Analysis of Concrete Structure by STM - R3

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Overview
In concrete structures, design engineers often encounter portions of

structures that are subjected to significant shear stresses (corbels, deep beams, pile
cap, dapped-end beams, or post-tension anchorage zones). Traditional design
assumptions, specifically those regarding plane sections remaining plane after
deformation, do not apply to such locations. . The difficulty in analyzing these
types of elements often arises due to the inability to apply kinematic compatibility.
These locations traditionally have been designed using empirical formulations or
past experience. A strut-and-tie model or strut-and-tie modeling (STM) offers an
alternative to such methods, Equilibrium of the nodes is considered during the
analysis stage.
Strut-and-Tie Modeling (STM) is a method of design for reinforced and

prestressed concrete that reduces complex states of stress within a structure to a
collection of simple stress paths. The stress paths result in truss members loaded
with uniaxial stress that is parallel to the axis of the stress path. Truss members that
are in compression are called struts, while the force paths that are in tension are
named ties. The intersections of struts and/or ties form the nodes. The collection
of struts, ties and nodes is called a truss mechanism or model. The forces within a
strut-and-tie model can be calculated using static equilibrium if the truss is
statically determinate.
Such a reduction in complexity allows for simple design of structural

concrete. With the forces in each strut and tie having been determined from basic
statics and any necessary compatibility conditions, only the stresses within these
elements (struts, ties, and nodes) need be compared with permissible stresses. To
determine the allowable stress for a strut or node, empirical observations of their
1
behavior must be made. The empirical observations of the strength of isolated
members can be combined with truss mechanisms to develop an accurate model for
prediction of the strength of the concrete member. A strut-and-tie model consists of
elements in pure tension or compression. Appropriate reinforcement must be
provided in the portions of the structure where tension is indicated by the strut-and-
tie model or where the struts require additional strength, confinement, or both.
By using a simple truss model, an estimation of strength of a structural element can
be made and the element can be appropriately detailed.
The constitutive relationships are determined by empirical observation of

struts, ties and nodes to establish the yield conditions for those elements. STM,
therefore, conforms to the lower bound theory of plasticity, which requires that
only equilibrium and yield conditions be satisfied. The lower bound theory of
plasticity states that if the load has such a magnitude that it is possible to find a
stress distribution corresponding to stresses within the yield surface and to
maintain internal and external equilibrium, then this load will not cause collapse
of the body (Nielson 1998). In other words, the capacity of a structure as
estimated by a lower bound method will be less than or at most equal to the actual
collapse load of the structure in question. The most appealing quality of a lower
bound theory is its inherent conservatism.
2
1.2 Scope of Present Work
The aim of the present work is to investigate the behavior of different types
of concrete structures with two methods, namely hand calculation method such as
strut-and-tie method (STM) and modern computer oriented Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) package.
The concrete structures considered for the analysis are:

1. Deep Beam
2. Pile cap and Corbel.
1.3 Methodology of Present Work
Present work will be based on following points:
1. Literature Study
The literature study involve literature search to collect information about
the development of strut-and-tie in analysis and design reinforced concrete
elements. The literatures such as books, journals, various design codes and other
publications are searched for relevant contents. From the literature study the
development of the theory is examined. Also basic components and code
provisions are examined.
2. Analysis of structure with STM and FEM

This study compares and contrasts the analysis of strut-and-tie method with
computer oriented Finite Element Analysis (FEA) package. In which forces from
Finite Element Analysis and strut-and-tie model will be calculated as well as key
observations will be highlighted.
3. Design Examples
For complete the understanding of the method, a selected design example
will be demonstrated with reinforcement layout.
3
1.4 Layout of Present Work
This project report contains six chapters. Chapter 1 presents the

introduction including overview, scope of present work, methodology of present
work and layout of present work.
Chapter 2 to follow introduces the background of the development of strut-

and-tie theory. It examines the various school of taught in formulating the theory of
strut-and-tie methods. Also in chapter basic components of STM such as struts,
ties, nodes will be discussed.
Chapter 3 presents procedure or a flow chart for design and detailing of

strut-and-tie modeling including STM for some commonly occurring D region. In
later part of this chapter will be focusing on current code provisions for strut-and-
tie modeling in various design codes.
Chapter 4 is included with various models of deep beam, pile cap, corbel
based on these model results of strut-and-tie method with computer oriented Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) package will be compared stating key observations about
the compression.
Chapter 5 discusses examples designed with strut-and-tie models using

Appendix A of ACI 318-2002 on the simply and continuous deep beam, corbel with
reinforcement layout.
Chapter 6 provides conclusion about development of strut-and-tie theory in

analysis and design of reinforced concrete element and comparison with Finite
Element Analysis (FEA). From the study it proposes some further works.
4
Chapter 2
Background and Fundamental of STM
2.1 Overview
In this chapter development of the strut-and-tie theory is discussed. It also

presents the various schools of thought in formulating the theory of strut-and-tie
methods. Further, the basic components of STM such as struts, ties, and nodes are
discussed.
2.2 Historical Development of Strut-and-Tie Modeling
The beginnings of STM date back to the infancy of reinforced concrete

design. Ritter (1899) developed a truss mechanism to explain the role of transverse
reinforcement in the shear strength of a beam. Previously it was believed that
transverse steel bars provided dowel action that resisted horizontal shear
deformations. Based on Ritter’s truss model (Figure 2.1), it is clear that the stirrups
are in tension.
Mörsch later refined Ritter’s model in 1902. Mörsch replaced the discrete
diagonal forces that Ritter had used in his truss with a continuous field of diagonal
compression (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.1 Ritter’s original truss model (1899)
5
Figure 2.2 Mörsch’s adaptation of Ritter’s model (1902)
Experimental testing in the United States showed that the truss models
produced overly conservative estimates of strength (Talbot 1909). The truss
models neglected the tensile strength of the concrete that can play an important part
in resistance to shear. In 1927, Richart proposed a method of shear design in which
the concrete and steel contributions to shear strength were calculated independently
then summed to determine the overall shear strength. In this method the concrete
contribution to shear strength (Vc) was based on empirical observations of beams
failing in shear and the steel contribution (Vs) was based on a truss model whose
concrete compression field was at an angle of 45 degrees from the longitudinal
reinforcement. With a simple and safe sectional model available, truss modeling
soon fell out of favor in North America.
Revival in the use of STM began in the United States in the early 1970s. At
that time STM was first applied to concrete members subjected to a
combination of shear and torsion. For this case a tubular truss that formed a hollow
box near the outside face of the members was used (Figure 2-3) (Lampert and
Thürlimann 1971). The tubular truss model was later refined to a space truss model
(Lüchinger (1977), Ramirez and Breen (1983), Mitchell and Collins (1986)). The
space truss could adequately account for all the actions of bending, shear, torsion
and axial load.
6
Figure 2-3 Idealized truss model for torsion of a square section
Following the increased interest in STM regarding complex load states,

general methods for the application of STM appeared. Schlaich, Schäfer, (1987)
presented modeling approaches for use in discontinuity regions (Figure 2.4).
These approaches provided basic tools that could be applied to complex structures
for safe designs based on behavioral models. Following this work, STM appeared
in North American codes for general design use. The Canadian CSA Standard was
the first to adopt STM in 1984. Soon afterwards it was adopted by AASHTO for
the segmental guide specification in 1989 and by the LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications in 1994. Most recently ACI has included STM provisions in the
2002 edition of the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
02).
7
Figure 2.4 Typical D-regions (a) notch in beam (b) opening in beam (c)
beam-column junction (d) beam near support (e) beam acted upon by
point load (f) deep beam (geometric discontinuities a-c and statical
discontinuities d-f) (From Appendix A of ACI 318-05)
2.3 Fundamental Strut and Tie Model
Each of the types of elements in a strut-and-tie model serves a unique

purpose, but must act in concert to describe accurately the behavior of a structure.
Before discussing STM as a whole, each of its components must be examined.
8
2.3.1. Struts
Struts are the elements within strut-and-tie models that carry compressive
stresses. The geometry of a strut varies widely and depends upon the force path
from which each individual strut arises.
Prismatic struts have a uniform cross section over their length (Figure 2.5).
Such a strut can occur in beam bending where the compressive stresses are
confined by the neutral axis. The compressive stress block of a beam in a section of
constant moment is an example of a prismatic strut.
When the flow of compressive stresses is not confined to a portion of a

structural element, a bottle-shaped strut can form (Figure 2.5). In this case, the
force is applied to a small zone and the stresses disperse as they flow through the
member. As the compression disperses, it changes direction forming an angle to the
axis of the strut. To maintain equilibrium a tensile force is developed to counteract
the lateral component of the angled compression forces. A bottle- shaped strut can
be modeled by a collection of struts and ties to adequately account for the tensile
force.
The major type of strut is a compression fan. A compression fan is

characterized by stresses that focus onto a very small area. The stresses flow
radically from a large area to a much smaller one. A compression fan can develop
when large distributed loads flow into a support (Figure 2.5). There are no tensile
stresses developed within a compression fan because the forces are collinear
without any tension components perpendicular to the radii of the fan.
9
Figure 2.5: Common types of struts
10
The dispersion of compression was described in great detail by Guyon
(1953). Guyon used isostatic lines to determine the dispersion of tensile and
compressive stresses in a post-tension anchorage zone (Figure 2.6). Guyon
reasoned that isostatic lines of compression (1 to 6 in Figure 2.6) must be parallel
to the applied force at the point where the force was applied and at some distance
away from the point of application. St. Venant’s principle suggests that at a distance
equal to the member depth, the stress distribution is nearly uniform. The isostatic
lines are therefore distributed uniformly across the section as on line CD in Figure
2.6. Tension is produced normal to isostatic lines indicated by E and E’.
Although this derivation was based on anchorage zones, it can be used to describe
the dispersion of compression for externally applied loads as well.
Figure 2.6: Dispersion of compression (Guyon 1953)
11
2.3.2 Ties
Ties are the elements within a strut-and-tie model that carry tension,
and are generally confined to reinforcing or prestressing steel. The geometry
of a tie is therefore much simpler. The tie is geometrically confined to
elements that can carry high tensile forces, and the allowable force is
generally given as a fraction of the yield force.
Appropriate attention must be given to the anchorage of ties. If the yield

force of a tie is expected at any point in the strut-and-tie model, the proper
anchorage must be provided beyond that point.
2.3.3 Nodes
Nodes form where struts and ties intersect (Figure 2-7). Nodes are
described by the types of element that intersect at the node. For example, a
CCT node is one, which is bounded by two struts (C) and one tie (T).
Using this nomenclature nodes are classified as CCC, CCT, CTT, or TTT. A
CCC node is expected to have a higher strength than any of the other types
due to the effect of confinement. Each of the other node types has some
tensile stresses acting upon it due to the presence of the tie(s). Tensile
stresses can cause cracking within the nodal zone, and reduce the strength.
The geometry of a node may be defined by the details of the

structure. Wherever concentrated loads are applied to the structure, there
will be some finite bearing area. The dimensions of that bearing area will
define the geometry of the adjacent node. Nodes that do not occur on the
boundary or are not influenced by a bearing area of a structural member are
much harder to define geometrically.
Nodes may be assumed to be hydrostatic. Hydrostatic nodes are

loaded with a stress that is applied perpendicular to each face of the node and
that stress equal in magnitude on all faces of the node. Since the stresses are
normal to the surfaces of the node, there are no shear stresses at the
12
boundaries of the node or within the body of the node. Non-hydrostatic
nodes are also possible and permissible due to the inherent shear strength of
concrete. If such nodes are used, the ratio of the maximum stress on a node
to the minimum stress on that same node should not exceed the permissible
value. The states of stress in both hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic nodes are
shown in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.7: Schematic depictions of nodes
13
Figure 2.8: Mechanics of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic nodes
14
Chapter 3
Design and Code Provisions of STM
3.1 Overview
In this chapter procedure or a flow chart for design and detailing
of strut-and-tie modeling is presented including STM for some commonly
occurring D region. Also part of this chapter will be focusing on current code
provisions for strut-and-tie modeling in various design codes.
3.2 Struts-and-Tie Modeling Procedure for Design and Detailing
The first step of the STM process is to determine the location of the
disturbed regions. Disturbed regions occur wherever there is a local
disruption of the stress flows within a member. Such disturbances can be
classified into two groups: static and geometric. Static disturbances are due
to the presence of concentrated loads. The loads can be the result of
concentrated loads applied to a structure or to reactions. Geometrical
disturbances arise from local changes in a structure’s geometry such as a
dapped end or a beam, joint, or opening. Examples of both types of
discontinuity are depicted in Figure (2.4) with geometric
discontinuities on the left (a-c) and static discontinuities on the right (d-f).
The complete flow chart of STM process is shown in Figure (3.1).
The size of a D-region is determined using Saint-Venant’s principle,

which states that the stress distribution due to an applied disturbance
approaches a uniform stress distribution as the distance between the applied
disturbance and the cross-section in question increases (Figure 3.2). Using
this idea, the length of a D-region is assumed to be approximately the same
size as the depth of the member.
15
Figure 3.1: Flowchart for STM process
16
Figure 3.2: St. Venant’s principle
After the D-regions have been identified, the resultant forces acting on the
boundary of the D-region must be determined. The forces on the D-region shown
in Figure 2.4(d) could be calculated based on the compressive stress block and the
force in the longitudinal reinforcement of the B-region. Similarly, all forces on the
boundary of D-regions must be calculated based on compatibility with the
adjoining B-regions as well as any forces applied directly to the D-region.
Not only must the magnitudes of the forces be determined appropriately, the
locations of the forces are also critical. Equilibrium must be maintained on the
boundary between B- and D-regions.
Once the forces acting on the boundary of the D-regions have been
determined, the flow of forces within the D-region can be sketched. Finite
element analysis (FEA) may be conducted to determine the stress paths within an
uncracked D-region, and a strut-and-tie model can be established on such stress
paths. To minimize cracking under service and ultimate loads the axes of the struts
and ties should match the directions of principle stresses as closely as possible
(Schlaich, Schäfer, and Jennewein 1987). However, for many D-regions FEA is
unnecessary as the stress paths can be estimated with relative ease.
17
3.2.1 Typical D-region Models
The principal stress diagrams preceding some of the typical D-region

models are presented. In these the tensile stresses are represented by broken lines
whereas the compressive stresses are emphasized by continuous lines.
Region D1
Fig 3.3 shows a concentrated load F applied centrically to a strip of a width

l. The distribution of load practically takes place within the limits of a D-region.
Depth of D1 region is approximately equal to its width. The deviation of the
compressive stress trajectories generates transverse tensile stresses, often termed
splitting tensile stress.
Fig: 3.3 principal stress pattern of D1 region
18
Fig 3-4: strut and tie model of D1 region
Region D2
Fig 3.5 shows that as the load F migrates from centre towards the corner of the
strip, the transverse tensile forces T beneath the load decrease in magnitude. At the
same time tensile forces T1 originates in the loaded edge.
(a) (b)
Fig 3.5: stress diagram and strut and tie model of D-2
19
Region D-3
Fig 3.6 shows stress pattern for a region D-3 which is related to that of D-1 region.
As D-3 region will bland into a two individual D-1 region. However as it can be
seen from fig 3.6.b with decreasing in h/l some small tensile stress develop all
around the edge.
(a) (b)
(c)
20
Region D4
Fig 3.7 shows stress pattern for a region D-4 which is related to that of D-2 region.
As D-4 region will bland into a two individual D-2 region. There is also similarity
to the refined model for D3 in fig 3.6.b. tensile stress corresponding to T1
concentrate near the edge and have caused some failures where reinforcement was
lacking.
(a)
(b)
Fig: 3.7 stress diagram and strut and tie model of D-4
21
Region D5
Fig 3.8 shows stress pattern for a region D-5 which is besides D1, far most
common pattern. One of the example of D5 region is deep beam acted upon by
uniformly distributed load.
(a) (b)
Region D6
Fig 3.9 shows stress pattern for a region D-6 with a suspended load in which lever
arm Z is same as D5 region.
(a) (b)
22
Region D-7
Fig 3.10 shows stress pattern for a region D-7. It may be convenient to use a
refined model as demonstrated by fig. 3.10.c instead of the simple model
according to 3.10.b in order to reflect directly on the model the transverse tensile
forces T2 originating from bottle shape strut. With increase in h/l ratio D7
gradually blends into a region D1(upper part) and region D5(lower part) as in fig
3.10.d
(a)
(b) (c) (d)
Fig: 3-10 stress diagram and strut and tie model of D-7
23
Region D-8
Fig 3.11 shows stress pattern for a region D-8. strut and tie model of region D8
mainly depend of h/l ratio. If h/l>2 then D8 will be combination of D5 region and
if h/l<0.5 then uniform distribution of compressive stress over the entire length of
the deep beam in mid-height is not possible due to which model will split into two
D4 regions.
(a) (b)
(c)
24
Region D-9
Fig 3.12 shows stress pattern for a region D-9. The model D9 combines the models
D1 and D5. It should be noted that model and forces are visualized in fig 3.12 are
statically indeterminate and valid only for the inner spans of a multi-span deep.
One of the example of such model is column standing on the basement wall.
(a)
(b)
25
Region D-10
Fig 3.13 shows stress pattern for a region D-10. The model D10 combines the
models D3 and D8. For ratios h/l >2, the top and bottom part blend into D9 region.
(a)
(b)
26
After the stress paths have been determined, they can be used to establish a
working truss model. The working truss model must meet equilibrium at all
nodes. The truss model should not contain members that intersect at small angles.
Struts that intersect ties at shallow angles typically suffer from a drastic reduction
in strength; this phenomenon is addressed in both ACI and AASHTO codes. If the
truss model contains such undesirable elements, refinement of the truss itself may
be necessary.
For any given D-region there are many truss models that will satisfy
equilibrium. Based on the lower bound theorem, any model that
satisfies equilibrium and constitutive relationships will safely approximate the
strength of the structure. When evaluating various truss models, a model with
fewer ties is preferable. The optimal truss model will be that which contains the
minimum strain energy at ultimate load. Schlaich, Schäfer, and Jennewein (1987)
proposed that strain energy would be concentrated in the ties and minimizing the
number and length of ties would also minimize the strain energy of the truss,
which would produce an optimal or near-optimal truss model.
(a) Good (b) Bad
Fig 3.14: Two different strut and tie model for same structure
27
Additionally it is preferable to have a truss model that is statically
determinate. A determinate truss will require only equilibrium to determine the
forces in each member. An indeterminate model will require some estimate of the
member stiffness. It is difficult to estimate accurately the stiffness of the elements
within a strut-and-tie model due to the complex geometry. Struts are in general not
prismatic, and could display non-linear material behavior. The exact cross-
sectional area of a strut is accurately known only at the location where the strut is
influenced by an external bearing area. At other locations the geometry is not
clearly defined. Consequently the stiffness will be difficult to assess.
Once a truss model has been defined, the forces in all members can be
calculated. With the forces in each of the truss members known, the appropriate
amount of reinforcing steel can be determined very simply by dividing the force in
the tie by the yield stress of the steel and the appropriate strength reduction factor.
Once the necessary amount of reinforcement has been determined, the truss
geometry may need to be refined. For example, if more reinforcing steel is needed
than the initially expected amount, the location of the tie could be changed in order
to accommodate the increased amount of steel. The centroid of the reinforcement
that will act as the tie should coincide with the location of the tie in the strut-and-
tie model.
Once the ties have been designed and the truss model refined to include the
final tie positions, the struts and nodes can be checked for necessary strength. The
stress levels in the struts and nodes must be kept below allowable stresses. The
allowable stress is determined differently by different codes.
The most critical elements in the strut-and-tie model will be those that are
in contact with the external boundary of the member. Boundary elements will be
influenced by bearing areas and support reactions. Bearing areas and reactions will
limit the size of the adjacent nodes, and therefore limit the allowable force in those
elements.
Internal strut-and-tie model elements have more potential for plastic

redistribution of stresses. The geometry of internal struts and nodes is not
28
confined to a bearing area and can increase in size to develop all available
strength. In most cases, variable geometry of internal elements may make it
difficult to calculate stresses accurately, but the same variable geometry allows
redistribution that makes accurate calculations unnecessary. Nevertheless, the
stresses in the internal elements must be compared with permissible stresses.
Using the appropriate code recommendations, the minimum required area of the
internal elements (based on permissible stresses computed using efficiency
factors) should be calculated, and provided within the member.
If the stresses in the nodes and struts are higher than the permissible
stresses, an increase in the available area over which the nodes or struts act may be
necessary. To increase the area, the bearing areas can be made bigger, or the
overall geometry of the structural member can be increased. If neither of those
options is practicable, the concrete strength can be increased or confinement can
be added to the critical areas of the member. Proper confinement can locally
augment the strength of the elements where necessary.
The final step in STM is to detail all the reinforcement within the member.
Detailing involves ensuring that all ties are adequately anchored to develop the
necessary strength at the critical locations, and ensuring adequate steel to confine
the concrete anywhere confinement is necessary.
3.3 Current Code Provisions for Strut-and-Tie Modeling
Many code authorities world-wide have added STM specifications to their

traditional design specifications. Each of the codes (ACI 318-05, AASHTO
LRFD Bridger Design Specifications, CSA A23.3-94, NZS 3101:1995, and fib
recommendations 1999) handles the elements of a strut-and-tie model differently.
The major codes are discussed individually below.
3.3.1 ACI 318-05
Provisions for the use for STM were added as an appendix to the main body of the
ACI building code in 2002. The ACI 318-05 Appendix A provisions provide
29
estimations of the strength of the struts of a strut-and-tie model as a fraction of the
specified compressive strength of the concrete:
f ce  0.85  s f c
'
(3.1)
Where:  s = the strut efficiency factor (Table 3.1)

'
f c = the concrete compressive strength
f ce = effective compressive strength
The efficiency factor  s is based on the type of strut. There are five classes of
struts listed in Table 3.1. The first category is a strut with uniform cross section
over its length as would occur normally in the compression zone of a beam (Figure
2.5). Bottle-shaped struts are the most prevalent and general of the classes. A
bottle-shaped strut is one with a varying cross-sectional area. Typically, if a force
is applied to a small region of a concrete element, the stresses will disperse in the
lateral direction as they flow through that element. Figure 3.15 shows the elastic
stress distribution of a bottle-shaped strut as well as a possible strut-and-tie model.
Table 3.1: Node and strut efficiency factors
Strut and Node ACI 318- AASHTO NZS

Efficiencies 05 LRFD 3101:1995
s     
S Strut with uniform cross- 1.00 0.75 Eqn 3.3 0.70

T section over its length
R NZS
Bottle-shaped struts with 0.75 0.75 Eqn 3.3 0.70 3101:1995
U
reinforcement satisfying specifies only
T A.3.3
Bottle-shaped struts without 0.60 0.75 Eqn 3.3 0.70 nodal
reinforcement satisfying efficiency
Struts in tension members 0.40 0.75 Eqn 3.3 0.70 factors.
All other cases 0.60 0.75 Eqn 3.3 0.70
N Nodes bounded by 1.00 0.75 0.85 0.70 0.65 0.80
O compression or bearing CCC
D Node anchoring one tie
Nodes 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.55 0.80
E CCT Node
S Nodes anchoring more than 0.60 0.75 0.65 0.70 0.45 0.80
one tie CTT and TTT Nodes
30
Fig 3.15: Elastic stress distribution for bottle-shaped strut
Note that there are two efficiency factors associated with bottle-shaped
struts. These two factors are based on the reinforcement within the strut. As the
compression spreads out from the support, tension is developed. In Figure 3.15,
the compression is applied vertically, and the induced tension is horizontal. When
the induced tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete, a vertical
crack will form. Without any horizontal reinforcement, the strut could split
causing a brittle failure. This phenomenon is the basis of the split cylinder test
used to determine the tensile strength of concrete. Nevertheless, if sufficient
transverse reinforcement exists, brittle failure can be avoided, and the strut can
continue to carry load beyond the cracking load. If a particular strut satisfies
Equation A-4 in Section A.3.3.1 of ACI 318-05 or the more general provisions of
A.3.3, the larger  s factor of 0.75 may be used.
31
The more general provisions of Section A.3.3 of ACI 318-05 allow the
designer to determine the necessary transverse reinforcement for a bottle-shaped
strut based on a 2:1 spread of compression.
For equation A-4 of ACI 318-05 (Eqn. 3.2), reinforcement that crosses the
anticipated crack is included as can be seen in Figure 3-16. Struts that do or do not
meet the minimum reinforcement criterion (Eqn. 3.2) make up the second and
third classes of struts. The provisions of Appendix A of ACI 318-05 allow the use
of bottle-shaped struts without transverse reinforcement. Without transverse
reinforcement, a bottle-shaped strut can not maintain equilibrium after the splitting
crack has formed. Currently in ACI 318-05 there are minimum
reinforcement requirements for deep beams if Appendix A is used. The required
reinforcement presented in Chapter 11 of ACI 318-05 restrains the growth of
diagonal tension cracks. The use of bottle-shaped struts without transverse
reinforcement allows diagonal tension cracks to grow without restraint. The use of
bottle-shaped strut without transverse reinforcement is questionable.
Asi
 sin  i  0.003 (3.2)
bs i
Where:
Asi = area of surface reinforcement in the ith layer crossing a strut.
s i = spacing of reinforcing bars in the ith layer adjacent to the surface of the
member.
b = the width of the strut perpendicular to the plane of the reinforcing bars.
 i = the angle between the axis of the strut and the bars in the ith layer of
reinforcement crossing that strut.
32
Figure 3.16: Nomenclature for Equation 3.2
The fourth class of strut is one that occurs in a tension member. A strut
such as this can occur in the tension flange of a prestressed T-beam. As the
prestress diffuses from the web to the extreme edges of the flange, struts are
produced in the plane of the flange. If a T-beam happens to be in negative
curvature (tension in the flange), the struts representing the dispersion of the
prestressing force will be in a zone of tension. The final class of struts is for all
struts that do not meet the requirements for the previous classes of struts.
Additionally, ACI 318 places limits on the allowable stresses at the faces of
the nodes (Table 3.1). The nodal efficiency factors are based on the elements that
intersect to form the node and are listed in Table 3.1.
33
The strength of a strut must be checked at its minimum cross-
sectional area. For a strut, especially a bottle-shaped strut, the minimum area will
occur at the ends of the strut where it intersects a node. Using the efficiency
factors presented in Appendix A (ACI 318-05), the strength of the strut will control
the strength of that interface except in the case of a CTT node. It is only in a CTT
node that the nodal efficiency could be less than the efficiency of struts framing
into that node.
ACI 318-05 Appendix A also provides one more restriction on the

modeling process. The angle between the axes of any strut and any tie entering a
common node may not be less than 25 degrees. This provisions stems from the
idea that struts will lose capacity as they approach the direction of a tie. Clearly a
strut that is coincident with a tie will have no compressive capacity. The angle of
25 degrees was chosen to eliminate potential problems with struts that form
a slight angle with a tie.
3.3.2 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, like ACI 318-05, place
limits on the allowable stress at the faces of the nodes and struts. However, the
AASHTO approach for the allowable stress in a strut is based on Modified
Compression Field Theory (MCFT) (Collins and Mitchell 1991) rather than the
reinforcement ratios used by ACI. The MCFT based equations are presented
below:
'
fc '
f cu   0.85 f c
(0.8  170  1 )
 1   s  ( s  0.002) cot 2  s (3.3)
Where:  s = the smallest angle between the compressive strut and the adjoining
tie
  s = the tensile strain in the concrete in the direction of the tension tie
'
f c = the concrete compressive strength
f cu = effective compressive strength
34
Rather than using the amount of reinforcement that crosses the anticipated
crack as in ACI, AASHTO bases the efficiency on an average strain in the
concrete at the location of a tie. The strut strengths as presented in AASHTO were
developed based on tests of reinforced concrete panels. Panels were subjected to a
planar loading scheme, in which stress was applied to the four edges of the panels.
That stress consisted of both a normal and shearing components. This
experimental program (Vecchio and Collins 1982) allowed the researchers to
examine concrete under complex stress states and develop mechanics-based
models based on that data. The model, MCFT, was then converted into a design
tool. In order to apply the design form of MCFT, one must choose an appropriate
tensile concrete strain (  s).
In the experiments performed by Vecchio and Collins (1982) the average

tensile concrete strain was measured using a displacement transducer that
was placed on the specimen. That displacement transducer measured the
relative motion of the ends of the instrument, and that displacement was then
divided by the original gage length. Therefore the strain was averaged over
cracks in the concrete.
Such a measurement of strain is simple to determine in a laboratory
environment. However, many practicing engineers and TxDOT designers
have had difficulty in choosing an appropriate average tensile concrete strain to
use in design and have expressed reservations about using these provisions.
If the process could be simplified and the strain term eliminated, it would
likely help design engineers.
The angle between the strut and any adjoining tie is explicitly considered
in the AASHTO LRFD STM provisions. Therefore, no limit is placed on
that angle as in ACI. As the angle between the strut and the tie approaches zero,
the strength of the strut also approaches zero (Figure 3.17). While very small
angles are allowed by AASHTO, they become impractical due to the
diminished efficiency factor. The diminished efficiency factors and the associated
reductions in the allowable strength of struts encourage the design engineer to seek
35
a more refined truss mechanism.
Figure 3.17: Relationship between strut efficiency and strut angle
For the nodal stress limits, AASHTO, like ACI, simply specifies factors
based on the type of node (Table 3-1). It should be noted that the AASHTO nodal
efficiency factors are multiplied fc′ directly rather than 0.85fc′ as specified in
ACI 318 Appendix A.
3.3.2.1 Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications have four distinct

provisions for minimum shear reinforcement. Each of them is
presented individually. The first requirement (Section 5.8.2.5) requires that:
' bv s
Av  0.0316 fc (3.4)
fy
Where: Av = area of shear reinforcement [in.2]
'
 f c = specified concrete strength [ksi]
bv = beam width [in.]
s = stirrup spacing [in.]
36
f y = yield strength of the reinforcement [ksi]
This requirement is equivalent to providing enough shear reinforcement to

resist a stress equal to half of the concrete contribution to shear strength
when using sectional analysis. This provision is based on strength requirements.
The other three detailing requirements are based on serviceability.
The second of the four shear reinforcement requirements is presented in

Section 5.7.3.4. and is intended for use in members that exceed 36 in. In depth.
The reinforcement requirement is:
As  A ps
Ask  0.012(d e  30)  (3.5)
4
Where: Ask = area of skin reinforcement [in.2/ft]
d e = effective beam depth [in.]
As = area of tensile reinforcement [in.2]
A ps = area of prestressing steel [in.2]
The required skin reinforcement must be distributed along the vertical

faces of the component for a distance equal to de /2 from the tension face of the
component. The spacing of the bars which comprise the skin reinforcement must
be less than d/6 and 12 in.
In Section 5.13.2.3 of AASHTO LRFD, detailing requirements for deep beams is:
 f y A s  0.12 bv s (3-6)
Where: f y = yield strength of the reinforcement [ksi]
A s = area of shear reinforcement [in.2]
bv = beam width [in.]
s = stirrup spacing [in.]
37
As per the provisions of AASHTO LRFD both horizontal and
vertical reinforcement must be provided along the vertical faces of the
element. The amount of both vertical and horizontal reinforcement must
satisfy Eq. 3-6. Additionally, the spacing must not exceed d/3 or 12 in.
The final detailing provisions in AASHTO LRFD pertain to reinforcement

to control cracks in D-regions (Section 5.6.3.6). This requirement must be
satisfied if STM is used to design the element. The area of this
reinforcement must be at least 0.003 times the gross concrete area in each
direction. Therefore, an orthogonal grid of reinforcement must be provided. For
thick members, such as bent caps, the crack control reinforcement must be
distributed across the cross section with internal stirrup legs.
3.3.3 CSA A23.3-94
The STM procedures in the Canadian Building Code, CSA A23.3, are the
same as those presented in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
All nodal stress limits as well as the MCFT based equation for the strength of a
strut are identical. However, CSA A23.3-94 requires slightly less crack control
reinforcement than the AASHTO LRFD STM provisions. CSA A23.3 requires a
reinforcement ratio of at least 0.002 in each direction.
3.3.4 NZS 3101:1995
The New Zealand Standard for concrete structures contains provisions for
STM in its Appendix. These provisions are the most general of the code
provisions presented. The NZS 3101 does not present any limits on the geometry
of the truss regarding the angle between the strut and tie or regarding the width of
the strut. Only the strength of nodes and ties are specified. The forces within the
ties are limited to the amount of force that can be developed within the steel. If
less than the full development length is provided, then less than the full
yield strength of the tie can be carried. The NZS 3101:1995 efficiencies are listed
in Table 2-1.
38
3.3.5 FIB Recommendations 1999
The FIB model code takes a different approach to the specification of STM
than the ACI 318-05 or AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. The first
major difference is the use of partial safety factors; the second is the classification
of a strut by the amount and direction of anticipated cracking rather than the strut
geometry.
Confinement is accounted for in the efficiency of nodes. There are

three classes of nodes within the fib recommendations: nodes anchoring ties (both
CCT and CTT), nodes in biaxial compression (CCC), and nodes in triaxial
compression. The efficiency factors for those nodes are 0.85, 1.20, and 3.88
respectively.
3.4 Remarks About Code Provisions
Although STM has been implemented in various building codes

throughout the world, there are many details of the process that have yet to
be well-documented. Some aspects of STM are not widely understood, such as the
relationships between STM and strain energy, while other are fundamental
to understanding and applying STM, such as node geometry.
The lack of knowledge regarding the strength of struts and nodes is

evident based on the work presented in this chapter. For a CCC node the specified
efficiency factors are 0.85, 0.85, 0.68, and 0.65 in ACI 318-05, AASHTO LRFD,
fib, and NZS 3101:1995 respectively. The simple nodal efficiency factors that are
specified in current codes do not attempt to include any behavioral models
for determining efficiency factors accurately.
39
Chapter 4
Analysis of Concrete Structure
4.1 Overview
In this chapter for various concrete structures like transfer girder, pile cap,
corbel, dapped end beam STM model is developed and results are compared with
FEM model. After comparing the two results key observations are highlighted.
4.2 Deep Beam (Transfer Girder)

According to ACI section 10.7.1 the beam having clear span to depth (L/h)
ratio 1 to 2.5 can be classified as deep beam. Most typically deep beam occur as
transfer girders, which may be single span or continuous. A transfer girder
supports the load from one or more columns, transferring it laterally to other
columns.
4.2.1 Deep Beam with Single Point Load at Mid Span

Consider simply supported deep beam having 6M span with depth of 2M
and width of 500MM carries concentrated factored load of 3000KN at mid span
i.e. 3M from support.
40
Figure 4.1 Deep beam with single point load
Figure 4.2 FEM model showing Maximum Absolute stress
Figure 4.3 proposed Strut-and-Tie Model
TABLE 4.1
ELEMENT ID. FEM FORCE (KN) STM FORCE TYPE
(KN) (C/T)
E1 2301 3187 C
E3 2301 3187 C
E4 2500 2813 T
41
OBSERVATIONS
 As it can be seen from table 4.1 that FEM forces and STM forces are
moderately matching with STM forces on conservative side.
 As both ends of beam in FEM analysis are made pinned support, then the
beam acts as a tied arch and force at mid span of beam bottom reduces
drastically compared to STM force. To stimulate correct behavior for
bottom cord one of the pinned supports should changed to roller support.
 Strut E1 and E3 are bottle shaped strut and E4 is tie or a tensile member.
 As it can be seen from fig 4.2 max stresses are carried by plates having
blue and green colors and very minor stress are carried by plates having
brown and pink colors.
 In STM plates having brown and pink colors are treated as infill material.
4.2.2 DEEP BEAM WITH TWO POINT LOAD
42
and width of 500MM carries two concentrated factored load of 1600KN each 2M
from respective support.
Figure 4.4 Deep beam with two point load
Figure 4.5 FEM model showing Max Absolute stress

TABLE 4.2
43
(KN) (C/T)
E1 2415 2562 C
E2 1690 2000 C
E3 2415 2562 C
E11 1690 2000 T
OBSERVATIONS
closely matching with STM forces on conservative side for E1 & E3
 Strut E1 and E3 are bottle shape strut where as E2 is prism shape strut. E11
is a tie member or a tension member.
 Get the force in tie member E11 one of the pinned supports has to be
modified into roller support as explained in case of single point load.
 As it can be seen from fig 4.5 max stresses are carried by plates having
blue and green colors and very minor stress are carried by plates having of
brown and pink colors.
 In STM plates having brown and pink colors are treated as infill material.
4.2.3 DEEP BEAM WITH THREE POINT LOAD

44
and width of 500MM carries three concentrated factored load of 1600KN each
0.8M, 2.4M and 5.2M from right hand support respectively.
Figure 4.7 Deep beam with three point load

TABLE 4.3
45
(KN) (C/T)
E10 2620 2684 C
E32 1020 1273 C
E12 710 798 C
E14 710 798 C
E16 2490 2348 C
E20 850 1200 C
E21 1000 1600 C
E22 800 1050 C
E34 1650 2100 T
E18 1230 1600 T
E31 - 900 T
E13 - 600 T
OBSERVATIONS
closely matching with STM forces on conservative side.
 E10, E32, E12, E14, E18 are bottle shape strut where as E20, E21, E22 are
prism shape strut. E33, E34, E18, E19 are main tie member, E31, E13, E15
are secondary tie member for which stirrups are provided.
 In fig 4.09 forces in E12 and E14 is same which can also be observed from
fig 4.08 as color of plats in that region remain more or less uniform.
 Node where E12 and E13 meet is also call as indirect support.
4.2.4 DEEP BEAM WITH UNIFORMALY DISTRIBUTED LOAD

and width of 500MM carries uniformly distributed load of 500 KN per Meter. We
can apply this UDL to plate of 0.4M length as point load of intensity
= 0.4M X 500 KN/M
46
= 200 KN each
Figure 4.10 Deep beam with uniformly distributed load
This problem is solved as per “Region D5” as shown in fig 3.8 uniformly
distributed load is substituted by two point load of intensity 1600 KN each at
distance [(L+a)/4] = 1.5m from support.
47
TABLE 4.4
(KN) (C/T)
E1 1254 2194 C
E2 1150 1500 C
E3 1254 2194 C
E4 950 1500 T
OBSERVATION
 As it can be seen from table 4.4 that there is considerable difference
between FEM force and STM force which is due to fact that in FEM model
minor load from right hand and left hand top corner directly flow into
support.
 E10 is a truss stabilizing member or a zero force member
 As both supports are pinned arch action can be observed from Fig 4.11 of
Maximum Absolute stress.
4.2.5 DEEP BEAM WITH MOMENT
and for induction of moment into our plane stress model in left half we apply 1600
KN load downward and in right half apply 16000 KN upward. Net moment
induction = (1600 X 1) + ( 1600 X 1 ) = 3200 T-M
48
Figure 4.13 Deep beam with eccentric (moment) load
Figure 4.14 FEM model showing stress in x-direction (SX)
TABLE 4.5
(KN) (C/T)
E01 233 808 C
E14 647 1646 C
49
E16 405 915 C
E12 407 571 T
E10 450 715 T
E11 450 715 T
E15 - 1600 T
E17 - 571 T
E18 - 0.0 -
OBSERVATIONS
 As it can be seen from table 4.5 that there is fair difference between FEM
forces and STM forces.
 E1, E14, E16 are bottle shape strut. E10, E11, E12 are main tie member,
E15 are secondary tie member for which stirrups are provided. E18 is truss
stabilizing member.
 As we are considering plane stress problem so to induce moment into deep
beam model force 1600 T is applied in opposite direction at 2 M from each
support due to which net moment 3200 T-M is induced and net force 0 KN
 In fig 4.15 forces in E10, E11 and E12 is tensile in nature which can be
observed in red and pink colors in fig 4.14.
4.2.6 DEEP BEAM WITH OPENING

Consider simply supported deep beam having 3M span with depth of 2.6M
and width of 500MM also having opening of 1.6M X 0.75M carries load of
2000KN and moment of 300KN-M.
50
Figure 4.16 Deep beam with opening
51
Figure 4.18 proposed STM models
TABLE 4.6
(KN) (C/T)
E41 615 650 C
E37 160 182 C
E45 96 137 C
E05 800 760 C
E10 480 492 C
E18 1180 1400 C
E40 820 616 C
E39 605 434 C
E11 435 400 T
E46 510 616 T
E31 400 355 T
E43 - 228 T
E38 - 400 T
OBSERVATIONS
 On a deep beam of vertical downward load of 2000 KN acting which
divided into two loads of 1000 KN each 0.6M apart. For induction of 300
52
KN-M moment two point load of 500 KN each one downward and other
upward applied 0.6 M apart so net moment is
= (0.3 X 500) + (0.3 X 500). = 300 KN-M
Net vertical downward load in left portion = 1000 KN + 500 KN
= 1500 KN
Net vertical downward load in left portion = 1000 KN - 500 KN
= 500 KN
 Just above the opening tension zone gets created which can be observed in
Fig 4.17 with brown color plates.
 Entire bottom zone of deep beam is in tension, which can be seen in Fig
4.17 with pink color plates.
4.2.7 CONTINIOUS DEEP BEAM WITH SINGLE POINT LOAD

Consider simply supported continuous deep beam having 5M span each
with depth of 3M and width of 500MM carries concentrated factored load of
2500KN at mid span i.e. 2.5M from each support.
53
Figure 4.19 Continuous deep beam with single point load
Figure 4.20 FEM model showing SX stress

TABLE 4.7
(KN) (C/T)
E01 1085 1400 C
E02 1350 2070 C
E03 1255 1750 C
54
E04 1255 1750 C
E15 1350 2070 C
E16 1085 1400 C
E05 840 970 T
E06 615 740 T
E07 415 467 T
OBSERVATIONS
 In fig 4.21 members E01, E02, E03, E04, E15, E16 are bottle shaped struts
where as E05, E06, E14 are bottom tie or tension members and E07, E17
are top cord tension members.
 In fig 4.20, bottle shaped strut can be clearly located by plates having
orange color and top and bottom tension members can be located by plates
having red and pink color.
 As it can be observed from fig 4.20 that major load directly flows into
nearest support. Even though it is continuous deep beam minor
redistribution of moment occurs compare to ordinary continuous beam.
4.2.8 CONTINIOUS DEEP BEAM WITH TWO POINT LOAD

Consider simply supported continuous deep beam having 5M span with
depth of 3M and width of 500MM carries two concentrated factored load of
1500KN each 1.75M from left support and 1.5M right support respectively.
55
Figure 4.22 Continuous deep beam with two point load

TABLE 4.8
(KN) (C/T)
E01 1495 1565 C
E68 317 366 C
E03 1865 2340 C
56
E04 1547 1953 C
E76 643 790 C
E77 445 541 C
E72 910 1002 T
E73 740 790 T
E74 415 541 T
E75 415 541 T
E09 519 709 T
E69 - 292 T
OBSERVATION
moderately matched with STM forces on conservative side.
redistribution of moment occurs.
 In fig 4.24 members E01, E03, E04, E08, E79, E81, E68, E69 are bottle
shaped struts, E76, E77, E79 are prism struts where as E02, E75, E90 are
bottom tie or tension members and E09, E70 are top cord tension members.
 In fig 4.23, bottle shaped struts can be clearly located by plates having
orange color and top and bottom tension members can be located by plates
having red and pink color.
 In the proposed strut and tie model E68, E69, E91, E99, E71, E70 carry
minor to very minor load compared to main truss member as they are truss
stabilizing members.
4.2.9 CONTINIOUS DEEP BEAM WITH UDL
Consider four span continuous deep beam each span having 5M length
with depth of 3M and width of 500mm carries uniformly distributed load of 400
KN per Meter. We can apply this UDL to plate of 0.25M length as point load of
intensity = 0.25 X 400 = 100 KN each
57
Figure 4.25 Continuous deep beam with UDL

TABLE 4.9
(KN) (C/T)
E01 938 1469 C
E68 - 370 C
E03 985 2023 C
E04 805 1746 C
E76 403 467 C
58
E77 403 326 C
E72 425 751 T
E73 415 467 T
E74 155 326 T
E75 155 326 T
E09 195 566 T
E69 - 238 T
OBSERVATION
 As it can be seen from table 4.9 that there is considerable difference
between FEM force and STM force which is due to fact that FEM model is
subjected to uniformly distributed load so that minor load flows directly to
support.
redistribution of moment occur.
 In the proposed strut and tie model E68, E69, E91, E99, E71, E70 carry
minor to very minor load compared to main truss member as they are truss
stabilizing member.
4.2.10 POINT LOAD ON OVERHANG

Consider deep beam having cantilever span of 2M with depth of 2M and
width of 500MM applied by point load of 1600 KN.
59
Figure 4.28 Deep beam with overhang
(a)
(b) SX (c) SY
Figure 4.29 FEM model showing Max Absolute stress, SX, SY respectively
60
TABLE 4.10
(KN) (C/T)
E3 1560 2400 C
E4 - 2020 C
E1 1400 1875 T
E2 600 750 T
OBSERVATION
moderately matched with STM forces on conservative side.
 As it can be seen from fig 4.30 that member E3, E4 are bottle shaped struts
and E1, E2 are tie members for which main reinforcement is to be
provided.
 In fig 4.29(a) we can observe strut E3 in the right hand side of deep beam
in deep blue color plates. In fig 4.29(b) we can observe tie member E1 with
plates having red and pink color. In fig 4.29(c) we observe tie member E2
with plates having yellow color.
4.3 PILE CAP

A pile cap transmits the column load to a series of piles, which in turn,
61
transmit the load to a strong soil layer at some depth below the surface. Pile cap is
a special case of a “deep beam” & can be idealized as a three-dimensional strut-
and-tie model
4.3.1 TWO PILES SUPPORTING PILE CAP
Consider two piles of diameter 650 mm on which pile cap of depth
1250mm have been supported (Fig. 4.3.1) on top of that column 1000mm been
rested carrying axial load of 9000 KN.
Figure 4.31 Two pile cap supporting a pile cap
For STM approach we consider column load of 9000 KN to be split into two equal
parts. The effective depth of truss is assumed to be 1.035 m. The forces can be
estimated by resolving truss member forces as shown in fig 4.32.

Now consider bending moment of 2250 KN-M and axial load of 9000 KN
62
applied at the top of the pile cap. As in the previous case we divide axial load into
two half of 4500 KN each. For induction of moment into our plane stress model in
left half we apply 4500 KN load downward and in right half apply 4500 KN
upward. When we superimpose these two cases in left hand portion net load is
9000 KN and in right hand portion net load is 0 KN.
Figure 4.33 proposed Strut-and-Tie Model for a axial load and moment on pile cap
Both the problem can be solved as per 4.2.2 & 4.2.1 respectively.
Columns are also subjected to lateral load resulting in bending moment

in piles. The strut and tie model gets bit more complicated in such situations. Often
bending moment are quite small when compared with axial load due to which piles
act as compression piles where nominal reinforcement (shrinkage/temperature
reinforcement) is adequate to take care of these bending moments.
For pull-out pile consider column subjected to axial force 2000 KN and bending
moment of 4000 KN-M.
63
Figure 4.34 pile cap subjected to heavy lateral load
On left hand portion downward load of 3766 KN is applied at 860 MM from

support and in right hand portion upward load of 1766 KN is applied at 600 MM
from support due to which moment of
= (3766 X (1500 – 860)) + (1766 X (1500 – 600))
= 4000 KN-M
Total axial load = 3766 KN – 1766 KN
= 2000 KN
This problem can be solved as per 4.2.5
4.3.2 FOUR PILES SUPPORTING PILE CAP

Consider a four-pile group supporting a column load of 18000 KN. Let us
64
assume a column size of 1200 MM and divide the load into four equal parts. Depth
of the pile is assumed to be 1250 MM and effective depth is assumed to be 1035
MM as it can be seen from fig 4.32
As it can be seen from fig 4.36 that axial load of 18000 KN is divided into four
equal parts of 4500 KN each. Diagonal length from pile no 4 to corner of load
square is 1.344 so Angle θ = cot (1.035/1.344)
= 37.6°
Compressive force in each strut = 4500 / sin 37.6

= 7375 KN
Tensile force in each tie = (4500 / tan 37.6) cos 45
= 4132 KN
As in case of two pile cap moment can be replaced with set of axial loads.
Consider a bending moment of 5400 KN-M in one direction in addition to vertical
65
load of 18000 KN. For induction of moment, we apply a downward load of 4500
KN in left half and an upward load of 4500 KN in right half. When we
superimpose these two cases such that the net load in the left hand portion is 9000
KN and the net load in right hand portion is 0 KN.
Diagonal length from pile no 4 to corner of load square is 1.344

So Angle θ = cot (1.035/1.344)
= 37.6°

So Angle θ = cot (1.035/1.818)
= 29.65°
Compressive force in strut = 5580 / sin 37.6

= 9145 KN
Tensile force in tie = (5580 / tan 37.6) cos 45
= 5123 KN
Consider biaxial moment of 5400 KN-M with axial load of 18000 KN. For
induction of moment about X-axis apply 9000 KN upward in bottom half and
66
9000 KN in top half. So total downward load at top left hand will be 180000 KN.

So Angle θ = cot (1.035/2.192)
= 25.27°

So Angle θ = cot (0.95/1.55)
= 58.5°
Compressive force in strut = 2340 / sin 25.27

= 5480 KN
Tensile force in tie = (2340 / tan 25.27) cos 45
= 3505 KN
Truss stabilizing member from pile 2-4 is added which carry moderate tension of
885 KN for which reinforcement in plan will be provided.
Consider a column carrying axial load of 2000 KN and ant-clockwise moment of
9000 KN-M supported by four pile group.
67
Figure 4.39 pile cap subjected to heavy lateral load
Axial load of 2000 KN is sub-divided in four equal part of 500 KN each. For
inducing anti-clockwise moment of 9000 KN-M downward force of 7500 KN is
applied in left portion and 7500 KN upward force is applied in right portion. Net
load is applied by superimposing above two load cases which is 8000 KN
downward force in left portion and upward load of 7000 KN in right portion.
Axial load calculations
= 500 KN + 7500 KN
8000 KN (left portion downward)
= 500 KN – 7500 KN
-7000 KN (right portion upward)
Total Axial load calculations
= [(8000 X 2) + (-7000 X 2)]
= 2000 KN
Anti-clockwise moment calculations
= [(8000 X 0.3) + (7000 X 0.3)] X 2
9000 KN-M (anti-clockwise)
68
(a) Proposed 3-D strut-and-tie model
(b) Proposed 2-D strut-and-tie model through pile 4-3
(c) 2-D model through pile 1-4 (d) 2-D model through pile 2-3
Figure 4.40 Proposed strut-and-tie models
69
4.4 CORBEL
A bracket or corbel is a short member that cantilevers out from column or
wall to support a load. The corbel is generally built monolithically with the column
or wall. The term “corbel” is generally restricted to cantilevers having shear span-
to depth ration less than or equal to 1
4.4.1 SINGLE CORBEL

Consider a single corbel projecting from a 500MM X 700MM column
supporting precast beam reaction 0.4M from the face of the column. The factored
vertical load due to beam reaction is 1000KN.
Figure 4.41 Single corbel subjected to Figure 4.41 Proposed strut-and-tie

vertical load model
70
(a) (b)
Fig 4.42 FEM model showing (a)Max Absolute stress & (b) stress SY
Table 4.11
(KN) (C/T)
E01 900 1214 C
E03 400 1403 C
E05 150 - C
E06 2000 2222 C
E02 480 690 T
E04 870 1222 T
E07 1150 1222 T
OBSERVATION
71
moderately matching. For majority of members STM forces are on
conservative side.
 Shear span to depth ratio of given cantilever is 0.8 (0.4/0.5) which is less
then 1 so it can be classified as corbel.
 As it can be seen from Fig 4.42 (b) that red and orange color on right hand
bottom corner indicate tension member E7.
 Compression member E6 is indicated by brown and light blue color in left
hand bottom corner of Fig. 4.42(b)
 E5, E8 are zero force members, which are truss stabilizing members.
4.4.2 DOUBLE CORBEL

Consider a double corbel projecting from a 0.5M X 1M column supporting
precast beam with factored reaction of 1000KN at 0.4M from the face of the
72
column. On the upper part of column carries factored load of 3000 KN.
Figure 4.44 Double corbel subjected to vertical load
Fig 4.45 & Fig 4.46 FEM model showing SX stress & proposed STM
Table 4.12
(KN) (C/T)
73
E04 1200 1265 C
E07 4000 4000 C
E11 2850 3000 C
E12 3000 3000 C
E06 0743 0775 C
E01 0512 0775 T
E02 0912 0775 T
OBSERVATION
 As it can be observed from fig 4.45 that tension is indicated by orange, red
and yellow color, which is indicated by E1, E2, and E3 in fig 4.46.
 Member E6 is indicated by light blue color in fig 4.45
 In proposed strut and tie model E13, E14 carry minor to very minor load
compared to main truss members as they are truss stabilizing members.
4.5 DAPPED-BEAM END

The ends of precast beams sometimes supported on an end
projection that is reduced in height, such a detail is referred to as
a dapped end.
74
Consider dapped-beam end, which is to be designed to
transmit a factored vertical load of 140KN. The beam is having
span of 2.1M and depth of 0.75M with a width of 500 MM.
Figure 4.47 Dapped-beam end subjected to vertical load
75
Table 4.13
(KN) (C/T)
E02 096 091 C
E06 037 024 C
E16 083 085 C
E11 098 093 C
E12 098 136 C
E14 035 050 C
E04 046 106 T
E05 018 058 T
E08 048 085 T
E15 075 125 T
OBSERVATION
moderately matching with STM forces on conservative side apart from
tension members E04, E05, E08, E15.
76
 To develop proposed STM model only D-region is considered which depth
plus length of dapped beam end which is 0.950 M and truss acted upon by
support reaction of 70T.
 Most of the compressive member forces converge with FEM forces but
tension member forces show disparities with FEM forces but as one of the
pinned supports is modified into roller support disparities minimizes.
Chapter 5
Design Examples by STM
77
5.1 Overview
In this chapter concrete design examples on the single and continuous deep
beam, corbel and dapped end beam have been solved with reinforcement layout
using strut-and-tie models conforming to Appendix A of ACI 318-2002.
5.2 Example 1
Consider a simply supported deep beam having 6M span with depth of 2M
and width of 500MM carries concentrated factored load of 3000KN at mid span
i.e. 3M from support.
f c = 30 N/mm², f y = 415 N/mm², All bearing plates are 450mm x 500 mm
Figure 5.1 Deep beam with single point load

(i) Check Bearing Capacity at loading and support locations:
The nodal zone beneath the loading locations is an all-
compression (CCC) node. The effective compressive strength of
this node is limited to
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 1 X 30 = 25.5 N/mm²

The bearing capacity is
 f cu = 0.75(25.5) = 19.125 N/mm²
The nodal zone over the support locations is compression-tension (CCT) node.
The effective compressive strength of this node is limited to
f cu = 0.85  n f c
78
= 0.85 X 0.80 X 30 = 20.4 N/mm²
 f cu = 0.75(20.4) = 15.3 N/mm²
The area of bearing plate = 450 mm x 500 mm

= 225000 mm²
The bearing stresses at points of loading are = 3000000 / 225000
= 13.33 N/mm² < 19.125 N/mm²
The bearing stresses at points of support are = 1500000 / 225000
= 6.67 N/mm² < 15.3 N/mm²
(ii) Select the strut-and-tie model and determine required truss forces:
Figure 5.2 Strut-and-Tie Model

Assume d = 2M – (2 X 0.2M) = 1.6M
tan α = (1.6M / 3M)
α = 28.07 degrees
Solving the truss we can get forces in member E1, E3, E4

E1 X Sin 28.07 = 1500 KN
E1 = E3 = 3187 KN (Compression)
E1 X Cos 28.07 = E4
E4 = 2813 KN (Tension)
To find the width of Tie E4

It is a CCT node so bearing capacity as cal. previously = 15.3 N/mm²
= (2813 X 1000) / (15.3 X 500)
79
= 367.71 MM Assume 400 MM
The effective compressive strength of bottle-shape strut E1 & E3
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.75 X 30 = 19.125 N/mm²

To find the width of strut E1 & E3
Figure 5.3 Geometry and dimensions of node at support.

Width of strut = 400 Cos (28.07) + 450 Sin (28.07)
= 565 MM
Now check the strut capacity
=  f cu X width of strut X width of member
= 0.75 X 19.125 X 565 X 500
= 4052 KN > 3187 KN
(iii) Select Reinforcement:

Tie E4:  As f y  E4
As  (2813 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 9045 mm²
Consider 3 layers of 4 bars each of Φ 32 = (12 X 804 mm²)
= 9648 mm²
For design the nodal zones and check the anchorages

The 90° standard hooks is used to anchor tie E4. The required anchorage length is
80
0.02 f y d b
Ld = 
fc
required Ast
Where  = represent the correction factor for excess of reinf.
provided Ast
d b = Dia. of bars used. (inch)
fy = Steel bar yield strength (psi)

f c = concrete compressive strength (psi)
Ld = [(9045/9648) X (0.02 X 60000 X 1.28/ 4000 )] = 22.8 in.
(570mm)
Figure 5.4 anchorage length of node at support

The available anchorage length = La = L1 + L2 – cover
Where L2 = 200 / (tan 28.07) = 375 MM
L1 = 450 MM (bearing plate)
Cover = 40 MM
So available anchorage length = 785 mm > 570 mm
Calculate the minimum reinforcement required for crack control

Vertical web reinforcement provided must be at least, ACI 11.5.5
Av  0.0025 X b X s1
And horizontal web reinforcement provided must be at least, ACI 11.5.5

Avh  0.0025 X b X s2
Where s1 and s2 cannot exceed d/5 or 12 in (304.8 mm)
81
For vertical web reinforcement, use 2L Φ16 mm @ 300 mm on each face over
entire length, Av / b s1 = 2(201.062)/(500X300) = 0.0027 > 0.0025
For horizontal web reinforcement, use Φ12 mm @ 300 mm on each face over entire
length, Avh / b s2 = 2(113.097)/ (500X300) = 0.0016 > 0.0015
Because  n equal to 0.75 is used to calculate the strength of strut E1, minimum
reinforcement provided must also satisfy.
A
 b s sin = 0.0016 sin 28.07 + 0.0027 sin 61.97 = 0.0032  0.003 ok
Where  = is the angle between the axis of minimum reinforcement and the
axis of strut. As in fig 3.16
Figure 5.5 Reinforcement detail
5.3 Example 2
and width of 500MM carries two concentrated factored load of 1600KN each 2M
82
from support.
Figure 5.6 Deep beam with two point load

f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 1 X 30 = 25.5 N/mm²

 f cu = 0.75(25.5) = 19.125 N/mm²
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.80 X 30 = 20.4 N/mm²

 f cu = 0.75(20.4) = 15.3 N/mm²
The area of bearing plate = 450 MM x 500 MM

= 225000 MM²
= 7.111 N/mm² < 19.125 N/mm²
= 7.111 N/mm² < 15.3 N/mm²
83

Assume d = 2M – (2 X 0.2M) = 1.6M
Tan α = (1.6M / 2M)
α = 38.66 degrees
Solving the truss we can get forces in member E1, E3, E2,E11
E1 X Sin 38.66 = 1600 KN
E1 = E3 = 2562 KN (Compression)
E1 X Cos 38.66 = E11
E2 (compression) = E11 = 2000 KN (Tension)

= (2000 X 1000) / (15.3 X 500)
= 262 MM Assume 400 MM
The effective compressive strength of bottle-shape strut E1 & E3
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.75 X 30 = 19.125 N/mm²

To find the width of strut E1 & E3
84
= 594 MM
= 0.75 X 19.125 X 594 X 500
= 4260 KN > 2562 KN
The effective compressive strength of prism strut E2

Strut capacity of E2 =  (0.85  n f c ) X width of strut X width of
member
= 0.75 (0.85 X 1 X 30) X 400 X 500
= 3825 KN > 2000 KN

Tie E4:  As f y  E11
As  (2000 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 6426 mm²
Consider 2 layers of 4 bars each of Φ 32 = (08 X 804 mm²)
= 6432 mm²
0.02 f y d b
Ld = 
fc
85
required Ast
provided Ast
d b = Dia. of bars used. (Inch)

Ld = [(6426/6432) X (0.02 X 60000 X 1.28/ 4000 )] = 24.3 in.
(608mm)

Where L2 = 200 / (tan 38.66) = 250 MM
Cover = 40 MM
So available anchorage length = 660 mm > 608 mm

Av  0.0025 X b X s1

Avh  0.0025 X b X s2
86
length, Avh / b s2 = 2(113.097)/ (500X300) = 0.0016 > 0.0015
A
 b s sin = 0.0016 sin 38.66 + 0.0027 sin 51.34 = 0.0031  0.003 ok
87
5.4 Example 3
Consider simply supported continuous deep beam having 5M span with
depth of 3M and width of 500MM carries two concentrated factored load of
1500KN each 1.75M from left support and 1.5M right support respectively.
Figure 5.11 Continuous deep beam with two point load

f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 1 X 30 = 25.5 N/mm²

 f cu = 0.75(25.5) = 19.125 N/mm²
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.80 X 30 = 20.4 N/mm²

 f cu = 0.75(20.4) = 15.3 N/mm²

= 225000 MM²
88
= 6.67 N/mm² < 19.125 N/mm²
= 13.83 N/mm² < 15.3 N/mm²

Assume d = 3M – (2 X 0.2M) = 2.6M
Tan α = (2.6M / 1.75M)
α = 56.06 degrees
Solve the truss by getting support reactions we can get forces in member E1, E3,
E4,E74,E3,E72,E73,E74,E75
Max force in bottle shape strut = E03 = 2289 KN
Max force in prism shape strut = E76 = 731 KN
Max force in bottom tie = E72 = 962 KN
Max force in top tie = E09 = 594 KN
= (970 X 1000) / (15.3 X 500)
The effective compressive strength of bottle-shape strut E3
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.75 X 30 = 19.125 N/mm²
To find the width of strut E3
89
= 705 MM
= 0.75 X 19.125 X 705 X 500
= 5056 KN > 2290 KN

member
= 0.75 (0.85 X 1 X 30) X 400 X 500
= 3825 KN > 731 KN

Tie E72:  As f y  E72
As  (962 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 3100 mm²
Consider 1 layers of 4 bars of Φ 32 = (04 X 804 mm²)
= 3210 mm² > 3100 mm²
Tie E09:  As f y  E09
As  (594 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 1910 mm²
Consider 2 bars of Φ 32 and 1 bar of Φ 25 = (04 X 804 mm²) + (01 x 490 mm²)
= 2098 mm² > 1910 mm²
90
0.02 f y d b
Ld = 
fc
required Ast
provided Ast

Ld = [(3100/3210) X (0.02 X 60000 X 1.28/ 4000 )] = 23.5 in. (588mm)

Where L2 = 200 / (tan 56.06) = 135 MM
Cover = 40 MM
So available anchorage length = 545 mm < 588 mm
Although available anchorage length is less then required 90 degree hooks are
used for anchorage length
91
Av  0.0025 X b X s1

Avh  0.0025 X b X s2
length, Avh / b s2 = 2(113.097)/ (500X300) = 0.0016 > 0.0015
A
 b s sin = 0.0016 sin 56.06 + 0.0027 sin 56.06 = 0.0035  0.003 ok
5.5 Example 4
Consider a single corbel projecting from a 500MM X 700MM column
92
supporting precast beam force 0.4M from the face of the column. The factored
vertical load due to beam reaction is 1000KN.
Figure 5.16 Single corbel subjected to vertical load

The nodal zone over the loading locations is compression-tension (CCT) node.
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.80 X 30 = 20.4 N/mm²

 f cu = 0.75(20.4) = 15.3 N/mm²

= 225000 MM²
= 4.45 N/mm² < 15.3 N/mm²
Choose the corbel dimensions:
93
Choose an overall corbel depth at column face of 900 mm. The ACI Code
requires that the depth at the outside of the bearing area is at least one-half of the
depth at the column face. Therefore, select a depth of 500 mm at the free end of
the corbel. Figure 5.16 summarizes the selected dimensions for the corbel.

E2, E7 are assumed to located 100MM from there respective boundaries.
E6 is assumed to located 150 MM from left face
Angle of inclination of E1 with horizontal axis = Tan α = (0.8M / 0.55M)
α = 55.50 degrees
Solving the truss we get forces in member

Force in bottle shape strut = E01 = 1215 KN
Max force in right face tie = E07 = 1222 KN

94
= (625 X 1000) / (15.3 X 500)

f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.75 X 30 = 19.125 N/mm²

= 484 MM
= 0.75 X 19.125 X 484 X 500
= 3470 KN > 1215 KN

member
= 0.75 (0.85 X 1 X 30) X 300 X 500
= 2868 KN > 2222 KN
95
Tie E02:  As f y  E02
As  (690 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 2220 mm²
Consider 2 bars of Φ 32 and 2 bars of Φ 25 = (04 X 804 mm²) + (02 X 490 mm²)
= 2588 mm² > 2200 mm²
Tie E07:
As it can be seen, tie E07 has a larger tension than tie E02 However, this tie force
should be resisted by column longitudinal reinforcement. Therefore, continue the
2 bars of Φ 32 and 2 bars of Φ 25 mm bars down the column just to have a
sufficient development length

Av  0.0025 X b X s1

Avh  0.0025 X b X s2

In addition, the code requires closed stirrups or ties parallel to the reinforcement
required for tie E02 to be uniformly distributed with 2/3 of the effective depth
adjacent to tieE02, i.e. 2/3 (800) = 533.33 mm; use 540 mm. Area of these ties
must exceed 0.5 As = 0.5 (2200) = 1100 mm²
Use Φ 16 stirrups with spacing of 540/3 = 180 mm
Provided steel = 2(3)(201) = 1206 mm² > 1100 mm²
For vertical web reinforcement, use Φ16 mm @ 300 mm on each face over entire
Av / b s1 = 2(201.062)/(500X300) = 0.0027 > 0.0025
For horizontal web reinforcement, use 2L Φ16 mm @ 180 mm on each face over
length, Avh / b s2 = 2(201.062)/ (500X180) = 0.0045 > 0.0015
reinforcement provided must alqso satisfy.
96
A
 b s sin = 0.0027 sin 55.50 + 0.0045 sin 55.50 = 0.0059  0.003 ok

5.6 Example 5
Consider a double corbel projecting from a 0.5M X 1M column supporting
precast beam with factored reaction of 1000KN at 0.4M from the face of the
97
column. On the upper part of column carries factored load of 3000 KN.
Figure 5.20 Double corbel subjected to vertical load

The nodal zone over the loading locations is compression-tension (CCT) node.
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.80 X 30 = 20.4 N/mm²

 f cu = 0.75(20.4) = 15.3 N/mm²

= 225000 MM²
= 4.45 N/mm² < 15.3 N/mm²
Choose the corbel dimensions:
Choose an overall corbel depth at column face of 900 mm. The ACI Code
requires that the depth at the outside of the bearing area is at least one-half of the
98
depth at the column face. Therefore, select a depth of 500 mm at the free end of
the corbel. Figure 5.20 summarizes the selected dimensions for the corbel.

E1 is assumed to located 100MM from top of corbel.
E7 is assumed to located 210 MM from left face
α = 52.67 degrees

Force in bottle shape strut = E04 = 1266 KN

= (775 X 1000) / (15.3 X 500)
99

f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.75 X 30 = 19.125 N/mm²

= 480 MM
= 0.75 X 19.125 X 480 X 500
= 3443 KN > 1266 KN

member
= 0.75 (0.85 X 1 X 30) X 420 X 500
= 4016 KN > 4000 KN
100
Tie E02:  As f y  E01
As  (775 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 2490 mm²
Consider 2 bars of Φ 32 and 2 bars of Φ 25 = (04 X 804 mm²) + (02 X 490 mm²)
= 2588 mm² > 2490 mm²

Av  0.0025 X b X s1

Avh  0.0025 X b X s2

In addition, the code requires closed stirrups or ties parallel to the reinforcement
required for tie E02 to be uniformly distributed with 2/3 of the effective depth
adjacent to tieE02, i.e. 2/3 (800) = 533.33 mm; use 540 mm. Area of these ties
must exceed 0.5 As = 0.5 (2490) = 1245 mm²
Use Φ 20 stirrups with spacing of 540/3 = 180 mm
Provided steel = 2(3)(314) = 1884 mm² > 1245 mm²
For vertical web reinforcement, use Φ16 mm @ 300 mm on each face over entire
Length, Av / b s1 = 2(201.062)/(500X300) = 0.0027 > 0.0025
For horizontal web reinforcement, use 2L Φ20 mm @ 180 mm on each face over
length, Avh / b s2 = 2(314.16)/ (500X180) = 0.0070 > 0.0015
A
 b s sin = 0.0027 sin 52.67 + 0.0070 sin 52.67 = 0.0077  0.003 ok
101
Elevation view
102
5.7 Example 6
Consider dapped-beam end which is to be designed to transmit a
factored vertical load of 140KN. The beam is having span of 2.1M
and depth of 0.75M with a width of 500 MM.
Figure 5.24 Dapped-beam end subjected to vertical load

f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 1 X 30 = 25.5 N/mm²

 f cu = 0.75(25.5) = 19.125 N/mm²
f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.80 X 30 = 20.4 N/mm²

 f cu = 0.75(20.4) = 15.3 N/mm²

= 75000 MM²
= 1.87N/mm² < 19.125 N/mm²
103
= 0.94 N/mm² < 15.3 N/mm²
D region is assumed to be member depth plus the extended part i.e.
(750MM + 200MM) = 950 MM
E6, E8 is assumed to located 75MM from top and bottom of beam.

E4 is assumed to located 150 MM from face of beam.
E7 is assumed to located 500 MM from face of beam
α = 50.2 degrees

Max Force in bottle shape strut = E12 = 136 KN
Force in tie = E04 = 106 KN
Force in bottom tie = E08 = 85 KN
104
= (775 X 1000) / (15.3 X 500)

f cu = 0.85  n f c
= 0.85 X 0.75 X 30 = 19.125 N/mm²

Width of strut E2= E12 = 100 Cos (50.2) + 150 Sin (50.2)
= 179 MM
= 0.75 X 19.125 X 179 X 500
= 1283 KN > 136 KN

member
= 0.75 (0.85 X 1 X 30) X 150 X 500
= 1434 KN > 24 KN
105
Tie E08:  As f y  E08
As  (85 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 275 mm²
Consider 3 bars of Φ 16 = (03 X 201 mm²)
= 603 mm² > 275 mm²
Tie E05: As  (58 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 190 mm²
Consider 2 bars of Φ 16 = (02 X 201 mm²)
= 402 mm² > 275 mm²
Tie E04: As  (106 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 341 mm²
Consider 2L of Φ 16 at 100 c-c = (02 X 201 mm²)
= 402 mm² > 341 mm²
Tie E07: As  (70 X 1000) / (0.75 X 415)
= 225 mm²
Consider 2L of Φ 16 at 150 c-c = (02 X 201 mm²)
= 402 mm² > 225 mm²

0.02 f y d b
Ld = 
fc
required Ast
provided Ast
f y = Steel bar yield strength (psi)
Ld = [(1) X (0.02 X 60000 X 0.64/ 4000 )] = 12.2 in. (305mm)
106
107
Chapter 6
Summary and Conclusions
6.1 Summary
In the present work The Strut and Tie method of analysis which is
increasingly used in developed nations investigated and compared with the Finite
Element Analysis. The analysis of different types of concrete structures is carried
out using the hand calculation method such as strut-and-tie method (STM) and
modern computer oriented Finite Element Analysis (FEA) package.
Detailed explanation of concepts of the STM is presented. A complete

section has been dedicated for STM in various standards with the intention of
increased awareness amongst various designing principles. A comparative study
has been made amongst the two methods, with an intention of ascertaining ease of
use keeping in mind safety considerations. Numerical examples have been solved
using the Strut and tie method as well as the Finite Element method while for
design purpose Strut and tie method and ACI 318-2002 code is used
6.2 Conclusions
The work conducted for this study shows that strut and tie model has come
of ages. This method is getting rapidly popular which is evident with presence in
many worldwide codes like (ACI 318-05, AASHTO LRFD Bridger Design
Specifications, CSA A23.3-94, NZS 3101:1995, and fib recommendations
1999).
Results of strut and tie method converges more or less with finite element
method results. Analysis and design using the strut-and-tie model were performed
in an efficient and straight forward manner. The reinforced concrete structure is
considered as a new material, not to separate the concrete and steel contribution.
The strut-and-tie method provides a framework to understand and assess the flow
108
of forces and the resisting mechanism. Also, it is a valuable tool for achieving
proper detailing of ductile concrete members.
Since the strut-and-tie model is developed to take into consideration theory

of plasticity it will ensure the safety and strength of structure to support the load.
The development of strut-and-tie method is more logical as evident in simple
truss analysis because every element can then be designed by dimensioning the
strut-and-tie model based on the lower bound theorem of plasticity. The forces in
members can be easily determined using the static equilibrium. In strut-and-tie
model, the formulation of the truss based on observed failure pattern and stress
distribution is more closely representing the actual structure which can observed
from FEM stress pattern.
6.3 Future Scope

 In the present work for analysis & design purpose 2-D truss model is
used in STM method & plate element is considered in FEM method.
Extensive work can be done considering 3-D truss model for STM
analysis & solid element for FEM analysis.
 In present work for design purpose only ACI 318-2002 code is used.
Design may also be carried out using other codes like AASHTO LRFD
Bridger Design Specifications, CSA A23.3-94, NZS 3101:1995, etc.
 In present work examples of deep beep, corbel, dapped end beam is solved.
Examples of different D-regions like bridge deck, prestress beam, cap
beam, column on basement wall, etc. can be consider for analysis and
design purpose.
109
Appendix A
Shade Card for Reading FEM Diagram
(a) (b) (c)
(a) = Shade Card for Maximum Absolute stress

(b) = Shade Card for SX stress (Stress on X plane)
(c) = Shade Card for SY stress (Stress on Y plane)
110
REFERENCES
 “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd ed.,” 1998, American

Association of State Highway and Transportation.
 ACI 318-2002, Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary, Appendix A, Strut-
and-Tie Models. American Concrete Institute.
 Adebar, P., Kuchma, D., and Collins, M.P., 1990, “Strut-and-Tie Models
for the Design of Pile Caps: An Experimental Study,” ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 87, No. 1, pg. 81-92.
 Adebar, P. and Zhou, Z., 1996, “Design of Deep Pile Caps by Strut-and-
Tie Models,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 4, pg. 437-448.
 Ashour, A.F., and Rishi, G., 2000, “Tests of Reinforced Concrete
Continuous Deep Beams with Web Openings,” ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 418-426
 Barton, D.L., 1988, “Detailing of Structural Concrete Dapped End
Beams,” Master’s Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
 Bouadi, A., 1989, “Behavior of CCT Nodes in Structural Concrete Strutand-
Tied Models,” Master’s Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
 CSA Standard CAN3-A23.3-94, 1994, “Design of Concrete Structures for
Buildings with Explanatory Notes,” Canadian Standards Association,
Rexdale, Ontario.
 Chen, B.S., Hagenberger, M.J., and Breen, J.E., 2002, “Evaluation of
Strut-and-Tie Modeling Approach to Dapped Beam with Opening” ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 445-450.
 Federation Internationale du Beton (FIB), Lausanna, Switzerland.
“Structural Concrete: The Textbook on Behavior, Design, and Performance -
Volume 2: Basis of Design,” 1999,
 Guyon, Y., 1953, Prestressed Concrete, Contractor’s Record LTD,
London, England, 543 pp.
111
 Hement S. Vadalkar, 2003 “ Review of pile Analysis by different
Analytical models”
 Hong, S, 2000, “Strut-and-Tie Models for Failure Mechanisms for Bar
Development in Tension-Tension-Compression Nodal Zone,” ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 111-122
 Jorg Schlaich and Kurt Schafer,1993 “The Design of Structural Concrete”
IABSE Workshop New Delhi 1993
 Kiang Hwee Tan,2004 “Design of Non-Prismatic RC Beams using Strut-
and-Tie Models” journal of advance concrete technology Vol. 2 NO. 2
249-256,
 Kotsovos, M.D., and Pavlovic, M.N., 2003, “Size effects in beams with
small shear span-to-depth ratios,” Computers and Structures.
 Lampert, P. and Thürlimann, B., 1971, “Ultimate Strength and Design of
Reinforced Concrete Beams in Torsion and Bending,” IASBE
Publications, No. 31-1, pg. 107-131, Zurich, Switzerland.
 Lüchinger, P., 1977, “Bruchwiderstand von Kastenträgern aus Stahlbeton
unter Torsion, Biegung, und Querkraft (Ultimate Strength of Box-Griders
in Reinforced Concrete under Torsion, Bending, and Shear),” Institut für
Baustatik und Konstruktion-ETH, Zurich, Switzerland, Bericht Nr. 69.
 MacGregor, J.G. and Wight, J.K., 2005, “Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics
and Design (4th Edition),” Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
 Marti, P., 1985, “Truss Models in Detailing,” Concrete International, Vol.
7, No. 12, pg. 66-73, Detroit, Michigan.
 Marti, P. 1986, “Staggered Shear Design of Simply Supported Concrete
beams,” ACI Journal, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 36-41.
 Matamoros, Adolfo B. and Wong, Kuok Hong, (2003), Design of Simply
Supported Deep Beams Using Strut-and-Tie Models, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol.100 No.6, pp 704-712
 Michael Douglas Brown,2003 “Design for shear in Reinforced concrete
using strut-and-tie and sectional models” Graduate School of The
112
University of Texas at Austin
 Mitchell, D., and Collins, M.P., 1974, “Diagonal Compression Field
Theory – A Rational Model for Structural Concrete in Pure Torsion,” ACI
Journal, Vol. 71, No. 8, pp. 396-408.
 Mitchell, D., Collins, M.P., Bhide, S.B., and Rabbat, B.G., 2004,
“AASHTO LRFD Strut-and-Tie Model Design Examples,” portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
 Mrsch, E., 1902, “Der Eisenbetonbau, seine Theorie und Anwendung
(Reinforced Concrete, Theory and Application),” Stuggart, Germany.
 Mörsch, E., 1924, “Über die Berechnung der Gelenkquader,” Beton-und
Eisen, No. 12, pg. 156-161, Stuttgart, Germany.
 Neven Kostic,2006 “computer –based development of stress fields” 6th
international PhD Symposium in civil Engineering Zurich
 Ning Zhang, Kang-Hai Tan,2003 “Direct strut-and-tie model for single
span and continuous deep beam” school of civil and Environmental
engineering,Nanyang Technological university, Singapore.
 NZA 3103:1995, 1995, “Concrete Structures Standard,” Standards New
Zealand.
 Ramirez, J. and Breen, J.E., 1983, “Proposed Design Procedures for Shear
and Torsion in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete,” Center for
Transportation Research Report No. 248-4F, Austin, Texas.
 Reineck, K. (editor), 2002, “Examples for the design of structural concrete
with strut-and-tie models (SP208),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
 Richart, F., 1927, “An Investigation of Web Stresses in Reinforced
Concrete Beams,” University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,
Bulletin No. 166, Urbana, Illinois
 Ritter, W., 1899, “Die Bauweise Hennebique (The Hennebique System),”
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Bd. XXXIII, No. 7, Zurich, Switzerland.
 Sankovich, C.L., 2003, “An Explanation of the Behavior of Bottle-Shaped
Struts Using Stress Fields,” Master’s Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
113
 Schlaich, J., and Schäfer, K.,1991 ,“Design and detailing of structural
concrete using strut-and-tie models,” The Structural Engineer, Vol. 69,
No. 6, pp. 113-120.
 Siao, W.B., 1993, “Strut-and-Tie Model for Shear Behavior in Deep
Beams and Pile Caps Failing in Diagonal Splitting,” ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 356-363.
 K.H.Tan and G.H.Cheng,2006 “Size Effect on shear strength of deep
beams: Investigating with strut-and-tie Model” 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2006)132:5(673)
 Talbot, A., 1909, “Tests of Reinforced Concrete Beams: Resistance to
Web Stresses, Series of 1907 and 1908,” University of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 29, Urbana, Illinois.
 Thompson, M.K., 2002, “The Anchorage Behavior of Headed
Reinforcement in CCT Nodes and Lap Splices,” Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin
 Tjhin, Tjen N. and Kuchma, Daniel A., (2002), Computer-Based Tools for
Design by Strut-and-Tie Method: Advances and Challenges, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 99 No.5, pp 586-594.
 Uribe, C. M., and Alcocer, S. M., 2001, “Behavior of Deep Beams Designed
with Strut-and-Tie Models,” Centro Nacional de Prevención de Disastres,
247 pp. (In Spanish)
 Young, M.J., 2000, “Performance of Headed Reinforcing Bars in CCT
Nodal Regions,” Master’s Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
 Young Mook, 2006 “strength of two-dimensional nodal zones in strut-tie
models” 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:11(1764)
 Yun, Y.M., and Ramirez, J.A, 1996, “Strength of Struts and Nodes in
Strut-Tie Model’”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 122, No.1,
pp. 20-29
 V.V. Nori and M.S.,2007 Tharval “Design of pile caps strut-and-tie model
method” April 2007 The Indian Concrete Journal page 13-19.
114
 Wight, James K. and Parra-Montesinos, Gustavo J., (2003), Strut-and-Tie
Model for Deep Beam Design: A practical Exercise using Appendix of the
2002 ACI Building Code, Concrete International, pp 63-70.
 http://www.cee.uiuc.edu/kuchma/strut_and_tie
115

Analysis of Concrete Structure by STM - R3

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Analysis of Concrete Structure by STM - R3

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Chapter 1

In concrete structures, design engineers often encounter portions of

Strut-and-Tie Modeling (STM) is a method of design for reinforced and

Such a reduction in complexity allows for simple design of structural

The constitutive relationships are determined by empirical observation of

The concrete structures considered for the analysis are:

1.3 Methodology of Present Work

Present work will be based on following points:

2. Analysis of structure with STM and FEM

This project report contains six chapters. Chapter 1 presents the

Chapter 2 to follow introduces the background of the development of strut-

Chapter 3 presents procedure or a flow chart for design and detailing of

Chapter 5 discusses examples designed with strut-and-tie models using

Chapter 6 provides conclusion about development of strut-and-tie theory in

Background and Fundamental of STM

In this chapter development of the strut-and-tie theory is discussed. It also

2.2 Historical Development of Strut-and-Tie Modeling

The beginnings of STM date back to the infancy of reinforced concrete

Figure 2.1 Ritter’s original truss model (1899)

Following the increased interest in STM regarding complex load states,

2.3 Fundamental Strut and Tie Model

Each of the types of elements in a strut-and-tie model serves a unique

When the flow of compressive stresses is not confined to a portion of a

The major type of strut is a compression fan. A compression fan is

Figure 2.6: Dispersion of compression (Guyon 1953)

Appropriate attention must be given to the anchorage of ties. If the yield

The geometry of a node may be defined by the details of the

Nodes may be assumed to be hydrostatic. Hydrostatic nodes are

Figure 2.7: Schematic depictions of nodes

Design and Code Provisions of STM

3.2 Struts-and-Tie Modeling Procedure for Design and Detailing

The size of a D-region is determined using Saint-Venant’s principle,

The principal stress diagrams preceding some of the typical D-region

Fig 3.3 shows a concentrated load F applied centrically to a strip of a width

Fig: 3.3 principal stress pattern of D1 region

(b) (c) (d)

(a) Good (b) Bad

Internal strut-and-tie model elements have more potential for plastic

3.3 Current Code Provisions for Strut-and-Tie Modeling

Many code authorities world-wide have added STM specifications to their

3.3.1 ACI 318-05

Where:  s = the strut efficiency factor (Table 3.1)

Table 3.1: Node and strut efficiency factors

Strut and Node ACI 318- AASHTO NZS

S Strut with uniform cross- 1.00 0.75 Eqn 3.3 0.70

Asi = area of surface reinforcement in the ith layer crossing a strut.

reinforcement crossing that strut.

ACI 318-05 Appendix A also provides one more restriction on the

3.3.2 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

 1   s  ( s  0.002) cot 2  s (3.3)

In the experiments performed by Vecchio and Collins (1982) the average

Figure 3.17: Relationship between strut efficiency and strut angle

ACI 318 Appendix A.

3.3.2.1 Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements

The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications have four distinct

Where: Av = area of shear reinforcement [in.2]

bv = beam width [in.]

s = stirrup spacing [in.]

This requirement is equivalent to providing enough shear reinforcement to

The second of the four shear reinforcement requirements is presented in

Where: Ask = area of skin reinforcement [in.2/ft]

d e = effective beam depth [in.]

As = area of tensile reinforcement [in.2]