Computers and Concrete, Vol. 28, No.

5 (2021) 507-519
https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2021.28.5.507 507

Crack pattern and failure mode prediction of SFRC corbels:

Experimental and numerical study
Mehmet Eren Gulsan1, Abdulkadir Cevik1a and Sarwar Hasan Mohmmad1,2b
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Gaziantep University, University Avenue, 27310, Gaziantep, Turkey
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Sulaimani Polytechnic University, Sulaimani, Iraq

(Received October 16, 2020, Revised November 14, 2021, Accepted November 16, 2021)

Abstract. In this study, a new procedure was proposed in order to predict the crack pattern and failure mode of steel fiber
reinforced concrete (SFRC) corbels. Moreover, an experimental study was carried out in order to investigate the effect of several
parameters, such as compressive strength, tensile strength, steel fiber ratio, shear span on the mechanical behavior of SFRC
corbels in detail. Totally, 24 RC and SFRC corbels were prepared for the experimental study. Experimental results indicate that
each investigated parameter has noticeable effect on the load capacity and failure mode of SFRC corbels. Moreover, finite
element (FE) model of the tested corbels were prepared and efficiency of FE model was investigated for further studies.
Comparison of FE and experimental results show that there is an acceptable fit between them regarding load capacity and crack
patterns. Thereafter, parametric study was carried out via FE analyses in order to obtain a methodology for crack pattern and
failure mode prediction of SFRC corbels. As a result of parametric studies, a new procedure was proposed as flowcharts in order
to predict the failure mode of SFRC corbels for normal and high strength concrete class separately.
Keywords: corbels; crack pattern; failure mode; FE modeling; steel fiber reinforced concrete

1. Introduction ductility of corbels. However, corbels reinforced with steel

The use of precast reinforced concrete elements for the
construction of buildings and bridges has become more
common during the last decades. Corbels are an example of
such structural elements and they are used to transfer loads
from beams or slabs to columns or walls. Investigations
regarding practical construction of the corbels have led the
researchers to treatment of steel fiber reinforced concrete
(SFRC) in the corbels as secondary reinforcement.
The addition of steel fibers has a much more noticeable
effect on the tensile behavior of the composite. In typical
fiber volume contents the material exhibits strain-softening
behavior; however, the degradation in load-carrying
capacity is slower than that of plain concrete. This results in
the composite having greater ductility and energy
absorption capabilities than plain concrete (Deluce 2011).
Due to considerable advantages of SFRC, several
researchers investigate the mechanical behavior of SFRC
corbels. Fattuhi (1987) has indicated that concrete corbels
reinforced with main tension bars and steel fibers were of
comparable strength to corbels reinforced with main tension
bars and stirrups. Several studies were also implemented by
Fattuhi and Hughes in order to investigate the mechanical
behavior of SFRC corbels and they found that the addition
of fibers or stirrups improved the load carrying capacity and
Corresponding author, Associate Professor
E-mail: gulsan@gantep.edu.tr
a
Professor
b
Ph.D. Candidate
fibers failed in the most gradual and ductile manner
(Hughes and Fattuhi 1989a, b, c., Fattuhi 1990a, b, Fattuhi
1994a, b, c). Moreover, other researchers made several
analytical and experimental investigations to investigate the
mechanical behavior of RC and SFRC corbels (Campione et
al. 2007, 2009a, 2009b., Ridha et al. 2017, Khosravikia et
al. 2018, Zin et al. 2019, Saleh et al. 2019). Several models
were proposed by Kurtoglu et al. (2017), Parol et al. (2018),
Mustafa et al. (2019) and Beshara et al. (2020) in order to
predict the load capacity of RC and SFRC corbels. Gulsan
(2015), Gulsan et al. (2015) and Strauss et al. (2006)
carried out probabilistic and reliability analyses regarding
SFRC corbels. Furthermore, it was revealed in recent
studies that SFRC corbels can be rehabilitated and
strengthened via FRP sheets and/or steel threaded rods
(Gulsan et al. 2018, Gulsan and Shaikhan 2018).
Even though several studies were implemented
regarding SFRC corbels, crack patterns and failure modes
of them have not been investigated in detail. Moreover,
additional experimental works are required in literature in
order to understand the mechanical behavior of SFRC
corbels in detail. The aim of this study is to make
contribution to literature via experimental studies and to
clarify the effects of each parameter on the mechanical
behavior of SFRC corbels in detail. Furthermore, a new
method was proposed in order to predict the crack pattern
and failure mode of SFRC corbels for both normal strength
and high strength concrete class.
2. Experimental study

Copyright © 2021 Techno-Press, Ltd.

http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=cac&subpage=8 ISSN: 1598-8198 (Print), 1598-818X (Online)
508 Mehmet Eren Gulsan, Abdulkadir Cevik and Sarwar Hasan Mohmmad

Table 1 Ingredient amounts for the production of 1 m3 corbels.

concrete (50 MPa and 30 MPa)
Coarse Fine Agg. Cement w/c Steel Fiber
Water (kg)
Agg. (kg) (kg) (kg) ratio (kg)
190 (50 MPa) 0.48 78.4 (1%)
1110 600 400
220 (30 MPa) 0.55 117.6 (1.5%)
For the experimental part of the study, 24 corbels were
prepared. Various parameters were changed to observe the
mechanical behavior of related corbels. Variables were
compressive strength, reinforcement ratio, steel fiber ratio
and shear span to effective depth ratio.
Two values were considered for cubic compressive
strength of corbels which were nearly 30 MPa and 50 MPa.
Two reinforcement ratios whose values are 0.838% (2-𝜑10)
and 1.206% (2-𝜑12) were used. For steel fiber ratio, three
values were considered: No steel fiber (0%), 1% and 1.5%
steel fiber ratios (as volumetric). Selected shear span to
effective depth ratio values were 0.8 and 1.04. Therefore,
shear span to total height ratios were calculated as 0.67 and
0.867. Slightly different reinforcement ratio and shear span
to height ratio values were selected as compared to previous
experimental studies, since expansion of available database
in literature with new values of these parameters is more
useful regarding the prediction of failure mode of SFRC
2.1 Mix design for RC and SFRC
For the concrete mix design, coarse aggregate (crushed
gravel and maximum size is 10 mm), fine aggregate (fine
sand and size interval is 0-4 mm), cement and water, whose
weight ratios are 2.78:1.5:1:0.48, respectively, were used
for the concrete class of 50 MPa. For the production of the
other concrete class (fcu is 30 MPa), same ingredients and
same weight ratios were used, except water/cement ratio
(w/c=0.55). Hooked end type steel fibers (ZP 305 type of
Bekaert-Dramix steel fibers) were used for the preparation
of SFRC corbels. The length and diameter of the steel fiber
is 30 mm and 0.55 mm, respectively (aspect ratio is 54.5).
Since steel fiber reduces the workability of the concrete,
superplasticizer was added to mix with an amount of 0.45%
of the cement weight. Amounts of ingredients are given for
1 m3 concrete in Table 1.
2.2 Designation of corbel specimens
Name designation of the samples which were prepared
represents the cubic compressive strength (MPa), second
term represents steel fiber ratio (volumetric %), third term
stands for the diameter of the main reinforcement (mm) and

Table 2 Experimental results of corbel specimens

Cylin. Comp. Split. Tensile Eff. Depth (d)* Reinfor. Ratio Ultimate load per
No Name
Stren. (fc) (MPa) Stren. (ft) (MPa) (mm) (𝜌%) corbel (kN) (%inc.)**
1 50-0-10-100 39 2.8 122 0.858 65.91
2 50-0-10-130 39 2.8 123 0.851 55.52
3 50-0-12-100 38.5 2.8 124 1.216 68.06
4 50-0-12-130 38.5 2.8 128 1.178 57.65
5 50-1-10-100 40 3.7 120 0.873 110.58 (%67.77)
6 50-1-10-130 40 3.7 124 0.845 78.8 (%41.93)
7 50-1-12-100 38 3.6 122 1.236 121.78 (%78.93)
8 50-1-12-130 38 3.6 122 1.236 89.18 (%54.69)
9 50-1.5-10-100 42.5 4.5 123 0.851 125.13 (%89.85)
10 50-1.5-10-130 42.5 4.5 125 0.838 86.59 (%55.96)
11 50-1.5-12-100 42.5 4.2 124 1.216 127.54 (%87.39)
12 50-1.5-12-130 42.5 4.2 125 1.206 89.13 (%54.61)
13 30-0-10-100 24 1.9 124 0.845 57.22
14 30-0-10-130 24 1.9 123 0.851 37.57
15 30-0-12-100 25 2 124 1.216 63.53
16 30-0-12-130 25 2 125 1.206 48.65
17 30-1-10-100 22.3 2.5 124 0.851 71 (%24.08)
18 30-1-10-130 22.3 2.5 124 0.851 52.6 (%40.01)
19 30-1-12-100 22.3 2.3 124 1.216 73.4 (%15.54)
20 30-1-12-130 22.3 2.3 127 1.187 56.15 (%15.42)
21 30-1.5-10-100 25.5 3.1 122 0.858 79.67 (%39.23)
22 30-1.5-10-130 25.5 3.1 123 0.851 58.35 (%55.31)
23 30-1.5-12-100 25.5 3.1 127 1.187 87.01 (%36.96)
24 30-1.5-12-130 25.5 3.1 124 1.216 59.79 (%22.90)
*Effective depth was measured from the center of main reinforcement to the bottom of corbels and average of the two depths is stated
for each specimen.
**Amounts of increase are stated with respect to the corresponding same specimens without fiber.
 Crack pattern and failure mode prediction of SFRC corbels: Experimental and numerical study 509

Fig. 1 Geometric and reinforcement details of corbel Fig. 2 Load-displacement curves for the specimens
specimens containing 2-𝜑10 mm diameter (Span=100 mm)

the last one stands for the shear span of corbel (mm). For
instance, cubic compressive strength of the specimen whose
name is 50-1-10-100 is 50 MPa, this specimen contains 1%
steel fiber and 2-𝜑10 mm steel bar as main reinforcement
and the shear span of this specimen is 100 mm.

2.3 Testing procedure

Corbels were tested with a 500 kN capacity loading

frame. Corresponding samples were also tested to measure
the compressive strength and tensile strength. Compressive
strength and tensile strengths were tested in a 2000 kN Fig. 3 Load-displacement curves for the specimens
capacity concrete press machine. Geometric details and containing 2-𝜑12 mm diameter (Span=100 mm)
reinforcement configuration of experimented corbels are
shown in Fig. 1. The thickness of the corbels was 150 mm.
Load was transferred from the loading frame to the corbel
by the 15 mm thickness loading plate. Loading plate was
produced from a transmission steel to transfer the load
effectively. While one of the roller supports allows to
rotation in the transverse direction, the other is not.
Corbel loading tests were carried out as displacement
controlled mode. Therefore, post-peak behavior of corbels
could be observed and load-displacement curve could be
obtained. Corbels were loaded monotonically. The loading
rate of corbels was 0.3 mm/minute.

Fig. 4 Load-Disp. Curves for the specimens whose

3. Experimental results Comp. St. is 30 MPa and span is 130 mm (ρ=0.85%)

Results of load carrying capacities of experimented

corbels are listed in Table 2. Values of tensile strengths (ft),
cylindrical compressive strengths (fc), effective depth (d)
and reinforcement ratio (As/bh) are also listed in the same
table. Resulting crack patterns of corbels at failure load are
shown in Appendix A (Table A1).
strength becomes higher as the fiber percentage increases
for the same compressive strength. As a result, compressive
strength of concrete is effective on the load carrying
capacity of corbels. However, its effect is also connected
with tensile strength of the concrete.

3.1 Effect of the compressive strength of the concrete 3.2 Effect of steel fiber ratio

Load carrying capacities of RC and SFRC corbels
increase with the increment in the compressive strength of
the concrete (Figs. 2 and 3). This increment is also
indirectly related with increment of tensile strength with the
compressive strength. However, it is also important to note
that the rate of increment is increased when the steel fiber
percentage increases, since the rate of increment of tensile
Effect of steel fiber percentage (vf%) is directly related
with splitting tensile strength of concrete. Since, the steel
fiber percentage increases the tensile strength of the
concrete, the increment in the load carrying capacity of
corbels can be observed clearly (Figs. 4 and 5). The
increment in the capacity is pronounced more for a
specimen without steel fiber as compared to the same
510 Mehmet Eren Gulsan, Abdulkadir Cevik and Sarwar Hasan Mohmmad
Fig. 5 Load-disp. curves for the specimens whose
Comp. St. is 30 MPa and span is 130 mm (ρ=1.21%)
Fig. 6 Load-disp. curves for the specimens whose
Comp. St. is 50 MPa and span is 130 mm
specimen with steel fiber. However, a general conclusion
can be made that the load carrying capacity of a corbel
increases with steel fiber percentage increment.
Another important advantage of addition of steel fiber is
that it increases the ductility of corbels significantly. It is
can be observed clearly from Fig. 4 that transition from the
reinforced concrete corbel to steel fiber reinforced concrete
corbel under same conditions increases the deformation
capability of related corbels without a dramatic loss in the
load carrying capacity. This is a desirable mechanical
behavior for a structural element, since ductility is
considerable phenomena to provide safety, serviceability
and functionality of a structural element.
The increase in the load carrying capacity of SFRC
corbels becomes smaller as the steel fiber percentage
increases (Figs. 4 and 5). This situation can be explained
with the sudden increment in the tensile strength and
ductility of the concrete, when the steel fiber is added to
plain concrete.
3.3 Effect of steel reinforcement ratio
Steel reinforcement ratio is not as much effective as
compressive strength and steel fiber percentage on load
carrying capacity of SFRC corbels (Figs. 6 and 7).
However, steel reinforcement ratio is very significant
parameter about ductility and failure trend of steel fiber
reinforced concrete corbels.
For higher compressive strengths (fcu=50 MPa), no
ductility can be achieved with high reinforcement ratios.
For instance, if Figs. 6 and 7 are examined in detail, when
12 mm bars are used as main reinforcement; concrete
Fig. 7 Load-disp. curves for the specimens whose
Comp. St. is 50 MPa and span is 100 mm
failure exists before yielding of the reinforcement.
Therefore, failure is sudden, but not brittle because of steel
fibers. On the other hand, for lower reinforcement ratios
(for example, when 10 mm steel bars are used), a ductile
behavior can be observed.
Ductility effect becomes more apparent in the case of
corbels produced from lower compressive strength
concrete. This situation can be explained by crushing of
concrete. For high compressive strength concrete corbels,
the fibers lose their fiber bridging effect up to concrete
crushing occurs. However, for low compressive strength
corbels, since crack width is much smaller, the fibers can
exhibit the bridging effect and therefore, ductile behavior is
achieved or sudden failure is prevented.
3.3 Effect of shear span
As expected, load carrying capacities of both reinforced
concrete and steel fiber reinforced concrete corbels decrease
as the shear span is increased. However, this rule is valid
for effective depth values which are close to each other.
Even if the shear span is same, the load carrying capacity
can show different trends depending on effective depth
values, since the tension and compression zones are
changed by the alteration of effective depth. This topic was
discussed by Fattuhi (1994a). Therefore, a designer has to
be careful during the determination of shear span and has to
consider the effective depth of the corbel.
4. Finite element modelling
Effective software, called as ATENA, was used for
finite element modeling of RC and SFRC corbels. Elastic
perfectly plastic (bilinear) model was used for
reinforcement modeling. Steel plates were modeled by the
use of three dimensional elastic isotropic material model to
prevent premature failure of the corbels. Effective concrete
material model provided by the software (ATENA), called
as “3D Nonlinear Cementitious 2”, was used to model the
concrete material behavior. To reflect the effect of fibers, a
small modified version of “3D Nonlinear Cementitious2”,
called as “CC3DNonlinCementitious2SHCC” was used by
ATENA-GiD. All parameters stated to both models are
same, except properties of fibers (volume fraction, diameter
etc.) can be specified to latter one. Perfect connection
 Crack pattern and failure mode prediction of SFRC corbels: Experimental and numerical study
Fig. 8 Geometric and reinforcement details of corbel
specimens
between the reinforcement and concrete material was
assumed for analyses. Smeared crack approach and fixed
crack model were selected for nonlinear finite element
analyses of the corbels. Finite element model and
reinforcement configuration of a typical corbel are shown in
Fig. 8.
Half of the system was modeled to save time and disc
space. Therefore, symmetry surface of the corbel was
restrained to prevent translation and rotation along this
surface. The plate on the corbel was restrained in vertical
direction and also restrained in the direction along the
corbel width to prevent the rigid body motion along this
direction. Loading scheme of FE solution was achieved as
upside down configurations. That is, initial displacement
(0.1 mm) is given to the bottom surface of the column in
upward direction and it was increased step by step as
0.1mm. Displacement values were recorded from bottom
surface of column part and support reactions were obtained
from the middle of the steel plate on the corbel (Fig. 8).
Perfect connection was assumed between steel plate and
the corbel on the contact surface. On the contact surface of
the plate and corbel, master element and slave element was
selected by the software automatically to achieve mesh
consistency. The software selects the element which has
rougher meshes as master element and regulates the element
type of corbel and plate accordingly. Therefore, mesh
compatibility was achieved by the mesh generator of the
software. Newton-Raphson method was used as solution
algorithm.
4.1 Finite element results
In previous study, Gulsan et al. (2015) showed the
efficiency of FE modeling via modeling the SFRC corbels
experimented by Fattuhi and Hughes. A table showing the
relationship between experimental and FE modeling result
were given in that study. This table has been updated in
Table A2 by the addition of FE modeling results of the
SFRC corbels which was experimented for this study.
According to FE results listed in Table A2, ultimate load
capacities of SFRC corbels calculated by nonlinear finite
element analysis (VNLFEA) were observed to very close to
experimental results (Vexp). Mean, standard deviation,
coefficient of variation and coefficient of correlation of
VNLFEA/Vexp were calculated as 1.036, 0.048, 0.047 and
0.974 respectively. These results prove the accuracy of
511
Fig. 9 Comparison of crack pattern for 50-0-12-130
Fig. 10 Comparison of crack pattern for 50-1.5-10-100
Fig. 11 Comparison of crack pattern for 30-1.5-12-130
nonlinear finite element analyses of considered corbels.
Additionally, crack patterns of FE models at ultimate load
were compared with the experimental results which were
observed to be very similar to each other. In Figs. 9-11,
comparison of crack patterns between FE analyses and
experimental results are shown.
5. Parametric study for crack patterns
In order to bring in objectivity to the study, nineteen
SFRC corbels, which had been experimented by Fattuhi and
Hughes in several studies (1989-1994), were considered for
parametric study. Their properties are also given in Table
A2. For the parametric study, FE model was validated and
significant parameters were specified firstly, then the study
is based on the validated FE model, like the idea in the
study of Deifalla et al. (2020a, 2020b). As a result of finite
element analyses, reinforcement ratios, steel fiber volume
ratios (indirectly tensile strengths) and shear span to
effective depth ratios (a/d) are observed as the most
important parameters which influence the ultimate load
carrying capacity of SFRC corbels.
Therefore, these parameters were selected for parametric
study. For main reinforcement 2-φ 8 mm, 2-φ 10 mm, 2-φ
12 mm and 3-φ 12 mm reinforcement bars were used,
which corresponds to 0.516%, 0.806%, 1.16% and 1.74% as
reinforcement ratio (As/bd), respectively. Shear span values
were selected as 89 mm, 110 mm and 125 mm which
corresponds to 0.685, 0.846 and 0.962 as a/d ratio,
respectively. Considered steel fiber volume ratio values are
512 Mehmet Eren Gulsan, Abdulkadir Cevik and Sarwar Hasan Mohmmad
(a) Corbel 35 (b) Corbel 35 (c) Corbel 35
(a/d=0.685) (a/d=0.846) (a/d=0.962)
Fig. 12 Crack pattern of corbel 35 under same
reinforcement ratio (1.579%) and same fiber percentage
(0.7%) with different span ratios
0.7%, 1.4% and 2.1%. Since fiber volume ratio influences
the tensile strength significantly, tensile strength values
were also altered correspondingly. Tensile strength values
were obtained from the corresponding studies. The high and
normal strength concrete was considered for the parametric
study. For high strength concrete the compressive strength
is between 55 and 65 MPa, while the strength is between 25
and 35 MPa for normal strength concrete.
5.1 Parametric study results
As a result of parametric study which was carried out
via FE analysis, the following results were obtained for
SFRC corbels:
• For high tensile strength corbels (fct is above or nearly
6 MPa), if reinforcement ratio drops to 0.516% or smaller
values, only flexural cracks occur in corresponding corbels.
The failure is not brittle, but in sudden manner.
• For low and normal tensile strength SFRC corbels (fct
is below 6 MPa) whose reinforcement ratio reduces to
0.516% or smaller values (e.g. 2-φ 8 mm) and a/d ratio is
0.846 or higher value, both flexural and shear cracks are
observed, but flexural cracks are predominant. Therefore, if
this rule and the rule stated above are considered, it can be
said that the SFRC corbel fails certainly in flexural manner
for almost all a/d ratio and possible steel fiber percentages
as the reinforcement ratio drops to 0.516% or lower values.
• For normal and high strength corbels, provided that
reinforcement ratios are above 0.516% (e.g., 2-φ 10 mm)
and steel fiber ratios are up to 1.4%, both flexural and
diagonal cracks form for almost all applicable a/d ratios.
However, as the reinforcement ratio is increased to 1.16%
and higher values, flexural cracks start to lose their
prepotency, especially in large a/d ratios (Fig. 12), since the
main reinforcement does not reach the yield strength even
in the bottom side of corbel-column junction.
• Increase of steel fiber ratio not only influence the
tensile strength of concrete and load carrying capacity of
corbels, but also affect the crack width of SFRC corbels.
Even if the failure type and crack patterns are same, crack
widths measured at failure becomes smaller, as steel fiber
amount is increased.
• The shear span is not effective as much as
reinforcement ratio regarding crack pattern of SFRC
corbels. However, they influence the crack width at failure
and ultimate load carrying capacity of SFRC corbels. In
(a) Corbel T5 (b) Corbel T5 (c) Corbel T5
(𝑣𝑓 =0.7%) (𝑣𝑓 =1.4%) (𝑣𝑓 =2.1%)
Fig. 13 Crack pattern of corbel T5 under same
reinforcement ratio (1.16%) and same a/d ratio (0.846) with
different amount of steel fibers
(a) Corbel 24 (b) Corbel 24 (c) Corbel 24
(vf=0.7%) rein. (vf=1.4%) rein. (vf=2.1%) rein.
ratio=1.16% ratio=1.16% ratio=0.806%
Fig. 14 Crack pattern of corbel 24 under Same a/d Ratio
(0.962)
general, the crack width at ultimate and failure loads is
smaller for the corbels whose shear spans are higher.
• For a/d ratio smaller than 0.96, increase of steel fiber
volume decreases the diagonal cracks significantly. Flexural
cracks become more predominant.
• If tensile strength of concrete is very high (higher than
9 MPa), flexural cracks are predominant even if a/d ratio is
higher and reinforcement ratio is above 0.516%. However,
both diagonal shear and flexural cracks can form by the
alteration of steel fiber and reinforcement ratio. For
instance, decreasing the steel fiber percentage (that is,
decreasing the tensile strength for the same concrete) and
increasing the reinforcement ratio above 0.516% leads to
both flexural and shear cracks in the corbel as stated in the
third rule of this section (Fig. 13).
• For a/d ratios larger than or equal to 0.96, effect of
increase of steel fiber content depends on the reinforcement
ratio and resulting tensile strength. If reinforcement ratio is
higher than or equal to 1.16% (e.g., 2-φ 12), diagonal cracks
do not disappear even if volume fraction of the fiber
increases. However, diagonal cracks are converted to
flexural cracks when reinforcement ratio decreases below
1.16% and resulted tensile strength is higher than or equal
to 6 MPa for lower compressive strength concrete corbels
(Fig. 14).
5.2 Failure and crack pattern prediction for sfrc
corbels
According to results of the parametric study
implemented for crack patterns and failure modes, the
experimental results gathered from the literature and the
 Crack pattern and failure mode prediction of SFRC corbels: Experimental and numerical study
Fig. 15 Prediction of failure mode of SFRC Corbels for fcu
>35 MPa
Fig. 16 Prediction of Failure Mode of SFRC Corbels for
fcu≤35 MPa
experimental results obtained in this study, inferences were
made about failure mode and crack pattern of SFRC
corbels. These inferences are corresponding to S420 class
steel reinforcement, whose yield strength value is at least
420 MPa, because it is the most frequently selected
reinforcement class in the reinforced concrete and precast
construction sector. The predicted failure modes are
expressed in Figs. 15 and 16 as flowcharts. Flowcharts are
based on the results stated above by taking cubic
compressive strength (fcu), splitting tensile strength (ft) steel
fiber ratio (vf), reinforcement ratio (𝜌) and shear span to
effective depth ratio (a/d) into account. Failure modes of all
corbels stated in Table A2 and modeled for parametric
study were examined in order to establish these flowcharts.
Moreover, it should be noted that the flowchart is valid for
normal and high strength concretes, for reinforcement ratio
until 1.74% and for a/d ratio until 1.04. Regarding SFRC
corbels produced from ultra-high strength concrete, further
experimental and numerical study are required.
6. Prediction of load capacity of SFRC corbels
In order to predict the strength of SFRC members
several efficient regression techniques can be used, for
instance the multivariable regression method was preferred
in the study of Deifalla et al. (2021). In this section, the
symbolic regression technique based equation, which is
type of multivariable regression, is proposed by Gulsan
(2015) for the load capacity of SFRC corbels and this
equation is compared with avaliable two equations
proposed by Fattuhi and Hughes (1989c) and Fattuhi
(1990b). The proposed equation by Gulsan (2015) can be
expressed as follows
𝑑 𝐴𝑠
𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑝1 = 38.54𝑏ℎ( )0.8321 (𝑓𝑡 )0.415 (0.01( ))0.6 (1)
𝑎 𝑏ℎ
The equation proposed by Fattuhi and Hughes (1989c)
is as follows
𝑎 he or she has to be careful about selection of class of
𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑝2 = √𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑏ℎ(1000𝜌)0.57[0.443-0.319( )] (2)
ℎ values as well as steel fiber percentage amount.
and the equation proposed by Fattuhi (1990b) is
513
𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑝3
𝑎 𝑓𝑦 𝑑 (3)
= 57.292𝑏ℎ(𝑓𝑡 )0.315 ( )-0.812 ( )-0.049 ( )0.678 (𝜌)0.626
ℎ 𝑓𝑐𝑢 ℎ
In these equations, fcu and fct are cubic compressive
strength and splitting tensile strength of the concrete,
respectively, a, b, d and h are shear span, width, effective
depth and height of SFRC corbels, respectively. Moreover,
fy, As and 𝜌 are yield strength, cross sectional area and
reinforcement ratio of main reinforcement, respectively.
Ultimate load capacities of all corbels stated in Table
A.2 were calculated with respect to these three equations
and comparison of predicted results and experimental
results are given also in the same table.
According to the comparisons, it can be concluded that
the equations proposed by Gulsan (2015) and Fattuhi
(1990b) exhibit better fit as compared to the equation
proposed by Fattuhi and Hughes (1989c). The lower
accuracy of the equation proposed by Fattuhi and Hughes
(1989c) can be attributed to constants in the equation, since
as it was stated in Fattuhi and Hughes (1989c), constants in
the equation are valid for SFRC corbels whose steel fiber
ratio is up to 0.7%.
7. Conclusions
In this study, experimental and numerical studies were
carried out regarding steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC)
corbels. 24 RC and SFRC corbels were tested in order to
investigate the mechanical properties of them in detail.
Moreover, finite element (FE) modeling of tested SFRC
corbels was achieved. As a result of acceptable fit between
experimental and FE results, a parametric study was
implemented based on FE analyses. Furthermore, failure
prediction methodology was proposed for steel fiber
reinforced normal and high strength concrete corbels as a
result of the parametric study. Following conclusions can be
drawn as a result of the study
• Experimental studies show that steel fiber reinforced
concrete retards the failure of the corbel effectively.
Moreover, the degradation in load carrying capacity of
SFRC corbel is slower than that of reinforced concrete
corbel. That is, the corbel fails completely in larger
displacements. As a result, steel fiber is one of the most
effective and inexpensive solution to prevent sudden and
brittle failure in reinforced concrete corbels.
• Use of steel fibers in reinforced concrete corbels leads
to considerable advantages. The most apparent benefits
are to satisfy ductile behavior and to increase the load
carrying capacity. These outputs prove that steel fibers
can be used as secondary reinforcement instead of
horizontal stirrups. However, use of steel fibers does not
guarantee ductile behavior since this behavior is also
dependent on shear span, reinforcement ratio and
compressive strength of concrete. Therefore, if a
designer designs steel fiber reinforced concrete corbel,
concrete, diameter of main reinforcement and shear span
• Another advantage of use of steel fiber in the corbel is
514 Mehmet Eren Gulsan, Abdulkadir Cevik and Sarwar Hasan Mohmmad
about the crack widths. Crack widths of steel fiber
reinforced concrete corbels are much smaller as
compared to corbels without steel fiber. Reduction in
crack widths leads to longer service life of corbels.
Moreover, it facilitates effective and successful
repairing operation in the case of a possible
rehabilitation process.
• Experimental results carried out on SFRC corbels
show that compressive strength, tensile strength, steel
fiber amount, reinforcement ratio and shear span are
effective parameters on the load carrying capacities of
SFRC corbels. Load carrying capacity and failure mode
of SFRC corbel can be regulated by altering of these
parameters.
• Compressive strength increases the load carrying
capacity of SFRC corbels. However, a designer has to
be careful for selection of concrete class to achieve
ductility in the corbel. For example, for lower
compressive strength corbels fiber bridging effect is
provided earlier as compared to higher compressive
strength corbels. Therefore, ductility can be achieved,
even if in large reinforcement ratios (1.16%). While a
designer should select lower reinforcement ratios
(smaller than 1.16%) to achieve ductility for high
compressive strength corbels.
• Whenever steel fiber amount increases, the load
carrying capacity of SFRC corbels increases. However,
the rate of increase decreases as the fiber amount
becomes higher and higher.
• FE based modeling is an effective tool in order to
predict the mechanical behavior of SFRC corbels. A
good correlation was obtained between experimental
and FE results regarding both load capacity and crack
patterns of SFRC corbels. Mean, standard deviation,
coefficient of variation and coefficient of correlation of
VNLFEA/Vexp were calculated as 1.036. 0.048. 0.047 and
0.974 respectively.
• When load capacity, crack width and ductility are
taken into consideration simultaneously, it can be
concluded that SFRC corbels, whose steel fiber ratio is
higher than 1%, reinforcement ratio is lower than 1.2%
and shear span to effective depth ratio is greater than
0.8, exhibit the best performance.
• The proposed crack pattern and failure prediction
methodology helps researchers and engineers in order to
predict the mechanical behavior of SFRC corbels
beforehand. By this methodology the required
strengthening measures can be taken correctly and
economically, therefore service life of them can be
extended effectively.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Gaziantep University
Scientific Research Projects Unit. (Project Code and Name:
MF.12.13-Modeling of Inelastic Behavior of Structures by
Soft Computing Techniques).
References
Beshara, F.B.A., Mustafa, T.S., Mahmoud, A.A. and Khalil,
M.M.A. (2020), “Constitutive models for nonlinear analysis of
SFRC corbels”, J. Build. Eng., 28, 101092.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101092.
Campione, G. (2009a), “Flexural response of FRC corbels”,
Cement Concrete Compos., 31(3), 204-210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.01.006.
Campione, G. (2009b), “Performance of steel fibrous reinforced
concrete corbels subjected to vertical and horizontal loads”, J.
Struct. Eng., 135(5), 519-529.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:5(519).
Campione, G., Mendola, L.L. and Mangiavillano, M.L. (2007).
“Steel fiber-reinforced concrete corbels: Experimental behavior
and shear strength prediction”, ACI Struct. J., 104(5), 570-579.
Deifalla, A., Awad, A., Seleem, H. and Abdelrahman, A. (2020a),
“Investigating the behavior of lightweight foamed concrete T-
beams under torsion, shear and flexure”, Eng. Struct., 219,
110741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110741.
Deifalla, A., Awad, A., Seleem, H. and Abdelrahman, A. (2020b),
“Experimental and numerical investigation of the behavior of
LWFC L-girders under combined torsion”, Struct., 26, 362-377.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.03.070.
Deifalla, A.F., Zapris, A.G. and Chalioris, C.E. (2021),
“Multivariable regression strength model for steel fiber-
reinforced concrete beams under torsion”, Mater., 14(14), 3889.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14143889.
Deluce, J.R. (2011), “Cracking behaviour of steel fibre reinforced
concrete containing conventional steel reinforcement”, M.Sc.
Dissertation of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Toronto.
http://hdl.handle.net/1807/29523.
Fattuhi, N.I. (1987), “SFRC corbel tests”, ACI Struct. J., 84(2),
119-123.
Fattuhi, N.I. (1990a), “Column-load effect on reinforced concrete
corbels”, J. Struct. Eng., 116(1), 188-197.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:1(188).
Fattuhi, N.I. (1990b), “Strength of SFRC corbels subjected to
vertical load”, J. Struct. Eng., 116(3), 701-718.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:3(701).
Fattuhi, N.I. (1994a), “Strength of FRC corbels in flexure”, J.
Struct. Eng., 120(2), 360-377.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:2(360).
Fattuhi, N.I. (1994b), “Reinforced corbels with plain and fibrous
concretes”, ACI Struct. J., 91(5), 530-536.
Fattuhi, N.I. (1994c), “Reinforced corbels made with high strength
concrete and various secondary reinforcements”, ACI Struct. J.,
91(4), 376-383.
Fattuhi, N.I. and Hughes, B.P. (1989b), “Ductility of reinforced
concrete corbels containing either steel fibers or stirrups”, ACI
Struct. J., 86(6), 644-651.
Fattuhi, N.I. and Hughes. B.P. (1989c), “Reinforced steel fiber
concrete corbel with various shear span-to-depth ratios”, ACI
Mater. J., 86(6), 590-596.
Gulsan, M.E. (2015), “Stochastic finite element based reliability
analysis of steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) corbels”,
Ph.D. Dissertation of Philosophy, University of Gaziantep,
Gaziantep.
Gulsan, M.E. and Shaikhan, M.A. (2018), “A new method for
repair of fiber reinforced concrete corbels using steel threaded
rods”, Earthq. Struct., 15(2), 165-178.
https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.2.165.
Gulsan, M.E., Al Jawahery, M.S., Alshawaf, A.H., Hussein, T.A.,
Abdulhaleem, K.N. and Cevik, A. (2018), “Rehabilitation of
normal and self-compacted steel fiber reinforced concrete
corbels via basalt fiber”, Adv. Concrete Constr., 6(5), 423.
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2018.6.5.423.
Gulsan, M.E., Cevik, A. and Kurtoglu, A.E. (2015), “Stochastic
finite element based reliability analysis of steel fiber reinforced
concrete (SFRC) corbels”, Comput. Concrete, 15(2), 279-304.
 Crack pattern and failure mode prediction of SFRC corbels: Experimental and numerical study 515

https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2015.15.2.279.
Khosravikia, F., Kim, H.S., Yi, Y., Wilson, H., Yousefpour, H.,
Hrynyk, T. and Bayrak, O. (2018), “Experimental and
numerical assessment of corbels designed based on strut-and-tie
provisions”, J. Struct. Eng., 144(9), 04018138.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002137.
Kurtoglu, A.E., Gulsan, M.E., Abdi, H.A., Kamil, M.A. and
Cevik, A. (2017), “Fiber reinforced concrete corbels: Modeling
shear strength via symbolic regression”, Comput. Concrete,
20(1), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2017.20.1.001.
Md Zin, N., Al-Fakih, A., Nikbakht, E., Teo, W. and Anwar Gad,
M. (2019), “Influence of secondary reinforcement on behaviour
of corbels with various types of high-performance fiber-
reinforced cementitious composites”, Mater., 12(24), 4159.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12244159.
Mustafa, T.S., Beshara, F.B.A., Mahmoud, A.A. and Khalil, M.M.
A. (2019). “An improved strut-and-tie model to predict the
ultimate strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete corbels”,
Mater. Struct., 52(3), 63. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-019-
1363-8.
Parol, J., Al-Qazweeni, J. and Salam, S.A. (2018), “Analysis of
reinforced concrete corbel beams using strut and tie models”,
Comput. Concrete, 21(1), 95-102.
https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2018.21.1.095.
Ridha, M.M.S, Al-Shafi’i, N.T.H. and Hasan, M.M. (2017),
“Ultra-high performance steel fibers concrete corbels:
Experimental investigation”, Case Study. Constr. Mater., 7,
180-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.07.004.
Saleh, A., Fathy, A., Farouk, A. and Nasser, M. (2019),
“Performance of steel fiber reinforced concrete corbels”,
IRJIET, 3(2), 22-27. http://doi.org/10.21533/pen.v9i2.2285.
Strauss, A., Mordini, A. and Bergmeister, K. (2006), “Nonlinear
finite element analysis of reinforced concrete corbels at both
deterministic and probabilistic levels”, Comput. Concrete,
3(2_3), 123-144. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2006.3.2_3.123.

CC
516 Mehmet Eren Gulsan, Abdulkadir Cevik and Sarwar Hasan Mohmmad

Appendix Table A1 Continued

Table A1 Crack patterns of corbel specimens at failure

50-0-10-130
50-0-10-100 (Shear)
(Diagonal Splitting)
30-0-10-100 (Shear) 30-0-10-130 (Shear)

50-0-10-130
50-0-10-100 (Shear)
(Diagonal Splitting)
30-0-12-130
30-0-12-100 (Shear)
(Shear/Diagonal Splitting)

50-0-12-130
50-0-12-100 (Shear)
(Diagonal Splitting)
30-1-10-100 (Shear) 30-1-10-130 (Shear)

50-1-10-100 (Flexural/Shear) 50-1-10-130 (Flexural/Shear)

30-1-12-100 (Shear) 30-1-12-130 (Shear)

50-1-12-100 (Shear) 50-1-12-130 (Shear)

30-1.5-10-100 (Shear) 30-1.5-10-130 (Shear)

50-1.5-10-100 (Flexure) 50-1.5-10-130 (Shear)

30-1.5-12-100 (Shear) 30-1.5-12-130 (Shear)

50-1.5-12-100 (Shear) 50-1.5-12-130 (Shear)

 Crack pattern and failure mode prediction of SFRC corbels: Experimental and numerical study 517

Table A2 Comparison of experimental and finite element model results for SFRC corbels

Strength

Strength

Strength

Strength
Sp. Ten.
Reinfor.

Vcap3 Fattuhi

Vcap2 Fattuhi
Height

Comp.

Comp.

Vcap1 Gulsan
Width

VNLFEA (kN)
Yield.
Effec.

Cubic

and Hughes
Shear

VNLFEA/Vexp
depth

Ratio
Span

Vcap3/Vexp

Vcap2/Vexp

Vcap1/Vexp
Vexp (kN)

(1990b)

(1989c)

(2015)
Corbel
References Number
a b d h As/bh fc fcu fct fy
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
C2 125 152 120 147.5 0.7 43.34 54.18 4.37 498 84.5 87.8 81.64 113.68 78.46 0.97 1.35 0.93 1.039

Fattuhi and C3 125 152 119 146 0.71 42.61 53.26 5.45 498 92.9 92.21 86.72 111.35 85.25 0.93 1.20 0.92 0.993
Hughes C4 125 151 123 149.5 0.7 41.63 52.04 4.79 560 91.8 97.32 85.54 114.54 83.77 0.93 1.25 0.91 1.06
(1989a) C5 125 152 119 146 0.71 41.39 51.74 5.36 491 96 97.19 86.20 109.74 84.66 0.90 1.14 0.88 1.012
C6 125 156 117 146.5 0.69 32.48 40.60 3.19 560 75.2 90.21 71.91 97.83 68.13 0.96 1.30 0.91 1.2
C27 52.5 153 121 148.5 0.45 38.31 47.89 4.64 498 125.8 130.1 129.39 133.17 129.60 1.03 1.06 1.03 1.034
C28 89 151 124 148 0.45 45.12 56.40 6.09 498 88.2 88.87 92.53 108.13 93.87 1.05 1.23 1.06 1.008
Fattuhi and C29 125 153 130 149 0.44 45.12 56.40 6.09 498 65.9 67.99 73.00 75.31 74.07 1.11 1.14 1.12 1.032
Hughes
(1989b) C30 52.5 154 121.5 146.5 0.7 41.63 52.04 4.79 560 171 190.6 171.01 213.44 170.57 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.115
C31 64.5 153 118 146 1.02 46.17 57.71 5.05 491 179 194.9 182.77 298.03 177.93 1.02 1.66 0.99 1.089
C32 125 153 118 148 1 38.31 47.89 4.64 491 110.1 112.3 103.35 155.03 99.23 0.94 1.41 0.90 1.02
T3 89 152 122 148 0.7 38.8 48.50 4.66 560 133 132.5 110.20 157.01 108.75 0.83 1.18 0.82 0.996
T4 89 151 123 147 0.71 45.28 56.60 6.19 491 142.5 145.1 122.22 168.86 122.58 0.86 1.19 0.86 1.018
Fattuhi and T5 89 152 123 147 0.7 46.49 58.11 9.28 560 143 151.4 137.82 169.81 144.74 0.96 1.19 1.01 1.059
Hughes
(1989c) T10 89 151 117 147 1.02 38.8 48.50 4.66 491 138 149.9 134.52 224.57 129.90 0.97 1.63 0.94 1.086
T11 89 152 121 146 1.02 45.28 56.60 6.19 498 160.2 171.9 151.37 241.26 150.25 0.94 1.51 0.94 1.073
T12 89 152 121 147 1.02 46.49 58.11 9.28 498 171.2 176.8 173.52 247.44 178.96 1.01 1.45 1.05 1.033
1 80 152.5 123 149 1 33.53 41.91 5.84 460 153 159.4 164.38 227.84 164.39 1.07 1.49 1.07 1.042
2 80 155 124 150 0.98 35.15 43.94 5.44 460 160 164 163.83 234.90 162.45 1.02 1.47 1.02 1.025
3 80 152.5 126 150 0.44 34.02 42.53 4.86 460 91.2 98.29 95.11 102.08 95.60 1.04 1.12 1.05 1.078
4 80 155 125 149 0.44 32.89 41.11 5.3 460 93 98.97 97.90 100.92 99.39 1.05 1.09 1.07 1.064
5 140 155 123 149 0.98 32.81 41.01 5.46 460 103 100.9 102.42 118.37 100.77 0.99 1.15 0.98 0.98
6 140 154.5 124 150 0.98 30.78 38.48 5.35 460 95.7 100.2 102.45 116.65 100.94 1.07 1.22 1.05 1.047
7 140 153 126 150 0.44 27.38 34.23 3.89 460 53.3 54.13 55.87 48.92 54.89 1.05 0.92 1.03 1.016
8 140 153 125.5 149.5 0.44 29.89 37.36 3.72 460 53.1 53.78 54.97 50.59 53.53 1.04 0.95 1.01 1.013
Fattuhi
9 80 152.5 123 149 1 27.95 34.94 5.29 460 152.9 153.3 157.92 208.02 157.78 1.03 1.36 1.03 1.003
(1990a)
10 140 155.5 123 149 0.98 30.05 37.56 5.24 460 102.9 99.1 101.00 113.64 99.38 0.98 1.10 0.97 0.963
11 140 153 126 150 0.44 29 36.25 3.76 460 56 53.84 55.44 50.34 54.12 0.99 0.90 0.97 0.961
12 80 154 125 149 0.44 30.78 38.48 3.89 460 92 89.41 87.95 97.00 86.86 0.96 1.05 0.94 0.972
13 110 154.7 123 149 0.99 27.54 34.43 5.04 460 111.7 121.3 120.97 158.36 119.63 1.08 1.42 1.07 1.086
14 110 153.5 125 149 0.44 29.57 36.96 4.24 460 68.3 67.38 69.42 72.36 68.84 1.02 1.06 1.01 0.987
15 110 152.5 126 150 0.44 31.59 39.49 3.92 460 67.2 70.21 68.38 75.37 67.09 1.02 1.12 1.00 1.045
16 110 154.5 123.5 149.5 0.98 30.54 38.18 4.94 460 114.3 127.5 120.69 166.04 118.56 1.06 1.45 1.04 1.115
18 89 154 124.5 150.5 0.99 26.41 33.01 4.98 460 119 141.7 145.01 191.14 144.21 1.22 1.61 1.21 1.191
20 110 153 123.5 149.5 0.99 31.27 39.09 5.43 460 126 128 124.06 168.08 122.86 0.98 1.33 0.98 1.016
21 110 156 122 148 0.98 29.97 37.46 4.73 460 118 123.5 117.75 162.54 115.22 1.00 1.38 0.98 1.047
22 100 153 123 149 0.69 29.97 37.46 4.73 460 108.5 107.1 101.50 125.62 100.46 0.94 1.16 0.93 0.987
23 110 153 122.5 148.5 1 27.38 34.23 5.12 460 126.5 125.7 120.17 156.61 119.01 0.95 1.24 0.94 0.994
24 80 153 124 150 0.69 27.38 34.23 5.12 460 131.5 134.4 125.82 144.09 126.69 0.96 1.10 0.96 1.022
27 80 153.5 123.5 149.5 0.99 34.26 42.83 6.29 460 171.5 178 169.59 230.76 170.76 0.99 1.35 1.00 1.038
28 60 154 124 150 0.68 34.26 42.83 6.29 460 173.5 178 171.00 184.80 174.91 0.99 1.07 1.01 1.026
Fattuhi
29 75 151.5 122.5 148.5 0.45 30.21 37.76 4.42 460 100 98.12 94.51 99.96 94.43 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.981
(1990b)
30 120 153.9 120.2 146.2 0.7 30.21 37.76 4.42 460 86.5 85.95 83.83 99.95 81.96 0.97 1.16 0.95 0.994
31 135 154.5 124 150 1.19 32.89 41.11 5.5 460 119.5 128.7 120.60 157.14 118.25 1.01 1.31 0.99 1.077
32 120 154 120.2 146.2 1.23 32.89 41.11 5.5 460 132.5 137.1 128.42 183.36 125.94 0.97 1.38 0.95 1.035
35 135 155.1 122.5 148.5 1.48 31.35 39.19 4.91 460 124.5 132.7 130.99 186.10 126.50 1.05 1.49 1.02 1.066
36 60 154.8 122 148 0.44 31.35 39.19 4.91 460 123.5 122.5 117.41 112.83 118.93 0.95 0.91 0.96 0.992
37 135 153.8 123.1 149.1 1.49 32.08 40.10 5.72 460 140 143.1 138.11 190.13 135.28 0.99 1.36 0.97 1.022
38 110 152.2 124 150 0.44 32.08 40.10 5.72 460 74 81.58 76.10 75.80 77.29 1.03 1.02 1.04 1.102
518 Mehmet Eren Gulsan, Abdulkadir Cevik and Sarwar Hasan Mohmmad

Table A2 Continued

Strength

Strength

Strength

Strength
Sp. Ten.
Reinfor.

Vcap3 Fattuhi

Vcap2 Fattuhi
Height

Comp.

Comp.

Vcap1 Gulsan
Width

VNLFEA (kN)
Yield.
Effec.

Cubic

and Hughes
Shear

VNLFEA/Vexp
depth

Ratio
Span

Vcap3/Vexp

Vcap2/Vexp

Vcap1/Vexp
Vexp (kN)

(1990b)

(1989c)

(2015)
Corbel
References Number
a b d h As/bh fc fcu fct fy
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
39 110 153.5 124 150 1.2 31.35 39.19 5.64 460 144.5 150.9 143.03 206.12 141.48 0.99 1.43 0.98 1.044
40 125 155.5 122.8 148.8 1.47 31.35 39.19 5.64 460 142 152 145.99 212.42 143.22 1.03 1.50 1.01 1.07
44 135 153.8 122.6 148.6 1.21 28.67 35.84 4.85 460 109.5 118.8 113.71 144.56 110.74 1.04 1.32 1.01 1.085
Fattuhi
45 135 153 122.3 148.3 1.5 28.19 35.24 4.37 460 120 118.5 124.63 175.74 119.54 1.04 1.46 1.00 0.988
(1990b)
46 75 154.5 92 146 0.45 28.19 35.24 4.37 460 74.5 76.84 77.32 95.87 74.26 1.04 1.29 1.00 1.031
48 80 155.5 93.2 148.2 0.68 28.92 36.15 5.16 460 100 104.5 103.52 145.43 99.76 1.04 1.45 1.00 1.045
49 80 154.1 122.1 148.2 1 30.46 38.08 5.81 460 164.5 169.6 163.24 217.52 163.87 0.99 1.32 1.00 1.031
51 110 153.4 132.3 148.3 1 31.27 39.09 5.83 460 130.5 138.2 132.90 167.32 134.07 1.02 1.28 1.03 1.059
52 110 152.2 94 150 1 31.27 39.09 5.83 460 99 100.2 105.95 170.09 101.24 1.07 1.72 1.02 1.012
53 135 153.6 133.6 149.6 1.48 33.29 41.61 5.68 460 144.5 150.8 145.68 193.99 144.10 1.01 1.34 1.00 1.044
54 135 151.7 93.8 149.8 1.49 33.29 41.61 5.68 460 101.5 109.5 113.85 193.62 106.61 1.12 1.91 1.05 1.079
55 75 153.7 135.3 149.3 0.44 29.89 37.36 4.06 460 104 106.4 99.01 99.47 99.65 0.95 0.96 0.96 1.023
56 75 152.9 115.8 149.8 0.44 29.89 37.36 4.06 460 95.5 93.44 88.97 99.47 87.38 0.93 1.04 0.91 0.978
57 80 152.2 135.1 150.1 0.69 31.43 39.29 5.92 460 138.5 143.4 139.91 153.74 143.84 1.01 1.11 1.04 1.035
58 80 152.8 113.3 148.3 0.69 31.43 39.29 5.92 460 121.5 127.6 122.97 151.34 123.24 1.01 1.25 1.01 1.05
59 135 153 114 150 0.99 29.32 36.65 5.37 460 97.5 97.87 99.22 122.23 96.81 1.02 1.25 0.99 1.004
60 110 152.8 112.6 148.6 1.49 29.32 36.65 5.37 460 142 142.2 148.30 241.50 143.66 1.04 1.70 1.01 1.001
61 60 152.6 95 149 0.44 29.4 36.75 4.82 460 98.5 100.6 97.56 108.74 95.12 0.99 1.10 0.97 1.021
62 135 153 114.1 150.1 1.2 29.4 36.75 4.82 460 109.5 110.4 108.33 148.64 104.03 0.99 1.36 0.95 1.008
63 80 153 94 150 0.68 30.94 38.68 5.94 460 101.8 111.2 108.93 150.95 106.07 1.07 1.48 1.04 1.092
Fattuhi 64 60 152.6 92.5 147.5 1 30.94 38.68 5.94 460 170 170.1 169.55 249.93 164.36 1.00 1.47 0.97 1.001
(1994a) 75 75 154.3 125.9 149.9 0.44 25.11 31.39 4.05 460 94.8 96.41 94.21 92.10 94.50 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.017
76 75 154.5 94.8 148.8 0.44 25.11 31.39 4.05 460 73.5 75.66 77.18 91.16 74.18 1.05 1.24 1.01 1.029
77 110 153.1 122.3 148.3 1 26.89 33.61 4.96 460 114.5 120.2 118.63 154.85 117.21 1.04 1.35 1.02 1.05
78 135 153.1 121.7 147.7 1.5 26.89 33.61 4.96 460 120 122.3 128.46 169.74 125.05 1.07 1.41 1.04 1.019
79 135 153.2 123.4 149.4 1.48 27.38 34.23 5.26 460 128 130.6 132.91 174.80 130.14 1.04 1.37 1.02 1.02
80 110 154 122.1 148.1 1 27.38 34.23 5.26 460 120.8 124.7 121.35 156.72 120.48 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.032
81 135 153.6 121.6 147.6 1.22 28.67 35.84 5.04 460 110.8 122.2 114.02 142.73 111.41 1.03 1.29 1.01 1.103
82 110 154 92 148 1 28.67 35.84 5.04 460 98 96.66 98.97 160.14 93.46 1.01 1.63 0.95 0.986
83 135 150.4 111.9 147.9 1.53 28.27 35.34 4.96 460 115.3 118.6 121.18 175.08 116.08 1.05 1.52 1.01 1.029
84 135 152.4 91.7 147.7 1.51 28.27 35.34 4.96 460 94 99.29 106.25 174.40 98.75 1.13 1.86 1.05 1.056
85 110 154.2 112.5 148.5 0.99 28.43 35.54 5.17 460 123.3 116.2 114.16 159.23 111.51 0.93 1.29 0.90 0.942
86 135 153.2 113.9 149.9 1.48 28.43 35.54 5.17 460 115.5 125.8 125.91 179.83 121.29 1.09 1.56 1.05 1.089
87 60 152.9 93.5 148.5 0.69 29.32 36.65 6.01 460 139.8 141.8 136.84 169.82 134.56 0.98 1.21 0.96 1.014
88 80 153.1 93.1 149.1 1 29.32 36.65 6.01 460 138.8 132.2 137.07 214.13 132.56 0.99 1.54 0.96 0.952
50-1-10-100 100 150 120 150 0.698 40 50.00 3.7 560 110.58 106.9 92.34 145.80 88.33 0.84 1.32 0.80 0.967
50-1-10-130 130 150 124 150 0.698 40 50.00 3.7 560 78.8 79.82 76.30 105.41 72.97 0.97 1.34 0.93 1.013
50-1-12-100 100 150 122 150 1.005 38 47.50 3.6 560 121.78 124.3 116.01 204.61 110.18 0.95 1.68 0.90 1.021
50-1-12-130 130 150 122 150 1.005 38 47.50 3.6 560 89.18 87.05 93.75 147.94 88.57 1.05 1.66 0.99 0.976
50-1.5-10-100 100 150 123 150 0.698 42.5 53.13 4.5 560 125.13 114.7 100.17 150.29 97.79 0.80 1.20 0.78 0.917
50-1.5-10-130 130 150 125 150 0.698 42.5 53.13 4.5 560 86.58 87.66 81.84 108.66 79.67 0.95 1.26 0.92 1.012
Gulsan 50-1.5-12-100 100 150 124 150 1.005 42.5 53.13 4.2 560 127.54 135.9 123.81 216.39 119.06 0.97 1.70 0.93 1.066
(2015) 50-1.5-12-130 130 150 125 150 1.005 42.5 53.13 4.2 560 89.13 94.21 100.60 156.45 96.35 1.13 1.76 1.08 1.057
30-1-10-100 100 150 124 150 0.698 22.3 27.88 2.5 560 71 79.95 81.09 108.86 77.14 1.14 1.53 1.09 1.126
30-1-10-130 130 150 124 150 0.698 22.3 27.88 2.5 560 52.6 55.61 65.53 78.71 62.01 1.25 1.50 1.18 1.057
30-1-12-100 100 150 124 150 1.005 22.3 27.88 2.3 560 73.39 85.53 99.24 156.74 92.74 1.35 2.14 1.26 1.165
30-1-12-130 130 150 127 150 1.005 22.3 27.88 2.3 560 56.15 58.77 81.50 113.33 76.05 1.45 2.02 1.35 1.047
30-1.5-10-100 100 150 122 150 0.698 25.5 31.88 3.1 560 79.66 84.96 86.39 116.41 83.21 1.08 1.46 1.04 1.066
30-1.5-10-130 130 150 123 150 0.698 25.z5 31.88 3.1 560 58.35 59.05 70.20 84.17 67.35 1.20 1.44 1.15 1.012
 Crack pattern and failure mode prediction of SFRC corbels: Experimental and numerical study 519

Table A2 Continued

Reinfor.

strength

strength

strength

strength
Sp. ten.

Vcap3 Fattuhi

Vcap2 Fattuhi
Height

Comp.

Vcap1 Gulsan
Width

VNLFEA (kN)
Yield.
comp.
Effec.

Cubic

and Hughes
Shear

VNLFEA/Vexp
depth
span

ratio

Vcap3/Vexp

Vcap2/Vexp

Vcap1/Vexp
Vexp (kN)

(1990b)

(1989c)

(2015)
Corbel
References
Number
a b d h As/bh fc fcu fct fy
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (MPa)(MPa)(MPa) (MPa)
Gulsan 30-1.5-12-100 100 150 127 150 1.005 25.5 31.88 3.1 560 87.01 95.77 111.53 167.61 107.07 1.28 1.93 1.23 1.101
(2015) 30-1.5-12-130 130 150 124 150 1.005 25.5 31.88 3.1 560 59.79 64.54 88.68 121.19 84.38 1.48 2.03 1.41 1.079
Mean 1.03 1.35 1.00 1.04
Std.Dev. 0.1047 0.2556 0.0943 0.0482
variance 0.0110 0.0653 0.0089 0.0023