Title no. 84-845 Reinforced Concrete Corbels — Simplified by Himat Solanki and Gajanan M. Sabnis Various methods are used in designing reinforced concrete brackets. This poper demonstrates te simplifications of truss analogy. A sum ‘mary of previous work is reviewed. The proposed method was deve ‘ped using o simplified approach with tras analogy. Test series of 16 Investigations are analyzed and caleulated according to the proposed ‘method. Two examples demonsirate the recommended design proce- dure. Some recommentations forthe detaling are aso discussed. The load-carrying capacity of reinforced concrete corbels may be calculated by several methods, They in- clude the shear-friction approach," the truss analogy,”* the geometrical method of force distribution," and the theory of plasticity." The shear friction method is adopted in the ACI Building Code'* and is generally used in the U.S., while the other methods are used in the European countries. In the U.S., a traditional approach has been either empirical or semi-empirical, consistent with large num- bers of test results. On the other hand, a mathematical model describing the mechanism of the member has more advantages. One can calculate the ultimate ca- pacity effectively and simply and also dimension and detail the member economically. In this paper a simplified, practical, and safe design approach is presented in calculating the ultimate load capacity of reinforced concrete corbels. The results are compared with the data obtained from 398 tests in 16 different investigations to indicate the effectiveness of this approach. THEORY The proposed structural model is based on the one by Leonhardt and Monning" and simplified using Steinle’s approach." It is assumed that concrete acts as inclined Iamellas between the cracks, transmitting only the compression forces. Other assumptions made are as follows: 1. Any shear transfer across the crack caused by er aggregate interlock or dowel action is neglected. 428 2. Local effects such as those caused by reactions and loads are neglected. 3. Equilibrium condition must be fulfilled. 4. Failure occurs due to crushing of concrete or yielding of steel. 5. The tensile strength of concrete is neglected. 6. The concrete strength is assumed equal to the cyl- inder strength, and the maximum strain in the concrete is equal to 0.003. 7. The mathematical mode must comply with the ge~ ‘ometry of the member; this applies particularly to the reinforcement and its anchoring. It should be noted that most of the above assump- tions are made in general analysis theory of reinforced concrete structures (¢.g., References 3 through 6); the other assumptions are essentially conservative in na- ture, ‘The state of forces at failure is shown in Fig. 1. This converts conerete into an inclined strut. The following equation of equilibrium then can be written sa+ Nah @ where x = perpendicular distance of the force-inclined strut = 0.9ad/V(0.9d} + @ (see Fig. 1) and D = as- sumed force of strut in compression and comes out to be 0.25bd (8, f) based on References 17, 19, 20, and width of corbel effective depth of corbel compressive strength of concrete multiplier of f) as in ACI 318-83 Equivalent rectangular concrete stress distribution as per the ACI Building Code is assumed. Accordingly, 8, shall be taken as 0.85 for strengths f° up to 4000 psi Reseed June 9, 1946, and reviewed unde insu publication polices. ‘congas 1 Ameren Conte latte All aha renee lang Stain cones person ata hcp og ‘Stecaral Journal irecewed by Ma, eae SE ACI Structural Journal | September-October 1987“ACI member Himat Solan senior projet marge a Sally, Welford & ‘Naren, Inc ConutingEnginer in Soraot, Pl, He hr publohed sera Depers i ecicel journals on reinforced and pressed conerete. He 2 ‘member of Joint ACIASCE Commitee 34, Concrete Bridge Design: ACT Commitee #85, Deflection of Concrete Buling Sucre: ond the CEB. Commision ¥ Sericebity(Deftcion of Reinforced Corre Src Gaanan M. Sans, FACI, has boon profesor of ci engineering at Hom ord Unray, Washington, DC, since 1974 Dr. Sabri known for his work Ith local, national and irationl acter i he euation, researc, srl, and profesional fs ofconerte and sutra enginering. He is ‘oa senir pore in a US. fr tha specializes I constuction engineering 1flrge water raiment plots and bling, rekabilaion af osc Investgations, end consrucon impection and management. Dr. Sabu has uthoed several boots and pubcton. He charman af ACI Commitee ‘44, Models of Conte Stuctrs, and 8 member af ACI Commitee 366, ‘ehabilation, and Joint ACLASCE Commitee 45, Shear and Torsion (27.6 MPa) and is reduced at a rate of 0.05 for each 1000 psi (6.9 MPa) of strength in excess of 4000 psi with the lower limit of 0.65. V,, N, = ultimate design shear and transverse force on corb« Substituting the value of x and D in Eq. (1) MA) 88) EM) orem @ Eq. (2) can be simplified by assuming Ah/a = 0.3 bd ft AS me hs 3N, ') v0 oF + @aF G3) It may be noted that for the values of N,/V, chang- ing from 0 to 0.2, a corresponding change in bdvf"/V, is 0 to 6 percent; therefore, the term with horizontal force N, and V, in Eq. (2) could be ignored bat, _ 4s Vg OOF CF @ Eq. (4) is similar to the equation proposed by Wommelsdorff® and may be used to estimate the value ofd. Niedenhoff,* Mehmel and Becker,’ and Steinle" have also proposed the following equations bdf | (2 7 (9 2) eterence 5) (5) bape 28, a ference vB ( +? Geferense 9.6 bap, _ 3.37 aad 3 (Reference 18) (7) ‘The comparison of Eq. (4) with the preceding equa- tions is shown in Fig. 2 From Fig. 2, it can be seen that the proposed curve is very similar to the M/B curve, i.e., Eq. (6). This curve gives lower value of {f!bd/YV,, while the N curve (Eq. (5)] gives higher value of f!bd/ V,, when a/d is less than approximately 5.75. It is interesting to know that when f’bd/V, equals 5.75, all three curves give almost the same value of a/d; thereafter, the F/N curve gives a much lower value of a/d. ACI Structural Journal | September-October 1987 ANALYSIS OF TESTS Results of tests from 16 available references!**7"23125 ‘were compared to the results obtained using Eq. (4) de- veloped in this paper. The tests cover a/d values from 0.08 to 1.02 and reinforcement ratios from 0.18 to 3.25 percent. Some specimens had eccentricity (Fig. 3(a)] and in- clined shear reinforcement [Fig. 3(b)]. The ultimate load was calculated based on the concrete cylinder strength. Where required, the cylinder compressive strength 2 was taken to be equal to 0.85 fin. oF equal 10 Sams a8 the case may be. Fig. 4, 5, and 6 show the plots calculated and experimental shear force V, of reinforced concrete corbels and was found to be in rea- sonably good agreement within +30 percent. The sta- an Fig. 1—Geometry, forces, and equilibrium conditions (Reference 17) % Fig, 2—Plot of a/d versus f!bd/V, 429tistical analysis of these tests indicated the mean value of 0.996, a variance of 0.109, standard error of 1.8 percent, and standard deviation of 0.33. DESIGN EXAMPLE 1 (Reference 34) = 97.4 kips (433 KN) f! = 5000 psi (34.5 MPa) % N, = 34 kips (151 KN) f, = 60,000 psi (414 MPa) @ = 3in.(76mm) —b = 14 in, 356mm) Fig. 2 ignores N, knowing that N,/V, = 0.35, and estimating f' bd/V, equals 5.5 [using Eq. (3)), then Fig. 3(a)—Eccentric loading (Reference 31) Fig. 3(b)—Inclined shear reinforcement (Reference 10) 430 4000 x 14 = 9.6 in, (244 mm) Use d = 11 in. 279 mm) Vira + Nu (hed) A, = Yet + Nit Geel) oud s, [@ = 0.85, h/d = 1.1; and jd = (0.78) x 11 (Fig. 2, Reference 17)] _ 97,400 x 3 © 0.85 x (0.78) x 11 x 60,000 75 ino (484 mm?) N. $f, (ACI Building Code) _ 34,000 ~ 0.85 x 60,000 = 0.667 in. (431.3 mm’) Total A, = 0.75 + 0.667 = 1.417 in. (914.2 mm’). Use two # 8, A, = 1.57 in? (1010 mm’). Check min. Pon = 0.04 f/f, (ACI Building Code) = 0.0267 A, = 0.0267 x 11 x 14 = 0.41 in. (264 mm) Section 11.9.4 of the Commentary of the ACI Build- ing Code indicates a provision of horizontal ties to pre- vent a premature diagonal tension failure. This shear reinforcement will be A, = 0.5(A,~ A) 0.5 (1.57 ~ 0.667) = 0.454 in (293 mm’) Use three #3 stirrups. EXAMPLE 2 (Reference 31) (Eccentric load) 500 KN (112.4 k) ff! = 23 N/mm? (3335 psi) J, = 240 MPa (34.8 ksi) : Mas cabs erm Tn) : seTesr (nereie Tow) Fig. 4—Tested ultimate load versus calculated load (t) ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1987200 mm (7.9 in.) € = 90mm (3.5 in.) b = 300mm (11.8 in.) From Fig. 1, let 2" = 5.25 500,000 x 5.25 a= $00,900 25.28 _ 3¢0 mm (15.0 in) Use $00 mm (19.7 in.) Vere 20° $F = 21.93 em (8.6 in.) $00,000 x 21.93 0.85 (0.17850) 240 1378 mm? = 1401 mm? (21.3 in.) Pon = 0.04 f'/f, = 0.003833 (ACI Building Code) Avqin = 632 mm? (9.8 in. in.!) DETAILING OF CORBEL Detailing of the member is essential in anchoring the reinforcement. Adequate recommendations on detail ing are given by Horacek" and Leonhardt and Mon- ning.” ‘The anchorage of primary tension reinforcement may be a welded-on anchorage plate or a thick transverse bar. It is preferable to use bent reinforcement, but it may not always be more convenient and economical. ‘A recommended detail, based on the tests conducted by Horacek, is shown in Fig. 7. Its also essential that the main reinforcement be ex- tended outside the bearing plate due to relatively large radius of bend. This problem may be avoided by using smaller diameter bars. It is preferable to use the load-bearing plate approx- imately 2 in. (51 mm) shorter than the width of the western) Fig. 5—Tested ultimate load versus calculated load (kN) ACI Structural Journal | September-October 1987 corbel. The front edge of this plate should not be ex- tended beyond the center of curvature of the loop re: inforcement. It is recommended that some reinforcement be used in the compression zone. Area of such reinforcement should not be less than 0.5 percent of the area of compression strut. CONCLUSIONS ‘The proposed equation can be used to formulate a general design approach covering the practical range of i a c pe wa rtese cues) Fig. 6—Tested ultimate load versus calculated load (Kips) (a) oer conses (8) saezou Fig. 7—Recommended detailing for vertical loads 4314a/d values from 0.1 (0 1.0 and applicable to combina- tion of horizontal and/or inclined reinforcement as well as eccentric loads. When a/d < 0.5, some stirrups along with main re- inforcement should be considered. Higher percentage of steel will result in failure before the yield stress is reached in steel. The percentage of steel improves with increasing concrete strength to achieve the yield stress. It should also be noted that, in case of vertical load V, only, the cracked plane with maximum shear stress is at 17 deg to the vertical plane. Detailing of the corbel should comply with the struc- tural model, in particular the anchorage of the rein- forcement at the corbel end and in the column, as well as the location and dimensions of the bearing plate where the loads are transferred to the corbel Finally, it may be concluded that the proposed ‘method is simpler than the other available approaches. ‘The shear friction theory, for example, is restricted to a/d < 0.65, and the ratio of shear stress to concrete strength is limited (0 0.35, ie., Vf! < 0.35. REFERENCES 1. Keia, L_B., and Rath, C. H., “Connections in Precast Concrete Structures Sirenath of Corbels," Journal, Prestressed Concrete In stitute, V. 10, No, 1, Feb. 1965, pp. 166 2. Masi, Robert F., “Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Con nections," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 94, STS, June 1968, pp. 1485- 1504 3. Hermansen, Bjorn R., and Cowan, John, “Modified Shear Friction Theory for Bracket Design,” Aci JOuKNAL, Proceedings V. 71, No.2, Feb. 1974, 4. Shaikh, A. Fatah, “Proposed Revisions to Shear-Frition Pro- Visions." Journal, Pesressed Concrete Institute, V. 23, No. 2, Mar Apr. 1978, pp. 1221 5. Niedenho, H., “Investigations on the Load Bearing Behavior of Corbels and Short Canilevers (Untersuchungen uber das Tragver- halten von Konsolen und Kurzen Kragarmen),” Dr-Ing. dsseta: tion, Technische Hoehschule Karlsruhe, 1961 6. Franz, Gu, “Corbels on Columns (Sturzeakonsolen). Siahlbetonbaw (Belin), V.71, No. 4, 1916, pp. 98-102. 7. Mehmel, A. and Becker, G., “Shear Design of Short Cantil ver (Zur Schubbemessung des Kutzen Kragarmes),” Der Banger eur (Heidelberg), V. 40, No. 6, 1968, pp, 224231, 8, Hagberg, T., “Corbel Desin (Zur Bemessung der Konsole," Beion und Stahtbcronbau (Belin), V. 61, No. 3, 1966, pp. 68-72 9. Commisse A11, "Short Deep Beams and Short Corbels (Ged: rongen balken en korte Consoles)" Report No, 47, Commisse voor Uitvoering van Research Betonvrenging, Zeetrmeer, Fe. 193, 152 pp. 10, Cokwianiane, A. tal. "Proportioning of Short Cantilever by the Geometry Method of Force Distibution (Wymiarowanie Krot- ich Wspornikow metoda geometryeznego roaktadu si)” Ingynlera Budownicto (Warsaw), No.9, 1974, pp. 402-40, Hagberg, Thore, “Design of Concrete Brackets: On the Appli- cation of the Truss Analogy," Aci JounNAt, Proceedings V. 80, No. TydanFeb. 1983, pp. 12 12 Hagberg, T., "Design of Conerete Brackets (Dimensjoneriag a betong konsolien.” SINTEF Rapport STF6S AT7033, Nordisk Be tongforskningsseminar—Skjaer i betongkonstrksjoner, NTH, Trondheim, Apr. 1977, pp. 6:2. 13, Jensen, B.C, "Reinforced Conerete Corbels Armerede be tonkonsoller)," Axel Nelsen A/S, Odense M., Aug. 1981, 235 pp. 14, Jensen, B. Cx, “On the Ultimate Load of Reinforced Concrete CCorbels,” DIALOG 1-82, Miscellaneous Papers in Civil Engineering, Danish Engineering Academy, Lyngby, Ape 1982, pp. 19-137 432 Beton und 15. Jensen, B. C., “Reinforced Concrete Corbels—Some Exact Solutions," Final Report, {ABSE Collogivm on Plasticiy in Rein forced Concrete (Copenhagen, 1979), International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineeving, Zivich, 1999, V.29, pp. 293-30, 16. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Rein- forced Conerete (ACI 318-83)" American Concrete Institute, De- two, 1983, 11 pp, 17. Leonhardt, F., and Monning, B.. Lectures on Conerete Con- struction (Voresung uber Massveau), Pat 2, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1975, 18, Steinle,A., “The Problem of Minimum Dimensions of Cor. bels (Zur frage der Mindestabmessungen von Konsolen).” Beron und ‘Stahlberonbau (Berlin) V. 70, No. 6, 1918, pp. 180183. 19 Uiishy, 1. La, Reinforced Concrete Construction, Kiev Book Factory, Kiev, 1972. (in Russian) 20. Walther, R., “Calculation of the Shear Suength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Beams by the Shear Failure Theory (ober Berechane der Schubiragfahpkeit von Stahl-und Spannbeton-balken Schubbruch-theorie)." Befon und Stahiberonbau (Belin), V. 57, No. 1, Nov. 1962, pp. 261-271 21. Wommelsdortt, 0., Reinforced Concrete: Design and Con- struction (Stahlbetonbau: Bemessung und Konsiruktion), Part 2, ‘Werner-Verlag GmbH, Disseldor, 1980, pp. 186-163. 22. Jonsson, E., and Svare, T., "Tests on Brackets in Concrete (Provebelastning av betong Konsolleri" Report No. 2, Norge bygaforsknings Insti, Oslo, 1976, 32 pp. plus Append. 23, Clarke, J. L., “Behaviour and Design of Small Continuous Corbels,” Technical Report No. 4213, Cement and Conerete As. sociation, Wexhamn Springs, Mar. 1976, 11 pp. 24. Robinson, J. R., "Reinforcement of Short Cantilovers (L'AE mature des Consoles Courtes," Theorie und Praxis des Siahlbeton bhaues, W. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1969, pp. 6773, 25. Jensen, J. F, and Jensen, B. C., “Study of Reinforced and Plain Concrete Corbels (Forsog med armerede op uarmarede beton- konsolle)," Bygningsafdelingen, Danmarks Ingenoirakademt, Lyngby, Oct, 1981, 56 pp. plus Appendix 26, Mattock, Alan H.; Chea, K.C. and Soongswang, K., “The Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Corbels,” Journal, Prestressed ‘Concrete Institute, V. 21, No. 2, Mar Apr. 1976, pp. 52-77, 27, Jorgensen, N. Au, "*Reinforced Concrete Brackets (Armerede betonkonsoler)." Sektionen for Konstruktonsmekanik, Danmarks Inginorakademi, Bysninesfdlinge, June 1973 28, Pederson, E.'S. and Simonsen, M., “Analysis of Corbels (Barcevnen af Konsoller med Stobeske),” Lab 61, Danmarks Inei- norakademi, Bygningsafelingen Lyngby, June 12, 1981 29, Dragsholt P, and Helio, M., "Analysis of Reinforced Con: crete Corbels (Jernbetonkonsollers taereevne)," Danmarks Ingino- ‘akademi, Bygningsaéelingen, Copenhagen, 1961, 32 pp. plus Ap- pendix. 30. Hung, H. L., “Experimental Research on Short Reinforced Concrete Brackets (Recherche Experimentale sur des Consoles CCourtes et Beton Arme),” Annates, Institut Tesbsique du Batiment des Travaux Publics (Paris), No. 270, June 1970, pp. 73-74 31. Paschen, Helarich, and Malonn, Hermann, “Investigations Ito the Behavior of Reciangular and Ring-Like Consoles with Par ticular Reference to Escentric Loads (Vorschlge 2ur Bemessung rechteckiger und kranzformiger Konsoleninsbesondere unter exzen tischer belastung aufgeund neuer Versuche).” Bulletin No. 384, Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Beri, 1984, pp. 98-134. 532. Holmberg, A, “Study of Beam Supports and Column Capitals in Prefabricated Structures (Studium av balkupplag och Pelarhuvu- den vid montagebyggad),” Nordisk Beton (Stockholm), No. 4, 1959, pp. 349-354 33. Nevile, Gerald B., Editor, Notes on ACI 318-83, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, with Design Applica tions, Portland Cement Assocation, Skokie, 1984, 830 pp. 1M, Horacek, E., "Load Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Corbels (nosnostzelezabetonovych konzo),” Inzenyrske Starby (Prague), 1962, p- 182, 35, Leonhardt, F., and Monning, E., Lectures on Concrete Con struction (Vorlesungen uber Massivbou), Pet 3, Springer-Verlag, Bedin, 1977, 246 pp. ACI Structural Journal / September-October 1987