Engineering Structures 163 (2018) 388–395

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Hysteretic model for concrete under cyclic tension and tension-compression T

reversals
⁎
Pei Zhang, Qingwen Ren, Dong Lei
College of Mechanics and Materials, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A hysteretic model for concrete structure subjected to cyclic tension and tension–compression reversals is pre-
Hysteretic model sented. The proposed model was intended to predict the complex hysteretic behavior of concrete under cyclic
Concrete loading in a simple and practical way. Based on the analysis of the characteristic hysteretic behavior of concrete,
Cyclic tension the residual deformation in tension was considered principally due to the incomplete closure of the opening
Stress reversals
cracks. The mechanism for the hysteretic behavior of concrete under tension–compression reversals was sug-
Seismic response
gested as the crack closing and opening. Considering the application within different numerical approaches,
dimensionless stress-deformation coordinates was adopted to perform the hysteretic model. The unloading and
reloading paths have been derived from the crack closing and opening mechanism and were represented as
straight lines in the model. Partial unloading and reloading were considered in both cyclic tension and ten-
sion–compression reversals. The proposed model has been validated by comparison with available experimental
results and the seismic response of a SDOF system with the hysteretic model has been analysed.

1. Introduction
The safety assessment of concrete structures subjected to cyclic
loading such as seismic excitation requires realistic constitutive models
to reproduce the real behavior of the materials. Because of the low
tensile strength, the concrete subjected to seismic load usually presents
softening behavior in tension and hysteretic behavior in tension-com-
pression reversals. As a result, the hysteretic model for concrete plays a
significant role in determining the seismic responses of concrete
structures including the deformation and energy evolution. However,
for lack of experimental data, there are few specialized researches on
the modeling of hysteretic behavior for concrete under cyclic tension
and tension-compression reversals.
Most existing models for concrete considering the cyclic loading in
tension assumed linear unloading-reloading paths without hysteretic
energy dissipation [1–4]. Some authors (Vecchio and Palermo [5],
Reinhardt et al. [6], Yankelevsky and Reinhardt [7], Chang and Mander
[8]) have proposed more advanced models considering the complete
and partial unloading-reloading hysteretic behaviors with different
modeling approaches.
Vecchio and Palermo [5] presented constitutive formulations for
concrete subjected to reversed cyclic loading consistent with a com-
pression field approach. The model was built upon the preliminary
work presented by Vecchio [9] and intended to apply in the context of
smeared rotating cracks. The hysteretic rules used in cyclic tension
followed the philosophy for concrete in compression. The unloading
path was modeled with a Ramberg–Osgood formulation and the re-
loading path was modeled as a straight line with degrading reloading
stiffness. A plastic offset during complete unloading in tension has been
defined in the model and formulated based on the test data from Yan-
kelevsky and Reinhardt [7] and Gopalaratnam [10]. Although the
crack-closing process in compression loading has been described with a
linear formulation in the literature, the hysteretic behavior in tension-
compression reversals has been neglected.
Reinhardt et al. [6] proposed a relationship between the stress and
crack opening displacement for concrete in the tension and compres-
sion region. The total deformation during cyclic load was split up into a
crack opening displacement part and a strain part consisting of an
elastic strain and an irreversible strain, and the irreversible strain part
was neglected in the model. As a result, the uncracked material behaved
in a liner manner and all nonlinearities were comprised in the crack.
The model can be applied in numerical simulation through a discrete
crack approach or smeared crack approach. Straight lines were used as
the unloading and reloading paths. Because the crack opening dis-
placement was assumed constant during the unloading process in ten-
sion, the hysteretic behavior in cyclic tension cannot be simulated by
this model.
Yankelevsky and Reinhardt [7] developed a stress versus total

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: leidong@hhu.edu.cn (D. Lei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.051
Received 12 August 2017; Received in revised form 5 January 2018; Accepted 16 February 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 163 (2018) 388–395

Nomenclature u0 maximum of the earthquake induced deformation in a

linear system
c viscous damping coefficient x normalized strain
0
f0 maximum of the earthquake induced resisting force in a xclose normalized strain corresponding to crack-closing com-
linear system pressive stress
ft tensile strength of concrete x res normalized residual tensile strain
Fs resisting force x tpre normalized partial reloading strain
k elastic stiffness of SDOF system x tun normalized unloading strain on tension envelope curve
k0 normalized elastic stiffness in compression y normalized stress
kcrcl normalized crack-closing stiffness ytun normalized crack-closing compressive stress
kcrop normalized crack-opening stiffness ytpre normalized partial reloading stress
ktpre normalized partial reloading stiffness ytun normalized unloading stress on tension envelope curve
m quality δt tensile displacement corresponding to the tensile strength
Rs strength reduction factor εt tensile strain corresponding to the tensile strength
u deformation relative to the ground ζ damping ratio
üg ground acceleration ω undamped elastic circular frequency

deformation relationship for concrete behavior in cyclic tension and reversals is presented. Compared to previous ones, the model presents
compression. The model was based on a given experimental cyclic several advantages. It affords to consider the essential features of the
stress-deformation envelope, and has defined focal points which were complex hysteretic behavior of concrete in a simple and practical way.
used to reproduce the complete unloading-reloading cycles. The focal It can be used to simulate the complete or partial unloading and re-
points governed the unloading and reloading curves either by rays loading behaviors for concrete under cyclic tension and tension-com-
transmitted from a certain focal point towards known points in the pression reversals. Straight lines are adopted to describe the unloading
stress-deformation plane, or by their stress level. When all the focal and reloading paths and several necessary hysteretic rules are proposed
points were located, the complete unloading-reloading curves can be based on the mechanism of crack closing and opening. Furthermore, all
produced through a simple graphical process. Although the model re- the required input parameters can be obtained through conventional
presented well the test results, the definition of focal point purely de- laboratory monotonic tension tests. The model has been validated by
rived from the graphic feature needs more physical significance and the comparison with available experimental results in different cases and
procedure determining the unloading and reloading curves is too the analysis of seismic response based on the hysteretic model has been
complex. performed.
Chang and Mander [8] proposed a rule-based hysteretic model to
simulate the hysteretic behavior of confined and unconfined concrete in
2. Characteristic behaviors of concrete in tension-compression
both cyclic compression and tension for both ordinary as well as high
reversals
strength concrete. Fifteen unloading and reloading paths determined by
fifteen different rules were distinguished in the model. The fifteen paths
Before the introduction of the hysteretic model, it is necessary to
were divided into three types: envelope curve, connecting curve and
describe the characteristic behaviors of concrete in tension-compression
transition curve. The equation used by the authors for the unloading
reversals. Direct tension cyclic tests with different stress ranges on a
and reloading curves was a polynomial adjusted by a series of para-
double-notched specimen have been performed by Reinhardt [16] in
meters: the slope at the origin and the slope at the end of each curve. To
1984 and the corresponding stress-deformation relationships were ob-
determine the parameters of cyclic curves for concrete in compression,
tained. The deformation was defined as relative displacement and
statistical regression analysis was performed on the experimental data
measured by four extensometers with 35 mm gauge length. One of the
from Sinha et al. [11], Karsan and Jirsa [12], Spooner and Dougill [13],
test results with complete hysteretic loops has been selected to study
Okamoto et al. [14] and Tanigawa et al. [15]. The expressions proposed
the feature of concrete behaviors in tension-compression reversals.
for compression have been modified by the authors for the condition of
Fig. 1 shows the reproduced three successive unloading-reloading
tension cyclic behavior.
cycles. The positive stress means the tension and the unloading is
In the documented literatures, the most refereed experimental stu-
dies on the uniaxial tensile cyclic behavior of concrete are from
Reinhardt [16], Cornelissen et al. [17] and Mazars et al. [18]. More
recently, Nouailletas et al. [19] have performed direct cyclic tension
tests on the concrete specimens, and the effect of crack reclosing on
properties of concrete has been studied at the macroscale using the
digital image correlation (DIC) technique.
At present, the hysteretic model considering the hysteretic behavior
during cyclic tension and tension-compression reversals is still rarely
used in the seismic response analysis of concrete structure. The prin-
cipal shortcoming of the available hysteretic models for concrete in the
literatures is the complicated hysteretic rules applied to reproduce the
unloading and reloading curves. These rules are usually derived from
the geometrical properties of the cyclic stress-strain curves, which re-
sults in the lack of a clear physical meaning of the proposed model. A
set of parameters is required to perform the complex rules and it re-
duces the applicability of the hysteretic model.
In this paper, an efficient model capable of predicting the hysteretic
behavior of concrete under cyclic tension and tension-compression Fig. 1. Three successive unloading-reloading cycles under tension-compression reversals.

389
P. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 163 (2018) 388–395

referring to the deformation decrease process. In the unloading stage, deformation coordinates is applied to present the proposed hysteretic
the specimen was unloaded from the tension softening branch to the model:
compressive stress zone. Considerable residual deformation was ob-
served when the tensile stress unloaded to zero, and it was recognized ε δ σ
x= = , y=
as the irreversible plastic strain by many researchers [20–22]. However, εt δt ft (1)
different opinions were proposed by some authors [5,19]. The residual
deformation was reconsidered attributed to the cracked surfaces come where y is the dimensionless stress normalized by the concrete tensile
into contact and do not realign due to shear slip along the cracked strength ft ; x is the dimensionless deformation normalized by the strain
surfaces. And the evolution of the unloading curve was explained by εt or displacement δt corresponding to the concrete tensile strength.
friction phenomena generated by the mismatching discontinuity lips. Based on the normalized stress-deformation model, the corresponding
In present paper, the generation of the residual deformation in constitutive relationships applicable for the discrete or smeared crack
tension is considered principally due to the crack incomplete closure model can be easily obtained.
rather than the plastic strain and the unloading process can essentially
be regarded as a crack closure process. This interpretation can be ver-
3.2. Tension envelope curve for concrete
ified by the fact that during the compression phase the residual strain
progressively vanishes and the material recovers its initial stiffness
It is commonly accepted that the envelope curve for concrete sub-
(Fig. 1). The recovery of stiffness in compression has been accepted as
jected to axial cyclic load can be approximated by that under mono-
the “unilateral effect” in plastic damage theory and it is actually caused
tonic load. The envelope curve for concrete under monotonic tension
by the complete closure of cracks. In the reloading stage, the de-
has been studies by many researches and is usually expressed by a
formation grew fast during the tension phase as shown in Fig. 1, and it
piecewise function consisting of an ascent branch before the peak and a
can be deduced that the reloading curve is due to the reopening of the
descent branch after the peak. In the pre-peak branch, a linear elastic
previous closing cracks.
relationship represents well the concrete behavior and it has been ac-
Fig. 2 shows the evolution of unloading curve stiffness during the
cepted by most researchers. In the postpeak branch, several expressions
three cycles normalized by the elastic stiffness. It can be seen that the
were documented in the literature, including straight lines [23], poly-
evolution of unloading stiffness exhibits three different stages. The first
linear curves [24], exponential curves [5], polynomial curves [25] or
stage corresponds to the initial unloading in tension where the stiffness
combinations of them [26].
is large and decreases in approximate linearity with the deformation. At
The complete stress-deformation curve for concrete under mono-
the second stage, the stress unloads to zero and reverses to the com-
tonic tension has been experimentally investigated by Guo and Zhang
pression zone. Although the stress direction changes, the stiffness re-
[27] based on twenty-nine direct tension tests. A rational fraction ex-
mains constant in this stage, indicating the gradual closing process of
pression for the descending branch was obtained in the literature and
the cracks. At the last stage, the stiffness increases rapidly with the
was used in the present model. The complete expression of the adopted
decrease of deformation due to the growth of compression stress.
tension envelope curve for concrete can be written in the dimensionless
Fig. 3 shows the evolution of the normalized reloading stiffness
form as follows:
which can be divided into two stages. At the first stage, the compression
stress reduces to zero and the stiffness decreases approximately linearly
with the increase of deformation. At the second stage, the stiffness re- ⎧y = x (x ⩽ 1)
x
mains constant in a low level before the deformation reaches the pre- ⎨ y = αt (x − 1)1.7 + x (x ⩾ 1)
⎩ (2)
vious unloading value.
Based on the characteristic behaviors of concrete under tension- where αt is a materials parameter and determined by the concrete
compression reversals described above, some assumptions can be made tensile strength as:
as follows:
αt = 0.312ft2 (3)
1. The mechanism of the hysteretic behavior of concrete under tension-
compression reversals is the crack closing and opening. Different tension envelope curves with various αt have been de-
2. The stiffness of unloading curve remains constant in the low tension picted as shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the concrete with high
and compression stress region. tensile strength exhibits sharp fall in the softening branch, which re-
3. The stiffness of reloading curve remains constant in the tension presenting high brittleness.
stress region.

These assumptions will be used to determine the unloading and

reloading paths in the hysteretic model.

3. Proposed hysteretic model for concrete

3.1. Normalized coordinate system for present model

The failure of concrete subjected to tensile force takes place in local

fracture and is therefore a discontinuous phenomenon. The local crack
in concrete can be modeled as a discrete crack or a smeared crack in
numerical simulation and many constitutive relationships have been
proposed for the application of various models [2–3,5–7]. However, the
above-mentioned constitutive relationships usually adopted different
forms of deformation, such as crack open displacement, relative dis-
placement or strain, which limited the applicability of the corre-
sponding models.
Fig. 2. The evolution of normalized unloading stiffness in three cycles.
In order to improve the model applicability, a dimensionless stress-

390
P. Zhang et al.
Fig. 3. The evolution of normalized reloading stiffness in three cycles.
Fig. 4. Tension envelope curves for concrete with different tensile strength.
3.3. Unloading-reloading path in cyclic tension
As it was observed in many experiments [15,16,18,28], concrete
subjected to cyclic tension loading exhibited hysteretic behaviors. In a
typical cyclic test in tension, the stiffness of unloading curve was
usually very high at the beginning and then dropped to a stable value as
the tension stress decreased. Residual deformation can be observed if
the tension stress unloaded to zero. When reversely reloaded in tension,
the reloading stiffness exhibited almost constant and a hysteretic loop
would be formed during the unloading-reloading process.
In the present model, the hysteretic behavior is simulated by series
straight lines whose stiffness is determined in a semi-empirical way.
Several necessary hysteretic paths are proposed based on the assump-
tions summarized at the end of Section 2.
Fig. 5 shows the possible unloading-reloading paths for concrete
under cyclic tension. The complete unloading path from the unloading
point L ( x tun , ytun ) on the envelop curve to the stress-free point N ( x res , 0)
is consist of two segments: the unloading path LM with initial stiffness
(equal to 1 in the normalized coordinates) followed by the unloading
path MN with the crack-closing stiffness kcrcl . The crack-closing stiffness
kcrcl is assumed as a constant during the unloading process. The value of
kcrcl is determined by the residual deformation x res and crack-closing
compressive stress ytun , and the computational procedure will be in-
troduced in the next section.
The residual deformation x res is considered dependent on the pre-
vious unloading deformation x tun , and the relationship has been de-
termined in a semi empirical way from the test results [16,19]. Based
on the regression analysis, a quadratic polynomial formula has been
391
Engineering Structures 163 (2018) 388–395
obtained to represent the relationship between x res and x tun as shown in
Fig. 6.
The complete reloading path from the stress-free point N is pro-
posed as a straight line directed to the previous unloading point L as
shown in Fig. 5. The change of reloading stiffness before returning to
the envelop curve has been neglected for simplicity. Based on the
geometric feature, the complete reloading stiffness ktre can be calculated
as:
ytun
ktre =
x tun−x res (4)
Partial unloading and reloading under cyclic tension are also con-
sidered in the model. The partial reloading path starts from a partial
reloading point ( x tpre , ytpre ) with nonzero stress and is directed to the
previous unloading point on the envelop curve (Fig. 5). Based on the
rule, the partial reloading stiffness ktpre can be calculated as:
ytun −ytpre
ktpre =
x tun−x tpre (5)
The partial unloading activates when the deformation decreases
during complete reloading or partial reloading process, and the partial
unloading stiffness is suggested equal to the initial stiffness.
3.4. Crack closing and opening path in tension-compression reversals
The hysteretic behavior for concrete in tension-compression re-
versals is represented by a crack-closing path and a crack-opening path
as shown in Fig. 7. The crack-closing path depicted as line MP is de-
termined by the residual deformation x res and crack-closing compres-
sive stress ytun . The value of ytun represents the compressive stress level
corresponding to the full recovery of compression stiffness or complete
closure of the cracks. Based on the schematic, the stiffness of crack-
closing path can be calculated as:
0
yclose
kcrcl = 0
xclose−x res (6)
0
where is the deformation corresponding to the crack-closing
xclose
compressive stress ytun and calculated as:
0 0
xclose = yclose /k 0 (7)
where k 0 is the initial stiffness in compression and equals to 1 in the
normalized coordinates.
The value of crack-closing compressive stress ytun is suggested as 1/3
in present model based on the test results [16]. It is noteworthy that the
value of ytun is not a constant, and presents a negative relationship with
the damage of concrete in compression. Further discussion can be found
in the documents [2,18].
The crack-opening path is consisted of the line PO in compression
Fig. 5. Unloading and reloading paths for concrete in cyclic tension.
P. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 163 (2018) 388–395

Fig. 6. Relationship between the residual deformation and the unloading deformation
(NS – Narrow specimen; WS – Wide specimen). Fig. 8. Comparison between model predictions and test result in case 1.

Fig. 9. Comparison between model predictions and test result in case 2.

Fig. 7. Unloading and reloading paths for concrete in tension-compression reversals.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of concrete in the literatures.

Compressive Splitting Direct tensile Young’s

strength (N/ strength (N/ strength (N/ modulus (N/
mm2) mm2) mm2) mm2)

Reinhardt [16] 47.1 (6.0%)* 3.20 (9.4%) 3.20 (9.7%) 39,270

(8.5%)
Cornelissen 48.6 (6.0%) 3.66 (8.3%) 2.43 (8.6%) 22,420
et al. [17] (6.1%)
Nouailletas 61.4 (3.5%) 4.90 – 37,900
et al. [19] (10.2%) (15.3%)

* Relative standard deviation.

stress region with the initial stiffness and the line OL in tension stress
region with the crack-opening stiffness kcrop . The crack opening mainly
generates in the loading process in tension and the stiffness kcrop is
calculated as follows:
ytun
kcrop =
x tun
Partial unloading and reloading from the crack-closing and crack-
opening path have been considered in the model. The suggested partial
unloading and reloading stiffness in compression stress region is
equivalent to the initial stiffness and the stiffness in tension stress re-
gion is equivalent to the complete reloading stiffness ktre . All possible
Fig. 10. Comparison between model prediction and test data from Cornelissen et al. [17].
cases have been depicted in Fig. 7.
4. Model verification with test results
(8)
Several results of uniaxial cyclic tests with a variety of loading
histories including both cyclic tension and tension-compression re-
versals have been compared with the predictions obtained by means of
the presented model. The tests were carried out by Reinhardt [16],
Cornelissen et al. [17] and Nouailletas et al. [19]. The mechanical
properties of the concrete specimens used in the literatures are

392
P. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 163 (2018) 388–395

another straight line based model which is known as the focal point
model provided by Yankelevsky and Reinhardt [7] is presented.
Fig. 8 shows the case of cyclic tension with the lower stress equal to
5% of the tensile strength. Six cycles are selected to perform the com-
parison. It can be seen that the tension envelope curve and hysteretic
behavior have been simulated well by the proposed model. And com-
pared with the focal point model, the hysteretic loops obtained by the
proposed model are closer to the experimental results.
Fig. 9 shows the case of tension-compression reversals and the lower
stress is compressive and amounts to 15% of the tensile strength. For a
clear comparison of the unloading and reloading paths between the test
and model results, four cycles have been selected. The unloading and
reloading curves in the same cycle present significant difference in this
case and large hysteretic loops have been observed. It can be noticed
that the simulated hysteretic loops of both models are slightly bigger
than the test results.
Table 2 summarizes the dissipated energy obtained with the pro-
Fig. 11. Comparison between model prediction and test data from Nouailletas et al. [19]. posed model and is compared against experimental results and nu-
merical results obtained by Yankelevsky and Reinhardt [7]. The value
Table 2 of dissipated energy during each cycle is obtained by calculating the
Dissipated energy of the models and experiments. area of the corresponding hysteretic loop. The relative error between
numerical results and test results has been calculated for the two
Cycle Experiment Present model Yankelevsky and
models. The comparison shows that the proposed model presents a
number (10−3 N/mm) Reinhardt
better total dissipated energy prediction than the focal point model by
(10−3 N/mm) Error (%) (10−3 N/ Error (%) Yankelevsky and Reinhardt [7].
mm) In order to validate the applicability of the proposed model, other
experimental results by Cornelissen et al. [17] and Nouailletas et al.
Case 1 – Fig. 8
1 1.432 0.847 −40.9 1.323 −7.6
[19] are reproduced and compared with the model results. Figs. 10 and
2 1.631 1.410 −13.6 2.039 25.0 11 exhibit the case of tension-compression reversal with the lower
3 1.897 1.717 −9.5 2.195 15.7 stress equivalent to the tensile strength. Large amounts of energy are
4 1.769 1.686 −4.7 2.151 21.5 dissipated during the tension-compression reversal process in this case.
5 1.712 1.632 −4.7 1.793 4.7
It can be seen that the unloading and reloading curves predicted by the
6 0.799 1.178 47.4 1.008 26.1
Total 9.241 8.470 −8.3 10.510 13.7 proposed model present good agreement with the test results as a
whole. There is some deviation in the curves of the high compression
Case 2 – Fig. 9
1 1.833 2.230 21.7 3.255 77.6 stress region and it may be attributed to the accumulated irreversible
2 3.851 4.756 23.5 5.074 31.8 tension strain.
3 5.426 7.656 41.1 7.790 43.6
4 9.888 12.335 24.7 11.884 20.2
Total 20.998 26.977 28.5 28.003 33.4 5. Seismic response analysis based on the hysteretic model

The concrete structure subjected to seismic excitation usually pre-

sents hysteretic behavior in tension-compression reversals. However,
the hysteretic model is still rarely used in predicting the seismic re-
sponse of concrete structure and the research of the effect of hysteretic
model on the seismic response result is lacking. In this section, seismic
response analysis of a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system based on
the proposed hysteretic model is performed. The motion equation in a
dimensionless coordinates has been derived firstly based on the nor-
malized deformation and resisting force.
For a nonlinear SDOF system, the equation of motion is:
mu¨ + cu̇ + Fs = −mu¨ g (9)

where m is the mass, c is the viscous damping coefficient, Fs is the

resisting force, u is the deformation relative to the ground, and üg is the
acceleration of the ground. Divide the Eq. (9) by m to obtain:

ω2Fs
u¨ + 2ωζu̇ + = −u¨ g
k (10)

Fig. 12. The feature of the damage and plastic-damage models in normalized coordinates.
where k is the elastic stiffness of the system, ω = k / m is the un-
damped elastic circular frequency and ζ = c /2mω is the damping ratio.
For concrete materials, ut is the deformation corresponding to the
summarized in Table 1. The original experimental curves are re- tensile strength ft , let:
produced in the stress-displacement plane with gray dashed lines as
shown in Figs. 8–11. The prediction curves for different tests are ob- u u̇ u¨
u= ut = xut u̇ = ̇ t
ut = xu u¨ = ut = xu
¨ t
tained by substituting the corresponding displacement history and ut ut ut (11)
material parameters into the proposed model. A comparison with
Eq. (10) can be rewritten as:

393
P. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 163 (2018) 388–395

Fig. 13. The EI Centro ground motion.

Fig. 14. The deformation time history curves of the three models.

ω2Fs
ut x¨ + 2ωζut x ̇ + = −u¨ g
k (12) Fig. 16. The dissipation energy evolution of the hysteretic model and damage model.

And then divide the Eq. (12) by ut to obtain:

u¨ g
u¨ g x¨ + 2ωζx ̇ + ω2y = −
x¨ + 2ωζx ̇ + ω2y =− Rs u 0 (15)
ut (13)
It is clear from Eq. (15) that the seismic response of a SDOF system
where x = u/ ut is the normalized deformation, and y = Fs / kut = σs / ft is is determined by the parameter ω , ζ and Rs , considering the u 0 is de-
the normalized resisting force or stress as described above. termined by ω and ζ . For the linearly elastic systems, the Eq. (15) can be
For the nonlinear response analysis, the softening is considered and rewritten as:
the strength reduction factor Rs is defined as:
u¨ g
ft x¨ + 2ωζx ̇ + ω2x = −
u u0 (16)
Rs = = t
f0 u0 (14)
Based on the normalized motion equation, comparison of seismic
where f0 and u 0 are the peak values of the earthquake induced resisting response between different models can be carried out.
force and deformation, respectively, in the corresponding linear system. Seismic response of a SDOF system with the proposed hysteretic
Rs is equal to 1 for linearly elastic systems and Rs less than 1 implies model has been calculated and compared with the result of a damage
that the system is not strong enough to remain elastic during the ground model and plastic-damage model. The basic feature of the damage and
motion. Such a system will soften and deform into the inelastic range. plastic-damage models provided with the same tension envelope curve
Given the value of Rs , the tensile strength ft and corresponding de- of the proposed model is presented in a normalized coordinates as
formation ut can be determined. shown in Fig. 12. For the damage model, there is no residual de-
Substituting Eq. (14) into Eq. (13) gives: formation when the tension stress unloads to zero. For the plastic-

Fig. 15. The normalized force-deformation responses: (a) plastic-damage model; (b) damage model; (c) hysteretic model.

394
P. Zhang et al.
damage model, residual deformation produces with the complete un-
loading in tension and remains constant during compression loading.
The relationship between the residual deformation and unloading de-
formation in the plastic-damage model is assumed to be the same as
that in the proposed model. Different from the hysteretic model, the
reloading path is considered identical with the unloading path in the
damage and plastic-damage models.
Analysis is performed based on the SDOF system with parameters
ω = 4π , ζ = 5% and Rs = 0.5. The selected seismic excitation is EI
Centro ground motion as shown in Fig. 13. Substituting the kinetic
parameters and normalized constitutive relationship into the Eq. (15),
and solving it with the Newmark method, the time history of normal-
ized deformation and dissipated energy can be obtained.
Fig. 14 exhibits the normalized deformation response of the three
models. The deformation time history of the proposed model is similar
to that of the damage model, while the plastic-damage model presents a
considerable irreversible deformation due to the assumption of plastic
strain. The maximum deformation response of the plastic-damage
model is about 1.39 times that of other two models.
Fig. 15 displays the normalized force-deformation time history of
the three models. For the plastic-damage model (Fig. 15(a)), it can be
noticed that the plastic strain accumulates during the tension-com-
pression reversals and the stiffness recovers as soon as the stress enters
into compressive region. A number of hysteretic loops are observed in
the result of the hysteretic model (Fig. 15(c)). However, no hysteretic
loop is observed during the tension-compression reversals in the results
of the damage and plastic-damage models (Fig. 15(a) and (b)).
The amount of energy dissipated during seismic excitation plays a
significant role in the seismic damage assessment of concrete structure.
Fig. 16 shows the dissipation energy evolution history of the proposed
model and damage model. It can be seen that the total dissipation en-
ergy of the hysteretic model is almost three times that of the damage
model. The additional energy is obviously caused by the hysteretic
loops observed in Fig. 15(c).
The seismic acceleration time history curve has been reproduced in
Fig. 16 for further analysis. It can be seen that the energy dissipated by
the damage model remains constant after the peak value of the seismic
acceleration, which means that the post-peak seismic load has no effect
on the final result of the model. For the hysteretic model, the dissipated
energy continues to increase after the peak value of seismic acceleration
and the whole seismic load history can be considered in the form of
accumulated dissipation energy. It can be concluded that compared
with the damage model, the proposed hysteretic model is able to con-
sider the effect of the seismic duration on the total dissipation energy,
and it is significant in evaluating the cumulative damage of concrete
structure subjected to the seismic load, especially the earthquake with
long duration.
6. Conclusion
This paper presented a comprehensible model for predicting the
hysteretic behavior of concrete under cyclic tension and tension-com-
pression reversals. The model is introduced in the frame of a di-
mensionless stress-deformation coordinates. Complete and partial un-
loading and reloading paths are considered based on the crack closing-
opening mechanism. The model can be used to predict the complex
hysteretic behaviors of concrete under cyclic tension and tension-
compression reversals in a simple and practical way.
The proposed model has been validated by comparison with avail-
able experiments and shows satisfactory agreement with the experi-
mental results in all cases. Comparisons with the focal point model have
been carried out and the proposed model presents improvement on the
total dissipation energy prediction. Through the seismic response ana-
lysis, the proposed model proved to be capable to consider the effect of
395
Engineering Structures 163 (2018) 388–395
the seismic duration on the total dissipation energy, which is significant
in evaluating the cumulative seismic damage of concrete structures.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (51739006, U1765204, 51679078) and Postgraduate Research
& Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province of China (Project
number: 2017B661X14).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.051.
References
[1] Scott BD. Stress-strain behavior of concrete by overlapping hoops at low and high
strain rates. ACI J 1982;79(1):13–27.
[2] Sima JF, Roca P, Molins C. Cyclic constitutive model for concrete. Eng Struct
2008;30(3):695–706.
[3] Foster SJ, Marti P. Cracked membrane model: finite element implementation. J
Struct Eng 2003;129(9):1155–63.
[4] Yassin MHM. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic
and cyclic loads. Dissertation. Berkeley, California: University of California; 1994.
[5] Vecchio FJ, Palermo D. Compression field modeling of reinforced concrete sub-
jected to reversed loading: verification. ACI Struct J 2004;100(5):155–64.
[6] Reinhardt HW, Cornelissen HAW, Hordjil DA. Tensile tests and failure analysis of
concrete. J Struct Eng 1986;112(11):2462–77.
[7] Yankelevsky DZ, Reinhardt HW. Uniaxial behavior of concrete in cyclic tension. J
Struct Eng 1989;115(1):166–82.
[8] Chang GA, Mander JB. Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge
columns: Part 1 – Evaluation of seismic capacity; 1994.
[9] Vecchio FJ. Towards cyclic load modeling of reinforced concrete. ACI Struct J
1999;96(2):132–202.
[10] Gopalaratnam. Softening response of plain concrete in direct tension. ACI Mater J
1985;82(3):310–23.
[11] Sinha BP, Gerstle KH, Tulin LG. Stress-strain relations for concrete under cyclic
loading. Journal Proceedings 1964;61(2):195–212.
[12] Karsan ID, Jirsa JO. Behavior of concrete under compressive loading. J Struct Div
1969;95(12):2543–64.
[13] Spooner DC, Young AG, Dougill JW. A quantitative assessment of damage sustained
in concrete during compressive loading. Mag Concr Res 1976;28(96):168–9.
[14] Okamoto S, Shiomi S, Yamabe K.
Earthquake resistance of prestressed concrete structures. Proc Annual Convention
AIJ 1976:1251–2.
[15] Tanigawa Y, Uchida Y. Hysteretic characteristics of concrete in the domain of high
compressive strain. Proc Annual Convention AIJ 1979:449–50.
[16] Reinhardt HW. Fracture mechanics of an elastic softening material like concrete.
Delft University of Technology; 1984(2).
[17] Cornelissen HAW, Hordijk DA, Reinhardt HW. Experimental determination of crack
softening characteristics of normalweight and lightweight concrete. Delft University
of Technology; 1986(2).
[18] Mazars J, Berthaud Y, Ramtani S. The unilateral behaviour of damaged concrete.
Eng Fract Mech 1990;35(4):629–35.
[19] Nouailletas O, Borderie CL, Perlot C, et al. Experimental study of crack closure on
heterogeneous quasi-brittle material. J Eng Mech 2015;141(11):04015041.
[20] Légeron F, Paultre P, Mazars J. Damage mechanics modeling of nonlinear seismic
behavior of concrete structures. J Struct Eng 2005;131(6):946–55.
[21] Wu JY, Li J, Rui F. An energy release rate-based plastic-damage model for concrete.
Int J Solids Struct 2006;43(3):583–612.
[22] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J
Eng Mech 1998;124(8):892–900.
[23] Bažant Zdeněk P, Oh BH. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Matériaux Et
Construction 1983;16(3):155–77.
[24] Rots JG, Nauta PG, Kuster GMA, et al. Smeared crack approach and fracture loca-
lization in concrete. Delft University of Technology; 1985(1).
[25] Lin CS, Scordelis AC. Nonlinear analysis of RC shells of general form. J Geol Soc Jpn
1975;101(12):965–70.
[26] Cornelissen HAW. Experiments and theory for the application of fracture mechanics
to normal and lightweight concrete. Fracture Toughness Fracture Energy Concr
1986:565–75.
[27] Guo Z, Zhang X. Experimental investigation of complete stress-deformation curves
of concrete in tension. J Build Struct 1988;84(4):278–85.
[28] Chen X, Xu L, Bu J. Experimental study and constitutive model on complete stress-
strain relations of plain concrete in uniaxial cyclic tension. KSCE J Civ Eng
2015;79(1):1–7.