STRUT AND TIE MODEL FOR R.C.

BEAM-COLUMN
JOINTS BY SELF-DESIGNING STRUCTURES CONCEPT
By

A. E. Atta+, S. D. F. Taher+, A. A. Khalil+, and S. E. Metwally++,

+Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University,Egypt.
++Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University,Egypt.

ABSTRACT
Strut and tie modeling is a valuable tool for design of irregular concrete
members such as beam-column joints with and without joint stirrups the ACI
318-02 Code contains provisions pertaining to design using strut and tie models.
In this paper, the concept of Self –Designing Structures (SDS) is introduced
within the framework of nonlinear analysis. This approach is followed for sake
of determining the actual strut and tie mechanism. The proposed methodology is
based on the iterative use of finite elements, with the structure reshaped and re-
meshed at each design iteration. Iteration Design Refinement (IDR) is followed
in the present work for (SDS) solution algorithm. The strut and tie model of
Vollum and Newman [13] for beam column joint is further considered with
refinement obtained from the results of (SDS). Analytical modification for
taking the effect of concrete strength and yield stress of reinforcement is made in
the calculation of the width of strut inside the joint. Also, the effect of normal
force acting on the column, on the behavior of formation of strut in joint zone is
considered. The modified analytical model is compared against the experimental
findings for appropriate evaluation of the procedure.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete, Beam-column joint, Strut-and-tie model, Self-
designing structures, Nonlinear finite element analysis.

‫الملخص العربي‬
‫تعتبر نظرية نموذج الضاغط والشاد من الدوات القيمة لتصميم العناصر الخرسانية غير المنتظمة مثل‬
ACI 318-02 ‫ ويشتمل كود‬.‫وصلت الكمرات بالعأمدة في حالة وجود أو عأدم وجود كانات بالوصلة‬
‫ وسوف نقدم في هذا‬.‫عألى الشروط و الحتياطات المتعلقة بالتصميم باستخدام نظرية نموذج الضاغط والشاد‬
‫ وسوف يستخدم‬.‫ ( وذلك في إطار التحليل اللخطي‬SDS)‫البحث مفاهيم نظرية التصميم الذاتي للمنشآت‬
‫ ويعتمد المنهج المقترح عألى التكرار‬.‫هذا التقريب لحساب الشكل الحقيقي لميكانيكية نموذج الضاغط والشاد‬
‫باستخدام طريقة العناصر الحدية غير الخطية وذلك بإعأادة التشكيل و إعأادة ترتيب شبكة العناصر الحدية‬
‫( وذلك للحل الحسابي للتصميم‬IDR)‫ وسوف يتبع هذا البحث طريقة التصميم بتكرار التنقية‬.‫عأند كل تكرار‬
Vollum and)‫ وقد تم الخذ في العأتبار نموذج الضاغط والشاد المحسوب بواسطة‬.‫الذاتي للمنشآت‬
‫ وقد تم عأمل تعديل تحليلي لهذا النموذج لخذ تأثير مقاومة‬.‫( عأند التصميم الذاتي للمنشآت‬Newman
‫ أيضا" تم أخذ تأثير‬.‫الخرسانة إواجهاد الخضوع للحديد وذلك عأند حساب عأرض الضاغط داخل الوصلة‬
‫ وقد تم مقارنة‬.‫القوى العمودية المؤثرة عألى العمود وذلك عألى سلوك وتكون الضاغط في منطقة الوصلة‬
‫النموذج التحليلي المعدل في مقابل المعطيات العملية لعينات وصلت كمرات بأعأمدة مختبر معمليا" وذلك‬
.‫لتقييم هذا السلوب المقترح‬
1. INTRODUCTION

45
Onset of failure in beam-column joints is detrimental to the stability, equilibrium
and safety of reinforced concrete structures [7]. Although strong column-
weak girder concept is specified in many design codes, strength and ductility
requirements of joint have to be adequately fulfilled. Both previous
experimental studies have focused on some major parameters such as
relative stiffness of beam and column, grade of concrete, detailing of
reinforcement and the existing of axial load on column. Many simplified
analytical models has been proposed to visualize the load transfer path and
therefore quantify the system capacity. Truss analogy and strut and tie
models and their extensions are the basic logical approaches with this
concern [11], [12]. The strut and tie model of Vollum and Newman [13]
received a great deal of attention in the past three years and is further
considered in the present study.

To distinguish the load transfer through the joint the self-designing structures
concept is used. Nonlinear finite element analysis of external beam column
joint is undertaken. ANSYS 5.4 software package [2] and the built-in
material nonlinearly library for both concrete and steel reinforcement are
used. Removal of low stressed concrete elements is carried out iteratively
such that the ultimate capacity of the system is not reduced by a value
greater than specified tolerance evaluated at each successive runs. The final
configuration of the mesh gives the necessary and essential elements
required for load transfer without any loss of system capacity or integrity.
Such analysis procedure is employed for samples made of various concrete
grades, different distribution of horizontal hoops in joint zone, several
arrangement of column reinforcements and the existence of imposed loads
on column at different magnitudes. Bull (2001)[6] outlined three methods
have achieved notable success in the full topological optimization of
structure: homogenization and two evolutionary methods. The SDS research
has developed a suite of computer programs capable of a two and three
dimensional topological optimization using Hard Kill (HK), Reverse
Adaptively (RA) and Evolutionary Material Translation (EMT).

The numerical predictions are verified for particular experimental loading test
[3], [4]. The comparison between the output of self-design structure analysis and
experimental observations augmented the formation of compression strut with
associated tie concordant with that postulated by Vollum and Newman [13].
However, minor modifications found essential and therefore suggested to
recommend this model in rational design procedures. Basically the average
width of the strut is found to be dependent on the concrete grade, steel type,
hoops spacing, joint size, compression block in column and girder due to the
acting loads. Statistical implementations of the results have led to a simplified
expression suitable for practical applications.

46
2. THE CONCEPT OF SELF DESIGNING STRUCTURES

Engineering design processes usually begin with the formulation of design

requirements followed by an initial design, which is tested against those
requirements. The testing can involve building a prototype, building a computer
model or performing an experiment. If the design is deficient, it is changed with
the change process typically involving trial and error, previous experience etc.
The process iterates until the design requirements are met. However, with the
introduction of design optimization the design-cycle time is shortened and
optimum design is achieved.

Traditionally design optimization describes an engineering design problem using

mathematical formulations and design variables, then forms a design space and
searches for the optimum design subject to a set of given constraints.
Alternatively numerical methods can be applied to discretised models of the
design problems. Analytical methods are most suited for fundamental studies of
simple structural system. The structural design is represented by a number of
unknown functions. The optimal design is found theoretically exactly through
the solution of a system of equation expressing the conditions for optimality.
Numerical methods employ mathematical programming techniques with a near
optimal design generated automatically in an iterative manner. An initial
“guessed” design is the starting point. The search terminates when the "current"
design is sufficiently close to the true optimum.

In continuous structure, the configuration of the structure is defined by general

shape parameters. Shape design variables, describing the boundary of the
structure, are usually optimized by numerical methods. A change in the shape of
a continuum structure can cause particular difficulties in the solution process and
requires a finite-element model that changes during the optimization. To ensure
the accuracy of the finite element throughout the design process, mesh
refinement must be included in the iterative cycle as an optimum topology is
approached so that the shape becomes very clear. This mesh refinement is a
major part of the Self-Designing Structures (SDS) approach. “Self –Designing
Structures” optimization. Scheme was first formulated to model the natural
behavior of bone that adds material, when stressed and discards material, when
not stressed [6]. The Self-Designing Structures program uses a similar
methodology, but based on the iterative use of finite elements. The structure is
reshaped and re-meshed at each design iteration.

The SDS researches developed finite element (F.E.) mesh based algorithms for
determining the optimal structural solution to engineering redesign problems.
The research produced a mean of automatically developing from an initial
structure, subject to given boundary conditions, loading and maximum and

47
minimum stress requirements of a final structure where the material used in the
structure is minimized. The methodology is based on the iterative use of finite
elements, with the structure reshaped and re-meshed at each design iteration. A
similar methodology is followed in the present work.

SDS ALGORITHM .3

A number of algorithms have been developed such as Interactive Design

Refinement and Element Removal and Accretion. The latter assumes zero elastic
modulus for removed elements. It avoids re-meshing but some time creates
numerical difficulties. The first concept, developed within the SDS research is
the Interactive Design Refinement (IDR), a very simple, but flexible idea, that
does not require any special computer software, which is followed in the present
work. The problem starts with a domain of material, which is usually larger than
that of the proposed component. The finite element mesh is developed, covering
this domain, and the boundary conditions and loads are applied. The structure is
then analyzed and a graphical plot of the resulting stresses is obtained. This
usually takes the form of a contour plot of the principal stresses. The structure is
reshaped, using a mouse and clicking and pointing to change to structural shape.
The mesh generator is then used to mesh the evolved structure. This process is
continued until the necessary structural improvements are achieved. Although
this method is very simple, it is very powerful as the designer can build in
engineering judgement at every stage [6]. The designer can add material, by
moving the shape outside its original envelope and can allow material not to
become disconnected, which can happen with automated system, and can keep
the boundary of the structure smooth, incorporating any production constraints.

The IDR manual iterative procedure has four main operations: a) fix the criteria
for material addition and removal, b) define the structure for analysis, c) analyze
the structure using ANSYS 5.4 and d) use the criteria established in (a) to
determine what material is to be added and removed, and, accordingly, add or
remove material by taking the sequence of operations back to (b) to redefine the
structural layout. The procedure loops around operations (b), (c) and (d) until the
remaining section is maximally stressed under the given boundary conditions
and constraints without any reduction in the ultimate loading capacity of the
analyzed system.

Fig.1 depicts the proposed solution scheme, which is employed in the present
study for SDS analysis. One of the major differences of the prescribed SDS
procedure versus other approaches is the nonlinear solution criterion. Two stress
values are set: the maximum stress threshold and the removal stress threshold.
The maximum stress threshold is the fixed limit, which no stress in the structure
can exceed. Material stressed to values less than the removal stress threshold is

48
 deleted. These values are selectively chosen according to the generated output
contours of the problem.
START

Initialization

morf atad tupnI

melborp lanigiro

Establish problem topology, connectivity, and boundary condition

Calculate element volume

Associate loads & Restraints

Evaluate ultimate capacity

elif tuptuo tnirP

Calculate rate of material change over previous

iteration with respect to
Removal
Addition
Not change

ro evomeR P saH
degnahcu
oN
dda yltnacifingiS
tnemelE
eY s
stluser tnirP

potS
Fig.1 Proposed flow diagram for SDS solution algorithm.
4. STUDY CASES

49
Fig. 2 shows the details of reinforcement for the beam-column joint
experimental specimens made of high strength concrete [1] and tested by Atta
[4]. Specimen G2-B represent the case of no stirrups in the joint zone and
Specimen G2-A represent the case of using stirrups in the joint zone,
respectively. The experimental findings of these specimens were used for the
evaluation of the proposed procedure.

ts
PNk
c 004 = PNk
c 004 = A cs
mm 8

A bs 002
004
200

0001 002 0001 B-B noitceS

B B A-A noitceS B B

009 A js 009
A A

004 004

A 006 A 006
Pg Pg

A2ts= 01 all dimensions in mm

1000 0001
A3bs= 61
A4 cs= 61
(B-2G)002 -a
nemiceps b-
(A-2G) nemiceps
002

Fig.2 Details of specimens used in SDS.

5. FUNDAMENTAL LOAD PATH THROUGH THE JOINT

Fig. 3, and 4 shows the step- by- step re-configuration of the joint zone results of
(IDR) algorithm used to find the effective area of joint to resist the diagonal
shear stress (diagonal strut) in case of no stirrups in the joint zone (specimen
G2-B) and in case of using two stirrups in the joint zone (specimen G2-A),
respectively. The iterative solution procedure is adopted in a manner that
distinguishes the less stressed elements as such consequently, the mechanism of
load transfer is visualized through the development of concrete strut in which
the stress path is experienced and finally the anticipated failure is exhibited. The
finite element discreatization for SDS analysis is prepared in a very fine mesh
such that element removal be carried out gradually.

50
 The results indicate that the maximum effective area of joint zone is about 70%
of joint zone, after which the failure load dropped abruptly. In detailing
specimen (G2-A), the decrease in the failure load takes place gradually, until the
removed volume reached 33 % of joint volume. In both cases, a tolerance of 10
% of the ultimate load is specified. It is worth nothing that removal of main
elements within the SDS solution affects convergence tremendously. Sudden
drop in the ultimate capacity is noted as shown in Fig. 5 with successive element
removal with final loss of the overall stability with consecutive iterations.
The effective width of strut is found to be a fundamental parameter in the
developed load transfer that eventually translates the diagonal cracks SDS
solution is noted to yield about 0.30 of joint width in case of using horizontal
stirrups, and about 0.40 of joint width in case no horizontal stirrup. It is
remarkable that this width is altered in other situations for different
characteristic strength of the materials, imposed column load and reinforcement
detailing. A more elaborate investigation is carried out to derive a regression
formula for the effective width of the strut in terms these parameters.

120

100 004 Nk

YT80 B-2G NEMICEPS

IC
AP A-2G NEMICEPS
AC Pg
LO
B-2G
R60NEMICEPS A-2G NEMICEPS
TN
O
C
/
40
YT
IC
AP
AC
%

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
EMULOV TNIOJ / EMULOV DEVOMER %

er ot enoz tnioj fo emulov evitceffE 5 .giF

6. VOLLUM AND NEWMANS STRUT AND TIE MODEL

6.1. BEAM COLUMN JOINTS WITHOUT STIRRUPS

51
 Volum and Newman [13] developed a sound strut –and- tie model which was
consistent with the general fundamentals [8-10]. This formulation was
based on the fact that joint shear strength:
(a) Is sensibly independent of column axial load unless a hinge forms
in the upper column;
(b) Is proportional toc for joints without stirrups; and
(c) Reduces with increasing joint aspect ratio hb/hc though test data are
limited, but there is some evidence that the joint shear strength reduces by
about 35% almost linearly, as hb/hc is increased from 1 to 2 (recent tests
by Scott and Hamil confirm that joint shear strength reduces with
increasing hb/hc. (personal communication by Volum and Newman 1999))
The strut and tie model shown in Fig. 6 was calibrated to predict that the joint
shear strength varies as described above by choosing appropriate function for
concrete strength d and the strut width wt. Full details of the model are given
elsewhere and only key details are described here. The strain-softening model of
Collins et al. is used to calculate the concrete strength in the joint. The strain-
softened concrete strength in MPa is
(1).……………
'
fc
f   f `c
0.8  170 1

where ε1 is the principal tensile strain. Equation (1) is based on the assumption
that the maximum compressive stress is reached at a strain ε’c of –0.002. If the
compressive strain in the inclined strut is. -0.002 at failure, a Mohr circle shows
that the principal tensile strain ε1 is given by:
xt C*se Cce
Fv` = C*se + Cce + T*se T*si = KTsi
et
Vcol Xt Vcol Tbeam
Tbeam
wt
Beam load P
Wtsin P assumed to act at
centroid of
external layer of
 column bars

xbeam
Center line
Vi
Vj
Vcol Vcol
x xb
FV = C*si + Cci + T*si - P
b eb
T*se
= = Cci C*
si

(b) geometry. (a) boundary.

Fig.ε61 Strut 2
= εt+(ε t +
and tie0.002)
model ofcot
beam θ column joint without stirrups [10].
.......………(2)
forces

52
where θ is the angle between the direction of the principal compressive stress
and the transverse (stirrup) strain εt. The concrete compressive stress is given by

σ = [2(ε2/ε`c) – (ε2/ε`c)2] ƒ .......………(3)

where ε2 is the principal compressive strain, Tests show that joint shear strength
can be significantly increased by the provision of joint stirrups but it is much
less dependent on the strain in the main column and beam reinforcement. This
indicates that the concrete strength in the strut is principally related to stirrup
strain and that ε1 should be taken as the mean stirrup strain. This approach is not
valid if joint stirrups are not provided. In the case of joints without stirrups, εt is
assumed to be 0.003 at failure (corresponding to a typical yield strain of high-
yield reinforcement) and equation (1) is modified as follows to make the
predicted joint shear strength proportional to c’ as observed:

0.5
5.92 f 'c N, mm (SI units) (4)……….......
f   f 'c
0.8  1701

The forces acting at the joint boundaries are shown in Fig. 6. The centerline of
the strut is defined by the intersection of the lines of action of the horizontal and
vertical joint shear forces at each node (see Fig. 6). The node dimensions are
defined in terms of the widths of rectangular concrete stress blocks in the upper
and lower columns, which in turn are related to the column bar force. The width
of strut at the top node is taken as:

wt = 2(xt – et) sin θ .......………

(5)

where xt is the width of the concrete stress block in the column at the top node
end et is the eccentricity of the resultant vertical joint shear force Fv (see Fig. 6).
Both xt and et depend on the column bar forces and can be established from
equilibrium. A similar definition of strut width is adopted for the bottom node. It
is assumed, on the basis of crack patterns at failure, that joint shear failure
originates near the top node. Therefore, the joint shear strength is taken as:

Vj = be wt ƒd cos θ .......………
(6)

where ƒd is the concrete strength in the strut and the effective joint width be is
the less of 0.5(bb + bc) and bb + 0.5 hc if bb  bc, and the lesser of bc + 0.5 hc and bb
if bb  bc.

53
 .The following procedure is used to determine the failure load
(a) Assume the column load to be zero.
(b) Calculate the forces in concrete and reinforcement at joint boundaries
assuming plane sections remain plane (the rectangular-parabolic stress block of
Euro code 2 is used with a maximum stress (SI units) of 0.85ƒ`c (1 – ƒ`c / 250)),
fc’ in MPa.
(c) Multiply the tensile force Tsi in the inner column bar by K (>1) to account
for the redistribution. (The concrete stress block is modified to maintain
equilibrium when the column bar forces are adjusted.)
(d) Establish the position of the centerline of the strut at the top and bottom
nodes, the width of the stress block in the column, the strut width and, hence,
the failure load.

The strut width was found by calibrating the model for the beam-column joint
specimens of Ortiz [8] without stirrup by adjusting K in step (c). Increasing K
increases the predicted failure load since it increases the strut width at the top
node (see equation (6)) owing to the increase in width of the stress block in the
upper column. The resulting strut width is

w = 0.4 hc / sin θ .......

………(7)

Where the function hc / sin θ was chosen to make the predicted joint shear
strength decrease with joint aspect ratio as observed. The strut width needs to be
increased above 0.4 hc / sin θ to maintain a constant joint shear strength at
column loads greater than zero. The proposed solution procedure avoids this
problem by assuming that there is no load in the upper column. This is justified
by the experimental observation that the joint shear strength is sensibly
independent of column load unless a hinge forms in the upper column. The
analysis needs to be modified if the inner column bars yield in stage (c) when K
is increased to increase the strut width to 0.4 hc / sin θ. In this case, the column
load is taken as the minimum of the actual column load and that at which the
column bars yield when the strut width equals 0.4 hc / sinθ. In the solution
procedure, only the tensile force in the inner column bar is adjusted. In practice,
the forces in all the column bars are greater than is predicted when assuming
plane sections remain plane.

The sensitivity of the predicted failure load to variations in the column bar
forces for a strut width of 0.4 hc / sin θ was investigated and it was found to be
small. The influence on the predicted failure load of adjusting the force in the
column bars (from forces calculated assuming plane sections remain plane) is as
follows.

54
(a) Method 1. Take strut width as 0.4 hc / sin θ with no adjustment to column bar
forces.
(b) Method 2. Increase the tensile force in the inner column bars to make the
strut width 0.4 hc / sin θ at the top node.
(c) Method 3. Increase the tensile force in the inner and the outer column bars
to make the strut width 0.4 hc / sin θ at the top and bottom nodes.

Method 2 was adopted because (1) it is simple and (2) it takes into account the
observed possible yielding of the inner column reinforcement, and premature
hinging of the upper column.

7. LIMITATIONS OF VOLUM AND NEWMAN’S MODEL

Sritharan and Inghham [12] criticism for the strut-and- tie model of Vollom and
Newman [13], summarizes the main factors hereafter:

i. Axial compression forces

The lower level columns of many concrete frames are often subjected to
considerable axial compression due to dead and live loads. Similarly, prestressed
sections are subjected to axial compressions. Finally, cyclically loaded frames
can be expected to generate beam axial compression due to cumulative effect of
beam plastic hinge formation, and oscillating column seismic axial tension and
compression forces. On this bases the discussion have founded it valuable to
account for axial forces at the boundaries when assessing joint performance.

ii. Calibration
Calibration of the model with Ortiz’s data, who used yb = 720 MPa, may not
accurately capture the behavior of reinforcement of strengths of about 500 MPa,
as typical strength in many countries.

8. PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF VOLLUM AND NEWMAN’S MODEL

Based on the present analysis of the experimental observation [4], the SDS
analysis results and the strut and tie model, the three idealization of load transfer
path through the joint of specimen G2-B are proposed as illustrated in Fig. 7. A
close scrutiny reveals the development of non-prismatic strut performed along
the compressed fibers of the column. The size of the nodal zone is clearly
dependent upon the compression block in both column and girder in the
surrounding boundaries. Similar findings are obtained through SDS iterative
solution, which in turn resembles the proposed strut-and-tie model of Vollum
and Newman [10]. This comparison gives more confidence on calibrating the
analytical model. Furthermore, Fig. 8 depicts the intuitive formation of struts for
joints with lateral hoops (specimen G2-A) as illustrated in the specimen.

55
According to the previous criticism to the Vollum and Newman’s model, the
main concern resides in calculating the average effective width of strut inside
joint zone. SDS solution to problems with various concrete grades and steel
types is presented in Figs 9, 10. Regression analysis of the results yielded the
following formula:

0.008hc f yb
w (8)……….......
sin  fc
where:
w = width of strut inside the joint in mm.
hc = width of column in joint direction in mm.
fyb = yield stress of reinforcement in MPa.
fc’ = concrete strength in MPa.
 = as described in Fig. (6).
Idealization strut

G2-B G2-B

.Experimental observation[4]) a( (b) Experimental idealization.

Ts Cc

Cs
Cc

Ts

(c) SDS visualization. Cs Cc Ts

(d) Strut and tie model.

Fig. 7 Comparison of experimental observation, SDS results, and idealization at failure

of specimen G2-B.

56
 Fig. 11 shows the effect of increasing column load on the analysis of strut and
tie model. The figure shows that increasing the column load tends to increase the
concrete compression blocks in both upper and lower part of joint zone, so the
inclination of the strut is increased. The nodal zone is increased as such and
consequently the value of  is increased as well. Finally we can see that
increasing the normal force acting on column provides stiffness of the strut
because its effective length is reduced between the larger upper and lower nodal
zones.
sturts noitazilaedI

A-2G A-2G

(a) Experimental observation[4].

noitazilaedi latnemirepxE )b (
cC sT

sC
cC

sT

sT cC sC
noitazilausiv SDS. )c ( eit dna turtS
ledom )d (
Fig. 8 Comparison of experimental observation, SDS results, and idealization at failure of
specimen G1-B.

57
 Having incorporated this modification in the strut-and-tie modal of Vollum and
Newman [10], the proposed design procedures can be summarized as follows:
1. Determine the plastic centroid of the column at its upper and lower
junctions.
2. Determine the compression stress block in concrete in joint boundaries.
3. Figure out the borders of the nodal zones within the joint
4. Determine the slope angle of concrete strut ( ) which depends Son the
joint geometry and the compressive stress block at joint interface.
5. Calculate the width of concrete strut from equation (8).
6. Calculate the stress in concrete strut from Vollum and Newman’s
equations.
7. Calculate joint shear strength.

160 200

140 180
Equation 8 results 160
120
STRUT WIDTH (mm)

SDS results Equation 8 results

STREUT WIDTH (mm)

140
SDS results
100
120
Pc = 400 kN
80 100
Pc = 400 kN fy = 450 MPa
fy = 360 MPa 80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
fc' (MPa) fc' (MPa)

Fig. 9 Effective strut width for fy = 360 MPa Fig. 10 Effective strut width for fy = 450 MPa

Ts Cc Ts Cc Ts Cc

Cs Cs Cs
Cc Cc Cc

Ts Ts Ts

Cs Cc Ts Cs Cc Ts Cs Cc Ts

(a) Small value of fo eulav muideM )b (fo eulav egraL )c (

normal force. ecrof lamron. ecrof lamron.
Fig. 11 Effect of normal force acting on column on the behavior of strut in joint zone.

58
 8. CONCLUSIONS

- Self-design structure concept is a viable tool for visualizing the mechanism

of load transfer, which soundly interpreted the experimental observations.
Nonlinear finite element analysis incorporation with such concept is
essential for determining the real strut-and-tie mechanism.
- The interactive elimination procedure in the nonlinear solution provided a
reasonable SDS algorithm.
- The proposed modification of Vollum and Newman’s model [13] takes
into account the actual stress state within the joint zone in the presence of
column’s axial load and the existence of hoop reinforcement.
- The normal force acting on column shows a considerable effect on the
formulation of strut in joint zone.
- The effective width of strut and inclination are found to be fundamental
parameters in the prediction of the ultimate load capacity.

APPENDIX 1. REFERENCES

1] ACI-ASCE committee 363, “State of the Art Report on High Strength

Concrete”, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, , 1984.
2] ANSYS User’s Manual, 1997, “Theory, Commands, Analysis and
Element”, Release 5.4 ANSYS Inc. Houston, Pa., 1997.
3] Atta, A. E., Taher, S. F., Khalil, A. A., and El-metwally, S. E.,”
Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Reinforced High Strength
Concrete Beam Column Joint”, The Second Minia International Conference
for Advanced Trends in Engineering, 2002.
4] Atta, A.M.E., “ Experimental and Analytical Investigation on
Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beam Column Joints”,M.S. Thesis,
Tanta University, 2002.
5] Baglin, P.S., Scott, R.H., Nov.,“ Finite Element Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Connection” ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 97, 2000.
6] Bull, J. W., and Pitouras, Z., “Self-Designing Structures”, Civil and
Structural Engineering Computing, pp. 235-260, 2001.
7] El-Metwally, S., “ On the Behavior and Design of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Connection,” Engineering Research Bulletin, Vol. 1, pp.104-
121, Jan 1992.
8] Fu, C.C., “The Strut-and-Tie Model of Concrete Structure” Report
Presented to the Margland State Highway Administration, University of
Maryland, August 21,2001.
9] Schlaich, J., Schafer, K., and Jennewein, M., “Towared a Consistent
Design of Structural Concrete” complete Report, PCI Journal, vol.32, no.3,
pp.75-150, 1987.

59
 10] Schafer, K., and Schlaich, J., “Strut-and-Tie Models for the Design and
Detailing of Structural Concrete” Seminar- Notes ENCI 623, University of
Stuttgart, Germany, Galgary, Sept. 1998.
11] Ortiz, Reys, I., “Strut and Tie Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Short Beam
and Beam-Column Joints,” PhD thesis. University of Westminster, 1993.
12] Sritharan, S., and Ingham, J. M.,“ Discussion on strut and tie models
for analysis/ design of external beam column joints,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, No.01, pp. 63-66, 2001.
13] Vollum, R. L., and Newman, J. B., “Strut and Tie Models for
Analysis/Design of External Beam Column Joints,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, No.6, pp. 415-425, 1999.

APPENDIX 2. NOTATIONS

bc, bb member width (c, column; b, beam).

be effective joint width.
C constant defining width of direct strut in stiffness analysis.
Cce, Cci concrete force in column at joint boundary (e, external column face; i, internal
column face).
Cse, Csi compressive force in column bars assuming plane sections remain plane (e, external
column face; i, internal column face).
eb, et eccentricity of Fv at bottom node and top node, respectively .
Fv resultant vertical joint shear force.
f strain-softened concrete strength (d, direct strut; ib, lower indirect strut; it, upper
indirect strut).
f’c concrete cylinder strength.
fyb yield strength of beam flexural reinforcement.
hb, hc member depth (b, beam; c, column).
K multiplication factor for Tsi .
N, Ncrit column load(crit, column load at which predicted joint strength is maximum).
P beam load (pred, predicted failure load; test, actual failure load).
Tse, Tsi tensile force in column bars assume plane sections remain plane.
Vc joint shear strength without stirrups.
Vj joint shear strength.
w strut width normal to its center line(d, direct; i, indirect; top node; b, bottomnode).
x depth of compressive stress block at joint boundary (t, top node in column; b,
bottom node in column).
ε1, ε2 principal strains.
ε’c strain at peak concrete stress.
εd axial strain in direct strut.
 angle of center line of top indirect strut to horizontal.
σ resultant stress in column at junction with node.

60
61