Strut-and-Tie Models 2

[UcfSE]

I studied the strut-and-tie model recently this semester using it for deep beams and corbel/bracket design as well as seismic design of joints in special moment frames after a method in a book by Paulay and Priestly (spelling?). The method seems pretty logical but also takes quite a bit of work to really do a good job and do it right. How many of you out there use strut-and-tie models in practice? Do you find you get better designs, i.e. more economical use of materials over more tradional methods? What are your opinions on the design code itself? Do you have any advice for those of us who would like to become more proficient at this, such as pitfalls or areas that aren't very clear ro codified well? At my company we don't encounter situations much that would require us to use strut-and-tie methods so I have no practical experience or even opinions on their use and how well they perform outside of academia. I appreciate any responses,

 

[UcfSE]

Welcome to Eng-Tips jc77

I started this thread primarily to evaluate different opinions using the S&T method, or truss analogy, versus other code prescribed methods. I was looking for input from those who have used either or both methods just for ease of use, is it really better, is S&T more difficult/time consuming, and so on. I myself have very little real world experience with strut-and-tie modeling.

Please feel free to discuss S&T models, and other concrete deep-beam design models with which you are familiar, and compare and contrast them.