Testing and Analyzing Two Deep Beams

Using Strut-and-Tie Modeling

ACI Structural Engineering Journal Paper
Open Topics Session Presentation
Prepared by:

Amir R. Ghiami Gabriel E. Polo Gloriana A. Martinez

Prof. Oguzhan Prof. Trevor D.

Bayrak Hrynyk Katelyn S. Beiter Randale L. Shinn

Technical Presentation Slide 1 of 28 12/18/17

 Presentation Outline
Research Motivation and Objectives
Background & Literature Review
Design Process
Experimental Investigation
Comparison of Results
Summary & Conclusions
Acknowledgements

Technical Presentation Slide 2 of 28 12/18/17

 Research Motivation
STM design provisions were introduced to AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications in 1994
Need to keep these provisions updated

This research investigated the most recent set of revisions to

these design provisions
The 7th edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (2016 interim) will include these provisions

Technical Presentation Slide 3 of 28 12/18/17

 Research Objectives
Primary Objective:
Evaluate the most recent set of revisions to the STM design provisions of
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

Secondary Objectives:
Investigate the behavior of simply supported deep beams loaded in a
manner that creates an inflection point
Test a deep beam with longitudinal curved bars for the first time in FSEL
Investigate the capabilities of VecTor2 software to provide accurate blind
predictions of the observed experimental behavior

Technical Presentation Slide 4 of 28 12/18/17

 Background and Literature Review
TxDOT project 0-5253-1
Strength and serviceability design of reinforced concrete deep beams
TxDOT project 5-5253-01-1
Strut-and-tie model design examples for bridges
FIP report
Practical Design of Structural Concrete, Fdration Internationale de
la Prcontrainte, CEB-FIP (fib), Fdration Internationale du Bton,
Lausanne, Switzerland
Deep beam database
Evaluation of Existing Strut-and-Tie Methods and Recommended
Improvements
Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete
Curved-bar nodes
Vector2
Technical & FormWorks Users
Presentation Manual
Slide 5 of 28 12/18/17
 Design Process
Specimen Geometry:

P2 = 2 P1

Technical Presentation Slide 6 of 28 12/18/17

 Design Process
Design Assumptions:
No phi factors in the design
fc = 4 ksi
fy = 60 ksi
Loading plates = 7x7 in.
Support bearing plates = 12x8 in.
TxDOT 5253 strut-and-tie modeling provisions
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2014

Technical Presentation Slide 7 of 28 12/18/17

 Design Process
Preliminary Analysis:
Stress flow
Linear elastic finite element analysis
Recommendations by Schlaich et al.

Technical Presentation Slide 8 of 28 12/18/17

 Design Process
Beam 1 STM

107 kips 92

s
12 ki

kip
4k ps
ips 73 kips

80
Beam 2 STM

130 kips p s
144 k i
kip 6
s 12 87 kips

Technical Presentation Slide 9 of 28 12/18/17

 Design Process
Design Steps:
Proportioning longitudinal reinforcement according
to the analysis results
Proportioning vertical and crack control
reinforcement
Performing nodal strength checks
Providing necessary anchorage for ties
Checking serviceability behavior
Technical Presentation Slide 10 of 28 12/18/17
 Design Process
Longitudinal Reinforcement Detail:
Beam 1
Beam 2

Technical Presentation Slide 11 of 28 12/18/17

 Design Process
Beam 1 Reinforcement Detail:

A B

A B
Section A-A

Section B-B
#3 @ 5
(Crack Control)

Technical Presentation Slide 12 of 28 12/18/17

 Design Process
Beam 2 Reinforcement Detail:
A B C

A B C
Section B-B

Section C-C
Section A-A

#3 @ 5

Technical Presentation Slide 13 of 28 12/18/17

 Design Process

Total Reinforcement Weight:

Reinforcement Beam 1 (lb) Beam 2 (lb)
Total
198 227
Reinforcement

Technical Presentation Slide 14 of 28 12/18/17

 Experimental Investigation

Technical Presentation Slide 15 of 28 12/18/17

 Experimental Investigation

Technical Presentation Slide 16 of 28 12/18/17

 Experimental Investigation
Negative Moment Region Cracks:

35 kips 97 kips
Beam 1
Beam 2

Technical Presentation Slide 17 of 28 12/18/17

 Experimental Investigation
Negative & Positive Moment Region Cracks:

130 kips 220 kips

Beam 1
Beam 2

Technical Presentation Slide 18 of 28 12/18/17

 Experimental Investigation
Failure:
(293 kips)
Beam 1
(301 kips)

TIE AD TIE DF
Beam 2

ST CD EF

TIE DE
RU T U T
RU R
ST ST E EH
TA
B TI
STRUT CE

Technical Presentation Slide 19 of 28 12/18/17

 Comparison of Results
Sample VecTor2 Models:

Technical Presentation Slide 20 of 28 12/18/17

 Comparison of Results
Crack and Failure Prediction for Beam 1:

Technical Presentation Slide 21 of 28 12/18/17

 Comparison of Results
Crack and Failure Prediction for Beam 2:

Technical Presentation Slide 22 of 28 12/18/17

 Comparison of Results
Load-Displacement Curves:

Beam 1 Beam 2
Technical Presentation Slide 23 of 28 12/18/17
 Beam 1 (293 kips) Beam 2 (301 kips)
Entries
Total Load (kips) VT2/Test Total Load (kips) VT2/Test

1 272 0.93 262.5 0.87

2 228 0.78 274.5 0.91

3 191 0.65 271.5 0.90

4 255 0.87 270 0.90

5 195 0.67 253.5 0.84

6 195 0.67 255 0.85

7 252 0.86 253.5 0.84

8 216 0.74 259.5 0.86

Average 225 0.77 263 0.87

C.O.V 0.139 0.032

Technical Presentation Slide 24 of 28 12/18/17

 Summary and Conclusions
1) The new strut-and-tie model provisions proposed by TxDOT
project 0-5253-1 yielded a conservative design for both
specimens
2) A strut-and-tie model that follows the stress flow is more
efficient (Beam 1 carried 1.45 kips per pound of steel while
Beam 2 carried 1.37)
3) The equations provided by Gary Klein for curved bar nodes
yielded a safe and conservative design

Technical Presentation Slide 25 of 28 12/18/17

 Summary and Conclusions
4) The strut-and-tie models developed in this study successfully
predicted the observed failure mode of the specimens.
5) The results from the analytical investigation were
conservative with respect to the observed experimental
behavior.
6) Vector2 software was capable of accurately capturing the
failure mode and cracking patterns of both specimens. In
addition, it predicted the elastic response of the specimens
with an excellent precision.

Technical Presentation Slide 26 of 28 12/18/17

 Acknowledgements

Prof. Chris S. Blake Stassney Dennis Phillip David Braley John Bacon
Williams

Structural Concrete
Bridge Design Course

Plasticity in Structural
Concrete Course
Dr. Hossein Michelle Damvar Deanna Mueller
Yousefpoor
Technical Presentation Slide 27 of 28 12/18/17
 Thank you!

Technical Presentation Slide 28 of 28 12/18/17