TECHNICAL PAPER The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear Ra by Frank J. Vecchio and Michael P. Collins An analytical model is presented that is capable of predicting the Toad-deformation response of reinforced concrete elements subjected toin-plane shear and normal stresses. In the model, cracked concrete Is treated as « new material with its own stress-strain characteristics. Equilibrium, compatibility, ond stress-strain relationships are for ‘mulated in torms of average stresses and average strains. Considera tion is also given 10 local sess conditions at crack focations, The siressstran relationships for the eracked conerete were dete ‘mined by testing 30 reinforced concrete panels under a variety of well defined uniform biaxial stresses including pure shear, It was found ‘that cracked concrete subjected to high tensile strains inthe direction normal fo the compression is softer and weaker in compression than ‘concrete in a standard cylinder test. Additionally, significant tensile stresses were found in the concrete between the cracks even at very high values of average tensile strain. Keywords: agreste interlock; aval loads; Bana loads; caching (fracturing: crack width and spacings finite element method; offshore sretures, ren forced concrete; shear srengh; stillness siete; stresstrain relationships: strtural anaes tensions tet The safety of large-scale, complex civil engineering structures such as offshore oil platforms, containment structures for nuclear power plants, high-rise buildings, and long-span bridges depends on the designer’s ability to predict how such structures will respond under ex- treme environmental and man-made hazards. In mak- ing this prediction, the designer typically conceptual izes the actual structure as an assemblage of simpler elements. Predicting the structural response then in- volves the two interrelated tasks of determining how the load is shared among the elements of the structure (global analysis) and how each element responds to its applied loads (element analysis). During the last 25 years, techniques have been devel- oped for global analysis which are truly impressive in their power and elegance." Unfortunately, the models, available for reinforced concrete element analysis‘ match neither the sophistication of the global struc- tural analysis procedures nor the computational power now available to the structural engineer. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 Fig. 1 — Structures idealized as an assemblage of ‘membrane elements This paper will focus on the response of rectangular reinforced concrete elements subjected to in-plane shear and axial stresses (i.e., membrane stresses). Such a membrane element may be used in modeling the re- sponse of such structures as those shown in Fig. 1, where the load is primarily carried through the action of in-plane stresses. Predicting the response of the simple reinforced con- crete element shown in Fig. 1 is not as straightforward a task as it would first appear. Under a particular set of loads, new cracks may form, pre-existing eracks may propagate or close, and the forces will be resisted by a structural system consisting of concrete bodies joined by reinforcing bars. The stresses in the reinforcing bars will vary along the lengths of the bars, and will be highest at the crack locations. The concrete bodies will “ Retie y39, 1985 and revened under inate pubiton pois Copyright © 1986, American Concrete lai, All ght reserved, tele thelmaking of copies unless permision i obtaped from the copyright prop ‘lors. Penson dicision wl be publshel inthe lanary Febvusy 1987 ACL Sti ireeved by On 1, 1986, 219‘ACI member Frank J. Vecchio is an assistant professor im the Department of ‘Civil Engineering of the University of Toronto. Prior fo otning the university ‘he mat sirctural research engineer with Ontario Hydro, where he was i ‘volved in research elated #0 the onaysis and design of reinforced conerte mi ‘ear powerplant siactares. He 0 member of ACI Committee 35, Defic tions of Sirucures, Michael P. Collins, FACI, i. profesor in the Depariment of Civil Engine ing atthe University of Toronto, Hei chairman of Joint ACL-ASCE Commi tee 45, Shear and Torsion: chairman ofthe Conadian Standards Association (CSA) Technical Commitee $44, Concrete Oohore Siectures: & Canadian “slegate to Comite Euro-Imternational dx Baton; a member of CSA Technical Commitiee A233, Reinforced Concree Dest: and a member of ACI Commit. tne 358, Conerete Quen, ond E901, Seholerships: and of Subcommittee SISE, Sheer and Torsion. He has ected a 9 conellant on the sheor design of Condeep conereteoffhare platforms. be bounded by rough crack surfaces capable of trans- mitting shear and compression at the contact locations, but not capable of transmitting tension. However, ten- sile stresses will exist in the concrete lying between the cracks, To date, there is no accepted theory capable of predicting the full load-deformation response of such an element. This was made evident in a recent interna- tional competition’ in which 43 leading researchers from 13 different countries attempted to predict the Joad-deformation response of 4 of the reinforced con- crete panels which were tested in this investigation. For one of the elements (PV25 in Table 1), the ratio of the highest to lowest prediction of strength was six to one. Not even the best entry was capable of predicting strengths to within 15 percent for each of the four panels. It should be emphasized that in choosing the four elements for the competition, elements whose be- havior would be difficult to predict were deliberately chosen; thus, in none of the elements was the load ca- pacity governed by overall yielding of the reinforce- ment. The predictions were strongly dependent on the assumed stress-strain characteristics of the concrete. While such heavily reinforced elements subjected to high shear are unusual in typical buildings, they often occur in offshore platforms and nuclear containment structures, The modified compression-field theory presented here has been developed from the compression-field theory" for reinforced concrete in torsion and shear. In both models, the cracked concrete is treated as a new material with its own stress-strain characteristics. Equi librium, compatibility, and stress-strain relationships are formulated in terms of average stresses and average strains. While the original compression-field theory ignored tension in the cracked concrete, this model takes into account tensile stresses in the concrete be- tween the cracks, and employs experimentally verified average stress-average strain relationships for the cracked concrete. DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM ‘The membrane element shown in Fig. 2 represents a portion of a reinforced concrete structure. It is taken to be of uniform thickness and relatively small size, and Table 1 — Summary of experimental program i Eensitudinal | transverse steel| Concrete Experimental observations | Eesing allure strains ratios Le Sos % Fate sain Panel) Sh. a MBa_[e7e, [eves [67s] Comments Pv | 1:00 33 [oores| 433 >8o2 | ost Loe Py2 | 10:0 28 0.0018) 428 16 | 0:38] 043] 0.10 Precracked — warped Pv | 1.0.0 662 [0.0048] 62 307 | 067] 073/ 0.21 | Stee! brite fracture Pye | 10:0 382 |o010s| 242 ayy | $51 Su3] ote PY | 1:00 sat_[ouors| at pita | 080] 0°83] 0°30 | Edge tai pve | 100 266 [0.0179] 266 ass | 536] s.as[ozs pvr | 1:00 4&3 [ors] 483 >oai | oa] o8s|035 Py | 1:00 462 |o.oae2| 462 S657 | 0186) 089/038 [Edge ralure pvs | 1:00 455 loon! ass S34 | 0189] 0°47] 1.05 | Poonty cast — voids PVIo| 10:0 n6_|o0100| 2% so7_| 0.64] 4.99] 148 Pvit] 1:00 235 [oorst| 238 ase | 128] 23706 PVi2| 1:00 469 |o.o08s| 268 3413 | 040] 434] 0.93 Pvi3| 10:0 26 | 0 | 201 | o61| 836/037 Pvis) 00 ass oor] ass >524 | 085] 0:36| 0.27 | Edge feiture Pvis| 0-10 2ss_|ooors| 255 2 | =Cister| -0'95) 0°14] 0.5 | Losaing stopped PVi6| 10:0 25s [ooors| 255 20 | 214 | a2) a33]ous pyit| oso 35s [ouors| 38s 2" | (-213y | 197] 0148) 136 | Explosive failure Pvis) 1:00 $31 jooos2| 412 200 | S368 |“ 0'46) 3:36] 0°36 | Edge taiture Pvi9) 00 438 [o0o1| 299 dor | 39s | 080) s77]o72 Pv20| 1:00 460 _|0.00%9| 293 aa | 426 | ose] 5.75] 1.06 py2i] 1:00 458 [0.0130 2as [503 | oso] sso] oi pv2| 00 458 [ois da | 607 | 060] o31]o33 Pv25 | 1-0.39:-0. Sis |o.oi7 373 | 887 | 036] os] 133 v26 |t-0.83:0. a2 [0.0179 497 | 5154 | -0108| 0.03] 0:37 | Poorly east — voids vas | 10.69: 466 [0.0179 aia | 7952 [ 7043] “047] 147 v26] 1:00" 456 [o.o101 200 | sar | os) 116[ 033 pv] 00 42 [00179 206 | 638 | 082) 033/039 Bv28) 1:0.32:0.32 483 [0.0179 tes | siso | 092) 0's) 128 v29| Changing 441 [0.0089 an | Sa | 038) so] 071 Pvi0] “id0" 37 [oro 155 | >513_ | 031) 0:98] 0.59 [edge failure Precracked in Binal enson ‘Watuc of Nowe Mea = 148 psi 220 ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986Detormation Fig. 2— Membrane element contains an orthogonal grid of reinforcement with the longitudinal (x) and transverse (y) axes chosen to coin- cide with the reinforcement directions. Loads acting on the element’s edge planes are assumed to consist of the uniform axial stresses f, and f, and the uniform shear stress v,,. Deformation of the element is assumed to oc- cur such that the edges remain straight and parallel The deformed shape is defined by the two normal strains ¢, and ¢, and the shear strain, »,. The problem at hand is to determine how the three in-plane stresses f,, f,, and v,, are related to the three in- plane strains ¢,, ¢,, and 7,,. In solving this problem, the following additional assumptions will be made: 1. For each strain state there exists only one corre- sponding stress state; situations in which the influence of loading history is significant will not be treated. 2. Stresses and strains can be considered in terms of average values when taken over areas or distances large ‘enough to include several cracks. 3. The concrete and the reinforcing bars are per- fectly bonded together at the boundaries of the element (i.e., no overall slip). 4, The longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars are uniformly distributed over the element. Tensile stresses and tensile strains will be treated as positive quantities while compressive stresses and strains will be taken as negative. COMPATIBILITY CONDITIONS Having assumed that the reinforcement is anchored to the concrete, compatibility requires that any defor- mation experienced by the concrete must be matched by an identical deformation of the reinforcement. Any change in concrete strain will be accompanied by an equal change in steel strain. Nonprestressed reinforcement has the same initial strain as the surrounding concrete. Hence a be and @ ACI JOURNAL | March-April 1986 (b) Mohr's Circle for Average Strains Fig. 3 — Compatibility conditions for cracked element If the three strain components ¢,, ¢,, and y,, are known, then the strain in any other direction can be found from geometry. The Mohr’s circle of strain shown in Fig. 3 elegantly summarizes the transforma- tions involved. Useful relationships which can be de- rived from its geometry include _2@- a ‘and ® aterate @ and eee oa (oe occ ae 221Fig. 4 — Free-body diagram of part of element te (b) Principal Stresses in Concrete Fig. 5 — Stresses in cracked concrete 222 where ¢, is the principal tensile strain and ¢, is the prin- cipal compressive strain. EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS ‘The forces applied to the reinforced concrete element, are resisted by stresses in the concrete and stresses in the reinforcement. For the free-body diagram shown in Fig. 4, the requirement that the forces sum to zero in the x-direction can be written as [saa = [hada + | SadA, o Ignoring the small reduction in concrete cross-sectional area due to the presence of reinforcing bars, Eq. (6) becomes Se = Sn + Pu * Suc o In a similar fashion, the following equilibrium condi- tions can be derived Sy = So + Po So @) ty = Yor + Pas" Ya 0 and Vay = Voy + Dy * Yay (10) Assuming that Ve = Vo = Yow the stress conditions in the concrete are fully defined if fray Fon ANd Yay ate known. ‘The Mohr’s circle for the concrete stresses shown in Fig. 5 yields the following useful relationships Soa = Soy ~ Yexy/ tan, ay So = Sa — Neo * tant (12) and Sa = fa ~ Voy * (tant, + A/tand.) (13) STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS Constitutive relationships are required to link aver- ‘age stresses to average strains for both the reinforce- ment and the concrete. These average stress-average strain relations may differ significantly from the usual local stress-local strain relations determined from stan- dard material tests. Furthermore, the average stress-av- ‘erage strain relationships for the reinforcement and for the concrete will not be completely independent of each other, although this will be assumed to maintain the simplicity of the model. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986The axial stress in the reinforcement will be assumed, to depend on only one strain parameter, the axial strain in the reinforcement. It will be assumed further that the average shear stress on the plane normal to the rein forcement resisted by the reinforcement is zero. In re- lating axial stress to axial strain, the usual bilinear uni: axial stress-strain relationship shown in Fig. 6 will be adopted. Thus »=0 (16) In regard to the concrete, it will be assumed that the principal stress axes and principal strain axes coincide 0-6 ay To complete the model, relationships between the prin: cipal compressive stress and the principal compressive strain and between the principal tensile stress and the principal tensile strain are required. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM To obtain the necessary information, 30 reinforced concrete elements were subjected to simple well-defined loading conditions (see Table 1). While the majority of the tests were conducted in monotonic pure shear, some elements were subjected (0 uniaxial compression, com: bined biaxial compression and shear, combined biaxial tension and shear, reversed cyclic shear, and changing load ratios. In addition to loading conditions, the prime variables included percentage of transverse reinforce: ment, percentage of longitudinal reinforcement, and conerete strength. The test specimens were 890 mm square x 70 mm thick (35 x 35 x 2.75 in.). They were reinforced with two layers of welded wire mesh with the wires running parallel to the edges of the element. The smooth wire meshes typically had a 50 mm (2 in.) grid spacing, were heat-treated, and showed a ductile response. A clea cover of 6 mm (0.25 in.) was provided over the longi- tudinal bars. Maximum aggregate size was 6 mm (0.25 in.) /e steel “shear keys’ were cast into each of the four edges of the test specimen and were anchored to the concrete by shear studs. The specimens were loaded by forces applied to the shear keys using 37 double-act ing hydraulic jacks and a network of links as shown in Fig. 7. To house the jack-and-link assembly, a steel box-section reaction frame was built (see Fig. 8). A lat- eral support frame was provided to resist any out-of- plane displacements of the specimens. Any combina- tion of shear and tension or compression could be ap- plied to the test specimens by varying the magnitude and direction of the forces in various groups of links. ACI JOURNAL | March-April 1986 Fig. 6 — Stress-strain relationships for reinforcement Shedr key Specimen vias ee — | UU Fig. 7 — Jack-and-link assembly used (0 apply shear and normal stresses ~ Links + sack Fig, 8 — The membrane element tester 223‘stage Stage 40 ab ig Conerate Strain Circles ‘iliatrains) Fig. 9 — Experimentally determined strain and stress circles for Specimen PV 26 (1 MPa = 145 psi) g § 8 204 so} INCLINATION OF PRINCIPAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS, 0, ‘or 10°35" 205 —a67 0 INCLINATION OF PRINCIPAL COMPRESSIVE STRAIN, @ Fig. 10 — Comparison of principal compressive stress direction with principal compressive strain direction In the tests, known values of stress were applied to the reinforced concrete (f,, f,, and v,,), and the result- ing specimen strains were measured (¢,, ¢,, and 1.) Reference 11 gives full details of the experimental pro- gram. Average stresses in the reinforcement were deter- mined from the measured strains in the longitudinal ‘and transverse directions and from the measured stress- strain characteristics of the reinforcement. Using these reinforcement stresses together with the known exter- nally applied normal stresses, the average concrete stresses in the longitudinal and transverse directions were calculated from equilibrium Eq. (7) and (8). Knowing the applied shear stress acting on the element, the remaining concrete stress parameters could be de- termined. Thus, for each specimen at each load stage, it was possible to draw a concrete strain circle and a conerete stress circle (see Fig. 9). It then remained to determine relationships linking the concrete stress cit- cles to the concrete strain circles. 224 AVERAGE STRESS-AVERAGE STRAIN RESPONSE OF CONCRETE The directions of principal strains in the concrete de- viated somewhat from the directions of principal stresses in the concrete (see Fig. 10). However, it re- mains a reasonable simplification to assume that the principal strain axes and the principal stress axes for the concrete coincide. The principal compressive stress in the concrete fz was found to be a function not only of the principal compressive strain ¢, but also of the co-existing princi- pal tensile strain ¢,. Thus, cracked concrete subjected to high tensile strains in the direction normal to the compression is softer and weaker than concrete in a standard cylinder test (see Fig. 11). The relationship sugeested is (18a) where Same 1 fl” 08 = 0.34 e/e! < 10 (18b) Note that as ¢! is a negative quantity (usually - 0.002), increasing ¢, will reduce fion/f! The relationship between the average principal ten- sile stress in the concrete and the average principal ten- sile strain is nearly linear prior to cracking and then shows decreasing values of f,, with increasing values of ¢, (see Fig. 11). The relationship suggested prior to cracking (.e., ¢ < €,) is Sa = Bee ayy where E, is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete which can be taken as 2,f! /e; . The relationship sug- gested after cracking (i.e., € > €) i8 So 1+ 2006, 20) to TRANSMITTING LOADS ACROSS CRACKS The stress and strain formulations described deal with average values and do not give information re- ‘garding local variations. At a crack, the tensile stresses the reinforcement will be higher than average, while midway between cracks they will be lower than aver- age. The concrete tensile stresses, on the other hand, will be zero at a crack and higher than average midway between cracks. These local variations are important because the ultimate capacity of a biaxially stressed ele- ‘ment may be governed by the reinforcement’s ability to transmit tension across the cracks. Fig. 12 compares the calculated average stresses (Plane 1) with the actual local stresses that occur at a crack (Plane 2). The critical crack direction is assumed normal to the principal tensile strain direction. While the calculated average shear stress on Plane 1 is zero (in ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986op ale: “ ‘atone BH -t2D") Fig. 11 — Stress-strain relationships for cracked concrete terms of average stresses it is a principal plane), there may be local shear stresses on Plane 2. These shear stresses vqy may be accompanied by small local com- pressive stresses J, across the crack. As the applied external stresses f,, f,, and v,, are fixed, the two sets of stresses shown in Fig. 12 must be statically equivalent. Assuming a unit area for both Plane | and Plane 2, the requirement that the two sets of stresses produce the same force in the x-direction is Pucfa Sind + find = Pufarsind — f,sin ~ vcoso (21) The requirement that the two sets of stresses on Plane 1 produce the same force in the y-direction is Pufcosd + facost = Pofinrl080 ~ fest + v,sind (22) Eq. (22) can be rearranged as Pol for ~ Sn) = Sa + fs ~ Votan 23) ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 While Eq. (21) can be rearranged as Pax Sur ~ Sud = Sa + Su + Vol tan (24) Equilibrium Eq. (23) and (24) can be satisfied with no shear stress on the crack and no compressive stresses on the crack only if Poy Ser ~ Sy) = Px Fuer ~ fa) = fo (25) However, the stress in the reinforcement at a crack cannot exceed the yield strength, that is Since & Se 26) and ow < Sy en Hence, if the calculated average stress in either rein- forcement is high, it may not be possible to satisfy Eq. (25). In this case, equilibrium will require shear stresses on the crack. 225For the vast majority of concretes, cracking will oc- cur along the interface between the cement paste and the aggregate particles. The resulting rough cracks can transfer shear by aggregate interlock (see Fig. 13). The (©) Local Stresses ata Crack (©) Calculates Average Stross Fig. 12 — Comparison of local stresses at a crack with calculated average stresses Fig. 13 — Transmitting shear stresses across crack by aggregate interlock 226 relationships between the shear across the crack v., the crack width w, and the required compressive stress on the crack f,, have been experimentally studied by a number of investigators, including Walraven." Based ‘on Walraven’s work, the following relationship was derived (see Fig. 14) £ Yq = 0.18 Yanar + 1.64, — 0.82 28) where vie Yon = O31 + 24 wi ea and where a is the maximum aggregate size in milli- meters and the stresses are in MPa. If inch and psi units are being used, the numerator of Eq. (29) should be multiplied by 12, and 16 in the denominator should be replaced by 0.63. The crack width w to be used in Eq. (29) should be the average crack width over the crack surface. It can be taken as the product of the principal tensile strain and the crack spacing sy; that is wees (30) where Sind cos ep sind, cost % *— walraven’s 08 1.0 0.4 f 0.68 fei! Yoi max Fig. 14 — Relationship between shear transmitted ‘across crack and compressive stress on crack ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986— cracking 2 4 6. 8 10 12 gy x102 Fig. 15 — Comparison of calculated and observed re~ ‘sponse of Specimen PV20 (I MPa = 145 psi) and where s,, and s,, are the indicators of the crack control characteristics of the x-reinforcement and the »- reinforcement, respectively. Thus, in checking stress conditions at the crack sur- faces, a combination of the shear and compressive stresses v, and f., must be determined to satisfy Eq. (23) through (29). If, because of steel yielding at the crack, a solution is not possible, then the calculated average principal tensile stress f_, must be reduced until a solu- tion is possible. SOLUTION TECHNIQUE Given the strains in a reinforced concrete element, it, is a reasonably direct procedure to calculate the stresses which cause these strains. The only iteration that may be required is that involved in determining Jf, if the re- inforcement is not capable of transmitting the tension in the conerete across the cracks. To find the element’s strains, given the stresses, is a more difficult problem that requires a trial and error solution. The Appendix presents a suitable computa- tional procedure to determine the response of a biaxi- ally loaded element. EXAMPLE OF PREDICTION RESPONSE Specimen PV20 was loaded in pure shear (see Table 1), For this specimen, the crack control parameters were estimated to be Sq, = 47 mm (1.9 in.) and s,, = 44 mm (1.7 in.), and the cracking strength of the con- crete was taken to be 0.33 J=J? = 1.47 MPa (210 psi). Using the solution procedure outlined in the Appendix, the element’s response was calculated as described in Table 2 and Fig. 15. Note that at failure, the principal compressive stress in the concrete was only about 45 percent of the cylinder strength, and that even for ten- sile strains as high as 0.0075 the average tensile stress in the cracked concrete is predicted to be 0.66 MPa (95 psi). Fig. 16 shows the appearance of the specimen af- ter failure, The failure can be described as a concrete shear failure. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 SPECIMEN PV20} LAO STAGE ™1 0 =F SRO PSI Fig. 16 — Specimen PV20 after failure Table 2 — Predicted response of PV20 os a [el al GelGal Pn sia KBB) «10 Remarks o0e7|s49] ra) rat| rss fooe| us]o [ia7 | 74] 0.2 | Cracking 030 faa] w [ranfvasfose| 37 ohio | 96 [000 1.00 [42.0] 97 [1.0r]2.aifo.i6| 73 [0 [209 | 129] 1.5 10 [erfia ose|2seloaifioy |e fase [59] 2.00 [41.4[198 [0.89|3.03]0.26140 [0 _|296.9) 189 3 fr Joan|33sfs7|nn_[osfaor [xs an fan |ors|ss7foalae [oaelan_| 6] soot 0 08 [rad 7100 peal [osi|ass 7.0 |363]207_|o.66| 4.53 [048/304 |0.99|207 | a90 | coking ‘Nowe: MPa = 16S ps SHEAR STRENGTH-AXIAL STRENGTH INTERACTION DIAGRAMS In the test program previously described, four speci- mens (PV23, PV25, PV27, and PV28) with nearly identical properties were loaded at different ratios of shear stress to axial stress. In each case, f, = f,. The average material properties of the four specimens were fi = —19.8 MPa (~2870 psi) and f,, = f,, = 477 MPa (69 ksi). Fig. 17 shows the predicted cracking loads and the predicted failure loads for elements containing 1.79 percent of both x- and -reinforcement and having the average material properties. Also shown in Fig. 17 are the observed cracking loads and the observed failure loads for the four specimens tested. Note that there are three rather distinct regions in the shear strength-axial strength interaction diagrams shown in Fig. 17: (1) at high biaxial tensions, yielding of the reinforcement at the cracks controls failure; (2) concrete shear failures govern in the middle regions, 227Stoel yielding at orack Fig. 17 — Shear strength-axial strength interaction dia~ gram (1 MPa = 145 psi) os| Concrete “crushes” Steel yields Fig, 18 — Shear strength variation as both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement are increased with concrete failing at compressive stresses consider- ably less than f’, and (3) at high biaxial compression levels, failure is controlled by fz reaching f INFLUENCE OF REINFORCEMENT RATIOS ON SHEAR STRENGTH Approximately two-thirds of the specimens described in Table I were loaded in pure shear and had x- and y- reinforcement consisting of wires near each face at 50 ‘mm (2 in.) centers. A study of two series of these panels will be made to learn more about how the reinforce- ‘ment ratios influence shear strength. In the first series of five tests (PV2, PV3, PV4, PV6, and PV27), the amount of transverse reinforcement was always equal to the amount of longitudinal reinforce- ment, but this amount varied from 0.18 to 1.79 per- ‘cent, The predicted strengths were based on the follow- 1g average material properties: f/ = 25.4 MPa (— 3680 psi) and f,, = f,, = 442 MPa (64 ksi). 18 shows the predicted strengths together with the observed failure loads. For very small amounts of reinforcement (pq < fo/f)» the cracking load will be the maximum load which can be carried by the ele- 228 x Sto yielding at 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 04 Pasty le Fig. 19 — Shear strength variation as transverse rein- forcement only is increased ‘ments. Beyond that, for a wide range of reinforcement ratios, steel yielding will govern the failure, i.e., v, Pu * Sux For very large amounts of reinforcement, con- crete shear failures will govern. Note that for these ele- ments the ACI Code’ approach of determining the ul- timate shear capacity by adding the steel cont to the cracking load would be unconservative. In the second series of seven tests (PV13, PVI PVI9, PV20, PV21, PV22, and PV27), the longitu nal reinforcement was kept constant at 1.79 percent while the amount of transverse reinforcement was var- ied. The predicted strengths were based on the follow- ing material properties: f = - 18.9 MPa (~ 2740 psi) and f, = f,, = 430 MPa (62 ksi). Fig. 19 compares the observed and predicted ulti- mate shear strengths. Note that now even very small amounts of transverse reinforcement are beneficial in increasing shear strength. Yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement at the cracks limits f., and hence cor trols the strength for small amounts of transverse rei forcement, while concrete shear failures control the strength for larger amounts of transverse reinforce- ment. CONCLUDING REMARKS The modified compression-field theory is capable of predicting the response of reinforced concrete elements to in-plane shear and axial stresses by considering equi- librium conditions, compatibility requirements, and stress-strain relationships, all expressed in terms of av- erage stresses and average strains. Consideration is also given to local stress conditions at crack locations. Fur- ther, newly formulated and experimentally verified constitutive relationships for cracked concrete are corporated for principal compressive stress-principal ‘compressive strain response, and for principal tensile stress-principal tensile strain response. The theory is schematically summarized in Fig. 20. ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986The modified compression-field theory is a powerful analytical tool, but is simple enough to be programmed with a handheld calculator. Not only is it capable of predicting the test results reported in this paper, but it has been used by other researchers to successfully pre- dict their test results."»" In addition, it has proved suit- able for predicting the response of beams loaded in shear, flexure, and axial loads, and as a basis for non- linear finite element analysis programs. A large-scale test program is now underway to ex- tend the theory to elements subjected to combined membrane stresses, bending stresses, and out-of-plane shear (see Fig. 21). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research at the University of Toronto which led to the Modi fied Compression Field Theory was made possible by a series of rants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council ‘of Canada and by a grant from Ontario Hydro. The considerations of local stresses ata crack were developed by the second author while he was on research leave at the University of Canterbury. This por tion of the work was funded by the Road Research Unit of the Na- tional Roads Board of New Zealand. The authors would like to ex press their gratitude to all che organizations for their support NOTATION = maximum agerezate size ‘modulus of elasticity of concrete (in = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement = maximum compressive stress observed in a cylinder test (negative quantity) = principal tensile stress in conerete principal compressive stress in concrete (negative quantity) compressive stress on crack surface (positive quantity) stress in concrete at cracking stress in concrete in x-direction = stress in concrete in y-direction normal stress applied to element = average stress in x-reinforcement stress in x-teinforcement at crack location average stress in y-einforcement stress in y-reinforcement at crack location stress applied to element in x-direction stress applied to element in y-direction = yield sess of xreinforcement gent stTness) PSSSABSSSSSESS Sms Fe = yield stress of y-reinforeement 'S) = spacing of cracks inclined at # Su = average spacing of cracks perpendicular to the x-reinforce- Sy = average spacing of eracks perpendicular to the -reinforee- », = shear stress on erack surfaces Yonw = maximum shear stress a erack of given width ean resist, vo” shear stress on x-face of concrete vi, = shear stress on concrete relative to x, y axes vy = shear stress on y-face of concrete % shear stress on x-teinforcement % shear stress on p-reinforcement » ‘maximum shear stress element can resist, ¥, shear stress on element Elatve tox, » axes “ crack width pi principal tensile strain in concrete (positive quantity) a principal compressive strain in concrete (negative quantity) ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 Cracked | Concrete Reinforced Caner Conditions | Keno 7 Stress-St Fig. 20 — The modified compression-field theory for ‘membrane elements Fig, 21 — The shell element tester 229strain in concrete cylinder at peak stress f: (negative qua tity) strain in concrete at cracking in in conerete in x-direction in concrete in y-direction Yield strain of x-einforcement = Yield strain of y-reinforeement shear strain relative 0 x, y axes angle of inclination of principal strains to x-axis angle of inclination of principal stresses in concrete to x- reinforcement ratio for reinforcing steel in x-direction reinforcement ratio for reinforcing steel in y-direction REFERENCES 1. Zienkiewiez, 0. C., The Finite Element Method, 3+d Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1977, 787 pp. 2. Brebbia, C. A., A Handbook of Finite Element Systems, 2nd Edition, CML Publications, Southampton, 1983, 500 pp. 3, Logcher, R. D., etal, “ICES STRUDL-Il, The Structural De- sign Language, Engineering User's Manual—V. 1—Frame Analy- sis." Report No. 68-91, Department of Civil Enginering, Massachu: setis Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Nov. 1968, 226 pp. 4, “Rules for Design, Construction, and Inspection of Offshore Structures, 1977, Appendix D, Conctete Structures,”” Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, 1980, 22 pp. 5. ACLASME Committe 359, “Code for Concrete Reactor Ves- sels and Containments,"" ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 111, Division 2, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1983, 376 pp. 6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Rein- forced Concrete (ACI 318-83),"" American Concrete Institute, De- troit, 1983, 111 pp. 7. Gupta, A. K., “Membrane Reinforcement in Concrete Shells: A Review," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Elsevier Science Publish- crs, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 63-75. 48. Collins, M. P.; Veechio, F. J.; and Mehlhora, G., “An Inter- national Competition to Predict the Response of Reinforced Con- crete Panels," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (Ouawa), V. 12, No. 3, Sept. 1985, pp. 626-644, 9. Mitchell, Denis, and Collins, Michael P., “Diagonal Compres sion Feld Theory—A Rational Model for Structural Concrete in Pure Torsion,” ACI JouRNat, Proceedings V. 71, No. 8, Aug. 1974, pp. 396-408. (0, Collins, Michael P., “Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members in Shear,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 104, ST4, Apr. 1978, p. 649-666. 1, Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “Response of Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane Shear and Normal Stresses,” Publication No. 82.03, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Mar 1982, 332 pp. 12! Walraven, Joost C., “Fundamental Analysis of Aggregate In- terlock,”” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 107, STII, Nov. 1981, pp. 2245- 2290, 13, lida, T.; Sumi, K.; and Kawamata, $., “Behavior of Orthos ‘nally Reinforced Walls Subjected to In-Plane Shear Force—Effec- tiveness of F. J. Vecchio and M. P. Collins’ Theory,” Proceedings, ‘Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Yokohama, Oct. 1984, pp. 1807-1808. 14, Ang, B. G., “Seismic Shear Strength of Circular Bridge Piers,” PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canter- bury, Christchurch, 1985, 230 APPENDIX — SOLUTION TECHNIQUE FOR DETERMINING RESPONSE OF BIAXIALLY STRESSED ELEMENTS 11 willbe assumed that f, and J, are constant and that it is desired to find the relationship between shear stress, and the resulting sheat strain», For simplicity, assume no prestressed reinforcement. ‘Step 1 — Determine the erack control characteristics of the xtein- forcement and the y reinforcement. Use more refined empirical ‘equations, ors, © 1S x maximum distance from x-bars and 5, LS x maximum distance from »-bars ‘Step 2 — Choose a value of ¢, at which to perform the calcula: ‘Step 3 — Estimate principal compressive stress direction 8 Step 4 — Calculate average crack width w using Eq. (31) and (30), Step $ — Estimate average stress in weaker reinforcement; assume that this is the y-einforcement. Hence, estimate f, Step 6 — Calculate average tension in the concrete fusing Eq. (19) and (20), subject to the condition that Lo © Mae OB + 03K) 1008 + 9. Ue ~ f.) where & = 1.64 ~ 1/tané, but & > 0; and where vis given by Ea. 29. ‘Step 7 — Calculate shear stress», from ea Soe ho ~ oh, Ya Ua ~ Sodtanb Step & ~ Calculate f, from equilibrium using Eq. (13). Step 9 — Calculate f,. for given ¢, using Eq. (18), Step 10 — Check that F-/oou < 1.0. If greater than 1.0, then so- lution isnot possible: return 16 Step 3 and choose 8 closer to 45 deg, for return to Step 2 and choose a lower ¢. Step 11 — Calculate e, using Eq. (186) (- Td Step 12 — Calculate e, from geometry sing Ea. (5); ete tae 14 tan'é ‘Step 13 ~ Calculate f,wsing Ea. (15), ‘Step 14 — Check iff, calculated agrees with estimated f,. If not, return to Step 5 with new estimate of f, Step 15 — Caleulate ¢, from geometry using Eq. (4), Step 16 — Calculate fusing Ea. (14) Step 17 — Caleulate f, trom equilibrium fy ~ vo/tand Lhe * babe Step 18 — Check iff caleulated agrees with given f. I not, return to Step 3 and make new estimate of 8. Increasing @ increases j. ‘Step 19 — Calculate stresses on crack v, and f, wll ~f) IAF, <0, then », = Oand f, = 0. Goo Step 20, ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986I?Ag, > 0, then C IC < 0, then f, and v, = Af, /¢and Otherwise 1 = O8DVyq, and Be = 1.68 A 082/¥pq and B= hg So (= b= VPS WAT 24 ve a + fan ‘Step 20 — Caloulate reinforcement streses at crack f,. and f, So = fa + Co fe ~ ¥s0n8)/9, Sou = fa Uo Su + velba, ACI JOURNAL / March-April 1986 Step 21 — Check that reinforcement can carry stresses at crack Because of the way in which v, and f, were calculated, f., will not exceed f,. However, the calculated value of f.,. may exceed f,. fit does, th reinforcement isnot capable of transmitting the loads across the crack; assume a Tower and return to Step 7 ‘Siep 22 — Calculate shear strain ,, from geometry = 2 ~ e/tant To obtain the complete response of the element, these calculations are repeated for a range of values of «, starting from ¢, less than cracking (¢, ~ 0.05 x 10) and increasing «, until the maximum shear is obtained. Hf a failure: 4. J is limited by the condition in Step 6, then slipping on the ‘rack govern the failure ii fis limited by fq. then crushing or shear failure of the concrete governs. iif, i limited by the requirement that f.. f+ then yielding ‘of the xreinforcement atthe crack governs 231