See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/44061014

Effect of bond, aggregate interlock and dowel action on the shear strength
degradation of reinforced concrete

Article  in  Engineering Structures · February 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00004-3

CITATIONS READS
43 1,598

2 authors:

Beatriz Martin-Perez Stavroula Pantazopoulou

University of Ottawa 226 PUBLICATIONS   2,486 CITATIONS   
35 PUBLICATIONS   461 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SHCC- behavior of reinforcement to SHCC bond View project

Strength Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Columns View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stavroula Pantazopoulou on 20 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Effect of bond, aggregate interlock and dowel action on the shear

strength degradation of reinforced concrete
a,* b
B. Martı́n-Pérez , S.J. Pantazopoulou
a
Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0R6
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Demokritus University of Thrace, Xanthi 67100, Greece

Received 21 June 1999; received in revised form 2 December 1999; accepted 29 December 1999

Abstract

The macroscopic shear strength contribution of concrete in reinforced concrete members is supported by dowel action, aggregate
interlocking across tension-shear cracks and the tensile stress field that becomes mobilised in concrete through reinforcement con-
crete bond. The mechanics of this relationship are explored in this paper for the benefit of improved understanding of the degradation
of shear strength in reinforced concrete as a function of imposed deformation demand. The mathematical formulation uses the non-
linear smeared crack/smeared reinforcement approach to consider plane stress states in reinforced concrete elements. The critical
modelling assumption in assessing the concrete contribution to shear resistance was the representation of force transfer from bar
to concrete, which requires establishing equilibrium both at crack locations as well as in a global sense. The significance of this
modelling approach on the overall shear strength was evaluated by the comparison of computed results with those obtained from
the conventional model, wherein concrete participation is lumped artificially under the so-called ‘tension-stiffening’ property. From
this comparison the parametric dependence of tension stiffening on bar diameter, crack spacing and bond properties is illustrated.
Through the mathematical formulation it was possible to identify and highlight the effect that compression softening of the concrete
struts has on the contribution of the web reinforcement to shear resistance, which represents yet another source of globally observed
strength degradation. The proposed model was verified by comparison with experimental results and was subsequently used for
parametric investigation of the associated design problem.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aggregate interlock; Bond; Concrete contribution; Dowel action; Shear design; Shear strength; Strength degradation

1. Introduction interpretation are still fraught with considerable debate.

Recent trends towards developing a complete frame-
work for earthquake design of reinforced concrete (r.c.)
members that is driven by assessing
displacement/deformation demands (rather than force
demands) have forced the need to describe nominal
strength and to detail requirements in terms of defor-
mation. For most limit states of r.c., linking strength to
deformation is not an easy or straightforward task,
because it requires a valid physical model in order to
state in mathematical terms the relationship between the
important design parameters. For the case of shear
strength sources in r.c., most issues relating to physical
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-613-993-3788; fax: +1-613-954-
5984.
E-mail address: beatriz.matrin-perez@nrc.ca (B. Martı́n-Pérez).
For example, consensus is lacking as to the physical sig-
nificance of the concrete contribution term, and to the
mathematical description of tension-based sources of
shear-strength and their relationship to strain intensity
and cyclic displacement history. In general, the available
expressions for shear strength are independent of the
magnitude of imposed deformation, leading to overly
conservative estimates of capacity for low levels of dis-
placement ductility demand, and becoming increasingly
unconservative as the displacement ductility demand
increases.
Except for a recent amendment in the Japanese Code
[1,2], the effect of deformation demand on the primary
and secondary sources of resistance, which are supported
by the compression struts of the 45°-truss idealisation,
has not been addressed in design codes. Conceptually,
the degradation of shear strength n and of its individual
components nc and ns (concrete and steel contributions,

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 4 - 3
 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
respectively), with increasing deformation in r.c. mem-
bers undergoing cyclic loading, follows the qualitative
pattern shown in Fig. 1(a) (taken from [3]). This model
has been verified by experiments and has been used by
researchers to define the nc term [4–8]. In most of the
above studies, the ns term was taken to be constant when
reducing the experimental data (this value being associa-
ted to yielding of the transverse reinforcement), thereby
attributing to nc whatever strength reduction is observed
in the overall strength as a result of cyclic loads. It is,
however, debatable whether the strength of the 45°-truss
(the ns term) is indeed insensitive to deformation
demand. Thus, resolving this point through modelling
of the related mechanisms is a pre-requisite in properly
quantifying nc as well.
Furthermore, the parametric dependence of shear
Fig. 1. (a) ATC model for shear strength degradation (ATC 6-2,
1983). (b)Truss analogy for the shear. (c) Free body equilibrium high-
lighting the role of stirrups in the truss analogy.
215
strength and the pattern of its degradation with increas-
ing deformation could be more transparent when the
mechanical problem is studied through a consistent
mathematical model. There is a vast amount of literature
and diversity on the subject of modelling plane stress
states in r.c.; however, the basic framework of smeared
models is now generally accepted as a successful model-
ling tool for concrete members where reinforcement has
been detailed so as to provide adequate crack control. In
these models, stresses and strains are usually evaluated
in principal directions using equilibrium and kinematic
considerations. Principal stresses are calculated from
principal strains based on pertinent material constitutive
relations that usually represent results from standard uni-
axial compression/tension tests of concrete. For this rea-
son, softening in the basic constitutive relations is
directly reflected in the macroscopic scale in the calcu-
lated relationship between stress and strain resultants.
However, whereas in general terms all models will pre-
dict softening of shear resistance with increasing distor-
tion, the exact magnitude will vary between models
depending on the sensitivity of the constitutive relations
and the associated assumptions of the critical parameters
of the problem. With respect to the modelling pro-
cedures, controversy is focused on a number of issues,
ranging from the true relationship between angles of
principal stress and principal strain (the simplest option
is to use coincident principal axes for clarity of the for-
mulation, but other options include coincident directions
for principal incremental stress and strain, or setting the
principal strain axes in concrete coincident with the prin-
cipal directions of the boundary stresses); the source and
numerical definition of the residual tensile strength of
concrete (to avoid mesh dependency of the mathematical
problem, but to also reflect the size dependency of the
physical problem); and, the interpretation of the local
stress state at the crack.
In this paper non-linear analysis of r.c. membrane
elements using the basic ‘smeared’ stress/strain frame-
work was conducted to investigate how modelling the
different sources of shear strength might affect the com-
puted relationship between strength and deformation
demand. The parametric dependence of shear strength
degradation on several design variables was investigated
by the authors [9], where the residual sources of concrete
strength in tension were represented collectively by the
conventional ‘tension-stiffening’ model that lumps all
these mechanisms in an artificially large post-cracking
stiffness of cracked concrete [10]. It is the objective of
the present work to model explicitly the residual strength
mechanisms of concrete, namely mobilisation of tension
stress fields in concrete by bond-slip at the steel–con-
crete interface, dowel action of primary and secondary
reinforcing bars crossing the crack planes, as well as
aggregate interlock at crack faces, while taking into
account the correct magnitude of post-cracking resist-
216 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
ance of concrete in order to study the effect of these
phenomena on the global shear-strength/deformation
relation.
2. Shear design of prismatic members for
earthquake resistance
The principle underlying the current design practice
is still motivated by the original truss analogy that was
advanced over a century ago by Ritter and Mörsch
[11,12]. In the original truss, compression struts were
assumed inclined at 45°, whereas horizontal and vertical
reinforcement acted as tension ties (Fig. 1(b)). From the
equilibrium of the free body shown in Fig. 1(c), it fol-
lows that the nominal shear resistance associated with
yielding of the transverse reinforcement is Vn=nAsfy,
where n is the number of stirrups/ties intersecting a 45°-
crack (the crack is assumed to run parallel to the com-
pression strut), As is the total cross-sectional area of the
legs of a single transverse reinforcement layer inter-
secting the crack plane, and fy is the yield stress of that
reinforcement. (The nominal shear force is converted to
stress by dividing by the effective web area bwd.) Con-
sidering that n=d/s, where s is the spacing of transverse
reinforcement in the longitudinal direction of the mem-
ber, it follows that the nominal resistance of the truss,
nn, is nn=rnfy where rn is the ratio of vertical shear
reinforcement.
Although understanding and modelling the mechanics
of shear in r.c. has advanced greatly from the time when
the above result was first established, the various code
design equations that have been adopted over the years
may be viewed as variations of the same basic theme
expressed by the Ritter–Mörsch equation. Because the
estimate nn=rnfy has been shown by experiments to be
too conservative, nn is enhanced in most design codes
today by an additional empirical term nc, so-called ‘con-
crete-contribution’, that is meant to account collectively
for the participation, in the actual function of the truss,
of several secondary sources of resistance in r.c., such
as aggregate interlock, dowel action of reinforcement
crossing the crack planes, restraint in the form of com-
pressive axial load, transfer of stress from reinforcement
to concrete through bond, and the residual tensile
strength of concrete. The empiricism necessarily
involved in expressing the concrete contribution nc in
mathematical terms has led to different expressions for
nc in different codes. For example, the ACI Code [13],
the simplified method in the CSA Standard [14], and
the CEB/FIB Model Code [15], respectively, propose the
following basic equations for the design shear strength n:
ACI [13]:
冉 冊
冑
n⫽f(ns⫹nc)⫽frnfy⫹f0.17 f⬘c 1⫹
P
14Ag
;f
⫽0.85
CSA [14]:
冑
n⫽fsns⫹fcnc⫽fsrnfy⫹fc0.20 f⬘c; fs⫽0.85, fc (1b)
⫽0.6
CEB/FIB [15]:
nRd3⫽fnw⫹nc⫽0.9rnfy⫹l1nRd1; nRd1⫽ tRdK(1.2 冋 (1c)
⫹40rl)⫹0.15
P
Ag 册
Stress units are MPa. In Eqs. (1a) and (1b) the contri-
bution of the axial load P in the nc term is only con-
sidered when compressive. The term tRd in Eq. (1c) is
the nominal shear resistance of the cross section at diag-
onal tension cracking, taken as one-quarter of the design
tensile strength of concrete, which is in turn related to
(f⬘c)2/3 (whereas the nominal shear strength at cracking
in Eqs. (1a) and (1b) is related to √f⬘c.) The other vari-
ables in Eq. (1c) are as follows: K accounts for the effect
of size of the cross section (K=1.6⫺dⱖ1 in m) and
rl⬍0.02 is the percentage of adequately anchored longi-
tudinal tension reinforcement in the cross section of
interest. Parameter l1 regulates the magnitude of con-
crete contribution depending on the proximity of the
cross section to a plastic hinge zone and the magnitude
of the axial compression acting on it, i.e., l1=1 every-
where outside the critical regions of beams and columns,
whereas within the critical regions l1=0.9 for Pⱖ
0.1Agf⬘c/gc (with gc=1.5) and l1=0.3 for smaller axial
loads (these values apply to earthquake design only,
otherwise l1 is always 1). In comparison, in earthquake
design the ACI and CSA Codes neglect the concrete
contribution entirely for P⬍0.05Agf⬘c and P⬍0.1Agf⬘c,
respectively, but account for the value of Eq. (1a) and
half the value of Eq. (1b), respectively, for higher values
of axial load.
The truss analogy is valid provided the diagonal struts
have adequate compressive strength to support the forces
that develop in the longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
ment. For this reason, all codes limit implicitly or
explicitly the design shear n by a lower bound estimate
of the force required to crush the diagonal struts, i.e.,
ACI [13]:
冑
nsⱕ0.66 f⬘c (2a)
(1a)
 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227 217

CSA [14]:
冑
fsnsⱕ0.8fc f⬘c; fs⫽0.85,fc⫽0.6 (2b)
CEB/FIB [15]:
1
冉 冊
nⱕnRd2⫽0.9 l2f⬘c/gc ; gc⫽1.5, l2⫽0.7⫺
2
f⬘c
200
(2c)
ⱖ0.5
In Eq. (2c) the resistance nRd2 is reduced if there is axial
compression on the cross section, in order to account for
the weakening influence it has on the residual compress-
ive strength of the web. Coefficient l2 in Eq. (2c) reflects
the reduction in concrete compressive strength due to
the weakening influence of cracks due to tension in the
orthogonal principal direction. According to the AIJ
Code [1], further reduction from this reference value of
l2 is necessary to capture the strength loss in plastic
hinge regions of earthquake resistant members (i.e.,
l2⬘=t2l2, where the reduction factor r2 is a function of
the lateral drift d in radians, i.e., r2=1⫺15d for d⬍5%,
and r2=0.25 for d⬎5%).
3. Effect of damage on shear strength
regions of frame and shear wall elements, this sensitivity
of shear resistance to deformation may dramatically
affect the realisation of the design objectives. Note that
in adequately detailed, under-reinforced frame members,
flexural response is very ductile, i.e., flexural resistance
may be sustained with minimal or no degradation up to
excessively large curvatures. In such a case the design
shear Vf=Mf/L, where L is the length of the shear span,
is insensitive to displacement demand, particularly if the
shear span is slender (⬎3d, where d is the static depth
of the beam’s cross section). In contrast, as the imposed
deformation increases, the shear strength Vn decreases
rapidly due to diagonal cracks extending normal to the
principal tensile stress field and due to the subsequent
widening of these cracks, a circumstance that eventually
leads to reversal of the inequality Vn⬎Vf, despite the
initial intentions of the design (Fig. 2). In a recent study
it has been suggested that shear failure is likely in shear
walls where the shear force required to cause flexural
hinging is greater than 60% of the nominal shear resist-
ance [16].
4. Sources of shear strength
It was mentioned in the preceding section that shear
resistance in r.c. comprises a primary contribution rep-
resented by the truss analogy, and a secondary compo-

All of the preceding definitions of shear strength (Eqs.

(1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b and 2c)), and in particular, the con-
crete contribution component nc, explicitly rely on mech-
anisms of tensile resistance (marked by the root powers
of f⬘c) that degrade and eventually break down with
increasing crack width. Yet, these expressions are
entirely insensitive to parameters that would characterise
the width of cracks and the level of damage in the mem-
bers, such as for example the intensity of deformation
demand and the number of imposed cycles in earthquake
loading. Similarly, the compressive strength of the diag-
onal struts (appearing either implicitly or explicitly in
Eqs. (2a, 2b and 2c)) is affected by the presence of paral-
lel cracks (i.e., softening due to orthogonal tensile strain
[10]). Through nodal equilibrium, the force that could
be developed in the longitudinal and transverse ties of
the idealised truss is directly related to the force magni-
tude of the diagonal compression strut. Therefore, propa-
gation and widening of cracks not only affects the nc
term, but also the integrity and load carrying capacity of
the overall truss mechanism as that is expressed through
the ns term in Eqs. (2a) and (2b) and through the nRd2
term in Eq. (2c).
In seismic design, where the aim is to control the Fig. 2. Relationship between nominal shear capacity, Vn and shear
location and type of damage by controlling the relative demand, Vf: (a) Calculation of Vf; (b) variation of Vn and Vf with defor-
magnitudes of flexural and shear strengths in the critical mation demand.
218 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
nent that collectively represents all other contributing
mechanisms, namely:
(a) Bond of reinforcement to concrete and the ten-
sile stress field mobilised in the concrete mass
surrounding the reinforcement through this
interaction.
(b) Residual diagonal tensile strength of cracked
concrete.
(c) Dowel action of reinforcement intersecting the
inclined cracks.
(d) Friction between crack faces and aggregate
interlock.
Despite the obvious significance bond has in determining
the response of r.c. to shear stress, in the vast majority
of specimens used for the systematic study of shear in
r.c. these have been tested with reinforcement and con-
crete clamped at the ends, thereby ensuring compatibility
of deformations in a smeared sense [17,18]. This is an
important point of difference between experiments and
the actual circumstances that occur in plastic hinges of
structural members, wherein global bond-slip may domi-
nate the load–deformation response, the redistribution of
stress, and the rate of strength degradation.
For a uniform stress field (as in most experiments on
r.c. panels, [17,18]), reinforcement stresses at all parallel
crack faces are constant throughout the specimen; these
reduce to an intermediate value between cracks due to
bond transfer (Fig. 3). The ensuing difference between
Fig. 3. Variation of reinforcement stress and bond stress between
successive cracks.
steel stresses at a crack from their smeared average
values is usually attributed to the so-called ‘tension-stiff-
ening’ mechanism, which stands for the increase in stiff-
ness of the tensile reinforcement effected by the contri-
bution of concrete. Tension stiffening is often described
by the post-peak branch of the uniaxial tension stress–
strain curve that models the behaviour in the principal
tensile direction, i.e., it is usually considered as the
residual tensile strength of cracked concrete [10]. Nat-
urally, the actual residual tensile strength in concrete is
orders of magnitude smaller than what the tension-stiff-
ening models assume, but what causes such a relatively
slow rate of decay in tests of r.c. specimens is the bond
of reinforcement to concrete. Recently published ‘ten-
sion-stiffening’ relationships have the form [10,19]:
f⬘t
fc1⫽
冑
(3)
1+ Bec1
where fc1 is the post-cracking principal tensile stress in
concrete, ec1 is the co-axial tensile strain, and B is an
empirical constant (B ranges between 200 and 500
[10,19], as experimental values differ from one test ser-
ies to another). Thus, the commonly accepted models for
tension stiffening are unnaturally insensitive to design
parameters known to affect the concrete-reinforcing bar
interaction (e.g., bar size, length of bar over which trans-
fer takes place, degree of transverse confinement, bond
strength). Therefore, though tension stiffening is an
indirect way of modelling the bond, it cannot realisti-
cally account for the bond-slip action that occurs along
the anchored reinforcement. (This is the most likely rea-
son why tests from different investigators point to such
vastly different values for the post-cracking stiffness as
expressed through Eq. (3).) Furthermore, the post-crack-
ing stiffness required to match experimental results using
the tension-stiffening modelling option is unnaturally
high, the residual tensile strength also being attributed
implicitly to all the mechanisms, (a)–(d), mentioned pre-
viously. In the following sections these mechanisms are
modelled explicitly in order to provide a vehicle for the
study of their influence on the computed shear strength.
5. Analytical modelling of stress-states involving
shear
The mechanics of r.c. shear behaviour were estab-
lished here from the equilibrium and compatibility con-
siderations of a simple r.c. element, whose deformation
is primarily characterised by in-plane shear distortion gxy
and where material stresses are approximated by a state
of plane stress (Fig. 4). With no loss of generality, it
was assumed that the element considered has an orthog-
onal grid of reinforcement in directions x and y, parallel
to the element boundaries and uniformly distributed in
 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227 219

Fig. 4. Membrane element: (a) externally applied stresses; (b) average strains; (c) definition of terms cqx, cqy, and d; (d) average stresses; (e) local
stresses at a crack.

each principal reinforcing direction (under this condition crete at every point over the element were described by
it is possible to assume that cracks are smeared over the the second-order tensors:

冉 冊 冉 冊
element). It was further assumed that the crack planes
coincide with planes of maximum normal tensile strain, ex 0.5gxy fcx nxy
ẽ⫽ s̃⫽ (4)
and that cracked concrete behaves as an orthotropic 0.5gxy ey nxy fcy
material with the material axes being oriented along the
direction of principal stress. The direction of principal In Eq. (4), fcx and fcy are the average concrete stresses
strain was assumed to coincide with the direction of in the x and y directions, respectively, and nxy the shear
principal stress. For specified normal boundary stresses stress. The above obey all the characteristic properties
nx, and ny, the progressive evolution of the shear stress of a second-order tensor (e.g., they possess invariants,
nxy that develops in the element in response to an eigenvalues (principal values) and eigenvectors
imposed history of shear distortion gxy was determined. (principal directions), and obey coordinate
The states of average stress and average strain in con- transformations). The convention used here is tension
220 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
positive. With fsx and fsy representing the average axial
stresses in the reinforcement, consideration of global
equilibrium with the normal boundary stresses yields
(Fig. 4):
nx⫽fcx⫹rxfsx; ny⫽fcy⫹ryfsy (5)
where rx and ry are the reinforcement ratios in the x
and y directions, respectively (neglecting the reduction
in concrete area of concrete due to the presence of the
reinforcing bars).
The kinematic relationship between deformations of
concrete and steel (a compatibility requirement) is usu-
ally defined by means of an interaction model for the
two materials, where bond-slip is modelled explicitly. In
this case, kinematics require compatibility between
strains in the reinforcement, slip, and average strains in
concrete. An additional equation is needed to state equi-
librium between average bond stress and average and
local stresses in the reinforcement. Tension stiffening is
inconsistent with this modelling approach, and hence,
the descending branch of the tensile stress–strain
relationship of concrete is taken to be several orders of
magnitude steeper than what is used in conventional
models [10,19], because now this property only rep-
resents progressive microcracking.
6. Local equilibrium at crack locations
At crack locations, tensile stresses in concrete are
zero, and all the tension must be carried by the reinforc-
ing bars. While tensile stresses in the reinforcement
crossing the cracks are higher than the average values
obtained from the constitutive relations, the stresses in
the reinforcement between cracks are lower than the
average values (Fig. 3). This non-uniform distribution of
stresses along the reinforcing bars is important because
the load-carrying capacity of the cracked structural
member may be governed by the reinforcement’s ability
to transmit stresses along the anchorage length, as well
as across the cracks. It was assumed here that bond
stresses are distributed uniformly between cracks,
whereas the average reinforcement stress value matches
the actual stress in the bar at the quarter points within
the crack spacing (Fig. 3). By establishing equilibrium
along the bar segment bound by two consecutive cracks,
the stress in the reinforcement, fsxcr, at crack locations is
obtained as a function of the average reinforcement
stress value, fsx, and the intensity of bond stress, fbx,
(similarly for the y direction):
cqx cqy
sx⫽fsx⫹
f cr f ; f cr ⫽f ⫹ f (6)
Dbx bx sy sy Dby by
where cqx and cqy represent the x and y projections of
the crack spacing (Fig. 4(c)), and Dbx and Dby the corre-
sponding bar diameters in the two principal reinforcing
directions, respectively. Average diagonal crack spacing
along the principal tensile direction is given by [19]:
冉 冊
1 l Dbx
cq⫽ ; sx⫽2 c⫹ ⫹0.25k1 (7)
sin q cos q 10 rx
+
sx sy
where q is the direction of average principal compressive
stress measured from the x-axis, sx and sy are the average
crack spacings that would result if the member was sub-
jected to mere tension along the x and y axes, respect-
ively, k1 is 0.4 for deformed bars and 0.8 for plain bars,
c is the maximum distance from the reinforcement cross-
ing the crack plane, and l is the maximum spacing
between the reinforcing bars (⬍15Dbx) [15].
The free body diagrams illustrated in Fig. 4(d, e) show
the average stresses of the element and the local stresses
that occur at a crack, respectively. The principal plane
was defined here from average stresses, i.e., the average
shear stress component vanishes. However, at the crack
plane, shear is transferred by means of aggregate inter-
lock, nagg, and by dowel action of the reinforcing bars,
fdx and fdy (fdx is the dowel shear stress along the x-axis).
The two stress states illustrated in Fig. 4(d, e) are stati-
cally equivalent. By summing the components of the
stresses normal to the crack direction it follows that:
fc1⫽sin2 q[rx(f cr
sx⫺fsx)⫹ryfdy]⫹cos q[ry(f sy⫺fsy)
2 cr
(8a)
⫹rxfdx]
By substitution of Eq. (6) into Eq. (8a), the principal
tensile stress takes the form given by Eq. (8b). Thus, in
order to ensure local equilibrium at the cracks, the prin-
cipal average tensile stress in concrete given by Eq. (8b),
冋
cqx cqy
fc1⫽sin2 q[rx fbx⫹ryfdy]⫹cos2 q ry fby (8b)
Dbx Dby
⫹rxfdx 册
must be less or equal at all times than the corresponding
value that is specified through the constitutive relation-
ship. This implies that the envelope of the constitutive
relationship for post-cracking tension of r.c. is controlled
by the characteristics of the bond and dowel action. As
an extension to the above, note that for tension-stiffening
modelling purposes, the residual tensile stress in any
principal direction may be calculated from Eq. (8b).
Hence, any decay with an increasing value of strain must
be linked to the associated degradation of the bond and
dowel action.
7. Constitutive relations
The softening behaviour of concrete under cyclic
compression, as well as the tensile/compressive behav-
 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
iour of steel reinforcement under reversed cyclic loading,
were modelled following the same procedure as that
used earlier by the authors [9], which relied on a ‘ten-
sion-stiffening’ model (also see Fig. 5). Components of
the constitutive response used in the present work, which
depart radically from that classical ‘smeared model’, are
described below.
7.1. Constitutive model for bond
A simple average bond stress/strain relationship was
adopted to simulate the stress attenuation in steel with
increasing distance from a crack (Fig. 6). From the equi-
librium of an infinitesimal segment of an embedded bar
of length dl, the bond stress was evaluated as
fb=0.25Db(dfs/des)(des/dl) (Fig. 3), i.e., the bond demand
on concrete is a function of the average stress and strain,
fs, es, in the reinforcement. For the sake of simplicity,
the rate of change in strain along the length of the bar,
des/dl, was approximated here by the average strain in
the reinforcement normalised by the crack spacing in the
direction of the reinforcing bar (cqx or cqy respectively).
Fig. 5. Material models under cyclic load reversals: (a) concrete in
compression and tension; (b) steel.
221
Hence, the resulting average bond stresses along the x
and y directions are estimated from:
Dbs t Dby t
fbx⫽ Esesx; fby⫽ Ee (9)
4cqx 4cqy s sy
where Ets is the tangent modulus of the average stress–
strain curve of the reinforcing steel (dfs/des), which was
obtained by differentiation of the associated mathemat-
ical form [20]. The envelope of the bond-slip response
was defined by the monotonic response curve shown in
Fig. 6(a), which was obtained according to Eq. (9). The
unloading path followed two linear segments: the first
with a slope equal to Es, the elastic modulus of steel,
i.e., fb=Es(es⫺xo) for 兩es兩⬎兩xo兩; the second segment with
zero slope (fb=0 for 兩es兩⬍兩xo兩). Upon reloading, the path
followed was the same as under unloading conditions
until the envelope was reached again, i.e., there was no
additional energy dissipation in this phase of the
response.
7.2. Concrete in tension
The relationship between average principal tensile
stress fc1 and average principal tensile strain ec1 in con-
crete was assumed to be linear-elastic prior to cracking,
with a slope equal to Ec. After cracking (i.e., ec1⬎
f⬘t/Ec, f⬘t being the concrete tensile strength, taken here
as 0.33√f⬘c) the response was assumed to follow a linear
strain-softening branch (Fig. 6(b)). The softening modu-
lus Et depends on the fracture energy Gf, which is
defined as the energy dissipation due to localised crack-
ing per unit length of fracture and corresponds to the area
under the stress–strain curve [21]. The fracture energy
is considered a material property of concrete and was
determined here by means of an empirical relationship
proposed by Bazant and Oh [22]:
da
Gf⫽(2.72⫹3.10ft⬘)ft⬘2 N/mm (10)
Ec
where da is the maximum aggregate size in the mix. Note
that in using the fracture energy as a cracking criterion,
it is necessary to adjust the average stress–strain relation
of concrete in tension so as to ensure the same energy
dissipation Gf for any crack spacing cq (to avoid the
problem of dependency of the analysis results on the
choice of crack spacing). By equating the product of the
area under the uniaxial tensile stress–strain curve and the
crack spacing cq to the fracture energy Gf [21], the ulti-
mate strain eu is calculated as (Fig. 6(b)):
2Gf
e u⫽ (11)
ft⬘cq
Under cyclic loading, an open crack was assumed to
have closed when the principal strain across it became
compressive, and, consequently, the concrete was able
222 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227

Fig. 6. (a) Averaged bond-stress/axial strain relationship; (b) tension stress–strain curve in plain concrete; (c) in-plane shear stress due to aggregate
interlock; (d) unloading–reloading path; (e) dowel force versus transverse displacement relationship; (f) definition of dowel displacement.

to transmit compression loads in that direction again.
The crack was assumed to reopen again when the princi-
pal strain normal to it became tensile.
7.3. Shear interface
At crack locations, in-plane shear transfer was
accomplished through aggregate interlock of the rough
crack surfaces and dowel action of the reinforcing bars
crossing the crack planes. Based on experimental data it
was established that the shear stiffness of these mech-
anisms decays rapidly after cracking. In this work, shear
stress due to aggregate interlocking nagg was formulated
explicitly as an inverse function of the principal tensile
strain ec1, which is an indicator of the actual crack width.
The proposed expression Eq. (12) was calibrated with
 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
shear panel tests [17] to obtain the values given in the
right-hand term (F represents the shear strength at crack-
ing and a is a normalising constant, Fig. 6(c)):
F 0.1342×10−3Ec
nagg⫽ ⫽ (12)
ec1 ec1
1+ 1+
a 0.0018
Eq. (12) defines the envelope of the aggregate interlock
cyclic response adopted here. Unloading from the envel-
ope was defined by two linear segments with slopes En1
and En2 (Fig. 6(d)), where En1 is the initial tangent modu-
lus of the proposed shear stress/principal tensile strain
relationship (En1=0.1342×10⫺3 Ec), and En2 is given as:
0.1342×10−3Ec
En2⫽
max ·En1 (13)
c1 −nagg
En1emax
with emax
1 the maximum principal tensile strain that con-
crete has undergone in a given direction and nmax agg the
maximum in-plane shear stress developed in that direc-
tion. Reloading towards the envelope followed the slope
of the straight line that passes through the points in the
stress–strain curve corresponding to the maximum
(emax min
c1 ) and minimum (ec1 ) principal tensile strains that
the r.c. element has undergone in the previous cycle, i.e.,
agg −vagg
nmax min
nagg⫽vmin
agg ⫹Er(ec1⫺ec1 ); Er⫽ max
min
(14)
ec1 −ec1
min
where nmin
agg is the minimum in-plane shear already
developed in a given direction.
7.4. Dowel action of reinforcement
The primary mechanism of resistance against sliding
shear failure after the breakdown of aggregate interlock
is the dowel action of the reinforcing bars. Although it
has been suggested that dowel strength across a shear
plane is owing to a combination of direct shear, kinking
and flexure of the reinforcing bars, Millard and Johnson
[23] have illustrated that flexure of the bars predomi-
nates, since there is a significant amount of deformation
in the underlying concrete cover. A physical model for
dowel bars embedded in concrete after cracking is that
of a beam resting on an elastic foundation (the concrete
representing the flexible foundation). The following
load–deformation response for dowel bars was adopted
in this study [23]:
冋 冉 冊册
Fd⫽Fdu 1⫺exp
−Ki⌬
Fdu
(15)
where Fd is the dowel force at a shear displacement
across the crack equal to ⌬ (Fig. 6(e)), Fdu is the ultimate
dowel force, and Ki is the initial dowel stiffness. To
evaluate Fdu, a simple limit analysis model was used
assuming simultaneous formation of a plastic hinge in
223
the bar and a crushing zone in the concrete under the
dowel:
冑
Fdu⫽1.30D2b f⬘cfy(1−A2) (N) (16)
with A the ratio of applied axial force to the yield axial
force of the bar with diameter Db. From experimental
evidence it is known that axial tension in the bars close
to yielding adversely affects the dowel resistance
(causing a reduction in dowel stiffness and bending
capacity [23]). This is why Eq. (16) results in zero dowel
capacity for rebar forces equal or exceeding yield (A⬎1).
With regards to the initial stiffness, the following
expressions were adopted from the literature [24,25]:
Ki⫽0.166K 0.75
f D1.75
b Es
0.25
(N/mm); (17)
冉冊
冑
2/3
1
Kf⫽127b f⬘c (N/mm3); Es⫽200 GPa
Db
where Kf is the foundation stiffness of concrete and b is
a coefficient ranging from 0.6 for a clear bar spacing
of 25.4 mm to 1.0 for larger bar spacings. The dowel
displacement ⌬ that is used in Eq. (15) is the component
of crack width w in the direction normal to the reinforc-
ing bar (w=cqec1, with the crack spacing cq as calculated
from Eq. (7)). Thus (Fig. 6(f)),
⌬x⫽w sin q;⌬y⫽w cos q (18)
Eq. (15) was used as the envelope of the dowel response
curve. Unloading from the envelope followed a straight
line with stiffness Ki (the initial stiffness) up to zeroing
of the dowel force; at that point bars were assumed to
act as dowels in the opposite direction following the
envelope (Eq. (15)) in that direction. Reloading followed
a straight line with slope depending on the maximum
and minimum dowel shear displacements attained in the
previous cycle (Fig. 6(e)), i.e.,
d −Fd
Fmax min
Fd⫽Fmin
d ⫽Er(⌬⫺⌬min); Er⫽ max (19)
⌬ −⌬min
with ⌬min and ⌬max the minimum and maximum trans-
verse displacements that the dowel bar has undergone,
and Fmin
d and Fmax
d the minimum and maximum dowel
shear forces developed previously in the bar.
8. Establishing the shear resistance of cracked
concrete
8.1. According to the proposed model
By establishing global equilibrium in terms of local
stresses developed along the crack interface, bond,
aggregate interlock and dowel action are introduced
explicitly (see free-body diagrams in Fig. 4(d, e)). Thus,
the shear stress nxy of the r.c. element is evaluated from:
224 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
nxy⫽nagg⫹rxfdx⫹cot qryf cr
sy⫺cot qny (20)
Although angle q defines the principal plane in terms
of average stresses (an assumption of the model), the
introduction of shear stresses at the crack implies that
this direction changes when local conditions are con-
sidered. By substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (20), the shear
resistance nxy becomes:
冋
nxy⫽ nagg⫹rxfdx⫹cot q ry冉 cqy
f ⫺n
Dby by y 冊册
⫹[cot qryfsy]⫽nc⫹np⫹ns; nc⫽nagg⫹rxfdx (21)
cqy
⫹cot qry f
Ddy by
The truss mechanism contribution to shear resistance,
ns=cot qryfsy, maintains the same form as given by the
standards, although expressed in terms of average
stresses. However, the nc term is now explicitly related
to aggregate interlock, dowel action, and the bond mech-
anism. Note the increase in the nxy term when compress-
ive normal boundary stresses ny (axial loads) are applied,
marked by the np component in Eq. (21) (np=⫺
cot qny, ny⬍0 for compression); it is recalled that this
term has been acknowledged explicitly by both the ACI
[13] and CEB/FIP [15] Codes in Eqs. (1a) and (1c),
through the terms 0.17√f⬘c(P/14Ag) and 0.15 l1(P/Ag),
respectively.
8.2. The significance of alternate assumptions for q
It was assumed here that the direction of principal
average stresses and principal average strains coincide,
allowing angle q to rotate. Alternative formulations
assume that the principal strain axes in concrete coincide
with the principal directions of the applied boundary
stresses [26–28]. If this assumption is considered, the
mathematical form of Eq. (21) would remain the same,
except now q would be given by the initial crack pattern
resulting from the boundary stresses.
8.3. Shear resistance according to the tension-
stiffening model
Alternatively, by representing the mechanism of shear
resistance at the crack interface through the tension-stiff-
ening model [9,10] and neglecting local conditions at
crack locations, the shear stress nxy is calculated in terms
of average stresses from the equilibrium of the free body
shown in Fig. 4(c):
nxy⫽cot q(fc1⫺ny)⫹cot qryfsy⫽nc⫹np⫹ns; (22)
nc⫽cot qfc1
The shear contribution of the truss component, ns, as
well as the np term, remain the same as in Eq. (21);
however, here the concrete shear contribution nc is
defined as the shear resisted by the tensile stresses car-
ried by cracked concrete as given by the tension-stiffen-
ing model.
9. Discussion of the various definitions for nc
According to Eqs. (21) and (22), the explicit math-
ematical description of the concrete contribution term is
dependent on the underlying assumptions of the formu-
lation adopted and, thus, it is biased to reflect the pos-
ition of the individual researcher in the ongoing debate
about the issue [26–28]. Still, the universally acknowl-
edged role for the nc term is that it collectively represents
all unaccounted for sources of residual shear resistance
supplied by the concrete in the form of bond (or tension
stiffening), aggregate interlock and dowel action. Note
that the truss component ns, in Eqs. (21) and (22) must
be equilibrated by the stresses developed in the concrete
struts and can therefore be expressed as:
ryfsy⫽(sin2 q⫺1)fc1⫺sin2 qfc2⫹ny (23)
where fc1 (Eqs. (8a) and (8b)) and fc2 are the average
principal tensile and compressive stresses in concrete,
respectively. According to Eq. (23), the truss contri-
bution to shear resistance depends on the principal com-
pressive stress, fc2, which, however, is limited by soften-
ing due to parallel cracking [10,19] (fc2 max=f⬘c/(0.8⫺
0.34ec1/eo)⬍f⬘c).
10. Analytical results
The shear stress nxy required to resist a given angle
of shear distortion gxy was calculated from Eqs. (4, 5,
8a, 8b) and (21) using an incremental iterative algorithm
[29]. At the first step, starting values for the algorithm
were obtained by solving the associated linear-elastic
problem (assuming that in the beginning concrete is iso-
tropic and untracked):
再冎 再 冎再冎
ex −1
1−n2c 1+rxEs nc nx
⫽ (24)
ey Ec nc 1+ryEs ny
For all subsequent steps, starting values for ex and ey
were the last converged values from the previous cycle.
Specifically for the case of pure shear (nx=ny=0), the
elastic problem becomes homogeneous and no unique
solution can be obtained from Eq. (24). In this special
case, starting values for ex and ey were obtained
assuming cracked concrete (fc1=0), in which case the
angle of inclination of principal tensile strain, along with
the needed values for ex and ey, are obtained from the
tensorial properties of the stress and strain tensors of r.c.:
 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
1 modelling assumptions by crushing of the concrete struts
1+
nr Es gxy
; n⫽ ; ex⫽ (cot q⫺tan q)⫹ey;
y
tan4q⫽ (25)
1 Ec 2
1+
nrx
gxy cot q−tan q
ey⫽
2 ry
tan2 q −1
rx
(for rx=ry, ey=⫺gxy/2, based on L’Hospital’s rule).
To illustrate the effect of the two alternative modelling
approaches, the monotonic envelope results obtained
from Eqs. (21) and (22) were compared for a r.c. panel
with f⬘c=45 MPa, eo=0.002, fyx=fyy=500 MPa,
rx=ry=1.0%, and subjected to pure shear conditions (i.e.,
nx=ny=0). Fig. 7 illustrates the calculated shear stress nxy
versus shear strain gxy for both cases. Although the
response given by Eq. (21) is much higher before crack-
ing occurs (note that stresses here are given in terms of
local values instead of average ones), the total responses
in both cases follow the same trend (cracked and failed
at the same values of gxy). However, when the different
contributions to shear resistance are separated, the calcu-
lated responses for nc are quite different in both cases.
Consideration of local conditions at crack locations pro-
vides a more realistic interpretation of the physical
behaviour of r.c. Note that the contribution of aggregate
interlock to nc is definitely larger at low values of gxy,
whereas dowel action becomes significant after cracking
towards the latter stages of loading, both results being
entirely consistent with familiar experimental obser-
vation. It is also apparent from Fig. 7 that the concrete
contribution to shear strength decreases with increasing
deformation values. The difference between the steel
components in both cases is due to the contribution of
bond stresses in the first approach when calculating local
stresses in the reinforcement crossing the crack.
It is worth noting that the ultimate shear strength of
the panel represented in Fig. 7 is limited under both
Fig. 7. Calculated shear stress nxy versus shear strain gxy according
to Eq. (21) (bond model) and Eq. (22) (tension-stiffening model).
225
and hence by the load carrying capacity of the overall
truss mechanism (Eq. (23)). This was further explored
by modelling the cyclic shear problem on the basis of
Eq. (23) as illustrated in Fig. 8, in which the change in
the angle of the compressive struts q is plotted against
ductility mg for various reinforcement ratios ry (rx was
kept constant at 1.00%). The ductility index mg was
defined here as the maximum shear strain attained up to
the point considered in the displacement history normal-
ised by the shear strain corresponding to the first yielding
of the reinforcement in either direction. It is observed
from the graph that the angle q decreases with increasing
mg when the r.c. element is heavily reinforced in one
direction compared to the other. As the crack planes
become flatter with increasing ductility demand, the truss
contribution to shear resistance, as given by ns, will be
limited by softening of the diagonal compression struts.
11. Sensitivity analysis
To investigate the response of the model to different
input parameters, the model was used to correlate experi-
mental results obtained from a series of r.c. panel tests
[17]. All specimens had standardised dimensions 890
mm square by 70 mm thick. Experimental variables
were: the uniaxial compressive strength f⬘c, the strain eo
at peak uniaxial stress, the amounts and yield stresses of
the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement rx, ry, fyx,
fyy, and the type of load condition examined in the tests,
namely, pure shear (PS), combined shear and biaxial
compression (SBC) and combined shear and biaxial ten-
sion (SBT). From this series of tests (30 in total), panel
PV22, tested in pure shear, was chosen as a reference
case to study the sensitivity of the model. This panel had
properties: f⬘c=19.5 MPa, eo=0.002, fyx=458 MPa,
fyy=420 MPa, rx=1.785%, ry=1.524%, da=10 mm, and
had failed by compression crushing of concrete. Corre-
Fig. 8. Influence of ry on q with increasing ductility mg (rx was kept
constant at 1%).
226 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
Fig. 9. Correlation of experimental and analytical values for PV22.
lation of measured response with the analytical model
is illustrated in Fig. 9, along with the sensitivity of the
calculated response to alternative values of f⬘c. The
model also appeared to correlate well with all panels of
the experimental study, regardless of the failure mech-
anism involved (yield of reinforcement or crushing of
concrete). Other design variables considered in the para-
metric sensitivity investigation were: eo which ranged
from 0.0018 to 0.003; fyy which ranged from 250 to 450
MPa; ry which was varied from 0.25 to 2%; the aggre-
gate interlock variable a, which was varied from 0.0005
to 0.005; and, the dowel action parameter that character-
ises the stiffness of the concrete cover, Kf, which was
varied from 100 to 500 N/mm3. The effect that these
variables have on the shear strength and deformation
capacity of the r.c. element are summarised in Fig. 10.
The reference case, panel PV22, with a=0.0018 and
Kf=170 N/mm3 is represented by the common point of
the intersecting lines. Its peak strength was estimated as
xy =1.54√f⬘c and the corresponding shear distortion was
nmax
7.3×10⫺3, whereas shear distortion g0..5, corresponding
to a 50% loss in shear strength, was 8.1×10⫺3. (In Fig.
Fig. 10. Parametric sensitivity of the model.
10 the y-axis represents the estimated shear strength nor-
malised with respect to √f⬘c, whereas the x-axis is the
shear distortion g0..5 at 50% strength degradation.) The
arrows indicate the directions of change in nmax
xy and g0..5
as a particular design variable is increased. With the
exception of f⬘c, an increase in any of the variables stud-
ied causes an increase in the shear capacity of the r.c.
element. The shear strain g0..5 increases with an increase
in either f⬘c or eo. The reverse effect is seen with an
increase in the amount of reinforcement (addition of
reinforcement renders failure by crushing of the concrete
struts, the more likely mode of failure). The variables
affecting the shear transfer at crack locations (a and Kf)
do not have a direct influence on the deformation
capacity of the element, but they cause an increase in
initial stiffness and strength.
12. Conclusions
The dependence of shear resistance of r.c. elements
on deformation demand was investigated in this paper
by means of a non-linear smeared-crack/smeared-
reinforcement plain-stress model. Cracked concrete was
treated as an orthotropic material, with the material axes
being oriented along the directions of principal stresses.
In a global sense the model is formulated in terms of
average stresses and average strains, but local equilib-
rium at crack locations was also enforced explicitly. This
was achieved by modelling the mechanics of load trans-
fer through reinforcement concrete bond between cracks,
and through aggregate interlock and dowel action at the
crack faces. Results of the formulation were compared
with those of conventional models that use a tension-
stiffening idealisation to implicitly account for the above
mentioned sources of secondary resistance in concrete.
Thus, it was possible to establish the parametric depen-
dence of the tension stiffening property (i.e., the post-
cracking stiffness of r.c.), which was fraught with con-
siderable empiricism, to reinforcing bar diameter, bond
strength, dowel strength, and aggregate interlock. Com-
parisons between both approaches revealed that, even
when tension stiffening is properly calibrated so that the
estimated shear strengths from the two models are in
agreement, definitions of the individual components of
shear resistance, namely the concrete and steel contri-
butions, were dependent upon the modelling assump-
tions adopted. It was observed from the analytical results
that shear strength degradation occurs because of the
reduction of the nc term with increasing imposed defor-
mation and because of the limitation of the ns term with
softening of the compression struts. The primary source
of these degradations is the susceptibility of concrete
tensile and compressive strengths to increasing crack
widths, represented by principal tensile strains in this
work. The proposed model was verified by comparison
with experiments and through a sensitivity analysis.
 B. Martı́n-Pérez, S.J. Pantazopoulou / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 214–227
References
[1] Architectural Institute of Japan. AIJ structural design guidelines
for reinforced concrete buildings. Tokyo: Architectural Institute
of Japan, 1994.
[2] Watanabe F, Ichinose T. Strength and ductility design of rc mem-
bers subjected to combined bending and shear. In: Concrete shear
in earthquakes. Houston: University of Houston, 1991:429–38.
[3] Applied Technology Council. Seismic retrofiting guidelines for
highway bridges. Technical report ATC 6-2. Redwood City, CA:
Applied Technology Council, August 1983 [220 pp].
[4] Ang BENG GHEE, Priestley MJN, Paulay T. Seismic shear
strength of circular reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J
1989;86(1):45–59.
[5] Aschheim M, Moehle JP. Shear strength and deformability of
RC bridge columns subjected to inelastic cyclic displacements.
Technical report UCB/EERC-92/04. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, March
1992 [93 pp].
[6] Won Y-L, Paulay T, Nigel Priestley MJ. Response of circular
reinforced concrete columns to multi-directional seismic attack.
ACI Struct J 1993;90(2):180–91.
[7] Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of
reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Engng ASCE
1994;120(8):2310–29.
[8] Lehman DE, Lynn AC, Aschheim MA, Moehle JP. Evaluation
methods for reinforced concrete columns and connections. In:
11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Elsevier Science
Ltd, 1996, [paper no. 673].
[9] Martı́n-Pérez B, Pantazopoulou SJ. Mechanics of concrete par-
ticipation in cyclic shear resistance of reinforced concrete. J
Struct Engng ASCE 1998;124(6):633–41 June.
[10] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression field theory
for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Journal
1986;83(2):219–31.
[11] Ritter W. Die bauweise hennebique. Schweizerische Bauzeitung
1899;33(7):59–61.
[12] Mörsch E. Concrete–steel construction. New York: McGraw-Hill
Inc, 1909.
[13] American Concrete Institute. Building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI318-95) and commentary (ACZ318R-
95). Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute, 1995 [369 pp].
View publication stats
227
[14] CSA Standard A23.3-94. Design of concrete structures for build-
ings. Rexdale, Ontario: CSA, 1994 [199 pp].
[15] CEB-FIP model code for concrete structures. Paris: Comite Euro-
Intern. du Beton, 1990 [437 pp].
[16] Wood SL, Sittipunt C. Cyclic response of reinforced concrete
structural walls. In: Wight JK, Kreger ME, editors. Mete A.
Sozen Symposium — a tribute from his students. Farmington
Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 1996:399–429.
[17] Vecchio F, Collins MP. The response of reinforced concrete to
in-plane shear and normal stresses. Technical report 82-03.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, March
1982. p. 332.
[18] Hsu T, Zhang LX. Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete mem-
brane elements. ACI Struct J 1996;93(1):108–15.
[19] Collins MP, Mitchel D. Prestressed concrete basics. Toronto:
Response Publishers, 1997.
[20] Menegoto M, Pinto PE. Slender reinforced concrete compressed
members in biaxial bending. J Struct Div, Proc ASCE
1977;103(ST3):587–605.
[21] Bazant ZP. Mechanics of distributed cracking. Appl Mech Rev
1986;39(5):675–705.
[22] Bazant ZP, Oh BH. Crack band theory for fracture in concrete.
Mater Struct 1983;16(93):155–77.
[23] Millard SG, Johnson RP. Shear transfer across cracks in
reinforced concrete due to aggregate interlock and dowel action.
Magazine of Concrete Research 1984;36(126):9–21.
[24] Soroushian P, Obaseki K, Rojas M. Bearing strength and stiffness
of concrete under reinforcing bars. ACI Matls J
1987;84(3):179–84.
[25] Millard SG, Johnson RP. Shear transfer in cracked reinforced
concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research 1985;37(130):3–15.
[26] ASCE-ACI Commitee 445 on Shear and Torsion. Recent
approaches to shear design of structural concrete. J Struct Engng,
ASCE 1998;124(12):1375–417.
[27] Hsu T. Stresses and crack angles in concrete membrane elements.
J Struct Engng, ASCE 1998;124(12):1476–84.
[28] Collins M. Procedures for calculating the shear response of
reinforced concrete elements: a discussion. J Struct Engng, ASCE
1998;124(12):1485–9.
[29] Martı́n-Pérez B. A study of the mechanical response of reinforced
concrete to cyclic shear reversals. M.A.Sc. thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, Univeristy of Toronto, 1995 [111 pp].