STRUCTURES 2006

Shear Displacement Model for Reinforced Concrete Columns

Authors:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Halil Sezen, The Ohio State University, Department of Civil & Environment Engineering
& Geodetic Science, 470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210. Tel:
(614) 292-1338, Fax: (614) 292-3780, sezen.1@osu.edu
Chaitanya Patwardhan, DLZ Corporation, Columbus, Ohio.
e-mail: cpatwardhan@dlzcorp.com

ABSTRACT
Column shear failures observed during recent earthquakes and experimental data indicate
that shear deformations are typically associated with insufficient transverse
reinforcement, low aspect ratio and a few other parameters. It was shown that in some
relatively tall columns, shear displacements can be as large as displacements due to
flexure and longitudinal bar slip at column ends. However, very few researchers
attempted to predict the lateral load-shear displacement relationship. In this paper, a
piecewise-linear model is proposed to predict the lateral load-shear displacement
relationship. Part of the new model is developed using the analysis results from Modified
Compression Field Theory (MCFT). The results from the proposed model, which uses
simplified equations, are evaluated and compared with the predictions from existing
models as well as column test data. The proposed model is fairly simple, and predicts the
lateral load-shear displacement relations relatively accurately at critical stages including
shear cracking, peak strength, onset of lateral strength degradation, and loss of axial load
carrying capacity.

INTRODUCTION
Modern structural engineering practices make sure to prevent potential shear failure in
columns. Current design codes have emphasis on avoiding column shear failure which
typically leads to partial collapse, if not total collapse of the structure. Reinforced
concrete buildings constructed prior to 1970s are prone to shear failure, especially in high
seismic regions in the US, because of insufficient detailing as per the code requirements
of that time. Also, in many countries around the world, column shear failure appears to be
the most common failure mode leading to structural collapse and loss of life during
earthquakes. Post earthquake reconnaissance (e.g., [20] and [10]) shows that columns
with poorly detailed and/or insufficient transverse reinforcement are likely to exhibit
large shear deformations, which need to be estimated with adequate accuracy in order to
predict the overall column behavior and to identify potential shear failure.

When subjected to lateral loads, a reinforced concrete column undergoes deformations,

which are caused mainly due to flexure, shear, and slip of the longitudinal bars at the
beam-column joint interfaces. Flexural displacements vary with the moment along the

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

length of column; while the bond-slip deformations are concentrated at the column ends
and are not typically included in flexural displacements. These two displacements can be
estimated fairly accurately using the available models [19]. Shear displacements were the
focus of this study with a main objective of modeling and predicting shear force-shear
displacement relationship (shear envelope) of a column. In order to develop a shear force-
displacement envelope, both shear displacements and strength must be predicted at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

certain critical stages. As shown in Figure 1, the critical points identified in the proposed
model include: first shear cracking (Point A), maximum shear strength (Point B), onset of
strength degradation (Point C), and loss of axial-load-carrying capacity (Point D). Note
that the first yielding in the longitudinal steel is not considered as a critical response stage
in this research. Also, note that Point A in Figure 1 does not correspond to the first
cracking in concrete, which is usually due to flexure. Point A indicates the initiation of
diagonal shear cracks, and is called shear cracking point.

Figure 1: The proposed lateral load-shear displacement model

When diagonal shear cracks develop as an extension of the flexural cracks, they are
known as flexure-shear cracks. However, in general, the crack type and distribution
largely depend on column properties. For example, for the most part, flexural cracks will
be dominant in slender columns with large aspect ratios, a/d (a = shear span, d = effective
section depth). On the other hand, in very short columns (aspect ratio < 2) flexural
cracking may not appear and shear cracks (or web-shear cracks) are the first to form.

Most of the research work related to shear modeling has used and focused on the
estimation of shear displacement at first flexural yielding (e.g., [8], [9], [13], and [18]).
To the authors’ knowledge, the research related to estimation of lateral load
corresponding to the shear cracking point (Point A in Figure 1) is reported only by the
ACI 426 Committee [2]. Shear displacement models at maximum shear strength are
proposed by [5], [14] and recently by [8]. Shear displacement models at loss of axial load
capacity are reported by [6], [11], and [12]. Several models are available for the
maximum shear strength determination. Some of those models considered in this research
are [1], [3], [17], and [19]. The residual shear strength at axial load failure is discussed by
[7] and [16]. Most of these available models concentrate on one of the specific response
stages. Two models attempt to generate a complete lateral load-shear displacement

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

envelope: Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) proposed by [22] and [23], and
[9]. In this research, these two models were evaluated and compared with recent column
test data to judge the suitability of each model. The detailed analysis results can be found
in [15].

PROPOSED MODEL AND EVALUATION OF OTHER MODELS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The computer program, Response-2000 [4] was used for implementation of MCFT. The
program provides the lateral load-total displacement response, however shear
displacements are not readily available. The program calculates the shear strain
distribution over the height of each cross section along the length of column. These shear
strain diagrams were integrated over the column length to find the total shear
displacement at a given load level, thus creating the force-shear displacement diagram.
Figure 2 compares the results of MCFT model with test data from four columns tested by
[19].
80
Experimental 80
MCFT
Experimental
60 MCFT
60

40 40

20
20
Lateral load (kips)

Lateral load (kips)

0
0
−20
−20
−40

−40
−60

−60
−80

−80 −100
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 −0.7 −0.6 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Shear displacement (in.) Shear displacement (in.)

60 80

Experimental
MCFT
60
40

40
20

20
Lateral load (kips)
Lateral load (kips)

0
0

−20
−20

−40
−40

−60 Experimental
−60
Lehman and Moehle

−80 −80
−0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Shear displacement (in.) Shear displacement (in.)

Figure 2 Calculated and experimental shear response for 4 specimens tested by [19]

Even though MCFT yields a quite accurate response until the maximum shear strength is
reached, it is based on a relatively complex theory with an iterative algorithm. MCFT
does not provide a simple formula for hand calculations, which would be more useful for
practical purposes. In this research, MCFT was used to be able to furnish simple
equations to predict shear displacements prior to peak strength. To achieve this
simplification, it was necessary to first check if MCFT provides certain consistent trends.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

For an extensive evaluation of MCFT, a virtual test matrix consisting of columns with
different physical properties, material properties, and load conditions was designed. The
columns had properties in following range: section sizes: 14 in., 18 in., and 24 in. square;
aspect ratio, a/d ranging from 2.3 to 9.3; axial load ratios (P/Agfc’, Ag = gross cross
sectional area) varying from 0.05 to 0.62; concrete compressive strength, fc’: 3 to 6 ksi;
longitudinal steel yield strength, fyl: 40 to 65 ksi; transverse steel yield strength, fyt: 50 to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

70 ksi; longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio, ρl: 1% to 4%; and transverse steel
reinforcement ratio, ρv: 0.175% to 0.525%.

The above ranges of parameters cover typical reinforced concrete columns exhibiting
shear, shear-flexure, and flexure failures. To observe the effect of a column parameter,
only that property was varied while keeping all parameters the same, creating a large
matrix. Specimen-1 tested by [19] was used as the control specimen or “standard
column” for developing the test matrix. Note that the aspect ratios were also varied in the
analyses to extend the evaluations well into the pure shear and flexure failure ranges.

80

70
600 kips (C)
60 500 kips (C)
Shear force (kips)

400 kips (C)

50
300 kips (C)
40 200 kips (C)
150 kips (C)
30
100 kips (C)
20 No axial load
50 kips (T)
10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shear displacement (in.)

Figure 3 Shear response of standard column, subjected to different axial loads

Figure 3 shows the response of the standard column under different axial loads. Each
curve has the same initial stiffness, evidently independent of the compressive axial load.
The unique deviation points in Figure 3 are observed to correspond to the beginning of
shear cracking, which happens much after formation of flexural cracks as per MCFT. In
other words, contrary to some previous models, flexural cracking does not change the
shear stiffness. Obviously, flexural cracking greatly influences the flexural stiffness of
the column, which is not the subject of this paper. The shear response after shear cracking
seems to depend only on the axial load level as all other parameters are unchanged. The
plots in Figure 3 indicate that the cracked shear stiffness increases with increasing axial
load. This is expected because the increase in axial load tends to make the column stiffer,
reducing the displacements. However, the initial shear stiffness is different under tensile
or zero axial load. All columns in the test matrix exhibited very similar behavior (analysis
results available in [15]). Based on these observations, initial shear stiffness was defined
to represent the response prior to the first shear cracking (slope of line OA in Figure 1).

Uncracked Shear Stiffness

The evaluation of calculated MCFT responses revealed and confirmed that the uncracked
shear stiffness, Kshear can be satisfactorily predicted using the principles of elasticity from

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

(1), which is based on the assumption that shear stress distribution is uniform over the
cross section of column. This is a reasonable assumption for reinforced concrete
members.
GA
K shear = (1)
L
where G = shear modulus, A = cross sectional area, and L = column length. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

uncracked shear stiffness, as expressed in (1), is independent of other parameters such as

aspect ratio, amount of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement (Figure 4).

45
130
40
120
500 kips (C)
110 35
600 kips (C) 400 kips (C)
100

Shear force (kips)

500 kips (C) 30 300 kips (C)
Shear force (kips)

90
80 400 kips (C) 200 kips (C)
25
70 300 kips (C) 150 kips (C)
60 200 kips (C) 20
100 kips (C)
50 150 kips (C) 15 No axial load
40 100 kips (C) 50 kips (T)
30 No axial load 10
GA/L
20 50 kips (T) 5
10 GA/L
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shear displacement (in.) Shear displacement (in.)

90 80

80 70

70 60
Shear force (kips)

4.58%
Shear force (kips)

60 50
3.79 % Av @12 in
50 3.09% 40 Av @ 9 in
40 2.50% Av @ 6 in
1.94% 30
30
GA/L
20
20

10 10

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Shear displacement (in.) Shear displacement (in.)

Figure 4 Response of standard column with fc’= 3 ksi and a) a/d= 2.33, b) a/d= 7,
c) varying longitudinal reinforcement, d) varying transverse reinforcement

Shear Cracking Strength (Vcr)

Shear strength at cracking (at Point A in Figure 1) was found to be dependent on

uncracked shear stiffness, GA/L and axial load, P. For columns in the test matrix, Vcr
values obtained from MCFT analyses were plotted against GA/L as a function of P, as
shown in Figure 5. Based on regression analysis results, Equation 2 is recommended
P GA
Vcr = ( + 0.0062) (units are kips, ksi, and in.) (2)
50000 L

Average Shear Strain at Maximum Shear Strength

In this study, several existing models for the maximum shear strength, Vn (at Points B and
C in Figure 1) were reviewed and the model proposed by [21] was adapted. Ideally, this
should correspond to the maximum strength calculated from MCFT analysis. The
variations of calculated average shear strains at maximum shear strength are plotted in

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

Figure 5 as a function of axial load and aspect ratios. It was concluded that the shear
strain is inversely proportional with square root of axial load ratio (P/Agfc’).

120 y = 0.0082x P=100

2
R = 0.9778 0.0035

100 y = 0.0091x P=150

2
0.003
R = 0.9709 a/d=2.33
y = 0.0103x

Average shear strain

80 P=200 0.0025 a/d=2.9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2
R = 0.9758
Vcr (kips)

y = 0.0119x 0.002 a/d=3.75

60 2 P=300
R = 0.9727 a/d=5.25
0.0015
y = 0.0142x
40 2 a/d=7
R = 0.9946 P=400
0.001
y = 0.0175x a/d=9.3
20 2
R = 0.9894 P=500 0.0005
y = 0.016x
0 2
R = 0.9842 0
P=600
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
GA/L (kip/in.) sqrt (P/Agfc')

Figure 5 Regression analyses for shear cracking strength in terms of GA/L; and effect of
a/d and axial load on average shear strain

Average shear strain for columns with shear-flexure and pure flexure failure:
Figure 6 depicts the effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio, ρl on the average shear
strain at maximum strength of standard column for varying aspect ratios, while all other
parameters are kept constant. It can be seen that as ρl increases, clearly the average shear
strain increases except for some columns with lower aspect ratios (say <4) and higher ρl
(>2%). These are the columns failing in shear as a result of shear strength Vn much
smaller than the shear capacity Vp corresponding to the maximum flexural strength, Mp,
possibly obtained from sectional moment-curvature analysis. Vp can be calculated by
dividing Mp (or plastic hinge moment) by the shear span, a (a = L for cantilever columns).
For columns exhibiting shear-flexure and pure flexure failures, it was also found that the
shear strain varies linearly with the product of longitudinal steel yield strength fyl. Based
on regression analyses presented in Figures 5 and 6, a linear relationship is proposed to
calculate the shear strain at maximum strength, γn

0.003 0.0035

0.003
0.0025 Columns failing in
Vp
Average shear strain
Average shear strain

0.0025
0.002 Linear (Columns
failing in Vp)
0.002
0.0015 3.78 %
0.0015 y = 3E-05x - 0.0006
2.5 %
0.001 1.36 %
0.001

0.0005 0.0005

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 50 100 150
a/d fyl.sqrt(ρl)/((a/d).sqrt(P/Agfc'))

Figure 6 Effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on average shear strain in standard

column; and regression analysis for (3)

1 f yl ρ l (3)
γn = − 0.0006
33000 a P
( )
d A f '
g c

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

The unit of fyl is ksi; ρl is expressed in percentage, axial load ratio and aspect ratio are
unitless. The corresponding shear displacement, ∆n, can simply be calculated by
multiplying γn by the column length, L.

Average shear strain for columns failing in shear: To observe the effects of transverse
reinforcement ratio, ρv, the columns were analyzed by varying the transverse steel amount
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and spacing, s. Transverse reinforcement ratio is defined as Av/bs, where Av is the area of
transverse reinforcement and b is the column width. Figure 7 shows the effect of s or ρv
on the standard column response for all aspect ratios. Apparently ρv has relatively small e
(possibly negligible) effect if the column exhibits shear-flexure or flexure failure, but it
certainly has an influence in case of shear failure. For columns failing in shear, it can be
concluded that an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement increases the shear
strain, which in turn, increases the deformation capacity. It is interesting to note that for
the standard column a stirrup spacing of 6 in. and less always results in flexural yielding
avoiding pure shear failure. This confirms the importance of amount and spacing of
transverse reinforcement to prevent shear failure. It was concluded that the average shear
strain varies linearly with ρv for columns exhibiting shear failure. Similarly, to observe
the effect of transverse reinforcement yield strength, fyt, the standard column was
analyzed by varying fyt while keeping all other parameters the same. It was found that the
shear strain varies linearly with fyt, for columns failing in shear. Equation 4 is proposed
from the data fitting in Figure 7. In (4), the unit of fyt is ksi; ρv is in percentage, axial load
ratio and aspect ratio are unitless.
a
1 ( d ). f yt .( ρ v ) (4)
γn = − 0.0011
25000 P
Ag f c '

0.003 0.004
Columns failing in
0.0035
0.0025 Vn
0.003 Linear (Columns
Average shear strain
Average shear strain

failing in Vn)
0.002
Av @ 12 in 0.0025
Av @ 9 in 0.002
0.0015
Av @ 6 in y = 4E-05x - 0.0011
Av @ 4 in 0.0015
0.001
0.001
0.0005 0.0005

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 50 100 150

a/d fyt.ρv.(a/d)/sqrt(P/Agfc')

Figure 7 Effect of transverse reinforcement and regression analysis for (4)

Onset of shear strength degradation: The MCFT model predicts the shear response
well, but only until the maximum strength is reached. However, the column experiences
more shear deformations under the sustained lateral load while exhibiting significant
strength degradation and an eventual axial load failure. Thus, at least two more points on
the shear envelope representing onset of shear degradation and axial load failure (C and
D in Figure 1) need to be defined.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

The shear model proposed by [8] identifies a point where the shear strength degradation
begins. However, their model is based on theoretical shear displacement at yield and
shear strain ductility. The flexural yielding was not considered to be critical in the
proposed model. The model by [8] is modified to obtain the ultimate shear strain, γu
 v 
γ u =  4 − 12 n γ n (5)
 fc ' 
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where vn (=Vn/bd) is the shear stress at the maximum strength (Point B or C in Figure 1),
and The shear strain at the maximum strength, γn is calculated either from (3) or (4). The
corresponding shear displacement, ∆u (at Point C in Figure 1) can be obtained by simply
multiplying the ultimate shear strain, γu from (5) by column length.

Shear displacement at axial load failure: Most column tests were stopped when some
strength degradation was observed. In recent years, few researchers loaded test columns
beyond peak strength until the axial-load-carrying capacity was lost. Thus, there is not
sufficient test data and models to define the shear deformations at axial load failure (Point
D in Figure 1). In this study, the model proposed by [12] is used to define this point.

CONCLUSIONS AND VALIDATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL

A model was proposed to predict the monotonic shear response of reinforced concrete
columns (Figure 1). The focus was mainly on shear displacements at various response
stages. However, the strength was also carefully evaluated at each stage. New models
were developed for shear displacement at first shear cracking and at the maximum
strength level using the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) which seems to be
the most accurate available model. However, due to the complexity of application of
MCFT, one cannot use it for simple hand calculations. Also, MCFT does not predict the
response beyond the peak strength. Post peak behavior of the columns is investigated.
Some modifications are suggested to the existing models, resulting into an improved
model for shear displacement at the onset of shear degradation. Due to lack of test data as
well as models for displacement predictions at axial load failure, the most widely used
existing model was suggested.

Experimental data available (thus evidence) is scarce, as most of the available column
tests provide only the total displacement data, not shear displacements. Few column tests
with available shear displacement data were used in this research to evaluate the
proposed model. The proposed model was applied to six test columns: four columns
tested by [19], one by [18] and one reported by [24]. Figures 8 and 9 show that the
proposed model closely matches the experimental results. Comparison of the predicted
monotonic response and measured test data showed good agreement.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

80 80
Experimental Experimental
Proposed Model Proposed Model

60 60

40
40

20
20
Lateral load (kips)

Lateral load (kips)

0
0
−20
−20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

−40

−40
−60

−60 −80

−80 −100
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Shear displacement (in.) Shear displacement (in.)
60 80
Experimental
Experimental Proposed Model
Proposed Model
40 60

40
20

20
Lateral load (kips)

Lateral load (kips)

0

−20
−20

−40
−40

−60
−60

−80 −80
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Shear displacement (in.) Shear displacement (in.)

Figure 8 Shear response model for columns tested by Sezen (2002)

Figure 9 Shear response of U6 (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989) and R1 (Xiao et al. 1993)
REFERENCES
[1] ACI 318-05, American Concrete Institute (ACI), “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete,” 2005.
[2] ASCE-ACI Task Committee 426, “The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members,” ASCE
Journal of Structural Div., Vol. 99, 6, June, 1973, pp. 1091-1187.
[3] Aschheim, A.M., Moehle J.P., “ Shear Strength and Deformation Ability of RC Bridge Columns
Subjected to Inelastic Displacements,” Technical Rep. No. UCB/EERC 92/04, University of California,
Berkeley, Apr., 1992, 157 pp.
[4] Bentz E., “Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Toronto, 2000, 310 pp.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

[5] CEB, Comite Euro-International du Beton, “Design Manual, Cracking and Deformations” International
system of unified standard codes of practice for structures, 158, E, 1985.
[6] Elwood K., “Shake Table Tests and Analytical Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced
Concrete Frames,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2002, 330 pp.
[7] FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings,” 1997.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 08/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

[8] Gerin M., and Adebar P., “Accounting for Shear in Seismic Analysis of Concrete Structures,” 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Aug., 2004, Paper No. 1747.
[9] Lehman D.E., and Moehle J.P, “Seismic Performance of Well-Confined Concrete Bridge Columns,”
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Report No. PEER-
98/01, 2000, 316 pp.
[10] Moehle J.P., and Mahin S.A., “Observations of the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Buildings during
Earthquakes,” ACI SP-127, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures Inelastic Response and Design, S.K.
Ghosh, ed., American Concrete Institute, 1991, pp. 67-89.
[11] Moehle J. P., Elwood K. J., and Sezen H. 2002. Gravity Load Collapse of Building Frames during
Earthquakes. ACI SP-197. Behavior and Design of Concrete Structures for Seismic Performance. American
Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills , Michigan. pp. 215-238
[12] Ousalem H., Kabeyasawa T.A., and Tasai Y., “Axial Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Columns
Under Seismic Loading,” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Aug., 2004, Paper No. 1233.
[13] Panagiotakos T.B., and Fardis M.N., “Deformations of Reinforced Concrete Members at Yielding and
Ultimate,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, 2, Mar.-Apr., 2001, pp. 135-148.
[14] Park R., and Paulay T., “Reinforced Concrete Structures,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1975.
[15] Patwardhan C. V., “Shear Strength and Deformation Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Columns,”
M.S. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2005, 176 pp.
[16] Pincheira J.A., and Dotiwala F.S., “Seismic Analysis of Older Reinforced Concrete Columns,”
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, 2, Aug., 1996, pp. 245-272.
[17] Priestley M.J.N., Verma R., and Xiao Y., “Seismic Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns,”
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, 8, Aug., 1994, pp. 2310-2329.
[18] Saatcioglu M, and Ozcebe G., “Response of Reinforced Concrete Columns to Simulated Seismic
Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, 3, Jan.-Feb., 1989, pp. 3-12.
[19] Sezen H., “Seismic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Building Columns,” Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2002, 345 pp.
[20] Sezen H., Whittaker A.S., Elwood K.J., Mosalam K.M., Wallace J.W., and Stanton J.F., “Structural
Engineering Reconnaissance of the August 17, 1999 Earthquake: Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey,” Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Report No. PEER-2000/09,
Dec., 2000, 154 pp.
[21] Sezen H., and Moehle J. P. November 2004. Shear Strength Model for Lightly Reinforced Columns.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 130, No: 11, pp. 1692-1703.
[22] Vecchio F.J, and Collins M.P., “The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal, Vol. 83, 2, Mar.-Apr., 1986, pp. 219-231.
[23] Vecchio F.J, and Collins M.P., “Predicting the Response of Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to
Shear Using the Modified Compression Field Theory,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85, 3, May-June,
1988, pp. 258-268.
[24] Xiao Y., Priestley M.J.N., and Seible F., “Steel Jacket Retrofit for Enhancing Shear Strength of Short
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns,” UCSD Report SSRP-92/07, July, 1992.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006