m

~{tJ [:]11:l"-'"",~""-I:;~ IIC8j1 :l~~1

Title no. 99-846

II=~; ~ ~~I ~~-;r=;l

Evaluation of Strut-and- Tie Modeling Applied to Dapped

Beam
by
Iral ete Strut-and-tie modeling is a valuable tool for designing irregular

with
S. Chen,

Opening
Michael J. Hagenberger, and John E. Breen

Brian

concrete ete !al, , ,s, )S " 2

,

members. pertaining the to

The

ACI

318-02 using

Building strut-and-tie

Code models.

contains This

propaper

f- ;
229'"'"

381 -

visions presents "

design

experimental dapped was developed for loads d

e ' Istress

results beams by

oftests with

conducted openings. The student Each of

on

small-scale, of each using specand

l test

simply-supported test specimen provisions resisted

'

design teams the tour

independent models.

the ACI imens

h

strut-and-tie greater
at servlce

than
.

the 1
oa

.b
I

. 1
1ft

factored d 1 1
eve s.

design
TI.

load
,l:'

3 in, x 3 in, Elastommc

BearingPad(TypicaJ) 127mm

~
26,7tN 305 NOte: mm Specimen tbickness equaIs

127 mm

labs

ex

Ite

,ne

successJ"

-31. ear ,2, een

series and-tie

illustrotes
modeling

the
for

applicability
designo

and

conservative

nature

of

strut305 mm

J
76 mm 89 mm,

267tN
,

Keywords:

beam;

p1asticity;

structural

concrete;

strut.

nal, INTRODUCTION
~eo,~

Fig.

l-Test

specimen

geometry.

, ates ings

In fue designing bers. The

past, engineers nonstandard development with

had little and unusual of strut-and-tie and

guidance structural modeling rational modeling

when it carne to concrete memhas provided approach. gafe,

.. venficatlo~ show sarne that lt

o~ fue

. . a~phcatlon to use

.. of strut:and-tle different modehng models on and fue very

lS posslble

engineers In theory,

a conservative

design

structure.

plasticity-based d.esigns. mto

strut-and-tie .A~ a result, and Code models. on

produces

::.ar ighl1ecfue

~ower-bou?d mcorporatIon

the.method deslgn contains While fue and theory

lends

itsel~wellto A of Strut-and-tie complex and there has been behind experimental ACI 318-02

RESEARCH
modeling is

SIGNIFICANCE
a valuable tool for designing

building

codeso

AppendIX

the ACI 318-02 Building to fue use of strut-and-tie icant arnount of literature modeling Schw.artz' experImental This study (Schlai~h,. and ~ur~ann venficatIon presents

provisions pertaining there has been a signif behind strut-and-tie 1987;. Mutt?ni, little

unusual structural concrete members. While a significant arnount of literature on fue theory modeling, of Code This its there has been relatively In addition, pertaining experimental newly adopted little fue to verification Building models. application. provisions presents using the fue

strut-and-tie

,88, hear mal,

,

Sch"fer,

Jennewein th.ere ~as been

1 ~97),

relatIvely

contains paper designed

of lts applicatIon. fue experimental results from a series

strut-and-tie results of test

specimens

~~~~
~ngth

o~four.test specimens the.same :with overall.geometry, and

Wlth remforcement tested in deslgned fue usmg experimental strut-and-tIe program models, were The scale specimens

strut-and-tie provisions. successful series The test provides

important strut-and-tie experimental modeling. verification of fue application of

Inced
.1 of

models purpose ,
demonstrate

of

a dapped test
that

bearn se?es
vanous

with was
gafe

a large twofold.
and

opening. One

The

overall was:o problem.

exlst

ofthis different

object~ve fue sarne

deslgns

EXPERIMENTAL Test The scale specl~ens expenme~tal beam speclmens. 762. (3.5 mm ~n.) mto test prograrn .As shown long, t.wo

PROGRAM . c?nsl~ted m 254 Flg. mm of four 1, e~ch red~cedspeclmen ~d

{~ 98

using The dix tively The ing

strut-and-tie was could

models

to solve

workable

ty of [o. 3, en th n:nd

other

objective

to determine be applied in the use comer by of

whether

fue new

Appenrela-

A provisions little presence creates beam

practitioners strut-and-tie

with

experience

modeling. and fue an open-

measured ~9 mm

(~O m.) thlCk. fue test a 51

(~O ~n.) deep,. lrregularl~les a 127 mm

of a re-entrant large theory and of discontinuity does not

at midspan where

The

geometrlc were square support.

regions apply. design

plane-secmodels for are

mcorporated dap at midspan fue beams of 53 kN

speclmens mm fue (2 in.) left

(5 m.) located

ct on :-tural Sh {, ~~

tions

Strut-and-tie methodology of graduate

and load were (12

opening

a conservative these working ratio of types

intuitive

solving students, on the

between The load

point

and

problems.

Three and of in

groups

designed kips). The (7.7

to resist

a concentrated service

factored load was factor A value

independently capacity

competition steel

(based

corresponding kips) by

to weight

reinforcement),

designed In addi4. All of prothat

of

deterrnined of 1.55 that

to be 34 kN corresponds

assuming and dead

a load loado

tance :-tural

Specimens 1 through 3 and tested them to destruction. tion, the senior authors designed and tested Specimen the designs

to equallive

Posed
were

for

ado

used fue provisions p tion in the ACI

to an introductory

for strut-and-tie 318-02 Buildin

article by
'

models g Code
fue Chair

ACI Structural Joumal, v, 99, No, 4, July-August 2002,

,MS
tion including
prietors,

N?',OI-286
pollcles, !he
Pertinent

re,ceived
@ of
discussion

September 2002,

5" 2001,
Amencan pennission
published

and review~d
lnstitute, is obtained
in !he May-June

under
All from

In~titute
nghts !he copyright
ACI

publicareserved. pro-

Copynght making

Concrete

appended

copies
will

unless
be

ACI

318

(C
ag

1
ey

200

1)

Th
e

t
es

t
s proVl

d
e

.
expenmen

t 1
a

2003

StlUCtural

Journal

ifreceived

by January

1.2003,

~002

ACI

8tructural

Journal/July-August

2002

445

ACI memberBrlan S. Chen is a doctoral candidate at the Unillersity of Texasat Austin,Austin, Tex.He receilledhis BSfrom Puroue Unillersity,West Lafayette, Ind., in 1997,and his MSfrom the UnillersityofTexasat Austin in 1999. ACI memberMichael J. Hagenberger is a doctoral candidateat the Unillersity of Texas Austin.He receilledhis BSfrom Bucknell Unillersity,wisburg, Pa., in 1992, at and his MEfrom Comell Unillersity,Ithaca, N.J:, in 1993. ACI Honorary Member John E. Breen holds the Nasserl. AI-Rashid Chair in Cillil Engineeringat the Unillersity ofTexas at Austin. He is a memberof ACI Committees 318, Structural ConcreteBuilding Code;and 355, Ancharageto Concrete.

b) Sub-mod.12

b) ModeIZ(ZO%) Compres,ion -Ten,ion [1on;e"hownarekN 26.7 c) Sub-model 3

~ ,'""c; ,;,..~ ""'~'"

employ and-tie overa

11

imposil single 1 tie mod

".

to note
resulti
bound beam.'

'

I]

t ";J;':~"f'; '-

as stab The! usingti

sisted (

d)Cnmbinedmodel

. .hfi rlg. 4- Strut-and-tle mode1Wlt arces ar S fi peClmen . ' 3 "'.

using the strut-and-tie provisions in Appendix A of ACI
318-02. Although each group used fue sarne design process, the. fin~ st:rut-and-tie models and reinforcement layouts vaned sIgmfican,tly. . .
As a first step m fue deslgn process, each group mdependently performed a two-dimensional finite-element analysis'
f

26.7

over1 al in Fig.

Fig. 2-Strut-and-tie models with forr:esfor Specimens1 and 4. Table 1-Relnforclng steel propertles Barsize Area, mm2 (in.1 Yieldstrength, (ksi) Capacity, (kips) MPa kN 6 mmcII 28.4(0.044) 620(90) 17.6 (3.96)
4 mm cII 125 0019 . (. ) 630 92 ( ) 7.78 (1.75)

applie(

below 1

locatio was de compn

model the de

10gage
<1>

9.7(0.015)

610(89)

5.94(1.34)

. . of =1 wasassumed fueresIstance for factor smcefueactual

. 1 .

maten

Pea-gravel concreteand small steelreinforcing bars were usedto constructfue test specimens. The concretemixture was a prebagged cementand aggregate mixture combined .th d h. h d . d . th Wl water an a Ig -rangewater-re ucmg a Ill1xture at yielded an averagestrength of 31.7 MPa (4600 psi). The concretestrength determined was from 76 x 152mm (3 x 6 in.) testcylindersthat werecastandtested fue sarne at time asfue beamspecimens. steelreinforcingusedconsisted 4 and The of 6 mm-diameter deformed barsand 10 gagesmoothwire. The properties fuereinforcingsteelaresummarized Tablel. of in Deslgn process Specimens1, 2, and 3 were designedindependentlyby threegroupsof graduatestudents.Specimen4 was a slight variation of Specimen 1. Each specimen was designed 446

a properties

were

. lame

(FEA) to establishfue elastic stressfields in fue structure . This process suggested Schlaich, is by Schiifer, JenneweinI and (1987) and Bergmeister al. (1993) as a useful first stepto l et
I

struts (

recogn
ue Th
d t

promote

cations.For this particular problem, fue FEA was probably l not essentialand only confmned fue initial ideasabout fue force distribution. From fue flow of forcesillustrated in fue . . FEA, a strut-and-tiemodel was chosenand loadedWlth fue applied forces. Strut-and-tie forces were computed using simple truss analysistechniques, fue nodal zoneswere and checked. Reinforcement pattemswerethendeveloped using fue tie forcesprovided by fue analysisand fue geometryof fue strut-and-tiemodels. Graduatestudentsperformed fue detailedcalculationsusing AppendixA of ACI 318-02with no direct supervision from a strut-and-tie model experto Strut-and-tle models The strut-and-tie models developed for the tour test specimens shownin Fig. 2 through4. Eachdesignteam are ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002.:

visualization

of

fue

force

paths

in unfamiliar

appli-

f 1

. e su ISc~m con Ig create

Th.e conS1 The dI mode load tc assign comp 81 kN area b two 01 final! ACI t

J
1.4 ~S:kN.

4mm

4mm

10p,wi~

'~

" " -"Ci

lid

I-.ok

Iten"

.)Speelmen1 2.10 ,M'"

b)Speebaon2 4mm

cilj

2-6...
"'kod.. 2-6mm _n

8shown t) SpeelnIeD 3

"'kod.. _n 1 - 6 mm (bnok IS shown) 1-4mm(omithook) 2-4mm bookod.. shown

SId. bnokltendl d) Speeboen 4

5.3

Fig. 5-Reinforcement

layouts.

~n 2.

employed different approaches for developing its final strutand-tie modelo These approaches included breaking one oyerall strut-and-tie model into several submodels, superimposing two overlapping strut-and-tie models, and using a singlemodel for fue entire structure. While some strut-and-

O : ~d'
l.

i
26.7

de modelsmay be more efficient than others, it is important lO notethat there is no uniquely correct modelo Each of fue resulting strut-and-tie models represents a unique lowerbound conservative estimate of fue true capacity of fue or
beam. These estimates, however, assume that failures as stability or local crushing are precluded. such o. o

Thestrut-and-tie model for Specimens 1 and 4 was developed. , three b od 1 h . F. 2 Th b d 1 usmg su m e s,ass own m 19.. e su mo e s con-

Flg. 6-F orm and remforcmg cagefor Speclmen l. The strut-and-tie model for Specimen 3, shown in Fig. 4,

sisted a simple truss for fue right half of the beam and two of overlapping trusses for the left half. The submodel shown en 3. inFigo 2(a)was developedto resist the shearcreatedby fue applied load, and consisted of compression struts above and ~ of ACI relow opening. fue Thesestrutswere tied togetherat various Lprocess, locations using tension tiesoThe submodel shown in Fig. 2(b) t layouts was developedto resist fue moment or couple created by fue compression and tension tie from fue right half of the strut indepenmodelo should be noted that, during the design process, It t analysis Ihe design team discovered that one of the compressive structur~. struls through fue edge of fue opening. The design team cut ennewem rocognized mistake, but was unable to correct fue error this r~t step t~ due fue time constraints associated with fue class project. lo LIar appl1The submodel fue right half of fue beam, shown in Fig. 2(c), for probably ~comprised struts and ties oriented in a more familiar truss of abo~t fue configuration. three submodels were superimposed to The creale Ih ti al trut . lted .In fue e m s -and -ti.e mode1tior Speclmens 1 and 4 . d Wlth fue . . . . rted using Th,e strut-and-tIe model ~or Speclmen 2, shown.In Flg. 3, ones were conslst~d two overlappl~g models of the .entIre beam. of >pedusing Thedeslgn e~ected asSlgn80% ~f.theapplied load to ~ne te~ to ~ometry of nKxlel, shownm Flg. 3(a), and fue ~m~g 20% afilie applied ormed fue loadlosecond model, shown In Flg. 3(b). The reason for a [8-02 with assigninga majority of fue load to one model was to reduce fue xpert. oompression fue opening. This is evidencedby fue large above 11 compressionstrut extending from fue load point to fue kN uearelow opening in Fig. 3(a). Similar to Specimen 1, fue fue four test liooyerlapping models were superimposed to establish the esign team final slrut-and-tie model for the specimen. gust 2002 CI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

consistedof a single trussmodel for fue entire beam.Large

compression struts carried fue flow of forces around fue

openingfor fue left half of fue beam,while a more widely

spaced truss was used for fue right half. Reinforcement layout and design The reinforcement layouts for each specimen are shown in ~ig. 5, and were selected using ~e tie for~es in ~e strut-~d~lemodels. In ~eneral, fue 10c~tIonand onentation ~f fue tIes m fue model dlctated where remforce~ent was re~ulred. ~e number of .b3!~ needed was determIned .by taking fue tIe force and divldmg by fue ~r?duct of fue Yleld str~ss and bar area. Because the competItIon was based on ultImate load performance, typical service. load detail~, such as bars around fue comers of fue opemng, were offiltted. o . The reInforcement layouts for Speclmens 1 and 4 were designed to maximize constructability. This was accomplished by arranging the reinforcement in an orthogonal grid and providing standardbar configurations as shown in Fig. 5(a) and (d). To accomplish this, fue tension ties oriented diagonally in the model were resolved into horizontal and vertical components.The reinforcement was sized basedon fuesevertical and horizontal force componentsand then evenly distributed in fue location of fue tension ties in fue modeloThe reinforcementlayoutforSpecimen4 was similartothatofSpecimen 1fue only significant change was fue addition of confining reinforcement above fue opening and below fue load point. 447

1.4

should

!i;:::
O2
'

1:
.--, >;;..., ",.,' ,

clc"

"a'1;~:f':;:i3"{~~;.'::

luitialcrw:k

ll'L ;~' ~~~

levels
;. . ~~b~~ ..:

0,4
s) Specimen2 st servlce losd
1 2 Speclmen Number 3 4 ',j.'.'.~.;'.").:'..'i'.'.;~:;',~ ,':.,,:..,.,,;,~ '

fue rigt.

opemnj crack " 11

.,

Fig. 7-Testspecimenfai1ure ':,

. -..,

10ads. ,:'..;;;l.;;~'.'..::::...,.~~,;;:.::,:~::,;~.; : : : : :

".,;f!;;";'i ':""";':,.:

',,:"::':~;':;,:~:' ".;:;:~::;;'~.:;":.:';:.;:~':~,;:;;;~;:::

;,

,..~ :
~

::

1, 1

: ""',
b)Specimen2stfailure

.:...'.: ._.,,~, ,;

..~:::t'
' i,

,..
,

Fig. 9-Concrete crackingpattemsat service10ad andfai1ure for Specimen 2.

a) Spedmen 1 at servlceload
.. " ",., ,'."

:
:

,
,; l

.l"."".

.'J..

,., ,-o;

'l

j~';'-':

:c .

.,., ,j.,...,.

""';"';'

i."'",,-.

"

. - . , . ~. , . . . . . . . . , -:. .. , . . , . .. . ~, . . -:

' , , ,

.
, , ,

'.'.-: .', ". '"

.'
b) Specimen at fanure 1

Fig. 1l failure

'

Fig. 8-Concrete cracking patternsat service10ad andfailure for Specimen l. The reinforcementlayouts for Specimens and 3, shown 2 in Fig. 5(b) and (c), were designedto coincide with the orientationof fue tensionties in fue strut-and-tiemodels.While this resultedin a more accuraterepresentation fue strutof and-tie models,it complicatedfue constructionprocessand. would probably add extra costoWhere multiple bars were required for a single tension tie, fue bars were groupedas close to the tie location as possible. Examples of this grouping canbe seenin fue four diagonaltiesjust to fue left of the opening in Fig. 5(b) and the two groups of three vertical stirrups on fue right half of fue beamin Fig. 5(c). In addition to fue tension ties, confining reinforcement was incorporated in afeas of high compressive stress. Higher compressive stresses be handledwhen confining can reinforcement provided(Roberts is 1990, Breenel. al. 1994, HP Commission 1999).This enablesdesignersto accommo3 datenodal zoneswhere potentialIyhigh compressive stresses maybe encountered. Confiningtieswereusedin Specimens 2 through 4 under fue load point, abovethe opening,or both, as shownin Fig. 5. A picture of the reinforcementcagefor Specimen1 is shown in Fig. 6.
448

b)SpedmeDfaBore 3st . . FI.c' 10-Concr.ete crackIng pattems at servlce 10adand t faure for Speclmen 3. Test results and discussion ! Each of the four test specimenscarried more than fue l factored design load of 53 kN (12 kips). The maximum I load carriedis listed in Table2, andfueratio of ultimate test load Pu/t' to the factoreddesignload Pdes summarized is in Fig. 7. At service load,eachof fuespecimens only a single i had visiblecrackoriginatingfrom fuere-entrant comerat midspan. Thesecrackswerequickly arrested fue reinforcement by and werenot a factor in fuefailure mechanisms any specimen. of The failure mode and final cracking pattems, illustrated in Fig. 8 through 11, varied among the four specimens. The load-deflection responses, shownin Fig. 12,indicated a , generally linear response to the factored designloado up It
ACI Structural Journal/July-August ... 2002

ACI SI

]J
"'.,,

shouldbe noted that fue serviceability limit of span/180is shown onIy for reference, fue specimens as werenot designed for fue serviceabilitylimit state. Specimen1 exhibiteda shearfailure mode.At serviceload levels,the onIy visible crack originated from the re-entrant comer at midspan and extendedjust past fue longitudinal reinforcingbar asshownin Fig. 8(a). Subsequent loadingup to fue factoreddesignload developedfue inclined cracksin fueright side of fue beamas well asthe comer cracksat fue opening.At loads greaterthan fue design load, a diagonal crackformed from fue load point andextended across top fue of fue openingas shownin Fig. 8(b). This openingcreated a substantial separationin the beam and ultimately was the

failuremechanism. Failureof fuespecimen occurred 58.3kN at (13.1kips) andis picturedin Fig. 13(a). Specimen failed asa result of instability. The instability 2 was initiated when the concreteon one edge of fue beam under fue load point spalledjust abovethe factoreddesign loado Subsequent loadingcaused bearingplateto rotate to fue the side and the beam to rotate out of plane as shown in Fig. 13(b). The test was terminated at a load of 66.5 kN (15.0 kips) before fue load point slippedoff fue specimen. Extensionof the confinementreinforcementunder fue load point might haveprevented total spallingof fue concrete fue Table 2- Test results

...;..."'. .;;

: : .~.';'.:."'.':.'::.: : : .. ".. -"'..

:::

. ..: : : : ..

. . .;:::',,;', :.:
;
~ ~

strength,MPa weightWc, testloadPu/"

Specimenno. (psi) kg(lb) kN(kips) PuJtlWcPuJtlPdes I 31.8 (4610) 2.14 (4.72) 58.3 (13.1) 2.78 1.09 2 3 4 33.8 (4900) 2.63 (5.80) 66.5 (15.0) 31.8 (4610) 2.21 (4.88) 68.3 (15.4) 30.6 (4440) 2.50 (5.52) 65.804.8) 2.58 3.15 2.68 1.25 1.28 1.23 f;; 'o",

Concrete

Cage

Maximum

..."-. .

.:.

izilure
a) Speclmen4 at service Ioad 60

",.~,

~ i

,? 45 -Specimen*l

~30 ~

i5

:
4 6

-Specimen#3 .~. Specimen #4 Note;DialSages ~moved lo ~. prior

b) Specimen4 at failure

JO

Fig. 11-Concrete crackmg patterns at servlce load and failure for Specimen 4.

'.

DeOection (mm)

Fig. 12-Load-dejlection responses.

i and a)Speclmen 1 In fue imum te test ~edin single Ispan. Iltand imen. trated
\. mens.

b)Speclmen2

lted a )ad. It

c) Speclmen3

d) Speclmen4

'\

Fig. 13-Test specimens atfailure.

\
, 449

2002

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

andfue subsequent stabilityproblemo Despitefueseproblems, the specimenperformed well and exceededthe factored designload by 25%0 crackingpattemat serviceload and The failure are shownin Figo90 Specimen3 ultimately failed in shear. At fue factored design load, a crack was present that extended from the bottom left comerof fue openingdown to fue bottom faceof fue beamas shown in Fig. 10(b)0 Subsequent cracksdevelopedabovefueopening,but werecontained fue reinforceby mentpresento 6507 (14.8 kips), fue concreteunderfue At kN load point spalled(Figo13(c.Thepresence confiningreinof forcement allowedfor redistribution further load-can)'ing and capacityoAdditional vertical cracks extended from the
o

shownby fue strongvariation amongfue modelsdeveloped ti, by fue variousdesigngroupso strut-and-tie specimens ;: All test carriedloadsgreaterthan the factoreddesignload specified, c' proving fue underlying lower-boundnature of strut-and-tie modelingo The use of orthogonalreinforcementpattemsto simplify fabrication was both a valid and useful technique. Finally, specimensdesignedusing fue ACI 318-02 Code strut-and-tiemodelprovisionsforthisloadandreactionconfigurationweresafeandrelativelysimplemembers constructo to ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Theauthors would to thank of theindividual like all members the of design teams theircontributions. individuals for Those include Gabriela
Arce. Francisco Brenes, Ruben Salas, and Jorge David Varela. Figurski, We would Taichiro Okazaki, also like to thank Pedro Blake Quiroga, Stassney,

d span to the lo~d

re-entra.nt

corner

at

mi

o. pomto

Fal1ure

of

fue speclmen occurred at 6803 kN (15.4 kips) when fue dowel action of the longitudinal bars at fue top and bottom of fue beam was overcomeo Specimen 4 behaved above fue design load similarly to Specimen from 1 up to the

Mike Bell, Patrick Wagener, and Jennifer Tanner for their assistance during fue construction and testing of the specimens. REFERENCES " Ber.g~eister, K.; Breen, J. E.; ~~a, J. o.; and Kreger, M. E., 1993, Detalllng ~or Structural C~ncre~, Research Rep~rt 112~-3F, Center for

design load, but exhibited a flexural mode of failureo Just

a crack developed fue load point

o o . andextendedpastthetopoftheopemngasshownmFlg011(b)0 The shear failure mode seen in Specimen 1 did not occur in Specimen 4 because of fue additional reinforcement present above the opening. At 6207 kN (1401 kips), the concrete
o o o under theoload poomt spalledo As m Speclmen~, ~e p!esence of confimng remforcement allowed for redlstrlbution and further loadingo Specimen 4 failed in flexure due to crushing of fue concrete below fue load point at 6508 kN (14.8 kips) as shown in Fig 13(d)
o o

Transportatlon Research, Umversltyof Texas Austln, Austln, Tex.,300ppo at Breen, JoE.; Burdet, o.; Roberts,c.; Sanders, and Wol1mann, Do; G., 1994, "Anchorage Zone Reinforcement for Post-TensionedConcrete Girders," NCHRPReport356, Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C., 1994,pp.33-34. .
Cagley, J. R., 2001, "Changmg from ACI 318-99 lo ACI 318-02, What's New?" Concrete lnternational, V. 23, No. 6, June, pp. 69-182. AP Cornmission 3, 1999, FIP Recommendations 1996, Practical Design o/ Structural Concrete, AP Congress Amsterdam 1996, Fdration Internationale de la Prc~ntrainte, Lausanne, Switzerl.:m?o . Muttom, A.; Schwartz, J.; and Thurllmann, B., 1997, Deslgn o/Con-

creteStructures with Stress Fields,Birkhuser Verlag,Switzerland, pp. 147

Roberts, Co L., 1990, "Behavior

CONCLUSIONS
U sing different
o

and Design of Local Anchorage

Zone in Post-Tensioned Concrete," MS thesis, University of Texas at

theory, differing Austin, .Tex., .280 pp. o . , . S~hlalch, J., Schafer, K., and Je,?newem,M., 1987, ~oward a Conslstent

strut-and-tie models based on plasticity designers can, and probably will, develop

relfuOrCement pattems lar

"

"

th
e same

Th

eslgno

IS was c ear y

Deslgn of Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, Speclal Report, V. 32, No. 3, pp. 74-1500

"
a h bl Cl
.'

th
p~ gr in

450

ACI

Structural

Jour.l1al/July-August

2002

A(