December, 19b8 ST 12

Journal of the
STRUCTURAL DIVISION
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers
;;;;;::;:::=

BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE UNDER COMPRESSIVE LOADINGS

By 1. Demir Karsan,! and James O. Jirsa/ M. ASCE

INTRODUCTION

This paper describes and evaluates an experimental study of the strength

and behavior of plain concrete subjected to repetitions of compressive stress
!Ovarious levels. A total of 46 short rectangular columns were tested under
cyclically varying axial loads to establish stress-strain relations for plain
concrete. The characteristics of the loading and unloading stress-strain re
lationships were studied, and expressions for these relationships were
derived.

BACKGROUND

Early research on plain concrete subjected to variable load histories was

aimed toward obtaining a fatigue limit for the materi?l. Fatigue tests of ce
ment mortar were followed by fatigue tests of plain concrete in which the
reported fatigue limits were generally from 40% to 60% of the staLic cylinder
strength. A decrease in the tangent modulus and the Poisson's ratio with in
creased number of cycles of loading was reported. This early work has been
. reviewed in considerable detail by Nordby (5).3 Murdock and Kesler (4) con-

I eluded that there was no Significant fatigue limit for plain concrete under
loads of the order of millions of cycles. However, for a given stress level the
numhl>r of ('\7('1,,<: nl'onl1('inO" hillll'P ('olllrl hI' oht"inl'rl.
2544 December, 1969 CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2545

1. The stress-strain relationships of concrete under curve. Axial load was applied with a 60-ton hydraulic ram connected
histories possess an envelope curve, which may be considered Id_operated high-pressure pump which provided a nearly constant rate
identical with the stress-strain curve obtained under constantly of oil to the ram. The load was transmitted to the specimen through a
strain. yoke resting on a spherical head on the ram. The movable yoke was
2. The stress-strain relationships of concrete subjected to cyclic to a rigid base plate which distributed the load to the end face
possess a locus of common pOints which are defined as the point test specimen. On the other end, a similar rigid plate was pin-connected
reloading portion of any cycle crosses the unloading portion. Stresses 00 K load cell which was used to monitor the axial load. Both ends of
the common points produce additional strains, while stresses at Or specimens were grouted with a quick setting high-strength gypsum cement.
these points will result in tIle stress-strain path going into a loop. It Was lIoriZontal load was applied through a manually operated screw-type me
observed that the values of the common pOints depended on the 'snt. As the mechanism was rotated, a horizontal thrust was developed
stress in the cycle, i.e., the stress amplitude. ~st the column of the load frame. Horizontal loads were applied only to
:aintain a uniform strain across the specimen.
Shah, et al. (7,B,9) reported tests of prismatic specimens subjected to
peated axial compression. Tests showed that the maximum stress of the
of common points appeared to be approximately equal to the critica:lload
which the volume of the concrete uru!l'er compression ceases to decrease
the micracracking in the mortar sharply increases.
Most of the experimental work to date has been aimed toward obtaining
fatigue stress level for concrete. The loadings were generally at high
The effects of acceleration and speed on the behavior were generally
eliminated.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this investigation were twofold: (1) To study experim~n.,1

tally the behavior of concrete under various compressive loadings in
determine the factors governing the responses of concrete to repeated
ings and examine the mechanism of failure under these loadings; and (2)
develop expressions for the stress-strain relationships of the concrete,
on the experimental results and to use these expressions for predicting
behavior of concrete under other compressive loading histories. w
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM {oJ {bl

Test SPecir;zens.-:-The test specimens were short rectangular COlumllS{

FIG. l.-TEST SPECIMEN FIG. 2.-LOAD FRAME

Thedimensions of the column at the critical section were 3-in. X 5.m.~

To confine failure .to the mid?eight of the column, bath ends of the specimellSl
Strain rates were suc? that t?e maximum c~pac1ty.of the s~ecimens su~

were flared and reInforced WIth No.5 bars. \ jected to steadily increasIng stram was reached In 3 mm to 5 mm. For cyclIc
The concrete mix proportions were constant for all the specimens. The loading the peak load on the specimens was applied in 1 min to 2 min and re
I'

concrete was a blend of Type m Portland Cement and 50% Colorado River moved in about 1/2 min to 1 min.
sand and 50% 3/4-in. gravel by weight. The specimens were cast in a vertical instrumentation. -Four O.B-in. wire resistance gages were used to monitor
position. ~hree 6-in. x 12-in.. control ~ylinders were cast with each specimen. the strains on the two opposite 3.-in. faces at .the mid~elght of ~he column.
The speclmens were cured m a mOIst room for 2, 5 or 7 days and testedati Because the specimens were subJected to strams conSIderably In excess of
7, 14 or 21 days. Cylinder strengths varied from 3,500 psi to 5,000 psi. Values 1( the normal operating range of the strain gages, strains were also measured

, 'I
of f~ for each specimen and complete details of the experimental program' over a 6-1/2-in. gage length, using two differential transformer displacement
are given in Ref. 3.. transducers placed at the midsections of the specimens. These transducers
Loading An'angement.-A rigid loading frame (Fig. 2) was constructed in . were placed on the opposite 5-in. faces of the specimen and were 'supported
which .axial Or flexural loads could be applied simultaneously or separately., between light steel frames fastened to the specimen with pOinted set screws.
The silffness of the loading frame was sufficient to avoid problem s associated Test Procedure. - Load histories were controlled by monitoring one of two
with the release of energy in the unstable portion of the concrete stress- variables: (0 Incremental strain during a given cycle, or (2) stress level
OJ''

2546 December, 1969 CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2547

during a given cycle. Loads were applied manually and the magnitude
to produce the specified seress level or strain increment as
by an X-Y recorder plot. A total of 46 specimens were tested in
different series which are identjfied below by the distinguishing feature
load history. The number of tests in each series is given in parentheses.
II Ii'
Series AM1: Steadily Increasing Strain to Failure (13 Specimens).-Speci
.::: e usually cast in groups of two or four. The strain was steadily
to failure on one specimen in each group. This test was used to
the effects of other loading histories. Typical stress-strain curves
' ...... the test specimens in series AM! are shown.in Figs. 3, 4 and 5. The non-
A; ensiona! coordinates F and S will be presented later.
IllSedes AC2: Cycles to Envelope Curve (9 Specimens).-The concept of an
co r
.. Wk1 K< fC""""":
"
'.".............

" S. t / t g
"
velope curve for the response of concrete has been proposed by other in
:stlgators (10). The envelope curve can be defined as the limiting curve

FIG. 3.-CYCLIC LOADING TO ENVELOPE CUR,VE

1.0
--,I : I I
I ' /;AM,j,,) !
,. b~"~":=~ F~,,~'''50~'' 0.1-1-- . AI'
,.8
'
III "' ,I

~,. ' ".""! '

'-06
~ 1).6 ..I 'ltV
:.1 I r
I' nr 'I
",.", '

, y<
"
'..... ,.n
'kll: ~o;aD
SMITJ-t- YOUNG
-.....
............
.4

'1.. . . . . .
02

oc/ to
,V

I
So

o. 1/ vq.-r ........--{<
FIG. 4,-COMPARISOK OF ENVELOPE CURVES \VITH TEST AC4-10 co 1.0 l.a 3.0
5 c/c,

- I FIG. 6.-CYCLIC LOADING PRODUCING GIVEN STRAIN INCREMENT

, within which all stress-strain curves lie regardless of the load pattern. To
Investigate the validity of the envelope curve, the strains in a given cycle
-"01 were increased until the stress-strain path reached the envelope curve. A
' , stress-strain curve for test AC2-09 is shown in Fig. 3.
Series AC3:Varying Strain Increments (10 Specimens).-The specimens in
series AC2 were subjected to strain cycles in which a specified strain incre
'"",,00,. ) ment was added during each cycle. Stress-strain curves are shown in Fig. 6
"1Ii\l"Ut r' [or AC3-10 in which strain increments of 0.5 x 10- 3 were added during each
cycle. Some of t.h.e specim.ens w.e. re loaded to an initi.al specified...s.t.r.a.. in such

I
>.

as 1 x 10-3 and then cycled to produce a given incremental st:rElJrr such as

" 5 .. , / ( .
. 0.1 x 10-3 in each .cycle. In many of these tests the results we'~e"s:imilar to
those of series AC2 because the incremental strain was large enotigh.,-i9 pro
FIG. 5.-COl'l'IPARISO.K OF ENVELOPE CUHVES WITH TEST AC4-13 duce stress-strain curves which reached the envelope curve.
,: ~tl" AC4: Cyd" betwn M",lmom and Minlmom 81"" Lov.l, (14

J
 2548 December, 1969
CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2549
Specimens). - In this series load cycles were applied between giv-en appears to best fit the observed stress-strain relationship and
levels until the strains stabilized or until the maximum stress lev-el
to approximate the behavior of concrete under monotonic load-
be sustained, Maxi:num stresses varied between 0.85 fJ and 0,59 JI.

, mum stresses vaned between 0 and 0.70 I~. Stress-strain Curv-es lor
in the age of the concrete at testing and in the strength did not
AC4-10 and AC4-13 are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Additional details Of til

perimental program are given in flef. 3, e have an influence on the shape of the stress- strain curves obtained
the specimens under monotonic loading to failure or those under
and were not considered to be significant variables in the range
BEHAVIOR OF TEST SPECIMENS this investigation.
JlilJlletope Curve. -The test results as represented by the curves in Fig. 3,
Monotonic Loading to Failure.-The specimens in which the strain
a indicate that the stress-strain paths under cyclic loading generally
steadily increased to failure were used to evaluate the behavior of
eKceed the envelope curve. In those cases where the envelope was the
subjected to other load histories. In order to facilitate comparisons
stress-strain curve for the companion specimen under monotonic
test results, stress-strain curves are plotted in normalized coordinates.
to failure, the comparison is excellent.
stress coordinate F is normali7,ed with respect to I;, the 6-in.
x 12-in. the specimens tested, the stress-strain relationship became approx
tangent to the envelope curveas.shown by the stress-strain curves
AC2-09 and AC3-10 (.E'xgs. ~.iind 6). The same behavior was
in specimens AC4-l(i and AC41S (Figs. 4 and 5). It is significant
1.0
ulation of strain under constant maximum stress levels produced
HOGHESTAO; F= o.ass {Z-sl. fot 5111,0
F=O.!lS1-a,I01S,forS!!:to when the envelope was reached.
0.8 . L.
i

---:--;
t

"', ""-.' I
\
.

-..,.
1II Fig. 8 another type of load history is shown. Even though the cycles
quite different than those presented previously, the stress-strain curves
specimen AC2-07 remained within the envelope until very high strains
'_<.l 0.6
ched.
" oints plotted in Fig. 9 are the values of peak stress and strain from
mens for which the stress-strain path in a given cycle became ap
0,'
coincidental with the envelope curve. Although there is some
i -/
the Smith-Young expression is a good approximation of the test
iMITH~YOIJ~G
F= O.85Se-('i Sl
0,'
the specimens tested, the envelope curve may be defined as the stress-
curve obtained under monotonic loading to failure and approximated by
Smith- Young equation. Failure was observed when a given stress-strain
0,0 exceeded the envelope, however, the specimen could be loaded to the
0,0 1.0 20 3.0 regardless of the strain accumulated prior to a given cycle. Strain
S=: /1)
did not appear to reduce the strength to a level below the en
FIG. 7,-l\]OP;OTONIC LOAD/KG TO FAILURE
Itshould be remembered that the envelope and the stress strain curves
be altered if the strain rate or the' properties of the concrete were
inder strength. For the specimens under monotonic loading to failure,
median value of the strength was 0.85f; and the mean wasO.S6/; with a man Points. -Sinha, GerstIc, and Tulin (W! ind1Catedthat the locus of
dard deviation of 0.04 r;. The strain coordinate, S, is normalizedwith oints where the reloading portion 'of any cycle crosses the unloading
to Eo' the strain corresponding to the peak stress. The median value of maybe defined as a stability limit at which the strains stabilize and a
the specimens subjected to monotonic loading was 1.68 10- 3 , and the hysteresis loop is formed in subsequent cycles. Stresses above this
was 1.71 10- 3 with a standard deviation of 0.14 )< 10- 3 Strains produce additional strains whUe maximum stresses at or below this
specimens subjected to cyclic loads were normalized with respect to the cause the stress-strain history to go into a loop, repeating the pre
of Eo for the specimen which was cast from the sa111e batch of concrete cycle without further permanent strain. Using this definition, if the
subjected to monotonic loading (0 failure. level corresponding to a common point, as indicated in the stress
The results of several of the tests in series AMI are shown in Figs. strain history of specimen AC2-09 (Fig. 3), is not exceeded in subsequent
and 5. Points from the stress-strain curves of the 13 tests in. this series e)'eles, strains should not exc.eed the value at the common point. .....
plotted in Fig. 7. Also plotted in Fig. 7 are stress-strain relationshi 'l'hebehavior of the specimens in this investigation suggesfifa"tN;j't'e" rigor
gesled by Smith and Young (11), and Hognestad (1,2), The equations for definition of the stability limit. The common poiTt+&"bs~wd.;in.2.1, cyclic
curves are expressed in terms of the coordinates F and S. The smith- load tests with various maximum stress levels are plotted in Fig. Hr. In view
Ilfthewide scatter, the common pOints may have a range of values.
.l'fi!1"

2550 December, 1969 CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2551

The scatter may be explained by examining the stress-strain . In general, the magnitude of the reduction of the point of intersection de
specimen AC2-07 [Fig. 8(a)). Four specimens were cycled in this m creased with the number of cycles. If the locus of points for the first, second,
all exhibited similar behavior. The location of the common points is third, .. ,common points are drawn, a family of common point curves can be
in a detail of the stress-strain history [Fig. 8(b)). For example, after obtained.

10
'0 TIlT AC -07
f~ # oIU,Op6i

0 . O.

0.6

"
0.4
o,

0.2 0.1

().o 0.0
.8 1.0 o0 10 1.0
'0
$$ te/Co s ~ C/ C Q
( ;A Complete Load History (b) DetaH~Co[mn"u POirtt5

FIG. lO.-COMMON POINTS (MEASURED)

FIG. 8.- VARIA TION OF COMMON POINTS

1.0

10

.,
'.8
'-
Ie

'U

" 0.'

a< .y.
02

'U .,
00 I.' Z..Il C /(0 '"

00 20
s (:/ (0 "
FIG. n.-EFFECT OF 1I1INIMUM STRESS LEVEL ON COMMON POINTS
FIG. 9.-POINTS ON ImVELOPE CURVE (J.1EASURED) ,~,,'

test results plotted.in Fig. 10 .and the behavior exhibged tn tests such
20 had been carried out, the specimen was reloaded until the unloading as AC2-07 (Fig. 8) show that intersecting points of load cycles'"ttf,tije envelope
tion of cycle 20 was reached (point n) and then the specimen was unloaded. Curve constituded an upper limit on the common points (hereafter called com
This routine was continued until the common pOint stabilized at points D and mon point limit). As cycles with lower stress levels were introduced, the
~~""'.,1"""

2552 December, 1969 CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2553

paint of intersection was reduced but stabiltzed at a lower bound
abIes in determining the location of the common point. Minimum stress levels
limit),
did not appear to have a significant effect on the common points.
The effect of the minumum stress level on the common points is iIIull:" 2. Peak stress-strain values above the common point limit produced points
trated in Fig. 11. Specimens AC4-12 and AC4-13 were cast from the salll; of intersection very near this limit. With lower peak values; the points of
batch of concrete. Both were subjected to the same maximum stress level' intersection fell between the common pOint limit and the stability limit.
but the minimum stress levels were different. The common points for both
specimens were identical. The same behavior was noted in other specimens.
On this basis, it can be assumed that the common points were independent Of 1.0 +--------- ---,
the minimum stress levels in a particular load history.
The dependency of the common pOints on the maximum stress level is ".<'"
shown in Fig. 12 for 5 tests with cyclic loadings between a zero minimUJll 0.' .11--__
stress level and different maximum stress levels. In test AC4-12 the maxi.
mum stress level, 0.79 f;, was higher than the peak value of the common o

"'U
",;
nST F'mQIIi(

AC4- n
.At'.' 10
0.71
U .. ,...
",0
0.4
'.0 ...1-----,
...

~n
AC' ~ 03
Ae4 -01
....
.n

.~, I
4040
us!)

02 I I 1111111 H #' H /' :..i"

0"1 ,~

ui /lo::!"'- =t,,_ 00 J' I'." 'q r'l

liMn 0.0 "0 . 2.0 '.0
s .t:/t.
~
:- G.' FIG. 13.-LOADINGCURVES

., +-f-----J----
" 1.0

. I I
0.0 1.0 ... s C Ie.
J.O O.

FIG. 12.-COMMON POINTS FOR TESTS WITH CONSTANT MAXIMUM STRESS '-v 0.6
LEVEL '
.
~

point limit, and as a result, the points of i~tersection formed a smooth curve 04
located approximately on the common paint limit. The maximum stress'level
for test AC4-1O was 0.76 f ~ which was about equal to the peak value of the
common point limit. The points of intersection for this speCimen followed the 01

common point limit initially, then formed an approximately horizontal

until the strain accumulation reached the common point limit. This trend
also apparent in test AC4-11. Although the strain accumulation was 0.0

than expected, this can be explained by the higher envelope curve m 0.0 1.0 20
S'/'O
'.0
for the companion specimen under monotonic loading to failure. When
maximum stress was reduced to 0.63 nand 0.55 f; in tests AC4-03 and FIG. 14.-UNLOADINGCURVES
01, the cOmmon points gradually increased but approached the stability
. and strain.accuinulation ceased under continued 3, If the stress and strain at the peak of the load cycle wa:t'aoove the sta
The observed behavior may be summarized as bility limit, strains accumulated until failure occurred oruntif' strain accu
mulations reached the stability limit. At this point, strains stabilized and
1. The stress and strain at the peak of the load cycle were the prime formed a closed hysteresis loop for subsequent cycles.
l"E~;;1'tt!lli)i'I'1:
2554 December, 1969
Note that if the effects of time were considered, creep strains would
the observed behavior. With reduced strain rates, the stress-strain
would shift toward the strain axis, and it would be difficult to define a
limit (6).
Nonrecoverable Strains. -Nonrecoverable or plastic strains are the strains
corresponding to a zero stress level on loading or unloading stress-strain
curves. The changes observed in the slopes of the stress-strain curves sug.
gest a relationship between the plastic strain ratio Sp and the nature of the
loading curves.
Loading curves from a number of spec1mens subjected to different lOad
histories are plotted in Fig. 13. Each group of curves originated from a
similar plastic strain ratio. It is apparent that the slope of the curves gradu.
ally decreased with increasing values of Sp. The common point limit (the
locus of common points of load cycles to the envelope curve) is also shown in
Fig. 13. It can be seen that the common point limit corresponds approxi
mately to the point at which the slope of loading curves changes significantly.
Previous investigations (7,9) have shown that the change in slope can be at
tributed to a significant increase in microcracking.
Unloading curves from a number of specimens in which the unloading
portion of the cycle started at or near the envelope are plotted in Fig. 14. In
each case the minimum stress level was zero, These plots show that the plas
tic strain ratio was a major variable in determining the shape of the lOading
and unloading curves. The load history preceding a given value of Sp did not
Significantly alter the curves originating at that value of S p.
PREDICTION OF FAILURE
Derivation oj Expressions jor Stress-Strain Curves.- Using the observed
response of the specimens, expressions were developed for loading and un
loading stress-strain curves in order to duplicate the observed response
analytically and predict failure under load histories other than those actually
imposed on the specimens. As shown in Figs. 13 and 14, the shapes of the
loading and unloading curves appear to be functions of the nonrecoverable or
plastic strain ratio. In order to develop expressions for these curves, various
polynomials were compared with the experimental curves, and a second de
gree parabola was selected to represent the shape of the curves. Better ap
proximations with higher order or transcendental expressions might have
been obtained. However, considering the accuracy of the test results, the
advantages of a simple stress-strain relation outweigh the small gain in ac
curacy derived using higher order approx1mations.
To account for the changing shape of the loading and unloading curves with
increasing plastic strains, the stress-strain curves were developed as func
tions of the plastic strain ratio. For a given plastic strain ratio, relationships
between the strain at which a loading curve will intersect the previous un
loading curve (common point) and the envelope curve were obtained.
Envelope Curve.-The equation for the envelope curve, the expression de
veloped by Smith and Young (12), has been presented previously (Fig. 7 and 9)
and is repeated below in terms of the nOrmalized parameter FE and SE'
points on the envelope:
(I-SE)
FE = 0.S5 SE e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2555
common Points.- The experimental results (Fig. 10)tndicated that although
there was a variation in the location of the common points, a common point
lilllitand a stability limit could be established. Analysis of the common points
produced exponential expressions of a form similar to the envelope curve:
_ Se [t-S e/(O.315+0.'n(3)]
Fe - {:3 0.315 + 0.77{:3 e ............. (2)
The common point limit, {:3 0.76, and the stability limit, {:3 = 0.63, are plotted
in Fig. 10. The variation in {:3 accounts for the change in the maxima of the
lilllits. Since the common point for a given cycle of load was dependent on the
Illagnitude of stress in the previous cycle, the following distinction must be
Illade as to the value of {:3 for the applicable common point.
1. If the peak lies above the common point limit, {:30.76, the common
point is on the common point limit.
2. If the peak lies in the regiOn between the. common point and stability
limits, {:3 varies betweenO. 76 and 0.63. .
3. If the peak lies below the stability limit, the common point corr~sponds
to the peak, and the stress-strain curves form a closed hystereSiS loop. Note
that this criterion implies that if stresses do not exceed 0.63 n
cyclic load
ings will not produce failure.
The values of {:3 for the common point and stability liroits are in the range
of critical stresses reported by other investigators. Shah, et al. (7,9) have
reported the onset of major microcracking at 70% to 90% of the ultimate load.
The value of {:3 at the stability limit is 0.63 n (74% of the specimen strength)
andat the common point limit, is D.76 n (90% of the specimen strength) which
indicates that the behavior of the concrete is controlled primarily by micro
cracking. It is also interesting to note that RUsch (6) has reported that the
sustained load strength of concentrically loaded specimens is 75% to SO% of
the static strength which corresponds with the value 6f {:3 for the stability
limit.
Plastic Strain Ratio (Sp).-Fig. 15 shows the relationship between the plas
tic strain ratioS p and the strain ratio at the common point Se. The expression
for the curves passing through these pOints is the following:
Sp (1.76 - fl)(0.160 S(; + 0.133 Se) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
in which 0.63 :S (:3 :S 0.76. Fig. 16(a) shows the relation between the plastic
strain ratio S p and the strain ratio at the point where a given loading curve
starting at S p intersects the envelope curve S E' Fig. 16(b) shows the relation
between the plastiC strain ratiO Sp and the strain ratio at the point where a
given unloading curve starts on the envelope curve The equations for these
relationships are the following:
Loading: Sp 0.093 Sj: + 0.91 SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
,', - ~~';';\t'
Unloading: Sp 0.145 Sf + 0.13 SF ~~,':c,;".~
Loading Curves. -The expressions for loading curves are secol'ld degree
parabolas which pass through the following three points: (1) The point at which
the reloading curve or its extension starts (Sp, F =0); (2}the ommonpoint
@lW}Mi'l!fl'if'V')p; ~

2556 December, 1969 CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2557

u~r----,
(Sc. Fc); and (3) the point at which the reloading curve or its extension
aches the envelope curve (SE. FE)'
~*e re Unloading Curves. - The three points through which the second degree pa
" rabola unloading curves pass are as follows: (1) The pOint at which the un
loading curve or its extension to the envelope originates (SE' FE); (2) the
ollllllon point (Se. Fe); and (3) the plastic strain ratio (S p. 0) at which the
~nloading curve or its extension terminates.
For cycle ABCD[Fig. 17(a)] the three pOints through which the curves pass
"~I
are determined in the following manner. The,value of Sp at point B is found
using Eq. 5 (unloading from A); point C is found using Eq. 3 for Se and Eq. 2
for FC; point D is found by solving Eq. 4 for SE and Eq. 1 for FE'
,., \=1:,/.

U+------,~ ~--

1.0

.,,,/'NV.""..
.."'-..'
" ...__-.:1,

'-
0 ..
"

0 '-,.

.. 0.'
COMMON POINT LIMIT
0.' (ll=o.7ol

., ID (b)
" \",,It.;; 0,0 r "(.e
0,0 ,,,-.,nl'
,.0 ,.0
FIG. 15.-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLASTIC STRAIN AND STRAIN AT COMMON ,.\
POINTS

.
~'
~L
U
,,0

, .'.......-'.....

0.... __""' ,-~~,

jt~
(51411:1
/

!NVltOP

./ lS".",I f$mQ .. 'J~.,,"-

7r.
0.6
/

. 1/
,/
A G ''''"'-.

---.
" 0.' /
, I
"
'.
$p. o_onsE .. O-lUUf: 0'-1 !~,.,/
I ./ /
o.or '(-: 1.0 1.0
fbi
1'\

FIG. n.-LOADING AND UNLOADING CURVES (COMPUTED)

For cycle EFGH [Fig. 17(b)] between specified values of FmaxandFmin'

some modification of the preceding procedure is necessary. The unloading
curve EGF is part of curve E' GF', and the value of S p for curve E' GF' is
found by trial and error so that the curve will pass through point E when Eqs.
1, 2, 3, and 5 are satisfied. The unloading curve is terminated at F when F min
Is reached. The loading po.rtion FGH passes through points ($~.,Fmin)' (Se.
UtoII.,J:lAO/fiG FII~O" ENVELOPE
TO ,Sp_
Fe) which was found in the preceding step, and point H' (SE, F~'determined
using the value of at pOint F' inEq. 4. The curve is terminat-ed'when F max
,. is reached. A similar approach may be used to determine stress'"'strain paths
" 101 \:.. eE 1<:,
if a given strain increment is to be added.
FIG. IS.-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEt\ ENVELOPE STRAINS AND PLASTIC STRAINS A computer program was written to solve the various cases presented:
2560 December, 1969 CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2561

and the two curves should intersect at some point below D [Fig. 19(b) J. In ad
dition the plastic strain ratios at point G differ considerably. On the basis of
the observed results, the assumption of uniqueness would not appear to be
fl\l.rranted.
Fig. 20 shows the computed and measured response for specimen AC4-10
0<15 4<~--< <-< ~~ASUMO-
which was cycled between stress levels of F max = 0.77 and F min O. The
speeimen failed in cycle 21 and failure was predicted in cycle 25. In Fig. 21
[ _ 0 <T-<
the response of specimen AC4-13 is shown. This specimen was subjected to
0,60
cyclic loads between stress levels of Fmax 0.79 and Fmin == 0.40. The spec
lInen failed in cycle 28 and failure was predicted in cycle 34. If uniqueness of
:{ I
the loading and unloading curves was assumed, failure would be predicted
j 0<75
II. XPfRI.ENTAL (F'::';Nl
.--- --.0.__.-". ,-___..
after only three cycles .
~
.l
'\....01<
.....-.'
' <

I,I

1 ..
I"L_
E CURVE,

1
I
The computed number of cycles to fallure for tests in which the load is
varied between a given maximum stress level Fmax and a minimum stress of
"",0 I .j I
zero is shown in Fig. 22. Both measured and computed values are <plotted.
--I I I _ Since the observed maximum of the stability limit was at a stress ratio of
0,1$

.- .. ~ .I_<-I-'--~ii-
I I '-'
P FOtiQuo.l,ml!O<U - __< _
l
0.63, the experimental curves shown in Fig. 22 will become asymptotic to F
~ 0.63. Fig. 23 shows the computed nuinber of cycles to failure for loadings
between given maximum and minimum stress levels. The maximum stresS
0.60
.00 Ht
N" Numb., of Cycl
... ratio is plotted along the ordinate. For example, the number of cycles to
failure with Fmax == 0.80, and F min == 0040 is approximately 25. Using these
curves (Figs. 22, 23), the number of cycles to failure may be estimated.
FIG, 22.-NUMBER OF CYCLES TO FAILURE (Fmax " CONSTANT; Fmin " 0)
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
~~I

A series of 46 short rectangular test specimens (Fig. I) were subjected to

repetitions of compressive stress to various levels to obtain expressions for
the response of plain concrete. The expressions developed are functions of
K the ultimate stress and strain values of standard 6 x 12-in. control cylinders
J and the loading history. Using these expressions the response of plain con
08 crete subjected to varying load histories can be estimated.
l\~~ 0.15
The following conclusions were obtained:

1. For the specimens tested, the envelope curve coincided with the stress
0.1
0.&
strain curve for a specimen under monotonic loading to failure (Fig. 7). The
0<.
0-3
stress-strain path reached the envelope regardless of the strain accumulated
_ 0.2
0,1+ 0.'
00
prior to a particular cycle.
2. The location of the common pOints was dependent primarily on the mag
nitude of the maximum stress and strain of the previous load cycle. The com
mon points for loading from nonzero levels were identical to the common
f=.!;!!.. _ _ _ --.!.A~LllM.!!.. ___ _ _ _ __ points corresponding to load cycles starting at a stress lev~l of zero (Fig. 11).
3. Examination of the location of the common points shows that failure
O' ..I------.-------r-------\.. would be produced under repeated loads with stresses exceeding about 0 .63 f ~,
.0<1 ZOO '00 the maximum of the stability limit. This limit was independent of the mini
N = Number 0'1 Cycles mum stress levels in the cycles.
4. Loading and unloading curves starting from .a pOint wtt11tli. tke stress
FIG. 23.-'NUl\IBEH OF CYCLES TO FAILURE'(Fmax CONSTANT; Froin I 0) strain domain were not uriique;-and'the value of stress and strain at the peak
of the previous loading cycle must be known to estimate the re'l!ptmse. '
5. The analytical expressions obtained for the envelope curve, the common
point and the stability limits, and the loading and unloading stress-strain re
'"."""'.

CONCRETE BEHAVIOR 2563

2562 December, 1969

lations produce results that compare well with the experimental results (Fi~s'" FaX = maximum stress ratio in a given cycle;
3, 1B, 20, 21), The formulation of these expressions provides a general lUe"thi ; in minimum stress ratio in a given cycle;
od for estimating the number of cycles to failure under repeated loads (FigS Fe = stress ratio at the common point;
22, 23) with strairi rates similar to those considered in the investigation, . FE = stress ratio on the envelope curve;
S = tlto strain ratio;

maximum strain ratio in a given cycle;

SJ!UllC
SIIlin
minimum strain ratio in a given cycle;
APPENDIX I.-REFERENCES Se strain ratio at the common point;

Sp pi 0 = plastic or residual strain ratio;

strain ratio on the envelope curve;

a factor relating the common point with the stress and strain ratios

I. Hognestad, E., "A Study of Combined Bending and Axial load in Reinforced Concrete Mein.
of the peak of the previous load cycle;

bers," University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin Series No. 399, ( = concrete strain at I;

195L (0 concrete strain at I ~; and

2. Hognestad, E., Hanson, N. W., and McHenry, D. "Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate (p plastic strain.

Strength Design," Journal of the American Concrt!tl1lnstitute. Vol. 52, No.4, December, 1955
pp.455-479. i
3. Karsan, I. D., "Behavior of Plain Concrete under Variable load Histories," thesis presented to
Rice University, at Houston, Texas, in 1968. in partial fulfillment of the requirements ror the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
4. Murdock, J. W., and Kesler, C. E., "Effect of Range of Stress on Fatigue Strength or Plain
Concrete Beams," Journal of the American Concrete Institute. Vol. 55, No.2, August, 1958, Pp.
221-231.
5. Nordby, G. M., "Fatigue of Concrete-A Review of Research," Journal of the American Con.
crete Institute. Vol. 55, No.2, August, 1958, pp. 191-219.
6. Rusch, H., "Researches toward a General Flexural Theory for Structural Concrete," Journal oJ
the American Concrete Institute. Vol. 57. No. I, July, 1960, pp. 128.
7. Shah, S. P., Sturman, G. M., and Winter, G., "Microcnicking and Inelastic Behavior of Con.
crete," Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete. ASCE, 1965..50, The International Sym.
posium, Miami, Florida, 1964.
8. Shah, S. P., and Winter, G.. "Inelastic Behavior and Fracture of Concrete," Journal of the
American Concrete Institute. Vol. 63, No.9, September, 1966, pp. 925-930.
9. Shah, S. P., and Winter, G., "Response of Concrete to Repeated Loadings," RlLEM. Interna
tional Symposium on the Effects of Repeated Loading on Materials and Structural Elements,
Mexico City, 1966.
10. Sinha. B. P., Gefstle, K. H., and Tulin, l. G., "Stress-Strain Relations for Concrete under
Cyclic Loading," Journal of the American Concrete Institute. VoL 61, No.2, February, 1964,
pp. 195-211.
. Smith, G. M., and Young, l. E., "Ultimate Theory in Flexure by Exponential Function," Jour.
nal of the American Concrete Institute. Vol. 52, No.3, November, 1955, pp. 349.. 359.

APPENDIX II, -NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

f~ = ultimate compressive strength 'ofstandard 6-in. x 12-in.cylinder;

f = concrete stress;
f max = maximum compressive stress reached in a given cycle;
F = I In= stress ratio;