See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245395510

A Smeared – Fixed Crack Model for FE Analysis of RC Membranes

Incorporating Aggregate Interlock

Article  in  Advances in Structural Engineering · February 2006

DOI: 10.1260/136943306776232927

CITATIONS READS

4 149

2 authors:

Hooshang Dabbagh Stephen Foster

University of Kurdistan UNSW Sydney
11 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS    146 PUBLICATIONS   1,913 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Application of RPC View project

Strength and ductility of high-strength concrete column confined with high-strength steel ties View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hooshang Dabbagh on 25 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:39 pm Page 91

A Smeared – Fixed Crack Model for FE Analysis of RC

Membranes Incorporating Aggregate Interlock

H. Dabbagh and S. J. Foster*

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia

Abstract: This paper reports the development of the cracked membrane model using a
fixed-crack approach for the finite element modelling of orthogonally reinforced
structural elements under plane stress. The model falls into the broad category of
“compression field models” combining elemental components from the modified
compression field theory with those of the tension chord model. The tension stiffening
effect is developed using a steel-concrete bond relationship with its basis in limit
analysis. With this approach the tension stiffening and tension softening components
of the concrete tension resistance mechanism are decoupled allowing for rational
models for each component. With adoption of a fixed crack formulation aggregate
interlock along the cracks is explicitly modelled allowing for modelling of reinforced
concrete members containing no or low quantities of steel reinforcement where slip
along cracks significantly affects the results. For example, the modelling of shear
critical beams containing low shear reinforcement volumes. The model has been
incorporated into the finite element program for the analysis of reinforced concrete
structures with verification of the finite element model presented.

Key words: finite element, reinforced concrete, cracked membrane, aggregate interlock.

1. INTRODUCTION opening orientation. This assumption simplifies the

The accuracy and reliability of numerical modelling of
reinforced concrete (RC) is governed by the underlying
constitutive relations used to capture different types
of nonlinear behaviour. This nonlinearity is a result
of concrete cracking, confinement, reinforcement
plasticity and the transfer of forces via bond between the
steel and the concrete. In nonlinear finite element (FE)
analysis of RC elements, cracks can be taken as smeared
within the concrete continuum. The smeared crack
approach may be classified into the smeared-fixed crack
approach if crack orientations are taken as fixed once
generated or smeared-rotating crack approach if they are
allowed to rotate. The main assumption of the latter is
that the directions of principal stress and strain are
coincident and reorient with a change in the crack
computation since it results in no shear stresses along
the cracks. A fixed crack approach considers the crack
direction as a path-dependent parameter and has a wider
range of applicability, particularly for multi-directional
cracking conditions that occur under seismic and
reversed cyclic loads. However, it leads to more
complex formulation and, historically, has used an
empirical coefficient known as the shear retention factor
to account for shear transfer across cracked surfaces that
arise from aggregate interlock and dowel action.
The cracked membrane model (CMM) was
developed by Kaufmann and Marti (1998) for the
analysis for RC panels and is a two-dimensional
representation of the tension chord model (TCM) of
Marti et al. (1998). Both the TCM and the subsequent

*Corresponding author. Email address: S.Foster@unsw.edu.au.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006 91

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:39 pm Page 92
A Smeared – Fixed Crack Model for FE Analysis of RC Membranes Incorporating Aggregate Interlock
CMM maintain equilibrium at the crack faces. As
equilibrium is fully satisfied at the cracks, and not
expressed in terms of average stresses across an
element, the link to limit analysis is maintained and the
coupling between principal stress and principal strain
angles removed. Foster and Marti (2002, 2003)
implemented the CMM as a finite element procedure
based on a smeared-rotating crack approach for the
analysis of orthogonally RC members in plane stress
such as deep beams and walls. The subsequent
experimental verification gave good results but
underscored the difficulty noted by Vecchio (2000) of
using a rotating crack approach for the analysis of lightly
reinforced RC elements failing in shear.
In this paper, a FE smeared-fixed crack model is
developed for the analysis of RC structures based on the
CMM. The link to limit analysis is maintained with
the development of an aggregate interlock model for the
calculation of shear on the crack faces. The model is
verified using experimental data from tests undertaken
by Vecchio and Collins (1982), Bresler and Scordelis
(1963) and Leonhardt and Walther (1966).
2. CRACKED MEMBRANE MODEL
For equilibrium at the cracks for the plane stress element
shown in Figure 1, it can be shown that
σ x = σ cn cos2 θr + σ ct sin 2 θr + τ cnt sin (2θr ) + ρ x σ sx (1a)
σ y = σ cn sin 2 θr + σ ct cos2 θr − τ cnt sin (2θr ) + ρ y σ sy (1b)
τ xy = 0.5 (σ cn − σ ct ) sin (2θr ) − τ cnt cos (2θr )
(a)
σy
(c)
τxy
σx
1
σx σx
τxy
σy
(b) (d)
σct cos θr
t n
θr
τcnt cos θr
Figure 1. Orthogonally reinforced membrane subject to plane stress:
(a) Applied stresses, (b) Axis notation, (c) and (d) Stresses at a
crack (Foster and Marti, 2003)
92
where θr is the angle between a vector normal to the
cracks and the global X-axis (–π/2 < θr ≤ π/2); σx, σy, and
τxy are the in-plane normal and shear stresses in the
global XY-coordinate system, respectively; σcn and σct
are the concrete stresses normal and parallel to the
direction of cracking, respectively; τcnt is the corresponding
shear stress; ρx and ρy are the steel reinforcement ratios in
the global X- and Y-directions and σsx, and σsy are the
stresses in the X- and Y-reinforcement, respectively.
2.1. Tension Stiffening
Tension stiffening is a direct resultant of transfer of
forces between the reinforcing steel and the concrete via
bond. If sufficient force transfer occurs such that the
stress in the concrete exceeds the tensile strength of the
concrete, the concrete cracks. Using the stepped-rigid
plastic model of Marti et al. (1998) and Kaufmann and
Marti (1998), shown in Figure 2(c), it follows that the
mean stress in the concrete between cracks before
yielding of the reinforcing steel is
τ b λ x fct τ b λ y fct
σ ctsx = ; σ ctsy = (2)
τb0 2 τb0 2
where σctsx and σctsy are the average stresses and λx fct
and λy fct are the maximum stresses in the concrete
between cracks due to tension stiffening in the X- and
Y-directions, respectively; fct is the tensile strength of
the concrete and τb is the bond shear stress. After
yielding of the reinforcing steel, τb0 in Eqn 2 is replaced
with τb1 (Figure 2(c)).
(1c)
The tension stiffening factors as obtained from
Figure 2(b) are given by
∆σ cx srm
λx = = (3a)
σcn cos θr ρxσsx fct srmx 0 cos | θr |
∆σ cy srm
τcnt cos θr λy = = (3b)
+ fct srmy 0 sin | θr |
τcnt sin θr
where ∆σcx and ∆σcy are the X- and Y-component
σct sin θr
stresses of the tension stiffening stress; srm is the crack
spacing measured normal to the cracks and srmxo and
ρy σsy
srmyo are the crack spacings for uniaxial tension in the
+ σcn sin θr X- and Y-directions, respectively, determined using the
stepped rigid plastic bond-slip relationship (Figure 2(c))
θr τcnt sin θr
of Marti et al. (1998) and are given by
τxy
σy
srmx 0 =
fct Ø (1 − ρ x )
; srmy 0 =
( )
fct Ø 1 − ρ y (4)
1 2τb0 ρx 2τb0 ρy
where Ø is the diameter of the reinforcing bars and
ρx and ρy are the reinforcement ratios in the X- and
Y-directions, respectively.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006
ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 93

H. Dabbagh and S.J. Foster

(a) (b) Y λy fct (c)

rm
τb

s
rm
s

srmy srmy srmy

ct τb0
f

rm
s

srmy
θr τb1
srmx
X
δy δ

λx fct
Tension stiffening
srmx srmx stresses

Figure 2. Tension stiffening stresses: (a) In the material axis directions, (b) In orthogonal tension chords of the cracked membrane,
(c) Bond-stress versus slip relationship (Foster and Marti, 2002)

From the Mohr’s circles plotted in Figure 3(a), for the τxy
cot θc =
stress between the cracks not to exceed the tensile τxy tan θr + fct (1 − λx ) (7)
strength of the concrete it can be shown that

Eqns 3 and 5 yield two solutions with the solution of

| τxy | (1 − λy ) tan | θr | + (1 − λ x ) cot | θr | interest being
(5)
≤ (1 − λx − λy + λx λy ) fct

Eqn 5 is a variant of that presented by Kaufmann and

1
srm = ( a + ηb ) −
2
1
2
ηc − d + srmx
2
0 + η d + srmy 0
2 2
( ) (8)
Marti. Solving Eqn 5 for λx and λy gives, respectively,
where η = τxy/fct and the parameters a, b, c and d given
by
λx =
( ) ( )
fct λ y − 1 + |τ xy | tan | θr | λ y − 1 − | τ xy | cot | θr |
(6a)
( )
fct λ y − 1 − | τ xy | cot | θr | a = srmx 0 cos θr + srmy 0 sin θr (9a)

fct ( λ x − 1) + |τ xy | cot | θr | ( λ x − 1) − | τxy | tan | θr | (6b) b = srmx 0 sin θr + srmy 0 cos θr (9b)
λy =
fct ( λ x − 1) − | τ xy | tan | θr |
c = 2 srmx
2
( )
0 + srmy 0 sin θr cos θr − 2 srmx 0 srmy 0 (9c)
2

The relationship between the stress angle at the

cracks (θr) and the stress angle between the cracks (θc) (
d = srmx
2
0 − srmy 0 sin θr
2 2
)
is again obtained from Mohr’s circle of stress +2srmx 0 srmy 0 sin θr cos θr . (9d)
(Figure 3(a)) and given by

y
λx fct
τ between
θr = 60º
(σcx, τxy) cracks 150

θr = 30º
fct 0.2
srm0 (mm)

2θr 2θc 100

σn η=0
50 η=∞
1 2
0.5
0
λy fct 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 x
at cracks (σcy, –τxy) srm0 (mm)

Figure 3. CMM: (a) Concrete stresses at and between the cracks, (b) Polar representation of Eqn 8 for panel with τb0/2 = fct = 2.9 MPa,
Øx = Øy =16 mm, ρx = 0.0125 and ρy = 0.0250

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006 93

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 94
A Smeared – Fixed Crack Model for FE Analysis of RC Membranes Incorporating Aggregate Interlock
The second solution to Eqn 5 is obtained by changing
the sign ahead of the square root term in Eqn 8. The
crack spacing given by Eqn 8 is plotted in Figure 3(b)
for various values of η for a panel with τb0/2 =
fct = 2.9 MPa, Øx = Øy =16 mm, ρx = 0.0125 and
ρy = 0.0250. For the solution presented in Figure 3(b),
however, it is seen that a difficulty arises at the
boundary for θr = 0 where for a solution to exist λx = 0,
λy = 0 and srm = 0. This is different to the known
boundary condition for uniaxial tension in the
X-direction where λx =1, λy = 0 and srm = srmx0. The
difficulty arises from an over-calculation of the bond-
stress in the Y-direction reinforcement and used in
Eqn 4. This occurs as a result of the assumption that the
limiting bond-stress is attained along the length of the
bar (that is τb = τb0). However, for the special case of
θr = 0 the force in the Y-direction reinforcement is zero
and, thus, in the Y-direction τb = 0. Similar comments
apply for the case of θr = π/2.
For θr = 0, solving Eqn 8 for η with srm = srmx0 gives
η = srmx0/srmy0 and, similarly, for θr = π/2 with
srm = srmy0 gives η = srmy0/srmx0. In general, for the
solutions of Eqn 5 to satisfy the boundary limitations
for θr < θ λx= λy ........ η ≥ Srmx 0 / Srmy 0
for θr > θ λx= λy ........ η ≥ Srmy 0 / Srmx 0
The solution to Eqn 5 for the limiting condition of
Eqn 10 is plotted in Figure 4. For values of η that lie
outside these limits the bond-shear in one of the X- or
Y-direction reinforcement is such that τb < τb0. For
example, for the results of the panel presented in Figure
3(b) for θ < θλx = λy and η =1 for the X-direction τb = τb0
but for the Y-direction τb < τb0.
The following solution procedure is adopted for
determination of the crack spacing:
• For cases meeting the limits set out by Eqn 10,
srm is calculated by Eqn 8 and λx and λy by Eqns
3a and 3b, respectively.
η = srmy0/srmx0
λx = λy
η=∞
srmy0
η = srmx0/srmy0
m
sr
θλx = λy
srmx0
Figure 4. Boundary limit conditions for the calculation of srm for
τb = τb0 in both X- and Y-steel
94
• For θr < θλx = λy and η < srmx0/srmy0, srm is
calculated by Eqn 8 for η = srmx0/srmy0, λx is
calculated by Eqn 3a and λy by Eqn 6b.
• For θr > θλx = λy and η < srmy0/srmx0, srm is
calculated by Eqn 8 for η = srmy0/srmx0, λy is
calculated by Eqn 3b and λx by Eqn 6a.
Using this methodology the implied boundary
requirements of uniaxial tension are satisfied whilst
maintaining the limit conditions dictated by Mohr’s
stress circle.
For the case of θr = θc the solution to Eqn 5 simplifies
to the Vecchio and Collins (1986) equation
−1
 cos | θ c | sin | θc | 
srm = +  (11)
 srmx 0 s rmy 0 
Examination of Eqn 4 shows that θr = θc occurs for
θr = 0, θr = π/2, λx = λy =1 and as the shear stress to
concrete tension strength ratio η → ∝.
The average stresses due to any set of applied
boundary tractions are attained with substitution of Eqns
2 and 3 into Eqn 1 and writing in terms of the principal
12-axes
σ x = σ c 2 sin 2 θr + ρ x σ sx + λ x fct / 2 (12a)
(10a)
σ y = σ c 2 cos 2 θr + ρ y σ sy + λ y fct / 2 (12b)
(10b)
τ xy = − σ c 2 sin θr cos θr (12c)
For fully developed cracks spaced at srm across a
continuum, the crack width can be obtained from
elasticity. Taking a priori that the strain of the continuum
normal to the crack direction (ε1) is a function of the
crack width, the principal strains and the residual strain
due to tension stiffening, the crack width is written as
wcr = srm ( ε1 + v12 ε 2 − λfct / 2 Ec )
(13)
where ε1 and ε2 are strains in the major and minor
principal directions, respectively, v12 is Poisson’s ratio
for expansion in the 1-direction resulting from stress in
the 2-direction, λ is the uniaxial tension stiffening factor
(0.5 ≤ λ <1.0) and Ec is the initial elastic modulus for
concrete. It is assumed in Eqn 13 that there is no
transmission of normal stresses in the concrete across
the cracks.
2.2. Aggregate Interlock and Dowel Action
Considering the maximum principal stress as the criterion
for cracking, the shear stress and strain at the crack
are zero at the point of cracking. As loading continues
and if the direction of the crack is fixed, the principle
strains and stresses are not coincident and shear forces are
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006
ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 95

H. Dabbagh and S.J. Foster

(a) (b)

s rm
X

/2
θr σcnn

uc τcnt
Y
νc

wcr
t(ν
)
n( ν
)
δs n

t δs
w cr

Figure 5. (a) Displacements and strains, (b) Slip and crack opening displacement and conjugate stresses

transmitted across a crack surface by interlocking of 1.18 fcp0.75 δ s

aggregate particles and dowel action. The displacements τ cnt − τ co = (16)
0.1 + 1.6 wcr + 3wcr
2
at the crack are δs and wcr and are conjugate to the stresses
at a crack τcnt and σcnn (Figure 5). where δs and wcr are crack slip and crack width,
The stress along the crack surface due to aggregate respectively (in mm), fcp is the compressive strength of
interlock is given by the in-place concrete (in MPa) and τco defines the focal
point and accounts for the initial slip. The focal point is
τ cnt = g (δ s , wcr ) (14) taken as

where g is a function of δs and wcr. For a uniform crack τ co = − fcp 24 ...... for unreinforced concrete (17a)
spacing, srm, and noting that the component of shear
displacement of concrete between cracks is small τ co = 0 ...... for reinforced concrete (17b)
compared to the slip at the crack, the shear and normal
strains at the cracks are For reinforced concrete, Eqn 16 is modified to
include dowel action:
ε cnn = wcr / srm ; γ cnt = δ s / srm (15)
α 1.18 fcp0.75δ s . α fcp0 5
τ cnt = ≤ (18)
The aggregate interlock model adopted in this study 0.1 + 1.6 wcr + 3wcr
2 0.31 + 24 wcr ( a + 16 )
is developed from the experimental work of Walraven
(1980). Using a regression analysis it was found for
unreinforced concrete that α = 1 + 13.5 ρ 3 fcp (19)

(a) τcnt+τo 1 (b) 4.0

· (1/mm)
6 ds 0.75
fcc Cube Strength a = 1 + 13.5 r / 3 fcp
13.4 MPa 3.5
5 37.6 MPa
3.0
56.1 MPa
4 2.5
+20%
2.0
a

3
τcnt +τo = 0.75
fcc 1.5 –20%
2 ds 0.1 + 1.6w + 3w2
1.0
1 R2 = 0.97
0.5
0 0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
wcr (mm)
r / 3 fcp

Figure 6. Comparisons of: (a) Modified Walraven (1980), (b) Dowel shear factor with test data (fcc = cube strength)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006 95

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 96

A Smeared – Fixed Crack Model for FE Analysis of RC Membranes Incorporating Aggregate Interlock

30 –sc
fcp = 40 MPa
r = 0.01 bfcp
25
fcp
wcr = 0.2 mm
20
b>1
tcnt (MPa)

bfcp
15 0.5 mm
b=1
10 1.0 mm
b<1
2.0 mm
5 becp ecp becp –εc

0 Figure 8. Stress versus strain for concrete

0 1 2 3 4 5
ds (mm)

Figure 7. Shear stress versus slip given by Eqn 18 for fcp = 40 MPa
and ρ = 0.01
where ρ is the reinforcement ratio perpendicular to
crack face, a is the maximum size of the aggregate (in
mm) and α is the dowel shear factor (α =1 for
unreinforced concrete). The limiting value for τcnt on the
right hand side of Eqn 18 is a modified version of that
used by Vecchio and Collins (1986) adding the dowel
shear component. In Figure 6(a), the model represented
by Eqn 16 is compared with the test data for
unreinforced concrete. A good correlation is observed.
In Figure 6(b), the proposed dowel shear factor is
compared with the Walraven data. The data scatter is
not unreasonable considering the simplicity of the
model but more work is needed to isolate the key
parameters. The resulting stress versus slip model is
plotted in Figure 7 for fcp = 40 MPa and ρ = 0.01.
The secant shear stiffness due to aggregate interlock
is calculated as
Gcr = τ cnt γ cnt = srm τ cnt δ s
a biaxial strength criterion (see Foster and Marti 2003).
For tension-compression stresses β is a disturbance
factor obtained from the modified compression field
model of Vecchio and Collins (1986).
The stress versus strain relationship adopted for
concrete in compression is taken as a scale of the
Thornfeldt et al. (1987) uniaxial compression base
curve with the calibrated parameters of Collins and
Porasz (1989). Figure 8 shows the stress versus strain
relationship used in this study for various scaling
factors, β.
2.4. Reinforcing Steel
A tri-linear stress-strain model is adopted to model
the reinforcing steel with the properties as defined in
Figure 9.
3. CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONSHIPS
A modified form of the equivalent uniaxial strain
model (Darwin and Pecknold 1977) is used to obtain
the biaxial stress-strain relationships for uncracked
(20) concrete in tension-compression and for concrete in

2.3. Concrete
Concrete is a quasi-brittle material that softens both in σs
compression and tension leading to strain localization.
fu
For tension, the bilinear stress-strain model of Petersson
fw Eu
(1981) is used (refer to Foster and Marti 2003). 1
The behaviour of concrete in compression is a Ew
function of the biaxial state of stress. The concrete fsy 1
compression strength is given by Ed
1
fc* = β fcp (21) Es
1 εs
where fcp is the compression strength of the in-place
εy εw εu
concrete. For biaxial compression stresses the factor β
in Eqn 21 is a confinement factor and is obtained from Figure 9. Tri-linear stress-strain model for reinforcing steel

96 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 97

H. Dabbagh and S.J. Foster

( Ectsx + ρ x E sx )
compression-compression; the details of which are
0 0
given in Foster and Marti (2003). The equivalent  
uniaxial strains in the principal 1–2 coordinate system [ D] cts + [ D] s = 0 (Ectsy + ρ y E sy ) 0 (29)
(written as ε1u, ε2u) are the strains that would exist in  0 0 0 
each direction when the stress is zero in the other. For
clarity, the subscript ‘u’ is dropped from the notation in Finally, the element stiffness matrix is obtained in the
the formulation that follows. usual manner
Relating the average stresses and strains of the
[k ] = t ∫A [ B] [ D] xy [ B] dA
T
cracked concrete in the familiar manner (30)

{σc1 , σc 2 , τc12 }T = [ D] c12 {εc1 , εc 2 , γ c12 }T (22) where t is the element thickness and [B] is the strain
displacement matrix.
where [D]c12 is the constitutive matrix of cracked Further details of the constitutive relationship used,
concrete as given by including the compression modelling are given in Foster
and Marti (2002, 2003).
 Ec1 ν12 Ec1 0 
[ D]c12 =
1 ν E 
Ec 2 0 4. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
1 − ν12 ν21  0  (23)
21 c 2
 0 (1 − ν12 ν21 ) Gc12  The model described has been incorporated into a finite
element program (RECAP) for the analysis of RC
From Eqn 22, the shear strain is written as (Foster and Gilbert 1990; Foster 1992). Four node
isoparametric concrete membrane elements were
γ c12 = γ cr12 + γ cs12 (24) developed using the material and constitutive
relationships discussed above. The FE results are
where the subscript ‘cs’ refers to the strain in the solid compared with tests on the RC panel PV19 tested by
concrete between cracks and the subscript ‘cr’ refers to Vecchio and Collins (1982), beams 0A1, 0A2 and 0A3
the strain in the fracture (crack) zones. The secant shear by Bresler and Scordelis (1963) and the deep beam
stiffness is then given by DWT2 of Leonhardt and Walther (1966) together with
the results of the rotating crack CMM:FE model of
Gcr12 + Gcs12 Foster and Marti (2002, 2003). For all analyses: v = 0.2,
Gc12 = (25)
Gcr12 ⋅ Gcs12 λ =1.0, τb0/2 = τb1 = fct and Gf = 75 N/m.

where 4.1. Vecchio and Collins (1982) Panel PV19

Gcr12 = srm τ cnt / δ s
Ec1 (1 − ν12 ) + Ec 2 (1 − ν21 )
Gcs12 =
4 (1 − ν12 ν21 )
The material elasticity matrix is transformed into the
global XY coordinates by
[ D]cxy = [T ] Tε [ D] c12 [T ] ε
where [T]ε is the strain transformation matrix.
Adding the contributions of the reinforcing steel and
the concrete tension stiffening to the material elasticity
matrix we obtain
[ D]xy = [ D] cxy + [ D] cts + [ D] s
where [D]cts is the concrete tension stiffening
component and [D]s is the reinforcing steel component.
Grouping the tension stiffening and steel reinforcements
together, we write
Vecchio and Collins undertook an extensive testing
(26a) programme for panels stressed under bi-axial conditions
with the main parameter being varying quantities and
(26b) strengths of reinforcement in each of two orthogonal
directions. Panel PV19 is chosen as it failed by crushing
of the concrete after yielding of the reinforcement in
one direction while, in the second direction (the
X-direction), the reinforcement remained elastic before
(27) the ultimate load was reached. As such, significant
rotations in the principal strain directions were observed
before failure and the panel is one of the more
challenging to model and one where significant
differences between a rotating crack model and a fixed
crack model might be expected.
As the panel was uniformly stressed over its entirety,
(28) the panel was modelled using a single 4 node finite
element of unit in-plane dimensions. Details of the
geometry of the panel, the material properties and the
results of the analyses are presented in Figure 10.
For panel PV19 the peak calculated shear stress
obtained by the rotating crack model of Foster and Marti

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006 97

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 98

A Smeared – Fixed Crack Model for FE Analysis of RC Membranes Incorporating Aggregate Interlock

x-direction steel: 4.5

ρ = 0.0179 ∅ = 6.35 mm
890 4.0
Es = 200 GPa Ew = 0 GPa
Eu = 3.5 GPa εsy = 0.0023 3.5
εw = 0.055 εu = 0.135

Shear stress (MPa)

y 3.0
y-direction steel:
2.5
ρ = 0.0071 ∅ = 4.01 mm
890
x Es = 200 GPa Ew = 0 GPa 2.0
t = 70 mm Eu = 2.0 GPa εsy = 0.0015
1.5
ew = 0.055 εu = 0.135 CMM:FE Fixed
1.0 CMM:FE Rotating
concrete: Exp
0.5
fcp = 19.0 MPa fct = 1.5 MPa
Ec = 17.3 GPa ecp = 0.0022 0.0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Shear strain

Figure 10. Panel PV19: dimensions, reinforcement details and shear stress versus shear strain

(2003) was 3.34 MPa, compared the experimental value
of 4.0 MPa. For the fixed crack model, the peak shear
stress calculated was 4.20 MPa (26 percent higher than
that obtained by the rotating crack model). For both
analyses, the element failed by crushing of the concrete
after yielding of the Y-direction reinforcing steel but
before yielding of the X-direction steel, as observed in
the experiment. As is expected, both the rotating and
fixed crack models provide identical results to the point
of yielding of the Y-steel after which the solutions
diverge as the friction along the crack becomes
significant.
4.2. Bresler and Scordelis (1963) Beams OA1,
OA2 and OA3
Although the Bresler and Scordelis (1963) beams have
been modelled by many with good accuracy between
numerical and experimental results (for example
Vecchio 1989; Foster and Gilbert 1990) Vecchio
(2000a) highlighted a significant flaw in previous
methodologies where tension stiffening and tension
softening were typically incorporated using a single
model. In the case of Vecchio (2000a) for concrete
members with low quantities of reinforcement, a check
of stresses along a crack determined that slip at the crack

P
b = 305 mm
465
560

OA1 ... 4#9 OA1 ... L = 3655 mm

OA2 ... 5#9 OA2 ... L = 4570 mm
OA3 ... 6#9 L OA3 ... L = 6400 mm

concrete: 400 OA1 OA2 OA3

0A1:
fcp = 22.6 MPa fct = 1.9 MPa
Ec = 20.0 GPa ecp = 0.0020 300
0A2:
Load (kN)

fcp = 24.5 MPa fct = 2.0 MPa

200
Ec = 20.0 GPa ecp = 0.0020
0A3:
fcp = 37.6 MPa fct = 2.5 MPa
100 Experiment
Ec = 32.0 GPa ecp = 0.0025 Load
steel: Load
fy = 556 MPa 0
Es = 206 GPa 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm)

Figure 11. Bresler and Scordelis (1963) beams OA1, OA2 and OA3

98 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 99

H. Dabbagh and S.J. Foster

would occur at loads significantly below those of the
experiment unless a significant residual tensile stress
was carried across the cracks. Vecchio later developed
the disturbed stress field model to account for the
identified weakness (Vecchio 2000b).
As for Vecchio (2000a), in the CMM:FE rotating
crack implementation of Foster and Marti (2003) it was
recognised that lacking from the implementation was
the allowance for shear transfer parallel to the crack
faces via aggregate interlock and dowel action leading
to an under-estimation of the capacity of lightly
reinforced members. Examples of beams with low
volumes of web reinforcement are beams OA1, OA2
and OA3 of Bresler and Scordelis (1963). The beams
were modelled using the rotating and fixed crack
implementations of the CMM:FE model using 4-node
membrane elements. The beam dimensions, details and
results are presented in Figure 11 and the FE meshing
used for the analyses is shown in Figure 12. Both the
fixed and rotating versions of the model compare well
with the load deflection response to the point of failure.
The rotating crack model, however, consistently failed
at loads lower than those observed in the experiment.
Conversely, the failure loads calculated by the fixed
crack implementation compare well with the test results.
The increase in failure load for the fixed crack model
over that of the rotating crack model was between 21
and 38 percent. Figure 13 shows the principal tensile
strain contours for beam OA1 after failure. For the fixed
crack model, the contours show the initiation of the
localised shear crack while for the rotating crack model
the shear mechanism is clearly identified. In all cases,
for both the rotating and fixed models, failure was by
beam shear, as observed in the experiments. For the
fixed crack model, the response beyond failure for
these tests was difficult to capture using conventional
arc length or displacement control due to bifurcations
caused by snap-back leading to instabilities in the
solution routine. While special techniques may be used
to capture this response, this is not the focus of this paper.
4.3. Leonhardt and Walther (1966) Deep Beam
DWT2
Leonhardt and Walther (1966) tested nine deep beams to
study non-flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete
members. In this study, the two span deep-beam DWT2

ρx = 0.0 P/2 L
C
ρy = 0.0
All load and reaction
plates 25 mm thick
418 steel plate

143
ρx = 0.089
ρy = 0.0
158 125 1613 150

Beam OA1 P/2 L

C

Symmetry about
centreline
418

143
ρx = 0.111
ρy = 0.0
158 125 2070 150

Beam OA2 ρx = 0.134 P/2 L

C

ρy = 0.0

418

143

158 125 2984 150

Beam OA3

Figure 12. FE mesh for Bresler and Scordelis beams

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006 99

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 100

A Smeared – Fixed Crack Model for FE Analysis of RC Membranes Incorporating Aggregate Interlock

(a)

Fixed Crack Model

Beam OA1
0.01 0
Princ. Tensile Strains
(Max = 0.032)
0.01 5 0.00 5

0.002

(b)
Rotating Crack Model
Beam OA1
Princ. Tensile Strains
(Max = 0.020)

0.002 0.005 0.010 0.015

Figure 13. Principal tensile strain contours after failure in Beam OA1: (a) Fixed crack model (P = 193 kN),
(b) Rotating crack model (P = 208 kN)

concrete:
R = 0.094P 480 480 480 360
fcp = 27.1 MPa fct = 2.5 MPa S = 0.250P
Ec = 27.1 GPa ecp = 0.0020 T = 0.156P
R ST T SR L
C A
P/2 P/2

steel:
Es = 206 GPa Ew = 5.0 GPa 3 Midspan
support
esy = 0.002 esw = 0.05 thickening
region 1:
1490 1∅6
rx = 0.0195 ry = 0.0020 1∅6
∅x = 8.0 mm ∅y = 5.0 mm 1∅6
region 2: 1∅6
2∅6
rx = 0.0195 ry = 0.0020
∅x = 6.0 mm ∅y = 5.0 mm 110
region 3: 120 2 4∅8 100
1 A
rx = 0.0019 ry = 0.0020 Section A-A
2∅5 e/w
∅x = 5.0 mm ∅y = 5.0 mm 160 1280 160

Figure 14. Details of Leonhardt and Walther (1966) beam DWT2 and FE mesh

(shown in Figure 14) is analysed using the finite
element mesh shown with one half the beam modelled
with symmetry.
The results of the analysis of beam DWT2 are plotted
in Figure 15 for the load versus midspan displacement
and it is seen that the rotating CMM:FE formulation
(without residual concrete tension strength after cracking)
under-calculates both the stiffness and the failure load of
the member after cracking. The model failure load was
985 kN, 80 percent of the experimental failure load of
1230 kN and is consistent with the plastic collapse load
of 953 kN. An inspection of the displaced shape at
failure revealed that after yielding of the reinforcement a
shear slip occurs in the elements adjacent to the central
support thickening. For the rotating crack model,
however, no load can be transmitted to the support via
shear along the cracked surface. In the fixed CMM:FE
formulation the stiffness results are more consistent
with the measured data with a portion of the load being
transferred through aggregate interlock and dowel
action. The failure load was 1090 kN (89 percent of the
reported failure load).

100 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006

ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 101

H. Dabbagh and S.J. Foster

1400 Collins, M.P., and Porasz, A. (1989). “Shear strength for high
Exp. Failure Load = 1230 kN strength concrete”, Bulletin No. 193, Design Aspects of High
1200 Strength Concrete, Comité Euro International du Béton (CEB), pp.
75–83.
1000 953 kN Darwin, D. and Pecknold, D.A. (1977). “Non-linear stress-strain law
for concrete”, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
Load (kN)

800 P/2 P/2 ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 229–241.

Mp2 = 122 kNm
600
Mp1 = 188 kNm
400
Experimental
200 CMM:FE - Fixed
CMM:FE - Rotating
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Midspan displacement (mm)
Figure 15. Load versus midspan displacement for beam DWT2
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper a fixed crack FE model is developed for the
analysis of RC plane stress structures. The motivation for
the model development is for analysis of shear critical
RC beams and members with low steel reinforcement
ratios. In such beams the difference between the
principal stress and principal strain angles is significant
as is the effect of aggregate interlock on increasing the
shear stiffness over that of a rotating crack formulation.
The model was tested against a range of experimental
data from three researches. A good correlation was
observed between the numerical and experimental data
for the fixed crack approach presented in this paper. For
the examples presented up to a 26 percent increase in
strength was observed for the fixed crack approach over
that of the more conservative rotating crack model.
The fixed crack model presented in this paper
represents a complete approach to the analysis of
reinforced concrete membranes subjected to monotonic
loading with compression softening, bond and tension
stiffening, tension softening, aggregate interlock and
dowel effects all included into the formulation. A fully
rational approach is used in the development of the
finite element model with empirical fits for the various
constitutive sub-models.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author is supported by a scholarship from
the Kurdistan University, I.R. Iran. This support is
thankfully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Bresler, B. and Scordelis, A.C. (1963). “Shear strength of reinforced
concrete beams”, American Concrete Institute Journal, Vol. 60,
No. 1, pp. 51–74.
Foster S.J. (1992). “An application of the arc length method
involving concrete cracking”, International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 33. No. 2, pp.
269–285.
Foster S.J. and Gilbert, R.I. (1990). “Non-linear finite element model
for reinforced concrete deep beams and panels”, UNICIV Report
No.R-275, School of Civil Engineering, University of New South
2 Wales, Kensington, December, pp. 113.
Foster, S.J. and Marti, P. (2002). “FE modelling of RC membranes
using the CMM formulation”, Proceedings of the Fifth World
Congress on Computational Mechanics, July, Vienna, Austria,
Mang, H.A., Rammerstorfer, F.G. and Eberhardsteiner, J., ed.,
Vienna University of Technology, Austria.
Foster, S.J. and Marti, P. (2003). “Cracked membrane model: FE
implementation”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
129, No. 9, pp. 1155–1163.
Kaufmann, W. and Marti, P. (1998). “Structural concrete: cracked
membrane model”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 124, No. 12, pp. 1467–1475.
Leonhardt, F. and Walther, R. (1966). Wandartige Träger, Bulletin
No. 178, Wilhelm Ernst and Sohn, Berlin, pp. 159.
Marti, P., Alvarez, M., Kaufmann, W. and Sigrist, V. (1998).
“Tension chord model for structural concrete”, Structural
Engineering International, International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 98, pp. 287–298.
Petersson, P.E. (1981). “Crack growth and development of fracture
zone in plain concrete and similar materials”, Report no. TVBM-
1006, Division of Building Materials, Lund Institute of
Techonology, Lund, Sweden, pp. 174.
Thorenfeldt, E., Tomaszewicz, A. and Jensen, J.J. (1987).
“Mechanical properties of high strength concrete and application
in design”, International Symposium on Utilization of High
Strength Concrete, Stavanger, Norway, pp. 149–159.
Vecchio, F.J. (2000). “Analysis of shear critical reinforced concrete
beams”, American Concrete Institute Structural Journal, Vol. 97,
No. 1, pp. 102–110.
Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. (1982). “The response of reinforced
concrete to in-plane shear and normal stresses”, Publication No.
82–03, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Canada, March, pp. 332.
Vecchio, F.J. and Collins M.P.(1986). “The modified compression
field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear”,
American Concrete Institute Journal Proceedings, Vol. 83, No. 2,
pp. 219–231.
Walraven, J.C. (1980). Aggregate Interlock: A Theoretical and
Experimental Analysis, Delft University, Netherlands, pp. 200.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006 101

 ASE_08-foster.qxd 1/3/06 1:40 pm Page 102

A Smeared – Fixed Crack Model for FE Analysis of RC Membranes Incorporating Aggregate Interlock

Hooshang Dabbagh is a research student in the School of Civil and Environmental

Engineering at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. His research
interests include finite element modelling of reinforced concrete and the structural
applications of high-strength concrete.

Stephen J. Foster is an Associate Professor in the School of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the University of New South Wales. He is active in the
development of the Australian Standard for concrete structures and on various FIB
committees. His main research interests include the structural use of high strength
concretes in practice, rehabilitation of concrete structures using FRPs, finite
element modelling of reinforced concrete structures and design of non-flexural
members.

102 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 9 No. 1 2006

View publication stats