.  3) is based on the
between concrete and steel are given below: strain values

cos2 α1 sin2 α1
      
 σx  −2 cos α1 sin α1  σ1c   ρsx fsx 
(4)
σy =  sin2 α1 cos2 α1 2 cos α1 sin α1  σ2c + ρsy fsy
 τc   0 
cos α1 sin α1 − cos α1 sin α1 cos2 α1 − sin2 α1
τ 
xy 12

γ
a τ b
2
(σ xc , +τ xy ) (ε x , +0.5γ xy )

2α1 (σ 1c , +τ 12c ) 2α1 (ε1 , +0.5γ 12 )

2α r 2α r
2αr1 σ 2τ 12c
2αr1 ε γ 12
σd σr εd 2αr1 εr
2αr1
(σ 2c , −τ 12c ) (ε 2 , −0.5γ 12 )
2α*r
(σ yc , −τ xy ) (ε y , −0.5γ xy )
σ −σ
c c ε1 − ε 2
1 2

Fig. 3  Mohr Circle representation of stresses and strains a Stress, b strain.

Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 4 of 16


 γxy 
  T  T
αr∗ = 0.5 tan−1  ε1 ε2 0.5γ12 = [R(α1 )] εx εy 0.5γxy (8)
(6)

εx − εy 
T
The biaxial strains in the x–y direction εx εy γxy


If the value of the difference between the axial and need to be converted to equivalent uniaxial
T strains in the
transverse strains |ɛx − ɛy| = 0, then the value of the rotat- principal 1–2 direction ε̄1 ε̄2 γ12 in order to evalu-
ing angle αr depends upon the value of the shear strain ate the concrete stresses as explained in (Mullapudi and
γxy as follows. Ayoub 2010). This is done using the Hsu/Zhu ratios (μ12,
Rotating angle αr = 45° when the value of γxy > 0, and μ21) (Zhu and Hsu 2002). μ12 is the ratio of the tensile
αr = 135° when the value of the γxy < 0. strain increment in direction 1 to the compressive strain
If the value of the shear strain γxy = 0 then the rotating increment in direction 2, and μ21 is the ratio of the com-
angle depends upon the value of the ɛx and ɛy as follows. pressive strain increment in direction 2 to the tensile
The rotating angle αr = 0° when the value of ɛx > ɛy and, strain increment in direction 1. Based on test data the fol-
αr = 90° when the value of ɛx < ɛy. lowing expressions are proposed by Zhu and Hsu (2002).
If both the shear strain and the difference of the axial
and transverse strains are non-zero numbers, then the
µ12 = 0.2 + 850εsf εsf ≤ εy , (9)
following laws will be applied.
µ12 = 1.9 εsf > εy (10)
••  If the value of ɛx > ɛy and the shear strain γxy > 0, then where ɛsf is the strain in the steel bar that yields first and
the value of the rotating angle αr becomes the value ɛy is the yield strain.
of the αr∗. After cracking, the value of the Hsu/Zhu ratio μ12 is
••  If the value of ɛx > ɛy and the shear strain γxy < 0, then larger than maximum value of 0.5 for Poisson ratios of
the value of the rotating angle αr = 180° − αr∗. continuous materials. Before cracking, the Hsu/Zhu
••  If the value of ɛx < ɛy and the shear strain γxy > 0, then ratio μ21 = 0.2 and, after cracking, μ21 = 0, meaning the
the value of the rotating angle αr = 90° − αr∗. tensile strain does not affect the compressive strain.
••  If the value of ɛx < ɛy and the shear strain γxy < 0, then The Hsu/Zhu ratio is used to elate the uni-axial
the value of the rotating angle αr = 90° + αr∗. strains to the biaxial principal strains:
T T
After evaluating theɛyterm that satisfies the equilibrium
 
ε̄sx ε̄sy 0.5γxy = [µ][R(−α1 )] ε1 ε2 0.5γ12
condition (Eq. 4), the principal angle α1 is evaluated as: (11)
2τxy
tan 2α1 = (7) where
σx − σy  1 µ12 
1−µ12 µ21 1−µ12 µ21 0
Similar to Eq. (2), the biaxial principal strains are calcu-
[µ] =  µ21 1
1−µ12 µ21 1−µ12 µ21 0 (12)
lated as follow: 0 0 1

The longitudinal and transverse reinforcement uni-

axial principal strains are then:
   
1 µ12 µ21 1
ε̄sx = ε1 + ε2 cos2 (α1 )+ ε1 + ε2 sin2 (α1 )−γ12 sin(α1 ) cos(α1 )
1 − µ12 µ21 1 − µ12 µ21 1 − µ12 µ21 1 − µ12 µ21
(13)
   
1 µ12 µ21 1
ε̄sy = ε1 + ε2 sin2 (α1 )+ ε1 + ε2 cos2 (α1 ) +′ γ12 sin(α1 ) cos(α1 )
1 − µ12 µ21 1 − µ12 µ21 1 − µ12 µ21 1 − µ12 µ21
(14)
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 5 of 16

fc A ( ς ε0 ,ς fC )
'

f c' Non Softened

ε20 − ς ε0
εc − ς ε0 D (ε 1 , f 1 )
m m
ς fc' A ∆ G EC

Stress, fc
0.8σf c' EC
B(ε20 ,0.2ς fC )
'
Softened EC E C
0.2σf '
B C
fc 1F
c
0.2ς fC
'
O H 0.5Er
O ςε o εo 2εo εc ε20 εc (ε t1,0) εc
1
Er
Fig. 4  Monotonic softened concrete material model.
E20 − fr
(-εr ,-fr )
R
−εr ε 20
The equivalent uniaxial longitudinal and transverse
Strain, εc
steel stresses, fsx and fsy respectively are evaluated from
the corresponding steel strains ε̄sx and ε̄sy through a Fig. 5  Cyclic stress–strain curve of softened concrete.
proper steel constitutive model. The equivalent uni-
axial strains ε̄1 and ε̄2 are also used to evaluate the con-
crete stresses σ1c and σ2c. member are assumed to follow a parabolic shape. The
descending branch of the softened envelope is gently
sloped until the stress reaches a value that equals 20%
5.1 Concrete Model of the maximum stress ςfc′ at a strain of ɛ20. The residual
The uniaxial concrete material model adopted follows concrete compressive strength is assumed to be 20% of
the well-established modified Kent and Park model the softened concrete compressive strength ( ς fc′ ). The sse
(Park et al. 1982). However, the model was modified to of this value in the model is very common and has accu-
account for the following effects: rately predicted the experimental results (Mullapudi and
Ayoub 2013).
••  First, the softening effect for both, the stresses and For the softened behavior, the following relationships
strains, is accounted for. are adopted:
••  Second, the cyclic stiffness degradation for both,   2 
the unloading and reloading branches, is intro-
 
′ εc εc
Region OA, εc ≤ ςε0 , fc = ςfc 2 −
duced. ςε0 ςε0
••  Third, the tension-stiffening effect is accounted for (16)
(Belarbi and Hsu 1994).
′  
2fc εc
According to Kent and Park (Park et  al. 1982), the Region OA, εc ≤ ςε0 , Tangent modulus Et =
ε0
1−
ς ε0
monotonic stress–strain envelope of concrete follows a
(17)
parabolic curve (Fig. 4):
  
εc − ςε0 2

      ′
′ εc εc 2 Region AB, ςε0 < εc ≤ ε20 , fc = ςfc 1 − 0.8
ε20 − ς ε0
fc = fc 2 − (15)
ε0 ε0
(18)
It was observed from experimental tests of con-
crete panels that the compressive stress–strain curve Region AB, ςε0 < εc ≤ ε20 ,
is reduced due to the effect of perpendicular tensile (19)
 
′ εc − ςε0
Tangent modulus Et = −1.6ςfc
stresses. This effect is accounted for through a softening (ε20 − ςε0 )2
coefficient ς . When the softened stress–strain curve is
developed, it is assumed that the lines that connect the Region BC, εc > ε20 , fc = 0.2ς fc′ (20)
origin to the peak stress of the softened and non-sof-
tened curve have the same slope as shown in Fig. 4. Simi- Region BC, εc > ε20 , Tangent modulus Et = 0. (21)
larly, the pre-peak and post-peak curves of the softened
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 6 of 16

The cyclic model (Fig. 5) considers the concrete dam-

age and accounts for the crack opening and closing. fs
Bare steel bar Smeared steel bar
The envelope for the cyclic stress–strain curves of con- fp
crete adheres to the monotonic stress–strain curve. The Ep
fy E p'
unloading and reloading path of the compressive side is
simplified, as all the loading paths start from a common f y'
point R, which determines the degradation stiffness
f 0'
(i.e. the ratio between the slope of any given loading
Es
path and that of the monotonic envelope at the origin),

Steel stress
which limit is provided by the slope of the path RB.
The unloading modulus E′20 at point B of the mono-
0.2ς fc −fr
tonic envelope curve is ε20 −ε r
 . E20 and must be deter-
mined experimentally. The stress and strain at the
intersection of point R and the origin are given by the Es
following expressions:
Steel strain εp εs
ε y'
′
0.2ςfc − E20 ε20
εr = (22)
Ec − E20 Fig. 6  Smeared mild steel stress–strain curve.

fr = Ec εr (23)
Here, fcP is the previous stress and Δɛc is the strain
in which Ec is the initial tangent modulus at origin in increment.
compression;
′ in the current model, it is assumed to equal The actual stress fc and tangent modulus Et are calcu-
2fc
ε0  
. The unloading stress fm1 and strain εm
1 values at point
lated based on the trial stress state
D on the compressive monotonic envelope are used to 1 1
calculate the reloading modulus and strain εt1 at zero fmin ≤ fcT ≤ fmax then fc = fcT and Et = Ec (29)
stress point H from the following expressions: 1 1
fcT < fmin then fc = fmin and Et = 0.5Er1 (30)
fm − fr
Er1 = (24) 1 1
εm − εr fcT > fmax then fc = fmax and Et = Er1 . (31)
When the unloading begins from points D to E, the
f1 reloading will follow the same path back to D. When
εt1 = 1
εm − m1
Er (25) the unloading reaches point F, then reloading will result
in the loop DEFGD. If unloading reaches point H, then
From any unloading point D, the stress will reach the reloading will follow loop DEHD. The reloading path will
zero stress axis at point H after completing two smaller always rejoin the compression envelope at the point of
cycles that are defined by these expressions: initial unloading, D. If unloading continues below point
1 H, then reloading begins in tension. After the start of the
Maximum stress (line HD) fmax reloading in compression, the model will re-enter the
 
1
= fm1 + Er1 εc − εm , εt1 ≤ εc ≤ εm
1
(26) compression branch at point H. Subsequent loading in
the tension branch will not affect the behavior once the
1 model returns back to the compression branch.
Minimum stress (line HE) fmin
 
= 0.5Er1 εc − εt1 , εt1 ≤ εc ≤ εm
1
. (27) 5.2 Steel Model
The smeared stress–strain relationship of steel embed-
The loading and unloading cycles are carried out with ded in concrete under uni-axial loading has been devel-
the assumption that the model follows a linear behavior oped by Belarbi and Hsu (1994, 1995). The steel strain
with modulus Ec. The trial stress fcT and tangent modulus at cracked sections typically increases rapidly compared
Et are based on a linear elastic behavior with initial tan- to adjacent regions because part of the stress is resisted
gent modulus Ec; later this assumption is corrected to fall by the concrete. Steel stresses are averaged along the
under the line HD and line HE. reinforcing bar crossing several cracks, and the result-
ing smeared steel stress at first yield is reduced com-
fcT = fcP + Ec �εc (28)
pared to the local yield stress of a bare bar. The smeared
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 7 of 16

stress–strain relationship of embedded steel bars (solid ′

fy
′
curves), as well as that of bare bar (dotted curve) are plot- εy = . (37)
Es
ted in Fig. 6.
The difference between the bare bar yield stress fy and
smeared steel bar yield stress fy′ depends on the param- The slope of the strain hardening branch of the smeared
eter B defined by Belarbi and Hsu (1994, 1995). The steel bar is calculated as
parameter Bis derived to be a function of three variables
′
such as percentage of steel (ρ), cracking strength of con- Ep = 0.02 + B. (38)
crete (fcr), and yield stress of the bare bar (fy). The param-
eter B depends on the crack width, crack spacing and The smeared steel stress before yielding can be calcu-
interface bond slip behavior of steel bar and concrete. lated as:
It can be seen that when the steel ratio ρ is decreased
′
or when fcr is increased, then the smeared yield stress f s = Es when εs ≤ εy (39)
fy′ decreases and the smeared stress–strain plot moves
downward. ′
fs = (0.91− 2B)fy + (0.02 + 0.25B)Es ε̄s when εs > εy .
As shown in Fig. 6, the shape of both, the bare bar and
the smeared steel bar, curves of mild steel follow two (40)
straight lines. These two straight lines have slopes of Es When the steel stress fs reaches a value of fp and begins
before yielding and Ep′ after yielding for smeared steel, to unload, then the unloading branch follows a straight
and slope of Ep after yielding for bare steel bar as illus- line with a slope of Es. The unloading stress is expressed
trated in Fig. 6. The slope of the strain-hardening branch as:
of the bare steel bar is assumed to equal 0.025 Es. The  
stress value at which the two straight lines of smeared
fs = fp − Es εp − εs where εs < εp (41)
steel intersect is the smeared yield stress fy′ and the cor- The cyclic response of the smeared steel bar is formu-
responding strain is the smeared yield strain εy′ . lated according to the Filippou et al. (1983) model which
The equations of the pre yield and post yield lines are accounts for isotropic strain hardening and Bauschinger
given as: effect.

6 Tangent Material Constitutive Relations

′
fs = Es εs when fs ≤ fy (32)
The concrete constitutive law is simplified as an ortho-
tropic material with two perpendicular planes of elastic
′ ′ ′
fs = fo + Ep εs when fs > fy . (33) symmetry. Directions one and two are the local princi-
pal material axes that are normal to the planes of sym-
The vertical intercept of the post yield line fo′ is evalu- metry. With the equivalent uni-axial strains, the stiffness
ated as: values Ē1c and Ē2c are determined from a material uni-
axial stress–strain relationship. The material behavior is
′
′ Es − Ep ′ expressed as:
fo = fy (34)
Es
 c
σ12 = [Dlo ]c {ε12 } (42)
Belarbi and Hsu (1994, 1995) defined the parameter In this equation, σ12 is the concrete stress vector,
 c

Bas: {ɛ12} is the principal strain vector, and [Dlo]c is the prin-
cipal local uni-axial concrete material tangent stiffness
matrix.
 1.5
1 fcr
B= , (35) The tangent stiffness matrix of an RC element is
ρ fy
defined as:
where fcr = 0.31 fc (MPa) and ρ ≥ 0.15%.
 ′
 
The smeared yield stress of steel bar is calculated as:  σx 
d σy
′
τ 
� �c+s xy
fy = (0.93 − 2B)fy (36) Dgl =  , (43)
ε
 x 
The smeared steel bar yield strain is calculated as: d εy
 1γ 
2 xy
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 8 of 16

where [Dgl]c is the tangent material constitutive matrix of

y concrete; and [Dgl]s is the tangent material constitutive
xsi
matrix of the steel bars.
steel
The equivalent uni-axial strains can be calculated from
α si − α1 1 the global strains using:
2
ysi α si

 ε̄1 
 
 εx 

α1
x ε̄2 = [µ] · [R(α1 )] · εy , (49)
 1γ   1γ 
2 12 2 xy
Fig. 7  Coordinate system for reinforced concrete element.

where [μ] is the Hsu/Zhu ratio matrix as shown in Eq. 12.


 σx 
  
 σ1c  �
 
 ρsi fsi 
After substituting Eq. (49) into Eq. (46):
σy = [R(−α1 )] σ2c + [R(−αsi )] 0 , ∂σ1c ∂σ1c ∂σ c
 
� 1 �
τ   τc   0  ∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄2 ∂ 1
xy 12 i  2 γ12 
∂σ2c ∂σ2c ∂σ2c
(44)
� �c  
Dgl = [R(−α1 )] ·   · [µ] · [R(α1 )].
 � � 
∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄2 ∂ 12 γ12
where ρsi is the reinforcement ratio in the ith direc-
 
 ∂τ12c ∂τ12c ∂τ c 
� 12 �
tion; and [R(− α1)] and [R(− αsi)] are the transformation ∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄2 ∂ 12 γ12
matrices from the local 1–2 coordinate and the x­ si − ysi (50)
reinforcement coordinate system, to the x–y coordinate
system, respectively (Fig. 7). From Eq.  (50), the concrete local tangential stiffness
Substituting Eq. (44) into Eq. (43) gives: can be written as:
   
 σ1c  �

 ρsi fsi 
∂ [R(−α1 )] σ c
+ i [R(−αsi )] 0
 ∂σ1c ∂σ1c ∂σ c 
� 1 �
 τ c2 

 0  ∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄2 ∂ 12 γ12
� �c+s 12  
Dgl =   .  ∂σ2c ∂σ2c ∂σ c 
 εx  � 2 �
[Dlo ]c =  . (51)
 
∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄2 ∂ 12 γ12
∂ εy  
 1γ  ∂τ12c ∂τ12c ∂τ c
2 xy
 
� 12 �
∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄2 ∂ 12 γ12
(45)

Equation (45) is split into a concrete stiffness [Dgl]c and After substituting Eq. (51) into Eq. (50):
a reinforcement stiffness [Dgl]s as:  c
  Dgl = [R(−α1 )] · [Dlo ]c · [µ] · [R(α1 )]. (52)
 σ1c 


∂ [R(−α1 )] σ2c  The diagonal terms in Eq.  (64) matrix can be found
� �c  τc  directly from the uni-axial stresses and strains cin the
Dgl =  12 , (46)
∂σ
respective directions. The first diagonal term ∂ ε̄11 = Ē1c
 εx 
εy is the tangential uni-axial modulus of concrete in the
∂ ∂σ c
 1γ  1-direction, the second diagonal term ∂ ε̄22 = Ē2c is the
2 xy
tangential uni-axial modulus of concrete in the 2-direc-
∂τ c σ c −σ c
tion, and the third diagonal term  1 12  = ε11 −ε22 = G12 c
and ∂ 2 γ12
∂σ c ∂σ c
is the shear modulus. The off-diagonal terms ∂ ε̄21 and ∂ ε̄12
  
 ρsi fsi 
are obtained using the uni-axial stresses and the uni-
�
∂  i [R(−αsi )] 0 
� �s  0  axial strains in the orthogonal direction. These off-diag-
Dgl =   . (47) onal terms are not zero because the stress and strains of
 εx 
∂ εy the concrete in compression is softened by the perpen-
 1γ  dicular tensile strains.
2 xy
Therefore, [Dlo]c can be written as:

Thus the total stiffness becomes: ∂σ c

 
Ē1c ∂ ε̄21 0
 c
[Dlo ]c =  ∂σ2 Ē c 0 . (53)

 c+s  c  s
Dgl = Dgl + Dgl , (48) ∂ ε̄1 2
c
0 0 G12
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 9 of 16

The off-diagonal terms can be determined with three 

5.8

1
  0 
α 
cases as described below. ζ =  ′ ≤ 0.9 √ 1 − r10 .
fc (MPa) 1 + 400ε̄1 24

6.1 Equivalent uni‑axial strains ε̄1 > 0 and ε̄2 > 0

(57)
When ε̄1 > 0 and ε̄2 > 0 then the uni-axial concrete In Eq. (57), αr1 is in degrees. If the value of the αr1 is
stresses σ1c and σ2c are calculated only from uni-axial in radians then the value of the 24° should be converted
strains ε̄1 and ε̄2 , respectively. into radians. From panel tests up to 100  MPa of con-
Therefore, crete compressive strength, the deviation angle αr1 is
equal to or less than 24° (Wang 2006)
∂σ1C ∂σ2C
=0 and = 0. (54) After making the required changes, Eq. (57) becomes
∂ ε̄2 ∂ ε̄1     c 
5.8 1 15αr1 
ζ = ≤ 0.9 √ 1− ,
6.2 Equivalent uni‑axial strains ε̄1 > 0 and ε̄2 < 0
 ′
fc (MPa) 1 + 400ε̄1 2π
When the uni-axial strain is ε̄1 > 0 then the uni-axial
(58)
compressive stress σ1c is calculated directly from the ε̄1 ,
and σ1c is not a function of the orthogonal concrete strain
∂σ1C
 
ε̄2 . Therefore, γ12
∂ ε̄2 = 0.
c
αr1 = 0.5 tan−1 and (59)
∂σ2C ε1 − ε2
To obtain ∂ ε̄1  , the constitutive law of the concrete strut
in compression is needed.
∂σ C
In order to obtain ∂ε21  , the constitutive law of con- ε1 = ε̄1 − µ12 ε̄2 and ε2 = ε̄2 − µ21 ε̄1 , (60)
crete in compression is needed. where ɛ1 and ɛ2 are the biaxial strains in the 1–2 coor-
    dinate system and ε̄1 and ε̄2 are the equivalent uni-axial
ε̄2 2
 
C ′ ε̄2 ε̄2 strains in the 1–2 coordinate system.
σ2 = ζ · fC · 2 − , ≤ 1,
ζ ε0 ζ ε0 ζ ε0 From Eqs. 59 and 60:
(55)  
c γ12
αr1 = 0.5 tan−1 , (61)
 � � �2  ε̄1 (1 + µ21 ) − ε̄2 (1 + µ12 )
′ ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1 ε̄2
σ2C = ζ · fC · 1 − � , > 1,
4 ζ −1 ζ ε0 where μ12 and μ21 are the Hsu/Zhu ratios (Zhu and Hsu
2002)
(56)
where the softening coefficient ζ (Hsu and Zhu 2002) ∂σ2C ∂σ C ∂σ C ∂ζ
can be written as 2 = 2 · . (62)
∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄1 ∂ζ ∂ ε̄1

∂ζ
∂ ε̄1 can be derived after substituting Eq. (61) into Eq. (58):

    
√ ′5.8 √ 1 15 γ12
∂ 1 + 400ε̄1
1− 4π tan−1 ε̄1 (1 + µ21 )−ε̄2 (1 + µ12 ) (63)
∂ζ fc (MPa)
=
∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄1

−200
 
 (1 + 400ε̄ )1.5 + 
 1 
 � � 
� −1 γ12
200tan
�  
5.8 ε̄1 (1+µ 21 )−ε̄2 (1+µ 12 )
(64)
 
= � ′   
fc (MPa)  15 
  (1 + 400ε̄1 )1.5 

 4π  γ12 (1 + µ21 )
  

 + �2 � � 
(γ12 )2
�
(1 + 400ε̄1 )0.5 ε̄1 (1+µ21 )−ε̄ γ12
1+
2 (1+µ12 ) (ε̄1 (1+µ21 )−ε̄2 (1+µ12 ))2
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 10 of 16

∂σ2C Equation (71) can be written as:

where ∂ζ can be derived as follow when ζε̄ε20 ≤ 1:
  2   

′
     
2 ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1 ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
∂ ζ · fC · 2 ζε̄ε20 − ζε̄ε20 A=  +ζ ·2·  · B,
∂σ2C 4 ζ −1 4 ζ −1
= (73)
∂ζ ∂ζ
   
∂ 2 εε̄02 − (ε̄ζ 2ε)2
2
where
′
= fC ·
0 (65)    
∂ζ ∂ ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1 ε̄2 ε0 − 4
B= = . (74)
(4 − ζ )2

∂ζ 4 ζ −1
 
1
(ε̄2 )2 ∂ ζ
′
= −fC · 2 ·
ε0 ∂ζ Substituting Eq. (74) into Eq. (73) gives:
2  
′ (ε̄2 ) 1 
= −fC · 2 · − 2 ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
ε0 ζ A=   3
 2 4 ζ −1
′ ε̄2    
= fC · (66)   
· 1 − 12 ζ + 4 ζ + 1
 ε̄2
,
ε̄2
>1 .
ζ ε0
ζ ε0 ζ ε0
when ζε̄ε20 > 1: (75)
Substituting Eq. (75) into Eq. (70) gives:
  � � �2 
∂σ2C ∂  ′ ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
= ζ · fC · 1 − �  
∂ζ ∂ζ 4 ζ −1 ∂σ2C

′ ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
= fC · 1 −   3
(67) ∂ζ 4 ζ −1
 
  � � �2      ε̄2
∂ ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1 · 1 − 12 ζ + 4 ζ + 1 . (76)
′ ζ ε0
= fC · 1 − ζ · � . (68)
∂ζ 4 ζ −1
Substituting Eqs. (66) and (64) into Eq. (62) gives:When
Let 2
∂σ2C

ε̄2 ′ ε̄2 ∂ζ
 � �2  ≤ 1, = fC · · . (77)
ζ ε0 ∂ ε̄1 ζ ε0 ∂ ε̄1
�
∂  ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
ζ· �  = A, (69)
∂ζ 4 ζ −1
Substituting Eqs. (76) and (64) into Eq. (62) gives:When
Equation (67) can be written as: ε̄2 ∂σ2C
> 1,
∂σ2C ζ ε0 ∂ ε̄
′
= fC · (1 − A), (70)  1 
∂ζ ′ ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
= fC · 1−   3
4 ζ −1
where 
 ε̄2

∂ζ
(78)
  
· 1 − 12 ζ + 4 ζ + 1 · .
  2    ζ ε0 ∂ ε̄1
ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1 ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
A=  +ζ ·2· 
4 ζ −1 4 ζ −1
   When the equivalent uni-axial strains ε̄1 < 0 and
∂ ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
·  . (71) ε̄2 > 0 , then the same procedure should be followed.
∂ζ 4 ζ −1
6.3 Equivalent uni‑axial strains ε̄1 < 0 and ε̄2 < 0
Let
When ε̄1 < 0 and ε̄2 < 0 then concrete will not sof-
 
ε̄2 (ζ ε0 ) − 1
 ten; instead it increases its compressive strength in
∂
B=  , (72) one direction depending on the confining stress in the
∂ζ 4 ζ −1 orthogonal direction. Because of this reason, the value
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 11 of 16

of ζ should be greater than or equal to 1. The current Let

research uses the Vecchio’s (Vecchio 1992) simpli-
∂fsi ∂fsi �∂fsi �
 
fied version of Kupfer et al. (1969) biaxial compression ∂ ε̄si ∂ ε̄si∗ ∂ 1 γ
strength envelope. These equations are strength-based; [Dlo ]s = ρsi ·  0
 2 si
,

(86)
0 0
strain-based equations are not available in the literature
0 0 0
and need to be investigated in future. Accordingly:
∂ζ ∂ζ
=0 and =0 (79) where ∂∂fε̄sisi = Ēsi , which is the equivalent uni-axial tangen-
∂ ε̄1 ∂ ε̄2 tial modulus in the longitudinal direction of the rein-
forcement. The dowel action of the reinforcement is
neglected, thus ε̄∂fsi∗ = 0 , and also the shear deformation
∂σ1C ∂σ C ∂ζ si
= 1 · =0 (80)
∂ ε̄2 ∂ζ ∂ ε̄2 in the reinforcing bar is neglected, thus ∂fsi  = 0.
1
∂ 2 γsi

With these simplifications Eq. (86) can be written as:

∂σ2C ∂σ C ∂ζ
= 2 · =0 (81)  
∂ ε̄1 ∂ζ ∂ ε̄1 ρsi · Ēsi 0 0
[Dlo ]s =  0 0 0 . (87)
0 0 0
The global tangential constitutive matrix of steel
[Dgl]scan be derived From Fig. 7 as:
    Equation (85) can be written as:
 εx   ε̄si 
εy = [R(α1 )]−1 · [µ]−1 · [R(αsi − α1 )]−1 ε̄si∗ .  s 
Dgl = [R(−αsi )] · [Dlo ]s · [R(αsi − α1 )] · [µ] · [R(α1 )].
 1γ   1γ 
2 xy 2 si i
(82) (88)
where ε̄si is the equivalent uni-axial longitudinal strain of After substituting Eqs.  (88) and (51) into Eq.  (48) the
the reinforcement, ε̄si∗ is the equivalent uni-axial trans- global tangent material constitutive matrix [Dgl]c+s can be
verse or dowel strain of the reinforcement and γsi is the evaluated as:
equivalent uni-axial shear strain of the reinforcement.  c+s
Substituting Eq. (82) into Eq. (47) gives: kfiber = Dgl = [R(−α1 )] · [Dlo ]c · [µ]

  
 ρsi fsi 
· [R(α1 )] + [T (−αsi )] (89)
i
�
∂  i [R(−αsi )] 0 
� �s  0 
· [Dlo ]s · [R(αsi − α1 )] · [µ] · [R(α1 )]
Dgl =    ,
 ε̄si  The total section stiffness is evaluated from the sum of
∂ [R(α1 )]−1 · [µ]−1 · [R(αsi − α1 )]−1 ε̄si∗ 
 1γ  concrete and steel stiffness:
2 si

(83) n

[KSection ] = kfiber , (90)
1
∂fsi ∂fsi �∂fsi �
 
∂ ε̄si ∂ ε̄si∗ ∂ 1 γ The total section force is evaluated from the sum of
2 si
concrete and steel forces in their respective directions:
�
i [R(−αsi )] · ρsi ·  0
 
0 0 
(84)
0 0 0 n
= , 
[R(α1 )]−1 · [µ]−1 · [R(αsi − α1 )]−1 {FSection } = Ffiber . (91)
1

where n is the number of concrete and steel fibers in a

section.
∂fsi ∂fsi �∂fsi �
 
∂ ε̄si ∂ ε̄si∗ ∂ 1 γ The element stiffness and forces are calculated with
2 si
�
= [R(−αsi )] · ρsi ·  0 numerical integration of section stiffness and section
 
0 0 
i
0 0 0 forces at different section points along the length of the
(85) element.
[R(αsi − α1 )] · [µ] · [R(α1 )],
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 12 of 16

7 Numerical Correlations with Experiments 10.0

The simplified uni-axial material and constitutive laws

Concrete stress in longit. direction (MPa)

5.0
are implemented in the developed fiber beam element
and analyzed the structural members under cyclic load- 0.0

ing. Model predicted the experimental results through- -5.0

out the loading history and could be used to simulate the -10.0
behavior of RC structures under seismic loading.
-15.0 Fiber Beam Element
Experiment
-20.0
(εt=0.012)
7.1 Comparison of Concrete Model with the experimental -25.0
1‑D Cyclic Stress–Strain Curves
-30.0
The uni-axial material models developed in this paper -0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002
are compared with the experimental results of Mansour Concrete strain in longit. direction
(2001). Fig. 9  Panel CVE3-2 concrete stress–strain behavior comparison with
Mansour (2001) tested three panels of the CVE3— fiber beam element, and experiment (Mansour 2001).
series. The steel grids in these panels are set parallel to
the applied principal stresses in horizontal and verti-
cal directions. The three panels of this series CVE3-1, Comparison of the current model results for the three
CVE3-2 and CVE3-3 are subjected to 1-D cyclic loading panels in the CVE3 series showed an increase in lateral
in the horizontal direction, while maintaining a constant tensile strain; the ultimate value of the horizontal com-
lateral tensile strain (εt) of 0.0044, 0.012 and 0.030. pression stress decreases because of the softening behav-
Each panel has the following dimensions: length ior of the concrete. Figures 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 show that
1397 mm, height 1397 mm, and thickness 178 mm. The the current model predicts fairly well the experimental
panels are reinforced in each direction with No. 6 bars at behavior at both the compression and tension regions.
267 mm spacing. The concrete compressive strengths of
CVE3-1, CVE3-2, and CVE3-3 are 48, 41, and 43  MPa.
The yield stress of longitudinal and transverse steel of 7.2 Simulation of Columns
panels CVE3-1, CVE3-2, and CVE3-3 are 425.4  MPa Three hollow, rectangular prototype bridge piers PI1, PI2,
respectively. and PS1 are tested under reverse cyclical loading at the
The analytical result of the three panels CVE3-1, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineer-
CVE3-2, and CVE3-3 with the current model and corre- ing in Taiwan (Yeh and Mo 1999). These prototypes are
sponding experimental results are presented in Figs. 8, 9, analyzed using the fiber beam element. The specimens
and 10. In these figures, the horizontal axes represent the dimensions along with the material properties of con-
smeared concrete strain in the longitudinal direction, and crete and reinforcement as given in Table  1. Figure  11
the vertical axes represent the smeared concrete stress in shows the details of the specimens’ cross section dimen-
the longitudinal direction. sions and reinforcement details. The columns are tested

8
10.0
Concrete stress in longit. direction (MPa)
Concrete stress in longit. direction (MPa)

5.0 4
0.0
0
-5.0
Fiber Beam Element
-10.0 -4
Experiment
-15.0 (εt=0.0044)
-8
-20.0
Fiber Beam Element
-25.0 -12 Experiment
-30.0 (εt=0.030)
-16
-35.0
-40.0 -20
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004
Concrete strain in longit. direction Concrete strain in longit. direction
Fig. 8  Panel CVE3-1 concrete stress–strain behavior comparison with Fig. 10  Panel CVE3-3 concrete stress–strain behavior comparison
fiber beam element, and experiment (Mansour 2001). with fiber beam element, and experiment (Mansour 2001).
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 13 of 16

a 1500

a
i j 64-#7
b
1385
a
170
900 150
1500

150

900
b 170
#4@80
300
115
j

205
i

115
66 168 132 168 132 168 132 168 132 168 66

b 1500

a
i j 64-#7
b 1385
a
170
150
900
150
1500

b 170
900

#3@120
300 115
j

205
i

115

66 168 132 168 132 168 132 168 132 168 66

c 1500 1410

125 a
a
i j 64-#7 100
b
100
b 125

900
1500

100
900

j
210

#3@200 i
300
125

66 168 132 168 132 168 132 168 132 168 66

Fig. 11  Dimensions of cross sections and reinforcement details of specimens a PS1, b PI1 and c PI2 (Dimensions are in mm) (Yeh and Mo 1999).
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61 Page 14 of 16

reinforcements. Concrete enveloped by the stirrups is

Fig. 12  Comparison of load–displacement behavior of specimen PS1
with fiber beam element, and experiment (Yeh and Mo 1999).
modeled as confined concrete, while the remaining con-
crete (mostly in the cover) is considered as unconfined.
The horizontal forces are increased based on the cyclic
displacement control scheme.
The analytical shear force versus displacement relation-
ships of the specimens are predicted with the 2-D fiber
beam element as shown in Figs. 12, 13, 14; the results are
then compared to the experimental data.
The moment arms for specimens PS1, PI1, and PI2
are 6.5, 4.5, and 3.5 m respectively. The reinforcement of
the columns is designed such that column PS1 is domi-
nated by a flexural failure, column PI1 is dominated by
a flexure-shear failure, and column PI2 is dominated
by shear failure. The experimental results (Yeh and Mo
1999) showed that specimens PS1 and PI1 failed in a
flexure mode with the formation of plastic hinges at the
bottom of the column and specimen PI2 failed under
shear failure mode without rupturing the longitudinal
reinforcement. The failure modes and ductility levels are
reflected in the shape of the load displacement plots. The
rebar yielded significantly prior to crushing of the con-
crete in specimens PS1 and PI1 (Figs. 12 and 13), which
resulted in a long yield plateau and higher energy dissi-
pation. Specimen PI2 (Fig.  14) showed a much shorter
yield plateau and pinching with less energy dissipation

Fig. 13  Comparison of load–displacement behavior of specimen PI1

with fiber beam element, and experiment (Yeh and Mo 1999).

under displacement control with cyclically-reversed hori-

zontal load.
The specimens are modeled with only one force based
element and five Gauss–Lobatto integration points.
The cross section is divided into 28 fiber sections. The
boundary condition at the bottom is assumed to be
fixed while the lateral load is applied to the top of the
column. The longitudinal and transverse steel ratios are Fig. 14  Comparison of load–displacement behavior of specimen PI2
calculated based on the dimensions and spacing of the with fiber beam element, and experiment (Yeh and Mo 1999).

Table 1  Properties of bridge piers (Yeh and Mo 1999).

Specimen fc (MPa)
′
Length (mm) Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement
name
Dia. (mm) fy (MPa) fsu (MPa) Dia. (mm) fy (MPa) Spacing (mm)

PS1 34.0 6500 22 460.0 647.0 13 343.0 80

PI1 4500 10 510.0 120
PI2 32.0 3500 418.2 626.5 10 420.0 200
′
fc , Concrete compressive strength; fy, Steel yielding strength; fsu, Steel ultimate strength; Dia., Diameter of steel bar.
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61
Table 2  Comparison of strength values for specimens PS1, PI1, and PI2 (Yeh and Mo 1999).
Specimen Strength in positive cycles Strength in positive cycles
(experimental) (analytical)
PS1 1580 1600
PI1 2300 2200
PI2 2700 2800
than specimens PS1 and PI1. Specimen PS1 developed a
displacement ductility of 10.8, specimen PI1 developed
a displacement ductility of 7.8, and specimen PI2 devel-
oped a displacement ductility of only 3.7.
The analytical load–displacement relationships with
the fiber beam element accurately captured the differ-
ent behaviors of each of the three specimens. The fiber
beam element predicted the initial stiffness, yield point,
ultimate strength, and ductility of specimens PS1 and PI1
very well. The predicted cyclic load–displacement curve
of symmetric specimen PI1 (Fig. 13) showed less ultimate
strength in the negative cycles compared to experimental
results. The fiber beam element also predicted the behav-
ior of specimen PI2 (Fig.  14) to a degree in the positive
direction, including the ultimate strength and strength
degradation in the descending branch. The predicted
ultimate strength of specimen PI2 in the negative direc-
tion is slightly higher than the test result, while the ulti-
mate strength is slightly less with the plane stress element
analysis. The predicted hysteresis loops of specimen PI2
with fiber beam element showed much less energy dis-
sipation and predicted the experimental results. Table  2
summarizes the specimens’ strength values for both the
experimental results and analytical predictions.
8 Conclusions
This paper represents a new element for cyclic analysis of
reinforced concrete structures. A fiber-based beam ele-
ment is developed to analyze reinforced concrete struc-
tures with the incorporation of mechanisms of shear
deformation and strength. Simplified cyclic uni-axial
constitutive relations are developed and checked with
the 1-D cyclic test panels of Mansour (2001). The tan-
gent stiffness is formulated with the inclusion of the sof-
tening and dilatation effects. The reverse cyclic analyses
of different columns with rectangular cross-sections are
analyzed with the 2-D fiber beam element. The cyclic
analysis of columns tested by Yeh and Mo (1999) are
analyzed with the 2-D fiber beam element. The columns
with different aspect ratio exhibit different behaviors.
The numerical results concerning the columns agree with
the experimental data throughout the entire loading his-
tory. The finite element analysis using the generalized
Page 15 of 16
Strength in negative cycles Strength
(experimental) in negative cycles
(analytical)
− 1620 − 1600
− 2050 − 2200
− 2700 − 2800
Softened Membrane Model predicted the experimen-
tal results throughout the loading history, including the
initial stiffness, yield point, ultimate strength, and failure
mode; and could therefore be used to simulate the behav-
ior of RC structures under seismic loading.
Authors’ contributions
TRM and AA developed the model presented. TRM conducted the computer
coding and drafted the first version of the manuscript. Both authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Author details
1
 CTLGroup, 27834 Burchfield Grove Ln, Katy, TX 77494, USA. 2 Dept. of Civil
Engineering, City University of London, Northampton Square, London EC1V
OHB, UK.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
Received: 30 November 2017 Accepted: 26 June 2018
References
American Concrete Institute. (2008). ACI 318, Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American
Concrete Institute.
Belarbi, A., & Hsu, T. T. C. (1994). Constitutive laws of concrete in tension and
reinforcing bars stiffened by concrete. Structural Journal, American Con-
crete Institute, 91, 465–474.
Belarbi, A., & Hsu, T. T. C. (1995). Constitutive laws of softened concrete in
biaxial tension-compression. Structural Journal of the American Concrete
Institute, 92(5), 562–573.
Filippou, F. C., Popov, E. P., Bertero, V. V. (1983). Effects of bond deterioration on
hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints. Report SESM 77-1, Divi-
sion of Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics. Berkeley: University
of California.
Hsu, T. T. C., & Zhu, R. R. H. (2002). Softened membrane model for reinforced
concrete elements in shear. Structural Journal of the American Concrete
Institute, 99(4), 460–469.
Kupfer, H. B., Hildorf, H. K., & Rusch, H. (1969). Behavior of concrete under biax-
ial stresses. Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, 66(8), 656–666.
Labib, M., Mullapudi, T. R. S., & Ayoub, A. S. (2013). Analysis of RC structures
subjected to multi-directional shear loads. Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, 11, 22–34.
Mansour, M. (2001). Behavior of reinforced concrete membrane elements
under cyclic shear experiments to theory. Ph.D. dissertation. Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston.
Mullapudi, T. R. S., & Ayoub, A. S. (2009). Fiber beam element formulation using
the softened membrane model. American concrete institute special publica-
tion (pp. 283–308). Farmington Hills: SP-265, ACI.
Ravi Mullapudi and Ayoub Int J Concr Struct Mater (2018) 12:61
Mullapudi, T. R. S., & Ayoub, A. S. (2010). Modeling of the seismic behavior of
shear-critical reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Engineering Struc-
tures, 32(11), 3601–3615.
Mullapudi, T. R. S., & Ayoub, A. S. (2013). Analysis of reinforced concrete
columns subjected to combined axial, flexure, shear and torsional loads.
Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 139(4), 561–573.
Pang, X. B., & Hsu, T. T. C. (1996). Fixed-Angle softened-truss model for rein-
forced concrete. Structural Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 93(2),
197–207.
Park, R., Priestley, M. J. N., & Gill, W. D. (1982). Ductility of square confined con-
crete columns. Journal of Structural Davison, ASCE, 108(4), 929–950.
Taylor, R. L. (2005). FEAP User Manual v2.0. Berkeley: Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California. http://www.ce.berke​
ley.edu/~rlt/feap/.
Page 16 of 16
Vecchio, F. J. (1992). Finite element modeling of concrete expansion and con-
finement. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(9), 2390–2405.
Wang, J. (2006). Constitutive relationships of prestressed concrete membrane
elements. Ph.D. dissertation. Houston: University of Houston.
Yeh, Y. K., Mo, Y. L. (1999). Full scale tests on ductility, shear strength and retrofit
of reinforced concrete hollow columns (I). Report, No. NCREE-99-024.
Taipei: National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering. (in
Chinese).
Zhu, R. H., & Hsu, T. T. C. (2002). Poisson effect of reinforced concrete mem-
brane elements. Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, 99(5),
631–640.
Zhu, R. H., Hsu, T. T. C., & Lee, J. Y. (2001). Rational shear modulus for smeared
crack analysis of reinforced concrete. Structural Journal, American Concrete
Institute, 98(4), 443–450.