77
Abstract
The strut and tie models have been widely used as an effective tool for designing reinforced concrete structures. The
concrete is considered to carry only compressive forces through, while the tension forces are carried by reinforcing steel.
The strut and tie model is effective for designing disturbed regions, however, it is essential that the designer should have
a minimum level of experience to assume optimum trusses. In this study, a generalization of the strut and tie model is
introduced through the micro truss model, in which, small isotropic truss members are used and the macro strut and tie
model are automatically obtained. Both material and geometrical nonlinearity are introduced. The proposed model can
be used for both design and checking the nonlinear response of reinforced concrete structures. The model has been verified through published experimental results. Rational steps of design have been incorporated and examples of design
have been illustrated.
1. Introduction
1.1 Strut and tie models
Strut and tie model is considered a rational and consistent basis for designing cracked reinforced concrete
structures. It is mainly applied to the zones where the
beam theory does not apply, such as geometrical discontinuities, loading points, deep beams and corbels. The
approach is justified by the fact that reinforced concrete
carries loads through a set of compressive stress fields,
which are distributed and interconnected by tension ties.
The ties may be reinforcing bars, prestressing tendons
or concrete tensile stress fields. A sample of strut and tie
model is shown in Fig. 1, which represents a continuous
deep beam under point loading (MacGregor 1992)
Strut and tie models were firstly proposed by Ritter in
1899 as a simple truss model to visualize the internal
forces in cracked beams. This model was the basis for
Ritter (1899) and Morsch (1909) for the design of concrete beams. Afterwards, it was refined by Kupfer
(1964) and Leonhardt (1965). Marti (1985) created the
scientific basis for a rational application in tracing the
theory back to the theory of plasticity. Collins and
Mitchell (1986) further considered the deformation of
the truss model and derived a rational method for shear
and torsion.
1.2 Lattice model
In the lattice model, the continuum is discretized in a
network of brittle beam or truss elements. The procedure was proposed in 1941 by Hrennikoff, who used
large trusses to solve the problem of elasticity.
Herrmann (1991) applied the same model again for
Node
Anchorage
Plate
Strut
Tie
Bond
Matrix
Finite
Elements
Model
Lattice
Model
Aggregate
1
Tension Test
78
a
d
d/2
d/2
45
Concrete
Element
bb
Width of Arch
Member
=
=btbt
Steel
Element
Arch
Element
Flexural Compression
Zone
Width of
Truss Member: b(1-t)/2
b(1-t)/2
Flexural Tension
Zone
2. Formulation
2.1 The general form of the micro truss
The micro truss model is a kind of generalization of the
strut and tie model. The structure is divided into relatively large number of nodes that are connected by truss
elements. The truss elements in fact represent the continuum isotropically. Figure 4 shows the general form
of the micro truss model. For each neighboring four
nodes, there are two horizontal truss members, two vertical ones and two diagonal ones. The width of each
member is assumed to equal the distance between the
midway of the distance between the member and the
two surrounding members (to its right and its left). The
horizontal members carry the normal stresses in the
horizontal direction while the vertical ones carry those
79
Full compatibility
with deformed bars
at bar surface
may be assumed
Flexural Cracks
Propagate away
from the bar
Deformed bars
Relative elongation Slip
Fig. 5 Compatibility between steel and concrete at their
interface.
[S ]g
c 2
EA c .s
=
L c 2
c .s
c .s
s 2
c .s
s 2
c 2
c .s
c 2
c .s
c .s
s 2
(1)
c .s
s 2
=1 4
3
3=1
4 =1
L
2 =1
2
1
=1
1=1
Fig. 6 Formulation of the global stiffness matrix of the
truss member.
80
= f t cr
In fact, tension and compression models are not independent with regard to their characteristic directions,
but are mutually related in one way or another. However, for simplicity the interaction among them is not
considered in this study since the effect of hysteretic
interaction is not so significant in monotonic loadings.
2.3.2 Reinforcing bar
Reinforcing bar is simulated by Okamuras model for
bare bars (1991). The stress is linear elastic up to yielding point and after a certain yielding plateau it starts
strain hardening in an exponential form, as shown in Fig.
7.
= Es
= fy
= f y + {1 e
(2)
Concrete
Element
1.25 x
2 f c
x=
(3)
peak
20
1 e 0.35 x
7
peak
where,
Ko
p
peak
fu
y sh
Element
Length
cr
Elasto-plastic & TensionFracture Model Softening Model
(Maekawa)
(Okamura)
= f t ( cr )
C = C( G f & L )
concrete,
Eo
Steel
Element
fy
= Ko Eo ( p )
Ko = e 0.73 x (1e )
p = peak x
(4)
( sh ) / k
} (1.01 f u f y ) , > sh
k = 0.047(4000 / f y )2 / 3
Eo =
, 0 < < y
, y < sh
Fig. 7 Nonlinear constitutive models of constituent materials (Okamura and Maekawa 1991), (Bazant et al.
1983), (Uchida et al. 1991), (Maekawa and Okamura
1983).
81
Therefore, geometrical nonlinearity was taken into consideration in the present study.
No Geometrical
Nonlinearity
=0
In
iti
al
po
sit
io
n
l
n
lo sitio
o
p
w
Ne
l
lo
Geometrical
Nonlinearity
=0
lo
Horizontal member
General inclined
Member
F
d
f
F
f1
d
Read geometry &
Boundary Conditions
Read Incremental Load
Vector {f}
Calculate Tangent Stiffness
Check convergence
(f)2< accuracy ?
Yes
Last load step ?
No
Yes
End
Fig. 9 Algorithm of the nonlinear analysis.
82
CL
3. Analytical results
3.1 Verification of computations
As a verification of the computational tool, nonlinear
analysis is carried out on two published experiments. In
order to cover different structural members, the first
experiment was a shallow beam tested by Shin (1988),
while the second one was a continuous deep beam
tested by Ashour (1997).
The beam tested by Shin was 2400 mm length and
had a cross section of 200 x 600 mm. The reinforcement
was one bar with 19 mm diameter and there was no web
reinforcement used. Due to symmetry, the computations
were carried out on one half of the beam as shown in
Fig. 10(a). The yield stress of reinforcement was 350
MPa. The concrete compressive strength was 30 MPa
while the concrete tensile strength was 2.5 MPa. The
elasticity modulus of steel was 210000 MPa while that
of concrete was 24000 MPa. The mesh discretization
was decided so that both the horizontal and vertical
members were 30 mm length. This length can practically be considered small enough to be crossed by one
crack at most.
CL
CL
200
600 mm
Load (kN)
Load
(kN)
300 mm
1 d 19 mm
150
100
50
Experiment
Computations
0
100 mm
1100 mm
(a) Layout
CL
5
10
Displacement(mm)
(mm)
Displacement
15
83
CL
CL
2d8
2d8
625 mm
125 mm
2d 8 @100 mm
4 d 12+2d10
2d8
4 d 12
160
680 mm
660
(a) Layout
CL
CL
(b) Deflection
Fig. 13 Layout and computed deflection of Ashour
specimen (1997).
600
CL
Load
(kN)
Load
(kN)
500
400
300
200
Experiment
Computations
100
0
0.0
CL
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
Displacement
(mm)
Displacement
(mm)
Fig. 16 Comparison between the micro-truss model and
experiment of Ashour (1997).
84
Load
Load
(kN)
(kN)
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Elastic
Non-yielding
Ultimate Load
Full-Nonlinear
0
10
15
20
Displacement
(mm)
Displacement
(mm)
Fig. 18 Load deflection curves for different design steps
of Schlaich beam (1987).
fc=17 MPa
Ec=29000 MPa
fy = 434MPa
Es=206000 MPa
Pu=3MN
2700
(b)
reinforcement
(b)Second
Second selection
Selection of Reinforcement
(Only
(Onlysteel
Steelisiselastic)
Elastic)
2x7#5
2800 mm2
500 1500
4700 mm
2x7#5
2x5#4
1290 mm2 2800 mm2
2x5#4
1290 mm2
2x2#7
1543 mm2
500 1500
2x2#7
1543 mm2
2750
2250
500
7500 mm
Fig. 17 A deep beam with opening: Design by Schlaich
(1987).
85
Fully Nonlinear
Fully Nonlinear
Non-yielding
Non-yielding
Elastic
Elastic
Struts
Ties
Fig. 20 Struts and ties computed from the main design steps, (the Elastic, the Nonyielding and the Fully Nonlinear) of
Schlaich beam (1987).
4. Conclusions
The micro truss model is a new efficient technique for
reinforced concrete design. It is formulated with simple
stiffness method formulations, where fully nonlinear
algorithms are applied. The model may be regarded as a
kind of generalization of the strut and tie models. While
the strut and tie models needs experienced engineers,
the micro truss model does not. The macro strut and tie
model can be an outcome of the micro truss model. The
new model can be used for both design and performance
checking of reinforced concrete structures. For design
purposes, the proposed model is simpler and faster than
the regular finite element method.
References
Ashour, A. F. (1997). Tests of reinforced concrete
continuous deep beams. ACI Structural Journal, 94
(1), 3-12.
Bazant, Z. P. and Oh, B. J. (1983). Crack band theory
86
Design # 1
Design # 1
Design # 2
Design # 2
Design # 3
Design # 3
Struts
Load(kN)
(kN)
Load
Fig. 21 Reinforcement and struts from the three alternative designs of Schlaich beam (1987).
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
#2
#1
#3
Ultimate Load
design 1
design 2
design 3
0
2.5
Inc.
Ritter, W. (1899). Die Bauweise Hennibique.
Schweizerishe Bauzeitung, Zurich.
Maekawa, K. and Okamura, H. (1983). The
Deformational Behavior and Constitutive Equation of
Concrete Using the Elasto-Plastic and Fracture
Model. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, The
University of Tokyo (B), 37 (2), 253-328.
Marti, P. (1985). Basic Tools of Reinforced Concrete
Beam Design. ACI Journal, 83 (1), 36-42.
Morsch, E. Der Eisenbetonbau, seine Anwendung und
Theorie. 1st ed., Wayss and Freytag, A. G., Im
Selbstverlag der Firma, Neustadt a. d. Haardt, May
1902, 118 pp.; Der Eisenbetonbau, seine Theorie
und Anwendung. 2nd ed., Verlag von Konard
Wittmer, Stuttgart, 1906, 252 pp.; 3rd ed. translated
into English by E. P. Goodrich, McGraw Hill Book
Co., New York, 368 pp, 1909.
Niwa, J., Choi, K. and Tanabe, T. (1995). Analytical
study for shear resisting mechanism using lattice
87