Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Modeling parameters for the nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete T

beams under cyclic loading
Ngoc Hieu Dinha, Jong-Chan Kimb, , Seung-Jae Leea, Kyoung-Kyu Choia, Hong-Gun Parkc
⁎

a
School of Architecture, Soongsil University, 369 Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 153-743, Republic of Korea
b
Seoul Institute of Technology, 37 Maebongsan-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Architectural Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Current seismic evaluation standards empirically developed the plastic deformation parameters for the nonlinear
Concrete beams analysis of RC beams based on existing test results, without a firm theoretical background. It is well recognized
Failure mechanism that the modeling parameters might overestimate or underestimate the deformation capacity of concrete beams.
Shear strength This is partly because the nominal shear strength equation used to determine the modeling parameters showed
Nonlinear modeling parameters
significant deviation, compared to existing test results. The present study developed a theoretical plastic de-
Nonlinear analysis
formation model for the nonlinear analysis of RC beams under cyclic loading. The nonlinear parameters were
determined based on the fundamental failure mechanism of concrete beams after flexural yielding. The proposed
model was verified by comparing its predictions with existing experimental results and the predictions by the
current seismic evaluation standard ASCE 41–17. Based on the proposed model, the effects of various design
parameters on the nonlinear parameters were also analyzed and investigated in detail. In addition, analysis
examples using the proposed parameters were presented.

1. Introduction
Over the past 30 years, it has been broadly recognized that modern
seismic design codes continuously develop and adopt performance-
based design and the assessment of existing reinforced concrete (RC)
structures [1–4]. In RC structures, the actual behavior of the RC
buildings during strong ground shaking in moderate to high seismicity
regions involves the plastic response of the structural system, with re-
gard to the absorbed and dissipated capacity of input earthquake en-
ergy, whereby seismic design forces and required strengths are reduced
[5]. Accordingly, the performance of the RC members plays a vital role
on the overall response of a whole structure subjected to earthquake
loading [6]. Thus, in order to assess the global performance of existing
RC buildings, it is crucial to define the component behaviors, i.e., the
force–displacement relations of concrete columns and beams. To date,
for adopting performance-based design, several seismic building stan-
dards, such as ASCE 41–17 [2], ACI 369R-11 [7], and FEMA 440 [3],
have provided nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria
for various types of components in RC buildings, and nonlinear analysis
procedures as well. These parameters are useful for engineers to make
use of performance-based analysis for the performance evaluation of
existing buildings, or the design of new buildings.
In existing design codes, to prevent brittle shear failure, the shear
strength of RC beams is usually designed to exceed the shear demand
corresponding to flexural yielding. However, when subjected to cyclic
load, due to the damage in the form of concrete cracking and re-
inforcement yielding, the shear contribution of concrete in the plastic
hinge region deteriorates after the flexural yielding of RC beams. Thus,
the deformation capacity of RC beams that fail in shear after flexural
yielding could depend on the shear capacity of RC beams according to
the change in flexural deformation [8–10].
In current seismic evaluation standards, such as ASCE 41–17 [2],
the plastic deformation parameters used for the nonlinear modeling of
RC beams are determined according to the primary design parameters,
such as longitudinal reinforcing bar ratio, design shear force, and the
spacing of transverse reinforcement. Nevertheless, it is well recognized
that the modeling parameters might overestimate or underestimate the
deformation capacity of the concrete beams. The reasons are as follows:
first, in the existing codes, the plastic deformation modeling parameters
are mainly defined according to the failure modes determined by cur-
rent shear strength equations, which have shown significant deviation
compared to existing test results [11]; second, the values of nonlinear
modeling parameters and acceptance criteria specified in current
seismic evaluation standards were empirically constructed based on

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jckim@sit.re.kr (J.-C. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110715
Received 29 November 2019; Received in revised form 22 April 2020; Accepted 24 April 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Hieu Dinh, et al.
existing test results, without firm theoretical background. Therefore, a
more rigorous modeling model that could be practically applicable for
the nonlinear analysis of RC beams needs to be developed.
The present study proposes a theoretical plastic deformation model
for nonlinear analysis based on the fundamental failure mechanism of
RC beams [9,10]. The proposed model was verified by comparing its
prediction with existing experimental results and prediction by the
current seismic evaluation standard ASCE 41–17 [2]. In addition, the
effects of various design parameters on the nonlinear modeling para-
meters were also analyzed and investigated in detail.
2. Development of a plastic deformation model of RC beams
The shear strength and deformation of the concrete beam vary ac-
cording to boundary conditions and type of loading. In the present
study, the general case of a cantilever beam subjected to cyclic shear
load was first investigated. Fig. 1 presents a cantilever beam with fixed
end boundary condition subjected to cyclic shear load and strain dis-
tribution at the critical section in the plastic hinge region. In this study,
the plastic deformation was defined as the rotation in the plastic hinge
region as = / as , where is the tip displacement, and as is the shear
span of cantilever beam, as shown in Fig. 1.
For concrete beams governed by flexure, the shear capacity of
beams is designed to exceed the shear demand developed by flexural
strength (Vn > Vy ) . In the current seismic evaluation standard (e.g.
ASCE 41–17 [2]), the plastic deformation of RC members is determined
considering the failure mode as well as nominal shear strength.
Nevertheless, the current nominal shear strength equations, including
KCI 2017 [12] and ACI 318–14 [13], might show severe deviation in
shear strength prediction compared to existing test results. Therefore,
more accurate strength prediction should be taken into account based
on the theoretical background. In this study, the shear capacity of
concrete beams, Vn , is evaluated by using the strength model based on
the compression zone failure mechanism developed by Choi et al. [11].
Fig. 2(a) depicts the proposed generalized nonlinear for-
ce–deformation relation for concrete beam, which was manifested by
the nonlinear parameters a and b. Linear response is depicted between
point A and yield point B corresponding to yield rotation, y . The shear
force is maintained from point B to point C corresponding to ultimate
rotation, p . From point C, the strength begins to progressively degrade
to zero at point D, corresponding to failure rotation, u . In ASCE 41–17
model [2] (refer Fig. 2(b)), since the rotation corresponding to point D
was not clearly specified, usually, in practice the shear force is defined
Fig. 1. Strain distribution and rotation of concrete beams subjected to cyclic shear load.
2
Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715
to suddenly drop from point C to point D, and then a residual shear
strength is maintained until point E. However, based on the observation
from previous studies [10] (refer Fig. 4), the actual behavior of RC
beams subjected to cyclic loading showed gradual degradation of re-
sidual shear strength in the descending branch [8–10]. Thus, the
parameter cr representing the residual strength was not taken into
consideration in the proposed model.
2.1. Nonlinear modeling parameter a
From the proposed model, the ultimate rotation of a beam can be
calculated considering the idealized curvature distribution at the ulti-
mate state in the beam as follows:
as
p =a+ y =( y ) lh +
p y
3 (1)
where y is the curvature of the beam when longitudinal reinforcing
bars yield; p is the curvature of the beam at ultimate state; and lh is the
length of the plastic hinge region. lh [=0.5as d / h] is evaluated based on
the JCI Colloquium [14] and Lee and Watanabe [8], where
0.75d lh d .
The curvature of the beam when longitudinal reinforcing bars yield,
y , is evaluated as:
My
=
y
Ec Ie (2)
where My [= t f y bw d · jdu] is the moment at section when longitudinal
reinforcing bars yield, calculated based on the force equilibrium and
stress–strain compatibility, jdu is the moment arm, and Ec Ie [=0.3Ec Ig ] is
the effective flexural stiffness of cross section [2].
According to existing experimental results of Matamoros and Sozen
[15], Moyer and Kowalsky [16], and study by Choi and Park [10],
fundamental beam failure mechanisms after flexural yielding could be
classified as: (a) shear failure of concrete in the compression zone, (b)
flexural failure, (c) bar buckling, and (d) bar fracture. Fig. 3 shows a
schema of the relation between the shear demand, Vd , and the shear
capacity, Vn , of the fixed end beam, and the stages of failure mechanism
with respect to the compressive strain at the extreme compression fiber
of the critical section [10]. Thus, from Figs. 1 and 3, the curvature of
the beam at failure, p , could be determined by considering the
minimum value of concrete compressive strain of the extreme com-
pression fiber:
N. Hieu Dinh, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Fig. 2. Generalized force–deformation relationship for concrete beam.

ft (ft + 2/3fck ) c v
f y jdu
sc = o, if
t f y jdu / as v fvy d t f yv as (5)
In the case of Vs > Vd , shear failure of the compression zone does not
occur.
Moyer and Kowalsky [16] evaluated the buckling strain of long-
itudinal reinforcing bar by considering the buckling force and un-
supported length of longitudinal bar, as follows:
2.5
s
bl =3 o
dbi (6)
where s is the longitudinal spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and
dbi is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing bar. The value of bl
should be greater than o , due to the fact that the spalling of concrete
cover occurs prior to longitudinal bar buckling. In this study, for sim-
plified calculation, the compressive strain, o [=0.0022], corresponding
to the compressive strength of concrete is used according to CEB-FIP
Model Code 2010 [17].
In addition, the compressive strain, cf , of the extreme compression
Fig. 3. Rotation capacity of RC beams.
fiber with respect to the bar fracture is evaluated based on the strain
compatibility, as shown in Fig. 1:
min( ul, cf , bl, sc )
= c
p
c (3) =
cf
d c
f
(7)
where ul, cf , bl, and sc are the concrete compressive strain of the ex-
where the fracture strain of longitudinal bar f = 0.05 was adopted
treme compression fiber at the critical section corresponding to flexural
based on Wood [18] and Chen [19].
failure, bar fracture, bar buckling, and shear failure after flexural
The study of Choi and Park [10] showed that the flexural failure of
yielding, respectively; and c is the depth of the compression zone at
RC beams occurred as the compressive strain at the extreme compres-
ultimate state.
sive fiber of critical section reached an ultimate value. In this study, the
For evaluation of the compressive strain, sc , of the extreme com-
ultimate compressive strain of concrete is evaluated based on CEB-FIP
pression fiber at critical section with respect to the shear failure after
Model Code 90 [20] as:
flexural yielding, the previous study of Choi and Park [10] was used
(refer Appendix). Fig. 3 shows that when Vs Vd , the shear failure of 1
ul =
concrete at critical section after flexural yielding occur when the de- 3(fck + 30) (8)
graded shear capacity, Vn , intersects the shear demand, Vd , corre-
In addition, the depth of compression zone of critical section varies
sponding to flexural yielding. The equilibrium equation representing
accompanied by the variation of concrete compressive strain. The depth
this stage can be defined as [10]:
of the compression zone at ultimate state, c in Eqs. (3), (5) and (7), is
Vn (=Vc + Vs ) = Vd (4a) evaluated using the concrete compressive strain, ul and cf , at the ex-
treme compressive fiber. Assuming equivalent rectangular concrete
ft [ft + ¯ ] b w c/( sc / o ) + v f yv b w d = t f y b w d ·jdu / as , if Vs Vd (4b) stress block and stress–strain compatibility, c is evaluated by iterative
calculations as follows:
where ¯ [=2/3fck ] is the average normal stress in compression at shear
failure after flexural yielding, o is the concrete compressive strain
c=
As f y (
As min fy ,
c
c
d
Es min( ul, cf ) )
corresponding to compressive strength, and v [=Av /(bw · s )] is the 0.85fck 1 bw (9)
transverse reinforcement ratio. Thus, by using Eq. (4), the compressive
strain, sc , of the extreme compression fiber at critical section with re- where As is the area of the tension reinforcing bars, As is the area of the
spect to the shear failure can be evaluated as follows: compression reinforcing bars, d is the distance from the extreme

3
N. Hieu Dinh, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Fig. 4. Comparison between test results and the proposed model.

4
N. Hieu Dinh, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Fig. 4. (continued)

5
N. Hieu Dinh, et al.
compressive fiber to the centroid of longitudinal compression reinfor-
cing bars (refer Fig. 1), and β1 is factor relating depth of equivalent
rectangular compressive stress block to depth of neutral axis [13].
Thus, by using Eqs. (1)–(9), the nonlinear modeling parameter a
could be determined by Eq. (10), as follows:
a=( y ) lh
p meters a and b were presented using Eqs. (10) & (11), respectively. In
min( ul, cf , bl, sc )
a= lh
c y
Moreover, in the case of concrete beams with the spacing of trans-
verse reinforcement that did not satisfy the seismic details, after com-
pressive stress in the core concrete reached the concrete compressive
strength, the concrete cover suffered severe damage, and was separated
from the concrete core, triggering the hoop opening and loss of de-
formation capacity. Consequently, the concrete beams could fail early
in flexure before the ultimate compressive strain ul . Thus, in the pro-
posed model, for concrete beams without seismic details, ul, NC = 0.0035
was used in Eq. (10) instead of ul . Note that in ASCE 41–17 [2], the
condition representing beams controlled by flexure without seismic
details is denoted as “NC”, which is an abbreviation for nonconforming
transverse reinforcement; and the condition representing beams con-
trolled by flexure with seismic details is denoted as “C”, which is an
abbreviation for conforming transverse reinforcement.
2.2. Nonlinear modeling parameter b
In the proposed model, the nonlinear modeling parameter b is de-
termined considering the predominant failure mechanisms that occur in
the concrete beam. The proposed model depicted in Fig. 2(a) shows that
after ultimate beam rotation in the plastic hinge region, the strength
progressively decreases until the failure rotation, u , corresponding to
the normalized shear force of zero. The value of u could be determined
corresponding to bar fracture failure (see Fig. 3). This is because when
bar fracture failure occurs, the force equilibrium in the critical cross
section of a beam is not satisfied; thereby, the beam fails in a brittle
manner. Thus, if the failure of concrete is initiated by one of the three
following failure mechanisms: shear failure in compression zone, flex-
ural failure, or bar buckling (see Fig. 3), b could be evaluated as follows:
cf
b= lh
c y
On the other hand, if the failure of concrete is initiated by bar
fracture, the strength of beam will suddenly decrease; thereby, the
value of b could be set to a.
Table 1
Nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for RC beams of the proposed theoretical model.
Conditions Modeling parameters
Plastic rotation angle (radians)
a b
2
1. Beams controlled by flexure with non-seismic details
Governed by cf 3 min( ul, NC , cf , bl, sc )
lh
Other cases y
cu
2. Beams controlled by flexure with seismic details2
Governed by cf 3 min( ul, cf , bl, sc )
lh
Other cases y
cu
1. Values between those listed in the table should be determined by linear interpolation.
2
Beams satisfy the seismic details if, within the flexural plastic hinge region, hoops are spaced at ≤d/3, and if, for components of moderate and high ductility
demand, the strength provided by the hoops (Vs) is at least 3/4 of the design shear. Otherwise, beams do not satisfy the seismic details.
3
Refer to the cases when cf is the minimum of sc , ul, sb, and cf .
Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715
2.3. Acceptance criteria for plastic deformation
For nonlinear analysis procedures used in practical application,
Table 1 lists the nonlinear modeling parameters that were calculated
based on the proposed theoretical model. In the table, for the cases of
beams controlled by flexure (conditions (1) and (2)), nonlinear para-
(10a)
addition, considering the conservative condition, the upper limits were
proposed for the nonlinear parameters a and b, based on ASCE 41–17
(10b) [2]. In the case of beams controlled by flexure with non-seismic details,
the parameter a should not exceed 0.02 and the parameter b should not
exceed min (2a, 0.03); and in the case of beams controlled by flexure
with seismic details, the parameter b should not exceed 2a. It should be
noted that the judgment of seismic detail and the non-seismic detail
condition of RC beams as presented in Table 1 was based on ASCE
41–17 [2]: RC beams satisfy seismic details if, within the flexural plastic
hinge region, hoops are spaced at ≤d/3, and if, for components of
moderate and high ductility demand, the strength provided by the
hoops (Vs) is at least 3/4 of the design shear; otherwise, beams do not
satisfy the seismic details.
Furthermore, Table 1 also proposes the acceptance criteria for the
deformation capacity of RC beams used in nonlinear procedures, based
on ASCE 41–17 Standard [2]. In the cases of beams controlled by
flexure, acceptance criteria for plastic deformation were defined as a/3,
a, and b corresponding to the performance levels of Immediate Occu-
pancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP), respectively.
Note that in ASCE 41–17 Standard [2], these values are also roughly
those of a / 3, a, and b, respectively. The minimum acceptance criteria
(a/3) for the IO performance level was set to 0.0017 for the cases of
beams with non-seismic details, and 0.0035 for the cases of beams with
seismic details.
3. Model verification and discussions
For verification of the proposed plastic deformation parameters,
nineteen RC beam specimens tested under cyclic loading conditions
were employed [8,15,21,22]. Table 2 provides the material and geo-
metrical characteristics of the test specimens as well as test configura-
tions. The rotation of a cantilever beams could be evaluated as
= / as , where is the displacement at beam tip, and as is the span of
cantilever beams (see Fig. 1). The test specimens using two fixed ends
or simply supported condition could be modeled as cantilever beams
(11)
with half-span lengths.
By using nonlinear modeling parameters in Table 1, Fig. 4 depicts
the comparison of shear force–rotation relations between the test re-
sults, proposed model, and ASCE 41–17 model. It should be noted that
Acceptance criteria
Plastic rotation angle (radians)
Performance level
IO LS CP
a 0.03 a/3 ≥ 0.0017 a b
0.02
( )l
cf
y h (2a, 0.03)
cu
a a/3 ≥ 0.0035 a b
( )
cf
y lh 2a
cu
6
N. Hieu Dinh, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Table 2
Properties of test specimens obtained from the previous results.
Specimens fck d bw as /d t c v Vexp Boundary condition Predicted failure mode1
(MPa) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (kN)

Lee and Watanabe [8] BA2 29.3 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.27 139.1 Double cantilever UL
BA3 29.3 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.20 130.8 SC
BA4 29.3 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.80 137.3 UL
BA5 29.3 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.53 135.7 UL
BA6 29.3 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.40 138.2 UL
BA7 43.4 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.20 152.7 SC
BA10 43.4 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.60 143.3 UL
BA11 43.4 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.40 144.6 UL
BA12 43.4 255 200 2.35 1.45 1.45 0.30 144.6 UL
Xiao et al. [21] HB4-6L-T100 69.5 367 203 2.21 1.05 1.05 0.77 185.0 Double cantilever UL
HB4-10L-T65 69.5 328 203 2.48 2.05 2.05 1.19 271.2 UL
Matamoros and Sozen [15] C70-00 70.0 180 200 3.39 1.10 1.10 1.00 58.0 Double cantilever UL
C35-00 38.0 180 200 3.39 1.10 1.10 1.00 58.0 UL
Aboutaha et al. [22] (PEER database) SC3 21.9 397 914 3.07 0.90 0.45 0.19 406.0 Cantilever BL
Saatcioglu and Ozcebe [22] (PEER database) SO 43.6 327 350 3.05 1.28 1.28 0.30 211.1 Cantilever SC
Matamoros et al. [22] (PEER database) C5-00N 37.9 188 203 3.24 1.03 1.03 0.92 71.5 Cantilever UL
C5-00S 37.9 190 203 3.20 1.02 1.02 0.90 71.6 CF
C5-20S 48.3 183 203 3.33 0.97 0.97 1.00 72.6 UL
Aboutaha and Machado [22] ORC1 83.0 508 305 3.60 0.0127 0.0127 0.69 245.3 Cantilever UL

1
SC = shear failure after yielding; UL = flexural failure; BL = bar buckling; and CF = bar fracture.

in the ASCE model, the parameters a and b strongly depend on the ratio
of Vu/(b w d fck ) and ( t c )/ bal , and the spacing of transverse re-
inforcement, where Vu is the applied shear force, and bal is the long-
itudinal reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain condition. For
the prediction by using the ASCE model, Vu [=Vc + Vs] was calculated,
based on ACI 318–14 [13]. For better understanding, the results in the
positive and negative directions of test specimens are illustrated sepa-
rately. In addition, Table 2 summarizes the predicted failure modes
using the proposed model.
From Fig. 4 and Table 2, specimens BA3, BA7 and SO [8] (Fig. 4 (a),
(b), and (f)) with low transverse reinforcement ratio in the range
(0.2–0.3) % showed shear failure of the compression zone after
yielding; specimens BA4, BA5, BA6, BA10, BA11, BA12, HB4-6L-T100,
C70-00, C35-00, C5-00N, C5-20S and ORC1 [8,15,21,22] (Fig. 4(c)–(e),
(g)–(j), (l), (m), (p), (r) and (s)) showed flexural failure with large
plastic rotation capacity, due to the high transverse reinforcement ratio
in the range (0.3–1) %. Meanwhile, the other specimens showed bar
buckling failure mechanism (SC3) and bar fracture failure mechanism
(C5-00S [22]) with limited rotation capacity (refer Fig. 4(n), and (q)).
Overall, the results predicted by the proposed model show reasonable
agreement with the test results in terms of shear strength and de-
formation capacity. Moreover, in comparison with the ASCE 41–17
model, the shear force–rotation curves predicted by the proposed model
show better prediction for the most cases. This is attributed to the fact
that in the proposed model, theoretical failure mechanisms are taken
into consideration when evaluating the plastic deformation capacity.
For example, specimens BA4, BA5, BA7, C70-00, SO and ORC1
(Fig. 4(c), (d), (f), (l), (o) and (s), respectively), show profound dis-
crepancy between the proposed model and the ASCE 41 model.
4. Parametric studies for proposed model
To understand the effects of design parameters by using the pro-
posed model, analytical investigation was performed. The analytical
beams have various design parameters: shear span to depth ratio ran-
ging (3–5), concrete compressive strength ranging (24–70) MPa, re-
inforcing bar yield strength ranging (400–600) MPa, longitudinal ten-
sion reinforcing bar ratios ( t ) ranging (0.005–0.0175), longitudinal
compression reinforcing bar ratios ( c ) ranging (50–80) % those of
tension reinforcing bar, transverse reinforcement ratios ( v ) ranging
(0.1–0.8) %, and the longitudinal spacing (s) of the transverse re-
inforcement ranging (6 16) dbi . The effective depth (d ) and width (bw )
of the cross section are (600 and 400) mm, respectively. All of the
analytical beams investigated satisfied the seismic detailed condition
based on KCI 2017 [12].
Figs. 5 and 6 present the effect of various design parameters on the
modeling parameters a and b, respectively, in terms of longitudinal
reinforcing bar ratio ( t ) , transverse reinforcement ratio ( v ) , concrete
compressive strength (fck ) , yield strength (fy ) of longitudinal reinforcing
bar, and ratio (s/ dbi ) of longitudinal spacing of the transverse re-
inforcement to diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing bar. For com-
parison to the existing model, Figs. 5 and 6 also show the upper bound
and lower bound results based on the ASCE 41–17 model. According to
ASCE 41–17 [2], the upper bound corresponds to the case of
V /(bw d fck ) 0.25, while the lower bound corresponds to the case of
V /(bw d fck ) 0.5( fck is in MPa).
Figs. 5 and 6 show that the modeling parameters a and b evaluated
from the proposed model are significantly influenced by the long-
itudinal reinforcing bar ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, concrete
compressive strength, and yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcing
bar; meanwhile, the ASCE model shows a converse tendency.
Figs. 5 and 6(a) show that for the beams having low longitudinal re-
inforcing bar ratio, the failure mechanism of the beams was mainly
governed by the bar fracture failure mechanism. For example, in case of
the beam with a low longitudinal reinforcing bar ratio of t = 0.005,
ul, cf , and bl evaluated by Eqs. (6)–(8) were 0.00617, 0.00467, and
0.017, respectively, resulting in the bar fracture failure mechanism; in
case of the beam with a medium longitudinal reinforcing bar ratio of
t = 0.0125 , ul, cf , and bl were 0.00617, 0.00842, and 0.017, respec-
tively, resulting in the flexural failure mechanism. It should be noted
that in both cases, sc was neglected due to the condition of
v / t > f y jdu / f yv as (refer Eq. (5)). Figs. 5 and 6 (b) show that for the
beams having low transverse reinforcement ratio ( v = 0.001),
ul, cf , bl , and sc evaluated by Eqs. (6)–(8) were 0.00617, 0.00747,
0.017, and 0.002, respectively. Thus, the failure mechanism of the
beams was mainly governed by the shear failure of concrete in the
compression zone (refer Eqs. (4) and (5)) after flexural yielding, man-
ifested by the low plastic deformation capacity, of roughly 0.01 and
0.02 for parameters a and b, respectively. In addition, Figs. 5 and 6(e)
show that for beams having a large longitudinal spacing of the trans-
verse reinforcement (s 16dbi ), ul, cf , and bl were 0.00617, 0.00535,
and 0.003, respectively. Thus, the predicted plastic deformation is
greatly degraded, which is attributed to the failure of longitudinal re-
inforcing bars induced by buckling mechanism (refer Eq. (6)). Except

7
N. Hieu Dinh, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Fig. 5. Effects of various design parameters on the nonlinear modeling parameter a.

Fig. 6. Effects of various design parameters on the nonlinear modeling parameter b.

8
N. Hieu Dinh, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Fig. 7. Effects of various design parameters on the ratio of the plastic region (B–D or B–E region in Fig. 2) between the proposed model and the ASCE model.

for the aforementioned cases, RC beams were found to fail by the
flexure failure mechanism.
Fig. 7 presents the ratio ( Aproposed / AASCE ) of the plastic region (B–D
region in Fig. 2(a) and B–E region in Fig. 2(b)) of nonlinear for-
ce–deformation relation between the proposed model and the ASCE
model, according to various parameters in terms of longitudinal re-
inforcing bar ratio ( t ) , yield strength (fvy ) of transverse reinforcement,
yield strength (fy ) of longitudinal reinforcing bar, and the ratio (s/ dbi ) of
longitudinal spacing of the transverse reinforcement to diameter of the
longitudinal reinforcing bar. For each parameter, the upper bound and
lower bound based on ASCE 41–17 [2] are presented. Overall, Fig. 7
shows that the ratios Aproposed / AASCE are greater than 1, indicating that
the area of plastic region in the proposed model is larger than those in
the ASCE model. Note that the results from parametric studies as illu-
strated in Fig. 7 are consistent with those observed from the test results
illustrated in Fig. 4.
Figure 8 compares the analytical results of nonlinear modeling
parameters a and b according to the depth ratio (c/ d ) of the compres-
sion zone predicted by the proposed theoretical model and the ASCE
41–17 model for two cases: RC beams satisfying the seismic detailed
condition (Fig. 8(a)), and those not satisfying the seismic detailed
condition (Fig. 8(b)). In contrast to those predicted by the ASCE model,
Fig. 8 shows that the plastic deformation parameters a and b are
strongly related to the depth ratio of the compression zone, which ratio
appears to be a major parameter for the evaluation of the shear strength
and plastic deformation capacity of RC beams [10,11]. The proposed
analytical model could provide a reasonable approach to predict the
modeling parameters for nonlinear analysis based on the possibility of
the failure mechanism of RC beams in plastic deformation.

Fig. 8. Variation of nonlinear modeling parameters according to the depth of the compression zone ratio.

9
N. Hieu Dinh, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Table 3 6. Analysis examples using proposed model

Simplified table for nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for
RC beams. To demonstrate the nonlinear modeling parameters of the proposed
Conditions Modeling parameters1 Acceptance criteria model, an illustrative analysis for an analytical beam was performed.
Plastic rotation angle (radians) Fig. 9 shows the details of the analytical beam. The concrete com-
Plastic rotation angle (radians) Performance level pressive strength of the beam is 24 MPa, the yield strength of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars and the transverse reinforcing bars are
a b IO LS CP
(500 and 400) MPa, respectively, and the spacing of shear reinforce-
1. Beams controlled by flexure with non-seismic details2
ment is 150 mm. The top and bottom longitudinal reinforcing bar ratios
c/d are 0.01446 and 0.00964, respectively, and the transverse reinforcing
≤ 0.1 0.02 0.03 0.007 0.02 0.03
bar ratio is 0.002367. The analytical beam with fixed end boundary
0.15 0.015 0.03 0.005 0.015 0.03
0.25 0.05 0.013 0.0017 0.005 0.013 conditions subjected to cyclic load could be modeled as a cantilever
≥ 0.25 0.005 0.005 0.0017 0.005 0.005 beam with half-span lengths (l/2 = 3000 mm ).
2. Beams controlled by flexure with seismic details2 Based on the guidelines of the Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK)
c/d [23], for seismic evaluation of RC structures, the expected material
≤ 0.1 0.034 0.045 0.012 0.034 0.045
strength is determined by multiplying the nominal material strength by
0.2 0.022 0.045 0.008 0.022 0.045
≥ 0.3 0.01 0.02 0.0035 0.01 0.02 the expected strength factor [24]. Accordingly, the expected compres-
sive strength of concrete is 26.4 MPa, and the expected yield strength of
1
Values between those listed in the table should be determined by linear longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars are (565 and 468) MPa,
interpolation. respectively. Thus, in this calculation, the expected material strength
2
Beams satisfy the seismic details if, within the flexural plastic hinge region, was adopted rather than nominal material strength. Moreover, as
hoops are spaced at ≤d/3, and if, for components of moderate and high duc- shown in Fig. 9, the top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement ratios of
tility demand, the strength provided by the hoops (Vs) is at least 3/4 of the
the beam are different from each other. Consequently, the nonlinear
design shear. Otherwise, beams do not satisfy the seismic details.
parameters of the beam are determined differently for the negative and
positive moment.
5. Simplified table for plastic deformation parameters
For the case of the negative moment, after longitudinal reinforcing
bars yield, the flexural moment is evaluated as:
For RC beams controlled by flexure, modeling parameters could be
simplified based on the predominant failure mechanism. Based on the My = t f y b w d ·jd u = 818.577 kNm (12)
results of the intensive analysis using the proposed theoretical model,
The compressive strain ( ul, cf , bl and sc ) of concrete compression
Table 3 proposes a simplified empirical expression of the modeling
fiber for each failure mode were evaluated by using Eqs. (5)–(8) as
parameters for estimating the plastic deformation of RC beams ac-
follows:
cording to the ratio (c/ d ) of depth of the compression zone to the ef-
fective depth ratio. However, for the special cases that the shear re- 1
ul = = 0.00591
inforcement ratio of beams is too low ( v 0.001) , the shear span to 3(fck + 30) (13)
depth ratio is too small (as /d < 3) , or the spacing of transverse re-
inforcement is too large compared to the diameter of the longitudinal c 111.4
= = 0.05 = 0.0133
reinforcing bars (s/ dbi > 16) , shear failure of the compression zone or
cf
d c
f
529.167 111.4 (14)
bar buckling occurs before flexural failure (refer Eqs. (5) and (6)). Ex- 2.5 2.5
s 150
cept for the aforementioned cases, the proposed simplified table bl =3 = = 0.034 o
(Table 3) can be applicable for as / d 3, v 0.0015, and s /dbi 16 .
dbi 25 (15)
Figure 8 (a) shows that the modeling parameters of the proposed
ft (ft + 2/3fck ) c
simplified table present analogous and conservative results, compared sc = o = 0.0112 for v/ t > f y jdu /f yv as
to those of the theoretical model (Table 1), according to c /d . Moreover, t f y jdu / as v fvy d (16)
Figs. 5 and 6 also present the modeling parameters of the simplified
The depth of compression zone in Eqs. (12), (14) and (16) is de-
table. Figs. 5 and 6 reveal that in regard to parameter a, the simplified
termined by iterative calculation by using Eq. (9):
table shows analogous and conservative results compared to the theo-
retical model; in regard to parameter b, the simplified table is analogous
to the upper bound corresponding to the case of V /(bw d fck ) 0.25 ( fck c=
As f y As min f y , ( cu
cu
d
Es min( ul, cf ) ) = 111.4 mm
in MPa), suggested by the ASCE 41–17 model [2]. 0.85fck 1 bw (17)

Fig. 9. Details for analytical beam.

10
N. Hieu Dinh, et al.
Fig. 10. Nonlinear load–displacement curves for analytical beam.
Finally, nonlinear parameters a and b are evaluated by using Eqs.
(10) and (11):
min( ul, cf , bl, sc )
a= y lh = 0.0202 rad
c (18)
cf
b = min y lh , 2a = 0.0403 rad
cu
where y [=My / Ec Ie] = 1.5 × 10 (1/mm) and lh [=0.75d (0.5as d/ h)
5 ratio, longitudinal reinforcing bar ratio, transverse reinforcement
d] =529.167 mm .
For the case of the positive moment, the same calculation procedure
is conducted and the obtained parameters a and b are as follows:
a = 0.0444 rad and b = 0.0507 rad
Fig. 10 presents the nonlinear load–displacement curves established
by the proposed model and ASCE 41–17 model [2]. For the positive
moment, the parameter a (=0.0444) predicted by the proposed model is
larger than that (=0.025) by ASCE 41–17 model while the parameters
b (=0.0507) predicted by the proposed model and that (=0.05) by ASCE
41–17 model are similar. For the negative moment, the nonlinear
modeling parameters a and b predicted by the proposed model are si-
milar to those by ASCE 41–17 model. Note that in this example, the
nonlinear modeling parameters predicted by the ASCE 41–17 model are
the same in both positive and negative moment directions. However,
the parameters predicted by the proposed model differ from each other
in the positive and negative moment directions because the proposed
parameters are significantly affected by the tension and compression
longitudinal reinforcing bar ratios of the beams.
7. Conclusions
In the present study, modeling parameters used for nonlinear ana-
lysis were developed for RC beams by a theoretical plastic deformation
model. The proposed model estimates the nonlinear modeling para-
meters based on the failure mechanism of the compression zone after
flexural yielding. The primary conclusions were drawn as follows:
1 The proposed model was verified by comparing its prediction with
Appendix. Shear capacity of RC beams
In this study, the degradation of the shear capacity of RC beams due to inelastic flexural deformation is evaluated based on the compression zone
failure mechanism [10].
The overall shear capacity of a concrete beam could be defined as the contribution of concrete, Vc , and the contribution of transverse re-
inforcement, Vs :
Vn = Vc + Vs
Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715
existing test results, and showed good agreement in terms of shear
strength and deformation capacity. In addition, the predictions by
the proposed model showed great improvement, compared to those
by the ASCE 41–17 model, in terms of ultimate rotation, as well as
strength degradation.
2 The proposed model provided a more reasonable approach than the
ASCE 41–17 model in explaining the effects of design parameters on
(19) the nonlinear modeling parameters: depth of the compression zone
ratio, concrete compressive strength, and yield strength of the
longitudinal reinforcing bar.
3 Based on the theoretical model, a simplified table was proposed to
determine modeling parameters, which is available for the cases of
as / d 3, v 0.0015, and s /dbi 16 .
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ngoc Hieu Dinh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal ana-
lysis, Writing - original draft. Jong-Chan Kim: Supervision, Writing -
review & editing. Seung-Jae Lee: Investigation, Formal analysis.
Kyoung-Kyu Choi: Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review &
editing, Funding acquisition. Hong-Gun Park: Methodology,
Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
a grant (19AUDP-C146352-02) from the Infrastructure and
Transportation Technology Promotion Research Program, funded by
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean
Government.
(A1)
11
N. Hieu Dinh, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110715

Prior to shear failure, numerous flexural cracks occur in the tension zone, which propagate to the web of beam under further loading. Ultimately,
inclined macrocracking induced by large shear force occurs in the concrete of the compression zone; and thereby, shear failure occurs in a brittle
manner. Before yielding, the concrete shear strength, Vc can be evaluated, neglecting the contributions of the concrete in tension zone, as:

Vc = ft [ft + ¯ ] b w c (A2)
where ft [=0.2 fck , in MPa] is the concrete tensile strength [12]; fck is the concrete compressive strength; ¯ is average compressive normal stress
acting on the compression zone, bw is the width of beam; and c is the depth of compression zone.
According to the existing experimental and theoretical study of Bažant and Kim [24], the reinforced concrete beams subjected to shear have a size
effect, which as the beam depth increases results in the decrease of concrete shear strength. Thus, the shear strength of the concrete beams is
redefined as:

Vc = ks ft [ft + ¯ ] bw c (A3)
where ks [=(300/ d )0.251.1] [12] is the size effect factor.
After yielding, the concrete experiences compressive softening at the extreme compression fiber ( c > o ). According to Choi et al. [10], at this
stage, the shear capacity of the cross-section is provided by the intact part that did not experience the compressive softening (refer Fig. 3). Thus, the
shear capacity of the cross-section is defined as follows:

ks ft [ft + ¯ ] b w c
Vc =
c/ o (A4)
The shear contribution by transverse reinforcement, Vs , could be evaluated as:
Vs = Av fvy d/ s (A5)
where Av , fvy , and s are the area, spacing and yield strength of transverse reinforcement, respectively; and d is the effective beam depth.

References
[1] ATC-72-1. Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall
buildings. PEER; 2010.
[2] ASCE 41-17. Seismic Evaluation And Retrofit Of Existing Buildings. ASCE; 2017.
[3] FEMA 440. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA;
2005.
[4] TBI. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Ver 2.03.
PEER 2017/06; 2017.
[5] fib Bulletin 25. Displacement-based seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings.
State-of-art report. The International Federation for Structural Concrete; 2003.
[6] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
structures. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1992.
[7] American Concrete Institute (ACI). ACI 369R-11. Guide for seismic rehabilitation of
existing concrete frame buildings and commentary; 2011.
[8] Lee JY, Watanabe F. Shear deterioration of reinforced concrete beams subjected to
reversed cyclic loading. ACI Struct J 2003;100(4):480–9.
[9] Park HG, Choi K-K, Wight JK. Strain-based shear strength model for slender beams
without web reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2006;103(6):783.
[10] Choi K-K, Park HG. Evaluation of inelastic deformation capacity of beams subjected
to cyclic loading. ACI Struct J 2010;107(5).
[11] Choi K-K, Kim JC, Park HG. Shear strength model of concrete beams based on
compression zone failure mechanism. ACI Struct J 2016;113(5):1095.
[12] Korea Concrete Institute (KCI 2017). Korea Structural Concrete Design Code.
[13] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318−14) and Commentary (ACI 318R−14), USA; 2014, p. 623.
[14] Japan Concrete Institute. JCI colloquium on ductility of concrete structures and its
evaluation; 1988. P. 466.
[15] Matamoros AB, Sozen MA. Drift limits of high-strength concrete columns subjected
to load reversals. J Struct Eng 2003;129(3):297–313.
[16] Moyer MJ, Kowalsky MJ. Influence of tension strain on buckling of reinforcement in
concrete columns. ACI Struct J 2003;100(1):75–85.
[17] Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib): Model Code for Concrete Structures; 2010.
[18] Wood SL. Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements in walls. ACI Struct J
1989;86(5):582–91.
[19] Chen W. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1982. p. 204–5.
[20] CEB-FIP: Design of concrete structures. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. London: Thomas
Telford; 1993.
[21] Xiao Y, Esmaeily-Ghasemabadi A, Wu H. High-strength concrete short beams sub-
jected to cyclic shear. ACI Struct J 1999;96(3):392–9.
[22] PEER. Structural Performance Database. http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/.
[23] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK). Guidelines for performance-based seismic
design of residential buildings (AIK-G-002-2019). Seoul, Korea; 2019.
[24] Bazant ZP, Kim JK. Size effect in shear failure of longitudinally reinforced beams.
ACI J Proc 1984;81(5):456–68.

12