Structural Engineering International

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsei20

Assessment of Failure along Re-Entrant Corner

Cracks in Existing RC Dapped-End Connections

Chathura Rajapakse, Hervé Degée & Boyan Mihaylov

To cite this article: Chathura Rajapakse, Hervé Degée & Boyan Mihaylov (2021) Assessment
of Failure along Re-Entrant Corner Cracks in Existing RC Dapped-End Connections, Structural
Engineering International, 31:2, 216-226, DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2021.1878975

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2021.1878975

Published online: 10 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 353

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsei20
Assessment of Failure along Re-Entrant Corner Cracks in
Existing RC Dapped-End Connections
Chathura Rajapakse, Joint PhD student, University of Liège and Hasselt University, Belgium; Hervé Degée, Prof., Hasselt University,
Hasselt, Belgium; Boyan Mihaylov, Assistant Professor, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium. Contact: cmrajapakse@uliege.be
DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2021.1878975

Abstract and failure modes observed in lab

tests. The most common failure mode
Reinforced concrete dapped-end connections are common in existing bridges occurs with the opening of an inclined
and represent a critical component of the structure. Due to high stress crack extending from the re-entrant
concentrations in the re-entrant corner of the connection, dapped-ends corner of the connection3–8 (Fig. 2a).
typically feature inclined corner cracks that occur under service loads. Other types of failure include diagonal
Widening of these cracks due to material degradation and increasing loads can compression failure at the dapped-end
lead to yielding of the dapped-end reinforcement and subsequent failure of section,9,10 diagonal tension failure at
the connection. While most of the research devoted to predicting the peak the full-depth section,11,12 failure due
resistance of such dapped-end connections has focused on the strut-and-tie to insufficient anchorage or poor
and stress field modelling approaches, there remains a need for mechanical detailing of the reinforcement,1,11 and
models that facilitate the direct use of on-site measurable data for assessing failure triggered by spalling of the con-
the strength of the connection. This paper presents the derivation of such a crete cover on the compression side of
model based on first principles: kinematics, equilibrium and constitutive the connection.3 Out of 212 tests of
relationships. The model utilizes measured angles of the inclined crack as an reinforced concrete dapped-end con-
input, and explicitly accounts for kinematic parameters such as the width and nections identified in the literature,
the length of the corner crack. A database of 47 tests from the literature where either the failure mode is
featuring variable properties is used to validate the model. It is shown that the reported or the crack diagrams/photo-
proposed approach captures well the peak resistance of dapped-end graphs near failure are provided, 99
connections governed by the widening of the crack at the re-entrant corner, specimens were governed by failure
leading to an average strength experimental-to-predicted ratio of 1.10 and a along an inclined re-entrant corner
coefficient of variation of 8.6%. Furthermore, the model is used to discuss the crack. Ninety-two tests showed domi-
effect of the angle of the critical corner crack on the peak resistance of the nant inclined cracks in the dapped-
connection. end section with 46 of those reporting
Keywords: reinforced concrete dapped-end connections; re-entrant corner crack; concrete crushing. Anchorage failure
kinematics; mechanical model; crack-based assessment in the full-depth section was observed
in 15 tests. Failures governed by the
spalling of the top cover were observed
Introduction In terms of implications for the in four tests, with other tests also exhi-
future, these failures have raised chal- biting some degree of spalling close to
Dapped-end connections are common lenging questions on how to monitor failure. Diagonal tension failure at the
in existing Gerber-beam reinforced and assess such connections effec- full-depth section was observed in two
concrete bridges as they were pre- tively, and how to take adequate and tests. However, while this summary is
ferred in the past due to their statical timely decisions on closing and repair- of interest for the validation of
determinacy and simplicity of con- ing such structures. models for dapped-end connections,
struction, see Fig. 1. These connections Any monitoring and assessment strat- it should be noted that the prevalence
transfer high shear forces through sig- egy must be based on a clear under- of a specific type of failure mode in
nificantly reduced sections, and are standing of the failure modes that can lab tests is not an accurate reflection
susceptible to brittle failures. Due to occur in dapped-end connections. of the likelihood of it happening in
the sudden change of geometry in the Figure 2 shows typical crack patterns existing structures.
vicinity of the connection, these zones
are characterized by complex flow of
forces, and as a result their resistance
is very sensitive to construction
errors. Furthermore, as the connection
represents a natural discontinuity in
the superstructure, it is also a zone of
penetration of water and deicing salts
that cause serious corrosion problems
(Fig. 1). For all these reasons, sudden
brittle failures of dapped-end connec-
tions have caused several bridge col-
lapses1,2 that have claimed human Fig. 1: Dapped-end connections in existing bridges: (a) a typical bridge with dapped-end
lives and have caused significant connections; (b) deteriorated connection in Lecco bridge, Italy, prior to its collapse (Google
traffic disruptions and financial losses. street view, 2017)

216 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021

While all these failure modes can be
critical in existing structures and
merit separate serious investigation,
this paper focuses solely on failures
caused by the opening of re-entrant
corner cracks. Due to the high stress
concentration in the re-entrant
corner, these cracks propagate at low
load levels and are difficult to control
with reinforcement. This often causes
significant corrosion of the corner
reinforcement which, combined with
increasing traffic loads and intensity,
can cause further opening of the
crack and yielding/rupture of the
reinforcement. Due to the fact that
the main reinforcement yields prior
to failure, this failure mode is some-
times referred to as “flexural failure”,
and this term is adopted here for the
sake of brevity. The load capacity of
the connection against flexural failure
will therefore be referred to as “flex-
ural capacity” or “flexural strength”.
As corner cracks are almost always
present, they allow for on-site
measurements that can be used
directly for the evaluation of flexural
capacity.
As dapped-end connections are typi-
cally designed with strut-and-tie
models,13–15 most of the existing
methods for predicting flexural
capacity16–20 are also based on this
modelling approach. In strut-and-tie
models, the flow of compressive stres-
ses in the concrete is represented by
struts, while the tension in the
reinforcement is modelled with ties.
To refine this model, researchers have
also proposed stress field models
where, instead of discrete struts, the
concrete is modelled with continuous
stress fields.21 As both these
approaches are based on the lower
bound theorem of the theory of plas-
ticity, they are well suited for design
at ultimate limit state. Nonlinear
finite element models based on the
smeared crack approach have also
been used to model the complete be-
haviour of dapped-end connections.
Figure 2a shows the results from such
a simulation based on the disturbed
stress field model22 for cracked con-
crete implemented in the program
VecTor2.
However, while strut-and-tie and
stress field models are excellent tools
for design, they do not consider the
effect of the kinematics of the domi-
nant inclined crack on the flexural
capacity explicitly. This can be proble-
matic in activities such as monitoring
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
Fig. 2: Crack patterns observed in different types of failure modes: (a) flexural failure
(measured cracks and nonlinear finite element results) (crack diagram adapted from Ref.
[5]); (b) diagonal compression failure at the dapped-end section (adapted from Ref. [9]);
(c) diagonal tension failure at the full-depth section (adapted from Ref. [12]); (d) full-depth-
shear/anchorage failure (adapted from Ref. [6]); (e) spalling of the top cover (adapted from
Ref. [3]).
and assessment of existing structures model, this paper also presents com-
with dapped-end connections, as moni- parisons with 47 tests from the
toring systems can only measure defor- literature.
mations and cannot measure forces.
To illustrate this matter, consider the Kinematics of the Model
dapped-end connection of the existing
reinforced concrete bridge shown in The model presented in this study is
Fig. 1b. It can be seen that, after pre- aimed at capturing the peak resistance
paring the surface for inspection, the of dapped-end connections whose be-
easiest on-site measurable quantity of haviour is governed by the widening
interest is the angle of inclination of of a critical inclined crack at the re-
the corner crack. Furthermore, crack entrant corner. Such behaviour is
kinematics such as the length and the characterized by straining of the main
width of the crack can also be tension reinforcement across the
measured on-site. Then the question crack, as well as by high compressive
arises, which modelling approach can deformations in the concrete above
be applied to use these measurable the crack tip, see Fig. 3. The model
data to predict the flexural capacity assumes that the crack is straight and
of the dapped-end connection. inclined at angle u with respect to the
horizontal axis, where u is a measur-
This paper proposes such a model
able quantity in existing structures.
based on first principles: kinematics,
The concrete regions above and
equilibrium and constitutive relation-
below the crack are modelled as two
ships. The proposed model utilizes
rigid blocks that rotate with respect
the measured inclination of the crack
to each other about the tip of the
at the re-entrant corner as an input
crack. The relative rotation of the
and predicts the peak resistance of
two blocks results in the localization
dapped-end connections governed by
of deformations in the compression
flexural failure. The model accounts
zone above the centre of rotation,
explicitly for the crack kinematics
leading to the development of a com-
such as the crack width at the level of
pression damage zone (CDZ). The
the dapped-end reinforcement, the
strain localization is assumed to be
length of the crack and the rotation
initiated when the strain of the top
that occurs about the crack tip. While
concrete “fibre” reaches the peak com-
this study does not consider the issue
pressive strain of the concrete 1c0 .23–25
of corrosion, the proposed modelling
These modelling assumptions are con-
framework is also suitable for incor-
sistent with test observations and non-
porating these effects in terms of
linear finite element modelling results
reduced reinforcement section and
such as those shown in Fig. 2a.
adapted stress–strain relationships for
steel and concrete. In addition to the The compression damage zone is
derivation of the kinematics-based assumed to be V-shaped, similar in
Scientific Paper 217

Fig. 3: Kinematics of dapped-end connections governed by the widening of an inclined
crack (only the main reinforcement of the connection is shown for the sake of clarity)
geometry to the damage zones observed
in slender reinforced concrete beams
failing in flexure.25,26 As shown in
Fig. 3, the CDZ is bound between the
top surface of the member and two
planes inclined at an angle a with
respect to the horizontal axis. While for
flexural members a has been evaluated
to be approximately 17.5°,23,25 no rec-
ommendations have been made in the
literature for dapped-end connections.
This is likely in part because dapped-
end connections typically exhibit signifi-
cant spalling of the concrete cover near
failure, and thus a is difficult to
observe in tests without detailed strain
measurements. Therefore, in this study,
the angle a is obtained by calibrating
the proposed model with a test database
of 47 dapped-end connections, resulting
in a value of 50°. This value results in the
best experimental-to-predicted average
strength ratio and the least coefficient
of variation. A larger angle a means a
more localized compression damage
zone, which is to be expected in
dapped-end connections where the
deformations typically occur around a
single dominant crack. In contrast, flex-
ural members typically feature large
regions with an approximately constant
curvature, and therefore the angle a is
expected to be smaller. With the con-
stant value of a = 50°, the geometry of
the damage zone is fully defined by its
depth dCDZ , which represents a
portion of the total compression depth x.
In addition to the geometry of the
damage zone, it is also important to
estimate the strains in this zone near
failure. Similarly to flexural
218 Scientific Paper
calculations in beams, it is assumed
that the flexural capacity of dapped-
end connections is reached with crush-
ing of the concrete, and therefore the
strain in the CDZ is estimated at
1CDZ = −0.0035. It is characteristic
of zones of strain localization that
1CDZ is approximately constant within
the depth dCDZ .27,28 The strain profile
across the compression depth x is com-
pleted with a linear transition from 1c0
at the bottom end of CDZ to zero at
the tip of the critical inclined crack.
This represents a discontinuity in
strain along the depth of the com-
pression zone that is typically observed
in the presence of strain localization.
According to this strain profile, dCDZ
can be expressed as


1c0
dCDZ = 1 − x (1)
1CDZ
where the depth x is the main
unknown of the model. Evaluation of the Flexural
This formulation of the compression Strength
zone allows a key kinematic parameter
to be expressed, namely the relative
rotation f between the rigid blocks
on each side of the inclined crack.
The same rotation is also equal to the
angle between the two faces of the
critical inclined crack:
(2dCDZ cota)1CDZ
f= (2)
x Fig. 4. These forces include the exter-
where the expression in parentheses is
the shortening of the top fibre of the
CDZ.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
With established kinematics and angle
of opening of the critical crack f at
failure, it is further necessary to
express important deformations along
the crack. These deformations are the
displacements between the crack
faces at the location and in the direc-
tion of the reinforcement crossing
the crack. In the general case of
a dapped-end connection with hori-
zontal, vertical and diagonal reinforce-
ment, the respective crack
displacements are horizontal wh , verti-
cal wv and diagonal wd :
wh = f × (lcr sin u − ch ) (3)
wv = f × (lcr cos u − cv ) (4)
wd ≈ f × (lcr − cd ) (5)
where ch, cv and cd are respectively the
horizontal, vertical and diagonal dis-
tances measured from the re-entrant
corner of the connection to the respect-
ive reinforcement, and lcr is the length of
the crack. Equation (5) is simplified by
assuming that the diagonal reinforce-
ment is perpendicular to the critical
crack. The length of the crack is
(h − x)
lcr = (6)
sin u
where h and x are the depth of the
dapped end and the depth of the com-
pression zone, respectively.
The crack displacements given by Eqs.
(3)–(5) will be used to evaluate the
tension force in each reinforcement.
Note that when the reinforcement con-
sists of several layers, the crack displace-
ment and force corresponding to each
layer are evaluated separately by using
appropriate values of ch, cv and cd .
To evaluate the peak resistance of
dapped-end connections correspond-
ing to flexural failure, it is first necess-
ary to predict the depth of the
compression zone x at failure. As in
flexural calculations, x is evaluated
from the condition for horizontal equi-
librium of the forces acting on a free
body bound by the critical crack, see
nal force H (if present), the tension
forces in the reinforcement, and the
compression forces in the concrete
above the tip of the inclined crack.
Fig. 4: Forces acting on the free body diagram bound by the corner crack
The horizontal equilibrium condition
is solved iteratively as described in
the following step-by-step procedure.
The calculations begin with an initial
estimate of the depth of the com-
pression zone x (say 20% of the effec-
tive depth d of the dapped end). For a
given x and measured angle of the
inclined crack u, it is possible to calcu-
late the complete geometry of the kin-
ematic model, as well as the governing
kinematic parameters. The depth of
the damage zone dCDZ is calculated
from Eq. (1), the angle of rotation f
of the rigid blocks from Eq. (2), and
the crack displacements at the location
of the horizontal, vertical and diagonal
reinforcement from Eqs. (3)–(5).
Once the geometrical and kinematic
parameters have been calculated, the
next step is to compute the resisting
forces in the compression zone. This
calculation is performed for the ideal-
ized strain and stress state shown in
Fig. 4. The stress in the damage zone
sCDZ corresponds to a strain
1CDZ = −0.0035 and is obtained by
using a suitable constitutive law for
concrete under uniaxial compression.
In this study, the authors have used
the Popovics model29 as extended by
Collins et al.30 With this stress, the
resisting force in the damage zone
FCDZ is calculated from
FCDZ = sCDZ dCDZ b (7)
where b is the width of the beam. The
stress state of the compression zone
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
below the CDZ is idealized with a rec-
tangular stress block as in flexural cal-
culations. The resisting force
corresponding to this block is
Fc0 = (0.9 f ′ c )0.75(x − dCDZ )b (8)
where f ′c is the concrete cylinder
strength. The stress-block factors of
0.9 and 0.75 have been evaluated for
a maximum strain of 1c0 by assuming
a parabolic stress–strain relationship
for the concrete. Thus, the total hori-
zontal force carried in the compression
zone is the sum of FCDZ and Fc0 . This
force must be in equilibrium with the
sum of the horizontal components of
the tension forces in the dapped-end
reinforcement crossing the crack at
the re-entrant corner, as well as the
external force H.
In order to calculate the forces in the
dapped-end reinforcement, it is
necessary to compute the tensile stres-
ses that develop in the rebars st for a
given displacement in the inclined
crack w in the direction of the bar.
The relationship between w and st is
established by using a mechanical
model by Sigrist,31 where the
reinforcement is analysed as being
anchored by bond in the concrete
blocks on each side of the crack. In
this model, the anchorage length of
the reinforcement is divided into two
parts: l1 near the crack face where the
reinforcement yields, and l2 farther in
where the reinforcement is elastic
(Fig. 4). The bond stress between the
bar and the concrete is assumed con-
stant in each zone with values of tb1
within l1 and tb2 = 2tb1 within l2 ,
where tb1 = fct = 0.3( f ′c )2/3 [MPa] is
the tensile strength of the concrete. If
smooth bars are used, a constant
reduced bond stress of
tb1 = tb2 = 0.8fct [MPa] is used in
both zones.32 This bond stress vari-
ation was selected based on the
assumption that there are no cracks
in the vicinity of the dominant re-
entrant corner crack, as is typical for
dapped-end connections. It is further
assumed that the bond is not signifi-
cantly affected by the biaxial tension
conditions that occur in the vicinity of
the re-entrant corner of the connec-
tion. Considering also the equilibrium
of the bar, the following expressions
are derived for the crack displacement:


1 fy
w= 1t + l1
2 Es


1 fy
+ min 1t , l2 (9)
2 Es
db
l1 = max(st − fy , 0) (10)
4tb1
db
l2 = min (st , fy ) (11)
4tb2
where fy is the yield strength of the
reinforcement, db is the bar diameter,
Es is the modulus of elasticity of the
steel, fct is the tensile strength of the
concrete, and 1t is the strain in
the reinforcement in the crack (see
Scientific Paper 219
the variation of the strain along the bar computed, the horizontal equilibrium inclined crack:
in Fig. 3). Strain 1t is expressed with of the free body in Fig. 4 is expressed
stress st by using a bi-linear stress– as 1
strain relationship for the steel with Vpred =
(a + lcr cos u)
strain hardening. As Eqs. (9)–(11) 
express w as a function of st, an itera-   Fh,i (h − x − ch,i )
tive procedure is applied to evaluate Fh,i + Fd,i cos b − H
i i

the stresses in the three reinforcements + Fv,i (lcr cos u − cv,i )
sth , stv and std for given wh , wv and wd , = FCDZ + Fc0 (12) 
respectively. Depending on how many + Fd,i cos b sin u(lcr − cd,i )
layers of reinforcement cross the 
inclined crack, not all dapped-end bars + Fd,i sin b cos u(lcr − cd,i )
where index i denotes the number of
may contribute to the strength of the
the reinforcement layer and b is the +0.625Fc0 (x − dCDZ )
connection. Therefore, for a given
angle of inclination of the diagonal +FCDZ (x − 0.5dCDZ )
depth of the compression zone x and 
dapped-end reinforcement. If this con-
corresponding length of the crack lcr , −H(lcr sin u)
dition is not satisfied, the depth of the
it is necessary to verify how many bars
compression zone x is adjusted and (13)
are engaged, and to calculate the
the calculations repeated until equili-
tensile stresses in the bars as a function
brium is achieved. With the obtained The described iterative solution pro-
of the crack displacements.
x, the support shear at failure Vpred is cedure for the kinematics-based
Once the bar stresses and correspond- calculated by considering the moment model is also summarized in the flow-
ing forces Fh,i, Fv,i and Fd,i are equilibrium about the tip of the critical chart shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5: Flowchart of the solution procedure

220 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
′
Beam a d h b fyh Ash fyv Asv fc u H Vexp Vpred Vexp/
No. Ref. name a/d (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) RFh (MPa) (mm2) RFv (MPa) (mm2) RFd fyd (MPa) (deg) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vpred
1 [3] DEB-1.1 0.8 200 250 300 250 5Φ10 567 393 2Φ10 + 2Φ8 567 258 — — 41.1 41 — 193.6 178.0 1.09
(T1)
2 [3] DEB-1.2 0.8 200 250 300 250 3Φ10 567 236 2Φ10 + 2Φ8 567 258 — — 39.3 56 — 145.8 127.1 1.15
(T1)
3 [3] DEB-1.2 0.8 200 250 300 250 3Φ10 567 236 2Φ10 + 2Φ8 567 258 — — 39.3 60 — 132.7 123.4 1.08
(T2)
4 [3] DEB-1.3 0.8 200 250 300 250 5Φ10 567 393 2Φ8 619 101 — — 39.9 35 — 121.1 125.5 0.96
(T1)
5 [3] DEB-1.3 0.8 200 250 300 250 5Φ10 567 393 2Φ8 619 101 — — 39.9 37 — 133 128.1 1.04
(T2)
6 [3] DEB-1.4 0.8 200 250 300 250 5Φ10 567 393 2Φ8 619 259 — — 40.4 65 — 183 166.2 1.10
(T1)
7 [3] DEB-1.4 0.8 200 250 300 250 5Φ10 567 393 2Φ8 619 259 — — 40.4 46 — 170.4 167.1 1.02
(T2)
8 [3] DEB-1.5 0.8 200 250 300 250 3Φ10 567 236 2Φ8 619 259 — — 40.8 56 — 125.3 115.8 1.08
(T1)
9 [3] DEB-1.6 0.8 200 250 300 250 4Φ16 549.6 804 2Φ10 544 540 — — 31.1 58 — 309.2 226.1 1.37
(T1)
10 [3] DEB-1.6 0.8 200 250 300 250 4Φ16 549.6 804 2Φ10 544 540 — — 31.1 38 — 250.9 256.8 0.98
(T2)
11 [3] DEB-1.7 0.8 200 250 300 250 4Φ12 546.1 452 2Φ10 544 540 — — 30 50 — 194.4 189.8 1.02
(T1)
12 [3] DEB-1.7 0.8 200 250 300 250 4Φ12 546.1 452 2Φ10 544 540 — — 30 56 — 188.8 177.1 1.07
(T2)
13 [3] DEB-1.8 0.8 200 250 300 250 5Φ12 546.1 565 2Φ10 544 371 — — 32.2 51 — 195.3 195.4 1.00
(T1)
14 [3] DEB-1.8 0.8 200 250 300 250 5Φ12 546.1 565 2Φ10 544 371 — — 32.2 45 — 199.1 200.6 0.99
(T2)
15 [3] DEB-1.9 0.8 200 250 300 250 3Φ12 546.1 339 2Φ10 544 371 — — 31.9 50 — 141.7 151.7 0.93
Scientific Paper

(T1)
16 [3] DEB-1.9 0.8 200 250 300 250 3Φ12 546.1 339 2Φ10 544 371 — — 31.9 48 — 145.5 155.4 0.94
(T2)
17 [4] 2A 0.48 81 168 200 150 2Φ11 459 400 2Φ11 459 400 — — 36.7 40 — 137 128.8 1.06
(Continued )
221
 222 Continued.
′
Beam a d h b fyh Ash fyv Asv fc u H Vexp Vpred Vexp/
Scientific Paper

No. Ref. name a/d (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) RFh (MPa) (mm2) RFv (MPa) (mm2) RFd fyd (MPa) (deg) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vpred
18 [4] 3A 0.34 57 168 200 150 2Φ11 459 400 2Φ11 459 400 — — 36 41 — 139 138.5 1.00
19 [4] 4A 0.15 25 168 200 150 2Φ11 459 400 2Φ11 459 400 — — 36.3 41 — 185 161.0 1.15
20 [4] 5A 0.74 125 168 200 150 2Φ11 459 400 2Φ11 459 400 — — 36.6 55 — 101 84.6 1.19
21 [4] 6A 0.6 100 168 200 150 2Φ11 459 400 2Φ11 459 400 — — 35 45 — 125 106.9 1.17
22 [4] 2B 0.48 81 168 200 150 2Φ16 343 600 2Φ11 459 400 — — 36.7 45 — 149 134.4 1.11
23 [4] 3B 0.34 57 168 200 150 2Φ16 343 600 2Φ11 459 400 — — 36 46 — 162 149.4 1.08
24 [4] 4B 0.15 25 168 200 150 2Φ16 343 600 2Φ11 459 400 — — 36.3 37 — 177 187.4 0.94
25 [4] 5B 0.74 125 168 200 150 2Φ16 400 600 2Φ11 459 400 — — 36.6 51 — 124 106.2 1.17
26 [4] 6B 0.6 100 168 200 150 2Φ16 400 600 2Φ11 459 400 — — 35 45 — 132 122.1 1.08
27 [5] DE-A-1.0 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ19.5 501 600 2Φ11 430 400 — — 38.1 40 43.2 216 193.5 1.12
(T1)
28 [5] DE-A-1.0 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ19.5 501 600 2Φ11 430 400 — — 48.4 50 51 255 193.2 1.32
(T2)
29 [5] DE-A-0.5 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ19.5 501 600 2Φ11 430 400 — — 38 30 46.2 231 195.7 1.18
(T1)
30 [5] DE-B-1.0 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ19.5 633 600 2Φ15.9 364 395.9 — — 38.6 50 40.6 203 194.0 1.05
(T1) studs studs
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021

31 [5] DE-B-1.0 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ19.5 633 600 2Φ15.9 364 395.9 — — 40.4 70 45.2 226 202.7 1.12
(T2) studs studs
32 [5] DE-B-0.5 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ19.5 633 600 2Φ15.9 364 395.9 — — 36.9 55 41 205 193.4 1.06
(T1) studs studs
33 [5] DE-B-0.5 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ19.5 633 600 2Φ15.9 364 395.9 — — 36.9 45 44.4 222 187.0 1.19
(T2) studs studs
34 [6] NS-ND 0.65 170 260 300 300 3Φ12 529 339 10 539 314 — — 41.1 37 — 244.9 180.6 1.36
35 [6] NS-REF 0.65 170 260 300 300 3Φ12 529 339 10 539 314 4Φ12 529 41.1 45 — 402.3 335.5 1.20
36 [3] DEB-2.1 0.8 200 250 300 250 3Φ10 567 236 3Φ8 619 151 2Φ10 567 40.2 45 — 194.9 173.7 1.12
(T1)
37 [3] DEB-2.1 0.8 200 250 300 250 3Φ10 567 236 3Φ8 619 151 2Φ10 567 40.2 46 — 199.6 173.6 1.15
(T2)
38 [3] DEB-2.3 0.8 200 250 300 250 3Φ12 546.1 339 2Φ12 546 226 2Φ12 546.1 33.3 45 — 240.5 217.3 1.11
(T1)
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
39 [3] DEB-2.4 0.8 200 250 300 250 4Φ10 548.4 314 2Φ12 552 226 2Φ12 + 543.9 36.9 50 — 311.9 264.1 1.18
(T1) 1Φ16
40 [3] DEB-2.4 0.8 200 250 300 250 4Φ10 548.4 314 2Φ12 552 226 2Φ12 + 543.9 36.9 45 — 309.4 273.6 1.13
(T2) 1Φ16
41 [3] DEB-2.5 0.8 200 250 300 250 2Φ8 554.1 157 2Φ8 554 101 2Φ16 + 543.9 37.1 30 — 294.9 263.3 1.12
(T2) 1Φ12
42 [5] DE-Du- 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ12.7 + 626 324.3 1Φ15.9 + 364 197.9 2Φ12.7 492 36.8 55 42.6 213 199.4 1.07
1.0(T1) 1Φ9.5 studs 2Φ12.7 studs
studs
43 [5] DE-Du- 0.44 100 225 250 225 2Φ12.7 + 626 324.3 1Φ15.9 + 364 197.9 2Φ12.7 492 37.4 55 44.4 222 198.8 1.12
1.0(T2) 1Φ9.5 studs 2Φ12.7 studs
studs
44 [5] DE-D*- 0.44 100 225 250 225 3Φ9.5 studs 597 213.8 2Φ15.9 + 492 126.7 2Φ15.9 364 39.9 45 42.8 214 198.3 1.08
1.0(T1) 1Φ12.7 studs
studs
45 [5] DE-Du*- 0.44 100 225 250 225 3Φ9.5 studs 597 213.8 2Φ15.9 + 492 126.7 2Φ15.9 364 39.2 45 42.4 212 198.1 1.07
1.0(T1) 1Φ12.7 studs
studs
46 [5] DE-Du*- 0.44 100 225 250 225 3Φ9.5 studs 597 213.8 2Φ15.9 + 492 126.7 2Φ15.9 364 40.3 45 45.4 227 197.0 1.15
1.0(T2) 1Φ12.7 studs
studs
47 [7] 2-C 0.29 127 432 432 305 3Φ12.7 410 522.6 4Φ9.5 410 570.6 4 flat bars 330 51.5 45 — 600 512.9 1.17
31.8*6.4
Avg. 1.10
COV 8.59%
Notation: a = distance from the support reaction to the face of the full-depth section; d = effective depth of the dapped end; h = total depth of the dapped end; b = width of the section; RFh = number and diameter of the
first layer of dapped-end horizontal reinforcement; fyh = yield strength of the first layer of dapped-end horizontal reinforcement; Ash = total area of dapped-end horizontal reinforcement; RFv = number and diameter of
the first layer of dapped-end vertical reinforcement; fyv = yield strength of the first layer of dapped-end vertical reinforcement; Asv = total area of dapped-end vertical reinforcement; RFd = number and diameter of the
′
dapped-end diagonal reinforcement; fyd = yield strength of the dapped-end diagonal reinforcement; fc = concrete cylinder strength; u = measured angle of inclination of the crack at the re-entrant corner (extracted from
reported crack diagrams); H = horizontal component of the support reaction; Vexp = experimental flexural capacity; Vpred = predicted flexural capacity; COV = coefficient of variation.
Values in bold denote crack angles extracted from reported crack diagrams, other values are as reported in the reference papers.

Table 1: Database of tests on dapped-end connections

Scientific Paper
223
Comparisons with Tests
The proposed kinematics-based model
was used to predict the flexural
capacity of 47 dapped-end connections
from five experimental studies
reported by Mata-Falcón,3 Kumara-
guru,4 Herzinger,5 Desnerck et al.6
and Barton.7 The criteria for selection
of the tests were: (1) dapped-end con-
nections with observed flexural fail-
ures, and (2) reported crack diagrams
or photographs near failure. Out of
212 tests of reinforced concrete
dapped-end connections from the lit-
erature that feature all different types
of failure modes, these criteria result
in the selection of the 47 tests used in
this study for comparison. The incli-
nation of the crack at the re-entrant
corner u was extracted from the
reported crack diagrams or photo-
graphs. Table 1 lists the properties of
all the test specimens, including the
measured u and ultimate strength
Vexp , as well as the predicted flexural
capacity Vpred. The database contains
dapped-end connections with both
orthogonal and diagonal reinforce-
ment layouts. Also considered are
tests where the support at the dapped
end was inclined in order to generate
a horizontal support reaction H. The
effective depth of the dapped ends d
varies from 168 to 432 mm, the
shear span-to-depth ratio a/d from
0.15 to 0.80, and the compressive
strength of the concrete f ′c from 30 to
51.5 MPa.
For all 47 tests, the proposed kin-
ematics-based model produces an
average experimental-to-predicted
flexural capacity ratio of 1.10 with a
Fig. 6: Variation of experimental-to-predicted flexural capacity ratios of 47 tests with (black markers for orthogonal reinforcement, blue for
orthogonal and diagonal reinforcement): (a) span-to-depth ratio; and (b) measured crack angle (Avg. = 1.10 and COV = 8.6% for 47 tests)
224 Scientific Paper
coefficient of variation (COV) of
8.6%. The most conservative and
unconservative predictions are
1.36Vexp and 0.93Vexp , respectively.
Figure 6 shows the variation of the
experimental-to-predicted flexural
strength ratios as a function of the
a/d ratio of the dapped end and the
measured inclination of the critical
crack. It can be seen from Fig. 6a that
the proposed model predicts the flex-
ural capacity without any apparent
bias with respect to a/d. Similarly,
Fig. 6b shows that for measured crack
angles ranging from 30° to 70°, the
experimental-to-predicted strength
ratios remain consistent. As the incli-
nation of the critical crack is an input
variable of the proposed model, the
ability to predict the flexural strength
accurately for a wide range of u
values is of significant importance.
Effect of the Angle of the
Critical Crack
In addition to Fig. 6b, it is of interest to
perform a more detailed analysis of the
effect of angle u on the flexural
strength of dapped-end connections.
Such an analysis is carried out with
the help of specimen DE-A-1.0(T1)
from the test database. This specimen
featured one layer of horizontal
reinforcement in the form of straight
bars, and two layers of vertical
reinforcement in the form of stirrups.
Figure 7a shows the predicted vari-
ation of the tension forces in the
reinforcement and compression
forces in the concrete as functions of
cot u. It can be seen that all horizontal
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
forces remain constant, while the
forces in the vertical reinforcement
increase with increasing cot u (decreas-
ing u). The former trend is explained
with the horizontal equilibrium con-
dition, which does not depend on u
(see Eq. 12), while the latter trend
has to do with the vertical displace-
ment in the critical crack wv . As the
crack becomes flatter and longer, wv
increases (Eq. 4), and so do the stres-
ses in the vertical layers of reinforce-
ment. Furthermore, the longer the
crack is, the more layers of reinforce-
ment are engaged in providing the
strength of the connection. The plot
also shows the shear force carried in
the compression zone Vc.
The contributions of the internal
forces to the strength Vpred are illus-
trated in Fig. 7b. These contributions
represent the individual terms of the
moment equilibrium condition given
by Eq. (13), and depend on the lever
arms of the forces to the tip of the
corner crack, see Fig. 4. More specifi-
cally, the individual contributions
depend on the ratio between the
lever arm of the internal force and
the lever arm of the external force V.
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that, as the
crack becomes flatter and longer
(increasing cot u), the lever arm of
the vertical forces Fv,i increases, and
so does the lever arm of the external
force V. However, as the ratio
between the two lever arms is approxi-
mately lcr cos u/(a + lcr cos u), the
larger are cot u and its horizontal
crack projection lcr cos u, the larger is
the contribution of Fv,i . The trend for
the horizontal forces is the reverse:
their lever arm remains constant with
Fig. 7: Effect of the inclination of the critical crack at the re-entrant corner of dapped-end connections on the predictions of the proposed
mechanical model: (a) predicted internal forces; (b) predicted contribution of the internal forces to the flexural capacity according to Eq.
(13)
u, and therefore their contribution to
Vpred decreases as the lever arm of
the external force V increases. When
the opposing trends for the contri-
butions of the vertical and horizontal
forces are combined, the strength of
specimen DE-A-1.0(T1) increases
slightly with increasing crack
inclination.
Finally, to further illustrate the sensi-
tivity of the model predictions to
angle u, the model was used to
predict the peak resistance of all 47
tests in the database for a fixed crack
angle of 45°. This represents an
average deviation from the measured
crack angles of 6°, with the highest
deviation being 25°. For a crack angle
of 45°, the average experimental-to-
predicted ratio of flexural strength is
1.09, and the COV is 10.5%. While
the scatter of the predictions increased
slightly, the measured strengths
remains well predicted, showing that
the proposed model is not very sensi-
tive to the crack angle u. This obser-
vation is important from the point of
view of monitoring and assessment of
existing dapped-end connections, as
slight inaccuracies in the on-site
measurement of the crack angle are
unlikely to impact significantly the
accuracy of the model predictions.
Conclusions
This paper presented a kinematics-
based model for evaluating the
strength of dapped-end connections
failing due to the widening of an
inclined crack at the re-entrant
corner. The proposed model assumes
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
that the opening of the crack results
in the localization of compression
deformations above the tip of the
crack, leading to the development of
a compression damage zone (CDZ).
The peak resistance of the connection
is assumed to occur when the CDZ
crushes at a strain of approximately
−0.0035.
The kinematics-based model was vali-
dated with 47 tests from the literature,
where the inclination of the critical
crack was measured from crack dia-
grams and was used as an input to
the model. For all 47 tests, the
model produced an experimental-to-
predicted average strength ratio of
1.10 and a coefficient of variation of
8.6%. It was shown that the model pre-
dictions remain consistent for the
entire range of span-to-depth ratios
and measured crack angles u in the
test database.
As u is an input to the model, the effect
of this parameter on the strength pre-
dictions was further investigated. It
was shown that the ultimate behaviour
is mainly influenced by the relative
magnitudes of the length of the
dapped end and the horizontal projec-
tion of the critical inclined crack, as
well as by the vertical opening of the
crack. It was also shown that, if the
crack angle is fixed at 45◦ , the model
maintains adequate accuracy in pre-
dicting the strength of the specimens
from the test database (Avg. = 1.09
and COV = 10.5%). The model can
thus be applied in the assessment of
existing dapped-end connections
where the crack angle is measured on
site, even in cases of slight inaccuracies
in the on-site measurement of the
crack angle.
As the proposed model is based on
the kinematics of the critical corner
crack, it presents possibilities for a
complete crack-based assessment of
existing dapped-end connections,
where both the current load and
the failure load of the connection
are evaluated by using input crack
measurements such as crack length,
width and inclination. This will
require further extension, refinement
and validation of the assumptions of
the model by using detailed defor-
mation measurements.
Finally, while the proposed model
focuses on the opening of a critical
crack in the re-entrant corner of
dapped-end connections, other failure
modes can also govern the ultimate
response of the connection. Therefore,
in order to have a complete kinematics-
based framework for crack-based assess-
ment of existing structures, further
research is needed to develop similar
mechanical models for all failure modes.
Funding
This work was supported by BOF 2018:
Doctoraatsfonds i.s.m. ULiège: Chathura
Rajapakse [Grant Number BOF 2018 –
BOF18DOCLI02 – cofin UHasselt-ULieg].
References
[1] Johnson PM, Couture A, Nicolet R.
Commission of inquiry into the collapse of a
portion of the de la Concorde overpass.
Library and National Archives of Quebec.
Scientific Paper 225
December, 2007. http://www.cevc.gouv.qc.ca/
UserFiles/File/Rapport/report_eng.pdf.
[2] Di Prisco M, Colombo M, Martinelli P,
Coronelli D. The technical causes of the collapse
of Annone overpass on SS. 36. Italian Concrete
Days 2018, Lecco, Italy, 2018, 1–16.
[3] Mata-Falcón J. Serviceability and Ultimate
Behaviour of Dapped-end Beams (In Spanish:
Estudio del comportamiento en servicio y
rotura de los apoyos a media madera). PhD
Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de València,
Valencia, 2015, 747.
[4] Kumaraguru P. Strength of Dapped End
Beams. MSc Thesis, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1992, 81–94.
[5] Herzinger R. Stud Reinforcement in Dapped
Ends of Concrete Beams. PhD thesis, University
of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2008, 139–
228.
[6] Desnerck P, Lees JM, Morley CT. Impact of
the reinforcement layout on the load capacity of
reinforced concrete half-joints. Eng. Struct. 2016;
127(2016): 227–239.
[7] Barton DL. Detailing of Structural Concrete
Dapped End Beams. MSc. Thesis, University of
Texas, Austin, Texas, USA, 1988, 77–126.
[8] Zhu RRH, Wanichakorn W, Hsu TTC,
Vogel J. Crack width prediction using compat-
ibility-aided strut-and-tie model. ACI Struct. J.
2003; 100: 413–421.
[9] Lu WY, Lin IJ, Yu HW. Behaviour of
reinforced concrete dapped-end beams. Mag.
Concr. Res. 2012; 64(9): 793–805.
[10] Lu WY, Lin IJ, Hwang SJ, Lin YH. Shear
strength of high-strength concrete dapped-end
beams. J. Chin. Inst. Eng, Transactions of the
Chinese Institute of Engineers, Series A/Chung-
kuo Kung Ch’eng Hsuch K’an. 2003, 26(5): 671–
680.
[11] Mitchell D, Cook WD, Peng T. Further
examples for the design of structural concrete
226 Scientific Paper
with strut-and-tie models – example 14: impor-
tance of reinforcement detailing. American
Concrete Institute, ACI Special Publication;
2010; 273: 237–251.
[12] Peng T, Influence of Detailing on
Response of Dapped End Beams. MSc Thesis,
McGill University, Montréal, Canada, 2009,
27–90.
[13] Schlaich J, Schäfer K, Jennewein M.
Toward a consistent design of structural con-
crete. PCI J. 1987; 32(3): 74–150.
[14] Schlaich J, Schafer K. Design and detailing
of structural concrete using strut-and-tie models.
Struct. Eng. 1991; 69(6): 113–125.
[15] Su RK, Chandler AM, Wong PC. Design of
non-flexural components using strut and tie
models. HKIE Trans. 2003; 10(1): 31–37.
[16] Cook WD, Mitchell D. Studies of disturbed
regions near discontinuities in reinforced
concrete members. Struct. J. 1988; 85(2): 206–216.
[17] Mata-Falcón J, Pallarés L, Miguel PF.
Proposal and experimental validation of simpli-
fied strut-and-tie models on dapped-end beams.
Eng. Struct. 2019; 183: 594–609.
[18] Desnerck P, Lees JM, Morley CT. Strut-
and-tie models for deteriorated reinforced con-
crete half-joints. Eng. Struct. 2018; 161: 41–54.
[19] Mattock AH. Strut-and-tie models for
dapped-end beams. Concr. Int. 2012; 34(2): 36–
37.
[20] Lin IJ, Hwang SJ, Lu WY, Tsai JT. Shear
strength of reinforced concrete dapped-
end beams. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2003; 16(3): 275–294.
[21] Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. On devel-
opment of suitable stress fields for structural
concrete. ACI Struct. J. 2007; 104(ARTICLE):
495–502.
[22] Vecchio FJ. Disturbed stress field model for
reinforced concrete: implementation. J. Struct.
Eng. 2001; 127(1): 12–20.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2021
[23] Fantilli AP, Mihashi H, Vallini P. Post-peak
behavior of cement-based materials in com-
pression. ACI Struct. J, July-Aug. 2007; 104(5):
501–510.
[24] Borges JUA, Subramaniam KV, Weiss WJ,
Shah SP, Bittencourt TN. Length effect on duct-
ility of concrete in uniaxial and flexural com-
pression. ACI Struct. J. Nov.-Dec. 2004; 101(6):
765–772.
[25] Zhou B, Wu RY, Feng J. Analytical model
for rotation response of singly reinforced
flexural members. ACI Struct. J. 2018; 115(3):
789–711.
[26] Weiss WJ, Guler K, Shah SP. Localization
and size-dependent response of reinforced con-
crete beams. Struct. J. 2001; 98(5): 686–695.
[27] Kanellopoulos A. Zum unelastischen
Verhalten und Bruch von Stahlbeton. PhD
thesis., Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion,
ETH, Zürich, 1986, 33.
[28] Moccia F, Yu Q, Fernández Ruiz M,
Muttoni A. Concrete compressive strength:
From material characterization to a structural
value. Structural Concrete. 2020.
[29] Popovics S. A numerical approach to
the complete stress-strain curve of
concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1973; 3(5):
583–599.
[30] Collins MP. Towards a rational theory for
RC members in shear. J. Struct. Division. 1978;
104(4).
[31] Sigrist V. Zum Verformungsvermögen von
Stahlbetonträgern (On the
Deformation Capacity of Structural Concrete
Girders). Institut für Baustatik und
Konstruktion, ETH Zürich, IBK Bericht, (210),
1995.
[32] FIB C. Bond of reinforcement in concrete.
Bulletin d’Information de la Federation
Internationale du Beton, (10), 2000: 3–7.