ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 101-S76
Degradation of Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Members with Inelastic Cyclic Displacements
by Dionysis E. Biskinis, George K. Roupakias, and Michael N. Fardis
A database of 239 tests on reinforced concrete (RC) specimens of
beams, columns with rectangular or circular sections, rectangular
or barbelled walls, and hollow rectangular piers that failed in
shear after initially yielding in flexure are used to fit two alterna-
tive models for the degradation of shear resistance, as controlled
by transverse reinforcement with cyclic displacement ductility
demand. Both models include a distinct, physically-based mecha-
nism for the effect of axial compression on shear resistance and
base the contribution of web reinforcement to shear strength Vs on
the classical 45-degree truss analogy. Between the two models, the
one that provides for degradation with cycling of both the web steel
and concrete contributions—Vs and Vc , respectively—gives a
slightly superior fit to the data. Although the data for large ductility
demands are limited, they suggest that shear resistance does not
degrade further beyond a displacement ductility limit demand of
approximately 6. The fit to the data achieved by the two models is
better than that of previous ones, which were fitted to much smaller
sets of data of columns with either rectangular or circular sections.
On the basis of the present, much larger, dataset, earlier models
are found to give very good average fit for the type of cross section
for which they were developed—albeit with larger scatter than that
of the two models proposed herein—but significant bias for the
other type of section.
The sensitivity of shear resistance to cyclic ductility demand is not
sufficient to allow inverting the proposed models to estimate the
deformation capacity of RC members as controlled by shear after
flexural yielding. The scatter associated with such an inversion
renders such an exercise almost meaningless.
An attempt to cast the present work within the framework of
shear design advocated by present European codes for monotonic
loads, namely that of a variable strut inclination approach without
Vc , made it clear that such an approach is not well suited for design
against seismic loads. For such loads, the classical 45-degree truss
model supplemented with Vc that depends on cyclic displacement
ductility lends itself better to the shear design of RC members.
Using the results of 45 tests on squat walls and of another 44 tests
on squat columns failing in shear by diagonal compression,
empirical models are developed for the degradation of their shear
strength—as controlled by diagonal compression—with cyclic dis-
placement ductility demand after flexural yielding. The model for
squat walls is based on the classical 45-degree truss analogy,
while that for squat columns postulates a concrete compression
strut along the column diagonal. According to both models shear
strength due to diagonal compression increases with √fc′ as in the
ACI 318 limits for shear resistance before flexural yielding.
Keywords: column; deformation; loading; reinforced concrete; test.
INTRODUCTION
Failure of reinforced concrete (RC) elements in shear
usually takes place at low deformations and is associated with
a large drop in lateral load resistance. Therefore, modern
seismic design, aiming at ductility and large deformation
capacity, strives to avoid shear failure of RC members by
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
TECHNICAL PAPER
ensuring that flexural yielding precedes shear failure and
prevents it thereafter. The risk of preemptive shear failure
remains in existing RC buildings and bridges that do not fulfill
the basic premises of modern earthquake-resistant design.
The shear strength of RC members degrades faster with
cycling of lateral loading than their flexural strength.
Consequently, the proportioning of members of new RC
structures in shear and the evaluation of members of existing
substandard structures should take into account the reduction
of shear resistance due to cyclic loading below the value
applying for monotonic loading.
Several mechanisms may be cited to explain the degradation
of shear strength with cyclic loading:
1. The gradual reduction of aggregate interlock along
diagonal cracks, as their interfaces are ground and become
smoother with cycling;
2. The degradation of dowel action with cycling of the
shear force and with the accumulation of inelastic strains in
the longitudinal reinforcement;
3. The development of flexural cracks throughout the
depth of the member and the ensuing reduction of the contri-
bution of the compression zone to shear resistance;
4. The reduction of aggregate interlock along diagonal
cracks, as these gradually open up due to bond slippage and
accumulation of inelastic strains in the stirrups crossing the
cracks; and
5. The softening of concrete in diagonal compression due
to accumulation of transverse tensile strains.
The first four of the previous mechanisms dealing with
shear strength degradation have to do with the contribution
of concrete to shear resistance, that is, with Vc normally
added to the contribution Vs of transverse steel according to
a 45-degree truss analogy. The last two degradation mech-
anisms also involve, albeit indirectly, the mechanism of the
contribution of transverse steel to shear resistance Vs.
The cyclic degradation of shear resistance is expected to
be larger within flexural plastic hinges because: a) flexural
cracks develop into large and intersecting diagonal ones; b)
the damage of the compression zone and the reduction of its
size suffered are larger; c) longitudinal bars develop inelastic
strains, or even buckle, and lose most their effectiveness in
dowel action; and d) at the end section, the compression zone
should also resist the effects of the diagonal strut of the truss
mechanism of shear resistance. As a result, the degradation
of shear strength with cycling takes place mainly in RC
ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 6, November-December 2004.
MS No. 03-132 received April 2, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2004, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the September-October
2005 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2005.
773

Dionysis E. Biskinis is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering, Univer-
sity of Patras, Greece, where he received a diploma in civil engineering and an MSc.
George K. Roupakias is a former graduate research assistant in the Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Patras, where he received a diploma in civil engi-
neering and an MSc.
ACI member Michael N. Fardis is Professor of Design of Concrete Structures at the
University of Patras. He received the ACI Wason Medal for Materials Research in 1993.
members that develop flexural plastic hinges before
exhausting their shear resistance. Therefore, the phenom-
enon is normally expressed quantitatively as the reduction of
shear strength with cyclic inelastic deformations, until the
reduced shear strength VR drops below the value of shear
force corresponding to flexural yielding, Vy = My /Ls (with
My denoting the yield moment at the end of the member and
Ls the shear span there). The value of member deformation
where this takes place may be considered as its deformation
capacity, as controlled by shear.
Another way to describe the phenomenon might be to state
that the member develops a relatively ductile failure mode in
shear after initially yielding in flexure, but that its ultimate
cyclic deformation capacity is less than that of a member
which has higher shear resistance but is similar in every
other respect and ultimately fails by flexure. Such an
approach might allow direct quantification of member cyclic
deformation capacity as controlled by shear without
resorting to a criterion based on forces. Nonetheless, due to:
a) the lack of rational models for the ultimate deformation of
RC elements as controlled by shear; and b) the scarcity of
sufficient data for the development of purely empirical alter-
natives, force-based criteria of the type outlined in the
previous paragraph have prevailed in the models proposed so
far for the description of ultimate shear failure due to cyclic
deformations beyond flexural yielding. Such criteria employ
empirical corrections of the truss analogy model for shear
resistance to incorporate the effect of cyclic degradation.
This paper improves on existing models for the degradation
of shear strength of RC members with cyclic deformations
by using a database of cyclic tests on RC members failing in
shear due to diagonal tension after initial flexural yielding,
which is much larger than those used for the development of
earlier models. On the basis of smaller relevant databases, it
develops empirical models for the degradation with post-
yield cyclic deformations of the shear strength of RC walls
or squat columns ultimately failing by diagonal compression.
It then attempts to give an answer to the inverse problem,
that is, that of predicting the ultimate deformation capacity
of members failing in shear after yielding in flexure. It also
attempts to cast the problem of cyclic shear strength degrada-
tion in plastic hinges of RC members (traditionally posed in
terms of the reduction of the contribution of concrete to shear
resistance Vc) within the framework of European design
codes, such as the CEB/FIP Model Code 90 and Eurocode 2,
that do not recognize Vc but opt for a variable inclination
truss model of the shear resistance mechanism.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Seismic design of new RC structures or evaluation of
existing ones should take into account the possibility that
members initially yielding in flexure may ultimately fail in
shear at lower deformations than when failure is controlled
by flexure. Models for the degradation of shear strength with
cyclic inelastic deformations have been proposed relatively
774
recently and are limited by the scarcity of test data on RC
members exhibiting this kind of behavior and failure mode.
This paper improves on existing models by using a much
larger database than any one of them. Using the same data-
base, it also questions the suitability for earthquake-resistant
design of the recent shear design approach of European
codes, that does not recognize Vc but opts for a variable incli-
nation truss model. Finally, it proposes for the first time
empirical models for the shear strength degradation with
post-yield cyclic deformations in RC walls or squat columns
ultimately failing by diagonal compression.
PREVIOUS MODELS OF SHEAR RESISTANCE
UNDER CYCLIC LOADING
Several models have been proposed in the past few years
for the degradation of shear strength of RC members with
cyclic deformations. The most widely known and used
among them are those of Priestley, Verma, and Xiao;1
Kowalsky and Priestley;2 Ascheim and Moehle;3 and
Moehle et al.4 All of these models refer only to diagonal
tension failure and recognize a contribution of transverse
reinforcement to shear resistance Vs according to the Ritter-
Mörsch truss analogy and a concrete contribution Vc.
In line with the CEB/FIP Model Code 90, the first family
of models1,2 includes the contribution of column axial
compression to shear resistance as a distinct mechanism.
Their most recent version is the one presented by Kowalsky
and Priestley2 as the “revised UCSD model” for circular
columns (units: MN, m)
L
VR = f c′ k ( µ ∆ )min  1.5, max  1, 3 – -----s  (1)
  h 
h–c
min ( 1, 0.5 + 20ρ tot ) ( 0.8A g ) + N ----------- + V s
2L s
where ρtot is the total ratio of longitudinal steel; Ag is taken
equal to πDc2/4 (Dc = diameter of concrete core inside the
hoops); h is the depth of the cross section (equal to the diameter
D in circular sections); N is the axial load (positive for
compression); c is the compression zone depth; and Ls is the
shear span. Coefficient k(µ∆), which operates on Vc alone,
accounts for shear strength degradation due to cyclic
displacements of the shear span up to a displacement
ductility ratio µ∆ and is equal to
1.07 – 0.115µ
0.05 ≤ k ( µ ∆ ) ≤ 0.28, k ( µ ∆ ) = -----------------------------------∆- (2)
3
Equation (1) was developed for circular columns with the
contribution of transverse steel Vs taken as
π A sw
-f ( D – c – cover ) cot θ
V s = --- ------- (3)
2 s yw
where Asw denotes the cross-sectional area of a circular
hoop; s is its spacing; and “cover” is its concrete cover. The
truss inclination θ is taken equal to θ = 30 degrees in the
“revised UCSD model.”2 Equations (1), (2), and (4) were
developed in Reference 2 on the basis of 18 circular columns
that failed in shear after yielding in flexure. Predictions were
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
also compared with the strength of 20 columns yielding and
failing in shear and of nine columns failing in flexure.
Although originally developed for columns with circular
section, Eq. (1) and (2) are commonly applied to rectangular
sections as well, with θ = 30 degrees, the term 0.8Ag replaced
by bwd (where bw = width of web and d = effective depth),
and with
Vs = ρw bw(d – c)fyw cotθ
where ρw denotes the ratio of transverse steel.
In the most recent of the other family of models, developed
by Moehle and coworkers for rectangular columns,4 the
contribution of axial compression to shear resistance is
accounted for within Vc and not as a separate mechanism
(second term in Eq.(1)). More importantly, the reduction of
shear strength with cyclic deformations is considered to
affect both the Vs and Vc, which are multiplied by the same
coefficient k(µ∆)4
 N -  ----
 A - (5)
V R = k ( µ ∆ ) ( V c + V s ) ( ;V c ) = 0.5 f c′  1 + -----------------------
 0.5 f c′ A g  g L s
0.7 ≤ k ( µ ∆ ) ≤ 1.0, k ( µ ∆ ) = 1.15 – 0.075µ ∆
(units: MN, m; Ag = bwh = cross-sectional area). The contri-
bution of transverse reinforcement Vs is taken according to
Eq. (4), but with (d – c) replaced by the internal lever arm (d
– d′) and the truss inclination θ taken equal to θ = 45 degrees,
that is, as in the classical Ritter-Mörsch truss analogy. For
columns with circular section term, Vs may be taken
according to Eq. (3), but with θ = 45 degrees and (D – c –
cover) replaced by (D – 2 ⋅ cover).
It should be noted that the part of Vc multiplied by d/Ls in
Eq. (5) is the product of the principal tensile stress at diagonal
cracking by the gross section area, with the tensile strength
of concrete taken equal to 0.5 √fc′ .
It is noteworthy that in Eq. (1) and (2), Vc takes a constant
value equal to 18% of the value for zero ductility demand,
when the displacement ductility factor µ∆ exceeds 8.
According to Eq. (5), it is for values of µ∆ above 6 that the
entire shear resistance VR attains a minimum value of 70% of
that for zero ductility demand. The difference in the limiting
value may be attributed to: a) the reduction of the entire shear
resistance with µ∆ in Eq. (5),4 whereas only one term out of
three is taken to decrease with µ∆ in Eq. (1) and (2);2 and b)
the relative small magnitude of the only term that decreases
with µ∆ in Eq. (1) and (2), owing to the adoption of a value
θ = 30 degrees for the truss inclination θ in Eq. (3) and (4).
The dependence of shear strength on the displacement
ductility factor µ∆ may be considered as a weakness of both
models above, as this factor depends on the experimental
value of the yield displacement, which is considered by some
as an uncertain quantity. Nonetheless, as noted in the next
section, it is this factor that correlates best with the experi-
mental results on the degradation of shear strength with
inelastic cyclic deformations.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
NEW MODELS FOR DEGRADATION WITH CYCLIC
LOADING OF SHEAR STRENGTH AS
CONTROLLED BY DIAGONAL TENSION
A database of cyclic tests of RC specimens failing by diag-
onal tension after yielding in flexure was developed within
the framework of this work. The database includes 53 tests
on columns with circular section, 161 tests on columns or
beams with square or rectangular section, six on walls, and
19 on piers with hollow or T-shaped sections (total number
(4) of specimens: 239). One column with circular section, 25
specimens with rectangular and four piers with hollow
sections are representative of members without seismic
detailing (“old” or “nonconforming” type of member).
The 239 tests from References 5 to 66 were included in the
database mainly on the basis of the observed failure mode:
diagonal tension due to shear or shear/flexure after initial
flexural yielding. When the failure mode was not reported or
was unclear, the following criteria were considered:
1. The value of the experimental yield moment should not
be significantly less than the yield moment estimated from
first principles (to avoid cases where yielding is controlled
by shear);
2. The value of the experimental ultimate deflection
should be less than the value calculated for flexure-
d
controlled failure (for example, using the expressions in
References 67 and 68); and
3. The prediction of earlier models, that is, Eq. (1) to
(5);2,4 the test should be evaluated by them as close to shear-
critical.
Two alternative models were fitted to the resistance diagonal
tension VR as a function of the plastic part of the displace-
ment ductility factor, µ∆pl = µ∆ – 1, which was statistically
identified as the measure of inelastic deformations that
correlates best with the experimental results on the cyclic
degradation of shear strength. Plastic displacement ductility
µ∆pl was taken as the ratio of the plastic component of chord
rotation at failure (total chord rotation minus experimental
value at yield) to the calculated yield chord rotation θy. In
this way, the value of µ∆pl is not affected by the flexibility of
the base of some test specimens in the database, which may
have increased the pre-yield deflection measured at the tip
but is believed to have affected very little post-yield defor-
mations of the column itself. For the same reason, but also
because in practical applications the value of θy is not known
a priori and has to be predicted by certain means, the calcu-
lated value of θy is used as a normalizing factor for µ∆pl
instead of the experimental value.
For beams and for columns with rectangular or circular
cross sections, the chord rotation at yielding is estimated as
Ls + aV z
- + 0.0013  1 + 1.5 ----
θ y = φ y ------------------- h-

(6)
3 L s
0.13φ y d b f y
+ a sl -------------------------
f c′
where the first and second term account for flexural and
shear deformations respectively, and the third term for bond
slip of longitudinal bars from their anchorage beyond the end
section of the member; φy is the curvature at yielding of the
tension reinforcement, computed from first principles for no
tension in concrete; fy and fc′ (in MPa) are the strengths of
775
steel and concrete; db is the diameter of tension reinforce-
ment; asl is a zero-one variable (asl = 1 if pull-out of longitu-
dinal bars from the anchorage zone is possible and asl = 0 if
not possible); and aVz is the tension shift due to diagonal
cracking: z = d – d′ is the internal lever arm and aV is zero
when at flexural yielding there is no diagonal cracking or one
when there is (aV = 0 if VRc ≥ VMy = My/Ls, and aV = 1 if VRc
≤ Vmy = My /Ls where VRc is the shear force at predicted
diagonal cracking, taken herein according to the 2004
version of Eurocode 2).69
Equation (6) has been fitted (with a coefficient of variation
[COV] of 33.8%) to the results of over 1600 tests on RC
columns with circular or rectangular sections or beams.
For walls with rectangular, barbelled, or T-section and for
piers with hollow rectangular sections, an expression similar
to that of Eq. (6) has been fitted with a COV of 34.7% to the
results of about 180 tests, with the 2nd term replaced by
0.002 (1 – 0.125[Ls /h]).
In the fitting of the two shear degradation models to the
data, the contribution of stirrups in the 11 specimens in
References 30 and 41was taken as reduced by half due to
open stirrups.
In both models developed here, the effect of axial
compression N on shear resistance is taken following the
approach of Eq. (1) and References 1 and 2 because of its
clear and appealing physical meaning as a separate strut
mechanism. Axial tension is considered to have no effect
(beneficial or adverse) on shear strength. The contribution of
transverse reinforcement Vs is taken as in Reference 4 and in
the model of Eq. (5): The truss inclination θ is taken equal to
θ = 45 degrees, that is, as in the classical Ritter-Mörsch truss
analogy; for specimens of rectangular section Eq.(4) is used,
with (d – c) replaced by the internal lever arm (d – d′); for
circular columns Eq.(3) is used, with (D – c – cover) replaced
by (D – 2 ⋅ cover); for specimens with hollow or T-shaped
sections, Eq.(4) is applied, with (d – d′) used instead of (d –
c) and with the web width taken as bw; and for walls 0.8d is
used in Eq.(4) instead of (d – c).
In the fitting of the models, the experimental value of yield
force is used as VR and the plastic part of the ultimate tip
displacement (identified with the point where lateral resistance
at the peak of the cycle has dropped below 80% of the
maximum resistance of the specimen during the test) is used
as the numerator of µ∆pl. The yield point was identified as
the corner point of a bilinear envelope of the force-deflection
loops, with the first (“elastic”) branch usually intersecting
the ascending branch of the force-deflection diagram in 1st
(virgin) loading at approximately 60 to 70% of peak resistance.
The value of the force at this corner point, taken as VR , is
close to that of the peak resistance at ultimate displacement
but is better defined and identified than the latter.
The first of the two models fitted to the data follows the
format in Reference 2 in that only Vc is taken to degrade with
inelastic cyclic displacements. The dependence of Vc on all
other parameters of the test specimens (other than the level
of axial load, which is considered separately through the
strut mechanism) was statistically examined. Similarly to
Eq. (1), the parameters which were found to be of statistical
significance for Vc are the usual ones included in Vc of
members with or without shear reinforcement: a) the shear
span ratio, reflecting the arch mechanism of shear resistance;
b) fc′ as √fc′ , which reflects the influence of the tensile
strength of concrete; and c) the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio, reflecting the dowel action mechanism (not just the
776
tension reinforcement ratio is used, but the total reinforcement
ratio of the end section, which is consistent with the cyclic
character of the loading). The expression statistically fitted
to the data is (with units: MN, m)
V R = h----------
– c-min ( N, 0.55A f ′ ) + 0.16 ⋅ ( 1 – 0.095min ( 4.5,µ pl) ) (7)
2L s
g c ∆
max ( 0.5, 100ρ tot )  1 – 0.16min  5, -----s  f c′ A g + V s
L
  h 
Equation (7) fits the data with a mean and median of the
ratio of experimental-to-calculated value equal to 1.01 and
1.0, respectively, and a COV of 15.1%. The median is close
to 1.0 for all subsets of specimens with circular, rectangular,
or hollow section and for walls, as well as for specimens with
detailing conforming or nonconforming to modern codes for
earthquake-resistant design.
The second model fitted to the data follows the format in
Reference 4 in that both Vc and Vs degrade with inelastic
cyclic displacements. The same parameters were found to be
of statistical significance for Vc as in Eq. (7), giving finally,
with units: MN, m
h–c
V R = -----------min ( N, 0.55A g f c′ ) + ( 1 – 0.05min ( 5, µ ∆pl) ) (8)
2L s
0.16max ( 0.5, 100ρ tot )  1 – 0.16min  5, -----s  f c′ A g + V s
L
  h 
Equation (8) fits the data with a mean and median of the
ratio of experimental to predicted values of 1.0 and a COV
of 14.1%—better than that of Eq. (7). Again, the median is
close to 1.0 for the subsets of specimens with circular,
rectangular, or hollow section and for walls and for those
with new or old-type detailing (conforming or not).
Figure 1 and 2 compare the predictions of Eq. (7) or (8),
respectively, with the test results and show the ratio of experi-
mental-to-predicted shear force as a function of µ∆ = µ∆pl + 1.
If the experimental value of µ∆pl is used in Eq.(7) and (8)
(that is, with the experimental yield chord rotation as the
normalizing factor, similar to how Eq. (1) and (5) were
developed and proposed) without changing the numerical
values of the coefficients, then average agreement with test
results remains good (median of experimental-to-predicted
ratio is 1.0), while the COV decreases to 14.5 and 13.6%,
respectively.
Equations (7) and (8) were developed so that the empirically
derived coefficients and the limits to all variables in the right-
hand side have the same values in both these expressions
(except, of course, for the coefficient of µ∆pl). If this were
not the case, the fit to the data (in terms of COV) would have
been better.
Neither of the two models, Eq. (7) or (8), suffers from lack
of fit with respect to any of the variables that enter into these
two equations, over the full range of these variables: axial load
ratio, N/Ag fc′ , from –0.01 to 0.85; shear span ratio Ls /h, from
0.5 to 6; total longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρtot , from 0.55
to 5.5%; fc′ from 13 to 113 MPa; and displacement ductility
ratio µ∆ from 1.0 to 9.5. The bottom part of Fig. 1 and 2 shows
an example of the no-lack-of-fit achieved with respect to µ∆.
It was to avoid lack of fit with respect to these variables that
the upper or lower limits to some of them were introduced.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
Fig. 1—Comparison of estimates of Eq. (7) with test results
for diagonal tension failure after flexural yielding.
Beyond a certain limit of the displacement ductility ratio
µ∆ , there is no further degradation of shear strength
according to Eq. (7) and (8). According to Eq. (7), Vc
assumes a constant value equal to 57.5% of the value at µ∆ =
1 for µ∆ above 5.5, whereas according to Eq. (8) for values
of µ∆ above 6, the sum of Vc and Vs attain a minimum value
of 75% of the value at µ∆ = 1.
EVALUATION OF PREVIOUS MODELS
USING ENLARGED DATABASE
The same 239 tests used for the fitting of Eq. (7) and (8)
were used to evaluate previous proposals, namely those in
Reference 2, Eq. (1) to (4); and in Reference 4, Eq. (5). A
comparison of test results with these models is presented in
Fig. 3 and 4.
The model in Reference 2, Eq. (1) to (4), gives a median
value of the ratio of experimental to calculated results equal
to 1.0 for circular columns and to 0.8 for rectangular T-shaped
walls and hollow piers (overall median of 0.85) and corre-
sponding coefficients of variation of 20.3 and 25.4% (overall
COV 25%). The model in Reference 4, Eq. (4), gives a
median value of the ratio of experimental to calculated
results equal to 1.01 for rectangular sections, T-shaped
walls, and hollow piers and 1.15 for circular ones (overall
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
Fig. 2—Comparison of estimates of Eq. (8) with test results
for diagonal tension failure after flexural yielding.
median of 1.05) and corresponding COVs of 25 and 20.7%
(overall COV 23.9%).
Each one of these two models provides good average
agreement for the type of column to which it was fitted (the
data used for the development of these two models are also
included in the present database), albeit with larger scatter
than any of the two models developed herein. The fit for the
other type of section is, however, worse. Both models signif-
icantly overestimate shear strength in some cases (values of
Vexp/Vpred as low as 0.33 or 0.4).
ESTIMATION OF CYCLIC DEFORMATION
CAPACITY OF RC ELEMENTS FAILING BY
DIAGONAL TENSION AFTER FLEXURAL YIELDING
Expressions such as Eq. (1) to (4), (5), (7), or (8) are
normally used to assess whether an RC element that initially
yields in flexure may ultimately fail in shear under cyclic
loading at a deformation lower than that corresponding to
failure due to flexure. With the current trend toward
displacement- and deformation-based seismic design and
evaluation approaches, expressions such as Eq. (1) to (4),
(5), (7), or (8) can also be used to estimate the deformation
capacity of RC elements failing in cyclic shear after flexural
yielding. This may be achieved by: a) setting the shear
777
Fig. 3—Comparison of model in Reference 2, Eq. (1) to (4),
with test results for diagonal tension failure after flexural
yielding with experimental data.
resistance given by the right-hand side of one of these equations
equal to the shear force My /Ls corresponding to flexural
yielding (with the yield moment My computed from first
principles); and b) solving the equation for the plastic part of
the displacement ductility factor µ∆pl and estimating the
shear-controlled deformation capacity of the member as the
product of µ∆ = µ∆pl + 1 times the yield displacement (esti-
mated, for example, through the chord rotation at yielding
from Eq. (6)). The outcome of this exercise on the basis of
Eq. (7) and (8) for the 239 specimens in the present database
is compared with the experimental deformation capacity in
Fig. 5 and 6. The comparison is quite discouraging for the
predictive capability of such an approach. It seems that the
sensitivity of shear strength to cyclic ductility demand is not
sufficiently large for the use of a force-based criterion for the
prediction of the deformation capacity of a member, as
controlled by shear.
INCLINATION OF COMPRESSION DIAGONALS IN
A TRUSS MODEL OF SHEAR RESISTANCE WITH
VARIABLE INCLINATION DIAGONALS
In the recent generation of European design codes for
concrete structures (for example, CEB/FIP Model Code 9070
and EN1992-1-1: 2004,69 that is, the Euronorm version of
778
Fig. 4—Comparison of the model in Reference 4, Eq. (5),
with test results for diagonal tension failure after flexural
yielding with experimental data.
Eurocode 2) the variable strut inclination model of shear
resistance is the method of choice for proportioning RC
elements in shear. In that approach, the existence of a
concrete-contribution (Vc) is discounted as incompatible
with fracture mechanics considerations for members with
large (full-scale) cross-sectional size. The difference
between the measured shear resistance VR and Vs of a classical
45-degree (Ritter-Mörsch) truss model is bridged by letting
the inclination θ of the concrete compression diagonals
assume values less than 45 degrees, even as low as 22 degrees
(cotθ = 2.5; Eq. (3) and (4)). Such low values of θ are indeed
consistent with the large volume of experimental observa-
tions on beams with relatively light web reinforcement,
monotonically loaded to failure in shear.
Having to conform to the previous European framework
for shear design of RC members, the 2004 version of the
European seismic design code (EN1998-1: 200471) does not
provide for a Vc. It provides instead for Vs alone according to
Eq. (3) and (4) with inclination θ of the concrete compres-
sion struts in the truss assuming values other than 45 degrees,
albeit not always as low as the value of 22-degrees allowed
in Eurocode 2 for design of concrete structures against
monotonic loads. More specifically, beams of concrete
buildings of the so-called ductility class (DC) high (H),
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004

Fig. 5—Comparison of experimental deformation capacity
with value predicted by: Eq. (7) (top) or Eq. (8) (bottom).
which are designed and detailed for a force reduction factor
R and a global displacement ductility factor, between about
5 and 6, should be proportioned in shear for θ = 45 degrees
(that is, with a classical 45-degree truss and no Vc). Columns
and walls of DC H buildings, as well as all members of DC
medium (M) concrete buildings, which are designed and
detailed for R and global displacement ductility values
between 3 and 4, may be proportioned for an angle θ of the
compression diagonals as low as 22 degrees (cotθ = 2.5).
The data used in this work for the fitting of Eq. (7) and (8)
were also used to compute the value of the angle θ of
compression diagonals required for a variable strut inclination
model of shear resistance, with only N(h – c)/2Ls and Vs in
the right-hand side of Eq. (1) and (7) or (8), and with Vs
computed from Eq. (3) and (4) (but with D replacing D – c at
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
Fig. 6—Angle of diagonal compression θ providing experi-
mental shear resistance in truss model without Vc term, ver-
sus displacement ductility factor at diagonal tension failure.
the right-hand side of Eq. (3)). The outcomes for the 239
tests are plotted in Fig. 6, as functions of the displacement
ductility factor at specimen failure.
The data in Fig. 6 suggest a tendency of the angle θ of the
compression diagonals to increase on average with µ∆ from
a value well below the Eurocode 2 lower limit of 22 degrees
for µ∆ = 1 to values around θ = 45 degrees for µ∆ around 7.
Nonetheless, because important parameters, such as Ls /h, fc′ ,
and ρtot (all reflected in Vc of Eq. (1), (5), (7) or (8)) are
missing, the scatter is very large, rendering any attempt to fit
the angle θ of compression diagonals as a function of µ∆
meaningless. So, only an approximate 5% fractile line is
drawn in Fig. 6, extending from the Eurocode 2 lower limit
of 22 degrees for µ∆ = 1, to θ = 45 degrees for µ∆ = 2.5. This
line may be considered to give a very conservative lower
bound of the shear strength for design purposes. The main
result of this exercise, however, is the conclusion that,
notwithstanding the merits of the variable strut inclination
method for shear design against monotonic loads, a classical
45-degree truss model supplemented with Vc that depends on
displacement ductility demand is a better means for shear
design of RC members under seismic loads.
DEGRADATION WITH CYCLIC LOADING OF
SHEAR STRENGTH AS CONTROLLED BY
DIAGONAL COMPRESSION
Equation (7) and (8) and earlier models1-4 refer to the
cyclic degradation of shear strength in members failing by
diagonal tension. Squat shearwalls or columns subjected to
cyclic loading in the lab or in the field may fail in shear by
diagonal compression, most often after flexural yielding.
Forty-five wall specimens with shear span ratio Ls /h ≤ 2.5
and 44 columns with shear-span ratio Ls /h ≤ 2 were identi-
fied in the international literature28,72-86 as having failed by
shear compression under cyclic loading. The test specimens
were identified on the basis of the observed failure mode and of
additional criteria, if needed: experimental yield moment
approximately equal to the theoretical value, experimental ulti-
mate deflection less than the value predicted at flexure-
controlled failure according to References 67 and 68, and exper-
imental strength less than the strength at diagonal tension failure
according to Eq. (7) and (8). Except for 10 walls with barbelled
or T-section that failed by shear compression under cyclic
779
Fig. 7—Comparison of estimates of Eq. (9) with test results
on squat walls failing in shear compression.
loading before flexural yielding, all other specimens experi-
enced this failure mode after they had yielded in flexure.
Two empirical models for the cyclic degradation of shear
strength in members failing by diagonal compression were
fitted to the data: one for squat walls and the other for squat
columns. In addition to µ∆pl = µ∆ – 1, that expresses the
effect of inelastic cyclic displacements, the parameters
which were found to be of statistical significance for the
shear strength under diagonal compression are the level of
axial force, plus the parameters included in Vc of Eq. (7) and
(8): the shear span ratio, fc′ (as √fc′ , which includes the reduc-
tion of diagonal compression strength due to transverse
tensile strains) and the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio,
consistent with the cyclic character of the loading. The
model for squat walls is based on the classical 45-degree
truss analogy, whereas that for squat columns assumes that
compression failure occurs parallel to the column diagonal.
The empirical model for the cyclic degradation of the
strength of squat walls as controlled by diagonal compression
VR,max is (units: MN, m)
V R, max = 0.85 ( 1 – 0.06min ( 5, µ ∆ ) )  1 + 1.8min  0.15, ----------
N 
pl
 
- (9)
A c f c′  
780
Fig. 8—Comparison of estimates of Eq. (10) with test results
on squat columns failing in shear compression after flexural
yielding.
( 1 + 0.25max ( 1.75, 100ρ tot ) )  1 – 0.2min  2, -----s  min ( f c′ , 100 )b w z
L
  h 
The corresponding model for squat columns is (units:
MN, m)
V R, max = --- ( 1 – 0.02min ( 5, µ ∆ ) )  1 + 1.35 ----------- ( 1 + 0.45 ⋅ 100ρ tot ) (10)
4 pl N

7 A c f c′ 
min ( f c′ , 40 )b w z sin 2θ
where θ is the angle between the diagonal and the axis of
the column (tanθ = h/2Ls). In Eq. (9) and (10), the internal
lever arm z is taken equal to z = d – d′ in columns and in
walls with barbelled or T-section and to z = 0.8lw for rect-
angular walls.
Equation (9) and (10) fit the test results with a median
value of the experimental-to-predicted ratio equal to 1.0 and
COV of 11 or 9.8%, respectively. The predictions of Eq. (9)
and (10) are compared with the test results in Fig. 7 and 8,
respectively.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
 An attempt to express the nonlinear dependence of VR,max on
fc′ in a format adopted in European codes,69-71 that is, with
VR,max proportional to fc′ max(0.4, 1 – (fc′ (MPa)/150)) or squat
walls or to fc′ max(0.4, 1 – (fc′ (MPa)/100)) or squat columns,
gave slightly worse overall fit than Eq. (9) and (10).
A simpler version of Eq. (9) without dependence on Ls/h,
N/Ag fc′ or ρtot has a constant coefficient of 1.1 (instead of
0.85) and a coefficient on µ∆pl of 0.09. The overall fit is
much worse, however, with a COV of 16.6%. The simpler
version of Eq. (10), with the dependence on sin2θ retained,
has a constant of 1.12 instead of 4/7 and a coefficient on µ∆pl
of 0.025. The COV increases to 26.3%.
Being almost fully empirical, Eq. (9) and (10) can be
considered to apply only within the range of parameter
values in the relevant database: a) for squat walls: shear span
ratio Ls /h from 0.5 to 2.4, axial load ratio N/Ag fc′ from 0 to
0.18, total longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρtot, from 0.5 to
3%, and fc′ from 16.5 to 137 MPa; and displacement ductility
ratio µ∆ from 1 to 7.5; and b) for squat columns: shear span ratio
Ls /h from 1 to 2, axial load ratio N/Ag fc′ from –0.1 to 0.7,
total longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρtot from 0.7 to 4%, fc′
from 14.5 to 61 MPa; and displacement ductility ratio µ∆
from 1.4 to 7. It should be noted that Eq. (9) also fits the test
results of 10 cyclically loaded walls with barbelled or T-section
that failed by shear compression prior to yielding in flexure;
therefore, it may be considered to hold also (with µ∆pl = 1) for
failure in cyclic shear before flexural yielding.
CONCLUSIONS
A database of 239 tests on RC specimens of beams and
columns with rectangular, circular, or hollow sections and
rectangular or barbelled walls failing in shear after initially
yielding in flexure is used to fit two alternative models, Eq. (7)
and (8), for the degradation of shear resistance with cyclic
displacement ductility demand. Both models include a distinct
strut mechanism for the effect of axial compression on shear
resistance (term involving N in Eq. (7) and (8)) and base the
contribution of web reinforcement to shear strength (Vs) on the
classical 45-degree truss analogy. Between the two models,
Eq. (8), which provides for degradation of both the transverse
steel and concrete contributions (Vs and Vc, respectively)
gives a slightly superior fit to the data. Although the available
data for large ductility demands are limited, the models
suggest that shear resistance does not degrade below a lower
threshold reached at a displacement ductility limit demand of
about 6. The threshold on the sum of Vs and Vc is on average
75% of the value at a ductility of 1.0.
The fit to the data achieved by any one of these two models
is significantly better than that of previous models, which
were fitted to much smaller sets of data drawn either only
from columns with rectangular sections or only from circular
ones. On the basis of the present, much larger dataset,
previous models were found to provide very good average fit
for the type of cross-section for which they were developed—
albeit with much larger scatter than that of the two models
proposed herein—but significant bias for the other type of
section.
The sensitivity of shear resistance to cyclic ductility
demand is not sufficient to allow inverting the proposed
models to estimate the deformation capacity of RC members
as controlled by shear. The scatter associated with such an
inversion makes this exercise meaningless.
An attempt to cast the present work within the framework
of shear design advocated by present European codes for
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
monotonic loads, namely that of a variable angle of diagonal
compression without Vc, made it clear that such an approach
is not very well suited for design against seismic loads. For
such loads, the classical 45-degree truss model with Vc that
depends on displacement ductility demand lends itself better
to shear design of RC members.
On the basis of 45 tests on squat walls and another 44 for
squat columns, purely empirical models are developed for
the degradation of shear strength as controlled by diagonal
compression, as a function of the ductility ratio of cyclic
displacements. Unlike the other models proposed in this
paper, the one for shear compression of squat columns
assumes that diagonal compression is at an angle other than
45-degrees and along the diagonal of the squat column.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support for this research was provided by the European
Commission within project SPEAR (Seismic Performance Assessment and
Rehabilitation, contract No: G6RD-CT2001-00525) of its GROWTH pro-
gram and by the General Secretariat for Research and Technology in Greece
through research project ASPROGE.
REFERENCES
1. Priestley, M. J. N.; Verma, R.; and Xiao, Y., “Seismic Shear Strength
of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 120, No. 8, Aug. 1994.
2. Kowalsky, M. J., and Priestley, M. J. N., “Improved Analytical Model for
Shear Strength of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns in Seismic Regions,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 3, May-June 2000, pp. 388-396.
3. Ascheim, M. A., and Moehle, J. P., “Shear Strength and Deformability
of RC Bridge Columns Subjected to Inelastic Cyclic Displacements,”
Report UCB/EERC-92/04, University of California, Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center, Berkeley, Calif., 1992.
4. Moehle, J.; Lynn, A.; Elwood, K.; and Sezen, H., “Gravity Load
Collapse of Building Frames During Earthquakes,” PEER Report: 2nd
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Design Methodology for
Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Richmond, Calif., 2001.
5. Aboutaha, R. S.; Engelhardt, M. D.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Kreger, M. E.,
“Rehabilitation of Shear Critical Concrete Columns by Use of Rectangular
Steel Jackets,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 68-78.
6. Adachi, Y.; Ishizaki, H.; Ikehata, S.; and Ikeda, S., “Verification of the
Failure of Reinforced Concrete Piers Under the Near-Field Earthquake,”
Proceedings, 1st fib Congress, Osaka, Japan, Oct. 2002.
7. Adajar, J. C.; Yamaguchi, T.; and Imai, H., “Seismic Behavior of
Precast Shear Wall with Bar Splices Confined to Spiral Steel,” Transactions
of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 17, 1995, pp. 189-195.
8. Ghee, A. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Paulay, T., “Seismic Shear
Strength of Circular Bridge Piers,” Report 85-5, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, July 1985.
9. Ghee, A. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Paulay, T., “Seismic Shear
Strength of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1989, pp. 45-58.
10. Arai, M.; Yoshida, M.; Yamamoto, T.; and Yamada, K., “An Experi-
mental Study on Shear-Flexural Behavior of Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles,”
Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 22, 2000, pp. 287-292.
11. Arakawa, T.; He, M.-X.; Arai, Y.; and Mizoguchi, M., “Ultimate
Shear Strength of Spirally-Confined Concrete Columns,” Transactions of
the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 9, 1987, pp. 305-312.
12. Arakawa, T.; He, M.-X.; Arai, Y.; and Mizoguchi, M., “Shear Resisting
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Spiral Hoops,” Transactions
of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 10, 1988, pp. 155-162.
13. Araki, H.; Sugano, S.; and Kabayama, K., “Seismic Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Members which Used Coal Ash,” Proceedings, 1st fib
Congress, Osaka, Japan, Oct. 2002.
14. Bett, B. J.; Klingner, R. E.; and Jirsa, J. O., “Behavior of Strengthened
and Repaired Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Cyclic Deformations,”
PMFSEL Report No. 85-3 Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., 1985.
15. Budeck, A. M.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Lee, C. O., “Seismic Design
of Columns with High-Strength Wire and Strand as Spiral Reinforcement,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2002, pp. 660-670.
16. Building Research Institute, “A List of Experimental Results on
Deformation Ability of Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Large
781
Deflection (No. 2),” Report No. 49-III-(3)-1, Ministry of Construction,
Japan, 1976.
17. Building Research Institute, “A List of Experimental Results on
Deformation Ability of Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Large
Deflection (No. 3),” Report No. 21, Ministry of Construction, Japan, 1978.
18. Chai, Y. H.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Retrofit of Bridge
Columns for Enhanced Seismic Performance,” Program of U.S.-Japan
Workshop on Seismic Retrofit of Bridges, UJNR, U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind
and Seismic Effects, Dec. 1990, Tsukuba Science City, Japan.
19. Chai, Y. H.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Seible, F., “Seismic Retrofit of
Circular Bridge Columns for Enhanced Flexural Performance,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1991, pp. 572-589.
20. Chang, K.; Liu, K.; and Chang, S., “Seismic Retrofit Study of RC
Rectangular Bridge Columns Lap-Spliced at the Plastic Hinge Zone,” FRP
Composites in Civil Engineering, V. 1, 2001, pp. 869-875.
21. Combescure, D.; Queval, J. C.; and Sollogoub, P., “CAMUS
Experimental Program: In-Plane Seismic Tests of 1/3rd Scaled R/C Bearing
Walls,” Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1998.
22. Esaki, F., “Reinforcing Effect of Steel Plate on Ductility of R/C
Square Column,” Proceedings of the Eleventh World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 199, 1996.
23. Fujikura, S.; Kawashima, K.; Shoji, G.; Zhang, J.; and Takemura, H.,
“Effect of the Interlocking Ties and Cross Ties on the Dynamic Strength
and Ductility of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns,” Journal
of Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, JSCE, No. 640/I-50,
2000, pp. 71-88.
24. Fujikura, S.; Kawashima, K.; Shoji, G.; Zhang, J.; and Takemura, H.,
“Strength and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns with
Interlocking Ties and Cross Ties,” Report No. TIT/EERG 98-9, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 1998.
25. Ikeda, A., Report of the Training Institute for Engineering Teachers,
Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan, Mar. 1968.
26. Imai, H., and Yamamoto, Y., “A Study on Causes of Earthquake
Damage of Izumi High School due to Miyagi-Ken-Oki Earthquake in 1978,”
Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 8, 1986, pp. 405-418.
27. Iwasaki, T.; Kawashima, K.; Hagiwara, R.; Hasegawa, K.; Koyama,
T.; and Yoshida, T., “Experimental Investigation on Hysteretic Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier Columns,” Proceedings of the Second
Joint U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance and Strengthening of Bridge
Structures and Research Needs, San Francisco, Calif., Aug. 1985.
28. Kabeyasawa, T., and Hiraishi, H., “Test and Analyses of High-Strength
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in Japan,” High-Strength Concrete in
Seismic Regions, SP-176, C. W. French and M. E. Kreger, eds., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1998, pp. 281-309.
29. Kabeyasawa, T.; Matui, T.; Kato, A.; Kuramoto, H.; and Nagashima,
I., “Dynamic Test and Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Wall Elements,”
U.S.-Japan Workshop, 2003.
30. Kabeyasawa, T.; Tasai, A.; Ohsugi, Y.; and Hassane, O., “Test and
Analyses of Reinforced Concrete Columns Strengthened with Economical
Sheet Against Axial Load Collapse During Major Earthquake,” Fifth
International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey,
Sept. 2002.
31. Kawashima, K.; Une, H.; and Sakai, J., “Seismic Performance of
Hollow Reinforced Concrete Arch Ribs Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Force
under Varying Axial Load,” Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE,
Japan, 2002.
32. Kim, Y. J., “The Shear Response of Circular Concrete Columns
Reinforced with High Strength Steel Spirals,” MASc thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2000.
33. Kokusho, S., Report by Building Research Institute, Building
Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, Mar. 1964.
34. Kokusho, S., and Fukuhara, M., Report by Kokusho Laboratory,
Tokyo Industrial University, Mar. 1965.
35. Kuramoto, H., and Minami, K., “Experiments on the Shear Strength
of Ultra-High Strength Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Proceedings of the
Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain:
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992, pp. 3001-3006.
36. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, “Shaking Table Testing
of Piers P1/1 TO P1/6,” Report 139/99–C3ES.
37. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, “Shaking Table Testing
of Piers P2/1, P2/2, P2/4, P2/5, P2/7, P2/10, P2/12 and P2/13,” Report 268/
99–C3ES.
38. Lynn, A., “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete
Building Columns,” thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
Calif., 1999.
39. Lynn, A.; Moehle, J. P.; Mahin, S. A.; and Holmes, W. T., “Seismic
Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns,” Earthquake
782
Spectra, V. 12, No. 4, Nov. 1996, pp.715-739.
40. Ma, S. H.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., “Experimental and Analytical
Studies on the Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular and T
Beams,” Report No. UCB/EERC 76-2, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1976.
41. Masukawa, J.; Akiyama, H.; and Saito, H., “Retrofit of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Piers by Using Carbon Fiber Sheet and Aramid Fiber
Sheet,” Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,
Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, V. 1, Oct. 1997.
42. Masuo, K., “Seismic Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Columns
with Wing Walls Using Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Walls,” Fourth
International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for
Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and
A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
1999, pp. 193-204.
43. Minami, K., and Wakabayashi, M., “Rational Analysis of Shear in
Reinforced Concrete Columns,” IABSE Colloquium-Advanced Mechanics
of Reinforced Concrete, Delft, The Netherlands, 1981, pp. 603-614.
44. Mo, Y. L.; Wong, D. C.; and Maekawa, K., “Seismic Performance of
Hollow Bridge Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June
2003, pp. 337-348.
45. Mutsuyoshi, H.; Ishibashi, T.; Okano, M.; and Katsuki, F., “New
Design Method for Seismic Retrofit of Bridge Columns with Continuous
Fiber Sheet—Performance-Based Design,” Fourth International Sym-
posium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced
Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and A.
Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
1999, pp. 229-241.
46. Oesterle, R. G.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Fiorato, A. E.; Russess, H.
G.; and Corley, W. G.; “Earthquake-Resistant Structural Walls—Tests of
Isolated Walls—Phase II,” Report, Construction Technology Laboratories,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill., Oct. 1979.
47. Oesterle, R. G.; Fiorato, A. E.; Johal, L. S.; Carpenter, J. E.; Russell,
H. G.; and Corley, W. G., “Earthquake-Resistant Structural Walls —Tests
of Isolated Walls,” Report, Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, Ill., Nov. 1976, 315 pp.
48. Ohue, M.; Morimoto, H.; Fujii, S.; and Morita, S., “The Behavior of R.C.
Short Columns Failing in Splitting Bond-Shear Under Dynamic Lateral Load-
ing,” Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 7, 1985, pp. 293-300.
49. Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A. S., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Cantilever Walls, Part I: Experimental Results,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 92, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 271-281.
50. Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A. S., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Cantilever Walls, Part II: Discussions and Theoretical Comparisons,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 425-434.
51. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Chai, Y. H., “Seismic Retrofit of
Bridge Columns Using Steel Jackets,” Proceedings of the Tenth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain: Balkema, Rotterdam,
1992, pp. 5285-5290.
52. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; Xiao, Y.; and Verma, R., “Steel Jacket
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Enhanced Shear
Strength—Part 1: Theoretical Considerations and Test Design,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug. 1994, pp. 394-404.
53. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; Xiao, Y.; and Verma, R., “Steel Jacket
Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Enhanced Shear
Strength—Part 2: Test Results and Comparison with Theory,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 91, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1994, pp. 537-550.
54. Saadatmanesh, H.; Ehsani, M. R.; and Jin, L., “Repair of Earth-
quake-Damaged RC Columns with FRP Wraps,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 94, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1997, pp. 206-215.
55. Sezen, H., and Moehle, J., “Evaluation and Testing of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Columns,” CE 299 Report, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 2000.
56. Shito, K.; Ohashi, G.; and Kuroiwa, T., “Seismic Performance of
Bridge Columns with Interlocking Spiral/Hoop Reinforcement,” Proceedings
1st fib Congress, Osaka, Japan, Oct. 2002.
57. Tasios, T. P.; Moretti, M.; and Bezas, A., “On the Behavior and Ductility
of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams of Shear Walls,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 711-720.
58. Umemura, H., and Endo, T., Report by Umemura Lab, Tokyo Uni-
versity, Dec. 1970.
59. Vallenas, J. M.; Bertero V. V.; and Popov, E. P., “Hysteretic Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” Report No. UCB/EERC 79-20,
University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1979.
60. Wight, J. K., and Sozen, M. A., “Shear Strength Decay in Reinforced
Concrete Columns Subjected to Large Deflection Reversals,” Structural
Research Series No. 403, Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, Ill., Aug. 1973, 290 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
 61. Wight, J. K., and Sozen, M. A., “Strength Decay of RC Columns
Under Shear Reversals,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 101,
No. ST5, May 1975.
62. Wu, G.; Lü, Z.; and Jiang, J., “Seismic Behavior of RC Columns
Strengthened with CFS,” FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, V. 1, 2001,
pp. 877-884.
63. Xiao, Y.; Wu, H.; and Martin, G. R., “Prefabricated Composite Jack-
eting of RC Columns for Enhanced Shear Strength,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Mar. 1999, pp. 255-264.
64. Yamamoto, T., “FRP Strengthening of RC Columns for Seismic
Retrofitting,” Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Madrid, Spain; Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992, pp. 5205-5210.
65. Yeh, Y. K.; Mo, Y. L.; and Yang, C. Y., “Seismic Performance of
Rectangular Hollow Bridge Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Jan. 2002, pp. 60-68.
66. Zhou, X.; Satoh, T.; Jiang, W.; Ono, A.; and Shimizo, Y., “Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Short Column Under High Axial Load,” Transactions
of Japan Concrete Institute, V. 9, 1987, pp. 541-548.
67. Panagiotakos, T., and Fardis, M. N., “Deformations of Reinforced
Concrete Members at Yielding and Ultimate,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp.135-148.
68. Biskinis, D.; Roupakias, G.; and Fardis, M. N., “Stiffness and Cyclic
Deformation Capacity of Circular Concrete Columns,” Befestigungstechnik,
Bewehrungstechnik und., W. Fuchs and H.-W. Reinhardt, eds., ibidem,
Stuttgart, Germany, 2002, pp. 321-330.
69. CEN, “European Standard EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of
Concrete Structures: Part 1—1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,”
Stage 51 Draft, Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brusells, Belgium,
Dec. 2003.
70. CEB, “CEB-FIP Model Code 1990,” Bulletin d’Information No. 203/
204/205, Comité Euro-International du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1991.
71. CEN, “European Standard EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Design of
Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic
Actions and Rules for Buildings,” Stage 51 Draft, Comite Europeen de
Normalisation, Brusells, Belgium, Dec. 2003.
72. Alcantara, P. A.; Yamaguchi, T.; and Imai, H., “A Study on the
Influence of Shear Reinforcement Ratio to the Seismic Performance of
Precast Concrete Columns,” Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute,
V. 17, 1995, pp. 173-180.
73. Barda, F.; Hanson, J. M.; and Corley, W. G., “Shear Strength of Low-
Rise Walls with Boundary Elements,” Reinforced Concrete Structures in
Seismic Zones, SP-53, N. M. Hawkins, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 1977, pp. 149-202.
74. Bunno, M.; Komura, N.; Maeda, M.; and Kabeyasawa, T., “Experimental
Study on Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Under Axial Restraint,”
Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 21, 1999, pp. 343-350.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2004
75. Esaki, F., “Reinforcing Effect of Square Steel Tube on Ductility of R/C
Framed Shear Wall Whose Predominant Action is Flexure,” Transactions
of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 16, 1994, pp. 333-340.
76. Hotta, H.; Abe, T.; and Ando, H., “A Study on Effectiveness of
Eccentric Arrangement of Reinforcement in RC Columns,” Paper No. 665,
Proceedings of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Acapulco, Mexico, 1996.
77. Iihoshi, C.; Fukuyama, H.; Matsumoto, Y.; and Abe, S., “Strengthening
Effect of Reinforced Concrete Elements with Polyacetal Fiber Sheets,”
Fourth International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement
for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188, C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla,
and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
1999, pp. 659-669.
78. Iliya, R., and Bertero, V. V., “Effects of Amount and Arrangement of
Wall-Panel Reinforcement on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Walls,” Report No. UCB/EERC 80-04, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1980.
79. Imai, H., and Castro, J. J., “Influence of Anchorage Configurations
of Lateral Reinforcement on the Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Columns,” Proceeding of fib Symposium, Concrete Structures in Seismic
Regions, Athens, May 2003.
80. Lee, J. Y., and Watanabe, F., “Shear Deterioration of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 100, No. 4, July-Aug. 2003, pp. 480-489.
81. Nguyen, X. H., and Irawan, P., “Experimental Study on Shear Capacity
of RC Short Columns under Multi-Directional Loading,” Proceeding of fib
Symposium, Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions, Athens, May 2003.
82. Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F., “Behavior of Three-Dimensional
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 2002, pp. 81-89.
83. Tasai, A., “Effective Repair with Resin for Bond Failure of RC
Members,” Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Madrid, Spain; Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992, pp. 5211-5216.
84. Wang T. Y.; Bertero V. V.; and Popov, E. P., “Hysteretic Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Framed Walls,” Report No. UCB/EERC 75-23,
University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1975.
85. Zhang, A.; Yamakawa, T.; Zhong, P.; and Oka, T., “Experimental
Study on Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Columns Retrofitted
with Composite-Materials Jackets,” Fourth International Symposium on
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures, SP-188, C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, pp. 269-278.
86. Zhou, X.; Higashi, Y.; Jiang, W.; and Shimizu, Y., “Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Column Under High Axial Load,” Transactions of the
Japan Concrete Institute, V. 7, 1985, pp. 385-392.
783