You are on page 1of 7

ACI JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 81-46

Concrete Frame Corners

by Erik Skettrup, J0rgen Strabo, Niels Houmark Andersen, and Troels Br0ndum-Nielsen

Tests on reinforced concrete frame corners subjected to an opening


bending moment (corresponding to tensile stresses in the reentrant
corner) are described. Three fundamentally different reinforcement Steel beam
arrangements were tested. For high percentages of reinforcement, the
load-carrying capacity of a common reinforcement arrangement Concrete frame
proved to be low. Modified reinforcement arrangements resulted in corner
corners that could transfer the same bending moments as the adja- 2 tensile bars
cent beams, even with balanced reinforcement.

Keywords: bending moments; corner joints; frames; loads (forces); reinforced


concrete; reinforcing steels; tests.

In 1977, 1980, and 1982 three series of tests on con-


crete frame corners subjected to an opening bending
moment were carried out at the Department of Struc-
tural Engineering, Technical University of Denmark.
The purpose of the 1977 tests was to investigate the ef- l,
ficiency of a common reinforcement arrangement with
high percentages of reinforcement. These investigations
showed a load-carrying capacity down to only about 50
percent of the ultimate bending moment of the adja- Fig. 1 - Test rig
cent beams. In 1980 and 1982 two series of tests were
carried out with modified reinforcement arrangements
In Fig. 1 the distance between the hydraulic jacks is
in an attempt to improve the efficiency. The tests were
denoted £1 and the distance between the supports £2 • In
performed as final year projects by Bent Lund Nielsen,
the tests from 1977 the distances were £1 = 3.00 m and
J~rgen Strabo, and Niels Houmark Andersen under
£2 = 5.00 m. In the tests from 1980 and 1982 the dis-
project leaders Troels Br(3ndum-Nielsen and Erik Sket-
tances were £1 = 1.00 m and £2 = 2.00 m.
trup.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE TEST SPECIMENS AND MATERIALS


The significance of this paper is that tests on rein- Compressive strength of the concrete was determined
forced concrete frame corners subjected to an opening by cylinders with 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height.
bending moment have shown that: The mean values !em of the three tests are given in Ta-
-The load-carrying capacity of a common rein- bles 1 and 2. The reinforcement consisted mainly of
forcement arrangement proved to be low for high per- deformed bars, although plain bars were used for some
centages of reinforcement. secondary reinforcement where the bond was of minor
-Modified reinforcement arrangements resulted in importance. In the figures of the arrangement of the
corners that could transfer the same bending moment reinforcement, db and pb denote deformed bars and
as the adjacent beams. plain bars, respectively. The mean values of the yield
strength fvm are given in Tables 1 and 2.
TEST RIG
Rec7ived June 3, 1983, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
The test rig shown in Fig. 1 was used in all test se- Copynght © 1984, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
ries. With this test rig the only stress resultant in the the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the September-October 1985 ACI
frame corner is a bending moment. JOURNAL if received by June I, 1985.

ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1984 587


Erik Skettrup received his MSc in civil and structural engineering from the
Table 1 - Dimensions and material properties of
Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, in 1963. Since 1967, he has
Test Specimens 7701 through 7704
been employed by the Department of Structural Engineering, Technical Uni- Diameter
versity of Denmark. Test Arrangement of rein-
specimen b X h, d. f. ... !. ... of rein- forcement,
Jt,1rgen Srrabo received his MSc in civil and structural engineering from the number mm mm MPa MPa forcement mm w
Technical University of Denmark in /980. He received an academic scholarship 7701 229 X 473 413 18.1 597 Fig. 2 d, = 25 0.343
from the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Terre
Haute, Ind., in /978. Since /980, he has been employed by Dana/ith Inc., Co- 7702 224 X 473 426 13.9 573 Fig. 2 d, = 20 0.272
penhagen, as a designer of concrete silos and frame structures in concrete and
7703 227 X 798 730 21.9 575 Fig. 3 d,, = 25 0.255
steel. d,, = 20
Niels Houmark Andersen received his MSc in civil and structural engineering 7704 226 X 797 745 17.7 564 Fig. 2 d, = 25 0.186
from the Technical University of Denmark in /982. He is employed as a con-
sulting engineer.
Table 2 - Dimensions and material properties of
Troeh Brf,lndum-Nielsen, FA C /, is a professor of structural theory, Depart-
ment of Structural Engineering, Technical University of Denmark. He is a
Test Specimens 8001 through 8208
member of the Danish Academy of Technical Sciences, a vice president of FIP, Test Arrangement
and an honorary member of CEB. He is the author of numerous technical pa- specimen d, !. .... L. of rein-
pers. number mm MPa MPa forcement w
8001 231 19.3 562 Fig. 2 0.313
8002 231 17.2 589 Fig. 4 0.368
8003 232 17.8 605 Fig. 4 0.364
8004 232 16.9 631 Fig. 5 0.398
8005 232 16.9 607 Fig. 5 0.384
8201 231 16.3 645 Fig. 4 0.425
8202 231 14.2 662 Fig. 5 0.501
8203 228 17.2 650 Fig. 4 0.411
8204 228 13.5 661 Fig. 5 0.533
8205 228 15.6 644 Fig. 6 0.449
8206 233 23.7 656 Fig. 8 0.295
8207 228 17.9 655 Fig. 7 0.398
8208 230 16.1 657 Fig. 8 0.440

reinforcement in each beam was bent through 180 deg


and anchored in the compression zone of the same
beam. In Test Specimen 7703, the reinforcement was
placed in two layers (see Fig. 3). The cross-sectional
Cross section
a- a area of the additional reinforcement at the reentrant
corner was one-half of the cross-sectional area of the
main reinforcement. For low percentages of reinforce-
Fig. 2 - Test Specimens 7701, 7702, 7704, and 8001
ment, tests had proved that this arrangement was su-
perior to the various other arrangements previously
adopted.
The mechanical ratio of reinforcement

w =
bd f.m
in each of the adjacent beams is given in Table 1. A,
denotes the cross-sectional area of the main reinforce-
ment.

Tests carried out in 1980 and 1982


Five specimens (8001 through 8005) were tested in
1980, and eight (8201 through 8208) in 1982. In all
these specimens the cross sections were rectangular (b x
h = 162 x 260 mm), and the main reinforcement in the
Fig. 3 - Test Specimen 7703 adjacent beams consisted of 16 mm deformed bars. The
principal data of these specimens are given in Table 2.
Tests carried out in 1977 Specimen 8001 was made for comparison with the
In Table l, b and h denote width and total depth of 1977 tests. The arrangement of the reinforcement in
the rectangular cross section. The cross sections were Specimens 8002, 8003, 8201, and 8203 (see Fig. 4) is
made large to simulate a real structure and avoid the similar to that shown in Fig. 2, but with the following
risk of erroneous conclusions that might arise from us- modifications.
ing small cross sections (scale effect). a. The main reinforcement was bent through 225 deg
The arrangement of the reinforcement of Test Speci- instead of 180 deg to anchor the reinforcement in a
mens 7701, 7702, and 7704 is shown in Fig. 2. The main zone with lateral concrete compressive stresses.
588 ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1984
<)12 db
Fig. 4- Test Specimens 8002, 8003, 8201, and 8203 Fig. 5 - Test Specimens 8004, 8005, 8202, and 8204

b. To improve the anchorage of the additional rein-


forcement at the reentrant corner, this reinforcement
was not anchored in the compression zone of the beams
but near the center of the beams.
c. Three additional stirrups(¢ I2 and¢ IO) were
placed in the vicinity of the plane bisecting the corner
angle. The characteristic tensile strength of the stirrups
was 420 MPa in Specimens 8002 and 8003, and 550
MPa in the 1982 specimens. The purpose of these stir-
rups was to change the direction of the compressive
concrete stresses in the outer part of the frame corner
and to tie the tension and compression zones together.
d. Four stirrups (¢ 6) were placed around the main
reinforcement, perpendicular to the plane of the frame.
Their characteristic tensile strength was 240 MPa in
Fig. 6 - Test Specimen 8205
Specimens 8002 and 8003, and 280 MPa in the 1982
specimens. The purpose of these stirrups was to pre-
vent tensile failure in the concrete in planes parallel to
the plane of the frame.
The arrangement of the reinforcement in Specimens
8004, 8005, 8202, and 8204 is shown in Fig. 5. The
principle is as follows.
The main reinforcement was not bent but lap-spliced
with two hairpin stirrups (¢ 12), with the bend placed
in the compression zone of the other leg and perpen-
dicular to the concrete stresses. The characteristic ten-
sile strength of these hairpins was 400 MPa in Speci-
mens 8004 and 8005, and 600 MPa in the I982 speci-
mens. The length of the legs of the hairpin stirrups was
750 mm.
The additional reinforcement at the reentrant corner
was placed as in Fig. 4. Fig. 7- Test Specimen 8207
As in Fig. 4, three additional stirrups (¢ I 0 and¢ 12)
were placed in the vicinity of the plane bisecting the The arrangement of the reinforcement shown in Fig.
corner angle. 6 was similar to that in Fig. 4, with the following mod-
Two 6 mm stirrups were placed around the main re- ifications. The four stirrups (¢ 6) around the main re-
inforcement and the two hairpin stirrups perpendicular inforcement in Fig. 4 were replaced by three stirrups (¢
to the plane of the frame. Their characteristic tensile 6) placed close to the stirrups in the vicinity of the plane
strength was 240 MPa in Specimens 8004 and 8005, and bisecting the corner angle. The two 12 mm bars in the
280 MPa in the 1982 specimens. outer part of the frame corner were replaced by two 8
Two 12 mm bars with a characteristic tensile strength mm bars with a characteristic strength of 280 MPa.
of 240 MPa in Specimens 8004 and 8005, and 280 MPa The arrangement of the reinforcement shown in Fig.
in Specimens 8202 and 8204 were placed in the outer 7 is similar to that in Fig. 4, with the following modi-
part of the frame corner. fications. The two I 0 mm stirrups in the vicinity of the
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1984 589
Table 3 - The correlation between the
mechanical ratio of reinforcement w and the
efficiency 11
Test M,,
specimen M,"Q/, M,,., =
number who/ w MNm MNm " M,.,,

7701 0.367 0.343 0.193 0.106 0.55


7702 0.374 0.272 0.129 0.099 0.77
7703 0.373 0.255 0.574 0.471 0.82
7704 0.377 0.186 0.368 0.369 1.00
8001 0.377 0.313 0.0426 0.0252 0.59
8002 0.369 0.368 0.0428 0.0382 0.89
8003 0.364 0.364 0.0444 0.0453 1.02
8004 0.357 0.398 0.0426 0.0485 1.14
8005 0.364 0.384 0.0426 0.0466 1.09
8201 0.354 0.425 0.0411 0.0485 1.18
8202 0.349 0.501 0.0376 0.0527 1.40
8203 0.353 0.411 0.0419 0.0491 1.17
Fig. 8 - Test Specimens 8206 and 8208 8204 0.349 0.533 0.0348 0.0539 1.55
8205 0.354 0.449 0.0389 0.0441 1.13
8206 0.351 0.295 0.0508 0.0484 0.95
plane bisecting the corner angle were omitted. As in 8207 0.351 0.398 0.0434 0.0481 1.11
Fig. 6, the two bars in the outer part of the frame cor- 8208 0.351 0.440 0.0404 0.0423 1.05
ner had a diameter of 8 mm.
The arrangement of the reinforcement in Specimens a. One or more cracks approximately perpendicular
8206 and 8208 is shown in Fig. 8. The principle is as to the plane of the frame and to the plane bisecting the
follows. The main reinforcement was stopped in the corner angle (see Fig. 9).
adjacent beams near the reentrant corner. The main re- b. Splitting failure of the concrete in a plane parallel
inforcement was lap-spliced with two hairpin stirrups (¢ to the plane of the frame (see Fig. 10).
12) as shown in Fig. 5, but one of the hairpin stirrups The crack pattern of Specimen 8001 had the same
was bent 45 deg to change the direction of the com- character, and the scale effect was negligible for the
pressive concrete stresses in the outer part of the frame relevant arrangement of the reinforcement. Specimen
corner and to tie the tension and compression zones to- 8002 failed in the concrete compression zone of the ad-
gether. Two stirrups (¢ 6) were placed around the hair- jacent beam at some distance from the corner. The
pin stirrups to avoid tensile failure in the concrete in a other specimens failed in the concrete compression zone
plane parallel to the frame corner. The diameter of the of the corner.
two bars in the outer part of the corner was 8 mm. The correlation between w and 'YJ for the three test se-
In all specimens the position of the reinforcement ries is shown in Fig. 11. The occurrence of 'YJ values con-
measured in the transverse direction was as follows. siderably in excess of unity is believed to be due to the
The cover of the main reinforcement was 1.5 d, in one fact that neither the compressive reinforcement nor the
leg and 2.5 ds in the other, ds denoting the diameter of additional reinforcement at the corner was taken into
the bars. The additional reinforcement at the reentrant account when calculating M'" 1• Another explanation
corner was placed in the plane of symmetry of the might be that the concrete compressive stress equal to
frame. 0.85 fern according to the CEB-FIP Model Code' is too
low if the load is not sustained and that the assumption
TEST RESULTS of a maximum strain in the concrete of 3.5 %o is con-
The calculated ultimate bending moments for the ad- servative for the low concrete strength adopted in these
jacent beams in the frame corners are summarized in tests. This explanation is supported by the increase in 'YJ
Table 3. The calculation was carried out according to for increasing values of w. For these reasons, an alter-
the CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures' with native analysis was carried out based on the assump-
constant concrete compressive stresses equal to 0.85 !em tions of a concrete stress of !em and a maximum con-
in the outer 80 percent of the compression zone. The crete strain of 7%o.
mechanical ratio of reinforcement w for the adjacent Specimens 7701 through 7704 and 8001 were ex-
beams is given in Table 3, together with the ratio wbal• cluded due to their lack of reinforcement in the vicinity
corresponding to balanced reinforcement, the maxi- of the plane bisecting the corner angle, which resulted
mum concrete compressive strain, Eeu being taken as in premature failure. The alternative analysis resulted in
equal to 3.5 %o and the steel strain E, as equal to the an average value of 'YJ equal to 1.01 with a standard de-
yield strain E,.v· viation of 0.10.
For specimens with w exceeding whal• the calculated The strains in the bent main reinforcement in Speci-
steel stress as was based on the compatibility condition men 8003 were measured by strain gages. In the bars a
and the stress-strain relationship. The ultimate bending 1 mm wide longitudinal slot was milled to the center of
moments found in the tests are summarized in Table 3 the cross section where the strain gages were placed,
together with the efficiency YJ, i.e., the ratio between eliminating contributions from possible bending strain.
M,,s, and Meal· The moisture protection of the strain gages was placed
The specimens in the 1977 tests had the following in the milled slot so that the bond properties of the re-
typical crack pattern at failure: inforcement were not affected.
590 ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1984
Fig. 9 - Test Specimen 7703 just before failure

Fig. /0- Test Specimen 7703 after failure

In Specimen 8003, five strain gages (I through 5 in CONCLUSION


Fig. 12) were placed along the bent reinforcement. The The test series from 1977 show that concrete frame
strains in the reinforcement at 92 percent of the ulti- corners reinforced according to the common arrange-
mate load are shown in Fig. 12. ment shown in Fig. 2, with a mechanical ratio of rein-
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1984 591
0
8204
0
.. 7701-7704 I
6202
~ 8001-8005 I
0 8201-8208 I 82 0J
o8201
I 8004~ o8205
I~ 08207
1
_ _ _ !10_4 _ _ _ _ _ !_203~ --l. 8005 _ _o8208_
', 08206 I I
-...... 1 ® 8002
' , .. 7703 1 I
',•7702 1 I
', I I
' I
8001 ®'--' ~ 7701
II
1' I
Lff
1

1
I All Wba1 lie within
this interval

I I
I I
I
0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
Fig. 11 - Correlation between the mechanical ratio of reinforcement wand the efficiency 17

Strain E

2 3 4 5 Strain gage No.


Fig. 12- Strains in the bent main reinforcement in Specimen 8003

forcement greater than about 0.2 and subjected to an two new arrangements gave a carrying capacity of the
opening bending moment, cannot resist the same bend- corners of the same magnitude as for the adjacent
ing moment as the adjacent beams. For the 1980 tests, beams. This was confirmed by the tests in 1982. In 1982
592 ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1984
three new arrangements were tested. The results of w mechanical ratio of reinforcement
these tests were satisfactory, but the number of tests wbal mechanical ratio of reinforcement correspond-
was rather limited. ing to balanced reinforcement
The reinforcement arrangements found to be satis- as stress in reinforcement
factory with respect to the specified strength criterion
involve practical disadvantages because correct bending CONVERSION FACTORS- Sl TO INCH-POUND
and placing of the reinforcement and satisfactory plac- To convert from to multiply by
ing and compaction of the concrete in the congested
mm in. 0.03937
corner zone call for qualified labor.
m ft 3.281
MN lbf 224.8 X IOJ
RECOMMENDATIONS
MN·m ft-lb 737.6 X 103
For high percentages of reinforcement, the test re-
MPa psi 145.0
sults indicate that concrete frame corners subjected to
an opening bending moment and reinforced according
to Fig. 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 are superior to concrete frame REFERENCES
I. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, Comite Euro-
corners reinforced according to Fig. 2 and 3. lnternational du Seton/Federation lnternationale de Ia Precon-
trainte, Paris (English Edition, Cement and Concrete Association,
NOTATION Wexham Springs), 1978, 348 pp.
As cross-sectional area of steel 2. Swann, R. A., "Flexural Strength of Corners of Reinforced
Meal calculated ultimate bending moment Concrete Portal Frames," Technical Report No. TRA 434, Cement
Mtest ultimate bending moment found by test and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs, Nov. 1969, 14 pp.
3. Balint, P. S., and Taylor, H. P. J., "Reinforcement Detailing
b width of cross section
of Frame Corner Joints with Particular Reference to Opening Cor-
d effective depth ners," Technical Report No. 42.462, Cement and Concrete Associa-
ds diameter of reinforcement tion, Wexham Springs, Feb. 1972, 16 pp.
fem mean strength of concrete 4. Nilsson, lngvar H. E., "Reinforced Concrete Corners and Joints
hm mean yield strength of steel Subjected to Bending Moment," Document No. D 7:1973, National
Swedish Institute for Building Research, Stockholm, 1973, 249 pp.
h total depth of cross section
5. Stroband, J ., and Kolpa, J. J.; "The Behaviour of Reinforced
maximum concrete compressive strain Concrete Column-to-Beam Joints," Reports No. 5-81-5 and 5-83-9,
steel yield strain Department of Civil Engineering, Stevin Laboratory, Delft Univer-
efficiency, i.e., ratio between M,,5 , and Meal sity of Technology, 1981 and 1983.

ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1984 593

You might also like