Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Strut-and-Tie Modeling Following AASHTO LRFD PDF
Strut-and-Tie Modeling Following AASHTO LRFD PDF
By
Trevor Pullen
A creative component submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Science
Committee Members:
Fouad Fanous - Major Professor
Ladon Jones Committee Member
Jon Matthews Rouse Committee Member
Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2 History and Design Procedure of Strut-and-Tie Modeling ........................................................... 6
2.1 The History of Strut-and-Tie Modeling .............................................................................................. 6
2.2 Design of D-region using Strut-and-Tie Models................................................................................. 8
Chapter 3 Constructing Appropriate Strut-and-Tie Models ....................................................................... 11
3.1 Finite Element Analyses ................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Model Layout ................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Deep Beam Example ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.4 Strut Compressive Strength Verification ......................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4 Bridge Pier Cap Design ............................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Pier Cap Design Example ................................................................................................................. 29
4.1.1 Loading and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 30
4.2 AASHTO STM Design ..................................................................................................................... 38
Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................................... 52
5.1 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 52
5.2 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................ 52
5.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 53
References.37
List of Figures
Figure 2-2 Tie Intersecting a Strut............................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-1 Stress patterns in B and D-regions............................................................................................. 12
Figure 3-1 Finite Element Flow of Stresses ................................................................................................. 12
Figure 3-2 Stress Distributions with Truss Model ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 3-3 Indeterminate Truss................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3-4 Determinate Truss ..................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3-5 Limiting Compressive Stress in Struts According to AASHTO LRFD ........................................... 15
Figure 3-6 Deep Beam................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 3-7 Deep Beam STM......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-8 Node A ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3-9 STM Dimensions ........................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 3-10 Deep Beam stresses ................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 3-11 Test Beam STM ........................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 3-12 Deep Beam Results without AASHTO LRFD crack control, s. ................................................ 24
Figure 3-13 Deep Beam Results with AASHTO LRFD crack control, s. ....................................................... 25
Figure 3-14 Deep Beam Results without AASHTO LRFD crack control, average s..................................... 26
Figure 3-15 Deep Beam Results with AASHTO LRFD crack control, average s. ......................................... 27
Figure 4-1 Slender Hammer Head Pier Cap ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 4-2 Pier Cap Beam ............................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 4-3 Bridge Pier Dimensions Front Elevation (FHWA Design Example) ............................................ 31
Figure 4-4 Bridge Pier Dimensions Side Elevation (FWHA Design Example) .............................................. 31
Figure 4-5 Live Load Diagram (FHWA Design Example) .............................................................................. 33
Figure 4-6 Bearing Load Locations .............................................................................................................. 35
Figure 4-7 Bridge Pier Free Body Diagram .................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4-8 Bridge Pier Self Weight .............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 4-9 Pier Cap Final Loading ................................................................................................................ 37
Figure 4-10 Stress Distribution ................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 4-11 Simple STM .............................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 4-12 Refined STM ............................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 4-13 Node E...................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 4-14 AASHTO Figure 5.6.3.3.2-1....................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4-15 Steel Layout ............................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 4-16 Cross Section for E-I ................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 4-17 Cross Section for C-E ................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 4-18 Cross Section for A-C................................................................................................................ 51
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Available Strut Widths ................................................................................................................ 19
Table 4-1 Material Properties ..................................................................................................................... 30
Table 4-2 Bridge Superstructure Data ........................................................................................................ 30
Table 4-3 Dead Loads .................................................................................................................................. 32
Table 4-4 Vehicle Live Load Values ............................................................................................................. 32
Table 4-5 Vehicle Live Load Pier Reactions ................................................................................................. 33
Table 4-6 Vehicle Live Load Multiple Presence Factors x Bearing Reactions ............................................. 34
Table 4-7 AASHTO Load Factors.................................................................................................................. 34
Table 4-8 Bridge Pier Bearing Loads ........................................................................................................... 35
Table 4-9 Shear and Moment at the Comlumn .......................................................................................... 36
Table 4-10 Final Bearing Loads ................................................................................................................... 36
Table 4-11 Self-Weight Resultant Forces .................................................................................................... 37
Table 4-12 Member Forces ......................................................................................................................... 42
Table 4-13 Longitudinal Steel...................................................................................................................... 43
Abstract
The design of D-regions of reinforced concrete beams is the past was based on rules of thumb and past
experience. Strut-and-Tie Modeling (STM) is an accepted design method to deal with these D-regions.
It simply idealizes the entire beam, or portions of the beam as a truss where steel is placed according to
the locations of the tension members.
The objective of the work presented is to provide guidance in constructing appropriate strut-and-tie
models and to verify the usage of AASHTO LRFD code previsions to design the D-regions of reinforced
conrete beams using strut-and-tie models. Recommendations will be made based on the findings.
These objectives were accomplished by performing the following tasks:
1. Conduct a literature search to review available information about STM and testing that has been
done to verify the strength of beams designed by AASHTO LRFD STM procedure.
2. Constructing a finite element model of a deep beam to verify the compressive stresses across a
strut.
3. Provide a guide to design with STM using AASHTO LRFD.
4. Provide a step-by-step example on how to analyze and design a bridge pier cap.
The important findings provided with this work is a refined procedure to guide designers with using
AASHTO LRFD STM, analysis of the adequacy of AASHTO STM equations according to a finite element
analysis as well as deep beam test results performed by Martin and Sanders et al. (2007).
Recommendations are also provided to estimate the principle strains in the concrete struts in STM
which directly coencide with the beam strength. Variations of strengths resulting from different
amounts of crack control reinforcement is also discussed in this work.
The findings of this work show that STM with AASHTO LRFD provisions can be an applicable design
method for the D-region of beams. However, certain criteria need to be met and the engineer needs to
give special consideration to the geometry of their models, crack control, concrete strength and strain in
the struts.
Chapter 1 Introduction
The design of reinforced concrete flexural members using the conventional method is done using a
sectional moment design with Whitneys stress block based on the Bernoulli hypothesis that a plane
section before bending remains plane after bending. Here, the strains in the section are assumed to be
linear. Parts of a member where this assumption is valid are called B-regions, where the B stands for
Bernoulli. However, portions of flexural members and possibly the entire member do not follow this
assumption. In these parts of a beam near supports, concentrated loads and discontinuities, the strains
follow a non-linear behavior through a section. Thus, these are called D-regions where d stands for
discontinuity, or disturbed. Either sectional analysis or strut-and-tie modeling (STM) can be used for Bregions according to AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 5.8.1.1). STM is required for D-regions of
beams (AASHTO 5.8.1.2). For typical beams and girders with long spans, the D-regions have a small
influence on the overall behavior of the member and are ignored in the design so STM is not needed.
The History Behind Strut and Tie Modeling section of this report goes into further detail about the Dregions and when STM should be used. A procedure for STM development according to AASHTO LRFD
design method is also given. The design of the bridge pier cap in chapter 5 is done using this procedure.
Strut-and-tie modeling (STM) is an accepted design method by AASHTO to deal with d-regions since it
simplifies the non-linear stresses into a truss model through a series of struts and ties. This truss model
is a physical representation of the flow of stresses at failure. A model that is in equilibirum and has
stresses the struts, ties and nodal zones that are below the strength limits will satisfy the requirements
of the lower bound theorem of plasticity. However, STM is a very open ended method since it leaves a
lot of room for creativity and judgement for the designer when creating a model. Therefore, a
procedure for STM development according to AASHTO LRFD design method is presented along with an
example using STM for the design of a bridge pier cap. The purpose of the work presented here is to
show how STMs represent the flow of forces through a member and why it is an appropriate design
method.
To start, the authors made a procedure to distinguish between the sections of a beam that follow the
Bernoulli hypothesis of linear strain distribution through the section of the beam (B-regions) and those
where the strain distribution is significantly nonlinear (D-regions). At the time, design approaches for
cracked D-regions existed for certain cases (beam supports, corbels) but they only involved the design
6
for the amount of reinforcing steel needed and didnt provide an understanding of the stresses in the
concrete.
The approach to find the extent of the D-regions was included in the article and is outlined here using
Figure 2-1:
overstressing the concrete in the nodal zones. If the steel doesnt fit the STM model will have to be
adapted to change the location of the ties.
7. Check stresses in the nodal zones and struts. Proportion the struts (AASHTO 5.6.3.3) based on their
required compressive resisting force. Use the struts dimensions along with the force in the ties to
dimension the nodal zones (AASHTO 5.6.3.5). Check the stresses in the struts and nodal zones to
ensure limitations are met. The nodal zones allow for the transfer of stress between truss members. It
is important to make sure the concrete will not be overstressed in these zones. Stress limitations
depend on the members that intersect at the node (ties, struts). It may be necessary to spread the tie
reinforcement into layers to not exceed the stress limitations in the concrete nodal zones. Ensure the
nodes and struts will fit into the beam geometry. If not, adjust the truss model or develop a new one
that works with the beam size. The width of the strut may govern the size of a nodal compressive face
or vice versa.
According to AASHTO LRFD design code, the struts in a STM model have a limiting compressive stress
which is given as:
with being the smallest angle between the compressive strut and the tension tie as shown in Figure
3-1 and is the average tensile strain in the concrete in the direction of the tension tie. This is simply
the tensile strain in the reinforcing bars due to their design loading at the centerline of the strut. A
strain of 0.002 corresponds to a tie yielding in tension at the point it crosses the strut.
For nodal zones, AASHTO LRFD specifies the limiting compressive stress in the concrete to be:
0.85fc for node regions bounded by only compressive struts and bearing areas
0.75fc for node regions anchoring a one-direction tie
0.65fc for node regions anchoring tension ties in more than one direction
10
11
Figure 3-1 shows the flow of stresses in a simply supported beam subjected to a concentrated load at its
center. Principle tensile stresses and their directions and relative magnitudes are represented by black
arrows while principle compressive stresses are represented by blue arrows. It is not absolutely
necessary to use this when laying out a model, but it can be very helpful, especially if the designer is not
experienced with using STMs.
12
In most situations, tension and compression chords can be placed running parallel to the boundaries of
members. The location of these chords can be estimated based on a sectional moment analysis which is
discussed in section 3.2. In rectangular shaped beams, vertical tension ties can be visualized along the
length of the beam as shown by the solid red lines in figure 3-2. Struts are then placed from supports
and concentrated loads connecting the vertical ties. These struts should closely resemble the stress
trajectories from the finite element analysis. The struts radiating out from the supports and
concentrated loads form compression fans (figure 3-3) extending to a distance approximately equal to
the depth of the truss. This follows the St. Venant principle of localized stresses dissipating at a distance
equal to the depth of the beam that distinguishes a D-region as discussed earlier. The region between
compression fans is called a compression field. The struts here are parallel and should also resemble the
stress trajectories shown in the finite element model. The vertical angles relative to the longitudinal ties
should typically be around 45 or slightly less for compression field struts, but can also depend on the
dimensions of the beam.
13
Since the truss shown in figure 3-3 is statically indeterminate, it is convenient to simplify it. Solving the
indeterminate truss would require assumptions to be made on member stiffnesss or forces and much
iteration to design. The simplified truss, figure 3-4 is statically determinate which allows all the member
forces to be easily solved. It is developed by lumping the many struts and ties of a part of the beam into
single struts and ties. The compression fan region struts are represented by members AB and EF. The
compression field struts are represented by member CD. The vertical ties are lumped into members BC
and DE and can be designed as a band of stirrups. Most codes specify a minimum angle between a strut
and the longitudinal steel tie. 25 is specified directly in the ACI code but others require a larger angle.
Keeping the angle relatively large limits the transverse stresses that weaken the ends of struts. Small
angles also develop an incompatibility with the strains in the tie and the strut since the tie is lengthening
and the strut is shortening. AASHTO, however, does not specify a minimum angle but it does relate the
angle indirectly to the allowable stress in the strut. Figure 3-5 is a plot showing the limiting compressive
stress of a strut (fcu) according to AASHTO as a percentage of the concrete yield stress (fc) vs. the angle
14
between the strut and longitudinal steel for a given strain in the steel. A strain of 0.0021 corresponds
to the yielding stress, fy, of 60ksi steel. 0.00186
corresponds to a stress of 0.8fy. The strain in the ties in a model are typically between 0.00186 and
0.00166 since the steel is designed to carry a stress close to, but not exceeding 0.9 fy. Based on the
results of this plot, it is recommended that angles be not much less than 40 when possible. This helps
limit the force in each strut and keeps the transverse strain in the strut and, therefore, the limiting stress
in the concrete ( ), at a reasonable value. Note that the effective stress in the strut is about 25%
higher for a 40 angle than a 25angle.
% f'c
60
50
Steel Strain = 0.00166 in/in
40
30
20
10
0
90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10
Angle between strut and steel tie ()
Since concrete has limited plastic deformation capabilities, the STM chosen should ensure that the
internal deformation limit is not exceeded before the assumed stresses are reached in the rest of the
member. According to Schlaich, Jrg, et al. (1987), in areas of high stress, right by support and loads,
struts should be placed to closely match the elastic stress trajectories to help meet this ductility
requirement. In areas of moderate or low stress, struts may deviate considerably from the elastic
trajectories without exceeding the ductility limitation of the member. This should be considered when
creating a truss model.
15
16
Sectional Analysis:
Based on the graph from figure 3-5 with a steel stress of 0.8fy which corresponds to a strain of 0.0017
and an angle of about 38, fcu was taken as about 50% of fc. To estimate the value for d, the distance
from the top of the beam to the centroid of the tie, 5in was subtracted from the height of the beam to
account for clear cover and the possibility of two rows of reinforcing bars being needed. The following
analysis was based on the moment at the bearing support.
fc=4 ksi
fcu=2.0 ksi
) , d is estimated as
(
Based on this analysis, the height of the node at the bearing load (node B) is set as
. This
node was also divided into two sub-nodes since the applied load can be divided into the loads going to
each support. The width of the sub-nodes depends on the ratio of the load resisted in each to the total
load.
B left sub-node:
B right sub-node:
Struts were placed according to these sub-node widths and the sectional analysis and the tie satisfies
equilibrium as shown in figure 3-7
17
18
AB
BC
22.0
19.5
20.6
16.0
The available strut widths depend on the size of the nodes that transfer their forces to the supports.
Figure 3-8 shows the available width according to the dimensions of node A. This width is calculated as
20sin(52.5)+10cos(52.5) = 22.0in. Widths depending on nodes A, B and C are given in table 3-1 and
can be seen in figure 3-7. The limiting width for both struts was governed by the connection to node B.
The available strength of each strut depends on the available width and limiting concrete stress.
Calculations for the strengths of tie AC and struts AB and BC are shown here:
Tie AC
(AASHTO 5.6.3.2-1)
(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.4-1)
19
(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.3-2)
(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.3-1)
(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.1-1)
(AASHTO 5.6.3.2-1)
Strut BC
20
Both struts and the tie, and therefore, the model layout are adequate according to the calculations. To
complete the design of the beam, crack control reinforcement would have to be added along with
development length provisions for the tie. These criteria are shown in the Chapter 4 pier cap design
example.
The strength checks performed for struts AB and BS were based on prismatic struts. In reality, the struts
will tend to be bottle shaped as the compressive stresses spread out between the nodes. AASHTO LRFD
design specification allows for the idealization of prismatic struts since the smallest width of the strut
occurs at the nodes and will theoretically control the strength due to the stress concentrations. Also,
transverse tension through a strut is resisted by the orthogonal grid of minimum crack control
reinforcement required by the code. However, some specifications suggest designing struts to be bottle
shaped.
21
Martin and Sanders et al. (2007) researched the conservatism of strut strengths following AASHTO LRFD
provisions. They compiled 282 simple deep beam test results and compared them to the anticipated
22
results from their respective STMs. The models were developed based on the size of the bearings and
the size of beam as shown in figure 3-11. Forces in the truss members were calculated based on the
load and support reactions at failure. 106 beams that failed in the tie were eliminated from the
database to focus on the strength of the struts. The actual compressive strength of the inclined strut,
factual, was compared to the limiting stress, fcu, calculated using the AASHTO LRFD equations. Factual was
determined by dividing the ultimate load in the strut by the cross-sectional area of the strut.
The results are shown in figures 3-12 through 3-15 which show the ratio of fcu over factual vs the
compressive strength of the concrete. Ratios greater than one are conservative while ratios less than
one are unconservative. The 176 beams that failed due to compression in the struts were divided into
four categories:
1. Crack control provisions of AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 were not met and the fully developed strain
in the tie was used. (figure 3-12)
2. Crack control provisions of AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 were met and the fully developed strain the
tie was used. (figure 3-13)
3. Crack control provisions of AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 were not met and the average strain in the
tie was used. (figure 3-14)
4. Crack control provisions of AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 were met and the average strain in the tie
was used. (figure 3-15)
AASHTO section 5.6.3.3.3 says to use the average strain in the tie when the strain changes through the
width of the strut. For a strut anchored to the end of a tie, the strain at one side is assumed to be zero
while the strain in the other side is the fully developed strain.
23
The results in figure 3-12 show that for beams not having sufficient crack control reinforcement and
having an fcu based on the fully developed strain in the tie, the design strength of the struts can be
unconservative for all concrete strengths but tend to be worse for higher strength concretes.
Figure 3-13 Deep Beam Results without AASHTO LRFD crack control, s.
Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007)
24
Figure 3-14 Deep Beam Results with AASHTO LRFD crack control, s.
Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007)
Figure 3-13 shows that design strengths of the struts with sufficient crack control reinforcement and
using the fully developed tie strain were conservative for concrete having the fc less than 7000 psi and
unconservative for the fc greater than 7000 psi.
According to Figure 3-14, many of the design strengths for the struts not having sufficient crack control
reinforcement and using the average strain in the tie across the strut were unconservative for all ranges
of fc . The range of the results for
also varies widely with some struts resisting twice their design
25
Figure 3-15 Deep Beam Results without AASHTO LRFD crack control, average s.
Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007)
26
Figure 3-15 shows that the design capacities for high strength concrete was unconservative for all four
of the sample beams that were designed using an average strain through the strut. Even with low
strength concrete, barely over half the struts were conservative.
Figure 3-16 Deep Beam Results with AASHTO LRFD crack control, average s.
Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007)
27
Figure 4-2 shows a pier cap-beam as an alternative to the hammer head shape. These are generally
fairly deep beams composed of mostly or entirely D-regions. The stress trajectories are displayed
throughout the beam geometry and a proposed STM is shown. Reversal of moments from the portion
in the clear span to the portion over the columns is evident in the stress patterns and is accounted for in
the STM.
29
Material Properties
Table 4-1 Material Properties
Material Property
Concrete Density
Concrete 28-day Compressive Strength
Steel Reinforcement Strength
Girder spacing
Number of girders
Deck overhang
Span length
30
Value
Wc = 0.150 kcf
fc = 4.0 ksi
Fy = 60.0 ksi
Figure 4-3 Bridge Pier Dimensions Front Elevation (FHWA Design Example)
Figure 4-4 Bridge Pier Dimensions Side Elevation (FWHA Design Example)
31
Rtotal = 292.90k
RDCI = 269.10 K
Rtotal = 308.30k
DLovrhg = 93.00k
DLcap = 313.88k
Pier column
DLcol = (15.5ft4.5ft15ft) Wc
DLcol = 156.94k
Footing
DLftg = (3.5ft23ft12ft) Wc
DLftg = 144.90k
EVftg = 49.50k
RDWI = 39.20 K
DLint = 127.88k
Note: DC refers to the dead load attributed to the superstructure supported on the pier. DW refers to
the dead load attributed to the wearing surface.
32
Load
Reaction 1 Reaction 2 Reaction 3 Reaction 4 Reaction 5
Combination
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
A
6.43
-173.11
-82.15
14.51
-2.40
B
-2.96
17.91
-131.30
-131.34
10.97
C
0.69
-4.17
16.90
-84.74
-165.40
AB
3.47
-155.20
-213.46
-116.83
8.57
AC
7.12
-177.28
-65.25
-70.23
-167.80
BC
-2.27
13.74
-114.40
-216.08
-154.43
ABC
4.16
-159.37
-196.55
-201.57
-156.83
The pier reactions due to these loads are listed in Table 4-5. Different pier reactions are the result of
combinations of live loads acting on the bridge deck. The load combinations represent the lane that has
a traffic load (i.e. load combination AB is when lanes A and B both carry traffic). The reaction numbers
coencide with numbering system in Figure 4-5 where reaction 1 is at the far left bearing point on the
pier, reaction 2 is at the 2nd from the left bearing point, etc. These reactions where multiplied by
33
AASHTO multiple presence factors and the resulting bearing rections are shown in Table 4-6. The
factors of 1.20, 1.00 and 0.85 relate the probability of one, two or three lanes being loaded
simultaneasly.
Table 4-6 Vehicle Live Load Multiple Presence Factors x Bearing Reactions
Multiple
Load
Reaction 1 Reaction 2 Reaction 3 Reaction 4 Reaction 5
Presence
Combination
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
Factor, m
A
1.20
7.72
-207.73
-98.58
17.41
-2.88
B
1.20
-3.55
21.50
-157.56
-157.60
13.16
C
1.20
0.83
-5.01
20.28
-101.69
-198.48
AB
1.00
3.47
-155.20
-213.46
-116.83
8.57
AC
1.00
7.12
-177.28
-65.25
-70.23
-167.80
BC
1.00
-2.27
13.74
-114.40
-216.08
-154.43
ABC
0.85
3.54
-135.46
-167.07
-171.33
-133.31
AASHTO load factors in table 4-7 were used to calculate the total factored girder reactions acting at
each bearing point of the pier cap. The total factored loads are in table 4-8 and were calculated as
follows:
Total Load = 1.25(DC)+1.5(DW)+1.75(LL)
Example: The total load at bearing point 1 for load combination A+DC+DW is the combination of
Reaction 1 for live load in lane A and the DC and DW dead loads for an exterior girder.
Total Load = 1.25(-253.70)+1.5(-39.20)+1.75(7.72) = -362.42 kips
34
Load Combination
A + DC + DW
B + DC + DW
C + DC + DW
AB + DC + DW
AC + DC + DW
BC + DC + DW
ABC + DC + DW
Load 1
Load 2
Load 3
Load 4
Load 5
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
-362.42
-758.70
-567.70
-364.71
-380.96
-382.15
-357.56
-670.91
-670.98
-352.90
-374.48
-403.94
-359.68
-573.13
-723.26
-369.85
-666.77
-768.72
-599.63
-360.93
-363.46
-705.42
-509.36
-518.08
-669.57
-379.90
-371.13
-595.37
-773.31
-646.18
-369.73
-632.24
-687.55
-695.01
-609.21
35
Force (kips)
Load 1
-646.18
In addition to these bearing loads, the pier cap is subjected to its own self weight. The self-weight
calculation is shown here along with the resulting force distribution along the pier cap shown in Figure
4-8. The pier cap dead load is added to the bearing loads for the design.
Force from self weight = -(width) x (height) x (unit weight of concrete) x (load factor)
Force at end of pier cap = -(5ft)(5ft)(.150kips/cu.ft)(1.25) = -4.69kips/ft
Force at the column = -(5ft)(11ft)(0.150kips/cu.ft) (1.25)=- 10.31kips/ft
36
Bearing
Force (kips)
1
-51.48
2
-95.33
3
-101.21
4
-95.33
37
5
-51.48
38
39
)
40
Therefore, the lines representing the centerline of the bottom struts will be placed at 6 from the edge
of the pier cap and the centerline of the longitudinal ties will be spaced 5 from the top edge of the
beam as shown in Figure 4-12.
41
Member
AC
CE
EG
GI
IK
KM
MO
OQ
CD
EF
GH
KL
MN
OP
Tension
Member
Force (kips)
460.48
733.55
1455.98
1455.98
1455.98
1455.98
733.55
460.48
519.42
579.53
0
0
579.53
519.42
Compression
AD
CF
EH
GJ
IJ
KJ
ML
ON
QP
DF
FH
HJ
JL
LN
Force (kips)
-835.92
-586.83
-1618.37
0
-869.93
0
-1618.37
-586.83
-835.92
-493.77
-743
-1455.98
-1455.98
-743
NP
-493.77
= 1.56in2
, use 6 #11 bars.
42
Member
AC
CE
EG
GI
IK
KM
MO
OQ
For the ties from E to M, the #11 bars can be placed in two rows of 9 bars. Spacing between the bars
must be at least 4/3db, or 1.88in.
Check the assumed location of the tie centroid for two rows of bars:
2(clear cover+0.625(dia. of #5 stirrup)+11/8(dia. of #11 bar)+11/16(half the spacing between rows)
=4.92 so the assumed location of 5 below the top edge of the pier cap is ok.
Check horizontal spacing of longitudinal steel:
5.10 is much larger than the minimum spacing requirement of db=1.83in. Horizontal spacing of the
longitudinal steel is not an issue with 9 bars in a row.
The vertical ties represent the centroid of stirrups that will be spaced across a stirrup band. For ties
CD and OP the band spans a distance of
the stirrups in this band must be greater than the force in CD and OP respectively. Stirrup bands for EF
and MN also span 2.4375ft in each direction from the centerline. The calculation for the spacing of the
stirrups is shown here based on using #5 4-legged stirrups:
Ties CD and OP
=10.7in2
The minimum transverse reinforcement in this region is given by the following equation:
(AASHTO 5.8.2.5)
Since the area of steel provided is 4(0.31) = 1.24in2 which is greater than 0.44in2, the minimum
transverse reinforcement is provided for the stirrup band representing ties CD and OP. In the region
outside the stirrup band to the end of the pier cap, 2-legged #5 stirrups with Av = 0.62in2 can be used to
satisfy the minimum transverse reinforcement requirement.
Ties EF and MN
Therefore, the minimum transverse reinforcement is provided for the stirrup band representing ties EF
and MN. In the region of the pier cap over the column that is outside the stirrup bands, 2-legged #5
stirrups with Av = 0.62in2 can be used to satisfy the minimum transvers reinforcement requirement.
7. Check stresses in the nodal zones and struts.
The bottom cord struts are checked to see if the estimated location of the truss members based on the
sectional analysis is ok.
(AASHTO 5.6.3.2-1)
(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.1-1)
(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.3-1)
(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.3-2)
= the smallest angle between the strut and longitudinal ties that run through the strut
44
is taken as 0.
Struts FH & LN
in tie EF:
The angle,
= 80.85
Struts DF & NP
in tie EF:
The angle,
= 68.84
Since the bearing area is larger than the required area of concrete to resist the applied load at E & M,
the bearing width is adequate. Struts EH and ML will be checked based on the size of node E which is
controlled by the bearing width.
46
The nodal region and the forces acting on it are shown in figure 4-13. The dimensions of the node are
based on the 14 bearing width, the 4.975x210 distance from the top edge to the center of the
longitudinal steel and the following equation for the width of strut EH:
EHwidth = 14sin(63.49)+10cos(63.49) = 17.0in.
Struts EH & ML
The strain through the strut can be taken as the average strain in the two longitudinal ties that cross it
which are tie CE and tie EG.
Tie CE:
in tie EF:
Tie EG:
in tie EF:
Average strain in these ties is
The angle,
=63.49
According to AASHTO section 5.6.3.3.2, The value of ACS shall be determined considering both the
available concrete area and the anchorage conditions at the ends of the strut. When a strut is anchored
by reinforcement, the effective area may be considered to extend a distance of up to six bar diameters
from the anchored bar as shown in figure 4-14, where the anchored bars are the longitudinal #11s.
Therefore, the distance of the effective ACS is taken as:
47
Since the nodal zone E and strut EH see the largest forces and are satisfactory, there is no need to check
the other diagonal struts or node regions. In other words, the required stresses in the other struts and
nodes will be significantly less than that of EH and E respectively.
48
Since the minimum crack control reinforcement is not provided using 4-legged #5 stirrups with a spacing
of 7in., the spacing of 6in. that satisfies both the minimum crack control reinforcement and the stirrup
band representing ties EF and MN should be used for the entire pier cap.
Using #5 4-legged stirrups spaced 6in. on center satisfies the vertical crack control reinforcement. The
minimum horizontal crack control reinforcement that must also be provided is calculated based on a
spacing of 12in. as follows:
Since 4-legged stirrups are used, it is convenient to use 4 bars of horizontal crack control reinforcement
at the 12in. spacing since they can be easily tied to the stirrups.
Use 4 #7 bars. Ast provided = 4(0.60) = 2.4in.2
49
The steel layout and spacing for the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement is shown in Figure 4-15
for the entire pier cap. The different cross sections where the longitudinal steel varies are also shown in
Figures 4-16, 4-17 and 4-18.
50
51
5.2 Conclusion
Although STM creation requires creativity and judgment, the designer needs to think about
following the stress trajectories fairly closely especially at supports and locations of
concentrated loads. The better a model represents the principle stress trajectories, the more
efficient and cost effective its design will be. Appropriate strut-to-tie angles also need to be
considered to help limit the principle strain in the concrete.
The deep beam example discussed in this report had sufficient strut strengths based on the
linear-elastic finite element analysis performed in section 3-4. This analysis gives some
indication of the stress levels that the strut will experience but can be improved upon with more
riggorous FE analysis.
According to the test results performed by Martin and Sanders et al. (2007), the strength of
struts designed by AASHTO LRFD strut-and-tie method with fc greater than 7000psi yields a high
percentage of unconservative designs for the strength of struts. Even with crack control
reinforcement placed according to AASHTO provisions and designing for the fully developed
strain in the tie, the strut strengths were over estimated.
Another issue with the current AASHTO provisions is the strain in the tie, s. Section 5.6.3.3.3
states that s can be taken as the average strain across the width of a strut. However, according
to the deep beam test results, this can lead to unconservative designs when the strain is
52
assumed to be 0 at one edge of the strut. Also, it is unclear which tie to use for s when two ties
cross through the end of a strut from two different directions such as at nodes C and E in the
pier cap design example from chapter 4. The code specifies that the angle used to calculate the
principle tensile strain in the strut is the minimum angle between the strut and the tie running
through it. The vertical ties from the pier cap example represent stirrup bands that are more
spread out than the horizontal ties. Therefore, the tensile strain induced from these ties would
affect the strength of the strut differently than those from the horizontal ties. Due to the high
tensile stress concentrations along the horizontal ties, these were used to calculate s and the
angle they formed with the struts was used to calculate 1 in this report.
The range of the results from the deep beam tests with sufficient crack control reinforcement
according to AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 varied drastically. Some of this variation is likely due to the
simplicity of the crack control reinforcement requirement. The provision doesnt account for
case-by-case design and just gives a generic minimum requirement based on the gross area of
the section. In many cases, crack control reinforcement may be greatly over designed. In other
situations it may not be sufficient.
5.3 Recommendations
The following is a list of recommendations for further research and adaptations to AASHTO LRFD strutand-tie modeling specifications to establish more consistent designs based on the conclusions of this
report.
1. Provide more guidance to creating appropriate truss models with suggestions given in chapter 3
of this report.
2. Perform non-linear and plastic finite element analyses to more accurately model the flow of
stresses through the member. Compare the stresses in a strut from the FE analysis to the fcu
calculated using AASHTO.
3. Adapt AASHTO equation 5.6.3.3.3-1 to account for high strength concretes (>7000psi).
4. Use the maximum s in the tie to calculate 1, especially at nodes that anchor the end of a
tension chord where the strain is 0 at one edge of the strut.
5. Provide clarification or changes to account for situations where ties cross the end of a strut from
multiple directions.
6. Adapt the crack control reinforcement to account for the transverse tensile stresses in the
struts.
53
References
1. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, third edition 2004, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Ofiicials, Washington, DC, USA.
2. Macgregor, James G., Wight, James, K. Reinforced Concrete, Mechanics and Design, 5th Edition.
Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.
3. Martin, Barney T., Sanders, David H., Wassef, Wagdy, Cole, Thomas A., Bahem, Neil. Verification
and Implementation of Strut-and-Tie Model in LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program. November, 2007.
4. Mitchell, Dennis, Collins, Michael P., Bhide, Shrinivas B., Rabbat, Basile G. AASHTO LRFD
Strut-and-Tie Model Design Examples. Skokie, Illinois:
Publisher,Portland Cement Association, 2004.
5. Schlaich, J., Schfer, K., and Jennewein, M., "Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete,"
Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, Vol. 32, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 74-150
6. U.s. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. LRFD Steel Girder
Superstructure Design Example. Pier Design Example. April 5, 2011.
54