45

CHAPTER 3

MODELLING OF GFRP REINFORCED DEEP BEAMS

USING “STRUT AND TIE” METHOD

3.1 INTRODUCTION

3.1.1 About Strut-and-Tie Method

The Strut-and-Tie Method (STM) is an analytical modelling

method has become a popular technique of designing due to its flexibility.
The idea of the strut-and-tie method originated from the truss analogy
method. The design basis of this method is a truss model which idealizes the
flow of force in a cracked concrete beam.

The Strut-and-Tie model has become one of the most useful design
methods for structures which are subject to shear critical load conditions.
They are also preferred to be used at disturbed regions in the concrete
structure where the stress variation across the section is non-linear.

The Strut-and-Tie models are formulated as a combination of strut

elements and tie elements to form an idealized truss member, capable of
resisting the complex flow of stresses in a structural member. The struts are
designed to resist the compressive stress, while the ties are designed as
members to resist the tensile stress. These idealized members offer to resist
the applied load by axial forces. The junction at which Strut-and-Tie members
meet is referred to as a nodal point. At each nodal point, a third element,
 46

named as the nodal element is assumed to be present along with struts and
ties.

Strut-and-Tie Modelling of steel reinforced concrete deep beams

has been extensively carried out during the last few decades. This method of
design has been approved and adopted as a design method in the code of
practice in many countries.

3.1.2 D and B Regions

Ordinary reinforced concrete beams, which are designed to resist

shear and flexural forces, are modelled based on the assumption that the
variation of strain across its depth is linear. This follows the definition of a
beam under ‘Bernoulli hypothesis’ or ‘beam theory’, under the assumption
that plane sections remain plane after bending. The internal stresses are
ascertained from the forces in the B-region or the Bernoulli region either
before or after the concrete cracks. The B and D regions in a concrete beam
structure are shown in Figure 3.1.

On the other hand, in the D-region or Discontinuity region, the

variation of the strain is nonlinear and the assumptions used in the beam
theory are no longer valid. The reason for nonlinearity in the strain is
associated with either the changes made in loading or due to any change in the
geometry of the section under consideration and may be also due to the severe
load close to the point of loading or support.

The region close to the loading and support points for a distance
equal to the depth of the section is considered as D-region. The remaining
portion of the member is the linear stress distribution region also known as B
region. For a member to have a B and D region, the depth of the structure
should be comparable to the span of the structure.
 47

Figure 3.1 B and D region in a concrete beam structure

3.1.3 Need for modelling using STM

The STM method of designing is one of the simple methods

presently used by many researchers due to its flexible nature. The results
obtained by using the STM modelling are generally lower bound and
conservative. This has been established by many early researchers. Research
work on STM method of design for deep beams has been carried out
extensively and some design codes have also been published in the recent
years. It has been shown by earlier researchers that, for deep beam models
with a ‘shear span to effective depth’ ratio (a/d) of less than 2.5, when
designed by using STM modelling were found to give reasonably good
results. Since this method was found to give better results for deep beams
with a low a/d ratio, it was decided to make use of Strut-and-Tie method for
designing and validating the experimental results of this study.

3.2 MODELLING OF GFRP REINFORCED DEEP BEAMS

USING STM

Till date there is no design code available for modelling FRP

reinforced concrete structures using STM. Hence, in this study, the deep
beams reinforced with GFRP web reinforcement were modelled using the
code ACI-318-05 meant for steel RC structures. Finally, a comparative study
between the experimental and STM results was done to evaluate the code’s
compatibility with FRP reinforcement. All the beams tested in this work were
 48

modelled individually as the web reinforcements differed from one another.

The entire beam is considered to be a disturbed region or ‘D-region’ which
has a shear span to depth ratio of 0.72.

Due to a shorter shear span and a greater depth of the beams in this
study, there were constraints in modelling them. Since the strut angle was
restricted to be between 25o and 65o as prescribed by the ACI 318-05 code,
the beams were modelled to have the simplest combination of struts and ties
that can be adopted for a simply supported beam. Each beam was modelled
with a combination of two struts and two ties. This was advantageous from
the point of view that the simplest combination of struts and ties was expected
to give the best result.

The elements of the modelled beams in Series-I were arranged in

such a manner that when were connected, they finally form a trapezium
shaped Strut-and-Tie arrangement as shown in Figure 3.2. The deep beam
model was designed to have only four elements i.e. three struts and one tie
element. The tie member placed at bottom of the beam represents the bottom
main reinforcement which is subjected to tension. The remaining three
elements were modelled as strut elements. At the junction, where the elements
meet, a node is provided. This node is used to connect all the elements
meeting at a point in the model to smoothly transfer forces and also to
maintain compatibility.

The size of the bearing plates plays a crucial role in deciding the
size of node along the loading and bearing faces. The top and bottom of each
beam tested, having loading and support points respectively, was provided
with 150mm x 160mm x10 mm size M.S. steel bearing plates. The size of the
bearing plate was checked to confirm its strength against crushing by
calculating the crushing strength at the individual bearing area of each node.
 49

The compressive strength of concrete played an important role in checking

the bearing strength in each beam.

Figure 3.2 Strut-and-Tie Model (SERIES-I)

The nodes were shaped in the form of a triangle and their

dimensions varied depending on the angle of the strut or tie joining the node
on the faces of the triangle. The nodes were also positioned based on the
loading and support points. Based on this and also on the magnitude of the
force acting on the face of a strut or a tie, the dimensions of individual nodes
and the angles of inclination of them were finalised. Various classifications of
commonly used nodes in STM modelling are illustrated in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Classification of node

 50

After finalizing the dimensions of the nodes and STM elements, the
nodes were classified as C-C-C, C-C-T, C-T-T and T-T-T node based on the
type of load that they encounter at each of their faces. Only two types of
nodes were used for modelling the GFRP deep beam specimens tested in this
work. The top nodal points namely ‘B’ node and ‘C’ node were designed as
C-C-C type of node, while the bottom nodes namely ‘A’ and ‘D’ node were
designed as C-C-T node.

By equating the force of tension to that of compression taking place

at the bottom and top main reinforcement of the beam, the widths of both the
strut and the tie members were calculated and subsequently the forces acting
on the faces of both the bottom and the top nodes were obtained. Once the
forces in the elements and their dimensions were obtained, the model was
checked for its capacity. The details of the design calculations of GFRP
reinforced deep beams with web reinforcement using STM has been shown in
Appendix 3.

The elements of the modelled beam for Series-II were arranged in

such that they formed a triangle as shown in Figure 3.4. Since the beams in
Series-II were tested under three point loading, the arrangement of elements
was made accordingly.

Figure 3.4 Strut-and-Tie Model (SERIES-II)

 51

3.3 STM RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF MODELLED BEAMS

All the thirteen beams were modelled based on the test results
obtained by experimentation. The details of the experimental results are
shown in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 of chapter 5. Each of the modelled deep
beams was subjected to the ultimate load obtained from experimental results
to study and evaluate its capacity. The forces in the strut and tie members of
the modelled beams were calculated using the design equation of ACI 318 -05
Code of Practice for design. A typical model designed for beam GFRDB-1 is
shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 STM Model of Beam GFRDB-1with internal forces

The internal forces in the strut and tie members were calculated
based on the individual Strut-and-Tie models and the results are as shown in
Figure 3.6. Since modelled beams have both struts AB and CD which were
placed symmetrically with respect to the centre line of the beam, they were
assumed to carry equal loads. Also, the top and bottom chord members BC
and AD respectively were assumed to carry equal forces while equating the
force of tension to the force of compression.
 52

Figure 3.6 Internal Forces in the Strut and the Tie Members

Due to a smaller shear span, the force in the strut was found to be
relatively higher than the force in the tie members. After determining the
forces in the members, the stress on each face of the node was calculated.
Since each face of the node was assumed to have equal stress, similar to a
hydrostatic condition, the forces on the nodes were calculated so as to satisfy
this condition. For compatibility of the model, the face of the node in contact
with the strut or the tie should also be of the same width as the strut or the tie.
The dimensions of the strut and the tie members were altered to match the
new dimensions of the node’s side face according to the hydrostatic condition.
The Figure 3.7 shows a comparison of required and designed capacities of the
modelled struts. The applied load in each strut was calculated using simple
geometric relations and was compared with the designed capacity of the strut.
It was observed that the design capacity was higher than the required capacity
in all beams except in beams GFRDB-8 and GFRDB-9. This can be distinctly
seen in Figure 3.7.The variation in the ultimate capacity is shown in Figure
3.8. A detailed design calculation showing the difference in strut capacity in
 53

the beam GFRDB-9 has been illustrated as an example in Appendix-3 of this

thesis.

Figure 3.7 Comparison of strut’s required and designed capacity

Figure 3.8 Comparison of experimental and STM ultimate load

 54

Based on this study it was found that the factor s, accounting for
the effect of cracking and confining reinforcement on the effective
compressive strength of the concrete in a strut as adopted in the ACI 318-05
code in calculating the designed capacity, needs to be modified in order to
account for the high confinement by GFRP web reinforcement. The value of
s adopted for the steel reinforced members is 0.75. If this value is increased,
then the ACI 318-05 design procedure may be adopted for GFRP reinforced
deep beam members to check the struts capacity. This increase in the value of
s factor can be justified due to an increase in the confinement of concrete in
the strut region by high GFRP web reinforcement. It should be noted this
modification was needed only to check the design capacity of the beam. From
the comparative chart shown in Figure 3.8, it can be concluded that STM
results were greater than the experimental results. This higher design capacity
in STM models can be attributed to the reason that the modelling of GFRP
deep beams was carried out using the equations of ACI 318-05 code which is
intended for the design of steel reinforced concrete structures.

Figure 3.9 Width of Strut used for calculating the capacity

 55

The calculated values of the top and bottom widths of the strut after resolving
the forces as per hydrostatic condition are as shown in Figure 3.9.

The values of the various design coefficients adopted and used for
calculation has been tabulated in Table 3.1. The dimensional details related to
the modelled struts and their inclinations have also been shown in the same
table. It can be observed that the widths of the strut and the tie in each
modelled beam increases as the amount of web reinforcement increases. This
increase in the sizes of the strut and the ties in turn increases its load carrying
capacity and vice-versa. As the width of the strut and the tie dimension
increases, the size of the nodes also increases and as a result the lever arm
distance (jd) reduces.

The variation of lever arm distance for the modelled beams in

Series-I is shown in Figure 3.10. Due to the decrease in the lever arm
distance, the angle of inclination of the strut was reduced by nearly 8%.

Figure 3.10 Variation of lever arm distance (jd)

 56

The maximum deviation of the results for the modelled beams from
the experimental results was found to be 12% in case of Series-I beams and
19% for in Series-II beams as could be deduced from Tables 3.1 and 3.2
respectively.

Table 3.1 The Design coefficients and the dimensional details of STM
models (SERIES-I)

S
Strength ( For
Sl. n (at n (at o P STM /
Beam reduction Checking Ws Wt
No. Node B) Node A) PEXP
Factor the Strut
Capacity )
1 GFRDB-1 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.60 30.5 38.1 54 O 46' 1.09
2 GFRDB-2 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.75 44 55 53 O 55' 1.12
3 GFRDB-3 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.75 40.7 50.9 54 O 8 ' 1.114
4 GFRDB-4 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.75 35.5 44.5 54 O 27' 1.106
O
5 GFRDB-5 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.75 56 70 53 8' 1.12
O '
6 GFRDB-6 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.75 50.8 63.5 53 29 1.121
7 GFRDB-7 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.75 70.4 88 52 O 10 1.117
8 GFRDB-8 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.75 78 97.5 51 O 38' 1.109
9 GFRDB-9 1. 0 0. 8 0.75 0.75 90 112.5 50 O46' 1.09

Table 3.2 The Design coefficients and the dimensional details of STM
models (Series-II)

Strength s ( For
o
Sl. n (at n (at Checking P STM /
Beam reduction Ws Wt
No. Node B) Node A) the Strut PEXP
Factor Capacity )
1 GFRDB-1(a) 1.0 0.8 0.75 0.60 31 39 47 O 43' 1.14
2 GFRDB-3(a) 1.0 0.8 0.75 0.75 44 55 46 O 52' 1.17
O '
3 GFRDB-5(a) 1.0 0.8 0.75 0.75 52 65 46 20 0.799
O '
4 GFRDB-9(a) 1.0 0.8 0.75 0.75 95 119 44 14 1.193
 57

In case of Series-II beams, the designed capacity of the strut in

beam GFRDB-9(a) was found to be lower than required as shown in Figure
3.11. However, the difference in strut capacity in GFRDB-9(a) was found to
be negligible compared to beam GFRDB-9.

Figure 3.11 Comparison of required and designed capacity of strut

(Series-II)

As can be seen in Figure 3.12, the ultimate load capacity of STM

modelled deep beams for most of the beams in Series-II were found to be
greater than the experimental results. This can be deduced by comparing the
values of the ultimate loads obtained from experimental tests and STM model
analysis.
 58

Figure 3.12 Comparison of experimental and STM modelled Ultimate

capacity results (Series-II)

3.4 SUMMARY

The Strut-and-Tie method of modelling GFRP reinforced deep

beams which was developed using the AC1-318 -05 code was found to be
higher compared to the experimental values of the tested deep beams.
Although the STM results were found to be greater, the STM method of
modelling can be adopted for GFRP reinforced deep beams by suitable
modification to minimise the gap between the experimental and modelled
results.