ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 115-S02
Verification of Three-Dimensional Grid Strut-and-Tie Model
Approach in Structural Concrete
by Young Mook Yun, Hyun Soo Chae, Byunghun Kim, and Julio A. Ramirez
In this study, a proposed three-dimensional (3-D) grid strut-and-tie
model approach is verified using the experimental capacity from
78 reinforced concrete pile caps, 19 slab-column joints, and 60
torsional beams obtained by others. The analysis results were
compared with those obtained using the BS 8110, EC2, CRSI,
fib, AASHTO-LRFD, and ACI 318 design provisions. In addition,
the design of a pier cap subjected to multiple load combinations
with longitudinal and lateral loads was conducted to illustrate the
proposed approach. The design results from the pier cap example
were also compared with those obtained using ACI 318-14. The
analysis results agreed well with experimental results.
Keywords: grid strut-and-tie model; pier cap; pile cap; slab-column joint;
torsional beam.
INTRODUCTION
In the paper by Yun et al. (2017), the limitations of the
strut-and-tie model approach in current U.S. design codes
and guidelines with respect to the construction of the strut-
and-tie model, selection of the strut-and-tie model’s struc-
tural type, and determination of the effective strengths of
concrete struts and nodal zones for the designs of three-
dimensional (3-D) structural concrete with D-regions were
examined. To overcome the limitations of the strut-and-tie
model approach in U.S. codes of practice, a 3-D grid strut-
and-tie model approach that incorporates grid elements
to construct a 3-D strut-and-tie model was proposed. The
approach described in the paper by Yun et al. (2017) includes
a five-parameter failure model of unreinforced concrete to
determine the effective strengths of concrete struts and nodal
zones and an iterative technique to evaluate the axial stiff-
ness of struts and ties. The maximum cross-sectional area of
struts and ties approach is used to examine the strut-and-tie
model’s geometrical compatibility with the strut-and-tie
model approaches of current design codes.
The proposed approach was validated using the experi-
mental capacity of 78 reinforced concrete pile caps, 19 slab-
column joints, and 60 torsional beams obtained by others.
The ultimate strength of 78 pile caps estimated using the
proposed approach was compared with ultimate strength
based on provisions in ACI 318 sectional design methods
(1999, 2014), CRSI sectional design method (2008), and
ACI 318-14 strut-and-tie model approach (2014). The ulti-
mate strengths of the slab-column joints predicted using
the proposed approach were compared with those from the
two-way slab provisions of BS 8110 (1997), EC2 (2004), fib
(2010), and ACI 318-14 (2014). The ultimate strengths of
the torsional beams were compared with those of AASHTO-
LRFD (2010), ACI 318-14 (2014), Hsu and Mo (1983),
and Rahal and Collins (1995). The proposed approach was
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
TECHNICAL PAPER
also examined through the design of a pier cap subjected
to multiple load combinations with longitudinal and lateral
loads. The design results of the pier cap were compared with
the results using the ACI 318 sectional design methods. The
reliability of the design results were verified using the strut-
and-tie models suggested in current design codes.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
To overcome limitations and improve clarity in the design
of structural concrete using 3-D strut-and-tie model approach
in current design codes, the authors have proposed a 3-D
grid strut-and-tie model approach (Yun et al. 2017). The
approach consists of three key elements: 1) use of basic grid
elements to construct a 3-D strut-and-tie model; 2) a triaxial
failure model of concrete to determine effective strengths of
concrete struts and nodal zones; and 3) a simple iterative
technique to evaluate the axial stiffness of struts and ties. In
this paper, the approach is validated using an extensive data-
base of relevant tests including reinforced concrete pile caps,
slab-column joints, and torsional beams. In this verification
of the approach the provisions of BS 8110, EC 2, CRSI, fib,
AASHTO-LRFD, and ACI 318-14 were used. Finally, the
approach is illustrated using an example of a bridge pier cap
under multiple loading conditions.
ANALYSIS OF PILE CAP TESTS
To verify the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model approach, the
ultimate strengths of 78 reinforced concrete pile caps, tested
to failure by Clarke (1973), Sabnis and Gogate (1984),
and Suzuki et al. (1998, 2000) were estimated using the
approach. In addition, capacities were calculated using ACI
318 sectional design methods (1999, 2014), CRSI sectional
design method (2008), and ACI 318-14 strut-and-tie model
approach (2014). The pile cap tests were conducted to inves-
tigate the effects of patterns of flexural reinforcing bars on
their structural behaviors and strengths (Clarke 1973; Sabnis
and Gogate 1984; and Suzuki et al. 1998, 2000). The mate-
rial properties and geometries of the pile caps are summa-
rized in Table 1. Reinforcement details and geometric shapes
of representative pile caps tested by Suzuki et al. (1998)
are shown in Fig. 1. The pile caps were failed by bending
(flexure) and/or shear (one-way, two-way, and punching).
Detailed information, including the failure patterns of the
pile caps, is given in the aforementioned references.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 1, January 2018.
MS No. S-2015-192.R2, doi: 10.14359/51700946, received July 17, 2015, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2018, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
27
Table 1—Specification of pile caps
Reinforcing
Investigators (A) w/d d, mm Column size, mm Pile size, mm fc′, MPa fy, MPa ρ, % bar layout
Clarke (1973) 12 0.25 to 0.49 109 to 117 200, S 200, R 17.9 to 41.0 510 0.188 to 0.238 B and G
Sabnis and Gogate (1984) 8 0.54 to 0.58 400 76, R 76, R 17.4 to 36.3 414 0.136 to 1.287 G
Suzuki et al. (1998) 28 0.40 to 0.80 150 to 250 300, S 150, R 18.9 to 31.3 356 to 413 0.228 to 0.546 B and G
Suzuki et al. (2000) 30 0.29 to 0.67 150 to 350 200 to 300, S 150, R 24.6 to 28.8 358 to 383 0.181 to 0.272 G
Total 78 0.25 to 0.80 109 to 400 76 to 300 76 to 200, R 17.4 to 41.0 356 to 510 0.136 to 1.287 B, G

Notes: (A) is number of pile caps; w is distance from face of column to center of nearest pile; d is effective depth; ρ is flexural reinforcement ratio; R, S, B, and G is round, square,
bunched, and grid; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Fig. 1—Reinforcement details and geometrical shapes of pile caps (Suzuki et al. 1998). (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
The ultimate strength of the pile caps based on ACI 318
sectional design methods was determined by applying  the
flexural design provisions of beams and slabs (ACI 318-14,
Sections 22.2 through 22.4), the bearing strength provisions
(ACI 318-14, Section 10.14), the shear design provisions of
one-way and two-way slabs (ACI 318-14, Sections 22.5 and
22.6), and the shear design provisions of deep beams with
ln/d ≤ 5 (where ln is the length of clear span, and d is the
distance from the extreme compression fiber to the center
of longitudinal reinforcement) (ACI 318-99, Section 11.8).
In the one-way shear design of the pile cap, the nominal
shear strength provided by the concrete at the critical section
was determined from ACI 318-14 Eq. (22.5.5.1) and Eq.(a)
of ACI 318-14 Table 22.5.5.1. For the two-way shear design,
the section along the circumference separated from the face
of the column by a distance of d/2 was regarded as the crit-
ical section, and the smallest value determined from Eq.(a)
to (c) of ACI 318-14 Table 22.6.5.2 was taken as the nominal
shear strength at the critical section. When the ratio of the
clear span to the effective depth of pile cap was less than 5,
the nominal shear strength was determined from ACI 318-99
Eq. (11.29).
The detailed procedure for evaluating the pile cap’s
ultimate strength is shown in Tables 2(a) and (b) with an
example of the specimen BPC-30-25-1 (Suzuki et al. 1998).
In an application of the ACI 318 sectional design method,
the minimum value among Pu, f, Pu,bc, Pu,bp, Pu,1s, and Pu,2s
evaluated, respectively, from the flexural strength Mn, f, the
bearing strength Pn,bc at column, the bearing strength Pn,bp
at the pile, the shear strength of one-way slab Vn,1s, and the
shear strength of two-way slab shear Vn,2s, was taken as the
ultimate strength of the pile cap Pu. The ultimate strengths of
the other pile caps were determined in the same way.
The CRSI sectional design method for the pile caps is
quite similar to the ACI 318 sectional design method. For the
shear design of a pile cap that can be regarded as a one-way
slab, the section at the face of the column is considered to be
the critical section, and the nominal shear strength Vc at the
critical section is determined from the following equations
Vc = VcACI ≥ 0.17 f c′bd for w/d ≥ 1.0 (1a)

28 ACI Structural Journal/January 2018

Table 2(a)—Evaluation of ultimate strength of pile cap BPC-30-25-1 by current design codes:
sectional methods
Bearing
Methods Flexure Pu,f, kN Pu ,bc, kN Pu ,bp, kN One-way shear Pu,1s, kN Two-way shear Pu,2s, kN Ultimate load Pu, kN
ACI 318-99 (1999) 902.5 3091.9 3496.8 864.1 890.1 864.1
ACI 318-14 (2014) 902.5 3091.9 3496.8 364.6 890.1 364.6
CRSI (2008) 902.5 3091.9 3496.8 1728.1 890.1 890.1

Notes: w is 125 mm (4.92 in.); d is 250 mm (9.84 in.); Pu,f = 2Mn,f /w, Mn,f is nominal flexural strength; Pu,bc = Pn,bc, Pn,bc is nominal bearing strength of column; Pu,bp = 4Pn,bp, Pn,bp
is nominal bearing strength of pile; Pu,1s = 2Vn,1s, Vn,1s is nominal shear strength of beam (ACI 318-99 Eq. (11.29), Eq. (a) of ACI 318-14 Table 22.5.5.1, Eq. (1)); Pu,2s = Vn,2s, Vn,2s
is nominal shear strength of two-way slab (Eq. (a) to (c) of ACI 318-14 Table 22.6.5.2, Eq. (2)); Pu = min(Pu,f, Pu,bc, Pu,bp, Pu,1s, Pu,2s); 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.

Table 2(b)—Evaluation of ultimate strength of pile cap BPC-30-25-1 by current design codes: ACI 318-14
strut-and-tie model approach
Concrete strut βs fc′, MPa fcu, MPa Fu, kN Aprov, mm2 Areq, mm2 Aprov /Areq Pu, kN
S1 0.51 29.1 14.84 321.5 13,717 21,663 0.63
Steel tie βt fy, MPa fcu, MPa Fu, kN Aprov, mm 2
Areq, mm 2
Aprov /Areq
T1 1.00 405 405 169.3 285 418 0.68
Nodal zone βn fc′, MPa fcu, MPa Fu, kN Aprov, mm2 Areq, mm2 Aprov /Areq
P/4 135.8 15,625 5491 2.85 543.3
CCC 0.85 29.1 24.74
S1 203.6 13,717 8230 1.67
R 135.8 17,671 9152 1.93
CTT 0.51 29.1 14.84 S1 203.6 22,963 13,717 1.67
T1 107.2 15,000 7225 2.08

Notes: βs, βt, and βn are coefficients of effective strength of strut, tie, and node; fcu is effective strength (= βs fc′ for strut, = βtfy for tie, = βnfc′ for node); FU is cross-sectional force
under experimental failure load; Aprov is maximum available area (refer to Fig. 2(b)); Areq is required area (= Fu/fcu); Pu is ultimate load (= minimum of Aprov/Areq × experimental
failure load); 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

d shown in Fig. 2(a) was used in this study. The load-carrying

Vc = Vc ≤ 0.83 f c′bd for w/d < 1.0 (1b)
w ACI
where fc′ is the compressive strength of concrete, in MPa;
w is the distance from the face of column to the center
of the nearest pile; b is the width of compression face of
the  member; Vc ACI in Eq. (1a) is the same as Eq. (a) of
ACI 318-14, Table 22.5.5.1; and Vc ACI in Eq. (1b) is the
same as ACI 318-99 Eq. (11.29). For the shear design of a
pile cap that can be regarded as a two-way slab, the section
at a distance d/2 from the face of column is considered to
be the critical section and the nominal shear strength Vc
at  the  critical section is determined from Eq. (a) to (c) of
ACI 318-14, Table 2.6.5.2 and Eq. (2) for w/d ≥ 0.5 and w/d
< 0.5, respectively
d  d
Vc = 1 +  × 0.17 f c′bs d ≤ 2.67 f c′bo d (2)
w c the nodal zone. The procedure for evaluating the pile cap’s
where bo (mm) is the perimeter of critical section; and
bs equals 4 × c for a square column of dimension c. The
procedure for evaluating the ultimate strength of the pile
cap is shown in Table 2(a) with an example using specimen
BPC-30-25-1. The ultimate strengths of the other 77 pile
caps were determined in the same way.
The ultimate strength using the ACI 318-14 strut-and-tie
model approach was determined by examining the load-
carrying capacities of the concrete struts, steel and concrete
ties, and nodal zones of a selected strut-and-tie model. For the
pile caps, the ACI 445 3-D strut-and-tie model (Klein 2002)
capacities of the elements were examined by comparing the
maximum available cross-sectional areas of the elements
with the required cross-sectional areas. The available areas
of concrete struts and nodal zones of the strut-and-tie model
were determined using the ACI 445 (Klein 2002) approach,
which considers the geometrical shape of the selected strut-
and-tie model and the sizes of the loading and bearing plates.
The available areas of the concrete struts and nodal zones
are shown in Fig. 2(b). The total cross-sectional area of the
reinforcing bars placed within the effective width of steel
tie T1 was taken as the maximum available area of the steel
tie. The required areas of the struts and ties were determined
by dividing their cross-sectional forces by their effective
strengths. The required areas of nodal zone boundaries were
determined by dividing the cross-sectional forces of the struts
and ties framing the nodal zone by the effective strength of
ultimate strength is shown in Table 2(b) with an example of
the specimen BPC-30-25-1, wherein the minimum ratio of
the maximum available area to the required area was taken
to determine its ultimate strength.
The ultimate strength of the pile caps using the 3-D grid
strut-and-tie model approach was determined by the linear
analysis procedure presented in Yun et al. (2017). In the
linear analysis procedure, the ultimate strength of a concrete
member is obtained by estimating the maximum load that a
3-D grid strut-and-tie model for the concrete member can
carry by satisfying the condition of the strut-and-tie model’s

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 29

Fig. 2—ACI 445 3-D strut-and-tie model for Pile Cap
BPC-30-25-1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.;
1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
geometrical compatibility and by evaluating the tensile
stress of steel tie and the compressive stress of nodal zone
boundary at the maximum load. For the strength analysis of
Specimen BPC-30-25-1, the 3-D finite element (FE) model
shown in Fig. 3(a) was constructed. The model is composed
of eight-node unreinforced concrete elements. The external
load acting on the column was distributed to the nodes of the
finite elements of the column by considering tributary areas
of the nodes. The x- and z-directional horizontal rollers were
30
Fig. 3—3-D grid strut-and-tie model for Pile Cap BPC-30-
25-1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
placed at the FE nodes located at the interfaces of the piles
and the pile cap, and the y-directional vertical roller was
placed at the FE node located at the bottom center of the pile
cap. A FE linear elastic analysis of the model was conducted
and compressive principal stress flows were obtained. By
considering the stress flows, the position of the flexural
reinforcing bars, the clear cover, the locations of piles, and the
ratio of vertical to horizontal length of a grid element in two
directions, a 3-D grid strut-and-tie model composed of four
basic grid elements was constructed as shown in Fig. 3(b).
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
Table 3(a)—Evaluation of ultimate strength of Pile Cap BPC-30-25-1 by 3-D grid strut-and-tie model
approach: ratio of cross-sectional areas under maximum load Pmax (=1158 kN)
Elements βs (βt) fc′, MPa fcu, MPa Aprov, mm2 Fu, kN Areq, mm2 Aprov /Areq
S1 1.15 29.1 33.57 16146 542.0 16146 1.000
T1 0.12 29.1 3.36 7784 25.4 7550 1.031
Notes: S1,T1: refer to Fig. 3(b); fcu = βs (βt) × fc′; Aprov is maximum available area in 3-D grid strut-tie model; Fu is cross-sectional force under maximum load Pmax; Areq is
required area (= Fu/fcu); 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Table 3(b)—Evaluation of ultimate strength of Pile Cap BPC-30-25-1 by 3-D grid strut-and-tie model
approach: strength verification of steel tie under Pmax
Elements βt fy, MPa fcu, MPa Aprov, mm2 Fu, kN fs, MPa fy/fs Pfail, kN
T1 1.00 405 405 285.2 132.5 464.6 0.872 1009.7
Notes: fcu = βtfy; Fu is cross-sectional force under maximum load Pmax; fs = Fu/Aprov; Pfail = Pmax × fy/fs; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.00155 in. ; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
2 2

Table 3(c)—Evaluation of ultimate strength of Pile Cap BPC-30-25-1 by 3-D grid strut-and-tie model
approach: strength verification of nodal zone under Pmax
Connected
Nodal zone βn fc′, MPa fnz, MPa element σnz, MPa fnz/σnz Pfail, kN
CCC 3.45 29.1 100.5 S1 45.5 2.208 2559.2
CTT 0.60 29.1 17.5 S1 22.3 0.784 907.9

Notes: CCC, CTT: refer to Fig. 2(a); fnz = βnfc′; σnz is compressive stress of nodal zone boundary at Pmax; Pfail = Pmax × fnz/σnz; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

The horizontal ties were placed at the center of the flexural
reinforcing bars. The external load acting on the column was
distributed to the nodes (of the grid elements) located at the
interface of the column and pile cap by considering tributary
areas of the nodes. In the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model, the
x- and z-directional horizontal rollers were placed at the FE
nodes located at the centers of the piles. The y-directional
vertical roller was placed at the FE node located at the bottom
center of the pile cap. Following the procedure presented in
Yun et al. (2017), the effective strengths of concrete struts
were determined. The yield strength of the reinforcing bar
and the tensile strength of the concrete were taken as the
effective strengths of the steel and concrete ties, respectively.
The required cross-sectional areas and the axial stiffness of
the struts and ties under the external load were determined
by using the simple iterative technique presented in Yun et
al. (2017). A structural analysis of the 3-D grid strut-and-tie
model was conducted and the effective strengths of the
nodal zones were determined by incorporating the structural
analysis results. After carrying out structural analyses of
the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model a few times according to
the linear analysis procedure presented in Yun et al. (2017),
the maximum load that the grid strut-and-tie model can
resist by satisfying the conditions of nodal zone strength
and the strut-and-tie model’s geometrical compatibility
was determined. The dimensioned grid strut-and-tie model
under the maximum load is shown in Fig. 3(c). In the figure,
the cross-sectional areas of struts and ties are depicted as
circular shapes for the purpose of easier visual verification
of the strut-and-tie model’s geometrical compatibility. The
maximum load that Specimen BPC-30-25-1 could resist
was 1158 kN (260.3 kip) (135% of the experimental failure
load). At the maximum load, the stress fs (464.6 MPa [67.4
ksi]) of the steel tie located at the bottom of the grid strut-
and-tie model was greater than the yield strength fy (405
MPa [58.7 ksi]) of the reinforcing bar with a ratio of fy/fs
= 0.872, and the compressive stress σnz of the nodal zone
boundary framed by the concrete strut S1 at the CTT node
was greater than the effective strength fnz of the nodal zone
with a ratio of fnz/σnz = 0.784. Therefore, according to the
definitions of the ultimate state of the strut-and-tie model’s
components given in Yun et al. (2017), 907.9 kN (204.1 kip)
(1158 kN [260.3 kip] × fnz/σnz, 105.8% of the experimental
failure load) was determined to be the ultimate strength of
Specimen BPC-30-25-1. The procedure for evaluating the
ultimate strength of the specimen is shown in Tables 3(a),
3(b), and 3(c). The ultimate strengths of the other pile caps
were determined in the same way.
The calculated ultimate strengths, coefficients of vari-
ance, dispersions, and correlation coefficients of 78 pile
caps are compared for several approaches in Fig. 4. As
shown in Fig. 4, the ultimate strengths were evaluated quite
conservatively with respect to test values using the ACI 318
sectional design method with the provisions of flexure,
bearing strength, and one-way slab shear. This indicates
that the use of a one-way slab shear provision is inappro-
priate for pile caps with w/d ≤ 5. The average ratios of the
experimental failure strength to the calculated strength (and
the percentages of failure mode agreement) based on three
approaches: 1) ACI 318 provisions for flexure, bearing
strength, and two-way slab shear; 2) ACI 318 provisions
for flexure, bearing strength, and deep beam and two-way
slab shear; and 3) the CRSI sectional design method; were
1.13 (92.3%), 1.17 (69.2%), and 1.12 (92.3%), respectively.
The calculated strengths of more than 40% of the pile caps
resulted in values greater than the experimental capacities
by the three approaches. The average ratio of the experi-
mental strength to calculated strength (and the percentage of

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 31

Fig. 4—Ultimate strengths of pile caps. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.)
failure mode agreement) using the ACI 318-14 strut-and-tie
model approach was 2.29 (85.9%); therefore, resulting in
excessive conservatism with respect to the experimental
failure strength. However, the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model
approach estimated the experimental failure strengths with
reasonable accuracy when compared with the experimental
capacity. The test to calculated capacity average ratio
(and the percentage of failure mode agreement) was 1.12
(91.0%), overcoming the significant conservatism observed
with strut-and-tie model approaches and sectional design
methods in the United States.
ANALYSIS OF SLAB-COLUMN JOINTS TESTS
The ultimate strengths of 19 slab-column joints, tested by
Yamada et al. (1992) and Ghannoum (1998) to investigate
the effects of tensile and compressive flexural reinforcement
32
ratios, patterns of shear reinforcing bars, and the shear
reinforcement ratio are estimated using the 3-D grid strut-
and-tie model approach and the two-way slab design
provisions of BS 8110 (1997), EC2 (2004), fib (2010), and
ACI 318-14 (2014). Details of the slab-column joint tests are
summarized in Table 4. The geometry of the specimens and
detailing of the flexural reinforcing bars are shown in Fig. 5
and 6. All the test specimens were failed by punching shear.
The ultimate strengths of the slab-column joints based on
BS 8110 sectional design method were determined using
the equation given in Table 3.8 of BS 8110 for the nominal
shear strength of a two-way slab. The ultimate strengths
of the slab-column joints based on EC2 and fib sectional
design methods were determined using EC2 Eq. (6.47), EC2
Eq. (6.52), and fib Eq. (7.3.40) and (7.3.42) for the nominal
shear strength of a two-way slab. The ultimate strengths of
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
Table 4—Specification of slab-column joints
No. of
Investigators Specimens specimens Slab size, mm Column size, mm fc′, MPa d, mm ρf ρv Ptest, kN
T-series 6 2000 x 2000 300 x 300 21.6 to 24.4 180 1.23 0.0 to 1.53 441 to 762
Yamada et al. (1992)
K-series 7 2000 x 2000 300 x 300 25.9 to 27.8 180 1.53 0.0 to 1.98 658 to 1498
U-type 3 2300 x 2300 225 x 225 37.2 to 67.1 125 0.96 — 301 to 443
Ghannoum (1998)
B-type 3 2300 x 2300 225 x 225 37.2 to 67.1 125 1.92 — 317 to 485

Notes: d is effective depth of slab; ρf, ρv are flexural and shear reinforcement ratios; Ptest is experimental failure load; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Fig. 5—Geometries and details of flexural reinforcing bars of slab-column joints (Yamada et al. 1992). (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
the slab-column joints using the ACI 318-14 sectional design
method were determined using Eq. (a) to (c) of ACI 318-14
Table 22.6.5.2 and Eq. (a) of ACI 318-14 Table 22.6.6.2.
The ultimate strengths of the slab-column joints using
the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model approach were deter-
mined using the linear analysis procedure shown in Yun
et al. (2017). A detailed procedure for evaluating the ulti-
mate strengths is illustrated using Ghannoum’s (1998)
S1-U specimen. For the strength analysis of the specimen,
a 3-D FE model composed of eight-node unreinforced
concrete elements was constructed, as shown in Fig. 7(a).
The external loads acting on the loading plates were distrib-
uted to the nodes of the finite elements located at the loading
plates by considering tributary areas of the nodes. A y-
directional vertical roller was placed at the FE node located
at the bottom center of the column, and x- and z-directional
horizontal rollers were placed at the other nodes located at
the bottom of the column. A FE linear elastic analysis of the
model was conducted and the compressive principal stress
flows were obtained. A 3-D grid strut-and-tie model was
constructed by considering the compressive principal stress
flows, the position of the flexural reinforcing bars, the clear
cover and the ratios of the vertical-to-horizontal lengths of
a grid element in two directions, as shown in Fig. 7(b). The
horizontal tensile components of the grid elements were
placed at the center of flexural reinforcing bars. The external
loads acting on the loading plates were distributed to the FE
nodes (of the grid elements) located at the loading plates by
considering the tributary areas of the nodes. As boundary
conditions, the y-directional vertical roller at the FE node
located at the bottom center of the column and the x- and
z-directional horizontal rollers at the other nodes located at
the bottom of the column, were placed. Following the proce-
dure presented in Yun et al. (2017), the effective strengths
of concrete struts were determined by reflecting the state
of stresses of the 3-D FE model shown in Fig. 7(a). The

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 33

Fig. 6—Geometry and detailing of flexural reinforcing bars of slab-column joints (Ghannoum 1998). (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
yield strength of reinforcing bar and the tensile strength of
concrete were taken as the effective strengths of the steel
and concrete ties, respectively. The required cross-sectional
areas and axial stiffness of the struts and ties under the
external loads were determined by using the simple iterative
technique presented in Yun et al. (2017). After analyzing the
3-D grid strut-and-tie model a few times, the maximum load
that the grid strut-and-tie model can resist by satisfying the
strength conditions of the concrete struts was determined to
be 292 kN (65.6 kip) (97.0% of experimental failure load). At
the maximum load, the required cross-sectional areas of the
diagonal plane struts connected to the column in the bottom
x-z plane reached their maximum cross-sectional areas. The
dimensioned grid strut-and-tie model under the maximum
load is shown in Fig. 7(c). At the maximum load, the stress
at the four nodal zones located symmetrically at the bottom
of the grid strut-and-tie model, σcn (= 97.5 MPa [14.1 ksi]),
was greater than the effective strength of the nodal zones,
fcn (2.49fc′ = 92.2 MPa [13.4 ksi]). Therefore, according to
the linear analysis procedure of the approach with the defi-
nitions of ultimate states of strut-and-tie model components
(these are explained in Table 1 of Yun et al. 2017), 277.5 kN
(62.4 kip) (292 kN [65.6 kip] × fcn/σcn, 92.2% of the exper-
imental failure load) was determined to be the ultimate
strength of Specimen S1-U. Similarly, the ultimate strength
of the other slab-column joints was determined.
The average ratios of the experimental failure strength
to the evaluated strength based on the sectional design
methods of BS 8110, EC2, fib, and ACI 318-14 are 1.24,
0.98, 1.46, and 1.72, respectively, and the coefficients of
variation (COV) of each method are 35.8%, 35.2%, 34.3%,
and 52.9%, respectively. The 3-D grid strut-and-tie model
approach estimated the experimental failure strengths fairly
well and consistently with an experimental failure-to-
evaluated strength ratio and coefficient of variation of 1.16 Fig. 7—3-D grid strut-and-tie model for Slab-Column Joint
and 23.0%, respectively. All the test specimens by the 3-D S1-U. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.)

34 ACI Structural Journal/January 2018

Table 5—Specification of torsional beams
Investigators Specimens (A) fc′, MPa fly, MPa fty, MPa ρl ρt s, mm Ttest, kN-m
Series B 10 26.0 to 29.0 313.7 to 334.4 318.5 to 342.7 0.534 to 2.67 0.537 to 2.61 57 to 181 22.3 to 61.7
Series M 6 26.5 to 30.5 317.8 to 335.1 326.1 to 357.2 0.827 to 3.16 0.549 to 2.13 70 to 149 30.4 to 60.1
Series I 5 44.7 to 45.8 310.2 to 343.4 325.4 to 348.9 0.827 to 2.67 0.832 to 2.61 57 to 127 36.0 to 76.7
Hsu (1968)
Series J 4 14.3 to 16.9 319.9 to 338.5 331.6 to 346.1 0.534 to 1.60 0.537 to 1.61 92 to 152 21.5 to 40.7
Series G 8 26.8 to 31.0 319.2 to 338.5 321.3 to 349.6 0.400 to 1.58 0.402 to 1.60 86 to 187 26.8 to 73.5
Series N 6 27.3 to 30.4 330.9 to 352.3 337.8 to 360.6 0.611 to 1.42 0.622 to 1.42 51 to 92 9.0 to 15.7
Series B30 3 36.3 to 41.7 604.7 to 637.8 665.3 to 672.2 3.521 1.5 90 15.3 to 16.6

Rasmussen and Series B50 3 57.1 to 61.8 612.3 to 614.3 665.3 3.521 1.5 90 18.5 to 20.0
Baker (1995) Series B70 3 76.2 to 77.3 614.3 to 617.1 655.7 to 663.3 3.521 1.5 90 20.1 to 21.0
Series B110 3 105.0 to 109.8 617.8 to 634.3 655.0 to 659.8 3.521 1.5 90 23.6 to 24.8
Koutchoukali and
Series B 9 39.6 to 93.9 373.0 to 386.1 373.0 to 399.2 0.500 to 0.625 0.009 108 18.4 to 24.0
Belarbi (2001)

Notes: A is number of specimens; fly, fty are yield strengths of longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars; ρl, ρt are longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios; s is spacing of
transverse reinforcing bars; Ttest is experimental failure load; 1 kN-m = 8.85 kip-in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Table 6—Ultimate strengths of torsional beams

No. of Rahal and Collins AASHTO-LRFD
Investigators specimens Hsu and Mo (1983) (1995) (2010) ACI 318-14 (2014) Present approach
Hsu (1968) 39 0.98 1.00 0.66 1.02 1.08
Rasmussen and
12 0.55 0.59 0.34 0.64 1.05
Baker (1995)
Koutchoukali and
9 0.82 0.80 0.67 1.01 1.02
Belarbi (2001)
Mean of Ttest/Tpredicted 0.87 0.88 0.60 0.94 1.06
Coefficient of variation, % 21.1 22.7 30.2 27.3 20.4

grid strut-and-tie model approach were failed by punching 2 Ao At f yt

shear (failure of inclined concrete struts encasing columns).
This indicates that the approach can be used effectively for
the strength analysis and design of slab-column joints by
overcoming the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of current
sectional design methods.
ANALYSIS OF TORSIONAL BEAMS
The verification of the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model
approach was carried out using the ultimate strength of 60
reinforced concrete beams tested to pure torsion to failure by
Hsu (1968), Rasmussen and Baker (1995), and Koutchou-
kali and Belarbi (2001). For the purposes of comparison
with current codes of practice, the ultimate strength of the
beams was also compared with AASHTO-LRFD (2010) and
ACI 318-14 (2014) design provisions, Hsu and Mo (1983)
method, and Rahal and Collins (1995) method. The data for
the torsional beams are listed in Table 5, and the geometry
and details of the longitudinal reinforcement are shown in
Fig. 8. All the torsional beams were failed by yielding of
transverse reinforcing bar(s) and diagonal cracks.
The ultimate strength of the torsional beams based on the
design provisions of ACI 318-14 and AASHTO-LRFD was
determined using the following equation for the nominal
torsional strength Tn (kN)
Tn = cot θ (3)
s
where Ao is the gross area enclosed by the shear flow path
(≈0.85Aoh , where Aoh is the area enclosed by the centerline
of the outermost closed transverse torsional reinforcement);
At is the area of one leg of a closed stirrup resisting torsion
within spacing s; fyt is the yield strength of the transverse
reinforcing bar; and θ is the angle between the axis of the
strut and the tension chord of the torsional beam. As the
specimens tested were not prestressed, 45 degrees was taken
as angle θ in applying the provisions of ACI 318-14. In
applying the provisions of AASHTO-LRFD, the angle was
determined by the method described in Section 5.8.3 of the
LRFD Specifications, incorporating the nominal shear stress
and the longitudinal strain of the torsional beam. The details
of the methods by Hsu and Mo (1983) and Rahal and Collins
(1995) can be found in the references provided and is not
discussed herein.
The ultimate strength of each of the specimens tested was
determined using the nonlinear analysis procedure of the
3-D grid strut-and-tie model approach. The detailed proce-
dure for evaluating the ultimate strength is illustrated with
an example of Beam B110-1 tested by Rasmussen and Baker
(1995). For the strength analysis of the beam, a 3-D FE
model for one-half of the effective span was developed, as

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 35

Fig. 8—Geometries and details of flexural reinforcing bars of torsional beams. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Fig. 9—3-D grid strut-and-tie model for Torsional Beam B110-1. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
shown in Fig. 9(a). The torsional force was linearly distrib-
uted to the nodes of the finite elements modeling the end
region of the beam. 3-D hinges were imposed at the nodes
located at the mid-section of the beam. A FE linear elastic
analysis of the model was performed, and the compressive
principal stress flows were obtained as shown in Fig. 9(b).
As shown in Fig. 9(c), a 3-D grid strut-and-tie model was
constructed by considering the compressive principal stress
flows, the positions of transverse and longitudinal rein-
forcing bars, the clear cover of the concrete, and the ratios
of the vertical-to-horizontal lengths of a grid element in two
directions. The torsional force was distributed to the nodes
(of the basic grid elements) located at the end region of the
beam by considering tributary areas of the nodes. 3-D hinges
were imposed at the nodes of the grid elements located at the
midsection of the beam. Following the procedure presented
in Yun et al. (2017), the effective strengths of the concrete
struts were determined. The yield strength of reinforcing bar

36 ACI Structural Journal/January 2018

Fig. 10—Geometry, material properties, and load cases of pier cap. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
and the tensile strength of concrete were taken as the effec-
tive strengths of the steel and concrete ties, respectively. The
required cross-sectional areas and axial stiffness of the struts
and ties under the external loads were determined by using
the simple iterative technique presented in Yun et al. (2017).
After analyzing the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model a few times,
the maximum torsional force that the grid strut-and-tie model
can transfer by satisfying the strength conditions of concrete
struts was determined to be 95.2 kN-m (843.2 kip-in.) (385%
of experimental failure force). At the maximum torsional
force, the required cross-sectional areas of the inclined
plane struts (Struts 742 and 743 in Fig. 9(c)) reached their
maximum cross-sectional areas. The dimensioned grid strut-
and-tie model under the maximum torsional force is shown
in Fig. 9(d). To determine the ultimate strength of Spec-
imen B110-1 using the nonlinear analysis procedure of the
approach, a FE material nonlinear analysis of the 3-D grid
strut-and-tie model was performed. The maximum torsional
force was applied incrementally with 40 load steps. At the
10th step, the grid strut-and-tie model became unstable with
sudden increases of nodal displacements. Therefore, by the
definitions of ultimate states given in Table 1 of Yun et al.
(2017), 23.8 kN-m (210.8 kip-in.) (95.2 × 10/40, 96.3% of
experimental failure force) was determined to be the ulti-
mate strength of Specimen B110-1. Following a similar
approach, the ultimate strength of the other specimens tested
was determined.
The ultimate strength of each of the 60 torsional beams
evaluated with the existing and proposed methods are
compared in Table 6. The average ratios of the experimental
strength to the calculated strength by the methods or design
provisions of Hsu and Mo (1983), Rahal and Collins (1995),
AASHTO-LRFD, and ACI 318-14 are 0.87, 0.88, 0.60, and
0.94, respectively. It must be noted that all the methods over-
estimated the experimental capacities. On the other hand,
the ultimate strengths were evaluated satisfactorily by the
proposed 3-D grid strut-and-tie model approach. Thus, the
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
proposed approach can be conservatively used for members
under torsion. The failure of all the beams predicted by the
proposed approach occurred by diagonal cracks (failure of
inclined concrete struts).
DESIGN OF PIER CAP
To verify the capability and effectiveness of the 3-D grid
strut-and-tie model approach in the design of a concrete
member with multiple load combinations, we selected a
bridge pier cap subjected to three load cases with 3-D loads.
The shear span-to-effective depth ratio of the cap is 1.25.
The design conditions including geometry, material proper-
ties, and load cases are given in Fig. 10.
Following the linear analysis procedure presented in
Yun et al. (2017), the design of the pier cap was conducted
using the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 11(a).
The grid model was constructed using basic grid elements
with vertical-to-horizontal length ratios of 0.96 and 1.09
in two directions. The auxiliary grid elements were also
used to model the inclined regions of the pier cap and the
outer regions of the round column. The AASHTO-LRFD
(2010) strength-reduction factors of 0.75 and 0.90 were used
for  the concrete struts and steel ties. The dimensioned strut-
and-tie model for load case one is shown in Fig. 11(b). In Load
Case 1 with the dead and live loads acting vertically, most of
the design loads at loading plates 2, 3, and 4 were transferred
to the pier directly by the concrete struts connecting the
loading plates and column. On the other hand, most of the
design loads at loading plates 1 and 5 were transferred to
the pier by the curved-shaped paths described by multiple
concrete struts. The pier cap subjected to load cases 2 and
3 with dead and live loads acting in three directions were
designed with the same 3-D grid strut-and-tie model shown
in Fig. 11(b). This illustrates the versatility of the approach
to handle multiple loading, including 3-D loads, by using a
single type of 3-D grid strut-and-tie model. The conditions
of the strut-and-tie model’s geometrical compatibility under
37

Fig. 11—3-D grid strut-and-tie model for pier cap. (Note:
1 kN = 0.2248 kip.)
all three load cases were satisfied, and the strengths of all
nodal zones were enough to transfer the strut and tie forces.
Thus, the maximum cross-sectional area of a steel tie at a
certain position under the three load cases was taken as the
required area of the reinforcing bar that should be distributed
with the effective area of the steel tie. The required areas
of reinforcing bars corresponding to the other steel ties
were obtained and distributed in the same way. To complete
the design, the code provisions for auxiliary or minimum
reinforcement must be observed.
To compare the design results of the 3-D grid strut-and-tie
model approach, the designs of the pier cap were carried out
using the ACI 318-14 flexural design method, ACI 318-14
bracket provisions, and ACI 318-99 deep beam provisions.
The pier cap was also designed based on the strut-and-tie
model approaches of current design codes, with the
two-dimensional (2-D) strut-and-tie models shown in Fig.
11(a) and 11(b) representing arch and truss load-transfer
mechanisms, respectively. As the 2-D strut-and-tie models
are valid for 2-D load cases, only Load Case 1 (Fig. 11)
was considered. Nodes F and G in Fig. 12 were placed at
a vertical distance of 200 mm (7.87 in.) from the plane in
38
which the column ends. The vertical positions of both nodes
are the same as those of corresponding nodes of the 3-D
grid strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 11. The nodes were
also placed at a horizontal distance of 620 mm (24.4 in.)
from the boundary of the column with a transformed square
cross section. The horizontal positions of both nodes can be
moved toward the boundary of the pier by considering the
required cross-sectional areas of the concrete struts located
in the pier.
The required cross-sectional areas of reinforcing bars
obtained using each method are compared in Fig. 13. From
the design results, two features can be observed. First, more
flexural reinforcing steel is required by the strut-and-tie
model approach than by the other methods. This is mainly
due to the positions of nodes F and G shown in Fig. 12 and
the corresponding nodes shown in Fig. 11. If these nodes
are moved toward points F and G by considering the critical
section (the S-S line in Fig. 12) defined by ACI 318-14 flex-
ural design and bracket provisions, similar flexural design
results will be obtained. Second, more vertical shear rein-
forcing bars are required by the strut-and-tie model of truss
mechanism than by the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model. This
is because the design loads at loading plates 1 and 5 are
transferred to the column mainly by truss action in the strut-
and-tie model of the truss mechanism. On the other hand, the
design loads are transferred to the pier by the combined arch
and truss mechanisms in the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model.
In other words, a portion of the design loads are transferred
directly to the pier through arch-type concrete struts in the
3-D grid strut-and-tie model. These design outcomes of
the pier cap (with a shear span-to-effective depth ratio of
1.25) based on the 3-D grid strut-and-tie model approach
are supported by the statically indeterminate strut-and-tie
models recommended by Foster and Gilbert (1998), fib
(2010), and Kim and Yun (2011). The recommended models,
consisting of the arch and truss load transfer mechanisms,
are known to be most appropriate for deep beams with shear
span to effective depth ratios of 0.45 < a/d < 1.80, 0.90 < a/d
< 1.56, and 0.50 < a/d < 3.00, respectively.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The strut-and-tie model approach in current design codes
incorporated with simple truss-type 2-D strut-and-tie models
for the design of structural concrete with disturbed regions
in most cases is not sufficient to properly represent the
complex load transfer mechanisms encountered in some 3-D
disturbed regions. To overcome this limitation, the authors
have proposed a 3-D grid strut-and-tie model approach in
the authors’ previous paper. The approach employs grid
strut-and-tie models to represent the complex load transfer
mechanisms, and to determine the effective strengths of 3-D
concrete struts and nodal zones. The approach is envisioned
for use in practice and not only as a research tool. The same
basic concepts have been adopted of the strut-and-tie model
approaches used in current design codes in terms of the
strength verification of struts, ties, and nodal zones.
The approach was used to estimate the experimental capac-
ities of pile caps, slab-column joints, and torsional beams.
The average ratios of the experimental strength to calculated
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018
Fig. 12—Two-dimensional strut-and-tie model for pier cap. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Fig. 13—Design results of pier cap. (Note: 1 cm2 = 0.155 in.2)

ACI Structural Journal/January 2018 39

strength (and COV) by ACI 318-14 sectional design methods
for pile caps, slab-column joints, and torsional beams were
1.13 (29.3%), 1.72 (52.9%), and 0.94 (27.3%), respectively.
The average ratios (and COV) by EC  2 and fib for slab-
column joints were 0.98 (35.2%) and 1.46 (34.3%). The
average ratios (and COV) by AASHTO-LRFD and Rahal
and Collins (1995) method for torsional beams were 0.60
(30.2%) and 0.88 (22.7%). The average ratios (and COV) by
the proposed approach for pile caps, slab-column joints, and
torsional beams were 1.12 (12.8%), 1.16 (23.0%), and 1.06
(20.4%), respectively. The approach evaluated the experi-
mental capacities fairly well and consistently, and enabled
the design of the pier cap by representing its load transfer
mechanisms properly. By considering the strength analysis
and design results of this study, the 3-D grid strut-and-tie
model approach can help overcome the limitations and
uncertainties of the strut-and-tie model approaches used in
current design codes.
AUTHOR BIOS
Young Mook Yun is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering
at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea. He received his PhD
from Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, in 1995. His research inter-
ests include strut-and-tie model analysis and design of concrete members,
computational mechanics, and computer graphics.
Hyun Soo Chae is a Deputy Head in Program Development Department
of Hangil IT, Seoul, Korea. He received his PhD from Kyungpook National
University in 2012. His research interests include numerical and strut-
and-tie model analysis/design of disturbed regions in concrete members.
Byunghun Kim is a Lead Engineer in the Infrastructure Department of
Hyundai Engineering, Seoul, Korea. He received his PhD from Kyungpook
National University in 2004. His research interests include strut-and-tie
model design of concrete structures and development of numerical analysis
methods for steel and reinforced concrete structures.
Julio A. Ramirez, FACI, is a Professor in the Lyles School of Civil Engi-
neering at Purdue University. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Commit-
tees 408, Bond and Development of Steel Reinforcement, and 445, Shear
and Torsion. He has received the 2000 ACI Delmar Bloem Award and the
2006 ACI Joe W. Kelly Award.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through
the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry
of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2015R1D1A1A01061333).
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
2010, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, fifth edition, Wash-
ington, DC.
40
ACI Committee 318, 1999, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 369 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.
British Standards Institution, 1997, “Structural Use of Concrete: BS
8110,” Milton Keynes, UK.
Clarke, J. L., 1973, “Behavior and Design of Pile Caps with Four Piles,”
Report No. 42.489, Cement and Concrete Association, London, UK.
CEB-FIP, 2010, “CEP-FIP Model Code,” Comité Euro-International
du Béton, International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, 2008, CRSI Handbook, Chicago, IL.
CEN, 2004, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures,” European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 229 pp.
Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I., 1998, “Experimental Studies on High-
Strength Concrete Deep Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 382-390.
Ghannoum, G. M., 1998, “Effect of High-Strength Concrete on the
Performance of Slab-Column Specimens,” MS thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal,
QC, Canada.
Hsu, T. T. C., 1968, “Torsion of Structural Concrete—Interaction Surface
for Combined Torsion, Shear, and Bending in Beams Without Stirrups,”
ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 65, No. 1, Jan., pp. 51-60.
Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 1983, “Softening of Concrete in Torsional
Members,” Research Report No. ST-TH-001-83, Department of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Kim, B. H., and Yun, Y. M., 2011, “An Indeterminate Strut-Tie Model
and Load Distribution Ratio for RC Deep Beams—(I) Model & Load
Distribution Ratio,” Advances in Structural Engineering, V. 14, No. 6,
pp. 1031-1042.
Klein, G. J., 2002, “Example 9: Pile Cap,” Examples for the Design for
Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models, SP-208, K.-H. Reineck, ed.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 213-223.
Koutchoukali, N., and Belarbi, A., 2001, “Torsion of High-Strength
Reinforced Concrete Beams and Minimum Reinforcement Requirement,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 462-469.
Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., 1995, “Analysis of Sections Subjected
to Combined Shear and Torsion—A Theoretical Model,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 459-469.
Rasmussen, L. J., and Baker, G., 1995, “Torsion in Reinforced Normal
and High-Strength Concrete Beams—Part 1: Experimental Test Series,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 56-62.
Sabnis, G. M., and Gogate, A. B., 1984, “Investigation of Thick Slab
(Pile Cap) Behavior,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 81, No. 1., Jan.-Feb.,
pp. 35-39.
Suzuki, K.; Otsuki, K.; and Tsubata, T., 1998, “Influence of Bar Arrange-
ment on Ultimate Strength of Four-Pile Caps,” Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute, V. 20, pp. 195-202.
Suzuki, K.; Otsuki, K.; and Tsuchiya, T., 2000, “Influence of Edge
Distance on Failure Mechanism of Pile Caps,” Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute, V. 22, pp. 361-368.
Yamada, T.; Nanni, A.; and Endo, K., 1992, “Punching Shear Resistance
of Flat Slabs: Influence of Reinforcement Type and Ratio,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 88, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 555-563.
Yun, Y. M.; Kim, B. H.; and Ramirez, J. A., 2017, “Three-Dimensional-
Grid Strut-and-Tie Model Approach in Structural Concrete Design,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 1, Jan., pp. 15-26.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2018