Buildings 13 01874 v2

buildings
Article
NLFEA of Reinforced Concrete Corbels: Proposed Framework,
Sensibility Study, and Precision Level
Luan Reginato 1,2 , Alex M. D. de Sousa 1, * , João V. C. Santos 1 and Mounir K. El Debs 1
1 São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo, São Carlos 13566-590, SP, Brazil;
luanreginato@usp.br (L.R.); joao.caldas@usp.br (J.V.C.S.); mkdebs@sc.usp.br (M.K.E.D.)
2 Itaipu Technological Park Foundation (CEASB/PTI), Foz do Iguaçu 85867-900, PR, Brazil
* Correspondence: alex_dantas@usp.br
Abstract: Non-linear finite element analysis (NLFEA) has been frequently used to assess the ultimate
capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) structures under the most complex conditions. Nevertheless,
the guidelines using such methods to evaluate RC corbels are limited. In addition, the influence
of material modeling options regarding the behavior of such members was not investigated until
now. This paper proposes to present a framework for the NLFEAs of RC corbels using the Concrete
Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model. the influence of several modeling choices related to this constitutive
model also is discussed in detail, including the assumed stress–strain behavior in compression and
tension and the parameters related to the yield criterion and flow rule. For this, a first set of test
results was used to validate the proposed approach to the NLFEA. Afterwards, the sensibility of the
numerical results for several modeling choices was investigated. In the end, the proposed framework
for the NLFEA was checked against a database of 36 test results from the literature. The mean ratio
between the predicted and experimental test results was 1.015 with a coefficient of variation of only
8.57%. The governing failure mechanism of the tests was predicted correctly in approximately 88% of
the simulations. In summary, the proposed approach allows for predicting the ultimate capacity and
failure mechanism of RC corbels accurately.
Keywords: reinforced concrete corbels; non-linear finite element analysis; concrete damaged plasticity
Citation: Reginato, L.; de Sousa, model; numerical modeling
A.M.D.; Santos, J.V.C.; El Debs, M.K.
NLFEA of Reinforced Concrete
Corbels: Proposed Framework,
Sensibility Study, and Precision Level.
1. Introduction
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071874
The use of non-linear finite element analysis (NLFEA) has increased in the last years to
assess the ultimate capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) structures under the most complex
Academic Editor: Abdelhafid boundary conditions, and existing structures are preliminary rated as resistance-deficient
Khelidj
in most conservative analytical calculations [1–3]. In other words, NLFEA is frequently
Received: 28 June 2023 employed to consider the several non-linearities of a given problem and sometimes hidden
Revised: 17 July 2023 capacities not directly addressed in the analytical calculation models. RC corbels are one of
Accepted: 18 July 2023 these members that sometimes require evaluation via NLFEA. Figure 1 depicts a reinforced
Published: 24 July 2023 concrete corbel and some of the associated definitions. Particularly, reinforced concrete
corbels are structural members that frequently attract greater attention in the design and
assessment of existing structures due to the different possible failure mechanisms [4,5]:
(i) yielding of the primary/main reinforcement (Figure 2a); crushing of the inclined com-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. pression strut (Figure 2b,c); and (ii) sliding shear at the column–corbel interface (Figure 2d).
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Although the number of studies related to the non-linear finite element analysis of RC
This article is an open access article
corbels increased in the last years [6–10], the following limitations can be identified.
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons • Firstly, most previous studies were conducted using material constitutive models other
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// than the Concrete Damaged Plasticity model (CDP), such as the total strain fixed or
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ rotating cracking models. Therefore, it is unclear if modeling choices validated from
4.0/). other material models could be extended to the CDP model.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071874 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 2 of 33
In addition to that, the influence of different modeling choices regarding the stress–strain
behavior model and damage evolution models assumed for the concrete was not discussed
in the publications [11,12].
• In the same way, the influence of considering the elastic modulus degradation (damage
evolution) in the ultimate capacity of RC corbels or not is generally not addressed. In
fact, the proposed modeling approaches in the literature were frequently validated
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW against specific experimental programs or a specific failure mechanism. Therefore,
2 of 36it
is unclear if the presented modeling choices can be directly extended to simulate other
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 36
RC corbels under the most complex boundary conditions, for which the governing
failure mechanism may differ from that observed in the calibration process.
Figure 1. Typical reinforcement arrangement for corbels: (a) with chamfer; (b) without chamfer.
Figure 2. Types
Figure 2. Types of
of failure
failure in
in corbels:
corbels: (a)
(a) tensile;
tensile; (b,c)
(b,c) compression; (d) shear.
compression; (d) shear.
FigureThis paper
2. Types of intends
failure in to discuss
corbels: the influence
(a) tensile; (b,c) of some (d) modeling choices related to
Although the number of studies related tocompression;
the non-linear shear.
finite element analysis of
concrete behavior in the ultimate capacity and failure mechanism of RC corbels. Herein, the
RC corbels increased in the last years [6–10], the following limitations can be identified.
influence of the the
Although following
number parameters
of studiesisrelated
investigated
to thein detail: (i) finite
non-linear the stress–strain behavior
element analysis of
• compression;
in Firstly, most previous
(ii) the studies were
stress–strain conducted
behavior in using
tension; material
(iii) the constitutive
damage evolutionmodels
laws
RC corbels increased in the last years [6–10], the following limitations can be identified.
other and
in tension thancompression;
the Concrete(iv) Damaged Plasticity
the plasticity model (CDP),
parameters such as the total
of the constitutive model; strain
and
• Firstly,
fixed or most previous
rotating crackingstudies
models.were conducted
Therefore, it using
is material
unclear if constitutive
modeling choices models
vali-
(v) the mesh size. In the end, the proposed modeling approach is extended to a database
of 36other
dated than
from the
test results other
fromConcrete
material
different Damaged
models Plasticity
could
references. be modelthis
extended
Therefore, (CDP),
to the CDP
paper such as theatotal
model.
presents strain
modeling
fixed
approach or rotating
validated cracking
against models.
a comprehensiveTherefore,range it is unclear
of testchoicesif modeling
results,regarding choices
including vali-
In addition to that, the influence of different modeling thedifferent
stress–
dated
failure from
mechanisms.
strain behavior other material models could be extended to the
model and damage evolution models assumed for the concrete was not CDP model.
In addition
Firstly,
discussed inwe to that,
thereview thethe
publications influence
different of different
modeling
[11,12]. choices modeling
that needchoices regarding
to be defined in thethe stress–
Concrete
strain
Damaged
• behavior model
Plasticity and
model damage
regarding evolution
concrete models
modeling assumed
(Section
In the same way, the influence of considering the elastic modulus degradation (dam-for
2). the
Afterconcrete
that, the was not
control
discussed
tests age in the
fromevolution) publications
the literature
in theused [11,12].
in the capacity
ultimate sensitivityof analyses
RC corbels areor described (Section not
not is generally 3). The
ad-
proposed
• In the modeling
same way, approach
the is
influencedescribed
of in
consideringSection
the 4 and
elastic validated
modulus
dressed. In fact, the proposed modeling approaches in the literature were frequently for the first
degradation group
(dam-
age evolution)
validated against in specific
the ultimate capacityprograms
experimental of RC corbels or not is
or a specific generally
failure not ad-
mechanism.
dressed. Initfact,
Therefore, the proposed
is unclear modelingmodeling
if the presented approaches in the
choices literature
can were
be directly frequently
extended to
validated against
simulate other RC specific experimental
corbels under the mostprograms
complex or a specific
boundary failure mechanism.
conditions, for which
Therefore, it is failure
the governing unclearmechanism
if the presented
may modeling choices
differ from can be directly
that observed in the extended to
calibration
approach validated against a comprehensive range of test results, including different fail-
ure mechanisms.
Firstly, we review the different modeling choices that need to be defined in the Con-
crete Damaged Plasticity model regarding concrete modeling (Section 2). After that, the
control tests from the literature used in the sensitivity analyses are described (Section 3).
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 3 of 33
The proposed modeling approach is described in Section 4 and validated for the first
group of test results in Section 5 regarding the load-deflection graphs, ultimate capacity,
and cracking pattern (failure mechanism). In Section 6, a sensitivity study is presented to
of test how
show results in Section
some modeling5 regarding the load-deflection
choices from graphs, the
the concrete influence ultimate capacity,
structural and of
behavior
cracking pattern (failure mechanism). In Section 6, a sensitivity study is presented
the evaluated corbels, highlighting some recommendations for the NLFEA of such mem- to show
how some modeling choices from the concrete influence the structural behavior of the
bers. In Section 7, the level of accuracy of the proposed modeling approach using CDP is
evaluated corbels, highlighting some recommendations for the NLFEA of such members.
verified against 36 test results from the literature.
In Section 7, the level of accuracy of the proposed modeling approach using CDP is verified
against 36 test results from the literature.
2. Background of the Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model
The Concrete
2. Background Damaged
of the ConcretePlasticity
Damagedmodel (CDP)
Plasticity was the constitutive model adopted
Model
in this study to represent concrete behavior. In practice,
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model (CDP) was the CDP combinesmodel
constitutive the damage
adoptedand
plasticity
in theories
this study and is concrete
to represent grounded on threeIn
behavior. main aspects:
practice, CDP combines the damage and
plasticity theories and is grounded on three main aspects:
(i) Stress–strain behavior models (including damage evolution): models that express the
(i) behavior of the
Stress–strain yield criterion
behavior with the evolution
models (including of plastic deformation
damage evolution): (uniaxial
models that express theand
behavior of the yield criterion with the evolution of plastic deformation (uniaxial and
triaxial behavior).
(ii) triaxial behavior).
Yield criterion: indicates (through the stress tensor) the stress level at which the plas-
(ii) Yield criterion: indicates
tification or yielding of the(through
materialthe stress
will occurtensor) the stress representation
(the geometric level at which of
thethis
plastification
is commonly or yielding
called of the
a failure material will occur (the geometric representation of
surface);
this is commonly called a failure
(iii) Plastic flow/flow rule: the law that surface);
defines the evolution of plastic strains according
(iii) Plastic flow/flow rule: the law that definesisthe
to the stress level after the yield criterion evolution of plastic strains according
achieved.
to the stress level after the yield criterion is achieved.
2.1. Stress–Strain Behavior Models: Hardening/Softening Law
2.1. Stress–Strain Behavior Models: Hardening/Softening Law
TheConcrete
The ConcreteDamaged
DamagedPlasticity
Plasticity(CDP)
(CDP) model
model available
available in in Abaqus
Abaqus 6.14
6.14 © software
© software
wasused
was usedininthis
thisstudy.
study.This
Thismodel
modelcombines
combines the
the theory
theory of of plasticity
plasticity andand
thethe mechanics
mechanics of of
continuous damage; it was proposed by Lubliner et al. [13] and incorporates
continuous damage; it was proposed by Lubliner et al. [13] and incorporates modifications modifications
proposedby
proposed byLee
Lee and
and Fenves
Fenves [14].
[14]. In uniaxial
In uniaxial loads,
loads, the stress–strain
the stress–strain relationship
relationship of con-
of concrete
crete
can becan be represented
represented by 3a
by Figure Figure 3a forstresses
for tensile tensileandstresses
Figure and3b Figure 3b for compressive
for compressive stresses.
stresses.
The solid The
line solid line represents
represents monotonicmonotonic
loading, and loading, and the
the dashed line dashed lineunloading
represents representsorun-
loading
cyclic or cyclic loading.
loading.
Figure 3. Stress–strain relationship: (a) traction; (b) compression of concrete.

Figure 3. Stress–strain relationship: (a) traction; (b) compression of concrete.
In a monotonic tensile load, a linear elastic regime can be considered until the ultimate
failure stress (σtu ), which is caused by cracks in the material. In the plastic regime, the
opening of these cracks causes a decrease in stress with increasing deformation, character-
izing the softening curve (Figure 3a). For compressive loading, the linear regime can be
considered up to the stress σc0 and, with the propagation of microcracks already present in
the concrete, there is a decrease in the modulus of elasticity up to the ultimate stress (σcu )
of failure, characterizing the hardening curve (hardening) in plastic regime. Then, as in
tension, there is a reduction in stress with increasing deformation (softening) due to the
increase and propagation of cracks (Figure 3b).
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 4 of 33
For unloading or cyclic loads, when considering only the theory of plasticity, elastic
return is observed (ε0t el and ε0c el , Figure 3) with the same initial modulus of elasticity E0
and irreversible or residual strains, defined here as inelastic strains (εt in and εc in in tension
and compression, respectively). With the introduction of the mechanics of the damage, it is
possible to consider the elastic stiffness degradation through the parcel (1 − dc or 1 − dt )
that multiplies the initial modulus of elasticity E0 ; dc and dt are the damage variables that
vary from 0 (no degradation) to 1 (completely degraded), and the indices t and c correspond
to tensile and compressive stresses, respectively. In the material, this degradation occurs
due to the accentuated level of cracks present in the concrete plastic stage.
With this, the stress–strain relationship of a uniaxial loading for CDP can be written as [15]:
pl
σt = (1 − dt ) E0 (ε t − ε t ) (1)
pl
σc = (1 − dc ) E0 (ε c − ε c ) (2)
For a bi/triaxial state, the stress–strain relationship is given as:
σ = (1 − d) D0el : (ε − ε pl ) (3)
where D0 el is the elastic stiffness tensor, σ is the stress tensor, ε is the strain tensor, and d is
the scalar damage variable with the same function as the uniaxial case (but now defined
together with a multiaxial weight factor).
2.2. Yield Criterion

In CDP, the yield criterion developed by Lubliner et al. [13] with modifications by
Lee and Fenves [14] is given as the function F. In terms of effective stresses, the yield
criterion takes the following form [16]:
1 p
3J2 + αI1 + βhσmax i − γhσmax i = c (4)
1−α
with:
I1 = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 (5)
h i
J2 = −(1/6) (σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 (6)
where α, β, and γ are material parameters that can be calculated as:
(σbu /σcu ) − 1 σcu 3(1 − K c )

α= ; β= (1 − α ) − (1 + α ); γ = (7)
2(σbu /σcu ) − 1 σtu 2Kc − 1
h·i is the Macauley bracket used to distinguish when σmax > 0 or σmax < 0 and is
given as the following expression.: hxi = 21 (|x|+x); that is, when σmax > 0, the Macauley
bracket returns the value of x, and for σmax < 0, the Macauley bracket returns a null value;
σbu and σcu are the equibiaxial compressive yield stress and uniaxial compressive yield
stress, respectively; σtu is the uniaxial tensile yield stress and σmax is the maximum effective
principal stress. The effective stress σ for tensile and compressive stresses is calculated as:
σt σc
σt = and σc = (8)
(1 − d t ) (1 − d c )
Kc is the ratio of the tensile to the compressive meridian and defines the shape of the
yield surface in the deviatory plane [11]. In the case of a tensile stress state (σmax > 0),
equation F becomes:
1 p
3J2 + αI1 + βσmax = c (9)
1−α
σt = and σ c = (8)
(1 − d ) t (1 − d )c
Kc is the ratio of the tensile to the compressive meridian and defines the shape of the
yield surface in the deviatory plane [11]. In the case of a tensile stress state (σmax > 0), equa-
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874
tion F becomes: 5 of 33
1
1−α
( )
3 J 2 + α I 1 + βσ max = c (9)
For
For aa biaxial
biaxialcompressive
compressivestress
stressstate
state(σ
(σmax = 0), the yield function becomes:
max = 0), the yield function becomes:
( )
1 1p
α I11 +==c c
3J32J 2++αI (10)
(10)
1 −1 α− α
max < 0), the yield function is:

In
In aa triaxial
triaxialcompressive
compressivestress
stressstate
state(σ
(σmax <0), the yield function is:
1 1p
( )

J 2 αI
3J23+ + 1α + + γσmax
I 1 γσ =c
max = c (11)
(11)
1 − α1 − α
Figure44 shows
Figure shows the
the geometric
geometric representation
representationof
ofthe
theyield
yield criterion
criterion (failure
(failuresurface)
surface) in
in
the plane
the planestate
stateof
ofstresses
stresses(Figure
(Figure4a)
4a)and
andin
inthe
thedeviatoric
deviatoricplace
place(Figure
(Figure4b).
4b).
Figure 4.4. CDP

Figure CDP failure
failure surface
surface in
in (a)
(a) stress
stress plane
plane state
state and
and (b)
(b)deviator
deviator plane;
plane; (c)
(c) plastic
plastic potential
potential
function, dilation angle, and eccentricity in meridian plane
function, dilation angle, and eccentricity in meridian plane p-q. p-q.
2.3. Plastic Flow Rule

2.3. Plastic Flow Rule
The plastic flow or flow rule is given as the function G, also called the plastic potential.
The plastic flow or flow rule is given as the function G, also called the plastic poten-
In CDP, the plastic potential is assumed in a non-associative form, i.e., G 6= F. The plastic
tial. In CDP, the plastic potential is assumed in a non-associative form, i.e., G ≠ F. The
potential G adopted in CDP is the hyperbolic Drucker–Prager function:
plastic potential G adopted in CDP is the hyperbolic Drucker–Prager function:
q
G =G = (eσ σ tan
( et0 ψψ
tan )2)+
2 q2 2− p tan ψ
+ q − p tanψ (12)
(12)
t0
whereppand
where andqqare
arethe
theequivalent
equivalenteffective
effectivestresses and
stresses hydrostatic
and stresses,
hydrostatic respectively;
stresses, e ise
respectively;
the eccentricity that defines the rate at which the function approaches the asymptote;
is the eccentricity that defines the rate at which the function approaches the asymptote; σt0
is the uniaxial tensile stress; and ψ is the dilation angle measured in the p-q plane at high
σt0 is the uniaxial tensile stress; and ψ is the dilation angle measured in the p-q plane at
confining pressures (Figure 4c).
high confining pressures (Figure 4c).
2.4. Summary of Input Parameters Required in CDP
2.4. Summary of Input Parameters Required in CDP
In summary, the elastic and plastic input parameters needed to define the constitutive
Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model are:
• Ec —concrete elastic modulus and ν—Poisson coefficient;
• σt × εt in and σc × εc in : uniaxial stress—inelastic strain relationship of concrete in
tension and compression;
• dt × εt in and dc × εc in : damage—inelastic strain relationship of concrete to tension
and compression;
• σbu /σcu : ratio between biaxial and uniaxial compressive yield strengths;
• Kc —shape factor and e—eccentricity;
• ψ—dilation angle and µ—viscosity.
The uniaxial stress–strain relationships, including the damage evolution laws, can be
obtained experimentally from instrumented uniaxial static and cyclic tests. On the other
hand, measuring other parameters such as σbu /σcu , ψ, and Kc requires using biaxial and
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 6 of 33
triaxial characterization tests to be determined more precisely [12,16,17]. As most of these

parameters are not
(cantilever tips). Thedetermined
displacement inused
ordinary
in the characterization
load × displacement tests (in practice,
graphs reported only
in thethe
compressive and splitting tensile strengths are measured in regular tests),
results consisted of the displacement measured at the end of the corbel while subtracting the parameters
from CDP are
the portion of frequently
the displacement determined
measuredbased onpoint
at the analytical expressions
of application from
of load thecolumn
on the literature
orincalibration studies of the numerical models. Nevertheless,
order to obtain only the vertical displacement of the corbel. it is important to highlight
that these
Regarding the materials’ proportions, Wilson et al. [4] described the mix used for be
parameters have a physical meaning and, hence, calibration studies should
performed carefully the
concrete, including to avoid unrealistic
additions values of
and additives, andparameters.
highlightedThe
theparameter of CDP
use of coarse aggre-that
isgate
defined only numerically
of limestone is the viscosity,
origin (limestone) which serves
with a maximum to overcome
diameter of 25 mm. convergence issues
from quasi-brittle materials.specimens
A series of cylindrical However,(100using
× 200inappropriate
mm) were cast values for this
to measure theparameter
mechanical may
lead to undesirable
properties material
of the concrete. Thebehavior
cylinders changes
were tested in following
the numerical simulations,
the respective ASTMas will be
stand-
shown in the to
ards [19–21] following
determine sections.
the concrete compressive strength at 28 days (fcm,28), compressive
strength (fcm), modulus of elasticity (Ec), and splitting tensile strength (or diametral com-
3.pression
Controlstrength
Tests for Modeling
(ftm,sp )) at the time of testing of each specimen. The mechanical properties
Thesteel
of the experimental
used in the modelsprimarychosen for calibrating
reinforcement (ties) andthe numerical
secondary models were
reinforcements those
were
also measured
documented by using
Wilsonthe et ASTM
al. [4]. code provisions
In this study, four [22], with fcorbels
double ym and fut being theasreinforce-
identified C0, C1, C2,
ment
and C3yield
(shownstrength and reinforcement
in Figure ultimate strengths,
5) that were designed respectively. Table
using the strut-and-tie model 1 presents
(STM) and
theempirical
the average values
method measured
recommended for eachbyproperty.
ACI 318:2014 [18] were tested.
Figure5.5.Geometry
Figure Geometryand
and reinforcement configurationsofofthe
reinforcement configurations thecorbels
corbelstested
tested
byby Wilson
Wilson et et
al. al.
[4].[4].
The adopted geometry was the same for all corbels as follows: internal height or corbel
height (hint ) of 610 mm, external height (hext ) of 305 mm, corbel width (bw ) of 356 mm,
corbel length (c) of 508 mm, and extended column height (bcol ) of 305 mm.
Based on the design created by Wilson et al. [4], the primary/tie reinforcement was
the same for all corbels, resulting in 4 bars with a diameter of 25.4 mm (Bar M) and effective
depth (d) of 559 mm. This reinforcement was anchored at its end through welded transverse
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 7 of 33
bars of the same diameter (W Bar). As for the horizontal secondary reinforcement, in the
C0 and C2 brackets, the same quantity and arrangement were used, with 4 bars in the form
of horizontal stirrups with a diameter of 12.7 mm arranged in the first 2/3 of the effective
depth from the tie reinforcement (Bars S and S1).
For the C1 corbel, crack control reinforcement was employed (secondary reinforce-
ment) with 3 bars in the form of horizontal stirrups with a diameter of 12.7 mm evenly
distributed along the height of the corbel (Bars S, S2, and S3). As for the C3 corbel, no
secondary reinforcement was used. In the columns, 4 bars with a diameter of 28.58 mm (Bar
C) and horizontal stirrups with a diameter of 12.7 mm (Bar T) were assembled to prevent
premature failure of the columns. Finally, a framing reinforcement (Bar F) was placed along
the chamfer to ensure the reinforcements’ positions.
Each corbel was instrumented with electrical resistance strain gauges in all reinforce-
ments of the tie to monitor the evolution of reinforcement strains during the test; for the
braces C0, C1, and C2, the secondary reinforcements were instrumented alternately. The
positions of the extensometers/strain gauges coincided with the interface between the
corbel and the columns. Four linear potentiometers (LPs) were also applied to measure the
specimen deformation under loading at the load application point and at the corbel ends
(cantilever tips). The displacement used in the load × displacement graphs reported in the
results consisted of the displacement measured at the end of the corbel while subtracting
the portion of the displacement measured at the point of application of load on the column
in order to obtain only the vertical displacement of the corbel.
Regarding the materials’ proportions, Wilson et al. [4] described the mix used for
concrete, including the additions and additives, and highlighted the use of coarse aggregate
of limestone origin (limestone) with a maximum diameter of 25 mm.
A series of cylindrical specimens (100 × 200 mm) were cast to measure the mechani-
cal properties of the concrete. The cylinders were tested following the respective ASTM
standards [19–21] to determine the concrete compressive strength at 28 days (f cm,28 ), com-
pressive strength (fcm ), modulus of elasticity (Ec ), and splitting tensile strength (or diametral
compression strength (ftm,sp )) at the time of testing of each specimen. The mechanical prop-
erties of the steel used in the primary reinforcement (ties) and secondary reinforcements
were also measured using the ASTM code provisions [22], with fym and fut being the re-
inforcement yield strength and reinforcement ultimate strengths, respectively. Table 1
presents the average values measured for each property.
Table 1. Summary of measured mechanical properties of the concrete and reinforcing bars from
Wilson et al. [4].
Proprieties (MPa) Test Method C0 C1 C2 C3

fcm,28 (MPa) ASTM C39 [19] 31.72 44.82
fcm (MPa) ASTM C39 [19] 36.54 44.82 46.88 38.61
Concrete
Ec (MPa) ASTM C469 [20] 33,784 43,436 44,816 34,474
ftm,sp (MPa) ASTM C496 [21] 3.79 4.21 4.41 4.55
fym (MPa) 478 463
ϕ 12.7 mm
fum (MPa) 683 661
fym (MPa) 506 487
ϕ 25.4 mm ASTM A370 [22]
fum (MPa) 701 685
fym (MPa) 510 496
ϕ 28.58 mm
fum (MPa) 741 729
The corbels were tested in the inverted configuration of their typical operation in
a structure, as shown in Figure 5. The load was applied through a hydraulic ram with
a capacity of 3560 kN at a rate of 2.67 kN per second to simulate a quasi-static loading
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 8 of 33
protocol and avoid dynamic effects. Nevertheless, this loading protocol did not allow us
to evaluate the post-peak stage of the load-deflection graphs. In the numerical models
(Section 4), displacement-controlled loading was applied to track the load-deflection graph
after the maximum capacity. In practice, differences between the loading using a load-
controlled and displacement-controlled load are negligible in this case (two-dimensional,
statically determined loads). Nevertheless, attention to this aspect should be given when
the cracking pattern and load distribution change according to the loading protocol, such as
in testing slab–column connections [23] and when the loading rate may introduce dynamic
effects. The corbels were supported on one side by a roller support and on the other side by
a hinged support through a metal plate measuring 203 × 356 mm. Load cells were installed
on the supports to measure reaction forces.
For the C0 corbel, the center of the supports was placed at a distance of 368 mm
from the face of the column, resulting in a ratio a/d = 0.66. For corbels C1, C2, and C3, a
distance of 343 mm was used, resulting in corbels with a ratio a/d = 0.59. Test results will
be presented together with numerical simulation results.
4. Proposed Modeling Approach

4.1. Overview and Boundary Conditions
The numerical modeling was carried out using Abaqus/CAE software version 6.14.
Next, the parameters related to the modeling of corbel C2 were described in more detail. In
the modeling of the corbels, two symmetry planes were considered, as sketched in Figure 6,
by simulating only a quarter of the corbel. This approach had the main benefit of 9reducing
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 36
the number of finite elements used in the model, thus ensuring a lower processing time for
the simulation.
Figure6.6.(a)
Figure (a)Symmetry
Symmetryplanes
planesconsidered
consideredin inthe
thecorbels;
corbels;(b)
(b)geometry
geometry of
ofthe
thecorbel
corbel and
and plate
plate support;
sup-
(c)port; (c) reinforcement
reinforcement configuration;
configuration; (d) interactions
(d) interactions in theinmodel.
the model.
Figure6b
Figure 6bshows
shows thethe three-dimensional
three-dimensional modeling
modelingofofa aquarter
quarter of of
thethe
corbel
corbeltested
testedby by
Wilsonetetal.
Wilson al.[4]
[4]along
along with
with cuts in
in the
the geometry
geometrytotoassist
assistthe
theautomatic
automatic mesh
meshgeneration.
generation.
Duetotosymmetry,
Due symmetry,the thewidth
width of the corbel
corbeland
andcolumn
columnresulted
resultedinin 178
178mm.mm.ToTo
avoid
avoid stress
stress
concentrationatatthe
concentration thepoint
pointofofload
loadapplication,
application,aasteel
steelplate
platewith
withthe thesame
samedimensions
dimensionsin inthe
the plane
plane as theassupport
the support
of theofexperimental
the experimental model
model waswas modeled,
modeled, andand because
because the the thick- of
thickness
ness
the of the support
support was not was not informed,
informed, a valueaofvalue of 50
50 mm mmadopted.
was was adopted.
The reinforcement bars were modeled according
The reinforcement bars were modeled according to the geometry to the geometry adopted
adopted by Wilson
by Wilson et al. [4]
et al. [4] and the symmetry planes, resulting in two bars for tie reinforcement,
and the symmetry planes, resulting in two bars for tie reinforcement, one longitudinal one longi-bar
tudinal
for bar for and
the column, the column,
modeling and modeling
only only one-quarter
one-quarter of the stirrups of the
andstirrups
secondaryandreinforcement
secondary
reinforcement
as shown in Figure 6c. as shown in Figure 6c.
Figure6d
Figure 6dshows
showsthe thereference
referencepoint
pointwhere
wherethe
theforce
forcewas
wasapplied
appliedthrough
throughthe thedisplace-
dis-
placement control (RP-1). This point was coupled to the surface of the
ment control (RP-1). This point was coupled to the surface of the plate through the coupling plate through the
coupling tool available in Abaqus, causing the degrees of freedom of the nodes of this
surface to be connected with the point RP-1. This surface had the same width as the plate
in the z-axis direction and a length of 40 mm in the x-axis direction. In addition, Figure 6d
shows the plate’s lower surface attached to the corbel’s upper face using the tie interaction,
where the nodes of the finite elements of both faces were connected. Finally, the reinforce-
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 9 of 33
tool available in Abaqus, causing the degrees of freedom of the nodes of this surface to be
connected with the point RP-1. This surface had the same width as the plate in the z-axis
direction and a length of 40 mm in the x-axis direction. In addition, Figure 6d shows the
plate’s lower surface attached to the corbel’s upper face using the tie interaction, where the
nodes of the finite elements of both faces were connected. Finally, the reinforcements were
embedded in the geometry of the corbel using an embedded tool while considering perfect
adhesion and no sliding between the steel and the concrete. In general, this approach is a
simplification that tends to increase the stiffness of the load-deflection response but does
not significantly influence the governing failure mechanism and ultimate capacity of the
numerical models. In practice, this occurs because the reinforcement sliding is limited
when anchorage failure is not the governing failure mechanism of the tests.
The displacement in x and the rotations around the y-axis and z-axis were constrained
in the YZ plane to apply the model symmetries, as shown in Figure 7a. In the XY plane, the
displacement in z and the rotations in relation to x and y were constrained (Figure 7b). The
displacements on the y-axis on its lower face were constrained to simulate the support at
Buildings 2023, 12,the
x FOR PEER
base ofREVIEW
the column, as shown in Figure 7c. As previously stated, the force was applied 10 of 36
through displacement control at the RP-1 point, imposing a displacement of −6.5 mm in

the y-direction.
Figure 7. Boundary
Figureconditions:
7. Boundary(a) symmetry
conditions: (a) in YZ; (b)insymmetry
symmetry in XY; (c)
YZ; (b) symmetry bottom
in XY; support;
(c) bottom support; (d)
(d) mesh discretization.
mesh discretization.
4.2. Concrete Modeling

4.2. Concrete Modeling
The uniaxial stress–strain behavior of behavior
The uniaxial stress–strain concrete of in concrete
compression was considered,
in compression as
was considered, as
illustrated in Figure 8a, and
illustrated could8a,
in Figure beand
divided
couldinto three segments.
be divided The first segment
into three segments. The first was
segment was
linear with a secant modulus
linear with a secant elasticityofEelasticity
of modulus c up to the Ec upstress
to theσc0 , which
stress was considered
σc0, which was considered 40%
40% of the ultimate stress (σstress
of the ultimate cu ) as(σrecommended
cu) as recommended by the byfib
theModel
fib ModelCode 2010
Code [24].
2010 [24].The
The second
second segment (hardening)
segment was ascending
(hardening) was ascendingand characterized
and characterized by aby non-linear
a non-linear behavior
behavior upup to the
to the ultimateultimate
stress (σstress (σcu)the
cu ) with with the corresponding
corresponding strainstrain εc1. The
εc1 . The ultimate
ultimate stress
stress (σ(σ
cucu==ffcm
cm)) adopted
adopted was the wassame

the same measured
measured by Wilson
by Wilson et al.
et al. [4],[4],
andandthethestrain
strainεεc1c1 was
was estimated
estimatedby byusing the
EN 1992-1-1:2004
using the EN 1992-1-1:2004 expression
expression [25][25]
as as shown
shown ininthe
theexpression
expression(10). (10).
0.31
0.7 f
0.7 f cm 0.31ε c 1 = cm
≤ 0.0028 (13)
ε c1 = ≤ 0.0028
1000 (13)
1000
The third segment (softening) was descending and non-linear and considered a re-
The third segment (softening) was descending and non-linear and considered a resid-
sidual stress of 5 MPa, as Syroka et al. [10] recommended to avoid numerical instability
ual stress of 5 or
MPa, as Syroka et al. [10] recommended to avoid numerical instability or
convergence problems.
convergence problems.The hardening and softening segments (stages 2 and 3) were modeled according to
The hardening
Krätzigand
andsoftening segments (stages 2 and 3) were modeled according to
Pölling [26]:
Krätzig and Pölling [26]:
 E ε / f − (ε / ε )2 
Stage 2 in compression : σ c (ε c ) = fcm  
" ci c cm #c c 1
Eci ε c / f cm − (ε( cE/εε c1/)f2 − 2 ) ε / ε  (14)
1 +
Stage 2 in compression : σc (ε c ) = f cm  ci c cm c c 1
(14)
1 + ( Eci ε c / f cm − 2)ε c /ε c1
−1
 2 + γ c fcmε c 1 γ ε2
Stage 3 in compression : σ c (ε c ) =  − γ cε c + c c  (15)
 2 fcm 2ε c 1 

π2 f ε
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 10 of 33
−1
γc ε c 2

2 + γc f cm ε c1
Stage 3 in compression : σc (ε c ) = − γc ε c + (15)
2 f cm 2ε c1
π 2 f cm ε c1
γc = h i2 (16)
f
2 Gl ch − 0.5 f cm ε cm (1 − b) + b Ecmc
d
The value of bc = 0.7 was assumed in the calculations. The crushing energy Gch was
calculated according to Oller [27]:

f cm
Gch = · Gf (17)
f tm
  3
 − c2 w w 
 w modeled − c2 
The stress–strain behavior
σ t ( w) = in
ftm tension


1 + was
 1 w  
c  e
w
(1 c1 )
wc according3to Hordijk
− + e 
[28] (Figure 8b):
   c   c  (18)
3
−c2 wwc
w
− w/c f 1 + c31 e−c2
w

σt (wwith
) = f:tmc = 13;+ wc wce= 5.14G
c2 =c16.93;
1 F tm (18)
with : c1 = 3; c2 = 6.93; wc = 5.14GF / f tm
Therefore, the tensile behavior was grounded in stress–crack-opening relationships,
the fracture energy G f, and the
Therefore, the tensile behavior was finite element
groundedsize inleq.stress–crack-opening
The fracture energy G f was deter-
relationships,
mined according to fib Model Code 1990 expressions [29]. The stress–crack-opening
the fracture energy Gf , and the finite element size leq . The fracture energy Gf was determined rela-
tionship σ × w was transformed to the stress–strain behavior σ
according to fib Model Code 1990 expressions [29]. The stress–crack-opening relationship
t t × ε t using the same ap-
proach fromtransformed
σt × w was Genikomsou to and Polak [11] (Figure
the stress–strain 8c).σt × εt using the same approach from
behavior
Genikomsou and Polak [11] (Figure 8c).
ε t = ε tu + w / ld (19)
ε t = ε tu + w/ld (19)
The damage evolution parameters in compression and tension were determined ac-
cording
Thetodamage
the simplified
evolution expressions
parameters presented by Yu et al.and
in compression [30].
tension were determined
according to the simplified expressions presented by Yu et al.and
Some of the parameters that defined the yield surface [30].plastic flow rule in CDP
wereSome
determined based on athat
of the parameters calibration
defined study,
the yield and othersand
surface were determined
plastic flow ruleusingin CDP experi-
were
mentally
determined based
based values
on a from the literature.
calibration study, and The following
others parameter values
were determined were used: ec-
using experimentally
centricity
based valuesof the frompotential plastic surface,
the literature. e = 0.1 parameter
The following [15]; dilatancy
valuesangle,
wereψused: = 42 (calibrated);
eccentricity
the ratio between the biaxial and uniaxial compressive strengths,
of the potential plastic surface, e = 0.1 [15]; dilatancy angle, ψ = 42 (calibrated); σ b0/σ c0 = 1.16 [31,32]; the
the ratio
ratio of second stress invariants on the tensile and compressive
between the biaxial and uniaxial compressive strengths, σb0 /σc0 = 1.16 [31,32]; the ratio meridians, K c = 0.667
[15,33];
of second and the viscosity
stress invariants parameter µ, between
on the tensile 0 and 10−5. The
and compressive finite element
meridians, size [15,33];
Kc = 0.667 varied
between 20 mm and
and the viscosity 25 mm µ,
parameter between
between different − 5 . The finite
0 and 10numerical models.
elementNevertheless,
size variedabetween
specific
mesh
20 mmstudy
and 25 wasmm performed
between to support
different this choice
numerical that will
models. be shown in
Nevertheless, the following
a specific mesh
sections.
study was performed to support this choice that will be shown in the following sections.
8.(a)(a)
Figure 8.
Figure Uniaxial
Uniaxial compressive
compressive stress–strain
stress–strain behavior
behavior for concrete
for concrete [26];
[26]; (b) (b) uniaxial
uniaxial tensile
tensile stress–
stress–crack-width
crack-width relationship
relationship [28]; (c)[28]; (c) uniaxial
uniaxial tensiletensile stress–strain
stress–strain relationship.
relationship.
4.3. Reinforcement Material Model

The constitutive model adopted for steel bars was the simplified model from the fib
Model Code 2010 [24], for which an elastoplastic model with linear hardening was as-
sumed. A class A steel with an fu/fy ratio of 1.1, ultimate strain (εs,u) of 2.5%, and modulus
of elasticity (Es) of 200 GPa was adopted. In simulations performed with and without the
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 11 of 33
4.3. Reinforcement Material Model

The constitutive model adopted for steel bars was the simplified model from the
fib Model Code 2010 [24], for which an elastoplastic model with linear hardening was
assumed. A class A steel with an fu /fy ratio of 1.1, ultimate strain (εs,u ) of 2.5%, and
modulus of elasticity (Es ) of 200 GPa was adopted. In simulations performed with and
without the hardening stage, the results were similar (even when failure was governed by
the primary reinforcement yielding) due to the slight hardening adopted in this model.
Despite this small influence, a slight hardening was advantageous, as it avoided numerical
issues associated with zero stiffness in numerical model processing [34].
4.4. Mesh
The geometry of the corbels and the steel plate were meshed with three-dimensional
solid finite elements. For the corbels, the finite elements C3D8 (solid with six faces) and
C3D6 (solid with five faces in the shape of a triangular prism or wedge) were used; for
the steel plate, only the element C3D8 was applied. Elements C3D8 and C3D6 consisted
of three-dimensional elements with eight and six nodes, respectively, and three degrees
of freedom of translation per node, resulting in elements with a linear approximation for
displacements. The C3D8 element was used in almost all of the corbels. After a mesh
sensitivity study, the average element size chosen was leq = 20 mm.
The reinforcements were meshed with one-dimensional truss finite elements with two
nodes using a linear approximation of the displacements. For the reinforcement of the
column and the constructive reinforcement of the corbels, the truss finite element T3D2
was adopted, in which each node had three translational degrees of freedom. As for the
primary and secondary reinforcements, the beam element B31 was adopted, in which each
node had six degrees of freedom (three for translation and three for rotation).
4.5. Solution Procedure and Load Application

The simulations were performed using the ABAQUS/Standard package [15], in which
the Newton–Raphson algorithm was applied as the solution procedure. The automatic
increment size definition from ABAQUS was applied, which allowed for a decrease in the
processing time when convergence was achieved smoothly. Similar to other studies, the
load and boundary conditions were applied in different steps [35]: (i) in the first step, only
the boundary conditions were applied; and (ii) in the second step, the vertical displacement
was applied at the loading plate (Figure 6d). Unlike what is commonly applied in steel
structures [35], the initial geometry defects were not considered in the simulations.
5. Validation of the Modeling Approach

Figures 9–12 shows the comparison between the experimental results reported by
Wilson et al. [4] and the numerical results using the proposed modeling approach for
corbels C0, C1, C2, and C3, respectively.
Part (a) of each figure shows the load × displacement behavior of the tests and numeri-
cal models, in which the following aspects can be highlighted: (i) the load corresponding to
the first observation of cracks in the corbel; (ii) the point at which the reinforcing bars started
to yield in one or more bars of the tie (primary reinforcement); (iii) the point where all the
tie bars had yielded; and (iv) the point where the corbel reached the ultimate load (peak
value). In the numerical models, notably, the interval between the yield point of the first
reinforcement and the yield point of all reinforcements in the tie was much smaller when
compared to the experimentally tested corbels. This behavior occurred due to the ideal
loading conditions (perfect symmetry) and homogeneous material property distribution
assumed in the numerical models, which in practice are not fully true in real structures.
Part (b) of Figures 9–12 shows a 3D perspective view of the corbel, illustrating the
reinforcement bars and the isovalue surface of the maximum plastic deformations at the
instant of ultimate load. In practice, this view illustrates the inner cracking pattern at the
corbels. Part (c) of Figures 9–12 corresponds to the maximum plastic deformations on the
in the processing time when convergence was achieved smoothly. Similar to other studies,
the load and boundary conditions were applied in different steps [35]: (i) in the first step,
only the boundary conditions were applied; and (ii) in the second step, the vertical dis-
placement was applied at the loading plate (Figure 6d). Unlike what is commonly applied
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 in steel structures [35], the initial geometry defects were not considered in the simulations.
12 of 33
5. Validation of the Modeling Approach

Figures
outer face of9–12 showsand
the corbel thepart
comparison
(d) to thebetween the experimental
tensile damage results
dt (also at the reported
instant by
of ultimate
Wilson
load). et
Inal. [4] andthere
general, the numerical results
was a close using the
correlation proposed
between modeling
the regions of approach
maximumfor cor-
plastic
bels C0, C1,
strains andC2, anddamage.
tensile C3, respectively.
Part (e) of Figures 9–12 shows the cracking pattern of the corbel
tested after failure along with information on the cracking pattern evolution.
1600
1400
a)
1200
1000
Load (kN)
800
600
Experimental - C0
400 Numerical - C0
First visible crack
First yielding
200 Full yielding of primary reinf.
Ultimate capacity
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 9. Comparison between experimental and numerical results for corbel C0: (a) load-deflection
response; (b) sketch of the distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovalues of
response; (b) sketch of the distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovalues
ofplastic
plasticstrains;
strains;(c)
(c)distribution
distributionofofmaximum
maximum plastic strains;
plastic (d)(d)
strains; distribution of of
distribution tensile damage
tensile in the
damage in
corbel and (e) in the experiment (north face).
the corbel and (e) in the experiment (north face).
1800
1600
a)
1400
1200
Load (kN)
1000
800
600 Experimental - C1
Numerical - C1
400 First visible crack
First yielding
200 Full yield. of primary reinf.
Ultimate load
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
Displacement (mm)
Figure 10. Comparison between experimental and numerical results for corbel C1: (a) load-deflec-
response; (b) sketch of the distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovalues of
tion response; (b) sketch of the distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through
isovaluesstrains;
plastic (c) distribution
of plastic of maximumofplastic
strains; (c) distribution strains;
maximum (d) distribution
plastic strains; (d)ofdistribution
tensile damage in the
of tensile
corbel and (e) in the experiment (north face).
damage in the corbel and (e) in the experiment (north face).
2000
1800 a)
1600
1400
1200
)
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
Displacement (mm)
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 isovalues of plastic strains; (c) distribution of maximum plastic strains; (d) distribution of tensile
13 of 33
damage in the corbel and (e) in the experiment (north face).
2000
1800 a)
1600
1400
1200
Load (kN)
1000
800
Experimental - C2
600
Numerical - C2
First yielding
Ultimate load
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
Displacement (mm)
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
response; (b) sketch of the distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through 14 of 36 of
isovalues
plastic strains;
isovalues (c) distribution
of plastic of maximumofplastic
strains; (c) distribution strains;
maximum (d) distribution
plastic of tensile damage
strains; (d) distribution in the
of tensile
corbel and
damage (e)corbel
in the in the and
experiment
(e) in the(north face). (north face).
experiment
1800
1600 a)
1400
1200
Load (kN)
1000
800
Experimental - C3
600
Numerical - C3
First yielding
Ultimate load
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
Displacement (mm)
response;
tion (b) sketch
response; of theofdistribution
(b) sketch of inner
the distribution of cracking in the numerical
inner cracking model through
in the numerical isovalues of
model through
plastic strains;
isovalues (c) distribution
of plastic of maximum
strains; (c) distribution of plastic
maximum strains; (d) strains;
plastic distribution of tensile damage
(d) distribution in the
of tensile
corbel and
damage (e)corbel
in the in theand
experiment
(e) in the(north face). (north face).
experiment
5.1. Part × of
Load(a) Displacement
each figureGraphs
shows the load × displacement behavior of the tests and nu-
merical The first linear
models, stage
in which thecharacterized
following aspectsthe load
can be×highlighted:
displacement (i) graphs
the loadof the numerical
correspond-
models.
ing Next,
to the first after the development
observation of cracks in theof corbel;
concrete (ii)plastic strains
the point (cracking)
at which in the upper
the reinforcing
region
bars between
started the in
to yield corbel
one or and the column,
more bars of thethetie
slope of thereinforcement);
(primary load-deflection(iii)
graphthedecreased
point
until the
where beginning
all the of the
tie bars had cracksand
yielded; in the
(iv) region
the point of where
the strut.
the At thisreached
corbel point, athe
new change in
ultimate
the slope
load (peak of the graph
value). In theoccurred,
numericaland the specimen
models, notably, failed with abetween
the interval gradualthestiffness decrease.
yield point
of the first reinforcement and the yield point of all reinforcements in the tie was much The
In general, the numerical model graphs were mostly similar to the experimental ones.
main difference
smaller between
when compared tothe
theexperimental
experimentally and numerical
tested corbels.graphs was the higher
This behavior stiffness
occurred due of
tothe
thenumerical curves
ideal loading compared
conditions to the symmetry)
(perfect experimental and ones, a typical characteristic
homogeneous in studies
material property
distribution assumed in the numerical models, which in practice are not fully true in real
structures.
Part (b) of Figures 9–12 shows a 3D perspective view of the corbel, illustrating the
reinforcement bars and the isovalue surface of the maximum plastic deformations at the
instant of ultimate load. In practice, this view illustrates the inner cracking pattern at the
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 14 of 33
using CDP [11,36]. In general, these differences can be related mainly to not considering
support accommodations during the loading and also to considering the perfect bond
between the concrete and the reinforcement. In corbel C3 (in which the experimental and
numerical graphs deviated more), the linear potentiometer that measured the displacements
in the support region presented a malfunction, according to Wilson et al. [4]. Thus, the
displacement of the experimental curve of the corbel C3 represented the displacement of
the corbel end by adding the deformations arising from the support points.
5.2. Cracking Pattern

Regarding the cracking pattern, the experiments and numerical models provided
similar results.
Both cracks started in the upper region between the corbel and the column under
similar loads (green dots in the load × displacement graphs); With the load increase, a
second crack arose between the column and the support plate. This crack was relatively
smaller in numerical models of corbels C1, C2, and C3. In the C0 corbel, the extension of
this crack was more similar to that observed in the experiment.
With the load increase, the third crack appeared in the central region of the strut. Note
that on the south face of corbel C0, the crack appeared between loads of 779 and 890 kN,
which was the range in which the drop in stiffness appeared in the load × displacement
plot of the numerical model. In the experimental corbel C2, the crack appeared between
loads of 557 and 778 kN, while in the numerical model, the crack began to appear at a
higher load of around 950 kN.
Finally, the failure of the corbels was characterized by a brittle mechanism similar to
shear and punching shear failures [37–40] and triggered by the propagation of the third
crack, which started in the lateral region of the support plate and extended to the inferior
region close to the column (crossing the strut region). According to Wilson et al. [4], corbels
C0 and C2, which presented higher ratios of secondary reinforcement, had smaller crack
openings than the others, which agreed with the lower values of plastic strains in the
simulations of these corbels at failure.
5.3. Stresses in the Reinforcing Bars

Wilson et al. [4] explained that all tested corbels presented primary reinforcement yield-
ing at the failure onset except for corbel C0. It can be observed in the load × displacement
plot that for corbels C1 and C2, the beginning of the reinforcement yielding in the numerical
model matched the beginning of the reinforcement yielding in the test. For corbel C3, the be-
ginning of the reinforcement yielding in the numerical model occurred at a load level 12.8%
lower than the experimental one. Nevertheless, in both cases, the reinforcement-yielding
loads corresponded to approximately 85% of the respective failure loads. According to
reference [4], the primary reinforcement (tie) tensile stress for corbel C0 was between
455 and 483 MPa at failure. This stress level corresponded to between 90% and 95% of the
reinforcement yield strength, showing that this reinforcement was on the verge of yielding
at the failure. In the numerical model of C0, the primary reinforcement (tie) showed a small
reinforcement yield before failure that started at a load level of 1368.5 kN, corresponding to
94% of the failure load.
Table 2 presents the ultimate capacity achieved in the experiments (FEXP ) and in the
finite element models (FFEM ). In general, the finite element models closely predicted the
ultimate capacities for the C0, C1, and C2 corbels, with a maximum difference of 3.01%. The
larger deviation occurred for the simulation of the corbel C3, which presented an ultimate
load of 12.77% below the experimental one. The average ratio between the tested and
predicted resistances was 0.97 with a coefficient of variation equal to 6.79%. Therefore, the
level of accuracy was considered satisfactory compared to that in other publications related
to the NLFEA of corbels using different constitutive models [5,6].
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 15 of 33
Table 2. Comparison between experimental and predicted ultimate loads with the FEM.
Corbel
Table FEXP
2. Comparison (kN) experimental
between FFEM (kN)
and FFEMloads
predicted ultimate /FEXP with the FEM.
Error
C0 1426.23 1458.01 1.02 2.22%
C1Corbel FEXP (kN)
1677.65 FFEM (kN)
1627.23 FFEM
0.97/FEXP Error
3.01%
C2 C0 1784.45
1426.23 1778.17
1458.01 1.00
1.02 0.35%
2.22%
C3 C1 1677.65
1544.15 1627.23
1346.93 0.97
0.87 3.01%
12.77%
C2 1784.45 1778.17 1.00 0.35%
AVG 0.97
C3 1544.15 1346.93 0.87 12.77%
COV (%) 6.79%
AVG 0.97
COV (%) 6.79%
6. Sensibility Study
6.1. Stress–Strain Behavior in Tensile
6. Sensibility Study
Figure
6.1. 13 shows
Stress–Strain different
Behavior stress–strain behavior models in tension. In this case, the
in Tensile
fracture energy Gf was determined according to the fib Model Code 1990 [29]. It was ob-
Figure 13 shows different stress–strain behavior models in tension. In this case, the
served that the models by Genikomsou and Polak [11] and the fib Model Code 2010 [24]
fracture energy Gf was determined according to the fib Model Code 1990 [29]. It was
were bilinear, and those by Hordijk [28] and Guo [41] were exponential. The models from
observed that the models by Genikomsou and Polak [11] and the fib Model Code 2010 [24]
thewere
fib Model Code
bilinear, and2010
those[24],
by Genikomsou
Hordijk [28] andandGuo
Polak [11],
[41] wereandexponential.
Hordijk [28]The
aremodels
based on from
thethe
concept
fib Model Code 2010 [24], Genikomsou and Polak [11], and Hordijk [28] are based[41],
of fracture energy and showed similar plots. Nevertheless, Guo’s model on the
with αt calculated
concept according
of fracture to the
energy and author’s
showed formulation
similar (αt,calc = 4.92),Guo’s
plots. Nevertheless, resulted in a[41],
model sharpwith
dropαt calculated according to the author’s formulation (αt,calc = 4.92), resulted in a sharpusing
in the softening stage compared to the other models. For illustration purposes, drop in
αt =the
0.3, the softening
softening stage decreased
stage compared to the more
other smoothly,
models. Forresulting
illustrationin higher residual
purposes, usingtensile
αt = 0.3,
stresses.
the softening stage decreased more smoothly, resulting in higher residual tensile stresses.
Figure 13. Stress–strain behavior in tension according to different analytical models using data from
Figure 13. Stress–strain behavior in tension according to different analytical models using data from
corbel
corbel C2 C2 [11,24,28,29,41].
[11,24,28,29,41].
Figure 14 shows the effects of different stress–strain behavior models in tension on the
Figure 14 shows the effects of different stress–strain behavior models in tension on
numerical results regarding the load × displacement response and cracking pattern. The
the numerical results regarding the load × displacement response and cracking pattern.
results from Guo’s [41] model with α = 4.92 are not presented due to the convergence
The results from Guo’s [41] model witht,calc αt,calc = 4.92 are not presented due to the conver-
issues caused by the sudden drop in the residual tensile strength (softening stage), which
gence issues caused by the sudden drop in the residual tensile strength (softening stage),
aborted the processing even at the beginning of the analysis. Herein, the results presented
which aborted the processing even at the beginning of the analysis. Herein, the results
for the Guo models are the ones with the manually altered value of αt = 0.3. Regarding
presented for the Guo models are the ones with the manually altered value of αt = 0.3.
the load × displacement plots, all the tested models presented a similar behavior until
Regarding the load
the ultimate load;× after
displacement
the peak,plots, all the models
the bilinear tested models presented
presented a moreaaccentuated
similar behav-drop
iorwhen
until the
compared to the exponential ones. In general, the similar peakmore
ultimate load; after the peak, the bilinear models presented a loadsaccentu-
achieved
ated dropbewhen
could compared
expected to the
since the exponential
residual tensile ones. In general,
strength the similar
was similar peak loads
for all tested models
achieved
(see Figure 15). Nevertheless, when using higher values of αt , it is expected all
could be expected since the residual tensile strength was similar for thattested
a more
models (see Figure 15). Nevertheless, when using
significant difference would appear in the simulations. higher values of α t, it is expected that a
more significant
Regardingdifference would
the cracking appear
pattern in the simulations.
indicated by the maximum plastic strains, the models
based on the concept of fracture energy showed similar patterns throughout the analysis
(Figure 14a–c). These models began to develop tensile plastic strains (cracking) at the
interface between the corbel and the column, and with the load increase, an inclined main
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 16 of 33
plastification appeared in the central region of the strut.

Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW When using the model by Guo
17 of [41],
36
nevertheless, the behavior differed through the development of two main cracks within the
strut zone with smaller values of plastic strains.
Figure 14. Effects of different stress–strain behavior models in tension on the load × displacement
response and cracking pattern of the FEM of corbel C2 [11,24,26,28–30,41].
Regarding the cracking pattern indicated by the maximum plastic strains, the models
based on the concept of fracture energy showed similar patterns throughout the analysis
(Figure 14a–c). These models began to develop tensile plastic strains (cracking) at the in-
terface between the corbel and the column, and with the load increase, an inclined main
plastification appeared in the central region of the strut. When using the model by Guo
Figure 14. Effects of different stress–strain behavior models in tension on the load × displacement
[41],
Figurenevertheless,
14. Effects of the behavior
different differed through
stress–strain the development of load
two×main cracks
response and cracking pattern of the FEM behavior
of corbel models in tension on the
C2 [11,24,26,28–30,41]. displacement
within the strut zone with smaller values of plastic strains.
response and cracking pattern of the FEM of corbel C2 [11,24,26,28–30,41].
The
The use
useofofmodels
modelsbased
based ononthetheconcept
conceptofoffracture
fractureenergy
energyis iswidely
widelyemployed
employed inin
numerical simulations
Regarding the found
cracking in the
pattern literature
indicated by[11,12,36,42–44]
the maximum because
plastic it decreases
strains,
numerical simulations found in the literature [11,12,36,42–44] because it decreases the mesh the the
models
mesh
based dependence
on the concept
dependence of the
of the of results
fracture
results [12].
[12]. InInfact,
energy fact, intests
showed
in tests performed
similar with
patterns
performed Guo’s
Guo’smodel
throughout
with the [41]
model [41]that
analysis
that
varied
(Figurethe mesh
varied 14a–c).
the mesh discretizations,
These models began
discretizations, the numerical
the to results
develop results
numerical presented
tensile presented larger
plastic strains
largerchanges.
(cracking)Therefore,
changes. at the in-
Therefore,
the tensile
terface
the tensilestress–strain
between
the corbel and the
behavior model
column,
model ofof
concrete
and with
concrete inin
tension
the loadwas
tension modeled
increase,
was according
an inclined
modeled toto
main
according
Hordijk [28]
plastification in the next
appeared analyses.
in the
Hordijk [28] in the next analyses. central region of the strut. When using the model by Guo
[41], nevertheless, the behavior differed through the development of two main cracks
within the strut zone with smaller values of plastic strains.
The use of models based on the concept of fracture energy is widely employed in
numerical simulations found in the literature [11,12,36,42–44] because it decreases the
mesh dependence of the results [12]. In fact, in tests performed with Guo’s model [41] that
varied the mesh discretizations, the numerical results presented larger changes. Therefore,
the tensile stress–strain behavior model of concrete in tension was modeled according to
Hordijk [28] in the next analyses.
Figure 15. Stress–strain behavior in compression according to different analytical models using data
Figure 15. Stress–strain behavior in compression according to different analytical models using data
from corbel C2 [24–27,29,36,41,45,46].
from corbel C2 [24–27,29,36,41,45,46].
6.2. Stress–Strain Behavior in Compression

Figure 15 illustrates the five models presented to describe the stress–strain behavior
in compression using the concrete properties of corbel C2 [24,26,41,45,46]. In general, the
plots of the models differed only slightly in the second section (the hardening branch).
On the other hand, the models showed significantly different results in the third stretch
(the softening stage). The fib Model Code 2010 formulation [24] provided a parabolic
Figure 15. Stress–strain behavior in compression according to different analytical models using data
from corbel C2 [24–27,29,36,41,45,46].
6.2. Stress–Strain Behavior in Compression
Figure 15 illustrates the five models presented to describe the stress–strain behavior
in compression using the concrete properties of corbel C2 [24,26,41,45,46]. In general, the
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 17 of 33
plots of the models differed only slightly in the second section (the hardening branch). On
the other hand, the models showed significantly different results in the third stretch (the
softening stage). The fib Model Code 2010 formulation [24] provided a parabolic behavior
behavior
that causedthat the
caused
curve thetocurve to fall
fall more more when
sharply sharply when compared
compared to the other to the otherThe
models. models.
for-
The formulations
mulations by Feenstra
by Feenstra and [45]
and Borst Borstand
[45] and Krätzig
Krätzig and Pölling
and Pölling [26] presented
[26] presented higher higher
resid-
residual compressive
ual compressive strength
strength due todue to considering
considering the element
the finite finite element ld and crushing
sizecrushing
size ld and energy
energy
conceptsconcepts in the expressions.
in the expressions. For Guo’sFor [41]Guo’s
model,[41]
themodel, the parameters
parameters αa = 2.5 and ααda==0.2 2.5were
and
= 0.2for
αdused were used for comparison.
comparison.
Figure
Figure 1616shows
shows thetheeffect
effectofof
different
different stress–strain
behavior models
models in in
compression
compression on
the the ×
onload displacement
load × displacement response and cracking
response and crackingpattern of theof
pattern FEMthe of
FEMcorbel C2. Regarding
of corbel C2. Re-
the load ×the
garding displacement response,response,
load × displacement similar results
similarwere observed
results up to a load
were observed up toofa1500
loadkN. of
1500this
After kN.loading
After this loading
stage, largerstage, larger between
differences differences thebetween
models couldthe models could be
be observed. ob-
Using
served.
the Using
fib Model the fib
Code 2010Model Code 2010
expressions expressions
[24], the corbel [24],
failedtheat corbel
a loadfailed at a load
level well below level
the
well below the
experimental in aexperimental
brittle way. The in aother
brittle way.models
tested The other testedinmodels
resulted higher resulted
resistance incapacity
higher
resistance
with a more capacity with amechanism.
ductile failure more ductile failure mechanism.
Regarding the cracking Regarding
pattern, all themodels
cracking pat-
showed
tern, all
plastic models
strains showedregions,
in similar plastic strains
startinginwith
similar
theregions, startingatwith
deformations the deformations
the interface between
at corbel
the the interface
and the between
columnthe corbel
and a mainandcrack
the column and a main
in the central regioncrack in the
of the central
strut. region
Figure 16c
of the strut. Figure 16c shows that the model by Feenstra and Borst
shows that the model by Feenstra and Borst [45] presented larger tensile plastic strains [45] presented larger
tensile
when plastic strains
compared to the when compared
fib Model Code to the fib
model Model
2010 [24].Code model 2010 [24].
Figure Effect
16.16.
Figure of of
Effect different stress–strain
different behavior
stress–strain models
behavior in compression
models on the
in compression on load × displacement
the load × displace-
response and cracking
ment response patternpattern
and cracking of the FEM
of theofFEM
corbel C2 [24,26,28–30,41,45,46].
of corbel C2 [24,26,28–30,41,45,46].
The
Thedifferences
differencesinin the numerical
the numerical results and
results andcracking
cracking patterns
patternswere
weredirectly related
directly to
related
the third section of each analytical model used. In other words, the lower rate
to the third section of each analytical model used. In other words, the lower rate of resid- of residual
strength decrease
ual strength in the
decrease in constitutive model
the constitutive modeltended
tended totoincrease
increasethetheultimate capacityof
ultimate capacity of
the
thecorbels
corbelssince
sinceitit hampered prematurecompression
hampered premature compressionfailures
failuresat at
thethe nodes
nodes andand struts.
struts. In
Inthe
thesame
sameway,way,analytical
analytical models
models with
with a higher
a higher residual
residual compressive
compressive strength
strength (larger(larger
area
area below
below the the
curvecurve
in thein softening
the softening stage)
stage) tended
tended to increase
to increase the deformation
the deformation capacitycapacity
(duc-
(ductility) at failure.
tility) at failure.
6.3. Damage Evolution Laws

As previously explained, the scalar damage parameters in tension (dt ) and compression
(dc ) acted on decreasing the elastic modulus E in the stress–strain graphs and varied from
0 to 1 (0 when the material was intact and 1 when the material was fully damaged). In CDP,
the damage variables were inputted through the inelastic strains × damage relationship
(εc in × dc and εt in × dt ). The evolution of the scalar damage variables according to the
inelastic strain could be determined according to different models (Table 3).
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 18 of 33
Table 3. Analytical models to describe the evolution of tensile and compressive damage parameters.
Damage Evolution Models

Reference
Tensile Compressive
σt Ec −1 σc Ec −1
dt = 1 − pl
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW −1
dc = 1 − pl 19 of 36
Birtel and Mark [42] ε t ( 1/b t −1)+ σt Ec ε c (1/bc −1)+σc Ec −1
pl pl
in
with: ε t = bt ε t ; bt = 0.1 with: ε c = bc εin c ; bc = 0.7
Yu et al. [30] dt = 1 − fσtmt for ε t ≥ ε tu dc = σc
1 − f cm for ε c ≥ ε c1
6.3. Damage Evolution Laws
dt = 1 − [2(1 +As exp(−bt εin
at )previously t )−
explained, the scalar − [2(1 + parameters
dc = 1 damage in )−
ac ) exp(−bc εin
c tension (dt) and compres-
in in
ac exp(−2bc ε c )]/(2 + ac )
at exp(−2b t
sionε )] / ( 2 +
(dc) acted a t )
t on decreasing the elastic modulus σc0 ld
E in athe
stress–strain graphs and varied
Alfarah et al. [44] σt0 ld
+ 1a2t (0; when the material was
With: bc =and + 2c the
With: bt =fromG 01to F intact Gch 1 1
when ; material was fully damaged).
r
r
f tmIn f tm 2 2
CDP,
1 + 2the damage − variables were ac inputted through
− 1 + 2 theσcm
f inelastic
− σstrains × damage rela-

f f cm

f tm
at = 2 −
σt0 σt0 σin
= 2 σcm c0 c0 c0
t0
tionship (εc × dc and εt × dt). The evolution of the scalar damage variables
in according to
the inelastic strain could be determined according to different models (Table 3).
AsAsshown
shownin in Table
Table 3, 3, the
themodel
modelbybyYuYu et et
al.al.
[30][30]
is aissimpler
a simpler formulation
formulation in whichin which
the
the damage
damage is considered
is considered only only
in thein softening
the softening stagestage
(after(after
reaching reaching
the peak thecompressive
peak compressiveand
and tensile
tensile strengths).
strengths). TheThe models models by Birtel
by Birtel and and MarkMark[42] and[42]Alfarah
and Alfarah et al.consider
et al. [44] [44] consider
the
the damage
damage evolution
evolution after
after thethe elastic
elastic stage
stage and and areareexperimentally
experimentally calibrated
calibrated models;
models; thethe
model
model bybyAlfarah
Alfarahetetal. al.[44]
[44]is is the
the most refined
refined one oneas asitittakes
takesinto intoaccount
account thethe fracture
fracture and and
crushing
crushingenergies
energiesand andthe thesize sizeof ofthe
the finite
finite element.
element.
Figure1717shows
Figure showsthe thedamage damage evolution
evolution according
accordingtotodifferent differentmodels models presented
presented in in
Table3.3.InIngeneral,
Table general,the the model
model by by Birtel
Birtel and
and MarkMark[42] [42]damaged
damagedthe thematerial
material at at
a faster
a faster
rate,
rate, both
both inin tensionand
tension andcompression,
compression,when whencompared
comparedto tothe
theother
othertwo twomodels.
models. For For tensile
ten-
sile damage (Figure 17a), the models by Yu et al. [30]
damage (Figure 17a), the models by Yu et al. [30] and Alfarah et al. [44] had a similarand Alfarah et al. [44] had a similar
evolutionup
evolution uptotoaadtdt== 0.6, 0.6, and and after
after this,
this, the
the model
modelby byAlfarah
Alfarahetetal.al.[44] [44]showed
showed larger
larger
damage values. It is noteworthy here that as the tensile
damage values. It is noteworthy here that as the tensile behavior of concrete was consideredbehavior of concrete was consid-
ered until
linear linearfailure,
until failure,
σt0 in the σt0 in the expressions
expressions by Alfarah
by Alfarah et al.et[44]al. was
[44] was assumed
assumed to be toequal
be
toequal to ftm a(thus,
ftm (thus, at = 1.0). In compression, these two damage models showed similar dam-
t = 1.0). In compression, these two damage models showed similar damage
age evolution
evolution rates,rates, differing
differing only onlyin theindamage
the damage onsetonset
point. point.
Figure 17.Comparison
17.
Figure Comparison of the
thedifferent
differentdamage
damage evolution
evolution models
models intension
in (a) (a) tension [28–30,42,44]
[28–30,42,44] and
and (b)
(b)compression
compression [26,27,29,30,42,44] (fcm(f=cm46,88
[26,27,29,30,42,44] εc1 →calculated
MPa;MPa;
= 46,88 based onbased
εc1 → calculated [25]). on [25]).
Despite
Despitethe theelastic
elasticmodulus
modulus degradation havingaaclear
degradation having clearimpact
impactononthethe simulations
simulations of of
cyclic
cyclictests,
tests,itsitsinfluence
influenceonon the
the results
results of static tests isis unclear
static tests unclear[11].
[11].InInpractice,
practice, damage
damage
occursboth
occurs bothin in static and
andcyclic
cyclictests because
tests becauseit isita is
physical characteristic
a physical of concrete
characteristic after
of concrete
cracking.
after cracking.In addition, considering
In addition, the damage
considering the damage parameters
parameterschanges the proportion
changes be-
the proportion
tween the
between theinelastic
inelasticand andplastic
plasticconcrete
concretestrains
strains(Section
(Section2.1). Therefore,
2.1). Therefore,it could influence
it could influence
thenumerical
the numerical resultsresults due
duetotochanges
changes in the magnitude
in the magnitude of plastic strains.strains.
of plastic Lastly, the redis-the
Lastly,
tribution of stresses and forces occurs in numerical models (even in static tests [47,48]) in
a way in which the consideration of damage parameters could better simulate load relief
in some regions in static tests. Because of this, some tests were conducted to investigate
the influence of including or not including the damage parameters in the simulations of
the corbels.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 19 of 33
redistribution of stresses and forces occurs in numerical models (even in static tests [47,48])
in a way in which the consideration of damage parameters could better simulate load relief
in some regions in static tests. Because of this, some tests were conducted to investigate
the influence of including or not including the damage parameters in the simulations
of the corbels.
Some convergence issues appeared in the attempt to simulate corbels using the tensile
damage evolution models by Birtel and Mark [42] and Alfarah et al. [44]. Using the model
by Birtel and Mark [42], some simulations aborted shortly after the linear stage of the
load × displacement graph (when the first flexural cracks arose). On the other hand, the
simulations were aborted in the model by Alfarah et al. [44] before reaching the peak load.
This occurred because these tensile damage models decreased the elastic modulus faster,
hampering the numerical convergence. At this point, this problem occurred even when
using higher values of viscoplastic regularization (µ values). Based on this, the model by
Yu et al. [30] was chosen to be used in the reference modeling approach.
Figure 18 shows the FEM response of corbel C2 when varying only the compressive
damage evolution models (the same model by Yu et al. [30] was used to describe the concrete
tensile damage evolution). The load × deformation response using the model by Birtel and
Mark [42] resulted in the lower predicted ultimate load (73% of the experimental one). The
other two models provided similar predictions, diverging only when close to failure. In
the end, the model by Alfarah et al. [44] resulted in a lower predicted capacity than when
using the model by Yu et al. [30]. Therefore, models with higher damage evolution rates in
compression (see Figure 17b) resulted in lower ultimate capacities of the corbel.
Figure 18.
Figure Effectsofofdifferent
18. Effects differentcompressive
compressivedamage
damage evolution
evolution laws
laws onon
thethe load
load × displacement
× displacement re-
response
sponse and
and cracking
cracking pattern
pattern ofofthe
theFEM
FEMofofcorbel
corbelC2
C2ininterms
termsofof(a–c)
(a–c)maximum
maximumplastic
plasticstrains
strains and
and
(d–f)
(d–f) compressive
compressive damage dcc [26,28–30,42,44].
[26,28–30,42,44].
Regarding the
Regarding the cracking
cracking pattern
pattern(see
(seeFigure
Figure18a–c),
18a–c),thethesimulations
simulationsusing
usingthethe
models
modelsby
Alfarah et al. [44] and Yu et al. [30] presented similar patterns. Nevertheless,
by Alfarah et al. [44] and Yu et al. [30] presented similar patterns. Nevertheless, the simu- the simulation
using using
lation the model by Birtel
the model by and
BirtelMark
and [42]
Mark in [42]
compression showedshowed
in compression lower plastic strains
lower plastic
at the interface between the corbel and the column (lower crack openings),
strains at the interface between the corbel and the column (lower crack openings), sug- suggesting
that thethat
gesting failure
the was triggered
failure by the larger
was triggered by thedamage in the strut
larger damage region,
in the strut as confirmed
region, in
as con-
Figure in
firmed 18d–f.
FigureClearly,
18d–f.the compression
Clearly, strut was strut
the compression morewasdamaged when using
more damaged whenthe using
modeltheby
Birtel and Mark [42] when compared to the other models.
model by Birtel and Mark [42] when compared to the other models.
Without including
Without including the
the damage
damage parameters
parameters in in the
the numerical
numerical analysis,
analysis, the
the CDP
CDP model
model
behaved
behaved just like a plastic model; that is, the plastic and inelastic strains became
just like a plastic model; that is, the plastic and inelastic strains became equal equal
(εpl
(ε pl = εin ). Figure 19 shows the numerical response of the corbel C2 with and without the
= εin). Figure 19 shows the numerical response of the corbel C2 with and without the dam-
age parameters (both in tension and in compression) to examine the effects that the dam-
age parameters caused in the numerical results of the static tests.
lation using the model by Birtel and Mark [42] in compression showed lower plastic
strains at the interface between the corbel and the column (lower crack openings), sug-
gesting that the failure was triggered by the larger damage in the strut region, as con-
firmed in Figure 18d–f. Clearly, the compression strut was more damaged when using the
model by Birtel and Mark [42] when compared to the other models.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 Without including the damage parameters in the numerical analysis, the CDP 20 of 33
model
behaved just like a plastic model; that is, the plastic and inelastic strains became equal (εpl
= εin). Figure 19 shows the numerical response of the corbel C2 with and without the dam-
age parameters
damage (both(both
parameters in tension and in
in tension compression)
and to examine
in compression) the effects
to examine that the
the effects thatdam-
the
age parameters
damage caused
parameters in the
caused in numerical results
the numerical of the
results of static tests.
the static tests.
Figure
Figure 19. Load ×
19. Load displacement behavior
× displacement behavior and
and cracking
cracking pattern
pattern considering
considering and
and not
not considering
considering the
the
damage parameters in the FEM of corbel C2 [26,28–30].
damage parameters in the FEM of corbel C2 [26,28–30].
Figure 19 shows that damage parameters began to influence the numerical response at
a load of 800 kN due to the concrete in some regions of the corbel remaining at the elastic
stage and showing little or no damage. When damage parameters were applied only in
compression (dc ), a similar response to that in the previous analysis was observed; that is,
the damage increased at the strut region, resulting in a lower ultimate capacity of the nu-
merical models. When only tensile damage (dt ) was considered, an increase in stiffness and
ultimate load of the corbel was observed, as identified by Genikomsou and Polak [11] for
slab–column connections failing in punching. Finally, when the tensile (dt ) and compressive
(dc ) damage models were considered in the FEM, a combination of results was observed. In
other words, an increase in stiffness due to dt and a decrease in ultimate capacity due to dc
took place.
6.4. Yield Criterion Parameters—σb0 /σc0 and Kc

The parameter σb0 /σc0 , as previously explained, is the ratio between the equibiaxial
and uniaxial compressive yield stress of concrete in compression. Experimental values of
this parameter range from 1.10 to 1.16 [13], with 1.16 as the default value in ABAQUS.
Figure 20 shows the influence of varying the parameter σb0 /σc0 from 1.0 to 1.2 in the
numerical results for corbel C2. In practice, the load × displacement graphs were quite
similar up to a load of 1400 kN. Increasing the ratio σb0 /σc0 increased the ultimate capacity
of the corbel slightly. In practice, no significative differences could be identified regarding
the cracking pattern varying this parameter.
The Kc parameter determines the shape of the yield surface in the deviatoric stress
plane under a triaxial stress state and must assume values between 0.5 and 1.0. According
to Lubliner et al. [13], this parameter can be assumed as constant, and values from 0.64 to
0.8 can be observed experimentally. The value used by Lubliner et al. [13] and applied as
the default in Abaqus© is 0.667.
Figure 21 shows the influence of the Kc value on the numerical response of corbel C2.
In general, a similar load × displacement behavior was observed up to a load of 1250 kN
for all curves. Nevertheless, with the increase in the load, lower values of Kc resulted in
higher ultimate loads. Regarding the cracking pattern, higher values of Kc resulted in a
higher concentration of tensile plastic deformations in the bottom region of the strut (nodal
zone). This may explain the lower ultimate capacities of the corbels when Kc was increased.
numerical results for corbel C2. In practice, the load × displacement graphs were quite
similar up to a load of 1400 kN. Increasing the ratio σb0/σc0 increased the ultimate capacity
of the corbel slightly. In practice, no significative differences could be identified regarding
the cracking pattern varying this parameter.
The Kc parameter determines the shape of the yield surface in the deviatoric stress
plane under a triaxial stress state and must assume values between 0.5 and 1.0. According
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 to Lubliner et al. [13], this parameter can be assumed as constant, and values from 210.64
of 33
to
0.8 can be observed experimentally. The value used by Lubliner et al. [13] and applied as
the default in Abaqus© is 0.667.
Figure 20. Influence(nodal

of parameter
Figurezone). σb0 /σ
20. Influence
This of c0
may parameter
explain ×/σc0displacement
on loadσthe
b0 on loadultimate
lower behavior
× displacement and
behavior
capacities cracking
andcorbels
of the pattern
cracking patternof
when Kofc was
corbel C2 [26,28–30].
corbel C2 [26,28–30].
increased.
Figure 21 shows the influence of the Kc value on the numerical response of corbel C2.
In general, a similar load × displacement behavior was observed up to a load of 1250 kN
for all curves. Nevertheless, with the increase in the load, lower values of Kc resulted in
higher ultimate loads. Regarding the cracking pattern, higher values of Kc resulted in a
higher concentration of tensile plastic deformations in the bottom region of the strut
of the21.KInfluence
Figure 21. InfluenceFigure c parameter onKcthe
of the load ×on
parameter displacement behaviorbehavior
the load × displacement and cracking pattern
and cracking pattern
of the
of the FEM results for FEM C2
corbel results for corbel C2 [26,28–30].
[26,28–30].
6.5. Plastic
6.5. Plastic Flow Rule Flow Rule and
Parameters—e Parameters—e
ψ and ψ
The parameter eThe parameter e (eccentricity) defines the rate at which the potential function G
(eccentricity) defines the rate at which the potential function G
(Drucker–Prager hyperbolic form) approaches the asymptote. By default, e = 0.1 is fre-
(Drucker–Prager quently
hyperbolic form) approaches the asymptote. By default, e = 0.1 is fre-
adopted. If e = 0, the plastic potential would tend to be a straight line at the me-
If e =plane
quently adopted.ridional 0, the plastic
(place p-q). potential would tend to be a straight line at the
meridional plane (place p-q).
Figure 22 shows the influence of varying the eccentricity from 0.05 to 0.2 in the nu-
Figure 22 shows
mericalthe influence
results for corbelofC2.
varying theFigure
In general, eccentricity from 0.05
22 demonstrates that to
this0.2 in the had
parameter
a negligible influence on the global behavior of the corbel
numerical results for corbel C2. In general, Figure 22 demonstrates that this parameter had (load × displacement graphs
a negligible influence on the global behavior of the corbel (load × displacement graphs was
and on the cracking pattern). In practice, only a small increase in ultimate capacity
observed as the eccentricity value increased.
and on the cracking pattern). In practice, only a small increase in ultimate capacity was
The dilation angle (ψ) is the angle measured in the p-q plane at high confinement
observed as the eccentricity valuetests),
pressures (triaxial increased.
as explained earlier. In CDP, this angle must assume a value
The dilationgreater
angle than
(ψ) is the
zero and angle measured
less than arctg (3/2); that p-q
in the is, 0°plane
< ψ < at highThe
56.31°. confinement
Abaqus software
pressures (triaxialdoes
tests), as explained earlier. In CDP, this angle must
not provide any standard value for this parameter, which must be calibratedassume a value the
greater than zeroaccording
and less to the concrete
than used in
arctg (3/2); theis,
that 0◦ < ψ
absence of < 56.31◦ . The
experimental results
Abaqusof triaxial tests.
software
A widely used approach used to calibrate the dilation
does not provide any standard value for this parameter, which must be calibrated the angle is to simulate the tested
specimens with varied values of dilation angle and when comparing the tested and pre-
according to the concrete used in the absence of experimental results of triaxial tests.
dicted results, choose the value that best fits the experimental curve, as conducted in Geni-
A widely used approach used to calibrate the dilation angle is to simulate the tested
komsou and Polak [11] (the value ranged between 30° and 42°), Earij et al. [49] (the value
specimens with varied values of
varied between 20°dilation
and 50°), angle
and Nanaandetwhen
al. [36]comparing the tested
(the value varied betweenand 30° pre-
and 45°).
dicted results, choose
Nevertheless, smaller values between 13° and 15° are also commonly found in thein
the value that best fits the experimental curve, as conducted litera-
ture, such as in Alfarah et al. [44].
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 22 of 33
Genikomsou and Polak [11] (the value ranged between 30◦ and 42◦ ), Earij et al. [49] (the
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 ◦of 36
value varied between 20◦ and 50◦ ), and Nana et al. [36] (the value varied between 30
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 ofand
36
45◦ ). Nevertheless, smaller values between 13◦ and 15◦ are also commonly found in the
literature, such as in Alfarah et al. [44].
Figure 22. Influence of eccentricity (e) on load × displacement behavior and cracking pattern of cor-
belFigure 22. Influence of eccentricity (e) on load × displacement behavior and cracking pattern of
C2 [26,28–30].
Figure 22. Influence of eccentricity (e) on load × displacement behavior and cracking pattern of cor-
corbel C2 [26,28–30].
bel C2 [26,28–30].
Figure 23 shows the numerical results of corbel C2 when varying the dilation angle
Figure 23 shows the numerical results of corbel C2 when varying the dilation angle
fromFigure
30° to 45°. The changes
23 shows in the load
the numerical × displacement
results of corbel C2 curve
when occurred
varying the onlydilation
after a angle
load
from 30◦ to 45◦ . The changes in the load × displacement curve occurred only after a load
of 70030°
from kN,toat45°.
which
Theplastification
changes in the began
loadin× the central region
displacement curve of occurred
the strut as onlycharacterized
after a load
of 700 kN, at which plastification began in the central region of the strut as characterized
by 700
of the kN,
firstat
load drop
which in the graph.
plastification In general,
began higher region
in the central values ofof the
dilation
strut angle increased
as characterized
by the first load drop in the graph. In general, higher values of dilation angle increased
the the
by load at which
first load the in
drop plastification
the graph. of
In the strut higher
general, startedvalues
and the of ultimate
dilation capacity
angle of the
increased
the load at which the plastification of the strut started and the ultimate capacity of the
corbel.
the loadComparing
at which the
the cracking pattern
plastification of of
the the numerical
strut started models
and the
corbel. Comparing the cracking pattern of the numerical models showed that increasingshowed
ultimate that increasing
capacity of the
the
thedilation
corbel.dilationangle
anglefrom
Comparing the 30°
from 30to
cracking
◦ toaround 39°
pattern
around increased
39of the
theregion
the numerical
◦ increased ofofplastic
models
region showed
plastic strains
that(indicating
strains increasing
(indicating
the
thewider
widerinfluence
dilation angle
influence zone
from 30°ofto
zone ofthe
thestrut)
around and
39°
strut) and higher
higherplastic
increased the strains
region
plastic atatthe
theinterface
of plastic
strains strains
interface between
(indicating
between
the column
wider and the
influence corbel
zone (the
of theprimary
strut) reinforcement
and higher zone).
plastic The
strains
the column and the corbel (the primary reinforcement zone). The best fit between best
at thefit between
interface the ex-
between
the
perimental
the and numerical load × displacement graph was achieved
experimental and numerical load × displacement graph was achieved with a dilationthe
column and the corbel (the primary reinforcement zone). The with
best fit a dilation
between angle
ex-
angle
of 42 degrees.
perimental and numerical load × displacement graph was achieved with a dilation angle
of 42 degrees.
of 42 degrees.
Figure
Figure 23.23. Influence
Influence ofof dilationangle
dilation angle(ψ)
(ψ)on
onthe load××
theload displacementbehavior
displacement behaviorand
andcracking
crackingpattern
pattern
ofof corbel
corbel C2C2 [26,28–30].
[26,28–30].
Figure 23. Influence of dilation angle (ψ) on the load × displacement behavior and cracking pattern
of corbel C2 [26,28–30].
6.6. Viscoplastic Regularization Parameter—µ
The viscosity
6.6. Viscoplastic (µ) is the numerical
Regularization parameter related to time relaxation in the visco-
Parameter—µ
plastic system
The used(µ)
viscosity in the CDP
is the model toparameter
numerical overcome numerical
related to convergence issues.
time relaxation In CDP,
in the visco-
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 23 of 33
6.6. Viscoplastic Regularization Parameter—µ

The viscosity (µ) is the numerical parameter related to time relaxation in the viscoplas-
thetic
viscosity valueinmust
system used the CDPbe greater
model than or equalnumerical
to overcome to zero. When µ = 0, no
convergence viscoplastic
issues. In CDP,reg-
ularization is considered.
the viscosity value must In bethe literature,
greater than orviscosity
equal to values are frequently
zero. When µ = 0, no found between
viscoplastic
10−3regularization is considered.
[50], 10−4 [51], In the The
and 10−5 [12,43]. literature,
defaultviscosity values are frequently
value considered for CDPfound
is 0. Inbetween
this work,
10−3 [50],
viscosity 10−4 ranging
values 10−5 [12,43].
[51], and from 0.01 to The default
0 were valuetoconsidered
applied investigateforthe
CDP is 0. In this
influence of this
work, viscosity values
parameter on the corbels. ranging from 0.01 to 0 were applied to investigate the influence of
this parameter on the corbels.
Figure 24 shows the influence of varying the viscosity parameter in the numerical
Figure 24 shows the influence of varying the viscosity parameter in the numerical
results for corbel C2. The load-displacement behavior and the cracking pattern using the
results for corbel C2. The load-displacement behavior and the cracking pattern using
viscosities 0, 10−60,, and
the viscosities 10−610
, andwere
−5
10−5coincident (the cracking
were coincident pattern
(the cracking withwith
pattern µ = 10 −6 was omitted
µ = 10 −6 was
in Figure 24).
omitted in Figure 24).
Figure
Figure 24.24. Influenceofofviscosity
Influence viscosity (µ)
(µ) on
on the
the load
loadvs.
vs.displacement
displacementbehavior andand
behavior cracking pattern
cracking of of
pattern
corbel
corbel C2C2 [26,29].
[26,29].
Increasing the viscosity µ to values ≥ 10−4 increased the ultimate capacity considerably.
Increasing the viscosity µ to values ≥ 10−4 increased the ultimate capacity considera-
In addition, the cracking patterns for µ = 10−2 and µ = 10−3 indicated an overly large
bly. In addition, the cracking patterns for µ = 10−2 and µ = 10−3 indicated an overly large
influence zone of the struts. This occurred because the residual tensile strength of the
influence
concretezone
was of the struts.
artificially This occurred
increased because
(an undesired the residual
characteristic) bytensile strength
increasing of the con-
the viscosity
crete
parameter [51]. Therefore, for values of viscosity between 10 and 10 , the material pa-
was artificially increased (an undesired characteristic) by− increasing
2 − 3 the viscosity
rameter [51]. Therefore,
may redistribute the loadfor values
similar of viscosity between
to steel-fiber-reinforced 10−2 and
concrete, 10−3explains
which , the material
why themay
redistribute thewere
plastic strains loadless
similar to steel-fiber-reinforced
concentrated concrete,
at the strut region and covered which
a wider explains
zone. why the
plastic Michał
strains and
wereAndrzej [51] showed
less concentrated atthat increasing
the strut regionthe
andviscosity
covered value increases
a wider zone.the
damage distribution between the neighboring elements, which results
Michał and Andrzej [51] showed that increasing the viscosity value increases thein higher resistance
of the structural
damage distributionmember.
between Figure
the 25 shows the evolution
neighboring elements,ofwhich
the tensile damage
results variable
in higher dt
resistance
(DAMAGET) with increasing viscosity values. In fact, with µ ≥ 10 −3 , there was a larger
of the structural member. Figure 25 shows the evolution of the tensile damage variable dt
spread of damage throughout the corbel, resulting in a higher ultimate capacity, as seen in
(DAMAGET) with increasing viscosity values. In fact, with µ ≥ 10−3, there was a larger
Figure 24.
spread Inoforder
damage throughout the corbel, resulting in a higher ultimate capacity, as seen
to overcome problems of convergence of the analysis, the computational cost
in Figure 24.
of each viscosity value was also evaluated. When compared with the simulation with µ
= 0, the simulations with µ = 10−6 and µ = 10−5 did not show significant processing-time
savings; whereas for µ = 10−4 , µ = 10−3 , and µ = 10−2 , the computational cost reductions
were 9%, 41%, and 44%, respectively.
Buildings 2023,
Buildings 12,13,
2023, x FOR
1874 PEER REVIEW 24 of 33 26
Figure 25. Influence of viscosity µ on the distribution of tensile damage in corbel C2.
Figure 25. Influence of viscosity µ on the distribution of tensile damage in corbel C2.
7. Level of Accuracy for the Dataset
The proposed
In order modeling choices
to overcome problemsto represent the non-linear
of convergence response
of the analysis,of the RCcomputational
the corbels
were checked against a databank of 36 test results (4 from Wilson et al. [4]
of each viscosity value was also evaluated. When compared with the simulation and 32 from other with
references that will be described in−6the next sections). In this way, the level of accuracy of
0, the simulations with µ = 10 and µ = 10 did not show significant processing-time
−5
the proposed framework for the NLFEA using CDP could be verified in detail.
ings; whereas for µ = 10−4, µ = 10−3, and µ = 10−2, the computational cost reductions w
7.1.
9%,Test by Khosravikia
41%, et al. [5]
and 44%, respectively.
Khosravikia et al. [5] tested three double corbels named S1, S2, and S3. The geometry
of
7. the corbels
Level was similar
of Accuracy fortothe corbels tested by Wilson et al. [4] (with a/d = 0.59 but
theDataset
with bw = 305 mm). Details on the geometry and reinforcement layout can be consulted
The proposed modeling choices to represent the non-linear response of the RC
elsewhere [5].
bels The
were checked
primary against aofdatabank
reinforcement corbels S1 and of 36 test results
S3 consisted (4 from
of four bars with Wilson et al. [4] an
a diameter
from
of 25.4other
mm and references that will
yield strength of 471be MPa.
described in the
In corbel S2, next
three sections).
bars with aIndiameter
this way,
of the lev
25.4 mm were adopted with a yield strength of 570 MPa. For the secondary
accuracy of the proposed framework for the NLFEA using CDP could be verified in de reinforcement,
in corbels S1 and S2, closed horizontal stirrups (a secondary reinforcement) and vertical
ones with by
7.1. Test a diameter of 9.53
Khosravikia et mm and a yield stress of 467 MPa were adopted. As for corbel
al. [5]
S3, no secondary reinforcement was applied.
Khosravikia
The concrete usedet al. [5] corbels
in the tested was
three doubletocorbels
designed named
have a 28-day S1, S2, andstrength
compressive S3. The geom
of34.5
of the MPa
corbels
withwas similar aggregate
a maximum to the corbels
size oftested
dg = 10bymm.Wilson
Table 4etshows
al. [4]the(with a/d = 0.59 but
compressive
strength
bw = 305(fcm ), modulus
mm). Details of elasticity (Ec ), and splitting
on the geometry tensile strengthlayout
and reinforcement (ftm,sp ) on thebe
can day of
consulted
the corbel
where [5]. test. The table also shows the direct tensile strength (ftm ) adopted in the numerical
simulation of each corbel as well as the measured yield strength of reinforcement (fym ).
The primary reinforcement of corbels S1 and S3 consisted of four bars with a diam
of 25.4
Table mm and
4. Material yield strength
properties used for theofcorbels
471 MPa.
tested In corbel S2, etthree
by Khosravikia al. [5].bars with a diameter of
mm were adopted with a yield strength of 570 MPa. For the secondary reinforcemen
Property (MPa) Testing Method S1 S2 S3
corbels S1 and S2, closed horizontal stirrups (a secondary reinforcement) and vertical
fcm (MPa) ASTM C39 [19] 27.1 26.5 27.3
with a diameter of 9.53 mm and a yield stress of 467 MPa were adopted. As for corbe
Ec (MPa) ASTM C469 [20] 27,670 27,000 27,370
no secondary
Concrete reinforcement was applied.
The concrete used ftm,sp (MPa)
in the corbelsASTM wasC496 [21]
designed to3.36
have a 28-day3.12 3.16
compressive stre
of 34.5 MPa with a maximumf tm (MPa) 0.9f
aggregate tm,sp 3.02 2.81 2.84
size of dg = 10 mm. Table 4 shows the compres
ϕ 9.53 mm f
strength (fcm), modulusymof elasticity (Ec), and splitting467 467
tensile strength - ) on the da
(ftm,sp
ASTM A370 [22]
the ϕ
corbel test. The ftable
25.4 mm ym (MPa)also shows the direct tensile471 strength 570 (ftm) adopted
471 in the num
ical simulation of each corbel as well as the measured yield strength of reinforcement
Figures 26–28 show the main test results and the predicted ones using NLFEA
these figures, item (a) corresponds to the load vs. displacement behavior, highligh
points of interest such as the beginning of the first flexural cracks, the beginning of
inclined cracks in the strut, and the point corresponding to the ultimate failure load
f) correspond to the cracking evolution and the final cracking pattern of the tested corbels,
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 respectively. 25 of 33
Table 4. Material properties used for the corbels tested by Khosravikia et al. [5].
Figures 26–28(MPa)
Property show the main testTestingresults Method
and the predicted S1ones usingS2 NLFEA. S3In these
figures, item (a) corresponds
fcm (MPa) to the load ASTMvs. displacement
C39 [19] behavior,
27.1 highlighting
26.5 points of
27.3
interest such as the beginning
Ec (MPa) of the first flexural
ASTM C469cracks,
[20] the 27,670
beginning27,000
of the inclined
27,370cracks
Concrete
in the strut, and the fpoint corresponding to C496
the ultimate failure
tm,sp (MPa) ASTM [21] 3.36load (the
3.12starting3.16
points of
cracking in the S3 strut were
ftm (MPa) not documented by
0.9ftm,sp the researchers).
3.02 Items (b)
2.81 and 2.84are the
(c)
maximum plastic
ϕ 9.53 mm deformations
fym of the simulation at the instant
467 of the ultimate
467 load.
- Item
ASTM A370 [22]
(d) shows the tensile damage coefficient (dt ), and finally, items (e) and f) correspond to the
ϕ 25.4 mm fym (MPa) 471 570 471
cracking evolution and the final cracking pattern of the tested corbels, respectively.
Figure
Figure 26. Experimentaland
26. Experimental andnumerical
numerical results
results for for corbel
corbel S1 from
S1 from Khosravikia
Khosravikia et al.
et al. [5]: (a)[5]: (a) load-
load-
displacement
displacement graphs; (b) distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovalues of
graphs; (b) distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovalues
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
plastic strains;
of plastic (c) (c)
strains; distribution of of
distribution maximum
maximum plastic
plasticstrains
strainsat at
the corbel
the face;
corbel face;(d)
(d)distribution
distribution 28of
of 36
oftensile
tensile damage in the corbel face and (e) evolution of the cracking pattern at the test;
damage in the corbel face and (e) evolution of the cracking pattern at the test; (f) cracking pattern(f) cracking
pattern
after after failure.
failure.
As in the tested corbels, no reinforcement yielding was observed in the numerical

models at failure. Therefore, failure of both the experimental and numerical corbels was
governed by failure in the strut region.
Figure Experimentaland
Figure 27. Experimental andnumerical
numerical results
results for for corbel
corbel S2 from
S2 from Khosravikia
Khosravikia et al.
et al. [5]: (a)[5]: (a) load-
load-
displacement
displacement graphs; (b) distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through
distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovalues of isovalues
of plastic
plastic strains;
strains; (c) (c) distribution
distribution of maximum
of maximum plastic
plastic strains
strains at at
thethe corbel
corbel face;
face; (d)distribution
(d) distributionofoftensile
damage in the corbel face and (e) evolution of the cracking pattern at the test; (f) (f)
tensile damage in the corbel face and (e) evolution of the cracking pattern at the test; cracking
cracking pattern
pattern after failure.
after failure.
Figure 27. Experimental and numerical results for corbel S2 from Khosravikia et al. [5]: (a) load-
displacement graphs; (b) distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovalues
of plastic strains; (c) distribution of maximum plastic strains at the corbel face; (d) distribution of
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 26 of 33
tensile damage in the corbel face and (e) evolution of the cracking pattern at the test; (f) cracking
pattern after failure.
Figure
Figure 28. Experimental and
28. Experimental and numerical
numericalresults
resultsfor
forcorbel
corbelS3S3from
fromKhosravikia
Khosravikia et etal.al.
[5]:[5]:
(a) (a) load-
load-
displacement
displacement graphs; (b) distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovaluesof
graphs; (b) distribution of inner cracking in the numerical model through isovalues
plastic strains;
of plastic (c) distribution
strains; of maximum
(c) distribution of maximumplastic strains
plastic at theatcorbel
strains face; face;
the corbel (d) distribution
(d) distribution of tensile
of
damage in the corbel
tensile damage in theface and
corbel (e)and
face evolution of the cracking
(e) evolution patternpattern
of the cracking at the test;
at the(f)test;
cracking pattern
(f) cracking
pattern
after after failure.
failure.
As
Theinevolution
the testedofcorbels, no reinforcement
the cracking yielding
pattern was also was observed
well tracked in the numerical
by the numerical models:
models
(i) firstly, flexural cracks appeared at the column–corbel interface, followed (ii) by thewas
at failure. Therefore, failure of both the experimental and numerical corbels on-
governed by failure in
set and propagation ofthe strut region.
inclined cracks in the region of the strut until the failure. The start-
The evolution
ing points of the cracks
of the flexural cracking pattern
in the was also well
experimental teststracked by the
and in the numerical
numerical models:
simulations
(i) firstly,
were flexural
quite cracks
similar. appeared at
Nevertheless, the column–corbel
inclined cracks appearedinterface, followed
at slightly (ii) by
higher the in
loads onset
the
and propagation
numerical of inclined
simulations whencracks in thetoregion
compared of the strut until
the experimental tests.the failure. The
In general, starting
the cracking
points of the flexural cracks in the experimental tests and in the numerical simulations
were quite similar. Nevertheless, inclined cracks appeared at slightly higher loads in
the numerical simulations when compared to the experimental tests. In general, the
cracking patterns of the numerical simulations fitted well with those observed in the
experimental tests.
For corbels S1 and S2, the differences between the predicted and tested ultimate loads
were 6.2% and 2.1%, respectively. As for corbel S3, the predicted failure load was 11.4%
higher than that of the experimental one.
7.2. Tests by Fattuhi

In Fattuhi [52], Fattuhi [53], Fattuhi and Hughes [54], and Hughes and Fattuhi [55], a
variety of corbels with different geometries, reinforcement ratios, and concrete strengths
with different fiber volumes were studied. Figure 29 shows the typical geometry used
in these studies, for which the value of the load application distance (a) and the effective
depth (d) are given in Table 5 for each corbel. It should be noted that the corbels selected in
Table 5 were corbels composed of concrete without the presence of fibers. Note that the a/d
ratio of the tests ranged from 0.41 to 1.46. Some more detailed information on the corbels
tested by Fattuhi and Hughes [54] and Hughes and Fattuhi [55] is given in Canha et al. [6]
and Naegeli [56].
Table 5 presents the material properties of the materials used in the numerical models.
For the compressive strength of concrete (fcm ), the value measured on cube specimens was
multiplied by 0.82 [39] to take into account the difference between the compressive tests
using a cylindrical specimen (100 × 200) and a cubic specimen (100 × 100 × 100). For the
corbels in Fattuhi [52] and Fattuhi [53], the tensile strength (ftm ) was multiplied by 0.9 to
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 27 of 33
consider the difference between the splitting tensile tests and direct tension [57]. For the
corbels in Fattuhi and Hughes [54] and Hughes and Fattuhi [55], the tensile strength (ftm )
was estimated using the fib Model Code 2010 expression [24]:
f tm = 0.3 · ( f cm − 8)2/3 (20)
According to the authors, the maximum aggregate size for the concrete was 10 mm.
The concrete modulus of elasticity (Ec ) of all corbels was estimated using the fib Model
Code 2010 expression [24] with αe = 1.0:
Ec = (0.8 + 0.2 f cm /88) · 21, 500 · αe · ( f cm /10)1/3 (21)
Table 5 also describes the reinforcement used in each corbel. In the tested corbels that
had three bars as a primary reinforcement, two bars with larger diameters were applied in
the numerical corbels with the same total cross-sectional areas. It was observed that the
T2 and T7 corbels had a secondary reinforcement (seam reinforcement), and the T8 and
T9 corbels had two secondary reinforcements (seam reinforcements), both in the form of
stirrups with two branches.
For the simulation, the corbels were discretized with an average size of finite elements
(ld) of 7.5 mm (Figure 29b), and a double symmetry of the corbels was adopted, as shown
in Figure 29c. The displacement imposed on the RP-1 point was −3 mm in the y-direction.
patterns of the numerical simulations fitted well with those observed in the experimental
Figures 30–32 compare the experimental and numerical cracking patterns of corbels T6, 34,
tests.
and 25, respectively. In general, the numerical model of corbel T6 accurately represented
For corbels S1 and S2, the differences between the predicted and tested ultimate loads
the cracking pattern evolution of the test, starting with the flexural cracks and finishing
were 6.2% and 2.1%, respectively. As for corbel S3, the predicted failure load was 11.4%
with a large inclined crack in the central region of the strut. For corbels 34 and 25, with an
higher than that of the experimental one.
a/d of 1.11 and 0.89, respectively, an additional crack between the column and the support
plate
7.2. also
Tests arose in the numerical models and in the tests, which is very common in corbels
by Fattuhi
with geometries closer to a beam.
In Fattuhi [52], Fattuhi [53], Fattuhi and Hughes [54], and Hughes and Fattuhi [55], a
In general, minor differences in inclinations of the cracks and load × displacement
variety of corbels with different geometries, reinforcement ratios, and concrete strengths
graphs between the test and numerical results can be attributed to the isotropic material
with different fiber volumes were studied. Figure 29 shows the typical geometry used in
properties considered for the concrete in the numerical models as well as to the perfect
these studies, for which the value of the load application distance (a) and the effective
adhesion
depth (d)assumed
are given between
in Table 5the reinforcement
for each and concrete.
corbel. It should In practice,
be noted that theselected
the corbels material
properties
in Table 5 were corbels composed of concrete without the presence of fibers. Note that the In
varied along the corbels, and cracks generally started at the weakest points.
addition,
a/d ratio some
of the bond-slip
tests rangedbetween
from 0.41thetoreinforcement
1.46. Some moreand concrete
detailed could also
information onchange
the cor-the
global
bels tested by Fattuhi and Hughes [54] and Hughes and Fattuhi [55] is given in Canhaitet
stiffness of the corbel and change the inclination of the cracks. Nevertheless, was
assumed that the main
al. [6] and Naegeli [56]. results of the numerical models (governing the failure mechanism
and the ultimate loads) were accurately predicted.
Figure
Figure29. 29.(a)
(a)Typical
Typicalgeometry
geometry of
of the corbels
corbels used
usedininFattuhi’s
Fattuhi’sstudies;
studies;
(b)(b) mesh
mesh discretization
discretization with
with
l of 7.5 mm; (c) boundary conditions of the corbels.
ld of 7.5 mm; (c) boundary conditions of the corbels.
d
Table 5 presents the material properties of the materials used in the numerical mod-
els. For the compressive strength of concrete (fcm), the value measured on cube specimens
was multiplied by 0.82 [39] to take into account the difference between the compressive
tests using a cylindrical specimen (100 × 200) and a cubic specimen (100 × 100 × 100). For
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 28 of 33
Table 5. Geometric properties, material properties, and reinforcement amounts of the corbels tested
in Fattuhi’s studies.
a d c h bw fcm ftm Ec φ d fy
Corbel a/d Quant.
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (MPa)
Fattuhi [52]
25 110 123 0.89 200 150 150 30.50 2.718 27,513.2 2 12 123 452
26 80 125 0.64 200 150 150 30.50 2.718 27,513.2 2 10 125 450
33 75 124 0.60 200 150 150 32.80 3.258 28,361.7 2 8 124 450
34 135 122 1.11 200 150 150 32.80 3.258 28,361.7 2* 14.7 * 122 452
41 135 123 1.10 200 150 150 29.44 2.889 27,110.6 2 ** 13.26 ** 123 452
42 135 121 1.12 200 150 150 29.44 2.889 27,110.6 2 18 121 427
Fattuhi [53]
65 110 91.8 1.20 200 147.8 150 28.29 3.024 26,670.2 2 12 91.8 452
66 135 93 1.45 200 149 150 28.29 3.024 26,670.2 2* 14.7 * 93 452
67 110 132.4 0.83 200 148.4 150 30.012 3.159 27,328.1 2 12 132.4 452
68 110 112.4 0.98 200 148.4 150 30.012 3.159 27,328.1 2 12 112.4 452
69 135 122.6 1.10 200 148.6 150 26.24 2.799 25,864.9 2* 14.7 * 122.6 452
70 135 92.3 1.46 200 148.3 150 26.24 2.799 25,864.9 2* 14.7 * 92.3 452
71 110 121.5 0.91 200 147.5 150 28.29 2.79 26,670.2 2 ** 13.26 ** 121.5 452
72 110 123.2 0.89 200 149.2 150 28.29 2.79 26,670.2 2 12 123.2 452
73 75.0 124 0.60 200 148 150 28.29 2.898 26,670.2 2 8 124 451
74 75.0 94.2 0.80 200 148.2 150 28.29 2.898 26,670.2 2 8 94.2 451
Fattuhi and Hughes [54]
T1 89 105 0.85 200 150 150 41.21 3.099 29,158.4 2 10 105 558
2 10 130
T2 89 130 0.68 200 150 150 41.21 3.099 29,158.4 558
2 10 76
T6 89 137 0.65 200 150 150 43.05 3.213 29,707.6 2 12 137 491
2 12 130 491
T7 89 130 0.68 200 150 150 39.46 2.990 28,629.5
2 10 80 558
2 12 130 491
T8 89 130 0.68 200 150 150 43.05 3.213 29,707.6 2 10 93 558
2 10 85 558
2 12 130 491
T9 89 130 0.68 200 150 150 39.46 2.990 28,629.5 2 10 69 558
2 10 61 558
Hughes and Fattuhi [55]
C1 125 120 1.04 200 150 150 39.57 2.996 28,659.1 2 10 120 558
C21 53 129 0.41 200 150 150 38.75 2.944 28,391.6 2 8 129 495
C22 89 129 0.69 200 150 150 41.10 3.093 29,129.2 2 8 129 495
C23 125 129 0.97 200 150 150 41.10 3.093 29,129.2 2 8 129 495
C24 53 129 0.41 200 150 150 38.75 2.944 28,391.6 2 10 129 558
C25 65 129 0.50 200 150 150 40.80 3.074 29,041.6 2 12 129 491
C26 125 129 0.97 200 150 150 39.57 2.996 28,659.1 2 12 129 491
Notes: * 3 φ 12 mm; ** 1 φ 8 mm + 2 φ 12 mm.
direction.
corbels T6,Figures
34, and 25,30–32 compare the
respectively. experimental
In general, and numerical
the numerical model ofcracking
corbel T6patterns
accuratelyof
corbels T6, 34,
represented and
the 25, respectively.
cracking In general,
pattern evolution thetest,
of the numerical
startingmodel of corbel
with the T6 cracks
flexural accurately
and
represented
finishing with a large inclined crack in the central region of the strut. For corbels 34 and
the cracking pattern evolution of the test, starting with the flexural cracks and
finishing
25, with anwith
a/d aoflarge inclined
1.11 and 0.89,crack in the central
respectively, region of
an additional the between
crack strut. Forthe
corbels 34 and
column and
25, with an a/d of 1.11 and 0.89, respectively, an additional crack between
the support plate also arose in the numerical models and in the tests, which is very the column and
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 29 com-
of 33
the
monsupport plate
in corbels withalso arose in the
geometries numerical
closer models and in the tests, which is very com-
to a beam.
mon in corbels with geometries closer to a beam.
Figure
Figure30.30.Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenthe thetested
testedand
andpredicted
predictedcracking
crackingpattern
pattern ofof
corbel T6T6
corbel at at
failure: (a)
failure:
Figure 30. Comparison
distribution of maximum between
tensilethe tested
plastic and predicted
strains; and (b) cracking
tensile pattern
damage in of
thecorbel T6 at failure:
numerical model; (a)
(c)
(a) distribution of maximum tensile plastic strains; and (b) tensile damage in the numerical model;
distribution
cracking of maximum
pattern after tensile
failure in plastic
the test. strains; and (b) tensile damage in the numerical model; (c)
(c) cracking pattern after failure in the test.
cracking pattern after failure in the test.
Figure 31. Comparison between the tested and predicted cracking pattern of corbel 34 at failure:
Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 32 of (a)
36
(a) distribution
Figure of maximum
31. Comparison betweentensile tested
plasticand
strains; and (b)cracking
tensile damage in corbel
the numerical model;
distribution of maximum tensiletheplastic strains;predicted
and (b) tensile pattern
damage in of 34 at failure:
the numerical model; (a)
(c)
(c) cracking of
distribution pattern after failure
maximum tensile inplastic
the test.
cracking pattern after failure in the test. strains; and (b) tensile damage in the numerical model; (c)
cracking pattern after failure in the test.
Figure 32. Comparison between the tested and predicted cracking pattern of corbel 25 at failure: (a)
(a) distribution
distribution of maximum
of maximum tensile
tensile plastic
plastic strains;
strains; andand
(b)(b) tensile
tensile damage
damage in in
thethe numerical
numerical model;
model; (c)
(c) cracking
cracking pattern
pattern after
after failure
failure in the
in the test.
test.
7.3. Summary of the Accuracy Level of the NLFEA
In general, minor differences in inclinations of the cracks and load × displacement
Table 6 presents a comparison between the ultimate loads observed in the tests (FEXP )
graphs between the test and numerical results can be attributed to the isotropic material
and the predicted ones with the proposed framework for the NLFEA (FFEM ). The mean
properties considered for the concrete in the numerical models as well as to the perfect
adhesion assumed between the reinforcement and concrete. In practice, the material prop-
erties varied along the corbels, and cracks generally started at the weakest points. In ad-
dition, some bond-slip between the reinforcement and concrete could also change the
global stiffness of the corbel and change the inclination of the cracks. Nevertheless, it was
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 30 of 33
ratio between the numerical and experimental failure loads FFEM /FEXP was 1.015 with a
coefficient of variation equal to 8.57%. Therefore, the proposed framework for the NLFEA
provided accurate predictions of the ultimate load for the databank, similar to the ones
achieved in other studies related to RC corbels using NLFEA [5–7]. For instance, the ratio
between the predicted and tested resistances in Khosravikia et al. [5] was 0.972 with a
coefficient of variation equal to 9.35%. In Canha et al. [6], the average ratio between the
tested and predicted resistances for the simulated corbels was 1.03 with a coefficient of
variation equal to 15.9%. In both publications, two-dimensional NLFEA was employed.
Therefore, this work also showed that the level of accuracy using two-dimensional or three-
dimensional NLFEA provides similar levels of accuracy for RC corbels. Nevertheless, the
proposed 3D modeling approach is the most flexible because it may be used to investigate
the effect of load eccentricity along the corbel width, for instance.
Table 6. Comparison between experimental (tested) and predicted resistances and failure mechanism
with the finite element models (FEMs). FME = failure mode in the experiment; FMF = failure mode
in the finite element model; C = failure in the strut; T = failure at the primary reinforcement; CP =
whether the failure mechanism was correctly predicted.
Reference Corbel a/d fcm (MPa) FEXP (kN) FFEM (kN) FFEM /FEXP FME FMF CP
C0 0.66 36.54 1426.2 1458.0 1.02 C T No
C1 0.59 44.82 1677.7 1627.2 0.97 T T Yes
Wilson et al. [4]
C2 0.59 46.88 1784.5 1778.2 1.00 T T Yes
C3 0.59 38.61 1544.2 1346.9 0.87 T T Yes
S1 0.59 27.10 1050.0 1115.4 1.06 C C Yes
Khosravikia et al. [5] S2 0.59 26.50 1096.5 1073.4 0.98 C C Yes
S3 0.59 27.30 772.0 860.1 1.11 C C Yes
25 0.89 30.50 108.5 103.1 0.95 T T Yes
26 0.64 30.50 112.5 114.8 1.02 T T Yes
33 0.60 32.80 91 85.3 0.94 T T Yes
Fattuhi [52]
34 1.11 32.80 114 104.1 0.91 T T Yes
41 1.10 29.44 98 92.2 0.94 T T Yes
42 1.12 29.44 111.5 99.1 0.89 C C Yes
65 1.20 28.29 74 82.1 1.11 T T Yes
66 1.45 28.29 73.5 70.7 0.96 T T Yes
67 0.83 30.01 101.3 100.9 1.00 T T Yes
68 0.98 30.01 96 95.0 0.99 T T Yes
69 1.10 26.24 93.5 89.2 0.95 C T No
Fattuhi [53]
70 1.46 26.24 67.3 65.9 0.98 C C Yes
71 0.91 28.29 116.5 110.5 0.95 T T Yes
72 0.89 28.29 101 93.3 0.92 T T Yes
73 0.60 28.29 87.5 83.5 0.95 T T Yes
74 0.80 28.29 74.3 63.5 0.86 T T Yes
T1 0.85 41.21 93 100.0 1.08 C C Yes
T2 0.68 41.21 146 156.4 1.07 C T No
T6 0.65 43.05 136 138.0 1.01 T T Yes
Fattuhi and Hughes [54]
T7 0.68 39.46 157 169.7 1.08 C C Yes
T8 0.68 43.05 188 212.3 1.13 T T Yes
T9 0.68 39.46 153 179.9 1.18 C C Yes
C1 1.04 39.57 80 88.2 1.10 C C Yes
C21 0.41 38.75 114 123.2 1.08 T T Yes
C22 0.69 41.10 82 81.5 0.99 T T Yes
Hughes and Fattuhi [55] C23 0.97 41.10 47 58.0 1.23 T T Yes
C24 0.41 38.75 145 151.0 1.04 C T No
C25 0.50 40.80 151 159.3 1.06 T T Yes
C26 0.97 39.57 90 102.0 1.13 C C Yes
Average 1.015 32/36
Standard deviation 0.087
Coefficient of variation 8.57%
Different from previous publications in this field [5,6], we also attempted to highlight
the level of accuracy related to the prediction of the governing failure mechanism. Table 5
shows that the governing failure mechanism, either concrete crushing at the strut (C) or
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 31 of 33
reinforcement yielding of the primary reinforcement (T), was also well predicted by the nu-
merical models. The governing failure mechanism was correctly predicted in 32/36 = 88%
of the tests using the numerical models.
8. Conclusions
In this study, the behavior of reinforced concrete corbels was evaluated through
advanced non-linear finite element analysis. Firstly, the proposed framework for the
non-linear finite element analysis was checked against a specific experimental program.
Afterwards, a sensibility study was conducted to show the parameters of the Concrete
Damaged Plasticity model that more significantly influenced the ultimate capacity and
deformation capacity of the corbels. In the end, the proposed approach to the NLFEA using
CDP was checked against a databank of 36 test results. The following conclusions could
be drawn:
• The shape factor Kc , the dilation angle ψ, and the viscosity parameter µ were the
most influential parameters in the deformation and ultimate capacity of the numerical
models of the RC corbels. After proper calibration, the chosen parameter values were
allowed to accurately represent a reasonable number of test results from the literature.
• Values of viscosity parameters higher than 10−4 should be avoided because they
significantly change the cracking pattern evolution and the corresponding ultimate
capacity of the corbels. In practice, such values may increase the residual tensile and
compressive strength of concrete and induce a larger influence zone for the cracks,
changing the governing failure mechanisms of the numerical models.
• Different stress–strain behavior models in compression did not significantly change
the ultimate capacity of the modeled corbels. This indicates that in practice, the tensile
cracks also govern the capacity of the struts.
• The proposed framework for the NLFEA of reinforced concrete corbels was able to
satisfactorily predict the global behavior of corbels with different geometries with an
a/d varying from 0.4 to 1.4 and a compressive strength of concrete of 28 to 46 MPa.
• The numerical models allowed the accurate prediction of the ultimate loads of RC
corbels with varied geometries and material properties. The average ratio between the
predicted and tested resistances was 1.015 with a coefficient of variation of 8.57% for
the databank, including 36 test results from the literature.
• Different failure mechanisms may govern the ultimate limit states of RC corbels. In
this context, the proposed modeling approach allowed the correct prediction of the
governing failure mechanism for approximately 88% of the test results. Therefore, an
NLFEA can be used not only to assess the ultimate capacity but also to guide eventual
strengthening tasks in existing corbels to indicate whether the primary reinforcement
or the strut capacity should be improved.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.R., A.M.D.d.S. and M.K.E.D.; methodology, L.R. and
A.M.D.d.S.; software, L.R.; validation, L.R.; formal analysis, L.R.; investigation, L.R.; resources, L.R.,
A.M.D.d.S. and M.K.E.D.; data curation, L.R. and A.M.D.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation,
A.M.D.d.S. and J.V.C.S.; writing—review and editing, L.R., A.M.D.d.S. and J.V.C.S.; visualization,
L.R.; supervision, M.K.E.D.; project administration, M.K.E.D.; funding acquisition, M.K.E.D. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the São Paulo Research
Foundation (FAPESP) under grant number #2021/13916-0 and by the Brazilian National Council
for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under grant number #303438/2016-9. This
study was also financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior—Brasil (CAPES) under Finance Code 001.
Data Availability Statement: Others that support the findings of this study are available from the
first author (L.R.) upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 32 of 33
References
1. Shu, J. Shear assessment of a reinforced concrete bridge deck slab according to level-of-approximation approach. Struct. Concr.
2018, 19, 1838–1850. [CrossRef]
2. Lantsoght, E.O.L.; de Boer, A.; van der Veen, C. Distribution of peak shear stress in finite element models of reinforced concrete
slabs. Eng. Struct. 2017, 148, 571–583. [CrossRef]
3. De Sousa, A.M.D.; Lantsoght, E.O.L.; El Debs, M.K. Failure mechanism of one-way slabs under concentrated loads after local
reinforcement yielding. Eng. Struct. 2023, 291, 116396. [CrossRef]
4. Wilson, H.R.; Yousefpour, H.; Brown, M.D.; Bayrak, O. Investigation of Corbels Designed According to Strut-and-Tie and
Empirical Methods. ACI Struct. J. 2018, 115, 813–824. [CrossRef]
5. Khosravikia, F.; Kim, H.S.; Yi, Y.; Wilson, H.; Yousefpour, H.; Hrynyk, T.; Bayrak, O. Experimental and Numerical Assessment of
Corbels Designed Based on Strut-and-Tie Provisions. J. Struct. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018138. [CrossRef]
6. Canha, R.M.F.; Kuchma, D.A.; El Debs, M.K.; de Souza, R.A. Numerical analysis of reinforced high strength concrete corbels. Eng.
Struct. 2014, 74, 130–144. [CrossRef]
7. de Lima Araújo, D.; Azevedo Coelho, S.; Regina Mesquita de Almeida, S.; Khalil El Debs, M. Computational modelling and
analytical model for two-step corbel for precast concrete system. Eng. Struct. 2021, 244, 112699. [CrossRef]
8. Neuberger, Y.M.; Araújo, D.d.L. An improved analytical model for two-step corbels in a precast concrete system. Eng. Struct.
2023, 284, 115947. [CrossRef]
9. Beshara, F.; Mustafa, T.; Mahmoud, A.; Khalil, M. Constitutive models for nonlinear analysis of SFRC corbels. J. Build. Eng. 2020,
28, 101092. [CrossRef]
10. Syroka, E.; Bobiński, J.; Tejchman, J. FE analysis of reinforced concrete corbels with enhanced continuum models. Finite Elem.
Anal. Des. 2011, 47, 1066–1078. [CrossRef]
11. Genikomsou, A.S.; Polak, M.A. Finite element analysis of punching shear of concrete slabs using damaged plasticity model in
ABAQUS. Eng. Struct. 2015, 98, 38–48. [CrossRef]
12. De Sousa, A.M.; Lantsoght, E.O.; Genikomsou, A.S.; Krahl, P.A.; El Debs, M.K. Behavior and punching capacity of flat slabs with
the rational use of UHPFRC: NLFEA and analytical predictions. Eng. Struct. 2021, 244, 112774. [CrossRef]
13. Lubliner, J.; Oliver, J.; Oller, S.; Oñate, E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1989, 25, 299–326. [CrossRef]
14. Lee, J.; Fenves, G.L. Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete Structures. J. Eng. Mech. 1998, 124, 892–900. [CrossRef]
15. Dassault Systems Simulia Corp. Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual 6.14; Dassault Systems Simulia Corp.: Providence, RI, USA, 2014.
16. Cheng, H.; Paz, C.M.; Pinheiro, B.C.; Estefen, S.F. Experimentally based parameters applied to concrete damage plasticity model
for strain hardening cementitious composite in sandwich pipes. Mater. Struct./Mater. Constr. 2020, 53, 78. [CrossRef]
17. Krahl, P.A.; Carrazedo, R.; El Debs, M.K. Mechanical damage evolution in UHPFRC: Experimental and numerical investigation.
Eng. Struct. 2018, 170, 63–77. [CrossRef]
18. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary; American Concrete Institute:
Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2014; Volume 11, p. 6858.
19. ASTM C39/C39M-17; Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
20. ASTM C469/469M-14; Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
21. ASTM C496/C496M-04; Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM Interna-
tional: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
22. ASTM A370-17; Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
23. Milligan, G.J.; Polak, M.A.; Zurell, C. Impact of Column Rectangularity on Punching Shear Strength: Code Predictions versus
Finite Element Analysis. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 04020331. [CrossRef]
24. Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib). fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010; Bulletin 65; Ernst & Sohn-Fédération
Internationale Du Béton: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012; Volume 1–2.
25. EN 1992-1-1:2004 2004; EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures -Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
26. Krätzig, W.B.; Pölling, R. An elasto-plastic damage model for reinforced concrete with minimum number of material parameters.
Comput. Struct. 2004, 82, 1201–1215. [CrossRef]
27. Oller, S. A continuous Damage Model for Frictional Materials. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain,
1988. (In Spanish)
28. Hordijk, D.A. Tensile and Tensile Fatigue Behaviour of Concrete—Experiments, Modelling and Analyses; Heron: Dronfield, UK, 1992;
Volume 37, pp. 3–79.
29. Comité Euro-International du Béton. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Design Code; Comité Euro-International du Béton:
Luxembourg, 1993. [CrossRef]
30. Yu, T.; Teng, J.G.; Wong, Y.L.; Dong, S.L. Finite element modeling of confined concrete-II: Plastic-damage model. Eng. Struct. 2010,
32, 680–691. [CrossRef]
31. Kupfer, H.B.; Gerstle, K.H. Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1973, 99, 853–866. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 33 of 33
32. Kupfer, H.B.; Hilsdorf, H.K.; Rusch, H. Behavior of Concrete Under Biaxial Stresses. ACI J. Proc. 1969, 66, 656–666. [CrossRef]
33. Wiliam, K.; Warnke, E. Constitutive Model for the Triaxial Behaviour of Concrete. Seminar on Concrete Structures Subjected to Triaxial
Stresses; ISMES: Bergamo, Italy, 1974; pp. 1–30.
34. Gonzalez-Vidosa, F.; Kotsovos, M.D.; Pavlovic, M.N. Symmetrical Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs: An Analytical
Investigation Based on Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling. Struct. J. 1988, 85, 241–250. [CrossRef]
35. Meng, B.; Li, F.; Zhong, W.; Zheng, Y.; Du, Q. Strengthening strategies against the progressive collapse of steel frames with
extended end-plate connections. Eng. Struct. 2023, 274, 115154. [CrossRef]
36. Nana, W.; Bui, T.; Limam, A.; Abouri, S. Experimental and Numerical Modelling of Shear Behaviour of Full-Scale RC Slabs under
Concentrated Loads. Structures 2017, 10, 96–116. [CrossRef]
37. de Sousa, A.M.D.; Lantsoght, E.O.L.; El Debs, M.K. Transition Between Shear and Punching in Reinforced Concrete Slabs: Review
and Predictions with ACI Code Expressions. ACI Struct. J. 2023, 120, 115–128. [CrossRef]
38. de Sousa, A.M.D.; Lantsoght, E.O.L.; El Debs, M.K. Shear and Punching Capacity Predictions for One-Way Slabs under
Concentrated Loads Considering the Transition between Failure Mechanisms. Buildings 2023, 13, 434. [CrossRef]
39. de Sousa, A.M.D.; Lantsoght, E.O.L.; Yang, Y.; El Debs, M.K. Extended CSDT model for shear capacity assessments of bridge deck
slabs. Eng. Struct. 2021, 234, 111897. [CrossRef]
40. De Sousa, A.M.D.; Lantsoght, E.O.L.; El Debs, M.K. One-way shear strength of wide reinforced concrete members without
stirrups. Struct. Concr. 2020, 22, 968–992. [CrossRef]
41. Guo, Z. Principles of Reinforced Concrete Design. Princ. Reinf. Concr. 2014, 587, 89–112. [CrossRef]
42. Birtel, V.; Mark, P. Parameterised Finite Element Modelling of RC Beam Shear Failure. In Proceedings of the Ababqus User’s
Conference, Boston, MA, USA, 23–25 May 2006; pp. 95–108.
43. Santos, D.P.d.; Fernandes Neto, J.A.D.; Reginato, L.; Carrazedo, R. Optimized design of RC deep beams based on performance
metrics applied to strut and tie model and in-plane stress conditions. Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 2019, 16, 212. [CrossRef]
44. Alfarah, B.; López-Almansa, F.; Oller, S. New methodology for calculating damage variables evolution in Plastic Damage Model
for RC structures. Eng. Struct. 2017, 132, 70–86. [CrossRef]
45. Feenstra, P.H.; de Borst, R. Constitutive Model for Reinforced Concrete. J. Eng. Mech. 1995, 121, 587–595. [CrossRef]
46. Carreira, D.J.; Chu, K.H. Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in compression. ACI J. 1985, 82, 797–804.
47. Cantone, R.; Ruiz, M.F.; Muttoni, A. Shear force redistributions and resistance of slabs and wide beams. Struct. Concr. 2021,
22, 2443–2465. [CrossRef]
48. Setiawan, A.; Vollum, R.L.; Macorini, L.; Izzuddin, B.A. Punching of RC slabs without transverse reinforcement supported on
elongated columns. Structures 2020, 27, 2048–2068. [CrossRef]
49. Earij, A.; Alfano, G.; Cashell, K.; Zhou, X. Nonlinear three–dimensional finite–element modelling of reinforced–concrete beams:
Computational challenges and experimental validation. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 82, 92–115. [CrossRef]
50. Wosatko, A.; Winnicki, A.; Polak, M.A.; Pamin, J. Role of dilatancy angle in plasticity-based models of concrete. Arch. Civ. Mech.
Eng. 2019, 19, 1268–1283. [CrossRef]
51. Michał, S.; Andrzej, W. Calibration of the CDP model parameters in Abaqus. In Proceedings of the 2015 Wourld Congress on
Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM15), Incheon, Republic of Korea, 24–28 September 2015.
52. Fattuhi, N.I. Strength of SFRC Corbels Subjected to Vertical Load. J. Struct. Eng. 1990, 116, 701–718. [CrossRef]
53. Fattuhi, N.I. Strength of FRC Corbels in Flexure. J. Struct. Eng. 1994, 120, 360–377. [CrossRef]
54. Fattuhi, N.I.; Hughes, B.P. Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Corbels Containing Either Steel Fibers or Stirrups. ACI Struct. J. 1989,
86, 644–651. [CrossRef]
55. Hughes, B.P.; Fattuhi, N.I. Reinforced steel and polypropylene fibre concrete corbel tests. Struct. Eng. 1989, 67, 68–72.
56. Naegeli, C.H. Estudo de Consolos de Concreto Armado; Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1997.
57. ABNT NBR 6118. NBR 6118; Design of concrete structures—Procedure. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT):
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014. (In Portuguese)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Buildings 13 01874 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buildings 13 01874 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 1874. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071874 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Figure 3. Stress–strain relationship: (a) traction; (b) compression of concrete.

2.2. Yield Criterion

where α, β, and γ are material parameters that can be calculated as:

(σbu /σcu ) − 1 σcu 3(1 − K c )

max < 0), the yield function is:

Figure 4.4. CDP

2.3. Plastic Flow Rule

Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 36

triaxial characterization tests to be determined more precisely [12,16,17]. As most of these

Proprieties (MPa) Test Method C0 C1 C2 C3

4. Proposed Modeling Approach

through displacement control at the RP-1 point, imposing a displacement of −6.5 mm in

4.2. Concrete Modeling

adopted was the wassame

4.3. Reinforcement Material Model

4.3. Reinforcement Material Model

4.5. Solution Procedure and Load Application

5. Validation of the Modeling Approach

5. Validation of the Modeling Approach

5.2. Cracking Pattern

5.3. Stresses in the Reinforcing Bars

Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 15 of 33

Buildings 2023, 13, 1874 16 of 33

plastification appeared in the central region of the strut.

6.2. Stress–Strain Behavior in Compression

6.3. Damage Evolution Laws

Damage Evolution Models

6.4. Yield Criterion Parameters—σb0 /σc0 and Kc

Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 36

Figure 20. Influence(nodal

Buildings 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 36

6.6. Viscoplastic Regularization Parameter—µ

As in the tested corbels, no reinforcement yielding was observed in the numerical

7.2. Tests by Fattuhi

f tm = 0.3 · ( f cm − 8)2/3 (20)

Ec = (0.8 + 0.2 f cm /88) · 21, 500 · αe · ( f cm /10)1/3 (21)

You might also like