This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Title no. 103-S61

TECHNICAL PAPER

**Strength of Struts in Deep Concrete Members Designed Using Strut-and-Tie Method
**

by Carlos G. Quintero-Febres, Gustavo Parra-Montesinos, and James K. Wight

Results from an experimental investigation aimed at evaluating the adequacy of the strength factors for concrete struts in strut-and-tie models given in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Building Code are presented. The main design variables considered were: the angle between primary strut-and-tie axes, amount of reinforcement crossing the strut, and concrete strength. A total of 12 deep beams were tested, eight with normal strength concrete and four with high-strength concrete. The ratio between experimentally obtained failure loads and the strengths predicted using the strut strength factors given in Appendix A of the ACI Code ranged between 1.00 and 1.22, and between 0.91 and 1.02 for normal and high-strength concrete beams, respectively. Inconsistencies were found in the provisions for minimum reinforcement crossing a strut in Sections A.3.3 and A.3.3.1 when applied to the test specimens, with the former leading to substantially larger reinforcement ratios. The use of a strut strength factor βs = 0.60 in high-strength concrete bottle-shaped struts without web reinforcement led to strength predictions approximately 10% higher than the experimental failure loads. The limited test results suggest that, as a minimum, an effective reinforcement ratio of 0.01, calculated according to ACI Code, Section A.3.3.1, should be provided in high-strength concrete members when a strength factor βs = 0.60 is used. Additional test data, however, are required before a definite recommendation can be made in this regard.

Keywords: beam; cracking; shear strength.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The adequacy of the strength factors for concrete struts given in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Code was evaluated. Strut strengths determined from Appendix A of the ACI Code were compared with experimental data obtained from tests of several deep reinforced concrete beams. The data generated in this study also provides valuable information to ACI Committees 445 and 318-E for evaluating current design specifications for concrete members using the strut-and-tie method. STRENGTH FACTORS FOR CONCRETE STRUTS A conservative estimation of the compressive strength of struts in strut-and-tie models is crucial to ensure adequate structural safety and the ability to design deep beams such that yielding of longitudinal reinforcement occurs prior to failure of concrete struts. If either no yielding or only limited yielding occurs prior to failure of a concrete strut, a sudden failure could take place with the drastic consequences that have been observed in past shear failures.1 During the last two decades, several researchers have conducted studies aimed at evaluating the strength of concrete struts for use in strut-and-tie models.1-6 Generally, the approach has been to lump the effect of strut stress and strain conditions, reinforcement details, concrete strength, and uncertainties in the truss model into a single factor, commonly referred to as the efficiency factor or, more recently, as the strength reduction factor v ≤ 1.0.4,6,7 Therefore, the strength of a concrete strut is expressed as fc = vfc′ (1)

INTRODUCTION The use of strut-and-tie models for the design of reinforced concrete members was incorporated in the 2002 edition of the ACI Building Code (herein referred to as the ACI Code) as Appendix A. Some of the provisions for the design of concrete members using the strut-and-tie method, however, are still the subject of discussion and validation, such as that related to the strength factors for concrete struts, which are assumed to be dependent on strut cracking condition and reinforcement provided, but independent of concrete strength and strut angle. Discussions on the adequacy of current strength factors for concrete struts have been triggered by the significant discrepancies that exist between the proposed values in the ACI Code and those suggested by several researchers.1-6 In some cases, the latter ones are substantially lower than those given in the ACI Code, especially for higher strength concrete. This paper presents results from an investigation aimed at evaluating the adequacy of the strength factors given in Appendix A of the ACI Code for the determination of strength of concrete struts in strut-and-tie models. In particular, the ultimate capacity of diagonal compression struts in deep concrete beams with either minimum or no transverse reinforcement was experimentally evaluated. For this purpose, several concrete beams with various shear span-to-depth ratios, concrete strengths, and reinforcement layouts were tested. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

where fc′ is the concrete compressive strength. To make the application of strut-and-tie models practical, single values for the efficiency factor have been proposed, which are based on the cracking conditions expected in the struts, that is, struts with cracks parallel to or skewed with respect to the strut axis, but are independent of concrete strength. Proposed values for the efficiency factor ν typically range from 0.3 for heavily cracked struts to 0.85 for struts in which the concrete is subjected to uniaxial or biaxial compression.4 Appendix A of the ACI Code8 adopted this format in Article A.3.2, where the efficiency factor is expressed as 0.85βs. Values of βs range between 0.40 and 1.0, depending on the strut geometry, reinforcement provided, and stress conditions in the member. Thus, the specified values for the efficiency factor

ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August 2006. MS No. 05-104 received May 6, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2007 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2007.

577

“Shallow” and “steep” strut angles were considered. was performed. His research interests include the seismic behavior and design of reinforced concrete. significant differences can be obtained in the values of the efficiency factor used for concrete struts.5 in which the value of the efficiency factor decreases as the concrete strength is increased.) wide.13 All beams were 2440 mm (8 ft) long. higher values of the efficiency factor would be obtained compared to those determined from Eq.ACI member Carlos G. Composite and Hybrid Structures. Therefore. He received his degree in civil engineering from the Universidad de los Andes. was actually due to crack slip and not to transverse tensile strains. and his PhD from the University of Michigan.27 --- ε2 and 1 f c = –-------------------------------. in the ACI Code range between 0. and 35 to 44 degrees. for cases where crack reorientation does not occur. Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. Structural Concrete Building Code. (3) and (4). Ann Arbor. with values of 25 to 29 degrees. and 544. He is also a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Bloem Award in 1991. FACI. and 150 mm (6 in. The beams were loaded at a single point on the top face close to one of the supports in order to develop a single concrete strut acting approximately at a predetermined angle. One such expression is given in Eq. concrete compressive strength. His research interests include the earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete structures and structural reliability. which is less than the lowest factor specified in the ACI Code.85 – 0. Products and Ideas (Structural Concrete Building Code). the efficiency factor is represented by the terms in parenthesis. More recently. concrete strengths.3 have been proposed in the past. Detailed information about this testing program can be found elsewhere. respectively. depending on the model used. respectively. and fiber-reinforced concrete structures. f c′ ≤ f c′ ε1 0. The ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 In Eq. f c′ ≤ f c′ 0. respectively. including the Delmar L.10 to evaluate the compression behavior of cracked concrete.002. From the previous discussion. A simple expression for the concrete efficiency factor as a function of the angle of inclination of the strut with respect to the tie direction was recently proposed by Matamoros and Wong. ν is equal to 0. It comprised the testing to failure of 12 reinforced concrete deep beam specimens designed with various shear span-to-depth ratios.56 and 0. which was attributed to the concrete in previous tests. f c′ ( MPa ) 200 (2) where ε1 and ε2 are the principal tension and compression strains. He is a recipient of the ACI Structural Research Award in 2003. respectively.34 and 0. His research interests include the earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete structures. εo 578 (3) (4) . Ramirez and Breen3 proposed an efficiency factor for concrete struts in beams of 2.000 psi). Evaluating this expression for fc′ = 28 and 70 MPa (4000 and 10. ACI member Gustavo Parra-Montesinos is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Michigan.) to force a diagonal compression strut failure prior to yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement. Shear and Torsion. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION The experimental program reported herein was carried out at the Structural Engineering Laboratory of the University of Michigan.) deep. Extensive research has also been conducted at the University of Toronto by Vecchio and Collins9. (2).12 with the values of the efficiency factor decreasing as the angle of inclination of the strut decreases.35 are obtained.7 Other more sophisticated expressions for estimating the strength of concrete struts include the effect of concrete compressive strength. Iowa.34 ε 1 ---. values for the efficiency factor of 0. in particular those corresponding to struts crossed by no or low amounts of transverse reinforcement. (4) is evaluated for principal tensile strains of 0. Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. and a member of ACI Committees 318-F. Vecchio11 proposed a reduction in the degree of concrete softening predicted by Eq. and amount of web reinforcement crossing the primary strut. Thus. based on a strut-and-tie model constructed following the provisions in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Code. Kelly Award in 1999. the efficiency factor would be equal to 0. which classifies them as deep beams. is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Michigan. (3) and (4) to account for the fact that some of the softening. in which only the principal tension strain needs to be determined. The clear-span-to-totaldepth ratio for all beams was less than 4.30 for 28 and 70 MPa concrete. (2)5 f c′ f c = 0. Iowa City. an evaluation of the adequacy of the strength factors for concrete struts given in Appendix A of the ACI Code. primary strut angle with respect to the member longitudinal (tie) axis. Quintero-Febres is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the Universidad de los Andes. In this case. Mich. Background information about provisions for concrete struts given in Appendix A of the ACI Code can be found elsewhere. Specimen design parameters Three main design parameters were considered in this study.7 – -------.002 and 0.85. and the ACI Structural Research Award in 2003. If Eq. He has received several ACI awards. Venezuela.3. the principal strain ratio ε1/ε2 needs to be known in order to determine the effective concrete strength in the strut. Figure 1 shows the load and support configuration for the beams. Values as low as 0.5/√fc′ MPa.88 and 0. except for the high-strength concrete specimens. and a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 352. New Materials. according to the ACI Code. In Eq. and reinforcement layouts. hybrid steel-concrete. James K. Wight. Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Venezuela.55. Two expressions they developed are 1 f c = –------------------------------. and εo is the concrete strain at peak compressive strength. 460 mm (18 in.006 assuming εo = –0. his MS from the University of Iowa. the Joe W. He is Chair of ACI Committee 318. Mérida.47 and 0. Expressions for effective concrete strength developed by Vecchio and Collins are based on the strain conditions in the concrete. in which the beam web width in the test region was reduced to 100 mm (4 in. As might be expected. it is clear that. and thus their application to strut-and-tie models requires an accurate estimation of the state of strain in the strut.0. these discrete values of the efficiency factor are somewhat arbitrary and primarily based on experimental evidence. He is Secretary of ACI Committee 335. Equation (4) represents a simpler version.80 + 0. (3). and 445. That model gave lower strength estimates compared with the ACI Code for the range of strut angles considered in their study (between 30 and 60 degrees). respectively.

the test specimens were grouped in three series of four specimens each. degree 28.17 1.18 1.0056 — 0. and two specimens had minimum reinforcement as per Section A. mm 370 370 370 370 375 375 375 375 380 380 380 380 a. a single strut is assumed between the load point and the closer support.02 0. Design of test specimens The test specimens were designed using the strut-and-tie model shown in Fig.31 1. vu = average shear stress at failure (Vu/bwd). Notes: NA = not applicable..1. 2) a more complex truss is required to avoid a strut angle less than 25 degrees.225 kips.0 25. Two amounts of reinforcement crossing the primary strut were considered in this study.3 of the ACI Code.394 in. and Series H with high-strength concrete.3.3. Section A. Table 1 lists the primary strut angle. ‡Based on ACI 318. a complete design example for a deep beam using a strut-and-tie model similar to that shown in Fig. The longitudinal reinforcement for Fig.74 1.013) — — NA (0.91 0.44 1. Vu = shear force at failure. did not satisfy the minimum reinforcement ratio required in Section A.96 0.0042 — — 0. VACI = calculated strength based on ACI 318.20 1. and 1 MPa = 0. 1 mm = 0.013) 0.71 1.003 (0.3 of the ACI Code. 2 can be found elsewhere.3 41.smallest angle between a strut and a tie is limited to 25 degrees in Section A.3.8 25.90 0. one specimen had no web reinforcement and one had web reinforcement crossing the primary strut.91 1. shear resistance through a single direct strut between the load point and support). For each strut angle considered in Series H.5 28.3 43. and thus likely to depart from a deep beam behavior (that is.6 Effective reinforcement ratio provided 0. 1—Overall dimensions and load configuration of deep beam specimens.003 (0. †Based on ACI 318. for each test specimen.3. 2. Normal-strength concrete (in the order of 28 MPa [4000 psi]) and high-strength concrete (in the order of 55 Mpa [8000 psi]) were used to evaluate the adequacy of current strength factors for a wide range of concrete strengths.003 (0.84 0. α. two specimens had no reinforcement crossing the strut.0038 0. In this model.0042 * Effective reinforcement ratio required 0.021) — † ‡ Failure mode§ DS DS DS DS DC DC DC DC SC SC DC DC Vu.07 1. § DS = diagonal splitting. Bearing strengths at nodal zones were then checked and a prediction of the failure load was obtained for the selected strut-and-tie model. 2—Strut-and-tie model for deep beam design.12 VACI . kN 215 215 185 185 425 425 385 385 275 320 475 505 Vu /VACI 1.0038 — — 0. mm 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 100 100 d. Based on these design parameters. Calculations for determining the beam strength for the critical shear span of one of the test beams in Series A is provided in the Appendix of this paper.1.14 Reinforcement details Details of the reinforcement for the test specimens are given in Fig.0096) 0.19 0.145 ksi. two specimens having a strut angle of approximately 25 degrees and two with a strut angle of either 35 or 38 degrees. Series B with normal strength concrete and a primary strut angle ranging between 41 and 44 degrees.13 1. In addition. DC = diagonal compression.9 41.014) — NA (0. (5).8 43.0 37.0 35.41 0.22 1.0096) — — 0. With this configuration. kN 251 237 221 196 456 426 468 459 265 292 484 460 vu /√fc. Fig. the strength of the primary strut to the closer support was computed based on Section A.3. Section A. Therefore. Table 1—Properties of test specimens and summary of test results Specimen A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 HA1 HA3 HB1 HB3 * bw.9 27. beams tested with shallow strut angles were at or close to the lower limit. mm 525 525 525 525 335 335 305 305 595 545 340 310 α. For the other portion of the beam specimen (left portion of beam in Fig. The web reinforcement provided in the specimens of Series H. MPa 0. as follows: Series A having normal strength concrete and a main strut angle of approximately 28 degrees. as will be explained in detail later.64 0. SC = shear compression.003 (0. 3 through 5. Beams tested with steep strut angles did represent deep beam behavior.5 27. which is located at approximately one-third or less of the clear span away from the load.3. 1 kN = 0.1 of the ACI Code.06 1.95 0.0085 — Based on Eq. Appendix A. however. For Series A and B.40 1.00 1.3. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 579 .

Fabrication of test units Both the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were bent by a local steel supplier. 12 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in. (A-4) of the ACI Code.) cylinders were taken for later evaluation of concrete compressive strength. calculated according to Eq. MPa (ksi) 22. For all beams.5. The extensions of the beam beyond the supports were reinforced with U-shaped stirrups. Table 1 gives the web reinforcement ratios provided in the critical shear span. the beams were placed in the testing rig.0) 476 (69. a relaxation of the requirements of Section A. a single U-shaped stirrup (Series A and B) or a set of two single-leg ties (Series H) was placed at the location of the applied load and the reaction force. 3—Reinforcement details for Series A. 10M No. which had a uniform cross-section. Materials The concrete for the three series was obtained in different batches from a local ready mixed concrete supplier.3 was made. 22M 407 (59. For Series H (concrete strength above 41 MPa [6000 psi]). No. obtained from at least three cylinder tests. The beams were cast following common procedures and wet-cured for seven to 10 days before being removed from their wood formwork.8(b)).1) — 434 (63. which had a reduction of the cross section in the shear span. were cast upright. instead of assuming that the compressive force in the strut would spread at a 2:1 slope (ACI Code. and steel yield strengths are given in Table 2. 19M No. Measured concrete compressive strengths.0) 455 (66. 10M (area = 71 mm2) deformed bars. Transverse reinforcement crossing the primary diagonal strut was provided through No. After strain gauges were attached to the bars at the desired locations. Transverse reinforcement over the portion of the beam away from the primary strut consisted of U-shaped.0) 545 (79.7) 50.0) 476 (69. Section A.2) 32. Reinforcing steel for each series was obtained separately from a local steel supplier. and either U-shaped stirrups (Series A and B) or two single-leg ties (Series H) (Fig. Table 2—Material properties Series A B fc′.9) — 462 (67. 13M No. 6M (area = 32 mm2) horizontal bars.all beam specimens was provided by four equal size bars distributed in two layers whose centroid coincided with the theoretical centroid of the main tie. Main strut transverse reinforcement consisted of smooth round bars (not compliant with ASTM A 615M standards). This reinforcement was chosen such that the stress in the steel corresponding to the maximum predicted tie force for a particular strut strength would be at or below the yield strength of the steel fy. 6M No. which had a specified concrete strength less than 41 MPa (6000 psi). (A-4) was used to select the reinforcement ∑ -------i sin γi ≥ 0.3 and Fig.or 180degree hooks to ensure proper development. More stirrups than required for shear strength were used to force a failure in the strut being tested. as per ACI Code Section 12. to ensure proper development of reinforcement.3. Beams from Series A and B. The reinforcement selected to carry the maximum tie force was kept constant along the specimen length. Once the concrete had gained sufficient strength.1. were cast upside down to ease the casting process and to ensure proper consolidation of the concrete in the forms. The maximum coarse aggregate size was 10 mm (3/8 in. ACI Code Eq.4 (4. At both beam ends.3 (7. All longitudinal reinforcement was made of Grade 60 (nominal fy = 410 MPa (60 ksi) deformed steel. 4—Reinforcement details for Series B. while all other beam transverse reinforcement consisted of Grade 60 steel deformed bars. For each batch. RA. a shallower slope of 6:1 was used to avoid excessive amounts of web reinforcement.0 (3. In this case.1) 586 (85. 2.0) 441 (64.3) Reinforcement yield strength fy . For Series A and B. steel reinforcement cages were assembled in the laboratory and placed into the forms. 580 H ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 . the longitudinal reinforcement was extended beyond the supports and terminated with either standard 90. The amount of reinforcement used in each case was checked using the strut-and-tie model of Fig.003 bs A si (5) where Asi is the total area of reinforcement at a spacing si in a layer of reinforcement i with bars at an angle γi to the axis of the strut. while those from Series H.0) Fig.0) — — — 427 (61. 3 through 5).). Fig. MPa (ksi) No.

and were loaded on the top face at a single location. 1. while no major differences in strength were observed for the beams in Series B and H (Fig. All beams were simply supported through the use of restrained and free rollers. as shown by the load versus deflection curves of Fig. Load cells. failure mode. An arrangement of three pairs of displacement transducers. while for Series B and H. Average shear distortions in the critical shear span (main strut) were computed based on the readings obtained from an arrangement of linear potentiometers. and electrical resistance strain gauges were used to monitor the applied loads. respectively. A displacement transducer was placed under the beam at the load point to record the imposed displacements. was used in each beam to monitor average strains in the critical shear span. Even though there was a larger region of low stiffness for the specimens in Series A (due to support seating). Also. as shown in the schematic drawing of Fig. 581 . and at 45 degrees. A test bed with a 490 kN (110 kip) actuator was used for Series A. and strains in the steel reinforcement.) thick by 150 mm (6 in.) square steel plates. displacement transducers.Test setup and instrumentation The beams were tested in two different setups. High strength grout was used for proper seating of the steel plates on the beams surfaces. a steel loading frame with a 1780 kN (400 kip) capacity was used. The same load configuration was used in both test setups. 6 through 8. cracking pattern. 7—Load versus displacement response (Series B). The load was applied monotonically up to failure in increments that corresponded to approximately one-tenth of the predicted failure load for each beam. oriented vertically. 6—Load versus displacement response (Series A). it is clear that the specimens in Series A (shallow strut angle) experienced larger load-point deflections than those in Series B (steep strut angle) at peak load. from Fig. as explained earlier. 6 it is seen that the specimens of Series A with web reinforcement had a larger strength than those without web reinforcement. Fig. The load versus shear distortion response was characterized Fig. deflections and deformations. The applied load and the reaction forces were distributed on the beam surface through 25 mm (1 in. 7 and 8. Load cells provided readings for the loads imposed by the actuator and hydraulic jack used in the beam tests. Overall response All beam specimens exhibited a nearly linear response up to failure. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 Fig. Cracks were also marked at selected load points up to approximately 75% of the predicted peak load and numbered according to the loading stage. respectively). horizontally. 5—Reinforcement details for Series H. and strain history at selected reinforcement locations. ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS The behavior of the test specimens was evaluated in terms of load versus deflection and load versus shear span distortion responses.

and 3) Shear-compression failure near the loading point (Fig. Failure for all test specimens was brittle and the failure modes were identified as follows: 1) Diagonal-splitting failure. 8—Load versus displacement response (Series H). Strains in longitudinal tension (tie) reinforcement The strain profile in the main longitudinal reinforcement was very similar for all specimens. Fig. 11—Cracking pattern at failure for Specimens HA1 and HA3. following a trend similar to that predicted by the strut-and- Fig.by a linear uncracked response up to first diagonal cracking (loads in the order of 25% of the peak load). defining the direction of the main concrete strut. in which diagonal cracks that formed initially at mid-depth of the beam in the direction of the main strut propagated to the outside edge of the loading plate and the inside edge of the bearing plate at the support (Fig. 582 Fig. which had developed at mid-depth of the beam and propagated toward the outside edge of the loading plate. were slightly larger than those measured in the upper reinforcement layer. which corresponded roughly to an average shear distortion of 0. A significant reduction in longitudinal reinforcement strains between the load point and the support away from the failure region was observed. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 . as mentioned earlier. The formation of a tie action was confirmed by the nearly uniform strain distribution in the longitudinal reinforcement over the shear span. 2) Strut crushing failure at beam mid-depth following the formation of several diagonal cracks (Fig. Providing minimum web reinforcement crossing the strut did not seem to noticeably affect the deformation capacity of the struts. 9—Cracking pattern at failure for Specimen A1. regardless of the amount of web reinforcement provided. 10). respectively. 9). Diagonal cracks then formed at approximately 25% of the peak load. a few flexural cracks formed first. Once the peak load was attained. followed by a nearly linear cracked-elastic response up to peak load.004 to 0. In general. This type of failure was typical for Series A. a rapid decrease in the applied load with increasing shear distortions was observed. The strains measured in the lower reinforcement layer. Figure 9 through 11 show typical crack patterns at failure for the specimens in Series A. Fig. and H. Specimens HA1 and HA3 (shallow strut angle with and without web reinforcement) had this type of shear-compression failure. however. This failure mode was typical for Series B and Specimens HB-1 and HB-3 from Series H. B. which remained at a narrow width throughout the tests. 10—Cracking pattern at failure for Specimen B3. 11) after formation of one or two main diagonal cracks.005 rad for all test specimens. Cracking patterns and failure modes Shear force at failure Vu and failure modes for the test specimens are listed in Table 1.

λ = 1 for normal weight concrete. (A-3)) ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 Fig. with the strains under the load point being larger. Strains recorded at these two locations were well below yielding for all specimens. 2) for the specimens with a shallow angle strut. The nominal compressive strength of a strut without reinforcement in the direction of the strut axis is taken as (ACI Code Eq. however. minimum web reinforcement. 9).85βs fc′ (7) where βs = 0. the level of strains in the vertical stirrups was higher than that for specimens with a steep angle strut. The procedure followed to calculate the strength in the critical span of Specimen A1 is demonstrated in the Appendix of this paper. one or both of the strain gauges recorded tensile strains at later stages of the test when the top reinforcement was crossed by diagonal cracks (Fig. calculated according to Appendix A of the ACI Code. The longitudinal reinforcement in all specimens of Series A and H remained elastic throughout the tests. and B1 and B2 (steep strut angle). any strut failure mode was considered for evaluation of the adequacy of the ACI strut strength factors. 2). 583 . and 3) for specimens with web reinforcement in Series A and B. It is worth mentioning that in order to properly evaluate the adequacy of Fig. but less than the minimum specified web reinforcement was placed in Specimens HA1 (shallow strut angle) and HB1 (steep strut angle).3 (A. but also for uncertainties in the truss model. In some cases. 3 through 5.3. 13 show a comparison between the calculated and experimental failure loads.7 as discussed earlier. Figure 12 shows the measured strain response for vertical and horizontal web reinforcement for Specimen A1.2(a)).7fy and 0.tie model shown in Fig.3 of the ACI Code for the strength of concrete struts in strut-and-tie models. respectively. was provided in Specimens A1 and A2 (shallow strut angle). given by Eq. and βs = 0. Strain measurements and visual observations indicated that the web reinforcement was effective in controlling crack opening.60λ for a bottle-shaped strut without reinforcement satisfying Section A. 13—Experimental versus calculated strengths. the vertical reinforcement was close to or had just exceeded the yield point at the moment of failure. one just under the load point and the other at the outer face of the theoretical upper compression node (right side inclined face in Fig. It should be mentioned that strength factors used for concrete struts (βs in the ACI Code) are intended to account not only for the effect of strut stress and strain conditions and reinforcement details. 2 for the left side of the beam. the strains measured at failure corresponded to a stress of approximately 0.3. while for Specimens HA1 and HB1. 2 and following the provisions in Appendix A of the ACI Code. indicated good bond between the bars and the concrete and thus.3 (A.75 for a bottle-shaped strut with reinforcement satisfying Section A. Strains in web or strut reinforcement As shown in Fig.5fy.3. two strain gauges were attached to the compression reinforcement. Strains in longitudinal compression reinforcement Typically. The strain response for the web reinforcement of all test specimens was similar and can be summarized as follows: 1) strains in the horizontal reinforcement were lower than those in the vertical reinforcement.2. It should be mentioned that smooth bars. Therefore. and fcu is the effective compressive strength of the concrete in a strut. (7) (Code Eq. No signs of anchorage problems were observed in any of the tests.2. 12—Strains in web reinforcement crossing primary diagonal strut (Specimen A1). no major differences in behavior were expected if deformed reinforcement had been provided. while one or two strain gauges had just reached the yield point when a strut failure occurred in the specimens of Series B.2(b)). Table 1 and Fig. as opposed to deformed bars. Strains were recorded at various locations along the main strut on the vertical stirrup legs and on the horizontal reinforcing bars. The design of the test specimens was carried out using the strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. Strain measurements. PREDICTED VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL STRUT STRENGTHS The main objective of this research project was to experimentally evaluate the adequacy of the expressions in Section A. where Ac is the smaller cross-sectional area at either end of the strut. were used as web reinforcement in the critical shear span.3. (A-2)) Fns = fcu Ac (6) fcu = 0.

3.3. As mentioned previously.3. In Series H. EVALUATION OF MINIMUM STRUT REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN APPENDIX A OF ACI CODE Minimum strut reinforcement requirements are defined in Section A. Results from the tests of four high-strength concrete beams suggest that. additional experimental information needs to be generated to draw definite conclusions with regard to the minimum web reinforcement required in high-strength concrete members designed using strut-and-tie models.0084. Section A. respectively. Based on the very limited results presented herein and until further data become available.01. as indicated by the failure loads in Specimens HA3 and HB3 (appear as a single point in Fig.6 and 1.3. If. (A-4) in ACI Code) is satisfied. The provisions for required minimum transverse reinforcement in normal-strength concrete members given in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Building Code should be reevaluated. however. University of Michigan. The following conclusions were drawn from the results of this investigation: 1. As can be seen. For the case of Specimens HA1 and HB1. 13). should be provided in high-strength concrete members when a strength factor βs = 0. the calculated strut and node dimensions were believed to be excessive.01. however.1√fc′ (MPa) (7. Clearly. were designed to satisfy the requirements of Section A. RA. Table 1 shows the amount of web reinforcement required by Appendix A of the ACI Code and the amount provided in the test specimens. required reinforcement ratios of 1.3. strengths calculated according to ACI Code Section A. a 6:1 slope was assumed for the spreading of the strut force instead of the 2:1 slope specified in Section A. when applied to the test specimens.1. (5) (ACI Code Section A. the provisions in Section A. sufficient steel reinforcement is required to resist a tension force perpendicular to the strut axis. a minimum effective web reinforcement ratio of 0.3. with the former leading to substantially larger reinforcement ratios. (5) (Eq. For the specimens of Series H.3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The adequacy of the strength factors for concrete struts given in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Code was evaluated based on the results from the tests of 12 reinforced concrete deep beams.3.60 is used.01. test specimens with shallow and steep struts sustained peak average shear stress demands exceeding 0. which were approximately 10% lower than the predicted strengths. Thus. As discussed in the previous section.1. are required before a definite recommendation can be made in this regard.the provisions in Appendix A of the ACI Code. a much larger amount of transverse reinforcement would have been required.3.3. as a minimum.1.3. Section A. On the other hand.3.75. For the high-strength concrete beams. In that section.3.3 of Appendix A in the ACI Code. is recommended for use in highstrength concrete members designed with a strut strength factor βs = 0. Substantial differences in the required amount of reinforcement were obtained when applying the provisions in Sections A. refer to ACI Code Fig.3. For the specimens subjected to average shear stresses greater than the limit given for deep beams in Chapter 11 of the ACI Code (0.1 for the specimens in Series A and B.1 (βs = 0. if sufficient web reinforcement is provided such that Eq.1%. an effective reinforcement ratio of 0. 584 leading to impractical and heavily congested designs. which is calculated by assuming that the strut compression force spreads out at a slope of 2:1 (longitudinal:transverse direction.3. unconservative strength predictions were obtained for the high-strength concrete beams without web reinforcement.3. calculated according to ACI Code Section A. for high-strength concrete struts. are required before a definite recommendation can be made in this regard. were found to be neither consistent nor equivalent. respectively.60 is used. the compliance with ACI Code Section A.2√fc′ [psi]).3. as defined by Eq.1).3. 13 and Table 1.1 to the test beams. Ann Arbor.1.3.83√fc′ [MPa]).1 is not applicable because of the use of high strength concrete. a strut strength factor βs = 0.8(b)).3. with normal-strength concrete. respectively. for which Section A.3 may lead to excessive amounts of reinforcement that could result in impractical designs. The first author would like to thank the Universidad de los Andes. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 . which had effective web reinforcement ratios of 0.1. Mich.3.4 and 2. The strut strength factors given in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Code were found to be adequate for use in normalstrength concrete bottle-shaped struts crossed by either no reinforcement (βs = 0.3. as a minimum.3. an effective web reinforcement ratio of 0. The main design variables considered were main strut angle with respect to the member longitudinal (tie) axis.3.3.3. Peak average shear stress demands for each specimen are also given in Table 1. the calculated strengths were lower than or equal to the experimental results for the specimens in Series A and B with normal strength concrete. As can be seen in Fig. the reported values represent the admissible solution that led to either the least conservative or more unconservative prediction. instead. amount of web reinforcement crossing the strut. Thus. Regardless of the amount of web reinforcement provided.3.60 led to predicted values nearly equal to the failure loads.3 required more than three times the minimum reinforcement specified in Section A.60.3.3.3 and A. βs = 0.3.3 were to be satisfied.1 specifies that this requirement can be assumed to be satisfied for members with a concrete compressive strength fc′ not greater than 41 MPa (6000 psi). The limited scope and budget for this experimental program did not permit a thorough investigation of what reasonable percentage of web reinforcement would be required to justify the use of a strut strength factor. while relatively good agreement between predicted and experimental results was obtained in Specimens HA1 and HB3. should be provided in high-strength concrete members when a strength factor βs = 0. Financial support was provided by the ACI Concrete Research Council and the University of Michigan. calculated according to ACI Code Section A. Section A.2 and 13. Specimens in Series A and B. and concrete strength. 2.60) or crossed by the minimum transverse reinforcement specified in ACI Code Section A.60 was found to be inadequate for use in struts not crossed by web reinforcement.1 and using a strength factor βs = 0. which had effective reinforcement ratios of approximately 40% of those required by Section A.0056 and 0.75).3 and A.3. Additional test data. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work presented in this paper was carried out at the Structural Engineering Laboratory. however. and 3.3. these limited test results suggest that. however. the predicted strengths reported in Table 1 correspond to the maximum values obtained after considering various admissible strut angles. ACI Code.3.3. Additional test data. The requirements in Sections A.

Strength of vertical and horizontal faces of upper right node. Afsin Canbolat for their valuable help during the experimental phase of this project. J. V. acting over a proportional plate width (refer to Reference 14 for detailed information about this procedure). 8.20P (A-2) Check of top node and adjacent inclined strut Strut width and strength at intersection with top node. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. P.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Feb. Farmington Hills. 100. 2000.75 × 22 MPa (215 mm)(150 mm) = 450 kN Equation (A-4) leads to an applied load P = (Fns)t /1. “Compression Response of Cracked Reinforced Concrete. A. Libbrecht.-Dec. pp.35P and 0. The forces acting at the nodes and struts can be expressed in terms of the applied load P as follows 0. “Disturbed Stress Field Model for Reinforced Concrete: Formulation.85 × 1. 443 pp. “Design of Simply Supported Deep Beams Using Strut-and-Tie Models. 3. 6. 49-58. 0.. 10.. For this angle. 1. was divided into two forces of magnitude equal to the beam shears at the left and right beam portions. 1988. “Strength of Struts and Nodes in StrutTie Model. B. and Wong. 14. Ftie = Fhorizontal at nodes = Fstruct cosα = 1. Schäfer. M. From Fig. 12.. pp. G. May 2003.5 degrees. Check of bottom node and adjacent inclined strut Strut width and strength at intersection with bottom node. 12. respectively.. No. Matamoros. pp. MacGregor. K. Reineck..85βs fc′ (ws)t bw (A-4) (Fns)t = 0. Quintero-Febres. Farmington Hills.75 × 22 MPa(230 mm)(150 mm) = 485 kN Equation (A-8) leads to P = 355 kN.. 2. and MacGregor. 1986.” ACI Structural Journal. Venezuela. J. Mich. F. This was done with the purpose of determining the most critical admissible solution for the strut-and-tie model considered. 2nd Edition. and Collins. Ann Arbor. “Use of Strut and Tie Model for Deep Beam Design as Per ACI 318 Code. J. No. thus. V. 562-571. pp.. Thanks are also extended to University of Michigan student A.. M. M.. pp. H. 7-40.65P. it can be seen that the applied load at the top of the beam. V. pp..” ACI Structural Journal. A. 1987. 9. 5.65 × 150 mm) b w (A-5) APPENDIX Figure A-1 shows the strut-and-tie model for the critical span of Specimen A1.. they would represent more conservative predictions. 88. 32. Sept. A. (ws)b and (Fns)b. ASCE. Vecchio. 5. 4. J.-H.Mérida..” American Concrete Institute. ASCE. J. 126. Reinforced Concrete.. 2005. The critical solution was found for a strut angle α = 28. CRC Press LLC. L.. V. (ws)t and (Fns)t ... for its support during his sabbatical leave.0 × 22 MPa(0.. and Breen. and Parra-Montesinos. A-1—Strut-and-tie model in critical span of Specimen A1. and Collins. C. Yun. pp.-Oct.. “Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams. No.P. No.85 × 1. hn = 195 mm. respectively (ws)t = (0. 78 pp. No. (A-6) leads to P = (Fnn)t-h/1. Fargier-Gabaldón and B. 5. Rogowsky. 1993. F. “Derivation of Strut-and-Tie Models for the 2002 ACI Code.” Examples for the Design of Structural Concrete with Strutand-Tie Models. Y. Fig. Aug. P. M.” PCI Journal. University of Michigan. E. while Eq.= 1.. 74-150. according to Appendix A of the ACI Code. V. 9.. Mechanics and Design.. 3. 20-29. The selection of the strut angle α and thus. V. K. 83. American Concrete Institute.” Concrete International. MacGregor. ASCE... ed. G. Schlaich.. V.85 × 0.85β n f c ′h n b w (A-6) (Fnn)t-h = 0. J. 704-712.65 × 150 mm)(150 mm) = 275 kN ( F nn ) t-h = 0. pp. 122. 1999.85β s f c ′ ( w s ) b b w (A-8) (Fns)b = 0. REFERENCES 1. No.36 = 330 kN.. Prentice Hall. and Wight. 2002. No. M.65 = 420 kN. K. K. J. 219-231. 7. respectively ( F nn ) t-v = 0. 1996..” Journal of Structural Engineering. No.. pp. 11. Nielsen. Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity. J. 1991. Parra-Montesinos. G. (Fnn)t-v and (Fnn)t-h. G. 2002. was made such as to maximize the predicted shear strength. 6. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the sponsors. 1986. “Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete. 63-70. respectively (ws)b = (150 mm)sinα + (180 mm)cosα = 230 mm (A-7) ( F ns ) b = 0.85β n f c ′ ( 0. “Evaluation of a Modified TrussModel Approach for Beams in Shear. 2. “The Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear. UMCEE 05-04.” Report No. V. M. 8. “Evaluation of Strength Factors for Concrete Struts in Deep Concrete Members. F. 8. and Jennewein.. G. 119. P. Proceedings V. and to L.65P Fstrut = ------------. 1070-1077. ACI Committee 318. Mich. 2003. J. Vecchio. 848 pp. and Ramirez. J. pp. Mich. A-1. 585 . K. the depth of the top node hn.65 × 150 mm)sinα + hncosα = 125 mm (A-3) (Fns)t = 0.85 × 0. D.20 = 455 kN.” Concrete International. Other admissible solutions will be below this maximum prediction and. Vecchio. Ramirez.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Wight. 25. SP-208.0 × 22 MPa(195 mm)(150 mm) = 545 kN Equation (A-5) leads to P = (Fnn)t-v /0. 3590-3610.36P sin α ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 (A-1) (Fnn)t-v = 0.” ACI JOURNAL. J. No. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02). Nov. 936 pp. 13.

which leads to a maximum applied load of 330 kN and a corresponding shear in the critical span of 215 kN. respectively.85 × 0.85β n f c ′ ( 150 mm) b w (A-9) ( F nn ) b-h = 0.Strength of vertical and horizontal faces of bottom node. The strength of the beam is then governed by the upper strut end.80 × 22 MPa (180 mm) (150 mm) = 405 kN < 715 kN Equation (A-9) and (A-10) lead to P = 515 kN and P = 340 kN.85 × 0.85 βn f c ′h tie b w < A s f y (A-10) 586 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 . (Fnn)b-v and (Fnn)b-h.80 × 22 MPa(150 mm)(150 mm) = 335 kN (Fnn)b-h = 0. respectively (Fnn)b-v = 0. (Fnn)b-v = 0.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful by Leejo9779

0.0 (0)

- Strut and Tie Model Design Provisions
- Strut and Tie lecture
- Strut and Tie
- Stress Fields & Strut Tie Model STM - Ruiz Muttoni
- Strut and Tie Model
- Strut and Tie Calculation
- A Guide to Strut and Tie Modelling
- Design and Detailing of Structural Concrete Using Strut-And-tie Models
- Strut and Tie
- ACI-Strut and Tie
- Verification and Implementation of Strut-And-Tie Model In
- Strut-And-tie Modelling of Rc Piles
- Design of Deep Beams
- Analysis and Design of Hammer Head Bridge Pier Using Strut and Tie Method
- strut & tie model
- Strut and Tie Design Example
- Schlaich Truss Models PCI 1987
- Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete
- Corbel Design Paper
- Strut and Tie
- Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures
- 20320130405016.pdf
- Strut and Tie Model for Deep Beam Design (to ACI Building Code)
- ci2505wight
- Lecture 8 RC Water Retaining Example1
- 34B.docx
- Informe 2
- E-TN-CFD-BS-8110-97-001[1]
- 63471_1
- Concrete Fundamental
- Strut and Tie Method.pdf

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.