ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 99-S46

TECHNICAL PAPER

Evaluation of Strut-and-Tie Modeling Applied to Dapped Beam with Opening

by Brian S. Chen, Michael J. Hagenberger, and John E. Breen
Strut-and-tie modeling is a valuable tool for designing irregular concrete members. The ACI 318-02 Building Code contains provisions pertaining to design using strut-and-tie models. This paper presents the experimental results of tests conducted on small-scale, simply-supported dapped beams with openings. The design of each test specimen was developed by independent student teams using the ACI provisions for strut-and-tie models. Each of the four specimens resisted loads greater than the factored design load and exhibited little distress at service load levels. The successful test series illustrates the applicability and conservative nature of strutand-tie modeling for design.
Keywords: beam; plasticity; structural concrete; strut.

Fig. 1Test specimen geometry. INTRODUCTION In the past, engineers had little guidance when it came to designing nonstandard and unusual structural concrete members. The development of strut-and-tie modeling has provided engineers with a conservative and rational design approach. In theory, plasticity-based strut-and-tie modeling produces safe, lower-bound designs. As a result, the method lends itself well to incorporation into building and design codes. Appendix A of the ACI 318-02 Building Code contains provisions pertaining to the use of strut-and-tie models. While there has been a significant amount of literature on the theory behind strut-and-tie modeling (Schlaich, Schfer, and Jennewein 1987; Muttoni, Schwartz, and Thrlimann 1997), there has been relatively little experimental verification of its application. This study presents the experimental results from a series of four test specimens with the same overall geometry, and with reinforcement designed using strut-and-tie models. The specimens tested in the experimental program were scale models of a dapped beam with a large opening. The overall purpose of this test series was twofold. One objective was to demonstrate that various safe and workable designs exist using different strut-and-tie models to solve the same problem. The other objective was to determine whether the new Appendix A provisions could be applied by practitioners with relatively little experience in the use of strut-and-tie modeling. The presence of a re-entrant corner at midspan and an opening creates large discontinuity regions where the plane-sections beam theory does not apply. Strut-and-tie models are a conservative and intuitive design methodology for solving these types of problems. Three groups of graduate students, working independently and in competition (based on the ratio of capacity to weight of steel reinforcement), designed Specimens 1 through 3 and tested them to destruction. In addition, the senior authors designed and tested Specimen 4. All of the designs used the provisions for strut-and-tie models proposed for adoption in the ACI 318-02 Building Code that were appended to an introductory article by the Chair of ACI 318 (Cagley 2001). The tests provide experimental ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002 verification of the application of strut-and-tie modeling and show that it is possible to use very different models on the same structure. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Strut-and-tie modeling is a valuable tool for designing complex and unusual structural concrete members. While there has been a significant amount of literature on the theory behind strut-and-tie modeling, there has been relatively little experimental verification of its application. In addition, the ACI 318-02 Building Code contains provisions pertaining to strut-and-tie models. This paper presents the experimental results of test specimens designed using the newly adopted strut-and-tie provisions. The successful test series provides important experimental verification of the application of strut-and-tie modeling. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Test specimens The experimental test program consisted of four reducedscale beam specimens. As shown in Fig. 1, each specimen measured 762 mm (30 in.) long, 254 mm (10 in.) deep, and 89 mm (3.5 in.) thick. The two geometric irregularities incorporated into the test specimens were a 127 mm (5 in.) dap at midspan and a 51 mm (2 in.) square opening located between the load point and the left support. The beams were designed to resist a concentrated factored load of 53 kN (12 kips). The corresponding service load was determined to be 34 kN (7.7 kips) by assuming a load factor of 1.55 that corresponds to equal live and dead load. A value
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-August 2002. MS No. 01-286 received September 5, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 2003 ACI Structural Journal if received by January 1, 2003.

445

ACI member Brian S. Chen is a doctoral candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex. He received his BS from Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., in 1997, and his MS from the University of Texas at Austin in 1999. ACI member Michael J. Hagenberger is a doctoral candidate at the University of Texas at Austin. He received his BS from Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa., in 1992, and his ME from Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., in 1993. ACI Honorary Member John E. Breen holds the Nasser I. Al-Rashid Chair in Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a member of ACI Committees 318, Structural Concrete Building Code; and 355, Anchorage to Concrete.

Fig. 3Strut-and-tie models with forces for Specimen 2.

Fig. 4Strut-and-tie model with forces for Specimen 3. Fig. 2Strut-and-tie models with forces for Specimens 1 and 4. Table 1Reinforcing steel properties
Bar size Area, mm2 (in.2) Yield strength, MPa (ksi) Capacity, kN (kips) 6 mm 4 mm 10 gage 28.4 (0.044) 12.5 (0.019) 9.7 (0.015) 620 (90) 630 (92) 610 (89) 17.6 (3.96) 7.78 (1.75) 5.94 (1.34)

of = 1 was assumed for the resistance factor since the actual material properties were obtained. Pea-gravel concrete and small steel reinforcing bars were used to construct the test specimens. The concrete mixture was a prebagged cement and aggregate mixture combined with water and a high-range water-reducing admixture that yielded an average strength of 31.7 MPa (4600 psi). The concrete strength was determined from 76 x 152 mm (3 x 6 in.) test cylinders that were cast and tested at the same time as the beam specimens. The steel reinforcing used consisted of 4 and 6 mm-diameter deformed bars and 10 gage smooth wire. The properties of the reinforcing steel are summarized in Table 1. Design process Specimens 1, 2, and 3 were designed independently by three groups of graduate students. Specimen 4 was a slight variation of Specimen 1. Each specimen was designed 446

using the strut-and-tie provisions in Appendix A of ACI 318-02. Although each group used the same design process, the final strut-and-tie models and reinforcement layouts varied significantly. As a first step in the design process, each group independently performed a two-dimensional finite-element analysis (FEA) to establish the elastic stress fields in the structure. This process is suggested by Schlaich, Schfer, and Jennewein (1987) and Bergmeister et al. (1993) as a useful first step to promote visualization of the force paths in unfamiliar applications. For this particular problem, the FEA was probably not essential and only confirmed the initial ideas about the force distribution. From the flow of forces illustrated in the FEA, a strut-and-tie model was chosen and loaded with the applied forces. Strut-and-tie forces were computed using simple truss analysis techniques, and the nodal zones were checked. Reinforcement patterns were then developed using the tie forces provided by the analysis and the geometry of the strut-and-tie models. Graduate students performed the detailed calculations using Appendix A of ACI 318-02 with no direct supervision from a strut-and-tie model expert. Strut-and-tie models The strut-and-tie models developed for the four test specimens are shown in Fig. 2 through 4. Each design team ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 5Reinforcement layouts. employed different approaches for developing its final strutand-tie model. These approaches included breaking one overall strut-and-tie model into several submodels, superimposing two overlapping strut-and-tie models, and using a single model for the entire structure. While some strut-andtie models may be more efficient than others, it is important to note that there is no uniquely correct model. Each of the resulting strut-and-tie models represents a unique lowerbound or conservative estimate of the true capacity of the beam. These estimates, however, assume that failures such as stability or local crushing are precluded. The strut-and-tie model for Specimens 1 and 4 was developed using three submodels, as shown in Fig. 2. The submodels consisted of a simple truss for the right half of the beam and two overlapping trusses for the left half. The submodel shown in Fig. 2(a) was developed to resist the shear created by the applied load, and consisted of compression struts above and below the opening. These struts were tied together at various locations using tension ties. The submodel shown in Fig. 2(b) was developed to resist the moment or couple created by the compression strut and tension tie from the right half of the model. It should be noted that, during the design process, the design team discovered that one of the compressive struts cut through the edge of the opening. The design team recognized this mistake, but was unable to correct the error due to the time constraints associated with the class project. The submodel for the right half of the beam, shown in Fig. 2(c), is comprised of struts and ties oriented in a more familiar truss configuration. The three submodels were superimposed to create the final strut-and-tie model for Specimens 1 and 4. The strut-and-tie model for Specimen 2, shown in Fig. 3, consisted of two overlapping models of the entire beam. The design team elected to assign 80% of the applied load to one model, shown in Fig. 3(a), and the remaining 20% of the applied load to a second model, shown in Fig. 3(b). The reason for assigning a majority of the load to one model was to reduce the compression above the opening. This is evidenced by the large 81 kN compression strut extending from the load point to the area below the opening in Fig. 3(a). Similar to Specimen 1, the two overlapping models were superimposed to establish the final strut-and-tie model for the specimen. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 6Form and reinforcing cage for Specimen 1. The strut-and-tie model for Specimen 3, shown in Fig. 4, consisted of a single truss model for the entire beam. Large compression struts carried the flow of forces around the opening for the left half of the beam, while a more widely spaced truss was used for the right half. Reinforcement layout and design The reinforcement layouts for each specimen are shown in Fig. 5, and were selected using the tie forces in the strut-andtie models. In general, the location and orientation of the ties in the model dictated where reinforcement was required. The number of bars needed was determined by taking the tie force and dividing by the product of the yield stress and bar area. Because the competition was based on ultimate load performance, typical service load details, such as bars around the corners of the opening, were omitted. The reinforcement layouts for Specimens 1 and 4 were designed to maximize constructability. This was accomplished by arranging the reinforcement in an orthogonal grid and providing standard bar configurations as shown in Fig. 5(a) and (d). To accomplish this, the tension ties oriented diagonally in the model were resolved into horizontal and vertical components. The reinforcement was sized based on these vertical and horizontal force components and then evenly distributed in the location of the tension ties in the model. The reinforcement layout for Specimen 4 was similar to that of Specimen 1 the only significant change was the addition of confining reinforcement above the opening and below the load point. 447

Fig. 7Test specimen failure loads.

Fig. 9Concrete cracking patterns at service load and failure for Specimen 2.

Fig. 8Concrete cracking patterns at service load and failure for Specimen 1. The reinforcement layouts for Specimens 2 and 3, shown in Fig. 5(b) and (c), were designed to coincide with the orientation of the tension ties in the strut-and-tie models. While this resulted in a more accurate representation of the strutand-tie models, it complicated the construction process and would probably add extra cost. Where multiple bars were required for a single tension tie, the bars were grouped as close to the tie location as possible. Examples of this grouping can be seen in the four diagonal ties just to the left of the opening in Fig. 5(b) and the two groups of three vertical stirrups on the right half of the beam in Fig. 5(c). In addition to the tension ties, confining reinforcement was incorporated in areas of high compressive stress. Higher compressive stresses can be handled when confining reinforcement is provided (Roberts 1990, Breen et. al. 1994, FIP Commission 3 1999). This enables designers to accommodate nodal zones where potentially high compressive stresses may be encountered. Confining ties were used in Specimens 2 through 4 under the load point, above the opening, or both, as shown in Fig. 5. A picture of the reinforcement cage for Specimen 1 is shown in Fig. 6. 448

Fig. 10Concrete cracking patterns at service load and failure for Specimen 3. Test results and discussion Each of the four test specimens carried more than the factored design load of 53 kN (12 kips). The maximum load carried is listed in Table 2, and the ratio of ultimate test load Pult , to the factored design load Pdes is summarized in Fig. 7. At service load, each of the specimens had only a single visible crack originating from the re-entrant corner at midspan. These cracks were quickly arrested by the reinforcement and were not a factor in the failure mechanisms of any specimen. The failure mode and final cracking patterns, illustrated in Fig. 8 through 11, varied among the four specimens. The load-deflection responses, shown in Fig. 12, indicated a generally linear response up to the factored design load. It ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

should be noted that the serviceability limit of span/180 is shown only for reference, as the specimens were not designed for the serviceability limit state. Specimen 1 exhibited a shear failure mode. At service load levels, the only visible crack originated from the re-entrant corner at midspan and extended just past the longitudinal reinforcing bar as shown in Fig. 8(a). Subsequent loading up to the factored design load developed the inclined cracks in the right side of the beam as well as the corner cracks at the opening. At loads greater than the design load, a diagonal crack formed from the load point and extended across the top of the opening as shown in Fig. 8(b). This opening created a substantial separation in the beam and ultimately was the

failure mechanism. Failure of the specimen occurred at 58.3 kN (13.1 kips) and is pictured in Fig. 13(a). Specimen 2 failed as a result of instability. The instability was initiated when the concrete on one edge of the beam under the load point spalled just above the factored design load. Subsequent loading caused the bearing plate to rotate to the side and the beam to rotate out of plane as shown in Fig. 13(b). The test was terminated at a load of 66.5 kN (15.0 kips) before the load point slipped off the specimen. Extension of the confinement reinforcement under the load point might have prevented the total spalling of the concrete Table 2Test results
Cage Maximum Concrete strength, MPa weight Wc , test load Pult , Specimen no. (psi) kg (lb) kN (kips) Pult / Wc Pult / Pdes 1 2 3 4 31.8 (4610) 2.14 (4.72) 58.3 (13.1) 33.8 (4900) 2.63 (5.80) 66.5 (15.0) 31.8 (4610) 2.21 (4.88) 68.3 (15.4) 30.6 (4440) 2.50 (5.52) 65.8 (14.8) 2.78 2.58 3.15 2.68 1.09 1.25 1.28 1.23

Fig. 11Concrete cracking patterns at service load and failure for Specimen 4.

Fig. 12Load-deflection responses.

Fig. 13Test specimens at failure. ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002 449

and the subsequent stability problem. Despite these problems, the specimen performed well and exceeded the factored design load by 25%. The cracking pattern at service load and failure are shown in Fig. 9. Specimen 3 ultimately failed in shear. At the factored design load, a crack was present that extended from the bottom left corner of the opening down to the bottom face of the beam as shown in Fig. 10(b). Subsequent cracks developed above the opening, but were contained by the reinforcement present. At 65.7 kN (14.8 kips), the concrete under the load point spalled (Fig. 13(c)). The presence of confining reinforcement allowed for redistribution and further load-carrying capacity. Additional vertical cracks extended from the re-entrant corner at midspan to the load point. Failure of the specimen occurred at 68.3 kN (15.4 kips) when the dowel action of the longitudinal bars at the top and bottom of the beam was overcome. Specimen 4 behaved similarly to Specimen 1 up to the design load, but exhibited a flexural mode of failure. Just above the design load, a crack developed from the load point and extended past the top of the opening as shown in Fig. 11(b). The shear failure mode seen in Specimen 1 did not occur in Specimen 4 because of the additional reinforcement present above the opening. At 62.7 kN (14.1 kips), the concrete under the load point spalled. As in Specimen 3, the presence of confining reinforcement allowed for redistribution and further loading. Specimen 4 failed in flexure due to crushing of the concrete below the load point at 65.8 kN (14.8 kips) as shown in Fig. 13(d). CONCLUSIONS Using strut-and-tie models based on plasticity theory, different designers can, and probably will, develop differing reinforcement patterns for the same design. This was clearly

shown by the strong variation among the models developed by the various design groups. All strut-and-tie test specimens carried loads greater than the factored design load specified, proving the underlying lower-bound nature of strut-and-tie modeling. The use of orthogonal reinforcement patterns to simplify fabrication was both a valid and useful technique. Finally, specimens designed using the ACI 318-02 Code strut-and-tie model provisions for this load and reaction configuration were safe and relatively simple members to construct. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank all of the individual members of the design teams for their contributions. Those individuals include Gabriela Arce, Francisco Brenes, David Figurski, Taichiro Okazaki, Pedro Quiroga, Ruben Salas, and Jorge Varela. We would also like to thank Blake Stassney, Mike Bell, Patrick Wagener, and Jennifer Tanner for their assistance during the construction and testing of the specimens.

REFERENCES
Bergmeister, K.; Breen, J. E.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Kreger, M. E., 1993, Detailing for Structural Concrete, Research Report 1127-3F, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., 300 pp. Breen, J. E.; Burdet, O.; Roberts, C.; Sanders, D.; and Wollmann, G., 1994, Anchorage Zone Reinforcement for Post-Tensioned Concrete Girders, NCHRP Report 356, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 33-34. Cagley, J. R., 2001, Changing from ACI 318-99 to ACI 318-02, Whats New? Concrete International, V. 23, No. 6, June, pp. 69-182. FIP Commission 3, 1999, FIP Recommendations 1996, Practical Design of Structural Concrete, FIP Congress Amsterdam 1996, Fdration Internationale de la Prcontrainte, Lausanne, Switzerland. Muttoni, A.; Schwartz, J.; and Thrlimann, B., 1997, Design of Concrete Structures with Stress Fields, Birkhuser Verlag, Switzerland, 147 pp. Roberts, C. L., 1990, Behavior and Design of Local Anchorage Zone in Post-Tensioned Concrete, MS thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Tex., 280 pp. Schlaich, J.; Schfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., 1987, Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, Special Report, V. 32, No. 3, pp. 74-150.

450

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002