Strut-and-tie

DESIGN OF D-REGIONS WITH STRUT-

AND-TIE MODELLING

DR. ROBERT VOLLUM

Imperial College
London
Overview
Overview of STM
• D and B regions
• Load path method
• Components of STM
• Design concrete strength
i. EC2
ii. Modified compression field
theory (MCFT)
• NLFEA with Vector2
• Construction of STM with
elastic f.e.
• MC90 design recomendations
Examples
•Simple deep beam, deep beam
with hole, and continuous deep
beam
Assessment with NLFEA
•Re-orientation of STM
•Influence of nominal reinforcement
and support settlement
Conclusions
Introduction: B and D regions
B regions: plane sections remain plane
D regions: non-linear strain distribution

Geometric discontinuity Static discontinuity

Introduction: Constructing STM

•Load path and elastic stress fields (Schlaich et al. 1987)

Good model/bad model
CONSTRUCTION OF STM FROM
ELASTIC STRESS FIELD
 Load path method for wall
(Schlaich and Schäfer, 1991)
(a) structure and load (b) load paths (c) STM
Combination of models
Introduction: STM components

Prismatic
strut Node

Bottle stress
field
Introduction: STM components

Fan shaped
strut
 Stress fields
(a) fan-shaped (b) bottle-shaped, and (c) prismatic
STM for bottle-shaped stress field (adapted
from ACI Committee 318)
Design concrete strengths in struts
 Node types

a) C-C-C (b) C-C-T (c) C-T-T

Code recommendations for nodal strength

0.85νfcd

0.75νfcd
Modified Compression Field Theory
Collins et al.
 EC2 plasticity truss
• EC2 Plasticity based truss
• Reinforcement assumed to yield
• Concrete strength 0.6(1-fck/250)fck/γc
• Rotating crack
Modified compression field theory

Equilibrium Compatibility Constitutive

relationship
 Strain softening of concrete in compression

fc2 max = 1/(0.8 + 170ε1)fcd < 0.85fcd

where ε1 is the principal tensile strain

0.8

Reduction factor
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Principal tensile strain
 Tension stiffening

•Typical stress strain curve for concrete in tension used in MCFT

•Deformations related to mean strains
•Strength limited by reinforcement stress at cracks
NLFEA: Vector2
•Vector2: nonlinear FE analysis software
developed by University of Toronto since 1990. It
is based on MCFT
•Users can choose from a number of Constitutive
Relationships in the Model Setup
•Vector2 consists of Pre-processor Formworks
and Post-processor Augustus

Formworks
 Application MCFT to STM

• fc2 max = 1/(0.8 + 170ε1)fcd < 0.85fcd

• where ε1 = εx + (εx + 0.002) cot2θ with εx=strain in tie
20
18

Design concrete strength [MPa]

16
14
12
10
Collins ex = 0.0022
θ 8
fcu=40MPa
6 Collins ex=0.0011
4 fcu=40MPa

2 EC2 strut

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Theta [degrees]
EC2: Design strength=0.6(1-fck/250)fck/1.5
Strut and tie model for short span beams
Principal compressive stresses
 Strut and tie models
No stirrups Stirrups
 Strut width normal to centreline
Solve for unknown P
• w = Lbsinθ + ucosθ P
P = C s sin θ = wbf csb sin θ
C
( )
= lb sin 2 θ + c sin 2θ bf csb
w
Cs
P = C tan θ
θ = 2 tan θ [d − a tan θ ]bνf cd

u At highly stressed
anchorages distribute
Lb a
bars in several layers
 Influence of strut inclination on allowable
bearing stress
P fcu=40MPa: εs = 0.0021
25
EC2 U=Lb
EC2 U=2Lb/3
20

Allowable bearing stress

EC2 U=Lb/3
MCFT U=2Lb/3
w 15 MCFT U=Lb/3
MCFT U=Lb

10
θ

5
u

0
Lb 0 20 40 60 80 100
Theta (degrees)

Allowable bearing stress σ = P/(bLb)= (sinθ + (u/Lb)cosθ)sinθfcd

Comparison with test data for beams without
stirrups (γc=1.0)
1.6
Beam AL0 Beam AG0
1.4

1.2

1
P calc/P test

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 STM-EC2
EC2 Table 4
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

a v /d
 Influence a/d on predicted strength

5
EC2
V/bd (MPa) 4 MCFT
MCFT εs= εy
MCFT
MCFT εs=0.5εy
es=0.5ey
3 EC2 beam eq
BS8110
2
MCFT
1 reducing εs

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
a EC2 discontinuity
av/d STM & beam
equations
 Comparison with test data

900
STM EC2
f c =89.4MPa STM Collins
800 Cross
100A sw /bs =0.157 BS8110
700 EC2 over
VSI
600 Vflex
Flexure Kong S5-1 to 6 MCFT
V [kN]

500
sectional
400 Discontinuity beam
EC2 STM & analysis
300
VSI
200

100
STM
0 Collins
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
a v /d
Development STM from elastic stress field

compression
Development STM from elastic stress field
Development STM from elastic stress field
 CEB Model Code guidelines for STM

• Orientation with elastic stress field is more

important for struts than ties which can usually be
arranged parallel to the edges of the member
following practical considerations.
• In highly stressed regions main struts and ties should
meet at angles of about 60o and not less than 45o.
• If the arrangement of the model is made in
accordance with the elastic stress field the uls does
not require checking
 Use of MC90 rules

Good
Poor

> 63o
2

1
Use of MC90 rules

Poor model

Good model
Examples:
 CONSTRUCTION OF STM FROM
ELASTIC STRESS FIELD
Simple deep beam
σ x vs Depth

1600

Depth (mm)
1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Normalized stress
0
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40
Results: NLFEA Results
Simple deep beam

•fs (max) = 432MPa< fsu

•Failure by crushing of concrete strut
•Ultimate capacity 1004.8kN, compared
with 1195kN from test
Results: NLFEA Results
Simple deep beam
Elastic

•Strut width = 206.4mm

•Capacity = 1019.57kN.
•Consistent with Vector2
 CONSTRUCTION OF STM FROM
ELASTIC STRESS FIELD
Deep beam with hole
6500

3000

1500
x = 1250

500
x= 500 x = 2000

Top horizontal strut: x = 1625mm and x = 3475mm

located at z = 4400mm
 Results: Constructing STM
Deep beam with hole

height
y mm

Centroid
tensile
force
y

Location x
Elastic tensile force 20% of that at mid-span
Results: Constructing STM
Deep beam with hole
Results: NFEA Results
Deep beam with hole with Pd = 3000kN
•Crack with:

Long term crack width is

•Ultimate capacity 0.231mm<0.3mm
8996.7kN.
proposed by UK Annex to
•Favorable plastic EC2
deformation of steel
Results: NLFEA Results
Deep beam with hole with Pd = 3000kN

Reinforcement stresses x-x

Stress distribution at mid-span

Results: NLFEA Results
Deep beam with hole with Pd = 3000kN

F = 750kN. If we
assume 2m steel
contributing, Fu = 800kN

F = 375kN, reduced
from 716kN in elastic
STM
Discussions: Bar size
Bar size effect on deep beam with hole

Large bar: 32mm

Small bar: 16mm

•Capacities were predicted to be independent of the bar diameter

•Small bars reduce crack widths
 CONSTRUCTION OF STM FROM
ELASTIC STRESS FIELD
Deep continuous beam

av/d = 1

av/d = 1.5
 Design of reinforcement
Deep continuous beam

Design procedure:
1. Assume % moment distribution
2. Calculate reactions
3. Size bearing plates
 Design of reinforcement
Deep continuous beam

4. Assume node geometry

5. Calculate member forces
6. Check stresses in struts < design strength
7. Design reinforcement
Results: NLFEA Results
Influence of web reinforcement
Reinforcement Ultimate Crack at
capacity (kN) (mm)
No nominal 4590.90 0.48
0.2% x direction 4213.20 0.30
0.2% z direction 3800.30 0.46
0.2% x and z directions 4800.10 0.30
0.4% x direction 5000.00 0.20
0.4% z direction 4801.50 0.46
0.4% x and z directions 7800.20 0.20
Results: NLFEA Results
Continuous deep beam Pd = 6000kN (total design
load)
Max crack
Ultimate Crack width at
Redistribution width
capacity (kN) Pd (mm)
location
0% 8710.3 1.39 Mid span
10% 8696.4 1.38 Mid span
20% 9002.3 1.13 Mid span
30% 8705.3 1.19 Mid support
40% 8698.7 1.38 Mid support

•Beam capacity does not vary much with redistribution

•Location of widest crack shifts to support with
increasing moment redistribution
Results: Conclusions

•Elastic stress field can be used to constructing STM.

•MCFT takes account of strain softening in compression.

No limits required on a/d for STM to be safe.

•Orientation of stress fields rotates after cracking and

yielding of reinforcement increasing strength over that
predicted with STM based on elastic stress field.

•Small bars give better crack control.

Acknowledgements
Rotana Hay
Juan Sagaseta