ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 99-S60

Computer-Based Tools for Design by Strut-and-Tie

Method: Advances and Challenges
by Tjen N. Tjhin and Daniel A. Kuchma
The strut-and-tie method (STM) is gaining recognition as a codeworthy and consistent methodology for the design of D- (discontinuity)
regions in structural concrete. Unfortunately, the development of
code provisions for the STM has been hampered by uncertainties in
defining the strength and dimensions of the idealized load-resisting
truss (or strut-and-tie model). In addition, the has been encumbered
by an iterative and time-consuming design procedure in which
many geometric details need to be considered. To overcome this
problem, researchers are developing computer-based design tools,
including the authors computer-aided strut-and-tie (CAST) design
tool. CAST provides a graphical working environment for all
aspects of the design process, including definition of the D-region,
selection of the strut-and-tie model, truss analysis, member
definitions, and creation of a design summary. This study reports
on the STM, the barriers to its advancement, the capabilities of
computer-based design tools, and the CAST program. It also
makes suggestions for future STM research.
Keywords: structural concrete; strut; tie.

INTRODUCTION
In selecting the appropriate design approach for structural
concrete, it is useful to classify portions of the structure as
either B- (beam or Bernoulli) regions or D- (disturbed or
discontinuity) regions. B-regions are those parts of a structure
in which it is reasonable to assume that there is a linear variation
in strain over the depth of the section. D-regions are the
remaining parts of the structure in which there is a complex
variation in strain, occurring near abrupt changes in geometry
(geometrical discontinuities) or concentrated forces (statical
discontinuities). Based on St. Venants principle, the extent
of a D-region spans approximately one section depth of the
region on either side of the discontinuity. The distinction
between B- and D-regions is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Most design practices for B-regions are based on a model
for behavior. For example, the design for flexure is based on
conventional beam theory while the design for shear is based
on the well-known parallel chord truss analogy. In contrast,
the most familiar types of D-regionssuch as deep beams,
corbels, joints, and pile capsare principally designed by
empirical approaches, such as those given in ACI 318-99,1
or by using common detailing practices. For most other types
of D-regions, code provisions provide little guidance to
designers. Not surprisingly, most structural problems occur
in D-regions.
The strut-and-tie method2-4 (STM) is emerging as a codeworthy methodology for the design of all types of D-regions
in structural concrete. Unfortunately, this conceptually
powerful method can be complicated by the need to perform
time-consuming calculations and graphical procedures. It is
for this reason that computer-based graphical design aids are
being developed.
586

Beginning with a brief description of the STM, this paper

discusses complications in the STM design process and the
role that computer-based tools can serve in overcoming these
obstacles. Then, a summary of the capabilities of a few
computer-based STM design tools is presented, with emphasis
on the features that distinguish one tool from another. This
includes work at Purdue University, the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH), the University of Stuttgart, and
others. Following this, the computer-aided strut-and-tie
(CAST) design tool that is being developed by the authors is
presented. The study concludes with a summary of the
challenges that lie ahead for the STM and associated
computer-based design tools.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Because of the inadequacy of traditional code provisions
and detailing practices, most structural problems occur in
D-regions. The STM has the potential to provide a consistent,
well-founded, and widely applicable design methodology
for D-regions, but it is marred by a cumbersome hand-based
design process. To overcome this problem, computer-based
design and analysis tools that bring simplicity and transparency
to the STM design process, and thus can improve how D-regions
are designed, are being developed. This paper presents the role
and capabilities of these programs, summarizes uncertainties
in the STM design methodology, and suggests directions for
future research.
STM FOR DESIGN OF D-REGIONS
Background
The idea of the STM came from the truss analogy method
introduced independently by Ritter and Mrsch approximately
100 years ago for the shear design of B-regions. The truss
analogy, or truss model, was used to idealize the flow of
forces in a cracked concrete beam. In parallel with the increasing
availability of experimental results and the development of
limit analysis in the plasticity theory, the truss analogy
method has been validated and improved considerably in the
form of full member or sectional design procedures. The
truss model has also been used as a basis for torsion-design
methods. An excellent summary of the development of
truss model for shear design of B-regions can be found in
Reference 5. The STM was developed after Schlaich, Schfer,
and Jennewein3 extended the use of a truss model to D-regions.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, September-October 2002.
MS No. 01-236 received August 6, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the July-August 2003 ACI Structural Journal if
received by March 1, 2003.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

ACI member Tjen N. Tjhin is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His
research interests include nonlinear analysis and design of concrete structures.
ACI member Daniel A. Kuchma is an assistant professor of civil and environmental
engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a member of
ACI Subcommittee 318-E, Shear and Torsion; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445,
Shear and Torsion.

Strut-and-tie models
In the STM, the complex flow of internal forces in the
D-region under consideration is idealized as a truss carrying
the imposed loading through the region to its supports. This
truss is called a strut-and-tie model. Like a real truss, a strutand-tie model consists of struts and ties interconnected at nodes
(nodal zones or nodal regions). A selection of strut-and-tie
models for a few typical D-regions is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Struts are the compression members of a strut-and-tie model
and represent concrete stress fields whose principal compressive stresses are predominantly along the centerline of the
strut. As shown in Fig. 2, struts are usually symbolized using
a broken line. The actual shape of a strut, however, can be
prismatic, bottle-shaped, or fan-shaped (Fig. 3). Struts can be
strengthened by steel reinforcement and, when this is the
case, they are called reinforced struts.
Ties are the tension members of a strut-and-tie model.
Ties mostly represent reinforcing steel, but they can occasionally
represent prestressing steel or concrete stress fields with
principal tension predominantly in the tie direction. Ties are
usually denoted using a solid line.

Nodes are analogous to joints in a truss, and are where

forces are transferred between struts and ties. As a result,
these regions are subject to a multidirectional state of stress.
Nodes are classified by the types of forces being connected.
Figure 4 shows basic types of nodes; in the figure, C is used
to denote compression and T is used to denote tension.
STM design process
The STM design process involves several steps that are
illustrated in Fig. 5 using the design example of a dappedended beam, and are described as follows:
1. Defining the boundaries of the D-region and then
evaluating the concentrated, distributed, and sectional forces
that act on the boundaries of this region;
2. Sketching a strut-and-tie model and solving for the truss
member forces;
3. Selecting the reinforcing or prestressing steel that is
necessary to provide the required tie capacity and ensuring
that this reinforcement is properly anchored in the nodal
zones (joints of the truss);
4. Evaluating the dimensions of the struts and nodes such
that the capacity of these components is sufficient to carry
the design force values; and
5. Providing distributed reinforcement to increase the
ductility of the D-region.
Because equilibrium of the truss with the boundary forces
must be satisfied (Step 2) and stresses everywhere must be
below defined code limits (Steps 3 and 4), the STM is a lowerbound (static or equilibrium) method of limit analysis.

Fig. 1Example of division of B- and D-regions in common structure.

Fig. 2Examples of strut-and-tie models.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

587

STM design provisions

STM design provisions consist of rules for defining the
dimensions and ultimate stress limits of struts and nodes as
well as the requirements for the distribution and anchorage

fc

fc

fc
(a)

fc1<fc

fc

fc
(b)

(c)

Fig. 3Basic type of struts: (a) prismatic; (b) bottleshaped; and (c) fan-shaped (adapted from Schlaich,
Schfer, and Jennewein).3

Fig. 4Basic type of nodes: (a) CCC; (b) CCT; (c) CTT;
and (d) TTT.

of reinforcement. Guidelines6,7 for STM design have been

developed for European practice. Provisions for the STM
were incorporated in the Canadian Concrete Design Code8 in
1984 and in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications9 in 1994. Another specific set of provisions
has been developed to be included as an alternative design
procedure in Appendix A, Strut and Tie Models, of ACI
318-02.10 Due to uncertainties associated with defining the
characteristics of an idealized truss within a continuum of
structural concrete, there are substantial differences in the
rules used in these provisions and guidelines.
COMPLICATIONS IN DESIGN USING STM
Although the STM is conceptually simple, numerous
complications can encumber the five-step design process,
and they are the motivation for the development of computerbased tools. A few of these complications are briefly described
as follows.
Selection of appropriate strut-and-tie models
Because the STM is a lower-bound design methodology,
more than one admissible truss can be developed for each
load case as long as the selected truss is in equilibrium with
the boundary forces and the stresses in the struts, ties, and
nodes of the truss are within acceptable limits. As a result of
limited ductility in the structural concrete, however, there are
only a small number of viable solutions for each design
region. Figure 6 illustrates the ways in which some solutions
are preferable to others.

Fig. 5Steps in STM design process.

588

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

The most widely used guidance for selecting the appropriate

truss so far is probably that suggested by Schlaich, Schfer,
and Jennewein,3 who proposed arranging the truss members
within 15 degrees of the principal stress trajectories obtained
from a linear elastic solution. With this approach, both serviceability and ultimate limit states are expected to be satisfied.
Based on the minimum strain-energy principle, Schlaich,
Schfer, and Jennewein also suggest selecting a truss in
which the total length of ties is a minimum. This guidance is
very helpful, but elastic solutions or solutions for minimum
length of ties are not always easy to obtain. The other method
includes recent work by Ali and White.11 Also using the energy
approach, they introduced the elastic strain compatibility error
(SCER) concept to measure how well a selected strut-and-tie
model deviates from the elastic solution; the lower the SCER
value, the closer it is to the elastic stress distribution.
Adjustment of truss geometry and dimensions
The initially selected geometry of the truss, including the
strut and node dimensions, must often be adjusted to satisfy
stress limit criteria, to fit the struts and nodes within the
D-region boundaries, to investigate other configurations,
and to optimize the design. Refinement of the truss geometry
sometimes needs to be undertaken for similar reasons. This
can make hand-based solutions prohibitively time-consuming,
particularly for the design of complex D-regions.
Geometry and dimensions of ties and nodes
To determine the dimensions and shape of a node, it is
necessary to know the widths of the incoming struts and ties.
The width of a strut is typically selected so that a particular
code-specified stress limit value is not exceeded. It is less
clear, however, how to define the effective width of ties as
well as the dimensions and shape of nodal zones.
The classic method of dimensioning a node is by arranging
the node shape so that the stresses on all sides of the node
from the truss member forces as well as from the boundary
forces meeting at the nodeare equal. The biaxial state of
stress inside the node is hydrostatic; in other words, the
in-plane stresses are isotropic, homogeneous, and equal to
those on the sides. Arranging the node in this shape can be
done by sizing the boundaries of the node so that they are
proportional and perpendicular to the forces acting on them
(Fig. 7). In defining the width of a tie, the tie force is treated
as a compressive force acting from behind the node (Fig. 7(b)
through (d)). This type of node is called a hydrostatic node.
Laying out nodes in this manner can be very laborious,
especially for nodes bounded by more than three truss
members (Fig. 8(a)), as the centerlines of truss members
framing into hydrostatic nodes of more than three sides are
unlikely to coincide (Fig. 8(b)).
A more simplified method that is applicable for nodes with
typical configurations was proposed by Schlaich and Schfer.4
The shape of a node is simply formed by the intersection of
actual dimensions of struts and ties whose centerlines coincide
at that node (Fig. 8(c)). The in-plane stresses acting on all
sides of the node do not need to be equal, but the stress on
each side must be constant and below the node stress limit.
This convenient method, however, must be used discriminately for complex node configurations.
Statically indeterminate strut-and-tie models
There is little guidance available for evaluating the relative
stiffness of members in a statically indeterminate strut-andACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Fig. 6Two admissible strut-and-tie models for squat

structural wall under horizontal force: (a) workable truss;
and (b) less feasible truss due to excessive ductility demands.
fc

fc

fc
fc
fc
fc

fc

fc

fc
T
(b)

(a)
T

fc

fc

fc
fc

fc

fc
fc
fc

fc
(c)

T T

fc

(d)

Fig. 7Examples of hydrostatic nodes: (a) CCC; (b) CCT:

(c) CTT; and (d) TTT.
tie model. As a result, the designer is unsure how to determine
the distribution of forces in these types of trusses.
The classic way to handle a statically indeterminate case is
to employ the so-called plastic truss method. In this method,
the most heavily loaded ties in the truss are assumed to have
yielded so that the tire forces become known and the truss
becomes statically determinate. This method, however, must
be used with caution because of strain compatibility requirements and limited ductility in concrete. Another method,
suggested by Schlaich and Schfer,4 is to decompose the
statically indeterminate truss into several statically determinate trusses. Again, as a result of the strain compatibility requirements, this technique requires a reasonable estimation of
the stiffness and the imposed-loading distribution of each statically determinate truss.
Multiple load cases and load combinations
The need to consider multiple load cases and load combinations can increase the time required to complete a design
using the STM by several times. This is so because different
strut-and-tie models may need to be prepared to handle
589

C1
fc

C2

fc

C3

fc

C4

fc
fc

fc2

(a)

fc
fc
fc

fc1

fc

fc3

fc
fc

fc
(b)

fc4
(c)

Fig. 8Example of CCC node with four truss members

intersecting: (a) forces acting on node; (b) node shape
arrangement causing hydrostatic stress state; and (c)
simplified arrangement.
each different loading situation. In addition, load cases
usually cannot be superimposed directly to form load combinations as a result of strain compatibility requirements.
To summarize the aforementioned complications, the
STM design process can be encumbered by the challenge of
selecting the initial truss, the need to iteratively adjust and
refine truss geometry and member dimensions, the lack of
guidance for the design of statically indeterminate trusses,
and the need to consider multiple load cases and load combinations. Additionally, the STM does not yet address structural
performance under service loading. Computer-based strutand-tie design programs, as described in the following section,
can overcome many of these challenges.
ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-BASED STM
Most of the work on computer-based STM in Europe was
done at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
under the supervision of Anderheggen12,13 and at the University
of Stuttgart under the supervision of Schlaich and
Schfer.14,15 In North America, a series of computer-based
STM tools were developed by Ramirez and his students at
Purdue University 16-20 as well as by Ali and White11 at
Cornell University.
In general, all of the tools that have been developed in
those institutions offer interactive analyses of STM. The construction and modification of the boundaries of the structure
under consideration as well as the selected strut-and-tie
models are done graphically using a mouse and keystrokes.
The main thing that distinguishes one tool from another is
the approach they use to obtain valid STM solutions, as well
as other features that they provide. Some of the noteworthy
capabilities provided by these STM programs are presented
as follows.
Tools for strut-and-tie model construction
As discussed previously, principal stress trajectories obtained
from a linear elastic solution can provide guidance in selecting
an appropriate strut-and-tie model. For this purpose, many
computer-based STM tools are equipped with a linear elastic
finite element analysis that can be used for generating plots
of principal stress trajectories.17,18,21 These plots are then
used as a backdrop for constructing a strut-and-tie model.
Programs that include nonlinear finite-element analysis
590

fc
Fig. 9Arrangement of CCC node of Fig. 8(a) that comprises
two hydrostatic nodes of triangular shape and short
prismatic strut.
capabilities have also been created.19,20 The latter analysis may
be particularly useful when the capacity of a D-region using a
strut-and-tie model is to be assessed.
The use of principal stress trajectories for guiding the
construction of strut-and-tie models has also been extended
to the automatic generation of strut-and-tie models. An
example of this can be seen in the work by Harisis and Fardis,22
who used statistical analysis of principal stress data obtained
from linear finite element analysis to identify locations of struts
and ties. The strut-and-tie models generated using this
approach consist of triangles. Another example is the work by
Rckert.14 Based on the fact that regions bounded by the mesh
of principal stress trajectories represent finite elements subjected
only to normal stress on each side, an strut-and-tie model
can be formed using these finite elements. Ali and White11
recently developed algorithms for the automatic generation of
strut-and-tie models. Based on user-selected locations of nodes,
an optimal truss solution can be generated following the elastic,
minimum reinforcement volume, or composite criterion.
Approaches in nodal-zone construction
One simple computer-based approach to construct a nodal
zone is to define the node shape as the intersection of the
dimensions of truss members whose centerlines coincide,
as illustrated in Fig. 8(c). The adequacy of the node is
checked using linear elastic finite element analysis with the
Coulomb failure criterion18 or nonlinear finite element
analysis with failure criteria determined from experimental
test data of two-dimensional plain concrete.19,20
Another approach is to use modified hydrostatic node
construction.12 In this approach, a node with more than
three members intersecting is handled by breaking down the
node into several hydrostatic nodes of triangular shapes
connected by short prismatic struts. Figure 9 shows how
the CCC node of Fig. 8(a) is arranged using this approach.
Trapezoidal transition stress zones between a node and the
intersecting truss members were also formulated using this
approach, allowing different stress intensities of truss
members to act on the node. The length of these transition
zones is determined using separation failure criteria of
modified Coulomb material.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Fig. 10User interface of CAST education and design tool.

In determining the width of a tie, both of these approaches
treat the tie as a compressive force that acts from behind
the node.
Procedures for determining truss member forces
Several computer-based procedures have been developed
to determine truss member forces, especially for statically
indeterminate cases. The simplest procedure is to use an
elastic truss analysis. This analysis is not very convenient,
because the relative stiffness of truss members, which is very
difficult to determine, must be supplied.
Anderheggen and Schlaich13 developed two procedures
based on a lower-bound solution: rigid-plastic optimal design
and shakedown optimal design. In the first procedure, the
member forces of a statically indeterminate strut-and-tie model
are determined in such a way that minimum tie resistances,
corresponding to the minimum weight of steel ties, are obtained.
This is done through linear programming. Determining the
distribution of forces in this manner is possible because
strain compatibility equations are ignored in the lowerbound solution. Based on the static shakedown theorem, the
second procedure is similar to the first, except that the elastic
truss solutions have to be considered. Because the computational
time is reduced, this procedure is useful when several load cases
need to be considered. The obtained solution lies between the
elastic solution and the rigid-plastic solution.
Prediction of load-deformation response
and capacity
Work on computer-based STMs has been advanced to predict
load-deformation response and capacity using strut-and-tie
models.14,15 In this work, the load-deformation response of
struts and ties must be specified, and the minimum energy
criterion is employed. For each loading stage, the geometry of
the strut-and-tie model is adjusted so that the internal energy
of the system is at a minimum. The predictions of these methods
are reported by the authors of these programs to show good
agreement with experimental data.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

CAST DESIGN TOOL

Overview
The development of the CAST program was motivated
by the desire to bring efficiency and transparency to the
STM design process. To this end, the goal was to create a
computer-based graphical working environment in which
the designer is able to readily sketch the boundaries of the
D-region, draw a proposed internal load-resisting truss,
seamlessly solve for member forces, readily select the dimensions of struts and reinforcement for ties, and then generate
a printout that summarizes the design. Other necessary features
included the ability to make on-screen adjustments of all key
variables, tailor the program for specific design code provisions,
and handle multiple load cases and combinations. In developing
these capabilities, it was considered essential that CAST
functioned as a transparent tool that helped the designer to
explore and evaluate potential solutions. CAST is believed to
be well on its way to achieving these objectives and thereby
enabling the STM to achieve its potential of providing engineers
with an efficient, consistent, and well-founded methodology
for the design of D-regions in structural concrete.
Basic operation of CAST
A user begins by defining the boundaries of the D-region
using a mouse, by numerical entry, or by selecting an object
from a group of templates. The position of all of the nodes
that define the shape of the object can be easily adjusted at
any stage in the design process. The applied loading, bearing
plates, material properties, and support conditions can then
be selected from toolbars or specified in dialogue boxes. Next,
the proposed load-resisting truss can be drawn as a series of
straight lines using the mouse. The truss can then be analyzed
and the results displayed alongside the truss members. Using
a toolbar, the user can then select and position the estimated
tie reinforcement as well as select the widths of the struts.
The capacity of the struts and ties as well as the applied stress
on the faces of the nodes can then be displayed. The designer
can use the nodal zoom-edit tools to change features of the
node that influence node and truss geometry, and thereby
591

(f)
(d)

(e)

(c)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11Types of struts in discontinuity region: (a) prismatic in uncracked field; (b) prismatic in cracked
field where struts are parallel to cracks; (c) prismatic in cracked field where struts are not parallel to
cracks; (d) bottle-shaped with crack control reinforcement; (e) bottle-shaped without crack control reinforcement; and (f) confined strut.
affect the stresses on the face of the nodes and design
strengths. Once the user is satisfied with the design, the detailed
designincluding member forces, capacities, stresses on the
faces of nodal zones, and reinforcement detailscan be printed.
Figure 10 provides an image of CASTs working environment. The interior images show a view of the entire structure
with applied loads and support conditions, a detail of the
labeled forces, the selection of tie reinforcement, and the
detail of a node.
REMAINING CHALLENGES TO BE
RESOLVED IN STM
Despite the advances in computer-based STM tools, a
number of uncertainties still remain in the STM. These uncertainties must be addressed in future research so that CAST or
other computer-based tools can make the strut-and-tie design
process as efficient and transparent as the STM is conceptually
powerful. A few of the main challenges are described as follows.
Capacity of struts
There is still much debate over the effective compressive
strength of a strut. This is reflected in the different strength
values specified in codes and guidelines6-10 and proposed by
researchers.2-4,23 Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that the
strut strength is a fraction of the uniaxial concrete compressive
strength as obtained from cylinder tests. The following
factors have been identified as influences to the ultimate
compressive stress capacity of struts:
1. Shape of strutIf the stress trajectories in a strut are
parallel as shown in Fig. 3(a) and 11(a) and (f), the strength
of the strut is close to that of the compressive strength of
a concrete cylinder. If the strut is within the core of the
D-region, however, the compressive stresses in the strut tend
to spread out as they move away from the nodes (Fig. 3(b)
and 11(d) and (e)). This bottle-shaped stress path can lead to
the splitting of a strut at a compressive stress that is considerably less than the cylinder compressive strength;
2. Disturbances in strutOther factors that influence the
splitting strength of a strut include initial cracks parallel or
inclined to the strut axis and tensile transverse stress or strain
induced by a crossing tie or another effect (Fig. 11(b) and (c));
3. Distributed reinforcementThe use of distributed reinforcement can control splitting of the strut due to spreading
or disturbances (Fig. 11(d)). It may also increase the overall
structural ductility and thus help improve the performance of
a D-region designed using a less-than-ideal truss selection;
4. ConfinementThe performance of the strut can also
be enhanced by confinement provided by either a specially
592

designed confining reinforcement or by mass reinforced

concrete that surrounds the strut (Fig. 11(f)); and
5. Angle of strutIt is well documented24 that the compressive strength of concrete decreases as the level of
transverse tensile strain increases. The implication for strutand-tie modeling is that, as the angle between the strut and a
tie in a nodal region decreases, the compressive strength of the
strut is expected to decrease. Thus, in the design of a deep
beam, a steeper strut is expected to be stronger than a
horizontal strut.
While many of the factors that can influence the compressive
strength of concrete struts have been identified, the effect of
these factors has yet to be adequately quantified. This is due
to the very limited amount of experimental research25 that
has been conducted to understand how to define the shape,
stiffness, and strength characteristics of struts.
Load-deformation response of struts and ties
Another major challenge is to accurately estimate the loaddeformation response of struts and ties. This is important for
the following reasons:
1. If the stiffness characteristics of the struts and ties are
known, the load distribution in statically indeterminate strutand-tie models, as mentioned previously, may be predicted.
This is illustrated in Fig. 12, where the point load is considered
to be transferred to the support by two distinct load paths:
(i) a direct strut from the point of loading to the support; and
(ii) a path consisting of two steeper struts connected by a
steel tie. The portion of the load taken by each load path will
be in proportion to the relative stiffness of these paths;
2. If the stiffness characteristics of the struts and ties at
service loads are known, the equivalent deflection response
may be predicted for the evaluation of serviceability limit
state; and
3. As illustrated in Fig. 12, a tie may cross the path of a
strut. The straining and cracking induced in this situation
may influence the strength of the strut. By examining the
factors that influence the tension-stiffening effect and
distribution of cracking in ties, the capacity and response of
struts can be better understood.
Anchorage and distribution of tie reinforcement
In the STM, the selected steel ties can fully develop tensile
forces and transfer the forces in the nodes only if the ties are
properly anchored in the nodes. There are still uncertainties,
however, about the anchorage requirements and the need to
distribute the tie reinforcement throughout the nodal region.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

(i)
(ii)

(ii)
(i)

Fig. 12Statically indeterminate strut-and-tie model in

simply supported deep beam.
The example provided in Fig. 13 illustrates that the distribution
and anchorage of tie reinforcement clearly influence the ability
to transfer the horizontal component of a diagonal strut to the
tie at the end of a simply supported member.
The previous research in this area26,27 is very limited.
Some known and suggested parameters for future research
may include end anchorage of bars (such as straight, hooked,
or headed bar, and end plate), bar size and roughness, lateral
and vertical spacing between bars, angle of incoming strut,
width of bearing plate in nodal zone, use of confinement,
length of bar, and use of fibers.
Size, shape, and strength of complex nodal zones
The anchorage detail examined in the preceding section
illustrated some of the complexities of load transfer in nodal
regions. As mentioned previously, these regions may have a
large variation in their configurations and thus become quite
difficult to understand.
Previous research in this area28,29 is also very limited,
and more research is essential. Suggested factors to study
the dimensioning of nodal zones may include the type of
truss members (struts or ties), number of intersecting truss
members, distribution of tie reinforcement, confinement and
use of fibers, level of transverse straining, volume and condition
of surrounding concrete, and anchorage conditions of ties.
To obtain simplicity in the STM design process, these studies
should focus on determining the shape of nodal zones in
which the centerlines of incoming struts and ties coincide.
Serviceability limit state
It is recognized that the design of structural concrete
should consider both ultimate and serviceability limit states.
Until now, the development of STM has been focused on the
ultimate limit state; the serviceability limit state is only
implicitly considered through the selection of appropriate
strut-and-tie models. Evaluation of service load deflections
by the STM requires the selection of strut-and-tie model configuration and the estimation of axial truss member stiffness
characteristics that give equivalent response to the deflections of the real structure. The evaluation of crack widths at
service loads requires reasonable estimates of effective
concrete area in tension around the ties of reinforcing steel.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002

Fig. 13Examples of various tie anchorage conditions.

SUMMARY
The STM offers a rational and consistent basis for the
design of D-regions in structural concrete. This is a significant
achievement, as typical design practice for D-regions in
structural concrete consists of inadequate empirical design
provisions and detailing practices.
The main steps in the STM design process involve defining
the D-region and the boundary forces acting on the region,
visualizing a truss carrying the boundary forces in the D-region
(that is, the strut-and-tie model), solving for the truss member forces, providing reinforcement to serve as the steel ties,
dimensioning the struts and nodes, and providing distributed
reinforcement for ductility. Unfortunately, there are a number
of complexities and challenges to designing with the STM
that are limiting its use in practice. These include the need to
select a feasible idealized truss, the need to iteratively adjust
and refine the truss geometry and dimensions, the need to consider multiple load cases, uncertainties in the dimensioning
of truss components, and the lack of guidance for the design
of statically indeterminate trusses. An overriding concern is the
time required to complete an STM design by hand and the
opportunities for error that are introduced by the use of a
time-consuming hand-based design process.
Advances in computer-based tools, such as CAST, have
been made to overcome the complications and challenges
in the STM design process. Different approaches and specific
features have been implemented to obtain valid STM solutions.
These include tools for generating strut-and-tie models,
approaches to constructing nodal regions, procedures for
determining truss member forces, and prediction of loaddeformation response and capacity.
Uncertainties in defining the dimensions, stiffness, and
strength of struts, ties, and nodes are major barriers to the
development of improved STM design provisions and
computer-based design aids. Significant experimental research
is required to better understand the performance of individual
struts, ties, and nodes, as well as both simple and complex
strut-and-tie models. In future research, it is essential that
very detailed and accurate measurements be made of surface
deformations to properly assess the structural behavior.
Some of this required research is being conducted as part of
the NSF award received by the second author, but significantly
more research is required to address the many areas of
uncertainty and to help the STM become a reliable and
593

cost-effective methodology for the design of all types of

D-regions. Additional information about the STM and the
CAST design tool, including detailed design examples, can
be found on the authors strut-and-tie resources webpage at
www.ce.uiuc.edu/kuchma/strut&tie. A recent paper by the
authors30 compares the STM provisions used in the AASHTO-LRFD and ACI 318-02 specifications and provides a
design example using CAST.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The CAST program has been under development since 1998, and it
will run on WindowsTM operating platforms. The current version of this
program is freely available from http://www.cee.uiuc.edu/kuchma/strut&tie.
The development of CAST has been supported by the University of Illinois
and the Portland Cement Association.
The continued development of CAST will be supported by an award from
the National Sciences Foundation through March of 2006. This provides
an exceptional opportunity to create a freely available and sophisticated design
tool that will be developed using substantial input from the structural
engineering community. Practicing engineers, students, and educators are
encouraged to visit the strut-and-tie website, to download the CAST program,
and to provide feedback and suggestions for its continued development. From
this website, detailed information about the STM, completed design examples,
tutorials, instructional modules, and other design and educational resources are
being provided.

NOTATION
C, C1, C2, ... =
fc, fc1, fc2, ... =
h, h1, h2, ... =
T
=

compression force in strut-and-tie model

normal stress in concrete
depth of structural member
tension force in strut-and-tie model

REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, 391 pp.
2. Marti, P., Basic Tools of Reinforced Concrete Beam Design, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1985, pp. 46-56.
3. Schlaich, J.; Schfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., Toward a Consistent
Design of Structural Concrete, Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute,
V. 32, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 74-150.
4. Schlaich, J., and Schfer, K., Design and Detailing of Structural
Concrete Using Strut-and-Tie Models, The Structural Engineer, V. 69,
No. 6, Mar. 1991, pp. 113-125.
5. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Recent Approaches to Shear
Design of Structural Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 124, No. 12, Dec. 1998, pp. 1375-1417.
6. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Thomas Telford Services, Ltd., London, for
Comit Euro-International du Bton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1993, 437 pp.
7. FIP Commission 3, FIP Recommendation 1996, Practical Design
of Structural Concrete, Fdration Internationale de la Prcontrainte,
May 1998, 142 pp.
8. CSA Technical Committee on Reinforced Concrete Design, A23.3-94:
Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale,
Ontario, Dec. 1994, 199 pp.
9. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Specification, First Edition, Washington,
D.C., 1994, 1091 pp.
10. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
11. Ali, M. A., and White, R. N., Automatic Generation of Truss Model

594

for Optimal Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures, ACI Structural

Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug. 2001, pp. 431-442.
12. Schlaich, M., and Anagnostou, G., Stress Fields for Nodes of Strutand-Tie Model, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 116, No. 1,
Jan. 1990, pp. 13-23.
13. Anderheggen, E., and Schlaich, M., Computer Aided Design of
Reinforced Concrete Structures using the Truss Model Approach, Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Computer Aided Analysis and
Design of Concrete Structures, N. Bicanic and H. Mang, eds., Zell am See,
Austria, Apr. 1990, pp. 539-550.
14. Rckert, K. J., Design and Analysis with Strut-and-Tie Models
Computer-Aided Methods, Structural Concrete, IABSE Colloquium,
Stuttgart, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering,
Zrich, Mar. 1991, pp. 379-384.
15. Sundermann, W., and Mutscher, P., Nonlinear Behaviour of Deep
Beams, Structural Concrete, IABSE Colloquium, Stuttgart 1991, International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zrich, Mar. 1991,
pp. 385-390.
16. Benabdallah, S.; Ramirez, J. A.; and Lee, R. H., Computer Graphics
in Truss-Model Design Approach, Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, V. 3, No. 3, July 1989, pp. 285-301.
17. Alshegeir, A., and Ramirez, J. A., Analysis of Disturbed Regions
with Strut-and-Tie Models, Publication No. CE-STR-90-1, School of
Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., 1990, 85 pp.
18. Alshegeir, A., and Ramirez, J. A., Computer Graphics in Detailing
Strut-Tie Models, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, V. 6, No. 2,
Apr. 1992, pp. 220-232.
19. 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,
Jan. 1996, pp. 20-29.
20. Yun, Y. M., Computer Graphics for Nonlinear Strut-Tie Model
Approach, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 14, No. 2,
Apr. 2000, pp. 127-133.
21. Mish, K.; Nobari, F.; and Liu, D., An Interactive Graphical Strutand-Tie Application, Proceedings of the Second Congress on Computing
in Civil Engineering, J. P. Mohsen, ed., American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, 1995, pp. 788-795.
22. Harisis, A., and Fardis, M. N., Computer-Aided Automatic Construction of Strut-and-Tie Models, Structural Concrete, IABSE Colloquium,
Stuttgart, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering,
Zrich, Mar. 1991, pp. 533-538.
23. MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design,
Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Third Edition, 1997, 939 pp.
24. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., The Modified Compression-Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
25. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Strut-and-Tie Bibliography
(Master List), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
Sept. 1997, 50 pp.
26. Lee, D. D. K., An Experimental Investigation in the Effects of Detailing
on the Shear Behaviour of Deep Beams, MASc thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1982, 138 pp.
27. Polla, M., A Study of Nodal Regions in Strut-and-Tie Models, MASc
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1992, 130 pp.
28. Barton, D. L. et al., Investigation of Strut-and-Tie Models for
Dapped Beam Details, Research Report (Interim), Final Report, University of
Texas at Austin, Center for Transportation Research, CTR-3-5-87/9-1127-1,
FHWA/TX-92+1127-1, NTIS No. PB92-227735/HDM, May 1991, 205 pp.
29. Jirsa, J. O. et al., Experimental Studies of Nodes in Strut-and-Tie
Models, Structural Concrete, IABSE Colloquium, Stuttgart, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zrich, Mar.
1991, pp. 525-532.
30. Kuchma, D. A., and Tjhin, T. N., Design of Discontinuity Regions
in Structural Concrete using a Computer-Based Strut-and-Tie Methodology,
Proceedings of 81st TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2002.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2002