| STRUCTURAL JOURNAL Title no, 99-846 TECHNICAL PAPER Evaluation of Strut-and-Tie Modeling Applied to Dapped Beam with Opening by Brian S. Chen, Michael J. Hagenberger, and John E. Breen “Simuvand-tie modeling is valuable tool for designing irregular sere aie members, The ACI 318-02 Building Code contains pro Strom pertaining 1 design using stru-and-tie models. This paper srasmts the experimental eso text conducted on smal-ele Pinphy:supported dapped beans with openings. The design ofeach sere ccimen was developed by independent student teams using NE ACI provisions for sinucand-tie models. Each ofthe four spec: aoe rusted loads greater than the factored design load and irtthied lite diaress at service load levels. The successil test seh inate she applicability and conservative nature of tut ‘and-tie modeling for design. Keywords: beam plasticity seta conerete sit INTRODUCTION In the past, engineers had little guidance when it came (0 {ning nonstandard and unusual structural conerete mer “as The development of strut-and-tie modeling has provided engineers with a conservative and rational design approach, Tnheory, plasticity based stru-and-tie modeling produces sae, Tower-bound designs. Asa result, the method lends itself well © incorporation into building and design codes. Appendix A of the ACI 318-02 Building Code contains provisions pertaining tothe use of strutand-tie models, While there has been a signif- feant amount of literature on the theory behind strut-and-tie modeling (Schlaich, Schafer, and Jennewein 1987; Muttori, Schwartz, and Thiilimann 1997), there has been relatively lite experimental verification ofits application. “This study presents the experimental results from a series of four test specimens with the same overall geometry, and with reinforcement designed using strut-and-tie models. The Specimens tested in the experimental program were scale Thodels of a dapped beam with a large opening. The overall purpose ofthis test series was twofold. One objective was to Gemonstrate that various safe and workable designs exist using different strutand-tie models to solve the same problem. ‘The other objective was to determine whether the new Appen- dix A provisions could be applied by practitioners with rela- tively litle experience in the use of strut-and-tie modeling “The presence ofa e-enlrant commer at midspan and an open ing creates large discontinuity regions where the plane-sec~ tions beam theory does not apply. Strut-and-tie models are ‘a conservative and intuitive design methodology for solving These types of problems, Three groups of graduate students, working independently and in competition (based on the ratio of capacity to weight of steel reinforcement), designed ‘Specimens 1 through 3 and tested them to destruction. In add ‘Gon, the senior authors designed and tested Specimen 4. All of the designs used the provisions for stru-and-tie models pro- posed for adoption in the ACI 318-02 Building Code that {vere appended {0 an introductory article by the Chair of ‘ACI 313 (Cagley 2001), The tests provide experimental pe aS Now Specmin tne ma, Fig. 1—Test specimen geometry. verification of the application of strut-and-tie modeling and Show that it is possible to use very different models on the same structure RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Strutand-tie modeling is a valuable tool for designing complex and unusual structural concrete members. While there has been a significant amount of literature on the theory behind stratand-tie modeling, there has been relatively Title experimental verification ofits application. In addition, the ‘ACI 318-02 Building Code contains provisions pertaining to ‘strutand-tie models. This paper presents the experimental results of test specimens designed using the newly adopted Strut-andctie provisions. The successful test series provides important experimental verification of the application of sirut-and-tie modeling, EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Test specimens "The experimental test program consisted of four reduced= scale beam specimens, As shown in Fig. 1, each specimen measured 762 mm (30 in.) long, 254 mm (10 in.) deep, and 89 mm (3.3 in) thick, The two geometric irregularities incorporated into the test specimens were a 127 mm (5 in.) ddap at midspan and a 51 mm (2 in.) square opening located ‘between the load point and the left support. “The beams were designed to resist a concentrated factored toad of 53 KN (12 kips). The corresponding service load was determined to be 34 KN (7.7 kips) by assuming a load factor Of 1.35 that corresponds to equal live and dead load, A value “Ae ra ou, 98, Na fy Anges 202, A Read et er 5 Ad vw ene sae pbln eee eS SG" dante Caner nse, Al igs sere sotalol ca anes rane oie he copii re, at i le peel he Maat 20 AC Sct Woman yas) 1,20Pres eee ec ‘Jet mater Wien 5 Chen fa dctrl candida a th Universi of Teo ot seer te emer 5 fom Pare Univers Wes Lf, Ino 199tond Ws MS fom he ters of Taso Ain i 198 (ACI member Michal J Hagenberge 2 dca anda he Unters of erect recived BS fon Sune Unters, Lewis, Po in 172, Tad Mo Corel Unery, ac, 8 8 19 {ACI Honorary Menber Joa ree hls he Maser L AL Rashid Cha Ci, eet UnirasyofFso hut He ea member ef ACT Coe S18 Sacral Cor Bung Coe ond 35, Anchorage t Cone Fig. 2—Strut-and-tie models with forces for Specimens I and 4. ‘Table 1—Reinforcing steel properties & 17.6699), 4mmd] 125000), 02) 7780.79) Tage] 97 0015) 610.69) 594138) was assumed for the resistance factor since the actual material properties were obtained. ‘Pea-gravel concrete and small steel reinforcing bars were used to construct the test specimens. The concrete mixture ‘was a prebagged cement and aggregate mixture combined ‘with water and a high-range water-reducing admixture that {yielded an average strength of 31.7 MPa (4600 psi). The ‘Concrete strength was determined from 76 x 152 mm (3x 6in.) test cylinders that were cast and tested at the same time as the beam specimens. The stel reinforcing used consisted of 4 and 6 mm-diametec deformed bars and 10 gage smooth wire. The properties of the reinforcing steel are summarized in Table 1. Design process ‘Specimens 1, 2, and 3 were designed independently by three groups of graduate students. Specimen 4 was slight variation of Specimen 1. Each specimen was designed 446 ‘sa by Modai2 205) Fig. 3—Strut-and-tie models with forces for Specimen 2 Fig. 4—Strut-and-tie model with forces for Specimen 3, using the steut-and-tie provisions in Appendix A of AC 318-02. Although each group used the same design proces the final strut-and-tie models and reinforcement layou varied significantly 'As a fits step in the design process, each group indepe! dently performed a two-dimensional finte-clement analys (FEA) to establish the elastic stress fields in the structur “This process is suggested by Schlaich, Schafer, and Jennewe (1987) and Bergmeister et al. (1993) as a useful first step promote visualization of the force paths in unfamiliar appl cations. For this particular problem, the FEA was probab not essential and only conficmed the initial ideas ebout t force distribution. From the flow of forees illustrated in FEA, a strut-and-tie model was chosen and loaded with applied forces. Strutand-tie forces were computed usit simple truss analysis techniques, and the nodal zones we checked, Reinforcement patterns were then developed ust the tie forces provided by the analysis and the geometry the strut-and-tie models. Graduate students performed t detailed calculations using Appendix A of ACI 318-02 wi no direct supervision from a stru-and-tie model expert. ‘Strut-and-tie models ‘The strut-and-tie models developed for the four specimens are shown in Fig. 2 through 4, Each design tec ACI Structural JournaliJuly-August 20= = feu ia Ay ie item |p sents thane Fig. 5—Reinforcement layouts. employed different approaches for developing its final stut- fand-ic model. These approaches included breaking one Overall stru-and-tie model into several submodels, super- imposing two overlapping strut-and-tie models, and using a Single model for the entire structure. While some strut-an tie models may be more efficient than others, itis important to note that there is no uniquely correct model. Each ofthe resv™ing struv-and-tie models represents unique lower- bx or conservative estimate of the tre capacity of the team, These estimates, however, assume that failures such as stability or local crushing are precluded. The siu-and-ie model for Specimens 1 and 4 was developed using thre submodels as shown in Fg. 2. The submodels con- sisted ofa simple tuss forthe right half ofthe beam and wo Overlapping trusses forthe left half. The submodel shown in Fig. 22) was developed to resist the shear created by the applied load, and consisted of compression struts above and below the opening. These struts were tied together at various locations using tension ties. The submodel shown in Fig. 206) vee developed to resist the moment or couple created by the Compression strut and tension tie from the right half of the model, It should be noted that, during the design process, the design team discovered that one of the compressive sirus cut through the edge of the opening. The design team recognized this mistake, but was unable to correct the error due to the time constrains associated with the class project. ‘The submodel forthe right halo te team, shown in Fig. 2), ‘is comprised of stuts and tes oriented ina more familar truss configuration. The three submodels were superimposed to create the final stutand-tie model for Specimens | and 4. ‘The strut-and-tie model for Specimen 2, shown in Fig. 3, consisted of two overlapping models of the entire beam “The design team elected to assign 80% ofthe applied Toad to one roe “L showm in Fig. (0), and the remaining 20% ofthe applied Ie oasecond model, shown in Fig. 3(b). The reason for assigning a majority ofthe load to one mode! was to reduce the ‘compression above the opening. This is evidenced by the large 81 KN compression strut exending from the load point t the area below the opening in Fig 3(2). Similar to Specimen 1, the two overlapping models were superimposed to establish the final strut-and-tie model forthe specimen. Fig.6—Form and reinforcing cage for Specimen 1. ‘The strut-and-tie model for Specimen 3, shown in Fig. 4, consisted of a single truss model for the entire beam. Large ‘compression siruts carried the flow of forces around the ‘opening for the left half of the bearn, while a more widely spaced truss was used for the right half. Reinforcement layout and design ‘The reinforcement layouts foreach specimen are shown Fig. 5,and were selected using the tie forces in the strut-and- tie models. In general, the location and orientation of the ties in the model dictated where reinforcement was required. The ‘number of bars needed was determined by taking the tie force and dividing by the product of the yield stress and bar ‘area, Because the competition was based on ultimate load performance, typical service load details, such as bars ‘around the comers of the opening, were omitted. ‘The reinforcement layouts for Specimens 1 and 4 were designed to maximize constructablity. This was accomplished by arranging the reinforcement in an orthogonal grid and providing standard bar configurations as shown in Fig. 5(a) and (@).To accomplish this, the tension ties oriented diagonal- ly in the model were resolved into horizontal and vertical ‘components, The reinforcement was sized based on these verti- cal and horizontal force components and then evenly distributed in the location of the tension ties in the model. The reinforce- ‘ment layout for Specimen 4 was similar to that of Specimen 1— the only significant change was the addition of confining re- inforcement above the opening and below the load point 47