COMPRESSION RESPONSE OF CRACKED variable differential transducers (LvDTs).
Installation of SR-
REINFORCED CONCRETEa
Discussion by A. Belarbi, 3 Member, ASCE,
and Thomas T. C. HSU,4 Fellow, ASCE
The authors' tests of 30 panels in 1982 contributed greatly
to the understanding of the softening phenomenon by relating
the stress-softening coefficient to the transverse tensile strain,
as shown in (1) or (2). However, the authors have made .no
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
progress since 1982 in establishing the softened compressIve
stress-strain curve of cracked reinforced concrete membrane
elements. This lack of process is due to difficulties encoun-
tered in measuring the compressive strains of cracked con-
crete, in finding the parameters that affect the strain-softening
coefficient, and in determining the descending branch of the
stress-strain curve.
Statistical analysis by the authors shows that test data cur-
rently available for the softened compressive stress-strain curve
of cracked reinforced concrete exhibit a great degree of scat-
ter. Therefore, no model proposed to date should be consid-
ered satisfactory. It is not rational to propose two significantly
different models, model A and model B, without categorizing
their usage. This paper demonstrates how little we un~erstand
of the two-dimensional softening phenomenon of remforced
concrete from the task of quantifying the softened compres-
sive stress-strain curve.
To find our way out of this infant stage of confusion, we
researchers are confronted with three tasks. First, because
the strain measurement of cracked concrete is difficult, we
must first find a satisfactory experimental method and set
criteria for the acceptance of test data. With such criteria,
unreliable test data could be identified and eliminated. Sec-
ond the true nature of the two-dimensional softening phe-
no~enon is still unclear. We must create reliable test data in
a systematic manner to identify the parameters affecting this
softening phenomenon. Third, all tests available to d~te were
carried out using the load-control procedure, so resultmg data
may be reliable only for the ascending branch .of the stress-
strain curve. Reliable test data for the descendmg branch of
this curve must be derived from tests using strain-control
procedure. The principles behind these three tasks have be~n
guiding research at the University of Houston for the past SIX
years.
Compressive strains of cracked concrete ~anel~ have been
measured during the past six years at the Umverslty of Hous-
ton by three techniques. In the first technique,. strains were
measured by mechanical Demec gauges on a gnd of buttons
glued to the surface of panels at the beginning of the test
(similar to the method used by the ~uthors in their 1982 tes~s).
This method was found to be unsatIsfactory because resultmg
measurements scattered widely, depending on the location of
buttons with respect to cracks. In fact, some buttons fell off
the surface of the concrete due to cracking even before peak
stress was reached.
In the second technique, lO-mm SR-4 electrical strain gauges
were installed at different locations on steel bars. This method
was also found to be unsatisfactory because these measured
strains were up to 30% larger than those measured from linear
"December, 1993. Vol. 119. No. 12. by F. J. Vecchio and M. P. Collins
(Paper 4IX4).
'Ass\. Prof.. Dcp\. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla.
MO 65401.
'Prof.. Dep\. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Houslon, Houston.
TX 77204-4791.
J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:1151-1153.
4 gauges tended to create cracks at gauge positions, resulting
in measurement of large local strains at the cracks, rather
than average strains measured by LvDTs.
In the third technique, LvDTs were fastened to threaded
rods cast integrally with the concrete. In the tension direction,
an "average" or "smeared" strain can be successfully ob-
tained through dividing measured displacement by a la~ge
measuring length traversing many cracks. In the compressIOn
direction, however, a large scatter of strains was observed,
because measured strains depended strongly on the location
of LvDTs with respect to approximately parallel cracks. An
LvDT located between two cracks may measure a small com-
pressive strain, but an LvDT crossing a crack .may measure
a strain four times larger. In early panel testmg, only two
LvDTs (one on each face of the panel) were used to measu~e
the compressive strains. Because an average of two stram
measurements gave values that could be as divergent as h~ilf
or twice the correct value, the number of LvDTs was m-
creased to four and finally to eight (four on each face of the
panel) in order to gather more s.amples. of strain data and
obtain a reliable average compressIve stram. It was concluded
that a reasonably reliable average compressive strain would
require measurements from at least eight LvDTs uniformly
distributed in the measured region.
Of the 22 panels reported by Belarbi and Hsu (1991), only
seven (E2"-I, EIO-I, R4-1, R30-1, F2, F3, and F4) were
equipped with eight LvDTs. On the one hand, the four panels
(E2"-I, E 10-1, R4-1, and R30-1) subjected to sequential load-
ing showed that peak strain (at peak stress) of a pan~1 was
approximately the same as peak strain of a stan~ard cylInder.
Because there was no strain-softening effect mvolved, the
compressive stress-strain curve was taken to have only stress
softening. On the other hand, the three panels (F2, F3, a~d
F4) subjected to proportional loading showed that peak stram
of a panel was much less than p~ak strain of ~he standard
cylinder. Therefore, the compressive ~tre~s-stram curve was
assumed to have proportional softemng m both stress and
strain. Consequently, peak strains of all the other panels
equipped with less than the required eight LvDTs sho~ld
either be discarded or adjusted to conform to the foregomg
observations obtained in the seven reliable panels. The need
for such adjustments was clearly expressed in the report of
Belarbi and Hsu (1991).
Consider the extreme case of panel E 10-1 A. This panel
was subjected to sequential loading and had only two LvDTs
to measure compression strains. Therefore, the measured peak
strain of - 0.000928 should either be discarded or adjusted
using the corresponding peak strain for standard. cylind~rs
( - 0.00215). To adjust measured strains, all compressIve strainS
should be multiplied by a factor of 0.00215/0.000928 = 2.32.
With this adjustment, the test curve in Fig. 5 will be close to
the Hsu model and far from the Vecchio-Collins model A.
This example shows the importance of reliable strain mea-
surements to establish a reasonable model for a compressive
stress-strain curve.
If we choose only the nine panels with reliable compressive
strains (the seven panels equipped with eight LvDTs plus
the two uncracked reference panels, REF and EO) and discard
the 13 panels with unreliable compressive strains, then the
Hsu model in Table 5 will give a mean of 1.045 with a coef-
ficient of variation (COY) of 16.8% for "ultimate load stage,"
rather than a mean of 1.178 with a COY of 15.1 %. These
nine panels will also give 97 data points before the peak point
and for strains larger than 0.1 ElJ. Based on these 97 data
points, the Hsu model in Table 5 will give a mean of 0.933
with a COY of 21.5% for "all load stages," instead of a mean
of 1.124 with a COY of 37.2%. Correspondingly, Table 5
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 1995/1151
 should be recalculated in its entirety for all the models. From
the same perspective, Table 4 should also be reexamined in
its entirety, because the reliability of compressive strain mea-
surements in many panels is suspect. Furthermore, the dif-
ference between various mean values of the models reported
in Tables 4 and 6 show no statistical significance in view of
the large coefficients of variations.
Despite difficulties in strain measurements, the ascending
branch of the stress-strain curve can still be "guesstimated."
By contrast, it is impossible to determine the descending branch
of the stress-strain curve without strain-control testing pro-
cedures. Therefore, the difference between the descending
branches of model A and model B can only be regarded as
a matter of conjecture.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Discussion by Ananth RamaswamyS
The authors should be congratulated for presenting an ex-
haustive survey on the different versions of the modified
compression field theory (MCFT) procedure employed by
researchers since its introduction back in 1980. However, this
discusser has a few questions that are of concern.
First, is it appropriate to make comparisons of the work
of different researchers on MCFT without highlighting the
influence of other components of their models, such as the
tension-stiffening and the aggregate interlock behavior? I note
that the authors have eleminated the work of one research
group (Miyahara et al. 1988) from their study, stating that

To determine the descending branch, a servocontrol system the compression-softening response is related to the aggregate
was recently installed on the universal panel tester at the interlock model used by the investigators. Is one to assume
University of Houston. Preliminary test results using the strain- that the tensile and shear components of models used by other
control procedure show very clearly that peak points and investigators are essentially the same as the one being em-
descending branches of stress-strain curves obtained previ- ployed by the authors? I would like the authors to clarify this
ously from panels subjected to pure shear have been incor- point. Furthermore, to evaluate the influence of the different
rectly interpreted. These pure shear panels include those of MCFT procedures it would be more convincing if compari-
Pang and Hsu (1992) as well as those of Vecchio and Collins sons of different deformational components such as tensile
(1982). Peak points for those panels failed by steel yielding stress-strain response, shear stress-strain response, and the
are not intrinsic properties of concrete but instead are direct load-average principal direction were shown for each model
functions of the "apparent yield stress" of the smeared rein- along with the experimental results. To make this point, I am
forcing steel pf*'.. Descending branches are also functions of presenting results for panel PV27 (tested by the authors in
"apparent Poisson's ratios" of the cracked concrete. Such 1982): compressive stress-strain response (Fig. 7) and tensile
incorrect interpretations could significantly overestimate both stress-strain response (Fig. 8). The compressive stress-strain
stress softening and strain softening. response is modeled in two different ways. The first is similar
Using the strain-control procedure, test results of panels to the one proposed by Vecchio and Collins (1986), identified
with principal stresses parallel to the reinforcement also show in the figures as FEM 2. The second procedure is based on
that the simple Hognestad parabola is quite valid even for the reduction of the multiaxial strength envelope based on
concrete strength up to 15,000 psi. It was premature for the lateral strains, identified as FEM 1. The other features of the
authors to embrace the complexity of the Thorenfeldt curve analytical model are smeared-crack modeling that permits
in models A and B.
Despite the uncertainty of test data, one thing is sure. In 15.0 ..
,.L-FEM 1
the case of uniaxial compression, the softening coefficient
should be less than unity due to the following: (1) The test o
n. J/~
panel is much larger than a standard cylinder; (2) the rate of ~ ,/ ~FEM2
~ 10.0 I.~
loading of the panel is much slower than the standard ASTM ~ P.8- Experiment
Vi , I V~c(hio 11 Collins, 1982)
rate for standard cylinders; and (3) the end restraint is much
~
less in the panel than in the cylinder. In the case of panel
.
iii
REF (Belarbi and Hsu 1991) under uniaxial compression, the
softening coefficient was found to be about n.8. This condition
~ 5.0
a.
E
o
~fff]t
v
was satisfied by (8) from Belarbi and Hsu (1991) because (8) PV 27

incorporates the numerator 0.9. By contrast, the predictions

of (I) from Vecchio and Collins (1982), (2) from Vecchio and 0.0 0·.-0---'O~-5 - - " : 0 - - - " \ - - - - , 2 ' 0
Collins (1986), and (27)-(31) of the paper would all give a Compressive Strain ( .10 3 )

softening coefficient for uniaxial compression greater than or FIG. 7. Compressive Stress-Strain Response, Specimen PV27
close to unity.
One minor inaccuracy in the references should be pointed 2.50
Experiment
out. Eqs. (8)-( 16) of this paper are not quoted from the (Vecchio 11 Co' i05.19821
report of Belarbi and Hsu (1991), but rather from a prelim-
2.00
inary unpublished paper. These equations were slightly mod- o
n.
ified in the final version of the paper (Hsu et al. 1992) and ~ PV ~
-150
in the two reports of Belarbi and Hsu (1991) and Pang and on
on
Hsu (1992). It would be preferable to quote from the final ~
Ul 1.00
published version. .!!
'iii
<:
APPENDIX. REFERENCES ~ 0.50

Hsu. T. T. C. Belarbi. A .. and Pang. X. B. (1992). "Stress-strain re-

0.0
lationships for reinforced concrete membrane elements." Concrete shear
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
ill Earthquake. Elsevier Science Publishers, Ltd., London, England, Tensile Strain (.10 3)
43-54.
Pang, X. B.. and Hsu. T. T. C. (1992). "Constitutive laws of reinforced FIG. 8. Tensile Stress-Strain Response, Specimen PV27
concrete in shear." Res. Rep. UHCEE 92-1, Dept. of Civ. and Envir.
Engrg .. University of Houston. Houston. Tex. 'Lect., Dept. of Civ. Engrg .. Indian Inst. of Techno!.. Kharagpur.
West Bengal 721302. India.

1152/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 1995

J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:1151-1153.

 multiple nonorthogonal cracking, tension stiffening included
with concrete along the steel direction(s) assuming perfect
bond, strain-softening behavior in concrete considered sep-
arately in the crack normal direction, and a variable crack-
interface shear model based on crack-confining normal stresses.
Complete details of the model are presented in Ramaswamy
(1992) and Ramaswamy et al. (1994). Although the results
based on strength-envelope reduction (FEM 1) indicate that
the overall deformational response is very stiff and the ulti-
mate load is overestimated considerably (7.62 MPa in FEM
1 versus 6.25 MPa in the experiment), the much softer tensile
stress-strain response highlights that this is most probably
because no bond-slip formulation is included in the model.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 08/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A reduced level of tensile stress would result in an increased
lateral compressive capacity resulting in a higher ultimate
failure load and a stiffer response. In contrast, the MCFf
(Vecchio and Collins 1986) formulation has the bond-slip re-
sponse built in implicitly and shows good results (6.19 MPa
at failure). How would this formulation perform in models
that include an explicit bond-slip formulation? It would be
nice if the authors could provide results form other defor-
mational components for one example highlighting the inner
workings of the different MCFf models.
Second, does the softening of the cracked concrete strut
influence the deformational response and ultimate loads of
"structural" components with cracks and crushing in some
localized regions only? The panel elements considered in this
study have globalized failures and do not demonstrate the
influence of compression softening in complex problems.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Ramaswamy, A. (1992). "Nonlinear inelastic FE analysis of RC struc-
tures with emphasis on shear and torsion," PhD dissertation, Louisiana
State Univ.. Baton Rouge, La.
Ramaswamy, A., Barzegar, F., and Voyiadjis, G. Z. (1994). "A post-
cracking formulation for analysis of RC structures based on secant
stiffnesses." J. Ellgrg. Mech., ASCE, 120(12),2621-2640.
Closure by F. J. Vecchio,6 and M. P. Collins7
The writers agree with Dr. Ramaswamy that many inter-
related components of behavior must be considered when
building or comparing an overall predictive model. The paper
attempted to compare formulations for merely one compo-
nent; namely, the compression response of cracked reinforced
concrete. This was possible because the principal compressive
strain and principal compressive stress response of the con-
crete in a test panel can be isolated and determined directly
(using commonly accepted smeared-crack and average-strain
concepts). The measured strains and calculated stresses are
not significantly influenced by modeling assumptions made
regarding tension-stiffening response, crack slip, bond, or other
mechanisms. It was not within the scope of the paper to
critically examine other aspects of behavior.
The writers wish to thank Dr. Belarbi and Dr. Hsu for
acknowledging the contributions made up to 1982. Hopefully,
the University of Houston work will soon begin to add to our
understanding in this area.
"Prof.. Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
M5S IA4.
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Toronto, Toronto. Canada
M5S IA4.
J. Struct. Eng. 1995.121:1151-1153.
LATERAL-LoAD ANALYSIS OF FRAME
STAGINGS FOR ELEVATED WATER T ANKS a
Discussion by Riko Rosman 3
The authors' analysis of frame stagings is a special case of
the recent analysis of tubular moment-resisting frames (Ros-
man 1992). Although the authors analyze the effect of a single
lateral load at the staging's top, so that the cantilever shear
force is constant along the height and the cantilever bending
moment varies linearly, the discusser analyzed the effect of
lateral loads at all ring girders, so that the cantilever shear-
force diagram is step-like and the cantilever bending-moment
diagram is polygonal.
The discusser applied the technical flexure theory and ob-
tained results which, for the special case of the single lateral
load, agree with those of the authors. The authors should be
complimented for applying De Moivre's trigonometric iden-
tity, which the discusser was not aware of.
When analyzing bending of the columns, the authors con-
sider only the shear forces in the frame's tangential planes.
The discusser's complete spatial investigation revealed that
the maximal shear force in the frame's radial direction amounts,
with the authors' notation, to the following:
(42)
For N c = 4, there is V;O.25P. When N c tends to infinity,
=
V; tends to zero. For N c = 12, there is
V: = O.OI12P. The
shear force V; acts in the columns in the frame's load plane
simultaneously with the maximal axial force, as follows:
F; = (2/NJ(PH,IR) (43)
and should not be ignored. The maximal tangential shear
force
(44)
with O.156P for N c = 12, acts in the columns in the frame's
neutral plane (i.e., the central plane perpendicular to the load
plane). There is no simultaneously acting axial force.
The discusser feels that the authors' equivalent column
introduced to locate the inflection point in the staging's end
panels is mechanically unclear. Its moment of inertia accord-
ing to Fig. 6 and the corresponding text amounts to N)., but
this holds only for the special case when the moment of inertia
of the columns is constant for all horizontal directions. Ac-
tually, the columns are designed stiffer in the tangential than
in the radial direction to obtain a rational frame action. Fur-
thermore, (33) for the stiffness of the ring girder should be
explained.
APPENDIX. REFERENCE
Rosman, R. (1992). "Beitrag zur Untersuchung tubusartiger Stockwerk-
rahmen [Contribution to the analysis of tubular moment-resisting
frames]." Bautechllik 69, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 632-643.
"May, 1994, Vol. 120, No.5, by Sajjad Sameer U and Sudhir K. Jain
(Paper 5116).
'Prof. of Struct. Engrg.. Fac. of Arch .. 41000 Zagreb, Croatia.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 1995/1153