January 15, 2014

EVALUATION OF CRACK CONTROL REINFORCEMENT IN AASHTO STRUT-AND-TIE DESIGN

Student: Theresa Aragon, 156 Fitzpatrick Hall, Civil and Environmental Engin. and Earth Sci.,
Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; Phone: (574) 631-4306; Email: taragon@nd.edu.
Theresa is a first year structural engineering PhD student at Notre Dame. She holds a Masters
Degree from New Mexico State Univ. where she focused on the analytical modeling of concrete
structures. The PCA Education Foundation Research Fellowship would greatly aid in defining
her graduate research. Theresas previous research and coursework have given her the necessary
background to complete the proposed work making her a suitable candidate for this fellowship.
Professor: Yahya (Gino) Kurama, PhD, PE, Prof., Civil and Environmental Engin. and Earth
Sci., Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; Email: ykurama@nd.edu. Dr. Kurama has
been a structural engineering faculty member at Notre Dame since 1998. His previous research
relevant to the proposed work includes the testing, finite element modeling, and strut-and-tie
analysis of RC beam and panel members, including prestressed concrete structures.
University Information: Office of Research, University of Notre Dame, 511 Main Building,
Notre Dame, IN 46556. Tel: (574) 631-7432; Fax: (574) 631-6630.
Project Objective
The main goal of the proposed research is to analytically examine the crack control
reinforcement required in Article 5.6.3.6 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(AASHTO 2012). The project is in response to the focus area of reevaluate the crack control
reinforcement when using the strut and tie design method in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specification listed in the PCA solicitation. The research will investigate the effect of the
amount of vertical and horizontal reinforcement on the service and ultimate load performance of
deep beams. Beams reinforced with the AASHTO minimum as well as with a reduced amount of
reinforcement outside the critical fanning regions of the bottle-neck struts will be studied. The
project has three specific objectives: (1) synthesize the existing experimental database on the
cracking and ultimate behavior of RC deep beams; (2) compare the distributed reinforcement in
the previous test specimens with the reinforcement needed based on accurate finite element
models; (3) re-design and re-analyze select specimens from previous research using reduced steel
areas outside the fanning regions of the bottle-neck struts; and (4) make recommendations for
future research and for the crack control reinforcement requirements in AASHTO (2012).
Significance of Project
Deep RC members with small shear-span-to-depth ratios
(i.e., members with disturbed regions) are common in bridge
and building structures (e.g., transfer girders, bridge pile caps).
Article 5.6.3 of AASHTO (2012) specifies that the strut-andtie model should be considered for the design of deep footings
and pile caps or other situations in which the distance between
the centers of applied load and the supporting reactions is less
than about twice the member thickness (i.e., shear-span-tobeam-depth ratio of a/h< 2 ). AASHTO prescribes that
structures (except for slabs and footings) designed according to
the strut-and-tie model shall contain orthogonal grids of steel
1

Fig. 1. Minimum AASHTO

(2012) reinforcement.

bars (Fig. 1), with a minimum reinforcement ratio of =0.003 (or 0.3 ) in each of the
vertical and horizontal directions. These bars shall be distributed evenly with a spacing not
exceeding the smaller of d /4 and 12 in. The commentary to Article 5.6.3.6 states that the
minimum reinforcement is intended to control the width of cracks and ensure a minimum
ductility for the member so that, if required, significant redistribution of internal stresses is
possible.
The minimum 0.3 reinforcement prescribed by Article 5.6.3.6 of AASHTO (2012) is
substantially more than that required by several other similar design specifications (e.g., 0.2
for Grade 60 steel in Article 5.13.2.3 of AASHTO), and is considered excessive by some
designers. A comparison of the crack control requirements from different design specification
documents is given in Birrcher et al. (2009). The AASHTO minimum limit in Article 5.6.3.6 has
practical implications that often control the amount of reinforcement in widely-used members
such as deep beams and girders. Thus, an evaluation and potential reduction of this limit
represents a significant, relevant contribution for current design and construction practice,
possibly making RC structures more cost effective through rational reinforcement requirements.
Project Description and Research Plan
Background
The minimum reinforcement in Article 5.6.3.6 of AASHTO is a prescriptive limit based
on experimental observations of the service and ultimate behavior of deep beams with different
amounts of uniformly distributed horizontal and vertical steel bars. Previous research on this
topic includes, among others, Kani et al. (1979), Schlaich et al. (1987), Rogowsky et al. (1986),
Cook and Mitchell (1988), Mihaylov (2008), Birrcher et al. (2009), and DiTommaso (2012).
DiTommaso (2012) found that an increase in the reinforcement from =0.2 to 0.3
resulted in greater strength and ductility of beams with shear-span-to-effective-depth ratios of
a/ d =1.2 . This conclusion contradicted Birrcher et al. (2009) who found that deep beams (
a/ d <2.0 ) with =0.2 had similar ultimate strengths but larger diagonal crack widths as
compared to beams with =0.3 . Thus, Birrcher et al. (2009) recommended keeping the
minimum steel ratio of 0.3 in Article 5.6.3.6 based on controlling crack widths under service
loads rather than strength requirements. It is stated in Birrcher et al. (2009) that for beams where
restraint of crack widths is not a priority, then a minimum reinforcement of 0.2 in each
direction would be satisfactory.
A relaxed crack control requirement as a function of the concrete strength, f 'c was
proposed at the AASHTO SCOBS Technical Committee T-10 meeting on October 22, 2011 as:
the ratio of reinforcement area to gross concrete area in each direction shall not be less than
0.002 ( 0.4+ 1.1 0.1 f 'c ) but need not be taken greater than 0.003 . However, this proposal
was rejected and a recommendation was made to conduct (a)
additional research on the minimum reinforcement of deep
beams. The proposed project will focus on this issue. In
particular, the research will explore reducing the steel outside
the critical fanning regions of the bottle-neck struts. The (b)
previous tests were all conducted on beams with uniformly
distributed vertical and horizontal reinforcement. Thus, the
proposed work will be a new and significant contribution to the
Fig. 2. Deep beam specimens
current knowledge base.
tested by DiTommaso (2012):
Proposed Research Tasks
(a) =0.2 ; (b) =0.3 .
Task 1 Study Previous Research on Deep Beams
2

The proposed project will study the previous research on RC deep beams. As stated
above and shown in Fig. 2 for two specimens tested by DiTommaso (2012), all of the previous
tests focused on beams with distributed reinforcement over the entire length and depth of the
member. A select subset of these specimens will be studied in Tasks 2 and 3 as described below.
Task 2 Analyze Select Beams using Finite Element Models
Task 2 will use finite
element models (FEM) to analyze
select deep beam test specimens
from previous research. The PI has
previously used FEM to design
crack control reinforcement around
perforations in precast/prestressed
(a)
(b)
concrete wall panels (Smith et al.
2012). Large perforations in wall Fig. 3. Vertical strains in a perforated precast wall panel: (a)
measured; (b) FEM predicted.
panels cause disturbed regions
similar to the shear spans of deep beams. As shown in Fig. 3, the FEM strains compared
reasonably well with the specimen surface strains, which were measured using 3-Dimensional
Digital Image Correlation (3D-DIC), a non-contact near-full-field response monitoring method.
The specimens performed well both under ultimate loads as well as service loads (restrained
hairline cracks), validating the FEM-based design approach for the disturbed regions around the
perforations.
Task 3 Re-design/Re-analyze Beams with Reduced Steel Outside Fanning Regions
Task 3 will use FEM to re-design the reinforcement for and then re-analyze the test
specimens from Task 2. The focus will be on providing the AASHTO minimum (i.e., =3 )
within the fanning regions of the bottle-neck struts, but then reduce the amount of steel away
from these critical regions. An example of the proposed concept is shown in Fig. 4 by modifying
the distributed reinforcement used for the specimen in Fig. 2b tested by DiTommaso (2012). The
objective of the re-design will be to still restrain crack widths under service loads (to within an
acceptable limit of 0.016 in.) and also achieve ductile behavior under ultimate loading, but by
using a smaller amount of total steel than prescribed in Article 5.6.3.6 of AASHTO (2012).

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Design of a deep beam: (a) specimen with =3 tested by DiTommaso (2012);
(b) proposed scheme with reduced steel outside the fanning regions.
Task 4 Provide Recommendations for Future Research and Minimum Reinforcement
Task 4 will make recommendations for future research as well as for the minimum
reinforcement requirements in Article 5.6.3.6 of AASHTO (2012). These recommendations will
potentially allow designers to reduce the amount of vertical and horizontal steel outside the
fanning regions of the bottle-neck struts. This will result in more efficient designs by reducing
the total amount of steel in deep beams, while still achieving comparable service and ultimate
load performance as beams designed using the current limit in Article 5.6.3.6. Recommendations
for future research will focus on experiments of beams designed using the proposed concepts.
Table 1. Project Schedule.
Project Schedule
Month
The proposed schedule begins
Task
2
4
6 8 10 12
on September 1, 2014 and extends

for 12 months as shown in Table 1. 1.Study previous deep beam tests

2.Conduct FEM analyses of select beams

Project Report and Dissemination 3.Redesign/reanalyze beams with reduced steel

Dissemination will include a 4.Provide recommendations

Project
Report

project report, a graduate thesis, a

journal paper, conference proceedings, and presentations. Important findings will also be made
available through the Internet for timely distribution. A draft of the project report will be
submitted to PCA two months prior to final publishing at project completion. The project report
will be in a format suitable for potential publication as an electronic PCA research report. The
results will also be submitted to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal (e.g., ACI Structural J.).
Project Budget
The direct costs are graduate student stipend, $27,333 (12 months) + health care support,
$1,831 = $29,164 (total). Full tuition for the student will be provided by the Univ. of Notre
Dame. No indirect costs will be charged on the project. The amount requested from PCA
($20,000) will be used towards student stipend. Direct costs in excess of this amount ($9,164)
4

will be provided by the University of Notre Dame.

References
AASHTO, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 6 th Ed., 2012, Washington, DC.
Birrcher, D., Tuchscherer, R., Huizinga, M., Bayrak, O., Wood, S., Jirsa, J., Strength and
Serviceability Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, Report No. FHWA/TX-09/0-52531, Center for Transportation Research, Univ. of Texas at Austin, 2009, 376 pp.
Cook, W. D., Mitchell, D., Studies of Disturbed Regions near Discontinuities in Reinforced
Concrete Members, ACI Structural J., 83(2), 1988, 206-216.
DiTommaso, N., Influence of Concrete Strength and Uniformly Distributed Reinforcement Ratio on
the Behavior of Concrete Deep Beams, M. Eng. thesis, Civil Engineering, McGill Univ., 2012.
Kani, M., Huggins, M., Wittkopp, R., Kani on Shear in Reinforced Concrete, Univ. of Toronto
Press, Toronto, Canada, 1979.
Mihaylov, B., Behaviour of Deep Reinforced Concrete Beams under Monotonic and Reversed
Cyclic Load, Ph.D. thesis, Rose School, Pavia, Italy, 2008.
Rogowsky, D., MacGregor, J., Ong, S., Tests of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, ACI J., 83,
1986, 614-623.
Schlaich, J., Schfer, K., Jennewein, M., Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete, PCI
J., 32(3), 1987, 75-150.
Smith, B., Kurama, Y., McGinnis, M., Hybrid Precast Wall Systems for Seismic Regions,
Structural Engin. Research Report #NDSE-2012-01, Civil Engin. and Geological Sciences, Univ.
of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, June 2012, 137 pp. (download at http://hybridwalls.nd.edu/)