SESOC Journal

I
DESIGN OF OPENING CORNERS BETWEEN
REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS
AND SLABS
BY: RICHARD FENWICK1AND BRUCE DEAM2
ABSTRACT

Some commonly used detailing for opening comers between walls or walls andslabs results in strengths
which are less than the theoretical strengths of the members meeting at the comer. This paper shows
how these comers can be designed and detailed, using diagonal bars, to achieve satisfactory
performance. Some details, which do notperfom satisfactorily, are describedanda method of assessing
the ultimate strength of comers reinforced with U bars that overlap in the comer is given. The paper
may also be of interest to designers who use the strut and tie method as it outlines actions that should
be considered in such an analysis.

such joint zones. In addition a method is given of assessing

This paper was prompted by the suggested reinforcement details
shown for an opening comer between a base slab and aretaining
wall, in Fig. 1 on page 56 of the April 2002 SESOC Journal [I].
The suggestion was that the reinforcement should consist of
U bars, which overlap in the comers. Tests have shown that
this arrangementof reinforcement generally leads to reasonable
structural performance where small diameter bars are used, the
cover dimension is small compared with the thickness of the
wall or slab and the reinforcement content is low. However, in
many practical situations the use of this reinforcement
arrangement can result in structural details, which will have
ultimate strengths that are appreciably smaller than the
theoretical strength of the members framing into the comers.
Research has shown that a more efficient detail can be used
over the practical range of reinforcement contents and slab
dimensions. In this paper the way in which opening comers
act is described and recommendations are made for detailing
the strength that can be obtained when the reinforcement
consists of overlapping U bars in an opening comer between
walls or a wall and a slab.
Several series of tests [2 to 81 have been carried out to assess
the strength of opening comers with different forms of detailing
under unidirectional loading. Three of these forms are shown
in Figure 1. Part (a) shows reinforcement details in which L
shaped reinforcing bars are used. This detail gives
unsatisfactory performance and it should be avoided. In part
(b) the detail recommended in reference 1 is shown. This
arrangement of reinforcement, consisting of overlapping U bars
in the comer, has been extensively used. The test results
show that in many cases the ultimate strength obtained with
this detailing is of the order of 75 percent the theoretical
flexural strength of the individual wall and slab members.
However, in some cases this value can be appreciably smaller.

(a]L bars (bjU t m s (c)U boa Mth diagonal

Figure 1. Reinforcement details in opening corners

PAPER CLASS & TYPE: RESEARCH REFEREED
' Visitor at University of Canterbury
V n i v e r s i t y of Canterbury

28 Journal of the Shuctural Engineering Society New Zealand (Inc.)

SESOC Journal

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Reinforcement proportion (pf,lf,)

figure 2. Test results sbowiog variation of efficiency of comers with U and L bars

force leading to potential

diagoml crack in corner

Figure 3. Diagonal cracking in corner of joint

An alternative detail is to bend each flexural tension bar in loop
round the comer so that it was in the tension zones of the
members at the faces of the joint zone but passed through the
compression zone in the comer. This arrangement has a
performance that is very similar to that obtained with
overlapping U bars. However, placing this reinforcement is
considerably more difficult than the alternative of using
overlapping U bars. Consequently it is not recommended.
The detail showninFigure I (c) generally performs satisfactorily,
and it is recommended for use with all opening comers between
walls or walls and slabs. Usually with this detailing ultimate
strengths of the order of 95 percent of the theoretical values
can he obtained. Many other details have been tested.
However, most of these are either unrealistically complex to
construct or perform poorly. Consequently they have not been
described in this paper.
Figure 2 shows test results, which have been taken from the
literature [2 to 81, for opening comers reinforced by L shaped
bars (as in Figure l(a) and by overlapping U shaped bars (as in
Figure 1 (b)). The efficiency of the joint is defined as the
measured ultimate strength, MbSt?of the comer divided by the
strength that would be achieved if the theoretical flexural
strength, M , of the weaker of the members meeting in the comer
had been attained. The theoretical strengths were calculated
using the measured reinforcement yield and concrete cylinder
strengths. That is the efficiency is equal to MJM,. This
value is plotted against the product of the proportion of flexural
tension reinforcement multiplied by its yield strength and
divided by the strength of the concrete (pf;ff). This ratio is
referred to as the material ratio. It should be noted that this
value is proportional to the depth of the neutral axis at flexural
failure. It can be seen that the L shaped bar reinforcement
detail is unsatisfactory over the range of practical reinforcement
contents, with strengths (efficiency) varying between 50 and
15 percent of the theoretical flexural strength. The efficiency
of the comers with the overlapping U bars varies between 90
and 30 percent of the theoretical strength, with the lower values
occuning with the higher steel contents.

Volume 16 No. 1 April 2003 29

 SESOC Journal

-----------
Centroid of
compression
face

SECION 1 lhrough pointA Shut and t i i model for mt zone

Figure 4. Strut and tie model for corner reinforced with U bars

From an analysis of 53 mainly small scale opening comers
Megget [9] indicated that the strength of the comer was limited
by the diagonal tensile stress in the concrete. On this basis the
full theoretical strength of a comer reinforced with overlapping
U bars could only be obtained if the ratio pfjdff was less than
0.5. With L shaped bars the corresponding ratio was about 0.3.
h this paper a different approach is followed in which it is
assumed that the failure occurs primarily in flexure, with the
flexural strength being assessed from a strut and tie model.
comer, as is the case illustrated in Figure 1 (a), the formation of
adiagonal crackdue to this tension, can lead to failure. However,
if failure does not occur, which is generally the case if
reinforcement is bent into the comer, as shown in Figure 1 @),
the stmt and tie mechanism shown in Figure 4 can be sustained.
At a point, such as "A" shown in the figure, the resultants of
three forces meet to sustain equilibrium. The distance down to
this intersection point from the upper surface of the concrete is
made up of the sum of:.

2.0 STRUCTURAL ACTIONS IN OPENING CORNERS The distance, c, between the top surface of the member
WITH 9O0 ENCLOSED ANGLES and the centre of the reinforcing bars;

The forces acting on an opening comer prior to the formation * A distance equal to half the effective depth of the stress
of a diagonal crack are shown in Figure 3. The flexural block in the concrete. For simplicity this is taken as a/2,
compression force tracks round the comer generating diagonal where "a" defmes the depth of the stress block as calculated
tension, as illustrated. If there is no reinforcement bent into the for flexure at ultimate conditions;

Theoretical strength proportion (I,ljd)

Figure 5. Comparison of predicted and measured strengths

30 Journal of the Smctural Engineering Society New Zealand (Inc.)

SESOC Journal

Figure 6. Strutand tie model for corner with diagonal reinforcement

A distance to allow the tension force in the reinforcement
to be anchored into the concrete. Tais distance is taken as
a multiple of the diameter of the reinforcement,ad,.
Hence with allowance for these distances the effective internal
lever arm,la, of the flexural forces at the face of the comer is
given by:-
1, = d - (c + a12 + adb) (1)
As the theoretical strength of the slab or wall approaching the
joint zone is equal to the yield tension force times the internal
lever ann, jd, it follows that the theoretical efficiency is given
by the ratio of IJjd. The value of jd is given by:-
(2)
hence the theoretical efficiency can be found for a given cld
ratio and pfy/fCratio if the value of CL4 is known. Figure 5
shows this theoretical efficiency compares with the experimen-
tally determined efficiency, M _ p 1from test results. In this
figure the value of a was taken as 1.75.
With this value the average measured ultimate strength divided
by the theoretical strength for the 16 tests in which the U bars
used, is 1.09 and the standard deviation is 0.12. ~h~ 1.09
is reasonable given that inthe calculation of the theoretical
srrength, the increase in sh.ength due to strain hardening
-
was neglected. It can also be seen that the arrangement with L
bars performs unsatisfactorily.

1.5

=
1
-
z
X
0

-m
E

EW' 0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5

Proportion of diagonal reinforcement (A,,,,IA,)

Figure 7. Influenceof proportionof diagonal reinforcementon strength

Volume 16 No. 1 A p d 2003 31

 SESOC Journal
3.0 CORNERS WITH DIAGONAL BARS
With the addition of diagonal reinforcement the mode of
resistance changes in two respects. Firstly, the critical section
for flexure moves away from the comer by a short distance and
this reduces the stress levels in the concrete at the comer.
Secondly the tension force resisted by the diagonal
reinforcement reacts with the flexural compression forces and
pulls them towards the centreline of the wall or slab near the
comer. This action increases the development length for the
flexural reinforcement in the comer. The resultant strut and tie
model is shown in Figure 6. An analysis of test results shows
that the increase in strength due to the addition of diagonal
reinforcement can be appreciably greater than the increase in
flexural strength due to that reinforcement alone.
Figure 7 shows how increasing the proportion of diagonal
reinforcementincreases the strength of the comer. In this figure
the increase in the theoretical flexural strength of the wall or
slab close to the comer due to the diagonal reinforcement is
neglected. It can be seen that there is no appreciable increase
in strength when the diagonal reinforcement content times its
yield stress is in excess of 35 percent of the flexural tension
reinforcement times the corresponding yield stress in the weaker
of either of the members meeting at the comer. The test results
also indicate that increasing the size of the fillet does improve
the performance but the effect is relatively small.
A difficult situation can arise in the anchorage of the diagonal
bar into the compression zones of the members forming the
comer. The situation is illustratedin Figure 8. This is particularly
critical where the diagonal reinforcement is anchored either
Centroid of
compression
- Section -1 - 1
\ Diigonalbar
from corner
Figure 8. Anchorage of diagonal bar
32
low in the compression zone or below it. This occurs where the
ratio of the cover distance to the centroid of the flexural tension
reinforcement, c, to the neutral axis depth is high. In this
situation to maintain equilibrium, a tensile force is induced in
the concrete between the diagonal bar and the flexural
compression force, as illustrated in the figure. If the tensile
stresses are sufficiently high the concrete will split and there
will be a premature anchorage failure of the diagonal
reinforcement. To prevent such a premature tensile failure:
The cover distance for the diagonal bar should be kept as
small as practical;
Where a high proportion of longitudinal reinforcement is
used, the diagonal reinforcement should be kept to the
minimum required area of 35 percent;
* Small diameter diagonal bars at close centres should be
used in preference to large diameter bars at a wider spacing.
Johansson [8] recommends against the use of diagonal bars.
However, he bases this on the observation that the diagonals
do not increase the strength when allowance is made for the
increase in theoretical strength found allowing for the
longitudinal component of the diagonal on the flexural strength.
It should be noted that this increase in strength is very local
and is only significant for a distance of about 0.3 times the
effective depth along the member measured from the face of
the joint zone. If his test results are analysed neglecting the
theoretical veq local increase in flexural strength due to the
diagonal reinforcement, the test results are consistent (and
included in this paper) with the results from other investigators.
concrete
Joumal of the Structural Eneeering Society New Zealand (Inc.)
SESOC Journal
Figure 9. Splitting of concrete in plane of U bars
4.0 SPLITTING OF CONCRETE J
NU BAR CORNERS
As illustratedin Figure 9 high flexural tension in the main bars
can generate high radial compression forces in the concrete.
These forces increase with the size of the bar and the stress in
the bar. They reduce as the radius of the bend in the bar is
increased. There is little danger of crushing the concrete against
the bar owing to the high level of confinement. However, as
shown in the figure the radial compression generates tensile
forces, which tend to split the concrete. There are two ways of
ensuring that a premature tensile failure of the concrete does
not occur. The first is to use the greatest radius of bend that is
practical and the second is to place transverse bars in the comers
of the U bars. This reinforcement restrains the opening of any
splitting cracks that may develop. For these reasons it is
recommended that:-
* The radius of bend on the U bars should exceed the
minimum permissible value given in the concrete code for
the bar subjected to its design yield stress; and
3 transverse bars are placed in the comers of the U bars as
illustratedin Figures 1 (b)& (c).
5.0 INFLUENCE OF CORNER ANGLE ON EFFICIENCY
OF JOINT ZONE
The test results shown in Figures 2, 5 and 7 were for tests on
90" corners. Abdul-Wahab and Salman [7] showed that
changing the angle influenced the efficiency. They tested a
series of comers with and without diagonal reinforcement in
whicb the enclosed angle was varied over the range of 60" to
180". The 180" case was a straight beam. The enclosed angles,
orjunction in the case of the straight member, were reinforced
Volume 16 No. 1 April 2003
Potential crack
Convex
/'G%Es
.Tension in
concrete
I
SECTION 1 - 1
with overlapping U bars as illustrated in Figure 1 @). The
reinforcement proportion for these tests was on the low side,
with pfy/fcapproximately equal to 0.1 in all cases. In addition
the ratio of the cover dimension, c, to the effective depth, cld,
was high at 0.3. With these tests it was found that the efficiency
was greatest for the 60"and 180"members andleast for the 120"
member. From the repoaed results, which indicate an efficiency
of 1.65 for one test, it is clear that the reinforcementhad high
strain hardening characteristics. In the tests with diagonal
reinforcement the strength of the 120" test unit was about 82
percent of the value obtained for the 90° unit. In the tests
without diagonal bars the corresponding ratio was about 85
percent. The observed differences in strength with angle may
not arise where a lower cld ratio is used.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONSFORDESIGNOF OPENING
CORNERS
(a) Determine the areas of flexural tension reinforcement
required in the walls, or wall and slab, at both faces of the
comer and determine the corresponding size and spacing
of the reinforcement.
@) The reinforcement found in step (a) should be detailed
using U bars, which lap in the comer zone as illustrated in
Figure 1 @). The reinforcement on the compression side
of the member should extend for a distance not less than
either of the member depth or 12 bar diameters from the
inside face of the comer.
(c) A minimum of three longitudinal bars should be placed in
the reinforcementcomers as shown in Figure1 @)toassist
with the anchorage of the U bars and restrain potential
splitting cracks generated in the plane of U each bar.
33
 SESOCJournal

(d) Decide on the size of the fillet on the inside comer. A
minimum size is required to ease the removal of the
shuttering. A larger size leads to a small improvement in
performance.
5.
(el Place diagonal reinforcement in the comer as shown in
Figure 1 (c). The area of this reinforcementtimes the yield
strength should be approximately equal to the 35 percent
of the smaller areaof flexural tension reinforcementin either
of the members intersecting in the comer. Tbe size of bars
that are used should he smaller than the diameter of the
principal flexural reinforcement, Where either:.
1.
a high proportion of longitudinal reinforcement is
used; or
diagonal reinforcement should he talcen as 35 percent of
the area of longitudinal flexural tension reinforcement in
the weakest member meeting at the joint.
Diagonal bars should be smaller than the diameter of the
main reinforcement to improve their anchorageconditions.
The use of large diameter diagonal bars, or a high
proportion of diagonal reinforcement, may lead to
premature failure.
Forrest, E J., "SESOC/soils program available for down
load from the SESOC web site", SESOC Journal, No. 1,
Vol. 15, April 2002, pp. 54-59.

where the ratio of the cover distance between the 2. Swann, RA., "FlexuraJ strength of corners of reinforced
centroid of the reinforcement and the effective depth concrete portal frames", Technical Report TRA434,
is high; Cement and Concrete Association, UK, 1969.

the ratio of the diagonal reinforcement to flexural tension 3.
reinforcement in an adjoining member should he kept
close to 0.35.
(0 The spacing of the diagonal bars should be comparable to
that of the principal reinforcement in the walls or slab.
4.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
1. The efficiency of an opening comer detail depends on the
detailing of the reinforcement.
5.
2 The use of L shaped bars should be avoided as they
generally result in failure loads that are well below the
theoretical flexural strengths of the intersecting members.
6.
3. Where U shaped bars, which overlap in the comer, are
used the strength can be estimated by the method outlined
in section 2.0. It is found that strength efficiencyof comers
detailed in this manner reduces as-
7.
* The size of bar is increased
The ratio of the cover distance measured to the centre
of the bar divided by the effective depth increases
8.
As the material reinforcement ratio, pf jfy,increases.
4. For new construction it is recommended that diagonal
reinforcement should be used in opening comers together 9.
with overlapping U bars. The cross-sectional of the
Mayfield, B, Kong,F,Bennison,A, Julian, C D andDavies,
T., "Comerjoint details in light weight concrete", Journal
ofAmericcanConcreteInstitute,No.5, Vol. 68, May 1971,
pp. 366-372.
Balint, P A and Taylor, H P J, "Reinforcing detailing of
frame comer joints with particular reference to opening
corners", Technical Report No. 42.462, Cement and
Concrete Association,UK, 1972.
Nilsson, I H E., "Reinforced concrete comers subjected
to bending moment", Document D7, National Swedish
Building Research, 1973.
Bari, A A., "Reinforced concrete comers subject to
opening bending moments", Project report for M. E.,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auckland,
1989, p. 86.
Ahdul-Wahab, H. M. S. and Salman, S. A. R., "Effect of
comer angle on efficiency of reinforced concrete joints
under opening bending moment", ACI Structural Joumal,
Vol. 96,No. 1,JanFeb. 1999, pp. 115-121.
Johansson, M., "Reinforcement detailing in concrete frame
comers", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 1, JanIFeh.
2001, pp. 105-115.
Megget, L. M., "Strength of small reinforced concrete
beam-column knee joints under opening moments", ASCE
Conference Proceedings, Sydney, Sept. 1994, pp. 1125-
1131.

34 Journal of the ShuchlralEngineering Society New Zealand (Inc.)