ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 112-S13
Inverted-T Beams: Experiments and Strut-and-Tie Modeling
by N. L. Varney, E. Fernández-Gómez, D. B. Garber, W. M. Ghannoum, and O. Bayrak
Contrary to rectangular deep beams, inverted-T beams are loaded
on a ledge at the bottom chord of the beam. This loading configura-
tion induces a tension field into the web and the resulting complex
strain distribution renders sectional design provisions inadequate.
The applicability of strut-and-tie modeling (STM), developed for
rectangular deep beams and simpler, two-dimensional designs, was
evaluated. An experimental study was conducted in which 33 tests
were performed on 22 large-scale reinforced concrete inverted-T
beams and the effects of the following variables were investigated:
ledge geometry, quantity of web reinforcement, number of point
loads, member depth, and shear span-depth ratio. It was concluded
that strut-and-tie modeling, although developed for much simpler
structural components, offers a simple and accurate design method
for the more complex strain distributions in inverted-T beams.
The STM provisions developed for rectangular beams accurately
captured both failure mode and ultimate capacity and are recom-
mended for use in inverted-T beam design, as a major conclusion
of this research.
Keywords: D-region; inverted-T beam; laboratory testing; large-scale;
nonlinear design; reinforced concrete; shear; shear span; strut-and-tie.
INTRODUCTION
Inverted-T bent caps are often used in construction to
reduce the overall elevation of bridges and/or to improve
available clearance beneath the beams, as shown in Fig. 1.
The bent caps are beams that support bridge girders on
ledges near the bottom of the beam, effectively loading the
cap along its tension chord. Within a given cross section
(transverse direction), the loads are transferred from the
ledges to the bottom of the web and then “hung” vertically
to the compression chord, generating tension fields in the
web at the loading points. The loads are then transferred
in the longitudinal direction to the supports, as in a typical
compression-chord-loaded beam. This three-dimensional
flow of forces, in addition to the deep beam loading condi-
tions commonly encountered in bent caps, generate regions
of stress discontinuities that are traditionally designed using
empirical equations and rules of thumb.
Significant web shear cracking of recently built inverted-T
straddle bent caps has been reported in Texas, according to
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), trig-
gering concerns about the current design procedures. Most
inverted-T bent caps in Texas are designed using sectional
provisions for the web and a series of checks for the ledges
that closely follow the procedures found in the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.1 Due to the load and
geometric discontinuities in inverted-T beams, this beam
theory is not valid; thus, sectional design provisions cannot
be used to properly design such structures.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
TECHNICAL PAPER
In the past two decades, many structural design codes
have adopted strut-and-tie modeling (STM) as a more trans-
parent option for the design of deep beams and other struc-
tures with discontinuities. The current STM provisions were
developed for rectangular deep beams and simple structures
with two-dimensional strain distributions, but have not been
experimentally investigated for more complex structural
elements such as inverted-T beams.
Due to scarcity of experimental research on inverted-T
beams, a comprehensive large-scale experimental program
was undertaken to examine the behavior of such structural
elements and assess the validity of implementing STM
design. Thirty-three specimens were tested as part of the
research program. Unlike those found in the literature,
the test specimens in this program were considered more
representative of inverted-T beams designed in practice in
terms of their size, geometric and loading properties, and
reinforcement details. This paper presents the STM design
provisions as applied to inverted-T beams, the laboratory
test results, and the corresponding design recommendations.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Significant diagonal web shear cracking of inverted-T
bent caps may represent a risk both in terms of strength
and serviceability. Due to the nonlinear distributions of
strains in inverted-T beams, STM offers a safe, lower-bound
design alternative to examine forces and predict the failure
mode in an element. Current strut-and-tie provisions were
developed for rectangular deep beams and have not been
investigated for the three-dimensional state of stress present
in these structures. The research presents an extensive large-
scale experimental program aimed at assessing the accuracy
and conservatism of strut-and-tie modeling for the design of
inverted-T bent caps. The unique experimental data presented
in this paper and the assessment of STM design provisions
is considered to be significant contributions to the literature.
BACKGROUND AND STRUT-AND-TIE MODELING
Typically for reinforced concrete beams, a designer makes
the assumption that plane sections remain plane, referred
to as the Bernoulli hypothesis or beam theory. Within this
theory, the strains in the beam are presumed to vary linearly
through the depth of a section; thus, the beam is said to be
dominated by sectional behavior. As shown in Fig. 2(a),
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 2, March-April 2015.
MS No. S-2013-064.R1, doi: 10.14359/51687403, received June 10, 2014, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
147
Fig. 1—Typical inverted-T bent cap.
these regions of linear stress (or strain) are referred to as
B-regions (with the “B” for beam or Bernoulli).
A D-region (with “D” standing for discontinuity or
disturbed) can typically be found on either side of a B-region,
as shown in Fig. 2. These regions cannot be designed
using the sectional procedures as the strain distribution is
nonlinear and thus the assumptions used to derive the beam
theory are no longer valid. These disturbances are caused
either by abrupt changes in geometry or loading. Frame
corners, dapped ends, openings, and ledges are examples of
geometric discontinuities. Point loads such as girder bear-
ings or support reactions are examples of load discontinu-
ities. According to St. Venant’s Principle, an elastic stress
analysis would indicate that the effects of a disturbance
dissipate at approximately one member depth away from the
discontinuity.2 In other words, a D-region extends approx-
imately one effective member depth d from the load or
geometric change.
A deep beam is one in which the entire span involves
predominant nonlinear strain distributions through the depth
of the section. For this strain condition to exist, the shear
span a must be less than approximately 2 to 2.5 times the
effective member depth d. The right shear span in Fig. 2(a) is
entirely composed of D-regions and is thus considered a deep
beam. A beam with a greater shear span-depth ratio (a/d),
as shown in the left span, is assumed to behave according
to beam theory and can be designed using sectional proce-
dures. The design of deep beams requires the use of STM or
other non-linear procedures outside the scope of this paper.
STM offers an approach for obtaining lower-bound solu-
tions for the strength design based on simple truss theory.
The resultants of complex states of stress are idealized as
a system of uniaxial force elements, or a truss, within the
member as shown in Fig. 2(b). This system will yield a
conservative design if the resulting truss model is in equi-
librium with the external forces and the concrete has enough
deformation capacity to accommodate the assumed distri-
bution of forces.3 Proper anchorage of the reinforcement is
crucial. The factored forces also must not exceed the factored
strengths as shown in the following equation.
ϕFn ≥ Fu (1)
148
Fig. 2—(a) B- and D-regions in a rectangular beam; and
(b) corresponding STM.
Strut-and-tie models consist of three components: struts,
ties, and nodes. These are assembled together to represent
the flow of forces through a structure, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
After calculating the external reactions and defining the
geometry of the STM, the individual member forces of the
truss are determined through statics.
Struts are compression elements that vary in shape
depending on their location. Represented by dashed lines,
struts can be bottle-shaped if allowed to spread along their
length or prismatic in regions of uniform stresses, such as
the compression zone of a beam’s B-region. It is important
to provide transverse reinforcement to control the tensile
stresses caused by the spreading of compressive forces in
bottle-shaped struts.4
Tension elements, or ties, are generally made up of rein-
forcing steel and denoted by solid lines, as seen in Fig. 2.
Enough reinforcement must be provided to carry the tensile
demand of the tie and should be distributed so that the
centroid coincides with the tie location. Details such as bar
spacing and anchorage are essential for proper STM.
Due to the concentration of forces from intersecting truss
members, the nodes are the most highly stressed regions of a
structural member. Three types of nodes can exist within an
STM and are denoted by the intersecting elements. Within
the nodal designations, “C” refers to a compression element,
such as a strut, an externally applied load, or a support reac-
tion, and “T” stands for tension or tie. A CCC node is one
in which only struts intersect, a CCT node has tie(s) inter-
secting in only one direction, and a CTT node has ties inter-
secting in two different directions. The type of node governs
its behavior and thus its strength.
The versatility of STM allows it to be used to design any
structure and accommodate various load transfer mechanisms.
In theory, as long as the principles required to achieve a lower
bound solution are met, any model can be considered a safe
design. A model should, to the furthest extent possible, follow
the actual stress field as determined by an elastic stress anal-
ysis. If the model varies substantially from the stress field, the
structure will undergo substantial deformations leading to an
increased chance of cracking. Schlaich et al.3 provides addi-
tional discussion on using STMs to design structural concrete
members. The applicability of STMs has been validated with
experimental testing on rectangular deep beams.5 However,
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
experimental testing on more complicated structures such as Table 1—ACI 318-116 and Birrcher et al.4 STM
inverted-T beams is limited. concrete efficiency factors
ACI 318-11
Recent advances in STM provisions
Strut, fce = Node, fce =
ACI 318-116 STM examines the strength of struts and
0.85βsfc′ βs 0.85βnfc′ βn
nodes separately. For the strut-node interface, the smaller
of the nominal compressive strength of the end of the strut, Prismatic 1.00 CCC 1.00
Fns, and of the face of the nodal zone at which the strut acts, Bottle-shaped* 0.75 CCT 0.80
Fnn, is used. These nominal compressive strengths are calcu- Tension flange 0.40 CTT 0.60
lated using their respective cross sectional areas, Acs and Anz,
Birrcher et al.
as shown in following equations. The concrete efficiency
factors, βs and βn, are summarized in Table 1. Node, fcu = Strut-node
mνfc′ Bearing face, ν Back face, ν interface†, ν

Fns = 0.85βs fc′Acs (2) CCC 0.85 f c′

0.45 ≤ 0.85 − ≤ 0.65
CCT 0.70 20
Fnn = 0.85βs fc′Acs (3) *
Without reinforcement satisfying ACI 318 Section A3.3.3, βs = 0.60λ.
†
Without reinforcement satisfying AASHTO Article 5.6.3.5, ν = 0.45.
Birrcher et al. conducted a thorough investigation of rect-
4

angular deep beam behavior to improve upon the current
STM provisions and recommend modifications to both
the ACI 318-116 and AASHTO LRFD1 codes. Potentially,
the most significant modifications that affect the design
of inverted T-beams focused on the node strength. This
procedure simplifies the design of struts by considering
the strut-node interfaces, which implicitly accounts for the
strut capacity and eliminates redundant stress checks at the
same location.
In Birrcher et al.,4 the design strength of the node, Fn, is deter-
mined by the limiting compressive stress at the faces of the node
by the concrete efficiency factor ν in the following equation.
Fs = 0.85νfc′Acn (4)
The appropriate concrete efficiency factor, ν, is used to
reduce the compressive strength of the concrete in the node
depending on the type of node (CCC, CCT, or CTT) and
face (bearing face, back face, strut-node interface) under
consideration. The factors developed by Birrcher et al.4 are
summarized in Table 1 along with the existing factors in
Appendix A of ACI 318-11.6 It should be noted that Birrcher
et al.4 recommended removing reference to CTT nodal
regions as they are typically smeared nodes and emphasis
for deep beam design should be placed on the more critical
CCC and CCT nodal regions. The cross-sectional area of the
node, Acn, such as the strut-node interface shown in Fig. 3, is
limited in the perpendicular direction by either the width of
the bearing plate or web width bw.
For bearing areas smaller than the width of the struc-
tural member, the concrete strength for all the faces in that
node was increased to account for triaxial confinement. The
triaxial confinement factor, m, is in Article 5.7.5 of AASHTO
LRFD1 and Section 10.14.1 of ACI 318-11.6
It can be noted from Table 1 that the efficiency factor for
a strut-node interface is given as the same for both CCC and
CCT nodes according to the recommendations put forth by
Birrcher et al.4 These provisions do not reduce the nodal
strength due to the presence of a tension field in an inverted-T
beam as the node below the applied load is a CCT node,
rather than a CCC node. It was of interest to observe how
well these provisions captured the strength and behavior of
the inverted-T beams with their additional tension field.
The effectiveness of the Birrcher et al.4 STM design provi-
sions were demonstrated by using an extensive database of
rectangular deep beams. Improvements were made in the
overall conservatism and accuracy as well as simplicity of
STM for deep beams as compared to current ACI 318-116 and
AASHTO1 procedures. However, the application of STMs
was not investigated experimentally for more complicated
three-dimensional structures such as inverted-T beams. Due
to their unique geometry, certain assumptions not addressed
in the current STM procedures had to be made in the design
of inverted-T beams.
Strut-and-tie modeling of inverted-T beam specimens
Inverted-T beams transfer load in three dimensions: from
the ledges to the web, from the tension to the compression
chord, and from the loading points to the supports. To capture
this behavior, it is necessary to consider a three-dimensional
strut-and-tie model. To simplify the analysis, the model is
divided into two compatible two-dimensional models.
The STM design of an inverted-T beam is often iterative,
as many factors are interdependent. First, the overall geom-
etry was determined based on the experimental variables
under consideration, and the preliminary loads and corre-
sponding reactions were calculated. The STMs were then
detailed to carry the required loads. Diagonal shear cracking
was a primary concern in this study, thus the beams were
designed to ensure a shear failure.
Defining geometry of longitudinal strut-and-tie model—
An example of a simple longitudinal STM for an inverted-T
beam with two shear spans is shown in Fig. 4. Each tie was
aligned with the centroid of the reinforcing bars. Vertical
hanger bars were placed at each load point with the tie corre-
sponding to the center of the bearing pad. A 45-degree spread
on the ledge under the loading plates defined the width of
hanger ties.7 For cut-off ledges, load spread was limited on
one side, as shown in the STM.
The horizontal tie along the bottom of the beam was
aligned with the centroid of the flexural reinforcement. The
width of the tie was assumed to be twice the distance from

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015 149

Fig. 3—Geometry of CCT Support Node A.
Fig. 4—Longitudinal strut-and-tie model.
the extreme tension fiber to the centroid of the steel as shown
in the detail of Node A in Fig. 3.
All ties must be properly anchored to achieve the assumed
stress distribution. ACI requires that the yield strength of the
tie be developed at the critical point where the centroid of
the tie meets the end of the extended nodal zone or edge of
the diagonal strut as shown in Fig. 3.
The location of the intermediate (stirrup) Tie BC for the
two-panel mode in Fig. 4 was determined using the technique
proposed by Wight and Parra-Montesinos8 that any stirrup that
intersects an adjacent strut at an angle greater than 25 degrees
can be engaged as part of the vertical tie in the CCT node.
A line projected at a 25 degree angle from the edge of the
support plate at Node A to the top of the beam defined the
left limit of the tie. The right limit was defined by the edge of
the 45-degree load spread for hanger Tie DE and all stirrups
that fell within the rectangular shaded region were considered
part of the vertical Tie BC, as shown in Fig. 4. The 45-degree
load spread was an initial assumption validated with data from
strain gauges applied to the hanger reinforcement.
The horizontal strut along the top of the beam was
assumed to be prismatic with a depth equal to the depth
of the equivalent rectangular compression stress block as
defined from a typical flexural analysis. Although not tech-
nically valid in a D-region due to the nonlinear distribution
of strains, defining the depth of the strut using a flexural
analysis is considered conservative and the assumption is well-
established in practice.9
Diagonal bottle-shaped struts, represented by dashed lines,
complete the flow of forces in the longitudinal strut-and-tie
model. The angles between struts and ties were checked to
150
ensure they were greater than or equal to 25 degrees but
less than 65 degrees. This limit was enforced to prevent
an incompatibility of strains.4 A smaller angle would result
in the tension tie overlapping more of the diagonal strut,
decreasing its effectiveness. The forces in each element were
calculated using statics and the element size and location
adjusted as needed.
Defining geometry of cross-sectional strut-and-tie
model—A cross-section STM was required to design the
ledge of the inverted-T beam. The external loads were
applied equally to each ledge as shown in Fig. 5. The hanger
ties in the longitudinal model corresponded to the vertical
reinforcement. The top of the ledge reinforcement corre-
sponded to the horizontal ledge tie. The centroid of the hori-
zontal strut shown was located at the depth of the flexural
reinforcement from the longitudinal model. A diagonal strut
transferred the load from the bearing plate to the bottom of
the hanger bars.
Shear spans under investigation—Once the forces in the
truss members were calculated and the nodes checked using
the Birrcher et al.4 recommendations, the required steel
area was determined to satisfy the tie tensile forces. Proper
anchorage of the ties was provided within the extended
nodal regions.
Shear spans a equal to 2.50d and 1.85d were examined, as
shown in Fig. 4, with the two-panel model on the left end of
the beam and the single diagonal strut on the right. The a/d
is defined within the context of this paper as the ratio of the
distance from the center of the support to the center of the
nearest loading point a, with respect to the effective depth d.
The specimens were designed to be shear critical with two
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
web shear failure modes, stirrup tie yielding for a/d of 2.50
and diagonal strut crushing for a/d of 1.85. The a/d of 2.50
was chosen to evaluate the limit of deep beam behavior and
compare with the Birrcher et al.4 studies. For this longer a/d,
the intermediate (stirrup) tie was designed to govern, thus
the capacity was determined by the quantity of stirrups in
the tie region. For specimens tested at an a/d of 1.85, the
strut-node interfaces of the diagonal strut were designed
to govern. Thus the capacity of the specimens tested at the
shorter a/d were determined by the size of the node (Fig. 3)
and the compressive strength of the concrete.
Resistance and load factors are required for STM design
but were taken as 1.0 for the purpose of this investigation as
nominal strengths were computed and compared with exper-
imental strengths. In general, no serviceability checks were
made before testing the specimens. Rather, the cracking
data obtained from loading the beams were used to validate
current serviceability provisions and/or make recommen-
dations for application to inverted-T beams.7 For step-by-
step STM design examples for inverted-T bent caps, refer to
Williams et al.9
DATABASE OF EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED ON
INVERTED-T BEAMS
A thorough literature review was conducted prior to
establishing the experimental investigation. A total of 97
tension chord-loaded specimens reported within 13 unique
sources10-22 were ultimately compiled in a collection data-
base.7 Two sets of filters were used to develop the final
inverted-T database to meet the purposes of this project.
The first filter focused on data required to develop STMs.
Specimens not loaded to failure10,11; with complicated
support conditions, geometry, or reinforcement details12-21;
and with lack of information essential for the construction of
STMs12-18 were eliminated.
The majority of the specimens found in the literature
were unrepresentative of the bent caps in service in Texas,
10-12,16,19,21,22
requiring additional filters. A scaled comparison
of the cross sections of the specimens from the literature, the
inverted-T beams tested in the current project, and distressed
in-service bent caps within Texas is presented in Fig. 6.
The specimens are identified by their reference number.
A notable difference in size exists between the in-service
bent caps (hatched) and the majority of specimens found in
the literature (solid). A complete discussion of the filtering
process is provided in Larson et al.7
In summary, all of the 97 specimens from the 13 sources
were filtered out due to the reasons stated above, reinforcing
the need for a large number of specimens to evaluate the
behavior of inverted-T beams and investigate the applica-
bility of STM design provisions.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Experimental variables
The five variables investigated are as follows: the length
of the ledge beyond the bearing of the exterior stringer, the
depth of the ledge, the amount of web reinforcement (trans-
verse and longitudinal), the number of point loads (girders)
on the ledge, and the height of the member, as shown in
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
Fig. 5—Cross-sectional strut-and-tie model.
Fig. 7. Each beam was tested at an a/d of 1.85 or 2.5 to
observe the two web shear failure modes: diagonal strut
crushing or stirrup tie yielding.
Ledge length—The varying ledge lengths of inverted-T
bent caps were simplified to three types. A “cut-off” ledge
is one in which the ledge was interrupted just past the edge
of the bearing pad of the outermost girder. If the ledge ran
continuously to the support, it was considered a “long”
ledge. In a bent cap with a “short” ledge, the ledge continued
a distance approximately equal to the depth of the ledge past
the outermost girder, as shown in Fig. 7.
As previously mentioned, inverted-T bent caps are
tension chord-loaded structures in which the bridge girders
supported on the ledges induce a tension field in the web.
The size of this tension field is determined by the ledge
length and, as in the case of short and long ledges, the
tension field can engage all the “hanger” bars within the
45-degree load spread. For the cut-off ledges, the force can
only spread on one side of the bearing plate, concentrating
the load in a smaller area and increasing the tensile stresses.
Furthermore, by extending the ledge to the entire length of
a beam, the capacity of the support node can be increased.
The additional cross-sectional area in a longer ledge length
can provide confinement in the nodal region and increase
the bearing width at the support as compared to beams with
short and cut-off ledges.
Ledge depth—To fully capture the effect of ledge geom-
etry, two ledge depths were investigated as shown in Fig. 7.
Shallow ledge specimens had depth equal to one-third and
deep ledge specimens were one-half the total height of the
beam. The ledge depths were chosen to give an adequate
range of those seen in practice. As with the ledge length, the
ledge depth also has an effect on the width over which this
tension field spreads, to a lesser extent. Deeper ledges allow
the forces to spread over a wider area, decreasing the tensile
stress in the web.
Reinforcement ratio—Two amounts of orthogonal web
reinforcement were chosen with areas of steel equal to 0.3%
and 0.6% of the effective web area, as shown in Fig. 7. In most
tests, the amount of vertical and horizontal web reinforce-
ment, ρv and ρh, was equal. Two specimens were designed
with 0.3% in the horizontal direction (skin reinforcement) and
0.6% in the vertical direction (shear stirrups). The reinforce-
151
ment ratio of 0.003 (0.3%) corresponds to No. 4 (No. 13) bars
at 6.5 in. (165 mm) on center at each face of the beam. Like-
wise, a 0.006 (0.6%) ratio corresponds to No. 5 (No. 16) bars
at 5 in. (127 mm) on center. The lower limit of 0.3% is the
AASHTO LRFD1 minimum required skin reinforcement for
deep beams. The upper limit of 0.006 (0.6%) was selected to
encompass the maximum reinforcement ratio (0.57%) found
in the in-service distressed bents. The size and spacing of the
bars provides typical crack control.
Number of point loads—The beams in this investiga-
tion were loaded at either one or three points along their
length, as shown in Fig. 7. The load at each point was
equally divided and applied to the ledge on both sides of
the web using a U-shaped frame. Specimens with multiple
point loads allowed for shallower ledges by distributing the
Fig. 6—Scaled cross sections of literature specimens with corre-
sponding reference number, current specimens, and in-service
bent caps. (Note: Dimensions in inches; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
Fig. 7—Experimental variables.
152
total force to multiple locations and preventing local ledge
failure. The spacing of the three point loads was representa-
tive of in-service girders. They were also used to help quan-
tify the effect of multiple girders on bridge bent caps. Due
to limitations, laboratory testing is typically performed with
one loading point, but bent caps in service support multiple
girders on each side. By comparing beams tested at one and
three points, the validity of beams tested at a single load
point could be assessed.
Web depth—A review of the literature revealed a signifi-
cant difference in the size of the in-service bent caps when
compared to the specimens used to calibrate the shear provi-
sions in the current design code.7 Full-scale specimens with
web depths of 42 and 75 in. (1067 and 1905 mm) were
constructed and tested for the experimental program to fill
in this gap and validate the STM design provisions for use in
larger inverted-T beams.
Specimen description
A large testing program was required to fully evaluate all
of the experimental variables. The width of the beams was
proportioned to maximize the cross-sectional area of the
specimen, while keeping it narrow enough to ease instal-
lation and removal from the test setup. Typical dimensions
and reinforcement layouts are shown in Fig. 8 and bearing
plate sizes are given in Table 2. Flexural reinforcement
was comprised of 12 No. 11 (No. 36) bars for the 42 in.
(1067 mm) specimens and 22 for the 75 in. (1905 mm)
specimens. Hanger reinforcement was comprised of No. 6
(No. 19) bars and was detailed based on the estimated
ultimate load. Ledge reinforcement was either No. 5 or 6
(No. 16 or 19) bars, depending on the depth of the ledge and
the resulting demand. The web width was kept constant at
21 in. (533 mm) for each beam in the experimental program,
including the 75 in. (1905 mm) beams. The width of the
ledge was also the same, 10.5 in. (267 mm), on each side. All
other dimensions varied. To distinguish between the speci-
mens in Table 2 and their respective variables, the following
nomenclature was developed
Sample specimen designation: DC1-42-1.85-03
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
Fig. 8—Typical reinforcement layout and dimensions. (Note: Dimensions in inches; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
where the first term refers to the ledge depth, either deep (D)
or shallow (S). The second term refers to the ledge length—
cut-off (C), short (S), or long (L). The third term refers to
the number of point loads, either one (1) or three (3). The
next number is the web depth in terms of inches, 42 or 75
(1067 or 1905 mm, respectively). Next is the a/d, either 1.85
or 2.5. The final term is the web reinforcement ratio, either
0.3% (03) or 0.6% (06).
The specimens were constructed using conventional mate-
rials and methods. Steel formwork was used to expedite the
fabrication process and to ensure dimensional accuracy.
Beams were tested approximately 28 days after concrete
placement. Domestic Grade 60 deformed bars satisfying the
requirements of ASTM A61523 were used for all steel rein-
forcement. Cross-sectional dimensions of the bars complied
with the nominal sizes given in ASTM A615.23 The tensile
strength of the coupons was measured in accordance with
ASTM A370.24 Material properties, including reinforcement
and concrete strength, are provided in Table 2.
Testing procedure
The specimens were tested at the University of Texas at
Austin’s Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Labora-
tory. The upside-down simply supported beam test setup
used for testing is shown in Fig. 9. The load was applied
via a 5 million pound (22,200 kN) capacity, double-acting
hydraulic ram for single point load tests, and three 2 million
pound (9000 kN) capacity rams for multiple point load spec-
imens. U-shaped frames applied load evenly to the ledges of
the test specimens. At each support, six 3 in. (76 mm) diam-
eter threaded rods reacted against a 7000 lb (31 kN) transfer
girder to resist the applied load. 500 kip (2200 kN) capacity
load cells were placed between the transfer beam and the
reaction nut at each of the 12 rods to measure the applied
shear at each throughout the loading history.
Test specimens were monotonically loaded in 50 kip
(222 kN) increments to the appearance of the first diagonal
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
crack, then in 100 kip (445 kN) increments to failure. After
each load increment, cracks were marked and diagonal crack
widths were measured and recorded as part of the service-
ability considerations of the experimental program.7
Each beam was designed with two test regions. Speci-
mens with a single point load were loaded a distance from
one support corresponding to the desired a/d. After a shear
failure was achieved, the load was removed and post-
tensioning clamps were installed to strengthen the first test
region. Then the hydraulic ram and U-frame were moved
and the test procedure was repeated. Specimens with three
loading points were designed such that both ends were
tested simultaneously and monitored until a shear failure
was achieved at one end of the beam. The load was then
removed, post-tensioned clamps were installed in the failed
test region, and the load was reapplied at the same location
until the opposite end of the beam failed in shear, as shown
in Fig. 9. Vtest, the maximum shear carried in the critical
section of the test region, including the self-weight of the
beam and test setup, is provided in Table 2.
COMPARISON OF STRUT-AND-TIE MODELS AND
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A summary of the experimental versus calculated shear
strengths (Vtest/Vcalc) is provided in Table 2, where Vcalc is the
shear capacity calculated using the measured material proper-
ties and the Birrcher et al.4 STMs as implemented for inverted-
T beams. As shown in the table, all values of Vtest/Vcalc
are greater than 1.0, indicating that the STM provisions
as implemented for inverted-T beams are conservative for
all specimens tested. With the large number of specimens,
direct comparisons investigated each variable independently
while keeping all others constant as discussed extensively by
Larson et al.7 In these direct comparisons, the STMs showed
no bias to ledge depth, number of point loads, beam depth,
or chord loading; that is, the effects of these variables were
adequately captured as no trends were observed. The STMs
153
Table 2—Summary of beam details
Reinforcement fy, ksi
Support plate, Load
Specimen in. plate, in. No. 11 No. 6 No. 5 No. 4 fc′, ksi Vcalc, kip Vtest, kip Vtest/Vcalc
DS1-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 69.24 63.38 64.69 63.14 5.27 463 712 1.54
DS1-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 69.24 63.38 64.69 63.14 5.39 202 406 2.01
DS1-42-1.85-06 16 x 20 26 x 9 64.13 63.38 60.68 N/A 5.02 479 621 1.30
DS1-42-2.50-06 16 x 20 26 x 9 64.13 63.38 60.68 N/A 5.09 339 503 1.49
DL1-42-1.85-06 16 x 20 26 x 9 67.90 63.38 64.69 N/A 4.83 464 741 1.60
DL1-42-2.50-06 16 x 20 26 x 9 67.90 63.38 64.69 N/A 4.99 353 622 1.76
SS3-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 68.60 64.68 62.75 67.25 5.89 456 523 1.15
SS3-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 68.60 64.68 62.75 67.25 5.89 215 447 2.08
SS3-42-2.50-06 16 x 20 18 x 9 69.50 61.83 60.90 N/A 6.26 415 516 1.24
SC3-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 66.20 63.50 60.25 64.27 5.87 257 329 1.28
SC3-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 66.20 63.50 60.25 64.27 5.87 427 483 1.13
DS3-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 63.60 62.63 60.22 64.58 5.69 236 430 1.82
DL1-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 71.01 61.90 64.29 64.43 4.93 468 626 1.34
DL1-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 71.01 61.90 64.29 64.43 4.93 235 510 2.17
SL3-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 75.18 60.62 63.58 65.57 5.04 409 571 1.39
SL3-42-1.85-06 16 x 20 18 x 9 70.38 63.26 64.80 62.62 5.25 424 744 1.76
DC1-42-1.85-06 30 x 20 30 x 10 73.30 63.98 60.81 N/A 3.73 428 519 1.21
SS1-75-1.85-03 16 x 20 30 x 10 66.10 61.97 64.69 65.08 3.13 389 745 1.92
DC3-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 63.63 66.00 63.09 63.16 4.57 370 395 1.07
DS3-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 63.63 66.00 63.09 63.16 4.57 370 454 1.23
SS1-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 65.44 69.57 77.76 66.58 5.70 205 398 1.94
SS1-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 65.44 69.57 77.76 66.58 5.72 501 583 1.16
DC1-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 70.06 64.13 69.77 62.44 4.04 259 365 1.46
DL3-42-1.85-03 16 x 20 18 x 9 70.06 64.13 69.77 62.44 4.20 359 629 1.75
SL1-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 68.70 71.41 N/A 64.47 4.28 261 498 1.91
SC1-42-2.50-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 68.70 71.41 N/A 64.47 4.28 259 319 1.24
DS1-42-1.85-06/03 16 x 20 26 x 9 65.80 70.92 64.94 65.18 4.17 416 739 1.78
DS1-42-2.50-06/03 16 x 20 26 x 9 65.80 70.92 64.94 65.18 4.17 362 539 1.49
SC1-42-1.85-03 30 x 20 26 x 9 66.36 64.04 N/A 67.28 4.33 443 451 1.05
DC1-42-1.85-03 30 x 20 26 x 9 66.36 64.04 N/A 67.28 4.30 474 517 1.09
SC1-42-1.85-03 *
30 x 20 30 x 10 70.47 63.12 N/A 68.56 3.01 362 456 1.26
DC1-42-1.85-03* 30 x 20 30 x 10 70.47 63.12 N/A 68.56 3.00 362 424 1.17
SS1-75-2.50-03 16 x 20 26 x 9 65.22 63.85 63.62 63.76 5.16 357 649 1.82
*
Ledge length set equal to load plate length.
Notes: Shaded values indicate failure modes other than web shear; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa; N/A is not available.

did show limited bias to ledge length and reinforcement
ratio, but produced conservative results in all cases with
reasonable safety margins.
Overall, the STM procedures offer a more transparent
approach to designing inverted-T deep beams than sectional
design, as they inherently consider all failure modes for the
ledges, web, and bearing points. The web shear failure mode
predicted by the STMs, either crushing of the strut-node
interface or yielding of the intermediate tie, was observed in
all specimens except for the five shaded in Table 2, in which
flexure (crushing of the compression stress block), shear
friction, ledge tie failure, and punching shear occurred. In
these few cases, the failure mode was related to the second
weakest element in the STM, which changed depending
of the experimental variables. Nonetheless, each of the 33
specimens carried loads well above the calculated web shear
capacity and thus, the strength estimates were conservative.
The statistical results for the strength ratios of the 33 test
specimens in the experimental program are summarized in
Table 3. As shown in the table, the design method yielded
conservative and accurate estimates of strength with a

154 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015

Table 3—Summary of experimental/calculated
shear capacity
Rectangular deep beams,4
Inverted T-beams, 33 tests 179 tests
Birrcher Birrcher
Vtest/Vcalc et al.4 ACI 3186 et al.4
Minimum 1.05 1.04 0.73
Maximum 2.17 2.17 4.14
Mean 1.50 1.57 1.54
Unconservative 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Coefficient of
0.22 0.20 0.28
variation*
*
Coefficient of variation is standard deviation divided by mean.
minimum Vtest/Vcalc value of 1.05, a maximum of 2.17, and
an average of 1.51 for the inverted-T beams.
A comparison of STM procedures by Birrcher et al.4 and
ACI 318-116 revealed similar levels of accuracy for the
inverted-T beams as shown in Fig. 10. The average Vtest/Vcalc
values in Table 3 were equal to 1.50 and 1.57, respectively,
suggesting that ACI 318-116 is slightly more conservative.
The significant difference between the two STM procedures
is the treatment of the struts and nodes, thus most of the spec-
imens designed to fail due to yielding of the stirrup tie had the
same calculated capacity. However, ACI 318-116 predicted a
diagonal strut failure occurring in the cross-sectional model
before web shear in seven of the 33 specimens. This was due
to the low efficiency factor βs for struts in tension flanges of
beams, as shown in Table 1, which resulted in an increased
conservatism for several of the specimens shown in Fig. 10.
The Birrcher et al.4 STMs do not account for this out-of-
plane tension. If only web shear failure modes were consid-
ered using ACI 318-11,6 the mean Vtest/Vcalc would decrease
to 1.50.
In comparison with the rectangular deep beams, it can be
concluded that the Birrcher et al.4 STM provisions provided
equal, if not slightly better, predictions of shear strength.
The overall mean was similar with 1.50 for the inverted
T-beams and 1.54 for the rectangular bent caps evaluated
with the Birrcher et al.4 STMs. The scatter in the results was
also decreased for the inverted-T beams when the minimum
and maximum Vtest/Vcalc values were compared. The stan-
dard deviation and coefficient of variation also decreased.
Furthermore, no unconservative prediction of strength was
noted for the inverted-T beams, while a small number of
rectangular deep beams had Vcalc values greater than Vtest.
The comparison of the rectangular deep beams as eval-
uated using ACI 318-116 STMs is also provided in Table 3
to demonstrate its effectiveness. A significant improvement
was observed for minimum, maximum, and average Vtest/Vcalc
values. It was for this reason that Birrcher et al.4 STMs were
investigated for inverted-T beams.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this investigation, the behavior of inverted-T beams
was studied through a comprehensive experimental program
composed of 33 tests on 22 large-scale beams. Most of the
beams were designed with two test regions, one on each end.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
ACI 3186
0.87
9.80
1.80
1.7%
0.58
Fig. 9—Test setup: specimen at failure of second test region.
Fig. 10—Comparison of Vtest/Vcalc for Birrcher et al.4 and
ACI 318-116 STMs.
The following variables were investigated to encompass the
full behavior of inverted-T beams: the length and depth of
the ledge, the quantity of web reinforcement, the number of
point loads, member depth, and the shear span-depth ratio.
With these results, previously proposed strut-and-tie provi-
sions were assessed for their applicability to inverted-T
beams. Both ACI 318-116 STM and Birrcher et al.4 design
provisions yield accurate and reasonably conservative results
for tension chord-loaded beams. The following conclusions
summarize the views of the authors:
• Use of STM is recommended for the design of
inverted-T beams. A comparison between the ulti-
mate shear capacity obtained from the test results and
the nominal shear capacity from the STM calculations4,6
revealed conservative strength estimates for every spec-
imen. Furthermore, the Birrcher et al.4 STMs accurately
predicted the web shear failure mode for 28 of the 33 spec-
imens. For the five that did not fail in shear, the calculated
shear capacity was exceeded and the actual failure mode
was the second weakest element in the model. Within
these provisions, a minimum web reinforcement ratio is
given as 0.3% in each orthogonal direction and is also
recommended for inverted-T beam design.7
• Valid assumptions were made in implementing the
STM provisions for inverted-T beams. The geom-
etry of inverted-T beams requires the use of a three-
dimensional STM model or two equivalent and compat-
ible two-dimensional models. Recommendations were
155
 given to aid in developing these models. A 45-degree load
spread at each load point satisfactorily models the hanger
and ledge reinforcement that engaged during loading.
The Birrcher et al.4 STM provisions provided accurate predic-
tions of failure mode and capacity for the inverted-T beams
but further investigation is recommended for struts in tension
members and tension flanges in other structural members.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Nancy Larson Varney is a Staff II Structural Engineer with
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. She received her BS from Lehigh Univer-
sity, Bethlehem, PA, in 2008, and her MS and PhD from the University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, in 2010 and 2013, respectively. Her research
interests include strut-and-tie modeling of reinforced concrete.
ACI member Eulalio Fernández-Gómez is a structural engineer at
Osseous Structural
Engineering, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. He received his
BS from Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico, in
2004, and his MS and PhD from the University of Texas at Austin in 2009
and 2012, respectively.
ACI member David B. Garber is an Assistant Professor at Florida Inter-
national University, Miami, FL. He received his BS from Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, MD, in 2009, and his MS and PhD from the Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin in 2011 and 2014, respectively. His research inter-
ests include plasticity in structural concrete and behavior of prestressed
concrete members.
Wassim M. Ghannoum is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the University of
Texas at Austin. He is Chair of ACI Committee 369, Seismic Repair and
Rehabilitation, and a member of ACI Subcommittee 318-R, High-Strength
Reinforcement (Structural Concrete Building Code), and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committees 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns, and 447, Finite Element
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures.
Oguzhan Bayrak, FACI, is a Professor in the Department of Civil, Envi-
ronmental, and Architectural Engineering and holds the Charles Elmer
Rowe Fellowship in Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, where
he serves as Director of the Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering
Laboratory. He is a member of ACI Committees 341, Earthquake-Resistant
Concrete Bridges, and S803, Faculty Network Coordinating Committee;
and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns, and
445, Shear and Torsion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Texas Department of Transportation for
providing the financial support for this investigation, and the contribu-
tions of Project Director J. Farris and TxDOT Project Advisors including
C. Holle, D. Van Landuyt, G. Yowell, M. Stroope, N. Nemec, and R. Lopez.
The contribution of the students and the staff at the Ferguson Structural
Engineering Laboratory is also greatly appreciated. Opinions, findings,
conclusions, and recommendations in this paper are those of the authors.
REFERENCES
1. AASHTO LRFD, Bridge Design Specifications, American Associa-
tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2012,
1960 pp.
2. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, “Recent Approaches to Shear
Design of Structural Concrete (ACI 445R-99),” American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 56 pp.
3. Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., “Toward a Consis-
tent Design of Structural Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, 1987,
pp. 74-150. doi: 10.15554/pcij.05011987.74.150
156
4. Birrcher, D.; Tuchscherer, R.; Huizinga, M.; Bayrak, O.; Wood, S.;
and Jirsa, J., “Strength and Serviceability Design of Reinforced Concrete
Deep Beams,” Report No. 0-5253-1, Center for Transportation Research,
the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2009, 400 pp.
5. Tuchscherer, R.; Birrcher, D.; and Bayrak, O., “Experimental Exam-
ination of ACI 318 Strut and Tie Modeling Provisions,” Symposium
Honoring James O. Jirsa’s Contributions in Structural Concrete: A Time to
Reflect, SP-296, J. A. Pincheira and S. M. Alcocer, eds., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 20 pp.
6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
7. Larson, N.; Fernández-Gómez, E.; Garber, D.; Bayrak, O.; and Ghan-
noum, W., “Strength and Serviceability Design of Reinforced Concrete
Inverted T-Beams,” Report No. 0-6416, Center for Transportation Research,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2012, 234 pp.
8. Wight, J. K., and Parra-Montesinos, G., “Use of Strut-and-Tie Model
for Deep Beam Design as per ACI 318 Code,” Concrete International,
V. 25, No. 5, May 2003, pp. 63-70.
9. Williams, C.; Deschenes, D.; and Bayrak, O., “Strut-and-Tie Model
Design Examples for Bridges,” Report No. 5-5253-01-1, Center for Trans-
portation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2012, 276
pp.
10. Furlong, R. W.; Ferguson, P. M.; and Ma, J. S., “Shear and Anchorage
Study of Reinforcement in Inverted T-Beam Bent Cap Girders,” Report No.
113-4, Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX, 1971, 81 pp.
11. Cussens, A. R., and Besser, I. I., “Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Wall-Beams under Combined Top and Bottom Loads,” The Struc-
tural Engineer, V. 63, No. 15, Sept. 1985, pp. 50-56.
12. Graf, O.; Brenner, E.; and Bay, H., “Versuche mit einem wandartigen
Trager aus Stahlbeton,” Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, V. 99, 1943,
pp. 41-54.
13. Ferguson, P. M., “Some Implications of Recent Diagonal Tension
Tests,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 53, No. 8, Aug. 1956, pp. 157-172.
14. Schütt, H., “Über das Tragvermögen wandartiger Stahlbetonträger,”
Beton und Stahlbetonbau, V. 10, Oct. 1956, pp. 220-224.
15. Taylor, R., “Some Shear Tests on Reinforced Concrete Beams
without Shear Reinforcement,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 12, No.
36, 1960, pp. 145-154. doi: 10.1680/macr.1960.12.36.145
16. Furlong, R. W., and Mirza, S. A., “Strength and Serviceability of
Inverted T-Beam Bent Caps Subject to Combined Flexure, Shear, and
Torsion,” Report No. 153-1F, Center for Highway Research, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1974, 156 pp.
17. Smith, K. N., and Fereig, S. M., “Effect of Loading and Supporting
Condidtions on the Shear Strength of Deep Beams,” Shear in Reinforced
Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1974,
pp. 441-460.
18. Fereig, S. M., and Smith, K. N., “Indirect Loading on Beams with
Short Shear Spans,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 74, No. 5, May 1977,
pp. 220-222.
19. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., “Wandartige Träger,” Deutscher
Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, V. 178, 1966.
20. Galal, K., and Sekar, M., “Rehabilitation of RC Inverted-T Girders
Using Anchored CFRP Sheets,” Composites. Part B, Engineering, V. 39,
No. 4, 2008, pp. 604-617. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.09.001
21. Zhu, R. R.-H.; Dhonde, H.; and Hsu, T. T., “Crack Control for Ledges
in Inverted ‘T’ Bent Caps,” TxDOT Project 0-1854, University of Houston,
Houston, TX, 2003, 4 pp.
22. Tan, K. H.; Kong, F. K.; and Weng, L. W., “High Strength Concrete
Deep Beams Subjected to Combined Top- and Bottom-Loading,” The
Structural Engineer, V. 75, No. 11, 1997, pp. 191-197.
23. ASTM A615/A615M-08, “Standard Specification for Deformed and
Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008, 5 pp.
24. ASTM A370-08a, “Standard Test Methods for Mechanical Testing of
Steel Products,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008, 47 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015