Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Cyclic shear displacement model for reinforced concrete columns

Erkan Bicici a, b, *, Halil Sezen a
a
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Artvin Coruh University, Artvin 08100, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Lateral response of reinforced concrete (RC) columns can be modeled and simulated considering three
Shear displacement displacement components: flexural displacement, displacement due to slippage of longitudinal bars at column
Column model ends, and shear displacement. The incorporation of shear displacement in a computational model is essential for
Concrete shear failure
accurate calculation of lateral load–displacement relationship. The contribution of shear displacement can be
Cyclic model
significant for RC columns with low displacement capacity or ductility. An easy-to-apply shear displacement
model is proposed in this study, and implemented in the open source software, OpenSees. The proposed model is
based on a pre-defined envelope or monotonic model and does not require updating of modeling parameters
during each cycle. The model is validated using experimental data. New rules are developed for the cyclic model
to capture the effects of cracking and change in stiffness and strength during the loading and unloading cycles.
Comparison of the calculated and measured shear displacements indicates that the cyclic shear response can be
captured by the proposed model.

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) columns experience brittle shear failure if
the design and detailing of the columns do not meet the requirements of
the modern seismic codes, e.g., ACI 318 [1]. Existing RC buildings
constructed before mid-1970s and new buildings designed without
following the seismic code requirements typically include columns with
widely spaced and poorly detailed transverse reinforcement. At failure,
these columns typically have low total lateral displacement capacity and
larger contribution from shear displacement component, which is
associated with large diagonal cracks prior to column axial failure [18].
The contribution of shear deformations to total lateral displacement is
much larger in these columns than in well-designed flexure-dominated
columns. Such columns are typically defined as shear-critical, low-
ductility, or nonductile columns. Shear cracking and associated damage
may cause early degradation of lateral load resistance and subsequent
loss of axial load carrying capacity [5,4,24,31]. The early and sudden
loss of column load carrying capacity may lead to partial or complete
collapse of the structure and loss of life. Accurate modeling and analysis
of such columns are critical for the evaluation of seismic performance
and risk assessment of these structures [29,32]. Thus, it is critical to
understand and accurately model the behavior of RC columns with large
shear displacement component for the evaluation and analysis of RC
structures that are vulnerable to shear failure and collapse during
earthquakes in many parts of the world.
The lateral displacement of an RC column can be represented as the
summation of three displacement components: flexural displacement,
displacements due to slippage of the longitudinal bars at the ends of the
column, and shear displacement (Fig. 1). Displacement component
model (DCM) enables modeling of three displacement components
separately and then combining them together to simulate total lateral
displacement of the column. The flexural displacement is caused by the
bending moment over the height of the column. The slip displacement is
concentrated at the ends of the column due to longitudinal bars pulling
out of anchorage.
The displacements due to flexure and slippage can be modeled and
calculated relatively accurately using the currently available models
[26,9]. For instance, fiber-section models with non-linear uniaxial ma­
terials can be used to accurately calculate the moment–curvature rela­
tionship. Flexural displacement can then be obtained by integrating the
curvatures over the length of the member. The calculated stress–strain
relationship of longitudinal bars at the ends of the columns can be used
to determine the column lateral displacement caused by bar slip. The
contribution of shear displacement to total lateral response of RC col­
umns with seismic details is relatively small and can be less than 10%
[12]. However, the contribution of shear displacement may be

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: erkanbicici@artvin.edu.tr (E. Bicici), sezen.1@osu.edu (H. Sezen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113211
Received 1 September 2020; Received in revised form 28 March 2021; Accepted 12 September 2021
Available online 24 September 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Bicici and H. Sezen Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211

Fig. 1. Three lateral displacement components of an RC column.

significantly large in poorly designed shear-critical columns [24,21]. A
recent study showed that the shear displacement can be larger than 40%
of the total lateral displacement [13]. Therefore, the effect of shear
deformations must be included in computer models of such columns to
accurately determine lateral strength, displacement and axial capacity,
and system failure mode. However, research is limited and there is no
consensus about the calculation of column shear displacement [22,26].
In DCM, it is convenient to use zero-length springs at the ends of the
column to simulate shear and slip behavior and the flexural behavior can
be modeled with fiber section distributed plasticity (Fig. 1). In this

Fig. 2. Available cyclic shear models; a) Ozcebe and Saatcioglu [21], b) Pincheria et al. [20], c) Sezen and Chowdhury [25], and d) LeBorgne and Ghannoum [11].

2
E. Bicici and H. Sezen
study, an easy-to-apply and relatively accurate cyclic model is proposed
to predict the shear displacement of an RC column subjected to axial and
cyclic lateral loading. The proposed cyclic shear displacement model is
built upon previously developed monotonic [22] and cyclic [25] models.
The proposed model is implemented in an open-source structural anal­
ysis software, OpenSees, [15]. A uniaxial material is created and added
to the OpenSees library to model the proposed shear spring at the end of
the column (Fig. 1). The proposed model is validated using pure shear
response data, separated from other displacement components, obtained
from six full-scale columns tested by Sezen and Moehle [24] and Saat­
cioglu and Ozcebe [21].
1.1. Background information
Better understanding of behavior of shear-critical columns is needed
to model and capture the seismic behavior of RC buildings including
such columns. To accurately model and analyze these structures, the
cyclic shear behavior must be considered and included in the analysis.
Unfortunately, shear response has been typically ignored and not
modeled in most available software or research studies. The initial at­
tempts to develop computational models were very limited due to the
lack of available experimental data and the complexity of the problem,
which involves interaction of flexure, shear and axial forces [21].
Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) proposed by Vecchio
and Collins [28] mechanically explains the overall shear behavior of RC
members. Some of the current models that are used to calculate lateral
load-shear displacement relationship of RC columns are based on MCFT.
However, the MCFT model includes limitations, i.e., it works well under
monotonic lateral load and is typically accurate until the peak strength is
reached. A mathematical model for cyclic shear behavior, separate from
the flexure and slip displacement components, dates to study of Ozcebe
and Saatcioglu [21] (Fig. 2a). They proposed a set of rules to calculate
cyclic shear response of RC columns based on a well-defined envelope
model. Ozcebe and Saatcioglu [21] used MCFT to obtain an envelope for
the shear response of a column and considered yield strength of longi­
tudinal steel as one of the critical points for shear displacement. How­
ever, recent studies have shown that the flexural yield strength is not as
critical for shear displacement response [22]. Additionally, the shear
strength degradation and axial load failure were not considered in
earlier models, although the model proposed by Ozcebe and Saatcioglu
[21] includes important hysteretic features, such as strength decay,
stiffness degradation and pinching. The application of that model is
limited to RC members which experienced flexural yielding prior to
shear failure.
A tri-linear cyclic shear displacement model was proposed by Pin­
cheria et al. [20] (Fig. 2b). The envelope of the model consists of three
mechanical points: cracking, and maximum and residual strengths. For
cyclic response, a set of rules were developed. Initially, there is no cyclic
behavior in pre-peak loading stages, i.e., the column is assumed elastic
in shear. Once the peak strength is reached the unloading stiffness starts
Fig. 3. Lateral force-shear displacement envelope used in the proposed model.
3
Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211
to degrade. Then, the reloading path goes through the symmetry of the
unloading point with respect to origin. In this model, axial failure of the
column was not considered.
Sezen and Chowdhury [25] simplified the shear response calculated
from the MCFT model by considering the displacements at the onset of
shear strength degradation and axial failure (Fig. 2c). The pre-peak
lateral load-shear displacement relationship in the model is based on
MCFT. The authors modified the cyclic rules proposed by Ozcebe and
Saatcioglu [21] to eliminate the details and limitations of the MCFT
model. Elwood [6] developed a shear response model, which was also
used by LeBorgne and Ghannoum [11] (Fig. 2d). The main characteristic
of the model is definition of a failure curve. According to the model, the
shear displacement response is linear elastic with a predefined initial
stiffness. Once the pre-defined curve is reached, the shear strength
degradation starts. The response is represented by a negative stiffness
until the residual capacity is reached. The cyclic characteristics of the
model are defined with three pinching factors for unloading and
reloading based on the rules in Takeda et al. [27].
The experimental data used in this paper are from rectangular col­
umns. The model can be used for circular columns using the parameters
allowed in ACI 318 [1], e.g., the effective depth d can be set equal to
0.80 times the column diameter. Kakavand et al. [10] found that the
effects of critical parameters on shear behavior are similar based on
detailed assessment of 325 rectangular columns and 172 circular
columns.
1.2. Research significance
Most of the currently available numerical models are developed to
predict the total lateral response of columns by lumping all three
deformation components in a single model and without knowing the
interaction and contributions of flexural or shear response on the total
response. Some of these models may seem to predict the total response
numerically while the underlying mechanics and individual contribu­
tion of flexure, bar slip, and shear contributions can be inaccurate. Such
models lead to incorrect estimates of lateral drift, load redistribution
after failure of a member, and collapse during dynamic analyses, seismic
assessment or design of structures.
There are only few research studies and models focusing on pure
shear behavior of RC members (Fig. 2) and its influence on the total
lateral response. This is mainly because it is difficult to isolate and
measure the shear deformations during the experiments in the labora­
tory. Even when the shear displacements are measured, most re­
searchers stop the experiments once the strength degradation starts
immediately after large shear cracks develop. Therefore, experimental
studies on columns including both shear failure and axial load failure are
rare. To the knowledge of the authors, few researchers (e.g., [21]; and
[24]) report all three displacement components for column specimens.
This very limited experimental evidence is used in this research.
The main objective of this study is to propose an easy-to-apply model
E. Bicici and H. Sezen Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211

Fig. 4. Comparison of monotonic shear displacement models.

to calculate the shear displacement of RC columns. Detailed and more leads to strength degradation up to axial failure of the column.
complicated models may predict more accurate results for shear In the shear response envelope developed by Sezen [22], the effect of
displacement, however; these models will be time-consuming and will a large number of parameters are investigated on the shear, shear-
not be preferred for the analysis of multi-story buildings or complicated flexure and flexure response of RC columns. Then, using MCFT, the
structures. In this study, simple cyclic rules are proposed to model an RC lateral strengths are calculated when diagonal shear cracks develop.
column while keeping the accuracy at acceptable level. The simplicity of Based on a regression analysis, Eq. (1) was proposed to calculate the
the model can reduce the modeling and make the model applicable for cracking shear strength, Vcr .
easy modification in the future, e.g., using the open-source software ( )
P GAg
OpenSees. Besides simplicity, no user interference is needed during cy­ Vcr = ′ + 0.10 (1)
2fc Ag L
clic shear analysis because all modeling parameters, e.g., pinching
points, are pre-defined or pre-calculated in the proposed model.
where,fc is compressive strength of concrete, Ag is cross sectional area, P
′

is axial load of column, L is length of column, and G is shear modulus of

2. Proposed model
the column. P/fc Ag is unitless and G‧Ag /L is in MPa units. Due to being
′

The proposed model includes an envelope of the lateral force-shear derived from simulations with a limited range of parameters [22], Eq.
displacement relationship, which can be considered as the boundary (1) has limitations for applicability. To avoid unrealistic results, the
for the shear behavior. Rules are defined for cyclic response based on the range of parameters used in the dataset should be carefully evaluated.
defined envelope. The proposed model is based a previously developed Until the first shear cracks develop (region I in Fig. 3), shear response of
envelope model as the boundary, and a new set of rules are proposed to the column is assumed as elastic and the principles of elastic mechanics
simulate cyclic shear behavior of RC columns. are used. It is assumed that the shear strain is uniformly distributed over
the cross-section of the column and shear stiffness is equal to G‧Ag/L. The
cracking shear displacement is calculated using Eq. (2).
2.1. Shear response envelope ( )
P
Δsh,cr = + 0.10 (2)
A previously developed model by Sezen [22] for primary curve of
′
2fc Ag
lateral load-shear displacement relationship is used in this study. The
The next critical point of the model is peak shear strength, Vn and the
multilinear envelope model is defined with four critical points at: shear
corresponding displacement, Δsh,n (end of region II in Fig. 3). Eq. (3)
cracking, peak lateral strength, onset of strength degradation, and axial
from Sezen and Moehle [23] and Eq. (4) from Sezen [22] are adopted to
failure (Fig. 3). Based on these four critical points, in the proposed
calculate the peak strength (kN) and the corresponding shear displace­
model, four unique shear regions are defined as: elastic (I), stiffness
ment (mm), respectively.
degradation (II), peak (III), and strength degradation (IV). In RC col­
⎡⎛ √̅̅̅̅ ⎞ ⎤
umns, initial flexural cracks occur in early stages of loading. The initial ′ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√
0.5 f
flexural cracking and subsequent softening does not have major effect on ⎢⎜
Vn = ⎣⎝
c √
√1 + √̅̅̅̅′
P ⎟
⎠0.8 Ag +
Av fyv d ⎥
⎦ (3)
a
shear behavior. Thus, the shear response during the early loading stage d 0.5 f A
c g
s
stays elastic (region I in Fig. 3). In other words, in this stage initial
flexural cracks do not appear to reduce elastic shear stiffness until di­ ⎡ ⎤
agonal shear cracks start to form. In the second stage, diagonal shear ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 fy ρl ⎥
cracks start to degrade shear stiffness. Thus, region II in Fig. 3 is labeled Δsh,n =⎢ √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ − 0.0004⎥L (4)
⎢5000 a ⎥
as stiffness degradation region. Although the stiffness of shear response
P
⎣ d A ⋅f
′ ⎦
g
decrease, the lateral force keeps increasing until the peak strength is
c

reached (region III). In this model, it is assumed that, the peak shear
strength stays constant until the onset of strength degradation (at Δsh,u in
Fig. 3). In the strength degradation region, the shear cracks become
wider and start to dominate the overall lateral response. The reduction
or loss of stress transfer across the widened diagonal or shear cracks
where, Av is area of transverse reinforcement, fyv is yield strength of
transverse reinforcement, d is the effective depth of cross section, s is
vertical spacing of transverse reinforcing steel, and ρl is longitudinal

4
E. Bicici and H. Sezen
Fig. 5. Proposed cyclic shear displacement rules if unloading starts in regions I or II.
reinforcement ratio. a is the shear span length of the column, which is
equal to L/2 for double curvature columns and L for cantilever columns.
The diagonal shear cracks become more apparent and lead to
strength degradation starting at shear displacement Δsh,u at the end of
region III in Fig. 3. Eq. (5) is used to calculate the displacement corre­
sponding to onset of shear strength degradation [8,19]; and [22].
( )
υn
Δsh,u = 4 − 12 ′ Δsh,n (5)
fc
where, υn (= Vn /bd) is the shear stress corresponding to the maximum
shear strength.The widening of diagonal shear cracks leads to a drastic
decrease in the shear strength to a point that these cracks result in total
loss of lateral and axial load capacity. To calculate lateral displacement
at axial failure, ΔALF , Eq. (6) is used [5,4].
) from the previously developed models, in the proposed model, defining
ΔALF 4 1 + tan2 θ
= ( (6)
L 100
s
tanθ + P Av ∙fyv ∙ d∙tanθ
where θ is the average angle of shear crack, which is assumed to be 65◦
in this study. The displacement calculated by Eq. (6) includes dis­
placements due to flexure and slippage of reinforcing bars at the ends of
the column. The shear displacement component at the axial failure, Δsh,a
can be calculated from Eq. (7) by subtracting the maximum flexural and
slip displacement from the total lateral displacement at axial failure,
ΔALF .
Δsh,a = ΔALF − Δfl − Δsl ≥ Δsh,u (7)
where, Δfl and Δsl are the maximum flexure and slip displacement,
respectively. The maximum flexural and slip displacement can be ob­
tained from moment-curvature analysis of the cross section using
constitutive relations for steel and concrete materials [17,14,7].
Fig. 4 compares the experimental data and previously described two
envelope models for shear displacement of Specimen-1 tested by Sezen
and Moehle [24]. Using MCFT, shear displacement can be calculated up
to the peak strength [19] and Sezen [22]. The MCFT model over­
estimates the measured shear displacement. The model proposed by
LeBorgne and Ghannoum [11] predicts nearly rigid elastic shear
response initially with a large stiffness.
2.2. Cyclic shear model
Nonlinear dynamic analysis of a building under seismic loading re­
quires nonlinear cyclic modeling of its structural elements. To accurately
model the behavior of the entire structure, the model should accurately
capture the nonlinear cyclic response at the element level, including the
5
Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211
negative stiffness or degrading response. The cyclic behavior of shear-
critical or nonductile RC columns may be dominated by shear and
brittle failure [22,26]. To avoid overestimation of both strength and
displacement capacity of the column, the cyclic shear response should be
included in dynamic and cyclic analysis. Cyclic behavior of a nonductile
column may show stiffness deterioration, strength degradation, pinch­
ing effect, and early axial load failure. In the proposed model, these
phenomena and axial load-shear-flexure interaction are considered and
included in the shear model. Total lateral displacement models,
including cyclic bar slip and flexure models, are presented elsewhere
[14,3].
The cyclic rules in previous studies were generally defined by
equations at each turning (unloading and reloading) point of cycles
[21,16,30] or a ratio of peak strength and displacement [11,6]. Different
the envelope or primary curve is sufficient to simulate the entire cyclic
shear behavior. The proposed model calculates the cyclic slopes without
additional user input. Thus, no extra strength or deformation calculation
is needed. This approach simplifies the cyclic shear displacement cal­
culations; however, the user influence over the definition of cyclic
response is reduced.
2.2.1. Rules for cyclic model
The cyclic rules developed in this research are based on limited
available experimental data and consistent with the previously devel­
oped models. In the proposed model, the unloading/reloading slopes
depend on the maximum shear displacement for each cycle. The shear
behavior at any stage is assumed to correspond to one of the four me­
chanical regions described in Section 2.1.
Before the analysis, two additional slopes need to be calculated in the
proposed model (k1 and k2 in Fig. 3). The first slope, k1 is defined as the
slope of the line between the peak point in one loading direction and the
cracking point in the other loading direction. k2 is defined as the slope of
the line connecting the onset of shear strength degradation point in one
loading direction to the cracking point in the other loading direction as
shown in Fig. 3. The slopes are calculated from the envelope of shear
displacement of the column. The response on the positive and negative
loading directions may be different due to the different axial loads
applied on the column. In this case, the unloading and reloading slopes
will not be the same in both loading directions.
In the initial elastic region (region I in Fig. 3), the shear response of
the column is linear whether it is loaded or unloaded. Thus, there is no
hysteretic energy dissipation due to shear in the elastic region under
cyclic loading. In this region, there may be initial flexural cracks in the
column, but they do not affect the shear response because the column
does not have shear cracks yet.
E. Bicici and H. Sezen
Fig. 6. Proposed cyclic shear displacement rules if unloading starts in regions III or IV.
Once the shear displacement exceeds the shear cracking displace­
ment, Δsh,cr in any direction, the rules for region II govern the shear
response (Fig. 3). The extension and enlargement of shear cracks reduce
the shear force transfer along the crack surface that reduce the shear
stiffness. The elastic shear mechanism and related parameters are no
longer valid. When unloading occurs between the cracking displace­
ment, Δsh,cr and the shear displacement corresponding to peak strength,
Δsh,n (within region II), there are three possible paths for unloading/
reloading depending on the magnitude of the maximum displacement
the column reached in the other loading direction in the previous cycles.
The three possible paths for unloading/reloading are separately pre­
sented in Fig. 5.
i) If the previous maximum displacement in the other loading di­
rection was in region I or II, the unloading/reloading behavior follows
the slope between the point where unloading started and the cracking
point in the other loading direction (path BC in Fig. 5 when the
unloading starts at point B). Furthermore, once the unloading/reloading
path reached the cracking point (C in Fig. 5) on the other side, the
loading path follows the primary curve (line CD in Fig. 5).
In this case, the unloading stiffness (slope of line BC) is always less
than elastic stiffness (slope of line AC) since point B has a larger shear
strength and both points A and B (or any other point in region II) are
connected to point C. In this region, the initiation of shear cracks leads to
reduction in unloading slope.
ii) If the maximum displacement was in region III in the other
loading direction in the previous cycles, the unloading slope is equal to
the elastic stiffness k1 (slope shown in Fig. 5) until the unloading force
reaches the shear cracking force, Vcr, i.e., the slope of line BQ is k1 in
Fig. 5. Then, the unloading path goes through the maximum displace­
ment on the other loading side and the corresponding strength (line QG
in Fig. 5).
The opening of previously developed cracks and appearance of new
shear cracks in the other loading direction reduces the unloading slope.
Once the loading reaches the envelope curve (at point G), the loading
follows the envelope curve.
iii) If the previous maximum displacement in the other loading di­
rection is in region IV, the unloading slope is defined as k1 (slope of line
BZ in Fig. 5). Then, the reloading path goes through the point of previous
maximum displacement in the reloading direction and the correspond­
ing strength (line ZR in Fig. 5). Then, if the loading continues, the path
follows the primary curve after reaching the primary curve (at point R in
Fig. 5).
Once the maximum shear displacement exceeds the displacement
corresponding to the peak shear strength, the rules for region III are
triggered to govern the response. In this region, the shear cracks become
6
Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211
more apparent and larger, and the unloading slopes are reduced. If the
unloading starts in the peak region between the peak displacement, Δsh,n
and onset of shear strength degradation point, Δsh,u (region III in Fig. 3),
the unloading rules are defined as a function of maximum shear
displacement in the other loading direction. The three possible paths are
separately presented in Fig. 6.
i) If the target response is in region I or II in the other loading di­
rection and if the unloading starts in region III, the unloading slope is k1
(Fig. 6) until the unloading reaches shear cracking force, Vcr (line EF in
Fig. 6). Then, the unloading path goes through the shear cracking point
in the other loading direction (line FC in Fig. 6). Larger shear
displacement and larger shear cracks in this region lead to further
reduction in unloading slopes. After reaching the cracking point, the
loading follows the primary curve (line CD in Fig. 6).
ii) If the column is in region III in both unloading and loading di­
rections based on previous cycles, three discrete slopes are defined to
present the unloading/reloading behavior. The unloading slope is k1
until the unloading reaches shear cracking force, Vcr (line EF in Fig. 6).
Then, the unloading path reaches the intersection point, F′ . The location
of F’ is calculated as intersection of two imaginary lines. The first line
represents cracking strength, Vcr (dashed line in Fig. 6). The second line
starts from the previously reached peak point (G in Fig. 6) and goes to
cracking strength, Vcr with the slope of k2 (FF’ in Fig. 6). Thus, the slope
of FF’ decreases with increasing shear displacement. After reaching F’,
the reloading goes through the previously reached peak strength and the
corresponding displacement in the loading direction (F’G in Fig. 6). The
loading follows the primary curve after reaching the point G.
The opening and closing of shear cracks during multiple loading
cycles may lead to different stiffnesses in the unloading and reloading
directions. In the proposed approach, three different slopes are intro­
duced. Between cracking forces, due to the opening of cracks, the stiff­
ness becomes lower than the stiffness corresponding to the loads larger
than the cracking force. As the shear cracks close in both loading di­
rections, shear stress transfer and the resistance provided by the crack
surfaces improve. This approach also enables modeling of potential
pinching in a given cycle depending on the magnitude of the loading and
unloading shear displacements and strengths.
iii) If the target column response is in region IV after reloading, the
unloading slope is defined as k2 (EZ in Fig. 6). If the target column
response is in region IV when the reloading starts, the reloading path
goes through the previous maximum displacement in the reloading di­
rection and the corresponding strength (line ZR in Fig. 6).
Finally, if the unloading starts in the strength degradation region
(region IV), the slope of the unloading path is k2 (line WX in Fig. 6)
regardless of the target region in the other loading direction. However,
E. Bicici and H. Sezen Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211

Fig. 7. Proposed rules for the cyclic shear model.

Table 1 Table 3
Cyclic paths based on the mechanical region. Calculated shear displacements and strengths to define envelope response of test
Target region
columns.
Test Vcr Vn Vp Δsh,cr Δsh,n Δsh,u Δsh,alf
I II III IV
column (kN) (kN) (kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Unloading I elastic
Specimen 104 282 311 0.176 3.32 10.33 154.4
region II line BC in line BCD in line BQG in line BZR in
1
Fig. 5 Fig. 5 Fig. 5 Fig. 5
Specimen 240 407 315 0.403 1.10 2.88 61.8
III line EFC in line EFCD in line EFF’G in line EZR in
2
Fig. 6 Fig. 6 Fig. 6 Fig. 6
Specimen 87 249 253 0.148 6.15 19.67 94.1
IV line EXZ in
3T
Fig. 6
Specimen 187 386 313 0.316 1.06 3.17 80.6
3C
Specimen 114 289 314 0.175 3.34 10.82 154.4
for reloading there are two possibilities to follow. If strength degrada­ 4
tion is not triggered on the reloading side, the reloading goes through U6 225 372 370 0.166 2.40 6.91 78.1
the previous maximum displacement in the reloading direction and the U1 147 217 293 0.125 4.06 13.96 104.4
corresponding envelope strength. However, once region IV is triggered
on both loading sides, the model compares the previous envelope
Fig. 7).
strengths corresponding to the previous maximum displacements for
both loading sides. Then, the reloading path goes through the smaller
3. Application and validation of the model
strength point. For example, in Fig. 7, once the unloading starts at point
R, the model compares the strengths at M and R. In the figure, the
In this study, a model is proposed to simulate the cyclic shear force-
strength at R is less than that at M. Thus, the reloading goes through the
shear displacement response. The shear response calculated using the
symmetry of R or T in the other loading direction, i.e., the strength and
proposed numerical model can be incorporated into total column
displacement at T and R are the same. However, if the strength at M was
response (considering the effects of two other displacement compo­
less than the strength at R, the reloading would go through the point of
nents) using the horizontal shear spring shown in Fig. 1 [6,14]. Thus, to
symmetry of M (not T in Fig. 7). In this approach, the continuum on the
simulate the shear response, a new uniaxial material object is created
primary curve is eliminated, i.e., there are gaps between points M and T,
(named Shear01) based on the proposed model and added to the uniaxial
and Y and R. The proposed cyclic rules are summarized in Table 1 based
material library of OpenSees (2020).
on the unloading and target region.
The material model for the shear spring was established by consid­
In addition to these rules for complete cycles, if the reloading hap­
ering the behavior in four unique regions of the envelope shown in
pens during an incomplete cycle (without reaching the previous
Fig. 3. The details of Shear01 material object may be found in Bicici [3].
maximum displacement), the reloading goes back to the point where
The proposed shear-spring element monitors the shear displacement of
unloading started. In these incomplete cycles, the unloading path fol­
the RC column at each stage of the loading. Exceeding each critical shear
lows the same path with complete cycles (e.g., cycles JKL and OP in
displacement limit triggers the behavior to be governed by the loading,

Table 2
Geometric and material properties of column specimens.
Test Column a (mm) b (mm) a/d fc (MPa)
′
fyl (MPa) fyv (MPa) ρl % ρv % s (mm) P (kN)

Specimen 1 1473 457 3.76 21.1 447 469 2.5 0.17 305 667
Specimen 2 1473 457 3.76 21.1 447 469 2.5 0.17 305 2669
Specimen 3 1473 457 3.76 20.9 447 469 2.5 0.17 305 P*
Specimen 4 1473 457 3.76 25.6 447 469 2.5 0.17 305 667
U6 1000 350 3.28 37.3 437 425 3.8 0.84 65 600
U1 1000 350 3.28 43.6 430 470 3.8 0.27 150 0

P*: axial load is varying from 249 kN tension to 2669 kN compression.

7
E. Bicici and H. Sezen
Fig. 8. Comparison of the proposed model with experimental shear response of selected columns.
unloading, and reloading rules defined for the next mechanical region as
described in the previous section.
In typical RC column experiments, the total lateral displacement and
reaction forces are recorded and presented. Measurement of shear dis­
placements isolated from the flexural and slip displacements requires
additional effort. Thus, it is rare to find RC column specimens with
recorded shear displacement histories presented separately. In this
research, six test columns with reported pure shear response are
modeled and analyzed to validate the proposed cyclic model [21,24].
These six column specimens represent flexure-shear, and flexure domi­
nated failures. The geometric and material properties of the columns are
shown in Table 2. The shear response envelope is calculated for each
column using Equations (1) through (6) and critical calculated param­
eters are presented in Table 3. Specimen U1 was tested under zero axial
load [21]. Since Equations (1) through (6) were developed for columns
with axial load, the axial load ratio P/fc Ag in Eq. (1), 2 and 4 is set equal
′
to 0.05 for U1. The peak shear strength of the RC test columns, Vn are
calculated from Eq. (3). Peak flexural moment or plastic hinge moment
8
Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211
Mp are calculated from moment-curvature analysis in OpenSees. In the
analysis, the core and cover concrete are modeled, separately. The peak
moment generally corresponds to the analysis step that core concrete
reaches its maximum strength. The maximum flexural strength, Vp is
calculated by dividing Mp by shear span (Table 3). In the proposed
model, the peak strength for the proposed shear-spring element is the
smaller of the calculated shear strength, Vn and flexural strength, Vp
(Fig. 3). By using the lower of these two strengths, the proposed model
accounts for the interaction between flexural and shear behavior[3].
3.1. Comparison of calculated and measured response
The calculated cyclic shear responses of test columns are compared
with the experimental data in Fig. 8. The peak strength is accurately
calculated with the proposed model for Specimen-1, which was tested by
Sezen and Moehle [24]. The calculated pre-peak unloading and
reloading slopes and the post-peak response degradation compare
reasonably well with the experimental data. The proposed model
E. Bicici and H. Sezen Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211

Fig. 9. Comparison of measured and calculated lateral force-total lateral displacement for Specimen-1, a) without shear spring, and b) with shear spring.

slightly underestimates the peak strength of Specimen-2 in the positive concluded that the proposed model can accurately predict the cyclic
loading direction. The proposed model simulates unloading and shear response of RC columns. Proposed model does not sufficiently
reloading cycles relatively accurately until the final shear failure is capture the shear response for U1. One reason for this may be the zero
triggered. axial load applied on this column. The proposed cyclic shear model was
Specimen-3 was tested under varying axial load. Different axial loads developed using data from columns with axial loads Sezen [22].
were used in each direction of the loading when the response envelopes
are calculated according to the proposed model. The comparison of
3.2. Lateral cyclic response of columns
experimental and calculated response confirms the accuracy and effi­
ciency of the proposed model. The peak shear strength is accurately
The lateral load-total lateral displacement relationship of Specimen-
calculated by the proposed model. The overall cyclic response is ob­
1 is calculated with and without shear springs. The results of both an­
tained reasonably well although the calculated cyclic response cannot
alyses are shown in Fig. 9. Three displacement components of the col­
accurately capture all unloading and reloading cycles. Pre-peak and
umn are separately calculated as shown in Fig. 1, and combined as
post-peak shear behavior of Specimen-4 is simulated by the proposed
described in Bicici and Sezen [2]. The model proposed in this paper was
model relatively accurately.
used to calculate the cyclic shear response shown in Fig. 8 using the
The calculated peak strength of U1 is 19% smaller than the measured
horizontal spring at the end of the column. The shear spring is repre­
strength. The pinching point of the cyclic behavior is overestimated by
sented in OpenSees by the new uniaxial material model proposed in this
the proposed model and the overall cyclic response is not captured well.
paper. The column flexural response is simulated using distributed
However, initial cycles are accurately captured by the proposed model
plasticity. Bar slip displacement was calculated using rotational springs
for U1. During the tests of U1 and U6, the columns reached the
at the ends of the column.
maximum total lateral displacement at 84 and 89 mm, respectively [21].
Fig. 9a shows the calculated and measured lateral load-total lateral
The corresponding measured shear displacement components of U1 and
displacement relationship of Specimen-1 with flexural element and
U6 are 13 and 6 mm, respectively. Thus, it should be noted that the
rotational springs. The total lateral displacements presented in Fig. 9b
contribution of shear to the overall response was less compared to the
include the shear displacements modeled using the shear spring at the
flexural response in columns U1 and U6. The peak strength of U6 is
end of the column. Total lateral displacement at shear failure is calcu­
slightly overestimated by the proposed model. The unloading and
lated as 2.78 in. (70.6 mm) using Eq. (8), which captures the actual shear
reloading cycles are closely captured by the proposed model.
failure reasonably well in the degrading response region. This model
By comparing the calculated and experimental data, it can be
was proposed by Elwood and Moehle [5,4], in which ρ˝ is transverse

Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and calculated lateral force-total lateral displacement for Specimen-2 (left) and Specimen-3 (right).

9
E. Bicici and H. Sezen
reinforcement ratio, υ is maximum nominal shear stress (Vtest /bd) (in psi
units), and P is the axial load.
Δs 3 1 υ 1 P 1 [3] Bicici E. Development of Computational Model for Cyclic Response of Reinforced
= + 4ρ˝ − √̅̅̅̅ − ≥ (8)
L 100 500 f ′ 40 Ag fc′ 100
c
The comparison of total lateral responses in Fig. 9 shows the
importance of considering the effect of shear displacement in modeling
the lateral behavior of an RC column. As demonstrated in the figure, the
lateral strength degradation is triggered and the cyclic behavior is
dominated by the shear spring. Additionally, Fig. 9b shows that the peak
lateral strength and the post-peak degradation of Specimen-1 are
calculated relatively accurately. However, the pre-peak stiffness is
slightly overestimated. Furthermore, Fig. 10 compares the measured
and calculated lateral response of Specimen-2 and -3. For both columns,
the peak lateral strength is accurately calculated. However, in the
negative loading side of Specimen-2, the peak strength is under­
estimated. Besides, the calculated cyclic slopes for both columns show
agreement with experiment results. The lateral displacement at axial
failure is underestimated for Specimen-3.
4. Conclusions
The lateral displacement of an RC column is a combination of three
displacement components: flexure, longitudinal bar slip, and shear dis­
placements. For the columns designed to meet the requirements of
modern seismic codes, the flexural behavior is dominant and shear
displacement can be small. However, the shear displacements can be
significantly large in older RC columns or the new columns designed
without following the seismic design codes. Thus, the shear behavior
must be accurately modeled and included in analysis of columns with
low ductility. However, there is still no consensus about the mechanism
and modeling of pure shear behavior of RC columns mainly due to very
limited experimental evidence.
In this study, an easy-to-use cyclic shear displacement model is
proposed for RC columns regardless of the failure mode. After defining
an envelope curve for the shear response, rules are developed for the
unloading and reloading portions of the cyclic response based on the
envelope curve. The novelty of this cyclic model is that the analysis and
modeling parameters need not be re-calculated or updated during
analysis once the monotonic shear response or envelope is defined using
a set of equations at the beginning. A new uniaxial material model is
created in open source software, OpenSees to represent the shear
response with a horizontal spring in the column model. Then, the cyclic
shear displacements of previously tested columns are calculated to
validate the proposed model. The comparison of measured and calcu­
lated shear response shows the efficiency and relatively good accuracy
of the proposed cyclic shear displacement model. Cyclic lateral response
of one sample column (Specimen-1) is analyzed with and without shear
displacements to illustrate the importance of incorporation of shear
behavior in the model to accurately capture the shear failure of columns.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] ACI 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-19), Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2019.
10
Engineering Structures 247 (2021) 113211
[2] Bicici E, Sezen H. Modeling of lateral response of reinforced concrete columns in
existing buildings. In: 16th World Conference On Earthquake Engineering,
Santiago, Chile, Paper No. 284. 2017.
Concrete Columns. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University;
2018. p. 292.
[4] Elwood JK, Moehle JP. Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI
Struct J 2005;102(4):578.
[5] Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light
transverse reinforcement. Earthq Spectra 2005;21(1):71–89.
[6] Elwood KJ. Modeling failure in existing reinforced concrete columns. Can J Civ Eng
2004;31:846–59.
[7] Feng D-C, Xu J. An efficient fiber beam-column element considering flexure–shear
interaction and anchorage bond-slip effect for cyclic analysis of RC structures. Bull
Earthq Eng 2018;16(11):5425–52.
[8] Gerin M, Adebar P. Accounting for shear in seismic analysis of concrete structures.
In: Proceedings, 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Paper
No. 1747, 2004.
[9] Gu X, Hua J, Cai M. Seismic responses of reinforced concrete intermediate short
columns failed in different modes. Eng Struct 2020;206:110–73.
[10] Azadi Kakavand MR, Sezen H, Taciroglu E. Data-driven models for predicting the
shear strength of rectangular and circular reinforced concrete columns. ASCE J
Struct Eng 2021;147(1):04020301.
[11] LeBorgne MR, Ghannoum WM. Analytical element for simulating lateral-strength
degradation in reinforced concrete columns and other frame members. ASCE J
Struct Eng 2014;140(7):1–12.
[12] Lehman DE, Moehle JP. Seismic performance of well-confined concrete bridge
columns. Report No. PEER-1998/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2000.
[13] Li Y, Weng P, Hwang S. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete intermediate
short columns failed in shear. ACI Struct J 2019;116(3):195–206.
[14] Lodhi MS, Sezen H. Estimation of monotonic behavior of reinforced concrete
columns considering shear-flexure-axial load interaction. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2012;41:2159–75.
[15] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH. Open system for earthquake engineering
simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, 2004.
[16] Mergos PE, Kappos AJ. A distributed shear and flexural flexibility model with
shear-flexure interaction for R/C members subjected to seismic loading.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(12):1349–70.
[17] Mergos PE, Kappos AJ. A gradual spread inelasticity model for R/C beam–columns,
accounting for flexure, shear and anchorage slip. Eng Struct 2012;44:94–106.
[18] Pan Z, Guner S, Vecchio FJ. Modeling of interior beam-column joints for nonlinear
analysis of reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct 2017;142:182–91.
[19] Patwardhan C. Shear Strength and Deformation modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Columns. M.S. Thesis. Columbus: The Ohio State University; 2005. p. 176.
[20] Pincheria JA, Dotiwala FS, D’Souza JT. Seismic analysis of older reinforced
concrete columns. Earthq Spectra 1999;15(2):245–72.
[21] Saatcioglu M, Ozcebe G. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated
seismic loading. ACI Struct J 1989;86:3–12.
[22] Sezen H. Shear deformation model for reinforced concrete columns. Struct Eng
Mech 2008;28(1):39–52.
[23] Sezen H, Moehle JP. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns.
ASCE J Struct Eng 2004;103(1):1692–703.
[24] Sezen H, Moehle JP. Seismic tests of concrete columns with light transverse
reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2006;103(6):842–9.
[25] Sezen H, Chowdhury T. Hysteretic model for reinforced concrete columns
including the effect of shear and axial load failure. J Struct Eng 2009;135(2):
139–46.
[26] Baradaran Shoraka M, Elwood KJ. Mechanical model for nonductile reinforced
concrete columns. J Earthquake Eng 2013;17(7):937–57.
[27] Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN. Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes. J Struct Divis 1970;96(12):2557–73.
[28] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 1986;83(2):219–31.
[29] Wang Z, Wang J, Zhu J, Zhang J. A simplified method to assess seismic behavior of
reinforced concrete columns. Struct Concr 2020;21(1):151–68.
[30] Xu S-Y, Zhang J. Hysteretic shear-flexure interaction model of reinforced concrete
columns for seismic response assessment of bridges. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2011;40(3):315–37.
[31] Yu B, Ning C, Li B. Hysteretic model for shear-critical reinforced concrete columns.
J Struct Eng 2016;142(9):04016056.
[32] Xu J-G, Feng D-C, Wu G, Cotsovos DM, Lu Y. Analytical modeling of corroded RC
columns considering flexure-shear interaction for seismic performance assessment.
Bull Earthq Eng 2020;18(5):2165–90.