ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 115-S40

Model for Assessment of Cracked Reinforced Concrete

Membrane Elements Subjected to Shear and Axial Loads
by Paolo M. Calvi, Evan C. Bentz, and Michael P. Collins

A conceptual model is presented for assessing the state of health

of cracked reinforced concrete (RC) structures. The model consists
of a crack based approach that links crack displacement measure-
ments acquired on site to the structure’s strain state and stress
state, and allows for the determination of the structure’s reserve
capacity. The model is entirely formulated in terms of equilibrium,
compatibility, and stress-strain relationships, and can be used to
effectively assess the reserve capacity of RC membrane elements
subjected to arbitrary in-plane loads.

Keywords: crack behavior; nonlinear response; reinforced concrete;

reserve capacity; shear strength; structural assessment.

INTRODUCTION
In many countries, a significant percentage of the rein-
forced concrete infrastructure is now more than 40 years
old. A key challenge is to identify among all these structures
which subset need urgent action to prevent possible shear
failures. Such catastrophic failures can occur with little
warning and with no chance of redistribution of the shears
and moments being transmitted (refer to Fig. 1).
Notable advancements in developing theoretical models
to predict shear behavior1,2 and their implementation in
software3-5 better allows engineers to conduct evaluations
of existing structures. However, estimating the capacity
and remaining life of structures, such as those shown in
Fig. 2, is a complex task that is normally conducted over
an extended period.6 Having assessment tools that permit a
quick estimate of the vulnerability of the structure can help
in prioritizing the structures in order of vulnerability. Such
a tool may have permitted the engineers inspecting the de la
Concorde overpass in the months prior to the September 30,
2006 collapse to identify the vulnerability of this bridge.7
Preliminary assessment campaigns are typically conducted
relying on the inspections of observable structural cracks.
To this end, accurate information regarding the character-
istics of observable cracks can be obtained using displace-
ment transducers or other techniques available in the field
of structural monitoring.8 The assessment of vulnerability
would typically not include the use of analytical models to
estimate reserve strength, but rather rely on rules of thumb Fig. 1—Collapse of the de la Concorde overpass in Laval,
that specify the width at which cracks become dangerous. QC, Canada, on September 30, 2006 (adapted from Johnson
This paper presents a new model to perform the assess- et al.7).
ment of cracked reinforced concrete membrane elements.
Such elements can be used to represent the shear-critical
ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 2, March 2018.
portions of the structures illustrated in Fig. 2. The model MS No. S-2017-136, doi: 10.14359/51701093, was received April 17, 2017, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2018, American Concrete
is rational and is entirely formulated based on principles of Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
equilibrium, compatibility, and stress-strain relationships. obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
It has been verified using experiments conducted in the is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/March 2018 501

Fig. 2—Elements subjected to shear and biaxial stresses.
panel element tester, also shown in Fig. 2. It builds on the
key concept that cracks in reinforced concrete elements can
transfer significant shear stresses.9,10
From the field measurements of crack widths, crack slips,
and crack orientations, and using the basic structural prop-
erties such as the reinforcement ratios, the reinforcement
yield stress, and the loading ratios, the model can be used
to predict the highest values of shear stress that have been
applied to this portion of the structure. Comparing these
highest applied shears with estimates of the shear capacity
of the structure, a preliminary estimate can be made of
the reserve shear capacity. Thus, recommendations can be
provided as to the need for more detailed investigations,
future monitoring, strengthening measures or immediate
load restrictions.11
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The model presented in this paper can be used to assess the
state of health and residual capacity of cracked reinforced
concrete (RC) elements subjected to biaxial stresses, relying
on crack information measurable on site. This model can
be used to identify RC structures that have suffered exces-
sive loads or that are affected by structural deficiencies,
and consequently make decisions on their needs to undergo
interventions and general retrofit measures.
OVERVIEW AND DEFINITION OF PROBLEM
In RC structures, the stress-carrying process is not inter-
rupted by the presence of cracks. In fact, cracks in RC elements
502
are capable of transferring significant shear and orthogonal
stresses through aggregate interlocking phenomena.12
Consider the RC membrane element depicted in Fig. 2
subjected to shear and axial stresses applied to its bound-
aries. This element may represent severely cracked web
regions of girders or walls.
Note that for the element to sustain the applied loads,
in accordance with equilibrium requirements, the applied
stresses need to be safely transferred across the uncracked
concrete bodies as well as across the existing cracks outlined
in Fig. 2.
At an interface location, in addition to the presence of the
principal tension, cracks are normally subjected to shear stress
vci, which arises as a result of the different forces induced in
the system by the longitudinal and transverse steel reinforce-
ment or as a result of the particular loading configuration.
The mechanics of cracks responding to shear and axial
stresses has been described in detail by Calvi et al.9,10 Early
in the life of the structure, cracks are relatively undamaged.
The associated crack displacements are predominantly
orthogonal to the crack plane, and low shear stresses along
the crack are accompanied by proportional tensile stress
fci. In this context, the stress fci resists the applied loads
in parallel with the steel reinforcement. The shear stress
contributes to carry part of the transverse loads but causes
some extra stretching in the longitudinal reinforcement.
Higher loads induce greater shear stress on the crack,
which in turn causes degradation of the crack surface. In
terms of displacements, the crack undergoes opening and
ACI Structural Journal/March 2018
Fig. 3—Crack spacing and “effective” length: (a) tension stiffening specimen; and (b) panel.
sliding that result in a progressively lower crack secant slope the steel reinforcement at a crack location. Steel strains are
(that is, the crack width to crack slip ratio, as discussed by then used to compute the associated stresses that are required
Calvi et al.9,10). Over the course of this phase, there is a to solve the system of equations of equilibrium.
tension-to-compression transition of the stress fci. Compres- The strain in the steel bars reinforcing a structure such as
sive fci no longer contributes to transferring the applied loads the RC membrane element shown in Fig. 3(b) can be calcu-
across the cracks. In fact, compressive fci causes an increase lated at a crack location as suggested by Calvi11
in the stress that both the x- and y-reinforcement need to
resist. Note that the applied loads may induce yielding of the 2/3
∆x  f ′
transverse reinforcement. In this case, any load increment −β + β 2 + 14, 000 ⋅ ⋅ c 
2 ⋅ dbx  20  ∆x ⋅ sin θ
needs to be compensated by higher shear stress on the crack ε sx , cr = ≤ (1)
and by higher tensile stress in the x-reinforcement. During 7000 crsp ,θ
this phase, there is a progressive increase of the compressive
stress fci. In addition, this phase is accompanied by gradual 2/3
degradation of the crack plane, which results in decreasing ∆y  f c′ 
−β + β 2 + 14, 000 ⋅ ⋅
2 ⋅ dby  20 

crack secant slope. ∆y ⋅ cos θ
ε sy , cr = ≤ (2)
In the context described, the problem at hand is to deter- 7000 crsp ,θ
mine how crack displacements and crack orientation relate
to the element strain and stress states, and to calculate the
where dbx is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement;
reserve capacity of the structure at various load levels.
dby is the diameter of the transverse reinforcement; and θ is
In solving this problem, the following additional assump-
the crack orientation. The coefficient β can be taken as equal
tions will be made:
to 2 and
1. Uncracked concrete strains are negligible;
2. The steel reinforcement is uniformly distributed over
the element; w
∆x = ⋅ sin θ − s ⋅ cos θ (3)
3. The structure can suffer possible failure modes that 1.3
include any combination of aggregate failure, biaxial
yielding, and concrete crushing; w
4. Existing cracks do not rotate. However, new cracks can ∆y = ⋅ cos θ + s ⋅ sin θ (4)
1.3
form at different orientations with respect to existing cracks;
5. The elements undergo extensive cracking and all the
cracks experience essentially identical response. Thus, the Equations (3) and (4) were derived by Calvi,11 relying on
behavior of a single crack is representative of all cracks. the recommendations of Maekawa et al.13 The parameters w
Note that in some instances this may not be the case and and s represent the crack width and the crack slip, measured
an adequate assessment may require the independent moni- on the surface of the structure, respectively.
toring of several cracks. Equations (1) and (2) represent an adaptation11 of the
compatibility equations proposed by Maekawa et al.,13
COMPATIBILITY CONDITIONS originally derived to deal with structures such as that sche-
Local compatibility matically shown in Fig. 3(a), but successfully employed
Local compatibility relationships are required to link the in numerous occasions to calculate the strain in steel rein-
crack displacements and the crack orientation to the strain in forcing bars crossing skewed cracks.13

ACI Structural Journal/March 2018 503

 Note that the crack spacing crsp,θ outlined in Fig. 3(b) is
one of the quantities that could be obtained from site inspec-
tion. Alternatively, it could be estimated using expressions
available in the literature. Thus, based on Vecchio and
Collins,1 the crack spacing at the surface can be calculated as

 sin θ cos θ 
crsp ,θ = 1 /  +  (5)
 2 ⋅ sx 2 ⋅ s y 

In Eq. (5), sx and sy can be taken as the distance between

adjacent reinforcing bars in the pertinent direction or by
employing more sophisticated equations. Fig. 4—Compatibility conditions for a cracked element.

Global compatibility s
ε sy = ⋅ sin(2θ) (13)
The derivation of the strain state of the element is done by 2 ⋅ crspθ
assuming that the global deformations of an element are due
to the opening of cracks and to the rigid body motion along
s
the crack interfaces. In this context, it is assumed that the γ sxy = ⋅ cos(2θ) (14)
straining due to expansion and contraction occurring within crspθ
the uncracked concrete bodies give a small contribution to
the total strain of the element and can therefore be neglected. The inclination and the magnitude of the principal strains
The global strain state of the membrane element in reported in Fig. 4(b) can be obtained from
Fig. 4(a), elegantly summarized in Fig. 4(b), is made of the
strains due to the opening of the cracks (εxw, εyw, γxyw) and 1  γ xy 
the strains due to local rigid body slip (εxs, εys, γxys) (refer to θε = ⋅ tan −1   (15)
Vecchio2)
2  εx − ε y 

εx = εxw + εxs (6) (ε x + ε y ) 1 1/ 2

ε1 , ε 2 =  (ε x − ε y ) 2 + γ xy 2  (16)
2 2

εy = εyw + εys (7)

EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS
Local and global equilibrium
Figure 5(a) shows an RC membrane element subjected to
γxy = γxyw + γxys (8)
uniform biaxial and shear stresses applied along the element
boundaries. The element is reinforced with an orthogonal
The strains due to crack opening can be derived from the
grid of steel bars and is affected by a series of arbitrarily
principal strain values obtained as the ratio between crack
inclined cracks. The crack orientation is defined as θ.
width and crack spacing provided that the crack orientation θ
For the structure to efficiently carry the applied loads, the
is measured over the course of the inspection of the structure
average stresses must be safely transmitted across the planes
along with crack width and crack slip
of weakness that are the cracks.
With reference to the free body diagram shown in Fig. 5(b),
w
ε wx = ⋅ sin 2 θ (9) it can be seen that the stresses applied along the boundaries
crsp ,θ of the structure are partially resisted by tensile stresses that
develop in the steel reinforcement and partially resisted by
w the stresses that develop along the crack plane as a result of
ε wy = ⋅ cos 2 θ (10) aggregate interlock.
crsp ,θ
Assuming a unit area for the crack plane, global equilib-
rium equations for the element can be formulated as
w
γ wxy = ⋅ sin 2θ (11)
crsp ,θ vxy · cosθ + fx · sinθ + vci · cosθ + fci · sinθ – ρsx · fsx,cr · sinθ = 0
(17)
Adopting the formulation described by Vecchio,2 the
strains due to rigid body motion can be calculated as a func- vxy · sinθ + fy · cosθ – vci · sinθ + fci · cosθ – ρsy · fsy,cr · cosθ = 0
tion of crack slip and crack spacing as follows (18)

s where vci is the shear stress along the crack plane; fci is the
ε sx = − ⋅ sin(2θ) (12) stress that arises orthogonal to the crack plane (either tensile
2 ⋅ crspθ
or compressive); fsx,cr is the stress in the longitudinal steel

504 ACI Structural Journal/March 2018

Fig. 5—(a) Membrane element subjected to biaxial stress state; (b) free-body diagram of cracked RC membrane element; and
(c) free-body diagram of an aggregate at contact point along crack plane.
reinforcement at the crack location; fsy,cr is the stress in the
transverse steel reinforcement at the crack location; and ρx
and ρy are the reinforcing ratios in the x- and y-direction,
respectively.
Note that, assuming the loading ratios can be estimated
with some level of accuracy, the applied axial stresses can
be expressed as a function of the applied shear stress in the
following fashion

fx = n · vxy (19)

fy = m · vxy (20)

where n and m are constant x- and y- tension/compression to

shear loading ratios.
Figure 5(c) illustrates the local stress state of an aggregate
at a contact point along the crack plane. The shear stress vci
is accompanied by some tensile or compressive orthogonal
stress fci. In this context, no crack sliding occurs as long as
the forces that act along α are in equilibrium. This condition
can be expressed through the following equation of equilib-
rium, derived by Calvi et al.10
f ci ⋅ (sin α + µ ⋅ cos α )
vci = (21)
(cos α − µ ⋅ sin α )
where α, illustrated in Fig. 5(c), is computed as the arctan-
gent of the crack secant slope, defined as the crack width to
crack slip ratio. Note that Eq. (21), purely based on equilib-
rium considerations, provides a reliable relationship between
crack stresses and crack shape, as demonstrated in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6—Evolution of crack stresses as function of crack
secant slope inclination (adapted from Calvi.11).
vcxy = vxy (24)
where fx, fy, and vxy are the stresses applied to the boundaries
of the RC element obtained from crack dilatancy information,
and fsx and fsy are the average stresses in the steel reinforcement.
The principal compressive stress fc2 can be computed from
the stresses in the concrete, using standard Mohr’s circle
transformations (Fig. 7(b)) as
( f cx + f cy )
fc 2 = − 0.5 ( f cx − f cy ) 2 + 4vcxy 2 (25)
2

Principal stresses
The knowledge of the boundary stresses, in combination ( f cx + f cy )
f c1 = + 0.5 ( f cx − f cy ) 2 + 4vcxy 2 (26)
with the knowledge of the average x- and y-strains, allows 2
the calculation of stresses in the concrete.
The stresses in the concrete can be estimated satisfying equi- STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS
librium requirements that, for the case where the membrane Constitutive relationships are required to link stresses and
element is orthogonally reinforced and the reinforcement is strains for the steel reinforcement at the crack location. Note
aligned with the reference axes, can be written as that the compatibility and equilibrium equations introduced
thus far are not sufficient in number to make the problem at
fcx = fx – ρxfsx (22) hand statically determined.

fcy = fy – ρyfsy (23)

ACI Structural Journal/March 2018 505


Fig. 7—Reinforced concrete element: (a) Loading condi-
tions; and (b) Mohr’s circle for average stresses in concrete.
Fig. 8—Stress-strain relationships for reinforcement.
Stress-strain relationships for the steel reinforcement
crossing a crack are formulated assuming that the stresses
fsx,cr and fsy,cr depend only on the axial strain in the reinforce-
ment, εsx,cr and εsy,cr. In addition, it is assumed that none of
the reinforcement resists any shear stress on the plane normal
to its longitudinal axis. Consequently, axial stress and axial
strain can be related through usual bilinear uniaxial stress-
strain relationships such as (refer to Fig. 8)
fsx,cr = Es · εsx,cr ≤ fxy (27)
fsy,cr = Es · εsy,cr ≤ fyy (28)
where Es is the elastic modulus of steel, and fxy and fyy are the
material yield stresses.
CALCULATION OF VITAL PARAMETERS AND
RESERVE CAPACITY
The complete summary of equations of the crack based
assessment model presented is outlined in Fig. 9. Provided
that the outcome of a structural inspection includes infor-
mation regarding crack width, crack slip, and crack orien-
tation, the stresses applied to the boundaries of a membrane
element can be determined by solving the system of equi-
librium equations summarized in Fig. 9 (Eq. (17) and (18)).
More specifically, given the required crack information, the
strains in the steel reinforcement and the crack secant slope
can be determined directly from the compatibility equations
(Eq. (1) and (2)). The stress in the steel at the crack loca-
tion is then calculated as a function of the computed strains
using appropriate constitutive relations (Eq. (27) and (28)).
Using Eq. (21), the crack normal stress fci can be expressed
as a function of the crack shear stress vci. Provided that the
506
applied axial stresses fx and fy can be expressed as a function
of the shear stress vxy through constant loading ratios n and
m (Eq. (19) and Eq. (20)), the crack shear stress vci and the
applied shear stress vxy can be quickly determined and used
to obtain the complete stress state of the membrane element.
The global strain state of the element can then be estimated
following the procedure discussed in the previous section.
In some instances, structural inspections involving crack
mapping and crack monitoring provide information regarding
crack widths and crack orientations, but do not include crack
slip measurements. The ratio between crack width and crack
slip is one of the key parameters in the assessment model,
as it dictates whether the orthogonal stress fci acting on the
crack plane is tensile or compressive. Tensile fci is normally
expected early in the life of a structure for low values of
crack slip and high values of the crack secant slope (for
example, greater than 1.2, which corresponds to an angle
α of 50 degrees) while compressive fci values are recorded
once the crack surface has suffered some degradation and
experienced some sliding.
Treating the crack as a no-slip system implies that the
orthogonal stress fci remains tensile over the course of the
life of the structure, leading the model to overestimate the
values of the stresses responsible for causing the associated
cracked configuration. On the other hand, neglecting the
presence of the orthogonal stress fci would normally induce
the model to underestimate the early stress state of the struc-
ture and to overestimate the stress values later on.
Note that in case crack slip measurements are missing or unre-
liable, it is preferable to disregard the existence of the orthog-
onal stress fci, assuming that only shear stress vci is transferred
across the crack plane as a result of aggregate interlocking.
The state of health of the structure can be gauged by
comparing computed stresses with available strengths. More
specifically, safety factors associated with the possible struc-
tural failure modes can be obtained
f2
SFc = (29)
f 2,max
f sx , cr
SFsx = (30)
f xy
f sy , cr
SFsy = (31)
f yy
vci
SFvc = (32)
vci ,max
where SFc is the concrete struts safety factor; SFsx is the
x-steel reinforcement safety factor; SFsy is the y-steel rein-
forcement safety factor; and SFvc is the aggregate interlock
safety factor.
A global safety factor can also be calculated as vxy/vu.
The ultimate shear capacity of the structure, vu, should be
estimated using available nonlinear RC models such as the
Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT).
ACI Structural Journal/March 2018
Fig. 9—Equations of the crack based assessment model.
The strength of the concrete struts, f2,max in Eq. (29), can be Finally, the aggregate interlock strength, vci,max in Eq. (32),
calculated using available expressions, such as1 can be computed as1

f c′ f c′
f 2, max = (33) vci , max = (35)
0.8 + 170 ⋅ ε1w 24 ⋅ w
0.31 +
(14 + ag )
where ε1w represents the principal tensile strain of the
element induced by the opening of cracks. This strain can EXAMPLE OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
be calculated as Specimen KS2 (Fig. 10), tested by Proestos et al.,14 was
loaded in biaxial tension and shear with a constant tension-
w to-shear ratio (equal to 0.4) throughout the test. The observed
ε1w = (34) crack spacing and crack orientation were 160 mm (6.3 in.)
crsp ,θ
and 45 degrees, respectively.

ACI Structural Journal/March 2018 507

Fig. 10—Specimen KS2 after failure.

Table 1—Assessed response of KS2 Fig. 11—Comparison of assessed and observed response of
s, mm w, mm ve, MPa va, MPa RCe, % RCa, % ve/va Specimen KS2. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
0.019 0.10 1.80 1.83 68.8 66.6 0.98 crack properties are obtained from measurements (that is,
0.046 0.25 2.49 2.98 56.8 45.6 0.84 crack width, crack slip, and crack orientation), the model can
0.100 0.50 3.99 4.74 30.8 13.5 0.84 be used to estimate the stress and strain states of a structure
and to gauge its reserve capacity, expressed in terms of a
0.183 0.75 5.10 5.30 11.6 3.28 0.96
number of vital parameters. All the equations constituting
0.363 1.00 5.50 5.35 4.68 2.37 1.03 the core of the analytical model were derived from equilib-
0.561 1.25 5.57 5.33 3.47 2.74 1.05 rium, compatibility, and stress strain considerations, relying
0.788 1.50 5.67 5.23 1.73 4.56 1.08 on a limited number of reasonable assumptions.
The approach proposed constitutes a rational and simple,
0.998 1.75 5.77 5.20 0.00 5.11 1.11
computationally inexpensive analytical tool that can be
1.274 2.00 5.77 5.04 0.00 8.03 1.14 extended and used to deal with structures other than RC
Average 1.01 membrane elements.
COV, % 9.91 To perform a structural assessment, in addition to the prop-
erties of the cracks, the only necessary information consists
Notes: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
of few basic mechanical properties such as concrete strength,
The specimen’s concrete compressive strength was 35.2 MPa steel strength, steel reinforcement ratio and loading ratio.
(5105 psi). The steel yielding stresses were 448 MPa
(64.9 ksi) in the x-direction and 474 MPa (68.7 ksi) in the AUTHOR BIOS
Paolo M. Calvi is an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington,
y-direction, and the associated reinforcement ratios were Seattle, WA. He received his Bachelor’s and his Master’s degrees from the
2.09% and 1.35%. University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, in 2008 and 2010, respectively, and his
Using the solution procedure summarized in Fig. 9, the PhD from the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 2015. His
research interests include large-scale reinforced concrete and prestressed
element’s response was assessed relying on crack displace- concrete structural components.
ment readings, taken at various stages over the course of
the test. Some of the results are summarized in Table 1 and Evan C. Bentz, FACI, is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of Toronto. He received his Bachelor’s degree from the Univer-
in Fig. 11. In Table 1, ve represents the experimental shear sity of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, in 1994, and his PhD from the
stress while va is the shear stress estimated via assessment University of Toronto in 2000. He is Chair of ACI Committee 365, Service
process. It can be seen that, at all the load stages selected, Life Modeling, and is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear
and Torsion.
the model is capable of providing reliable estimates of the
shear stresses applied to the boundaries of the specimen. The ACI Honorary Member Michael P. Collins is a University Professor at the
variables RCe and RCa represent the experimental and the University of Toronto. He is a member and former Chair of Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 445, Shear and Torsion, and a former member of ACI Committee
assessed reserve capacity of the element throughout the test. 318, Structural Concrete Building Code. His research interests include
RCe was computed as the ratio between the current experi- developing rational but simple shear design procedures for both reinforced
mental shear stress and the peak experimental shear stress, and prestressed concrete structures.
while RCa was computed as the ratio between the current
assessed shear stress and the element’s shear strength esti- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Natural Sciences
mated using the MCFT. and Engineering Research Council of Canada for a series of grants that have
made possible the long-term research project on shear design of reinforced
CONCLUDING REMARKS concrete at the University of Toronto.
A crack-based model for the assessment of cracked RC
membrane elements has been presented. Once appropriate

508 ACI Structural Journal/March 2018

 REFERENCES
1. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal
Proceedings, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
2. Vecchio, F. J., “Disturbed Stress Field Model for Reinforced Concrete:
Formulation,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 126, No. 9,
2000, pp. 1070-1077. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:9(1070)
3. Bentz, E. C., Membrane-2012, http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/
m2k.htm
4. Bentz, E. C., Response-2012, http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm
5. Vecchio, F. J., Formworks, VecTor2 & Augustus Bundle (Ver. 3.5)
6. Higgins, C.; Miller, T. H.; Rosowsky, D. V.; Yim, S. C.; Potisuk, T.;
Daniels, T. K.; Nicholas, B. S.; Robelo, M. J.; Lee, A. Y.; and Forrest R. W.,
“Assessment Methodology for Diagonally Cracked Reinforced Concrete
Deck Girders,” Final Report SPR 350/SR 500-091, Oregon Dept. of Trans-
portation Research Unit and Federal Highway Administration, Oct. 2004,
357 pp.
7. Johnson, P. M.; Couture, A.; and Nicolet, R., “Report of the Commis-
sion of Inquiry into the Collapse of a Portion of the de la Concorde Over-
pass,” Quebec, Canada, 2007, 222 pp.
8. Dutton, M.; Take, W.; and Hoult, N., “Curvature Monitoring of Beams
Using Digital Image Correlation,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE,
V. 19, No. 3, 2014, p. 05013001 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000538
ACI Structural Journal/March 2018
9. Calvi, P. M.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Reversed Cyclic Exper-
iments on Shear Stress Transfer across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete
Elements,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 4, July-Aug. 2016,
pp. 851-859. doi: 10.14359/51688926
10. Calvi, P. M.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Pure Mechanics
Crack Model for Shear Stress Transfer in Cracked Reinforced Concrete,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2017, pp. 545-554. doi:
10.14359/51689460
11. Calvi, P. M., “A Theory for the Shear Behaviour of Cracks Providing
the Basis for the Assessment of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Structures,”
PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, Canada, 2015, 367 pp.
12. Sherwood, E. G.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Effect of Aggre-
gate Size on Beam-Shear Strength of Thick Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 104, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2007, pp. 180-190.
13. Maekawa, K.; Pimanmas, A.; and Okamura, H., Nonlinear Mechanics
of Reinforced Concrete, Spon Press, London, UK, 2003.
14. Proestos, G. T.; Bae, G.-M.; Cho, J.-Y.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins,
M. P., “Influence of High-Strength Bars on Shear Response of Contain-
ment Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2016,
pp. 917-927. doi: 10.14359/51688750
509
 Regular Price: $69.50
Member Price: $39.00

Only available in PDF version

44
• Design guidelines and specifications;
• Material properties for design;
• Behavior and design of beams and
columns;
• Behavior and design of slabs and
other structures;
• Behavior and design of foundations and
papers are organized underground components; and finally,

6
• Applications in structure and under-
into themes: ground construction projects.

Held at Polytechnique Montreal, Canada, on July 24 and 25, 2014, the workshop
demonstrated the state-of-the-art progress attained in terms of specifications
and applications of fiber-reinforced concrete.

| +1.248.848.3700 | www.concrete.org |