fib Symposium “Keep Concrete Attractive”, Budapest 2005

STRESS FIELD MODELS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE

João F. Almeida
Civil Engineering, Associate Professor, IST. ICIST, Lisbon
email:jalmeida@jsj.pt

Miguel S. Lourenço
Civil Engineering, JSJ Consult, Lisbon
email:mlourenco@jsj.pt

SUMMARY

Strut and tie models (STM) are currently recognized as a valuable tool for the design and
detailing of discontinuity regions in structural concrete. These regions are still weakly
covered in technical documents, although its deficient design and detailing is frequently
related to damages and even failures. Uniqueness and models validity is frequently mentioned
as an obstacle for its practical implementation. A new approach, based on energetic criteria,
applied to stress field models, is proposed to perform the assessment of the models. The
method was tested by comparison with experimental results and known solutions for some
typical cases. Its application to practical design situations is illustrated as well. The
development and the practical application of such specific design tools will improve
consistency and clearness of design methods, contributing to keep concrete attractive.

1. INTRODUCTION

The application of strut and tie models (STM) will improve consistency in design concepts,
allowing the treatment of discontinuity and current regions with comparable accuracy and
emphasizing the essential role of detailing in the design process. Based on equilibrium and
plasticity, such models intend to reproduce the stress trajectories, showing the flow of forces,
throughout a concrete region. In a simplified way, service behaviour can be indirectly checked
by ensuring that the model follows the elastic stress fields. In spite of such simple concepts,
for different reasons the practical application of the method can not be considered widely
disseminated. Some of the main aspects frequently mentioned refer to the model assessment
validity and to its uniqueness.

2. MODEL UNIQUENESS F

The establishment of an equilibrate strut and tie model

requires some engineering judgement. Modelling principles
were printed out, e.g., by Schlaich et al (1987, 1991) and
later by Schafer (1996). The designer would easily achieve
the corbel design model shown at fig. 1, although, some
doubts could come forward if the same corbel suspends the T=C

load. In that case, it is possible to transmit the load to the C F

supports by vertical or inclined reinforcement, thus two Fig. 1 - Simple STM for a
different STM are possible (see fig. 2). Based on the lower corbel
bound of the plasticity theory, both models are correct, if the
structure has enough ductility to adapt itself to the chosen

1
model. A question remains: Which part of the load F should go
through inclined stirrups, in order to avoid deficient service
behaviour and assure enough ultimate resistance? In most cases the
answer is based on the elastic theory or specific tests. Schlaich et al
(1987) mentioned that the main struts and ties should follow the
elastic stress trajectories in order to indirectly check serviceability.
This criterion often leads to hyperstatic models obtained by
superposition of two different models (see fig. 3). k.F
T1=C1
C1 k.F

(1-k).F
T2=C2
C2 (1-k).F

Fig. 2 – STM for a corbel

with indirect load.
Fig. 3 – Hyperstatic models: a) concentrated load near
support; b) internal anchorage load.

3. STRESS FIELD MODELS

The STM refinement can be the basis for the stress field model (SFM) which becomes very
useful for many design issues, namely: -nodes geometry definition; -identification of
distributed or concentrated ties; -definition of mechanical properties for the struts; and many
others. For the illustration of SFM application a practical example of a viaduct fixed abutment
shear wall is chosen, subject to several loads: -soil pressure; -deck’s vertical loads; -horizontal
loads. Fig. 4 represents the shear wall loads and corresponding STM.

Load Case 1 Load Case 2

Fig. 4 – Abutment shear wall, loads and strut and tie model.

2
The STM gives a good approximation of
the D’region structural behaviour, in
general better than other current design 5Ø20 2Ø20 5Ø20

1.33
8.93 MPa

techniques, and provides good guidance

0.56 x (0.40)

1800 kN
a 2000 kN
MP
3 .4 N1
for detailing. As known, the struts are Ø 0.47
Ø 0.37

0. 6
10.38 MPa

9x
defined by a single line that represents

T1=1244 kN
(1
.0
N
5k 4Ø20

0)
23
5 N2
4Ø20

compression stress fields on concrete. The

T2=1525 kN

4Ø20
0.64

check of stresses along struts can be

2.5 MP
0.
52
disregarded, because it spreads inside the

a
a
MP

(1
.0
kN 3 .5

0)
01
18 (1.00 )
0.4 2 x

region, and only concentrated nodes

1050 kN
should be checked (see fig.5). A step
forward could be the development of the Fig. 5 – Check of nodes
SFM illustrated at fig. 6, giving an
excellent overview of the stress flow throughout the region.

Load Case 1 Load Case 2

Fig. 6 – Abutment shear wall stress field model

4. MODELS ASSESSMENT

Following the stress fields definition associated to a STM, struts and ties mechanical
properties evaluation are possible. Energetic techniques can be applied in order to consider
compatibility in the general model allowing the development of assessment techniques. For
every possible static condition, the “exact” solution minimizes the functional (Koiter, 1960).

1 T – stress; – deformation; t – boundary loads; u

= dV tTu d u
2V – imposed displacements; u – cinematic boundary

Applying energetic theorems associated to SFM, it is possible to perform a nonlinear analysis,

assuming nonlinear behaviour for concrete and tension stiffening effects (Sundermann, 1994).
The proposed methodology can as well give some guidance for practical design and is based
on deformation energy minimization, dU/dF=0, where F represents STM element forces.

3
 Considering elastic behaviour for concrete, the energy of each strut and each tie can be
calculated as indicate at fig. 7:

C, T – compression and
1 C2L tension forces, respectively
U=
2 EcA c Ac – prismatic strut area.
Aci, Acj –initial and end areas
Ec, Es – Young modulus of
1 C2L A cj concrete and steel
U= ln
2 E c (A cj A ci ) A ci L – strut or tie length
sm – reinforcement mean
1 T 2 L or generally 1 strain
U= U = TL sm
2 EsAs 2
Fig. 7 – Struts and ties deformation energy

As an illustration, results were compared with deep beam tests performed by Leonhardt and
Walther (1966) (see fig. 8). Large redistribution of internal stresses due to cracking was
observed. In fact, WT2 test ultimate load was approximately the double of the obtained by
elastic based STM. The inner lever arm z tends to use the deep beam full height, thus reducing
considerably the bottom tie force. In case of the deep beam WT3, the bottom reinforcement
area was doubled, stiffening the bottom tie. The corresponding inner level arm z at failure is
smaller than that of deep beam WT2.

Test specimen WT2 geometry Test specimen WT2 at failure Test specimen WT3 geometry Test specimen WT3 at failure
and loads (Fu,exp=1195 kN) and loads (Fu,exp=1290 kN)
1.28 1.28

Ø5 Ø5

Ø5 Ø5
1.60

1.60

Ø5 Ø5
3x0.06
0.03

2 0.100 2 0.100
Ø8 (As=2.14 cm ) Ø8 (As=4.28 cm )
0.025

0.025

0.16 1.28 0.16 0.16 1.28 0.16

1.44 1.44

Elastic based STM Ultimante load based STM Elastic based STM Ultimante load based STM
(Fu,calc=580kN) (z/L=0.70) (Fu,calc=1195kN) (z/L=1.05) (Fu,calc=1082kN) (z/L=0.70) (Fu,calc=1290kN) z/L=0.90)
(reinforcement failure) (reinforcement failure) (node compression failure) (node compression failure)
0.64 0.64 0.64
0.64 Fu,calc/2 Fu,calc/2
Fu,calc/2 Fu,calc/2 Fu,calc/2 Fu,calc/2
Fu,calc/2 Fu,calc/2
0.56

0.56
1.51

1.30
1.00

1.00

77
78
68

68

.0
.0
°

°
°

117 kN 117 234 kN 136

0.04

0.04

0.04
0.04

1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44

Fig. 8 – Deep beam tests (Leonhardt and Walther, Stuttgart, 1966)

4
Fig. 9 shows th numerical results obtained linear non linear As=2.14cm2 non linear As=4.28cm2
by minimizing the SFM total deformation
energy, pointing out the different z/L values 36.0
for each analysis: -elastic based SFM and

h
z
31.0
ultimate load SFM for deep beam’s WT2
26.0
and WT3. This technique provides the L

U/Umín
21.0
designer a simple tool for the prediction of

h
z
structural behaviour of D’regions and for 16.0

h
z
L

the STM assessment validity. 11.0

L

6.0

5. HYPERSTATIC MODELS 1.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
z/L
The STM for interior tendon anchorage is a
hyperstatic model, since part of load must Fig. 9 – Def. energy vs deep beam z/L
be tied back behind the anchorage plate.
The SFM for this case is shown at fig.10 as well as the variation of deformation energy with
the percentage of load tied back. The minimum energy is obtained for F2 0.20F, which is in
accordance with fib recommendations 1999.

F2/2 Interior tendon anchorage

5
F1/2

4
F/2
U/Umín

F/2
2

F1/2
1

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
F2/2 F2/F

Fig. 10 – SFM for an interior tendon anchorage.

STM for a concentrated load near support should predict that part of the load that must be
carried by the stirrups, as Schlaich (1991) has shown with corbel tests. MC90 and fib
recommendations 1999, provides a simple equation for the suspended load percentage as a
function of a/z. Fig. 11 compares the elastic solution (plate elements, finite element analysis),
the MC90/fib recommendations 1999 and the proposed method numerical results.

a F Load near support

F1 F2
Udef MEF MC90

C1 1.0
C
0.9
C2
0.8
0.7
M 0.6
F2/F
z

0.5
0.4
0.3
T
0.2
0.1
F2 1 a
= 2 1 0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
F 3 z
F a/z

Fig. 11 –Load near support

The presented results illustrate the application of the proposed technique to the analysis of
hyperstatic models.

5
6. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The technique proposed has been applied

to some practical design cases. Fig. 12
shows a cross section of a 750m long
viaduct in Lisbon, with current spans of
52.3m and two major spans of 90m. It is
an urban viaduct, near the ground, so
aesthetics aspects where carefully
considered. Fig. 13 shows the column
STM and SFM for vertical loads. The STM
“outer part” is quite similar to a reverse
deep beam with a distributed load at the Fig. 12 – Cross section
top. Due to the column top geometry and
the load eccentricity, it is necessary to consider an U’loop represented by the model “inner
part”. The inner level arm for the “deep beam part” is well known and was considered
approximately 0.7 of the span. Nevertheless some doubts occur for the U’loop inner level arm
z, which is most relevant for the horizontal tie force and for the vertical reinforcement
anchorage. Minimizing deformation energy (fig. 13), a value of z=3.2m was obtained and
used for the columns design and detailing.

Deformation energy

1.10

1.09

1.08

1.07

1.06
U/Umín

1.05

1.04

1.03

1.02

1.01

1.00
1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7

z [m]

Fig. 13 – Vertical loads STM and SFM and respective deformation energy function of z.

7. FINAL REMARKS

The paper points out the importance of the development and application of stress field based
models to the design and detailing of structural concrete discontinuity regions. The obtained
results and its comparison with experimental results and the proposed solutions to hyperstatic
standard cases, show the adequacy of the presented methodology to deal with uniqueness and
assessment/validity “problems”, frequently referred in STM design field.
FIP Recommendations (1999): Practical Design of Structural Concrete. FIP-Commission 3 "Practical Design",
Sept. 1996. Publ.: SETO, London, Sept. 1999.
CEB-FIP MC 90 (1993): Design of concrete structures. CEB-FIP-Model-Code 1990. Thomas Telford, 1993.
Leonhardt F. and Walther R. (1966): “Wandartiger Träger”, DAfStb
Heft 178, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin
Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K; Jennewein, M. (1987): Toward a consistent
design for structural concrete. PCI-Journ. V.32 (1987), No.3
Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K. (1991): Design and detailing of structural
concrete using strut-and-tie models. The Structural Engineer, Vol 69, No. 6, 1991
Shafer, K. (1996) - “Structural Concrete”, Textbook on behaviour, Design and Performance, Volume 3, pp. 141
a 203, Dec. 1999.
Sundermann, W. (1994): Tragfähigkeit und Tragverhalten von Stahlbeton-Scheibentragwerken. Diss., Institut
für Tragwerksentwurf und -konstruktion, Univ. Stuttgart, 1994.