BEHAVIOUR OF CONCRETE

MEMBERS UNDER CYCLIC

LOADING
II. CONCRETE MEMBERS
 Shear
(w/ some effects of inelastic flexure)
Shear failures of columns or walls
Shear failures
of columns or
walls
(top two, in
plastic hinge
region)
Brittle vs ductile behaviour in cyclic shear

Shear force-chord
rotation behaviour:
(a) brittle shear;
(b) “ductile shear” or
flexural behaviour
 Brittle vs ductile behaviour in cyclic shear (cont’d)
1

Flexural failure shear strength

force
flexural failure

1 2

1
1
displacement

shear strength

shear strength

force
force

ductile shear
failure brittle shear
failure

1 2
0

1 2

displacement displacement

Ductile shear failure Brittle shear failure

Effect of cyclic inelastic deformations on shear behaviour
after flexural yielding

(a) (b) (c)

(a) M-φ loops next to end section; (b) V-γ loops in plastic hinge region;
(c) loops of shear force (V) - stirrup strain
Effect of cyclic inelastic flexural deformations on shear behaviour -cont’d
(b) (f)
(a)

(d)
(e)
(c)

(a), (b): M-φ loops next to base of 1st & 2nd storey; (c), (d): V-γ loops over 1st & 2nd storey; (f) base
shear v top deflection (e) loops of base moment v fixed-end rotation due to bar pull-out from footing
Fundamental models - monotonic shear resistance
Truss model w/ variable strut inclination δ, CEB/FIP Model
Code 90 & Eurocode 2
– Shear resistance in diagonal tension,
due to transverse reinforcement: VR   w f ywbw z cot   0.5 N ( h  x ) / Ls
• Eurocode 2: 0.4tanδ1, 22oδ45o,
Model Code 90: 1/3tanδ1, 18oδ45ο

– Diagonal compression field at

angle δ to member axis
  w f yw (1  cot 2  )  nf c 90-δ

– may reach diagonal concrete

strength, nfc
– n: reduction factor due to
transverse tensile stresses/strains
•Eurocode 2 & Model Code 90:
n=0.6(1-fc(MPa)/250)
Fundamental models for monotonic shear resistance (cont’d)
AIJ Guidelines model
Concrete strut w/ width equal to 50% of section depth:
– contributes to VR via transverse component of strut force;
– consumes part of the diagonal concrete strength, nfc
– rest of concrete strength is available for diagonal compression field in
truss mechanism (angle: δ)
VR   w f ywbw z cot   0.5bwh[nf c   w f yw (1  cot 2  )] tan 
VR for cotδ ≤ min[2; √(nfc/ρwfyw-1)]
unless: 0.5tanφ (h/2Ls=h/L)  2z/h
Then VR reaches maximum value if:
cotδ=z/(htanφ)4Lsz/h2
90-δ
Maximum VR equal to (with ζ=z/h):
strut
VR  0.5bwh[nfc tan  w f yw( 2  tan2 )]

Inelastic cyclic deformation effect:

•cotδ  max(2-50θpl, 1);
•n on fc multiplied x max(0.25, 1-15θpl)
with θpl=(μθ-1)θy
 Cyclic shear strength degradation
– Shear resistance degrades with cyclic loading: RC member that yields
in flexure may ultimately fail in shear.
– Provisions of concrete design codes for shear strength apply to
monotonic loading;
1

shear strength

– Seismic codes (e.g. EC8) may reduce VR if cyclic

ductility demands are high.

force
ductile shear
failure

Degradation mechanisms :
• Gradual reduction of aggregate interlock along diagonal cracks, as
0

displacement
2

interfaces become smoother with cyclic loading.

• Degradation of dowel action (also due to accumulation of inelastic
strains in longitudinal reinforcement).
• Development of flexural cracks throughout the depth of the member →
reduction of contribution of compression zone to shear resistance.
• Bond slippage & accumulation of inelastic strains in shear reinforcement
→ aggregate interlock reduced as diagonal cracks gradually open up.
• Softening of concrete in diagonal compression due to accumulation of
transverse tensile strains.
 Models for cyclic shear resistance for
diagonal tension failure after flexural yielding
Revised UCSD model (Priestley-Kowalsky, circular columns)
  L  hx
VR  f c k    min  1.5, max  1; 3  s   min 1; 0.5  20  tot ( 0.8 Ac )  N  Vw
  h  2 Ls
• Vw , VN , Vc terms
• Inclination of compression struts : δ = 30o
 Asw
– Circular columns: Vw  f yw ( D  x  c ) cot 
2 s
– Rectangular section elements: Vw   w bw ( d  x ) f yw cot 
• Linear degradation of Vc for ductility ratio 2 to 8:
1.07  0.115 
0.05  k (   )  0.28, k (   ) 
3
• Vc for μ∆≥8 is 18% of initial one
 Models for diagonal tension cyclic shear resistance after
flexural yielding (cont’d)
Moehle et al. 2001 (rectangular columns)
 N  d
VR  k   Vc  Vw ; Vc  0.5 f c  1  A
 0.5 f A  c
Ls
 c c 
• Only Vw & Vc terms, axial compression N in Vc term
• Inclination of compression struts : δ = 45o
Vw   wbw zf yw
• The entire shear strength degrades with ductility demand
• Linear degradation for ductility ratio of 2 to 6:
0.7  k (   )  1.0, k (   )  1.15  0.075 
• Total shear strength for μ∆≥6: 70% of initial one.
 Models for diagonal tension cyclic shear resistance after
flexural yielding (cont’d)
Biskinis et al 2004, Part 3 of EC8
(circular columns, rectangular beams/columns/walls,
non-rectangular walls, hollow rectangular piers)
hx   L 
VR  minN, 0.55Ac fc   0.16 1 0.095min5, μθpl  max(0.5, 100ρtot) 1 0.16min5, s  fc Ac Vw
2Ls      h 
or:
 
VR 
hx
2Ls
 
minN , 0.55Ac f c   1  0.05min 5, pl    Ls  
0.16 max(0.5, 100 tot )1  0.16min 5,   f c Ac  Vw 
   h  
• Vw , VN , Vc terms;
• Inclination of compression struts: δ =45o Vw   wbw zf yw

• Linear degradation of Vc for ductility ratio demand from 1 to 6;

• In 1st model: Vc for μθ ≥ 6 is 52.5% of initial one
• In 2nd model: Vw+Vc for μθ ≥ 6 is 75% of initial one.
 Models for diagonal tension cyclic shear resistance after
flexural yielding (cont’d)
Experimental cyclic shear resistance for diagonal tension
failure after flexural yielding v prediction-Biskinis et al 2004
Test-1st model comparison: Test-2nd model comparison:
No. tests: 270, median=0.99, CoV=14.6% No. tests: 270, median=0.99, CoV=14.1%
1000 1000

900 900

800 800

700 700

600 600
Vexp (kN)

Vexp (kN)
500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 beams & columns 100 beams & columns

walls walls

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100
Vpred (kN) Vpred (kN)
 Models for diagonal tension cyclic shear resistance after
flexural yielding (cont’d)
Inclination of compression stress field in a “variable
inclination” truss model of shear resistance

Experimental data on dependence of the strut inclination θ (or δ)

on chord rotation ductility ratio, for cyclic loading after flexural yielding
Cyclic shear resistance - squat walls in diagonal
compression before or after flexural yielding
1.2

0.8
Vexp/VR,maxEC2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ductility factor, μ
Experimental shear resistance of squat walls for web diagonal
compression, as a fraction of the corresponding monotonic shear
resistance, VR,max, from Eurocode 2
 Cyclic shear resistance of squat walls in diagonal compression
before or after flexural yielding (cont’d)
  
  
VR,max  0.85 1  0.06 min 5; pl 1  1.8 min 0.15,

N  L 
 
 1  0.25 max1.75; 100 tot 1  0.2 min 2; s   min f c ;100 bw z
  
  Ac f c    h 
2200

2000

1800

Test-model comparison: 1600

No. tests: 45, Ls/h≤2.5, 1400

median=1.00, CoV=11% Vexp (kN) 1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Vpred (kN)

Experimental cyclic shear resistance for shear compression

failure of squat walls v predictions
Flexure-shear interaction
in squat members
 Monotonic lateral force resistance of squat
members w/ flexure-shear interaction

Generalization of AIJ Guidelines model

Concrete strut over depth x of compression zone:
– takes also the axial load, N;
– contributes to VR via transverse component of strut force;
– consumes part of diagonal concrete strength, nfc
– rest of concrete strength is available for diagonal compression field in
truss mechanism, at angle δ, w/ cotδ ≤√(nfc/ρwfyw-1); cotδ ~Ls/h .
 Monotonic lateral force resistance of squat members w/
flexure-shear interaction (cont’d)
1. In axial force range: N1=0.5bhnfc -As,totfy+ρwbwfyw [cotδ(2Ls+(z-0.5h)cotδ)-0.5h]
N  N2=0.5bhnfc+As,totfy-ρwbwfyw [cotδ(2Ls-(z-0.5h)cotδ)+0.5h]
Strut inclination is: 2
 2L  2L
tan    s   1  s Schematic
 h  h interaction
Very brittle failure: diagram in
Concrete fails by diagonal dimensionless
compression, w/ yielding of transverse V-N space
reinforcement, but no yielding of
tension or compression reinforcement,
at an ultimate shear force of:
VR  0.5bwh[nfc tan  w f yw ( 2  tan2  )]
 tot h
N-range exists if: cot  
 w 2 Ls
 Monotonic lateral force resistance of squat members w/
flexure-shear interaction (cont’d)
2. In axial force range: N1  N  -As,totfy
 2 
Strut inclination is:  Ls  1   Ls h 
tan   min      ,
  h    h 2 L s 
where:  
N  As ,tot f y   w f yw bw 2 Ls  z cot   cot  Schematic

bw hnf c   w f yw 1  cot 2   interaction
& ultimate shear is: diagram in
dimensionless
VR=
V-N space
(N+As,totfy)tanφ+ρwfywbwcot[z-(2Ls+zcot)tanφ]

Moderately brittle failure:

Concrete fails by diagonal
compression, w/ yielding of transverse
reinforcement & of tension
reinforcement.
 Monotonic lateral force resistance of squat members w/
flexure-shear interaction (cont’d)
3. In axial force range: Nfcbwh+As,tot fy  N  N2
 2 
 Ls  1   Ls h 
tan   min 
Strut inclination is:
    ,
  h    h 2 L s 
where:  
N  A
s ,tot f y    w f yw bw 2 L s  z cot   cot  Schematic
 interaction
 
bw h nf c   w f yw 1  cot 2   diagram in
& ultimate shear is: dimensionless
VR= V-N space
(N-As,totfy)tanφ+ρwfywbwcot[z+(2Ls-zcot)tanφ]
Moderately brittle failure:
Concrete fails by diagonal
compression, w/ yielding of transverse
reinforcement & of compression
reinforcement.
If shear effects unimportant (Ls/h>>2.5),
interaction diagram degenerates into simple
μ-ν diagram:
μ=0.5ζ(ν+ωtot) for 0.5n>ν-ωtot
μ=0.5ζ(n+ωtot-ν) for n+ωtotν0.5n
Monotonic lateral force resistance of squat members w/ flexure
-shear interaction (cont’d)

(c)

(b)
(b) Dimensional interaction M-N and V-N diagrams of 200mm square column
with four 16mm bars; (c) example dimensionless M-V-N diagrams
 Monotonic lateral force resistance of squat members w/
flexure-shear interaction (cont’d)
Cyclic shear resistance of squat columns in diagonal
compression after flexural yielding
pl  N 
VR ,max  1  0.02 min5;  1  1.35 1  0.45  100 tot  min f c ; 40 bw z sin 2
4
 Ac f c 
7  δ = angle of column
1000

900
diagonal to member
Test-model comparison: axis: tanδ = h/2Ls
No. tests: 44, Ls/h ≤ 2, 800

median=1.0, CoV=9.8% 700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Vpred (kN)
Experimental cyclic shear resistance for shear compression
failure of squat columns after flexural yielding v predictions
 Monotonic lateral force resistance of squat members w/
flexure-shear interaction (cont’d)
Diagonal reinforcement in squat columns or deep
beams
VEd=2Asdfydsinδ
(tanδ = z/L = z/2Ls)
Md=zAsdfydcosδ

Coupling beams w/ diagonal reinforcement in Eurocode 8