Three-Dimensional Strut-and-Tie Analysis

for Footing Rehabilitation

Chun S. Cai, P.E., M.ASCE1

Abstract: A 3D indeterminate strut-and-tie model is developed for the analysis of a footing system to explain the cause of cracking and
to develop a rehabilitation solution. The performance predicted with the model, simulating the sequence of construction, is well correlated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with the field observations. The prediction thus explains the cause of cracking and concludes that phased construction is its main source.
From numerical prediction, posttensioning forces are recommended to close the existing cracks and to prevent new ones. In developing
an approach to rehabilitating a cracked structure, the stiffness of the analytical model needs to be properly selected. For this reason, five
different levels of stiffness are used to cover the lower and upper bounds for both cracked and uncracked situations. A 3D finite-element
solid modeling is also conducted.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0680共2002兲7:1共14兲
CE Database keywords: Footings; Rehabilitation; Three-dimensional models; Struts; Ties; Cracking.

Introduction explain the cause of cracking and to design a rehabilitation pro-

The A1A-Lytle Avenue bridge 共#790152兲, located in Volusia
County, Florida, was built in 1990 to replace an old existing bas-
cule bridge. This high-level bridge has an overall length of 745.31
m consisting of 23 spans varying from 27.1 to 39.62 m in span
length. Piers 2 through 9 and 18 through 23 are founded on indi-
vidual footings, whereas piers 10 through 17 rest atop combined
footings. The sketch of the superstructure is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2 shows a typical combined footing system consisting of
piles, a pile cap, a column footer, three columns, two column
struts, and a pier cap. The bridge was constructed in two phases to
meet the requirements of traffic control during the construction
process. Phase 1 of the bridge was constructed on the south side
of the existing bascule bridge, and phase 2 was built after the
existing bridge was demolished.
The latest bridge inspection reported severe cracking on the top
and side faces of the column footers for piers 10 through 17.
These severe cracks occur mainly on the portion constructed in
phase 1; only minor cracking was reported on the portion con-
structed in phase 2. Fig. 3 shows a typical cracking pattern for
pier 15. Engineering surveys did not find a significant differential
settlement between the portions constructed in phases 1 and 2.
The possibility of uneven settlement that would cause the crack-
ing was thus excluded. The phased construction that may cause
uneven force distribution in the footing was suspected as the pos-
sible source of the cracking.
The objective of this study was to develop an analytical model to
1
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana
State Univ., 3502 CEBA, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; formerly Sr. Engineer,
Structures Research Center, Florida Dept. of Transportation.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2002. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on February 20, 2001; approved on February 20, 2001. This
paper is part of the Practice Periodical of Structural Design and Con-
struction, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/
2002/1-14 –25/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.
cedure. A typical combined footing system, pier 15, was used in
this study 共Fig. 2兲. A beam theory is no longer valid for this
footer-pile cap system, whose force flows are much more compli-
cated than a beam theory would predict. Therefore, this particular
footer-pile cap system is a very good candidate for a strut-and-tie
analysis. A three-dimensional 共3D兲 indeterminate strut-and-tie
analysis was conducted to serve the objective.
For a structure where beam theory does not apply, the strut-and-
tie method is a very good design tool that has gained popularity
for the ultimate strength design of ‘‘disturbed’’ zones, such as
deep beams, beam ends, anchorage zones, and brackets
共AASHTO 1998兲. However, the applications of the strut-and-tie
model in the rehabilitation of existing structures are limited
共Kesner and Poston 2000兲, let alone a 3D indeterminate strut-and-
tie model, which is the focus of the present study.
3D Strut-and-Tie Model
The successful application of a strut-and-tie model depends on a
reliable visualization of the paths of force flows. In a typical
strut-and-tie analysis, the force distribution is visualized as com-
pressive and tensile force flows that are modeled as compressive
struts and tensile ties, respectively. As shown in Fig. 2共b兲, the
footer and pile cap form an inverted T-shape section. To consider
the effect of this geometry, a 3D strut-and-tie model, shown in
Fig. 4, was developed to include both the column footer and the
pile cap in the model. The force flows need to be visualized in
both the transverse and longitudinal directions of the footing. The
reasoning of the development of this model is given below.
The end view, Fig. 4共c兲, shows the force flows along the trans-
verse direction of the footing. All the loads eventually need to go
to the piles. However, since the pile cap is wider than the footer,
the column force cannot go directly to the top of the exterior
piles, as represented by nodes 24 and 60. Instead, a portion of the
column force goes vertically to the top of the pile cap represented
by nodes 9 and 12 and is then distributed to the top of both the
exterior and interior piles represented by nodes 24, 36, 48, and 60.

14 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Sketch of superstructure
The remaining force in the column goes directly to the interior
piles represented by nodes 36 and 48.
The elevation view, Fig. 4共a兲, shows the force flows in the longi-
tudinal direction of the footing. It can be seen that the column
forces are distributed among a few piles, either directly to the top
of the piles or to the top of the footer first and then to the top of
the piles.
The isometric view is given in Fig. 4共b兲. For clarity, only a partial
model is shown. The possible tension members are defined as
tension ties 共dashed lines兲, and compression members are defined
as compression struts 共solid lines兲. These assumptions were veri-
fied by analysis. In other words, if the analysis predicted a com-
pressive force in a tension tie, then the tie would be changed into
a compression strut and vice versa.
In the present analytical model, all 48 piles that are 24.4 m 共80 ft兲
in length are assumed pinned at the bottom tips. In addition, two
piles are restrained at the top in the X and Y directions for nu-
merical stability. The piles are modeled with beam elements.
The existing force distribution in the footing system needs to be
Fig. 2. Sketch of substructure 共pier 5兲
PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002 / 15
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.
known to develop a rehabilitation method. Since the structure is
indeterminate, the dimensions of each member affect the internal
force distribution. The stiffness of the struts and ties is loading/
cracking dependent. In a typical design process that considers
only the strength limit, the sizes of struts and ties are first as-
sumed and then optimized. Several iterations are usually con-
ducted, and the final design provides detailings to match the as-
sumptions. For this existing structure, whose structural
performance from service to strength limits needs to be investi-
gated, the stiffness 共or size兲 of each strut and tie member varies,
depending on the loading level, i.e., the service or strength limit
states. By assuming no cracking for the piles, the actual sizes of
piles, 0.61⫻0.61 m (24⫻24 in.), were used to model the pile
elements. However, the sizes of struts and ties were varied to
consider the effect of cracking.
Three models were used to simulate the uncracked situation
共strictly speaking, cracking is required to form a strut-and-tie
model兲. The objective of simulating an uncracked structure was to
predict the distribution of internal forces before cracking, which
may help explain the cracking patterns and the cause of cracking.
In the model designated as F12, all ties and struts were assumed
as 0.3⫻0.3 m (12⫻12 in.). In the model designated as F120, the
struts and ties were assumed to be 100 times as stiff as model F12
to consider the large stiffness of concrete footer and pile cap
before cracking. These two models, F12 and F120, should cover
the lower and upper bounds of stiffness before cracking. Given
the pile size of 0.61⫻0.61 m (24⫻24 in.), and the footer of 2.44
m 共96 in.兲 in width, the strut members were assumed as 0.61
⫻0.61 m (24⫻24 in), and the ties as one-half the footer width,
i.e., 1.22⫻1.22 m (48⫻48 in.) in the model Tie 48. The stiffness
of this model lies between the F12 and F120 models.
Two more models were used to simulate the cracked section and
to predict the existing internal force distribution of the footing
system. In model Tie3.3, the transformed area of each tie was
assumed as 84⫻84 mm (3.3⫻3.3 in.) that corresponds to the ac-
tual area of reinforcement 共3.11 in2兲 of the footer. In another
model, Tie01, which simulates the situation after the reinforce-
ment is broken, the sectional area of each tie was assumed as
2.5⫻2.5 mm (0.1⫻0.1 in.), a small nonzero number to prevent
numerical instability. In all analyses, the material properties of all
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Cracks 关共a兲 on top of; 共b兲 on side兴 of typical column footer 共pier 5兲

members were specified as concrete with f c⬘ ⫽28 MPa. As stated
earlier, transformed areas were used for those ties that simulate
the reinforcement.
Application of Load
To simulate the two-phase construction, the application of loads
to the model followed the sequence of construction. For the
analysis of phase 1 loads, only the right portion of Fig. 2 that was
constructed in phase 1 was modeled. For the analysis of phase 2
loads, the whole structure was modeled as a unit, i.e., there is no
separation between the phase 1 and phase 2 structures. The loads
from phase 2 construction were applied on the phase 2 structure,
i.e., the left part in Fig. 2.
Since loads can only be applied to the nodes in a strut-and-tie
model, appropriate assumptions should be made to distribute the

16 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. 3D strut-and-tie model with node numbering 共partial for clarity兲

Fig. 5. Loading definition and application

PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002 / 17

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.

 Table 1. Force Calculation and Definition
Load per
Total loads Nodes carrying node
Group Components 关kN 共kips兲兴 loads 关kN 共kips兲兴 Load number
Phase 1 self-weight Pile Cap 3,959 共890兲 28 nodes at the top 141 共32兲 P1
of piles
Footer 3,051 共686兲 4 nodes 共8, 9, 11 762 共172兲 P2
and 12兲
Column and pier 2,397 共539兲 4 nodes 共2, 3, 5, 600 共135兲 P3
cap and 6兲
Superstructure 7,517 共1690兲 4 nodes 共2, 3, 5, 1,879 共422兲 P4
and 6兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Phase 2 self-weight Pile Cap 3,082 共693兲 24 piles 128 共29兲 P6

Footer 2,500 共562兲 4 nodes 共7, 8, 10, 625 共140兲 P7
and 11兲
Column 636 共143兲 2 nodes 共1 and 4兲 318 共71兲 P8
Pier Cap 818 共184兲 4 nodes 共1, 2, 4, 204 共46兲 P9
and 5兲
Superstructure 7,517 共1,690兲 4 nodes 共1, 2, 4, 1,879 共422兲 P 10
and 5兲

Live load Phase 1 1,748 共393兲 4 nodes 共2, 3, 5, 437 共98兲 P5

and 6兲
Phase 2 1,748 共393兲 4 nodes 共1, 2, 4, 437 共98兲 P 11
and 5兲

Posttensioning Top of footer 2,224 共500兲 2 nodes each end 1,112 共250兲 PT t1
force for 共1, 4兲 and 共3, 6兲
service Bottom of footer 4,448 共1,000兲 2 nodes each end 2,224 共500兲 PT b1
共7, 10兲 and 共9, 12兲

Posttensioning Top of footer 2,224 共500兲 2 nodes each end 1,112 共250兲 PT t2
force for 共1, 4兲 and 共3, 6兲
ultimate
Bottom of footer 6,672 共1,500兲 2 nodes each end 3,336 共750兲 PT b2
共7, 10兲 and 共9, 12兲

Table 2. Load Case Definitions

Structures
Load cases Loads applied Source of loads modeled
SubDL1 P 1⫹ P 2⫹ P 3 Phase 1 substructure dead load Phase 1
SupDL1 P4 Phase 1 superstructure dead load Phase 1
SupLL1 P5 Phase 1 superstructure live load Phase 1
DL1 SubDL1⫹SupDL1 Total dead load effects after phase 1 construction Phase 1
DLL1 DL1⫹SupLL1 Service (live⫹dead) load effects after phase 1 construction Phase 1
UDLL1 1.3•DL1⫹2.17•SupLL1 Ultimate load effects after phase 1 construction Phase 1
SubDL2 P 6⫹ P 7⫹ P 8⫹ P 9 Phase 2 substructure dead load Entire structure
SupDL2 P 10 Phase 2 superstructure dead load Entire structure
SupLL2 P 5 ⫹ P 11 live load of the whole structure Entire structure
DL2 DL1⫹SubDL2⫹SupDL2 Total dead load effects after phase 2 construction Phase 1 and entire structure
DLL2 DL2⫹SupLL2 Service (live⫹dead) load effects after phase 2 construction Phase 1 and entire structure
UDLL2 1.3•DL2⫹2.17•SupLL2 Ultimate load effects after phase 2 construction Phase 1 and entire structure
DL ( P 1 to P 4 )⫹( P 6 to P 10) All dead load Entire structure
PT – DLL2 PT t1 ⫹ PT b1 ⫹DLL2 Posttensioning force and DLL2 Phase 1 and entire structure
PT – UDLL2 PT t2 ⫹ PT b2 ⫹UDLL2 Posttensioning force and UDLL2 Phase 1 and entire structure

18 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Member definitions 共partial for clarity兲
loads to the nodes. As will be seen below, the self-weight of the
substructure is about 47% of the total service load. The method of
applying the self-weight of the substructure in the strut-and-tie
model significantly influences the member forces. In this study,
the self-weights of the pile cap, footer, and column were applied
to the nodes at the top of piles, the top of the pile cap, and the top
of the column footer, respectively, following the construction pro-
cess. The load calculations are summarized in Table 1, and load
applications are shown in Fig. 5.
After phase 1 construction, the structure experienced the self-
weight as well as live load ( P 5 ) shown in Fig. 5共a兲. After phase 2
construction, in addition to the self-weight of phase 1 that had
already been locked into the phase 1 structure, the entire structure
experienced the self-weight from phase 2 construction as well as
the live load 共P 11 and P 5 兲 shown in Fig. 5共b兲. The recommended
posttensioning forces are also listed in Table 1 and shown in Fig.
5共b兲. These posttensioning forces were applied to the top and
bottom of the column footer to close the cracks and prevent new
ones. Further discussion of these posttensioning forces will be
conducted later.
It is noted that the live loads were assumed to be evenly dis-
tributed to the column nodes in the calculations shown in Table 1.
Therefore, the middle column nodes 2 and 5 take the same live
load as nodes 3 and 6 in phase 1 analysis, but take twice ( P 11
⫹ P 5 ) the live load of side column nodes 1, 3, 4, and 6 in the
phase 2 analysis. This is not completely accurate since the live
load may shift more closely to one side. However, since the live
load plus impact 3,496 kN 共786 kips兲 is a small part of the total
service load 34,975 共7,863 kips兲, the above approximation is ac-
ceptable for the substructure analysis in this study.
Analysis Results
The load cases examined in this study are summarized in Table 2.
For convenience of discussion, the numbering definitions of
members are shown in Fig. 6. Again, only a partial model is
shown for clarity. The predicted forces of selected members are
summarized in Table 3. As discussed earlier, the true stiffness of
each member is not known for a section with cracks. Therefore,
the member forces of all five models discussed earlier were ex-
amined under all the load cases to predict the lower and upper
bounds of forces. A few observations were made as follows.
PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002 / 19
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.
Possibility of Cracking
According to the construction drawings, the reinforcement pro-
vided at the top of the footer is 2,006 mm2 共3.11 in.2兲, which
results in a capacity of 830 kN 共186.6 kips兲. The predicted total
tension force at the top of the footer constructed at phase 1 is
calculated as twice the force of member 2 共along the footing tie兲
plus the along-footing component of member 11 共diagonal tie兲.
For example, for the lower-bound force model F12 under service
load case DLL2 共column 7, Table 3兲, the total tension force at the
top of footer is
2x 共 367.2⫹365.5x cos共 7.13兲兲 ⫽1,459.8 kN
As discussed earlier, models F12, F120, and Tie48 were intended
to predict the precracking stresses. All these models predicted
larger forces under the service load 共DLL2兲 at the top of the
footer than the provided capacity. A similar calculation for the
footer constructed at phase 2 gives a total tensile force of 903 kN
that is also larger than the capacity of 830 kN. This observation
indicates an underdesign of reinforcement and explains the trans-
verse crackling at the top of the footer.
Model Tie3.3, intended to model the cracked section, predicted
tension forces for members 174 and 175 under both dead load and
service load 共columns 6 and 7兲. This indicates that cracking on the
side faces of the footer is also possible, following the cracking of
the top of the footer. Predicted tension forces in members 6, 7,
and 11 also explain the along-footer cracking at the top of the
footer.
Phased Construction
Two observations were made from Table 3. First, for models F12,
F120, and Tie48, the tie forces of members 2, 11, and 22 共built in
phase 1兲 are significantly larger than those of their counterparts,
members 1, 8, and 19 共built in phase 2兲 under dead load DL2,
service load DLL2, and ultimate load UDLL2. This explains why
the cracking of the footer built in phase 1 is much more severe
than that of phase 2.
Second, for typical phase 1 tie members 2, 11, and 22, the dead-
load case DL 共column 9, which assumes a nonphased construc-
tion兲 predicts less tension forces than does the corresponding load
case DL2 共column 6, which considers phased construction兲. This
indicates that phased construction is more critical for cracking
 Table 3. Member Forces 共kN兲 for Different Models and Load Cases
Load Cases
Member number 共1兲 Model DL1 DLL1 UDLL1 DL2 DLL2 UDLL2 DL PT – DLL2 PT – UDLL2
1 F12 0.00 0.00 0.00 193.18 228.60 328.00 241.85 ⫺320.72 ⫺274.36
1 F120 0.00 0.00 0.00 210.36 242.23 342.63 247.27 ⫺422.76 ⫺389.40
1 Tie48 0.00 0.00 0.00 199.88 233.53 332.87 240.38 ⫺362.14 ⫺292.62
1 Tie3.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.74 43.34 61.22 40.36 ⫺56.70 ⫺55.54
1 Tie01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.04 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.06

2 F12 288.89 330.82 466.55 331.70 367.24 508.33 242.69 ⫺183.24 ⫺95.72
2 F120 324.24 368.99 518.61 378.39 410.05 560.62 245.82 ⫺254.81 ⫺171.21
2 Tie48 313.75 358.38 504.73 356.28 389.74 535.78 239.03 ⫺205.36 ⫺88.86
⫺14.43 ⫺0.55
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 Tie3.3 78.60 89.56 125.96 80.58 86.23 117.03 40.73

2 Tie01 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.04 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.01

8 F12 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.20 225.16 323.12 237.89 ⫺315.51 ⫺269.81
8 F120 0.00 0.00 0.00 206.79 238.04 336.64 241.59 ⫺415.35 ⫺382.31
8 Tie48 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.54 229.44 326.89 234.06 ⫺355.27 ⫺286.57
8 Tie3.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.39 43.01 60.79 39.85 ⫺55.50 ⫺54.05
8 Tie01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.04

11 F12 286.09 327.67 462.15 329.45 365.50 506.50 246.03 ⫺186.31 ⫺102.59
11 F120 319.27 363.43 510.88 373.99 405.92 555.48 246.38 ⫺247.88 ⫺164.12
11 Tie48 309.73 353.88 498.45 352.52 386.55 532.12 242.23 ⫺201.59 ⫺86.47
11 Tie3.3 78.49 89.49 125.91 80.49 86.29 117.21 41.17 ⫺14.41 ⫺0.54
11 Tie01 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.05 ⫺0.01 0.01

19 F12 0.00 0.00 0.00 103.90 125.95 182.91 164.18 ⫺442.50 ⫺642.81
19 F120 0.00 0.00 0.00 263.42 311.56 446.91 348.23 ⫺391.73 ⫺575.06
19 Tie48 0.00 0.00 0.00 198.10 239.00 346.28 302.06 ⫺660.79 ⫺988.87
19 Tie3.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.09 15.51 22.26 17.72 ⫺29.31 ⫺36.54
19 Tie01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.02

22 F12 123.40 137.72 191.49 165.59 186.90 261.52 158.70 ⫺374.04 ⫺553.31
22 F120 423.97 477.90 668.19 473.05 520.60 718.14 344.02 ⫺182.33 ⫺303.26
22 Tie48 266.39 298.20 415.33 337.35 377.33 525.31 295.47 ⫺519.69 ⫺805.70
22 Tie3.3 21.79 24.65 34.54 25.26 27.70 38.13 17.92 ⫺17.46 ⫺21.11
22 Tie01 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.02

174 F12 ⫺148.82 ⫺170.32 ⫺240.13 ⫺217.63 ⫺270.35 ⫺397.32 ⫺319.73 ⫺392.67 ⫺580.35
174 F120 ⫺112.66 ⫺128.36 ⫺180.53 ⫺143.08 ⫺190.98 ⫺289.94 ⫺271.38 ⫺243.82 ⫺347.81
174 Tie48 ⫺161.11 ⫺183.88 ⫺258.86 ⫺229.67 ⫺285.47 ⫺419.66 ⫺343.08 ⫺312.99 ⫺462.18
174 Tie3.3 363.08 413.35 581.10 205.56 158.47 165.06 ⫺275.80 ⫺35.47 ⫺107.62
174 Tie01 514.40 586.25 824.64 330.09 283.45 327.90 ⫺268.16 75.21 39.89

175 F12 ⫺429.62 ⫺491.39 ⫺692.55 ⫺513.00 ⫺565.74 ⫺781.35 ⫺365.30 ⫺693.52 ⫺871.48
175 F120 ⫺417.23 ⫺474.00 ⫺665.59 ⫺501.43 ⫺535.22 ⫺725.19 ⫺284.63 ⫺573.51 ⫺753.23
175 Tie48 ⫺491.07 ⫺559.66 ⫺787.22 ⫺578.82 ⫺630.35 ⫺864.30 ⫺376.80 ⫺635.31 ⫺850.07
175 Tie3.3 143.05 162.83 228.88 159.58 181.62 255.28 152.20 ⫺1,134.43 ⫺1,218.95
175 Tie01 334.85 381.62 536.80 355.32 391.07 539.50 249.47 ⫺1,157.67 ⫺1,209.39

than nonphased construction and also that phased construction is
the main cause of the severe cracking of phase 1 structure.
Posttensioning Force
To close the cracking on the top of the footing, i.e., to obtain
compression force in members such as 2 and 11, two levels of
posttensioning forces were examined. In the first case, to gain
compression under service load, 2,224 kN 共500 kips兲 and 4,448
kN 共1,000 kips兲 posttensioning forces were applied at the top and
bottom of the footing, respectively 共Table 1兲. The total member
forces resulting from the service load plus the posttensioning
force provided, designated as load case PT – DLL2 in Table 2, are
given in column 10, Table 3. In the second case, to obtain com-
pression forces under the ultimate-load case, posttensioning
forces of 2,224 kN 共500 kips兲 and 6,672 kN 共1,500 kips兲 were
applied at the top and bottom of the footer, respectively 共Table 1兲.
This case is designated as load case PT – UDLL2 in Table 2, and
the results are shown in column 11, Table 3.
To avoid future cracking due to overloading and other environ-
mental effects, such as temperature change, the higher values of
2,224 kN 共500 kips兲 and 6,672 kN 共1,500 kips兲 were recom-
mended. These forces correspond to two and six tendons 共with
7-0.6⬙ strands兲 at the top and bottom of the footer, respectively.

20 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.

 Table 4. Pile Reaction Forces 共kN兲 for Load Cases DL2 and DL
Load Case DL2 Load Case DL
Pile number Member number F12 F120 Tie48 Tie3.3 Tie01 F12 F120 Tie48 Tie3.3 Tie01
1 195 ⫺443.13 ⫺684.99 ⫺582.02 ⫺748.17 ⫺772.57 ⫺447.39 ⫺659.37 ⫺560.09 ⫺785.10 ⫺812.61
2 196 ⫺366.84 ⫺617.29 ⫺508.92 ⫺524.83 ⫺527.57 ⫺387.11 ⫺657.86 ⫺541.22 ⫺562.46 ⫺566.12
3 197 ⫺208.28 ⫺536.66 ⫺331.41 ⫺232.56 ⫺218.63 ⫺237.56 ⫺641.15 ⫺398.89 ⫺264.48 ⫺249.58
4 198 ⫺160.80 ⫺418.50 ⫺219.74 ⫺184.12 ⫺178.85 ⫺193.55 ⫺582.49 ⫺275.64 ⫺240.13 ⫺236.57
5 199 ⫺203.07 ⫺386.60 ⫺276.39 ⫺249.59 ⫺245.90 ⫺289.73 ⫺631.90 ⫺419.59 ⫺402.63 ⫺402.41
6 200 ⫺729.03 ⫺1,013.40 ⫺905.75 ⫺1,062.20 ⫺1,099.43 ⫺495.31 ⫺658.93 ⫺618.31 ⫺627.37 ⫺631.63
7 201 ⫺548.06 ⫺845.54 ⫺729.13 ⫺794.81 ⫺811.44 ⫺496.02 ⫺658.94 ⫺618.66 ⫺627.84 ⫺631.64
8 202 ⫺281.04 ⫺658.48 ⫺423.56 ⫺388.04 ⫺382.87 ⫺289.03 ⫺631.72 ⫺419.12 ⫺402.28 ⫺402.40
9 203 ⫺178.05 ⫺469.87 ⫺249.87 ⫺175.69 ⫺162.07 ⫺192.79 ⫺582.38 ⫺275.28 ⫺239.72 ⫺236.56
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10 204 ⫺258.85 ⫺785.38 ⫺448.08 ⫺280.05 ⫺250.92 ⫺238.33 ⫺641.17 ⫺399.33 ⫺264.90 ⫺249.59
11 205 ⫺388.78 ⫺653.47 ⫺535.99 ⫺560.79 ⫺568.12 ⫺387.58 ⫺657.40 ⫺541.47 ⫺562.59 ⫺566.12
12 206 ⫺410.42 ⫺502.43 ⫺479.29 ⫺757.28 ⫺811.57 ⫺446.77 ⫺658.26 ⫺559.32 ⫺784.49 ⫺812.60
13 207 ⫺1,089.60 ⫺702.08 ⫺862.45 ⫺1,111.22 ⫺1,160.36 ⫺1,041.50 ⫺674.01 ⫺814.64 ⫺1,132.70 ⫺1,185.50
14 208 ⫺948.59 ⫺629.49 ⫺778.49 ⫺823.12 ⫺832.06 ⫺1,004.39 ⫺672.33 ⫺829.38 ⫺902.30 ⫺914.86
15 209 ⫺689.70 ⫺557.16 ⫺669.25 ⫺506.80 ⫺474.26 ⫺848.04 ⫺671.36 ⫺819.03 ⫺658.24 ⫺631.58
16 210 ⫺556.67 ⫺486.18 ⫺577.94 ⫺344.09 ⫺294.32 ⫺778.81 ⫺671.15 ⫺806.02 ⫺566.42 ⫺526.63
17 211 ⫺514.53 ⫺416.38 ⫺506.12 ⫺423.22 ⫺403.66 ⫺863.86 ⫺673.55 ⫺837.70 ⫺778.28 ⫺766.03
18 212 ⫺1,722.84 ⫺989.92 ⫺1,300.24 ⫺1,551.43 ⫺1,623.35 ⫺1,284.27 ⫺677.20 ⫺953.19 ⫺947.55 ⫺946.08
19 213 ⫺1,485.43 ⫺914.17 ⫺1,167.08 ⫺1,248.75 ⫺1,269.90 ⫺1,287.23 ⫺677.31 ⫺954.38 ⫺949.50 ⫺946.12
20 214 ⫺917.27 ⫺836.47 ⫺948.24 ⫺837.39 ⫺804.62 ⫺869.63 ⫺673.84 ⫺840.30 ⫺783.58 ⫺766.15
21 215 ⫺850.10 ⫺764.61 ⫺895.64 ⫺452.93 ⫺329.55 ⫺794.80 ⫺671.69 ⫺812.17 ⫺576.16 ⫺526.86
22 216 ⫺845.92 ⫺692.95 ⫺839.96 ⫺496.05 ⫺416.86 ⫺831.86 ⫺670.36 ⫺810.63 ⫺647.40 ⫺631.32
23 217 ⫺974.67 ⫺623.20 ⫺791.66 ⫺845.16 ⫺860.19 ⫺995.16 ⫺671.56 ⫺823.68 ⫺898.35 ⫺914.77
24 218 ⫺967.66 ⫺554.06 ⫺712.19 ⫺1,141.24 ⫺1,240.31 ⫺1,038.82 ⫺673.43 ⫺811.39 ⫺1,135.16 ⫺1,185.58
25 219 ⫺1,089.62 ⫺701.87 ⫺861.94 ⫺1,111.86 ⫺1,160.35 ⫺1,041.56 ⫺673.45 ⫺811.79 ⫺1,135.31 ⫺1,185.48
26 220 ⫺946.91 ⫺629.20 ⫺777.51 ⫺822.80 ⫺832.06 ⫺996.71 ⫺671.57 ⫺823.90 ⫺901.00 ⫺914.88
27 221 ⫺686.38 ⫺556.78 ⫺667.77 ⫺505.57 ⫺474.28 ⫺832.85 ⫺670.36 ⫺810.77 ⫺653.15 ⫺631.66
28 222 ⫺559.50 ⫺486.37 ⫺578.99 ⫺345.46 ⫺294.34 ⫺791.75 ⫺671.66 ⫺811.86 ⫺572.08 ⫺526.72
29 223 ⫺515.51 ⫺416.48 ⫺506.54 ⫺423.87 ⫺403.67 ⫺868.37 ⫺673.82 ⫺840.04 ⫺780.96 ⫺766.05
30 224 ⫺1,723.46 ⫺990.04 ⫺1,300.20 ⫺1,553.87 ⫺1,623.38 ⫺1,286.12 ⫺677.27 ⫺954.08 ⫺947.19 ⫺946.03
31 225 ⫺1,482.24 ⫺914.26 ⫺1,166.26 ⫺1,246.63 ⫺1,269.85 ⫺1,283.24 ⫺677.16 ⫺952.90 ⫺945.27 ⫺945.98
32 226 ⫺912.13 ⫺836.56 ⫺946.93 ⫺831.11 ⫺804.49 ⫺862.61 ⫺673.53 ⫺837.44 ⫺775.70 ⫺765.93
33 227 ⫺836.87 ⫺764.68 ⫺893.04 ⫺440.96 ⫺329.33 ⫺775.76 ⫺671.12 ⫺805.69 ⫺562.41 ⫺526.50
34 228 ⫺858.32 ⫺693.10 ⫺842.90 ⫺510.00 ⫺417.17 ⫺849.03 ⫺671.36 ⫺819.17 ⫺664.04 ⫺631.92
35 229 ⫺981.88 ⫺623.32 ⫺793.65 ⫺850.33 ⫺860.29 ⫺1,005.82 ⫺672.34 ⫺829.58 ⫺904.91 ⫺914.97
36 230 ⫺970.17 ⫺554.18 ⫺713.34 ⫺1,138.34 ⫺1,240.21 ⫺1,043.94 ⫺674.03 ⫺814.99 ⫺1,132.73 ⫺1,185.40
37 231 ⫺443.06 ⫺684.62 ⫺581.96 ⫺748.14 ⫺772.57 ⫺447.07 ⫺658.40 ⫺559.72 ⫺784.98 ⫺812.61
38 232 ⫺367.00 ⫺617.12 ⫺508.99 ⫺524.85 ⫺527.57 ⫺387.82 ⫺657.44 ⫺541.60 ⫺562.58 ⫺566.11
39 233 ⫺208.48 ⫺536.68 ⫺331.51 ⫺232.63 ⫺218.63 ⫺238.47 ⫺641.20 ⫺399.43 ⫺264.75 ⫺249.58
40 234 ⫺160.68 ⫺418.46 ⫺219.68 ⫺184.07 ⫺178.85 ⫺192.99 ⫺582.38 ⫺275.32 ⫺239.95 ⫺236.57
41 235 ⫺203.00 ⫺386.53 ⫺276.33 ⫺249.57 ⫺245.90 ⫺289.41 ⫺631.71 ⫺419.26 ⫺402.54 ⫺402.41
42 236 ⫺728.91 ⫺1,013.50 ⫺905.67 ⫺1,062.11 ⫺1,099.43 ⫺495.04 ⫺658.77 ⫺618.04 ⫺627.26 ⫺631.63
43 237 ⫺547.23 ⫺845.58 ⫺728.86 ⫺794.09 ⫺811.43 ⫺494.18 ⫺658.76 ⫺617.63 ⫺626.75 ⫺631.62
44 238 ⫺281.39 ⫺658.53 ⫺423.68 ⫺388.35 ⫺382.87 ⫺289.55 ⫺631.89 ⫺419.47 ⫺402.69 ⫺402.41
45 239 ⫺178.65 ⫺469.89 ⫺250.01 ⫺176.20 ⫺162.08 ⫺193.68 ⫺582.49 ⫺275.64 ⫺240.35 ⫺236.58
46 240 ⫺258.22 ⫺785.40 ⫺447.92 ⫺279.49 ⫺250.91 ⫺237.51 ⫺641.17 ⫺398.85 ⫺264.27 ⫺249.56
47 241 ⫺388.25 ⫺653.56 ⫺535.88 ⫺560.52 ⫺568.11 ⫺386.84 ⫺657.89 ⫺541.15 ⫺562.28 ⫺566.11
48 242 ⫺411.50 ⫺502.67 ⫺479.73 ⫺758.31 ⫺811.59 ⫺448.82 ⫺659.52 ⫺560.90 ⫺785.89 ⫺812.63

Max⫽ ⫺160.68 ⫺386.53 ⫺219.68 ⫺175.69 ⫺162.07 ⫺192.79 ⫺582.38 ⫺275.28 ⫺239.72 ⫺236.56
Min⫽ ⫺1,723.46 ⫺1,013.50 ⫺1,300.24 ⫺1,553.87 ⫺1,623.38 ⫺1,287.23 ⫺677.31 ⫺954.38 ⫺1,135.31 ⫺1,185.58

PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002 / 21

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Pile reaction distribution, model tie48, load case DL2

Fig. 8. Pile reaction distribution, model F120, load case DL

22 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Strut-and-tie model with known and unknown reactions
It is noted that although the tension forces of members at the top
of the footer are larger than those at the bottom, larger postten-
sioning forces are needed at the bottom of the footer because the
bottom is stiffer than the top. When the bottom is posttensioned, a
large amount of the posttensioning force goes to the diagonal
struts instead of the ties. This phenomenon is called a secondary
effect. For an indeterminate structure, secondary effects can be
very significant.
Fig. 10. Stress in along-footing direction under substructure dead load 共nonphased construction兲
PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002 / 23
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.
Reaction Force of Piles
The pile reaction forces for all models under dead load consider-
ing both phased 共DL2兲 and nonphased 共DL兲 constructions are
summarized in Table 4. It can be seen by comparing the minimum
and maximum reactions that the distributions of reactions are far
from uniform except for model F120 with load case DL. In other
words, a uniform distribution of pile reactions will be true only
under the conditions that the footing is very rigid and that a non-
phased construction method is used. As an example of the phased
construction under dead load DL2, Fig. 7 shows the nonuniform
distribution of pile reactions predicted with model Tie48. In com-
parison, for the nonphased construction under load case DL,
model F120 predicts an almost uniformly distributed pile reac-
tion, as shown in Fig. 8. Therefore, a uniform distribution of the
reactions is not always true, depending on the stiffness of the
strut-and-tie model and the construction sequence.
Discussion of Load Placement in Strut-and-Tie
Model
As discussed earlier, the 3D strut-and-tie model established in the
present study is an indeterminate structure whose distribution of
member forces depends on the relative stiffness of the members.
Since the member stiffness of this particular structure is very
difficult to determine, one would wonder why not to develop a
determinate strut-and-tie model.
One choice would be the same as that in the KCA study 共1998兲,
i.e., the model was fixed at the bottom of the columns, and the
pile reactions were applied as loads from the bottom of the pile
cap. It is thus possible to reduce the redundance or formulate a
determinate model by further simplifying the footing as a 2D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Stress in along-footing direction under total dead load 共nonphased construction兲

Fig. 12. Stress in along-footing direction under total dead load 共phased construction兲

24 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.

 structure. This would be acceptable if the reaction forces of piles
are known and the self-weight of the substructure is small. First,
however, the reactions are unknown and far from uniformly dis-
tributed among the piles due to the elastic deformation of struts
and piles and to the phased construction, as discussed earlier.
Second, the self-weight of the substructure is a significant part
共47%兲 of the total load. Applying this significant self-weight of
the substructure from the bottom of the pile cap would cause large
tension forces in the ties at the top of the footer, as in the KCA
study 共1998兲. In reality, substructure dead load causes much less
tension force on the top of the footing, if any. For example, since
the self-weight of the pile cap goes to the piles before the column
footer is built, it should not cause tension force near the top of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
footer. This was verified in the finite-element analysis, as dis-
cussed below.
Furthermore, applying load from the top of piles may change the
indeterminate structure into a determinate one whose internal
forces do not depend on the relative member sizes. Take a two-
span continuous deep beam shown in Fig. 9, for example. An
elastic analysis of the continuous beam shown in Fig. 9共a兲 pre-
dicts the reactions as R 1 ⫽R 3 ⫽10P/32 and R 2 ⫽22P/16. By ap-
plying these reactions to the bottom of the strut-and-tie model in
Fig. 9共b兲, the model becomes a determinate structure that gives
the strut force as N c ⫽R 3 / cos ␪⫽10P/(32 cos ␪). In comparison,
for an indeterminate strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 9共c兲, the
strut force depends on the member stiffness of the struts and ties.
In an extreme case where the top tie is broken, i.e., its stiffness is
zero, the strut force N c would be P/(2 cos ␪). The difference in
the strut forces between the two approaches is significant.
Confirmation of 3D Finite-Element Analysis
In addition to the strut-and-tie model analysis conducted above, a
3D finite-element solid modeling was performed with the GT-
STRUDL program. While the finite-element method 共FEM兲 with
solid modeling would be a very powerful method for complicated
structure systems, it is not the most appropriate one to model this
particular structure with cracking. To predict the existing force
distribution of a cracked structure, FEM analysis tracing the
cracking process would be materially nonlinear. This kind of
analysis would be very time-consuming.
For the reason discussed above, only a linear finite-element solid
modeling was performed. The purpose of this analysis was to help
understand the behavior of the structure. One needs to be very
cautious when one correlates the results between the solid mod-
eling and the strut-and-tie analysis since these two models may
have different stiffness and represent two different stages of the
structures. The correlation should be more qualitative than quan-
titative.
For a nonphased construction, the S xx stress contours 共along-
PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / FEBRUARY 2002 / 25
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2002.7:14-25.
footing direction兲 under substructure dead load is shown in Fig.
10. As expected and stated earlier, substructure dead load causes
very low tension stress at the top of footing. The superstructure
dead load and live load do cause tension at the top of the footing.
The S XX stress contour 共along-footing direction兲 of nonphased
construction under the total dead load 共DL兲 is shown in Fig. 11,
compared with its counterpart under phased construction 共DL2兲
shown in Fig. 12. The difference in stresses between nonphased
and phased construction is obvious. While the nonphased load
case DL predicts a uniform distribution with each pile reactions of
620 kN, the phased-load case DL2 predicts a nonuniform distri-
bution of pile reactions varying from 327 to 826 kN.
Conclusions
A 3D indeterminate strut-and-tie model was developed for the
analysis of the footing system. Five different levels of stiffness
were used to cover the lower and upper bounds for both cracked
and uncracked situations. By following the sequence of construc-
tion, the model predicted the stresses of the members at different
stages. Finite-element solid modeling was also conducted to
verify the strut-and-tie model. The following conclusions are
drawn from the study:
1. The tensile force on the top of the footer is larger than the
capacity of the reinforcement. This indicates an underdesign
of reinforcement and explains the transverse crackling at the
top of the footer.
2. The tensile force on the top of the footer constructed in
phase 1 is significantly larger than that constructed in phase
2. This explains why the former has much more severe
cracking than the latter and indicates that phased construc-
tion is the main source of the cracking.
3. To close the existing cracks and prevent new ones, two and
six tendons 共with 7-0.6⬙ stands兲 are recommended at the top
and bottom of the footer, respectively.
4. In developing a retrofitting approach for cracked structures,
the stiffness of the model needs to be properly selected.
References
AASHTO. 共1996兲. ‘‘Standard specification for highway bridges.’’ Wash-
ington, D.C.
AASHTO. 共1998兲. ‘‘LRFD bridge design specifications.’’ Washington
D.C.
Kesner, K. E., and Poston, R. W. 共2000兲. ‘‘Evaluation and strengthening
of structural concrete using strut-and-tie models.’’ Concr. Int., 22共11兲,
48 –54.
Kissinger, Campo, and Associates 共KCA兲. 共1998兲. ‘‘SR A1A over intrac-
oastal waterway pier analysis.’’ Report prepared for Florida Depart-
ment of Transportation, District 5, Deland, Florida.