Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Strut-and-tie — where it appears

A truss of notional compression struts and reinforcement ties, used where the strain across a section is not linear and no section exists. It is a lower-bound model, so the designer picks the truss and the concrete accepts it — provided the struts are not overstressed and the ties are anchored.

Named by 15 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Where plane sections stop staying plane. Strain across a cut face at four span-to-depth ratios, with the straight line the theory assumes drawn faintly behind. For a slender beam the two coincide; for a beam as deep as its span the real distribution is nothing like a straight line, and beam theory has no claim on it.

Plane sections stay plane, and what the assumption costs

Beam theory rests on one sentence about geometry. It is very nearly true for a slender member, wrong for a deep one, and everything in the subject that fails does so where it stops holding.

sections · Plane sections A truss drawn inside a solid, and solved as one. A deep member 4000 mm between bearings and 2000 mm deep, carrying 1200 kN at mid-span. The model is two struts and one tie, on a lever arm of 1600 mm, and it is solved by the truss solver rather than by a formula: the tie comes back at 750 kN and each strut at 960 kN, at 38.7° to the horizontal. Spread over a strut width of 812 mm the compression is 3.0 N/mm² against a limit of 15.8 for concrete cracked across its own strut, and the tie needs 1724 mm² of steel. A beam calculation on the same member would have asked the tie for 702 kN, which is 7% less than the model does.

When there is no section to design

Beam theory needs a section, and a section needs the strain to be linear across it. Within about a depth of a support, a load, a corner or a hole it is not — and those are the regions structures actually fail in.

internal-forces · Strut-and-tie A check made on a perimeter, not on a section. One bay of a flat slab, 7.2 m square, on a 400 × 400 mm column. The heavy closed line is the control perimeter, 2d from the column face with its corners rounded at that radius — 4427 mm long against 1600 mm round the column itself. The shaded area inside it delivers no shear across it and is subtracted from the load; everything outside arrives through the perimeter. At 12 kN/m² that is 604 kN across 4427 × 225 mm, a shear stress of 0.606 N/mm² against a resistance of 0.658.

A check made on a perimeter, not on a section

Every shear check in this collection is made on a plane cut through a member. A slab sitting on a column has no such plane, because the shear leaves in every direction at once — so the check is made on a closed line, and a line grows with the column while the load grows with the square of the bay.

internal-forces · Punching shear The cut that severs the stirrups is the cut that counts them. A cracked web drawn as the truss it has become: a tension chord along the bottom, a compression chord along the top, concrete struts between the cracks and stirrups crossing them. The free body is a cut parallel to the cracks, which over a lever arm of 495 mm severs z·cot θ/s = 8.3 stirrups at cot θ = 2.5. Every one of them is at yield, so the shear is their number times their strength, and flattening the crack raises the count rather than the strength. The same cut passes through the bottom chord, which is where the chord force the moment diagram does not contain comes from.

The beam that becomes a truss

Once a web has cracked in shear there is no shear stress field in it any more. There are concrete struts, two chords and whatever crosses the cracks, and the angle of those cracks is not a property of the material — it is something the designer chooses, and every quantity in the beam moves when it changes.

internal-forces · Shear truss analogy The force spreads, and the spreading needs a tie. The end block behind an anchorage of 1200 kN on a 200 mm plate, in a section 700 mm deep. Half the force enters at the quarter point of the plate and leaves at the quarter point of the section, so a strut between the two rises 125 mm and needs a transverse tie to turn it. Placing the tie 0.5 depths from the face makes that tie force 214 kN — and at exactly half a depth this reproduces Guyon's 0.25P(1 − a/h) to the digit, which makes that famous coefficient a lever arm somebody chose rather than a property of concrete. The bearing stress under the plate is 20.0 N/mm² against 5.7 once the force has spread.

The force that splits what it pushes on

A prestressing tendon delivers its whole force through a plate a fraction of the section deep. One depth further along the stress is uniform, and the spreading in between requires a transverse tension nobody applied — the force that splits end blocks, and the only number in the design that no equilibrium equation on the member can see.

internal-forces · Anchorage zone The same beam, the same load, and one of them has to lift it. Two lower-bound models of one beam, differing only in which chord the 600 kN is applied to. The chord forces are identical in both — the moment diagram does not know where the load arrived — and so are the struts. What is not identical is the vertical at the load: nothing in the top-loaded model, and the whole 600 kN in the hung one, because a bottom-chord panel point touches no strut and the load has nowhere to go but up. That tie is 1200 mm² of steel against the 96 mm² the shear calculation asks for over the same length — a factor of 12.5, in the same place, and additional to it.

The load that has to be lifted

Every shear calculation on this site assumes the load arrives on the top of the beam and walks down a diagonal to the support. Hang the same load from the soffit and the diagonal cannot start — the load has to be carried up to the compression zone first, by a tie no sectional calculation contains.

internal-forces · Indirect support The two theorems close on the answer from opposite sides. A pinned-base portal frame under 200 kN at mid-span and 80 kN at the eaves, with a plastic moment of 200 kNm. The three horizontal lines are mechanisms — work equations, each an upper bound: the beam mechanism gives 1.000, sway 1.250 and the combined one 0.714. The curve is the lower bound: for each value of the one redundant, the largest load factor whose moment field stays inside the plastic moment everywhere. Its peak is 0.714, and it touches the lowest mechanism exactly — so the collapse load is known rather than bracketed. Using the beam mechanism instead would have claimed 1.40 times the real capacity, and the sway one 1.75 times, both of them on the wrong side.

Two ways of being wrong

Plastic analysis has two theorems and they point in opposite directions. Any equilibrium field that nowhere exceeds the plastic moment gives a load at or below the collapse load; any mechanism gives one at or above it. Only one of those errors is safe.

equilibrium · Bound theorems The bond stress is crowded against the loaded end. A 20 mm bar embedded 806 mm, with the force in it and the bond stress on it plotted along the embedment. Uniform bond — the assumption behind every development length ever tabulated — is a flat stress and a straight line of force. An elastic bond of the same peak strength is neither: the slip is largest where the bar is pulled and dies away over 1/α = 471 mm, so the far end of the bar is doing almost nothing. At the design rule's length of 40 diameters the elastic bond is 55 per cent used. The uniform answer is what the bond looks like after it has yielded along the whole length, which is a statement about ductility rather than about strength.

The force that arrives along a length

A bolt takes its force at a hole and a weld along a line. A reinforcing bar has no such place — it is a smooth cylinder in a hole of its own shape, and the only thing stopping it sliding out is a stress smeared over its surface. So the force in it is not a number, it is a function of position.

internal-forces · Bond A base plate, and when the bolts start working. A 500 × 500 mm plate carrying 600 kN and 180 kN·m, so the resultant sits 300 mm from the centre against a kern of 83.33 mm. The plate is in bolts engaged: bearing over 150.88 mm at a peak of 20 N/mm², with the holding-down bolts carrying 154.42 kN. The plate lifts at 50 kN·m and crushes at 126 kN·m, and the bolts are not needed until 150 kN·m.

The failure that is in the concrete

An anchor bolt is a steel component and its capacity is usually decided by something else entirely — a cone of concrete pulled out around it, failing in tension, in a material every other calculation on the project has assumed cannot take tension at all. The exponent in the capacity says so: it is not the square the geometry implies.

connections · Anchor breakout A strength with no mechanism in it, made of four. The shear a member carries with no links in it, split into the mechanisms that carry it, against the member's effective depth on a logarithmic axis. The three bands are calibrated to Taylor's measured shares at one 300 mm × 500 mm member and are then evaluated everywhere else, so the shape of the total is a prediction. Aggregate interlock is the band that dies: it depends on how tightly the crack faces are held together, crack width grows with member depth, and it falls from 62% of a shallow member's strength to 22% of a deep one's. That decay is the whole of the size effect, and the dashed line is the design code's fitted k = 1 + √(200/d), which knows nothing about interlock and falls by a factor of 1.52 where the model falls by 2.05 over the same twentyfold range. Dowel action is why the expression contains the flexural reinforcement ratio, which nothing in a truss analogy would predict.

The strength with no mechanism in it

A concrete member with no links in it carries shear, and the expression that says how much is three variables raised to fitted powers with a size term in front. There is no free body anywhere in it. What it is fitting is a competition between four things that carry shear across a crack, and only one of them explains why a deeper member is worse at it.

internal-forces · Concrete shear An enhanced strength that is the strength of a tie. Bearing strength as a multiple of the design cylinder strength, against how far the load is allowed to spread, with the bursting tension the spread creates on the same axis. The enhancement is √(A₂/A₁) and it reaches 2.80 for the 250 mm pad on a 700 mm block drawn — 47.6 N/mm² against a design strength of 17.0. There is no material property in that statement beyond the one being enhanced, and the reason is on the second curve: a load that spreads does so along inclined struts, a pair of inclined struts has a horizontal component, and that component is 16.1% of the load. It has to be tied. 1099 mm² of steel is what the enhancement actually is, and the cap of three is not a property of concrete — it is the angle past which nobody believes the strut.

Three times as strong under a smaller pad

Press a small plate onto a large block of concrete and it will carry three times the stress a cylinder of the same concrete fails at. The enhancement is a ratio of areas with no material property in it, which should be a warning: what has actually been measured is not the concrete's strength but the strength of a tie holding it together.

internal-forces · Bearing stress A truss drawn inside a solid, and solved as one. A deep member 5000 mm between bearings and 2500 mm deep, carrying 2400 kN at mid-span. The model is two struts and one tie, on a lever arm of 2000 mm, and it is solved by the truss solver rather than by a formula: the tie comes back at 1500 kN and each strut at 1921 kN, at 38.7° to the horizontal. Spread over a strut width of 1031 mm the compression is 3.7 N/mm² against a limit of 18.1 for concrete cracked across its own strut, and the tie needs 3448 mm² of steel. A beam calculation on the same member would have asked the tie for 1404 kN, which is 7% less than the model does.

The node is the part that is checked

A strut-and-tie model is safe if every part of it can carry what the model asks. The struts are wide and lightly stressed, the ties are steel and easy, and the whole of the difficulty collects at the points where they meet — in a volume of concrete a few hundred millimetres across that no drawing shows.

internal-forces · Strut-and-tie Flattening the truss saves stirrups and crushes the web. Two capacities against the angle of the cracks, for a web 350 mm wide with a lever arm of 630 mm. The rising line is the stirrups: a cut along the crack severs z·cot θ/s of them, so flattening the crack from 45° to cot θ = 2.5 takes the 315 kN they carry to 787 — 2.5 times as much from the same steel. The falling line is the concrete strut, whose stress is V(cot θ + tan θ)/b_w z and therefore least at 45°. They do not cross in this range, so the stirrups govern throughout and the angle is a free choice.

The angle is a choice, not a property

The truss inside a cracked concrete web has a strut angle, and nothing measures it. The designer picks it, the stirrup requirement falls as it flattens, the web stress rises, and every choice in between is a different structure that carries the same load.

internal-forces · Concrete shear More steel across the crack, until the roughness runs out. Shear resistance of the interface against the reinforcement crossing it. The steel clamps rather than carries, so the resistance is the clamping stress times the interlock coefficient and rises in a straight line — until the asperities crush at 5.50 N/mm², which happens at a reinforcement ratio of 0.79%. Past that the line is flat and every further bar is decoration. The dashed line is what the clamping alone would give if the concrete were unbreakable.

Two models of one bracket

A corbel can be designed as a plane that has to be clamped or as a truss that has to be drawn, and the two are not approximations of each other. They describe different failures, they ask for steel in different places, and the honest answer is that both are checked because neither bounds the other.

internal-forces · Shear friction The studs reach out to where the concrete is enough. One column of a 260 mm flat slab (d = 225 mm) carrying 12 kN/m² on 400 × 400 mm internal columns, the moment it hands the column putting the shear 300 mm off centre, on a 10.0 m bay, to scale. The inner check, on the control perimeter 2d out (solid), needs reinforcement: 12 rails of studs, 6 perimeters of them from 0.5d at 0.75d spacing, 1,415 mm² on each perimeter. The outer perimeter (dashed), where the concrete alone carries the shear, stands 5.4d from the face — 9,173 mm long against the control perimeter's 4,427 — and the last studs must be within 1.5d inside it, 3.9d from the face.

The studs that send the check outward

Shear studs round a column fix a failing punching check, and they turn one check into three. The studs carry the control perimeter; past them the concrete alone must carry a perimeter long enough to need no help, and that outer perimeter stands further from the column the larger the load, so the studs follow it out. At a 10 m bay they reach four effective depths from the face, and the steel they need grows as the shear to the power 3.5. The third check, at the column face, is the one no stud reaches, and it ends the series at 11.8 m.

internal-forces · Punching shear

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

EquilibriumLower-bound theoremFree bodyReinforcementLoad pathAggregate interlockAnchorageBondSize effectBearing stressDuctilityPunching shear

All concepts