Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic simulation of RC wall-type structures

Y.L. Mo a,∗ , Jianxia Zhong b , Thomas T.C. Hsu a
a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun, Houston, 77204, USA
b MMI Engineering Inc., Houston, TX, USA

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reinforced concrete (RC) wall-type structures are crucial to the safety and serviceability of buildings
Received 23 May 2007 subject to earthquakes. The shear strength of elements in walls depends strongly on the softening of
Received in revised form concrete struts in the principal compression direction due to the principal tension in the perpendicular
26 March 2008
direction. By studying the shear behavior of isolated membrane elements, this softening phenomenon
Accepted 17 April 2008
Available online 4 June 2008
has been clarified for monotonic loading in the Softened Membrane Model (SMM) [Hsu TTC, Zhu
RRH. Softened membrane model for reinforced concrete elements in shear. Struct J Amer Concrete
Keywords:
Institute 2002; 99(4):460–9]. Recently, SMM was extended to cyclic loading, resulting in the Cyclic
Constitutive model Softened Membrane Model (CSMM) [Mansour M, Hsu TTC. Behavior of reinforced concrete elements
Reinforced concrete under cyclic shear: Part 1 — experiments. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2005; 131(1):44–53; Mansour M, Hsu TTC.
Shear wall Behavior of reinforced concrete elements under cyclic shear: Part 2 – theoretical model. J Struct Eng,
Nonlinear finite element ASCE 2005;131(1):54–65]. In the present paper, the CSMM for elements is first formulated and then
implemented in a finite element program, called Simulation of Concrete Structures (SCS), to predict
the behavior of RC wall-type structures. SCS is based on the framework of OpenSees [Fenves GL.
Annual workshop on open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, UC; 2005]. The accuracy of the modeling technique is confirmed by
comparing simulated responses with experimental data on nine framed shear walls reported by [Gao
XD. Framed shear walls under cyclic loading. Ph.D. dissertation. Houston (TX): Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston; 1999]. This new modeling technique gives engineers
greatly improved simulation capabilities.
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction membrane elements. However, the CFT was unable to take

The past three decades have seen a rapid development of
knowledge in shear of reinforced concrete structures. Various
rational models have been proposed that are based on the
smeared-crack concept and can satisfy Navier’s three principles of
mechanics of materials (i.e., stress equilibrium, strain compatibil-
ity and constitutive laws). These mechanics-based models on the
“smeared-crack level” (in contrast to the “discrete-crack level” or
“local level”) include the following theories: the compression field
theory (CFT) [6], the modified compression field theory (MCFT)
[7], the rotating-angle softened truss model (RA-STM) [8–10], the
fixed-angle softened truss model (FA-STM) [11,12], the softened
membrane model (SMM) [13,14], and the cyclic softened mem-
brane model (CSMM) [15,1–3].
Vecchio and Collins [6] proposed the earliest rational theory,
CFT, to predict nonlinear behavior of cracked reinforced concrete
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 713 743 4259; fax: +1 713 743 4260.
E-mail address: ymo@uh.edu (Y.L. Mo).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.04.033
into account tension stiffening of concrete in the prediction of
deformation because the tensile stress of concrete was assumed to
be zero. In 1986, the MCFT was proposed to include a relationship
for concrete in tension to better model the stiffness of experiments.
The RA-STM, a rational theory developed at the University
of Houston (UH) in 1995, had two improvements over the CFT:
(1) the tensile stress of concrete was taken into account so that
deformations could be correctly predicted, and (2) the smeared (or
average) stress–strain curve of steel bars embedded in concrete
was derived on the “smeared crack level” so that it could be
correctly used in the equilibrium and compatibility equations
which are based on continuous materials.
By 1996 the UH group reported the FA-STM that is capable of
predicting the “concrete contribution” (Vc ) by assuming the cracks
to be oriented at a fixed angle. Zhu et al. [16] derived a rational
shear modulus and produced a solution algorithm of FA-STM that
is as simple as that of RA-STM.
With improvements on the softened truss models (rotating-
angle and fixed-angle) came another significant advancement. As
they were, these models could predict the ascending response
curves of shear panels, but not the post-peak descending curves.
3168 Y.L. Mo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175

Notation ρsi reinforcement ratio of the steel layer in the ith

direction
σ c
concrete stress
ρw wall reinforcement ratio
ε̄ smeared uniaxial concrete strain
ν12 Hus/Zhu ratio (effect of strain in 2-direction on
ε̄0T uniaxial tensile strain normal to the compression
strain in 1-direction)
direction being considered
εcr cracking strain of concrete
ν21 Hsu/Zhu ratio (effect of strain in 1-direction on
strain in 2-direction)
εs smeared strain of steel bars embedded in concrete
[D] tangent material stiffness matrix
ε̄n smeared tensile strain of mild steel bars embedded
[Dc ] concrete tangent uniaxial stiffness matrix
in concrete at first yielding
ε̄p plastic strain of steel bars embedded in concrete [Dsi ] steel tangent uniaxial stiffness matrix
f` smeared steel stress in longitudinal direction [k] element stiffness matrix
ft smeared steel stress in transversal direction [K ] global stiffness matrix
cos2 θ1 sin2 θ1
 
−2 sin θ1 cos θ1
fs stress in mild steel
[T (−θ1 )]  sin2 θ1 cos2 θ1 2 sin θ1 cos θ1 
1 direction of applied principal tensile stress sin θ1 cos θ1 − sin θ1 cos θ1 cos2 θ1 − sin2 θ1
2 direction of applied principal compressive stress cos2 θ1 sin2 θ1
 
2 sin θ1 cos θ1
x local coordinate of RC element [T (θ1 )]  sin2 θ1 cos2 θ1 −2 sin θ1 cos θ1 
y local coordinate of RC element − sin θ1 cos θ1 sin θ1 cos θ1 cos2 θ1 − sin2 θ1
cos2 θsi sin2 θ
 
xsi local coordinate of steel layer in ith direction, where si −2 sin θsi cos θsi
[T (−θsi )]  sin2 θ si cos2 θsi 2 sin θsi cos θsi 
xsi is the direction of the steel layer
sin θsi cos θsi − sin θsi cos θsi cos2 θsi − sin2 θsi
ysi local coordinate of steel layer in ith direction 
cos2 (θsi − θ1 ) sin2 (θsi − θ1 )
B factor that depends on ρ, fcr , and fy [T (θsi − θ1 )]  sin2 (θsi − θ1 ) cos2 (θsi − θ1 )
C
− sin(θsi − θ1 ) cos(θsi − θ1 ) sin(θsi − θ1 ) cos(θsi − θ1 )
E1 concrete tangent uniaxial modulus in the 1-direction 
C 2 sin(θsi − θ1 ) cos(θsi − θ1 )
E2 concrete tangent uniaxial modulus in the 2-direction −2 sin(θsi − θ1 ) cos(θsi − θ1 ) 
Esi steel tangent modulus of the steel layer in the ith cos2 (θsi − θ1 ) − sin2 (θsi − θ1 )
direction [V ] Hsu/Zhu matrix
fcr cracking tensile stress of concrete ς softened coefficient of concrete in compression
fc0 cylinder compressive strength of concrete when the peak stress-softened coefficient is equal
fy yielding strength in bare steel bars to strain-softened coefficient
fn smeared (average) yield stress of steel bars embed- η parameter defined as ρt fty − σt / ρ` f`y − σ`

ded in concrete η0 η or its reciprocal, whichever is less than unity; η0 ≥

Gc12 shear modulus of concrete in (1–2) coordinate, 0.2
σ c −σ c
Gc12 = ε1 −ε 2
1 2
P /P0 axial load ratio
Then, by incorporating the Poisson effect of cracked reinforced
θ1 angle between the (x–y) coordinate system and
concrete (characterized by two new Hsu/Zhu ratios), the Softened
(1–2) coordinate system Membrane Model (SMM) was developed. SMM can satisfactorily
θsi angle between the (x–y) coordinate system and predict the entire monotonic response curves, including both the
(xsi –ysi ) coordinate system ascending and descending branches.
ε0 concrete cylinder strain corresponding to peak Fifteen reinforced concrete elements (panels) under reversed
cylinder strength fc0 cyclic shear stresses were tested by Mansour and Hsu [1,2]. Based
ε1 smeared biaxial strain in the 1-direction on these test results, the Cyclic Softened Membrane Model (CSMM)
ε̄1 smeared uniaxial strain in the 1-direction was proposed to rationally predict hysteretic loops. The CSMM
can accurately predict the pinching effect, the shear ductility and
ε2 smeared biaxial strain in the 2-direction
the energy dissipation capacities of the membrane element [3].
εx smeared biaxial strain in the x-direction For these reasons, CSMM is the most appropriate model to be
εy smeared biaxial strain in the y-direction implemented in the OpenSees platform [4] for the prediction of
ε̄2 smeared uniaxial strain in the 2-direction the cyclic shear force–displacement behavior of walls where shear
εsi smeared biaxial strain of rebars in ith direction deformation is significant.
ε̄si smeared uniaxial strain of rebars in ith direction The present study accomplishes three main tasks: (1) to
γ12 smeared shear strain in the 1–2 coordinate system formulate the CSMM for the development of a finite element
γxy smeared shear strain in the x–y coordinate system program, (2) to implement the formulated CSMM into a finite
element program SCS, using OpenSees as a framework, (3)
σ1c concrete smeared stress in the 1-direction
to validate the finite element program SCS by comparing its
σ2c concrete smeared stress in the 2-direction
predictions with the experimental results of RC framed shear walls
τ12
c
concrete smeared shear stress in the 1–2 coordinate tested by Gao [5].
system
σx applied normal stress in the x-direction 2. Research significance
σy applied normal stress in the y-direction
τxy applied shear stress in the x–y coordinate system The development of a finite element program for reinforced
concrete structures includes three components, namely modeling,
 Y.L. Mo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175 3169

3.2. Equilibrium and compatibility equations

The equilibrium equation that relates the applied stresses in

the x–y coordinate (σx , σy and τxy ) to the internal concrete stresses
(σ1c , σ2c and τ12
c
) in the principal stress directions, and the steel bar
stresses (fsi ) in the bar directions is given by:

 σx   σ1  X ρsi fsi 
   c  
(a) Applied principal stresses in (b) Reinforcement component
σ = [T (−θ1 )] σ2 + c
[T (−θsi )] 0 (4)
local coordinates. in local coordinates.  y
τxy τ12
 c 
0
i
 

Fig. 1. Coordinate systems for reinforced concrete elements.

where ρsi is the steel ratio in the “ith” direction; [T (−θ1 )] and
[T (−θsi )] are the transformation matrices from the 1–2 coordinate
formulation and implementation. In this paper the Cyclic Softened and the xsi –ysi coordinate to the x–y coordinate, respectively.
Membrane Model proposed recently by Mansour and Hsu [1, The compatibility equation defines the relationships between
2] is adopted for the simulation of reinforced concrete wall- the steel strains (εsi ) in the xsi –ysi coordinate and the concrete
type structures. Major contributions of this study are in the strains (ε1 , ε2 and 21 γ12 ) in the 1–2 coordinate. It is expressed by
formulation and the implementation components, which resulted Eq. (5):
in a finite element program called Simulation of Concrete
εsi  ε1 
   
Structures (SCS). This CSMM-based simulation, using the SCS
 
εsi0 = [T (θ − θ )] ε2 .

 
 
 

program, can accurately predict the hysteretic loops of framed si 1 (5)
1 1
 γsi   γ12 
   
shear walls subjected to vertical loads and horizontal shear forces.
   
2 2
It is noted that the steel strains (εsi ) and concrete strains (ε1 , ε2 )
3. Formulation of CSMM in Eq. (5) are biaxial strains, which take into account the Poisson
effect using the Hsu/Zhu ratios of cracked reinforced concrete [14].
3.1. Coordinate systems in CSMM
3.3. Relationship between biaxial strains and uniaxial strains
Three Cartesian coordinates, x–y, 1–2, and xsi –ysi , are defined
The relationship between biaxial strains and uniaxial strains
in reinforced concrete elements, as demonstrated in Fig. 1.
has been derived using the Hsu/Zhu ratios (v12 , v21 ) [17]. Ratio v12
Coordinate x–y represents the local coordinate of the elements.
represents the effect of compression strain in the 2-direction on
Coordinate 1–2 defines the principal stress directions of the the tensile strain in the 1-direction, and ratio v21 represents the
applied stresses, which have an angle θ1 with respect to the x-axis. effect of tensile strain in the 1-direction on the compression strain
Steel bars can be oriented in different directions in the elements. in the 2-direction. It was found that under monotonic loading the
Coordinate xsi –ysi shows the direction of the ‘ith’ group of rebars, Hsu/Zhu ratio v12 increases linearly with the tensile steel strain and
where the ‘ith’ group of rebars are located in the direction of axis becomes a constant value of 1.9 after the steel yields. The Hsu/Zhu
xsi with an angle θsi to the x-axis. For simplicity, notations used in ratio v21 was found to remain zero, indicating that tensile strains
this paper are summarized at the second page of the paper. has no effect on compressive strains [17]. Under cyclic loading, the
The stress and strain vectors in x–y coordinates and 1–2 Hsu/Zhu ratio v12 is defined as a linear function of tensile steel
T
1 strain and becomes a constant value of 1.0 after the steel yields

T
coordinates are denoted as σx σy τxy , εx εy γxy ,

2 [15]. The Hsu/Zhu ratio v21 under cyclic loading remains zero.
T
1 Using the Hsu/Zhu ratios (v12 , v21 ), biaxial strains of concrete

T
σ1 σ2 τ12 and ε1 ε2 γ12 , respectively. Here τ12 =

2 (ε1 , ε2 ) in Eq. (5) are converted into uniaxial strains of concrete (ε1 ,
0 because the 1–2 coordinate represents the principal stress ε2 ) as follows:
directions.
ε1  ε1 
   
By using the transformation matrix [T (α)], the stresses and
 
ε2 = [V ] ε2

 
 
 

strains can be transformed between different coordinates. [T (α)] (6)
1 1
 γ12   γ12 
   
is given by:
   
2 2

c2 s2 2sc

where
[T (α)] =  s2

c2 −2sc 

(1)

1 ν12 
1 − ν ν 0
−sc sc c2 − s2 12 21 1 − ν12 ν21
ν21 1 .
 
[V ] =  (7)
where c = cos (α) and s = sin (α). The angle α is the angle between

1 − ν ν 0
1 − ν12 ν21


12 21
the two coordinates. 0 0 1
The stresses and strains transformed from the x–y coordinate to
The uniaxial strains of concrete (ε1 , ε2 ) can then be transformed
the 1–2 coordinate using the transformation matrix are expressed
to the uniaxial strain of steel (εsi ) as follows:
as follows:
εsi  ε1 
   
σ1   σx 
     
εsi0 = [T (θ − θ )] ε2 .

 
 
 

σ2 = [T (θ1 )] σy (2) si 1 (8)
1 1
τxy  γsi   γ12 

  
 
0
     
2 2
ε1  εx  Once the uniaxial strains of concrete (ε1 , ε2 ) and steel (εsi ) are
   
 
ε2 obtained by Eqs. (6) and (8), the stresses of concrete (σ1c , σ2c , τ12
= [T (θ1 )] εy
c
   
)
   
. (3)
1 1  and steel (fsi ) in Eq. (4) can be determined based on the uniaxial
 γ12   γxy 

  

constitutive relationships of the materials.
 
2 2
3170 Y.L. Mo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175

Fig. 2. Cyclic smeared stress–strain curve of concrete.

3.4. Uniaxial constitutive relationships of the materials
3.4.1. Uniaxial constitutive relationship of concrete
Cyclic uniaxial constitutive relationships of concrete in com-
pression and tension are given in Fig. 2 [18,15]. The characteristics
of these concrete constitutive laws include: (1) the softening ef-
fect on the concrete in compression due to the tensile strain in the
perpendicular direction; (2) the softening effect on the concrete
in compression under reversed cyclic loading; (3) the opening and
closing of cracks, which are taken into account in the unloading
and reloading stages.
3.4.2. Uniaxial constitutive relationship of mild steel bars embedded
in concrete
Cyclic uniaxial constitutive relationships of embedded mild
steel bars were developed by Mansour et al. [18]. The constitutive
relationships are given in Fig. 3. The smeared stress of embedded
mild steel bars is lower than the yield stress of bare steel bars and
the hardening ratio of steel bars after yielding is calculated from
the steel ratio, steel strength and concrete strength. The unloading
and reloading stress–strain curves of embedded steel bars take into
account the Bauschinger effect.
 Y.L. Mo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175 3171

Fig. 3. Cyclic smeared stress–strain curve of mild steel bars.

3.4.3. Constitutive relationship of concrete in shear suitable because a wall can be conveniently divided into small
The rational equation relating the shear stress (τ12
c
) and shear membrane elements, each behaving in an approximately uniform
strain (γ12 ) of concrete in the 1–2 coordinate system is given by manner. The average stress–strain relationships for concrete
Zhu et al. [16]: and steel at the element level should capture the primary
γ12 load–deformation characteristics for the entire wall.
τ12
c
= Gc12 (9)
2
4.2. Material stiffness matrix
where
σ1c − σ2c A material stiffness matrix relates the state of stresses and
Gc12 = . (10) strains for an element. For the implementation procedure in this
ε1 − ε2
paper, a tangent material stiffness matrix [D] for a reinforced
4. Implementation of CSMM concrete element is formulated as:

 σx 
 

4.1. Modeling cracked reinforced concrete d σ

 y
τxy
Cracked reinforced concrete is assumed to be a continuum [D] = . (11)
εx 


material in a smeared crack model. The material properties are εy

 

characterized by a set of smeared (or average) stress–strain d
1 
 γxy 


relationships for concrete and steel, established directly from full- 2

scale element tests subjected to biaxial loading [6,7,9,19,10,20].
These average stress–strain relationships account for local bond [D] is evaluated by
slipping. This type of modeling has also been done in Japan [21– [D] = [T (−θ1 )] [Dc ] [V ] [T (θ1 )]
25], as well as in Europe [26,27] and in North America [28–
[T (−θsi )] [Dsi ] [T (θsi − θ1 )] [V ] [T (θ1 )]
X
34]. An important advantage of using the averaging concept in + (12)
i
tension stiffening [20] is that the tensile stress–strain relationship
of concrete becomes mesh independent. where [Dc ] is the uniaxial tangential constitutive matrix of
The developed finite element program uses the smeared crack concrete, and [Dsi ] is the uniaxial tangential constitutive matrix
model for the main body of a wall. The smeared crack model is of steel; [V ] is the matrix defined in Eq. (7) which converts
3172 Y.L. Mo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175

biaxial strains into uniaxial strains using the Hsu/Zhu ratios;

[T (θ1 )] is the transformation matrix from the x–y coordinate
to the 1–2 coordinate; [T (−θ1 )] is the transformation matrix
from the 1–2 coordinate to the x–y coordinate; [T (−θsi )] is
the transformation matrix from the xsi –ysi coordinate to the x–y
coordinate; [T (θsi − θ1 )] is the transformation matrix from the 1–2
coordinate to the xsi –ysi coordinate.
The uniaxial constitutive matrix of concrete [Dc ] is given by
 c
∂σ1c 
 E1 0 
∂ε2
 ∂σ2
 c 
[Dc ] =  c  (13)
E2 0 
 ∂ε1 
0 0 Gc12
c c
where E1 and E2 are the tangential stiffness of uniaxial moduli of
concrete in the 1 and 2 directions evaluated at a stress/strain state.
∂σ c ∂σ c
Off-diagonal terms ∂ε 1 and ∂ε 2 can be obtained by using the uni-
2 1
axial constitutive relationships and taking into account the states
of the concrete stresses and uniaxial strains in the 1–2 directions
(Zhong [35]). Gc12 is the shear modulus of concrete given by Eq. (10).
The uniaxial constitutive matrix of rebars [Dsi ] is evaluated as
follows:
 
ρsi · Esi 0 0
[Dsi ] =  0 0 0 (14)
 

0 0 0

where Esi is the uniaxial tangential modulus for the rebars, as

determined for a particular stress/strain state.

4.3. Nonlinear analysis algorithm

An iterative tangent-stiffness procedure under incremental

loading or displacement is developed to perform a nonlinear
analysis for reinforced concrete structures. A flow chart of the Fig. 4. Nonlinear analysis algorithm.
procedure is shown in Fig. 4. Throughout the procedure, the
material stiffness matrix [D] is determined first, and then the
element stiffness matrix [k] and the element resisting force
increment vector ∆f are calculated. After that the global stiffness
matrix [K ] and global resisting force increment vector ∆F are
assembled. In each iteration, the material stiffness matrix [D], the
element stiffness matrix [k] and the global stiffness matrix [K ] are
iteratively refined until convergence is achieved. It is noted that an
additional iterative loop is defined to obtain the material stiffness
matrix [D] because the principal stress direction θ1 is an unknown
value before [D] is found.

4.4. OpenSees framework and computer program SCS

OpenSees stands for Open System for Earthquake Engineering

Simulation [4]. OpenSees has been developed in the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Center (PEER) and is an object-oriented
framework for simulation applications in earthquake engineering
using finite element methods. An object-oriented framework
is a set of cooperating classes that can be used to generate
software for a specific class of problem, such as finite element
analysis. The framework dictates overall program structure by
defining the abstract classes, their responsibilities, and how these
classes interact. OpenSees is a communication mechanism for
Fig. 5. Implementation of CSMM into OpenSees.
exchanging and building upon research accomplishments, and has
the potential for a community code for earthquake engineering
because it is an open source. Fig. 5. SteelZ01 and ConcreteZ01 are the uniaxial material modules,
In order to implement the CSMM into OpenSees, three new ma- in which the uniaxial constitutive relationships of steel and con-
terial modules, namely SteelZ01, ConcreteZ01 and RCPlaneStress crete specified in the CSMM are defined. The RCPlaneStress is im-
are developed. The integration of SteelZ01, ConcreteZ01, RC- plemented with a quadrilateral element to represent the four-node
PlaneStress and existing libraries of OpenSees are presented in reinforced concrete membrane elements. The uniaxial materials of
 Y.L. Mo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175 3173

Table 1
Comparison of CSMM with SCS
Item Cyclic Softened Membrane Model (CSMM), given in Mansour and Simulation of Concrete Structures (SCS). This is new.
Hsu [1,2].

1 Consists of equilibrium and compatibility equations of a single
element along with the constitutive laws of materials.
2 The basic coordinate system represents the directions of the rebars.
Stresses and strains in the coordinate of principal applied stresses
and in the coordinate of principal concrete stresses are transformed
with respect to the coordinate of rebars.
3 No material stiffness matrix is developed from the constitutive laws
of materials, because CSMM deals only with a single element under
uniform stresses and strains.
4 Predicts behavior of single elements.
Consists of formulation of CSMM and implementation of CSMM into OpenSees
framework.
The basic coordinate system represents the local axes of the reinforced concrete
elements. Stresses and strains in all other coordinates (i.e. coordinates for rebars,
applied principal stresses, principal concrete stresses) are transformed with respect
to the coordinate of local axes of elements.
Material stiffness matrix is developed from the constitutive laws of materials using a
tangential stiffness matrix approach. The material stiffness matrix is then used to
obtain the stiffness matrix of the element and consequently of the structural system.
Predicts behavior of assembly of elements, structural components and structural
systems.

Fig. 6. Dimensions and steel arrangement of specimen (Unit: mm, 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).

steelZ01 and concreteZ01 are related with material RCPlaneStress Table 2

Target test variables of framed shear walls
to determine the material stiffness matrix of membrane reinforced
concrete in RCPlaneStress. Using the OpenSees as the finite ele- P /Po ρW
ment framework, a nonlinear finite element program titled Sim- 0.23% 0.55% 1.1%
ulation of Concrete Structures (SCS) was developed for the simula- 0.07 FSW13 FSW6 FSW11
tion of reinforced concrete structures subjected to monotonic and 0.22 FSW8 FSW5 FSW9
reversed cyclic loading. The differences between the SCS and the 0.40 FSW12 FSW4 FSW10
CSMM are summarized in Table 1.

5. Validation

5.1. Test program

Tests on nine 1/3-scale framed shear walls, subjected to a

constant axial load at the top of each column and a reversed cyclic
load at the top beam, were performed at the University of Houston
[5], Figs. 6 and 7. The wall dimensions were 914.4 mm (36 in.) by
914.4 mm (36 in.) with a thickness of 76.2 mm (3 in.). The cross-
section of the boundary columns was 152.4 mm (6 in.) square.
The details of reinforcement of the specimens are also shown. The
bottom left and right corners of the specimen were supported by a
hinge and a roller, respectively (Fig. 7). Fig. 7. Finite element modeling of specimen.
3174 Y.L. Mo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175

Fig. 8. Shear force-drift displacement of specimens (1 kN = 0.22 kip, 1 mm = 0.0394 in.).

Table 3
Dimensions and properties of specimens
Specimen name fc0 (MPaa ) Column & beam Wall panel Vertical load
Hoop steel (mmb ) Longl. steel Longl. steel (%) Panel steel (mmb ) Panel steel (%) P (kNc ) P
Po Ratio

FSW-13 56.91 #2@63.5 6#4 3.33 W2@152.4 0.23 89 0.07

FSW-6 49.75 #2@63.5 6#4 3.33 #2@152.4 0.55 89 0.08
FSW-11 56.99 #2@63.5 #2@31.75 6#4 3.33 #2@76.2 1.10 89 0.07
FSW-8 48.29 #2@63.5 6#4 3.33 W2@152.4 0.23 267 0.24
FSW-5 56.34 #2@63.5 6#4 3.33 #2@152.4 0.55 267 0.20
FSW-9 50.24 #2@63.5 #2@31.75 6#4 3.33 #2@76.2 1.10 267 0.23
FSW-12 57.07 #2@63.5 6#4 3.33 W2@152.4 0.23 534 0.40
FSW-4 49.51 D3@63.5 6#4 3.33 #2@152.4 0.55 534 0.46
FSW-10 55.85 #2@63.5 #2@31.75 6#4 3.33 #2@76.2 1.10 534 0.41
a 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
b 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
c 1 KN = 0.22 kip.

The nine specimens were designed to study the trends of two
variables as shown in Table 2. The first variable is the designed axial
load ratios on the columns (P/Po ) that varies from 0.07, 0.2 to 0.4.
The second variable is the steel ratio in the wall panel ρw that varies
from 0.23%, 0.55% to 1.1%. Table 3 gives the material properties, the
wall steel ratio and the axial load ratio of each specimen. Details of
the test information and experimental results are given by Gao [5].
5.2. Analytical model
Finite element analyses were conducted on the nine specimens.
The specimens were modeled by the finite element mesh, as shown
in Fig. 7. The wall panel was defined by nine RCPlaneStress quadri-
lateral elements, which are developed based on CSMM. The bound-
ary columns and beams are modeled as NonlinearBeamColumn
elements, which are the existing element types in OpenSees. Each
of the beams and columns were divided into three elements. The
axial loads acting on the columns were applied as vertical nodal
forces, which remain constant in the analysis.
In the beginning of the analysis, axial loads were applied
to the columns using load control. After that, axial loads
were kept constant and reversed cyclic horizontal loads were
applied by a predetermined displacement control scheme. Nodal
displacements and corresponding horizontal forces were recorded
 Y.L. Mo et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3167–3175
at each converged displacement step, and the stress and strain of
the elements were also monitored.
5.3. Comparison of analytical results with test results
Analytical results of the shear force-drift relationships of all
nine shear walls are illustrated by the dashed hysteretic loops
in Fig. 8. These dotted loops are compared to the solid loops,
representing the experimental results. It can be seen that good
agreements were obtained for the primary backbone curves, the
initial stiffness, the yield point, the peak strength, the descending
branch, and the failure characteristics. The hysteretic behavior
provided accurate measurements of the pinching effect, the
residual displacements, the ductility and the energy dissipation
capacity in all specimens.
The 3 by 3 array of nine hysteretic loops in Fig. 8 allows us
to show clearly that the CSMM-based simulation can predict the
trends of the two variables in the experimental study [5]: the axial
load ratios P/Po and the steel ratios in the wall panels ρw . When
P /Po are maintained at a constant value of 0.2, the middle row of
three specimens FSW8, FSW5 and FSW9 (with ρw of 0.23%, 0.55%
and 1.1%, respectively) showed that the ductility and the energy
dissipation capacity increased substantially with increasing ρw . In
contrast, when ρw are equal to 0.55%, the middle column of three
specimens FSW6, FSW5 and FSW4 (with P/Po of 0.07, 0.2 and 0.4,
respectively) showed that the ductility and the energy dissipation
capacity decreased significantly with increasing P/Po .
Even the failure modes can be predicted by the CSMM-based
finite element program. In specimens FSW13, FSW6, FSW11, FSW5
and FSW9, the steel bars in their walls yielded significantly prior to
the concrete crushing, resulting in long yield plateaus. In contrast,
in specimens FSW8, FSW12, FSW4 and FSW10, the concrete
crushed right after the steel yielded, which caused an abrupt drop
of shear force in the descending branch. The proposed program
was able, in general, to capture the brittle failure behavior of these
specimens. Although the CSMM-simulations of specimens FSW12
and FSW10 could not trace the sudden drop of shear force due to
local failure of concrete in the walls, the predictions of the entire
hysteretic loops are very good.
6. Conclusions
A new analytical model CSMM was developed in 2005 to predict
the cyclic shear behavior of 2-D membrane elements. The present
paper reports the successful formulation and implementation of
CSMM into a finite element program SCS based on the framework
of OpenSees to predict the hysteretic loops of reinforced concrete
wall-type structures.
The CSMM-based simulation was validated by the tests of
nine frame shear walls (i.e. beam–column frames in-filled with
shear walls), subjected to vertical loads and horizontal cyclic shear
forces. The program SCS is capable of accurately predicting the
entire hysteretic loops of these framed shear walls, including the
backbone curves, the initial stiffness, the yield point, the peak
strength, the descending branch, the failure characteristics, the
pinching effect, the residual displacement and the energy dissipa-
tion. The CSMM-based, finite element simulation thus provides en-
gineers with a powerful new tool to rationally design reinforced
concrete wall-type structures to resist earthquake actions.
References
[1] Mansour M, Hsu TTC. Behavior of reinforced concrete elements under cyclic
shear: Part 1 – experiments. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2005;131(1):44–53.
[2] Mansour M, Hsu TTC. Behavior of reinforced concrete elements under cyclic
shear: Part 2 — theoretical model. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2005;131(1):54–65.
3175
[3] Hsu TTC, Mansour MY. Stiffness, ductility, and energy dissipation of RC
elements under cyclic shear. Earthquake Spectra, EERI 2005;21(4):1093–112.
[4] Fenves GL. Annual workshop on open system for earthquake engineering sim-
ulation. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, UC; 2005.
[5] Gao XD. Framed shear walls under cyclic loading. Ph.D. dissertation. Houston
(TX): Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Houston; 1999.
[6] Vecchio F, Collins MP. Stress–strain characteristic of reinforced concrete in
pure shear. In: IABSE colloquium, advanced mechanics of reinforced con-
crete, Delft, Final Report, International Association of Bridge and Structural
Engineering; 1981. p. 221–5.
[7] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 1986;83(2):219–31.
[8] Hsu TTC. Unified theory of reinforced concrete. Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc;
1993.
[9] Belarbi A, Hsu TTC. Constitutive laws of softened concrete in biaxial tension-
compression. Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 1995;92(5):562–73.
[10] Pang XB, Hsu TTC. Behavior of reinforced concrete membrane elements in
shear. Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 1995;92(6):665–79.
[11] Pang XB, Hsu TTC. Fixed-angle softened-truss model for reinforced concrete.
Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 1996;93(2):197–207.
[12] Hsu TTC, Zhang LX. Nonlinear analysis of membrane elements by fixed-angle
softened-truss model. Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 1997;94(5):483–92.
[13] Zhu RH. Softened membrane model for reinforced concrete elements con-
sidering Poisson effect. Ph.D. dissertation. Houston (TX): Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston; 2000.
[14] Hsu TTC, Zhu RRH. Softened membrane model for reinforced concrete
elements in shear. Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 2002;99(4):460–9.
[15] Mansour M. Behavior of reinforced concrete membrane elements under cyclic
shear: experiments to theory. Ph.D. dissertation. Houston (TX): Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston; 2001.
[16] Zhu RH, Hsu TTC, Lee JY. Rational shear modulus for smeared crack analysis
of reinforced concrete. Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 2001;98(4):443–50.
[17] Zhu RRH, Hsu TTC. Poisson effect of reinforced concrete membrane elements.
Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 2002;99(5):631–40.
[18] Mansour M, Lee JY, Hsu TTC. Constitutive laws of concrete and steel bars in
membrane elements under cyclic loading. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2001;127(12):
1402–11.
[19] Belarbi A, Hsu TTC. Constitutive laws of concrete in tension and reinforcing
bars stiffened by concrete. Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 1994;91(4):
465–74.
[20] Hsu TTC, Zhang LX. Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete membrane
Elements. Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 1996;93(1):108–15.
[21] Noguchi H, Inoue N. Analytical techniques of shear in reinforced concrete
structures by finite element method. In; Proceedings, JCI colloquium on shear
analysis of RC structures. Concrete Institute (C4E). 1983. p. 57–96.
[22] Noguchi H. State-of-the-art of theoretical studies on membrane shear
behavior in Japan. In: Concrete shear in earthquake (Proceedings of the
international workshop on concrete shear in earthquake, Jan. 14–16, Houston,
1991). London-New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, Inc; 1992. p. 196–205.
[23] Shin H, Maekawa K, Okamura H. Analytical models for reinforced concrete
shear walls under reversed cyclic loading. In: Concrete shear in earthquake
(Proceedings of the international workshop on concrete shear in earthquake,
Jan. 14–16, 1991, Houston). London-New York: Elsevier Science Publishers,
Inc; 1992. p. 289–98.
[24] Izumo J, Shin H, Maekawa K, Okamura H. An analytical model for RC panels
subjected to in-plane stresses. In: Concrete shear in earthquake (Proceedings
of the international workshop on concrete shear in earthquake, Jan. 14–16,
1991, Houston). London-New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, Inc; 1992.
p. 206–15.
[25] Inoue N, Suzuki N. Microscopic and macroscopic analysis of reinforced con-
crete framed shear walls. In: Concrete shear in earthquake (Proceedings of the
international workshop on concrete shear in earthquake, Jan. 14–16, 1991,
Houston). London-New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, Inc; 1992. p. 333–42.
[26] Rots JG, Nauta P, Kusters GMA, Blaawendraad J. Smeared crack approach and
fracture localization in concrete. Heron 1985;30(1):1–48.
[27] de Borst R, Nauta P. Non-orthogonal cracks in a smeared finite element model.
Eng Comput 1985;2:23–46.
[28] Stevens NJ, Uzumeri SM, Collins MP. Analytical modeling of reinforced con-
crete subjected to monotonic and reversed cyclic loadings, Publication No. 87-
1. Toronto (Canada): Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto; 1987.
[29] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Predicting the response of reinforced concrete beams
subjected to shear using modified compression field theory. Struct J Amer
Concrete Institute 1988;85:258–67.
[30] Vecchio FJ. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete mem-
branes. Struct J Amer Concrete Institute 1989;86(1):26–35.
[31] Vecchio FJ. Reinforced concrete membrane element formulation. J Struct Eng,
ASCE 1990;116(3):730–50.
[32] Polak MA, Vecchio FJ. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shells. J Struct
Eng, ASCE 1993;116(3):730–50.
[33] Selby RG, Vecchio FJ. Three_dimensional constitutive relations for reinforced
concrete. Report No. 93-02. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto.
1993. 147 pages.
[34] Ayoub A, Filippou FC. Nonlinear finite-element analysis of RC shear panels
and walls. J Struct Eng 1998;298–308.
[35] Zhong JX. Model-based simulation of reinforced concrete plane stress struc-
tures. Ph.D. dissertation. Houston (TX): Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Houston; 2005.