ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 107-S10

FEA Implementation of Smeared Cyclic Bond Slip-Based

Two-Dimensional Membrane Model
by Migeum So, Thomas G. Harmon, and Shirley Dyke

A reinforced concrete (RC) material model that includes frictional RC shear wall structures under cyclic loading (for example,
bond-slip behavior is proposed for use in a two-dimensional (2D) seismic loading).
total strain-based finite element analysis (FEA). The initial
motivation for this model is to improve tension stiffening behavior
Tension stiffening behavior
in total strain-based models. The proposed material model is
Total strain-based models use tension stiffening models to
based on a simplified mechanistic concept and is capable of
modeling these mechanistic behaviors under cyclic loading in a represent cracked concrete in the tensile region. With this
smeared (average) manner. It is validated with shear wall test approach, concrete retains tensile strength after cracking to
results available herein. Another motivation for this model is to represent the average tensile stress between cracks. The
understand the significance of crack strains so that the model can effective yield strength of the reinforcement must be reduced
be extended in the future to include shear friction behavior for by the amount attributed to the residual concrete tensile
cracked concrete. This paper presents an FEA implementation of strength at a strain value corresponding to tensile yielding of
the proposed RC material model in the OpenSees framework. the reinforcement. In a previous study,8 the experimentally
determined tensile stiffness behavior for RC panels9 was
Keywords: bond slip; cyclic; FEA implementation; friction; reinforced found to be more complex than the behaviors that existing
concrete; shear wall; two-dimensional membrane. analytical models are able to represent, particularly under
cyclic loading. The previously studied 2D bond-slip-based
INTRODUCTION membrane model divides a 2D element into bonded and slip
Total strain-based membrane models, such as the modified regions by the factor λ (refer to Fig. 1), which is defined as
compression field theory (MCFT) for finite element analysis the percentage of unbonded length due to concrete cracks
(FEA) of reinforced concrete (RC), have been used successfully with respect to the total element length. The value of λ is
to analyze a variety of concrete structures.1 A major advantage computed to be consistent with the tension stiffening model
of the total strain approach is that consideration of crack widths in the direction perpendicular to the tensile crack orientation.
and crack spacing can be avoided by computing only the It is essentially a friction model that evaluates maximum
average strain and stress in the concrete and smeared steel, that frictional stress developed in a frictional block between the
is, uniaxial steel constitutive relationship (steel strain versus concrete and steel reinforcement in the slip region. With this
model, the stresses in the steel and concrete are different in
average steel stress, which equals the total force developed
the bonded and slip regions, as shown in Fig. 1. This bond-
in the reinforcement divided by the gross concrete area). In
slip model can be used to predict total stress histories from
implementing a total strain-based membrane model, either a
fixed2 or rotating3 crack model has been used to build a
concrete stress-strain relationship. Additional refinements,
such as the reduction in concrete compressive strength as a
function of transverse tensile strain and the plastic
expansion4 of concrete due to transverse compressive stress,
are important components of these models.
Many FEA models assume a perfect bond between the
reinforcement bars and concrete elements; however, a cyclic
response of RC structures, beyond yielding of the steel
reinforcement, includes bond-slip behavior.5-7 Many bond-slip
models have been developed to better predict the cyclic
response of concrete structures. The early experimental work
on cyclic bond-slip was largely conducted by Eligehausen,
Popov, and Bertero.5 Lowes6 has successfully modeled
bond-slip behavior of beam-column joints by using a zero-
length interface element between a two-dimensional (2D) Fig. 1—Bonded and slip regions.
concrete element and a steel truss element. Bentz7 proposed
that a tension stiffening model for monotonic loading be
based on bond characteristics of the reinforcement. Herein, a ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, January-February 2010.
MS No. S-2009-004.R1 received April 20, 2009, and reviewed under Institute publication
simplified mechanistic material model that includes bond- policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
slip behavior based on frictional resistance has been developed making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
and implemented for use in a 2D total strain-based FEA of December 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2010.

92 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010


ACI member Migeum So is a Graduate Engineer of the Structural Diagnostics Group
for Walter P Moore and Associates. She received her PhD from Washington University,
St. Louis, MO. Her research interests include composite materials, nonlinear FEA/
repair of concrete structures, and sustainable design as a LEED AP.
ACI member Thomas G. Harmon is the Clifford Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering at
Washington University. His research interests include reinforced concrete structures,
confined concrete, precast and prestressed concrete, and composite materials.
dilatancy, and to include additional features attributed to
nonorthogonal secondary cracks. This aspect is being
studied for an FEA implementation and will be considered in
a subsequent paper. It is also intended that all progress will
be implemented within the OpenSees platform for ease of
evaluation, improvement, and sharing of ideas.

Shirley Dyke is a Professor of Mechanical and Civil Engineering at Purdue University, FEA FORMULATION
West Lafayette, IN. Her research interests include structural dynamics, structural Orthogonal fixed crack model
health monitoring, and structural control systems. A simplified fixed crack model was used in implementing
a 2D nonlinear RC material model. The first crack (principal
stress) direction is saved and is used to build the concrete
strain histories for panels subjected to uniform cyclic shear
stress-strain relationship for the remainder of the analysis. A
stress.9 Figure 2 shows two of the panels with either 0-90 or
second crack may form perpendicular to the first crack. The
45-135 degree reinforcement. The total strain-based residual
deviation angle between the first crack and concrete principal
concrete stresses can be computed from the total stresses by
stress directions is neglected in this study, but will be considered
subtracting the steel stresses that are functions of the total
in the future.
strain. Figure 2 compares residual total concrete stresses in
the x-direction, σcx, obtained from the experimental and
predicted results of the bond-slip model as a function of the Concrete material tangent stiffness
The total element strains ε x, ε y, and γ xy in the global
total concrete strain in the x-direction, εcx. The model
x-y-coordinate system must be transformed to the first crack
captures much more of the complex behavior than existing
(d-r) coordinate system by the transformation angle, θdr, to
tension stiffening models.8
use the concrete constitutive model. The concrete strain
Therefore, in this study, the bond-slip behavior is indirectly
vector and incremental stress vector in the first crack coordinate
implemented using an equivalent average tension stiffening
system are determined by Eq. (1) and (2), respectively,
model. In a typical concrete tension model, the average
where T is a transformation matrix. The concrete material
concrete stress in tension reaches a maximum positive value
tangent stiffness matrix, [Dc], is the 3 x 3 matrix presented in
at cracking and then decays according to some function of
Eq. (2), and the stress-strain relationship (partial derivatives)
the tensile strain. This reduction in average tensile stress is
and Gc in Eq. (2) are defined in the later section, concrete model.
due to loss of bond between the concrete and steel. The
decay function for monotonic loading is experimentally
determined.10 Difficulties arise, however, when considering εd εx
cyclic loading because there is no mechanistic concept dr
behind the tension stiffening model to guide the development of εr = [ T ( θ ) ] εy (1)
a cyclic model, particularly with respect to crack closing. A γ dr γ xy
variety of approaches to loading and unloading and crack
closing and opening have been proposed2,4 to provide a
constitutive model under cyclic loading. These methods
basically connect empirically determined tension and
compression envelope curves without providing any mechanistic
model. Herein, the mechanistic bond-slip model is used to
derive a consistent total strain-based model that includes
bond slip so that material level iteration8 can be avoided in
FEA. In addition, a simple method is developed to determine
crack strains from the total strains so that shear friction
behavior11 can be implemented in the future.

OpenSees
This paper discusses the development of a bond-slip-based
concrete material model in the OpenSees framework (http://
opensees.berkeley.edu). The OpenSees software, which is
developed as the simulation tool for the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), is used to
implement the proposed material model so that the source
code is openly available to the structural engineering research
community to evaluate and modify. The hierarchical nature of the
OpenSees software architecture allows new material models to be
seamlessly added to the framework by keeping element
and material implementations separate.12

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The 2D nonlinear bond-slip-based material model
described herein is the first step toward implementing a friction/
dilatancy model13 for cyclic shear behavior that appropriately
models shear friction behavior predicted from crack slip and Fig. 2—Equivalent tension stiffening models.8

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 93

 This material stiffness matrix is used to determine the
∂σ d ∂σ d element stiffness matrix. It may be modified in the future to
--------- --------- 0
Δσ d ∂ε d ∂ε r Δε d provide an improved material model.
Δσ r = ∂σ r ∂σ r Δε r (2)
-------- -------- 0 MATERIAL MODELS
Δτ dr ∂ε d ∂ε r Δγ dr OpenSees FEA framework
0 0 Gc Many multi-dimensional nonlinear material models have
been developed to analyze soil structures in the OpenSees
framework; however, a 2D nonlinear material model for
Steel material tangent stiffness analyzing RC shear wall structures has not been made
The total strains in the global x-y-coordinate system are available through the OpenSees Web site. The procedures
transformed to the reinforcement steel (L-T) directions by the used to adopt a uniaxial material model12 were closely
transformation angle, θLT. The steel strain and incremental stress followed to develop a 2D nonlinear material model in the
vectors in the L-T-coordinate system are determined by Eq. (3) OpenSees framework.
and (4), respectively, given that the L and T directions are The proposed total strain-based bond-slip material model
perpendicular to each other. The steel material tangent integrates the steel and concrete behaviors in a single source
stiffness matrix (Ds) is the 3 x 3 matrix presented in Eq. (4). code and includes bond-slip behavior indirectly in the tensile
The variables ρL and ρT are the reinforcement ratios in the L regime and 2D concrete softening effects in the compressive
and T directions, and the stress-strain relationship is defined regime as discussed in the following.
in the later section, analytical reinforcing steel model.
Effect of bond slip on behavior of RC shear wall
A simply supported unit-dimension four-node quad
element was analyzed with two different RC material
εL εx
LT models, referred to as Model NS (no slip) and Model BS
εT = [ T ( θ ) ] εy (3) (bond slip). Model NS simply adopts an existing uniaxial
0 γ xy model (Concrete 02, OpenSees) and modifies the compressive
regime as discussed in the following (refer to Fig. 3). The
Concrete 02 Model was developed by OpenSees developers
and is publicly available on the OpenSees Web site. For the
dσ proposed bond-slip-based material model (Model BS), both
ρ L --------L- 0 0
Δσ L dε L Δε L the tensile and compressive regimes were modified as
= (4) described below (refer to Fig. 4). The element was subjected
Δσ T dσ Δε T
0 ρ T --------T- 0 to uniform cyclic x-direction strain history. The y-direction
0 dε T 0 strain was one half the x-direction strain and of opposite
0 0 0 sign. The x-direction stress-strain relationships generated by
this analysis are shown in Fig. 5 and 6 including the concrete,
steel, and combined stress-strain relationships.
Total material stiffness matrix [Dxy]
The combined RC material tangent stiffness matrix [Dxy], Concrete model—compressive regime
formulated in the global x-y-coordinate system, is determined The uniaxial concrete material model Concrete 02, available in
by Eq. (5). OpenSees, was modified to include reduced compressive
strength of cracked concrete under biaxial loading (refer to
dr dr LT LT the dashed curve in Fig. 3 and 4). The d-direction stress, σd,
[ D xy ] = [ T ( – θ ) ] [ D c ] [ T ( θ ) ] + [ T ( – θ ) ] [ Ds ] [ T ( θ )] (5) envelope curve in the compression region is revised to be a

Fig. 4—Concrete Model BS: (a) tensile stiffening model;

Fig. 3—Concrete Model NS: (a) tensile stiffening model. and (b) crack closing model.

94 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010

function of tensile strain in the orthogonal r-direction, εr, and
vice versa to represent the fact that tensile strain in one direc-
tion reduces the compressive strength in the other direction.
Herein, the equations used for the uniaxial concrete model are
modified to include this softening effect, as shown in Eq. (7)
and (8), using the softening parameter ζ, determined by Eq. (6).
The softening parameter was proposed by Vecchio based on
experimental results.3 It is noted that Eq. (7) and (8) do not apply
to the biaxial compression case; however, a separate equation
may be easily introduced in the proposed concrete model.
1 crack strains as well as concrete expansion strains due to the
ζ = ------------------------------r-
ε tensile direction. A portion of the concrete expansion strains
0.8 – 0.34 -------
ε c0
(Reference 3)
d d 2 provide a crack closing model (Points 1 through 2), as
ε ε
σ = ζf c′ 2 ⎛ ----------⎞ – ⎛ ----------⎞
d d
0 ≤ ε ≤ ζε c0
⎝ ζε c0⎠ ⎝ ζε c0⎠
(References 2 and 3)
d (Point 2), the concrete takes compression and continues with
d ε – ζε c0 d reloading in compression (Point 3). The multiplier, S, and εC,
σ = ( f cu – ζf c′ ) ----------------------
- + f ′ ζ ζε 0 < ε ≤ ε cu
ε cu – ζε c0 c
(References 2 and 3)
Concrete model—tensile regime
The proposed tension stiffening model simulates the
phenomenon where a cracked concrete element can carry
some tensile forces across cracks due to bond between steel
reinforcement and concrete. A crack closing model represents the
behavior when a cracked concrete element takes compression
that is not carried by steel reinforcement as the cracks are
closed. Thus, the estimated concrete stress should be
dependent on the steel reinforcement ratio ρ and bar
diameter db, which determines the frictional contact area
which, in turn, affects the surrounding concrete behavior.
Figure 3 shows that zero friction is provided in the tensile
regime for Model NS; however, the tension stiffening
(monotonic) curve proposed by Stevens et al. and represented
by Eq. (9)10 is adopted for Model BS. Herein, the concrete
tensile stress fc is limited to the maximum stress that can be
developed in the concrete due to friction between the steel
and concrete with Ct set to 10 mm (0.394 in.). This friction
stress approaches Ct ρ/db in Eq. (9) and is referred to as “friction”
in this paper (refer to Fig. 4), where εc and εt are total
concrete strain and tensile cracking strain, respectively.
270
– ---------------- ( ε c – ε t )
ρ
C t -----
ρ ρ
f c = ⎛ 1 – C t -----⎞ e
db
+ C t -----
⎝ d b⎠ db
Figure 3 shows that Model NS does not provide a rational
crack closing model as reloading/unloading in tension is
simply modeled with a single line. To develop a complete
stress-strain relationship under cyclic loading, not only
should the monotonic envelope curve be provided but also
the unloading and crack closing models that represent the
frictional resistance. Relatively stiff response is expected
when the load reverses from the tension stiffening curve
because the friction has to be overcome before the reinforce-
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
ment bars slide in the opposite direction. In this study, the
initial stiffness Et is used to provide numerical stability for
unloading from the tension stiffening curve, as presented in
Fig. 4.
Once the friction is overcome, the reinforcement bars slide
in the opposite direction until the crack surfaces come into
contact. Concrete elements subjected to biaxial tension-
compression loading expand not only because of the tensile
crack strains but also because of compressive stress applied
in the direction perpendicular to the tension direction.
Concrete crack strains should be evaluated based on tensile
(6) compressive stress in the direction perpendicular to the
are permanent so that it allows concrete to take the compressive
stress although the total strains are positive.8
A quadratic stress-strain relationship is proposed to
(7) presented in Fig. 4. Point 1 in Fig. 4 is the state where the
crack strain (discussed later in this paper) becomes zero and,
thus, the concrete takes compression even though the
average strain is positive. As the strain approaches zero
(8)
shown in Fig. 4, are proposed to be 0.18 and 8Sεmax in this
study to best match the experimental results but should be
further refined based on experimental studies. Once the three
points Point 1(Sε max, friction), Point 2(0, σ ε0 ), and
Point 3(εC, EcεC) are determined, they are used to compute
the three parameters that constitute Eq. (10). In addition, this
equation provides a smooth transition between crack closing
and compression reloading. The parameters A, B, and C are
proposed to be empirically determined based on the three
points defined previously
2
f c = Aε c + Bε c + C (10)
ε max ( E c ε C – σ ε0 ) + ε C ( σ ε0 – friction )
where A = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-;
2
ε C ε max ( ε C – S ε max )
σ ε0
- – E c ; C = σ ε0
B = Aε C + -------
εC
Concrete model—shear retention factor
A constant shear modulus Gc, presented in Eq. (2), is
defined by Eq. (11).
Ec
G c = β -------------------
- (11)
2(1 + v)
(9) The shear retention factor β can range from a very small
value, say 0.001 to 1.0. It indicates the retained concrete
shear stiffness, relative to the initial uncracked concrete
shear stiffness, after the concrete cracks. This approach will
be replaced with a shear friction model14 in the future.
Analytical reinforcing steel model
There are many available reinforcing steel models that
include the classical reinforcing steel behavior. Steel models
proposed by Seckin14 and Yokoo et al.15 have been used in
implementing total strain-based membrane models such as
MCFT and Cyclic Softening Membrane Model (CSMM),2
95
respectively. Hoehler and Stanton’s steel model16 was used
for the previous bond slip membrane model study.8
In this study, the OpenSees Hysteretic Uniaxial Material
Model is selected instead of the Chang and Mander’s
model,17 adopted as the Reinforcing Steel Model in
OpenSees, to represent the smeared reinforcing steel material
behavior because it provides better convergence, even
though it simplifies the steel material behavior as shown in
Fig. 5(b) and 6(b). Belarbi and Hsu18 proposed that the
classical reinforcing steel envelope curve be reduced as a
Fig. 5—Analysis results of single element using Material
Model NS.
96
function of the steel reinforcement ratio to better represent
the behavior of smeared reinforcing steel (refer to Fig. 7(a)).
A similar approach is used for this study. In theory, the total
stress (sum of the average concrete and steel stresses) at an
open crack cannot exceed the yield stress and, therefore, the
bare steel stress for use in a 2D membrane element must be
reduced to represent the average steel stress. The uniaxial
envelope curve of bare steel is reduced by an R factor and is
further reduced (refer to Fig. 7(b)) by the amount of average
Fig. 6—Analysis results of single element using Material
Model BS.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
concrete frictional stress evaluated by Eq. (9). Therefore, the value of the shear retention factor β. Once cracks are wide,
proposed steel envelope curve is dependent upon the however, shear behavior can be important and may be poorly
maximum friction developed in concrete which, in turn, is a predicted by constant shear retention factors. This is the
function of the reinforcement ratio and bar size. In this study, motivation for replacing the constant shear retention model
the R factors are determined as a function of ρ (reinforcement with a new shear friction model13 in future work. It also
ratio) by interpolating the reduction in the steel stress in seems reasonable to expect that the linear relationship (γ = aε)
Fig. 7(a). The R values (for ρ ≈ 3%) used in this paper are will give sufficiently accurate results because crack strains
presented in Fig. 8(b) through (d) in conjunction with the will dominate the total strain when either shear or tensile
analysis results. As shown in Fig. 7(b), a 2% slope is strains are large. This issue is discussed in the following in
provided (1.02fy) to prevent a zero slope, and the slope of Esh light of analytical results for shear walls.
(= 1.02Es) is used for strain values greater than εsh (= 8εy) to
determine the steel stress. STUDIED RC SHEAR WALL
An RC shear wall tested by Pilakouta and Elnashai19,20 was
Proposed RC model selected to demonstrate the analysis capability of the two
The concrete and steel material models described previously studied material models. The shear wall, SW4, was tested as
are included in a single source code (C++) so as to allow the an isolated cantilever. Table 1 provides a summary of the
coupling of concrete and steel behavior. Provided that the material properties and reinforcement details and Fig. 9 illus-
initial crack is formed in the x- or y-direction, Fig. 5(c) and trates the reinforcement details for the studied shear wall.
6(c) show the combined stress-strain relationships in the
x-direction for Models NS and BS, respectively. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
Building Tcl input file for RC shear wall model
Significance of separating crack strain OpenSees input files are written with the Tool Commend
A secondary, but important, objective of this paper is to Language (Tcl). Therefore, a Tcl input file is constructed to
investigate the significance of separating crack strain from build an RC shear wall model for FEA using the NS and BS
total strain to implement a shear friction model. The fundamental material models developed in the OpenSees framework. A
concept of a shear friction model is enforcing a relationship shear wall model was built using 163 four-node quad-plane
between crack slip and crack separation when cracks are in stress elements, as shown in Fig. 10. The mesh was divided
contact and subjected to shear.13 Crack separation due to slip into four regions: the web, boundary flanges, top slab, and
causes additional steel tensile stress, which must be equilibrated bottom slab, as indicated by different levels of shading. The
by compressive crack surface contact stress. This, in turn, bottom slab was fixed at the base. A cyclic displacement
increases the level of shear stress needed to overcome friction
and dilantancy to allow crack slip. The simplest crack slip Table 1—Material properties used for SW4 analysis
versus crack separation strain relationship that can be developed is
Reinforcement
linear (γcr = aεcr), where γcr is the crack shear strain, εcr is
the crack normal tensile strain, and a is a constant; however, Specimen Zone Concrete Horizontal Vertical Confining
even this simplest possible relationship requires material fc′ , Ec, f -type, f -type, fy ,
Properties — ρ, y ρ, y ρ,
MPa MPa % MPa % MPa % MPa
level iteration when implemented in an FEA. Although not (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
as accurate, the material level iteration can be eliminated by 550- 550-
implementing the crack slip relationship as a total strain 36.9 35,240 0.39 HT6 0.31 HT6 —
Web (5.35) —
(5111)
relationship (γ = aε). SW4
(79.77) (79.77)
Concrete shear deformation is typically very small for 550- 500-
Flange 36.9 35,240 0.78 HT6 2.83 HT12 0.43 545
uncracked concrete and even some cracked concrete as 5.35 (5111)
(79.77) (72.52)
(79)
evidenced by the insensitivity of analytical results to the

(a) (b)

Fig. 7—Reinforcing steel stress-strain relationship: (a) average reinforcing steel stress-strain curves for varying percentage of
steel suggested by Belarbi and Hsu16; and (b) comparison of steel envelope curves. (Note: 1 ksi = 6.9 MPa; 1 psi = 6.9 KPa).

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 97

history was applied to the center eight nodes of the top slab
in the horizontal direction and the corresponding horizontal
forces were recorded. The shear retention factor, β = 0.012,
was used to analyze SW4.

FEA
The Tcl input file also includes the material model assignment
for each element, analysis method, and nonlinear solution
algorithm. The Newmark time-stepping method that uses three
quadratic basis functions in time to solve the equation of motion
(with 5% damping) was selected for a transient analysis with
γ = 0.5 and β = 0.25. The Newton Raphson method was
selected as the nonlinear solution algorithm.

COMPARISON OF PREDON OF PREDOF PREDOF PREDOGNSTD-..26P

98 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010

without further reducing the steel envelope curve. Thus, the R
factor used in the steel model (refer to Fig. 7(b)) is reduced to
lower the envelope curves as shown in Fig. 8(d).
Computed crack strains
Figures 12(a) through (c) present the local stress-strain
behavior for three elements (refer to Fig. 10) corresponding
Fig. 11—Pushover analysis results (R = 0.95).
Fig. 12—Element stress-strain response for Model BS and crack strain.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
to the force-displacement response shown in Fig. 8(c). Only
the y-direction relationships are shown because the x-direction
stress-strain relationships are linear.
Figures 12(d) through (f) show the relationships between
total normal strain and crack normal strain for the same three
elements. The crack strains εcr were computed by
subtracting the strain in the solid concrete (which equals the
concrete stress, σc, divided by the elastic modulus of
concrete, Ec) from the total strain, ε.
σ
ε cr = ε – -----c (12)
Ec
As expected, the total strains are almost exactly crack
strains except for compressive strains and very low values of
tensile strains. Therefore, it is suggested that the linear crack
slip-total strain relationship, γ = aε, be used in developing a
total strain-based model for shear friction.
DISCUSSION
In this study, a constant bond-slip discrete frictional force is
assumed between concrete and steel; however, experimentally
99
observed bond stress-slip relationships are more compli-
cated.5,6 Therefore, better results could be obtained with a
refined model that includes bond stress, that is distributed
along the length of the unbonded region and varies in intensity.
In this paper, an orthogonal crack model is adopted to
analyze a shear wall structure that does not exhibit shear-
critical behavior. Secondary cracks and shear stress
developed along the crack surfaces, however, should be
further studied in conjunction with the proposed model to
analyze shear-critical structures.
The convergence for FEA of the shear wall model SW4 is
observed to be sensitive to the value of the shear retention
factor. There are two major problems with the reduced shear
modulus approach. The first is that the value of β is arbitrary.
The second is that there is no limit to the shear strength
according to this model. A limit to the crack shear stress can,
of course, be imposed. But it is well known that the amount
of shear that can be transmitted across a concrete crack
depends on the amount of steel crossing the crack and the
normal stress on the crack surface due to external forces. The
shear-friction design method of ACI 318-0511 captures this
fundamental behavior of shear across cracks in RC. The FEA
implementation will be discussed in a separate paper.
CONCLUSIONS
The bond-slip friction behavior is implicitly embedded in
the proposed concrete material model for total strain-based
FEA. Based on the results of this study, the following
conclusions are drawn:
1. A 2D nonlinear material model that is capable of
representing frictional resistance and bond-slip behavior
is developed for use in a 2D total strain-based FEA in the
OpenSees framework.
2. One benefit of the proposed material model herein is
that it is better able to model concrete compressive stresses
for crack closing than prior models which, in turn, improves
the reloading portion of the force-displacement response.
3. The RC shear wall analysis results show reasonable
agreement with the experimental results although they
suggest that the concrete crack model and the shear stress-
strain relationship should be further improved.
4. The yield level of the steel model must be reduced to
account for the bond stress of the tension stiffening model.
The bond stress may be estimated based on available test
results5,6 although more experimental results are needed.
5. Total strains can be substituted for crack strains in
developing a total strain-based shear-friction model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research was supported by Grant No. CMMI-0625640 from the
National Science Foundation.
NOTATION
Ec = elastic modulus of concrete
Es = elastic modulus of steel
Esh = modulus of strain hardening
fc′ = cylinder compressive strength of concrete
fc = concrete stress
fcu = crushing stress of concrete
ft = tensile cracking stress of concrete
fy = yield stress in bare steel bars
R = steel stress reduction factor
s = crack spacing
εc = concrete strain
εco = strain at peak compressive stress in concrete cylinder
εcu = crushing strain of concrete
εmax = maximum (experienced) total strain
100
εmin = minimum (experienced) total strain
εs = steel strain
εsh = strain corresponding to initial strain hardening
εt = tensile cracking strain of concrete
εy = steel yield strain
γ = debonded length factor
ρ = reinforcement ratio
σc = concrete stress
σcb = concrete stress in bond region
σcsl = concrete stress in slip region
σs = steel stress
σε0 = stress in concrete at zero strain, ε0
REFERENCES
1. Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F. J., “Simulation of Cyclically Loaded
Concrete Structures Based on the Finite-Element Method,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 133, No. 5, May 2007, pp. 728-738.
2. Mansour, M., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Elements under Cyclic Shear. II: Theoretical Model,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 54-64.
3. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression-Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2., Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
4. Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F. J., “Compression Field Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed Loading: Formulation,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2003, pp. 616-625.
5. Eligehausen, R.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., “Local Bond Stress- Slip
Relationships of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitations,” Report UCB/
EERC-83/23, EERC, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1983, 169 pp.
6. Lowes, L. N.; Moehle, J. P.; and Govindjee, S., “Concrete-Steel Bond
Model for Use in Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug. 2004, pp. 501-511.
7. Bentz, E. C., “Explaining the Riddle of Tension Stiffening Models of
Shear Panel Experiments,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 131, No. 9, Sept. 2005, pp. 1422-1425.
8. So, M.; Harmon, T. G.; Yun, G. J.; and Dyke, S., “Inclusion of Smeared
Cyclic Bond-Slip Behavior in Two-Dimensional Membrane Elements,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug. 2009, pp. 466-475.
9. Mansour, M., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Elements under Cyclic Shear. I: Experiments,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 44-53.
10. Stevens, N. J.; Uzumeri, S. M.; Collins, M. P.; and Will, G. T.,
“Constitutive Model for Reinforced-Concrete Finite-Element Analysis,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1991, pp. 49-59.
11. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, pp. 167-170.
12. Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L., “How to Introduce a New Material
into OpenSees,” PEER Report, V. 1.1, University of California, Berkeley,
CA, Aug. 2001, pp. 1-30.
13. So, M., “Total-Strain Based Bond/Slip and Shear/Friction Membrane
Model for Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete,” PhD
dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, 2008, 240 pp.
14. Seckin, M., “Hysteretic Behavior of Cast-in-Place Exterior Beam-
Column Sub Assemblies,” PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
Canada, 1981, 266 pp.
15. Yokoo, Y., and Nakamura, T., “Nonstationary Hysterectic Uniaxial
Stress-Strain Relations of a Steel Bar,” Transactions of the Architectural
Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, No. 260, 1977, pp. 71-80.
16. Hoehler, M. S., and Stanton, J. F., “Simple Phenomenological Model
for Reinforced Steel under Arbitrary Load,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 132, No. 7, July 2006, pp. 1061-1069.
17. Chang, G. A., and Mander, J. B., “Seismic Energy Based Fatigue
Damage Analysis of Bridge Columns: Part I—Evaluation of Seismic
Capacity,” Technical Report NCEER-94-0006, NCEER, SUNY, Buffalo,
NY, 1994.
18. Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Constitutive Laws of Softened
Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91,
No. 4, July-Aug. 1994, pp. 465-474.
19. Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Cantilever Walls, Part I: Experimental Results,” ACI Materials
Journal, V. 92, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 271-281.
20. Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Cantilever Walls, Part II: Discussions and Theoretical Comparisons,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 91, No. 2, May-June 2002, pp. 1-11.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010