See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317947440

Bearing Capacity of Partially Loaded Concrete Elements

Conference Paper · June 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-59471-2_72

CITATIONS READS

0 2,639

3 authors, including:

Mauricio Ferreira Robert L. Vollum

Federal University of Pará Imperial College London
54 PUBLICATIONS 201 CITATIONS 107 PUBLICATIONS 1,166 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mauricio Ferreira on 27 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bearing Capacity of Partially Loaded
Concrete Elements

Matheus K.Y. Pamplona1, Maurício P. Ferreira1(&),

and Robert L. Vollum2
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology,
Federal University of Para, Belem, Para, Brazil
mpina@ufpa.br
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Imperial College London, London, UK
r.vollum@imperial.ac.uk

Abstract. There are numerous situations where compressive loads are intro-
duced into members over small areas. The stress distribution in these zones,
which are depicted D for disturbed, is non-uniform. The flow of compressive
stresses into the surrounding member induces transverse tensile stresses which
can cause premature splitting failures. D regions are typically designed using the
strut-and-tie method (STM). The STM design recommendations provided by
ACI 318 (2014), fib Model Code (2010) (2013) and Eurocode 2 (2004), limit
bearing stresses to admissible values which depend on a strut efficiency factor
(bs). This paper uses a database with 162 tests on partially loaded concrete
prisms without and with crack-control reinforcement to evaluate these provi-
sions and to discuss the influence of parameters like the concrete strength (fc),
the crack-control reinforcement ratio (q), concentration ratio (b/a) and aspect
ratio (h/b). It also presents results of four tests on diamond-shaped concrete
prisms carried out to evaluate the effect on resistance of increasing q. Experi-
mental results show that crack-control reinforcement increases both ductility and
resistance. Existing design provisions are shown to be conservative.

Keynotes: Strut and tie method
Bottle-Shaped struts
Splitting failure

1 Introduction

The strut and tie method (STM) is commonly used to design regions of concrete
structures where Bernoulli’s hypothesis is not valid. STM has been the subject of
considerable research (Muttoni et al. 2015; Tuchscherer et al. 2016; Laughery and
Pujol 2015). The stress field is discretized into struts and ties representing compressive
and tensile stress fields respectively. Forces are transferred between struts and ties at
nodes. Schlaich et al. (1987) identified three types of compression fields which are
depicted as: the prism or parallel sided stress field; the fan, where straight stress
trajectories radiate from a node; and the bottle, where stresses disperse in bulging
trajectories causing transverse tension. Bottle shaped struts arise in structures like deep
beams, short beams and corbels. Design codes consider the reduction in strut strength

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

D.A. Hordijk and M. Luković (eds.), High Tech Concrete: Where Technology
and Engineering Meet, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59471-2_72
 Bearing Capacity of Partially Loaded Concrete Elements 605

b) short-beams

a) rectangular prisms c) corbels d) diamond-shaped prisms

Fig. 1. Idealization of tests on bottle-shaped struts

due to splitting in a simplified way by introducing strut efficiency factors (bs). Amongst
others, Regan (1986), Brown et al. (2006) and Sahoo et al. (2011) have tested partially
loaded rectangular concrete prisms (see Fig. 1a). Such tests form the basis of codified
design recommendations for bottle shaped stress fields. However, as shown in Fig. 1b
and c, diamond-shaped prisms like that in Fig. 1d are more representative of diagonal
struts in short-span beams and corbels.
This paper presents the results of four tests on diamond-shaped concrete prisms.
The tests were undertaken to investigate the relationship between strut strength and
transverse reinforcement ratio. The results are included in a database of 162 tests on
partially loaded concrete prisms without and with crack-control reinforcement. The
database is used to evaluate the performance of design recommendations presented by
ACI 318 (2014), fib Model Code (2010) (2013) and Eurocode 2 (2004). Additional
checks are made on the influence on strut strength of concrete strength (fc),
crack-control reinforcement ratio (q), concentration ratio (b/a) and aspect ratio (h/b).

2 Methods of Calculation

ACI 318 (2014), fib Model Code (2010) (2013) and Eurocode 2 (2004) present sim-
plified recommendations to check the resistance of struts with transverse tension. ACI
318 recommends that the compressive strength of a strut (Nu) shall be calculated using
Eq. 1, where Acs is the area of the concrete strut, fce is the effective compressive
strength of concrete in a strut (see Eq. 2) and bs considers the effect of crack-control
reinforcement crossing the strut axis, calculated with Eq. 3, where qss is the
crack-control reinforcement ratio (see Eq. 4 and Fig. 2a.).
Nu ¼ fce
Acs ð1Þ

fce;ACI ¼ 0:85
bs;ACI
fc ð2Þ

0:75 for qss  0:3%
bs;ACI ¼ ð3Þ
0:60 for qss \0:3%
606 M.K.Y. Pamplona et al.

a) ACI 318 b) fib Model Code 2010 c) Eurocode 2

Fig. 2. Complementary images to design standards

X Asi
qss ¼
sin ai ð4Þ
bs
s i

The approach recommended in MC10 is similar to that of ACI 318. In it Nu is

calculated with Eq. 1, but fce is obtained using Eq. 5. In the simplified approach
presented in EC2 for struts subject to transverse tension (see Fig. 2(c) the effective
compressive strength of the strut is obtained with Eq. 6.

fce;MC10 ¼ bs;MC10
fc ¼ 0:75
ð30=fc Þ1=3
fc ð5Þ

fce;EC2 ¼ bs;EC2
fc ¼ 0:60
ð1  fc =250Þ
fc ð6Þ

3 Experimental Program

Four diamond-shaped concrete prisms were tested. Specimens are intended to represent
the diagonal concrete strut and surrounding concrete in short span beams as illustrated
in Fig. 3a. Figure 3b describes the geometry of the specimens. In it h depicts height
(900 mm), b is breadth (1,050 mm), a is the length of the bearing area (150 mm) and
e is thickness (150 mm). Figure 3c shows general reinforcement and loading details.
Table 1 summarizes the reinforcement used in the tested specimens. Tests were
designed to investigate the effect of transverse reinforcement on strut resistance. S and
W refer to reinforcement layers representing skin and web reinforcement. Test no.
1 was an unreinforced prism which serves as reference for specimen no. 2 which
corresponds to cases where only vertical stirrups are provided. Specimens no. 3 and 4
represent cases were skin reinforcement is also included.
Reinforcement bars with diameters of 4.2 mm and 5.0 mm were used in the
specimens. Uniaxial tension tests were carried out to characterize the steel properties.
The following values were obtained for each bar: / 4.2 have a yield stress fys of
650 MPa, with yield strain eys of 3.13‰ and modulus of elasticity Es of 208 GPa; / 5.0
have fys of 615 MPa, eys of 3.04‰ and Es of 202 GPa. Concrete was ready-mixed and
made with Portland cement CP-II-Z-32 (with 6% to 14% of pozzolan addition), sand
 Bearing Capacity of Partially Loaded Concrete Elements 607

a) b) c)

Fig. 3. General details of the tested specimens

Table 1. Characteristics of specimens’ reinforcement

No. Specimen W (web reinf.) S (skin reinf.) q (%)
1 W00-S00 – – –
2 W11-S00 6 Ø 4.2 @ 120 – 0.11
3 W11-S11 6 Ø 4.2 @ 120 6 Ø 4.2 @ 120 0.22
4 W21-S21 7 Ø 5.0 @ 90 7 Ø 5.0 @ 90 0.42

and natural gravel with maximum size of 9.5 mm. Specimens were wet cured for 7
days. Concrete properties were determined from 100 mm diameter by 200 mm long
cylinders tested on the same day as the test specimens. The compressive strength (fc)
was 37 MPa, the tensile resistance (fct) was 2.2 MPa and the modulus of elasticity (Ec)
was of 23.5 GPa.

4 Database

The database consists of the test results from this research and selected tests of Brown
et al. (2006), Campione et al. (2011), Pujol et al. (2011), Regan (1986), Sahoo et al.
(2008), (2009a, b), (2011). It comprises 81 tests on unreinforced concrete prisms and
81 tests on prisms with transverse reinforcement. The influence of different parameters
is evaluated in terms of an experimental strut efficiency factor (bs,EXP) calculated with
Eq. 7 in which ru is the ultimate compressive strength. The coefficient of 0.95 is taken
from Brazilian standard ABNT NBR 6118 (2014) where it accounts for differences in
strength between cast in place concrete and control specimens. The database does not
include tests on prisms with non-uniform reinforcement, longitudinal bars, steel fibers
or holes.
ru
bs;EXP ¼ ð7Þ
0:95
fc
608 M.K.Y. Pamplona et al.

Where: ru = Nu/(a
e); Nu is the strut strength observed in tests; a and e are
dimensions shown in Fig. 3.

5 Results

All the tested prisms failed due to splitting of concrete. Failure was characterized by the
formation of a longitudinal crack parallel to the strut axis, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
Specimen W00-S00 failed abruptly and in the other ones, the use of transverse rein-
forcement provided some ductility. Table 2 presents the experimental results and
compares the strut strengths (Nu) observed in the tests with those estimated with design
codes. Table 2 shows that the code predictions are conservative for these tests with

a) W00-S00 b) W11-S00 c) W11-S11 d) W21-S21

Fig. 4. Cracking pattern after failure

Table 2. Comparison between experimental and tests result

No. Specimen ru (MPa) Nu (kN) Nu/Nu,ACI Nu/Nu,MC10 Nu/Nu,EC2
1 W00-S00 27.6 620 1.46 1.06 1.46
2 W11-S00 28.4 640 1.51 1.10 1.50
3 W11-S11 32.0 720 1.70 1.24 1.69
4 W21-S21 37.3 840 1.58 1.44 1.97
Average 1.56 1.21 1.66
Coefficient of variation 0.07 0.14 0.14

4
β s,EXP Database Database Database
Author Author Author
3

b/a h/b fc (MPa)

0
0 3 5 8 10 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 20 40 60 80 100
a) Concentration ratio b) Aspect ratio c) Concrete strength

Fig. 5. Parameters affecting the resistance of unreinforced concrete prisms

 Bearing Capacity of Partially Loaded Concrete Elements 609

5
β s,EXP Database Database Database
4 Author Author Author

1
b/a fc (MPa) ρ (%)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4 5
a) Concentration ratio b) Concrete strength c) Reinforcement ratio

Fig. 6. Parameters affecting the resistance of reinforced concrete prisms

2000

Nexp (kN)
1000

R²=0.32 R²=0.41 R²= -0.11

Avg=1.89 Avg=1.24 Avg=1.73
CoV=0.25 CoV=0.25 CoV=0.40
%U.R=4.9 %U.R=16.0 %U.R=8.6
NACI (kN) NMC10 (kN) NEC2 (kN)
0

0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000

a) unreinforced prisms
2000

Nexp (kN)
1000

R²=0.64 R²=0.47 R²=0.51

Avg=2.35 Avg=2.13 Avg=2.93
CoV=0.34 CoV=0.37 CoV=0.36
%U.R=3.7 %U.R=6.2 %U.R=0.0
NACI (kN) NMC10 (kN) NEC2 (kN)
0

0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000

b) reinforced prisms

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental and theoretical results

MC10 giving the best predictions. The failure load increased with increasing
crack-control reinforcement ratio which is not accounted for in the codified design
strengths. Tests on short-span beams also show strut strength to be increased signifi-
cantly by transverse reinforcement (Sagaseta and Vollum 2010).
Figure 5 shows the influences of concentration ratio (b/a), aspect ratio (h/b) and
concrete strength (fc) on the bearing capacity of concrete struts without crack-control
reinforcement. Although there is a lack of results for b/a > 7, the trend of results show
that the concentration ratio affects the concrete splitting resistance. On the other hand,
the aspect ratio does not appear to be a relevant parameter to be considered in the
610 M.K.Y. Pamplona et al.

design of concrete struts. There is a lack of data for prisms with high strength concrete,
but the available data suggests that the effectiveness factor bs,EXP reduces with
increasing fc.
Comparison of Figs. 5a and 6a shows that the concentration ratio (b/a) has a much
greater influence on the strength of prisms with transverse reinforcement than for those
without. Figure 6b shows no clear relationship between bs,EXP and concrete strength
for specimens with transverse reinforcement. Figure 6c shows that transverse rein-
forcement have a significant influence on strut strength, but the relationship is obscured
by the influence of b/a. Figure 6c suggests that bs,EXP increases linearly with q for
0 < q  0.6% but stabilizes for higher values.
Comparisons between experimental and theoretical results are presented in Fig. 7.
Figure 7a show trends for cases of unreinforced struts. In general, ACI and EC2 are
overconservative, while MC10 gives better results. Figure 7b evaluate code trends for
cases of struts with transverse reinforcement. In this case, all codes presented con-
servative results as they ignore the favorable effect of increasing transverse rein-
forcement in the bearing capacity of partially loaded concrete elements.

6 Conclusions

This paper presents the results of four tests on diamond-shaped concrete prisms in
which the main variable is the crack-control reinforcement ratio. The measured
strengths were compared with the predictions of ACI 318 (2014), fib Model Code 2010
(2013) and Eurocode 2 (2004). It is shown that the code provisions are conservative
and that the strut efficiency factor bs is not independent of the concentration ratio b/a
and the transverse reinforcement ratio as assumed.
This paper also uses a database to illustrate the influence on strut strength of
concrete strength (fc), reinforcement ratio (q), concentration ratio (b/a) and aspect ratio
(h/b) on the failure load of partially loaded concrete prisms. For unreinforced prisms, it
is shown that the aspect ratio does not affect the strut efficiency factor (bs). Regarding
the concentration ratio, it is observed that bs increases, progressively, with increments
of this parameter. The use of high strength concrete seems to decrease the strut effi-
ciency of unreinforced prisms, but this merits further investigation.

References
American Concrete Institute (2014), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete,
ACI-318, New York (2014)
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: Projeto de Estruturas de Concreto – Procedimentos,
NBR 6118. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro (2014)
Fédération Internationale du Béton (FIB), Model Code 2010, final draft, vol. 1. fib, Bulletin 65,
Lausanne, Switzerland, vol. 2, p. 350 (2013)
Fédération Internationale du Béton (FIB), Model Code 2010, final draft, vol. 2. fib, Bulletin 66,
Lausanne, Switzerland, vol. 2, p. 370 (2013)
 Bearing Capacity of Partially Loaded Concrete Elements 611

Tuchscherer, R.G., Birrcher, D.B., Bayrak, O.: Reducing discrepancy between deep beam and
sectional shear-strength predictions. ACI Struct. J. 113(1) (2016)
Brown, M.D., Sankovich, C.L., Bayrak, O., Jirsa, J.O.: Behavior and efficiency of bottle-shaped
struts. ACI Struct. J. 103(3), 348–355 (2006)
Campione, G., Minafò, G.: Experimental investigation on compressive behavior of bottle-shaped
struts. ACI Struct. J. 108(3), 294–303 (2011)
Laughery, L., Pujol, S.: Compressive strength of unreinforced struts. ACI Struct. J. 112(5), 617–
623 (2015)
Muttoni, A., Ruiz, M.F., Niketic, F.: Design versus assessment of concrete structures using stress
fields and strut-and-tie models. ACI Struct. J. 112(5) (2015)
Pujol, S., Rautenberg, J.M., Sozen, M.A.: Compressive strength of concrete in nonprismatic
elements. Concr. Int. 33(9), 42–49 (2011)
Regan, P.E.: The bearing strength of reinforced concrete subjected to strep loading. Structures
Research Group Polytechnic of Central London, England (1986)
Sagaseta, J., Vollum, R.L.: Shear design of short-span beams. Mag. Concr. Res. 62(4), 267–282
Sahoo, D.K., Gautam, R.K., Singh, B., Bhargava, P.: Strength and deformation characteristics of
bottle-shaped struts. Mag. Concr. Res. 60(2), 137–144 (2008)
Sahoo, D.K., Singh, B., Bhargava, P.: Investigation of dispersion of compression in
bottle-shaped struts. ACI Struct. J. 106(2), 178–186 (2009)
Sahoo, D.K., Singh, B., Bhargava, P.: An appraisal of the ACI strut efficiency factors. Mag.
Concr. Res. 61(6), 445–456 (2009b)
Sahoo, D.K., Singh, B., Bhargava, P.: Minimum reinforcement for preventing splitting failure in
bottle-shaped struts. ACI Struct. J. 108(2), 206–216 (2011)
Schlaich, J., Schäfer, K., Jennewein, M.: Towards a consistent design of structural concrete.
PCI J. 32(3), 74–150 (1987)

View publication stats