ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 99-S65

Poisson Effect in Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements

by Ronnie R. H. Zhu and Thomas T. C. Hsu
Reinforced concrete shear elements behave very differently before
and after cracking. The Poisson effect before cracking is characterized
by the well-known Poissons ratio, but after cracking is characterized
by two Hsu/Zhu ratios. In the postyield range, the Hsu/Zhu ratio
12 (tensile strain caused by perpendicular compressive strain)
was found to be a constant of 1.9, and the Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 (compressive strain caused by perpendicular tensile strain) was measured to
be zero. This study describes the experiments performed to measure
these two Hsu/Zhu ratios, which provide the basis for the establishment of the softened membrane model (SMM). This new theory,
reported in a companion paper, can predict the entire shear stress
versus shear strain curves of membrane elements, including the
postpeak descending branches.
Keywords: reinforced concrete; shear; strain.

INTRODUCTION
Over the past 20 years, several analytical models were
developed for predicting the nonlinear shear behavior of
reinforced concrete membrane elements (panels). The three
most well-known models are the modified compression field
theories (MCFT) (Vecchio and Collins 1986), the rotatingangle softened truss model (RA-STM) (Hsu 1993; Belarbi
and Hsu 1994,1995; Pang and Hsu 1995) and the fixedangle softened truss model (FA-STM) (Pang and Hsu 1996;
Hsu and Zhang 1997). The RA-STM and FA-STM are rational
theories because they can rigorously satisfy Naviers three
principles of mechanics of materials: stress equilibrium,
strain compatibility, and material laws.
Although all three models can predict the prepeak behavior,
they cannot explain the existence of the postpeak loaddeformation curves (descending branches). Figure 1
compares the experimental shear stress versus shear strain
curves of a typical specimen, VA2 (plotted as dots), with the
predicted curves of FA-STM, RA-STM, MCFT, and SMM.
It can be seen that the experimental curve exhibits a descending
branch, while the three theoretical curves, FA-STM, RA-STM,
and MCFT, become invalid after reaching their peak points.
The phenomena shown in Fig. 1 appeared universally in all
specimens tested by Vecchio and Collins (1982), Pang and
Hsu (1995), and Zhang and Hsu (1998).
The predicted curve of MCFT is sometimes shown to have
a steep and straight descending branch, which has no resemblance to the gentle and nonlinear test curve shown in Fig. 1.
A descending branch of MCFT such as this is incorrectly
calculated because the uniaxial unloading law of steel was
erroneously applied to the biaxial stress and strain states in a
panel without considering the stresses and strains caused by
the Poisson effect. As a result, the MCFT predicts the steel
strains to decrease with the decrease of shear stress in the
descending branch. Such a prediction is in direct conflict
with the measured (biaxial) steel strains in Fig. 2. Figure 2
shows that the tensile steel strains in both the longitudinal
and the transverse directions continue to increase (not decrease)
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Fig. 1Shear stress versus shear strain curve.

Fig. 2Shear-stress versus steel-strain curves.

in the postpeak experimental curves. The trend of biaxial
steel strains shown in Fig. 2 can be correctly predicted by the
SMM because the prediction takes into account the stresses
and strains due to the Poisson effect.
The deficiency of the current theories can also be revealed
by examining the equilibrium equation in the l-direction of
the longitudinal steel (Pang and Hsu 1996)
c

l = 2 cos 2 + 1 sin 2 + 21 2sin 2 cos 2 + l f l (1)

where
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, September-October 2002.
MS No. 01-307 received September 30, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the July-August 2003 ACI Structural
Journal if received by March 1, 2003.

631

Ronnie R. H. Zhu is a research associate in the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Tex. He received his BS in structural
engineering from Tongji University, Shanghai, China, in 1983; his MS in earthquake
engineering from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 1994; and his PhD in
structural engineering from the University of Houston in 2000. His research interests
include analytical modeling, nonlinear finite element modeling, and design of reinforced
concrete structures.
Thomas T. C. Hsu, FACI, is a Moores Professor in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston. He received his MS and PhD
from Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., in 1960 and 1962, respectively. He is a member
of ACI Committee 215, Fatigue of Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 343,
Concrete Bridge Design; and 445, Shear and Torsion. He received ACIs Wason
Medal for Materials Research in 1965, and the Anderson Award for Research in 1991.

c2 reaching its peak. Beyond the peak point, the concrete

stress c2 begins to decrease, while the steel stresses l fl
continue to increase. As a result, the equilibrium equation,
Eq. (2), cannot be satisfied and the computer operation
comes to a halt at the peak point.
To restore the equilibrium of Eq. (2) in biaxial stress state,
the second term l fl on the right-hand side of Eq. (2) should
be replaced by the following three terms, taking into account
the stresses due to Poisson effect as follows (Hsu and Zhu
2001,2002; Zhu 2000)
c

0 = 2 cos 2 + l E ls l + 12 + ( l E ls 2 sin 2 ) +

(3)

21 ( l E ls 1 cos 2 )
where
12 =

Fig. 3Test specimens

l =
c1 =

applied stress in l-direction;

smeared (average) normal stress of concrete in
Direction 1;
c2 = smeared (average) normal stress of concrete in
Direction 2;
c21 = smeared (average) shear stress of concrete in 2-1
coordinate;
2 = angle between the l- and 2-direction;
l = steel ratio in l-direction; and
fl = smeared (average) stress of steel bars in l-direction.
Equation (1) is simplified by taking the following three
measures: a) under pure shear loading, the applied stresses l
on the left side of Eq. (1) should be zero; b) for a specimen
with the same steel ratios in both the longitudinal and the
transverse directions, the smeared shear stress of concrete c21
is zero, due to symmetry; and c) the smeared tensile stress
of concrete c1 can be neglected because its magnitude is very
small when compared to the smeared compressive stress of
concrete c2 and the smeared steel stress l fl and t ft.
Setting l = 0; c21 = 0; and 1c = 0, Eq. (1) can be simplified as
c

0 = 2 cos 2 + l f l

(2)

Equation (2) reveals the basic truss-concept of the internal

balance between the smeared compressive stress of concrete
c2 and the smeared steel stresses l fl . In the ascending
branch of the load-deformation curves, both the concrete
stress c2 and the steel stress l fl increase, and the internal
equilibrium is maintained. The peak point of a load-deformation
curve physically represents the concrete compressive stress
632

Hsu/Zhu ratio of the resulting strain increment in 1-direction to the source strain increment in 2-direction;
21 = Hsu/Zhu ratio of the resulting strain increment
in 2-direction to the source strain increment in 1direction;
E ls = secant modulus of longitudinal steel bars embedded
in concrete;
l = smeared (average) strain of longitudinal steel bars,
taking into account the Hsu/Zhu ratios, or biaxial
strain of longitudinal steel bars;
1 = smeared (average) strain in 1-direction when panel
is subjected to biaxial loading assuming Hsu/Zhu
ratios to be zero; or uniaxial strain in 1-direction;
and
2 = smeared (average) strain in 2 -direction when panel
is subjected to biaxial loading assuming Hsu/Zhu
ratios to be zero; or uniaxial strain in 2-direction.
Notice that the last two terms in Eq. (3) are the stresses due
to the Poisson effect. These stresses are functions of the two
Hsu/Zhu ratios, 12 and 21. These two additional stresses
were derived in the new SMM. The SMM prediction, which
is also plotted in Fig. 1, provides a descending branch that
agrees very well with the test results. It is obvious that the
inclusion of stresses due to Hsu/Zhu ratios brings the biaxial
stresses back into equilibrium in the postpeak stage.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The Poisson effect in cracked reinforced concrete composites
is characterized by two Hsu/Zhu ratios, which are necessary to
correctly predict the postpeak behavior of membrane elements
in shear. The Hsu/Zhu ratios are crucial in the establishment
of the rational SMM (Hsu and Zhu 2002) that is capable of
predicting the entire shear stress versus shear strain curves.
This paper describes the experiments to determine these two
Hsu/Zhu ratios.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Test program
Twelve full-scale reinforced concrete panels were designed to
study the effect of four variables on the Hsu/Zhu ratios:
1) angle of steel bar orientation (45 and 90 degrees); 2) percentage of steel (0.77 to 3.04%); 3) ratio of steel percentage
in the transverse and longitudinal direction (0.24 to 1); and
4) the strength of concrete (45 and 90 MPa). To study these
four variables, the 12 specimens are grouped into five series;
PE, PA, PB, PVE, and PVA as shown in Table 1.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Table 1Mechanical properties and principal variables of test panels

Concrete

Steel
t-direction

l-direction

Series
PE

PA

PB
PVE
PVA

0,
mm/mm Reinforcing bars

fty, MPa

Reinforcing bars

fty , MPa

2, degrees

Panel

fc, MPa

PE3T

48.4

0.0027

No. 6@267 mm

0.012

425.5

No. 6@267 mm

0.012

425.5

90

PE3

49.8

0.0027

No. 6@267 mm

0.012

425.5

No. 6@267 mm

0.012

425.5

90

PE4

46.8

0.0024

No. 8@267 mm

0.0188

453.4

No. 8@267 mm

0.0188

453.4

90

PA2

50.9

0.0024

No. 4@188 mm

0.0077

425.5

No. 4@188 mm

0.0077

425.5

1.0

45

PA3

51.2

0.0027

No. 6@188 mm

0.0169

425.5

No. 6@188 mm

0.0169

425.5

1.0

45

PA4

48.2

0.0024

No. 8@188 mm

0.0266

453.4

No. 8@188 mm

0.0266

453.4

1.0

45

PB4

43.1

0.0027

No. 8@188 mm

0.0304

453.4

No. 4@188 mm

0.0077

424.1

.24

45

PB6

46.2

0.0025

No. 8@188 mm

0.0304

453.4

No. 6@188 mm

0.0169

425.5

.52

45

PVE3

86.2

0.0025

No. 6@267 mm

0.012

425.5

No. 6@267 mm

0.012

425.5

90

PVE4

82.3

0.0026

No. 8@267 mm

0.0188

453.4

No. 8@267 mm

0.0188

453.4

90

PVA3

85.5

0.0027

No. 6@188 mm

0.0169

425.5

No. 6@188 mm

0.0169

425.5

1.0

45

PVA4

91.6

0.0026

No. 8@188 mm

0.0266

453.4

No. 8@188 mm

0.0266

453.4

1.0

45

Note: Panels PA2, PA3, PB4, PB6 PE3T, PE3, PVA3, and PVE3 have a size of 1397 x 1397 x 178 mm (55 x 55 x 7 in.). Panels PA4, PE4, PVA4, and PVE4 have a size of 1397 x
1397 x 203 mm (55 x 55 x 8 in.) to accommodate No. 8 bars. l = l / bsl ; t = At / bst where b = thickness of panels, and sl , st = spacings of steel bars; and = t fty /l fl y . No. 4,
6, and 8 bars have cross-sectional areas of 129, 284, and 510 mm2, respectively.

Test panels
The dimensions and steel arrangements for panels in the
PE- and PVE-series are shown in Fig. 3(a). In these two
series, the longitudinal reinforcement (l-direction) was
placed perpendicular to the direction of the applied compressive loads (2-direction), giving an 2 angle of 90 degrees.
For convenience, panels with an 2 angle equal to 90 degrees
will be called 90-degree panels.
The dimensions and steel arrangements for panels in the
PA-, PB-, and PVA-series are shown in Fig. 3(b). In these
panels, the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements in the l-t
coordinate are oriented at an angle of 45 degrees to the principal
2-1 coordinates of the applied loading (2 = 45 degrees).
Panels with an 2 angle equal to 45 degrees will be called
45-degree panels. Each panel is reinforced with two layers
of steel bars near the surface of the panel, allowing for the
required cover thickness. The mechanical properties and
principal variables of the 12 test panels are listed in Table 1.
Panel PE3T, which is identical to PE3, served as a trial
specimen to determine the strain ratio for 90-degree specimens
under pure shear.
Test methods
All of the panels were tested in the universal panel tester
at the University of Houston (Hsu, Belarbi, and Pang 1995).
This testing facility is capable of conducting both loadcontrol tests and strain-control tests (Hsu, Zhang, and
Gomez 1995). Before yielding, each panel was subjected to
a principal tensile stress 1 in the horizontal direction and a
principal compressive stress 2 in the vertical direction, as
shown in Fig. 3. Both stresses were increased in stepped
increments along a 45-degree dotted line (Fig. 4(a)), which
represents equal magnitude (1 = 2). In Fig. 4(a), the loads
were expressed in terms of total force P1 and P2 acting on a
typical panel, PE3. The stresses, 1 and 2 , could be calculated
from the forces P1 and P2, respectively, using a selected crosssectional area. In the case of a 178 mm (7 in.) thick panel and
assuming a net panel width of 1333 mm (52.5 in.), the area
is 237,200 mm2 (367.5 in.2). The choice of panel has no effect
on the nondimensional Hsu/Zhu ratios determined.
Just before yielding, the operation was switched over to
strain control. The increments of tensile and compressive
strains were specified as shown in Fig. 4(b). Careful planACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

(a)

(b)
Fig. 4(a) Loading procedure using load-control mode
before yielding; and (b) loading procedure using straincontrol mode after yielding.
633

(a)

Fig. 6Determination of Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 of Panel PE3

by load-control method before yielding.
(b)
Fig. 5Load-versus-strain curves for Specimen PE3:
(a) tensile load versus tensile strain; and (b) compressive
load versus compressive strain curves
ning was made to determine the input strain history, with
the objective being to obtain, as closely as possible, the
pure shear stress condition. The smeared strains were measured by eight linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTs) on each of the two faces: two horizontal, four vertical, and two diagonal. After the yielding of steel, the
smeared strain of concrete in tension was contributed mainly
by the crack widths.
LOAD CONTROL METHOD BEFORE YIELDING
Technique to determine Hsu/Zhu ratios
The proportional loading was simulated by small, stepwise increments so that the Hsu/Zhu ratios 12 and 21 could
be measured at each loading step. Before the steel bar yielded,
a load-control procedure was used to apply the external
stresses 1 and 2 (Fig. 3). When the compressive stress 2
was increased and the tensile stress 1 was constant, the
source strain increment 2 and the resulting strain increment
1 were measured at this loading step. The Hsu/Zhu ratio
12 is then calculated from the measured strain increments as

12 = --------1
2

(4)

Similarly, when the tensile stress 1 was increased with a

constant compressive stress 2 , the source strain increment
1 and the resulting strain increment 2 were measured.
The Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 was then calculated by
634

21 = --------2
1

(5)

To obtain clean and crisp steps in the stepped load paths, the
ideal situation was to control the load in one direction at a
perfectly constant value. In reality, however, the jack loads
would fluctuate up and down in each step due to mechanical
frictions and electrical noises. Because the resulting strain increments were very sensitive to the changes of the supposedly constant loads, it was important to: 1) limit the increment of jack
loads in each step to at least 4 kips per jack, that is, a minimum
total load of 40 kips (178 kN) (10 jacks per side of panel); and 2)
measure the Hsu/Zhu ratios only in those intervals with relatively constant loads. A relatively constant load was defined
as a total load that varies within a range of 5 kips (22 kN).
Illustration by example
The technique to determine the Hsu/Zhu ratios is illustrated
by the analysis of Panel PE3 in Fig. 5 and 6. With a yield load
of approximately 260 kips (1157 kN), the minimum increment
of 40 kips in this panel was approximately 15.4% (40/260 =
0.154) of the yield load. The 40-kip step between End
Levels 6 and 7 was used to demonstrate how the Hsu/Zhu
ratio 12 was determined (Fig. 6). Figure 6 shows the entire
step from reading 300 to 360 (600 s). Only the interval between
readings 311 and 345 (350 s), however, were chosen to determine 12 , because the tensile load in this interval was relatively
constant within a 5-kip range (that is, within a minimum load
of 85 kips and a maximum load of 90 kips) and the compressive
strain was in a state of stable increase.
The tensile and compressive strain increments (or the
slope) within the chosen intervals were obtained in the
following manner. Because the small strains that were
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Table 2Hsu/Zhu ratio 12

Preyield

Postyield

sf

PE3

PE4

PA2

PA3

PA4

PB4

PB6

PVE3

PVE4

PVA3

PVA4

Average

0.22

0.25

0.25

0.39

0.33

0.29

0.23

0.22

0.27

0.00006

0.34

0.36

0.29

0.21

0.27

0.30

0.30

0.31

0.30

0.00008

0.81

0.60

0.41

0.61

0.0003

1.11

1.20

0.48

0.93

0.0005

0.86

0.52

1.30

0.89

0.0008

1.05

0.94

1.11

1.23

1.34

0.83

1.14

0.72

1.05

0.0009

1.30

1.25

1.28

0.0011

1.00

1.28

1.49

1.38

1.22

1.24

1.07

1.34

1.25

0.0014

1.37

1.96

1.49

1.31

1.79

1.58

0.0016

1.35

2.05

1.65

2.12

1.46

1.73

0.0017

1.92

1.94

1.88

1.91

0.0019

2.08

1.98

2.04

2.03

0.0025

1.86

1.86

0.003

1.79

2.31

2.05

0.0035

2.08

1.98

2.03

0.004

1.82

1.82

0.005

1.52

1.91

1.61

2.13

2.14

2.10

1.90

0.006

2.03

1.84

1.94

0.007

2.35

2.02

1.79

2.25

2.10

0.0083

1.99

2.26

1.59

1.84

1.92

0.0086

2.15

1.61

1.74

1.66

1.79

0.01

2.21

2.21

1.78

1.98

2.05

0.0105

1.76

1.56

1.85

1.72

0.011

2.02

1.99

1.73

1.67

1.85

0.012

1.84

1.96

2.18

1.72

1.93

0.013

1.92

1.79

1.81

2.15

1.92

0.014

1.73

1.96

2.11

1.92

1.93

1.93

0.0146

1.77

1.52

1.65

0.0149

1.58

1.58

0.015

2.02

1.65

1.78

1.82

0.0175

2.07

2.12

2.10

0.018

1.95

2.18

2.07

0.02

1.87

1.78

1.83

0.024

2.05

1.60

2.17

1.94

0.03

1.90

2.06

2.09

2.02

0.034

2.10

1.86

1.98

0.04

1.71

1.96

1.84

Average
after
yielding

1.85

1.96

1.94

1.96

1.92

1.90

1.81

1.92

2.01

2.01

1.80

1.92

Average
standard
deviation

0.096

0.201

0.195

0.223

0.258

0.244

0.198

0.202

0.152

0.199

0.245

0.201

Average
coefficient of
variation, %

5.2

10.2

10.0

11.4

13.4

12.9

10.9

10.5

7.5

9.9

13.6

10.5

measured before yielding exhibited some degree of scatter due to background electrical noises, it was decided to
use the average of the first 10 data points and the last 10 data
points (Fig. 6) within the chosen intervals to calculate the
strain increments 1 and 2.
Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 at End Level 6 to 7

1 = 0.0000026
2 = 0.0000032 , and from Eq. (4),
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

12 = --------1 = 0.81
2
This 12 is given in Table 2 under Column PE3 at sf =
0.00008. In Table 2, the symbol sf is the measured biaxial
tensile strain (taking into account the Hsu/Zhu ratios) of steel
bars that yield first. In the case of 45-degree panels with t <
l and subjected to pure shear, sf is the strain t in the t-direction. In the case of 90-degree panels, sf is the tensile
strain l in the l -direction (t is in compression).
635

1 and the stress increment 2 were measured (note: the

1-versus-1curve within this increment was also measured
to calculate E1 for use in the preceding step). The ratio 21
was then calculated by
2
21 = -------------E 2 1

(8)

where E2 (always positive) was either the unloading or the

loading modulus of the reinforced concrete membrane element,
depending on the direction of 2.
If the compressive stress 2 decreased (that is, 2 was
positive), the Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 was positive and E2 was the
unloading modulus. The unloading modulus E2 could be
measured from the linear portion of the reloading 2-versus-2
curve in the following step,

( 2 ) linear
E 2 = ----------------------( 2 ) linear

Fig. 7Determination of Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 of Panel PE3

by strain-control method after yielding.
STRAIN-CONTROL METHOD AFTER YIELDING
Technique to determine Hsu/Zhu ratios
When the load approached the first yielding of steel bars,
a mode switch was made from load-control to strain-control.
When the compressive strain 2 was increased and the tensile
strain 1 was held constant, the strain increment 2 and the
stress increment 1 were measured (note: 2 was also
measured to calculate E2 for use in the preceding step). The
Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 was then calculated as

1
12 = -------------E 1 2

(6)

where E1 (always positive) was the unloading modulus of

the reinforced concrete membrane element because the
tensile stress 1 always decreased (that is, 1 was negative). E1 was calculated from the reloading modulus in
the following step because the unloading modulus had been
shown experimentally to be equal to the initial linear portion
of the reloading 1-versus-1 curve. E1 was then calculated by

( 1 ) linear
E 1 = ----------------------( 1 ) linear

(7)

where (1)linear and (1)linear were the stress increment and

strain increment, respectively, in the linear portion of the
reloading 1 -versus-1 curve.
In the step where the tensile strain 1 was increased and the
compressive strain 2 was kept constant, the strain increment
636

(9)

where (2)linear and (2)linear were the stress increment

and strain increment, respectively, in the linear portion of
the reloading 2-versus-2 curve.
If the compressive stress 2 increased (that is, 2 was
negative), the Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 was negative, and E2 was
the loading modulus. E2 was calculated from the following
step using the whole increment of the loading 2-versus 2 curve,

E 2 = ---------2
2

(10)

For strain-control loading after yielding, the servo-control

system was intended to control the strain in one direction at
a constant value. In reality, however, the strains would
fluctuate at each step due to the unstable nature of the Hsu/
Zhu ratio 21 in addition to the mechanical frictions and the
electrical noises. Because the resulting stress increments were
very sensitive to the changes of the supposedly constant strain,
it was important to: 1) limit the increment of compressive strain
in each step to at least 0.00002; and 2) measure the Hsu/
Zhu ratios only in those intervals with relatively constant
strains. In general, a relatively constant strain is defined as a
tensile strain that varied within a range of 0.00002 or a
compressive strain that varied within a range of 0.00001.
Illustration by example
The technique to determine the Hsu/Zhu ratios after yielding
is illustrated by the analysis of Panel PE3 in Fig. 7 and 8.
With a yielding strain of 0.0016, the minimum increment of
compressive strain 0.00002 was approximately 1.25%
(0.00002/0.0016 = 0.0125) of the yield strain. The step
between End Levels 23 and 24 (or readings from 1680 to
1740) was used for Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 (Fig. 7). The step between
End Levels 22 and 23 (or readings from 1560 to 1680, totaling
1200 s) was used to demonstrate how a negative Hsu/Zhu
ratio 21 was determined (Fig. 8).
In Fig. 7, the interval between readings 1704 and 1740
(360 s) at the rear part of the step was chosen because the tensile
strains were relatively constant within a range of 0.00002,
that is, within the values of 0.03719 and 0.03721. In Fig. 8,
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Fig. 9Reloading and loading moduli for panel PE3.

1
0.01068
12 = -------------- = ---------------------------------------------------- = 1.71
(
357.0
) ( 0.0000175 )
E 1 2
Fig. 8Determination of Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 of Panel PE3 by
strain-control method after yielding.
the interval between readings 1576 and 1680 (1040 s) at the
rear part of the step was chosen because the compressive
stains were relatively constant within a range of 0.00001,
that is, within the values of 0.000176 and 0.000186.
The strain and load increments (or the slope), as well as the
loading or reloading modulus, within the chosen intervals
were obtained in the following manner. To avoid dealing
with a complicated loading path in each loading step, the Hsu/
Zhu ratios were calculated based on the beginning and the final
stress and strain values of the chosen intervals. Because the
strains that were measured after yielding exhibited a small
degree of scatter, it was decided to use the average of the first
two data points and the average of the last two data points
within the chosen intervals to calculate the strain increments
1 and 2, and the stress increments 1 and 2.
For the reloading and loading moduli, it was found that the
regression analysis gave more stable data. Therefore, the
slope of the regression line of a stress-versus-strain curve
was used to calculate the reloading and loading moduli (Fig. 9).
Hsu/Zhu ratios 12 at End Levels 23 to 24

2 = 0.0000175
2
3.925 kips
1 = ---------------------------------------- = 0.01068 kips/in.
( 52.5 in. ) ( 7 in. )

E1 = 357.0 kips/in.2 (reloading modulus from End Levels 24

to 25; refer to Fig. 9(a)), and from Eq. (6)
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

At End Levels 23 to 24, sf = 1 = l = 0.0368 (close to 0.04),

and a Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 of 1.71 can be found in Table 2 under
Column PE3 at sf = 0.04.
The corresponding reloading modulus E1 = 357.0 kips/in.2
is given in Table 3.
Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 at End Levels 22 to 23

1 = 0.008467
2
54.52 kips
2 = ---------------------------------------- = 0.1483 kips/in.
( 52.5 in. ) ( 7 in. )

E2 = 3995 kips/in.2 (loading modulus from End Levels 23 to

24; refer to Fig. 9(b)), and from Eq. (8)

2
0.1483
21 = -------------- = -------------------------------------------- = 0.004
( 3995 ) ( 0.008467 )
E 2 1
It can be seen that Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 can be negative, and is
close to zero after yielding.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Hsu/Zhu ratio 12
Before cracking took place, the Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 was
identical to the Poisson ratio 12, and varied approximately
0.25 as expected. Although the small strains measured in
each step before cracking jumped up and down from time to
time, the Hsu/Zhu ratio calculated in each step still showed a
relatively constant value for each panel.
637

Table 3Reloading modulus E1 (kips/in.2), Eq. (7)

Preyield

Postyield

sf

PE3

PE4

PA2

PA3

PA4

PB4

PB6

PVE3

PVE4

PVA3

0.0011

289.8

0.0014

PVA4

0.0016

283.9

0.0017

266.3

0.0019

265.0

0.0025

424.4

0.003

258.4

416.2

0.0035

196.5

408.0

0.004

413.5

0.005

225.2

251.7

406.7

363.0

341.2

447.5

0.006

178.4

583.9

0.007

198.8

251.1

379.9

433.4

0.0083

181.6

253.7

358.3

342.9

0.0086

218.5

316.5

350.8

439.0

0.01

248.8

304.6

333.7

324.8

0.0105

187.8

247.4

298.1

0.011

218.9

248.0

274.9

444.7

0.012

164.1

238.3

274.2

401.0

0.013

415.4

181.3

267.7

304.2

0.014

567.0

166.6

366.2

562.3

416.4

0.0146

175.9

403.9

0.0149

412.3
405.8

0.015

179.9

284.8

0.0175

173.0

297.3

0.018

162.5

292.0

0.02

375.4

132.5

0.024

570.0

348.8

552.5

0.03

355.1

360.5

548.0

0.034

542.8

346.8

0.04

357.0

344.7

Note: Strain control method applied to Panel PA3 before yielding.

The standard deviations and the coefficients of variation

for the postyield Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 are presented in the bottom
two rows of Table 2. It can be seen that the statistical correlations
are surprisingly good. Based on test results given in Table 2, the
following equation is suggested for the Hsu/Zhu ratio 12

12 = 0.2 + 850 sf ,
12 = 1.9,

sf y

sf > y

(11a)
(11b)

Fig. 10Hsu/Zhu ratio 12.

Equation (11a) and (11b) are compared to all the test

data in Fig. 10. Figure 10 clearly shows that the Hsu/Zhu
ratios 12 lie predominately outside the valid range of
zero to 0.5 for the Poisson ratio of continuous materials.

After cracking, however, 12 increased gradually to a

surprisingly large value of approximately 1.9 immediately
before yielding. In the postyielding range, the Hsu/Zhu ratio
12 remained approximately 1.9 throughout. Table 2 records
all the values of Hsu/Zhu Ratio 12 for the 11 panels described
in Table 1 (except Panel PE3T). The values 12 are listed in
Table 2 as a function of tensile steel strain sf. The third row
from the bottom lists the average postyield 12 value for each
panel. The grand average of postyield Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 is
1.92 for the 11 panels.

Hsu/Zhu ratio 21
The measured data for Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 are plotted in
Fig. 11 against the tensile steel strain sf. It can be seen that
21 is approximately 0.25 before cracking took place in the
test panel. After cracking, however, 21 reduces rapidly to
approximately 0.05 and then gradually approaches zero at
yielding. Near the yielding stage, negative Hsu/Zhu ratios
21 begin to occur. It is interesting to note that the negative
and positive values of 21 occur alternatively in some specimens.
For simplicity in an analytical model, 21 is assumed to be
zero for the whole postcracking range as

638

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Fig. 12Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 versus steel ratio .

Fig. 11Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 .

21 = 0

(12)

Application of Hsu/Zhu ratios in Eq. (3)

Substituting 12 = 1.9 and 21 = 0 (from Eq. (11b) and
(12), respectively) into Eq. (3) results in an equation with
only three terms on the right-hand side, because the
fourth term with 21 vanishes. As discussed previously,
the concrete and steel stresses represented by the first two
terms could not maintain equilibrium in the descending
branch because the concrete stress c2 decreases while the
steel stress l E ls l continues to increase. The third term,
representing the stresses caused by the Hsu/Zhu ratio
12, restores the equilibrium in the postpeak region and
allows one to predict the descending branches of the
load-deformation curves. The new SMM, which takes into
account the Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 , has been reported in a
companion paper (Hsu and Zhu 2002).
EFFECT OF TEST VARIABLES ON
HSU/ZHU RATIO 12
Effect of steel ratio
Figure 12 plots the relationship of Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 versus
the steel ratio (in one direction) for the nine panels with
equal steel ratios in the two directions. It can be seen that the
Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 does not increase or decrease continually
with the increase of steel ratio. For example, in the PA-series,
the panels are designed to be the same except for the steel ratio.
The steel ratios for Panels PA2, PA3, and PA4 are 0.77,
1.69, and 2.66%, respectively, and the Hsu/Zhu ratios 12 for
these three panels are 1.94, 1.96, and 1.92, respectively. In
short, the Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 is not a function of the steel ratio.
Effect of ratio of transverse to longitudinal steel
Figure 13 plots the relationship of Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 versus
the ratio of transverse to longitudinal steel for seven panels.
It can be seen that the Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 is not a function of the
ratio of steel percentages in the two directions. For example, in the three panels, PA4, PB6, and PB4, the ratios are
1, 0.52, and 0.24, respectively, while the Hsu/Zhu ratios 12
for these panels are 1.92, 1.81, and 1.90, respectively.
Effect of steel bar orientation
Figure 14 plots the relationship of Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 versus
the steel bar orientation 2 for all 11 panels. In Fig. 14,
the group of panels with 45 degrees (PA, PB, and PVA series)
has essentially the same average Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 as the group
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Fig. 13Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 versus ratio of transverse to

longitudinal steel .

Fig. 14Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 versus steel bar orientation 2.

Fig. 15Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 versus concrete strength.

of panels with 90 degrees (PE and PVE series). It is concluded
that Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 is not a function of steel bar orientation.
Effect of concrete strength
Figure 15 plots the relationship of the Hsu/Zhu ratio 12
versus the concrete strength f c for all 11 panels. The four
panels in the PVE and PVA series have high-strength concrete
of approximately 90 MPa, while the remaining seven panels
(that is, those in PE, PA, and PB series) have normal-strength
concrete of approximately 45 MPa. It can be seen that Hsu/Zhu
ratio 12 is not a function of concrete strength f c.
639

Variables and f c in SMM

SMM, a smeared model, has the advantage of determining
the overall stiffness and strength properties of cracked
reinforced concrete elements without dealing directly with
the troublesome variables of crack width, crack spacing,
dowel action, and bond slip. SMM takes these four variables
into account indirectly by the smeared (or average) stressstrain curve of embedded steel bars. The smeared stressstrain curve of embedded steel bars is a function of the parameter
B, where B = (1/)( fcr / fy )1.5 . Parameter B was derived
theoretically to be a function of the three variables , fcr , and
fy , which are related to the four variables of crack width,
crack spacing, dowel action, and bond slip. Parameter B
is valid within the practical and useful ranges of (0.6 to
5.24%) and f c (up to 100 MPa), covered by the test panels.
Because Hsu/Zhu ratios are shown in Fig. 12 and 15 to be
independent of and f c, these ratios do not appear to be
affected by the four variables (crack width, crack spacing,
dowel action, and bond slip) as a whole.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Reinforced concrete membrane elements subjected to
shear are acting in biaxial stress and strain conditions.
Current shear theories, which neglect the stresses and strains
due to the Poisson effect (mutual effect of two normal
strains), can predict the prepeak behavior but produce postpeak response curves that are incorrect. The Poisson effect of
cracked reinforced concrete elements is characterized by two
Hsu/Zhu ratios, which are determined using a unique panel
testing facility with a servo-control feature. The observed
Hsu/Zhu ratios provide the foundation to develop a new
rational theory (SMM) that can predict the postpeak behavior;
2. Twelve full-size reinforced concrete elements (panels)
have been tested to determine the two Hsu/Zhu ratios. The
four variables in this study are the percentage of steel, the
steel bar orientation, the ratio of steel percentages in the
transverse and longitudinal direction, and the strength of
concrete. Test results show that the Hsu/Zhu ratios are not a
function of any of these four variables within the usable
ranges; and
3. The Hsu/Zhu ratio 12 can be expressed by Eq. (11a)
and (11b). This ratio increases from 0.2 at cracking to a very

640

large value of approximately 1.9 at, and after, yield. The

Hsu/Zhu ratio 21 after cracking can be a small positive or
negative value. For simplicity, 21 can be assumed as zero
throughout the postcracking range.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is supported by National Science Foundation Grant CMS9700401. The steel bars used in this research were specially made and
donated by Chaparrel Steel Co., Midlothian, Tex.

REFERENCES
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1994, Constitutive Laws of Concrete in
Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by Concrete, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 465-474.
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1995, Constitutive Laws of Softened
Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 562-573.
Hsu, T. T. C., 1993, Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press,
Inc., Boca Raton, Fla., 336 pp.
Hsu, T. T. C.; Belarbi, A.; and Pang, X. B., 1995, A Universal Panel
Tester, Journal of Testing and Evaluations, ASTM, V. 23, No. 1, Jan.,
pp. 41-49.
Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhang, L. X., 1997, Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane
Elements by Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss Model, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 94, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 483-492.
Hsu, T. T. C.; Zhang, L. X.; and Gomez, T., 1995, A Servo-Control
System for Universal Panel Tester, Journal of Testing and Evaluations,
ASTM, V. 23, Nov. 6, Nov., pp. 424-430.
Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhu, R. H., 2001, Post-Yield Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Membrane Elementsthe Hsu/Zhu Ratios, Post-Peak Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Load, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., Apr.
Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhu, R. R. H., 2002, Softened Membrane Model for
Reinforced Concrete Elements in Shear, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99,
No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 460-469.
Pang, X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1995, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Membrane Elements in Shear, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec., pp. 665-679.
Pang, X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1996, Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss
Model for Reinforced Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr., pp. 197-207.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1982, Response of Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane Shear and Normal Stresses, Publication 82-03, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, Modified Compression-Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Element Subjected to Shear, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 83, No. 2, pp. 219-231.
Zhang, L. X., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1998, Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa
Concrete Membrane Elements, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 124, No. 1, Jan., pp. 24-34.
Zhu, R. H., 2000, Softened-Membrane Model of Cracked Reinforced
Concrete Considering Poisson Effect, PhD dissertation, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Tex.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002