Testing and Analyzing Two Deep Beams

Using Strut-and-Tie Modeling

• ACI Structural Engineering Journal Paper
• Open Topics Session Presentation
Prepared by:

Amir R. Ghiami Gabriel E. Polo Gloriana A. Martinez

Prof. Oguzhan Prof. Trevor D.

Bayrak Hrynyk Katelyn S. Beiter Randale L. Shinn

Technical Presentation Slide 1 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Presentation Outline
• Research Motivation and Objectives
• Background & Literature Review
• Design Process
• Experimental Investigation
• Comparison of Results
• Summary & Conclusions
• Acknowledgements

Technical Presentation Slide 2 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Research Motivation
• STM design provisions were introduced to AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications in 1994

• Need to keep these provisions updated

• This research investigated the most recent set of revisions to

these design provisions

• The 7th edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications (2016 interim) will include these provisions

Technical Presentation Slide 3 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Research Objectives
• Primary Objective:
– Evaluate the most recent set of revisions to the STM design provisions of
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

• Secondary Objectives:
– Investigate the behavior of simply supported deep beams loaded in a
manner that creates an inflection point

– Test a deep beam with longitudinal curved bars for the first time in FSEL

– Investigate the capabilities of VecTor2 software to provide accurate blind

predictions of the observed experimental behavior

Technical Presentation Slide 4 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Background and Literature Review
• TxDOT project 0-5253-1
– Strength and serviceability design of reinforced concrete deep beams
• TxDOT project 5-5253-01-1
– Strut-and-tie model design examples for bridges
• FIP report
– “Practical Design of Structural Concrete,” Fédération Internationale
de la Précontrainte, CEB-FIP (fib), Fédération Internationale du
Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland
• Deep beam database
– Evaluation of Existing Strut-and-Tie Methods and Recommended
Improvements
• Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete
• Curved-bar nodes
• Vector2 & FormWorks User’s Manual
Technical Presentation Slide 5 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM
 Design Process
Specimen Geometry:

P2 = 2 P1

Technical Presentation Slide 6 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Design Process
Design Assumptions:
• No phi factors in the design
• f’c = 4 ksi
• fy = 60 ksi
• Loading plates = 7x7 in.
• Support bearing plates = 12x8 in.
• TxDOT 5253 strut-and-tie modeling provisions
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2014

Technical Presentation Slide 7 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Design Process
Preliminary Analysis:
• Stress flow
• Linear elastic finite element analysis
• Recommendations by Schlaich et al.
60 kips 120 kips
(266.9 kN) (533.8 kN)

Technical Presentation Slide 8 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Design Process
16.0 in. 54.0 in. 40.4 in. 3.5 in. 42.1 in.
(406 mm) (1372 mm) (1026 mm) (89 mm) (1069 mm)
Beam 1 STM

2.2 in.
(56 mm)
A 107 kips D F G
19.8 in.
(503 mm)
B C E 73 kips H 2.0 in.
(51 mm)

50.9 in. 6.0 in. 32.1 in. 51.0 in. 16.0 in.
(1293 mm) (152 mm) (815 mm) (1295 mm) (406 mm)

16.0 in. 67 in. 27.4 in. 3.5 in. 42.1 in.

(406 mm) (1702 mm) (696 mm) (89 mm) (1069 mm)
Beam 2 STM

3.71 in.
(94 mm)
A D F G
130 kips 17.3 in.
(439 mm)
B C E 87 kips H 3.0 in.
(76 mm)

50.9 in. 6.0 in. 26.1 in. 57.0 in. 16.0 in.
(1293 mm) (152 mm) (663 mm) (1448 mm) (406 mm)

Technical Presentation Slide 9 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Design Process
Design Steps:
• Proportioning longitudinal reinforcement according
to the analysis results
• Proportioning vertical and crack control
reinforcement
• Performing nodal strength checks
• Providing necessary anchorage for ties
• Checking serviceability behavior
Technical Presentation Slide 10 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM
 Design Process
Longitudinal Reinforcement Detail:
Clear Cover
1.5” (38 mm) 2 - #8 (#25) 2 - #3 (#10)
Beam 1

Standard Bend Radius

for a #9 (#29) bar

Clear Cover 1.5” (38 mm)

2.5” (64 mm) Clear Cover
2 - #7 (#22) 2 - #6 (#19)
Beam 2

2 - #8 (#25)
2.5” (64 mm)
Clear Cover
Technical Presentation Slide 11 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM
 Design Process
Beam 1 Reinforcement Detail:
A B

A B
Section A-A

Section B-B
#3 @ 5”
(Crack Control)

Technical Presentation Slide 12 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Design Process
Beam 2 Reinforcement Detail:
A B C

A B C
Section B-B

Section C-C
Section A-A

#3 @ 5”

Technical Presentation Slide 13 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Design Process
Total Reinforcement Weight:

Reinforcement Beam 1 (lb) Beam 2 (lb)

Total
198 227
Reinforcement

Technical Presentation Slide 14 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Experimental Investigation

Technical Presentation Slide 15 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Experimental Investigation

Technical Presentation Slide 16 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Experimental Investigation
Negative Moment Region Cracks:
35 kips 97 kips
Beam 1
Beam 2

Technical Presentation Slide 17 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Experimental Investigation
Negative & Positive Moment Region Cracks:
130 kips 220 kips
Beam 1
Beam 2

Technical Presentation Slide 18 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Experimental Investigation
Failure:
(293 kips)
Beam 1
(301 kips)

TIE AD
Beam 2

Technical Presentation Slide 19 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Comparison of Results
Sample VecTor2 Models:

Technical Presentation Slide 20 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Comparison of Results
Crack and Failure Prediction for Beam 1:

Technical Presentation Slide 21 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Comparison of Results
Crack and Failure Prediction for Beam 2:

Technical Presentation Slide 22 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Comparison of Results
Load-Displacement Curves:

Beam 1 Beam 2
Technical Presentation Slide 23 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM
 Beam 1 (293 kips) Beam 2 (301 kips)
Entries
Total Load (kips) VT2/Test Total Load (kips) VT2/Test

1 272 0.93 262.5 0.87

2 228 0.78 274.5 0.91

3 191 0.65 271.5 0.90

4 255 0.87 270 0.90

5 195 0.67 253.5 0.84

6 195 0.67 255 0.85

7 252 0.86 253.5 0.84

8 216 0.74 259.5 0.86

Average 225 0.77 263 0.87

C.O.V 0.139 0.032

Technical Presentation Slide 24 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Summary and Conclusions
1) The new strut-and-tie model provisions proposed by TxDOT
project 0-5253-1 yielded a conservative design for both
specimens
2) A strut-and-tie model that follows the stress flow is more
efficient (Beam 1 carried 1.45 kips per pound of steel while
Beam 2 carried 1.37)
3) The equations provided by Gary Klein for curved bar nodes
yielded a safe and conservative design

Technical Presentation Slide 25 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM

 Summary and Conclusions
4) The strut-and-tie models developed in this study successfully
predicted the observed failure mode of the specimens.
5) The results from the analytical investigation were
conservative with respect to the observed experimental
behavior.
6) Vector2 software was capable of accurately capturing the
failure mode and cracking patterns of both specimens. In
addition, it predicted the elastic response of the specimens
with an excellent precision.
Technical Presentation Slide 26 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM
 Acknowledgements

Prof. Chris S. Blake Stassney Dennis Phillip David Braley John Bacon
Williams

• Structural Concrete
Bridge Design Course

• Plasticity in Structural
Concrete Course
Dr. Hossein Michelle Damvar Deanna Mueller
Yousefpoor
Technical Presentation Slide 27 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM
 Thank you!

Technical Presentation Slide 28 of 28 6/12/2018 1:10 PM