Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Behavior of Corbels With External Prestressing Bars Experimental Study - Nagrodzka Godycka PDF
Behavior of Corbels With External Prestressing Bars Experimental Study - Nagrodzka Godycka PDF
Behavior of Corbels With External Prestressing Bars Experimental Study - Nagrodzka Godycka PDF
Details of specimens
The shapes of the tested corbels for each Set WI (a/d =
1.0), WII (a/d = 0.6), and WIII (a/d = 0.3), as well as the
arrangement and amount of reinforcement in specimens, are
shown in Fig. 2.
The reinforcement ratio for the main internal reinforce-
ment was equal to = 0.0104.
Instrumentation
The steel strains were measured with electrical resistance
gages for each load increment to the failure. The gage length
was 20 mm. The strain gages were placed on the main rein-
forcement at the face of the column, and in the middle of
distance a (where a is the distance between vertical load and
the column face). As for the stirrups, the strain gages were
mounted at the supporting section (at the column face) and in
the half-length of each stirrup.
The concrete strains were measured with a mechanical
extensometer in the direction of the compressive principal
stresses and along the slope edge of the corbel. The readings
were taken for each load increment until the failure occurred.
The crack pattern was also recorded. Crack widths were
measured with a crack detection microscope with a magnifi-
cation of 40.
Test procedure
First, basic corbels No. 4 from each set were tested. All the
specimens were tested in an inverted position. The corbels
were subjected to vertical load V applied symmetrically at
the upper edge. The load was increased from V = 0 to V =
Vubc (where Vubc is the ultimate failure load for basic corbel).
When the ultimate load for the basic corbels was determined,
the next two corbels from each set (described as No. 2 or 3)
were tested until their failure. The load increment was
0.1Vubc . When the load reached 60% of the ultimate load of
the comparable basic corbel, the tested corbel was unloaded.
Corbels No. 2 (one from each set) were prestressed by two
external bars (db = 25 mm) placed at the upper tension edge
of the corbel on both sides. Prestressing was conducted by
means of special screws, as shown in Fig. 3. At the begin-
ning, the prestressing force in each external bar was 80 kN.
Therefore, the prestressing force was equal to PS = 0.53Py
(where Py = Aps . fpy).
The No. 3 corbels were strengthened by the same two bars
(db = 25 mm); however, they were passive. The tests were
run in the way previously described.
TEST RESULTS
Crack morphology
The width of the first crack appearing at the tension junc-
Fig. 2Details of tested corbels (all dimensions in cm). tion was in a range between 0.04 and 0.1 mm. It depended on
APPROXIMATE CALCULATION
OF LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY OF
PRESTRESSED CORBELS
Comparing the authors test results with the calculated
ultimate load obtained from a few well-known design
methods based on truss model or shear-friction theory, it was
found that the ultimate load could not be properly estimated.
The analysis results of the load-carrying capacity of the
prestressed corbels with external bars based on a few
selected methods3-7 (the methods are summarized in the
Appendix*) are given in Table 2. They prove the methods
overestimate or underestimate the value of the load-carrying
capacity (Table 2).
The test results indicate that both the strain and the stress
increase were greater in the external prestressing bars in
comparison with the external passive bars (Fig. 8 through 10
and Fig. 13 through 15).
The stresses in external prestressing bars reached Vu
Fig. 15Stresses of main internal reinforcement and
0.7fpy. These stresses were almost half as much as the
external passive bars for Corbel WIII-3(WPP).
stresses in the internal main reinforcement of the prestressed
corbels. At the same load, the stresses in the external passive
bars reached only 0.17fpy, therefore, they were from six to
Figure 16 presents the effectiveness of the corbels with the seven times less than the stresses of the internal main rein-
external bars, expressed as the ratio of the load-carrying forcement of the corbels with external passive bars.
capacity of corbels with external bars to the load-carrying
*
capacity of basic corbels. Table 1 presents the ultimate The Appendix is available in xerographic or similar form from ACI headquarters,
where it will be kept permanently on file, at a charge equal to the cost of reproduction
failure load for the tested corbels. plus handling at time of request.
To obtain a reasonable agreement between calculated and At the failure of the corbels, the yield stresses in each case
experimental load-carrying capacity, the differences were reached in part of the internal main reinforcement, and
between the stresses of the internal main reinforcement and horizontal stirrups were placed inside the corbel. The
external strengthening reinforcement should be taken into maximum stresses in external prestressing bars were approxi-
account. This agreement could be reached assuming a coef- mately 30% smaller than the yield stress (ps = 0.7fpy).
ficient k = 0.5 reduces stresses in the external prestressing If, assuming for calculation purposes, that stresses in the
bars on the load-carrying capacity (Table 3). internal main reinforcement and external strengthening bars
Taking this assumption into account, it is possible to estimate are equal to the yield stresses, the load-carrying capacity is
the ultimate load of corbels with a/d = 1.0 according to Kriz overestimated. These improper overestimates could be
and Raths method3 and for the shortest corbel (a/d = 0.3) particularly large when strengthening the corbels using the
using Walravens method.6 In both cases, for the satisfactory passive bars. Thus, to calculate the load-carrying capacity
agreement between the calculated and experimental ultimate of the corbels with external prestressing bars, the stress in
load of the corbels, the coefficient k = 0.5, should be the prestressing bars might be approximately assumed ps
assumed. = 0.5fpy.
The authors procedure,7 based on Mohrs failure criterion,
could be very useful in the case of strong main reinforce- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ment, when the concrete strength determines the load-carrying This research was supported by Grant No. 7-7233-92-03 from the Polish
State Research Committee (KBN), which is gratefully acknowledged.
capacity of the corbel. To obtain the properly estimated
calculated load-carrying capacity, the compression zone (c)
should be limited. For example: for the ratio a/d = 1.0 REFERENCES
1. Chakrabarti, P. R.; Farahani, D. J.; and Kashou, S. I., Reinforced and
cmax = 0.4d; for a/d = 0.6 cmax = 0.6d and for a/d = 0.3 Precompressed Concrete CorbelsAn Experimental Study, ACI Structural
cmax = 0.9d. For practical purposes, the load-carrying Journal, V. 86, No. 4, July-Aug. 1989, pp. 405-412.
capacity of the prestressed corbels can be calculated prop- 2. Tan, K. H., and Mansur, M. A., Partial Prestressing in Concrete Corbels
erly by taking into account limited cmax and assuming k = and Deep Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 3, May-June 1992,
pp. 251-262.
0.5. The results of the calculation are given in Table 3.
3. Kriz, L. B., and Raths, C. H., Connections in Precast Concrete
StructuresStrength of Corbels, Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute,
CONCLUSIONS V. 10, No. 1, Feb. 1965, pp. 16-61.
The experimental test results indicate that the effectiveness 4. Franz, G., Column Corbels, Beton und Stahlbetonbau, V. 71, No. 4, Apr.
1976, pp. 93-102. (in German)
of the external prestressing depends on a/d. For a/d = 1.0, the 5. Hagberg, T., Design of Concrete Brackets: On the Application of the Truss
ultimate load due to prestressing increased by 40%. This Analogy, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 80, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1983, pp. 3-12.
effectiveness decreased with the decrease of a/d. For a/d = 0.6 6. Walraven, J.; Frenay, J.; and Pruijssers, A., Influence of Concrete Strength
or 0.3 (shorter corbels), the ultimate load increased by a and Load History on the Shear Friction Capacity of Concrete Members, Journal
maximum of only 12%. of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 32, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 66-84.
7. Nagrodzka-Godycka, K., Contribution to Design of Reinforced Concrete
The crack widths due to external prestressing also depended Corbels under Short-Term Load on Upper Edge, Archives of Civil Engineering
on a/d. Crack widths decreased with the increase of a/d. (Warsaw), V. 37, No. 2, 1991, pp. 221-248. (in Polish)