ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 103-S01
Reinforced Concrete Corbels—Shear Strength Model and
Design Formula
by Gaetano Russo, Raffaele Venir, Margherita Pauletta, and Giuliana Somma
A new model for determining the shear strength of reinforced con-
crete (RC) corbels, or brackets, is proposed in this paper. The model
is obtained by superimposing the shear strength contribution of the
strut-and-tie mechanism due to the cracked concrete and principal
reinforcement, and the strength contribution due to stirrups. The first
contribution is expressed by means of a limiting shear strength
expression, whereas the second is derived from the equilibrium of
the strut-and-tie mechanism in the presence of stirrups. An explicit
formula dependent on two coefficients is derived for the shear
strength of corbels. These two constants are calibrated on the results
of 243 test data, which can be found in the relevant literature. The
expression obtained in this way is compared to the ACI Code and the
most recently proposed formulas and computing procedures, and it
results as better fitting the measured shear strengths. On the basis of
results of this paper, a design formula is proposed.
Keywords: bracket; corbel; reinforced concrete; shear; strength; stirrup;
strut-and-tie.
INTRODUCTION
Corbels, or brackets, are cantilevers with a shear span-
depth ratio lower than unity, generally jutting out from walls
or columns. They have the principal function of supporting
prefabricated beams or floors at building joints, allowing, at
the same time, the force transmission to the vertical structural
members. Corbels are principally designed to resist the ultimate
shear force Vu applied to them by the beam, and the ultimate
horizontal action Nu due to beam shrinkage, creep, or
temperature changes.
The principal failure modes1,2 for members without stirrups
are: 1) shear failure; 2) yielding of the principal reinforcement
(flexural tension); 3) crushing of concrete strut (flexural
compression); and 4) diagonal splitting. In corbels with
secondary reinforcement (stirrups), which is always
recommended,1-4 all the failure modes mentioned previously
tend to converge into a single typology of failure mode
called beam-shear failure. The last one is characterized by
the opening of one or more diagonal cracks followed by
shear failure in the compressed zone of the strut.2
Due to the variability in the nature of failure modes, the
identification of mechanical behavior of corbels at failure
and the evaluation of their shear strength are very complex,
as shown by previous studies.1,2,5-9 This evaluation is, at
present, performed by means of a shear-friction method,3
strut-and-tie models,6-8 or an iterative procedure.9
The model proposed herein is based on the equilibrium
conditions of the strut-and-tie mechanism, and it takes
account of a softening “approximate” constitutive law for
cracked concrete, and the additional contribution of the
horizontal stirrups.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The aim of the present study is to resolve problems
involved in predicting the shear strength of corbels by means
of a single expression, adequately accurate, that allows to
avoid the current tedious and time-consuming computing
procedures. The expression itself highlights two principal-
resistant contributions: one due to concrete strut and principal
reinforcement, and the other due to stirrups. A formula based
on the proposed expression and on 243 experimental results
is also proposed for design.
MODEL BASES
A typical reinforced concrete (RC) corbel is shown in
Fig. 1(a). The corbel is loaded by the vertical force Vu
applied at the distance a from the column face and by the
horizontal action Nu. The horizontal principal reinforcement
of area As is placed at the distance (h-d) from the support plan,
and the secondary reinforcement with overall area Ah is
provided by horizontal stirrups. Only corbels with stirrups in
the horizontal direction are considered herein, as this is the
constructive typology used more often in practice.
In the present study, it is assumed that failure always
occurs from the crushing of the diagonal compressive strut
(dotted band in Fig. 1(b)), whose formation is revealed, at
increasing loads, by the appearance of inclined cracks on the
web of the corbel. The failure by yielding of the principal
reinforcement is excluded because yielding strain does not
lead to steel fracture, the last one occurring at a very great
strain. In fact, it is observed that the currently named flexural
Fig. 1—(a) Geometry of RC corbel; and (b) strut-and-tie
model with forces acting on corbel.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 1, January-February 2006.
MS No. 03-339 received August 6, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
December 2006 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2006.
3

ACI member Gaetano Russo is a professor of structural analysis, Head of the
Department of Civil Engineering, and Provost for Building of the University of
Udine, Italy. His research interests include nonlinear behavior of reinforced con-
crete structures.
Raffaele Venir is a civil engineer who collaborates with the civil engineering
department of the University of Udine. His research interests include shear behavior in
reinforced concrete members and strut-and-tie modeling for discontinuous regions.
Hwang et al.,9 it is assumed that Nu is directly applied to the
centroid of the reinforcement (Fig. 1(b)). The considered
strut-and-tie mechanism leads to the following equilibrium
equations (rotation around Point O)
Ts – Nu = Ccsinθ (4)

Margherita Pauletta is a postdoctoral student at the University of Udine. She Vc = Cccosθ (5)
received her PhD in civil engineering at the Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Udine. Her research interests include bond behavior in reinforced concrete
l sin θ l cos θ
structures and strut-and-tie modeling of nonflexural members.
V c ⋅ a = C c sin θ  d – ------------- – C c cos θ -------------- (6)
 2  2
Giuliana Somma is a researcher at the University of Udine. She received her PhD in
structural engineering at the University of Firenze. Her research interests include shear
behavior in reinforced concrete elements, beam-column joints, and earthquake engineering. where Vc is the ultimate shear force carried by a corbel
without stirrups; θ is the angle between the compressed
concrete strut and the vertical direction; Cc is the compression
tension failure (because failure is initiated by yielding of force in the inclined strut of a corbel without stirrups; l is its
tension steel10) is due to crushing of the concrete strut and width; a is the shear span; d is the corbel effective depth; and
not due to the rupture of the bars. Stirrups contribute to the Ts represents the yield force of the principal reinforcement
corbel shear strength by increasing the compressive strength (Fig. 1(b)).
of the concrete strut, the resistance due to the aggregate The mean shear strength at the corbel-column interface is
interlock, and the dowel action at the cracked interface. given by
Moreover, concrete and stirrups interact, and the mutual
effect is almost indistinguishable. V
v c = -----c- (7)
In this study, it is assumed that the corbel strength is due bd
to the sum of two independent resisting contributions: the
one provided by strut and tie, and the other by stirrups. It where b is the width of the corbel.
follows that for the shear strength vu of an RC corbel, the Using Eq. (5), one obtains
general expression
C c cos θ
vu = vc + vh (1) v c = -----------------
- (8)
bd
might be proposed, where vc is the shear strength contribution
offered by the strut-and-tie mechanism created by the diagonal Strut-load inclination θ
compressed strut and the principal reinforcement, and vh Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (6) yields
shows the contribution given by the secondary reinforcement.
The expression for vc is analytically derived herein from l cos θ
 a + -------------
 -
the corbel equilibrium equations. In particular, it is directly 2 
related to the value of the compression force Cc in the tan θ =  ----------------------- (9)
sin θ- 
 d – l------------
inclined strut of a corbel without stirrups (Fig. 1(b)). The 
value of Cc is a function of an unknown biaxial strain state 2 
dependent on corbel dimensions, principal reinforcement
and stirrups amount, concrete compressive strength, and According to Hwang et al.,9 the width of the compressed
failure modes.1 It follows that the vc value is linked to all the strut might be given by the depth to neutral axis of the cross
multiple variables mentioned previously, which are difficult section at the column interface
to quantify.
To obtain an expression for the shear strength vc, one can l = kd (10)
start by considering a theoretical upper limit value of vc,
vc,lim. Therefore, vc is assumed to be a fraction of vc,lim where k is obtained from the classical bending theory of
reinforced concrete beams with only tensile reinforcement
vc = c1 ⋅ vc,lim (2)
2
k = ( nρ f ) + 2nρ f – nρ f (11)
where c1 (< 1.0) is a factor to be determined on the basis of
experimental results.
in which n is the ratio of the elastic moduli of steel and
It follows that the expression for the shear strength vu is
concrete, n = Es /Ec, and the flexural reinforcement ratio ρf is
obtained from Eq. (1) by means of Eq. (2)
assumed 9 to be given by
vu = c1 ⋅ vc,lim + vh (3)
As – An
ρ f = ----------------
- (12)
SHEAR STRENGTH CONTRIBUTION LIMIT DUE TO bd
STRUT-AND-TIE MECHANISM vc,lim
For determining vc,lim, the authors refer to a corbel without with An = Nu /fys, where fys is the yielding strength of the
stirrups (Fig. 1(b)). The strength contribution can be deduced principal reinforcement.
in a way similar to that proposed for deep beams,11 but taking It can be observed that, by using ultimate strength instead
account of the horizontal force at failure Nu. According to of linear analysis for estimating l, a shear strength formula is

4 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006

obtained that approximates the experimental results worse εd = –ζε0 (20)
than that obtained from the linear analysis.
The value of n is obtained by assuming, from ACI 318-02,3 Equation (17) provides the maximum value of the principal
that Es = 200,000 MPa and compression stress

Ec = 47,000 f ′c MPa (13) σd,max = –ζ f c′ (21)

it follows that n = 42.6/ f ′c . Hwang et al.9 assume that the principal direction of
compression coincides with the strut axis. It follows that
Equation (9), using Eq. (10) and trigonometric relations,
Eq. (17) gives the average principal stress of the concrete
yields
strut in compression, εd is the principal compressive strain in
the strut axis direction, and εr is the principal tensile strain in
  a
2
 k 
2 the direction perpendicular to the strut axis.
 – 1 +  --- +  1 – ----  At this point, Hwang et al.9 introduce further equations
d 4
θ = 2 arctan  ------------------------------------------------------- (14) and hypotheses, and indicate a very time-consuming iterative
 a k 
 --- – ---  procedure to determine the corbel shear strength. In this
 d 2  paper, the goal of attaining a simple shear strength formula
is obtained in the following way. Equation (19) is verified if
Because Eq. (14) is an explicit expression of the only parameter 5.8/ f ′c ≤ 0.9 (in MPa), hence for f ′c ≥ 42 MPa. It follows
k, which is given by Eq. (11), and a and d are known, no that Eq. (21) can be rewritten as
effort is required in the calculation of θ.

Compression force in strut, Cc 0.9f c′
 – --------------------------
- for f c′ < 42 MPa
Hwang et al.9 define the effective area of the diagonal  1 + 400ε r

strut, Astr , as σ d, max =  (22)
 5.8 f c′
Astr = l × b (15)  – --------------------------
- for f c′ ≥ 42 MPa
 1 + 400ε r

where l is provided by Eq. (10). The same expression (Eq. (15))
is used herein for Astr and a constant stress distribution is
supposed in the strut. Hence the maximum value of the Finally, Eq. (16), using Eq. (10), gives
compression force Cc can be computed as
Cc = –kσd,maxbd (23)
Cc = –σd,maxbl (16)
in which σd,max is provided by Eq. (22).
where σd,max is the maximum value of the concrete
compression stress σd in the principal d-direction (< 0 for Limiting strength vc,lim
compressive stress). Equation (8), using Eq. (23), gives
To express σd, Hwang et al.9 used the Zhang and Hsu12
constitutive law, pertinent to a dimensional membrane vc = –kσd,maxcosθ (24)
element subjected to tangential stress and to the ascending
branch of the principal stress-strain curve (σd, εd) of the It must be stressed that σd,max is not known because it is a
cracked concrete function of the unknown strain εr (Eq. (22)).
To evaluate εr , the stress-strain curve in tension may be
–ε –ε 2 –ε taken as a straight line up to the tensile strength and, within
σ d = – ζ f c′ 2  -------d- –  -------d- for -------d- ≤ 1.0 (17)
 ζε 0  ζε 0 ζε 0 this range, the modulus of elasticity in tension may be
assumed to be the same as in compression.12 It follows that
εr can be expressed by
where
σ
f c′ – 20 εr = -----t
ε 0 = 0.002 + 0.001  ----------------
(25)
- for 20 ≤ f c′ ≤ 100 MPa (18) Ec
 80 

where εd is the principal strain in the d-direction, εo is the where σt is the transverse concrete tensile stress acting on the
axial strain of the cylindrical specimen corresponding to the web of the corbel at failure, and Ec is given by Eq. (13).
attainment of the cylindrical compression strength f c′ , and Equations (24), (22), and (25) suggest that a concrete
element in the strut is subjected to two-dimensional tension-
1
5.8 ⋅ -------------------------- 0.9 - compression stress state: a principal compressive stress in
ζ = --------- - ≤ -------------------------- (19) the strut axis direction, and a principal tension stress in the
f c′ 1 + 400ε r 1 + 400ε r direction perpendicular to the strut axis. This stress state is
unknown because both compressive and tensile stresses at
where εr is the principal strain in the r-direction, perpendicular failure, σd,max and σt , are unknown. It is well known,
to the d-direction. however, that the tensile strength in a biaxial regime is lower
At the strain than the tensile strength fct of the concrete loaded in a

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006 5

uniaxial regime. Therefore, the maximum value that can be Five expressions for the tensile strength fct are consid-
assumed by σt is always lower than the limiting value ered,3,4,13-15 each leading to a different ζ function (Eq. (30)).
To each ζ function, a χ function obtained by the minimization
σt,lim = fct (26) corresponds. Because the term 1/ 1 + 400f ct ⁄ E c in Eq. (30)
results as being almost independent as regards the expression
By imposing the limiting value of the concrete tensile used for fct, the five approximating functions can be reduced
stress, σt = σt,lim, in Eq. (25), Eq. (22), by means of Eq. (26), to the only one
gives the limiting expression for σd
f c′  3 f c′  2 f c′ 
 χ = 0.74  --------
- – 1.28  --------
- + 0.22  --------
- + 0.87 (31)
0.9f c′  105  105  105
 – ---------------------------- for f c′ < 42 MPa
 f
 1 + 400 ----ct- with 10 ≤ f c′ ≤ 105 MPa.
 Ec The exact (Eq. (27)) and approximate (Eq. (29) with Eq. (31))
σ d, lim =  (27)
 5.8 f c′ expressions for the limiting concrete compression stress are
 – ---------------------------- for f c′ ≥ 42 MPa plotted versus fc′ in Fig. 2. One may notice that the interpolating
 f stress expression (Eq. (29) with Eq. (31)) is conservative and
 1 + 400 ----ct-
 E c exhibits a maximum error lower than 8.1%.
Equation (28), by using the approximating function
By using the limiting value provided by Eq. (27) for provided by Eq. (29) for σd,lim, gives
σd,max, Eq. (24) gives *
v c,lim = kχf c′ cosθ (32)
vc,lim = –kσd,limcosθ (28)
in which χ is provided by Eq. (31) and θ by Eq. (14). In the
APPROXIMATE EXPRESSION FOR following, it is assumed that
*
vc,lim AND v c,lim
Because of Eq. (27), two expressions should be used for vc,lim = v *c,lim (33)
vc,lim (Eq. (28)) as well as for the shear strength vu (Eq. (3)).
It is more useful, however, for the engineering practice to
STIRRUPS MECHANISM
employ only one expression for determining the shear
Experimental tests on corbels provide evidence that the
strength of corbels, hence it is necessary to use a single vc,lim
maximum resistance is obtained after extensive crack
expression. To provide a single expression, σd,lim (Eq. (27))
formation.1,2 In this condition, it can be assumed that the
is replaced by the approximating function
stirrup near the principal reinforcement yield, but the far ones
are probably subjected to a stress that is lower than the stirrup
σd,lim
* = –χ f c′ (29) yielding strength fyh, and some stirrup layers could even be
ineffective in tension. Consequently, it can be assumed
in which χ is a nondimensional interpolating function. initially that the mean tensile stress fshm in the stirrups is equal
The analysis of the values provided by Eq. (27) leads one to 0.5fyh. To write the equilibrium equations in a simple form,
to assume for the χ function a polynomial of the third degree the authors assume that all the stirrups undergo stress just at
in f c′ . Its coefficients have been calculated minimizing the the aforementioned mean value fshm. Consequently, the
standard deviation compared to the following exact form, horizontal force carried by the i-th stirrup is equal to 0.5Ahi
obtained from Eq. (9), (25), and (26) fyh (Fig. 3(a)), where Ahi is the area of the i-th stirrup.
The strut-and-tie mechanism (Fig. 3(a)) leads to the
 
  following equilibrium equations (rotation around Point O)
ζ = min  0.9 ----------------------------
1
;---------
1
5.8 ⋅ ---------------------------- (30)
 ′ 
 f f f  m 
1 + 400 ----ct-
1 + 400 ----ct-
∑
c
 T s + 0.5  A hi f yh – N u = C ch sin θ′ (34)
Ec E c i = 1 

Vu = Cchcosθ′ (35)

l sin θ′
V u ⋅ a = C ch sin θ′  d – -------------- –
 2 
(36)
l cos θ′  m

C ch cos θ′ --------------- – 0.5 
2 
∑ A hi ⋅ d i f yh

i=1

where θ′ is the angle between the compressed concrete strut

and the vertical direction, Cch is the compression force in the
Fig. 2—Limiting principal concrete compression stress inclined strut of a corbel with stirrups, di is the distance of the
given by bilinear relation (σd,lim), or interpolating function i-th stirrup from the principal reinforcement, and m is the
(σ *d,lim ) , versus concrete strength. number of stirrups. In the same way as was carried out for

6 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006

corbels without stirrups, the solution of Eq. (34) to (36) in which k, χ, and θ are provided by Eq. (11), (31), and (14),
provides the following expression for θ′ respectively.
Equation (42) is a function of the two unknown parameters
c0 and c1, which will be determined on the basis of 243 test
  a 2  T h 2 k 2  T h 
  --- +  1 – ξ ----- – ---- –  1 – ξ -----  results. The specimens found in the available literature have
d R 4 R
θ′ = 2 arctan  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (37) been taken from the following 12 investigations: Kriz and
 a k  Raths1 (94 specimens); Mattock et al.2 (20 specimens);
 --- – ---  Hermansen and Cowan17 (27 specimens); Fattuhi and
 d 2 
Hughes16,19,20 (15 specimens); Fattuhi21-23 (22 specimens);
Her18 (23 specimens); Yong and Balaguru5 (14 specimens);
with and Foster et al.6 (28 specimens). This number of specimens
m
has been achieved by excluding all the specimens that have
bearing and corbel-end failures1 because these types of
T h = 0.5 ∑ Ahi fyh (38)
failure modes can be avoided by correctly designing the
i=1 corbel details.3 Moreover, the authors have also excluded
the corbels with a flexural reinforcement amount ρf (Eq. (12)),
R = As fys + 0.5Ah fyh – Nu (39) lower than the minimum one, ρf min, provided by ACI 318-023
m

in which Ah = ∑ hi ; k is provided by Eq. (11); and ξ is the

A
i=1
distance between the principal tension steel and the centroid ρf min = 1.4
------- (43)
f ys
of the stirrups. It is assumed that ξ = 1/3d because the ACI
Code3 requires that the horizontal stirrups are uniformly
distributed within 2/3 of the effective depth d, and are adjacent where fys is expressed in MPa.
to the primary tension steel. Equation (42) can be written
To evaluate any influence the stirrups have on the strut vu = c1(kχ fc′ cosθ + c2ρh fyhcotθ) (44)
inclination, we have taken several examples from the available
literature1,2,5,6,16-18 (106 corbels with stirrups) for which we where
have computed θ′ using Eq. (37), and θ using Eq. (14),
applicable for corbels without stirrups. Then for each of the 0.5c
106 specimens, the ratio θ′/θ has been calculated, an average c 2 = ------------0 (45)
ratio (θ′/θ)avg = 1.05 and a coefficient of variation of 0.02 c1
have been found. It follows that θ′ can be assumed equal to
θ. Consequently, the compression forces in the inclined strut, The coefficient c1 is chosen with the purpose of making
in presence (Cch) or in absence (Cc) of stirrups, act on the the average value (AVG) of experimental-to-calculated
same line (Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 1(b)). Hence, the scalar differ- shear strength ratios equal to 1.0, while c2 is determined by
ence between Cch and Cc corresponds to the contribution Ch minimizing the coefficient of variation (COV), calculated as
provided by stirrups to the strut force. For the collinearity of the ratio between the standard deviation (STD) and the
Cch and Cc, it follows that Ch = Cch – Cc. The force Ch must AVG. Consequently, the values c1 = 0.80 and c2 = 0.65 have
be in equilibrium with the vertical shear force provided by been found. Hence, Eq. (44) can be written as
stirrups, Vh, and also the horizontal force provided by the
vu = 0.80(kχ fc′ cosθ + 0.65ρh fyhcotθ) (46)
stirrups, 0.5Ah fyh (Fig. 3(b)). Therefore, Vh = 0.5Ah fyh cotθ
and, consequently, the shear strength contribution of corbels
providing a COV value of 0.18.
provided by stirrups can be expressed as
One may observe that, by means of Eq. (45), c0 = c1c2/0.5 =
0.8 ⋅ 0.65/0.5 = 1.04, which means that the mean tensile stress
V
v h = -----h- = 0.5ρ h fyh cot θ (40) in the stirrups, obtained on the basis of the experimental speci-
bd mens considered, is equal to 1.04 ⋅ 0.5fyh = 0.52fyh. This

where ρh = Ah/bd is the stirrup ratio at the column-corbel

interface.
It appears reasonable to express the shear strength in a
more general form

v h = c 0 ⋅ 0.5ρ h fyh cot θ (41)

where c0 is a factor that has to be determined on the basis of

the experimental results to improve the accuracy of the
prediction.

BASIC EXPRESSION
The parametric expression for computing the shear
strength of corbels is obtained from Eq. (3) using Eq. (33),
(32), and (41) Fig. 3—(a) Strut-and-tie model for corbel with horizontal
stirrups; and (b) equilibrium of compression force in strut
vu = c1 ⋅ kχ f c′ cosθ + c0 ⋅ 0.5ρh fyhcotθ (42) due to stirrups.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006 7

result confirms that the assumption made in first instance, compatibility, and the constitutive laws of cracked rein-
fshm = 0.5fyh, is reasonable. forced concrete.

EXISTING MODELS MODEL RELIABILITY

To validate the proposed formula (Eq. (46)), the following The shear strength can be simply evaluated, for all the
shear strength formulas are used for comparison. 243 corbels considered, only by means of the expressions
provided by the ACI Code (Eq. (47)), Solanki and Sabnis
ACI Code 318-023 (Eq. (48)), and the proposed one (Eq. (46)). For each of these
• For corbels with a/d ≤ 1.0, the shear capacity can be three expressions, the calculated shear strength vu,calc versus
written as the measured shear strength vu,meas is plotted in Fig. 4, where
AVG and COV values are also reported. From Fig. 4, one
ρs f ys jd may observe that the proposed expression (Eq. (46)) predicts
v u = min ρ vf fy µ ;-------------------------------------
- ≤ min ( 0.2f c′ ; 5.5 ) (47)
 a [ 1 + α ( h – d ) ] the shear strength of corbels almost with the same accuracy
for all the specimens (uniform prediction) because there is a
where ρvf = (ρf + ρh) is the frictional reinforcement ratio; fy concentration of dots around the 45-degree line. The more
is the yield strength of the friction reinforcement; ρs is uniform prediction of the proposed expression, with respect
the principal reinforcement ratio; µ is the coefficient of to ACI Code and Solanki formulas, is shown by its lowest
friction (taken as 1.4 for monolithic construction); α is the COV value.
horizontal-to-vertical loads ratio; and jd is the lever arm, The model presented by Hagberg7 doesn’t provide
jd = d – 0.5(As fys – Nu)/(0.85f c′ b). expressions for calculating the shear for corbels with stirrups
• For corbels with 1.0 < a/d ≤ 2.0, the shear capacity is subjected to the horizontal force Nu. Moreover, for some of
calculated using the procedure based on strut-and-tie the 243 specimens considered, the bearing plate dimension is
modeling described in Appendix A of ACI 318-02.3 not provided, while the Hagberg model requires it.
Consequently, the specimens that can be taken for the
Solanki and Sabnis8 comparison are reduced to 243 – 36 (with unknown plate
width w) – 34 (with stirrups and Nu) = 173. For the 173 corbels,
the shear strengths calculated using Hagberg expressions
----------  1 + -----u- ⋅ ∆h
N –1
v u = f c′ 4.45 ------- ( 0.9 ) + ( a ⁄ d )
2 2
(48) and Eq. (46) versus the measured shear strength are plotted
β1  Vu a 
in Fig. 5. Also in this case, the COV value of the proposed
expression is lower.
where ∆h = h – d in which h and d are the overall and the The results of the plastic-truss procedure proposed by
effective depth of the corbel, respectively, and Foster et al.6 are compared to those obtained with the
proposed expression, on a set of 178 specimens. The reduction
 β = 0.85 for f ′c ≤ 27.6 MPa of the overall number is a consequence of the fact that the
 1 bearing plate width is not always provided (–36 specimens),
 f c′ – 27.6
 β 1 = 0.85 – 0.05  ---------------------
- for 27.6 ≤ f c′ ≤ 55.2 MPa (49) and a consequence of the implicit limitation on the existing
  6.9  domain of Ω (Eq. (51)): (d2 – 2aw – w2) (–29 specimens).
 The comparison between Foster et al.6 expression and the
 β 1 = 0.65 for f c′ ≥ 55.2 MPa
proposed one is reported in Fig. 6 where the greater consistency
with experimental results of the latter is evident.
Hagberg7 Hwang et al.9 have applied their iterative procedure to 178
This author has proposed a model based on a truss corbels reported in literature, but seven of these (1-2-3-
analogy, which provides an upper limit to the capacity 14-19-21-23 by Kriz and Raths1) have ρf < ρf min (Eq. (43)).
related to the compression failure criterion. Because in this paper, the parametric expression (Eq. (42))
for computing the shear strength of corbels has been calibrated
Foster et al.6 on specimens with ρf > ρf min, the comparison (refer to Fig. 7)
is made using only the 171 results reported by Hwang et al.
v u = min ρs f sy ---- ; f c∗ ----
w w relevant to specimens that satisfy this condition. It must be
(50)
 Ω d stressed that the proposed expression (Eq. (46)) gives a
COV value similar to the Hwang et al. model. The calcula-
where w is the bearing plate width, and Ω is the effective tions band on Hwang et al. is quite tedious.
anchorage depth
DESIGN FORMULA
2 2 The basic expression (Eq. (46)) leads to a consistent
Ω = d – d – 2aw – w (51)
prediction of the results, as the COV of the ratio between
and measured and computed shear strength is the lowest in all the
cases. It cannot be used for design, however, because the
f c′ AVG of the aforementioned ratio is equal to exactly one and
a 2
- – 0.72 --- + 0.18  --- f c′ ≤ 0.85f c′
a
f ∗c = 1.25 – -------- (52) therefore does not provide safe predictions in many cases.
500 d  d Because the AVG value may be modified by multiplying the
right-hand side of Eq. (46) by a factor and this modification
Hwang et al.9 does not change the COV value, Eq. (46) is suitable for
They have proposed an iterative procedure that originates providing a design formula for the shear strength. According
from the strut-and-tie concept, which satisfies equilibrium, to Eurocode24 rules, a characteristic expression is chosen as

8 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006

a design formula, providing that no more than 5% of the spec-
imens are unsafe. A formulation is obtained by multiplying
Eq. (46) by the coefficient 0.69, which is the 0.05 fractile of
the corresponding statistic distribution. The design formula
derived in this way provides AVG = 1.44 and results in
vu,d = 0.5(kχ fc′ cosθ + 0.65ρh fyhcotθ) (53)
where k, χ, and θ are given by Eq. (11), (31), and (14),
respectively.
In Fig. 4(d), the shear strengths obtained by applying Eq. (53)
to all the 243 corbels previously taken into account are
plotted versus the measured shear strengths. Comparing the
results obtained by means of the ACI 318-023 design
formula (Eq. (47)), shown in Fig. 4(a), it is evident that the
proposed design formula (Eq. (53)), shown in Fig. 4(d),
exhibits a greater accuracy; there is greater uniformity in the
safety factor, as well.
behavior of the concrete by means of a continuous interpolating
function;
3. The stirrup contribution is found to be dependent on the
angle between the compressed concrete strut and the vertical
direction. This angle is found to be influenced very little by
the stirrups’ presence;
4. The proposed model for computing the shear strength of
corbels leads to a single basic expression, which is as simple
as other expressions, but it is better because it provides the
lowest COV values in all the comparisons made. Only the
model of Hwang et al.9 provides the same level of accuracy,
but this model requires an iterative procedure; and
5. The formula proposed for design is adequately
conservative and reliable. It leads to an almost constant

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the proposed shear strength analysis of corbels
and the experimental results on 243 corbels tested by various
researchers, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. A consistent model for predicting the shear strength of
RC corbels is obtained by superimposing the shear strength
contribution of the strut-and-tie mechanism due to cracked
concrete and principal reinforcement, and the shear strength
contribution due to secondary reinforcement. The first
contribution can be derived from a limiting shear strength Fig. 5—Calculated ultimate shear strength by means of: (a)
expression. The contribution of the secondary reinforcement Hagberg;7 and (b) proposed basic expression, versus
is derived from the equilibrium of a strut-and-tie mechanism measured shear strength, for 173 tested RC corbels.
in presence of stirrups;
2. The concrete contribution to shear strength is found to
be expressed by a simple formula, including the softening

Fig. 6—Calculated ultimate shear strength by means of: (a)

Foster et al.;6 and (b) proposed basic expression, versus
measured shear strength, for 178 tested RC corbels.

Fig. 4—Calculated ultimate shear strength by means of: (a)

ACI 318-02;3 (b) Solanki and Sabnis;8 (c) proposed basic Fig. 7—Calculated ultimate shear strength by means of: (a)
expression; and (d) proposed design formula, versus Hwang et al.;9 and (b) proposed basic expression, versus
measured shear strength, for 243 tested RC corbels. measured shear strength, for 171 tested RC corbels.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006 9

safety factor (experimental-to-calculated shear strength REFERENCES
ratio) differently from that provided by the ACI 318-02. 1. Kriz, L. B., and Raths, C. H., “Connections in Precast Concrete
Structures—Strength of Corbels,” PCI Journal, V. 10, No. 1, Feb. 1965,
pp. 16-61.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2. Mattock, A. H.; Chen, K. C.; and Soongswang, K., “The Behavior of
Support of this research by the Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università Reinforced Concrete Corbels,” PCI Journal, V. 21, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1976,
e della Ricerca is gratefully acknowledged. pp. 52-77.
3. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
NOTATION Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Ah, Ahi = overall area of horizontal stirrups and of i-th stirrup Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
An = area of principal reinforcement required for resisting Nu 4. UNI ENV 1992-1-1, “Eurocodice 2—Progettazione delle strutture di
calcestruzzo—Parte 1-1: Regole generali e regole per gli edifici,” Comitato
As = overall area of principal reinforcement
europeo di normazione CEN, 1993, 203 pp.
a = shear span length
5. Yong, Y. K., and Balaguru, P., “Behavior of Reinforced High-Strength
b = width of corbel Concrete Corbels,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 120, No. 4,
Cc, Cch = compression forces in strut of corbel without and with stirrups, Apr. 1994, pp. 1182-1201.
respectively 6. Foster, S. J.; Powell, R. E.; and Selim, H. S., “Performance of High-
Ch = compression force in strut due to stirrup presence Strength Concrete Corbels,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-
ci (i = 0,1,2) = constants Oct. 1996, pp. 555-563.
d = effective depth of corbel 7. Hagberg, T., “Design of Concrete Brackets on the Application of the
di = distance of i-th stirrup from principal reinforcement Truss Analogy,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 80, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
Ec, Es = elastic moduli of concrete and steel 1983, pp. 3-12.
f c′ = cylindrical concrete compressive strength 8. Solanki, H., and Sabnis, G. M., “Reinforced Concrete Corbels—
fct = concrete tensile strength in uniaxial stress state Simplified,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1987, pp. 428-432.
fshm = mean value of tensile steel stress of stirrups 9. Hwang, S. J.; Lu, W. Y.; and Lee, H. J., “Shear Strength Prediction for
fyh, fys = yielding strength of horizontal stirrups and principal rein- Reinforced Concrete Corbels,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 4, July-
forcement, respectively Aug. 2000, pp. 543-552 plus Appendix.
h = overall depth of corbel 10. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley
k = adimensional (with respect to d) depth of compressive zone & Sons, Inc., New York, 1975, pp. 16-17.
l = width of inclined strut 11. Russo, G.; Venir, R.; and Pauletta, M., “Reinforced Concrete Deep
m = number of stirrups Beams—Shear Strength Model and Design Formula,” ACI Structural Journal,
Nu = ultimate horizontal action applied at top of corbel V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005, pp. 429-437.
n = ratio of elastic moduli of steel and concrete 12. Zhang, L. X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Behavior and Analysis of 100 MPa
R = force defined by Eq. (39) Concrete Membrane Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 124, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 24-34.
Th = resultant action of stirrups
13. Bortolotti, L., “Interdependence of Concrete Strength Parameters,”
Ts = yielding action of principal reinforcement
ACI Materials Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 25-26.
Vc, Vu = ultimate shear force carried by corbel with and without stirrups,
14. Oluokun, F., “Prediction of Concrete Tensile Strength from its
respectively
Compressive Strength: An Evaluation of Existing Relations for Normal
Vh = shear force resisted by stirrups Weight Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 3, May-June 1991,
vc = strut-and-tie mechanism contribution to shear strength pp. 225-239.
vc,lim , 15. D.M. 9.1.1996, “Norme tecniche per il calcolo, l’esecuzione ed il
v*c,lim = theoretical and approximate limiting values of vc collaudo delle strutture in cemento armato normale e precompresso e per le
vh = stirrup contribution to shear strength strutture metalliche,” Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, No. 29
vu = shear strength del 5.2.1996, Serie generale, 183 pp.
vu,calc , 16. Fattuhi, N. I., and Hughes, B. P., “Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
vu,meas = calculated and (experimentally) measured shear strength, Corbels Containing Either Steel Fibers or Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal,
respectively V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 644-651.
vu,d = design shear strength 17. Hermansen, B. R., and Cowan, J., “Modified Shear-Friction Theory for
w = width of bearing plate Bracket Design,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 71, No. 2, Feb. 1974, pp. 55-60.
ε0 = strain at peak stress of standard concrete cylinder 18. Her, G. J., “Study of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Corbels,” mas-
εd, εr = concrete strains in principal d- and r-direction, respectively, ter’s thesis, Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan Univer-
coincident with strut axis direction and its perpendicular sity of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 1990, 103 pp. (in Chinese)
εr,lim = limiting value of εr 19. Fattuhi, N. I., and Hughes, B. P., “Reinforced Steel and Polypropylene
θ′, θ = angles between strut and vertical direction in corbels with and Fibre Concrete Corbels Tests,” The Structural Engineer, V. 67, No. 4/21,
without stirrups, respectively Feb. 1989, pp. 68-72.
ρf = flexural reinforcement ratio at column-corbel interface 20. Fattuhi, N. I., and Hughes, B. P., “Reinforced Steel Fiber Concrete
(Eq. (12)) Corbels with Various Shear Span-to-Depth Ratios,” ACI Materials Journal,
ρf min = minimum ratio of flexural reinforcement V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 590-596.
ρh = stirrups ratio at column-corbel interface 21. Fattuhi, N. I., “Strength of SFRC Corbels Subjected to Vertical
σd = compressive concrete stress in principal d-direction Load,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 116, No. 3, Mar. 1990,
pp. 701-718.
σd,lim,
22. Fattuhi, N. I., “Strength of FRC Corbels in Flexure,” Journal of
σ*d,lim = theoretical and approximate limiting values of σd Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 120, No. 2, Feb. 1994, pp. 360-377.
σd,max = maximum concrete compressive stress in d-direction 23. Fattuhi, N. I., “Reinforced Corbels Made with Plain and Fibrous
σt, σt,lim = transverse concrete tensile stress and its limiting value Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.1994, pp. 530-536.
ξ = distance between principal reinforcement and centroid of stirrups 24. ENV 1992-1-1 Comité Européen de Normalization CEN, “Eurocode 2—
ζ = softening coefficient of concrete in compression Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for
χ = adimensional interpolating function (Eq. (31)) Buildings,” 226 pp.

10 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2006