Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Nonlinear ®nite element analysis of concrete structures

using new constitutive models
Taijun Wang, Thomas T.C. Hsu *
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-2162, USA
Received 24 January 2001; accepted 1 August 2001

Abstract
Nonlinear ®nite element analysis was applied to various types of reinforced concrete structures using a new set of
constitutive models established in the ®xed-angle softened-truss model (FA-STM). A computer code FEAPRC was
developed speci®cally for application to reinforced concrete structures by modifying the general-purpose program
FEAP. FEAPRC can take care of the four important characteristics of cracked reinforced concrete: (1) the softening
e€ect of concrete in compression, (2) the tension-sti€ening e€ect by concrete in tension, (3) the average (or smeared)
stress±strain curve of steel bars embedded in concrete, and (4) the new, rational shear modulus of concrete. The pre-
dictions made by FEAPRC are in good agreement with the experimental results of beams, panels, and framed shear
walls. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Beams; Computer code; Concrete; Constitutive laws; Finite element; Shear modulus; Shear walls; Structures; Reinforced
concrete; Constitutive model

1. Introduction tures where the constitutive relationships of concrete

Since Ngo and Scordelis [1] applied the nonlinear
®nite element method to reinforced concrete beams, this
technique has developed into an important tool for the
analysis of the complex concrete structures, such as
nuclear containment vessels, o€shore platforms, long-
span bridges, shear walls in buildings, etc. This tech-
nique also played a signi®cant role in the research of
concrete structures by helping to understand the for-
mation and propagation of cracks and the mechanism
and process of failure. Furthermore, numerical ex-
periments can also be performed on structures that are
dicult to model in laboratory study [2]. Future deve-
lopment of the nonlinear ®nite element method lies
primarily in the improvements of the constitutive models
of materials. This is especially true for concrete struc-
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1-713-743-0421.
E-mail address: thsu@uh.edu (T.T.C. Hsu).
and the embedded steel bars are still evolving [3], e.g. in
shear and torsion.
Experimental research to establish the constitutive
relationships of concrete structures has been an on-
going activity at the University of Houston over the past
13 years. Nearly a hundred full-size panels have been
tested using the universal panel tester [4]. This test fa-
cility, equipped with a servo-control system, allowed
researchers to conduct strain-controlled tests [5]. Based
on extensive panel tests, two behavioral models were
developed for the analysis of structures subjected to
shear: the rotating-angle softened truss model (RA-
STM) and the ®xed-angle softened truss model (FA-
STM).
The RA-STM assumes cracks will develop in a di-
rection parallel to the principal compressive stresses in
concrete elements, and the cracks will ``rotate'' to follow
the principal stresses over the entire loading history.
Because shear stresses cannot develop along the cracks,
this model requires only three constitutive laws: (1)
concrete in compression, (2) concrete in tension, and (3)

0045-7949/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 5 7 - 2
2782 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791

steel bars embedded in concrete. In contrast, the FA- where c ˆ cos a0 † and s ˆ sin a0 †. The principal angle a0
STM assumes cracks will develop along the direction of is obtained as
principal compressive stresses applied at initial cracking,
2sxy
and the cracks will be ®xed at this angle thereafter. Be- tan 2a0 † ˆ 2†
rx ry
cause shear stresses can develop along such cracks, FA-
STM requires an additional constitutive law of concrete The angle a0 may be the maximum principal angle a01 or
in shear. the minimum principal angle a02 . From Mohr circle these
The advantage of FA-STM over RA-STM was that two angles can be di€erentiated by the following equa-
FA-STM was capable of taking into account the con- tion:
crete contribution Vc , induced by the shear stresses along
sxy
the cracks. The disadvantage of FA-STM, however, was tan a0i ˆ in which i ˆ 1; 2 3†
the involvement of a complex empirical constitutive law ri ry
of concrete in shear. Fortunately, this weakness was In the ®xed angle theory, the 1±2 coordinate is the
overcome by the recent derivation of a rational, yet coordinate determined by the principal applied stresses
simple, shear modulus of concrete [8]. As a result, the at initial cracking. With further loading after cracking,
solution algorithm of FA-STM is now as simple as that the principal coordinate of applied stresses will rotate
of RA-STM. In this paper, we describe the incorpora- from the 1±2 coordinate to the 10 ±20 coordinate, and the
tion of the set of four FA-STM constitutive laws [6±8] principal angle will change. Since the cracking angle is
into the computer code FEAPRC, and the comparison assumed to be ®xed at the initial cracking angle a1 , it is
of FEAPRC predictions with the experimental results of necessary to transform the stresses in the 10 ±20 coordi-
three types of concrete structures. nate back to the stresses in the 1±2 coordinate through
an angle b ˆ a01 a1 . This stress transformation can be
2. Application of ®xed-angle cracks in ®nite element accomplished by the following equation:
method 8 9 2 38 9
< r1 = c2 s2 2cs < r10 =
r2 ˆ 4 s2 c2 2cs 5 r20 4†
2.1. Coordinate system in ®xed-angle model : ; : ;
s12 cs cs c2 s2 0
Fig. 1 shows the coordinate system x±y, 1±2 and where c ˆ cos b† and s ˆ sin b†.
10 ±20 . Coordinates x±y and 1±2 represent the directions
of the reinforcing steel bars and the principal applied 2.2. Material sti€ness matrix
stresses at initial cracking, respectively. Angle a1 is the
®xed angle between these two coordinates. The coordi- Before cracking, concrete can reasonably be assumed
nate 10 ±20 is the post-cracking principal coordinate of as an elastic isotropic solid. After cracking, however, it
applied stresses, which has an angle a01 with respect to may be considered as a nonlinear, orthotropic solid. For
the x±y coordinate. an orthogonal solid under plane stress or plane strain
The transformation of stresses from the x±y coordi- conditions, the material sti€ness matrix [D] is expressed
nate to the 10 ±20 coordinate is given by the matrix by the 3  3 matrix in Eq. (5):
equation as follows: 8 9 2 38 9
8 9 2 38 9 < r1 = E1 lE1 0 < e1 =
< r10 = c 2 s2 2cs < rx = r ˆ 4 lE2 E2 0 5 e2 5†
r20 ˆ 4 s2 c 2 2cs 5 ry 1† : 2; : ;
: ; : ; s12 0 0 G12 c12
s10 20 cs cs c2 s2 sxy
where r1 , r2 are stresses in the principal directions 1, 2
respectively, e1 , e2 are strains in the principal directions
1, 2 respectively, E1 , E2 are secant moduli of concrete in
the principal directions 1, 2 respectively, l is Poisson
ratio in the principal directions 1, 2 (taken as zero in FA-
STM), G12 is secant shear modulus of concrete in the
principal plane.
The matrix in Eq. (5) contains only ®ve non-zero ele-
ments because the e€ects of shear stresses on the normal
stresses are ignored. The ®ve elements involve three
moduli E1 , E2 and G12 , and one Poisson ratio l. The
shear modulus of cracked concrete, G12 , has been inves-
tigated by a number of researchers over the past three
Fig. 1. Principal coordinate systems and the ®xed angle. decades [9±13]. The two most popular shear moduli are:
 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791 2783

(a) Darwin et al., [9] STM [14±16]. This revision was made in 1999 [8,17] to
p
take care of the long plateau after peak point observed
1
G12 ˆ E1 ‡ E2 2l E1 E2 6† in the strain-control tests of panels using the servo-
41 l2 †
control system.
(b) Vecchio et al., [13] The softened coecient f in Eqs. (9) and (10) is

E1 E2 5:8 1
G12 ˆ 7† f ˆ p0 r 6 0:9 fc0 in MPa† 11†
E1 ‡ E2 fc 400e1
1‡ 0
g
Recently, Zhu et al. [8] derived a rational, yet very
simple shear modulus as follows:
qy fyy ry
r1 r2 gˆ 12†
G12 ˆ 8† qx fxy rx
2 e1 e2 †
where qx , qy are reinforcement ratios in the x and y di-
The shear modulus G12 in Eq. (8) is rational because it
rections, respectively; fxy , fyy , yield stress of steel in the x
was derived from the equilibrium and compatibility
and y directions, respectively; and rx , ry , applied stresses
conditions. Eq. (8) was adopted in FA-STM to signi®-
in the x and y directions, respectively. The symbol g0 in
cantly simplify the solution algorithm and to improve its
Eq. (11) is expressed by g in Eq. (12) or its reciprocal,
accuracy.
whichever is less than unity. The g0 values are limited to
The three expressions of shear moduli (Eqs. (6)±(8))
a range of 0:2 < g0 < 1. In the descending portion of the
were installed in FEAPRC to be used for comparison
concrete stress±strain curve (Eq. (10)) the lowest stress
later.
value was taken as 0:2ffc0 to avoid the potential nu-
merical problem in calculation.
2.3. Constitutive relationships in FA-STM
2.3.2. Concrete in tension
2.3.1. Concrete in compression
The average (or smeared) stress±strain curve of
The average (or smeared) stress±strain curve of
concrete in tension [14,18,19] is shown in Fig. 3 where
concrete in compression [8,14±16] is shown in Fig. 2 and
the ascending and descending branches are given as:
is expressed as
"    2 # r1 ˆ Ec e1 e1 6 ecr 13†
0 e2 e2
r2 ˆ ffc 2 e2 =fe0 6 1 9†
fe0 fe0  0:4
ecr
r1 ˆ fcr e1 > ecr 14†
"  2 # e1
e2 =fe0 1
r2 ˆ ffc0 1 e2 =fe0 > 1 10† where Ec is modulus of elasticity of concrete; fcr is
4=f 1
cracking stress of concrete; and ecr is cracking strain of
where fc0 is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete; concrete. If the sharp change at the cracking strain ecr
e0 , concrete strain at maximum compressive stress, taken
as 0.002; and f, softened coecient. The constant 4 in
Eq. (10) replaces the old constant 2 in the original FA-

Fig. 2. Softened compressive stress±strain curve of concrete. Fig. 3. Average tensile stress±strain curve of concrete.
2784 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791
Fig. 4. Average stress±strain curve of steel bars embedded in
concrete.
cause any numerical diculty, a short plateau at the
peak point can be installed.
2.3.3. Concrete in shear
The average (or smeared) stress±strain relationship of
concrete in shear was originally derived empirically by
Pang and Hsu [6] and Hsu and Zhang [7]. Now that a
rational and simple shear modulus has been derived by
Zhu et al. [8], Eq. (8) is being used in the FA-STM.
2.3.4. Mild steel
The average (or smeared) stress±strain curve of mild
steel bars embedded in concrete, shown in Fig. 4, is
expressed by two straight lines [8,14,18]:
fs ˆ Es es es 6 en 15†
  
es
fs ˆ fy 0:91 2B† ‡ 0:02 ‡ 0:25B es > en
ey
16†
where fs and es are the average (or smeared) stress and
strain of mild steel bars, respectively; fy and ey are the
yield stress and strain of bare mild steel bars, respec-
tively; Es is the modulus of elasticity of steel bars; and
en ˆ ey 0:93 2B†. The parameter B is given by B ˆ
fcr =fy †1:5 =q, where q is the reinforcement steel ratio and
P0.5%. fcrpis
the cracking strength of concrete given by
fcr ˆ 0:31 fc0 MPa†.
When a steel bar is embedded in concrete and starts
to yield at the cracks, the stresses in the steel bars be-
tween the cracks will be less than the yield stress at the
cracks, because part of the tensile force is resisted by the
concrete. Using the smeared crack concept, the steel
stresses are then averaged along the steel bar traversing
several cracks. The resulting average (or smeared) steel
stress at ®rst yield will obviously be less than the local
yield stress of a bare bar at the cracks. As shown in Fig.
4, the average (or smeared) stress of the steel bar at
initial yielding, fn , is lower than the yield stress of the
bare steel bars, fy . The di€erence between fn and fy de-
pends on the parameter B which is a function of the steel
ratio, q, and the ratio fcr =fy .
The use of the average (or smeared) steel stresses
(Eqs. (15) and (16)), in combination with the average (or
smeared) concrete stresses (Eqs. (13) and (14)), allows
the tension sti€ening of steel bars by concrete to be
considered and the deformations of the steel±concrete
composites to be correctly evaluated. At the same time,
the use of average (or smeared) stresses in steel and
concrete avoids the unwarranted increase of the ®rst
yield strength of steel±concrete composites associated
with the use of stresses of the bare steel bars [19].
3. Program ``FEAPRC''
The ®nite element analysis program for reinforced
concrete (FEAPRC) used in this paper to predict the
behavior of reinforced concrete structures is a modi®ed
version of ®nite element analysis program (FEAP).
FEAP is described in the book ``The Finite Element
Method'' by Zienkiewicz and Taylor [20], and is a gen-
eral-purpose program containing about 1000 subrou-
tines and more than 100,000 lines. As it stands, however,
FEAP is not applicable to reinforced concrete structures
because no constitutive relationships of concrete and
steel bars were included. The computer code FEAPRC
was developed by installing the relevant material models
of reinforced concrete into FEAP. This extension of
FEAP for application to reinforced concrete structures
involves the modi®cations of 26 subroutines and the
addition of 41 new subroutines.
The subroutines in FEAP that are modi®ed are listed
as follows: easble.f, emat2d.f, elas1d.f, elmlib.f, estrsd.f,
®lnam.f, inpt2d.f, modl1d.f, modlsd.f, pform.f, pgauss.f,
pmacr.f, pmacr1.f, pmacr2.f, pmacr3.f, prtdis.f, prtrea.f,
pstr2d.f, resid2d.f, sld2d1.f, sld2d3.f, solid2d.f, sparse.f,
ster2d.f, strn2d.f and trussnd.f.
The 41 new subroutines in FEAPRC are summarized
into 12 groups ((a) to (c)) according to their functions.
The number in brackets is the number of subroutines in
the group: (a) Categorizing the seven cases of stresses as
shown in Tables 1±±(3), (b) Calculating stresses in the
seven cases±±(7), (c) Reviewing stresses in the seven
cases±±(7), (d) Storage and retrieval of material mo-
duli±±(5), (e) Storage and retrieval of strains±±(5), (f)
Storage and retrieval of stresses±±(5), (g) Transforma-
tion of matrices±±(3), (h) Nonlinear sti€nesses of con-
crete and steel±±(2), (i) Choice of shear moduli±±(1), (j)
Constitutive relationship of steel bars embedded in
concrete±±(1), (k) Calculation of principal strains±±(1),
(l) Judging the limit states±±(1).
 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791 2785

Table 1
Seven stresses states in nonlinear procedure
Case Stress states Elastic
moduli
Uncracked tension±un- r1 < r‡
0 E1 ˆ E0
cracked tension r2 < r‡
0 E2 ˆ E0
Uncracked tension±un- r1 < r‡
0 E1 ˆ E0
crushed compression r2 < r0 E2 ˆ r2 =e2
Uncrushed compres- r1 < r0 E1 ˆ r1 =e1
sion±uncrushed com- r2 < r0 E2 ˆ r2 =e2
pression
Cracked tension± r1 P r‡
0 E1 ˆ r1 =e1
cracked tension r2 P r‡
0 E2 ˆ r2 =e2
Cracked tension±un- r1 P r‡
0 E1 ˆ r1 =e1
cracked tension r2 < r‡
0 E2 ˆ E0

Fig. 5. Failure surface by Kupfer and Gerstle [24].
Important modi®cations to FEAP regarding material
properties and nonlinear solution techniques are given
below:
3.1. Material properties
3.1.1. Failure surface
The classi®cation of constitutive relationships de-
scribed in Eqs. (9)±(14) must be guided by an interactive
failure criterion for concrete. Various proposals have
been made to describe the failure strength characteristics
of concrete [21±27]. Among these proposals, the most
popular was Kupfer's failure surface which provides
the biaxial strength of concrete under tension±tension,
compression±compression and tension±compression
(Fig. 5). Kupfer's failure surface was installed and im-
plemented in FEAPRC.
3.1.2. Various stress states in nonlinear procedure
As mentioned previously, concrete before cracking is
considered as an elastic isotropic solid. After cracking, it
is treated as an elastico-plastic solid having orthotropic
characteristic. Since cracking of concrete is the primary
source of the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete
structures, it is necessary to check the stress states of
every element and to judge the state of cracking at each
loading increment and at every iterative step. This in-
formation is needed to calculate the changes of concrete
moduli in order to update the material sti€ness matrix in
the nonlinear procedure.
The biaxial stress states of every element can be
divided into seven cases as shown in Table 1: (1)
uncracked tension±uncracked tension, (2) uncracked
tension±uncrushed compression, (3) uncrushed com-
Cracked tension±uncru- r1 P r‡
0 E1 ˆ r1 =e1
shed compression r2 < r0 E2 ˆ r2 =e2
Crushed compression± r2 > r0 E1 ˆ 0
crushed compression E2 ˆ 0
r‡
0 : cracking strength of concrete; r0 : ultimate compressive
strength of concrete.
pression±uncrushed compression, (4) cracked tension±
cracked tension, (5) cracked tension±uncracked tension,
(6) cracked tension±uncrushed compression and (7)
crushed compression±crushed compression. With these
seven cases of stress condition, one can judge the de-
velopment of cracks, the redistribution of stresses in
cracked elements, the changes of elastic moduli, and the
unbalanced nodal forces.
3.1.3. Limit state criteria
The limit state criteria depend on many factors:
characteristics of structures, properties of composite
materials, boundary conditions, loading path, etc. Al-
though much research has been done in this ®eld, it is
still not possible to propose a general criterion that is
suitable for all cases. For reinforced concrete beams,
panels and structural systems, the limit state criteria
may involve ultimate tensile strain, ultimate compressive
strain, extent of cracked or yielded areas, severity of
deformation, magnitude of de¯ection, etc. According to
our own experimental results and others tests, the ulti-
mate tensile strain eut and the ultimate compressive
strain euc of concrete will be used as the limit state cri-
teria as follows:
eut ˆ 10ecr 17a†
euc ˆ 4e0 17b†
where ecr is the tensile cracking strain of concrete and e0
is the strain at maximum compressive stress of concrete.
2786 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791
When the ultimate strain values are reached, the
calculation procedure will be terminated and all the in-
formation at the limit state will be printed out. Detailed
discussion of the limit state criteria for framed shear
walls is given in a separate paper [28].
3.2. Nonlinear solution technique
3.2.1. Concrete and steel elements
The concrete body in program FEAPRC is modeled
by 4- or 8-node quadrilateral isoparametric 2D elements.
The reinforcing bars are represented by discrete pin-
connected truss elements. A truss element is subjected
only to axial deformations and forces, and has two de-
grees of freedom at the nodal points of concrete elements.
In the thickness direction, the steel bars at the same layer
are idealized as a plate with the same width as the
thickness, and with the same cross section as these bars.
In view of the discrete representation of the steel
bars, it would be more convenient to move the steel bars
to the edge of the concrete elements where the node
points are located. The di€erence caused by this relo-
cation of steel bars can be compensated for by adjusting
the cross sectional area so that the moments of inertia
are the same. The equivalent cross section, Feq , is shown
in Fig. 6 and is calculated as follows:
a20
Feq ˆ F0 18†
a2
where F0 is the original cross section of steel bar; while a0
and a are the original distance and the relocated dis-
tance, respectively, of steel bars measured from the
center line of steel cross section to the neutral axis of
concrete element.
In a shear panel or in the panel of a framed shear
wall, the steel mesh is idealized as being smeared over
the whole panel and modeled by 2D solid elements. For
a mesh with equal percentages of steel in the two di-
rections, the mesh is treated as a thin layer of homoge-
neous steel plate pinned to the concrete elements at the
nodes. For a mesh with unequal percentages of steel in
Fig. 6. Equivalent cross-section of steel bars.
the two directions, it is treated as a combination of two
thin layers of orthogonal steel plates, each is imagined to
smear only in one direction. These two thin steel layers
of steel occupy the same space and are pinned at the
same nodes of concrete elements.
3.2.2. Unbalanced nodal forces
The load was applied in increments to the structure.
For each load increment, we used the modi®ed Newton±
Raphson method with iteration procedure to achieve
convergence. In every iterative step the calculated ele-
ment stresses were converted to a set of equivalent nodal
forces f Rgeq and then compare to the set of applied
nodal forces f Rgap . The resulting unbalanced nodal
forces f Rgun was then calculated as:
f Rgun ˆ f Rgap f Rgeq 19†
The equivalent nodal forces f Rgeq in Eq. (19) was
obtained from the well known formula, f Rgeq ˆ
P R T
e v ‰BŠ frg dv, where ‰BŠ is the geometric matrix of
elements. After each iteration step, the unbalanced no-
dal forces should become small enough to meet the
convergence condition. If not, the load increment was
reduced and the iteration process resumed. This process
continued until the failure of the structure.
3.2.3. Dynamical storage/retrieval of historical data
In the FEAP program the current functions for
storing and retrieving historical data are limited. Since
the nonlinear analysis of concrete structures depends
strongly on the historical path, a special dynamical
storage/retrieval system for historical data was estab-
lished in the FEAPRC program. This system was rela-
tively independent from the original FEAP program in
order to avoid the interference between the FEAP pro-
gram and the special storage/retrieval process. Using this
system, any component of stresses and strains, as well as
any material nonlinear parameter at any Gauss point of
any element, could be stored and retrieved at any
loading step.
3.2.4. Additional input and output
A new NAMELIST function was installed to ®le the
additional inputs for FEAPRC. This additional input
®le for nonlinear analysis of concrete structures includes
the basic material parameters of concrete; special cal-
culation parameters of nonlinear analysis procedure; the
selected calculation plan and the additional output
demands. The additional outputs include the displace-
ments and loads at indicated nodal points; the stresses
and strains at assigned Gauss points of elements; the
information of steel yielding and concrete cracking; the
various material moduli (E1 ; E2 ; G; l); the softened co-
ecients at given Gauss points; and the limit state cri-
teria. These additional output functions would facilitate
 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791
Fig. 7. Flexural beam by Bresler and Scordelis [29].
the use of a post-processor so that the whole picture of
nonlinear analysis results can be presented expedi-
tiously.
4. Comparison with experimental results
The applicability and accuracy of the program
FEAPRC are illustrated by comparing the predicted
results to the test results of ¯exural beams [29], shear
panels of normal and high strength concrete [15,16], and
framed shear walls [30].
4.1. Bresler/Scordelis beam test
The simply supported reinforced concrete beam with
mid-point load tested by Bresler and Scordelis [29] is
shown in Fig. 7a. The longitudinal reinforcement con-
sists of four steel bars with a total area of 2580 mm2 (4
in.2 ), an ultimate strength of 917 MPa and an elastic
modulus of 191,400 MPa. The concrete has a compres-
sive strength of 24.5 MPa, and an elastic modulus of
21,300 MPa. The failure load was measured to be 258.1
kN.
Four-node bilinear isoparametric elements are se-
lected to model the concrete, while 2-node truss elements
are used for modeling the reinforcement. Perfect com-
patibility of deformation between concrete and rein-
forcement is assumed. The meshes of concrete and steel
bars are shown in Fig. 7b and c, respectively. The total
mesh consists of 70 quadratic elements for concrete, 20
linear truss elements for steel bars and a total of 88
nodal points.
The load±displacement curves at the mid-point of the
beam span in Fig. 8 show excellent agreement between
predictions and test results. The calculated ultimate load
Specimen fc0 (MPa) e0 Ec (MPa)
A3 41.62 0.0019 24,632
VA1 95.10 0.00245 31,309
2787
Fig. 8. Load±de¯ection curves at mid-span of beam.
is 253.2 kN, about 1.9% lower than the test value of
258.1 kN.
4.2. Shear panels tested at University of Houston
Nearly 100 reinforced concrete panels have been
tested at the University of Houston since 1988. These
panels were subjected to in-plane shear and normal
stresses as shown in Fig. 9a. The testing panels had a size
of 1397  1397 mm in plane, and a thickness of 178 mm.
They were made of normal strength concrete (42 MPa),
medium±high strength concrete (65 MPa) and high
strength concrete (100 MPa).
Two panels are chosen to illustrate the validity of the
program FEAPRC. These were normal-strength con-
crete panel A3 tested by Pang and Hsu [15] and high-
strength concrete Panel VA1 tested by Zhang and Hsu
[16]. The material properties of these two panels are
given as follows:
qx ; qy fxy ; fyy Es (MPa)
1.789% 446 199,810
1.200% 445 181,000
2788 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791
Fig. 9. Shear Panels A3 by Pang and Hsu [15] and VA1 by
Zhang and Hsu [16].
To model the panels, we used 49 4-node bilinear
isoparametric elements for concrete mesh as shown in
Fig. 9b. The meshes for steel bars in x and y directions
are modeled as in concrete. Therefore, the total mesh
consists of 147 quadratic elements and 192 nodal points.
The predicted values for Panels A3 and VA1 are
compared to the test values in Figs. 10 and 11, respec-
tively. It can be seen that the agreements are excellent.
The predicted shear strength of 7.60 MPa for Panel A3 is
only 0.8% less than the test value of 7.66 MPa. The
predicted shear strength of 6.03 MPa for Panel VA1 is
only 4.0% less than the test value of 6.29 MPa.
Fig. 11 also includes the predicted curves using the
two shear moduli given by Eqs. (6) and (7). It can be
seen that the predicted curve using the rational shear
modulus G1 (Eq. (8)) agrees best with the test curve. The
predicted curve using G2 modulus, (Eq. (6)) is higher
than that using G1 modulus, (Eq. (8)) while the pre-
dicted curve using G3 (Eq. (7)) is much lower than that
using G1.
Fig. 10. Shear stress versus shear strain curves of Panel A3.
Fig. 11. Shear stress versus shear strain curves of Panel VA1
using three shear moduli.
4.3. Framed shear walls tested at University of Houston
The predictions of FEAPRC was also compared to
the observed behavior of 14 framed shear walls tested
recently by Gao [30] at the University of Houston. A
typical specimen FSW4 is chosen for illustration. The
dimensions of this specimen and the arrangements of
steel bars are shown in Fig. 12a. The mesh for the
concrete part of framed shear wall is given in Fig. 12b.
The basic material behavior of specimen FSW4 is: qp ˆ
0:55%, qf ˆ 1:11%, e0 ˆ 0:002, fc0 ˆ 49:51 MPa, fcr ˆ
2:73 MPa, fy;p ˆ 419 MPa, fy;f ˆ 425 MPa, Ec ˆ 34; 145
MPa, Es;p ˆ 187; 544 MPa, Es;f ˆ 216; 082 MPa. The
subscript p in the symbols means panel, while the sub-
script f represents frame.
Specimen FSW4 was subjected to reversed cyclic
loading, which resulted in a set of hysteretic loops. The
envelopes of the hysteretic loops in the positive and
negative directions were used to compare with the pre-
dicted curves. The predicted (solid) curve of normalized
shear stresses vs. total drift angle is compared to the two
 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791
Fig. 12. Framed shear wall FSW4 by Gao [30].
experimental curves (dotted) in Fig. 13. It is obvious that
the predicted curve agrees very well with the two tested
curves. Detailed analysis of 9 framed shear walls is given
in a separated paper [28].
5. Conclusions
(1) By modifying the computer code FEAP, a new
®nite element program FEAPRC was developed which
is useful for predicting the behavior of reinforced con-
crete structures. The modi®cations include the addition
of new constitutive models of materials established for
the FA-STM, as well as the installation of a special
storage/retrieval system for historical data, and an input
and output system.
(2) The FEAPRC program took into account the
four characteristics of cracked reinforced concrete,
2789
namely, the softened stress±strain relationship of con-
crete in compression, the sti€ening e€ect of concrete
in tension, the average (smeared) stress±strain curve of
steel bars embedded in concrete, and the rational shear
modulus.
(3) The behavior of beams, shear panels and framed
shear walls predicted by FEAPRC was found to agree
very well with the observed behavior. The shear panels
were made of normal±strength concrete as well as high-
strength concrete.
(4) The rational and simple shear modulus, as de®ned
in Eq. (8), provided reliable and accurate predictions.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by two grants CMS-
9711084 and CMS-9713707 from the National Science
2790 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791
Fig. 13. Normalized shear stress versus total drift angle of FSW4.
Foundation. These generous supports are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Ngo D, Scordelis AC. Finite element analysis of rein-
forced concrete beams. J Am Concr Inst 1967;64(3):152±
63.
[2] Schnobrich WC. Behavior of reinforced concrete members
by ®nite element. Third Asian-Paci®c Conference on
Computational Mechanics. 16±18 September, Seoul,
Korea, 1996. p. 3±13.
[3] Chen WF, Ting EC. Constitutive models for concrete
structures. J Engng Mech (ASCE) 1980;106(EM1):1±19.
[4] Hsu TTC, Belarbi A, Pang XB. A universal panel tester.
J Test Eval (ASTM) 1995;23(1):41±9.
[5] Hsu TTC, Zhang LX, Gomez T. A servo control system
for universal panel tester. J Test Eval (ASTM) 1995;
3(6):424±30.
[6] Pang XB, Hsu TTC. Fixed-angle softened-truss model for
reinforced concrete. Struct J Am Concr Inst 1996;
93(2):197±207.
[7] Hsu TTC, Zhang LX. Nonlinear analysis of membrane
elements by ®xed-angle softened-truss model. Struct J Am
Concr Inst 1997;94(5):483±92.
[8] Zhu RH, Hsu TTC, Lee JY. Rational shear modulus for
smeared-crack analysis of reinforced concrete. Struct J Am
Concr Inst 2001;98(4):443±50.
[9] Darwin D, Pecknold DA. Inelastic model for cycle biaxial
loading of reinforced concrete. In: Civ Engng Stud
(Structural Research Series No 409). Urbana, ILL: Uni-
versity of Illinois; 1974.
[10] Cervenka V. Constitutive model for cracked reinforced
concrete. J Am Concr Inst 1985;82(6):877±82.
[11] Cris®eld MA, Wills J. Analysis of R/C panels using
di€erent concrete models. J Engng Mech Div (ASCE)
1989;115(3):578±97.
[12] Hu H, Schnobrich WC. Nonlinear analysis of plane stress
state reinforced concrete under short term monotonic
loading. In: Civil Engng Stud (Structural Research Series
No 539). Urbana, ILL: University of Illinois; 1988.
[13] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Nonlinear ®nite element analysis
of reinforced concrete membranes. Struct J Am Concr Inst
1989;86(1):26±35.
[14] Hsu TTC. Uni®ed theory of reinforced concrete. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1993.
[15] Pang XB, Hsu TTC. Behavior of reinforced concrete
membrane elements in shear. Struct J Am Concr Inst
1995;92(6):665±79.
[16] Zhang LX, Hsu TTC. Behavior and analysis of 100 MPa
concrete membrane elements. J Struct Engng (ASCE)
1998;124(1):24±34.
[17] Hsu TTC, Zhu RRH. Post-yield behavior of reinforced
concrete membrane elementsÐthe HSU/ZHU ratios. Pro-
ceedings Volume, US±Japan Joint Seminar on Post-Peak
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to
Seismic Loads, vol. 1. Tokyo/Lake Yamanaka, Japan,
1999. pp. 43±60; also, modeling of inelastic behavior of RC
structures under seismic loads. ASCE Publication; 2001.
pp. 139±157.
[18] Belarbi A, Hsu TTC. Constitutive laws of concrete in
tension and reinforcing bars sti€ened by concrete. Struct J
Am Concr Inst 1994;91(4):465±74.
[19] Hsu TTC, Zhang LX. Tension sti€ening in reinforced
concrete membrane elements. Struct J Am Concr Inst
1996;93(1):108±15.
[20] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The ®nite element method.
4th ed. London: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
[21] Kupfer HB, Hilsdorf HK, Rusch H. Behavior of concrete
under biaxial stresses. J Am Concr Inst 1969;66(8):656±66.
 T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2781±2791
[22] Liu TCY, Nilson AH, Slate FO. Biaxial stress strain
relations for concrete. J Struct Div (ASCE) 1972;98(5):
1025±34.
[23] Nelissen LJM. Biaxial testing of normal concrete, vol
18(1). Delft, Netherlands: Heron; 1972.
[24] Kupfer HB, Gerstle KH. Behavior of concrete under
biaxial stresses. J Engng Mech Div (ASCE) 1973;99(4):
853±66.
[25] Cedolin L, Crutzen YRJ, Dei Poli S. Triaxial stress strain
relationship for concrete. J Engng Mech Div (ASCE)
1977;103(3):429±39.
[26] Murry DW, Chitnuyanondh L, Wong C. Implementation
of an elastic plastic concrete relationship. Comput Meth
Appl Mech Engng 1980;23:35±57.
2791
[27] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. 1st ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1982.
[28] Wang TJ, Gao XD, Hsu TTC. Nonlinear ®nite element
analysis of framed shear walls. Transaction, 16th Interna-
tional Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Technology (SM:RT 16), Washington DC, August 2001,
Paper H1233, 1±8.
[29] Bresler B, Scordelis AC. Shear strength of reinforced
concrete beamsÐseries II. SESM Report No. 64-2, Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley, 1964.
[30] Gao XD. Framed shear walls under cyclic loading. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, De-
cember 1999.