10 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No.

1/ May 2009
1
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sepuluh Nopember Institute
of Technology (ITS), ITS Campus, Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111,
Indonesia.

Note. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on March 17, 2009; approved on October 26, 2009.
Discussion open until February 2010. This paper is part of the ITS
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 29, No.1, May 2009. © ITS Journal
of Civil Engineering, ISSN 2086-1206/2009.

MODIFIED FIXED-ANGLE STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL
FOR HIGH STRENGTH REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS
by Tavio
1

ABSTRACT
Nonlinear finite element analysis was applied to various reinforced concrete beams using a set of constitutive models
established in the modified fixed-angle softened-truss model (MFA-STM). The model was implemented by modifying the
general-purpose program FEAPpv. The model can take account of the six important characteristics of cracked reinforced
concrete: (1) the softening effect of concrete in tension-compression; (2) the tension-stiffening effect of concrete in tension;
(3) the average stress-strain curve of steel bars embedded in concrete; (4) the shear modulus of concrete; (5) the aggregate
interlock; and (6) dowel action. The comparison shows the aggregate interlock and dowel action can reduce the
overestimation of the shear capacity of high strength reinforced beam, especially the high strength reinforced deep beam
without web reinforcement. Moreover, the model is suitable for being implemented numerical procedures due its simplicity.

KEYWORDS: high-strength concrete; shear; aggregate interlock; dowel action; finite element.

INTRODUCTION

The nonlinear finite element method has developed
into an important tool for the analysis of the complex
concrete structures. This technique is very helpful to
understand the formation and propagation of cracks and
the mechanism and process of failure. Future development
of the nonlinear finite element method lies primarily in
the improvements of the constitutive models of materials.
Two behavioral models were developed for the analysis
of concrete structures subjected to shear: the rotating-
angle softened truss model (RA-STM)
1-3
and the fixed-
angle softened truss model (FA-STM).
3-6
The RA-STM
assumes that cracks will develop in the direction parallel
to the principal compressive stresses in concrete elements,
and the cracks will “rotate” to follow the principal
stresses over the entire loading history. In contrast, the
FA-STM assumes that cracks will develop along the
direction of principal compressive stresses at initial
cracking, and the cracks will be “fixed” at this angle
thereafter.
The advantage of FA-STM over RA-STM was that
FA-STM was capable to take into account the concrete
contribution, induced by the shear stresses along the
cracks. Nevertheless, the FA-STM models average
responses, without considering the specific contributions
of the individual mechanical effects. In this paper, the
FA-STM is modified by introducing the aggregate
interlock and dowel action, which are used to control the
average shear capability of concrete with cracks. In this
paper, the incorporation of the set of modified FA-STM
constitutive laws in to the computer code FEAPpv is
described, and the comparison of the prediction of failure
load of reinforced high strength concrete with the
experimental results is given.

______________________________________________
DESCRIPTION OF MODEL

Equilibrium equations
Assuming that the steel bars can resist only axial
stresses, then the superposition of concrete stresses and
steel stresses as shown in Fig. 1.


x
σ
y
σ
xy
τ
sx sx
ρσ
sy sy
ρ σ
cx
σ
cy
σ
cxy
τ

Fig. 1. Superposition of concrete stresses and steel
stresses.

results in

0
x cx sx sx
y cy sy sy
xy cxy
σ σ ρ σ
σ σ ρ σ
τ τ
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
¹ ¹
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
· +
' ; ' ; ' ;
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
¹ ¹
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
(1)

where,


In the fixed-angle model, the x′-y′ coordinate system
as shown in Fig. 2. is defined. In this coordinate system,
x′ and y′ are the principal axes of stresses in concrete at
initial cracking. Angle φ is the fixed angle between x and
x′ axes.

,
x y
σ σ
=
Applied normal stress in the x and y
direction, respectively (positive for
tension)
xy
τ
=
Applied shear stress in the x-y
coordinate
,
cx cy
σ σ
=
Average normal stress in concrete in
the x-y coordinate
cxy
τ
=
Average shear stress in concrete in
the x-y coordinate
,
sx sy
ρ ρ
=
Reinforcement ratios in the x and y-
direction, respectively
© ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009 11
x
y
x'
y'
φ
steel bar
concrete
crack

Fig. 2 Definition of coordinate systems and fixed angle.

The transformation of stresses in concrete from the x′-y′
to the x-y coordinate system is given as follows:

2 2
2 2
2 2
2
2
cx cx
cy cy
cxy cx y
c s cs
s c cs
cs cs c s
σ σ
σ σ
τ τ


′ ′
1 ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
1 ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
· −
' ; ' ;
1
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
1
− −
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¸ ]
(2)

where, ( ) cos c φ · − and ( ) sin s φ · − . The stresses
' '
,
cx cy
σ σ and
' ' cx y
τ are the stresses in concrete in x′-y′
coordinate system.

After introducing Eq. 2 into Eq. 1, the final expression
for equilibrium condition for reinforced concrete can be
obtained as:

2 2
'
2 2
'
2 2
' '
2
2
0
x cx sx sx
y cy sy sy
xy cx y
c s cs
s c cs
cs cs c s
σ σ ρ σ
σ σ ρ σ
τ τ
1 ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
¹ ¹
1 ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
· − +
' ; ' ; ' ;
1
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
1
− −
¹ ¹
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¸ ]
(3)

Compatibility Equations
Assuming that no slipping occurs between concrete
and steel bars, the transformation of the average strains in
reinforced concrete from the x-y to the x′-y′ coordinate
system is given as follows:

2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
x x
y y
x y xy
c s cs
s c cs
cs cs c s
ε ε
ε ε
γ γ


′ ′
1 ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
1 ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
· −
' ; ' ;
1
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
1
− −
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¸ ]
(4)

where, ( ) cos c φ · and ( ) sin s φ · . The strains ,
x y
ε ε
′ ′

and
x y
γ
′ ′
are the strains in the x′-y′ coordinate system.

Cracking Criterion
The constitutive relationships of concrete must be
guided by an interactive cracking criterion for concrete.
A cracking criterion as shown in Fig. 3 is given as
follows:

2
1 2
1
0.3 1
c c
t c
f
σ σ
σ
¸ _
+ ·

¸ ,
, tension-tension (5a)
3
2
1
1
c
c
t c
f f
σ
σ
¸ _ ¸ _
+ ·


¸ , ¸ ,
, tension-compression (5b)
2
1 2 2 1
3.65 0
c c c c
c c c c
f f f f
σ σ σ σ ¸ _
+ − − ·

′ ′ ′ ′
¸ ,
,
compression-compression
(5c)

where
1c
σ and
2c
σ is the principal stress in concrete.
The uniaxial tensile strength
t
f is defined as
( )
2
3
0.058 10
c
f ′
[10]

-1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.1
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
-1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0
1
'
c
c
f
σ
2
'
c
c
f
σ
Eq.(5a)
E
q
.
(
5
b
)
Eq.(5c)
Cracking Criterion

Fig. 3 Cracking surface.

As for the cracking envelope under biaxial stress,
derived for the tension-compression domains and the
Aoyagi-Yamada model
7
for the domains of tension-
tension together with the Kupfer’s model
7
for the
compression-compression domains are adopted.

Constitutive Relationships Of Concrete Before
Initial Cracking
Before initial cracking, assuming that the principal
direction of stress in concrete is coincide with the
principal direction of strain, the constitutive relationships
of concrete are given as follows:

1 1 c c
E σ ε · , tension (6a)
2
2 2
2 ' '
2
c c
c c
f
ε ε
σ
ε ε
1
¸ _ ¸ _
1 ′ · −

1
¸ , ¸ ,
¸ ]
, compression (6b)

where E
c
is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, ε
1
and ε
2

are the strains of concrete in the ascending and
descending branches, respectively, and
c
ε′ is the strain of
concrete at peak stress.

Constitutive Relationships of Concrete After
Initial Cracking
After initial cracking, the constitutive relationships of
concrete are established in the x′-y′ coordinate.

12 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009
Concrete in compression-tension
After initial cracking, the stress and strain softening
occurs in concrete in compression-tension domains.
The average stress-strain curve of concrete in
compression
5,6,9
as shown in Fig. 4 is expressed as:

2
' '
2
y y
cy c
c c
f
ε ε
σ ζ
ζε ζε
′ ′

1
¸ _ ¸ _
1 ′ · −

1
¸ , ¸ ,
¸ ]
, 1
y
c
ε
ζε



(7a)
2
'
/ 1
1
4 / 1
y c
cy c
f
ε ζε
σ ζ
ζ


1
¸ _ −
1
′ · −

1 −
¸ ,
¸ ]
, 1
y
c
ε
ζε

>

(7b)

where
'
c
f is the cylinder compression strength of
concrete;
'
c
ε is the concrete strain at maximum
compressive stress; and ζ is the softening coefficient. In
the descending portion of the concrete stress-strain curve
the lowest stresses value was taken as
'
0.2
c
f ζ to avoid
the potential numerical problem in calculation.

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
0
10
20
30
40
50
E
q
.

(
7
b
)
ε'
c
f'
c
0.2ζf'
c 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8


C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
e
s
s
e
s

(
M
P
a
)
Compressive Strains (mm/mm)
Softened coefficient ζ
1.0
E
q
.

(
7
a
)

Fig. 4. Softened compressive stress-strain curve of
concrete.

In Eq. (7a) and Eq. (7b), the stress-softened
coefficient and the strain-softened coefficient are the
same value of ζ , which can be expressed conservatively
as:
5,6

'
5.8 1
400
1
x
c
f
ζ
ε
η

·
+


(8a)
sx syY y
sy sxY x
f
f
ρ σ
η
ρ σ

·


(8b)
η η ′ · , 1 η ≤ (8c)
1
η
η
′ · , 1 η > (8d)

where
x
ε

is the tensile strain at x′-direction; ,
sx sy
ρ ρ are
the reinforcement ratios in the x and y directions,
respectively; ,
sxY syY
f f are the yield stress of steel in the x
and y directions, respectively; and ,
x y
σ σ are the applied
stresses in the x and y directions, respectively. The
parameter η′ is less than unity.
Concrete in tension
The average stress-strain curve of concrete in tension
10

as shown in Fig. 5, can be expressed as:

cx c x
E σ ε
′ ′
· ,
x t
ε ε

≤ (9a)
0.4
0 t
cx t
x
f
ε
σ
ε


¸ _
·

¸ ,
,
x t
ε ε

> , for reinforced concrete (9b)
1.2
0 t
cx t
x
f
ε
σ
ε


¸ _
·

¸ ,
,
x t
ε ε

> , for plain concrete (9c)

where
c
E is the modulus of elasticity of concrete;
t
f is
the uniaxial tensile strength as defined in Eq. (5);
0 t
ε is
the cracking strain of concrete, which equals to
t
c
f
E

When concrete is cracked by tension, the tensile stress
can drop fast. Especially in plain concrete, the tensile
stress can change much faster than reinforced concrete
because the crack in concrete can grow without the
restriction by the reinforcing bars.

Concrete in shear
A rational shear modulus has been derived by Zhu.
11

The average stress-strain relationship of concrete in shear
can be expressed as:

( )
2
cx cy
cx y
x y
σ σ
τ
ε ε
′ ′
′ ′
′ ′

·


(10)

Transfer of shear forces across the crack surface in
reinforced concrete member may result in a large sliding
deformation and final failure by shear. Nevertheless, the
model is “smeared”. It models average responses, without
considering the specific contributions of the individual
mechanical effects, such as the aggregate interlock and
dowel action at the crack location.


0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 0.0012
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Eq. (9c)
Eq. (9b)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

T
e
n
s
i
l
e

S
t
r
e
s
s
e
s

(
M
P
a
)
Average Tensile Strains (mm/mm)
f
t
ε
t0
E
q
.

(
9
a
)

Fig. 5. Average tensile stress-strain curve of concrete.

Aggregate Interlock
Sliding shear deformations at the cracks in reinforced
concrete structures are resisted by the aggregate interlock
resulting from roughness of the crack faces. Aggregate
interlock force is a major factor attributed by concrete in
the analysis of shear behaviors in reinforced concrete
© ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009 13
beams. This is mainly due to their significant contribution
in shear transfer along crack interface of reinforced
concrete. It is known that at the cracks of a reinforced
concrete element subjected to in-plane loads, only steel
forces are initially developed. Aggregate interlock forces
are produced later to help steel forces sustain the external
loads.
Many experimental investigations have been carried
out for aggregate interlock. Based on both test results and
the physical concepts of aggregate interlock behavior,
Bazant and Gambarova
12
developed a more
comprehensive model. Unlike previous studies, their
model accounts for the facts discovered in the test: (1) at
zero sliding-shear deformation, no normal stress exists
across an open crack; (2) at a constant value of sliding-
shear deformation, the shear stress tend to decrease as the
crack opening increases; (3) the shear stresses tend to
increase with increasing sliding-shear defor-mation at a
constant crack width. Their ex-pressions for aggregate
interlock are shown here:

2
0.01
0.245
2 2
0.01
3
10 / 2.44(1 16.31/ )
4
1 2.44(1 16.31/ )
c
c c
c
D
f r
a
D
n
f f r
f r
τ
δ
′ ·
+
′ ′ + −
′ + −

(11)


where,
c
f ′ is the uniaxial compressive strength of
concrete;
n
δ is the crack opening;
t
δ is the crack slip;
/
t n
r δ δ · ; and D is the maximum aggregate size (mm).
In concrete containing many parallel cracks, the
deformations due to the cracks may be considered
continuously distributed or smeared. The opening and slip
of the crack can be expressed in the form of average
strains due to the smeared cracks (see Fig. 6):

' n x s
w l δ ε · · (12a)
' ' t x y s
l δ γ ·
(12b)

where,
x
ε

is the average strain at the crack normal
direction; and
x y
γ
′ ′
is the average shear strain at the crack
direction.

a
τ
a
τ t
δ
n
δ

Fig. 6. Meaning of Symbols in Eq. (11).

Here
s
l is the average spacing of the diagonal cracks
which is calculated from the CEB-FIP Code:

1
cos sin
( )
s
sx sy
l
l l
φ φ

· +
(13)

where, φ is the initial cracking angle between the x-
direction reinforcement and the direction of the initial
cracking principal tensile stress (see Fig. 2); and ,
sx sy
l l
are the crack spacing in the two orthogonal directions.
The values of ,
sx sy
l l are estimated as:


0.25
2( )
10
x x
sx x
sx
s kD
l c
ρ
· + +
(14a)
0.25
2( )
10
y y
sy y
sy
s kD
l c
ρ
· + +
(14b)

The meanings of the symbols in above equations are
shown in Fig. 7. The symbol
y
s is the spacing of web
reinforcement, and ,
sx sy
ρ ρ are the reinforcement ratios
of x- and y-directions. k is a characteristic factor of
reinforcement and taken as 0.4 for deformed bars or 0.8
for plain bars or bonded strands.

D
y
c
y
D
x
c
x
s
x

Fig. 7. Meaning of Symbols in Eq. 14a and 14b.

Based on Bazant’s rough cracks model, by optimizing
the fits of Paulay and Loeber’s test data
13
and of Daschner
and Kupfer’s test data,
14
and by assuming for crack
roughness the aggregate grading suggested by Fuller’s
curve, the following equation was formulated:
15


3
4
2
0.25 1
9.8 / 2.44(1 16 / )
1 2.44(1 16 / )
n
a c
c c
c
f r
D
f f r
f r
δ
τ
¸ _
′ · +

¸ ,
′ ′ + −
′ + −
(15a)

where, ,
t
r δ and
n
δ have the same meanings as Bazant’s
equation. However, by comparison with the experimental
data, it is found that the Eq. 15a may overestimate the
aggregate interlock of high strength concrete. In the
proposed model, the equation of aggregate interlock is
modified to;
14 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009

3
4
2
0.04 1
9.8 / 2.44(1 16 / )
1 2.44(1 16 / )
n
a c
c c
c
f r
D
f f r
f r
δ
τ
¸ _
′ · +

¸ ,
′ ′ + −
′ + −
(15b)

Dowel Action at the Crack Location
Dowel action is one of the main mechanisms of load
transfer along reinforced concrete interfaces. There are
two possible failure modes of the dowel mechanism. One
is due to yielding of the dowel bar and the crushing under
the dowel, the other one is due to the concrete splitting.
Generally, concrete cover c is the main parameter upon
which the mode of the failure of the dowel mechanism
depends.
The previous experimental investigations
16
have
shown that when c is greater than 6 to 7 time the bar
diameter, failure is controlled by the crushing of concrete
and the yielding of the bar. For smaller concrete cover,
the failure mechanism is governed by splitting of the
concrete, and the splitting cracks can be opened at the
bottom or at the side faces of the section. In a reinforced
concrete element or a beam, the two directions
reinforcement is usually arranged along the brim of the
cross section, thus these bars have smaller side covers,
and dowel failure occurring in these structural members
belongs to the concrete splitting.
In previous work,
17,2
the existence of the shear forces
due to dowel action was neglected, and this
underestimated the role of the steel. In this present
research, the shear contributions from dowel action are
considered until the final collapse of the element.
Generally, the dowel action and aggregate interlock
have some common characteristics. They both occur at
the crack location in order to replace the lost stress in the
steel and concrete. Both are transmitted to the bulk of the
concrete, and therefore, they are in fact concrete forces.
For the prediction of the dowel action when failure is
due to the concrete splitting, only the empirical equations
are available. Eq. 16 was developed by Baumann and
Ruch
17
.

3
1.64
u n b c
D b d f ′ · in N, mm (16)

where,
n
b is the net width of beam and
b
d is the diameter
of the dowel bar (see Fig. 8).

The average stresses should be limited by the stresses
at the crack. Therefore, the average shear stress should be
controlled by the local shear stress contributed by the
aggregate interlock and dowel action.

( sin cos ) /
x y a x y v
D D bd τ τ ϕ ϕ
′ ′
≤ + + (17)

where, ,
x y
D D are the dowel action of all of y- of x-
direction bars, respectively, b is the width of a
rectangular beam,
v
d is the depth of effective shear
element, and φ is the initial cracking angle.

d
b b
n
/2 b
n
/2
b

Fig. 8. Meaning of Symbols in Eq. 16.

0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0
100
200
300
400
500
E
q. (18b)
E
q
.

(
1
8
a
)
ε
n
f
n


A
v
e
r
a
g
e

T
e
n
s
i
l
e

S
t
r
e
s
s
e
s

(
M
P
a
)
Average Tensile Strains (mm/mm)
f
Y

Fig. 9 Average stress-strain curve of steel bars embedded
in concrete.

Constitutive relationship of steel bar
The stress-strain curve of steel can be modeled by two
straight lines,
2,4,10
as shown in Fig. 9. The bilinear model
is given as follows:

s s s
E σ ε · ,
s n
ε ε ≤ (18a)
( ) ( ) 0.91 2 0.02 0.25
s
s Y
y
f B B
ε
σ
ε
1
· − + +
1
1
¸ ]
,
s n
ε ε > (18b)

where B is a parameter defined as ( )( )
1.5
1/ /
cr Y
f f ρ , and
n
ε is the average yield strain of mild steel bars embedded
in concrete at the beginning of yielding, taken as
( ) 0.93 2
Y
B ε − .

Test Program
Eighteen simply supported reinforced high-strength
concrete beams were to be tested under two-point loading.
It is already known that the thickness of the beams has no
contribution to size effect, so all test beams were chosen
to have the same width of 185 mm. The test beams were
divided into two series with different a/d ratio of 2 and
3.5.
© ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009 15
In each series, three groups of beams were cast
according to the different percentages of web
preinforcement. In each group the effective depths of the
specimens were varied from 200 to 700 mm, whereas all
other variables remained constant. The specimen
dimensions and other parameters are given in Table 1.

The beams were geometrically scaled appropriately in
all respects (see Fig. 10) except the maximum aggregate
size which is maintained at 20 mm. Previous investigation
by Walraven and Lehwalter
19
indicated that there was no
significant influence of the maximum aggregate size on
the size effect in shear behavior. All of the specimens
were designed to fail in shear as far as possible.

Table 1. Details of 18 experimental beams
Groups Beam Main tension
Notations Beam dimension Concrete strength reinforcement
b h d a l fc' Batch fys fyv As Av s v
mm (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) MPa MPa MPa mm2 % mm2 mm %
Series 1
B-2-200 185 250 200 400 1300 89 1 512 0 1480 3.98 - - 0
1 B-2-400 185 475 400 800 2600 95 1 512 0 2960 3.98 - - 0
B-2-700 185 825 700 1400 4550 92 3 512 0 5180 3.98 - - 0
V-2-200 185 250 200 400 1300 75 4 512 518 1480 3.98 57 91 0.34
2 V-2-400 185 475 400 800 2600 95 1 512 518 2960 3.98 157 250 0.34
V-2-700 185 825 700 1400 4550 98 3 512 518 5180 3.98 157 250 0.34
VV-2-200 185 250 200 400 1300 75 4 512 518 1480 3.98 157 150 0.57
3 VV-2-400 185 475 400 800 2600 95 1 512 518 2960 3.98 157 150 0.57
VV-2-700 185 825 700 1400 4550 98 3 512 518 5180 3.98 157 150 0.57
Series 2
B-3.5-200 185 250 200 700 1900 85 2 512 0 1480 3.98 - - 0
1 B-3.5-400 185 475 400 1400 3800 85 2 512 0 2960 3.98 - - 0
B-3.5-700 185 825 700 2450 6650 102 1 512 0 5180 3.98 - - 0
V-3.5-200 185 250 200 700 1900 85 2 512 518 1480 3.98 57 91 0.34
2 V-3.5-400 185 475 400 1400 3800 85 2 512 518 2960 3.98 157 250 0.34
V-3.5-700 185 825 700 2450 6650 102 1 512 518 5180 3.98 157 250 0.34
VV-3.5-200 185 250 200 700 1900 85 2 512 518 1480 3.98 157 150 0.57
3 VV-3.5-400 185 475 400 1400 3800 85 2 512 518 2960 3.98 157 150 0.57
VV-3.5-700 185 825 700 2450 6650 104 1 512 518 5180 3.98 157 150 0.57
Vertical web
reinforcement Steel strength
(1.9fc'+2500bdρ)

Notations: B-2-200 = “B” means beams without web reinforcement; 2 means a/d ratio of 2; 200 is effective depth,; “V”
means beams with web reinforcement percentage of 0.34, “VV” means beams with web reinforcement
percentage of 0.57, etc. b -- width of the beam, h -- overall depth of beam, d -- effective depth of beam, a --
shear span, l -- overall length of beam, ρ -- main tension steel ratio, ρ
v
-- web reinforcement ratio.


Table 2. Cracking loads, ultimate Loads and failure modes of 18 concrete beams
No. Beam Ultimate Modes Ratios of Loads
of Flexural Diagonal Stress (Mpa) of
Beams Notations vf vd vu Failure vf /vu vd /vu
1 B-2-200 0.68 2.03 6.28 DS 0.10 0.32
2 V-2-200 0.41 2.03 7.57 DS 0.05 0.27
3 VV-2-200 0.54 2.7 8.23 CC 0.07 0.33
4 B-3.5-200 0.41 1.89 1.89 DT 0.22 1.00
5 V-3.5-200 0.27 1.62 4.32 DT 0.06 0.38
6 VV-3.5-200 0.41 1.89 4.69 CC 0.09 0.40
7 B-2-400 0.74 1.89 6.49 DS 0.11 0.29
8 V-2-400 0.95 2.03 8.11 DS 0.12 0.25
9 VV-2-400 0.95 2.36 8.23 CC 0.12 0.29
10 B-3.5-400 0.27 1.82 1.82 DT 0.15 1.00
11 V-3.5-400 0.41 1.22 5.03 DT 0.08 0.24
12 VV-3.5-400 0.41 1.62 5.07 CC 0.08 0.32
13 B-2-700 0.77 1.54 4.44 DS 0.17 0.35
14 V-2-700 0.62 1.54 6.22 DS 0.10 0.25
15 VV-2-700 0.62 1.54 7.61 SC 0.08 0.20
16 B-3.5-700 0.39 1.54 1.54 DT 0.25 1.00
17 V-3.5-700 0.39 1.54 4.4 DT 0.09 0.35
18 VV-3.5-700 0.46 1.54 4.79 CC 0.10 0.32
Cracking Stress (MPa)


*
Notations: DS - diagonal splitting failure; DT - diagonal-tension failure; FC - flexural failure in
compression zone; SC - shear compression

400
800
ρ ρv
16 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009
Actuators
8
0
0
Concrete support
Strong Floor
200 L/2 200 L/2
2 1 6 7
4
3
LVDTs
5
Bearing plates
Swivel heads
1
3
5
Specimen
Roller Support

Notes: Three beams for each figure.
one beam without stirrups,
one beam with T10 stirrups at spacing 250 mm, or T6 at
spacing 90 mm
one beam with T10 stirrups at spacing 150 mm.
Same details were also used with a/d of 2 beams

Fig. 10. Details of beam specimens.

Materials
The compressive strength of the concrete was
designed to be about 100 MPa for all the beam specimens.
The slump of the mix was about 200 mm. Two 150 × 150
× 150 mm concrete cubes and two 150 × 300 mm
concrete cylinders were cast and tested together with each
specimen to obtain the compressive strength of concrete,
cu
f and
c
f ′ . Since the beams were cast in different
batches, regression analyses were carried out for concrete
compressive strength in each batch. Different average
concrete strength of each beam specimen was then
obtained from the results of these regression curves
according to the age of specimen at the time of testing.
The results are given in Table 1.
There are two types of reinforcement bars used in the
beam specimens: deformed high tensile steel (T bar) and
plain round mild steel (R bar). The average yield stresses
of the steels used in the specimens are tabulated in Table
1. Note that T10 indicates a T bar of 10 mm diameter, etc.

Test set-up
The typical set-up for specimens is shown in Fig. 11.
The test specimens were loaded by two 1000 kN actuators.
Before testing, each specimen was white-washed on one
surface and 150 mm × 150 mm grids were drawn in
pencil to facilitate crack detection. Deflections of the
beam specimens were measured using Linear Voltage
Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) located at the bottom
central line of the beams at seven locations.
Fig. 11. Typical test set-up.


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
100
200
300
400
500
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Experiment
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel

(a) B-2-200

0 2 4 6 8 10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(b) V-2-200

Fig. 12. Load-displacement relations of slender beams
with d=200mm

0 2 4 6 8 10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(c) VV-2-200

Fig. 12. Load-displacement relations of slender beams
with d=200mm (continued).
200 A-A
A
185
2
5
0
2T13
3T25
A
700 500 700 200
B-3.5-200
V-3.5-200
VV-3.5-200
200
B-3.5-400
V-3.5-400
VV-3.5-400
B-3.5-700
V-3.5-700
VV-3.5-700
A-A
4
7
5
185
2T13
6T25
A
A
A-A
1400 1000 1400 200
T6
T10
400
A
185
8
2
5
2T16
9T25+2T22
A
2450 1750 2450 400
T10
lifting hook
reinforcement cage
© ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009 17
COMPARISON BETWEEN THEORETICAL
ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA

To verify the reliability of the proposed method, the
18 beams are analyzed as shown in Table 2. The
comparisons between the proposed model and the
experimental data are shown in Figs. 12-17 that show the
relationship between the load and midspan deflection.


0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
E
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)

(a) B-2-400


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(b) V-2-400

Fig. 13. Load-displacement relations of slender beams
with d=400mm


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(c) VV-2-400

Fig. 13. Load-displacement relations of slender beams
with d=400mm (continued).



The calculation was terminated when the average
shear strain in the element reaches 1.0%. It was found that
the shear strain increases suddenly afterwards, leading to
failure. In these figures, it is found that the load-
displacement curves calculated by the model without
considering the aggregate interlock and dowel action
almost coincide with the curves calculated by the model
with considering the aggregate interlock using Eq. 15a.
Eq. 15a may overestimate the aggregate interlock of high
strength concrete, especially for the high strength concrete
deep beams without web reinforcement as shown in Fig.
15(a), Fig. 16(a) and Fig. 17(a). So Eq. 15a is changed
into Eq. 15b to reduce the overestimation of aggregate
interlock.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Experiment
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)

(a)B-2-700

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(b) V-2-700
Fig. 14. Load-displacement relations of slender beams
with d=700mm

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0
500
1000
1500
2000
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(c) VV-2-700

Fig. 14. Load-displacement relations of slender beams
with d=700mm (continued).


18 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
E
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)

(a) B-3.5-200


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
100
200
300
400
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(b) V-3.5-200


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
100
200
300
400
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(c) VV-3.5-200

Fig. 15. Load-displacement relations of deep beams with
d=200mm


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)

(a) B-3.5-200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
100
200
300
400
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(b) V-3.5-200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
100
200
300
400
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
im
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(c) VV-3.5-200

Fig. 16. Load-displacement relations of deep beams with
d=400mm


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d

F
A
-
S
T
M
,

w
i
t
h

A
g
g
r

(
E
q
.

1
5
a
)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(a) B-3.5-700

Fig. 17. Load-displacement relations of deep beams with
d=700mm

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(b) V-3.5-700
© ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 29 No. 1/ May 2009 19
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Modified FA-STM, w/o Aggr & Dowel
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15a)
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b)
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
Modified FA-STM, with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel

(c) VV-3.5-700

Fig. 17. Load-displacement relations of deep beams with
d=700mm (continued).

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper a modified FA-STM for the analysis of
the behavior of high strength reinforced concrete beams,
subjected to plane stresses and monotonically loaded up
to failure, is proposed. The crack angle is kept fixed at the
initial direction of concrete. The functions for aggregate
interlock and dowel action are used to control the shear
capacity of cracked concrete. The reliability of the model
has been assessed through the comparison with the
experimental results. The comparison shows the
aggregate interlock and dowel action can reduce the
overestimation of the shear capacity of high strength
reinforced beam, especially the high strength reinforced
deep beam without web reinforcement. Moreover, the
model is suitable for being implemented numerical
procedures due its simplicity.

REFERENCES

1. Hsu, T. T. C., “Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Membrane
Elements,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 5, 1991, pp.
552-561.
2. Pang, X. B.; and Hsu T. T. C., “Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Membrane Elements in Shear,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 92, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1995, pp. 665-679.
3. Hsu, T. T. C., “Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete,”
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1993.
4. Pang, X. B.; and Hsu, T. T. C., “Fixed-Angle Softened-
Truss Model for Reinforced Concrete”, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 93, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1996, pp. 197-207.
5. Hsu T. T. C; and Zhang, L. X., “Nonlinear Analysis of
Membrane Elements by Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss
Model,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 5, Sept.-
Oct.1997, pp. 483-492.
6. Zhang, L. X.; and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior and Analysis of
100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp.
24-34.
7. Aoyagi, Y.; and Yamada, K., “Strength and Deformation
Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Shell Elements
Subjected to In-plane Forces,” Proc. of JSCE, No. 331, 1983,
pp. 167-180.
8. Kupfer, H. B.; Hilsdorf, H. K.; and Rusch, H., “Behavior of
Concrete under Biaxial Stresses,” ACI Journal, V. 66, No. 8,
Aug. 1969, pp. 656-666.
9. Belarbi, A.; and Hsu, T. T. C., “Constitutive Laws of
Softened Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1995, pp. 562-
573.
10. Belarbi, A.; and Hsu, T. T. C., “Constitutive Laws of
Concrete in Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by
Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug.
1994, pp. 465-474.
11. Zhu, R. H.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Lee, J. Y., “Rational Shear
Modulus for Smeared-Crack Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug.
2001, pp. 443-450.
12. Bazant, Z. P.; and Gambarova, P. M., “Rough Cracks in
Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of the Structural Division,
Proc. of the ASCE, V. 106, No. ST4, Apr. 1980, pp. 819-
842
13. Paulay, T.; and Loeber, P. J., “Shear Transfer by Aggregate
Interlock,” ACI Special Publication SP-42, Detroit, 1974, pp.
1-15.
14. Daschner, F.; and Kuper, H., “Test on Shear Transfer across
Cracks in Normal and Light Concrete,” Bauingenieur, 57,
1982, pp. 57-60.
15. CEB-FIP Model Code MC90, Committee Euro-International
du Beton, Bulletin s’information Nos. 195 and 196, Mar.
1990, pp. 348.
16. Utescher, G.; and Herrmann, M., “Versuche zur Ermittlung
der Tragfahigkeit in Beton eingespannter Rundsstahldollen
aus nichtrostendem austenitisschem Stahl,” Deutscher
Ausschuss fur Stahkbton, Willhelm Ernst und Sohn, Heft
346, Berlin, 1983, pp. 49-104.
17. Vecchio, F. J.; and Collins, M. P., “The Modified
Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V.
83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
18. Baumann, T.; and Rusch, H., “Versuche zum Studium der
Verdubelungswirkung der Biegezugbewehrung eines
Stahlbetonbalkes,” Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn, Deutscher
Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Heft 210, Berlin, 1970.
19. Walraven, J.; and Lehwalter, N., “Size Effects in Short
Beams Loaded in Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No.
5, Sep.-Oct. 1994, pp. 585-593.


(5c) (3) Fig. the constitutive relationships of concrete are established in the x′-y′ coordinate.3 -1. The transformation of stresses in concrete from the x′-y′ to the x-y coordinate system is given as follows: σ cx   c 2 s 2 2cs   σ cx′      2  2 c −2cs   σ cy ′  σ cy  =  s τ   −cs cs c 2 − s 2  τ   cxy     cx ′y ′  Cracking Criterion -1.7 -0.2 σc2 f 'c 0. 1.65 =0. 29 No.8 -0.4 Eq.3  c 2  = 1 . 2 Definition of coordinate systems and fixed angle.6 -0. the constitutive relationships of concrete are given as follows: σ 1c = Ec ε1 .5 -0. 3 is given as follows: σ  σ c1 + 0.1 0. c = cos (φ ) and s = sin (φ ) . c = cos ( −φ ) and s = sin ( −φ ) .1 -1.1 σc1 f 'c (2) Eq. the transformation of the average strains in reinforced concrete from the x-y to the x′-y′ coordinate system is given as follows:  ε x′   c 2 s2 cs   ε x       2 2 c −cs   ε y   ε y′  =  s γ   −2cs 2cs c 2 − s 2  γ   x ′y ′     xy  As for the cracking envelope under biaxial stress.9 -1 -1.(5b) where.(5a) -0. A cracking criterion as shown in Fig. Constitutive Relationships Of Concrete Before Initial Cracking Before initial cracking.y' y x'  σ 1c σ 2c +   f′ f c′  c  σ 2c σ 1c − 3.058 (10 f c′) 2 3 [10] Fig. respectively.1 -1 -0. assuming that the principal direction of stress in concrete is coincide with the principal direction of strain.3 Compatibility Equations Assuming that no slipping occurs between concrete and steel bars.4 -0.1 -0. compression ' '   εc   εc     2 (4) where. tension-tension ft  σ c1   σ c1   σ 2 c   +   ft   f c′ 3 2 (6a) (6b) (5a) where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete.7 -0.9 -0.  −  f c′ f c′  2 (5c) compression-compression φ x concrete steel bar crack where σ 1c and σ 2c is the principal stress in concrete.2 Eq. σ cy ' and τ cx ' y ' are the stresses in concrete in x′-y′ coordinate system. ε y ′ and γ x′y ′ are the strains in the x′-y′ coordinate system.   = 1 . The strains ε x ′ . After introducing Eq.8 -0.2 -0. tension-compression   (5b) © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. and ε c is the strain of concrete at peak stress.1 0 -0. 2 into Eq. ε1 and ε2 are the strains of concrete in the ascending and ′ descending branches. The stresses σ cx ' . The uniaxial tensile strength f t is defined as 0. 1/ May 2009 11 . 3 Cracking surface. derived for the tension-compression domains and the Aoyagi-Yamada model7 for the domains of tensiontension together with the Kupfer’s model7 for the compression-compression domains are adopted.6 -0.3 -0. Constitutive Relationships of Concrete After Initial Cracking After initial cracking. -1.2 -1.3 -0. tension  ε  ε   σ 2 c = f c′  2  2  −  2   .5 -0. the final expression for equilibrium condition for reinforced concrete can be obtained as: σ x   c 2 s 2 2cs   σ cx '   ρ sxσ sx      2    2 c −2cs   σ cy '  +  ρ syσ sy  σ y  =  s τ   −cs cs c 2 − s 2  τ     xy     cx ' y '   0  -0. Cracking Criterion The constitutive relationships of concrete must be guided by an interactive cracking criterion for concrete.

6 5. without considering the specific contributions of the individual mechanical effects. f t is the uniaxial tensile strength as defined in Eq. ε x ′ > ε t . and σ x .2ζ f c' to avoid the potential numerical problem in calculation. respectively. (5). 5. y ′ ′ ≤ 1 ζε c ζε c   ζε c         ε / ζε ' − 1  2  ε y′ c σ cy ′ = ζ f c′ 1 −    .0 Eq.6. ε x ′ ≤ ε t ε  σ cx ′ = f t  t 0  .0004 0. Nevertheless. η ≤ 1 1 η′ = . Aggregate Interlock Sliding shear deformations at the cracks in reinforced concrete structures are resisted by the aggregate interlock resulting from roughness of the crack faces.4 Eq 30 . ρ sy are the reinforcement ratios in the x and y directions.2ζ f'c 20 σ cx′ − σ cy ′ 2 ε x′ − ε y ′ ( ) (10) 10 0.004 0. Aggregate interlock force is a major factor attributed by concrete in the analysis of shear behaviors in reinforced concrete 12 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. Especially in plain concrete. respectively. 50 Compressive Stresses (MPa) 40 f'c 7 a) Softened coefficient ζ 1. Softened compressive stress-strain curve of concrete.0002 0. can be expressed as: σ cx ′ = Ec ε x′ . The average stress-strain curve of concrete in compression5. 4. which equals to ft Ec When concrete is cracked by tension. the tensile stress can change much faster than reinforced concrete because the crack in concrete can grow without the restriction by the reinforcing bars. In the descending portion of the concrete stress-strain curve the lowest stresses value was taken as 0. ε t 0 is the cracking strain of concrete.4 (9a) (9b) for reinforced concrete (7a) (7b) ε  σ cx ′ = f t  t 0  . ε x ′ > ε t .5 1. (7a) and Eq. ( ) Concrete in shear A rational shear modulus has been derived by Zhu. the stress and strain softening occurs in concrete in compression-tension domains. ε c' is the concrete strain at maximum compressive stress.9 as shown in Fig. The parameter η ′ is less than unity. and ζ is the softening coefficient.008 0. 4 is expressed as:   ε ′   ε ′ 2  ε y y σ cy ′ = ζ f c′  2  '  −  '   . the stress-softened coefficient and the strain-softened coefficient are the same value of ζ .0008 0. concrete. which can be expressed conservatively as:5. Average Tensile Stresses (MPa) 2. Average tensile stress-strain curve of concrete.0010 0. It models average responses. f sxY .  ε x′  1.0 ft 1. (9b) Eq. ρ sx . (9c) 0. σ y are the applied stresses in the x and y directions.5 η′ = η . 29 No. the model is “smeared”. 1/ May 2009 .( 7b Eq . Fig.Concrete in compression-tension After initial cracking.  ε x′  for plain concrete (9c) is the cylinder compression strength of where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete. (9a) 0. such as the aggregate interlock and dowel action at the crack location. In Eq.8 1 ζ = ' 400ε x ′ (8a) fc 1+ ′ η η= ρ sx f syY − σ y ρ sy f sxY − σ x (8b) (8c) (8d) Transfer of shear forces across the crack surface in reinforced concrete member may result in a large sliding deformation and final failure by shear.0012 0 0 εt0 Average Tensile Strains (mm/mm) where ε x ′ is the tensile strain at x′-direction.8 0.010 Compressive Strains (mm/mm) Fig. the tensile stress can drop fast. η > 1 η Eq.0006 0.2 0.2 0 0 ε'c 0.0 0.11 The average stress-strain relationship of concrete in shear can be expressed as: τ cx′y ′ = 0.6 0. respectively. (7b).006 0. 5.002 0. y ′ ζε ′ > 1   4 / ζ −1   c     where f ' c Concrete in tension The average stress-strain curve of concrete in tension10 as shown in Fig. f syY are the yield stress of steel in the x and y directions.

Aggregate interlock forces are produced later to help steel forces sustain the external loads. f c′ is the uniaxial compressive strength of concrete.beams. (11).245 fc′ 2 0. their model accounts for the facts discovered in the test: (1) at zero sliding-shear deformation. Meaning of Symbols in Eq.44(1 − 16 / f c′)r 4 (15a) Fig. no normal stress exists across an open crack. 14a and 14b.31 / f c′ ) r 4 1 + 2. Unlike previous studies. δ n is the crack opening. r = δ t / δ n . ρ sy are the reinforcement ratios of x.and y-directions.4 for deformed bars or 0. Bazant and Gambarova12 developed a more comprehensive model. Based on Bazant’s rough cracks model. and ρ sx . 2). 10 / f c′ + 2. Many experimental investigations have been carried out for aggregate interlock. the equation of aggregate interlock is modified to.01D + δ n 3 ls = ( cos φ sin φ −1 + ) lsx lsy (13) where. ε x ′ is the average strain at the crack normal direction. (2) at a constant value of slidingshear deformation.25kDy ρ sy (14a) (14b) The meanings of the symbols in above equations are shown in Fig.14 and by assuming for crack roughness the aggregate grading suggested by Fuller’s curve. It is known that at the cracks of a reinforced concrete element subjected to in-plane loads. the deformations due to the cracks may be considered continuously distributed or smeared. Fig.8 for plain bars or bonded strands. k is a characteristic factor of reinforcement and taken as 0. 6. Based on both test results and the physical concepts of aggregate interlock behavior. © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. The symbol s y is the spacing of web reinforcement. and γ x′y ′ is the average shear strain at the crack direction. Here ls is the average spacing of the diagonal cracks which is calculated from the CEB-FIP Code: where. r .25kDx )+ 10 ρ sx sy 10 )+ 0.44(1 − 16.8 / f c′ + 2.44(1 − 16. Meaning of Symbols in Eq. φ is the initial cracking angle between the xdirection reinforcement and the direction of the initial cracking principal tensile stress (see Fig. 15a may overestimate the aggregate interlock of high strength concrete. δ t and δ n have the same meanings as Bazant’s equation. 7. it is found that the Eq. by comparison with the experimental data. δ t is the crack slip. lsy are the crack spacing in the two orthogonal directions. and lsx . The opening and slip of the crack can be expressed in the form of average strains due to the smeared cracks (see Fig. This is mainly due to their significant contribution in shear transfer along crack interface of reinforced concrete. the following equation was formulated:15  2δ n τ a = 0.01D r 2 2 0. (3) the shear stresses tend to increase with increasing sliding-shear defor-mation at a constant crack width. by optimizing the fits of Paulay and Loeber’s test data13 and of Daschner and Kupfer’s test data. The values of lsx .44(1 − 16 / f c′) r 1 + 2.25 f c′ 1 +  D   r   3 τa τa δt δn 9. In the proposed model. Their ex-pressions for aggregate interlock are shown here: τ a = 0. the shear stress tend to decrease as the crack opening increases. and D is the maximum aggregate size (mm). 1/ May 2009 13 . In concrete containing many parallel cracks.31 / f c′) r (11) where. However. 29 No. only steel forces are initially developed. 7. 6): δ n = w = ε x 'ls δ t = γ x ' y ' ls (12a) (12b) Dy cy Dx sx cx where. lsy are estimated as: lsx = 2(cx + lsy = 2(c y + sx 0.

2. They both occur at the crack location in order to replace the lost stress in the steel and concrete. 9 Average stress-strain curve of steel bars embedded in concrete. Constitutive relationship of steel bar The stress-strain curve of steel can be modeled by two straight lines.5 ε n is the average yield strain of mild steel bars embedded in concrete at the beginning of yielding. 9. 1/ May 2009 . Test Program Eighteen simply supported reinforced high-strength concrete beams were to be tested under two-point loading.4. concrete cover c is the main parameter upon which the mode of the failure of the dowel mechanism depends. 14 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. Generally.02 + 0. respectively.of xdirection bars. and 1.020 Average Tensile Strains (mm/mm) Fig.015 0. 2δ n τ a = 0. ε s ≤ ε n (18a) where. The previous experimental investigations16 have shown that when c is greater than 6 to 7 time the bar diameter. 16. 16 was developed by Baumann and Ruch17.91 − 2 B ) + ( 0. (1 8a) εn 0. Generally. failure is controlled by the crushing of concrete and the yielding of the bar. τ x′y ′ ≤ τ a + ( Dx sin ϕ + Dy cos ϕ ) / bd v (17)  ε  σ s = fY ( 0. the dowel action and aggregate interlock have some common characteristics.5. mm (16) bn/2 db bn/2 b Fig.005 0. so all test beams were chosen to have the same width of 185 mm.44(1 − 16 / f c′)r 4 (15b) Dowel Action at the Crack Location Dowel action is one of the main mechanisms of load transfer along reinforced concrete interfaces.2 the existence of the shear forces due to dowel action was neglected. the shear contributions from dowel action are considered until the final collapse of the element.93 − 2 B ) . the two directions reinforcement is usually arranged along the brim of the cross section. (18 fn 300 200 100 0 0 Eq. Dy are the dowel action of all of y. Dx .04 f c′ 1 +  D   r   3 9. and φ is the initial cracking angle.8 / f c′ + 2.44(1 − 16 / f c′) r 1 + 2. ε s > ε n (18b) εy     where B is a parameter defined as (1/ ρ )( f cr / fY ) . In previous work. d v is the depth of effective shear element.64bn db 3 f c′ in N. the average shear stress should be controlled by the local shear stress contributed by the aggregate interlock and dowel action. Therefore. 29 No. The test beams were divided into two series with different a/d ratio of 2 and 3. The average stresses should be limited by the stresses at the crack. In a reinforced concrete element or a beam. thus these bars have smaller side covers. and dowel failure occurring in these structural members belongs to the concrete splitting. where. Meaning of Symbols in Eq.25 B ) s  . and therefore. the failure mechanism is governed by splitting of the concrete. 8). they are in fact concrete forces. 8. taken as ε Y ( 0.10 as shown in Fig.17. Both are transmitted to the bulk of the concrete. Eq. For the prediction of the dowel action when failure is due to the concrete splitting.010 0. and this underestimated the role of the steel. only the empirical equations are available. The bilinear model is given as follows: σ s = Es ε s . the other one is due to the concrete splitting. and the splitting cracks can be opened at the bottom or at the side faces of the section. In this present research. It is already known that the thickness of the beams has no contribution to size effect. For smaller concrete cover. bn is the net width of beam and db is the diameter of the dowel bar (see Fig. One is due to yielding of the dowel bar and the crushing under the dowel. Du = 1. Average Tensile Stresses (MPa) 500 400 fY b) Eq. b is the width of a rectangular beam. There are two possible failure modes of the dowel mechanism.

23 1.74 1.57 0.57.diagonal-tension failure.35 0.95 2. FC .98 3.00 0. l -.68 2. The specimen dimensions and other parameters are given in Table 1.05 0.22 7.5-700 Cracking Stress (MPa) Flexural Diagonal vf vd 0.diagonal splitting failure.27 1.32 0.29 1. Table 2.03 0. All of the specimens were designed to fail in shear as far as possible.39 1. Details of 18 experimental beams Groups Beam Notations b mm B-2-200 B-2-400 B-2-700 V-2-200 V-2-400 V-2-700 VV-2-200 VV-2-400 VV-2-700 B-3.54 0.03 0.5-200 V-3.89 0.03 0.15 0.34 0.54 0.89 0.98 3. etc.98 3.57 0.57 0.35 0.06 0.5-700 VV-3.22 0.98 3.98 3. ρv -.web reinforcement ratio. d -.00 0.shear compression In each series.width of the beam.5-400 V-3. 2 means a/d ratio of 2.54 0. “VV” means beams with web reinforcement percentage of 0.00 0.98 3.Table 1. h -.overall length of beam.07 0.34 0. 200 is effective depth.62 1.41 1.44 6.flexural failure in compression zone.77 1.10 0.22 0. b -. The beams were geometrically scaled appropriately in all respects (see Fig.main tension steel ratio.32 Notations: DS .32 4.34 0.54 4.5-200 VV-3.57 l (mm) 1300 2600 4550 1300 2600 4550 1300 2600 4550 1900 3800 6650 1900 3800 6650 1900 3800 6650 1 2 3 1 2 3 Notations: B-2-200 = “B” means beams without web reinforcement.39 1. 1 400 ρ ) d b 0 5 2 400 800 800 700 1400 200 400 400 800 700 1400 200 400 400 800 700 1400 200 400 700 200 400 700 200 400 700 700 1400 2450 700 1400 2450 700 1400 2450 Concrete strength fc' Batch MPa Series 1 89 1 95 1 92 3 75 4 95 1 98 3 75 4 95 1 98 3 Series 2 85 2 85 2 102 1 85 2 85 2 102 1 85 2 85 2 104 1 Steel strength fys fyv MPa MPa 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 512 0 0 0 518 518 518 518 518 518 0 0 0 518 518 518 518 518 518 Main tension reinforcement As ρ mm2 % 1480 2960 5180 1480 2960 5180 1480 2960 5180 1480 2960 5180 1480 2960 5180 1480 2960 5180 3.98 3.25 0.5-400 VV-3. “V” means beams with web reinforcement percentage of 0.5-400 B-3.34.33 1.12 0.23 1.98 3. ρ -.49 8.41 2.11 0.08 0.82 0.38 0.03 5.5-700 V-3. Previous investigation by Walraven and Lehwalter19 indicated that there was no significant influence of the maximum aggregate size on the size effect in shear behavior.5-400 V-3. © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol.98 3. 10) except the maximum aggregate size which is maintained at 20 mm.61 1. 29 No.62 0.54 2.98 3.98 3.09 0.25 0.4 4.25 0.62 0.57 0.7 0.46 1.41 1. of Beams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 * Beam Notations B-2-200 V-2-200 VV-2-200 B-3.20 1.57 8. In each group the effective depths of the specimens were varied from 200 to 700 mm.54 0.08 0.27 0.54 0.62 1.effective depth of beam.07 4.5-400 VV-3.98 3. SC .5-200 VV-3.17 0.5-200 B-2-400 V-2-400 VV-2-400 B-3.98 3. whereas all other variables remained constant.40 0.79 Modes of Failure DS DS CC DT DT CC DS DS CC DT DT CC DS DS SC DT DT CC Ratios of Loads vf /vu 0.69 6.09 0.98 3. ultimate Loads and failure modes of 18 concrete beams No.34 0. three groups of beams were cast according to the different percentages of web preinforcement.89 0.32 0.24 0.98 3.95 2.5-700 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 Beam dimension h d a (mm) (mm) (mm) 250 475 825 250 475 825 250 475 825 250 475 825 250 475 825 250 475 825 200 ( 400 '+ c f 9 . Cracking loads.overall depth of beam.34 0.89 4.54 Ultimate Stress (Mpa) vu 6.36 0.41 1.11 8.5-200 B-3..27 1.98 3.5-200 V-3.57 0 0 0 0.08 0.5-400 B-2-700 V-2-700 VV-2-700 B-3.34 0.12 0. a -shear span.10 0.98 3. DT .82 5.5-700 V-3.98 Vertical web reinforcement Av s v ρv mm2 mm % 57 157 157 157 157 157 57 157 157 157 157 157 91 250 250 150 150 150 91 250 250 150 150 150 0 0 0 0.28 7.10 vd /vu 0.5-700 VV-3.29 0. 1/ May 2009 15 .41 1.

15b) Notes: Three beams for each figure. 12. with Aggr (Eq. 11. etc.5-200 Bearing plates Specimen 1 800 2 6 LVDTs Concrete support Swivel heads A-A A 2T13 T10 5 7 4 Roller Support 3 200 1400 A 1000 6T25 1400 200 185 B-3. 16 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. reinforcement cage A 2T16 T10 lifting hook 825 500 400 Modified FA-STM.5-400 475 135 Strong Floor 200 L/2 L/2 200 A-A Fig.5-700 VV-3. with Aggr (Eq. Details of beam specimens. or T6 at spacing 90 mm one beam with T10 stirrups at spacing 150 mm. The test specimens were loaded by two 1000 kN actuators. one beam without stirrups. each specimen was white-washed on one surface and 150 mm × 150 mm grids were drawn in pencil to facilitate crack detection. with Aggr (Eq. 1/ May 2009 . with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. Load-displacement relations of slender beams with d=200mm Modified FA-STM. regression analyses were carried out for concrete compressive strength in each batch.5-400 V-3. Since the beams were cast in different batches. 15b) & Dowel B-3. w/o Aggr & Dowel 600 Fig. Typical test set-up. 15b) Modified FA-STM. Test set-up The typical set-up for specimens is shown in Fig.A 2T13 T6 250 Actuators A 200 700 500 3T25 700 200 185 B-3. Load (kN) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 Modified FA-STM. 12. 15a) Experiment 185 2450 400 Load (kN) A 400 2450 1750 9T25+2T22 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Modified FA-STM.5-700 V-3. 29 No. w/o Aggr & Dowel 600 500 Modified FA-STM. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM.5-400 VV-3. with Aggr (Eq. 11. The average yield stresses of the steels used in the specimens are tabulated in Table 1.5-200 V-3. Materials The compressive strength of the concrete was designed to be about 100 MPa for all the beam specimens. The slump of the mix was about 200 mm.5-200 VV-3. 15b) Midspan Deflection (mm) (c) VV-2-200 Fig. Load-displacement relations of slender beams with d=200mm (continued). Note that T10 indicates a T bar of 10 mm diameter. 10. Two 150 × 150 × 150 mm concrete cubes and two 150 × 300 mm concrete cylinders were cast and tested together with each specimen to obtain the compressive strength of concrete. 15a) me eri nt p Ex Load (kN) 400 300 200 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. There are two types of reinforcement bars used in the beam specimens: deformed high tensile steel (T bar) and plain round mild steel (R bar). 15b) & Dowel 2 4 6 8 10 Midspan Deflection (mm) (b) V-2-200 Fig. one beam with T10 stirrups at spacing 250 mm. Before testing. 15b) & Dowel 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Modified FA-STM. Different average concrete strength of each beam specimen was then obtained from the results of these regression curves according to the age of specimen at the time of testing. The results are given in Table 1. Deflections of the beam specimens were measured using Linear Voltage Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) located at the bottom central line of the beams at seven locations. Same details were also used with a/d of 2 beams Midspan Deflection (mm) (a) B-2-200 Modified FA-STM.5-700 A-A Modified FA-STM. 15a) Ex p im er en t Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. f cu and f c′ .

14. 17(a). So Eq. with Aggr (Eq. 15a) 600 pe 1400 Load (kN) 400 200 0 0 2 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Ex Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. The comparisons between the proposed model and the experimental data are shown in Figs. with Aggr (Eq. 15a) t en Modified FA-STM. 14. with Aggr (Eq. 15b to reduce the overestimation of aggregate interlock. Fig. 13. 1/ May 2009 17 . 15a) rim en t Load (kN) Load (kN) 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 Ex r im pe 1500 E e xp Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. It was found that the shear strain increases suddenly afterwards. with Aggr (Eq. it is found that the loaddisplacement curves calculated by the model without considering the aggregate interlock and dowel action almost coincide with the curves calculated by the model with considering the aggregate interlock using Eq. 13. 15(a). with Aggr (Eq. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM. Eq. leading to failure. Load-displacement relations of slender beams with d=700mm (continued). with Aggr (Eq. 15a) Load (kN) 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 E e xp r im en t The calculation was terminated when the average shear strain in the element reaches 1. the 18 beams are analyzed as shown in Table 2.0%. Load-displacement relations of slender beams with d=400mm Midspan Deflection (mm) (b) V-2-700 Fig. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM. 15b) Modified FA-STM. especially for the high strength concrete deep beams without web reinforcement as shown in Fig. 15b) & Dowel 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Midspan Deflection (mm) (c) VV-2-400 Midspan Deflection (mm) (c) VV-2-700 Fig. Fig. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. w/o Aggr & Dowel 2000 Modified FA-STM. 15b) Modified FA-STM. Load-displacement relations of slender beams with d=700mm Modified FA-STM. 15b) & Dowel 14 16 18 20 22 (b) V-2-400 Fig. 16(a) and Fig. with Aggr (Eq.COMPARISON BETWEEN THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA To verify the reliability of the proposed method. with Aggr (Eq. 15a) Modified FA-STM. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM. w/o Aggr & Dowel 1400 1200 1000 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel 8 10 12 14 16 1000 Modified FA-STM. 15a may overestimate the aggregate interlock of high strength concrete. 15a) Modified FA-STM. 15b) & Dowel (a) B-2-400 12 14 16 Modified FA-STM. In these figures. 15b) Modified FA-STM. 12-17 that show the relationship between the load and midspan deflection. 29 No. w/o Aggr & Dowel 1400 1200 1000 Load (kN) 800 en Midspan Deflection (mm) (a)B-2-700 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. 15b) Modified FA-STM. 1400 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel 1200 1000 Load (kN) 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Experiment 12 Midspan Deflection (mm) Modified FA-STM. 15a. 15b) 500 Modified FA-STM. Load-displacement relations of slender beams with d=400mm (continued). 15a is changed into Eq. 1200 1000 Modified FA-STM. 15b) & Dowel p Ex er e im nt 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Midspan Deflection (mm) Modified FA-STM. 15b) 2000 1800 1600 t rim Modified FA-STM.

17. 15b) & Dowel 1200 1000 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. 15b) 100 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq.5-200 Fig. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM. 15b) & Dowel 300 Load (kN) Load (kN) 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM. Load-displacement relations of deep beams with d=400mm 300 Load (kN) ent erim Exp 800 700 600 ith . with Aggr (Eq. 15a) 400 (b) V-3. 15a) Modified FA-STM. 15b) 100 Modified FA-STM. 15. 15a) rim pe Ex en t Modified FA-STM.w 200 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq.5-200 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. (E gr Ag Load (kN) Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm) (b) V-3. with Aggr (Eq. 29 No. 1/ May 2009 . with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel 4 5 6 7 8 Midspan Deflection (mm) (a) B-3. 15b) 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Modified FA-STM.5-200 Modified FA-STM. 16. Load-displacement relations of deep beams with d=700mm 300 250 200 Modified FA-STM. 15b) & Dowel 0 4 5 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm) (a) B-3. with Aggr (Eq.5-200 30 35 40 45 Midspan Deflection (mm) (b) V-3. 15b) & Dowel Modified FA-STM. 15b) 100 Modified FA-STM.5-700 Fig. with Aggr (Eq. 15a) Fig. w/o Aggr & Dowel 400 Modified FA-STM.5-200 (c) VV-3.300 250 200 Modified FA-STM.5-200 Modified FA-STM. 15b) 100 Modified FA-STM. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. w/o Aggr & Dowel 400 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. 15a) en t 300 Load (kN) Load (kN) 200 nt me eri xp E 300 pe Ex rim 200 Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq.5-700 18 © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. 15b) Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. 15a) Modified FA-STM. 15b) & Dowel Ex 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 (c) VV-3. w/o Aggr & Dowel a) 15 q. 15b) t en rim pe Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. Load-displacement relations of deep beams with d=200mm Midspan Deflection (mm) (a) B-3. with Aggr (Eq. 15b) & Dowel 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 M i od fie d F M ST A- Midspan Deflection (mm) Modified FA-STM. with Aggr (Eq. 15a) 400 Modified FA-STM. 15b) nt me eri xp E 200 Ex ri pe me nt Modified FA-STM. w/o Aggr & Dowel Load (kN) 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 p Ex i er me nt Load (kN) Modified FA-STM.

“Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements.. 18. The reliability of the model has been assessed through the comparison with the experimental results. 656-666.. T. Bulletin s’information Nos. 16. 14. T. 7.-Apr. 5.. L. H. with Aggr (Eq. V..” ACI Structural Journal. Sept. Heft 346. Hsu. The comparison shows the aggregate interlock and dowel action can reduce the overestimation of the shear capacity of high strength reinforced beam. 106. pp. T. 91. R. 167-180. V. No. 1980... Z. C. A. C.” Journal of Structural Engineering. ST4. © ITS JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING / Vol. T. H. Pang.. Paulay. X. T. “Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete. “Shear Transfer by Aggregate Interlock. 9. and Yamada. 19. July-Aug. L.Oct.” Bauingenieur. pp. 5. 465-474.. “Size Effects in Short Beams Loaded in Shear. T. M. 92. pp. “Rough Cracks in Reinforced Concrete. Jan. Detroit. M. “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses. 552-561. 17. and Lehwalter. “Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Shell Elements Subjected to In-plane Forces.. T. pp. ASCE. and Gambarova. No.” ACI Structural Journal. w/o Aggr & Dowel Modified FA-STM. 5.” ACI Structural Journal. Apr. with Aggr (Eq. with Aggr (Eq. is proposed. 1970. 195 and 196... H. pp. P. Boca Raton. J.. X. Aug. Sept.” Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn. and Hsu T. Moreover. “The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear. 8. “Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane Elements by Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss Model. Mar. and Collins. Utescher. 1982. 443-450. V.-Dec. 1-15. V.. REFERENCES 1. 11. 98. C.. Hsu. Zhang. 1969. T. pp. 66..” ACI Structural Journal. 4. Elements... of the ASCE. Belarbi. V.. Vecchio. 15. P.. Kupfer. and Hsu. Bazant. No. Hsu T. 29 No. especially the high strength reinforced deep beam without web reinforcement. T. 562573. Baumann. and Zhang. Berlin. X. V. pp. 331. Florida.” Journal of the Structural Division. and Kuper. and Herrmann. 1995.1997.-Oct. V. J. No. No. 5. the model is suitable for being implemented numerical procedures due its simplicity. 348. July-Aug. T. “Constitutive Laws of Softened Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression. 2. pp.. pp. and Hsu. No. 12. P. Proc. C.” CRC Press. 1974. No. Mar. pp. The crack angle is kept fixed at the initial direction of concrete. No. A. “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements in Shear. 15a) Ex pe rim en t 6. Mar. B. 124. 1993. C. No. C. 1990. “Fixed-Angle SoftenedTruss Model for Reinforced Concrete”. Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton.” ACI Journal. No. Y. subjected to plane stresses and monotonically loaded up to failure. N. 91. V. 57.5-700 Fig.. Zhu. K. F. T.-Oct. Hsu. CONCLUSIONS In this paper a modified FA-STM for the analysis of the behavior of high strength reinforced concrete beams. and Hsu. 1994. T.. H.” Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahkbton. 1998. “Versuche zur Ermittlung der Tragfahigkeit in Beton eingespannter Rundsstahldollen aus nichtrostendem austenitisschem Stahl.” ACI Special Publication SP-42. T. Daschner. 219-231. T. and Rusch. No. 1994. 665-679. ACI Structural Journal.. J. 1983. G. No. and Lee. Hilsdorf..” ACI Structural Journal. pp. C. M. Aoyagi. V. B. T. F. 15b) Modified FA-STM. 49-104. 1995. “Rational Shear Modulus for Smeared-Crack Analysis of Reinforced Concrete. No. 6.. P. C. 1991. Committee Euro-International du Beton. B.. X. and Rusch. Pang.. and Hsu. H. Y. “Test on Shear Transfer across Cracks in Normal and Light Concrete. Load-displacement relations of deep beams with d=700mm (continued).. 88.” ACI Structural Journal. 4. 1. 8. 94. Sep.. Walraven. 819842 13.. 93. “Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Membrane 2. “Versuche zum Studium der Verdubelungswirkung der Biegezugbewehrung eines Stahlbetonbalkes. Heft 210. pp.” Proc. Berlin.1400 1200 1000 Modified FA-STM. V. 585-593. 1996. pp. C. 1/ May 2009 19 . T. 2001. V. 483-492. 1983. “Constitutive Laws of Concrete in Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by Concrete. 24-34. The functions for aggregate interlock and dowel action are used to control the shear capacity of cracked concrete. pp.” ACI Structural Journal. 57-60. 197-207. pp.. 17... and Loeber. of JSCE. 3. J. 83. 1986. 4. 10. 5. 92. pp. V.” ACI Structural Journal. Load (kN) 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 Modified FA-STM. Willhelm Ernst und Sohn. 15b) & Dowel 30 40 50 60 70 Midspan Deflection (mm) (c) VV-3.. Nov. T.-Apr. H. Belarbi. CEB-FIP Model Code MC90.. pp. K. 2. T.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful