ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 100-S77
Simulation of Highly Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Cement-
Based Composite Components Under Cyclic Loading
by Tong-Seok Han, Peter H. Feenstra, and Sarah L. Billington
Ductile fiber-reinforced cement-based composites (DFRCCs) are
being investigated for new design as well as retrofitting of
structures in seismic regions. DFRCC is highly ductile and is
characterized by strain-hardening in tension to strains over 3%
and by unique cyclic loading behavior. To accurately predict the
structural performance of DFRCC components under cyclic and
seismic loading, a robust constitutive model is needed for structural-
scale simulations. In this paper, a constitutive model based on total
strain is proposed and applied to simulate structural component tests.
The model in particular captures DFRCC’s unique reversed cyclic
loading behavior. The simulation results show that the implemented
model is robust and reasonably accurate in simulating DFRCC
structural components reinforced with steel and fiber-reinforced
polymer bars.
Keywords: composites; ductility; fiber-reinforced concrete; finite element.
INTRODUCTION
Ductile fiber-reinforced cement-based composites (DFRCC)
are types of high-performance material that exhibit multiple, fine
cracks upon loading in tension as a result of steady-state cracking
(Marshall, Cox, and Evans 1985; Marshall and Cox 1988; Li and
Leung 1992). DFRCC materials are composed of portland
cement, water, silica fume or fly ash, fine sand, and roughly 2%
by volume of high-modulus, high-aspect-ratio polymeric fibers.
DFRCC displays a much higher tensile ductility, tensile (strain)
hardening behavior, and energy dissipation than traditional
concrete and many fiber-reinforced concrete materials
(summary in Li [1998]). Other fiber-reinforced composite
materials exhibiting a similar strain hardening phenomenon
include those studied by Majumdar (1970), Aveston, Cooper,
and Kelly (1971), Kelly (1972), Hannant (1978), Rossi (1997),
and slurry-infiltrated fiber-reinforced concrete (SIFCON) (refer
to, for example, Balaguru and Shah [1992]).
Because the ductility of DFRCC materials is significantly
larger than that of conventional concrete, applications of
DFRCC materials to structures under severe loading conditions
are being investigated. Most of the research to date on
DFRCC has focused on experimental investigations of the
material and structural components. A simulation framework
that can verify, validate, or predict the performance of the
structural members using DFRCC material has been explored by
very few researchers for cyclic analysis of structural members.
The primary objective of the research presented herein is
to develop a constitutive model that can be used to simulate
structural components with DFRCC under cyclic and seismic
loading. In particular, the constitutive model must be efficient
and robust for large-scale simulations. This paper focuses on
models for cyclic loading.
Different modeling approaches of concrete cracking are
well summarized in de Borst (1997). Approaches based on
the thermodynamic potential and damage-mechanics-based
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003
TECHNICAL PAPER
theories include the work of Simo and Ju (1987a,b), Meschke,
Lackner, and Mang (1998), and Lee and Fenves (1998). A
model capable of describing non-orthogonal cracks in a
continuum formulation is the multiple fixed cracking model
(de Borst and Nauta 1985; Rots 1988). More robust is the
orthogonal crack model that describes two orthogonal cracks
in a continuum formulation. This model can be formulated as
a so-called fixed crack model in which the cracks are fixed
on exceeding the tensile strength, or as a so-called rotating
crack model originally proposed by Cope et al. (1980).
Coaxial crack models for finite element analyses have
been successfully applied to reinforced concrete beams,
beam-column joints (Foster, Budiono, and Gilbert 1996;
Kwan and Billington 2001), and shear panels and walls (for
example, Stevens et al. [1991], Foster, Budiono, and Gilbert
[1996]; Ayoub and Filippou [1998]; Feenstra et al. [1998],
and Vecchio [1999]). Therefore, a constitutive model based on
co-axial (rotating) total strain is implemented in this research.
A total strain-based rotating crack model based on the
model described in Feenstra et al. (1998) is implemented for
two-dimensional plane stress elements. The monotonic failure
envelope of the DFRCC constitutive model behavior for the
current formulation is similar to the DFRCC model proposed
by Kabele et al. (1999). The model presented herein, however,
differs from the latter in that the proposed model uses the
co-axial concept, and the unloading and reloading behavior
adopted is based on reversed cyclic load experiments on
DFRCC. A strain-based criterion for failure initiation is
used in the implementation. The Poisson effect is included
in the model through an equivalent strain concept.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Ductile fiber-reinforced cement-based composites are
being investigated for the design and retrofit of structures under
severe loading conditions. The material has significantly greater
ductility than plain concrete. To date, the material has been
investigated primarily through experiments, and only limited
research on computational tools to predict structural behavior or
to verify experiments has been conducted. Therefore, an
efficient constitutive model based on uniaxial cyclic material
tests is developed in this study. The developed constitutive
model is applied to the simulation of cyclic experiments of
cantilever beams, and the model is shown to simulate the
experiments with reasonable accuracy.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 6, November-December 2003.
MS No. 02-297 received August 19, 2002, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the September-
October 2004 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2004.
749

Tong-Seok Han is a postdoctoral research associate of Sibley School of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. His research interests
include constitutive modeling of engineering materials from micromechanical to
structural scales.
Peter H. Feenstra is an engineering research associate at the Cardiovascular
Biomechanics Research Laboratory at Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. He is a former
senior research associate at the Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, where his
research focused on applications of the finite element method to civil engineering
structures, with an emphasis on the modeling of nonlinear material behavior.
ACI member Sarah L. Billington is Clare Boothe Luce Assistant Professor in the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University. She is a
member of ACI Committee 341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges, and Joint
ACI-ASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Concrete, and 447, Finite Element Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Her research interests include the investigation of
high-performance materials for structural design and retrofit applications as well as
model development for estimating life-cycle costs of structures that use new materials
or systems.
Fig. 1—Coordinate transformation.
COMPUTATIONAL METHODOLOGY
Coaxial stress-strain concept
The constitutive model for the DFRCC material is imple-
mented in two dimensions using a coaxial rotating crack
model with two orthogonal cracks described in Feenstra et al.
(1998). The reduction of stiffness due to cracking/crushing is
assumed to be only dependent on the loading direction,
and the tensile and compressive damage is not coupled in
the current formulation.
Assuming an incremental-iterative nonlinear finite element
analysis with a displacement-based formulation, the strain
vector εxy in global coordinates x and y is updated by the
strain increment at the beginning of an iteration as
ε xy = ε xy + ∆ε xy (1)
The total strain-based crack model evaluates the local
stresses as functions of the local strain that are the current
principal strains in the case of the rotating crack model. The
local strain vector in the crack coordinate system is calculated as
ε ns = T ( φ )ε xy (2)
where T(φ) is the strain transformation matrix as a function
of the angle φ between the global x direction and the current
principal strain direction (Fig. 1). The angle φ is fully determined
by the current strain components,
1 γ xy
φ = --- arctan ------------------- (3)
2 ε xx – ε yy
The local stresses are evaluated as a function of the local
strain vector using a stress function F,
σ ns = F ( ε ns ) (4)
750
Finally, the stress vector in the local, crack coordinate system
is transformed to the global direction using the transformation
matrix T(φ) again, or
T
σ xy = T ( φ )σ ns (5)
Note that the function F(εns) describes the tensile and
compressive regime of the stress-strain space. Loading-
unloading is modeled using internal state variables αns, with
which Eq. (4) becomes
σ ns = F ( ε ns, α ns ) (6)
The common approach in total strain-based crack models
of setting Poisson’s ratio equal to zero after crack initiation
does not work well in the compressive regime where confine-
ment is critical for a proper description of the material behavior.
A reasonable, simple approach to account for the Poisson
effect, based on an equivalent strain concept, is implemented
in this study. Assume that the equivalent strain ε̃ ns is given by
ε̃ ns = P ε ns (7)
with a projection matrix P given by
1 ν
-------------- -------------- 0
2 2
1–ν 1–ν
P = ν 1 (8)
-------------- -------------- 0
2 2
1–ν 1–ν
0 0 1
One now assumes that the local stress components are
uncoupled; that is,
σ nn = F ( ε̃ nn, α nn )
σ ss = F ( ε̃ ss, α ss ) (9)
σ ns = 0 (by definition)
Note that the stress function F is now a function of the
scalars ε̃ nn and αnn, instead of a function of the vectors εns
and αns. This has the implication that the stresses can be
evaluated as uncoupled, equivalent uniaxial stress-strain
curves. The current implementation assumes a constant
Poisson’s ratio ν. A similar idea with a variable Poisson’s
ratio can be found in Selby and Vecchio (1993).
In an incremental-iterative approach, the unbalance force
is reduced iteratively using a Newton-Raphson method. It is
important for numerical efficiency to use a consistent
tangent stiffness matrix. For further details, refer to Han,
Feenstra, and Billington (2002).
Modeling material behavior
The stress is evaluated using the concept presented in
Eq. (9). The stress state is determined by the stress function
F as a function of the current equivalent strain and the history
parameter in the associated principal direction. For clear
notation, the equivalent strain ε̃ is replaced by ε in the stress
evaluation process described as follows.
The stress function is based on the general response of
uniaxial reversed cyclic load experimental data (Kesner and
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003
Billington 2001; Fig. 2). The experimental results are idealized
so that the model is more suitable for numerical calculations.
The failure envelopes in tension and compression used in
this study are similar to the envelopes of the reversed cyclic
load experiments (Fig. 3).
The failure envelopes of the DFRCC shown in Fig. 3
can be expressed as Eq. (10) and (11). The tensile failure
envelope shown in Fig. 3(a) (a multilinear curve) can be
written as
Fig. 2—DFRCC cyclic behavior (experiment).
 Eε 0 ≤ ε < ε t0

  ε – ε t0 
 σ t0 + ( σ tp – σ t0 )  ------------------
ε tp – ε t0
ε t0 ≤ ε < ε tp
F tensile =  (10)
 ε – ε tp 
 σ tp  1 – ------------------ ε tp ≤ ε < ε tu
  ε tu – ε tp

0 ε tu ≤ ε

where E is Young’s modulus. The first cracking occurs when

ε is larger than the cracking strain εt0, followed by the strain-
hardening region up to the peak tensile strain εtp. The material
softens after εtp, and the stress becomes zero at an ultimate Fig. 3—Schematic of DFRCC failure envelope.
tensile strain εtu.
The compressive failure envelope shown in Fig. 3(b) can
be expressed as

 Eε ε cp ≤ ε < 0

ε – ε cp 
F compressive =  σ cp  1 – -------------------
- ε ≤ ε < ε cp (11)
 ε cu – ε cp cu

0 ε ≤ ε cu

The compressive failure envelope is assumed to be linear up

to a peak stress/strain (σcp /εcp) followed by linear softening until
the strain reaches the ultimate compressive strain εcu.
The unloading and reloading schemes shown in Fig. 4 are
based on observations from the reversed cyclic uniaxial test
results (Fig. 2) (Kesner and Billington 2001). To accurately
model the material behavior, a partial unloading and reloading
scheme is implemented, which is essential for seismic analysis.
The unloading and reloading schemes for the strain-hardening
range in tension and the softening range in compression are
assumed to be governed by power laws, while the unloading in
the tensile softening range is assumed to be linear.
The tensile unloading and reloading scheme (ε ≥ 0 and ε <
εtmax where εtmax is the experienced maximum tensile strain) Fig. 4—Schematic of DFRCC material behavior.
can be written as
where α t (≥ 1) is a constant parameter that needs to be
 Eε for 0 ≤ ε tmax < ε t0 determined by calibrating the unloading behavior of
 reversed cyclic experimental results. The value of ε*tmax in
  ε – ε tul  t  α
 max  0, σ tmax  ---------------------------
*
 Eq. (12) is determined as
  ε* tmax – ε tul  

 for ε to ≤ ε tmax < ε tp, ε· < 0
  ε tmax for initial unloading
  ε – ε tul   
 *
Ftensile =  max 0, σ tul + ( σ tmax – σ tul )  --------------------------- *
εtmax =
* *
-  (12) *
ε tmax ≤ ε tmax
 ε ε tul  
* *
  tmax – 

for ε to ≤ ε tmax < ε tp, ε· ≥ 0  ε tprl for unloading followed by partial reloading


  ε – ε tul 
 max  0, σ tmax  ------------------------ for ε tp ≤ ε tmax < ε tu where εtprl is the maximum tensile strain during partial
  ε tmax – ε tul 
 reloading and σtmax is the stress associated with ε*tmax ; the
0 for ε tu ≤ ε tmax value of ε*tul is determined by

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003 751

 → J → K → L → M → N → O as shown in Fig. 4(c). The
 ε tul for initial unloading
*
ε tul =  reloading process in compression is then O → N → K → P.
 ε tpul for unloading followed by partial reloading The loading, unloading, and reloading process in tension
and compression under cyclic loading can be fully described
using Eq. (10) to (13). The stress-strain path for two cycles
where εtul = bt × εtmax (bt: constant); εtpul is the minimum
of loading in tension and compression are expressed graphically
strain during partial unloading; and σ*tul is the stress associated
in Fig. 4(d) as
with the strain ε*tul . Note that εtmax, εtprl, εtpul are the internal
variables (αns) in tension, which need to be traced to determine • O → A → B → C → D → O : First loading cycle in
stresses during the unloading/reloading process. tension up to the strain-hardening region;
Using the previous equations, loading/unloading behavior and • O → J → K → L → M → O : First loading cycle in
partial unloading/reloading behavior in tension for the strain- compression to the softening region;
hardening range can be represented. For example, as in Fig. 4(a) • O → D → B → F → I → O : Second loading cycle in
• O→ A → B : Loading; tension up to the complete failure; and
• B → C : Partial unloading; • O → M → K → P → O : Second loading cycle in
• C → D : Partial reloading; compression up to the complete failure.
• D → E : Full unloading;
• E → O : Assumed behavior for further unloading to origin; Summary of model and parameters
• O → E → B : Full reloading; and The constitutive model proposed in this section is relatively
• B → F: Further loading. simple and is capable of describing the complex cyclic
Beyond the tensile peak strain εtp, linear unloading/reloading behavior of DFRCC with reasonable accuracy, as will be
is assumed as shown in Fig. 4(b). While unloading, the stress- shown in the following sections. For practical usage, the
strain state follows the path G→ H → O shown in Fig. 4(b). The number of parameters of the constitutive model should be:
reverse process is assumed for the reloading and further 1) limited, and 2) easy to determine with simple experiments.
loading (O → H → G → I). Ten model parameters are introduced in this study that can
Similarly, the compressive unloading/reloading scheme be easily determined with a uniaxial cyclic loading experiment.
(ε < 0 and ε > εcmin, where εcmin is the experienced minimum There are three properties to define the failure envelope of the
compressive strain) can be expressed as DFRCC in tension (σt0 /εt0, σtp/εtp, εtu), two properties in
compression (σcp / εcp, εcu), and Poisson’s ratio ν. Also, two
 Eε for ε cp ≤ ε cmin < 0 constants for unloading behavior in tension and compression
 (at, ac), and two constants for residual strain (bt, bc) should
   ε – ε cul - c 
a

min  0, σcmin  --------------------------

*
 be provided.
ε cmin – ε cul 
*
 
 The cyclic behavior of the developed DFRCC constitutive
 for ε cu ≤ ε cmin < ε cp, ε· > 0 model is shown in Fig. 5 and can be compared with the
Fcompressive = (13)
   ε – ε cul *

experimental uniaxial cyclic tension-compression response
min  0 , σcu
*
+ ( σ cmin – σcmin )  -------------------------------
*
-  shown in Fig. 2. The necessary material properties used for the
   ε cmin – ε cul  
* *
 simulation in Fig. 5 were taken from uniaxial experiments
 for ε cu ≤ ε cmin < ε cp, ε· ≤ 0 (Table 1; Kesner and Billington 2001). The constants at and

0 for ε <ε ac—the parameters in unloading Eq. (12) and (13)—are chosen
cmin cu
as 5 and 2, respectively. The constant parameters bt and b c
where ac (≥ 1) is a constant parameter, which is determined by in determining the permanent strains εtul and εcul are selected as
calibration of the unloading portion after the peak compressive 0.4 and 0.3, respectively. These parameters were selected
strength as observed in reversed cyclic experiments. The value through calibration with the reversed cyclic loading response as
of ε*cmin is determined as observed in the experiments.
The simulation model captures the significant features
observed in the tensile region of the tests. The reversed cyclic
 ε cmin for initial unloading experimental result, however, shows that softening occurs as
*  the material reaches peak strains. The model parameters
ε cmin =  *
ε cmin ≥ ε cmin
 were chosen based on a monotonic tensile experiment that
 ε cprl for unloading followed by partial reloading showed hardening as peak strains were reached. This suggests
that to use monotonic results for the model input parameters,
the damage coupling in tension and compression in the
where εcprl is the minimum strain during partial reloading in constitutive model might be needed. There are also differences
compression and σ*cmin is the stress that corresponds to between the model and experimental results in the region where
ε*cmin ; the value of ε*cul in Eq. (13) is determined as the response changes from tension to compression. Finally, in
compression, the simplified unloading is expected to dissipate
*  ε cul for initial unloading more energy than in the actual material. To assess the effect of
ε cul =  these similarities and differences, two structural component
 εcpul for unloading followed by partial reloading tests were simulated.

where εcul = bc × εcmin (bc: constant) and εcpul is the SIMULATION OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
minimum strain during partial unloading in compression. The proposed constitutive model is applied to simulate the
For example, the loading/unloading scheme in compression cyclic response of two different cantilever beam experiments.
with a partial reloading in between can be represented as O The parameters for the simulations are varied and responses

752 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003

Table 1—DFRCC material properties*
Kesner and Billington
(2001) Fischer and Li (2003)
Properties tension/compression tension/compression
Young’s modulus E 13.3 GPa 16.0 GPa
Cracking strain εt0 /– 0.00015/– 0.00025/–
Cracking stress σt0 /– 2 MPa/– 4 MPa/–
Peak strain εtp /εcp 0.03/–0.00525 0.037/–0.005
Peak stress σtp /σcp 2.5 MPa/–70 MPa 6 MPa/–80 MPa
Ultimate strain εtu /εcu 0.06/–0.03 0.06/–0.012 Fig. 5—DFRCC cyclic behavior (simulation).
Poisson’s ratio ν 0.15 0.15
*From monotonic tension and monotonic compression tests.

are compared. The experiments are simulated using a two-

dimensional finite element model.

Experiments
Two cantilever beam experiments reported in Fischer and
Li (2003) are simulated herein using the described constitutive
model for DFRCC. Both experiments are beams fabricated with
DFRCC with different types of reinforcement having the same
layout. The first specimen (Specimen 1) had DFRCC with steel
reinforcement, and the second specimen (Specimen 2) had
DFRCC with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement—
in this case, Aramid. Both specimens had cross sections of 100 x
100 mm and were 500 mm in height. The beams were subjected
to fully reversed, quasistatic cyclic loading (Fig. 6(a)).
Specimen 1 had four No. 3 bars (diameter 9.5 mm) for longi-
tudinal reinforcement and 3 mm-diameter steel wire stirrups for
transverse reinforcement. The transverse reinforcement was
spaced at 25 mm from the bottom of the beam to a height
of 150 mm, at 75 mm from a height of 150 to 450 mm, and at
25 mm from a height of 450 mm to the top of the beam. The yield
strength of the steel was 411 MPa at 0.24% strain. Specimen 2
was reinforced with four FRP bars of 5 mm diameter, and each
FRP bar had a failure strength of 1800 MPa at 3.4% strain. The
transverse reinforcement was steel and had the same layout as in
Specimen 1. The DFRCC material properties obtained from
monotonic tension and compression tests for the cantilever beam
specimens are shown in Table 1 (Fischer and Li 2003). The
mixture proportion for these experiments was different than that
used in the material tests for the constitutive model development.
Both mixtures were designed to give similar ductile (including
strain hardening) response. Fig. 6—Experimental and simulation models.

model bond-slip. The bond-slip model for the interface

Finite element models
Two finite element models—Models 1 and 2 for both
specimens—are used to simulate the experiments. Model 2
incorporates bond-slip modeling between the DFRCC and
the longitudinal reinforcement whereas Model 1 does not.
The bond-slip model is analyzed to investigate the effect of
bond-slip on hysteretic pinching behavior during cyclic
loading. The basic finite element model is shown in Fig. 6(b).
Eight-noded plane stress elements with a 3 x 3 Gauss numerical
integration scheme are used for the DFRCC.
Model 1, which assumed perfect bond between the
DFRCC and the reinforcement, uses embedded reinforcement
elements. The constitutive model for the steel includes the
Bauschinger effect using a model developed by Kwan and
Billington (2001). In Model 2, the longitudinal reinforcement is
modeled as truss elements, with interface elements between the
truss elements and the edges of the plane stress elements to
elements is adapted from Ayoub and Filippou (1999) and has a
simplified linear relationship to the slip strength σc with
a constant stress after the critical slip displacement ∆c (Fig. 7).
Experimental results of the bond-slip relationship between the
DFRCC material and the steel/aramid reinforcement were not
available at the time of this modeling. Therefore, representative
values for σc and ∆c are selected as 10 MPa and 0.1 mm,
respectively. Secant unloading and reloading is assumed
for cyclic bond-slip behavior. The FRP reinforcement is
modeled as a linear-elastic material.
DFRCC constitutive model parameter selection
and variation
Three variations in the simulations are examined: 1)
accounting for bond-slip or not; 2) variations in assumed
initial stiffness; and 3) variations in unloading/reloading

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003 753

Table 2—Analysis cases*
Case Modulus reduction, %† Bond-slip
1 80 Perfect bond
2 60 Perfect bond
3 80 Bond-slip
4 60 Bond-slip
5 80 Bond-slip
*
Same for Specimens 1 and 2.
†Reduction factor for Young’s modulus obtained from material tests.
‡Implemented unloading/reloading model for the current research.
Fig. 7—Bond-slip behavior.
in the constitutive model for the DFRCC. A total of five
different simulation cases are performed as outlined in
Table 2 and are further described as follows.
The DFRCC constitutive model uses the material properties
from Fischer and Li (2003) (Table 1). The parameters at, ac, bt ,
and bc are equal to those used for the simulation of Fig. 5
(calibrated to the reversed cyclic load tests by Kesner and
Billington [2001]). A reduction parameter for the DFRCC
initial modulus is introduced to consider shrinkage cracking in
the structural-scale components. The magnitude of the
reduction factor for the initial modulus for the DFRCC is
assumed to be in roughly the same range (that is, between 50
and 90%) as that for concrete structures when simulated under
cyclic and seismic load (D’Ambrisi and Filippou 1997; El-Attar,
White, and Gergely 1991; Bracci, Reinhorn, and Mander 1992;
Shahrooz and Moehie 1987; Aycardi, Mander, and Reinhorn
1992). Two different magnitudes of the reduction factor
(80% [Cases 1 and 3] and 60% [Cases 2 and 4]) are used for
the simulations to investigate sensitivity. When the initial
DFRCC modulus is reduced, the cracking stress and strain in
tension is determined from the intersection of the original
strain-hardening failure envelope and the reduced modulus
(Fig. 8). The compressive peak stress and strain after the
modulus reduction is also determined from the interaction of
the compressive softening envelope and the reduced modulus.
Finally, a comparison is made between two different
unloading schemes for the model, which includes bond-
slip behavior. A simulation was conducted with a secant
unloading/reloading scheme (Case 5) to compare those results
with the proposed DFRCC constitutive model, which has
unloading/reloading behavior more representative of the true
material response (Case 3).
Simulation of Specimen 1—DFRCC with
steel reinforcement
Load-versus-displacement results of the five analysis cases
as well as the experimental results for Specimen 1 are shown in
Fig. 9. Ratios of initial stiffness, yield strength, and peak
754
Un(re)loading
Realistic‡
Realistic
Realistic
Realistic
Secant
Fig. 8—Cracking stress/strain after modulus reduction
(σ *t 0 / ε*t 0 ) (Note: µ = modulus reduction factor.)
strength between the experimental and simulation results are
shown in Table 3. Herein, yield strength refers to the
component’s behavior (where there was a significant
change in stiffness of the component). From all five simulation
cases, the initial beam stiffnesses at 0.6% drift are approximately
two times larger than the initial beam stiffness from the
experiment. Beam yield strengths from all simulation cases
are, at most, 10% larger than the experimental value. Peak
strengths at 5% drift are approximately 6 to 8% larger than the
experimental results. The yield and peak strength of Specimen 1
is dominated not by DFRCC properties, but rather by the steel
yield strength, which can be easily captured in the simulations
with reasonable accuracy.
For the perfect bond models (Cases 1 and 2), a 20% reduction
in DFRCC stiffness results in a less than a 3% reduction in
overall beam stiffness (Table 3, Fig. 9(b)). However, the
stiffness decrease in the bond-slip models (Cases 3 and 4)
is 15% when the DFRCC modulus is reduced by 20%
(Table 3, Fig. 9(c)). This result indicates that the bond-slip
model is more sensitive to the initial DFRCC modulus than
a model without bond-slip. This sensitivity is attributed to the
flexibility of the model due to bond-slip. The bond-slip model
can be thought of as adding springs in series between the con-
crete and the reinforcement. The peak strengths at 5% drift are
not affected by the initial DFRCC modulus.
Figure 9(d) and (e) show the effect of accounting for bond-
slip. In Fig. 9(d), where 80% of the DFRCC modulus is used in
the models, the initial stiffness of Case 3 is reduced by only 2%,
and the yield strength is increased by approximately 3% relative
to Case 1. There are more significant differences, however,
between the two cases in the unloading/reloading portions.
As expected, Case 3 with bond-slip shows more flexible results
(that is, more pinching behavior as seen in the experiment) than
Case 1.
For the models using 60% of the DFRCC modulus (Cases 2
and 4, Fig. 9(e)), the initial beam stiffness is reduced by 16%
when bond-slip is included (Case 4) while the yield strength
is reduced by roughly 5%. As in the 80% DFRCC modulus
reduction cases, Case 4 shows more flexible results (more
pinching) than Case 2 in the unloading/reloading portions.
The peak strength at 5% drift is not affected by the bond-slip
modeling. Modeling of bond-slip has more importance in
capturing the global experimental response than does the
assumed initial stiffness value, particularly in terms of
capturing the hysteretic energy dissipation. In all cases,
however, the hysteretic energy dissipation of the simulations is
larger than that of the experiments.
In Fig. 9(f), the effect of the implemented unloading/
reloading scheme is compared with a simple secant unloading/
reloading scheme. In this case where the structural behavior
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003
Table 3—Stiffness and strength ratios*
Yield strength Peak strength
Specimen no. Case Stiffness ratio ratio ratio
1 2.20 1.07 1.07
2 2.15 1.09 1.07
1 3 2.15 1.10 1.07
4 1.81 1.04 1.06
5 1.94 1.10 1.08
1 1.30 1.75 1.26
2 1.03 1.39 1.22
2 3 1.29 1.73 1.16
4 1.03 1.38 1.13
5 1.29 1.73 1.17
*
Ratio: simulation/experiment.
Fig. 10—Damage pattern comparison at 5% drift (Specimen 1).

Fig. 9—Results comparisons (load versus drift, Specimen 1).

is dominated by the steel behavior, the effect of the DFRCC
unloading/reloading model is not significant. Although as
expected, the secant scheme results in less permanent damage
at zero stress.
The cracking pattern at 5% drift from the experiment is
compared with principal strains at 5% drift from the simulation
(Case 1) in Fig. 10. In Figure 10(b), the principal strain contour
between the cracking strain εt0 and the peak strain εtp is plotted.
Figure 10(b) shows that strain is concentrated at the base of the
beam, but most areas of the beam did exceed the cracking strain
εt0. The simulation predicts that cracking is well distributed
throughout the beam as was the case in the experiment.
Simulation of Specimen 2—DFRCC with
FRP reinforcement
The same modeling approach used for Specimen 1 is also
used for Specimen 2. However, linear elastic material properties
for the FRP reinforcement are assigned to the longitudinal
reinforcement instead of steel properties. The use of elastic
Fig. 11—Results comparisons (load versus drift, Specimen 2).
material properties with no failure cut-off for the FRP is
reasonable because the strength of the FRP is not reached
during the experiments or simulations. Five simulation
cases with the same input parameter variations as in
Specimen 1 (Table 2) are presented in Fig. 11.
Initial stiffness from the simulations are determined at
0.2% drift. The stiffness of the simulation models with an
80% DFRCC modulus (Cases 1, 3, and 5) are approximately
30% higher than the experimental results (Table 3). The
stiffness of the simulation models with a 60% DFRCC modulus
(Cases 2 and 4) are similar to the experimental values. As
shown in Table 3, the peak strengths at 5% drift for Specimen 2
are 13 to 26% higher than those from the experiment. The
higher peak strength from the simulations may be a result of
not coupling the tensile and compressive damage in the
DFRCC model. Coupling this damage would allow for further
strength degradation of the material subjected to cyclic behavior.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003 755


Fig. 12—Damage pattern comparison at 5% drift (Specimen 2).
In Fig. 11(b) and (c), the structural response from the
simulation becomes slightly more flexible as the DFRCC
modulus is reduced by 20%. Likewise, the response from
the simulation becomes more flexible when bond-slip is
included (Fig. 11(d) and (e)). Bond-slip in this case, however,
does not cause more pinching. Herein, the pinching is dominated
by the linear elastic response of the FRP reinforcement.
In all cases, the hysteretic energy dissipation is somewhat
underpredicted by the simulations.
In Fig. 11(f), the effect of the modified unloading/reloading
scheme compared with the secant unloading/reloading
scheme can be clearly noticed. Because the FRP reinforcement
does not yield, all of the nonlinearity in the beam response is due
to the DFRCC constitutive model. This is consistent with
the simulation results shown in Fig. 11(f). The energy
dissipation from the secant unloading/reloading model is
only half of that from the modified unloading/reloading
model. Also, in the secant unloading/reloading model, the
unloading/reloading paths are identical, which is very
different from the experimental results.
The proposed modified unloading/reloading scheme is
essential in representing the realistic behavior of DFRCC
structural members when the FRP reinforcement is used. In
general, a model with more realistic unloading/reloading for the
DFRCC is necessary where the reinforcement remains linear-
elastic, such as with FRP or unbonded post-tensioned steel, or
both. It has been shown, for example, that the proposed model
can be applied to accurately simulate more-complicated
structural components with DFRCC such as unbonded
post-tensioned segmental concrete bridge columns with
DFRCC (Yoon and Billington 2002).
The cracking pattern from the experiment and the principal
strain contour at 5% drift from the simulation (Case 1) are
shown in Fig. 12. The principal strain contour (Figure 12(b))
predicts the distributed cracking throughout the specimen.
Because the FRP reinforcement does not yield in Specimen 2,
the localized cracking area of Specimen 2 (Fig. 12(b)) is less
than that of Specimen 1 (Fig. 10(b)). This difference in localized
cracking is also seen in the experiments (Fig. 10(a) and 12(a)).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A corotational total strain-based constitutive model for
ductile fiber-reinforced cementitious composites is developed.
The accuracy of the model is verified by simulating structural
756
component experiments under cyclic load. Based on the
simulations, it is concluded that the model can be used for
the simulation of DFRCC cantilever beams with reasonable
accuracy. Further calibration of the simulation model
will improve its accuracy. In particular, an unloading and
reloading scheme that does not have to pass through the
origin, and the use of a more accurate compressive envelope
curve will improve accuracy.
The modeling of bond-slip becomes most noticeable in the
steel-reinforced beam after the stiffness degradation of the
beam. Bond-slip modeling facilitates capturing more pinching
behavior than a perfect bond model. The current bond-slip
model, however, is not able to predict the pinching behavior
observed in the experiment. To capture the pinching effect, a
more accurate bond-slip model is necessary.
Accurate characterization of the hysteretic energy dissipation
from DFRCC is necessary to predict the cyclic and seismic
behavior of structural components. The developed model
becomes most important for simulations where the DFRCC
response heavily influences the structural response, for
example, when DFRCC structural components are combined
with reinforcement that will behave predominantly in a linear-
elastic manner. The model presented herein has been used to
make accurate predictions of unbonded post-tensioned concrete
columns with DFRCC (Yoon and Billington 2002) as well as
DFRCC infill panels for seismic retrofitting of steel frames
(Kesner 2003). To improve the accuracy of the model further,
coupling of the tensile and compressive damage in each
loading direction is suggested for further work. Such a model
should be calibrated to more in-depth multiaxial DFRCC
material tests to validate the accuracy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The constitutive model is implemented using a user-supplied material sub-
routine of DIANA Release 7.2. This research was partially funded by the National
Science Foundation under Grant CMS9984 127 and by the Multi-Disciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), Buffalo, N.Y. MCEER
is an Earthquake Engineering Research Center under the Engineering Research
Centers Program of the National Science Foundation. Victor Li of the University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Gregor Fischer of the University of Hawaii are
gratefully acknowledged for sharing experimental data and useful discussions.
NOTATION
ac = power for compressive unloading curve
at = power for tensile unloading curve
bc = factor for compressive unloading curve
bt = factor for tensile unloading curve
E = Young’s modulus
F = uniaxial stress-equivalent strain function
P = equivalent strain projection matrix
T = strain transformation matrix
αns = internal variable vector
∆c = critical slip displacement
∆εxy = incremental strain vector in global coordinate system
εcmin = minimum experienced compressive strain
ε*cmin = minimum compressive strain for partial reloading
εcp = peak compressive strain
εcprl = maximum compressive strain during partial reloading
εcpul = maximum compressive strain during partial unloading
εcu = ultimate compressive strain
εcul = maximum compressive strain during unloading
ε*cul = maximum compressive strain for partial reloading
εns = strain vector in local, crack coordinate system
ε̃ ns = equivalent strain vector in local, crack coordinate system
εt0 = cracking strain
εtmax = maximum experienced tensile strain
ε*tmax = maximum tensile strain for partial reloading
εtp = peak tensile strain
εtprl = maximum tensile strain during partial reloading
εtpul = minimum tensile strain during partial unloading
εtu = ultimate tensile strain
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003
εtul = minimum tensile strain during unloading
ε*tul = minimum tensile strain for partial reloading
εxy = strain vector in global coordinate system
φ = angle between global x-axis and crack n-axis
ν = Poisson’s ratio
σc = slip strength
σcmin = minimum experienced compressive stress
σ*cmin = minimum compressive stress for partial reloading
σcp = peak compressive stress (associated with εcp)
σ*cul = stress associated with ε*cul
σns = stress vector in local, crack coordinate system
σt0 = cracking stress (associated with εt0)
σtmax = maximum experienced tensile stress
σ*tmax = maximum tensile stress for partial reloading
σtp = peak tensile stress (associated with εtp)
σ*tul = stress associated with ε*tul
σxy = stress vector in global coordinate system
REFERENCES
Aveston, J.; Cooper, G. A.; and Kelly, A., 1971, “Single and Multiple
Fracture,” The Properties of Fibrous Composites, National Physics Laboratory,
Guildford, IPC Science and Technology Press, pp. 15-26.
Aycardi, L.; Mander, J.; and Reinhom, A., 1992, “Seismic Resistance of
Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads:
Part II—Experimental Performance of Subassemblages,” Technical Report
NCEER-92-0028, NCEER, Buffalo, N.Y.
Ayoub, A., and Filippou, F. C., 1998, “Nonlinear Finite-Element Analysis
of RC Shear Panels and Walls,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 124, No. 3, pp. 298-308.
Ayoub, A., and Filippou, F. C., 1999, “Mixed Formulation of Bond-Slip
Problems under Cyclic Loads,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 125, No. 6, pp. 661-671.
Balaguru, P. N., and Shah, S. P., 1992, Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites,
McGraw-Hill, N. Y., New York, 530 pp.
Bracci, J.; Reinhorn, A.; and Mander, J., 1992, “Seismic Resistance of
Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads:
Part III—Experimental Performance and Analytical Study of a Structural
Model,” Technical Report NCEER-92-0029, NCEER, Buffalo, N.Y.
Cope, R. J.; Rao, P. V.; Clark, L. A.; and Noris, P., 1980, “Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Behaviour for Finite Element Analysis of Bridge
Slabs,” Numerical Methods for Non-Linear Problems, C. Taylor, E. Hinton,
and D. R. J. Owen, eds., Pineridge Press, Swansea, UK, pp. 457-470.
D’Ambrisi, A., and Filippou, F., 1997, “Correlation Studies on an RC
Frame Shaking-Table Specimen,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, V. 26, pp. 1021-1040.
de Borst, R., 1997, “Fracture in Quasi-Brittle Materials: A Review of
Continuum Damage-Based Approaches,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
V. 69, pp. 95-112.
de Borst, R., and Nauta, P., 1985, “Non-Orthogonal Cracks in a Smeared
Finite Element Model,” Engineering Computations, V. 2, pp. 35-46.
El-Attar, A.; White, R.; and Gergely, P., 1991, “Shake Table Test of a 1/8
Scale Three-Story Lightly Reinforced Concrete Building,” Technical
Report NCEER-91-0018, NCEER, Buffalo, N.Y.
Feenstra, P. H.; Rots, J. G.; Arnesen, A.; Teigen, J. G.; and Hoiseth, K. V.,
1998, “A 3D Constitutive Model for Concrete Based on Co-Rotational
Concept,” Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures, R. de Borst,
N. Bióanió, H. Mang, and G. Meschke, eds., Proceedings of the EURO-C
1998 Conference on Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures,
Austria, pp. 13-22.
Fischer, G., and Li, V. C., 2003, “Deformation Behavior of FRP Reinforced
ECC Flexural Members under Reversed Cyclic Loading Conditioned,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 25-35.
Foster, S. J.; Budiono, B.; and Gilbert, R. I., 1996, “Rotating Crack
Finite Element Model For Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Computers &
Structures, V. 58, No. 1, pp. 43-50.
Han, T.-S.; Feenstra, P. H.; and Billington, S. L., 2002, “Constitutive
Model for Highly Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Composites,”
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2003
Technical Report 02-04, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Hannant, D. J., 1978, Fibre Cements and Fibre Concretes, John Wiley &
Sons, Chicester, N.Y.
Kabele, P.; Takeuchi, S.; Inaba, K.; and Horii, H., 1999, “Performance of
Engineered Cementitious Composites in Repair and Retrofit: Analytical
Estimates,” High Performance Fiber Reinforced Composites (HPFRCC3),
H. Reinhardt and A. Naaman, eds., RILEM, pp. 617-627.
Kelly, A., 1972, “Reinforcement of Structural Materials by Long Strong
Fibers,” Metallurgical Transactions, V. 3, No. 9, pp. 2313-2325.
Kesner, K. E., 2003, “Development of Seismic Strengthening and
Retrofit Strategies for Critical Facilities Using Engineered Cementitious
Composite Materials,” PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 337 pp.
Kesner, K. E., and Billington, S. L., 2001, “Investigation of Ductile
Cement Based Composites for Seismic Strengthening and Retrofit,”
Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, R. de Borst, J. Mazars, G.
Pijaudier-Cabot, and J. van Mier, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures,
Cachan, France, May-June, pp. 65-72.
Kwan, W.-P., and Billington, S. L., 2001, “Simulation of Structural
Concrete under Cyclic Load,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 127, No. 12, pp. 1391-1401.
Lee, J., and Fenves, G. L., 1998, “A Plastic-Damage Concrete Model for
Earthquake Analysis of Dams,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, V. 27, pp. 937-956.
Li, V. C., 1998, “Engineered Cementitious Composites—Tailored
Composites through Micromechanical Modeling,” Fiber Reinforced
Concrete: Present and the Future, N. Banthia, A. Bentur, and A. Mufti,
eds., Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, pp. 64-97.
Li, V. C., and Leung, C., 1992, “Steady-State and Multiple Cracking of
Short Random Fiber Composites,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
V. 118, No. 11, pp. 2246-2264.
Majumdar, A. J., 1970, “Glass Fibre Reinforced Cement and Gypsum
Products,” Proceedings of Royal Society, London, V. 319, pp. 69-78.
Marshall, D. B., and Cox, B., 1988, “A J-Integral Method for Calculating
Steady-State Matrix Cracking Stresses in Composites,” Mechanics of
Materials, V. 7, pp. 127-133.
Marshall, D. B.; Cox, B.; and Evans, A., 1985, “The Mechanics of
Matrix Cracking in BrittleMatrix Composites,” Acta Metallographa, V. 33,
No. 11, pp. 2013-2021.
Meschke, G.; Lackner, R.; and Mang, H. A., 1998, “An Anisotropic
Elastoplastic-Damage Model for Plain Concrete,” International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, V. 42, pp. 703-727.
Rossi, P., 1997, “High Performance Multimodal Fiber Reinforced
Cement Composites (HPMFRCC): The LCPC Experience,” ACI Materials
Journal, V. 94, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 478-483.
Rots, J., 1988, “Computational Modeling of Concrete Fracture,” PhD
thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 132 pp.
Selby, R. G., and Vecchio, F. J., 1993, “Three-Dimensional Constitutive
Relations for Reinforced Concrete,” Technical Report 93-02, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Nov.
Shahrooz, B. M., and Moehle, J. P., 1987, “Experimental Study of Seismic
Response of R.C. Setback Buildings,” Technical Report UCBIEERC-87/16,
EERC, Berkeley, Calif.
Simo, J. C., and Ju, J. W., 1987a, “Strain- and Stress-Based Continuum
Damage Models—I. Formulation,” International Journal for Solids and
Structures, V. 23, No. 7, pp. 821-840.
Simo, J. C., and Ju, J. W., 1987b, “Strain- and Stress-Based Continuum
Damage Models—II. Computational Aspects,” International Journal for
Solids and Structures, V. 23, No. 7, pp. 841-869.
Stevens, N. J.; Uzumeri, S. M.; Collins, M. P.; and Will, G. T., 1991,
“Constitutive Model for Reinforced Concrete Finite Element Analysis,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 49-59.
Vecchio, F. J., 1999, “Towards Cyclic Load Modeling of Reinforced
Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. pp. 193-202.
Yoon, J. K., and Billington, S. L., 2002, “Experimental and Numerical
Studies of Precast Unbonded Post-Tensioned Bridge Columns with
Engineered Cementitious Composites,” Technical Report 02-03, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.
757