ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 90-838

Strut-and-Tie Model for Shear Behavior in Deep Beams and

Pile Caps Failing in Diagonal Splitting

by Wen Bin Siao

A strut-and-tie model is used to predict the shear strength ofdeep beams and Hence
pile caps failing in diagonal splitting. The accuracy of this approach can be
verified by comparison against results of actual strength obtained from ex- Vu = 1.8fibd (1)
perimental testing and published by others.

where
Keywords: deep beams; diagonal tension; shear properties; shear strength.
fi = 0.52.,[Tc:Nfmm2
= 6.96.[j! psi (2)
Much research work has been done on deep beams as well
as pile caps.I-6 But there has been little attempt to establish a where
link between the two, especially from the aspect of shear be-
havior. In this present study a strut-and-tie model is used to /cu=cube strength in N/mm2
simulate the structural behavior of shear forces in deep beams f/ = cylinder strength in psi
and pile caps and thus arrive at a consistent approach in their
design against shear failure from diagonal splitting. Eq. (2) is arrived at assuming that

f/ = 0.8/cu
STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL IN DEEP BEAMS
Fig. 1 shows the internal strut-tie forces in a deep beam But where steel reinforcements are present in the web
arising from point loads applied symmetrically at equal dis-
tances from supports. The diagonal strut can be refined fur- fi = 6.96.[j![l + n(ph sin 2 e + Pv cos 2 8)] (3)
ther, 7 as shown in Fig. 2. A single compression force is now
replaced by two equivalent struts j; radiating at dispersion where
angles of 2:1 from the original direction of strut. These are
n = modular ratio of steel to concrete
held together at midheight of the beam by tension forces F,. ph, Pv = steel ratio of horizontal and vertical web reinforce-
Derivation of maximum value of Vis as follows ment

To verify the validity of Eq. (3), a total of 73 test results ob-

tained by otherst-3, 6 were used. Table 1 compares the pre-
dicted against experimental values.

Strut-and-tie model for pllecaps

Hence, tensile stress at right angles to AB Fig. 3 shows the usual strut-and-tie forces in a four-pile
pile cap. In Fig. 4, each compression strut Fe is replaced by a
three-dimensional strut-tie prisms which is more clearly il-
fi = ___3!!_ = 2 F, sine lustrated in Fig. 5. The compression struts act along a
bz/sine 0.9 bd perimeter formed by forces radiating outward from the sides

ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No.4, July-August 1993.

Received May 26, 1992, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright
v
=---
© 1993, American Concrete Institute. AU rights reserved, including the making of copies
unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will
(1.8 bd) be published in the May-June 1994 ACI Structural Journal if received by Jan. 1, 1994.

356 ACI Structural Journal I July-August 1993

 a
v v
Wen Bin Sillo is a senior lecturer with the School of Civil and Structural Engineering, b
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His main research interest is the shear ,fL-,1'-
behavior of reinforced concrete structures.

of Column ABCD at an inclination of 2:1 to the imaginary h

line joining the center of the column to the pile. The deriva-
tion for the maximum allowable value of P, the column load,
is shown in Fig. 6, which shows the compression struts being
held together in equilibrium by tensile forces in the concrete.
The struts have three components, F, and F2, which act
perpendicular to XY, ZW, respectively, and Fr, which acts ra-
dially along YZ. The maximum tensile stress is computed for Fig. 1 - Forces in deep beam
a Section A-A perpendicular to STand ZW. Only F2 and a v
component of Fr contribute effectively to stresses on A-A.
Thus

Fe=--
v (4)
sin e d

Considering inclination of the refined model

F/ = __V_ X..!_
2sin e 2 v

Considering struts above and below STUVWXYZ Fig. 2 - Refined model of compression strut in deep beam

Table 1 - Deep beams-ratio of actual to predicted failure loads

v,.,, v,.,
p, P., t:, a, h. d, b, v"P.
No. Specimen percent percent psi in. in. in. in. alh lb lb v"P
I IAI-10 0.23 0.28 2710 12 14 12 4 0.86 36,250 32,220 1.13
2 IA3-11 0.45 0.28 2615 12 14 12 4 0.86 33,350 32.085 1.04
3 1A4-12 0.68 0.28 2330 12 14 12 4 0.86 31,750 30,695 1.04
4 IA4-51 0.68 0.28 2980 12 14 12 4 0.86 38,430 34,730 1.11
5 IA6-37 0.91 0.28 3050 12 14 12 4 0.86 41,385 35,500 1.17
6 2Al-38 0.23 0.63 3145 12 14 12 4 0.86 39,230 35,050 1.11
7 2A3-39 0.45 0.63 2865 12 14 12 4 0.86 38,350 33,950 1.13
8 2A4-40 0.68 0.63 2950 12 14 12 4 0.86 38,650 34,800 1.11
9 2A6-61 0.91 0.63 2775 12 14 12 4 0.86 36,400 34,175 1.07
10 3Al-42 0.23 1.25 2670 12 14 12 4 0.86 36,800 33,075 1.10
11 3A3-43 0.45 1.25 2790 12 14 12 4 0.86 38,830 34,245 1.13
12 3A4-45 0.68 1.25 3020 12 14 12 4 0.86 40,140 36,120 1.11
13 3A6-46 0.91 1.25 2890 12 14 12 4 0.86 37,800 35,705 1.06
14 IBI-04 0.23 0.24 3200 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 33,150 34,800 0.95
15 IB3-29 0.45 0.24 2915 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 32,275 33,550 0.96
16 IB4-40 0.68 0.24 3020 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 31,550 34,520 0.91
17 IB6-31 0.91 0.24 2830 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 34,475 33,760 1.02
18 2Bl-05 0.23 0.42 2780 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 29,000 32,700 0.89
19 2B3-06 0.45 0.42 2755 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 29,500 32,920 0.90
20 2B4-07 0.68 0.42 2535 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 28,350 31,950 0.89
21 2B4-52 0.68 0.42 3160 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 33,700 35,635 0.95
22 2B6-32 0.91 0.42 2865 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 32,650 34,310 0.95
23 3B1-08 0.23 0.63 2355 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 29,400 30,445 0.97
24 3B1-36 0.23 0.77 2960 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 35,735 34,380 1.04
25 3B3-33 0.45 0.77 2755 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 35,600 33,480 1.06
26 3B4-34 0.68 0.77 2790 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 34,850 34,100 1.02
27 3B6-35 0.91 0.77 2995 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 36,350 35,705 1.02
28 4B1-09 0.23 1.25 2480 14.5 14 12 4 1.04 34,500 32,200 1.07
29 1-30 0.00 2.45 3120 10 30 28.5 3 0.33 53,700 61,145 0.88
30 1-25 0.00 2.45 3560 10 25 23.5 3 0.40 50,400 53,915 0.93
31 1-20 0.00 2.45 3080 10 20 18.5 3 0.50 42,600 40,415 1.06
32 1-15 0.00 2.45 3080 10 15 13.5 3 0.67 36,900 30,540 1.21
33 1-10 0.00 2.45 3140 10 10 8.5 3 1.00 20,100 20,225 0.99
34 2-30 0.00 0.86 2785 10 30 28.5 3 0.33 56,000 57,030 0.98
35 2-25 0.00 0.86 2700 10 25 23.5 3 0.40 50,400 46,410 1.09
36 2-20 0.00 0.86 2880 10 20 18.5 3 0.50 48,400 37,985 1.27
37 2-15 0.00 0.86 3300 10 15 13.5 3 0.67 31,400 29,890 1.05
38 2-10 0.00 0.86 2920 10 10 8.5 3 1.00 22,400 18,120 1.24
39 5-30 0.61 0.61 2690 10 30 28.5 3 0.33 53,800 59,140 0.91
40 5-25 0.61 0.61 2790 10 25 23.5 3 0.40 46,800 49,480 0.95
41 5-20 0.61 0.61 2920 10 20 18.5 3 0.50 38,800 40,160 0.97
42 5-15 0.61 0.61 3180 10 15 13.5 3 0.67 28,600 30,540 0.94
43 5-10 0.61 0.61 3270 10 10 8.5 3 1.00 17,500 19,485 0.90
44 G33S-12 0.00 1.09 2890 8 9 8 3 0.89 19,000 16,910 1.12
45 G33S-32 0.00 1.09 2910 8 9 8 3 0.89 22,800 16,910 1.34

ACI Structural Journal I July-August 1993 357

 d

Fig. 4 - Refined model of compression strut in pile cap

Fig. 3 - Strut-tie force in pile cap

Assuming that Ft, F2, and Fr are proportional to lengths of

XY, YZ, and ZW and that F, acts on rectangular cross sec-
tions

fi=[ In+--
d Jx -
d-
2sinS sinS
(6) X

Hence, Eq. (4) and (5) are obtained.

From Eq. (5) by assuming that stresses contributed by each
=
pile are additive and sinS 1/2, which is the minimum value
of sinS as far as deep pile caps are concerned, Eq. (6) is ob-
tained. Test results obtained by others 4, s were used to verify
the validity ofEq. (6) and the simplifications assumed in de-
riving it. Table 2 shows predicted versus experimental results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows that the proposed formula Eq. (1) is fairly
accurate in predicting shear strength of deep beams when a/h Fig. 5 - Three-dimensional view of refined cqmpression
< 1.04. Fig. 7 shows that as a/h > 1.29 the validity ofEq. (1) strut in pile cap
ACI Structural Journal I July-August 1993 359
 V I
'2"ii'i'niX2X2 ( 'lTd
bz+4alnex~
2)
Tens i I e stress

v
rt =----~-------------
2(b.+bz+ 4 "':, 1~ 8 )d_ _ ( 4)

Fig. 6- Equilibrium offorces within cone

declines rapidly because deep beam behavior no longer ap- Further experimental work can be done to establish values of
plies. Using test data from Subedi's experimental work6 it ap- k as a/h becomes greater than 1.
pears very clearly that when a/h > 1.4 the assumption of deep Althoughfi, as shown in Eq. (3), does not utilize the full
beam behavior would result in overprediction of actual yield strength of the steel reinforcements, it must be conceded
strength. Hence, Eq. (1) can still be used but with a modifi- that, after cracking, concrete tie forces would have to be re-
cation factor. Thus sisted by steel reinforcements entirely. Rogwsky and Mac-
Gregor8 have noted yielding of vertical web reinforcements
in their deep beam specimens during testing. They have also
v,. =1.8/iftbd (7)
noted the ineffectiveness of horizontal web reinforcements.
It is suggested here that if web reinforcements are provided
where that are able to compensate for the concrete tensile capacity
lost at cracking, then failure would be ductile instead of being
sudden and explosive. This is consistent with Rogowsky's
k =1 when a/h < 1.0 observation8 of ductile behavior of deep beams with heavy
stirrups. It is noted that in his specimens the stirrups had full
and anchorages, whereas the horizontal web reinforcements had
only standard hooks at the ends. This might well explain the
relative ineffectiveness of the horizontal web reinforcements.
k < 1 when alh > 1.0 Thus, where web reinforcements are provided and are well
360 AGI Structural Journal I July-August 1993
anchored they will resist all diagonal splitting forces present. loads predicted based on tension and shear modes. Tension
Hence mode failure is analyzed according to Yan's proposition, 9 i.e.

6AsfyLd
p=
3£2 -a'f
Vu <1: 1.8fyv(ph sin 2 9 + Pv cos 2 9) (3a)
where

Table l(a) has been compiled for seven specimens in which P =maximum column load
Eq. 3(a) governs and where it is known that full anchorage 2L =distance between piles
2a1 =column width
has been provided for the web reinforcements.
Another point worth noting about Eq. (3) is that the tensile As =area of steel reinforcements
strength of concrete has been relied upon fully. According to jy =yield stress of steel
Schlaich, Schafer, and Jennewein 7 the concrete tensile
Table 2: Pile caps - Predicted versus
strength ought to be reduced if the tensile stress field is
experimental results
crossed by a compression field. However, the compression
stresses are low except at locations around supports and Predicted failure
load a/kips Experimental
loading positions due to the dispersion of the compression failure load, -ba
strut. Moreover, the tensile capacity of concrete is reduced7 Pile cap Reference Tension Shear b/kips
only when compressive stresses exceed 0.5j;. Hence, no re- 1 A 387 767 401 1.04
duction of concrete tensile strength needs to be considered, 2 B 486 682 493 1.01
3 c 661 713 651 0.98
and this is borne out by the results of Table 1. However, care 4 D 910 735 715 0.99
must be taken to check the compressive stresses under con- 5 E 1351 878 1060 1.21
6 F 910 807 681 0.85
centrated loads at the support or where load is being applied 7 SS1 19.9* 47.9 56.3 1.18
so that the concrete is not crushed for the full diagonal split- 8 SS2 17* 47.9 55.0 1.15
9 SS3 29* 47.9 55.8 1.16
ting strength of the web to be attained. 10 SS4 23.8* 47.9 50.75 1.06
Finally, Table 2 shows that Eq. (6), which resembles the 11 SS5 48.2* 52.9 59.25 1.12
12 SS6 71 52.9 63.0 1.19
standard punching shear check stated by the various building 13 SG2 48 39.0 39.0 1.0
codes, accurately predicts shear failure of pile caps designed 14 SG3 116 39.0 39.75 1.02
according to the strut-tie approach. Failure modes can either Average· 1.07
be yielding of the reinforcement tie or the compression strut -
Standard deviation 0.099
failure due to excessive tensile stresses arising from strut-tie
Note: I through 6 from Reference 5; 7 through 14 from Reference 4.
behavior within the strut itself. Column (a) shows failure *Tension failure values ignored.

Table 2(a)- Pile caps- Predicted versus actual results

(a) (b) Mode of

Predicted failure load, kips Actual failure failure (b)
load,
Pile cap Reference Tension Shear kips Predicted Observed (a)

1 A 387 705 401 F F 1.04

2 B 486 626 493 F F 1.01
3 c 661 652 651 s s 1.00
4 D 910 672 725 s s 1.08
5 E 1351 824 1060 s s 1.29
6 F 910 807 681 s s 0.85
7 SS1 19.9 49.4* 56.3 F s 1.14
8 SS2 17.0 49.4* 55.0 F s 1.11
9 SS3 29.0 49.4* 55.8 F s 1.13
10 SS4 23.8 49.4* 50.75 F s 1.03
11 SS5 48.2 55.4* 59.25 F s 1.07
12 SS6 71.0 55.4* 63.0 F s 1.14
13 SG2 48.0 39.2 39.0 s s 0.99
14 SG3 116 39.2 39.75 s s 1.01
15 A7 182 412* 369 F s 0.90
16 AlO 182 363* 342 F s 0.94
17 All 182 355* 369 F s 1.04
18 A12 182 421* 369 F s 0.88
19 B1 225 432* 468 F s 1.08
20 B2 286 415* 421 F s 1.01
21 B3 171 495* 398 F F/S 0.81
Avc;tage 1.03
Standard deviation 0.108
Note: Specunens I through 6, 7 through 14, and 15 through 21 from References 5, 4, and 10, respectively.
F =flexural failure; S ; shear failure.
I kip= 4.448 N.
*Shear failure load used even though it is more than tension failure load.

ACI Structural Journal_ I_ July-August 1993 361

 ments and pile distances vary in these directions, and the
lesser value multiplied by 2 is used. The reason for this is
that, in each direction, only two of the four piles participate
1.2
in strut-tie action.
However, tension mode failure is ignored in certain spec-
1.1
imens as there is some doubt about the yield strength of steel
+ reinforcements that vary drastically between diameters of var-
0.9
ious sizes. Moreover, experimental observation4 reported
0.8
shear mode of failure. For pile cap F, which is effectively two
0.7 deep beams intersecting at right angles, the predicted shear
0.6 failure load is calculated using Eq. (1) for both directions and
0.5 added up. A more simplistic approach to determine the shear
0.4 strength of four pile caps would be to sum up the shear ca-
0.3 pacities of two intersecting beams, as in pile cap F before.
0.2 Thus, a different version of Eq. (6) would be: P = 2 x 1.8 fi
0.1
(b1 + bz)dbased on Eq. (1).
___,__~+--r-+_,--~+-,_-+~--~+-,_-+~a/h However, from back-analysis a more accurate equation
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I 0 1.2 1.4 1.6 would be

P =2 x 2/t(m + bz)d (6a)

Fig. 7- Graph of ratio ofactual to predicted values versus
alb

Table 2 is recomputed and further results from Clarke!O are

Table 3 - Details of pile cap specimens included. Table 2(a) is thus obtained. For Specimens 7
through 14, where the column is circular, the imaginary beam
Reinforcements Column width is considered to be the diameter of the column. Table
size
Pile cap f/, Asy, d, A.,., d, fy, bt, b2, 3. gives the specimens' details. Although in some specimens
reference N/mm2 mm2 mm mm2 mm N/mm2 mm the predicted mode of failure did not occur, the predicted shear
A 24.8 900 440 1500 450 479 strength is compared to the extant shear force (Specimens 7
8 24.8 1200 390 2200 400 479 through 12 and 15 through 20), as the latter would most cer-
c 27.1 3400 390 2100 400 486
D 30.3 2400 380 4800 450 486 300 tainly be a lower bound estimation of their shear capacity.
E 41.1 2400 380 4800 400 486 (all)
900 495 500 485 479
F 30.3 2400 380 4800 400 486
f/, A,, d, fy, bt, b2,
psi in. 2 in. ksi in. CONCLUSION
A simple method of predicting shear strength in deep
SSl 4536 0.119288/W 4.3875 72.43
SS2 4536 0.04208/W 4.3945 128.5 beams and pile caps failing in diagonal splitting has been pro-
0.0368/W 59.48 posed. Eq. (7) and (6) are in fact rather similar to that pro-
SS3 4536 0.100188/W 4.365 128.5
SS4 4536 0.128/W 4.3945 72.43 3-in. posed previously for deep beams 11 and the punching shear
0.0278/W 59.48 diameter provisions in most building codes for thick slabs and bases.
SS5 5950 0.288/W 4.275 72.43 cylinder
0.0208/W 69.54 (steel)
SS6 5950 0.448/W 4.275 72.43 (all)
SG2 2600 0.338/W 4.625 60
SG3 2600 1.58/W 4.625 60
NOTATION
fy. a = shear span
N/mm2 2at = column width in Yan's formula
feu, A,, d, (proof bt,b2,
N/mm2 mm2 mm stress) mm b = beam width
bt, h2 = column widths in both directions
A7 30.3 785 d = effective beam depth
AlO 23.5 785
All 22.5 785 fr = allowable tensile strength of concrete
Al2 31.6 785 fy = yield stress of steel reinforcements
81 33.4 628 =
Ft, F2, F,, Fe forces in compression struts
82 30.8 785 400 410 200 Fr = force in tension tie
83 43.7 471 (all) (all) (all)
h = beam height
1 mm =0.394 in., 1 mm2 =0,015 in. 2, 1 N/mm2 =145 psi. k = correction factor for calculating ultimate beam shear
2L = distance between piles
n = modular ratio of steel reinforcements to concrete
P = maximum allowable column load
The preceding is applicable directly to Specimens 7 z = effective lever arm between main steel reinforcement and
through 14. But for Specimens 1 through 6, the value of P centroid of concrete compression strut assumed to be 0.9d
needs to be calculated in both directions as steel reinforce- V = shear force in beam or pile cap
362 ACI Structural Journal I July-August 1993
v. = ultimate shear force in beam
v•• = actual ultimate shear force in beam during testing
Vup = predicted ultimate shear force in beam using Eq. (l)
REFERENCES
I. de Paiva, H. A.; Rawdon; and Siess, Chester P., "Strength and Behav-
iour of Deep Beams in Shear," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 91, ST5, Oct. 1965,
pp. 19-41.
2. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; and Cole, D. F., "Web Reinforcement Ef-
fect on Deep Beams," ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 12, Dec. 1970,
pp. 1010-1017.
3. Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. S., "Shear Strength of Deep Beams,"
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No.3, May-June 1982, pp. 201-213.
4. Sabnis, G. M., and Gogate, A. B., "Investigation of Thick Slabs (Pilecap)
Behavior," ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No. I, Jan.-Feb. 1984, pp. 35-
39.
5. Adebar, P.; Kuchma, D.; and Collins, M.P., "Strut-and-Tie Models for
ACI Structural Journal I July-August 1993
the Design of Pile Caps: An Experimental Study," ACI Structural Journal,
V. 87, No. I, Jan.-Feb 1990, pp. 81-92.
6. Subedi, N. K., "Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams: A Method of
Analysis," Proceedings, ICE Journal, Part 2, 1988, V. 85, Mar. 1988, pp. 1-
30.
7. Schlaich, J.; Schafer, K.; and Jennewein, M., ''Towards a Consistent De-
sign of Structural Concrete," PCI Journal, V. 32, No.3, May-June, 1987,
pp. 74-150.
8. Rogowsky, D. M., and MacGregor, J. G., "Tests of Reinforced Con-
crete Deep Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, July-Aug. 1986, pp.
614-623.
9. Y an, H. T., "Base Allowable Shear in the Design of Pile Caps," Civil
Engineering and Public Works Review (London), V. 49, May 1954, pp. 493-
495, and pp. 872-874.
10. Clarke, J. L., "Behaviour and Design of Pile Caps with 4 Piles," Re-
port No. 42, 489, Cement and Concrete Association, London, Nov. 1973, 19
pp.
11. Ramakrishnan, V. and Ananthanarayanana, V., "Ultimate Strength of
Deep Beams in Shear," ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 65, No.2, Feb. 1968,
pp. 87-98.
363