Strut and Tie Modeling

References:

J. Schlaich, K. Schäfer and M. Jennewein (1987) ‘Toward a Consistent Design

of Structural Concrete’, Journal of Prestressed Concrete Institute, 32(3),
74-150.
J. Schlaich and K. Schäfer (1991) ‘Design and Detailing of Structural Concrete
Using Strut-and-tie Models’, The Structural Engineer, 69(6), 113-125.
R. Park and T. Paulay (1975) Reinforced Concrete Structures, Wiley, New York
D.S. Prakash Rao (1995) Design Principles and Detailing of Concrete Structures,
McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
J.G. MacGregor (1997) Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, Prentice
Hall (Third Edition).
American Concrete Institute (2002) Examples for the design of structural
concrete with strut-and-tie models, Farmington Hills, Mich. : American
Concrete Institute.
Free software for Computer Aided Strut and Tie Design (CAST )
http://engineeringsoftwares.blogspot.hk/2007/02/cast-strut-tie.html
R.K.L. Su and A.M. Chandler (2001) ‘Design Criteria for Unified Strut and Tie
Models’, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 3(3), 288-298.
R.K.L. Su, P.C.W. Wong and A.M. Chandler (2003) ‘Design of Non-Flexural
Components Using Strut and Tie Models’, Transactions of The Hong Kong
Institution of Engineers, 10(1), p31-37.
R.K.L. Su, P.C.W Wong and A.M. Chandler (2005), Application of strut-and-tie
method on outrigger braced core wall buildings, Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Tall Buildings (ICTB-VI) From Engineering to
Sustainability, 6 - 8 December 2005, Hong Kong, p80-85.
R.K.L. Su and D.W.T. Looi (2016), Revisiting the unreinforced strut efficiency
factor, ACI Structural Journal, 113(2), p301-312.

Introduction

Majority of defects and accidents reported in RC structure are attributable to

faulty detailing rather than to errors made in the structural analysis or standard
design. Among the most common problems are failures in the areas of statically
or geometrical discontinuous regions, such as

Dr. RKL Su 1
 At junctions of members (beam/beam, beam/column);
 Where members change shape (step in beam, change in column section);
 Where concentrated loads are applied (by beam, column or applied load);
 Where the depth of a member is similar to, or greater than, its length (pile
cap, deep beams, corbels, nibs)
 Where openings through members.

In all the above problems, the standard bending theory and detailing methods
may not be applied. Strut and tie modelling is a very useful tool to analyze and
design those complex regions in concrete structures.
In strut and tie modelling the internal forces in a region are represented as
compressive concrete struts tied together by tensile ties (the reinforcement)
which together act like a truss.

Example of Truss Analogy

(a) Inclined cracking

(b) Truss-like action

(c) Analogous truss

The historical development of the strut and tie model is briefly summarized
below,

 Ritter and Morsch (1912) proposed a simple truss model as an approach to

visualize the internal forces in cracked beams.
 Slater and Richart (1927) in the United States developed more sophisticated
Dr. RKL Su 2
 truss models with inclined stirrups and the compressive struts at angles other
than 45 degrees.
 Rausch (1929) considered that a reinforced concrete beam with closed
stirrups running around all faces could effectively resist torsion by means of
space-truss action.
 Leonhardt (1965) and Thurlimann (1983) demonstrated that strut and tie
models could be successfully applied to design deep beams and corbels.
 Schlaich (1987) and his co-workers generalized the strut and tie models to
solve number of non-flexural components

The truss analogy is clearly a highly simplified and idealized model to simulate
the behaviour of a real beam. Extensive experimental work undertaken in
Europe and the United States in the 1920s and 1930s showed that the truss
analogy provided a safe, if at times rather conservative, method for predicting
the strength of beams in shear and flexure. However, no serious rational
alternative was found to the truss method for practical analysis and design.

Laboratory studies carried out in the late 1940s and 1950s confirmed that the
simple truss analogy could overestimate the need for shear reinforcement.
Various semi-empirical modifications of the truss equations were developed for
design, and an empirically modified truss model has been subsequently used for
shear design in the United States, Canada, Australia, and in some European
countries.

The strut and tie modelling of complex regions in reinforced concrete structures
has now been recognised in many national and international codes and standards,
including the Australian Standard AS3600, CEB/FIP-Model Code 90, Eurocode
2, Norway Standard NS3473E, Canadian Standard CAN3-A23.3-94, New
Zealand Standard NZS3101: Part 1 and 2-2006, and American Standard ACI
318-08.

Lower Bound Theorem

The theoretical basis of the truss analogy is the lower bound theorem of
plasticity. A stress field that satisfies equilibrium and does not violate yield
criteria at any point provides a lower-bound estimation of capacity of
rigid-plastic materials. However, concrete has a limited capacity to sustain
plastic deformation and is not a rigid-plastic material. Hence crushing of
concrete (struts and nodes) should not occur prior to yielding of reinforcement

Dr. RKL Su 3
(ties or stirrups). The compressive stress of struts and nodes need to be limited.
Bond slip failures need to be avoided. As the strain compatibility is not
considered in the lower bound theorem, more than one admissible strut and tie
model may be developed.

B-Regions and D-Regions

The terms B-region (B for Bending or Bernoulli) and D-region (D for

Disturbance or Discontinuity) are used to distinguish between the regions in a
concrete structure where the simple methods of flexural analysis can be applied,
and where they should not be applied. Various D-regions and B-regions are
shown in Figures below. An advantage of dividing a structure into B- and
D-regions is that the attention of the designer is focused on the potential weak
spots which require special attention in detailing and design.

Example of B D
D B B D
& D regions

Defining the Boundaries of B and D Regions

In B-regions, stresses and stress trajectories present a fairly smooth picture as

against their turbulent pattern near discontinuities. Stress intensities decrease
rapidly with the distance from the origin of the stress concentration. This
behaviour allows the identification of B- and D- regions in a structure.

The division of the boundaries of D-regions can be accomplished by using the

Saint-Venant’s principle as explained in the following example.

Dr. RKL Su 4
Example - Column or wall with concentrated loads

F F/h F F

d=h D D

= + B = B

D D
h

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) structure with real loads

(b) loads and support reactions applied in accordance with the Bernoulli
hypothesis
(c) self-equilibrium state of stress
(d) real structure with B- and D-region

Applying the principle of Saint-Venant, it is assumed that the local stresses in (c)
are negligible at such distance which is approximately equal to the maximum
distance between the equilibrium force themselves.

The Principle of Saint-Venant

F/2
h

F
h/2 F/2
σ0
h σ0

Zone of body affected by self

equilibrium forces applied to surface
Dr. RKL Su 5
Typical D-regions

(A) Geometrical Discontinuities

h1 h
h2
h1 h2 h h

h2
h1 h
h2 h
h1

(B) Statically Discontinuities

h
h h
2h

h
h

(C) Geometrical and Statically Discontinuities

h
h
h
h h

Dr. RKL Su 6
Design of B & D Regions
The design of B (Bernoulli or Beam) region is well understood and the entire
flexural behavior can be predicted by simple calculation. However, even for the
most common cases of D (Disturbed or Discontinuity) regions, engineers’ ability
to predict capacity is either poor (empirical) or requires substantial computation
effort (finite element analysis) to reach an accurate estimation of capacity

Strut and Tie Design Flow Chart

Define Structural System

Determine Loads and Reactions
Estimate Dimensions and Member Sizes

Define B- and D- Regions in Structures

Design B-Regions By Other Methods

Develop Strut & Tie Model for D-Regions

Element Forces and Forces and The Details/

Dimensions Stresses in Stresses in Check
Nodes Struts Anchorage

Prerequisites

(a) Equilibrium must be maintained

(b) Forces in struts and ties are uni-axial
(c) External forces apply at nodes
(d) Prestressing is treated as load
(e) Tension in concrete is neglected
(f) Detailing for adequate anchorage

Dr. RKL Su 7
Methods for Formulation of Strut and Tie Models
There are basically three method for the formulation of strut and tie models.
They are (1) Elastic analysis based on stress trajectories, (2) Load path approach
and (3) Standard model.

Elastic Analysis Based on Stress Trajectories

This method requires conducting an elastic analysis first by finite element
method or other means. The internal stress trajectories for the structures are then
plotted out. The compressive stress and tension stress fields are simplified to the
struts and ties respectively. An example for a deep beam subjected to uniformly
distributed loading is shown below.

Deep beam under loading Stress fields Strut and tie models

Strut and Tie Modeling by Load Path Method

(1) Isolate D-region and calculate the internal stresses on the boundaries of
the element
(2) The load paths begin and end at the center of gravity of the corresponding
stress diagram.
(3) The load paths tend to take the shortest possible streamlined way in
between the centers of the stress diagrams
(4) The strut and tie in general should meet at safe angle that is about 45o,
whenever possible. Angles greater than 65o or smaller than 25o are
unrealistic or involve high incompatibility of strains.

Dr. RKL Su 8
Notations: Solid lines denote tension paths and broken lines denote compression
paths.

Example 1

A B A B
q q q

A B A B A B

Define the geometry Connect the load paths of Simplify it to strut and
and loading the related loads. tie model
Introduce forces T and C
for equilibrium

Example 2 – Construction of Strut and Tie Model

F F F

q q q
F B1 B2 B1 =B2 F B1 B2
Define the geometry Connect the load paths of Simplify it to strut and
and loading the related loads. tie model
Introduce forces T and C
for equilibrium

Dr. RKL Su 9
Comments on Load Path Method
To take into account the practicable and workable reinforcement layout, we may
have the following additional considerations.
(1) The arrangement of rebar should satisfy the practical requirements of
simple construction, that is, using straight bars with a minimum number
of bends, laid out in orthogonal arrangement parallel to the edges of the
structures, whenever possible;
(2) The edges and surfaces of the structure should be fitted with near-surface
reinforcement (distribution bars) in order to control cracking;
(3) In the cracked state, the reinforcing bars will channel the flow of tensile
forces. In order to get a more realistic load, it is therefore essential to
introduce, in the modeling stage, the form of tensile ties whenever their
position is known in advance.
(4) The arrangement of reinforcement should ideally be designed to cover the
effects due to various load cases.
(5) The formation of cracks and the plastic deformation of the structural
material will redistribute the internal forces, defined on the basis of the
theory of elasticity. In selecting the model, it is useful to realize that the
structure tends to carry the loads with the least internal forces and
possible deformations. Since reinforced ties are much more deformable
than concrete struts, the model with the least and shortest ties will be the
best. The product of the tie length li and the tensile forces Ti can be used
as a simplified criterion for optimizing a model: Ti li = minimum

Example: Two different strut-and-tie models for the same structure. The good
model (a) has shorter ties than the bad model (b)

q q

(a) good (b) bad

Dr. RKL Su 10
 (6) In strut and tie modeling, a small number of forces is used to represent the
continuous stress distributions in a real structure. Care must be taken to
choose an appropriate number of forces to suit the situation.
(7) At the boundary between a D-region and a B-region the distributed
stresses have to be represented by a statically equivalent set of discrete
forces. The situation is illustrated in the following diagrams for a single
end anchorage in a prestressed beam.

Example – Choice of number of struts to represent a stress field

Inadequate modelling Unnecessary complex Adequate modelling

(No transverse tension) modelling

(8) To control the crack width of the compressive strut, it is recommended to

either choose a model where the reinforcement intersects the crack at
angles as close to 90o as possible.

Example : Risk of unacceptable crack widths at discontinuities.

Single cracks issuing from the Internal transverse crack

re-entrant corners from concentrated load
applied within a wall.

Dr. RKL Su 11
Standard Strut and Tie Models

Corbel/ halving joints and anchorages

Beam column joints

Dr. RKL Su 12
Standard Strut and Tie Models
Stepped beams

Cranked beams

Large step Small step

Dr. RKL Su 13
Standard Strut and Tie Models

Wall openings

Coupling beams and deep beams

Dr. RKL Su 14
Standard Strut and Tie Models

Tall Building with outrigger

Reinforcement details

Longer
lap

Ties

Unbalanced
moment

Dr. RKL Su 15
Struts
For dimensioning, the various cases of stress fields, including those of the
B-regions, may be covered by means of only three typical configurations,
namely;

 The bottle-shaped stress field

 The fan-shaped stress field
 The prismatic stress field

Bottles

A bottle-shaped stress field occurs wherever a distributed stress field is balanced

with a narrower, more concentrated stress field. For example, this situation
arises at the end of anchorage in a prestressed beam. In any bottle-shaped field
there are associated transverse tensile stresses which have to be carried either by
the concrete in tension, or by specially introduced transverse reinforcement.

Example

transverse
tensile stress generated

P
σ=P/A

The bottle-shaped stress field occurs in many design situations and often
explains the need for transverse reinforcement in compressive concrete to
control the cracks which tend to develop parallel to compressive stresses.

Dr. RKL Su 16
Fans
A fan-shaped stress field shown below can occur where a force is introduced and
channeled through an element which is itself fan-shaped. The fan may also
appear in a region where a radial pattern of cracks has developed. The fan is
fundamentally different to the bottle in which no transverse tensile stress field
exists.

Fan-shaped

Prisms
The prism is the simplest compressive stress field. Without any narrowing or
splaying of the stress trajectories, there are no associated transverse tensile
stresses induced in the concrete. Prisms occur in B-regions in the compressive
flange of a beam. They can also develop in a web where a parallel pattern of
inclined cracks has formed. The prismatic stress field is assumed to occur in a
simple compressive strut.

Prismatic

Dr. RKL Su 17
Strength of struts
The major factor affecting the compressive strength of a strut is the cylinder
concrete compressive strength f’c (or cube concrete compressive strength fcu).
The Design Strength of Strut may be taken as (Su & Looi, 2016).
f strut   s f cu  0.4 f cu (1)

Nodes
Nodes may be classified according to the number of entering elements, and their
types (struts or ties). For a three-element node, the possible combinations are:
CCC; CCT and CTT. The C refers to a compression strut and the T to a tension
tie. The CCT case occurs frequently.

Type of nodes

CCC CCT CTT TTT

Dr. RKL Su 18
Strength of nodes
In a strut-and-tie model the tensile and compressive elements meet at the nodes.
The nodes, initially idealized as points, may in fact extend throughout a
significant part of the D-region.

Idealized model Actual behaviour

Uniform load on a
Smeared node
deep beam

Conc. node

Uniform load on a deep

beam with single central
Smeared node
support
Conc. node

Opposing concentrated Conc. node

loads on a deep beam Smeared node

Conc. node

To emphasis the different conditions of nodes, the terms smeared and

concentrated are sometimes applied to nodes. The smeared nodes are rarely of
concern in design.

Concentrated nodes are often the most highly stressed and hence most critical
parts of the D-region. In determining the size and shape of a concentrated node
the locations of individual reinforced bars have to be considered carefully, as
well as the size of any adjacent bearing plate. When the node contains steel bars
which have to be anchored, the anchorage length also has to be considered in
relation to the magnitude of the node. The shape and size of the node are likely
to govern the size of the adjacent struts, rather than vice versa. Three
dimensional effects may also be significant, for example if the bearing plate is
not as wide as the beam it supports.

Dr. RKL Su 19
The strength of concrete in the nodal zones depends on a number of factors such
as (1) the confinement of the zones by reactions, compression struts, anchorage
plates for prestressing, reinforcement from the adjoining members, and hoop
reinforcement; (2) the effects of strain discontinuities within the nodal zone
when ties strained in tension are anchored in, or cross, a compressed nodal zone;
and (3) the splitting stresses and hoop-bearing stresses resulting from the
anchorage of the reinforcing bars of a tension tie in or immediately behind a
nodal zone. The Design Strength of Node is expressed as,
f node   n f cu (2)

where n is the node efficiency factor given in Table 1.

Table 1. Node efficiency factor

Condition Node efficiency factor (n)
of Node
Triaxial CCC 0.55
Uniaxial CCC 0.45
CCT 0.40
CTT 0.36
Minimum 0.28
Partial safety factor of 1/0.67 is allowed

Node in Hydrostatic and Force Equilibrium

Node in Hydrostatic Equilibrium Node in Force Equilibrium

a2 is known a1 & a2 are known

a3 C1 a3 C1

σ a1 σ1 a1
σ σ3
C3 C3 α

σ σ2 C2
C2
a2 a2

force C3 C2 C1
  =σ×b C3=(C12+C22)1/2
size of node a3 a2 a1
a3=a1cosα+a2sinα
a2
a1  C1
C2 σ3=C3/(a3×b)
Dr. RKL Su 20
Strength of bearing
When the size of support is smaller than that of the node, higher stresses would
be developed at the bearing face. A plinth is introduced to spread the load.

Node
A2
2 A1 < A2
Plinth 1 > 2
Bearing 1
1 2
A1
Stress developed on the bearing

According to CoP for Precast Concrete Construction 2016 (cl.2.7.9.4), the

design ultimate bearing stress is based on the weaker of the two bearing surfaces.
Hence, a bearing strength factor b is introduced in Table 2.

Table 2. Bearing strength factor

Condition of bearing Bearing strength factor (b)
* Dry bearing on the concrete 0.4
* Bedded bearing on the concrete 0.6
* Steel bearing plate cast into a member
or support, with each dimension not 0.8
exceeding 40% of the corresponding
concrete dimension the concrete

The Design Ultimate Bearing Stress is expressed as

f bearing   b f cu (3)

Strength of ties and minimum reinforcement

Schlaich et al. (1987) observed that the shape of the compressive strut is bowed
and, as a result, transverse tensile forces exist within the strut. It is important
that a minimum quantity of reinforcement is provided to avoid cracking of the
compressive strut due to the induced tensile forces so as to maintain the
efficiency level for the strut as shown in Eq (1). This reinforcement contributes
significantly to the ability of a deep beam to redistribute the internal forces after
cracking, as suggested by Marti. Finite element experiments by Foster (1992)
have shown that deep beams exhibit almost linear elastic behavior before
cracking. In order to maintain wide compression struts developed beyond the
cracking point, sufficient tension tie steel should be provided to ensure that the
Dr. RKL Su 21
beam does not fail prematurely by diagonal splitting.

Foster and Gilbert (1996) further pointed out that when sufficient distribution
bars are added, diagonal cracking would be distributed more evenly across the
compressive strut. Moreover, the provision of distribution bars reduces
transverse strains and hence increases the efficiency of the strut. Foster and
Gilbert (1997) assessed the web splitting failure mode by a strut-tie system.
They found that for an increase in the concrete compressive strength, there is a
corresponding increase in the minimum distribution bars. This is because
members with higher strength concrete are generally stressed to higher levels in
the compression struts and thus are subject to greater bursting forces. By
assuming cracked concrete maintains residual 30% of tensile strength, the
minimum recommended distribution bars varied from 0.2% to 0.4%, for
concrete grade f’c from 25MPa to 80MPa, respectively.

The strength of a steel tie may be taken as 0.87fy, where 0.87 is the partial safety
factor of steel reinforcement as according to British Standard BS8110 or Hong
Kong Code. For control cracks at compressive struts, a minimum reinforcement
of 0.4% should be evenly distributed at each face of the section considered. For
beam sections the amount of minimum compressive reinforcement could be
reduced to 0.2%, as suggested in Table 9.1 of Hong Kong Code (Table 3.27 of
BS8110). For brackets, corbels or nib design, to improve crack control, a
minimum amount of horizontal steel equal to 50% of the main tensile
reinforcement should be distributed over 2/3 (close to the tension side) of the
effective depth of the section considered (cl. 9.8.3 Hong Kong Code).

Unreinforced Concrete
The strength of the ties solely provided by the tensile strength of the concrete for
tie without reinforcement is not recommended.

Dr. RKL Su 22
Anchorage
Safe anchorage of ties in the node has to be assured; to achieve this, minimum
radii of bent bars and anchorage lengths of bars are selected following the code
recommendations. The tension tie reinforcement must be uniformly distributed
over an effective area of concrete at least equal to the tie force divided by the
concrete stress limit for the node. The anchorage must be located within and
‘behind’ the nodes. The anchorage begins where the compression stress
trajectories meet the bars and are deviated.

Rebar dia. 
Tie force sn
Depth
Node of node
sn
Conc. load
sn ≤ 3
Depth of node

Anchorage of reinforcement within the node

If the length of the bearing plate is smaller than that of the node, a plinth can be
added to make up the remaining size. If the bursting stress is high, additional
longitudinal steel may be required in the nodal region.

Rebar dia. 
Tie force

Node

≥ 30o
Conc. load

Depth of node

Anchorage of reinforcement within the node using a plinth

Dr. RKL Su 23
When the required anchorage length is insufficient, the bar may be extended
beyond the node region. The tensile forces introduce behind the node can resist
the remaining forces developed within the nodal regions.

Back
face of
Tie force Reinforcing bars node

Node

Anchorage length lb

Anchorage of reinforcement behind a node

When the width of bearing is smaller than the overall width of the member,
extended nodal zones as shown below can be adopted. In such case, transverse
reinforcement (i.e. the horizontal legs perpendicular to the tie bars) should be
added to resist the bursting stress and transverse tension developed.

Extended
nodal zones

Transverse reinforcement

Tie bars Node Node

Provided anchorage length ≥ lb+be be Transverse

reinforcement
lb - ultimate anchorage bond length
ELEVATION SECTION

Additional transverse reinforcement for extended nodal zone

Dr. RKL Su 24
Design Examples
Two design examples related with deep beam and dapped-end beam are given
below to demonstrate the design procedure of STM.

Example 1. Design of deep beam subjected to unequal concentrated loads

850 850

Figure 1. Deep beam subjected to two unequal concentrated loads.

(Note: For simplicity, the uniform self-weight of beam is neglected)

In this example, a 400 mm wide and 4000 mm deep rectangular deep beam
subjected to two ultimate concentrated loads, 3000 kN and 6000 kN respectively
as shown in Figure 1 is considered. The characteristic cube strength of concrete
fcu = 45 MPa and yield strength of ribbed steel bar fy = 500 MPa are assumed.

Following the procedures of STM described, the design of the deep beam can be
accomplished in the following steps.

Step 1. Isolate non-flexural component

As the distributed regions by the concentrated forces and reactions, assumed

equal to the lateral dimension of 4 m, are overlapping with each other, the whole

Dr. RKL Su 25
deep beam is considered as a D-region.

Step 2. Compute the internal forces on the boundaries of D-region

By considering the global equilibrium of the applied and reaction forces, the
support reactions at A and B are found to be 3941 kN and 5059 kN, respectively.
Maximum bearing stress is therefore equal to 5059×103/(400×1400) = 9.0 MPa.
From cl.2.7.9.4, CoP Precast Construction 2016 (or cl.5.2.3.4, BS8110), the
allowable bearing stress is 0.4×45 = 18 MPa which is greater than the bearing
stress of 9.0 MPa. The maximum bearing stress at the loading point is
6000×103/(400×850) = 17.6 MPa. Referring to Table 1, the node efficiency
factor with uniaxial CCC condition is 0.45. The allowable bearing stress is then
0.45×45 = 20.25 MPa which is greater than the bearing stress of 17.6 MPa.

Step 3. Idealize the deep beam by STM

The idealized STM for the deep beam is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Idealized STM of deep beam.

Step 4. Dimension and check of struts, ties and nodes

Dimensioning the STM

Due to the presence of a tension tie, the ultimate nodal zone stress at the beam
supports is 0.4fcu according to Table 1, under CCT condition. The strength of
strut, according to Equation (1) is 0.4 fcu which is the same as the design strength

Dr. RKL Su 26
of nodes. The horizontal compressive force at node D is equal to the tensile
force at node B. When the depth of node D is equal to ‘a’, the depth over which
the tie force distributed is also a. From Figure 2, tan α =
[4000-(a+a)/2]/(3200-850/4) from the geometry. The tie force AB is equal to
5059/tanα = 5059×2988 / (4000-a).

As the allowable stress at node B is limited to 0.4×45 = 18 MPa, therefore, the

tension force in the tie AB should be
AB≦ 18×103×(a×400)×10-6

5059×2988/(4000-a) ≦ 18×10-3×(a×400)
Solving the above equation, the minimum a is 621 mm and α = 48.5o.

Having determined α = 48.5o, by equilibrium of the nodes, the tie force

AB=5059/ tan α = 4476 kN and the strut force DB=5059/ sin α = 6754 kN. By
Pythagoras theorem, the strut force AC is √(AB2 + 39412) = 5963 kN. By
considering the equilibrium of node C, the strut force CD = √[(3941-3000)2 +
AB2] = 4574 kN.

Choosing reinforcement for tension tie

The tensile force at the main tie has been found to be 4476 kN, hence the
required area of steel is equal to As = 4476×103/(0.87×500) = 10,289 mm2.
Providing 15T32 bars (Aspro.= 12,060 mm2) will be sufficient. As the minimum
depth of the nodal zones A and B is 621 mm, the vertical spacing between the
main reinforcement should be equal to 120 mm as shown in Figure 3. Note that
as the required development length (see Table 8.4, HK Code) for T32 bars is
33×32 = 1056 mm, the tension tie can be transferred to the nodal zone within the
bearing length of 1400 mm.

Dr. RKL Su 27
 70

Effective depth of nodal

4@120 zone = 620 mm

70

Figure 3. Arrangement of tension ties.

Checking stresses at nodes and struts

As node C is an internal node, the dimensions of compressive struts joined at
this node can be chosen such that the node and the strut stresses are all less than
the corresponding allowable values. Further check for this node is not required.

At node D, the nodal zone is in equilibrium under a hydrostatic stress condition.

The length of the faces of the nodal zone must be proportional to the loads
applied to these faces and the faces must be perpendicular to the loads.

Thus the stress in all struts at Node Zone D equals f1 = 6754×103/(400×621/cosα)

= 18 MPa which is the same as the crushing strength of struts = 0.45×45 = 18
MPa.

At the bottom of strut DB, the stress in the strut is

f2 = (6754×103)/ [400×(620×cos48.5o+1400×sin48.5o)] = 11.6 MPa

which is less than the ultimate compressive strength of strut (i.e. 18 MPa) .

Dr. RKL Su 28
The required steel for distribution bars is 400×1000×0.2% = 800mm2/metre.
Using T10-200 each face and both ways is sufficient. The R.C. detail for the
deep beam is summarized in Figure 4.

A
CL of support C
L of support
4T16 T10-200 E.F.
T10-200E.F.

5T10-U Bars A-A

3T32(5 Layers) 5T10-U Bars
A

(a)

B
CL of support C
L of support
4T32 T16-275E.F.

T10-150S.S.

B-B

B 2T40 4T40 4T40

(b)
Figure 4. RC details for deep beam (a) STM approach; (b) conventional
approach.

Dr. RKL Su 29
Example 2. Design of Dapped-end beam subjected to uniformly distributed
load
Dapped-end beams are commonly used in pre-cast concrete structures. Such a
beam subjected to a factored uniform load of 130 kN/m over a span of 6.5 m is
shown in Figure 5. As in the previous example, the characteristic cube strength
of concrete fcu = 45 MPa and yield strength of ribbed steel bar fy = 500 MPa are
assumed.

W = 130kN/m
400

2T16
150
400
d = 640
80kN
300 4T32

422kN
Section at midspan
Span = 6500

Figure 5. Simply supported dapped-end beam subjected to uniformly distributed

load.

First, the B-region at the mid-span of the beam is designed. The ultimate
moment is equal to 130×6.52/8 = 686 kNm. Following the Hong Kong code
(cl.6.1.2.4), the moment arm z= 564 mm and the required area of longitudinal
steel is 2791 mm2. Providing 4T32 with steel area of 3216 mm2 is enough.

Following the procedures of STM, the design of the D-region of the dapped-end
beam can be accomplished in the following steps.

Step 1. Isolate the non-flexural component

The D-region of the dapped end of beam can be identified by Saint–Venant’s
Principle as shown on Figure 6(a), the length of the D-region is equal to 700 mm
which is same as the depth of the section.

Dr. RKL Su 30
 494kN

50.6o
574kN

(a) (b)

Figure 6. (a) The inter-boundary resultant forces at the D-region of dapped end
beam; (b) The idealized STM.

Step 2. Compute the internal forces on the boundary of D-region

By considering the equilibrium of the D-region, the shear V, moment M, and
axial force P are found to be 318 kN, 296 kNm and 80 kN respectively over the
section of the beam as shown in Figure 6a.

Step 3. Idealize the dapped-end beam by STM

MacGregor (1997) reviewed different idealized STM involving vertical ties for
the design of dapped-end beams. The one with minimum tensile forces
developed at the horizontal tie and vertical hanger links is chosen and is shown
in Figure 6b.

Step 4. Dimension and check of the struts, ties and nodes

The internal truss forces determined by static joint equilibrium method are
summarized in Table 4. The tension ties, nodes and compression struts will be
designed in turn.

Table 4. Internal Truss Forces at Dapped End Beam

Members AB AD EF DF CF CD BC BE BD
Force (kN) +550 -432 +410 -354 -365 +576 -446 +285 +115
Note: (+ve) =compression, (-ve) = tension

Dr. RKL Su 31
Design of tension ties
AD: 432×103/(0.87×500) = 993 mm2, try 4T20 (Aspro. = 1256 mm2)
CB: 446×103/(0.87×500) = 1025 mm2, try 3T16 closed stirrups
(Aspro. = 1206 mm2)
CF: 365×103/(0.87×500) = 829 mm2, area of 4T32 bars is sufficient but
anchorage will need to be checked
DF: 354×103/(0.87×500) = 813 mm2, try T12-8 legs (Aspro. = 904 mm2)

Design of nodal zones

At Nodal Zone A, assuming that a 320mm long steel angle across the tension
width of beam is to be used at the support, the ultimate bearing stress for bedded
bearing on concrete is 0.6fcu (cl.2.7.9.4, CoP Precast Construction 2016 or
cl.5.2.3.3, BS8110) and the required bearing length = 422×103/(0.6×45×320) =
48 mm, provide a 100×100×15 mm thick angle. As the allowable nodal stress
factor is 0.40 (Table 1. with CCT condition), the required depth of the nodal
zone = 432×103/(0.40×45×320) = 75 mm less than 100 mm. Therefore the
provided angle is sufficient.

At Nodal Zone B, because of a concern about spalling of the concrete cover, the
concrete outside of the anchoring tension tie reinforcement is neglected. The
required width of the nodal zone = 446×103/(0.40×45×320) = 77 mm. A spacing
of 75mm between the 3T16 closed stirrups will provide a nodal zone width of
2×75+16 =166 mm, which is conservative.

Nodal Zone C anchored two tension ties, hence, the allowable nodal stress factor
is 0.36 according to Table 1 under CTT condition. The required depth of the
node is 365×103/(0.36×45×320) = 70 mm. To achieve this nodal zone depth,
provide T20 horizontal U-bar with 50 mm spacing above the layer of T32 bars.

The anchorage of tension tie CF in node C can be checked according to cl.8.4.4

HK Code (or cl.3.12.8.4 BS8110). As the T32 bars emerge from Nodal Zone C,
they can resist a tension force of 224 kN (from limited bond force
=[2×75+16]×[0.5×√45] ×32π×4) which is insufficient for transferring the tensile
force of 365 kN. Adding a T20 U bar will be capable of resisting a tension of
2×341×0.87×500×10-3 =297 kN. Hence the total tensile capacity at face of nodal
zone = 224+297 =521 kN which is greater than 365 kN. To anchor the additional
U bar, extend the T20 bar at least (33D) beyond the nodal zone and far enough
for the T32 bars to be capable of carrying the 365 kN tie force on their own.

Dr. RKL Su 32
Check compressive struts
As the compressive strut CD represents a fan-shape region of radiating struts,
further checks of strut stress at node D are not required. The strut stress at the
base of the fan is:
fs=576×103/[320(76cos50.6o+166sin50.6o)] = 10.2 MPa
The design strength of the strut is equal to 0.4fcu= 0.4×45 = 18 MPa which is
greater than the strut stress fs.

At Node B, the node is in equilibrium under a hydrostatic stress condition, hence,

the length of the faces of the nodal zone must be proportional to the loads
applied to these faces and the faces must be perpendicular to the loads. As the
longitudinal width of node B is equal to 166 mm (=2×75 mm+16 mm, see
Figure 7a), the width of bearing surfaces of struts at Node B is:

lAB = [550/(446+68)]×166 mm = 177 mm

Thus the stress in all struts at Nodal Zone B (neglecting concrete cover) equals
fs = 550×103/(177×320) = 9.7 MPa
which is less than the strut capacity 18 MPa. The other struts meeting Node B
will have the same compressive stress, hence they will not be critical.

At node A, when the design nodal stress is 0.4fcu, the required depths of the node
are 75 mm and 73 mm in the vertical and horizontal directions respectively. As
100×100×15 mm thick angle is provided, the stresses in the node and strut are
not critical, further checks of the strut stress at node A are not required.

Other detailing considerations

To improve crack control, provide a minimum amount of horizontal
reinforcement parallel to the primary tensile tie rebars in the region above the
support. The required area of additional reinforcement = 0.5As = 0.5×4×314
=628 mm2. Try 2T16 U bars. Distribute over two-third of the effective depth at
least 33D beyond face of dap. To improve the support conditions for the highly
stressed compressive struts AB and EB, use two additional T16 top longitudinal
bars in the region of node B. The RC detail of dapped end beam is shown in
Figure 7a.

Dr. RKL Su 33
 B 4T16

2T16 U bars

2T16
4T20 welded
frame bars
to angle
welded to angle D

A
T16-75 T12-150 (4legs)
closed

50

C
T20 –U bar 4T32
850

(a)

2T16

T10 - 4 legs

4T20

T12-175 (2legs).

4T32

(b)

Figure 7. RC detail at dapped end (a) STM; (b) conventional inappropriate

approach.

Dr. RKL Su 34
Discussion
The above two examples are now redesigned following the local design code
and detailing practices. The associated RC details are shown in Figure 4b and
Figure 7b respectively. Significant differences in STM details and conventional
details are observed and are summarized below:
(1) Smaller size reinforcement bars of T32 rather than T40 are used for the
deep beam by adopting the STM approach. This was to ensure that sufficient
anchorage length for T32 bars could be developed within the bearing (node)
region. Premature anchoring failure could be avoided.
(2) The main longitudinal reinforcement is distributed within a region of 600
mm depth, rather than around 300mm depth, in the case of the STM
approach and the conventional approach, respectively. The nodal stress was
reduced by choosing deeper anchors at supports and hence avoided
overstressing in the STM.
(3) All the main reinforcements are extended into the nodal zone using the
STM approach without any curtailment of bars. Using the conventional
flexural theory without considering the high internal shear load (which also
requires longitudinal steel to take up the induced tensile force, Schlaich et al,
1987), the variation of tensile force in main reinforcements was
misunderstood to follow the distribution of the bending moment diagram i.e.
zero at supports and gradually increasing up to a maximum value at the
section with maximum point load. It is clear from the prediction of STM that
uniform tensile tie force would be developed within the whole length of the
reinforcement ties, as strut action rather than beam action is predominant.
Rogowsky and MacGregor (1986) considered similar deep beams and
compared the internal stress distribution in longitudinal bars computed by
STM and determined from experimental results and confirmed the accuracy
of STM. It is important to aware that the same principle (i.e. do not curtail
the main tension reinforcements unless shear induced tension has been duly
considered) is applied for structures with high shear loads such as pile caps
and transfer structures to avoid premature yielding of main reinforcement.
(4) For the dapped-end beam in Example 2, a steel angle together with
welded ties is used to strengthen the bracket in the STM approach to prevent
bearing type of failure as shown in Figure 8a.
(5) In STM approach, a group of vertical hanger ties (T16-75 closed links)
near the bracket is used to pick up the vertical forces from the bottom to the
top of the beam. However, similar measure was not implemented in the

Dr. RKL Su 35
 conventional approach. When the associated STM is developed as shown on
Figure 8b, bond failure is likely to occur due to insufficient developed length
for the 4T32 bars to transfer the vertical force to the inclined strut. It should
be emphasized that this failure of bond could lead to catastrophic collapse of
the whole pre-cast beam.
(6) In the STM detail, additional horizontal bars were distributed over
two-thirds of the effective depth of the bracket. Those additional bars can
effectively prevent the vertical interface crack developed between the
bracket and the full-depth of beam, as shown in Figure 8c.
(7) It is noted that an alternative arrangement of using inclined links at the
dapped end is recommended by BS 5400. The experimental results by
Mattock and Theryo (1986) found that this arrangement also performs
satisfactorily. However, designers should ensure that the inclined links and
the horizontal tension bars can be properly anchored into the dapped-end
region by providing sufficient anchorage lengths (Figure 8d).

Bond slip
Corner
failure and
failure
crack induced

(a) (b)

Additional Insufficient
horizontal anchors for
bars can avoid the tension bars
interface crack between
the dap and the full depth
beam
(c) (d)

Figure 8. Common detailing problems at dapped-end (a) corner failure; (b) bond
failure; (c) interface crack and (d) insufficient anchors.

Dr. RKL Su 36
References and recommended reading
* Special interest
[1] British Standards Institution (BSI). Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures,
Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (DD ENV 1992-1-1: 1992),
Commission of the European Communities, 1992.
* [2] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Design of Concrete Structures
(CAN3-A23.3M94), Structural Design, Rexdale, 1994.
[3] Committee BD/2. Australian Standard, Concrete Structures (AS 3600-1994),
Standards Association of Australia, 1994.
[4] Concrete Design Committee. The Design of Concrete Structure (NZS 3101: Part 1
and 2: 1995), New Zealand Standard, 1995.
* [5] Comité Euro-international du Béton. Bulletin d’information No.213/214, CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990, Thomas Telford, 1993.
[6] Ritter W. Die Bauweise Hennebique, (The Hennebique Method of Construction)
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, (Zürich): 33(7): Feb. 1899, 59-61.
[7] Mörsch E. Der Eisenbetonbau-seine Theorie und Anwendung,(Reinforced Concrete
Construction-Theory and Application) 5th Edition, Wittwer, Stuttgart, Vol.1, Part I
1902, Part 2, 1922.
[8] Rausch E. Berechnung des Eisenbetons gegen Verdrehung und Abscheren (Design of
Reinforced Concrete for Torsion and Shear), Julius Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1929.
[9] Slater, Lord and Zipprodt. Shear tests of reinforced concrete beams, Technical
papers, US bureau of Standard: 314, 1927.
[10] Richart and Larsen. An Investigation of Web Stresses in Reinforced Concrete Beams,
University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station Bulletin: 166, 1927.
[11] Rüsch, H. Über die Grenzen der Anwendbarkeit der Fachwerkanalogie bei der
Berechnung der Schubfestigkeit von Stahlbetonbalken (On the Limitations of
Applicability of the Truss Analogy for the Shear Design of RC Beams), Festschrift F.
Campus ‘Amici et Alumni’, Université de Liège, 1964.
[12] Kupfer H. Erweiterung der Möhrsch’schen Fachwerkanalogie mit Hilfe des Prinzips
vom Minimum der Formänderungsarbeit (Expansion of Mörsch’s Truss Analogy by
Application of the Principle of Minimum Strain Energy), CEB Bulletin: 40: Paris,
1964.
[13] Leonhardt F. Reducting the shear reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams and
slabs, Magazine Concrete Research: 17(53): December 1965, p187.
* [14] Marti P. Basic tools of reinforced concrete design, ACI Journal: 82(1):
January-February 1985, 46-56.
* [15] Collins MP and Mitchell D. A rational approach to shear design – the 1984

Dr. RKL Su 37
 Canadian Code Provisions, ACI Journal: 83(6): November-December 1986,
925-933.
* [16] Rogowsky DM and Macgregor JG. Design of reinforced concrete deep beams,
Concrete International: Design & Construction: 8(8): August 1986, 49-58.
* [17] Schlaich J, Schäfer K and Jennewein M. Toward a consistent design of structural
concrete, PCI Journal: 32(3): May-June, 1987, 74-150.
[18] Adebar P, Kuchma D, and Collins MP. Strut-and-tie models for the design of pile
caps: experimental study, ACI Structural Journal: 87(1): January-February, 1990,
81-92.
[19] Adebar P and Zhou L. Design of deep pile caps by strut-and-tie models, ACI
Structural Journal: 93(4): July-August, 1996, 437-448.
[20] Alshegeir A and Ramirez JA. Strut-tie approach in pretensioned deep beams, ACI
Structural Journal: 89(3): May-June, 1992, 296-304.
[21] Siao WB. Strut-and-tie model for shear behavior in deep beams and pile caps falling
in diagonal splitting, ACI Structural Journal: 90(4): July-August 1993, 356-363.
[22] Tan KH, Weng LW and Teng S. A strut-and-tie model for deep beams subjected to
combined top-and-bottom loading, The Structural Engineer: 75(13): 1997, 215-225.
[23] Ove Arup & Partners. The design of deep beams in reinforced concrete (CIRIA
Guide 2), London, Construction Industry Research & Information Association,
January, 1977.
* [24] MacGregor JG. Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, Prentice Hall (Third
Edition), 1997.
[25] Hwang SJ, Yu HW and Lee HJ. Theory of interface shear capacity of reinforced
concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE: 126(6): June 2000, 700-707.
[26] Hwang SJ, Fang WH, Lee HJ and Yu HW. Analytical model for predicting shear
strength of squat walls, Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE: 127(1): January
2001, 43-50.
[27] Nielsen MP, Braestrup MW, Jensen BC and Bach F. Concrete plasticity, beam
shear in joints – Punching shear, Special Publication of the Danish Society of
Structural Science and Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen,
1978.
* [28] Foster SJ and Gilbert RI. The design of nonflexural members with normal and
high-strength concretes, ACI Structural Journal: 93(1): January-February 1996,
3-10.
[29] Ramirez JA and Breen JE. Proposed design procedure for shear and torsion in
reinforced and prestressed concrete, Research Report 248-4F, Center For
Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1983.
[30] Ramirez JA and Breen JE. Evaluation of a modified truss-model approach for

Dr. RKL Su 38
 beams in shear, ACI Structural Journal: 88(5): September-October 1991, 562-571.
[31] Alshegeir A. Analysis and design of disturbed regions with strut-tie methods, PhD
thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., 1992.
* [32] Vecchio FJ and Collins MP. Modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI Journal Proceedings: 83(22): March-April,
1986, 219-231.
* [33] Warwick W and Foster SJ. Investigation into the efficiency factor used in
nonflexural member design, UNICIV Report No. R-320, School of Civil Engineering,
University of New South Wales, Kensingto, July 1993.
[34] Bergmeister K, Breen JE and Jirsa JO. Dimensioning of the nodes and
development of reinforcement. Report IABSE Colloquium Structural Concrete,
Stuttgart, Germany, 1991, 551-556.
[35] British Standards Institution (BSI). Code of Practice for Design and Construction
(BS8110 Part 1), British Standard, Structural Use of Concrete, 1997.
[36] National Standard of the People’s Republic of China. Code for design of concrete
structures (GBJ 10-89), New World Press, 1994.
[37] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95), American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1995.
[38] MacGregor JG. Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, Prentice Hall, 1988.
* [39] Schlaich J and Schäfer K. Design and detailing of structural concrete using
strut-and-tie models, The Structural Engineer: 69(6): 1991, 113-125.
[40] Jirsa JO, Breen JE, Bergmeister K, Barton D, Anderson R and Bouadi H.
Experimental studies of nodes in strut-and-tie models, Report IABSE Colloquium
Structure Concrete, Stuttgart, Germany, 1991, 525-532.
[41] Foster SJ. Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, PhD
dissertation, School of Civil Engineering, University of New South Wales, August
1992.
* [42] Foster SJ and Gilbert RI. Strut and tie modeling of non-flexural members,
Australian Civil/Structural Engineering Transactions: CE39(2 and 3): 1997, 87-94.
* [43] Hawkins NM. Bearing strength of concrete loaded through rigid plates, Magazine of
Concrete Research (London): 20(62): March 1968, 31-40.
* [44] Adebar P and Zhou L. Bearing strength of compressive struts confined by plain
concrete, ACI Structural Journal: 90(5): September-October 1993, 534-541.
* [45] Kupfer H and Hilsdorf HK. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses, ACI
Journal: 66(8): August 1969, 656-666.
* [46] Yun YM and Ramirez JA. Strength of struts and nodes in strut-tie model, Journal of
Structural Engineering-ASCE: 122(1): January 1996, 20-29.

Dr. RKL Su 39
 [47] Yun YM. Design and Analysis of 2-D Structural Concrete with Strut-Tie Model, PhD
thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. 1994.
[48] L’Hermite R. Idées acturlles sur la technologie du béton. Documentation Technique
du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics (1955).
* [49] Canadian Portland Cement Association, Concrete Design Handbook, Ottawa
(1995).

Dr. RKL Su 40