Strut-and-Tie Models for

Dapped-End Beams
Proposed model is consistent with observations of test beams

by Alan H. Mattock

T
he use of the strut-and-tie method (STM) to model the
behavior of dapped-end beams can be very useful in
design; however, the choice of an appropriate STM
truss model is very important. Logically, the STM truss model
chosen should be consistent with the observed behavior of
dapped ends, modeling the flow of forces in the dapped end.
The use of STM models in design is based on the
assumption that a selected truss model behaves plastically
at loads approaching its nominal strength. An appropriate
STM model will minimize the redistribution of internal
forces and the inelastic deformation necessary for a member
to develop its design nominal strength. As a result, STM
models that closely approximate the flow of forces naturally
occurring in a member will lead to the selection of more
efficient reinforcement, and the resulting member will have
Fig. 1: Typical cracking approaching failure of a suitably
narrower service-load cracks.
reinforced dapped end
The desirability of choosing an STM model in which
the flow of forces approximates the flow of forces naturally
occurring in the member was noted by Schlaich et al.1 in In this article, two widely published STM models for the
their landmark 1987 paper. Referring to the necessary dapped end are examined and compared with behavior
inelastic deformations approaching nominal strength, they observed in tests of 16 dapped ends subjected to a variety of
state, In highly stressed regions this ductility requirement combined vertical and outward horizontal reactions. It is
is fulfilled by adapting the struts and ties of the model to shown that these STM models lead to overestimates of the
the direction and size of the internal forces as they would amount of reinforcement required for a given combination
appear from the theory of elasticity. They further emphasize of vertical and horizontal reactions. A simplified STM
that, while deviations from elastic stress trajectories are model for the dapped end is proposed. This model more
acceptable, the development of basic STM models should nearly corresponds to the flow of forces observed in dapped
be consistent with observed force paths. ends and requires a smaller amount of reinforcement than
In structural concrete, the development of cracks in the the two other models.
concrete is a good clue as to the orientation of tension and
compression forces in the member. Compression forces are Review of STM Models for Dapped Ends
generally in alignment with the cracks and tension forces A model of concern
are oriented approximately normal to the cracks. A typical Originally proposed by Cook and Mitchell,2 the
cracking pattern for a suitably reinforced dapped end STM truss model shown in Fig. 2 has since appeared in
approaching failure is shown in Fig. 1. ACI SP-2083 and ACI SP-273.4 Comparing with Fig. 1, it can

Concrete international February 2012 35

 1.5 kip 2.2 kip 2.9 kip be seen that the assumed compression Strut BD must cross
(6.7) (9.8) (12.9)
1.90 in.
the diagonal tension cracks in this region, almost at right
7 in. B
E (48) angles. The assumption of such a strut is therefore
(178)
A 1 2 D inconsistent with the behavior observed in many tests of
2 in. 10 kip
beams with dapped ends. Use of the truss model in the
4
(51) (44.5) 13.48 in.
(342) example shown in Fig. 2 yields a value of 76.9 kips (342 kN)
10 in. for the force in the hanger reinforcement (Tie BC). This is
(250) 43.6 kip 3
(194) more than 1.8 times the net support reaction of 42.1 kips
C F 3.63 in.
(92) (187 kN) acting on the nib. Part of the calculated extra
tension in the hanger reinforcement results from the
3 in. 4 in. 4 in. 7 in. 5 in. assumed horizontal reaction at Node A, but this does not
(76)(102)(102) (178) (127) (mm or kN)
account for the full difference. Further, the model does not
agree with test observations.
Fig. 2: Since originally proposed by Cook and Mitchell,2 this STM
truss model has been included in examples in ACI SP-2083 and
ACI SP-273.4 Compression struts and tension ties are respectively Conflicting results
represented by dashed and solid lines (after Fig. 2-4 in Never, in any of the many tests of dapped ends that I have
Reference 3) witnessed, has the measured force in the hanger reinforcement
been so much in excess of the end support reaction, as
indicated in Fig. 2. In almost all cases, the force in the
Nib Interface between nib Potential diagonal hanger reinforcement has been very close to the magnitude
and full-depth beam tension cracks of the vertical support reaction. This has been true both for
the case of vertical support reaction only and for the case of
Ah combined vertical and outward horizontal reactions.
hn d n Reference 5 provides supporting data. Specimens in this
As
study were 5 in. (127 mm) wide and 24 in. (610 mm) deep
A
reinforced concrete beams. A schematic of the dapped end
D h
of a test specimen from the study is shown in Fig. 3, and
Nn lv test parameters and results are listed in Table 1.
Vn Av
a In the test program, the distance from the vertical
Hanger 45 reaction to the center of the hanger reinforcement a and
reinforcement the effective depth of the nib flexural reinforcement dn
Ash (closed stirrups) were varied. The force in the hanger reinforcement (Tie AD
Beam flexural Beam shear
reinforcement reinforcement in Fig. 2) at yield of the nib flexural reinforcement Fy(test)
was deduced from the strain measured in the hanger
Fig. 3: Schematic of dapped-end test specimens (after reinforcement. It can be seen that in all the 16 dapped ends
Reference 5). Specimens were 5 in. (127 mm) wide and 24 in. tested, Fy(test) was very close to the vertical reaction at yield
(610 mm) deep reinforced concrete beams. The distance from
of the nib flexural reinforcement Vy(test), with an average
the vertical reaction to the center of the hanger reinforcement
ratio of 0.97 and a standard deviation of 0.071. The applied
a and the effective depth of the nib flexural reinforcement
dn were varied
outward horizontal force Nn in these tests varied from zero
to 50 to 60% of the vertical reaction Vn.
1.5 kip 1.7 kip 2.4 kip
(6.7) (7.6) (10.7) Alternative model
7 in. B 1.90 in. Figure 2-6 of Reference 3, reproduced herein as Fig. 4,
(178) crack E (48)
shows an alternative STM truss model previously proposed
2 in. 10 kip A 1
D 13.48 in. by the FIP.6 This model takes into account the diagonal
(51) (44.5) (342) tension cracking shown in Fig. 1 and, for the same loading
10 in. 43.6 kip condition as that shown in Fig. 2, predicts a force in the
(250) (194) 2
hanger reinforcement of 40.4 kips (180 kN), which is 96%
C F 3.63 in. of the net support reaction acting on the nib.
(92)
Section 3.4.6 of Reference 3 discusses the difference in
3 in. 4 in. 4 in. 7 in. the calculated tension in Tie BC in the STM models shown
(76)(102)(102) (178) (mm or kN) in Fig. 2 and 4. It also observes that the STM model in Fig. 4
corresponds to the observed cracking, concluding: This is
Fig. 4: STM model truss after Reference 3 an acceptable strut-and-tie model solution.

36 February 2012 Concrete international

 Flexural compression B
Development length
P2
A D
P1

Shear
stirrups 45
C
Fig. 6: Simplified STM truss model. The external tensile Restraint P1
Inclined
compression is provided by the development length extension of Tie AD
forces

Beam flexural
reinforcement

Fig. 5: Transfer of force over the development length of the concrete and stirrup reinforcement stresses due to the
extension of Tie AD (refer to Fig. 3 and 4) development of Tie AD were higher than what would occur
in most practical cases because the horizontal force acting
on the dapped end was 50 to 60% of the vertical reaction,
In Table 1, the nominal shear strength Vn(calc) was compared to 20% of the vertical reaction required by
calculated considering the static equilibrium of those pieces ACI 318-118 for corbel design and commonly used in the
of the dapped end that would be cut off by two cracks design of dapped ends.
running from the reentrant corner of the dapone vertically
upward and one at 45 degrees to the horizontal and a third
crack running upward at 45 degrees from the bottom corner
of the full depth beam, as shown in Fig. 3. This approach
was proposed in Reference 7 and leads to the conclusion
that the hanger reinforcement force is equal to the vertical
reaction acting on the dapped end. This approach is
equivalent to assuming an STM model truss similar to that
shown in Fig. 4, but without Tie DF and Node D. This is
because both approaches are based on the satisfaction of
static equilibrium for the various parts of the dapped end.
The use of a tie such as Tie DF implies that the total
tension in Tie AD must be resisted at Node D by Strut CD
acting with Tie DF as a truss. This would only be true if Tie
AD terminated at Node D with some form of positive
anchorage, so that the total force in Tie AD was resisted by
Strut CD acting with Tie DF as a truss. In fact, Tie AD is
continued past Node D by a length sufficient to develop
the yield strength of Tie AD, taking into account the depth
of concrete below Tie AD.
The buildup of force in Tie AD takes place gradually
over this development length, rather than suddenly at
Node D and, hence, there is no need for a tie such as Tie DF.
(In the example from Reference 3, the force in Tie DF is
38.0 kips [169 kN]approximately the same as the force in
the hanger reinforcement.) No such tie was provided in the
tests5 reported in Table 1, yet no tensile distress occurred
due to the omission of such a tie. The tensile stresses in the
concrete due to the transfer of force from the extension of
Tie AD are evidently resisted by the surrounding concrete
and the normally designed shear web reinforcement,
because no extra cracking was observed in this part of the
beam in the tests of References 5 and 7. In these tests, the

Concrete international February 2012 37

Table 1:
Data from dapped-end beam tests5
Nib
depth Shear Nn, Vn(test), Vy(test), Fy(test),
Specimen hn, in. span a, kips Vn(calc), kips Vn(test)/ kips Vy(test)/ kips Fy(test)/
No. (mm) hn/h in. (mm) a/dn (kN) kips (kN) (kN) Vn(calc) (kN) Vn (calc) (kN) Vy(test)
12 9 39.24 46.44 42.15 42.7
1A 0.50 0.82 0 1.18 1.07 1.01
(305) (229) (175) (207) (187) (190)
12 9 20 36.78 42.19 39.06 38.4
1B 0.50 0.82 1.15 1.06 0.98
(305) (229) (89) (164) (188) (174) (171)
12 11 46.17 46.77 44.10 43.0
2A 0.50 1.01 0 1.01 0.96 0.98
(305) (279) (205) (208) (196) (191)
12 11 25 38.68 42.58 39.54 37.8
2B 0.50 1.02 1.10 1.02 0.96
(305) (279) (111) (172) (189) (176) (168)
12 13.63 38.19 44.38 40.68 37.8
3A 0.50 1.25 0 1.16 1.07 0.93
(305) (346) (170) (197) (181) (168)
12 13.63 20 35.68 42.53 34.76 33.9
3B 0.50 1.26 1.19 0.97 0.98
(305) (346) (89) (159) (189) (155) (151)
12 16.25 31.31 39.45 31.87 31.9
4A 0.50 1.49 0 1.26 1.02 1.00
(305) (413) (139) (175) (142) (142)
12 16.25 22 28.26 36.83 28.33 27.6
5B1 0.50 1.50 1.30 1.00 0.97
(305) (413) (98) (126) (164) (126) (123)
12 16.25 23 27.76 32.00 24.75 27.8
5B2 0.50 1.50 1.15 0.89 1.12
(305) (413) (102) (123) (142) (110) (124)
16 9 39.10 39.49 35.50 34.3
6A 0.67 0.60 0 1.01 0.91 0.97
(406) (229) (174) (176) (158) (153)
16 9 28 38.64 45.85 36.30 28.7
6B 0.67 0.60 1.19 0.94 0.79
(406) (229) (125) (172) (204) (161) (128)
16 18.50 39.48 45.11 40.50 37.0
7A 0.67 1.25 0 1.14 1.03 0.91
(406) (470) (176) (201) (180) (165)
16 18.59 20 35.47 40.21 34.80 36.0
7B 0.67 1.25 1.13 0.98 1.03
(406) (472) (89) (158) (179) (155) (160)
19 10.75 39.08 45.52 40.90 41.4
8A 0.79 0.60 0 1.16 1.05 1.01
(483) (273) (174) (202) (182) (184)
19 10.75 28 40.04 45.62 40.50 36.3
8B 0.79 0.60 1.14 1.01 0.90
(483) (273) (125) (178) (203) (180) (161)
19 22.25 20 36.87 39.32 35.08 33.5
9B 0.79 1.25 1.07 0.95 0.95
(483) (565) (89) (164) (175) (156) (149)
Mean 1.15 1.00 0.97
Standard deviation 0.076 0.056 0.071

a = distance from reaction V to the center of the hanger reinforcement

dn = effective depth of nib reinforcement
Fy(test) = measured force in hanger reinforcement Ash (cross-section area of hanger reinforcement), at shear Vy
h = total depth of beam (24 in. [610 mm])
hn = total depth of the nib
Nn = outward horizontal force acting on the dapped end at nominal strength
Vn = nominal shear strength of dapped end
Vy = shear acting on dapped end at yield of the nib flexural reinforcement

38 February 2012 Concrete international

 Figure 5 shows how anchorage of to develop its yield strength, taking stirrups, grouped close together and
Tie AD probably occurs by strutting into account the depth of concrete located as close as possible to the end
action from the extension of the below the reinforcing bar. It must also face of the full-depth beam. This
reinforcement beyond Node D. The be positively anchored at Node A. minimizes the distance a from the
bar extension would be anchored by The hanger reinforcement should vertical reaction to the centerline of
struts between both the flexural preferably be in the form of closed the hanger reinforcement (refer to
reinforcement at the bottom of the
beam and to the flexural compression
zone at the top of the beam. The
vertical components of the diagonal
strut forces are taken up by the shear
stirrups, which were continued to the
end of the full depth part of the
beams. Splitting of the beam along the
axis of the development length would
also be resisted by the tensile strength
of the concreteno such splitting was
observed in any of the tests.
Point D in Fig. 3 corresponds
approximately to Node D in Fig. 4.
The stress in Tie AD was monitored
at Point D by strain gauges and was
found to reach the yield strength of
the bar at nominal strength of the
dapped end. It can be seen in Table 1
that the nominal strength of the
dapped ends was closely (but
conservatively) predicted using the
assumption that the hanger
reinforcement force at nominal
strength is equal to the vertical
reaction acting on the dapped end.

A Simplified STM Model

for the Dapped End
I propose that an appropriate STM
truss model would be similar to that
shown in Fig. 4, with the omission of
Tie DF. It is assumed that at Node D,
an external tensile restraint acts on
Tie AD and a compressive reaction
acts on Strut CD. Node D is the point
at which Tie AD is crossed by a line from
the bottom corner of the full depth
beam inclined at 45 degrees to the
horizontal (Fig. 6). The external tensile
Restraint P1 is provided by the
development length extension of Tie AD.
It is also assumed that the inclined
compressive Force P2 is part of the overall
truss action in the full depth beam.
It should be noted that the bar
along Tie AD must be extended
beyond Point D by a length sufficient

Concrete international February 2012 39

Fig. 3). In turn, this minimizes the force in the nib flexural
reinforcement in Tie AD (Fig. 6) due to the steeper
inclination of Strut AB. The reduction in force in AD and
consequent reduction in bar size means that the stresses in
the concrete beyond D, due to the development of force in
AD, will be reduced.
The hanger reinforcement must be looped around the
reinforcement comprising Tie CF (Fig. 4), and the bars in
Tie CF must also be positively anchored at Node C. In the
case of a reinforced concrete beam, Tie CF will be an
extension of the main flexural reinforcement of the beam.
In the case of a prestressed concrete beam, Tie CF must
extend a sufficient distance into the beam to enable it to
transfer to the prestressing strand a force equal to its yield
strength.9 This is to ensure the integrity of the truss action
of the web reinforcement resisting shear in the full depth
portion of the beam. It is assumed that the required regular
web reinforcement will be carried to the end of the full
depth part of the beam.
In addition to the primary reinforcement corresponding
to the tie members of the STM truss model, it is necessary
to provide horizontal reinforcement in the nib to stabilize
Strut AB. In the test specimens reported in References 5
and 7, this reinforcement was proportioned in the same way
that similar reinforcement in a corbel is designed, according
to Section 11.8 of ACI 318-11.8 This reinforcement is
extended into the full-depth part of the beam a distance
sufficient to develop its yield strength. In those test specimens
in which a/dn exceeded 1.0 (refer to Table 1), the dapped-end
nib was designed for shear according to the deep beam
provisions of Reference 10.
Conclusions
Although used in design examples in ACI SP-2083 and
ACI SP-273,4 the STM truss model shown in Fig. 2 is not
consistent with the observed behavior of beams with
dapped ends. Because it overestimates the force to be
carried by the hanger reinforcement, its use will require
the provision of more hanger reinforcement than is
really necessary.
The STM truss model originally proposed by FIP6
correctly estimates the required amount of hanger
reinforcement, but requires additional reinforcement to
carry the force in Tie DF (Fig. 4)the amount being about
the same as that required for the hanger reinforcement.
This is actually correct only if some form of positive
anchorage is provided at Node D for the nib reinforcement
in Tie AD. If the Tie AD reinforcement is anchored by
extending it past Node Da length sufficient to develop
its yield strengththen Tie DF is not necessary. In
conclusion, the simplified STM truss model shown in
Fig. 6 is consistent with observed behavior of dapped
ends and will lead to the minimum required amount
of reinforcement.
40 February 2012 Concrete international
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank J. Breen for his helpful comments on
an earlier draft of this paper.
References
1. Schlaich, J.; Schfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., Toward a Consistent
Design of Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, May-June
1987, pp. 74-150.
2. Cook, W.D., and Mitchell, D., Studies of Disturbed Regions
near Discontinuities in Reinforced Concrete Members, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 85, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.1988, pp. 206-216.
3. Sanders, D.H., Example 2: Dapped-End T-beam Supported by
an Inverted T-beam, Examples for the Design of Structural Concrete with
Strut-and-Tie Models, SP-208, K.-H. Reineck, ed., American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, pp. 91-103.
4. Mitchell, D.; Cook, W.D.; and Peng, T., Example 14: Importance
of Reinforcement Detailing, Further Examples for the Design of
Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models, SP-273, K.-H. Reineck and
L.C. Novak, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2010, pp. 237-252.
5. Mattock, A.H., Behavior and Design of Dapped End Members,
Proceedings, Seminar on Precast Concrete Construction in Seismic Zones,
V. 1, Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 29-31, 1986, pp. 81-100.
6. FIP Recommendations, Practical Design of Structural Concrete, FIP
Commission 3 Practical Design, Sept. 1996, SETO, London, England,
Sept. 1999 (distributed by fib, Lausanne, Switzerland).
7. Mattock, A.H., and Chan, T.C., Design and Behavior of Dapped
End Beams, PCI Journal, V. 24, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1979, pp. 28-45.
8. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
9. Mattock, A.H., and Abdie, J.L., Transfer of Force between
Reinforcing Bars and Pretensioned Strand, PCI Journal, V. 33, No. 3,
May-June 1988, pp. 90-106.
10. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, Suggested Revisions to Shear
Provisions for Building Codes (ACI 426.1R-77), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1979, 82 pp.
Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
ACI Honorary Member Alan H.
Mattock is Professor Emeritus of
Civil Engineering at the University of
Washington, Seattle, WA. He received
his BS, MS, and PhD from the University
of London, England. He was a member
of ACI Committee 318, Structural
Concrete Building Code, and ACI 318
Subcommittees on Shear and Torsion
(318-E) and Precast and Prestressed Concrete (318-G) for
20 years. He received the Wason Medal for Most Meritorious
Paper in 1967 and the Alfred E. Lindau Award in 1970.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.