B E H A V I O R OF R E I N F O R C E D

HIGH-STRENGTH-CONCRETE CORBELS
By Yook-Kong YongI and P. Balaguru,2 Members, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Results of an experimental investigation on the behavior of corbels

made with high-strength concrete in excess of 40 MPa are presented. A total of 16
life-sizecorbels were tested, two of which were unreinforced. The primary variables
of the investigation were presence of horizontal force, reinforcement ratio, and
shear-span-to-depth (a/d) ratio. Silica-fume and high-range water-reducing ad-
mixtures were used to obtain the high-strength concrete. All 14 reinforced concrete
corbels failed in a stable manner. The primary steel yielded before failure in all
cases but one. The behavior of the corbels during testing and the analysis of results
indicate that high-strength concrete may be rationally incorporated into designs of
corbels. The truss analogy model provided relatively accurate strength predictions
compared with the American Concrete Institute's procedure. The code limit of 5.5
MPa (800 psi) for maximum average shear stress limits the full use of the available
shear strength of high-strength corbels.

INTRODUCTION

While extensive research has been done on the various aspects of high-
strength concrete, the use of high-strength concrete in reinforced corbels
has received very little attention from researchers (Yong et al. 1985). Most
of the existing research on the behavior of corbels deals only with n o r m a l
strength concrete (Franz and Niedenhoff 1964; H a g b e r g 1983; H e r m a n s e n
and Cowan 1974; Kriz and Raths 1965; M a t t o c k et al. 1976; Mast 1968).
Most code provisions also are based on the results obtained using concretes
with strengths less than 40 MPa. This p a p e r presents some results of an
investigation on the behavior of high-strength corbels. The main objective
of the experimental investigation was to study the behavior of h i g h - s t r e n g t h -
concrete corbels subjected to both horizontal and vertical loads.
The researchers who conducted experimental studies using normal-strength
concrete concluded that the shear strength is a function of: (1) S h e a r - s p a n -
t o - d e p t h ratio; (2) reinforcement ratio; (3) concrete strength; and (4) the
ratio of the horizontal and vertical components of the applied loads (Kriz
and Raths, 1965; Mattock et al. 1976). A minimum amount of horizontal
stirrup reinforcement must be p r o v i d e d to avoid diagonal tension failure.
It was also r e p o r t e d that in most cases the primary reinforcement steel
yielded before failure. Based on these results, s h e a r - s p a n - t o - d e p t h (a/d)
and reinforcement ratios were chosen as the primary variables. Increase in
concrete strength can be expected to increase the shear strength of the
corbel. However, since high-strength concrete is typically more brittle than
normal-strength concrete, it should be ascertained that higher strength can
be used without leading to catastrophic brittle failure. Yielding of steel
reinforcement prior to failure and extensive cracking typically lead to ductile

1Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Rutgers-the State University of
New Jersey, P.O. Box 909, Piscataway, NJ 08855-0909.
2prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Rutgers-the State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, NJ.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
August 14, 1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
120, No. 4, April, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/94/0004-1182/$2.00 + $.25 per
page. Paper No. 4611.
1182

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 failure. Thus, the strains in the primary, stirrup, and cage steel as well as
the crack patterns were monitored at various stages of loading.
Some corbels were overreinforced to evaluate the nature of failure that
occurs without yielding of steel. Larger dimensions were used for the corbels
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to minimize any possible size effects. An earlier publication (Yong et al.

1985) deals with the preliminary results of high-strength-concrete corbels
tested under vertical loads only (no horizontal force). The results for corbels
tested with and without the horizontal force are presented in this paper.
The experimental results are also compared with the analytical predictions
based on the truss analogy model (Hagberg 1983) and with the American
Concrete Institute's ACI 318-89 ("Building" 1989).

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The primary independent variables were concrete strength, amount of
reinforcement, s h e a r - s p a n - t o - d e p t h (a/d) ratio, and the presence of hor-
izontal load. The response variables were failure mode, rotational capacity,
strain variations in the reinforcement, and the strength capacity. A total of
16 life-size corbels were tested. The pertinent details are presented in Table
1. The targeted range for concrete strength was 50-90 MPa. The actual
variation was 39.4-87.1 MPa. An attempt was made to use higher-strength
concrete for corbels containing more reinforcement. However, strength var-
iations could not be controlled well; therefore, the series D corbels with
higher reinforcement ratios had lower-strength concrete compared with the
series C corbels (Table 1).
The area of primary reinforcement was varied from 0 to 1,923 mm 2.
The corbels were designed using AC1 318-89 ("Building" 1989). Series B,
C, and D had reinforcement at or slightly below the minimum specified
in the code. Corbels E3, F2, and G3 had 50% more steel than the ACI
code-recommended maximum limit. The higher level of reinforcement was

TABLE 1. Details of Corbel Specimens

Steel Area (mm 2) Concrete
Primary a/d strength
Designation reinforcement Stirrups ratio (MPa)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
A1 0 0 0.393 87.1
A2 0 0 0.393 70.7
B1 387 284 0.393 49,8
B2 387 284 0.393 48,6
C1 516 284 0.393 63,3
C2 516 284 0.393 55,5
D1 600 284 0.393 39.2
D2 600 284 0.393 54.4
E1 800 284 0.25 62.1
E2 800 284 0.25 64.9
E3 1,303 568 0.25 79.5
F1 1,000 426 0.50 82.2
F2 1,639 568 0.50 62.5
G1 1,290 568 0.75 61.4
G2 1,290 568 0.75 66.2
G3 1,923 1,032 0.75 70.8

1183

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 used to study whether the higher strength of concrete can be used effec-
tively.
The four a/d ratios evaluated were 0.25, 0.39, 0.50, and 0.75. The corbels
with an a/d ratio of 0.39 were tested only under vertical load. The other
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

corbels were subjected to both vertical and horizontal loads. A specially

designed test setup was used to induce a horizontal load that is equal to
20% of the vertical load. The magnitude for the horizontal load was chosen
based on the ACI 318-89 specification that the corbels be designed for a
minimum horizontal load equal to 20% of the vertical load.

DETAILS OF SPECIMEN GEOMETRY AND REINFORCEMENT

The dimensions of the corbels are shown in Fig. 1. The column supporting
the two corbels cantilevering on either side was 254 by 305 mm in cross
section and 965 mm long. Series A - F corbels had a cantilever projection
length of 254 mm, with thicknesses of 406 and 203 mm at the face of the
column and at the free end, respectively. Series G corbel had a cantilever
projection of 356 mm and thicknesses of 406 and 254 mm at the face
and the free end, respectively. The shear span, a, was 140 mm for series
A - D and 89, 178, and 267 mm for series E - G , respectively, as shown in
Fig. 1.
Series A had no reinforcement. Columns for series B - D were reinforced
with four No. 4 (13-mm-diameter) longitudinal bars and No. 3 (9-mm-
diameter) stirrups spaced at 216 mm on center. The corresponding rein-
forcement for series E - G were six No. 6 (18-mm-diameter) bars and No.
3 (9-mm-diameter) stirrups at a spacing of 150 mm center to center. The
column reinforcement for series E - G was increased because of the change
in reinforcement in the corbels. The reinforcement details for the corbels
are presented in Table 2. The primary reinforcement consisted of bars
ranging from No. 4 (13 mm in diameter) to No. 10 (30 mm in diameter).
The closed ties (stirrups) were made of No. 3 (9-mm-diameter) or No. 4
(13-mm-diameter) bars. A No. 3 (9-ram-diameter) bar cage was provided
for all the reinforced corbels. Fig. 2 shows reinforcement detailing for series

~-305 -~

305

I i/~.... 3o~

L/

I017
{a} l- ~'13 (b) (ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm)
FIG. 1. Corbel Dimensions: (a) Series A - F (for A - D , a = 140 mm; E, 89 mm; and
F, 178 mm); and (b) Series G

1184

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 TABLE 2. Reinforcement Details for Corbels a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Main (Primary) Reinforcement Stirrups

Bar diameter Bar diameter
Designation Bars (ram) Bars (ram)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
B1 3No. 4 13 2No. 3
B2 3No. 4 13 2No. 3
C1 4No. 4 13 2No. 3
C2 4No. 4 13 2No. 3
D1 3No. 5 16 2No. 3
D2 3No. 5 16 2No. 3
E1 4No. 5 16 2No. 3
E2 4No. 5 16 2No. 3
E3 2 No. 8 and 25, 18 4No. 3
1No. 6
F1 5No. 5 16 3No. 3 9
F2 2 No. 10 30 4No. 3 9
G1 2No. 9 28 4No. 3 9
G2 2No. 9 28 4No. 3 9
G3 2 No. i0 and 30, 18 4No. 4 13
1No. 6
"Series A had no reinforcement. Area of both primary reinforcement and stirrups are
presented in Table 1.

t ~ 4 - #5 BARS
305
+ #3.._/// ~ U # 3 TIES @ 216 mm c/~

2o32~ ] -#3
-[5o
254 =~

9--- 254 ~ 305 ~ 254 - - ~

(ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm)
FIG. 2. Reinforcement Detailing for Series B - D

1185

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 B - D . Series E - G had similar bar arrangement except for changes in the
bar sizes and the spacing.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

MATERIALS, MIX PROPORTIONS, AND FABRICATION OF SPECIMENS

The constituent materials consisted of ASTM type 1 cement (Standards

1989), natural sand, 9-mm-maximum crushed stone, tap water, condensed
silica fume, and high-range water-reducing admixture. The silica fume was
in a slurry form with 60% solid content.
The reinforcement consisted of deformed bars that conformed to ASTM
standards A615 grade 60 (Standards 1989). The average yield strength was
420 MPa. Table 3 shows the mix proportions used for the two groups of
specimens: A - D and E - G . The sand used for series B and D had more
fine materials than the sand used for series A and C, resulting in lower
compressive strengths.
The concrete was mixed using two 0.09-m3-capacity laboratory mixers
simultaneously. The addition of the high-range water-reducing admixture
resulted in a fluid mix with slumps ranging from 150 to 200 ram. The spec-
imens were cast horizontally using a greased, wooden mold. The reinforce-
ment cage consisting of both column and corbel reinforcement was placed
inside the mold and the concrete was poured. The compaction was done
using an immersion vibrator. The specimens were moist-cured for 28 days.
Companion 150-by-300-mm cylinders were cast and cured along with the
corbel specimens. These cylinders were tested along with the corbels to
obtain the compressive strength of the concrete.

INSTRUMENTATION

The corbels were instrumented to measure the strains in the reinforcement

and the deformation of the cantilevers using electrical strain gages and linear
variable-differential transformers (LVDTs), respectively. The location of
these gages and LVDTs are shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b). For series B - D ,
gages 1 and 8 were mounted on the primary steel; gages 2, 3, 6, and 7 were
mounted on the stirrups; and gages 4 and 5 were mounted on the cage bar
near the intersection of the sloping face of the corbel and the column [Fig.
3(a)]. For series E - G , gages 1 - 4 were placed on the four primary steel
rebars, and two gages (5 and 6) were placed on two stirrups, as shown in
Fig. 3(b). More gages were placed on the primary steel for these series to
ascertain that all four bars were stressed to the same level for a given load.
These series had larger-diameter bars that are susceptible to bond failure.

TABLE 3. High-Strength-Concrete-Mix Proportions for Specimens

Component Corbel Series A - D Corbel Series E-G
(1) (2) (3)
Cement 384 kg/m3 496 kg/m3
Silica fume/cement 0.10 0.20
Water/(cement plus silica fume) 0.28 0.20
Fine aggregate/cement 1.97 1.76
Coarse aggregate/cement 2.85 1.76
High-range water-reducing admixture/
cement 0.04 0.04

1186

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 VERTICAL LOAD
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~
LOCATION
OF
STRAIN CAGES

2
11

i
Q

LVDT3
LVDTI

SUPPORT SUPPORT

FIG. 3(a). Location of Strain Gages and LVDTs plus Load Setup for Series B - D

OAOES 5 AND 6

LVDT 2 S /' LVDT 1

\ _e /
, , ,, .

CAOES 3A'~J~41 i ~OAOES i ANDz

FIG. 3(b). Location of Strain Gages and LVDTs for Series E-G

Fewer gages were placed on the stirrups because the strains there were
typically low.
For series B - D , three L V D T s were used to measure the downward de-
flection and rotation of cantilevers at the column face, and their locations
are shown in Fig. 3(a). Since these deformations were very small, this mea-

1187

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 surement was discontinued for the remainder of series E - G . For series
E - G , the LVDTs were used to measure elongations above the primary
steel, and their locations are shown in Fig. 3(b). In most cases, the cracks
developed during corbel failure passed through the L V D T location. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

LVDT readings were useful as a measure of crack width, since at failure

the deformations due to concrete strains were much smaller than crack
widths.

TEST PROCEDURE

The specimens were tested in an inverted position using a 2,700-kN-

capacity testing machine as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 4. The two cantilever
parts of the corbels were supported on two deep beams placed across the
bed of the testing machine, and the load was applied at the top of the
column as shown in Fig. 4.
For series A - D , the load was transferred from the corbel to the support
using two 254 by 90 by 6 mm steel plates. One plate was placed against the
corbel while the other was placed on top of the deep beam support as shown
in Fig. 3(a). The plate resting on the corbel had a half-roller welded in the
middle along the 254-mm length. This arrangement was assumed to impart
only vertical load even though there was a possibility for development of
some horizontal loads due to the friction between the roller and the bearing
plate resting on it, when the corbels underwent a slight rotation. The support
could not be designed as a roller support because of the heavy loads involved
and the possible instability during the failure of the corbels.
For series E - G , a new support system was designed to impart both vertical
and horizontal loads simultaneously, which is shown in Fig. 5. Two pairs
of plates, placed in an inclined plane, provided a horizontal force that was
proportional to the vertical load. The slope of the wedge, which was 11.3 ~,
was designed to produce a horizontal-to-vertical force ratio of 0.2. The ratio

~ 7 0 0 k ~
HYD. JACK

STEEL
PLATE

----Z__-.-LOADING
WEDGE PLATE
~SUPPORTING BEAM

o ............ o.;
FIG. 4. Details of Test Setup

1188

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 ANCHOR BAR
PRIMARY STEEL

9 ' 9 9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(HANNEL WELDED ~'~I

TO PRIMARY STEEL 4,.
9 " I TOP
BACKING PLATE _...._._ WEDGE

BEARING PAD

p. .."

...'.,

SUPPORT
. .,..b~.
t.~

FIG. 5. Support Details for Series E - G

0.2 was chosen to satisfy the ACI 318-89 ("Building" 1989) requirement
that the corbels be designed for a minimum of 0.2 vertical load applied in
the horizontal direction. A Teflon bearing pad was placed at the top wedge,
and the bottom wedge was covered with a stainless-steel plate to minimize
friction. The Teflon pads used were similar to those used for roller supports
in bridge construction and manufactured to comply with near-zero-friction
specification. The load was transferred to the corbel using a channel welded
to the primary steel (Fig. 5). Since the wedges at the two supports had the
same geometry, the specimens remained in equilibrium.
The loads were applied in increments of 45 kN using a hydraulic loading
system. The strains and deformations were recorded for each increment
using a computer-controlled Hewlett-Packard recording system. For each
corbel, the companion 150 by 300 mm cylinders were tested on the same
day to obtain the compressive strength of the concrete.

TEST RESULTS
General Behavior and Crack Patterns
The unreinforced corbels, series A, failed right after initiation of the first
crack at the reentrant corner of the horizontal surface of corbel and the
vertical face of column9 The crack propagated rapidly along the column-
corbel interface, resulting in a sudden brittle failure.
Series B - D specimens shared similar failure patterns. All six specimens
in these series had a s h e a r - s p a n - t o - d e p t h ratio of 0.39 and were subjected
to only a vertical load. First, a crack initiated at the reentrant corner, and
while this crack was propagating along the column-corbel interface, a second
crack formed at the inner edge of the bearing plate, as shown in Fig. 6. The
second crack propagated much faster than the first crack. While the first
crack continued to propagate along the column face, the second crack pro-
gressed toward the junction of the column and the sloping face of the corbel.
The second crack, which now became the primary or major crack, eventually
ran between the inner edge of the bearing plate and the column-corbel
junction at the sloping face, and was responsible for the failure of the corbel.
1189

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FAILURE
PLANE~ I

INITIAL
FLEXURE
CRACK
FIG. 6. Failure Pattern: Series B - D

Failure was defined as the point at which the load could no longer be
increased. Some minor secondary cracks also formed before failure (Fig.
6). The failure was stable and ductile. The failure pattern for series B - D
could be classified as beam-shear failure, which is a mode of failure initiated
by a flexural-type crack, and failure is caused by diagonal-shear-type cracks
(Mattock et al. 1976).
The failure and crack patterns of series E - G corbels were somewhat
similar to series B - D in spite of the variation in the a/d ratio from 0.25 to
0.75 and the presence of the horizontal load. The first crack to appear
during the loading sequence was a flexural crack similar to that of a can-
tilevered beam. After approximately one-quarter to one-third of the ulti-
mate load was applied, a second crack started at the bearing plate, and
propagated toward the junction of the column and the sloping face of the
corbel. This crack caused the ultimate failure of the corbel. The failure was
ductile, and the mode of failure (beam-shear failure) was the same for all
the specimens.
The major differences between series B - D , and E - G were in the area
of secondary cracks and the spalling of the concrete between the cracks.
For series E - G , the crack that started at the reentrant corner propagated
into the column slightly, as shown in Fig. 7(a)-7(c), respectively. As the
a/d ratio increased, the second crack, which initiated at the bearing plate,
followed a more curved path to the top of the corbel, as shown in Fig. 7(c).

Strain Variation in Primary Steel

As mentioned earlier, for series B - D , one strain gage was placed on the
primary steel rebars on either side of the cantilever beam (gages 1 and 8).
The magnitude of the strains recorded by these two gages was similar until
one of the corbels started to fail. Similarly, for series E - G , the strains
recorded by gages 1 - 4 were within 10% of each other for most of the corbels.
Overall, six out of 32 gages gave erratic readings and could not be used for
the evaluation. Figs. 8, 9(a), and 9(b) present the variation of load versus
strain for series B - D , and E - G , respectively. In the figures the variations
are shown for only one cantilever that eventually failed, and the curves are
offset to avoid confusion. In the case of series E - G , the strains of two gages
(1 and 2, or 3 and 4) were averaged. When the reinforcements were similar,
1190

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 ~
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

INITIAL~ J BEAM SHEAR

FLEXURALC R A ~
-

FAILURECRACK

FIG. 7(a). Failure Pattern: Series E

BEAM- SHEAR | I
~
FAILURE / / /
CRA~ \
/

INITIAL

FIG. 7(b). Failure Pattern: Series F

INITIAL ~ ~jBEAM - SHEAR

FIG. 7(c). Failure Pattern: Series G

1191

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 L , , , i I
750
STRAIN GAGE 8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

e' ~' STRAIN GAGE 1

500 O"' C 2D'" a .................

w" D" 'o " ~" ~"

~
o W " .o'"
250 m" " .u'"
m" s'"
o

.~" a" 1~. . . . . . . I::1 CAGE 8

~' I I ~
0.2 0,4 0.6

PRIMARY STEEL STRAIN, %

FIG. 8. Load versus Strain in Primary Steel: Series B - D

the results are shown for only one specimen. The following observations
can be made regarding the (primary) steel strain variations.
The curves had either two or three segments. The first segment, which
was the steepest, terminated at the occurrence of the first crack. After the
initiation of the first crack, the strains increased rapidly for a small load
increment. This is quickly followed by the initiation of the second (primary)
crack, at which time, the load-strain response became relatively linear until
approximately 90% of the ultimate load. For specimen G3, which failed
before the yielding of steel, the curve had only these two segments. For all
the other specimens that failed after yielding of the primary steel, the load-
strain curves had a third segment which was relatively horizontal.
Corbels E3, F2, and G3 had 50% more reinforcement over the limit
specified in ACI 318-89. Only in the case of G3 did the reinforcement not
yield. Even in this case, the failure was not sudden. Considerable spalling
and cracking occurred before the failure.
The a/d ratio does not seem to influence the yielding of the reinforcement.

Strain Variations in Cage and Stirrup Steel, and Measurements

of LVDTs
Typical variations of strain versus load for cage steel are shown in Fig.
10. Gages 4 and 5 placed on the cage steel for series B - D recorded changes
in strain at both the first crack and the second crack. The development of
the second crack produced a slight reduction in strain resulting in a kink
that can be observed in Fig. 10.
The stirrup strain variations were similar for series B - F , a typical variation
of which is represented by the corbel E2 shown in Fig. 11. The stirrup strain
variation for corbel G2 is also shown in Fig. 11. For series G, which had
an a/d ratio of 0.75, the stirrups yielded near the point of corbel failure,
and for members G2 and G3, the stirrup strains were greater than the
primary steel strain at ultimate load. This indicates the increased importance
of stirrup steel for corbels with large shear spans. Except for series G, the
strains in the stirrups were always less than the strains in the primary steel.
Fig. 12 shows the LVDT measurements for a member from series E - G :
namely, E2, F2, and G2. The LVDTs, which had a gage length of 13 cm,
were located in a region where the failure crack and some secondary cracks
passed through during loading. The L V D T readings are reported as crack
1192

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 lOOC

80(
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~a

E2
o~ 60( -- CORBEL

o~

400

200

0.i 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

PRIMARY STEEL STRAIN. %

FIG. 9(a). Load versus Strain in Primary Steel: Series E

800

-- CORBEL, Pl P2
60O

o~ 400

200

0.i 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PRIMARY STEEL STRAIN, Z

FIG. 9(b). Load versus Strain in Primary Steel: Series F and G

widths in Fig. 12 since these readings primarily represent the width of the
crack openings, as explained earlier. The locations of the LVDTs are shown
in Fig. 3(b). The LVDT curves follow a pattern similar to that of the primary
steel curves. The first segment is very steep, followed by a kink, and rapid
increase of crack width coincident with the formation of the primary crack.

Shear Capacity
The shear strength data is presented in Table 4. The unreinforced corbels
A1 and A2 had shear strength of 206.8 and 166.8 kN, respectively. The
corresponding compressive strengths of concrete were 87.1 and 70.7 MPa.
The 20% decrease in shear capacity of A2 compared with A1 was about
the same as the decrease in the compressive strength of 19%. The first crack
load of the reinforced corbels, which varied from 250 to 320 kN, was always
1193

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 700

COR~L, c2/='~ ~.~GAGE

t/~(
o/.- la
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ILl"
o SO0

250

//,, 0,08
STEEL STRAIN, %
0.16

FIG, 10. Load versus Strain in Cage Steel: Series B - D

800

..~ 600

400

200

0 0.i 0,2 0.3 0.4 0.5

STEEL STRAIN, %

FIG. 11. Load versus Strain in Stirrup Steel: Series E and G

higher than the shear capacity of the unreinforced corbels. The increase in
Young's modulus of the uncracked corbel due to the presence of the re-
inforcement could account for this increase.
If the reinforcement and a/d ratio are the same, corbels with higher-
strength concrete recorded higher shear capacity (corbels B1, D2, E2, and
G2 versus B2, D1, E l , and G1). The increase in shear strength, however,
was not proportional to the increase in the compressive strength of concrete.
The influence of primary reinforcement on shear strength could not be
seen clearly because of the variation in compressive strength of concrete.
There is a general trend indicating increase in strength with an increase in
reinforcement.
Corbels with an a/d ratio of 0.75 had much lower shear strengths than
the other corbels. This is expected because the influence of bending moment
1194

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 600

CORBEL F2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

500

400

300 G2

200

lOO

[ I I ;
2 4 6 8 10
CRACKWIDTH, mm

FIG. 12. Load versus LVDT Readings: Series E - G

is more substantial at this a/d ratio compared with ratios of 0.25, 0.39, and
0.5.

COMPARISON OF NORMAL- AND

HIGH-STRENGTH-CONCRETE CORBELS

Comparison of the results of the current investigation with results on

normal-strength concrete (Kriz and Raths 1965; Mattock et al. 1976).lead
to the following observations. In these normal-strength-concrete corbel
results, the horizontal load was applied after application of the vertical load;
which in the current investigation, the horizontal and vertical loads were
applied simultaneously, and kept at a fixed ratio of 0.2.

1. The extent of cracking for high-strength concrete corbels is about the

same as normal-strength-concrete corbels.
2. If the primary reinforcement is limited to the maximum specified in
AC1 318-89 ("Building" 1989), the reinforcement always yields before fail-
ure resulting in ductile failure. As in the case of the normal-strength-con-
crete corbels, an increase in primary reinforcement results in increased
capacity.
3. The increase in reinforcement does not produce noticeable differences
in failure patterns for both normal- and high-strength-concrete corbels. The
1195

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 TABLE 4. Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results
SHEAR CAPACITY (kN)
ACI Method
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shear Maximum
friction Flexure shear a Truss Test/ACI b Test/truss
Corbel Test [(1)] [(2)] capacity analogy method analogy
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
A1 206.8 -- -- --
A2 166.8 . . . . .
B1 778.2 423.7 415.0 415.0 502.6 1.88 1.55
B2 667.2 423.7 414.8 414.8 502.6 1.61 1.33
C1 796.2 501.4 553.0 501,4 631.2 1.59 1.26
C2 836.2 501.4 551.3 501.4 618.2 1.67 1.35
D1 700.6 552.0 726.8 552.0 711.7 1,27 0.98
D2 800.6 552.0 737.4 552.0 756.2 1.45 1.06
E1 711.6 564.5 769.0 564.5 631.6 1.26 1.13
E2 800.6 591.2 817.9 591.2 631.6 1.35 1.27
E3 1,078.6 1,173.5 1,600.2 1,173.5 796.2 0.92 1.35
F1 911.8 737.9 666.8 666.8 435.9 1.37 2.09
F2 845.1 1,000.1 880.1 880.1 355.8 0.96 2.37
G1 333.6 871.2 569.0 569.0 289.1 0.59 1.15
G2 411.4 866.8 573.4 573.4 293.6 0.72 1.40
G3 556.0 1,173.5 764.5 764.5 266.9 0.73 2.08
"The shear capacity based on maximum permissible shear stress is not used for com-
parison for reasons explained in the text. The shear capacity based on a limit of 5.5bwd
is 498.1 kN (112 kips). If this limit is used, ACI 318-89 overestimates shear capacity for
corbels G1 and G2.
bAC[ values equal maximum shear capacity (column 5).

exception is the overreinforced specimen G3, which showed a sudden drop

of load after failure. Even this corbel developed considerable a m o u n t of
cracking before failure.
4. As in the case of n o r m a l - s t r e n g t h - c o n c r e t e corbels, larger a/d ratios
result in more distress due to flexural stresses.
5. Overall, if the high-strength-concrete corbels are properly designed,
they can be expected to have similar behavior as the n o r m a l - s t r e n g t h -
concrete corbels.

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The experimental results obtained in this investigation are compared with
the predictions based on the equations specified in A C I 318-89 ("Building"
1989), and the truss analogy method proposed by Hagberg (1983). A sum-
mary of the experimental and predicted results is presented in Table 4. The
following discussion deals with the pertinent details of the analytical pro-
cedures and the accuracy of prediction.

ACI Method ("Building" 1989)

The A C I method is based on four basic modes of corbel failure shown
in Fig. 13. The first mode of failure is considered as shear failure that occurs

1196

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 A
V
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

;HEAR FAILUR~
1- ~RIMARY STEEL
AT INTERFACE YIELD OR BEAM
SHEAR FAILURE~

.4
~f

=N

CRUSHING OF (/,t 1 BEARING FAILURE

/
FIG. 13. Four Basic Failure Modes ("Building" 1989)

at the interface of the column and the corbel. The unreinforced corbels A1
and A2 failed in this mode. The second mode of failure is assumed to occur
by the yielding of primary reinforcement (or tension tie). All 14 reinforced
corbels can be assumed to have failed in this mode of failure and not in the
third mode of failure, which occurs by crushing the concrete strut. This is
because there was no crushing of the concrete, even though there was
spalling in some corbels. The specimens were designed to prevent bearing
failure, which is also shown.
The analytical procedure specified in the code involves the computation
of the shear capacity based on shear failure and failure by yielding of steel.
The corbels have to be designed to prevent bearing failure. The equations
needed for the computation of shear capacity, V, are as follows ("Building"
1989).
For shear failure

V . = A,,ffyp~ (1)
1197

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 where A~,s = area of shear friction reinforcement; fy = yield strength of
steel; andlx = coefficient of friction.
In this investigation, the area A~s is taken as the area of the primary steel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and stirrups. The coefficient Ix is taken as 1.4 (monolithic construction).

For failure by yielding of steel
Vna + N,(h - d) = AsfyJd (2)
where A, = the area of primary steel; N, = the axial force; d = the depth;
h = the total thickness; and Ja = the lever arm. For corbels in series
B - D , N, is taken as zero. For series E - G
N,, = 0.2V n (3)
The corbel capacity is to be taken as the least of the values calculated using
(1) and (2).
The code also places the following maximum limit for the shear strength,
v,,
V, :~ 0.2f'cbwd (4)
where bw = the width; f'c = the compressive strength; and 0.2f'c should not
exceed 5.5 MPa (800 psi). Since all the corbels tested had 0.2f'c greater than
5.5 MPa, the maximum permissible shear force V, for all the cases is 498.1
kN (112 kips). The writers believe that this maximum limit on shear stress
of 5.5 MPa (800 psi) or 0.2f" should be considered a safety measure rather
than an analysis tool. Therefore, this limiting load is not used for comparison
purposes. Also, 12 out of 14 reinforced corbels withstood a much higher
shear force than the specified limit and the failure modes were ductile. Thus
the maximum limit may be raised without reducing safety.
The shear strength capacities computed using (1) and (2) are presented
in Table 4, which also presents the experimentally observed results and the
ratios of experimental to predicted capacities. Based on the results in Table
4 and the actual failure modes of the corbels, the following observations
are made.
The computation indicates that series B, F, and G would fail in the flexural
mode, whereas the other corbels would fail in the shear friction mode.
However, the experimentally observed failure patterns show that all the
reinforced corbels failed in flexure-shear mode.
For series B - D , E l , E2, and F1, the code predictions are conservative.
For corbels E3 and F2, the code equations are unconservative, which may
be due to the fact that these corbels had more reinforcement than the
maximum recommended by the code. The code equations are also uncon-
servative for series G corbels where the reinforcement in G1 and G2 were
within ACI 318-89 limits. Therefore, if the a/d ratio is 0.75, it may not be
advisable to use ACI 318-89 equations. The writers believe that the assumed
flexural mechanism is not correct for shear-span ratios greater than 0.5. The
corbels could have failed in a combined shear and bending mode rather
than a simple flexure mode. The truss analogy method presented in the next
section seems to provide a better representation of the failure.

Truss Analogy Model (Hagberg 1983)

In the truss analogy model proposed by Hagberg (1983), the failure is
assumed to occur either by the yielding of tension steel or by the crushing
of concrete compression strut (Fig. 14). The basic hypothesis of this model
1198

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TENSION TIE IV

d
SION

FIG. 14. Representation of Truss Analogy Model

is that an equilibrium exists between the applied vertical and horizontal

loads and the resistance generated by the tension steel and the compression
strut. Unlike the ACI 318-89 method, which only considers the primary
reinforcement for tensile resistance, both the primary steel and the stirrups
are assumed to generate tension force during the failure in the truss analogy
model. The following are salient points of the truss model:

9 Either the steel yields or the concrete crushes during failure. The
elastic strains of both concrete and steel are negligible compared
with the strains generated during the crushing of concrete or yielding
of steel.
9 Strength of concrete determined using cylinders represents the strength
of the compression strut in the corbel. The tensile-strength capacity
of concrete is negligible compared with the tensile strength of steel
reinforcement.
9 The reinforcements are assumed to be properly anchored.

The analysis indicates that all the corbels would fail by yielding of the
steel. Since high-strength concrete was used for all corbels, the shear strengths
computed based on strut failure were two to five times greater than those
computed for failure due to the yielding of steel. The failure loads and the
ratios of experimental to predicted loads using this truss analogy model are
shown in Table 4.
From Table 4, it can be seen that the truss analogy method provides a
better prediction than the ACI 318-89 procedure. The prediction was un-
conservative in one instance and the error was 2%. If the corbels containing
1199

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 more reinforcement than the recommended limit of ACI 318-89 (corbels
E3, F2, and G3 are eliminated), the accuracy of the trust analogy model is
further improved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CONCLUSIONS
Following are the experimental observations and comments on the anal-
ysis of experimental results.
All 14 corbels containing reinforcement failed in a beam-shear failure,
and the failure mode is stable.
The primary steel yielded before failure in all but one case. Even when
the failure occurred before the yielding of primary steel, the failure was not
sudden. Considerable spalling occurred before the failure.
The strain in the primary steel increases linearly after the initiation of
the flexure-type crack in the reentrant corner. This stable linear relationship
between steel strain versus load indicates that the behavior of high-strength
corbels is stable in the postcracking range.
Increase in compressive strength leads to increased corbel capacity, but
does not result in brittle failure. Increase in reinforcement ratio also in-
creases the strength capacity. Within the reinforcement ratios tested, the
increase in reinforcement did not increase the ductility at failure.
None of the specimens failed in a shear-friction mode of failure, even
though the shear strength capacities calculated for this type of failure was
much lower than the experimental strengths.
The behavior of high-strength-concrete corbels is similar to that of nor-
mal-strength-concrete corbels. The increase in concrete strength does not
adversely affect the ductility of corbel.
The American Concrete Institute code ACI 318-89 ("Building" 1989)
provision that the "average shear stress at the interface should be less than
5.5 MPa (800 psi)" limits the full use of the available shear strength of the
high-strength concrete. The high-strength-reinforced concrete corbels with-
stood a higher average stress without sustaining a brittle failure. In addition,
for high-strength-concrete corbels with a shear-span-to-depth (a/d) ratio
of 0.75, ACI 318-89 procedure leads to an unconservative prediction of
strengths. These provisions need changes for the use of high-strength con-
crete in corbels. In general, the experimental results, while limited in the
number of specimens and number of parameters considered, suggests that
the truss analogy method (Hagberg 1983) provided a better prediction of
shear strengths as compared to the ACI 318-89 procedure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contributions of Douglas McCloskey and Richard Petrino for the
experimental program are gratefully acknowledged.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
"Building code requirements for reinforced concrete. Special provisions for brackets
and corbels." (1989). ACI 318-89, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.,
318/318R-163-318/318R-166.
Franz, G., and Niedenhoff, H. (1964). "Reinforcement for brackets and short deep
beams." C & CA Library Translation No. 114, Cement and Concrete Association,
London, England.
Hagberg, T. (1983). "Design of concrete brackets: On the application of the truss
analogy." ACI J., 80(1), 3-12.
1200

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201

 Hermansen, B. R., and Cowan, J. (1974). "Modified shear-friction theory for bracket
design." ACI J., 71(2), 55-60.
Kriz, L. B., and Raths, C. H. (1965). "Connections in precast concrete structures--
Strength of corbels." J. Prestressed Coner. Inst., 10(1), 16-61.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 09/20/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mattock, A. H., Chen, K. C., and Soonswang, K. (1976). "The behavior of rein-
forced concrete corbels." J. Prestressed Concr. Inst., 21(3), 18-42.
Mast, R. F. (1968). "Auxiliary reinforcement in concrete connections." J. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 94(6), 1485-1504.
Standards for concrete and mineral aggregates. (1989). Vol. 04.02, ASTM, Phila-
delphia, Pa.
Yong, Y. K., McCloskey, D. H., and Nawy, E. G. (1985). "Reinforced corbels of
high-strength concrete." A CI SP87-11, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.,
197-212.

1201

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(4): 1182-1201