See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248122582

Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete

Article  in  Pci Journal · May 1987

DOI: 10.15554/pcij.05011987.74.150

CITATIONS READS

391 3,500

4 authors, including:

Michael D. Kotsovos
National Technical University of Athens
157 PUBLICATIONS   2,432 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

structural assessment of existing bridges and buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael D. Kotsovos on 28 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Toward a Consistent Design
of Structural Concrete*
by Jorg Schlaich, Kurt Shafer and Mattias Jennewein

Comments by Michael D. Kotsovos and Authors

MICHAEL D. KOTSOVOSt understanding of structural behavior.

I would like to congratulate the authors The basis of their argument appears to
for an interesting and comprehensive de- lie on the widely accepted view that the
sign proposal. In general terms, I share truss analogy provides a rational tool for
their view with regard to the significant the design ofreinforced concrete beams in
contribution that the use of strut-and-tie flexure, shear and torsion. Their paper,
models may have towards the develop- therefore, describes an attempt to gen-
ment of a unified design concept for eralize the truss analogy in order to apply
structural concrete. However, I believe it in the form of strut-and-tie models to
that only models which provide a realistic other structural members.
description of structural behavior may However, the truss analogy does not
lead to efficient design procedures. appear to provide, in general, a realistic
The authors, on the other hand, appear description of the causes of the observed
to hold the view that it is sufficient for behavior of structural concrete. There has
design purposes to use the theory of elas- been recent published experimental evi-
ticity (adapted, if necessary, to conform dence which indicates that a reinforced
with practical considerations) as a guide concrete beam subjected to combined
for developing strut-and-tie models which flexure and shear does not have to behave
will provide an internal structural system as a truss in order to attain its flexural
sutiable for modeling any type of concrete capacity. 28 This is clearly indicated in
structure. They consider that a structure Figs. A and B which show that, in contrast
under increasing load will adapt itself to with predictions based on the truss anal-
the assumed internal structural system and ogy, the unconventionally reinforced con-
that such a system can easily lead to an crete beams D, in Fig. C, and C and D, in
Fig. D, exhibit strength and deformational
characteristics similar to those of Beams B
* PCI JOURNAL, V. 32, No. 3, May-June 1987,
(also shown in Figs. C and D) which are
pp. 74-150.
? Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College
reinforced in compliance with the truss
of Science and Technology, London, England. model.

PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988 171

 a
L

0 1.0

L
x
b 0.8
I-
0
0.6
0
a
o 0.4
U
U
0
U
0.2
0
0

5 10 15 20 25
deflection - mm
Fig. A. Load deflection curves of beams with aid = 1.5.

0
1.0
0
0
x 0.8
I-
0
0 0.6
0
v
d
0 0.6
U
0
u
0.2
0

1 4 b S 10 12
deflection—mm
Fig. B. Load deflection curves of beams with aid = 3.3.

172
 135

•1
A

203

03/40
B
Li_H'
203

03/40

203

403/40

-I 60 I.-
500
1-

Fig. C. Design details of beams with aid = 1.5.

r a '^ x:300 400

206 306
,

11.6/30
B

01.6/30 t i C

01.6/30 I i 0

—160 -^
500 ,

Fig. D. Design details of beams with aid = 3.3.

PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988 173



It could be argued, however, that al- ogy) behaved as such. The truss analogy
though the unconventionally reinforced forms the basis of current code provisions
concrete beams could not have behaved as for shear design and it is generally ex-
trusses, the above results cannot disprove pected that compliance with these provi-
the view that Beams B (which were de- sions always leads to safe design solu-
signed in compliance with the truss anal- tions. And yet, there is published ex-

Z
Y goo

o I
-j 600 L

400
/ o

/ --- — ACt 318-83 Codes

200 / 0 experiment 30
• FE Analysis

0 2 • 6 e 10

Horizontal Reinforcement (mm /m)

one,

eoo.

o
0
,J 600

400
J /
/ ---- ACt 318-83 Codes
o experiment 24
200
• FE analysis

0 2 4 6 8 10

Horizontal Reinforcement (mm/m)

Fig. E. Relation between shear capacity and amount of transverse reinforcement.

174
perimental evidence which indicates that the experimental results correlate very
this is not always the case.29'3° closely with results obtained by finite ele-
Fig. E indicates that code provisions for ment analysis.32
earthquake resistant design 31 predict a The above results shed doubt on the va-
linear increase in shear capacity with in- lidity of current concepts with regard to
creasing percentage of transverse rein- not only the ability of the truss analogy to
forcement, from a lower level representing realistically represent structural behavior,
the contribution of concrete to shear re- but also the view that a structure under
sistance, to a "plateau" corresponding to increasing load will respond in the way
"crushing" of the concrete struts of the prescribed by the physical model used to
truss model. The figure also includes ex- design it. Designing in compliance with the
perimental values obtained from tests on truss analogy appears to lead to over-
structural walls 29,30 and clearly indicates reinforced (in the transverse direction)
that, for certain percentages of tensile structural members in which the presence
reinforcement, the code provisions over- of excess steel is likely to give rise to high
estimate considerably the wall capacity for secondary stresses within concrete for
the upper range of values of the percent- compatibility of deformation purposes.
age of transverse reinforcement. It may The development of such stresses in criti-
also be interesting to note in the figure that cal regions may be the cause of "prema-

140
B
120
- -. -
100

Y 80
> 60 V

40

20

5 10 15 20 25
d'- mm

Specimen Flange web

p fd pv ph

A 0.033 0.011 0.007

B 0.033 0.011 0.0025

Fig. F. Effect of web reinforcement on the strength and deformational

characteristics of structural walls. Note that pf,, p v , and Ph denote
percentages of vertical flange, and vertical and horizontal web
reinforcement, respectively.

PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988 175

ture" failure similar to that exhibited by to important aspects of concrete behavior.
the walls with a high percentage of trans- For example, the theory of elasticity, pro-
verse reinforcement discussed above. posed by the authors as a basis for the
The amount of transverse reinforce- development of strut-and-tie models, can-
ment, assessed on the basis of current not provide any detailed information with
code provisions, appears to be excessive regard to the strength and deformation
even for the case where the use of the characteristics of concrete at the material
truss analogy yields safe design solutions. level. Despite the vast amount of such in-
This is clearly indicated in Fig. F which formation produced to date, only recently
shows that a reduction of the amount of attempts have started to use it in de-
web reinforcement by more than 60 per- sign.3437
cent has virtually no effect on the I believe, therefore, that design methods
deformational and strength characteristics have reached the stage where no im-
of the structural wall with geometry and provement is any more possible without
tension reinforcement as indicated also in attempting to implement in design infor-
Fig. F. 33 Similar results have also been mation on the properties of concrete as a
obtained from tests on both reinforced and material. Such an attempt has already
prestressed concrete beams subjected to begun and led to the introduction of con-
combined flexure and shear during an on- cepts which appear to provide a realistic
going research program concerned with description of the causes of the observed
the development of design methods.34 behavior of structural concrete. 33.37 These
It may be concluded from the above that concepts are currently discussed in CEB
structural concrete should not be ex- Task Group 24 and research work 34 is in
pected, in general, to behave in the way it progress which explores possibilities of
is modeled to behave. It would appear using them as a basis for the development
that the main reason for this lies in the fact of physical models which may be
that modeling is usually based on con- employed in design in a way similar to that
cepts which do not give full consideration stipulated by the authors.

REFERENCES

28. Kotsovos, M. D., "Shear Failure of RC quirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI
Beams: A Reappraisal of Current Con- 318-83)," American Concrete Institute,
cepts," Contributions to a Joint Meeting on Detroit, Michigan, 1983, 111 pp.
Fundamental Developments in Design 32. Lefas, 1. D., and Kotsovos, M. D., "Be-
Models, Organized by CEB Commissions haviour of RC Structural Walls — A New
II and IV, Karlsruhe, November 1986; CEB Interpretation," Colloquium on Computa-
Bulletin d'Information No. 178/179, March tional Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete,
1987, pp. 103-111. Delft, August 1987.
29. Cardenas, A. E.; Russell, H. G.; and Cor- 33. Lefas, I. D., "Behaviour of Reinforced
ley, W. G.; "Strength of Low Rise Struc- Concrete Structural Walls," PhD Thesis,
tural Walls," Reinforced Concrete Sub- University of London (in preparation).
jected to Wind and Earthquake Forces, 34. Kotsovos, M. D., "The Use of Fundamen-
ACI SP-63, American Concrete Institute, tal Properties of Concrete for the Design of
Detroit, Michigan, 1980, pp. 221-241. Prestressed Concrete Beams," SERC Re-
30. Maier, J., and Thttrliman, B., "Bruch- search Grant, GR/E/07333, Civil Engineer-
versuche an Stahlbetonscheiben," Institut ing Department, Imperial College, London.
for Baustatic and Konstruction, Eifgenos- 35. Kotsovos, M. D., "Consideration of Tri-
sishe Technische Hochschule Zurich, axial Stress Conditions in Design: A Neces-
January 1985, 130 pp. sity," ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No.
31. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Re- 3, May-June 1987, pp. 266-273.

176
36. Kotsovos, M. D. "Compressive Force 37. Kotsovos, M. D.; Bobrowski, J.; and
Path Concept: Basis for Reinforced Con- Eibl, J.; "Behaviour of Reinforced Con-
crete Ultimate Limit State Design," AC! crete T-Beams in Shear," The Structural
Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 1, January- Engineer, V. 65B, No. 1, March, 1987, pp.
February 1988, pp. 68-75. 1-10.

AUTHORS' CLOSURE by quate applications of the truss model were

JORG SCHLAICH, KURT SCHAFER in fact the starting point for expanding it to
a more general method.
and MATTIAS JENNEWEIN*
Some comments on individual para-
We wish to express our appreciation to graphs of the discussion may support what
Professor Kotsovos for preparing his is said above:
comments and also we wish to thank the Beams D in Figs. C and D are not con-
numerous other colleagues who have ver- ventionally reinforced with stirrups in the
bally commented on our paper. We, shear span and therefore the regular truss
therefore, take it as an indication of con- model or corresponding code rules do not
sent that there were no further written dis- apply. A code which gives safe results for
cussions. given requirements such as distributed
Unfortunately, Professor Kotsovos' stirrup reinforcement should not be
contribution does not really discuss the blamed for showing wrong results if these
method given in our paper. He presents requirements are not fulfilled.
some interesting test results and compares The more flexible strut-and-tie method,
them with a code. From his comparison, as contrasted with the rigid truss model, is
he directly concludes that certain code capable of dealing with such irregularities
rules are not adequate and safe. Inadver- as well. If the truss model is adjusted to
tently, this conclusion is transferred to the the chosen reinforcement, the tested
method presented in the paper instead of beams' capacity can be explained. A
comparing results derived by the method model shows — in contrast to a thought-
with the tests. But the assumption that less application of a code formula — that
codes for beams and in particular those for shear forces can, for example, be trans-
shear walls are in agreement with the ferred by an inclined strut over a consider-
method is not true. able length of a beam without any
Furthermore, in defense of the codes it stirrups.
must also be stated that no test results we Furthermore, a second load path with
know of, including those cited in the dis- concrete ties contributes to the shear
cussion, have disproved a code, which is capacity as shown for B-regions in Fig. 30
based on the truss model when applied to a of our paper. However, the load bearing
B-region (with linear strain distribution). capacity depends also on the nodes joining
But applying regular truss models and cor- the struts and the chords: compatibility
responding code rules to D-regions (with stresses may cause a shear crack to pene-
nonlinear strain distribution) conflicts with trate into a node and separate there the
one of the basic principles of the method chords from the web (see Fig. 34). The
(see Section 2 of our paper). In D-regions importance of a minimum stirrup rein-
individual modeling is required. Inade- forcement to prevent such separation is
outlined on page 115 of the paper. The stir-
rups in the node region explain the differ-
*Institute of Reinforced Concrete, University of Stutt- ence between failure loads of Beams A
gart. Stuttgart. FRG. and D.

PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988 177

 are D-regions for which the standard truss
model normally does not apply. So it is
wrong to argue on this basis. We investi-
gated the three square panels30 using the
method described in our paper. The pre-
dicted failure loads are not beyond 84 per-
cent of the measured ultimate load for
Panel Si and 90 percent for Panels S2 and
S3. Hence, all predictions according to the
strut-and-tie method are safe, contrary to
Professor Kotsovos' implication. A num-
erical analysis for Panel S2 will be given
here as an example.
Fig. G shows the crack pattern of the
test specimen and Fig. H gives an op-
timized, yet simple strut-and-tie-model.
Fig. G. Crack pattern of Specimen S2. (Other models, especially the standard
truss model, give more conservative pre-
dictions.) The nodes are not critical
Professor Kotsovos derives from com- (smeared nodes in the panel). From the
parison of test results and code provisions geometry of the model and the capacity of
that the truss analogy gives unsafe results. the ties T1 „ and T2, the ultimate load Fh
First of all it must be stated, that the test and all the strut and tie forces can be
panels 29.30 • 33 mentioned in the discussion analyzed consecutively from simple

826kN 826kNj 700

LII __
C8
—Fh

cg/ / 08mm
s=100
4% 12- /
/ T4
/T3 08mm
32' s=100
C5
T1
C /I C7

100J J' 1000 . 100

Fig. H. Strut-and-tie model and dimensions of Specimen S2.

178
equilibrium conditions, followed by a compared in Fig. F of the discussion carry
check of their capacity: the shear force by two load paths similar
to those drawn in Fig. H: A direct strut Cs
T1 = T1 f 9 • As1 = 57,4 kN/cm2. 5,5 cm2 and the strut-tie combination C 9 , T3 , C7.
= 316kN No horizontal reinforcement beyond the
T2 = T2 = 57,4.6,0= 344 kN minimum reinforcement is necessary for
C8 = T2 tan 41° = 299 kN the direct strut. If the struts are strong
T3 = C8 = 299 kN < T3i enough, the behavior of the beam is con-
T3„ = 57,4 . 6,0 = 344 kN trolled by the chord reinforcement and
T4 = Tl – T3 cos45°= 17kN <T4„ vertical reinforcement and not much dif-
Fh = C8 + (T4 + 826 kN) tan 32,5 0 = 836 kN ference can be expected in their behavior
if these reinforcements are the same as
C5 = T2 + 826 kN = 1170 kN -== C5,
C5„= 0,8f A, s = 0,8.36400.0,1.0,4= given in Fig. F.
The authors believe that this discussion
1165 kN
supports their view that strut-and-tie mod-
Cs = 1000 kN =C6„= 0,8.36400.0,1•
els (correctly applied) provide a rational
0,35 = 1027 kN
and practical tool for the design of rein-
C7 = 424 kN < C7 = 0,8. 36400.0,1.0,2
= 582 kN forced and prestressed concrete beams
and that experimental evidence supports
The predicted load Fh = 836 kN corre- their view. It also shows that code rules
sponds to 90 percent of the measured ulti- may be misinterpreted if their basis is not
mate load F„ = 928 kN. The two structures clearly defined.

PCI JOURNAL/November-December 1988 179

View publication stats