ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 94-S44
Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane Elements
by Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss Model
by Thomas T. C. Hsu and Li-Xin “Bob” Zhang
A fixed-angle softened-truss model, which assumes the cracks to be
oriented in the principal compression direction of the externally
applied stresses, has been proposed for nonlinear analyses of rein-
forced concrete membrane elements (Pang and Hsu 1996). This
new smeared-crack model takes into account the “concrete contri-
bution” which is produced by the shear resistance of concrete
along the initial crack direction. This “concrete contribution”
cannot exist in the various rotating-angle models because they
assume the cracks to be oriented in the principal compression
direction of the post-cracking concrete.
The fixed-angle softened-truss model is capable of predicting the
entire load-deformation history because it takes into consideration
all 12 equations governing the equilibrium condition, the compati-
bility condition, and the constitutive laws of materials. This paper
proposes an efficient algorithm for solving these 12 governing
equations. This algorithm is used to analyze the behavior of
reinforced concrete panels tested at the University of Houston. The
analysis shows that the new fixed-angle model is much more
powerful than the prevailing rotating-angle models.
Keywords: constitutive laws; compatibility; equilibrium; fixed-angle;
membrane elements; membrane stresses; nonlinear analysis; post-cracking
behavior; reinforced concrete; rotating-angle; shear stress; shear strain;
softened truss model; stress; strain; stress-strain relationship.
INTRODUCTION
Wall-type and shell-type reinforced concrete structures,
such as shear walls, box bridges, I-girders, shell roofs,
offshore platforms, and nuclear containment vessels, can be
visualized as assemblies of membrane elements subjected to
in-plane stresses. The key to a rational analysis of these
structures is to first thoroughly understand the behavior of
reinforced concrete membrane elements (or panels) isolated
from such structures.
The modern truss model treats a cracked reinforced
concrete element as a continuous material. The stresses and
strains of concrete and steel in an element are evaluated by
the average or smeared values crossing several cracks. Using
these average stresses and strains (or smeared stresses and
strains) in cracked reinforced concrete allows us to apply the
principles of mechanics of materials. This modern way of
This paper is the eighth in a series of papers dealing with the devel-
opment of a unified theory for reinforced concrete sponsored by the
National Science Foundation and conducted at the University of
Houston.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
TECHNICAL PAPER
analyzing reinforced concrete was initiated in the late 1960s
when Nielson (1967) and Lampert and Thurlimann (1968)
derived the three fundamental equilibrium equations for
shear based on the theory of plasticity. The interaction rela-
tionship of bending, shear, and torsion was further developed
by Elfgren (1972). These theories were known collectively
as the equilibrium (plasticity) truss model.
The compatibility condition of reinforced concrete element
subjected to shear was first introduced by Collins (1973).
Because the average strain condition must satisfy Mohr’s
circle, this type of theory is called the Mohr compatibility truss
model. Three compatibility equations can be established from
the geometric relationships in a Mohr's circle.
A fundamental breakthrough in the understanding of shear
was the discovery of the softening of the concrete struts by
Robinson and Demorieux (1968) and the first quantification
of this phenomenon by Vecchio and Collins (1981, 1982).
Prior to 1968, the stress-strain curve of the concrete struts
was assumed to be the same as that obtained from the
uniaxial compression tests of standard concrete cylinders.
This assumption led to a severe overestimation of the shear
strength. Robinson and Demorieux observed that the prin-
cipal compressive stress in a reinforced concrete panel was
softened by principal tension. This softening phenomenon
was quantified by Vecchio and Collins, who proposed a
stress-strain curve incorporating a softening coefficient.
By combining the equilibrium, compatibility, and the soft-
ened stress-strain relationship of concrete, Vecchio and
Collins (1981, 1982) developed a compression field theory
to predict the post-cracking relationship between shear stress
and shear strain. This rational approach was generalized by
Hsu and his colleagues to establish a softened-truss model
(Hsu 1988) that is applicable to both shear and torsion. This
unified theory could predict with good accuracy the behavior
of various types of structures subjected to shear or torsion
(Hsu and Mo, 1985a,b,c; Mau and Hsu, 1986, l987a,b; Hsu,
Mau and Chen 1987). A unified nomenclature for all rational
theories in reinforced concrete is proposed by Hsu (1996).
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 5, September-October 1997.
Received October 2, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion will be published in the July-August 1998 ACI Structural Journal if
received by March 1, 1998.
483

Thomas T. C. Hsu, FACI, is a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Houston, Texas. The author of two books and many
journal publications, Dr. Hsu was the recipient of ACI’s Anderson Award for Research
in 1991 and the Wason Medal for Materials Research in 1965. He is a member of ACI
Committee 215, Fatigue; of joint ACI-ASCE Committee 343, Concrete Bridges; and of
445, Shear and Torsion.
Li-Xin “Bob” Zhang is a senior structural engineer at McDermott Engineering
Houston, LLC. He received his BS and MS degrees from Tianjin University, Tianjin,
China, and his PhD from the University of Houston in 1995. His current interest is in
the design and analysis of deep water structures and the nonlinear behavior of rein-
forced concrete structures.
FIXED-ANGLE SOFTENED-TRUSS MODEL
A reinforced concrete membrane element subjected to in-
plane stresses σl, σt, and Tlt is shown in Fig. 1(a). This
element is composed of concrete, Fig. 1(b), and orthogonal
steel reinforcement, Fig. 1(c), which defines the orientation
of l-t coordinate system. The applied principal stresses for
the element are designated as σ2 and σl, which define the 2-
1 coordinate system as shown in Fig. 1(d). The angle
between the l-axis and the 2-axis is the fixed-angle α2. If the
“smeared steel stresses” ρl f l and ρt ft in Fig. 1(c) are
different, then the concrete after cracking in Fig. 1(b) will
have principal stresses that deviate from the 2-1 coordinate.
The new direction of post-cracking principal stresses in
concrete, σd and σr, are defined by the d-r coordinate system
shown in Fig. 1(e).
The three truss models (equilibrium truss model, Mohr
compatibility truss model, and the softened truss model) all
assumed that the direction of the cracks follows the d-axis,
Fig. 1(g). Since the angle α between the d-axis and the l-axis
is called the rotating angle, these three truss models are
collectively referred to as the rotating-angle theory. A soft-
ened truss model based on a rotating angle is called the
rotating-angle softened-truss model. The rotating-angle soft-
ened-truss model is valid only within a range of 33 deg <α <
57 deg if full ductility is desired (Pang and Hsu 1995).
Fig. 1—Reinforced concrete membrane elements subjected to in-plane stresses
484
The three rotating-angle models have a common weak-
ness: they are incapable of predicting the so-called “contri-
bution of concrete.” Tests have shown that the shear strength
of a membrane element is made up of two terms: the “major
term” attributed to the steel, and the “minor term” attributed
to the concrete. The existence of the minor term is apparently
caused by the shear stresses that develop along the cracks
oriented in the 2-direction (Dei Poli et al. 1987, 1990; Kupfer
and Bulicek 1992). To take into account this “minor term” or
“contribution of concrete,” a softened-truss model was
developed which assumes that the cracks follow the 2-direc-
tion, Fig. 1(f). This new model, which is based on the
smeared-crack concept, is called the fixed-angle softened-
truss model (Pang and Hsu 1996).
The fixed-angle softened-truss model becomes identical to
the rotating-angle softened-truss model when the d-r coordi-
nate coincides with the 2-1 coordinate. This coincidence will
occur in the special case of panels that are reinforced with
equal smeared steel stresses in the l- and t-directions (i.e.,
ρ l f l = ρt ft in Fig. 1(c)) and subjected to pure shear (i.e. σl =
σt = 0 in Fig. 1(a)). Therefore, this type of test panel is
useless in determining the differences between the fixed-
angle softened-truss model and the rotating-angle softened-
truss model (e.g. Series A in Pang and Hsu, 1995). Useful
panels for determining the differences between the two
models are those with unequal smeared steel stresses in the
l- and t-directions (e.g. Series B in Pang and Hsu [1995]).
Extensive experiments have been conducted to generate the
constitutive law of concrete in shear that is required in the
fixed-angle softened-truss model (Pang and Hsu, 1996; Zhang
1992). Incorporation of this new shear stress-strain relation-
ship of concrete into the model results in four constitutive
laws, in addition to the three equilibrium conditions and three
compatibility conditions. To satisfy all these conditions
requires the simultaneous solution of 12 equations. The
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
primary purpose of this paper is to present an efficient algo-
rithm for solving these 12 equations.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A fixed-angle softened-truss model, which is capable of
producing the “concrete contribution” without external inter-
ference, is proposed for the nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete structures composed of membrane elements. In this
paper, an efficient algorithm is proposed for the solution of
this new model. This algorithm is used to analyze the behavior
of reinforced membrane elements with concrete strength of 42
MPa (6000 psi) and 65 MPa (9500 psi). From this analysis, the
range of applicability of the fixed-angle softened-truss model
is determined. It was found that this new model is much more
powerful than the existing rotating-angle models.
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The fixed-angle softened-truss model (Pang and Hsu,
1996) requires three equilibrium equations, three compati-
bility equations, and four constitutive laws for concrete and
steel as follows:
Equilibrium equations
The three equilibrium equations, which relate the applied
stresses (σl, σt and τlt) to the internal stresses of reinforce-
ment (fl and ft) and concrete (σc2, σc1 and τc21) in a
membrane element, are written with the help of the coordi-
nate transformation of average concrete stresses (Hsu1993)
c 2 c 2 c traverses several cracks, thus including the gaps that consti-
σ l = σ 2 cos α 2 + σ 1 sin α 2 + τ 21 2 sin α 2 cos α 2 + ρ l f l
c 2 c 2 c concrete in 2-direction:
σ t = σ 2 sin α 2 + σ 1 cos α 2 + τ 21 2 sin α 2 cos α 2 + ρ t f t
c c c 2 2
τ lt = ( – σ 2 + σ 1 ) sin α 2 cos α 2 + τ 21 ( cos α 2 – sin α 2 )
The fixed-angle α2 is considered a known value, deter-
mined from the applied stresses, σl, σt , and τlt.
Compatibility equations
The compatibility equations deal with the 2-D relation-
ships of average strains in a membrane element. In the fixed-
angle softened-truss model, the compatibility equations
represent Mohr’s relationship between the strains (εl, εt and
γlt) in the l-t coordinate of the reinforcement and the strains
(ε2, ε1 and γ21) in the 2-1 coordinate of the applied stresses.
These three compatibility equations are expressed by the
coordinate transformation of average strains (Hsu 1993):
2 2 γ 21
- 2 sin α 2 cos α 2
ε l = ε 2 cos α 2 + ε 1 sin α 2 + ------
2
2 2 γ 21
- 2 sin α 2 cos α 2
ε t = ε 2 sin α 2 + ε 1 cos α 2 + ------
2
γ lt γ 21 2 2
----- = ( – ε 2 + ε 1 ) sin α 2 cos α 2 + ------
- ( cos α 2 – sin α 2 )
2 2
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
The fixed-angle α2 used in Eq. (1) to (3) is also used here
in Eq. (4) to (6). This implies the assumption of coaxiality
between the principal stresses and the principal strains.
Constitutive laws
There are two kinds of finite element modeling for cracked
reinforced concrete: the microscopic models and the macro-
scopic models (ASCE/ACI, 1993). Microscopic models are
based on the stress-strain relations of plain concrete and
steel, focusing on their interactions through bond slipping
along the reinforcing bars and through shear-sliding along
cracked surfaces. This microscopic modeling was found to
be unsuitable for large structures, because the strong and
complicated interaction between concrete and steel can be
reproduced neither by the simple superposition of the mate-
rial laws of plain concrete and steel, nor by the introduction
of bond and shear interface elements. To overcome this diffi-
culty, the macroscopic models were developed. This kind of
modeling (also called the smeared crack concept) is based on
the average stress-strain relationships of concrete and steel
where bond slipping and shear sliding are implicitly
included. The constitutive laws of concrete and steel were
then obtained directly from tests of reinforced concrete
panels subject to biaxial loading.
The constitutive laws given below were established by the
macroscopic modeling. All the stresses in Eqs. (1) to (3)
must be the average (or smeared) stresses, and all the strains
in Eqs. (4) to (6) must be the average (or smeared) strains.
An average stress means an average value of the stresses
from a crack to midway between two cracks. An average
strain is measured from the displacement over a length that
(1)
tute the crack widths.
(1) Average compressive stress-strain relationship of
(2)
This relationship of σc2 vs. ε2 is assumed to be parabolic
as follows:
(3) ε2 ⎞ ⎛ ε2 ⎞ 2 ε2
σ 2 = ζ f c′ 2 ⎛ -------
c
- – -------- -≤1
------- (7a)
⎝ ζε ⎠ ⎝ ζε ⎠ ζε o
o o
ε 2 ⁄ ζε o – 1 ⎞ 2 ε2
σ 2 = ζ f c′ 1 – ⎛ -------------------------
c
- ->1
------- (7b)
⎝ 2⁄ζ–1 ⎠ ζε o
where εo is the strain at the peak stress of concrete
cylinder. The softened coefficient ζ was found to be a
function of the tensile strain ε1, the parameter η, and the
concrete strength fc′ (Zhang 1995):
5.8 1
ζ = -------------------------- ---------------------------------- (8)
f c′ ( MPa ) ⎛ 400ε
1 + -------------1- ⎞
⎝ η ⎠
(4) where
ρ t f ty – σ t
η = ---------------------
- (8a)
ρ l f ly – σ l
(5)
In Eq. (8), 5.8/ f c′ = 0.9 for a normal strength concrete of
42 MPa (6000 psi). Assuming η to be approximately unity,
Eq. (8) is degenerated into the softened coefficient given by
(6)
Pang and Hsu (1995) for rotating-angle softened-truss model.
485
 (2) Average tensile stress-strain relationship of concrete
in 1-direction:
This relationship between σc1 and ε1 is the same as the one
used in the rotating-angle softened-truss model:
c
σ1 = Ec ε1 ε 1 ≤ 0.00008
0.00008 0.4
σ 1 = f cr ⎛ ------------------- ⎞
c
ε 1 > 0.00008
⎝ ε ⎠ c
1 τ 21 = --- ( ρ t f t – ρ l f l)
The elastic modulus of concrete Ec in Eq. (9a) is taken as
3875 f c′ (fc′ and f c′ are in MPa) This Ec should also serve
as a maximum limit for the secant modulus in compression
when using Eq. (7a). The concrete cracking stress fcr in Eq. (9b)
is taken as 0.31lfc′ ( fc′ and lfc′ are in MPa). The tensile
stress-strain curve of concrete (σc1 -ε1 curve) in the 1-direc-
tion is somewhat different from the tensile stress-strain curve
of concrete (σr-εr curve) in the r-direction. Since the tensile
stresses of concrete are very small compared to the compres-
sive stresses of concrete, this small difference between σc1
and σr is ignored.
(3) Average tensile stress-strain relationship of steel
embedded in concrete:
This relationship of fs vs. εs is expressed by a bilinear model:
fs = Esεs εs ≤ εn
ε 2 – α 2 /45 deg ⎞
f s = f y ⎛ 0.91 – 2B ) + ⎛ 0.02 + 0.25B ) ----s ⎛ 1 – ------------------------------
⎝ ⎝ εy ⎝
εs > εn
where
2 – α 2 /45 deg ⎞
ε n = ε y ( 0.93 – 2B ) ⎛ 1 – --------------------------------
⎝ 1000ρ
and
1 f cr ⎞ 1.5
B = --- ⎛ -----
ρ ⎝ fy ⎠
Eqs. (10) and (11) are two identical equations, one for the
longitudinal steel and one for the transverse steel. The factor
[(0.91 – 2B) + (0.02 + 0.25B)(εs /εy)] in Eq. (10b) or (11b)
takes care of the averaging of steel stresses in the post-yield
branch. The factor [1 – (2 – α2/45 deg)/1000ρ] takes into
account the “kinking” of reinforcing bars at the cracks. When
α2 = 45 deg, this “kinking” factor is equal to (1 – /1000ρ).
When α2 = 90 deg, it becomes unity.
(4) Average shear stress-strain relationship of concrete in
2-1 coordinate:
This relationship between τc21 and γ21 has been deter-
mined experimentally by Pang and Hsu (1996):
γ 21 ⎞ 6
τ 21 = τ 21m 1 – ⎛ 1 – --------
c c
⎝
- (16)
γ 21o ⎠
where τc21m and γ21o are the maximum shear stress of
cracked concrete and the corresponding shear strain,
respectively. The power of 6 was obtained from tests
(Pang and Hsu 1996).
486
The shear stress of concrete τc21 can be derived from the
two equilibrium equations, (1) and (2):
c 1 c c
τ 21 = -------------------- [ ( σ l – σ t ) – ( ρ l f l – ρ t f t ) ] – ( σ 2 – σ 1 ) cot 2 α 2 (17)
2 sin 2α 2
(9a) For the case of pure shear (α2 = 45 deg and σl = 0) the
shear stress is
(9b)
1
(17a)
2
In Eq. (17) the maximum shear stress of concrete τc21m is
the shear stress τc21 that corresponds to the maximum
applied shear stress τltm. The stresses fl and ft would then
represent the average steel stresses at maximum load and are
calculated from Eq. (10) and (11) at the maximum load.
The test value of shear strain γ21 can be calculated from the
four measured strains, εl , εt , ε2, and ε1 by the following
compatibility equation:
γ 21 = – ( ε t – ε l csc 2α 2 + ( ε 1 – ε 2 ) cot 2α 2 (18)
and for the case of pure shear, α2 = 45 deg, the strain is
γ 21 = – ( ε t – ε l ) (18a)
(10a) or (11a)
At the maximum shear stress, the corresponding shear
strain γ21o is mainly affected by the severity of cracking and
the difference of smeared steel stresses in the l- and t-direc-
1000ρ ⎠
tions. The severity of cracking can be measured by the corre-
(10b) or (11b) sponding tensile strain ε1o at maximum shear stress, while
the difference of smeared steel stresses in the l- and t-direc-
tions can be evaluated by the parameter η defined in Eq. (8a).
Based on the test results of panels with a strain-control
procedure (Zhang 1995), the empirical relationship for pure
- (12)
⎠ shear was found to be
γ 21o = – 0.85ε 1o ( 1 – η ) (19)
SOLUTION METHOD
(13)
The fixed-angle softened-truss model is considerably
more complicated than the rotating-angle softened-truss
model because the fixed-angle softened-truss model must
incorporate the constitutive law that relates the average
concrete shear stress τc21 to the average shear strain γ21 in
the 2-1 coordinate. The 12 governing equations, (1) to (11)
and (16), involve 15 unknown variables. These 15 unknown
variables include eight stresses (σl, σt, τlt, σc2, σc1, τc21, fl
and ft), and six strains (εl, εt , γlt , ε2, ε1 and γ21), as well as
the material coefficient ζ. If three of these 15 variables are
given, the rest of the 12 variables can be determined mathe-
matically by using the 12 governing equations.
For the case of pure shear studied here, the two applied
normal stresses, σl and σt, are given as zero. The compres-
sive strain ε2 is usually selected as the third given variable
because it varies monotonically from zero to maximum. For
each given value of ε2, the remaining 12 unknown variables
can be found by solving the 12 equations. The series of solu-
tions for various ε2 values will allow us to trace the loading
history by plotting the τlt vs. γlt curve.
Notice that the τc21-γ21 relationship in Eq. (16) can be used
only if τc21m and γ21o are known at the maximum shear stress
τltm. Therefore, a method must be devised to find τc21m and
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Table 1—Mechanical properties and principal variables of test panels
Concrete Steel
fc′ εo l-direction t-direction
Panel MPa mm/mm Rebars ρl fly, MPa Rebars ρt fty, MPa η
B1 45.3 0.00215 15M@188mm 0.0120 463 10M@188mm 0.0060 445 0.480
B2 44.1 0.00235 20M@188mm 0.0179 447 15M@188mm 0.0120 463 0.690
B3 44.9 0.00215 20M@188mm 0.0179 447 10M@188mm 0.0239 445 0.332
B4 44.8 0.00205 25M@188mm 0.0298 470 10M@188mm 0.0359 445 0.189
B5 42.9 0.00220 25M@188mm 0.0298 470 15M@188mm 0.0120 463 0.394
B6 43.0 0.00220 25M@188mm 0.0298 470 20M@188mm 0.0179 447 0.570
HB1 66.5 0.00230 15M@188mm 0.0120 409 10M@188mm 0.0060 445 0.543
HB3 66.8 0.00240 20M@188mm 0.0179 447 10M@188mm 0.0060 445 0.332
HB4 62.9 0.00235 25M@188mm 0.0298 470 10M@188mm 0.0060 445 0.189
Note: All panels have a size of 1397 x 1397 x 178 mm (55 x 55 x 7 in.); ρl = Al/bsl, ρt = At/bst; η = ρt fty/flyρl

γ21o without using Eq. (16). This process to find τc21m and
γ21o will be called the first phase of the solution procedure.
Once τc21m and γ21o are found, the process of solving the 12
governing equations, (1) to (11) and (16) will be called the
second phase of the solution procedure.
In order to formulate these two phases of solution proce-
dures, the following two useful equations are first derived
based on the equilibrium equations. Adding Eqs. (1) and (2)
gives the summation of the smeared steel stresses in the l-
and t-directions as
involve 15 unknown variables (σl, σt, τlt, σc2, σc1, τc21, fl, ft,
εl, εt, γlt, ε2, ε1, γ21, and ζ). When three variables (σl and σt,
and ε2) are given, the remaining 12 unknown variables are
solved by the 12 equations using an iteration procedure as
shown by the flow chart in Fig. 2. Selecting a series of ε2
values and solving τlt for each ε2 value will give a τlt vs. ε2
curve, then search for a maximum shear stress τltm in the τlt vs.
ε2 relationship to obtain the corresponding τc21m and γ21o The
step-by-step solution procedure of the first phase is explained
in detail in the Appendix.*

c c Second phase of solution procedure

ρl fl + ρt ft = ( σl + σt ) – ( σ2 + σ1 )
Subtracting Eq. (2) from Eq. (1) gives the remainder of
the smeared steel stresses in the l- and t-directions as
c c
ρ l f l – ρ t f t = ( σ l – σ t ) – 2 ( σ 2 – σ 1 ) cos 2α 2 – 2τ 21 sin 2α 2
Equations (20) and (21) will be used in the second phase of solu-
tion procedure in lieu of Eqs. (1) and (2). Equations (20) and
(17) will be used in the first phase of solution procedure.
In the first phase of the solution procedure, we need to
device an approximate method for calculating γ21. This
method is obtained by assuming that Eq. (19) is applicable to
the entire loading history, rather than just the level of the
maximum load. Replacing the shear strain γ21o and the tensile
strain ε1o at the maximum applied load by γ21 and ε1 gives:
γ 21 = – 0.85ε 1 ( 1 – η )
Eq. (22) will be used to calculate an approximate shear
strain γ21 at every stage of loading in the first phase of the
solution procedure.
A simple and useful compatibility equation can also be
obtained from the invariance of the trace of strain tensor (or
by summing Eq. (4) and (5)):
ε1 = εl + εt – ε2
Eq. (23) will be used to check the assumed ε1 in the first
phase of the solution procedure.
First phase of solution procedure
In the first phase of the solution procedure the maximum
concrete shear stress τltm is determined from the 12 governing
equations, (3) to (11), (17), (20) and (22). These 12 equations
(20)
Once the maximum shear stress of concrete τc21m and the
shear strain at maximum load γ21o are determined, we can
now solve the 12 unknown variables (τlt, σc2, σc1, τc21, fl, ft,
εl, εt, γlt, ε1, γ21, and ζ) by the 12 governing equations, (3) to
(11), (16), (20) and (21), using an iteration procedure as
c
(21) shown by the flow chart in Fig. 3. Selecting a series of ε2
values will allow us to plot the σlt vs. γlt curve. The step-by-
step solution procedure of the second phase is also explained
in the Appendix.
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
The above solution procedure will be used to analyze nine
panels, six in the B-series with normal strength concrete of 42
MPa (6000 psi) (Pang and Hsu 1995) and three in the HB-
series with medium-high strength concrete of 65 MPa (9500
psi) (Zhang 1992). The test program for these nine panels are
given in Table 1. To illustrate the algorithm of solution
(22) procedures, panel B1 will be analyzed in detail in this section.
Particular interest is placed in the stress and strain conditions
at the first yield of steel and at the ultimate load stage.
Find τc21m and γ21o (first phase)
The maximum shear stress of concrete in the 2-1 coordi-
nate τc21m and the corresponding shear strain γ21o for panel
B1 can be found from the first phase of the solution proce-
dure. Selecting a series of compressive strains ε2 allows us
(23) to plot the τlt-ε2 curve as shown in Fig. 4. The step-by-step
calculations are summarized in Table 2 for four typical
strains of ε2 = –0.0002, –0.0003, –0.00034, and –0.00035.
Figure 4 and Table 2 show that the maximum shear stress τltm
occurs at a stress of 3.88 MPa (563 psi) with a corresponding
strain ε2 = –0.00034. The concrete shear stress τc21m and
*The Appendix is available in xerographic or similar form from ACI headquarters,
where it will be kept permanently on file, at a charge equal to the cost of reproduction
plus handling at time of request.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997 487

 Fig. 3—Flow chart of solution procedure for second phase.

Table 2—The first phase of solution procedure for

Fig. 2—Flow chart of solution procedure for first phase. panel B1
Variables Eqs. Calculated values
shear strain γ21o corresponding to τltm are then determined to –3
ε2 (10 ) selected — –0.20 –0.30 –0.34 –0.35
be –1.19 MPa (173 psi) and –0.0134, respectively (shown by
–3
bold types in Table 2). ε1 (10 )last assumed — 11.4 28.9 30.2 30.4
–3
γ21 (10 ) Eq. (22) –5.04 –12.77 –13.41 –13.47
Plot τlt vs. γlt curve (second phase) ζ Eq. (8) 0.266 0.172 0.168 0.168
Now that the maximum concrete shear stress τc21m and σc2 (MPa) Eq. (7) –6.95 –7.51 –7.57 –7.56
the corresponding shear strain γ21o are known, we can solve
the 12 unknown variables (τlt, σc2, σc1, τc21, fl, ft, εl, εt, γlt, σc1 (MPa) Eq. (9) 0.29 0.20 0.19 0.19
ε1, γ21, and ζ) by the 12 governing equations, (1) to (11) εl (10 ) –3 Eq. (4) 3.08 7.91 8.30 8.39
and (16) using the second phase of the solution procedure. εt (10 ) –3 Eq. (5) 8.12 20.1 21.7 21.8
The results of the calculations shown for ε2 values of –0.00010,
fl (MPa) Eq. (10) 379 401 403 403
–0.00012, -0.00019, and –0.00036 are summarized in
Table 3. A comparison of these four cases clearly illustrates ft (MPa) Eq. (11) 338 402 407 408
the trends of all the variables. ε2 = –0.00010 represents a (ρl fl + ρt ft )1 — 6.53 7.18 7.24 7.24
point before the yielding of both transverse steel and longi- (ρlfl + ρt ft )2 check Eq. (20) 6.66 7.31 7.37 7.37
tudinal steel. ε2 = –0.00012 is the point of first yield of the –3
ε1 (10 ) check Eq. (23) 11.4 28.3 30.3 30.5
transverse steel (εt = 0.00171), but before the yielding of
longitudinal steel. ε2 = –0.00019 is the second yield point τc21 (MPa) Eq. (17) –1.24 –1.19 –1.19 –1.19
of the longitudinal steel (εl = 0.00194). Finally, ε2 = –0.00036 γ21 (10–3) check Eq. (18) –5.04 –12.19 –13.40 –13.41
gives a point at which the maximum shear stress is obtained. τl t (MPa) Eq. (3) 3.62 3.83 3.88 3.87
The relationship between the shear stress τlt and shear –3
γl t (10 ) Eq. (6) –11.6 –29.2 –30.5 –30.8
strain γlt for panel B1 is shown in Fig. 5. The shear strains,

488 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997

 Table 3—The second phase of solution procedure
for panel B1
Variables Eqs. Calculated values
–3
ε2 (10 ) selected — –0.10 –0.12 –0.19 –0.36
–3
ε1 (10 )last assumed — 2.31 2.90 9.70 30.7
–3
γ21 (10 ) last assumed — –0.49 –0.63 –4.77 –9.56
ζ Eq. (8) 0.503 0.466 0.286 0.167
σc2 (MPa) Eq. (7) –4.02 –4.86 –6.82 –7.56
σc1 (MPa) Eq. (9) 0.543 0.496 0.306 0.193
c
τ 21 (MPa) Eq. (16) –0.254 –0.318 –1.216 –1.263
–3
εl (10 ) Eq. (4) 0.86 1.07 1.94 10.4
Fig. 4—The τlt-ε2 curve for Panel B1 in the first phase of εt (10 ) –3 Eq. (5) 1.35 1.71 7.57 19.7
solution procedure (1 MPa = 145 psi). fl (MPa) Eq. (10) 167 206 373 413
ft (MPa) Eq. (11) 245 305 335 398
γlt, at first yield, at second yield and at ultimate are 0.00302, (ρlfl + ρtft )1 — 3.52 4.36 6.48 7.30
0.00989, and 0.0311, respectively. (ρlfl - ρtft)1 — 0.52 0.71 2.46 2.55
(ρl fl +ρt ft)2 check Eq. (20) 3.55 4.41 6.54 7.37
ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS (ρl fl – ρt ft)2 check Eq. (21) 0.52 0.71 2.44 2.53
Figure 5 shows the applied shear stress vs. shear strain
relationships (τlt-γlt curves) predicted by the fixed-angle τl t (MPa) Eq. (3) 2.31 2.66 3.56 3.88
softened-truss model for the six panels in B-series (Pang and γl t (10 ) –3 Eq. (6) 2.47 3.02 9.89 31.1
Hsu 1995, 1996) and the three panels in HB-series (Zhang
1992). A comparison of these nine theoretical predictions
(solid lines) with the corresponding experimental results Table 4—Comparison of theoretical and
(solid dots) shows excellent agreement. The predicted values experimental maximum applied shear stresses τltm
of the maximum applied shear stress τltm and the applied and applied shear stresses at first yield τlty
shear stress at first yield τlty are given in Table 4, and are
compared with their corresponding experimental values. It τlty (MPa) τltm (MPa)
can be seen that the agreements are consistently very good Test Test
Panel η Test Theory Theory Test Theory Theory
for all nine panels.
The agreement between theory and tests for the six panels B1 0.480 2.798 2.660 1.05 3.972 3.877 1.01
in B-series is expected, because data from these panels were B2 0.690 5.330 5.425 0.98 6.131 6.481 0.95
part of the information used in establishing the constitutive B3 0.332 3.455 3.344 1.03 4.367 4.711 0.93
laws of mild steel bars and normal strength concrete (42 MPa B4 0.189 4.202 4.091 1.03 5.076 4.808 1.06
or 6000 psi). However, the three panels with concrete strength B5 0.394 5.841 5.894 0.99 7.166 7.057 1.02
of 65 MPa (9500 psi) in the HB-series (Zhang 1992) were B6 0.570 7.200 7.217 1.00 9.152 9.067 1.01
tested after the development of constitutive laws for normal HB1 0.543 2.874 2.736 1.05 4.322 4.274 1.01
strength concrete. The excellent agreement between the theo- HB3 0.332 3.338 3.208 1.04 4.889 4.859 1.01
retical and experimental curves in Fig. 5 for these three panels HB4 0.189 4.191 4.230 0.99 5.334 5.113 1.04
could not be foreseen and are particularly meaningful. Recent
tests of 14 panels with concrete strength of 100 MPa (14,500
psi) (Zhang 1995) also confirm the adaptability of the fixed- for the rotating-angle softened-truss model, the fixed-angle
angle softened-truss model to very high strength concrete. softened-truss model is a much more powerful analytical
Pang and Hsu (1995) showed that the rotating-angle soft- tool for the nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
ened-truss model cannot predict the complete τlt-γlt curves if membrane elements. A comparison of these two limiting
the steel yield forces in the l- and t-directions differ greatly. ranges of applicability is shown by a failure modes diagram
For panel B3 with η (= ρt fty /ρl fly) value of 0.332, the in Fig. 6 for A- and B-series (Pang and Hsu 1995) with
predicted τlt-γlt curve terminated prematurely before the concrete strength of 42 MPa (6000 psi).
maximum applied shear stress was reached. For panel B4 It is interesting to examine this new limiting range, 0.2
with η value of 0.189, the predicted τlt-γlt curve terminated < η < 5, in terms of the balanced steel ratio ρb and the
even before the first yield of steel. Since the η parameters for minimum steel ratio ρmin for elements subjected to pure
these two panels are less than 0.4, a limiting range of 0.4 < η shear. The balanced steel ratio ρb is determined when the
< 2.5 was proposed for the rotating-angle softened-truss concrete compression strut crushes simultaneously with
model if full ductility of an element is desirable. In contrast, the yielding of steel; and the minimum steel ratio ρmin is
the analysis of these two panels, Fig. 5, using the fixed-angle obtained when the first tensile cracking of concrete occurs
softened-truss model does provide the entire τlt-γlt curves simultaneously with the yielding of steel. These two
with almost full ductility. limiting steel ratios have been derived by Zhang (1995) to
In view of the success of the fixed-angle softened-truss be ρb = 1.89 f c′ /fy and ρmin = 0.35 f c′ /fy. Since the ratio
model, we propose that the range of applicability be widened ρmin/ρb = 0.35/1.89 = 0.18 and the ratio ρb /ρmin = 1.89/
to 0.2 < η < 5. Compared to the 0.4 < η < 2.5 limiting range 0.35 = 5.4, the practical range of applicability is about

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997 489

Fig. 5—Shear stress vs. shear strain curves of panels in B-series and HB-series (1 MPa = 145 psi).

0.18 < η < 5.4. From this point of view the 0.2 < η < 5
range of applicability for fixed-angle softened-truss
model covers essentially the whole practical range.

CONCLUSIONS
1. A softened-truss model based on a fixed-angle is success-
fully developed to analyze the nonlinear behavior of reinforced
concrete membrane elements. This new smeared-crack model
has the capability to predict the “concrete contribution.”
2. The fixed-angle softened-truss model requires 12
governing equations derived from the two-dimensional equilib-
rium condition, the Mohr’s circular compatibility condition, and
the biaxial constitutive laws of concrete and steel bars. An
efficient algorithm is developed to solve these equations.
3. The range of applicability to ensure full ductility is
proposed to be 0.2 < η <5 for the fixed-angle softened-truss
model. This range is much greater than the 0.4 < η < 2.5
range previously determined for the rotating-angle softened-
truss model.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grants No.
Fig. 6—Failure modes diagram for elements subjected to BCS-9213707 and MSS-9114543, as well as State of Texas Grant
proportional shear stresses (panels in Series A and B). 003652020-ATP. These generous supports are gratefully acknowledged.

490 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997

 NOTATION
1 ⎛ f cr ⎞
1.5
B = a parameter defined as --- ⎜ -----
-⎟
ρ ⎝ fy ⎠
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, taken as 3875 f c′ (fc′ and
f c′ are in MPa), or 47,000 f c′ (fc′ and f c′ are in psi)
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel bars
fcr = cracking stress of concrete, taken as 0.31lf'c ( fc′ and lfc′ are in
MPa), or 3.75 f c′ ( fc′ and f c′ are in psi)
f 'c = maximum compressive strength of standard 6 in. by 12 in. (15.2
cm by 30.5 cm) concrete cylinder
fl, ft = average steel stresses in the l- and t-directions, respectively
fn = average stress of mild steel bars embedded in concrete at the
beginning of yielding, defined at the intersection of the two
straight lines in the bilinear model
fs = average stress in mild steel bars. fs becomes fl or ft when applied
to longitudinal steel or transverse steel, respectively
fy = yield stress of bare mild steel bars, representing the local yield
stress of 90 deg steel bars at cracks. fy becomes fly or fty when
applied to longitudinal steel or transverse steel, respectively
fy′ = average yield stress of mild steel bars embedded in concrete. It
is not a constant, but is a linear function of the average steel
strain εs. fy′ becomes fly′ or fty′ when applied to longitudinal
steel or transverse steel, respectively
α = rotating-angle between the principal compressive stress of post-
cracking concrete (d-direction) and the longitudinal steel bars
(l-direction)
α2 = fixed-angle between the applied principal compression stress
(2-direction) and the longitudinal steel bars (l-direction)
εo = concrete strain at maximum compressive strength of standard
concrete cylinder
ε2, ε1 = average normal strains in the 2- and 1-directions, respectively
εl, εt = average normal strains in the l- and t-directions, respectively
(positive for tension)
εn = average yield strain of mild steel bars embedded in concrete at
the beginning of yielding; εn = εy(0.93 – 2B)
εs = average strain in the mild steel bars embedded in concrete. εs
becomes εl or εt, when applied to the longitudinal and trans-
verse steel, respectively
εy = yield strain in bare mild steel bars; εy = fy /Es
γlt = average shear strains in the l-t coordinate (positive as shown in
Fig. 1 for τlt)
γ21 = average shear strain in the 2-1 coordinate
γ21o = average shear strain in the 2-1 coordinate at maximum shear
stress τc21m
ρ = reinforcement steel ratio; ρ becomes ρl or ρt when applied to
the longitudinal and transverse steel, respectively
ρl, ρt = mild steel ratios in the l- and t-directions, respectively
σl, σt = applied normal stresses in the l- and t-directions, respectively
(positive for tension)
σc2 , σc1 = average normal stresses of concrete in the 2- and 1-directions,
respectively
τlt = applied shear stress in the l-t coordinate (positive as shown in
Fig. 1(a))
τltm = maximum applied shear stress in the l-t coordinate
τc21 = average shear stress of concrete in the 2-1 coordinate
τc21m = average maximum shear stress of concrete in the 2-1 coordinate
ζ = softening coefficient of concrete in compression
REFERENCES
ASCE/ACI Committee 447, 1991, “Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Structures II,” Proceedings of the International Workshop,
Columbia University, NY, June 2-5, J. Isenberg, ed., ASCE, New York, 1993.
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1994, “Constitutive Laws of Concrete in
Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 465-474.
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1995, “Constitutive Laws of Softened
Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 562-573.
Collins, M. P., 1973, “Torque-Twist Characteristics of Reinforced
Concrete Beams,” Inelasticity and Non-Linearity in Structural Concrete,
Study No. 8, University of Waterloo Press, pp. 211-231.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Dei Poli, S.; Gambarova, P. G.; and Karakoc, C., 1987, “Aggregate Inter-
lock Role in R. C. Thin Webbed Beams in Shear,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 113, No. 1, Jan., pp. 1-19.
Dei Poli, S.; Di Prisco, M.; and Gambarova, P. G., 1990, “Stress Field in
Web of R. C. Thin-Webbed Beams Failing in Shear,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 116, No. 9, Sept., pp. 2496-2515.
Elfgren, L., 1972, “Reinforced Concrete Beams Loaded in Combined
Torsion, Bending and Shear,” Publication 71:3. Division of Concrete Struc-
tures, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 249 pp.
Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 1985a, “Softening of Concrete in Torsional
Members-Theory and Tests,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings, V. 82, No. 3,
May-June, pp. 290-303.
Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 1985b, “Softening of Concrete in Torsional
Members-Prestressed Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings, V. 82, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct., pp. 603-615.
Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 1985c, “Softening of Concrete in Low-Rise
Shear Walls,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. pp. 883-889.
Hsu, T. T. C.; Mau, S. T.; and Chen, B., 1987, “A Theory on Shear
Transfer Strength of Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 149-160.
Hsu, T. T. C., 1988, “Softening Truss Model Theory for Shear and
Torsion,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 624-635.
Hsu, T. T. C., 1991, “Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Membrane
Elements,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 552-561.
Hsu, T. T. C., 1993, Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press,
Inc., Boca Raton, 336 pp.
Hsu, T. T. C., 1996, “Toward a Unified Nomenclature for Reinforced
Concrete Theory,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 122, No. 3,
Mar., pp. 275-283.
Kupfer, H., and Bulicek, H., 1992, “A Consistent Model for the Design
of Shear Reinforcement in Slender Beams with I- or Box-Shaped Cross
Section,” Concrete Shear in Earthquake, Hsu and Mau, eds., Elsevier
Science Publishers, Inc., London-New York, Jan., pp. 256-265.
Lampert, P., and Thurlimann, B., 1968, “Torsion Tests of Reinforced
Concrete Beams (Torsionsversuche an Stahlbetonbalken),” Bericht No. 6506-
2, Institute fur Baustatik, ETH, Zurich, 101 pp.
Mau, S. T., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1986, “Shear Design and Analysis of Low-
Rise Structural Walls,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.,
pp. 306-315.
Mau, S. T., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1987a, “Shear Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Framed Wall Panels with Vertical Loads,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June, pp. 228-234.
Mau, S. T., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1987b, “Shear Strength Prediction for
Deep Beams with Web Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 513-523.
Nielsen, M. P., 1967, “Om Forskydningsarmering i Jernbetonbjaelker,”
(On Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Beams), Bygn-
ingsstatiske Meddelelser, V. 38, No. 2, pp. 33-58.
Pang, X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1995, “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Membrane Elements in Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 6, Nov.-
Dec., pp. 665-679.
Pang, X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1996, “Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss
Model for Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr., pp. 197-207.
Robinson, J. R., and Demorieux, J. M., 1968, “Essais de Traction-
Compression sur Modeles d'ame de Poutre en Beton Arme,” IRABA
Report, Institut de Recherches Appliquees du Beton de L'ame, Part 1, June
1968, 44 pp., and Part 2, “Resistance Ultimate du Beton de L'ame de
Poutres en Double Te en Beton Arme,” 53 pp.
Vecchio, F., and Collins, M. P., 1981, “Stress-Strain Characteristics of
Reinforced Concrete in Pure Shear,” Final Report, IABSE Colloquium on
Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Delft, 1981, pp. 211-225.
Vecchio, F., and Collins, M. P., 1982, “The Response of Reinforced
Concrete to In- Plane Shear and Normal Stresses,” Publication No. 82-
03, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto,
1982, 332 pp.
Zhang, L. X., “Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Elements with Medium-
High Strength Concrete,” M. S. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, 1992, 214 pp.
Zhang, L. X., “Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Elements with High
Strength Concrete,” Ph. D. Dissertation. Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, 1995, 303 pp.
491