12/10/2010

1
Design Using the Strut-and-Tie
Method, Part 2(A)
ACI Spring 2010 Xtreme Concrete Convention
March 21 - 25, Chicago, IL
ACI Web Sessions
The audio for this web session will begin momentarily and
will play in its entirety along with the slides.
However, if you wish to skip to the next speaker, use the scroll
bar at left to locate the speakers first slide (indicated by the
icon in the bottomright corner of slides 9, 29, 51, and 89).
Click on the thumbnail for the slide to begin the audio for that
portion of the presentation.
Note: If the slides begin to lag behind the audio, back up one
slide to re-sync.
ACI Web Sessions
ACI is bringing you this Web Session in keeping with its
motto of Advancing Concrete Knowledge. The ideas
expressed, however, are those of the speakers and do not
necessarily reflect the views of ACI or its committees.
Please adjust your audio to an appropriate level at this time.
ACI Web Sessions
ACI Web Sessions are recorded at ACI Conventions and
other concrete industry events. At regular intervals, a new set
of presentations can be viewed on ACIs website free of
charge.
After one week, the presentations will be temporarily
archived on the ACI website or made part of ACIs Online
CEU Program, depending on their content.
Fall 2010 ACI Seminars
Concrete Repair Basics
Troubleshooting Concrete Construction
Concrete Slabs on Ground
Anchorage to Concrete
Simplified Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Chicago, IL 9/28
New York, NY 10/12
Atlanta, GA 11/2
Sacramento, CA 11/16
Dallas, TX 12/7
Denver, CO 9/29
Salt LakeCity, UT 10/13
Chicago, IL 11/3
Orlando, FL 12/8
Baltimore, MD 9/30
Phoenix, AZ 10/14
Louisville, KY 11/4
Atlanta, GA 12/2
Richmond, VA 10/5
Detroit, MI 10/7
Pittsburgh, PA 10/28
LittleRock, AR 11/9
Los Angeles, CA 11/30
Des Moines, IA 12/14
Minneapolis, MN 10/6
Boston, MA 10/20
Seattle, WA 11/10
Charlotte, NC 11/17
St. Louis, MO 12/1
Houston, TX 12/15
Visit www.ConcreteSeminars.org for more
information.
ACI conventions provide a forumfor networking, learning the
latest in concrete technology and practices, renewing old
friendships, and making new ones. At each of ACIs two
annual conventions, technical and educational committees
meet to develop the standards, reports, and other documents
necessary to keep abreast of the ever-changing world of
concrete technology.
With over 1,300 delegates attending each convention, there is
ample opportunity to meet and talk individually with some of
the most prominent persons in the field of concrete
technology. For more information about ACI conventions,
visit www.aciconvention.org.
ACI Conventions
12/10/2010
2
ACI Web Sessions
This ACI Web Session includes four speakerspresenting at
the ACI XtremeConcrete convention held in Chicago, IL,
March 21
st
through 25
th
, 2010.
Additional presentations will be made available in future ACI
Web Sessions.
Please enjoy the presentations.
Design Using the Strut-and-Tie
Method, Part 2(A)
ACI Spring 2010 Xtreme Concrete Convention
March 21 - 25, Chicago, IL
Daniel Kuchma holds a B.A.Sc., M.A.Sc., and
Ph.D., all in civil engineering, fromthe
University of Toronto. Since 1997, he has been
an Associate Professor in the department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the University
of Illinois, and has taught courses in structural
dynamics, statics, reinforced concrete, and pre-
stressed concrete. His work includes a variety of consulting
projects involving offshore structures, hydroelectric dams,
towers, buildings and specialty structures. Dr. Kuchmais an
active member of ACI, and the Federation International de Beton
(fib). He received a National Science Foundation CAREER
Award on Tools and Research to Advance the Use of Strut-and-
Tie Models in Education and Design. He is also a National
Center for Supercomputing Applications Faculty Fellow and
University of Illinois Collins Scholar.
10
Dan Kuchma
Sukit Yindeesuk
Tjen Tjhin
Propped Cantilever with
Opening
University of Illinois
11
Design problem
5625 kN
12
Selected truss model
5800 kN
3229.5 kN
3659 kN
418.8 kN
4
1
3
6
k
N
A
B C D E
F
G H I J
K
L M N
O P
Q R
5
3
5

m
m
5
7
0

m
m
2
8
9
5

m
m
1015
mm
1590
mm
4000 mm
2030
mm
1015
mm
1350
mm
S
T
U
49 degrees
Externally and internally indeterminate truss
5625 kN
12/10/2010
3
13
ACI design; calculation of nominal capacity
Calculated plastic truss capacity
Calculated non-linear truss capacity
Predicted capacity and behavior by non-
linear finite element analysis
Measured capacity and behavior by
experimental testing
Observations and Conclusions
Outline of Presentation
14
ACI design; calculation of nominal capacity
-
6
9
4
7
5615
-4090
-3860

-
3
8
3
5
-7500 -3796
-
7
9

-
3
8
6
9

-
2
5
4
-5
3
6
0
-4
8
6
3
2083
2662
-421
-949
2535

-
4
5
7
0
5
2
0
1
5
4
1243 821 3650

-
3
0
5

1
6
7
0

1
5
8
2

3
4
1
0

3
7
1
6

-
8
7

-
4
4
3
0
-821
2146
209
3860 3650

1
8
2
8

1
7
8
1

1
4
4

4
6

3
2
6
5

3
4
0
9
Member forces determined assuming equal
stiffness of member forces
Reinforcement and strut/node dimensions
selected to provide adequate capacity
15
0
.3
9
2
0.520
0.188 0.185 0.343 0.2271.01(O/S)
0
.
4
5
4
0
.0
7
0
.
3
2
8
0.764
0
.0
1
0.698
0.774
0.798
0.054 0
.
0
1
0
.
8
9
0
.
9
2
0
.
4
8
3
0
.
4
5
2
1
.
0
1
(
O
/
S
)
0
.
5
8
6
0
.
4
9
6
0
.0
3
3
0.990 0.942 0.078
0
.6
3
3
0
.0
1
6
0.496 0.525 0.04 0.035
0
.
5
2
4
0
.
4
9
5
0
.
0
3
9
0
.
0
3
9
0
.
4
2
9
0
.
9
2
4
0
.
0
2
Nominal design strength taken as when first
members reaches its capacity
Occurs at top right tie; Pn = 7500 kN
Utilization rates shown in figure
ACI design; calculation of nominal capacity
16
Calculated plastic truss capacity
Member stress-strain characteristics
17
Calculated plastic truss capacity
0
.5
2
7
0.999
0
.
5
2
8
0.274
0
.
3
6
3
0.284 0.122 0.115 0.639
0.919 0.994 0.003
0.743 0.734 0.009 0.018
0.025 0.993 0.922
0
.
4
8
2
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
5
9
7
0
.0
1
1
0
.7
4
3
0
.7
3
1
0
.0
2
5
0
.0
0
5
0
.
4
8
0
0
.
0
4
1
0
.
9
9
7
1
.
0
0
9
0
.
5
2
1
0
.
5
6
2
0
.
0
1
3
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
5
2
6
0
.
4
8
9
1
.
0
0
9
1
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
1
Very different distribution of demands
Capacity reaches when a mechanism forms
P = 9469 kN
18
Calculated non-linear truss capacity
0
.5
2
0
0.481
0.267 0.271 0.012 0.047 0.714
0
.
5
1
1
0
.0
3
1
0
.
3
6
9
0.985
0
.0
1
3
0.762
0.988 0.959 0.019
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
9
8
1
0
.
9
7
3
0
.
5
2
0
0
.
4
7
6
1
.
0
0
0
0
.
6
1
3
0
.
6
0
5
0
.0
7
0.988 0.971 0.016
0
.7
3
8
0
.0
0
6
0.730 0.724 0.006 0.008
0
.
5
2
1
0
.
5
0
6
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
1
4
0
.
4
6
8
0
.
9
7
3
0
.
0
8
Non-linear stress-strain relationship
Similar demands as by plastic truss model
Capacity reaches when a mechanism forms
P = 9301 kN
12/10/2010
4
19
Comparison of strength calculations
Pn
Pu
20
Predicted capacity and behavior by
non-linear finite element analysis
Predicted state of cracking at ultimate
P = 16622 kN
21
Predicted capacity and behavior by
non-linear finite element analysis
Predicted distribution of steel stress at ultimate
Stress (Steel): -truss at crack o
46.06
64.52
82.98
101.43
119.89
138.35
156.81
175.27
193.73
212.18
230.64
249.10
267.56
286.02
304.48
322.93
341.39
359.85
378.31
396.77
415.23
433.68
452.14
470.60
22
Predicted capacity and behavior by
non-linear finite element analysis
Vital Signs: Fcm
0.04
0.08
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.25
0.29
0.33
0.38
0.42
0.46
0.50
0.54
0.58
0.63
0.67
0.71
0.75
0.79
0.83
0.88
0.92
0.96
1.00
Compressive Demand: ratio of compressive
stress to compressive capacity at failure
P = 16622 kN
23
Measured capacity and behavior by
experimental testing
Reinforcing cage
24
Measured capacity and behavior by
experimental testing
Test Setup
12/10/2010
5
25
Measured capacity and behavior by
experimental testing
Mode of failure
26
Comparison of strength calculations
Pn
Pu
27
Observations and Conclusions
1. Truss member design forces in statically
indeterminate strut-and-tie models depend on the
relative stiffness of members
2. Plastic truss capacity can be modestly larger than
when the first member reaches its capacity
3. Truss models cannot provide a good estimate of
deformation; much softer than in reality
4. Non-linear finite element analysis can predict well
the behavior of complex STM designed regions
28
Questions
Hakim Bouadi is a Senior Associate with
Walter P Moore & Associates in Houston,
Texas, which provides structural, structural
diagnostics, civil, traffic and transportation
engineering, and parking consulting services
to clients worldwide.
STM Design of two Link Beams at a
Medium-Rise Building
Hakim Bouadi, Ph.D., P.E.
Asif Wahidi, Ph.D., P.E.
WALTER P MOORE
12/10/2010
6
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 31
Outline
Building Overview
Link Beam Overview
Link Beam with Moderate Shear
Link Beam with High Shear
Conclusions
31 STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 32
Building Overview
32
256'-0" 142'-0"
1
4
8
'-0
"
3
5
1
'-0
"
Hospital building
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Lateral design controlled by seismic forces
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 33 33
1
8
'-0
"
48'-7"
1
8
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
256'-0" 142'-0"
1
4
8
'-0
"
3
5
1
'-0
"
Plan size: about 500 ft by 400 ft
Lateral resisting system: shear walls
Controlling lateral loads: seismic forces
Building Overview
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 34 34
1
8
'-0
"
48'-7"
1
8
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
Shear walls with link
beams above openings
Link beam: deep beams
per ACI 318 definition
Review link beam at roof
and at level 3
Shear Wall Overview
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 35 35
Beam under constant shear and moment reversal
Forces on nodes obtained from global lateral analysis
Reduce forces to ends
Link Beam Overview
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 36 36
Roof Link Beam
External forces applied at nodes
Shear force equal to about:
d b f
w c
' 25 . 4 |
.
External nodes at location of wall reinforcement
Horizontal tie at location of reinforcement
Vertical tie at mid-span
Improvement: Extend model into wall
12/10/2010
7
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 37
Forces on Members
37
Force resolved by analysis
Check struts
Design ties
Check nodes
Detailing
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 38
Design of Struts and Ties
38
Strut and tie dimensions
from geometry
Struts: fan shaped
Capacity of struts checked
at strut and at nodes
Tie force resisted by
reinforcement
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 39
Design of Struts and Ties
39
2
15 . 4
60 75 . 0
187
in
f
F
A
y
u
s
=

= =
|
Vertical tie: 8#5 stirrups
Horizontal tie: 4 #7
2
18 . 2
60 75 . 0
9 . 94
in
f
F
A
y
u
s
=

= =
|
kips w b f F
c s u
215 12 5 . 8 5 . 5 60 . 0 85 . 0 75 . 0 ' 85 . 0 = = = | |
Strut
Develop beyond extended
nodal zone
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 40
Node Capacity
40
Nodal dimensions from
geometry
Node type CCT due to
tension force in wall
reinforcement
Check capacity on each
face
kips b w f
c n
286 12 5 . 8 5 . 5 8 . 0 85 . 0 75 . 0 85 . 0
'
= = | |
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 41 41
Node Capacity
Node type CTT due to tension
force in wall reinforcement
Check capacity on each face
kips b w f
c n
176 12 7 5 . 5 6 . 0 85 . 0 75 . 0 85 . 0
'
= = | |
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 42
Design: Roof Link Beam,
42
12/10/2010
8
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 43
Link Beam at Level 3
43
1
8
'-0
"
48'-7"
1
8
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
1
5
'-0
"
Shear force equal to about: d b f
w c
' 10|
Design using STM
Follow also Chapter 21 of ACI:
Seismic Design/Detailing
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 44 44
Forces for Level 3 Link Beam
Shear force equal to about:
d b f
w c
' 10|
Design using STM
Follow also Chapter 21 of ACI:
Seismic Design/Detailing
External nodes at location of wall reinforcement
Horizontal tie at location of reinforcement
Vertical tie at mid-span
Improvement: Extend model into wall
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 45 45
External nodes at location of wall
reinforcement
Transfer forces through X
configuration
Model for Level 3 Link Beam
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 46 46
Forces resolved through geometry
Symmetric design due to load
reversal
Tie force resisted by reinforcement
(4#11 and 2#9)
Strut force resisted by concrete
and reinforcement
Design for Level 3 Link Beam
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 47 47
development length of beyond
extended nodal zone extended by
25%
Minimum web reinforcement
Appendix A
ACI Chapter 21 (controls)
Enclose Tie reinforcement with
stirrups
Detailing for Level 3 Link Beam
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 48 48
Summary for Level 3 Link Beam
12/10/2010
9
STM Design of two Link Beams at a Medium-Rise Building WALTER P MOORE 49
Conclusions
49
STM use for link beam design
Different models are possible
Model can be extended into the wall to follow force
transfer
Check detailing (in addition to design)
STM Design of two Link Beams at a
Medium-Rise Building
Hakim Bouadi, Ph.D., P.E.
Asif Wahidi, Ph.D., P.E.
WALTER P MOORE
Thank you
Richard Beaupre received his Bachelor of
Science and Engineering fromthe University of
Florida and his Master of Science fromthe
University of Texas at Austin. While at the
University of Texas he was involved in research
pertaining to deviation saddle behavior and
design for externally post-tensioned segmental concrete girder
bridges. He is currently a senior bridge engineer for URS
Corporation in Tampa, Florida, where he is responsible for
design of steel and concrete bridges, ship impact designs,
structural modeling, and quality control. He is experienced in
design of major bridge structures, including cable-stayed, post-
tensioned segmental concrete and movable.
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Richard Beaupre, PE
Robert (Bob) Anderson, PE
Velvet Bridges, PE
URS Corporation
Tampa, Florida
Di aphr agm f or a Segment al
Conc r et e Br i dge
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Introduction
Many Areas of a Concrete Segmental
Bridge can be Classified as a D Region
Pier Diaphragms
Interior Segment Diaphragms at Deviation
Points for External Tendons
Openings in Flanges and Webs
Pile Caps
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Project Overview
12/10/2010
10
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Miami Intermodal Center
MIC-EARLINGTON
HEIGHTS METRORAIL
EXTENSION
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Superstructure Requirements
130 Spans in Miami Intermodal Center
225 Span to Clear the Miami River with a 40
Vertical Clearance
180 Span for the South Florida Railroad Corridor
256 Span to Cross to SR112 and the Future
Dade Expressway
Height Restrictions Set by FAA Airspace near
MIA
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Superstructure Types
72 Florida Prestressed U-Beams
Segmental Concrete Boxes
30 Cast-In-Place Concrete Slabs
Single Track and Dual Track Cross-
Sections
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Guideway Structures Overview
72 Florida U-Beams - Single Track Guideway
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Guideway Structures Overview
72 Florida U-Beams - Dual Track Guideway
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Guideway Structures Overview
Single Track Guideway (Units 1 thru 4 & 14)
12/10/2010
11
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Guideway Structures Overview
Dual Track Guideway (Units 5 thru 9 & 11 thru 13)
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Diaphragm Example
Layout
Function
Boundary Forces
Strut-Tie Model
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Diaphragm Example
Unit 8
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Layout
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Layout
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Pier Diaphragm Function
Transfer Loads from the Webs to the
Support around Access Openings
Distribute Tendon Anchorage Forces to
the Cross-section
12/10/2010
12
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Rapid Transit Live Load Vehicle
Full Live Load Weight of 120 kips
Train 2 to 8 Vehicles
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Diaphragm Loadings
Factored Loading
Case
Shear Torsion
Kips/Box (kN/Box) Kip-
Ft/Box
(kN*m/Box)
Strength I
(Maximum Shear)
3,291 (14,638) 21 (28)
Extreme Event III
(Maximum
Torsion)
2,634 (11,716) 5,355 (7,260)
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Diaphragm Unit Loads for Shear
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Diaphragm Unit Loads for Torsion
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Strut-Tie Model Steps
Step 1: Determine strut-and-tie arrangement
based on boundary forces
Step 2: Solve for the member forces
Step 3: Determine the amount of steel for ties
Step 4: Arrange tie steel
Step 5: Check anchorage zone for the ties
Step 6: Check diagonal struts
Step 7: Check nodal zones
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Pier Diaphragms
Reference: Schlaichet. al., Towards a Consistent Design of Structural
Concrete, PCI J ournal, Vol. 32, No. 3, May-J une 1987
12/10/2010
13
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Model Members with Shear Unit Loads
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Model Members with Torsion Unit Loads
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Material Properties
Concrete: fc=8,500 psi (58.7 MPa)
Reinforcement: fy=60,000 psi (414 MPa)
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Results for Shear Only

StrengthI
V=3291k(14,638kN)
ExtremeEvent III
V=2634k (11,716kN) Member
Unit
Force
Kips (kN) Kips (kN)
1 0.450 740.9 (3295.3) 593.0 (2637.5)
2 0.267 439.4 (1954.4) 351.7 (1564.2)
3 0.267 439.4 (1954.4) 351.7 (1564.2)
4 0.450 740.9 (3295.3) 593.0 (2637.5)
5 -0.792 -1302.7 (-5794.4) -1042.6 (-4637.7)
6 -0.467 -768.5 (-3418.1) -615.0 (-2735.7)
7 -0.467 -768.5 (-3418.1) -615.0 (-2735.7)
8 -0.792 -1302.7 (-5794.4) -1042.6 (-4637.7)
9 -1.000 -1645.5 (-7319.2) -1317.0 (-5858.0)
10 -1.000 -1645.5 (-7319.2) -1317.0 (-5858.0)
11 -0.363 -596.5 (-2653.2) -477.4 (-2123.5)
12 -0.363 -596.5 (-2653.2) -477.4 (-2123.5)
13 0.000 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
14 0.000 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
15 1.020 1678.7 (7466.9) 1343.6 (5976.2)
16 0.001 0.9 (4.2) 0.7 (3.3)
17 1.020 1678.7 (7466.9) 1343.6 (5976.2)
18 0.001 0.9 (4.2) 0.7 (3.3)

MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Results for Torsion Only

StrengthI
T=21k-ft (28kN-m)
ExtremeEvent III
T=5354k-ft (7258kN-m) Member
Unit
Force
Kips (kN) Kips (kN)
1 -0.015 -0.3 (-1.4) -81.1 (-360.8)
2 -0.009 -0.2 (-0.8) -48.1 (-214.0)
3 0.009 0.2 (0.8) 48.1 (214.0)
4 0.015 0.3 (1.4) 81.1 (360.8)
5 -0.027 -0.6 (-2.5) -142.6 (-634.4)
6 0.031 0.7 (2.9) 168.5 (749.3)
7 -0.031 -0.7 (-2.9) -168.5 (-749.3)
8 0.027 0.6 (2.5) 142.6 (634.4)
9 -0.105 -2.2 (-9.8) -562.3 (-2501.2)
10 0.105 2.2 (9.8) 562.3 (2501.2)
11 0.012 0.3 (1.1) 65.3 (290.5)
12 -0.012 -0.3 (-1.1) -65.3 (-290.5)
13 0.086 1.8 (8.0) 458.5 (2039.3)
14 -0.086 -1.8 (-8.0) -458.5 (-2039.3)
15 0.700 0.7 3.2 183.8 (817.5)
16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.1)
17 -0.700 -0.7 -3.2 -183.8 (-817.5)
18 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (-0.1)

MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Results for Shear and Torsion Combined

StrengthI ExtremeEvent III
Member
Kips (kN) Kips (kN)
1 740.5 (3293.9) 511.8 (2276.7)
2 439.2 (1953.5) 303.6 (1350.2)
3 439.2 (1955.2) 399.8 (1778.2)
4 741.2 (3296.8) 674.1 (2998.3)
5 -1303.3 (-5796.8 -1185.3 (-5272.1)
6 -767.8 (-3415.1) -446.6 (-1986.4)
7 -769.1 (-3421.0) -783.5 (-3485.0)
8 -1302.1 (-5791.9) -900.0 (-4003.3)
9 -1647.7 (-7329.0 -1879.3 (-8359.2)
10 -1643.4 (-7309.4) -754.7 (-3356.9)
11 -596.8 (-2652.1) -412.1 (-1833.0)
12 -596.8 (-2654.4) -542.7 (-2414.1)
13 1.8 (8.0) 458.5 (2039.3)
14 -1.8 (-8.0) -458.5 (-2039.3)
15 1679.4 (7470.1) 1527.4 (6793.8)
16 0.9 (4.2) 0.8 (3.5)
17 1678.0 (7463.7) 1159.8 (5158.7)
18 0.9 (4.2) 0.7 (3.2)

12/10/2010
14
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Ties 1 to 4 Top Tie
According to ACI 318 equation A-1
|Fnt>Fut.
Where:
Fut =Factored Design Force=741 k (3,297 kN)
| =0.75 (Section 9.3.2.6)
Fnt =Nominal Strength of aTie
Whereno prestressing steel is used,
Fnt = Atsfy (Section A.4.1)
Using 1 row of 11 #11diameter reinforcing bars.
) mm (10,064 in 17.2 in 1.56 bars 11 rows 1
2 2 2
= =
ts
A
kN) (3297 k 741 kN) (3443 k 774 ksi 60 in 17.2 75 . 0
2
> = =
nt
F |
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Tie 13 Diagonal Tie
Similarly for Tie14 (depending on direction of torsion),
Fut =Factored Design Force=459 k (2,039kN)
| =0.75 (Section 9.3.2.6)
Using 10 #9 diameter reinforcing diagonal bars.
) mm (6,452 in 10.0 in 1.00 bars 10
2 2 2
= =
ts
A
kN) (2,039 k 459 kN) 669 (2, k 450 ksi 0 6 in 0 . 10 75 . 0
2
~ = =
nt
F |

MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Ties 15 and 17 Hanging Up Tie

Fut =Factored Design Force=1679 k (7,470 kN)
| =0.75 (Section 9.3.2.6)
Using 28 #8 diameter reinforcing web bars plus11 - #11bars (continueTie1 to 4
reinforcement)
) mm (25,368 in 39.3 in 2 . 17 in 0.79 bars 28
2 2 2 2
= + =
ts
A
kN) (7,470 k 1,679 kN) 864 (7, k 1,768 ksi 0 6 in 39.3 75 . 0
2
> = =
nt
F |


MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Main Tie Reinforcing
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Nodal Zone Detail at Bearing Support
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Strut 14
AccordingtoACI 318equationA-1
|Fns>Fus
Where:
Fus =FactoredDesignForce=-459k (-2,039kN)
| =0.75(Section9.3.2.6)
Fns =Nominal Strengthof aStrut =fceAcs
Further,
c s ce
f f ' 85 . 0 | =
Where:
60 . 0 =
s
| (SectionA.3.2.2(b) bottleshapedstrutswithout reinforcingof A.3.3.1)
Therefore,
MPa) 9 . 9 (2 psi 4335 psi 8500 0.60 0.85 = =
ce
f
Multiplytheallowablecompressivestressof astrut bytheareaof concreteavailabletocarrythe
stresswhichislimitedbytheaccessopening(widthis4.9in).
) m (0.09 in 141.6 in 9 . 28 in 4.9
2 2
= = cs A
kN) (2,039 k 459 kN) (2,048 k 460 1000 / in 6 . 141 psi 4335 0.75
2
> = = ns F |

12/10/2010
15
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Nodal Check at Member 9
AccordingtoACI 318equationA-1
|Fnn>Fun
Where:
Fun =FactoredDesignForce
| =0.75(Section9.3.2.6)
Fnn =Nominal Strengthof aNode=fceAnz
Further,
c n ce f f ' 85 . 0 | =
Where:
0 . 1 = n | (SectionA.5.2.2 Nodesboundedbystrutsandbearingarea)
Therefore,
MPa) (49.9 psi 7225 psi 8500 1.0 0.85 = =
ce
f
Multiplytheallowablecompressivestressonafaceof anodal zonebytheareaof concrete
basedonthegeometryof thenode.

Fun =FactoredDesignForce=1,879k (8,359kN)
) m (0.74 in 1142 in 39.5 in 28.9
2 2
= = nz A (Areaof Bearing)
kN) (8,359 k 1,879 kN) (27,525 k 6188 000 1 / in 142 1 psi 7225 0.75
2
> = = nn F |

MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Total Diaphragm Reinforcement
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Diaphragm Cracking
MIC-Earlington Heights Connector Metrorail
ACI 2010, Chicago, IL
Summary
Strut-Tie Procedures can be Effectively
Utilized for Diaphragm Design
Shear and Torsion Forces are Redirected into
Support through the Diaphragm around the
Access Opening
After Solving the Truss Forces, Ties can be
Designed and Detailed
Struts and Nodes need to be Checked
Daniel Kuchma holds a B.A.Sc., M.A.Sc., and
Ph.D., all in civil engineering, fromthe
University of Toronto. Since 1997, he has been
an Associate Professor in the department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the University
of Illinois, and has taught courses in structural
dynamics, statics, reinforced concrete, and pre-
stressed concrete. His work includes a variety of consulting
projects involving offshore structures, hydroelectric dams,
towers, buildings and specialty structures. Dr. Kuchmais an
active member of ACI, and the Federation International de Beton
(fib). He received a National Science Foundation CAREER
Award on Tools and Research to Advance the Use of Strut-and-
Tie Models in Education and Design. He is also a National
Center for Supercomputing Applications Faculty Fellow and
University of Illinois Collins Scholar.
90
Dan Kuchma
Future of ACI STM Provisions
and Guidelines
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
12/10/2010
16
91
Location of STM Provisions in ACI318-14?
Appendix A of ACI318-08
Location of Provisions in ACI318-14
Available Guideline Documents
Challenges to Design by the STM
ACI 445 Committee Document
92
Appendix A of ACI318-08: Basic Rules

T
C
T
C
C C
P
P
2
| > A f T
s y
P
2
|



>

A
f
C
c
c
u
| > A f T
s y
|



>

A
f
C
c
c
u
93
Appendix A of ACI318-08: Basic Rules
Design Strength of Struts = |Fns where Fns = fce Area of Strut and fce = 0.85|sf'c
|s =1.00 for prismatic strutsinuncracked compression zones
|
s
=0.40 for strutsin tensionmembers
|
s
=0.75 when struts maybebottleshaped andcrack control reinforcement* is included
|
s
=0.60 when struts maybebottleshaped andcrack control reinforcement* is not included
|s =0.60 for all other cases
*crack control reinforcement requirement is E
vi
si n
i
> 0.003

Design Strength of Ties = |F
nt
where F
nt
= A
st
f
y +
A
tp
(f
se
+ f
p
)

Notethat thetiereinforcement must bespread over alargeenough areasuch that thetieforce
divided by theanchoragearea(wheretheheight istwicethedistancefromtheedgeof the
region to thecentroid of thereinforcement) isless than thelimitingstress for that nodal zone.

Design Strength of Each Nodal Zone Face = |Fnn where Fnn = fce Area on Face of Nodal Zone
(perpendicular to thelineof actionof theassociated strut or tieforce) Again f
ce
=0.85|
n
f'
c
|n=1.00 in nodesbounded by struts andbearingareas
|
n
=0.80 in nodesanchoringatiein onedirectiononly
|
n
=0.60 in nodesanchoringatiein morethanonedirection
94
Appendix A of ACI318-08: Explanatory Materials
32 Figures
95
Location of STM Provisions in ACI318-14?
Separate appendix like in ACI318-08
Separate 318 referenced document
Basic rules put into main body of code and application
guidelinesin a separate document
96
Available Guideline Documents
Design Examples
SP-208
Second SP
Textbook Materials
J ournal Papers
fib Bulletin 3
12/10/2010
17
97
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Determination of Member Forces in Indeterminate Models
Design for Multiple Load Cases
Uncertainty in Nodal Zones Dimensions
Time Consuming Geometric Calculations
Selecting What Needs to be Checked and Not Checked
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
98
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Challenges to Design by the STM
99
Challenges to Design by the STM
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
100
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Challenges to Design by the STM
101
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Challenges to Design by the STM
102
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Determination of Member Forces in Indeterminate Models
Design for Multiple Load Cases
Uncertainty in Nodal Zones Dimensions
Time Consuming Geometric Calculations
Selecting What Needs to be Checked and Not Checked
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
12/10/2010
18
103
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Determination of Member Forces in Indeterminate Models
Challenges to Design by the STM
5800 kN
3229.5 kN
3659 kN
418.8 kN
4
1
3
6
k
N
A
B C D E
F
G H I J
K
L M N
O P
Q R
5
3
5
m
m
5
7
0

m
m
2
8
9
5

m
m
1015
mm
1590
mm
4000 mm
2030
mm
1015
mm
1350
mm
S
T
U
49degrees
5625 kN
104
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Determination of Member Forces in Indeterminate Models
Design for Multiple Load Cases
Uncertainty in Nodal Zones Dimensions
Time Consuming Geometric Calculations
Selecting What Needs to be Checked and Not Checked
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
105
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Determination of Member Forces in Indeterminate Models
Design for Multiple Load Cases
Uncertainty in Nodal Zones Dimensions
Time Consuming Geometric Calculations
Selecting What Needs to be Checked and Not Checked
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
106
Selection of Shape of the STM Model
Determination of Member Forces in Indeterminate Models
Design for Multiple Load Cases
Uncertainty in Nodal Zones Dimensions
Time Consuming Geometric Calculations
Selecting What Needs to be Checked and Not Checked
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
107
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
108
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
12/10/2010
19
109
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
110
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
111
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
45% of Pn
112
Designing for Good Performance Under Service Loads
Validity of Design in Complex Models
Performance under Overloads
Challenges to Design by the STM
68% of Pn
113
Selection of model shape
Examples of good strut-and-tie model shapes for a large number of
common design situations
Guidance for complex shapes
Use of predictions of stress trajectories and topology optimization
Selecting relative member stiffness in indeterminate situations
Design for multiple load cases and load reversals
Determination of nodal zone geometries
Determination of what to check and not to check
Evaluation of performance under service loads; minimum
reinforcement recommendations
Validation of ACI code-calculated capacity
Other design requirements
Content of Potential ACI Committee 445 Document
Click on the text below to go to the web page.
Seminar Schedule Bookstore Web Sessions Conventions
Online CEU Program ACI eLearning Concrete Knowledge Center