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

net/publication/285833414

Compression-Tension Strength of Reinforced and Fiber-Reinforced Concrete

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · May 2011

CITATIONS READS
6 245

3 authors, including:

Ekkehard Fehling Prof. Dr.-Ing Friedrich‐Karl Röder

Universität Kassel Universität Kassel
78 PUBLICATIONS   572 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Druck-Zug-Festigkeit von Stahlbeton View project

Kippstabilität View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Friedrich‐Karl Röder on 02 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 108-S34
Compression-Tension Strength of Reinforced
and Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
by Ekkehard Fehling, Torsten Leutbecher, and Friedrich-Karl Roeder
The compressive strength of concrete can substantially decrease in
relation to the uniaxial compressive strength by transverse tension
and cracking. This holds true for plain and reinforced concrete.
The question of the biaxial compression-tension strength of reinforced
concrete has been examined over the past 40 years by numerous
scientists. Their results, however, vary considerably and lead to
contradictory conclusions. Accordingly, in national standards,
very different calculation rules can be found on this subject,
whereby the provided reductions differ up to a factor of 2 for the
same application. Based on the authors’ own experimental
investigations and a critical review and classification of former test
series that are regarded as trendsetting, a proposal for the
reduction of the compressive strength of cracked reinforced
concrete is developed. For the first time, the influence of fibers in
addition to bar reinforcement is also considered.
Keywords: biaxial test; compression; concrete panel; fiber-reinforced
concrete; material model; reinforced concrete; tension.
INTRODUCTION
The realistic computational modeling and design of
reinforced concrete (RC) structures has to consider multi-
axial stress and strain states. Special attention has to be paid
to compression stress states with simultaneous transverse
tensile strain. In particular, panel and shell structures are
frequently subject to such biaxial stress states. With regard
to the design and analysis of strut-and-tie models as well as
to the shear design of beams, transverse tension and cracking
also have a substantial influence on the strength of the
compression struts.
Over the past 40 years, tests on the bearing capacity of
cracked RC panels (without fibers) have been carried out by
numerous scientists. Because of partially different objectives
and due to the highly differing test executions (test setup,
load application, and so on), dimensions of the test specimens,
and reinforcement configurations, the test results vary
considerably. Vecchio and Collins1 obtained a decrease of
the compressive strength after cracking to a minimum value
of 20% of the uniaxial compressive strength at high transverse
strains. Belarbi and Hsu2 also observed very large decreases
to a minimum value of 25% of the uniaxial compressive
strength. In contrast, a maximum decrease to between 80 and
85% of the uniaxial compressive strength was noticed by
Schlaich and Schaefer,3 Kollegger and Mehlhorn,4 and Eibl
and Neuroth.5 Based on the different test results, the pertinent
rules in the current design codes6-8 differ significantly.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The objective of this paper is to clarify the existing
inconsistencies regarding the proposed strength reductions
for RC due to biaxial compression-tension loading and
moreover to determine if the behavior can be favorably
influenced by fiber addition. Attention was also paid to the
350
TECHNICAL PAPER
influence of transverse tension and cracking on the
compressive strain at peak load and on the compressive
stiffness. Based on the authors’ own experimental studies9
and a critical review and re-evaluation of similar tests done
by other researchers, a design proposal has been developed
that enables the determination of the compressive strength
reduction of RC with and without additional steel fibers as a
function of the applied transverse tensile strain.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Within four test series, a total of 56 panel-shaped specimens
were tested (Table 1). Of these specimens, seven panels were
unreinforced (plain concrete panels), three panels were
reinforced with steel fibers only (fiber-reinforced concrete
[FRC] panels), and 23 panels were reinforced with reinforcing
bars only (RC panels). An additional 23 test specimens were
provided with a mixed reinforcement of reinforcing bars and
steel fibers (mixed reinforced concrete [MRC] panels).
All plain concrete and FRC panels (a total of 10 specimens) as
well as some of the RC and MRC panels (a total of 13 specimens)
were loaded uniaxially in compression only (reference panels).
Within these tests, the influences of the type of test specimen
(cylinders versus panels) and the local stress concentrations
caused by the reinforcing bars (called the “detrimental effect” in
the following) were determined. The additional 33 panels were
loaded biaxially in tension and compression. The applied tensile
strain values varied between 0.0005 and 0.030.
The test specimens had a length of 1000 mm (39.4 in.) in
the horizontal (tensile) direction, a height of 500 mm (19.7 in.)
in the vertical (compression) direction, and a thickness of
100 mm (3.94 in.) (Fig. 1). The RC and MRC panels were
orthogonally reinforced with two reinforcement layers of
BSt 500 reinforcing bars with a yield stress of 500 N/mm2
(72 ksi) and a ds of 10 mm (0.394 in.) in each loading direction.
The spacing of the horizontal (tensile) reinforcing bars was
100 mm (3.94 in.) (reinforcement ratio ρs = 1.57%) and
225 mm (8.87 in.) for the vertical (compression) reinforcing
bars (reinforcement ratio ρs = 0.79%). The concrete cover
was 15 mm (0.591 in.) regarding the vertical reinforcement
and 25 mm (0.985 in.) regarding the horizontal reinforcement.
In the tensile direction, along with the continuous straight
reinforcing bars, a U-bent reinforcement (refer to Item 2 in
Fig. 1) was placed in a 120 mm (4.73 in.) long load transmission
zone to avoid yielding of the continuous reinforcement
outside the specimen.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 3, May-June 2011.
MS No. S-2010-135 received April 29, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-
April 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2011.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011

ACI member Ekkehard Fehling is a Professor of civil engineering at the Institute of
Structural Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Kassel, Kassel, Germany. He received his diploma in civil engineering and his
doctorate from the Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, in 1983
and 1990, respectively. His research interests include nonlinear modeling of reinforced
concrete structures in SLS and ULS, the safety of masonry structures under earth-
quake loading, and the structural behavior of ultra high-performance concrete.
Torsten Leutbecher is a Research Associate and Lecturer at the Institute of Structural
Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Kassel. He
received two diplomas in civil engineering from the University of Applied Sciences,
Wuerzburg, Germany, and the University of Kassel in 1999 and 2001, respectively,
and his doctorate from the University of Kassel in 2007. His research interests include
the structural behavior of ultra high-performance concrete, the biaxial compression-
tension strength of concrete, and reinforced concrete in the serviceability state.
Friedrich-Karl Roeder is a former Senior Research Associate at the Institute of
Structural Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Kassel. He received his diploma in civil engineering and his doctorate from the
Technical University of Darmstadt in 1970 and 1982, respectively. His research interests
include nonlinear modeling of reinforced concrete structures, especially lateral
buckling of slender reinforced and prestressed concrete girders.
The maximum grain size of the concrete was 8 mm (0.31 in.).
For the FRC and MRC panels, the fiber content amounted to
0.5 volume percent (40 kg steel fibers per cubic meter of
concrete [67.4 lb/yd3]), which is a very common fiber content
in practice. In Series 1, normal-strength steel fibers with
hooked ends (λ = lf /df = 50 mm/1.05 mm = 48 [lf /df =
1.97 in./0.041 in.]) with a tensile strength of 1000 N/mm2
(144 ksi) were used. In Series 2, 3, and 4, high-strength steel
fibers with hooked ends (λ = lf /df = 40 mm/0.50 mm =
80[lf /df = 1.58 in./0.020 in.]) with a tensile strength of
2300 N/mm2 (331 ksi) were used.
Table 1—Experimental program
Loading Number of plain Number of fiber-reinforced
Series mode concrete panels concrete panels (FRC)
Uniaxial 1 1
1
Biaxial — —
Uniaxial 4 1
2
Biaxial — —
Uniaxial — —
3
Biaxial — —
Uniaxial 2 1
4
Biaxial — —
Fig. 1—Dimensions and reinforcement of test specimens.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011
The reference cylinders (d/h = 150 mm/300 mm [5.91 in./
11.8 in.]) were fabricated to determine the modulus of elas-
ticity, the splitting tensile strength, and the compressive
strength. They were stored under the same conditions and
tested on the same day as the panels. The influence of
shrinkage can be considered as marginal. Details regarding
the casting procedure, concrete age at testing day, and
storage conditions can be found in the detailed test report.9
TEST SETUP AND EXECUTION
The compression-tension tests were conducted on the
strong floor of the Institute of Structural Engineering at the
University of Kassel. The test setup is shown in Fig. 2.
The horizontal tension forces were applied by two
hydraulic jacks (No. 1 in Fig. 2), each with a nominal
capacity of 400 kN (90 kips), and transmitted by a crosshead
(No. 2 in Fig. 2) and via threaded bars and sleeves to the
reinforcement of the test specimen.
For the compression loading, two hydraulic jacks (No. 3 in
Fig. 2), each with a nominal capacity of 2.5 MN (563 kips),
were provided. The compression forces were transmitted by
two roller bearings (No. 4 in Fig. 2), which permitted a tilting
in the plane of the panel, to two load distributing steel panels
(No. 5 in Fig. 2) on top of each other into the specimen (No. 6
in Fig. 2). The steel panels were prevented from moving out of
the loading plane by horizontal struts. A block of ultra-high-
performance concrete (UHPC) (No. 7 in Fig. 2) with an
attached polished steel plate acted as support for the specimens.
The specimens were loaded under displacement control in
both directions. The two compression jacks operated
Concrete panels
Bar reinforced concrete panels (RC) with mixed reinforcement (MRC)
Number Applied tensile strain Number Applied tensile strain
1 — 1 —
6 0.0017 to 0.030 7 0.0017 to 0.025
5 — 2 —
5 0.0005 to 0.027 3 0.0005 to 0.029
— — 2 —
— — 4 0.0006 to 0.013
1 — 1 —
5 0.0007 to 0.025 3 0.0016 to 0.0045
351
 Fig. 2—Test setup for biaxial compression-tension tests.
Fig. 3—Crack patterns and failure of panels.
separately with the target that the displacements measured at
both ends of the concrete panel were equal.
The compressive and tensile forces were measured by the
load cells of the four hydraulic jacks. Additionally, the
horizontal tension forces were checked by two further load
cells on the side opposite to the load application (abutment
side). To ensure the uniformity of the load application across
the height of the panel, the tension forces of all continuous
reinforcing bars were monitored by load cells on both the
side of the hydraulic jacks and the abutment side.
To measure displacements in the vertical and horizontal
directions, three inductive displacement transducers were
placed in each direction at the front and back of the panel. The
gauge lengths were 400 mm (15.8 in.) in the vertical direction
and 650 mm (25.6 in.) in the horizontal direction (refer to
Fig. 3(c)) because of the embedded loops at the ends.
The biaxially tested specimens were placed in the testing
device such that the compression load could be centrically
352
applied after applying the appropriate tensile strain. Two
panels were loaded simultaneously at a strain rate of 1 με/s
on the tension side and 4 με/s on the compression side
(proportional load application). All other specimens were
loaded sequentially. Thereby, the transverse load was
applied first deformation controlled. During the loading, the
cracks on the panel surface were marked. The loading rate
was 2 με/s until the first crack, between 4 and 8 με/s until it
reached the yield stress of the reinforcement, and finally 50 με/s
up to the target tensile strain. Afterward, the compression
load was applied continuously at a rate of 4 με/s until failure.
At this point, the horizontal restraint between the specimen
and the top and bottom supports was not prevented.
TEST RESULTS
During the test series, the experimental setup, the test
execution, and the concrete mixture had to be modified to mini-
mize and/or eliminate the influence of identified disturbances.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011
Table 2—Test results classified to be of special significance and to be representative
Panels Cylinders
Nominal Concrete Relative
Transverse compressive compressive compres-
Fiber Applied strain at Compressive strength strength Modulus of Compressive Modulus of sive
Panel content, tensile peak load Number strain at peak σ2,max , σc2,max , elasticity Ec, strength fc,cyl , elasticity Ec, strength
(Test series) vol. % strain ε1 ε1,max of cracks load ε2,max N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 σc2/fc,cyl
Plain concrete panel
VK6 (4) — — 0.00026 — –0.00284 –37.8 –37.8 35,300 –38.8 34,700 0.97
Fiber-reinforced concrete panel (FRC panel)
FVK2 (4) 0.5 — 0.00041 — –0.00313 –41.7 –41.7 33,700 –41.4 32,400 1.01
Reinforced concrete panels (RC panels)
000VK4 (4) — — 0.00033 — –0.00297 –43.7 –39.1 33,800 –44.7 33,900 0.88
005VK3 (4) — 0.00065 0.00076 5 –0.00243 –37.0 –33.2 29,500 –42.5 32,600 0.78
020VK2 (4) — 0.00200 0.00229 11 –0.00275 –36.0 –31.7 29,400 –42.3 33,200 0.75
050VK2 (4) — 0.00505 0.00501 12 –0.00189 –28.8 –25.8 27,500 –43.5 32,400 0.59
250VK2 (4) — 0.02511 0.02549 12 –0.00238 –28.6 –24.8 26,500 –46.4 34,500 0.53
Concrete panels with mixed reinforcement (MRC panels)
F000VK2 (3) 0.5 — 0.00022 — –0.00230 –43.3 –39.7 32,800 –39.7 29,400 1.00
F020VK2 (3) 0.5 0.00211 0.00226 13 –0.00303 –48.1 –43.4 30,000 –51.4 33,700 0.84
F025VK2 (4) 0.5 0.00448 0.00461 12 –0.00286 –36.2 –31.8 29,000 –44.0 33,300 0.72
F050VK2 (3) 0.5 0.00547 0.00550 13 –0.00269 –45.9 –41.7 26,800 –57.1 33,000 0.73
F250VK2 (3) 0.5 0.01304 0.01332 14 –0.00301 –45.4 –40.7 25,900 –55.5 34,200 0.73
Note: 1 N/mm2 = 0.1438 ksi.

In Series 1, a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) foil used for
load introduction led to an overproportional decrease of the
compressive strength. In Series 2, and for the fiber-reinforced
specimens in Series 4, a segregation of the concrete was
detected (settlement of coarse aggregates and steel fibers).
These tests are not discussed in this paper. In the following,
only tests of Series 3 and 4 (12 panels from a total of 56) are
presented, which were considered to be of special significance
after careful and critical evaluation by the authors (Table 2).
Please refer to the detailed test report9 for the evaluation
and discussion of all test results.
The strains in the tensile and compressive directions, ε1
and ε2, respectively, were obtained from the average
displacement values at the front and back of the panel.
The net concrete compressive stress σc2 of the panel was
determined from the measured forces of the hydraulic jacks,
subtracting the load theoretically carried by the reinforcement
σc2 = σ2 – σs2(ε2) · ρ2
where σ2 is the nominal compressive stress determined from
the forces of the hydraulic jacks referred to the gross cross-
sectional area Ac = 1000 x 100 mm2 (39.4 x 3.94 in.2);
σs2(ε2) is the stress of the reinforcing bars arranged in the
compressive direction determined as a function of the
measured compressive strain ε2 (mean value from six
sensors); and ρ2 is the geometrical reinforcement ratio
(reinforcing bars) in the compressive direction. This procedure
was also used for the calculation of the maximum concrete
compressive stress σc2,max.
Both the transverse strain of the test specimens and the
applied tensile load changed during the compressive loading,
but only marginally. Along with the applied tensile strain ε1,
the transverse strain at peak load ε1,max is shown in Table 2.
To give an indication of the degradation of the compressive
stiffness due to cracking, the tangent modulus of elasticity
was computationally determined on the basis of the panel’s
displacements at small loads. For the calculation, the net
concrete compressive stress σc2 was used.
Uniaxially loaded panels
Panels VK6 (plain concrete panel) and FVK2 (FRC panel)
failed in shear compression (Fig. 3(a)). With nondimen-
sional concrete compressive strengths σc2/fc,cyl = σ2/fc,cyl of
0.97 and 1.01, they reached approximately the strength of the
companion uniaxial cylinder results. The moduli of elasticity
also differ only within the scope of the measuring accuracy.
Thus, an influence of the different specimen geometries
(cylinders and panels) on the compressive strengths, as
achieved in further tests, can be widely excluded.
The uniaxially tested Panel 000VK4 (RC panel)
achieved a ratio σ2/fc,cyl of 0.98 and a ratio σc2/fc,cyl of
0.88. This means that the load-bearing capacity of an RC
panel cannot be simply gathered as the sum of the load-
bearing capacity of the concrete determined from the
(1)
uniaxial compressive strength and the load carried by the
reinforcement theoretically. Rather, even under uniaxial
loading, values of σc2/fc,cyl less than 1 can be achieved.
Depending on the reinforcement configuration (for
example, hooks, lap splices, and transverse
reinforcement), the difference of stiffness between the
concrete structure and the reinforcement embedded
therein causes local stress concentrations, which can
reduce the load-bearing capacity. Premature damage may
also result from the shrinkage shortening of concrete that
is restrained by the reinforcement.
Based on the result of Panel 000VK4, the reduction of the
load-carrying capacity of RC panels due to the detrimental
effect of the reinforcement can be estimated to be approx-
imately 10%. On the other hand, MRC Panel F000VK2
reached the cylinder compressive strength (σc2/fc,cyl = 1.00).
Thus, the crack-bridging effect of the fibers is obviously able
to delay an early failure caused by local stress concentrations.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011 353


Fig. 4—Reduction of concrete compressive strength due to
cracking and detrimental effect of reinforcement (exemplified
for RC with βs,lim = 0.5).
Biaxially tested panels
Under tensile loading, the cracks of the panels run perpendicular
to the main tensile direction, as expected (Fig. 3(c)).
Depending on the applied tensile strain, the test specimens
showed from five to 14 cracks, whereas the crack spacings and
crack widths were somewhat smaller for the MRC panels.
The results of the following compressive loading until
failure show a significant influence of the transverse strain
on the compressive strength and the compressive stiffness.
Thus, even for tensile strains below 0.002, the concrete
compressive strength of the RC panels showed a maximum
decrease of approximately 25% compared with the cylinder
compressive strength. For very large average steel strains ε1,
the maximum reduction of the compressive strength
amounted to approximately 50%.
The MRC panels (with a maximum reduction of the
compressive strength of approximately 28%) show a higher
relative compressive strength σc2/fc,cyl when compared to
RC panels with a similar ε1. The ratio between the relative
strengths of Panels 020VK2 (0.75) and F020VK2 (0.84, with
fibers) amounts to 0.89 and thus reflects the coefficient of 0.9 as
derived earlier to account for the detrimental effect of bar
reinforcement for panels reinforced with reinforcing bars only.
For the three MRC panels with large strains in the tensile
direction (Panels F025VK2, F050VK2, and F250VK2), no
further influence could be found with the increasing transverse
strain. This can be explained by the fact that the reinforcing
steel reached the yield stress within these tests only in one
crack. The further deformations localized in this crack. This
behavior is caused by the contribution of the fibers to the
load-bearing in the crack for small tensile strains and thus
small crack widths. With increasing crack width, the fibers
are pulled out of the concrete matrix and/or rupture. Hence,
the load-carrying capacity in this crack gradually decreases
to the load-carrying capacity of the bar reinforcement. This
354
capacity, however, is not sufficient to increase the width of
the other smaller cracks because in these cracks, the tensile
force is still carried by the combined action of the reinforcing
bars and fibers. In this respect, the variation of strain values
ε1,max specified in Table 2 only depends on the actual crack
width of the crack with yielding reinforcement for either
panel. This had no considerable influence, however, on the
compressive load-bearing capacity of the test specimens.
The failure of the biaxially loaded panels usually occurred
suddenly in shear compression (Fig. 3(b)) or by vertical
splitting of the cross section in the planes of the longitudinal
reinforcing bars (Fig. 3(d)). Buckling of the vertical
(compressive) reinforcement, connected with spalling of the
concrete cover, was also observed (Fig. 3(e)).
The decrease of the maximum concrete compressive stress
of the biaxially tested panels was accompanied by a reduction
of the compressive stiffness. Compared to the moduli of
elasticity of the cylinders and the uniaxially tested reference
panels, this reduction does not exceed approximately 20 to
25%, independent of the addition of fibers. Hypothetically,
the decrease of stiffness can be explained by the loss of parts
of the cross-sectional area due to cracking (irregularly bound
crack surfaces) and the gradual failure of aggregate interlock
with increasing crack opening.
Due to the comparatively large scatter, the development of
the compressive strain ε2,max at peak load does not show a
significant dependency on the tensile strain and/or the reduction
of the concrete compressive strength. The still-quite-high
strains at failure of the two panels with the largest strains in the
tensile direction instead show no influence in this context.
PROPOSED MATERIAL MODEL
Reduction of compressive strength
For the RC and MRC panels, the compressive strength
decreases considerably and almost linearly for small tensile
strains. For average tensile strains of approximately 0.004 to
0.006, the normalized compressive strength stabilizes. At
larger tensile strains, hardly any change in the load-bearing
capacity with increasing tensile strain is recognizable.
For a functional relationship of these characteristics, a
simple bilinear or trilinear approach is appropriate. Thus, the
effective compressive strength of the concrete under short-
term loading is proposed to be calculated as follows (Fig. 4)
fce = βs · fc′ (2)
where βs is the reduction factor according to Eq. (3) to
account for the effect of transverse tension (expressed by the
tensile strain ε1) on the concrete compressive strength, and
fc′ is the specified compressive strength of concrete.
βs,lim ≤ βs = βs,det (1.0 – 80ε1) ≤ βs,det · βs,0 (3)
where ε1 is the tensile strain acting perpendicularly to the
compressive direction; βs,0 is the basic value of the reduction
referred to uniaxial concrete compressive strength due to
transverse tensile loading; βs,det is the reduction factor to
account for the detrimental effect of the reinforcing bars; and
βs,lim is the maximum reduction referred to the uniaxial
concrete compressive strength due to transverse loading.
For the terms βs,0, βs,det , and βs,lim, the following values
are proposed on the basis of the experimental results.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011
 ⎧ acc. to Kupfer 10 or conservatively
⎪
⎪ 5/6 for uncracked RC members (relevant is maximum value)
⎪
β s, 0 = ⎨ 5/6 for cracked RC members
⎪
⎪ 1.0 for MRC members (fibers with hooked ends,
⎪ λ = 80, fiber content 0.5 vol. %)
⎩
⎧ 0.9 for RC members
⎪
β s, det = ⎨ 1.0 for MRC members (fibers with hooked ends,
⎪
⎩ λ = 80, fiber content 0.5 vol. %)
⎧ 2
c′ [N/mm ]
⎪ 0.8 – f----------------------------
- ≥ 0.5 for RC members
⎪ 140
β s, lim = ⎨
⎪ 0.7 for MRC members (fibers with hooked ends,
⎪
⎩ λ = 80, fiber content 0.5 vol. %)
The proposal will be verified against various experimental
results and discussed in the following paragraphs.
Because transverse tensile loadings lower than the cross-
sectional cracking load were not investigated, the relationships
valid for plain concrete, according to Kupfer,10 are
suggested to be applied conservatively also to uncracked RC
members. Thus, the reduction of the concrete compressive
strength can be determined in the uncracked state as a function
of the transverse tensile stress.
In the cracked state, the effective compressive strength fce
of RC members is limited conservatively by a basic value of
βs,0 = 5/6 due to the fact that the concrete compressive
strength decreases in the phase of crack formation to
approximately 80% of the uniaxial compressive strength.
Considering the detrimental effect of the reinforcing bars
(βs,det = 0.9), the effective compressive strength of a panel
amounts to fce = 0.75fc′ . As the comparison with experi-
mental results (refer to the following section) shows, in some
cases, quite conservative results are achieved by this
approach. Based on the presented test results and to reduce
complexity, a basic value of βs,0 = 1.0 is also reasonable for
RC members. This would result in a linear course between
βs,det and βs,lim (thick dashed line in the phase of crack
formation in Fig. 4).
The latter is also suggested for MRC members. Due to the
ability of the fibers to effectively transfer tensile forces in the
state of microcracking, the proposed material model
provides no reduction of the compressive strength of MRC
members caused by tensile loads lower than the cross-
sectional cracking load and/or by the detrimental effect of
the reinforcing bars (βs,0 = 1.0, βs,det = 1.0). Thus, for MRC
members, a significantly lower reduction than for RC
members is achieved at small transverse strains.
In the phase of stabilized cracking, the crack widths
significantly increase with the increasing load. Therefore,
depending on the grain size, the aggregate interlock effect
gradually decreases with the increasing tensile strain. In the
presence of inclined cracks, a load transfer from compression
strut to compression strut, as well as their mutual support, is
thus marginal or impossible. The maximum reduction βs,lim
is then determined primarily by the geometry of the
remaining compression struts. The strength reduction of the
compression struts is expected to be larger the more slender
they are, the more irregular their boundaries are, the more
irregular in their widths they are, and the more they deviate
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011
(4)
Fig. 5—Compressive stress-strain relationship of RC and
MRC members under biaxial compression-tension loading.
from the compression direction. With lower-strength
concretes, failure of the complete member does not occur as
soon as the capacity of a single compression strut is reached
because their higher ductility compared to higher-strength
concretes enables load redistributions between parallel
compression struts. The addition of fibers shows a favorable
influence regarding the crack widths and thus regarding the
effect of aggregate interlock.
Accordingly, for RC members, the maximum reduction of
the concrete compressive strength βs,lim subject to high
transverse strains is defined depending on the specified
compressive strength of concrete according to Eq. (4). Thus,
a good agreement with both the authors’ own test results9
and comparable investigations of other researchers can be
observed (refer to the following section).
For the MRC members with a fiber content of 0.5 volume
percent, the maximum reduction of concrete compressive
strength can be determined on the basis of the authors’ own
experimental results9 to be approximately βs,lim = 0.7. This
limit could also be observed within a test series on the biaxial
behavior of UHPC with mixed reinforcement (fc′ ≈ 160 N/mm2
[23,200 psi], fiber content 1.0 volume percent).11
Stress-strain relationship under biaxial loading
Along with a reduction of the compressive strength, a
reduction of the compressive stiffness could be observed in
the biaxial tests. On the other hand, a dependency of the
compressive strain at peak load on the applied transverse
tensile strain could not be observed. Therefore, it is
suggested to reduce the modulus of elasticity Ec by the same
factor βs as the compressive strength and to assume the strain
at peak load ε2,max independently of the transverse tension as
constant (Fig. 5).
The stress-strain relationship of biaxially loaded RC and
MRC members may then be calculated according to Eq. (5)
(modified approach of DIN 1045-18)
2
k⋅η–η
σ c = – f ce ⎛ ----------------------------------⎞ (5)
⎝ 1 + ( k – 2 ) ⋅ η⎠
where η = εc /ε2,max ; ε2,max is the compressive strain at peak
load under uniaxial/biaxial loading; k = –Ec /fc′ · ε2,max; and
Ec is the tangent modulus of elasticity at the origin of the
stress-strain-curve.
355
 COMPARISON WITH STUDIES
OF OTHER RESEARCHERS
Test programs and setups
A direct comparison of the individual test data of previous
studies is very difficult because the test executions and
reinforcing configurations vary widely. Therefore, the following
discussion is focused on those tests that involve sequential or
proportional compression-tension loadings and where the
cracks occur regularly parallel to the direction of the
compressive stress, as they did in the authors’ own tests.9
On this basis, the trendsetting results of the 1980s from
Bhide and Collins,12 Belarbi and Hsu,2 Schlaich and
Schaefer,3 Kollegger and Mehlhorn,4 and Eibl and Neuroth,5
as well as the investigations published by Schiessl13 in 2005
are selected.
Bhide and Collins12 conducted a total of 31 panel tests in
Toronto, ON, Canada, in 1986, including five normal-
strength concrete (NSC) panels under biaxial compression-
tension. The square test specimens had a length of 890 mm
(35.1 in.) and a thickness of 70 mm (2.76 in.). They were
reinforced in two layers exclusively in the tensile direction.
The cylinder compressive strength varied between 20 and
28 N/mm2 (2900 and 4060 psi). Further variable parameters
were the reinforcement ratio (1.1 and 2.2%) and the type of
reinforcing steel (S400 and S500).
Belarbi and Hsu2 performed a total of 22 panel tests in
Houston, TX, in 1991. The square test specimens had a
length of 1397 mm (55 in.) and a thickness of 178 mm (7 in.).
They were reinforced in the tensile and compressive directions
with one reinforcing layer each. The reinforcement ratio
amounted to 0.3 up to 2.1% and 0.5% in the tensile and
compressive directions, respectively. The cylinder compressive
strength varied between 37 and 48 N/mm2 (5365 and 6960 psi).
With the exception of two panels, the specimens were loaded
sequentially or proportionally in compression and tension.
In Stuttgart, Germany, Schlaich and Schaefer3 conducted
tests on two plain concrete and eight RC panels in 1982. The
test specimens held a single layer of orthogonal reinforcement
ds = 10 mm (0.39 in.), which was oriented either parallel to
the compression/tension direction or at a 45-degree inclination
(four panels each). The reinforcement ratio was varied by
modifying the bar spacings (ρs = 0.8 and 1.6%). The test
specimens had a height of 400 mm (15.8 in.) (tension direction),
a length of 1300 mm (51.2 in.) (compression direction), and a
thickness of 100 mm (3.94 in.). The cylinder compressive
strength varied between 22 and 24 N/mm2 (3190 and 3480 psi).
The plain concrete panels and four RC panels were tested
uniaxially in compression. The remaining four panels were
loaded deformation controlled in tension and compression.
Kollegger and Mehlhorn4 performed a total of 47 tests in
Kassel, Germany, between 1984 and 1987, using a similar
test setup as illustrated in Fig. 2. Four test specimens were
unreinforced and 31 had two layers of orthogonal reinforcement
in the tension and compression directions each. In 12 further
tests, the reinforcing mesh was rotated by 45 degrees relative
to the main loading directions. Either deformed bars or wire
mesh were used as reinforcement, consisting of smooth
wires or deformed bars with different diameters ds of 6.5,
8.5, or 10 mm (0.26, 0.33, or 0.39 in.). Thus, the reinforce-
ment ratio ρs varied between 0.7 and 1.7%. The dimensions
of the test specimens were equal to those shown in Fig. 1.
The cylinder compressive strength varied between 9 and
21 N/mm2 (1305 and 3045 psi). The plain concrete panels
and six of the RC panels were loaded uniaxially in
356
compression; the other panels were loaded sequentially in
tension and compression.
In Karlsruhe, Germany, Eibl and Neuroth5 conducted 15
panel tests. Two of these were unreinforced and 13 were
reinforced with one or two layers in the tension direction
only. The test specimens had a width of 1000 mm (39.4 in.)
(tension direction), a height of 800 mm (31.5 in.) (compression
direction), and a thickness of 80, 160, or 200 mm (3.15, 6.30,
or 7.88 in.). The reinforcing bar diameter ds amounted to 10,
16, or 20 mm (0.39, 0.63, or 0.79 in.) and the reinforcement
ratio ρs was between 1.0 and 2.5%. The cylinder compressive
strength varied between 31 and 37 N/mm2 (4495 and 5365 psi).
Nine of the RC panels were loaded sequentially in tension
and compression; the other panels were tested uniaxially in
compression only.
The experimental tests conducted by Schiessl13 in
Munich, Germany, covered 58 panels under uniaxial
compression and biaxial compression-tension. The square
test specimens had a length of 1000 mm (39.4 in.) and a
thickness of 100 mm (3.94 in.). Seven panels were unre-
inforced; the other panels were reinforced with a single layer
in the tensile direction only, consisting of 12 reinforcing bars.
The reinforcing bar diameter ds was 12 mm (0.47 in.) and the
reinforcement ratio ρs was 1.4%. Along with an NSC with a
cylinder compressive strength of 38 to 44 N/mm2 (5510 to
6380 psi), a high-strength concrete (HSC) with a cylinder
compressive strength of 73 to 82 N/mm2 (10,585 to 11,890
psi) and a self-consolidating concrete (SCC) were also
examined. The inclination of the cracks regarding the main
compression stress direction was varied. Altogether, five
unreinforced and four reinforced NSC and HSC panels were
tested uniaxially. Five reinforced panels made of NSC and
HSC—each with cracks running parallel to the compressive
direction—were loaded biaxially. In general, the load was
applied manually force controlled in both the tensile and
compression directions.
Comparison of test results and material models
To ensure comparability of the test results, a preparation of
the test data analogously to the authors’ own test evaluation9
became necessary.
In Fig. 6, the relative concrete compressive strengths
σc2/fc,cyl achieved in the different test series are depicted in
dependency of the main tensile strain ε1 (applied tensile
strain or transverse strain at peak load). They are compared
to the material models of Vecchio and Collins1 according to
Eq. (6a) and (6b), Belarbi and Hsu2 according to Eq. (7a) and
(7b), and the authors’ own proposal9 according to Eq. (3). At
this point, the reduction factor βs,det that considers the influence
of the detrimental effect of the reinforcing bars was determined
for the individual test series comparing the load-bearing
capacities of the uniaxially loaded reference panels (plain
concrete and RC panels) or was assumed to be 0.9 in the
absence of the necessary data. The maximum reduction
βs,lim was calculated according to Eq. (4), depending on the
specified concrete compressive strength applied in the tests.
If βs,0 is assumed to be 1.0, the fat dashed line is achieved in
the range of small transverse strains.
The following is the reduction of the concrete compressive
strength due to tensile strain and cracking according to
Vecchio and Collins1
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011
 f ce 1
----- = ------------------------------------------- (6a)
f c′ ( 0.8 + 0.34ε 1 /ε c′ )

where εc′ is the strain in concrete cylinder at peak stress fc′ .

Assuming a usual value of εc′ = –0.002 leads to

f ce 1
----- = --------------------------------- (6b)
f c′ ( 0.8 + 170ε 1 )

The following is the reduction of the concrete compressive

strength due to tensile strain and cracking according to
Belarbi and Hsu2

f ce 0.9
----- = --------------------------- (sequential loading) (7a)
f c′ 1 + 250ε 1

f ce 0.9
----- = --------------------------- (proportional loading) (7b)
f c′ 1 + 400ε 1

Discussion of test results

For the evaluation and classification of the test results, it is
very important to consider the various problems that
occurred within the aforementioned test series.
Thus, within the tests conducted by Kollegger and
Mehlhorn,4 the transverse strain increased during the
compressive loading unintentionally by a factor of up to 4
compared to the applied tensile strain. This might be caused
by the elastomeric supports used for the load application.
Even those panels loaded uniaxially in compression only
showed cracks in the compressive direction and transverse
strains of up to 0.0035 immediately before failure. The plain
concrete panels loaded “uniaxially in compression” always
failed in transverse tension (cracks parallel to the direction of
compression loading). Likewise, Eibl and Neuroth5 report
the early failure of the corner regions and longitudinal cracks
at the face side of the specimens. All these observations
argue for deficiencies in the test setups.
Subsequently, Eibl and Neuroth5 consistently achieved
very low relative concrete compressive strengths σc2/fc,cyl of
the panels of 0.59 to 0.68 (refer to Fig. 6(e)). If the lowest
relative concrete compressive strength of all panels loaded Fig. 6—Comparison of test results of several researchers with
biaxially (σc2/fc,cyl = 0.59) is referred to the mean relative proposals of Vecchio/Collins, Belarbi/Hsu, and Fehling/
concrete compressive strength of the panels loaded uniaxially Leutbecher/Roeder for the reduction of concrete compressive
only, however, it results in approximately 0.85. Eibl and strength under biaxial compression-tension loading.
Neuroth5 therefore regarded a reduction of the concrete
compressive strength due to transverse tension by 15% as
sufficient if the yield stress of the reinforcement was not less significant for higher values of transverse strain. This
exceeded. Kollegger and Mehlhorn4 evaluated their tests in phenomenon applies exactly to the disturbances observed in
a similar way. They determined the relationship of the the authors’ own tests9 (local failure caused by the PTFE foil
minimum to the maximum relative concrete compressive and segregation of the concrete mixture). In this case, the
strength for each series to be approximately 0.8. Consequently, evaluation, according to Eibl and Neuroth5 and Kollegger
they derived a maximum reduction of the concrete compressive and Mehlhorn,4 suffers from the small variation of strength
strength by 20%. reduction and would significantly underestimate the actual
This kind of evaluation may produce misleading results, reduction of the concrete compressive strength due to
however, if influences other than transverse tension (such as transverse tension.
segregation of the concrete mixture, transverse tensile The tests conducted by Eibl and Neuroth5 in particular show
stresses caused by the support, and nonuniformly distributed no substantial influence of the transverse tensile strain because
load application) lead to a decrease of the strength in the even for plain concrete and RC panels loaded in uniaxial
compression direction at the same time. The effect of such compression, reductions of 25 to 40% existed. Therefore, the
influences may be significant for low transverse strains but significance of these tests should be regarded critically.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011 357


Fig. 7—Relation between experimentally obtained reductions
of compressive strength βs,exp and theoretical values βs,cal
according to Eq. (3).
Regarding the test results of Schlaich and Schaefer3
(Fig. 6(c)), Kollegger and Mehlhorn4 (Fig. 6(d)), and Bhide
and Collins12 (Fig. 6(a)), it also has to be considered that
very low specified compressive strengths—currently no
longer common for structural concrete—were used within
the test series. For these low concrete compressive strengths, the
absolute reductions of the compressive strength due to
transverse tension lie in the same order of magnitude as the
scatter of the compressive strength itself. In these cases, it
becomes very difficult to differentiate between the influence of
the transverse tension and the variation of the concrete quality.
Bhide and Collins12 and Belarbi and Hsu2 also examined
panels under large plastic tensile strains, unlike Schlaich and
Schaefer,3 Kollegger and Mehlhorn,4 and Eibl and Neuroth.5
From this point of view, the lower relative concrete compressive
strengths σc2/fc,cyl achieved in the tests are not contradictory
to the German results of the 1980s. This holds particularly
true for Belarbi and Hsu,2 who obtained similar reductions as
the German researchers for small transverse tensile strains
(Fig. 6(b)).
Regarding the load application, however, the test setups
used by Bhide and Collins12 and Belarbi and Hsu2 share a
characteristic. The tensile and compression loads were
applied by several hydraulic jacks at each panel side. The jacks
were driven force-controlled, depending on the oil pressure of
the hydraulic system. Thus, they acted like independent but
identical loads at the panel’s surface. Contrary to rigidly
coupled jacks or deformation-controlled loading of several
independent jacks, no load redistribution over the panel’s
length—as is possible in real structures—could take place in
the tests. Within a test specimen with nonuniform cracking,
the load-bearing capacities of the individual compression
struts can greatly differ. This holds especially true for large
tensile strains/crack openings associated with practically no
aggregate interlock. Therefore, the large reductions to
between 20 and 30% of the uniaxial concrete compressive
strength, as observed by Bhide and Collins12 and Belarbi and
Hsu,2 represent the strength of the weakest compression strut
rather than the actual strength of the entire panel.
The comparison of the authors’ own results9 (Fig. 6(g))
and the tests conducted by Schiessl13 (Fig. 6(f)) show a good
358
agreement with reductions to between approximately 50 and
60% of the cylinder compressive strength due to average
tensile strains of approximately 0.005. In this range of defor-
mations, the different material models do not produce
substantial differences either. Large transverse tensile strains
were not examined by Schiessl.13 The authors’ own tests,9
however, show that the compressive strength of the panel
hardly decreases any further if the load is applied via even
contact areas. This observation justifies the assumption of a
lower limit βs,lim being independent from the transverse
strain in the authors’ own proposal.
In Fig. 7, the relative concrete compressive strengths βs,exp
achieved in the tests are related to the computed values βs,cal
according to the suggested material model. At this point, βs,0
in Eq. (3) was set to 1.0. The tests conducted by Eibl and
Neuroth5 were omitted due to the disturbances that could not
be clarified. The tests conducted by Bhide and Collins12 and
Belarbi and Hsu2 remained out of consideration because, due
to the kind of load application, only the weakest portion of
the entire cross section determines the ultimate load. Also,
the test results of Kollegger and Mehlhorn4 considered in
Fig. 7 have to be regarded critically because of the low abso-
lute concrete compressive strength and its large scatter.
Despite this restriction, the deviation between test and model
data amounts—with one exception—to a maximum of
approximately 20%. When exclusively regarding the authors’
own test series9 and the investigations of Schiessl,13 the
maximum difference results in 11%. Altogether, a quite good
agreement exists between the results of the significant test
series and the proposal according to Eq. (3).
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of numerous and sometimes very extensive test
series that have been performed during the past decades to
study the biaxial compressive strength of cracked RC with
transverse tensile loading, only a few conclusive results are
available. This is due to disturbances resulting especially
from the test setup and execution. Past studies, as discussed
in this paper, illustrate this situation. Additionally, in former
studies, useful data have been primarily obtained for very
low concrete strengths, which are currently unusual.
A further aspect that has to be critically regarded
concerns the evaluation of the test results. In studies in
Germany in the 1980s, the reduction of the concrete
compressive strength was determined using the ratio of the
minimum to the maximum relative concrete compressive
strength of a test series, disregarding the actual low relative
compressive strength σc2/fc,cyl of the individual panels. By
critical evaluation, more unfavorable values for the biaxial
compressive strength can also be derived from these test series.
Further investigations on the biaxial compression-tension
strength showed a more pronounced reduction in comparison to
the uniaxial concrete compressive strength, especially for
large transverse tensile strains. The very low values that were
obtained can be attributed to the kind of load application as a
main reason. Bhide and Collins12 and Belarbi and Hsu2 used
several hydraulic jacks that worked independently from each
other but were controlled by a common oil pressure. Thus,
the strength determined in this way, especially for large
transverse tension strains, represents only a lower limit as
given by the load-carrying capacity of the weakest portion of
the panel. Hence, the obtained values do not adequately
represent the strength of an entire panel. Thus, the compressive
strength may be underestimated by these investigations.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011
 The material model suggested by the authors specifies the
biaxial compression-tension strength of cracked RC with
and without fibers and the stress-strain relationship in
compression, depending on the principal tensile strain.
Validated by the authors’ own test results9 and foreign test
data, and after a thorough critical discussion of the relevance
of individual tests and test series, the model offers a more
realistic characterization of material behavior and a goal-
oriented design of biaxially loaded structures.
REFERENCES
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, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
2. Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Constitutive Laws of Softened
Concrete in Biaxial Tension Compression,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1995, pp. 562-573.
3. Schlaich, J., and Schaefer, K., “Zur Druck-Querzug-Festigkeit des
Stahlbetons,” Beton und Stahlbetonbau, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin,
Germany, V. 78, No. 3, Mar. 1983, pp. 73-78. (in German)
4. Kollegger, J., and Mehlhorn, G., “Biaxiale Zug-Druckversuche an
Stahlbetonscheiben,” Research Report No. 6, Chair of Concrete Structures,
University of Kassel, Germany, 1988, 103 pp. (in German)
5. Eibl, J., and Neuroth, U., “Untersuchungen zur Druckfestigkeit von
Bewehrtem Beton bei Gleichzeitig Wirkendem Querzug,” Research Report
T 2024, IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, 1988. (in German)
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2011
View publication stats
6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
7. BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures,
Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” British Standards Institute,
London, UK, Dec. 2004, 230 pp.
8. DIN 1045-1, “Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton: Part 1:
Bemessung und Konstruktion,” Normenausschuss Bauwesen (NABau) im
DIN Deutsches Institut fuer Normung e. V., Beuth Verlag, Berlin,
Germany, Aug. 2008. (in German)
9. Fehling, E.; Leutbecher, T.; and Roeder, F.-K., “Biaxial Compression-
Tension-Strength of Reinforced Concrete and Reinforced Steel Fibre
Concrete in Structural Panels,” Structural Materials and Engineering
Series, No. 11, Kassel University Press, Kassel, Germany, 2008, 139 pp.
10. Kupfer, H. B., “Das Verhalten des Betons unter Mehrachsiger
Kurzzeitbelastung unter Besonderer Beruecksichtigung der Zweiachsigen
Beanspruchung,” Deutscher Ausschuss fuer Stahlbeton (DAfStb), No. 229,
Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1973. (in German)
11. Fehling, E.; Leutbecher, T.; Roeder, F.-K.; and Stuerwald, S.,
“Structural Behavior of UHPC under Biaxial Loading,” Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium on Ultra-High-Performance Concrete,
Structural Materials and Engineering Series, No. 10, Kassel University
Press, Kassel, Germany, 2008, pp. 569-576.
12. Bhide, S. B., and Collins, M. P., “Reinforced Concrete Elements in
Shear and Tension,” Publication No. 87-02, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1987, 147 pp.
13. Schiessl, A., “Die Druckfestigkeit von Gerissenen Scheiben aus
Hochleistungsbeton und Selbstverdichtendem Beton unter besonderer
Beruecksichtigung des Einflusses der Rissneigung,” Deutscher Ausschuss
fuer Stahlbeton (DAfStb), No. 548, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2005,
187 pp. (in German)
359