See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340179730

Analysis of unsymmetrical reinforced concrete double corbels

Conference Paper  in  AIP Conference Proceedings · March 2020

DOI: 10.1063/5.0000051

CITATIONS READS

4 1,092

3 authors:

Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq Asala Asaad Dawood

University of Diyala University of Diyala
64 PUBLICATIONS   399 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ali Mustafa Jalil

University of Diyala
13 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Economic design View project

Corbels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq on 26 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Analysis of unsymmetrical reinforced
concrete double corbels
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020113 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000051
Published Online: 25 March 2020

Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq, Asala A. Dawood, and Ali Mustafa Jalil

AIP Conference Proceedings 2213, 020113 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000051 2213, 020113

© 2020 Author(s).
 Analysis of Unsymmetrical Reinforced Concrete Double
Corbels
Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaqa), Asala A. Dawoodb) and Ali Mustafa Jalilc)

University of Diyala/College of Engineering/Department of Civil Engineering, Iraq

a)
Corresponding author: dr.khattabsaleem@yahoo.com
b)
asalaasaad01@gmail.com
c)
eng.alimustafa91@gmail.com

Abstract. Unsymmetrical reinforced concrete double corbels have different shear spans (a) in each side. ACI 318-14
provisions allow the structural analysis and design of double corbels through either shear friction (SF) method or the
Strut-and-Tie modeling (STM). The current study presents analysis procedure using both SF and STM. Numerical
examples for analyzing unsymmetrical reinforced concrete double corbels with two different right to left shear span
ratios (ar/al = 3 and 2) are also presented here in detail. It is concluded that reducing ar/al from 3 to 2 increases capacity
by about 10.65% in case of SF, and 9.62% in case of STM. More specifically, in case of a r/al=2-3, capacity calculated
by SF exceeds that calculated by STM by about 23-24%. Finally, it is also concluded that the mode of failure dose not
be the same at the both corbel sides, but in any case, the weaker side is the one who reports the failure.

INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) double corbels, defined as short cantilevers project from columns in both opposite
sides and having a shear span-to-depth ratio, a/d, usually less than 1. They commonly are used to support precast
beams or girders. They are becoming a common feature in building construction with the increasing use of precast
concrete. Owing to their geometric proportions, corbels are commonly classified as a discontinuity region (D-
region), where the strain distribution over their cross section depth is nonlinear, even in the elastic stage [1].
The ACI 318-14 code [2] requires corbels having shear span-to-depth ratio, a/d, less than 2 to be anlyzed using
the strut-and-tie method. Whereas those with shear-to-span ratio less than 1, to be analyzed either using strut-and-
tie modeling or by shear-friction approach [3].
However, the shear-friction hypothesis has little correlation with the observed failure phenomenon of concrete
crushing in the diagonal strut [4]. Strut-and-tie models (STM) have been generally recognized as an acceptable
rational design approach for D-region members including deep beams and corbels [5-14].
The unsymmetrical corbel is used mainly for architectural necessities, or to support reinforced concrete beams
that are unequal in their length values. Based on that, this research takes into consideration analysing them. More
specifically, the two different spans always carry different values of concentrated forces that have different shear
spans, which totally give the same moment on the both sides of the corbel. With a constant d value, two ratios of
right to left shear spans ar/al are studied here; 3 and 2.

ANALYSIS OF UNSYMMETRICAL REINFORCED CONCRETE DOUBLE

CORBELS

Using Shear Friction method (SF)

In this method, concrete, main and secondary reinforcement resist shear, while main reinforcement resists
moments like in cantilever beams as well. That is why, failure modes according to SF are either main reinforcement
yielding, shear failure at the face of column, bearing failure, or failure through the line joining loading point and
the bottom of corbel where meets column, Fig. 1.

2nd International Conference on Materials Engineering & Science (IConMEAS 2019)

AIP Conf. Proc. 2213, 020113-1–020113-10; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000051
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1964-3/$30.00

020113-1
 FIGURE 1. Shear friction action of reinforced concrete corbel [2].

Numerical Example using SF, ar/al =3

The load carrying capacity of the reinforced concrete unsymmetrical double corbel shown in Fig. 2 projected
from 300*250 column can be found here. The corbel has a shear span to depth ratio (al/d) of 0.25 in the left side
and in the right side (ar/d) is 0.75. The height is 300 mm, the constant effective depth (d) is 260 mm, the width (b)
is 250 mm, the main reinforcement is 3Ø16 mm, secondary reinforcement is three stirrups of Ø8 mm with 58mm
spacing (s), concrete compressive strength f'c is 30 MPa, main reinforcing yielding strength fy is 420 MPa and the
width of bearing plate (Lb) is 90 mm.

FIGURE 2. Double Corbel with unsymmetrical shear span ar/al =3, all dimensions are in mm.

1. Checking the left side al/d = 0.25

1- Shear capacity that provided by overall dimensions, Vu is minimum of:

(a) For normal strength concrete, Vn is the minimum of the following values:
¾ 0.2* f'c *b*d = 0.2*30*250*260*10-3 = 390 kN
¾ (3.3+ 0.08 f'c) b*d = (3.3+0.08*30)*250*260*10-3 = 370.5 kN
¾ 11bd = 11*250*260*10-3 = 715 kN
The minimum value is Vn = 370.5 kN
2- Checking for bearing:
Vn = 0.85 f'c*b*Lb = 0.85*30*250*90*10-3 =573.75 kN
3-Finding load capacity from flexure reinforcement:
where:
ଵ଺మ గ
As = 3* = 603.2 mm2
ସ
஺௦ ଺଴ଷǤଶ
ߩ= = = 0.00928
௕ௗ ଶହ଴‫כ‬ଶ଺଴

020113-2
 ఘ‫כ‬௙௬‫כ‬ௗ ଴Ǥ଴଴ଽଶ଼‫כ‬ସଶ଴‫כ‬ଶ଺଴
ܿ= = = 39.74
଴Ǥ଼ହ‫כ‬௙ᇱ௖ ଴Ǥ଼ହ‫כ‬ଷହ
௖ ି଺ ଷଽǤ଻ସ
Mn = As*fy*(d- )*ͳͲ = 603.2*420*(260 - ሻ*ͳͲି଺ = 60.835 kN.m
ଶ ଶ
al = (al/d)*d = 0.25*260 = 65 mm
ெ௡ ଺଴Ǥ଼ଷହ
Vn = *ͳͲଷ = *ͳͲଷ = 935.923 kN
ୟ୪ ଺ହ
4-Finding the capacity of shear friction reinforcement:
଼మ గ
Ah = 2*3* = 301.6 mm2
ସ
Avf = As+Ah = 603.2+301.6 = 904.8 mm2
Vn = ߤAvf fy = 1.4*904.8*420*10-3 = 532 kN
The load capacity for left side of double corbel is the minimum value of Vn , which is 370.5 kN and the failure
mode is shear failure.

2. Checking the right side ar/d = 0.75

1- Shear capacity that provided by overall dimensions, Vu is minimum of:

(a) For normal strength concrete, Vn is the minimum of the following values:
¾ 0.2* f'c *b*d = 0.2*30*250*260*10-3 = 390 kN
¾ (3.3+ 0.08 f'c) b*d = (3.3+0.08*30)*250*260*10-3 = 370.5 kN
¾ 11bd = 11*250*260*10-3 = 715 kN
The minimum value is Vn = 370.5 kN
2- Checking for bearing:
Vn = 0.85 f'c*b*Lb = 0.85*30*250*90*10-3 =573.75 kN
3-Finding load capacity from flexure reinforcement:
where:
ଵ଺మ గ
As = 3* = 603.2 mm2
ସ
஺௦ ଺଴ଷǤଶ
ߩ= = = 0.00928
௕ௗ ଶହ଴‫כ‬ଶ଺଴
ఘ‫כ‬௙௬‫כ‬ௗ ଴Ǥ଴଴ଽଶ଼‫כ‬ସଶ଴‫כ‬ଶ଺଴
ܿ= = = 39.74
଴Ǥ଼ହ‫כ‬௙ᇱ௖ ଴Ǥ଼ହ‫כ‬ଷହ
௖ ି଺ ଷଽǤ଻ସ
Mn = As*fy*(d- )*ͳͲ = 603.2*420*(260 - ሻ*ͳͲି଺ = 60.835 kN.m
ଶ ଶ
ar = (ar/d)*d = 0.75*260 = 195 mm
ெ௡ ଺଴Ǥ଼ଷହ
Vn = *ͳͲଷ = *ͳͲଷ = 312 kN
ୟ୰ ଵଽହ
4-Finding the capacity of shear friction reinforcement:
଼మ గ
Ah = 2*3* = 301.6 mm2
ସ
Avf = As+Ah = 603.2+301.6 = 904.8 mm2
Vn = ߤAvf fy = 1.4*904.8*420*10-3 = 532 kN
The load capacity for the right side of double corbel is the minimum value of Vn , which is 312 kN and the
failure mode is yielding of main reinforcement.
It is seen that the left corbel, al/d=0.25, failed in shear with 370.5 kN capacity, while, the right corbel, ar/d=0.75,
failed in main reinforcement yielding with 312 kN capacity. Therefore, the capacity of this corbel is considered
312 kN.

Numerical Example using SF, ar/al = 2:

The load carrying capacity of the reinforced concrete double corbel shown in Fig. 3 projected from 300*250
column can be found here. The corbel shear span to depth ratio (al/d) is 0.33 in the left side and in the right side
(ar/d) is 0.67. The height (h) is 300 mm, the constant effective depth (d) is 260 mm, the width (b) is 250 mm, the
main reinforcement is 3Ø16 mm, secondary reinforcement is three stirrups of Ø8 mm with 58mm spacing (s), f'c
is 30 MPa, fy is 420 MPa and the width of bearing plate (Lb) is 90 mm.

020113-3
 FIGURE 3. Double Corbel with unsymmetrical shear span ar/al = 2, all dimensions are in mm.

Using shear friction method:

3. Checking the left side al/d = 0.33

1- Shear capacity that provided by overall dimensions, Vu is minimum of:

(a) For normal strength concrete, Vn is the minimum of the following values:
¾ 0.2* f'c *b*d = 0.2*30*250*260*10-3 = 390 kN
¾ (3.3+ 0.08 f'c) b*d = (3.3+0.08*30)*250*260*10-3 = 370.5 kN
¾ 11bd = 11*250*260*10-3 = 715 kN
The minimum value is Vn = 370.5 kN
2- Checking for bearing:
Vn = 0.85 f'c*b*Lb = 0.85*30*250*90*10-3 =573.75 kN
3-Find load capacity from flexure reinforcement:
where:
ଵ଺మ గ
As = 3* = 603.2 mm2
ସ
஺௦ ଺଴ଷǤଶ
ߩ= = = 0.00928
௕ௗ ଶହ଴‫כ‬ଶ଺଴
ఘ‫כ‬௙௬‫כ‬ௗ ଴Ǥ଴଴ଽଶ଼‫כ‬ସଶ଴‫כ‬ଶ଺଴
ܿ= = = 39.74
଴Ǥ଼ହ‫כ‬௙ᇱ௖ ଴Ǥ଼ହ‫כ‬ଷହ
௖ ି଺ ଷଽǤ଻ସ
Mn = As*fy*(d- )*ͳͲ = 603.2*420*(260 - ሻ*ͳͲି଺ = 60.835 kN.m
ଶ ଶ
al = (al/d)*d = 0.33*260 = 86.67 mm
ெ௡ ଺଴Ǥ଼ଷହ
Vn = *ͳͲଷ = *ͳͲଷ = 709 kN
ୟ୪ ଼ହǤ଼
4-Finding the capacity of shear friction reinforcement:
଼మ గ
Ah = 2*3* = 301.6 mm2
ସ
Avf = As+Ah = 603.2+301.6 = 904.8 mm2
Vn = ߤAvf fy = 1.4*904.8*420*10-3 = 532 kN
The load capacity for left side of double corbel is the minimum value of Vn , which is 370.5 kN and the failure
mode is shear failure.

4. Checking the right side ar/d = 0.67

1- Shear capacity that provided by overall dimensions, Vu is minimum of:

(a) For normal strength concrete, Vn is the minimum of the following values:
¾ 0.2* f'c *b*d = 0.2*30*250*260*10-3 = 390 kN
¾ (3.3+ 0.08 f'c) b*d = (3.3+0.08*30)*250*260*10-3 = 370.5 kN
¾ 11bd = 11*250*260*10-3 = 715 kN
The minimum value is Vn = 370.5 kN
2- Checking for bearing:
Vn = 0.85 f'c*b*Lb = 0.85*30*250*90*10-3 =573.75 kN

020113-4
3-Finding load capacity from flexure reinforcement:
where:
ଵ଺మ గ
As = 3* = 603.2 mm2
ସ
஺௦ ଺଴ଷǤଶ
ߩ= = = 0.00928
௕ௗ ଶହ଴‫כ‬ଶ଺଴
ఘ‫כ‬௙௬‫כ‬ௗ ଴Ǥ଴଴ଽଶ଼‫כ‬ସଶ଴‫כ‬ଶ଺଴
ܿ= = = 39.74
଴Ǥ଼ହ‫כ‬௙ᇱ௖ ଴Ǥ଼ହ‫כ‬ଷହ
௖ ି଺ ଷଽǤ଻ସ
Mn = As*fy*(d- )*ͳͲ = 603.2*420*(260 - ሻ*ͳͲି଺ = 60.835 kN.m
ଶ ଶ
ar = (ar/d)*d = 0.67*260 = 173.33 mm
ெ௡ ଺଴Ǥ଼ଷହ
Vn = *ͳͲଷ = *ͳͲଷ = 349.22 kN
ୟ୰ ଵ଻ସǤଶ
4-Finding the capacity of shear friction reinforcement:
଼మ గ
Ah = 2*3* = 301.6 mm2
ସ
Avf = As+Ah = 603.2+301.6 = 904.8 mm2
Vn = ߤAvf fy = 1.4*904.8*420*10-3 = 532 kN
The load capacity for right side of double corbel is the minimum value of Vn , which is 349.22 kN and the
failure mode is yielding of main reinforcement.
It is seen that when al/d=0.33, the left corbel fails in shear with 370.5 kN, while in the right side where ar/d=0.667,
the failure is main reinforcement yielding with 349.2 kN capacity. That is why, the capacity of the corbel is 349.2
kN.

Using Strut and Tie Modeling (STM)

In this approach, the stresses move from loading to supporting points through compressive struts and tensile
ties. Theses struts and ties are connected to each other by nodes [15-23]. Failures in STM are either failure in the
main reinforcing bars (tie failure), or failure of the concrete crush (strut failure). There is also a common type of
failure which is the failure of nodules, Fig. 4. In case of symmetrical corbel, the stresses move evenly through
struts, while the struts stresses become unequal when the corbel is unsymmetrical.

FIGURE 4. Strut and tie model in reinforced double corbel [21]

2-2-1 Numerical Example using STM, ar/al =3:

The same corbel mentioned above, Fig. 2, is reanalyzed using this time STM.

020113-5
 FIGURE 5. STM model of double Corbel with unsymmetrical shear span ar/al =3, all dimensions are in mm

5. Checking the left side al/d = 0.25

1- Finding node dimensions

wt = 2*(h-d) = 2*(300-260) = 80mm
ws = 0.8*wt = 0.8*80 = 64mm
jd = h-0.5*wt-0.5*ws = 300-0.5*80-0.5*64 = 228mm
௝ௗ ଶଶ଼
Ʌͳ = ‫ି݊ܽݐ‬ଵ ሺ ಽೞ ሻ = ‫ି݊ܽݐ‬ଵ ሺ వబ ሻ= 64.24°
௔௟ା ଺ହା
మ మ
wst =LbsinɅͳ+wt cosɅͳ = 90*sin64.24+80*cos64.24= 115.82 mm
wsb =Lssinθ1+ws cosθ1 = 90*sin64.24+64*cos64.24= 108.87 mm
2- Finding shear force at nodal zone A, CCT, Fig.5.
βs =0.8, fce = 0.85*0.8*30 = 20.4 MPa
VnL,A1= fce*Lb*b = 20.4 *90*250*10-3 = 459 kN
VnL,A2= fce*wt*b*tanθ1 = 20.4*80*250*tan64.24*10-3 = 845.673 kN
VnL,A3= fce*wst*b*sinθ1 = 20.4*115.82 *250*sin64.24*10-3 = 532.01 kN
3- Finding shear force at nodal zone B, CCC, Fig. 5.
βs = 1.0, fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*1*30 = 25.5 MPa
VnL,B1= fce*Ls*b = 25.5 *90*250 = 573.75 kN
VnL,B2= fce*ws*b*tanɅͳ = 25.5 *64*250*tan64.24*10-3 = 845.67 kN
VnL,B3=fce*wsb*b*sinɅͳ = 25.5 *108.87*250*sin64.24*10-3 = 625.09 kN
4- Finding shear force at Strut AB, bottle shaped.
Q = ∑(Ah/b*s)*sinɅͳ,
଼మ గ
Ah = 3*2* ൌ ͵ͲͳǤͷͻ
ସ
ଷ଴ଵǤହଽ
Q= *sin64.24= 0.0187
ଶହ଴‫כ‬ହ଼
since Q > 0.003, βs = 0.75
fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*0.75*30 = 19.125 MPa
weff = min(wst; wsb) = min(115.82; 108.87) =108.87 mm
VnL,AB =fce*weff*b*sinθ1 = 19.123 *108.87 *250*sin64.24*10-3 = 468.82 kN
4- Finding shear force at strut BC, prismatic shape.
βs = 1.0, fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*1*30 =25.5 MPa
VnL,B2= fce*ws*b*tanɅ1 = 25.5*64*250*tan64.24*10-3 = 845.67 kN
5- Finding shear force at Tie AD
FnL,AD = As fy = 603.2*420*10-3 = 253.344 kN
VnL,AD = Fn,AD *tanθ1 = 253.344*tan64.24*10-3 = 525.11 kN
VnL = min(VnL,B1; VnL,B2; VnL,B3; VnL,A1; VnL,A2; VnL,A3; VnL,AB; VnL,BC; VnL,AD)
VnL = 468.82 kN

020113-6
6. Checking the right side ar/d = 0.75

1- Finding node dimensions

wt = 2*(h-d) = 2*(300-260) = 80mm
ws = 0.8*wt = 0.8*80 = 64mm
jd = h-0.5*wt-0.5*ws = 300-0.5*80-0.5*64 = 228mm
௝ௗ ଶଶ଼
Ʌʹ = ‫ି݊ܽݐ‬ଵ ሺ ಽೞ ሻ = ‫ି݊ܽݐ‬ଵ ሺ వబ ሻ= 43.53°
௔௥ା ଵଽହା
మ మ
wst =LbsinɅʹ+wt cosɅʹ = 90*sin43.53+80*cos43.53 = 119.99 mm
wsb =Lssinθ2+ws cosθ2 = 90*sin43.53+64*cos43.53 = 108.39 mm
2- Find shear force at nodal zone D, CCT, Fig.5.
βs =0.8, fce = 0.85*0.8*30 = 20.4 MPa
VnR,D1= fce*Lb*b = 20.4 *90*250*10-3 = 459 kN
VnR,D2= fce*wt*b*tanθ2 = 20.4*80*250*tan43.53*10-3 = 387.6kN
VnR,D3= fce*wst*b*sinθ2 = 20.4*119.99 *250*sin43.53*10-3 = 421.47 kN
3- Find shear force at nodal zone C, CCC, Fig. 5.
βs = 1.0, fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*1*30 = 25.5 MPa
VnR,C1= fce*Ls*b = 25.5 *90*250 = 573.75 kN
VnR,C2= fce*ws*b*tanɅʹ = 25.5 *64*250*tan43.53*10-3 = 387.60 kN
VnR,C3=fce*wsb*b*sinɅʹ = 25.5 *108.39 *250*sin643.53*10-3 = 475.91 kN
4- Finding shear force at Strut CD, bottle shaped.
Q = ∑(Ah/b*s)*sinɅʹ,
଼మ గ
Ah = 3*2* ൌ ͵ͲͳǤͷͻ
ସ
ଷ଴ଵǤହଽ
Q= *sin43.53= 0.0143
ଶହ଴‫כ‬ହ଼
since Q > 0.003, βs = 0.75
fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*0.75*30 = 19.125 MPa
weff = min(wst; wsb) = min(119.99; 108.39) =108.39 mm
VnR,CD =fce*weff*b*sinθ2 = 19.123 *108.39 *250*sin43.53*10-3 = 356.93 kN
4- Finding shear force at strut BC, prismatic shape.
βs = 1.0, fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*1*30 =25.5 MPa
VnR,BC= fce*ws*b*tanɅ2 = 25.5*64*250*tan43.53*10-3 = 387.60 kN
5- Finding shear force at Tie AD
FnR,AD = As fy = 603.2*420*10-3 = 253.344 kN
VnR,AD = Fn,AD *tanθ2 = 253.344*tan43.53*10-3 = 240.68 kN
VnR = min(VnR,B1; VnR,B2; VnR,B3; VnR,A1; VnR,A2; VnR,A3; VnR,AB; VnR,BC; VnR,AD)
VnR = 240.68 kN

From the above calculations, the load carrying capacity is 240.68 kN and the failure mode is yielding of tie
reinforcement. It is seen that in the side of al/d=0.25, the capacity is 469 kN due to strut failure, while, the capacity
is 240 kN due to tie failure at ar/d=0.75. Therefore, the capacity of the corbel is 240 kN.

Numerical Example using STM, ar/al=2

The same corbel mentioned above, Fig. 3, is reanalyzed using STM.

020113-7
 FIGURE 6. STM model of double Corbel with unsymmetrical shear span ar/al = 2, all dimensions are in mm.

7. Checking the left side al/d = 0.33

1- Finding node dimensions

wt = 2*(h-d) = 2*(300-260) = 80 mm
ws = 0.8*wt = 0.8*80 = 64mm
jd = h-0.5*wt-0.5*ws = 300-0.5*80-0.5*64 = 228 mm
௝ௗ ଶଶ଼
Ʌͳ = ‫ି݊ܽݐ‬ଵ ሺ ಽೞ ሻ = ‫ି݊ܽݐ‬ଵ ሺ వబ ሻ= 60°
௔௟ା ଼଺Ǥ଺଻ା
మ మ
wst =LbsinɅͳ+wt cosɅͳ = 90*sin60+80*cos60= 117.94 mm
wsb =Lssinθ1+ws cosθ1 = 90*sin60+64*cos60= 109.94 mm
2- Finding shear force at nodal zone A, CCT, Fig.6.
βs =0.8, fce = 0.85*0.8*30 = 20.4 MPa
VnL,A1= fce*Lb*b = 20.4 *90*250*10-3 = 459 kN
VnL,A2= fce*wt*b*tanθ1 = 20.4*80*250*tan60*10-3 = 706.56 kN
VnL,A3= fce*wst*b*sinθ1 = 20.4*117.94 *250*sin60*10-3 = 520.91 kN
3- Finding shear force at nodal zone B, CCC, Fig. 6.
βs = 1.0, fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*1*30 = 25.5 MPa
VnL,B1= fce*Ls*b = 25.5 *90*250 = 573.75 kN
VnL,B2= fce*ws*b*tanɅͳ = 25.5 *64*250*tan60*10-3 = 706.56 kN
VnL,B3=fce*wsb*b*sinɅͳ = 25.5 *109.94 *250*sin60*10-3 = 606.96 kN
4- Finding shear force at Strut AB, bottle shaped.
Q = ∑(Ah/b*s)*sinɅͳ
଼మ గ
Ah = 3*2* ൌ ͵ͲͳǤͷͻ
ସ
ଷ଴ଵǤହଽ
Q= *sin60= 0.018
ଶହ଴‫כ‬ହ଼
since Q > 0.003, βs = 0.75
fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*0.75*30 = 19.125 MPa
weff = min(wst; wsb) = min(117.94; 109.94) = 109.94 mm
VnL,AB =fce*weff*b*sinθ1 = 19.123 *109.94 *250*sin60*10-3 = 455.22 kN
4- Finding shear force at strut BC, prismatic shape.
βs = 1.0, fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*1*30 =25.5 MPa
VnL,B2= fce*ws*b*tanɅ1 = 25.5*64*250*tan60*10-3 = 706.56 kN
5- Finding shear force at Tie AD
FnL,AD = As fy = 603.2*420*10-3 = 253.344 kN
VnL,AD = Fn,AD *tanθ1 = 253.344*tan60*10-3 = 438.73 kN
VnL = min(VnL,B1; VnL,B2; VnL,B3; VnL,A1; VnL,A2; VnL,A3; VnL,AB; VnL,BC; VnL,AD)
VnL = 438.73 kN

020113-8
From the above calculations, the load carrying capacity is 438.73 kN and the failure mode is yielding of tie
reinforcement.

8. Checking the right side ar/d = 0.67

1- Finding node dimensions

wt = 2*(h-d) = 2*(300-260) = 80 mm
ws = 0.8*wt = 0.8*80 = 64mm
jd = h-0.5*wt-0.5*ws = 300-0.5*80-0.5*64 = 228 mm
௝ௗ ଶଶ଼
Ʌʹ = ‫ି݊ܽݐ‬ଵ ሺ ಽೞ ሻ = ‫ି݊ܽݐ‬ଵ ሺ వబሻ= 46.24°
௔௥ା ଵ଻ଷǤଷଷା
మ మ
wst =LbsinɅʹ+wt cosɅʹ = 90*sin46.24+80*cos46.24 = 120.33 mm
wsb =Lssinθ2+ws cosθ2 = 90*sin46.24+64*cos46.24 = 109.27 mm
2- Finding shear force at nodal zone D, CCT, Fig.6.
βs =0.8, fce = 0.85*0.8*30 = 20.4 MPa
VnR,D1= fce*Lb*b = 20.4 *90*250*10-3 = 459 kN
VnR,D2= fce*wt*b*tanθ2 = 20.4*80*250*tan46.24*10-3 = 426.05 kN
VnR,D3= fce*wst*b*sinθ2 = 20.4*120.33*250*sin46.24*10-3 = 443.24 kN
3- Finding shear force at nodal zone C, CCC, Fig. 6.
βs = 1.0, fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*1*30 = 25.5 MPa
VnR,C1= fce*Ls*b = 25.5 *90*250 = 573.75 kN
VnR,C2= fce*ws*b*tanɅʹ = 25.5 *64*250*tan46.24*10-3 = 426.05 kN
VnR,C3=fce*wsb*b*sinɅʹ = 25.5 *109.27*250*sin46.24*10-3 = 503.09 kN
4- Finding shear force at Strut CD, bottle shaped.
Q = ∑(Ah/b*s)*sinɅʹ,
଼మ గ
Ah = 3*2* ൌ ͵ͲͳǤͷͻ
ସ
ଷ଴ଵǤହଽ
Q= *sin46.24 = 0.015
ଶହ଴‫כ‬ହ଼
since Q > 0.003, βs = 0.75
fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*0.75*30 = 19.125 MPa
weff = min(wst; wsb) = min(120.33; 109.27) = 109.27 mm
VnR,CD =fce*weff*b*sinθ2 = 19.123 * 109.27 *250*sin46.24*10-3 = 377.32 kN
4- Finding shear force at strut BC, prismatic shape.
βs = 1.0, fce = 0.85βs*f'c = 0.85*1*30 =25.5 MPa
VnR,BC= fce*ws*b*tanɅ2 = 25.5*64*250*tan46.24*10-3 = 426.05 kN
5- Finding shear force at Tie AD
FnR,AD = As fy = 603.2*420*10-3 = 253.344 kN
VnR,AD = Fn,AD *tanθ2 = 253.344*tan46.24*10-3 = 264.55 kN
VnR = min(VnR,B1; VnR,B2; VnR,B3; VnR,A1; VnR,A2; VnR,A3; VnR,AB; VnR,BC; VnR,AD)
VnR = 264.55 kN

From above calculations, the load carrying capacity is 264.55 kN and the failure mode is yielding of tie
reinforcement. Tie fails in case of al/d=0.33 with 438.7 kN capacity. In addition, when ar/d=0.75, the tie fails with
264.5 kN capacity. Therefore, the least value (264.5 kN) is the capacity of the corbel.

CONCLUSIONS
Through comparison between shear friction and strut and tie approaches, it can be concluded that:
1. When ar/al =2-3, capacity calculated using SF exceeds that of STM by about 23-24%. This difference happens
because STM is conservative due to its sudden failure tendency, which should be put faraway.
2. It is logically that both SF and STM give different capacities. They understand the corbel in two different ways.
More specifically, SF cares about friction and moment capacity, while STM cares about the compressive strength
of struts and nodes in addition to the tensile strength of the main reinforcement, i.e., regardless of moment roles.
3. When shear friction method is used, it is concluded that:

020113-9
 a) Shear resistance for both sides is approximately the same, because it depends on the section properties, more
specifically, the same section of concrete and steel exists on both sides, regardless of a/d ratio.
b) The tensile strength of the main reinforcing steel differs from one side to another, because the increase of the
shear span (let us call it force arm here) increases moment. Since the arms are not equal, this will reflect the values
of the moments. In other words, forces are unequal in values, but moments are equal.
c) There is no theoretical symmetrical failure, one of sides fails first, which leads to complete failure.
d) Increasing shear span increases the probability of ductile failure occurrence, i.e., avoiding brittle failure.
e) Decreasing ar/al from 3 to 2, increases capacity by about 10.65%.
4. When Strut and Tie Modeling is used, it is concluded that:
a) Due to the difference in strut-tie angle values due to asymmetry, the capacity of every strut and node of each
side differs.
b) Generally, the brittle strut failure happens in the shorter strut, otherwise ductile tie failure happens.
c) Due to asymmetry, one side fails before the other, but totally announces complete failure.
d) Decreasing ar/al from 3 to 2, increases capacity by about 9.26%.

REFERENCES
1. J. MacGregor, & J. Wight, “Reinforced concrete: Mechanics and design. Singapore: Prentice Hall and
Pearson Education South Asia” (2009).
2. American Concrete Institute and International Organization for Standardization. “Building code
requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14) and commentary” (2014).
3. A.H. Mattock, K. C. Chen and K. Soongswang, PCI Journal, 21, 52-77(1976).
4. S.J. Hwang, W.Y. Lu and H.J. Lee, Struct. J. 97, 543-552(2000).
5. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, A. A. Dawood, and A. H. Mohammed, “A Review of Previous Studies on the Reinforced
Concrete Corbels,” (2nd International Conference on Sustainable Engineering Techniques (ICSET, 2019),
pp. 022057.
6. A.A. Dawood, A. K. Kadhum and K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology (IJCIET), 9, 2274–2288(2018).
7. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, A. H. Abed and H. I. Ali, International Journal of Engineering, 5, (2016).
8. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, A. M. Jalil, and S. F. Jebur, “Behaviour of reinforced concrete deep beams in previous
studies,” 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Engineering Techniques (ICSET 2019), 518 (2019)
9. A.M. Jalil, M. J. Hamood, K. S Abdul-Razzaq and A. H. Mohammed, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology 9, 2752–2769( 2018).
10. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, and S. F. Jebur, Journal of Engineering and Sustainable Development, 21, 39-55 (2017).
11. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, S. F. Jebur, and A. H. Mohammed, International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research 13, 66-73 (2018).
12. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, and S. F. Jebur, “Suggesting alternatives for reinforced concrete deep beams by
reinforcing struts and ties,” In MATEC Web of Conferences EDP Sciences., (2017), pp. 01004.
13. S. El-Metwally, and W. F. Chen, “Structural Concrete: Strut-and-Tie Models for Unified Design,” CRC
Press, (2017).
14. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, S. F. Jebur, and A. H. Mohammed, Civil Engineering Journal 4, 937-948 (2018).
15. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, H. I. Ali, and M. M. Abdul-Kareem, International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research 12, 15935-15947 (2017).
16. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, and A. M. Jalil, “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Continuous Deep Beams-Literature
Review,” (In The Second Conference of Post Graduate Researches (CPGR'2017) College of Engineering,
Al-Nahrain Univ., Baghdad, Iraq, 2017). pp. 158-163.
17. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences 8, 116-133 (2015).
18. K. S Abdul-RazzaqA. M., Jalil, and A. H. Mohammed, International Journal of Engineering & Technology
(IJET) 7, 251-258(2018).
19. K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, and M. A. Farhood, “Design and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Pile Caps: A
Literature Review,” International Journal of Engineering Research and science & Technology, 6 (2017).
20. T. K. Mohammedali, A. M. Jalil, K. S. Abdul-Razzaq, and A. H. Mohammed, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 2, 2227–2239 (2019).
21. W. Kassem, International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 9, 255 (2015).

020113-10
View publication stats