DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX D-REGIONS IN REINFORCED

CONCRETE STRUCTURES

BY

SUKIT YINDEESUK

W
B.S., Kasetsart University, 2001
M.S., University of New South Wales, 2004

IE
EV
DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering
in the Graduate College of the
PR

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009

Urbana, Illinois

Doctoral Committee:

Associate Professor Daniel A. Kuchma, Chair

Professor Amr S. Elnashai
Associate Professor Arif Masud
Assistant Professor Bassem Andrawes
Assistant Professor Paramita Mondal
 UMI Number: 3395554

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE UMT
Dissertation Publishing
EV
UMI 3395554
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
PR

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 Abstract

STM design provisions, such as those in Appendix A of ACI318-08, consist of

rules for evaluating the capacity of the load-resisting truss that is idealized to carry the

forces through the D-Region. These code rules were primarily derived from test data on

simple D-Regions such as deep beams and corbels. However, these STM provisions are

taken as being sufficiently general and conservative that they can be used for the design

of all possible D-Regions, including those regions in which a highly statically

indeterminate and complex truss is selected and designed to carry the imposed loadings.

Since STM design provisions are only for capacity assessment and given the wide range

W
of applicability of the method, members designed using these STM provision may not

necessarily exhibit satisfactory performance under service load levels or during

IE
overloads. More particularly, the limitation of current STM design provisions include: 1)

no methodology for satisfactorily estimating the complete load-displacement response

EV

history, cracking loads, stress and strain states in reinforcement, and failure modes; 2) a

lack of guidance for selecting the shape, dimensions, and stress limits of STM
PR

components; 3) a lack of guidance for proportioning of forces in statically indeterminate

STM designs; and 4) an inability to employ performance-based design concepts.

To overcome these limitations, an experimental and computational program was

conducted. This research aimed to generate the data needed for evaluating and validating

the STM approach, for advancing STM shape selection techniques, and also to develop

more reliable computational models for predicting the response of cracked structural

concrete. In addition, a design and analysis framework that enables for automated

nonlinear FEA design validation is proposed that integrates the current STM design

ii
provisions with two additional components: 1) the shape selection technique of STM

based on topology optimization and 2) the new automated nonlinear FEA tool that was

specialized for modeling and analyzing complex D-Regions.

W
IE
EV
PR

in
 W
IE
To my Mother and Father
EV
PR

IV
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my adviser, Professor Daniel Kuchma, for his sincere and

invaluable attention, suggestion, encouragement and support throughout my Ph.D.

research. I also would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professors Amr Elnashai,

Arif Masud, Bassem Andrawes, and Paramita Mondal, who served as my committee

members and offered invaluable input and support. Additionally, I would like to offer

thanks to Professor John Popovics, who served as my committee during my preliminary

exam and provided useful review of my work and comments which increased the quality

of my research.

W
I gratefully acknowledge the National Science Foundation for funding this project

through my adviser and Thai Royal Government for awarding me a scholarship for
IE
completing my Ph.D. and conducting this research.

I am also thankful to my colleagues Ken Marley, Christopher Hart, and Jason

EV

Hart for their assistance in the experimental programs, Dr. Heui Hwang Lee, Dr. Sang-

Ho Kim, and Dr. JungWoong Park for useful discussion about nonlinear FEA and
PR

computational techniques. Special thanks to Tim Prunkard and the staff in the Civil

Engineering Machine Shop for their support in fabrication and test setup of all specimens

tested in the research program. I also wish to thank Dr. Shaoying Qi, as my friend, for our

exchanges of knowledge through discussions.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and my brothers for

their love, patience, encouragement and support throughout my Ph.D. studies.

v
 Table of Contents

List of Figures ix
List of Tables xxi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.1.1 B and D Regions 1
1.1.2 Design of D-Regions Using STM 2
1.1.3 Safety, Validation, and Limitations of the STM in D-Region Design 3
1.1.4 Analysis Approaches for D-Regions and Their Limitations 6
1.1.5 Simple and Complex D-Regions: A New Terminology for This Research... 8
1.2 Objectives 9
1.3 Overview of Dissertation 12
Chapter 2: Literature Review 14
2.1 History and Development of STM for Design of D-Regions 14
2.2 Shape of STM 15
2.3 Calculating the Capacity of a STM Model 21

W
2.3.1 Geometry of STM Components 22
2.3.2 Stress Limits 25
2.3.3 Plastic Truss Capacity 28
2.3.4 Capacity of Non-Plastic Indeterminate Truss
IE 29
2.3.5 Serviceability and Ductility Requirements 32
2.4 Nonlinear STM Model 35
2.5 Nonlinear FEA for Structural Concrete 52
EV
2.5.1 Discrete and Smeared Crack Approaches 53
2.5.2 Crack Orientation: Fixed, Rotating, and Delayed Rotating Approach 55
2.5.3 Selected FE Frameworks 58
2.5.4 FE Modeling of Reinforcement 68
2.5.5 FE Modeling of Bond-Slip Problems 70
PR

2.5.6 Mesh Dependent Problem in Smeared Crack Approach 74

2.6 Summary 76
Chapter 3: Experimental Research Program 78
3.1 Objective of the Experimental Test 78
3.2 Design of the Test Specimens 79
3.3 Material Properties 96
3.3.1 Concrete 96
3.3.2 Reinforcement 97
3.4 Fabrication of Test Specimens 97
3.5 Experimental Test Set-up 107
3.6 Instrumentation 107
3.7 Test Procedure 116
3.8 Summary 116
Chapter 4: Experimental Validation of STM in Design of Complex D-Regions 118
4.1 Introduction 118
4.2 D-Regions Designed for Non-Reversed Static Loadings 119
4.2.1 Load-Deformation Response of Test Specimens 119

vi
 4.2.2 Comparison of Measured and Calculated Strengths 121
4.2.3 Comparison of Modes of Failure 123
4.2.4 Development of Cracking in Test Structures 130
4.2.5 Straining and Load Transfer Characteristics in Test Structures 136
4.2.6 Influence of Local Ductility in Test Structures 142
4.3 D-Regions Designed for Reversed Static Loadings 144
4.3.1 Load-Deformation Response of Test Specimens 144
4.3.2 Comparison of Measured and Calculated Strengths 146
4.3.3 Comparison of Modes of Failure 147
4.3.4 Development of Cracking in Test Structures 149
4.4 Summary 151
Chapter 5: Shape of STM in Design of Complex D-Regions 153
5.1 Introduction 153
5.2 Application of Topology Optimization for Shape Selection of STM 154
5.2.1 D-Regions Subjected to Non-Reversed Static Loadings 155
5.2.2 D-Regions Subjected to Reversed Static Loadings 165
5.3 Experimental Validation of Topology Optimization for Shape Selection of

W
STM for D-Regions Subjected to Non-Reversed Static Loadings 172
5.3.1 Comparison of Load-Deformation Responses 172
5.3.2 Comparison of Modes of Failure 173
5.3.3 Comparison of Crack Development and Propagation
IE 174
5.3.4 Influence of Orientation of Tension Tie on Structural Responses 176
5.4 Experimental Validation of Topology Optimization for Shape Selection of
STM for D-Regions Subjected to Reversed Static Loadings 178
EV
5.4.1 Comparison of Load-Deformation Responses 178
5.4.2 Comparison of Modes of Failure 179
5.4.3 Comparison of Crack Development and Propagation 181
5.5 Computational Validation of Topology Optimization for Shape Selection of
STM for D-Regions 183
PR

5.5.1 Computational Models of D-Regions by Vector2 183

5.5.2 Calibration of Computational Models 187
5.6 Numerical Results and Structural Performance Evaluation and Comparison 190
5.7 Summary 194
Chapter 6: Nonlinear FEA for Automated Analysis of Complex D-Regions 195
6.1 Embedded Reinforcement Element Including Bond Stress-Slip 196
6.1.1 Concept and Proposed Formulation 199
6.2 Numerical Examples 210
6.2.1 Anchorage Tests 211
6.2.2 Two-Spanned Continuous Deep Beam (Foster et al, 1992) 220
6.2.3 Simply Support Deep Beams with Openings 224
6.3 A New Constitutive Model for Reinforced Concrete Structures 229
6.3.1 Important Features 229
6.3.2 Proposed Formulations 230
6.3.3 FE Procedure and Nonlinear Solving Scheme (Element Level) 250
6.3.4 FE Procedure and Nonlinear Solving Scheme (Structural Level) 254
6.4 Numerical Examples 256

vii
 6.4.1 Shear Panels 257
6.4.2 Simply Support Deep Beams with an Opening 265
6.4.3 Simply Support Deep Beams with a Dapped End and an Opening 273
6.4.4 Simply Support Deep Beams with Openings 285
6.5 Mesh Dependency Reduction 293
6.6 Influence of Orientation of Principal Stress in Concrete and Crack Angle on
Structural Strength and Responses of Complex D-Regions 299
6.6.1 Element Level 299
6.6.2 Structural Level 306
6.7 Summary 314
Chapter 7: Design and Analysis Framework for Effective Structural Performance
Design of Complex D-Regions 316
7.1 Introduction 316
7.2 Proposed Design and Analysis Framework 319
7.3 Application of Proposed Design and Analysis Framework 321
7.3.1 A Propped Cantilever Deep Beam with an Opening 321
7.3.2 Simply Support Deep Beams with an Opening 341

W
7.3.3 Simply Support Deep Beams with a Dapped End and an Opening 353
7.3.4 Shear Wall with Openings 373
7.4 Summary 396
Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work
IE 399
8.1 Summary and Conclusions 399
8.1.1 Experimental Validation of Complex D-Regions Designed by STM 399
8.1.2 Method and Guidelines to Facilitate Improved STM Shape Selection 400
EV
8.1.3 Nonlinear FEA for Automated Analysis of Complex D-Regions 401
8.1.4 Design and Analysis Framework for Effective Structural Performance
of Complex D-Regions 404
8.2 Recommendations for Future Work 405
References 409
PR

Appendix A Post Processing Tools Based on Augustus for Embedded

Reinforcement Element Including Bond Stress-Slip 415
Appendix B Automatic Mesh Generation by Patran 419
Appendix C Analysis Results of Reinforced Concrete Shear Panels 423
Author's Biography 444

viii
 List of Figures

Figure. 1.1 Examples of Disturbed Regions (Taken from Tjhin 2004) 2

Figure 1.2 General Procedure for the Design of D-Regions by the STM 3
Figure 1.3 Examples of STM (Taken from Tjhin 2004) 5
Figure 1.4 Reinforced Concrete Truss (Adapted from Polla, 1992) 5
Figure 1.5 Idealized Reinforced Concrete Truss for More Complex D-Regions: (a)
Selected STM (One of Dozens of Possibilities); (b) Idealized Reinforced Concrete
Truss for More Complex D-Region 6
Figure 1.6 The Proposed Design and Analysis Framework 10
Figure 2.1 Ritter's Truss Model (Ritter, 1899) 14
Figure 2.2 Shape of STM based on Empirical Model (Reproduced from FIP, 1996): (a)
Empirical STM for a Two Span Deep Beam; (b) Empirical STM for Beam-Column
Joints; and (c) Empirical STM for Post Tension at End Supports 17
Figure 2.3 Shape of STM based on Crack Pattern (Reproduced from Fu, 2001): (a)
Crack Pattern at a Dapped End; (b) STM Shape No.l; (c) STM Shape No.2; (d)
STM Shape No.3; and (e) STM Shape No.4 18

W
Figure 2.4 Shape of STM (a) Stress Trajectory and (b) Load Path Method (Taken from
Schlaich et al, 1987) 19
Figure 2.5 Topology Optimization for Generating Shape of STM (Taken from Liang et
al, 2001 ): (a) Geometry of a Shear Wall with Openings; (b) Optimal Topology; (c)
IE
Shape of STM based on the Optimal Topology; and (d) Dimensions of STM 20
Figure 2.6 2D Structural Grid for Generating Shape of STM (Adopted from Ali and
White, 2001): (a) Ground Structural Grids; (b) Structural Grid at the 25th Iteration;
(c) Structural Grid at the 45th Iteration; and (d) Optimal Structural Grid at the 50th
EV
Iteration 21
Figure 2.7 Types of Strut and Nodal Zones (Adapted from Tjhin, 2004): (a) Prismatic
Strut; (b) Bottle-Shaped Strut; (c) Fan-Shaped Strut; (d) CCC Node; (e) CCT Node;
(f)CTT Node; and (g)TTT Node 24
PR

Figure 2.8 Guidelines for Dimensions of Nodal Zones (Taken from ACI318-05): (a)
One Layer of Steel; and (b) Distributed Steel 25
Figure 2.9 Rigid Perfectly Plastic Stress-Strain Relation (Taken from Tjhin, 2004) 29
Figure 2.10 Non-Plastic Indeterminate STM: (a) Complex Type of D-Regions; (b)
Simple Type of D-Regions; and (c) Parameter Sensitivity of Nonlinear STM 30
Figure 2.11 Indeterminate STM (Hwang and Lee, 1999) 31
Figure 2.12 Nonlinear STM (Sundermann and Mutscher, 1991): (a) Continuous Deep
Beam; (b) Shape of STM including "Free Node"; and (c) Predicted Structural
Responses 37
Figure 2.13 Behavior Models for Struts and Ties (Sundermann and Mutscher, 1991):
(a) Reinforced Concrete Tie under Tension; and (b) Fan Type Strut under
Compression 38
Figure 2.14 Shapes of STM for Load Transfer Mechanism (Hwang and Lee, 1999): (a)
Diagonal Mechanism; (b) Horizontal Mechanism; and (c) Vertical Mechanism 40
Figure 2.15 The Softened Stress-Strain Relationship of Concrete (Zhang and Hsu,
1998) 41
Figure 2.16 Nonlinear STM ( Yun, 2000): (a) Specimen (Simply Supported Beam); (b)

IX
 STM based on Stress; (c) Refined FE Models for Nodal Zones; and (d) Predicted
Structural Responses 42
Figure 2.17 Nonlinear STM (To et al, 2001): (a) Effective Dimensions of STM
Members; (b) STM for a Structural Frame; and (c) Predicted Structural Response ....45
Figure 2.18 CAST GUI (Tjhin, 20004) 47
Figure 2.19 Nonlinear STM (Tjhin, 2004): (a) Dimensions and Reinforcement Details;
(b) One Direct Strut STM; (c) Determinate STM; (d) Indeterminate STM; and (e)
Predicted Load-Deflection 49
Figure 2.20 Nonlinear STM (Park and Kuchma, 2007): (a) Determinate STM; (b)
Effect of Multiple Compression Field Relationships; and (c) Performance of the
Model 51
Figure 2.21 Discrete and Smeared Cracks (Reproduced from Bazant, 1983): (a)
Cracking Process; (b) Stress Distribution along Section A-A; (c) Discrete Crack;
And (d) Smeared Crack 53
Figure 2.22 Deformed Mesh in Discrete and Smeared Cracks (Reproduced from Rots
and Blaauwendraad, 1989): (a) Deformed Mesh in Smeared Crack Model; and (b)
Deformed Mesh in Discrete Crack Model 54

W
Figure 2.23 Illustration of Applied Stresses on Element, Average Stresses in Concrete,
and Average Stresses in Reinforcement (Adapted from Hsu, 1998) 55
Figure 2.24 Average Stresses on Crack Surfaces of Reinforced Concrete-Fixed Crack
Approach (Adapted from Hsu, 1998)
IE 56
Figure 2.25 Comparison of the FE Results between Fixed and Rotating Crack
Approach (Adapted from Rots and Blaauwendraad, 1989): (a) Fixed Crack
Approach; and (b) Rotating Crack Approach 57
EV
Figure 2.26 Description of Modified Compression Field Theory (Vecchio and Collins,
1986) 59
Figure 2.27 The Advancement of Modified Compression Field Theory (Vecchio and
Collins, 1986): (a) Compression Softening Effect; (b) Tension Stiffening Effect;
and (c) Mechanism at Local Crack Level ("Crack Check") 60
PR

Figure 2.28 The Deficiency of Modified Compression Field Theory (Vecchio, 2000):
(a) No Slip along Crack and Reorientation of Principal Stress; (b) Substantial Slip
along Crack and Reorientation of Principal Stress; (c) Measured Principal Stress
and Strain Direction; and (d) Measured v.s. Predicted Principal Stress and Strain
Direction 61
Figure 2.29 The Condition at Local Crack Level of Disturbed Stress Field Model
(Vecchio, 2000): (a) Free Body Diagram for Relating Local Crack to Continuum
Level; (b) Continuum Level; (c) Local Crack Level; and (d) Local Crack
Mechanism 62
Figure 2.30 The Compatibility Conditions adopted in the Disturbed Stress Field
Model (Vecchio, 2000): (a) Continuum Strains; (b) Slip along Crack Surface; and
(c) Total (Measured) Strains 63
Figure 2.31 The Improved Compression Softening and Tension Stiffening Models
adopted for Use in the Disturbed Stress Field Model (Vecchio, 2000): (a)
Adjusting the New Compression Softening Parameter (Cs); and (b) The New Semi-
Empirical for Tension Stiffening Model considering a Bond-Related Parameter
(Bentz, 2005) 64

x
Figure 2.32 Tension Chord Model (TCM) (Kaufmann and Marti, 1998): (a)
Idealization of Tension Chord Model (TCM); (b) TCM in Y-Direction; (c) TCM in
X-Direction; TCM in General Direction; and (e) Free Body Diagram for Force
Transfer Mechanism from at Crack to between Crack 66
Figure 2.33 Constitutive Models adopted in CMM (Foster and Marti, 2003): (a) Tri-
Linear a - s Relation for Steel; (b) Tension Softening Relation for Concrete; (c)
Biaxial Strength Envelope for Concrete; and (d) Generalized a - s Relation for
Concrete 67
Figure 2.34 FE Modeling of Reinforcement: (a) Type of Reinforcement Modeling; and
(b) Mesh Topology Independence of Embedded Reinforcement Elements (Elwi and
Hrudey, 1989) 69
Figure 2.35 Type of Bond-Slip Model: (a) Bond Link (Discrete); and (b) Bond Zone
(Continuous) 71
Figure 2.36 Analytical Local Bond-Slip Relationship for Monotonic Loading (CEB-
FIP Model Code 1990) 74
Figure 2.37 Mesh Dependent Problem in Deep Beams (Dodds et al, 1985): (a) Load
Deflection Curves for Deep Beams; and (b) Crack Patterns for Deep Beams 75

W
Figure 2.38 Effectiveness of the Equivalent Strength in Reducing the Mesh Dependent
Problem (Bazant, 1983) 76
Figure 3.1 Types and the Overall Dimensions for All Complex D-Regions: (a) The
Simply-Supported Deep Beam with a Rectangular Opening beneath the Point of
IE
Loading; (b) The Propped Cantilever Beam with an Opening; (c) The Simply-
Supported Beam with a Dap at One End and an Opening adjacent to the Support
at the Other End; and (d) The Simply-Supported Beam with Two Rectangular
EV
Openings at One End 80
Figure 3.2 The Four STMs used to Design the Simply-Supported Deep Beam with
an Opening underneath the Loading Point: (a) Model 4a; (b) Model 4b; (c) Model
4c; (d) Model 4d, and (e) Model 4e (the Optimized Truss) 82
Figure 3.3 The Three STMs used to Design the Propped Cantilever Beam with an
PR

Opening: (a) Model 5a; (b) Model 5b; (c) Model 5c; and (d) Model 5d (the
Optimized Truss) 83
Figure 3.4 The Four STMs used to Design the Simply-Supported Beam with a Dap at
One End and an Opening adjacent to the Support at the Other End: (a) Model 6a;
(b) Model 6b; (c) Model 6c; and (d) Model 6d 84
Figure 3.5 The Additional Three STMs used to Design the Simply-Supported Beam
with a Dap at One End and an Opening adjacent to the Support at the Other End:
(a) Model 7a (without Distributed Reinforcement); (b) Model 7b (the Optimized
Truss); and (c) Model 7c (the Optimized Truss with Orthogonal Reinforcement) 86
Figure 3.6 Three STMs used to Design the Simply-Supported Beam with Two
Rectangular Openings at One End: (a) Model 8a; (b) Model 8b (The Optimized
Truss); and (c) Model 8c (The Conventional Truss) 88
Figure 3.7 Internal Forces in the Indeterminate Truss proportioned by Using the
Equations provided by FIP Recommendations 1996 89
Figure 3.8 Summary of Reinforcement Layouts and Details of All 17 Specimens 95
Figure 3.9 Concrete Compressive Stress-Strain Relationships 96
Figure 3.10 Steel Reinforcement Stress-Strain Relationships 98

xi
Figure 3.11 Reinforcement Cage for a Truss Model 4A to D 101
Figure 3.12 Reinforcement Cage for a Truss Model 5A to C 103
Figure 3.13 Reinforcement Cage for a Truss Model 7Ato C 105
Figure 3.14 Reinforcement Cage for a Truss model 8A to C 106
Figure 3.15 Experimental Test Set-Up: (a) Specimen 4a to 7c; (b) Specimen 8a
to 8c 108
Figure 3.16 Examples of Instrumentation: (a) Reinforcement Strain Gage Locations
in One of the Complex D-Regions, and (b) Krypton LED and Surface Strain
Gages Locations in One of the Complex D-Regions 109
Figure 3.17 Details and Locations of the Instrumentations in All Specimens 115
Figure 4.1 Measured Load-Deformation Response of Test Structures 121
Figure 4.2 Mode of Failure for Specimens 4A to 7A: (a) Specimen 4A to 4D; (b)
Specimen 5A to 5C; and (c) Specimen 6A to 7A 128
Figure 4.3 Observed Cracking in Specimen 5A to 6D: (a) Specimen 5A to 5C Tested
at P= 200 kN (45 kips), 310 kN (70 kips), and 400 kN (90 kips); and (b) Specimen
6A to 6D Tested at P= 222 kN (49.9 kips), 356 kN (80.3 kips), and 534 kN (120
kips) 133

W
Figure 4.4 Plots of Measured Strain in Specimen 6A: (a) Concrete Gauges; and (b)
Reinforcement Gauges 141
Figure 4.5 Plots of Measured Strains from Concrete Surface Strain Gauges of
Specimen 7B and 7C IE 142
Figure 4.6 Observed Cracking in Specimen 6A (Provided Distributed Reinforcement)
and 7A (No distributed Reinforcement) 143
Figure 4.7 Measured Load-Deformation Response of Specimen 8A and C 145
EV
Figure 4.8 Force Applied to the Shear Wall Side of Specimens 8A to 8C 146
Figure 4.9 Mode of Failure for Specimens Meshonly, 8A, and 8C 148
Figure 4.10 Observed Cracking in Specimen 8A, 8C, and Meshonly 151
Figure 5.1 Flowchart of PBO Technique for Non-Reversed Loadings 156
Figure 5.2 An Example of Checker Board Pattern (Li et al, 2001) 159
PR

Figure 5.3 Design Domain for the Michell Simply Supported Structure 161
Figure 5.4 Results in the Selected Iteration of Topology Optimization: (a) Topology
at 5th Iteration; (b) Topology at 35th Iteration; (c) Topology at 50th Iteration; and
(d) Topology at 57th Iteration 162
Figure 5.5 Performance Index History of Michell Simply Support Structure 162
Figure 5.6 Optimal Topology and Performance Index History generated from
Performance Based Topology Optimization (PBO) Technique: (a) D-Region in
Fig.3.1a; (b) D-Region in Fig.3.1b; and (c) D-Region in Fig.3.1c 165
Figure 5.7 Shear Wall with Openings subjected to Reversed Static Loadings 166
Figure 5.8 The Conventional Approach for Design of Complex Regions subjected to
Multiple Load Cases (Tjhin and Kuchma, 2002) 167
Figure 5.9 Flowchart of PBO Technique for Reversed Loadings 169
Figure 5.10 Optimal Topology, STM, and Performance Index History of the Shear
Wall Side of D-Regions in Fig. 3. Id: (a) Optimal Topology; (b) Performance
Index History; (c) STM generated from CAST for Load Case 1; and (d) STM
generated from CAST for Load Case 2 170
Figure 5.11 Measured Load-Deformation Response of the Test Complex Regions

xii
 (Specimen 6A to 7C), Note: 1)1 in. = 25.4 mm. 2) 0.2248 kips = 1 kN 173
Figure 5.12 Modes of Failure for Models 7A to 7C 174
Figure 5.13 Observed Cracking in Specimen 6A to 7C tested at P=222, 356, and 534
kN (49.9, 80.3, and 120 kips) 175
Figure 5.14 Measured Load-Strain in Surface Concrete and Reinforcement around
the Opening of Model 7B (Note: 0.2248 kips = 1 kN) 177
Figure 5.15 Measured Load-Strain in Surface Concrete and Reinforcement around the
Opening of Model 7C 177
Figure 5.16 Measured Load-Deformation Response of Specimens 8A to C 178
Figure 5.17 Mode of Failure for Specimens Meshonly, 8A, 8B, and 8C 180
Figure 5.18 Observed Cracking in Specimen 8A, 8C, and Meshonly 182
Figure 5.19 FE Models of Specimen 4A to 7C 187
Figure 5.20 Effects of Mesh Refinement on Predicted Load-Deformation Response of
Complex D-Regions (Note: 1) 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 2) 0.2248 kips = 1 kN ) 189
Figure 5.21 The Overall Accuracy of the Calibrated FEA Models adopted to Predict
the Structural Responses of the Specimens 4A to 7C 190
Figure 5.22 Predicted Load-Deformation Responses of Specimen 4A to 4E (Mesh

W
Size = 25.4 mm (1 in.)), Note: 1) 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 2) 0.2248 kips = 1 kN 191
Figure 5.23 Predicted Load-Deformation Responses of Specimens 5A to 5D (Mesh
Size = 25.4 mm (1 in.)), Note: 1) 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 2) 0.2248 kips = 1 kN 192
Figure 5.24 Structural Performance Comparison of 16 Complex Regions
IE 192
Figure 6.1 FE Models of a Complex D-Region 198
Figure 6.2 The Mapped and Physical Coordinates of Embedded Reinforcement
including the Free Body Diagram for Bond Stress-Slip Problem 200
EV
Figure 6.3 The Local and Global Displacement Components of Embedded
Reinforcement and Reinforced Concrete Element 203
Figure 6.4 Constitutive Model of Bond Stress-Slip and Embedded Reinforcement 207
Figure 6.5 The Anchored Reinforcing Bar under Monotonic Pull-Out Loading 211
Figure 6.6 The Predicted Stress Distribution for Anchored Reinforcing Bar under
PR

Monotonic Pull-Out Loading: (a) The Left End Stress = 20 ksi; (b) The Left
End Stress - 40 ksi; (c) The Left End Stress = 60 ksi; and (d) The Left End
Stress-70 ksi 213
Figure 6.7 The Anchored Reinforcing Bar under Monotonic Pull-Push Loading
(Casel) 214
Figure 6.8 The Predicted Stress Distribution for Anchored Reinforcing Bar under
Monotonic Pull-Push Loading (Case 1): (a) End Stresses = 10 ksi; and (b) End
Stresses = 24 ksi 215
Figure 6.9 The Anchored Reinforcing Bar under Monotonic Pull-Push Loading
(Case2) 216
Figure 6.10 The Predicted Stress Distribution for Anchored Reinforcing Bar under
Monotonic Pull-Push Loading (Case 2): (a) End Stresses = 40 ksi; and (b) End
Stresses- 68 ksi 217
Figure 6.11 The Anchored Reinforcing Bar under Monotonic Push-in Loading 218
Figure 6.12 The Predicted Strain Distribution for Anchored Reinforcing Bar under
Monotonic Push-in Loading (Case 1) 219
Figure 6.13 The Predicted Strain Distribution for Anchored Reinforcing Bar under

xni
 Monotonic Push-in Loading (Case 2) 219
Figure 6.14 Geometry and FE model of a Double Span Deep Beam No.5 tested by
Foster (1992): (a) Dimensions and Reinforcement Details; and (b) FE Mesh and
Embedded Reinforcement Elements for the Left Span of a Double Span Deep
BeamNo.5 221
Figure 6.15 Plots of Measured and Predicted Load-Displacement Responses of a
Double Span Deep Beam No.5 tested by Foster (1992) 223
Figure 6.16 Plots of Measured and Predicted Strain Distribution along the Bottom
Reinforcement of the Left Side of a Double Span Deep Beam No.5 tested by
Foster (1992) 224
Figure 6.17 The Predicted Strain Distribution for Specimen 8B from the Strain Gages
No. 13 to 24 at the Load Levels of 1st crack, 50%Pn, and 75%Pn 226
Figure 6.18 The Predicted Strain Distribution for Specimen 8B from the Strain Gages
No. 31 to 33 at the Load Levels of 1st crack, 50%Pn, and 75%Pn 227
Figure 6.19 The Predicted Strain Distribution for Specimen 8B from the Strain Gages
No. 34 to 37 at the Load Levels of 1st crack, 50%Pn, and 75%Pn 227
Figure 6.20 The Predicted Strain Distribution for Specimen 8C from the Strain Gages

W
No. 40 to 51 at the Load Levels of 1st crack, 50%Pn, and 75%Pn 228
Figure 6.21 The Predicted Strain Distribution for Specimen 8C from the Strain Gages
No. 58 to 60 at the Load Levels of 1st crack, 50%Pn, and 75%Pn 228
Figure 6.22 The Predicted Strain Distribution for Specimen 8C from the Strain Gages
IE
No. 61 to 63 at the Load Levels of 1st crack, 50%Pn, and 75%Pn 229
Figure 6.23 Reinforced Concrete Element: Crack Angle and Principal Stress Angle. ...231
Figure 6.24 Free Body Diagram for Equilibrium Equation 233
EV
Figure 6.25 Free Body Diagram for Local Crack Equilibrium Condition 234
Figure 6.26 Free Body Diagram for Local Crack Equilibrium Condition including
Bond-Slip Mechanism 236
Figure 6.27 Schematic Presentation: (a) Tension Chord Model (Foster and Marti,
2003); (b) Free Body Diagram of Principal Concrete Tensile Stress and Concrete
PR

Stress Between Cracks; and (c) The Force Transfers between and at Cracks in
TCM (Adapted from Foster and Marti, 2003) 237
Figure 6.28 Compatibility Condition: (a) Continuum Strain; (b) Crack Slip Strain;
and (c) Total Strain (Taken from Vecchio, 2000 with Modifications) 241
Figure 6.29 Material Models: (a) Reinforcing Bars; (b) Concrete; (c) Biaxial
Compression Envelope (Taken from Vecchio, 1992); and (d) New Compression
Softening Coefficient (Cs) 243
Figure 6.30 Mesh Dependent Effect in D-Regions 246
Figure 6.31 Components of Stress and Motion along Cracks 248
Figure 6.32 Flowchart to Solve for the Nonlinear Response of an Element 253
Figure 6.33 Flowchart to Solve for the Nonlinear Response (Structural Level) 256
Figure 6.34 Shear Panel subjected to General Loading 257
Figure 6.35 Predicted Shear and Shear Strain of PV19 258
Figure 6.36 Predicted Shear and Longitudinal Strain of PV19 258
Figure 6.37 Predicted Shear and Transverse Strain of PV19 259
Figure 6.38 Predicted Principal Compressive Stress and Strain of PV19 259
Figure 6.39 Predicted Shear and Principal Stress Orientation of PV19 260

xiv
Figure 6.40 Predicted Shear and Principal Strain Orientation of PV19 261
Figure 6.41 Predicted Shear Strength of the Selected Panels in PV and PB Series
using the Proposed FE Formulation in the Element Level 264
Figure 6.42 Predicted First Shear Crack of the Selected Panels in PV and PB Series
using the Proposed FE Formulation in the Element Level 264
Figure 6.43 FE Models of Specimen 4A, B, and C: (a) FE Model for Specimen 4A;
(b)FE Model for Specimen 4B; and (c) FE Model for Specimen 4C 267
Figure 6.44 Predicted Load Displacement for Specimens 4A, B, and C 268
Figure 6.45 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 4A: (a) Ratio of Principal
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern 269
Figure 6.46 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 4B: (a) Ratio of Principal
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern 270
Figure 6.47 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 4C: (a) Ratio of Principal
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern 271
Figure 6.48 Concrete Strain Prediction in Specimen 4A 272
Figure 6.49 Reinforcement Strain Prediction in Specimen 4A 273
Figure 6.50 FE Models of Specimen 6A, C, and D: (a) FE Model for Specimen 6A;

W
(b) FE Model for Specimen 6C; and (c) FE Model for Specimen 6D 277
Figure 6.51 Predicted Load Displacement for Specimens 6A, C, and D 278
Figure 6.52 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 6A: (a) Ratio of Principal
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern
IE 279
Figure 6.53 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 6C: (a) Ratio of Principal
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern 280
Figure 6.54 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 6D: (a) Ratio of Principal
EV
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern 281
Figure 6.55 Concrete and Reinforcement Strain Prediction in Specimen 6A 282
Figure 6.56 Concrete and Reinforcement Strain Prediction in Specimen 6C 283
Figure 6.57 Concrete and Reinforcement Strain Prediction in Specimen 6D 284
Figure 6.58 FE Models of Specimen 8A, B, and C: (a) FE Model for Specimen 8A;
PR

(b) FE Model for Specimen 8B; and (c) FE Model for Specimen 8C 286
Figure 6.59 Predicted Load Displacement for Specimens 8A, B, and C 288
Figure 6.60 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 8A: (a) Ratio of Principal
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern 289
Figure 6.61 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 8B: (a) Ratio of Principal
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern 290
Figure 6.62 Predicted Failure Mode of Specimen 8C: (a) Ratio of Principal
Compressive Stress Demand to Capacity; and (b) Crack Pattern 291
Figure 6.63 Concrete Strain Prediction in Specimen 8B 292
Figure 6.64 Concrete Strain Prediction in Specimen 8C 293
Figure 6.65 FE models with the Three Different Mesh Refinement Levels of the
Specimens generated to Use in VT2 and the Proposed FE Formulation: (a) Mesh
Size = 8x Max Agg; (b) Mesh Size = lOx Max Agg; and (c) Mesh Size = 12x Max
Agg 295
Figure 6.66 The Predicted Load Displacement of Specimen 6C using Three Different
Mesh Refinement Levels analyzed by Using VT2 and the Proposed FE
Formulation 296

xv
Figure 6.67 Comparison of Concrete Strain Prediction between the Proposed
Formulation and VT2 using Different Mesh Refinement in Specimen 6C 297
Figure 6.68 Comparison of Reinforcement Strain Prediction between the Proposed
Formulation and VT2 using Different Mesh Refinement in Specimen 6C 298
Figure 6.69 Influence of the Deviation of the Crack Angle from the Principal Stress
Direction in Concrete on the Structural Responses in the Element Level,
Case 1 (T: a x :a y =l:0:-0.39) 303
Figure 6.70 Influence of the Deviation of the Crack Angle from the Principal Stress
Direction in Concrete on the Structural Responses in the Element Level, Case 2
(T:ox:oy=l:-0.39:-0.39) 304
Figure 6.71 Influence of the Deviation of the Crack Angle from the Principal Stress
Direction in Concrete on the Structural Responses in the Element Level, Case 3
Cc:ax:CTy=l:-0.69:-0.69) 305
Figure 6.72 Influence of the Deviation of the Crack Angle from the Principal Stress
Direction in Concrete on the Interaction Diagram of a Shear Panel 306
Figure 6.73 Effect of Mesh Size and Difference between Crack and Principal Stress
Angles on Capacity of Specimens 8A, 8B, and 8C 308

W
Figure 6.74 The Crack Pattern just before the Failure of the Specimens 8A to 8C 310
Figure 6.75 FE Models of Three Simply Supported Deep Beams 311
Figure 6.76 Force Transfer Mechanism in Specimens 8Ato 8C 312
Figure 6.77 Effect of the Difference between Crack and Principal Stress Angles on
IE
the Capacity of Simply Supported Deep Beams 313
Figure 7.1 The Proposed Design and Analysis Framework 318
Figure 7.2 Complex D-Regions in a Typical Building 321
EV
Figure 7.3 Member and Loads for the Propped Cantilever Deep Beam with an
Opening 323
Figure 7.4 Strut-and-Tie Model and Forces: (a) Overview; and (b) Details around the
Opening 326
Figure 7.5 Force Distribution in Struts and Ties 327
PR

Figure 7.6 The Effective Widths selected for the Struts and Ties and the Utilization
Rates (Fdemand/Fcapacity) in STM of the Deep Beam 327
Figure 7.7 The Stress-Strain Relationship of "Key" Struts and Ties for Plastic Truss
Analysis 329
Figure 7.8 The Effective Widths selected for the Struts and Ties and Their
Utilization Rates (Fdemand/Fcapacity) in STM of the Deep Beam (Plastic Truss
Analysis) 329
Figure 7.9 The Stress-Strain Relationship of "key" Struts and Ties for Nonlinear
Elastic Truss Analysis 332
Figure 7.10 The Effective Widths selected for the Struts and Ties and the Utilization
Rates (Fdemand/FCapacity) in STM of the Deep Beam (Nonlinear Elastic Truss
Analysis) 332
Figure 7.11 FE Mesh of a Reinforced Concrete Deep Beam constructing with 1355
Quadrilateral Elements and 226 Truss Elements 333
Figure 7.12 The Predicted Load and Displacement of the Deep Beam from
Nonlinear Analysis Techniques: Plastic Analysis, Nonlinear Elastic Analysis,

xvi
 and Nonlinear FEA 334
Figure 7.13 Concrete Compressive Vital Sign in the Deep Beam: Ratio of
Compressive Stress to Compressive Stress Capacity 335
Figure 7.14 Combined Deformed Shape and Crack Pattern at the Failure State of the
Deep Beam 335
Figure 7.15 Stress (at Crack Locations) in Reinforcement of the Deep Beam at the
Failure State 336
Figure 7.16 Reinforcement Details of the Scale-Model 337
Figure 7.17 Crack Pattern of the Scale-Model at the Failure State 338
Figure 7.18 Shear Compression Failure above and below the Opening of the Scale-
Model 338
Figure 7.19 Members and Loads of a Simply Supported Deep Beam with a
Rectangular Opening 342
Figure 7.20 The Optimal Topology for a Simply Supported Deep Beam with a
Rectangular Opening: (a) The Optimal Topology; (b) The Performance Index; and
(c) STM model from CAST 345
Figure 7.21 STM Model from CAST for a Simply Supported Deep Beam with a

W
Rectangular Opening: (a) The Force Distribution in Struts and Ties; (b) The
Effective Widths selected for the Struts and Ties and the Utilization Rates
(Fdemand/Fcapacity) in STM of the deep beam 346
Figure 7.22 Reinforcement Details and FE model of a Simply Supported Deep Beam
IE
with a Rectangular Opening: (a) Reinforcement Details; and (b) FE Model 348
Figure 7.23 The Predicted Load and Displacement of the Deep Beam from Nonlinear
FEAbyVector2 350
EV
Figure 7.24 Concrete Compressive Vital Sign in the Deep Beam: Ratio of
Compressive Stress to Compressive Stress Capacity 351
Figure 7.25 Combined Deformed Shape and Crack Pattern at the Failure State of the
Deep Beam 351
Figure 7.26 Stress (at Crack Locations) in Reinforcement of the Deep Beam at the
PR

Failure State 352

Figure 7.27 The Structural Performance Evaluation of Designed Simply Supported
Deep Beams with an Opening 352
Figure 7.28 Members and Loads of a Simply Supported Deep Beam with a Dapped
End and an Opening 354
Figure 7.29 The Optimal Topology and STM for a Simply Supported Deep Beam
with a Dapped End and a Rectangular Opening: (a) The Optimal Topology; (b)
The Performance Index; (c) STM Model (Optimal); and (d) STM Model (More
Practical) 356
Figure 7.30 STM Model (Optimal) from CAST for a Simply Supported Deep Beam
with a Dapped End and a Rectangular Opening: (a) The Force Distribution in
Struts and Ties; (b) The Effective Widths selected for the Struts and Ties and the
Utilization Rates (Fdemand/FCapacity) in STM of the Deep beam 358
Figure 7.31 STM Model (More Practical) from CAST for a Simply Supported Deep
Beam with an Dapped End and a Rectangular Opening: (a) The Force Distribution
in Struts and Ties; (b) The Effective Widths selected for the Struts and Ties and
the Utilization Rates (Fdemand/FCaPacity) m STM of the Deep beam 359

xvii
Figure 7.32 Optimal Reinforcement Details and FE model of a Simply Supported
Deep Beam with a Dapped End and a Rectangular Opening: (a) Reinforcement
Details; and (b) FE Model 364
Figure 7.33 More Practical Reinforcement Details and FE model of a Simply
Supported Deep Beam with a Dapped End and a Rectangular Opening: (a)
Reinforcement Details; and (b) FE Model 365
Figure 7.34 Concrete Compressive Vital Sign in the Deep Beam (Optimal
Reinforcement): Ratio of Compressive Stress to Compressive Stress Capacity 366
Figure 7.35 Combined Deformed Shape and Crack Pattern at the Failure State of the
Deep Beam 366
Figure 7.36 Stress (at Crack Locations) in Reinforcement of the Deep Beam at the
Failure State 367
Figure 7.37 Concrete Compressive Vital Sign in the Deep Beam (More Practical
Reinforcement): Ratio of Compressive Stress to Compressive Stress Capacity 367
Figure 7.38 Combined Deformed Shape and Crack Pattern at the Failure State of the
Deep Beam (More Practical Reinforcement) 368
Figure 7.39 Stress (at Crack Locations) in Reinforcement of the Deep Beam (More

W
Practical Reinforcement) at the Failure State 368
Figure 7.40 The Predicted Load and Displacement of the Deep Beams by Using
the Proposed Nonlinear FEA 369
Figure 7.41 Reinforcement Details of Specimen 7B
IE 370
Figure 7.42 Reinforcement Details of Specimen 7C 370
Figure 7.43 Crack Pattern of the Specimen 7B at the Failure State 371
Figure 7.44 Crack Pattern of the Specimen 7C at the Failure State 371
EV
Figure 7.45 The Structural Performance Evaluation of Designed Simply Supported
Deep Beams with a Dapped End and an Opening 373
Figure 7.46 Lateral Loads transferred from the Upper Storey to the Shear Wall 375
Figure 7.47 Members and Loads of a Shear Wall with Openings (No Consideration of
the Applied Gravity Load and Bending Moment) 375
PR

Figure 7.48 Optimal Topology, STM, and Performance Index History of the Shear
Wall Side of D-Regions in Fig. 3.Id: (a) Optimal Topology; (b) Performance
Index History; (c) STM generated from CAST for Load acting on the Left Side;
and (d) STM generated from CAST for Load acting on the Right Side 378
Figure 7.49 The Conventional Approach for Design of Complex Regions subjected to
Multiple Load Cases (Tjhin and Kuchma, 2002): (a) STM generated from CAST
for Load acting on the Left Side; and (b) STM generated from CAST for Load
acting on the Right Side 379
Figure 7.50 STM Model (Optimal) from CAST for a Shear Wall with Rectangular
Openings: (a) The Force Distribution in Struts and Ties; (b) The Effective Widths
selected for the Struts and Ties and the Utilization Rates (Fdemand/Fcapacity) in STM
of the Shear Wall 381
Figure 7.51 STM Model (Conventional Approach) from CAST for a Shear Wall with
Rectangular Openings: (a) The Force Distribution in Struts and Ties; (b) The
Effective Widths selected for the Struts and Ties and the Utilization Rates
(Fdemand/Fcapacity) in STM of the Shear Wall 382
Figure 7.52 Optimal Reinforcement Details and FE Model of a Shear Wall with

xviii
 Rectangular Openings (7B): (a) Reinforcement Details; and (b) FE Model 388
Figure 7.53 Orthogonal Reinforcement Details and FE Model of a Shear Wall with
Rectangular Openings (7C): (a) Reinforcement Details; and (b) FE Model 389
Figure 7.54 Concrete Compressive Vital Sign in the Shear Wall (Optimal
Reinforcement)-The Right Side of the Specimen 8B: Ratio of Compressive
Stress to Compressive Stress Capacity 390
Figure 7.55 Combined Deformed Shape and Crack Pattern at the Failure State of the
Shear Wall (Optimal Reinforcement)-The Right Side of the Specimen 8B 390
Figure 7.56 Stress (at Crack Locations) in Reinforcement at the Failure State of the
Shear Wall (Optimal Reinforcement)-The Right Side of the Specimen 8B 391
Figure 7.57 Concrete Compressive Vital Sign in the Shear Wall (Orthogonal
Reinforcement)-the Right Side of Specimen 8C: Ratio of Compressive Stress
to Compressive Stress Capacity 391
Figure 7.58 Combined Deformed Shape and Crack Pattern at the Failure State of the
Shear Wall (Orthogonal Reinforcement)-The Right Side of the Specimen 8C
the Deep Beam (More Practical Reinforcement) 392
Figure 7.59 Stress (at Crack Locations) in Reinforcement at the Failure State of the

W
Shear Wall (Orthogonal Reinforcement)-The Right Side of the Specimen 8C 392
Figure 7.60 The Predicted Load and Displacement of the Shear Walls by Using
the Proposed Nonlinear FEA 393
Figure 7.61 Reinforcement Details of Specimen 8B
IE 393
Figure 7.62 Reinforcement Details of Specimen 8C 394
Figure 7.63 Crack Pattern at the Failure State of Shear Wall with Openings: (a) Right
Side of Specimen 8B; and (b) Right Side of Specimen 8C 394
EV
Figure 7.64 The Structural Performance Evaluation of Designed Shear Walls with
Openings 396
Figure Al The Screen of Augustus Displaying the Analysis Details and Parameters ....415
Figure A2 The Screen of Augustus Displaying the Mesh Topological Data, Boundary
Conditions and Load Cases of the Model 416
PR

Figure A3 The Screen of Augustus Displaying the Parameters Associated to the

Damage Conditions and Failure State of the Structures 416
Figure A4 The Screen of Augustus Displaying the Global Responses of the Structures417
Figure A5 The Screen of Augustus Displaying the Local Responses of the Structures .417
Figure A6 The Screen of Augustus Displaying the Embedded Reinforcement Element 418
Figure Bl The Screen of Patran Displaying the Overall Features for Generating the
Geometry, Mesh, Loading and Boundary Condition of FE Models 420
Figure B2 The Screen of Patran Displaying the Features for Generating the Geometry
of the Structure 421
Figure B3 The Screen of Patran Displaying the Features for Generating the Mesh of
the Structure 421
Figure B4 The Screen of Patran Displaying the Features for Assigning the Element
Types to the Existing Mesh of the Structure 422
Figure C1 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV1) 424
Figure C2 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV4) 425

xix
Figure C3 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV6) 426
Figure C4 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV7) 427
Figure C5 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV8) 428
Figure C6 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV9) 429
Figure C7 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV10) 430
Figure C8 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV11) 431
Figure C9 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV12) 432
Figure C10 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV14) 433
Figure CI 1 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental

W
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV16) 434
Figure C12 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV18) 435
Figure C13 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
IE
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV20) 436
Figure C14 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV21) 437
EV
Figure C15 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV22) 438
Figure CI6 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV24) 439
Figure CI7 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
PR

Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV25) 440

Figure CI8 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV26) 441
Figure C19 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV27) 442
Figure C20 Comparison between the Numerical Prediction and Observed Experimental
Data for the Structural Responses of Shear Panel (PV28) 443

xx
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Parameters in the Local Bond-Slip Relationship of CEB-FEP Model Code
1990 for Deformed Bars 73
Table 3.1 Summary of Failure (Ultimate State) Conditions and Nominal Design
Loads of All 17 Truss Models by STM Models and Appendix A of ACI318-08 90
Table 3.2 Summary of Concrete Strength Properties 97
Table 3.3 Summary of Steel Reinforcement Properties 99
Table 4.1 Comparison of Calculated Nominal Capacities and Measured Strengths 122
Table 4.2 Comparison of Calculated Nominal Capacities and Measured Strengths 147
Table 5.1 Details of Nonlinear FE Analysis Results of 16 Complex Regions 193
Table 6.1 Material Properties Used in Nonlinear FE Analysis of Deep Beam No.5
(Foster, 1992) 222
Table 7.1 Summary of Material Properties 324
Table 7.2 Capacity and Failure Mode Comparison of Designs, Analysis, and
Experiment 339
Table 7.3 Capacity and Failure Mode Comparison of Designs, Analysis, and

W
Experiment 372
Table 7.4 Capacity and Failure Mode Comparison of Designs, Analysis, and
Experiment 395
IE
EV
PR

xxi
 Chapterl

Introduction

D-Regions are those parts of a structure where there is a complex distribution of

stress and strain. The "Strut-and-Tie Model (STM)" is a truss that is idealized to be

contained within the D-Region and that has been designed to support the flow of forces

through this region. The STM design concept, often referred to in the literature as simply

the STM, is based on the lower bound plasticity theorem. Thereby, the calculated

capacity of an STM design can be obtained from a plastic truss analysis; this assumes that

the designed D-Region is sufficiently ductile that a truss mechanism can form. Series of

W
experimental programs have been conducted to develop and evaluate provisions for

design using the STM concept for strength design. The results from these tests also
IE
illustrate deficiencies in the performance of D-Regions under service loads and ultimate

design loads in some situations. The overall objective of this study is to improve the
EV

current approach for the design and analysis of D-Regions by proposing a more complete

design and analysis framework.

PR

1.1 Background

1.1.1 B and D Regions

A structure, as illustrated in Fig.1.1, can be divided into two types of regions.

Beam or "B-Regions" are those portions of a structure in which the assumption that plane

section remaining plane is valid such that there is a linear distribution of strain over the

depth or width of the member. These regions may be designed by sectional theories and

code provisions for shear, moment, axial-load, and torsion. Disturbed or "D-Regions" are

St.Venant regions, and are those parts of a structure in which there is a highly nonlinear

1
strain and displacement field due to a geometrical and/or static discontinuity. Examples

of these D-Regions include regions near point loads, corners, and openings as shown in

Fig.1.1.

m i u uxu u i u u u u i u i •
i B D B D
h2\ h2\h2\> ih2\ >|ft2
B lIuilUUUUUUJ 4 UUUUUUUU
4-Sfc~0—-B- D B D -B—O"

a D
2 | u4 ^/»J
J*:
M h/is
-/»,
B B
B.

W
D
lltttt o IE
(a)
D1 |-
ItlfH

Fig.1.1 Examples of Disturbed Regions (Taken from Tjhin 2004)

EV
1.1.2 Design of D-Regions Using STM

The Strut-and-Tie Model (STM) has been accepted as a simple and rational
PR

approach for the design of D-Regions. As outlined in Fig.1.2, the first step in the STM

design procedure is to divide the structure into B- and D-Regions by considering that the

region of influence of geometrical and static discontinuities. In accordance to the

suggestions of Saint Venant, these are considered to extend a longitudinal distance equal

to about the depth of the member. Next, the engineer is free to select the shape (or

topology) of the load-resisting truss that will be designed to carry the load through this D-

Region. The STM model is composed of compression members or "struts", tension

members or "ties", and joints or "nodes" as illustrated in Fig.1.3.