Sectional Analysis of

Reinforced Concrete Members

By :
Evan C. Bentz

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto

O Evan Bentz
2000
 National Libraiy Bibliothque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue WdlingtOn
OttawaON KlAON4 OttawaON K l A W
canada CaMda

The author has granted a non-
exclusive licence allowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or seli
copies of this thesis in microfom,
paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accord une licence non
exclusive permettant la
Bibliothque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thse sous
la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
lectronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la proprit du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
droit d'auteur qui protge cette thse.
Ni la thse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent tre imprims
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
 Abstract
Title: Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Year: 2000

Department: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto

Four easy to use programs have been written that allow for state of the art

sectional analysis of reinforced concrete blocks, plates, beams, columns and shellS.

Unlike most sectional analysis programs, these programs include the effects of shear on

behaviour. They are based on the assumption that plane sections remain plane, that there

is no transverse clamping stress, and that the biaxial behaviour can be modelled wel! by

the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT).Each of these assumptions is shown to

be reasonable.

The programs are fieely available on the World Wide Web at the listed addresses:

htm Membrane-2000 for plates

htt~://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/-bentdrn2k-

htt~://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/-bentz/r2k.htm Response-2000 for bearns and columns

Triax-2000 for 3D blocks

htt~://~~~.ecf.utoronto.ca/-bentz/t2k.htm

Shell-2000: shells with out-of-plane forces

httr,://~~~.ecf.utoronto.ca/-bentds2k.htm

This thesis describes the MCFT in detail as implemented in the programs as well
as explaining new constitutive relations employed for the behaviour of concrete in

tension. The strongest feature of the new programs is the employment of the longitudinal

stiffness method, developed for this thesis, which calculates the shear stress profile for a
beam or shell much faster and with more numerical stability than the previous state of the

art.

The programs are verifted against a set of experiments as well as against two new

shear expenments perforrned for this thesis. They indicate the programs are good at

predicting the behaviour of the elements. Response-2000 is compared to a database of

534 beams and shown to predict shear strengths with an average experimental over

predicted shear strengh ratio of 1.05 and with a coefficient of variation of 12%. This

compares favourably to the AC1 code prediction ratios that have an average of 1.20 and a

coefficient of variation of 32%.

It is suggested that the programs in this thesis represent a good first step in

allowing rational, state of the art cornputer programs to be directly allowed in the code

for elements subjected to shear.

 Ac knowledgemeots
It's been said that it does not r d l y matter what you are doing in life so long as
you are able to work and play with people that you like. For the five years that 1have
worked on this project, 1have had the luxury of both liking what 1am doing and liking
the people that 1have worked with. 1can only hope that they have learned something
fiom working with me as 1have cettainly leamed a great deal from them.
My supervisor, M. P. Collins has done an outstanding job in showing what it
means to be a professional engineer, an excellent professor and an excellent researcher.
Whenever someone refers to an effective professor, 1use him as the standard of
measurement. 1thank him for al1 that he has taught me.
1thank the government of Canada and my parents for financial assistance.
Together they have made this a painless experience financially.
1wish to thank those that helped me in the laboratory part of this research: Pawan
Gupta, Steve Cairns, Dino Angelakos, Julius Lenart, Gary McDonald, Vasi le Radulescu,
Paul Ami kons, John McDonald and Peter Heliopoulos.
Finally I want to thank the many people that I have shared an office with over the
past five years including: Dan Kuchma, Amr Helmy, Guillermo Gabrielti, Almila Uzel,
Yoichi Yoshida, Young-loan Kim, amongst others. 1also want to thank the many fnends
1 have made along the way including Teny Ramiochan, Andrea Boddy, Kyle Stanish,
Nick Kosteski, Jason Muise, Gordon Lok, Rob Rose, Francesca Burke, and many others.
If this thesis can be as helptiil to the engineering community as my fkiends and
colleagues have been to me over the past 5 years, then this will be a very successfiil thesis
indeed.
Table of Contents
..
Abstract........................................................................................................................... II
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ v
...
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. v i l 1
List of Tables ................................................................................................................

Chapter 1: htroduction.................................................................................................... 1
1- 1 Analysis of Structures ............................................................................................ 1
1-2 Sectional-Based Analysis of Concrete Swctures ....................... . . . . ................ 3
1-3 Bnef Description of t he Programs ......................................................................... - 6
1-4 Types of Sectional Analyses................................................................................... 8
1-5 Assumptions in Sectional Analysis ....................................................................... -8
1-6 Contents of this Thesis ......................................................................................... 10

Chapter 2: Examples of use of Programs ....................................................................... 13

2- 1 Program Installation ............................................................................................. 13
2-2 Quick Start: Membrane-2000 ............................................................................... 13
2-3 Quick Start: Response-2000 ................................................................................. 17
2-3- 1 Automatic Cross Section................................................................................ 18
2-3-2 Analysis without shear.................................................................................. 19
2-3-3 Analysis with Shear ....................................................................................... 20
2-3 -4 Member Response ......................................................................................... 22
2-4 Quick Start: Triax-2000 ....................................................................................... 24
2-5 Quick Start: Shell-2000........................................................................................ 27

Chapter 3: The Modified Compression Field Theory and

Related Numerical Techniques ..................................................................................... -29
3.1 General ............................................................................................................... -29
3-2 Important Aspects of the MCFT ........................................................................... 31
3-2-1 Reinforcement average response (f... f, ) ....................................................... 31
3-2-2 Concrete tensile stress response (fi) .............................................................. 3 2
3-2-3 Concrete compressive stress response (fi) ...................................................... 32
3-2-4 Crack width (w) ............................................................................................. 32
3-2-5 Shear on the crack (vd) ................................................................................. 33
3 - 2 6 Local reinforcement stress at a crack (f,, f, ) ............................................. 33
3-3 Modified Compression Field Theory in Three Dimensions................................... 34
3-4 Solving problems with the MCFT ........................................................................ 35
3-4- 1 Calculate stress state fiom strain state: .......................................................... -35
3-4-2 Solving for a 3D stress state fiom a 3D Strain state........................................ 35
3-4-3 Calculate strain state fiom stress state ............................................................ 36
3-5 Secant Stiffiess in Two and Three Dimensions .................................................... 38
3-6 Tangent Stiffness in Two and Three Dimensions................................................. -40
 9-3 General Observations: HS 1............................................................................... 116
9-4 General Observations: HS2 ................................................................................ 120
9-5 Comparison of behaviour and predictions: HS 1............................................... 124
9-6 Cornparison of behaviour and Predictions: HS2 ............................................. 127
9-7 Cornparison of HS1 and HS2 ............................................................................. 130

Chapter 10: Experimental Verification of Response-2000 ........................................... 132

10-1 Eff'ects of tension stiffening changes ............................................................. 133
10-2 Arbesman and Conti: Prediction of sectional response.................................. 135
10-3 Taylor: Effct of aggregate size ................ . . .................................................. 137
10-4 Shioya et al: Size effect in shear.................................................................. 138
10-5 Kani: Effct of a/d ratio.................................................................................. 142
10-6 Moody, Viest, Elstner, Hognestad: Concrete strength: small beams .................. 143
10-7 Angelakos: Concrete strength: large Iightly reinforced beams .......................... -144
10-8 Adebar & Collins: EfTect of axial tension ........................................................ 145
10-9 Khalifa: Transverse Reinforcement on round columns....................... . . ........1 4 6
10-10 MacGregor: Draped reinforcement in prestressed bearns ................... . . ......... 147
10-11 Benzoni, Priestley and Seible: Intedocking spiral column............................... 149
10-12 Comparison to 534 Beams .............,. ........................................................... 152
10-12-1 Shear span to depth ratio (a/d ratio).......................................................... 152
IO- 12-2 Beam depth.............................................................................................. 153
10-12-3 Concrete strength ..................................................................................... 155
10-12-4 Longitudinal percentage of reinforcement ........................................... 156
10- 12-5 Transverse percentage of reinforcement ................................................... 157
10-12-6 Shear strength .......................................................................................... 158
10- 12-7 Overall Predictions ................................................................................ ..159

Chapter 11: Experimental Verification of Shell-2000.................................................. 162

1 1- 1 In-Plane Membrane Forces............................................................................... 162
11-2 Out-of-Plane Shear........................................................................................... 165

Chapter 12: Analysis guidelines and examples............................................................. 167

12-1 Performing an analysis for beams with Response-2000 .................................... 167
12- 1- 1 Point load on prismatic reinforced concrete beam on simple supports .......-167
12- 1-2 Analysis of large prestressed concrete girden with uniform load ............... 169
12-1-3 Column pushover analyses......................................................................... 170
12- 1-4 Predictions of size effect in shear ............................................................... 174

Chapter 13 : Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 176

Chapter 14: Areas of Future Work ............................................................................. 179

Appendix A: Program Manuals ................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Detailed Zurich Data............................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Experimental Verification Tables for Response-2000 ......................... C-1

vii
List of Figures
1.1 Air Force warehouse failure in Shel by. Ohio ............................................................ - 2
1-2 Hanshin Expressway piers collapse in Kobe. Japan ................................................... 2
1-3 Detennining sectional forces using plane fiame analysis ........................................... 4
1-4 Determining sectional forces using finite element analysis ........................................ 5
1-5 Sectional analysis of Reinforced Concrete ................................................................ -9
1-6 Components of sectional analysis methods ............................................................... -9
1-7 Example of transverse stress in web of beam ........................................................... 11

3-1 The Modified Compression Field Thmry in two dimensions .................................. - 3 1

3-2 Secant and tangent modulus of concrete ................................................................. -37
3-3 Secant and tangent modulus of reinforcement......................................................... -37
. .
4- 1 Pnsm in tension ...................................................................................................... -43
4-2 Average tensile stress .............................................................................................. 44
4-3 Average reinforcement stress................................................................................... 44
4-4 Total force versus strain, no crack check ................................................................ - 4 4
4-5 Free body diagram of 1D element at a crack ............................................................ 45
4-6 Total stress versus strain with crack check ............................................................... 45
4-7 Two dimensional crack check .................................................................................. 47
4-8 Beam in flexure ....................................................................................................... 52
4-9 Concrete Moment .................................................................................................... 54

5-1 Popovics base concrete compression base curve ...................................................... 57

5-2 Parabolic concrete compression base curve ............................................................. 57
5-3 Strain at peak stress ................................................................................................. 58
5-4 Compression sottening, normal strength concrete .................................................... 59
5-5 Compression sottening, high strength concrete ........................................................ 59
5-6 AC1 equation for shear cracking strength of concrete............................................... 60
5-7 Proposed equation for shear cracking strength of concrete ...................................... -61
5-8 Cornparison of AC1 and proposed equation for shear cracking ................................. 61
5-9 Cornparison of tension stiffening relationships ........................................................ 63
5- 10 Scale of tension element tests ................................................................................ 64
5-1 1 Tension stiffening vs . m parameter ........................................................................ 65
. . . ......................................... 6 5
5- 12 m parameter ftom individual tests ........................ . .
5- 13 Tensile stresses in cracked concrete ...................................................................... -67
5-14 Tooth of concrete between cracks subjected to tension .......................................... 68
5- 15 Tension stiffening vs. distance from bar ............................................................... -68
5-16 Tension stiffening parameters for beam analysis ............................................... 70
5- 17 Cracking strength vs. drying time .......................................................................... 72
5-18 Tension stiffening vs. drying time .......................................................................... 73

6-1 Shear stress calculation .................................................................................... 7 5

6-2 Internals of shear stress calculation .......................................................................... 76
6-3 Sample section ....................................................................................................... 7 9
List of Tables
Explicit Steps for 2D-MCFT Crack Check .............................................................-48
Explicit Steps for 3DMCFT Crack Check .............................................................. 50

Demonstration of Tension Stiffening Equations....................................................... 71

Geometry of expenmental elements ..................................................................... 113

Material propdes of experimental elements ..................................................... 113
Instmmentation and loading of experimental elements .......................................... 115
HS 1 test observations ............................................................................................ 118
HS 1 rneasured strains fiom test ............................................................................. 119
HS2 test observations............................................................................................ 120
HS2 measured strains fiom test ............................................................................. 123

10- 1 Experimental beam database summary ................................................................ 154

Chapter 1: Introduction

1-1 Analysis of Structures

For over 2000 years, good engineers have had an understanding of the working of
the matenals they mould. They have understood that by carefblly shaping geometry, it
was possible to build larger and more impressive structures and avoid problems that
might otherwise make a structure faIl down. In the last centuries, science and
mat hematics have been introduced into structural engineering, augment ing the engineer 's
understanding with mathematical models that can be used t o assist in design. Over the
last 35 years there has been explosive growth in the power of these numerical models as a
result of the use of computers. These new analytical models have allowed engineers to
design and optimise engineering solutions that hitherto would have taken much longer to
solve.
Some of these camputer models have, unfortunately, removed the engineer fiom
the design process in such a way that young engineers are potentially learning less fiom
the design process than they used to, despite being able to work on larger problems. This
removal has meant that some engineers are less able to identiQ errors in analyses and
designs than their older colleagues who did not l e m structural behaviour with the help o f
a computer.
For some design problems where geometry o r intrinsic material behaviour is
complex, cornputers are now a necessary part of the engineering process. With are,
computer programs can be written so that they erhance the engineer's understanding of
the problem rather than subtracting fiom it.
An example of a complex engineering design problem, which is the subject of this
thesis, is the design of reinforced concrete beams, plates and shells to resist significant
shear. The moa common method of analysis, that o f ~itter',explained in detail by
ors ch^, was defined a cenniry ago. Despite this, shear has been and continues to be a
problem. A set of historically important shear failures that appears to have strongly
affected the 1963 AC1 code shear provisions were the failures in 1955 and 1956 of a
series of Air Force Warehouses, see Fig. 1-1. More recently, the 1991 failure of the
Sleipner offshore oil platform resulted in a loss of nearly 1 billion dollars. This failure
was due to a number of problems including mistakes in computer analyses. as well as a
code of practice that was unconse~ativefor the particular shear dominant loading. In the
1995 Kobe earthquake, the large Hanshin expressway, see Fig. 1-2, f d e d in shear. again
part1y due to an unconservative code. More recently, in the summer of 1998. a parking
sarage collapsed in Toronto due to a shear fai1ure.

Figure 1-1:Air force Warehouse Figure 1-2: Hanshin Expressway Piers

During the l m twenty five years, a considerable arnount of research has been
conducted world-wide with the aim of developing behavioural modets for reinforced
concrete in shear comparable to the rationality and generality of the plane-sections theory
for flexure. This research is comprehensively reviewed in the Dec. 1998 state-of-the-art
report by ACI-ASCE Committee 445 "Shear and c ors ion''. One group of rationai
models for shear, developed at the University of Toronto, is known as the "Modified
Compression Field Theory" (MCFT)'. The programs in this thesis use this model.
The research described in this thesis was commenced in the belief that recent
advances in both computational power and behavioural understanding make possible the
development of a new generation of design models for reinforced concrete subjected to
shear, To this end, a series of four programs have k e n written for the shear analysis and
design of rein forced concrete elements. These prograrm incorporate a number of
significant advances in the shear analysis of reinforced concrete. In the author's opinion,
the most important attribute of these programs is that they are designed to help the user
understand the response of reinforced concrete elements loaded in shear.
These programs also are designed to provide only one answer for a given
problem. Some engineering analysis programs provide the ability to "tune" results by
changing one analysis parameter or another. While this flexibility is usefil, it can be
tempting to try to achieve unnaturally good agreement with experiments that have already
been performed. It is felt that this does not serve the engineering community well. By
calculating a single definitive shear suength, say, for a given set of basic material
properties and sectional geometry, it is felt that a more stringent set of rules for judging
quality is established,
Finally, these programs are designed to provide a numerical test-bed for large and
cornplex problems. It is known, for example, that larger lightly reinforced structures tend
to fail at lower shear stresses than smaller ones. Clearly, there i s a limit to how large an
experiment can be to test for this phenomenon. By making programs that are based on
rational models, it is possible to make the best use of the few large wncrete shear tests
that do exist. With a demonstrated ability to predict trends that include these large tests,
it becomes possible to predict, with reasonable confidence, shear response when
experiments are not practical.

1-2 Sectional-Based Analysis of Concrete Structures

Engineering analysis can take many fonns in a spectrum of complexity. At one
end are hand and graphical methods of analysis that tend to be laborious, yet are good for
developing an understanding of the solution technique to the problem at hand. At the
other end of the spectrum are general-purpose, non-linear, finite element cornputer
programs. These are far more powefil, yet they are sufficiently complex that it is
generally necessary to take it on trust that they work properly. One generally does not do
calculations to detemine if moment equilibrium is maintained in a fiame or if the
calculated loads really can be carried by the cross section, for example. The input and
output fiom these complex programs tend to be dificult to understand and verie.
 In between these two extremes of analysis lies sectional analysis. This is a
familiar topic to engineers as the idea is strongly embedded in w d e s o f practice. The
unirs of currency for a sectional analy sis are the f m i l i a r concepts of axial load, moment
and shear. The prograrns in this thesis fit into this category ofanalysis. This means that
they do the analysis at one location in a beam or plate and calculate the strength and
deformation in terms of moments, shean, curvatures, etc. Generally, the only assumption
needed to make a sectional analysis is something akin to the familiar assumption "plane
sections remain plane" of engineering beam theory.

In using the sectional analysis approach, the problem o f detennining the response
of a reinforced concrete structure to applied loads is broken up into two interrelated tasks.
First, the sectional forces at various locations in the stmcture caused by the applied loads
are determined. This step is usually performed assuming that the structure remains
linearly elastic. Then the response of a local section to the sectional forces is determined.
Tn this second step, which is the sectional analysis, the non-linear characteristics of
cracked reinforced concrete are taken into account. Two examples of calculating the
sectional forces in reinforced concrete stnictures are shown in Fig. 1-3 and Fig 1-4. For
the simple building fiame shown in Fig. 1-3, the axial load, N, the moment, M, and the

[al Five-story building (b) Plane-trame model Cc) Sectionai forces

Figure 1-3 Detcnnining sectional forcer using plane firme anilysiss
shear, V, at any particular location of the f-ame can be found using a plane-hme
cornputer prognun. For the more complex concrete offshore platform, made up of plates
and shells, the sectional forces at different locations a n be found by integrating the
stresses obtained fiom an elastic finite element analysis over the thickness of the element.

Figure 1-4 Dctcrnining sectionil forces using finite element inalysiss

5
 The contribution of this thesis to the field is that it provides immediately useftl
programs that can be used by engineers and researchers to perform non-linear sectional
analysis. These programs have been written so that they quickly allow checking o f input
and output data for errors. Additionally, in the process of viewing the results, the
engineer using the program cannot help but learn about the behaviour of reinforced
concrete. New analytical methods have been developed that improve the stability of the
analysis while also increasing the speed many times over the previously existing state-of-
t he-art proceciures.

While flexural sectionai analysis (i.e. analysis without shear) of beams is

generally considered to be a "solved problem," an equally rigorous and standard method
for including shear does not exist in common practice yet. It is suggested that these
programs can fil1 that gap and avoid some of the problems described above.

1-3 Brief Description of the Programs

The first program is Membrane-2000. This is a complete Microsofi Windows
rewrite of the simple BASIC program "membrane" contained on the disk that came with
the Prestressed Concrete Structures book by Collins and ~itchell'. This program will
calculate the load-deformation relationship for membrane elements of reinforced
concrete. That is, plates subjected to N,, N,, and V
,
. These are of the same type as the
elements tested to derive the Modified Compression Field Theory.

The second program, Response-2000, is believed to be the most immediately

usefl of the four programs. It will calculate strengths and deformations for beams and
columns subjected to axial load, moment and shear. The program, which is shown in this
thesis to accurately mode1 the behaviour of reinforced concrete, uses a new method for
determining shear stress distribution. The program is thought of as being the successor of
program ~ e s ~ o n s 38
e "and program sma16*". In this respect, it is interesting to recail that
in the 1988 paper6which introduced the rigorous barn analysis procedure which lies at
the h a r t of both SMAL and Response-2000, Vecchio and Collins stated:

"Although too complex for regular use in the design of simple beams, the
procedure has value in its ability to provide a rational method of analysis and design
for members having unusual or complex geometry or loading, or whenever a more
thorough analysis is warranted."

It is believed that the advances made in analysis techniques since that time and the
advances made in cornputer power now mean that Response-2000 can in fact be used in
day-to-day office practice.

The third program, Triax-2000, is of a more academic nature. It considers the

behaviour of a general three-dimensional block of reinforced concrete.

The founh program, Shell-2000 perfonns analyses for plates and shells subjected
to al1 of the 8 force resultants shown in Fig 1-4 c. This new program performs a more
rigorous analysis for out of plane shear than previously available. This program can be
thought of as the n e a generation of program ~he11474'.

A user manual for these four programs is given in Appendix A of this thesis.
More importantly, each of the four programs is fieely available via the World Wide Web
at the following addresses:

htm for Membrane-2000

htt~://www.e~.utoronto.ca/-bentdrn2k.
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/-benWr2k.htm for Response-2000
http ://www.ecf utoronto.ca/-bentzk2k- htm for Shell-2000
htm for Triax-2000
http://www.ecfutoronto.ca/-bentzh2k.
1-4 Types of Sectional Analyses.
Figure 1-5 summarises 6 different types of sectional analyses. The columns in the
figure define the level of analysis. The model in the lefi column needs only a uniaxial
stress-strain analysis to produce results, those in the middle colurnn need biaxial stress-
strain relations, and those in the right colurnn need triaxial stress-strain relations. The
rows indicate the level of numerical integration of the analysis. Models in the bottom
row calculate behaviour at a point, those in the middle row integrate behaviour along a
line and the model in the top row integrates behaviour over an area. The titles indicate
what type of analysis could be perfomed if a series of such elements were stning
together as finite elements. Figure 1-6 shows more information about each type of
analysis along with where each of the prograrns in this thesis fits. Professor F.J. Vecchio
has developed a number of finite element prograrns at the University of Toronto (8.9.10.11.
") and the location ofthese in the matrix isalso shown. Finally, the loading is shown.

1-5 Assumptioos in Sectional Analysis

For a sectional model to adequately model the behaviour of real elements, it is
necessary for the structura1 elernent to be reasonably "long". For example, the shear
span of a beam must be at least 2 times the depth of the beam in order for a shear analysis
based on a sectional model to be accurate. Likewise, a shell element must have an area
equal to 2 by 2 times the element thickness in a shear span sense. Ifthe element is
smaller than this, sectional analysis will typically be rather conservative.

The modelling assumptions in the implementation of sectional analysis including

shear are first that engineering beam theory is valid. That is, a straight line drawn on the
element before deformation will still be a straight line after deformation. The second
assumption is that there is no significant net stress in the transverse direction. This means
that the concrete and transverse steel forces must balance at each point through the depth
of the element. Both these assumptions are gwd ones when the analysis is being
perfonned a distance away from the support and the load point. Close to the load and to
the reactions, however, there will be a transverse clamping stress fiom the application of
Figure 1-5
Sectional Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete

3 0 Frame

2D Frarne 3D Sheli

-..ml - 0 1 1 1

ID Frame 2 0 Shell 3D Block

Figure 1-6 30 Frame

Basis:
30 nodes in plane
sectional Analysis Methods
None
Loading
MxM,VxV,T N

20 Frame 3 0 Shell
Basis: Basis:
2D nodes in a Iine 3 0 nodes in a line
Finite Element Finite Element
TEMPEST RASP
Loadina
N M V

10 Frame 3 0 Block
Basis: Basis: Basis:
1 0 node at a point 2 0 node at a point 3 0 node at a point
Finite Element Finite Element '
None TR fX
Loading Loading Loading
N NxN,V* N x N v N z Vm V, V,
Membrane-2000
the load itselc which will tend to locally increase the strength. This is one reason that
short beams are noticeably stronger in shear than long beams with the same cross section.

Figure 1-7 shows the results of two non-linear finite element analyses performed
with program TRIX8,which is a membrane element non-linear finite element analysis
program based on the Modified Compression Field Theory. A 1.85 metre deep bulb-tee
type section was loaded with a central point load on a 10 meue span. The analyses were
performed to evaluate the appropriateness of the assumption of no clamping stresses in
the transverse direction. For the first analysis, the strands in the beam were not
prestressed, making the beam a reinforced concrete beam, while for the other, the strands
were stressed to 1 100 MPa ( 6 W of ultimate stress). The plots show the transverse
clamping stress at the top, middle and bottom of the web of the beams, al1 for a total
applied load level of 3000 kN. The middle region of each shear span is highlighted in the
diagram. It can be seen that in this middle region the effects of the transverse stresses
near the support and point load have largely dissipated. Note that for the reinforced
beam, there is little transverse stress in this middle region, but for the prestressed beam,
there is a more pronounced clamping at mid-depth. This implies that a sectional mode1 of
this prestressed beam would be more conservative than for the reinforced concrete beam
as the analysis would ignore the beneficial effect of this small compressive, clamping,
stress. Based on analyses such as these summarised in Fig. 1-7, it can be wncluded that
the traditional assumption that the transverse stress is negligible is a very good one.

1-6Contents of this Thesis

As is perhaps evident fiom the descriptions given above, the true products of this
research project are the computer program themselves. This thesis describes the
analytical and experimental work upon which the prograrns are based.

Chapter 2 provides an introduction to each program with an example that

highlights the use and type of analyses that can be performed with each program. The
 3000 kN
1000

/ -.dr
AL
B, /
C ,l
:
*
transverse stress

c
5-1-

-T
l S Y 8 2mmn

32 S13
lOGp-=
5.50 mmk

f 1500 kN 1500 k ~ f
ha+
Load
2 -r

Figure 1-7: Example of

Transverse stresses in
web of 9250 mm clear
span cracked reinforced
and cracked prestressed
concrete beams.
Transmrsm Setsr at
Sedon A-A

Length dong k m(nm)

4 Load

Trartswrse Stress at S e d o n 6 4
!

Length dong bem (nm)

4 Load
I I 1 I
chapter is written in a "tutonal" style to allow the reader to follow dong in trying the
programs.

Chapter 3 explains the implementation of the MCFT in two dimensions and three
dimensions. Chapter 4 extends that with an explicit discussion of the crack check This
crack check is a necessary part of the MCFT to ensure that equilibrium can be maintained
at a crack.

Chapter 5 describes the concrete constitutive models used for the programs. New
relations for the tension strength of concrete and tension stiffening are presented. These
were found to be necessary to better capture observed behaviour of beams.

Chapter 6 describes the new method of calculating the shear stress profile in a
beam or shell. This is one of the most important parts of this thesis as it has allowed a
substantial increase in performance and stability over previous methods.

Chapter 7 provides brief descriptions of how each of the programs work. As the
programs contain a totd of about 150,000 lines of CH, the level of detail cannot be very
high for this chapter.

Chapter 8 provides experimental corroboration for program Membrane-2000 fkom

the literature. Chapter 9 explains the results fiom 2 new experimental tests performed for
this thesis. Chapter 10 shows experimental corroboration for Response-2000 and Chapter
1 1 shows experimental corroboration for Shell-2000.

Chapter 12 provides more examples and advice on how to perform analysis of

beams subjected to shear. Anned with this information, it is hoped that engineers will be
capable of accurately predicting the response of reinforced concrete structures subjeaed
to shear and that their understanding of the behaviour will be deepened.
Chapter 2 : Examples of use of Programs
This chapter gives a short introduction to each program in t e m s of what can be
done with thern d o n g with an example to show how to do it,

2- 1 Program Installation
To install the programs from this thesis, simply copy them into a new directory
and unzip the zip files. Consult your Microsoft Windows manual to find how to make a
shortcut to the program or to add them to the start menu.

2-2 Quick Start: Membrane-2000

Membrane-2000 is the simplest of the four programs

described in this thesis. It allows anaiysis of reinforced concrete
shells subjected to in-plane forces (axial force in X and Y directions
-- and in-plane shear). Interna1 reinforcement may be in orthogonal
directions X and Y with an arbitrary number of bar Iayers and spacing ailowed.

,Membrane eIements subjected to in-plane forces c m be found in structural walts,

the webs of beams, containment vessels, and cooling towers amongst many others. This is
the type of element tested to develop the Modified Compression Field Theory. From a
practical perspective, the edge forces used as inputs to Membrane-2000 could come from
a linear elastic analysis of the entire structure. T o demonstrate the program Vecchio's
element PV20. tested in pure shear in 198I l ' , will be examined.
i Lo.din. (M.H..Vw + 6M.dNy.dV
/ om. o.m. o.m o.m. am.
+ : 1
I
!

p=$-
All dirneruioru in miHimetreg
Minimumc k r cover : 6 mm

a = 6mm w20
t=l.akp.(M)

C; = 1.116 mm c, = 10.0mm/rn Vecchio Universityof Toronto

By default, membrane-2000 starts with PV20 loaded, so to see the element after
starting the program, simply click on the cross section icon in the toolbar, which looks
like a little membrane element or select the menu option "View 1 Cross Section". The
figure shown above is a direct print o f the page that will appear.

The drawing attempts to document al1 the input parameters of the mode1 t o allow
for easy error checking or quick documentation o f a design. The properties shown o n the
page may be changed using the "define" menu. Additionally, double clicking on the
drawing itself allows easy access to the define menu. For example, t o change the stress-
strain properties of the reinforcement in the X direction, it is possible to go to the "Define
1 Materials" menu option, or simply t o double click on the drawing near the stress-strain
line o f the x-steel.

As this membrane element is already defined, an analysis may be performed

immediately. Membrane-2000 allows 3 different analysis types t o be performed. The
simplest is a strain state analysis whereby the stress-resultants fiom a given strain state
(gx, yxy) will be calculated. The second type of analysis solves for the strain state that
corresponds to a selected load state CN,,Ny,V
,
)
. The final analysis, "hl1response", is
the most common. This will calculate the full load-deformation history for the element.
Clicking on the "mcft" button in the toolbar will perform an analysis based on the
Modified Compression Field ~heory!

The screen will change to a 9-plot view as shown below. This is a standard view for the

programs explained in this thesis. Each plot represents one variable of the solution for
the panel PV20. For Membrane-2000, each plot is a fiill load-deformation plot. Some of
the experimental data fiom the test1' are included as well for cornparison. Note that the
while the experimental correlation is not especially good for some of the variables, the
overall behaviour as represented by the Shear-y, plot is quite reasonable.

Each of the programs in this thesis will work with either SI metric, US customary
units, or kg/cm2 units as used in, for example, Japan. By defaulf the programs start up in
SI metric (See Section 5-1 1 of the Appendix for information on how to change the
default start units). The units may be changed in the "Options 1 Preferences" menu. For
this example, stresses are in MPa, and strains are in parts per thousand (x 10'~or mmlm).

On the lefi of the screen is a "control plot." It has crosshairs showing the
currently selected load stage. This is the state that the crack diagram represents, with the
crack width shown in mm. The red vertical line on the crack diagram indicates that the
steel is yielding on average in the Y direction at this load level. Clicking with the mouse
on the control plot, or using the Page-Up and Page-Down keys allow changing of the
current load stage.

Also on the lefl, at the top, is a list-box that allows selection of which group of
nine plots to examine. By default, the "General" page shows up. Another page shows
Mohr's circles and a list of the fiil1 stress and strain state of the element.

To examine the data more closely fiom one of t h e plots, it is possible to right-
click on the plot and select "view data." This allows the data to be copied to another
application such as a spreadsheet to check the data or make other plots.

An analysis like this generally takes less than one tenth of a second. Tt becomes
possible to quickly find the effects of different reinforcing levels, for example, this way.
See the Appendix A for more information on Membrane-2000.
 2-3Quick Start: Response-2000

Response-2000 is perhaps the most immediately

usefiil of the four programs explaineci in this thesis. It
allows analysis o f beams and colurnns subjected to
arbitrary combinations o f axial load, moment and shear.
It also includes a method t o integrate the sectional behaviour for simple prismatic beam-
segments. The assumptions implicit in the program are that plane sections remain plane
and that there is no transverse clamping stress across the depth o f the beam. For sections
of a beam o r column a reasonable distance away from a support o r point load, these are
excellent assumptions. These are the same locations in beams that are usually the cntical
locations for brittle shear failures.

Unlike the other programs, Response-2000 does not have a default cross section
entered into it. This is not a problem, however, as one can be made quickly. For this
example, a n 8 0 foot span prestressed concrete bridge girder and slab will be analysed.

First, as this example is presented with US customary units rather than the default
SI metric, select it from the "Options 1 Preferences" dialog box. To select US units as a
default each time the program begins, see section 5-1 1 o f Appendix A.

Secondly, g o to the "Define 1 Quick Define" dialog box. This is a "wizard" that
allows a section t o be created quite quickly, usually within 30 seconds. Each of the four
programs in this thesis has such a wizard t o make new files quickly.

The first page of the dialog box asks for a title and material properties. Mer
entering a title, say, "Test Section" with the reader's initials for the "Analysis by" box,
the material properties may be selected. For this example, the 5000 psi concrete, 60 ksi
steel and 270 ksi strands are fine, so select the 'Wext" button.
 The second page of the wizard asks for the concrete cross section. At the top of
the list are simple sections such as rectangles and circles. In the rniddle of the list are
more exotic shapes such as columns with interlocking hoops, and hotlow columns. At
the bottom are the "standard shapes" such as AASHTO girders. As this is what is needed
here, scroll down near the bottom of the list and select "Standard Shapes AASHTO.
Press tab (or click with the mouse) to the right side to select the type of section. Pressing
any key will pop up a seleaion box to select a section fiom the currently defined listings.
Select the AASHTO Type IV girder and press "ok". For the next input field, enter zero,
as there will be no "haunch" on this section (i-e., no extra concrete between the top of the
precast beam and the bottom of the slab.) Select a slab depth of 8 inches, and a slab
width of 80 inches, and select 'Wext" to go to the next page of the wizard.

The third page allows selection of the longitudinal reinforcement for the section.
The top half defines bars in the slab for this standard cross section case and the bottom
defines non-prestressed steel in the bottom of the cross section. Leave the default of 20
#4 bars for the top, but remove the 3 #8 bars for the bottom by entering "0" for the
number of bars in the bottom half of the screen. Press the 'Wext7'button again to go to
the last page of the quick menu.

The Iast page allows selection of the stirmps as well as the strands. Select "open
stirrup" fkom the list of stirrup types. The default bar type of #4 is reasonable. Select a
spacing of 16 inches. Switch the clear cover to 2 inches fiom the default value of 1 . 5 7 ,
"

which is actually 40 mm converted to inches. Finaily, enter 30 for the number of strands.
The prestrain listed as 6.5 represents a jacking stress of 70% of ultimate, and is therefore
reasonable. Select the "Finish" button to complete the definition of the section.

2-3- 1 Automatic Cross Section

Response-2000 will autornatically create the cross section as shown below similar
to the one fiom Membrane-2000. As with the other programs, changing the geometry is
achieved either through the use of the "define" menu or by double clicking on the
drawing itself. For example, to change the stimp spacing, double click on the text in the
drawing where it says "#4 @ 16.00 in." Like al1 the prognuns, this page is meant to
include al1 the information needed to repeat the analysis o r document it in the course of a
design.

I
-(Id) 64-1 maS.1
Y, ml 222 226

Y, FI 39.8 30.4

sl(d) 2B241.2 m.3

% cd) 16347.6 17-.O

Crack Surcinp
2 x ~ + 0 . 1 ~ 1 p

Loading /N.M.V + dN.dM.dV)

00.0.0.0.0 4 0.0,1.0.0.0

2-3-2 Analysis without shear

The default type of analysis for a new section is a simple flexural analysis with no
axial load. To start it, select "Solve 1 Sectional Response" fiom the menu. The analysis
should take perhaps 2 seconds to complete on an inexpensive 1999-vintage computer.
The control plot will show up along with 9 plots as in Membrane-2000. In the case of
Response-2000, the plots al1 represent the given variable plotted over the depth of the
section for the load stage indicated by the control plot. Click on the "Auto Range" button
on the top ieft of the screen below the menu to automate the scale of the plots, and click
anywhere on the control plot. All the plots will automatically change depending on the
new location on the control plot. Note that the loading is listed in the bottom bar of the
program window. The crack diagram shows predicted crack widths in inches as well as
an estimate of the pattern of cracking.
2-3-3 Analysis with Shear
A more involved analysis type, one that Response-2000 excels at, is the prediction
of sectional behaviour including the effects of shear. For a beam like this, it may be
decided to perform an analysis at a location 'd' from the end of the beam. At a unifonnly
applied load of 10 kipdft, the moment and shear at this location are about 435 kip-A and
109 kips respectively. These loads are entered into the Response-2000 '2oads ( Loads"
menu option. The column of entry fields on the left of this window is for initial loads and
the colurnn on the right is for any increment in load beyond that level. Leave the leA
values as zero and set the right side value for moment to 435 kigfi and shear value to 109
kips. Note that the actual numbers here do not matter, only the ratios and signs. M e r
clicking the "ok" buaon, select "Solve 1 Sectional Response" to start the analysis.

The analysis should take about 10 seconds to reach the peak load, and then about
20 more seconds to daennine the post-peak ductility for the section. The following 9-
plot screen will show up. These plots represent the state of the beam at failure, as shown
by the location of the crosshairs on the control plots. Each plot is drawn with respect to
the depth of the section. For example, the top centre plot shows the longitudinal strain
versus depth for the section showing the basic assumption that plane sections remain
plane.

The cross section in the top left is drawn darker in regions where it is predicted
not to have cracked. In this case, only the web of the beam is predicted to be cracked at
the shown failure Ioad. The top right shows the variation in transverse strain over the
depth, with a maximum of 7.3 parts per thousand near the top of the web. The crack
diagram shows the predicted angle and width of cracks in inches. The shear stress plot
shows that the shear is not unifonnly distributed over the depth of the section, though it is
fairly constant in the web at about 630 psi.
 The bottom lefl plot of the 9 plots shows the principaI compressive stress values.
The red line at the lefi of the plot is the maximum allowed stress versus depth and the
right blue line shows the applied stress. Note the shear has applied an additional diagonal
compression in the web on top of the expected concrete stress profile fiom the
prestressing force. The two lines on this plot are about to touch at the top of the web,
indicating that this section is about to fail by crushing at the top of the web.

The two control charts show that the "V-Gxy" curve, that is, the shear force-shear
strain plot, is descending with increasing shear strain, whereas the lower control chart, a
moment curvature plot, is unloading along its loading curve. This indicates that the
section is predicted to fail in shear. The maximum predicted shear capacity of the section
is 249 kips. By scaling this fiom the loading, it is predicted that the beam would fail in
shear at this location if the applied load were to increase to a level of 23 kipdfoot.
2-3-4 Member Response
Response-2000 will calculate the fll member behaviour for a prismatic section as
well. To get a prediction of the behaviour of this 80-foot beam, such an analysis will be
performed with the beam subjected to a uniformly distributcd load. Fust select the "Load
1 Full Member Properties" menu option. Select the "length subjecte to shear" at the top
as 480 inches. (The analysis is done fiom one end to the mid-span of the beam.) Also,
select in the top options a uniform distributed load rather than a constant shear analysis.
This is the second option in the top list of three buttons. Click "ok" and select the "Soive
1 Member Response" option.

This analysis will calculate an entire Moment-Shear interaction diagram and

determine the load-deflection properties and crack diagram for the entire 40 foot half
span of the beam. The analysis on an inexpensive 400 MHz Pentium II takes about 60
seconds to complete. As the analysis continues, the growing M-V interaction diagram
will be shown on the control plots. Periodically, the 9 plots will also update showing the
sectional behaviour ai: the location of the crosshairs on the control plots. Note the
transition fiom flexural failures under positive moment at the right of the interaction
diagram to shear failures at the top of the interaction diagram and then back to flexural
failures under negative moment at the left side. By clicking on the little squares on the
plot, any of the integration points may be examined so see how the barn is behaving at
that load combination.

When the analysis is complete, the screen will change to the deflection page as
shown below. The top diagram is the predicted crack pattern at failure for the entire 40
foot half-span o f the beam. The bearing support plate at the Ieft bottom can be seen and
the right side represents the midspan of the beam. Estimated crack widths are shown in
inches. In the top control plot at the lefi is the M-V interaction diagram, which also
shows the combinations o f applied moments and shears along the length of the beam as a
red line. For a u ~ f o r m l ydistributed load, such as this, the majority of the loading line is
a parabola, with the shear reduced to zero near the support due to non-sectional load
resistance mechanisms in this region. The shape of this load diagram is explained in
Chapter 7. It can be seen fiorn the interaction diagram that the loading envelope is
touching the strengh envelope almost simultaneously at the right side bottom (flexure in
positive moment at midspan), as well as at the top (shear near support). Indeed, the
midspan cracks are predicted to be almost 1 inch wide, and there is substantial shear
cracking (0.147 inch cracks) near the support.

The bottom control plot shows the predicted load-deflection relationship for the
beam (pushover analysis results for column analyses). The final behaviour is predicted to
be fairly ductile, with a 22.9 inch deflection at a failure load of 23.4 kipdfoot. Assuming
that the load capacity is acceptable, this would seem to be a fairly efficient design in
t e m s of shear versus flexural capacity; more stirrups would not be needed, as the beam
would fail in flexure first. A lower amount of stirmps would subject the beam to a
potentially brittle shear failure, however. In a design like this, it is wise to err on the
conservative side of shear design and include somewhat more shear reinforcement than
what has been provided. Of course Response-2000 allows any such option to be
conveniently checked by changing the spacing of the stirnrps, and rerunning the analysis.
 2-4 Quick Start: Triax-2000

Tnax-2000 is a program for the analysis of a 3 dimensional block of

concrete. This program is analogous to Membrane-2000 in 3
dimensions. Such a block of concrete can be thought of as a 3D brick
finite element. The relatively complex interactions of non-linear 3D
stress-strain behavior can be efficiently examined with Triax-2000. Additionally, the
prograrn may be considered as a mode1 for well reinforced 3D locations, such as beam-
column joints. It could fairly be argued that Triax-2000 is of less practical interest than
t h e other three programs in this thesis

Loading for Triax-2000 consists of axial stresses in the directions X, Y and Z as

well as shear stresses on the X-Y, Y-Z and X-Z planes.

The program has a default section built into it as shown below. As it is a 3D

sectional analysis, the block has no physical dimensions, but is assumed to be of

L 0 8 d h (dNx.dNx,dVw + w . d w . w
o.m. o.m. o.m. 1.m. am. am
sufficient size in al1 three dimensions to cover a senes of cracks.

Although it is a rather arbitrary loading, an analysis will be performed on the

shown section with the following load ratios:

Load Direction Nx N, N, V, V
, V
,
Load Ratio 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

This loading represents triaxial tension on the element as well as increasing shear
in al1 shear directions. These load ratios are entered into the program by selecting the
"Loads 1 Loads" menu option. As in each of the programs explained in this thesis, there
are two colurnns of numbers that may be entered. The left column is for the load level at
which to start the analysis and the right column is for the loading ratios to be used for
incrementing load after that point. Note that the actud vaIues on the right column do not
matter, only their reIative values and signs are used in the program. Enter the above load
levels into the right side column of the loads menu and close the loads dialog box by
clicking the "ok" button.

On clicking the "solve" button on the toolbar, the now familiar nine plots show up
with the results of the analysis as shown below. The control plot is autornatically
selected by the load ratios and in this case shows the load-factor vs. shear strain in the Y-
Z direction.
 L a d FwtorCrwL wl
P V

Tnax-2000 shows a tabular list of al1 the strain and stress states for the element at
the load marked by the crosshairs on the control plot. The crack diagram shows the
principal directions as well as the intersection of the crack planes with the outside of the
concrete volume. In general, 3D behaviour of this type requires some study to ensure
that the results are indeed what is expected.
 2-5 Quick Start: Shell-2000
The last of the four programs in this thesis is Shell-2000. It
assembles a collection of Triax-2000 elernents on top of each
other to allow out-of-plane analyses of plates and shells. As
such, it is a three dimensional analogue of Response-2000. It is
a more general version of Membrane-2000 that will allow
analyses that include out of plane forces. Such shell elernents
can be found in slabs and walls and, indeed, almost al1 structures made of plates or shells.

Loading for Shell-2000 consists of the following eight force resultants: Axial
force in X and Y directions, moment about X and Y axes, out-ofiplane shear about X-Z
and Y-Z planes, twisting moment (M,) and in-plane shear. Shell-2000 is a superset of
Membrane-2000 and can do al1 analyses that Membrane-2000 can do. Due to the
inherent 3D nature of the implementation, however, it is slower than Membrane-2000.

The default element in Shell-2000, shown, is shell element SE4 tested by

Loadina (Constant + Inremr*

0.00. O.W. o.m. O.W. o.m. o.m. am. a m +
0.00. am. m.aso. o.oo. am. 0.m. 0.00

Ail diirmiora in d l S m t r i s
M i i h r n c k i r covw : Il mm

SE4

Kirs~hrmr lJnivenityof Toronto

Kirschner and Khalifa fiom the original series of tests in the University of Toronto shell
element tester conducted in 1984". The loading is in-plane shear along with moment
about the X-axis. Performing a "Solve / Full Response" will take less than 30 seconds
and produce the following 9-plot picture of the element at failure.

R e H o r c m a stress 2

b Compressive Stress

It c m be seen from the control plot that failure is predicted to be fairly ductile.
From the bottom line o f the output window, the failure in-plane shear is predicted to be
976 kN/m. In the test, the element failed in a ductile fashion at an in-plane shear o f 961
W / m . The nine plots show the state of the element at failure. The steel is predicted to be
yielding on the top and bottom of the shell in the Y direction a s well as in the bottom side
in the X direction. The crack plot shows that the element is predicted to have full-depth
cracking, roughly in the X direction at the top (flexural compression side), and rotated
through the depth as a resuit of the in-plane shear stress. From the principal compression
plot, the concrete is predicted to be crushing (two Lines touching) at the top due to the
flexure as well as at the bottom due to the in-plane shear.
Chapter 3: The Modified Compression Field Theory and
Related Numerical Techniques

3-1 General
Perhaps the most important differentiating element between different sectional
models is the constitutive models that are employed. The programs in this thesis use the
Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT). This theory traces back through the
Compression Field Theory of 197814to the Diagonal Compression Field Theory of
197413.Vecchio defined the original fomi ofthc MCFT in 1982'' fiom the testing of 30
reinforced concrete panels subjected to uniform strain States in a specially built tester.
The definitive description of the MCFT is in the 1986 Arnerican Concrete Institute paper
"The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforcd Concrete Elements Subjected
to ~ h e a f " . Since then, only two small changes have been made, both in 198716.There
have been other proposed changes to the theory, but at the University of Toronto, it is
largely this 1987 version that is still used 13 years later. Since then, others have proposed
similar models including Hsu and han^"*^* and Kaufmann and ~ a r t i ' ~To. allow
cornparison between some of these proposais, the methods of Hsu et al. have been
expl icitly included in Membrane-2000.

The MCFT is a general model for the load-deformation behaviour of two-

dimensional cracked reinforced concrete subjected to shear. It models concrete
considering concrete stresses in principal directions summed with reinforcing stresses
assumed to be only axial. The concrete stress-strain behaviour in compression and
tension was derived originally fiom Vecchio's tests and has since been confinned with
about 250 experiments performed on two large special purpose testing machines at the
University of Toronto. Similar machines have been built in Japan and the United States,
providing additional confirmation of the quality of the method's predictions.

The most important assumption in the model is that the cracked concrete in
reinforced concrete can be treated as a new matenal with empirically defined stress-strain
behaviour. This behaviour can differ fiom the traditional stress-strain curve of a cylinder,
for example. The strains used for these stress-main relationships are average strains, that
is, they lump together the cornbineci effects of local strains at cracks, strains between
cracks, bond-slip, and crack slip. The calculated stresses are also average stresses in that
they implicit1y include stresses between cracks, stresses at cracks, interfce shear on
cracks, and dowel action. For the use of these average stresses and strains to be a
reasonable assumption, the distances used in detemining the average behaviour must
include a few cracks. Sectional models satisfLthis by needing to be at least a couple of
section depths long.

A penalty for using average stress-strain relationships is that an explicit check

must be made to ensure that the average stresses are compatible with the actual cracked
condition of the concrete. This so-called crack check is a critical part of the MCFT and
the theories derived fiom it. The crack check involves limiting the average principal
tensile stress in the concrete to a maximum allowable value determinecl by considering
the steel stress at a crack and the ability of the crack surface to resist shear stresses.

As the overall stress response is based solely on average relationships, tempered

with the crack-check, the method does not require an explicit calculation of dowei action
force, shear stresses on crack, reinforcing stress at a crack, crack slip strains, and bond
stresses. Ifrequired, the inferred values of some of these parameters may be calculated
fi-omequilibrium. The simplicity afforded by ignoring these more complex phenomena
in cracked concrete is one of the strengths of the method.

Figure 3-1 summarises the Modified Compression Field Theory for the two
dimensional case. The lefi panel shows the equilibrium equations which are in fact
simply the equations of a Mohr's circle of stress. The middle panel shows the strain
conditions, which also can be summarised by a Mohr's circle. Note the irnplicit
assumption in the MCFT that the angle of principal concrete stress can be taken as equal
to the angle of principal strain (0). The final panel shows the stress-strain relationships
for reinforcement, concrete in compression, and concrete in tension. The bottom of each
panel shows the components of the crack check to ensure that the average stresses can be
transferred across the crack.

-
Figure 3 1 The Modiiied Compression Field Theory

3-2 Important Aspects of the MCFT

The following aspects of the MCFT are worth noting tiom within Figure 3-1.

3-2- 1 Reinforcement average response (f,, f,)

The MCFT assumes that the average behaviour of steel can be approximated by
the bare-bar response. While this is an excellent assumption pnor to yield at a crack, it is
not obvious that it is appropriate afler first yield of the reinforcement at a crack. Note
that steel first yields at a crack due to any tensile stress in the uncracked concrete needing
to be balanced by extra steel stress at a crack. Numencal simulations done by ~orasz"in
1989 demonstrated that the error in assuming bue-bar behaviour for the average stress-
strain behaviour is relatively small. Much of the complexity in the models fiom the
University of Houston17.18 result fiom trying for more precision in the modelling of
average steel stresses.

3-2-2 Concrete tensile stress response (f*)

Concrete is assumed to be able to carry the fbll cracking strength prior to
cracking. M e r cracking, tensile stresses in the uncracked concrete between the cracks
will continue to stiffen the concrete, and in some cases will increase the strength. To
model the high scatter behaviour of post-cracking, pre-reinforcement yielding tension
stiffening, a simple equation for fl is shown in Fig. 3-1. The decrease in average stress
after cracking represents bond degradation, formation of new cracks, and other darnage
mechanisms. In Vecchio's original fonnulati~n~~,
the tenn shown in Fig. 3-1 as

was given as ,/m. The change of the coefficient fiom 200 to 500 was suggested by
Collins and Mitchell in 198716partly as a result of examining expenmental results from
larger elements than the 30 panels tested by Vecchio. Note that later in this thesis, the
above tension stiffening model will be extended to more directly account for bond
behaviour.

3-2-3 Concrete compressive stress response (fi)

Uncracked concrete in compression is assumed to follow the cylinder stress-strain
curve. The stress-main curve shown in Fig 3-1 is a parabola, a fbnction of the principal
compressive strain (4,as well as the principal tensile strain (el). The tensile strain
component models the decrease in apparent concrete compressive strength observed in
tests when the concrete was transversely cracked. This often controls the strength of
beams with stimps.

3-2-4 Crack width (w)

When subjected to shear, new cracks may form, old cracks may close or becorne
inactive. This complex load-history dominated behaviour is simplified to only a single
set of parallel cracks forming at the average angle of principal compressive stress. The
spacing of the cracks (se) is calculated with the shown equation that converts the
calculated crack spacing in the two orthogonal directions to an estimated diagonal
spacing. It is recomrnended that these crack spacings in the base X and Y directions be
estimated as shown in Chapter 7, itxlf based on the method in Collins and hitchell5.
Crack widths are assumed to be simply the product of the principal tensile strain and the
crack spacing (that is, elastic strains in the uncracked concrete between the cracks are
ignored).

3-2-5 Shear on the crack (v,)

It is assumed that there is a limiting interface shear stress on a crack that can be
transmitted before the crack begins to "slip". The equation in the bottom right of Fig. 3-1
was derived from the experiments of walravenzl. This shear on the crack limit is higher
for stronger concrete or larger aggregates (variable a). Increasing crack widths lower the
maximum allowed shear on the crack. This limit is used in the crack checkexplained in
Chapter 4.
Note that shear on the crack "interface", vd, is not an average stress, but a local
one. Recall that the MCFT calculates the total element force state with average stresses
at angle theta. The calculated shear on the crack is resisted by a crack also assumed to be
at an angle of theta. This indicates that there must be a local deviation in angle of
principal stress at a crack if there is to be any shear on the crack.

3-2-6 Local reinforcement stress at a crack (f,,, fva)

Calculation of this term defines the crack check. Note that there are two
equations, one for each direction of reinforcement, derived as a sum of forces in the X
and Y directions locally at a crack Clearly, the steel stress at a crack must be lower than
some limit, usually the yield stress. See Chapter 4 for a fiil1 description of the crack
check.
3-3 Modified Compression Field Theory in Three Dimensions.
The Modified Compression Field Theory was extended to three-dimensional
behaviour by ~irschne? and again by ~ d e b ftol include the crack check. Refemng to
Fig. 3-1, the same three aspects of equilibrium, compatibility and stress-strain
relationships apply. Note that explicit equations are not directly presented, as they are
available elsewhere in matnx format24.

The three stresses in the 2D case (f,, f,, v,) extend to six (f,, f,, f,, v, v, v,).
The three strains in 2D (ex,+, y,) extend to six as well (E, +, G,y, y
,, y,).

The equilibrium equations are extended simply to include one additional equation
for the Z direction. Note that the 2D tensor format (Mohr's circle) still applies as a 3D
tensor. The angte theta in the 2D case extends to a set of 3 direction cosines for the 3D
case (k;,li, mi). As in 2D, the 3D direction cosines of strain are assumed to be the same
as the direction cosines of concrete stress.

The compatibility equations are similarly extended to represent a 3D tensor

format.

The stress-strain relationships described above are implemented by alfowing each

principal direction to accept tension or compression. The softening of the compression
equation is modified for cases with tension in the two transverse directions such that el is
replaced by ,/=
if e3 is the compression direction12. There have been no
expenments yet performed on large blocks of reinforced concrete subjected to uniform
three-dimensional States of strain and stress. As such, the technique here has not been
directly verified, though it does work reasonably well for a sefies of 3D elements put
together as shown by selbY2' and deb bar', for example.
 The crack spacing equation is directly extended to t h e dimensions as shown in
equation 3- 1.

The crack-check equations are described separately in Chapter 4.

3-4 Solving problems with the MCFT

Two classes of questions arise with general shear models such as the MCFT. The
first is to find a stress state corresponding to a strain state, and the second it to calculate a
strain state corresponding to a stress state. The second is much more dificult as it must
be solved via numerical iteration. It has been found that using a secant based solution
regime works very well in 2D and 3D for this second type of problem.

3-4- 1 Calculate stress state fiom strain state:

The following series of steps solves this direct problem for the 3D case. The
numerical example is for a 3D block of 40 MPa concrete (19 mm aggregate) with 1% of
400 MPa steel in the X direction, 0.5 % of 400 MPa steel in the Y and Z directions. Note
that this is the default cross section that program Triax-2000 starts with, but s h o w here
with parabolic concrete behaviour, and Collins-Mitchell 1987 tension stiffening to be
consistent with the formulation given in Fig 3-1.

3-4-2 Solving for a 3D stress state fiom a 3D Strain state

The following steps and example values demonstrate calculation of a stress state
fiom a strain state using the MCFT.

1 Steps Numerical Example

 a) calculate principal strains and directions
for 2D problems, use Mohr's circle
for 3D problems, use 3D Eigenvector routines

E l , 2, E3 4.08, -0.08, -0.15 m d m

Direction Cosines:
kl, 11, ml
k2, 12, m2
k3, 13. m3

kt,ll,mi are the direction cosines of the first p ~ c i p adirection.

l The other terms
are similarly defined for principal directions 2 and 3.

b) calculate principal stresses with equations fiom Figure 3-1

fi, fi, f3 0.81, -2.06, -3.77 MPa

c) perform crack check to check limits on al1 tensile concrete stresses

See Chapter 4 for exarnple on how to do this. In this case, it does not control.

d) rotate principal average concrete stresses back to rectangular directions

~ C X , fCjifa,V X ~ VyL,
, VU< -2.06, -1.25, -1.70, 0.60, 1.26, 1.80MPa

Note 6-orn this that the concrete stresses are generally compressive in the x, y and
z directions when shear is applied as they will be balanced by the steel, itself in
tension. Again, note that the rotation is provided with the same direction cosines
used for the strain tensor. The directions of principal strain and concrete stress are
assumed to coincide.

e) calculate average steel stresses (as in Figure 3- 1)

f,~
,,f, f~ 206, 236, 330 MPa

f ) add average steel stresses to concrete stresses

fx, @, fZ 0.00, -0.07, -0.05MPa

I g) ifcalculated
desired, steel stresses at a crack and shear on crack components may be
as explained in Chapter 4.

3-4-3 Calculate strain state fiom stress state

It is common that a stress state is known and the strain state is the desired
quantity. A very robust way to solve this is with the secant stiffness method. As
described by m a n 2 ?
 "The central idea of the procedure is the concept of secant modulus, see Fig.
[3-2, 3-31. Any stress-strain curve can be represented by the expression

a = E.-(E) xE
where the secant modulus, Lt
is a fnction of s."

These secant moduli are shown for concrete and steel in Fig. 3-2 and 3-3.

O O-5 1 1.5 2 2s 3
Principal Compressive Stnin (mmhn)

-
Figure 3 2: Secant and Tangent Modulus of Concrtte

Tensik Stnin (mmlm)

-
Figure 3 3: Secant and Tangent Modulus of Reinforcement
Using this scheme, the strain vector {E) is related to the stress vector {a)via the rnatrix
ID]by the following:

The secant stifhess matrix [Dl is defined below.

Using this simple matnx equation, the solution for any unknown term can be
found simply and with stability. The secant stiffness matrix is symmetric and hlly
populated.

An example is the calculation of the full-response solution of Triax-2000. An

estimate is made of the strain state for a given desired load level. This is then checked
with the above method for calculating stresses, and the secant stiffness is then calculated.
A new estimated strain state is then calculated fiom the stiffness matrix. This procedure
is repeated until the desired convergence on load is achieved.

3-5 Secant Stiffness in Two and Three Dimensions

The presentation of secant stiffness here will work for any biaxial or triaxial
stress-strain relationship including linear and nonlinear ones. The presentation here is
~ ~ID]
fiom the work of ~ e l b The ~ matrix
. used above is calculated in the principal
directions and rotated back to the rectangular directions afterwards. It is made up of both
a concrete component ID,] and a steel component ID,] as follows:

Pl = P c l + C P S I 1
 To determine the CDJ matrix, it is first necessary to calculate it in principal
directions and then rotate it back to the X-Y-Z fiame. This rotation is performed with the
following relationship:

The transformation matrix T is made up of the following terrns.

kl 11 ml kilt 11ml m1k1
k22 b2 m t k212 12m2 m2k
[Tl= ks2 m2 hl3 l3m3 m3k3
2klk2 21112 2mlm2 k112+k2I1 Ilm2+I2m~m1k2+m2k1
2k2k 21213 2m2m3 kZ13+ k3I2 lzms+ hm2 rn2k+ m3kz
2W1 21311 2mjml hl1 + klls I3ml + Ilma m3kl + mikj

k, 1, and m are the direction cosines as noted above with the numencal example.
Note that the matrix can conceptually be divided into 4 quarters, each a 3x3 matnx. The
top leA corner deals directly with effects in the axial directions to strains in the axial
directions for example. The other quadrants include shear effects and so include at least
two terrns each as they will be affected by the two directions that make up that individual
shear strain.

The matrix CD,]' is the stiffness of the concrete in principal directions defined as
follows:

[Dc]' =
 & and & are principal secant stifiess values as follows:
Where k1,

And G ~ 1 2 ,G c 2 3 and Ga1 are secant shear moduii as follows:

Because reinforcement is considered to oniy accept axial force, the matrices CD,]
for the X Y and Z directions al1 have only one element. D].for example has a term in
the top lefi corner equal to &.rhox where

L=fsxk (3 -8)
The Y and Z directions are similar. Note that these are not tangent stifhesses.

For 2D analyses, the [P,] matrix can also be written in terms of sines and cosines
of the angle of principal stresdstrain 8. For that case, use only columns and rows 1,2 and
4 in the above matrices, and make the following substitutions:

3-6Tangent Stiffness in Two and Three Dimensions

In the longitudinal stiffness method described in Chapter 6, it is explained that the
tangent stiffness of a biaxially Ioaded concrete element can be important in predicting
behaviour. To calculate this, in concept, one need change the secant stiffhess terrns in the
matrix IDc]'fiom the secant values in Fig. 3-2 and Fig.3-3 to the tangent values. Al1 the
methods used above to rotate fiom principal to X-Y directions still apply.
 While in theory, this is a simple procedure, in practice it is more complex. h e
principal direction i tangent stifiess is defined as follows:

Where fi is the stress as defined in the equations in Fig. 3- 1.

Clearly, if the concrete is in tension, the tension equation is used (which is only a
function of the principal tensile strain) and if the concrete is in compression, the
compression curve is used. Note that the compression curve is a hnction of two strains,
the principal compressive strain (e2) for the location on the curve (fi) and the principal
tensile strain (el) defining the height of the curve for the sofiening (f-). For each row
of the final tangent stifiess matrix, say the first row, there will be a unique relationship
between the change of siand the change of et. In 2D and for the first row of the final
matrix, any increase in ~2 will also increase by a factor of tan2& This happens becaux
the first row of the matrix is with respect to changes in the e, strain. Any change in E,
will cause a change in both of the principal strains. For the second row, the rate of
change of el 4 t h respect to EZ is LI tan20, and for the third row, the rate is -1.0. This
makes the derivatives more complex to calculate. If the principal compression equation
in Fig. 3-1 is broken up as follows, the stiffness c m be calculated:

fi = fi, Parabola

This means that the symmetry of the secant method above is broken. The tangent
stiffness matrix is not symmetnc. To calculate it, it is necessary to determine the
derivative of si with respect to E* for each row and calculate al1 the principal stifhess
values. Then calculate the entire stiffness matrix and discard al1 of it except the needed
row. Then repeat for the next row. For the 2D case, the matnx can be expanded
algebraically, reducing the amount of unnecessary calculations. For the 3D case, the
sirnplest implementation is to numerically calculate the derivative and go through the
matrix multiplication six times, once for each of the six rows.

Note that if the concrete principal tension is being affectai by the crack check as
explained in chapter 4, it is necessary to include the stifthess of this crack check in the
matrix as well. That is, the stiffiiess of the principal tension direction should be
controlled by the crack check equations, if they govern, rather than by the base curve
equation.

The shear stiffhess tenns in the i and j direction are calculated as follows:

Gcij= O. 5 (fi fj)/(si ej) (3-12)

Reinforcement stifiess is added in as above except that it must be the tangent

stiffness of the bars rather than the secant stifbess, as shown in Fig. 3-3.

Were it not for the increased speed and stability of the longitudinal stifiness
method over the traditional numerical methods, it would be dificult to justiQ this
complexity. In fact, the increase in stability results in the prograrns running 5-15 times
faster with the tangent stiffness matnx calculated this way over the older numerical
methods of calculating tangent stiffness. It is suggested that this does indeed justifi the
complexity of the prograrnming.
Chapter 4: The Crack Check

4-1 General
The crack-check in the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT)represent
an explicit check to ensure that the average stress levels can be resisted locally at a crack.
It has becorne apparent, in the past, that some researchers and engineers have
implemented the MCFT without including the crack-check. This is unwnservative and
potentially unsafe. In a series of papers, for example, Hsu has shown that ignoring the
crack-check can produce resutts that are very unconservative indeed26.27 . it is felt that
the crack check is sufficiently important to warrant its own chapter, though it could be
argued that it belongs in the previous chapter that introduced the Modified Compression
Field Theory.

The need for the crack check is easy to demonstrate. Consider the concrete pnsm
subjected to axial tension reinforced with 0.75% of 400 MPa steel as shown in Fig. 4-1.
The total force on the element may be calculated as follows:
N=Nc+Ns (4-1)

-
Figure 4 1: Prism in Tension

Where N = total axial load

Nc = concrete component = f i - A,
Ns = steel component = f,, . As =p-fa-&

The stress-strain relations for average concrete and steet behaviour are defined by
the usual MCFT equations as shown earlier in Fig. 3-1, and again here in Fig. 4-2 and 4-3
for concrete and steel respectively
 -
Figure 4 2: Average Tensile Stress fl -
Figure 4 3: Average Steel Stress f,,

A nave analysis may produce the graph in Figure 4-4 for the total stress versus
strain relationship. Note that the concrete and steel forces have been added together over
the entire range of strain. This is not correct.

Concrete -
O 1 2 3
Strain (mmlrn)
-
Figure 4 2: Total stress with no crack check

Consider the free body diagram shown in Figure 4-5 with the leA half of the
element drawn with average stresses as used in the MCFT and the right half with local
stresses at crack where there will be no concrete tension.
 fsx
Average
fi

-
- fwcmk
At a crack

Figure 4 5: Free body diagram at a crack

Recalling that the MCFT,for simplicity, uses the same stress-strain curve for steel
at a crack and on average, it is possible, indeed cornmon, for both f,, and &crack to
equal fv, the bare-bar yield stress. From the fiee body diagram, it is clear that the
concrete tensile stress, fi, must equal zero in this case. Ensuring that the local stresses at
a crack not exceed the yield stress in this case is the job of the crack check. For
reinforcement with, for example, a biaxial stress-strain response, it can be assumed that
the stress at a crack will always be able to achieve at least the stress corresponding to the
bare-bar stress at the given average strain.

Using this crack check results in the correct total stress plot prediction shown in
Figure 4-6 for this element. This corrected answer includes the effect of the crack check
to ensure that the steel stress never exceeds the yield stress of the bare bar at a crack

-
Figure 4 6: Total stress with crack-check
4-2 Crack Check in One Dimension
The above demonstration implicitly showed the crack check in one dimension.
The equation that must be satisfied is simply a reorganisation of the above relationships,
namely :

4-3 Crack Check for Two Dimensional Node

When wnsidenng a biaxially loaded piece of reinforced concrete, as in, for
example, the program Membrane-2000 or any traditional 2D MCFT analysis, the crack
check becomes slightly more complex than the above equation.

Firstly, a uniaxial check must be made in each direction of reinforcement similar

to the above equation for 1D but, also, there is the additional inclusion of the possibility
of a shear on the crack surface itself. It is assumed that the crack cannot transmit any
direct concrete axial tension across it. As stated in Chapter 3, it is assumed that the
directions of principal stresses are able to rotate locally at a crack and thus allow shear on
the crack to occur if equilibrium dernands it. Implicitly it is assumed that the concrete is
trying to maintain as high an average tensile stress as it can, with the maximum equalling
the base constitutive equation for tension stiffening.

Consider the fiee body diagram, shown below in Fig. 4-7, of a two dimensional
piece of reinforced concrete drawn at a crack on the top right and on average at the
bottom left. Note that the cut is at an angle theta, the same angle as the cracks, principal
strains and concrete stresses in the MCFT. Note that the force arrows for the
reinforcement are only drawn once, rather than once per bar, to maintain simplicity.
 -
Figure 4 7: Two dimensional crack check

Immediately, the principal compressive stress (f2) can be seen as irrelevant as it is

self-equilibrating. The stresses of importance at a crack are the two steel stresses locally
at a crack (fv-d fa-&), as well as the potential shear on the crack (v,). Note that
there are three stress resultants at the crack, but only two equations of equilibrium (CF,,
ZF,). This indicates that there is more than one solution satiseing equilibrium for the
behaviour at a crack. The traditional approach used in the MCFT is to assume that the
steel load-resisting mechanism is stiffer than the shear on the crack mechanism, and so
the shear on the crack is minimised. The importance of this assumption was found to be
small in cornparison to an alternate assumption that the angle of average principal strain
is maintained locally at a crack. Recall that the angle of principal stresses, in contrast,
will generally rotate locally at a crack as compared to the average direction due to the
nonlinear behavior of the steel.

This assumption of minimising shear on the crack has the effect of "using up" al1
the steel capacity in the weak direction before any shear on the crack is required. As this
behaviour is only happening locally at a crack, it will have no effect on the overall stress-
strain state unless it requires the lowering of the princpal tensile stress.
 Sumrning forces in the X and Y direction on the above diagram results in a series
of equations that define the crack check. These equations have been summarised in
Table 4-1, which includes al1 the steps needed to saisQ the crack check in two
dimensions. Following these steps will ensure that the stress at a crack is not in excess of
yield in either the X or Y directions and that the shear on the crack is less than the limit
based on crack width. The average concrete tensile stress thus calculated (f~),can be
used with the rest of the MCFT equations as presmted in Chapter 2.

Table 4-1 : Explicit Steps for PD-MCFT Crack Check

Calculate following proparties ffom equations in MCFT in Figure 3-1
Base equation of tensile stress (fia
Base equation of maximum shear on Crack (v-= vdl)
Average steel stresses),f,,f(
Perform crack check t o limit principal tension to satisfy equilibrium
1) Calculate reserve capacity in X and Y dimcfion steel (fi, fiw)

6, = fi( fv- fa) This is the extra average stress required in the
fiw = fi ( f ~~-S Y ) X or Y diredion ta yield the longitudinal steel.
2) Biaxial yield without shear on crack (ffb)
flb =fia ms20+ fisr sin2e Ensures that load required to cause biaxial yield
of reinforcement at a crack is not exceeded.
3) Max shear on crack fi,f biaxial yield ( v d
vd = 1-,lf ,if 1 sine cos0 Calculate the shear on the crack required to
Achieve #axial yield of the reinforcement
$) Calculate maximum allowed tensile stress Rom X and Y dhction equilibn'um
frc= f,i + min( , v d ) cote Calculate maxm
i um tension from equilibrium
fld = fw
l + min( ver , v d ) tan0 fi, is for X dir'n, fid for Y dir'n equilbrium
5) Take minimum of al1 calculated values for final value of pnhcipal tension
fi = min( f~,, f i b , f i e , fid) Sefed Minimum Value

To calculate the actual equilibrium-based steel stresses at a crack and the value of
the shear on the crack (vd), use the following steps, using the notation in Table 4-1. This
cannot be made into a simple equation because, as noted above, there are more unknowns
than equations. By using these steps, the shear on the crack (vk) will be defined,
allowing the steel stress at a crack to be calculated fiom the equations in Fig. 3- 1.

Condition Meaning Shear on crack equation

fi,,= O and fi,= O Average Biaxial Yield vc;=O

ficx>ficyand fi, < fi Y direction dominant -

vh = (fi fi,) cote
Y yield at crack

ficx>frcyandfi,> fi Y direction dominant vci= O

No yield at crack

ficx<ficy and fi, < fi X direction dominant v, = (fi, - fi) tan0

X yield at crack

ficx<fiq and fi,> fi X direction dominant vci= O

No yield at crack

Finally, the following equations will calculate the reinforcement stresses at a

crack using the calculated shear on the crack.

4-4 Crack Check for Three Dimensional Node

Just as the 2D crack-check is more complex than the 1D crack-check, the 3D
crack-check is more complex than the 2D case. Table 4-2 describes the crack check in
three dimensions. This derivation is based on that of ~ d e b f lmodified
, to be consistent
with the steps presented above. Following these steps will satisfy the requirement that
the steel stress in each direction is not in excess of yield, and that the shear on the crack is
less than the maximum allowed for the given crack width.
Table 4-2: Explicit Steps for 3D MCFT Crack Check
Calculate following properlies from Equations of MC-
Given strain state and direction cosine (ki, li, mi) of direction "i"
Calculate base equation of tensile stress (fi,)
Calculate base equation of maximum shear on crack,,v( = vel)
Calculate average steel stresses,f( f, f d

Perfonn Crack Check to limit principal tension to satisfy equilibrium

1) Calculate mserve capacity in X Y and Z direction steel (ff, ffwffw)
f
l, = fi(-,f fa) This is the extra average stress required in
flq = P d f ~ f,)- X, Y or Z direction to yield the longitudinal
ha = pz( fw- f,) steel
2) Triaxial yield without shear on crack (ff4)
flb =fia k i2 + fiw I il+ fi, m i2 Ensures that load required to cause triaxial
yield of the reinforcement at a crack is not
exceeded
3) Max shear on crack for biaxial or fnaxial YieM ( V d
~ci~~m=Ifi,-f~~IkiI~ Calculate the shear on the crack required to
van= I f ~ ~ -1 lm f lI ~ ~ ( achieve biaxial yield of the reinforcernent
V c i ~ ~ m1=fia- fia1 k im I

vciZ2= vcixym2 + v m2 + vdXm2 This is the maximum shear on the crack

4) Limit shear on crack to maximum
if VCQ > VO-, then pro-rate V-, v m , ve3~
Q) Calculate Maximum allowed tensile stmss from XY, YZ,XZ plane equilibrium
fl,= fl, + (1 v,im li1 + 1 vc- mi 1) 1 k Calculate maximum tension from equilibrium
fld =,lf + (1 vm k, 1 + 1 vFimrnmi 1) / II of inducing biaxial yield in each plane
f e = f l c z + ( I ~ c i ) ( ~ m1k~/ +a i l i I ) / m ~
5) Take minimum of al1 calculated values for final value of principal tension
fi= min( fl., f l b fic , fld, fie) Select minimum value
-

Unlike the 2D case, calculating the shear on the crack and steel stresses at a crack
for any given load level is cornplex. Recall that in two dimensions, there were 2
equations and 3 unknowns required to calculate the behaviour at a crack. In three
dimensions, there are 3 equations and 5 unknowns. The equations are the sum of forces
in the X, Y and Z directions. The 5 unknowns are the reinforcement stresses at a crack in
the X Y and Z directions along with two components of the shear on the crack. Shear on
the crack in three dimensions is a 3D vector, but it is known that the shear on the crack
must be in the plane o f the crack, removing an unknown.

A simple algonthmic method as used above will not sufice for this case. An
elegant way to solve the problem is to redise that the calculation of the answer is in fact a
nonlinear optimisation problem of quadratic programming. Once the shear on the crack
components have been found, the steel stresses may be calculated simply with equations,
similar to the 2D case above. While there are only two components to the shear on the
crack as the vector must be in the plane o f the crack, it is simpler to Ieave the solution in
terms of three components. The requirement that the vector remain in the plane of the
crack will be maintained with the form of the equations used. As such, the problem is to
find the 3 components of the shear on the crack subject to the constraint that the steel not
exceed yield in any direction and that the shear on the crack be a minimum.

Using the assumption that the goal is to minimise the shear on the crack, and the
notation in Table 4-2, the following quadratic programming problem arises:

2 2 2
Minimise vci2 = V ~ W + V ~ Y Z +- V Q ~ L

Each of these constraint equations is one of the biaxid yield equations fiom Table
4-2. With only three degrees of fieedom and nine constraints, this problem can easily be
implemented using the brute force approach of checking each constraint individually and
then by checking the intersection o f different constraint planes. Note that the traditional
simplex method of linear programming may not be used, as this is a nonlinear problem.
 Once the shear on the crack components are calculated, the steel stresses at a
crack can be calculated with the following equations using the notation in Table 4-2:

4-5 Crack Check against Flexural Yield for Cross Section

In calcuhting the allowable concrete tensile stress for sections subjected to
flexure, as in Response-2000 and Shell-2000, a method is needed to Iimit concrete
tension when controlled by flexural yield to ensure that the concrete on both sides of the
entire crack surface is in equilibrium.

Average Average
Cross Section Longitudinal Strain Concrete Stress Steel Stress
(mmfm) (MW (MW

-
Figure 4 8: Btam in Fltxurt

Figure 4-8 shows a rectangular beam in simple flexure. Assuming that there is no
direct concrete tensile stress transferred across a crack, moment equilibrium about the
neutral axis produces the following equation:
 That is, the moment about the neutral axis caused by the average cuncrete tension
must equal the moment caused by the difference between the steel force on average and
the steel force at a crack.

Specieing a maximum allowable stress at a crack, say the reinforcement yield

stress, the equation may also be used to calculate the maximum allowable average
concrete tende stress that still maintains equilibrium. For Response-2000, this method is
used to directly calculate the fi, term from Table 4-1. For Shell-2000, it is used to
directly calculate the terms fi, and fi, in Table 4-2. That is, the method calculates the
maximum horizontal component of the average concrete tension and shear on the crack
that can be tolerated.

In the programs, the equation above is made an inequation in order to act as a

crack check equation. As such the right hand side of the above equation is first used to
calculate the maximum allowable concrete moment, a capacity moment. The maximum
allowed reinforcement stress at a crack is the larger of the yield stress and the bare-bar
stress corresponding to the average strain multiplied by a strain concentration factor.
This strain concentration factor is taken as 2.0 for regular reinforcement and 1.25 for 7-
wire strand prestressing reinforcement that has poorer bond characteristics. This
technique of an explicit strain concentration factor contrasts with the technique of a bond
stress based approach as recommended by Kaufmann, Marti and Alvarez19, 50.

The lefi side of the equation above is calculated in two steps. Figure 4-9
describes the terms used in the calculation. The goal is to determine the largest average
concrete stress component that can be tolerated without yielding the longitudinal
reinforcement. A moment (Mi) is first calculated assuming a concrete stress of twice the
cracking stress (ft) at the neutral axis and zero at the bottom of the cross section. This
variation in concrete tensile stress is integrated by taking moments about the neutral a i s .
A second Moment (M2)is then detennined as the remainder of the capacity moment afler
MI is subtraaed. A maximum value of average concrete tensile stress at the bottom of
the cross section is calculated that would cause this moment. If the wncrete exactly
achieved the stress profile fiom 2 fr at the neutral axis and fi, at the bottom of the beam,
the longitudinal steel would just yield at a crack.

'1 max
Cross Section Average Conuete Tensile Stress

-
Figure 4 9: Conerete Moment

The reason for using twice the concrete cracking stress as an allowable stress near
the neutral axis is that for cross sections without transverse reinforcement, the
longitudinal tensile demand immediately below the flexural cracking fiont can exceed the
cracking stress. That is, the horizontal component of the principal tensile stress added to
the horizontal component of any shear on the crack sums to more than the cracking stress.
Though this demand is high, the reinforcing steel below the crack fiont will, in general,
have sufficient capacity to equilibrate this. If it does not, then this technique will lower
the allowable tension to ensure it satisfies equilibrium. The use of two components to the
flexural crack check is necessary as a single component was found to be numerically less
stable. The two components more smoothly transition fiom a case with plenty of extra
capacity at a crack and no capacity at a crack.

As this process does not require the results of biaxial or triaxial stresses, the
flexural yield crack-check performed in this way is non-iterative.
There are some restrictions implicit in this method.
1) The concrete compression block is totally ignored in the analysis.
2) The assumption that a bar is always able to have a main concentration factor of 1.25
or 2.0 at a crack means that bars that are linearly elastic up to failure are predicted to
rupture at a strain well below the real rupture strain and stress. Further research is
needed to develop more appropriate methods for such materials.
3) If there are no ban crossing the cracked zone, equilibrium requires that there be no
average concrete stress. This was found to badly afEect convergence at first cracking,
however. As such, if there are no bars crossing the crack face, the concrete stress is
not reduced. This is done for computational stability despite flagrantly violating
equil ibrium. The programs in this thesis are, therefore, not appropnate for calculating
the flexural behaviour of plain concrete specimens. A case where this is more
common is in the response of a singly reinforced section subjected to negative
bending.
4) It is possible that in attempting to yield the top bar in a flexurally cracked zone, the
bottom bar will rupture before the top can yield. This means that the calculated
capacity concrete tension moment cannot be achieved. This is not dealt with
explicitly, but shows up in an inability to caiculate stresses at a crack. This generally
has only a small effect on practical cross sections.

To calculate stresses at a crack on completion of the biaxiaVtriaxia1 soiution for

each node, the steps are basically reversed to calculate the stress in each bar. The
moment caused by the combined principal tension and shear on the crack is computed
about the crack face. An increase in curvature is then calculated about the crack fiont to
induce the sarne moment.

Due to the possibility that some of the bars may become nonlinear during this
calculation, it must be iterative. To Save time, the stress at a crack is only calculated once
per load stage, just before showing it to the user.
Chapter 5: Concrete Constitutive Relations
The Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT)treats cracked concrete as a
new material, so it is necessary to define the stress-strain characteristics of this new
material. As the MCFT is based on principal stress-principal strain relationships with a
special check for shear on the crack the relations may be divided into the categories of
be haviour in compression, behaviour in tension and behaviour in interfacial shear.

5-1 Behaviour in Compression

The compression response is divided into two components, the base cuwe and the
compression softening relationshi p. The base cuxve represents the behaviour of a
uni form block of concrete subjected to uniform compressive stress. While a standard
concrete cylinder is transversely restrained by the loading platens and therefore is not
really uniform, it is assumed that the stress-strain cunre of a cylinder represents the base
curve. Also, while a standard cylinder must be tested at 28 days t o be called f,', the idea
that the cylinder strength on the day of testing a n also be called f,' will be used here.

There are a series of base cuwes available in the programs for modelling concrete.
These are explained in Section 2 of the program's User Manual in Appendix A. The
recommended base curve, the Popovics cuxve, is shown in Figure 5-1 for a series of
different strength concrete cylinders. This base cunre was defined by ~ o p o v i c s 'and
~
partial1y calibrated by ~ o r a s z is
~ 'shown in the following equations (in MPa units):

Where: fc' = peak stress from cyiinder test

G'= strain at peak cylinder stress
n = curve fit parameter
k = factor for loss in post peak ductility for high strength concrete
 The parabolic base curve, is shown below in Fig. 5-2. The Popovics method is
recornmended over the parabolic as it better models initial stiffhess and, more
importantly, post-peak behaviour.

-
Figure 5 1: Popovics Concrete Base Cuwe -
Figure S 2: Parabolic Concrete Base Curve

For both of these curves, the strain at peak stress (ES) is needed to complete the
definition. This is a function of the shape of the base curve as well as the initial tangent
stiffness of the concrete &),itself a finction of the stiffness of the aggregate. Ifthe
initial tangent stifiess of the concrete is known, or a stress-strain curve from a cylinder
test is available, an eaimate ofthe arain at peak stress may be made. Ifneither are
available, then the following method is suggestedS(in MPa units)

where the parameter n is defined above

Figure 5-3 shows this relationship compared to a selection of data representing the
peak stress and grain at peak stress for test cylinders associated with shear tests fiom the
University of ~ o r o n t o28' ~and the University of oust on'^* 'O* ". The data frorn the
Toronto tests give higher than predicted ec' values as Toronto's crushed limestone
aggregate tends to produce lower stiffness concrete than that predicted by the equation
above.

O Houston qiinden
+ Toronto cylinders

Peak cyiridcr strength (MPa)

-
Figure 5 3: Strain at peak stress

The second part of the compressive response of concrete is compression

sofiening, which represents the tendency for concrete to reduce in strength and stiffness
as a result of transverse cracks caused by tensile straining at 90" to the compression.
While initially the equations were based on the diameter of the Mohr's circle of straid4,
it has since been recast as a hnction of the principal tensile strain of the concrete''.

For compression softening of normal strength concrete, it is suggested that the

equation in Figure 3-1 be used. This equation is shown in Fig. 5-4 dong with
experimental data from a series of tests performed at the University of Houston by pang)'
(triangles) and ~ e l a r b i '(diarnonds).
~ This equation was suggested in 1984 based largely
on the results of tests on concrete specimens 20 to 30 MPa in strengthfl. The relationship
can be seen to mode1 the data fiom these more recent Houston concrete specimens well.
 -
Figure 5 4: Compression Softening: Normal strength concrete
For very strong concrete, say more than 90 MPa (13 ksi), it is recommended that
the equation proposed by Porasz in 1989 be used2'. This equation lowers the maximum
compressive stress as a fiinction of base concrete stress as well as principal tensile strain.
Figure 5-5 shows a series of 100 MPa concrete experimental data points fiom the
University of Houston tested by Zhang in 199817, cornpared with this equation.

-
Figure 5 5: Compression softening: High stnngth concrete

59
5-2 Bebaviour in Tension: Uncracked Concrete
Concrete in tension is assumed to act Iinearly until first cracking wit h a stifhess
equal to the initial compression tangent stifhess. Cracking is clearly an important
phenornenon in concrete. Traditionally, the use of the AC1 shear cracking stress of
4 E (psi), 0 . 3 3 z (MPa) has been suggested for use in the MCFT. However, it has
been found that this prediction of cracking strength is not particularly good for high
strength concrete. Figure 5-6 shows the cracking strength versus concrete compressive
strength for a senes of large reinforced concrete elementsL1*
"* 'O* "* "* 33 dong with the
AC1 relationship.

A C 1 Shear Crackhg
/ ( O Houston Shell

Average = 0.90
C.0.V = 24.6%
O ! 1

O 20 40 60 80 100 120
Concrete Compressive SWenglh (MPa)

-
Figure 5 6: AC1 Shear cracking strength o f concrete

The fit to the higher strength data is not especially good. Instead, the programs in
this thesis al1 use the following relationship for the cracking strength of a large volume o f
concrete (MPa units):

ft = 0.45(f,')O.~ (5-3 )

Figure 5-7 compares this equation to the same data set used above.
 f, =0.45-(fc )0.4 A A 00 0

O Houston Shell
ExpPred: n = 83
-rage = 0.98 A Toronto Shell
C.0-V. = 23.5 % + Toronto Panel

O ! I I 1

O 20 40 60 80 1O0 120
Concrets Cornpresshm Sbength (MPa)

-
Figure 5 7: Proposed shear cracking strength o f concrete

Figure 5-8 compares the proposed cracking strength equation t o the traditional
AC1 equation. It can be seen that for concrete strengths less than, Say, 40 MPa, there is
only a small change in the predicted cracking strength. For 120 MPa concrete, however,
the predicted cracking strength drops by 18% below the AC1 value. This is imponant in
predicting the behaviour of high strength concrete beams without stimps.

-Proposad Sheir Cracking

-
Figure 5 8: Cornparison of shear cracking strengths
 Note that the relation proposed is appropriate for structural analysis o f a large
volume of concrete. The data points used to derive it are fiom uniformly loaded elements
containing up to 1 m3 of concrete volume. Tests involving small volumes of concrete o r
with high strain gradients through the depth can be expected to show higher strengths.
For example, the modulus of rupture test on a 150 x 150 mm cross section only exposes
one one-thousandth as large a volume of cancrete to high tensile stresses as the large
element tests do. The chance of the weakest, and hence controlling, piece of concrete
being in this small volume is remote, meaning that strengths fkom the modulus of rupture
tests are generally higher than the above equation would predict. It is recommended that
even if such results as modulus o f rupture o r spiit cylinder strengths are available for a
given concrete, the above equation be used.

5-3 Behaviour in Tension: Well Reinforced Cracked Concrete

After cracking, reinforced concrete elements can still carry tension between the
cracks through the action of bond. The concrete tension between cracks results
effectively in a more substantial cross section than that of a bare bar and, as such, this
phenornenon has becorne known as tension stiffening. Many different equations for the
average tensile stress in the concrete after cracking have been proposed over the years.
The models available in the programs are liaed in Section 2 of Appendix A. Three of the
equations are described below and plotted in Figure 5-9:

The first equation is that proposed by ~ecchio". based on his original 30 panel
elements.

The second equation was proposed by Collins and Mitchell16, based partly on the
results of the large shell element tests.
 The third equation presented here is the ~ a r n a i ~equation
' as used by Hsu and his
colleagues at the University of Houston.

Strain ( M m )

Figure 5 - 9: Cornparison of tension stiffkning relationships

Note that there is a substantial variation between these predictions. Generally, the
1982 equation fits well to tests in the small University of Toronto panel tester, the 1987
relation fits well to data from the larger University of Toronto shell element tester, and
the Tarnai relation has done a reasonable job with the data from the University of
Houston. If an equation of the same form of the MCFT is fitted to the Houston data
originally used to justify the use of the Tamai equation, a coefficient of 1500 is produced,
rather than the 200 and 500 in the other equations. It has been something of a mystery
why these differ as much as they do, though various explanations such as overall size
have been used.
 Consider that tension stiffening is largely a bond phenornenon. That is, it is the
bond between the reinforcing bar and the concrete that causes any tension to develop in
the concrete between the cracks. Collins and ~itchell', for example, reommended that
tension stiffening be reduced by a factor of 0.7 for plain bars or strands which will have
poorer bond properties than defomed bars. It is proposed that concrete tension stiffening
should be made a more specific fiinction of bond characteristics of the reinforcement.
Thus, at locations where the concrete is reinforced with a closely spaced array of small
diameter bars, the average tensile stress in the cracked concrete can be expected to be
higher than at locations reinforced with a widely spaced array of large diameter bars. The
typical cross-sections tested in the three research program mentioned above are shown in
Fig 5-10. Note that the bond characteristics of each will be different.

Universky of Toronto Univonily of Toronto

Panel Elemsnts sh.l u.rrwntr
70 mm thkk 28s mn UlKk
50 mm spaang nM
6 mm diimetar bars 20 nm dinmter bars

-
Figure 5 10: Scale of element tests

An appropriate parameter to indicate the bond characteristics of different arrays of

reinforcement is to divide the area of concrete in tension by the perimeter of al1 the
reinforcing bars bonded to the area. Thus,

For the typical elements shown in Fig. 5-10, this bond parameter works out to be
62 mm for the University of Toronto panel tests, 163 mm for the University of Toronto
shell element tests, and 42 1 mm for the University of Houston shell element tests.
 If the coefficient of the MCFT style tension stiffening equation is plotted with
respect to this bond term, the plot shown in Fig. 5- 11 is prduced.

Coefficient = 3.6 m 0

0 #=@
0@
0 HoustonShell
0#
Elements
0
##

.-
&e
0&
0 I
TorontoPanel
Elemento _, Toronto S M
flC Elements
0 250 0 we

O 100 200 300 400 500

m parameter = conc areaibar circum

-
Figure 5 11: Tension stiffening vs. m paramctcr

There is a clear relationship suggesting that for elements with poorer bond
properties, i.e. larger m values, the tension stiffening should be lower.

The above relation is based on tension stiffening equations that were averaged
from a number of elements in each series. By plotting the trend with individual

m - toncrete are. 1 bar circum (mm)

Figure 5 - 12: Tension stilfening vs. m for individual elements

shear experiments32.29.30.12 ,Fig. 5-12 is obtained. It can be seen that while the data for
individual elements involves much greater scatter, there is a clear trend supporting the
relationship suggested above.

Based on this, it is proposed that for uniformly reinforced concrete, the coefficient
in the denominator o f the MCFT tension stiflening equation normally shown as 500 be
replaced by the term 3.6m as follows:
C

where m is the bond parameter in millimetres

& is the area of concrete effectively bonded to the bar
db is diameter of bar in concrete stiffened area

This will improve the scatter of the predictions of uniform elements subjected to
shear, as shown in Chapter 8. Note that this equation will only affect the behaviour
between first cracking and when the crack-check begins to control the behaviour. The
fact that this parameter has units indicates that it will be dependent on the absolute size of
the specimen tested. It is suggested that this term p a d y explains the size eflect in shear
as shown in Chapter 10.

For biaxially or triaxially loaded elements, there will often be different values of
the m parameter in the different reinforcement directions. It is recommended for these
cases that the selected value of the m parameter be the lowest value for each of the
orthogonal reinforcement directions. This means that the tension stiffening will be
controlled by the direction that has the best bond properties. This was found to
reasonably mode1 the experimental behaviour.
5-4 Behaviour in Tension: Poorly Reinforced Cracked Concrete
The equation proposed above is appropriate for regions of reinforced concrete that
are relatively close to reinforcement, such as in the membrane element experiments
describeci. Further away fiom reinforcing steel, however, the proposed equation is not
appropnate to use. Figure 5-13, bpxd on Collins & h4itchel15, shows the CEB-FIP
suggestions for the effmive concrete embedment zone. Concrete in this zone, within 7.5
db of longitudinal steel, can be assumed to have a significant average tensile stress
between the cracks. Outside this region, it is assumed that there is not any significant
average concrete tende stress afler cracking. That is, it would be appropriate to use the
tension stiffening relation proposed above in the embedment zone, but not outside of this
region. This simplification is appropriate for analyses without shear, but less so when
shear is considered. In beams without transverse reinforcement, for example, it is the
average concrete tensile stress that must balance the diagonal compression in the web.
Selecting a tension stiffening equd to zero would then imply that there is no shear
carrying capacity in a beam where the web extends more than 7.5 bar diameters fiom the
reinforcement. Taylor, arnongst others, demonstrated that the webs of such beams can
cany in the order of half of the applied total shear force by aggregate interlock"- As
such, a method is needed to calculate an appropriate level of tension stiffening for
regions that are a fair distance away fiom reinforcement.

Effective Embedment Zone

I Zones of Tension in Concrete I

-
Figure 5 11: Tensile stress in c r a c k d concrete
 To mode1 such conditions, consider the "tooth" of concrete between cracks shown
in Fig 5-14. It is reinforced with a single bar and loaded in axial tension via the bar.
Tension stiffening in this example will be an average concrete tensile stress in the
direction of the bar above and below the bar. A linear elastic finite element analysis was
performed for such an element assuming that the concrete mess at the elevation of the
bar was constant and just below the cracking strength.

-
Figure 5 14: Concrete between cracks

Figure 5- 15 plots the average concrete tensile stress versus the x-axis in Fig 5-14.

Distance from Bar 1 Crack spacing ( x h , )

-
Figure 5 15: Tension stimning vs distance from bar
The stress values have been normalised with respect to the maximum values found just
above the bar. Also s h o w is a simple curve fit equation.

The analysis predicts that the average tension in the concrete will reduce to zero
as the distance away fiom the bar reaches about half the crack spacing. This is expected
from St. Venant's principal as the "stress bulb" will be symmetncal about each half of the
tooth's width. Beyond half the crack spacing away fiom the bar, the predicted average
concrete stress is in f a a slightly compressive.

To spot check this analysis, consider the typical concrete elements drawn in Fig.
5-10. The geometry of these is such that no point in the concrete is frther fiom a
reinforcing bar than about 0.25 to 0.3 times the predicted crack spacing. Based on the
average value of tensile stress in Fig. 5-15 over that range, it might be expected that the
total tension stiffening would be about 0.6 times the maximum value. The base MCFT
tension stiffening equation predicts that level of tension stiffening for a strain of about 1
mm/m which is about half of the yield strain. This suggests that the calculated values
fiom the finite element analysis are reasonable.

To attempt to directly use the results fiom Fig 5-15 in sectional analysis, a few
dificulties arise. The biggest is that the reaI crack spacing over the depth of a beam is
discreteIy changing. The predicted crack spacing, explained in Chapter 7, smoothly
increases approximately as 2 times the distance fiom a bar plus a value at the bar. As
such, as the distance away fiom the bar increases, the crack spacing a h increases. To
deal with such issues, some empirical curve fitting was necessary to make the above
finite element analysis directly connect with the programs. This fitting was performed
with Response-2000 on a series of 83 elements without shear reinforcement.
 Figure 5-16 shows a portion of the bottom of a concrete bearn. The tension
stiffening (fi) at depth z in the figure is calculated as follows.

Where

Crack Spacing Cross Section

-
Figure 5 16: Tension stiffening parameters

Note that the curve fit equation in Figure 5-15 only comes into effect if the
location of interest in the concrete is a suficient distance fiom the nearest steel. This
distance is assumed to equal twice the crack spacing at the bar for simplicity. Nearer to
the bar than this, the equation is similar to the equation presented above for the average
value over a membrane element.

Note equation 5-9 represents the incremental value of tension stiflening. The
earlier equation in Fig. 5-1 1 models the average tension stiffening for al1 of the area of
concrete in Fig. 5-16, whereas this new equation is the value to apply at the location z
alone. To simply mode1 this difference fiom the average and the incremental value, a
factor of 2.0 is applied to the equation. It was found that the results are not sensitive to
this factor.
 Table 5-1 shows the use of the proposed tension stinening equations for a given
strain state for a bearn. The beam is L metre deep, with 4-30Mbars 100 m m up fiom the
bottom face of the beam. For the given strain nate, the tension stiffening parameters are
calculated sshowing the distribution of average concrete tension over the depth of the
element. Chapter 10 compares the effect of these proposed tension stiffening equations
o n the quality of predictions of Response-2000.

Table 5-1 Tension Stiffening Equations Demonstration

fc' 30 MPa 1000 x 300 mm cross section

Ft 1.75 MPa 4 -
30M bars 100 mm up = 2800 mm2

Far from Bar

zd dist/s, Best fd M term s, Select Stress
(mm) Equation ~maat M (MW
Fig 5-1 5 Eq. 5-9 Eq. 5-9
900 0.90 -0.06
800 0.80 -0.04 Uncracked
600 0.60 0.01

Notes: As Iisted in Chapter 7, Crack spacing cannot exceed member depth for beams in
flexure
Ac terni cannot be l e s than the width multiplied by twice the bar diameter
The controlling type of tension stiffening is shaded.

5-5 Concrete in Interfacial Shear

The shear on the crack relationship used in the programs is the base equation
proposed over 12 years ago for the MCFT. The only difference is that the effective
aggregate size is reduced fiom the real value down to zero over concrete strengths
between 60 and 80 MPa. This has been done as high strength tests are observed to fail
with cracks cutting through the aggregate, rather than around the aggregate as with
normal strength concrete. This same argument also applies to lightweight concrete. The
effect of making a lower effective aggregate size is to lower the maximum shear on the
crack for stronger concretes. The methods proposed by ~ u ~should
t a be~examined to
deterrnine if they allow for better modelling of behaviour of interfacial shear.

5 6 Time Dependent Effecb

~ecchio"noted that concrete tested at a young age tends to have a higher
cracking strength relative to its compressive strength than older concrete. As some of the
results in the experimental verification database are of experiments done on very young
concrete, sornetimes three days afier casting, a simple way to account for this early age
effect is presented here.
Vecchio's panels were generally tested at an age of about seven days, with three
days of curing. An examination of the cracking strength and the tension stiffening shows
that there is indeed a correlation between the time between the completion of curing and
the test and a strength increase. Figure 5-17 shows the data for elements tested in pure
shear for the cracking strength, showing a trend towards higher strength for eariy age.

.-
O
I

=U
0.75 Cracking -25 days
Y

Days specimen was drying

-
Figure 5 17: Cracking strength vs. drying time
 Figure 5-18 shows the same pattern for tension stiffening. In this case, the base
MCFT tension stisening relationship was compareci to the observeci tension stiffening. A
factor was calculated for the reported data points that indicated the relative value of the
obsewed tension stiffening with respect to the expected value. For example, if a test
showed results identically the same as what the base equation predicts, then it would have
a value of 1.O, while another test having an average tension stiffening twice what was
expected would have a value of 2.0. Plotting these factors versus the days between the
completion of curing and testing produces the following trend:

Days of drying

Figure 5 - 18: Tension stiffening vs. drying time

There is a clear trend for higher tension stiffening for early age concrete. This
will be a fnction of a number of things including shrinkage and surface drying.
Vecchio's specimens were 70 mm thick and some were of relatively low concrete
strength, suggesting that the patterns seen here for 5 days may be applicable to older
specimens that are larger.

The following is suggested for analyses of young concrete structures. For

concrete that is younger than 7 days, it is recommended that the automatically calculated
tensile strength of concrete be increased by 25%. This corresponds to Vecchio' s original
observation that the younger concrete tended to crack at 5 J f ; ; @si) rather than 4JT;E
@si) as expezted. It is suggested that beams tested at 14 days of age not have the
cracking strength modified. Ages between these two limits may be linearly interpolateci.
Chapter 6: The Longitudinal Stiffness Method
While most sectional analysis prograrns do not include the effects of shear
stresses that Vary through the depth of the element, Response-2000 includes the effects of
beam shear stresses, and Shell-2000 includes the effects of out-of-plane shear stresses,
which both Vary through the depth of the elernent. The challenge is to determine the
distribution of shear stress with depth. It will be affected by the width of the section, the
matenal properties of the concrete, and the location and amount of reinforcement.
The technique used is based on equilibrium of longitudinal stresses as derived by
Jourawski in 1856j6.

The new method presented here is an extension of the methods used by earlier
nonlinear sectional analysis prograrns37.6.53 extended to increase performance and
computational stability. The method is used in Reponse-2000 and Shell-2000 to calculate
a new estimate of the shear stress profile for a given load level. The prograrns assume an
initial profile and then use this procedure to calculate a new profile and iterate until the
assumed and calculated profiles are in agreement.

6-1Traditional Shear Stress Calculation

Consider the pnsmatic beam on simple suppons shown in Fig 6-1. The right side
of the figure is a fkee body diagram of the part of the beam between sections A and B.

Section A Sedion B

-
Figure 6 1 :Shear stress calculation
This section of beam is dx units long, and subjected to constant shear V and no axial
load. The moment at section A is taken as M, and, due ta the shear, the moment at
section B will be higher, M + d M = M + V-dx. The assumeci linear longitudinal strain
gradient corn the moment will cause a longitudinal stress profile with compression on the
top and tension on the bottom of the cross section. Consider the shaded m i o n at the top
right of Fig 6-1 as a fiez body diagram o f the top of the beam, from elevation z up to the
top of the beam. It is subjected to a force on the left from the moment, but a higher force
on the right from the stightly higher moment. This requires a balancing force on the cut
plane of the beam, shown as H. Due to the summation of moments about a point
equalling zero, the shear stress in a horizontal plane at a point must equal the venical
shear stress. As such, the force H divided by the beam width and dx results in the vertical
shear stress on the beam at depth z. This is the same denvation used to produce
Jourawski's familiar relationship:

An implicit assumption in this theory is that plane sections remain plane it was
used to calculate the longitudinal stresses. Though the shear strains associated with the
calculated shear stress will warp the section, violating plane sections, the warping does
not affect the longitudinal stress gradient for regions of constant shearn.

Compression
Stress Profile

Stress Profile
at Section B

Tension
Cross Section Longitudinal Stress Shear Stress
Profile Profile

-
Figure 6 2: Intemals of shcar stress calculation
 It is useful to examine in more detail what is happening in the description above.
Figure 6-2 shows the simple case of a linear elastic rectangular cross section subjected to
shear. The stress profile that will occur at Section A and B, as in Fig 6-1, are dniwn
together on the same axis for cornparison. As section A has a srnaller moment, it will
have a smaller stress profile than at d o n B where the moment is larger. The shaded
region represents the difference in stress profiles between the two sections. It is this
difference that defines the shear stress profile. Also shown is the shear stress distribution,
which for this case is a parabola. Note that the slope ofthe shear stress plot with respect
to depth is zero at mid-depth, and maximum at the top and bottom of the section. These
dopes are directly proportional to the diflerence in the longitudinal stresses at sections A
and B. That is, the shaded area on the middle plot at any given depth is proportional to
the derivative of the shear stress plot with respect to the beam depth.

In this case, the difference in longitudinal stresses between sections A and B is

linear, so the shear stress profile is parabolic. For general nonlinear materials, however,
the difference in longitudinal stress profiles will not necessarily be Iinear. The difference
in strains between sections A and B, on the other hand, will always be linearly distributed
over the depth when the assurnption of plane sections remaining plane is used. If this
change in longitudinal strain profile is known along with the longitudinal stifhess (Le.
rate of change of longitudinal stress with longitudinal strain) over the height of the beam,
the shear stress profile can be generated. This is the basis of the method described in this
chapter.

6-2 Previous state-of-the-a rt

To use Jourawski's theory for shear stress distribution for the analysis of
reinforced concrete beams, the nonlinear behaviour of concrete m u a be included. The
nonlinearity means that the problem generally must be solved numerically rather than
analytically. The previous state-of-the-art for sectional analysis of concrete beams
including shear is represented by Program SM AL^, which divides a beam into a fixed
number of layers and assumes that the stress-strain aate is constant for that layer. Each
layer may have a different width. The shear stress is then d c u l a t e d at the interface of
each of thex layers. A full load-statelstrain-state analysis is done at sections A and B in
Fig 6- 1, separated by the distance dx, suggested by Vecchio and Collins as d/6. The
"dual section analysis" procedure then numerical1y integrates the stresses above each
layer interface in the section and calculates the resulting shear stress profile down the
depth.

6-3 Development of method and problems with previous methods

The work in this thesis started, partly, as an amalgarnation of Programs
' * was available in the Collins & Mitchell textbooks) and program SMAI?.
~ e s ~ o n s e (that
Response-2000 is a total rewrite of the older Response, now called Response-90, but
benefited tiom the experience gained in its writing 10 years ago. It was found in the
development of Response-90 that a good way to improve the numerical stability of the
analysis was to automatically subdivide layers that were poorly interpolated. For
example, if flexural cracking happens to occur in the middle of a layer, it is wise to divide
that layer in half to improve numerical stability. As an earlier step in developing
Response-2000, this dynamic layering routine was added to the dual section analysis
methods as implemented in SMAL.

While program SMAL is relatively stable, there remain situations where the
program will stop in the middle of operation and no longer converge. With small
adjustments in the input conditions, it c m often be made to converge. It was thought that
the use of the dynamic layering would reduce the incidences of this instability. On the
contrary, it was found that the Response-2000 becarne less stable than SMAL when
dynamic layering was implernented. Over a period of about a year, a series of issues
were discovered that indicated that the numerical methods used by SMAL were
inherently unstable in certain circumstances. These problems o d y became visible with
the precision that comes out of a dynamic layenng routine. For example, issues relating
to the exact depth of cracking will only be important in SMAL if the manually assigned
layer divisions happen to coincide with the calculated crack fiont. In cases where this did
happen, however, it is likely that SMAL would be unable to converge to a solution.

Primarily, the problems arise due to numerical instabilities in calculating a small

difference of two large numbers. The shaded area in Fig. 6-2, used to calculate the shear
stress profile, for example, is calculated as the difference of the stresses at sections A and
B. If the distance between sections A and B, dx, is reduced, the answer is a smaller
difference between large numbers. This might suggest that increasing the dx term should
increase stability. It was found, however, that smaller values of dx generally led to more
stable solutions. Ifit was made too srnail, however, numerical noise would creep in and
make the programs iterate u~ecessarily.The balance point was not obvious.

Three major problems were discovercd with the previous statesf-the-art methods
for shear stress profile evaluation.
They will be demonstrated with the 1
metre deep Tee-Beamshown. It has
1.2% of 400 MPa longitudinal steel
and 0.8 MPa of stimips. The
concrete strength was selected as 100
MPa to highlight the effects. The
applied loads are a moment of 1.5
kNm for every 1 kN of shear force.
SMAL96 predicts the shear capacity -
Figure 6 3: Samplc section
as 456 kN for this section with the
analysis taking 24 seconds. Response-2000
predicts a shear capacity of 480 W,
controlled by longitudinal yield with a
solution time of 5 seconds. The predicted
shear stress profile fiom Response-2000 at a
shear force of 456 ISJ, is shown to the nght
as well.
-
Figure 6 4: Shcar stress profile
 The first problem encountered resulted fiom the necessity to numercally solve for
a desired value of axial load, moment and shear at both sections A and B in Fig. 6-1.
Numerical convergence always includes some error, but the shear, and axial load, must
be essentially identical between section A and B. Figure 6-3 shows a shear stress profile
generated with an earlier version of Response-2000 that used the older shear stress profile
methods as used by SMAL at a shear of 456 W. It can be seen that the shear stress
profile does not "close" at the top, that is, the shear stress is not calculated as zero at the
top and bottom face of the beam as required. This was caused by a difference in axial
load between sections A and B of only 2.2 W. This corresponds to an average stress on
the gross concrete area of 0.0065 MPa. The error in longitudinal strain that this axial
load represents is O. 1 micro strain. This means that methods like that in SMAL must
either solve to axial strains to a precision of 1 part in 10,000, or "smear" the error if the
shear profile does not close.

Shear Stress (MPa)

-
Figure 6 5: Error in axial load convergence
 A second problem is that the depth of cracking for section A will be different
fiom the depth of cracking at Section B, due to the different moments at each section.
The effect of this is that a large jump in the shear stress profile is predicted in the region
between the cracking depths. Figure 6-4 shows the e f f ' for the example beam with a
shear of 180 kN. This spike does not appear to have any real physical significance.
More importantly, it is strongly dependent on the distance dx between sections A and B.
For some cross sections, this spike can make the predicted shear stress negative in the
middle of the web for positive shear, for example, which also suggests that it is a non-
physical artefact of the calculation.

1.4

-400 -E
Jump in Shear stress due to different
-500 -E depths of cracking

Shear Stress (MPa)

-
Figure 6 6: Error in crack depth

A third issue is that the distance between the sections A and B in Fig 6- 1 tums out
to be important in predicting the shear stress profile. SMAL suggests a value of d/6 for
this parameter, Response-2000 had used a value of about 10 mm for al1 beams, and now
effectively uses zero mm as a result of the new methodology in this chapter. Figure 6-7
compares the shear stress profile predicted by SMAL, the old version of Response-2000
and the new version of Response-2000 for a shear of 456 kN. Clearly this parameter has
a large effect on the predictions. SMAL predicts the largest shear stress near the bottom
of the section whereas the new method predicts it near the top of the web. The
predictions of Response-2000 tend to have smaller scatta than that of SMAL, suggesting
that the Response-2000 profiles are better than the S M A L profiles.

Shear Stress (MPa)

-
Figure 6 7: Effect of distance dx

Each of these three issues resulted in analyses with old Response-2000 taking
longer than they should have as a result of extra iteration, and, in some cases, preventing
a solution completely. While the increasing performance of cornputers has made the
eficiency issue less imponant, it does not help for cases when a solution is not possible
at al1 due to numerical instability.

A series of techniques were implemented in Response-2000 to work around the

three problems. While they generally worked, they did not represent an elegant solution.
The longitudinal stifiess method was then developed to ded directly with these
problems and provide faster, more stable solutions.
6-4 The Longitudinal Stiffness Method
This new method works by taking the limit as the distance dx between sections A
and B in Fig. 6-1 goes to zero. The numerical problems vanish and the method is
virtually guaranteed to be able to find a shear stress distribution for al1 cases,
interestingly, with small modifications, even for cases with no shear applied.

It remains a numencally implemented method, but it no longer requires the

calculation of behaviour at both sections A and B. R e d that the old method took the
difference between the longitudinal stresses at sections A and B and divided by the
distance between them, in the process of calculating the shear stress. This step is
replaced by calculating the derivative of longitudinal stress with respect to longitudinal
strain at each point in the depth of the cross section.

The use of derivatives mean that the solution for only one location need be
obtained rather than the two needed for the earlier method. As there is only one section,
the axial forces and shears are guaranteed to match on each "side" of the analysis. A h ,
there is only one depth of cracking to consider. Irnplementing this method has allowed
Response-2000 to run 5-15 tirnes faster than it did using the older dual section analysis
style techniques, largely fiom a reduction in amount of iteration. Much of this iteration
was, in fact, partially induced by the dynamic layering routines that made it more stable
in solving to individual load levels. Program SMAL,which does not use the dynamic
layering is comparable in wall-dock speed to the new Response-2000 when it is able to
obtain a solution. As a result of the dynamic layering, however, Response-2000
calculates much more data for each load level. A typical SMAL analysis may have 20
layers in it, whereas a Response-2000 analysis may have 50 layers. The method
presented here scales directly to 3D as implemented in Shell-2000.

6-5 Details of the Method

What follows is a description of the method in two dimensions. The 3D method
is not presented, as it is a direct extension and would be redundant.
 The analysis begins with a load-deformation state for the cross section. An initial
assumption of a shear-strain profile is needed. For a first load step, this initial guess can
be reasonably taken as the simple linear elastic solution derived by Jourawski. For later
load steps, the previous shear strain distribution can be used as the initial estimate.

The load-deformation state throughout the depth of the element will consist of a
series of biaxial MCFT nodes. The first step in calculating the shear stress distribution is
to calculate the tangent stifhess in the X-Y-Gamma directions for each node as explained
in Chapter 3. Each node will result in a 3x3 matrix of stiffness, Ki:

Recall the basic assumption with sectional analysis methods that there is to be no
total stress in the transverse direction. As such, it is necessary to modiw the stifiess
matrix to account for this before using it in the longitudinal stiffness method.
Specifically, since:

and dNyrnust equal zero, simple algebraic rearrangement shows that the modified nodal
tangent stiflness matrix can be represented as:
b-d bof1
Ca -- C-- r i kl
- 1 IL--
h.d . h-f
1--
I-Lm n]
So that

This nodal stiffness now models the stiffness of longitudinal stress and shear
stress to longitudinal strain and shear strains while maintaining no change in stress in the
transverse direction. Note that as the basic tangent stiffness matrix (Ki) is non-
symmetric, the reduced stiflness matrix (Ki') will also be non-symmetric.

These local nodal stiffness matrices may now be integrated to produce the global
sectional forces tangent stifiess matrix J:

So that:

Where d~~ change in longitudinal strain at the geometric centroid of the gross
concrete area
d4 change in curvature
dy* change in average shear strain for section
dN change in global axial force
dM change in global moment
dV change in global shear force

These nodal stifiess terms are integrated over al1 the layers in the depth of the
beam. In the prograrns, this integration is done quadratically as the dynamic layering
routines automatically check for accuracy using that assumption. Using Ct+ notation
where J[0][0] is the top left matrix element, and the notation in Fig. 6-6, the summation
over dl layers may be done as follows:

L 1

Cross Section
-
Figure 6 8: Parameters for global stiffness matrix calcu1ation
Global Axial Force Stifiness
J[O][O] += (il-bl+ 4-j2-b2+ j3-b3) dz/6
J[O][l] += Qi-bl*zl+4-j2-b.z2+ j3-b3-z3)-dd6 z included for curvature
J[O][2] += (kl-bl-si+ 4-kt-b-s2+ k3-b3-s3)dz/6 s included for shear strain

1" order parts of M o m t StfJhess

J[l][O] += (il-bl.zl+ 4-j2-k-z2+j3-b3-z3)&/6 z for moment
+ j3-b3-z3-z3)
J[l][l] += (il.bl.zl-zl+ 4-j2-b-z2-z2 dz/6 z for moment & curvature
J[1][2] += (kl-bl-zl-si+4-k2-b2-z2.a+ k3.b3.z3-s3).W6 z for moment

2" order p s of moment stzJhess

- -
J[1][0] += dz-dz/oO-(b3 bl)(il 2-jr+js)
-
5[1][1] += dz.dt/oO-& bl)(il-zl - 2-j2-zZ
+ j3-z3)
- -
J[l][2] += dz-dd60-(b3 bl)(il-si 2-j2s2+ j3-s3)

Global Shear Stiffness

J[2][0] += (ml-bi + 4-m2-b+ m3-b3)-dz/6
J[2][1] += (ml-bl-zl+ 4-m2&+z2+ m3-b3-z3)dz6 z included for curvature
J[2][2] += (ni-bl-si+ 4-nt-b-sz+ n3-b3+s3)
-dz/6 s included for shear strain

Where: bl,b2,b3are the top middle and bottom widths of the section for the layer
Z ~ , Z Z , Zare
~ the depths in the section corresponding to the widths bl,b2,b3
dz is total layer depth = z3-zl
sl,sz,s3 are the multipliers of the average shear strain for the given depth.
Note that the shear strain is defined as an average value (the global
shear strain) as well as with a shape profile that varies over the
 depth with an average of 1.O. These terms define the shape of the
shear strain profile.
j,k,l,m are the stifhess terms fiom K' as defined above for nodes 1,2,3

This global tangent stiffbess matrix calculated fkom the biaxial tangent stifiess of
the nodes serves two purposes. Firstly it can be used to solve for the next load stage for
an analysis. That is, it can be used to solve for the next global strain state estimate to use
to minimise the error in the force state. Secondly, and more importantly for this chapter,
it can be used to calculate the shear stress distribution.

6-6 Calculating shear stress profiles.

With a load-defonnation state at a given "in-situ strain" of ea, 6,and y-, a
tangent stiffness matrix is calculated as described directly above. Unlike the case of
solving for global forces, however, the individual stifiess ternis over the depth are
retained. This can represent a signifiant amount of storage as, for example, Shell-2000
can require up to 1750 independent stiffness terms fiom the nodal matrices.

Using the global stiffness matrix, the following matrix calculation is performed to
solve for a tangent "virtuai strain".

If this virtual strain is added to the in-situ strain in the beam, a new force state is
predicted that would have the same axial load, the same shear, but a moment that differs
by exaaly V.1 metre. This virtual strain profile, when multiplied by the longitudinal
stifiess tems over the depth, will produce the equivalent of the shaded area on Fig. 6-2.
This then directly leads to the shear stress as before. By selecting a moment increment of
V- 1 metre, it is as though the distance between sections A and B has been selected as 1
metre. In fact, due to the use of derivatives for the stifiess, it is effectively zero metres.
 The next step is to calculate through the depth of the beam the equivalent of the
shaded area in Fig. 6-2. Whereas previously it was necessary t o calculate the difference
of the longitudinal stress at section A and section B of the lret body in Fig. 6- 1, this value
is now directly calculated as the virtual main times the appropriate stitniess. The value
calculated by this multiplication is the rate of change of shear flow with respect to depth
in the beam. At m y given depth, the rate of change of shear fiow with respect to depth
would be calcutated as:

Where Aq is the dope of the shear flow diagram with respect to depth
j and k are the top two terms fiom the K' matrix at depth z
z is the depth at this location
dsKd4, and dy,are the global Mmial strains fiom above

This change in shear flow is then integrated over the depth of the section and
divided by the local element widths to find the shear stress profile. Note that the tangent
stifiess of the longitudinal steel must also be included using the same virtual strain
concept with the tangent stiffiiess of the steel.

When implemented properly, the only way that this method can fail to find a
solution is if the determinant of the J matrix is zero. Ifit is zero because there is no
stiffness against moment, then no solution can be found. It has been found that this is
very rare, but can happen in the case of beams subjected to high shear with tull-depth
cracking and al1 longitudinal and transverse steel yielding.
Chapter 7: How the programs work
The previous chapters have provided background into the analytical methods used
in the programs. This chapter provides details of how the programs work internally so
that others may implement similar programs.

7-1 Membrane-2000/ Trias-2000

Membrane-2000 is closely related to Triax-2000 in that Membrane-2000
considers a single b i d stress-strain node, and Triax-2000 considers a single triaxial
stress-strain node ofreinforced wncrete. Both programs work in a similar manner
interna11y.

Both programs are based exclusively on the secant stifiess method in two and
three dimensions as explained in Chapter 3. For full load-defonnation analyses, a
variable is automatically selected as being the most critical, usually a shear strain, and
then that value is incremented in small steps. The other strains are then iteratively
determined with the secant stiffness matrix until the load ratios match the desired values.
It has been found that the secant stiffness method is surprisingly stable and can solve for
most solutions quite efficiently. For single load solutions, the same technique is used, but
the load vector is fully defined with the full strain state then determined iteratively.

7-2Response-2000/Shell-2000
Most of this discussion is written directly towards Response-2000. ShelI-2000 is
directly analogous in intemal structure. Response-2000 is based on iseries of biaxial
nodes integrated along a line through the cross section. The global strain state is made up
of the longitudinal strain at the centroid of the gross concrete cross % d o n (&,O), the
curvature ($), and the average shear strain (yw). As the shear stress profile, and hence
shear strain, varies over the depth of the cross section, a numencal profile is used that
modifies the average strain (y-) to produce the desired shape of shear strain through the
depth. This profile has an average value of 1.O and is zero at the top and bottom of the
cross sections. For uncracked concrete on rectangular sections, the profile is a parabola
with a maximum value of 1.5.

Each biaxial node in Response-2000 is defined by the longitudinal strain E, (fiom

and @ and depth) and the shear strain (fiom y- and the shear main profile). The third
strain required for biaxial stress-strain state, say the transverse strain, must be calculateci
fkom equilibnum based on the assumption that there is no total transverse clamping
stress.

To solve for any arbitrary load stage or an interaction diagram requires a fair
amount of nested iteration. Figure 7-1 shows the general steps in the iteration procedures
used in Response-2000.

Estimate shear strain profile

-
Idle-Dual
solves for shear strain profile
-
Solve-Beam
solves for global strain state
TANGENT

get-forces
Calculates M.N,V using
BINARY TREE

solves for transverse equilibrium

SECANT

Calculate-sheargrofile
solves for new shear strain profile
-SECANT

-
Figure 7 1: Response-ZOO0 loops
 Response-2000 has 4 major nested lwps. Note that the one fiirthest in is
effectively the same as Membrane-2000. This inner loop calculates the transverse strain
needed to ensure that there is no overall transverse stress on the nodes consistent with the
basic assumption of the sectional model.

The loop outside that, the get-forces loop, calculates the sectional forces (N, M,
V) on a cross section for a given global strain state. This is iterative as the cross section
is automatically divided up ("dynamic layering") in a binaxy tree fashion sirnilar to
Reference 38 to ensure that the stress levels are interpolated well throughout the height of
the beam.

The Ioop outside that layer, the solve-beam loop, calculates the global strain state
needed to achieve the desired global load ratios (N, M, V).

The final outer loop, idle-dual, iterates on the shear strain profile until the
assumed profile matches the one calculated with the longitudinal stiffiiess method fiom
Chapter 6.

7-3 Each component in more detail: Response-2000

Each analysis must begin with an estimate of the shear strain profile. Initially, the
linear elastic strain profile fiom "VQ/IbWis appropriate, and for later load stages, the
profile from the previous load stage is used. Each analysis must also a m with an
estimate of the global strain state, that is, initial values for cd, 4, and y-. Nonnally, at
the start of an analysis, these are assumed to be zero though in the event of shrinkage or
strain discontinuity, they are taken as a Iinear fit to those profiles. For later load stages,
the strain state fiom the previous load level can be used to estimate new global strain
States.

The Idle-Dual fbnction has the "idle" prefix as it is calleci during idle processing.
This allows the program to support rnultitasking on codperative multitasking operating
syaems. The first step in this function is to mate a new lord stage. With the initial
strains ffom above, one variable (generally curvature) is selected to be constant to
implement strain controlled behaviour. A cal1 is made to the solve-barn tiinction to
solve for the other 2 global strains that correspond to the correct moment: shear: axial
force ratios. The shear strain profile is then recalculated b d on the longitudinal
stiffiiess method. If the newly calculated profile is close to the assumed profile, the load
stage is completed. If the new profile is not close enough to the old one, then another
iteration is required. The longitudinal stifiess method calculates a shear stress profile,
which is converted to a strain profile using a secant stiffhess method for non-zero initial
stress levels and tangent method for zero initial shear stress levels.

The solve-beam fiinction solves for the global sectional strain state that causes the
desired load ratios. It first calls for the global tangent stifiess matrix as explained in
chapter 6, and then uses that to iteratively reduce the error in the sectional forces with a
tangent technique. The get-forces fiinction is the most important function called as it
updates the current sectional force state tiom a given sectional strain state.

The get-forces fnction will calculate the overall forces on a section based on the
given global strain state. For each node, a longitudinal strain is known as well as is the
shear strain. The transverse strain is calculated for each node to ensure that the node is in
equilibrium in the transverse direction. This is performed with the secant stiffiiess
method fiom Membrane-2000. The get-forces fnction first assumes that 8 layers
throughout the thickness are sufficient and these are calculated. The stresses are then
calculated at the quarter points of each layer and compared to the quadratic interpolation
from the existing nodes of the layer. If the quadratic interpolation matches the check
point, then the analysis will accept that layer. If the interpolation is poor, then the layer is
automatically divided in two.

These series of nested loops may sound intimidating, but in fact they mesh
together well and produce a fast solution for the problems.
7-4 Long Term Equations
Response-2000 includes a routine to allow automatic consideration of the effects
of shrinkage, creep and relaxation. These procedures are based on the ~ M I 3 ~ 0 - 9 4 ' ~
provisions and similar to the methods in Collins & ~itchell'. The reason to explicitly
include them is that the usually suggested method of deaiing with creep, increasing the
strain at which concrete cylinders mach peak stress, cari cause problems in an analysis for
shear. Using the method built into Response-2000 will avoid these problems.

Shrinkage is calculated in Response-2000 with the following equation

Shrink= -0.0005 1 k, kh (t/(t+35)) (7-1)
Where: t is time in days the concrete has been exposed to dryng
is factor to account for humidity. Response-2000 assumes h=1.O
k is a factor for geometry:
t

Where:VOS is volume to surface area ratio in metres

Creep is estimated h m the traditional creep factor as follows:

The strand relaxation factor is estimated by the following equation.

A single load analysis is carried out by Respanse-2000, first ignoring al1 these
parameters, and at a load equal to the long-term moment value entered by the user.
m'hile shear is ignored to speed the calculation, axial bad is considered. This analysis
will result in a short-term longitudinal strain profile.

A new analysis is then calculated with the shrinkage applied, the prestressing
strands relaxed, and the concrete having a strain at peak stress modified by the creep
factor above. This will produce a second longitudinal strain profile wrresponding to the
long term behaviour of the beam at the sustained moment.

The difference between these two strain profiles is calculated and added to the
user defined shnnkage profile. This will then implicitly include creep and shrinkage in
the calculations. An analysis performed afier this will represent short-tem loading (i-e.
in a manner of hours to days) on a structure that has been loaded for a long term (Le.
many years)-

Note that the increase in concrete strengh that long term hydration will cause is
ignored as this is too dependent on individual mix properties.

7-5 Automatic Crack Spacing

It is suggested that crack spacings always be automatically calculated. Specific
values may be selected, but these will be prone to erron and potentially miss important
effects in the shear response ofconcrete, such as the size effect.

The crack spacing is based on the CEB suggested crack spacing relationships:
Crack spacing = 2 c + 0.1 ddp (7-6)

where c is the diagonal distance to the nearest reinforcement in the section

db is the diameter of the nearest bar
p is the percentage of steel

This mode1 is treated slightly different by the different prograrns.

 For Membrane-2000 and Triax-2000, the distance c is taken as the largest
diagonal distance between a bar and any point in the concrete. Note that this does not
attempt to mode1 the average crack spacing, but the largest, and therefore most critical
crack spacing.

Response-2000 and Shell-2000 calculate crack spacing over the depth of the
section, as it will change over the depth. For these calculations, the term c is taken as the
largest diagonal distance tiom the current depth to a reinforcing bar. The p term is taken
as the percentage of steel within a concrete area 7.5 4, above and below the bar. When
between different layers of reinforcement, the 0. lddp term is Iinearly interpolateci
between the calculated vafues at the bars. Ifa section is subjected to bending, the crack
spacing is not allowed to exceed the section depth.

For cases with no reinforcement, the crack spacing is selected as five times the
depth of the section.

7-6Hoop Reinforcement
Special treatment is given to transverse reinforcement that is in the form of hoops.
Figure 7-2 shows a column with hoops. It is assumed that there are no strains
perpendicular to the direction of shear ioading. This means that the part of the hoop that
is pointing that way will not experience any straining due to the shear. Confinement
would induce strain at this location, but this is not currently implemented in Response-
2000.

To account for this, the hoop strains c h are calculated fiom the transverse strains E(
based on a Mohr's circle:
= et sin2(a) (7-7)
 Direction of assumed Shear Direction
zero $train
Shear Direction

Cross Section

-
Figure 7 2: Treatment of hoops in Rcspons+2000

Additionally, only the component of the force in the hoop in the transverse
direction rnay influence the shear response, that is, the hoop force must be multiplied by
the sine of angle alpha.

7-7Member Response Analysis

Response-2000 can calculate a load-deflection curve for a prismatic beam
subjected to point loads or a uniform loading as shown in Chapter 2. As Response-2000
is a sectional analysis program, it is necessary to calculate the stress and strain state for a
series of individual cross sections to allow this. To be as general as possible, Response-
2000 calculates the fbll moment-shear interaction diagram in order to calculate beam
deflections.

Response-2000 divides up the beam into 20 short segments. For each segment,
the axial load, moment, and shear force are determined fiom the applied loads. The
curvature and shear main associated with this load level is then interpolated fiom the
interaction diagram. This is integrated with the moment-area method to calculate the load
deflection relationship for the barn segment.
 Shown in Fig. 7-3 is a Moment-Shear interaction diagram of a beam without
stirrups. The horizontal axis represents
moment and the vertical axis represents shear.
The outer line enclosing al1 the points
represents the failure envelope. Any force
combination that touches this line will result in
failure of the cross section. At the far right
hand side, the failure will be in positive
flemire, at the left it 4 1 1 be in negative
flexure, and the sloping top represents shear
-
Figure 7 3: Moment-sherir fai lures.
interaction diagram
Each of the squares within the
interaction diagram represents a solved combination of moment, shear and axial load.
This means that the cuwature, shear strain and longitudinal strain can be interpolated
throughout the interaction diagram using the values at the squares. The interpolation is
performed with finite element shape fiinctions.

If a line representing the shear and moment along the length of the beam is traced
on the interaction diagram, as shown, the curvature and shear strain can be calculated for
each point along the line and integrated together to predict the member load-deflection
curve.

A difficulty arises when using this method with shear, however. It is known that
due to diagonal cracks requiring horizontal projection, amongst other reasons, that it is
not appropriate to do an analysis with the fll shear and moment directly below the point
load or over the suppon. It is generally assumed, however, that it is appropriate ta do
analyses with fll shear a distance d or d, away fiom the point loads o r suppons. To
mode1 this the following mle was defined as shown in Figure 7-4 to define what parts of
the sectional loading is "active" for the deflection analysis.
 It is proposed that within a distance of d fkom a point load and d fiom a support,
there are other support mechanisms that mean the entire load is not supported in a
sectional mode. These other modes inciude direct strut action fiom the load as well as
clamping fiom the load itself and fiom the support. Recall that Response-2000 assumes
that there is no overail stress in the transverse direction. Clearly that is not true directly
under the load nor directly over the support.

Based on this assumption of other mechanisms supporting the shear, the active
shear force diagram has been "clipped" over a distance d as shown in Fig 7-4.
I
A
8
C
Beam Loading ri 4 I r B LI t rI

Total Shear Force

Total Bending Moment

Active Shear Force

Active Bending Moment

Figure 7 - 4: Active shear zones for defection calculation

Note that this is only safe if the "other mechanisms o f support" are indeed able to
resist the load. For simple beams with point loads or uniform loads, this is a good
assumption. It is consistent with the method used to calculate the experimental
verification for Response-2000 in Chapter 10, for example. In the event, however, the
load is supported in a peculiar way, Say with the beam hanging fiom the top flange rather
than sitting on a supports, this may not be a safe assumption.
 Refemng to Fig. 7-4, Response-2000 does the anaiysis for half of the beam, fiom
A to B. For both the point load and the uniform loading, the familiar shear diagrams are
trimmed for a distance d fiom the ends.

In the event that it is desired not to trim the active shear diagrams, Response-2000
can be told t o do so. Selecting the left side support (location A) as a "hanging support"
results in the piece not being clipped fiom the diagram on the left. If the right side
support (location B) is changed to be a "hanging l o a d , the right side will not be clipped.

In the event that the regions where the shear is clipped interfere with each other,
that is, that the beam is less than 2 d long, Response-2000 assumes that the sectional
force demand is equal to the lower region that is still shaded. As this region does not
reach up to the top of the shear diagram, it is predicted that beams shorter than 2 d will
have increasing strengths. This is shown in an example in Chapter 10.

7-8 Column Ends

For analyses of columns, an additional effect is supported, that of yield
penetration into the loading block at the bottom of the column. This can increase the
measured deflection of a column and be important in cases such as evaluation of seismic
performance by means of a push-over analysis.

To directly support yield penetration, Response-2000 allows selection of a

column end for the specimen being analysed with the additional calculation of this yield
penetration. It is included by superimposing an additional curvature for a length near the
end of the beam or column. The length of this tlexural element, D+,is calculated as:

Where: 0.022 is user adjustable

a, =maximum steel stress in cross section
db = bar size associated with that maximum stress case
The additional curvature for this extra element is calculateci as follows:

Where: E = strain in highest loaded bar

dist = distance fiom highest stresseci bar to compression face of
column.
Chapter 8: Experimental Verification of Membrane-2000
Membrane-2000 is a program for the analysis of reinforced concrete membranes
subjected to in-plane shear forces and axial loads. As the Modified Compression Field
Theory (MCFT)is based directly on experiments such as these, demonstrating that the
program predicts expenments well will also demonstrate that the MCFT works. Given
that al1 four programs in this thesis are based on the MCFT,this is a usefiil thing to note.

8-1 Tests Compare to 1987 MCFT

The MCFT was fiilly defined in its current form in 1987. The experiments
selected to corroborate both the MCFT and the program Membrane-2000 will al1 be tests
performed after 1987. As such, they will be as close to "predictions" as one can get in
that the theory used to make the calculations is older than the tests themselves. The tests
will be selected from tests performed at the University of Houston over the past 10 years.
For cornparison, the two theohes from the University of Houston empirically derived
fiom these tests will also be shown.

In the cornparison graphs, the thick solid line represents the MCFT,the thin solid
line represents the Rotating Angle-Softened Tmss modell', and the thin dashed line
represents the Fixed angle-Softened Tmss ~ o d e l l ' . If only one thin line is visible, then
the fixed and rotating angle models predict the same result. Al1 calculations were
performed with Membrane-2000.

Membrane-2000 was set in the 1987 base-MCFT mode as s h o w in Fig. 3-1 in

Chapter 3. This means that the parabolic stress-strain curve was used for concrete dong
with the base MCFT tension stiffening equation.

For each graph, the horizontal axis is shear strain in parts per thousand, and the
vertical axis is shear stress in MPa.
8- 1- 1 Tests of Pang and H S U ~ O
These tests involved normal strength concrete subjected to pure shear. The A-
senes contained qua1 reinforcing ievels in X and Y directions and the B ~ n e contained
s
different levels in X and Y. Specimen A l is not included due to an edge failure.

O 5 10 15 20 O 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 8-1 (a to 0: Cornparison of predictions of shear panels

X-Axis: S h u r strain (x lo4) Y-Axis: Shear stress (MPa)
Thick line: MCFT-1987 predictions
Thin solid line: RA-STM 1998 predictions, thin dashed line: FA-STM 1997
Figure 8-1 (continucd, g-i) Cornparison of predictions of shear panels
X-Axis: Shcar strain (x IO-') Y - b i s : Shcar stress (M'a)
Thick line: MCF-1987 predictions
Thin solid line: RA-STM 1998 predictions, thin dashed line: FA-STM 1997
8- 1-2 Tests of Zhang and H S U ~ '
These tests were similar to the tests above but used 100 MPa concrete.

Figure 8-2 (a to 9:Cornpanson o f predictions of shear panels

X-Axis: S h u r strain (s 1 0 ~ ) Y-Ais: Shcar stress (M'Pa)
Thick line: MCFT-1987 predictions
Thin solid linc: RA-STM 1998 prcdictions, thin dashed line: FA-STM 1997
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O 10 20 30 40

Figure 8-2 (continucd h to i): Cornparison of predictions of shear panels

X-Ais: Shear s t n i n (x 1 0 ~ ) Y-Axis: Shear stress (MPa)
Thick linc: MCF-1987 predictions
Thin solid line: RA-STM 1998 predictions, thin dashed line: FA-STM 1997

Note the tendency for the very high strength concrete elements to be slightly over-
predicted by the MCFT. This is due to the compression soflening relationship and is the
source of the suggestion to use the ~orasz*'relationship for high strength concrete as
listed in Chapter 5.

In general, al1 three methods do a good job in predicting the behaviour of

reinforced concrete subjected to in-plane shear. It is, perhaps, surprising that the two
Houston models do not do better, given that they were derived based on this data set. It is
satisfjing that the MCFT does a good job predicting behaviour of experiments conducted
at another University, tested by different researchers on a different testing fiame.
&2 Tests Compared to Proposed Constitutive Models
Membrane-2000 operates by default using the constitutive relations suggested in
Chapter 5. The following plots compare how the same elements as above compare to the
constitutive relation changes proposed in Chapter 5. By camparing the graphs for the
1987 MCFT to the new changes, it can be seen that the changes to the predictions are
small for membrane elements. The only real differences are that the new predictions
have a better fit to the tension stiffening part of the curve and a better estimate of post-
peak ductility for the high strength concrete specimens.

8-2-1 Tests of Pang and HSU~'

6 T

Figure 8-3(a to d): Cornparison of predictions of shear panels

X-Axis: Shur strain (x loJ) Y-Asis: Shear stress (MPa)
Thick line: MCET-1987 prcdictions
Thin solid tint: RA-STM1998 predictions, thin dashed linc: FA-STM 1997
Figure 8-3 (e to i): Comparison of predictions of shear panels
X-Axis: Shear strain (x lo4) Y-Axis: Shear stress v a )
Thick line: MCFT-1987 predictions
Thin solid line: RA-STM 1998 predictions, thin dashed line: FA-STM 1997
8-2-2 Tests of Zhang and H S U ~ '

Figure 8-4 (a to f): Cornparison of predictions of s h u r panels

X-Axis: S h u r strain (x loJ) Y-Axis:Shear stress (MPa)
Thick linc: MCFT-1987 predictions
Thin solid linc: RA-STM 1998 predictions, thin dashed line: FA-STM 1997
Figure 8-4 (g to i): Cornparison of predictions of shear panels
X-Axis: Shear strain (x 1 0 ~ ) Y-Aris: Shear stress (MPa)
Thick line: MCFT-1987 predictions
Thin solid lint: RA-STM 1998 predictions, thin dashed line: FA-STM 1997
Chapter 9: Experimental Program

9-1 General
As the work for this thesis was comrnencing, a number of shear tests on large
lightly reinforced concrete beams were being performed. They were suggesting that the
use of very high strength concrete 0 9 0 m a ) was not attaining the expected strength
increase over normal strength concrete, but instead, was providing a strength decrease "
40
. The crack faces were observed to be relatively smooth with cracks going straight
through aggregate rather than around the aggregate as with weaker concretes. This
apparent reduction in aggregate interlock called into question some of the assumptions
that had been made regularly in the analysis of high strength concrete. A small test
program using the shell eiement tester was developed for this thesis to answer some of
these questions. Another series of tests were also commenceci to attempt to find what
range of concrete strengths had this efTectm.

The Modified Compression Field Theory assumes that the majority of the t e n d e
straining in the concrete will effectively happen at a series of parallel cracks at an angle
theta. Compression is transferred parallel to this in the uncracked concrete between the
cracks. In elements reinforced with different arnounts of reinforcement in the X and Y
directions, the angle of cracks is found to rotate during the test as the weaker direction of
steel strains at a different rate than the strong direction. This means that the concrete
strut carrying the compression parallel to the current crack direction may in f a a have
cracks in it fiom previous loading. These earlier cracks would be at an angle to the
compression and would be subjected to shear stresses on the crack face that would be
resisted by aggregate interlock. Traditionally it was assumed that these earlier cracks
would be relatively small, and thus able to resist the applied compression. The question
was whether very high strength concrete specimens were able to achieve enough
resistance to cany sufficient compression. Earlier tests by hid de" on lightweight
concrete, which also tends to crack through the aggregate, found that the assumptions
about aggregate interlock were reasonable, but those tests had only about 1-2 MPa of
compression. Higher levels of compression would presumably be more critical and
potentially shed light on the unexpected beam test results.

To answer this question, two &Il-scale shell elements were designed and
constructed. Both were geometrically identical, but the fim used normal strength (34
MPa) concrete, and the second used very high strength (1 10 MPa) mncrete. Differences
between the behaviour of these two elements would provide information about the effcts
of using very high strength concrete.

The goal was to m t e the elements as sensitive as possible to the effcts that were
causing concem. As a result, the element thickness was large and wntaine
reinforcement with relatively poor crack control characteristics. Previous shell elements
had a cover of 10 mm, while these elements had 70 mm clear cover. The in-plane
spacing of the bars was kept at a reasonable spacing to ensure that the elements would act
in a uniform way across the test region. The reinforcement levels were seiected as
1.758% in the strong direction and 0.400% in the weak direction. This level of
reinforcement was selected to ensure that if the element achieved biaxial yield of both
directions of reinforcement, as expected, it would be subjected to signifiant
compression. Loading was applied in tension horizontally with the strong direction of
reinforcement angled at 32 degrees to this direction. This combination was selected to
achieve the brittle loading in the test region of biaxial tension and shear. The loading and
the reinforcement direction were predicted to induce large rotation of crack angles during
the tes&yet still maintain large principal compression. The normal strength element was
tested at an age of four months, but the high strength concrete specimen was tested at an
age of almost three years. This delayed testing had the desirable nsult of maximising
any shrinkage and dryng effects.

Overall, these two elements were unusual in that they were amongst the largest
elements tested in the shell element tester, with the highest strength, largest cover, largest
age, and were the first elements tested with reinforcement at this angle.
 The details o f the specirnen geometry are shown in Table 9-1. Table 9-2 shows
the material properties. Figure 9-2 shows the stress-main characteristics of the
reinforcement. Figure 9-3 shows the reinforcing grid on the North side of the element,
looking north (Le. looking through the element). Table 9-3 defines the instrumentation
and loading of the element. Appendix B contains detailed Zurich surface strains and
photographs of the elements.

9-2 Testing Apparatus

The tests were perfonned in the University of Toronto shell element teste? This
facility, completed in 1984, has seen over 100 tests of large reinforced concrete
specimens tested in in-plane shear, outof-plane shear, punching shear, and flexure
amongst others. Figure 9-1 shows the Shell Element tester with a square concrete
specimen in the middle.

- 1176 -307
!- 3217 -1848 - 307 -1530- -1530 -
2
FRONT ELEVATION SlDE ELEVATION

-
Figure 9 1:The University of Toronto Shell Element Tester
Table 9-1 Specimen Geometry
Geometry : Square sheU element 1626x1626 mm.
Thickness: 398 mm
Clear concrete cover: 65 mm at connecter blocks
70-80 mm at centre of specimen (due to tying of bars)

Reiaforcement skewed 32.2 degrees h m the horizontal. X direction closer to

Horizontal, Y direction closer to vertical

X-Direction steel
No. SOM @ 86 mm both sides 1.758 %
Y-Directionsteel
No. 10M @ 126 mm both sides 0.400 %
2-Directio~steel
- +
4 6 mm bars for instrumentation -0.00 %

10M bars placed on outer side of specimen both sides for bad crack control
6 mm 4 bars hooked around 20M bars for good bond

Table 9-2 Material Properties

ConcreteHS1:cast: May19,1996 tested: Sept 12-13, 1996
c 34.2 MPa (1 16 &YS) zc7 2.00 mm/m
Concrete HS2: cast: July 5, 1996 tested June 23-24, 1999
c' 1 10 MPa (>1000 days) &c7 d m
Steel See Figure 9-2 below

2OM: This steel had a well-defined yield plateau up to a strain of 7.5 m d m

fy 473 MPa E 196,000 MPa
fu 667 MPa

IOM This steel has a roughly bi-linear behaviour

fy 458 MPa ( @ 0.2 % offset )
E 198,000 MPa 5,500 MPa ( 6 4 0 mm/m)
fu 692 MPa h 200 mm/m
+
6 mm bars: lgnored for analysis purposes as it could add oniy the equivaient of
0.02 MPa stress to the concrete section.
 O. 1
Strain ( d m )

-
Figure 9 2: Stress-strain properties of reinforcement

r t 1 BAR LIST
No. 20M

275 1 4
110 4
BAR LIST
No. 10M
I LENGm(mn) I NIMBER 1

Figure 9 - 3: North Iayer OC reinforcement

Table 9-3 Instxumentation and Loading
Instrumentation: 24 straix~gauges: 4 on 20M bars each side
4 on 10M bars each side
8 on 6 mm 9 bars total

12 LVDTs 2 vertical, 2 horizontal and 2 diagonal, each side

Zurich Targets 300 x 300 mm grid each side

Hydraulic Pressure 2 lines on input pressure, and return pressure

Loading:
Specimen was connectai to loading yokes on al1 4 sides, though top and bottom yokes
not comected to jacks. 6 igid Links us& 3 in-plane (2 at botiom, 1 at East side), and 3 out of
plane (2 at top, 1 bottom centre). M n g in axial tension in horizontal direction.

Shear
F, = 0.716 Fh
Fy = 0.284 Fh
Axial
Fh v = 0.450 Fh

Mohr's circle of (constant) loading ratios

9-3 General Observations: HS1
The two elements acted very similarly. Each set of new cracks that formed was at
an angle different than the previous set of cracks. Figure 9-4 shows HSl at an early
phase in loading as well as at the last load stage when concrete was spalling off the
surface. Initial cracking in the top photo is seen as about vertical in response to the
horizontally applied load. Later cracks formed at an increasingly rotated angle, with the
failure cracks forming 25-35 degrees away fiom vertical. The cracks rotated towards the
strong direction of reinforcement. Final crack widths were 5-15 mm with substantial slip
along their lengths although this was not measured with this element. Looking closely,
the original vertical cracks, later re-marked with a dashed line, can be seen on the second
photo. These early cracks do not appear to have controlled the failure of the element.

For this element, the failure was relatively ductile with ultimate failure being
controlled by rupture of a number of the 1OM bars and spalling of the cover. Table 9-4
describes individual test observations during the test, and Figure 9-5 shows the horizontal
deflection versus horizontal stress for the element. Table 9-5 summarises the
measurements made during the test.
 -
Figure 9 4: Element HS1 mon aitcr cracking and just b e f o n failun
Table 9-4: Observations During Testing of HSl
Loading: Initiaily loaded up to 1 MPa tension, unloaded and then reloaded to "work outw
initial strains
L a d Stage 1 : 1 Crack on South side, 0.15 mm wide. No cracks on North side.

Loading: 2 audible swnds as specimen cracks over height, take a load stage
Load Stage 2: 3 cracks on N side, 3 cracks on S side.
Mark cracks in Black, miss one on Bottom South East corner.

Ming: Another audible crack, with large deflection. Take load sbge immediately
Load Stage 3 : Mark new cracks in black. Re-mark original cracks with red dotted line.
Many new cracks at a rotated angle. Large region uncracked on east side

Ming: Pause during tesbng to observe cracks, tben continue (LS 3B)
Laad Stage 4: Many new cracks, lower angle tban before, some ia order of 30-33 degrees fiom
vertical. Stop for the &y, take load down to 0.2 MPa
Mark new cracks in green.

Overnight: Load is lost overnight. Upon reloading, there is no sign of trouble

Loading: Smooth increase in load. Reduced stiffness. Noises again, load stage.
LVDTs SD 1 and ND 1 saturate. Must partly estirnate strains fiom here.
Load Stage 5 : Last load stage: Zurich Gauge cannot be used as cracks too big. Mark cracks in
blue, measure large ones witb tape measure. Specirnen rnaking quiet crackling
-
sounds. It was creeping extensively 15 mm horizontally during load stage.
Reset LVDTs to allow more measure of deflection. During crack marking, 10M
bar ruptures fiom top east side of specimen. More load taken off for s a f i .
Loading: Carnot recover the load, specimen defonns highly at lower load. 3 more bars
rupture. L o d removed due to concems about jack travel

Mer: Specimen still in one piece.

~ & c edelarninated over rnaioritv of surfce

-
Figure 9 5: Loading of HS1
0.00
o.m
4.01
4.m
4.m
4.01
4.m
4.m
oa?
4.01
4.01
0.00
0.m
0.01

0.m
0.01
0.a
o.m
O.m

0.03
0.05
0.-
0.07
0.-

0.-
0.11
0.1 1
0.12
0.13

0.14
0.15
0.16
0.10
0.0

0.1)
02s
ors
011
o s

O24
0.a
O31
O20
030

0.18
0.1)
O20
Ozl
oz2

02
023
O24
024
024

025
011
al,
0 3
0.40

0.0
0.61
0.64
0.87
0.71

0.75
o.n
0.0
0.82
0.0

0.78
1.m
0.77
0.n
0.7s
9-4 General Observations: HS2
Element HS2 acted similarly to HS 1. Figure 9-6 shows photos of the element
soon &er cracking and near failure. Due to the higher strength concrete, the stress at
first cracking was higher. The initial cracks in HS 1 were 0.15 mm in width. For HS2, the
initial cracks were 0.35 mm wide. The extent of cracking at failure was similar. Crack
slips were measured for this element and found to be about the same as the width of the
cracks. That is, a 7 mm crack was found to have slipped about 7 mm in the direction of
the crack. Table 9-6 lists observations made during the testing, and Table 9-7
summarises the measurements made during the test.

Table 9-6:Observations During Testing of HS2

Loading: Initially I d up to 1 MPa to work out system then unload
Reload mtil first cracking
Laid Stage 1 Mark cracks with thin black lines
Initial cracks up to 0.35 mm wide
2 cracks south side, 1 crack north side
150 mm triangles in each corner delaminated both sides
Cracks primarily outside LVDT's, so not totally picked up

Loading: New cracks form

Load Stage 2 many new wide cracks. Element cracks again during Zurich Readings
Delamination same as load stage 1.
New cracks have some slip, about 0.4 mm slip on a 0.4 mm wide crack
Cracks rnarked in thin green
Loading: New cracks forrn
Load Stage 3 Some new cracks. Sorne follow angle of reinforcement
No change in delamination

Unloading: unload element ovemight

Pressure slowly lost overnight, but element not &ma@
Load ing : reload to load level of previous Mght
Load Stage 4 New Zurich Load stage after restoring load to previous night level
No new cracks, so no photos taken

Loading: 3 new cracks on south tace

Load Stage 5 New cracks marked in black
Old green cracks slipping roughl y as much as they are wide
Black cracks slipping tm.
Delamination mostly around sides, but srnall location in centre tm, S side.
Loading: existing cracks extend
Load Stage 6 lots o f slip on cracks. Generally 2/3 of crack width.
Black cracks 2.5 mm wide with 2.0 mm slip
Majority of cover now delamhae4

Ming: New cracks form

Load Stage 7 mark new cracks
Black cracks 7 mm wide with 5 mm slip.

Ming: Element unable to restore load.

Three pauses to reset the LVDT's to prevent satudon.
Bars begin to rupture. Over 5 ruptured.
Test terminated due to bars mpturing.

After: Specimen still in one piece-

surface delaminad over majority of surfce, tough no spalling.

Rupture of many
bars 1

O 5 1O 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Horizontal Stmin (nnJm)

-
Figure 9 6: Loading of HS2
 -
Figure 9 7: Elcmcnt ES2 soon rfter cracking and just before failure
Table 9-7 Element Summary: HS2

105 0%
127 1.02
151 138

1% 2t3
a9 29
232 267
250 r#r
a3 3.01

269 zm
Xl 240
312 2Q
325 2-44
Mo 2.25

U6 1.49
351 la
se 0.U
4w Off
417 030

42s O17
434 0.18
46 1 4.0s
470 4.17
476 422

482 424
522 42s
566 4s
560 426
605 425

633 435
661 434
8.37 423
sa1 4-15
919 4.0s

SU 0.01
95 1 0.01
972 0.07
94( 0.11
1023 0.1s

llnl 0.10
1086 020
1100 0.19
f 165 0.02
1179 0.10

1192 0.14
1214 0.12
1234 4.01
in1 5.12
ln9 0.01

1759 0.03
lm 0.a
1781 0.00
176 0.06
1787 0.03

1828 4.10
lm2 5.10
:FM5 0.42
1912 417
19% 4.26

1947 4.13
l m 4.61
1977
1sw 432
l
W 4.44

1%7 4.67
1
w 4.
1991 4.63
1 993 -0.46
4.14
osi 2.m O 40
9-5 Cornparison of behaviour and predictions: AS1
The following plots show the behaviour of the element. Figure 9-8 shows the
shear-shear strain plot for the element. Also plotted is the prediction fkom the MCFT and
the Rotating Angle Softened Tmss model. It can be seen in this figure and the three that
follow that the MCFT prediction for this normal strength concrete is good, though it
overestimates the stress levels over a large part of the test. The failure load was well
predicted. The RA-STM prediction is relatively poor in cornparison for both strength and
ductility

25 1 MCFT-1987 Prediction

10 20 30
Shear Strain ( M m )

- -
Figure 9 8: HSI Shear stress shear strain

Figure 9-9 shows the principal stress and strain angle along with the predicted
angle theta fiom the MCFT. Note that the angle of stress and strain are not equal, though
assumed so by the MCFT. The calculated angle is a reasonable approximation of both,
however.
 Predicted Angle (MCFT)

Anale of
N Principal Strain

r y i aor
Principal Stress

-
Figure 9 9: HS1 Angles

Figure 9-10 shows the principal tensile stress-strain relationship obseved with the
predicted retationship. The fit is quite good considering that tension measurements are

-
Figure 9 10: HS1 Tension stiffening
small differences between large numbers and hence tend to have high scatter. The
measured values d o not extend d o m to zero with higher arain suggesting that some
other mechanism was arengthening the panel, such as kinking of the reinforcement at a
crack. The loop where the curve goes negative was during the overnight unloading of the
panel.

Figure 9-1 1 shows the measured compressive stress-main relationship and the
predicted values. The results, again, are good. Note that the observed stresses and strains
were drarnatically lower than the shown cylinder curve. The concrete failed at a stress of
only 20 % o f the cylinder strength. The maximum compressive strain observed was
about twice the strain at peak stress for the cylinder.

Principalcompressive stnin (mmtm)

-
Figure 9 11: HS1 Compressive response
9-6 Cornparison of behaviour and Predictions: HS2

Figure 9-12 shows the shear stress-shear strain plot for the element. Also plotted
is the prediction fiom the MCFT and the Rotating Angle Softened Tmss model. Recall
that this element was made of very high strength concrete and was tested partly to
determine if the MCFT is unconservative for such elements. It is seen that the basic
predictions are indeed unconservative for this element. The strength is substantially
overpredicted, as is the ductility. The prediction here was made with the Porasz/Collins
concrete model, as recommended for very high strength concrete in chapter 5, yet was
still unconservative. Note that despite being calibrateci partly on large high strength
elements, the RA-STM also does a poor job and is almost equally unconservative as the
MCFT for this element.

MCFT Predicb'on

1 t

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Shear Strain (mmlm)

-
Figure 9 12: HS2 Shear stress-shear strain

Figure 9-13 shows the principal angles. The MCFT prediction of the angle is not
as good as it was for HS 1. The angles of principal stress and strain are similar in the
tests, as before, but the predicted angle is 10-20 degrees away fiom that.
 MCFT Predicb'on

Angle of
Principal Stress

15 25 35 45 55 65
Angle (deg)

-
Figure 9 13: HS2 Angles

Figure 9-14 shows the observed tensile stress-strain response fiom the test. As
with HS 1, the prediction is quite good. Note that the MCFT assumption of zero tension
stiffening aAer yield of the steel is well supponed by the data

Ercperimental C m

MCFT Predicbsd CUM

70

-
Figure 9 14: HS2 Tension stiffening
 Figure 9-15 shows the observed compressive stress-strain curve for test HS2. The
data shows virtually no strain development on loading as a number of major cracks
intersected only some of the LVDTs used to calculate the strains. The maximum stress
observed is basically the same as for the rnuch weaker wncrete of HS 1. Note that more
stress was observed in the concrete than predicted, but the result was still unwnservative
as the angles were poorly modelled.

tu
b
3
cn
g
3i
O
>

cn
e
-lu

Principal Compressive Strain (mmim)

Figure 9 - 15: HS2 Compressive rcsponse

9-7 Cornparison of HS1 and HS2
Figure 9-16 compares the experimental behaviour of the two elements. Despite
HS2 having about three times the concrete strength, it was actually slightly weaker than
HS 1. The ductility and stifhess characteristics were very similar between the two
elements. The only signifcant difference was that the higher strength panel cracked at a
higher stress.

O 10 20 30 40 50 60
Shear Strain (mmlm)

-
Figure 9 16: HSl and HS2 shear-shear strain

On examination of the predictions, with Membrane-2000, it appeared that the

unconservative predictions of HS2 were strongly influenced by the assumption that the
reinforcing bars could strain harden on average. While they certainly did strain harden at
a crack, based on the strain, the analysis also assumed that the bars would strain harden in
the concrete between the cracks. Figure 9-17 shows the experimental data for HS2
compared to the prediction above as well as a prediction if the bars are assumed to be
unable to achieve a stress in excess of the yield stress. It can be seen that the prediction is
no longer unconservative. As no strain hardening is the usual assumption for design
purposes, the results of this experiment apparently do not bnng into question the safety of
structures designed with the MCFT. On the other hand, stress-strain curve for the 10M
bars in the specimen did not have a yield plateau, so assurning a constant stress of yield
seems poor. Flirther research is needed to quanti@ the effects of strain hardening branch
of the reinforcement on element predictions.

hardening

without stmin
hardering

O 20 40 60 80
Shear Strain (mmlm)

-
Figure 9 17: HS2 Predictions without strain hardening
Chapter 10: Experimental Verification of Response-2000
As a beam~columnsectional analysis program that includes shear, Response-2000
will be illustrateci using selected experimental results for beams and columns tested in
shear over the past 40 years. Chapter 12 provides additional information on how to
perform such shear analyses with Response-2000.

The first part of this chapter demonstrates the value of the proposed changes in
tension stiffening relationships as explained in Chapter 5.

The second section shows Response-2000 compared to individual test series.

These series were selected to demonstrate that Response-2000 can successfiilly predict a
number of important behavioural trends associated with the shear behaviour of reinforced
concrete. Where appropriate, the predictions of code methods are shown as well.

The third part of this chapter shows Response-2000 compared to a large database
of 534 beams. There have been over 10,000 shear tests reported in the literature over the
past 100 years. When databases that aggregate al1 this data, as are currently being
prepared, are available, the program can be compared to more tests. Tests were
originally selected for this data set simply in terms of what was available at hand. None
of these tests were discarded if the prograin predicted them poorly . Later, a more
systernatic procedure was chosen to select additional elements by examining what
regions of input parameters were missing fiom the existing database. There is a strong
bias in the selected data towards larger members. Before about 1965, beams tested in
shear were generally about 12 inches deep and 10 feet long. This was based on storage
restrictions, loading restrictions and tradition. Since that time, it has been found that
larger beams tend to fail at a lower shear stress than geometrically similar smaller beams.
As these larger beams tend to be less conservatively predicted, they were preferentially
selected. The average beam depth in the database is only 500 mm, however, as there are
a number of important tests that were included fkom the older database.

Appendix C gives some details of the 534 beams in the database.

10-1 Effeets of tension stiffening changes
Changes to the tension stiffening relationships used in the Modified Compression
Field Theory for use in the programs in this thesis were proposed in Chapter 5. This
short section demonstrates the e f f k t of these changes on a series of 64 beams. The
selected beams are a subset of the full database in Appendix C and are identified there.
They were selected because they include a wide range in depth and were generally lightly
reinforced Iongitudinally. They al1 have no transverse reinforcement and are constnicted
with normal strength concrete. By selecting a subsa of the database, the remaining
experiments couid then be used to verify that any calibration was appropriate.

Figure 10-1 shows the experimental over predicted s h w strength for these beams
if the traditional tension stiffening relationship of the MCFT, as shown in the figure, is
used. The horizontal axis has been selected as overall beam depth because this was found

O 500 1 000 1500 2000 2500 3000

eam b p i (mm)

-
Figure 10 1: ExperimtntaVPrtdictcd, Base MCF

to have the strongest correlation with the data. It cm be seen that there is a strong
correlation with larger members being predicted poorly.
 Figure 10-2 shows the same set o f data as predicted by Response-2000 using the
tension stiffening relationships fiom Chapter 5 . It can be seen that the prediction is much
better.

d
?
O
t
cn
f
Ca
1-2
h&-l 1,.

+
3---- +
T V - - - - -
e
0
8
0.8 - a
9
lf 0.4
-
- Tension stiffening
-E 0.2 - described in Equation 5 9 , Chapter 5
x
W
O , I 1

-
Figure 10 2: Experimentanredicted, Response-2000

The remainder of this chapter shows the predictions of Response-2000 with the
newer tension stiffening relations as proposed in Chapter 5 .
 10-2 Arbesrnan and Conti: Prediction of sectional response
Perhaps the most important beam test in the development of the Compression
Field Theory was Bearn CF1 (Compression Field 1 ) tested by Arbesrnan and in

hollow box girder beam, heavily insuumented. It was loaded in such a way that the test
region was subjected to negative moment near the person in the photograph and positive
moment just to the right by the dia1 gauge. There was a point of zero moment in the
rniddle of the test region. Failure of the beam was by flexural yielding at the positive
moment location and crushing of the web of the box girder (shear failure) near the
location of zero moment.

The bearn was entered into Response-2000 as an 1-beam section. Figure 10-3
shows the predicted and experimental moment-curvature results at a location below the
point load. The experimental curvature was detennined from measured longitudinal
strains of the top and bottom steel. The analysis was performed without shear (Le. a
flexural analysis.) The results obtained are remarkably go&. Unfominately, this
extremely high level of precision is only ofcasionally attained with Response-2000, or
with any other analysis procedure for reinforced concrete.

-
Figure 10 3: Moment-curvature of CF1

Figure 10-4 shows the shear force versus shear strain for CF1 in the middle of the
test region where the moment was equal to zero. The shear strain was measured by
taking the difference in strains of two diagonals at 45O to the horizontal. The very good

-
Figure 10 4: Shur-shur strain CF1
agreement between theory and experiment shown in the figure is more representative of
what can be expected for Response-2000.

While Response-2000 always calculates the full load-deformation relationship for

a section, sometimes it is the strength that is of primary interest. The following examples
show the influence of a senes of input variables on the predictions of strength fiom
Response-2000.

10-3 Taylor: Effwt of aggregate size

TSOPplayed an important role in the investigation of the mechanisms of shear

response. One of his series of tests examined size effect and the influence of aggregate
size. Fifieen beams were tested varying in depth fiom 150 mm to 1 metre and
constructed with 22 to 34 MPa concrete. Figure 10-5 demonstrates that the equation
used for the maximum shear on the crack, which controls failure for beams like these
without st imps, models the effects of aggregate size appropnately.

Maxinum aggregate size (mn)

-
Figure 10 5: Effect o f aggregrte sizt
 10-4 Shioya et al: Size effect in shear

In what is surely the most impressive series of shear tests yet performed. a large-
scde test program in ~ a ~ a n ' 'tested
. ~ ~ beams thnt varied in depth from 1 0 0 mm (4 inches)
up co 3000 mm ( 10 feet). The largest of these bearns was 36 m ( 120 feet) long. weighed
almost 300 tonnes and contained 1O times the volume of concrete of a standard bearn
shear test. The testing of the largest of these beams is shown below.

This largest b a r n was tested upside-down against a specially built prestressed

concrete support beam. Loading was uniformly applied on the bottom of the beam by the
filling of a water bag, lifting the beam against its own self weight and the resuaints at the
end of the beam. The beam contained 0.4% of longitudinal reinforcement which, though
a small percentage, still represented 6000 kg of reinforcing in the one bearn. There was
no transverse reinforcement in any of the beams in the senes.

These tests mode1 a foundation style structure. Such structures generally have light
amounts of longitudinal reinforcement and no transverse reinforcement. It might be
felt that a structure 3 metres deep is unrepresentative of real construction practice. This is
not the case however. Many multi-storey buildings contain bearns that are more than 1
metre deep, ofien transfer girders above the first floor of a building. A typical industnal
building near Toronto contains 2 metre deep girden supporting process equipment
weighing thousands of kilonewtons. In portions of the Toronto subway system tunnels,
one-way slabs are 3 metres thick without transverse reinforcement. Similar 3 metre deep
tunnel-roof slabs exist in Japan over sub-surfacehighways, where the prevalence of
earthquakes adds a level of concem. The Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia,
currently the tallest buildings in the world, are built on 2-way slabs that are 4.5 metres
deep of solid concrete. Finally, in Japan there are 100 m diameter underground liquid
natural gas storage facilities that contain slabs at their base designed against groundwater
pressure. These base slabs are up to 8 metres (25 feet) thick of solid concrete without
transverse reidorcement. Each of these examples is already built in the field, sometimes
using design codes that do not deal with the size effect in shear.

Figure 10-6 shows the predictions of Response-2000 to the test series that

-
Figure 10 6: Shioya et al size effect
included the 3 metre deep beam above. The trend is remarkably well predicted by the
program.

The ACI code assumes that members without stirrups can resist a stress of
0.167,c (h.IPa units, 2& psi units) prior to failure. This was based upon laboratory
testing which primarily used beams about 300 mrn deep. Note that the value of 0.167 is
reasonable value for elements of that depth based on the graph above. On the other hand,
the largest of the beams failed at about 45 % of this value. This is an unsafe situation.

Response-2000 is also able to predict the total load deflection response for
prismatic beams. The calculated response for the largest of the Japanese beams is shown
compared to the measured response in Fig 10-7. It can be seen that excellent agnement
was obtained.

0 1 I 1 T I

0 20 40 60 80 100 t 20
Midspan Dtfbctiorr (mm)

-
Figure 10 7: Load deflection, 3000 mm deep beam

The following figure shows t h e observed crack pattern observed by the Japanese
researchers as well as the deflection prediction page from Response-2000. The predicted
crack pattern is shown for half the beam and is reasonably accurate. The distribution of
cuwature and shear strains shows the strong interaction which occurs in this beam
between shear and moment. For exarnple, it might be expected that the highest shear
strain would occur at the end of the beam where the shear is highest but this is not the
case. Rather, it occurs in a region fiom about 1/6* of the span to 113" of the span where
both the shear and moment have high values.

Cunatun Disbution Sheu Strdri Distrlbutfon

Lengrh aiong -ber (mm) Mammum Ocnection (mm)

10-5 Kani: Effect of a/d ratio
ICaniU**'naned shear research at the University of Toronto in the late 1950's.
Over a period of 10 years, he tested approximately 800 beams in shear in an attempt to
solve "the riddle of the shear failure."

Out of this extensive selection of data, a single series is shown here. These tests
show the effect of shear span to depth ratio (dd ratio) on the shear strength of 6 10 mm
deep beams with 2.8 % longitudinal reinforcement and normal strength concrete.
Response-2000 predicts the data very well for beams with an d d ratio greater than 2.5.
Beams shorter than that are aff'ed by direct stnit action supporting the load. The
dashed Iine shows the results of calculations done with a simple moment to shear ratio
style calculation as for the tests with an a/d greater than 2.5. This is seen to be very
conservative for these short beams. The method proposed in Chapter 7, shown by the
thicker line, does a much better job at predicting the shear capacity. This technique
calculates the strength, and deflection, from the moment-shear interaction diagram.

- Respons 0-2000 M-V

Interaction
- - - - - - - Response-2000 Mi
raoo

-
Figure 10 8: Effect of a/d ratio
10-6 Moody, Viest, Elstner, Hopestad: Concrete strength: small beams
In an important senes of tests used to calibrate the benchmark 1963 AC1 code,
research4 was carried out on bearns without transverse reinforcement but with a large
amount of flexural reinforcement against different concrete strengths. Data like this was
the basis of the code expression of 2Jf;E (psi units) for the V, t e m in the wde as
mentioned above. The graph shows that Response-2000 is able to prdict this type of
behaviour well.

For simplicity, the authors of the AC1 code chose to select a lower Iirnit on the
then existing test data and use this to specify a safe level of loading for a structure. In the
figure, the AC1 code is seen to be conservative for these tests.

Concrete Strength (MPa)

-
Figure 10 9: Effcct of concrete strcngth on small heavily reinforccd beams
10-7 Angelakos: Concrete strength: Iarge lightly reinforced beams
o s ~ completed an experimental project at the University of
~ n ~ e l a k rec~ntly
Toronto that studied the variation in shear strengths of large lightly reinforced concrete
beams made with different strengths ofconcrete. Like the srna14 huvily reinforced
beams in Fig. 10-9, these bearns had no transverse reinforcement. The small beam tests
would suggest that the AC1 code shear strength equation should be conservative for the
beams up to at least 50 MPa.

The test results for the large lightly reinforced beams are shown in Fig. 10-10. Tt
was found that the AC1 code for these members is unconservative over the entire range of
concrete strengths. The beam with the highest concrete strength failed at a shear less than
half the predicted capacity of the AC1 code. Response-2000 can be seen to do a better
job of predicting these strengths, though it too becomes rather unconservative for the
higher concrete strengths. Further research is required to explain this discrepancy, with
work of ~ u ~ t a looking
*' promising.

O ! I I I 13001
T I T , I r 1 1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Concrete Striength (MPa)

-
Figure 10 10: Effect OC concretc strength on large barns without stimps
10-8 Adebar & Collins: Effect of axial tension
For members without stimps, the AC1 code suggests that the shear strength is
very sensitive to axial tension, reducing to zero for an axial t e n d e stress of 500 psi.
Figure 9- 10 compares the AC1 and Response-2000 predictions with the expenmental
results reported by Adebar and ~ o l l i n s ' ~It. can be seen that the AC1 predictions are very
conservative for members with high tensions.

Axial Tension (kN)

-
Figure 10 11: Effect OC axial tension
10-9 Khalifa: Transverse Reinforcement on round columns - - --

The examples presented so far were 6om rectangular beams or box bearns.
Khalifa4' tested round colurnns with a small axial compression in a specially designed
testing fiame. The primary variable of the study was the level of transverse
reinforcement. It cari be seen that the increase in shear strength from increasing
transverse reinforcement is predicted accurately.

Transverse Percentage of steel: &ffls (MPa)

Figure 10 - 12: Effect o f transverse reinforcement

10-10 MacGregor: Draped reinforcement in prestressed beams
~ a c ~ r e g o rdoctoral
's~ work reponed the testing of 87 prestressed beams with
about half faiiing in flexure, and half in shear. These beams are important as they formed
the basis of the web-shear cracking/flexure shear cracking provisions currently in the AC1
code for the shear strength of prestressed concrete beams. In 22 of these beams, the
prestressing strands were angled or draped for the outer third of the beam length on each
end. Figure 10-13 shows the predictions of Response-2000 compareci to the angle of
drape. It can be seen that the program is successfiil in dealing with draped strands in
prestressed 1-Beams. The results for these small beams show a fair scatter, however.

1.4 0
O
1.2 OwO O 00
O O
Bs O
-----
1
77------ 3-
gg
-g 'Po
&r 0.8
0.6
O
O O

-E 0.4
a
W 0.2
C

O I L i
O 2 4 6 8 10
Drape Angle (degrees)

- -
Figure 10 13: MacGregor Drape of Reinforcernent

Figure 10-14 shows the quality ofthe predictions of Response-2000 versus the
percentage of transverse reinforcement for the tests reported by MacGregor. It can be
seen that the predictions are go04 but for low levels of transverse steel, Response-2000
becomes more conservative. Recall that in Chapter 1 it was shown that prestressed
concrete beams may be more conservative than reinforced wncrete beams due to the
presence of transverse compression in the web of the beams. This is a possible
explanation for the somewhat wnservative nature of the predictions made for these tests.

Tnnsveme Percentage of Steel (Sb)

-
Figure 10 14: Macgrcgor, emect of transverse reinforcement
10-11 Benzoni, Priestley and Seible: Interloeking spiral column
A reIatively new type of bridge pier used in California involves the use of two

interlocking spiral hoops as shown below. This reinforcement configuration provides

efficient confinement for a column with a "rectanguIar" section. However. calculatng
the shear strength of such a column from, Say. 202
the AC1 shear equations is not a
straightforward task. To answer some of the
1 5 - #5
questions about the shear behaviour of these
columns, Benzoni, Priestley and Seible #2 @ 89 mn
conducted tests in 1995 at the University of
15-#5
California, San ~ i e ~ The
o ~results
~ . from one 1 #2 Q 89 m
of these tests, Inter-4, are shown here.
1 202 !

The cycIic loading for this column was as shown below left. Note that the axial
load in the column was different for the push and

Loading Configuration

-
H -

I i
/777/////.////////777777777/7/////rn
Vertical Load P:
P= 994 + 2.45 H (kN) when H pushes
-
P= 994 4.33 H (kN)when H pulls
pull cycle in the loading. A photo of the beam at failure is d s o shown above. It can be
seen that the failure involved longitudinal cnishing bands with no evidence of flexural
failure.

An analysis was carried out a distance d, 60m the bottom of the column with
Response-2000 including the effea of shear. The results of this are shown here:

Obsewe the predicted cause of failure fiom the Response-2000 analysis: local
cnishing of the web and high shear strains and high transverse strains just above the
location where the lower hoop ends. That is, about 75 mm up fiom the mid-height of the
section. In the bottom left of the 9 plots, the maximum allowable compression is
approaching the applied stress. At higher deformations, the concrete crushes and the load
reduces. While there is longitudinal yieIding, there is still plenty of flexural capacity in
the non-yielding bars. This local cnishing of the web is symptomatic of a longitudinat
shear failure. It can be seen in the photo of the failed specimen that the concrete failed by
crushing at about the same place as predicted by the analysis, over a substantial height of
the column.

The failure shear fiom the analysis is predicted to be

371 kN for the case of the horizontal load, Y pulling. An
analysis for flexure indicates that flexural failure at the ends
is less critical than a shear failure at a distance of d, fiom the
ends. As such, the column is predicted to fail in shear at a
load of 37 1 kN vs. the observed failure of 379 kN.

If a Response-2000 h l 1 member response is

performed, the crack patteni on the right is produced at the
predicted failure. Figure 10-15 shows the predicted load
deflection plot superimposed on the experimental hysteresis
loops. The variable axial load meant that the capacity of the
column in the "push" direction was stronger than in the
"pu1 l''direction. Despite the complex geornetry and unusual
loading, Response-2000 was able to provide a reasonable
estimate of strength, displacements and failure mode.

4501
Dbpimceiimt (mm)

-
Figure 10 15: Inter4 predicted load delection
151
10-12 Cornpanson to 534 Beams
The previous pages demonstrated the quality of predictions of Response-2000
against individual test series. The following pages demonstrate the quality of the
predictions against a database of 534 beams. This database includes rectangular beams
and columns, round colurnns, prestressed sections and 1bearns. Table 10-1 summarises
the tests and Appendix C lists al1 the data. The performance of Response-2000 is shown
below compared to different variables fiom this database.

1O- 12-1 Shear span to depth ratio (a/d ratio)

This ratio is a commonly used indicator of potential shear problems with Kani
warning that the "valley of shear failure" typically occurs for a/d values between about 2
and 5 . The data in the verification database had d d ratios falling between 2 and 8. The
larger values had higher longitudinal percentages of steel to ensure shear failures. Results
for beams with an a/d less than 2.0 (Le. deep beams) will generally be very conservative
due to direct strut action fiom the load point to the support. They have not been included
in the database,

-
Figure 10 16: ri/d ratio
10- 12-2 Beam depth
Figure 10-17 shows the results compared to the depth of the beam. It can b seen
that the size effect in shear is successf1ly accounted for.

O 500 Io00 1500 2000 2500 3000

Beam depth (mm)

-
Figure 10 17: Beam depth
Table 10-1 Summary of Response-2000 Experimental Verification

O b 1.3 MP.

Ot012MPi

Collins, veghS7 O to 0.83 MPa

~halifa~' O to 2.7 M P i
Aregarni'
Elnnaty, N i l m O b 4.8 MP.
and lat te^
Podgomiak- O to 0.35 MP.
~taniP
Shioya et aez* O

Yoon, Cook. O t o l MP.

Mitchel?
~n~ehkos~ O t 0 0 . s Mp.

Haddadin, Hong. O to 4.8 MP.

~attock~

Pasley, Gogoi,
Darwin
McCabem
Plaskas O to 0.77 MP.
Darwin"'
Ozcebe, E ~ a y O to 0.71 M P i
and Tankutw
Roller, usae el^ O to 8.1 M P I

Rangan bCongn 0.6 to 1.- MP.

7.41 to 154 MPa

Levi. ~ a r r o ~ 4.02 to 6.03 MPa

O to 2.0 M P i
 1O-12-3 Concrete strength
Conceni has been expressed about the accuracy of code equations for the shear
strength of members made fiom very high strength concrete. Figure 10-18 shows that
Response-2000 is able to account for concrete strengths well.

-
Figure 10 18: Concrete strength
10- 12-4 Longitudinal percentage of reuiforcement
Beams with a lower percentage of longitudinal reinforcement have been observeci
to fail at lower shear strengths. Figure 10-19 shows that Response-2000 is able to predict
such behaviour well.

O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Longitudinal Percentage of Reinforcement (*A)

-
Figure 10 19: Longitudinal Percentage o f Rcinforccment
10-12-5 Transverse percentage of reinforcement
Figure 10-20 shows the ability of Response-2000 to predict shear failures as a
hnction of how much transverse steel is provided.

Percentage of Tmnsvem Reinforcement

-
Figure 10 20: Transverse percentage of reinforcement
10-12-6 Shear strength
Figure 10-21 shows that Response-2000 is not biased towards stronger or weaker
specimens. Note that the horizontal axis in this case is logarithmic.

-
Figure 10 21: Shear strength
10- 12-7 Overall Predictions
Figure 10-22 shows the entire dataset compared as experimental shear vs.
predicted shear capacities. The average experirnental over predicted shear strength for
the data set is 1.05 with a coefficient of variation of 12.00/0. Figure 10-23 shows the
predictions of the AC1 code in a similar format. The AC1 code equations yield an
average of 1.20 with a coemcient of variation of 32.1%. Note that while there is a
signifiant scatter to the AC1 predictions, the predictions are al1 conservative for failure
shears less than 70 kN (15 kips). This is the general range of failure shear strengths for
small tests such as those shown in Fig. 10-9. It would appear that the extrapolation of
these results to larger, and hence stronger beams, is not well modelled by the code.

While Response-2000 compares very well to the code provisions for predicting
strength, it is important to redise that the results fiom Reponse-2000 have an important
difference over most code methods. The AC1 provisions, for example, were based on a
curve fit to a large data set. As such, it should be expected that such a method would do
well at predicting shear strengths. For Response-2000, on the other hand, the majority of
the constitutive methods are based on a totally different kind of experiment, the shear
panel experiment. While it may be assumed that these panel tests would be directly
applicable t o beams, indeed that is why the shear tests were done in the first place, it is
satisGing to see that they are.

Figure 10-24 shows a histograrn of the predictions of Response-2000, with Figure

10-25 showing the similar figure for the AC1 code.
 Predicted Shaw Strength (kN)

-
Figure 10 22: Responsc-2000 experimental and predicted shear strength

n = 442
Average = 1.20
C.O.V. = 32.2%

0 .O 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0

Predicted Shmr Srength (kN)

-
Figure 10 23: AC1 experimental and predicted shear strength
 0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1 1.5 1 . 1.8 1-95
Btperimenta 1 Predldrd Shear Strength

-
Figure IO 24: Response-2000 expenmtntriypredicted ratio

0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8 1-95
Rperlmentd 1 Predlded Sherr Strength

-
Figure 10 25: AC1 experimentaVprtdicted shcar strength
Chapter 11:Experimental Verification of Shell-2000
SheI1-2000 will calculate load-defornation relationships and strengths for plates
and shells. In a sense it is a superset of Response-2000 for beams and Membrane-2000
for membranes. The program will be compared to these other p m m m s as well as
experimental evidence.

11-1 In-Plane Membrane Forces

Figure 11-1 compares the predictions of Shell-2000 and Membrane-2000 for shell
element SE6 tested by ~irschner". It uui be seen that both programs give similar
predictions, with Shell-2000 predicting a higher peak. This is due to this element being
controlled by the crack check against shear on the crack. Crack spacing is calculated
throughout the depth in Shell-2000 and only at the most critical depth for Membrane-
2000. As such, Shell-2000 predicts a smaller average crack widths and, hence, a stronger
response. Both predictions are gwd.

Experiment

O 5 10 15 20
Shear Strain ( MN
-
Figure 11 1: SE6 In plane shur strcngth
 Kirschner also tesied a series of similar panels to produce an interaction diagram
ofin-plane shear stress and flexure. Each element had 2.92 % total reinforcement in the
X direction and 0.98 % in the Y direction, 40 MPa concrete and was 285 mm thick.
Figure 11-2 shows the predictions of Shell-2000 compared to these tests. Note the
inclusion of the pure shear strength predicted by Membrane-2000 as well as the
prediction fiom Response-2000 prediction of the pure flexural strength. It can be seen
that the predictions including strain hardening are good, but the predictions ignoring
strain hardening are rather conservative for the cases with higher moment. A Response-
2000 analysis with no strain hardening shows the sarne patterns as Shell-2000 does.

Membrane-2000
Pure Shear

Shdl-2000 *th
strain hardening

No strain
Hardenina

Moment about X axis (kNlm)

-
Figure 11 2: M-V, interaction diagram

For a more detailed look at one of these elements, the load deformation of
element SE4 is compared to the predictions of Shell-2000 in figures 11-4 t o 11-9. This
element was loaded with 500 k N d m of moment for every 1000 kN/m of in-plane shear.
The pre-yield predictions are good, but Shell-2000 is underestimating the aiffness afier
yield. Note in Figure 11-8 that Shell-2000 is predicting significant y direction curvature,
but the tests measured virtually none. This and the over-prediction of twisting may be
related.

= 04- - - - 7 - - - - 7 - - - + - - 1

O 2 4 6 8 10 O 1 2 3 4 5
crs t n n (mmlm) c, sbrln (mmlm)

Figure 114: SE4 Vxy yxy - Figure 11-7: SE4 VI, - 6 ,

figure 114: SE4 Vxy-4, Figure 11-9: SE4 VEy -+

11-2 Out-of-Plane Shear
One of the advantages of Shell-2000 over earlier prognuns such as ~hell-474'is
that it explicitly deals with the out-of-plane shear stress distribution on the X and Y faces.
Adebar tested a senes of full size shell elements subjected to in-plane shear and out of
plane she*. These elements had 3.5% of reinforcement in both the X and Y directions
and 0.08% of "stirrup" reinforcement in the Z direction. The results of these elements are
shown in Figure 11-10 in the form of an interaction diagram. Figure 11-10 shows the

Shell-2000
Ultirnate strength

Stimp Yiei 0.5 -1

-20 -1 5 -10 -5 O 5 10 15 20
In Plane Sheor (MPa)

Figure 11-10 Adebar out of Plant Shear

predicted and measured effect of in-plane shear on the out of plane shear strength. Note
that on the nght side of the figure, the in-plane shear adds compression in the direction of
the out-of-plane shear, increasing the strength beyond that of the zero in-plane shear case.
The reverse is true for the lefi side of the diagram. The solid squares in the figure are the
maximum loads resisted, but some of the elements were noted to have been restrained by
the testing apparatus, partly explaining the degree of conservatism on the lefi side. For
cornparison, the out of plane shear stress at first yield of the stirrups is also shown.
 As a final cornparison of the out of plane shear abilities of Shell-2000, the
predictions of Shell-2000 will be compared to Response-2000. A shell of reinforced
concrete identical in the X and Y directions, sirnilar to that tested above by Adebar, was
entered into Shell-2000. A Response-2000 input file was made of the X direction of the
shell element as well. Moment-shear interaction diagrams were then made with Shell-
2000 of the shell elcrnent tested with moment and shear on the X face. Response-2000
was also used to calculate uich an interaction diagram. Finally, an analysis was made of
the shell element tested with the moment and shear applied at 45" to the reinforcement.
As this element is isotropically reinforced, it may be expected that there would be no
di fference between these t hree results.

Figure 11-1 1 shows the result of these calculations. As the Response-2000 and X
direction Shell-2000 analysis were modelling the same thing, it is satisfying that the same
curves are produced fiom the two prograrns. Of more interest is that the analysis done on
the element at 45" did not produce the same curve. The flexural strengths matched well,
but the predicted shear strength is about 85 percent of the value predicted for the direct
loading. This appears to be caused by the 45" case having to carry the shear over wider
cracks. The failure of this element was controlled by shear on the crack.

O 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 w
Moment (kflm)
Figure 11-11 M-V interaction diagram
Chapter 12: Analysis guidelines and examples
This chapter provides guidelines on how to use the program Responx-2000 to
predict the behaviour of beams and columns as well as some examples.

12-1 Performing an analysis for beams with Response-2000

The key to performing analyses with a sectional analysis program is knowing at
which section to pediorm the analysis. While it may seem a gwd idea to do the shear
analysis for the location where there is maximum concident shear and moment, this is
generally not the best location at which to perform the analysis.

12-1-1 Point load on prismatic reinforced concrete beam on simple supports

This is perhaps the sirnplest experimental test on a beam that can be done. This
problem is shown in Fig. 12-1. Assurning that there is no axial load, there are two ways
for this beam to fail and therefore two calculations must be done to predict the faiiure
strength. First the moment may becorne too large at midspan causing a flexural failure,
and second the shear may exceed the shear capacity causing a shear failure.

Figure 12-1 Sample Beam

To wnsider both these failure mechanisms, two Response-2000 analyses are

required. The first, for flexure, is perforrned at location F in the drawing and is done
ignoring the effkcts of shear. The second analysis, for shear, is perfomed at location S, a
distance approximately "d" away from the midspan. Whichever of these analyses
corresponds to the lower strength of the beam, Le. the lowest value of P in the figure,
controls the failure and is the predicted failure mode.

It is recornmended that the flexural analysis be perforrned without shear. This

may seem to be inappropriate, as at the edge of the bearing plate for a test like this, the
shear diagram indicates the fidl value of shear k i n g present. It might scem wise t o do
the analysis at the maximum moment location with shear applied as well. This is a
conservative assumption, but is not necessary. Directly under the load, the shear is not
yet camed in a "secticna1 mode7'. That is, there will be significant transverse clamping
near the load that will increase the effective local shear strength in this region. This non-
sectional support mechanism means that shear can safely be ignored in the analysis for
flexure in a case like this.

At the location used to check for shear failures, section S, it is important to

include the correct values of the moment to shear ratio. A generally suggested distance
fiom the load to the location S (distance SF o r S'F' in the figure) is 0.5 d a t e , where d,
is the flexural lever arm. In general the angle 8 is not known until the analysis is
completed and will Vary over the depth of the beam, however. It is therefore suggested to
assume that 8 is about 30" for the sake of deterrnining this distance. A line drawn at that
angle is stiown on the figure above as line A-F. This line crosses the mid-depth of the
beam at a distance of about d, fiom the edge of the bearing plate. Note that the line A-F
is a reasonable choice large1y as it is similar to the expected crack pattern as shown
symmetrically on the right side. Ifthe crack pattern was expected to be at an unusual
angle, Say due to high axial load, then the distance d, may not be appropriate. OAen
details about the loading plate is not known so for most analyses it is recornmended that
the shear analysis be performed a distance d fiom the centre of the point load.

For the given example, then, the first analysis would be performed with an
incremental M=l .O and V= in the Response-2000 loads dialog box. That moment
capacity would then generally be mnverted t o an equivalent shear necessary t o cause the
moment. Then an analysis with shear would be performed with M=1.8 H m , V=1.0 kN
if the value of d for this beam was 900 mm. Note that these ratios are unit dependent and
would be M=5.91 ft-kips, V= 1.0 kip in US units.

Note that while the shear failure is calculated to happen at location S, it will in
fact happen with the opening of diagonal cracks as s h o w on the right of Fig. 12-1. A
consequence of this is that if there are stimps that Vary in spacing along the length of the
beam, it is appropriate to calculate the average amount of stirrups within a band of length
d in the beam centred on location S. For the beam above, the appropriate amount of
stirrups to add to the Response-2000 file would be the average level of stirmps within a
band stretching fiom 1-35 metres to 2.25 metres fiom the left support. Similarly, if the
stirrup spacing is very high, say p a t e r than 0.75 d, it may be necessary to assume a
reduced effectiveness for the stimps.

Consider also what would happen if the distance fiom the load to the support was
less than two times the effective depth of the member. In that case, the line AF would not
fit into the shear span, suggesting that a normal shear crack would also not fit. In cases
like this, Response-2000 will be very consewative, as the behaviour will be that of a deep
beam rather than that of a long beam. Chapter 7 explains how the use of the load-
defiection option gives a simple way to account k r this in Response-2000.

12-1-2 Analysis of large prestressed concrete girders with uniform load

Analysis of beams subjected to uniform loads, such as large prestressed wncrete
bridge girders under dead loads and lane loads, are analysed slightly differently than
above. For such cases it isn't known a priori which location will be the most critical for
shear. In such cases, an analysis will need to be made at many points along the length of
the beam, say at the tenth points. The most critical location would then define the failure
load and load factor at failure. There are two ways to calculate this load factor, which
can be thought of as a safety factor. One is to assume that the calculated moments along
the beam are fixed and that the shear can increase. The other is to assume that the
moment and shear both increase proportionally. Each will produce a different safety
factor. Which t o use will deyend on confidence in the applied loads. If the calculated
moment is effmively the highest that might realistically be seen, the safety factor
associated with constant moment would give some idea of how close one is to a brittle
shear failure at the given load level. The safety factor associated with a proportional
increase in both moment and shear gives the safety against failure fiom an increase in
total loads.

With pretensioned beams, one also needs to be mncerned about the bond of the
strands at the end of the beam. This is an area cunently k i n g researched, but a tentative
proposai has been developed for Response-2000. An analysis shouid be performed at a
location dl2 fiom the end of the beam (which assumes slip of strands and steep cracks).
The moment and shear at that location should come fiom the statics of the bearn loading
and be increased proportionally. The maximum stress in the strand can be estimateci as
the stress resulting tiom 750 psi (5 MPa) of bond stress on the strand circumference
aiong the strand fiom the end of the beam up to the inside edge of the bearing plate. This
stress should be induced in the strands with an appropriate prestrain, and the stress-strain
curve of the strands should be modified to provide a maximum at this level of stress.
While this suggested procedure needs further study, it does give results in good
agreement for the tests as shown in Chapter 10.

12- 1 -3 Column pushover analyses

Some seismic design procedures suggest that non-linear analyses be performed on
columns to evaluate their ductility. Such "pushovei' analyses are not dificult to perform
with the help of Response-2000. As an example of such an analysis, an analysis will be
performed on the piers of the Hanshin Expressway, which failed so spectacularly in Japan
during the 1995 Kobe earthquake, See Figure 1-2. The cross section of these columns
was circular, 3.1 metres (10 feet) in diameter. Outside of a 2.5 metre section near the
ground that had more longitudinal reinforcement, the cross section is summarised by Fig.
12-2. The bars listed with a prefix of JD, say "JD16",mean a Japanese standard bar 16
mm in diameter. The area near the bottom of the columns that contained more
reinforcement is ignored in this simple analysis.
 Crack Spacia
2x~+aiam
/ Loadin. (N.MV + dN.dM.dV)
1 -1400, DO. 0.0 * 0.0. 35.1.0
I

Figure 12-2 Hanshin Picr ResponsoZOOO output

Using a simple dynamic analysis with a few assumptions, it was estimated that the
12 metre column would have an inflection point about 8 metres above fkom the ground.
With this assumption and an assumed axial compression of 14,000 W, Figure 12-3 was
generated to represent the load-deflection pushover results for this colurnn. The analysis
took about one minute. Once calculated, effects o f other assumptions of the location of
Load-Max Deflection

Maximum Deilection (mm)

Figure 12-3: Load Deflection Curve, Hanshin Pier
the inflection point could be detennined. While the load-deflection curve may look
reasonably ductile, recall that the column is 12000 mm long, so a 60 mm deflection
represents a drift ratio of only 0.5 %, which is certainly inadequate to survive a major
earthquake.

The loading on the interaction diagram, shown in Fig. 1 2 4 , touches the

Predcted Failue
Location

-80000 -60000 40000 -20000 O 20000 40000 60000 80000

Moment (kNm)

Figure 12-4: Interaction diagram for Hanshin Picr

failure envelope on the top indicating an undesirable shear failure. Note that this anaiysis
ignored the extra longitudinal steel at the bottom of the column and hence the flexural
capacity should in fact be higher. A column like this should be designed to fail in a
ductile flexural mode rather than a brittle shear mode. While this extra steel near the
bottom o f the column would increase the flexural capacity, it would not affect the shear
capacity significantly. As such, the extra steel in the very bottorn of the column would
have in fact made the column less safe rather than more.
 Response-2000 can also predict the crack pattern for the column as shown in Fig.
12-5.

Figure 12-5: prcdicted cracks of Hanshin Picr

12-1-4 Predictions of size effect in shear
This thesis has included many examples that compare the predictions of
Response-200 to expenmental tests. These last two examples compare the predictions
of Response-2000 for members that would be dificult to test due to their size.

As noted in Chapter 10, structures have already been built that are up to 8 mettes
in depth, generally footings. While it would be very difficult to perforrn an experiment of
that scale, Response-2000 has no dificulty predicting the behaviour of such rnembers.
The figure below shows the predicted shear strengths of large slab like structures
subjected to uniformly distributed load. The vertical axis shows the predicted shear
strength divided by the AC1 code predicted shear strength as a percentage. It is predicted
that siabs about 300 mm deep, such as the beams in Figure 10-9 of the 1st chapter, will
be conservatively predicted, that is a percentage greater than 100. On the other hand,
slabs 4 metres thick with, say, 0.5% of longitudinal reinforcement, are predicted to fail in
shear at a shear stress less than 50% of the AC1 code strength.

I I

500 'O00 2000 4000 10000

Slab Effective Depth (mn)

Figure 12-6 Predicted Size tfftct in shear for slabs

 The next figure shows, for a similar slab with 0.5% of flexural reinforcement, and
a total length of 6d, the predicted effect of adding the AC1 code minimum value of
stimps, 0.35 MPa (50 psi). It can be seen that the predicted effect of adding this steel is
dramatic. Response-2000 predicts that the addition of this light amount of reinforcement
will mitigate the size effect and retum the shear strength to something fairly close to that
suggested by the AC1 code expressions.
Note that the predicted strength of the slab without stimps can be considered as
V, in the traditional expression that V = V, + V,. While the AC1 code assumes that the
value of these, in stress terms, does not vary with the depth of the member, Response-
2000 can be seen to be predicting that V,, the concrete contribution, decreases with
increasing member depth, while V,, the s t d contribution increases as the members get
larger. As such, Response-2000 predicts that the addition of this small amount of
transverse reinforcernent to a large slab a n increase its strength by as much as a factor of
four.

.r
a
4,
1-4
1.2 +
T
Response-2000 Mnimurn Stimps
4
-
ACi stimps

Oepth of Slab (mm)

Figure 12-7 Prdicted effect OC adding minimum reinforcement

Chapter 13: Concluding Remarks
The analysis of reinforced concrete structures can take many forms, but a familiar
one to most engineers is that of sectional analysis. This form of analysis wnsiders the
entire cross section of the beam, column, or shell in terms of its response to shear forces,
axial forces, and moments. While there are many sectional analysis programs in
existence that consider moment and axial loads, few exist that account for the more
pwrly understwd case of mincident shear and moment. This thesis explains the
background and theory underpinning a series of four easy to use programs that allow non-
linear sectional analysis of reinforced concrete plates, beams, shells and blocks to
arbitrary loading including significant shear.
The programs presented in this thesis are: Membrane-2000 for plates with in-
plane stresses, Response-2000 for beams subjected to shear moment and axial load,
Triax-2000 for arbitrary three dimensional blocks of concrete, and Shell-2000 for shells
subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane forces. Each of the programs is available fiom the
World Wide Web at the following addresses:

htm
http://~~~.ecfutoronto.~a/-bentz/m2k. Membrane-2000
htm
h t t ://www.ecfutoronto.ca/-bentzIr2k.
~
htm
http://~~~.ecfutoronto.cal-bentzlt2k.

Each program is based on the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT)in

two and three dimensions. This thesis provides an explicit description of the MCFT
including a chapter on the so-called "crack check" that is critical in implementing the
model. A new method is explained for dealing with the crack check against flexure as
well as a new technique to calculate the shear on the crack components in three
dimensions.
New constitutive relations were denved for use with the MCFT in the programs.
A new relationship is proposeci for the cracking strength of a large volume of concrete
that better models higher strength concrete that was found to be over predicted by the
traditional equations proposed for use with the MCFT. A new tension stiffening
relationship is proposed that explains some of the differences between existing published
tensions stiffening relationships. This new tension stiffening relationship is shown to
allow much better modelling of behaviour than the previous state of the art methods.
Central to Response-2000 and Shell-2000 is the longitudinal stiffhess method.
This new technique allows explicit calculation of the shear stress profile over the depth of
a member. An extension of the previous state of the art, it solves a number of numerical
problems that became clear in extension of the older mettiods to a higher precision
analysis. The new methods allow the prograrns t o run 5- IO times faster than they did
using the pralous state of the art while also being m o n numerically stable.
Each wmputer program is venfied against a series o f experiments. Two new
experiments on large shear elements were also performed for this thesis to examine the
effects of very high strength concrete. These comparisons highl ighted some problems
with the MCFT for high strain States and high strength concrete. For such cases, it
appears to be inappropriate to allow steel to strain harden on average in MCFT
predictions. Additionally, it appears that the M C W predictions are poorer for higher
strength concrete.
Response-2000 is demonstrated to provide a very good prediction of experimental
behaviour when compared to a database of 534 beams tested in shear. These include
prestressed and reinforced sections, very large footing-like sections, sections made with
very high strength concrete and elements with unusual geometry. Al1 are predicted well.
The results indicate that Response-2000 can predict the failure shear with an average
experimental over predicted shear strength ratio of 1.OS with a coefficient of variation of
12%. This compares favourably to the AC1 code prediction ratios that have an average of
1.20 and a coefficient of variation of 32%. The AC]: code is shown to be very
conservative for beams subjected to axial tension, and very unconservative for beams that
are large and lightly reinforced. Response-2000 predicts that the traditional terms of V,
and V, are not constants in tenns of stress for large lightly reinforced beams. Very thick
slabs with no transverse steel are predicted to fail at a shear that is only 40a/o of the
predicted shear strength o f the AC1 code. The addition of minimum s t i m p s is predicted
to increase the strength by up to a factor of four, bringing the strength close to that
predicted by the AC1 code.

With cornputers being as fast as they are today, a typical Response-2000 analysis
taking less than 10 seconds on an inexpensive 1999-vintage computer for example, it
seerns reasonable to suggest that the time may have corne to allow engineers to use
experimentally verified tools more integrally in the design and analysis of structures. It is
suggested that the code could be changed to directly allow the use of numerical tools that
meet a number of requirements. These requirements would be that the tools:

1) satise the requirements of equilibrium,

2) satisfjr the requirements of compatibility,
3) are based on experimentally verified stress-strain relations,
4) have been verified against a large set of data (preferably a prescrbed set).

Such tools would then be able to be used by engineers on any analysis problem, including
those that are poorly predicted today. It is suggested that the prograrns in this thesis
represent a good start towards meeting these goals.
Chapter 14: Areas of Future Work

While the four programs presented in this thesis are seen as being a good start on
the provision of a widely available set of non-linear sectional analysis tools, there are a
number of things that can be done to improve them. Some of these are summarised here:

Include confinement effects

Tmprove treatment of crack check for brittle reinforcement
Improve stability for analyses subjected to high shear and low moment
Incorporate cycfic behaviour modelling
Usability improvements
Support hollow cross sections in the graphical displays of Response-2000
Allow users to apply biaxial moments in Response-2000
Support effects of transverse clamping stresses for low a/d ratios
More numerical verification of programs
Fix any undocumented features (bugs)
Improve modelling for high strength concrete
Further develop the MCFT relationships to answer questions about strain hardening
Improve equations used for shear on the crack for high strength concrete
Test program for beams constructed with lightweight concrete
Further verify proposed tension stiffening relationships
Use the calculated value of bond in Response-2000 and Shell-2000 to affect
behaviour.
Develop fiame analysis or shell analysis programs based on Response-2000 and
Shell-2000.
Determine if dowel action is an important in predicting behaviour
Determine if energy of fiacture is important in predicting behaviour
References
Ritter, W., Die B m e z s e Hennebique (Construction Techniques of Hennebique),
SchweizerischeBauzeitung, Zurich, Feb. 1899.
Morsch, E., Der Eisenbetonbau (Reinforced Concrete Construction), Verlag von
Konrad Witwer, Stuttgart, Germany, 1922,460 pp.
ASCE-AC1 Cornmittee 445, "Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Structural
Concrete." ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 12, 1998, pp.
1375-1417.
Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. "The Modified Compression Field Theory for
Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear." AC1 Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2,
1986, pp. 2 19-23 1.
Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. PresfressedConcrete Stnrctures. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, 1991, 766 pp.
Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. "Predicting the Response of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Subjected to Shear Using Modified Compression Field Theory." AC1
Stnictural Journal, Vol. 85, No. 3, 1988, pp. 258-268.
Collins, M.P., Adebar, P.E.and Kirschner, U. "SHELL474 - A Cornputer Program to
Determine the Sectional Resistance of Concrete Structures in Accordance with CSA
Standard S474-M89." Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Canada, 1989, 32
pp. plus appendices.
Vecchio, F.J. "Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Membranes." AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 1, 1989, pp. 26-35.
Fulop, A.L., "Deformation-Controlled Procedure for Nonlinear Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Frames", M. A Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1992.
10 Vecchio, F.J. and Selby, RG. "Toward ~om~ression-~ield Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Solids." Journal of Stnictural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 6, 1991,
pp. 1740-1758.
10 Polak, M.A. and Vecchio, F.J. "Reinforced Concrete Shell Elements Subjected to
Bending and Membrane Loads," AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 9 1, No. 3, May-June
1994 pp 261-268.
11 Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P., ccResponseof Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane Shear
and Normal Stresses", Publication No. 82-03, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, Mar 1982, 332 pp.
12 Kirschner, U. and Collins, M.P., "Investigating the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Shell Elements", Publicarion No 86-09, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Sept 1986, 209 pp.
-
13 Mitchell, D. and Collins, M.P.,"Diagonal Compression Field Theory A Rational
Mode1 for Structural Concrete in Pure Torsion", Journal of Americm Concrete
Institute, Vol. 71, August 1974, pp. 396-408.
14 Collins, M.P. "Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members in Shear," Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, 1978, pp. 649466.
15 Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. "The Response of Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane
Shear and Normal Stresses." Publication No. 8243,Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1982,332 pp.
16 Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. Ptesttessed Concrete Basics. Canadian Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 1987.
17 Zhang, L-X, and Hsu, T.T.C., "8ehavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete
Membrane Elements," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 124 No. 1,
1998, pp 24-34.
18 Hsu, T.T.C, and Zhang, L-X.,'Wonlinear Analysis of Membrane Elements by Fixed-
Angle Softened-Truss Model." AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5, Sept-Oct 1997.
pp 483-492.
19 Kaufmann, W., and Marti, P. "Structural Concrete: Cracked Membrane Model."
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 124, No. 12, pp. 1467-1475.
20 Porasz, A "An Investigation of the Stress-Strain Characteristics of High Strength
Concrete in Shear", M.ASc. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1989.
2 1 Walraven, J-C., "Fundamental Analysis of Aggregate Interlock," Joumal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107 No. STl 1, Nov. 1981 pp. 2245-2270.
22 Kirschner, U. and Collins, M.P. "Investigating the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Shell Elements." PubIiwtion No. 8&9, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Sept., 1986,209 pp.
23 Adebar, P.E. and Collins, M.P. "Shear Design of Concrete Offshore Structures."
AC1 Structural Joumal, Vol. 91, No. 3, 1994, pp. 324-335.
24 Selby, R.G., "Three-dimensional Constitutive Relations for Reinforced Concrete,"
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1993, 195 pp.
25 Krpan, P., "The Behaviour of Open, Thin-Walled, Restrained, Reinforced Concrete
Members in Torsion," Ph-D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Toronto, 1974.
26 Hsu, T.T.C., "Stresses and Crack Angles in Concrete Membrane Elements," Journal
of Stnictural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 12, December 1998, pp. 1476-1484.
27: Collins, M.P. "Procedures for Calculating the Shear Response of Reinforced Concrete
Elements: A Discussion," Joumal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 123,
December 1998, pp. 1485-1488.
28 Bhide, S.B. and Collins, M.P. "Influence of Axial Tension on the Shear Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Members." AC1 Structural Joumal, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1989, pp.
570-58 1.
29 Belarbi, 4 and Hsu, T.T.C, "Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete in Biaxial
Tension-Compression", Research Report W C E E 91-2, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 155 pp.
30 Pang, X., and Hsu, T.T.C,"Constitutive Laws for Reinforced Concrete in Shear",
Research Report U H C '92-1, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Houston, Houston Texas.
3 1 Zhang, L.-X, "Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements with
High Strength Concrete", PhD mesis, University of Houston, August 1995.
32 Vecchio, F.J,, Collins, M.P., and Aspiotis, J. "High-Strength Concrete Elements
Subjected to Shear," AC1 Structural Joumal, Vol 91, No. 4, 1994, pp. 4 2 3 4 3 3 .
33 Kuchma, D. "The Influence of T-Headed Bars on the Strength and Ductility of
Reinforced Concrete Walls." Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 1997.
34 Tarnai, S. Shima, H., h m o , J. and Okamura, H., "Average Stress-Strain Relationship
in Post Yield Range of Steel Bar in Concrete." Concrete Library of JSCE,No. 11,
 June 1988, p. 117-129. (Translation fiom Proceedigs of JSCE, No. 378N6, Feb
1987).
35 Taylor, H.P.J., "Investigation of Forces Carried across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete
Bearns by Interlock of Aggregate," T ' A42.447, Cernent and Concrete Association,
London, 1970,22 pp.
36 Jourawski, D. J., "Sur la rsistnce d'un corps prismatique ...,"Annales des Ponts et
Chauses, Mmoires a Documents, 3" Senes, Vol. 12, Part 2, 1856, pp. 328-3 5 1.
37 Collins, M.P."Reinforced Concrete in Combined Shear and Flexure," Proceedings 01
the M d K Huggins Symposium, University of Toronto Press, 1978
38 Felber, A J . , 'RESPONSE: A Program to Determine the Load-Deformation Response
of Reinford Concrete Sections", M.k Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, 1990, 148 pp.
39 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, "First Ed.,
American Association of State Hghway Transportation Officials, Washington, 1194,
1901 pp-
40 Angelakos, D., "The Influence of Concrete Strength and Longitudinal Reinforcement
Ratio on the Shear Strength of Large-Size Reinforced Concrete Beams with and
without Transverse Reinforcement," M-ASC.Thesis, Depanment of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1999, 181 pp
4 1 Taylor, H.P.J, "Shear Strength of Large Beams," Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, Vo198. No. STI 1, Nov 1972, pp. 2473-2489.
42. Shioya, T., Igwo, M., Nojiri, Y., Akiyama, H.,and Okada, T., Shear Strength of
Large Reinforced Concrete Beams. Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete,
SP- 118, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989,309 pp.
43. Shioya, T. Shear Properties of Large Reinforced Concrete Member. Special Report
of Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, No. 25, 1989, 198 pp.
44 Kani, G.N.J., "How Safe are Our Large Concrete Bearns?", AC1 Journal , V. 64, No.
3, March 1967, pp. 128-142.
45 Kani, M.W., Huggins, M. W, Wittkopp, RR, Kani on Shem in Reinforced Concrete,
Univerity of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1979,225 pp.
46 Moody, K. G., Viest LM., Elstner, RC., Hognestad, E. "S hear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Part- 1-Tests of Simple Beams," Joumal of the Amencan Concrete
Institute, V 26. No 4, Nov. 1954, pp. 3 17-333,
47 Khalifa, J.U., and Collins, M.P.,"Circular Reinforced Concrete Membrs Subjected to
Shear," Publication No. 81-08, Department of Civil Engineering, Univesity of
Toronto, Dec 1981, 103 pp.
48 MacGregor, J.G., "Strength and Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams with Web
Reinforcement," Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1960, 295
PP-
49 Benzoni, G. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F. "Seismic Shear Strength of Columns with
interlocking Spiral Reinforcement", Presented to World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, January 2000, Auckland New Zealand.
50 Alvarez M. 'Zinfluss des Verbundverhaltens auf das Verformungsvermiigen von
Stahlbeton (infuence of Bond Behaviour on the Defornation Capacity of Stnrctural
Concrete)", PhD. Dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH),Zurich,
July 1998. Dissertation No. 12719, Available as IBK-Report Nr. 236.
5 1 Popovics, S., "A Numericasl Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain Curve of
Concrete," Cernent and Concrete Research, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 1973, pp. 483-599.
52 Canadian Standards Association CAN CSA A23 -3 "building code for concrete
building^'^, CSA Rexdale, Ontario, 1984.
53 Ho, G. 'Wonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Shear
Moment and h i a l Loads." M.A Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, 1994, 22 1 pp.
54 Podgorniak-Stanik, B. "The influence of Concrete Strength, Distribution of
Longitudinal Reinforcement, Amount of Transverse Reinforcement and Member Size
on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members." M.ASc. thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1998.
55 Ghannoum, W.M., "Size eff- on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concree Beams,"
M.Eng. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mec hanics, McGill
University, 1998, 115 pp.
56 Adebar, P.E.,and Collins, M.F., "Shear Strength of Members without Transverse
Reinforcement, "Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb. 1996,
pp. 30-41.
57 Collins, M.P.,Mitchell, D. and MacGregor, J.G. "Structural Design Considerations
for High Strength Concrete," Concrete International, May 1993, pp. 27-34.
58 Elzanaty, AH., Nilson , AH., and Slate F.O., "Shear Capacity of Prestresed Concrete
Beams Using High-Sytrength Concrete," AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 83, No. 3,
May-June 1986, pp. 359-368.
59 Rabbat, B., "A Variable Angle Space Truss Mode1 for Structural Concrete Beams,"
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1974,236 pp.
60 Makwana, M.D., "The Effkctiveness of Stirmps of Different Shapes in Laterally
loaded Reinforced Concrete Columns," M.Eng. Thesis, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand 1977, 114 pp.
6 1 Aregawi, M., "An Experimental Investigation of Circular Reinforced Concrete Beams
in Shear," M.ASc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
1974, 86 pp.
62 Kuzmanovic, S, "An Investigation of the Shear Design of a Reinforced Concrete Box
Stnicture," M.A.Sc Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
1998, 126 pp.
63 Kawano, H., Watanabe, H., "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns -
Effect of Specimen S u e and Load Reversal." Proceedings of the Second ItaIy-Japan
Workshop on Seismic Design md Retrofit of Bridges, Feb 1997, Rome Italy.
64 Yoon, Y.S., Cook,W.D., and Mitchell, D., "Minimum Shear Reinforcement in
Normal, Medium, and High-Strength Concrete Beams," AC1 Structural Journal, Vol.
93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 576-584.
65 Haddadin, M.J., Hong, S.T. and Mattock, A.H., "Stimp Effctiveness in Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Axial Force," Joumal of the Structural Division, Proceedings
ASCE, V.97, No. ST9, Sept. 1971, pp. 2277-2297.
66 Pasley, G.P.,Gogoi, S., Darwin, D. and McCabe, S.L.,"Shear Strength of Continuous
Lightly Reinforced T-Beams," SM Report No. 26, University of Kansas, Dec. 1990,
151 pp.
67 Palaskas, M.N. and Darwin, D., "Shear Strength of Lightly Reinforced T-Beams,"
SM Report No. 3, University of Kansas Center for research, Lawrence, Kansas,
September 1980, 198 pp.
68 Ozcebe, G., Ersoy, U. Tankut, T., "An Evaluation on the Minimum Shear
Reinforcement Requirements For Higher Strengh Concrete", AC1 Structural Journal
Vol. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999.
69 Levi, F. Marro, P. "Shear Tests up to Faiture of Bearns made with Normal and High
Strength Concrete" (summary), CEB Bulletin 193, Lausanne, Switzerland, Dec. 1989.
70 Roller, J.J., and Russell, HG,"Shear Strength of High-Strength Concrete Beams
with Web Reinforcement," AC1 Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 2, Mar-Apr. 1990, pp.
191-198.
7 1 Arbesman, B., Conte, D.F.,"The Design and Testing to Failure of a Prestressed
Concrete Beam Loaded in Flexure and Shear," B.ASc. thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1973, 176 pp.
72 Arbesman, B., "The Effects of S t h p Cover and Arnount of Reinforcement on Shear
Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams," M-Eng. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1975.
73 Kong, P.Y.L. and Rangan, B.V., "Shear Strength of High-Performance Concrete
Beams", AC1 Stnictural Journal, Vol. 95, No. 6, Nov-Dec 1998, pp. 677688
74 Rangan, B.V.,"Web Crushing Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Beams" AC1 Structural Journal, V.88, Nol, Jan-Feb 1991 pp. 12-16.
75 Shahawy, M A , Batchelor, B., "Shear Behavior of Full-Scale Prestressed Concrete
Girders: Cornparison Between AASHTO Specifications and LRFt) Code", PCI
Journal Vol. 41, No. 3, May-June 1996 pp 48-62.
76 Collins, M.P., "Shear Behavior ..." Discussion, PCI Journal Vol 42, No. 3, May-June
1997, pp. 72-8 1.
77 Seracino, R "Towards Improving Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Shells," M.ASc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
1995, 177 pp.
78 Timoshenko S.P., Gere J.M., Mechanics of Materials, D.Van Nostrand, 1971,541 pp.
79 AC1 Cornmittee 3 18, "Building Code ~e~uirements for Reinforced Cocnrete (AC1
3 18-99) and Commentary AC1 3 18 R-99," American Concrete institute, Detroit,
1999,369 pp.
80 Gupta, P.R.G., "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Elements subjected to High
Compression and Shear," Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, 1998.
Appendix A: Program Manuals
 AUAKLAL Page A-2
Membrane-2000 Res~onse-2000Tnax-2000 Shell-2000

Introduction
This manual covers the details of operation of the following programs:

Membrane-2000 2D Sectional analysis of membranes

Response-2000 2D Sectional analysis of beams and columns
Triax-2000 3D Sectional analysis of general concrete blocks
Shell-2000 3D Sectionai analysis of plates and shells

Each of these programs is a non-linear sectional analysis program for the analysis
of reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear based on the Modified Compression
Field ~ h e o r ~ These
'. programs were written over the years 1996-1999 by Evan B e n e
P h .candidate at the University of Toronto under the supervision of Professor M. P.
Collins. Together they represent over 150,000 lines of C++.

The following guiding principles were used in designing these applications. They
were to allow fast checking for errors in input and fast interpretation of results with
ample graphies. They were to provide stable, state-of-the-art analysis techniques and,
finally, they were designed to leave the user knowuig more about the real behaviour of
concrete rather than less, as some computer programs seem t o do.

Each of the programs has a similar "look and feel" and has been designed to be as
intuitive as possible. This manual acts as an explicit explanation of what the programs
can do and how to make them do it. This manual does not attempt to provide any o f the
background into the analysis techniques used, as this is the main body of this thesis2.

Section 1of the manual provides a "quick start" type of description of how to
make simple input files for each of the programs as well as how to interpret the results.
Section II follows with a more detailed description of creating input geometry for
each program.
Section I defines the ioading options.
Section IV explains the types of analysis possible and explains the output fkom
each main screen of the program.
 kU2VUAL Page A-3
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Section V provides a description of some of the more advanced options that allow
customisation of the program.

These programs are available for no charge fiom the World Wide Web at the
following addresses:

htm
htt~://ww~.edlutoronto.ca/~entz/Rk. Response-2000
ecf utoronto.cd-benWm2 k.htm
h tt~://www- Membrane-2000
htm
http://www.edlutoronto.ca/-benWt2k. Triax-2000
htm
htt~://www.ecfutoronto.ca/-benWs2k. She11-2000

For trther details or for help in using the programs, contact the author at:

Evan Bentz
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario Canada
M5S 1A4
benteecf utorontoxa
 h44hWAt Page A-5
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
SECTION N: Analysis and Interpretation ................................................................ A-38
4- 1 General Information......................................................................................... A-38
4-2 Types of Analyses............................................................................................ A 4 0
4-3 Membrane-2000............................................................................................... A 4 1
Membrane-2000: 9 Plots General ........................................................................ A 4 1
Membrane-2000: 9 Plots Mohr's Circle .............................................................. A 4 4
4-4 Response-2000 ................................................................................................ A 4 8
Response-2000 9 Plots General........................................................................... A 4 8
Response-2000 9 Plots Cracking......................................................................... A-51
Response-2000 9 Plots Reinforcement ................................................................ A-51
Response-2000 9 Plots No Shear ........................................................................ A-53
Response-2000 Load Deformation Plots ............................................................. A-54
Other Load-Deformation Plots ............................................................................ A-56
Response2000 Full Member Plots...................................................................... A-57
4-5 Triax-2000 ....................................................................................................... A-59
Triax-2000 9 Plots General ................................................................................. A-59
Triax-2000 Other 9-plot Views ......................................................... .................. A-61
4-6 Shell-2000 .......................................................................................................A-63
Shell-2000 9 plots General .................................................................................. A-63
Shell-2000 9-Plot Views ........... ...................... ................................................... A-65
Shell-2000 Interpreting Crack Diagrams ............................................................. A-67
Shell-2000 Load-Deformation Plots.................................................................... A-68

SECTION V: Advanced Topics................................................................................. A-69

5- 1 Text Effects ..................................................................................................... A-69
5-2 Chart Options................................................................................................... A-69
5-3 Edit Chart Properties........................................................................................ A-70
Title Section ....................................................................................................... A-71
Scaling of Data Section....................................................................................... A-71
Line Section........................................................................................................ A-71
Double Click Information in Response.2000 .................................................... A-72
Segmental Concrete Model ........................................................................... A-72
Material Reduction Factors .............................................................................. A-72
Concrete Strain Discontinuity Example.......................................................... A-73
Rebardat .....................................
. . . .............................................................A-76
Adding predefined shapes: Shape.dat ...............................................................A-77
5- 10 Adding predefined sections: Standard-dat..................................................... A-78
5- 1 1 Template Files ............................................................................................... A-79
5-12 Text File Formats ........................................................................................... A-80

References for Appendix A ....................................................................................... A-84

 ~UAMIXL Page A-6
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

SECTION 1: Quick Start

The Quick Start part of this manual can be found in the main thesis as chapter 2.
 AUNUAL Page A-7
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-20 Shell-2000

SECTION II: How to make Input Files

The four programs presented in this manual have a high level of commonality.
For example, the materials definition page is identical between them dl. This section of
the manual contains a description of how to make input files for the programs. The
differences between the different applications are noted where appropnate. It is usefiil to
have read Chapter 2 of the main thesis before reading this section to be familiar with the
capabilities of the programs.

Response-2000 allows only one cross section to be input at the same t h e . The
other programs al1 allow more than one with a catalog of elements available to select
between them. See section 2-7 for a description of the catalog.

Al1 programs allow the units to be changed at any time during the m i n g of the
prograrn using the "Options 1 Preferences" menu.

2-1 Quick Define Wizard

Each prograrn has a "wizard to assist in the creation of new elements. It will
often be necessary to make slight changes to resulting section, as the default values in the
prograrns may not match the desired ones. For exarnple, most of the recent shear tests on
beams done at the University of Toronto have been done with 10 mm aggregate, but
Response-2000 assumes % inch (19 mm) aggregate. As such, it is necessary to manually
change that value when predicting University of Toronto tests.
Membrane-2000 / Shell-2000 / Triax-2000 W i d .
As Membrane-2000 and
Shell-2000 both analyse shell-type
elements, they both use the same
quick define box. The top third of
the dialog box asks for title, element
thickness and concrete strength. The
concrete is assumed to have 19 mm
aggregate, and use the Popovics
concrete stress-strain relationship as
explained below in Table 2-1. Each
direction of reinforcement is defined
by a total percentage, yield stress and a bar type. The programs assume that there are two
layers of steel, with the default clear cover of 40 mm. Note that steel may be selected by
a named title (e-g. #5,20M, etc. See Table 2-4) or by supplying a cross sectional ara by
clicking on the "select by area" check box. If a bar type is seiected that the program does
not recognise, a list of al1 available types will appear.
The quick define wizard for Tnax-2000 is similar to the above figure, differing
only in the addition of a third direction of reinforcement for the Z direction.

Re~ponse-2000Wizmd
The wizard for Response-2000 is more complex and is explained here in some
detail. There are four pages to this wizard with each shown and explained below.

The first step is shown to the

lefi. It contains general information as
well as matenal properties.

Assumptions about the

concrete are the same as the other
programs noted above. Steel is
 ikUNUfi Page A-9
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
assumed to have an ultimate strength 50% higher than the yieid value provided and 100/o
strain at peak stress. There are two types of prestressed reinforcement available, low-
relaxation strands and stress-relieved strands.

Page 2 selects concrete cross

section information- Base types to
select ftom inciude rectangles, circles,
T-beams, I Beams, general hollow-
core shapes, elliptical sections, hollow
circular columns, and interlocking
spiral columns. For each of these
sections, the needed variables will be
shown on the nght side of the screen.
A title line along the bottom defines what the titles mean. (Translating "bt7' to "Width at
bottom and top extremes", for example").

Further down in the list are standard sections including CPCI-I beams, CPCI-box
beams, PCI Double-T's, PCI Single-T's AASHTO highway girders, and Washington
DOT sections. For these standard sections, the right entry fields are used for the
following four purposes. Fust to select a type fiom the selected category (pressing any
key will bnng up a list) and second to define a haunch (distance fiom the top of the
precast beam to the bottom of the slab). The third box defines the slab depth and the
fourth defines the effective slab width. Note that the slab width should be the effective
width for the purposes of analysis, rather than the simple geometric size of the slab.

The types of sections that are available to be chosen are user extendable. See
section 5-10 for a description of how to do this.

Page 3 of the quick define box contins the definition for the longitudinal
reinforcement (but not prestressing strands). Bars are selected similarly to the other
prograrns either by area or by name. The bars will be placed into layers if there are too
many to fit within the width of the cross section. Response-2000 uses bar spacing equal
to the bar diarneter to produce layers of steel.

shows the outer ring of the reinforcement and the bottom section shows the inner ring of
reinforcement. In the case shown, the b a n are being defined for a column with
interlocking spirals and the top and bottom rings are being defined.

Tendons are placed in layers as explained above, except that the spacing is
automatically selected as 2 inches (50 mm).
 AUXU4.L Page A-1 1
Membrane-2000 Res~onse-2000Triax-2000 Shell-2000
2-2 Defining General Information

Following the 'Vefine 1 Quick

Define" option in each program is the
"dit Generai'' selection. This allows
selecting information such as the title
of the section etc. Shown here is the
dialog box fiom Response-2000.

The Title allows multi-line titles,

though only the first line will be
printed out. The text style tags
described in section 5- 1 apply here.
These allow the use of superscripts, subscripts am Greek characters in the titles.

Crack spacing in each direction is also defined here. For each direction, the crack
spacing may be selected as either a constant number, or by selecting the check box to
make it automatically calculated. It is recommended that the spacing always be
automaticaIly calculated as it avoids the user fiom having to think about it, and also better
modeIs real behaviocr than a simple constant number.

The equation used for crack spacing at a given depth z is based on the CEB crack
spacing suggestionss and given by the following equation:

Crack spacing = 2 c + 0.1 ddp

where c is diagonal distance to the nearest reinforcement in section fiom current depth
d b is the diameter of the nearest bar
p is the percentage of steel within a depth of z +/- 7.5 db

For cases with no reinforcement, the crack spacing is selected as 5 times the depth
of the section.
 iUNUAL Page A-12
Membrane-2000Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Response-2000, as shown, also has an option for the moment axis to be selected.
This represents the depth in the cross section at which any axial load is applied. The
default selection of the centroid of the gross concrete section is generally acceptable, and
if there is no axial load, then this option has no effect.
 MANU& Page A-13
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
2-3 Materials Definition
Each program defines material properties for three different categories of
materials: concrete, non-prestressed reinforcement and prestressed reinforcement.

Within each category, more than one type may be defined. For example a
prestressed beam in Response-2000 may have 60 MPa concrete for the girder as well as
3 5 MPa concrete for the slab. There may be 1860 MPa low-relaxation steel for the
tendons as well as a 400 MPa steel for the deck reinforcement and 300 MPa steel for the
stirrups. Al1 these material types are defined within the same file.

Basic Properies Page

The "Define 1 Material Properties" option gives access to this multi-page tabbed
dialog box.

The first page, as shown here, is the general page. If a material type is fully
defined by default parameters, such as shown here for the concrete fiom panel PV20 in
Membrane-2000, there will be one number showing as the concrete definition. Clicking
on the button to the nght labelled 'metailcd f ;' will allow altering of these default
properties.
 AhtAKLAL Page A-14
Membrane-2000 Reswnse-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
If the type has been altered fiom the default values, or if there is more than one
type, then a number will not show up in the general page, d e r , it will list "Detailed" as
above for PV20 reinforcement where there are different steel definitions for the X and Y
directions. To edit the detaled list, click the button beside it. If the detailed title is
replaced with a number, the original list of types will be replaced after a warning
message.

Concrete Detailed Definition

Response-2000 allows 5 concrete types to be defined, while Membrane-2000,
SheII-2000, and Triax-2000 allow only one type. The figure below shows the detailed
concrete dialog box page and Table 2-1 defines the variables in it. Each defined type,
onIy one here in the example, is shown with its title in the Iist on the left. Types may be
added or deleted fiom this list as desired. After making changes to the detailed
properties, it is necessary to press the "modi@" button on the lefi to activate the changes
before closing the dialog box. New types may be added by filling in the boxes as well as
title and pressing "add." Similarly, unwanted types may be removed with the "delete"
button.

Note that the tension

strength and strain at peak
stress are prefixed with
"auto". That means that
they are estimated directly
fiom the concrete strength
and will be automatically
updated. If a number is
entered into the field, the
automatic mode will be
turned off.
 M4NUA.L Page A-13
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Table 2-1 Concrete Mberiai Properhes, Meanings and Defalt Values
The listed "default value" is selected automaticdly when using the "basic
properties" page of the dialog box.

Property Definition Title Default Value

Cylinder Strength Concrete cylinder strength fc( 40 MPa
Tension Strength Tensile strength of concrete ft 0.45(f,')'" MPa
This should not km modulus of rupture, but rather a value
such as the AC1 shear cracking stress
Peak Strain Strain at peak stress e0 As listed in Ref 5
this value, ,f' and base cuwe define stifhiess Page 63
Aggregate Size Maximum Aggregate size Maxagg 19 mm ( 3 4 inch)
Used for shear on crack calculations. Redud linearly redud to O
for high strength mncrete to model smooth mm frorn 60-80 MPa
cracks
Tens. Stiff factor Relative arnount of tension stifening. t % ~ 1.O
Base Cuwe Basic shape of concmfe base cum:
Linear Iinear to (%,fi), zero after
Parabolic Parabolic through (%,f,') and ( 2 ~ ~ ~ 0 )
Popovics Default equation from Ref (5)
Segmental User defined curve: See Section 5-5
Elasto-Plastic linear to (%,fi), constant at f,' until 2 x
 M A L Page A- 16
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
TABLE 2-1 (Contimed)
Compression Models kweting of conarete s(renglt, with Ywreasing tfanmmse tensiie m i n
Soflening There are many models hem. For normal lrength concrete, the Vecchio-Cdlins 19436
mode1 is suggested. For very hgh strength concrete (>90 MPa), the Porasz-Collins 1989
model is recornmended- Some of these modeis are not availabie in the released versions
of the pmgrams.

No change in compressive capacity with tensile strain

mis o p t h dbes not mode1 c o l ~ x ~well
te
Vecchio-Collins 1982 Equation proposed by Vecchio, Ref 3
mis wvks nnell Ilw noimisl end iaw sihnglt, concrete
Vecchio-Collins 1986 Equation proposeci by VecchiolCollins, Ref 1
ThrS is a sin@iik&h of dhe 8bow equation: Reconunended
Vecchio-Collins 92-A Equation proposed by VecchioICollins, Ref 6
This is a new t& to the data. Comparable to the 1982 eq.
Vecchio-Collins 92-8 Equation pposed by VecchiolCollins, Ref 6
Tnis is a new R to the data. Comparable to the 1986 eq.
Mehlhom et al Equation pmposed by Mehlhom et al, Ref 7
mis does not mode1 c o m t e weII bf hgh drains
Maekawa et al Equation proposed by Maekawa, et al Ref 8
Noguchi et al Equation pmposed by Noguchi, et al Ref 9
Belarbi-Hsu proportional Rotating Angle SoRened Tmss Model Relation
Ref 10. If this is seleded with Tamai tension stiffening,
program runs in RA-STM mode.
CAN CSA S474 Offshore Code. Like V-C '86 but Not a fundion of eO
Collins 1978 Compression FieM Theory Equation Ref 11.
Kaufmann-Mar 1998 Equation proposed by Kaufmann and Marti Ref 12
This is # to many RC panels M m CanadaLJapanNSA
Porasz-Collins 1988 Equation pmposed by Porasz and Collins Ref 13
Recommendd method &rv e r ' high stfemh c o m t e
Hsu-Zhang 1998 Model of RA-STM 98 and FA-STM98. Ref 14
C m t e crushes evty in ihis mode/. N d recollwnened
Hsu 1993 Another model from the Houston RA-STM. Ref 15

Tension Models the post uacking tensih? sthngth in r&Ibriced/presb-essed mncrete

Stiffening The Bentz-1999 model is suggested.

None Ignore post cracking tension stiffening

Vecchio-Collins 1982 Equation proposed by Vecchio Ref 3
Collins-Mitchell 1987 Equation proposeci in 1987 textbook Ref 16
Suggested Equation if Bentz 2000 metho not used
lzumo et al Equation proposed by lzumo et al Ref 17
Tamai et al Tamai, also used by Hsu rnodels Ref 18
Elasto-Plastic Full cracking stress at any strain after cracking
Bentz 2000 Tension tiiening based on strain and distance to steel
See Reibrence 2 to 1Snd out how this ww&s
 hMNUAL Page A- 17
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shetl-2000
Reinforcement Detailed Definition
Non-prestressed
steel is defined in a similar
marner t o that above for
concrete. Note that the
example shown has 2
different types of steel
defined. The values
currently shown at the
right are for the selected
"x-steel" type. Clicking
on the "y-steel" type would aHow that to be edited as well.

The "predefined type" option allows selection fiom cornmon types of steel
defined in Table 2-2, below, dong with al1 the other parameters used in this dialog box.

Table 2-2 Reinjiorcement Material Properties Meanings and Defmlf Values

Property Definition Title Default Value
Elastic Modulus Stiffness before yield E 200,000 MPa
Yield Strength Proportional limit f~ 400 MPa
e-strain harden Strain at strain harden %h 7 mrnlm
Rupture sain Strain at Ultimate stress. EU 1OYo
Ultimate strength Maximum stress fu 1.5 x f Y

Curve is linear to yield, flat post yield, and quadratic after strain hardening.
Slope is zero at location of maximum stress and strain.

Predefined Options

ASTM A615 40 ksi

ASTM A615 60 ksi
ASTM A706 60 ksi
CSA G30.12 300 MPa
CSA G30.12 400 MPa
CSA G30 400 Weld
1030 MPa Dywidag
1080 MPa Dywidag
 lMANUfi Page A- 18
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
-

Prestressing Steel Detoiled Definition

more information 1s
available about the stresostrain properties, however, Ref. 5 provides a method to
calculate the parameters A, B and C as listed in the dialog box.

Table 2-3 Prestressed Reinforcement MaferiaiProperries. Meanings and DefmIt Values

Property Definition Default Value

Ramberg-Osgood A the A parameter of the moda 0.025
Rarnberg-Osgood B the B parameter of the mode1 118.0
Ramberg-Osgood C the C parameter of the madel 10.0
Elastic Modulus Sffness before yield 200,000 MPa
Ultimate strength Maximum stress 1860 MPa
Rupture strain Strain at bare-stmnd rupture 43 mmlm

Predefined Options

1860 MPa Low-Relax

I
1 0.025 118.0 10.0
---- -
200000
(MPa)
1860
(mmim)
43
1860 MPa Stress-
Relieved I 121.O 6.0 200000 1860 43
 JkNVUAt Page A-19
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shel l-2000
2-4 Concrete Cross Section
The "Define 1 Concrete Cross Section" menu option defines the area of concrete
to use in the analysis. Response-2000 requires a beam or column cross section. Shell-
2000 and Membrane-2000 simply require one number: the shell thickness and Triax-2000
requires no dimensions at d l . Only Response-2000 will be explained in this section.

Response-2000 Concrete Cross Section Definition

The Response-2000 concrete definition menu option uses a three page tabbed
dialog box. The first page is for general shapes such as squares and circles, the second
page is for standard sections, and the final page is for general sections of any complexity.

Page one is similar to the quick-

define selection explained above.
Each basic type has a different
number of variables to be entered
and these are shown to the right.
In the example, the top flange
thickness is being entered, and a
title explaining the name is shown
at the bottom of the window. See
section 5-9 to find out how to add
more sections to this listing.

Page two shows each

standard type in a list along with
the ability to automatically add a
slab if the checkbox on the top
right is selected. Shown is the
built-in AASHTO style girders
with a Type I selected with a
 AU.NUAL Page A-20
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
find out how to add more standard sections to this listing.

Page three of the concrete box in Response-2000 allows any concrete geometry at
al1 to be defined as well as definition of concrete type regions. Sections entered in page
one or two may be "tuned" using page three.

The left side of the page deals

with the geometry itself. The
right side shows a scale drawing
of the definition and wlours the
sections differently depending on
the material type.

The definition is made up of a

series of height-width pairs as
shown in the list-box on the lefi.
The zero location for the y-axis is chosen to be at the bottom of the cross section, but
distances may be entered at any depth. (that is, entering negetive depths is acceptable). If
there is a sudden change in section width, for exarnple at the bottom of a slab, two lines
in the Iist have the same depth. The one higher in the list refers upwards and the lower
one in the list refers downwards. In the event that Response-2000 cannot tell if a new
point should refer upwards or downwards, the user is shown both options and asked to
select which is correct.

The AddModifjdJ3elete buttons act in the expected way, adding a line to the
listing, modiQing an existing line or removing a line fkom the listing. Note that the
selected line in the listing is shown in red on the sketch on the right side.

To enter a elliptical section, enter the width at the bottom and top extremes, say,
200 mm wide 100 mm up and O mm wide at O mm up as shown on the next page
drawing. Adding in a new line with an elevation between the other two, say 50 mm, and
 iWtNUAL Page A-2 1
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
a width of " D O W (no quotes) will produce the drawing in the
second figure. Selecting a width of "U'P'' instead will produce
what's shown in the third figure. Using combinations of these,
circles and ellipses may be easily produced. The "up" or "down"
title indicates whether the top or bottom has a zero slope.

To select concrete material types, click on the sketch on the

right side of the dialog box and select the concrete type fiom the
given listing. In the example above, the web is a different type.

2-5 Longitudinal Reinforcement

Defi ning longitudinal steel for Membrane-20 is identical to Shell-2000 and
both are similar to Response-2000 and so al1 will be explained together.

Steel in the prograrns is defined either as individual layers of bars or in collections

of pattemed layers. Patterns include distributed pattems as well as circular patterns.
Membrane-2000 and Shell-2000 do not allow circular patterns.

Each dialog box uses the traditional list of layers with the ability to add a new
definition, modie an existing one or delete it. This is the same style used in the matenals
definition page.
 W A L Page A-22
Membrane-2000 Resnonse-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000
Lndividual Layers

Shown is the Response-

2000 longitudinal
reinforcement definition
page. Membrane-2000
and Shell-2000 are
similar except that they
ask for spacing of bars
rather than the number
of bars as well as asking
for a prestrain for it.

In the example, three layers are defined, with the one called "bot2" cunently
highlighted. It has 3 bars defined each with a cross sectional area of 440 mm2and a
centroid 38 mm above the bottom of the cross section. The type of steel selected is
"botlong" which would have been defined in the matenals dialog page. Different layers
can, of course, use different material types.

Table 2-4 shows the bar types built into the programs. See section 5-8 for a
description of how to add new bar types to this listing.
 A4WVUAL Page A-23
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000
Table 2-4 Reigorcing Bar and S t r d Designutions
CSA Reinforcing Ban. CSA Pmstressing Strands

Bar Nominal Cross Strand Nominal Cross

Designation (mm) Sectional Area Designation Diameter (mm) Sectional Area
(mm2)
1OM 55
15M 74
20M 99
25M 107.7
30M 107.7
35M 140
4SM
S5M

CSA Reinforcing Altemate fiiles. US Prestressing Strands (270 ksi)

Bar Nominal Cross Strand Nominal Cross
Designation Diameter Sectional Area Designatim Diameter (mm) Seconal Area
(mm) (mm2) (mm2)
10 11.3 100 0.250 0.036
15 16.0 200 0.375 0.085
20 19.5 300 O. 500 O. 153
25 25.2 500 0.550 O. 167
30 29.9 700 0.550 O. 167
35 35.7 1000 0.600 0.215
45 43.7 1500
55 56.4 2500

Standard US bars Deformed Prestressing Bars (Dywidag)

Bar Nominal Cross Bar Nominal Cross

Designation Diameter Sectional Area Designation Diameter (mm) Sectional Area
(mm) (mm2)
0.248 15.0 in
0.375 26.5 551
0.500 32.0 804
0.625 36.0 1018
0.750
0.875
1-000
1.l28
1.270
1A l 0
1.693
2.257
 A44MM.L Page A-24
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Sheli-2000
Table 2-4 Reinforcing Bar and Strand Designcrtions (con 'f)

US Proposed Metric T i r Bar, nominal by diameter

Bar Nominal Cross Bar Nominal Cross Sectional

Designation Diarneter Sectional Area Designatim Diarneter Area (mm2)
(mm) (mm2) (mm)
Ml0 9.5 71 1
Ml3 2
Ml6 3
Ml9 4
M22 5
M25 6
M29 7
M32 8
M36 9
M43 10
M57 11
12
Japanese Bars 13
14
Bar Nominal Cross 15
Designation Diameter Sectional 16
(cm) Area (cm2) 17
0.64 0.32 18
0.80 0.5 19
0.95 0.71 20
1.27 1.27 21
1.59 1.99 22
1.91 2.87 23
2.23 3.87 24
2.55 5.07 25
2.86 6.42 26
3.18 7.94 27
3.50 9-57 28
3.82 11-4 29
4.14 13.4 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
 M X Z Page A-25
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tria-2000Shell-2000
Distributed -ers Pattern
Pattern layen allow easy definition of reinforcing. The pattern lias have an
additional button as well that allows the pattern to be "exploded" into individual layers.

"Distributed Layers"
allows a series of
layers to be
automatically
repeated. The
example shows part
of a wall with 15M
bars at 300 mm on
each face. 3 bars per
layer for 6 layers are
used to define this.

Circular patterns,
only available in
Response-2000,
allow reinforcement
to be easily added
for round columns.
This example shows
a large d u m n with
24 # 14 bars at the
listed geometry. The
Orientation specifies the angular offset of the pattern. If the selection is "aligned, then
there will be a bar at the 12-07clockposition on the drawing. If the setting is "offset", as
here, the top 2 bars are balanced around the 12-o'clock position. With more than perhaps
6 bars, this has very little impact, but can be important if there are only, say, 4 bars in the
pattern.
Tendon Lrryers
Response-2000
requires explicit
definition of tendon
layers as contrasteci
to longitudinal
reinforcement layers.
The example shows
a long list of
individual layers for
tendons. Each is
defined as the
number of strands, prestrain, distance fiom bottom of section, type and drape. Drape is
defined as the rise over run of the strands. As such, in 20 feet of run the shown example
would rise 0.0711 x 20 = 1.422 feet rise per 20 feet of run.

Membrane-2000 and Shell-2000 allow prestressed steel fkom the normal layer
dialog box. Draped strands are not supported for shell elernents and membranes. Triax-
2000 reinforcement,
in each direction Y
Y, or 2,is defined
more simply than the
other prograrns as
there is very limited
spacing information
that needs to be
defined. It is simply
defined by the
percentage of steel
- - -
and the bar type.
 MINUAL Page A-27
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shel l-2000
2-6 Transverse Reinforcement
Transverse reinforcement, li ke longitudina1 reiriforcement, is defined simi larly
between Shell-2000, Response-2000 and Membrane-2000. Note that Triax-2000 does
not have any definition for transverse reinforcement as in a 3D block of concrete, the
transverse direction is actually the longitudinal Z direction.

elevation of the top

and bottom ends of the reinforcement as well as the type of bar. Response-2000 allows
stirrups to be: Closed Stimips, Open Stimps, Hoops, Single-Leg hooked bars or Single-
Leg T-Headed bars. Each kind of bar is assumed to be able to yield al1 the way to the end
of the bar as entered (Le. no development length). This is reasonable if there is a t-head
o r a hook at the end of the bar but means that a correction should be made for transverse
bars that are not properly anchored.

Membrane-2000 and Shell-2000 use a similar dialog box with the following
differences. The spacing t e m is replaced by a transverse percentage. The stirmp types
are limited to single-leg hooked bars and single leg t-headed bars. Note that the single-
leg hooked bars are currently drawn on the screen as t-heads.
 M A L Page A-28
Membrane-2000 Reswnse-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000
2-7 Element Catalog
While Response-2000 only allows one cross section per input file, the other
programs al1 allow more than one by use of the cataiog menu option.

The example
here shows the catalog
in use with Membrane-
2000 showing a Iist of
experimental tests.
Shell element SE5 is
currently selected from
the listing. The catalog
is based on the familiar
Windows Explorer tree-
systern. The different
titles used are fiom the
"Edit General" page in
the define menu.

The catalog buttons on the right allow a new element to be created using the
Quick Define Wizard, copying of an existing element, or deleting of an element from the
catalog.

When using the programs, it is possible to switch to a different element via either
the catalog itself, the menu options "Catalog ] Next Element", "Catalog 1 Previous
Element", or using the toolbar. This fiagment of the toolbar, shown here fiom
Membrane-2000 allows access to the catdog fiom the button that looks like a little tree-
Iist between the arrows. The arrow pointing lefi goes to the previous element in the
listing, and the m o w to
the right goes to the next
element in the lia. In this way it is easy to examine many elements from within one file.
 h4HMXA Page A-29
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

SECTION III: Loading and Analysis Options

This section defines the options in the "loads" menu option of each of the
programs. As there are important differences between the four programs in this regard,
they will be explained here individually. As Response-2000 is the most cornplex, it is
explained 1 s t .

3-1 Membrane-2000

Lding
Loading for Membrane-2000 consists
Axial stress in the X direction, Axial
stress in the Y direction, and in-plane
shear. Positive axial stresses indicate
tension with negative indicating
compression. The shear must be non-zero
and positive in Membrane-2000.

The lefl column defines the stress level to

stan the analysis at, as well as detining the load combinations to use for the "one load
solution. The nght side holds the loading ratios for any increment in load beyond the
initial level. Note that, for the increment, it is the ratios and signs that matter, not the
magnitude of the numbers themselves. The example s h o w represents an analysis for
pure shear starting with no load on the panel.

Shrirlkage and KhermaI Straim

Membrane-2000 allows the concrete to have a selected shrinkage using the
"Loads 1 Shnnkage and Thermal Strains" menu option. Note that any thermal strains in
the reinforcement may be applied as reinforcement prestrains. E n t a negative strains in
the shrinkage dialog box to indicate that the concrete has shrunk.
 h4WiUXL Page A-30
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
- - - - --

merimental Remlis
Because Membrane-2000 represents the type of element tested to define the
MCFT, a facility has been included to allow experirnental results to be shown. This is
demonstrated in Section I, Quick Start for Membrane-2000 where the results fkom panel
PV20 tested by Vecchio are stiawn.

The expenmental results are added one variable at a time- A didog box allows
access to 12 variables. Expenmental data in the fonn of a column of numbers may be
entered by hand or using the "paste" button on the page. There must be the same nurnber
of data points for each variable and they must be in the same order. When an analysis is
mn,Membrane-2000 checks if data has been entered for both the X and Y axes of the
plots. If so, it includes the experimental data dong with the caiculated solution.

The last menu option in the loads menu of Membrane-2000 allows the data to be
quickly removed fiom, for example, the defauh input example.

hding
As an analysis program of a
general 3D solid, Tnax-2000
requires 6 loads to be defined
to perform an analysis. These
are Axial force in the X, Y, and
Z direction plus shear on the X-
Y, Y-Z,and X-Zplanes.

Positive axial stresses indicate

tension with negative
indicating compression. Positive shear stresses have the shear arrows pointed in the
positive axis directions. The signs of the shears and axial stresses may be positive or
negative.
 AhUVUAL Page A-3 1
Membrane-2000 Res~onse-2000Triax-2000 Sheli-2000

As with the other programs, the first colurnn is for the initial loading or single
load level analysis. The second column is used for ratios h e e n the loads for a fiil1
response trpe o f anaiysis.

Shrinkage and R e d Strains

Shrinkage can be set via the "loads 1 shrinkage and thermal strains" menu choice.
Shrinkage is assumed to be constant for the volume of materiais. A negative strain
indicates that the concrete has shrunk.
 AhliVUAL Page A-32
Membrane-2000 Resmnse-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

Loading
Shell-2000 allows al1 8 force resultants on a shell element to be applied. The
loads are applied in force resultant per unit length. For example, moments are in kNm/m
or kip-ft/ft and axial forces are in kN/m or kipslft. The applied loads are:

Component Sign
. . - .-- -

Axial force in X and Y (tension positive)

Moment in X and Y (compression on top positive)
Shear on X-Z and Y-Zplanes (shear arrow up is positive)
In-Plane Shear (shear arrows in positive axis directions)
Twisting Moment (postive = Positive in-plane shear on bottom
Negative in-plane shear on top of shell)

Like the other programs, the

loading is defined in terms of a
constant load for initial load level
and an increment. The magnitudes
of the increments are not important;
only the ratios and signs are used by
Shell-2000.

In this example, the elernent is

subjected to an in-plane shear stress
as well as a moment with the ratio
of moment to shear equal to 0.5 m.

Shrinkage and Thermal Strains

Like Triax-2000, shrinkage may be applied as a constant value for the whole
element. Thermal strains in the reinforcement may be applied by the use o f prestrains. A
negative value in the shrinkage dialog box rneans that the concrete has shnink.
Loading
Response-2000 allows axial load, moment and shear to be applied to the element.
Positive axial force is tension and negative axial force is compression. Positive moment
indicates compression on the top of the section. The shear term must be positive.

Like al1 the programs, loading is

provideci on the lefi side for a starting
load level or a single load analysis, and
on the right for the increments in load.
The actual magnitudes of the incremental
values are not important. Response-2000
only uses the signs and values relative to
each other.

For this example, there is no initial load level, and the moment to shear ratio is
1.34 feet.

Time Dependent Effects

To assist in the examination of time-dependent effects, Response-2000 includes a
routine that implernents the AASHTO-9419 suggested methods for shrinkage, creep and
prestressing strand relaxation.
This is accessed via the
"Loads / Time Dependent
Effeas" menu option. Note
that it does not mode1 the
increase in concrete strengh
with time, as that is too
dependent on individual mix
designs.
 W A L Page A-34
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

This module will ody be u d if the checkbox at the top in selected. The age for
long-tenn behaviour is needed, as is the sustained moment for the section as that strongly
affects the creep.

Briefly, the shrinkage and relaxation is estimated for the given age and the creep
under the given sustained moment is estimated. Then a shrinkage/thermal profile is
automatically added to the section to mode1 this. Analyses done then represent shon t e m
loading on a well-aged beam or colurnn. For a more detailed description of the time-
dependent effects module, see Reference 2.

Detailed Shnnkage and Ilremai Sfrains

To account for structures such as large box-girders where there is a substantial
thermal gradient over the depth of the structure, Respons-2000 allows this to be selected
with sorne detail.

Note that the shrinkage

and thermal strains
calculated above in the
time-dependent effects
are not reflected here.

The left side of the

dialog box allows
selection of values of
shrinkage at selected
depths. Response-2000 parabolically interpolates between these points.

The top right side allows setting of individual thermal strains for the
reinforcement. As shown, it is also possible to select a value and apply it to al1 layers of
 AhAWAl: Page A-3 5
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
reinforcement. Note that these mains can be used the same way as prestrains are to
tendons if desired.

The bottom nght shows a plot with a line indicating the shrinkage distribution and
with little dots to indicate the thermal strains of the reinforcement.

The example shows a 120 inch high section with a large distribution of thermal
strains in the top as well as a small distribution in the bottom. The reinforcernent does
not have any thermal mains defined for it.
 iWWUAL Page A-36
Membrane-2000 Res~onse-2000Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Strain Discontimriy
The strain dircontinuity dialog box allows modelling of behaviour effects due to
composite construction. See section 5-7 for a description and a a m p l e of how best to use
the strain discontinuity feature. In g e n e d , it allows for an explicit difference between
the longitudinal strain profile at a given depth and the basic assumption that plane
sections remain plane.

The interface is similar to the shrinkage page above. Elevation-main pairs are
added to the list and they are plotted on the graph at the right.

In this example, a 2300

mm precast section was
given a 200 mm slab on
top and the strain
discontinuity models the
difference fiom plane-
sections for this slab.

Full Member Properties

A full member analysis will calculate force deflection relationships for simple
beams. The beam must be prismatic with the load applied at the right end and a support at
the left end. Response-2000 requires the length subjected to shear, the length with no
shear at midspan (for beams loaded with 2 point loads), the type of loading (point load,
UDL beam type or UDL footing type), and the moment at the left end relative to the nght
end. For a beam type analysis, the left end moment is often equal t o zero, as this is where
the support would be.
 hMNUAL Page A-37
Membrane-2000 Res~onse-2000Tnax-2000Shell-2000

The right side has similar options. In this case, the fixed support also needs
information about the penetration of strains into the bottom block of concrete that would
be supporting the wlumn. The default value of 0.022 is suggested for columns. See
Reference 2 for an explanation of how this is used.
 M A L Page A-38
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

SECTION IV:Analysis and Interpretation

4-1 General Information

Al1 programs in this manual operate in a similar way. The results of the analysis
are dynamically updated on the screen as they are calculateci or as the user changes the
load level. Using this method of fast information presentation, it becomes possible to
quickly see what is predicted to be happening to the concrete and find errors. It has been
found that this not only increases confidence in the results, but also adds to the users
understanding of the behaviour of reinforced concrete. The presentation of the results
also challenges the user to explain any strange or unexpected result. This t w enhances
the users understanding of reinforced concrete. This contrasts with some cornputer
programs for structural analysis t hat attempt to remove the engineer corn the process
resulting in less understanding fiom the use of the program rather than more.

Membrane-2000 and Triax-2OO perform their analysis immediately and let the
user observe the results. Response-2000 and Shell-2000, due to longer execution times,
update the screen as new results are obtained and let the user watch the results as they
arrive. The different screens of data presentation are available from the "view" menu in
the prograrns or, more wnveniently, through the toolbar.

The default data presentation mode in the programs is a screen with 9 graphs on
it. This manual will concentrate on that "9-plot" view. The program also has a mode to
allow the same plots to be shown individually. For Triax-2000 and Membrane-2000, the
plots in the 9-plot mode are generally full load-deformation plots. For Response-2000
and Shell-2000, the plots represent one load stage showing the value of the variable over
the depth of the element. An additional page is available that provide load-deformation
plots for the latter programs.
 AUNUAL Page A-39
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

The large load-deformation plots have an additional feature in that they allow
other plots to be pasted ont0 them. The example shown was generate with Shell-2000 in
a minute or so. It shows a shell element subjected to in-plane shear and moment. The
initial cracks are fleniral in nature and as the cracks reach a larger depth, the slope of the
moment-curvature plots changes dmatically. The cracks can be seen in the final form
with yielding steel in the 1 s t little plot.

The interface of the programs is set up so that there is a "control plot" on the
lower left of the screen. (2 control plots in Response-2000). These are used to indicate
whicti pan of the analysis is currently being viewed. To change the currently viewed
load, click on the control plot and move the crosshairs. Pressing Page-Up and Page-
Down will also switch between differently viewed load nages. The button "madauto
range" will automatically adjust the plots to "remember" the maximum s a l e over the
course of the analysis for easier scaling.
 iM4NUAL Page A 4 0
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
4-2 Types of Analyses
Three types of analysis are cornmon to al1 the program. The first is the "Full-
Response" type of analysis. This will first do a single-load Ievel analysis at the values in
the left colurnn of the '2oads 1 Loads" menu choice, and then increase loads in the ratio
shown in the right column of the '2oads 1 Loads" menu item.

The second type of analysis is a "Single Load Level". This will solve to the loads
selected in the lefi side of the "Loads 1 Loads" dialog box.

The third type of analysis is a strain state analysis that will return the stress and
force state that corresponds to a given set of global strains.

Membrane-2000 also includes explicit options in the solve menu to peflonn a full
analysis for a number of analysis types. These include the Modified Compression Field
Theory 1987 (MCFT)', the Rotating-Angle Softened Tmss Model m - S T M ) 1993",
,the Fixed Angle Softened Tmss Model (FA-
the RA-STM 199~'~
the RA-STM 199~'~,
, F A - S T ' 1 9 9 7 ~and
S T M ) 1996~' ~ FA-STM 1998~.
Hsu and colleagues at the
University of Houston derived the last 6 methods. They are included in Membrane-2000
for cornparison purposes. In general, the six methods nom Houston do no better a job
than the MCFT,despite having much more experimental data to derive fiom.

Response-2000 has a number of additional analysis options:

Fu11 Sectional Response Ca lculate Moment Curvature as above

More Detail In1 rrpolate ftll sectional response to more detail
Member Response Ca Mate load-deflection relations for simple beams
One Load Ca Iculate strains for given M, N, V as above
2 Strain Ca lculate stress state for aven pair of long. strains
1 Strain Ca lculate stress and strain state corresponding to
sel xted strain at certain depth. (e-g. first yield)
M-N Interaction Ca lculate axial load-moment interaction envelope
M-V Interaction Ca Mate moment-shear interaction envelope.
(th is is a first step in the Member Response option)
N-V Interaction Ca lculate axial load-shear interaction envelope.
 AhWCLAL Page A 4 1
Membrane-2000 Responsc-2000 Triax-2000 SheII-2000
The following section gives a listing of al1 the 9-plot ~ i n g available
s in the
programs. In each case, an example is shown and the description o f the 9 plots provides
guidance in interpreting analyses. The units listings that goes with each description
shows the units used for SI metric, US customary units, and kg-cm units as used in Japan.

Membrane-2000: 9 Plots General

This is the general page of 9 plots that automaticaily shows up after compteting an
analysis. Membrane-2000 is s h o w with the default analysis of PV2O loaded.

-
Shear y, In-plane shear stress @Pa, p s i kg/cm2) vs Shear strain (x IO'-')
As Membrane-2000 uses shear for al1 analyses, this summarises the element
behaviour. Note cracking, tension stiffening, and crushing at 4.5 MPa in the example
 hWVU.AL Page A 4 2
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000
Shear f ,- In-plane shear stress vs X direction Average steel stress (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)
The average steel stress may not exceed the yield stress except due t o strain
hardening. Note the unloading and the change in dope when the y direction steel yields

Shear - E. In-plane shear stress vs X direction s a i n (x loJ)

Corresponds to the previous plot with m a i n as the horizontal axis. Plot is
proportional to stress plot, as steel has not yielded in this direction during analysis.

Crack Diagram Plot of crack patterns with crack widths (mm, in, cm)
Drawn diagram is 5 x panel thickness wide with steel and cracks drawn in to
scale. Note that cracks rotate with analysis, as per MCFT.

Shear f, - In-plane shear stress vs Y direction Average Steel stress (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)
Same as the above. Note that the steel does not exceed yield (297 MPa).

S hear - E, In-plane shear stress vs Y direction strain (x 1o-~)

Same as X direction plot. Note that on unioading, the highly strained steel is
assumed to unload at a dope q u a i to the initial stiffness with a plastic offset.

fz - 2 Principal compressive stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

Principal compressive strain (x 10")
This shows the principal stress strain relationship in compression. The red tine at
the bottom (compression is negative) is the maximum allowable stress, whereas the blue
line fiom the origin is the applied stress. When thew two tines touch, the concrete has
crushed. The maximum allowable stress gets closer to zero during the analysis due to
compression softening implicit in the MCFT. Note the post-peak behaviour in
compression implicit fiom using the ~ o ~ o v icompression
cs~ model rather than a
parabolic model.

Shear on Crack - Shear on the crack (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

Principal tensile strain (x IO-)
 lMANUAL Page A-43
Mem brane-2000 Resoonse-2 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000
To satisfl equilibrium at a crack, it is sometimes necessary for shear to exist on
the crack surface in the MCFT. This is shown on this plot m t h EI selectad for the X-axis.
The red line shows the maximum allowable shear on the crack, a finction of the concrete
aggregate size and the crack width. In the example, the limit does not control as the lines
do not touch. Shear on the crack occurs in this case when the steel stress at a crack
reaches yield in the Y direction, and reduces afler cnishing of the wncrete unloads the
steel. Note that for elements with steel in only one direction, this relationship controls
the strength.

fi - EI Principal tensile stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

Principal tensile strain (x IO-')
The principal tensile stress is what separates the MCFT tom the earlier
Compression Field ~ h e o r ~ " Cracked
. concrete will have no tensile stress at a crack, but
signifiant stresses between the cracks that will tend to stiffen, though generally not
strengthen, the element. The crack-check of the MCFT shows up in this plot as the
tensile stress may be reduced due to equilibrium constraints below the value suggested by
the base equations. In this case, it is not controlling as the concrete crushes first.
 hhWU4.L Page A-44
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Membrane-2000:9 Plots Mohr 's Circle
This second page shows a table of al1 calculated stress and strain terms as well as
Mohr's circles of stress and strain,

Mohr's Circle of Stnin (average)

The Mohr's circles are drawn to sale. Unlike al1 other graphs in this manual, the
number listed at the end of the axes represent the intercept of the circle with the axis,
rather than the location of the end of the line. These plots update with load level and are
shown here for the peak load level. The circle of strain shows the average strain state of
the element.

Mohr's Circle of Stress (average)

This shows the average stress date used to calculate the behaviour of the element.
Note that in the MCFT, though behaviour is calculated and checked at a crack, it is only
the average behaviour that affects the final stress-strain state of the element. Note that
the angle of the line (20) is the same for the stress circle and strain circle as implicitly
assumed in the MCFT.

Mohr's Circle o f Strcss (at a crack)

The stress circle at a crack is included to explicitly show the assumptions about
what happens at a crack. Note that the angle of the line (2 x principal stress angle locally
at a crack) is not the same as it is in the average case. This is due to differing steel
stresses and principal concrete stresses on average and at a crack. Note that due to this
local difference in stress angle, it is quite possible to have local shear stress on the crack
even though the crack is assumed to be at the same angle as the average principal stresses
and strains.

-
Shear 0 Shear stress (MF* psi, kg/cm2) vs Principal angle of stresdstrain (deg)
This shows the angle rotation during the analysis.

Node-Data Stress and strain state of panel at given load stage (units shown)
By right clicking, it is possible to copy this data to the Windows clipboard for use
in other applications.

Shear - ~ 2 Shear
, - el
Similar to graphs on first page of 9 plots, but with shear as vertical axis.
 MWUAL Page A-46
Membrane-2000 Resoonse-2000 Triax-2000 SheN-2000
Membrane-2000: 9 Plots Rdar and Cracks
This final page of 9 plots fiom Membrane-2000 shows important details of the
MCFT in the average steel stress and steel stress at a crack plots.

The important thing to note about this page is the "stress at a crack" plots. The
crosshairs in the control chart have been selected here to be just before shear on the crack
is required. This can be seen on the centre right plot where the cross is just before yield
in the weak (Y) direction. This is an assumption of the MCFT;no shear on the crack is
needed until steel first yields at a crack in the weaker direction. Put another way, the
shear on the crack is minimisai in the MCFT as it is assumed that the reinforcement
mechanism is stiffer.

As the load increases above that point, the stress at a crack in the Y direction is
limited to the yield value, and the average is allowed to continue to increase towards
yield. Together this means that the amount of shear on the crack must increase to
continue to support the principal tension. Note that as the load increases above the
 A-4iNUALPage A-47
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000
current level, the rate of change of the stress at a crack in the X direction changes. Shear
on the crack acts to transfer reinforcement demand at a crack fiom the weak direction (Y)
to the strong direction (X), so shear on the crack makes the dope change. If the load
could continue to increase higher, in this case it's govemed by fnuhing of the concrete,
and the steel stress in the strong direction also reached yield, the principal tensile stress
would be Iowered to ensure equilibrium couid be maintained locally at a crack. That, in a
nutshell, is the point of the crack check in the MCFT.
 MANUAL Page A 4 8
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

Response-2000 9 Plots General

Response-2000 draws plots over the depth of the beam of column. This example
shows a sectional analysis with shear and moment on a prestressed single-Tee beam.

Response-2000 uses two control plots. They are selected based on the type of
loading, but for shear analyses, the top one shows shear versus shear-strain plot and the
bottom one shows the moment curvature plot. This quickly allows detection of shear
failures versus flexural failures. In this case, due to the prestressing, the moment
curvature never actually reaches a positive curvature, but the shear plot has started
descending for increasing strain. This indicates a shear failure in this case before even
fb11 depth cracking of the section. The plots show the behaviour just before failure.

Cross Section
 M A L Page A-49
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
The cross section is drawn darker in regions where the concrete has not cracked.
Longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups are draw dark red if on the yield plateau, bright
red if strain hardening, and dark and bright green for yielding in compression. In this
case, note that despite the positive moment on the section, the bottom of the section has
not cracked through yet due to the prestress force.

Longitudinal Stmin Longitudinal m a i n (x IO-') vs section depth

This confirms that the curvature is still negative in the section. Note that the line
is linear, showing the implicit assumption that plane sections remain plane. Right
clicking on this plot and selecting "toggle text" will show or hide the curvature of the
beam.

Transverse Strain Bulging strain (x IO-.')vs depth of section

While the longitudinal strains must be linearly distributed, the transverse strain
depends on the local stress-strain conditions at each point in the depth of the beam. They
are dictated by the assumption that the total vertical stress at every depth of the beam
must be zero. In this failure condition note the high strains (- 3 x yield strain) near the
top of the web.

Crack Diagram
This plot shows the estimated crack pattern as well as crack widths (mm, in, cm).
Note that the crack widths as well a s patterns are rather approximate and should no: 5e
used alone t o estimate the health o f a structure. For this beam about to fail, the maximum
crack width is predicted to be 3.O mm. For cases where part of the concrete is crushing,
the section is redrawn in pink, and for sections where the cracks are slipping causing
failure, the section is drawn in purple.

Shear Strain (x IO-.')

Like the transverse strain, this shows the distribution of shear strain in the section.
If the section starts to unload for any reason, a grey envelope will show the maximum
value attained so far.
 M A L Page A-50
Membrane-2000 Resmnse-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

Shear Stress (MPa, psi, kglcm2)

Shear stress is calculated in Response-2000 by a process that considers the
longitudinal stiffness of the cracked concre%e2.This produces a calculated shear stress
profile for each load level. This calailatexi shear mess profile is shown on the plot in
green, and the stress fiom the stfain state is shown in blue. Generally these two lines will
match very closely, but if they do not, the load stage should be treated with some caution.
Note that the shear stress is zero at the top and bottom flces of the beam as expected, but
that the shear stress distribution is not the width-modified parabola that lin- theory
would predict . The calculated shear-stress profi les for cracked reinforced concrete in
general are more complex than linear theory would predict, having important effects on
predicted behaviour.

Principal Compressive Stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

Principal compressive stress over the depth is shown in the bottom left. The
maximum allowable stress is shown in red at left. This number will reduce due to
cracking in the concrete as predicted by the MCFT. The blue line is the applied stress in
the concrete at each depth in the beam. Note that due to the shear inducing diagonal
compression, it is quite possible to have principal compression over the entire depth of
the beam. The stress in this beam is more due to the prestressing, however. If the red
and blue Iines touch, the concrete is predicted to crush and the section will fail. That is
the fate of this beam. At the next load stage, the concrete is crushing at the top of the
web.

Shear on the Crick (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

Cracked concrete may require shear on the crack to maintain the principal tensile
stress in the concrete. See the Membrane-2000 section above for a discussion of this. As
in that section, the maximum allowable shear on the crack is shown in red with the
applied in blue. For this setion, the maximum is limiting the shear on the crack over
part of the depth. In that region, the principal tensile stress has been lowered to maintain
equilibrium.
 AdXN'UAL Page A-5 1
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

Principal Tensile Stress (MPa, psi, kglcm2)

This tensile stress will exist throughout the beam, caused by shear on the cross
section. Note the location where the stress is reduced due to the shear on the crack
limitation. The red line on the right indicates the maximum value of stress allowed due
to the requirement of longitudinal yield. If this line pulls in diagonally and intersects the
blue appiied stress line, the section is approaching flexural failure.

Reqome-2000 9 Plots Cracking

This page of 9 plots in Response-2000, not shown here, contains plots of:
Cross Section as above
Longitudinal strain as above
Principal tensile strain (x 10-~)
Crack diagram as above
Crack width plot (mm, in, cm)
Average Angle wit h depth (degrees)
Longitudinal Crack Spacing (mm, in, cm)
Transverse Crack Spacing (mm, in, cm)
Diagonal Crack Spacing (mm, in, cm)

Response-2000 calculates crack spacing based on the angle and the estimate of
crack spacing in the longitudinal and transverse directions as per the MCFT. If the crack
spacing is calculated automatically as suggested, the spacing will Vary over the depth of
the section, hnher improving the realism of the analysis.

Respome-2000 9 Plots Reinforcement

This page shows the state of the reinforcement in the longitudinal and transverse
direction. The following plots are included:

Cross Section as above

Longitudinal straia as above
Transverse strain as above
Longitudinal Reinforcement Stress (MPa, ksi, t/cm2) This the average stresss

Longitudinal Reinforcement Stress at a crack (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)

 A.UAKLAL Page A 4 2
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
This local value includes the effects of the shear on the crack and principal
tension.

Longitudinai Average Bond (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

This bond mess is what the reinforcement must be able to withstand in order to
support the given shear. No limitations are made in Response-2000 if this value becornes
unrealistically high.

Stirmp Stress (MPa, ksi t/cm2)

This shows the average stress in the stirrups over the beam depth.

Stirmp Stress at a Crack (MPa, ksi, k m 2 )

This is the local stress et a crack mandated by equilibrium considering shear on
the crack and principal tensile stresses.

Transverse Average Bond (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

As the stress is changing along the iength of the stimps, it is possible to calculate
the bond stresses that would need to be resisted by the stirmp. Response-2000 calculates
these but does not use them to affect the analysis at dl. ln cases where a stimip enters
the top flange of a T-Beam, for example, there will be a large drop in stimp stress due to
the increased concrete area, resulting in a very large calculated bond. The real bond
would b e much lower due to strain penetration, and shear lag of forces entering the top
flange.
 h U N U L Page A-53
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Response-2000 9 PIols No Shear
For analyses without any shear, Response-2000 automatically shows a special9-
plot page. This is s h o w below for a beam under axial compression and shear.

This page has 2 new graphs that have not been explained yet.

The Interna1 Forces plot shows the force and location of the compressive and
tensile forces in the cross section. In this case, due to the axial load, they do not balance
each other. Note that the tensile force arrow may not corne directly fiom the steel
location due to the concrete tensile force component. By right clicking on the plot,
another mode may be selected that calculates directly the resultant of the steel and
concrete forces. This can produce counterintuitive results, so is not the default mode of
presentation.

The N+M plot shows the moment and axial force drawn simply as arrows. This
helps in finding mistakes in simple things such as the sign of the axial force.
 ibWVUAt Page A 4 4
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

The example below shows the screen of Response-2000 in the load-deformation

plot mode. The figure shows the AASHTO-99 moment-shear interaction diagram for a
colurnn tested at the University of Toronto in the 1970's by Aregawi2' . This figure
contains a great deal of information and so will be explained in detail.

AASHTO-99 M-V Interaction

Response-2000 Interface Issues

This page of results is selected with the toolbar icon with the lamba (A -
signiQing load factor) beside the little 9-plot icon or fiom the "View 1 Load Deformation
PIot" menu.

The background plot is selected in the top left of the screen. Cumently it is
selected to the AASHTO-99 LRFD M-V interaction diagram. Below that option is the
"Paste Data" section that allows selection of which plots to paste ont0 the plot. The
figure at the start of the section showing cracked shell elements on the main figure was
 A4MNU.a Page A-55
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
prepared this way with Shell-2000. Currently selected is the longitudinal strain profile,
with the current levels controlled by the control plot below. Pressing the "add to graph"
button would paste the picture on the main figure where it could be moved and resized.

The main figure wntains a pair of text-boxes as well as a diagram of the element.
The element picture is pasted on via the "Options / Insert Beam Diagram" menu option.
By right clicking on the figure, the dimension text may be resized and copied to the
clipboard etc. The top text was automatically prepared by Response-2000 and inserted
with the "Options 1 Insert Text Box'' option. This text box may also be edited and
customised. The bottom right text box was automatically included by Response-2000 to
provide information on how the AASHTO-99 analysis was calculated.

Analysis Results Issues

The AASHTO-99 LRFD page (there is also an AASHTO-94 LRFD page)
automatically calculates the strength of the section and prints it in the text box, in this
case in the bottom nght. It can be seen that the ultimate shear capacity (Vu)was
predicted as 79 kips. This is calculated for the ratio of moment to shear selected fiom the
"Loads / Loads" dialog box. Note that there is a Iittle box on the interaction curve at the
point it calculates failure at. In this case, it is on the top curve part of the envelope
meaning a shear failure is predicted.

There is an additional littie box shown just below the envelope, this is the
maximum load that the Response-2000 analysis was able to achieve. In this case they are
very close, but they can Vary more widely. If the Response-2000 prediction is outside the
envelope, it suggests that the AASHTO code is conservative compared to the more
advanced predictions that Response-2000 makes. If the Response-2000 prediction is
within the envelope, it suggests that the code is unconservative compared to the
Response-2000 analysis. This provides a second, independent, checking of the
provisions of the code that uui add to engineer's confidence for strength predictions of
unusual geornetry.
 W A l : Page A-56
Membrane-2000 R c s p o n ~ 2 0 0 0Triax-2000 SheH-2000
It is noted in the top text box that this particular column happened to fail
experimentally at a shear of 80 kips, which is in excellent agreement with both the
Response-2000 predictions and the code prediction. See Reference 2 for more discussion
of the experimental veri fication of Response-2000.

Response-2000 also has the following load-deformation plots.

SheadMoment VS longitudinal strain at mid-depth
Moment-Curvature
Moment-Maximum Crack Width
Moment-Maximum Reinforcement Strain
Shear-Maximum Crack Width
Shear-S hear Strain
Shear-Transverse Strain
Interaction Diagrams (M-V,N-V, M-N depending on which is calculated)
 MINCLAL Page A 4 7
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 She11-2000
Repmse-2000 Full Mem ber Plots

One of the features of Response-2000 is that while internally it is a sectional

analysis program, it is able to c o ~ e cat number of sections to perform simple member
analysis. The shown example is for the largest beam ever tested in shear, tested by
This barn had an effective depth of 3000 mm (10 feet), and was
Shioya et al in ~a~an*'.
36 metres long (120 feet). The beam was subjected to a uniformly distnbuted loading.

To perform the shown Response-2000 analysis, the section was first entered into
the program- Next, the "Loads 1 Full Member Properties" option was used to select a
length of 18 metres (Response-2000 does the analysis on the half-length of the beam),
and the loading was switched to a uniformly distributed load. Finally, the "Solve 1
Member Response" menu option was selected.

Response-2000 calculated the interaction diagram shown in the top control chart.
It then detemined the largest loading envelope that would fit into the diagram. It can be
 Ad4NUAL Page A-58
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000
seen that the loading envelope touches the filure envelope on the top indicating a shear
failure. If it had touched at the right side, it would have represented a flexural failure.
The shape of the loading envelope is parabolic on the right and Iinear on the left. See
Reference 2 for a description of the derivation of the loading shape.

The s h o w crack diagram is the predicted extent of cracking in the beam at

faiIure. The support plate can be seen on the left. The loading is uniform over the top
surface of the beam. Using the lower control plot, the predicted extent of cracking at
other load levels may also be explored.

The plots at the bottom are also instructive. The top left one shows the change in
curvature over the length of the beam. The location of first flewal cracking, about 2500
mm from the support, c m be clearly seen as can the roughiy parabolic distribution that
would be expected for the parabolic moment diagram. Note that these curvatures al1
implicitly include the effect of shear on the cuwature.

The shear strain distribution shows ihat the average shear strain over the length of
the beam is not uniform at all. It may be expected that the strain would increase linearly
fiom the right as the shear diagram is linear, but this is not the case due the concrete non-
linearity. The strong interaction of shear and moment for this beam means that the
predicted cntical location for shear is about 6 metres away fiom the location of maximum
shear.

Rounding out the plots are the predicted deflected shape and the plot of load
versus deflection for the beam. Note that the failure is predicted at a load of 102.6 kN/m
and a deflection of about 100 millirnetres. The expermental failure load was measured
as 105 kN/m, at a deflection of about 100 millimetres.
 iW.NUfiPage A-59
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

Triax-2000 9 Plots GeneraI

Triax-2000 has a total of 8 different 9-plot screens. These will not al1 be shown
here as there is a fair amount of repeition between them.

The example shows a block of 40 MPa concrete with 1 % of 400 MPa steel in the
X direction, and 0.5% of 400 MPa reinforcement in the Y and Z directions. The loading
is a full response with 4 units of shear stress in the X-Y direction and 5 units in the Y-Z
direction.

Crack Diagram
This shows the block of concrete with the reinforcement drawn in. The
reinforcement is given the same colouring d e s that Response-2000 has. The directions
of the vectors of principal stress/strain are drawn in as weli, thick blue for the principal
 ibU.NUALPage A 4 0
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
tensile direction, thick green for principal compressive direction and red for the
intermediate direction. If the concrete is cracked, the intersection of the m c k plane with
the bounds of the box is s h o w with colours represmting the principal direction, in this
case blue due to it being the first principal tensile direction.

Load Factor - E. load factor VS average strain in X direction (xlw3)

The general variable used for Y-axes in Triax-2000 is the load factor. This means
that the actual values of loading must be known. This plot shows the variation of the x-
direction strain wit h load factor.

Load Factor - E, load factor VS average main in Y direction ( ~ 1 0 ' ~ )

Note the high strain in this case indicating yielding of the y direction steel at
failure.

Node-Data 1 and 2
Like Membrane-2000, Triax-2000 provides a page that shows the interna1 stress
and strain state of the element. For the 3D case, this presentation is sufficiently imporiant
to be on almost al1 of the 9-plot cases. With a right click on each of the 2 pages of
numbers, the data may be copied to the clipboard for use in other programs.

Load Factor- Crack width 1 load factor VS crack width I (mm, in, cm)
Crack widths are s h o w here for the first principal direction of cracking. Note
that there rnay well be more cracks in the second principal direction and, in the absence
of shear, on the third direction also.

Shear on Crack 1 - sr Shear on crack @Pa, psi, kg/cm2) vs EL (x10")

This shows the magnitude of the 3D vector of shear on the crack and compares it
to the maximum allowable level s h o w in red. In this example, the shear on the crack
cnterion is controlling where the two lines touch.

f3- ES Principal compressive stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

 jlcWVUAL Page A-6 1
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Principal compressive strain (x 10-~)
This shows the health of the concrete against crushing. When these two lines
touch, the concrete is crushing. In this case, this happens after yield of the Y and Z
direction steel.

fi - Principal tensile stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)vs

Principal tensile strain (x 10")
This compares the health of the concrete against yield of the steel and shear on the
crack. If equilibrium requires that the tensile stress be reduced due to the capacity of the
steel at a crack or the ability of the crack surfaces to resist shear, it will show up on this
plot. In the example, the drop in principal tension is caused the shear on the crack
relationship seen to be critical above.

Triax-2000 OIher 9-plot Views

Cracking: This %plot view shows the principal strains (x IO"'), crack widths (mm, in,
cm) and shear on crack resultants (MPa, psi, kg/cm2), for cracks in principal directions
one and two.

Direction Cosines This shows the state of the three direction cosines in each of the
three principal directions with respect to load factor. These are the numbers used to draw
the vectors in the crack diagram above.

Principal This page shows the three principal strains (x 10-~)

and three principal
stresses @Pa, psi, kg/cm2) in the concrete.

Rein forcement This group of 9-plots shows the steel stresses on average and at a
crack (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)in the X, Y and Z directions. Note that the discussion above for
Membrane-2000 conceming shear on the crack also applies to effects in three dimensions
such as these cases.
 MihWRL Page A-62
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000

Shear on the Crack This page shows the 3D components of the shear on the crack
(MPa, psi, kg/cm2)for the first and second principal cracking direction. These values are
calculated using a non-hear optimisation fnction based on quadratic programming. It
minimises to the shear on the crack required, an extension of the 2D method explained
above for Membrane-2000.

Strain State This shows the load-factor vs the 6 rectangular strains. ( E , E, cl, yw, yYr,
, ,y al1 10-~)

Stress Statt This shows the load-factor vs the 6 rectangular stresses. (Ex, &, &, vxy,
,,v v , al1 in MPa, psi, kg/cm2)
Sheii-2000 9 plois Genetaf
Like Tnax-2000, the 3D nature of Shell-2000 re~ultsin eight 9-plot m e n s .
Shell-2000 is shown with Shell element SP2 tested by ~ d e b . 2with
~ loading ratios of
moment M x = My = 0.5 and out of plane shear Va= V , = 1 .O. This element containecl a
light amount (53 psi = 0.37 MPa) of transverse reinforcement.

It can be seem that the combination ofthe two moments and shears has causeci the
direction of cracking to rotate to 45 degrees away fiom the steel directions. The applied
loading at predicted failure is V
, =V
, = 303 kN/m. In this case, this corresponds to a
principal shear o f 3O3 x 1 -414 = 428 kN/m. In the expenment, the element failed at a
principal shear o f 449 kN/m.
 lhXNiXAL Page A-64
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Shell Diagram
The crack diagram shows the extent of cracking in the shell element. Bars are
drawn and turn red or green when yielding as in the other programs in this manual. The
fust principal direction crack is drawn in red and the second principal direction crack is
drawn in green. The Crack diagram is s h o w below responding t o each of the different
type of loading to assist in interpreting what it means.

Crack Stress X stress at a crack in X direction steel (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)

Crack Stress Y stress at a crack in Y direction steel (MPa, ksi,t/&)
This is usefiil to identim if the section is being govemed by flexural behaviour. in
this case, it is not as the stresses are much lower than the 480 MPa strength of the steel.

Crack Width 1 width of crack in first principal direction (mm, in, cm)
This shows the crack width distribution over the element

Shear Stress V
, In plane shear distribution with depth (MPa, psi kg/cm2)
Shell elements can be subject to intemal in-plane shear stresses even when not
externally loaded in in-plane shear. The example shows that in this case there is up to 3.5
MPa of in-plane shear even though the resultant ofthe positive and negative in-plane
shear is zero. The resultant o f the twisting moment causeci by this shear is also zero as
t here is no extemal twisting moment applied.

Reinforcement Stress Z Stress in shear reinforcement on average (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)

This indicates how closel y the structure is to shear failure by yield o f the
transverse reinforcement. In this case, the strength of the shear reinforcement is 460
MPa, so the steel is close to yielding.

f3 Principal Compressive Stress Distribution of compression (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

This indicates how closely the concrete in the structure i s t o crushing. If the red
line at the left touches the blue line at the right, the concrete is crushing. In this case,
failure is not governed by cmshing.
 M R L Page A-65
Membrane-2000 Remonse-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Shear on Crack -el Shear on crack (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs
Principal tensile strain (x IO-=)
As with the other programs, this indicates how much equilibrium dictated shear
on the crack must be present over the depth of the element. The red Iine indicates the
maximum allowable stress based on the aggregate size and the crack width at that depth.
Ifthe two Iines touch, as they have just done in the exarnple, the principal tensile stress
will be reduced to ensure that equilibrium can be maintained. In the exarnple, this
initiation of crack slip represents the maximum load the element can maintain. As noted
above, the transverse reinforcement is almost at yield already, so any increase in demand
on the steel, due to crack slip, cannot be supporteci. If the structure had more transverse
steel, this would not be the case. Note, however, that this inclusion of only 53 psi of
stirrups to the shell increased its predicted shear capacity b y 20% over the case with no
transverse reinforcement.

f~ Tensile Stress Principal tensile stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

This shows the distribution of tension in the principal tensile direction over the
element in blue, with the maximum allowable tension fiom equilibrium drawn in red. In
this case it can be seen that the shear on the crack limitation is cutting in and about to
force the tensile stress to be reduced inducing failure. Ifthe specimen is experiencing
flexural style failure, the red Iine will cut in diagonally. If it is experiencing shear on the
crack style behaviour, the line will cut in matching the shear on the crack graph.

Shell-2000 9-Plot Views

Cracking: This 9-plot mode shows the base and diagonal crack spacings (mm, in,
cm) as well as the crack widths (mm, in, cm) and shear on the crack resultants (MPa, psi,
kg/cm2), for cracks in principal directions one and two.

Direction Cosines This shows the state of the three direction cosines in each of the
three principal directions with respect to depth. These are the numbers used to draw the
crack surface in the shell diagram.
 W R L Page A 4 6
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Principal This page shows the principal strains (x 105) and principal stresses @Pa,
psi, kg/cm2) with respect to depth.

Reinforcemcnt This shows the steel stresses on average and at a crack as well as
bond stresses va, ksi, tkm3 in the X, Y and Z directions. The bond is discussed
above in the Response-2000 section on bond. The discussion above for Membrane-2000
conceming shear on the crack also applies to effects in three dimensions such as these
cases.

Shear on the Crack This page shows the 3D components of the shear on the crack
@Pa, psi, kg/cmz) for the first and second principal cracking direction. These values are
calculated using a non-linear optimisation hinction based on quaciratic programming. It
minimises to the shear on the crack required.

Strain State This shows the 6 rectangular strains through the depth o f the element.
(EX? Gy, Ez, Y?
, Y,=, Y a . x W3)

Stress State This shows the 6 rectangular stresses through the depth of the element.
(f& f, fa,,,v v, ,v al1 in M'Pa, psi, kg/cm2)
 M4AUAL Page A-67
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

Shel-2000 Interpreting Crack Diagrams

The following figures show a series of crack diagrams fiom Shell-2000 to

demonstrate what some of the standard crack patterns look like. This should help in
determining if a given crack pattern is consistent with the desed loading.

X Direction Axial tension Y Direction Axial Tension Positive in-plane (X-Y)Shear

Positive X-Moment Positive Y-Moment Positive Twisting Moment

Positive X-Z Shear Positive Y-Z Shear

Combinations of loading:
Axial load in X and Y direction
Two crack planes form at 90 degrees.

Biaxial Moment same sign, no shear

Sirnilar to above, but cracks are not fidl depth.
 AhWCLRL Page A-68
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Biaxial moment, different sign, no shear
Similar to above, but cracks start on opposite side of
element. When cracks meet at mid-depth, the first
principal direction will change firom one crack to the
other, and the other pnncipai direction will take over the
extension of the crack.

Unidirectional Moment and matching out-of-plane shear.

This is the traditional 2D case of loading taken care of by
Response-2000

Biaxial Moment same sign, with out of plane shear.

Note the difference between this and the case without out
of plane shear. In this case the crack rotates around to
follow the direction of principal shear rather than
maintaining a pair of orthogonal flexural cracks.

She ll-2 0 00 Lmd-Defannafion Plais

Like Response-2000, Shell-2000 has a senes of plots that will show overall
sectional behaviour. The vertical axis on these plots is either the applied load or, if zero
for the individual graph, the load-factor. Note that by using the methods explained in
Section 5-2 for copying data from charts, any other combination of graphs may be made
fkom the existing plots using a spreadsheet. The following plots are included:

X Axial Force VS longitudinal X strain

Y AxiaI Force VS longitudinal Y strain
In-Plane (XY)Shear Force VS XY shear strain
Moment-X VS Curvature X
Moment-Y VS Curvature Y
Twisting Moment (Mxy) VS twisting strain
Out of Plane X-Z shear VS X-Z shear strain
Out of Plane Y-Z shear VS Y-Zshear strain
 A4WlU.L Page A 4 9
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000

SECTION V: Advanced Topics

The topics in this section are not required in order to use the programs, but can be
usefl to get the most out of their operation.

5-1 Text Effects

In entering chart tities, axes, text boxes etc, it is possible to use superscripts,
subscripts and Greek characters. This works as foUows:

A character (letter) preceded by an underscore Cc-") will be a subscript.

A character preceded by a carat Cc^") will be superscript
A character preceded by a vertical bar ("1") will be a Greek character.

For example, the following series of letters in a text box "a-bcAdjelf' would be
shown on the screen as:
abcda

5-2 Chart Options

As is likely fairly clear, the basic unit of information in the programs is the chart.
As such, there are a number of features available in using charts that are accessed by right
clicking on the charts themselves. The following 6 options are available on right-
clicking:

i) Copy Chart Picture

This will copy the graph image to the clipboard so that it can be pasted into other
applications. This fnction was used extensively, for example, in making this manual.

ii) Copy Chart Data

This will copy the data fiom a chart to the clipboard in the form of a table of
numbers. This allows the data to be pasted into a spreadsheet for firrther analysis. Note
that the data as entered will have t o be "parsed" in order to put it in columns.
 AUNUAL Page A-70
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
iii) View Data
This will show the chart data in a dialog box. This is usefl for a simple look at
the data contained without having to copy and paste it.

iv) Properties
This allows editing of the limits, fonts, titles etc of a chart. See section 5-3 below.

v) Auto* Range
This will change the axis mode of the chart. Normally charts automatically re-
scale the axes so that the data f i t ~nicely on the chart. When switched to max scaling, the
chart will "remembef' the maximum scale values so far. This is usefbl when scanning
through al1 the results with the control plot. This hnction is duplicated with the "auto
range" button on the lefi side of the screen above the control plots that works on al1 charts
sirnultaneously.

vi) Toggle Text

Each plot has the ability to show text informationjust below it. For plots such as
longitudinal strain across the depth, it will show the curvature. For shear strain
distributions, it will show the average shear strain value. For plots that show a crosshair
that corresponds to the control plot, the CO-ordinatesof the crosshair will be shown. For
other plots, it will show the average X value of the data

5-3 Edit Chart Properties

An important option fiom right clicking on the chart is the properties page as
briefly noted above. This brings up a dialog box as show below that allows many parts
of the chart to be changed. This can be usefiil to optimise the appearance of plots before
printing. If it is desired to make more substantial changes to a plot, it will be necessary to
copy the data to a spreadsheet, as explained above, and recreate the graph there.
 W R L Page A-7 1
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000

The dialog box has three

parts to it. The top deals with the
titles, the middle deals with the
scaling of the data, and the bottom
deols with the appearance of the
primary line on the chart. The
example here shows a shear-shear
strain graph fiom Response-200.

Title Section
The chart title, X-axis title
and Y-axis title rnay be changed
here. Note that the methods explained in section 5-11 ifor supedsubscripts and Greek
characters rnay be used (which rnay explain why the text rnay look strange for some
charts). The small charts used in the 9-plot output do not show their axis titles, but they
are stored here anyway so that units and axes rnay be confrmed. The user can change the
fonts for the title and axes fiom this part of the dialog box as well.

Scahg of Data Section

The scaling of the data has a number of options. For the X and Y direction the
user can select the minimum and maximum axis values, the tick-mark spacing (or None
as shown) and the number of decimals to show. The graph min and max values have
check boxes for automatic scaling. That will s a l e things so that everything fits in well.
When copying data to the clipboard or for viewing, the number of decimal points
presented is increased fkom the listed value by 2.
Line Section
This allows changes to the appearance of the line itself. The thickness of the iine
rnay be adjusted to any integer. The colour of the line rnay be changed as well. The third
option allows changing the type of Iine, normally a solid line with four other choices
 AUXNU.'. Page A-72
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
available. For graphs with more than one line on them, these changes will only affect the
fust line.

5-4 Double Click Information in Response-2000

In Response-2000, but not the other programs, double clicking on the background
behind the main cross section drawing will bring up a dialog box with calculated
information about the cross section. This information includes:

Total Area of Reinforcement above and below mid-depth of beam

List of number of actual bars present (e.g. 6 #4)
Estimate of effective depths d and d'.
Gross percentage of steel. This is calculated as A./&, not M d .
Maximum transverse reinforcement level. Complex geometry can tnck
this calculation, so care is required when interpretting it.
AASHTO-94Shear StrengthA4SHTO-99 Shear Strength
This is based on the loading ratios in the "Loads j Loads" dialog box.

5-5 Segmental Concrete Mode1

One of the concrete matenal models is called the segmental model. The user is
asked for a list of stress-strain pairs when they click the "modiw button in the concrete
dialog box. There are a number of restrictions in using this. Firstly, only one segmenta1
type may be used per input file. More importantly, the stress-strain curve will only be
saved in Response-2000 files; Membrane-2000, Shell-2000, and Triax-2000 can use the
segmenta1 model, but cannot save the data in their output files.

5-6 Material Reduction Factors

Some design codes such as the Canadian concrete building code treat strength
reduction factors not on the calculated sectional strength, but on the material properties
themselves. This is supported in the programs through the "Options 1 Preferences" menu
option. There is a button there that will automatically select the factors for the CSA code
as well as another button that will remove the factors. ifthe numbers are listed as 1.O,
then they have no effect on the analysis. In printing out factored results in this way, there
will generally be an 'Y tacked ont0 the end of the title of a force, for example, M
becomes Mf when it's factored.
 iU4NURL Page A-73
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000

5-7 Concrete Strain Discontinuity Eumple

This is included here, as it would tend to be too confsing above. A strain
discontinuity allows the basic assumption of plane-sections rernaining plane to be
violated in Response-2000 for situations such as composite construction. This case is
important when a slab is cast ont0 an unshored beam. In that case, the beam will have its
own dead load as well as the load of the wet slab concrete placed ont0 it when there is no
stress at al1 in the slab. Any additional loading will then take place in a composite
fashion with the slab. The following example demonstrates how to account for this case
for the simple 80 foot beam described in the "Quick Start: Response-2000" in section L

Start with the beam and no slab or slab

reinforcing. This should look like the following
figure. It is not important that the stirrups come out
of the precast beam, though it would be important if
there were longitudinal steel bars outside the cross
section.

Suppose that the top slab is added when the

1 i
loading causes a moment at the location of interest
of 1070 ft-kips. From a simple moment analysis with no shear or axial load, this
corresponds to a top main of -0.1593 mrn/m, and a bottom strain of 4.375 mndrn. The
stress at the top of the beam is 610 psi compression and bottom stress is 1428 psi
compression. Note that these numbers can be obtained by double clicking on the plots or
by right clicking and selecting "view data."

To account for the slab, extrapolate the Iinear strain profile into the location of
where the slab will be. If the slab were to be 8 inches deep, placed directly on top o f the
beam, the strain in the bottom of the slab would equal the above value of -0.1593 m d m ,
and the strain at the top of the slab would equal -0.1273 mm/m.
 AU.NUAL Page A-74
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Now enter in the slab itself, 80 inches wide and 8 inches thick. For this example,

calculated above.) Also, enter a

strain at 54 inches of +O. 1593 mmlm. Just slightly below this depth, say 53.8 inches, add
in a point of zero strain so there will not be any change to the precast b u m . The graph in
the discontinuity box should look like the figure.

Now perfom a new moment-curvature analysis or, better, a one-load analysis at

the old moment of 1070 kip-fi. The effect of the strain discontinuity is s h o w in the two
figures below.

The strain graph shows that while plane sections are still plane, there is an offset
that happens to rnake the strain equal to zero in the top slab section up to the top of the
axis. The effect of this on the stress plot is that there is no stress in the slab- This means
the stress in the beam is still the same as it was before the addition of the slab, and there
is no stress in the slab itself

Longitudinal Strain Longitudinal Concmtte Stmrs

 As the load increases, say to 2000 kip.ft, the following plots are obtained. The
strains increase beyond the state above. This means that incrementally, plane sections
remain plane, as they should be for fblly composite materials.

Longitudinal Strain Longitudinal Concrek Stnss

w

-0.22 844.3

bat,
 A&lNUU Page A-76
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
5-8 Rebar.dat
Each of the programs has a list of reinforcing bar definitions that can be used by
any cross section (see Table 2-4 in section II). This list is, in fact, user definable. Each
program maintains a file in its install directory called "rebardat" that is a text file loaded
each time the program starts. Users may add to this lia and the new options will be
available the next time the prograrn is started. Note that each prograrn has a separate
rebar-dat, but they are ail identical on distribution. (Le. if changes are made to one, they
can be copied to the directories of the other programs as well.)

The format of the file is as follows:

/ / Response-2000 Data F i l e
//
// T h i s f i l e c o n t a i n s the d e f i n i t i o n s of a i l s t a n d a r d r e b a r / s t r a n d types
//
// U s e r s may add more t y p e s which w i l l be a v a i l a b l e t h e n e x t t f m e c h a t
// Response-2000 is s t a r t e d . i n p u t is n o t c a s e s e n s i t i v e .
//
// I f bars a r e e n t e r e d w i t h t h e same namc a s e x i s t i n g o n e s , t h e first o n e v i l 1 be used
// Lar t i t l e is l i m i t e d t o 1 4 c h a r a c t e r s . S p a c e s a r e a l l o w e d , b u t t h e f i r s t nuniber
// found a f t e r t h e t i t l e a n d a s p a c e i s assumed t o b e t h e a r e a .
//
// I n f o r m a t i o n is a s f o l l o w s :
//
// Marne code Nominal Diameter (mm) Nominal Area (mm-2)
//
// -- s t a r t o f d e f a u l t l i s t i n g --
//
// CSA s t a n d a r d R e i n f o r c i n q B a r s
//
10M 11.3 100
15M 16.0 200
ZOM 19.5 300
25M 25.2 500
30M 29.9 700
35M 35.7 1000
-. e t c

If a file including a user defined bar is used on a version of one of the programs
that has not seen the bar title before, the new name will be saved to the standard listing
when the program shuts down.
 Iic.IIANuAL Page A-77
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
5-9 Adding predefined shapes: Sbapedat
The list of basic shapes used in the concrete definition in Response-2000 is user
extendable. This may be usefl for things such as design optimisation where the same
geometry may be tweaked by adjusting only one or twr> variables.
// This file defines al1 the simple shapes used by Response-2000
// note that the standard shapes (PCI etc) are located in standard-dat
//
// L'sers can add more shapes to end of this file. They will be available
// the next time the proqram is loaded
//
// The format here is deffned as follows:
//
// TYPE name title of section
// line one text line describinq the section
// name-ico (optional) name of icon f rom current directory to use
// ( i f not included a default user icon will be used)
// P A W S b h variable names to define the shape
// lines one line for each variable as text definition
// SECTION start of the section definition
// height width one line for each change in geometry
// simple math is allowed ( +- '/ 1
// REBAR RECT rebar pattern symbols allowed: RECT, POLAR, BIPOLAR
// RECT means rectanqular reinforcment (like a bearn)
// FOLAR means circulas (like in a tound colurnn)
// BIPOLAR means interlockinq spirals pattern
// ENDTYPF indicatinq end of the list
//
// half circles and elliptical parts can be defined as:
//
// heiqht width
// code
// height width
// with code = U P or GOWN indicatinq uhich side has the zero slope
//
// Absolute dimensions in m. Distance from bottom of section
// lines startinq with 2 slashes are comment lines
//
TYPE RECT
Rectangle Section
PhRAMS b h
Width of the Rectangle
i-ieiqht of the Rectanqle
SECTION SOLID
h b
O b
SEBAR RECT
ENDTY PE
/ /
TYPE INTER
Interlockinq Spiral Column
inter. ico
PARA% b h bt
Total section width
Total section heiqht
Uidth at top and bottom extremes
SECTION SOLID
h bt
h-(b-bt)'0.5 b
(b-bt)'0.5 b
O bt
REBAR BIPOLAR
ENDTY PE
 AhdNiYAL Page A-78
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
5-10 Adding predefined sections: Standard.dat

This file is very similar to the shape-dat file explained above except that it does
not allow variables to define the section. It is used ta define standard sections such as the
AASHTO highway girder cross sections.

The format of the file is listed here.

Response-2000 input file

This file conzains al1 the standard sections for Response

Users can add more to end of file as well with the following format

TYPE narne name is the unique identifier for the section

CATEGORY name name o f category ex PCI hollowcore
SECTION indicating start of section list
b h as many lines as needed to define Che section
ENDTY PE indicatinq the end of the listing

half circles and elliptical parts can be defined as:

heiqht width
code
heiqht width

with code = U P o r DOW indicating uhich side has the zero slope

Absolute dimensions in mm. Distance from bortom of section

lines stazting with 2 slashes are comment lines

Order of definition is maintained.

see the d e f a u l t types below for examples

TYPE CPC1900
CATEGORY C P C I - 1
SECTION SOLID
?O0 300
750 30C
720 150
240 150
150 450
O 450
ENDTY PE
//
 M L Page A-79
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
5-11Template Files
When the programs are started, they look automatically for a template file, to load
up default values for the program to run with.

Program Tempiate File

The template file mua be located in the directory ofthe program itself. The
following parameters are set tiom the template file:

Default units
Default name for the "done by" part of input files
Default steel yield stress
Default aggregate size
Default concrete strength

To create a template file, simply make an input file that has al1 the desired base
components generally wanted in a starting file. For some, this may include matenal
types, concrete geometry, loading, units, etc. Save this file in the program install
directory with the name listed above. Upon restarting the program, it should
automatically load this new file. Note that Response-2000 will automatically rename the
file "r2k.r2k.rspmas .rsp is the standard file extension for Response-2000. This means
that the Response template file must be renamed by hand using, for example, the
windows explorer.

This is the simplest way to have the program begin each time with, say, Japanese
units rather than SI metnc, which is the default starting units.
 MUVUAL Page A-80

5-12 Text File Formats

The binary file formats used in the programs rnay be requested ftom the author at
the University of Toronto at the address on page A-1.

Response-2000 also supports a text-based file format that supports al1 the features
of the hl1 binary version of the program. What foilows is a definition of this format with
an example as well.

Usage
This file format can be transparently used in Response-2000. The existing load
dialog box in Response-2000 allows access via the "files of type" option.

Extension
Filename extension is ".r2tn(Response-2000 text file).

Contents:
The following is a comprehensive list of the contents of the file. Note that options
within square brackets ([ j) are optional and Response-2000 will assumed default
numbers for them if not provided. Lines preceded by a "#" or "//" are comment lines and
may be inserted at d l .

Version:
The format described herein represents Response file format number 0.8. This
version type will remain supported for al1 released versions of Response-2000.

Units
Units for input are listed below in order of Metnc, US Customary, and Old Metnc
(ex mm,in,cm means millimetres in SI metric, inches in US Customary, and centimetres
for kglcm2 units)

Formats: the following text formats are used below

-text 1 text format type 1: no spaces [a. .&O. .9,,-] (case insensitive)
-text2 text format 2, any character (case sensitive)
-units units indicator m[USCIOLDMIMETRICIOLDMEmC] (case insensitive)
-h u m floating point (or integer) number
-inum integer number
/ / Response-2000 I n p u t F i l e Ver-0.8 Mandatory f i r s t l i n e
//
// a r b i t r a r y number o f comment l i n e s .
//
ItJPUT-LABEL - t e x c l unique i d e n t i f i e r
[TITLE t e x t 2 ] optional title
[ D O N E B Y - - ~ ~ X ]~ Z o p t i o n a l ownership
[DATE - t e x t 2 1 optional date
UNITS - u n i t s u n i t s of input f i l e
[CRACICX -fnum] l o n g . c r a c k spacinq. (-1 f o r d e f a u l t )
[CRACKY -f num] t r a n s . c r a c k s p a c i n g . (-1 f o r d e f a u l t )
[ A X I A L L E -f num] l o c a t i o n o f c e n t e r of a x i a l f o r c e
MATERIAL CONCRETE - t e x t l c o n c r e t e m a t e r i a l b l o c k u i t h name
 FCP -fnum c y l i n d e r s t r e n g t h (MPa,psi,kg/cm21
[FT -fnum] t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h (MPa,psi,kg/cm2)
[EO -fnum] s t r a i n a t peak s t r e s s ( ~ 1 0 - 3 )
[TSFACTOR -fnum] t e n s i o n s t i f f . f a c t o r (0.0 < f a c t < 1-01
[HAXAGG -fnurn] maximum a g g r e g a t e s i z e (mm. i n c h e s , c m 1
[C-MO0 -inumi concrete base curve t y p e
O= l i n e a r t o p e a k stress
1= p a r a b o l i c c u r v e
2= Popovics/Thorenfeldt/Collins
/ / note segmentai not supported y e t
c o n c r e t e compression s o f t e n i n g

[T-TIFF -inuml concrete tension stiffening

ENDMAT
[... a s many a s 5 c o n c r e t e m a t e r i a l t y p e s i n t o t a l r e p e a t i n g t y p e l i s t a b o v e ]
MATERIAL REBAR - t e x t l f i r s t r e b a r d e f i n i t i o n b l o c k w i t h name
EY -fnum yield stress (HPa, k s i , t o n s / c m 2 )
[E -fnuml Young8s modulus iMPa.ksi.tons/un21
[FU -fnum] u l t i m a t e s l r e n g t h (MPa, k s i , t o n s / c m 2 )
[ESH -fnuml s t r a i n a t s t a r t o f s t r a i n h a r d e n i x 10-3)
[EU -inun11 s t r a i n a t p e a k s t r e s s ( x 10-3)
EN DMAT
MATERIAL PRESTRESS - t e x c l f i r s t p r e s t r e s s e d steel t y p e d e f i n i t i o n
N -fnum u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h (MPa, k s i , t o n s / c m 2
[E -fnurn] Young* s modulus [MPa, k s i , t o n s / c m 2 )
[ A -numl Ramberg-Osgood p a r a m e t e r A
[ B -numl Ramberg-Osgood p a r a m e t e r B
[C fnum] Ramberg-Osgood p a r a m e t e r C
EU--^
num] s t r a i n a t p e a k s t r e s s ( x 10-3)
ENDMAT
[.. a s many a s a t o t a l o f 20 d i f f e r e n t r e b a r and p r e s t r e s s t y p e s a l l o w e d ]
SECTION SOLI D define t h e solid cross section
-
fnum -fnum - t e x t l d e p t h . u i d t h , t y p e name (mm, i n , c m )
-fnum -fnum - t e x t l d e p t h , w i d t h , t y p e name
[.. . a s rnany a s 30 d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s a s s u c h ]
[... a l t e r n a t e m e t h o d o l o g y below. .. use one o r o t h e r j
SECTNAME - t e x t l s h a p e name f r o m s h a p e s - d a t
PARAMS -fnum -fnum -fnurn ... v a r a i b l e p a r a m e t e r s f o r t h a t
ENDSECTION
SECTION HOLLOW
u n s u p p o r t e d f o r now
ENDSECTION
LONGTA3 longitudinal s t e e l table
fnum -fnurn -fnum - t e x t l height, area, prestrain, type of s t e e l
[.., a s many l a y e r s a s d e s i r e d . c a n b e u s e d w i t h LONGREINF o r w i t h o u t ]
LONGREINF - t e x t l f i r s t type of longitudinal reinforcment
Z -fnum d e p t h rom b o t t o m o f s e c t i o n (mm, i n , c m )
A -fnurn a r e a o f s c e e l a t d e p t h (mmZ,in2,cm2]
TYPE - t e x t l type ( e i t h e r rebar o r prestressed type)
[ DRAPE -fnum] drape o f reinforcrnent [ rise over r u n )
[num -fnuml number o f i n d i v i d u a l b a r s
[ A I -fnum] area of individual bar
[DE -fnum] diameter of individual b a r
[BART - t e x t l ] t i t l e of b a r type
Note t h a t we c a n s p e c i f y num=10, b a r t = 1 5
o r we c o u l d s p e c i f y num=lO, AI=200rnm2, DB=16 mm
and g e t same t h i n g . I f b o t h s p e c i f i e d , BART p r e c e d e n c e
[ DEP - f n u n ] Delta-epsilon-p p r e s t a i n (x10-3)
The f o i l o w i n g a l l o w s g r o u p i n g o f b a r s . A l 1 l a y e r s m u s t b e
i n d i v i d u a l l y e n t e r r e d , b u t t h e y c a n be g r o u p e d i n t o
distributed patterns o r circular patterns.
[ PATTERN -i num 1 ( O = none, 1= c i r c u l a r , Z = d i s t r i b u t e d )
[NROUND -1numI number i n p a t t e r n
f o r p a t t e r n x l , i t ' s number a r o u n d c i r c l e
f o r p a t t e r n = Z , i t ' s t o t a l number of b a r s i n i a y e r s
[ALIGNED -inum] i f 1, t h e n 2 b a r s a t t o p , i f O, 1 b a r a t
top for circular patterns
[INDEX -inum] which p a t t e r n number we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h
ENDLONG
[.. a s many l o n g i t u d i n a l p a t t e r n s a s w i l l f i t i n t o mernory a l l o w e d ]
 ih4MLM Page A-82
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Tnax-2000 Shell-2000
TWSREINF - t e x t l f i r s t transverse reinforcement type
A -fnum t o t a l a r e a of a l 1 l e g s of s t e e l
TYPE - t e x t l type ( e i t h e r r e b a r o r p r e s t r e s s e d t y p e )
PATTERN -inum s t y l e of type:
O = single leg
1 = open s t i r r u p
2 = closed s r i r r u p
3 = hoop
4 = T headed s i n g l e l e g
SPACE -fnum s p a c i n g of r e i n f o r c e m e n t (mm, i n , cm)
[DISTTOF -fnum] d i s t a n c e ftom b o t t o m o f s e c t i o n t o t o p
o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t (mm, i n , cm1
[ DISTBOT -f numl d i s t a n c e from b o t t o m o f s e c t i o n t o
bottom o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t (mm,i n , c m )
[ A I -fnuml a r e a of i n d i v i d u a l b a r
[DB -fnum] diameter o f i n d i v i d u a l bar
[SART - t e x t l l t i t l e of b a r type
Note t h a t we c a n s p e c i f y b a r t t l 5
o r we c o u l d s p e c i f y AI=200mm2, DB=16 mm
and qet same t h i n g . I f both s p e c i f i e d , B M T precedence
[DEP -fnum] D e l t a - e p s i l o n - p p r e s t a i n (%IO-3)
ENDTRANS
LOADING
[CONSTANT -fnum -fnum -fnuml c o n s t a n t l o a d component
VARIABLE -fnum -fnum -fnum v a r i a b l e l o a d component
ENDLOAD
[SHRINKTHERM CONCRETE]
[-fnum -fnuml d e p t h and s h r i n k a g e amount
[mm, i n , c m ) , ( x 10-3)
f . . a s many l a y e r s o f s h r i n k a g e a s d e s i r e d f o r c o n c r e t e ]
IENDSHRINK]
[THE.SMAL REINFORCE]
(not supported yet 1
[-fnum] t h e r m a l s t r a i n f o r e a c h l o n g . cype
[ ENDSHRINK]
[ DISCONT]
[-fnum -f nurn] d e p t h and d i s c o n t i n u i t y s t r a i n
[ .. a s many a s u a n t e d ]
[ENDDISCONTJ
WALYSIS
TYPECODE -inurn -fnum -fnum type of a n a l y s i s t o perform
and i n p u t v a l u e s a s l i s t e d
O = none
1 = f u l l response
2 = one l o a d
3 = 2 strain solution
(params s t r a i n , d e p t h , s t r a i n d e p t h l
4 * I strain solution
(params s t r a i n d e p t h )
5 = M-N I n t e r a c t i o n
6 = M-V I n t e r a c t i o n
7 = N-V I n t e r a c t i o n
8 = Pushover a n a l y s i s
[. .a s many a n a l y s e s a s d e s i r e d f o r t h i s s e c t i o n ]
i o n l y used f o r command l i n e v e r s i o n o f r e s p o n s e . Send e m a i l ]
ENDANALYS I S
IMEMBERINFO]
[L -fnum] l e n g t h o f s h e a r s p a n (mm, i n , c m )
[MID002 -fnurn] middle l e n g t h o f c o n s t a n t moment
mm, i n , cm]
[TYPE -inum] t y p e of l o a d i n g
l= c o n s t a n t s h e a r a n a l y s i s
2= UDL beam t y p e
3= UDL f o o t i n g t y p e
[LEETPERCENT -fnum] l e f t s i d e % moment o f r i g h t s i d e ( 8 )
[LEFT -inum] l e f t s i d e loading
I= s u p p o r t on b o t t o m
2= s u p p o r t on t o p
3- Fixed s u p p o r t
r i g h t s i d e support
l = l o a d on t o p
 M A L Page A-83
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
2= load o n boztorn
3= fixed column base
[ PENETRATE -f num] yield penetration. 0.022 suggested
[ ENDMEMB ]
LKDINPUT
[more input-labels may be place here to as many as desired,]

Examples: simple t beam shear analysis

/ / Response-2000 Input File Ver-0.0

//
// this is a sample T-Beam analysis foc shear
//
INPUT-LABEL T-TEST
T I T L E T beam test
WNEBY Evan Bentz
DATE 99/03/09
U N I T S Metric
HATERIAL CONCRETE concrete
FCP 35
MAXAGG 19
ENMAT
MATERIAL REBAR steel
N 400
EN DMAT
MATERIAL PRESTRESS prestress
RJ 1860
SN DMAT
SECTION S O L I D
1000 1200
800 1200
800 300
O 300
ENDSECTION
LONGREIN F bottom
z 75
A 1500
TYPE steel
BART 2 5 M
ENDLONG
LONGREINF top
z 943
A 400
TYPE steel
EART 1OM
ENDLONG
TRANSREINF trans
A 200
TYPE 2
SPACE 250
BART 10M
ENDTRANS
LOADING
VARIABLE O 1 O / / i-e. pure moment
EN DLOAD
ANALYSIS
TYPECODE 4 2 75
// ( i - e . strain of 2.00 x 10-3, 75 mm from b o t t o m of section)
ENDANALY S IS
ENDINPUT
 A4iWUAL Page A-84
Membrane-2000 Resmnse-2000 Triax-2000 Shel l-2000

References for Appendix A

Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P.,"The Modified Compression Field Theory for
Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Sheai', AC1 Journal, Proceedngs 83
No. 2, March-April 1986, pp. 219-23 1.

Ben& E.C., "Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete", PhD Thesis, Deparfment

of Civil Engineering, Universiy of Toronto, 2000.

Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P.,"Respmse of Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane Shear

and Normal Stresses", Publication No. 82-03, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, Mar 1982, 332 pp.

Kirschner, U. and Collins, M.P.,"Investigating the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete

Shell EIements", Publication No 86-09, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Sept 1986, 209 pp.

Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D., "Prestressed Concrete Structures", Prentice-Hall 1991
760 pp.

Vecchio, F.J, Collins, M.P., "Compression Response of Cracked Reinforced

Cocnrete," ASCE Journal of Stmctural Engineering, Vol 119, No. 12 Dec 1993 pp.
3 590-3610.

KoIleger, J., Mehlhorn, G., "'Material Model for Cracked Reinforced Concrete,"
IABSE Colloquim on Computeational Mechanics of Concrete Structures: Advances
and plllications, Delft, 1987. Report No. 54, pp 63-74.

Miyahara, T.,Kawakami, T. Maekawa, K., "Nonlinear Behaviour of Cracked

Reinforced Concrete Palate Elements under Uniaxial Compression," Proceedings,
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 11, pp 306-3 19.

Mikame, A., Uchida, K., Noguchi, H., "A Study of Compressive Deterioration of
Cracked Concrete," Proceedings, Internationsl Workshop on FEA of RC, Columbia
University, New York, 1991.

Belarbi, A, and Hsu, T.T.C, "Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete in Biaxial

Tension-Compression", Reseurch Reporr W C E E 91-2, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas. 155 pp.

Collins, M.P.,"Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members in Shear", Jarnul of the

Struc~uralDivision. Americm Society of Civil Engneers, Vol 1104, No. ST4, Apnl
1978, m. 649-666.
 AWNUALPage A-85
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 She11-2000
12 Kaufmann, W. "Strength and Deformations of Structural Concrete Subjected to In-
Plane and Normal Forces.", Dissertation, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH,
Zurich, Switzerland, 1998.

13 Porasz, A "An Investigation of the Stress-Strain Characteristics of High Strength

Concrete in Sheaf', M.kSc. Thesis, University of Toronto 1989.

14 Zhang, L.-X, "Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements with

High Strength Concrete", PhD Inesis, University of Houston, Augua 1995.

15 Hsu, T.T.C, "Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete", CRC Press, Inc, Boca Raton,
1993,336 pp.

16 Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D., Prestresed Concrete Basics. Canadian Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 1987.

17 Izumo, J. Shin, H. Maekawa, K., Okarnura, H., "An analytical Model for RC Panels
Subjected to In-Plane Stresses," Concrete Shear in Earthquake, Elsevier Applied
Science, London and New York, 1992, pp.. 206-21 5.

18 Tamai, S. Shima, H., Izumo, J. and Okamura, H., "Average Stress-Strain Relationship
in Post Yield Range of Steel Bar in Concrete." Concrete Library of JSCE, No. 11,
June 1988, p. 117-129. (Translation fiom Proceedings of JSCE, No. 378N-6, Feb
1987).
19 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, "First Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officiais, Washington, 1194,
1901 pp. aashto code

20 Zhang, L-X, and Hsu, T.T.C., "Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete
Membrane Elernents," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 124 No. 1,
1998, pp 24-34.rastm-98

X.B.and Hsu, T.T.C. "Fixed Angle Softened Truss Model for Reinforced
2 1 Pang,
Concrete", ACIStmcturalJournaf,V 93, No 2., Mar. Apr. 1996, pp. 197-207

22 Hsu, T.T.C, and Zhang, L-X., 'Wonlinea. Analysis of Membrane Elements by Fixed-
Angle Softened-Tniss Model." AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5, Sept-Oct 1997.
pp 483-492.

23 ASCE-AC1 Committee 445, "Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Structural

Concrete." ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 12, 1998, pp.
1375-14 17.fastm 98 state of the art report.

24 Aregawi, M., "An Experimental Investigation of Circular Reinforced Concrete Beams

in Shear," M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
1974, 86 pp.
 lMANUAL Page A-86
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
25 Shioya, T., Iguro, M., Nojiri, Y., Akiyama, H., and Okada, T., "Shear Strength of
Large Reinforced Concrete Beams. Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete,
SP-118, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989,309 pp.

26 Adebar, P.E. and Collins,M.P. "Shear Design of Concrete Offshore Structures."

AC1 Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 3, 1994, pp. 324-335.
Appendix B: Detailed Zurich Data
WEST
HS 1: Load Stage 1: South Face
TOe
HS 1 : Load Stage 2: North Face
TOP
HS 1: Load Stage 2: South Face
TOP

EAST
WEST
EAST
HS 1: Load

WEST
HS 1: Load Stage 5 and final state: North Face
HS2: Load Stage 1: North Face
TOP

WEST
HS2: Load

WEST

4
HS2: Load Stage 2: North Face
TOP

WEST
HS2: Load Stage 2: South Face
TOP
HS2: Load Stage 3: North Face
TOP

EAST WEST

O
EAST
HS2: Load Stage 4: North Face
TOe

WEST
HS2: Load Stage 4: South Face
T
WEST
HS2: Load Stage 6 and 7:North Face
HS2: Load Staee 6 and 7: South Face
HS2: Final State: North Face
HS2: Final State: South Face
Appendix C Experimental Verification Tables
for Response-2000
440 195.a
nm 398.9
me =.a
270 a).1
27Q W.8
270 75.7
m 71.2
270 Sd.3
270 m.1
270 56.8
270 56.6
270 20.0
270 24.5
270 25.4
270 25.1
270 57.0
270 3s.o
270 523
270 40.5
270 a 1
270 34.5
2-m 51.2
270 31 2
270 53.4
270 40.0
270 al1
270 47.2
270 54.6
270 43.2
270 512
270 37.8

278 1272
278 118.3
ne 107.9
m 139.3
278 m.1
278 65.6
278 48.5
278 46.7
278 85.6
178 74.3
378 118.9
278 m.0
278 81 .8
278 m.2
m 158.2
278 233.7
278 m.1
278 240.3
278 m.4
270 178.0
278 180.6

QSO a . 4
Q30 328.4
ms 101.3
&s 87.3
405 85.3
233 225
233 24.0
233 27.5
233 225
233 f1.0
233 27.5
1 s 11.6
1 s 121
1 s 10.6
139 11.4

on) 200.0
on1 m.7
on) 3120
910 315.8
445 es.6
445 m.5
445 m.5
on) m.2
on1 m.8
0a1 m.l
445 02.0
445 100.8
910 516.3
- Cwl
CW2
cw3
Cw4
CWS
CW7
cwo
cwo
CW8

ai
Ca3
Ct2
CU
as
a7
Cs
cm
CM
C w lO
cwl 1
CWl2
CW13
CW14
Cw15
m l 6
CW17

aiO
a 1i
a 12
a13
air
ais
Ci16
Cil 7

61
62

Dl
02
aco
Sc1
Sc2
SC3
SU
EB1
WB1
EB2
WB2
B l 00
BlOOR
Blao
BlOOH
Wlm
B i a.
BI WLd
BI OOB
ERLl00

BH0100
BH0100R
BHDSO
BHD50R
BHMS

en100
en50
w25

mol00
m050
BNMS

EN100
BN50
eu25
 BMlOO loo0 3m
BMl000 lam 3m
WMIOOO lam low
WM10#: loo0 low
TrC- m

-7 3140 1-
shay.8 200 loo0
Shig5 1100 5m
ShDy. 3 ma rra
shpy.2 220 1 s

M a Po0 a0
A4b 2100 a0
A 38 1050 350
M b 1050 350
A-2 8 510 178
A-2 b m 178
A-: 8 330 105
A-1 b 330 105

HIS 750 375

N1S 754 375
M1S 750 375
UlN 750 375
HZS 750 375
H2N 750 375
Ml N 750 37s
M2S 754 m
MZH 750 37s
N1-N 750 37s
M-S 750 375
M-N 750 37s

080534 1000 300

DBlW loo0 300
m230 loo0 300
08110 lax, 500
Dm40 low 300
0818s 1000 300
081m 1000 300
bBl2oM 1000 300
D 6 1 a 1000 Joa
DBle5M lmo 300
DB1m 1000 300
08053QM 1000 300
A1 4m 178
A11 4'10 178
C lc rm 178
C1 470 178
CIT 470 178
A2 470 178
AX 470 178
A3 470 178
A3T 470 178
A4C 470 178
A4 470 178
ACT 470 178
AK: 470 178
A5 470 178
AST 470 178
BX; 470 178
83 470 178
831 470 178

CtC 470 178

C2 470 178
CZT 470 178
CX: 470 178
CX 470 176
C3 470 17a
ul 470 178
CK: rm 178
a 470 178
c4l 470 178
cs 470 178
DX: 470 178
u3 470 178
D3T 4m 178
 #O
1a)

=
3m
m
1a)
3m
=
la)
3a)
3m
1a)
la)
#O
rn
fa)
fa)
380
5a1
3m
=
ja)

flO

sa,
3m
3m
1a)
3a)
3m

371
371
371
37l
ni
371
371
371
371
ni
371
371
371

371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371
371

311
311
311
311
311
311
311
311
$11
311
311
311

Otl
953
Otl
933
033
a33
953

Rdrn 549
6 Russel 549
R d u a n c a 70 569
 iaa #7
tao a.9
2Q.6 U.1
2l.3 39.2
2B.0 54.3
29.0 50.2
ZD.0 m.0
a2 9.5
21.0 54.3
21.3 S.1
79.6 S.6
a- 1 61.0
37.0 623
26.8 e.4
220 56.5
10.6 45.4
19.9 57.4
21.5 57.9
2l.o 52s
19.8 53.0
a).1 54.3
2l.4 53.4
23.4 w.2
18.8 63.6
25.0 423
t28 421
a-2 S.@
50.1 n.3
321 320
30.5 29.4
221 36.3
23.2 25.8
23.9 2x1
23.9 30.3
20.1 320
20.6 320
20.8 #.O
16.3 24.0
20.6 n.0
t27 R 5
46.4 82.7
10.0 31.7
21.9 34.3
19.8 3.6
20.3 35.6
10.8 3S.6
20.3 35.6
17.8 33.8
321 1
a).
19.3 33.8
2Q.o 34.3
37.4 61.4
16.7 34.7
225 56.2
226 9.9
30.8 55.6
23.2 47.2
2l.o 9.5
21.9 #. 1
2l.8 50.3
18.2 51.1
18.0 521
24.2 5d.5
24.1 9.7
44.3 46.7
20.0 23Q
21.9 23.6
229 81.O
27.8 673
H.5 1-9
#.S 1228.2
18.0 M.7
49.0 7m.Q
49.1 nY.5
a. 1 925.8
52.4 e2l.2
S24 1025.5
48.5 1143.7
50.3 1143.7
50.3 1m.4
524 417.9
524 434.3
51.4 m.0
51.4 @la7
I -?RN
N8n (mm)
1118
-2RS 1118
BOOOjRN 1118
m S 1118
m N 1118
COQlRs 1118
Cl40-RN 1118
Cl-O-RS 1118
C1-00-3W2N 1118
Cl-OKWRS 1118