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

net/publication/299387208

Nonlinear model for reinforced concrete. Part I: formulation

Conference Paper · March 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 856

1 author:

Moncef L. Nehdi
The University of Western Ontario
372 PUBLICATIONS   5,389 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Autonomic healing of cementitious materials and alkali-activated materials with different techniques View project

Development of Design Guidelines for Grouted in-conduit connections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Moncef L. Nehdi on 07 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 NONLINEAR MODEL FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE. PART I:
FORMULATION
M. Elmorsi1, M. Nehdi2 and A. Said3
1
Ph. D., P. Eng., Senior Project Manager, YAS Consulting Engineers, One Woodbridge Center,
Woodbridge, NJ 07095.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng., The University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada, N6A 5B9, Email: mnehdi@eng.uwo.ca.
3
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng., The University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT
Several methods and techniques have been developed for strengthening RC beams in bridges to
upgrade torsional strength. In this paper, an experimental investigation is conducted on the
improvement of the torsional resistance of the RC beams by applying external lateral pressure
along their spans through four angles arranged around the beams corners and connected by each
others by prestressed steel strips. Eleven beams were subjected to pure torsional moment to study
the behavior and performance of the strengthening RC beams. The main studied parameters were
the pressure intensities and their direction. The torque and the twist angle of the beams were
recorded for various pressure intensities and their directions. A Nonlinear finite element method
NFEM analyses was used to corroborate the results from the experimental study. Experimental
results indicated that the lateral pressure upgrades the torsional resistance. The applying lateral
pressure in breadth direction is more efficient in increasing the torsional moment capacity and
enhancing the cracking moment compared to the same pressure in depth direction.

Keywords: RC Beam, Strengthening, Torsion, Prestressed, Finite element.

INTRODUCTION
With advancements in the state-of-knowledge on the behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC), more
refined models are needed to predict the behaviour of RC structures under different types of loading
(Shing and Tanabe, 2001; ACI-SP 205, 2001). In particular, modelling the behaviour of RC under
cyclic loading remains a challenge, and most of the research work in the literature on the nonlinear
finite element analysis of RC is confined to the case of monotonic loading. Research performed on
the cyclic behaviour of RC is comparatively very limited. Computational and numerical problems
associated with the complex rules describing the stress-strain relationships of concrete and steel
under cyclic loading are among the major constraints to the development of more adequate design
and analysis tools in this area. During the past 20 years, a limited number of refined models
describing the behaviour of RC under cyclic loading have been developed. However, these models
are generally based on empirical shear transfer functions (Stevens et al., 1987; Okamura et al.,
1987; Xu, 1991; Sittipunt and Wood, 1993; Elmorsi et al., 1998).
The rotating crack approach was used by Stevens et al. (1987) to model RC under monotonic and
reversed cyclic loading. In this model, which was based on the modified compression field theory

1
(MCFT) (Vecchio and Collins, 1986), the direction of principal strains was taken as the axes of
orthotropy at which the material properties are calculated. Accordingly, these axes change as the
crack rotates. The rotating crack model usually yields better results for anisotropically reinforced
concrete elements, in which cracks change their direction as testing progresses (Gupta and Akbar,
1984). The crack rotation causes discontinuities in the stresses and strains in the crack direction
from the end of one load step to the beginning of the next load step. This complicates the rules
defining the stress-strain relationships under cyclic loading since more than one curve is needed to
define a certain region of the response. Xu (1991) used a cyclic non-orthogonal multicrack model in
order to both account for deficiencies of the fixed crack model while avoiding the complexity of the
rotating crack model. His technique involved decomposing the total strain into concrete strain and
crack strain, which allowed intact concrete and cracks to be modeled separately. Nevertheless, this
approach involves substantial computational efforts for calculating the constitutive relations.
In the current study, a refined yet simple nonlinear finite element model employing twelve-noded
elements is used for the analysis of RC structures subjected to cyclic loading. The fixed crack
approach is adopted in the proposed model. The model is characterised by its capacity to strike a
balance between simplicity and accuracy. Simple hysteretic rules defining the cyclic stress-strain
curves of concrete and steel are used. The stiffness and strength degradation of cracked concrete
is accounted for in the formulation of the model and a rational function is used to describe the shear
behaviour of reinforced concrete.

CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
Several models exist that can simulate the nonlinear behaviour of structural concrete. These
models vary, for instance, in terms of the tension and compression unloading behaviour,
compression strain softening, and the Bauschinger effect in steel. A description of the nonlinear
models adopted in this study is included below.

MATERIAL MODEL FOR CONCRETE

Concrete is modelled as an orthotropic material in the principal strain directions and is treated as an
incremental linear elastic material. At the end of each load increment, the material stiffnesses are
corrected to reflect the latest changes in the material properties. The incremental constitutive
relationship referring to the principal axes is described as follows:
{ dσ } = [D] { dε } (1)

⎡ dσ ⎤ ⎡ E ν E1E 2 0 ⎤⎡ ⎤
⎢ 1 ⎥ 1 ⎢⎢
1 ⎥ ⎢ dε 1 ⎥
d
⎢ 2⎥σ = ν E E E 0 ⎥ ⎢ dε ⎥ (2)
⎢dτ ⎥ 1 - ν ⎢ ⎥⎢ 2 ⎥
2 1 2 2
⎣ 12 ⎦ ⎢ 0 0 G ⎥ ⎣dγ 12 ⎦
⎣ 12 ⎦
where
E1, E2 = Tangent moduli of elasticity in the two principal directions
ν = Poisson’s ratio
G12 (
= Shear modulus in the principal directions and is equal to 0.25 × E1 + E 2 − 2ν E1E 2 )
dσ1, dσ2 = Incremental normal stresses in the principal directions
dτ12 = Incremental shear stress in the principal directions
dε1, dε2 = Incremental normal strains in the principal directions
dγ12 = Incremental shear strain in the principal directions
For each load increment, the values of the material properties E1 and E2 are determined as a
function of the state of stress and strain throughout the analysis procedure. In this model, it is
assumed that only two cracks can form at a point. The two cracks are assumed to be orthogonal
and the crack orientation is determined by the orientation of the first crack, with the second crack

2
forming perpendicular to the first one. The orientation of the cracks is fixed during the entire
computational process (fixed crack model). The effect of Poisson’s ratio is neglected after cracking.
Therefore, the material stiffness matrix after cracking can be expressed as follows:
⎡ dσ ⎤ ⎡ E1 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ dε 1 ⎤
⎢ 1⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ dσ 2 ⎥ = ⎢ 0 E2 0 ⎥ ⎢ dε 2 ⎥ (3)
⎢dτ ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 G12 ⎥ ⎢dγ 12 ⎥
⎣ 12 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
The normal stress function is used to calculate the concrete stresses σ1 and σ2 as well as the
tangent moduli E1 and E2. G12 and τ12 are calculated using the shear stress function.

NORMAL STRESS FUNCTION

The normal stress function describes the stress-strain relationship for concrete in the direction of
cracks and perpendicular to cracks (1 and 2 axes, respectively) using uniaxial stress-strain
relationships. The calculation of (1 and (2 from (1 and (2 accounts for the effect of biaxial stress
through the degradation of the concrete properties in the direction parallel to the crack (Elmorsi et
al., 1998). It has been established that the concrete monotonic curve defines the envelope for the
cyclic normal stress-strain curve (Darwin and Pecknold, 1976). Hence, defining the monotonic
envelopes is usually the first step in developing hysteretic models.

Concrete Tension Envelope

The adopted concrete tension envelope consists of two parts. The first part is before cracking in
which concrete is assumed to be linearly elastic and is represented using the following relation:
fc = Ec1ε c (4)

where Ec1 is the initial tangent modulus, fc is the concrete stress, and εc is the concrete strain.
Tensile stress

Stevens et al. (1987)

Tensile strain
Fig. 1. Stress-strain envelope for concrete in tension function.

For the second part, which is after cracking, the relation developed by Stevens et al. (1987), taking
into account tension stiffening, is adopted:
fc
= (1 − α ) e −λ (ε t c −ε cr )+α
(5)
fcr

3
where fcr and εcr are the cracking stress and strain, respectively, εc is the concrete strain,
( )
α = 75 ρ s /d b (mm), ρs is the steel ratio and db is the bar diameter (mm). The parameter λt
controls the rate at which the response decays and is equal to:
270
λt = λ t ≤ 1000 (6)
α
The concrete tension envelope is shown in Fig. 1. The cyclic tension rules used in this study are
described in greater detail elsewhere (Elmorsi et al., 1998).

Concrete Compression Envelope

The ascending branch of the stress-strain curve of concrete under uniaxial compression is modeled
in this study using a simplified form of a curve given by Saenz (1964). This simplified form, shown in
Fig. 2, consists of a tri-linear curve defined by the following equations:
fc = E c ε c < 0.75fc′ 0 < ε c < 0.375ε c′ (7)
1
fc = 0.75fc′ + E c (ε c − 0.375ε c′ ) ≤ fc′ 0.375ε c′ < ε c < 0.80ε c′ (8)
2
fc = fc′ 0.80ε c′ < ε c < ε c′ (9)

where Ec1 is the initial tangent stiffness and is equal to 2fć/ε'c, Ec2 = 0.3Ec1, Ec3 = 0 and ε'c is the
strain at peak stress fć given by f '1c4 1153 (MPa).

Trilinear approximation
f c'
E3
f unb
E
2

Collins and Mitchell (1991)

Compressive stress

Saenz (1964)

E1

e'c Compressive strain

Fig. 2. Stress-strain envelope for concrete in compression.

This tri-linear simplification reduces the computational effort and ensures that the tangent stiffness
is equal to Ec1 at low strain levels.
The strain softening branch of the stress-strain curve of concrete in compression (shown in Fig. 2)
is defined by Collins and Mitchell (1991) for unconfined concrete and is given by the following
equation:
⎛ r x ⎞
f c = ⎜⎜ ⎟ f ′c
⎟ (10)
⎝ r − 1 + x kr ⎠

4
where x = εc /ε'c
′
r = 0.8 + f c (MPa) (11)
17
and
′
k = 0.67 + f c (MPa) (12)
62
The tangent stiffness modulus of the descending branch is assumed to be zero, thus the
unbalanced stress (funb) is redistributed in the next load increment as shown in Fig. 2.
For confined concrete, the strain softening branch used in this study is developed by Scott et al.
(1982) based on a previous model by Kent and Park (1971). This modified Kent and Park model is
simple yet accurate. The model defines the strain softening branch using the following expression:
fc = K fc′ [ 1 - Z (ε c − ε 0 ) ] ≥ 0.2 K f ′c (13)
where
ε 0 = ε c′ K (14)

ρ s f yh
K = 1+ (15)
fc′

0.5
Z= (16)
3 + 0.29 fc′ h′
+ 0.75 ρ s - ε c′ k
145fc - 1000 Sh

In the equations above εo is the concrete strain at maximum stress for confined concrete, K is a
factor that accounts for the strength increase due to confinement, Z is the strain softening slope, fyh
is the yield strength of transverse reinforcement in MPa, ρs is the ratio of the volume of hoop
reinforcement to the volume of concrete core measured to outside of transverse ties, h’ is the width
of concrete core measured to outside of stirrups, and Sh is the centre-to-centre spacing of ties or
hoop sets. The cyclic compression rules used in this study are described in greater detail elsewhere
(Elmorsi et al., 1998) along with an outline of interaction between tension and compression models.

SHEAR STRESS FUNCTION

Several researchers have studied the nonlinear shear stress-strain relationship of cracked concrete.
For instance, various empirical formulae for the shear modulus of cracked concrete based on the
fixed crack approach have been proposed (Cervenka, 1985; Vecchio and Collins, 1986; William et
al., 1987). In the smeared crack model, two approaches have been used to represent the shear
stiffness of cracked concrete. In the first, which is referred to as the reduced shear stiffness
approach, shear stiffness is reduced by a retention factor µ usually valued between 0 to 1. This
technique was employed in recent research (Barzegar, 1989; Bolander and Wight, 1991; Chung
and Ahmad, 1995; Crisfield and Wills, 1989; Hu and Schnobrich, 1988; Hu and Schnobrich, 1990;
Massicotte and MacGregor, 1990; Dagher and Kulendran 1992). In the second technique, which is
referred to as the varying shear stiffness approach, the shear stiffness of cracked concrete is
assumed to be a function of the strain normal to the crack. Several researchers (Balakrishnan and
Murray, 1988; Cervenka, 1985; Al-Mahaidi, 1978; Fardis and Buyukozturk, 1980) proposed different
functions based on this approach to represent the shear stiffness of cracked concrete.

Monotonic Shear Stress Function

In this model the rational shear modulus formulated by Zhu et al. (2001) is used to describe the
monotonic shear stress-strain curve of cracked concrete. This rational shear modulus has the

5
advantage of being determined solely from the stress-strain curves of concrete in tension and
compression, independently from data of experimental testing of RC in shear. The secant shear
modulus is given as follows:
σ − σ2
G12 = 1
(
2 ε1 − ε 2 ) (17)

Using the secant shear modulus, the shear stress of concrete is expressed as follows:
σ1 − σ 2
τ 12 =
( )γ
2 ε 1 − ε 2 12
(18)

Cyclic Shear Transfer Model

Several studies investigated the shear transfer mechanisms for both reinforced and unreinforced
concrete subjected to cyclic loading (Paulay et al., 1974; Laible et al., 1977; Jimenez et al., 1978;
Mattock, 1981). However, only a limited number of analytical models are available for such
behaviour (Xu, 1991, Sittipunt and Wood, 1993; Okamura et al., 1987; Jimenez et al., 1976). To
account for the continually varying stiffness and energy absorption characteristics of concrete under
cyclic loading, a suitable hysteretic model is needed. The model proposed in this study for cyclic
shear transfer is shown in Fig. 3.
Shear stress τxy

A (γA , τA )

F (γF , 0.2τA )

E (0.85γD , 0) C B (0.85γ , 0)
A
Shear strain γxy

D (γD , τD)

Fig. 3. Proposed stress-strain curve for concrete in shear and adopted cyclic function.

The monotonic shear transfer model described in the previous section provides the envelope curve
for the cyclic shear model. Fig. 3 shows a typical reversed shear cycle. The loading starts in the
positive shear stress direction and follows the monotonic envelope described in the previous
section. At point “A”, the load direction is reversed. Unloading from point “A” follows a straight line
shooting for point “B” whose coordinates are (0.85γA, 0). As loading proceeds in the negative
direction, a significant reduction in the tangent stiffness occurs, which accounts for the pinching
effect experienced by RC structures under cyclic loading. Unloading continues without any change
in stress until point “C” is reached, at which loading in the negative direction starts following the
negative envelope curve. As the loading is re-reversed at point “D”, the unloading stiffness to point

6
“E” is calculated in the same way as for the positive direction. After point “E”, positive loading
continues with a reduced stiffness, calculated based on the coordinates of point “A”, as shown in
Fig. 3, until the positive unloading branch is reached at point “F”. Reloading then follows that of the
previous unloading branch (between “A” and “B”) until the positive envelope curve is reached.

MATERIAL MODEL FOR STEEL REINFORCEMENT

For each reinforcement component, a constitutive matrix [D]i is set in the reinforcement direction as
follows:
⎡ρ i Ei 0 0⎤
⎢ ⎥
Di = ⎢ 0 0 0⎥ (19)
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 0⎥
⎦
where ρi is the reinforcement ratio and Ei is the tangent modulus. The evaluation of the stress and
tangent modulus for steel components in each direction is carried out using the nonlinear cyclic
model for reinforcing steel described below.

STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP FOR REINFORCING STEEL

The monotonic stress-strain curve for reinforcing steel consists of three regions; the linear region,
the yield plateau, and the strain hardening region. A bilinear curve is considered as an acceptable
approximation for the monotonic curve. The adopted cyclic model for steel accounts for the
Bauschinger effect (Bauschinger, 1887). The cyclic function for reinforcing steel used in this study is
illustrated in Fig. 4 and explained in more detail elsewhere (Elmorsi et al., 1998). The average
tensile stress-strain relationship of steel embedded in concrete is calculated using a simplification
proposed by Zhu et al. (2001):
fs = E s ε s εs ≤ εn (20)

⎡ ε ⎤
fs = f y ⎢(0.91 − 2B ) + (0.02 + 0.25B ) s ⎥E s ε s εs > εn (21)
⎣⎢ ε y ⎦⎥
Stress

Es1

Eo

εy
Strain

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curve for steel and adopted cyclic function.

7
where
ε n = ε y (0.93 − 2B ) (22)

B is a parameter defined as:

1.5
1⎛f ⎞
B = ⎜ cr ⎟ ρ ≥ 0.5% (23)
ρ ⎜ fy ⎟
⎝ ⎠
and f and ε are the stress and strain of steel bars, respectively. The suffixes s, n and y are used for
bars embedded in concrete at any point on the curve, for bars embedded in concrete at yielding,
and for yield values of bare steel bars, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS
A nonlinear finite element model for RC is developed. The model offers a reliable analytical tool and
is capable of capturing the major characteristic features of the behaviour of RC that is subjected to
reversed cyclic loading. The model adopts the fixed crack approach and uses simple hysteretic
rules to define the cyclic stress-strain curves of concrete and steel reinforcement. The effect of
cracked concrete stiffness and strength degradation is included in the model. Verification of the
model with experimental data is to follow.

REFERENCES

ACI-SP 205, 2001, “Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures”, Proceedings of the
Alexander Scordelis Symposium, American Concrete Institute, Special Publication No. 205, 399 p.
Al-Mahaidi, R. S., 1978, “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Deep
Members”, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York, 374 p.
Balakrishnan, S., and Murray, D. W., 1988, “Concrete Constitutive Model for NLFE Analysis of
Structures”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 7, pp. 1449-1466.
Barzegar, F., 1989, “Analysis of RC Membrane Elements with an Anisotropic Reinforcement”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 115, No. 3, pp. 647-665.
Bauschinger, J., 1887, “Variations in the elastic limit of iron and steel” [summarized translation from
“Mittheilungen aus dem Mechanischen Technischen Laboratorium der k. Hochschule in München”],
J. Iron and Steel Inst., V. 1, 442-444.
Bolander, J. E., and Wight, J. K., 1991, “Finite Element Modeling of Shear-Wall-Dominant
Buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 117, No. 6, pp. 1719-1739.
Cervenka, V., 1985, “Constitutive Model for Cracked Reinforced Concrete”, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, V. 82, No. 6, pp. 877-882.
Chung, W., and Ahmad, S. H., 1995, “Analytical Model for Shear Critical Reinforced Concrete
Members”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 121, No. 6, pp. 1023-1029.
Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., 1991, “Prestressed Concrete Structures”, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey,
766 p.
Crisfield, M. A., and Wills, J., 1989, “Analysis of R/C Panels Using Different Concrete Models”,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 115, No. 3, pp. 578-597.
Dagher, H. J., and Kulendran, S., 1992, “Finite Element Modeling of Corrosion Damage in Concrete
Structures”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, pp. 699-708.
Darwin, D., and Pecknold, D.A., 1976, “Analysis of RC Shear Panels under Cyclic Loading”, Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 107, No. ST2, pp. 355-369.
Elmorsi, M., Kianoush, M. R., and Tso, W. K., 1998, “Nonlinear Analysis of Cyclically Loaded
Reinforced Concrete Structures”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 6, pp. 725-739.

8
 Fardis, M. N., and Buyukozturk, O., 1980, “Shear Stiffness of Concrete by Finite Elements”, Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 106, No. ST6, pp. 1311-1327.
Gupta, A. J., and Akbar, H., 1984, “Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Analysis”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No. 8, pp. 1735-1746.
Hu, H. T., and Schnobrich, W. C., 1988, “Nonlinear Analysis of Plane Stress State Reinforced
Concrete under Short Term Monotonic Loading”, Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research
Series No. 539, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, 239 p.
Hu, H. T., and Schnobrich, W. C., 1990, “Nonlinear Analysis of Cracked Reinforced Concrete”, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 2, pp. 199-207.
Jimenez, R., Perdikaris, P., Gergely, P., and White, R. N., 1976, “Interface Shear Transfer and
Dowel Action in Cracked Reinforced Concrete Subject to Cyclic Shear”, Proceedings of the
Speciality Conference of Structural Analysis, ASCE, pp. 457-475.
Jimenez, R., Gergely, P., and White, R. N., 1978, “Shear Transfer across Cracks in Reinforced
Concrete”, Report No. 78-4, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, 357 p.
Kent, D., and Park, R., 1971, “Flexural Members with Confined Concrete”, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, V. 97, No. ST7, pp. 1969-1990.
Laible, J. P., White, R. N., and Gergely, P., 1977, “Experimental Investigation of Seismic Shear
Transfer across Cracks in Concrete Nuclear Containment Vessels,” Reinforced Concrete Structures
in Seismic Zones, Special Publication SP53-9, American Concrete Institute, pp. 203-226.
Massicotte, B., and MacGregor, J. G., 1990, “Tension Stiffening Model of Planar Reinforced
Concrete Members,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 116, No. 11, pp. 3039-3058.
Mattock, A. H., 1981, “Cyclic Shear Transfer and Type of Interface”, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, V. 107, No. ST10, pp. 1945-1964.
Okamura, H., Maekawa, K., and Izumo, J., 1987, “Reinforced Concrete Plate Element Subjected to
Cyclic Loading”, Report of IABSE Colloquium, Delft, V. 54, pp. 575-590.
Paulay, T., Park, R., and Phillips, M. H., 1974, “Horizontal Construction Joints in Cast in Place
Reinforced Concrete”, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, Special Publication SP42-27, American
Concrete Institute, pp. 599-616.
Saenz, L. P., 1964, “Equation for the Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete (Discussion)”, Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, V. 61, No. 9, pp. 1229-1235.
Scott, B. S., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1982, “Stress Strain Behaviour of Concrete Confined
by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 79, No. 1, pp. 13-
27.
Shing, B. P. and Tanabe, T.-A. (eds), 2001, Modeling of Inelastic Behaviour of RC Structures under
Seismic Loads, ASCE, Tokyo, Japan, 624 p.
Sittipunt, C., and Wood, S. L., 1993, “Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls”,
Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 584, University of Illinois, Urbana, 384 p.
Stevens, N. J., Uzumeri, S. M., and Collins, M. P., 1987, “Analytical Modeling of Reinforced
Concrete Subjected to Monotonic and Reversed Loadings”, Publication No. 87-1, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 196 p.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, “The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced
Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 83, No. 2, pp. 219-231.
William, K., Pramono, E., and Sture, S., 1987, “Fundamental Issues of Smeared Crack Models”,
Proceedings of the SEM-RILEM International Conference on Fracture of Concrete and Rocks, S. P.
Shah and S. E. Swartz, eds., SEM, Bethel, pp. 192-207.
Xu, C., 1991, “Analytical Model for Reinforced Concrete under Cyclic Loading”, Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, 164 p.
Zhu, R. R. H., Hsu, T. T. C., and Lee J.-Y., 2001, “Rational Shear Modulus for Smeared-Crack
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, pp. 443-450.

View publication stats