ACI-ASCE Committee 445—Shear and Torsion

Fall 2009 Meeting Minutes

2:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m., Monday, November 9, 2009
New Orleans Marriott, New Orleans, Louisiana—Balcony L Room

1. Welcome of visitors and Introductions (Kuchma)—Agenda attached

Voting members present: Dan Kuchma (Chair), Robert Barnes (Secretary), Oguzhan Bayrak, Zdenek Bažant, D.J.
Belarbi, Evan Bentz, John Bonacci, Hakim Bouadi, Gary Greene, Neil Hawkins, Gary Klein, Adolfo Matamoros,
Denis Mitchell, Y.L. Mo, Lawrence Novak, Maria Polak, Julio Ramirez, Karl-Heinz Reineck, David Sanders,
James Wight
Voting members not present: Adebar, N. Anderson, R. Anderson, Aschheim, Brown, Collins, Darwin, Dilger,
Eberhard, French, Frosch, Hsu, Ma, Ospina, Pantazopoulou, Valluvan
Associate members present: Mikael Braestrup, Lenart Elfgren, Neil Hammill, Guilherme Melo, Daniel Reider, Tom
Schaeffer, Lesley Sneed
Visitors: Norm Hoffman, Catherine Hovell, Remy Lequesne, Ken Marley, Khaled Nahlawi, Carin Roberts-Wollmann,
Bruce Russell, Ted Sherwood, Sharon Wood (Chair, ACI 318-E)

2. General Announcements (Kuchma)

Chairman Kuchma called the meeting to order. Attendees introduced themselves.

3. Review of Agenda (Kuchma)

Kuchma reviewed the planned order of agenda items.

4. Approval of Minutes of Spring 2009 ACI-ASCE 445 Meeting held in San Antonio (Kuchma)
The minutes for the previous meeting were approved (Novak, Klein).

5. ACI 318-E Actions (Wood)

Wood reported that ACI 318 work was progressing as described in the minutes of the Spring 2009 ACI 445 meeting.
They are currently working on the transition to a reorganized code, and the timeline remains unchanged since the last
report. One ballot item on deep beams has been balloted by the main committee, and 318-E is now working on
resolving the negative votes. They also plan to discuss a proposal for incorporating strut-and-tie modeling (STM—
currently Appendix A) in the main body of the code (more information about this under Item 7 below). ACI 445 is
welcome to submit code change proposals at any time.
Kuchma asked if committee members had any ideas for code changes. Bentz asked about the “10-roots-of-f’c” limit
on shear stresses if using STM. Wight noted that a current change proposal would remove this limit, but that there
was one negative vote based on serviceability concerns. There was a brief discussion of this at the end of the ACI 445
meeting.

6. Subcommittee Reports
a) 445-A Strut and Tie (Reineck)
The subcommittee meeting was well attended. There are now fourteen STM examples for the upcoming technical
sessions and SP planned for the Spring 2010 (Chicago) convention. Reineck reviewed the topics of the examples.
Most of the subcommittee discussion was spent on example reviews and the resulting comments. Two of the
examples cannot be ready until mid-January. The current ACI deadline is early December. Reineck will consult
with ACI staff about a deadline extension. The committee has not yet received a response to its two-session
proposal for Chicago.

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2009 Page 1

 Kuchma discussed the value of having a printed SP. ACI is willing to print a black and white SP, even if the
sessions occur before the printed SP is available. Kuchma expressed appreciation to the subcommittee for their
effort. Kuchma will correspond with ACI about session approval.
b) 445-B Seismic Shear (Kuchma)
Marc Eberhard has resigned as subcommittee chair due to other responsibilities. Kuchma led a subcommittee
meeting on Sunday morning. For the main committee, Kuchma briefly reviewed the column database that
Eberhard has compiled (available on the internet from the University of Washington). The subcommittee’s
previous focus was on continued work on routines for data analysis of database information, as well as evaluation
of models using database. Eberhard will continue support of database if committee is interested.
The subcommittee’s near-term ideas include production of a technical note on shear strength and deformation
capacity of columns. Long-term activities may include continued work on the column database and establishing a
wall database. The wall database (and expertise) is a very significant need.
Kuchma invited comments from the main committee. Mitchell asked if the database includes ductile members or
members with poor details. Kuchma reported that both are included. Mitchell explained that there was a need for
more information about retrofit of existing structures, so information about performance of poorly detailed
members is important. There is a need to know more about the performance of lap splices as well as the cross-
sectional details. Both squat walls and flexural walls are important.
Hawkins noted that he has been struggling with wall piers for ACI 318 (defined as “wall segments”), specifically
differences with ASCE 7 regarding shear stress limits. Some rational handling of these elements is needed.
Kuchma asked for input about who should be contacted for information or subcommittee interest about walls.
c) 445-C Slab Shear (Kuchma for Ospina)
The subcommittee did not meeting during this convention. They now have a third version of the database user’s
guide. It still needs work regarding the consistency of notation used in beam and slab shear databanks.
The database on shear in slabs without transverse reinforcement consists of four worksheets: (1) collected (with
495 tests), (2) aux (which includes an evaluation of reinforcement ratio in slabs with non-uniform bar spacing),
(3) criteria (which includes an evaluation of quantities and modes of failure reported by researchers, consensus
still needed on the data acceptance criteria), and (4) selected (after application of data acceptance criteria).
Hawkins noted that the subcommittee needs to make progress on slabs with shear reinforcement as well. These
behave quite differently. Committee members agreed that there are a lot of problems in slabs with shear
reinforcement. Subcommittee will press on as able. Committee members noted that fib has references, and Polak
indicated that she has references. Hawkins noted that European practice is different in that they distribute shear
reinforcement around the column (rather than in two orthogonal directions). Braestrup noted that the relevant fib
group is Group 4: Vecchio led the group, which has since disbanded.
Wight noted that Ron Klemencic is looking at deep mat foundations supporting a core wall and using an effective
width (for one-way shear) that is less than the full width of the mat—one effective depth (d) away from the wall
in each direction. The committee briefly discussed this complex problem.
d) 445-D Beam Database (Reineck)
Reineck reported that the subcommittee is now cooperating with German database group—having agreed on
publication rules and a memorandum of understanding between ACI 445 and DAfStb. The joint group will work
on updating the set of databases for shear tests.
The subcommittee discussed working procedures for establishing shear database in 2010. They are starting with a
collection database on RC beams without stirrups, and are currently looking for errors and missing tests. They are
working towards a deadline of 15 January 2010 so that a revised version will be available for the Spring 2010
meeting (Chicago). The subsequent derived databases for control and evaluation will then be established. The
subcommittee would like to achieve a final agreement on Part 1 of the report on the databases in Chicago.

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2009 Page 2

 Bažant noted that this committee received a document from ACI 446 about revision of Chapter 11 and asked
about the status of these proposed revisions. Kuchma indicated that ACI 318-E was looking at this issue. Sanders
noted that ACI 445 had been working on these proposals for a long-time: some proposals are broad, some are
narrow, and that ACI 445 had been asked by ACI 318 to look at these issues. It is important to have agreed-upon
database. The window of opportunity is closing for the reorganized code, and there is a need to move quickly.
Kuchma asked Sanders what could be done by this committee. Sanders asked Wood when things need to exit 318-
E. Wood indicated that deadlines are changing as the reorganization process moves forward. Items can be
submitted at any time. Sanders asked if we should solicit proposals and start collecting examples on which
proposals could be demonstrated. Kuchma stated that he would prefer that 318-E provide some
structure/guidance. A discussion of this issue continued. Wood indicated that it would be helpful if 445 showed
318-E the data that indicated that clearly indicated the problem. Then 318-E might be able to give more specific
guidance about what should be proposed. Wight stated that the best attack for now would be to address the Vc
(and maybe Vs) terms in an attempt to improve these empirical equations. Bayrak proposed that we start by
recalibrating old expressions using more complete data that is now available. Bentz noted that he has investigated
applying the old approach to the up-to-date data. Sanders emphasized that we need to convince 318-E that there is
a problem before we can convince them to accept a solution.
It was generally agreed that 445 needs to focus on Vc for members without transverse reinforcement and describe
(1) how the code is deficient with respect to up-to-date data and (2) what the current code equations should look
like after recalibration in light of the available data. Hawkins noted that we should also consider how any
proposed changes impact Vc for all members (not just beams) that lack some minimum reinforcement (and what
those minimum reinforcement requirements should be). Hawkins, Wight, Reineck, Sanders, Bayrak, Bentz, Klein,
and Barnes volunteered to serve on a group to discuss this issue.
Reineck returned to the subcommittee report by stating that coordination among the various 445 database
committees is very important. For example, it has already been agreed in ACI 445 that all databases use the same
conversion factors for strength of concrete. Other items and procedures should be coordinated likewise.
e) 445-E Torsion (Belarbi)
The committee-approved state-of-the-art report on torsion was sent to TAC after the last meeting. The
subcommittee received 260 review comments about two weeks ago. These should not be difficult to resolve.
Belarbi reported on two comments in particular. One comment was that some introduction to design codes is
needed just before the design examples. This will be added. Another comment is that the report should be
separated into two documents (one on theory, one on design) for the next revision. The subcommittee plans to
have revisions completed before Chicago.
In the future, the subcommittee will focus on updating the document to the two-document approach, including
more design examples. In addition, the subcommittee will attempt to produce technical notes (for Concrete
International) on emerging issues in torsion.
Kuchma expressed appreciation to Belarbi and Sanders (former ACI 445 chair) for their hard work on this
document.
f) Ad hoc committee on prestressed concrete shear issues (Matamoros)
Matamoros reported on a proposal that the ad hoc committee is developing to address shear strength deficiencies
in the end regions of pretensioned concrete members. Beam tests have shown that relying on the full Vcw + Vs
capacity in end regions can be unconservative. Based on moment equilibrium on a cracked section, a shear
strength expression has been developed that incorporates contributions from both horizontal and vertical
reinforcement. However, test data indicate the contribution of the vertical reinforcement should be limited to a
value approximately equal to ½ of Vcw.
The expression works well for beams, but it is overly conservative when compared to hollow-core slab test
results. This has been attributed to the fact that these slabs post-cracking capacity is less than the shear that
corresponds to cracking. Therefore, the proposal allows that the shear strength need not be taken less than the

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2009 Page 3

 cracking strength, Vcw. After inclusion of this condition, the proposal performs well when compared to test results
for beams and hollow-core slabs.
The subcommittee will work on developing a code-change proposal that can be balloted by ACI 445 and ACI
423. The resulting feedback will be used to improve the proposal prior to submission to ACI 318.

7. Strut and Tie Design Provisions and Guidance

a) Incorporation of STM Provisions within the Main Body of ACI 318 (Klein)
Klein discussed a proposal to work STM provisions into the reorganized ACI 318. One alternative is to insert
them into the new Chapter 15 on strength and serviceability requirements for joints and connections. The other
alternative is to have STM in a chapter titled joints, connections, and discontinuous members. Klein requested
input from the committee about whether STM should be in the main body, and which proposal is better. There
was general agreement that Appendix A (STM) is used, and that it should be in the main body of the code. The
second alternative was preferred by the committee.
b) 445 Committee Report on “Application of the Strut-and-Tie Method” (Kuchma)
ACI 318-E has requested that ACI 445 develop a document on “Application of the Strut-and-Tie Method”.
Kuchma presented a series of questions to the committee: Should we do it? Should it aim to be comprehensive or
simply complementary to existing guideline documents? Should it aim to be a state-of-the-art report (provide
guidance, review experimental evidence, critical assessment of provisions and models)? Should it include
guidance for designing for substantial (seismic) load reversals? Where should it be on the spectrum of being
focused on ACI STM approach versus provisions in all codes? What are the current shortcomings in available
STM information/guidance? What are the problems in the current application of STM provisions? What are the
shortcomings in available instructional materials? Who is the prime audience? Who would be willing to
contribute? What are the next steps?
There was general agreement that the effort should concentrate on supporting what is in the code rather than
supplying an alternative. It was also agreed that the document should focus on giving the designer guidance.
Bentz and Reineck stated that it would be premature to include STM for resisting load reversals. Matamoros
noted that the Japanese have been using STM in this area for years; it is important to at least point out what can
and cannot be done (rather than give specific values).

8. Technical Sessions
ACI Fall Convention, November 8–12, 2009 (New Orleans)
Symposium Honoring Thomas T.C. Hsu: Five Decades of Progress in Shear and Torsion (four sessions—see
attached agenda)
ACI Spring Convention, March 21–25, 2010 (Chicago)
Symposium Honoring James Jirsa's Legacy in Structural Concrete: A Time to Reflect: Shear Issues (several
sessions)
Two sessions on examples for design with strut-and-tie models
Proposals for technical sessions at future ACI conventions are welcome. Future convention dates/locations:
Fall 2010 (Pittsburgh), October 24–28
Spring 2011 (Tampa), April 3–7
Fall 2011 (Cincinnati), October 16–20
Spring 2012 (Dallas), March 18–22
Fall 2012 (Toronto), October 21–25

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2009 Page 4

9. Technical Presentations
Lennart Elfgren briefly presented results of the in-place shear testing of a concrete bridge structure. He had discussed
the planning for this testing during the Spring 2006 committee meeting.

10. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Robert Barnes on November 10, 2009.

ACI-ASCE 445 Fall 2009 Page 5

 AGENDA – FALL 2009 MEETING
Joint ASCE/ACI 445 – SHEAR AND TORSION
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Nov. 8-12, 2009

Meetings
445 Shear & Torsion Mon 2p-6p – BALCONY L
445-A Shear & Torsion-Strut & Tie Sun 10:30a-1:30p STUDIO 8
445-B Shear & Torsion-Seismic Shear 8a-9a LAFAYETTE (Shortened)
445-C Shear & Torsion-Punching Shear Sun 1p-3p STUDIO 3 (Cancelled)
445-D Shear and Torsion-Database Mon 10a-12p BACCHUS
445-E Shear & Torsion-Torsion Sun 12:30p-2p REGENT
423-445 Adhoc Grp on Shear in Prestress Conc Sun 3p-5p STUDIO 3
318-E Shear & Torsion Wed 8:00a-1:30p BALCONY M
318-G Prestressed Precast Wed 8:00a-1:30p STUDIO 6

1. Introductions (Kuchma)

2. Approval of the Minutes – Spring ACI 445 Meeting held in San Antonio (Kuchma)
(Posted on 445 Website)

3. ACI 318-E Actions (Kuchma/Wood)

Change Proposals – Current
Change Proposals – Future
Code Reorganization

4. Subcommittee reports
445-A Strut and Tie (Reineck)
445-B Seismic Shear (Kuchma)
445-C Slab Shear (Hawkins/Ospina)
445-D Beam Database (Reineck)
445-E Torsion (Belarbi): Including Update on Torsion Report
Ad hoc committee on prestressed concrete shear issues (Matamoros)

5. Strut-and-Tie Design Provisions and Guidance

Incorporation of STM Provisions within Main Body of 318-14 (Klein)
STM Design Guidelines (Reineck)
445 Committee Report on Application of the STM for the Design of Discontinuity
Regions (Kuchma)

6. Technical Sessions

ACI Fall 2009 New Orleans

Thomas T.C. Hsu Symposium, Part 1: Recent Advances in Seismic Shear of
Wall-Type Structures, Monday 9a-12p SALON B
1. Test of a Coupled Wall with High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Coupling Beams, James Wight, Gustavo J. Parra-Montesinos and Remy Lequesne
2. The Impact of Shear on Shear Wall Systems, John Wallace, Kutay Orakcal, and
M. Massone
 3. Shear Strength Prediction of Eccentric Beam‑Column Joints, Shyh-Jiann Hwang,
Erwin Lim, and Hung-Jen Lee
4. Reversed Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Diagonal
Steel Grids, Jian-Xia Zhong, Yi-Lung Mo and Wen-I. Liao
5. Evaluation of Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls through Finite
Element Analysis, Ravi T. Mullapudi, Ashraf S. Ayoub and Parnak Charkhchi
6. Constitutive Relationships of Cracked Reinforced Concrete with Steel Fibers,
Mohammad Mansour, Thomas T.C. Hsu and Yi-Lung Mo
7. Simulation of Prestressed Concrete Girders Failed by Shear, Y.L. Mo., Rachel N.
Howser, Thomas T.C. Hsu and Arghadeep Laskar
8. Refinements to Compression Field Theory with Application to Wall-Type
Structures, Enrique Hernandez-Montes, Mark A. Aschheim, Luisa Maria Gil-Martin,
and Stavroula Pantazopoulou

Thomas T.C. Hsu Symposium, Part 3: Five Decades of Progress in Shear

and Torsion, Tuesday 9a-12p SALON B
1. Development of Models for Torsion of Concrete Structures in Northern Europe,
Lennart Elfgren
2. Structural Concrete Beam Shear - Still a Riddle?, Mikael Braestrup
3. Punching Shear in Fire-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Pietro G.
Gambarova, Patrick Bamonte, and Roberto Felicetti
4. Review of Some Basic Assumptions for the Shear Design, Karl-Heinz Reineck
5. Investigation of Strut Strength Using a Deep-Beam Database, David Sanders
and Neil Bahen
6. Evaluation of Minimum Shear Reinforcement Requirements in Non-Prestressed
Beams without Distributed Horizontal Reinforcement, Lesley Sneed and Julio
Ramirez
7. Shear-Flexure-Torsion Interaction Features of Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns, Abdeldjelil Belarbi and Suriya S. Prakash
8. Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Tri-directional Shear
Using a State-of-the-Art Panel Tester, Ashraf Ayoub, Moheb Labib and Yashar
Moslehy

Future Sessions

Design Examples for the Strut-and-Tie Method (SP-2), Request for 2 Sessions at
the Spring 2010 Conference in Chicago

Future Conferences: Spring 2010 (Chicago), Fall 2010 (Pittsburgh), Spring 2011
(Tampa), Fall 2011 (Cincinnati), Spring 2012 (Dallas)

7. Other Business

Technical Presentations (10 Minutes Each) - Please let me know if you are
interested in presenting prior to the start of the 445 meeting

Please note that all subcommittee meetings are scheduled prior to the main 445
committee meeting. All members are welcome and encouraged to attend.
Minutes of the meeting in New Orleans, LA of ACI 445-A: Strut-and-tie models
Sunday, 8 Nov 2009, 10.30 - 13.30 h
Attendants: 12 members; 7 guests
Members: Karl-H. Reineck (Ch.), Robert Barnes, Ozzie Bayrak, Hakim Bouadi,
Sergio Brena, Gary Klein, Dan Kuchma, Laura Lowes, Adam Lubell,
Mario Rodriguez, Fernando Yánez, Jim Wight

Visitors: Attila Beres, John Blondin, Nick Haltvick, Ken Marley, Guilherme Melo,
Lesley Sneed, Kiang Hwee Tan

Agenda
1 Approval of agenda: the approval was given after welcomes and introductions.
Note: Larry Novak sends his regrets that he cannot attend. In Larry Novak’s place,
Adam Lubell will be the secretary for the meeting.

2 Approval of minutes of the meeting in San Antonio: the approval was given.

3 Further examples for the use of strut-and-tie models

3.1 Presentation of final drafts for the examples
• Reineck presented the current list of examples for the upcoming Special Publication.
Reineck had re-numbered the examples and they are now sorted by complexity and by
theme.
• Reineck noted that the review comments have been sent to most authors, but papers #4
(Kuchma) and #15 (Reineck) have not yet been submitted. Discussion regarding
timelines: Reineck indicated that all papers with revisions should be complete in early
December; he was hoping that the publication schedule will allow early January 2010
for the SP to be distributed in Chicago.
• Klein asked about review process. Reineck will check the response to reviewer’s
comments and decide if comments warrant a re-review. Authors should address all
review comments and provide list of responses.
• Reineck reviewed state of examples not yet submitted/completed.

A. Lubell ; K. - H. Reineck 16 Nov 2009

ACI 445-A "Strut-and-tie models": Minutes of the meeting in New Orleans on 8 Nov 2009 2

Specific discussion regarding each example as follows:

1 Hammerhead bent cap Michael Brown, Oguzhan Bayrak
• Bayrak indicates it is finished but wants to look through again. Example uses 2
models (direct and indirect; Reineck wants to remove “one-panel” and “two-panel”
labels). Reineck questioned lack of use of FIP Recommendations (1999) to have
combined case and would like this comparison also. Long discussion by committee on
whether this is a safety issue and/or serviceability issue. Bayrak indicated that this SP
is not the appropriate forum to address deficiencies in ACI 318. Kuchma felt it was an
opportunity to educate on alternatives. Klein suggested referencing FIP with
discussion of why one model is preferred. Wight provided background on Appendix A
approach and that designs according to it will satisfy strength requirements. Bayrak
will include some summary statements about different models and will consider
including FIP.
2 Four column Bent Cap Michael Brown, Oguzhan Bayrak
• Bayrak noted this paper will be delayed due to health issues of co-author and may not
be finished until Jan/Feb 2010, possibly preventing inclusion in SP. From later
discussion, completion date of Jan 15, 2010 is targeted.
• Reineck reminded all authors that SP will be in paper format in black & white. All
papers were reviewed by a 445-A member, a 445 member, and Reineck (as editor).
3 Foundation Grade Beam, Bob Anderson
• Status unknown
4 Stepped Slender Beam, Matthias Andermatt & Adam Lubell
• Lubell presented current version and questions arising from review comments.
Discussion about indirect support at end of cantilever and method of detailing stirrups
as hanging-up reinforcement. Committee felt old detail was better but need framing
bars or shifted stirrups to make it work. Klein suggested trying a curved bar node.
Lubell to modify detail and send to Reineck for comments. Lubell to look at same FIP
issue previously discussed for Bayrak’s example and add some discussion/comments
in text. Lubell to look at sectional requirements in middle portion of beam, to make
sure transverse reinforcement quantity is not excessively penalized by choice of STM
model over a sectional approach. Some discussion about matching B & D regions.
From later discussion, completion date of Nov 30, 2009 is targeted.
5 Transfer Girder with unsymmetric loading, Adam Lubell, Katrin Habel
• Lubell presented current version and questions arising from review comments. One
question similar to Bayrak discussion above. Lubell will look at his refined model for
longitudinal bar requirements and better clarify the description of the model; it uses

A. Lubell; K. - H. Reineck 16 Nov 2009

ACI 445-A "Strut-and-tie models": Minutes of the meeting in New Orleans on 8 Nov 2009 3

the stirrups from Model 1 but makes different fan assumptions. This will change the
longitudinal bar cut-off locations if adopted as the method to establish long. steel.
• Klein asked about multiple layers of hooked longitudinal bars at the end anchorage;
discussion indicated prior testing shows this is OK for strength but headed bars could
also be considered as an option. Wight mentioned his recent paper in CI which may be
a good resource for this example since some details are similar. From later discussion,
completion date of Nov 30, 2009 is targeted.
6 Prestressed dapped girder ends with Cazaly Hangers Katrin Habel; Matthias Andermatt;
Adam Lubell
• Lubell presented current version and questions arising from review comments.
Committee thinks the paper should give short text reference to the “concrete” form of
a dapped connection when presenting this “steel” version. Klein mentioned bending
requirements in the hanger plates that should also be mentioned in this comparison.
• Discussion of the Schlaich stress ratio limits at a non-hydrostatic node; the original
model is better and the conflict should be taken up in the response to the reviewer.
Questions posed about adequate P/T development at lower right corner of model
which should be checked based on transfer lengths. From later discussion, completion
date of Nov 30, 2009 is targeted.
7 Dapped-end T-beam with Curved Bar Node, Gary Klein
• Klein reviewed status. Corrected version had been returned to Reineck; Klein to re-
send. Klein to recheck interpretation of Reineck’s earlier comment about strut angle.
8 Link beam, Asif Wahidi, Hakim Bouadi
• Bouadi had left the meeting before this item was reached. Example is not finished and
Reineck to remind author of deadline.
9 Propped Cantilever Dan Kuchma
• Kuchma presented current state of example, which is for an internally indeterminate
structure.
10 End-regions of Pretensioned Members, Dan Kuchma
• Kuchma gave brief presentation on info that will be used for paper. Kuchma indicated
he needs 2 weeks, agreed with Reineck. Klein volunteered to review in place of
Lubell. Later discussion changed the deadline to Nov 29, 2009.
11 Pile Cap with Tension Piles Ozzy Bayrak
• Bayrak reviewed current status of paper; some updating required and 6 Dec 2009
agreed for submission.

A. Lubell; K. - H. Reineck 16 Nov 2009

ACI 445-A "Strut-and-tie models": Minutes of the meeting in New Orleans on 8 Nov 2009 4

3.2 Session + SP
Reineck indicated all papers must be finished by middle of January. Reineck and Kuchma to
check with ACI regarding deadlines for having published SP with the Session. Discussion
showed that Chicago may be difficult due to expected editorial work. Polling of members to
see if they preferred Chicago or Pittsburgh and whether we should adjust if needed to allow
for a paper SP. Committee agreed to let Reineck and Kuchma discuss with ACI and use their
discretion for selecting venue and format.

3.3 Other Topics No discussion.

4 Strut-and-tie models for earthquake design

Lowes presented current status: she completed the manuscript about 6 weeks ago and it will
take about 4 weeks to finalize with co-author. She will send to Reineck and Kuchma for brief
review before submission to journal since support of 445-A is desired. An acknowledgment to
445-A could be included. A brief review was made of the paper contents. Discussion that 3 or
4 key figures of beam-column connections would be a good addition. Reineck thanked Lowes
and Sritharan for their efforts in producing this document.

5 Guidance document on strut-and-tie models

Kuchma gave brief review of what will be presented in 445 during the Monday meeting.
318 supports keeping STM as part of code. 445 to develop an “applications” document.
Bayrak asked if this was a good task for this committee after finishing the SP, with some
discussion. Other discussion about uptake of the 445 initiative by 318 which was viewed
positively by this committee.

6 Next meeting same schedule: Sunday 10.30 – 13.30 h

Lowes offered to make brief presentation of her paper at next meeting if it has been submitted.
Bayrak would like to present recent STM research at future meeting when time is available.
Tentative agreement.

7 Research Presentations None

8 Other items None

Adjourned at 13.30 h.

A. Lubell; K. - H. Reineck 16 Nov 2009

Minutes of the meeting in New Orleans, LA of ACI 445-A: Strut-and-tie models
Sunday, 8 Nov 2009, 10.30 - 13.30 h
Attendants: 12 members; 7 guests
Members: Karl-H. Reineck (Ch.), Robert Barnes, Ozzie Bayrak, Hakim Bouadi,
Sergio Brena, Gary Klein, Dan Kuchma, Laura Lowes, Adam Lubell,
Mario Rodriguez, Fernando Yánez, Jim Wight

Visitors: Attila Beres, John Blondin, Nick Haltvick, Ken Marley, Guilherme Melo,
Lesley Sneed, Kiang Hwee Tan

Agenda
1 Approval of agenda: the approval was given after welcomes and introductions.
Note: Larry Novak sends his regrets that he cannot attend. In Larry Novak’s place,
Adam Lubell will be the secretary for the meeting.

2 Approval of minutes of the meeting in San Antonio: the approval was given.

3 Further examples for the use of strut-and-tie models

3.1 Presentation of final drafts for the examples
• Reineck presented the current list of examples for the upcoming Special Publication.
Reineck had re-numbered the examples and they are now sorted by complexity and by
theme.
• Reineck noted that the review comments have been sent to most authors, but papers #4
(Kuchma) and #15 (Reineck) have not yet been submitted. Discussion regarding
timelines: Reineck indicated that all papers with revisions should be complete in early
December; he was hoping that the publication schedule will allow early January 2010
for the SP to be distributed in Chicago.
• Klein asked about review process. Reineck will check the response to reviewer’s
comments and decide if comments warrant a re-review. Authors should address all
review comments and provide list of responses.
• Reineck reviewed state of examples not yet submitted/completed.

A. Lubell ; K. - H. Reineck 16 Nov 2009

ACI 445-A "Strut-and-tie models": Minutes of the meeting in New Orleans on 8 Nov 2009 2

Specific discussion regarding each example as follows:

1 Hammerhead bent cap Michael Brown, Oguzhan Bayrak
• Bayrak indicates it is finished but wants to look through again. Example uses 2
models (direct and indirect; Reineck wants to remove “one-panel” and “two-panel”
labels). Reineck questioned lack of use of FIP Recommendations (1999) to have
combined case and would like this comparison also. Long discussion by committee on
whether this is a safety issue and/or serviceability issue. Bayrak indicated that this SP
is not the appropriate forum to address deficiencies in ACI 318. Kuchma felt it was an
opportunity to educate on alternatives. Klein suggested referencing FIP with
discussion of why one model is preferred. Wight provided background on Appendix A
approach and that designs according to it will satisfy strength requirements. Bayrak
will include some summary statements about different models and will consider
including FIP.
2 Four column Bent Cap Michael Brown, Oguzhan Bayrak
• Bayrak noted this paper will be delayed due to health issues of co-author and may not
be finished until Jan/Feb 2010, possibly preventing inclusion in SP. From later
discussion, completion date of Jan 15, 2010 is targeted.
• Reineck reminded all authors that SP will be in paper format in black & white. All
papers were reviewed by a 445-A member, a 445 member, and Reineck (as editor).
3 Foundation Grade Beam, Bob Anderson
• Status unknown
4 Stepped Slender Beam, Matthias Andermatt & Adam Lubell
• Lubell presented current version and questions arising from review comments.
Discussion about indirect support at end of cantilever and method of detailing stirrups
as hanging-up reinforcement. Committee felt old detail was better but need framing
bars or shifted stirrups to make it work. Klein suggested trying a curved bar node.
Lubell to modify detail and send to Reineck for comments. Lubell to look at same FIP
issue previously discussed for Bayrak’s example and add some discussion/comments
in text. Lubell to look at sectional requirements in middle portion of beam, to make
sure transverse reinforcement quantity is not excessively penalized by choice of STM
model over a sectional approach. Some discussion about matching B & D regions.
From later discussion, completion date of Nov 30, 2009 is targeted.
5 Transfer Girder with unsymmetric loading, Adam Lubell, Katrin Habel
• Lubell presented current version and questions arising from review comments. One
question similar to Bayrak discussion above. Lubell will look at his refined model for
longitudinal bar requirements and better clarify the description of the model; it uses

A. Lubell; K. - H. Reineck 16 Nov 2009

ACI 445-A "Strut-and-tie models": Minutes of the meeting in New Orleans on 8 Nov 2009 3

the stirrups from Model 1 but makes different fan assumptions. This will change the
longitudinal bar cut-off locations if adopted as the method to establish long. steel.
• Klein asked about multiple layers of hooked longitudinal bars at the end anchorage;
discussion indicated prior testing shows this is OK for strength but headed bars could
also be considered as an option. Wight mentioned his recent paper in CI which may be
a good resource for this example since some details are similar. From later discussion,
completion date of Nov 30, 2009 is targeted.
6 Prestressed dapped girder ends with Cazaly Hangers Katrin Habel; Matthias Andermatt;
Adam Lubell
• Lubell presented current version and questions arising from review comments.
Committee thinks the paper should give short text reference to the “concrete” form of
a dapped connection when presenting this “steel” version. Klein mentioned bending
requirements in the hanger plates that should also be mentioned in this comparison.
• Discussion of the Schlaich stress ratio limits at a non-hydrostatic node; the original
model is better and the conflict should be taken up in the response to the reviewer.
Questions posed about adequate P/T development at lower right corner of model
which should be checked based on transfer lengths. From later discussion, completion
date of Nov 30, 2009 is targeted.
7 Dapped-end T-beam with Curved Bar Node, Gary Klein
• Klein reviewed status. Corrected version had been returned to Reineck; Klein to re-
send. Klein to recheck interpretation of Reineck’s earlier comment about strut angle.
8 Link beam, Asif Wahidi, Hakim Bouadi
• Bouadi had left the meeting before this item was reached. Example is not finished and
Reineck to remind author of deadline.
9 Propped Cantilever Dan Kuchma
• Kuchma presented current state of example, which is for an internally indeterminate
structure.
10 End-regions of Pretensioned Members, Dan Kuchma
• Kuchma gave brief presentation on info that will be used for paper. Kuchma indicated
he needs 2 weeks, agreed with Reineck. Klein volunteered to review in place of
Lubell. Later discussion changed the deadline to Nov 29, 2009.
11 Pile Cap with Tension Piles Ozzy Bayrak
• Bayrak reviewed current status of paper; some updating required and 6 Dec 2009
agreed for submission.

A. Lubell; K. - H. Reineck 16 Nov 2009

ACI 445-A "Strut-and-tie models": Minutes of the meeting in New Orleans on 8 Nov 2009 4

3.2 Session + SP
Reineck indicated all papers must be finished by middle of January. Reineck and Kuchma to
check with ACI regarding deadlines for having published SP with the Session. Discussion
showed that Chicago may be difficult due to expected editorial work. Polling of members to
see if they preferred Chicago or Pittsburgh and whether we should adjust if needed to allow
for a paper SP. Committee agreed to let Reineck and Kuchma discuss with ACI and use their
discretion for selecting venue and format.

3.3 Other Topics No discussion.

4 Strut-and-tie models for earthquake design

Lowes presented current status: she completed the manuscript about 6 weeks ago and it will
take about 4 weeks to finalize with co-author. She will send to Reineck and Kuchma for brief
review before submission to journal since support of 445-A is desired. An acknowledgment to
445-A could be included. A brief review was made of the paper contents. Discussion that 3 or
4 key figures of beam-column connections would be a good addition. Reineck thanked Lowes
and Sritharan for their efforts in producing this document.

5 Guidance document on strut-and-tie models

Kuchma gave brief review of what will be presented in 445 during the Monday meeting.
318 supports keeping STM as part of code. 445 to develop an “applications” document.
Bayrak asked if this was a good task for this committee after finishing the SP, with some
discussion. Other discussion about uptake of the 445 initiative by 318 which was viewed
positively by this committee.

6 Next meeting same schedule: Sunday 10.30 – 13.30 h

Lowes offered to make brief presentation of her paper at next meeting if it has been submitted.
Bayrak would like to present recent STM research at future meeting when time is available.
Tentative agreement.

7 Research Presentations None

8 Other items None

Adjourned at 13.30 h.

A. Lubell; K. - H. Reineck 16 Nov 2009