See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248122582

Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete

Article  in  Pci Journal · May 1987

DOI: 10.15554/pcij.05011987.74.150

CITATIONS READS

391 3,500

4 authors, including:

Michael D. Kotsovos
National Technical University of Athens
157 PUBLICATIONS   2,432 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

structural assessment of existing bridges and buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael D. Kotsovos on 28 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Toward a Consistent Design
of Structural Concrete*
by Jorg Schlaich, Kurt Shafer and Mattias Jennewein
Comments by Michael D. Kotsovos and Authors
MICHAEL D. KOTSOVOSt
I would like to congratulate the authors
for an interesting and comprehensive de-
sign proposal. In general terms, I share
their view with regard to the significant
contribution that the use of strut-and-tie
models may have towards the develop-
ment of a unified design concept for
structural concrete. However, I believe
that only models which provide a realistic
description of structural behavior may
lead to efficient design procedures.
The authors, on the other hand, appear
to hold the view that it is sufficient for
design purposes to use the theory of elas-
ticity (adapted, if necessary, to conform
with practical considerations) as a guide
for developing strut-and-tie models which
will provide an internal structural system
sutiable for modeling any type of concrete
structure. They consider that a structure
under increasing load will adapt itself to
the assumed internal structural system and
that such a system can easily lead to an
* PCI JOURNAL, V. 32, No. 3, May-June 1987,
pp. 74-150.
? Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College
of Science and Technology, London, England.
PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988
understanding of structural behavior.
The basis of their argument appears to
lie on the widely accepted view that the
truss analogy provides a rational tool for
the design ofreinforced concrete beams in
flexure, shear and torsion. Their paper,
therefore, describes an attempt to gen-
eralize the truss analogy in order to apply
it in the form of strut-and-tie models to
other structural members.
However, the truss analogy does not
appear to provide, in general, a realistic
description of the causes of the observed
behavior of structural concrete. There has
been recent published experimental evi-
dence which indicates that a reinforced
concrete beam subjected to combined
flexure and shear does not have to behave
as a truss in order to attain its flexural
capacity. 28 This is clearly indicated in
Figs. A and B which show that, in contrast
with predictions based on the truss anal-
ogy, the unconventionally reinforced con-
crete beams D, in Fig. C, and C and D, in
Fig. D, exhibit strength and deformational
characteristics similar to those of Beams B
(also shown in Figs. C and D) which are
reinforced in compliance with the truss
model.
171
 a
L

0 1.0

L
x
b 0.8
I-
0
0.6
0
a
o 0.4
U
U
0
U
0.2
0
0

5 10 15 20 25
deflection - mm
Fig. A. Load deflection curves of beams with aid = 1.5.

0
1.0
0
0
x 0.8
I-
0
0 0.6
0
v
d
0 0.6
U
0
u
0.2
0

1 4 b S 10 12
deflection—mm
Fig. B. Load deflection curves of beams with aid = 3.3.

172
 135

•1
A

203

03/40
B
Li_H'
203

03/40

203

403/40

-I 60 I.-
500
1-

Fig. C. Design details of beams with aid = 1.5.

r a '^ x:300 400

206 306
,

11.6/30
B

01.6/30 t i C

01.6/30 I i 0

—160 -^
500 ,

Fig. D. Design details of beams with aid = 3.3.

PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988 173



It could be argued, however, that al-
though the unconventionally reinforced
concrete beams could not have behaved as
trusses, the above results cannot disprove
the view that Beams B (which were de-
signed in compliance with the truss anal-
ogy) behaved as such. The truss analogy
forms the basis of current code provisions
for shear design and it is generally ex-
pected that compliance with these provi-
sions always leads to safe design solu-
tions. And yet, there is published ex-

Z
Y goo

o I
-j 600 L

400
/ o

/ --- — ACt 318-83 Codes

200 / 0 experiment 30
• FE Analysis

0 2 • 6 e 10

Horizontal Reinforcement (mm /m)

one,

eoo.

o
0
,J 600

400
J /
/ ---- ACt 318-83 Codes
o experiment 24
200
• FE analysis

0 2 4 6 8 10

Horizontal Reinforcement (mm/m)

Fig. E. Relation between shear capacity and amount of transverse reinforcement.

174
perimental evidence which indicates that
this is not always the case.29'3°
Fig. E indicates that code provisions for
earthquake resistant design 31 predict a
linear increase in shear capacity with in-
creasing percentage of transverse rein-
forcement, from a lower level representing
the contribution of concrete to shear re-
sistance, to a "plateau" corresponding to
"crushing" of the concrete struts of the
truss model. The figure also includes ex-
perimental values obtained from tests on
structural walls 29,30 and clearly indicates
that, for certain percentages of tensile
reinforcement, the code provisions over-
estimate considerably the wall capacity for
the upper range of values of the percent-
age of transverse reinforcement. It may
also be interesting to note in the figure that
the experimental results correlate very
closely with results obtained by finite ele-
ment analysis.32
The above results shed doubt on the va-
lidity of current concepts with regard to
not only the ability of the truss analogy to
realistically represent structural behavior,
but also the view that a structure under
increasing load will respond in the way
prescribed by the physical model used to
design it. Designing in compliance with the
truss analogy appears to lead to over-
reinforced (in the transverse direction)
structural members in which the presence
of excess steel is likely to give rise to high
secondary stresses within concrete for
compatibility of deformation purposes.
The development of such stresses in criti-
cal regions may be the cause of "prema-

140
B
120
- -. -
100

Y 80
> 60 V

40

20

5 10 15 20 25
d'- mm

Specimen Flange web

p fd pv ph

A 0.033 0.011 0.007

B 0.033 0.011 0.0025

Fig. F. Effect of web reinforcement on the strength and deformational

characteristics of structural walls. Note that pf,, p v , and Ph denote
percentages of vertical flange, and vertical and horizontal web
reinforcement, respectively.

PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988 175

ture" failure similar to that exhibited by
the walls with a high percentage of trans-
verse reinforcement discussed above.
The amount of transverse reinforce-
ment, assessed on the basis of current
code provisions, appears to be excessive
even for the case where the use of the
truss analogy yields safe design solutions.
This is clearly indicated in Fig. F which
shows that a reduction of the amount of
web reinforcement by more than 60 per-
cent has virtually no effect on the
deformational and strength characteristics
of the structural wall with geometry and
tension reinforcement as indicated also in
Fig. F. 33 Similar results have also been
obtained from tests on both reinforced and
prestressed concrete beams subjected to
combined flexure and shear during an on-
going research program concerned with
the development of design methods.34
It may be concluded from the above that
structural concrete should not be ex-
pected, in general, to behave in the way it
is modeled to behave. It would appear
that the main reason for this lies in the fact
that modeling is usually based on con-
cepts which do not give full consideration
REFERENCES
28. Kotsovos, M. D., "Shear Failure of RC
Beams: A Reappraisal of Current Con-
cepts," Contributions to a Joint Meeting on
Fundamental Developments in Design
Models, Organized by CEB Commissions
II and IV, Karlsruhe, November 1986; CEB
Bulletin d'Information No. 178/179, March
1987, pp. 103-111.
29. Cardenas, A. E.; Russell, H. G.; and Cor-
ley, W. G.; "Strength of Low Rise Struc-
tural Walls," Reinforced Concrete Sub-
jected to Wind and Earthquake Forces,
ACI SP-63, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan, 1980, pp. 221-241.
30. Maier, J., and Thttrliman, B., "Bruch-
versuche an Stahlbetonscheiben," Institut
for Baustatic and Konstruction, Eifgenos-
sishe Technische Hochschule Zurich,
January 1985, 130 pp.
31. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Re-
176
to important aspects of concrete behavior.
For example, the theory of elasticity, pro-
posed by the authors as a basis for the
development of strut-and-tie models, can-
not provide any detailed information with
regard to the strength and deformation
characteristics of concrete at the material
level. Despite the vast amount of such in-
formation produced to date, only recently
attempts have started to use it in de-
sign.3437
I believe, therefore, that design methods
have reached the stage where no im-
provement is any more possible without
attempting to implement in design infor-
mation on the properties of concrete as a
material. Such an attempt has already
begun and led to the introduction of con-
cepts which appear to provide a realistic
description of the causes of the observed
behavior of structural concrete. 33.37 These
concepts are currently discussed in CEB
Task Group 24 and research work 34 is in
progress which explores possibilities of
using them as a basis for the development
of physical models which may be
employed in design in a way similar to that
stipulated by the authors.
quirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI
318-83)," American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan, 1983, 111 pp.
32. Lefas, 1. D., and Kotsovos, M. D., "Be-
haviour of RC Structural Walls — A New
Interpretation," Colloquium on Computa-
tional Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete,
Delft, August 1987.
33. Lefas, I. D., "Behaviour of Reinforced
Concrete Structural Walls," PhD Thesis,
University of London (in preparation).
34. Kotsovos, M. D., "The Use of Fundamen-
tal Properties of Concrete for the Design of
Prestressed Concrete Beams," SERC Re-
search Grant, GR/E/07333, Civil Engineer-
ing Department, Imperial College, London.
35. Kotsovos, M. D., "Consideration of Tri-
axial Stress Conditions in Design: A Neces-
sity," ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No.
3, May-June 1987, pp. 266-273.
36. Kotsovos, M. D. "Compressive Force
Path Concept: Basis for Reinforced Con-
crete Ultimate Limit State Design," AC! crete T-Beams in Shear," The Structural
Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 1, January-
February 1988, pp. 68-75. 1-10.
AUTHORS' CLOSURE by
JORG SCHLAICH, KURT SCHAFER
and MATTIAS JENNEWEIN*
We wish to express our appreciation to
Professor Kotsovos for preparing his
comments and also we wish to thank the
numerous other colleagues who have ver-
bally commented on our paper. We,
therefore, take it as an indication of con-
sent that there were no further written dis-
cussions.
Unfortunately, Professor Kotsovos'
contribution does not really discuss the
method given in our paper. He presents
some interesting test results and compares
them with a code. From his comparison,
he directly concludes that certain code
rules are not adequate and safe. Inadver-
tently, this conclusion is transferred to the
method presented in the paper instead of
comparing results derived by the method
with the tests. But the assumption that
codes for beams and in particular those for
shear walls are in agreement with the
method is not true.
Furthermore, in defense of the codes it
must also be stated that no test results we
know of, including those cited in the dis-
cussion, have disproved a code, which is
based on the truss model when applied to a
B-region (with linear strain distribution).
But applying regular truss models and cor-
responding code rules to D-regions (with
nonlinear strain distribution) conflicts with
one of the basic principles of the method
(see Section 2 of our paper). In D-regions
individual modeling is required. Inade-
*Institute of Reinforced Concrete, University of Stutt-
gart. Stuttgart. FRG.
PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988
37. Kotsovos, M. D.; Bobrowski, J.; and
Eibl, J.; "Behaviour of Reinforced Con-
Engineer, V. 65B, No. 1, March, 1987, pp.
quate applications of the truss model were
in fact the starting point for expanding it to
a more general method.
Some comments on individual para-
graphs of the discussion may support what
is said above:
Beams D in Figs. C and D are not con-
ventionally reinforced with stirrups in the
shear span and therefore the regular truss
model or corresponding code rules do not
apply. A code which gives safe results for
given requirements such as distributed
stirrup reinforcement should not be
blamed for showing wrong results if these
requirements are not fulfilled.
The more flexible strut-and-tie method,
as contrasted with the rigid truss model, is
capable of dealing with such irregularities
as well. If the truss model is adjusted to
the chosen reinforcement, the tested
beams' capacity can be explained. A
model shows — in contrast to a thought-
less application of a code formula — that
shear forces can, for example, be trans-
ferred by an inclined strut over a consider-
able length of a beam without any
stirrups.
Furthermore, a second load path with
concrete ties contributes to the shear
capacity as shown for B-regions in Fig. 30
of our paper. However, the load bearing
capacity depends also on the nodes joining
the struts and the chords: compatibility
stresses may cause a shear crack to pene-
trate into a node and separate there the
chords from the web (see Fig. 34). The
importance of a minimum stirrup rein-
forcement to prevent such separation is
outlined on page 115 of the paper. The stir-
rups in the node region explain the differ-
ence between failure loads of Beams A
and D.
177

Fig. G. Crack pattern of Specimen S2.
Professor Kotsovos derives from com-
parison of test results and code provisions
that the truss analogy gives unsafe results.
First of all it must be stated, that the test
panels 29.30 • 33 mentioned in the discussion
are D-regions for which the standard truss
model normally does not apply. So it is
wrong to argue on this basis. We investi-
gated the three square panels30 using the
method described in our paper. The pre-
dicted failure loads are not beyond 84 per-
cent of the measured ultimate load for
Panel Si and 90 percent for Panels S2 and
S3. Hence, all predictions according to the
strut-and-tie method are safe, contrary to
Professor Kotsovos' implication. A num-
erical analysis for Panel S2 will be given
here as an example.
Fig. G shows the crack pattern of the
test specimen and Fig. H gives an op-
timized, yet simple strut-and-tie-model.
(Other models, especially the standard
truss model, give more conservative pre-
dictions.) The nodes are not critical
(smeared nodes in the panel). From the
geometry of the model and the capacity of
the ties T1 „ and T2, the ultimate load Fh
and all the strut and tie forces can be
analyzed consecutively from simple

826kN 826kNj 700

LII __
C8
—Fh

cg/ / 08mm
s=100
4% 12- /
/ T4
/T3 08mm
32' s=100
C5
T1
C /I C7

100J J' 1000 . 100

Fig. H. Strut-and-tie model and dimensions of Specimen S2.

178
equilibrium conditions, followed by a
check of their capacity:
T1 = T1 f 9 • As1 = 57,4 kN/cm2. 5,5 cm2
= 316kN
T2 = T2 = 57,4.6,0= 344 kN
C8 = T2 tan 41° = 299 kN
T3 = C8 = 299 kN < T3i
T3„ = 57,4 . 6,0 = 344 kN
T4 = Tl – T3 cos45°= 17kN <T4„
Fh = C8 + (T4 + 826 kN) tan 32,5 0 = 836 kN
C5 = T2 + 826 kN = 1170 kN -== C5,
C5„= 0,8f A, s = 0,8.36400.0,1.0,4=
1165 kN
Cs = 1000 kN =C6„= 0,8.36400.0,1•
0,35 = 1027 kN
C7 = 424 kN < C7 = 0,8. 36400.0,1.0,2
= 582 kN
The predicted load Fh = 836 kN corre-
sponds to 90 percent of the measured ulti-
mate load F„ = 928 kN. The two structures
PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988
View publication stats
compared in Fig. F of the discussion carry
the shear force by two load paths similar
to those drawn in Fig. H: A direct strut Cs
and the strut-tie combination C 9 , T3 , C7.
No horizontal reinforcement beyond the
minimum reinforcement is necessary for
the direct strut. If the struts are strong
enough, the behavior of the beam is con-
trolled by the chord reinforcement and
vertical reinforcement and not much dif-
ference can be expected in their behavior
if these reinforcements are the same as
given in Fig. F.
The authors believe that this discussion
supports their view that strut-and-tie mod-
els (correctly applied) provide a rational
and practical tool for the design of rein-
forced and prestressed concrete beams
and that experimental evidence supports
their view. It also shows that code rules
may be misinterpreted if their basis is not
clearly defined.
179