ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 103-S61
Strength of Struts in Deep Concrete Members Designed
Using Strut-and-Tie Method
by Carlos G. Quintero-Febres, Gustavo Parra-Montesinos, and James K. Wight
Results from an experimental investigation aimed at evaluating the
adequacy of the strength factors for concrete struts in strut-and-tie
models given in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Building Code are
presented. The main design variables considered were: the
angle between primary strut-and-tie axes, amount of reinforcement
crossing the strut, and concrete strength. A total of 12 deep beams
were tested, eight with normal strength concrete and four with
high-strength concrete. The ratio between experimentally
obtained failure loads and the strengths predicted using the strut
strength factors given in Appendix A of the ACI Code ranged
between 1.00 and 1.22, and between 0.91 and 1.02 for normal and
high-strength concrete beams, respectively. Inconsistencies were
found in the provisions for minimum reinforcement crossing a strut
in Sections A.3.3 and A.3.3.1 when applied to the test specimens,
with the former leading to substantially larger reinforcement
ratios. The use of a strut strength factor βs = 0.60 in high-strength
concrete bottle-shaped struts without web reinforcement led to
strength predictions approximately 10% higher than the experi-
mental failure loads. The limited test results suggest that, as a
minimum, an effective reinforcement ratio of 0.01, calculated
according to ACI Code, Section A.3.3.1, should be provided in
high-strength concrete members when a strength factor βs = 0.60
is used. Additional test data, however, are required before a definite
recommendation can be made in this regard.
Keywords: beam; cracking; shear strength.
INTRODUCTION
The use of strut-and-tie models for the design of reinforced
concrete members was incorporated in the 2002 edition of
the ACI Building Code (herein referred to as the ACI Code)
as Appendix A. Some of the provisions for the design of
concrete members using the strut-and-tie method, however,
are still the subject of discussion and validation, such as that
related to the strength factors for concrete struts, which are
assumed to be dependent on strut cracking condition and
reinforcement provided, but independent of concrete
strength and strut angle. Discussions on the adequacy of
current strength factors for concrete struts have been triggered
by the significant discrepancies that exist between the
proposed values in the ACI Code and those suggested by
several researchers.1-6 In some cases, the latter ones are
substantially lower than those given in the ACI Code, especially
for higher strength concrete. This paper presents results from
an investigation aimed at evaluating the adequacy of the
strength factors given in Appendix A of the ACI Code for the
determination of strength of concrete struts in strut-and-tie
models. In particular, the ultimate capacity of diagonal
compression struts in deep concrete beams with either
minimum or no transverse reinforcement was experimentally
evaluated. For this purpose, several concrete beams with
various shear span-to-depth ratios, concrete strengths, and
reinforcement layouts were tested.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The adequacy of the strength factors for concrete struts
given in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Code was evaluated.
Strut strengths determined from Appendix A of the ACI Code
were compared with experimental data obtained from tests
of several deep reinforced concrete beams. The data
generated in this study also provides valuable information to
ACI Committees 445 and 318-E for evaluating current
design specifications for concrete members using the
strut-and-tie method.
STRENGTH FACTORS FOR CONCRETE STRUTS
A conservative estimation of the compressive strength of
struts in strut-and-tie models is crucial to ensure adequate
structural safety and the ability to design deep beams such
that yielding of longitudinal reinforcement occurs prior to
failure of concrete struts. If either no yielding or only limited
yielding occurs prior to failure of a concrete strut, a sudden
failure could take place with the drastic consequences that
have been observed in past shear failures.1 During the last
two decades, several researchers have conducted studies
aimed at evaluating the strength of concrete struts for use in
strut-and-tie models.1-6 Generally, the approach has been
to lump the effect of strut stress and strain conditions,
reinforcement details, concrete strength, and uncertainties in
the truss model into a single factor, commonly referred to as
the efficiency factor or, more recently, as the strength reduction
factor v ≤ 1.0.4,6,7 Therefore, the strength of a concrete strut
is expressed as
fc = vfc′ (1)
where fc′ is the concrete compressive strength. To make the
application of strut-and-tie models practical, single values
for the efficiency factor have been proposed, which are
based on the cracking conditions expected in the struts, that
is, struts with cracks parallel to or skewed with respect to the
strut axis, but are independent of concrete strength. Proposed
values for the efficiency factor ν typically range from 0.3 for
heavily cracked struts to 0.85 for struts in which the concrete
is subjected to uniaxial or biaxial compression.4 Appendix A
of the ACI Code8 adopted this format in Article A.3.2, where
the efficiency factor is expressed as 0.85βs. Values of βs
range between 0.40 and 1.0, depending on the strut geometry,
reinforcement provided, and stress conditions in the
member. Thus, the specified values for the efficiency factor
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August 2006.
MS No. 05-104 received May 6, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2007 ACI
Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2007.
577

ACI member Carlos G. Quintero-Febres is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the
Universidad de los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela. He received his degree in civil engineering
from the Universidad de los Andes, Venezuela; his MS from the University of Iowa,
Iowa City, Iowa; and his PhD from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. He
is a recipient of the ACI Structural Research Award in 2003. His research interests
include the earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete structures and
structural reliability.
ACI member Gustavo Parra-Montesinos is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
at the University of Michigan. He is Secretary of ACI Committee 335, Composite and
Hybrid Structures, and a member of ACI Committees 318-F, New Materials, Products
and Ideas (Structural Concrete Building Code), and 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete. He is
also a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic
Concrete Structures. His research interests include the seismic behavior and design of
reinforced concrete, hybrid steel-concrete, and fiber-reinforced concrete structures.
James K. Wight, FACI, is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of
Michigan. He is Chair of ACI Committee 318, Structural Concrete Building Code,
and a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 352, Joints and Connections in
Monolithic Concrete Structures, and 445, Shear and Torsion. He has received several
ACI awards, including the Delmar L. Bloem Award in 1991, the Joe W. Kelly Award in
1999, and the ACI Structural Research Award in 2003. His research interests include
the earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete structures.
in the ACI Code range between 0.34 and 0.85. As might be
expected, these discrete values of the efficiency factor are
somewhat arbitrary and primarily based on experimental
evidence. Background information about provisions for
concrete struts given in Appendix A of the ACI Code can be
found elsewhere.7
Other more sophisticated expressions for estimating the
strength of concrete struts include the effect of concrete
compressive strength,3,5 in which the value of the efficiency
factor decreases as the concrete strength is increased. One
such expression is given in Eq. (2)5
f c′ 
f c =  0.7 – --------
- f ′ ( MPa ) (2)
 200  c
In Eq. (2), the efficiency factor is represented by the terms
in parenthesis. Evaluating this expression for fc′ = 28 and
70 MPa (4000 and 10,000 psi), values for the efficiency
factor of 0.56 and 0.35 are obtained, respectively. Ramirez
and Breen3 proposed an efficiency factor for concrete struts
in beams of 2.5/√fc′ MPa. In this case, ν is equal to 0.47 and
0.30 for 28 and 70 MPa concrete, respectively.
Extensive research has also been conducted at the University
of Toronto by Vecchio and Collins9,10 to evaluate the
compression behavior of cracked concrete. Expressions for
effective concrete strength developed by Vecchio and
Collins are based on the strain conditions in the concrete, and
thus their application to strut-and-tie models requires an
accurate estimation of the state of strain in the strut. Two
expressions they developed are
 
 1  approximately at a predetermined angle. Figure 1 shows the
f c =  –--------------------------------  f c′ ≤ f c′ (3)
 0.85 – 0.27 ----1  ε
 ε2 
and
 
 1  “Shallow” and “steep” strut angles were considered, with
f c =  –--------------------------------  f c′ ≤ f c′ (4)
 0.80 + 0.34 ε----1 
 based on a strut-and-tie model constructed following the
εo 
578
where ε1 and ε2 are the principal tension and compression
strains, respectively, and εo is the concrete strain at peak
compressive strength. In Eq. (3), the principal strain ratio ε1/ε2
needs to be known in order to determine the effective
concrete strength in the strut. Equation (4) represents a
simpler version, in which only the principal tension strain
needs to be determined. If Eq. (4) is evaluated for principal
tensile strains of 0.002 and 0.006 assuming εo = –0.002, the
efficiency factor would be equal to 0.88 and 0.55, respec-
tively. More recently, Vecchio11 proposed a reduction in the
degree of concrete softening predicted by Eq. (3) and (4) to
account for the fact that some of the softening, which was
attributed to the concrete in previous tests, was actually due
to crack slip and not to transverse tensile strains. Thus, for
cases where crack reorientation does not occur, higher
values of the efficiency factor would be obtained compared
to those determined from Eq. (3) and (4).
A simple expression for the concrete efficiency factor as a
function of the angle of inclination of the strut with respect
to the tie direction was recently proposed by Matamoros and
Wong,12 with the values of the efficiency factor decreasing
as the angle of inclination of the strut decreases. That model
gave lower strength estimates compared with the ACI Code
for the range of strut angles considered in their study
(between 30 and 60 degrees).
From the previous discussion, it is clear that, depending on
the model used, significant differences can be obtained in the
values of the efficiency factor used for concrete struts.
Values as low as 0.3 have been proposed in the past, which
is less than the lowest factor specified in the ACI Code.
Therefore, an evaluation of the adequacy of the strength
factors for concrete struts given in Appendix A of the ACI Code,
in particular those corresponding to struts crossed by no or low
amounts of transverse reinforcement, was performed.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The experimental program reported herein was carried out
at the Structural Engineering Laboratory of the University of
Michigan. It comprised the testing to failure of 12 reinforced
concrete deep beam specimens designed with various shear
span-to-depth ratios, concrete strengths, and reinforcement
layouts. Detailed information about this testing program can
be found elsewhere.13 All beams were 2440 mm (8 ft) long,
460 mm (18 in.) deep, and 150 mm (6 in.) wide, except for
the high-strength concrete specimens, in which the beam web
width in the test region was reduced to 100 mm (4 in.) to
force a diagonal compression strut failure prior to yielding of
the longitudinal reinforcement. The clear-span-to-total-
depth ratio for all beams was less than 4.0, which classifies
them as deep beams, according to the ACI Code. The beams
were loaded at a single point on the top face close to one of
the supports in order to develop a single concrete strut acting
load and support configuration for the beams.
Specimen design parameters
Three main design parameters were considered in this
study, primary strut angle with respect to the member
longitudinal (tie) axis, concrete compressive strength, and
amount of web reinforcement crossing the primary strut.
values of 25 to 29 degrees, and 35 to 44 degrees, respectively,
provisions in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Code. The
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
smallest angle between a strut and a tie is limited to 25 degrees 25 degrees. With this configuration, the strength of the
in Section A.1 of the ACI Code. Therefore, beams tested primary strut to the closer support was computed based on
with shallow strut angles were at or close to the lower limit, Section A.3 of the ACI Code. Bearing strengths at nodal
and thus likely to depart from a deep beam behavior (that is, zones were then checked and a prediction of the failure load
shear resistance through a single direct strut between the was obtained for the selected strut-and-tie model. Calculations
load point and support). Beams tested with steep strut angles for determining the beam strength for the critical shear span
did represent deep beam behavior. Normal-strength concrete of one of the test beams in Series A is provided in the
(in the order of 28 MPa [4000 psi]) and high-strength Appendix of this paper. In addition, a complete design
concrete (in the order of 55 Mpa [8000 psi]) were used to example for a deep beam using a strut-and-tie model similar
evaluate the adequacy of current strength factors for a wide to that shown in Fig. 2 can be found elsewhere.14
range of concrete strengths. Based on these design parameters,
the test specimens were grouped in three series of four Reinforcement details
specimens each, as follows: Series A having normal strength Details of the reinforcement for the test specimens are
concrete and a main strut angle of approximately 28 degrees; given in Fig. 3 through 5. The longitudinal reinforcement for
Series B with normal strength concrete and a primary strut
angle ranging between 41 and 44 degrees; and Series H with
high-strength concrete, two specimens having a strut angle
of approximately 25 degrees and two with a strut angle of
either 35 or 38 degrees. Table 1 lists the primary strut angle,
α, for each test specimen.
Two amounts of reinforcement crossing the primary strut
were considered in this study. For Series A and B, two
specimens had no reinforcement crossing the strut, and
two specimens had minimum reinforcement as per
Section A.3.3.1. For each strut angle considered in Series H,
one specimen had no web reinforcement and one had web Fig. 1—Overall dimensions and load configuration of deep
reinforcement crossing the primary strut. The web reinforcement beam specimens.
provided in the specimens of Series H, however, did not
satisfy the minimum reinforcement ratio required in
Section A.3.3 of the ACI Code, as will be explained in
detail later.

Design of test specimens

The test specimens were designed using the strut-and-tie
model shown in Fig. 2. In this model, a single strut is
assumed between the load point and the closer support,
which is located at approximately one-third or less of the
clear span away from the load. For the other portion of the
beam specimen (left portion of beam in Fig. 2) a more
complex truss is required to avoid a strut angle less than Fig. 2—Strut-and-tie model for deep beam design.

Table 1—Properties of test specimens and summary of test results

Effective Effective
reinforcement reinforcement
Specimen bw, mm d, mm a, mm α, degree ratio provided ratio required Failure mode§ Vu, kN vu /√fc, MPa VACI , kN Vu /VACI
A1 150 370 525 28.5 * † ‡ DS 251 0.95 215 1.17
0.0042 0.003 (0.0096)
A2 150 370 525 28.5 0.0042 0.003 (0.0096) DS 237 0.90 215 1.13
A3 150 370 525 27.9 — — DS 221 0.84 185 1.20
A4 150 370 525 27.9 — — DS 196 0.74 185 1.06
B1 150 375 335 41.3 0.0038 0.003 (0.013) DC 456 1.40 425 1.07
B2 150 375 335 41.3 0.0038 0.003 (0.013) DC 426 1.31 425 1.00
B3 150 375 305 43.8 — — DC 468 1.44 385 1.22
B4 150 375 305 43.8 — — DC 459 1.41 385 1.19
HA1 100 380 595 25.0 0.0056 NA (0.014) SC 265 0.64 275 0.96
HA3 100 380 545 25.0 — — SC 292 0.71 320 0.91
HB1 100 380 340 35.0 0.0085 NA (0.021) DC 484 1.18 475 1.02
HB3 100 380 310 37.6 — — DC 460 1.12 505 0.91
*
Based on Eq. (5).
†Based on ACI 318, Section A.3.3.1.
‡Based on ACI 318, Section A.3.3.
§
DS = diagonal splitting; DC = diagonal compression; SC = shear compression; Vu = shear force at failure; vu = average shear stress at failure (Vu/bwd), VACI = calculated strength
based on ACI 318, Appendix A.
Notes: NA = not applicable; 1 mm = 0.394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; and 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 579

all beam specimens was provided by four equal size bars
distributed in two layers whose centroid coincided with the
theoretical centroid of the main tie. This reinforcement was
chosen such that the stress in the steel corresponding to the
maximum predicted tie force for a particular strut strength
would be at or below the yield strength of the steel fy. The
reinforcement selected to carry the maximum tie force was
kept constant along the specimen length. At both beam ends,
the longitudinal reinforcement was extended beyond the
supports and terminated with either standard 90- or 180-
degree hooks to ensure proper development.
Transverse reinforcement over the portion of the beam
away from the primary strut consisted of U-shaped, No. 10M
(area = 71 mm2) deformed bars. More stirrups than required
for shear strength were used to force a failure in the strut
being tested. The amount of reinforcement used in each case
was checked using the strut-and-tie model of Fig. 2. The
extensions of the beam beyond the supports were reinforced
with U-shaped stirrups, as per ACI Code Section 12.5, to
ensure proper development of reinforcement.
Transverse reinforcement crossing the primary diagonal strut
was provided through No. 6M (area = 32 mm2) horizontal bars,
Fig. 3—Reinforcement details for Series A.
Fig. 4—Reinforcement details for Series B.
580
and either U-shaped stirrups (Series A and B) or two single-leg
ties (Series H) (Fig. 3 through 5). For Series A and B, which had
a specified concrete strength less than 41 MPa (6000 psi), ACI
Code Eq. (A-4) was used to select the reinforcement
A si
∑ ------
bs i
- sin γ i ≥ 0.003 (5)
where Asi is the total area of reinforcement at a spacing si in
a layer of reinforcement i with bars at an angle γi to the axis
of the strut. For Series H (concrete strength above 41 MPa
[6000 psi]), a relaxation of the requirements of Section A.3
was made. In this case, instead of assuming that the compressive
force in the strut would spread at a 2:1 slope (ACI Code,
Section A.3.3 and Fig. RA.1.8(b)), a shallower slope of
6:1 was used to avoid excessive amounts of web rein-
forcement. For all beams, a single U-shaped stirrup (Series A
and B) or a set of two single-leg ties (Series H) was placed
at the location of the applied load and the reaction force.
Table 1 gives the web reinforcement ratios provided in the
critical shear span, calculated according to Eq. (A-4) of the
ACI Code.
Materials
The concrete for the three series was obtained in different
batches from a local ready mixed concrete supplier. The
maximum coarse aggregate size was 10 mm (3/8 in.). For
each batch, 12 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders were taken
for later evaluation of concrete compressive strength. All
longitudinal reinforcement was made of Grade 60 (nominal
fy = 410 MPa (60 ksi) deformed steel. Main strut transverse
reinforcement consisted of smooth round bars (not
compliant with ASTM A 615M standards), while all other
beam transverse reinforcement consisted of Grade 60 steel
deformed bars. Reinforcing steel for each series was
obtained separately from a local steel supplier. Measured
concrete compressive strengths, obtained from at least three
cylinder tests, and steel yield strengths are given in Table 2.
Fabrication of test units
Both the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were
bent by a local steel supplier. After strain gauges were
attached to the bars at the desired locations, steel reinforcement
cages were assembled in the laboratory and placed into the
forms. The beams were cast following common procedures
and wet-cured for seven to 10 days before being removed
from their wood formwork. Beams from Series A and B,
which had a uniform cross-section, were cast upright, while
those from Series H, which had a reduction of the cross
section in the shear span, were cast upside down to ease the
casting process and to ensure proper consolidation of the
concrete in the forms. Once the concrete had gained sufficient
strength, the beams were placed in the testing rig.
Table 2—Material properties
Reinforcement yield strength fy , MPa (ksi)
fc′, MPa
Series (ksi) No. 6M No. 10M No. 13M No. 19M No. 22M
A 22.0 407 441 455 — 462
(3.2) (59.0) (64.0) (66.0) (67.1)
B 32.4 545 476 — 427 —
(4.7) (79.1) (69.0) (61.9)
H 50.3 586 476 — — 434
(7.3) (85.0) (69.0) (63.0)
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
Test setup and instrumentation
The beams were tested in two different setups. A test bed
with a 490 kN (110 kip) actuator was used for Series A, while
for Series B and H, a steel loading frame with a 1780 kN
(400 kip) capacity was used. The same load configuration was
used in both test setups, as shown in the schematic drawing
of Fig. 1. All beams were simply supported through the use
of restrained and free rollers, and were loaded on the top face
at a single location. The applied load and the reaction forces
were distributed on the beam surface through 25 mm (1 in.)
thick by 150 mm (6 in.) square steel plates. High strength
grout was used for proper seating of the steel plates on the
beams surfaces. The load was applied monotonically up to
failure in increments that corresponded to approximately
one-tenth of the predicted failure load for each beam.
Load cells, displacement transducers, and electrical
resistance strain gauges were used to monitor the applied
loads, deflections and deformations, and strains in the steel
reinforcement, respectively. Load cells provided readings
for the loads imposed by the actuator and hydraulic jack used
in the beam tests. A displacement transducer was placed
under the beam at the load point to record the imposed
displacements. An arrangement of three pairs of displacement
transducers, oriented vertically, horizontally, and at 45 degrees,
was used in each beam to monitor average strains in the critical
shear span. Cracks were also marked at selected load points
Fig. 5—Reinforcement details for Series H.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
up to approximately 75% of the predicted peak load and
numbered according to the loading stage.
ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
The behavior of the test specimens was evaluated in terms
of load versus deflection and load versus shear span distortion
responses, cracking pattern, failure mode, and strain history
at selected reinforcement locations.
Overall response
All beam specimens exhibited a nearly linear response up to
failure, as shown by the load versus deflection curves of
Fig. 6 through 8. Even though there was a larger region of low
stiffness for the specimens in Series A (due to support seating),
it is clear that the specimens in Series A (shallow strut angle)
experienced larger load-point deflections than those in Series B
(steep strut angle) at peak load. Also, from Fig. 6 it is seen that
the specimens of Series A with web reinforcement had a larger
strength than those without web reinforcement, while no major
differences in strength were observed for the beams in Series B
and H (Fig. 7 and 8, respectively).
Average shear distortions in the critical shear span (main
strut) were computed based on the readings obtained from an
arrangement of linear potentiometers, as explained earlier.
The load versus shear distortion response was characterized
Fig. 6—Load versus displacement response (Series A).
Fig. 7—Load versus displacement response (Series B).
581
by a linear uncracked response up to first diagonal cracking
(loads in the order of 25% of the peak load), followed by a
nearly linear cracked-elastic response up to peak load, which
corresponded roughly to an average shear distortion of 0.004
to 0.005 rad for all test specimens. Once the peak load was
attained, a rapid decrease in the applied load with increasing
shear distortions was observed. Providing minimum web
reinforcement crossing the strut did not seem to noticeably
affect the deformation capacity of the struts.
Cracking patterns and failure modes
Shear force at failure Vu and failure modes for the test
specimens are listed in Table 1. Figure 9 through 11 show
typical crack patterns at failure for the specimens in Series A,
B, and H, respectively. In general, a few flexural cracks
formed first, which remained at a narrow width throughout
the tests. Diagonal cracks then formed at approximately 25%
of the peak load, as mentioned earlier, defining the direction
of the main concrete strut. Failure for all test specimens was
brittle and the failure modes were identified as follows:
1) Diagonal-splitting failure, in which diagonal cracks that
formed initially at mid-depth of the beam in the direction of
the main strut propagated to the outside edge of the loading
plate and the inside edge of the bearing plate at the support
Fig. 8—Load versus displacement response (Series H).
Fig. 9—Cracking pattern at failure for Specimen A1.
582
(Fig. 9). This type of failure was typical for Series A, regardless
of the amount of web reinforcement provided;
2) Strut crushing failure at beam mid-depth following the
formation of several diagonal cracks (Fig. 10). This failure
mode was typical for Series B and Specimens HB-1 and HB-3
from Series H; and
3) Shear-compression failure near the loading point (Fig. 11)
after formation of one or two main diagonal cracks, which had
developed at mid-depth of the beam and propagated toward
the outside edge of the loading plate. Specimens HA1 and
HA3 (shallow strut angle with and without web reinforcement)
had this type of shear-compression failure.
Strains in longitudinal tension (tie) reinforcement
The strain profile in the main longitudinal reinforcement
was very similar for all specimens. The formation of a tie
action was confirmed by the nearly uniform strain distribution in
the longitudinal reinforcement over the shear span. The
strains measured in the lower reinforcement layer,
however, were slightly larger than those measured in the
upper reinforcement layer. A significant reduction in
longitudinal reinforcement strains between the load point
and the support away from the failure region was observed,
following a trend similar to that predicted by the strut-and-
Fig. 10—Cracking pattern at failure for Specimen B3.
Fig. 11—Cracking pattern at failure for Specimens HA1
and HA3.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
tie model shown in Fig. 2 for the left side of the beam. The fcu = 0.85βs fc′ (7)
longitudinal reinforcement in all specimens of Series A and
H remained elastic throughout the tests, while one or two where
strain gauges had just reached the yield point when a strut
βs = 0.75 for a bottle-shaped strut with reinforcement
failure occurred in the specimens of Series B. No signs of
satisfying Section A.3.3 (A.3.2.2(a)); and
anchorage problems were observed in any of the tests.
βs = 0.60λ for a bottle-shaped strut without reinforcement
satisfying Section A.3.3 (A.3.2.2(b)), λ = 1 for
Strains in longitudinal compression reinforcement normal weight concrete.
Typically, two strain gauges were attached to the compression The design of the test specimens was carried out using the
reinforcement, one just under the load point and the other at strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 2 and following the
the outer face of the theoretical upper compression node provisions in Appendix A of the ACI Code. The procedure
(right side inclined face in Fig. 2). Strains recorded at these followed to calculate the strength in the critical span of
two locations were well below yielding for all specimens, Specimen A1 is demonstrated in the Appendix of this paper. It
with the strains under the load point being larger. In some should be mentioned that strength factors used for concrete
cases, one or both of the strain gauges recorded tensile struts (βs in the ACI Code) are intended to account not
strains at later stages of the test when the top reinforcement only for the effect of strut stress and strain conditions and
was crossed by diagonal cracks (Fig. 9). reinforcement details, but also for uncertainties in the truss
model,7 as discussed earlier. Therefore, any strut failure
Strains in web or strut reinforcement mode was considered for evaluation of the adequacy of the
As shown in Fig. 3 through 5, minimum web reinforcement, ACI strut strength factors.
calculated according to Appendix A of the ACI Code, was Table 1 and Fig. 13 show a comparison between the
provided in Specimens A1 and A2 (shallow strut angle), and calculated and experimental failure loads. It is worth
B1 and B2 (steep strut angle), but less than the minimum mentioning that in order to properly evaluate the adequacy of
specified web reinforcement was placed in Specimens HA1
(shallow strut angle) and HB1 (steep strut angle). Strains
were recorded at various locations along the main strut on
the vertical stirrup legs and on the horizontal reinforcing
bars. Strain measurements and visual observations indicated
that the web reinforcement was effective in controlling crack
opening. Figure 12 shows the measured strain response for
vertical and horizontal web reinforcement for Specimen A1.
The strain response for the web reinforcement of all test
specimens was similar and can be summarized as
follows: 1) strains in the horizontal reinforcement were
lower than those in the vertical reinforcement; 2) for the
specimens with a shallow angle strut, the level of strains in
the vertical stirrups was higher than that for specimens with
a steep angle strut; and 3) for specimens with web reinforcement
in Series A and B, the vertical reinforcement was close to or
had just exceeded the yield point at the moment of failure,
while for Specimens HA1 and HB1, the strains measured at
failure corresponded to a stress of approximately 0.7fy and
0.5fy, respectively. It should be mentioned that smooth bars, Fig. 12—Strains in web reinforcement crossing primary
as opposed to deformed bars, were used as web reinforcement in diagonal strut (Specimen A1).
the critical shear span. Strain measurements, however,
indicated good bond between the bars and the concrete and
thus, no major differences in behavior were expected if
deformed reinforcement had been provided.

PREDICTED VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL

STRUT STRENGTHS
The main objective of this research project was to
experimentally evaluate the adequacy of the expressions in
Section A.3 of the ACI Code for the strength of concrete
struts in strut-and-tie models. The nominal compressive
strength of a strut without reinforcement in the direction of
the strut axis is taken as (ACI Code Eq. (A-2))

Fns = fcu Ac (6)

where Ac is the smaller cross-sectional area at either end of

the strut, and fcu is the effective compressive strength of the
concrete in a strut, given by Eq. (7) (Code Eq. (A-3)) Fig. 13—Experimental versus calculated strengths.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 583

the provisions in Appendix A of the ACI Code, the predicted
strengths reported in Table 1 correspond to the maximum
values obtained after considering various admissible strut
angles. Thus, the reported values represent the admissible
solution that led to either the least conservative or more
unconservative prediction. As can be seen in Fig. 13 and
Table 1, the calculated strengths were lower than or equal to
the experimental results for the specimens in Series A and B
with normal strength concrete. For the high-strength
concrete beams, however, a strut strength factor βs = 0.60
was found to be inadequate for use in struts not crossed by
web reinforcement, as indicated by the failure loads in
Specimens HA3 and HB3 (appear as a single point in Fig. 13),
which were approximately 10% lower than the predicted
strengths. For the case of Specimens HA1 and HB1, which
had effective web reinforcement ratios of 0.0056 and 0.0084,
respectively, strengths calculated according to ACI Code
Section A.3.3.1 and using a strength factor βs = 0.60 led to
predicted values nearly equal to the failure loads. Thus, these
limited test results suggest that, as a minimum, an effective
reinforcement ratio of 0.01, calculated according to ACI
Code Section A.3.3.1, should be provided in high-strength
concrete members when a strength factor βs = 0.60 is used.
Additional test data, however, are required before a definite
recommendation can be made in this regard.
Peak average shear stress demands for each specimen
are also given in Table 1. Regardless of the amount of web
reinforcement provided, test specimens with shallow and steep
struts sustained peak average shear stress demands exceeding
0.6 and 1.1√fc′ (MPa) (7.2 and 13.2√fc′ [psi]), respectively. For
the specimens subjected to average shear stresses greater
than the limit given for deep beams in Chapter 11 of the ACI
Code (0.83√fc′ [MPa]), however, the calculated strut and
node dimensions were believed to be excessive.
EVALUATION OF MINIMUM STRUT
REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS
IN APPENDIX A OF ACI CODE
Minimum strut reinforcement requirements are defined in
Section A.3.3 of Appendix A in the ACI Code. In that
section, sufficient steel reinforcement is required to resist a
tension force perpendicular to the strut axis, which is
calculated by assuming that the strut compression force
spreads out at a slope of 2:1 (longitudinal:transverse
direction, refer to ACI Code Fig. RA.1.8(b)). On the other
hand, Section A.3.3.1 specifies that this requirement can be
assumed to be satisfied for members with a concrete
compressive strength fc′ not greater than 41 MPa (6000 psi),
if sufficient web reinforcement is provided such that Eq. (5)
(Eq. (A-4) in ACI Code) is satisfied.
The requirements in Sections A.3.3 and A.3.3.1, when
applied to the test specimens, were found to be neither
consistent nor equivalent. Specimens in Series A and B, with
normal-strength concrete, were designed to satisfy the
requirements of Section A.3.3.1. If, instead, Section A.3.3
were to be satisfied, a much larger amount of transverse
reinforcement would have been required. Table 1 shows the
amount of web reinforcement required by Appendix A of the
ACI Code and the amount provided in the test specimens. As
can be seen, the provisions in Section A.3.3 required more
than three times the minimum reinforcement specified in
Section A.3.3.1 for the specimens in Series A and B.
For the specimens of Series H, ACI Code, Section A.3.3,
required reinforcement ratios of 1.4 and 2.1%, respectively,
584
leading to impractical and heavily congested designs. In
Series H, for which Section A.3.3.1 is not applicable because
of the use of high strength concrete, a 6:1 slope was assumed
for the spreading of the strut force instead of the 2:1 slope
specified in Section A.3.3. As discussed in the previous
section, unconservative strength predictions were
obtained for the high-strength concrete beams without
web reinforcement, while relatively good agreement
between predicted and experimental results was obtained in
Specimens HA1 and HB3, which had effective reinforcement
ratios of approximately 40% of those required by Section A.3.3.
Clearly, additional experimental information needs to be
generated to draw definite conclusions with regard to the
minimum web reinforcement required in high-strength
concrete members designed using strut-and-tie models.
Based on the very limited results presented herein and until
further data become available, a minimum effective web
reinforcement ratio of 0.01, as defined by Eq. (5) (ACI Code
Section A.3.3.1), is recommended for use in high-
strength concrete members designed with a strut strength
factor βs = 0.60.
The limited scope and budget for this experimental
program did not permit a thorough investigation of what
reasonable percentage of web reinforcement would be
required to justify the use of a strut strength factor, βs = 0.75,
for high-strength concrete struts. As mentioned previously,
the compliance with ACI Code Section A.3.3 may lead to
excessive amounts of reinforcement that could result in
impractical designs.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The adequacy of the strength factors for concrete struts
given in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Code was evaluated
based on the results from the tests of 12 reinforced concrete
deep beams. The main design variables considered were
main strut angle with respect to the member longitudinal (tie)
axis, amount of web reinforcement crossing the strut, and
concrete strength. The following conclusions were drawn
from the results of this investigation:
1. The strut strength factors given in Appendix A of the
2002 ACI Code were found to be adequate for use in normal-
strength concrete bottle-shaped struts crossed by either no
reinforcement (βs = 0.60) or crossed by the minimum
transverse reinforcement specified in ACI Code Section
A.3.3.1 (βs = 0.75);
2. The provisions for required minimum transverse
reinforcement in normal-strength concrete members given
in Appendix A of the 2002 ACI Building Code should be
reevaluated. Substantial differences in the required amount
of reinforcement were obtained when applying the provisions in
Sections A.3.3 and A.3.3.1 to the test beams, with the former
leading to substantially larger reinforcement ratios; and
3. Results from the tests of four high-strength concrete beams
suggest that, as a minimum, an effective web reinforcement
ratio of 0.01, calculated according to ACI Code Section
A.3.3.1, should be provided in high-strength concrete
members when a strength factor βs = 0.60 is used. Additional
test data, however, are required before a definite recommen-
dation can be made in this regard.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented in this paper was carried out at the Structural Engineering
Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Financial support
was provided by the ACI Concrete Research Council and the University of
Michigan. The first author would like to thank the Universidad de los Andes,
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
Mérida, Venezuela, for its support during his sabbatical leave. Thanks are
also extended to University of Michigan student A. L. Libbrecht, and to
L. B. Fargier-Gabaldón and B. Afsin Canbolat for their valuable help during the
experimental phase of this project. The conclusions and recommendations
contained in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the sponsors.

REFERENCES
1. MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete, Mechanics and Design, 2nd
Edition, Prentice Hall, 1988, 848 pp.
2. Schlaich, J.; Schäfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., “Toward a Consistent
Design of Structural Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, 1987, pp. 74-150.
3. Ramirez, J. A., and Breen, J. E., “Evaluation of a Modified Truss-
Model Approach for Beams in Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1991, pp. 562-571.
4. Yun, Y. M., and Ramirez, J. A., “Strength of Struts and Nodes in Strut-
Tie Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 122, No. 1, 1996,
pp. 20-29.
5. Nielsen, M. P., Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, CRC Press
LLC, 1999, 936 pp.
6. Rogowsky, D. M., and MacGregor, J. G., “Design of Reinforced Fig. A-1—Strut-and-tie model in critical span of Specimen A1.
Concrete Beams,” Concrete International, V. 8, No. 8, Aug. 1986, pp. 49-58.
7. MacGregor, J. G., “Derivation of Strut-and-Tie Models for the 2002
ACI Code,” Examples for the Design of Structural Concrete with Strut-
and-Tie Models, SP-208, K.-H. Reineck, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Ftie = Fhorizontal at nodes = Fstruct cosα = 1.20P (A-2)
Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, pp. 7-40.
8. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Check of top node and adjacent inclined strut
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
Strut width and strength at intersection with top node, (ws)t
9. Vecchio, F., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression Field and (Fns)t , respectively
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Feb. 1986, pp. 219-231. (ws)t = (0.65 × 150 mm)sinα + hncosα = 125 mm (A-3)
10. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M.P., “Compression Response of Cracked
Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 119,
No. 12, 1993, pp. 3590-3610. (Fns)t = 0.85βs fc′ (ws)t bw (A-4)
11. Vecchio, F. J., “Disturbed Stress Field Model for Reinforced
Concrete: Formulation,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 126,
No. 9, 2000, pp. 1070-1077. (Fns)t = 0.85 × 0.75 × 22 MPa (215 mm)(150 mm) = 450 kN
12. Matamoros, A., and Wong, K. H., “Design of Simply Supported
Deep Beams Using Strut-and-Tie Models,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003, pp. 704-712. Equation (A-4) leads to an applied load P = (Fns)t /1.36 =
13. Quintero-Febres, C.; Parra-Montesinos, G.; and Wight, J. K., 330 kN.
“Evaluation of Strength Factors for Concrete Struts in Deep Concrete Strength of vertical and horizontal faces of upper right
Members,” Report No. UMCEE 05-04, Department of Civil and Environmental node, (Fnn)t-v and (Fnn)t-h, respectively
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 2005, 78 pp.
14. Wight, J. K., and Parra-Montesinos, G., “Use of Strut and Tie Model
for Deep Beam Design as Per ACI 318 Code,” Concrete International, ( F nn ) t-v = 0.85β n f c ′ ( 0.65 × 150 mm) b w (A-5)
V. 25, No. 5, May 2003, pp. 63-70.

APPENDIX (Fnn)t-v = 0.85 × 1.0 × 22 MPa(0.65 × 150 mm)(150 mm) = 275 kN

Figure A-1 shows the strut-and-tie model for the critical
span of Specimen A1. The selection of the strut angle α and ( F nn ) t-h = 0.85β n f c ′h n b w (A-6)
thus, the depth of the top node hn, was made such as to
maximize the predicted shear strength. This was done with
the purpose of determining the most critical admissible solution (Fnn)t-h = 0.85 × 1.0 × 22 MPa(195 mm)(150 mm) = 545 kN
for the strut-and-tie model considered, according to
Appendix A of the ACI Code. Other admissible solutions Equation (A-5) leads to P = (Fnn)t-v /0.65 = 420 kN, while
will be below this maximum prediction and, thus, they Eq. (A-6) leads to P = (Fnn)t-h/1.20 = 455 kN.
would represent more conservative predictions.
From Fig. A-1, it can be seen that the applied load at the Check of bottom node and adjacent inclined strut
top of the beam, P, was divided into two forces of magnitude Strut width and strength at intersection with bottom node,
equal to the beam shears at the left and right beam portions, (ws)b and (Fns)b, respectively
0.35P and 0.65P, respectively, acting over a proportional
plate width (refer to Reference 14 for detailed information (ws)b = (150 mm)sinα + (180 mm)cosα = 230 mm (A-7)
about this procedure). The critical solution was found for a
strut angle α = 28.5 degrees. For this angle, hn = 195 mm.
The forces acting at the nodes and struts can be expressed in ( F ns ) b = 0.85β s f c ′ ( w s ) b b w (A-8)
terms of the applied load P as follows
(Fns)b = 0.85 × 0.75 × 22 MPa(230 mm)(150 mm) = 485 kN
0.65P
Fstrut = -------------- = 1.36P (A-1)
sin α Equation (A-8) leads to P = 355 kN.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 585

 Strength of vertical and horizontal faces of bottom node,
(Fnn)b-v and (Fnn)b-h, respectively
(Fnn)b-v = 0.85β n f c ′ ( 150 mm) b w (A-9)
(Fnn)b-v = 0.85 × 0.80 × 22 MPa(150 mm)(150 mm) = 335 kN
(Fnn)b-h = 0.85 βn f c ′h tie b w < A s f y (A-10)
586
( F nn ) b-h = 0.85 × 0.80 × 22 MPa (180 mm) (150 mm) =
405 kN < 715 kN
Equation (A-9) and (A-10) lead to P = 515 kN and P =
340 kN, respectively.
The strength of the beam is then governed by the upper strut
end, which leads to a maximum applied load of 330 kN and a
corresponding shear in the critical span of 215 kN.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006