applied

sciences
Article
Structural Analysis and Design of Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Corbels
Sara Cattaneo 1,2 , Pietro Crespi 1 and Luigi Biolzi 1, *
1 Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering, Politecnico di Milano,
20133 Milan, Italy; sara.cattaneo@polimi.it (S.C.); pietro.crespi@polimi.it (P.C.)
2 Construction Technologies Institute, Italian National Research Council (ITC-CNR), Viale Lombardia 49,
San Giuliano Milanese, 20098 Milan, Italy
* Correspondence: luigi.biolzi@polimi.it




Received: 27 August 2020; Accepted: 21 September 2020; Published: 25 September 2020


Abstract: Post-installed systems for the anchorage of safety barriers to bridge corbels are widely
used today thanks to their flexibility and easiness of installation. Because of commonly found in situ
boundary constraints, however, the design requirements for post-installed fasteners and rebars are
frequently not satisfied or only partially satisfied. This paper assesses the mechanical response of
a corbel where an innovative solution concerning the placement of post-installed reinforcement in
reinforced concrete members was suggested. With reference to the refurbishment of bridge curbs,
which usually requires concrete removal in the damaged top layers, the proposed method was based
on the introduction of additional U-shaped post-installed rebars connecting the existing portion of the
corbel to the newly cast top layer, in order to allow the transfer of the tension pull-out force exerted
by the posts restraining the safety barrier. The layout investigated in this paper consisted of three
anchors connecting the baseplate of the post supporting the safety barrier to the corbel (a layout
commonly found in Italy). These anchors transfer the external actions (bending moment and shear)
to the corbel thanks to the formation of a strut-and-tie system where the U-shaped rebars and the
existing reinforcement play a crucial role. A strut-and-tie model of the corbel was presented to allow
the use of a simplified approach to assess the safety of the corbel. The tests on real-scale specimens
were also modeled numerically and additional models were considered to evaluate the effect of
characteristics parameters (i.e., size of the corbel, existing shear reinforcement, etc.) on the overall
response of the corbel.

Keywords: post-installed bonded anchors; concrete corbel; bridge deck; safety barrier anchoring;
strut-and-tie model

1. Introduction
The refurbishment of existing infrastructures is becoming very important due to their aging or
lack of maintenance [1–4]. A common problem of existing bridges is the installation or substitution of
safety barriers that must be replaced due to their aging or increased demand [5–7]. The substitution of
safety barriers is usually associated with the partial reconstruction of the upper part of the concrete
curb and the addition of post-installed reinforcing or anchoring bonded systems.
In the last decades, these types of connections have been largely used thanks to their flexibility
and to their wide range of applications. Several researchers investigated the limits of the field of
application (exploiting the performances in low- and high-strength concrete [8–11] and the reliability
of these systems [12–16]).
Quite frequently, however, this affordable connection does not satisfy code requirements for the
design of connectors considered as overlapped reinforcing bars (according to [16,17]) or as post-installed

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727; doi:10.3390/app10196727 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 2 of 14

anchors (according to [18,19]). The main challenges are the reduced thickness of the concrete corbel,
which often does not guarantee enough bonded length, and the limited edge distance, preventing the
development of the full concrete capacity according to anchor theory [20–22].
Nevertheless, the use of post-installed bonded anchors is very attractive due to their high versatility
and strength [23]. This study considered a new solution presented in [6] that meets the common
refurbishment practice requirements in Italy (with slight modifications) and is based on the removal
and rebuilding of the damaged top concrete layer of the curb. The novelty consists in the installation
of additional U-shaped post-installed bonded rebars (with a prescribed spacing along the whole
corbel length) before the new, top, concrete layer is cast. The safety barriers are then installed into
the new reinforced curb via three post-installed bonded bars (according to one of the most typical
layouts adopted in Italy). The adoption of this layout represents the minimum viable solution for the
application investigated in this study and that the use of a larger number of anchors, while affecting
the design parameters, would not hinder the applicability of the proposed model. To evaluate the
influence of the U-shaped rebars in the connection system, three full scale specimens were tested.
Cattaneo, S et al. state that the transfer mechanism of the forces from the tensioned bars to the
U-shaped rebars and their anchorage into the bridge deck was studied via a 3D strut-and-tie model
and validated with numerical analyses [6]. This study considered the same geometry but was focused
on the corbel behavior. The aim of the paper was to propose an analytical, simplified formulation that
allows designers to verify the concrete corbel. This formulation derived from a strut-and-tie model,
in which the geometry was defined on the basis of a finite element model (FEM) [24–26] considering a
different specimen geometry.

2. Experimental Research
The experimental research presented by Cattaneo, S et al. [6] is here recalled and summarized.
Three identical specimens composed of a reinforced concrete slab having dimensions 180 × 100 × 20 cm
with a 50 × 100 × 20 cm curb placed on top were tested. The reinforcement in the curb region was selected
to satisfy the minimum reinforcement condition for Italian bridge corbels, while the reinforcement in
the remaining portion of the slab was designed to avoid any possible premature failure during the
test. The specimens were cast in two steps using C20/25 concrete (CEMII/A L 32.5 R with a dosage of
310 kg/m3 and a water/cement ratio of 0.55 [27]) and B450C reinforcing bars. The slab was cast first,
and, after 28 days, three φ 12 U-shaped B450C rebars (Figure 1a) were post-installed with an epoxy
injection mortar having a characteristic bond strength of 14 MPa ([28], uncracked concrete conditions).
After 24 h, the curb was cast above the slab and, after an additional 28 days, three threaded bars of
M20 [28] were post-installed in the slab through the curb (Figure 1b).
The load was applied using a hydraulic jack located at a height of 100 cm from the steel plate.
The specimen was supported in the middle of the slab and vertically restrained at a distance of 50 cm
from the support. An additional horizontal restraint was placed in front of the specimen to avoid
sliding. A sketch of the system is shown in Figure 1c.
The load protocol consisted of: (1) Three loading cycles from 0 to 38 kN, (2) an increase in load up
to 51 kN to check the crack pattern (load held for 2–3 min), (3) an increase in load up to 65 kN for tests
1 and 2 and up to 84 kN for test 3, and (4) unloading.
The load of 51 kN was chosen, as ultimate limit state load, in accordance with common practice of
design in Italy for safety barriers’ class H4 BP (edge bridge). It is worth mentioning that for accidental
actions the partial safety factor is 1 for both materials and actions [29].
The displacements of the three post-installed anchors, the horizontal displacements at the bottom
and at the top of the curb, and the sliding displacement of the specimen were measured via Linear
Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) (tolerance ± 0.2%).
All specimens behaved in a similar way and no failure was observed. At a load level of about
47 kN, two cracks (one for each lateral side) were detected at the corner between the slab and the curb
(Figure 2a,b. In specimens 2 and 3, at a load of about 65–68 kN, some cracks were observed originating
 Appl.
Appl. Sci. Sci.
2020, 10, x10,
2020, FOR6727
PEER REVIEW 3 of314
of 14

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

84 kN) (Figure 2c). To avoid damage in the testing system, the test was stopped at a load level of 84.07
from the bar close to the edge and developing continuously up to the reached maximum load (about
kN.84 kN) (Figure 2c). To avoid damage in the testing system, the test was stopped at a load level of 84.07
84 kN) (Figure 2c). To avoid damage in the testing system, the test was stopped at a load level of
kN.
84.07 kN.

Figure 1. (a) U-shaped rebar installation, (b) bar installation, (c) test setup (measures in mm).
Figure
Figure 1. (a) U-shaped
1. (a) U-shaped rebar
rebar installation,
installation, (b)
(b) bar
bar installation,
installation, (c)
(c) test
test setup
setup (measures
(measures in
in mm).
mm).

Figure 2.Figure
Cracks2.atCracks
the corner
at thebetween curb andcurb
corner between slaband
(a) and
slab(b)
(a)crack close
and (b) to the
crack edge
close (c).edge (c).
to the
Figure 2. Cracks at the corner between curb and slab (a) and (b) crack close to the edge (c).
3. Discussion
3. Discussion
3. Figure
Discussion
Figure 3 shows
3 shows thethe freebody
free bodydiagram
diagramof ofthe
the concrete
concrete curb.
curb. The
The tensile
tensileforce
force(T) (T)acting
actingononthe
thebars
is is
bars transferred
transferred from thethe
from bars to the U-shaped rebars by aby
3Dastrut-and tie mechanism (red area ofarea
Figure 3,
Figure 3 shows the bars to the
free body U-shaped
diagram ofrebars
the concrete3Dcurb.
strut-and tie mechanism
The tensile force (T)(red
acting on ofthe
as
Figure explained by Cattaneo, S et al. [6]), while the U-shaped rebars are anchored to the concrete slab (light
bars3,isas explained from
transferred by Cattaneo,
the barsStoettheal. [6]), while rebars
U-shaped the U-shaped
by a 3Drebars are anchored
strut-and tie mechanismto the (red
concrete
area of
blue
slab area).
(light blueInarea).
the previous
In the study [6],
previous the overall
study [6], the behavior
overall of the structure
behavior of the (considering
structure the steelthe
(considering plate,
Figure 3, as explained by Cattaneo, S et al. [6]), while the U-shaped rebars are anchored to the concrete
the
steel corbel,
plate, theand the
corbel, bridge deck) was not evaluated, while the verification of the corbel must account
slab (light blue area).and the previous
In the bridge deck)studywas [6],not
the evaluated, while of
overall behavior thethe
verification of the corbelthe
structure (considering
for account
must the effectfor
of the
the compressive
effect of the (dark blue) and(dark
compressive shearblue)
(green)
andstress
shear fields in the
(green) concrete
stress element.
fields in the
steel plate, the corbel, and the bridge deck) was not evaluated, while the verification of the corbel
concrete element.
must account for the effect of the compressive (dark blue) and shear (green) stress fields in the
concrete element.
 Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, x6727
FOR PEER REVIEW 44 of
of 14
14
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

Figure 3. Sketch
Figure 3. Sketch of
of the
the structure.
structure.
Figure 3. Sketch of the structure.
The geometry
geometry of of the
thestructure
structureunder underinvestigation
investigationshows showsthatthatthethecurb
curbcancan
be be
regarded
regardedas aasD-a
The geometry
region
D-region according
accordingof
to the structure
to definition under
the definition investigation
of theofBuilding Codeshows
the Building Codethat
Requirements the curb canfor
beStructural
for Structural
Requirements regarded
Concreteas a D-
ACI318-
Concrete
region according
Appendix
ACI318-Appendix to the
A [18], A definition
where
[18],there
where ofathere
is the Building
complex Codemechanism
mechanism
is a complex Requirements for Structural
of stressofdiffusion
stress insideConcrete
diffusion the ACI318-
concrete.
inside the In this
concrete.
Appendix
part
In this A
of part [18], where
the structure, there is a
the assumptions
of the structure, complex mechanism
of the beam
the assumptions of themodelof stress
beam are model diffusion
no longer inside
are no valid
longer the
and concrete.
canand
valid be usedIn this
only
can be to
used
part of the
evaluate
only structure,
the bridge
to evaluate the
the assumptions
deck
bridge effect
deckoneffectof the
the onbeam
corbel. Inmodel are
this way,
the corbel. In no
this longer
it way,
is valid
possible
it is toand can
isolate
possible be used
the
to isolate only
portion
the oftothe
portion
evaluate
structuretheunder
bridgeunder
of the structure deck investigation
effect on
investigation by the corbel.
substituting Inthe
thissteel
by substituting way, it is possible
thecolumn
steel and theand
column tobridge
isolate the with
deck
the bridge portion of acting
decktheir
with the
their
structure
external under
acting external investigation
forces forces
(Figure(Figure by
4, C and substituting
4, CT and
compressive the steel column
and tensile
T compressive and the
forcesforces
and tensile bridge
and Vand shear deck with
force).
V shear their acting
The easiest
force). way
The easiest
external toforces
to model
way the(Figure
model structural4, Cbehavior
the structural andbehavior
T compressive and tensile
of theofD-regions forces and V modeling
is theisstrut-and-tie
the D-regions the strut-and-tieshear force).
modeling The easiest way
[24–26,30].
[24–26,30].
to model the structural behavior of the D-regions is the strut-and-tie modeling [24–26,30].

Figure 4. Sketch
Figure 4. Sketch of
of the
the curb,
curb, vertical
vertical section.
section.
Figure 4. Sketch of the curb, vertical section.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 5 of 14

3.1. Strut-and-Tie Model

3.1. In
Strut-and-Tie
this case, a Model
2D strut-and-tie model (Figure 5) was developed to catch the overall behavior (the
structural response
In this case, a described with the
2D strut-and-tie parameters
model (Figure listed
5) wasindeveloped
Table 1). The model
to catch the(Figure
overall5)behavior
can be
described as follows:
(the structural Thedescribed
response compressive
withforce transferredlisted
the parameters by thein steel
Tablebaseplate was first
1). The model deviated
(Figure 5) can
toward the horizontal direction by the corbel’s stirrups acting in tension. This force was equilibrated
be described as follows: The compressive force transferred by the steel baseplate was first deviated
by the tension
toward in thedirection
the horizontal vertical by
branch of thestirrups
the corbel’s stirrupsacting
themselves andThis
in tension. by force
another
was concrete strut
equilibrated by
converging
the tension to
in the
the node (C)branch
vertical formedofby the
the anchorthemselves
stirrups and the upper
and(flexural)
by anotherreinforcements
concrete strutof the deck
converging
(or slab).
to the node (C) formed by the anchor and the upper (flexural) reinforcements of the deck (or slab).

Figure 5. Scheme of the 2D strut-and-tie model, geometrical quantities, and nodes.

Figure 5. Scheme of the 2D strut-and-tie model, geometrical quantities, and nodes.
Table 1. Components of the strut-and-tie model of the corbel.
Table 1. Components of the strut-and-tie model of the corbel.
Geometry Actions/Forces Design
Z, Z2 , h1 , HcorbelGeometry
, Hdeck (see Figure 5) T, VEdActions/Forces
, MEd Design
Z, Z2, h1, Hcorbel, Hdeck (see Figure 5) T, VEd, MEd Area of stirrups within 2 steel
Z1 = Z − h1 · tan(θ1 ) F1 = cosT(θ ) plate
Area width within 2
of stirrups
𝑇
1 max(Hv ,H )
AT steel
= plate width
𝑍 = 𝑍 − ℎ ∙ tan(𝜃 ) 𝐹 = f yd
𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃 ) max(𝐻 , 𝐻)
𝐴 the
Steel area at = top of the deck
cs concrete cover H = F1 sen(θ1 ) + VEd 𝑓
A = Tr
0

Steel sareafydat the top of

S1 =spacing between U-shaped rebars the deck
cs concrete coverbranches of F𝐻== 𝐹 sen(𝜃 ) + 𝑉 Area of concrete under tension
H
S2 =spacing between the vertical cos(θ) Ac = 3S1𝐴 ·2S2=≥𝑇fT1
the U-shaped rebars 𝑓 ctd
X (see Figure 5)—determined as the half of Area of concrete under
S1 =spacing between U-shaped rebars
the neutral axis at the ultimate limit state of Hv = F sen(θ) 𝐻 tension
S2 =spacing thebetween
slab withthe verticalB =branches of the U- 𝐹=
a width 3S1 cos(𝜃) 𝑇
shaped rebars 𝐴𝑐 = 3𝑆 ∙ 2𝑆 ≥
p = Hcurb + Hdeck − cs − h1 − X − Z2 · tan(θ3 ) C= M Ed +VEd Hcurb 𝑓
Hdeck −cs −x/2
X (see Figure 5)—determined as the half of the neutral
θ1 = 10◦ Tr = C + VEd
axis at the ultimate limit state  h of the slab with a width 𝐻 = 𝐹 𝑠𝑒𝑛(𝜃)
θ = arctg
B = 3S 1
Z21
F3 = cosC(θ )
3
𝑀(θ1 )+ 𝑉 𝐻
F1 cos
𝑝=𝐻 +𝐻 − 𝑐 − ℎ − 𝑋 − 𝑍 · tan(𝜃 ) F2 =𝐶 =sen(θ )
𝐻 2 − 𝑐 − 𝑥/2
θ1 = 10°
 p
 T1 = 𝑇 =𝐶+𝑉
θ2 = arctg Z1
ℎ F2 sen(θ2 ) − F3 sen(θ3𝐶)
𝜃 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑔 𝐹 =
θ3 = arctg HCv 𝑍 cos(𝜃 )
 
𝐹 cos(𝜃 )
𝐹 =
sen(𝜃 )
The compressive strut under 𝑝 the compressed portion 𝑇 of the steel plate was further deviated by
the presence of the𝜃upper = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑔 reinforcement
𝑍 of the deck, the tensioned )
= 𝐹 sen(𝜃 anchor, and the vertical branch of
− 𝐹 sen(𝜃 )
the corbel stirrups (Node C- E𝐻-F).
𝜃 = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑔
As shown in Figure 5, equilibrium conditions must be fulfilled for six nodes (A–F):
𝐶
• The node located close to the external edge of the concrete element under the compressed part of
The compressive strut under the compressed portion of the steel plate was further deviated by
the plate (A). In this node, three elements of the model are converging: Two struts in compression
the presence of the upper reinforcement of the deck, the tensioned anchor, and the vertical branch of
and the top reinforcement of the curb in tension.
the corbel stirrups (Node C- E -F).
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 6 of 14

• The node located at the internal upper corner of the curb (B): Here the stirrups are bent at 90◦ and
the two ties, which represent the vertical and horizontal branches of the stirrups, are equilibrated
by an inclined concrete strut.
• The node between the two struts in compression deviated by the effect of the tensile force in the
upper reinforcement of the deck slab (C).
• The node (D), placed where the compressed concrete strut coming from node B is equilibrated by
the difference in vertical tension in the bar and the difference in horizontal tension in the upper
reinforcement of the deck.
• The node (E), placed at the bottom of the bar where the tension in the bar contributes to the
deviation of the compressive force in the concrete struts.
• The node (F), placed where the vertical branch of the corbel stirrups meets the two compressed
struts coming, respectively, from node E and from the compressed lower chord of the deck.

Table 1 describes the procedure to evaluate the main quantities of the strut-and-tie model.
In particular, for the given geometry, the designer should verify the resistance of the minimum
reinforcement present in the structure (Table 1, column “Design”) and the moment, Mr , acting on the
bridge cantilever (that should be lower than the design moment, MRd ).

H
 
Mr = M + V Hcorbel + deck − cs ≤ MRd (1)
2

The model is based on equilibrium conditions and is, therefore, frequently suggested by design
code because it is always on the safe side, being founded on the limit lower bound theory of plasticity.
Nevertheless, some conditions (i.e., z1 < 0 or p < 0) lead to meaningless solutions. In addition, angles
between struts and ties must be higher than 25◦ , according to ACI approach [18].
Furthermore, in the above computations [6], it was implicitly assumed that the system is able
to transfer the applied shear force to the deck (or slab). A simple design verification is suggested to
verify this assumption. Moreover, it is advisable to provide a slotted hole (for the front bar) in the
steel plate to transfer the entire shear load to the rear anchors. In turn, the load transfer mechanism
of the two rear anchors to the bottom of the slab can be verified following the cold-joint interface
provisions of Eurocode 2 [17] and Model Code for Concrete Structures [31]. It could be expected that a
verification in accordance with the latter provisions would be satisfied considering only the dowel
action contribution of the anchors to the overall resistance across the interface.

3.2. Numerical Analyses

A finite element model was developed within the software MIDAS FEA [32] to analyze the corbel
behavior to conduct a structural analysis and compare the numerical prediction with the experimental
evidence in terms of load-displacement curves.
The concrete mechanical properties were chosen in accordance with Eurocode 2 [17] for a concrete
class C20/25 (elastic modulus Ec = 30 GPa, average compressive strength fcm = 28 MPa) and the steel
was assumed to behave elastically (elastic modulus Es = 200 GPa).
The tensile behavior of the concrete was modeled using a linear total strain crack law [32]
characterized by a tensile strength fct = 2.2 MPa and a fracture energy Gf = 73 fcm 0.18 = 132 N/m.
Following the classical assumption of reinforced concrete structures, a perfect bond between steel and
concrete interface was assumed.
The maximum element mesh size of the model ranged between 10 mm for the concrete elements
close to the bars (which were modeled using steel beam elements of equivalent size) and 50 mm
for the elements far from the bars. These dimensions were selected after completion of a mesh-size
sensitivity analysis.
The geometry of the corbel presents a cold joint between the upper face of the slab and the lower
face of the curb, where the safety barrier is anchored. The bars, as well as the U-shaped rebars, pass
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

The
Appl. geometry
Sci. of the corbel presents a cold joint between the upper face of the slab and the lower
2020, 10, 6727 7 of 14
face of the curb, where the safety barrier is anchored. The bars, as well as the U-shaped rebars, pass
through this cold joint. This joint was modeled as a thin layer of concrete elements (about 1 cm in
through
size) with athis cold joint.
reduced Thisstrength
tensile joint was(1.2modeled
MPa as a thin
[33]) layer of to
compared concrete elements
the typical 2.2 (about
MPa of 1 cm in size)
C20/25
with
concrete. a reduced tensile strength (1.2 MPa [33]) compared to the typical 2.2 MPa of C20/25 concrete.
TheThe ordinary
ordinary reinforcement
reinforcement located
located in the
in the slabslab
waswas modeled
modeled with
with 1D1D reinforcement
reinforcement elements
elements of of
B450C steel while, to model the possibility of the plate to uplift at the interface between
B450C steel while, to model the possibility of the plate to uplift at the interface between the steel plate the steel plate
andand concrete,
concrete, 2D2D elements
elements were
were selected.
selected.
To To compare
compare thenumerical
the numericaland andexperimental
experimental results,
results, the
the constraints
constraintsadopted
adoptedininthe test
the setup
test were
setup
introduced and the load was increased up to 84 kN (maximum load
were introduced and the load was increased up to 84 kN (maximum load applied). The complete applied). The complete geometry
of the FEM
geometry is FEM
of the shown is in Figure
shown in 6a–e.
Figure 6a–e.
To validate the model, the
To validate the model, the experimental experimental andand numerical
numerical results
results were
were compared
compared in terms
in terms of the
of the
displacements of five control points monitored with LVDTs (vertical displacements of the headsofofthe
displacements of five control points monitored with LVDTs (vertical displacements of the heads
thethree
threebars)
bars)andandthethehorizontal
horizontal sliding of of
sliding thetheupper
upperpartpart
of the corbel
of the measured
corbel on its
measured ontop
itsand
top bottom
and
edges (Figure 6e).
bottom edges (Figure 6e).

Figure 6. FEM
6. FEM
Figure (finite
(finite element
element model)
model) of the
of the tested
tested specimen
specimen (a) (a) model,
model, (b) (b) load
load andand boundary
boundary
conditions,
conditions, (c) (c) reinforcement
reinforcement layout,
layout, (d)(d) anchorage
anchorage system,
system, andand
(e) (e) displacement
displacement control
control points.
points.

TheThecomparison
comparison between
betweenexperimental
experimental (dashed line) and
(dashed line)numerical (continuous
and numerical line) displacements
(continuous line)
is shown in Figure 7. As it can be seen, the results are in good agreement (load
displacements is shown in Figure 7. As it can be seen, the results are in good agreement (load average average difference
below 5%).
difference belowConsidering the control
5%). Considering thepoints
controlof points
the barsof(Arrows
the bars1–3, Figure1–3,
(Arrows 6e),Figure
it can be observed
6e), it can be that
the calculation
observed ended closeended
that the calculation to theclose
displacements experimentally
to the displacements detected. As
experimentally the aimAs
detected. ofthe
theaim
Finite
Element Model (FEM) was the identification of the load path required to identify
of the Finite Element Model (FEM) was the identification of the load path required to identify the the consequent
strut-and-tie
consequent model, the
strut-and-tie analyses
model, were focused
the analyses were only on the
focused onlynonlinear behaviorbehavior
on the nonlinear up to theup
maximum
to the
applied applied
maximum load. Inload.
order to determine
In order the ascending
to determine branch
the ascending of the
branch load-displacement
of the load-displacement curves,
curves, load
controlled nonlinear analyses were conducted up to the predefined value
load controlled nonlinear analyses were conducted up to the predefined value of 84 kN. of 84 kN. Displacement-driven
nonlinear analysesnonlinear
Displacement-driven could alsoanalyses
be usedcould
to describe
also bethe post-peak
used behavior,
to describe with the
the post-peak consequent
behavior, withbig
the consequent big effort in terms of computational cost due to the difficulties of solving related
effort in terms of computational cost due to the difficulties of solving the numerical instabilities the
to softening, without any control on the results owing to the post-peak behavior being monitored
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2020,
Sci. 10,10,
2020, x FOR
x FOR
6727 PEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 8 of 1414
8 of

numerical
numericalinstabilities
instabilitiesrelated
relatedtotosoftening,
softening,without
withoutanyanycontrol
controlononthe
theresults
resultsowing
owingtotothe
thepost-peak
post-peak
during
behavior tests.
being As well,
monitoredthe unloading
during phase
tests. As of the
well, specimen,
the represented
unloading phase by
of the
the descending
specimen,
behavior being monitored during tests. As well, the unloading phase of the specimen, represented branches
represented in
the
bybytheexperimental
thedescending curves
descendingbranches in Figure
branchesininthe 7, was not
theexperimental simulated.
experimentalcurves
curvesininFigure
Figure7,7,was
wasnotnotsimulated.
simulated.

Figure
Figure7.7.
Figure 7.Experimental
Experimental(dashed)
Experimental (dashed)vs.
(dashed) vs.numerical
vs. numerical(continuous)
(continuous)displacements
(continuous) displacements.
displacements

OnOn
Onthethe basis
basisofof
thebasis the
ofthe comparison
thecomparison
comparisonbetween between experimental
betweenexperimental
experimentaland and numerical
andnumerical
numericaldata, data,
data,itit can
canbebe
itcan concluded
beconcluded
concluded
that
that the
thatthe model
modelisisisable
themodel able
abletoto represent
torepresent
representthe the actual
theactual behavior
behaviorofofthe
actualbehavior thetested
tested
testedspecimen;
specimen;
specimen; therefore,
therefore,
therefore, ititis
itispossible
ispossible
possibleto
toanalyze
analyze the
theinternal
internal stress
stress field
field totoidentify
identify the
to analyze the internal stress field to identify the load paths. load
the loadpaths.
paths.
Figures
Figures8 88and
Figures and
and9 99show
show
showthe the results
theresults obtained
resultsobtained
obtainedfor for an
foran applied
anapplied force
forceofof
appliedforce of5151
51kNkN (ultimate
kN(ultimate
(ultimatelimit limit state
limitstate
state
condition).
condition).
condition).TheTheupper
The upperpart
upper partofof
part ofthethe3D
the 3D
3D strut-and-tiemodel
strut-and-tie
strut-and-tie modelcan
model canbebe
can beconfirmed
confirmedbyby
confirmed bythethetypical
the typicalcone-shaped
typical cone-shaped
cone-shaped
crack
crack pattern
crackpattern triggered
triggeredbyby
patterntriggered the
bythe
theloadload transfer
loadtransfer mechanism
transfermechanism
mechanismfrom from
frombarsbars
barstoto the
tothe U-shaped
theU-shaped
U-shapedrebars, rebars,asas
rebars, already
asalready
already
discussed
discussed by Cattaneo,
discussedbybyCattaneo, S et al.
Cattaneo,S Setetal.al.[6]. [6]. The
[6].The highest
Thehighest tensile
highesttensile stresses
tensilestresses were
stresseswere reached
werereached
reachedcloseclose to
closetotothe the corbel–deck
thecorbel–deck
corbel–deck
connection
connection
connectionand and
andthethe ordinary
theordinary reinforcement
ordinaryreinforcement
reinforcementwas was mainly
wasmainly stressed
stressedinin
mainlystressed bending
inbending
bendingalong along
alongthe the deck
thedeck (under
deck(under
(under
constant
constant bending
constantbending moment,
bendingmoment,
moment,MM M ,
r,rrup up to
, uptotothethe first
thefirst vertical
firstvertical support),
verticalsupport), while
support),while
whilethethe stirrups
thestirrups under
stirrupsunder
underthe the
thesteelsteel plate
steelplate
plate
were
were stressed
werestressed
stressedduedue
duetoto the
tothe shear
theshear force.
shearforce.
force.

Figure
Figure8.8.
Figure Crack
8.Crack
Crack pattern
pattern
pattern fromdifferent
from
from differentviews.
different views.
views.
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 9 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

Figure 9. Distribution of stresses in the ordinary reinforcement.

Figure
Figure9.9.Distribution
Distributionof
ofstresses
stressesin
inthe
theordinary
ordinaryreinforcement.
reinforcement.
Figure 10 shows the principal compression stresses (P3) in a cross-section of the system, chosen
Figure
Figure1010shows
showsthe theprincipal
principalcompression
compressionstresses
stresses(P3)
(P3)ininaa cross-section
cross-section of of the
the system,
system, chosen
chosen
as the one cutting the two vertical threaded bars parallel to the applied load. This figure allows a
as
as the one cutting the two vertical threaded bars parallel to the applied load. This figure allows aa
the one cutting the two vertical threaded bars parallel to the applied load. This figure allows
better understanding of the stresses’ direction to validate the strut-and-tie model, especially its lower
better
betterunderstanding
understandingof ofthe
thestresses’
stresses’direction
directionto tovalidate
validatethethestrut-and-tie
strut-and-tiemodel,
model,especially
especiallyits itslower
lower
part. In Figure 10, to highlight the gradient of stresses, the scale of the colors has been modified. The
part.
part.InInFigure
Figure10,10,
toto
highlight
highlight thethe
gradient
gradientof stresses, the the
of stresses, scalescale
of theof colors has been
the colors modified.
has been The
modified.
red color represents tensile regions, with P3 ≅ 0, while the blue portion has principal compression
red color represents tensile regions, with P3 ≅ 0, while the blue portion has principal
The red color represents tensile regions, with P3  0, while the blue portion has principal compression compression
stresses higher than 7 MPa. Figure 10 shows that the flow of compression stresses undergoes two
stresses
stresses higher
higher than
than 77 MPa.
MPa. Figure
Figure10 10shows
showsthat thatthe
the flow
flow ofof compression
compression stresses
stresses undergoes
undergoes two two
main deviations in regions C and E. By means of equilibrium considerations, to obtain such
main deviations in regions C and E. By means of equilibrium considerations,
main deviations in regions C and E. By means of equilibrium considerations, to obtain such deviations, to obtain such
deviations, additional forces are needed in regions C and E. For region C, the necessary contribution
deviations, additional
additional forces forces are
are needed neededCinand
in regions regions
E. For C region
and E. C,Fortheregion C, thecontribution
necessary necessary contribution
is given by
is given by the upper reinforcement of the slab, while for region E, the reading is less defined due to
isthe
given
upperbyreinforcement
the upper reinforcement of the for
of the slab, while slab, whileE,for
region theregion
reading E, the reading
is less definedis less
due defined due to
to the presence
the presence of several elements (bars, U-shaped rebars, stirrups, tensile strength of the concrete, etc.),
the presence of several elements (bars, U-shaped rebars, stirrups, tensile strength
of several elements (bars, U-shaped rebars, stirrups, tensile strength of the concrete, etc.), which of the concrete, etc.),
can
which can affect the structural response.
which canstructural
affect the affect the response.
structural response.

Figure 10. Distribution of principal compression stresses in the considered section.

Figure 10. Distribution of principal compression stresses in the considered section.
Figure 10. Distribution of principal compression stresses in the considered section.
To verify the applicability of the results, a parametric analysis was conducted considering different
To verify the applicability of the results, a parametric analysis was conducted considering
To verify
boundary the applicability
conditions, geometries,ofand
themechanical
results, a properties.
parametric On
analysis was
the basis of conducted considering
the most relevant actual
different boundary conditions, geometries, and mechanical properties. On the basis of the most
different
cases, theboundary
following conditions, geometries,
most significant analysesand mechanical properties. On the basis of the most
are reported:
relevant actual cases, the following most significant analyses are reported:
relevant actual cases, the following most significant analyses are reported:
• Model with actual constraints: Substituting the two supports used to simulate the experimental
tests (Figure 6b) with a clamped edge that simulates the real bridge situation. This model showed
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 10 of 14

that the stress field around the anchorage group was not affected by these different boundary
conditions
Appl. (Figure
Sci. 2020, 10, 11).REVIEW
x FOR PEER 10 of 14
• Model with dense stirrups to verify if a lower spacing of the stirrups of the corbel affects the
• stress
Model with
field. Theactual constraints:
spacing Substituting
of the stirrups in the the
curbtwo supports
was chosen,used to simulate
according to thethe experimental
common practice
tests (Figure 6b) with a clamped edge that simulates the real bridge situation. This model showed
considering the low reinforcement case (200 mm), while in this model the spacing was reduced to
that the stress field around the anchorage group was not affected by these different boundary
100 mm, providing twice the area of stirrups. Consequently, only a limited decrease in the average
conditions (Figure 11).
stress of the stirrups was observed (of about 23%, Figure 12) but the overall stress distribution
within the corbel did not change (Figure 13c).
•Appl. No
Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR
U-shaped PEER REVIEW
rebars model: The U-shaped rebars were removed and the anchoring bars10inoftension
14

were shortened up to the cold joint to evaluate if the presence of the U-shaped rebars and the
• Model with actual constraints: Substituting the two supports used to simulate the experimental
bars in the region E (Figure 10) had an influence on the deviation of the stress field. This solution
tests (Figure 6b) with a clamped edge that simulates the real bridge situation. This model showed
obviously is not feasible because, in this case, the tension load cannot be properly transferred to
that the stress field around the anchorage group was not affected by these different boundary
the concrete of the underneath slab (Figure 13d).
conditions (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Actual constraints of the system and principal stresses of compression.

• Model with dense stirrups to verify if a lower spacing of the stirrups of the corbel affects the
stress field. The spacing of the stirrups in the curb was chosen, according to the common practice
considering the low reinforcement case (200 mm), while in this model the spacing was reduced
to 100 mm, providing twice the area of stirrups. Consequently, only a limited decrease in the
average stress of the stirrups was observed (of about 23%, Figure 12) but the overall stress
distribution within the corbel did not change (Figure 13c).
Figure11.
Figure Actualconstraints
11.Actual constraintsofof the
the system
system and
and principal
principal stresses
stresses of compression.
of compression.

• Model with dense stirrups to verify if a lower spacing of the stirrups of the corbel affects the
stress field. The spacing of the stirrups in the curb was chosen, according to the common practice
considering the low reinforcement case (200 mm), while in this model the spacing was reduced
to 100 mm, providing twice the area of stirrups. Consequently, only a limited decrease in the
average stress of the stirrups was observed (of about 23%, Figure 12) but the overall stress
distribution within the corbel did not change (Figure 13c).

Figure 12. Stresses in the upper portion of corbel stirrups, spacing 200 mm vs. 100 mm.
Figure 12. Stresses in the upper portion of corbel stirrups, spacing 200 mm vs. 100 mm.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 11 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

Figure 13. Summary

Figure13. Summary of
of results
resultsof
ofthe
theanalyzed
analyzedmodels
modelsin
interms
termsof
ofstress
stressdistribution.
distribution.

• The No comparison
U-shaped rebarsof themodel:
stress fields resulting rebars
The U-shaped from the numerical
were removed analyses,
and thewith respectbars
anchoring to the in
reference one, is shown in Figure 13. Although some slight effects due to bonding
tension were shortened up to the cold joint to evaluate if the presence of the U-shaped rebars are present,
no appreciable
and the bars changes can be Eobserved.
in the region (Figure 10) It had
is interesting
an influenceto observe that the of
on the deviation tensile stresses
the stress in This
field. the
transition region between deck and curb were unchanged. Thus, these stresses
solution obviously is not feasible because, in this case, the tension load cannot be properly are not related to
splitting forces generated by the U-shaped rebars. The
transferred to the concrete of the underneath slab (Figure 13d). transfer mechanism of the tension load
follows always the “cone” path and the compression under the plate close to edge has, in all cases,
the same
The inclination.
comparison of the stress fields resulting from the numerical analyses, with respect to the
According
reference one, is to shown
the numerical
in Figuremodels (Figure 13),
13. Although it appears
some slight that thedue
effects steeltoelements
bondinginside the corbel
are present, no
did not play a substantial role in deviating the compressive stress field of the region
appreciable changes can be observed. It is interesting to observe that the tensile stresses in the E (Figure 10), as it
istransition
shown inregion
Figure between
13a,b, compared to Figure 13c,d. Therefore, the concrete played
deck and curb were unchanged. Thus, these stresses are not related toa major role in the
corbel response.
splitting In the nextbymodels,
forces generated the geometry
the U-shaped rebars.and
Thethe properties
transfer of the concrete
mechanism were load
of the tension modified
followsto
look at their influences on the stress field.
always the “cone” path and the compression under the plate close to edge has, in all cases, the same
inclination.
• Short-corbel and long-corbel models, which are considered as possible geometry in practical
According to the numerical models (Figure 13), it appears that the steel elements inside the
applications. In these two models the geometry of the corbel was modified by decreasing the
corbel did not play a substantial role in deviating the compressive stress field of the region E (Figure
height of the curb from 40 cm to 35 cm (short-corbel model, Figure 13f) and by increasing the length
10), as it is shown in Figure 13a,b, compared to Figure 13c,d. Therefore, the concrete played a major
of the curb from 50 cm to 70 cm (long-corbel model, Figure 13e). The comparison of the principal
role in the corbel response. In the next models, the geometry and the properties of the concrete were
stress in compression fields (Figure 13e,f) allowed us to remark that, even if some modifications in
modified to look at their influences on the stress field.
the stresses occurred, the main flow of compression stresses remained substantially unchanged in
• terms
Short-corbel andand
of starting long-corbel models,
ending points which
(Figure 10,are considered
points C and E)aswhile
possible geometry
changing in practical
the geometry of
applications.
the curb. In these two models the geometry of the corbel was modified by decreasing the
• height of the
No-tension curb from model
constitutive 40 cm to 35 cm (short-corbel
(introduced model,
in the 1960s Figure 13f) and
by Zienkiewicz et al.by[34]):
increasing the
With the
length of the
assumption of curb from 50material”,
“no-tension cm to 70 the
cm concrete
(long-corbel model, Figure
is considered 13e).
without anyThe comparison
tensile strength.ofThis
the
principal stress in compression fields (Figure 13e,f) allowed us to remark that, even
model can help to understand the implications of the usual hypothesis of no-tension material and if some
modifications in the stresses occurred, the main flow of compression stresses remained
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 12 of 14

what is the role of concrete in this case. The stress fields for the same section passing through
the two bars, and for the section passing through the central, U-shaped rebar, are represented in
Figure 13g,h, respectively. In this case the stress field was strongly influenced by the anchorage
system since concrete could no longer bear tensile stresses. By comparing this model (Figure 13g,h)
with the previous ones (Figure 13a–f), it can be observed that the deviation of the stresses in region
E was due to the tensile strength of concrete. This model (Figure 13g,h) highlighted the main
role of the concrete tensile strength, usually not considered in the design phase. In defining the
strut-and-tie model, this contribution cannot be disregarded when dealing with nodal equilibrium.
In addition, the no-tension model did not highlight the stress concentration in the corbel/deck
transition section, which appeared as the highly stressed section in other models and where cracks
appeared during the experimental tests (Figure 2).

4. Conclusions
Safety barriers are usually installed on bridge corbels with a system composed of three
post-installed anchors, which is not verified when anchor design provisions are applied. To overcome
this problem a new solution with the addition of U-shaped rebars was proposed. This improved
connection showed an excellent structural response from experimental point of view and, in addition,
was supported by theoretical and numerical analyses. Indeed, with the strut-and-tie model it is possible
to evaluate the overall behavior of the corbel and it allows the designer to check quickly whether the
reinforcement in the structure is sufficient to carry the external loads or not.
The numerical analyses investigated several parameters to validate the applicability of the
strut-and-tie model and showed the global behavior of the concrete member: A dense reinforcement
and/or limited variations in the corbel geometry (height or length of the corbel) did not affect the
stress field.
The numerical models in which the tensile strength of the concrete was neglected did not meet
experimental evidence. Indeed, high stresses’ concentration close to the corbel/deck connection was
observed, suggesting that the tensile strength of the concrete plays a crucial role in this type of element
and cannot be neglected in a numerical simulation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.C.; methodology, S.C., L.B. and P.C.; software, S.C. and P.C.;
validation, S.C., L.B. and P.C.; formal analysis, S.C. and P.C.; investigation, S.C. and P.C.; data curation, S.C., L.B.
and P.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C., L.B. and P.C.; writing—review and editing, L.B.; visualization,
S.C., L.B. and P.C.; supervision, S.C. and L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Mirko Squillace of Hilti Italia S.p.A. and Roberto Piccinin
of Hilti AG for their technical support of this study, together with the technical staff of the Materials and
Structures Testing Laboratory of Politecnico di Milano (particularly, Daniele Spinelli) for their assistance during
the experimental work. Findings, opinions, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
those of the sponsoring organization.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. Liu, M.; Frangopol, D.M. Optimizing Bridge Network Maintenance Management under Uncertainty with
Conflicting Criteria: Life-Cycle Maintenance, Failure, and User Costs. J. Struc. Eng. 2006, 132, 1835–1845.
[CrossRef]
2. Yehia, S.; Abudayyeh, O.; Fazal, I.; Randolph, D. A decision support system for concrete bridge deck
maintenance. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2008, 39, 202–210. [CrossRef]
3. Wan-Wendner, R. Aging concrete structures: A review of mechanics and concepts. Die Bodenkult. J. Land
Manag. Food Environ. 2018, 69, 175–199. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 13 of 14

4. Cardinale, G.; Orlando, M. Structural evaluation and strengthening of a reinforced concrete bridge. J. Bridge.
Eng. ASCE 2004, 9, 35–42. [CrossRef]
5. Mitchell, G.; Strahota, M.T.; Gokani, V.; Picón, R.; Yang, S.; Klingner, R.E.; Williamson, E.B. Performance of
Retrofit Highway Barriers with Mechanical Anchors. ACI Struct. J. 2010, 107, 381–389.
6. Cattaneo, S.; Crespi, P. Response of connections between concrete corbels and safety barriers. Materials
2019, 12, 4103. [CrossRef]
7. Cattaneo, S.; Crespi, P.; Locatelli, A.; Rago, D. Safety Barriers for Bridges, Report Dept; ABC, Politecnico di
Milano: Milano, Italy, 2018.
8. Gesoglu, M.; Ozturan, T.; Ozel, M.; Guneyisi, E. Tensile behavior of post-installed anchors in plain and steel
fiber reinforced normal and high-strength concretes. ACI Struct. J. 2005, 102, 224–231.
9. Cattaneo, S. Wedge-type expansion anchors in high performance concrete. ACI Struct. J. 2007, 104, 191–198.
10. Gurbuz, T.; Ilki, A. Pullout performance of fully and partially bonded retrofit anchors in low strength
concrete. ACI Struct. J. 2011, 108, 61–70.
11. Delhomme, F.; Brun, M. Pullout Tests on Post-Installed Bonded Anchors in Ultra-High Performance Fiber
Reinforced Concrete. Struct. Eng. Int. 2019, 29, 1–8. [CrossRef]
12. Eligehausen, R.; Cook, R.A.; Appl, J. Behavior and design of adhesive bonded anchors. ACI Struct. J.
2006, 103, 822–831.
13. Cook, R.A.; Konz, R.C. Factors Influencing Bond Strength of Adhesive Anchors. ACI Struct. J. 2001, 98,
76–86.
14. Grosser, P.; Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. A field study of adhesive anchor installations. Concr. Int. 2011, 33,
57–63.
15. González, F.; Fernández, J.; Agranati, G.; Villanueva, P. Influence of construction conditions on strength of
post installed bonded anchors. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 165, 272–283. [CrossRef]
16. Cattaneo, S.; Locatelli, A.; Rago, D. Reliability of bonded anchors with different installation techniques:
Experimental assessment. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 20, 681–692. [CrossRef]
17. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). CEN/EN1992-1-1+AC. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures-Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
18. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary on
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14); ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2014.
19. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). CEN/EN1992-4. Eurocode 2-Design of Concrete Structures-Part
4: Design of Fastenings for Use in Concrete; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
20. Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.; Silva, J. Anchorage in Concrete Construction; Ernst&Sohn: Hamburg, Germany, 2006.
21. Charney, F.A.; Pal, K.; Silva, J. Recommended procedures for development and splicing of post-installed
bonded reinforcing bars in concrete structures. ACI Struct. J. 2013, 110, 437–446. [CrossRef]
22. Mahrenholtz, C.; Eligehausen, R.; Reinhardt, H. Design of post-installed reinforcing bars as end anchorage
or as bonded anchor. Eng. Struct. 2015, 100, 645–655. [CrossRef]
23. Kunz, J.; Hamad, B.S.; Al Hammoud, R. Evaluation of Bond Strength of Bonded-In or Post-Installed
Reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 2006, 103, 207–218. [CrossRef]
24. He, Z.; Liu, Z.; Wang, J.; Ma, Z. Development of Strut-and-Tie Models Using Load Path in Structural Concrete.
ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 146, 06020004. [CrossRef]
25. Cai, C.S. Three-Dimensional Strut-and-Tie Analysis for Footing Rehabilitation. Pract. Period. Struct.
Des. Constr. 2002, 7, 14–25. [CrossRef]
26. Xia, Y.; Langelaar, M.; Hendriks, M.A.N. Automated optimization-based generation and quantitative
evaluation of Strut-and-Tie models. Comput. Struct. 2020, 238, 106297. [CrossRef]
27. European Organisation for Technical Assessment (EOTA). EOTA/TR048. Details of Tests for Post-Installed
Fasteners in Concrete; EOTA: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
28. European Organisation for Technical Assessment (EOTA). EOTA/ETA 16/0143. Injection System Hilti HIT-RE
500 V3; EOTA: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
29. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti. Aggiornamento delle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (NTC2018);
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti: Roma, Italy, 2018.
30. Russo, G.; Venir, R.; Pauletta, M.; Somma, G. Reinforced Concrete Corbels—Shear Strength Model and design
Formula. ACI Struct. J. 2006, 103, 3–10.
31. Fib. Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010; Fib: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2013.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6727 14 of 14

32. MidasFEA. Analysis and Algorithm Manual; MidasFEA: South Korea, Seongnam, 2015.
33. Cattaneo, S.; Giussani, F. Shear behaviour of R.C. beams with water-stop joints. Eng. Struct. 2013, 56,
1775–1786. [CrossRef]
34. Zienkiewicz, O.C.; Valliappan, S.; King, I.P. Stress Analysis of Rock as a ‘No Tension’ Material. Géotechnique
1968, 18, 56–66. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).