PHD Thesis Bentz

Sectional Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Members
By:
Evan C. Bentz
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
© Evan Bentz
2000
Abstract
Title: Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy
Year: 2000
Department: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto
Four easy to use programs have been written that allow for state of the art
sectional analysis of reinforced concrete blocks, plates, beams, columns and shells.
Unlike most sectional analysis programs, these programs include the effects of shear on
behaviour. They are based on the assumption that plane sections remain plane, that there
is no transverse clamping stress, and that the biaxial behaviour can be modelled well by
the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT). Each of these assumptions is shown to
be reasonable.
The programs are freely available on the World Wide Web at the listed addresses:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/m2k.htm Membrane-2000 for plates
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm Response-2000 for beams and columns
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/t2k.htm Triax-2000 for 3D blocks
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/s2k.htm Shell-2000: shells with out-of-plane forces
This thesis describes the MCFT in detail as implemented in the programs as well
as explaining new constitutive relations employed for the behaviour of concrete in
tension. The strongest feature of the new programs is the employment of the longitudinal
stiffness method, developed for this thesis, which calculates the shear stress profile for a
beam or shell much faster and with more numerical stability than the previous state of the
art.
The programs are verified against a set of experiments as well as against two new
shear experiments performed for this thesis. They indicate the programs are good at
predicting the behaviour of the elements. Response-2000 is compared to a database of
534 beams and shown to predict shear strengths with an average experimental over
predicted shear strength ratio of 1.05 and with a coefficient of variation of 12%. This
ii
compares favourably to the ACI code prediction ratios that have an average of 1.20 and a
coefficient of variation of 32%.
It is suggested that the programs in this thesis represent a good first step in
allowing rational, state of the art computer programs to be directly allowed in the code
for elements subjected to shear.
iii
Acknowledgements
It’s been said that it does not really matter what you are doing in life so long as
you are able to work and play with people that you like. For the five years that I have
worked on this project, I have had the luxury of both liking what I am doing and liking
the people that I have worked with. I can only hope that they have learned something
from working with me as I have certainly learned a great deal from them.
My supervisor, M. P. Collins has done an outstanding job in showing what it
means to be a professional engineer, an excellent professor and an excellent researcher.
Whenever someone refers to an effective professor, I use him as the standard of
measurement. I thank him for all that he has taught me.
I thank the government of Canada and my parents for financial assistance.
Together they have made this a painless experience financially.
I wish to thank those that helped me in the laboratory part of this research: Pawan
Gupta, Steve Cairns, Dino Angelakos, Julius Lenart, Gary McDonald, Vasile Radulescu,
Paul Amikons, John McDonald and Peter Heliopoulos.
Finally I want to thank the many people that I have shared an office with over the
past five years including: Dan Kuchma, Amr Helmy, Guillermo Gabrielli, Almila Uzel,
Yoichi Yoshida, Young-Joon Kim, amongst others. I also want to thank the many friends
I have made along the way including Terry Ramlochan, Andrea Boddy, Kyle Stanish,
Nick Kosteski, Jason Muise, Gordon Lok, Rob Rose, Francesca Burke, and many others.
If this thesis can be as helpful to the engineering community as my friends and
colleagues have been to me over the past 5 years, then this will be a very successful thesis
indeed.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ...............................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................viii
List of Tables......................................................................................................................xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1-1 Analysis of Structures................................................................................................ 1
1-2 Sectional-Based Analysis of Concrete Structures ..................................................... 3
1-3 Brief Description of the Programs............................................................................. 6
1-4 Types of Sectional Analyses...................................................................................... 8
1-5 Assumptions in Sectional Analysis ........................................................................... 8
1-6 Contents of this Thesis ............................................................................................ 10
Chapter 2: Examples of use of Programs .......................................................................... 13

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

Related Numerical Techniques ......................................................................................... 29
3-1 General..................................................................................................................... 29
3-2 Important Aspects of the MCFT.............................................................................. 31
3-2-1 Reinforcement average response (fsx, fxy) ......................................................... 31
3-2-2 Concrete tensile stress response (f1) ................................................................. 32
3-2-3 Concrete compressive stress response (f2)........................................................ 32
3-2-4 Crack width (w) ................................................................................................ 32
3-2-5 Shear on the crack (vci) ..................................................................................... 33
3-2-6 Local reinforcement stress at a crack (fsxcr, fsycr)............................................... 33
3-3 Modified Compression Field Theory in Three Dimensions.................................... 34
3-4 Solving problems with the MCFT ........................................................................... 35
3-4-1 Calculate stress state from strain state: ............................................................. 35
3-4-2 Solving for a 3D stress state from a 3D Strain state ......................................... 35
3-4-3 Calculate strain state from stress state .............................................................. 36
3-5 Secant Stiffness in Two and Three Dimensions...................................................... 38
3-6 Tangent Stiffness in Two and Three Dimensions ................................................... 40
v
Chapter 4: The Crack Check ............................................................................................. 43
4-1 General..................................................................................................................... 43
4-2 Crack Check in One Dimension .............................................................................. 46
4-3 Crack Check for Two Dimensional Node ............................................................... 46
4-4 Crack Check for Three Dimensional Node ............................................................. 49
4-5 Crack Check against Flexural Yield for Cross Section ........................................... 52
Chapter 5: Concrete Constitutive Relations ...................................................................... 56

5-1 Behaviour in Compression ...................................................................................... 56
5-2 Behaviour in Tension: Uncracked Concrete............................................................ 60
5-3 Behaviour in Tension: Well Reinforced Cracked Concrete .................................... 62
5-4 Behaviour in Tension: Poorly Reinforced Cracked Concrete ................................. 67
5-5 Concrete in Interfacial Shear ................................................................................... 71
5-6 Time Dependent Effects .......................................................................................... 72
Chapter 6: The Longitudinal Stiffness Method................................................................. 75

6-1 Traditional Shear Stress Calculation ....................................................................... 75
6-2 Previous state-of-the-art .......................................................................................... 77
6-3 Development of method and problems with previous methods .............................. 78
6-4 The Longitudinal Stiffness Method......................................................................... 83
6-5 Details of the Method .............................................................................................. 83
6-6 Calculating shear stress profiles. ............................................................................. 87
Chapter 7: How the programs work .................................................................................. 89

7-1 Membrane-2000/ Triax-2000 .................................................................................. 89
7-2 Response-2000/Shell-2000...................................................................................... 89
7-3 Each component in more detail: Response-2000 .................................................... 91
7-4 Long Term Equations .............................................................................................. 93
7-5 Automatic Crack Spacing........................................................................................ 94
7-6 Hoop Reinforcement................................................................................................ 95
7-7 Member Response Analysis .................................................................................... 96
7-8 Column Ends ........................................................................................................... 99
Chapter 8: Experimental Verification of Membrane-2000 ............................................. 101

8-1 Tests Compared to 1987 MCFT ............................................................................ 101
8-1-1 Tests of Pang and Hsu..................................................................................... 102
8-1-2 Tests of Zhang and Hsu .................................................................................. 104
8-2 Tests Compared to Proposed Constitutive Models................................................ 106
8-2-1 Tests of Pang and Hsu..................................................................................... 106
8-2-2 Tests of Zhang and Hsu .................................................................................. 108
Chapter 9: Experimental Program................................................................................... 110

9-1 General................................................................................................................... 110
9-2 Testing Apparatus.................................................................................................. 112
vi
9-3 General Observations: HS1 ................................................................................... 116
9-4 General Observations: HS2 ................................................................................... 120
9-5 Comparison of behaviour and predictions: HS1.................................................... 124
9-6 Comparison of behaviour and Predictions: HS2 ................................................... 127
9-7 Comparison of HS1 and HS2 ................................................................................ 130
Chapter 10: Experimental Verification of Response-2000 ............................................. 132

10-1 Effects of tension stiffening changes................................................................... 133
10-2 Arbesman and Conti: Prediction of sectional response ....................................... 135
10-3 Taylor: Effect of aggregate size........................................................................... 137
10-4 Shioya et al: Size effect in shear.......................................................................... 138
10-5 Kani: Effect of a/d ratio ....................................................................................... 142
10-6 Moody, Viest, Elstner, Hognestad: Concrete strength: small beams .................. 143
10-7 Angelakos: Concrete strength: large lightly reinforced beams............................ 144
10-8 Adebar & Collins: Effect of axial tension ........................................................... 145
10-9 Khalifa: Transverse Reinforcement on round columns....................................... 146
10-10 MacGregor: Draped reinforcement in prestressed beams ................................. 147
10-11 Benzoni, Priestley and Seible: Interlocking spiral column................................ 149
10-12 Comparison to 534 Beams................................................................................. 152
10-12-1 Shear span to depth ratio (a/d ratio)............................................................ 152
10-12-2 Beam depth ................................................................................................. 153
10-12-3 Concrete strength ........................................................................................ 155
10-12-4 Longitudinal percentage of reinforcement.................................................. 156
10-12-5 Transverse percentage of reinforcement..................................................... 157
10-12-6 Shear strength ............................................................................................. 158
10-12-7 Overall Predictions ..................................................................................... 159
Chapter 11: Experimental Verification of Shell-2000 .................................................... 162

11-1 In-Plane Membrane Forces.................................................................................. 162
11-2 Out-of-Plane Shear .............................................................................................. 165
Chapter 12: Analysis guidelines and examples............................................................... 167

12-1 Performing an analysis for beams with Response-2000...................................... 167
12-1-1 Point load on prismatic reinforced concrete beam on simple supports ........ 167
12-1-2 Analysis of large prestressed concrete girders with uniform load................ 169
12-1-3 Column pushover analyses ........................................................................... 170
12-1-4 Predictions of size effect in shear ................................................................. 174
Chapter 13: Concluding Remarks ................................................................................... 176
Chapter 14: Areas of Future Work.................................................................................. 179

Appendix A: Program Manuals.......................................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Detailed Zurich Data.................................................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Experimental Verification Tables for Response-2000 ......................... C-1
vii
List of Figures
1-1 Air Force warehouse failure in Shelby, Ohio ............................................................... 2
1-2 Hanshin Expressway piers collapse in Kobe, Japan..................................................... 2
1-3 Determining sectional forces using plane frame analysis............................................. 4
1-4 Determining sectional forces using finite element analysis ......................................... 5
1-5 Sectional analysis of Reinforced Concrete ................................................................... 9
1-6 Components of sectional analysis methods .................................................................. 9
1-7 Example of transverse stress in web of beam ............................................................. 11
3-1 The Modified Compression Field Theory in two dimensions .................................... 31

3-2 Secant and tangent modulus of concrete..................................................................... 37
3-3 Secant and tangent modulus of reinforcement............................................................ 37
4-1 Prism in tension........................................................................................................... 43

4-2 Average tensile stress.................................................................................................. 44
4-3 Average reinforcement stress...................................................................................... 44
4-4 Total force versus strain, no crack check.................................................................... 44
4-5 Free body diagram of 1D element at a crack .............................................................. 45
4-6 Total stress versus strain with crack check ................................................................. 45
4-7 Two dimensional crack check..................................................................................... 47
4-8 Beam in flexure........................................................................................................... 52
4-9 Concrete Moment........................................................................................................ 54
5-1 Popovics base concrete compression base curve ........................................................ 57

5-2 Parabolic concrete compression base curve................................................................ 57
5-3 Strain at peak stress..................................................................................................... 58
5-4 Compression softening, normal strength concrete...................................................... 59
5-5 Compression softening, high strength concrete .......................................................... 59
5-6 ACI equation for shear cracking strength of concrete ................................................ 60
5-7 Proposed equation for shear cracking strength of concrete ........................................ 61
5-8 Comparison of ACI and proposed equation for shear cracking.................................. 61
5-9 Comparison of tension stiffening relationships .......................................................... 63
5-10 Scale of tension element tests ................................................................................... 64
5-11 Tension stiffening vs. m parameter........................................................................... 65
5-12 m parameter from individual tests ............................................................................ 65
5-13 Tensile stresses in cracked concrete ......................................................................... 67
5-14 Tooth of concrete between cracks subjected to tension............................................ 68
5-15 Tension stiffening vs. distance from bar................................................................... 68
5-16 Tension stiffening parameters for beam analysis...................................................... 70
5-17 Cracking strength vs. drying time............................................................................. 72
5-18 Tension stiffening vs. drying time ............................................................................ 73
6-1 Shear stress calculation ............................................................................................... 75

6-2 Internals of shear stress calculation ............................................................................ 76
6-3 Sample section ............................................................................................................ 79
viii
6-4 Shear stress profile...................................................................................................... 79
6-5 Error in shear convergence from axial load................................................................ 80
6-6 Error in shear convergence from different cracking depths........................................ 81
6-7 Error in shear convergence from distance dx ............................................................. 82
6-8 Parameters for global stiffness matrix calculation...................................................... 86
7-1 Internal loops in Response-2000................................................................................. 90

7-2 Treatment of hoops in Response-2000 ....................................................................... 96
7-3 Sample M-V interaction diagram................................................................................ 97
7-4 Active shear zones for deflection calculation ............................................................. 98
8-1 (a..i) Comparison of experimental and predicted behaviour..................................... 102

9-1 The shell element tester ............................................................................................ 112

9-2 Stress-strain characteristics of reinforcement ........................................................... 114
9-3 Reinforcing grid for experimental tests .................................................................... 114
9-4 HS1 photographs....................................................................................................... 117
9-5 HS1 loading plot ....................................................................................................... 118
9-6 HS2 loading plot ....................................................................................................... 121
9-7 HS2 photographs....................................................................................................... 122
9-8 HS1 shear-shear strain comparison........................................................................... 124
9-9 HS1 angles ................................................................................................................ 125
9-10 HS1 tensile stress-strain behaviour......................................................................... 125
9-11 HS1 compressive stress-strain behaviour ............................................................... 126
9-12 HS2 shear-shear strain comparison......................................................................... 127
9-13 HS2 angles .............................................................................................................. 128
9-14 HS2 tensile stress-strain behaviour......................................................................... 128
9-15 HS2 compressive stress-strain behaviour ............................................................... 129
9-16 Comparison of HS1 and HS2.................................................................................. 130
9-17 HS2 prediction with no strain hardening ................................................................ 131
10-1 Experimental/predicted shear strength, base tension stiffening.............................. 133

10-2 Experimental/predicted shear strength, proposed tension stiffening ...................... 134
10-3 CF1 Moment-curvature plot ................................................................................... 136
10-4 CF1 Shear-Shear strain plot .................................................................................... 136
10-5 Taylor: aggregate size ............................................................................................. 137
10-6 Shioya size effect .................................................................................................... 139
10-7 Three metre beam load deflection........................................................................... 140
10-8 Kani a/d ratio........................................................................................................... 142
10-9 Moody Viest Elstner and Hognestad Small beam concrete strength...................... 143
10-10 Angelakos large beams concrete strength............................................................. 144
10-11 Adebar axial tension ............................................................................................. 145
10-12 Khalifa transverse reinforcement.......................................................................... 146
ix
10-13 MacGregor draped reinforcement......................................................................... 147
10-14 MacGregor transverse reinforcement in prestressed beams ................................. 148
10-15 Inter4 hysteresis loops........................................................................................... 151
10-16 Comparison to a/d ratio......................................................................................... 152
10-17 Comparison to beam depth ................................................................................... 153
10-18 Comparison to concrete strength .......................................................................... 155
10-19 Comparison to longitudinal percentage of steel ................................................... 156
10-20 Comparison to transverse percentage of steel....................................................... 157
10-21 Comparison to shear strength................................................................................ 158
10-22 Predicted and Observed Shear Strength: Response-2000..................................... 160
10-23 Predicted and Observed Shear Strength: ACI Code ............................................. 160
10-24 Histogram of predictions, Response-2000............................................................ 161
10-25 Histogram of predictions, ACI Code. ................................................................... 161
11-1 Comparison of Shell-2000 and Membrane-2000 for SE6 ...................................... 162

11-2 Kirschner Interaction Diagram ............................................................................... 163
11-3 There is noooo figure 11-3...................................................................................... 164
11-4 SE4 response Vxy-εx ................................................................................................ 164
11-5 SE4 response Vxy-εy ................................................................................................ 164
11-6 SE4 response Vxy-γxy............................................................................................... 164
11-7 SE4 response Vxy-φx................................................................................................ 164
11-8 SE4 response Vxy-φy................................................................................................ 164
11-9 SE4 response Vxy-φxy .............................................................................................. 164
11-10 Adebar Interaction Diagram ................................................................................. 165
11-11 Comparison of Response-2000 and Shell-2000 Out of Plane Shear .................... 166
12-1 Sample beam analysis ............................................................................................. 167

12-2 Hanshin Pier Response-2000 output....................................................................... 171
12-3 Load deflection curve, Hanshin Pier....................................................................... 171
12-4 Interaction diagram for Hanshin Pier...................................................................... 172
12-5 Predicted cracks for Hanshin Pier........................................................................... 173
12-6 Predicted size effect in shear for slabs.................................................................... 174
12-7 Predicted effect of adding minimum reinforcement ............................................... 175
x
List of Tables
4-1 Explicit Steps for 2D-MCFT Crack Check................................................................. 48
4-2 Explicit Steps for 3D-MCFT Crack Check................................................................. 50
5-1 Demonstration of Tension Stiffening Equations......................................................... 71
9-1 Geometry of experimental elements ........................................................................ 113

9-2 Material properties of experimental elements........................................................... 113
9-3 Instrumentation and loading of experimental elements ............................................ 115
9-4 HS1 test observations................................................................................................ 118
9-5 HS1 measured strains from test ................................................................................ 119
9-6 HS2 test observations................................................................................................ 120
9-7 HS2 measured strains from test ................................................................................ 123
10-1 Experimental beam database summary................................................................... 154
xi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-1 Analysis of Structures

For over 2000 years, good engineers have had an understanding of the working of
the materials they mould. They have understood that by carefully shaping geometry, it
was possible to build larger and more impressive structures and avoid problems that
might otherwise make a structure fall down. In the last centuries, science and
mathematics have been introduced into structural engineering, augmenting the engineer’s
understanding with mathematical models that can be used to assist in design. Over the
last 35 years there has been explosive growth in the power of these numerical models as a
result of the use of computers. These new analytical models have allowed engineers to
design and optimise engineering solutions that hitherto would have taken much longer to
solve.
Some of these computer models have, unfortunately, removed the engineer from
the design process in such a way that young engineers are potentially learning less from
the design process than they used to, despite being able to work on larger problems. This
removal has meant that some engineers are less able to identify errors in analyses and
designs than their older colleagues who did not learn structural behaviour with the help of
a computer.
For some design problems where geometry or intrinsic material behaviour is
complex, computers are now a necessary part of the engineering process. With care,
computer programs can be written so that they enhance the engineer’s understanding of
the problem rather than subtracting from it.
An example of a complex engineering design problem, which is the subject of this
thesis, is the design of reinforced concrete beams, plates and shells to resist significant
shear. The most common method of analysis, that of Ritter1, explained in detail by
Morsch2, was defined a century ago. Despite this, shear has been and continues to be a
problem. A set of historically important shear failures that appears to have strongly
affected the 1963 ACI code shear provisions were the failures in 1955 and 1956 of a
series of Air Force Warehouses, see Fig. 1-1. More recently, the 1991 failure of the
1
Sleipner offshore oil platform resulted in a loss of nearly 1 billion dollars. This failure
was due to a number of problems including mistakes in computer analyses, as well as a
code of practice that was unconservative for the particular shear dominant loading. In the
1995 Kobe earthquake, the large Hanshin expressway, see Fig. 1-2, failed in shear, again
partly due to an unconservative code. More recently, in the summer of 1998, a parking
garage collapsed in Toronto due to a shear failure.
Figure 1-1: Air force Warehouse Figure 1-2: Hanshin Expressway Piers
During the last twenty five years, a considerable amount of research has been
conducted world-wide with the aim of developing behavioural models for reinforced
concrete in shear comparable to the rationality and generality of the plane-sections theory
for flexure. This research is comprehensively reviewed in the Dec. 1998 state-of-the-art
report by ACI-ASCE Committee 445 “Shear and Torsion”3. One group of rational
models for shear, developed at the University of Toronto, is known as the “Modified
Compression Field Theory” (MCFT)4. The programs in this thesis use this model.
The research described in this thesis was commenced in the belief that recent
advances in both computational power and behavioural understanding make possible the
development of a new generation of design models for reinforced concrete subjected to
shear. To this end, a series of four programs have been written for the shear analysis and
design of reinforced concrete elements. These programs incorporate a number of
significant advances in the shear analysis of reinforced concrete. In the author’s opinion,
2
the most important attribute of these programs is that they are designed to help the user
understand the response of reinforced concrete elements loaded in shear.
These programs also are designed to provide only one answer for a given
problem. Some engineering analysis programs provide the ability to “tune” results by
changing one analysis parameter or another. While this flexibility is useful, it can be
tempting to try to achieve unnaturally good agreement with experiments that have already
been performed. It is felt that this does not serve the engineering community well. By
calculating a single definitive shear strength, say, for a given set of basic material
properties and sectional geometry, it is felt that a more stringent set of rules for judging
quality is established.
Finally, these programs are designed to provide a numerical test-bed for large and
complex problems. It is known, for example, that larger lightly reinforced structures tend
to fail at lower shear stresses than smaller ones. Clearly, there is a limit to how large an
experiment can be to test for this phenomenon. By making programs that are based on
rational models, it is possible to make the best use of the few large concrete shear tests
that do exist. With a demonstrated ability to predict trends that include these large tests,
it becomes possible to predict, with reasonable confidence, shear response when
experiments are not practical.
1-2 Sectional-Based Analysis of Concrete Structures

Engineering analysis can take many forms in a spectrum of complexity. At one
end are hand and graphical methods of analysis that tend to be laborious, yet are good for
developing an understanding of the solution technique to the problem at hand. At the
other end of the spectrum are general-purpose, non-linear, finite element computer
programs. These are far more powerful, yet they are sufficiently complex that it is
generally necessary to take it on trust that they work properly. One generally does not do
calculations to determine if moment equilibrium is maintained in a frame or if the
calculated loads really can be carried by the cross section, for example. The input and
output from these complex programs tend to be difficult to understand and verify.
3
In between these two extremes of analysis lies sectional analysis. This is a
familiar topic to engineers as the idea is strongly embedded in codes of practice. The
units of currency for a sectional analysis are the familiar concepts of axial load, moment
and shear. The programs in this thesis fit into this category of analysis. This means that
they do the analysis at one location in a beam or plate and calculate the strength and
deformation in terms of moments, shears, curvatures, etc. Generally, the only assumption
needed to make a sectional analysis is something akin to the familiar assumption “plane
sections remain plane” of engineering beam theory.
In using the sectional analysis approach, the problem of determining the response
of a reinforced concrete structure to applied loads is broken up into two interrelated tasks.
First, the sectional forces at various locations in the structure caused by the applied loads
are determined. This step is usually performed assuming that the structure remains
linearly elastic. Then the response of a local section to the sectional forces is determined.
In this second step, which is the sectional analysis, the non-linear characteristics of
cracked reinforced concrete are taken into account. Two examples of calculating the
sectional forces in reinforced concrete structures are shown in Fig. 1-3 and Fig 1-4. For
the simple building frame shown in Fig. 1-3, the axial load, N, the moment, M, and the
Figure 1-3 Determining sectional forces using plane frame analysis5
4
shear, V, at any particular location of the frame can be found using a plane-frame
computer program. For the more complex concrete offshore platform, made up of plates
and shells, the sectional forces at different locations can be found by integrating the
stresses obtained from an elastic finite element analysis over the thickness of the element.
Figure 1-4 Determining sectional forces using finite element analysis5
5
The contribution of this thesis to the field is that it provides immediately useful
programs that can be used by engineers and researchers to perform non-linear sectional
analysis. These programs have been written so that they quickly allow checking of input
and output data for errors. Additionally, in the process of viewing the results, the
engineer using the program cannot help but learn about the behaviour of reinforced
concrete. New analytical methods have been developed that improve the stability of the
analysis while also increasing the speed many times over the previously existing state-of-
the-art procedures.
While flexural sectional analysis (i.e. analysis without shear) of beams is

generally considered to be a “solved problem,” an equally rigorous and standard method
for including shear does not exist in common practice yet. It is suggested that these
programs can fill that gap and avoid some of the problems described above.
1-3 Brief Description of the Programs

The first program is Membrane-2000. This is a complete Microsoft Windows
rewrite of the simple BASIC program “membrane” contained on the disk that came with
the Prestressed Concrete Structures book by Collins and Mitchell5. This program will
calculate the load-deformation relationship for membrane elements of reinforced
concrete. That is, plates subjected to Nx, Ny, and Vxy. These are of the same type as the
elements tested to derive the Modified Compression Field Theory.
The second program, Response-2000, is believed to be the most immediately

useful of the four programs. It will calculate strengths and deformations for beams and
columns subjected to axial load, moment and shear. The program, which is shown in this
thesis to accurately model the behaviour of reinforced concrete, uses a new method for
determining shear stress distribution. The program is thought of as being the successor of
program Response5, 38 and program Smal6, 53. In this respect, it is interesting to recall that
6
in the 1988 paper6 which introduced the rigorous beam analysis procedure which lies at
the heart of both SMAL and Response-2000, Vecchio and Collins stated:
“Although too complex for regular use in the design of simple beams, the
procedure has value in its ability to provide a rational method of analysis and design
for members having unusual or complex geometry or loading, or whenever a more
thorough analysis is warranted.”
It is believed that the advances made in analysis techniques since that time and the
advances made in computer power now mean that Response-2000 can in fact be used in
day-to-day office practice.
The third program, Triax-2000, is of a more academic nature. It considers the

behaviour of a general three-dimensional block of reinforced concrete.
The fourth program, Shell-2000 performs analyses for plates and shells subjected
to all of the 8 force resultants shown in Fig 1-4 c. This new program performs a more
rigorous analysis for out of plane shear than previously available. This program can be
thought of as the next generation of program Shell4747.
A user manual for these four programs is given in Appendix A of this thesis.
More importantly, each of the four programs is freely available via the World Wide Web
at the following addresses:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/m2k.htm for Membrane-2000

http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm for Response-2000
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/s2k.htm for Shell-2000
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/t2k.htm for Triax-2000
7
1-4 Types of Sectional Analyses.
Figure 1-5 summarises 6 different types of sectional analyses. The columns in the
figure define the level of analysis. The model in the left column needs only a uniaxial
stress-strain analysis to produce results, those in the middle column need biaxial stress-
strain relations, and those in the right column need triaxial stress-strain relations. The
rows indicate the level of numerical integration of the analysis. Models in the bottom
row calculate behaviour at a point, those in the middle row integrate behaviour along a
line and the model in the top row integrates behaviour over an area. The titles indicate
what type of analysis could be performed if a series of such elements were strung
together as finite elements. Figure 1-6 shows more information about each type of
analysis along with where each of the programs in this thesis fits. Professor F.J. Vecchio
has developed a number of finite element programs at the University of Toronto (8, 9, 10, 11,
77
) and the location of these in the matrix is also shown. Finally, the loading is shown.
1-5 Assumptions in Sectional Analysis

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

shear are first that engineering beam theory is valid. That is, a straight line drawn on the
element before deformation will still be a straight line after deformation. The second
assumption is that there is no significant net stress in the transverse direction. This means
that the concrete and transverse steel forces must balance at each point through the depth
of the element. Both these assumptions are good ones when the analysis is being
performed a distance away from the support and the load point. Close to the load and to
the reactions, however, there will be a transverse clamping stress from the application of
8
Figure 1-5
Sectional Analysis of 584
Reinforced Concrete
1 - S13
∆εp = 5.70 mm/m
Av = 25 mm2 per leg
610
76 @ 100 mm
4 - S13
∆εp = 5.70 mm/m
254
3D Frame
584
1 - S13
∆εp = 5.70 mm/m
285
2
Av = 25 mm per leg
610
76 @ 100 mm
X
4 - S13 X-Reinforcement Y-Reinforcement

∆εp = 5.70 mm/m
2 layers of 20M @ 72 mm 2 layers of 10M @ 72 mm
254
2D Frame 3D Shell
Z-Reinforcement
10M @ 0.500 percent
584
1 - S13
∆εp = 5.70 mm/m
Y
285
2
Av = 25 mm per leg
610
76 @ 100 mm
X
Z
4 - S13
∆εp = 5.70 mm/m
X-Reinforcement Y-Reinforcement X Y
254 X-Reinforcement Y-Reinforcement
20M @ 1.000 percent 10M @ 0.500 percent
1D Frame 2D Shell 3D Block
Figure 1-6 3D Frame

Basis:
Components of 3D nodes in plane
Sectional Analysis Methods Finite Element
None
Loading
M X MY VX VY T N
2D Frame 3D Shell
Basis: Basis:
2D nodes in a line 3D nodes in a line
Finite Element Finite Element
TEMPEST RASP
Loading Loading
N M V NX NY VXY MX MY MXY VXZ VYZ
Response-2000 Shell-2000
1D Frame 2D Shell 3D Block

Basis: Basis: Basis:
1D node at a point 2D node at a point 3D node at a point
Finite Element Finite Element Finite Element
None TRIX SPARCS
Loading Loading Loading
N N X N Y V XY N X NY NZ VXY VYZ VZX
Membrane-2000 Triax-2000
9
the load itself, which will tend to locally increase the strength. This is one reason that
short beams are noticeably stronger in shear than long beams with the same cross section.
Figure 1-7 shows the results of two non-linear finite element analyses performed
with program TRIX8, which is a membrane element non-linear finite element analysis
program based on the Modified Compression Field Theory. A 1.85 metre deep bulb-tee
type section was loaded with a central point load on a 10 metre span. The analyses were
performed to evaluate the appropriateness of the assumption of no clamping stresses in
the transverse direction. For the first analysis, the strands in the beam were not
prestressed, making the beam a reinforced concrete beam, while for the other, the strands
were stressed to 1100 MPa (60% of ultimate stress). The plots show the transverse
clamping stress at the top, middle and bottom of the web of the beams, all for a total
applied load level of 3000 kN. The middle region of each shear span is highlighted in the
diagram. It can be seen that in this middle region the effects of the transverse stresses
near the support and point load have largely dissipated. Note that for the reinforced
beam, there is little transverse stress in this middle region, but for the prestressed beam,
there is a more pronounced clamping at mid-depth. This implies that a sectional model of
this prestressed beam would be more conservative than for the reinforced concrete beam
as the analysis would ignore the beneficial effect of this small compressive, clamping,
stress. Based on analyses such as these summarised in Fig. 1-7, it can be concluded that
the traditional assumption that the transverse stress is negligible is a very good one.
1-6 Contents of this Thesis

As is perhaps evident from the descriptions given above, the true products of this
research project are the computer programs themselves. This thesis describes the
analytical and experimental work upon which the programs are based.
Chapter 2 provides an introduction to each program with an example that

highlights the use and type of analyses that can be performed with each program. The
10
3000 kN
1000
2 layers of
5 - 10M
A A
transverse stress
B B
1850
T-Headed
200 15M @ 266 mm
C C
32 - S13
∆εp = 5.50 mm/m
500
1500 kN 1500 kN
Load
2
0 Figure 1-7: Example of

Transverse Stress (MPa)
Transverse stresses in
-2
Middle of web of 9250 mm clear
Shear Span Prestressed
-4 Beam span cracked reinforced
and cracked prestressed
-6
Reinforced concrete beams.
Beam Transverse Stress at
-8
Section A-A
-10
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Length along beam (mm)
Load
2
0
-2
Middle of Middle of
Shear Span Shear Span
-4
Reinforced Prestressed
-6 Beam
Beam
-8
Transverse Stress at Section B-B
-10
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Load
2
0
-2
Middle of
Shear Span Prestressed
-4 Reinforced
Beam
Beam
-6
-8
Transverse Stress at Section C-C
-10
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
11
chapter is written in a “tutorial” style to allow the reader to follow along in trying the
programs.
Chapter 3 explains the implementation of the MCFT in two dimensions and three
dimensions. Chapter 4 extends that with an explicit discussion of the crack check. This
crack check is a necessary part of the MCFT to ensure that equilibrium can be maintained
at a crack.
Chapter 5 describes the concrete constitutive models used for the programs. New
relations for the tension strength of concrete and tension stiffening are presented. These
were found to be necessary to better capture observed behaviour of beams.
Chapter 6 describes the new method of calculating the shear stress profile in a
beam or shell. This is one of the most important parts of this thesis as it has allowed a
substantial increase in performance and stability over previous methods.
Chapter 7 provides brief descriptions of how each of the programs work. As the
programs contain a total of about 150,000 lines of C++, the level of detail cannot be very
high for this chapter.
Chapter 8 provides experimental corroboration for program Membrane-2000 from

the literature. Chapter 9 explains the results from 2 new experimental tests performed for
this thesis. Chapter 10 shows experimental corroboration for Response-2000 and Chapter
11 shows experimental corroboration for Shell-2000.
Chapter 12 provides more examples and advice on how to perform analysis of

beams subjected to shear. Armed with this information, it is hoped that engineers will be
capable of accurately predicting the response of reinforced concrete structures subjected
to shear and that their understanding of the behaviour will be deepened.
12
Chapter 2: Examples of use of Programs
This chapter gives a short introduction to each program in terms of what can be
done with them along with an example to show how to do it.
2-1 Program Installation

To install the programs from this thesis, simply copy them into a new directory
and unzip the zip files. Consult your Microsoft Windows manual to find how to make a
shortcut to the program or to add them to the start menu.
2-2 Quick Start: Membrane-2000
Membrane-2000 is the simplest of the four programs

described in this thesis. It allows analysis of reinforced concrete
shells subjected to in-plane forces (axial force in X and Y directions
and in-plane shear). Internal reinforcement may be in orthogonal
directions X and Y with an arbitrary number of bar layers and spacing allowed.
Membrane elements subjected to in-plane forces can be found in structural walls,

the webs of beams, containment vessels, and cooling towers amongst many others. This
is the type of element tested to develop the Modified Compression Field Theory. From a
practical perspective, the edge forces used as inputs to Membrane-2000 could come from
a linear elastic analysis of the entire structure. To demonstrate the program Vecchio’s
element PV20, tested in pure shear in 198111, will be examined.
13
Membrane Properties
X-Dir'n Y-Dir'n
As (mm 2/m) 1267 628
ρ (percent) 1.810 0.897
ρfy (MPa) 8.32 2.66
Y
Crack Space (mm) 107 115
0
7
X
X-Reinforcement Y-Reinforcement
Concrete shrinkage strain:
2 2
2 layers of As = 32 mm @ 50 mm 2 layers of As = 16 mm @ 50 mm
0.00 mm/m
Loading (Nx,Nx,Vxy + dNx,dNy,dVxy)

0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 + 0.00 , 0.00 , 1.00
Concrete Rebar
fc' = 19.6 MPa fu = 552 MPa
All dimensions in millimetres
Minimum clear cover : 6 mm
x-steel, fy= 460
a = 6 mm y-steel, fy= 297 PV20
ft = 1.48 MPa (auto)
ε c' = 1.86 mm/m ε s = 100.0 mm/m Vecchio University of Toronto
By default, membrane-2000 starts with PV20 loaded, so to see the element after
starting the program, simply click on the cross section icon in the toolbar, which looks
like a little membrane element or select the menu option “View | Cross Section”. The
figure shown above is a direct print of the page that will appear.
The drawing attempts to document all the input parameters of the model to allow
for easy error checking or quick documentation of a design. The properties shown on the
page may be changed using the “define” menu. Additionally, double clicking on the
drawing itself allows easy access to the define menu. For example, to change the stress-
strain properties of the reinforcement in the X direction, it is possible to go to the “Define
| Materials” menu option, or simply to double click on the drawing near the stress-strain
line of the x-steel.
As this membrane element is already defined, an analysis may be performed

immediately. Membrane-2000 allows 3 different analysis types to be performed. The
simplest is a strain state analysis whereby the stress-resultants from a given strain state
14
(εx, εy, γxy) will be calculated. The second type of analysis solves for the strain state that
corresponds to a selected load state (Nx, Ny, Vxy). The final analysis, ”full response”, is
the most common. This will calculate the full load-deformation history for the element.
Clicking on the “mcft” button in the toolbar will perform an analysis based on the
Modified Compression Field Theory4.
The screen will change to a 9-plot view as shown below. This is a standard view for the
programs explained in this thesis. Each plot represents one variable of the solution for
the panel PV20. For Membrane-2000, each plot is a full load-deformation plot. Some of
the experimental data from the test11 are included as well for comparison. Note that the
while the experimental correlation is not especially good for some of the variables, the
overall behaviour as represented by the Shear-γxy plot is quite reasonable.
Each of the programs in this thesis will work with either SI metric, US customary
units, or kg/cm2 units as used in, for example, Japan. By default, the programs start up in
15
SI metric (See Section 5-11 of the Appendix for information on how to change the
default start units). The units may be changed in the “Options | Preferences” menu. For
this example, stresses are in MPa, and strains are in parts per thousand (x 10-3 or mm/m).
On the left of the screen is a “control plot.” It has crosshairs showing the
currently selected load stage. This is the state that the crack diagram represents, with the
crack width shown in mm. The red vertical line on the crack diagram indicates that the
steel is yielding on average in the Y direction at this load level. Clicking with the mouse
on the control plot, or using the Page-Up and Page-Down keys allow changing of the
current load stage.
Also on the left, at the top, is a list-box that allows selection of which group of
nine plots to examine. By default, the “General” page shows up. Another page shows
Mohr’s circles and a list of the full stress and strain state of the element.
To examine the data more closely from one of the plots, it is possible to right-
click on the plot and select “view data.” This allows the data to be copied to another
application such as a spreadsheet to check the data or make other plots.
An analysis like this generally takes less than one tenth of a second. It becomes
possible to quickly find the effects of different reinforcing levels, for example, this way.
See the Appendix A for more information on Membrane-2000.
16
2-3 Quick Start: Response-2000
Response-2000 is perhaps the most immediately

useful of the four programs explained in this thesis. It
allows analysis of beams and columns subjected to
arbitrary combinations of axial load, moment and shear.
It also includes a method to integrate the sectional behaviour for simple prismatic beam-
segments. The assumptions implicit in the program are that plane sections remain plane
and that there is no transverse clamping stress across the depth of the beam. For sections
of a beam or column a reasonable distance away from a support or point load, these are
excellent assumptions. These are the same locations in beams that are usually the critical
locations for brittle shear failures.
Unlike the other programs, Response-2000 does not have a default cross section
entered into it. This is not a problem, however, as one can be made quickly. For this
example, an 80 foot span prestressed concrete bridge girder and slab will be analysed.
First, as this example is presented with US customary units rather than the default
SI metric, select it from the “Options | Preferences” dialog box. To select US units as a
default each time the program begins, see section 5-11 of Appendix A.
Secondly, go to the “Define | Quick Define” dialog box. This is a “wizard” that
allows a section to be created quite quickly, usually within 30 seconds. Each of the four
programs in this thesis has such a wizard to make new files quickly.
The first page of the dialog box asks for a title and material properties. After
entering a title, say, “Test Section” with the reader’s initials for the “Analysis by” box,
the material properties may be selected. For this example, the 5000 psi concrete, 60 ksi
steel and 270 ksi strands are fine, so select the “Next” button.
17
The second page of the wizard asks for the concrete cross section. At the top of
the list are simple sections such as rectangles and circles. In the middle of the list are
more exotic shapes such as columns with interlocking hoops, and hollow columns. At
the bottom are the “standard shapes” such as AASHTO girders. As this is what is needed
here, scroll down near the bottom of the list and select “Standard Shapes AASHTO”.
Press tab (or click with the mouse) to the right side to select the type of section. Pressing
any key will pop up a selection box to select a section from the currently defined listings.
Select the AASHTO Type IV girder and press “ok”. For the next input field, enter zero,
as there will be no “haunch” on this section (i.e., no extra concrete between the top of the
precast beam and the bottom of the slab.) Select a slab depth of 8 inches, and a slab
width of 80 inches, and select “Next” to go to the next page of the wizard.
The third page allows selection of the longitudinal reinforcement for the section.
The top half defines bars in the slab for this standard cross section case and the bottom
defines non-prestressed steel in the bottom of the cross section. Leave the default of 20
#4 bars for the top, but remove the 3 #8 bars for the bottom by entering “0” for the
number of bars in the bottom half of the screen. Press the “Next” button again to go to
the last page of the quick menu.
The last page allows selection of the stirrups as well as the strands. Select “open
stirrup” from the list of stirrup types. The default bar type of #4 is reasonable. Select a
spacing of 16 inches. Switch the clear cover to 2 inches from the default value of “1.57”,
which is actually 40 mm converted to inches. Finally, enter 30 for the number of strands.
The prestrain listed as 6.5 represents a jacking stress of 70% of ultimate, and is therefore
reasonable. Select the “Finish” button to complete the definition of the section.
2-3-1 Automatic Cross Section

Response-2000 will automatically create the cross section as shown below similar
to the one from Membrane-2000. As with the other programs, changing the geometry is
achieved either through the use of the “define” menu or by double clicking on the
drawing itself. For example, to change the stirrup spacing, double click on the text in the
18
drawing where it says “#4 @ 16.00 in.” Like all the programs, this page is meant to
include all the information needed to repeat the analysis or document it in the course of a
design.
Geometric Properties
Gross Conc. Trans (n=7.58)
80.0
Area (in2 ) 1423.8 1480.4
2 layers of
Inertia (in4 ) 649082.1 694653.1
10 - #4
yt (in) 22.2 22.6
yb (in) 39.8 39.4
St (in3 ) 0. #4 @ 16.00 in
29241.2 30725.3
2 8.0
6
Sb (in3 ) 16307.6 17634.6
Crack Spacing 30 - S.5

∆ε p = 6.50 ms
2 x dist + 0.1 db /ρ
26.0
Loading (N,M,V + dN,dM,dV)
0.0 , 0.0 , 0.0 + 0.0 , 1.0 , 0.0
Concrete Rebar P-Steel All dimensions in inches

fc' = 5000 psi fu = 90 ksi fpu = 270 ksi
Clear cover to transverse reinforcment = 2.00 in
a = 0.75 in fy= 60 Low Relax

Test Section
ft = 269 psi (auto)
ε c' = 2.02 ms ε s = 100.0 ms ε p = 43.0 ms ECB 1999/8/23
2-3-2 Analysis without shear

The default type of analysis for a new section is a simple flexural analysis with no
axial load. To start it, select “Solve | Sectional Response” from the menu. The analysis
should take perhaps 2 seconds to complete on an inexpensive 1999-vintage computer.
The control plot will show up along with 9 plots as in Membrane-2000. In the case of
Response-2000, the plots all represent the given variable plotted over the depth of the
section for the load stage indicated by the control plot. Click on the “Auto Range” button
on the top left of the screen below the menu to automate the scale of the plots, and click
anywhere on the control plot. All the plots will automatically change depending on the
new location on the control plot. Note that the loading is listed in the bottom bar of the
program window. The crack diagram shows predicted crack widths in inches as well as
an estimate of the pattern of cracking.
19
2-3-3 Analysis with Shear
A more involved analysis type, one that Response-2000 excels at, is the prediction
of sectional behaviour including the effects of shear. For a beam like this, it may be
decided to perform an analysis at a location ‘d’ from the end of the beam. At a uniformly
applied load of 10 kips/ft, the moment and shear at this location are about 435 kip-ft and
109 kips respectively. These loads are entered into the Response-2000 “Loads | Loads”
menu option. The column of entry fields on the left of this window is for initial loads and
the column on the right is for any increment in load beyond that level. Leave the left
values as zero and set the right side value for moment to 435 kip-ft and shear value to 109
kips. Note that the actual numbers here do not matter, only the ratios and signs. After
clicking the “ok” button, select “Solve | Sectional Response” to start the analysis.
The analysis should take about 10 seconds to reach the peak load, and then about
20 more seconds to determine the post-peak ductility for the section. The following 9-
plot screen will show up. These plots represent the state of the beam at failure, as shown
by the location of the crosshairs on the control plots. Each plot is drawn with respect to
the depth of the section. For example, the top centre plot shows the longitudinal strain
versus depth for the section showing the basic assumption that plane sections remain
plane.
The cross section in the top left is drawn darker in regions where it is predicted
not to have cracked. In this case, only the web of the beam is predicted to be cracked at
the shown failure load. The top right shows the variation in transverse strain over the
depth, with a maximum of 7.3 parts per thousand near the top of the web. The crack
diagram shows the predicted angle and width of cracks in inches. The shear stress plot
shows that the shear is not uniformly distributed over the depth of the section, though it is
fairly constant in the web at about 630 psi.
20
The bottom left plot of the 9 plots shows the principal compressive stress values.
The red line at the left of the plot is the maximum allowed stress versus depth and the
right blue line shows the applied stress. Note the shear has applied an additional diagonal
compression in the web on top of the expected concrete stress profile from the
prestressing force. The two lines on this plot are about to touch at the top of the web,
indicating that this section is about to fail by crushing at the top of the web.
The two control charts show that the “V-Gxy” curve, that is, the shear force-shear
strain plot, is descending with increasing shear strain, whereas the lower control chart, a
moment curvature plot, is unloading along its loading curve. This indicates that the
section is predicted to fail in shear. The maximum predicted shear capacity of the section
is 249 kips. By scaling this from the loading, it is predicted that the beam would fail in
shear at this location if the applied load were to increase to a level of 23 kips/foot.
21
2-3-4 Member Response
Response-2000 will calculate the full member behaviour for a prismatic section as
well. To get a prediction of the behaviour of this 80-foot beam, such an analysis will be
performed with the beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load. First select the “Load
| Full Member Properties” menu option. Select the “length subjected to shear” at the top
as 480 inches. (The analysis is done from one end to the mid-span of the beam.) Also,
select in the top options a uniform distributed load rather than a constant shear analysis.
This is the second option in the top list of three buttons. Click “ok” and select the “Solve
| Member Response” option.
This analysis will calculate an entire Moment-Shear interaction diagram and

determine the load-deflection properties and crack diagram for the entire 40 foot half
span of the beam. The analysis on an inexpensive 400 MHz Pentium II takes about 60
seconds to complete. As the analysis continues, the growing M-V interaction diagram
will be shown on the control plots. Periodically, the 9 plots will also update showing the
sectional behaviour at the location of the crosshairs on the control plots. Note the
transition from flexural failures under positive moment at the right of the interaction
diagram to shear failures at the top of the interaction diagram and then back to flexural
failures under negative moment at the left side. By clicking on the little squares on the
plot, any of the integration points may be examined so see how the beam is behaving at
that load combination.
When the analysis is complete, the screen will change to the deflection page as
shown below. The top diagram is the predicted crack pattern at failure for the entire 40
foot half-span of the beam. The bearing support plate at the left bottom can be seen and
the right side represents the midspan of the beam. Estimated crack widths are shown in
inches. In the top control plot at the left is the M-V interaction diagram, which also
shows the combinations of applied moments and shears along the length of the beam as a
red line. For a uniformly distributed load, such as this, the majority of the loading line is
a parabola, with the shear reduced to zero near the support due to non-sectional load
resistance mechanisms in this region. The shape of this load diagram is explained in
22
Chapter 7. It can be seen from the interaction diagram that the loading envelope is
touching the strength envelope almost simultaneously at the right side bottom (flexure in
positive moment at midspan), as well as at the top (shear near support). Indeed, the
midspan cracks are predicted to be almost 1 inch wide, and there is substantial shear
cracking (0.147 inch cracks) near the support.
The bottom control plot shows the predicted load-deflection relationship for the
beam (pushover analysis results for column analyses). The final behaviour is predicted to
be fairly ductile, with a 22.9 inch deflection at a failure load of 23.4 kips/foot. Assuming
that the load capacity is acceptable, this would seem to be a fairly efficient design in
terms of shear versus flexural capacity; more stirrups would not be needed, as the beam
would fail in flexure first. A lower amount of stirrups would subject the beam to a
potentially brittle shear failure, however. In a design like this, it is wise to err on the
conservative side of shear design and include somewhat more shear reinforcement than
what has been provided. Of course Response-2000 allows any such option to be
conveniently checked by changing the spacing of the stirrups, and rerunning the analysis.
23
2-4 Quick Start: Triax-2000
Triax-2000 is a program for the analysis of a 3 dimensional block of

concrete. This program is analogous to Membrane-2000 in 3
dimensions. Such a block of concrete can be thought of as a 3D brick
finite element. The relatively complex interactions of non-linear 3D
stress-strain behaviour can be efficiently examined with Triax-2000. Additionally, the
program may be considered as a model for well reinforced 3D locations, such as beam-
column joints. It could fairly be argued that Triax-2000 is of less practical interest than
the other three programs in this thesis
Loading for Triax-2000 consists of axial stresses in the directions X, Y and Z as

well as shear stresses on the X-Y, Y-Z and X-Z planes.
The program has a default section built into it as shown below. As it is a 3D

sectional analysis, the block has no physical dimensions, but is assumed to be of
Element Properties Z-Reinforcement
X-Dir'n Y-Dir'n Z-Dir'n 10M @ 0.500 percent
ρ (percent) 1.000 0.500 0.500
ρfy (MPa) 4.00 2.00 2.00
Crack Space (mm) 541 509 509
Y Z
Concrete shrinkage strain: X
0.00 mm/m
Loading (dNx,dNx,dVxy + dVxy,dVxz,dVyz)
20M @ 1.000 percent 10M @ 0.500 percent
0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 1.00 , 0.00 , 0.00
Concrete Rebar All dimensions in millimetres

fc' = 40.0 MPa fu = 480 MPa
z-steel, fy= 400
x-steel, fy= 400
a = 10 mm y-steel, fy= 400 Triax-2000
ε c' = 2.10 mm/m ε s = 100.0 mm/m t2k t2k
24
sufficient size in all three dimensions to cover a series of cracks.
Although it is a rather arbitrary loading, an analysis will be performed on the

shown section with the following load ratios:
Load Direction Nx Ny Nz Vxy Vyz Vxz

Load Ratio 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
This loading represents triaxial tension on the element as well as increasing shear
in all shear directions. These load ratios are entered into the program by selecting the
“Loads | Loads” menu option. As in each of the programs explained in this thesis, there
are two columns of numbers that may be entered. The left column is for the load level at
which to start the analysis and the right column is for the loading ratios to be used for
incrementing load after that point. Note that the actual values on the right column do not
matter, only their relative values and signs are used in the program. Enter the above load
levels into the right side column of the loads menu and close the loads dialog box by
clicking the “ok” button.
On clicking the “solve” button on the toolbar, the now familiar nine plots show up
with the results of the analysis as shown below. The control plot is automatically
selected by the load ratios and in this case shows the load-factor vs. shear strain in the Y-
Z direction.
25
Triax-2000 shows a tabular list of all the strain and stress states for the element at
the load marked by the crosshairs on the control plot. The crack diagram shows the
principal directions as well as the intersection of the crack planes with the outside of the
concrete volume. In general, 3D behaviour of this type requires some study to ensure
that the results are indeed what is expected.
26
2-5 Quick Start: Shell-2000
The last of the four programs in this thesis is Shell-2000. It
assembles a collection of Triax-2000 elements on top of each
other to allow out-of-plane analyses of plates and shells. As
such, it is a three dimensional analogue of Response-2000. It is
a more general version of Membrane-2000 that will allow
analyses that include out of plane forces. Such shell elements
can be found in slabs and walls and, indeed, almost all structures made of plates or shells.
Loading for Shell-2000 consists of the following eight force resultants: Axial
force in X and Y directions, moment about X and Y axes, out-of-plane shear about X-Z
and Y-Z planes, twisting moment (Mxy) and in-plane shear. Shell-2000 is a superset of
Membrane-2000 and can do all analyses that Membrane-2000 can do. Due to the
inherent 3D nature of the implementation, however, it is slower than Membrane-2000.
The default element in Shell-2000, shown, is shell element SE4 tested by
Shell Properties
X-Dir'n Y-Dir'n
As (mm2/m) 8333 2778
ρ (percent) 2.924 0.975
ρfy (MPa) 14.39 4.67
Y
Crack Space (mm)
5
8
2
X
Concrete shrinkage strain:
0.00 mm/m
Loading (Constant + Increment)

0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 +
0.00 , 0.00 , 1.00 , 0.50 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00 , 0.00

fc' = 42.2 MPa fu = 590 MPa
Minimum clear cover : 11 mm
x-steel, fy= 492
a = 10 mm y-steel, fy= 479 SE4
ε c' = 2.45 mm/m ε s = 100.0 mm/m Kirschner University of Toronto
27
Kirschner and Khalifa from the original series of tests in the University of Toronto shell
element tester conducted in 198412. The loading is in-plane shear along with moment
about the X-axis. Performing a “Solve | Full Response” will take less than 30 seconds
and produce the following 9-plot picture of the element at failure.
It can be seen from the control plot that failure is predicted to be fairly ductile.
From the bottom line of the output window, the failure in-plane shear is predicted to be
976 kN/m. In the test, the element failed in a ductile fashion at an in-plane shear of 961
kN/m. The nine plots show the state of the element at failure. The steel is predicted to be
yielding on the top and bottom of the shell in the Y direction as well as in the bottom side
in the X direction. The crack plot shows that the element is predicted to have full-depth
cracking, roughly in the X direction at the top (flexural compression side), and rotated
through the depth as a result of the in-plane shear stress. From the principal compression
plot, the concrete is predicted to be crushing (two lines touching) at the top due to the
flexure as well as at the bottom due to the in-plane shear.
28
Chapter 3: The Modified Compression Field Theory and
Related Numerical Techniques
3-1 General
Perhaps the most important differentiating element between different sectional
models is the constitutive models that are employed. The programs in this thesis use the
Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT). This theory traces back through the
Compression Field Theory of 197814 to the Diagonal Compression Field Theory of
197413. Vecchio defined the original form of the MCFT in 198215 from the testing of 30
reinforced concrete panels subjected to uniform strain states in a specially built tester.
The definitive description of the MCFT is in the 1986 American Concrete Institute paper
“The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected
to Shear”4. Since then, only two small changes have been made, both in 198716. There
have been other proposed changes to the theory, but at the University of Toronto, it is
largely this 1987 version that is still used 13 years later. Since then, others have proposed
similar models including Hsu and Zhang17,18 and Kaufmann and Marti19. To allow
comparison between some of these proposals, the methods of Hsu et al. have been
explicitly included in Membrane-2000.
The MCFT is a general model for the load-deformation behaviour of two-

dimensional cracked reinforced concrete subjected to shear. It models concrete
considering concrete stresses in principal directions summed with reinforcing stresses
assumed to be only axial. The concrete stress-strain behaviour in compression and
tension was derived originally from Vecchio’s tests and has since been confirmed with
about 250 experiments performed on two large special purpose testing machines at the
University of Toronto. Similar machines have been built in Japan and the United States,
providing additional confirmation of the quality of the method’s predictions.
The most important assumption in the model is that the cracked concrete in
reinforced concrete can be treated as a new material with empirically defined stress-strain
29
behaviour. This behaviour can differ from the traditional stress-strain curve of a cylinder,
for example. The strains used for these stress-strain relationships are average strains, that
is, they lump together the combined effects of local strains at cracks, strains between
cracks, bond-slip, and crack slip. The calculated stresses are also average stresses in that
they implicitly include stresses between cracks, stresses at cracks, interface shear on
cracks, and dowel action. For the use of these average stresses and strains to be a
reasonable assumption, the distances used in determining the average behaviour must
include a few cracks. Sectional models satisfy this by needing to be at least a couple of
section depths long.
A penalty for using average stress-strain relationships is that an explicit check

must be made to ensure that the average stresses are compatible with the actual cracked
condition of the concrete. This so-called crack check is a critical part of the MCFT and
the theories derived from it. The crack check involves limiting the average principal
tensile stress in the concrete to a maximum allowable value determined by considering
the steel stress at a crack and the ability of the crack surface to resist shear stresses.
As the overall stress response is based solely on average relationships, tempered

with the crack-check, the method does not require an explicit calculation of dowel action
force, shear stresses on crack, reinforcing stress at a crack, crack slip strains, and bond
stresses. If required, the inferred values of some of these parameters may be calculated
from equilibrium. The simplicity afforded by ignoring these more complex phenomena
in cracked concrete is one of the strengths of the method.
Figure 3-1 summarises the Modified Compression Field Theory for the two
dimensional case. The left panel shows the equilibrium equations which are in fact
simply the equations of a Mohr’s circle of stress. The middle panel shows the strain
conditions, which also can be summarised by a Mohr’s circle. Note the implicit
assumption in the MCFT that the angle of principal concrete stress can be taken as equal
to the angle of principal strain (θ). The final panel shows the stress-strain relationships
for reinforcement, concrete in compression, and concrete in tension. The bottom of each
30
panel shows the components of the crack check to ensure that the average stresses can be
transferred across the crack.
Figure 3 - 1 The Modified Compression Field Theory
3-2 Important Aspects of the MCFT

The following aspects of the MCFT are worth noting from within Figure 3-1.
3-2-1 Reinforcement average response (fsx, fxy)

The MCFT assumes that the average behaviour of steel can be approximated by
the bare-bar response. While this is an excellent assumption prior to yield at a crack, it is
not obvious that it is appropriate after first yield of the reinforcement at a crack. Note
that steel first yields at a crack due to any tensile stress in the uncracked concrete needing
to be balanced by extra steel stress at a crack. Numerical simulations done by Porasz20 in
1989 demonstrated that the error in assuming bare-bar behaviour for the average stress-
31
strain behaviour is relatively small. Much of the complexity in the models from the
University of Houston17,18 result from trying for more precision in the modelling of
average steel stresses.
3-2-2 Concrete tensile stress response (f1)

Concrete is assumed to be able to carry the full cracking strength prior to
cracking. After cracking, tensile stresses in the uncracked concrete between the cracks
will continue to stiffen the concrete, and in some cases will increase the strength. To
model the high scatter behaviour of post-cracking, pre-reinforcement yielding tension
stiffening, a simple equation for f1 is shown in Fig. 3-1. The decrease in average stress
after cracking represents bond degradation, formation of new cracks, and other damage
mechanisms. In Vecchio’s original formulation15, the term shown in Fig. 3-1 as 500ε1
was given as 200ε1 . The change of the coefficient from 200 to 500 was suggested by
Collins and Mitchell in 198716 partly as a result of examining experimental results from
larger elements than the 30 panels tested by Vecchio. Note that later in this thesis, the
above tension stiffening model will be extended to more directly account for bond
behaviour.
3-2-3 Concrete compressive stress response (f2)

Uncracked concrete in compression is assumed to follow the cylinder stress-strain
curve. The stress-strain curve shown in Fig 3-1 is a parabola, a function of the principal
compressive strain (ε2), as well as the principal tensile strain (ε1). The tensile strain
component models the decrease in apparent concrete compressive strength observed in
tests when the concrete was transversely cracked. This often controls the strength of
beams with stirrups.
3-2-4 Crack width (w)

When subjected to shear, new cracks may form, old cracks may close or become
inactive. This complex load-history dominated behaviour is simplified to only a single
set of parallel cracks forming at the average angle of principal compressive stress. The
32
spacing of the cracks (sθ) is calculated with the shown equation that converts the
calculated crack spacing in the two orthogonal directions to an estimated diagonal
spacing. It is recommended that these crack spacings in the base X and Y directions be
estimated as shown in Chapter 7, itself based on the method in Collins and Mitchell5.
Crack widths are assumed to be simply the product of the principal tensile strain and the
crack spacing (that is, elastic strains in the uncracked concrete between the cracks are
ignored).
3-2-5 Shear on the crack (vci)

It is assumed that there is a limiting interface shear stress on a crack that can be
transmitted before the crack begins to “slip”. The equation in the bottom right of Fig. 3-1
was derived from the experiments of Walraven21. This shear on the crack limit is higher
for stronger concrete or larger aggregates (variable a). Increasing crack widths lower the
maximum allowed shear on the crack. This limit is used in the crack check explained in
Chapter 4.
Note that shear on the crack “interface”, vci, is not an average stress, but a local
one. Recall that the MCFT calculates the total element force state with average stresses
at angle theta. The calculated shear on the crack is resisted by a crack also assumed to be
at an angle of theta. This indicates that there must be a local deviation in angle of
principal stress at a crack if there is to be any shear on the crack.
3-2-6 Local reinforcement stress at a crack (fsxcr, fsycr)

Calculation of this term defines the crack check. Note that there are two
equations, one for each direction of reinforcement, derived as a sum of forces in the X
and Y directions locally at a crack. Clearly, the steel stress at a crack must be lower than
some limit, usually the yield stress. See Chapter 4 for a full description of the crack
check.
33
3-3 Modified Compression Field Theory in Three Dimensions.
The Modified Compression Field Theory was extended to three-dimensional
behaviour by Kirschner22 and again by Adebar23 to include the crack check. Referring to
Fig. 3-1, the same three aspects of equilibrium, compatibility and stress-strain
relationships apply. Note that explicit equations are not directly presented, as they are
available elsewhere in matrix format24.
The three stresses in the 2D case (fx, fy, vxy) extend to six (fx, fy, fz, vxy, vyz, vzx).
The three strains in 2D (εx, εy, γxy) extend to six as well (εx, εy, εz, γxy, γyz, γzx).
The equilibrium equations are extended simply to include one additional equation
for the Z direction. Note that the 2D tensor format (Mohr’s circle) still applies as a 3D
tensor. The angle theta in the 2D case extends to a set of 3 direction cosines for the 3D
case (ki, li, mi). As in 2D, the 3D direction cosines of strain are assumed to be the same
as the direction cosines of concrete stress.
The compatibility equations are similarly extended to represent a 3D tensor

format.
The stress-strain relationships described above are implemented by allowing each

principal direction to accept tension or compression. The softening of the compression
equation is modified for cases with tension in the two transverse directions such that ε1 is
replaced by ε1 + ε 2 if ε3 is the compression direction12. There have been no
experiments yet performed on large blocks of reinforced concrete subjected to uniform

three-dimensional states of strain and stress. As such, the technique here has not been
directly verified, though it does work reasonably well for a series of 3D elements put
together as shown by Selby24 and Adebar7, for example.
34
The crack spacing equation is directly extended to three dimensions as shown in
equation 3-1.
1 (3-1)
s mθi =
ki li m
+ + i
s mx s my s mz
The crack-check equations are described separately in Chapter 4.
3-4 Solving problems with the MCFT

Two classes of questions arise with general shear models such as the MCFT. The
first is to find a stress state corresponding to a strain state, and the second it to calculate a
strain state corresponding to a stress state. The second is much more difficult as it must
be solved via numerical iteration. It has been found that using a secant based solution
regime works very well in 2D and 3D for this second type of problem.
3-4-1 Calculate stress state from strain state:

The following series of steps solves this direct problem for the 3D case. The
numerical example is for a 3D block of 40 MPa concrete (19 mm aggregate) with 1% of
400 MPa steel in the X direction, 0.5 % of 400 MPa steel in the Y and Z directions. Note
that this is the default cross section that program Triax-2000 starts with, but shown here
with parabolic concrete behaviour, and Collins-Mitchell 1987 tension stiffening to be
consistent with the formulation given in Fig 3-1.
3-4-2 Solving for a 3D stress state from a 3D Strain state

The following steps and example values demonstrate calculation of a stress state
from a strain state using the MCFT.
Steps Numerical Example
Given: εx, εy, εz, γxy, γyz, γzx 1.03, 1.18, 1.65, 2.38, 3.00, 2.97 mm/m
35
a) calculate principal strains and directions
for 2D problems, use Mohr’s circle
for 3D problems, use 3D Eigenvector routines
ε1, ε2, ε3 4.08, -0.08, -0.15 mm/m
Direction Cosines:
k1, l1, m1 0.52, 0.55, 0.65
k2, l2, m2 0.51, -0.82, 0.27
k3, l3, m3 -0.68, -0.19, 0.71
k1,l1,m1 are the direction cosines of the first principal direction. The other terms
are similarly defined for principal directions 2 and 3.
b) calculate principal stresses with equations from Figure 3-1

f1, f2, f3 0.81, -2.06, -3.77 MPa
c) perform crack check to check limits on all tensile concrete stresses

See Chapter 4 for example on how to do this. In this case, it does not control.
d) rotate principal average concrete stresses back to rectangular directions

fcx, fcy, fcz, vxy, vyz, vzx -2.06, -1.25, -1.70, 0.60, 1.26, 1.80 MPa
Note from this that the concrete stresses are generally compressive in the x, y and
z directions when shear is applied as they will be balanced by the steel, itself in
tension. Again, note that the rotation is provided with the same direction cosines
used for the strain tensor. The directions of principal strain and concrete stress are
assumed to coincide.
e) calculate average steel stresses (as in Figure 3-1)

fsx, fxy, fsz 206, 236, 330 MPa
f) add average steel stresses to concrete stresses

fx, fy, fz 0.00, -0.07, -0.05 MPa
g) if desired, steel stresses at a crack and shear on crack components may be

calculated as explained in Chapter 4.
3-4-3 Calculate strain state from stress state

It is common that a stress state is known and the strain state is the desired
quantity. A very robust way to solve this is with the secant stiffness method. As
described by Krpan25:
36
“The central idea of the procedure is the concept of secant modulus, see Fig.
[3-2, 3-3]. Any stress-strain curve can be represented by the expression
σ = Esecant(ε) x ε [3−2]
where the secant modulus, Esecant is a function of ε.”
These secant moduli are shown for concrete and steel in Fig. 3-2 and 3-3.
35
Etangent at strain
Concrete Stress (MPa)
30 of 1.5 mm/m
25
20 Esecant at strain
15 of 1.5 mm/m
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Principal Compressive Strain (mm/m)
Figure 3 - 2: Secant and Tangent Modulus of Concrete
700
Etangent at strain
600 of 40 mm/m
Steel Stress (MPa)
500
400
300 Esecant at strain

200 of 40 mm/m
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Tensile Strain (mm/m)
Figure 3 - 3: Secant and Tangent Modulus of Reinforcement
37
Using this scheme, the strain vector {ε} is related to the stress vector {σ} via the matrix
[D] by the following:
[D]{ε} = {σ} (3-3)
In two dimensions, {ε} = {εx, εy, γxy}

{σ} = { fx, fy, vxy }
In three dimensions, {ε} = { εx, εy, εz, γxy, γyz, γzx}
{σ} = { fx, fy, fz, vxy, vyz, vzx }
The secant stiffness matrix [D] is defined below.
Using this simple matrix equation, the solution for any unknown term can be
found simply and with stability. The secant stiffness matrix is symmetric and fully
populated.
An example is the calculation of the full-response solution of Triax-2000. An

estimate is made of the strain state for a given desired load level. This is then checked
with the above method for calculating stresses, and the secant stiffness is then calculated.
A new estimated strain state is then calculated from the stiffness matrix. This procedure
is repeated until the desired convergence on load is achieved.
3-5 Secant Stiffness in Two and Three Dimensions

The presentation of secant stiffness here will work for any biaxial or triaxial
stress-strain relationship including linear and nonlinear ones. The presentation here is
from the work of Selby24. The [D] matrix used above is calculated in the principal
directions and rotated back to the rectangular directions afterwards. It is made up of both
a concrete component [Dc] and a steel component [Ds] as follows:
[D] = [Dc] + Σ [Ds]I (3-4)
38
To determine the [Dc] matrix, it is first necessary to calculate it in principal
directions and then rotate it back to the X-Y-Z frame. This rotation is performed with the
following relationship:
[Dc] = [T]T[Dc]’[T] (3-5)
The transformation matrix T is made up of the following terms.

k12 l12 m12 k1l1 l1m1 m1k1
k22 l22 m22 k2l2 l2m2 m2k2
[T] = k32 l32 m32 k3l3 l3m3 m3k3
2k1k2 2l1l2 2m1m2 k1l2 + k2l1 l1m2 + l2m1 m1k2 + m2k1
k, l, and m are the direction cosines as noted above with the numerical example.
Note that the matrix can conceptually be divided into 4 quarters, each a 3x3 matrix. The
top left corner deals directly with effects in the axial directions to strains in the axial
directions for example. The other quadrants include shear effects and so include at least
two terms each as they will be affected by the two directions that make up that individual
shear strain.
The matrix [Dc]’ is the stiffness of the concrete in principal directions defined as
follows:
EC1 0 0 0 0 0
0 EC2 0 0 0 0
[Dc]' = 0 0 EC3 0 0 0
0 0 0 GC12 0 0
0 0 0 0 GC23 0
0 0 0 0 0 GC31
39
Where EC1, EC2 and EC3 are principal secant stiffness values as follows:
EC1= f1/ε1
EC2= f2/ε2 (3-6)
EC3= f3/ε3
And GC12, Gc23 and GC31 are secant shear moduli as follows:
GC12 = EC1EC2/(EC1+EC2)
GC23 = EC2EC3/(EC2+EC3) (3-7)
GC31 = EC3EC1/(EC3+EC1)
Because reinforcement is considered to only accept axial force, the matrices [Ds]
for the X Y and Z directions all have only one element. [Ds]x for example has a term in
the top left corner equal to Esx.rhox where
Esx=fsx/εx (3-8)
The Y and Z directions are similar. Note that these are not tangent stiffnesses.
For 2D analyses, the [Dc] matrix can also be written in terms of sines and cosines
of the angle of principal stress/strain θ. For that case, use only columns and rows 1,2 and
4 in the above matrices, and make the following substitutions:
k1 = cos(π-θ)
k2 = -sin(π-θ) (3-9)
l1 = sin(π-θ)
l2 = cos(π-θ)
3-6 Tangent Stiffness in Two and Three Dimensions

In the longitudinal stiffness method described in Chapter 6, it is explained that the
tangent stiffness of a biaxially loaded concrete element can be important in predicting
behaviour. To calculate this, in concept, one need change the secant stiffness terms in the
matrix [Dc]’ from the secant values in Fig. 3-2 and Fig. 3-3 to the tangent values. All the
methods used above to rotate from principal to X-Y directions still apply.
40
While in theory, this is a simple procedure, in practice it is more complex. The
principal direction i tangent stiffness is defined as follows:
dfi (3-10)
E ci =
dεi
Where fi is the stress as defined in the equations in Fig. 3-1.
Clearly, if the concrete is in tension, the tension equation is used (which is only a
function of the principal tensile strain) and if the concrete is in compression, the
compression curve is used. Note that the compression curve is a function of two strains,
the principal compressive strain (ε2) for the location on the curve (f2) and the principal
tensile strain (ε1) defining the height of the curve for the softening (f2max). For each row
of the final tangent stiffness matrix, say the first row, there will be a unique relationship
between the change of ε1 and the change of ε2. In 2D and for the first row of the final
matrix, any increase in ε2 will also increase ε1 by a factor of tan2θ. This happens because
the first row of the matrix is with respect to changes in the εx strain. Any change in εx
will cause a change in both of the principal strains. For the second row, the rate of
change of ε1 with respect to ε2 is 1/ tan2θ, and for the third row, the rate is –1.0. This
makes the derivatives more complex to calculate. If the principal compression equation
in Fig. 3-1 is broken up as follows, the stiffness can be calculated:
f 2 = f 2 max ⋅ Parabola
(3-11)
dParabola df dε
E ci = f 2 max + 2 max ⋅ 1 Parabola
dε 2 dε1 dε 2
This means that the symmetry of the secant method above is broken. The tangent
stiffness matrix is not symmetric. To calculate it, it is necessary to determine the
derivative of ε1 with respect to ε2 for each row and calculate all the principal stiffness
values. Then calculate the entire stiffness matrix and discard all of it except the needed
row. Then repeat for the next row. For the 2D case, the matrix can be expanded
algebraically, reducing the amount of unnecessary calculations. For the 3D case, the
41
simplest implementation is to numerically calculate the derivative and go through the
matrix multiplication six times, once for each of the six rows.
Note that if the concrete principal tension is being affected by the crack check, as
explained in chapter 4, it is necessary to include the stiffness of this crack check in the
matrix as well. That is, the stiffness of the principal tension direction should be
controlled by the crack check equations, if they govern, rather than by the base curve
equation.
The shear stiffness terms in the i and j direction are calculated as follows:
Gcij = 0.5 (fi - fj)/(εi - εj) (3-12)
Reinforcement stiffness is added in as above except that it must be the tangent

stiffness of the bars rather than the secant stiffness, as shown in Fig. 3-3.
Were it not for the increased speed and stability of the longitudinal stiffness
method over the traditional numerical methods, it would be difficult to justify this
complexity. In fact, the increase in stability results in the programs running 5-15 times
faster with the tangent stiffness matrix calculated this way over the older numerical
methods of calculating tangent stiffness. It is suggested that this does indeed justify the
complexity of the programming.
42
Chapter 4: The Crack Check
4-1 General
The crack-check in the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) represents
an explicit check to ensure that the average stress levels can be resisted locally at a crack.
It has become apparent, in the past, that some researchers and engineers have
implemented the MCFT without including the crack-check. This is unconservative and
potentially unsafe. In a series of papers, for example, Hsu has shown that ignoring the
crack-check can produce results that are very unconservative indeed26, 27. It is felt that
the crack check is sufficiently important to warrant its own chapter, though it could be
argued that it belongs in the previous chapter that introduced the Modified Compression
Field Theory.
The need for the crack check is easy to demonstrate. Consider the concrete prism
subjected to axial tension reinforced with 0.75% of 400 MPa steel as shown in Fig. 4-1.
The total force on the element may be calculated as follows:
N = Nc + Ns (4-1)
Figure 4 - 1: Prism in Tension
N = Nc + Ns (4-1)
Where N = total axial load

Nc = concrete component = f1 · Ac
Ns = steel component = fsx · As = ρ · fsx · Ac
The stress-strain relations for average concrete and steel behaviour are defined by
the usual MCFT equations as shown earlier in Fig. 3-1, and again here in Fig. 4-2 and 4-3
for concrete and steel respectively
43
2.5
Cracking = ft 400
2 ft
f1 =
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
1.5 1 + 500ε1 300
Yielding
1 200
0.5 100
0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Strain (mm/m) Strain (mm/m)
Figure 4 - 2: Average Tensile Stress f1 Figure 4 - 3: Average Steel Stress fsx
A naïve analysis may produce the graph in Figure 4-4 for the total stress versus
strain relationship. Note that the concrete and steel forces have been added together over
the entire range of strain. This is not correct.
4.5
4 Concrete
3.5 Component
Stress (MPa)
3
2.5
2
1.5 Steel
1 Component
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
Strain (mm/m)
Figure 4 - 2: Total stress with no crack check
Consider the free body diagram shown in Figure 4-5 with the left half of the
element drawn with average stresses as used in the MCFT and the right half with local
stresses at crack where there will be no concrete tension.
44
fsx f1 fsx-crack
Average At a crack
Figure 4 - 3: Free body diagram at a crack
Recalling that the MCFT, for simplicity, uses the same stress-strain curve for steel
at a crack and on average, it is possible, indeed common, for both fsx and fsx-crack to
equal fy, the bare-bar yield stress. From the free body diagram, it is clear that the
concrete tensile stress, f1, must equal zero in this case. Ensuring that the local stresses at
a crack not exceed the yield stress in this case is the job of the crack check. For
reinforcement with, for example, a biaxial stress-strain response, it can be assumed that
the stress at a crack will always be able to achieve at least the stress corresponding to the
bare-bar stress at the given average strain.
Using this crack check results in the correct total stress plot prediction shown in
Figure 4-6 for this element. This corrected answer includes the effect of the crack check
to ensure that the steel stress never exceeds the yield stress of the bare bar at a crack.
3.5
3
Stress (MPa)
2.5
2
1.5
Concrete Steel
Component
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
Strain (mm/m)
Figure 4 - 4: Total stress with crack-check
45
4-2 Crack Check in One Dimension
The above demonstration implicitly showed the crack check in one dimension.
The equation that must be satisfied is simply a reorganisation of the above relationships,
namely:
f1 ≤ (fsx-crack - fsx) ρ (4−2)
4-3 Crack Check for Two Dimensional Node

When considering a biaxially loaded piece of reinforced concrete, as in, for
example, the program Membrane-2000 or any traditional 2D MCFT analysis, the crack
check becomes slightly more complex than the above equation.
Firstly, a uniaxial check must be made in each direction of reinforcement similar

to the above equation for 1D but, also, there is the additional inclusion of the possibility
of a shear on the crack surface itself. It is assumed that the crack cannot transmit any
direct concrete axial tension across it. As stated in Chapter 3, it is assumed that the
directions of principal stresses are able to rotate locally at a crack and thus allow shear on
the crack to occur if equilibrium demands it. Implicitly it is assumed that the concrete is
trying to maintain as high an average tensile stress as it can, with the maximum equalling
the base constitutive equation for tension stiffening.
Consider the free body diagram, shown below in Fig. 4-7, of a two dimensional
piece of reinforced concrete drawn at a crack on the top right and on average at the
bottom left. Note that the cut is at an angle theta, the same angle as the cracks, principal
strains and concrete stresses in the MCFT. Note that the force arrows for the
reinforcement are only drawn once, rather than once per bar, to maintain simplicity.
46
f2
f sy-crack
vci
fsx-crack
fsx
f1
fsy θ
f2
Figure 4 - 5: Two dimensional crack check
Immediately, the principal compressive stress (f2) can be seen as irrelevant as it is

self-equilibrating. The stresses of importance at a crack are the two steel stresses locally
at a crack (fsy-crack, fsx-crack), as well as the potential shear on the crack (vci). Note that
there are three stress resultants at the crack, but only two equations of equilibrium (ΣFx,
ΣFy). This indicates that there is more than one solution satisfying equilibrium for the
behaviour at a crack. The traditional approach used in the MCFT is to assume that the
steel load-resisting mechanism is stiffer than the shear on the crack mechanism, and so
the shear on the crack is minimised. The importance of this assumption was found to be
small in comparison to an alternate assumption that the angle of average principal strain
is maintained locally at a crack. Recall that the angle of principal stresses, in contrast,
will generally rotate locally at a crack as compared to the average direction due to the
nonlinear behavior of the steel.
This assumption of minimising shear on the crack has the effect of “using up” all
the steel capacity in the weak direction before any shear on the crack is required. As this
behaviour is only happening locally at a crack, it will have no effect on the overall stress-
strain state unless it requires the lowering of the princpal tensile stress.
47
Summing forces in the X and Y direction on the above diagram results in a series
of equations that define the crack check. These equations have been summarised in
Table 4-1, which includes all the steps needed to satisfy the crack check in two
dimensions. Following these steps will ensure that the stress at a crack is not in excess of
yield in either the X or Y directions and that the shear on the crack is less than the limit
based on crack width. The average concrete tensile stress thus calculated (f1), can be
used with the rest of the MCFT equations as presented in Chapter 2.
Table 4-1: Explicit Steps for 2D-MCFT Crack Check

Calculate following properties from equations in MCFT in Figure 3-1
Base equation of tensile stress (f1a)
Base equation of maximum shear on Crack (vcimax = vci1)
Average steel stresses (fsx,fsy)
Perform crack check to limit principal tension to satisfy equilibrium
1) Calculate reserve capacity in X and Y direction steel (f1cx f1cy)
f1cx = ρx ( fyx - fsx ) This is the extra average stress required in the
f1cy = ρy ( fyy - fsy ) X or Y direction to yield the longitudinal steel.
2) Biaxial yield without shear on crack (f1b)
2 2
f1b =f1cx cos θ + f1cy sin θ Ensures that load required to cause biaxial yield
of reinforcement at a crack is not exceeded.
3) Max shear on crack for biaxial yield (vci2)
vci2 = | f1cx - f1cy | sinθ cosθ Calculate the shear on the crack required to
Achieve biaxial yield of the reinforcement
4) Calculate maximum allowed tensile stress from X and Y direction equilibrium
f1c = f1cx + min( vci1 , vci2 ) cotθ Calculate maximum tension from equilibrium
f1d = f1cy + min( vci1 , vci2 ) tanθ f1c is for X dir'n, f1d for Y dir'n equilbrium
5) Take minimum of all calculated values for final value of principal tension
f1 = min( f1a , f1b , f1c , f1d) Select Minimum Value
To calculate the actual equilibrium-based steel stresses at a crack and the value of
the shear on the crack (vci), use the following steps, using the notation in Table 4-1. This
cannot be made into a simple equation because, as noted above, there are more unknowns
48
than equations. By using these steps, the shear on the crack (vci) will be defined,
allowing the steel stress at a crack to be calculated from the equations in Fig. 3-1.
Condition Meaning Shear on crack equation
f1cx = 0 and f1cy = 0 Average Biaxial Yield vci = 0
f1cx > f1cy and f1cy < f1 Y direction dominant vci = (f1 - f1cy) cotθ
Y yield at crack
f1cx > f1cy and f1cy > f1 Y direction dominant vci = 0

No yield at crack
f1cx < f1cy and f1cx < f1 X direction dominant vci = (f1cx - f1) tanθ
X yield at crack
f1cx < f1cy and f1cx > f1 X direction dominant vci = 0

No yield at crack
Finally, the following equations will calculate the reinforcement stresses at a

crack using the calculated shear on the crack.
fsx-crack = (f1 + vci cotθ)/ρx + fsx (4-3)

fsy-crack = (f1 - vci tanθ)/ρy + fsy
4-4 Crack Check for Three Dimensional Node

Just as the 2D crack-check is more complex than the 1D crack-check, the 3D
crack-check is more complex than the 2D case. Table 4-2 describes the crack check in
three dimensions. This derivation is based on that of Adebar23, modified to be consistent
with the steps presented above. Following these steps will satisfy the requirement that
the steel stress in each direction is not in excess of yield, and that the shear on the crack is
less than the maximum allowed for the given crack width.
49
Table 4-2: Explicit Steps for 3D MCFT Crack Check
Calculate following properties from Equations of MCFT
Given strain state and direction cosine (ki, li, mi) of direction "i"
Calculate base equation of tensile stress (f1a)
Calculate base equation of maximum shear on crack (vcimax = vci1)
Calculate average steel stresses (fsx, fsy, fsz)
Perform Crack Check to limit principal tension to satisfy equilibrium

1) Calculate reserve capacity in X Y and Z direction steel (f1cx f1cy f1cy)
f1cx = ρx ( fyx - fsx ) This is the extra average stress required in
f1cy = ρy ( fyy - fsy ) X, Y or Z direction to yield the longitudinal
f1cz = ρz ( fyz - fsz ) steel
2) Triaxial yield without shear on crack (f1b)
f1b =f1cx k i2 + f1cy l i2 + f1cz m i2 Ensures that load required to cause triaxial
yield of the reinforcement at a crack is not
exceeded
3) Max shear on crack for biaxial or triaxial Yield (Vci2)
vciXYm = | f1cx - f1cy | k I l I Calculate the shear on the crack required to
vciYZm = | f1cy - f1cz | l I m I achieve biaxial yield of the reinforcement
vciZXm = | f1cz - f1cx | k i m I
vci22 = vciXYm2 + vciYZm2 + vciZXm2 This is the maximum shear on the crack
4) Limit shear on crack to maximum
if vci2 > vcimax, then pro-rate vciXY, vciYZ, vciXZ
4) Calculate Maximum allowed tensile stress from XY, YZ, XZ plane equilibrium
f1c = f1cx + (| vciXYm li | + | vciZXm mi |) / k I Calculate maximum tension from equilibrium
f1d = f1cy + (| vciXYm kI | + | vciYXm mi |) / l I of inducing biaxial yield in each plane
f1e = f1cz + (| vciXZm kI | + | vciYZm li |) / m I
5) Take minimum of all calculated values for final value of principal tension
f1 = min( f1a , f1b , f1c , f1d, f1e) Select minimum value
Unlike the 2D case, calculating the shear on the crack and steel stresses at a crack
for any given load level is complex. Recall that in two dimensions, there were 2
equations and 3 unknowns required to calculate the behaviour at a crack. In three
dimensions, there are 3 equations and 5 unknowns. The equations are the sum of forces
in the X, Y and Z directions. The 5 unknowns are the reinforcement stresses at a crack in
50
the X Y and Z directions along with two components of the shear on the crack. Shear on
the crack in three dimensions is a 3D vector, but it is known that the shear on the crack
must be in the plane of the crack, removing an unknown.
A simple algorithmic method as used above will not suffice for this case. An
elegant way to solve the problem is to realise that the calculation of the answer is in fact a
nonlinear optimisation problem of quadratic programming. Once the shear on the crack
components have been found, the steel stresses may be calculated simply with equations,
similar to the 2D case above. While there are only two components to the shear on the
crack as the vector must be in the plane of the crack, it is simpler to leave the solution in
terms of three components. The requirement that the vector remain in the plane of the
crack will be maintained with the form of the equations used. As such, the problem is to
find the 3 components of the shear on the crack subject to the constraint that the steel not
exceed yield in any direction and that the shear on the crack be a minimum.
Using the assumption that the goal is to minimise the shear on the crack, and the
notation in Table 4-2, the following quadratic programming problem arises:
Minimise vci2 = vciXY2 + vciYZ2 + vciXZ2 (4-4)
Subject to: vciXY ≤ vciXYm

vciYZ ≤ vciYZm
vciXZ ≤ vciXZm
vciXY ≥ -vciXYm (4-5)
vciYZ ≥ -vciYZm
vciXZ ≥ -vciXZm
-livciXY - mivciXZ < (f1cx – f1) kI
kivciXY - mivciYZ < (f1cy – f1) li
kivciXZ + livciXZ < (f1cz – f1) mi
Each of these constraint equations is one of the biaxial yield equations from Table
4-2. With only three degrees of freedom and nine constraints, this problem can easily be
implemented using the brute force approach of checking each constraint individually and
then by checking the intersection of different constraint planes. Note that the traditional
simplex method of linear programming may not be used, as this is a nonlinear problem.
51
Once the shear on the crack components are calculated, the steel stresses at a
crack can be calculated with the following equations using the notation in Table 4-2:
vciXYk i − vciYZmi
ρ y (f syCRACK − f sy ) = f1 +
li
− v ciXY li − v ciZX m i (4-6)
ρ x (f sxCRACK − f sx ) = f1 +
ki
v ciXZ k i + v ciYZ li
ρ z (f szCRACK − f sz ) = f1 +
mi
4-5 Crack Check against Flexural Yield for Cross Section

In calculating the allowable concrete tensile stress for sections subjected to
flexure, as in Response-2000 and Shell-2000, a method is needed to limit concrete
tension when controlled by flexural yield to ensure that the concrete on both sides of the
entire crack surface is in equilibrium.
-0.72 -18.5
dAc fc fs
As
246.1
1.42 1.8
Average Average
Cross Section Longitudinal Strain Concrete Stress Steel Stress
(mm/m) (MPa) (MPa)
Figure 4 - 6: Beam in Flexure
Figure 4-8 shows a rectangular beam in simple flexure. Assuming that there is no
direct concrete tensile stress transferred across a crack, moment equilibrium about the
neutral axis produces the following equation:
52
∫ f c ⋅ z ⋅ dA c = ∑ As (fs−crack − fs−average )zs (4-7)
That is, the moment about the neutral axis caused by the average concrete tension
must equal the moment caused by the difference between the steel force on average and
the steel force at a crack.
Specifying a maximum allowable stress at a crack, say the reinforcement yield

stress, the equation may also be used to calculate the maximum allowable average
concrete tensile stress that still maintains equilibrium. For Response-2000, this method is
used to directly calculate the f1cx term from Table 4-1. For Shell-2000, it is used to
directly calculate the terms f1cx and f1cy in Table 4-2. That is, the method calculates the
maximum horizontal component of the average concrete tension and shear on the crack
that can be tolerated.
In the programs, the equation above is made an inequation in order to act as a

crack check equation. As such the right hand side of the above equation is first used to
calculate the maximum allowable concrete moment, a capacity moment. The maximum
allowed reinforcement stress at a crack is the larger of the yield stress and the bare-bar
stress corresponding to the average strain multiplied by a strain concentration factor.
This strain concentration factor is taken as 2.0 for regular reinforcement and 1.25 for 7-
wire strand prestressing reinforcement that has poorer bond characteristics. This
technique of an explicit strain concentration factor contrasts with the technique of a bond
stress based approach as recommended by Kaufmann, Marti and Alvarez19, 50.
The left side of the equation above is calculated in two steps. Figure 4-9
describes the terms used in the calculation. The goal is to determine the largest average
concrete stress component that can be tolerated without yielding the longitudinal
reinforcement. A moment (M1) is first calculated assuming a concrete stress of twice the
cracking stress (ft) at the neutral axis and zero at the bottom of the cross section. This
variation in concrete tensile stress is integrated by taking moments about the neutral axis.
53
A second Moment (M2) is then determined as the remainder of the capacity moment after
M1 is subtracted. A maximum value of average concrete tensile stress at the bottom of
the cross section is calculated that would cause this moment. If the concrete exactly
achieved the stress profile from 2 ft at the neutral axis and f1max at the bottom of the beam,
the longitudinal steel would just yield at a crack.
2 ft
z
M1 M2
dAc
f1max
Cross Section Average Concrete Tensile Stress
Figure 4 - 7: Concrete Moment
The reason for using twice the concrete cracking stress as an allowable stress near
the neutral axis is that for cross sections without transverse reinforcement, the
longitudinal tensile demand immediately below the flexural cracking front can exceed the
cracking stress. That is, the horizontal component of the principal tensile stress added to
the horizontal component of any shear on the crack sums to more than the cracking stress.
Though this demand is high, the reinforcing steel below the crack front will, in general,
have sufficient capacity to equilibrate this. If it does not, then this technique will lower
the allowable tension to ensure it satisfies equilibrium. The use of two components to the
flexural crack check is necessary as a single component was found to be numerically less
stable. The two components more smoothly transition from a case with plenty of extra
capacity at a crack and no capacity at a crack.
As this process does not require the results of biaxial or triaxial stresses, the
flexural yield crack-check performed in this way is non-iterative.
54
There are some restrictions implicit in this method.
1) The concrete compression block is totally ignored in the analysis.
2) The assumption that a bar is always able to have a strain concentration factor of 1.25
or 2.0 at a crack means that bars that are linearly elastic up to failure are predicted to
rupture at a strain well below the real rupture strain and stress. Further research is
needed to develop more appropriate methods for such materials.
3) If there are no bars crossing the cracked zone, equilibrium requires that there be no
average concrete stress. This was found to badly affect convergence at first cracking,
however. As such, if there are no bars crossing the crack face, the concrete stress is
not reduced. This is done for computational stability despite flagrantly violating
equilibrium. The programs in this thesis are, therefore, not appropriate for calculating
the flexural behaviour of plain concrete specimens. A case where this is more
common is in the response of a singly reinforced section subjected to negative
bending.
4) It is possible that in attempting to yield the top bar in a flexurally cracked zone, the
bottom bar will rupture before the top can yield. This means that the calculated
capacity concrete tension moment cannot be achieved. This is not dealt with
explicitly, but shows up in an inability to calculate stresses at a crack. This generally
has only a small effect on practical cross sections.
To calculate stresses at a crack on completion of the biaxial/triaxial solution for

each node, the steps are basically reversed to calculate the stress in each bar. The
moment caused by the combined principal tension and shear on the crack is computed
about the crack face. An increase in curvature is then calculated about the crack front to
induce the same moment.
Due to the possibility that some of the bars may become nonlinear during this
calculation, it must be iterative. To save time, the stress at a crack is only calculated once
per load stage, just before showing it to the user.
55
Chapter 5: Concrete Constitutive Relations
The Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) treats cracked concrete as a
new material, so it is necessary to define the stress-strain characteristics of this new
material. As the MCFT is based on principal stress-principal strain relationships with a
special check for shear on the crack, the relations may be divided into the categories of
behaviour in compression, behaviour in tension and behaviour in interfacial shear.
5-1 Behaviour in Compression

The compression response is divided into two components, the base curve and the
compression softening relationship. The base curve represents the behaviour of a
uniform block of concrete subjected to uniform compressive stress. While a standard
concrete cylinder is transversely restrained by the loading platens and therefore is not
really uniform, it is assumed that the stress-strain curve of a cylinder represents the base
curve. Also, while a standard cylinder must be tested at 28 days to be called fc’, the idea
that the cylinder strength on the day of testing can also be called fc’ will be used here.
There are a series of base curves available in the programs for modelling concrete.
These are explained in Section 2 of the program’s User Manual in Appendix A. The
recommended base curve, the Popovics curve, is shown in Figure 5-1 for a series of
different strength concrete cylinders. This base curve was defined by Popovics51 and
partially calibrated by Porasz20 is shown in the following equations (in MPa units):
n (ε 2 / ε c ' )
f2 = fc '
n − 1 + (ε 2 / ε c ' ) nk
fc ' (5-1)
n = 0.8 +
17
f '
k = 0.67 + c
62
Where: fc’ = peak stress from cylinder test
εc’ = strain at peak cylinder stress
n = curve fit parameter
k = factor for loss in post peak ductility for high strength concrete
56
if ε2/εc’ < 1.0, k = 1.0.
if ε2/εc’ > 1.0, k = equation above
The parabolic base curve, is shown below in Fig. 5-2. The Popovics method is
recommended over the parabolic as it better models initial stiffness and, more
importantly, post-peak behaviour.
100 100
80 80
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Strain (mm/m) Strain (mm/m)
Figure 5 - 1: Popovics Concrete Base Curve Figure 5 - 2: Parabolic Concrete Base Curve
For both of these curves, the strain at peak stress (εc’) is needed to complete the
definition. This is a function of the shape of the base curve as well as the initial tangent
stiffness of the concrete (Ec), itself a function of the stiffness of the aggregate. If the
initial tangent stiffness of the concrete is known, or a stress-strain curve from a cylinder
test is available, an estimate of the strain at peak stress may be made. If neither are
available, then the following method is suggested5 (in MPa units)
E c = 3320 f c ' + 6900

(5-2)
fc ' n
εc ' =
Ec n − 1
where the parameter n is defined above
Figure 5-3 shows this relationship compared to a selection of data representing the
peak stress and strain at peak stress for test cylinders associated with shear tests from the
57
University of Toronto15, 28 and the University of Houston29, 30, 31. The data from the
Toronto tests give higher than predicted εc’ values as Toronto’s crushed limestone
aggregate tends to produce lower stiffness concrete than that predicted by the equation
above.
3.5
3
Strain at peak stress (x 10 -3)
2.5
1.5
Equation 5-2
1 Houston cylinders
Toronto cylinders
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Peak cyinder strength (MPa)
Figure 5 - 1: Strain at peak stress
The second part of the compressive response of concrete is compression

softening, which represents the tendency for concrete to reduce in strength and stiffness
as a result of transverse cracks caused by tensile straining at 90° to the compression.
While initially the equations were based on the diameter of the Mohr’s circle of strain14,
it has since been recast as a function of the principal tensile strain of the concrete11.
For compression softening of normal strength concrete, it is suggested that the

equation in Figure 3-1 be used. This equation is shown in Fig. 5-4 along with
experimental data from a series of tests performed at the University of Houston by Pang30
(triangles) and Belarbi29 (diamonds). This equation was suggested in 1984 based largely
on the results of tests on concrete specimens 20 to 30 MPa in strength52. The relationship
can be seen to model the data from these more recent Houston concrete specimens well.
58
1.2
f2max
f 2 m ax 1
1 =
fc' 0 .8 + 1 7 0 ε 1
ε1
0.8
f2max /fc' fc' = 37 to 48 MPa

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Principal Tensile strain ε 1(mm/m)
Figure 5 - 2: Compression Softening: Normal strength concrete
For very strong concrete, say more than 90 MPa (13 ksi), it is recommended that
the equation proposed by Porasz in 1989 be used20. This equation lowers the maximum
compressive stress as a function of base concrete stress as well as principal tensile strain.
Figure 5-5 shows a series of 100 MPa concrete experimental data points from the
University of Houston tested by Zhang in 199817, compared with this equation.
0.9 f 2 max 1 1
= ⋅
0.8 fc' 0.8 + 170ε1 0.9 + 0.0045fc '
f2max
0.7
0.6
ε1
f2max /fc'
0.5 fc ' = 95 to 103 MPa
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Principal Tensile strain ε 1(mm/m)
Figure 5 - 3: Compression softening: High strength concrete
59
5-2 Behaviour in Tension: Uncracked Concrete
Concrete in tension is assumed to act linearly until first cracking with a stiffness
equal to the initial compression tangent stiffness. Cracking is clearly an important
phenomenon in concrete. Traditionally, the use of the ACI shear cracking stress of
4 f 'c (psi), 0.33 f 'c (MPa) has been suggested for use in the MCFT. However, it has
been found that this prediction of cracking strength is not particularly good for high
strength concrete. Figure 5-6 shows the cracking strength versus concrete compressive
strength for a series of large reinforced concrete elements11, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 along with the
ACI relationship.
3.5 f cr = 0.33 f c '

Shear Cracking Strength (MPa)
2.5
1.5 ACI Shear Cracking
1 Houston Shell
Exp/Pred: n = 83 Toronto Shell
0.5 Average = 0.90
Toronto Panel
C.O.V = 24.6%
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Concrete Compressive Strength (MPa)
Figure 5 - 4: ACI Shear cracking strength of concrete
The fit to the higher strength data is not especially good. Instead, the programs in
this thesis all use the following relationship for the cracking strength of a large volume of
concrete (MPa units):
f t = 0.45(f c ' ) 0.4 (5-3)
Figure 5-7 compares this equation to the same data set used above.
60
3.5
3
fcr = 0.45⋅ (fc ' )0.4

2.5
1.5
Proposed Shear Cracking
1 Houston Shell
Exp/Pred: n = 83
Toronto Shell
0.5 Average = 0.98
C.O.V. = 23.5 % Toronto Panel
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 5 - 5: Proposed shear cracking strength of concrete
Figure 5-8 compares the proposed cracking strength equation to the traditional
ACI equation. It can be seen that for concrete strengths less than, say, 40 MPa, there is
only a small change in the predicted cracking strength. For 120 MPa concrete, however,
the predicted cracking strength drops by 18% below the ACI value. This is important in
predicting the behaviour of high strength concrete beams without stirrups.
4
3.5
3
2.5
1.5
1 ACI Shear Cracking
0.5 Proposed Shear Cracking
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 5 - 6: Comparison of shear cracking strengths
61
Note that the relation proposed is appropriate for structural analysis of a large
volume of concrete. The data points used to derive it are from uniformly loaded elements
containing up to 1 m3 of concrete volume. Tests involving small volumes of concrete or
with high strain gradients through the depth can be expected to show higher strengths.
For example, the modulus of rupture test on a 150 x 150 mm cross section only exposes
one one-thousandth as large a volume of concrete to high tensile stresses as the large
element tests do. The chance of the weakest, and hence controlling, piece of concrete
being in this small volume is remote, meaning that strengths from the modulus of rupture
tests are generally higher than the above equation would predict. It is recommended that
even if such results as modulus of rupture or split cylinder strengths are available for a
given concrete, the above equation be used.
5-3 Behaviour in Tension: Well Reinforced Cracked Concrete

After cracking, reinforced concrete elements can still carry tension between the
cracks through the action of bond. The concrete tension between cracks results
effectively in a more substantial cross section than that of a bare bar and, as such, this
phenomenon has become known as tension stiffening. Many different equations for the
average tensile stress in the concrete after cracking have been proposed over the years.
The models available in the programs are listed in Section 2 of Appendix A. Three of the
equations are described below and plotted in Figure 5-9:
The first equation is that proposed by Vecchio15, based on his original 30 panel
elements.
ft
f1 = (5-4)
1 + 200ε1
The second equation was proposed by Collins and Mitchell16, based partly on the
results of the large shell element tests.
ft
f1 = (5-5)
1 + 500ε1
62
The third equation presented here is the Tamai34 equation as used by Hsu and his
colleagues at the University of Houston.
ft (5-6)
f1 = 0.4
 ε1 
 
 0.00008 
Vecchio-Collins 1982
Tensile Stress/Cracking Stress
0.8 Collins-Mitchell-1987
Tamai et al 1987
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Strain (mm/m)
Figure 5 - 7: Comparison of tension stiffening relationships
Note that there is a substantial variation between these predictions. Generally, the
1982 equation fits well to tests in the small University of Toronto panel tester, the 1987
relation fits well to data from the larger University of Toronto shell element tester, and
the Tamai relation has done a reasonable job with the data from the University of
Houston. If an equation of the same form of the MCFT is fitted to the Houston data
originally used to justify the use of the Tamai equation, a coefficient of 1500 is produced,
rather than the 200 and 500 in the other equations. It has been something of a mystery
why these differ as much as they do, though various explanations such as overall size
have been used.
63
Consider that tension stiffening is largely a bond phenomenon. That is, it is the
bond between the reinforcing bar and the concrete that causes any tension to develop in
the concrete between the cracks. Collins and Mitchell5, for example, recommended that
tension stiffening be reduced by a factor of 0.7 for plain bars or strands which will have
poorer bond properties than deformed bars. It is proposed that concrete tension stiffening
should be made a more specific function of bond characteristics of the reinforcement.
Thus, at locations where the concrete is reinforced with a closely spaced array of small
diameter bars, the average tensile stress in the cracked concrete can be expected to be
higher than at locations reinforced with a widely spaced array of large diameter bars. The
typical cross-sections tested in the three research program mentioned above are shown in
Fig 5-10. Note that the bond characteristics of each will be different.
University of Toronto University of Toronto University of Houston

Panel Elements Shell Elements Shell Elements
70 mm thick 285 mm thick 178 mm thick
50 mm spacing 72 mm spacing 289 mm spacing
6 mm diameter bars 20 mm diameter bars 20 mm diameter bars
Figure 5 - 8: Scale of element tests
An appropriate parameter to indicate the bond characteristics of different arrays of

reinforcement is to divide the area of concrete in tension by the perimeter of all the
reinforcing bars bonded to the area. Thus,
Ac
m= (5-7)
∑ d bπ
For the typical elements shown in Fig. 5-10, this bond parameter works out to be
62 mm for the University of Toronto panel tests, 163 mm for the University of Toronto
shell element tests, and 421 mm for the University of Houston shell element tests.
64
If the coefficient of the MCFT style tension stiffening equation is plotted with
respect to this bond term, the plot shown in Fig. 5-11 is produced.
1750
Coefficient = 3.6 m
1500
Coefficient for ε 1 strain
1250 Houston Shell
Elements
1000
750
Toronto Panel
500 Elements Toronto Shell
Elements
250
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
m parameter = conc area/bar circum
Figure 5 - 9: Tension stiffening vs. m parameter
There is a clear relationship suggesting that for elements with poorer bond
properties, i.e. larger m values, the tension stiffening should be lower.
The above relation is based on tension stiffening equations that were averaged
from a number of elements in each series. By plotting the trend with individual
2500
Aspiotis PA1-PHS8
Trend 3.6 m
Belarbi range
2000
SE12,SE6,SE1
Factor for ε 1 strain
Pang A2-B6
1500
1000
500
0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
m = concrete area / bar circum (mm)
Figure 5 - 10: Tension stiffening vs. m for individual elements
65
shear experiments32, 29, 30, 12, Fig. 5-12 is obtained. It can be seen that while the data for
individual elements involves much greater scatter, there is a clear trend supporting the
relationship suggested above.
Based on this, it is proposed that for uniformly reinforced concrete, the coefficient
in the denominator of the MCFT tension stiffening equation normally shown as 500 be
replaced by the term 3.6m as follows:
ft
f1 =
1 + 3.6m ⋅ ε1 (5-8)
Ac
m=
∑ dbπ
where m is the bond parameter in millimetres
Ac is the area of concrete effectively bonded to the bar
db is diameter of bar in concrete stiffened area
This will improve the scatter of the predictions of uniform elements subjected to
shear, as shown in Chapter 8. Note that this equation will only affect the behaviour
between first cracking and when the crack-check begins to control the behaviour. The
fact that this parameter has units indicates that it will be dependent on the absolute size of
the specimen tested. It is suggested that this term partly explains the size effect in shear
as shown in Chapter 10.
For biaxially or triaxially loaded elements, there will often be different values of
the m parameter in the different reinforcement directions. It is recommended for these
cases that the selected value of the m parameter be the lowest value for each of the
orthogonal reinforcement directions. This means that the tension stiffening will be
controlled by the direction that has the best bond properties. This was found to
reasonably model the experimental behaviour.
66
5-4 Behaviour in Tension: Poorly Reinforced Cracked Concrete
The equation proposed above is appropriate for regions of reinforced concrete that
are relatively close to reinforcement, such as in the membrane element experiments
described. Further away from reinforcing steel, however, the proposed equation is not
appropriate to use. Figure 5-13, based on Collins & Mitchell5, shows the CEB-FIP
suggestions for the effective concrete embedment zone. Concrete in this zone, within 7.5
db of longitudinal steel, can be assumed to have a significant average tensile stress
between the cracks. Outside this region, it is assumed that there is not any significant
average concrete tensile stress after cracking. That is, it would be appropriate to use the
tension stiffening relation proposed above in the embedment zone, but not outside of this
region. This simplification is appropriate for analyses without shear, but less so when
shear is considered. In beams without transverse reinforcement, for example, it is the
average concrete tensile stress that must balance the diagonal compression in the web.
Selecting a tension stiffening equal to zero would then imply that there is no shear
carrying capacity in a beam where the web extends more than 7.5 bar diameters from the
reinforcement. Taylor, amongst others, demonstrated that the webs of such beams can
carry in the order of half of the applied total shear force by aggregate interlock35. As
such, a method is needed to calculate an appropriate level of tension stiffening for
regions that are a fair distance away from reinforcement.
M M
7.5 db
Effective Embedment Zone Zones of Tension in Concrete
Figure 5 - 11: Tensile stress in cracked concrete
67
To model such conditions, consider the “tooth” of concrete between cracks shown
in Fig 5-14. It is reinforced with a single bar and loaded in axial tension via the bar.
Tension stiffening in this example will be an average concrete tensile stress in the
direction of the bar above and below the bar. A linear elastic finite element analysis was
performed for such an element assuming that the concrete stress at the elevation of the
bar was constant and just below the cracking strength.
sm
f sx f sx
Figure 5 - 12: Concrete between cracks
Figure 5-15 plots the average concrete tensile stress versus the x-axis in Fig 5-14.
1.2 Results from

Finite Element Analysis
1
Relative Tension Stiffening
1
0.8 val = − 0 .2
8( x / s m )
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.2
Distance from Bar / Crack spacing (x/sm )
Figure 5 - 13: Tension stiffening vs distance from bar
68
The stress values have been normalised with respect to the maximum values found just
above the bar. Also shown is a simple curve fit equation.
The analysis predicts that the average tension in the concrete will reduce to zero
as the distance away from the bar reaches about half the crack spacing. This is expected
from St. Venant’s principal as the “stress bulb” will be symmetrical about each half of the
tooth’s width. Beyond half the crack spacing away from the bar, the predicted average
concrete stress is in fact slightly compressive.
To spot check this analysis, consider the typical concrete elements drawn in Fig.
5-10. The geometry of these is such that no point in the concrete is further from a
reinforcing bar than about 0.25 to 0.3 times the predicted crack spacing. Based on the
average value of tensile stress in Fig. 5-15 over that range, it might be expected that the
total tension stiffening would be about 0.6 times the maximum value. The base MCFT
tension stiffening equation predicts that level of tension stiffening for a strain of about 1
mm/m which is about half of the yield strain. This suggests that the calculated values
from the finite element analysis are reasonable.
To attempt to directly use the results from Fig 5-15 in sectional analysis, a few
difficulties arise. The biggest is that the real crack spacing over the depth of a beam is
discretely changing. The predicted crack spacing, explained in Chapter 7, smoothly
increases approximately as 2 times the distance from a bar plus a value at the bar. As
such, as the distance away from the bar increases, the crack spacing also increases. To
deal with such issues, some empirical curve fitting was necessary to make the above
finite element analysis directly connect with the programs. This fitting was performed
with Response-2000 on a series of 83 elements without shear reinforcement.
69
Figure 5-16 shows a portion of the bottom of a concrete beam. The tension
stiffening (f1) at depth z in the figure is calculated as follows.
ft (5-9)
f1 =
1 + M ⋅ ε1
Where M = 3.6 · 2 · (Ac/Σ π db) smz < 2smbase
M = 3.6 · 2 · (Ac/Σ π db) / √(1/(8·zd/smz)-0.2) smz > 2smbase
z z
smz
A c zd
sm-base
db
0
Crack Spacing Cross Section
Figure 5 - 14: Tension stiffening parameters
Note that the curve fit equation in Figure 5-15 only comes into effect if the
location of interest in the concrete is a sufficient distance from the nearest steel. This
distance is assumed to equal twice the crack spacing at the bar for simplicity. Nearer to
the bar than this, the equation is similar to the equation presented above for the average
value over a membrane element.
Note equation 5-9 represents the incremental value of tension stiffening. The
earlier equation in Fig. 5-11 models the average tension stiffening for all of the area of
concrete in Fig. 5-16, whereas this new equation is the value to apply at the location z
alone. To simply model this difference from the average and the incremental value, a
factor of 2.0 is applied to the equation. It was found that the results are not sensitive to
this factor.
70
Table 5-1 shows the use of the proposed tension stiffening equations for a given
strain state for a beam. The beam is 1 metre deep, with 4-30M bars 100 mm up from the
bottom face of the beam. For the given strain state, the tension stiffening parameters are
calculated showing the distribution of average concrete tension over the depth of the
element. Chapter 10 compares the effect of these proposed tension stiffening equations
on the quality of predictions of Response-2000.
Table 5-1 Tension Stiffening Equations Demonstration
fc' 30 MPa 1000 x 300 mm cross section

2
Ft 1.75 MPa 4 – 30M bars 100 mm up = 2800 mm
Near Bar Far from Bar

Depth strain smz Ac M term zd dist/smz Best fit M term smz Select Stress
2
(mm) (mm/m) (mm) (mm ) (mm) Equation sm-base M (MPa)
3
x 10 Eq. 5-8 Fig 5-15 Eq. 5-9 Eq. 5-9
1000 -1.01 1000 270 5156 900 0.90 -0.06
900 -0.70 1000 240 4584 800 0.80 -0.04 Uncracked
700 -0.07 1000 180 3438 600 0.60 0.01
650 0.09 1000 165 3151 550 0.55 0.03 19081 2.71 19081 0.77
600 0.24 1000 150 2865 500 0.50 0.05 12811 2.46 12811 0.63
510 0.52 910 123 2349 410 0.45 0.08 8441 2.02 8441 0.56
400 0.87 715 90 1719 300 0.42 0.10 5493 1.48 1719 0.79
300 1.18 520 60 1146 200 0.38 0.13 3241 0.99 1146 0.81
200 1.49 325 30 573 100 0.31 0.21 1262 0.49 573 0.91
100 1.80 203 18 344 0 0.00 1.00 344 0.00 344 0.98
0 2.12 325 30 573 100 0.31 0.21 1262 0.49 573 0.83
Notes: As listed in Chapter 7, Crack spacing cannot exceed member depth for beams in
flexure
Ac term cannot be less than the width multiplied by twice the bar diameter
The controlling type of tension stiffening is shaded.
5-5 Concrete in Interfacial Shear

The shear on the crack relationship used in the programs is the base equation
proposed over 12 years ago for the MCFT. The only difference is that the effective
aggregate size is reduced from the real value down to zero over concrete strengths
between 60 and 80 MPa. This has been done as high strength tests are observed to fail
with cracks cutting through the aggregate, rather than around the aggregate as with
71
normal strength concrete. This same argument also applies to lightweight concrete. The
effect of making a lower effective aggregate size is to lower the maximum shear on the
crack for stronger concretes. The methods proposed by Gupta80 should be examined to
determine if they allow for better modelling of behaviour of interfacial shear.
5-6 Time Dependent Effects

Vecchio11 noted that concrete tested at a young age tends to have a higher
cracking strength relative to its compressive strength than older concrete. As some of the
results in the experimental verification database are of experiments done on very young
concrete, sometimes three days after casting, a simple way to account for this early age
effect is presented here.
Vecchio’s panels were generally tested at an age of about seven days, with three
days of curing. An examination of the cracking strength and the tension stiffening shows
that there is indeed a correlation between the time between the completion of curing and
the test and a strength increase. Figure 5-17 shows the data for elements tested in pure
shear for the cracking strength, showing a trend towards higher strength for early age.
Exp/predicted cracking strength
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
Expected Shear
0.75 Cracking ~25 days
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
Days specimen was drying
Figure 5 - 15: Cracking strength vs. drying time
72
Figure 5-18 shows the same pattern for tension stiffening. In this case, the base
MCFT tension stiffening relationship was compared to the observed tension stiffening. A
factor was calculated for the reported data points that indicated the relative value of the
observed tension stiffening with respect to the expected value. For example, if a test
showed results identically the same as what the base equation predicts, then it would have
a value of 1.0, while another test having an average tension stiffening twice what was
expected would have a value of 2.0. Plotting these factors versus the days between the
completion of curing and testing produces the following trend:
3
Exp/pred tension stiffening
2.5
1.5
1
~25 days
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Days of drying
Figure 5 - 16: Tension stiffening vs. drying time
There is a clear trend for higher tension stiffening for early age concrete. This
will be a function of a number of things including shrinkage and surface drying.
Vecchio’s specimens were 70 mm thick and some were of relatively low concrete
strength, suggesting that the patterns seen here for 5 days may be applicable to older
specimens that are larger.
The following is suggested for analyses of young concrete structures. For

concrete that is younger than 7 days, it is recommended that the automatically calculated
tensile strength of concrete be increased by 25%. This corresponds to Vecchio’s original
73
observation that the younger concrete tended to crack at 5 f 'c (psi) rather than 4 f 'c
(psi) as expected. It is suggested that beams tested at 14 days of age not have the
cracking strength modified. Ages between these two limits may be linearly interpolated.
74
Chapter 6: The Longitudinal Stiffness Method
While most sectional analysis programs do not include the effects of shear
stresses that vary through the depth of the element, Response-2000 includes the effects of
beam shear stresses, and Shell-2000 includes the effects of out-of-plane shear stresses,
which both vary through the depth of the element. The challenge is to determine the
distribution of shear stress with depth. It will be affected by the width of the section, the
material properties of the concrete, and the location and amount of reinforcement.
The technique used is based on equilibrium of longitudinal stresses as derived by
Jourawski in 185636.
The new method presented here is an extension of the methods used by earlier
nonlinear sectional analysis programs37, 6, 53 extended to increase performance and
computational stability. The method is used in Reponse-2000 and Shell-2000 to calculate
a new estimate of the shear stress profile for a given load level. The programs assume an
initial profile and then use this procedure to calculate a new profile and iterate until the
assumed and calculated profiles are in agreement.
6-1 Traditional Shear Stress Calculation

Consider the prismatic beam on simple supports shown in Fig 6-1. The right side
of the figure is a free body diagram of the part of the beam between sections A and B.
dx
2V
dx
z
H M+dM
V M V
A B
Section A Section B
Figure 6 - 1 : Shear stress calculation
75
This section of beam is dx units long, and subjected to constant shear V and no axial
load. The moment at section A is taken as M, and, due to the shear, the moment at
section B will be higher, M + dM = M + V⋅dx. The assumed linear longitudinal strain
gradient from the moment will cause a longitudinal stress profile with compression on the
top and tension on the bottom of the cross section. Consider the shaded section at the top
right of Fig 6-1 as a free body diagram of the top of the beam, from elevation z up to the
top of the beam. It is subjected to a force on the left from the moment, but a higher force
on the right from the slightly higher moment. This requires a balancing force on the cut
plane of the beam, shown as H. Due to the summation of moments about a point
equalling zero, the shear stress in a horizontal plane at a point must equal the vertical
shear stress. As such, the force H divided by the beam width and dx results in the vertical
shear stress on the beam at depth z. This is the same derivation used to produce
Jourawski’s familiar relationship:
V ⋅Q
v= (6-1)
I⋅b
An implicit assumption in this theory is that plane sections remain plane it was
used to calculate the longitudinal stresses. Though the shear strains associated with the
calculated shear stress will warp the section, violating plane sections, the warping does
not affect the longitudinal stress gradient for regions of constant shear78.
Compression
dv
= max
dh
Stress Profile
at Section A
Neutral dv
=0
Axis h Stress Profile dh
at Section B
b Tension
Cross Section Longitudinal Stress Shear Stress
Profile Profile
Figure 6 - 2: Internals of shear stress calculation
76
It is useful to examine in more detail what is happening in the description above.
Figure 6-2 shows the simple case of a linear elastic rectangular cross section subjected to
shear. The stress profile that will occur at Section A and B, as in Fig 6-1, are drawn
together on the same axis for comparison. As section A has a smaller moment, it will
have a smaller stress profile than at section B where the moment is larger. The shaded
region represents the difference in stress profiles between the two sections. It is this
difference that defines the shear stress profile. Also shown is the shear stress distribution,
which for this case is a parabola. Note that the slope of the shear stress plot with respect
to depth is zero at mid-depth, and maximum at the top and bottom of the section. These
slopes are directly proportional to the difference in the longitudinal stresses at sections A
and B. That is, the shaded area on the middle plot at any given depth is proportional to
the derivative of the shear stress plot with respect to the beam depth.
In this case, the difference in longitudinal stresses between sections A and B is

linear, so the shear stress profile is parabolic. For general nonlinear materials, however,
the difference in longitudinal stress profiles will not necessarily be linear. The difference
in strains between sections A and B, on the other hand, will always be linearly distributed
over the depth when the assumption of plane sections remaining plane is used. If this
change in longitudinal strain profile is known along with the longitudinal stiffness (i.e.
rate of change of longitudinal stress with longitudinal strain) over the height of the beam,
the shear stress profile can be generated. This is the basis of the method described in this
chapter.
6-2 Previous state-of-the-art

To use Jourawski’s theory for shear stress distribution for the analysis of
reinforced concrete beams, the nonlinear behaviour of concrete must be included. The
nonlinearity means that the problem generally must be solved numerically rather than
analytically. The previous state-of-the-art for sectional analysis of concrete beams
including shear is represented by Program SMAL6, which divides a beam into a fixed
number of layers and assumes that the stress-strain state is constant for that layer. Each
77
layer may have a different width. The shear stress is then calculated at the interface of
each of these layers. A full load-state/strain-state analysis is done at sections A and B in
Fig 6-1, separated by the distance dx, suggested by Vecchio and Collins as d/6. The
“dual section analysis” procedure then numerically integrates the stresses above each
layer interface in the section and calculates the resulting shear stress profile down the
depth.
6-3 Development of method and problems with previous methods

The work in this thesis started, partly, as an amalgamation of Programs
Response38 (that was available in the Collins & Mitchell textbook5) and program SMAL6.
Response-2000 is a total rewrite of the older Response, now called Response-90, but
benefited from the experience gained in its writing 10 years ago. It was found in the
development of Response-90 that a good way to improve the numerical stability of the
analysis was to automatically subdivide layers that were poorly interpolated. For
example, if flexural cracking happens to occur in the middle of a layer, it is wise to divide
that layer in half to improve numerical stability. As an earlier step in developing
Response-2000, this dynamic layering routine was added to the dual section analysis
methods as implemented in SMAL.
While program SMAL is relatively stable, there remain situations where the
program will stop in the middle of operation and no longer converge. With small
adjustments in the input conditions, it can often be made to converge. It was thought that
the use of the dynamic layering would reduce the incidences of this instability. On the
contrary, it was found that the Response-2000 became less stable than SMAL when
dynamic layering was implemented. Over a period of about a year, a series of issues
were discovered that indicated that the numerical methods used by SMAL were
inherently unstable in certain circumstances. These problems only became visible with
the precision that comes out of a dynamic layering routine. For example, issues relating
to the exact depth of cracking will only be important in SMAL if the manually assigned
78
layer divisions happen to coincide with the calculated crack front. In cases where this did
happen, however, it is likely that SMAL would be unable to converge to a solution.
Primarily, the problems arise due to numerical instabilities in calculating a small

difference of two large numbers. The shaded area in Fig. 6-2, used to calculate the shear
stress profile, for example, is calculated as the difference of the stresses at sections A and
B. If the distance between sections A and B, dx, is reduced, the answer is a smaller
difference between large numbers. This might suggest that increasing the dx term should
increase stability. It was found, however, that smaller values of dx generally led to more
stable solutions. If it was made too small, however, numerical noise would creep in and
make the programs iterate unnecessarily. The balance point was not obvious.
Three major problems were discovered with the previous state-of-the-art methods
for shear stress profile evaluation. 700
They will be demonstrated with the 1
4 - 10M
metre deep Tee-Beam shown. It has
10M @ 400 mm
1.2% of 400 MPa longitudinal steel
2 - 10M
and 0.8 MPa of stirrups. The 0
0
0
1
concrete strength was selected as 100 2 - 10M
MPa to highlight the effects. The 4 - 30M

applied loads are a moment of 1.5 250
kNm for every 1 kN of shear force.
SMAL96 predicts the shear capacity Figure 6 - 3: Sample section
as 456 kN for this section with the top
analysis taking 24 seconds. Response-2000
predicts a shear capacity of 480 kN,
2.19
controlled by longitudinal yield with a
solution time of 5 seconds. The predicted
shear stress profile from Response-2000 at a
shear force of 456 kN, is shown to the right bot
as well.
Figure 6 - 4: Shear stress profile
79
The first problem encountered resulted from the necessity to numerically solve for
a desired value of axial load, moment and shear at both sections A and B in Fig. 6-1.
Numerical convergence always includes some error, but the shear, and axial load, must
be essentially identical between section A and B. Figure 6-3 shows a shear stress profile
generated with an earlier version of Response-2000 that used the older shear stress profile
methods as used by SMAL at a shear of 456 kN. It can be seen that the shear stress
profile does not “close” at the top, that is, the shear stress is not calculated as zero at the
top and bottom face of the beam as required. This was caused by a difference in axial
load between sections A and B of only 2.2 kN. This corresponds to an average stress on
the gross concrete area of 0.0065 MPa. The error in longitudinal strain that this axial
load represents is 0.1 micro strain. This means that methods like that in SMAL must
either solve to axial strains to a precision of 1 part in 10,000, or “smear” the error if the
shear profile does not close.
400
300
200 Error in
Depth of Beam (mm)
Closure
100
0
-100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Shear Stress (MPa)
Figure 6 - 3: Error in axial load convergence
80
A second problem is that the depth of cracking for section A will be different
from the depth of cracking at Section B, due to the different moments at each section.
The effect of this is that a large jump in the shear stress profile is predicted in the region
between the cracking depths. Figure 6-4 shows the effect for the example beam with a
shear of 180 kN. This spike does not appear to have any real physical significance.
More importantly, it is strongly dependent on the distance dx between sections A and B.
For some cross sections, this spike can make the predicted shear stress negative in the
middle of the web for positive shear, for example, which also suggests that it is a non-
physical artefact of the calculation.
400
300
200
Depth of Beam (mm)
100
0
-100 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-200
-300
-400
Jump in Shear stress due to different
-500 depths of cracking
-600
Shear Stress (MPa)
Figure 6 - 4: Error in crack depth
A third issue is that the distance between the sections A and B in Fig 6-1 turns out
to be important in predicting the shear stress profile. SMAL suggests a value of d/6 for
this parameter, Response-2000 had used a value of about 10 mm for all beams, and now
effectively uses zero mm as a result of the new methodology in this chapter. Figure 6-7
compares the shear stress profile predicted by SMAL, the old version of Response-2000
and the new version of Response-2000 for a shear of 456 kN. Clearly this parameter has
a large effect on the predictions. SMAL predicts the largest shear stress near the bottom
81
of the section whereas the new method predicts it near the top of the web. The
predictions of Response-2000 tend to have smaller scatter than that of SMAL, suggesting
that the Response-2000 profiles are better than the SMAL profiles.
394 Response-2000
Longitudinal
Stiffness Method
194 dx = 0
Depth of Beam (mm)
-6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-206 Response-2000
old version
SMAL96
dx = 10 mm
dx ~ 165 mm
-406
-606
Shear Stress (MPa)
Figure 6 - 5: Effect of distance dx
Each of these three issues resulted in analyses with old Response-2000 taking
longer than they should have as a result of extra iteration, and, in some cases, preventing
a solution completely. While the increasing performance of computers has made the
efficiency issue less important, it does not help for cases when a solution is not possible
at all due to numerical instability.
A series of techniques were implemented in Response-2000 to work around the

three problems. While they generally worked, they did not represent an elegant solution.
The longitudinal stiffness method was then developed to deal directly with these
problems and provide faster, more stable solutions.
82
6-4 The Longitudinal Stiffness Method
This new method works by taking the limit as the distance dx between sections A
and B in Fig. 6-1 goes to zero. The numerical problems vanish and the method is
virtually guaranteed to be able to find a shear stress distribution for all cases,
interestingly, with small modifications, even for cases with no shear applied.
It remains a numerically implemented method, but it no longer requires the

calculation of behaviour at both sections A and B. Recall that the old method took the
difference between the longitudinal stresses at sections A and B and divided by the
distance between them, in the process of calculating the shear stress. This step is
replaced by calculating the derivative of longitudinal stress with respect to longitudinal
strain at each point in the depth of the cross section.
The use of derivatives mean that the solution for only one location need be
obtained rather than the two needed for the earlier method. As there is only one section,
the axial forces and shears are guaranteed to match on each “side” of the analysis. Also,
there is only one depth of cracking to consider. Implementing this method has allowed
Response-2000 to run 5-15 times faster than it did using the older dual section analysis
style techniques, largely from a reduction in amount of iteration. Much of this iteration
was, in fact, partially induced by the dynamic layering routines that made it more stable
in solving to individual load levels. Program SMAL, which does not use the dynamic
layering is comparable in wall-clock speed to the new Response-2000 when it is able to
obtain a solution. As a result of the dynamic layering, however, Response-2000
calculates much more data for each load level. A typical SMAL analysis may have 20
layers in it, whereas a Response-2000 analysis may have 50 layers. The method
presented here scales directly to 3D as implemented in Shell-2000.
6-5 Details of the Method

What follows is a description of the method in two dimensions. The 3D method
is not presented, as it is a direct extension and would be redundant.
83
The analysis begins with a load-deformation state for the cross section. An initial
assumption of a shear-strain profile is needed. For a first load step, this initial guess can
be reasonably taken as the simple linear elastic solution derived by Jourawski. For later
load steps, the previous shear strain distribution can be used as the initial estimate.
The load-deformation state throughout the depth of the element will consist of a
series of biaxial MCFT nodes. The first step in calculating the shear stress distribution is
to calculate the tangent stiffness in the X-Y-Gamma directions for each node as explained
in Chapter 3. Each node will result in a 3x3 matrix of stiffness, Ki:
 dN x dN x dN x 
 
 dε x dε y dγ xy 
a b c 
 dN y dN y dN y    (6-2)
  = K i = d e f 
 dε x dε y dγ xy 
g h i 
 dv xy dv xy dv xy 
 
 dε x dε y dγ xy 
Recall the basic assumption with sectional analysis methods that there is to be no
total stress in the transverse direction. As such, it is necessary to modify the stiffness
matrix to account for this before using it in the longitudinal stiffness method.
Specifically, since:
 dε x   dN x 
   
K i  dε y  =  dN y  (6-3)
 dγ   dv 
 xy   xy 
and dNy must equal zero, simple algebraic rearrangement shows that the modified nodal
tangent stiffness matrix can be represented as:
 b⋅d b⋅f 
a − e c−
e  =  j k (6-4)
K 'i = 
h ⋅d h ⋅ f  m n 
g − i− 
 e e 
84
So that
 dε x   dN x 
K 'i  = 
  dv xy 
(6-5)
 dγ xy   
This nodal stiffness now models the stiffness of longitudinal stress and shear
stress to longitudinal strain and shear strains while maintaining no change in stress in the
transverse direction. Note that as the basic tangent stiffness matrix (Ki) is non-
symmetric, the reduced stiffness matrix (Ki’) will also be non-symmetric.
These local nodal stiffness matrices may now be integrated to produce the global
sectional forces tangent stiffness matrix J:
 dN dN dN 
 
 dε x 0 dφ dγ xy0 
 dM dM dM  (6-6)
 dε =J
dφ dγ xy0 
 x0 
 dV dV dV 
 dε dφ dγ xy0 
 x0
So that:
 dε x 0   dN 
   
J dφ  =  dM  (6-7)
 dγ   dV 
 xy 0   
Where dεx0 change in longitudinal strain at the geometric centroid of the gross
concrete area
dφ change in curvature
dγxy0 change in average shear strain for section
dN change in global axial force
dM change in global moment
dV change in global shear force
These nodal stiffness terms are integrated over all the layers in the depth of the
beam. In the programs, this integration is done quadratically as the dynamic layering
routines automatically check for accuracy using that assumption. Using C++ notation
85
where J[0][0] is the top left matrix element, and the notation in Fig. 6-6, the summation
over all layers may be done as follows:
b3
z3
dz Layer i z2 j k
=K' Local Nodal stiffness
z1 m n
b1 i of i'th node
z
Neutral
s i is shear strain shape factor
Axis
Figure 6 - 6: Parameters for global stiffness matrix calculation

Global Axial Force Stiffness
J[0][0] += (j1⋅b1 + 4⋅j2⋅b2 + j3⋅b3) ⋅dz/6
J[0][1] += (j1⋅b1⋅z1 + 4⋅j2⋅b2⋅z2 + j3⋅b3⋅z3) ⋅dz/6 z included for curvature
J[0][2] += (k1⋅b1⋅s1 + 4⋅k2⋅b2⋅s2 + k3⋅b3⋅s3) ⋅dz/6 s included for shear strain
1st order parts of Moment Stiffness

J[1][0] += (j1⋅b1⋅z1 + 4⋅j2⋅b2⋅z2 + j3⋅b3⋅z3) ⋅dz/6 z for moment
J[1][1] += (j1⋅b1⋅z1⋅z1 + 4⋅j2⋅b2⋅z2⋅z2 + j3⋅b3⋅z3⋅z3) ⋅dz/6 z for moment & curvature
J[1][2] += (k1⋅b1⋅z1⋅s1 + 4⋅k2⋅b2⋅z2⋅s2 + k3⋅b3⋅z3⋅s3) ⋅dz/6 z for moment
2nd order parts of moment stiffness

J[1][0] += dz⋅dz/60⋅(b3 - b1)(j1 - 2⋅j2 + j3)
J[1][1] += dz⋅dz/60⋅(b3 - b1)(j1⋅z1 - 2⋅j2⋅z2 + j3⋅z3)
J[1][2] += dz⋅dz/60⋅(b3 - b1)(j1⋅s1 - 2⋅j2⋅s2 + j3⋅s3)
Global Shear Stiffness

J[2][0] += (m1⋅b1 + 4⋅m2⋅b2 + m3⋅b3) ⋅dz/6
J[2][1] += (m1⋅b1⋅z1 + 4⋅m2⋅b2⋅z2 + m3⋅b3⋅z3) ⋅dz/6 z included for curvature
J[2][2] += (n1⋅b1⋅s1 + 4⋅n2⋅b2⋅s2 + n3⋅b3⋅s3) ⋅dz/6 s included for shear strain
Where: b1,b2,b3 are the top middle and bottom widths of the section for the layer
z1,z2,z3 are the depths in the section corresponding to the widths b1,b2,b3
dz is total layer depth = z3-z1
s1,s2,s3 are the multipliers of the average shear strain for the given depth.
Note that the shear strain is defined as an average value (the global
shear strain) as well as with a shape profile that varies over the
86
depth with an average of 1.0. These terms define the shape of the
shear strain profile.
j,k,l,m are the stiffness terms from K’ as defined above for nodes 1,2,3
This global tangent stiffness matrix calculated from the biaxial tangent stiffness of
the nodes serves two purposes. Firstly it can be used to solve for the next load stage for
an analysis. That is, it can be used to solve for the next global strain state estimate to use
to minimise the error in the force state. Secondly, and more importantly for this chapter,
it can be used to calculate the shear stress distribution.
6-6 Calculating shear stress profiles.

With a load-deformation state at a given “in-situ strain” of εx0, φ, and γxy0, a
tangent stiffness matrix is calculated as described directly above. Unlike the case of
solving for global forces, however, the individual stiffness terms over the depth are
retained. This can represent a significant amount of storage as, for example, Shell-2000
can require up to 1750 independent stiffness terms from the nodal matrices.
Using the global stiffness matrix, the following matrix calculation is performed to
solve for a tangent “virtual strain”.
 dε x   0 
   
J  dφ  =  V  (6-8)
 dγ   0 
 xy   
If this virtual strain is added to the in-situ strain in the beam, a new force state is
predicted that would have the same axial load, the same shear, but a moment that differs
by exactly V·1 metre. This virtual strain profile, when multiplied by the longitudinal
stiffness terms over the depth, will produce the equivalent of the shaded area on Fig. 6-2.
This then directly leads to the shear stress as before. By selecting a moment increment of
V·1 metre, it is as though the distance between sections A and B has been selected as 1
metre. In fact, due to the use of derivatives for the stiffness, it is effectively zero metres.
87
The next step is to calculate through the depth of the beam the equivalent of the
shaded area in Fig. 6-2. Whereas previously it was necessary to calculate the difference
of the longitudinal stress at section A and section B of the free body in Fig. 6-1, this value
is now directly calculated as the virtual strain times the appropriate stiffness. The value
calculated by this multiplication is the rate of change of shear flow with respect to depth
in the beam. At any given depth, the rate of change of shear flow with respect to depth
would be calculated as:
∆q = j ⋅ (dεx + z⋅dφ) + k ⋅ dγxy (6-9)
Where ∆q is the slope of the shear flow diagram with respect to depth
j and k are the top two terms from the K’ matrix at depth z
z is the depth at this location
dεx, dφ, and dγxy are the global virtual strains from above
This change in shear flow is then integrated over the depth of the section and
divided by the local element widths to find the shear stress profile. Note that the tangent
stiffness of the longitudinal steel must also be included using the same virtual strain
concept with the tangent stiffness of the steel.
When implemented properly, the only way that this method can fail to find a
solution is if the determinant of the J matrix is zero. If it is zero because there is no
stiffness against moment, then no solution can be found. It has been found that this is
very rare, but can happen in the case of beams subjected to high shear with full-depth
cracking and all longitudinal and transverse steel yielding.
88
Chapter 7: How the programs work
The previous chapters have provided background into the analytical methods used
in the programs. This chapter provides details of how the programs work internally so
that others may implement similar programs.
7-1 Membrane-2000/ Triax-2000

Membrane-2000 is closely related to Triax-2000 in that Membrane-2000
considers a single biaxial stress-strain node, and Triax-2000 considers a single triaxial
stress-strain node of reinforced concrete. Both programs work in a similar manner
internally.
Both programs are based exclusively on the secant stiffness method in two and
three dimensions as explained in Chapter 3. For full load-deformation analyses, a
variable is automatically selected as being the most critical, usually a shear strain, and
then that value is incremented in small steps. The other strains are then iteratively
determined with the secant stiffness matrix until the load ratios match the desired values.
It has been found that the secant stiffness method is surprisingly stable and can solve for
most solutions quite efficiently. For single load solutions, the same technique is used, but
the load vector is fully defined with the full strain state then determined iteratively.
7-2 Response-2000/Shell-2000
Most of this discussion is written directly towards Response-2000. Shell-2000 is
directly analogous in internal structure. Response-2000 is based on a series of biaxial
nodes integrated along a line through the cross section. The global strain state is made up
of the longitudinal strain at the centroid of the gross concrete cross section (εx0), the
curvature (φ), and the average shear strain (γxy0). As the shear stress profile, and hence
shear strain, varies over the depth of the cross section, a numerical profile is used that
modifies the average strain (γxy0) to produce the desired shape of shear strain through the
89
depth. This profile has an average value of 1.0 and is zero at the top and bottom of the
cross sections. For uncracked concrete on rectangular sections, the profile is a parabola
with a maximum value of 1.5.
Each biaxial node in Response-2000 is defined by the longitudinal strain εx (from

εx0 and φ and depth) and the shear strain (from γxy0 and the shear strain profile). The third
strain required for biaxial stress-strain state, say the transverse strain, must be calculated
from equilibrium based on the assumption that there is no total transverse clamping
stress.
To solve for any arbitrary load stage or an interaction diagram requires a fair
amount of nested iteration. Figure 7-1 shows the general steps in the iteration procedures
used in Response-2000.
Estimate shear strain profile
Idle_Dual
solves for shear strain profile
Solve_Beam
solves for global strain state
TANGENT
get_forces
Calculates M,N,V using
BINARY TREE
Membrane-2000
solves for transverse equilibrium
SECANT
Calculate_shear_profile
solves for new shear strain profile
SECANT
Figure 7 - 1: Response-2000 loops
90
Response-2000 has 4 major nested loops. Note that the one furthest in is
effectively the same as Membrane-2000. This inner loop calculates the transverse strain
needed to ensure that there is no overall transverse stress on the nodes consistent with the
basic assumption of the sectional model.
The loop outside that, the get_forces loop, calculates the sectional forces (N, M,
V) on a cross section for a given global strain state. This is iterative as the cross section
is automatically divided up (“dynamic layering”) in a binary tree fashion similar to
Reference 38 to ensure that the stress levels are interpolated well throughout the height of
the beam.
The loop outside that layer, the solve_beam loop, calculates the global strain state
needed to achieve the desired global load ratios (N, M, V).
The final outer loop, idle_dual, iterates on the shear strain profile until the
assumed profile matches the one calculated with the longitudinal stiffness method from
Chapter 6.
7-3 Each component in more detail: Response-2000

Each analysis must begin with an estimate of the shear strain profile. Initially, the
linear elastic strain profile from “VQ/Ib” is appropriate, and for later load stages, the
profile from the previous load stage is used. Each analysis must also start with an
estimate of the global strain state, that is, initial values for εx0, φ, and γxy0. Normally, at
the start of an analysis, these are assumed to be zero though in the event of shrinkage or
strain discontinuity, they are taken as a linear fit to those profiles. For later load stages,
the strain state from the previous load level can be used to estimate new global strain
states.
The Idle_Dual function has the “idle” prefix as it is called during idle processing.
This allows the program to support multitasking on co-operative multitasking operating
91
systems. The first step in this function is to create a new load stage. With the initial
strains from above, one variable (generally curvature) is selected to be constant to
implement strain controlled behaviour. A call is made to the solve_beam function to
solve for the other 2 global strains that correspond to the correct moment: shear: axial
force ratios. The shear strain profile is then recalculated based on the longitudinal
stiffness method. If the newly calculated profile is close to the assumed profile, the load
stage is completed. If the new profile is not close enough to the old one, then another
iteration is required. The longitudinal stiffness method calculates a shear stress profile,
which is converted to a strain profile using a secant stiffness method for non-zero initial
stress levels and tangent method for zero initial shear stress levels.
The solve_beam function solves for the global sectional strain state that causes the
desired load ratios. It first calls for the global tangent stiffness matrix as explained in
chapter 6, and then uses that to iteratively reduce the error in the sectional forces with a
tangent technique. The get_forces function is the most important function called as it
updates the current sectional force state from a given sectional strain state.
The get_forces function will calculate the overall forces on a section based on the
given global strain state. For each node, a longitudinal strain is known as well as is the
shear strain. The transverse strain is calculated for each node to ensure that the node is in
equilibrium in the transverse direction. This is performed with the secant stiffness
method from Membrane-2000. The get_forces function first assumes that 8 layers
throughout the thickness are sufficient and these are calculated. The stresses are then
calculated at the quarter points of each layer and compared to the quadratic interpolation
from the existing nodes of the layer. If the quadratic interpolation matches the check
point, then the analysis will accept that layer. If the interpolation is poor, then the layer is
automatically divided in two.
These series of nested loops may sound intimidating, but in fact they mesh
together well and produce a fast solution for the problems.
92
7-4 Long Term Equations
Response-2000 includes a routine to allow automatic consideration of the effects
of shrinkage, creep and relaxation. These procedures are based on the AASHTO-9439
provisions and similar to the methods in Collins & Mitchell5. The reason to explicitly
include them is that the usually suggested method of dealing with creep, increasing the
strain at which concrete cylinders reach peak stress, can cause problems in an analysis for
shear. Using the method built into Response-2000 will avoid these problems.
Shrinkage is calculated in Response-2000 with the following equation

Shrink= -0.00051 ks kh (t/(t+35)) (7-1)
Where: t is time in days the concrete has been exposed to drying

kh is factor to account for humidity. Response-2000 assumes kh=1.0
ks is a factor for geometry:
t
k s = 26e
14.2⋅VOS
+ t ⋅ (1064 − 3700 ⋅ VOS) (7-2)
t 923
t + 45
Where: VOS is volume to surface area ratio in metres
Creep is estimated from the traditional creep factor as follows:

( t − 7) 0.6 (7-3)
Φ = k c k f 0.80
10 + ( t − 7) 0.6
62
kf =
42 + f c '
t
− 21.3⋅VOS
k c = 3.5 26e
14.2⋅VOS
+ t ⋅ (1.80 − 1.77 ⋅ e ) (7-4)
t 2.587
t + 45
The strand relaxation factor is estimated by the following equation.
R-fact = 1-log(24 t ) / 40 (fpi/fpy-0.55) (7-5)
A single load analysis is carried out by Response-2000, first ignoring all these
parameters, and at a load equal to the long-term moment value entered by the user.
93
While shear is ignored to speed the calculation, axial load is considered. This analysis
will result in a short-term longitudinal strain profile.
A new analysis is then calculated with the shrinkage applied, the prestressing
strands relaxed, and the concrete having a strain at peak stress modified by the creep
factor above. This will produce a second longitudinal strain profile corresponding to the
long term behaviour of the beam at the sustained moment.
The difference between these two strain profiles is calculated and added to the
user defined shrinkage profile. This will then implicitly include creep and shrinkage in
the calculations. An analysis performed after this will represent short-term loading (i.e.
in a manner of hours to days) on a structure that has been loaded for a long term (i.e.
many years).
Note that the increase in concrete strength that long term hydration will cause is
ignored as this is too dependent on individual mix properties.
7-5 Automatic Crack Spacing

It is suggested that crack spacings always be automatically calculated. Specific
values may be selected, but these will be prone to errors and potentially miss important
effects in the shear response of concrete, such as the size effect.
The crack spacing is based on the CEB suggested crack spacing relationship5:
Crack spacing = 2 c + 0.1 db/ρ (7−6)
where c is the diagonal distance to the nearest reinforcement in the section

db is the diameter of the nearest bar
ρ is the percentage of steel
This model is treated slightly different by the different programs.
94
For Membrane-2000 and Triax-2000, the distance c is taken as the largest
diagonal distance between a bar and any point in the concrete. Note that this does not
attempt to model the average crack spacing, but the largest, and therefore most critical
crack spacing.
Response-2000 and Shell-2000 calculate crack spacing over the depth of the
section, as it will change over the depth. For these calculations, the term c is taken as the
largest diagonal distance from the current depth to a reinforcing bar. The ρ term is taken
as the percentage of steel within a concrete area 7.5 db above and below the bar. When
between different layers of reinforcement, the 0.1db/ρ term is linearly interpolated
between the calculated values at the bars. If a section is subjected to bending, the crack
spacing is not allowed to exceed the section depth.
For cases with no reinforcement, the crack spacing is selected as five times the
depth of the section.
7-6 Hoop Reinforcement

Special treatment is given to transverse reinforcement that is in the form of hoops.
Figure 7-2 shows a column with hoops. It is assumed that there are no strains
perpendicular to the direction of shear loading. This means that the part of the hoop that
is pointing that way will not experience any straining due to the shear. Confinement
would induce strain at this location, but this is not currently implemented in Response-
2000.
To account for this, the hoop strains εh are calculated from the transverse strains εt
based on a Mohr’s circle:
εh = εt sin2 (α) (7-7)
95
Direction of assumed Shear Direction
zero strain
Shear Direction
Column
alpha
hoop
Cross Section
Figure 7 - 2: Treatment of hoops in Response-2000
Additionally, only the component of the force in the hoop in the transverse
direction may influence the shear response, that is, the hoop force must be multiplied by
the sine of angle alpha.
7-7 Member Response Analysis

Response-2000 can calculate a load-deflection curve for a prismatic beam
subjected to point loads or a uniform loading as shown in Chapter 2. As Response-2000
is a sectional analysis program, it is necessary to calculate the stress and strain state for a
series of individual cross sections to allow this. To be as general as possible, Response-
2000 calculates the full moment-shear interaction diagram in order to calculate beam
deflections.
Response-2000 divides up the beam into 20 short segments. For each segment,
the axial load, moment, and shear force are determined from the applied loads. The
curvature and shear strain associated with this load level is then interpolated from the
interaction diagram. This is integrated with the moment-area method to calculate the load
deflection relationship for the beam segment.
96
Shown in Fig. 7-3 is a Moment-Shear interaction diagram of a beam without
stirrups. The horizontal axis represents
moment and the vertical axis represents shear.
The outer line enclosing all the points
represents the failure envelope. Any force
combination that touches this line will result in
failure of the cross section. At the far right
hand side, the failure will be in positive
flexure, at the left it will be in negative
flexure, and the sloping top represents shear
Figure 7 - 3: Moment-shear failures.
interaction diagram
Each of the squares within the
interaction diagram represents a solved combination of moment, shear and axial load.
This means that the curvature, shear strain and longitudinal strain can be interpolated
throughout the interaction diagram using the values at the squares. The interpolation is
performed with finite element shape functions.
If a line representing the shear and moment along the length of the beam is traced
on the interaction diagram, as shown, the curvature and shear strain can be calculated for
each point along the line and integrated together to predict the member load-deflection
curve.
A difficulty arises when using this method with shear, however. It is known that
due to diagonal cracks requiring horizontal projection, amongst other reasons, that it is
not appropriate to do an analysis with the full shear and moment directly below the point
load or over the support. It is generally assumed, however, that it is appropriate to do
analyses with full shear a distance d or dv away from the point loads or supports. To
model this, the following rule was defined as shown in Figure 7-4 to define what parts of
the sectional loading is “active” for the deflection analysis.
97
It is proposed that within a distance of d from a point load and d from a support,
there are other support mechanisms that mean the entire load is not supported in a
sectional mode. These other modes include direct strut action from the load as well as
clamping from the load itself and from the support. Recall that Response-2000 assumes
that there is no overall stress in the transverse direction. Clearly that is not true directly
under the load nor directly over the support.
Based on this assumption of other mechanisms supporting the shear, the active
shear force diagram has been “clipped” over a distance d as shown in Fig 7-4.
A C Beam Loading A C
B B
Total Shear Force
Total Bending Moment
d d
A B A B
Active Shear Force
Active Bending Moment
Figure 7 - 4: Active shear zones for deflection calculation
Note that this is only safe if the “other mechanisms of support” are indeed able to
resist the load. For simple beams with point loads or uniform loads, this is a good
assumption. It is consistent with the method used to calculate the experimental
verification for Response-2000 in Chapter 10, for example. In the event, however, the
load is supported in a peculiar way, say with the beam hanging from the top flange rather
than sitting on a supports, this may not be a safe assumption.
98
Referring to Fig. 7-4, Response-2000 does the analysis for half of the beam, from
A to B. For both the point load and the uniform loading, the familiar shear diagrams are
trimmed for a distance d from the ends.
In the event that it is desired not to trim the active shear diagrams, Response-2000
can be told to do so. Selecting the left side support (location A) as a “hanging support”
results in the piece not being clipped from the diagram on the left. If the right side
support (location B) is changed to be a “hanging load”, the right side will not be clipped.
In the event that the regions where the shear is clipped interfere with each other,
that is, that the beam is less than 2 d long, Response-2000 assumes that the sectional
force demand is equal to the lower region that is still shaded. As this region does not
reach up to the top of the shear diagram, it is predicted that beams shorter than 2 d will
have increasing strengths. This is shown in an example in Chapter 10.
7-8 Column Ends

For analyses of columns, an additional effect is supported, that of yield
penetration into the loading block at the bottom of the column. This can increase the
measured deflection of a column and be important in cases such as evaluation of seismic
performance by means of a push-over analysis.
To directly support yield penetration, Response-2000 allows selection of a

column end for the specimen being analysed with the additional calculation of this yield
penetration. It is included by superimposing an additional curvature for a length near the
end of the beam or column. The length of this flexural element, Dφ, is calculated as:
Dφ = 0.022·σm·db (7-8)
Where: 0.022 is user adjustable

σm =maximum steel stress in cross section
db = bar size associated with that maximum stress case
99
The additional curvature for this extra element is calculated as follows:
φ = ε/dist (7-9)
Where: ε = strain in highest loaded bar

dist = distance from highest stressed bar to compression face of
column.
100
Chapter 8: Experimental Verification of Membrane-2000
Membrane-2000 is a program for the analysis of reinforced concrete membranes
subjected to in-plane shear forces and axial loads. As the Modified Compression Field
Theory (MCFT) is based directly on experiments such as these, demonstrating that the
program predicts experiments well will also demonstrate that the MCFT works. Given
that all four programs in this thesis are based on the MCFT, this is a useful thing to note.
8-1 Tests Compared to 1987 MCFT

The MCFT was fully defined in its current form in 1987. The experiments
selected to corroborate both the MCFT and the program Membrane-2000 will all be tests
performed after 1987. As such, they will be as close to “predictions” as one can get in
that the theory used to make the calculations is older than the tests themselves. The tests
will be selected from tests performed at the University of Houston over the past 10 years.
For comparison, the two theories from the University of Houston empirically derived
from these tests will also be shown.
In the comparison graphs, the thick solid line represents the MCFT, the thin solid
line represents the Rotating Angle-Softened Truss model17, and the thin dashed line
represents the Fixed angle-Softened Truss Model18. If only one thin line is visible, then
the fixed and rotating angle models predict the same result. All calculations were
performed with Membrane-2000.
Membrane-2000 was set in the 1987 base-MCFT mode as shown in Fig. 3-1 in
Chapter 3. This means that the parabolic stress-strain curve was used for concrete along
with the base MCFT tension stiffening equation.
For each graph, the horizontal axis is shear strain in parts per thousand, and the
vertical axis is shear stress in MPa.
101
8-1-1 Tests of Pang and Hsu30
These tests involved normal strength concrete subjected to pure shear. The A-
series contained equal reinforcing levels in X and Y directions and the B series contained
different levels in X and Y. Specimen A1 is not included due to an edge failure.
6
9
8
5
7
4 6
A2 5
3 A3
ρx =1.19
4 ρ x=1.79
ρy =1.19
2 3 ρy =1.79
fc '=41.3 MPa
2
fc'=41.6 MPa
1 1995
1995
1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15
14 4.5
4
12
3.5
10 3
8 2.5
A4 2
B1
6
ρx =2.98 ρx =1.19
1.5
ρy =0.60
4 ρy =2.98
1 fc '=45.2 MPa
fc '=42.5 MPa
2 0.5 1995
1995
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 2 4 6 8 10
8 12
11
7
10
6 9
8
5
7
6 B6
4 B2
5 ρx =2.98
3 ρx =1.79
4
ρ y =1.20 ρ y =1.79
2 3
fc '=44.1 MPa fc '=42.8 MPa
2
1 1995 1995
1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 8-1 (a to f): Comparison of predictions of shear panels

X-Axis: Shear strain (x 10-3) Y-Axis: Shear stress (MPa)
Thick line: MCFT-1987 predictions
Thin solid line: RA-STM 1998 predictions, thin dashed line: FA-STM 1997
102
6
5
5
4
4
3
3 B3
B4
2
ρx =1.79
ρx =2.99
2 ρy =0.60
ρy =0.60
fc '=44.9 MPa
fc'=44.8 MPa 1
1 1995
1995
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20
9
8
7
6
5
B5
4
ρx=2.98
3
ρy =1.20
2 fc'=42.8 MPa
1 1995
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 8-1 (continued, g-i) Comparison of predictions of shear panels

103
8-1-2 Tests of Zhang and Hsu31
These tests were similar to the tests above but used 100 MPa concrete.
4 7
3 5
4
2 VA1
VA0
3 ρx =1.19
ρx =0.60
ρ y =1.19
ρy =0.60 2
1 fc '=95.1 MPa
fc '=98.8 MPa
1 1998
1998
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50
12 18
16
10
14
8 12
10
6 VA2 VA3
8
ρx =2.39 ρx =3.59
4 6
ρy =2.39 ρy =3.59
4 fc '=94.6 MPa
2 fc '=98.2 MPa
1997 2 1998
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 2 4 6 8 10
25 9
8
20 7
6
15
5
VA4 VB1
4
10 ρx =5.24 ρx =2.39
3 ρy =1.20
ρy =5.24
5 fc'=103.1MPa 2 fc'=98.2 MPa
1998 1 1998
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 10 20 30 40

104
11
10 12
9
10
8
7 8
6
5 VB2 6 VB3
4 ρx=3.59 ρx=5.98
4
3 ρy =1.20 ρy =1.20
2 fc'=97.6 MPa 2 fc'=102.3 MPa
1 1998 1998
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20
3 VB4
ρx =1.79
2 ρ y =0.60
fc '=96.9 MPa
1 1998
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 8-2 (continued h to i): Comparison of predictions of shear panels

Note the tendency for the very high strength concrete elements to be slightly over-
predicted by the MCFT. This is due to the compression softening relationship and is the
source of the suggestion to use the Porasz20 relationship for high strength concrete as
listed in Chapter 5.
In general, all three methods do a good job in predicting the behaviour of

reinforced concrete subjected to in-plane shear. It is, perhaps, surprising that the two
Houston models do not do better, given that they were derived based on this data set. It is
satisfying that the MCFT does a good job predicting behaviour of experiments conducted
at another University, tested by different researchers on a different testing frame.
105
8-2 Tests Compared to Proposed Constitutive Models
Membrane-2000 operates by default using the constitutive relations suggested in
Chapter 5. The following plots compare how the same elements as above compare to the
constitutive relation changes proposed in Chapter 5. By comparing the graphs for the
1987 MCFT to the new changes, it can be seen that the changes to the predictions are
small for membrane elements. The only real differences are that the new predictions
have a better fit to the tension stiffening part of the curve and a better estimate of post-
peak ductility for the high strength concrete specimens.
8-2-1 Tests of Pang and Hsu30

6 9
8
5
7
4 6
5
3 A2
4
A3
ρx =1.19
ρx =1.79
2 ρy =1.19 3
ρ y =1.79
fc '=41.3 MPa 2
1 fc '=41.6 MPa
1995
1 1995
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15
14 4.5
4
12
3.5
10
3
8 2.5
A4 2
B1
6 ρ x =2.98 ρ x=1.19
1.5
4 ρ y =2.98 ρ y =0.60
1
fc '=42.5 MPa fc'=45.2 MPa
2 1995 0.5 1995
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 8-3 (a to d): Comparison of predictions of shear panels

106
8 5
7
4
6
5
3
4 B2 B3
ρx =1.79 2
ρ x=1.79
3
ρy =1.20 ρy =0.60
2
fc '=44.1 MPa fc'=44.9 MPa
1
1 1995 1995
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
6 9
8
5
7
4 6
5
3
B4 B5
4
ρx =2.99 ρ x=2.98
2 3
ρ y =0.60 ρy =1.20
fc '=44.8 MPa 2 fc'=42.8 MPa
1
1995 1 1995
0 0
0 5 10 15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
12
11
10
9
8
7
6 B6
5 ρ x=2.98
4
ρy =1.79
3
fc '=42.8 MPa
2
1995
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 8-3 (e to i): Comparison of predictions of shear panels

107
8-2-2 Tests of Zhang and Hsu31
4 7
6
3
5
4
2 VA0 VA1
3 ρx =1.19
ρx =0.60
ρy =0.60 ρy =1.19
2
1 fc '=95.1 MPa
fc'=98.8 MPa
1998 1 1998
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50
12 18
16
10
14
8 12
10
6 VA2 VA3
8
ρx =2.39 ρx =3.59
4 6
ρy =2.39 ρy =3.59
fc '=98.2 MPa 4 fc '=94.6 MPa
2
1997 2 1998
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20 25
25 9
8
20 7
6
15
5
VA4 VB1
4
10 ρx =5.24 ρx =2.39
3 ρy =1.20
ρy =5.24
5 2 fc '=98.2 MPa
fc '=103.1MPa
1 1998
1998
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40

108
11 12
10
9 10
8
7 8
6
5 VB2 6 VB3
4 ρx =3.59 ρx =5.98
4
3 ρy =1.20 ρy =1.20
2 fc '=97.6 MPa 2 fc '=102.3 MPa
1 1998 1998
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20
3 VB4
ρx =1.79
2 ρy =0.60
fc '=96.9 MPa
1 1998
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 8-4 (g to i): Comparison of predictions of shear panels

109
Chapter 9: Experimental Program
9-1 General
As the work for this thesis was commencing, a number of shear tests on large
lightly reinforced concrete beams were being performed. They were suggesting that the
use of very high strength concrete (>90 MPa) was not attaining the expected strength
increase over normal strength concrete, but instead, was providing a strength decrease 54,
40
. The crack faces were observed to be relatively smooth with cracks going straight
through aggregate rather than around the aggregate as with weaker concretes. This
apparent reduction in aggregate interlock called into question some of the assumptions
that had been made regularly in the analysis of high strength concrete. A small test
program using the shell element tester was developed for this thesis to answer some of
these questions. Another series of tests were also commenced to attempt to find what
range of concrete strengths had this effect40.
The Modified Compression Field Theory assumes that the majority of the tensile
straining in the concrete will effectively happen at a series of parallel cracks at an angle
theta. Compression is transferred parallel to this in the uncracked concrete between the
cracks. In elements reinforced with different amounts of reinforcement in the X and Y
directions, the angle of cracks is found to rotate during the test as the weaker direction of
steel strains at a different rate than the strong direction. This means that the concrete
strut carrying the compression parallel to the current crack direction may in fact have
cracks in it from previous loading. These earlier cracks would be at an angle to the
compression and would be subjected to shear stresses on the crack face that would be
resisted by aggregate interlock. Traditionally it was assumed that these earlier cracks
would be relatively small, and thus able to resist the applied compression. The question
was whether very high strength concrete specimens were able to achieve enough
resistance to carry sufficient compression. Earlier tests by Bhide28 on lightweight
concrete, which also tends to crack through the aggregate, found that the assumptions
about aggregate interlock were reasonable, but those tests had only about 1-2 MPa of
110
compression. Higher levels of compression would presumably be more critical and
potentially shed light on the unexpected beam test results.
To answer this question, two full-scale shell elements were designed and
constructed. Both were geometrically identical, but the first used normal strength (34
MPa) concrete, and the second used very high strength (110 MPa) concrete. Differences
between the behaviour of these two elements would provide information about the effects
of using very high strength concrete.
The goal was to make the elements as sensitive as possible to the effects that were
causing concern. As a result, the element thickness was large and contained
reinforcement with relatively poor crack control characteristics. Previous shell elements
had a cover of 10 mm, while these elements had 70 mm clear cover. The in-plane
spacing of the bars was kept at a reasonable spacing to ensure that the elements would act
in a uniform way across the test region. The reinforcement levels were selected as
1.758% in the strong direction and 0.400% in the weak direction. This level of
reinforcement was selected to ensure that if the element achieved biaxial yield of both
directions of reinforcement, as expected, it would be subjected to significant
compression. Loading was applied in tension horizontally with the strong direction of
reinforcement angled at 32 degrees to this direction. This combination was selected to
achieve the brittle loading in the test region of biaxial tension and shear. The loading and
the reinforcement direction were predicted to induce large rotation of crack angles during
the test, yet still maintain large principal compression. The normal strength element was
tested at an age of four months, but the high strength concrete specimen was tested at an
age of almost three years. This delayed testing had the desirable result of maximising
any shrinkage and drying effects.
Overall, these two elements were unusual in that they were amongst the largest
elements tested in the shell element tester, with the highest strength, largest cover, largest
age, and were the first elements tested with reinforcement at this angle.
111
The details of the specimen geometry are shown in Table 9-1. Table 9-2 shows
the material properties. Figure 9-2 shows the stress-strain characteristics of the
reinforcement. Figure 9-3 shows the reinforcing grid on the North side of the element,
looking north (i.e. looking through the element). Table 9-3 defines the instrumentation
and loading of the element. Appendix B contains detailed Zurich surface strains and
photographs of the elements.
9-2 Testing Apparatus

The tests were performed in the University of Toronto shell element tester22. This
facility, completed in 1984, has seen over 100 tests of large reinforced concrete
specimens tested in in-plane shear, out-of-plane shear, punching shear, and flexure
amongst others. Figure 9-1 shows the Shell Element tester with a square concrete
specimen in the middle.
7255 4125
1300 1510 1614 1510 1300 900 900 1695
1300 611
333
913
313
1515
4635
7568
313
913
342
1300
1176 1217 1848 1217 1176

307 307 1530 1530
333
FRONT ELEVATION
Figure 9 - 1:The University of Toronto Shell Element Tester
112
Table 9-1 Specimen Geometry
Geometry: Square shell element 1626x1626 mm.

Thickness: 398 mm
Clear concrete cover: 65 mm at connector blocks
70-80 mm at centre of specimen (due to tying of bars)
Reinforcement skewed 32.2 degrees from the horizontal. X direction closer to

Horizontal, Y direction closer to vertical
X-Direction steel
No. 20M @ 86 mm both sides 1.758 %
Y-Direction steel
No. 10M @ 126 mm both sides 0.400 %
Z-Direction steel
4 - 6 mm φ bars for instrumentation ~0.00 %
10M bars placed on outer side of specimen both sides for bad crack control
6 mm φ bars hooked around 20M bars for good bond
Table 9-2 Material Properties

Concrete HS1: cast: May 19, 1996 tested: Sept 12-13, 1996
f c’ 34.2 MPa (116 days) εc’ 2.00 mm/m
Concrete HS2: cast: July 5, 1996 tested June 23-24, 1999

f c’ 110 MPa (>1000 days) εc’ mm/m
Steel See Figure 9-2 below
20M: This steel had a well-defined yield plateau up to a strain of 7.5 mm/m
fy 473 MPa E 196,000 MPa
fu 667 MPa
10M: This steel has a roughly bi-linear behaviour

fy 458 MPa ( @ 0.2 % offset )
E 198,000 MPa Epost 5,500 MPa (ε<40 mm/m)
fu 692 MPa εu 200 mm/m
6 mm φ bars: Ignored for analysis purposes as it could add only the equivalent of
0.02 MPa stress to the concrete section.
113
700
10 M
600
20 M
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Strain (m/m)
Figure 9 - 2: Stress-strain properties of reinforcement
BAR LIST
No. 20M
LENGTH (mm) NUMBER
1750 12
1620 4
1375 4
1240 4
1010 4
850 4
660 4
460 4
275 4
110 4
BAR LIST
No. 10M
LENGTH (mm) NUMBER
1750 8
1610 4
1305 4
965 4
650 4
305 4
Figure 9 - 3: North layer of reinforcement
114
Table 9-3 Instrumentation and Loading
Instrumentation: 24 strain gauges: 4 on 20M bars each side
4 on 10M bars each side
8 on 6 mm φ bars total
12 LVDT's 2 vertical, 2 horizontal and 2 diagonal, each side
Zurich Targets 300 x 300 mm grid each side
Hydraulic Pressure 2 lines on input pressure, and return pressure
Loading:
Specimen was connected to loading yokes on all 4 sides, though top and bottom yokes
not connected to jacks. 6 Rigid Links used, 3 in-plane (2 at bottom, 1 at East side), and 3 out of
plane (2 at top, 1 bottom centre). Loading in axial tension in horizontal direction.
RL5
Loading Yoke
Specimen
Jack
RL3
32.2°
RL1 RL6 RL2
Shear X Fx = 0.716 Fh
32.2° Fy = 0.284 Fh
x2 Axial
0 F v = 0.450 F
h h
Mohr’s circle of (constant) loading ratios
115
9-3 General Observations: HS1
The two elements acted very similarly. Each set of new cracks that formed was at
an angle different than the previous set of cracks. Figure 9-4 shows HS1 at an early
phase in loading as well as at the last load stage when concrete was spalling off the
surface. Initial cracking in the top photo is seen as about vertical in response to the
horizontally applied load. Later cracks formed at an increasingly rotated angle, with the
failure cracks forming 25-35 degrees away from vertical. The cracks rotated towards the
strong direction of reinforcement. Final crack widths were 5-15 mm with substantial slip
along their lengths although this was not measured with this element. Looking closely,
the original vertical cracks, later re-marked with a dashed line, can be seen on the second
photo. These early cracks do not appear to have controlled the failure of the element.
For this element, the failure was relatively ductile with ultimate failure being
controlled by rupture of a number of the 10M bars and spalling of the cover. Table 9-4
describes individual test observations during the test, and Figure 9-5 shows the horizontal
deflection versus horizontal stress for the element. Table 9-5 summarises the
measurements made during the test.
116
Figure 9 - 4: Element HS1 soon after cracking and just before failure
117
Table 9-4: Observations During Testing of HS1
Loading: Initially loaded up to 1 MPa tension, unloaded and then reloaded to "work out"
initial strains
Load Stage 1: 1 Crack on South side, 0.15 mm wide. No cracks on North side.
Loading: 2 audible sounds as specimen cracks over height, take a load stage
Load Stage 2: 3 cracks on N side, 3 cracks on S side.
Mark cracks in Black, miss one on Bottom South East corner.
Loading: Another audible crack, with large deflection. Take load stage immediately
Load Stage 3: Mark new cracks in black. Re-mark original cracks with red dotted line.
Many new cracks at a rotated angle. Large region uncracked on east side
Loading: Pause during testing to observe cracks, then continue (LS 3B)
Load Stage 4: Many new cracks, lower angle than before, some in order of 30-35 degrees from
vertical. Stop for the day, take load down to 0.2 MPa
Mark new cracks in green.
Overnight: Load is lost overnight. Upon reloading, there is no sign of trouble

Loading: Smooth increase in load. Reduced stiffness. Noises again, load stage.
LVDT's SD1 and ND1 saturate. Must partly estimate strains from here.
Load Stage 5: Last load stage: Zurich Gauge cannot be used as cracks too big. Mark cracks in
blue, measure large ones with tape measure. Specimen making quiet crackling
sounds. It was creeping extensively ~ 15 mm horizontally during load stage.
Reset LVDT's to allow more measure of deflection. During crack marking, 10M
bar ruptures from top east side of specimen. More load taken off for safety.
Loading: Cannot recover the load, specimen deforms highly at lower load. 3 more bars
rupture. Load removed due to concerns about jack travel
After: Specimen still in one piece.

Surface delaminated over majority of surface
5
LS5: Initial unload
4.5
10 M bars
LS4 rupture
Horizontal Stress (MPa)
4
LS3b
3.5
3 LS5: final unload

LS3
2.5
LS2
2
1.5
LS1
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 5: Loading of HS1
118
Table 9-5 Element Summary: HS1
Reinforcement skew angle of 32.2 degrees Fx = 0.72 Fh
Loading: Horizontal Tension Fy = 0.28 Fh
Vxy = 0.45 Fh
Applied Stress Concrete Surface Strains Average Rebar Strains
Dset Time fh f1 f2 θstress εh εv εx εy γxy ε1 ε2 θstrain Avg 20 Avg 10 Bulging Notes
(#) (h:mm:ss) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (degs) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (deg) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m)
0 0:00:00 -0.02 0.00 -0.02 57.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.8 0.00 0.00 0.08
52 0:06:29 0.42 0.44 -0.03 57.2 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 48.3 0.01 0.00 0.00
60 0:07:36 1.01 1.09 -0.08 58.3 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.01 60.5 0.02 0.00 0.00 Linear Uncracked Response
69 0:08:10 1.42 1.47 -0.12 56.4 0.04 -0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.04 -0.02 56.1 0.03 0.00 -0.01
79 0:09:48 1.69 1.80 -0.14 58.2 0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.03 -0.06 0.05 -0.02 60.0 0.03 0.00 -0.01
88 0:10:33 2.05 2.09 -0.18 56.0 0.08 -0.02 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.07 -0.03 56.5 0.06 0.03 -0.02
89 0:10:37 2.05 1.96 -0.22 53.9 0.16 -0.02 0.09 0.02 0.16 0.14 -0.04 56.5 0.18 0.08 -0.01 1st Crack Load Stage 1
90 0:10:41 1.97 1.86 -0.23 53.6 0.18 -0.01 0.09 0.02 0.18 0.16 -0.04 55.2 0.20 0.08 -0.01
234 1:53:00 2.01 1.88 -0.24 53.4 0.19 -0.02 0.10 0.03 0.20 0.17 -0.05 54.7 0.20 0.10 -0.01 waverage wmax θcrack
239 1:53:27 2.26 2.05 -0.29 52.3 0.27 -0.03 0.13 0.04 0.28 0.24 -0.06 54.4 0.29 0.14 -0.02 (mm) (mm) (deg)
0.15 0.15 90
240 1:53:30 2.21 1.73 -0.41 48.1 0.48 -0.03 0.23 0.10 0.50 0.42 -0.09 52.6 0.60 0.59 -0.01
241 1:53:33 2.22 1.69 -0.43 47.5 0.51 -0.03 0.25 0.11 0.53 0.45 -0.10 52.3 0.62 0.63 -0.01
244 1:53:55 2.33 1.68 -0.51 45.9 0.63 -0.03 0.30 0.14 0.66 0.56 -0.12 51.8 0.72 0.82 0.00
248 1:54:09 2.41 1.51 -0.68 41.8 0.88 0.00 0.41 0.18 0.87 0.74 -0.16 52.2 0.84 1.06 0.01
250 1:54:16 2.43 1.39 -0.80 40.5 1.02 0.02 0.46 0.28 1.02 0.89 -0.15 50.2 0.85 1.11 0.01 Load Stage 2
waverage wmax θcrack
251 1:54:21 2.37 1.32 -0.82 39.8 1.05 0.02 0.47 0.29 1.05 0.91 -0.16 49.9 0.86 1.12 0.01 (mm) (mm) (deg)
275 3:06:47 2.51 1.33 -0.93 40.4 1.14 0.03 0.51 0.41 1.19 1.05 -0.14 47.2 0.91 1.22 0.01 0.25 0.30
276 3:06:54 2.56 1.30 -1.01 41.7 1.17 0.03 0.52 0.56 1.28 1.18 -0.10 44.1 0.93 1.26 0.01
280 3:07:11 2.69 1.22 -1.21 40.1 1.38 0.04 0.60 0.69 1.53 1.41 -0.12 43.5 1.03 1.35 0.02
284 3:07:29 2.79 1.14 -1.41 38.8 1.60 0.05 0.69 0.82 1.78 1.64 -0.14 42.9 1.08 1.45 0.03
288 3:07:51 2.95 1.11 -1.61 38.7 1.79 0.06 0.76 0.99 2.03 1.89 -0.15 41.8 1.14 1.65 0.03
292 3:08:07 3.07 1.02 -1.85 38.2 2.00 0.09 0.84 1.19 2.29 2.17 -0.14 40.6 1.19 1.90 0.03
294 3:08:16 3.09 0.85 -2.14 36.0 2.25 0.13 0.94 1.34 2.54 2.42 -0.14 40.6 1.21 2.08 0.06 Load Stage 3
297 3:08:25 3.03 0.59 -2.63 31.5 2.55 0.21 1.10 1.48 2.77 2.69 -0.10 41.1 1.25 2.30 0.07 10M start to yield
319 5:06:24 2.69 0.37 -2.67 30.2 2.55 0.24 1.07 1.53 2.78 2.71 -0.11 40.3 1.17 2.21 0.08 waverage wmax θcrack
(mm) (mm) (deg)
335 5:10:26 3.16 0.51 -2.92 31.9 2.83 0.28 1.19 1.75 3.10 3.04 -0.11 39.8 1.30 2.50 0.09 0.35 0.70
355 5:11:23 3.32 0.40 -3.33 31.7 3.23 0.38 1.31 2.08 3.53 3.50 -0.12 38.8 1.37 3.14 0.11
360 5:11:37 3.34 0.27 -3.63 31.1 3.48 0.40 1.38 2.29 3.85 3.82 -0.14 38.4 1.38 3.44 0.11
369 5:12:03 3.37 0.25 -3.80 29.7 3.70 0.45 1.45 2.49 4.10 4.08 -0.15 37.9 1.42 4.07 0.12
384 5:12:48 3.43 0.24 -4.00 28.4 3.99 0.53 1.52 2.75 4.43 4.43 -0.16 37.3 1.48 4.68 0.13 Load Stage 3A
403 5:20:54 3.51 0.27 -4.04 28.4 4.16 0.57 1.55 2.91 4.64 4.64 -0.19 36.8 1.49 5.02 0.14
407 5:21:07 3.57 0.27 -4.19 27.5 4.38 0.63 1.61 3.11 4.88 4.91 -0.20 36.5 1.53 5.43 0.15
411 5:21:19 3.61 0.26 -4.33 26.7 4.61 0.71 1.66 3.33 5.12 5.19 -0.20 36.0 1.55 5.59 0.16
419 5:21:42 3.69 0.25 -4.62 25.3 5.07 0.89 1.76 3.80 5.61 5.77 -0.20 35.0 1.60 6.06 0.18
424 5:21:57 3.74 0.24 -4.80 24.5 5.43 1.05 1.83 4.20 6.00 6.24 -0.21 34.2 1.62 5.94 0.19
428 5:22:08 3.82 0.24 -5.01 23.7 5.82 1.22 1.91 4.60 6.40 6.73 -0.22 33.6 1.65 5.32 0.19
436 5:22:32 3.90 0.22 -5.41 22.2 6.69 1.65 2.04 5.47 7.23 7.76 -0.24 32.3 1.73 5.18 0.25
442 5:22:49 3.94 0.20 -5.68 21.2 7.30 1.95 2.14 6.17 7.86 8.57 -0.27 31.4 1.74 5.33 0.28 Load Stage 4
474 7:22:00 3.37 -0.04 -5.70 19.3 7.28 2.07 2.04 6.33 7.83 8.66 -0.28 30.6 1.62 3.47 0.26 waverage wmax θcrack
477 7:22:21 2.98 -0.16 -5.74 17.4 7.15 2.06 2.00 6.26 7.69 8.52 -0.27 30.5 1.57 3.37 0.25 0.60 2.5
479 7:22:27 2.41 -0.25 -5.45 15.0 6.72 2.00 1.83 6.00 7.24 8.09 -0.26 30.0 1.42 3.10 0.24 Unload Overnight
481 7:22:33 1.74 -0.26 -4.79 12.2 6.03 1.90 1.56 5.55 6.49 7.37 -0.25 29.2 1.20 2.72 0.23
483 7:22:38 1.07 -0.24 -4.14 8.4 5.32 1.80 1.29 5.07 5.71 6.60 -0.24 28.3 0.98 2.39 0.21
485 7:22:44 0.71 -0.19 -3.65 6.1 4.84 1.72 1.11 4.73 5.19 6.09 -0.24 27.6 0.86 2.19 0.20
487 7:22:49 0.57 -0.16 -3.44 5.0 4.64 1.69 1.04 4.59 4.97 5.87 -0.24 27.2 0.81 2.10 0.20
494 7:23:47 0.55 -0.12 -3.21 5.1 4.46 1.67 0.98 4.49 4.78 5.70 -0.23 26.9 0.77 2.06 0.18
549 20:51:24 0.69 0.02 -2.40 7.6 4.00 1.61 0.81 4.22 4.28 5.25 -0.22 25.7 0.61 1.89 0.19 Reload Next Day
561 20:52:12 1.25 0.07 -2.58 13.0 4.35 1.69 0.94 4.51 4.66 5.66 -0.21 26.3 0.69 2.17 0.20 Some strain redistribution
571 20:53:00 1.68 0.06 -3.08 15.7 4.85 1.78 1.12 4.88 5.21 6.21 -0.21 27.1 0.83 2.48 0.21
581 20:53:50 2.05 0.04 -3.54 17.5 5.33 1.85 1.29 5.20 5.73 6.71 -0.23 27.9 0.97 2.74 0.22
598 20:55:57 2.46 0.02 -4.12 18.7 5.89 1.93 1.50 5.56 6.35 7.30 -0.24 28.7 1.13 2.95 0.23
611 21:01:22 2.55 0.00 -4.30 18.9 6.07 1.95 1.55 5.67 6.54 7.48 -0.25 28.9 1.20 2.99 0.23
639 23:00:12 2.63 -0.01 -4.44 19.0 6.21 1.97 1.60 5.76 6.69 7.62 -0.26 29.1 1.22 3.00 0.24
649 23:06:18 2.88 0.03 -4.59 20.1 6.40 1.99 1.67 5.89 6.91 7.83 -0.27 29.3 1.30 3.10 0.24
650 23:06:27 2.91 0.03 -4.63 20.2 6.45 2.00 1.69 5.92 6.96 7.87 -0.27 29.3 1.29 3.12 0.24
666 23:24:18 3.14 0.00 -5.01 20.6 6.81 2.05 1.81 6.16 7.36 8.26 -0.29 29.7 1.39 3.26 0.25
678 23:25:28 3.59 0.07 -5.41 21.3 7.35 2.17 1.99 6.55 7.94 8.85 -0.30 30.0 1.56 3.58 0.26
689 23:26:03 3.79 0.11 -5.82 20.3 8.10 2.45 2.15 7.26 8.71 9.75 -0.35 29.8 1.66 4.07 0.29
701 23:26:39 3.93 0.12 -6.18 19.5 8.95 2.87 2.28 8.15 9.56 10.82 -0.39 29.2 1.74 4.64 0.33
710 23:27:06 4.09 0.15 -6.36 19.6 10.44 3.68 2.47 9.84 11.03 12.79 -0.48 28.1 1.86 5.47 0.49
721 23:27:38 4.17 0.17 -6.34 20.1 12.71 4.84 2.75 12.40 13.35 15.81 -0.66 27.1 1.91 6.57 0.60
730 23:28:04 4.31 0.20 -6.30 21.0 15.02 5.95 3.03 14.93 15.77 18.85 -0.90 26.5 1.95 5.77 0.61
737 23:28:24 4.39 0.22 -6.28 21.5 17.31 7.00 3.29 17.38 18.18 21.8 -1.17 26.1 2.04 5.91 0.64
744 23:28:43 4.44 0.21 -6.29 21.9 19.59 8.04 3.54 19.69 20.5 24.7 -1.45 25.9 2.05 5.31 0.67 LVDTs begin to saturate.
752 23:29:06 4.50 0.22 -6.27 22.4 22.2 9.22 3.89 21.6 22.9 27.2 -1.74 26.1 2.05 5.03 0.71
759 23:29:25 4.60 0.24 -6.26 23.0 24.8 10.38 4.21 24.2 25.6 30.4 -2.03 26.0 2.05 4.80 0.75
763 23:29:36 4.63 0.25 -6.25 23.2 26.5 11.09 4.32 25.2 27.0 31.8 -2.32 26.2 2.01 4.50 0.79
769 23:29:53 4.68 0.33 -6.01 24.0 28.4 12.14 4.31 25.5 28.2 32.5 -2.72 26.5 2.03 4.17 0.83 Load Stage 5
770 23:29:56 4.55 0.27 -6.03 23.5 28.6 12.28 4.30 25.5 28.2 32.5 -2.76 26.5 2.00 4.09 0.82 waverage wmax θcrack
800 23:45:51 3.95 -0.30 -6.83 21.5 30.3 12.79 5.56 45.4 38.5 53.2 -2.24 22.0 2.03 4.28 0.60 4 15
832 24:07:03 3.22 -0.35 -7.01 16.1 33.4 13.02 6.04 45.8 41.7 54.7 -2.89 23.2 1.80 3.70 0.78
860 24:10:48 4.07 0.01 -4.81 35.8 17.62 5.64 48.2 40.5 56.3 -2.45 21.8 2.03 3.90 1.16 Strains here partly estimated
873 24:11:24 4.02 -0.33 -6.85 22.3 39.5 19.00 6.34 50.5 43.9 59.5 -2.70 22.4 1.97 3.89 0.77 from final element geometry
874 24:11:27 3.75 -0.44 -7.00 20.9 40.8 19.56 6.41 50.5 44.7 59.9 -2.92 22.7 1.86 3.48 0.78 Bars Rupturing
875 24:11:30 2.59 -0.74 -6.73 16.6 40.1 19.52 6.14 50.3 44.0 59.4 -2.94 22.4 1.54 3.29 0.76 unload specimen
876 24:11:33 1.36 -0.71 -4.50 15.9 38.3 19.31 5.35 49.4 42.2 57.9 -3.11 21.9 1.07 2.90 0.73
877 24:11:36 0.72 -0.53 -2.08 36.2 36.7 19.13 4.60 48.7 40.6 56.6 -3.33 21.3 0.73 2.77 0.70
119
9-4 General Observations: HS2
Element HS2 acted similarly to HS1. Figure 9-6 shows photos of the element
soon after cracking and near failure. Due to the higher strength concrete, the stress at
first cracking was higher. The initial cracks in HS1 were 0.15 mm in width. For HS2, the
initial cracks were 0.35 mm wide. The extent of cracking at failure was similar. Crack
slips were measured for this element and found to be about the same as the width of the
cracks. That is, a 7 mm crack was found to have slipped about 7 mm in the direction of
the crack. Table 9-6 lists observations made during the testing, and Table 9-7
summarises the measurements made during the test.
Table 9-6: Observations During Testing of HS2

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

Load Stage 2 many new wide cracks. Element cracks again during Zurich Readings
Delamination same as load stage 1.
New cracks have some slip, about 0.4 mm slip on a 0.4 mm wide crack
Cracks marked in thin green

Load Stage 3 Some new cracks. Some follow angle of reinforcement
No change in delamination
Unloading: unload element overnight

Pressure slowly lost overnight, but element not damaged
Loading: reload to load level of previous night
Load Stage 4 New Zurich Load stage after restoring load to previous night level
No new cracks, so no photos taken
Loading: 3 new cracks on south face

Load Stage 5 New cracks marked in black
Old green cracks slipping roughly as much as they are wide
Black cracks slipping too.
Delamination mostly around sides, but small location in centre too, S side.
Loading: existing cracks extend
120
Load Stage 6 lots of slip on cracks. Generally 2/3 of crack width.
Black cracks 2.5 mm wide with 2.0 mm slip
Majority of cover now delaminated

Load Stage 7 mark new cracks
Black cracks 7 mm wide with 5 mm slip.
Loading: Element unable to restore load.

Three pauses to reset the LVDT’s to prevent saturation.
Bars begin to rupture. Over 5 ruptured.
Test terminated due to bars rupturing.
After: Specimen still in one piece.

Surface delaminated over majority of surface, though no spalling.
4.5
LS3
4
LS6 LS7
3.5 LS2 LS5
Horizontal Stress (MPa)
LS4 Rupture of many

3
bars
2.5
LS1
2
1.5
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Horizontal Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 6: Loading of HS2
121
Figure 9 - 7: Element HS2 soon after cracking and just before failure
(pictures not available)
122
Table 9-7 Element Summary: HS2
Reinforcement skew angle of 32.2 degrees
Loading: Horizontal Tension Fx = 0.72 Fh
Fy = 0.28 Fh
Vxy = 0.45 Fh
Applied Stress Concrete Surface Strains Average Rebar Strains

Dset Time fh f1 f2 θstress εh εv εx εy γxy ε1 ε2 θstrain Avg 20 Avg 10 Bulging Notes
(#) (h:mm:ss) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (degs) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (deg) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m)
91 0:00:00 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 39.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.0 0.00 0.00 -0.03
105 0:03:26 0.53 0.56 -0.05 58.3 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 83.4 0.01 0.00 -0.03
127 0:05:21 0.96 1.02 -0.08 57.8 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 -0.01 0.02 0.00 68.4 0.01 0.00 -0.04
154 0:08:03 1.51 1.59 -0.13 57.7 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.03 0.00 60.9 0.02 0.01 -0.04
196 0:19:37 2.00 2.13 -0.17 57.9 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 -0.03 0.04 0.00 62.4 0.03 0.01 -0.04
219 0:21:59 2.38 2.52 -0.20 57.8 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.03 -0.05 0.05 -0.01 57.8 0.03 0.01 -0.04
232 0:23:13 2.59 2.67 -0.24 56.7 0.05 -0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.01 48.3 0.03 0.01 -0.04
258 0:28:36 2.83 2.90 -0.27 56.7 0.04 -0.01 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.02 40.4 0.04 0.02 -0.04
268 0:30:27 2.98 3.01 -0.31 56.9 0.08 -0.01 0.05 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.01 32.6 0.04 0.02 -0.03 1st crack
269 0:30:33 2.96 2.98 -0.31 57.0 0.08 -0.01 0.05 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.01 31.7 0.04 0.02 -0.03 Load Stage 1
301 1:41:06 2.63 2.40 -0.42 57.2 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.37 0.32 0.44 0.03 24.8 0.04 0.01 -0.03 waverage wmax θcrack
312 1:41:54 2.88 2.63 -0.46 57.1 0.20 0.01 0.11 0.40 0.35 0.48 0.03 25.2 0.04 0.01 -0.03 (mm) (mm) (deg)
325 1:42:51 3.09 2.44 -0.65 54.1 0.41 0.00 0.24 0.55 0.60 0.74 0.06 31.6 0.05 0.02 -0.03 0.35 0.35 90
340 1:43:56 3.14 2.25 -0.78 51.8 0.57 0.00 0.33 0.62 0.77 0.89 0.07 34.7 0.07 0.02 -0.02
346 1:44:17 3.24 1.49 -1.43 45.3 1.30 0.06 0.65 1.13 1.61 1.73 0.05 36.7 0.74 0.73 0.18
351 1:44:34 3.29 1.22 -1.77 43.0 1.65 0.11 0.78 1.38 2.00 2.12 0.04 36.6 0.94 1.15 0.22 Load Stage 2
398 2:49:46 3.31 0.43 -3.28 31.5 2.78 0.14 1.30 2.01 3.27 3.33 -0.02 38.9 1.58 2.35 0.27
404 2:50:07 3.42 0.33 -3.60 31.3 3.08 0.18 1.39 2.26 3.63 3.70 -0.04 38.2 1.61 2.50 0.36
417 2:50:51 3.61 0.30 -4.15 27.9 3.73 0.34 1.60 2.88 4.37 4.52 -0.04 36.8 1.69 2.84 0.47
425 2:51:19 3.70 0.27 -4.54 25.7 4.25 0.57 1.74 3.40 4.87 5.14 0.00 35.6 1.77 3.15 0.56 Load Stage 3
430 2:51:37 3.55 0.18 -4.67 24.4 4.34 0.62 1.76 3.51 4.96 5.27 0.00 35.3 1.77 4.09 0.58 Element unloaded for the day
461 4:22:55 3.06 -0.03 -4.73 22.0 4.24 0.65 1.71 3.51 4.85 5.20 0.02 34.8 1.64 2.55 0.53
470 4:23:25 2.49 -0.17 -4.54 19.4 3.95 0.63 1.57 3.31 4.52 4.87 0.02 34.5 1.50 2.35 0.49
476 4:23:45 2.00 -0.22 -4.14 17.3 3.56 0.58 1.40 3.04 4.09 4.42 0.01 34.1 1.33 2.09 0.44
482 4:24:06 1.60 -0.24 -3.76 15.3 3.21 0.54 1.24 2.78 3.70 4.01 0.01 33.7 1.18 1.86 0.40 Pressure slowly lost overnight
522 5:43:16 1.10 -0.25 -3.29 12.1 2.76 0.50 1.04 2.46 3.18 3.49 0.01 33.0 1.00 1.57 0.35
556 6:47:02 0.82 -0.26 -3.08 9.6 2.52 0.48 0.94 2.28 2.91 3.21 0.01 32.6 0.90 1.41 0.33
580 7:46:48 0.60 -0.26 -2.95 7.4 2.36 0.46 0.87 2.17 2.72 3.03 0.01 32.3 0.83 1.29 0.31
605 9:11:53 0.39 -0.25 -2.80 5.0 2.19 0.44 0.80 2.04 2.53 2.83 0.01 31.9 0.76 1.18 0.29
633 10:50:23 0.22 -0.25 -2.72 2.9 2.06 0.43 0.75 1.94 2.39 2.68 0.01 31.7 0.71 1.10 0.28
661 12:21:06 0.13 -0.24 -2.68 1.8 2.00 0.41 0.72 1.89 2.32 2.60 0.01 31.6 0.69 1.06 0.27
887 19:47:25 -0.02 -0.23 -2.59 -0.2 1.88 0.40 0.67 1.80 2.18 2.47 0.00 31.3 0.64 0.98 0.26
901 19:48:25 0.48 -0.15 -2.24 7.2 1.91 0.40 0.68 1.83 2.23 2.51 0.00 31.4 0.66 1.00 0.26
919 19:49:37 1.01 -0.05 -2.18 14.5 2.09 0.42 0.75 1.96 2.42 2.71 0.00 31.8 0.74 1.12 0.28
933 19:50:27 1.56 0.01 -2.55 19.5 2.51 0.47 0.93 2.29 2.92 3.22 0.00 32.5 0.91 1.43 0.33
951 19:51:40 1.99 0.03 -3.00 21.6 2.92 0.52 1.10 2.60 3.39 3.70 0.00 33.0 1.07 1.70 0.38
972 19:53:02 2.52 0.07 -3.52 23.5 3.39 0.58 1.30 2.96 3.92 4.26 0.00 33.6 1.26 2.03 0.44
994 19:54:23 3.03 0.11 -4.06 24.7 3.87 0.64 1.51 3.31 4.45 4.81 0.01 34.0 1.46 2.35 0.49
1023 19:56:30 3.48 0.15 -4.65 24.4 4.48 0.77 1.74 3.85 5.12 5.56 0.03 33.8 1.67 2.66 0.58
1041 19:57:37 3.69 0.18 -5.04 23.1 5.19 1.09 1.89 4.65 5.87 6.51 0.03 32.4 1.82 3.01 0.65 Load Stage 4
1086 20:44:41 3.77 0.20 -5.13 23.0 5.66 1.32 1.94 5.25 6.40 7.20 -0.01 31.3 1.85 2.74 0.68 (no photos as no new cracks)
1100 20:45:31 3.90 0.19 -5.54 21.9 7.01 2.23 2.08 7.25 7.78 9.34 -0.01 28.2 1.95 4.87 0.74 Load Stage 5
1165 22:29:21 3.56 0.02 -5.68 20.2 7.29 2.52 2.06 7.93 8.09 9.99 0.00 27.0 1.82 2.29 0.72
1179 22:30:11 3.81 0.10 -5.90 20.2 7.67 2.68 2.17 8.41 8.52 10.57 0.01 26.9 1.93 2.48 0.74
1192 22:30:57 4.04 0.14 -6.26 19.8 8.85 3.47 2.32 10.31 9.79 12.63 -0.01 25.4 2.06 2.69 0.83
1214 22:32:16 4.23 0.12 -6.39 20.9 13.42 6.35 2.99 18.80 15.41 21.94 -0.15 22.1 2.10 6.69 1.01 Load Stage 6
1234 22:33:31 3.93 -0.03 -6.56 19.5 14.05 6.63 3.09 19.95 16.29 23.24 -0.20 22.0 2.07 5.72 1.03
1731 25:02:11 3.67 -0.12 -6.55 18.6 14.06 6.71 3.06 20.01 16.27 23.29 -0.21 21.9 1.93 3.28 0.95
1739 25:02:50 4.04 0.01 -6.50 20.1 14.44 6.84 3.18 20.56 16.76 23.94 -0.21 22.0 2.03 3.60 0.98
1759 25:04:09 4.15 0.03 -6.48 20.8 16.62 7.91 3.57 23.84 19.38 27.72 -0.32 21.9 2.03 4.42 0.97
1773 25:05:07 4.34 0.08 -6.42 22.1 19.17 9.16 4.00 27.59 22.41 32.06 -0.47 21.8 1.97 4.99 1.00
1781 25:05:40 4.42 0.08 -6.42 22.8 21.98 10.39 4.47 31.45 25.78 36.62 -0.70 21.8 1.95 5.47 1.06
1786 25:06:01 4.45 0.06 -6.44 23.1 23.74 11.08 4.79 33.88 27.98 39.52 -0.84 21.9 1.96 6.05 1.08 Load Stage 7
1787 25:06:05 4.40 0.03 -6.47 22.9 24.12 11.23 4.84 34.28 28.39 40.01 -0.89 22.0 1.96 7.08 1.08
1828 25:11:28 3.98 -0.18 -6.67 21.1 25.99 11.91 5.05 36.27 30.57 42.51 -1.19 22.2 1.88 14.29 1.11
1852 25:13:01 4.24 -0.10 -6.61 22.5 28.41 12.79 5.37 39.50 33.67 46.40 -1.54 22.3 1.91 14.40 1.20
1885 26:22:54 3.48 -0.42 -6.77 19.6 28.77 12.90 5.35 40.45 34.42 47.48 -1.68 22.2 1.72 4.25 0.80
1912 26:27:39 3.88 -0.27 -6.78 20.8 29.14 13.05 5.46 41.33 35.03 48.46 -1.68 22.2 1.84 4.65 0.82
1934 26:29:51 3.90 -0.26 -6.80 20.8 29.69 13.07 5.56 41.43 35.61 48.77 -1.78 22.4 1.83 4.57 0.81
1947 26:30:41 4.20 -0.13 -6.63 22.3 32.00 13.50 5.99 44.44 38.93 52.57 -2.15 22.7 1.80 5.17 0.73 load fluctuating as LVDT's
1951 26:30:57 4.20 -0.04 -5.92 25.7 33.69 13.92 5.76 46.07 41.23 54.74 -2.91 22.8 1.72 9.76 0.73 reset
1977 26:33:12 3.61 -0.39 -6.96 19.3 38.51 14.94 6.63 53.13 48.42 63.45 -3.69 23.1 1.64 1.95 0.74
1983 26:33:37 3.66 -0.32 -6.35 22.0 39.85 15.41 6.48 55.87 50.77 66.59 -4.24 22.9 1.49 6.12 0.66
1985 26:33:44 3.45 -0.44 -6.82 19.3 40.36 15.50 6.59 57.02 51.73 67.93 -4.32 22.9 1.47 5.84 0.65
1987 26:33:52 2.71 -0.67 -7.36 14.5 40.29 15.48 6.62 56.97 51.64 67.86 -4.27 22.9 1.38 5.02 0.62
1989 26:34:00 2.19 -0.69 -7.41 11.3 40.08 15.39 6.57 56.62 51.36 67.45 -4.26 22.9 1.24 4.58 0.59
1991 26:34:07 1.76 -0.63 -7.18 9.0 39.85 15.29 6.46 56.20 51.07 66.97 -4.31 22.9 1.14 4.32 0.56
1993 26:34:14 1.20 -0.46 -7.41 5.3 39.47 15.13 6.50 55.45 50.44 66.12 -4.17 22.9 0.94 3.66 0.52
1995 26:34:23 0.55 -0.14 -7.08 2.1 38.84 14.96 6.38 54.32 49.46 64.79 -4.09 22.9 0.66 3.00 0.45
1997 26:34:35 0.06 0.28 -6.43 0.2 38.02 14.89 6.22 53.07 48.09 63.22 -3.93 22.9 0.51 2.80 0.40
123
9-5 Comparison of behaviour and predictions: HS1
The following plots show the behaviour of the element. Figure 9-8 shows the
shear-shear strain plot for the element. Also plotted is the prediction from the MCFT and
the Rotating Angle Softened Truss model. It can be seen in this figure and the three that
follow that the MCFT prediction for this normal strength concrete is good, though it
overestimates the stress levels over a large part of the test. The failure load was well
predicted. The RA-STM prediction is relatively poor in comparison for both strength and
ductility.
2.5
MCFT-1987 Prediction
2
Applied Shear (MPa)
Experiment
1.5
RA-STM 1998 Prediction
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40
Shear Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 8: HS1 Shear stress - shear strain
Figure 9-9 shows the principal stress and strain angle along with the predicted
angle theta from the MCFT. Note that the angle of stress and strain are not equal, though
assumed so by the MCFT. The calculated angle is a reasonable approximation of both,
however.
124
2.5
Predicted Angle (MCFT)
Applied Shear Stress (MPa)
2
Angle of
Principal Strain
1.5
1
Angle of
Principal Stress
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Angle (deg)
Figure 9 - 9: HS1 Angles
Figure 9-10 shows the principal tensile stress-strain relationship observed with the
predicted relationship. The fit is quite good considering that tension measurements are
2.5
2
Experimental Curve
Principal Tensile Stress (MPa)
1.5
Predicted Curve (MCFT)

1
Predicted Initiation of Crack Slip
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.5
Principal Tensile Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 10: HS1 Tension stiffening
125
small differences between large numbers and hence tend to have high scatter. The
measured values do not extend down to zero with higher strain suggesting that some
other mechanism was strengthening the panel, such as kinking of the reinforcement at a
crack. The loop where the curve goes negative was during the overnight unloading of the
panel.
0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
-5
Compressive stress (MPa)
-10
Observed Behaviour Predicted Behaviour
-15
-20
Basic Cylinder -25
-30
-35
Principal compressive strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 11: HS1 Compressive response
Figure 9-11 shows the measured compressive stress-strain relationship and the
predicted values. The results, again, are good. Note that the observed stresses and strains
were dramatically lower than the shown cylinder curve. The concrete failed at a stress of
only 20 % of the cylinder strength. The maximum compressive strain observed was
about twice the strain at peak stress for the cylinder.
126
9-6 Comparison of behaviour and Predictions: HS2
Figure 9-12 shows the shear stress-shear strain plot for the element. Also plotted
is the prediction from the MCFT and the Rotating Angle Softened Truss model. Recall
that this element was made of very high strength concrete and was tested partly to
determine if the MCFT is unconservative for such elements. It is seen that the basic
predictions are indeed unconservative for this element. The strength is substantially
overpredicted, as is the ductility. The prediction here was made with the Porasz/Collins
concrete model, as recommended for very high strength concrete in chapter 5, yet was
still unconservative. Note that despite being calibrated partly on large high strength
elements, the RA-STM also does a poor job and is almost equally unconservative as the
MCFT for this element.
2.5 MCFT Prediction
2 RA-STM Prediction
Shear Stress (MPa)
1.5 Experiment
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Shear Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 12: HS2 Shear stress-shear strain
Figure 9-13 shows the principal angles. The MCFT prediction of the angle is not
as good as it was for HS1. The angles of principal stress and strain are similar in the
tests, as before, but the predicted angle is 10-20 degrees away from that.
127
2.5
MCFT Prediction
2
Shear Stress (MPa) Angle of
Principal Strain
1.5
1
Angle of
Principal Stress
0.5
0
15 25 35 45 55 65
Angle (deg)
Figure 9 - 13: HS2 Angles
Figure 9-14 shows the observed tensile stress-strain response from the test. As
with HS1, the prediction is quite good. Note that the MCFT assumption of zero tension
stiffening after yield of the steel is well supported by the data.
3.5
3
Principal Tensile Stress (MPa)
2.5 Experimental Curve
1.5 MCFT Predicted Curve
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.5
-1
Principal Tensile Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 14: HS2 Tension stiffening
128
Figure 9-15 shows the observed compressive stress-strain curve for test HS2. The
data shows virtually no strain development on loading as a number of major cracks
intersected only some of the LVDTs used to calculate the strains. The maximum stress
observed is basically the same as for the much weaker concrete of HS1. Note that more
stress was observed in the concrete than predicted, but the result was still unconservative
as the angles were poorly modelled.
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Principal Compressive Stress (MPa)
-1
-2
-3
-4
Experiment MCFT Prediction -5
-6
-7
-8
Principal Compressive Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 15: HS2 Compressive response
129
9-7 Comparison of HS1 and HS2
Figure 9-16 compares the experimental behaviour of the two elements. Despite
HS2 having about three times the concrete strength, it was actually slightly weaker than
HS1. The ductility and stiffness characteristics were very similar between the two
elements. The only significant difference was that the higher strength panel cracked at a
higher stress.
HS1
2
HS2
Shear Stress (MPa)
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Shear Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 16: HS1 and HS2 shear-shear strain
On examination of the predictions, with Membrane-2000, it appeared that the

unconservative predictions of HS2 were strongly influenced by the assumption that the
reinforcing bars could strain harden on average. While they certainly did strain harden at
a crack, based on the strain, the analysis also assumed that the bars would strain harden in
the concrete between the cracks. Figure 9-17 shows the experimental data for HS2
compared to the prediction above as well as a prediction if the bars are assumed to be
unable to achieve a stress in excess of the yield stress. It can be seen that the prediction is
no longer unconservative. As no strain hardening is the usual assumption for design
purposes, the results of this experiment apparently do not bring into question the safety of
structures designed with the MCFT. On the other hand, stress-strain curve for the 10M
130
bars in the specimen did not have a yield plateau, so assuming a constant stress of yield
seems poor. Further research is needed to quantify the effects of strain hardening branch
of the reinforcement on element predictions.
2.5
With Strain
hardening
2
Shear Stress (MPa)
Prediction
1.5 without strain
hardening
Experiment
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80
Shear Strain (mm/m)
Figure 9 - 17: HS2 Predictions without strain hardening
131
Chapter 10: Experimental Verification of Response-2000
As a beam/column sectional analysis program that includes shear, Response-2000
will be illustrated using selected experimental results for beams and columns tested in
shear over the past 40 years. Chapter 12 provides additional information on how to
perform such shear analyses with Response-2000.
The first part of this chapter demonstrates the value of the proposed changes in
tension stiffening relationships as explained in Chapter 5.
The second section shows Response-2000 compared to individual test series.

These series were selected to demonstrate that Response-2000 can successfully predict a
number of important behavioural trends associated with the shear behaviour of reinforced
concrete. Where appropriate, the predictions of code methods are shown as well.
The third part of this chapter shows Response-2000 compared to a large database
of 534 beams. There have been over 10,000 shear tests reported in the literature over the
past 100 years. When databases that aggregate all this data, as are currently being
prepared, are available, the program can be compared to more tests. Tests were
originally selected for this data set simply in terms of what was available at hand. None
of these tests were discarded if the program predicted them poorly. Later, a more
systematic procedure was chosen to select additional elements by examining what
regions of input parameters were missing from the existing database. There is a strong
bias in the selected data towards larger members. Before about 1965, beams tested in
shear were generally about 12 inches deep and 10 feet long. This was based on storage
restrictions, loading restrictions and tradition. Since that time, it has been found that
larger beams tend to fail at a lower shear stress than geometrically similar smaller beams.
As these larger beams tend to be less conservatively predicted, they were preferentially
selected. The average beam depth in the database is only 500 mm, however, as there are
a number of important tests that were included from the older database.
Appendix C gives some details of the 534 beams in the database.
132
10-1 Effects of tension stiffening changes
Changes to the tension stiffening relationships used in the Modified Compression
Field Theory for use in the programs in this thesis were proposed in Chapter 5. This
short section demonstrates the effect of these changes on a series of 64 beams. The
selected beams are a subset of the full database in Appendix C and are identified there.
They were selected because they include a wide range in depth and were generally lightly
reinforced longitudinally. They all have no transverse reinforcement and are constructed
with normal strength concrete. By selecting a subset of the database, the remaining
experiments could then be used to verify that any calibration was appropriate.
Figure 10-1 shows the experimental over predicted shear strength for these beams
if the traditional tension stiffening relationship of the MCFT, as shown in the figure, is
used. The horizontal axis has been selected as overall beam depth because this was found
1.4
Experimental/Predicted Shear Strength
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
ft
f1 =
0.2 1 + 500ε1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Beam Depth (mm)
Figure 10 - 1: Experimental/Predicted, Base MCFT
to have the strongest correlation with the data. It can be seen that there is a strong
correlation with larger members being predicted poorly.
133
Figure 10-2 shows the same set of data as predicted by Response-2000 using the
tension stiffening relationships from Chapter 5. It can be seen that the prediction is much
better.
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4 Tension stiffening

described in Equation 5-9, Chapter 5
0.2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Beam Depth (mm)
Figure 10 - 2: Experimental/Predicted, Response-2000
The remainder of this chapter shows the predictions of Response-2000 with the
newer tension stiffening relations as proposed in Chapter 5.
134
10-2 Arbesman and Conti: Prediction of sectional response
Perhaps the most important beam test in the development of the Compression
Field Theory was Beam CF1 (Compression Field 1) tested by Arbesman and Conte71,5 in
1973. The photograph shows the beam during the test. This beam was a prestressed
hollow box girder beam, heavily instrumented. It was loaded in such a way that the test
region was subjected to negative moment near the person in the photograph and positive
moment just to the right by the dial gauge. There was a point of zero moment in the
middle of the test region. Failure of the beam was by flexural yielding at the positive
moment location and crushing of the web of the box girder (shear failure) near the
location of zero moment.
The beam was entered into Response-2000 as an I-beam section. Figure 10-3
shows the predicted and experimental moment-curvature results at a location below the
point load. The experimental curvature was determined from measured longitudinal
strains of the top and bottom steel. The analysis was performed without shear (i.e. a
flexural analysis.) The results obtained are remarkably good. Unfortunately, this
135
extremely high level of precision is only occasionally attained with Response-2000, or
with any other analysis procedure for reinforced concrete.
350
Response-2000
300
Experiment
250
Moment (ft*kips)
12.0
200 2 - #3
2
3 x 0.239 in
∆ε p = 5.40 ms
150
2
Av = 0.100 in per leg
@ 6.00 in
24.0
6.0
100
2 - #3
2
3 x 0.239 in
50
∆ε p = 5.40 ms
12.0 2 - #3
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Curvature (in/in x 10^6)
Figure 10 - 3: Moment-curvature of CF1
Figure 10-4 shows the shear force versus shear strain for CF1 in the middle of the
test region where the moment was equal to zero. The shear strain was measured by
taking the difference in strains of two diagonals at 45° to the horizontal. The very good
100
80
Shear (kips)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4
Shear Strain (mm/m)
Figure 10 - 4: Shear-shear strain CF1
136
agreement between theory and experiment shown in the figure is more representative of
what can be expected for Response-2000.
While Response-2000 always calculates the full load-deformation relationship for

a section, sometimes it is the strength that is of primary interest. The following examples
show the influence of a series of input variables on the predictions of strength from
Response-2000.
10-3 Taylor: Effect of aggregate size
Taylor41 played an important role in the investigation of the mechanisms of shear

response. One of his series of tests examined size effect and the influence of aggregate
size. Fifteen beams were tested varying in depth from 150 mm to 1 metre and
constructed with 22 to 34 MPa concrete. Figure 10-5 demonstrates that the equation
used for the maximum shear on the crack, which controls failure for beams like these
without stirrups, models the effects of aggregate size appropriately.
1.4
Experimental/Predicted Shear
1.2
1
Strength
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40
Maximum aggregate size (mm)
Figure 10 - 3: Effect of aggregate size
137
10-4 Shioya et al: Size effect in shear
In what is surely the most impressive series of shear tests yet performed, a large-
scale test program in Japan42,43 tested beams that varied in depth from 100 mm (4 inches)
up to 3000 mm (10 feet). The largest of these beams was 36 m (120 feet) long, weighed
almost 400 tonnes and contained 1000 times the volume of concrete of a standard beam
shear test. The testing of the largest of these beams is shown below.
This largest beam was tested upside-down against a specially built prestressed
concrete support beam. Loading was uniformly applied on the bottom of the beam by the
filling of a water bag, lifting the beam against its own self weight and the restraints at the
end of the beam. The beam contained 0.4% of longitudinal reinforcement which, though
a small percentage, still represented 6000 kg of reinforcing in the one beam. There was
no transverse reinforcement in any of the beams in the series.
These tests model a foundation style structure. Such structures generally have
light amounts of longitudinal reinforcement and no transverse reinforcement. It might be
138
felt that a structure 3 metres deep is unrepresentative of real construction practice. This is
not the case however. Many multi-storey buildings contain beams that are more than 1
metre deep, often transfer girders above the first floor of a building. A typical industrial
building near Toronto contains 2 metre deep girders supporting process equipment
weighing thousands of kilonewtons. In portions of the Toronto subway system tunnels,
one-way slabs are 3 metres thick without transverse reinforcement. Similar 3 metre deep
tunnel-roof slabs exist in Japan over sub-surface highways, where the prevalence of
earthquakes adds a level of concern. The Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia,
currently the tallest buildings in the world, are built on 2-way slabs that are 4.5 metres
deep of solid concrete. Finally, in Japan there are 100 m diameter underground liquid
natural gas storage facilities that contain slabs at their base designed against groundwater
pressure. These base slabs are up to 8 metres (25 feet) thick of solid concrete without
transverse reinforcement. Each of these examples is already built in the field, sometimes
using design codes that do not deal with the size effect in shear.
Figure 10-6 shows the predictions of Response-2000 to the test series that
0.25
failure shear stress to square root of fc'
0.2
0.15
0.1
Experiments
0.05 Response-2000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Beam depth (mm)
Figure 10 - 4: Shioya et al size effect
139
included the 3 metre deep beam above. The trend is remarkably well predicted by the
program.
The ACI code assumes that members without stirrups can resist a stress of
0.167 f 'c (MPa units, 2 f 'c psi units) prior to failure. This was based upon laboratory
testing which primarily used beams about 300 mm deep. Note that the value of 0.167 is
reasonable value for elements of that depth based on the graph above. On the other hand,
the largest of the beams failed at about 45 % of this value. This is an unsafe situation.
Response-2000 is also able to predict the total load deflection response for
prismatic beams. The calculated response for the largest of the Japanese beams is shown
compared to the measured response in Fig 10-7. It can be seen that excellent agreement
was obtained.
Response-2000
100
Applied Uniform Load (kN/m)
80
Experiment
60
3140
40
3 layers of
12 - JD25
1500
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Figure 10 - 5: Load deflection, 3000 mm deep beam
The following figure shows the observed crack pattern observed by the Japanese
researchers as well as the deflection prediction page from Response-2000. The predicted
crack pattern is shown for half the beam and is reasonably accurate. The distribution of
140
curvature and shear strains shows the strong interaction which occurs in this beam
between shear and moment. For example, it might be expected that the highest shear
strain would occur at the end of the beam where the shear is highest but this is not the
case. Rather, it occurs in a region from about 1/6th of the span to 1/3rd of the span where
both the shear and moment have high values.
141
10-5 Kani: Effect of a/d ratio
Kani44,45 started shear research at the University of Toronto in the late 1950’s.
Over a period of 10 years, he tested approximately 800 beams in shear in an attempt to
solve “the riddle of the shear failure.”
Out of this extensive selection of data, a single series is shown here. These tests
show the effect of shear span to depth ratio (a/d ratio) on the shear strength of 610 mm
deep beams with 2.8 % longitudinal reinforcement and normal strength concrete.
Response-2000 predicts the data very well for beams with an a/d ratio greater than 2.5.
Beams shorter than that are affected by direct strut action supporting the load. The
dashed line shows the results of calculations done with a simple moment to shear ratio
style calculation as for the tests with an a/d greater than 2.5. This is seen to be very
conservative for these short beams. The method proposed in Chapter 7, shown by the
thicker line, does a much better job at predicting the shear capacity. This technique
calculates the strength, and deflection, from the moment-shear interaction diagram.
600
Experiments
500
Shear at Failure (kN)
Response-2000 M-V
610
Interaction
400
2 - #8 Response-2000 M/V
2 - #9 ratio
300 156
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a/d ratio
Figure 10 - 6: Effect of a/d ratio
142
10-6 Moody, Viest, Elstner, Hognestad: Concrete strength: small beams
In an important series of tests used to calibrate the benchmark 1963 ACI code,
research46 was carried out on beams without transverse reinforcement but with a large
amount of flexural reinforcement against different concrete strengths. Data like this was
the basis of the code expression of 2 f 'c (psi units) for the Vc term in the code as
mentioned above. The graph shows that Response-2000 is able to predict this type of
behaviour well.
For simplicity, the authors of the ACI code chose to select a lower limit on the
then existing test data and use this to specify a safe level of loading for a structure. In the
figure, the ACI code is seen to be conservative for these tests.
70.0
60.0
Response-2000
50.0
Shear strength (kN)
40.0
30.0
ACI Code
12.0
20.0
2
10.0 ρ = 2.2 % As = 1.640 in
7.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Concrete Strength (MPa)
Figure 10 - 7: Effect of concrete strength on small heavily reinforced beams
143
10-7 Angelakos: Concrete strength: large lightly reinforced beams
Angelakos40 recently completed an experimental project at the University of
Toronto that studied the variation in shear strengths of large lightly reinforced concrete
beams made with different strengths of concrete. Like the small, heavily reinforced
beams in Fig. 10-9, these beams had no transverse reinforcement. The small beam tests
would suggest that the ACI code shear strength equation should be conservative for the
beams up to at least 50 MPa.
The test results for the large lightly reinforced beams are shown in Fig.10-10. It
was found that the ACI code for these members is unconservative over the entire range of
concrete strengths. The beam with the highest concrete strength failed at a shear less than
half the predicted capacity of the ACI code. Response-2000 can be seen to do a better
job of predicting these strengths, though it too becomes rather unconservative for the
higher concrete strengths. Further research is required to explain this discrepancy, with
work of Gupta80 looking promising.
400
350 ACI
Code
300
Shear Strength (kN)
250 Response-2000
200
Experiments
150
1000
100
ρ = 1.0 %
50 4 - 30M
300
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Concrete Strength (MPa)
Figure 10 - 8: Effect of concrete strength on large beams without stirrups
144
10-8 Adebar & Collins: Effect of axial tension
For members without stirrups, the ACI code suggests that the shear strength is
very sensitive to axial tension, reducing to zero for an axial tensile stress of 500 psi.
Figure 9-10 compares the ACI and Response-2000 predictions with the experimental
results reported by Adebar and Collins56. It can be seen that the ACI predictions are very
conservative for members with high tensions.
120
5 - 20 MM
100
310
Response-2000
80 5 - 20 MM
Shear Force (kN)
290
60
40
ACI
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Axial Tension (kN)
Figure 10 - 9: Effect of axial tension
145
10-9 Khalifa: Transverse Reinforcement on round columns
The examples presented so far were from rectangular beams or box beams.
Khalifa47 tested round columns with a small axial compression in a specially designed
testing frame. The primary variable of the study was the level of transverse
reinforcement. It can be seen that the increase in shear strength from increasing
transverse reinforcement is predicted accurately.
700
600
Response-2000
500
Shear Capacity (kN)
Experiment
400
300
12 - 25M
445
200 #2 @ 150 mm
100
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Transverse Percentage of steel: Av fy/Ds (MPa)
Figure 10 - 10: Effect of transverse reinforcement
146
10-10 MacGregor: Draped reinforcement in prestressed beams
MacGregor’s48 doctoral work reported the testing of 87 prestressed beams with
about half failing in flexure, and half in shear. These beams are important as they formed
the basis of the web-shear cracking/flexure shear cracking provisions currently in the ACI
code for the shear strength of prestressed concrete beams. In 22 of these beams, the
prestressing strands were angled or draped for the outer third of the beam length on each
end. Figure 10-13 shows the predictions of Response-2000 compared to the angle of
drape. It can be seen that the program is successful in dealing with draped strands in
prestressed I-Beams. The results for these small beams show a fair scatter, however.
1.6
Experimental / Predicted Shear
1.4
1.2
1
Strength
0.8
0.6
12.0"
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Drape Angle (degrees)
Figure 10 - 11: MacGregor - Drape of Reinforcement
Figure 10-14 shows the quality of the predictions of Response-2000 versus the
percentage of transverse reinforcement for the tests reported by MacGregor. It can be
seen that the predictions are good, but for low levels of transverse steel, Response-2000
becomes more conservative. Recall that in Chapter 1 it was shown that prestressed
concrete beams may be more conservative than reinforced concrete beams due to the
147
presence of transverse compression in the web of the beams. This is a possible
explanation for the somewhat conservative nature of the predictions made for these tests.
Experimental / Predicted Strength 1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Transverse Percentage of Steel (% )
Figure 10 - 12: Macgregor, effect of transverse reinforcement
148
10-11 Benzoni, Priestley and Seible: Interlocking spiral column
A relatively new type of bridge pier used in California involves the use of two
interlocking spiral hoops as shown below. This reinforcement configuration provides
efficient confinement for a column with a “rectangular” section. However, calculating
the shear strength of such a column from, say,
202
the ACI shear equations is not a
straightforward task. To answer some of the
questions about the shear behaviour of these 15 - #5
columns, Benzoni, Priestley and Seible #2 @ 89 mm

0 406
1
conducted tests in 1995 at the University of 6
15 - #5
California, San Diego49. The results from one
#2 @ 89 mm
of these tests, Inter-4, are shown here.
202
The cyclic loading for this column was as shown below left. Note that the axial
load in the column was different for the push and
Loading Configuration
P
1219 mm
( 48 " )
H
1219 mm
( 48 " )
Test
Specimen
610 mm
Vertical Load P:
P= 994 + 2.45 H (kN) when H pushes
P= 994 - 4.33 H (kN) when H pulls
149
pull cycle in the loading. A photo of the beam at failure is also shown above. It can be
seen that the failure involved longitudinal crushing bands with no evidence of flexural
failure.
An analysis was carried out a distance dv from the bottom of the column with
Response-2000 including the effect of shear. The results of this are shown here:
Observe the predicted cause of failure from the Response-2000 analysis: local
crushing of the web and high shear strains and high transverse strains just above the
location where the lower hoop ends. That is, about 75 mm up from the mid-height of the
section. In the bottom left of the 9 plots, the maximum allowable compression is
approaching the applied stress. At higher deformations, the concrete crushes and the load
reduces. While there is longitudinal yielding, there is still plenty of flexural capacity in
the non-yielding bars. This local crushing of the web is symptomatic of a longitudinal
shear failure. It can be seen in the photo of the failed specimen that the concrete failed by
150
crushing at about the same place as predicted by the analysis, over a substantial height of
the column.
The failure shear from the analysis is predicted to be

371 kN for the case of the horizontal load, H, pulling. An
analysis for flexure indicates that flexural failure at the ends
is less critical than a shear failure at a distance of dv from the
ends. As such, the column is predicted to fail in shear at a
load of 371 kN vs. the observed failure of 379 kN.
If a Response-2000 full member response is

performed, the crack pattern on the right is produced at the
predicted failure. Figure 10-15 shows the predicted load
deflection plot superimposed on the experimental hysteresis
loops. The variable axial load meant that the capacity of the
column in the “push” direction was stronger than in the
“pull”direction. Despite the complex geometry and unusual
loading, Response-2000 was able to provide a reasonable
estimate of strength, displacements and failure mode.
750
550
Response-2000
350
Lateral Force (kN)
150
Pull Push
-40 -30 -20 -10 -50 0 10 20 30 40
-250
-450
Displacement (mm)
Figure 10 - 13: Inter4 predicted load deflection
151
10-12 Comparison to 534 Beams
The previous pages demonstrated the quality of predictions of Response-2000
against individual test series. The following pages demonstrate the quality of the
predictions against a database of 534 beams. This database includes rectangular beams
and columns, round columns, prestressed sections and I beams. Table 10-1 summarises
the tests and Appendix C lists all the data. The performance of Response-2000 is shown
below compared to different variables from this database.
10-12-1 Shear span to depth ratio (a/d ratio)

This ratio is a commonly used indicator of potential shear problems with Kani
warning that the “valley of shear failure” typically occurs for a/d values between about 2
and 5. The data in the verification database had a/d ratios falling between 2 and 8. The
larger values had higher longitudinal percentages of steel to ensure shear failures. Results
for beams with an a/d less than 2.0 (i.e. deep beams) will generally be very conservative
due to direct strut action from the load point to the support. They have not been included
in the database.
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
a/d ratio
Figure 10 - 14: a/d ratio
152
10-12-2 Beam depth
Figure 10-17 shows the results compared to the depth of the beam. It can be seen
that the size effect in shear is successfully accounted for.
1.6
Experimental / Predicted Shear Strength
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Beam depth (mm)
Figure 10 - 15: Beam depth
153
Table 10-1 Summary of Response-2000 Experimental Verification
Number and Stirrups Coefficient
Reference Date specimen Loading Depth Concrete Avf y/bws Mean of Variation
type (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (percent)
MacGregor48 1960 83 prestressed 2 point loads 305 16 to 52 0 to 3.6 MPa 1.12 12.5
I Beams on simple span
Kani45 1979 43 rectangular 2 point loads 152 to 1219 17 to 35 0 1.05 9.1
beams on simple span
Ghannoum55 1998 16 rectangular Point load on 220 to 960 34 to 58 0 1.10 12.5
beams simple span
Moody, Viest 1954 28 rectangular Point load on 305 6.1 to 41.2 0 1.02 10.4
Elstner beams simple span
46
Hognestad
56
Adebar, Collins 1996 21 rectangular End loads applying 210 to 410 46 to 59 0 to 1.3 MPa 0.96 12.8
beams shear and tension
Taylor41 1972 15 rectangular Point load on 150 to 1000 22 to 34 0 0.99 8.3
beams simple span
Shahaway, 1997 25 full-size Point load on 1118 42 0 to 12 MPa 1.05 9.6
75, 76
Batchelor prestressed simple span
bridge girders
57
Collins, Vegh 1993 16 rectangular Point load on 500 and 1000 50 to 91 0 to 0.83 MPa 1.02 8.2
beams continuous span
47
Khalifa 1982 9 round Symmetrical 445 23 to 40 0 to 2.7 MPa 1.06 6.4
61
Aregawi columns moment and shear
Elzanaty, Nilson 1986 34 prestressed 2 point loads on 256 and 457 40 to 70 0 to 4.8 MPa 1.12 8.2
58
and Slate I Beams simple span
Podgorniak- 1998 28 rectangular Point load on 125 to 1000 36 to 99 0 to 0.35 MPa 1.05 16.8
54
Stanik beams simple span
42,43
Shioya et al 1989 5 rectangular uniform load 300 to 3000 19 to 29 0 1.02 10.9
beams on simple span
Yoon, Cook, 1996 12 rectangular Point load on 750 36 to 87 0 to 1 MPa 1.05 11.2
64
Mitchell beams simple span
40
Angelakos 1999 12 rectangular Point load on 1000 21 to 80 0 to 0.35 MPa 0.95 15.4
beams simple span
Haddadin, Hong, 1971 62 T-Beams Point load on beam 470 13 to 44 0 to 4.8 MPa 1.09 11.1
65
Mattock with tension or
compression
Pasley, Gogoi, 1990 13 T-Beams Point loads on 457 31 0 to 0.57 MPa 0.98 9.1
Darwin continuous span
66
McCabe
Palaskas 1990 15 T-Beams Point loads on 457 31 0 to 0.77 MPa 1.02 13.1
Darwin67 continuous span
Ozcebe, Ersoy 1999 12 rectangular 2 point loads on 360 58 to 82 0 to 0.71 MPa 1.09 10.3
and Tankut68 beams simple span
70
Roller, Russel 1990 10 rectangular Point load on 635 to 864 72 to 125 0 to 8.1 MPa 0.95 11.7
beams simple span
73
Rangan Kong 1998 33 rectangular Point load on 250 to 600 64 to 89 0.6 to 1.48 MPa 1.03 12.8
beams simple span
74
Rangan 1991 16 I Beams Point load on 615 29 to 45 7.41 to 15.4 MPa 1.01 9.7
simple span
69
Levi, Marro 1989 7 I Beams Point load on 1050 25 to 60 4.02 to 6.03 MPa 1.08 4.9
simple span
Kawano 1997 8 rectangular 2 point loads on 330 to 2200 25 0 1.05 9.4
63
Watanabe beams simple span
Miscellaneous 1972- 5 rect Various 406 to 610 25 to 50 0 to 2.0 MPa 1.02 11.1
(See Appendix C) 1995 4 I beams loading
2 Interlock hoop
534 beams 1.05 12.0
154
10-12-3 Concrete strength
Concern has been expressed about the accuracy of code equations for the shear
strength of members made from very high strength concrete. Figure 10-18 shows that
Response-2000 is able to account for concrete strengths well.
1.6
1.4
Experimental / Predicted Shear Failure
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Concrete Cylinder Strength (MPa)
Figure 10 - 16: Concrete strength
155
10-12-4 Longitudinal percentage of reinforcement
Beams with a lower percentage of longitudinal reinforcement have been observed
to fail at lower shear strengths. Figure 10-19 shows that Response-2000 is able to predict
such behaviour well.
1.6
Experimental / Predicted Shear
1.4
1.2
1
Strength
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Longitudinal Percentage of Reinforcement (%)
Figure 10 - 17: Longitudinal Percentage of Reinforcement
156
10-12-5 Transverse percentage of reinforcement
Figure 10-20 shows the ability of Response-2000 to predict shear failures as a
function of how much transverse steel is provided.
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Percentage of Transverse Reinforcement
Figure 10 - 18: Transverse percentage of reinforcement
157
10-12-6 Shear strength
Figure 10-21 shows that Response-2000 is not biased towards stronger or weaker
specimens. Note that the horizontal axis in this case is logarithmic.
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
10 100 1000 10000
Strength (kN)
Figure 10 - 19: Shear strength
158
10-12-7 Overall Predictions
Figure 10-22 shows the entire dataset compared as experimental shear vs.
predicted shear capacities. The average experimental over predicted shear strength for
the data set is 1.05 with a coefficient of variation of 12.0%. Figure 10-23 shows the
predictions of the ACI code in a similar format. The ACI code equations yield an
average of 1.20 with a coefficient of variation of 32.1%. Note that while there is a
significant scatter to the ACI predictions, the predictions are all conservative for failure
shears less than 70 kN (15 kips). This is the general range of failure shear strengths for
small tests such as those shown in Fig. 10-9. It would appear that the extrapolation of
these results to larger, and hence stronger beams, is not well modelled by the code.
While Response-2000 compares very well to the code provisions for predicting
strength, it is important to realise that the results from Reponse-2000 have an important
difference over most code methods. The ACI provisions, for example, were based on a
curve fit to a large data set. As such, it should be expected that such a method would do
well at predicting shear strengths. For Response-2000, on the other hand, the majority of
the constitutive methods are based on a totally different kind of experiment, the shear
panel experiment. While it may be assumed that these panel tests would be directly
applicable to beams, indeed that is why the shear tests were done in the first place, it is
satisfying to see that they are.
Figure 10-24 shows a histogram of the predictions of Response-2000, with Figure

10-25 showing the similar figure for the ACI code.
159
500.0
Experimental Shear Strength (kN)

400.0
300.0 Exp/Predicted =
1.20
200.0 Exp/Predicted = 0.80
n = 528
100.0
Average = 1.05
C.O.V. = 12.0%
0.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
Predicted Shear Strength (kN)
Figure 10 - 22: Response-2000 experimental and predicted shear strength
500.0
Experimental Shear Strength (kN)
400.0
Exp/Predicted =
300.0
2.0
200.0
100.0 n = 442
Exp/Predicted = 0.50 Average = 1.20
C.O.V. = 32.2%
0.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
Predicted Shear Strength (kN)
Figure 10 - 23: ACI experimental and predicted shear strength
160
100
90
80
70
Count 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8 1.95
Experim ental / Predicted Shear Strength
Figure 10 - 20: Response-2000 experimental/predicted ratio
50
45
40
35
30
Count
25
20
15
10
0
0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8 1.95
Figure 10 - 21: ACI experimental/predicted shear strength
161
Chapter 11: Experimental Verification of Shell-2000
Shell-2000 will calculate load-deformation relationships and strengths for plates
and shells. In a sense it is a superset of Response-2000 for beams and Membrane-2000
for membranes. The program will be compared to these other programs as well as
experimental evidence.
11-1 In-Plane Membrane Forces

Figure 11-1 compares the predictions of Shell-2000 and Membrane-2000 for shell
element SE6 tested by Kirschner12. It can be seen that both programs give similar
predictions, with Shell-2000 predicting a higher peak. This is due to this element being
controlled by the crack check against shear on the crack. Crack spacing is calculated
throughout the depth in Shell-2000 and only at the most critical depth for Membrane-
2000. As such, Shell-2000 predicts a smaller average crack widths and, hence, a stronger
response. Both predictions are good.
1200 Shell-2000
Shear Force V xy (kN/m)
1000 Membrane-2000
Experiment
800
600
Y
285
400
X
200
0
0 5 10 15 20
Shear Strain (mm/m)
Figure 11 - 1: SE6 In plane shear strength
162
Kirschner also tested a series of similar panels to produce an interaction diagram
of in-plane shear stress and flexure. Each element had 2.92 % total reinforcement in the
X direction and 0.98 % in the Y direction, 40 MPa concrete and was 285 mm thick.
Figure 11-2 shows the predictions of Shell-2000 compared to these tests. Note the
inclusion of the pure shear strength predicted by Membrane-2000 as well as the
prediction from Response-2000 prediction of the pure flexural strength. It can be seen
that the predictions including strain hardening are good, but the predictions ignoring
strain hardening are rather conservative for the cases with higher moment. A Response-
2000 analysis with no strain hardening shows the same patterns as Shell-2000 does.
Membrane-2000
2500
Pure Shear
Experiment
In Plane Shear force (kN/m)
2000 Shell-2000 with

SE1
strain hardening
SE7 No strain
1500 Hardening
1000 SE4
Y
285
Response
X
500 2000
Flexure
SE3
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Moment about X axis (kN/m)
Figure 11 - 2: M-Vxy interaction diagram
For a more detailed look at one of these elements, the load deformation of
element SE4 is compared to the predictions of Shell-2000 in figures 11-4 to 11-9. This
element was loaded with 500 kNm/m of moment for every 1000 kN/m of in-plane shear.
The pre-yield predictions are good, but Shell-2000 is underestimating the stiffness after
163
yield. Note in Figure 11-8 that Shell-2000 is predicting significant y direction curvature,
but the tests measured virtually none. This and the over-prediction of twisting may be
related.
Figure 11-4: SE4 Vxy - ε x Figure 11-5: SE4 Vxy - ε y
1000 1000
In Plane Shear Vxy (kN/m)

800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5
ε x strain (mm/m) ε y strain (mm/m)
Figure 11-6: SE4 Vxy - γ xy Figure 11-7: SE4 Vxy - φ x
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Shear strain γ xy (mm/m) X Curvature φ x (rad/km)
Figure 11-8: SE4 Vxy - φ y Figure 11-9: SE4 Vxy - φ xy
1000
1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
-20 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 100
Y Curvature φ y (rad/km) Twisting φ xy (rad/km)
164
11-2 Out-of-Plane Shear
One of the advantages of Shell-2000 over earlier programs such as Shell-4747 is
that it explicitly deals with the out-of-plane shear stress distribution on the X and Y faces.
Adebar tested a series of full size shell elements subjected to in-plane shear and out of
plane shear23. These elements had 3.5% of reinforcement in both the X and Y directions
and 0.08% of “stirrup” reinforcement in the Z direction. The results of these elements are
shown in Figure 11-10 in the form of an interaction diagram. Figure 11-10 shows the
3.5
Out of Plane Shear (MPa)
2.5
Shell-2000
Ultimate strength 2 Prediction
1.5
Stirrup Yield 0.5
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
In Plane Shear (MPa)
Figure 11-10 Adebar out of Plane Shear
predicted and measured effect of in-plane shear on the out of plane shear strength. Note
that on the right side of the figure, the in-plane shear adds compression in the direction of
the out-of-plane shear, increasing the strength beyond that of the zero in-plane shear case.
The reverse is true for the left side of the diagram. The solid squares in the figure are the
maximum loads resisted, but some of the elements were noted to have been restrained by
the testing apparatus, partly explaining the degree of conservatism on the left side. For
comparison, the out of plane shear stress at first yield of the stirrups is also shown.
165
As a final comparison of the out of plane shear abilities of Shell-2000, the
predictions of Shell-2000 will be compared to Response-2000. A shell of reinforced
concrete identical in the X and Y directions, similar to that tested above by Adebar, was
entered into Shell-2000. A Response-2000 input file was made of the X direction of the
shell element as well. Moment-shear interaction diagrams were then made with Shell-
2000 of the shell element tested with moment and shear on the X face. Response-2000
was also used to calculate such an interaction diagram. Finally, an analysis was made of
the shell element tested with the moment and shear applied at 45° to the reinforcement.
As this element is isotropically reinforced, it may be expected that there would be no
difference between these three results.
Figure 11-11 shows the result of these calculations. As the Response-2000 and X
direction Shell-2000 analysis were modelling the same thing, it is satisfying that the same
curves are produced from the two programs. Of more interest is that the analysis done on
the element at 45° did not produce the same curve. The flexural strengths matched well,
but the predicted shear strength is about 85 percent of the value predicted for the direct
loading. This appears to be caused by the 45° case having to carry the shear over wider
cracks. The failure of this element was controlled by shear on the crack.
600
Response-2000
500
Shear Strength (kN)
400
300 Shell-2000
ρx = ρ y
200
100 Shell-2000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Moment (kN/m)
Figure 11-11 M-V interaction diagram
166
Chapter 12: Analysis guidelines and examples
This chapter provides guidelines on how to use the program Response-2000 to
predict the behaviour of beams and columns as well as some examples.
12-1 Performing an analysis for beams with Response-2000

The key to performing analyses with a sectional analysis program is knowing at
which section to perform the analysis. While it may seem a good idea to do the shear
analysis for the location where there is maximum coincident shear and moment, this is
generally not the best location at which to perform the analysis.
12-1-1 Point load on prismatic reinforced concrete beam on simple supports

This is perhaps the simplest experimental test on a beam that can be done. This
problem is shown in Fig. 12-1. Assuming that there is no axial load, there are two ways
for this beam to fail and therefore two calculations must be done to predict the failure
strength. First the moment may become too large at midspan causing a flexural failure,
and second the shear may exceed the shear capacity causing a shear failure.
2P
S
F
1000 mm
A S' F'
Location S Location F
P P
L = 5400 mm
Figure 12-1 Sample Beam
To consider both these failure mechanisms, two Response-2000 analyses are

required. The first, for flexure, is performed at location F in the drawing and is done
ignoring the effects of shear. The second analysis, for shear, is performed at location S, a
167
distance approximately “d” away from the midspan. Whichever of these analyses
corresponds to the lower strength of the beam, i.e. the lowest value of P in the figure,
controls the failure and is the predicted failure mode.
It is recommended that the flexural analysis be performed without shear. This

may seem to be inappropriate, as at the edge of the bearing plate for a test like this, the
shear diagram indicates the full value of shear being present. It might seem wise to do
the analysis at the maximum moment location with shear applied as well. This is a
conservative assumption, but is not necessary. Directly under the load, the shear is not
yet carried in a “sectional mode”. That is, there will be significant transverse clamping
near the load that will increase the effective local shear strength in this region. This non-
sectional support mechanism means that shear can safely be ignored in the analysis for
flexure in a case like this.
At the location used to check for shear failures, section S, it is important to

include the correct values of the moment to shear ratio. A generally suggested distance
from the load to the location S (distance SF or S’F’ in the figure) is 0.5 dvcotθ, where dv
is the flexural lever arm. In general the angle θ is not known until the analysis is
completed and will vary over the depth of the beam, however. It is therefore suggested to
assume that θ is about 30° for the sake of determining this distance. A line drawn at that
angle is shown on the figure above as line A-F. This line crosses the mid-depth of the
beam at a distance of about dv from the edge of the bearing plate. Note that the line A-F
is a reasonable choice largely as it is similar to the expected crack pattern as shown
symmetrically on the right side. If the crack pattern was expected to be at an unusual
angle, say due to high axial load, then the distance dv may not be appropriate. Often
details about the loading plate is not known so for most analyses it is recommended that
the shear analysis be performed a distance d from the centre of the point load.
For the given example, then, the first analysis would be performed with an
incremental M=1.0 and V=0 in the Response-2000 loads dialog box. That moment
capacity would then generally be converted to an equivalent shear necessary to cause the
168
moment. Then an analysis with shear would be performed with M=1.8 kNm, V=1.0 kN
if the value of d for this beam was 900 mm. Note that these ratios are unit dependent and
would be M=5.91 ft.kips, V=1.0 kip in US units.
Note that while the shear failure is calculated to happen at location S, it will in
fact happen with the opening of diagonal cracks as shown on the right of Fig.12-1. A
consequence of this is that if there are stirrups that vary in spacing along the length of the
beam, it is appropriate to calculate the average amount of stirrups within a band of length
d in the beam centred on location S. For the beam above, the appropriate amount of
stirrups to add to the Response-2000 file would be the average level of stirrups within a
band stretching from 1.35 metres to 2.25 metres from the left support. Similarly, if the
stirrup spacing is very high, say greater than 0.75 d, it may be necessary to assume a
reduced effectiveness for the stirrups.
Consider also what would happen if the distance from the load to the support was
less than two times the effective depth of the member. In that case, the line AF would not
fit into the shear span, suggesting that a normal shear crack would also not fit. In cases
like this, Response-2000 will be very conservative, as the behaviour will be that of a deep
beam rather than that of a long beam. Chapter 7 explains how the use of the load-
deflection option gives a simple way to account for this in Response-2000.
12-1-2 Analysis of large prestressed concrete girders with uniform load

Analysis of beams subjected to uniform loads, such as large prestressed concrete
bridge girders under dead loads and lane loads, are analysed slightly differently than
above. For such cases it isn’t known a priori which location will be the most critical for
shear. In such cases, an analysis will need to be made at many points along the length of
the beam, say at the tenth points. The most critical location would then define the failure
load and load factor at failure. There are two ways to calculate this load factor, which
can be thought of as a safety factor. One is to assume that the calculated moments along
the beam are fixed and that the shear can increase. The other is to assume that the
moment and shear both increase proportionally. Each will produce a different safety
169
factor. Which to use will depend on confidence in the applied loads. If the calculated
moment is effectively the highest that might realistically be seen, the safety factor
associated with constant moment would give some idea of how close one is to a brittle
shear failure at the given load level. The safety factor associated with a proportional
increase in both moment and shear gives the safety against failure from an increase in
total loads.
With pretensioned beams, one also needs to be concerned about the bond of the
strands at the end of the beam. This is an area currently being researched, but a tentative
proposal has been developed for Response-2000. An analysis should be performed at a
location d/2 from the end of the beam (which assumes slip of strands and steep cracks).
The moment and shear at that location should come from the statics of the beam loading
and be increased proportionally. The maximum stress in the strand can be estimated as
the stress resulting from 750 psi (5 MPa) of bond stress on the strand circumference
along the strand from the end of the beam up to the inside edge of the bearing plate. This
stress should be induced in the strands with an appropriate prestrain, and the stress-strain
curve of the strands should be modified to provide a maximum at this level of stress.
While this suggested procedure needs further study, it does give results in good
agreement for the tests as shown in Chapter 10.
12-1-3 Column pushover analyses

Some seismic design procedures suggest that non-linear analyses be performed on
columns to evaluate their ductility. Such “pushover” analyses are not difficult to perform
with the help of Response-2000. As an example of such an analysis, an analysis will be
performed on the piers of the Hanshin Expressway, which failed so spectacularly in Japan
during the 1995 Kobe earthquake, See Figure 1-2. The cross section of these columns
was circular, 3.1 metres (10 feet) in diameter. Outside of a 2.5 metre section near the
ground that had more longitudinal reinforcement, the cross section is summarised by Fig.
12-2. The bars listed with a prefix of JD, say “JD16”, mean a Japanese standard bar 16
mm in diameter. The area near the bottom of the columns that contained more
reinforcement is ignored in this simple analysis.
170
Geometric Properties
Gross Conc. Trans (n=7.97)
Area (mm 2) x 103 7461.8 8262.5
Inertia (mm 4) x 106 4430824.3 5209875.0

JD16 @ 300 mm
yt (mm) 1550 1550
yb (mm)
60 - JD35
1550 1550
0
St (mm 3) x 103 2858596.3 3361209.7 0
1
3 60 - JD35
Sb (mm 3) x 103 2858596.3 3361209.7
JD16 @ 300 mm
Crack Spacing
2 x dist + 0.1 db /ρ
Loading (N,M,V + dN,dM,dV)

-14000 , 0.0 , 0.0 + 0.0 , 3.5 , 1.0

fc' = 30.0 MPa fu = 525 MPa
Clear cover to transverse reinforcment = 66 mm
a = 10 mm fy= 350 Hanshin Pier

ε c' = 1.96 mm/m ε s = 100.0 mm/m M.P.C. 1998/8/14
Figure 12-2 Hanshin Pier Response-2000 output
Using a simple dynamic analysis with a few assumptions, it was estimated that the
12 metre column would have an inflection point about 8 metres above from the ground.
With this assumption and an assumed axial compression of 14,000 kN, Figure 12-3 was
generated to represent the load-deflection pushover results for this column. The analysis
took about one minute. Once calculated, effects of other assumptions of the location of
Load-Max Deflection
6000.0
)
N
k(
e 4000.0
cr
o
F
r 2000.0
a
e
h
S
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Maximum Deflection (mm)
Figure 12-3: Load Deflection Curve, Hanshin Pier
171
the inflection point could be determined. While the load-deflection curve may look
reasonably ductile, recall that the column is 12000 mm long, so a 60 mm deflection
represents a drift ratio of only 0.5 %, which is certainly inadequate to survive a major
earthquake.
The loading on the interaction diagram, shown in Fig. 12-4, touches the
14000
Predicted Failure
Location
12000
Shear
Failure Envelope
10000 Failures
Shear (kN)
8000
Loading
6000 Envelope Flexural
Failures
4000
2000
0
-80000 -60000 -40000 -20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Moment (kNm)
Figure 12-4: Interaction diagram for Hanshin Pier

failure envelope on the top indicating an undesirable shear failure. Note that this analysis
ignored the extra longitudinal steel at the bottom of the column and hence the flexural
capacity should in fact be higher. A column like this should be designed to fail in a
ductile flexural mode rather than a brittle shear mode. While this extra steel near the
bottom of the column would increase the flexural capacity, it would not affect the shear
capacity significantly. As such, the extra steel in the very bottom of the column would
have in fact made the column less safe rather than more.
172
Response-2000 can also predict the crack pattern for the column as shown in Fig.
12-5.
Figure 12-5: predicted cracks of Hanshin Pier
173
12-1-4 Predictions of size effect in shear
This thesis has included many examples that compare the predictions of
Response-2000 to experimental tests. These last two examples compare the predictions
of Response-2000 for members that would be difficult to test due to their size.
As noted in Chapter 10, structures have already been built that are up to 8 metres
in depth, generally footings. While it would be very difficult to perform an experiment of
that scale, Response-2000 has no difficulty predicting the behaviour of such members.
The figure below shows the predicted shear strengths of large slab like structures
subjected to uniformly distributed load. The vertical axis shows the predicted shear
strength divided by the ACI code predicted shear strength as a percentage. It is predicted
that slabs about 300 mm deep, such as the beams in Figure 10-9 of the last chapter, will
be conservatively predicted, that is a percentage greater than 100. On the other hand,
slabs 4 metres thick with, say, 0.5% of longitudinal reinforcement, are predicted to fail in
shear at a shear stress less than 50% of the ACI code strength.
140.0
Failure load as percent of ACI prediction
120.0
100.0
80.0
ρ =1.5%
60.0
ρ =1.0%
Vfail
40.0 ρ =0.5%
d
d 10d
20.0 f c' = 25 MPa
fy = 500 MPa
agg = 20 mm
0.0
100 500 1000 2000 4000 10000
Slab Effective Depth (mm)
Figure 12-6 Predicted Size effect in shear for slabs
174
The next figure shows, for a similar slab with 0.5% of flexural reinforcement, and
a total length of 6d, the predicted effect of adding the ACI code minimum value of
stirrups, 0.35 MPa (50 psi). It can be seen that the predicted effect of adding this steel is
dramatic. Response-2000 predicts that the addition of this light amount of reinforcement
will mitigate the size effect and return the shear strength to something fairly close to that
suggested by the ACI code expressions.
Note that the predicted strength of the slab without stirrups can be considered as
Vc in the traditional expression that V = Vc + Vs. While the ACI code assumes that the
value of these, in stress terms, does not vary with the depth of the member, Response-
2000 can be seen to be predicting that Vc, the concrete contribution, decreases with
increasing member depth, while Vs, the steel contribution increases as the members get
larger. As such, Response-2000 predicts that the addition of this small amount of
transverse reinforcement to a large slab can increase its strength by as much as a factor of
four.
1.4
ACI stirrups
1.2
Shear stress at failure (MPa)
Response-2000 Minimum Stirrups
1 Vs
ACI no stirrups
0.8
Vs
0.6
0.4 Vc
0.2 Response-2000 No stirrups

Vc
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Depth of Slab (mm)
Figure 12-7 Predicted effect of adding minimum reinforcement
175
Chapter 13: Concluding Remarks
The analysis of reinforced concrete structures can take many forms, but a familiar
one to most engineers is that of sectional analysis. This form of analysis considers the
entire cross section of the beam, column, or shell in terms of its response to shear forces,
axial forces, and moments. While there are many sectional analysis programs in
existence that consider moment and axial loads, few exist that account for the more
poorly understood case of coincident shear and moment. This thesis explains the
background and theory underpinning a series of four easy to use programs that allow non-
linear sectional analysis of reinforced concrete plates, beams, shells and blocks to
arbitrary loading including significant shear.
The programs presented in this thesis are: Membrane-2000 for plates with in-
plane stresses, Response-2000 for beams subjected to shear moment and axial load,
Triax-2000 for arbitrary three dimensional blocks of concrete, and Shell-2000 for shells
subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane forces. Each of the programs is available from the
World Wide Web at the following addresses:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/m2k.htm Membrane-2000
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm Response-2000
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/t2k.htm Triax-2000
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/s2k.htm Shell-2000
Each program is based on the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) in

two and three dimensions. This thesis provides an explicit description of the MCFT
including a chapter on the so-called “crack check” that is critical in implementing the
model. A new method is explained for dealing with the crack check against flexure as
well as a new technique to calculate the shear on the crack components in three
dimensions.
New constitutive relations were derived for use with the MCFT in the programs.
A new relationship is proposed for the cracking strength of a large volume of concrete
that better models higher strength concrete that was found to be over predicted by the
176
traditional equations proposed for use with the MCFT. A new tension stiffening
relationship is proposed that explains some of the differences between existing published
tensions stiffening relationships. This new tension stiffening relationship is shown to
allow much better modelling of behaviour than the previous state of the art methods.
Central to Response-2000 and Shell-2000 is the longitudinal stiffness method.
This new technique allows explicit calculation of the shear stress profile over the depth of
a member. An extension of the previous state of the art, it solves a number of numerical
problems that became clear in extension of the older methods to a higher precision
analysis. The new methods allow the programs to run 5-10 times faster than they did
using the previous state of the art while also being more numerically stable.
Each computer program is verified against a series of experiments. Two new
experiments on large shear elements were also performed for this thesis to examine the
effects of very high strength concrete. These comparisons highlighted some problems
with the MCFT for high strain states and high strength concrete. For such cases, it
appears to be inappropriate to allow steel to strain harden on average in MCFT
predictions. Additionally, it appears that the MCFT predictions are poorer for higher
strength concrete.
Response-2000 is demonstrated to provide a very good prediction of experimental
behaviour when compared to a database of 534 beams tested in shear. These include
prestressed and reinforced sections, very large footing-like sections, sections made with
very high strength concrete and elements with unusual geometry. All are predicted well.
The results indicate that Response-2000 can predict the failure shear with an average
experimental over predicted shear strength ratio of 1.05 with a coefficient of variation of
12%. This compares favourably to the ACI code prediction ratios that have an average of
1.20 and a coefficient of variation of 32%. The ACI code is shown to be very
conservative for beams subjected to axial tension, and very unconservative for beams that
are large and lightly reinforced. Response-2000 predicts that the traditional terms of Vc
and Vs are not constants in terms of stress for large lightly reinforced beams. Very thick
slabs with no transverse steel are predicted to fail at a shear that is only 40% of the
predicted shear strength of the ACI code. The addition of minimum stirrups is predicted
177
to increase the strength by up to a factor of four, bringing the strength close to that
predicted by the ACI code.
With computers being as fast as they are today, a typical Response-2000 analysis
taking less than 10 seconds on an inexpensive 1999-vintage computer for example, it
seems reasonable to suggest that the time may have come to allow engineers to use
experimentally verified tools more integrally in the design and analysis of structures. It is
suggested that the code could be changed to directly allow the use of numerical tools that
meet a number of requirements. These requirements would be that the tools:
1) satisfy the requirements of equilibrium,

2) satisfy the requirements of compatibility,
3) are based on experimentally verified stress-strain relations,
4) have been verified against a large set of data (preferably a prescribed set).
Such tools would then be able to be used by engineers on any analysis problem, including
those that are poorly predicted today. It is suggested that the programs in this thesis
represent a good start towards meeting these goals.
178
Chapter 14: Areas of Future Work
While the four programs presented in this thesis are seen as being a good start on
the provision of a widely available set of non-linear sectional analysis tools, there are a
number of things that can be done to improve them. Some of these are summarised here:
- Include confinement effects

- Improve treatment of crack check for brittle reinforcement
- Improve stability for analyses subjected to high shear and low moment
- Incorporate cyclic behaviour modelling
- Usability improvements
- Support hollow cross sections in the graphical displays of Response-2000
- Allow users to apply biaxial moments in Response-2000
- Support effects of transverse clamping stresses for low a/d ratios
- More numerical verification of programs
- Fix any undocumented features (bugs)
- Improve modelling for high strength concrete
- Further develop the MCFT relationships to answer questions about strain hardening
- Improve equations used for shear on the crack for high strength concrete
- Test program for beams constructed with lightweight concrete
- Further verify proposed tension stiffening relationships
- Use the calculated value of bond in Response-2000 and Shell-2000 to affect
behaviour.
- Develop frame analysis or shell analysis programs based on Response-2000 and
Shell-2000.
- Determine if dowel action is an important in predicting behaviour
- Determine if energy of fracture is important in predicting behaviour
179
References
1 Ritter, W., Die Bauweise Hennebique (Construction Techniques of Hennebique),
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Zürich, Feb. 1899.
2 Mörsch, E., Der Eisenbetonbau (Reinforced Concrete Construction), Verlag von
Konrad Witwer, Stuttgart, Germany, 1922, 460 pp.
3 ASCE-ACI Committee 445, “Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Structural
Concrete.” ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 12, 1998, pp.
1375-1417.
4 Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. “The Modified Compression Field Theory for
Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear.” ACI Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2,
1986, pp. 219-231.
5 Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. Prestressed Concrete Structures. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, 1991, 766 pp.
6 Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. “Predicting the Response of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Subjected to Shear Using Modified Compression Field Theory.” ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 85, No. 3, 1988, pp. 258-268.
7 Collins, M.P., Adebar, P.E. and Kirschner, U. “SHELL474 - A Computer Program to
Determine the Sectional Resistance of Concrete Structures in Accordance with CSA
Standard S474-M89.” Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Canada, 1989, 32
pp. plus appendices.
8 Vecchio, F.J. “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Membranes.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 1, 1989, pp. 26-35.
9 Fulop, A.L., “Deformation-Controlled Procedure for Nonlinear Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Frames”, M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1992.
10 Vecchio, F.J. and Selby, R.G. “Toward Compression-Field Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Solids.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 6, 1991,
pp. 1740-1758.
10 Polak, M.A. and Vecchio, F.J. “Reinforced Concrete Shell Elements Subjected to
Bending and Membrane Loads,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 3, May-June
1994 pp 261-268.
11 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 Kirschner, U. and Collins, M.P., “Investigating the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Shell Elements”, Publication No 86-09, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Sept 1986, 209 pp.
13 Mitchell, D. and Collins, M.P., “Diagonal Compression Field Theory - A Rational
Model for Structural Concrete in Pure Torsion”, Journal of American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 71, August 1974, pp. 396-408.
14 Collins, M.P. “Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members in Shear,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, 1978, pp. 649-666.
15 Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. “The Response of Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane
Shear and Normal Stresses.” Publication No. 82-03, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1982, 332 pp.
180
16 Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. Prestressed Concrete Basics. Canadian Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 1987.
17 Zhang, L-X, and Hsu, T.T.C., “Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete
Membrane Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 124 No. 1,
1998, pp 24-34.
18 Hsu, T.T.C, and Zhang, L-X., “Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane Elements by Fixed-
Angle Softened-Truss Model.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5, Sept-Oct 1997.
pp 483-492.
19 Kaufmann, W., and Marti, P. “Structural Concrete: Cracked Membrane Model.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 124, No. 12, pp. 1467-1475.
20 Porasz, A. “An Investigation of the Stress-Strain Characteristics of High Strength
Concrete in Shear”, M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1989.
21 Walraven, J.C., “Fundamental Analysis of Aggregate Interlock,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107 No. ST11, Nov. 1981 pp. 2245-2270.
22 Kirschner, U. and Collins, M.P. “Investigating the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Shell Elements.” Publication No. 86-9, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Sept., 1986, 209 pp.
23 Adebar, P.E. and Collins, M.P. “Shear Design of Concrete Offshore Structures.”
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 3, 1994, pp. 324-335.
24 Selby, R.G., “Three-dimensional Constitutive Relations for Reinforced Concrete,”
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1993, 195 pp.
25 Krpan, P., “The Behaviour of Open, Thin-Walled, Restrained, Reinforced Concrete
Members in Torsion,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Toronto, 1974.
26 Hsu, T.T.C., “Stresses and Crack Angles in Concrete Membrane Elements,” Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 12, December 1998, pp. 1476-1484.
27: Collins, M.P. “Procedures for Calculating the Shear Response of Reinforced Concrete
Elements: A Discussion,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 123,
December 1998, pp. 1485-1488.
28 Bhide, S.B. and Collins, M.P. “Influence of Axial Tension on the Shear Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Members.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1989, pp.
570-581.
29 Belarbi, A, and Hsu, T.T.C, “Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete in Biaxial
Tension-Compression”, Research Report UHCEE 91-2, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas. 155 pp.
30 Pang, X., and Hsu, T.T.C, “Constitutive Laws for Reinforced Concrete in Shear”,
Research Report UHCEE 92-1, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Houston, Houston Texas.
31 Zhang, L.-X, “Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements with
High Strength Concrete”, PhD Thesis, University of Houston, August 1995.
32 Vecchio, F.J., Collins, M.P., and Aspiotis, J. “High-Strength Concrete Elements
Subjected to Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol 91, No. 4, 1994, pp. 423-433.
33 Kuchma, D. “The Influence of T-Headed Bars on the Strength and Ductility of
Reinforced Concrete Walls.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 1997.
34 Tamai, S. Shima, H., Izumo, J. and Okamura, H., “Average Stress-Strain Relationship
in Post Yield Range of Steel Bar in Concrete.” Concrete Library of JSCE, No. 11,
181
June 1988, p. 117-129. (Translation from Proceedings of JSCE, No. 378/V-6, Feb
1987).
35 Taylor, H.P.J., “Investigation of Forces Carried across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete
Beams by Interlock of Aggregate,” TRA 42.447, Cement and Concrete Association,
London, 1970, 22 pp.
36 Jourawski, D. J., “Sur la résistnce d’un corps prismatique …,” Annales des Ponts et
Chauseés, Mémoires et Documents, 3rd Series, Vol. 12, Part 2, 1856, pp. 328-351.
37 Collins, M.P. "Reinforced Concrete in Combined Shear and Flexure," Proceedings of
the Mark W. Huggins Symposium, University of Toronto Press, 1978
38 Felber, A.J., “RESPONSE: A Program to Determine the Load-Deformation Response
of Reinforced Concrete Sections”, M.A.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, 1990, 148 pp.
39 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, “First Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, 1994,
1901 pp.
40 Angelakos, D., “The Influence of Concrete Strength and Longitudinal Reinforcement
Ratio on the Shear Strength of Large-Size Reinforced Concrete Beams with and
without Transverse Reinforcement,” M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1999, 181 pp
41 Taylor, H.P.J, “Shear Strength of Large Beams,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol98. No. ST11, Nov 1972, pp. 2473-2489.
42. Shioya, T., Iguro, M., Nojiri, Y., Akiyama, H., and Okada, T., Shear Strength of
Large Reinforced Concrete Beams. Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete,
SP-118, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 309 pp.
43. Shioya, T. Shear Properties of Large Reinforced Concrete Member. Special Report
of Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, No. 25, 1989, 198 pp.
44 Kani, G.N.J., “How Safe are Our Large Concrete Beams?”, ACI Journal , V. 64, No.
3, March 1967, pp. 128-142.
45 Kani, M.W., Huggins, M.W, Wittkopp, R.R., Kani on Shear in Reinforced Concrete,
Univerity of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1979, 225 pp.
46 Moody, K.G., Viest I.M., Elstner, R.C., Hognestad, E. “Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Part-1-Tests of Simple Beams,” Journal of the American Concrete
Institute, V 26. No 4, Nov. 1954, pp. 317–333.
47 Khalifa, J.U., and Collins, M.P., “Circular Reinforced Concrete Membrs Subjected to
Shear,” Publication No. 81-08, Department of Civil Engineering, Univesity of
Toronto, Dec 1981, 103 pp.
48 MacGregor, J.G., “Strength and Behavior of Prestressed Concrete Beams with Web
Reinforcement,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1960, 295
pp.
49 Benzoni, G. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F. “Seismic Shear Strength of Columns with
interlocking Spiral Reinforcement”, Presented to World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, January 2000, Auckland New Zealand.
182
50 Alvarez M. “Einfluss des Verbundverhaltens auf das Verformungsvermögen von
Stahlbeton (Influence of Bond Behaviour on the Deformation Capacity of Structural
Concrete)”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich,
July 1998. Dissertation No. 12719, Available as IBK-Report Nr. 236.
51 Popovics, S., “A Numericasl Approach to the Complete Stress-Strain Curve of
Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 1973, pp. 483-599.
52 Canadian Standards Association CAN CSA A23.3 “building code for concrete
buildings”, CSA Rexdale, Ontario, 1984.
53 Ho, G. “Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Shear
Moment and Axial Loads.” M.A.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, 1994, 221 pp.
54 Podgorniak-Stanik, B. “The influence of Concrete Strength, Distribution of
Longitudinal Reinforcement, Amount of Transverse Reinforcement and Member Size
on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members.” M.A.Sc. thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1998.
55 Ghannoum, W.M., “Size effect on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concree Beams,”
M.Eng. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill
University, 1998, 115 pp.
56 Adebar, P.E., and Collins, M.P., “Shear Strength of Members without Transverse
Reinforcement, “Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb. 1996,
pp. 30-41.
57 Collins, M.P., Mitchell, D. and MacGregor, J.G. “Structural Design Considerations
for High Strength Concrete,” Concrete International, May 1993, pp. 27-34.
58 Elzanaty, A.H., Nilson , A.H., and Slate F.O., “Shear Capacity of Prestresed Concrete
Beams Using High-Sytrength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 83, No. 3,
May-June 1986, pp. 359-368.
59 Rabbat, B., “A Variable Angle Space Truss Model for Structural Concrete Beams,”
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1974, 236 pp.
60 Makwana, M.D., “The Effectiveness of Stirrups of Different Shapes in Laterally
loaded Reinforced Concrete Columns,” M.Eng. Thesis, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand 1977, 114 pp.
61 Aregawi, M., “An Experimental Investigation of Circular Reinforced Concrete Beams
in Shear,” M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
1974, 86 pp.
62 Kuzmanovic, S, “An Investigation of the Shear Design of a Reinforced Concrete Box
Structure,” M.A.Sc Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
1998, 126 pp.
63 Kawano, H., Watanabe, H., “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns –
Effect of Specimen Size and Load Reversal.” Proceedings of the Second Italy-Japan
Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, Feb 1997, Rome Italy.
64 Yoon, Y.S., Cook, W.D., and Mitchell, D., “Minimum Shear Reinforcement in
Normal, Medium, and High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 576-584.
65 Haddadin, M.J., Hong, S.T. and Mattock, A.H., “Stirrup Effectiveness in Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Axial Force,” Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings
ASCE, V.97, No. ST9, Sept. 1971, pp. 2277-2297.
183
66 Pasley, G.P., Gogoi, S., Darwin, D. and McCabe, S.L., “Shear Strength of Continuous
Lightly Reinforced T-Beams,” SM Report No. 26, University of Kansas, Dec. 1990,
151 pp.
67 Palaskas, M.N. and Darwin, D., “Shear Strength of Lightly Reinforced T-Beams,”
SM Report No. 3, University of Kansas Center for research, Lawrence, Kansas,
September 1980, 198 pp.
68 Ozcebe, G., Ersoy, U. Tankut, T., “An Evaluation on the Minimum Shear
Reinforcement Requirements For Higher Strength Concrete”, ACI Structural Journal
Vol. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999.
69 Levi, F. Marro, P. “Shear Tests up to Failure of Beams made with Normal and High
Strength Concrete” (summary), CEB Bulletin 193, Lausanne, Switzerland, Dec. 1989.
70 Roller, J.J., and Russell, H.G., “Shear Strength of High-Strength Concrete Beams
with Web Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 2, Mar-Apr. 1990, pp.
191-198.
71 Arbesman, B., Conte, D.F., “The Design and Testing to Failure of a Prestressed
Concrete Beam Loaded in Flexure and Shear,” B.A.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1973, 176 pp.
72 Arbesman, B., “The Effects of Stirrup Cover and Amount of Reinforcement on Shear
Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams,” M.Eng. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1975.
73 Kong, P.Y.L. and Rangan, B.V., “Shear Strength of High-Performance Concrete
Beams”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 95, No. 6, Nov-Dec 1998, pp. 677-688
74 Rangan, B.V., “Web Crushing Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Beams” ACI Structural Journal, V.88, No1, Jan-Feb 1991 pp. 12-16.
75 Shahawy, M.A., Batchelor, B., “Shear Behavior of Full-Scale Prestressed Concrete
Girders: Comparison Between AASHTO Specifications and LRFD Code”, PCI
Journal Vol. 41, No. 3, May-June 1996 pp 48-62.
76 Collins, M.P., “Shear Behavior ...” Discussion, PCI Journal Vol 42, No. 3, May-June
1997, pp. 72-81.
77 Seracino, R. “Towards Improving Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Shells,” M.A.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
1995, 177 pp.
78 Timoshenko S.P., Gere J.M., Mechanics of Materials, D.Van Nostrand, 1971, 541 pp.
79 ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Cocnrete (ACI
318-99) and Commentary ACI 318 R-99,” American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1999, 369 pp.
80 Gupta, P.R.G., “Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Elements subjected to High
Compression and Shear,” Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, 1998.
184
Appendix A: Program Manuals
185
Appendix B: Detailed Zurich Data
186
Appendix C: Experimental Verification Tables for
Response-2000
187
MANUAL Page A-1
Membrane-2000 Response-2000 Triax-2000 Shell-2000
Appendix A: Program Manuals
from
Sectional Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Members
By:
Evan C. Bentz
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
© Evan Bentz
2000
MANUAL Page A-2
Introduction
This manual covers the details of operation of the following programs:
Membrane-2000 2D Sectional analysis of membranes

Response-2000 2D Sectional analysis of beams and columns
Triax-2000 3D Sectional analysis of general concrete blocks
Shell-2000 3D Sectional analysis of plates and shells
Each of these programs is a non-linear sectional analysis program for the analysis
of reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear based on the Modified Compression
Field Theory1. These programs were written over the years 1996-1999 by Evan Bentz,
PhD candidate at the University of Toronto under the supervision of Professor M. P.
Collins. Together they represent over 150,000 lines of C++.
The following guiding principles were used in designing these applications. They
were to allow fast checking for errors in input and fast interpretation of results with
ample graphics. They were to provide stable, state-of-the-art analysis techniques and,
finally, they were designed to leave the user knowing more about the real behaviour of
concrete rather than less, as some computer programs seem to do.
Each of the programs has a similar “look and feel” and has been designed to be as
intuitive as possible. This manual acts as an explicit explanation of what the programs
can do and how to make them do it. This manual does not attempt to provide any of the
background into the analysis techniques used, as this is the main body of this thesis2.
Section I of the manual provides a “quick start” type of description of how to

make simple input files for each of the programs as well as how to interpret the results.
Section II follows with a more detailed description of creating input geometry for
each program.
Section III defines the loading options.
Section IV explains the types of analysis possible and explains the output from
each main screen of the program.
MANUAL Page A-3
Section V provides a description of some of the more advanced options that allow
customisation of the program.
These programs are available for no charge from the World Wide Web at the
following addresses:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm Response-2000
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/m2k.htm Membrane-2000
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/t2k.htm Triax-2000
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/s2k.htm Shell-2000
For further details or for help in using the programs, contact the author at:
Evan Bentz
Department of Civil Engineering
Toronto, Ontario Canada
M5S 1A4
bentz@ecf.utoronto.ca
MANUAL Page A-4
Table of Contents
Introduction .....................................................................................................................A-2
SECTION I: Quick Start .................................................................................................A-6
SECTION II: How to make Input Files ..........................................................................A-7

2-1 Quick Define Wizard.............................................................................................A-7
Membrane-2000 / Shell-2000 / Triax-2000 Wizard. ................................................A-8
Response-2000 Wizard.............................................................................................A-8
2-2 Defining General Information .............................................................................A-11
2-3 Materials Definition.............................................................................................A-13
Basic Properties Page .............................................................................................A-13
Concrete Detailed Definition..................................................................................A-14
Table 2-2 Reinforcement Material Properties Meanings and Default Values........A-17
Prestressing Steel Detailed Definition....................................................................A-18
Table 2-3 Prestressed Reinforcement Material Properties, Meanings and Default
Values .....................................................................................................................A-18
2-4 Concrete Cross Section........................................................................................A-19
Response-2000 Concrete Cross Section Definition ...............................................A-19
2-5 Longitudinal Reinforcement................................................................................A-21
Individual Layers....................................................................................................A-22
Table 2-4 Reinforcing Bar and Strand Designations..............................................A-23
Distributed Layers Pattern ......................................................................................A-25
Tendon Layers ........................................................................................................A-26
2-6 Transverse Reinforcement...................................................................................A-27
2-7 Element Catalog ..................................................................................................A-28
SECTION III: Loading and Analysis Options ..............................................................A-29

3-1 Membrane-2000...................................................................................................A-29
Loading...................................................................................................................A-29
Shrinkage and Thermal Strains...............................................................................A-29
Experimental Results..............................................................................................A-30
3-2 Triax-2000 ...........................................................................................................A-30
Loading...................................................................................................................A-30
3-3 Shell-2000............................................................................................................A-32
Loading...................................................................................................................A-32
3-5 Response-2000.....................................................................................................A-33
Loading...................................................................................................................A-33
Time Dependent Effects .........................................................................................A-33
Detailed Shrinkage and Thermal Strains ................................................................A-34
Strain Discontinuity................................................................................................A-36
Full Member Properties ..........................................................................................A-36
MANUAL Page A-5
SECTION IV: Analysis and Interpretation ...................................................................A-38
4-1 General Information ............................................................................................A-38
4-2 Types of Analyses ...............................................................................................A-40
4-3 Membrane-2000...................................................................................................A-41
Membrane-2000: 9 Plots General...........................................................................A-41
Membrane-2000: 9 Plots Mohr’s Circle.................................................................A-44
4-4 Response-2000.....................................................................................................A-48
Response-2000 9 Plots General..............................................................................A-48
Response-2000 9 Plots Cracking............................................................................A-51
Response-2000 9 Plots Reinforcement...................................................................A-51
Response-2000 9 Plots No Shear ...........................................................................A-53
Response-2000 Load Deformation Plots................................................................A-54
Other Load-Deformation Plots ...............................................................................A-56
Response-2000 Full Member Plots ........................................................................A-57
4-5 Triax-2000 ...........................................................................................................A-59
Triax-2000 9 Plots General.....................................................................................A-59
Triax-2000 Other 9-plot Views ..............................................................................A-61
4-6 Shell-2000............................................................................................................A-63
Shell-2000 9 plots General .....................................................................................A-63
Shell-2000 9-Plot Views.........................................................................................A-65
Shell-2000 Interpreting Crack Diagrams................................................................A-67
Shell-2000 Load-Deformation Plots.......................................................................A-68
SECTION V: Advanced Topics....................................................................................A-69

5-1 Text Effects..........................................................................................................A-69
5-2 Chart Options.......................................................................................................A-69
5-3 Edit Chart Properties ...........................................................................................A-70
Title Section............................................................................................................A-71
Scaling of Data Section ..........................................................................................A-71
Line Section............................................................................................................A-71
5-4 Double Click Information in Response-2000......................................................A-72
5-5 Segmental Concrete Model .................................................................................A-72
5-6 Material Reduction Factors .................................................................................A-72
5-7 Concrete Strain Discontinuity Example ..............................................................A-73
5-8 Rebar.dat..............................................................................................................A-76
5-9 Adding predefined shapes: Shape.dat..................................................................A-77
5-10 Adding predefined sections: Standard.dat .........................................................A-78
5-11 Template Files ...................................................................................................A-79
5-12 Text File Formats...............................................................................................A-80
References for Appendix A...........................................................................................A-84

MANUAL Page A-6
SECTION I: Quick Start

The Quick Start part of this manual can be found in the main thesis as chapter 2.
MANUAL Page A-7
SECTION II: How to make Input Files

The four programs presented in this manual have a high level of commonality.
For example, the materials definition page is identical between them all. This section of
the manual contains a description of how to make input files for the programs. The
differences between the different applications are noted where appropriate. It is useful to
have read Chapter 2 of the main thesis before reading this section to be familiar with the
capabilities of the programs.
Response-2000 allows only one cross section to be input at the same time. The
other programs all allow more than one with a catalog of elements available to select
between them. See section 2-7 for a description of the catalog.
All programs allow the units to be changed at any time during the running of the
program using the “Options | Preferences” menu.
2-1 Quick Define Wizard

Each program has a “wizard” to assist in the creation of new elements. It will
often be necessary to make slight changes to resulting section, as the default values in the
programs may not match the desired ones. For example, most of the recent shear tests on
beams done at the University of Toronto have been done with 10 mm aggregate, but
Response-2000 assumes ¾ inch (19 mm) aggregate. As such, it is necessary to manually
change that value when predicting University of Toronto tests.
MANUAL Page A-8
Membrane-2000 / Shell-2000 / Triax-2000 Wizard.
As Membrane-2000 and
Shell-2000 both analyse shell-type
elements, they both use the same
quick define box. The top third of
the dialog box asks for title, element
thickness and concrete strength. The
concrete is assumed to have 19 mm
aggregate, and use the Popovics
concrete stress-strain relationship as
explained below in Table 2-1. Each
direction of reinforcement is defined
by a total percentage, yield stress and a bar type. The programs assume that there are two
layers of steel, with the default clear cover of 40 mm. Note that steel may be selected by
a named title (e.g. #5, 20M, etc. See Table 2-4) or by supplying a cross sectional area by
clicking on the “select by area” check box. If a bar type is selected that the program does
not recognise, a list of all available types will appear.
The quick define wizard for Triax-2000 is similar to the above figure, differing
only in the addition of a third direction of reinforcement for the Z direction.
Response-2000 Wizard
The wizard for Response-2000 is more complex and is explained here in some
detail. There are four pages to this wizard with each shown and explained below.
The first step is shown to the

left. It contains general information as
well as material properties.
Assumptions about the

concrete are the same as the other
programs noted above. Steel is
MANUAL Page A-9
assumed to have an ultimate strength 50% higher than the yield value provided and 10%
strain at peak stress. There are two types of prestressed reinforcement available, low-
relaxation strands and stress-relieved strands.
Page 2 selects concrete cross

section information. Base types to
select from include rectangles, circles,
T-beams, I Beams, general hollow-
core shapes, elliptical sections, hollow
circular columns, and interlocking
spiral columns. For each of these
sections, the needed variables will be
shown on the right side of the screen.
A title line along the bottom defines what the titles mean. (Translating “bt” to “Width at
bottom and top extremes”, for example”).
Further down in the list are standard sections including CPCI-I beams, CPCI-box
beams, PCI Double-T’s, PCI Single-T’s AASHTO highway girders, and Washington
DOT sections. For these standard sections, the right entry fields are used for the
following four purposes. First to select a type from the selected category (pressing any
key will bring up a list) and second to define a haunch (distance from the top of the
precast beam to the bottom of the slab). The third box defines the slab depth and the
fourth defines the effective slab width. Note that the slab width should be the effective
width for the purposes of analysis, rather than the simple geometric size of the slab.
The types of sections that are available to be chosen are user extendable. See
section 5-10 for a description of how to do this.
Page 3 of the quick define box contains the definition for the longitudinal
reinforcement (but not prestressing strands). Bars are selected similarly to the other
programs either by area or by name. The bars will be placed into layers if there are too
MANUAL Page A-10
many to fit within the width of the cross section. Response-2000 uses bar spacing equal
to the bar diameter to produce layers of steel.
For standard sections, such as

AASHTO beams, the top half of the
box is for steel that will be placed
into the slab in two layers. If there is
no slab, the steel will be placed in the
top of the precast section.
For sections that are based on

circular cross sections, the top half
shows the outer ring of the reinforcement and the bottom section shows the inner ring of
reinforcement. In the case shown, the bars are being defined for a column with
interlocking spirals and the top and bottom rings are being defined.
The final page of the quick-

define menu asks for shear
reinforcing and tendon steel. Stirrups
are selected by the pattern as well as
bar type and spacing. Patterns
include Open stirrups, closed
stirrups, single-leg stirrup, t-headed
single leg, hoop and interlocking
hoops.
Tendons are placed in layers as explained above, except that the spacing is
automatically selected as 2 inches (50 mm).
MANUAL Page A-11
2-2 Defining General Information
Following the “Define | Quick

Define” option in each program is the
“Edit General” selection. This allows
selecting information such as the title
of the section etc. Shown here is the
dialog box from Response-2000.
The Title allows multi-line titles,

though only the first line will be
printed out. The text style tags
described in section 5-1 apply here.
These allow the use of superscripts, subscripts and Greek characters in the titles.
Crack spacing in each direction is also defined here. For each direction, the crack
spacing may be selected as either a constant number, or by selecting the check box to
make it automatically calculated. It is recommended that the spacing always be
automatically calculated as it avoids the user from having to think about it, and also better
models real behaviour than a simple constant number.
The equation used for crack spacing at a given depth z is based on the CEB crack
spacing suggestions5 and given by the following equation:
Crack spacing = 2 c + 0.1 db/ρ
where c is diagonal distance to the nearest reinforcement in section from current depth
db is the diameter of the nearest bar
ρ is the percentage of steel within a depth of z +/- 7.5 db
For cases with no reinforcement, the crack spacing is selected as 5 times the depth
of the section.
MANUAL Page A-12
Response-2000, as shown, also has an option for the moment axis to be selected.
This represents the depth in the cross section at which any axial load is applied. The
default selection of the centroid of the gross concrete section is generally acceptable, and
if there is no axial load, then this option has no effect.
MANUAL Page A-13
2-3 Materials Definition

Each program defines material properties for three different categories of
materials: concrete, non-prestressed reinforcement and prestressed reinforcement.
Within each category, more than one type may be defined. For example a
prestressed beam in Response-2000 may have 60 MPa concrete for the girder as well as
35 MPa concrete for the slab. There may be 1860 MPa low-relaxation steel for the
tendons as well as a 400 MPa steel for the deck reinforcement and 300 MPa steel for the
stirrups. All these material types are defined within the same file.
Basic Properties Page

The “Define | Material Properties” option gives access to this multi-page tabbed
dialog box.
The first page, as shown here, is the general page. If a material type is fully
defined by default parameters, such as shown here for the concrete from panel PV20 in
Membrane-2000, there will be one number showing as the concrete definition. Clicking
on the button to the right labelled “Detailed f’c” will allow altering of these default
properties.
MANUAL Page A-14
If the type has been altered from the default values, or if there is more than one
type, then a number will not show up in the general page, rather, it will list “Detailed” as
above for PV20 reinforcement where there are different steel definitions for the X and Y
directions. To edit the detailed list, click the button beside it. If the detailed title is
replaced with a number, the original list of types will be replaced after a warning
message.
Concrete Detailed Definition

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

strength and strain at peak
stress are prefixed with
“auto”. That means that
they are estimated directly
from the concrete strength
and will be automatically
updated. If a number is
entered into the field, the
automatic mode will be
turned off.
MANUAL Page A-15
Table 2-1 Concrete Material Properties, Meanings and Default Values
The listed “default value” is selected automatically when using the “basic
properties” page of the dialog box.
Property Definition Title Default Value

Cylinder Strength Concrete cylinder strength fc' 40 MPa
Tension Strength Tensile strength of concrete ft 0.45(fc')0.4 MPa
This should not be modulus of rupture, but rather a value
such as the ACI shear cracking stress
Peak Strain Strain at peak stress e0 As listed in Ref 5
this value, fc', and base curve define stiffness Page 63
Aggregate Size Maximum Aggregate size Maxagg 19 mm (3/4 inch)

Used for shear on crack calculations. Reduced linearly reduced to 0
for high strength concrete to model smooth mm from 60-80 MPa
cracks
Tens. Stiff factor Relative amount of tension stiffening. tsfactor 1.0
Base Curve Basic shape of concrete base curve:

Linear linear to (ε0,fc'), zero after
Parabolic Parabolic through (ε0,fc') and (2ε0,0)
Popovics Default equation from Ref (5)
Segmental User defined curve: See Section 5-5
Elasto-Plastic linear to (ε0,fc'), constant at fc' until 2 x ε0
MANUAL Page A-16
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
Compression Models lowering of concrete strength with increasing transverse tensile strain
Softening There are many models here. For normal strength concrete, the Vecchio-Collins 1986
model is suggested. For very high strength concrete (>90 MPa), the Porasz-Collins 1989
model is recommended. Some of these models are not available in the released versions
of the programs.
None No change in compressive capacity with tensile strain

This option does not model concrete well
Vecchio-Collins 1982 Equation proposed by Vecchio, Ref 3
This works well for normal and low strength concrete
Vecchio-Collins 1986 Equation proposed by Vecchio/Collins, Ref 1
This is a simplification of the above equation: Recommended
Vecchio-Collins 92-A Equation proposed by Vecchio/Collins, Ref 6
This is a new fit to the data. Comparable to the 1982 eq.
Vecchio-Collins 92-B Equation proposed by Vecchio/Collins, Ref 6
This is a new fit to the data. Comparable to the 1986 eq.
Mehlhorn et al Equation proposed by Mehlhorn et al, Ref 7
This does not model concrete well for high strains
Maekawa et al Equation proposed by Maekawa, et al Ref 8
Noguchi et al Equation proposed by Noguchi, et al Ref 9
Belarbi-Hsu proportional Rotating Angle Softened Truss Model Relation
Ref 10. If this is selected with Tamai tension stiffening,
program runs in RA-STM mode.
CAN CSA S474 Offshore Code. Like V-C ’86 but Not a function of e0
Collins 1978 Compression Field Theory Equation Ref 11.
Kaufmann-Marti 1998 Equation proposed by Kaufmann and Marti Ref 12
This is fit to many RC panels from Canada/Japan/USA
Porasz-Collins 1988 Equation proposed by Porasz and Collins Ref 13
Recommended method for very high strength concrete
Hsu-Zhang 1998 Model of RA-STM 98 and FA-STM98. Ref 14
Concrete crushes early in this model. Not recommended
Hsu 1993 Another model from the Houston RA-STM. Ref 15
Tension Models the post cracking tensile strength in reinforced/prestressed concrete

Stiffening The Bentz-1999 model is suggested.
None Ignore post cracking tension stiffening

Vecchio-Collins 1982 Equation proposed by Vecchio Ref 3
Collins-Mitchell 1987 Equation proposed in 1987 textbook Ref 16
Suggested Equation if Bentz 2000 method not used
Izumo et al Equation proposed by Izumo et al Ref 17
Tamai et al Tamai, also used by Hsu models Ref 18
Elasto-Plastic Full cracking stress at any strain after cracking
Bentz 2000 Tension stiffening based on strain and distance to steel
See Reference 2 to find out how this works
MANUAL Page A-17
Reinforcement Detailed Definition
Non-prestressed
steel is defined in a similar
manner to that above for
concrete. Note that the
example shown has 2
different types of steel
defined. The values
currently shown at the
right are for the selected
“x-steel” type. Clicking
on the “y-steel” type would allow that to be edited as well.
The “predefined type” option allows selection from common types of steel
defined in Table 2-2, below, along with all the other parameters used in this dialog box.
Table 2-2 Reinforcement Material Properties Meanings and Default Values

Elastic Modulus Stiffness before yield E 200,000 MPa
Yield Strength Proportional limit fy 400 MPa
e-strain harden Strain at strain harden εsh 7 mm/m
Rupture strain Strain at Ultimate stress. εu 10%
Ultimate strength Maximum stress fu 1.5 x fy
Curve is linear to yield, flat post yield, and quadratic after strain hardening.
Slope is zero at location of maximum stress and strain.
Predefined Options
E fy εsh εu fu
(MPa) (MPa) (mm/m) (mm/m) (MPa)
ASTM A615 40 ksi 200000 276 20.0 120.0 483
ASTM A615 60 ksi 200000 414 15.0 80.0 621
ASTM A706 60 ksi 200000 414 15.0 120.0 552
CSA G30.12 300 MPa 200000 300 20.0 110.0 450
CSA G30.12 400 MPa 200000 400 15.0 80.0 600
CSA G30 400 Weld 200000 400 15.0 130.0 550
1030 MPa Dywidag 200000 800 10.0 40.0 1030
1080 MPa Dywidag 200000 820 10.0 40.0 1080
MANUAL Page A-18
Prestressing Steel Detailed Definition
Steel to be used for
tendons is defined using
the Ramberg-Osgood
formulation as explained
in Reference 5.
Generally, it will be
acceptable to simply
select one of the two
predefined types. If
more information is
available about the stress-strain properties, however, Ref. 5 provides a method to
calculate the parameters A, B and C as listed in the dialog box.
Table 2-3 Prestressed Reinforcement Material Properties, Meanings and Default Values

Ramberg-Osgood A the A parameter of the model A 0.025
Ramberg-Osgood B the B parameter of the model B 118.0
Ramberg-Osgood C the C parameter of the model C 10.0
Elastic Modulus Stiffness before yield E 200,000 MPa
Ultimate strength Maximum stress fu 1860 MPa
Rupture strain Strain at bare-strand rupture εu 43 mm/m
Predefined Options
A B C E fu εu
(MPa) (MPa) (mm/m)
1860 MPa Low-Relax 0.025 118.0 10.0 200000 1860 43
1860 MPa Stress- 0.030 121.0 6.0 200000 1860 43
Relieved
MANUAL Page A-19
2-4 Concrete Cross Section

The “Define | Concrete Cross Section” menu option defines the area of concrete
to use in the analysis. Response-2000 requires a beam or column cross section. Shell-
2000 and Membrane-2000 simply require one number: the shell thickness and Triax-2000
requires no dimensions at all. Only Response-2000 will be explained in this section.
Response-2000 Concrete Cross Section Definition

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

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

standard type in a list along with
the ability to automatically add a
slab if the checkbox on the top
right is selected. Shown is the
built-in AASHTO style girders
with a Type III selected with a
slab on top. See Section 5-10 to
MANUAL Page A-20
find out how to add more standard sections to this listing.
Page three of the concrete box in Response-2000 allows any concrete geometry at
all to be defined as well as definition of concrete type regions. Sections entered in page
one or two may be “tuned” using page three.
The left side of the page deals

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

series of height-width pairs as
shown in the list-box on the left.
The zero location for the y-axis is chosen to be at the bottom of the cross section, but
distances may be entered at any depth. (that is, entering negative depths is acceptable). If
there is a sudden change in section width, for example at the bottom of a slab, two lines
in the list have the same depth. The one higher in the list refers upwards and the lower
one in the list refers downwards. In the event that Response-2000 cannot tell if a new
point should refer upwards or downwards, the user is shown both options and asked to
select which is correct.
The Add/Modify/Delete buttons act in the expected way, adding a line to the
listing, modifying an existing line or removing a line from the listing. Note that the
selected line in the listing is shown in red on the sketch on the right side.
To enter a elliptical section, enter the width at the bottom and top extremes, say,
200 mm wide 100 mm up and 0 mm wide at 0 mm up as shown on the next page
drawing. Adding in a new line with an elevation between the other two, say 50 mm, and
MANUAL Page A-21
a width of “DOWN” (no quotes) will produce the drawing in the
second figure. Selecting a width of “UP” instead will produce
what’s shown in the third figure. Using combinations of these,
circles and ellipses may be easily produced. The “up” or “down”

title indicates whether the top or bottom has a zero slope.
To select concrete material types, click on the sketch on the

right side of the dialog box and select the concrete type from the
given listing. In the example above, the web is a different type.
2-5 Longitudinal Reinforcement

Defining longitudinal steel for Membrane-2000 is identical to Shell-2000 and
both are similar to Response-2000 and so all will be explained together.
Steel in the programs is defined either as individual layers of bars or in collections

of patterned layers. Patterns include distributed patterns as well as circular patterns.
Membrane-2000 and Shell-2000 do not allow circular patterns.
Each dialog box uses the traditional list of layers with the ability to add a new
definition, modify an existing one or delete it. This is the same style used in the materials
definition page.
MANUAL Page A-22
Individual Layers
Shown is the Response-

2000 longitudinal
reinforcement definition
page. Membrane-2000
and Shell-2000 are
similar except that they
ask for spacing of bars
rather than the number
of bars as well as asking
for a prestrain for it.
In the example, three layers are defined, with the one called “bot2” currently
highlighted. It has 3 bars defined each with a cross sectional area of 440 mm2 and a
centroid 38 mm above the bottom of the cross section. The type of steel selected is
“botlong” which would have been defined in the materials dialog page. Different layers
can, of course, use different material types.
Table 2-4 shows the bar types built into the programs. See section 5-8 for a
description of how to add new bar types to this listing.
MANUAL Page A-23
Table 2-4 Reinforcing Bar and Strand Designations
CSA Reinforcing Bars. CSA Prestressing Strands
Bar Nominal Cross Strand Nominal Cross

Designation (mm) Sectional Area Designation Diameter (mm) Sectional Area
(mm2) (mm2)
10M 11.3 100 S9 9.53 55
15M 16.0 200 S11 11.13 74
20M 19.5 300 S13 12.70 99
25M 25.2 500 S13FAT 13.9 107.7
30M 29.9 700 S13S 13.9 107.7
35M 35.7 1000 S15 15.24 140
45M 43.7 1500
55M 56.4 2500
CSA Reinforcing Alternate Titles. US Prestressing Strands (270 ksi)
Bar Nominal Cross Strand Nominal Cross

Designation Diameter Sectional Area Designation Diameter (mm) Sectional Area
(mm) (mm2) (mm2)
10 11.3 100 S.25 0.250 0.036
15 16.0 200 S.375 0.375 0.085
20 19.5 300 S.5 0.500 0.153
25 25.2 500 S.5FAT 0.550 0.167
30 29.9 700 S.5S 0.550 0.167
35 35.7 1000 S.6 0.600 0.215
45 43.7 1500
55 56.4 2500
Standard US bars Deformed Prestressing Bars (Dywidag)
Bar Nominal Cross Bar Nominal Cross

Designation Diameter Sectional Area Designation Diameter (mm) Sectional Area
(mm) (mm2) (mm2)
#2 0.248 0.050 PB15 15.0 177
#3 0.375 0.110 PB26 26.5 551
#4 0.500 0.200 PB32 32.0 804
#5 0.625 0.310 PB36 36.0 1018
#6 0.750 0.440
#7 0.875 0.600
#8 1.000 0.790
#9 1.128 1.000
#10 1.270 1.270
#11 1.410 1.560
#14 1.693 2.250
#18 2.257 4.000
MANUAL Page A-24
Table 2-4 Reinforcing Bar and Strand Designations (con’t)
US Proposed Metric Titles Bars nominal by diameter
Bar Nominal Cross Bar Nominal Cross Sectional

Designation Diameter Sectional Area Designation Diameter Area (mm2)
(mm) (mm2) (mm)
M10 9.5 71 1 mm 1 0.785
M13 12.7 129 2 mm 2 3.142
M16 15.9 200 3 mm 3 7.069
M19 19.1 284 4 mm 4 12.57
M22 22.2 387 5 mm 5 19.63
M25 25.4 510 6 mm 6 28.27
M29 28.7 645 7 mm 7 38.48
M32 32.3 819 8 mm 8 50.27
M36 35.8 1006 9 mm 9 63.62
M43 43.0 1452 10 mm 10 78.54
M57 57.3 2581 11 mm 11 95.03
12 mm 12 113.1
Japanese Bars 13 mm 13 132.7
14 mm 14 153.9
Bar Nominal Cross 15 mm 15 176.7
Designation Diameter Sectional 16 mm 16 201.1
(cm) Area (cm2) 17 mm 17 227.0
JD6 0.64 0.32 18 mm 18 254.5
JD8 0.80 0.5 19 mm 19 283.5
JD10 0.95 0.71 20 mm 20 314.2
JD13 1.27 1.27 21 mm 21 346.4
JD16 1.59 1.99 22 mm 22 380.1
JD19 1.91 2.87 23 mm 23 415.5
JD22 2.23 3.87 24 mm 24 452.4
JD25 2.55 5.07 25 mm 25 490.9
JD29 2.86 6.42 26 mm 26 530.9
JD32 3.18 7.94 27 mm 27 572.6
JD35 3.50 9.57 28 mm 28 615.8
JD38 3.82 11.4 29 mm 29 660.5
JD41 4.14 13.4 30 mm 30 706.9
31 mm 31 754.8
32 mm 32 804.2
33 mm 33 855.3
34 mm 34 907.9
35 mm 35 962.1
36 mm 36 1018
MANUAL Page A-25
Distributed Layers Pattern
Pattern layers allow easy definition of reinforcing. The pattern lists have an
additional button as well that allows the pattern to be “exploded” into individual layers.
“Distributed Layers”
allows a series of
layers to be
automatically
repeated. The
example shows part
of a wall with 15M
bars at 300 mm on
each face. 2 bars per
layer for 6 layers are
used to define this.
Circular patterns,
only available in
Response-2000,
allow reinforcement
to be easily added
for round columns.
This example shows
a large column with
24 #14 bars at the
listed geometry. The
Orientation specifies the angular offset of the pattern. If the selection is “aligned”, then
there will be a bar at the 12-o’clock position on the drawing. If the setting is “offset”, as
here, the top 2 bars are balanced around the 12-o’clock position. With more than perhaps
6 bars, this has very little impact, but can be important if there are only, say, 4 bars in the
pattern.
MANUAL Page A-26
Tendon Layers
Response-2000
requires explicit
definition of tendon
layers as contrasted
to longitudinal
reinforcement layers.
The example shows
a long list of
individual layers for
tendons. Each is
defined as the
number of strands, prestrain, distance from bottom of section, type and drape. Drape is
defined as the rise over run of the strands. As such, in 20 feet of run the shown example
would rise 0.0711 x 20 = 1.422 feet rise per 20 feet of run.
Membrane-2000 and Shell-2000 allow prestressed steel from the normal layer
dialog box. Draped strands are not supported for shell elements and membranes. Triax-
2000 reinforcement,
in each direction X,
Y, or Z, is defined
more simply than the
other programs as
there is very limited
spacing information
that needs to be
defined. It is simply
defined by the
percentage of steel
and the bar type.
MANUAL Page A-27
2-6 Transverse Reinforcement

Transverse reinforcement, like longitudinal reinforcement, is defined similarly
between Shell-2000, Response-2000 and Membrane-2000. Note that Triax-2000 does
not have any definition for transverse reinforcement as in a 3D block of concrete, the
transverse direction is actually the longitudinal Z direction.
The
example shows the
dialog box from
Response-2000.
Stirrups are defined
by spacing, bar
type, material type
and geometry. The
geometry is defined
in terms of the
elevation of the top
and bottom ends of the reinforcement as well as the type of bar. Response-2000 allows
stirrups to be: Closed Stirrups, Open Stirrups, Hoops, Single-Leg hooked bars or Single-
Leg T-Headed bars. Each kind of bar is assumed to be able to yield all the way to the end
of the bar as entered (i.e. no development length). This is reasonable if there is a t-head
or a hook at the end of the bar but means that a correction should be made for transverse
bars that are not properly anchored.
Membrane-2000 and Shell-2000 use a similar dialog box with the following
differences. The spacing term is replaced by a transverse percentage. The stirrup types
are limited to single-leg hooked bars and single leg t-headed bars. Note that the single-
leg hooked bars are currently drawn on the screen as t-heads.
MANUAL Page A-28
2-7 Element Catalog

While Response-2000 only allows one cross section per input file, the other
programs all allow more than one by use of the catalog menu option.
The example
here shows the catalog
in use with Membrane-
2000 showing a list of
experimental tests.
Shell element SE5 is
currently selected from
the listing. The catalog
is based on the familiar
Windows Explorer tree-
system. The different
titles used are from the
“Edit General” page in
the define menu.
The catalog buttons on the right allow a new element to be created using the
Quick Define Wizard, copying of an existing element, or deleting of an element from the
catalog.
When using the programs, it is possible to switch to a different element via either
the catalog itself, the menu options “Catalog | Next Element”, “Catalog | Previous
Element”, or using the toolbar. This fragment of the toolbar, shown here from
Membrane-2000 allows access to the catalog from the button that looks like a little tree-
list between the arrows. The arrow pointing left goes to the previous element in the
listing, and the arrow to
the right goes to the next
element in the list. In this way it is easy to examine many elements from within one file.
MANUAL Page A-29
SECTION III: Loading and Analysis Options

This section defines the options in the “loads” menu option of each of the
programs. As there are important differences between the four programs in this regard,
they will be explained here individually. As Response-2000 is the most complex, it is
explained last.
3-1 Membrane-2000
Loading
Loading for Membrane-2000 consists of
Axial stress in the X direction, Axial
stress in the Y direction, and in-plane
shear. Positive axial stresses indicate
tension with negative indicating
compression. The shear must be non-zero
and positive in Membrane-2000.
The left column defines the stress level to

start the analysis at, as well as defining the load combinations to use for the “one load”
solution. The right side holds the loading ratios for any increment in load beyond the
initial level. Note that, for the increment, it is the ratios and signs that matter, not the
magnitude of the numbers themselves. The example shown represents an analysis for
pure shear starting with no load on the panel.
Shrinkage and Thermal Strains

Membrane-2000 allows the concrete to have a selected shrinkage using the
“Loads | Shrinkage and Thermal Strains” menu option. Note that any thermal strains in
the reinforcement may be applied as reinforcement prestrains. Enter negative strains in
the shrinkage dialog box to indicate that the concrete has shrunk.
MANUAL Page A-30
Experimental Results
Because Membrane-2000 represents the type of element tested to define the
MCFT, a facility has been included to allow experimental results to be shown. This is
demonstrated in Section I, Quick Start for Membrane-2000 where the results from panel
PV20 tested by Vecchio are shown.
The experimental results are added one variable at a time. A dialog box allows
access to 12 variables. Experimental data in the form of a column of numbers may be
entered by hand or using the “paste” button on the page. There must be the same number
of data points for each variable and they must be in the same order. When an analysis is
run, Membrane-2000 checks if data has been entered for both the X and Y axes of the
plots. If so, it includes the experimental data along with the calculated solution.
The last menu option in the loads menu of Membrane-2000 allows the data to be
quickly removed from, for example, the default input example.
3-2 Triax-2000
Loading
As an analysis program of a
general 3D solid, Triax-2000
requires 6 loads to be defined
to perform an analysis. These
are Axial force in the X, Y, and
Z direction plus shear on the X-
Y, Y-Z, and X-Z planes.
Positive axial stresses indicate

tension with negative
indicating compression. Positive shear stresses have the shear arrows pointed in the
positive axis directions. The signs of the shears and axial stresses may be positive or
negative.
MANUAL Page A-31
As with the other programs, the first column is for the initial loading or single
load level analysis. The second column is used for ratios between the loads for a full
response type of analysis.

Shrinkage can be set via the “loads | shrinkage and thermal strains” menu choice.
Shrinkage is assumed to be constant for the volume of materials. A negative strain
indicates that the concrete has shrunk.
MANUAL Page A-32
3-3 Shell-2000
Loading
Shell-2000 allows all 8 force resultants on a shell element to be applied. The
loads are applied in force resultant per unit length. For example, moments are in kNm/m
or kip-ft/ft and axial forces are in kN/m or kips/ft. The applied loads are:
Component Sign
Axial force in X and Y (tension positive)

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

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

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

Like Triax-2000, shrinkage may be applied as a constant value for the whole
element. Thermal strains in the reinforcement may be applied by the use of prestrains. A
negative value in the shrinkage dialog box means that the concrete has shrunk.
MANUAL Page A-33
3-5 Response-2000
Loading
Response-2000 allows axial load, moment and shear to be applied to the element.
Positive axial force is tension and negative axial force is compression. Positive moment
indicates compression on the top of the section. The shear term must be positive.
Like all the programs, loading is

provided on the left side for a starting
load level or a single load analysis, and
on the right for the increments in load.
The actual magnitudes of the incremental
values are not important. Response-2000
only uses the signs and values relative to
each other.
For this example, there is no initial load level, and the moment to shear ratio is
1.34 feet.
Time Dependent Effects

To assist in the examination of time-dependent effects, Response-2000 includes a
routine that implements the AASHTO-9419 suggested methods for shrinkage, creep and
prestressing strand relaxation.
This is accessed via the
“Loads | Time Dependent
Effects” menu option. Note
that it does not model the
increase in concrete strength
with time, as that is too
dependent on individual mix
designs.
MANUAL Page A-34
This module will only be used if the checkbox at the top is selected. The age for
long-term behaviour is needed, as is the sustained moment for the section as that strongly
affects the creep.
Briefly, the shrinkage and relaxation is estimated for the given age and the creep
under the given sustained moment is estimated. Then a shrinkage/thermal profile is
automatically added to the section to model this. Analyses done then represent short term
loading on a well-aged beam or column. For a more detailed description of the time-
dependent effects module, see Reference 2.
Detailed Shrinkage and Thermal Strains

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

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

dialog box allows
selection of values of
shrinkage at selected
depths. Response-2000 parabolically interpolates between these points.
The top right side allows setting of individual thermal strains for the
reinforcement. As shown, it is also possible to select a value and apply it to all layers of
MANUAL Page A-35
reinforcement. Note that these strains can be used the same way as prestrains are to
tendons if desired.
The bottom right shows a plot with a line indicating the shrinkage distribution and
with little dots to indicate the thermal strains of the reinforcement.
The example shows a 120 inch high section with a large distribution of thermal
strains in the top as well as a small distribution in the bottom. The reinforcement does
not have any thermal strains defined for it.
MANUAL Page A-36
Strain Discontinuity
The strain discontinuity dialog box allows modelling of behaviour effects due to
composite construction. See section 5-7 for a description and example of how best to use
the strain discontinuity feature. In general, it allows for an explicit difference between
the longitudinal strain profile at a given depth and the basic assumption that plane
sections remain plane.
The interface is similar to the shrinkage page above. Elevation-strain pairs are
added to the list and they are plotted on the graph at the right.
In this example, a 2300

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

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

selected as a support on the
bottom of the beam, a
hanging support from the top
of the beam, or a fixed
support. In addition to
changing how the beam is
drawn, the left support
changes the assumed load
sharing between strut action
and sectional action in the
analysis.
The right side has similar options. In this case, the fixed support also needs
information about the penetration of strains into the bottom block of concrete that would
be supporting the column. The default value of 0.022 is suggested for columns. See
Reference 2 for an explanation of how this is used.
MANUAL Page A-38
SECTION IV: Analysis and Interpretation
4-1 General Information

All programs in this manual operate in a similar way. The results of the analysis
are dynamically updated on the screen as they are calculated or as the user changes the
load level. Using this method of fast information presentation, it becomes possible to
quickly see what is predicted to be happening to the concrete and find errors. It has been
found that this not only increases confidence in the results, but also adds to the users
understanding of the behaviour of reinforced concrete. The presentation of the results
also challenges the user to explain any strange or unexpected result. This too enhances
the users understanding of reinforced concrete. This contrasts with some computer
programs for structural analysis that attempt to remove the engineer from the process
resulting in less understanding from the use of the program rather than more.
Membrane-2000 and Triax-2000 perform their analysis immediately and let the
user observe the results. Response-2000 and Shell-2000, due to longer execution times,
update the screen as new results are obtained and let the user watch the results as they
arrive. The different screens of data presentation are available from the “view” menu in
the programs or, more conveniently, through the toolbar.
The default data presentation mode in the programs is a screen with 9 graphs on
it. This manual will concentrate on that "9-plot” view. The program also has a mode to
allow the same plots to be shown individually. For Triax-2000 and Membrane-2000, the
plots in the 9-plot mode are generally full load-deformation plots. For Response-2000
and Shell-2000, the plots represent one load stage showing the value of the variable over
the depth of the element. An additional page is available that provide load-deformation
plots for the latter programs.
MANUAL Page A-39
Moment-Y - Curvature
1500.0
1200.0
r
ot
c 900.0
a
F 5
Y
d 8
2
a
o X
L
600.0
SE7
fc'= 41.8 MPa
300.0 fy (x-steel) = 492 MPa
fy (y-steel) = 479 MPa
X: 2 layers of 20M @ 72 mm
Y: 2 layers of 10M @ 72 mm
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Curvature-Y (rad/km)
The large load-deformation plots have an additional feature in that they allow
other plots to be pasted onto them. The example shown was generated with Shell-2000 in
a minute or so. It shows a shell element subjected to in-plane shear and moment. The
initial cracks are flexural in nature and as the cracks reach a larger depth, the slope of the
moment-curvature plots changes dramatically. The cracks can be seen in the final form
with yielding steel in the last little plot.
The interface of the programs is set up so that there is a “control plot” on the
lower left of the screen. (2 control plots in Response-2000). These are used to indicate
which part of the analysis is currently being viewed. To change the currently viewed
load, click on the control plot and move the crosshairs. Pressing Page-Up and Page-
Down will also switch between differently viewed load stages. The button “max/auto
range” will automatically adjust the plots to “remember” the maximum scale over the
course of the analysis for easier scaling.
MANUAL Page A-40
4-2 Types of Analyses

Three types of analysis are common to all the programs. The first is the “Full-
Response” type of analysis. This will first do a single-load level analysis at the values in
the left column of the “Loads | Loads” menu choice, and then increase loads in the ratio
shown in the right column of the “Loads | Loads” menu item.
The second type of analysis is a “Single Load Level”. This will solve to the loads
selected in the left side of the “Loads | Loads” dialog box.
The third type of analysis is a strain state analysis that will return the stress and
force state that corresponds to a given set of global strains.
Membrane-2000 also includes explicit options in the solve menu to perform a full
analysis for a number of analysis types. These include the Modified Compression Field
Theory 1987 (MCFT)1, the Rotating-Angle Softened Truss Model (RA-STM) 199315,
the RA-STM 199510, the RA-STM 199820 , the Fixed Angle Softened Truss Model (FA-
STM) 199621 , FA-STM 199722 and FA-STM 199823. Hsu and colleagues at the
University of Houston derived the last 6 methods. They are included in Membrane-2000
for comparison purposes. In general, the six methods from Houston do no better a job
than the MCFT, despite having much more experimental data to derive from.
Response-2000 has a number of additional analysis options:
Full Sectional Response Calculate Moment Curvature as above

More Detail Interpolate full sectional response to more detail
Member Response Calculate load-deflection relations for simple beams
One Load Calculate strains for given M, N, V as above
2 Strain Calculate stress state for given pair of long. strains
1 Strain Calculate stress and strain state corresponding to
selected strain at certain depth. (e.g. first yield)
M-N Interaction Calculate axial load-moment interaction envelope
M-V Interaction Calculate moment-shear interaction envelope.
(this is a first step in the Member Response option)
N-V Interaction Calculate axial load-shear interaction envelope.
MANUAL Page A-41
The following section gives a listing of all the 9-plot settings available in the
programs. In each case, an example is shown and the description of the 9 plots provides
guidance in interpreting analyses. The units listings that goes with each description
shows the units used for SI metric, US customary units, and kg-cm units as used in Japan.
4-3 Membrane-2000
Membrane-2000: 9 Plots General

This is the general page of 9 plots that automatically shows up after completing an
analysis. Membrane-2000 is shown with the default analysis of PV20 loaded.
Shear - γxy In-plane shear stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs Shear strain (x 10-3)
As Membrane-2000 uses shear for all analyses, this summarises the element
behaviour. Note cracking, tension stiffening, and crushing at 4.5 MPa in the example
MANUAL Page A-42
Shear - fsx In-plane shear stress vs X direction Average steel stress (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)
The average steel stress may not exceed the yield stress except due to strain
hardening. Note the unloading and the change in slope when the y direction steel yields
Shear - εx In-plane shear stress vs X direction strain (x 10–3)

Corresponds to the previous plot with strain as the horizontal axis. Plot is
proportional to stress plot, as steel has not yielded in this direction during analysis.
Crack Diagram Plot of crack patterns with crack widths (mm, in, cm)
Drawn diagram is 5 x panel thickness wide with steel and cracks drawn in to
scale. Note that cracks rotate with analysis, as per MCFT.
Shear - fsy In-plane shear stress vs Y direction Average Steel stress (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)
Same as the above. Note that the steel does not exceed yield (297 MPa).
Shear - εy In-plane shear stress vs Y direction strain (x 10–3)

Same as X direction plot. Note that on unloading, the highly strained steel is
assumed to unload at a slope equal to the initial stiffness with a plastic offset.
f2 - ε2 Principal compressive stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

Principal compressive strain (x 10-3)
This shows the principal stress strain relationship in compression. The red line at
the bottom (compression is negative) is the maximum allowable stress, whereas the blue
line from the origin is the applied stress. When these two lines touch, the concrete has
crushed. The maximum allowable stress gets closer to zero during the analysis due to
compression softening implicit in the MCFT. Note the post-peak behaviour in
compression implicit from using the Popovics5 compression model rather than a
parabolic model.
Shear on Crack - ε1 Shear on the crack (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

Principal tensile strain (x 10-3)
MANUAL Page A-43
To satisfy equilibrium at a crack, it is sometimes necessary for shear to exist on
the crack surface in the MCFT. This is shown on this plot with ε1 selected for the X-axis.
The red line shows the maximum allowable shear on the crack, a function of the concrete
aggregate size and the crack width. In the example, the limit does not control as the lines
do not touch. Shear on the crack occurs in this case when the steel stress at a crack
reaches yield in the Y direction, and reduces after crushing of the concrete unloads the
steel. Note that for elements with steel in only one direction, this relationship controls
the strength.
f1 - ε1 Principal tensile stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

The principal tensile stress is what separates the MCFT from the earlier
Compression Field Theory11. Cracked concrete will have no tensile stress at a crack, but
significant stresses between the cracks that will tend to stiffen, though generally not
strengthen, the element. The crack-check of the MCFT shows up in this plot as the
tensile stress may be reduced due to equilibrium constraints below the value suggested by
the base equations. In this case, it is not controlling as the concrete crushes first.
MANUAL Page A-44
Membrane-2000: 9 Plots Mohr’s Circle
This second page shows a table of all calculated stress and strain terms as well as
Mohr’s circles of stress and strain.
Mohr’s Circle of Strain (average)

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

This shows the average stress state used to calculate the behaviour of the element.
Note that in the MCFT, though behaviour is calculated and checked at a crack, it is only
the average behaviour that affects the final stress-strain state of the element. Note that
MANUAL Page A-45
the angle of the line (2θ) is the same for the stress circle and strain circle as implicitly
assumed in the MCFT.
Mohr’s Circle of Stress (at a crack)

The stress circle at a crack is included to explicitly show the assumptions about
what happens at a crack. Note that the angle of the line (2 x principal stress angle locally
at a crack) is not the same as it is in the average case. This is due to differing steel
stresses and principal concrete stresses on average and at a crack. Note that due to this
local difference in stress angle, it is quite possible to have local shear stress on the crack
even though the crack is assumed to be at the same angle as the average principal stresses
and strains.
Shear - θ Shear stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs Principal angle of stress/strain (deg)
This shows the angle rotation during the analysis.
Node-Data Stress and strain state of panel at given load stage (units shown)
By right clicking, it is possible to copy this data to the Windows clipboard for use
in other applications.
Shear - ε2, Shear - ε1

Similar to graphs on first page of 9 plots, but with shear as vertical axis.
MANUAL Page A-46
Membrane-2000: 9 Plots Rebar and Cracks
This final page of 9 plots from Membrane-2000 shows important details of the
MCFT in the average steel stress and steel stress at a crack plots.
The important thing to note about this page is the “stress at a crack” plots. The
crosshairs in the control chart have been selected here to be just before shear on the crack
is required. This can be seen on the centre right plot where the cross is just before yield
in the weak (Y) direction. This is an assumption of the MCFT; no shear on the crack is
needed until steel first yields at a crack in the weaker direction. Put another way, the
shear on the crack is minimised in the MCFT as it is assumed that the reinforcement
mechanism is stiffer.
As the load increases above that point, the stress at a crack in the Y direction is
limited to the yield value, and the average is allowed to continue to increase towards
yield. Together this means that the amount of shear on the crack must increase to
continue to support the principal tension. Note that as the load increases above the
MANUAL Page A-47
current level, the rate of change of the stress at a crack in the X direction changes. Shear
on the crack acts to transfer reinforcement demand at a crack from the weak direction (Y)
to the strong direction (X), so shear on the crack makes the slope change. If the load
could continue to increase higher, in this case it’s governed by crushing of the concrete,
and the steel stress in the strong direction also reached yield, the principal tensile stress
would be lowered to ensure equilibrium could be maintained locally at a crack. That, in a
nutshell, is the point of the crack check in the MCFT.
MANUAL Page A-48
4-4 Response-2000
Response-2000 9 Plots General

Response-2000 draws plots over the depth of the beam of column. This example
shows a sectional analysis with shear and moment on a prestressed single-Tee beam.
Response-2000 uses two control plots. They are selected based on the type of
loading, but for shear analyses, the top one shows shear versus shear-strain plot and the
bottom one shows the moment curvature plot. This quickly allows detection of shear
failures versus flexural failures. In this case, due to the prestressing, the moment
curvature never actually reaches a positive curvature, but the shear plot has started
descending for increasing strain. This indicates a shear failure in this case before even
full depth cracking of the section. The plots show the behaviour just before failure.
Cross Section
MANUAL Page A-49
The cross section is drawn darker in regions where the concrete has not cracked.
Longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups are draw dark red if on the yield plateau, bright
red if strain hardening, and dark and bright green for yielding in compression. In this
case, note that despite the positive moment on the section, the bottom of the section has
not cracked through yet due to the prestress force.
Longitudinal Strain Longitudinal strain (x 10-3) vs section depth

This confirms that the curvature is still negative in the section. Note that the line
is linear, showing the implicit assumption that plane sections remain plane. Right
clicking on this plot and selecting “toggle text” will show or hide the curvature of the
beam.
Transverse Strain Bulging strain (x 10-3) vs depth of section

While the longitudinal strains must be linearly distributed, the transverse strain
depends on the local stress-strain conditions at each point in the depth of the beam. They
are dictated by the assumption that the total vertical stress at every depth of the beam
must be zero. In this failure condition note the high strains (~ 3 x yield strain) near the
top of the web.
Crack Diagram
This plot shows the estimated crack pattern as well as crack widths (mm, in, cm).
Note that the crack widths as well as patterns are rather approximate and should not be
used alone to estimate the health of a structure. For this beam about to fail, the maximum
crack width is predicted to be 3.0 mm. For cases where part of the concrete is crushing,
the section is redrawn in pink, and for sections where the cracks are slipping causing
failure, the section is drawn in purple.
Shear Strain (x 10-3)

Like the transverse strain, this shows the distribution of shear strain in the section.
If the section starts to unload for any reason, a grey envelope will show the maximum
value attained so far.
MANUAL Page A-50
Shear Stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

Shear stress is calculated in Response-2000 by a process that considers the
longitudinal stiffness of the cracked concrete2. This produces a calculated shear stress
profile for each load level. This calculated shear stress profile is shown on the plot in
green, and the stress from the strain state is shown in blue. Generally these two lines will
match very closely, but if they do not, the load stage should be treated with some caution.
Note that the shear stress is zero at the top and bottom faces of the beam as expected, but
that the shear stress distribution is not the width-modified parabola that linear theory
would predict. The calculated shear-stress profiles for cracked reinforced concrete in
general are more complex than linear theory would predict, having important effects on
predicted behaviour.
Principal Compressive Stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

Principal compressive stress over the depth is shown in the bottom left. The
maximum allowable stress is shown in red at left. This number will reduce due to
cracking in the concrete as predicted by the MCFT. The blue line is the applied stress in
the concrete at each depth in the beam. Note that due to the shear inducing diagonal
compression, it is quite possible to have principal compression over the entire depth of
the beam. The stress in this beam is more due to the prestressing, however. If the red
and blue lines touch, the concrete is predicted to crush and the section will fail. That is
the fate of this beam. At the next load stage, the concrete is crushing at the top of the
web.
Shear on the Crack (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

Cracked concrete may require shear on the crack to maintain the principal tensile
stress in the concrete. See the Membrane-2000 section above for a discussion of this. As
in that section, the maximum allowable shear on the crack is shown in red with the
applied in blue. For this section, the maximum is limiting the shear on the crack over
part of the depth. In that region, the principal tensile stress has been lowered to maintain
equilibrium.
MANUAL Page A-51
Principal Tensile Stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

This tensile stress will exist throughout the beam, caused by shear on the cross
section. Note the location where the stress is reduced due to the shear on the crack
limitation. The red line on the right indicates the maximum value of stress allowed due
to the requirement of longitudinal yield. If this line pulls in diagonally and intersects the
blue applied stress line, the section is approaching flexural failure.
Response-2000 9 Plots Cracking

This page of 9 plots in Response-2000, not shown here, contains plots of:
Cross Section as above
Longitudinal strain as above
Principal tensile strain (x 10–3)
Crack diagram as above
Crack width plot (mm, in, cm)
Average Angle with depth (degrees)
Longitudinal Crack Spacing (mm, in, cm)
Transverse Crack Spacing (mm, in, cm)
Diagonal Crack Spacing (mm, in, cm)
Response-2000 calculates crack spacing based on the angle and the estimate of
crack spacing in the longitudinal and transverse directions as per the MCFT. If the crack
spacing is calculated automatically as suggested, the spacing will vary over the depth of
the section, further improving the realism of the analysis.
Response-2000 9 Plots Reinforcement

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

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

MANUAL Page A-52
This local value includes the effects of the shear on the crack and principal
tension.
Longitudinal Average Bond (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

This bond stress is what the reinforcement must be able to withstand in order to
support the given shear. No limitations are made in Response-2000 if this value becomes
unrealistically high.
Stirrup Stress (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)

This shows the average stress in the stirrups over the beam depth.
Stirrup Stress at a Crack (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)

This is the local stress at a crack mandated by equilibrium considering shear on
the crack and principal tensile stresses.
Transverse Average Bond (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

As the stress is changing along the length of the stirrups, it is possible to calculate
the bond stresses that would need to be resisted by the stirrup. Response-2000 calculates
these but does not use them to affect the analysis at all. In cases where a stirrup enters
the top flange of a T-Beam, for example, there will be a large drop in stirrup stress due to
the increased concrete area, resulting in a very large calculated bond. The real bond
would be much lower due to strain penetration, and shear lag of forces entering the top
flange.
MANUAL Page A-53
Response-2000 9 Plots No Shear
For analyses without any shear, Response-2000 automatically shows a special 9-
plot page. This is shown below for a beam under axial compression and shear.
This page has 2 new graphs that have not been explained yet.
The Internal Forces plot shows the force and location of the compressive and
tensile forces in the cross section. In this case, due to the axial load, they do not balance
each other. Note that the tensile force arrow may not come directly from the steel
location due to the concrete tensile force component. By right clicking on the plot,
another mode may be selected that calculates directly the resultant of the steel and
concrete forces. This can produce counterintuitive results, so is not the default mode of
presentation.
The N+M plot shows the moment and axial force drawn simply as arrows. This
helps in finding mistakes in simple things such as the sign of the axial force.
MANUAL Page A-54
Response-2000 Load Deformation Plots
The example below shows the screen of Response-2000 in the load-deformation

plot mode. The figure shows the AASHTO-99 moment-shear interaction diagram for a
column tested at the University of Toronto in the 1970’s by Aregawi24 . This figure
contains a great deal of information and so will be explained in detail.
Response-2000 Interface Issues

This page of results is selected with the toolbar icon with the lamba (λ −
signifying load factor) beside the little 9-plot icon or from the “View | Load Deformation
Plot” menu.
The background plot is selected in the top left of the screen. Currently it is
selected to the AASHTO-99 LRFD M-V interaction diagram. Below that option is the
“Paste Data” section that allows selection of which plots to paste onto the plot. The
figure at the start of the section showing cracked shell elements on the main figure was
MANUAL Page A-55
prepared this way with Shell-2000. Currently selected is the longitudinal strain profile,
with the current levels controlled by the control plot below. Pressing the “add to graph”
button would paste the picture on the main figure where it could be moved and resized.
The main figure contains a pair of text-boxes as well as a diagram of the element.
The element picture is pasted on via the “Options | Insert Beam Diagram” menu option.
By right clicking on the figure, the dimension text may be resized and copied to the
clipboard etc. The top text was automatically prepared by Response-2000 and inserted
with the “Options | Insert Text Box” option. This text box may also be edited and
customised. The bottom right text box was automatically included by Response-2000 to
provide information on how the AASHTO-99 analysis was calculated.
Analysis Results Issues

The AASHTO-99 LRFD page (there is also an AASHTO-94 LRFD page)
automatically calculates the strength of the section and prints it in the text box, in this
case in the bottom right. It can be seen that the ultimate shear capacity (Vu) was
predicted as 79 kips. This is calculated for the ratio of moment to shear selected from the
“Loads | Loads” dialog box. Note that there is a little box on the interaction curve at the
point it calculates failure at. In this case, it is on the top curve part of the envelope
meaning a shear failure is predicted.
There is an additional little box shown just below the envelope, this is the
maximum load that the Response-2000 analysis was able to achieve. In this case they are
very close, but they can vary more widely. If the Response-2000 prediction is outside the
envelope, it suggests that the AASHTO code is conservative compared to the more
advanced predictions that Response-2000 makes. If the Response-2000 prediction is
within the envelope, it suggests that the code is unconservative compared to the
Response-2000 analysis. This provides a second, independent, checking of the
provisions of the code that can add to engineer’s confidence for strength predictions of
unusual geometry.
MANUAL Page A-56
It is noted in the top text box that this particular column happened to fail
experimentally at a shear of 80 kips, which is in excellent agreement with both the
Response-2000 predictions and the code prediction. See Reference 2 for more discussion
of the experimental verification of Response-2000.
Other Load-Deformation Plots
Response-2000 also has the following load-deformation plots.

Shear/Moment VS longitudinal strain at mid-depth
Moment-Curvature
Moment-Maximum Crack Width
Moment-Maximum Reinforcement Strain
Shear-Maximum Crack Width
Shear-Shear Strain
Shear-Transverse Strain
Interaction Diagrams (M-V, N-V, M-N depending on which is calculated)
MANUAL Page A-57
Response-2000 Full Member Plots
One of the features of Response-2000 is that while internally it is a sectional

analysis program, it is able to connect a number of sections to perform simple member
analysis. The shown example is for the largest beam ever tested in shear, tested by
Shioya et al in Japan25. This beam had an effective depth of 3000 mm (10 feet), and was
36 metres long (120 feet). The beam was subjected to a uniformly distributed loading.
To perform the shown Response-2000 analysis, the section was first entered into
the program. Next, the “Loads | Full Member Properties” option was used to select a
length of 18 metres (Response-2000 does the analysis on the half-length of the beam),
and the loading was switched to a uniformly distributed load. Finally, the “Solve |
Member Response” menu option was selected.
Response-2000 calculated the interaction diagram shown in the top control chart.
It then determined the largest loading envelope that would fit into the diagram. It can be
MANUAL Page A-58
seen that the loading envelope touches the failure envelope on the top indicating a shear
failure. If it had touched at the right side, it would have represented a flexural failure.
The shape of the loading envelope is parabolic on the right and linear on the left. See
Reference 2 for a description of the derivation of the loading shape.
The shown crack diagram is the predicted extent of cracking in the beam at
failure. The support plate can be seen on the left. The loading is uniform over the top
surface of the beam. Using the lower control plot, the predicted extent of cracking at
other load levels may also be explored.
The plots at the bottom are also instructive. The top left one shows the change in
curvature over the length of the beam. The location of first flexural cracking, about 2500
mm from the support, can be clearly seen as can the roughly parabolic distribution that
would be expected for the parabolic moment diagram. Note that these curvatures all
implicitly include the effect of shear on the curvature.
The shear strain distribution shows that the average shear strain over the length of
the beam is not uniform at all. It may be expected that the strain would increase linearly
from the right as the shear diagram is linear, but this is not the case due the concrete non-
linearity. The strong interaction of shear and moment for this beam means that the
predicted critical location for shear is about 6 metres away from the location of maximum
shear.
Rounding out the plots are the predicted deflected shape and the plot of load
versus deflection for the beam. Note that the failure is predicted at a load of 102.6 kN/m
and a deflection of about 100 millimetres. The experimental failure load was measured
as 105 kN/m, at a deflection of about 100 millimetres.
MANUAL Page A-59
4-5 Triax-2000
Triax-2000 9 Plots General

Triax-2000 has a total of 8 different 9-plot screens. These will not all be shown
here as there is a fair amount of repetition between them.
The example shows a block of 40 MPa concrete with 1 % of 400 MPa steel in the
X direction, and 0.5% of 400 MPa reinforcement in the Y and Z directions. The loading
is a full response with 4 units of shear stress in the X-Y direction and 5 units in the Y-Z
direction.
Crack Diagram
This shows the block of concrete with the reinforcement drawn in. The
reinforcement is given the same colouring rules that Response-2000 has. The directions
of the vectors of principal stress/strain are drawn in as well, thick blue for the principal
MANUAL Page A-60
tensile direction, thick green for principal compressive direction and red for the
intermediate direction. If the concrete is cracked, the intersection of the crack plane with
the bounds of the box is shown with colours representing the principal direction, in this
case blue due to it being the first principal tensile direction.
Load Factor - εx load factor VS average strain in X direction (x10-3)

The general variable used for Y-axes in Triax-2000 is the load factor. This means
that the actual values of loading must be known. This plot shows the variation of the x-
direction strain with load factor.
Load Factor - εy load factor VS average strain in Y direction (x10-3)

Note the high strain in this case indicating yielding of the y direction steel at
failure.
Node-Data 1 and 2
Like Membrane-2000, Triax-2000 provides a page that shows the internal stress
and strain state of the element. For the 3D case, this presentation is sufficiently important
to be on almost all of the 9-plot cases. With a right click on each of the 2 pages of
numbers, the data may be copied to the clipboard for use in other programs.
Load Factor- Crack width 1 load factor VS crack width 1 (mm, in, cm)
Crack widths are shown here for the first principal direction of cracking. Note
that there may well be more cracks in the second principal direction and, in the absence
of shear, on the third direction also.
Shear on Crack 1 – ε1 Shear on crack (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs ε1 (x10-3)

This shows the magnitude of the 3D vector of shear on the crack and compares it
to the maximum allowable level shown in red. In this example, the shear on the crack
criterion is controlling where the two lines touch.
f3 - ε3 Principal compressive stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

MANUAL Page A-61
Principal compressive strain (x 10–3)
This shows the health of the concrete against crushing. When these two lines
touch, the concrete is crushing. In this case, this happens after yield of the Y and Z
direction steel.
f1 - ε1 Principal tensile stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs

Principal tensile strain (x 10–3)
This compares the health of the concrete against yield of the steel and shear on the
crack. If equilibrium requires that the tensile stress be reduced due to the capacity of the
steel at a crack or the ability of the crack surfaces to resist shear, it will show up on this
plot. In the example, the drop in principal tension is caused the shear on the crack
relationship seen to be critical above.
Triax-2000 Other 9-plot Views
Cracking: This 9-plot view shows the principal strains (x 10-3), crack widths (mm, in,
cm) and shear on crack resultants (MPa, psi, kg/cm2), for cracks in principal directions
one and two.
Direction Cosines This shows the state of the three direction cosines in each of the
three principal directions with respect to load factor. These are the numbers used to draw
the vectors in the crack diagram above.
Principal This page shows the three principal strains (x 10-3) and three principal
stresses (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) in the concrete.
Reinforcement This group of 9-plots shows the steel stresses on average and at a
crack (MPa, ksi, t/cm2) in the X, Y and Z directions. Note that the discussion above for
Membrane-2000 concerning shear on the crack also applies to effects in three dimensions
such as these cases.
MANUAL Page A-62
Shear on the Crack This page shows the 3D components of the shear on the crack
(MPa, psi, kg/cm2) for the first and second principal cracking direction. These values are
calculated using a non-linear optimisation function based on quadratic programming. It
minimises to the shear on the crack required, an extension of the 2D method explained
above for Membrane-2000.
Strain State This shows the load-factor vs the 6 rectangular strains. (εx, εy, εz, γxy, γyz,
γxz, all x 10-3)
Stress State This shows the load-factor vs the 6 rectangular stresses. (fcx, fcy, fcz, vxy,
vyz, vxz, all in MPa, psi, kg/cm2)
MANUAL Page A-63
4-6 Shell-2000
Shell-2000 9 plots General

Like Triax-2000, the 3D nature of Shell-2000 results in eight 9-plot screens.
Shell-2000 is shown with Shell element SP2 tested by Adebar26 with loading ratios of
moment Mx = My = 0.5 and out of plane shear Vxz = Vyz = 1.0. This element contained a
light amount (53 psi = 0.37 MPa) of transverse reinforcement.
It can be seem that the combination of the two moments and shears has caused the
direction of cracking to rotate to 45 degrees away from the steel directions. The applied
loading at predicted failure is Vxz = Vyz = 303 kN/m. In this case, this corresponds to a
principal shear of 303 x 1.414 = 428 kN/m. In the experiment, the element failed at a
principal shear of 449 kN/m.
MANUAL Page A-64
Shell Diagram
The crack diagram shows the extent of cracking in the shell element. Bars are
drawn and turn red or green when yielding as in the other programs in this manual. The
first principal direction crack is drawn in red and the second principal direction crack is
drawn in green. The Crack diagram is shown below responding to each of the different
type of loading to assist in interpreting what it means.
Crack Stress X stress at a crack in X direction steel (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)

Crack Stress Y stress at a crack in Y direction steel (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)
This is useful to identify if the section is being governed by flexural behaviour. In
this case, it is not as the stresses are much lower than the 480 MPa strength of the steel.
Crack Width 1 width of crack in first principal direction (mm, in, cm)
This shows the crack width distribution over the element
Shear Stress Vxy In plane shear distribution with depth (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)
Shell elements can be subject to internal in-plane shear stresses even when not
externally loaded in in-plane shear. The example shows that in this case there is up to 3.5
MPa of in-plane shear even though the resultant of the positive and negative in-plane
shear is zero. The resultant of the twisting moment caused by this shear is also zero as
there is no external twisting moment applied.
Reinforcement Stress Z Stress in shear reinforcement on average (MPa, ksi, t/cm2)

This indicates how closely the structure is to shear failure by yield of the
transverse reinforcement. In this case, the strength of the shear reinforcement is 460
MPa, so the steel is close to yielding.
f3 Principal Compressive Stress Distribution of compression (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

This indicates how closely the concrete in the structure is to crushing. If the red
line at the left touches the blue line at the right, the concrete is crushing. In this case,
failure is not governed by crushing.
MANUAL Page A-65
Shear on Crack –εε1 Shear on crack (MPa, psi, kg/cm2) vs
As with the other programs, this indicates how much equilibrium dictated shear
on the crack must be present over the depth of the element. The red line indicates the
maximum allowable stress based on the aggregate size and the crack width at that depth.
If the two lines touch, as they have just done in the example, the principal tensile stress
will be reduced to ensure that equilibrium can be maintained. In the example, this
initiation of crack slip represents the maximum load the element can maintain. As noted
above, the transverse reinforcement is almost at yield already, so any increase in demand
on the steel, due to crack slip, cannot be supported. If the structure had more transverse
steel, this would not be the case. Note, however, that this inclusion of only 53 psi of
stirrups to the shell increased its predicted shear capacity by 20% over the case with no
transverse reinforcement.
f1 Tensile Stress Principal tensile stress (MPa, psi, kg/cm2)

This shows the distribution of tension in the principal tensile direction over the
element in blue, with the maximum allowable tension from equilibrium drawn in red. In
this case it can be seen that the shear on the crack limitation is cutting in and about to
force the tensile stress to be reduced inducing failure. If the specimen is experiencing
flexural style failure, the red line will cut in diagonally. If it is experiencing shear on the
crack style behaviour, the line will cut in matching the shear on the crack graph.
Shell-2000 9-Plot Views

Cracking: This 9-plot mode shows the base and diagonal crack spacings (mm, in,
cm) as well as the crack widths (mm, in, cm) and shear on the crack resultants (MPa, psi,
kg/cm2), for cracks in principal directions one and two.
Direction Cosines This shows the state of the three direction cosines in each of the
three principal directions with respect to depth. These are the numbers used to draw the
crack surface in the shell diagram.
MANUAL Page A-66
Principal This page shows the principal strains (x 10-3) and principal stresses (MPa,
psi, kg/cm2) with respect to depth.
Reinforcement This shows the steel stresses on average and at a crack as well as
bond stresses (MPa, ksi, t/cm2) in the X, Y and Z directions. The bond is discussed
above in the Response-2000 section on bond. The discussion above for Membrane-2000
concerning shear on the crack also applies to effects in three dimensions such as these
cases.
Shear on the Crack This page shows the 3D components of the shear on the crack
(MPa, psi, kg/cm2) for the first and second principal cracking direction. These values are
calculated using a non-linear optimisation function based on quadratic programming. It
minimises to the shear on the crack required.
Strain State This shows the 6 rectangular strains through the depth of the element.
(εx, εy, εz, γxy, γyz, γxz, all x 10-3)
Stress State This shows the 6 rectangular stresses through the depth of the element.
(fcx, fcy, fcz, vxy, vyz, vxz, all in MPa, psi, kg/cm2)
MANUAL Page A-67
Shell-2000 Interpreting Crack Diagrams
The following figures show a series of crack diagrams from Shell-2000 to

demonstrate what some of the standard crack patterns look like. This should help in
determining if a given crack pattern is consistent with the desired loading.
X Direction Axial tension Y Direction Axial Tension Positive in-plane (X-Y) Shear
Positive X-Moment Positive Y-Moment Positive Twisting Moment
Positive X-Z Shear Positive Y-Z Shear
Combinations of loading:
Axial load in X and Y direction
Two crack planes form at 90 degrees.
Biaxial Moment same sign, no shear

Similar to above, but cracks are not full depth.
MANUAL Page A-68
Biaxial moment, different sign, no shear
Similar to above, but cracks start on opposite side of
element. When cracks meet at mid-depth, the first
principal direction will change from one crack to the
other, and the other principal direction will take over the
extension of the crack.
Unidirectional Moment and matching out-of-plane shear.

This is the traditional 2D case of loading taken care of by
Response-2000
Biaxial Moment same sign, with out of plane shear.

Note the difference between this and the case without out
of plane shear. In this case the crack rotates around to
follow the direction of principal shear rather than
maintaining a pair of orthogonal flexural cracks.
Shell-2000 Load-Deformation Plots

Like Response-2000, Shell-2000 has a series of plots that will show overall
sectional behaviour. The vertical axis on these plots is either the applied load or, if zero
for the individual graph, the load-factor. Note that by using the methods explained in
Section 5-2 for copying data from charts, any other combination of graphs may be made
from the existing plots using a spreadsheet. The following plots are included:
X Axial Force VS longitudinal X strain

Y Axial Force VS longitudinal Y strain
In-Plane (XY) Shear Force VS XY shear strain
Moment-X VS Curvature X
Moment-Y VS Curvature Y
Twisting Moment (Mxy) VS twisting strain
Out of Plane X-Z shear VS X-Z shear strain
Out of Plane Y-Z shear VS Y-Z shear strain
MANUAL Page A-69
SECTION V: Advanced Topics

The topics in this section are not required in order to use the programs, but can be
useful to get the most out of their operation.
5-1 Text Effects

In entering chart titles, axes, text boxes etc, it is possible to use superscripts,
subscripts and Greek characters. This works as follows:
A character (letter) preceded by an underscore (“_”) will be a subscript.

A character preceded by a carat (“^”) will be superscript
A character preceded by a vertical bar (“|”) will be a Greek character.
For example, the following series of letters in a text box “a_bc^d|e|f” would be
shown on the screen as:
abcdεφ
5-2 Chart Options

As is likely fairly clear, the basic unit of information in the programs is the chart.
As such, there are a number of features available in using charts that are accessed by right
clicking on the charts themselves. The following 6 options are available on right-
clicking:
i) Copy Chart Picture

This will copy the graph image to the clipboard so that it can be pasted into other
applications. This function was used extensively, for example, in making this manual.
ii) Copy Chart Data

This will copy the data from a chart to the clipboard in the form of a table of
numbers. This allows the data to be pasted into a spreadsheet for further analysis. Note
that the data as entered will have to be “parsed” in order to put it in columns.
MANUAL Page A-70
iii) View Data
This will show the chart data in a dialog box. This is useful for a simple look at
the data contained without having to copy and paste it.
iv) Properties
This allows editing of the limits, fonts, titles etc of a chart. See section 5-3 below.
v) Auto/Max Range
This will change the axis mode of the chart. Normally charts automatically re-
scale the axes so that the data fits nicely on the chart. When switched to max scaling, the
chart will “remember” the maximum scale values so far. This is useful when scanning
through all the results with the control plot. This function is duplicated with the “auto
range” button on the left side of the screen above the control plots that works on all charts
simultaneously.
vi) Toggle Text

Each plot has the ability to show text information just below it. For plots such as
longitudinal strain across the depth, it will show the curvature. For shear strain
distributions, it will show the average shear strain value. For plots that show a crosshair
that corresponds to the control plot, the co-ordinates of the crosshair will be shown. For
other plots, it will show the average X value of the data.
5-3 Edit Chart Properties

An important option from right clicking on the chart is the properties page as
briefly noted above. This brings up a dialog box as shown below that allows many parts
of the chart to be changed. This can be useful to optimise the appearance of plots before
printing. If it is desired to make more substantial changes to a plot, it will be necessary to
copy the data to a spreadsheet, as explained above, and recreate the graph there.
MANUAL Page A-71
The dialog box has three

parts to it. The top deals with the
titles, the middle deals with the
scaling of the data, and the bottom
deals with the appearance of the
primary line on the chart. The
example here shows a shear-shear
strain graph from Response-2000.
Title Section
The chart title, X-axis title
and Y-axis title may be changed
here. Note that the methods explained in section 5-1 for super/subscripts and Greek
characters may be used (which may explain why the text may look strange for some
charts). The small charts used in the 9-plot output do not show their axis titles, but they
are stored here anyway so that units and axes may be confirmed. The user can change the
fonts for the title and axes from this part of the dialog box as well.
Scaling of Data Section

The scaling of the data has a number of options. For the X and Y direction the
user can select the minimum and maximum axis values, the tick-mark spacing (or None
as shown) and the number of decimals to show. The graph min and max values have
check boxes for automatic scaling. That will scale things so that everything fits in well.
When copying data to the clipboard or for viewing, the number of decimal points
presented is increased from the listed value by 2.
Line Section
This allows changes to the appearance of the line itself. The thickness of the line
may be adjusted to any integer. The colour of the line may be changed as well. The third
option allows changing the type of line, normally a solid line with four other choices
MANUAL Page A-72
available. For graphs with more than one line on them, these changes will only affect the
first line.
5-4 Double Click Information in Response-2000

In Response-2000, but not the other programs, double clicking on the background
behind the main cross section drawing will bring up a dialog box with calculated
information about the cross section. This information includes:
Total Area of Reinforcement above and below mid-depth of beam

List of number of actual bars present (e.g. 6 #4)
Estimate of effective depths d and d’.
Gross percentage of steel. This is calculated as As/Ac, not As/bd.
Maximum transverse reinforcement level. Complex geometry can trick
this calculation, so care is required when interpretting it.
AASHTO-94 Shear Strength/AASHTO-99 Shear Strength
This is based on the loading ratios in the “Loads | Loads” dialog box.
5-5 Segmental Concrete Model

One of the concrete material models is called the segmental model. The user is
asked for a list of stress-strain pairs when they click the “modify” button in the concrete
dialog box. There are a number of restrictions in using this. Firstly, only one segmental
type may be used per input file. More importantly, the stress-strain curve will only be
saved in Response-2000 files; Membrane-2000, Shell-2000, and Triax-2000 can use the
segmental model, but cannot save the data in their output files.
5-6 Material Reduction Factors

Some design codes such as the Canadian concrete building code treat strength
reduction factors not on the calculated sectional strength, but on the material properties
themselves. This is supported in the programs through the “Options | Preferences” menu
option. There is a button there that will automatically select the factors for the CSA code
as well as another button that will remove the factors. If the numbers are listed as 1.0,
then they have no effect on the analysis. In printing out factored results in this way, there
will generally be an “f” tacked onto the end of the title of a force, for example, M
becomes Mf when it’s factored.
MANUAL Page A-73
5-7 Concrete Strain Discontinuity Example

This is included here, as it would tend to be too confusing above. A strain
discontinuity allows the basic assumption of plane-sections remaining plane to be
violated in Response-2000 for situations such as composite construction. This case is
important when a slab is cast onto an unshored beam. In that case, the beam will have its
own dead load as well as the load of the wet slab concrete placed onto it when there is no
stress at all in the slab. Any additional loading will then take place in a composite
fashion with the slab. The following example demonstrates how to account for this case
for the simple 80 foot beam described in the “Quick Start: Response-2000” in section I.
Start with the beam and no slab or slab

20.0
reinforcing. This should look like the following
figure. It is not important that the stirrups come out
of the precast beam, though it would be important if
#4 @ 16.00 in
0. 8.0 there were longitudinal steel bars outside the cross
4
5
section.
30 - S.5
∆εp = 6.50 ms
Suppose that the top slab is added when the
26.0
loading causes a moment at the location of interest
of 1070 ft.kips. From a simple moment analysis with no shear or axial load, this
corresponds to a top strain of –0.1593 mm/m, and a bottom strain of –0.375 mm/m. The
stress at the top of the beam is 610 psi compression and bottom stress is 1428 psi
compression. Note that these numbers can be obtained by double clicking on the plots or
by right clicking and selecting “view data.”
To account for the slab, extrapolate the linear strain profile into the location of
where the slab will be. If the slab were to be 8 inches deep, placed directly on top of the
beam, the strain in the bottom of the slab would equal the above value of –0.1593 mm/m,
and the strain at the top of the slab would equal –0.1273 mm/m.
MANUAL Page A-74
Now enter in the slab itself, 80 inches wide and 8 inches thick. For this example,
2 layers of 10 #4 bars will be
added to the top slab as well as
per the original design in
Section I. Next, go to the
“Loads | Strain Discontinuity”
page. Enter a strain at a depth
of 62 inches (the top) of
+0.1273 mm/m (i.e. the
opposite sign of what was
calculated above.) Also, enter a
strain at 54 inches of +0.1593 mm/m. Just slightly below this depth, say 53.8 inches, add
in a point of zero strain so there will not be any change to the precast beam. The graph in
the discontinuity box should look like the figure.
Now perform a new moment-curvature analysis or, better, a one-load analysis at

the old moment of 1070 kip.ft. The effect of the strain discontinuity is shown in the two
figures below.
The strain graph shows that while plane sections are still plane, there is an offset
that happens to make the strain equal to zero in the top slab section up to the top of the
axis. The effect of this on the stress plot is that there is no stress in the slab. This means
the stress in the beam is still the same as it was before the addition of the slab, and there
is no stress in the slab itself.
Longitudinal Strain Longitudinal Concrete Stress

top top
-0.37 -1427.3
bot bot
MANUAL Page A-75
As the load increases, say to 2000 kip.ft, the following plots are obtained. The
strains increase beyond the state above. This means that incrementally, plane sections
remain plane, as they should be for fully composite materials.
Longitudinal Strain Longitudinal Concrete Stress

top top
-0.22 -844.3
bot bot
MANUAL Page A-76
5-8 Rebar.dat
Each of the programs has a list of reinforcing bar definitions that can be used by
any cross section (see Table 2-4 in section II). This list is, in fact, user definable. Each
program maintains a file in its install directory called “rebar.dat” that is a text file loaded
each time the program starts. Users may add to this list and the new options will be
available the next time the program is started. Note that each program has a separate
rebar.dat, but they are all identical on distribution. (i.e. if changes are made to one, they
can be copied to the directories of the other programs as well.)
The format of the file is as follows:
// Response-2000 Data File

//
// This file contains the definitions of all standard rebar/strand types
//
// Users may add more types which will be available the next time that
// Response-2000 is started. Input is not case sensitive.
//
// If bars are entered with the same name as existing ones, the first one will be used
// Bar title is limited to 14 characters. Spaces are allowed, but the first number
// found after the title and a space is assumed to be the area.
//
// Information is as follows:
//
// Name code Nominal Diameter (mm) Nominal Area (mm^2)
//
// -- start of default listing --
//
// CSA standard Reinforcing Bars
//
10M 11.3 100
15M 16.0 200
20M 19.5 300
25M 25.2 500
30M 29.9 700
35M 35.7 1000
… etc
If a file including a user defined bar is used on a version of one of the programs
that has not seen the bar title before, the new name will be saved to the standard listing
when the program shuts down.
MANUAL Page A-77
5-9 Adding predefined shapes: Shape.dat

The list of basic shapes used in the concrete definition in Response-2000 is user
extendable. This may be useful for things such as design optimisation where the same
geometry may be tweaked by adjusting only one or two variables.
// This file defines all the simple shapes used by Response-2000

// note that the standard shapes (PCI etc) are located in standard.dat
//
// Users can add more shapes to end of this file. They will be available
// the next time the program is loaded
//
// The format here is defined as follows:
//
// TYPE name title of section
// line one text line describing the section
// name.ico (optional) name of icon from current directory to use
// (if not included a default user icon will be used)
// PARAMS b h variable names to define the shape
// lines one line for each variable as text definition
// SECTION start of the section definition
// height width one line for each change in geometry
// simple math is allowed (+ - * / )
// REBAR RECT rebar pattern symbols allowed: RECT, POLAR, BIPOLAR
// RECT means rectangular reinforcment (like a beam)
// POLAR means circular (like in a round column)
// BIPOLAR means interlocking spirals pattern
// ENDTYPE indicating end of the list
//
// half circles and elliptical parts can be defined as:
//
// height width
// code
// height width
// with code = UP or DOWN indicating which side has the zero slope
//
// Absolute dimensions in mm. Distance from bottom of section
// lines starting with 2 slashes are comment lines
//
TYPE RECT
Rectangle Section
PARAMS b h
Width of the Rectangle
Height of the Rectangle
SECTION SOLID
h b
0 b
REBAR RECT
ENDTYPE
//
TYPE INTER
Interlocking Spiral Column
inter.ico
PARAMS b h bt
Total section width
Total section height
Width at top and bottom extremes
SECTION SOLID
h bt
h-(b-bt)*0.5 b
(b-bt)*0.5 b
0 bt
REBAR BIPOLAR
ENDTYPE
MANUAL Page A-78
5-10 Adding predefined sections: Standard.dat
This file is very similar to the shape.dat file explained above except that it does
not allow variables to define the section. It is used to define standard sections such as the
AASHTO highway girder cross sections.
The format of the file is listed here.
// Response-2000 input file

//
// This file contains all the standard sections for Response
//
// Users can add more to end of file as well with the following format
//
// TYPE name name is the unique identifier for the section
// CATEGORY name name of category ex PCI hollowcore
// SECTION indicating start of section list
// b h as many lines as needed to define the section
// ENDTYPE indicating the end of the listing
//
// half circles and elliptical parts can be defined as:
//
// height width
// code
// height width
//
// with code = UP or DOWN indicating which side has the zero slope
//
// Absolute dimensions in mm. Distance from bottom of section
// lines starting with 2 slashes are comment lines
//
// Order of definition is maintained.
//
// see the default types below for examples
//
//
TYPE CPCI900
CATEGORY CPCI-I
SECTION SOLID
900 300
750 300
720 150
240 150
150 450
0 450
ENDTYPE
//
MANUAL Page A-79
5-11 Template Files

When the programs are started, they look automatically for a template file, to load
up default values for the program to run with.
Program Template File
Response-2000 r2k.r2k
Membrane-2000 m2k.m2k
Shell-2000 m2k.m2k
Triax-2000 t2k.t2k
The template file must be located in the directory of the program itself. The
following parameters are set from the template file:
Default units
Default name for the “done by” part of input files
Default steel yield stress
Default aggregate size
Default concrete strength
To create a template file, simply make an input file that has all the desired base
components generally wanted in a starting file. For some, this may include material
types, concrete geometry, loading, units, etc. Save this file in the program install
directory with the name listed above. Upon restarting the program, it should
automatically load this new file. Note that Response-2000 will automatically rename the
file “r2k.r2k.rsp” as .rsp is the standard file extension for Response-2000. This means
that the Response template file must be renamed by hand using, for example, the
windows explorer.
This is the simplest way to have the program begin each time with, say, Japanese
units rather than SI metric, which is the default starting units.
MANUAL Page A-80
5-12 Text File Formats

The binary file formats used in the programs may be requested from the author at
the University of Toronto at the address on page A-1.
Response-2000 also supports a text-based file format that supports all the features
of the full binary version of the program. What follows is a definition of this format with
an example as well.
Usage
This file format can be transparently used in Response-2000. The existing load
dialog box in Response-2000 allows access via the "files of type" option.
Extension
Filename extension is ".r2t" (Response-2000 text file).
Contents:
The following is a comprehensive list of the contents of the file. Note that options
within square brackets ([ ]) are optional and Response-2000 will assumed default
numbers for them if not provided. Lines preceded by a "#" or "//" are comment lines and
may be inserted at will.
Version:
The format described herein represents Response file format number 0.8. This
version type will remain supported for all released versions of Response-2000.
Units
Units for input are listed below in order of Metric, US Customary, and Old Metric
(ex mm,in,cm means millimetres in SI metric, inches in US Customary, and centimetres
for kg/cm2 units)
Formats: the following text formats are used below

_text1 text format type 1: no spaces [a..z,0..9,_,-] (case insensitive)
_text2 text format 2, any character (case sensitive)
_units units indicator [M|USC|OLDM|METRIC|OLDMETRIC] (case insensitive)
_fnum floating point (or integer) number
_inum integer number
// Response-2000 Input File Ver_0.8 Mandatory first line
//
// arbitrary number of comment lines.
//
INPUT-LABEL _text1 unique identifier
[TITLE _text2] optional title
[DONEBY _text2] optional ownership
[DATE _text2] optional date
UNITS _units units of input file
[CRACKX _fnum] long. crack spacing. (-1 for default)
[CRACKY _fnum] trans. crack spacing. (-1 for default)
[AXIALLOC _fnum] location of center of axial force
MATERIAL CONCRETE _text1 concrete material block with name
MANUAL Page A-81
FCP _fnum cylinder strength (MPa,psi,kg/cm2)
[FT _fnum] tensile strength (MPa,psi,kg/cm2)
[E0 _fnum] strain at peak stress (x10-3)
[TSFACTOR _fnum] tension stiff. factor (0.0 < fact < 1.0)
[MAXAGG _fnum] maximum aggregate size (mm,inches,cm)
[C_MOD _inum] concrete base curve type
0= linear to peak stress
1= parabolic curve
2= Popovics/Thorenfeldt/Collins
// note segmental not supported yet
[C_SOFT _inum] concrete compression softening
[T_STIFF _inum] concrete tension stiffening
ENDMAT
[... as many as 5 concrete material types in total repeating type list above]
MATERIAL REBAR _text1 First rebar definition block with name
FY _fnum yield stress (MPa,ksi,tons/cm2)
[E _fnum] Young’s modulus (MPa,ksi,tons/cm2)
[FU _fnum] ultimate strength (MPa,ksi,tons/cm2)
[ESH _fnum] strain at start of strain harden(x 10-3)
[EU _fnum] strain at peak stress (x 10-3)
ENDMAT
MATERIAL PRESTRESS _text1 first prestressed steel type definition
FU _fnum ultimate strength (MPa,ksi,tons/cm2)
[E _fnum] Young’s modulus (MPa,ksi,tons/cm2)
[A _fnum] Ramberg-Osgood parameter A
[B _fnum] Ramberg-Osgood parameter B
[C _fnum] Ramberg-Osgood parameter C
[EU _fnum] strain at peak stress (x 10-3)
ENDMAT
[.. as many as a total of 20 different rebar and prestress types allowed]
SECTION SOLID define the solid cross section
_fnum _fnum _text1 depth, width, type name (mm,in,cm)
_fnum _fnum _text1 depth, width, type name
[... as many as 30 different definitions as such ]
[... alternate methodology below... use one or other]
SECTNAME _text1 shape name from shapes.dat
PARAMS _fnum _fnum _fnum ... varaible parameters for that
ENDSECTION
SECTION HOLLOW
unsupported for now
ENDSECTION
LONGTAB longitudinal steel table
_fnum _fnum _fnum _text1 height, area, prestrain, type of steel
[... as many layers as desired. can be used with LONGREINF or without]
LONGREINF _text1 first type of longitudinal reinforcment
Z _fnum depth from bottom of section (mm,in,cm)
A _fnum area of steel at depth (mm2,in2,cm2)
TYPE _text1 type (either rebar or prestressed type)
[DRAPE _fnum] drape of reinforcment (rise over run)
[num _fnum] number of individual bars
[AI _fnum] area of individual bar
[DB _fnum] diameter of individual bar
[BART _text1] title of bar type
Note that we can specify num=10, bart=#5
or we could specify num=10, AI=200mm2, DB=16 mm
and get same thing. If both specified, BART precedence
[DEP _fnum] Delta-epsilon-p prestain (x10-3)
The following allows grouping of bars. All layers must be
individually enterred, but they can be grouped into
distributed patterns or circular patterns.
[PATTERN _inum] (0= none, 1= circular, 2=distributed)
[NROUND _inum] number in pattern
for pattern=1, it’s number around circle
for pattern=2, it’s total number of bars in layers
[ALIGNED _inum] if 1, then 2 bars at top, if 0, 1 bar at
top for circular patterns
[INDEX _inum] which pattern number we are dealing with
ENDLONG
[.. as many longitudinal patterns as will fit into memory allowed]
MANUAL Page A-82
TRANSREINF _text1 first transverse reinforcement type
A _fnum total area of all legs of steel
TYPE _text1 type (either rebar or prestressed type)
PATTERN _inum style of type:
0 = single leg
1 = open stirrup
2 = closed stirrup
3 = hoop
4 = T headed single leg
SPACE _fnum spacing of reinforcement (mm,in,cm)
[DISTTOP _fnum] distance from bottom of section to top
of reinforcement (mm,in,cm)
[DISTBOT _fnum] distance from bottom of section to
bottom of reinforcement (mm,in,cm)
[AI _fnum] area of individual bar
[DB _fnum] diameter of individual bar
[BART _text1] title of bar type
Note that we can specify bart=#5
or we could specify AI=200mm2, DB=16 mm
and get same thing. If both specified, BART precedence
[DEP _fnum] Delta-epsilon-p prestain (x10-3)
ENDTRANS
LOADING
[CONSTANT _fnum _fnum _fnum] constant load component
VARIABLE _fnum _fnum _fnum variable load component
ENDLOAD
[SHRINKTHERM CONCRETE]
[_fnum _fnum] depth and shrinkage amount
(mm,in,cm), (x 10-3)
[.. as many layers of shrinkage as desired for concrete]
[ENDSHRINK]
[THERMAL REINFORCE]
(not supported yet)
[_fnum] thermal strain for each long. type
[ENDSHRINK]
[DISCONT]
[_fnum _fnum] depth and discontinuity strain
[ .. as many as wanted]
[ENDDISCONT]
ANALYSIS
TYPECODE _inum _fnum _fnum type of analysis to perform
and input values as listed
0 = none
1 = full response
2 = one load
3 = 2 strain solution
(params strain,depth, strain depth)
4 = 1 strain solution
(params strain depth)
5 = M-N Interaction
6 = M-V Interaction
7 = N-V Interaction
8 = Pushover analysis
[.. as many analyses as desired for this section]
[ only used for command line version of response. Send email]
ENDANALYSIS
[MEMBERINFO]
[L _fnum] length of shear span (mm,in,cm)
[MIDO02 _fnum] middle length of constant moment
mm,in,cm)
[TYPE _inum] type of loading
1= constant shear analysis
2= UDL beam type
3= UDL footing type
[LEFTPERCENT _fnum] left side % moment of right side (%)
[LEFT _inum] left side loading
1= support on bottom
2= support on top
3= Fixed support
[RIGHT _inum] right side support
1= load on top
MANUAL Page A-83
2= load on bottom
3= fixed column base
[PENETRATE _fnum] yield penetration. 0.022 suggested
[ENDMEMB]
ENDINPUT
[more input-labels may be place here to as many as desired.]
Examples: simple t beam shear analysis
// Response-2000 Input File Ver_0.8

//
// this is a sample T-Beam analysis for shear
//
INPUT-LABEL T_TEST
TITLE T beam test
DONEBY Evan Bentz
DATE 99/03/09
UNITS Metric
MATERIAL CONCRETE concrete
FCP 35
MAXAGG 19
ENDMAT
MATERIAL REBAR steel
FY 400
ENDMAT
MATERIAL PRESTRESS prestress
FU 1860
ENDMAT
SECTION SOLID
1000 1200
800 1200
800 300
0 300
ENDSECTION
LONGREINF bottom
Z 75
A 1500
TYPE steel
BART 25M
ENDLONG
LONGREINF top
Z 943
A 400
TYPE steel
BART 10M
ENDLONG
TRANSREINF trans
A 200
TYPE 2
SPACE 250
BART 10M
ENDTRANS
LOADING
VARIABLE 0 1 0 // i.e. pure moment
ENDLOAD
ANALYSIS
TYPECODE 4 2 75
// (i.e. strain of 2.00 x 10-3, 75 mm from bottom of section)
ENDANALYSIS
ENDINPUT
MANUAL Page A-84
References for Appendix A
1 Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P., “The Modified Compression Field Theory for
Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear”, ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 83
No. 2, March-April 1986, pp. 219-231.
2 Bentz, E.C., “Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete”, PhD Thesis, Department

of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 2000.
3 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.
4 Kirschner, U. and Collins, M.P., “Investigating the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete

Shell Elements”, Publication No 86-09, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Sept 1986, 209 pp.
5 Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D., “Prestressed Concrete Structures”, Prentice-Hall 1991
760 pp.
6 Vecchio, F.J, Collins, M.P., “Compression Response of Cracked Reinforced

Cocnrete,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 119, No. 12 Dec 1993 pp.
3590-3610.
7 Kolleger, J., Mehlhorn, G., “Material Model for Cracked Reinforced Concrete,”
IABSE Colloquim on Computeational Mechanics of Concrete Structures: Advances
and plllications, Delft, 1987. Report No. 54, pp 63-74.
8 Miyahara, T., Kawakami, T. Maekawa, K., “Nonlinear Behaviour of Cracked

Reinforced Concrete Palate Elements under Uniaxial Compression,” Proceedings,
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 11, pp 306-319.
9 Mikame, A., Uchida, K., Noguchi, H., “A Study of Compressive Deterioration of

Cracked Concrete,” Proceedings, Internationsl Workshop on FEA of RC, Columbia
University, New York, 1991.
10 Belarbi, A, and Hsu, T.T.C, “Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete in Biaxial

Tension-Compression”, Research Report UHCEE 91-2, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas. 155 pp.
11 Collins, M.P., “Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members in Shear”, Journal of the
Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 104, No. ST4, April
1978, pp. 649-666.
MANUAL Page A-85
12 Kaufmann, W. “Strength and Deformations of Structural Concrete Subjected to In-
Plane and Normal Forces.”, Dissertation, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH,
Zurich, Switzerland, 1998.
13 Porasz, A. “An Investigation of the Stress-Strain Characteristics of High Strength

Concrete in Shear”, M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto 1989.
14 Zhang, L.-X, “Constitutive Laws of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements with

High Strength Concrete”, PhD Thesis, University of Houston, August 1995.
15 Hsu, T.T.C, “Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete”, CRC Press, Inc, Boca Raton,
1993, 336 pp.
16 Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Basics. Canadian Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 1987.
17 Izumo, J. Shin, H. Maekawa, K., Okamura, H., “An analytical Model for RC Panels
Subjected to In-Plane Stresses,” Concrete Shear in Earthquake, Elsevier Applied
Science, London and New York, 1992, pp.. 206-215.
18 Tamai, S. Shima, H., Izumo, J. and Okamura, H., “Average Stress-Strain Relationship
in Post Yield Range of Steel Bar in Concrete.” Concrete Library of JSCE, No. 11,
June 1988, p. 117-129. (Translation from Proceedings of JSCE, No. 378/V-6, Feb
1987).
19 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, “First Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, 1194,
1901 pp. aashto code
20 Zhang, L-X, and Hsu, T.T.C., “Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete
Membrane Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 124 No. 1,
1998, pp 24-34.rastm-98
21 Pang, X.B. and Hsu, T.T.C. “Fixed Angle Softened Truss Model for Reinforced
Concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, V 93, No 2., Mar. Apr. 1996, pp. 197-207
22 Hsu, T.T.C, and Zhang, L-X., “Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane Elements by Fixed-
Angle Softened-Truss Model.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 5, Sept-Oct 1997.
pp 483-492.
23 ASCE-ACI Committee 445, “Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Structural

Concrete.” ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 12, 1998, pp.
1375-1417.fastm 98 state of the art report.
24 Aregawi, M., “An Experimental Investigation of Circular Reinforced Concrete Beams

in Shear,” M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
1974, 86 pp.
MANUAL Page A-86
25 Shioya, T., Iguro, M., Nojiri, Y., Akiyama, H., and Okada, T., “Shear Strength of
Large Reinforced Concrete Beams. Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete,
SP-118, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 309 pp.
26 Adebar, P.E. and Collins, M.P. “Shear Design of Concrete Offshore Structures.”
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 3, 1994, pp. 324-335.
Appendix B: Detailed Zurich Data
B-1
HS1: Load Stage 1: North Face
TOP
0.03 0.03 -0.04 -0.02
5 4 3 2 1
0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03
0.04 0.02 -0.01 -0.11 -0.02
0.05 0.01 -0.02 -0.01

0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.03
10 9 8 7 6
0.04 0.05 0.00 0.02
0.02 0.04 0.04 -0.14 -0.05
0.04 0.03 0.00 -0.03

EAST 0.03 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
0.05 0.03 -0.03 0.03
0.12 0.08 0.03 -0.02 -0.03
0.19 0.02 0.04 0.02

-0.08 -0.04 -0.06 -0.01
20 19 18 17 16
0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.00
0.08 -0.02 0.07 -0.01 -0.02
0.03 -0.02 -0.03 0.01

-0.05 -0.02 -0.16 0.00
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-2
HS1: Load Stage 1: South Face
TOP
0.00 0.79 0.05 0.05
1 2 3 4 5
0.47 0.45 0.06 0.06
-0.02 0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.02
0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02

0.75 0.08 0.05 0.06
6 7 8 9 10
0.49 0.06 0.07 0.04
-0.01 -0.08 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05
0.35 -0.04 0.01 -0.01

WEST 0.87 -0.07 0.05 0.09 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
0.07 0.01 0.06 0.06
0.00 -0.08 -0.04 0.06 0.02
0.39 0.38 0.03 0.02

0.05 0.78 0.05 0.05
16 17 18 19 20
0.03 0.41 0.04 0.02
-0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.06
0.00 0.35 0.01 0.01

-0.03 0.75 0.19 -0.08
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-3
TOP
0.02 0.55 1.24 -0.04
5 4 3 2 1
-0.01 0.16 0.11 0.03
0.00 0.02 0.03 0.10 -0.06
0.03 0.45 0.85 0.44

0.01 0.64 0.50 0.76
10 9 8 7 6
0.00 0.22 0.40 0.22
0.02 0.04 0.07 -0.23 0.02
0.01 0.47 0.40 -0.05

EAST 0.03 0.72 1.27 -0.07 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
0.01 0.21 0.34 -0.05
-0.17 0.03 0.04 -0.03 -0.08
0.24 0.41 0.87 -0.03

-0.14 0.71 1.25 -0.03
20 19 18 17 16
-0.01 0.22 0.17 -0.04
-0.01 0.10 0.06 0.30 -0.06
0.04 0.48 0.93 0.43

-0.11 0.54 0.66 0.56
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-4
TOP
0.00 2.38 1.55 0.03
1 2 3 4 5
0.88 1.63 1.05 0.03
0.01 0.19 -0.07 -0.04 0.02
-0.04 0.21 0.48 0.00

1.35 1.13 1.59 0.02
6 7 8 9 10
0.86 0.98 1.08 0.02
-0.03 -0.08 0.05 -0.04 -0.05
0.47 0.21 0.45 -0.04

WEST 1.37 1.18 1.45 0.03 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
1.48 1.00 0.94 -0.02
-0.01 -0.08 -0.03 0.05 0.02
0.50 0.11 0.47 0.00

2.12 0.50 1.41 -0.01
16 17 18 19 20
1.19 0.45 0.93 0.53
-0.03 -0.15 -0.03 -0.02 -0.06
0.68 0.26 0.38 -0.03

1.68 1.06 1.45 0.61
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-5
TOP
1.05 2.08 2.76 1.75
5 4 3 2 1
0.20 0.32 0.20 -0.04
-0.06 -0.06 0.30 0.61 0.49
0.75 1.62 2.70 2.41

0.85 1.42 1.86 1.65
10 9 8 7 6
-0.03 0.49 0.68 0.42
-0.05 0.41 0.04 -0.18 -0.02
0.66 1.68 1.43 0.91

EAST -0.07 2.37 2.34 1.02 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
-0.02 0.45 0.64 0.19
-0.08 -0.04 0.40 -0.17 -0.11
0.24 1.65 2.39 0.73

-0.13 1.35 3.40 0.86
20 19 18 17 16
-0.06 0.31 0.44 0.13
0.17 -0.05 0.01 0.55 -0.11
0.43 0.97 2.69 1.80

0.45 1.03 2.16 2.32
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-6
TOP
2.65 3.69 2.88 2.23
1 2 3 4 5
3.88 2.83 3.84 1.71
0.72 1.01 -0.09 0.72 0.02
0.12 0.17 0.60 -0.15

3.56 1.29 5.36 -0.09
6 7 8 9 10
2.53 1.87 3.82 -0.10
0.24 -0.15 0.53 -0.07 -0.05
0.65 0.25 1.18 -0.06

WEST 2.47 2.37 4.07 -0.18 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
2.92 2.73 2.86 0.20
-0.09 -0.15 0.45 -0.02 0.02
0.68 0.13 0.85 -0.11

4.00 2.07 2.86 0.22
16 17 18 19 20
2.98 2.12 2.00 1.68
-0.16 -0.07 0.21 -0.10 -0.06
1.06 0.42 0.54 -0.02

3.88 2.82 2.05 2.30
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-7
TOP
5.27 4.73 10.61 5.26
5 4 3 2 1
0.79 0.21 0.26 -0.09
1.13 0.17 1.54 5.24 1.95
5.15 4.57 11.58 9.55

5.08 2.86 5.88 6.08
10 9 8 7 6
-0.09 0.37 0.48 0.03
0.20 2.25 0.24 1.55 0.36
4.90 5.24 5.58 7.14

EAST 1.74 5.68 4.15 6.25 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
0.14 0.75 0.75 -0.11
0.62 -0.03 1.77 -0.19 1.37
3.28 4.60 5.55 5.66

3.86 3.14 6.67 3.40
20 19 18 17 16
0.07 0.36 0.31 0.34
0.87 2.03 0.06 2.07 0.93
5.37 5.15 6.05 6.46

4.05 5.61 3.85 6.87
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-8
TOP
6.30 11.22 6.45 6.84
1 2 3 4 5
12.37 10.44 8.99 8.57
2.39 6.50 -0.17 2.45 0.02
0.16 -0.08 0.56 0.12

9.72 2.92 10.32 5.47
6 7 8 9 10
9.77 5.66 10.68 6.99
1.10 1.03 2.53 1.49 -0.05
0.37 -0.08 1.10 0.17

WEST 8.23 4.56 8.96 5.41 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
10.41 5.70 7.19 5.91
1.44 1.03 1.18 -0.18 0.02
0.34 -0.05 1.20 0.52

9.20 3.02 6.77 7.14
16 17 18 19 20
8.99 5.51 10.20 8.38
1.02 0.26 1.66 3.56 -0.06
1.86 0.04 0.11 0.05

10.93 5.97 8.69 4.88
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-9
HS1: Load Stage 5 and final state: North Face
B-10
B-11
HS1: Load Stage 5 and final state: South Face
B-12
B-13
TOP
-0.02 -0.05 -0.06 0.94
5 4 3 2 1
-0.06 0.00 0.04 0.11
-0.06 -0.10 -0.09 -0.08 -0.13
-0.02 0.02 0.04 0.65

0.04 -0.07 -0.04 0.44
10 9 8 7 6
-0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06
-0.12 -0.10 -0.12 -0.13 0.15
0.12 0.01 0.01 0.37

EAST 0.00 -0.05 -0.06 -0.12 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
-0.05 0.04 0.07 0.06
-0.15 -0.07 -0.12 -0.12 -0.11
0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.01

0.01 -0.09 0.07 0.01
20 19 18 17 16
0.07 0.05 0.04
-0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.10 -0.12
0.15 0.04 -0.03 0.00

0.19 -0.12 -0.01 0.03
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-14
TOP
1.51 -0.03 -0.02 0.19
1 2 3 4 5
0.98 0.02 0.03 0.99
-0.09 -0.09 -0.11 -0.14 0.41
0.28 0.00 -0.02 0.05

1.03 -0.03 -0.04 1.39
6 7 8 9 10
0.75 0.01 0.02 0.96
0.30 -0.09 -0.11 -0.06 -0.11
0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.47

WEST -0.06 0.00 -0.05 1.39 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
0.01 0.01 0.01 1.34
-0.10 -0.09 -0.09 -0.13 0.25
0.00 0.01 -0.05 0.48

-0.03 -0.02 -0.02 1.84
16 17 18 19 20
0.01 0.02 -0.01 1.37
-0.11 -0.14 -0.08 -0.12 -0.10
-0.02 -0.02 0.02

0.00 -0.04 0.03 2.00
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-15
TOP
-0.03 2.12 3.04 3.47
5 4 3 2 1
-0.09 0.61 0.69 0.50
0.15 -0.14 -0.08 -0.09 0.19
-4.64 1.61 2.32 2.46

0.46 2.25 2.88 2.23
10 9 8 7 6
0.04 0.76 0.73 0.49
0.07 -0.05 -0.07 0.17 0.23
0.63 1.71 2.25 1.95

EAST 0.68 2.34 2.60 1.96 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
0.03 0.74 0.69 0.51
-0.16 -0.13 -0.13 0.12 -0.06
0.59 1.67 1.99 1.68

0.69 2.37 2.54 2.13
20 19 18 17 16
0.81 0.19 0.49
0.03 -0.07 -0.10 0.59 -0.13
1.06 1.72 1.79 2.96

1.37 2.50 0.65 4.03
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-16
TOP
3.81 3.18 1.94 0.64
1 2 3 4 5
3.07 2.38 1.48 1.77
-0.07 -0.17 -0.19 -0.14 0.41
0.75 0.59 0.52 0.23

3.63 2.67 1.94 2.24
6 7 8 9 10
3.14 2.07 1.65 1.73
0.66 0.18 -0.15 0.08 -0.11
0.52 0.53 0.64 0.63

WEST 2.39 2.02 2.20 2.08 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
1.75 1.62 1.66 2.30
-0.20 0.18 -0.13 -0.16 0.25
0.65 0.53 0.58 0.57

2.25 2.21 2.21 2.95
16 17 18 19 20
3.54 1.76 1.61 2.53
-0.11 0.94 -0.10 -0.18 -0.10
0.62 0.34 0.65

4.82 -0.18 2.26 3.38
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-17
TOP
1.32 5.07 4.50 4.32
5 4 3 2 1
0.25 1.05 0.62 0.36
0.74 -0.11 0.30 0.26 0.61
0.00 3.97 4.19 3.66

2.66 4.45 4.29 2.69
10 9 8 7 6
0.19 0.66 0.55 0.46
0.50 0.13 0.52 0.77 0.08
2.90 4.24 4.74 3.09

EAST 2.71 3.83 4.70 3.41 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
0.26 0.70 0.91 0.52
-0.12 0.41 1.07 0.64 0.16
2.51 3.59 5.18 3.55

2.50 3.00 5.67 3.77
20 19 18 17 16
0.61 0.77 0.83
0.31 1.40 -0.02 1.01 0.16
3.08 4.09 4.68 4.79

1.93 4.93 4.08 6.04
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-18
TOP
4.97 4.35 4.94 2.58
1 2 3 4 5
4.22 4.10 4.69 3.91
0.04 0.07 0.28 0.17 0.41
0.71 0.46 0.85 0.38

4.59 4.24 5.37 3.90
6 7 8 9 10
5.50 4.48 4.51 3.86
1.14 1.50 0.54 0.31 -0.11
0.31 0.25 1.08 0.61

WEST 4.17 2.95 4.74 4.36 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
3.40 4.63 4.26 5.06
-0.17 1.50 1.40 0.25 0.25
0.77 0.56 0.45 0.63

4.21 5.97 2.83 5.67
16 17 18 19 20
6.07 5.04 3.96 5.06
0.02 1.70 -0.05 1.27 -0.10
0.88 0.52 0.50

7.70 3.30 4.64 4.36
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-19
TOP
2.43 5.28 5.99 4.55
5 4 3 2 1
0.29 0.83 0.48 0.18
1.03 0.32 0.56 0.71 0.99
-0.02 4.89 5.80 4.31

3.34 5.39 5.36 2.80
10 9 8 7 6
0.24 0.65 0.40 0.40
0.63 0.33 0.86 1.80 0.00
3.83 4.93 6.08 4.32

EAST 3.74 4.58 4.93 4.71 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
0.23 0.53 0.78 0.43
-0.20 0.95 1.75 0.83 0.32
3.53 4.89 6.21 5.03

2.95 3.50 6.53 5.07
20 19 18 17 16
0.50 0.78 0.84
0.55 1.99 -0.01 1.26 0.82
4.13 5.42 5.64 6.32

2.54 6.26 5.00 7.01
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-20
TOP
5.39 5.90 5.29 3.84
1 2 3 4 5
5.00 5.75 6.21 5.68
0.04 0.41 0.40 0.87 0.41
0.57 0.38 0.73 0.27

5.08 5.41 6.85 4.51
6 7 8 9 10
7.48 6.27 5.85 5.04
1.19 2.75 0.95 0.31 -0.11
0.20 0.04 1.06 0.48

WEST 6.07 3.30 5.47 5.55 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
5.26 5.88 5.70 6.85
-0.05 2.75 2.16 0.75 0.25
0.72 0.50 0.27 0.48

5.75 7.31 3.33 6.92
16 17 18 19 20
8.26 6.50 5.94 6.56
0.20 2.25 0.00 2.37 -0.10
1.00 0.55 0.40

10.07 4.14 6.68 4.60
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-21
TOP
3.95 7.35 11.99 6.02
5 4 3 2 1
0.33 0.61 -0.54 0.13
1.80 1.02 1.19 2.66 1.58
0.00 7.81 12.81 7.86

4.08 7.23 8.72 5.78
10 9 8 7 6
0.25 0.63 -0.08 0.51
1.61 0.36 1.80 6.48 0.18
5.46 4.85 11.09 10.80

EAST 5.39 5.15 4.99 10.12 WEST
15 14 13 12 11
0.23 0.39 0.51 0.15
-0.10 1.66 2.58 1.11 1.23
5.32 6.32 7.56 10.45

4.19 3.98 7.62 8.93
20 19 18 17 16
0.34 0.78 1.04
1.12 3.47 -0.01 1.85 3.28
6.16 7.58 6.88 10.86

3.44 8.49 5.91 9.79
25 24 23 22 21
BOTTOM
B-22
TOP
6.56 12.07 8.75 4.82
1 2 3 4 5
9.32 13.13 9.20 7.86
0.00 3.17 1.48 1.59 0.41
0.29 -0.55 0.51 0.15

9.24 8.88 8.96 5.43
6 7 8 9 10
14.84 11.39 7.80 6.99
2.08 7.28 2.32 0.36 -0.11
0.25 -0.21 0.91 0.25

WEST 12.24 3.86 5.86 7.42 EAST
11 12 13 14 15
11.36 7.27 7.52 9.56
0.61 7.28 2.91 2.00 0.25
0.31 0.33 0.09 0.28

10.45 8.34 4.37 8.41
16 17 18 19 20
13.62 7.68 8.68 8.44
3.55 2.95 0.40 3.91 -0.10
1.09 0.52 0.29

12.72 4.92 9.57 5.24
21 22 23 24 25
BOTTOM
B-23
HS2: Load Stage 6 and 7: North Face
B-24
HS2: Load Stage 6 and 7: South Face
B-25
HS2: Final State: North Face
B-26
HS2: Final State: South Face
B-27
Appendix C Experimental Verification Tables
for Response-2000
C-1
Appendix C: Data used in experimental database for Response-2000
Total number of beams: 534
Prestressed beams: 155

Reinforced beams: 379
Beams with axial Load: 57

No axial load: 477
Beams with stirrups 300

No stirrups 234
Shape Codes: R Rectantular 270 tests

I I beam 163 tests
T Tee-beam 90 tests
C Circle 9 tests
INTER Interlocking Spiral Column 2 tests
PC Precast beam
Researcher Beam Depth d Width Long. ρ a/d ratio Shape Trans. ρ fc ' Used in Test V ACI V R2k V Exp/ Exp/
Name (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (MPa) Fig 10-1 (kN) (kN) (kN) Pred-ACI Pred-R2k
Kani 43 152 137 150 2.75 5.93 R 0.00 28.0 1 28.7 18.1 23.5 1.586 1.221
Reference 45 52 152 137 150 2.73 3.93 R 0.00 25.0 1 28.6 17.2 26.6 1.663 1.075
55 152 137 150 2.80 3.02 R 0.00 25.0 1 32.7 16.8 28.7 1.946 1.139
83 305 270 156 2.74 3.00 R 0.00 27.0 1 65.1 36.8 55.6 1.769 1.171
84 305 270 151 2.84 4.00 R 0.00 27.0 1 55.4 35.6 50.4 1.556 1.099
93 305 270 155 2.66 6.46 R 0.00 30.0 1 53.6 38.6 45.3 1.389 1.183
63 610 543 156 2.77 4.00 R 0.00 26.0 1 93.1 71.3 98.5 1.306 0.945
74 610 543 156 2.77 3.12 R 0.00 27.0 1 107.8 69.1 106.0 1.560 1.017
79 610 543 156 2.72 6.84 R 0.00 26.0 1 84.6 72.3 79.1 1.170 1.070
3043 1219 1090 154 2.71 3.00 R 0.00 27.0 1 164.4 144.8 177.7 1.135 0.925
3044 1219 1090 152 2.72 3.98 R 0.00 30.0 1 158.0 150.9 157.7 1.047 1.002
3046 1219 1090 155 2.70 7.00 R 0.00 27.0 1 153.6 145.9 135.2 1.053 1.136
270 305 270 152 0.50 1.98 R 0.00 17.0 0 41.4 28.1 37.5 1.473 1.104
266 305 270 152 0.50 2.48 R 0.00 17.0 0 32.5 28.1 31.4 1.156 1.035
268 305 270 152 0.50 2.98 R 0.00 17.0 0 27.2 27.3 27.2 0.997 1.000
267 305 270 152 0.50 3.53 R 0.00 17.0 0 24.5 23.1 23.4 1.060 1.046
246 305 270 152 0.50 3.47 R 0.00 28.0 0 25.4 24.0 24.6 1.057 1.031
248 305 270 152 0.50 2.40 R 0.00 28.0 0 37.2 34.7 36.2 1.071 1.026
251 305 270 152 0.50 1.97 R 0.00 28.0 0 41.9 36.0 40.6 1.163 1.032
179 305 270 152 0.50 2.57 R 0.00 35.0 0 33.6 32.4 35.2 1.037 0.954
180 305 270 152 0.50 3.52 R 0.00 35.0 0 24.9 23.6 24.7 1.056 1.009
177 305 270 152 0.50 4.91 R 0.00 35.0 0 18.6 17.0 17.4 1.093 1.068
143 305 270 152 0.80 3.96 R 0.00 17.0 0 30.2 28.1 30.7 1.076 0.985
144 305 270 152 0.80 5.02 R 0.00 17.0 0 27.3 25.5 24.6 1.072 1.112
147 305 270 152 0.80 2.36 R 0.00 17.0 0 42.3 28.1 38.1 1.506 1.110
149 305 270 152 0.80 2.50 R 0.00 17.0 0 43.7 28.1 37.1 1.555 1.177
150 305 270 152 0.80 2.49 R 0.00 17.0 0 46.2 28.1 38.1 1.644 1.212
151 305 270 152 0.80 2.48 R 0.00 17.0 0 35.6 28.1 39.2 1.268 0.909
152 305 270 152 0.80 3.02 R 0.00 17.0 0 32.5 28.1 35.4 1.156 0.918
153 305 270 152 0.80 2.99 R 0.00 17.0 0 32.8 28.1 36.0 1.168 0.912
102 305 270 152 0.80 2.02 R 0.00 26.0 0 48.8 34.7 46.7 1.405 1.045
103 305 270 152 0.80 2.98 R 0.00 26.0 0 38.8 34.7 41.8 1.117 0.928
104 305 270 152 0.80 4.03 R 0.00 26.0 0 33.6 31.8 31.3 1.058 1.075
105 305 270 152 0.80 2.50 R 0.00 26.0 0 41.5 34.7 43.7 1.196 0.951
106 305 270 152 0.80 2.53 R 0.00 26.0 0 44.6 34.7 47.1 1.285 0.948
107 305 270 152 0.80 5.08 R 0.00 26.0 0 25.7 25.2 24.8 1.018 1.034
110 305 270 152 0.80 5.05 R 0.00 26.0 0 27.9 25.3 23.9 1.104 1.168
111 305 270 152 0.80 2.49 R 0.00 26.0 0 43.3 34.7 43.8 1.247 0.989
112 305 270 152 0.80 2.49 R 0.00 26.0 0 39.4 34.7 44.1 1.134 0.893
114 305 270 152 0.80 2.01 R 0.00 26.0 0 61.4 34.7 47.5 1.768 1.293
115 305 270 152 0.80 2.50 R 0.00 26.0 0 45.3 34.7 43.7 1.305 1.037
116 305 270 152 0.80 3.01 R 0.00 26.0 0 39.3 34.7 38.5 1.131 1.021
117 305 270 152 0.80 3.96 R 0.00 26.0 0 32.6 32.3 30.0 1.009 1.087
Ghannoum N220-l 220 190 400 1.20 2.50 R 0.00 34.2 0 102.7 73.8 82.5 1.392 1.245
Reference 55 N220-h 220 190 400 2.00 2.50 R 0.00 34.2 0 121.8 73.8 97.3 1.651 1.252
N350-l 350 313 400 1.20 2.50 R 0.00 34.2 0 156.0 121.5 123.8 1.283 1.260
N350-h 350 313 400 2.00 2.50 R 0.00 34.2 0 176.5 121.5 151.3 1.452 1.166
N485-l 485 440 400 1.20 2.50 R 0.00 34.2 0 183.6 170.9 162.3 1.074 1.131
N485-h 485 440 400 2.00 2.50 R 0.00 34.2 0 211.4 170.9 204.6 1.237 1.033
N960-l 960 889 400 1.20 2.50 R 0.00 34.2 0 349.7 345.2 274.1 1.013 1.276
N960-h 960 889 400 2.00 2.50 R 0.00 34.2 0 369.2 345.2 312.4 1.070 1.182
H220-l 220 190 400 1.20 2.50 R 0.00 58.6 0 104.9 96.6 96.7 1.086 1.085
H220-h 220 190 400 2.00 2.50 R 0.00 58.6 0 134.4 96.6 115.4 1.392 1.165
H350-l 350 313 400 1.20 2.50 R 0.00 58.6 0 155.2 159.1 144.4 0.975 1.075
H350-h 350 313 400 2.00 2.50 R 0.00 58.6 0 187.6 159.1 178.6 1.179 1.050
H485-l 485 440 400 1.20 2.50 R 0.00 58.6 0 194.5 223.7 189.5 0.869 1.026
C-2
H485-h 485 440 400 2.00 2.50 R 0.00 58.6 0 195.0 223.7 240.8 0.872 0.810
H960-l 960 889 400 1.20 2.50 R 0.00 58.6 0 299.9 451.9 317.3 0.664 0.945
H960-h 960 889 400 2.00 2.50 R 0.00 58.6 0 320.6 451.9 359.8 0.710 0.891
Moody A-A1 305 270 178 2.07 3.06 R 0.00 30.3 0 60.1 43.9 53.7 1.367 1.119
Viest A-A2 305 270 178 2.15 3.00 R 0.00 31.0 0 66.8 44.4 58.9 1.502 1.133
Elstner A-A3 305 270 178 2.22 2.99 R 0.00 31.0 0 75.7 44.4 63.6 1.702 1.189
Hognestad A-A4 305 270 178 2.37 2.96 R 0.00 31.5 0 71.2 44.8 66.9 1.590 1.064
Reference 46 A-B1 305 270 178 1.62 3.00 R 0.00 21.2 0 56.3 36.7 50.8 1.533 1.108
A-B2 305 270 178 1.63 2.99 R 0.00 21.6 0 60.1 37.1 49.2 1.621 1.221
A-B3 305 270 178 1.60 2.96 R 0.00 19.2 0 55.6 35.0 49.1 1.589 1.133
A-B4 305 270 178 1.66 2.95 R 0.00 23.7 0 55.6 38.8 55.1 1.434 1.010
A-C1 305 270 178 0.79 2.58 R 0.00 6.3 0 20.0 20.0 24.3 1.000 0.824
A-C2 305 270 178 0.83 2.57 R 0.00 6.1 0 24.5 19.7 25.7 1.242 0.952
A-C3 305 270 178 0.79 2.58 R 0.00 6.9 0 25.4 21.0 28.3 1.210 0.896
A-C4 305 270 178 0.83 2.58 R 0.00 6.8 0 25.1 20.8 29.2 1.209 0.861
B-B1 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 36.7 0 57.9 41.3 53.5 1.402 1.081
B-B2 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 16.7 0 35.6 27.8 40.3 1.279 0.883
B-B3 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 25.8 0 52.3 34.6 47.3 1.511 1.105
B-B4 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 15.4 0 40.5 26.7 39.0 1.516 1.038
B-B5 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 30.7 0 52.1 37.7 50.3 1.380 1.035
B-B6 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 15.8 0 34.5 27.1 39.4 1.274 0.875
B-B7 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 30.9 0 51.2 37.9 50.5 1.351 1.013
B-B8 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 12.2 0 31.2 23.8 35.4 1.309 0.880
B-B9 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 41.2 0 53.4 43.7 55.7 1.222 0.959
B-B10 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 24.0 0 49.0 33.4 46.1 1.467 1.062
B-B11 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 38.1 0 60.1 42.1 54.2 1.428 1.108
B-B12 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 20.2 0 47.2 30.6 43.3 1.540 1.089
B-B13 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 37.8 0 55.6 41.9 54.0 1.328 1.030
B-B14 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 22.6 0 43.2 32.4 45.1 1.334 0.957
B-B15 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 37.4 0 51.2 41.7 53.8 1.229 0.951
B-B16 305 270 152 1.89 3.41 R 0.00 16.3 0 37.8 27.5 39.9 1.373 0.948
Adebar ST1 310 278 360 1.57 5.50 R 0.00 52.5 0 127.2 121.0 127.8 1.051 0.995
Reference 56 ST2 310 278 360 1.57 5.50 R 0.00 52.5 0 118.3 121.0 127.5 0.978 0.928
ST3 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.00 49.3 0 107.9 94.0 110.5 1.148 0.976
ST8 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.00 46.2 0 139.3 91.0 108.1 1.531 1.289
ST9 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.00 46.2 0 70.1 42.0 89.7 1.672 0.782
ST10 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.00 46.2 0 65.6 27.2 74.5 2.415 0.881
ST11 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.00 46.2 0 48.5 16.0 59.9 3.038 0.810
ST12 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.00 46.2 0 46.7 8.8 44.1 5.330 1.060
ST13 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.00 51.5 0 65.6 16.1 61.9 4.071 1.060
ST16 210 178 290 3.04 5.50 R 0.00 51.5 0 74.3 62.0 73.1 1.198 1.016
ST17 410 378 290 1.43 5.50 R 0.00 51.5 0 118.9 131.0 146.3 0.908 0.813
ST23 310 278 290 1.00 5.50 R 0.00 58.9 0 89.9 103.0 101.4 0.873 0.887
ST25 310 278 290 1.00 5.50 R 0.00 58.9 0 81.8 61.9 89.7 1.321 0.912
ST26 310 278 290 1.00 5.50 R 0.00 58.9 0 60.2 44.2 72.3 1.362 0.833
ST4 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.11 49.3 0 158.2 135.0 164.8 1.172 0.960
ST6 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.28 49.3 0 230.1 199.0 246.9 1.157 0.932
ST7 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.28 49.3 0 275.1 199.0 246.9 1.382 1.114
ST18 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.20 49.8 0 246.3 182.0 240.3 1.353 1.025
ST19 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.20 49.8 0 201.4 182.0 240.3 1.106 0.838
ST20 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.20 49.8 0 178.0 129.0 161.8 1.380 1.100
ST21 310 278 290 1.95 5.50 R 0.20 49.8 0 190.6 144.0 193.5 1.324 0.985
Taylor A1 1000 930 400 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 30.9 1 358.4 345.3 336.1 1.038 1.066
Reference 41 A2 1000 930 400 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 27.0 1 328.4 322.8 305.4 1.017 1.075
B1 500 465 200 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 28.9 1 104.3 83.5 94.7 1.249 1.101
B2 500 465 200 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 26.4 1 87.3 79.8 90.3 1.093 0.966
B3 500 465 200 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 34.0 1 85.3 90.6 94.9 0.942 0.899
C1 250 233 100 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 27.2 1 22.5 20.3 26.9 1.109 0.836
C2 250 233 100 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 27.2 1 24.0 20.3 26.0 1.183 0.923
C3 250 233 100 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 28.0 1 27.5 20.6 26.7 1.336 1.030
C4 250 233 100 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 22.1 1 22.5 18.3 24.2 1.230 0.930
C5 250 233 100 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 23.8 1 27.0 19.0 24.8 1.422 1.089
C6 250 233 100 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 30.6 1 27.5 21.5 30.3 1.278 0.908
D1 150 139 60 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 34.0 1 11.6 8.1 11.3 1.428 1.027
D2 150 139 60 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 34.0 1 12.1 8.1 11.3 1.490 1.071
D3 150 139 60 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 34.0 1 10.6 8.1 11.3 1.305 0.938
D4 150 139 60 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 34.0 1 11.4 8.1 11.3 1.404 1.009
Collins SE100A-45 1000 920 295 1.03 2.50 R 0.00 50.0 1 200.0 318.7 241.9 0.628 0.827
Vegh SE100A-45R 1000 920 295 1.03 2.50 R 0.00 50.0 1 235.7 318.7 241.9 0.740 0.974
Reference 57 SE100B-45 1000 920 295 1.03 2.50 R 0.00 50.0 1 312.0 318.7 297.3 0.979 1.049
SE100B-45R 1000 920 295 1.03 2.50 R 0.00 50.0 1 315.8 318.7 297.3 0.991 1.062
SE50A-45 500 445 169 1.03 2.72 R 0.00 53.0 1 68.6 93.4 77.7 0.734 0.883
SE50A-45R 500 445 169 1.03 2.72 R 0.00 53.0 1 80.5 93.4 77.7 0.862 1.036
SE50B-45 500 445 169 1.16 2.72 R 0.00 53.0 1 86.5 93.4 84.7 0.926 1.021
SE100A-83 1000 920 295 1.03 2.50 R 0.00 86.0 1 303.2 374.4 266.5 0.810 1.138
SE100B-83 1000 920 295 1.36 2.50 R 0.00 86.0 1 364.8 374.4 341.7 0.974 1.068
SE100B83R 1000 920 295 1.36 2.50 R 0.00 86.0 1 364.1 374.4 341.7 0.972 1.066
SE50A-83 500 445 169 1.03 2.72 R 0.00 91.0 1 92.9 107.0 90.6 0.868 1.025
SE50B-83 500 445 169 1.16 2.72 R 0.00 91.0 1 100.8 107.0 95.7 0.942 1.053
SE100A-M-69 1000 920 295 1.03 2.50 R 0.15 71.0 0 516.3 569.8 499.3 0.906 1.034
Se100B-M-69 1000 920 295 1.36 2.50 R 0.15 75.0 0 583.2 569.8 642.9 1.024 0.907
C-3
SE50A-M-69 500 445 169 1.03 2.72 R 0.15 74.0 0 138.5 161.3 122.8 0.859 1.128
Se50B-M-69 500 445 169 1.16 2.72 R 0.15 74.0 0 151.8 161.3 148.4 0.941 1.023
Elzanaty CW1 457 373 51 1.43 2.90 I 0.00 76.6 0 138.4 103.8 107.8 1.334 1.284
Nilson CW2 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.00 76.6 0 124.6 108.0 105.5 1.154 1.181
Slate CW3 457 373 51 1.43 5.00 I 0.00 76.6 0 117.5 103.4 106.0 1.136 1.108
Reference 58 CW4 457 373 51 1.03 3.75 I 0.00 78.6 0 127.3 109.7 108.8 1.160 1.170
CW5 457 373 51 3.17 3.75 I 0.00 77.9 0 124.2 108.7 105.0 1.143 1.182
CW7 457 373 51 1.12 3.75 I 0.00 77.6 0 105.9 92.1 92.0 1.150 1.151
CW6 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.00 77.9 0 112.1 93.5 95.1 1.200 1.179
CW9 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.00 61.0 0 101.0 87.0 90.3 1.161 1.119
CW8 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.00 41.4 0 89.9 80.3 83.3 1.119 1.079
CI1 342 290 76 1.57 7.80 I 0.00 76.6 0 77.9 70.8 86.2 1.100 0.903
CI3 342 290 76 1.57 4.00 I 0.00 76.6 0 121.0 103.8 121.0 1.166 1.000
CI2 342 290 76 1.17 5.80 I 0.00 76.6 0 111.3 92.5 104.3 1.203 1.067
CI4 342 290 76 3.35 5.80 I 0.00 78.6 0 108.6 93.8 104.6 1.158 1.038
CI5 342 290 76 1.26 5.80 I 0.00 77.9 0 119.7 93.0 107.1 1.288 1.118
CI7 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.00 77.6 0 81.4 73.4 83.7 1.110 0.973
CI6 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.00 77.9 0 91.2 74.8 89.4 1.219 1.020
CI9 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.00 61.0 0 88.6 71.5 86.6 1.239 1.023
CI8 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.00 41.4 0 86.8 69.0 81.5 1.258 1.065
CW10 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.55 73.1 0 173.6 132.2 143.3 1.313 1.211
CW11 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.55 55.9 0 156.6 125.5 135.3 1.248 1.158
CW12 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.55 40.0 0 140.6 119.3 129.5 1.179 1.086
CW13 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.55 72.4 0 182.5 148.6 153.8 1.228 1.186
CW14 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.79 73.8 0 187.8 167.8 179.3 1.119 1.047
CW15 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.55 70.3 0 150.4 130.4 142.2 1.154 1.058
CW16 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.55 73.1 0 186.9 149.1 156.3 1.254 1.196
CW17 457 373 51 1.43 3.75 I 0.25 69.7 0 142.4 125.5 112.6 1.135 1.265
CI10 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.46 73.1 0 141.5 107.7 127.0 1.314 1.114
CI11 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.46 55.9 0 127.3 104.1 126.6 1.222 1.005
CI12 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.46 40.0 0 122.4 101.5 117.4 1.206 1.042
CI13 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.46 72.4 0 154.9 127.3 143.6 1.217 1.078
CI14 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.73 73.8 0 164.7 150.0 159.6 1.098 1.032
CI15 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.46 70.3 0 121.0 106.4 127.7 1.138 0.948
CI16 342 290 76 3.35 5.80 I 0.46 73.1 0 163.3 128.2 162.1 1.274 1.007
CI17 342 290 76 1.57 5.80 I 0.21 69.7 0 129.5 107.2 110.4 1.207 1.173
Rabbat B1 610 567 305 2.41 3.23 R 0.24 27.1 0 378.3 306.0 357.7 1.236 1.058
Reference 59 B2 610 567 152 4.82 3.23 I 0.48 27.1 0 333.8 229.0 342.8 1.457 0.974
Makwana D1 406 328 406 4.50 2.80 R 0.49 30.1 0 544.0 320.0 497.0 1.700 1.095
Reference 60 D2 406 328 406 4.50 2.80 R 0.49 25.8 0 558.0 330.0 505.6 1.691 1.104
Khalifa SC0 445 356 445 3.82 2.60 C 0.00 23.4 0 326.0 174.0 316.0 1.874 1.032
Reference 47 SC1 445 356 445 3.82 2.60 C 0.10 23.4 0 324.0 241.0 302.1 1.344 1.072
SC2 445 356 445 3.82 2.60 C 0.30 23.4 0 478.0 417.0 462.4 1.146 1.034
SC3 445 356 445 3.82 2.60 C 0.45 23.4 0 578.0 538.0 590.2 1.074 0.979
SC4 445 356 445 3.82 2.60 C 0.30 23.4 0 456.0 380.0 476.2 1.200 0.958
Aregawi EB1 457 366 457 3.78 4.20 C 0.83 39.3 0 358.4 412.0 347.4 0.870 1.032
Reference 61 WB1 457 366 457 3.78 4.20 C 1.11 39.3 0 462.0 463.0 408.4 0.998 1.131
EB2 457 366 457 3.78 4.20 C 0.83 27.6 0 343.0 367.0 310.3 0.935 1.105
WB2 457 366 457 3.78 4.20 C 1.11 27.6 0 433.0 421.0 373.0 1.029 1.161
Podgorniak- B100 1000 925 300 1.01 2.92 R 0.00 36.0 1 225.0 276.5 197.5 0.814 1.139
Stanik B100R 1000 925 300 1.01 2.92 R 0.00 36.0 1 249.0 276.5 197.5 0.901 1.261
Reference 54 B100D 1000 925 300 1.19 2.92 R 0.00 36.0 1 320.0 276.5 259.3 1.157 1.234
B100H 1000 925 300 1.01 2.92 R 0.00 98.0 0 193.0 382.9 256.5 0.504 0.752
BH100E 1000 925 300 1.01 2.92 R 0.00 98.0 0 217.0 382.9 256.5 0.567 0.846
B100L 1000 925 300 1.01 2.92 R 0.00 39.0 1 223.0 287.8 183.6 0.775 1.215
B100L-R 1000 925 300 1.01 2.92 R 0.00 39.0 1 235.0 287.8 183.6 0.817 1.280
B100B 1000 925 300 1.01 2.92 R 0.00 39.0 1 204.0 287.8 197.2 0.709 1.034
BRL100 1000 925 300 0.51 2.70 R 0.00 94.0 0 163.0 384.0 209.4 0.424 0.778
BHD100 1000 925 300 1.19 2.92 R 0.00 99.0 0 278.0 382.9 322.5 0.726 0.862
BHD100R 1000 925 300 1.19 2.92 R 0.00 99.0 0 333.5 382.9 322.5 0.871 1.034
BHD50 500 460 300 1.11 3.00 R 0.00 99.0 0 192.7 186.3 167.5 1.034 1.150
BHD50R 500 460 300 1.11 3.00 R 0.00 99.0 0 204.7 186.3 167.5 1.099 1.222
BHD25 250 225 300 1.31 3.00 R 0.00 99.0 0 111.4 93.1 103.7 1.197 1.074
BH100 1000 925 300 0.76 2.92 R 0.00 99.0 0 193.0 382.9 255.3 0.504 0.756
BH50 500 460 300 0.81 3.00 R 0.00 99.0 0 131.7 186.3 143.8 0.707 0.916
BH25 250 225 300 0.89 3.00 R 0.00 99.0 0 84.8 93.1 87.7 0.911 0.967
BND100 1000 925 300 1.19 2.92 R 0.00 37.0 1 258.0 281.1 248.9 0.918 1.037
BND50 500 460 300 1.11 3.00 R 0.00 37.0 1 162.7 136.8 127.0 1.189 1.281
BND25 250 225 300 1.31 3.00 R 0.00 37.0 1 112.0 68.4 78.8 1.637 1.421
BN100 1000 925 300 0.76 2.92 R 0.00 37.2 1 192.0 204.0 202.1 0.941 0.950
BN50 500 460 300 0.81 3.00 R 0.00 37.2 1 131.7 136.8 116.8 0.963 1.128
BN25 250 225 300 0.89 3.00 R 0.00 37.0 1 72.9 68.4 71.2 1.066 1.024
BN12 125 110 300 0.91 3.07 R 0.00 37.0 1 40.0 33.4 37.6 1.198 1.064
C-4
BM100 1000 925 300 1.01 2.70 R 0.09 47.0 0 343.0 424.0 341.0 0.809 1.006
BM100D 1000 925 300 1.20 2.70 R 0.09 47.0 0 462.0 455.0 422.0 1.015 1.095
WM100D 1000 925 1000 0.75 3.00 R 0.04 45.0 0 800.0 1030.0 944.7 0.777 0.847
WM100C 1000 925 1000 0.75 3.00 R 0.04 45.0 0 700.0 1030.0 773.6 0.680 0.905
Kuzmanovic TTC Box 650 615 960 0.71 5.00 R 0.00 45.0 1 347.0 640.0 268.2 0.542 1.294
Reference 62
Shioya Shioya 7 3140 3000 1500 0.40 6.00 R 0.00 24.1 1 1576.9 3667.2 1659.1 0.430 0.950
Iguro Shioya 6 2100 2000 1000 0.40 6.00 R 0.00 28.5 1 840.2 1772.4 774.7 0.474 1.085
Nojiri Shioya 5 1100 1000 500 0.40 6.00 R 0.00 21.9 1 239.1 388.4 237.8 0.616 1.005
Akiyama Shioya 3 660 600 300 0.40 6.00 R 0.00 21.1 0 127.9 137.3 153.8 0.932 0.831
Okada Shioya 2 220 200 158 0.40 6.00 R 0.00 19.7 0 28.9 23.3 32.1 1.239 0.898
Reference 42,43
Kawano A-4 a 2200 2000 600 1.20 3.00 R 0.00 22.2 1 610.5 938.6 588.7 0.650 1.037
Watanabe A-4 b 2200 2000 600 1.20 3.00 R 0.00 23.1 1 560.0 957.4 595.5 0.585 0.940
Ref 63 A-3 a 1050 950 350 1.22 3.00 R 0.00 20.7 0 216.0 251.1 209.5 0.860 1.031
A-3 b 1050 950 350 1.22 3.00 R 0.00 20.6 0 237.5 250.5 208.9 0.948 1.137
A-2 a 570 500 176 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 27.3 0 82.5 76.3 82.1 1.081 1.005
A-2 b 570 500 176 1.35 3.00 R 0.00 27.3 0 101.5 76.3 82.1 1.330 1.236
A-1 a 330 300 105 1.26 3.00 R 0.00 24.8 0 33.5 26.0 31.1 1.286 1.077
A-1 b 330 300 105 1.26 3.00 R 0.00 24.8 0 29.5 26.0 31.1 1.133 0.949
Yoon H1S 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.00 87.0 1 327.0 342.0 333.5 0.956 0.981
Cook N1S 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.00 36.0 1 249.0 246.0 264.3 1.012 0.942
Mitchell M1S 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.00 67.0 1 296.0 336.0 302.3 0.881 0.979
Reference 64 H1N 750 655 375 2.80 2.34 R 0.09 87.0 0 483.0 428.0 435.7 1.129 1.109
H2S 750 655 375 2.80 2.34 R 0.14 87.0 0 598.0 489.0 605.0 1.223 0.988
H2N 750 655 375 2.80 2.34 R 0.23 87.0 0 721.0 628.0 749.9 1.148 0.961
M1N 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.09 67.0 0 405.0 422.0 441.5 0.960 0.917
M2-S 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.13 67.0 0 552.0 459.0 515.8 1.203 1.070
M2-N 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.18 67.0 0 689.0 508.0 636.3 1.356 1.083
N1-N 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.09 36.0 0 457.0 332.0 339.5 1.377 1.346
N2-S 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.09 36.0 0 363.0 332.0 335.9 1.093 1.081
N2-N 750 655 375 2.80 3.23 R 0.13 36.0 0 483.0 369.0 423.8 1.309 1.140
Angelakos DB0530 1000 925 300 0.50 2.70 R 0.00 32.0 1 165.0 262.0 160.0 0.630 1.031
Reference 40 DB130 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.00 30.0 1 185.0 262.0 186.8 0.706 0.990
DB230 1000 925 300 2.00 2.70 R 0.00 32.0 1 272.0 262.0 232.8 1.038 1.168
DB120 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.00 21.0 0 179.0 207.0 167.6 0.865 1.068
DB140 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.00 38.0 0 180.0 282.0 201.2 0.638 0.895
DB165 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.00 65.0 0 185.0 374.0 235.9 0.495 0.784
DB180 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.00 80.0 0 172.0 385.0 241.9 0.447 0.711
DB120M 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.09 21.0 0 282.0 318.0 346.0 0.887 0.815
DB140M 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.09 38.0 0 277.0 393.0 346.0 0.705 0.801
DB165M 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.09 65.0 0 452.0 485.0 415.4 0.932 1.088
DB180M 1000 925 300 1.00 2.70 R 0.09 80.0 0 395.0 496.0 415.2 0.796 0.951
DB0530M 1000 925 300 0.50 2.70 R 0.09 32.0 0 263.0 373.0 244.3 0.705 1.077
Haddadin A1 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.00 29.5 0 116.8 114.5 109.6 1.020 1.066
Mattock A1T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.00 27.9 0 122.4 122.4 97.4 1.000 1.257
Reference 65 C1C 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.00 27.5 0 129.0 118.3 103.4 1.090 1.247
C1 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.00 25.9 0 87.4 85.7 85.1 1.020 1.027
C1T 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.00 29.1 0 73.4 85.3 80.8 0.860 0.908
A2 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.19 29.2 0 194.4 158.0 160.2 1.230 1.213
A3C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 34.0 0 329.4 291.5 263.2 1.130 1.252
A3 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 30.1 0 291.6 249.2 250.7 1.170 1.163
A3T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 29.2 0 244.8 240.0 248.5 1.020 0.985
A4C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.79 28.4 0 389.2 381.6 355.1 1.020 1.096
A4 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.79 28.6 0 342.5 342.5 353.6 1.000 0.969
A4T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.79 29.6 0 345.3 341.9 357.9 1.010 0.965
A5C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.26 27.1 0 467.3 428.7 426.0 1.090 1.097
A5 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.26 26.3 0 387.4 379.8 413.3 1.020 0.937
A5T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.26 27.6 0 405.1 382.2 423.8 1.060 0.956
B3C 470 380 178 3.81 3.40 T 0.42 27.7 0 293.9 264.8 241.6 1.110 1.216
B3 470 380 178 3.81 3.40 T 0.42 27.7 0 271.5 242.4 235.4 1.120 1.153
B3T 470 380 178 3.81 3.40 T 0.42 24.0 0 243.0 231.4 224.9 1.050 1.080
C2C 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.19 27.9 0 202.8 162.2 155.5 1.250 1.304
C2 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.19 27.8 0 173.3 148.2 151.8 1.170 1.142
C2T 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.19 24.0 0 183.6 146.9 155.4 1.250 1.182
C3C 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.42 26.7 0 273.8 253.5 228.1 1.080 1.200
C3C' 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.42 27.3 0 262.1 242.7 227.7 1.080 1.151
C3 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.42 24.1 0 260.3 224.4 216.1 1.160 1.204
C3T 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.42 28.6 0 240.2 237.8 228.9 1.010 1.049
C4C 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.79 26.3 0 309.3 294.6 301.4 1.050 1.026
C4 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.79 25.7 0 310.7 275.0 291.1 1.130 1.067
C4T 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 0.79 27.9 0 289.2 283.6 289.2 1.020 1.000
C5 470 380 178 3.81 4.25 T 1.26 30.4 0 358.4 358.4 337.3 1.000 1.062
D3C 470 380 178 3.81 6.00 T 0.42 29.9 0 226.1 213.3 217.9 1.060 1.038
D3 470 380 178 3.81 6.00 T 0.42 29.3 0 241.1 206.1 209.0 1.170 1.154
D3T 470 380 178 3.81 6.00 T 0.42 26.2 0 216.8 190.2 197.3 1.140 1.099
E2 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.19 15.2 0 169.1 141.0 134.7 1.200 1.256
C-5
E3C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 15.4 0 233.6 253.9 207.2 0.920 1.128
E3 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 13.7 0 189.2 191.1 192.1 0.990 0.985
E3T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 14.7 0 198.6 189.1 168.1 1.050 1.181
E4 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.79 13.4 0 251.4 232.8 255.7 1.080 0.983
E5 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.26 17.1 0 307.5 313.7 341.1 0.980 0.901
F3C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 40.6 0 351.4 297.8 281.6 1.180 1.248
F3 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 44.9 0 329.9 261.8 288.6 1.260 1.143
F3T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 40.0 0 263.5 251.0 271.1 1.050 0.972
G3C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 31.8 0 411.2 345.5 299.9 1.190 1.371
G3 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 26.2 0 332.7 286.8 276.8 1.160 1.202
G3T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 29.4 0 317.3 268.9 284.2 1.180 1.116
G4C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.63 25.2 0 378.9 367.9 359.2 1.030 1.055
G4 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.63 26.8 0 388.8 338.0 340.2 1.150 1.143
G4T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.63 28.1 0 376.1 335.8 346.4 1.120 1.086
G5C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.05 27.9 0 463.0 449.6 450.8 1.030 1.027
G5 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.05 26.1 0 428.0 396.3 431.4 1.080 0.992
G5T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.05 26.7 0 394.8 390.9 433.7 1.010 0.910
H1C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 30.5 0 324.7 275.2 255.6 1.180 1.270
H1 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 29.2 0 283.6 240.4 247.5 1.180 1.146
H1T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 32.3 0 234.6 236.9 249.8 0.990 0.939
H2C 470 380 178 5.72 2.50 T 0.42 30.1 0 324.7 303.5 259.0 1.070 1.254
H2 470 380 178 5.72 2.50 T 0.42 28.2 0 318.7 257.0 247.8 1.240 1.286
H2T 470 380 178 5.72 2.50 T 0.42 31.5 0 256.1 243.9 259.0 1.050 0.989
J3C 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 30.9 0 298.1 266.2 256.7 1.120 1.161
J3 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 30.4 0 263.1 224.8 247.6 1.170 1.062
J3T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.42 28.6 0 187.8 211.1 240.9 0.890 0.780
J4T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 0.79 27.3 0 321.0 248.8 327.0 1.290 0.982
J5 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.26 32.6 0 433.6 333.5 436.3 1.300 0.994
J5T 470 380 178 3.81 2.50 T 1.26 31.7 0 413.5 323.1 430.5 1.280 0.961
Pasley I-1 WE 457 371 191 1.02 T 0.00 31.7 0 67.2 64.5 69.7 1.042 0.964
Gogoi I3-EW 457 371 191 1.00 T 0.00 30.8 0 73.3 77.0 72.0 0.952 1.019
Darwin J1-WW 457 371 191 0.88 T 0.00 31.1 0 64.5 61.9 63.1 1.042 1.023
McCabe J1-WE 457 371 191 0.88 T 0.00 31.1 0 66.8 64.1 63.8 1.042 1.046
Reference 66 J1-EW 457 371 191 0.88 T 0.00 31.1 0 66.3 63.7 63.8 1.042 1.039
J1-EE 457 371 191 0.88 T 0.00 31.1 0 53.4 51.3 62.8 1.042 0.850
J2-EW 457 371 191 0.88 T 0.00 31.0 0 69.0 74.5 65.2 0.926 1.058
I-1 EW 457 371 191 1.02 T 0.00 31.7 0 65.1 61.2 80.3 1.064 0.811
I2-EW 457 371 191 1.00 T 0.08 30.5 0 103.4 122.0 91.0 0.847 1.136
I3-WE 457 371 191 1.00 T 0.08 30.8 0 92.2 95.9 98.5 0.962 0.937
J2-WE 457 371 191 0.88 T 0.08 31.0 0 96.1 93.2 99.7 1.031 0.964
J3-EW 457 371 191 0.88 T 0.08 30.6 0 109.5 135.7 119.1 0.806 0.919
J3-WE 457 371 191 0.88 T 0.15 30.6 0 138.8 151.3 147.1 0.917 0.944
Palaksas #2 457 371 191 0.69 4.14 T 0.00 32.8 0 72.3 67.7 59.0 1.068 1.225
Darwin A00 457 371 191 0.66 3.92 T 0.00 32.7 0 64.8 71.4 61.3 0.908 1.057
Reference 67 B00 457 371 191 0.49 3.88 T 0.00 32.0 0 71.3 71.4 55.9 0.999 1.275
C00 457 371 191 0.94 3.96 T 0.00 29.4 0 59.1 67.3 66.2 0.878 0.893
A25 457 371 191 0.66 3.97 T 0.05 32.5 0 85.8 86.9 80.4 0.987 1.067
#1 457 371 191 0.70 4.18 T 0.36 38.0 0 139.2 126.0 180.0 1.105 0.773
A75 457 371 191 0.66 3.92 T 0.31 32.8 0 142.2 121.3 146.2 1.172 0.973
A50 457 371 191 0.66 3.96 T 0.24 26.3 0 115.4 101.4 111.1 1.138 1.039
A50A 457 371 191 0.66 3.94 T 0.24 26.3 0 109.7 104.5 113.3 1.050 0.968
A25A 457 371 191 0.67 4.00 T 0.05 32.5 0 92.4 86.7 80.9 1.066 1.142
B25 457 371 191 0.49 3.93 T 0.10 30.8 0 78.6 86.0 82.8 0.914 0.949
B50 457 371 191 0.50 3.96 T 0.25 30.3 0 107.0 107.1 112.6 0.999 0.950
C25 457 371 191 0.95 3.98 T 0.10 28.3 0 83.0 82.1 87.0 1.011 0.954
C50 457 371 191 0.94 3.94 T 0.25 29.7 0 134.2 107.1 122.4 1.253 1.096
C75 457 371 191 0.93 3.92 T 0.33 29.4 0 133.6 117.0 151.2 1.142 0.884
Ozcebe ACI56 360 311 150 3.46 5.00 R 0.14 58.0 0 93.6 78.6 87.9 1.191 1.065
Ersoy THS56 360 311 150 3.46 5.00 R 0.14 63.0 0 103.5 84.3 101.1 1.228 1.024
Tankut TS56 360 311 150 3.46 5.00 R 0.24 61.0 0 129.2 91.8 120.5 1.407 1.072
Reference 68 ACI59 360 311 150 4.43 5.00 R 0.14 82.0 0 96.5 90.9 96.5 1.062 1.000
TH59 360 311 150 4.43 5.00 R 0.19 75.0 0 119.3 93.4 113.9 1.277 1.047
TS59 360 311 150 4.43 5.00 R 0.28 82.0 0 125.4 107.4 147.8 1.168 0.848
ACI36 360 311 150 2.59 3.00 R 0.14 75.0 0 105.3 87.8 97.5 1.199 1.080
TH36 360 311 150 2.59 3.00 R 0.17 75.0 0 140.9 91.1 108.6 1.547 1.297
TS36 360 311 150 2.59 3.00 R 0.24 75.0 0 155.9 99.5 134.6 1.567 1.158
ACI39 360 311 150 3.08 3.00 R 0.14 73.0 0 111.8 88.2 96.5 1.268 1.159
TH39 360 311 150 3.08 3.00 R 0.17 73.0 0 142.9 96.4 125.1 1.482 1.142
TS39 360 311 150 3.08 3.00 R 0.27 73.0 0 179.2 104.7 150.1 1.712 1.194
Levi RC 30 A1 1050 933 120 3.50 4.20 I 0.84 25.0 0 676.0 544.0 673.1 1.243 1.004
Marro RC 30 A2 1050 933 120 3.50 4.20 I 0.84 25.0 0 688.0 544.0 673.1 1.265 1.022
Reference 69 RC 60 A1 1050 933 120 4.00 4.20 I 0.84 47.0 0 990.0 578.0 859.2 1.713 1.152
RC 60 A2 1050 933 120 4.00 4.20 I 0.84 47.0 0 938.0 578.0 859.2 1.623 1.092
RC 60 B1 1050 933 120 5.30 4.20 I 1.25 50.0 0 1181.0 807.0 1107.8 1.463 1.066
RC 60 B2 1050 933 120 5.30 4.20 I 1.25 50.0 0 1239.0 807.0 1107.8 1.535 1.118
RC 70 B1 1050 933 120 5.30 4.20 I 1.25 60.0 0 1330.0 820.0 1194.9 1.622 1.113
Roller N1 635 559 356 1.53 2.50 R 0.09 120.0 0 297.0 425.0 326.8 0.699 0.909
& Russel N2 681 559 356 3.01 2.50 R 0.44 120.0 0 1098.0 777.0 947.4 1.413 1.159
Reference 70 N3 719 559 356 4.56 2.50 R 0.89 120.0 0 1655.7 1212.0 1754.4 1.366 0.944
N4 719 559 356 4.56 2.50 R 1.27 120.0 0 1940.0 1578.0 1947.5 1.229 0.996
C-6
N5 744 564 356 6.59 2.50 R 1.94 120.0 0 2233.9 1886.0 2410.2 1.184 0.927
N6 871 763 457 1.52 3.00 R 0.09 72.4 0 665.6 628.3 616.1 1.059 1.080
N7 871 763 457 1.65 3.00 R 0.16 72.4 0 788.2 750.0 847.2 1.051 0.930
N8 871 763 457 1.65 3.00 R 0.09 125.0 0 483.0 779.6 606.9 0.620 0.796
N9 871 763 457 2.06 3.00 R 0.16 125.0 0 749.8 907.4 928.6 0.826 0.807
N10 871 763 457 2.53 3.00 R 0.21 125.0 0 1172.3 1034.1 1165.2 1.134 1.006
Benzoni INTER4 - push 610 457 406 2.00 4.10 INTER 0.20 37.0 0 376.0 367.6 1.023
Reference 49 INTER4 - pull 610 457 406 2.00 4.10 INTER 0.20 37.0 0 677.0 635.3 1.066
Arbesman CF1 610 560 152 0.40 3.00 I 0.60 38.6 0 465.9 437.5 1.065
Conte
Reference 71, 5
Arbesman SA1 610 584 305 0.85 3.00 R 0.21 48.0 0 374.0 346.0 425.2 1.081 0.880
Reference 72 SA2 610 564 152 0.85 3.00 I 0.43 48.0 0 324.0 235.0 366.8 1.379 0.883
SA3 610 549 152 3.30 3.00 I 1.17 40.0 0 730.0 478.0 730.5 1.527 0.999
Rangan S1-1 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 63.6 0 228.3 163.0 233.5 1.401 0.978
Kong S1-2 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 63.6 0 208.3 163.0 233.5 1.278 0.892
Reference 73 S1-3 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 63.6 0 206.1 163.0 233.5 1.264 0.883
S1-4 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 63.6 0 277.9 163.0 233.5 1.705 1.190
S1-5 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 63.6 0 253.3 163.0 233.5 1.554 1.085
S1-6 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 63.6 0 224.1 163.0 233.5 1.375 0.960
S2-1 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.11 72.5 0 260.3 145.0 186.1 1.795 1.399
S2-2 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.13 72.5 0 232.5 154.0 213.7 1.510 1.088
S2-3 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 72.5 0 253.3 167.5 245.0 1.512 1.034
S2-4 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 72.5 0 219.4 167.5 245.0 1.310 0.896
S2-5 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.21 72.5 0 282.1 188.0 290.4 1.500 0.971
S2-6 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.26 72.5 0 359.0 210.0 313.8 1.709 1.144
S3-1 350 297 250 1.40 2.50 R 0.10 67.4 0 209.2 149.3 172.2 1.401 1.215
S3-2 350 297 250 1.40 2.50 R 0.10 67.4 0 178.0 149.3 172.2 1.192 1.034
S3-3 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.10 67.4 0 228.6 147.3 192.7 1.552 1.186
S3-4 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.10 67.4 0 174.9 147.3 192.7 1.187 0.908
S4-4 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 87.3 0 258.1 167.5 242.5 1.541 1.064
S4-6 250 198 250 2.80 2.53 R 0.16 87.3 0 202.9 113.2 162.6 1.792 1.248
S5-1 350 293 250 2.80 3.01 R 0.16 89.4 0 241.7 167.5 241.9 1.443 0.999
S5-2 350 293 250 2.80 2.74 R 0.16 89.4 0 259.9 167.5 259.0 1.551 1.003
S5-3 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 89.4 0 243.8 167.5 247.8 1.455 0.984
S7-1 350 293 250 4.50 3.30 R 0.11 74.8 0 217.2 145.6 204.0 1.492 1.065
S7-2 350 293 250 4.50 3.30 R 0.13 74.8 0 205.4 154.4 231.1 1.331 0.889
S7-3 350 293 250 4.50 3.30 R 0.16 74.8 0 246.5 167.5 263.4 1.471 0.936
S7-4 350 293 250 4.50 3.30 R 0.20 74.8 0 273.6 185.1 305.0 1.478 0.897
S7-5 350 293 250 4.50 3.30 R 0.22 74.8 0 304.4 196.1 326.6 1.552 0.932
S7-6 350 293 250 4.50 3.30 R 0.26 74.8 0 310.6 210.0 352.6 1.479 0.881
S8-1 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.11 74.6 0 272.1 145.6 211.2 1.869 1.288
S8-2 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.13 74.6 0 250.9 154.4 240.8 1.625 1.042
S8-3 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 74.6 0 309.6 167.5 264.6 1.848 1.170
S8-4 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.16 74.6 0 265.8 167.5 264.6 1.587 1.005
S8-5 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.20 74.6 0 289.2 183.7 301.7 1.575 0.959
S8-6 350 293 250 2.80 2.50 R 0.22 74.6 0 283.9 196.1 310.3 1.448 0.915
Rangan I-1 615 570 74 3.20 2.48 I 2.70 36.5 0 453.1 208.9 454.9 2.169 0.996
Reference 74 I-2 615 570 74 3.20 2.48 I 1.50 30.5 0 371.0 190.0 358.7 1.953 1.034
I-3 615 570 63 3.20 2.48 I 3.20 31.2 0 369.1 164.4 345.0 2.245 1.070
I-4 615 570 64 3.20 2.48 I 1.80 35.7 0 416.0 178.7 364.7 2.328 1.141
II-1 615 570 64 2.23 2.48 I 1.90 45.0 0 460.9 266.7 436.0 1.728 1.057
II-2 615 570 63 2.23 2.48 I 3.20 31.5 0 378.8 225.2 367.2 1.682 1.032
II-3 615 570 73 2.23 2.48 I 1.70 44.6 0 489.2 298.8 458.5 1.637 1.067
II-4 615 570 74 2.23 2.48 I 2.70 43.0 0 479.4 297.7 533.1 1.610 0.899
III-1 615 570 66 1.80 2.50 I 1.84 40.0 0 368.0 296.2 414.1 1.242 0.889
III-2 615 570 66 1.80 2.50 I 3.00 37.0 0 390.5 274.0 404.2 1.425 0.966
III-3 615 570 77 1.80 2.50 I 1.60 39.0 0 396.5 336.9 440.9 1.177 0.899
III-4 615 570 73 1.80 2.50 I 2.80 37.0 0 453.0 303.1 450.6 1.495 1.005
IV-1 615 570 62 0.89 2.50 I 3.20 37.1 0 375.0 246.1 407.0 1.524 0.921
IV-2 615 570 64 0.89 2.50 I 1.90 33.0 0 337.8 226.0 365.5 1.495 0.924
IV-3 615 570 72 0.89 2.50 I 2.80 36.0 0 464.8 277.3 373.5 1.676 1.244
IV-4 615 570 72 0.89 2.50 I 1.70 28.7 0 390.6 221.1 359.8 1.767 1.086
MacGregor AD.14.37A 305 258 152 6.00 3.55 R 0.00 18.6 0 29.4 40.5 0.725
Reference 48 AD.14.37B 305 258 152 6.00 3.55 R 0.00 18.6 0 42.3 40.5 1.044
AW.14.39 305 215 152 6.00 4.22 R 0.26 37.7 0 62.3 71.8 0.868
AW.14.76 305 215 152 6.00 4.25 R 0.26 19.1 0 49.4 54.6 0.905
AW.24.48 305 215 152 6.00 4.25 R 0.26 33.8 0 64.1 61.6 1.041
AW.24.68 305 217 151 5.95 4.22 R 0.26 17.3 0 53.8 53.5 1.006
B.14.34 305 262 79 3.10 3.50 I 0.00 21.3 0 39.6 36.9 1.072
B.14.41 305 254 76 3.00 3.60 I 0.00 20.7 0 42.3 42.7 0.990
BD.14.18 305 257 72 2.83 3.56 I 0.00 44.1 0 49.0 46.3 1.058
BE.14.19 305 259 74 2.90 3.53 I 0.00 46.3 0 49.4 46.7 1.057
BD.14.23 305 257 76 3.00 3.56 I 0.00 29.0 0 24.9 28.0 0.889
BD.14.26 305 264 76 3.00 3.46 I 0.00 21.8 0 28.5 31.6 0.901
BD.14.27 305 257 76 3.00 3.56 I 0.00 26.6 0 42.3 36.5 1.159
BD.14.28 305 257 76 3.00 3.56 I 0.00 29.2 0 44.1 39.2 1.125
C-7
BD.14.34 305 260 76 3.00 3.52 I 0.00 18.8 0 38.7 30.7 1.261
BD.14.35 305 257 75 2.95 3.56 I 0.00 18.0 0 28.9 31.2 0.929
BD.14.42 305 257 74 2.90 3.56 I 0.00 20.6 0 44.1 38.7 1.138
BD.24.32 305 257 76 3.00 3.56 I 0.00 21.3 0 39.2 32.5 1.205
BV.14.30 305 257 75 2.95 3.56 I 0.28 29.0 0 54.3 44.1 1.232
BV.14.32A 305 257 72 2.85 3.55 I 0.32 29.0 0 59.2 45.4 1.304
BV.14.32B 305 257 72 2.85 3.55 I 0.32 29.0 0 65.0 45.4 1.431
BV.14.34 305 258 76 3.00 3.55 I 0.30 26.2 0 56.5 47.2 1.198
BV.14.35 305 259 74 2.92 3.53 I 0.40 23.0 0 54.3 48.1 1.130
BV.14.42 305 258 73 2.88 3.55 I 0.35 21.3 0 56.1 43.6 1.286
BW.14.20 305 266 75 2.95 3.44 I 0.10 19.6 0 35.6 28.9 1.231
BW.14.22 305 257 76 3.00 3.56 I 0.28 38.1 0 61.0 50.7 1.202
BW.14.23 305 253 77 3.02 3.61 I 0.15 37.0 0 62.3 50.7 1.228
BW.14.26 305 257 73 2.86 3.56 I 0.22 28.8 0 49.4 43.2 1.144
BW.14.31 305 257 76 3.00 3.56 I 0.29 22.0 0 56.5 47.6 1.187
BW.14.32 305 259 73 2.86 3.53 I 0.14 19.6 0 45.4 36.5 1.244
BW.14.38 305 257 75 2.95 3.56 I 0.19 19.9 0 57.4 43.6 1.316
BW.14.39 305 257 74 2.90 3.56 I 0.40 21.5 0 57.9 51.2 1.130
BW.14.41 305 258 75 2.95 3.55 I 0.28 21.0 0 52.5 46.3 1.135
BW.14.42 305 258 75 2.96 3.55 I 0.28 19.8 0 53.0 46.3 1.144
BW.14.43 305 257 75 2.95 3.56 I 0.40 20.1 0 54.3 52.5 1.034
BW.14.45 305 257 76 3.00 3.55 I 0.26 21.4 0 53.4 46.3 1.154
BW.14.58 305 253 74 2.91 3.61 I 0.20 23.4 0 67.2 52.5 1.280
BW.14.60 305 253 73 2.89 3.61 I 0.20 18.8 0 63.6 50.7 1.254
BW.15.34 305 258 76 3.00 4.73 I 0.19 25.0 0 42.3 37.8 1.118
BW.15.37 305 257 76 3.00 4.74 I 0.28 22.8 0 42.3 40.9 1.033
BW.16.38 305 255 76 3.00 5.37 I 0.19 26.2 0 36.9 35.6 1.038
BW.18.15 305 258 76 3.00 6.90 I 0.14 50.1 0 34.3 33.9 1.009
BW.18.27 305 258 76 3.00 6.90 I 0.39 32.1 0 32.9 33.3 0.988
BW.19.28 305 258 80 3.15 7.68 I 0.37 30.5 0 29.4 29.7 0.988
BW.28.26 305 259 77 3.05 6.86 I 0.32 22.1 0 26.3 23.7 1.107
BW.28.28 305 259 75 2.95 6.88 I 0.35 23.2 0 25.8 23.3 1.106
C.13.23N 305 264 45 1.79 2.60 I 0.00 23.9 0 23.1 29.4 0.788
C.13.23S 305 264 45 1.79 2.60 I 0.00 23.9 0 30.3 29.4 1.030
CD.13.24N 305 268 45 1.77 2.56 I 0.00 26.6 0 32.9 29.8 1.104
CD.13.24S 305 268 45 1.77 2.56 I 0.00 26.6 0 32.0 29.8 1.075
CD.13.25 305 266 46 1.82 2.58 I 0.00 20.8 0 36.0 29.4 1.227
CD.14.34 305 260 44 1.75 3.52 I 0.00 18.3 0 24.0 26.3 0.915
CW.13.28 305 255 44 1.75 2.79 I 0.95 26.6 0 77.0 62.3 1.236
CW.13.38 305 255 46 1.80 2.79 I 1.09 22.7 0 72.5 63.6 1.140
CW.14.14 305 255 44 1.72 3.58 I 0.35 46.4 0 62.7 55.2 1.137
CW.14.15 305 267 43 1.70 3.43 I 0.98 19.0 0 34.7 37.1 0.936
CW.14.16 305 266 44 1.75 3.44 I 0.26 21.9 0 34.3 27.1 1.262
CW.14.17 305 266 45 1.76 3.43 I 0.16 19.8 0 33.8 24.5 1.382
CW.14.18 305 267 43 1.70 3.43 I 1.35 20.3 0 35.6 36.9 0.964
CW.14.19 305 266 45 1.78 3.44 I 0.32 19.8 0 35.6 32.0 1.111
CW.14.20 305 266 43 1.70 3.43 I 0.34 20.3 0 35.6 31.2 1.143
CW.14.21 305 267 43 1.70 3.42 I 0.24 17.8 0 33.8 25.8 1.310
CW.14.22 305 258 43 1.71 3.55 I 0.67 32.1 0 60.1 49.8 1.205
CW.14.23 305 266 44 1.75 3.44 I 0.24 19.3 0 33.8 25.8 1.310
CW.14.24 305 266 44 1.75 3.44 I 0.37 20.0 0 34.3 31.2 1.100
CW.14.25 305 258 46 1.80 3.55 I 0.92 37.4 0 61.4 62.3 0.986
CW.14.26 305 267 43 1.70 3.43 I 0.49 16.7 0 34.7 32.5 1.068
CW.14.35 305 256 44 1.75 3.58 I 0.80 22.5 0 55.2 53.0 1.042
CW.14.36 305 257 47 1.86 3.56 I 0.84 22.6 0 57.9 54.7 1.057
CW.14.37 305 257 43 1.70 3.56 I 0.49 30.8 0 55.6 42.7 1.302
CW.14.39 305 257 44 1.75 3.56 I 0.33 23.2 0 47.2 38.7 1.218
CW.14.40 305 258 44 1.75 3.55 I 1.19 21.0 0 56.5 57.7 0.979
CW.14.42 305 257 43 1.70 3.56 I 0.68 21.9 0 56.1 49.0 1.145
CW.14.45 305 257 42 1.65 3.55 I 1.01 21.8 0 50.3 51.2 0.983
CW.14.47 305 258 43 1.70 3.55 I 0.67 18.2 0 51.6 43.2 1.196
CW.14.50 305 258 44 1.75 3.55 I 0.89 16.9 0 52.1 47.2 1.104
CW.14.51 305 252 46 1.80 3.63 I 0.45 24.2 0 56.5 42.7 1.323
CW.14.54 305 253 45 1.78 3.61 I 0.46 24.1 0 58.7 44.9 1.307
CW.18.15 305 257 44 1.73 6.93 I 0.35 46.3 0 46.7 33.5 1.395
CW.28.26 305 256 45 1.78 6.94 I 0.68 26.9 0 23.6 23.5 1.004
CW.28.28 305 259 47 1.84 6.88 I 0.68 21.9 0 23.6 23.3 1.010
FW.14.06 305 312 44 1.75 2.93 I 1.04 22.9 0 81.0 71.6 1.130
FW.14.07 305 312 47 1.85 2.93 I 1.06 27.8 0 87.9 85.0 1.034
Shahawy A0-00-R N 1118 995 152 1.00 2.17 I 0.96 58.5 0 1392.9 1023.5 1045.8 1.361 1.332
Batchelor A0-00-R S 1118 995 152 1.00 2.17 I 0.96 58.5 0 1228.2 1023.5 1045.8 1.200 1.174
Ref 75, 76 A1-00-R/2 N 1118 996 152 1.00 2.60 I 0.42 49.0 0 738.7 636.4 774.3 1.161 0.954
A1-00-R/2 S 1118 997 152 1.00 3.16 I 0.38 49.0 0 769.9 574.1 787.7 1.341 0.977
A1-00-R N 1118 996 152 1.00 2.60 I 0.83 49.1 0 934.5 898.9 961.2 1.040 0.972
A1-00-R S 1118 997 152 1.00 3.16 I 0.75 49.1 0 925.6 729.8 905.6 1.268 1.022
A1-00-3R/2 N 1118 996 152 1.00 2.60 I 1.25 52.4 0 921.2 890.0 1059.1 1.035 0.870
A1-00-3R/2 S 1118 997 152 1.00 3.16 I 1.13 52.4 0 1023.5 867.8 913.8 1.179 1.120
A2-00-2R N 1118 996 152 1.00 2.60 I 1.66 48.5 0 1143.7 1174.8 1101.0 0.973 1.039
A2-00-3R N 1118 996 152 1.00 2.60 I 2.50 50.3 0 1143.7 1210.4 1101.0 0.945 1.039
A2-00-3R S 1118 995 152 1.00 2.17 I 2.86 50.3 0 1388.4 1201.5 1272.7 1.156 1.091
A4-00-0R(1) N 1118 998 152 1.00 2.29 I 0.00 52.4 0 417.9 449.5 364.9 0.930 1.145
A4-00-0R(1) S 1118 998 152 1.00 2.29 I 0.00 52.4 0 434.3 449.5 364.9 0.966 1.190
B0-00-R N 1118 1004 152 1.10 2.58 I 0.83 51.4 0 979.0 863.3 912.3 1.134 1.073
B0-00-R S 1118 1003 152 1.10 3.14 I 0.38 51.4 0 916.7 716.5 922.4 1.280 0.994
B0-00-2R N 1118 1004 152 1.10 2.58 I 1.66 49.9 0 992.4 1179.3 1094.2 0.842 0.907
C-8
B0-00-2R S 1118 1003 152 1.10 3.14 I 1.25 49.9 0 961.2 987.9 900.0 0.973 1.068
B0-00-3R N 1118 1004 152 1.10 2.58 I 2.50 53.0 0 1028.0 1241.6 1121.4 0.828 0.917
B0-00-3R S 1118 1003 152 1.10 3.14 I 2.25 53.0 0 1050.2 1210.4 922.4 0.868 1.138
C0-00-R N 1118 1010 152 1.00 3.57 I 0.31 51.6 0 783.2 654.2 766.8 1.197 1.021
C0-00-R S 1118 1010 152 1.00 3.32 I 0.63 51.6 0 801.0 712.0 824.9 1.125 0.971
C1-00-R N 1118 1010 152 1.00 3.57 I 0.31 51.2 0 787.7 654.2 766.8 1.204 1.027
C1-00-R S 1118 1010 152 1.00 3.32 I 0.63 51.2 0 872.2 712.0 824.9 1.225 1.057
C1-00-3R/2 N 1118 1010 152 1.00 3.32 I 0.47 49.8 0 854.4 876.7 824.9 0.975 1.036
C1-00-3R/2 S 1118 1010 152 1.00 3.17 I 0.73 49.8 0 898.9 881.1 864.1 1.020 1.040
Count 534 534 534 534 521 534 534 534 534 448 534 448 534
Average 516 452 198 2.15 3.44 0.32 42 0 243 258 236 1.20 1.05
Minimum 125 110 42 0.40 1.97 0.00 6 0 11 8 11 0.42 0.71
Maximum 3140 3000 1500 6.59 7.80 3.20 125 1 2234 3667 2410 5.33 1.43
Coefficient of Variation 32.1 12.0
C-9

PHD Thesis Bentz

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

PHD Thesis Bentz

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Sectional Analysis of

Reinforced Concrete Members

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

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

Chapter 3: The Modified Compression Field Theory and

Chapter 5: Concrete Constitutive Relations ...................................................................... 56

Chapter 6: The Longitudinal Stiffness Method................................................................. 75

Chapter 7: How the programs work .................................................................................. 89

Chapter 8: Experimental Verification of Membrane-2000 ............................................. 101

Chapter 9: Experimental Program................................................................................... 110

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

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

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

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

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

3-1 The Modified Compression Field Theory in two dimensions .................................... 31

4-1 Prism in tension........................................................................................................... 43

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

6-1 Shear stress calculation ............................................................................................... 75

7-1 Internal loops in Response-2000................................................................................. 90

8-1 (a..i) Comparison of experimental and predicted behaviour..................................... 102

9-1 The shell element tester ............................................................................................ 112

10-1 Experimental/predicted shear strength, base tension stiffening.............................. 133

11-1 Comparison of Shell-2000 and Membrane-2000 for SE6 ...................................... 162

12-1 Sample beam analysis ............................................................................................. 167

5-1 Demonstration of Tension Stiffening Equations......................................................... 71

9-1 Geometry of experimental elements ........................................................................ 113

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

1-1 Analysis of Structures

1-2 Sectional-Based Analysis of Concrete Structures

Figure 1-3 Determining sectional forces using plane frame analysis5

Figure 1-4 Determining sectional forces using finite element analysis5

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

1-3 Brief Description of the Programs

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

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

http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/m2k.htm for Membrane-2000

1-5 Assumptions in Sectional Analysis

The modelling assumptions in the implementation of sectional analysis including

Av = 25 mm2 per leg

4 - S13 X-Reinforcement Y-Reinforcement

1D Frame 2D Shell 3D Block

Figure 1-6 3D Frame

1D Frame 2D Shell 3D Block

1-6 Contents of this Thesis

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

0 Figure 1-7: Example of

Chapter 8 provides experimental corroboration for program Membrane-2000 from

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

2-1 Program Installation

2-2 Quick Start: Membrane-2000

Membrane-2000 is the simplest of the four programs

Membrane elements subjected to in-plane forces can be found in structural walls,

As (mm 2/m) 1267 628

ρ (percent) 1.810 0.897

ρfy (MPa) 8.32 2.66

Loading (Nx,Nx,Vxy + dNx,dNy,dVxy)

ε c' = 1.86 mm/m ε s = 100.0 mm/m Vecchio University of Toronto

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

Response-2000 is perhaps the most immediately

2-3-1 Automatic Cross Section