ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 116-S133
Effect of Limited Tension Stiffening in Reinforced Concrete
Elements under Cyclic Loads
by Xueying Wang and J. S. Kuang
The tension capacity in cracked concrete is not well defined in
existing shear models for reinforced concrete (RC) membrane
elements under cyclic reversed loading, and the shear strength
of RC elements is consequently overestimated due to the deviated
decreasing branch of envelope of cyclic tensile stress-strain rela-
tionship. In this paper, the cyclic effect of limited tension stiffening
of cracked RC elements is evaluated by proposing an analytical
model named as the cyclic tension-stiffening fixed-angle truss
model (CTFTM). The proposed model, based on fixed-angle theory,
integrates unloading and reloading rules and accumulated damage
into the limited tension-stiffening effect under cyclic loading and
considers the consequent local stress variation at crack surface.
The cyclic effect of limited tension stiffening of RC elements is veri-
fied by comparing with experimental results in the literature. The
predictions show good agreement, and the effect of biaxial loading
is also examined.
Keywords: cyclic loading; cyclic tension-stiffening fixed-angle truss
model; reinforced concrete membrane element; shear; tension stiffening.
INTRODUCTION
The reinforced concrete (RC) membrane elements can be
regarded as a basic element of various structures. The corre-
sponding membrane stresses include in-plane shear as well
as axial stresses, among which the shear stress is recognized
as a critical and dominant issue to the overall performance of
RC elements since sudden and brittle failure can be thereby
induced. In the past few decades, extensive effort has been
devoted to the modeling of shear behavior or RC membrane
elements under monotonic loading and two categories of
shear models were developed, differentiated by Compres-
sion Field Theory and Softened Truss Theory. The Modified
Compression Field Theory (MCFT)1 was proposed based
on the first theory where a diagonal compressive field is
constructed to resist shear stress. The Softened Truss Theory
treats membrane elements as an assembly of compressive
struts of concrete and tensile ties of reinforcing bars; the
rotating-angle softened truss model (RASTM)2 and fixed-
angle softened truss model (FASTM)3,4 were therefore
established. Based on the fixed-angle theory, an analyt-
ical model—the tension-stiffening fixed-angle truss model
(TFTM)5—was recently proposed to enhance the accuracy
of shear strength prediction by refining the crack propaga-
tion in concrete with the limited tension-stiffening effect.
By expanding the monotonic loading condition to general
loading—especially reversed cyclic loading—the models
are able to predict shear behavior of RC membrane elements
under various conditions, including earthquake. To achieve
the general loading condition, the unloading and reloading
ACI Structural Journal/November 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
rules of reversed cyclic loading, influence of loading history,
and accumulated damage of cyclic loading on cracked RC
are required in the model. The MCFT toward cyclic loading
was accordingly proposed by employing a numerical secant
stiffness approach, and the plastic strain offset needs to be
separated from the total strain.6 Apart from this, the Softened
Truss Theory was extended as well by proposing a cyclic
softened membrane model (CSMM) based on the Fixed-
Angle Theory.7 The CSMM incorporates cyclic constitutive
laws with a damage coefficient and Poisson’s effect under
cyclic loading and, thus, it is considered a useful model in
cyclic shear prediction owing to the theoretical accuracy of
the model principles.
In these models for shear prediction under general loading
condition, the principal tension of cracked concrete is
considered an important factor because the applied loading
is resisted by diagonal compression together with diagonal
tension of cracked element. However, the envelopes of cyclic
tensile stress-strain relationships in existing models cannot
accurately simulate the post-cracking tensile performance
of concrete. In this paper, the limited tension-stiffening
effect under cyclic reversed loading, including the influ-
ences of bond stress-slip relationship, orthogonal reinforce-
ment, and tension termination, is evaluated by establishing a
cyclic tension-stiffening fixed-angle truss model (CTFTM).
Based on Fixed-Angle Theory, the proposed model adopts
the constitutive law with the cyclic effect of limited tension
stiffening and accumulated damage of loading history,
incorporates the influences of unloading and reloading rules,
and adjusts the equilibrium condition with local variation in
stress distribution at cracks. The predicted shear behavior of
RC membrane elements by CTFTM shows better agreement
with experimental results as compared with existing model;
thus, further predictions in shear behavior of various struc-
tures in earthquake is allowed.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The cyclic tension-stiffening fixed-angle truss model
(CTFTM) is proposed to examine the effect of limited
tension stiffening under cyclic loading condition, based
on the Fixed-Angle Theory and Truss Model Theory. The
local variation of stress distribution at crack surfaces is also
included in the equilibrium criteria. The proposed model
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 6, November 2019.
MS No. S-2018-451.R1, doi: 10.14359/51716802, received November 10, 2018, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
143
Fig. 1—Coordinates and stresses of a 2-D RC membrane
element.
shows good accuracy in shear performance prediction of RC
panels, and the influence of biaxial loadings is analyzed. Fig. 2—Local stress variation of concrete and steel.
When a crack is fully developed, the local tensile stress of
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
concrete reduces to zero while the intact portion of concrete
The CTFTM is established to extend the limited
between cracks bears more tension stiffened by bonding
tension-stiffening effect of RC and Fixed-Angle Theory
stress. To fulfill the equilibrium along 1-axis, the difference
into cyclic loading condition to accurately predict the shear
in stress will be compensated by the increment transferred
behavior of membrane elements with the aid of unloading
to the local stresses for longitudinal and transverse bars, and
and reloading rules.8 For a two-dimensional (2-D) element
steel segments near cracking surfaces will be subjected to an
shown in Fig. 1, membrane stresses, including in-plane shear
increased stress ∆fl (∆ft).9,10 The increments of reinforcement
stress τlt (or τtl) and biaxial stresses σl and σt, are denoted
stress along l- and t-directions can be expressed as
in their positive directions with respect to the l-t coordinate
system. The sign convention l and t invert as the directions of
∆fl = ft′ – σc1cosα1 (2)
membrane stresses alternate under cyclic loading condition.
∆ft = ft′ – σc1sinα1 (3)
Equilibrium conditions
To obtain the equilibrium conditions of principal stresses
Based on the local equilibrium and geometry, the local
at cracks and applied stresses, a principal 1-2 coordinate
stresses at crack surface can be transformed to average stress
system is introduced based on fixed-angle theory by rotating
condition in 1-2 coordinate, given by
the l-t axes of applied stresses counterclockwise by a fixed-
angle of α1. The principal stress components at cracks are
σ1c  σ1c, cr  cos 2 α1 sin 2 α1   ∆f l 
defined as σc1,cr, σc2,cr, and τc12,cr (or τc21,cr), as shown in Fig. 1,  c  c   2
0

f  (4)
while the applied stresses are denoted as σl, σt, and τlt (or σ 2  = σ 2, cr  +  sin α1 cos α1 ∆
2
0  t 
τtl). For reinforcement layer, ρl and ρt are the reinforcement τc   c   0 sin α1 cos α1   − ∆f l + ∆f t 
 12   τ12, cr  
0
ratios, fl and ft are the average reinforcing stresses along
l-axes and t-axes, respectively.
Strain compatibility
By considering the stress equilibrium condition of cracked
Based on the assumptions that principal stress coordinate
concrete element, the governing equations of applied stresses
coincides with principal strain coordinate and subsequent
and principal stresses at cracks can be obtained as
cracks occurs along principal compression direction, the
compatibility conditions of smeared strains in l-t and 1-2
 σ1, cr  ρl f l 
c
σ l   cos 2 α1 sin 2 α1 −2 sin α1 cos α1
    c   
coordinates are obtained by fixed-angle theory as
σ t  =  sin α1 cos 2 α1 2 sin α1 cos α1  σ 2, cr  + ρt f t 
2

 τ lt  sin α1 cos α1 − sin α1 cos α1  

cos α1 − sin α1   τ c   0 
2 2
 12, cr   ε l   cos 2 α1 sin 2 α1 −2 sin α1 cos α1   ε1 
 ε  =  sin 2 α cos 2 α1

2 siin α1 cos α1   ε 2 
(5)
 (1)  t   1
 γ lt /2  sin α1 cos α1 − sin α1 cos α1 cos α1 − sin α1   γ 12 / 2 
2 2

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the stress distribution varies along Constitutive relationships

the principal tension direction due to the activation of
bonding stress between concrete and reinforcement. In the
adjacent area of crack surface, the principal tensile stresses
deviate from the smeared average stresses of concrete, σc1,ave
(σc2,ave), as well as that of reinforcement, fl,ave (ft,ave). As crack
accumulates, the effect of local stress variation increases and
will further influence the overall shear capacity of the panel.
For reinforcement layer, the cyclic stress-strain relation-
ship of embedded steel bars7 is adopted in this model. Taking
fl (or t) as the reinforcement stress along longitudinal (or trans-
verse) direction, the governing equations for embedded mild
steel bars are given by
fl (or t) = Esl (or st)εl (or t), εl (or t) ≤ ε′yl (or yt) (6a)

144 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

fl (or t) = (0.91 – 2Bl (or t))fyl (or yt) + (0.02 + 0.25Bl (or t))Esl (or st)εl (or t)
(6b)

fl (or t) = –fyl (or yt), fl (or t) ≤ –fyl (or yt) (6c)

where εl (or t) > ε′yl (or yt) and ε′yl (or yt) = (0.93 – 2Bl (or t))εyl (or yt),
1.5
1  fl ′ 
in which Bl (or t ) =  f  , ρl (or t) ≥ 0.15%, and
ρl (or t )  yl (or yt ) 
ft′ = 0.31√fc′ (MPa) (3.73√fc′ [psi]).
The unloading and reloading curves with Bauschinger
effect8 are given by Fig. 3—Free body diagram of a concrete struct between two
cracks.
f l (or t ) − f i  
R −1
f − fi
ε l (or t ) − ε i = 1 + A− R l (or t )  (6d) as cracks propagate. To better describe the tensile stress
El (or t )  f yl (or yt )  maintained by uncracked concrete, the effect of limited
 
tension-stiffening is included in the enveloped of tensile
where Al (or t) = 1.9k pl−0.(1or pt ) ; Rl (or t) = 10k pl−0.(2or pt ) ; kpl (or pt) = (εi – stress-strain relationship of concrete under cyclic loading.
ε′yl (or yt))/ε′yl (or yt); and εi and fi are the steel strain and stress of The proposed cyclic tension model assumes a bilinear bond
the unloading point, respectively. stress-slip relationship for concrete and reinforcement inter-
The proposed CTFTM adopts the same envelope as the face and includes the equivalent effect of orthogonal rein-
stress-strain curve for concrete in compression under mono- forcing arrangement.
tonic loading.7,11 Additionally, a damage factor D = 1 – 0.4ε′c/ε0 The envelope of the cyclic limited tension-stiffening
is introduced to represent the gradual degradation induced model can be divided into several stages and the corre-
by compression of previous loading cycles.8 The governing sponding equations are provided. In the linear stage before
equations for concrete under compression are given as occurrence of cracks, the constitutive equation of concrete is
elastic and linear
  ε   ε 2
c
σ = Dξf c′  2  (7a) σc1 = Ecε1 (ε1 < 0.00008) (11a)
 −   ε0 ≤ ε < 0
  ξε 0   ξε 0  
2

where the cracking strain ε1 of concrete under tension is

0.00008.14,15
  ε / ε − 1 2

σ c = Dξf c′ 1 −  0
 ε ≤ ε0 (7b) As cracks occur and propagate, the equilibrium diagram
  4 / ξ − 1   of an intact concrete segment between two cracks is shown
in Fig. 3 and a local x-axis is introduced along principal
 5.8   tension direction. The equilibrium equation for any section
1 β 
ξ= ≤ 0.9   1 −   (MPa) along x-axis is given as
 f c′   1 + 400ε1   24 
(8) T = Fc(x) + Fs(x) (12)
 69.9  1  β 
= ≤ 0.9   1 −   (psi)
 f c′   1 + 400ε1   24  For a length of dx, the variation of steel tension, dFs, along
the length can be written as
1  γ 12 
β= tan −1   (9) dFs = (plnl + ptnt)fb(x)dx (13)
2  (ε1 − ε 2 ) 
where ε′c is the maximum compression strain normal to where pl and pt are perimeters of reinforcing bars along the
the compression direction of previous loading cycles, and l- and t-directions, respectively; nl and nt are numbers of bars
ε0 represents the strain level under maximum compressive involved in dx along the l- and t-directions, respectively; and
stress and the value is taken as –0.00235.12 fb(x) is bond stress at the steel-concrete interface at x.
For concrete in shear, the relationship between shear stress The following differential equation can be obtained from
and shear strain is given by Eq. (12) by assuming that principal tension remains constant
along dx
c σ1c − σ c2
τ12 = γ 12 (10) dFc dFs dT
2(ε1 − ε 2 ) + = =0 (14)
dx dx dx
The tensile strength of concrete is gradually degraded by
normal compression and accumulated loading cycles, and it The variation of tension in concrete can be derived from
is observed13 that a rapid drop of concrete tension occurs Eq. (14) as

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 145

 dFc = –(pl nl + pt nt) fb(x)dx (15)
For a 2-D RC membrane element with longitudinal and
transverse reinforcements subjected to cyclic loading, cracks
are assumed to develop along principal tensile direction
according to fixed-angle theory. Consequently, an equivalent
modulus Es,eq of steel mesh is necessary when calculating the
steel tension normal to cracks and it can be derived as
Es,eq = Eslρlcos4α1 + Estρtsin4α1 (16)
where C1 and C2 are constants of integration. Based on the
symmetry of concrete element, C2 can be determined as zero
and, according to the boundary conditions that Fs(a) = T,
Fc(a) = 0, and us(0) = uc(0) = 0, the integration of concrete
tension can be obtained as
a a
∫ x dFc = −( pl nl + pt nt ) Eb ∫ x C1 sinh kxdx (26)
By considering the boundary conditions of force, the
concrete tension can be derived as

The tensile contribution by steel bars and concrete can be a

Fc ( x) + ∫ x dFc = Fc (a ) = 0 (27)
expressed by

dus ( pl nl + pt nt ) Eb C1
Fs = Ac Es , eq ε s = Ac Es , eq (17) a
Fc ( x) = − ∫ x dFc = (cosh ka − cosh kx) (28)
dx k

duc
Fc = Ac Ec ε c = Ac Ec
dx
where Ac is the surface area of cracked concrete.
As cracks increase, the bonding stress in concrete-steel
interface is activated,
fb(x) = Eb∆
By Eq. (28) and (12), the tension in steel bars becomes
(18)
( pl nl + pt nt ) Eb C1
Fs ( x) = T − Fc ( x) = T − (cosh ka − cosh kx)
k
 (29)
The integration of element elongation can be obtained
(19) from Eq. (18), (28), and (29) as

where Eb is bond modulus, taken as 0.05 MPa/mm x x Fc dx Es , eq C1

(184 psi/in.)16; us(x) and uc(x) are elongations of steel and ∫0 duc = ∫0 = (kx cosh ka − sinh kx) (30)
Ac Ec Ec + Es , eq
concrete, respectively; and slip distance ∆ = us(x) – uc(x).
The second derivative equation of slip distance can be
By considering the boundary conditions of elongation, the
derived as
concrete deformation can be derived as

d 2 ∆ d 2 u s d 2 uc x x
= − 2 (20) uc (0) + ∫0 duc = 0 + ∫0 duc = uc ( x) (31)
dx 2 dx 2 dx

Equations (13), (15), (17), (18), and (19) provide that x Es , eq C1

uc ( x) = ∫0 duc = (kx cosh ka − sinh kx) (32)
Ec + Es , eq
dFs d us
2
= Ac Es , eq = ( pl nl + pt nt ) Eb ∆ (21)
dx dx 2 Similarly, the deformation of reinforcement can be
obtained as
dFc d 2 uc
= Ac Ec = −( pl nl + pt nt ) Eb ∆ (22) Tx Ec C1
(kx cosh ka − sinh kx) (33)
x
dx dx 2 us ( x) = ∫0 dus = −
Ac Es , eq Ec + Es ,eq
Substituting Eq. (21) and (22) into Eq. (20) gives
From boundary conditions, the integration constant C1 can
d 2∆ be calculated as C1 = T/(Ac Es,eqkcoshka).
− k 2∆ = 0 (23) The equilibrium of cracked element can be rearranged in
dx 2
terms of effective tensile stress in concrete σ1c as

 ( p n + pt nt ) Eb   1 1 T = Ac Es,eqεs + Acσ1c (34)

k2 =  l l   +  (24)
 Ac   Es , eq Ec 
The smeared principal tensile strain ε1 of panel is assumed
The general solution of Eq. (23) is derived as to be equal to steel strain εs, thus, the cumulative strain of
steel bars at x = a is given by
∆ = C1sinhkx + C2coshkx (25)
us (a ) T  Ec (ka − tanh ka ) 
ε1 = ε s (a ) = = 1 −  (35)
a Ac Es , eq  ka ( Ec + Es ,eq ) 

146 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

 Substituting Eq. (35) into Eq. (34), Fc (0) ( pl nl  pt nt ) f b , max a 
c , max    ft  (44b)
TEc (ka − tanh ka ) Ac Ac
σ1c = (36)
Ac (ka )( Ec + Es , eq ) where a′ is the ultimate crack spacing and a′ = ft′Ac/[(pl nl +
It is noted that the equation of concrete tension by Eq. (28) pt nt)fb,max].
reaches the maximum tensile stress at x = 0 The non-dimensional principal tension of concrete is
calculated from Eq. (44a) and (44b) as
TEc (1 − sech ka )
Fc , max = Fc (0) = = σ c , max Ac (37) σ1c 1
Ec + Es , eq = (11d)
ft ′ 2
where σc,max is the maximum tensile stress in concrete. As T
keeps increasing, σc,max will finally reach the tensile strength
After crack stabilization, the principal tensile force T can
of concrete ft′, then form a new crack at x = 0. At the stage
be approximately expressed as
just before a new crack develops when σc,max approaches to
ft′, the external tension T can be derived Eq. (37) as
T = fylρl Alcosα1 + fytρt Atsinα1 (45)

 Es , eq  ft ' where fyl and fyt are yielding stresses of steel bars along l- and
T = Ac 1 + (38)
 Ec  1 − sech ka t-directions, respectively; and Al and At are projection areas
of crack surface to l- and t-directions, respectively.
By defining the tension in cracked element, the
Based on the crack geometry and Eq. (43), (44b), and (45),
non-dimensional principal tensile stress and strain can be
the corresponding nondimensional strain becomes
expressed by Eq. (35), (36), and (38) as

ε1 Ec  ( f yl ρl cos α1 + f yt ρt sin α1 )t 1 
σ1c 1 − (tanh ka ) / (ka ) =  −  (11e)
= (11b) Es , eq
ft ' 1 − sech ka ε crack  ( pl /sl + pt /st ) f b , maxx a ′ 2 

1 + ( Ec tanh ka ) / ( Es , eq ka ) where t is unit thickness of the panel, and sl and st are the
ε1
= (11c) reinforcing bar spacings in the longitudinal and transverse
ε crack 1 − sech ka directions, respectively.
where When the cracked concrete completely loses its effective
tensile strength and fails in tension, the termination stage
ft ′ of limited tension-stiffening process is then activated, where
ε crack = (39) σc1 reaches zero. Based on the crack geometry and Eq. (43),
Ec
(44b), and (45), the termination nondimensional strain
As the number of cracks stabilizes when smeared tensile becomes
strain ε1 reaches 0.001,17 the reinforcements subsequently
start to yield and bonding stress fb between concrete and ε1 Ec  ( f yl ρl cos α1 + f yt ρt sin α1 )t 
=   (11f)
reinforcing bars reaches its maximum of fb,max, where fb,max = ε crack Es , eq  ( pl /sl + pt /st ) f b , maxx a ′ 
5 MPa (725.18 psi) is adopted as tested in the literature.18
Similar to Eq. (13) and (15), the corresponding forces, Additionally, a remarkable drop of tension capacity under
displacement, and strain can be obtained directly as large tensile strain is observed in experiments from the liter-
ature. To cope with the rapid drop and accumulated damage
Fs(x) = T – (pl nl + pt nt)fb,max(a – x) (40)
in concrete caused by crack propagation, a variable tensile
strength of concrete f t′_var is defined to replace the fixed
Fc(x) = (pl nl + pt nt)fb,max(a – x) (41)
concrete strength ft′ and expressed as
Tx ( p n  pt nt ) f b,max (a  x / 2) x
us ( x)   l l (42) f t′_var = ft′exp[–C(ε1 – ft′/Ec)] (46)
Ac Es , eq Ac Es , eq
where C is a damage parameter, taken as 550.19
us (a ) T ( pl nl + pt nt ) f b , max a A unified unloading and reloading rule for concrete under
ε s (a) = = − (43) cyclic loading is adopted in this model.7,8 If the reversal
a Ac Es , eq 2 Ac Es , eq
point is within the elastic range, the unloading and reloading
curves follow the initial paths in stress-strain curve. However,
By substituting Eq. (43) into Eq. (34), the effective tensile
if crack initiates, the unloading and reloading processes are
stress in concrete σ1c and the maximum concrete stress σc,max
then defined by different straight lines with various slopes,
can be solved as
and the corresponding rate is calculated by the stress strain
( pl nl + pt nt ) f b ,max a conditions of the reversal point. When stress reverses from
σ1c = (44a) tension to compression, crack closure occurs and stress is
2 Ac

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 147

Fig. 4—Solution algorithm of CTFTM.
reloaded toward compression. When stress reverses from
compression to tension, the unloading slope is 80% of initial
modulus of concrete, Ec, and then reduces to 20% Ec. The
concrete stress during reloading and unloading processes
can be expressed by linear interpolation as

σ ic − σ ic+1
σ c = σ ic + Ecc (ε i − ε), Ecc = (47)
ε i − ε i +1

where σic and εi represent the concrete stress and strain at

the load reversal point; Ecc is the variable slope of unloading
and reloading paths; σci+1 and εi+1 are the concrete stress and
strain at the end of the stage under consideration.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Solution algorithm
The solution algorithm processed in OpenSees is shown
in Fig. 4. To solve for the stress and strain conditions under
a certain loading level, sixteen unknown variables are
required, including eight stresses (σl, σt, τlt, σ1c, σ2c, τc12, fl, ft)
six strains (εl, εt, γlt, ε1, ε2, γ12), the angle β and the softening
coefficient ξ. The assumed strains are adjusted by iterative
steps until the convergence of equilibrium criteria. A set of
equilibrium criteria can be obtained from Eq. (1) and (2) as
ρl fl + ρt ft = (σl + σt) – (σ1c + σ2c) (48)
ρlfl – ρtft = (σl – σt) – (σ1c + σ2c)cos2α1 + 2τc12sin2α1 (49)
Finite element analysis of RC shear panels
To analyze the shear behavior by finite element analysis, the
RC panel can be simulated with a four-node 2-D RC plane
stress element because the stress conditions and the mate-
rial properties are uniform throughout the entire panel,20
Fig. 5—Finite element modeling of an RC panel. (Note:
Grid lines denote reinforcement.)
as shown in Fig. 5. The panel is subjected to simultaneous
axial stresses σl (or t) and shear stress τlt (or tl), which can be
simulated by 10 nodal forces. The shear force set V is
accordingly applied with identical magnitude to simulate
shear stress, and the force directions will alternate as the
loading reverses, while the directions of axial force set
Fl and Ft remain unchanged, which then becomes zero in
pure shear condition. The corresponding equilibrium equa-
tions, compatibility conditions and material constitutive
model with limited tension-stiffening effect of the proposed
CTFTM are adopted in the analysis.
1
V= τ lt (or tl ) Lt (50)
2

148 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

Fig. 6—Experimental setup of RC panels. (Note: Grid lines denote reinforcement.)
Table 1—Material properties and reinforcement arrangement
Specimen CA2 CA4 CE2 CE3 CE4 PV30
fc′, MPa (psi) 45 (6525) 45 (6525) 49 (7105) 50 (7250) 47 (6815) 19.1 (2770)
ε0 0.0025 0.0028 0.0023 0.0024 0.0022 0.0019
Longitudinal reinforcement No. 4 at 188 mm No. 8 at 188 mm No. 4 at 267 mm No. 6 at 267 mm No. 8 at 267 mm 6.35 mm wire mesh
ρl 0.0077 0.027 0.0054 0.012 0.019 0.01785
fyl, MPa (psi) 424.1 (61,495) 453.4 (65,743) 424.1 (61,495) 425.4 (61,683) 453.4 (65,743) 437 (63,365)
Transverse reinforcement No. 4 at 188 mm No. 8 at 188 mm No. 4 at 267 mm No. 6 at 267 mm No. 8 at 267 mm 4.78 mm wire mesh
ρt 0.0077 0.027 0.0054 0.012 0.019 0.01009
fyt, MPa (psi) 424.1 (61,495) 453.4 (65,743) 424.1 (61,495) 425.4 (61,683) 453.4 (65,743) 472 (68,440)
α1, deg 45 45 90 90 90 45

Note: CA and CE series were tested by Mansour and Hsu and PV series was tested by Vecchio and Collins.
11 13

1 1 of surface shear in specimen subsequently alternate and the

Fl = σ l Lt or Ft = σ t Lt
2 2
where L and t denote the panel length and thickness, respectively.
MODEL VERIFICATION
To validate the performance of the proposed model, the
predicted shear behavior of RC panels under cyclic pure shear
is compared with experimental results from the literature6,11,13
and an existing shear model CSMM,7 which is also based on
Fixed-Angle Theory and Truss Model Theory and recognized
as a reliable shear model for cyclic loading case.11
All specimens were constructed with concrete and orthog-
onal reinforcement, among which the CA (1397 x 1397
x 178 mm [55 x 55 x 7 in.], PV (1397 x 1397 x 178 mm
[55 x 55 x 7 in.]), and PDV (890 x 890 x 70 mm [35 x 35
x 2.76 in.]) series were reinforced with steel bars along
principal stress directions, whereas the reinforcing bars CE
series (1397 x 1397 x 178 mm [55 x 55 x 7 in.]) were along
applied stress directions. As shown in Fig. 6, except for
PDV series, which were under simultaneous axial stresses
and shear stress, the rest of specimens were subjected to
axial loadings along principal stress directions 1- or 2-axis
with the same magnitude, then a pure shear condition can be
achieved in l-t coordinate, where four sides of the elements
were in pure shear loading. By alternating the axial compres-
sive and tensile loading along 1-2 coordinate, the directions
(51) loading case becomes cyclic shear condition.
The material properties are tabulated in Table 1, where fc′ is
the compressive strength of concrete; ε0 is the corresponding
strain; and ρl, ρt and fyl, fyt represent the reinforcement ratio
and yielding strength of reinforcing bars in longitudinal and
transverse directions, respectively. The CA and CE series
were cast with same amount of reinforcement, where ρl = ρt
and fyl = fyt, while the PV specimen was heavily reinforced
in longitudinal direction. The variable α1 represents the
fixed angle between cracks and principal stress direction.
The validity of CTFTM is verified by a good agreement
with the experimental results and a more accurate prediction
compared with existing cyclic shear models.
Shear stress-strain curves
The comparison of shear stress-strain curves of RC panels
under cyclic shear loadings is shown in Fig. 7. CSMM can be
used to analyze the cyclic shear behavior of RC panels, and
the envelopes of generated hysteretic curves are also plotted.
The prediction of CTFTM, illustrated with solid hysteretic
cycle, is compared with the results of CSMM and exper-
iments from literature. The hysteretic curves generated by
CTFTM show good agreement with the envelopes of testing
results and the prediction is more conservative yet accurate
when compared with the envelopes predicted by CSMM.
The overestimation of the shear envelope by the current
model is induced by the unrealistic descending branch of the

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 149

Fig. 7—Comparison of shear stress-strain relationship with experiment. (Note: CA and CE series were tested by Mansour and
Hsu11 and PV series were tested by Vecchio and Collins.13 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
post-cracking tensile backbone. The proposed CTFTM also
properly addresses the pinching effect caused by different
orientations of reinforcement alignment.
Ultimate shear strength, pre-yield shear stiffness,
and shear ductility factor
The shear behaviors of demonstration panels are summa-
rized and tabulated in Table 2. The peak shear stresses σm
are accurately predicted by CTFTM in both positive cycles
and negative cycles. The pre-yield shear stiffnesses Ky+ and
Ky–, defined by the ratio between yielding shear stress σy and
yielding shear strain εy in positive cycles and negative cycles,
respectively, represent the stiffnesses of panels before steel
yielding. The shear ductility factors μEy+ and μEy– are defined
as the ratio between ultimate shear strain and yielding shear
strain. The model predictions achieved good agreement with
experimental results.
Influence of biaxial stress ratio
The envelopes of shear stress-strain curves of specimens
PDV 2 and PDV 3 under different loading combinations as
well as the experimental results are plotted in Fig. 8. The
specimens were subjected to a combination of cyclic shear
and biaxial stresses with a ratio of σl:σt:τlt = –0.4:–0.4:1.
The predicted shear stress-strain envelope under the same
loading case shows good accuracy in pre-yielding curve
and ultimate shear capacity. Additionally, by comparing the
curves under different biaxial stress ratios, it is observed that
the axial compressive stresses confine the specimens and,
therefore, improve the shear capacity of RC panels; such a
strengthening effect becomes more significant as the axial
compression continuously increases.
150
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of limited tension stiffening on shear behavior
of RC panels under cyclic loading is investigated in this
paper by proposing a cyclic tension-stiffening fixed-angle
truss model (CTFTM). Based on the Fixed-Angle Theory,
the equilibrium conditions include the local stress variation
along transverse and longitudinal directions. Moreover, the
proposed model incorporates limited tension-stiffening effect
together with unloading and reloading rules into the consti-
tutive laws of concrete and reinforcement, leading to a more
accurate post-cracking relationship under cyclic loading.
The experimental results of series of RC panels under
cyclic shear stress reported in the literature are compared
with predictions by the proposed CTFTM and current cyclic
shear model CSMM. Based on the results and comparisons,
the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The shear strength of RC panels under cyclic shear
loading is restrained by the limited tension-stiffening effect
by including the influence of crack propagation, orthogonal
reinforcement and bonding stress on steel-concrete interface.
2. The local stress variation of the proposed CTFTM
describes the unevenly distributed stress along prin-
cipal tension direction caused by the activation of limited
tension-stiffening effect on cracked concrete. By trans-
forming the average stress matrix to local stress matrix at
cracks, the yielding point of reinforcing bars can be detected
timely and the stresses of concrete can be better predicted.
3. The cyclic shear stress-strain results predicted by the
proposed CTFTM show good agreement with the experi-
mental data points in stiffness, ductility, and ultimate shear
strength of RC panels. Furthermore, CTFTM generates
a more conservative, yet accurate, result in post-yielding
branch and peak shear capacity of cyclic shear stress-strain
curves as compared with the results of CSMM, which is
ACI Structural Journal/November 2019
Table 2—Yielding point, peak shear strength, and shear stiffness comparison
Specimen CA2 CA4 CE2 CE3 CE4 PV30
εy,exp+ 0.00394 0.00570 0.00200 0.00220 0.00190 0.00045
σy,exp+, MPa (psi) 3.55 (515) 10.20 (1479) 2.31 (335) 5.31 (770) 8.11 (1176) 2.28 (331)
εy,CTFTM+ 0.00410 0.00754 0.00182 0.00216 0.00242 0.000337
σy,CTFTM+, MPa (psi) 3.32 (482) 10.55 (1530) 2.48 (360) 5.07 (735) 8.32 (1206) 1.41 (205)
σm,exp+, MPa (psi) 3.85 (588) 10.54 (1528) 2.73 (396) 6.45(935) 8.36 (1212) 5.13 (744)
σm,CTFTM+, MPa (psi) 4.12 (597) 10.75 (1559) 2.80 (406) 6.76 (980) 8.82 (1279) 4.96 (719)
Ky,exp+ 901 1790 1155 2414 4268 5028
Ky,CTFTM+ 810 1400 1366 2349 3441 4176
μEy,exp+ 7.54+ 1.99 10.45+ 9.54+ 6.42+ 12.02
μEy,CTFTM+ 7.24 2.17 11.51 9.72 5.05 16.18
εy,exp– –0.00396 –0.00560 –0.00188 –0.00198 –0.00230 –0.00048
σy,exp–, MPa (psi) –3.50 (–508) –10.10 (–1465) –2.68 (–389) –5.10 (–740) –7.60 (–1102) –2.28 (–331)
εy,CTFTM– –0.00400 –0.00781 –0.00137 –0.00144 –0.00211 –0.00034
σy,CTFTM–, MPa (psi) –3.26 (–473) –10.68 (–1549) –1.97 (–286) –5.08 (–737) –8.32 (–1206) –1.34 (–194)
σm,exp–, MPa (psi) –3.91 (–567) –10.20 (–1479) –3.60 (–522) –6.29 (–912) –8.26 (–1198) –5.07(–735)
σm,CTFTM–, MPa (psi) –4.12 (–597) –10.75 (–1559) –2.84 (–412) –6.76 (–980) –8.86 (–1285) –4.76 (–690)
Ky,exp– 884 1804 1426 2576 3304 4759
Ky,CTFTM– 815 1368 1444 3525 3944 3969
μEy,exp– 8.15+ 1.66 10.53+ 9.1+ 4.96+ 10.51
μEy,CTFTM– 8.08 1.61 14.48 12.50 5.41 14.95

Note: CA and CE series were tested by Mansour and Hsu11 and PV series was tested by Vecchio and Collins.13

Fig. 8—Influence of biaxial stress on shear envelope of RC panels. (Note: PDV series were tested by Vecchio.6 1 MPa =145 psi.)
considered a good tool in cyclic shear prediction. The over-
estimation of CSMM predictions in shear stress envelopes is
affected by the irrational decreasing rate in the tensile consti-
tutive model and absence of termination point of tensile
stress at large strain level.
4. By comparing the envelopes of cyclic shear stress-
strain curves with different loading combinations, the
biaxial compressive stress is shown to have a positive influ-
ence of the shear strength of RC panels, and the improve-
ment becomes more notable when the panel is increasingly
confined by biaxial compressions.
5. The finite element analysis algorithm including the
effect of limited tension-stiffening under cyclic shear loading
provides high efficiency and good accuracy to the proposed
CTFTM and enables further applications in the shear
behavior prediction of complex large-scale RC structures.
AUTHOR BIOS
Xueying Wang is a Faculty Member in civil engineering at the Techno-
logical and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Her
research interests include concrete mechanics and shear response of rein-
forced concrete elements under monotonic and cyclic loads.

ACI Structural Journal/November 2019 151

J. S. Kuang is a Professor of civil engineering at the Hong Kong University σl = applied axial stress of RC element in l-direction
of Science and Technology. He received his PhD from the University of σcl = applied axial stress of concrete in l-direction
Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. His research interests include seismic design σm = maximum/minimum shear stress of RC panel
and behavior of reinforced concrete and seismic vulnerability assessment σt = applied axial stress of RC element in t-direction
of building structures. σct = applied axial stress of concrete in t-direction
σy = yielding shear stress of RC panel
τc12 = shear stress of concrete in 1-2 coordinate
NOTATION τc12,cr = shear stress of concrete at cracks in 1-2 coordinate
2a = crack spacing τlt = applied shear stress of RC element in l-t coordinate
Ab = bonding area
Ac = surface area of cracked concrete
D = damage factor of cracked concrete REFERENCES
Eb = bond modulus 1. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression-field
Ec = Young’s modulus of concrete Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal
Ecc = Young’s modulus of concrete in unloading/reloading process Proceedings, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
Es,eq = equivalent Young’s modulus of reinforcement in principal 2. Hsu, T. T. C., “Softened Truss Model Theory for Shear and Torsion,”
tensile direction ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1988, pp. 624-635.
Esl = Young’s modulus of reinforcement in l-direction 3. Pang, X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Est = Young’s modulus of reinforcement in t-direction Membrane Elements in Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 6,
Fc = reaction force of concrete to T Nov.-Dec. 1995, pp. 665-679.
Fl = applied axial force in l-direction 4. Pang, X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Fixed Angle Softened Truss Model
Fs = reaction force of reinforcement to T for Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.
Ft = applied axial force in t-direction 1996, pp. 197-207.
fb = bond stress at steel-concrete interface 5. Wang, X., and Kuang, J. S., “Effect of Limited Tension Stiffening on
fc′ = concrete cylinder strength in compression Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Panels in Shear,” ACI Structural Journal,
fi = reinforcement stress at load reversal point V. 116, No. 2, Mar. 2019, pp. 147-157. doi: 10.14359/51711140
fl = reinforcement stress in l-direction 6. Vecchio, F. J., “Towards Cyclic Load Modelling of Reinforced
fl,ave = smeared average stress of reinforcement in l-direction Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1999,
ft = reinforcement stress in t-direction pp. 193-202.
ft′ = tensile strength of concrete 7. Mansour, M. Y., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
ft,ave = smeared average stress of reinforcement in t-direction Elements under Cyclic Shear. II: Theoretical Model,” Journal of Struc-
f t′_var = variable tensile strength of concrete tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 1, 2005, pp. 54-65. doi: 10.1061/
fyl = yielding stress of reinforcement in l-direction (ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(54)
fyt = yielding stress of reinforcement in t-direction 8. Mansour, M.; Lee, J. Y.; and Hsu, T. T. C., “Cyclic Stress–Strain
Ky = shear stiffness of RC panel Curves of Concrete and Steel Bars in Membrane Elements,” Journal of
L = length of RC element Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 12, 2001, pp. 1402-1411. doi:
nl = number of bars within length of dx in l-direction 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:12(1402)
nt = number of bars within length of dx in t-direction 9. Kaufmann, W., and Marti, P., “Structural Concrete: Cracked Membrane
pl = perimeter of reinforcing bar in l-direction Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 12, 1998,
pt = perimeter of reinforcing bar in t-direction pp. 1467-1475. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:12(1467)
sl = spacing of reinforcing bars in l-direction 10. Pimentel, M.; Brüwhiler, E.; and Figueiras, J., “Extended Cracked
st = spacing of reinforcing bars in t-direction Membrane Model for the Analysis of RC Panels,” Engineering Structures,
T = applied tension to concrete portion between two cracks in prin- V. 32, No. 8, 2010, pp. 1964-1975. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.02.030
cipal tensile direction 11. Mansour, M. Y., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior of Reinforced
t = thickness of RC element Concrete Elements under Cyclic Shear. I: Experiments,” Journal of Struc-
uc = concrete deformation in principal tensile direction tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 1, 2005, pp. 44-53. doi: 10.1061/
us = reinforcement deformation in principal tensile direction (ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(44)
V = applied shear force of RC element 12. Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Constitutive Laws of Softened
α1 = fixed angle between l-t coordinate and 1-2 coordinate Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
β = deviation angle of principal coordinate of applied stress and No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1995, pp. 562-573.
principal coordinate of concrete stress 13. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Response of Reinforced
γ12 = shear strain of RC panel in 1-2 coordinate Concrete to In-Plane Shear and Normal Stresses,” Publication 82-03,
γlt = shear strain of RC panel in l-t coordinate Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
∆ = slip distance Canada, 1982.
∆fl = stress increment of reinforcement at cracks in l-direction 14. Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhang, L. X., “Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane
∆ft = stress increment of reinforcement at cracks in t-direction Elements by Fixed-angle Softened-truss Model,” ACI Structural Journal,
ε0 = concrete cylinder strain corresponding to fc′ V. 94, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1997, pp. 483-492.
ε1 = strain of RC panel in 1-direction 15. Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Constitutive Laws of Concrete in
ε2 = strain of RC panel in 2-direction Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by Concrete,” ACI Structural
εc = concrete strain in principal tensile direction Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug. 1994, pp. 465-474.
εc′ = maximum compression strain normal to the 2-direction of 16. Biscaia, H. C.; Chastre, C.; and Silva, M. A. G., “Linear and Nonlinear
previous loading cycle Analysis of Bond-slip Models for Interfaces between FRP Composites and
εi = strain of load reversal point Concrete,” Composites. Part B, Engineering, V. 45, No. 1, 2013, pp. 1554-
εl = strain of RC panel in l-direction 1568. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.08.011
εs = reinforcement strain in principal tensile direction 17. Rizkalla, S. H.; Hwang, L. S.; and El-Shahawi, M., “Transverse
εt = strain of RC panel in t-direction Reinforcement Effect on Cracking Behaviour of R.C. Members,” Canadian
εy = yielding shear strain of RC panel Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 10, No. 4, 1983, pp. 566-581. doi: 10.1139/
μEy = shear ductility factor of RC panel l83-087
ξ = softening coefficient for concrete in compression 18. American Society of Civil Engineers, “State-of-the-Art Report on
ρl = reinforcement ratio in l-direction Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete,” Task Committee on
ρt = reinforcement ratio in t-direction Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, ASCE, New
σc1 = principal tensile stress of concrete in 1-direction York, 1982.
σc1,ave = smeared average stress of concrete in 1-direction 19. Gupta, A. K., and Maestrini, S. R., “Tension-Stiffness Model for
σc1,cr = principal tensile stress of concrete at cracks in 1-direction Reinforced Concrete Bars,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
σc2 = principal compressive stress of concrete in 2-direction V. 116, No. 3, 1990, pp. 769-790. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)
σc2,ave = smeared average stress of concrete in 2-direction 116:3(769)
σc2,cr = principal compressive stress of concrete at cracks in 2-direction 20. Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., Unified Theory of Concrete Structures,
σci = concrete stress of load reversal point Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2010, 518 pp.

152 ACI Structural Journal/November 2019

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.