ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 107-S49
Evaluation of Inelastic Deformation Capacity of Beams
Subjected to Cyclic Loading
by Kyoung-Kyu Choi and Hong-Gun Park
The inelastic deformation capacity of reinforced concrete members
subjected to cyclic loading is reduced by the early shear failure of
concrete. In this study, an analytical method was developed to
predict the inelastic deformation capacity of reinforced concrete
beams subjected to cyclic or monotonic loading. To evaluate the
relationship between the degraded shear capacity and deformation
capacity of the beams, the effect of flexural deformation on the
shear capacity of concrete was considered based on the material
failure criteria for concrete. Other failure mechanisms, including
the buckling and fracture of reinforcing bars, were also considered.
The proposed analytical method was verified by comparing its
predictions to the previous test results. The results showed that the
proposed method can theoretically describe the deterioration of the shear
capacity of beams due to inelastic flexural deformation. To apply the
proposed method practically, a simplified equation for the evaluation of
the deformation capacity of beams was developed.
Keywords: cyclic shear; earthquake design; failure criteria; reinforced
concrete; rotation capacity; shear strength.
INTRODUCTION
In current earthquake design, potential plastic hinge zones are
designed with special reinforcing bar details for enhanced ductile
behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) members. In particular, for
preventing brittle shear failure, the shear strength of RC members
is designed to exceed the shear demand developed by their
maximum flexural strength. According to the experimental studies
performed by Aschheim and Moehle,1 and Wong et al.,2 the
inelastic deformation capacity of RC members subjected to cyclic
loading is less than that expected under monotonic loading, and it
increases when shear reinforcement is employed. Generally, the
low deformation capacity of RC members is attributed to the fact
that under cyclic loading, the shear capacity of concrete
deteriorates as the flexure-shear cracks in the plastic
hinge zones widen; therefore, the aggregate interlock at
the crack surfaces weakens. 3,4
To address the degradation of the shear strength of RC
members subjected to cyclic loading, ACI 318-055 and the
New Zealand Concrete Code6 neglect the concrete contribution
Vc to the shear resistance of the members in the earthquake
design of the special moment frame. From a more analytical
perspective, the ATC seismic design guidelines7 proposed a
shear capacity curve that represents the variation in the shear
capacity of RC members with the change in their ductility
demand (or deformation demand). Priestley et al.3 developed
a shear capacity curve for columns to address the effect of
various design parameters including concrete shear contribution,
axial loading, and shear reinforcement, which is applicable to
both low and high ductility (Fig. 1). Recently, Sezen and
Moehle8 proposed an improved semi-theoretical shear strength
model based on diagonal tension failure mechanism. Elwood
and Moehle9 developed a drift capacity model for the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
TECHNICAL PAPER
displacement-based design and assessment of existing structures
by using a wide range of test dataset of columns.
As shown in Fig. 1, in the existing models, the shear strength
and deformation capacity of an RC member are determined at
the intersection of the shear capacity curve and the shear demand
curve that represents the shear force required by the flexural
action of the member. However, the existing shear capacity
curves, which describe the degradation of the shear capacity due
to inelastic flexural deformation, were empirically developed
based on existing test results without firm theoretical background.
Furthermore, recently, the accurate prediction of the deformation
capacity of RC members is emerging as a primary concern for
ensuring the performance-based design of RC members.10
Therefore, a more rigorous prediction model that can accurately
evaluate the shear capacity based on the fundamental failure
mechanism of RC members is required.
Recently, Park et al.11 developed a strain-based shear
strength model. This model describes the variation in the
shear capacity of RC members with the change in flexural
deformation. Originally, this model was developed to predict
the shear strength of the concrete beams that fail before flexural
yielding. Because this model considers the combined shear
and flexure actions; however, it can be also used to predict
the degraded shear capacity of the beams that fail after flexural
yielding. In this study, based on the concept of the strain-
based shear strength model, an analytical method for
predicting the degraded shear capacity and deformation
capacity of slender or intermediate beams (shear span-to-
depth ratio 2.0) subjected to cyclic loading was developed.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Unlike existing empirical models, the proposed model
predicted the shear capacity of RC beams degraded by inelastic
flexural deformation based on the material failure criteria for
concrete. By addressing the degradation of the shear capacity, the
proposed model predicted the inelastic deformation capacity of
slender or intermediate beams subjected to cyclic or monotonic
loading, with reasonable precision. To apply the proposed method
practically, a simplified equation for predicting the deformation
capacity of RC beams was developed.
MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS CAPACITY
OF CONCRETE
Generally, the overall shear resistance of slender RC
beams Vn is defined as the sum of the contributions of
several shear transfer mechanisms: the shear contribution of
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 5, September-October 2010.
MS No. S-2007-099.R4 received November 2, 2009, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the July-
August 2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2011.
507
 For failure controlled by tension
ACI member Kyoung-Kyu Choi is an Assistant Professor of architectural engineering at
Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea. He received his BE, MS, and PhD in architecture from
Seoul National University. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear
2
2 = -----u -----u + v u = f c
and Torsion. His research interests include shear and seismic design of reinforced 2
(1b)
concrete structures and fiber-reinforced concrete.
2 2
ACI member Hong-Gun Park is a Professor of architectural engineering at Seoul
National University. He received his BE and MS in architecture from Seoul National
University and his PhD in civil engineering from the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, where 1 and 2 are the principal compressive and tensile stresses,
TX. His research interests include inelastic analysis and seismic design of reinforced respectively (1 > 0 and 2 < 0), and u and vu are the current
concrete structures.
normal and shear stresses, respectively, acting on the cross section
(u > 0 and vu > 0). In the present study, the compressive normal
stress u(z) is defined to have the positive sign.
the intact concrete in the compression zone, dowel action of
longitudinal reinforcement, aggregate interlocking along According to Kupfer et al.,15 the tensile strength of
concrete is reduced by transverse compressive stress.
crack surfaces, and shear resistance of transverse reinforce-
Therefore, in tension-compression, the tensile strength of
ment.12 In slender beams with flexural yielding, however, the
concrete is defined as a function of the ratio of compressive
tension zone in the cross section is severely damaged by flexural
stress to tensile stress 1/216
cracking. Further, the compression zone of intact concrete
prevents shear-slip along the shear crack surface.11,13 Therefore,
f 1
the shear resistance of the intact concrete in the compression f t = f t 1 0.5 ----t- -----1 ft (2)
zone is greater than the contributions of aggregate interlock and f c 2
dowel action. Particularly, under repeated cyclic loading, the
concrete crack width increases due to the accumulated tensile where ft is the tensile strength of concrete under pure tension. In
plastic deformations of flexural reinforcing bars. As a result, the this study, ft = 0.292fc MPa (ft = 3.5fc psi) was used.17
contributions of aggregate interlock and dowel action
In slender or intermediate beams, the normal stress in the
decrease significantly.3 Therefore, in this study, conservatively,
compression zone is developed by flexural moment. This
the shear resistance of reinforced concrete beams was normal stress varies with its distance from the neutral axis of
assumed to be provided by the compression zone of the the cross section. Therefore, from Eq. (1), the shear stress
intact concrete and transverse reinforcement, and the capacity (allowable maximum shear stress) at each location
contributions of aggregate interlock and dowel action were in the compression zone can be defined as a function of its
neglected.3,13 The compression zone in a beam cross distance from the neutral axis.
section is subjected to combined compressive normal and For failure controlled by compression
shear stresses. In this study, Rankines failure criteria14
were used to define the failure mechanism of the compression
zone subjected to the combined stresses. According to v uc ( z ) = f c [ f c u ( z ) ] (3a)
these criteria, material failure occurs when the principal
stress resulting from the combined stresses equals the For failure controlled by tension
compressive strength of concrete fc or the tensile strength
ft. The failure criteria for the compression zone are
defined as follows. v ut ( z ) = f t [ f t + u ( z ) ] (3b)
For failure controlled by compression
where u(z) is defined in the Appendix.*
2
1 = -----u + -----u + v u = f c
2 * The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum
1(a)
2 2 to the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a
fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.

Fig. 1Existing models for predicting shear capacity degraded by inelastic deformation.

508 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010

 In Eq. (3), the shear stress capacity at each location in the c
compression zone is affected by the compressive normal
V CD = b
0 vut ( z )dz b f t [ f t + ]c (4)
stress. At each cross section of a beam, the distribution and
magnitude of the compressive normal stress vary with the where b is the beam width; and c is the depth of the compression
curvature of the cross section. Therefore, this study focuses zone, which is determined based on the force-equilibrium in
on the evaluation of the shear capacity varying according to the cross section. Both and c can be defined as the func-
flexural deformation. tions of o.
After the occurrence of compressive softening at the
SHEAR CAPACITY OF CONCRETE extreme compression fiber (o > o, Stage DE), the part of
COMPRESSION ZONE the compression zone experiencing compressive softening
Figures 2(a) and (b) show the distributions of the normal cannot resist the shear force. Therefore, the shear capacity of
strain and stress at a cracked section, which are developed by the cross section is provided only by the remaining part that
flexural action of a beam. Figure 2(c) shows the shear stress did not experience the compressive softening 0 z c/. As
capacities vuc (controlled by compression, [Eq. (3a)]) and vut a result, the shear capacity of the cross section decreases.
(controlled by tension, [Eq. (3b)]), respectively. In these The shear capacity during Stage DE is defined as follows
figures, o is the current compressive normal strain at the
extreme compression fiber of the cross section, o is the c
compressive strain corresponding to the compressive V DE b
0 v ut ( z )dz b f t [ f t + ]c (5)
strength of concrete, and cr is the tensile cracking strain of
concrete. The value o represents the current flexural
damage of the cross section. As shown in the figures, the Figure 3 shows the variations in the shear capacity of the
distributions of compressive stress and shear stress capacities compression zone (Eq. (4) and (5)) with the changes in the
curvature (or compressive normal strain at extreme compression
vary with the curvature of the cross section representing the
fiber) of the cross section (refer to Vc in Fig. 3). After the
degree of flexural damage. In particular, after the compressive
flexural cracking initiates (Stage BC), the shear capacity
normal stress at the extreme compression fiber of the cross
decreases rapidly with the propagation of the flexural cracks.
section reaches the compressive strength of concrete (o >
Once the inclined tensile cracking reaches the neutral axis,
o, Stage DE), the failure criteria in Eq. (1a) is defined by the
the shear capacity stops decreasing (Stage CY). The shear
softened compressive strength and it is satisfied by the
compressive normal stress alone. As a result, the part of the
compression zone experiencing compressive softening no
longer provides the shear stress capacity controlled by
compression (refer to Stage E in Fig. 2(c)).
In this study, the governing shear stress capacity vu at a
location in the compression zone is defined as the minimum
of vuc and vut obtained from Eq. (3). The distribution of the
governing shear stress capacity vu is shown in Fig. 2(c). As
shown in the figure, when the strain o at the extreme
compression fiber is less than the compressive strain o
corresponding to the compressive strength of the concrete,
vut is less than vuc. Therefore, when 1.0 (o o),
the distribution of the governing shear stress capacity vu is
simplified as the distribution of the shear stress capacity vut
controlled by tension: vu = vut (refer to Stage D in Fig. 2(c)).
On the other hand, when compressive softening occurs in the
extreme compression region, the shear stress capacity in the
region experiencing compressive softening is neglected, that
is, if > 1.0 (o > o), vu = vut for 0 z c/ and vu = 0 for
z > c/ (refer to Stage E in Fig. 2(c)).
The shear capacity of a cross section can be calculated by
integrating the governing shear stress capacity vu. Prior to
the occurrence of flexural cracking in the tension zone
(Stage AB in Fig. 2), shear force is resisted by the entire
cross section. Once a flexural crack initiates (Stage BC), the
inclined tensile crack immediately propagates to the neutral
axis of the cross section. Because the effective depth
resisting the shear force decreases, the shear capacity of the
cross section decreases significantly. After the inclined
tensile crack reaches the neutral axis (Stage CD), the shear
force is resisted primarily by the compression zone of the
intact concrete. In this study, to derive a simplified analytical
model, the average normal stress was used in the compression Fig. 2Variations in normal stress and maximum shear
zone (refer to the Appendix). The shear capacity at Stage CD stress capacity with change in flexural deformation at
is defined as follows cracked cross section.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010 509

capacity increases with flexural deformation (or the
corresponding normal stress in the compression zone)
(Eq. (4)). After the yielding of flexural reinforcing bars
occurs and the tensile force of the reinforcing bars is
maintained as the yield strength (Stage YD), the shear
capacity of the compression zone decreases because the
depth of the compression zone (c) decreases to satisfy the
force-equilibrium in the cross section. As the normal stress
at the extreme compression fiber of the cross section softens
after it reaches the compressive strength of concrete
(Stage DE), the shear capacity of the compression zone
decreases continuously (Eq. (5)).
The shear capacity at Stage AY was originally derived in
the strain-based shear strength model developed by Park et
al.11 to predict the shear strength of beams without flexural
yielding. On the other hand, to predict the deformation
capacity of beams, the present study focused on the shear
capacity at Stage YE, which degrades after flexural yielding.
EVALUATION OF SHEAR CAPACITY
AND SHEAR DEMAND
The shear strength and flexural deformation of a beam
vary with the type of loading and boundary conditions. In
this study, first, a cantilever beam subjected to cyclic shear
was studied. Figure 3 conceptually shows the shear demand
Vd and shear capacity Vn at the fixed beam end, which is the
critical section for shear failure in a slender cantilever beam.
The shear capacity curve represents the shear capacity of the
cross section varying with the flexural deformation. The
shear demand curve represents the shear force that is applied
to the critical section by the flexural deformation of the
beam. The shear failure of the beam occurs when the shear
demand equals the shear capacity.
In fact, because the shear capacity and shear demand vary
along the beam span, shear failure must be examined at all
locations of the potential critical sections. The first potential
critical section where the shear demand equals the shear capacity
becomes the actual critical section. Generally, however,
according to existing test results,18,19,20 the shear failure of a
slender cantilever beam with shear reinforcement occurs in the
plastic hinge region at the fixed beam end. This is attributed to
the fact that at the fixed end, the bending moment and the
corresponding shear demand are maximum, and the shear
capacity is minimum due to the severe flexural damage.
Fig. 3Determination of shear strength and rotation capacity.
510
Therefore, in this study, the critical section for shear failure was
assumed to be located in the plastic hinge zone of the beam end.
The shear demand curve is determined by the flexural moment
of the beam. The moment at the fixed end of a cantilever beam
Ma can be defined as a function of the normal strain ao at the
extreme compression fiber of the cross section
M a = As f s jd , where (6)
c c
jd =
0 z u ( z )dz 0 u ( z )dz +dc
where As fs is the tensile force of the reinforcing bars at the
fixed beam end; u(z) is the compressive stress in the
compressive zone, obtained from Eq. (A1); and jd is the
length of moment arm. The tensile force of the flexural
reinforcing bars As fs is defined as a function of ao (o
value at the fixed end)
c
As f s = b
0 u ( z )dz As fy
In a cantilever beam subjected to a concentrated transverse
load at its free end, the shear demand at the fixed end is
defined as follows
M As fs jd
V d = ------a- = -------------- (7)
a a
where a is the shear span of the beam.
In reinforced concrete beams with shear reinforcement, the
overall shear capacity of the beams with shear reinforcement Vn
is defined as the sum of the shear contributions of concrete
Vc (Eq. (4) and (5)) and shear reinforcement and Vs5,21
Vn = Vc + Vs , where V s = v fyv cot b ( d c ) (8)
where v is the ratio of the transverse reinforcement, and fyv
is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement. The
average shear crack angle is assumed to be 45 degrees.8
The shear capacities Vn at different flexural deformation
levels are calculated by using Eq. (4), (5), and (8). Therefore,
the shear capacity curve can be defined as a function of the
normal strain ao at the extreme compression fiber at the
fixed beam end.
In the proposed method, the shear strength of concrete Vc
is not affected by the shear crack angle in the tension zone
because the shear capacity of concrete is assumed to be
provided by the intact concrete in the compression zone.
When transverse reinforcement is used, the shear capacity
of a beam is increased (refer to Eq. (8) and Fig. 3). In this
case, only after a large inelastic deformation occurs and the
shear capacity of the intact concrete Vc is significantly
degraded, the shear capacity of the beam Vn is decreased
close to the shear demand Vd. Thus, the deformation capacity
of the beam can be increased.
When a large inelastic deformation occurs, the compression
zone of intact concrete is subjected to high compressive
stress and it becomes susceptible to crushing failure. The
transverse reinforcement may provide resistance to tensile
cracking of the concrete in the compression zone. As
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
inclined tensile cracking propagates in the compression
zone, however, the cross-sectional area of the compression
zone, which is required to resist the compressive stress
developed by the flexural action, is significantly reduced. In
this case, flexural equilibrium is not satisfied in the cross
section, and immediate failure of the compression zone is not
avoidable. Therefore, transverse reinforcement was assumed
to provide shear resistance only in the tension zone.
Based on the existing test results, it is well known that the
concrete cover of beams suffers severe damages under
repeated cyclic loading. Therefore, in the evaluation of the
shear capacity (Eq. (4), (5), and (8)) and shear demand
(Eq. (7)) of the concrete beams subjected to cyclic shear, the
shear contribution of the concrete cover was neglected. For
this reason, the distance de from the extreme compression
fiber of the core concrete to the centroid of the longitudinal
tension reinforcing bars was used instead of the effective
depth d (refer to Fig. 4(a)). On the other hand, for the beams
subjected to monotonic shear, the effective depth d was used
(refer to Fig. 4(b)). In these figures, is the tip displacement
of a cantilever beam specimen, and a is the curvature of a
beam at its fixed end.
In the flexural reinforcing bars subjected to inelastic tensile
strain, considerable residual tensile strain is developed. Due to
the residual tensile strain, under reversed loading, the
reinforcing bars yield early in compression before the
existing tensile cracks close completely. Thus, under
repeated cyclic loading, longitudinal elongation occurs in
reinforced concrete beams. In the conventional analysis
methods that use independent models for concrete and rein-
forcing bars, the concrete is not subjected to a compressive force
unless the tensile cracks close completely (Fig. 5(a)). In
reality, however, because the flexural reinforcing bars are
bonded to the surrounding concrete, a part of the compressive
force of the reinforcing bars is transferred to the concrete
even before the tensile cracks close (Fig. 5(b)). In the
proposed method, to consider such force-transfer mechanism,
50% of the compressive force of the reinforcing bars was
assumed to be transferred to the concrete in the compression
zone. Therefore, for calculating the depth of the compression
zone, only 50% of the area of the compression reinforcing
bars was considered. This value was empirically determined
based on the results of the calibration of the proposed
method. Therefore, further studies are required to accurately
estimate the force transfer mechanism. On the other hand, in
the beams subjected to monotonic loading, the residual
tensile strains of the compression reinforcing bars do not exist.
Fig. 4Effective depth and strain distribution of concrete beams subjected to cyclic or monotonic shear.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
Therefore, the conventional analysis model in Fig. 5(a) was
used for the evaluation of the compression zone depth.
DETERMINATION OF DEFORMATION CAPACITY
As observed in the existing test results, frequently,
concrete beams fail due to other failure mechanisms: bar
buckling, bar fracture, and flexural failure.19,22 Mayer and
Kowalsky22 defined the buckling strain of a longitudinal
reinforcing bar by considering the buckling force and
unsupported length of the reinforcing bar as follows
sb = 3 ------
Ks 2.5
o (9)
d bi
where s is the longitudinal spacing of the transverse reinforcing
bars; dbi is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing bar;
and K is the buckling length factor (= 1). The value sb
should be greater than o because bar buckling occurs only
after the spalling of the cover concrete. Therefore, it is
assumed that bar buckling occurs when the compressive
strain of concrete at the extreme compression fiber of the
core concrete ao equals the buckling strain sb (refer to
Fig. 4(a)).
To define bar fracture, the fracture strain of reinforcing
bars (f = 0.04) proposed by Wood23 and Chen14 was used.
Considering the strain compatibility (Fig. 4(a)), the ultimate
compressive strain of the concrete cf, corresponding to the
bar-fracture strain f, is calculated as follows
c -
cf = ------------ (10)
de c f
where de is the distance between the extreme compression
fiber of the core concrete and the centroid of longitudinal
tension reinforcing bars (Fig. 4(a)).
If the shear failure of the concrete in the compression
zone, bar buckling, or bar fracture do not occur in a slender
or intermediate beam, ultimately, the beam fails in the
flexural mode. After the yielding of the tension reinforcing
bars, the tensile force of the reinforcing bars is maintained as
the uniform yield strength. As the curvature in the cross
section increases, the depth of the compression zone
decreases with the increasing compressive stress of concrete
to satisfy the force-equilibrium to the uniform yield strength
of the tension reinforcing bars. With further increase in the
curvature, the concrete in the extreme compression fiber
experiences compressive softening. As the region experiencing
511
compressive softening expands, the resultant compressive
force of the compression zone starts decreasing. As a result,
to satisfy the force-equilibrium to the uniform yield strength
of the tension reinforcing bars, the depth of the compression
zone (c) should increase. For a given curvature, however, the
increase in the depth of the compression zone increases the
strain in the extreme compression fiber, which causes further
expansion of the region experiencing compressive softening.
Consequently, the compressive force of the compression
zone cannot be maintained; and, as a result, the flexural
capacity decreases suddenly.24 Such flexural failure mechanism
was confirmed by the proposed analytical method using the
stress-strain relationship of concrete with a well-defined
descending branch (Appendix).
In summary, the failure of the concrete beams is initiated
by one of the following four failure mechanisms (refer to
Fig. 3: 1) shear failure of concrete in the compression zone;
2) bar buckling; 3) bar fracture; or 4) flexural failure. In the
proposed method, assuming that proper reinforcing bar
details are used for beams, the effects of bond deterioration
and pullout of longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars
were not considered. The proposed method should not be
used for beams having improper reinforcing bar details
which may cause such effects.
VERIFICATION AND DISCUSSION
For verification, the proposed analytical method was
applied to the test specimens reported in previous studies
(Table 1). The test results were reported as either shear
force-displacement relationships or shear force-rotation
relationships at the plastic hinge. In this study, for
consistent verification, the shear force-displacement
relationships obtained from the previous literatures were
modified to shear force-rotation relationships using an
approximate definition of plastic hinge rotation. The rotation
of a cantilever beam was defined as R = /a, where is the
tip displacement, and a is the span of the cantilever beam
(refer to Fig. 4). To evaluate the shear demand (Eq. (7)) and
the shear capacity (Eq. (8)), the relationship between the
compressive strain ao and the rotation of the beam R need
to be defined. The curvature of the beam at the fixed end a
is defined as a function of the compressive strain (ao):
Fig. 5Force transfer between concrete and compression reinforcing bars due to residual
tensile strain of reinforcing bars.
512
a = ao/c. In the present study, the rotation of the beam is
calculated as follows
R = a ( a 3 ) for a y (11a)
R = y ( a 3 ) + ( a y )l h for a > y (11b)
where y [= y /(d c)] is the curvature of the beam when
steel reinforcing bars yield, and lh is the length of the plastic
hinge. Based on the results of JCI Colloquium25 and Lee and
Watanabe,10 lh is estimated as lh = 0.5d[M /(Vh)] = 0.5ad/h,
where 0.75d lh d. By using Eq. (11), the shear demand
and shear capacity curves can be redefined as the functions
of the rotation of Beam R.
Thirty specimens presented in References 10, 18, 19, and
26 to 29 were analyzed by the proposed method. Some of the
specimens shown in References 10, 18, 19, and 26 were
subjected to cyclic shear, whereas the others were subjected
to monotonic shear. The specimens were double cantilever
with two fixed ends, cantilevers, or simply supported beams.
The double cantilever specimens and the simply supported
beams were modeled as cantilevers with a half-span length.
All the specimens used in this analysis were reported to have
failed at the plastic hinge region after flexural yielding. The
dimensions and properties of the specimens and their test
results are summarized in Table A1 in the Appendix. In the
table, t and c are tension and compression reinforcement
ratios, respectively.
In Fig. 6, the shear force-rotation relationships of the test
specimens subjected to cyclic loading are compared with the
predictions obtained from the proposed analytical model.
Table A1 lists the maximum loads and rotation capacities
measured in the tests. The rotation capacity of the test specimens
was defined as the rotation at the instance when the load-
carrying capacity drops by 10% of the peak strength. In the
proposed method, the shear strength and rotation capacity
were determined at the intersection of shear capacity
(Eq. (8)) and shear demand (Eq. (7)). The failure criteria for
bar buckling (Eq. (9)), bar fracture (Eq. (10)), and flexural
failure were also considered. Flexural failure was directly
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
defined by the softening of the shear demand in the shear
demand curve. As seen in Fig. 6, all specimens failed after
flexural yielding. Table A1 shows the rotation capacity
ratios (Rexp./Rpred.) and strength ratios (Vexp./Vpred.) between
the test results and the predictions by the proposed method.
The mean value and standard deviation of the rotation
capacity ratio were 1.09 and 15.2%, whereas those of the
strength ratios were 1.09 and 10.7%. This result indicates
that the proposed method predicted the shear force-rotation
relationship, shear strength, and rotation capacity with
reasonable precision. The failure modes of the specimens
predicted by the proposed method are listed in Table A1.
As seen in Fig. 6(a), (b), (f), and (n), when the shear
reinforcement ratio was less than 0.003 (refer to Table A1),
the failure of the specimens was initiated by the shear failure
of the compression zone (Specimens BA2, BA3, BA7, and
SC3). The shear failure was defined at the intersection of
shear capacity and shear demand. On the other hand, in the
specimens shown in Fig. 6(c), (d), (e), (k), and (m), because
the high shear reinforcement ratio (0.004 t 0.0119) complex post-failure deformation modes that are different
increased the shear capacity, flexural failure occurred at
large inelastic rotations (Specimens BA4, BA5, BA6, HB4-
10L-T65, and C35-00). Other specimens (Specimens BA10,
BA11, BA12, HB4-6L-T100, and C70-00) failed by the bar
fracture failure mechanism. The shear capacity curves of
Matamoros and Sozens19 specimens are not shown in the
figures because the shear capacities were too large due to the
high shear reinforcement ratio (refer to Fig. 6(l) and (m) and
Table A1).
In Fig. 7, the shear force-rotation relationships of the test
specimens subjected to monotonic loading are compared
with the predictions obtained from the proposed analytical
method. In Fig. 7, the test results of the specimens of Bresler
and Scordelis30 (thin dotted line), whose dimensions and
material properties are very similar to those of Vecchio
and Shim27 (thick dotted line), are presented together. All the
Fig. 6Comparison between predictions obtained by proposed method and test results (cyclic shear).
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
specimens failed after flexural yielding. As shown in Fig. 7, the
proposed method predicted the rotation capacity of the specimens
subjected to monotonic loading with reasonable precision.
Generally, a beam subjected to cyclic loading is expected
to have less deformation capacity than a beam subjected to
monotonic loading if the two beams have identical dimensions
and properties. In this comparison, however, the test
specimens subjected to cyclic loading had greater transverse
reinforcement ratios and less flexural reinforcement ratios
than the test specimens subjected to monotonic loading
did (refer to Table A1). Thus, as seen in Fig. 6 and 7, the beams
subjected to cyclic loading showed greater deformation capacities.
Lee and Watanabe10 reported that all nine specimens
listed in Table A1 failed in shear, and Xiao et al.18 reported
that all four specimens failed in sliding shear. The results are
different from the failure modes predicted by the proposed
model. It should be noted, however, that the proposed
method predict only the initial failure mechanisms of the
beams and, after the initiation of failure, the beams can show
from the initial failure mechanisms. For instance, the sliding
shear reported in experimental studies seems to be a post-
failure deformation mode because the sliding shear can
occur only after the compression zone of intact concrete fails
either in flexural or shear mode.
As mentioned in the section Maximum Shear Stress
Capacity of Concrete, the contributions of the aggregate
interlock and dowel action were not considered in the
proposed analytical model. As shown in Fig. 6 and 7, even
though the tension reinforcement ratio and shear reinforcement
ratio of the test specimens used in the comparison varied
widely, the accuracy of the proposed model was not significantly
affected by these parameters, which are closely related to the
contribution of the aggregate interlock and dowel action.
Further, in the proposed method, the effects of bond deterioration
and pullout of longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars
513
Fig. 7Comparison between predictions obtained by proposed method and test results (monotonic shear).
were not considered. According to the results of the studies
performed by Shakir and Rogowsky31 and Sigrist and
Marti,32 even in the vicinity of a plastic hinge, significant
bond stress is still transferable between the concrete and the
tension reinforcing bars. The results in Fig. 6 and 7 show that
such simplifications did not significantly affect the accuracy of
the proposed analytical model. The proposed method, however,
should not be used for beams having improper reinforcing bar
details which may cause excessive bond deterioration and
pullout of longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars.
The applicability of the proposed model should be limited
to the range of the design parameters of the test specimens
used for the verification of the proposed model (Table A1):
concrete beams subjected to cyclic or monotonic loading,
having the shear span-depth ratio (a/d) ranging between 2.21
and 7.48, effective depth d ranging between 180 and 457 mm
(7.1 and 18.0 in.), concrete strength ranging between 21.9
and 74.7 MPa (3.2 and 10.8 ksi), and transverse reinforcing
bar ratio ranging between 0 and 1.19%.
In the Appendix, a simplified equation for the evaluation
of the rotation capacity of beams subjected to cyclic shear
was developed.
R n = y ( a 3 ) + ( n y )l h (A5)
where n[= min(sc, ul, sb, cf /c] is the curvature of the
beam at failure, ul (= 0.008 o) is the ultimate compressive
strain (Appendix), and sc is the compressive strain of the
514
extreme compression fiber corresponding to the shear failure
of the compression zone (Appendix). For verification, the
simplified method for the evaluation of the rotation capacity
(Eq. (A5)) was applied to the test specimens listed in
Table A1. The predictions obtained from the simplified
equation agree with the test results, as can be seen in Table A1.
The average ratio of the test results to the predictions (Rexp./Rpred.)
was 1.05 with a standard deviation of 0.173.
CONCLUSIONS
An analytical model was developed to evaluate the
inelastic deformation capacity of slender or intermediate
beams subjected to cyclic or monotonic loading. To predict
the deformation capacity of the beams, this study focused on
the evaluation of the degradation in the shear capacity due to
inelastic flexural deformation. The shear capacity of concrete
was assumed to be provided by the intact concrete in the
compression zone. Failure mechanisms of flexure, bar
buckling, and bar fracture were also considered. For verification,
the proposed method was applied to existing test specimens.
A simplified method for the evaluation of the rotation
capacity of beams was developed for practical use. The principal
findings of this study are summarized as follows:
1. Based on the material failure criteria of concrete, the
shear capacity of the concrete in the compression zone can be
defined as a function of the flexural deformation of the beam.
2. After flexural yielding, as the inelastic flexural deformation
reduces the depth of the compression zone and increases the
area of the concrete subjected to compressive softening, the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
shear capacity of the compression zone decreases. When the
shear demand force developed by the flexural action reaches
the degraded shear capacity, the shear failure of the compression
zone occurs.
3. The failure of the slender or intermediate beams
subjected to cyclic loading occurred by the shear failure of
the compression zone, bar fracture, bar buckling, or flexural
failure. The failure of the beams subjected to monotonic
loading was caused mainly by the shear failure of the
compression zone or flexural failure.
The proposed method is applicable to the concrete beams
with a/d greater than 2.0 and shear reinforcement ratio less
than 0.19%. It is not applicable to the beams that fail due to
shear-slip and crushing in the web, such as short beams and
I-shaped beams.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was financially supported by the Basic Science Research
Program, through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), and
funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2010-0015547).
REFERENCES
1. Aschheim, M., and Moehle, J. P., Shear Strength and Deformability
of RC Bridge Columns Subjected to Inelastic Cyclic Displacements,
Report No. UCB/EERC-92/04, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1992, 99 pp.
2. Wong, Y. L.; Paulay, T.; and Priestley, M. J. N., Response of Circular
Reinforced Concrete Beams to Multi-Directional Seismic Attack, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, pp. 180-191.
3. Priestley, M. J. N.; Verma, R.; and Xiao, Y., Seismic Shear Strength
of Reinforced Concrete Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering,
V. 120, No. 8, 1994, pp. 2310-2329.
4. Martn-Prez, B., and Pantazopoulou, S. J., Mechanics of Concrete
Participation in Cyclic Shear Resistance of RC, Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 124, No. 6, 1998, pp. 633-641.
5. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
6. Standards Association of New Zealand, Code of Practice for the
Design of Concrete Structures, NZS-3101, Wellington, New Zealand,
1982.
7. Applied Technology Council (ATC 32), Improved Seismic Design
Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations, 1996.
8. Sezen, J., and Moehle, J. P., Shear Strength Model for Lightly
Reinforced Concrete Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 130, No. 11, 2004, pp. 1692-1703.
9. Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P., Drift Capacity of Reinforced
Concrete Columns with Light Transverse Reinforcement, Earthquake
Spectra, V. 21, No. 1, 2005, pp. 71-89.
10. Lee, J., and Watanabe, F., Shear Deterioration of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 100, No. 4, July-Aug. 2003, pp. 480-489.
11. Park, H.; Choi, K.; and Wight, J. K., Strain-Based Shear Strength
Model for Slender Beams without Web Reinforcement, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 103, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2006, pp. 783-793.
12. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Members, Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 99, No. 6, 1973,
pp. 1091-1187.
13. Kotsovos, M. D., and Pavlovic, M. N., Ultimate Limit-Sate Design
of Concrete Structures: A New Approach, Thomas Telford, London, UK,
1998, 208 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2010
14. Chen, W. F., Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1982, 474 pp.
15. Kupfer, H. B.; Hildorf, H. K.; and Rusch, H., Behavior of Concrete
under Biaxial Stresses, ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 66, No. 8, 1969,
pp. 656-666.
16. Choi, K.; Reda Taha, M. M.; Park, H.; and Maji, A. K., Punching
Shear Strength of Concrete Slab-Column Connections Reinforced with
Steel Fibers, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 29, No. 4, 2007,
pp. 409-420.
17. Neville, A. M., Properties of Concrete, fourth edition, Prentice Hall,
1995, 844 pp.
18. Xiao, Y.; Esmaeily-Ghasemabadi, A.; and Wu, H., High-Strength
Concrete Short Beams Subjected to Cyclic Shear, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 96, No. 3, May-June 1999, pp. 393-399.
19. Matamoros, A. B., and Sozen, M. A., Drift Limits of High-Strength
Concrete Columns Subjected to Load Reversals, Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 129, No. 3, 2003, pp. 297-313.
20. Lehman, D.; Moehle, J.; Mahin, S.; Calderone, A.; and Henry, L.,
Experimental Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 130,
No. 6, 2004, pp. 869-879.
21. BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures.
General Rules and Rules for Buildings, British Standards Institutions,
London, UK, 230 pp.
22. Moyer, M. J., and Kowalsky, M. J., Influence of Tension Strain on
Buckling of Reinforcement in Concrete Columns, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 100, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2003, pp. 75-85.
23. Wood, S. L., Minimum Tensile Reinforcement Requirements in
Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 4, July-Aug. 1989, pp. 582-591.
24. Park, H.; Kang, S.; Chung, L.; and Lee, D., Moment-Curvature
Relationship of Flexure-Dominated Walls with Partially Confined End-
Zones, Engineering Structures, V. 29, No. 1, 2007, pp. 33-45.
25. Japan Concrete Institute, JCI Colloquium on Ductility of Concrete
Structures and its Evaluation, 1988, 466 pp.
26. PEER, Structural Performance Database, http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/.
27. Vecchio, F. J., and Shim, W., Experimental and Analytical
Reexamination of Classic Concrete Beam Test, Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 130, No. 3, 2004, pp. 460-469.
28. Shin, S.; Moon, J.; Park, H.; Lee, S.; Oh, J.; and Lim, N., An
Experimental Study on Shear Capacity of High-Strength Concrete Beams
with a Shear Span-Depth Ratio between 1.5 and 2.5, Korea Concrete
Institute Journal, V. 4, No. 4, 1992, pp. 171-179.
29. Kim, S., and Lee, J., Shear Behavior Prediction of Reinforced
Concrete Beams by Transformation Angel Truss Model Considered
Bending Moment Effect, Korea Concrete Institute Journal, V. 14, No. 6,
2002, pp. 910-921.
30. Bresler, B., and Scordelis, A. C., Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL Proceedings V. 60, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1963,
pp. 51-72.
31. Shakir, A., and Rogowsky, D. M., Evaluation of Ductility and
Allowable Moment Redistribution in Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 17, 2000, pp. 1286-1299.
32. Sigrist, V., and Marti, P., Ductility of Structural Concrete, A
Contribution, workshop on development of EN 1992 in relation to new
research results and the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Czech Technical
University, Prague, Czech Republic, 1994, pp. 211-223.
33. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., The Modified Compression-Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
34. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; and MacGregor, J. G., Structural
Consideration for High-Strength Concrete, Concrete International, V. 15,
No. 5, May 1993, pp. 27-34.
35. Lgeron, F., and Paultre, P., Uniaxial Confinement Model for
Normal- and High-Strength Concrete Columns, Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 129, No. 2, 2003, pp. 241-252.
515
 1 APPENDIX IDimensions and properties of test specimens and predictions obtained by
2 the simplified method
3
4 Table A1Dimensions and properties of test specimens and predictions obtained by the
5 simplified method
(1) (2) (3) (4)
f 'c d a/d t c v V exp . V pred . Rexp . R pred . R pred . Predicted
Specimen (MPa) (mm) (%) (%) (%) failure
(kN) (kN)
mode(5)
Cyclic loading
Lee and BA2 29.3 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.27 139.1 120.1 0.0317 0.0287 0.0342 S
Watanabe10 BA3 29.3 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.20 130.8 117.7 0.0313 0.0240 0.0246 S
BA4 29.3 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.80 137.3 117.5 0.0401 0.0376 0.0474 F
BA5 29.3 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.53 135.7 117.2 0.0392 0.0376 0.0474 F
BA6 29.3 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.40 138.2 117.5 0.0394 0.0376 0.0475 F
BA7 43.4 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.20 152.7 122.2 0.0164 0.0123 0.0130 S
BA10 43.4 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.60 143.3 120.6 0.050 0.0443 0.0459 BF
BA11 43.4 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.40 144.6 120.6 0.0425 0.0443 0.0459 BF
BA12 43.4 270 2.22 1.45 1.45 0.30 144.6 123.7 0.0390 0.0443 0.0459 BF
Xiao et al.18 HB4-6L-T100 69.5 367 2.21 1.14 1.14 0.77 185.0 188.6 0.0464 0.0443 0.0391 BF
HB4-10L-T65 69.5 328 2.48 2.13 2.13 1.19 271.2 268.4 0.0390 0.0403 0.0359 F
Matamoros C70-00 70.0 180 3.39 1.10 1.10 1.00 58.0 46.7 0.0410 0.0446 0.0410 BF
and Sozen19 C35-00 38.0 180 3.39 1.10 1.10 1.00 58.0 58.8 0.0480 0.0406 0.0440 F
Aboutaha26 SC3 21.9 397 3.07 0.94 0.94 0.096 406.0 438.1 0.021 0.021 0.021 S
Monotonic loading
Vecchio A1 22.6 457 4.49 1.72 0.22 0.10 229.5 203.6 0.0121 0.0128 0.0126 S
and Shim27 A2 25.9 457 5.48 2.22 0.22 0.10 219.5 210.3 0.0135 0.0143 0.0138 F
A3 43.5 457 7.48 2.73 0.22 0.10 210.0 204.9 0.0224 0.0195 0.0210 F
B1 22.6 457 4.49 2.29 0.29 0.15 217.0 199.2 0.0169 0.0115 0.0114 F
B2 25.9 457 5.48 2.29 0.29 0.15 182.5 162.6 0.0157 0.0149 0.0147 F
B3 43.5 457 7.48 2.96 0.29 0.15 171.0 160.8 0.0232 0.0195 0.0205 F
C1 22.6 457 4.49 2.02 0.43 0.20 141.0 116.8 0.0177 0.0150 0.0145 F
C2 25.9 457 5.48 3.46 0.43 0.20 145.0 145.1 0.0113 0.0118 0.0136 F
C3 43.5 457 7.48 3.46 0.43 0.20 132.5 115.6 0.0170 0.0173 0.0193 F
Shin et al. 28 HB2.5-0 74.7 215 2.5 3.77 0 0 84.2 94.0 0.0040 0.0033 0.0055 S
HB2.5-25 74.7 215 2.5 3.77 0.5 0.24 119.6 125.8 0.0068 0.0064 0.0074 S
HB2.5-50 74.7 215 2.5 3.77 0.5 0.47 152.9 128.5 0.0116 0.010 0.0101 S
Kim and S2.0 42.2 264 2.0 2.67 0.27 0.32 217.7 181.1 0.0065 0.0080 0.0048 S
Lee29 S3.0 42.2 244 3.0 3.60 0.29 0.22 186.3 197.6 0.0080 0.0060 0.0058 S
S3.5 42.2 244 3.5 3.60 0.29 0.22 163.8 172.9 0.0090 0.0070 0.0077 S
S4.0 42.2 244 4.0 3.60 0.29 0.22 142.2 141.7 0.0086 0.0084 0.009 S
21.9 180 2.21 0.94 0 0 Mean(7): Mean(8): Mean(9):
Total 74.7 457 7.48 3.77 2.13 1.19 1.09 1.09 1.05
S.D. (7): S.D. (8): S.D. (9):
0.107 0.152 0.173
(1)
Shear strength predicted by the proposed method [Eqs. (7)-(10)].
(2)
Rotation capacity obtained from the test; this capacity corresponds to 90 % of the maximum load-carrying
capacity (Vexp).
(3)
Rotation capacity predicted by the proposed method [Eqs. (7)-(10)].
(4)
Rotation capacity predicted by the simplified equation [Eq. (15)].
(5)
S = shear failure of the compression zone; BF = bar fracture; and F = flexural failure.
(6)
Mean and standard deviation of the strength ratio between test results and predictions [Eqs. (7)-(10)].
(7)
Mean and standard deviation of the rotation capacity ratio between test results and predictions [Eqs. (7)-(10)].
(8)
Mean and standard deviation of the rotation capacity ratio between test results and predictions [Eq. (A5)].
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi, 1 kN = 0.225 kip, and 1 mm = 0.04 inches.
6

28
 1 APPENDIX II-COMPRESSIVE STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP OF CONCRETE

2 The shear capacity and shear demand of a cross section are affected by the compressive

3 stress-strain relationship of concrete. In the proposed model, the following compressive

4 stress-strain relationship with a well-defined descending branch was used(Matamoros and

5 Sozen19, Vecchio and Collins33, Collins et al.34, and Lgeron and Paultre35):

2

6 u ( ) = f ' c 2 for o (A1a)
o o

7 u ( ) = f ' c E d ( o ) 0 for > o (A1b)

8 where o = compressive strain corresponding to compressive strength [ = ( f 'c / Ec )[n /(n 1)] ,

9 Collins et al.34], n = 0.8 + f ' c / 17 MPa ( 0.8 + f ' c / 2.47 ksi), and E c = Youngs modulus of

10 concrete [= 3320 f ' c + 6900 MPa ( 8714 f ' c + 1000 ksi), Collins et al. 33]. For the slope of

11 the descending branch, E d = 0.5 f ' c ( 50 o ) was used, where 50 (= 0.004, Lgeron and

12 Paultre35) is the compressive strain in the descending branch corresponding to 50% of the

13 concrete compressive strength.

14 As the inelastic flexural deformation of a beam increases, the overall shear capacity of the

15 beam decreases to the shear capacity of the transverse reinforcement (see Fig. 3). Therefore,

16 in beams, which have less transverse reinforcement than columns do, all transverse

17 reinforcements yield due to the shear action at a large inelastic flexural deformation.

18 Therefore, the transverse reinforcement provides minimum lateral confinement for the

19 concrete compression zone, but does not increase the compressive strength of the concrete.

20 For this reason, in the definition of the compressive strength of concrete in Eq. (A1), the

21 confinement effect provided by the transverse reinforcements was not considered.

22 For the evaluation of Vc in Eqs. (4) and (5), the average normal stress

[= u ( z )dz / c] in the region of the compression zone that does not experience
c
23
0

24
 1 (
compressive softening is calculated as follows: = 2 / 3 f ' c for ) 1 ; and

2 = (2 / 3) f ' c for > 1 .

3 APPENDIX III-SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR THE EVALUATION

4 OF ROTATION CAPACITY

5 The analytical method proposed in this study [Eqs. (7) and (8)] requires considerable

6 effort in the calculation of the shear capacity and shear demand. Therefore, for convenience

7 in design practice, a simplified equation for the evaluation of the rotation capacity of beams

8 subjected to cyclic shear was developed. The rotation capacity of a beam is determined by the

9 four failure criteria shown in Fig. 3: shear failure in compression zone, bar buckling, bar

10 fracture, and flexural failure.

11 As shown in Fig. 3, the shear capacity ( Vn = Vc + V s ) decreases to V s with the increase in

12 the compressive strain of the compression zone. The shear failure of the compression zone

13 occurs when the degraded shear capacity intersects the shear demand. Therefore, the rotation

14 capacity corresponding to the shear failure of the compression zone can be evaluated by

15 equilibrating the shear capacity Vn and shear demand Vd .

16 Vn (= Vc + V s ) = Vd or (A2a)

17 b f 't [ f 't + ]c / a + v f yv bd = t f y bd jd / a , if V s Vd (A2b)

18 where f yv = yield strength of shear reinforcement and Vd = t f y bd jd / a .

19 If Vs > Vd , the shear failure of the compression zone does not occur. In the case of beams

20 whose rotation capacity needs to be estimated, flexural yielding occurs prior to shear failure.

21 Therefore, the shear demand Vd is equivalent to the shear force developed by the flexural

22 yield strength of the beam. In this study, to develop a simplified equation, the moment arm,

23 jd , was simplified as (2d h c / 2) for cyclic loading and (d c / 2) for monotonic loading

24 (see Fig. 4).

25
 1 By using Eq. (A2) and the average normal stress in APPENDIX, the compressive

2 strain of the extreme compression fiber corresponding to the shear failure of the compression

3 zone, a o (= sc ), can be calculated as follows:

f 'c + f 'c 2 + 4 f 't ( A + f 'c / 3) f v jd

4 a o = sc = o , if v (A3)
2( A + f 'c / 3) t f yv a

5 where A = t f y d jd / a v f yv d 2 /( f 't c 2 ) (A4)

6 In Figs. 6 and 7, the proposed analytical model predicted the flexural failure by using the

7 shear demand curve with a descending branch. The results showed that the flexural failure

8 occurred when the compressive strain at the extreme compression fiber, a o , reached an

9 approximate value of the ultimate compressive strain ul = 0.008 o (see APPENDIX).

10 Therefore, in the simplified method, ul (= 0.008 o ) was defined as the ultimate

11 compressive strain of concrete for the flexural failure mode. By using ul , the flexural failure

12 can be conveniently defined, without using the analytical model.

13 Consequently, in the simplified method, the rotation capacity of a beam is determined by

14 the minimum value of sc [Eq. (A3)], ul , sb [Eq. (9)], and cf [Eq. (10)] (Fig. 3). Using Eq.

15 (11), the rotation capacity of the concrete beam can be calculated as follows:

16 Rn = y (a / 3) + (n y )lh (A5)

17 where n [= min( sc , ul , sb , cf ) / c] = the curvature of the beam at failure. The depth of

18 compression zone, c , can be calculated approximately by using the compressive strain

19 o = 0.003 .

20

26