Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Upgrading the shear strength of reinforced concrete corbels using strain

hardening cementitious composites
Ali Hassan *, Mohamed Ellithy , Tarek F. El-Shafiey
Department of Structural Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This work aims to investigate the structural response of Reinforced Concrete (RC) corbels strengthened with
Shear Strain Hardening Cementitious Composites (SHCC) jackets. Ten specimens of double-sided corbels with a shear
Corbels span-to-depth ratio (a/d) of 1.0 were constructed and tested. The test parameters included; (a) the thicknesses of
Strengthening
the SHCC jackets which were 20, 30, and 40 mm, (b) the jacket’s reinforcement configuration, three configu­
Strain Hardening Cementitious Composite
(SHCC)
rations were studied, namely, horizontal only, vertical only, and both vertical and horizontal, (c) the partial/full
Concrete jacketing, when three corbels were partially strengthened with vertical SHCC stirrups of 30 mm thickness, these
stirrups were applied at the middle of the shear span, the examined ratios were 33, 50 and 67 %. Based on the
experimental findings, the SHCC strengthening has proved its capability to enhance the shear strength, cracking
behaviour, and ductility of the tested corbels. In addition, providing internal steel reinforcement in the SHCC
jackets improved the post-cracking performance of the tested corbels. In terms of the cost-to-value, based on the
experimental outcomes, the minimum SHCC stirrup width ratio to have rather a similar efficiency to the full
jacketing was 67 %. A shear strength model was proposed to predict the shear capacity of the fully jacketed
corbels. The proposed model gave a good prediction for the shear capacity with sufficient accuracy when
compared with the experimental results.

1. Introduction the strength of RC corbels simultaneous with improving its deformation

Reinforced Concrete (RC) corbels are frequently used in several
structural applications, such as: precast structures, bridges and indus­
trial buildings having crane girders. As per ACI-318 [1] and ECP-203
[2], the corbel is a short cantilever member its shear span-to-depth
ratio (a/d) is less than unity. Corbels are featured by a complex flow
of internal forces (D-regions); hence, the traditional beam theory that is
typically used for analysis and design of flexural concrete members (B-
regions) is not valid.
The ultimate capacity of RC corbels is mainly characterized by one of
the following modes of failure; crushing of the inclined compression
strut or yielding of the primary reinforcement [3,4]. Other modes of
failure may include localized crushing under the bearing plate or a
sliding shear failure at the column-to-corbel interface [5]. Generally, RC
corbels with a low ratios of flexural longitudinal reinforcement
demonstrate a ductile failure by yielding of this reinforcement, whereas
the corbels with dense flexural reinforcement ratios exhibit a brittle
failure characterized by crushing of the concrete strut [6,7]. To increase
capacity, it is recommended to increase the ratio of the horizontal to
inclined steel stirrups [7,8]. However, including dense reinforcement
ratios results in congestion of steel bars, which leads to casting defects
and impairs the concrete’s strength and quality. Therefore, researchers
[6,9,10] recommended using Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) as a so­
lution to replace the traditional secondary reinforcement. Using the FRC
enables the corbels to achieve high strength, sustain smaller crack
widths and show a gradual controlled failure manner [6,9,10].
To predict the shear strength of RC corbels, ACI 318 [1] proposes the
Shear Friction method (SF) and/or Strut and Tie Modeling (STM).
Dawood A and Abdul-Razzaq K [11] reported experimental results of
RC pier caps with different shear spans to effective depth ratios (a/d) of
0.5, 1, and 1.5. These experimental ultimate loads were compared with
the predicted values of both shear friction (SF) and strut-and-tie
modeling (STM) approaches proposed by ACI-318. This comparison
indicated that both STM and SF are conservative approaches. This is
because ACI approaches do not consider the effect of secondary rein­
forcement. Abdul-Razzaq K and Dawood A [12] presented the results of

* Corresponding author at: Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta 31511, Egypt.
E-mail address: ali_hassan@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg (A. Hassan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115047
Received 2 April 2022; Received in revised form 13 September 2022; Accepted 27 September 2022
0141-0296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Hassan et al.
experimental tests carried on three RC corbels. The tested corbels had
three different shear span to effective depth ratios (a/d), which were 0.5,
1 and 1.5, respectively. The obtained experimental ultimate loads were
compared with those predicted by SF and STM. As per Abdul-Razzaq K
and Dawood A, both STM and SF can be used if the a/d less than 1. In
the case of a/d = 1–2, STM is more accurate than SF. If a/d > 2, the
corbel is solved as a conventional cantilever beam.
Corbels may need strengthening or upgrading in many cases, such as
an error in design, improper steel reinforcement detailing, excessive
loading, and deterioration caused by severe exposure conditions. One of
the most common methods that have been used for improving the
strength of RC corbels is the externally bonded CFRP sheets. El-
Maaddawy and Sherif [13] studied the response of RC corbels
strengthened with external composite sheets with different configura­
tions. It was concluded that the use of external CFRP composite resulted
in a 40 % increase in the maximum load-carrying capacity. The diagonal
CFRP sheets restricted the widening of the diagonal shear cracks, sub­
sequently, the shear strength gain was magnified. Mohammad and Al-
Shamaa [14] tested six RC corbel specimens which were strengthened
with NSM-CFRP strips. The test results showed good improvements in
the load capacity as well as stiffness of the strengthened corbels. Say­
hood et al. [15] investigated the behavior of RC corbels strengthened
using CFRP strips under repeated Loads. Sayhood et al. concluded that
the enhancement in the load-carrying capacity of the CFRP strengthened
corbels ranged between 11 and 27 % depending on the inclination and
the amount of the used strips. Sami et al. [16] experimentally evaluated
the effect of the CFRP sheet strengthening on the RC defected corbels. As
per Sami et al. observations, the addition of CFRP sheets produced an
average increase in the strength of 25 % higher than the unstrengthened
corbels. Although most of the above-mentioned studies reflected an
obvious improvement in the behavior of RC corbels with the use of
bonded FRP sheets, the use of FRP still has its drawbacks. For instance,
low fire resistance and unexpected modes of failure (e.g. peeling,
delamination, or rupture of sheet).
External Prestressing (EP) is to apply a prestressing induced by ten­
dons/bars located outside the RC structural element. The EP has been
used as an alternative technique for the strengthening of the RC corbels.
The advantages of EP are; the easy inspection and replacement of the EP
tendons/bars and the lower friction losses compared to the internal
prestressing. Nagrodzka-Godycka [17] evaluated the response of pre-
cracked RC corbels that were strengthened by the EP technique. The
test parameters were the a/d ratio and prestressing force. As per
Nagrodzka-Godycka’s recommendations, the EP is a powerful solution
for upgrading the shear strength and reducing the cracks’ widths. Kas­
sem et al. [18] carried out an experimental study on eleven RC corbels
strengthened using external prestressing. The results showed that the EP
is an effective technique for increasing the ultimate capacity and stiff­
ness. Lachowicz and Nagrodzka-Godycka [19] studied experimentally
the behavior of post-tensioned prestressed concrete corbels. It was
concluded that the effectiveness of the prestressing technique depends
on the a/d ratio and the location of prestressing bars. Despite the
numerous advantages of the EP technique, it magnifies the compressive
stress on the structural element. Therefore, it is not recommended to be
applied to elements with low-strength concrete, which cannot be met in
many structures that require repairing/strengthening. In addition, the
application of the EP technique requires deviators and end-anchorages
to transmit the prestressing force to the strengthened element. This
may lead to a catastrophic failure if one of these anchorage points failed.
Over the last two decades, there has been an increasing interest to
develop Strain Hardening Cementitious Composites (SHCC). The SHCC
is reinforced with short fibers with relatively low volume fractions of
about 2 % [20]. The SHCC is well known with its high strain capacity
and multiple-cracking behaviors under tensile stresses [20–23]. The
SHCC can achieve a tensile strain capacity of at least 3 % [24,25].
Microstructure optimization allows SHCC to be made with a fiber vol­
ume of friction less than 2 % [26–28]. The superior tensile strain
2
Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047
hardening behavior of the SHCC can be engineered by managing the
composite ingredients with the aid of the micro-mechanically based
formulations [26–28].
The superior tensile characteristics of the SHCC gave it the priority to
be used in many strengthening/repairing applications in which ductility
and crack control are dominant [29]. The SHCC material has been used
to upgrade the shear/flexure strengths of B-regions in concrete mem­
bers. Kim et al. [30] studied experimentally the shear response of RC
defected beams strengthened with SHCC material. For the strengthened
beams, a substantial increase in the shear capacity along with
enhancement of ductility after the peak load were recorded. Wang et al.
[31] tested a set of RC beam specimens strengthened with SHCC mate­
rial, the SHCC layer of 20 mm thickness was sprayed onto both sides of
the studied beams. It was found that the ultimate shear capacity of the
strengthened beams increased by an average ratio of about 89 % over
the unstrengthened one. Baghi et al. [32], Afefy et al. [31], and Hassan
et al. [34] used precast SHCC plates for shear strengthening of RC
beams. They observed that the use of precast SHCC plates arrested the
crack propagation as well as increased the ultimate capacity. Zheng et al.
[35] and Yang et al. [36] studied the shear behavior of RC beams
strengthened with a hybrid FRP-SHCC layer, a significant enhancement
in the shear capacity of the strengthened beams was obtained. For ret­
rofitting damaged beams, Shang et al. [37] retrofitted fire-damaged RC
beams using stirrups of the SHCC material. The SHCC stirrups enabled
the damaged beams to restore their shear strength and resilience. Also,
Hassan et al. [38] retrofitted shear-cracked RC beams using SHCC
jackets. The test results demonstrated that the ultimate shear strength,
shear-crack response and post-peak deformability of the retrofitted
beams were significantly improved compared to the control beams.
The outputs of the many up-to-date studies [30–38] demonstrated
the effectiveness of the SHCC material in improving the shear behavior
of B-region elements, however, the effectiveness of using SHCC material
to improve the response of RC corbels (D-regions) has not gained the
deserved attention in the literature regarding the best knowledge of the
authors. Therefore, the current work aims to assess the shear response of
RC corbels strengthened with SHCC jackets. For this target, ten RC
double-sided corbels were prefabricated, and then nine out of them were
strengthened using SHCC full/partial jacketing. The test parameters
were; the jacket thickness, the jacket reinforcement configuration and
the partial/full jacketing. The test results in the forms of ultimate/
cracking loads, load–deflection response and shear-crack width were
presented and discussed. Eventually, an analytical model to predict the
shear strength of the strengthened corbels was conducted and then
verified with the experimental results.
2. Experimental work program
2.1. Material properties
The current experimental program involved ten strengthened/
unstrengthened corbel specimens which were executed using normal
strength concrete. The same ready-mixed concrete batch was used for all
corbels, therefore a similar concrete strength was guaranteed. The
concrete mixture ingredients per cubic meter (kg/m3) are listed in
Table 1. In this mixture, Ordinary Portland cement (Type I) with a
water/cement (w/c) ratio of 0.50 was used. Cleaned river sand with a
density of 2650 kg/m3 was utilized as fine aggregates, while, limestone
of a density of 2700 kg/m3 and a nominal maximum size of 20 mm was
used as coarse aggregates. As per ASTM C39/C39M [39], concrete cyl­
inders (300 mm height and 150 mm diameter) were sampled during
casting, then, material tests were carried out at the same testing date of
the corbel specimens to obtain the compressive and tensile strengths of
concrete. The stress–strain curves of the uniaxial compressive tests were
presented in Fig. 1. The mean value of the compressive strength (fc ) was
′
20.1 MPa. On the other hand, As per ASTM C496/C496M [40], the
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

Table 1
The used mix proportions of concrete and SHCC for one cubic meter (kg/m3).
Material Binder Aggregate Fibers (volumetric ratio) Super plasticizers Water Water-to-binder ratio

Cement Silica-fume Fine (Sand) Coarse (Crushed lime stone)

Concrete 320 — 540 1300 — — 175 0.5

SHCC 1342 237 160 — 16.20 (2.0 %) 31.6 312.1 0.20

Fig. 1. Uniaxial compressive stress–strain curve of the used concrete.

tensile strength of the used concrete was determined based on the

splitting tensile test (Brazilian test). The average tensile strength was
2.41 MPa.
The reinforcing steel bars included two grades; normal mild steel
(type B220D-P) for the bars with a diameter of 6 mm and high tensile
steel (type B420DWR) for bars with a diameter of 12 mm. As per
ASTM E8/E8M [41], three samples from each steel type were tested to
determine the yield and ultimate strengths in addition to the modulus of
elasticity. For the steel bars of 6 mm diameter, the average yield
strength, ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity were 280 MPa, 365
MPa and 200 GPa, respectively. For the steel bars of 12 mm diameter,
the average yield strength, ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity
were 420 MPa, 622 MPa and 205 GPa, respectively.
Lately, the corbel specimens were strengthened using jackets of
SHCC, the mixture ingredients per cubic meter (kg/m3) are reported in
Table 1. The SHCC mixture included; Ordinary Portland cement, silica Fig. 2. Details of the uniaxial test specimens of the SHCC.
fume with an average diameter ranging between 0.1 μm and 0.3 μm, fine
silica sand with a grain size less than 0.32 mm, polypropylene (PP) fibers
with a volumetric ratio of 2 %, superplasticizers and water. As per the
manufacturer’s datasheet, the length and diameter of PP fibers are 12
mm and 25 μm, respectively. For the used fibers, the maximum tensile
strength is 2900 MPa with an ultimate elongation of 2.42 % and the
modulus of elasticity is 116 GPa. It is worth mentioning that, the SHCC
mixture was prepared in a Hobart horizontal mixer with 20 L capacity
following the procedure proposed by Lepech et al. [42].
During the preparation of the SHCC mixture, material samples were
collected to detect the compressive and tensile strengths. A uniaxial
tensile test on large-size specimens was suggested by previous research
work, Li et al. [43] and Kunieda et al. [44], to avoid the effect of the
specimen’s size on the tensile ultimate strain of the SHCC material. The
recommended samples have a cross-section of 50 × 200 mm and a length
of 900 mm. A displacement-controlled system was employed to apply a
Fig. 3. Tensile stress–strain curve of the SHCC material.
loading rate of 0.005 mm/s on the tested material specimens. Fig. 2
shows the dimensions and the test setup of the material specimens under
uniaxial tension, while, Fig. 3 shows the tensile stress–strain curves of 2.2. Test program
the tested SHCC material specimens. As shown in Fig. 3, the average
first-cracking and ultimate tensile strengths of the utilized SHCC were The experimental program involved ten reinforced concrete
3.17 and 7.23 MPa, respectively. In addition, as per JSCE recommen­ strengthened/unstrengthened corbels having similar geometries. A
dations [45], three cylinders with 100 mm height and 50 mm diameter typical specimen included a double-sided corbel combined with a ver­
were tested under a uniaxial compressive test. The uniaxial compressive tical short-length column, as shown in Fig. 5. The width of the corbel’s
stress–strain curves of the SHCC material were presented in Fig. 4. The segment (b) was 150 mm, while the total depth (h) varied from 200 mm
mean compressive strength of these cylinders was 61.09 MPa. at the free side to 300 mm at the column’s edge. The shear span (a) of the

3
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

reinforcement to evaluate the efficiency of the SHCC material in

Fig. 4. Uniaxial compressive stress–strain curve of the SHCC material.
Fig. 5. Dimensions and reinforcement details of the corbels.
corbel was considered as the distance between the loading point and the
column’s edge (a = 300 mm). As shown in Fig. 5, all corbels were
reinforced by four longitudinal reinforcing bars of 12 mm diameter as a
tension steel reinforcement (μ = 1.25 %). This reinforcement ratio was
selected to assure the crushing of the concrete strut prior to the yielding
of the primary reinforcement. To avoid any localized failure under the
loading plates, each of the tension bars were ended with a hook; also, all
corbels were provided with one stirrup of 6 mm diameter under the load.
However, the crack-control reinforcement is recommended by several
design codes, all corbels were constructed without any secondary
improving the crack pattern of such defected corbels. For all specimens,
the column’s segment had a cross-section of 120 × 300 mm with 400
mm of clear length. The column was reinforced with four longitudinal
steel bars of 10 mm diameter and a set of 6 mm stirrups with a spacing of
100 mm.
The corbel specimens were classified via test parameters into a
reference (Control) specimen and three other groups as listed in Table 2.
The reference specimen was unstrengthened corbel without shear rein­
forcement. Specimens of Group I were strengthened using SHCC jackets
covering the whole zone of the double-sided corbels, as depicted in
Fig. 6-a, the full jacketing was applied with three different thicknesses
(20, 30 and 40 mm). The thickness of the SHCC jacket was constant (30
mm) for all specimens of the other Groups. Previous research work re­
ported that adding shear reinforcement not only increases the shear
capacity but also arrests the development of shear cracks [46,47].
Furthermore, for a typical reinforcement ratio, small-diameter stirrups
with narrow spacing could enhance the cracking behavior by restricting
the early-localized cracks [48]. Accordingly, adding reinforcement to
the SHCC full-jacket would provide a better crack warning and better
ductile behavior. Providing reinforcement to the SHCC jacket with
miscellaneous configurations was studied in Group II. The adopted
reinforcement configurations of the jacket of Group II were vertical only,
horizontal only and both. The provided jacket reinforcement of Group II
was normal mild steel stirrups with 6 mm diameter (bar’s cross-sectional
area (Abar) = 28.26 mm2) placed at constant spacing (Spacing (s) = 50
mm) as shown in Fig. 6-b to 6-d. The jacket’s reinforcement ratio (μ) of
Group II was constant (μ = 1.88 %). Eventually, the value-to-cost in the
current study was evaluated by using a partial SHCC jacketing for
specimens of Group III, when vertical SHCC stirrups were applied to the
middle of each shear span. The stirrups thicknesses were kept constant at
30 mm where the stirrups widths were varied with three different values
of 100, 150 and 200 mm, as shown in Fig. 6-e.
The surface condition between the concrete substrate and the
strengthening layer is one of the most governing parameters affecting
the strength as well as durability of the strengthened member and
controls its reaction to the additional loading. Removing the weak sur­
face layer, increasing the adhesion and the surface roughness by
enlargement of the contacted area are the purposes for which the surface
preparation of concrete is exerted. Prior to the application of the
strengthening SHCC layer, after 28 days of the casting of the corbels, the
contact surface of concrete was roughened using mattock (roughening
depth was 5 mm), as shown in Fig. 7-a. For reinforced jackets, steel
stirrups with different configurations were placed on the circumferential
surface of the strengthened corbels, as shown in Fig. 7-b. Afterward, as

Table 2
Test parameters.
Group Specimen Strengthening scheme tSHCC, Jacket reinforcement Parameter
ID mm
Type Ratio,
%

Control CN – – – – Reference corbel

Group I SC-J-20 Fully jacketed 20 – – Effect of jacket thickness
SC-J-30 Fully jacketed 30 – –
SC-J-40 Fully jacketed 40 – –
Group II SC-J-30-RV Fully jacketed 30 Vertical stirrups 3.35 Effect of jacket reinforcement
configuration
SC-J-30-RH Fully jacketed 30 Horizontal stirrups 3.35
SC-J-30- Fully jacketed 30 Vertical and horizontal 3.35
RVH stirrups
Group SC-S100-30 Partially strengthened with SHCC stirrup of 100 30 – – Effect of partial strengthening
III mm width configuration
SC-S150-30 Partially strengthened with SHCC stirrup of 150 30 – –
mm width
SC-S200-30 Partially strengthened with SHCC stirrup of 200 30 – –
mm width

CN = Control unstrengthened corbel without internal shear reinforcement; SC = Strengthened Corbel; J = Full jacketing; S = Partial jacketing; R = reinforced jacket.

4
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

Fig. 6. Details of the strengthened corbels.

shown in Fig. 7-d, the SHCC patch was poured into wooden molds sur­
rounding the pre-prepared specimen, and precautions were considered
during casting to maintain the required thickness of the SHCC jacket.
The curing process was carried out just after the initial hardening of the
jacket and continued for 10 days using a wet covering, as shown in
Fig. 7-e. The final form of the strengthened full-jacket specimens is
shown in Fig. 7-f.
The corbels’ notation revealed the pertaining test parameters in the
current study as listed in Table 2. The benchmark unstrengthened corbel
was denoted by the capital letters CN. Whereas, the remaining
strengthened corbels were denoted by the letters SC followed by three
symbols indicating the type of the reinforced/unreinforced jackets. The

5
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

Fig. 7. Series of photos for the strengthening process.

first symbol refers to the type of jacket (J = full jacketing and S = partial
jacketing). The partial jacketing symbol (S) is subscripted with the width
of the vertical stirrups (100, 150 and 200 mm). The second symbol in­
dicates the thickness of the SHCC jacket (20, 30 and 40 mm). The last
symbol refers to the configuration of the jacket’s shear-reinforcing
stirrups (V = vertical stirrups, H = horizontal stirrups and VH = verti­
cal & horizontal stirrups).

2.3. Test setup and instrumentation

To simplify the test setup, all specimens were tested in an inverted

posture. The load was applied on the column while the corbels were
resting over two end supports. Under a monotonic force-controlled
system, all corbel specimens were tested with an approximate loading
rate of 5 kN/min. The corbels were instrumented to measure the strain
in the tension steel using electrical strain gages. In addition, the relative
deformation between the column and the loading points of the corbels
was obtained by a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) which
was placed under the mid-point between the supports as depicted in
Fig. 8. A load cell with 1000 kN capacity was used to record the testing
load synchronous to the records of strain and deformation, a data Fig. 8. Test setup and instrumentations.
acquisition system was employed to gather the outputs of the load cell,
LVDTs, and the strain gauge. At every interval of loading, an optical
microscope (0.01 mm accuracy) was utilized to obtain the width of the
main flexural and shear cracks.

6
A. Hassan et al.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Cracking pattern and failure mode
The cracking patterns at the failure of the tested corbels are shown in
Fig. 9. For the control corbel (CN), the first flexural crack (Pcr-f) took
place at a load of 50 kN. While this crack was propagating along the
column-corbel interface, the first shear crack (Pcr-sh) took place at the
middle of the line connecting the inner edge of the bearing plate to the
nearer column’s face. This crack took place at about 108 kN (69 % of Pu).
After the initiation of the shear crack, the increase in the applied load
showed an insignificant increase in the flexural crack width, while, the
shear crack propagated and progressed toward the column and the
support. The shear crack, which now became the major crack, propa­
gated rapidly, resulting in a sudden failure at a load of 157 kN. As for the
strengthened corbels, the final crack patterns were quite similar to that
Fig. 9. Failure modes of the tested specimens.
7
Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047
of the control corbel, except for the corbels strengthened with reinforced
SHCC jackets demonstrated multiple shear cracks. Providing steel stir­
rups in the SHCC jackets could decrease the fibers’ stress resulting in an
enhancement in the strain hardening behavior of the SHCC which led to
a generation of multiple fine cracks. The distinct cracking feature of the
reinforced and unreinforced jackets, shown in Fig. 9, reveals the great
enhancement in the cracking behavior caused by the steel
reinforcement.
3.2. Shear cracking loads
The shear-crack loads for all corbels are listed in Table 3. The first
shear crack occurred in the control corbel when the load reached about
108 kN. Whereas, for the strengthened corbels, the cracking capacity of
the strengthened corbels was affected significantly by the addition of the
SHCC jackets. For corbels SC-J-20, SC-J-30 and SC-J-40, the first crack
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

Table 3
Summary of test results.
Group Specimen ID Pcr-f, kN Pcr-sh, kN Δcr-sh, mm Pu, kN Δu, mm SSF = Pu/Pcr, sh DF = Δu/Δcr-sh E, kN.mm Mode of failure

control CN 50 108 1.29 157 2.35 1.45 1.82 218 Shear failure
Group I SC-J-20 80 132 1.08 283 4.19 2.14 3.87 792 Shear failure
SC-J-30 95 153 0.97 339 4.59 2.21 4.73 1098 Shear failure
SC-J-40 115 170 0.84 382 5.06 2.24 6.02 1360 Shear failure
Group II SC-J-30-RV 96 154 0.96 412 6.41 2.67 6.67 1825 Shear failure
SC-J-30-RH 95 156 0.95 417 6.62 2.67 6.96 1910 Shear failure
SC-J-30-RVH 96 155 0.94 496 8.14 3.20 8.65 2824 Shear failure
Group III SC-S100-30 96 118a 1.06 190 3.06 1.61 2.88 390 Shear failure
SC-S150-30 95 120a 0.98 235 3.65 1.95 3.72 583 Shear failure
SC-S200-30 97 130b 0.94 275 4.03 2.12 4.28 771 Shear failure

Pcr-f = load at first flexural crack; Pcr-sh = load at first shear crack; Δcr-sh = deflection corresponding to first shear crack; Pu = experimental ultimate load; Δu = deflection
corresponding to ultimate failure load; SSF = shear strength factor; DF = ductility factor; E = absorbed energy;
a
The first shear crack took-place firstly at the substrate concrete next to the SHCC strip;
b
The first shear crack took-place firstly at the SHCC strip.

loads were 132, 153 and 170 kN, respectively, these values represent 22,
42 and 57 % higher than that obtained by the control corbel. These
upsurges are owing to the increased stiffness induced by the SHCC
jackets of the strengthened corbels, furthermore, the SHCC material has
higher cracking resistance in comparison with ordinary concrete. For
group II, it was obvious that the addition of shear reinforcement did not
affect the first shear cracking loads. For corbels SC-J-30-RV, SC-J-30-RH
and SC-J-30-RVH, the first crack loads were 154, 156 and 155 kN,
respectively. For corbels of group III, SC-S100-30 and SC-S150-30, the first
shear crack took place at the substrate concrete next to the SHCC stirrup
at loads of 118 and 120 kN, respectively. Then, by increasing the applied
loads, the shear crack spread to the SHCC stirrup when the load reached
about 126 and 128 kN, respectively. For corbel SC-S200-30, the first
shear crack took place in the middle of the SHCC stirrup at a load of 130
kN. As the load increased to about 135 kN, the shear crack extended to
the substrate concrete next to the SHCC stirrup.

Fig. 10. Relation between ratios of (ΔPu/ΔPuf) and (Ls/Lf).

3.3. Ultimate loads

Table 3 summarizes the first cracking and ultimate loads for the
tested corbels. Group I was designed to study the effect of the SHCC
jacket’s thickness on the ultimate shear strength. It was obvious that the
increase in the jacket’s thickness increased the ultimate shear capacity.
For corbels SC-J-20, SC-J-30 and SC-J-40 the ultimate loads were 283,
339 and 382 kN, respectively, these values represent about 80, 116 and
143 % higher than that achieved by the unstrengthened corbel.
For corbels of group II, generally, providing internal reinforcement
in the SHCC jacket increased the ultimate load. The increase in the ul­
timate capacity of corbel SC-J-30-Rv, which resulted from providing the
vertical reinforcement only, was 73 kN, vs 78 kN obtained by providing
the horizontal reinforcement only with corbel SC-J-30- RH. As for corbel
SC-J-30- RVH, providing both vertical and horizontal reinforcements
resulted in an increase of 157 kN, which is almost the sum of the con­
tributions of the horizontal reinforcement only and the vertical rein­
forcement only.
Group III was strengthened using SHCC stirrups having different
widths (Ls). For corbels SC-S100-30, SC-S150-30 and SC-S200-30, the ul­
timate loads were 190, 235 and 275 kN, respectively. To evaluate the
value-to-cost, Fig. 10 plots a relation between the ratio of the stirrup’s
width to corbel’s length (Ls/Lf) versus the ratio of the corbel’s strength
gain to that of the corbel SC-J-30 (ΔPu/ΔPuf). As shown in Fig. 10,
however, the use of SHCC stirrups increased the ultimate capacity, using
stirrups of width less than 200 mm (Ls/Lf = 67 %) reduced the
strengthening efficiency compared to the full jacketing. In addition, the
loss in the strengthening efficiency increased with decreasing of the
stirrup width. For instance, corbel SC-S100-30 (Ls/Lf = 33 %) achieved a
strength gain of 33 kN, that represents 18 % of that achieved by corbel
SC-J-30 (Ls/Lf = 100 %). On the other hand, corbel SC-S200-30 (Ls/Lf =
67 %) reached ΔPu/ΔPuf of 65 %, which indicates reaching approxi­
mately the same efficiency as the full jacketing. Regarding the current
study, it is clear that the minimum stirrup width ratio to have a rather
similar efficiency of the SC-J-30 was Ls/Lf = 67 %.
3.4. Shear strength factor
The shear strength factor (Post-cracking shear strength) is defined as
the ratio of the ultimate load (Pu) to the first shear crack load (Pcr,sh)
[49,50]. The analysis of the post-cracking shear strength of RC members
is important to predict the failure [36]. The Shear Strength Factors (SSF)
for the tested corbels are listed in Table 3. The obtained results showed
that the control corbel (CN) has the least SSF (1.45). Whereas, the
strengthened corbels recorded significant increases in the SSFs. As can
be seen in Table 3, corbels SC-J-20, SC-J-30 and SC-J-40 achieved SSFs
of 2.14, 2.21 and 2.24, respectively. These values represent 47, 52 and
54 % higher than that of the control corbel. As well, providing steel
reinforcement inside the SHCC jackets increased the SSF. For corbels SC-
J-30-RV, SC-J-30-RH and SC-J-30-RVH the recorded SSFs were 2.67, 2.67
and 3.20 (2.21 times of CN), respectively. As for group III, the increase of
SHCC stirrup width increased the SSF; however, the obtained factors did
not reach that achieved by corbel SC-J-30. For corbels SC-S100-30, SC-
S150-30 and SC-S150-30, the SSFs were 1.61, 1.91 and 2.12, respectively.
The maximum value reached about 96 % of that of SC-J-30. Comparing
the calculated SSFs it can be concluded that, the used strengthening
technique can suppress the premature shear failure of the RC corbels.

8
A. Hassan et al.
3.5. Load-deflection response
Fig. 11 shows the load versus the measured deflection for the tested
corbels. In addition, Table 3 summarizes the deflection at the first shear
crack (Δcr-sh), the deflection at ultimate loads (Δu) and the ductility factor
(DF). The ductility factor is defined as the ratio of Δu to Δcr-sh [51].
Fig. 11-a shows the load–deflection curves of group I as well as the
unstrengthened corbel (CN). For the control corbel CN, the
load–deflection response is almost linear till the occurrence of the first
shear crack which was accompanied by a sudden increase in the
measured deflection. After the first shear crack took place, a significant
reduction in the corbel stiffness was instantly noticed. The stiffness is the
slope of the load–deflection curve. At ultimate load, the control corbel
failed suddenly and the maximum deflection was 2.35 mm. On the other
hand, the load–deflection behavior of the strengthened corbels of group
I showed a significantly different behavior compared to the corbel CN.
The strengthened corbels showed higher initial and post-cracking
Fig. 11. Load-deflection curves for the tested corbels.
9
Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047
stiffness. In addition, as shown in Fig. 11-a, the stiffness of the
strengthened corbels increased with the increase of the jacket’s thick­
ness. Fibers in the SHCC mix can resist the crack widening thus pre­
venting the sudden reduction in the stiffness, this phenomenon is well
known with the fiber bridging mechanism [51]. In addition, as shown in
Fig. 11-a, at the ultimate stage, the strengthened corbels exhibited a
ductile response, these corbels demonstrated a plastic deformation prior
to collapse and at collapsing, a gradual drop of the load was noticed. The
ultimate deflections of corbels SC-J-20–0, SC-J-30–0 and SC-J-40–0
were 4.19, 4.59 and 5.06 mm, respectively. As listed in Table 3, the
ductility factors of corbels SC-J-20–0, SC-J-30–0 and SC-J-40–0 were
3.87, 4.73 and 6.02, respectively, which represent 113, 160 and 231 %
higher than that obtained by corbel CN (DF = 1.82).
The load–deflection curves of the corbels of group II along with
corbel SC-J-30 (strengthened with unreinforced jacket) and CN
(unstrengthened corbel) are plotted in Fig. 11-b. The measured load-
deformation curves of group II were approximately similar to that of
the corbel SC-J-30 until reaching 150 kN (approximately the first shear
crack load), all corbels demonstrated almost similar response till this
load level. Beyond this load, compared to the corbel SC-J-30, group II
demonstrated higher stiffness and post ultimate ductility. The responses
of corbels SC-J-30-Rv and SC-J-30- RH were quite similar, whereas,
corbel SC-J-30- RVH showed the best response in terms of stiffness and
ductility. The ultimate deflections of the corbels SC-J-30-Rv, SC-J-30- RH
and SC-J-30- RVH were 6.41, 6.62 and 8.14 mm, respectively. The DFs of
the corbels SC-J-30-Rv and SC-J-30- RH were 6.67 and 6.96, respectively.
The maximum improvement in DF was obtained by the corbel SC-J-30-
RVH, the DF was 8.65, this value represents 4.75 times of that obtained
by the control corbel CN.
The load–deflection curves of these corbels along with corbel SC-J-30
and CN is plotted in Fig. 11-c. Generally, the strengthened corbels of
group III showed a significant improvement in the overall stiffness
compared to the control unstrengthened corbel (CN), however, these
stiffness are still lower than that of SC-J-30–0. Furthermore, by
increasing the stirrup width, the post ultimate ductility was improved.
At ultimate load, the maximum measured deflections of the corbels SC-
S100-30, SC-S150-30 and SC-S200-30 were 3.06, 3.65 and 4.03 mm,
respectively. The DFs of the corbels SC-S100-30, SC-S150-30 and SC-S200-
30 were 2.88, 3.72 and 4.28 mm, respectively. Finally, based on the
outputs of the DFs, it can be concluded that this technique enhanced
significantly the ductility of the strengthened corbels.
3.6. Absorbed energy
Absorbed energy (E) is the area under the load–deflection curve up to
the peak load [52]. The calculated energy values for all corbels are listed
in Table 3. Generally, the strengthening system enhanced the absorbed
energy of the tested corbels compared to the reference corbel. The
corbels that were strengthened with reinforced SHCC jackets particu­
larly showed significant improvements in the recorded energy values.
The absorbed energy value of the corbel SC-J-30-RVH was 2824 kN.mm
(the highest energy value), which is approximately 12.95 times of that
obtained by the control corbel (E = 218 kN.mm). It was observed that
increasing either the jacket thickness or SHCC stirrup width showed an
enhancement in the absorbed energy value.
3.7. Shear-crack width
Fig. 12 shows the load versus shear-crack width curves for the tested
corbels. As shown in Fig. 12-a, for the control corbel, once the first shear
crack took place at a load of 108, the shear crack width increased rapidly
and reached about 0.81 mm at the ultimate load (157 kN). On the other
hand, outstanding cracking behavior was observed for the corbels of
group I, as the shear crack width decreased significantly at all loading
levels. For instance, at a crack width of 0.2 mm, corbels SC-J-20, SC-J-30
and SC-J-40 reached loads about 200, 247 and 300 kN, respectively,
A. Hassan et al.
Fig. 12. Load vs shear-crack width curves for the tested corbels.
these values represent 67, 106 and 150 % higher than the load obtained
by the control corbel (P0.2 mm ≈ 120 kN). This is owing to the arrested
crack propagation induced by the bridging action of the fibers in the
SHCC, as shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 12-b shows the load versus shear-crack width curves for the
tested corbels of group II, corbels SC-J-30 and CN were included for the
purpose of comparison. Referring to Fig. 9-e to 9-g, the addition of steel
reinforcement enhanced the strain hardening behavior of SHCC; this
enabled the SHCC to exhibit numerous fine cracks versus localized
cracks in case of unreinforced SHCC jackets. This decreased the
measured crack width of group II in comparison with the alternative
corbel SC-J-30 (strengthened with an unreinforced SHCC jacket). Also,
as can be seen in Fig. 12-b, the corbel SC-J-30-RVH showed a decrease in
crack width in comparison with the corbels SC-J-30-RV and SC-J-30-RH,
10
Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047
which showed almost a similar load-crack width response. For instance,
at a load of about 350 kN, the corbel SC-J-30-RVH recorded a crack width
of 0.2 mm, whereas, SC-J-30-RV and SC-J-30-RH reached approximately
about 300 kN at the same crack width (85 % of SC-J-30-RVH).
Regarding the corbels of group III (strengthened with SHCC stirrups),
as shown in Fig. 12-c, the increase in the SHCC stirrup width decreased
the measured crack width. However, the recorded crack width is higher
than that recorded for SC-J-30 (strengthened with a full SHCC jacket).
For instance, at a crack width of 0.2 mm, corbels SC-S100-30, SC-S150-30
and SC-S200 reached loads approximately about 160, 198 and 225 kN,
respectively, these values represent 33, 65 and 87 % higher than the load
obtained by the control corbel. On the other hand, the recorded loads
pertaining to the 0.2 mm crack width reached by corbels SC-S100-30, SC-
S150-30 and SC-S200-30 represent 65, 80 and 91 % of that reached by
corbel SC-J-30.
4. Analytical formulation
Previous research work in addition to several codes of design
depended on empirical methods to estimate the shear capacity of the
corbels. However, the shear strength of these corbels could be developed
by more accurate approaches such as the softened strut-and-tie model.
Based on the experimental results of 178 corbels, the softened strut-and-
tie model is proved to be more accurate compared to the empirical
methods [53]. A softened strut-and-tie model which satisfies force
equilibrium, strain compatibility and the lows of the cracked reinforced
concrete was employed to determine the shear strength in the current
study. Based on a shear strength model adopted by previous research
[53–57] which considers the compression softening phenomenon, a
developed model is derived to predict the shear capacity of the
strengthened/unstrengthened corbels in this study.
4.1. The assumptions of the main compression strut
The proposed model in this study is based on the concept of strut-
and-tie which is formed by three mechanisms namely; diagonal struts,
horizontal and vertical ties [54–57] as shown in Fig. 14. The diagonal
compression struts represent the compressive resistance of the concrete
while the vertical and horizontal ties represent the resistance of the
vertical and horizontal stirrups. The diagonal main compression strut is
oriented with an inclination angle θ representing the direction of the
principal compressive stress. The inclination angle θ as depicted in
Fig. 14 can be expressed as:
(y )
(1)
ct
θ = arctan
a
Where yct is the lever arm of a singly reinforced rectangular section
which can be obtained by the linear bending theory as follows:
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
1 1
yct = d 1 − (nρf )2 + 2nρf + nρf (2)
3 3
Where d is the effective depth of the corbel; n is the elasticity steel-to-
concrete modular ratio which can be considered = 10; ρf is the ratio of
the flexural tensile steel considering Af is the area of flexural tensile
steel; Af = As – An; As is the area of main tensile reinforcement and An is
the area of the tensile reinforcement resisting tensile lateral force Nc.
The effective cross-sectional area of the main compression strut Ast
can be defined as follows:
Ast = as × bs (3)
Where bs is the width of the strut and can be considered as the whole
width of the corbel; and as is the depth of the strut regarding to its end-
condition and it was assumed to be equal to the flexural compression
depth which can be also obtained using the linear bending theory as
follows:
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

Fig. 13. Fiber bridging phenomenon.

node. As shown in Fig. 15, applying the equilibrium equations at each

node, the horizontal and vertical shear forces can be expressed as
follows:
Vch = D cosθ + Fh + Fv cotθ (5)

Vcv = D sinθ + Fh tanθ + Fv (6)

Based on the previous research findings, the shear forces can be
distributed among the resisting mechanisms (compression strut, vertical
and horizontal ties) using certain ratios of distribution [54,58,59]. The
force gained by each resisting mechanism can be calculated as follows:
Rd
D = Cosec θ × × Vcv (7)
(Rd + Rh + Rv )
Fig. 14. Strut-and-tie model showing the force transfer mechanism.
Rh
(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) Fh = Cot θ × × Vcv (8)
as = d (nρf )2 + 2nρf − nρf (4) (Rd + Rh + Rv )

Rv
Fv = × Vcv (9)
(Rd + Rh + Rv )
4.2. Force equilibrium
Where Rd, Rv and Rh are the distribution ratios. These ratios can be
The externally applied loads to the corbel (Vertical load = Vc and defined as:
lateral tensile force = Nc) result in internal horizontal and vertical shear
(1 − γh ) (1 − γ v )
forces (Vertical shear forces Vcv and horizontal shear forces Vch). The Rd = (10)
1 − γh γv
vertical shear force is equal to the vertical load Vc while the horizontal
shear force is equal to the compressive flexural force C;Vch = C = γh (1 − γv )
T − Nc . These shear forces are represented by the previously mentioned Rh = (11)
1 − γh γv
strut-and-tie load paths as shown in Fig. 14 [54–57]. The external and
internal forces (Strut force = D, vertical tie = Fv and horizontal tie = Fh) γv (1 − γh )
which are assembled into several nodes must be in equilibrium at each Rv = (12)
1 − γh γv
Where γh is the fraction of the horizontal tie resistance against hor­
izontal shear force in absence of the vertical tie and γ v is the fraction of
the vertical tie resistance against vertical shear force in absence of the
horizontal tie. These fractions were conducted [58,59] using the
reduced statically indeterminate mechanisms and can be calculated as
follows:
2 tanθ − 1
γh = for 0⩽γh ⩽1 (13)
3

2 cotθ − 1
γv = for 0⩽γv ⩽1 (14)
3
Eventually, after estimating each resisting force of the main strut as
well as the horizontal and vertical ties, the maximum compressive stress
σ d, max which acts on the nodal zone in the d-direction can be obtained
[53–55] as follows:

Fig. 15. Components of the internal forces in X-Y. directions.

11
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

⎡ horizontal tie (Fyh = Ath × fyh ). The maximum tensile stress can be
( ( yct ) ) ( ( ) )
1 ⎢ ⎢D + cos θ( − arctan 2a)
cos arctan 2yact − θ reached by the horizontal and vertical ties is considered as the yield
σ d,max = ( ) × F + ( ( ) )
Ast ⎣ y
cos arctan 2act
h
sin arctan 2yact stress of the stirrups (fyh and fyv).

⎤ 4.4. Strain compatibility

⎥
× Fv ⎥
⎦ For any structural element, the horizontal and vertical strains are
reliant on the principal strains in d and r directions. Consequently, based
(15) on Mohr’s circle analysis, the relationships that arranges these param­
eters were conducted [64] and can be obtained as follows:

4.3. Constitutive laws of cracked reinforced concrete εr = εh + (εh − εd ) cot2 θ (24)

Due to the lateral tensile strain, the cracked reinforced concrete εr = εv + (εv − εd ) tan2 θ (25)
under compression stress shows lower stiffness compared to its un­
cracked phase which is known as compression softening phenomenon. 4.5. Strengthening layer of SHCC
Recently, this phenomenon has been studied to recover the modelling
dilemma that is always associated with reinforced concrete members In the current study, based on the experimental observations per­
subjected to shear force [60–62]. The corbel is one of the reinforced taining to the bond behavior of the SHCC layer to concrete, it was
concrete elements at which the behavior is governed by the effect of the assumed that there is no any relative slip between the concrete and the
softening phenomenon. In the current study, it is assumed that the SHCC strengthening layer until failure. Although the fiber reinforced
orientation of the main compression strut coincides with one of the concrete has a different manner in tension comparing to the conven­
principal axes. Zhang and Hsu [61] introduced the softened stress–strain tional types of concrete, its compressive strength follows the same laws
relationship of concrete with compressive strength varies from 20 to similarly to the conventional concrete [65–69]. Previous research work
100 MPa, the ascending branch of the softened stress–strain curve can be reported that the compressive stress–strain relationship of the conven­
represented as follows: tional concrete can be applied for other special types of fiber reinforced
[ ( ) ( ) ] concrete [66,69]. Therefore, in the current study, it is assumed that the
2
σ d = ζ fc 2
′ εd
−
εd
for
εd
⩽1.00 (16) compressive stress–strain relationship of the SHCC strengthening ma­
ζ εo ζ εo ζ εo terial follows the same constitutive laws of the conventional reinforced
concrete.
5.8 Since the SHCC layer is fully bonded to the concrete surface of the
(17)
′
ζ = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ for fc ⩽41.5 MPa
′
f c (1 + 400 εr ) strengthened corbels, all strain values of booth materials are similar
until failure. Subsequently, for the strengthened corbels, applying the
0.90 model for each material individually is not a correct solution, the model
(18) would result in different strain values at failure for each material. To
′
ζ = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ for fc > 41.5 MPa
1 + 400 εr
overcome this problem, the contribution of the SHCC to the strut was
Where σ d is the principal stress of concrete (d-direction); ξ is the represented by an equivalent section, then the struts of both materials is
coefficient of softening; fc is the compressive strength of concrete solved as a single uniform strut. For the strengthened corbels, the
′

regarding to the concrete cylinder (150 × 300 mm) in MPa; εd is the equivalent strut cross-sectional area is estimated based on consistent
principal strain in d-direction while εr is the principal tensile strain in r- stress–strain behavior. Therefore, the SHCC-to-concrete modular ratio is
direction; and εo is the ultimate strain of concrete cylinder pertinent to used to transform the area of the SHCC strut to an equivalent area of the
its strength fc which can be estimated [63] as:
′
concrete and Eq. (3) will be replaced by the following equation:
( ′ ) El
f − 20 (26)
′

(19) A = as × bs + (as × bl ) ×
′
εo = − 0.002 − 0.001 c for 20⩽fc ⩽100 MPa st
Ec
80
Where Ast is the equivalent area of the unified strut; bl is the thickness
′
By referring to Eq. (16), the maximum capacity of the corbel is
reached in case that the compressive stress and strain of the main strut of the SHCC strengthening layer; Ec and El are the moduli of elasticity of
conform to the following equations: the concrete and the SHCC, respectively. For equations (16 to 20), the fc
′

is the value of concrete strength which needs a modification regarding

(20)
′
σ d = ζ fc the equivalent unified strut. The equivalent strength is calculated
depending on the area of contribution of the counterparts (concrete and
εd = ζ εo (21) SHCC) relatively to the total area of the equivalent strut.
By ignoring the effect of tension stiffening and considering a full as × bs
(
as × bs
)
(27)
′
bond between the horizontal/vertical stirrups and the concrete, the fe =
A ′st
× fc + 1 −
A ′st
× fl
relationship between the force gained by horizontal/vertical ties (Hor­
izontal tie force = Fh, vertical tie force = Fv) and the corresponding Where fe is the equivalent strength of the unified strut and f l is the
strains can be estimated as: compressive strength of the SHCC.

Fh = Ath Es εh ⩽ Fyh (22)

Fv = Atv Es εv ⩽ Fyv
Where Ath and Atv are the cross-sectional areas of the steel bars used
for horizontal and vertical ties, respectively; Es is the modulus of elas­
ticity of the steel ties; and εh and εv are the corresponding elastic strains
of the horizontal and vertical ties, respectively; Fyv is the yield force of
the vertical tie (Fyv = Atv × fyv ) and Fyh is the yield force of the
4.6. Solution algorithm
(23)
To predict the shear strength of the corbels using the previously
mentioned model, there are three main iterative steps to obtain the
correct value of the shear strength. These main steps are the force
equilibrium, applying the constitutive laws to calculate strain values of
concrete and steel, and eventually check the compatibility of the strains.
Five procedures will be discussed depending on the stress condition of

12
A. Hassan et al.
the vertical and horizontal ties.
4.6.1. Procedure 1: Elastic case [Type (E)]
In this case, both of vertical and horizontal stirrups are within the
elastic range (yield stress is not reached) until failure of the main strut.
The corbels that did not include either vertical or horizontal stirrups can
be solved by this elastic procedure. This procedure can be applied by
following the steps depicted on the flow chart in Fig. 16. For corbels that
did not have any reinforcing stirrups, the values of εv and εh cannot be
accurately detected. It would be acceptable to consider that the
maximum value of ε is close to the yield strain and can be assumed as
0.002 [53]. For the shear unreinforced corbels in the current research, it
was found that assuming strain value ε = 0.003 gives better predicted
shear strengths compared to the experimental results.
4.6.2. Procedure 2: Yield of the vertical tie [Type (YV)]
In this case, the vertical stirrups only reach the yield stress
Fig. 16. Flow chart of solution algorithm.
13
Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047
simultaneous with failure of the main strut. This procedure can be car­
ried out by following the steps shown on the flow chart in Figs. 16 and
17.
4.6.3. Procedure 3: Yielding of the horizontal tie [Type (YH)]
In this procedure, the horizontal tie only reaches the yield stress,
meanwhile, the failure of the main strut takes place. This procedure can
be applied using the steps as shown in the flow chart in Figs. 16 and 17.
4.6.4. Procedure 4: Yielding of the vertical tie followed by yielding of the
horizontal tie [Type (YVH)]
In this case, the vertical tie reaches the yield stress at first then it is
followed by the horizontal one, subsequently, the failure takes place at
the main strut as the forces of the ties are limited by yielding stress. To
solve this case, Procedure 2 is followed until confirming the yield of the
horizontal tie, the force at the main strut is recalculated considering the
yielding of both ties, and then the compatibility equations are applied.
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

Fig. 17. Solution algorithm for post yielding cases.

To apply this procedure, follow the steps in the pre and post yielding 4.6.5. Procedure 5: Yielding of the horizontal tie followed by yielding of the
flow charts of solution algorithms in Figs. 16 and 17. vertical tie [Type (YHV)]
The horizontal tie reaches the yield stress then is followed by the
vertical tie, therefore, the failure takes place at the main strut similarly

14
A. Hassan et al. Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047

to Procedure 4. To deal with this case, Procedure 3 is followed until Table 4

confirming the yield of the vertical tie, the force at the main strut is Verification of the proposed model.
recalculated considering the yielding of both ties, and then the Group Specimen ID Analysis type Pu, kN Pp, kN Pu / Pp
compatibility equations are applied. To carry out this procedure, apply
Control CN E 157 164 0.96
the steps in the flow charts in Figs. 16 and 17. Group I SC-J-20 E 283 289 0.98
SC-J-30 E 339 350 0.97
4.7. Verification of the proposed model SC-J-40 E 382 414 0.92
Group II SC-J-30-RV YV 412 408 1.01
SC-J-30-RH E 417 427 0.98
The proposed model is applied to predict the shear capacity of the SC-J-30-RVH YV 496 526 0.94
specimens of Group I, Group II, and the control specimen, all are Mean 0.97
included in the experimental program of the current study. The pre­ SD 0.027
dicted shear strengths and the details of the calculations are shown in COV 0.028

Table 4. The predicted-to-test shear strengths lie within an acceptable
range, however, it still needs further experimental verification in future
studies. The mean value of the experimental/predicted ultimate loads
was 0.97 and the coefficient of variation was 0.028.
5. Conclusion
In the current study, ten specimens of double-sided corbels were
constructed and tested to study the behaviour of RC corbels strength­
ened with SHCC jackets. Besides, an analytical investigation was carried
out to propose a new model that predicts the shear strength of the
strengthened corbels. Based on the carried out experimental and
analytical investigations pertaining to the studied parameters, the
following conclusions could be drawn:
Pu = experimental ultimate load; PP = predicted ultimate load; E = Elastic case;
YV = Yielding of vertical stirrups.
6. The proposed shear strength model gave a good prediction for the
shear capacity with sufficient accuracy when compared with the
experimental results. The mean value of the experimental/predicted
ultimate loads was 0.97 and the coefficient of variation was 0.028.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ali Hassan: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Mohamed Ellithy: Conceptualization,
Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Tarek F. El-Shafiey: Supervision, Conceptualization.

1. The use of the SHCC jacket significantly increased the load-carrying

capacity of the studied RC corbels. For corbels strengthened with 20,
30, and 40 mm unreinforced SHCC jackets, the load-carrying ca­
pacities could reach about 80, 116, and 143 % higher than that
achieved by the unstrengthened corbel. In addition, providing in­
ternal reinforcement in the SHCC jacket increased the ultimate load.
The increase in the ultimate capacity from providing either vertical
or horizontal reinforcement was almost the same.
2. Regarding the partially strengthened corbels, the current study
revealed that the minimum SHCC-stirrup width ratio to have a
similar efficiency to that of the full jacketing was 67 %. With the
application of the SHCC to 33 % of the shear span, the gained load
ratio was about 18 % of that achieved by the fully jacketed corbel. On
the other hand, when the SHCC was applied to 67 % of the shear
span, the gained load ratio was about 65 % of that achieved by the
fully jacketed corbel.
3. The application of the SHCC jacket showed a great improvement in
the post-cracking shear strength and ductility. Compared to the
unstrengthened corbel, the strengthened corbels showed higher
values of the shear strength factor as well as the absorbed energy.
This improvement increased with the addition of steel reinforce­
ment. With providing both horizontal and vertical reinforcement to
the SHCC jacket, the values of shear strength factor and absorbed
energy reached about 2.21 and 12.95 times, respectively, of that
achieved by the control corbel.
4. The first shear-crack capacity of the strengthened corbels was
affected significantly by the addition of the SHCC jackets. On the
other hand, providing steel reinforcement in the SHCC jackets did
not affect the first shear-crack capacity; however, the final crack
patterns of the reinforced SHCC jackets were significantly changed.
The reinforced SHCC jackets demonstrated multiple shear cracks
instead of localized cracks in the case of unreinforced jackets.
5. In general, a significant decrease in the maximum crack width was
achieved for the strengthened corbels. In terms of load-crack width
response, the addition of steel reinforcement inside the SHCC jackets
showed the best performance. Whereas, the use of partial jacketing is
less efficient than full jacketing, especially with the strengthening
ratios of 33 and 50 %, as the shear crack took place firstly out of the
strengthened zone.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
[1] ACI Committee 318 (2019). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.
[2] Egyptian code for design and construction of reinforced concrete structures (ECP
203-2020); 2020.
[3] Kriz LB, Raths CH. Connections in Precast Concrete Structures-Strength of Corbels.
PCI Journal 1965;10:6–16. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.02011965.16.61.
[4] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced Concrete Structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons;
1975.
[5] Araújo DL, Azevedo SA, Muniz ED, Silva EMO, Oliveira-Júnior LA. Strength
evaluation of concrete corbels cast in a different stage from the column. Rev IBR de
Estruturas e Mat 2017;10(2):509–46.
[6] Campione G. Flexural response of FRC corbels. Cem Concr Compos 2009;31(3):
204–10.
[7] Fattuhi NI. Reinforced corbels made with plain and fibrous concretes. ACI Struct J
1994;91(5):530–6.
[8] Fattuhi NI, Hughes B. Ductility of reinforced concrete corbels containing either
steel fibers or stirrups. ACI Struct J 1989;86(6):644–51.
[9] Campione G, La-Mendola L, Papia M. Flexural behaviour of concrete corbels
containing steel fibers or wrapped with FRP sheets. Mater Struct 2005;38(280):
617–25.
[10] Campione G, La-Mendola L, Mangiavillano M. Steel fiberreinforced concrete
corbels: Experimental behavior and shear strength prediction. ACI Struct J 2007;
104(5):570–9.
[11] Dawood AA, Abdul-Razzaq KS. Shear Friction and Strut-and-Tie Modeling
Verification for Pier Caps. J Bridge Eng 2021;26(9):04021059. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001758.
[12] Abdul-Razzaq KS, Dawood AA. Corbel strut and tie modeling - Experimental
verification. Structures 2020;26:327–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2020.04.021.
[13] El-Maaddawy T, El S. Response of Concrete Corbels Reinforced with Internal Steel
Rebars and External Composite Sheets: Experimental Testing and Finite Element
Modeling. J Compos Constr 2014:18. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000403.

15
A. Hassan et al.
[14] Mohammad A, Al-Shamaa M. Experimental Study of Behaviour of Reactive Powder
Concrete Strengthening by NSM-CFRP Corbels. Civil Engineering Journal 2018;4
(5):980.
[15] Sayhood E, Hassan Q, Yassin L. Enhancement in the Load-Carrying Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Corbels Strengthened with CFRP Strips under Monotonic or
Repeated Loads. Eng & Tech Journal 2016;34(14).
[16] Al-Kamaki Y, Hassan G, Alsofi G. Experimental study of the behavior of RC corbels
strengthened with CFRP sheets. Case Studies. Construction Materials 2018;9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00181.
[17] Nagrodzka-Godycka K. Behavior of corbels with external prestressing bars
experimental study. ACI Struct J 1999;96(6):1033–9.
[18] Nesreen M. Kassem, Hamdy M. Afefy, Salah El-Din F. Taher. Behavior and Repair
of R.C Corbels Using External Prestressing. International Conference on Structural
and Civil Engineering Research. October, 2018 Amsterdam, Netherlands.
[19] Lachowicz M, Nagrodzka-Godycka K. Experimental study of the post tensioned
prestressed concrete corbels. Engineering Structures. 2016;108:1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.007.
[20] Li VC. On Engineered cementitious composites: A review of the material and its
applications. J Adv Concr Technol 2003;1(3):215–30.
[21] Kanda T, Li VC. Practical design criteria for saturated pseudo strain hardening
behaviour in ECC. J Adv Conc Technol 2006;4(1):59–72.
[22] Li VC, Wang S, Wu C. Tensile strain-hardening behaviour of polyvinyl alcohol
engineered cementitious composites (PVA-ECC). ACI Mater J 2001;483–92.
[23] Kanda T, Li VC. A new micromechanics design theory for pseudo strain-hardening
cementitious composite. ASCE J Eng Mech 1999;124(4):373–81.
[24] Shaikh F, Maalej M, Paramasivam P. Analytical model for tensile strain hardening
and multiple cracking behaviour of hybrid fibre-engineered cementitious
composites. J Mater Civil Eng 2007;19(7):527–39.
[25] Kawamata A, Mihashi H, Fukuyama H. Material design of hybrid fibre reinforced
cementitious composites. J Adv Conc Technol 2002;1(3):283–90.
[26] Li VC, Wu HC. Conditions for pseudo strain-hardening in fibre reinforced brittle
matrix composites. Appl Mech Rev 1992;45(8):390–8.
[27] Li VC. Post-crack scaling relations for fibre reinforced cementitious composites.
J Mat Civil Eng 1992;14(1):41–57.
[28] Li VC, Leung CK. Steady state and multiple cracking of short random fibre
composites. J Eng Mech 1992;118(18):2247–64.
[29] Fukuyama H, Matsuzaki Y, Nakano K, Sato Y. Structural performance of beam
elements with PVA-ECC. In: Reinhardt Naaman A, editor. Proc of high performance
fiber reinforced cement composites 3 (HPFRCC 3). Chapman & Hull; 1999.
p. 531–42.
[30] Kim SW, Park WS, Jang YI, Feo L, Yun HD. Crack damage mitigation and shear
behavior of shear-dominant reinforced concrete beams repaired with
strainhardening cement-based composite. Composites: Part B Eng 2015;79:6–19.
[31] Wang G, Yang C, Pan Y, Zhu F, Jin K, Li K, et al. Shear behaviors of RC beams
externally strengthened with engineered cementitious composite layers. Materials
2019;12(13):2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12132163.
[32] Baghi H, Barros JAO, Rezazadeh M. Shear strengthening of damaged reinforced
concrete beams with Hybrid Composite Plates. Compos Struct 2017;178:353–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.07.039.
[33] Afefy HM, Baraghith AT, Hassan A, Abuzaid MK. Strengthening of shear-deficient
RC beams using near surface embedded precast cement-based composite plates
(PCBCPs). Eng Struct 2021;244:112765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2021.112765.
[34] Hassan A, Atta AM, El-Shafiey TF. Restoration of the shear capacity for RC beams
with web openings using precast SHCC plates. Structures 2020;25:603–12. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.03.046.
[35] Zheng YZ, Wang WW, Mosalam KM, Fang Q, Chen L, Zhu ZF. Experimental
investigation and numerical analysis of RC beams shear strengthened with FRP/
ECC composite layer. Compos Struct 2020;246:112436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2020.112436.
[36] Yang X, Gao WY, Dai JG, Lu ZD. Shear strengthening of RC beams with FRP grid
reinforced ECC matrix. Composite Structures. 2020; 241:112120. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112120.
[37] Shang X, Jiang-tao Yu. Li Ling-zhi, Lu Zhou-dao. Shear strengthening of fire
damaged RC beams with stirrup reinforced engineered cementitious composites.
Eng Struct 2020;210:110263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110263.
[38] Hassan A, Baraghith AT, Atta AM, El-Shafiey TF. Retrofitting of shear-damaged RC
T-beams using U-shaped SHCC jacket. Eng Struct 2021;245:112892. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112892.
[39] ASTM, standard C39/C39M. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA; 2021.
16
Engineering Structures 273 (2022) 115047
[40] ASTM C496/C496M. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA; 2017.
[41] ASTM E8/E8M-22. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic
Materials. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: West Conshohocken, PA, USA; 2022.
[42] Lepech MD, Li VC. Large-Scale Processing of Engineered Cementitious Composites.
ACI Mater J 2008;105(4):358–66.
[43] Li J, Weng J, Yang E. Stochastic model of tensile behavior of strain-hardening
cementitious composites (SHCCs). Cem Conc Res 2019;124:105856. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105856.
[44] Kunieda M, Hussein M, Ueda N, Nakamura H. Enhancement of Crack Distribution
of UHP-SHCC under Axial Tension Using Steel Reinforcement. J Adv Concr Technol
2010;8:49–57.
[45] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). Recommendations for design and
construction of high performance fiber reinforced cement composite with multiple
fine cracks (HPFRCC), Concrete engineering series 82; 2008.
[46] Witchukreangkrai E, Mutsuyoshi H, Takagi M, De-Silva S. Evaluation of shear crack
width in partially prestressed concrete members. Proceedings of JCI 2006;28(2):
823–8.
[47] Rizkalla SH, Hwang LS, El Shahawai M. Transverse reinforcement effect on
cracking behavior of RC members. Canadian J Civil Eng 1983;10(4):566–81.
[48] Hassan HM. Shear cracking behavior and shear resisting mechanism of reinforced
concrete beams with web reinforcement. Japan: University of Tokyo; 1987. PhD.
Thesis.
[49] Hassan AAA, Hossain KMA, Lachemi M. Strength, cracking and deflection
performance of large-scale self-consolidating concrete beams subjected to shear
failure. Eng Struct 2010;32(5):1262–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2010.01.002.
[50] Mazzotti C, Savoia M. Long-term deflection of reinforced self-consolidating
concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2009;106(6):772–81.
[51] Khalil A, Atta M, Hassan A, Abd-Elaaty A. Flexural strength recovery of RC one-
way slabs having cut-outs using NSM-SHCC plates. Eng Struct 2022;258:114149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114149.
[52] Ebead U, Shrestha K, Afzal M, Refai A, Nanni A. Effectiveness of fabric-reinforced
cementitious matrix in strengthening reinforced concrete beams. J Compos Constr
2017;21:4016084. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000741.
[53] Hwang SJ, Lu WY, Lee HJ. Shear Strength Prediction for Reinforced Concrete
Corbels. ACI Struct J 2000;97(4):543–52.
[54] Hwang SJ, Lee HJ. Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Exterior
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance. ACI Struct J
1999;96(5):846–57.
[55] Hwang SJ, Lee HJ. Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Interior
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance. ACI Struct J
2000;97(1):34–44.
[56] Hwang SJ, Fang WH, Lee HJ, Yu HW. Analytical model for predicting shear
strength of squat walls. J Struct Eng 2001;127(1):43–50.
[57] Hwang SJ, Lu WY, Lee HJ. Shear Strength Prediction for Deep Beams. ACI Struct J
2000;97(3):367–76.
[58] Schäfer K. Strut-and-Tie Models for Design of Structural Concrete. Notes of
Workshop, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Mar. 1996, 140 pp.
[59] Jennewein M, Schäfer K. Standardisierte Nachweise von häufigen D-Bereichen.
DAfStb. Heft No. 430, Beuth-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
[60] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Compression Response of Cracked Reinforced Concrete.
J Struct Eng 1993;119(12):3590–610.
[61] Zhang LXB, Hsu TTC. Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete Membrane
Elements. J Struct Eng 1998;124(1):24–34.
[62] Collins MP, Mitchell D, Adebar P, Vecchio FJ. General Shear Design Method. ACI
Struct J 1996;93(1):36–45.
[63] Foster SJ, Gilbert RI. Design of Nonflexural Members with Normal and High-
Strength Concretes. ACI Struct J 1996;93(1):3–10.
[64] Hsu TTC. Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton, Fla
1993:336 pp.
[65] Committee ACI. 544. Design consideration for steel fiber reinforced concrete (ACI
544.4R-88). ACI Struct J 1988;85(5):563–80.
[66] Susetyo J. Fibre reinforcement for shrinkage crack control in prestressed, precast
segmental bridges. University of Toronto; 2009. p. 307. Ph.D dissertation.
[67] Tan KH, Mansur MA. Shear transfer in reinforced fiber concrete. J Mat Civil Eng
1990;2(4):202–14.
[68] Tan KH, Murugappan K, Paramasivam P. Shear behavior of steel fiber reinforced
concrete beams. ACI Struct J 1992;89(6):3–11.
[69] Kim KS, Lee DH, Hwang J, Kuchma DA. Shear behavior model for steel fiber-
reinforced concrete members without transverse reinforcements. Compos B 2012;
43:2324–34.