1490 R=A/A SULY 1973 Sry 800 ratio of areas of loaded surface of specimen and bearing plate JULY 1973 S77 \ JOURNAL OF THE STRUCTURAL DIVISION NONLINEAR LAYERED ANALYSIS OF RC PLATES AND SHELLS By Frank R. Hand,! David A. Pecknold,? and William C. Sehnobrich,? ‘Associate Members, ASCE, lwrmopuctIOn Reinforced concrete plates and shells in the post-lastic range present 2 formi- able stress analysis problem if material behavior is idealized realistically. The basic prerequisite for the analysis is a suitable relation, usually in incremental form, between stress resultants and strain measures which adequately reflects yielding of the ceinforcing steel, and the cracking, biaxial yielding, and crushing of the concrete as loading progresses. Of course, in order to obtain such a relation, simplifying assumptions must be made, Thus comparisons of calcula tions with experiments 1s essential for establishing the adequacy of the mathemac- ical model. > ‘Two basically different approaches have been used to obtain idealized constitu- lve relations for use in finite element procedures. In the “modified EI” approach ‘amacrascopie viewpoint is taken. An overall moment-curvature relation reflect- ing the various stages of material behavior is assumed. This approach has been applied to reinforced concrete plates by Jofriet and MeNeice (7), and to plates and shells by Bell (1). The second approach is based on idealized stress-strain telations for concrete and steel, together with some assumption regarding com- Patiblity of deformation between the two constituent materials. Cervenka (3) as analyzed reinforced concrete panels under inplane-locds using this technique. For flexural deformation, material property variation through the thickness must Note.—Diseusion open until December 1, 1973. To extend the closing date one month, a writen request must be fed withthe Editor of Technial Publications, ASCE. This Peper i part of the copyrighted Journal of the Siructural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 9, No. ST, Juy, 1973. Manuscript was Submited for review for possible publication on August 7, 1972 {Ass Bot. Dept. of Gv. Engr, Univ. of Nebraska, Linein, Neb TASS. Prot, Dept of Civ. Engrg, Uni. of Tlines, Urbana Prot. of Civ. Engrs. Dep., Univ. of Hits, Urbana Il 1491 |7 NONLINEAR LAYERED ANALYSIS 1433 be taken into account. This can be accomplished in a discretized fashion va} few remarks are in order regarding the shear reteation factor, 8 used ‘layering approach in which each layer is allowed to have different properties | i the cracked concrete, To leave out this effect altogether would imply that i ‘Whang (15) used this concept to develop a rectangular shallow shell finite elemeng| jrcked concrete behaves as a bundle of uniaxial fibers capable of sustaining composed of elastoplastc strain hardening material. This idealization is apprope. | sya tensile or compressive load parallel tothe direction ofthe crack. However, ate for metals but does not account for the orthotropic properties of reinforced ge cracks in the concrete are not smooth, parallel frictionless slippage planes, concrete, Franklin (6) has applied this technique to reinforced concrete frane \ element. “This paper presents layered finite clement procedure for determining the | load-defiection history up to failure of reinforced concrete plates and shells, | “The reinforcing steel is assumed tobe elastic-plastic, and the concrete is assumed | 4 to be tension-imited and to yield in biaxial compression in accordance wih | 2 yield erterion proposed by Kupfer, Hilsdort, and Rusch (8). A 20-degreeot| freedom shallow shell layered finite element is used. ‘The inplane degrees-o freedom are important for plates as well as shells because the material propery | variation through the plate or shell thickness as loading progresses produces! 2 coupling in the constitutive relations between middle surface strains and curva-) re" tures, and thos between inplane and normal displacements. The implication of this coupling is that even for plate bending problems, inplane boundary condi tions must be specified fora complete description of the problem. A “modified BEI" approach does not produce such coupling and therefore cannot accurately reflect the influence ofthe inplane boundary conditions i : ‘Comparisons are made with experimental results for: (1) Several reinforced! conerete plates under uniform stress states 2); 2) cornerpropped reinforced onerete plate under a concentrated central load (7); and (3) a einforced concrete! shell under uniform load (12) i 1492 suLy 1973 7 ) Stet (0) coer FIG. 1.—Assumed Stress-Strain Diagram for Steel and Conerete Masten Prorenry Assuerions \" ‘The assumed uniaxial stressstain curves for steel and concrete are shown in Fig. 1. The stel is considered as an elastic-plastic material. The concrete is considered as an isotropic bilinear elastie-pertectly plastic material with & limited tensile strength, f,. The assumed stress-strain relations, {o} = (C) (4), for conerete with a crack oriented at an angle, @, counterclockwise with respect tothe axis are E 0 ° [el=(T]"Jo 0 [lg eee ee ee) 0 paSEEs 20+») which E = either E, or E, for the first or second elastic range, respectivelY: 8 = a factor to account for aggregate interlock and any dowel action thet may be present—it provides the shear strength capacity of cracked concfet® (in the present study ® = 0.4); and [T] = the transformation matrix from. the @ direction coordinate system to the x, y coordinate system. The plasti incremental stress-strain relations for concrete under biaxial compression 3 those given by Mikkola (11). Doubly cracked, cracked and plastic, and crushed ‘concrete are assumed to have zero incremental stiffness. RG, 2—Vield Surface for Biaxial Stross in Plain Concrete Froposed by Kupfer, Hil) (or, and Rusch (3) but are rather irregular rough planes where slippage is accompanied by certain | moun of expended energy. The shear retention factor, B, accounts for this penditure of energy, plus any dovel action that may'be present. With the intoduetion of the shear factor, a shear force can be transferred across thecracked planes. It is realized that the shear strength along the crack shoutal crete Pram of the crack width and has upper and lower bounés of one end! oe eantive to the uncracked shear strength capacity. Herein, however, 8 con-| Stant value of 40% (0.40) was assumed. i sr yaier to extrapolate the assumed uniaxial concrete stress-strain cUrve to| cover biaxial stress states, the failure criterion for plain concrete in a biaxial sree vinte proposed by Kupfer, Hilsdorf, and Rusch (9) was modified. The Sess saraiere criteria fs shown in Fig. 2. itis based on an octahedral shearing Stress eriterion of the form na ABD eee : eo -@) in which +4, = the octahedral shearing stress: p = the hydrostatic stress and | very a aterial constants, This failure criteria was modified to additionally sare The transition enterion between the different material property zone: Giga), This was accomplished by simply scaling the yield surface shown in Fig. 2. i ‘Consrmumve Retations Fon Laveneo MATERIAL “The plate of shell is divided into layers (15) as shown in Fig. 4. Each layer may have different material properties, but these properties are assumed 0, be constant over the layer thickness. This allows a discretized variation of raterial properties through the thickness as loading progresses yet retains the Thulted degrecs-of-freedom of the two-dimensional approach. A further advan-! luge is that only a biaxial yield criterion for concrete need be known, because ‘cach layer is assumed to be in a state of plane stress, Soayete location with the jth layer, the incremental stress-strain relations {4a} = (C], {46} . peo) inwhich {Ao} = {Ao,,A0,. Ary) 7 {Ae} = (Ae, BG, Ary) @ In order to obtain the constitutive relations for the layered material, the Kirch hoff assumption is used to relate strains at a distance, 2, from the midsurfact to midsurface strains and curvatures. Thus {he} = (Aeg} + AXP ee oe vee eee O inwhich (Ae,) and {Ax} are 3 x 1 vectors of midsurface strains and curvatures, respectively; and z = the distance from the midsurface. ‘The incremental stress resultants are defined as anys foie 6) tamy = f (ao de jawhich (AN) =(AN,.AN,, AN, )7, (AM) = (AM, OM,, AM}7 O) vas JULY 1973 al NONLINEAR LAYERED ANALYSIS 1495 FIG. 3—Boundaries Between Different Material Behevior Regions SELLA See “erect | FIG. 5—Moment-Curvature Plot for Specimen 8101496 JULY 1973 NONLINEAR LAYERED ANALYSS 1497 Because the material properties vary diseretely through the thickness, the) sorb a material property change and the accompansing displacements in only stress resutants are obtained by summing the results of integrations over cach sndate Examples of this type betavos ore ceckiog oy coming at ake individual layer. gonerete and yielding of the reinforcement. Plastic behavior does not fall into ‘The resulting constitutive relations are this category. The reason for the random update is twofold: (1) It makes for ba . tty Ga Gel, {meh easier bookkeeping in the computer program: and (2) it should result Je in which 4, and ¢,,, = distances from midsurface to top and bottom of the | ith layer, respectively i Ieis important to ote tha, in general, the constitutive relations are coupled. [An exception occur if the section possesses material property symmetry abou. the middle surface. However even it this were initially the case the materi properties would change as inelastic behavior occurred. i ‘An important consequence ofthe coupling is that inclusion of inplane degrees! of-freedom is necessary even for laterally loaded plate structures, because the‘ inplane and plate bending problems no longer uncouple. Thus specification of inplane boundary conditions is necessary tothe solution. A further consequence of the coupling is that an “effective stiffness” approach in which inelastic; behavior is accounted for by employing a suitably modified C matrix define’ for the entice thickness cannot represent the true situation because inthis ease the constitutive relations take the form hic] (0) | P pay [ oe pes) _ | aM [0] = tel 4x (id =") tcl, FIG. 6,—Moment-Curvature Plot for Specimen B15 in which h = the plate or shell thickness. Eq. 8 is used to formulate the clement incremental stiffness matrix in the usual manner. ‘Meroe oF Souvtion ‘The overall approach of the investigation was to perform a nonlinear fit clement analysis using the displacement formulation. It progressed through tht use of an iterative or step-by-step procedure while the nonlinearity was int duced through the material properties. This procedure is referred to by Zier Kiewiez (16) as the “incremental-variable elasticity” procedure, Although tht nonlinearity was introduced through the material properties, it should be noted at least in this investigation, that any given layer of an element was composed ee of material in only one property state. The element selected for use was Peck i nold’s (13) 20-degree-of-eedom rectangular shallow shell element (Appendisft& redy D and was modified to include the layering concept. ‘improving the next guess as to the correction displacements, because a more ‘The structural stiffness matrix is updated atthe beginning of each load inct'ent structural stiffness matrix would be available. The iterations about 2 ment. The updating procedure is catied out simultaneously with lyer st! increment are assumed to have converged when all the Renton dees generation and various checking routines. In addition to this one mandatoM%xs dye 19 the correction forces are soul conpand vo cl the increment update, other updates occur at random whenever it is possible to complete fplacements caused by the last load increment. The desired acerney was ition in the number of iterations about a particular load inerement1498 uLy 1973 NONLINEAR LAYERED ANALYSIS 1499 1£5%. During the updating process, when it is necessary to change t0 plas! getween the old and new material properties. Use this difference to obtain material properties, the stress state is required to obey the plastic flow rye! wpe change in the layer stress resultant-middle surface strain and curvature rela- Meticulous care must be taken in formulating the plastic behavior, in ord! to assure that the stress state always remains on the yield surface in compliangy ‘with the flow rule. ( The essential steps in the soltion process fora typical load increment a as follows: 1. Apply a load increment and analyze the structure to obtain the nova! displacements. Do the following for each element i 2, Convert the nodal displacements to middle surface strains and curvature, Do the following for each layer j of element i 3. Convert the middle surface strains and curvatures to layer strains. 44. Using the old material properties (the ones incorporated in the systen of equations), determine the layer stresses. '5, Check this stress state against the applicable transition criteria. If none are exceeded, go to step 8. 6, Calculate the excess amount of stress present for layer j and conven excess Iyer stress reutanis {| and add these to the clement sp c yer 3 ie fay" | "7. If the structural stiffness matrix is to be updated, compute the differene: TABLE 1.—Material Properties for Cardenas’ Specimens ' 7 ania PRODERTIES POUNDS Pen SGUARE NOH | ick, Given Assured woalinees| ETE] & ela) & 1 & 1% |e ol elelal @ | 6 | tH Bio | aa 340 [soc coofasna] 3x 0% fia x Gf 30x Bis | 40 $20 |s7.00|s00| 3.260] 3 tos | 1st = 1° | 30 8 Baral 404 $en [30005230] 3 toe [a9 x toe | 30 To convert pounds per square inch to kilograms per square centimeter multiply O fins and add to the element sum. 8, If more unprocessed layers of element i exist, repeat steps 3 through 4. If not, go to step 9. 9. If no transition criteria are exceeded for the ith element, go to step IL Otherwise, convert the excess stress resultants into excess element nodal forces nerarnf fsnranlty (Fla a9) | and put these forces in the excess force vector {F}. 10. If the structural stiffness matrix is to be changed, use the change in the stress resultant relations to generate the difference in the element stiffness sratrix and subtract this from the system stiffness mawix. This subtraction of tte difference in effect yields a new system stiffness matrix with the new material operties, but does not require all the effort of reassembling it, 11, If all elements have not been checked, repeat steps 2 through 10. Other: wise, eanalyze the structure using the excess force vector { F} 12. Check the displacements from step 11 for convergence. If they have converged, repeat steps | through 12. If they have not converged, repeat steps through 12 until convergence is obtained or until the maximum number of towed iterations about a load increment has been completed. The program ten stops. Novena. Exanrues To indicate the avcuacy of the analysis technique snd the behavior of the layered element, a series of comparisons were made with the experimental results of Cardenas and Sozen (2), In the tests performed by Cardenas, both circular and rectangular specimens ere considered. Only the rectangular specimens are of faterest here. The rectan- ular specimens were used in conjunction with three different loading conditions: 0) Uniaxial bending; (2) pure torsion; and (3) combined bending and torsion. A total of 35 specimens were tested; 23 of them were isotropically reinforced 1nd 12 of them were nonistropically reinforced. The main variables were: the ‘mount of reinforcement; and the orientation of the reinforcement with respect, Moments for Cardenas’ Specimens = ie OMENTRIN RESlees Fenicr Eaperienta lea Lead torque/ | Amount, in square] Angle, n Anal, n eri Ceteuleed mow | ‘tomein” |Inenee pero” | ‘degrees | inches per fool! degrees | Grooking | Yield Creding Via 0 2 3 @ eo Joo | a” | o (oh none cal my a oa 90 Pass na a Bis = oe 8 os 45 tan 520 ‘9 sa Bira_| ows oa ra oe <5 | in a8 iB tato the principal moment axes. The results of the tests were presented as momen Fig. 10 shows the finite element grid used; Fig. 11 shows the load-flection to curvature, moment to steel strain, and moment to concrete strain plots. | gurves for the center of the shell. Also shown are two elastic analyses. The ‘An analysis using the layered approach was performed on selected specimens] eurve refered to as LINSHEB (4) was generated by a cemputer program utilizing from each group. The experimental and analytical results for the moment-curva.f ture relations are shown in Figs. 5, 6, and 7. The properties of the specimens} d considered ate summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The comparisons for stel and ‘ concrete strains are very similar and are not presented nae The need for the shear retention factor, , became apparent while checkig CUI the pure torsion specimen. Without the shear retention term, the computer pro t t tram indicated that an unstable cracked configuration was attained when ae| 1 cr toad was approximately one-fourth of the experimental ultimate. The cracked configuration at this instant indicated that a series of cracks at ~45° with respea ) | to the axis had just reached the middle surface from the top, while a simils| series of cracks at 45° had approached {rom the bottom. Physically such 4 concrete slab would be stable; however, due to the mathematical assumption) regarding the behavior of cracked concrete the system was mathematically unsa4 bie. The problem was that the cracked concrete was assumed to have no torsional or sheat stiffness whatsoever. It is precisely these stifinesses that the shear retention factor retains in cracked concrete. When this factor was included, the cues in ig 36 and were oot i Some “There appears tobe litle sensitivity ofthe solution to the value of, provided, a | scot ea itis above some minimum. This same torsion specimen was analyzed with om 8 values of 0.2 and 0.4 and very little difference in the solution was noted In the case of pure torsion as in the other cases considered, the inclusion! of the shear retention factor only causes the mathematical model to remaiah stable so the equations remain solvable, and it has litle direct influence on FIG, 8.—Corner Supported Two-Way Slab of MeNolee the numerical values generated. In all, the values of ranged from 02 to 1.0 in addition to the unacceptable value of 0.0. In view ofthe negligible numer cal effect, the value of (was arbitrarily selected as 0.4. Plate Example.—The corner supported two-way slab of McNeice (7) was ant lyzed. MeNeice’s slab was 36 in, (14 mm) sq by 1.75 in. (44.5 mm) thd with an isotropic mesh of 0.85% reinforcing steel. The slab was subjected i 4 central concentrated load. Scanlon (14) and Lin (10) have also analytical investigated this slab. Scanlon used a layered rectangular plate bending element with four degrees-of-freedom at each corner node. Lin extended Scanlon’s & proach to include elasto-plastic behavior for steel and concrete. Fig. 8 shovs the finite element grid used; Fig. 9 shows the experimental and computed losé deflection curves. ‘MeNeice’s slab was also analyzed with the corner support considered pinned (the frst solution considered the corners as roller supports). These results a also plotted in Fig. 9. As is very evident from the figure, the inplane suppor conditions do influence the stiffness of the system, Shell Example.—A concrete funicular shell, 35 ft x 40 ft (10.7 m x i2 m) in plan with a 2-in, (SI-mm) thickness and a 30-in. (760-mm) rise, tested by Odello and Allgood (12) was analyzed. The shell was loaded to flue 135 psf (6.5 kN/m*), under uniform load. The shell had edge beams 13-1/ in, (343 mm) deep by 14 in, (356 mm) on all four edges; but, because th] * modified finite difference technique wherein the shell is idealized as a frame- | experimental data indicated that the edge beam thrust and moment were vel] ¥9rk of rigid bars connected by elastic hinges. The GENSHL (8) is a program | Jow even at loads near ultimate, the edges were considered fixed forthe analyS#} veloped atthe University of California at Berkeley forthe linear elastic analy- samara) ——=— Capea | tata lySO¥a) | —ar ty 40 i xs i Se FIG. 9,-Load-Deflection Curves at Node 2 of McNeice Slab |—* eee NONLINEAR LAYERED ANALYSIS 1503 sed in the design of the shell was very conservative, Unfortunately, no informa tion is given between loads of 90 psf (4.3 kN/m2) and 135 psf (6.5 KN/m?). 1602 JULY 1973 oo 1 eeeeecmenn +340 65) | | Ee OB nal | | A layered nonlinear finite element analysis including the elastoplastic behavior 3 of steel, bilinear elastoplastic behavior of concrete, and limiting tension of con- rei presented. The nerement- varie sanicy eee ane f the load-deflection curve for any general plate or shel. The need for @ chat or ae retention factor to provide the torsional and shear stiffaesses for cracked com, t Pe | Grete is demonsrated. The fore of the constuve rations fee yee i wetter Bol atrial to uncouple and the resulting importance of the inplane degreceat, ; freedom are examined. Finally, some numerical examples, both plates and shells, ‘1 | te pesemst to demoueuio as ose of te tea : 7 4 q |) Considering the class of problems investigated, it appears that this analysis | | 1 technique is capable of determining the loaddeflction story of eaten So secret pate oF shell accurately and economical Tee goer between the elastic and limit states. Once the behavior of the structure is under Stood, it Would not then be necessary to determine the load deflection charac. teristics for each new design considered, but only for certain questionable de- 4 FIG. 10.—Grid System Used for Shell signs. Acanoweeoamenrs | nh The investigation described herein is part of a thesis study carried out in et the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Illinois at Urbana. Champaign under National Science Foundation Grant No. NSF GK 11190, and 1m Esso Engineering Research Fellowship. rrenon —Etewenr Descenion Pecknold’s 20-degree-of-freedom rectangular doubly curved shallow shell cle- ‘ment has the following properties. It is rectangular in shape with only cornet andes. Each node has five degrees-of-freedom. These are u,v, Wy Wig, Wry Which correspond to the displacements in the x, y, anc z directions and the slope in the x and y directions, respectively. ‘The assumed displacement functions are: 1 Mia tank easy aay + al +99) + ay (2 — o>) FIG. 11-—-Losd-Deflection Curves for Center Node of Shell S| teu ryt 5950s a5 + art ayy + agty t+ ag(sr + yy) 1 sis of thin shells of arbitrary shape using the finite element method. A] Pwr + 20) + ay, OO? WH ay tage + ayy + ayy Although the ultimate load of the shell was reported as 135 psf (6.5 kN/a" 2 it was lower than anticipated, Odello and Allgood stated that at this load f op through or buckling failure occurred near node 10 where the deflect ©“ : increased to 3.9 in. (90 mm) compared to the center value of 1.4 in. OM i" which r, t, and s = the radii of curvature in the x, y. and xv directions Ha tat eysX + OXY HO Ay? + ay + arg) + Oy) (11)1608 JULY 1973 ‘The assumed strain displacement relations are: a 3 Kay = 2M ry ‘ArenonxIl—Rerenences Bell, J. CA Complete Analysis for Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Shells, thesis presented to the University of Canterbury, at Christchurch, New Zealand, in 190, Fractal fulfllment ofthe requirements forthe degre of Doctor of Philosophy. Cardenas, Ay and Sozeny M-A., "Stength and Behavior of Tsoopically and Non Sotopicaly Reinforced Concrete Slabs Subjected (0 Combinations of Pexural and Torsional Moments," Chl Engineering Studtes, Structural Research Sees No. 336, University of lino, Urbana il, May, 1968 Cervena, V, “Inelastic Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Conerete Panels Under Inplane Loads," thesis prevented to the University of Colorado, st Boulder, Colo, in1970,n paral fuliliment ofthe equirements for the degree of Doctor of Philos phy. Gheapai, C. Vi. “Analysis of Rectangular Shallow Shel.” Contract Report CR- {8.008, Naval Cit Enginering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, Cali, July, 1968 (Contact, ‘Ne2s99-61-¢-0e0) (AD 8549391), Connor. J.J and Brebbia,C., "Stiffness Matrix for Shallow Rectangular Shell El mente" Journal ofthe Engincring Meckanies Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. EMS, Proc: Paper 3528, Oct. 1967, pp 43-65, Franklin, H. A. "Noslinear Analysis of Reinforced Coneete Frames and Panes” thesis presented tothe Unversity of California, at Berkeley, Calif. n 1970, in para {ument of the requirements for ihe dearee of Doctor of Philosophy. Joris 1, C., and MeNeics,G. M.,“Finte Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Jounal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. STS, Proc. Paper 1963, Mat. 1971, pp. 785-805, Johnson, C. P and Smith, P.G., “A Computer Program forthe Analysis of Tia Shells” Contract Repore CR-70.612, Srveural Engineering Laboratory, Universi Of California, Berkeley, Cai, an., 1969 (Contract N62599-48-C-0039) Kupfer, H.. Hisdort, HK. and Rusch, H, "Behavior of Concrete Under Bix Sueesesy" Journal of the American Concrete Instat, Vol. 6, No. 8, AUS, 989, pp. 636-66, é Bin. Sie “Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Shells." thes presented tothe University of California, at Berkeley, Calf, in 197, in partial fli ment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Mikkola, MJ and Sehnobrich. W- C., “Material Behavior Characteristics for Rei forced Concrete Shells Stressed Beyond the Elstc Range,” Cv Enginevng Studi Structural Research Series No. 367, University ofHlinots; Urbana, i, Aug., 1970, det R. J and Allgood, J. R. “Concrete Funicular Shells for Foor and Root ‘echnical Report R693. Naval Givil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, Cali Sept 1970 (YF 8.534.001.0100) Pecknold, D. A. W., and Sebnobrich, W. C., “Finite Element Analysis of Skewed Shallow Shei, Chil Engineering Studies, Strctural Research Series No. 332, Unive sity of lino, Urban, Jan, 1968 Scanlon, A., Time Dependen Delections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” thet presented to the University of Alber, at Edmonton, Canada, in 1971, ia pat Fulfilment of the requirements forthe degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Whang, B., “Elsti-Plastic Orthotopic Plates and Shells," Application of Fin] Element Methods in Civil Engineering, Vanderbik University, Nashville, Tenn, Nv ra ¢ NONLINEAR LAYERED ANALYSIS 1505 it Zienkiewice, O. C., and Cheung, Y. K., The Finite Element Method in Structural ‘and Continuum Mechanics, P. B. Colinan, ed., MeGraw-Hill Book Co.. Ine., London, England, 1967, pp. 198-201 Arrexone I. —NotaTiOn The following symbols are used in this paper A= matrix (20 x 20) relating nodal displacements and generalized un- knowns; 4, 6 = half element dimensions or constants; B = matrix (20 x 6) relating generalized unknowns and middle surface strains and curvatures; material properties matrix (3 3); moduli of elasticity; Jement excess nodal force vector (20 x 1}; F = system excess force vector; = element thickness; ydrostatic stress; ransformation mattix (3 x 3); stance {rom middle surface to top and bottom of jth layer, respec- tively; rectangular Cartesian coordinates: shear retention factor; incremental moment stress resultant vector (3 X 1 th layer incremental moment stress resultent vector (3 X 1); incremental force stress resultant vector (3 x 1); ith layer incremental force stress resultant vector (3 % 1); incremental strain vector (3 x 1); incremental middle surface strain vector (3 x Ds incremental stress vector; incremental middle surface curvature vecter (3 1); strain vector 3 x 1; Poisson's ratio; stress vector (3 x Ds ‘octahedral shearing stress; and angle of crack in concrete with respect to axis,