Structures 26 (2020) 185–192

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Decoupling of arch action and truss action in deep beams by strain energy T
⁎
Zhi-Qi He , Tian Xu, Zhao Liu
School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: It is commonly accepted that deep beams transfer shear forces through a combination of arch action and truss
Deep beam action, but there is disagreement on how to estimate the fraction transferred by each assumed action. This study
Truss action provides a theoretical method to decouple the two shear-carrying mechanisms from the perspective of strain
Arch action energy. Through multiple-level least-energy solutions, a two-panel truss consisted of parallel compression di-
Strut-and-tie model
agonals and orthogonal tension ties is obtained for the minimum strain energy. Assuming that vertical ties of the
Strain energy
truss model and diagonal ties of the combined model have the same energy, the fraction of load transferred by
the truss action is decoupled as 2λ/3–0.5 (where λ is the shear span-depth ratio). It means that the entire shear is
carried by the arch action when λ ≤ 0.75, while the entire shear is carried by the truss action when λ ≥ 2.25. Six
deep beams were tested with instruments placed along the assumed direct struts and indirect struts, from which
the contributions of the two load-transfer mechanisms can be separated experimentally. The theoretical method
agrees well with the experimental results of the current study and the others collected from the literature.

1. Introduction
Deep beams can be classified as members in which a significant
portion of the shear force is directly transferred from the load to the
support (Fig. 1). It is now commonly accepted that deep beams transfer
shear through two major force paths [1–6]: arch action (or direct-strut
action) and truss action (or beam action). The shear transfer mechanism
in deep beams is strongly influenced by the shear span-depth ratio (a/
d). Members with lower a/d (approximately 1) are dominated by the
arch action in which the tension in the longitudinal tie is almost con-
stant along the full length of the beam. Members with larger a/d (ap-
proximately 3) are dominated by the truss action in which the vertical
ties are representations of the stirrups and the tension in the long-
itudinal tie changes along the length of the beam. Beams with inter-
mediate a/d transfer shear through a combination of these two me-
chanisms, but there is disagreement on how to estimate the fraction
transferred by each assumed model [7–9].
Guidance on the fraction of force transferred by either arch or truss
action is sparse. The ACI Code [10] and AASHTO LRFD Specification
[11] require a minimum angle of 25 degrees between struts and ties to
control the use of shallow angle struts. It means that truss members
with vertical ties are required when a/d is greater than 2.14. In ac-
cordance with the 1999 FIP recommendations [12], the fraction of load
resisted by the truss action depends on the shear span-depth ratio as
given by (2a/d – 1)/3. It means that the entire shear is carried by the
truss action for a/d ≥ 2 and the entire shear is transferred by the arch
action for a/d ≤ 1/2. Foster and Gilbert [13] suggested that the frac-
tion of load resisted by truss action can be determined by (√3a/d – 1)/2.
It means that the entire force is carried by truss action for a/d ≥ 1.73,
while the entire shear is transferred by arch action for a/d ≤ 0.58. The
analysis of strain energy by Brown and Bayrak [14] indicated that for
beams with a/d less than 2, the preferred mechanism for resisting loads
is a single direct strut between the load point and the support.
Few analytical approaches have been proposed to decouple the arch
action and the truss action in deep beams. Matamoros and Wong [15]
used the stiffness method to solve the statically indeterminate model
that is a combination of these two mechanisms, by assuming that the
modulus of elasticity and the cross-sectional area are constant and
equal for all members. From the sectional compatibility condition of
shear deformation, Kim and Jeong [16] developed a model for evalu-
ating the contribution of arch action to shear resistance in shear-critical
reinforced concrete beams. He et al. [17] derived the contribution of
each mechanism from a criterion for maximizing the strength capacity
of the combined model. Nakamura et al. [18] developed a numerical
Rigid-Body-Spring-Method (RBSM) to decouple the arch and beam ac-
tions in reinforced concrete beams.
Some experimental methods have been developed to measure the
two aforementioned contributions separately. Through the measure-
ment of concrete deformation along direct struts and indirect struts,
Breña and Roy [7] developed an experimental method to quantify the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: z.he@seu.edu.cn (Z.-Q. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.020
Received 31 December 2019; Received in revised form 23 March 2020; Accepted 10 April 2020
Available online 16 April 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z.-Q. He, et al.
Fig. 1. Arch action and truss action in deep beams.
fraction of load transferred by truss action in deep beams. Based on the
changing pattern of the strains in the longitudinal reinforcement, Mi-
haylov et al. [19] studied the transition from truss action to arch action
in deep beams. By measuring the strain of all shear reinforcement bars
along the full depth, Wu and Hu [20] introduced an experimental
method that is able to separately evaluate the contributions of concrete
and shear reinforcement to total shear resistance.
This study aims to develop a theoretical method to decouple the two
shear-carrying mechanisms in deep beams from the perspective of
strain energy. First, an analytical optimal strut-and-tie model for deep
beams is established by multiple-level least-energy solutions. Then, the
contribution of truss action is separated by assuming that the strain
energy of vertical ties in the truss model is equal to that of diagonal ties
in the combined model.
2. Multiple-level least-energy solutions
2.1. Minimum strain energy criterion
The design of deep beams is usually done by the strut-and-tie
models [21–23]. Based on the recommendations of Schlaich et al. [21],
the strut-and-tie model (STM) that contains the minimum strain energy
might be the most appropriate one. Ali and White [24] also using the
energy approach, they introduced the elastic strain compatibility error
(SCER) concept to select the optimal shapes of strut-and-tie models.
Using the concept of “model follows energy”, Lourenço and Almeida
[25] developed Adaptive Stress Field Models for the nonlinear analysis
of structural concrete discontinuity regions. The model configuration at
each load step was obtained following the least complementary energy.
Since the concrete struts are much stiffer than the reinforced ties,
the strain energy is concentrated in the ties and the strain energy in the
struts can be excluded from the strain energy calculation [21,26,27].
The strain energy of tension ties in the STM can be defined by
n
U= ∑ Ti li εi
i=1 (1)
where Ti = member tension force; li = member length; and
εi = member strain, which can be taken as the yield strain of the steel
bar (εy) in the ultimate limit state.
In the following, optimal strut-and-tie models for deep beams with
various a/d are found through multiple-level least-energy solutions:
186
Structures 26 (2020) 185–192
Fig. 2. History of topology optimization in deep beams with a/d = 1.5.
• Level I: Conduct topology optimization analysis to find the basic
configurations.
• Level II: Develop a search algorithm to find the exact geometries of
STMs.
• Level III: Establish an analytical model with explicitly expressed
parameters.
2.2. Level I: Topology optimization analysis
A two-dimensional topology optimization analysis is employed to
find out the STM configurations of deep beams with various a/d. The
performance-based optimization technique proposed by Liang et al.
[28] and Leu et al. [29] is adopted in this analysis. As shown in Fig. 2,
ineffective elements are gradually deleted from the structure in the
evolution process. The appropriate STM is generated when the perfor-
mance index (PI) reaches the maximum, which was proposed by Liang
et al. [28] as
C0 W0
PI =
Ci Wi (2)
where the subscripts 0 and i represent the initial and ith iterations,
respectively; C and W denote the total strain energy and weight of the
structure, respectively.
A computer-based tool for topology optimization analysis was de-
veloped by the authors [30]. It was compiled in the general-purpose
finite element package ANSYS (Release 10.0) [31] using the Parametric
Design Language.
For a simply supported beam with a point load at the center, the
optimal topology obtained from the above analysis is shown in Fig. 3.
For the beam with a/d = 1, a single direct strut between the con-
centrated load and the support is the preferred mechanism (one-panel
truss). As the shear span increases, indirect struts and inclined ties re-
presenting the truss action are generated (two-panel truss). When a/
d = 2.5, three indirect struts and two inclined ties appear in each shear
span (three-panel truss).
2.3. Level II: Optimal model by computer searching
The above topology optimization provides the basic configurations
of optimal STMs. In this section, a computer-based search algorithm for
the minimum strain energy is developed to find the exact geometries of
STMs. Similar work has been done by Hu et al. [27]. Based on the result
of topology optimization analysis, a two-panel truss shown in Fig. 4 is
chosen for deep beams with a/d less than 2.5. A similar model that
includes a diagonal tie using concrete tensile strength was re-
commended by Al-Nahlawi and Wight [32] for the design of beams
without transverse reinforcement.
The two-panel truss in Fig. 4 can be transformed into a one-panel
truss when Nodes A, D, and C are arranged in a line. There are three
variables in the model: 1) the x-coordinate for Node B; 2) the x-co-
ordinate for Node D; and 3) the y-coordinate for Node D. A computer-
based tool compiled in the general-purpose finite element package
ANSYS (Release 10.0) [31] was developed. After solving for the
Z.-Q. He, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 185–192

Table 1
Geometry and strain energy index of different models.
a/d Optimal model by computer Optimal analytical Pure arch Pure truss
searching model model model

θ1 (°) θ2 (°) Energy θ (°) Energy Energy Energy

index index index index

0.7 71.2 70.0 0.950 67.9 0.953 0.980 1.735

0.8 69.2 68.9 1.234 66.6 1.235 1.280 1.960
1.0 63.4 65.8 1.897 64.0 1.898 2.000 2.500
1.2 64.4 61.6 2.682 61.4 2.683 2.880 3.160
1.4 59.0 57.8 3.581 58.8 3.581 3.920 3.940
1.5 60.6 56.0 4.064 57.5 4.070 4.500 4.375
1.6 54.6 57.4 4.580 56.2 4.584 5.120 4.840
1.8 54.2 54.2 5.682 53.6 5.684 6.480 5.860
2.0 50.2 55.1 6.870 51.0 6.874 8.000 7.000
2.2 49.8 48.7 8.145 48.4 8.149 9.680 8.260
2.4 48.0 50.0 9.500 45.8 9.503 11.520 9.640
2.5 46.8 48.8 10.205 44.5 10.215 12.500 10.375

member forces, the total strain energy was calculated by summing the
member force times its length for all tension members, as expressed in
Eq. (1). The optimum solution is given by the node geometry that
produces the minimum energy. The iterative process of the algorithm is
described as follows:

Fig. 3. Optimal topology shapes for deep beams.
1. Set Node B to a unique location near the support of the beam. Note
that Node B is always on the bottom chord of the truss.
2. Move Node D in the two-dimensional zone to all possible geome-
tries. Note that both x-coordinate and y-coordinate are variable for
Node D.
3. For each new location for Node D, the strain energy of the truss is
solved and recorded.
4. Move Node B from the support to the center of the beam, and the
procedure from Steps 1 to 3 is repeated.
5. Read the minimum value of strain energy and obtain the corre-
sponding truss geometry.

Fig. 4 and Table 1 list the optimal STM geometry that produces the
minimum strain energy for each a/d. At an a/d of 1, the strain energy
index (ΣTili) of the optimal two-panel truss is 0.950, which is very close
to that of the direct-strut model (0.980). At an a/d of 2.5, the strain
energy index of the optimal truss is 10.205, which is very close to that
of the pure truss model (10.215). Therefore, the strain energy is a
reasonable index for identifying the load transferring mechanism in
deep beams.
From the optimal STM configurations shown in Fig. 4, it can be
found that: 1) the two inclined Struts AB and CD are approximately
parallel to each other; and 2) the inclined Tie BD is approximately
perpendicular to Struts AB and CD. Therefore, an analytical model with
a single variable (i.e., the inclination angle of Struts AB and CD) can be
established, as shown in Fig. 5.

2.4. Level III: Optimal analytical model

An analytical model with the strut inclination angle θ as the unique

variable is established in Fig. 5. The next is to solve the inclination
angle for the minimum strain energy. The total strain energy in tension
ties of the two-panel truss is composed by
Utotal = UBB' + 2UBC + 2UBD (3)
The strain energy in the central horizontal tie is:
UBB' = 2εy Pa cot θ (4)
Fig. 4. Least-energy models by computer searching.
The strain energy in the side horizontal tie is:
UBC = εy P cot θ (a − d cot θ) (5)

187
Z.-Q. He, et al.
Fig. 5. Optimal analytical model and its decomposition.
The strain energy in the inclined tie is:
P (a sin θ − d cos θ)2
UBD = εy
d (6)
Finally, the total strain energy of the two-panel truss can be ex-
pressed as
Utotal = 2εy Pd [2λ cot θ − cot2 θ + (λ sin θ − cos θ)2]
where P = shear force; a = shear span; d = effective depth of beam;
θ = strut inclination angle; and λ = a/d.
To minimize the strain energy, the following equation relating to
the partial derivative of θ should be satisfied:
∂Utotal
=0
∂θ
There is no explicit solution for θ from the above equation. An al-
ternative way of obtaining the inclination-angle expression is shown in
Fig. 6. The first step is to find the optimal θ for each a/d; and the second
step is to get the inclination-angle expression by linear fitting:
θ ≈ 77° − 13λ
Fig. 6. Optimal strut inclination angle for minimum strain energy.
Structures 26 (2020) 185–192
Fig. 7. Strain energy index in different models.
where λ = a/d.
2.5. Comparison of strain energy in different models
The strain energy of different models is listed in Table 1 and plotted
in Fig. 7. Among that, expressions for calculating the strain energy in
the pure arch model and the pure truss model are as follows:
Uarch = 2εy Pdλ2 (10a)
Utruss = εy Pd [1 + 1.5λ2] (10b)
When calculating the strain energy index (ΣTili), the steel strain (εy)
is ignored, and the shear force (P) and the beam depth (d) are both
(7) taken as 1. The following conclusions can be drawn from the compar-
isons in Table 1 and Fig. 7:
• The strain energy of the analytical models is very close to that in the
models obtained by computer searching.
• For a/d < 1, the strain energy of the optimal model is close to that
in the direct-strut model (pure arch model); For a/d > 2, the strain
(8) energy of the optimal model is close to that in the pure truss model.
3. Proportion of truss action and arch action
As demonstrated above, the strain energy is a reasonable index for
identifying the load transferring mechanism in deep beams. As shown
(9) in Fig. 5, the combined model consisted of a superposition of one-panel
truss (arch action) and two-panel truss (truss action). A fraction of the
load (γtruss) is transferred by the truss action and the remaining fraction
(1–γtruss) is transferred by the arch action.
The inclined Tie BD in the combined model represents the effect of
truss action. In this study, the contribution of truss action is separated
by assuming that the strain energy in the vertical ties of the truss model
is equal to that in the inclined ties of the combined model, that is
Uvt = UBD (11)
UBD has been expressed in Eq. (6), and Uvt can be calculated as
Uvt = γtruss Pd (12)
Therefore, the fraction of the load transferred by the truss action can
be derived as
γtruss = (λ sinθ − cos θ)2 (13)
Substituting the inclination-angle expression in Eq. (9) into Eq. (13),
the fraction γtruss can be finally obtained as
γtruss = 2λ /3 − 0.5 for 0 ⩽ γtruss ⩽ 1 (14)
188
Z.-Q. He, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 185–192

Fig. 8. Layout of tested beams.

where λ = a/d.
From Eq. (14), it can be seen that: 1) the entire shear is carried by
the arch action (direct-strut model) for a/d ≤ 0.75; 2) the entire shear
is carried by the truss action for a/d ≥ 2.25; and 3) both mechanisms
contribute equally to resist the shear force when a/d = 1.5. The above
conclusions are consistent with the strain-energy curves shown in
Fig. 7.

4. Experimental verification

4.1. Experimental program

The experimental program involved six deep beams with shear

span-depth ratios (a/d) of 1.43, 1.71, and 1.89. For each a/d, there are
two identical specimens. Details of the test specimens are given in
Fig. 8. All parameters are the same for the six specimens except the
shear span-depth ratio. The cylinder compressive strength of concrete
was 24 MPa, and the yield strength of the longitudinal and web re-
inforcement was 315 MPa. The transverse reinforcement ratio is 0.45%.
The load was applied by two hydraulic jacks. The width of the loading
plate was 45 mm, and the width of the bearing plate was 60 mm. The
observed failure mode was diagonal strut crushing (Fig. 9). For all
specimens, the shear force at diagonal cracking was about 45kN, and
the shear force at failure was about 80kN.
As shown in Fig. 10, 5 cm-long strain gauges were placed on the
concrete surface along the assumed direct struts and indirect struts,
respectively. For each beam, two faces of one shear span were placed
with these instruments. The test data reported in the following are
averages of two faces. These testing data can be used to separately
measure the contribution of the direct-strut action and the indirect truss
action.

4.2. Decoupling of truss action using testing data

This section solves the problem of using the testing data to quantify
the contribution of each shear-transfer mechanism. As shown in Fig. 10,
the relationship between the shear force and the strut compression in
the arch mode and the truss model can be expressed as
Fig. 10. Measurement of strut strains.
Varch = Narch sin θarch , Vtruss = Ntruss sin θtruss (15)

where Varch, Vtruss = shear forces transferred by arch action and truss the direct strut and the indirect strut, respectively.
action, respectively; Narch, Ntruss = compressions in the direct strut and The compressions in the direct strut and the indirect strut can be
the indirect strut, respectively; and θarch, θtruss = inclination angles of obtained from the measured strut strains as follows:

Fig. 9. Failure mode of tested beams.

189
Z.-Q. He, et al. Structures 26 (2020) 185–192

Fig. 11. Development of strut strains and truss action with loading.

Table 2
Fraction of load transferred by truss action in deep beams.
Reference Specimen a/d εarch,u (με) εtruss,u (με) Proportion of truss action

Tested Proposed Eq. (14) FIP (1999) Foster and Gilbert (1998)

This study S1 1.89 −214 −392 0.74 0.76 0.93 1.00

S2 1.89 −228 −468 0.76 0.76 0.93 1.00
S3 1.71 −424 −553 0.66 0.64 0.81 0.98
S4 1.71 −406 −425 0.61 0.64 0.81 0.98
S5 1.43 −446 −206 0.40 0.45 0.62 0.74
S6 1.43 −535 −223 0.37 0.45 0.62 0.74

Alcocer and Uribe (2008) Four beams 1.49 N.A. N.A. 0.50 0.49 0.66 0.79

Breña and Roy (2009) DB1.5–0.75 1.5 N.A. N.A. 0.48 0.50 0.67 0.80
DB1.5–0.50 1.5 N.A. N.A. 0.47 0.50 0.67 0.80
DB2.0–0.75 2.0 N.A. N.A. 0.81 0.83 1.00 1.00
DB2.0–0.50 2.0 N.A. N.A. 0.75 0.83 1.00 1.00

Mean value of prediction/experimental 1.058 1.366 1.565

Standard Deviation (S.D.) of prediction/experimental 0.075 0.140 0.239

190
Z.-Q. He, et al.
Narch = bWarch·Ec εarch, Ntruss = bWtruss·Ec εtruss (16)
where b = beam width; Ec = elasticity modulus of concrete; εarch,
εtruss = averaged compressive strains of the direct strut and the indirect
strut, respectively; and Warch, Wtruss = widths of the direct strut and the
indirect strut, respectively.
The widths of the direct strut and the indirect strut are almost equal
in the tested beams. From Eqs. (15) and (16), the load-transfer ratio
between the truss action and the arch action can be derived as
Vtruss ε sin θarch ε 1 + λ2
η= = truss = truss ·
Varch εarch sin θtruss εarch 1 + (λ /2)2 (17)
Finally, the fraction of load transferred by the truss action can be
obtained as
η clination angle is related to the shear span-depth ratio as
γtruss =
1+η (18)
4.3. Results and comparisons
Fig. 11 shows the measured strains along the direct and indirect
struts during the tests. There are two parallel indirect struts for a shear
span in the assumed truss model. Due to the presence of diagonal cracks
crossing the interior strut, only the data in the exterior strut are used to
quantify the contribution of truss action [7]. The contribution of truss
action is calculated using Eqs. (17) and (18) and plotted in Fig. 11. It is
observed that the truss action is gradually weakening with the loading.
The ultimate contribution of truss action at failure is listed in Table 2.
Experimental results in the literature about the load-transfer me-
chanisms in deep beams are also collected. Alcocer and Uribe [33]
presented the test results of four deep beams with the same a/d = 1.49.
The contribution of the truss action was calculated from measuring the
strains in the stirrups recorded in the tests. Test results suggested that
both mechanisms (arch action and truss action) contributed approxi-
mately equally to resist the shear forces. Breña and Roy [7] carried out
an experimental evaluation of the shear transfer mechanism in deep
beams. In the test, linear potentiometers were used to measure the
average strains along direct struts in the assumed arch model and in-
direct struts in the assumed truss model.
The test results of the six beams in the current study along with the
eight beams from the literature, are summarized in Table 2 and com-
pared with the predictions of different equations. The proposed Eq. (14)
is in good agreement with the test results of all specimens with different
a/d (the predicted values are on average 105.8% of the experimental
values, with a standard deviation of 7.5%), while both the methods
recommended by FIP 1999 [12], Foster and Gilbert [13] are shown to
overestimate the contribution of truss action.
5. Discussions
This study provides a theoretical method to decouple the two shear-
carrying mechanisms in deep beams, based on the previous work by
Schlaich et al. [21], Liang et al. [28], Breña and Roy [7], and Hu et al.
[27]. The limitations of the current work are discussed as follows:
• The shear-carrying mechanism in deep beams is influenced by sev-
eral factors, including the shear span-depth ratio, the amount of
transverse reinforcement and the compressive strength of concrete.
Increased amounts of web reinforcement can shift portions of the
load to the truss mechanism [14,19].
•
When calculating the strain energy in the strut-and-tie model, only
the tension ties are included in the current study. Some previous
studies showed that: the concrete contribution to the strain energy is
diminished relative to the steel contribution in the two-panel truss
model; but for the direct-strut model, the strain energy stored in the
struts is not likely to be negligible [14].
191
Structures 26 (2020) 185–192
• The number of deep-beam tests measuring the truss and arch con-
tributions is very limited in the literature. Such a kind of experi-
mental tests on deep beams with a wide range of shear span-depth
ratios would be helpful to validate the analytical method.
6. Conclusions
This study provides a theoretical method to decouple the two shear-
carrying mechanisms in deep beams from the perspective of strain en-
ergy. The following conclusions can be drawn:
• From multiple-level least-energy solutions, it is found that a two-
panel truss consisted of parallel compression diagonals and ortho-
gonal tension ties is the optimal model for deep beams. The in-
θ = 77°–13λ.
• The fraction of load resisted by the truss action depends on the shear
span-depth ratio, as given by γtruss = 2λ/3–0.5. The entire shear is
carried by the arch action (direct-strut action) for λ ≤ 0.75; the
entire shear is carried by the truss action for λ ≥ 2.25; and both
mechanisms contribute equally to resist the shear force when
λ = 1.5.
•
The measured averaged strains along the assumed direct struts and
indirect struts can be used to separate the contributions of the two
shear-carrying mechanisms in deep beams, as expressed in Eqs. (17)
and (18). In the test, it was observed that the truss action is gra-
dually weakening with the loading.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of
Jiangsu Province, China (No. BK20180063); and the National Key R&D
Program of China (No. 2017YFC0703402).
References
[1] Marti P. Basic tools of reinforced concrete beam design. ACI J 1985;82(1):46–56.
[2] ASCE-ACI Committee 445. Recent approaches to shear design of structural concrete.
J Struct Eng 1998;124(12):1375–417.
[3] Reineck KH. Examples for the design of structural concrete with strut-and-tie
models. ACI SP-208. Farmington Hill (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[4] Liu J, Mihaylov BI. A comparative study of models for shear strength of reinforced
concrete deep beams. Eng Struct 2016;112:81–9.
[5] Shuraim AB, El-Sayed AK. Experimental verification of strut and tie model for HSC
deep beams without shear reinforcement. Eng Struct 2016;117:71–85.
[6] Lim E, Hwang SJ. Modeling of the strut-and-tie parameters of deep beams for shear
strength prediction. Eng Struct 2016;108:104–12.
[7] Breña SF, Roy NC. Evaluation of load transfer and strut strength of deep beams with
short longitudinal bar anchorages. ACI Struct J 2009;106(5):678–89.
[8] Kuo WW, Cheng TJ, Hwang SJ. Force transfer mechanism and shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 2010;32(6):1537–46.
[9] Ismail KS, Guadagnini M, Pilakoutas K. Strut-and-tie modeling of reinforced con-
crete deep beams. J Struct Eng 2017;144(2):04017216.
[10] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and com-
mentary (ACI 318–19). Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2019.
[11] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge specifications (8th ed.). Washington (DC):
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; 2017.
[12] F.I.P. Commission 3. Practical design of structural concrete 1999 London, UK:
SETO.
[13] Foster SJ, Gilbert RI. Experimental studies on high-strength concrete deep beams.
ACI Struct J 1998;95(4):382–90.
[14] Brown MD, Bayrak O. Design of deep beams using strut-and-tie models – Part I:
evaluating US provisions. ACI Struct J 2008;105(4):395–404.
[15] Matamoros AB, Wong KH. Design of simply supported deep beams using strut-and-
tie models. ACI Struct J 2003;100(6):704–12.
[16] Kim W, Jeong J. Decoupling of arch action in shear-critical reinforced concrete
Z.-Q. He, et al.
beams. ACI Struct J 2011;108(4):395–404.
[17] He ZQ, Liu Z, Ma ZJ. Investigation of load-transfer mechanisms in deep beams and
corbels. ACI Struct J 2012;109(4):467–76.
[18] Nakamura H, Iwamoto T, Fu L, Yamamoto Y, Miura T, Gedik YH. Shear resistance
mechanism evaluation of RC beams based on arch and beam actions. J Adv Concr
Technol 2018;16(11):563–76.
[19] Mihaylov BI, Bentz EC, Collins MP. Behavior of large deep beams subjected to
monotonic and reversed cyclic shear. ACI Struct J 2010;107(6):726–34.
[20] Wu YF, Hu B. Shear strength components in reinforced concrete members. J Struct
Eng 2017;143(9):04017092.
[21] Schlaich J, Schäfer K, Jennewein M. Toward a consistent design of structural con-
crete. PCI J 1987;32(3):74–150.
[22] Zhang N, Tan KH. Direct strut-and-tie model for single span and continuous deep
beams. Eng Struct 2007;29:2987–3001.
[23] Yang TY, Dashlejeh AA, Arabzadeh A, Hizaji R. New model for prediction of ulti-
mate load of prestressed RC deep beams. Structures 2020;23:509–17.
[24] Ali MA, White RN. Automatic generation of truss model for optimal design of re-
inforced concrete structures. ACI Struct J 2001;98(4):431–42.
192
Structures 26 (2020) 185–192
[25] Lourenço MS, Almeida JF. Adaptive stress field models: formulation and validation.
ACI Struct J 2013;110(1):71–81.
[26] Tjhin TN, Kuchma DA. Computer-based tools for design by strut-and-tie method:
advances and challenges. ACI Struct J 2002;99(5):586–94.
[27] Hu Q, Ley MT, Russell BW. Determining efficient strut-and-tie models for simply
supported beams using minimum strain energy. ACI Struct J 2014;111(5):1015–25.
[28] Liang QQ, Uy B, Steven GP. Performance-based optimization for strut-tie modeling
of structural concrete. J Struct Eng 2002;128(6):815–23.
[29] Leu LJ, Huang CW, Chen CS, Liao YP. Strut-and-tie design methodology for three-
dimensional reinforced concrete structures. J Struct Eng 2006;132(6):929–38.
[30] He ZQ, Liu Z. Optimal three-dimensional strut-and-tie models for anchorage dia-
phragms in externally prestressed bridges. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2057–64.
[31] ANSYS Release 10.0 [Computer software]. ANSYS, Inc. Canonsburg, PA.
[32] Al-Nahlawi KA, Wight JK. Beam analysis using concrete tensile strength in truss
models. ACI Struct J 1992;89(3):284–90.
[33] Alcocer SM, Uribe CM. Monolithic and cyclic behavior of deep beams designed
using strut-and-tie models. ACI Struct J 2008;105(3):327–37.