Strut-and-Tie Modeling following AASHTO LRFD

By

Trevor Pullen

A creative component submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Science

Major: Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering)

Committee Members: Fouad Fanous - Major Professor Ladon Jones Committee Member Jon Matthews Rouse Committee Member

Iowa State University of Science and Technology Ames, IA January, 2013

Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2 History and Design Procedure of Strut-and-Tie Modeling ........................................................... 6 2.1 The History of Strut-and-Tie Modeling .............................................................................................. 6 2.2 Design of D-region using Strut-and-Tie Models................................................................................. 8 Chapter 3 Constructing Appropriate Strut-and-Tie Models ....................................................................... 11 3.1 Finite Element Analyses ................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Model Layout ................................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Deep Beam Example ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.4 Strut Compressive Strength Verification ......................................................................................... 21 Chapter 4 Bridge Pier Cap Design ............................................................................................................... 28 4.1 Pier Cap Design Example ................................................................................................................. 29 4.1.1 Loading and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 30 4.2 AASHTO STM Design ..................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................................... 52 5.1 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 52 5.2 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................ 52 5.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 53 References.37

List of Figures
Figure 2-2 Tie Intersecting a Strut............................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-1 Stress patterns in B and D-regions............................................................................................. 12 Figure 3-1 Finite Element Flow of Stresses ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3-2 Stress Distributions with Truss Model ....................................................................................... 13 Figure 3-3 Indeterminate Truss................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-4 Determinate Truss ..................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-5 Limiting Compressive Stress in Struts According to AASHTO LRFD ........................................... 15 Figure 3-6 Deep Beam................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 3-7 Deep Beam STM......................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-8 Node A ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3-9 STM Dimensions ........................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 3-10 Deep Beam stresses ................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 3-11 Test Beam STM ........................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 3-12 Deep Beam Results without AASHTO LRFD crack control, s. ................................................ 24 Figure 3-13 Deep Beam Results with AASHTO LRFD crack control, s. ....................................................... 25 Figure 3-14 Deep Beam Results without AASHTO LRFD crack control, average s..................................... 26 Figure 3-15 Deep Beam Results with AASHTO LRFD crack control, average s. ......................................... 27 Figure 4-1 Slender Hammer Head Pier Cap ................................................................................................ 28 Figure 4-2 Pier Cap Beam ............................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 4-3 Bridge Pier Dimensions Front Elevation (FHWA Design Example) ............................................ 31 Figure 4-4 Bridge Pier Dimensions Side Elevation (FWHA Design Example) .............................................. 31 Figure 4-5 Live Load Diagram (FHWA Design Example) .............................................................................. 33 Figure 4-6 Bearing Load Locations .............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 4-7 Bridge Pier Free Body Diagram .................................................................................................. 36 Figure 4-8 Bridge Pier Self Weight .............................................................................................................. 37 Figure 4-9 Pier Cap Final Loading ................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 4-10 Stress Distribution ................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 4-11 Simple STM .............................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 4-12 Refined STM ............................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 4-13 Node E...................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4-14 AASHTO Figure 5.6.3.3.2-1....................................................................................................... 48 Figure 4-15 Steel Layout ............................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 4-16 Cross Section for E-I ................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 4-17 Cross Section for C-E ................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 4-18 Cross Section for A-C................................................................................................................ 51

List of Tables
Table 3-1 Available Strut Widths ................................................................................................................ 19 Table 4-1 Material Properties ..................................................................................................................... 30 Table 4-2 Bridge Superstructure Data ........................................................................................................ 30 Table 4-3 Dead Loads .................................................................................................................................. 32 Table 4-4 Vehicle Live Load Values ............................................................................................................. 32 Table 4-5 Vehicle Live Load Pier Reactions ................................................................................................. 33 Table 4-6 Vehicle Live Load Multiple Presence Factors x Bearing Reactions ............................................. 34 Table 4-7 AASHTO Load Factors.................................................................................................................. 34 Table 4-8 Bridge Pier Bearing Loads ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 4-9 Shear and Moment at the Comlumn .......................................................................................... 36 Table 4-10 Final Bearing Loads ................................................................................................................... 36 Table 4-11 Self-Weight Resultant Forces .................................................................................................... 37 Table 4-12 Member Forces ......................................................................................................................... 42 Table 4-13 Longitudinal Steel...................................................................................................................... 43

Abstract
The design of D-regions of reinforced concrete beams is the past was based on rules of thumb and past experience. Strut-and-Tie Modeling (STM) is an accepted design method to deal with these D-regions. It simply idealizes the entire beam, or portions of the beam as a truss where steel is placed according to the locations of the tension members. The objective of the work presented is to provide guidance in constructing appropriate strut-and-tie models and to verify the usage of AASHTO LRFD code previsions to design the D-regions of reinforced conrete beams using strut-and-tie models. Recommendations will be made based on the findings. These objectives were accomplished by performing the following tasks: 1. Conduct a literature search to review available information about STM and testing that has been done to verify the strength of beams designed by AASHTO LRFD STM procedure. 2. Constructing a finite element model of a deep beam to verify the compressive stresses across a strut. 3. Provide a guide to design with STM using AASHTO LRFD. 4. Provide a step-by-step example on how to analyze and design a bridge pier cap. The important findings provided with this work is a refined procedure to guide designers with using AASHTO LRFD STM, analysis of the adequacy of AASHTO STM equations according to a finite element analysis as well as deep beam test results performed by Martin and Sanders et al. (2007). Recommendations are also provided to estimate the principle strains in the concrete struts in STM which directly coencide with the beam strength. Variations of strengths resulting from different amounts of crack control reinforcement is also discussed in this work. The findings of this work show that STM with AASHTO LRFD provisions can be an applicable design method for the D-region of beams. However, certain criteria need to be met and the engineer needs to give special consideration to the geometry of their models, crack control, concrete strength and strain in the struts.

Chapter 1 Introduction
The design of reinforced concrete flexural members using the conventional method is done using a sectional moment design with Whitneys stress block based on the Bernoulli hypothesis that a plane section before bending remains plane after bending. Here, the strains in the section are assumed to be linear. Parts of a member where this assumption is valid are called B-regions, where the B stands for Bernoulli. However, portions of flexural members and possibly the entire member do not follow this assumption. In these parts of a beam near supports, concentrated loads and discontinuities, the strains follow a non-linear behavior through a section. Thus, these are called D-regions where d stands for discontinuity, or disturbed. Either sectional analysis or strut-and-tie modeling (STM) can be used for Bregions according to AASHTO LRFD Specifications (AASHTO 5.8.1.1). STM is required for D-regions of beams (AASHTO 5.8.1.2). For typical beams and girders with long spans, the D-regions have a small influence on the overall behavior of the member and are ignored in the design so STM is not needed. The History Behind Strut and Tie Modeling section of this report goes into further detail about the Dregions and when STM should be used. A procedure for STM development according to AASHTO LRFD design method is also given. The design of the bridge pier cap in chapter 5 is done using this procedure. Strut-and-tie modeling (STM) is an accepted design method by AASHTO to deal with d-regions since it simplifies the non-linear stresses into a truss model through a series of struts and ties. This truss model is a physical representation of the flow of stresses at failure. A model that is in equilibirum and has stresses the struts, ties and nodal zones that are below the strength limits will satisfy the requirements of the lower bound theorem of plasticity. However, STM is a very open ended method since it leaves a lot of room for creativity and judgement for the designer when creating a model. Therefore, a procedure for STM development according to AASHTO LRFD design method is presented along with an example using STM for the design of a bridge pier cap. The purpose of the work presented here is to show how STMs represent the flow of forces through a member and why it is an appropriate design method.

Chapter 2 History and Design Procedure of Strut-and-Tie Modeling

This chapter discusses when the idea of STM first came about and why engineers began using it as opposed to the conventional design approach. Situations in which STM should be used is also discussed along with a step-by-step procedure to aid in the design of flexural D-regions.

2.1 The History of Strut-and-Tie Modeling

The idea of using strut and tie modeling was based off work done by German civil engineer Wilhelm Ritter in the late 1890s. Ritter introduced the idea that concrete beams could be designed by using a truss analogy where tensile forces would be carried by reinforcing steel wires or bars and compressive forces would be carried by the concrete. Emil Mrsch took Ritters ideas in the early 1900s and used the truss analogy to help determine the amount of shear reinforcing steel needed in B-regions of beams. Mrschs method was used to idealize the complicated flow of force through a cracked beam as a simple truss. Shear reinforcement design since then has been extensively based on the truss model. Up to the 1970s it was extensively designed with bent-up bars at the ends of beams. Typically, some of the longitudinal reinforcing bars were bent when they were no longer needed for moment capacity. This allowed them to act as shear reinforcement as well as give them development length. The use of bent bars was efficient since they attempted to line up with the principle tensile stresses in the beam. However, the use of vertical shear ties became more prominent than bent bars because they are easier to place correctly in the field. There was not much work done to expand upon Ritter and Mrschs truss analogy until Schlaich, Jrg, et al. (1987) worked to come up with a way to design entire beams and structures using the truss analogy. The article, Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete which was published in the PCI Journal Vol. 32 May-June 1987, called for a standard set of procedures and rules for using a truss analogy, or strut-and-tie modeling. It explains that, near regions of static and geometric discontinuities, the usual method of beam design by sectional analysis is not applicable since the stresses and strains in these regions are not consistent with the rest of the beam. Schlaich, Jrg, et al. (1987) argued that design was based on test results, rules of thumb and past experience, not actual knowledge of the mechanics and lead to inefficient designs. The article suggests using strut and tie modeling to standardize the design of these regions since it could be more easily understood and interpreted on a case by case basis. The justification for the use of a strut and tie model by Schlaich, Jrg, et al. (1987) was that a reinforced concrete beam simply carries loads in a series of tensile and compressive forces. Similar to a truss, the design model would carry these forces in the steel and concrete of the beam and connect the truss elements by adequate nodal zones. As long as all the truss members fit into the geometry of the beam and can carry their internal forces, the design would work.

To start, the authors made a procedure to distinguish between the sections of a beam that follow the Bernoulli hypothesis of linear strain distribution through the section of the beam (B-regions) and those where the strain distribution is significantly nonlinear (D-regions). At the time, design approaches for cracked D-regions existed for certain cases (beam supports, corbels) but they only involved the design 6

for the amount of reinforcing steel needed and didnt provide an understanding of the stresses in the concrete. The approach to find the extent of the D-regions was included in the article and is outlined here using Figure 2-1:

Figure 2-1 B and D Region Division Lines 1) Replace the real structure (a) by a fictitious structure (b) which is loaded so it complies with Bernoullis plain strain hypothesis and satisfies equilibrium with the sectional force. This fictitious structure consists of entirely B regions and usually violates the actual boundary conditions of the structure. 2) Select a state of stress that when combined with the fictitious structure will satisfy the original boundary conditions and equilibrium (c). 3) Apply Saint-Vnants principle: The difference between the effects of two different equivalent loads becomes very small at sufficiently large distances. Loads applied to an area will produce localized stresses and strains, different from the effects felt by the rest of the structure, but this effect dissipates to the point where it is negligible at a distance from the load, support or discontinuity (d). As shown in Figure 2 the D region was approximated to extend a distance equal to the height of the beam at the location of the supports. It was determined that the localized stresses and strains will dissipate enough at a distance equal to the length that the forces in part (c) act on, which is the height of the beam. This is the specified area of the D-regions according to Appendix A of ACI 319-08 STMs were introduced into the AASHTO code in 1994 and the ACI 318 code in 2002 as an appendix. The design code and procedure used in this paper is based on the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. The strength requirements it gives for of struts, ties and nodal zones are very similar to those proposed by Schlaich, Jrg, et al. (1987).

2.2 Design of D-region using Strut-and-Tie Models

The following lays out a procedure for designing the D-regions of reinforced beams using STM. It includes the specifications from AASHTO LRFD code. For many members, a number of different STM can be developed that would all result in an adequate strength design. The model that can carry the loads in the most direct path, closely following elastic stress trajectories, will provide the most efficient design. 1. Delineate D-regions from B-regions. The D-regions are taken as a distance, h, from locations of discontinuity, concentrated loads, etc., where h is the depth of the beam. Therefore, the length of a D-region that results from a concentrated load is 2h since it extends in both directions of the load. 2. Determine the boundary conditions on the D-region. If the entire beam consists of D-regions or if the entire beam will be design using a STM, the boundary conditions on the D-region are simply the boundary conditions on the beam (support reactions). If only a portion of the beam is being design using a STM, the D-region can be designed by itself assigning appropriate boundary conditions and loading to the sections considering it is congruent with the rest of the beam. 3. Visualize/ sketch the flow of stresses through the D-region. This can be done intuitively or with the help of Finite Element software. Sketching the stresses helps the designer create a good model to fit the stress paths in the member. 4. Develop a truss model to represent the flow of forces. Idealize the compressive stresses with straight-line struts. Tension tie locations are determined to satisfy equilibrium within the truss and follow tension stresses. Suitable assumptions have to be made for the location of the centroids of the ties to allow for clear cover and sufficient space between layers of ties. A sectional design can be performed to get an estimated of the forces and the location of their centroids in horizontal struts and ties that run parallel to the boundaries of the member. It may be beneficial to iterate to find the most efficient and economical model dimensions. It is also important to consider the location of loads and supports during the development of a STM. For example, in modeling a bridge pier cap, nodes should be placed at the bearing locations of the girders and can be sized according to the size of the bearing. There is no single unique STM for design situations, but the guidelines discussed in chapter 4 can aid in the development. 5. Calculate forces in struts and ties. This is easily done if the STM produces a statically determinate truss. It is complicated to solve for forces in statically indeterminate models since the stiffness of each member is unknown. Stiffness values have to be assumed originally and forces can be calculated using an iterative method. It is suggested that STMs be kept determinate if possible to make the member force calculations simpler. 6. Size the area of ties. Choose the number and size of bars for the required area of steel in the ties so that the resistance provided meets or exceeds the design requirement (5.6.3.4). Make sure the ties fit in beam with required clear cover and spacing with the centroid being at the location of the tie in the assumed STM model. It may be necessary to spread the reinforcement into layers to avoid 8

overstressing the concrete in the nodal zones. If the steel doesnt fit the STM model will have to be adapted to change the location of the ties. 7. Check stresses in the nodal zones and struts. Proportion the struts (AASHTO 5.6.3.3) based on their required compressive resisting force. Use the struts dimensions along with the force in the ties to dimension the nodal zones (AASHTO 5.6.3.5). Check the stresses in the struts and nodal zones to ensure limitations are met. The nodal zones allow for the transfer of stress between truss members. It is important to make sure the concrete will not be overstressed in these zones. Stress limitations depend on the members that intersect at the node (ties, struts). It may be necessary to spread the tie reinforcement into layers to not exceed the stress limitations in the concrete nodal zones. Ensure the nodes and struts will fit into the beam geometry. If not, adjust the truss model or develop a new one that works with the beam size. The width of the strut may govern the size of a nodal compressive face or vice versa. According to AASHTO LRFD design code, the struts in a STM model have a limiting compressive stress which is given as:

where 1 is the principle tensile strain in the concrete, taken as:

with being the smallest angle between the compressive strut and the tension tie as shown in Figure 3-1 and is the average tensile strain in the concrete in the direction of the tension tie. This is simply the tensile strain in the reinforcing bars due to their design loading at the centerline of the strut. A strain of 0.002 corresponds to a tie yielding in tension at the point it crosses the strut. For nodal zones, AASHTO LRFD specifies the limiting compressive stress in the concrete to be: 0.85fc for node regions bounded by only compressive struts and bearing areas 0.75fc for node regions anchoring a one-direction tie 0.65fc for node regions anchoring tension ties in more than one direction

Figure 2-1 Tie Intersecting a Strut 8. Provide adequate anchorage for steel tie reinforcement. Design the steel for the ties so their force is fully developed at the tension face of the node (AASHTO 5.6.3.4.2). Often this requires the use of appropriate bends, hooks or possibly mechanical anchorage. 9. Provide additional crack control reinforcement. AASHTO LRFD design by STM also requires a grid of reinforcing bars to be placed near each face of the beam (AASHTO 5.6.3.6). This reinforcement limits the size of cracks that may develop parallel to the struts and helps ensure a minimum ductility for the members so that stresses can redistribute to the assumed truss shape.

10

Chapter 3 Constructing Appropriate Strut-and-Tie Models

AASHTO LRFD section 5.6.3 on STM doesnt give any direction as to where struts and ties should be placed in a model or how large their angles should be relative to each other. This chapter gives some guidance to help with constructing appropriate truss models. A model for a beam composed entirely of D-regions is discussed along with a deep beam example in which the tie and strut strengths are checked in accordance with AASHTO.

3.1 Finite Element Analyses

The linear-elastic finite element analyses presented in this chapter were done using the ANSYS finite element program. ANSYS is commercial engineering software that is capable of analyzing the structural properties of beams. It was chosen since it is available at Iowa State University for educational purposes. For the models used in this chapter and chapter 4, solid quad 8-node 183 elements were used. These are two dimensional four sided elements with eight nodes about their edges. This effectively analyzes a unit thickness of the member cross section. Although the non-linear behavior of concrete was not considered in these models, the 8-node element has the capability to evaluate non-linear behavior if a more rigorous analysis is desired. Members were created in ANSYS by drawing their shapes and applying the correct loads and boundary conditions. Mesh sizes were chosen manually and adapted until the respective models showed convergence of their principle stresses. The material properties used to model the linear behavior of concrete was the modulus of elasticity = 3605ksi and Poissons ratios = 0.2.

3.2 Model Layout

Figure 2-2 shows a simply supported beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load. The division between B and D regions is shown along with the elastic stress trajectories resulting from the FE analysis. The blue arrows show compressive stresses and the black arrows show tensile stresses. It is evident in this diagram that the localized stress fields near the supports in the D-regions are different from the stress fields in the B-region.

11

Figure 3-1 Stress patterns in B and D-regions.

Figure 3-1 shows the flow of stresses in a simply supported beam subjected to a concentrated load at its center. Principle tensile stresses and their directions and relative magnitudes are represented by black arrows while principle compressive stresses are represented by blue arrows. It is not absolutely necessary to use this when laying out a model, but it can be very helpful, especially if the designer is not experienced with using STMs.

Figure 3-2 Finite Element Flow of Stresses

12

In most situations, tension and compression chords can be placed running parallel to the boundaries of members. The location of these chords can be estimated based on a sectional moment analysis which is discussed in section 3.2. In rectangular shaped beams, vertical tension ties can be visualized along the length of the beam as shown by the solid red lines in figure 3-2. Struts are then placed from supports and concentrated loads connecting the vertical ties. These struts should closely resemble the stress trajectories from the finite element analysis. The struts radiating out from the supports and concentrated loads form compression fans (figure 3-3) extending to a distance approximately equal to the depth of the truss. This follows the St. Venant principle of localized stresses dissipating at a distance equal to the depth of the beam that distinguishes a D-region as discussed earlier. The region between compression fans is called a compression field. The struts here are parallel and should also resemble the stress trajectories shown in the finite element model. The vertical angles relative to the longitudinal ties should typically be around 45 or slightly less for compression field struts, but can also depend on the dimensions of the beam.

Figure 3-3 Stress Distributions with Truss Model

13

Figure 3-4 Indeterminate Truss

Figure 3-5 Determinate Truss

Since the truss shown in figure 3-3 is statically indeterminate, it is convenient to simplify it. Solving the indeterminate truss would require assumptions to be made on member stiffnesss or forces and much iteration to design. The simplified truss, figure 3-4 is statically determinate which allows all the member forces to be easily solved. It is developed by lumping the many struts and ties of a part of the beam into single struts and ties. The compression fan region struts are represented by members AB and EF. The compression field struts are represented by member CD. The vertical ties are lumped into members BC and DE and can be designed as a band of stirrups. Most codes specify a minimum angle between a strut and the longitudinal steel tie. 25 is specified directly in the ACI code but others require a larger angle. Keeping the angle relatively large limits the transverse stresses that weaken the ends of struts. Small angles also develop an incompatibility with the strains in the tie and the strut since the tie is lengthening and the strut is shortening. AASHTO, however, does not specify a minimum angle but it does relate the angle indirectly to the allowable stress in the strut. Figure 3-5 is a plot showing the limiting compressive stress of a strut (fcu) according to AASHTO as a percentage of the concrete yield stress (fc) vs. the angle 14

between the strut and longitudinal steel for a given strain in the steel. A strain of 0.0021 corresponds to the yielding stress, fy, of 60ksi steel. 0.00186 corresponds to a stress of 0.9fy and 0.00166

corresponds to a stress of 0.8fy. The strain in the ties in a model are typically between 0.00186 and 0.00166 since the steel is designed to carry a stress close to, but not exceeding 0.9 fy. Based on the results of this plot, it is recommended that angles be not much less than 40 when possible. This helps limit the force in each strut and keeps the transverse strain in the strut and, therefore, the limiting stress in the concrete ( ), at a reasonable value. Note that the effective stress in the strut is about 25% higher for a 40 angle than a 25angle.

Limiting Compressive Stress

90 80 70 60

% f'c

50 Steel Strain = 0.00166 in/in 40 30 20 10 0 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Angle between strut and steel tie () Steel Strain = 0.00186 in/in Steel Strain = 0.0021 in/in

Figure 3-6 Limiting Compressive Stress in Struts According to AASHTO LRFD

Since concrete has limited plastic deformation capabilities, the STM chosen should ensure that the internal deformation limit is not exceeded before the assumed stresses are reached in the rest of the member. According to Schlaich, Jrg, et al. (1987), in areas of high stress, right by support and loads, struts should be placed to closely match the elastic stress trajectories to help meet this ductility requirement. In areas of moderate or low stress, struts may deviate considerably from the elastic trajectories without exceeding the ductility limitation of the member. This should be considered when creating a truss model.

15

3.3 Deep Beam Example

The deep beam with the loading and dimensions shown in figure 3-6 was designed using STM since the entire beam is in the D-region. To start laying out a truss, the designer should look at the distances between the supports and the applied load. The distance from the left support to the load is 6.5 feet which is much less than the height of the beam of 9 feet. Therefore, it is safely assumed that a diagonal strut placed here will have an angle greater than 40 to the horizontal tie that will be placed going from the left support to the right support so one strut is sufficient. The distance from the right support to the load is 10 feet. A preliminary estimate for the angle between the strut and the horizontal tie was done by assuming positions for the nodes at the support and the bearing load. The location of the node at the right support is assumed to be at the center of the support and 5 inches above the bottom surface of the beam to account for concrete cover and multiple bar layers. The node at the load is assumed to be at the center of the bearing and 8 inches from the top surface of the beam. This should be a fairly conservative assumption but it will be estimated more precisely with a sectional analysis. Based on the node locations, the angle between the strut and tie is: ( ) Since this angle is only slightly less than 40 , it is reasonable to use just one strut going from the bearing to the right support in the model. A sectional moment design was performed to refine the estimate of the bearing locations. It will estimate the location of the tie as well as the vertical projection required for the node at the bearing location since the node must resist the horizontal component of the two struts acting on it.

Figure 3-7 Deep Beam

16

Sectional Analysis: Based on the graph from figure 3-5 with a steel stress of 0.8fy which corresponds to a strain of 0.0017 and an angle of about 38, fcu was taken as about 50% of fc. To estimate the value for d, the distance from the top of the beam to the centroid of the tie, 5in was subtracted from the height of the beam to account for clear cover and the possibility of two rows of reinforcing bars being needed. The following analysis was based on the moment at the bearing support. fc=4 ksi fcu=2.0 ksi

) , d is estimated as ( )

Based on this analysis, the height of the node at the bearing load (node B) is set as

. This

node was also divided into two sub-nodes since the applied load can be divided into the loads going to each support. The width of the sub-nodes depends on the ratio of the load resisted in each to the total load. B left sub-node: B right sub-node: Struts were placed according to these sub-node widths and the sectional analysis and the tie satisfies equilibrium as shown in figure 3-7

17

Figure 3-8 Deep Beam STM

18

Figure 3-9 Node A

Table 3-1 Available Strut Widths Strut Node Available Width, in. A 22.0 AB B 19.5 C 20.6 BC B 16.0

The available strut widths depend on the size of the nodes that transfer their forces to the supports. Figure 3-8 shows the available width according to the dimensions of node A. This width is calculated as 20sin(52.5)+10cos(52.5) = 22.0in. Widths depending on nodes A, B and C are given in table 3-1 and can be seen in figure 3-7. The limiting width for both struts was governed by the connection to node B. The available strength of each strut depends on the available width and limiting concrete stress. Calculations for the strengths of tie AC and struts AB and BC are shown here: Tie AC (AASHTO 5.6.3.2-1) (AASHTO 5.6.3.3.4-1)

19

, Use 7 #10 bars with Strut AB

(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.3-2)

(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.3-1)

(AASHTO 5.6.3.3.1-1)

(AASHTO 5.6.3.2-1)

Strut BC

20

Both struts and the tie, and therefore, the model layout are adequate according to the calculations. To complete the design of the beam, crack control reinforcement would have to be added along with development length provisions for the tie. These criteria are shown in the Chapter 4 pier cap design example. The strength checks performed for struts AB and BS were based on prismatic struts. In reality, the struts will tend to be bottle shaped as the compressive stresses spread out between the nodes. AASHTO LRFD design specification allows for the idealization of prismatic struts since the smallest width of the strut occurs at the nodes and will theoretically control the strength due to the stress concentrations. Also, transverse tension through a strut is resisted by the orthogonal grid of minimum crack control reinforcement required by the code. However, some specifications suggest designing struts to be bottle shaped.

3.4 Strut Compressive Strength Verification

A linear elastic finite element analysis was done to check the stresses concentrated at the ends of the struts from figure 3-9. The stresses here are approximately confined to the width of the strut at the node (figure 3-10). According to the analysis, the highest compressive stress in the concrete is 1.50ksi in the left strut and 1.53ksi in the right strut. Both of these stresses occurred at node B and are less than the limiting stresses of the struts which were 2.75ksi and 2.05ksi for the left and right struts respectively. Although this was based on an elastic analysis assuming a linear stress-strain relationship for the concrete, it gives a pretty good indication that the limiting stress will not be exceeded in the struts when subjected to the design load of 954kips.

21

Figure 3-10 STM Dimensions

Figure 3-11 Deep Beam stresses

Martin and Sanders et al. (2007) researched the conservatism of strut strengths following AASHTO LRFD provisions. They compiled 282 simple deep beam test results and compared them to the anticipated 22

results from their respective STMs. The models were developed based on the size of the bearings and the size of beam as shown in figure 3-11. Forces in the truss members were calculated based on the load and support reactions at failure. 106 beams that failed in the tie were eliminated from the database to focus on the strength of the struts. The actual compressive strength of the inclined strut, factual, was compared to the limiting stress, fcu, calculated using the AASHTO LRFD equations. Factual was determined by dividing the ultimate load in the strut by the cross-sectional area of the strut.

Figure 3-12 Test Beam STM Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007)

The results are shown in figures 3-12 through 3-15 which show the ratio of fcu over factual vs the compressive strength of the concrete. Ratios greater than one are conservative while ratios less than one are unconservative. The 176 beams that failed due to compression in the struts were divided into four categories: 1. Crack control provisions of AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 were not met and the fully developed strain in the tie was used. (figure 3-12) 2. Crack control provisions of AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 were met and the fully developed strain the tie was used. (figure 3-13) 3. Crack control provisions of AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 were not met and the average strain in the tie was used. (figure 3-14) 4. Crack control provisions of AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 were met and the average strain in the tie was used. (figure 3-15) AASHTO section 5.6.3.3.3 says to use the average strain in the tie when the strain changes through the width of the strut. For a strut anchored to the end of a tie, the strain at one side is assumed to be zero while the strain in the other side is the fully developed strain.

23

The results in figure 3-12 show that for beams not having sufficient crack control reinforcement and having an fcu based on the fully developed strain in the tie, the design strength of the struts can be unconservative for all concrete strengths but tend to be worse for higher strength concretes.

Figure 3-13 Deep Beam Results without AASHTO LRFD crack control, s. Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007)

24

Figure 3-14 Deep Beam Results with AASHTO LRFD crack control, s. Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007) Figure 3-13 shows that design strengths of the struts with sufficient crack control reinforcement and using the fully developed tie strain were conservative for concrete having the fc less than 7000 psi and unconservative for the fc greater than 7000 psi. According to Figure 3-14, many of the design strengths for the struts not having sufficient crack control reinforcement and using the average strain in the tie across the strut were unconservative for all ranges of fc . The range of the results for also varies widely with some struts resisting twice their design

capacity and some resisting only half their design capacity.

25

Figure 3-15 Deep Beam Results without AASHTO LRFD crack control, average s. Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007)

26

Figure 3-15 shows that the design capacities for high strength concrete was unconservative for all four of the sample beams that were designed using an average strain through the strut. Even with low strength concrete, barely over half the struts were conservative.

Figure 3-16 Deep Beam Results with AASHTO LRFD crack control, average s. Martin and Sanders et al) . (2007)

27

Chapter 4 Bridge Pier Cap Design

A major use of STM is in bridge pier caps. AASHTO LRFD specifications recommend their use for the design of D-regions (AASHTO 5.6.3.1) and pier caps tend to be composed of entirely or mostly D-regions due to their large depths and the frequent application of concentrated loads from the girders they support. Figure 4-1 shows a hammerhead pier cap with relatively long and slender cantilevered portions sticking out from the column. The dashed compressive struts in the STM model generally follow the blue arrows which represent the elastic stress trajectories in the cap. Ties in the model are the solid lines which include a series of longitudinal ties across the top of the cap and vertical ties. The vertical ties represent the center of stirrup bands that extend half way to the next vertical tie. A bar size is usually assumed for the shear ties and the required spacing is calculated for each band.

Figure 4-1 Slender Hammer Head Pier Cap 28

Figure 4-2 shows a pier cap-beam as an alternative to the hammer head shape. These are generally fairly deep beams composed of mostly or entirely D-regions. The stress trajectories are displayed throughout the beam geometry and a proposed STM is shown. Reversal of moments from the portion in the clear span to the portion over the columns is evident in the stress patterns and is accounted for in the STM.

Figure 4-2 Pier Cap Beam

4.1 Pier Cap Design Example

The bridge pier designed in this section is from the U.S. Department of Transportation FHA (Federal Highway Administration) as part of an LRFD steel girder superstructure design example. It is for a 3-lane one way traffic bridge. Bridge material properties and loading calculations are shown . The procedure for the strut and tie modeling of the pier is demonstrated in this section.

29

4.1.1 Loading and Material Properties

Material Properties Table 4-1 Material Properties Material Property Concrete Density Concrete 28-day Compressive Strength Steel Reinforcement Strength Table 4-2 Bridge Superstructure Data 9.75 ft N=5 DOH = 3.9375 ft Lspan = 120.0 ft

Value Wc = 0.150 kcf fc = 4.0 ksi Fy = 60.0 ksi

Girder spacing Number of girders Deck overhang Span length

30

Bridge Pier Dead Load

Figure 4-3 Bridge Pier Dimensions Front Elevation (FHWA Design Example)

Figure 4-4 Bridge Pier Dimensions Side Elevation (FWHA Design Example)

31

Reactions from exterior girders Reactions from interior girders Pier cap overhang Pier cap interior Pier cap Total Pier column Footing Soil above the footing

Table 4-3 Dead Loads RDCE = 253.70 K RDWE = 39.20 K RDCI = 269.10 K RDWI = 39.20 K

Rtotal = 292.90k Rtotal = 308.30k DLovrhg = 93.00k DLint = 127.88k DLcap = 313.88k DLcol = 156.94k DLftg = 144.90k EVftg = 49.50k

DLovrhg = (5ft5ft15.5ft)Wc+ (6ft5ft15.5ft) Wc DLint = (11ft5ft15.5ft) DLftg Wc DLcap = 2 DLovrhg DLint DLcol = (15.5ft4.5ft15ft) Wc DLftg = (3.5ft23ft12ft) Wc EVftg = (2ft) (23ft12ft-15.5ft4.5ft)

Note: DC refers to the dead load attributed to the superstructure supported on the pier. DW refers to the dead load attributed to the wearing surface.

Bridge Pier Vehicle Live Loads Vehicle live loads acting on the bridge deck were assumed based on the U.S.DOT pier design example. The layout of the loading is shown in Figure 4-5 and the estimated values are in Table 4-4. p represents approximated truck wheel point loads and w represents distributed lane loads. These loads act on the bridge deck which is supported by the girders. The live loads are then carried through the girders onto the bearing surface of the pier. There are seven different live load combinations that were analyzed based on which lanes are loaded or unloaded. Table 4-4 Vehicle Live Load Values Load Value p (truck wheel loads) 74.51k w (lane loads) 8.77 k/ft

32

Figure 4-5 Live Load Diagram (FHWA Design Example) Table 4-5 Vehicle Live Load Pier Reactions

Load Reaction 1 Reaction 2 Reaction 3 Reaction 4 Reaction 5 Combination (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) A 6.43 -173.11 -82.15 14.51 -2.40 B -2.96 17.91 -131.30 -131.34 10.97 C 0.69 -4.17 16.90 -84.74 -165.40 AB 3.47 -155.20 -213.46 -116.83 8.57 AC 7.12 -177.28 -65.25 -70.23 -167.80 BC -2.27 13.74 -114.40 -216.08 -154.43 ABC 4.16 -159.37 -196.55 -201.57 -156.83

The pier reactions due to these loads are listed in Table 4-5. Different pier reactions are the result of combinations of live loads acting on the bridge deck. The load combinations represent the lane that has a traffic load (i.e. load combination AB is when lanes A and B both carry traffic). The reaction numbers coencide with numbering system in Figure 4-5 where reaction 1 is at the far left bearing point on the pier, reaction 2 is at the 2nd from the left bearing point, etc. These reactions where multiplied by 33

AASHTO multiple presence factors and the resulting bearing rections are shown in Table 4-6. The factors of 1.20, 1.00 and 0.85 relate the probability of one, two or three lanes being loaded simultaneasly. Table 4-6 Vehicle Live Load Multiple Presence Factors x Bearing Reactions

Multiple Load Reaction 1 Reaction 2 Reaction 3 Reaction 4 Reaction 5 Presence Combination (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) Factor, m A 1.20 7.72 -207.73 -98.58 17.41 -2.88 B 1.20 -3.55 21.50 -157.56 -157.60 13.16 C 1.20 0.83 -5.01 20.28 -101.69 -198.48 AB 1.00 3.47 -155.20 -213.46 -116.83 8.57 AC 1.00 7.12 -177.28 -65.25 -70.23 -167.80 BC 1.00 -2.27 13.74 -114.40 -216.08 -154.43 ABC 0.85 3.54 -135.46 -167.07 -171.33 -133.31

Bridge Pier Total Bearing loads Table 4-7 AASHTO Load Factors Load Case Load Factors Superstructure DL 1.25 Wearing surface DL 1.5 Vehicle LL 1.75

AASHTO load factors in table 4-7 were used to calculate the total factored girder reactions acting at each bearing point of the pier cap. The total factored loads are in table 4-8 and were calculated as follows: Total Load = 1.25(DC)+1.5(DW)+1.75(LL) Example: The total load at bearing point 1 for load combination A+DC+DW is the combination of Reaction 1 for live load in lane A and the DC and DW dead loads for an exterior girder. Total Load = 1.25(-253.70)+1.5(-39.20)+1.75(7.72) = -362.42 kips

34

Table 4-8 Bridge Pier Bearing Loads

Load Combination A + DC + DW B + DC + DW C + DC + DW AB + DC + DW AC + DC + DW BC + DC + DW ABC + DC + DW

Load 1 Load 2 Load 3 Load 4 Load 5 (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) -362.42 -758.70 -567.70 -364.71 -380.96 -382.15 -357.56 -670.91 -670.98 -352.90 -374.48 -403.94 -359.68 -573.13 -723.26 -369.85 -666.77 -768.72 -599.63 -360.93 -363.46 -705.42 -509.36 -518.08 -669.57 -379.90 -371.13 -595.37 -773.31 -646.18 -369.73 -632.24 -687.55 -695.01 -609.21

Figure 4-6 Bearing Load Locations The load combination producing the maximum moment at the column is used for the design of the bridge pier. Shear and moment values at these locations are shown in Table 4-9 and are calculated according to Figure 4-7 which shows the pier idealized as a frame. Combinations include the factored level live loads for each load case and the factored dead loads acting on each bearing point. The governing load combination is BC+DC+DW which refers to the lanes B and C having traffic live load, the dead weight of the superstructure (DC) and the dead weight of the wearing surface (DW). The loads used from this combination are Load 4 = -773.31kips and Load 5= -646.18kips. This produced a shear value of 1289.29 kips and a moment of 19259.70 kip-ft. To keep the design of the pier cap symettrical and due to uncertainty in the possible location of the traffic lanes, Load 1= Load 5 and Load 2 = Load 4. Load 3 is taken as the maximum reaction at bearing point 3 which is -762.72kips. The final loading at each bearing point of the pier cap is shown in Table 4-10 and the location of these loads is shown in Figure 4-6.

35

Table 4-9 Shear and Moment at the Comlumn Shear 1 Moment 1 Shear 2 Moment 2 Load Combination (kips) (kipsft.) (kips) (kipsft.) A + DC + DW 1251.32 -13581.55 615.47 10104.07 B + DC + DW 869.90 -10055.10 893.68 12542.95 C + DC + DW 908.62 -10357.78 1166.19 18811.02 AB + DC + DW 1166.82 -12830.11 830.36 12003.91 AC + DC + DW 1199.08 -13082.39 1057.45 17227.30 BC + DC + DW 881.23 -10143.65 1289.29 19259.70 ABC + DC + DW 1132.17 -12491.21 1174.02 17775.34

Table 4-10 Final Bearing Loads

Force (kips)

Load 1 -646.18

Load 2 Load 3 Load 4 Load 5 -773.31 -768.72 -773.31 -646.18

Figure 4-7 Bridge Pier Free Body Diagram

In addition to these bearing loads, the pier cap is subjected to its own self weight. The self-weight calculation is shown here along with the resulting force distribution along the pier cap shown in Figure 4-8. The pier cap dead load is added to the bearing loads for the design. Force from self weight = -(width) x (height) x (unit weight of concrete) x (load factor) Force at end of pier cap = -(5ft)(5ft)(.150kips/cu.ft)(1.25) = -4.69kips/ft Force at the column = -(5ft)(11ft)(0.150kips/cu.ft) (1.25)=- 10.31kips/ft 36

Figure 4-8 Bridge Pier Self Weight The self-weight of the pier cap is applied as resultant forces acting on the five bearing points shown in Table 4-11. These forces are added to the applied loads from the girders from Table 4-10. Figure 4-9 shows the final loading that is used for the STM design. Table 4-11 Self-Weight Resultant Forces

Bearing Force (kips)

1 -51.48

2 -95.33

3 -101.21

4 -95.33

5 -51.48

Figure 4-9 Pier Cap Final Loading

37

4.2 AASHTO STM Design

1. Delineate D-regions from B-regions The entire pier cap is considered to be in the D-region since the smallest beam depth dimension is 5ft. and the distance between the bearing concentrated loads is 9.75ft., which is less than 2(h) = 10ft. Even if part of the cap were to be considered as a B-region, it would still be reasonable to do the entire design with STM. 2. Determine the Boundary Conditions on the D-region To generalize the pier cap as a truss, the column under it is considered as three compressive struts. These struts are resisted by three supports. Two prevent displacement in the y-direction only, while the third prevents displacement in the x and y directions. The x-direction location of these struts and corresponding supports depend on the force in each strut and will be determined with the development of the truss model. 3. Visualize/ sketch the flow of stresses Finite Element analysis software was used to generate figure 4-10. It shows the principle stresses present in the pier cap due to the final loading conditions. The blue arrows represent compressive stresses (3rd principle stress) and the black arrows represent tensile stresses (1st principle stress). It is easy to visualize where the stress distributions are concentrated. This helps with the orientation of struts and ties in the model.

Figure 4-10 Stress Distribution

38

4. Develop a STM that is compatible with the flow of forces. The model used should realistically represent the distribution of stresses from step 3. The column supporting the pier cap can be broken into three compressive struts. The middle strut takes the load from bearing 3, the left strut takes the load from bearing 1&2 and the right strut takes the load from bearing 4&5. At a distance below the column connection to the pier cap, the compressive stresses in the column are uniform. Therefore, the widths of these struts are calculated based on the percentage of the load they carry to the total load in the column. As can be seen in the calculations below, the outer struts are 6.07ft wide. Therefore, the centerlines of the two struts are located a distance of 6.06/2 = 3.03ft from the edge of the column. These strut dimensions are used in the creation of the truss model. Middle strut force: 869.93 kips Outer struts force: 697.66+868.64 = 1566.30 kips Middle strut width: Outer strut widths: Therefore, the centerlines of the outer struts are 3.03ft from the edge of the column. A simple truss model is shown in Figure 4-11. The struts simply carry the compressive loads from each bearing point directly to the column. This model closely resembles the stress distributions shown in step 3. However, a more conventional truss model is typically used in STM as shown in Figure 4-12. The locations of the struts were chosen to keep their angles with the horizontal ties above 40 and to represent the compression fan stress trajectories as accurately as possible near the applied loads. This model resists the diagonal tension stresses due to shear with vertical ties. Since these are much easier to place in the construction of the pier cap and the use of diagonal ties is typically avoided unless absolutely necessary, the more conventional model was chosen for this design example. Ultimately, it is up to the judgment of the designer to come up with a model that will work in the geometry of the pier cap while following AASHTO guidelines.

39

Figure 4-11 Simple STM For this model, a tie representing the centroid of shear stirrups was placed half way between the outer two bearing loads. Another tension tie was placed 4.72 feet from the center bearing load since this is the location of the strut in the column calculated above. Compressive struts were added to connect to these nodes and establish equilibrium within the truss. The compressive struts in this model are shorter and have better steel confinement due to the vertical ties. To dimension the STM, a sectional analysis of the center of the pier cap was done to get an estimate of the widths of the bottom struts HJ and JL since these will resist the highest compressive forces due to the moment at the location of the cantilever connection to the column. The analysis was based on the section located 3.03ft from the edge of the column since this is the location of nodes H and L. It was estimated that the horizontal tie spanning the top of the pier cap should be placed 5 from the top edge of the cap. This accounts for the 1.5 clear cover, shear ties and two layers of longitudinal steel that is expected based on the sectional analysis. The limiting stress in the concrete is estimated as 0.85fc since the struts are not anchored to any ties. From the analysis, it was determined that the centerline of the strut should be placed about 6 above the bottom of the pier cap. Calculations are shown here:

) 40

Therefore, the lines representing the centerline of the bottom struts will be placed at 6 from the edge of the pier cap and the centerline of the longitudinal ties will be spaced 5 from the top edge of the beam as shown in Figure 4-12.

Figure 4-12 Refined STM 5. Calculate forces in struts and ties. The computer software STAAD was used to compute the forces in truss members. It is convenient to use software for this step since the model geometry can easily be changed and member forces recalculated if necessary. However, it is also a good idea to check some of the members by hand to verify that the model is set up properly using the software. All member forces are shown in Table 412.

41

Table 4-12 Member Forces Tension Force (kips) 460.48 733.55 1455.98 1455.98 1455.98 1455.98 733.55 460.48 519.42 579.53 0 0 579.53 519.42 Compression Force (kips) -835.92 -586.83 -1618.37 0 -869.93 0 -1618.37 -586.83 -835.92 -493.77 -743 -1455.98 -1455.98 -743 -493.77

Member AC CE EG GI IK KM MO OQ CD EF GH KL MN OP

Member AD CF EH GJ IJ KJ ML ON QP DF FH HJ JL LN NP

6. Size the area of ties. Longitudinal ties are sized and steel is chosen as shown in Table 4-13 based on the calculation shown here: (AASHTO 5.6.3.2-1) (AASHTO 5.6.3.3.4-1)

Example: Ties AC & OQ

Using #11 bars, with

= 1.56in2 , use 6 #11 bars.

42

Table 4-13 Longitudinal Steel

Member AC CE EG GI IK KM MO OQ

Ast, required #11 bars #11 bars (sq. in.) required used 8.53 5.47 6 13.58 8.71 9 26.96 17.28 18 26.96 17.28 18 26.96 17.28 18 26.96 17.28 18 13.58 8.71 9 8.53 5.47 6

For the ties from E to M, the #11 bars can be placed in two rows of 9 bars. Spacing between the bars must be at least 4/3db, or 1.88in. Check the assumed location of the tie centroid for two rows of bars: 2(clear cover+0.625(dia. of #5 stirrup)+11/8(dia. of #11 bar)+11/16(half the spacing between rows) =4.92 so the assumed location of 5 below the top edge of the pier cap is ok. Check horizontal spacing of longitudinal steel:

5.10 is much larger than the minimum spacing requirement of db=1.83in. Horizontal spacing of the longitudinal steel is not an issue with 9 bars in a row.

The vertical ties represent the centroid of stirrups that will be spaced across a stirrup band. For ties CD and OP the band spans a distance of in each direction. The total strength of all the stirrups in this band must be greater than the force in CD and OP respectively. Stirrup bands for EF and MN also span 2.4375ft in each direction from the centerline. The calculation for the spacing of the stirrups is shown here based on using #5 4-legged stirrups: Ties CD and OP

The required spacing within the 4.875ft band is:

( )

, use a spacing of 7in. 43

=10.7in2 The minimum transverse reinforcement in this region is given by the following equation: (AASHTO 5.8.2.5)

Since the area of steel provided is 4(0.31) = 1.24in2 which is greater than 0.44in2, the minimum transverse reinforcement is provided for the stirrup band representing ties CD and OP. In the region outside the stirrup band to the end of the pier cap, 2-legged #5 stirrups with Av = 0.62in2 can be used to satisfy the minimum transverse reinforcement requirement. Ties EF and MN

The required spacing within the 4.875ft band is:

( )

6.76, use a spacing of 6in. =12.48in2

Check minimum area of transverse reinforcement: Therefore, the minimum transverse reinforcement is provided for the stirrup band representing ties EF and MN. In the region of the pier cap over the column that is outside the stirrup bands, 2-legged #5 stirrups with Av = 0.62in2 can be used to satisfy the minimum transvers reinforcement requirement. 7. Check stresses in the nodal zones and struts. The bottom cord struts are checked to see if the estimated location of the truss members based on the sectional analysis is ok. (AASHTO 5.6.3.2-1) (AASHTO 5.6.3.3.1-1) (AASHTO 5.6.3.3.3-1) (AASHTO 5.6.3.3.3-2) = the smallest angle between the strut and longitudinal ties that run through the strut 44

= strain in the steel running through the strut = strain in the steel tie perpendicular to the strut Struts HJ & JL

There are no ties designed to run through these struts, therefore,

is taken as 0.

, 3.4ksi is the limiting compressive strength of the concrete.

Struts FH & LN

in tie EF: The angle, between strut FH and tie EF is (90-tan-1( ( ) = 80.85

Struts DF & NP

in tie EF: The angle, between strut DF and tie CD is (90-tan-1( 45 = 68.84

Nodal Zone E &M The nodal zones for nodes E and M need to be checked before the struts connecting to them can be checked since the node width, and therefore the strut width, depend on the size of the bearing pad which is 14 across. These nodes are considered CTT nodes since they connect one compressive strut with 2 or more tension ties. Therefore, the limiting compressive stress in the concrete nodal zone is taken as:

Since the bearing area is larger than the required area of concrete to resist the applied load at E & M, the bearing width is adequate. Struts EH and ML will be checked based on the size of node E which is controlled by the bearing width.

Figure 4-13 Node E

46

The nodal region and the forces acting on it are shown in figure 4-13. The dimensions of the node are based on the 14 bearing width, the 4.975x210 distance from the top edge to the center of the longitudinal steel and the following equation for the width of strut EH: EHwidth = 14sin(63.49)+10cos(63.49) = 17.0in.

Struts EH & ML

The strain through the strut can be taken as the average strain in the two longitudinal ties that cross it which are tie CE and tie EG. Tie CE: in tie EF: Tie EG: in tie EF: Average strain in these ties is The angle, between strut EH and tie CE is tan-1( ( ) =63.49

According to AASHTO section 5.6.3.3.2, The value of ACS shall be determined considering both the available concrete area and the anchorage conditions at the ends of the strut. When a strut is anchored by reinforcement, the effective area may be considered to extend a distance of up to six bar diameters from the anchored bar as shown in figure 4-14, where the anchored bars are the longitudinal #11s. Therefore, the distance of the effective ACS is taken as:

47

Figure 4-14 AASHTO Figure 5.6.3.3.2-1

Therefore, ACS = 1755.4 = 941.8in2

Since the nodal zone E and strut EH see the largest forces and are satisfactory, there is no need to check the other diagonal struts or node regions. In other words, the required stresses in the other struts and nodes will be significantly less than that of EH and E respectively.

8. Provide adequate anchorage for steel tie reinforcement. 135 hooks are recommended for the shear stirrups. The diameter of the hook for #5 bars is 2.5in. and the hook length is 6db = 3.75in. For the longitudinal steel, anchorage will be provided by 90 hooks. The required development length for #11 bars is 19in. (AASHTO 5.11.2.4). The recommended diameter of the hook bend is 12in. and the length of the hook should be at least 12db = 16.92in. 17in. Steel anchorages can be seen in the steel layout drawings in Figures 4-15 through 4-18. 9. Provide additional crack control reinforcement. Check minimum crack control reinforcement in the vertical direction for 6in. and 7in. stirrup spacing: provided. provided.

48

Since the minimum crack control reinforcement is not provided using 4-legged #5 stirrups with a spacing of 7in., the spacing of 6in. that satisfies both the minimum crack control reinforcement and the stirrup band representing ties EF and MN should be used for the entire pier cap. Using #5 4-legged stirrups spaced 6in. on center satisfies the vertical crack control reinforcement. The minimum horizontal crack control reinforcement that must also be provided is calculated based on a spacing of 12in. as follows:

Since 4-legged stirrups are used, it is convenient to use 4 bars of horizontal crack control reinforcement at the 12in. spacing since they can be easily tied to the stirrups. Use 4 #7 bars. Ast provided = 4(0.60) = 2.4in.2

49

The steel layout and spacing for the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement is shown in Figure 4-15 for the entire pier cap. The different cross sections where the longitudinal steel varies are also shown in Figures 4-16, 4-17 and 4-18.

Figure 4-15 Steel Layout

Figure 4-16 Cross Section for E-I

50

Figure 4-17 Cross Section for C-E

Figure 4-18 Cross Section for A-C

51

Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Summary
This report was written to investigate the use of strut-and-tie modeling with AASHTO LRFD provisions to design reinforced concrete members. A brief background on the reasons STM methods were developed was given along with a design procedure using AASHTO LRFD. Guidance in developing a truss model with appropriate geometry was discussed based on the authors personal findings along with recommendations from previous research done on the subject that has been performed by engineers more experienced with STM. The strength of struts according to AASHTO LRFD section 5.6.3.3 was also checked in this report. This incorporated a linear elastic finite element analysis to check the stresses at the end of a strut confined to the width of the nodal zone as well as discussion about the results of research performed by Martin and Sanders et al. (2007) on the strength of struts in deep beams. Finally, a design example of a bridge pier cap was performed using STM with AASHTO LRFD section 5.6.3 provisions. This example was done following the design procedure described in section 2.2 of this report. Conclusions and Recommendations based on the findings of this report are listed in sections 5.2 and 5.3

5.2 Conclusion
Although STM creation requires creativity and judgment, the designer needs to think about following the stress trajectories fairly closely especially at supports and locations of concentrated loads. The better a model represents the principle stress trajectories, the more efficient and cost effective its design will be. Appropriate strut-to-tie angles also need to be considered to help limit the principle strain in the concrete. The deep beam example discussed in this report had sufficient strut strengths based on the linear-elastic finite element analysis performed in section 3-4. This analysis gives some indication of the stress levels that the strut will experience but can be improved upon with more riggorous FE analysis. According to the test results performed by Martin and Sanders et al. (2007), the strength of struts designed by AASHTO LRFD strut-and-tie method with fc greater than 7000psi yields a high percentage of unconservative designs for the strength of struts. Even with crack control reinforcement placed according to AASHTO provisions and designing for the fully developed strain in the tie, the strut strengths were over estimated. Another issue with the current AASHTO provisions is the strain in the tie, s. Section 5.6.3.3.3 states that s can be taken as the average strain across the width of a strut. However, according to the deep beam test results, this can lead to unconservative designs when the strain is 52

assumed to be 0 at one edge of the strut. Also, it is unclear which tie to use for s when two ties cross through the end of a strut from two different directions such as at nodes C and E in the pier cap design example from chapter 4. The code specifies that the angle used to calculate the principle tensile strain in the strut is the minimum angle between the strut and the tie running through it. The vertical ties from the pier cap example represent stirrup bands that are more spread out than the horizontal ties. Therefore, the tensile strain induced from these ties would affect the strength of the strut differently than those from the horizontal ties. Due to the high tensile stress concentrations along the horizontal ties, these were used to calculate s and the angle they formed with the struts was used to calculate 1 in this report. The range of the results from the deep beam tests with sufficient crack control reinforcement according to AASHTO section 5.6.3.6 varied drastically. Some of this variation is likely due to the simplicity of the crack control reinforcement requirement. The provision doesnt account for case-by-case design and just gives a generic minimum requirement based on the gross area of the section. In many cases, crack control reinforcement may be greatly over designed. In other situations it may not be sufficient.

5.3 Recommendations
The following is a list of recommendations for further research and adaptations to AASHTO LRFD strutand-tie modeling specifications to establish more consistent designs based on the conclusions of this report. 1. Provide more guidance to creating appropriate truss models with suggestions given in chapter 3 of this report. 2. Perform non-linear and plastic finite element analyses to more accurately model the flow of stresses through the member. Compare the stresses in a strut from the FE analysis to the fcu calculated using AASHTO. 3. Adapt AASHTO equation 5.6.3.3.3-1 to account for high strength concretes (>7000psi). 4. Use the maximum s in the tie to calculate 1, especially at nodes that anchor the end of a tension chord where the strain is 0 at one edge of the strut. 5. Provide clarification or changes to account for situations where ties cross the end of a strut from multiple directions. 6. Adapt the crack control reinforcement to account for the transverse tensile stresses in the struts.

53

References
1. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, third edition 2004, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofiicials, Washington, DC, USA. 2. Macgregor, James G., Wight, James, K. Reinforced Concrete, Mechanics and Design, 5th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. 3. Martin, Barney T., Sanders, David H., Wassef, Wagdy, Cole, Thomas A., Bahem, Neil. Verification and Implementation of Strut-and-Tie Model in LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. November, 2007. 4. Mitchell, Dennis, Collins, Michael P., Bhide, Shrinivas B., Rabbat, Basile G. AASHTO LRFD Strut-and-Tie Model Design Examples. Skokie, Illinois: Publisher,Portland Cement Association, 2004. 5. Schlaich, J., Schfer, K., and Jennewein, M., "Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete," Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, Vol. 32, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 74-150 6. U.s. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. LRFD Steel Girder Superstructure Design Example. Pier Design Example. April 5, 2011.

54