TESTING AND DESIGN OF A STRUT

AND TIE MODEL FOR A BEAM USING

ATENA
Course work two

MARCH 15, 2018

OLUMO ADAMA
2323184
1 Introduction
The strut and tie model is a lower bound theorem in which the system approach is by balancing the
stress state inside the elastic part of the structure, in respect to the applied load. This will ensure the
structure does not fail under the applied load. The Strut and tie model is usually applied in more
complex structural parts, where normal beam concepts do not apply, such as situations where the
beam depth is greater than a third of the span, or in situations where the beam has holes or
connections. The part of a structure that primarily experiences tension is a tie, while the part of a
structure that primarily experiences compression is a strut.

This project uses the software Atena to design the strut and tie element of a given structure. The
initial given design of the strut and tie is tested in order to attain a maximum load. Weather or not
the initial design of the model supports the load; an alternate design would be proposed and tested
to reach the maximum load limit. The analysis of these two designs would then be carried out.

The approach taken to tackle this problem is firstly, analysing the behaviour of the structure itself
without the reinforcements. This is carried out by using a configuration that allows a linear
relationship between the stress and strain. It would induce an initial analysis of the given and
proposed strut and tie model, which will aid a more accurate prediction of the proposed strut and tie
element if needed.

The next step would then be to input the given strut and tie model following the hand calculations,
this would then be processed in Atena, and the same applies to the proposed strut and tie design.
The given and proposed strut and tie model would then be appraised.

Figure 1: Shows a simple example of a strut and tie.

Page 1 of 11
1.1 Base configuration
The dimensions and loading of the structure are shown in Figure 2 below. Analysis of structure
without reinforcements was carried out using this dimension, other parameters were also assumed,
such as the steel plate dimensions. The formula given in the coursework brief was used to calculate
the dimensions

Student number- 2323184o

2+ 3+2+3+1+8+ 4
a= =3.29
7

0.3m

3.95m

0.3m 0.3m
6.58m
7.07m

Figure 2: Showing the given dimensions and the initial strut and tie model

2 Initial strut and tie

The initial strut and tie model that was entered into Atena had the geometrical configuration shown
below in figure 3.

Figure 3: Shows the geometrical configuration of the initial strut and tie model.

Page 2 of 11
2.1 Hand calculation for initial strut and tie model.
Design of reinforcement-

Calculation of the resultant force in the tensile reinforcement.

400 KN
cos ( 45 ) ¿ → hyp=565.70 KN
hyp

tensile force 565.7 ×10 3 N 2

= 2
=1300.5 mm
yeild strength 435 N /mm

Therefore, all bar reinforcement were chosen as an area of 1.3005 ×10−3 m2

The chosen distance from the surface of the concrete to the reinforcement is 0.1a, which is denoted
as d 0

d 0 =0.33 m

Check nodes and struts-

The bearing stress under the loading plate is checked in order to ensure the concrete under the plate
does not crush due to the load application; in order to ensure that, the compressive strength of the
concrete has to be greater than the stress under the loading plate.

400kN

3
300mm 400 ×10 2
δ c= =8.8 N /mm
300× 150
2
8.8 N /mm <16.7 Mpa
There is also no need to check the strut because the bearing stress is lower than 0.6 of the
compressive strength.

8.8 Mpa<(0.6 ×16.7 Mpa=10.02 Mpa)

2.2 Parameters set in Atena

Material properties

1. Steel plates

Figure 4: showing the elastic modulus

and poisons ratio entered for the
steel plates.
Figure 5: showing the mesh size
entered for all the steel plates.
Page 3 of 11
 2. Concrete

Figure 6: Showing the parameters set

for the required tensile and
compressive strength of concrete.
Figure 7: showing the mesh size
3. Reinforcement entered for the concrete

Figure 8: Showing the reinforcement Figure 9: Showing the area of reinforcement

modulus of elasticity and yield strength used for individual members of the
entered into Atena reinforcement.

4. Loading parameter

Figure 10: Showing the prescribed displacement for all the

models.
Figure 11: Showing the solution method
used for all the models.

Figure 13: Showing the Conditional break

criteria entered for all the models in Atena.
Figure 12: Showing the solution parameter
setting for all the models.
Page 4 of 11
2.3 Results obtained for the initial strut and tie model
The structure fails in tension at the top of the structure and down the middle, although it was able
to attain a compressive strength of 450 kN which is 11% higher than the maximum strength the
structure is required to carry. Although the structure was able to support the required load, the
mode of failure was destructive and unpredictive as seen in figure 14 below. The sudden drop in the
load occurred at the first point where the concrete cracked due to tension at the top as seen in
figure 15. After the crack the load dropped significantly, buts started rising again, this shows the load
was transferred to the reinforcement and the yielding process of the reinforcement began but the
tensile cracks at the midpoint of the structure shown in figure 15 grew larger, causing ultimate
failure of the structure at a lower strength compared to the intial peak strength.

-0.5
-0.45
-0.4
-0.35
-0.3
Load (MN)

-0.25 initial
-0.2 strut
and tie
-0.15 model
-0.1
-0.05
0
0 -0.005 -0.01 -0.015 -0.02 -0.025 -0.03
Displacement (m)

Figure 14: Shows the load-displacement curve for the initial strut and tie model.

Figure 15: shows the reaction and crack formation of the initial strut and tie model. The contour plot
shown is the strain contour in the Eps xx direction, obtained at step 150 in Atena with a step
coefficient of 1.

Page 5 of 11
3 Proposed strut and tie model

Figure 16: showing the reaction of the structure under loading without the presence of
reinforcements, the contour plot shown is the strain contour in the Eps xx direction, obtained at step
20 in Atena.

Figure16 above illustrates major points of tension and compression. As expected the upper part of
the structure experience high tensile forces, as a result of the bending that occurs as the
displacement increases. The corners nearest to the middle support experienced more compressive
forces due to the convex effect experienced in the upper part, this leads to a rotation about the
roller support that results in a concave action about the support.

Concrete is good at supporting compressive strength but has very low tensile strength. So in order to
reinforce it, the ideal location for the tensile reinforcement would be in the upper region of the
structure. Additional reinforcement would also be needed at the interface where the concrete
meets the steel plate in tension; this is due to the reaction forces at the support as shown in figure
17 below.

Figure 17: Showing the displacement curve, reactions and the bending moment diagram for the
structure.

Page 6 of 11
As the force reacts downwards it creates a tensile interface between the concrete and the steel
plate, this leads to early failure at that point, because of the low tensile strength of concrete. In
respect of this weakness, an additional vertical reinforcement that anchors the support to the
reinforcement is introduced. Figure 18 below shows the geometrical configuration of the proposed
model.

Figure 18: Showing the geometrical configuration of the proposed strut and tie model.

3.1 Hand calculation for proposed strut and tie model.

Design of reinforcement-

Calculation of the resultant force in the tensile reinforcement.

400 KN
tan ( 45 ) ¿ → hyp=400 KN
hyp

tensile force 400× 103 N

= =919.54 mm2
yeild strength 435 N /mm2

Therefore, all bar reinforcement were chosen as an area of 9.1954 × 10−4 m 2

The chosen distance from the surface of the concrete to the reinforcement is 0.1a, which is denoted
as d 0

d 0 =0.33 m

Check nodes and struts-

The bearing stress under the loading plate is checked in order to ensure the concrete under the plate
does not crush due to the load application; in order to ensure that, the compressive strength of the
concrete has to be greater than the stress under the loading plate. The applied load does not
change, neither does the dimension of the plate, so the results remain the same as calculated for the
initial strut and tie model.

8.8 N /mm2 <16.7 Mpa

There is also no need to check the strut because the bearing stress is lower than 0.6 of the
compressive strength. Remains the same with the initial model as well.

Page 7 of 11
3.2 Parameters for the proposed strut and tie model
Parameters set for the proposed strut and tie model is similar to that set for the initial strut and tie
model. The only difference was the change of the reinforcement geometry and size. All other
parameters remained unchanged.

Figure 19: Showing the area of the bar entered for each reinforcement.

Figure 20: Shows the reinforcement setting in the proposed strut and tie model.

3.3 Results obtained from the proposed strut and tie model.
The structure will ultimately fail as a result of failure of the reinforcement bars. The structure was
able to attain a compressive strength of 433 kN which is 8.3% higher than the maximum strength
the structure is required to carry. The structure showed a more stable load- displacement diagram
as seen in figure 21, after the initial crack in concrete; the structure gradually reached its maximum
strength as the reinforcement started yielding. There was little redistribution of load because no
major jump in strength was observed in figure 21 below. The structures weakness originated from its
support, the initial crack was observed at the bottom corner of the, just a bit to left of the anchoring
reinforcement. This is as a result of the tensile force around the support, because the anchoring
reinforcement was centralised to the middle of the support, the surrounding concrete that is a bit
farther from the tensile reinforcement tends to be weaker, making the corner susceptible to failure
in tension inducing an initial crack, that expands and initiate further cracking. The figure 23 shows
the manner which the initial crack induced further cracks within its arena, this crack formation
pattern further expand as the load increases as seen in figure 22; this results in tensile reinforcement
in that area carrying most of the load, the reinforcement weakens with increased stress and starts to
yield.

Page 8 of 11
 -0.5
-0.45
-0.4
-0.35
-0.3
Load (MN)

-0.25
-0.2 Proposed
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0 -0.005 -0.01 -0.015 -0.02 -0.025 -0.03
Displacement (m)

Figure 21: Shows the load-displacement curve for the proposed strut and tie model.

Figure 22: shows the reaction and crack formation of the proposed strut and tie model. The contour
plot shown is the strain contour in the Eps xx direction, obtained at step 150 in Atena with a step
coefficient of 1.

Figure 23: shows the reaction and crack formation of the proposed strut and tie model. The contour
plot shown is the strain contour in the Eps xx direction, obtained at step 11 in Atena with a step
coefficient of 1.

Page 9 of 11
4 Analysis of the initial strut and tie model and the proposed strut and tie
model.
The ultimate strength obtained by both models was sufficient in carrying the required load.
Although they were both sufficient, their manner of failure was distinctively different. At load step
150, the initial strut and tie model had more significant cracks all over the structure than the
proposed strut and tie model. This indicates significant structural deformation of the concrete
before reaching its maximum loading capacity. In reality, the initial strut and tie model would not
give a defined sign of warning early enough due to the steep drop in the load displacement curve.
The physical appearance of the cracks in the structure would be more rapid than that of the
proposed model, so the failure of initial model is sudden compared to the proposed model which
yields significantly before the maximum load starts to reduce.

The calculated volume of reinforcement for the initial strut and tie model was 0.012 7 m3, while that
of the proposed model was 0.0 0947 m3, this shows a volume percentage difference of 25% which is
a significant reduction of reinforcement. The strength percentage difference between the initial and
proposed model was 4%. These values indicate that the significant 25% additional reinforcement in
the initial strut and tie model only resulted in 4% strength increase, which is quite low, this re
iterates the point that the initial strut and tie model is not as effective as the proposed model.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion the proposed strut and tie model is a better than the initial strut and tie model, as a
result of its form of deformation. Atena was good at predicting the failure modes, as the structural
logic behind the respective failure modes was justified. The model was also handy in predicting the
overall behaviour of the structure enabling a good design of the proposed strut and tie model.

Page 10 of 11