16

Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Corner

Joints Subjected to Opening Moments
David A. M. Jawad
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Basrah.
Lateef N. Assi
Asst. Lecturer, Dept. of Building Construction, Muthana Institute of
Technology.

Abstract: The study investigates the behaviour of reinforced concrete corner joints under
monotonically increasing loads which tend to increase the right angle between the two joint
members. The experimental results for two case studies are considered, and the ANSYS computer
code is employed to create three-dimensional models for corner joints within the context of the
finite element method. The effect of reinforcement details at the corner joint is studied for
commonly used detailing systems, and the nonlinear response is traced throughout the entire load
range up to failure. The results obtained are generally in good agreement with the experiments, and
show that the detailing system has a significant effect on corner joint behaviour, with efficiencies
ranging from as low as 54% up to 147%.
Keywords: Corner joints, Concrete, Nonlinear analysis, Finite element method, ANSYS.

‫التحليل الالخطي بأستخدام طريقة العناصر المحددة للمفاصل الركنية من الكونكريت المسلح‬
‫المعرضة الى عزوم فتح‬
‫ديفد عبد محمد جواد‬.‫د‬
‫ جامعة البصرة‬-‫ قسم الهندسة المدنية‬-‫مدرس‬
‫السيد لطيف ناجح عاصي‬
‫ المعهد الفني في المثنى‬-‫ قسم البناَء واألنشاءات‬-‫مدرس مساعد‬

:‫الخالصة‬
‫يتناول البحث سلوك المفاصل الركنية من الخرسانة المسلحة تحت تأثير أحمال متزايدة والتي تؤدي الى أنفراج قيمة الزاويةالقائمةة‬
‫ فةي أنشةاء نمةاثج ثةثيةة البعةد‬ANSYS ‫ وتوظيةف برنةامج‬،‫ تم تناول النتائج العملية لحالتين بحثيتين‬.‫بين ضلعي المفصل الركني‬
‫ جرت دراسة لتأثير تفاصيل التسليح المستخدمة للمفاصل الركنية لبعض‬.‫للمفاصل الركنية ضمن محتوى طريقة العناصر المحددة‬
.‫ مع تتبع لألستجابة الةخطية لمدى التحميل الكلي وصوال للفشل‬،‫أنظمة التسليح األكثر شيوعا‬
،‫االنتائج المستحصلة أظهرت توافقا جيدا مع النتائج العملية وبينت أن تفصةيل التسةليح ثو تةأثير مهةم علةى سةلوك المفصةل الركنةي‬
.%751 ‫ لغابة‬%45 ‫وبقيم لكفاءة المفصل تتباين من‬

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 17

1. Introduction: or corners. The reinforcement details must

be such that its layout and fabrication is
The term "corner" is used to describe a easy and the structural member should
corner joint formed by the joining, at 90 , satisfy the fundamental requirements of
of the ends of two flexural members. The strength expressed in terms of joint
terms "opening" and "closing" of the efficiency, controlled cracking, ductility
corner are used to describe the increase and and last but not the least, ease and
decrease of this right angle, respectively. simplicity of construction.
Some examples, shown in Fig.)1) include
retaining walls, liquid storage tanks and
large box culverts.

Fig.1 Examples of Corner Joints.

From a safety point of view, it is important Various detailing systems have been
that a reinforced concrete structure, apart popular from time to time and considerable
from necessary load capacity, is also able efforts have been directed towards carrying
to show ductile behaviour so that a local out improvements in these detailing
failure does not lead to total collapse of the systems to achieve the desired structural
structure [1]. A structure’s ability to exhibit behaviour.
such behaviour is highly dependent on the 2. Stress Analysis:
reinforcement detail of the joint a-Stress Analysis according to
connections between its adjoining Theory of Elasticity
members. Ideally, the joint should resist a The state of stress in corners and joints as
moment at least as large as the estimated calculated by the theory of elasticity is
failure moment of the structural members valid only before cracking occurs. After
connected to it and ensure ductile cracking and at later stages, the joint acts
behaviour in the ultimate limit state. as a composite structure made up by the
reinforcement and the concrete. Thus the
The principles of detailing and the analysis of joint behavior is far more
structural behaviour of simple structural complicated than that of homogeneous
members such as beams and columns are bodies. Despite the fact that the results
well established. On the other hand, the provided by the theory of elasticity are
detailing, strength and behaviour of corner valid only prior to cracking, they help to
joints, especially those subject to opening indicate where tensile stresses occur. From
moments as in the case of cantilever an elastic analysis some guidance
retaining walls, bridge abutments, regarding the location of tension
channels, rectangular liquid retaining reinforcement in corners and joints is
structures and portal frames, has not been provided [2]. Fig.(2) shows the stress
conclusively determined. Reinforcement distribution along the diagonal in a corner
detailing at corners plays a primary role in subjected to positive moment. The bending
influencing the structural behaviour of the stress, σx, exhibits a peak tension at the
joint more so in the case of opening joints inside of the corner, which explains why

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 18

corner cracks occur for quite small loads. design of joints of certain standard
The tensile stresses, σy, cause a diagonal configurations, the recommendations are
crack across the corner which results in
sudden failure unless reinforcement is
provided. These tensile stresses may be
considered parabolically distributed
perpendicular to the joint diagonal Fig.(3).
In the shown system of forces, the resultant
tensile force across the diagonal is
2 Ft  2 Fc . For the parabolic
distribution

2
2 Fs  f t b l dc ...(1)
3
in which f t = tensile strength of the Fig.3 Truss Idealisation of Corner.[2]
concrete; b= width of the corner; and l dc =
based mainly on results of tests.
length of the diagonal crack. The bending
Consequently they must be restricted to
moment on the corner is M  F z , in which
joints whose geometry closely matches that
z= lever arm=0.8d; d=effective depth of of tested joints. This leads to many
the member framing in the corner; thus seemingly arbitrary geometric limitations.
Good physical models are available for
M  Fs 0.8d …(2) many aspects of reinforced concrete
behavior-for example, for predicting the
Equating (1) and (2) gives: flexural strength of a beam or the strength
of an eccentrically loaded column-but no
2 clear physical model is evident in the
M 0.8d b l dc f t  0.38d b l dc f t …(3) Committee 352 recommendations for the
3
behaviour of a joint. For this reason,
among others, increasing attention is being
given to the so-called strut-and-tie model[5]
as a basis for the design of “discontinuity
regions” or “disturbed regions” such as
joints. With this simple model, the flow of
forces in a joint is easily visualized,
satisfaction of the requirements of
equilibrium is confirmed, and the need for
proper anchorage of bars is emphasized. In
a complete strut-and-tie model analysis,
through proper attention to deformations
within the joint, serviceability is ensured
Fig.2 Stress in Corner according to through control of cracking.
Theory of Elasticity.[2]
The strut-and-tie model not only provides
valuable insights into the behavior of
b-Stress Analysis according to ordinary beam-column joints but also
Strut-and-Tie Model [3] represents an important tool for the design
Although the Committee 352 report [4] is of joints that fall outside of the limited
an important contribution to the safe range of those considered [6]. Further

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 19

development of joint design methods may statically determinate structures, such as

well incorporate this approach. The strut- bridge abutments, retaining walls and
and-tie model of Fig.(4) provides valuable open channels, there is no redistribution
insight into the needed reinforcement, of moments to adjacent structural
indicating that, in addition to well- elements. In such case the strength of
anchored tensile bars to transmit the force the corner is critical for integrity of the
T into the joint, some form of radial structure.
reinforcement is required to permit the 3. Cracks form on the inside of corners
compressive force C to “turn the corner”. which are subject to tension. The widths
of corner cracks should, therefore, be
limited to an acceptable value in the
working range .
4. The reinforcement should be easy to
fabricate and position. Corners and
joints are often of considerable width.
For such joints, details, which include
stirrups, may be difficult to place in
practice, and care must be taken that the
reinforcement does not seriously disturb
the casting of the concrete.

4. Material Models:
Concrete behavior is simulated by the
elastic-plastic model with a five-parameter
Fig.4 Strut-and-tie Model of Joint William-Warnke[7] failure surface. The
Behaviour.[3] failure surface consists of a conical shape
with curved meridians and noncircular
3. Requirements Regarding base sections, it is defined as:
Reinforcement Layout: 1 a 1 a
The reinforcement should be placed in   1 ….(4)
such a way that the joints meet certain z f cu r () f cu
basic requirements:[2]
Where,  a and  a are the average stress
1. The joint should be capable of resisting components, r is the position vector
a moment at least as large as the locating the surface with angle  , z is the
calculated failure moment in adjacent apex of the surface and f cu is the uniaxial
cross section, i.e., begins yielding in the
compressive strength. The free parameters
beam reinforcement. Consequently,
of the surface z and r are identified from
failure in the joint does not occur and
the structure is able to develop its uniaxial compressive strength f cu , biaxial
computed strength. compressive strength f cb , and uniaxial
2. If it is not possible to meet the first tensile strength f ct . The William-Warnke
requirement, then the reinforcement failure surface has several advantages
layout should satisfy a second which include: close fit of experimental
requirement. The joint should have the data in the operating range; simple
necessary ductility to carry large identification of model parameters from
deformations so that redistribution of standard test; smoothness; and convexity.
forces in the structure will be possible In order to guide the expansion of the yield
without brittle failures of joints. In surface during plastic deformation, the

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 20

uniaxial stress-strain relationship for case studies are shown in Fig.(6). The
normal-strength concrete is defined as [8] portal type shape was selected because of
the ease of testing which it affords (the
Ec c 2f 
c  …(5)  0  c …(6)
 Ec
1 ( c )
0

Ec  c …(7)
c
 c  stress at any strain  ,  c  strain at
stress  ,  0  strain at the ultimate
compressive strength f c . The relationship
is approximated by several piecewise
linear segments Fig.(5) and the resulting
sets of points are incorporated in the
material model for concrete. The steel is
assumed to be an elastic-perfectly plastic
material, identical in tension and Fig.6 Dimensions and Method of
compression. Loading of Test Model.[2], [9]

specimen testing in horizontal position,

lying on frictionless supports on the
ground) and the two 90 corners allowing
for cross-checking of results. The length of
the leg was made large enough to ensure
flexural failure next to the beam without
any risk of the load increasing shear
failure. The specimens reproduce well the
actual load conditions on practical corners
subjected to opening moments. All the
corner joint specimens are reinforced with
four longitudinal bars in the tension side
and are without reinforcement in the
Fig.5 Adopted Stress-Strain Relationship for compression zone. The four reinforcement
Concrete in Compression.[8] details investigated for Case No.1 are:
hairpin, simple, loop, and detail with
5. Applications: stirrups, which are shown in Figs. (7) to
(10). The corresponding bar diameters and
Two case studies are considered for
material properties are outlined in Table
non-linear finite element analysis. Case
(1). In Case No.2 the reinforcement details
No.1 refers to the experimental program
investigated are: simple, detail with
conducted by Nilsson and Losberg[2], Case
stirrups, small loop and large loop which
No.2 refers to Singh and Kaushik[9] .
are shown in Figs.(11) to (14), 12 mm dia.
bars were used for all specimens with a
6. Experimental Test tensile reinforcement ratio equal to 0.76%.
Specimens: Poisson's ratio for concrete was 0.18 for all
The shape, dimensions and loading models investigated and the shear transfer
arrangement of the test specimens for both coefficient  t which represents conditions

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 21

of the crack face was equal to 0.3, with no

convergence problems encountered.

Fig.9 Loop Reinforcement Detail (L1).[2]

Fig.7 Hairpin Reinforcement
Details (H1A,H1B,H1C).[2]

Fig.8 Simple Reinforcement Details (S1A).[2] Fig.10 Reinforcement Detail with

Stirrups (ST1).[2]

Table (1) Material Properties for Case No.1[2]

Modulus
of
Detail Designation Bar Tensile Yield Comp. elasticity Tensile
Type dia.(mm) reinforcement stress strength for strength of
ratio ρ, (%) fy f c concrete concrete
(MPa) (MPa) Ec(MPa) fr=0.62 f c
H1A 10 0.5 390 30 25750 3.4
Hairpin H1B 12 0.75 390 28 25029 3.28
H1C 12 0.75 390 28 25029 3.28
Simple S1A 10 0.5 390 30 25750 3.4
Loop L1 14 0.75 390 32 26756 3.51
Stirrups ST1 14 0.75 390 30 26756 3.4

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 22

Fig.11 Simple Reinforcement Detail Fig.13 Small Loop Reinforcement

(S2).[9] Detail (SL2).[9]

Fig.12 Reinforcement Detail with Fig.14 Large Loop Reinforcement

Stirrups (ST2).[9] Detail (LL2).[9]
Table (2) Material Properties for Case No.2[9]

Modulus
of
Detail Designation Bar Tensile Yield Comp. elasticity Tensile
Type dia.(mm) reinforcement stress stress for strength of
ratio ρ, (%) fy f c concrete concrete
(MPa) (MPa) Ec(MPa) fr=0.62 f c
Simple S2 12 0.76 410 42.51 30643 4.04
Stirrups ST2 12 0.76 410 32 26587 3.51
Small
SL2 12 0.76 410 41.42 30248 3.99
Loop
Large
LL2 12 0.76 410 43.03 30830 4.07
Loop

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 23

7. Finite Element Model:

The reinforced concrete joint specimens
are modeled using a combination of
SOLID65 and LINK 8 elements available
in the ANSYS 12.0 [10] element library, to
represent the concrete and steel
reinforcement, respectively. The SOLID65
element is an eight node quadrilateral
element with three degrees of freedom at
each node corresponding to translations in
the x, y, and z directions. The element is
capable of plastic deformation, cracking in
the three orthogonal directions, and
crushing. The LINK 8 element is a two-
node uniaxial element with three degrees
of freedom at each node corresponding to
translations in the nodal x, y, and z Fig.15 Finite Element Model of
directions; the element is also capable of Corner Joint: 3-Dimensional View.
plastic deformation.
The nodes of the link elements discretizing
the steel reinforcement are aligned to
coincide with the corresponding nodes of
the solid elements idealizing the concrete,
the coincident nodes are then "merged"
and the lower numbered coincident node is
retained, thus full connectivity is provided
between the two types of elements. The
corner joint model is symmetric about two
planes, therefore only one-quarter of the
corner joint need be analysed with
corresponding boundary conditions
enforced on the two planes of symmetry.
The quarter model is illustrated in Fig.(15). Fig.16 Finite Element Models H1A,B,C.
The total number of nodes included in the
model is 5224 for each of the two cases
considered. The models corresponding to
the detailing schemes in the study are
shown in Figs. (16) to (24). The solution is
obtained using the Newton-Raphson
procedure with 20 substeps and a
maximum number of iterations equal to
100.

Fig.17 Finite Element Model S1A.

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 24

Fig.18 Finite Element Model L1. Fig.21 Finite Element Model ST2.

Fig.19 Finite Element Model ST1. Fig.22 Finite Element Model SL2.

Fig.20 Finite Element Model S2. Fig.23 Finite Element Model LL2.

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 25

8. Discussion of Results: stirrups are often referred to in available

literature. In an attempt to resist the tensile
Case No.1 stresses, σy, and thereby prevent spalling
Models H1A, B and C (Hairpin Detail) of the corner, the joint was augmented by
The models H1A, H1B and H1C were stirrup reinforcement. On application of
reinforced with bent bars in the form of the load, failure occurred in the corner.
hairpins. Failure was initiated by the Failure was not preceded by reinforcement
occurrence of a diagonal crack that caused yielding in the corner, but was caused by
the portion of the corner outside a line an insufficient arrangement of the
through the anchored bends to be pushed reinforcement. The stirrups increased the
off. The diagonal crack and idealization of strength and ductility of the corner.
corner is shown in Fig.(3). It is seen that an However, the use of stirrups in corners and
increase in the steel reinforcement ratio joints of long length, as between walls and
results in a lower joint efficiency. The slabs, is usually a technically undesirable
crack pattern evolution for model H1A, solution due to the practical difficulties of
and at failure only for models HIB, H1C is placing and casting. Fig.(25) shows the
shown in Figs. (24) and (25). crack pattern at failure.

Models S1A (Simple Detail) Model S1A A comparison with experimental results for
is reinforced as shown in Fig.(8). On the above models is outlined in Table (3),
loading to failure, the same type of the Table also shows that the joint
cracking occurred in the corners Fig.(3), efficiency for the given models is in
the portion of the corner outside the bent descending order. Fig.(26) depicts the
reinforcement was pushed off due to load-displacement relationship for all the
diagonal tension crack failure. Failure detailing models considered for the
occurred suddenly with the ultimate load analysis in Case No.1. It is seen that model
capacity for the model remaining about H1B (Hairpin) shows best results in terms
constant and independent of the of serviceability, whereas model S1A
reinforcement ratio. The same observation (Simple) is least efficient in this respect.
is made concerning the relation between
the reinforcement ratio and joint efficiency Case No.2
as in the preceding detail (Hairpin). Model S2 (Simple Detail) The behaviour
Fig.(25) depicts the corresponding crack at the early stages of loading was elastic
pattern at failure. until the appearance of the first crack.
Model L1 (Loop Detail) An old way of Invariably the crack was initiated as
placing the reinforcement in a corner, expected at the re-entrant corner and the
which is often used, is to form it into a crack gradually progressed for some
loop. This arrangement was tested in distance along the corner diagonal as the
specimen L1. At application of load , a loading progressed. In model S2, the initial
wide corner crack occurred which under crack at the re-entrant corner progressed
further loading branched and followed the along the main reinforcement, bent from
reinforcement loop out into the corner until one member into the other, and then
the crack surrounded the whole loop. At an branched out towards the compression
increased load level the portion of the zone of the corner until the outer portion of
corner outside the loops was finally pushed the corner had a tendency to be pushed out
off. This is shown in Fig.(25). and get detached. The corner was
characterized by efficiency as low as 58%.
Model ST1 (Detail with Stirrups) Corner
reinforcement details with the addition of

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 26

Load =230 Load =800

N N

Load =460 Load =1000

N N

Load =690 Load =1150

N N

Fig.24 Evolution of Crack Patterns for Model H1A(Hairpin).

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 27

Load =1667 Load

N =668 N

Model
S1A
Model H1B (Simple)
(Hairpin)

Load =1510 Load =1665

N N

Model L1
Model H1C (Loop)
(Hairpin)

Load
=1000 N

Model ST1
(Stirrups)

Fig.(25) Crack Patterns at Failure for Models H1B, H1C,

S1A, L1, ST1

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 28

Table (3) Comparison of Results for Case No.1

Force Mansys. / Mcal.

Designation at Pansys. Pexp.[2] Pcal Pcal/Pexp Pansys. (corner
of Corner first (N) (N) (N) /Pexp. efficiency)%
crack
(N)

Model H1A 325 1150 1081 781.15 0.72 1.06 147%

Model H1B 300 686 629.24 620.5 0.99 1.08 115%
Model S1A 410 1661 1370 1487.5 1.08 1.19 111%
Model H1C 405 1514 1521 5461 1.08 1 92%
Model L1 270 1665 1513 1979.65 1.31 1.08 84%
Model ST1 368 1000 1130 1838.55 1.63 0.88 54%

Pansys: Ultimate load predicted by ANSYS.

Pexp.: Ultimate load from experiments.
Pcal.: Ultimate load calculated from eq.(3)

Fig.(26) Load-Displacement Curve (ANSYS) for Models (Case No.1)

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 29

The unexpectedly low efficiency of this loading, split and closely followed the
widely used detailing method can be rebar loop out into the corner until this
explained by the fact the corner has no circular crack encircled nearly the whole
capacity to carry the resulting tensile loop. The formation of this nearly circular
forces induced due to external loading. It is crack encompassing the loop suggests that
evident that the structural characteristics of the loop has apparently exerted some
the corner are controlled by tensile strength confining pressure on the concrete within
of concrete in the absence of an alternate the loop. Model SL2 had an efficiency of
mechanism to carry the tensile forces. The 104%. This exceptional structural behavior
mode of failure of model S2 suggests that a of the corner may be attributed to the
mechanism to carry the induced diagonal detailing characteristics of this model in
tensile force would result in higher which the geometry of the rebar loop has
efficiencies. The crack pattern evolution is been effective in filling the corner as much
depicted in Fig.(27). as possible and hence, enclosing a large
part of the concrete in the joint. The
Model ST2 (Detail with Stirrups) confining pressure exerted by the loop
Consequently in model ST2, two legged closing under external load has apparently
closed stirrups aligned along the corner increased the tensile strength of the
diagonal as far as possible were introduced concrete within the loop. On further
Fig.(51). Significant improvements in application of the load, the portion of the
behaviour were observed in model ST2 corner outside the loop had a tendency to
upon loading. The stirrups were apparently be pushed out resulting in failure of the
effective in carrying a significant amount specimen. Fig.(28) depicts the crack
of diagonal tension and the joint efficiency pattern at failure.
increased to 77%. The crack widths at
service loads were not reduced and there Model LL2 (Large Loop Detail)
was an increase in the extent of cracking. It Detailing system model LL2 is a more
may by noted that the joint efficiency was practical variant of the loop reinforcement
still below 100% in spite of the provision tried in the above model. It is achieved
of a primary diagonal tension-resisting through the use of two bent bars; the bar in
element in the form of stirrups. For the each leg of the specimen is brought well
stirrups to be effective, it is imperative that inside the corner and then bent back into
these be wrapped around the main steel in the compression zone of the same leg. This
the corner as closely as possible so that the detail offers the advantage that the two
concrete need not undergo unduly large bent bars enclose the corner with
strains before the tensile load is transferred reinforcement better than the small loop
to stirrups. As load increases the strain detail. Under loading, the crack in the
increases and the crack evolves in the re- model was initiated at the re-entrant corner
entrant and the two legs. The results as usual and on subsequent loading, the
discussed above are shown in Fig.(18). crack travelled along the corner diagonal
for some distance and then branched out
Model SL2 (Small Loop Detail) Corner into numerous cracks progressing towards
reinforcement in the form of loops as the compression zone of the corner. The
shown in detailing system model SL2, final stages were marked by the
Fig.(11), has been for quite some time appearance of a crack near the exterior
considered as the most obvious way of portion of the corner the joint aligned more
altering the direction of a rebar situated on or less perpendicular to the corner
the inside face of angle shaped concrete diagonal, Fig.(28). The model indicated an
structures. On loading the model , a wide
corner crack occurred, which on further

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 30

efficiency of 91%, which was something of

.

Load= 110
Load =700
N
N

Load= 840
Load= 410
N
N

Load =930
Load= 630 N
N

Fig.(27) Evolution of Crack Patterns for Model

S2 (Simple Detail)

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 31

Table(4) compares the results obtained in

Case No.2 with experimental values and
Load =1200 indicates the relative joint efficiencies for
N the given detailing systems.
Fig.(29) depicts the load-displacement
relationship for all the detailing models
considered for analysis in Case No.2. It is
evident that model ST2 (Stirrups) shows
best results in terms of serviceability,
exhibiting minimum displacement among
Model ST2 models for the same load level.
(Stirrups)
9. Conclusions:
1- The three-dimensional nonlinear finite
element model, which was adopted in the
present work, is suitable for predicting the
behaviour of the reinforced concrete joints
subjected to non-proportional
Load= 1650 monotonically increasing loading. The
N numerical results were in good agreement
with experimental results throughout the
entire range of behaviour.

2- The corner joint behaviour is highly

influenced by the detailing configurations.

Model SL2 3- The hairpin detail showed an efficiency

(Small Loop) range of 92-147% with higher joint
efficiency at lower reinforcement ratios.
4- The simple detail showed efficiencies of
58-111% with a similar observation as
above relating to the reinforcement ratio.

Load= 1410
5- The addition of stirrups to the simple
N
detail resulted in 54-77% efficiencies. The
practical difficulties involved with the
placement and fixing of the stirrups may
discourage their use, especially in deep
members.
6- The small loop detail showed an
Model LL2 efficiency of 104% but is difficult to
(Large Loop) fabricate. An easier alternative is the large
loop with a slightly lower efficiency of
91%.

Fig.(28) Crack Patterns at Failure

for Models ST2, SL2, LL2

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 32

Table (4) Comparison of Results for Case No.2

Force Mansys / Mcal.

at (corner
Designation PANSYS Pexp.[9] Pcal Pansys
first Pcal/Pexp efficiency)
of Corner /Pexp.
crack (N) (N) (N) %

(N)

Model SL2 320 1650 1769.73 1591.2 0.90 0.94 104%

Model LL2 350 1410 1470 1558.1 1.06 0.96 91%

Model ST2 396 1200 1248.75 1552.5 1.24 0.96 77%

Model S2 410 930 805.62 1595 1.98 1.15 58%

Fig.(29) Load-Displacement Curve (ANSYS) for Models (Case No.2)

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬
 33

10. References: [8] MacGregor, J.G. "Reinforced Concrete

Mechanics and Design", Prentice-Hall,
[1] Park, S. and Mosalam, K. Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,(1992).
"Experimental Investigation of Non-
Ductile Reinforced Concrete Corner [9] Kaushik, S.K. and Singh B.
Beam-Column Joints with Floor Slabs." "Investigations on Fibre Reinforced
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, concrete Opening Corners", IE (I) Journal-
accepted for publication, posted ahead of CV, Vol.84, November 2003, pp 201-209.
print 22 Feb. 2012.
[10] SAS, ANSYS 12.0, "Finite Element
[2] Nilsson, I. H. E and Losberg, A. Analysis System", SAS IP, Inc, (2009).
"Reinforced Concrete Corners and Joints
Subjected to Bending Moment." Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE, vol 102,
No. 6, 1976, pp 1229-1253.
[3] Nilson, A.H., Darwin, D., and Dolan,
C.W. "Design of Concrete Structures", 13th
Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
(2004).
[4] "Recommendations for Design of
Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic
Reinforced Concrete Structures" Reported
by ACI Committee 352, ACI Struct. J.,
Vol. 82, no. 3, 1985, pp. 266-283.
[5] "Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary",
Appendix A, ACI 318-02 and ACI 318R-
02, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2002.
[6] Hamahara, M. et al. "Design for Shear
of Prestressed Concrete Beam-Column
Joint Cores.", Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, vol.133, No.11,
(Nov.2007), pp1520-1530.
[7] Chen, W. F. "Plasticity in Reinforced
Concrete", McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1982.

Basrah Journal for Engineering Science /2013 2013/ ‫مجلة البصرة للعلوم الهندسية‬