Challenge

MARYLAND EXPERIENCE IN USING STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL IN INFRASTRUCTURES BY CHUNG C. FU, Ph.D., P.E., UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MITA SIRCAR, P.E., BECHTEL CORP. JEFF ROBERT, P.E., MSHA Many SHA designers faced the situation, such as short and deep members, where the conventional sectional method cannot handle accurately. Short and deep members, such as brackets, corbels, and deep beams transfer shear to the support by in-plane compressive stresses rather than shear stresses. Shear failure is frequently sudden and brittle and can occur varies widely with the dimensions, geometry, loading, and properties of the members. Challenge: There is no unique way to design for shear.

Training
STM model is already part of the advanced concrete design lecture at the University of Maryland. Technical transfer to the SHA is conducted by offering a two-step short course. Step 1: 4-hour short course on Review of Strut-and-Tie Model. Step 2: 4-hour workshop on using Computer Aided Strut-and-Tie Design (CAST)

Introduction
The Strut-and-Tie is a unified approach that considers all load effects (M, N, V, T) simultaneously The Strut-and-Tie model approach evolves as one of the most useful design methods for shear critical structures and for other disturbed regions in concrete structures The model provides a rational approach by representing a complex structural member with an appropriate simplified truss models There is no single, unique STM for most design situations encountered. There are, however, some techniques and rules, which help the designer, develop an appropriate model

Design of B & D Regions

B- & DRegions for Various Types of Members
The design of B (Bernoulli or Beam) region is well understood and the entire flexural behavior can be predicted by simple calculation Even for the most recurrent cases of D (Disturbed or Discontinuity) regions (such as deep beams or corbels), engineers' ability to predict capacity is either poor (empirical) or requires substantial computation effort (finite element analysis) to reach an accurate estimation of capacity

Limitation of The Truss Analogy

The theoretical basis of the truss analogy is the lower bound theorem of plasticity However, concrete has a limited capacity to sustain plastic deformation and is not an elastic-perfectly plastic material AASHTO LRFD Specifications adopted the compression theory to limit the compressive stress for struts with the consideration of the condition of the compressed concrete at ultimate

Lower Bound Theorem of Plasticity

A stress field that satisfies equilibrium and does not violate yield criteria at any point provides a lower-bound estimate of capacity of elastic-perfectly plastic materials For this to be true, crushing of concrete (struts and nodes) does not occur prior to yielding of reinforcement (ties or stirrups)

Prerequisites
STM is a strength design method and the serviceability should also be checked Equilibrium must be maintained Tension in concrete is neglected Forces in struts and ties are uni-axial External forces apply at nodes Prestressing is treated as a load Detailing for adequate anchorage is provided

STM Model Design Concept

The successful use of the STM requires an understanding of basic member behavior and informed engineering judgment In reality, there is almost an art to the appropriate use of this technique The STM is definitely a design tool for thinking engineers, not a cookbook analysis procedure The process of developing an STM for a member is basically an iterative, graphical procedure

Factors Affecting Size of Compression Strut Example of Determining STM Model Geometry

Location and distribution of reinforcement (tie) and its anchorage Size and location of bearing

Case Study 1 - Abutment on Pile

Limiting Stresses for Truss Elements

The abutment considered is 33-ft long, 3-ft wide and 3-ft deep 11 prestressed concrete deck beams bearing on elastomeric pads are supported at intervals of 3 ft along the length of the abutment The concrete slabs span 50 ft and transfer 107.61 kips factored load on each elastomeric pad. The abutment is supported on 6 piles spaced at 6 ft on center.

Case Study 1 - Abutment on Pile

Case 1 Elevation Drawing

Abutment under construction

Case 1 STM Model & Results

Case Study 2 - Walled Pier

A case of solid shaft bridge pier of an 18-ft high by 3-ft wide wall on a mat foundation 4 girders are resting on the wall and each girder reaction is 215.22 kips A path at a 2 to 1 slope flows the concentrated loads from the top of the wall

Case Study 2 - Walled Pier

Case 2 Elevation Drawing

Case 2 STM Model

Case 2 STM Results

Case Study 3 - Crane Beam

Case 3 - Gantry Crane Beam at Maryland Port Authority Harbor

This case study pertains to the Gantry Crane Beam at the Maryland Port Authority (MPA) Harbor The beam section is 6-ft deep by 2-ft wide and has 5spans, each 6-ft. 135# gantry rail on continuous base plate (1/2-in thick by 24-in wide) 5-span continuous beam models are built with five different configurations to simulate the stress trajectories for the moving wheel loads of the crane. 5 configurations represent the first wheel placed at 0, L/5, 2L/5, 3L/5, 4L/5 from the end support and other wheels follow the location of the wheel spacing Based on wheel contact width and height of rail, the width of strut will be 10 minimum, hence the strut section is 10x24.

Case 3 Schematic Sketch of the Gantry Crane Beam

180K 180K 180K 180K 180K 180K 180K 180K 42.87" 42.87" 60.04" 42.87" 60.04" 42.87" 60.04"

Case 3a STM Model & Results

72"

5 SPANS @ 72"

Case 3e STM Model & Results

Case Study 4 Hammerhead Pier of Thomas Jefferson Bridge

This structure is located in St. Marys and Calvert counties in Southern Maryland This 7,205-ft bridge contains 59 spans where piers 21 through 58 are hammerhead piers with depth increased from 6 to 30-37 (8 deep water piers) The scope of this case study is to highlight the application of a newer generation strutand-tie model, which was not in practice at the time of the original design, but was available in later retrofit stage in 1988

Case 4 Front view of one of the Deep Girders

Case 4 - Hammerhead Pier Type 3 of Thomas Jefferson Bridge

Finite Element Model

STM Model

Case 4 - Hammerhead Pier Type 3 of Thomas Jefferson Bridge

Case 4 - Hammerhead Pier Type 3 of Thomas Jefferson Bridge

Stress Sx before crack

Stress Sx after crack

Stress Sy after crack

Case 4 - Hammerhead Pier Type 3 of Thomas Jefferson Bridge

Case Study 5 Curved Concrete Box Girder Bridge

Concrete box girder bridges can be adapted to curved alignments where the box cross section is rigid torsionally The softened truss model theory applied to reinforced concrete or prestressed concrete multiple cell box was developed

Case 5 Schematic Sketch & Space Truss Analogy

Case 5 Shear Element & Truss Element

After cracking, the concrete is separated by diagonal cracks into a series of concrete struts. This example shows that the STM can also solve the problem of girder under torsion

Summary

Due to the inadequacies in common practice, coupled with the unlimited variety of D-Region shapes and loading conditions, it is not surprising that most structural problems occur in DRegions. The STM formulation that requires the least volume of steel will be the solution that best models the behavior of a concrete member This approach holds great promise for DOTs and design offices which could develop or obtain standard STMs for certain commonly encountered situations Standard reinforcement details based on an STM could be developed for common situations The STM then could be reviewed and revised if any parameters change The CAST program developed by Kuchma is a useful tool and proved the previous findings when the projects were conducted.