Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No.

1, 77-87, February 2004 / Copyright 2004 Japan Concrete Institute

77

The Micro Truss Model: An Innovative Rational Design Approach for


Reinforced Concrete
Hamed M. Salem1
Received 16 January 2003, accepted 31 May 2003

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

modeling fracture. Herrmann used beam elements and


fracture was simulated by removing beam elements as
soon as specified failure strength was reached. The
model proposed by Herrmann was linked to a finite
element code by Vervuurt and Van Mier (1993). They
used different arrangement of the lattice members, in
which either a regular triangular lattice or a random
lattice distribution was used. In both cases, the used
lattice element was a beam element. The model was
used on the micro level in order to simulate the fracture
of concrete. Figure 2 shows a sample of modeling and
analysis of lattice model by Vervuurt and Van Mier

Node

Anchorage
Plate

Strut
Tie

Fig. 1 Sample of equilibrium strut-and-tie model (From


MacGregor 1992).

Bond

Matrix

Finite
Elements
Model
Lattice
Model

Aggregate
1

Asistant professor, Structural Engineering. Dept., Cairo


University, Giza, Egypt.
E-mail: hhadhoud@steelnetwork.com

Micro Lattice Model

Tension Test

Fig. 2 Lattice model (Vervuurt and Van Mier 1993).

78

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

(1993). The analysis represents axial tension test of


plain concrete in which the aggregate, the surrounding
matrix and the interfacial zone are reasonably simulated.
1.3 Modified lattice model
Niwa et al. (1995) have developed another lattice model
to explain the shear resisting mechanisms. That model is
a macroscopic model in which the concrete is modeled
into a flexural compression member, a flexural tension
member, a diagonal compressive member, a diagonal
tension member and an arch member. The reinforcement
is modeled into horizontal and vertical members. The
layout of the model is shown in Fig. 3. The main difference between this model and the lattice model of
Vervuurt (1993) is that this one is a macroscopic one
while Vervuurts one is a microscopic model. The ratio
of width of arch member to beam width t was determined to minimize the total potential energy that is
computed for a unit shear force acting on the concrete
beam. The depth of the flexural compression member is
made equal to the depth of the flexural compression
zone at the flexural ultimate state. The depth of the
flexural tension member is assumed to be twice the distance between the centroid of the tensile reinforcement
and the bottom fibers of the beam.
The height of the lattice model is assumed to be coincident with the effective depth of the beam. Thus, the
diagonal members and the arch members are placed so
as to connect the top surface of the beam and the centroid of the tensile reinforcing bars. The horizontal distance of vertical members is assumed to equal half the
effective depth. Therefore, the thickness of the truss
member and the arch member are equal to (d/2) sin 45
and d sin , respectively where d is the depth of the
V

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

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of the modified lattice


model (Niwa et al. 1995).

beam and is the inclination of the arch member.


The model of Niwa (1995) predefines the tension
members, compression members and diagonal members.
Niwa did not discuss whether his model is also applicable to deep beams, beams with openings, geometrical
discontinuities or not.
1.4 Proposed model
The proposed model adopts the conventional nonlinear
analysis of trusses using the stiffness method. The novelty here is the application methodology itself. The
proposed model is a microscopic model, similar to the
lattice model of Vervuurt (1993). However, in the proposed model, the members are isotropically arranged,
the stiffness of the members is calculated based on the
dimensions of members, and fully nonlinear behavior is
adopted for either concrete members or steel members.
The objective of the present model is to simulate as well
as to design reinforced concrete structures, which was
not the goal of the lattice model of Vervuurt (1993).
Therefore, in the present model the arrangement, the
stiffness, the constitutive models and the objectives are
dissimilar to lattice models ones.
It is also believed that the present model can be a
generalization of Niwas model (Niwa 1995), which is a
macroscopic model. Niwas model needs to predefine
the compression members, the tension members and the
dimensions of both depending on the beam theory. In a
complicated structure, like deep beam with opening the
author believes that Niwas model is not applicable.
However, as will be illustrated later, the micro truss
model is capable of analyzing general shape of structures. The micro truss model is also more advantageous
than Niwas model in the sense that the usage of
small-size element enables the simulation of discrete
cracks.
It is also believed that, a generalization of the strut
and tie model can be introduced through the micro truss
model. Micro truss model can automatically capture the
macro struts and ties during analysis and could be helpful to engineers to design complicated structures.

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

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

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.

2.2 Formulation of the stiffness matrix


The global stiffness matrix of each truss member can be
formulated directly by assuming unit displacement in
the global directions as shown in Fig. 6. The elements
of the stiffness matrix are represented as functions of the
angle of inclination with the horizontal as follows,
Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of the micro-truss model.

in the vertical direction. The diagonal members can


transfer the shear through a mechanism of compressing
one element and pulling the other. If the mesh is rotated
45 degrees, the role of the members is reversed. The
horizontal and vertical members then carry shear loading while the diagonal members carry the normal
stresses.
Therefore, the model is expected to simulate flexural
cracks and diagonal cracks. In other words, it is expected to simulate the flexural failure, the diagonal tension failure, the shear-compression failure and the diagonal splitting cracks. However, in the micro truss
model, the aggregate interlock is not taken into consideration. Therefore, the proposed model cant simulate
the sliding shear failure mode and may not be able to
simulate the size effect for shear.
In Fig. 4 we can notice that the steel reinforcing bars
are easily simulated. However, it should be kept in mind
that the steel bars directions are limited to be horizontal,
vertical and 45 degrees inclined. The author believes
that, this limitation does not cause severe problems
since practically most of the reinforcement bars are
aligned as such. However, reinforcing bars can be
aligned in any other directions by using anisotropic reinforcement in horizontal and vertical directions respectively.
Full compatibility between steel and concrete at their
interface is assumed. This assumption matches the reality for deformed bars, since the bar ribs interlock with
the surrounding concrete and deform together (Okamura
and Maekawa 1991). However, the slippage or the
relative deformation between reinforcing bars and the
far concrete, takes place as shown in Fig. 5.

[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

where c = cos, s = sin, E is the tangent stiffness of the


stress-strain curve of the constituent material, A is the
cross sectional area of the member and L is the length of
the member. It should be mentioned that, the tangent
stiffness has to be limited so that it is not zero or negative in order to avoid divergence during the analysis. In
fact a limiting minimum stiffness of 0.05 times the initial stiffness is used here. Once the individual stiffness
matrices [S]g for each member are determined, the overall stiffness matrix [K] is assembled.
2.3 Material nonlinearity
The element size in the micro truss model is chosen to
be relatively small. Therefore, the constitutive laws
adopted here should represent that micro level. In other
words, the bare bar behavior and the plain concrete behavior must be used. The concept of tension stiffening is
meaningless here since it averages the behavior along
relatively long gauge length containing several cracks.

=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

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

The use of such small-size elements in fact enables the


simulation of discrete cracks, and the tension stiffening
could be an outcome of the micro truss model. The behavior of steel is a local point-wise behavior in which
stress strain relationship of a bare bar is used.
2.3.1 Concrete
Concrete in tension is simulated as plain concrete. After
the concrete cracks the bridging tensile stress transferred across the crack surface drops very fast. The residual tensile strength is usually simulated as a
post-cracking tension softening model. For this purpose,
the post-cracking tension-stiffening model of Okamura
(1991) is used with adjustment of the power coefficient
C in order to apply the model effectively to the tension
softening case. The model yields,


= 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)

where ft is the tensile strength of concrete, cr is the


cracking strain and is the strain. The coefficient C is
dependant on the fracture energy of plain concrete (Gf)
as well as the size of the element. Considering that the
plain concrete element is so small that it is expected to
be crossed by only one crack as illustrated in Fig. 7, the
residual stress-strain behavior after cracking is clearly
dependant on the element length and the bridging stress
transferred across the crack surface which, in its turn,
depends on the fracture energy of concrete (Bazant and
Oh 1983). The area under the stress-strain curve multiplied by the element length represents the fracture energy. Thus, the coefficient C is computed.
The fracture energy of plain concrete ranges from 0.1
to 0.15 N/mm (Uchida et al. 1991), and is kept constant
regardless of element size.

2.4 Geometrical nonlinearity


Geometrical nonlinearity is simply introduced by updating the displacements every- iteration and computing
the strains based on the most updated displacements. As
illustrated in Fig. 8, the new position of the member is
used to compute the elongation, hence the current strain.
An example is shown in Fig. 8 for a horizontal member
experiencing only relative vertical displacement at its
ends. If geometrical nonlinearity is not taken into consideration, the strain will be zero. However, if the geometrical nonlinearity is considered, the relative vertical
displacement will cause some elongation in the member
which means that normal strain exists.
Geometrical nonlinearity is thought to be relatively
significant in the micro truss model, because geometrical changes are relatively higher in small-size elements.

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

Bare Bar Model


(Okamura)

Element
Length

cr
Elasto-plastic & TensionFracture Model Softening Model
(Maekawa)
(Okamura)

= f t ( cr )

C = C( G f & L )

: Fracture parameter represents the damage of

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

Concrete in compression follows the elasto-plastic


and fracture model (Maekawa and Okamura 1983) as
follows,

Eo =

, 0 < < y
, y < sh

: Initial Stiffness of concrete,


: Plastic strain corresponds the total strain , and
: Peak strain for concrete under compression.

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

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

Therefore, geometrical nonlinearity was taken into consideration in the present study.

No Geometrical
Nonlinearity
=0

In
iti
al
po
sit
io
n

2.5 Algorithm of nonlinear analysis


The nonlinear algorithm is shown in Fig. 9. In this algorithm, a step-iterative procedure is followed till getting
an acceptable convergence. The convergence criterion
here is to minimize the sum of the squares of the residual forces (unbalanced forces) at joints.
The essential steps in the analysis scheme are;
1) In the beginning of analysis, the geometry, the
boundary conditions and the incremental load
vector {f} are input to the solver.
2) The overall stiffness matrix [K] is calculated as
a function of the initial stiffness of the constituent material, i.e. stiffness at strain equals
zero, as mentioned above.
3) The system of equilibrium equations
[K]{d}={f} is solved and the nodal displacement vector {d} is obtained.
4) Once the nodal displacements are determined,
the strain in each member is calculated from its
end displacements (the component of the end
displacements in the direction of the member),
and consequently both the stress and the tangent stiffness can be calculated from the
nonlinear constitutive laws of the constituent
materials.
5) The force in each member is calculated by multiplying the stress times the cross-sectional
area.
6) The nodal forces vector {f1} that corresponds
to the current displacement field {d} is then
calculated. At each node, the nodal forces are
computed as the algebraic sum the horizontal
and vertical components of the forces in the
truss members meeting at the node of concern.
7) Thus, the unbalanced load vector {f} is determined by subtracting the compatibility nodal
forces vector {f1} from the load vector {f}.
8) The convergence is checked for the unbalanced
load vector {f} and if the convergence criterion is not met, another iteration is carried out.
9) In the new iteration, the tangent stiffness matrix
[K] is calculated based on the current displacement field of the nodes {d}, and the equilibrium equations are again solved to get the
displacement field {d} that corresponds to the
unbalanced load vector {f} as [K]{d}={f}.
10) The deflection is then updated by summing up
the displacement vectors {d} and {d}.
11) The unbalanced load vector {f} is determined
again based on the most updated displacement
vector {d} as explained above in steps 4, 5, 6
and 7.
12) The convergence is checked again for the unbalanced load vector {f} and if the convergence criterion is not met, another iteration is

l
n
lo sitio
o
p
w
Ne
l
lo

Geometrical
Nonlinearity
=0

lo

Horizontal member

General inclined
Member

Fig. 8 Geometrical nonlinearity for truss members.

F
d
f
F

f1
d
Read geometry &
Boundary Conditions
Read Incremental Load
Vector {f}
Calculate Tangent Stiffness

For first step


and first
iteration
{d} ={0} &
{f1} ={0}

Matrix [K] = K ({d})


Calculate Load vector
{f1} = f1 ({d})
Calculate unbalanced load vector
{f}={f}-{f1}
Solve [K]{d}={f} {d}
Update deflection {d}={d} +{d}
No

Check convergence
(f)2< accuracy ?
Yes
Last load step ?

No

Yes
End
Fig. 9 Algorithm of the nonlinear analysis.

82

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

carried out, and so on till getting the proposed


accuracy for the solution. When the convergence is fulfilled, the next load increment is
analyzed and so on.

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.

(a) Tension ties

CL

(b) Compressive struts


Fig. 11 Analytical tensile and compressive stress paths
of specimen of Shin (1988).

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

(b) Deflection and cracking pattern


Fig. 10 Layout and analytical cracking pattern of specimen of Shin (1988).

5
10
Displacement(mm)
(mm)
Displacement

15

Fig. 12 Comparison between micro-truss model and


experiment of Shin (1988).

Figure 10(b) shows the computed deflection and


cracking pattern. In this cracking pattern, members that
have been cracked are removed from the drawings, resulting in the shown pattern. Figure 11 shows the forces
in both the compressive struts as well as the tension ties.
The width of each member is proportional to the force
value in that member. Figure 12 shows the load-central
deflection relationship for both the experiments and the
computations. The results seem to be fairly acceptable.
Figure 13(a) shows the layout of the continuous deep
beam tested by Ashour (1997). The specimen was 3000
mm long and had a cross section of 120 x 625 mm. The

83

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

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) Tension ties

(a) Layout

CL
CL

(b) Compressive struts

(b) Deflection
Fig. 13 Layout and computed deflection of Ashour
specimen (1997).

Fig. 15 Tensile and compressive stress paths of specimen of Ashour (1997).

600

CL

Load
(kN)
Load
(kN)

500
400
300
200

Experiment
Computations

100
0

(a) Experimental cracking pattern

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).

(b) Analytical cracking pattern


Fig. 14 Verification of analytical cracking pattern of
specimens of Ashour (1997).

reinforcement is shown in Fig. 13(a). The yield stress of


longitudinal top and bottom reinforcement was 500
MPa while that of horizontal and vertical web reinforcement was 360 MPa. The concrete compressive
strength was 30 MPa while the concrete tensile strength
was 4.24 MPa. The elasticity modulus of steel was

200000 MPa while that of concrete was 24000 MPa.


The mesh discretization was decided so that both the
horizontal and vertical members were 31.25 mm length.
This length can reasonably be considered small enough
to be crossed by one crack at most.
The analytical deflection profile is shown in Fig.
13(b). The experimental cracking pattern is drawn in
Fig. 14 in comparison with the computed principal
strain contours, which is a very good representative of
the analytical cracking pattern. The struts and ties are
shown in Fig. 15. The load-central deflection curve
shows a good agreement between both the computations
and the experiments as pointed out in Fig.16.
3.2 Micro truss model as a design tool
Hoogenboom (1998) have set the following steps for

84

designing a structure using the stringer and panel


method,
1) Choose shape and dimensions using experience.
2) Establish all load cases and load combinations
3) Perform a linear elastic analysis for all load
combinations
4) Select the reinforcement and improve the concrete dimensions
5) Perform a nonlinear analysis of each load combination with nonyielding steel members
6) Improve the reinforcement
7) Perform a simulation with accurate material
behavior of the dominant load combinations up
to failure in order to check design
8) Detail the reinforcement
The procedure of Hoogenboom has been adopted
here. Instead of simulating the structure with stringers
and panels, it is simulated herein with truss members.
3.2.1 A design example: Deep beam with opening
A deep beam with a hole that was shown by Schlaich et
al. (1987) as a characteristic application of the strut and
tie model is studied here through the micro truss model.
The design of Schlaich and the material strengths are
shown in Fig. 17.
The procedure of design described before is adopted
herein. Elastic analysis is carried out first and reinforcement was selected. The analysis is then repeated
introducing concrete nonlinearity while the steel remains elastic. The reinforcement is then refined and
finally fully nonlinear simulation is performed to check
the performance of the structure. The load-displacement
relationship for the three main design steps (the elastic,
the non-yielding and the fully nonlinear steps) is shown

Load
Load
(kN)
(kN)

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

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).

As=2 x 300 mm2


As=8 x 100 mm2
As=2 x 350 mm2
As=2 x 460 mm2

As=8 x 120 mm2


As=4 x 470 mm2
(a) First
(a)
First Selection
selectionofofReinforcement
reinforcement
( Both concrete
concrete and
(Both
andSteel
steelare
areElastic)
elastic)
As=2 x 240 mm2
As=8 x 20 mm2
As=2 x 280 mm2
As=2 x 368 mm2

fc=17 MPa
Ec=29000 MPa

fy = 434MPa
Es=206000 MPa

As=8 x 120 mm2


As=4 x 470 mm2

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).

Fig. 19 Selected reinforcement from the elastic stage


and the non-yielding stage of Schlaich beam (1987).

in Fig. 18. The selected reinforcement from both the


elastic analysis stage and the non-yielding analysis stage
is illustrated in Fig. 19. The analytically computed struts
and ties are illustrated in Fig. 20 for the main design
analytical steps.
Two alternative designs were proposed. In design # 2,
additional diagonal reinforcement is added to close the
diagonal crack passing along the line from the point
load to the openings corner. In design # 3 the horizontal
web reinforcement was curtailed to copy that of

85

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

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).

Schlaich (1987). The reinforcement and the computed


struts from the three design alternatives are shown in
Fig. 21. The simulated load-deflection relationships are
shown in Fig. 22. It can be seen that design # 3 is the
most economical one since the designed capacity is very
close to the desired one, while design # 2 is a little conservative.
Comparing any the three designs to the design by
Schlaich, it can be seen that the reinforcement of the
micro-truss model is less than that of Schalich. This
might be due to the following,
(1) The design of Schlaich is based on equilibrium
strut-and-tie model, which is a lower bound
solution. Therefore, over-estimation of reinforcement might exist.
(2) The contribution of the non-cracked concrete
(tension stiffening) as well as the contribution
of the cracked concrete (tension softening) is
neglected by Schlaich.

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

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

Design # 1

Design # 1

As=2 x 240 mm2


As=8 x 20 mm2
As=2 x 280 mm2
As=2 x 368 mm2
As=8 x 120 mm2
As=4 x 470 mm2

Design # 2

Design # 2

As=2 x 240 mm2


As=8 x 20 mm2
As=2 x 280 mm2
As=9 x 125 mm2
As=2 x 368 mm2
As=8 x 120 mm2
As=4 x 470 mm2

Design # 3

Design # 3

As=2 x 240 mm2


As=8 x 20 mm2
As=2 x 280 mm2
As=2 x 368 mm2
As=8 x 120 mm2
As=4 x 470 mm2
Reinforcement

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

5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20


Displacement
(mm)
Displacement
(mm)

Fig. 22 Analytical results for the three alternative designs


of Schlaichs beam (1987).

for fracture of concrete. Materials and Structures


(RILEM, Paris), 16, 155-157.
Collins, M., P. and Mitchell, D. (1986). A rational

approach for shear design- The 1984 Canadian code


provisions. ACI Journal, 83 (6), 925-933.
Herrmann, H. J. (1991). Patterns and scaling in
fracture. in Fracture Processes in Concrete Rock
and Ceramics (eds. Van Mier, J. G. M., Rots, J. G. &
Bakker, A.), Chapman & Hall/E & FN Spon, London,
195-211.
Hoogenboom P. C. J. (1998). Discrete elements and
nonlinearity in design of structural concrete walls.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology.
Hrennikoff, A. (1941). Solutions of problems of
elasticity by the framework method. Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 12, 169-175.
Kupfer, H. (1964). Expansion of Morschs truss
analogy by application of the principle of minimum
strain energy. CEB bulletin no.40.
Leonhardt, F. (1965). Reducing the shear reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams and slabs.
Magazine of Concrete Research, 17 (53), 187-194.
MacGregor, J. G. (1992). Reinforced concrete
-mechanics and design. Prentice-Hall International,

H. M. Salem / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 1, 77-87, 2004

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

model. Concrete Library of JSCE, (26), 95-109.


Okamura, H. and Maekawa, K. (1991). Nonlinear
Analysis and Constitutive Models of Reinforced
Concrete. Gihodo, Tokyo.
Schlaich, J., Shafar, K. and Jennewin, K. (1987).
Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete.
PCI Journal, 32 (3) 72-150.
Shin, H. M. (1988). Finite element analysis of
reinforced concrete members subjected to reversed
cyclic in-plane loading. Doctor dissertation, Tokyo
University.
Uchida, Y., Rokugo, K. and Koyanagi, W. (1991).
Determination of tension softening diagrams of
concrete by means of bending tests. Proceedings of
JSCE, 14 (426), 203-212.
Vervuurt, A. and Van Mier, G. (1993). A Lattice
Approach
for
Analyzing
Steel-to-Concrete
Bond-Slip-Layer Fracture. ACI SP-156, Interface
Fracture and Bond (eds. Buyukozoturk, O. and
Wecharatana, M.), 85-106.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai