Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

DETAILING OF CORNER JOINTS UNDER OPENING MOMENT

Marina L. Moretti

Theodosios P. Tassios

Abstract
Corner joints subjected to opening moment tend to fail in a brittle manner. The need of appropriate detailing of such corners has been often pointed out in the past and a lot of research has been conducted. This research was prompted by the appearance of extensive cracks in lignite storage bunkers at a power generating station in Greece, shortly after they had been put in use. The detailing of reinforcement in the joints was considered to be one of the causes of the damage observed. An experimental study has been undertaken in order to clarify the influence of the detailing of reinforcement to the pattern of cracking observed. Specimens in natural scale (1:1) were constructed. The specimens were subjected to repeated opening moment, so as to simulate the loading conditions of the real structure while being filled and emptied. The results of the experimental program are presented and discussed. The research work was aimed at completing available experimental results pertaining to detailed strain measurements, so that they may be useful in describing load transfer and failure mechanisms. Keywords: Corner joints, Opening moment, Detailing, Corner efficiency

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

1
1.1

Experimental
Characteristics of specimens

Three specimens in natural scale (1:1) were constructed and tested. All had dimensions and reinforcement identical to the 90-degree corners of the failed bunkers (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). The three specimens differed only in the arrangement of the reinforcement in the joint (Fig. 3, Fig. 4). More precisely, in specimen 1 which had reinforcement detailing identical to that of the bunkers, the tensile main reinforcement of an adjoining leg was anchored by 90-degree bending in the compression zone of the other leg. In specimen 2 anchoring of the tenslile reinforcement was made by a 180-degree hoop in the compression zone of the member itself, while in specimen 3 after bending of 225 degrees. In addition specimen 3 contained in the joint seven 4-leg stirrups (10 mm), extending from the compressive to the inclined reinforcement (calculated so as to undertake the components of the tensile reinforcement, equal to 2 As1)1,2. Moreover, six ties 10 mm were placed around the hoop perpendicular to its plane so as to avoid tensile failure of concrete in a plane parallel to the hoop3.

Fig. 1 Overview of specimen ready for testing

Fig. 2 Dimensions of specimens

Fig. 3 Reinforcement of specimen 1 (Joint detailing identical to the bunkers)

Fig. 4 Reinforcement layout at the joint of specimens 2 and 3

In all specimens the volumetric ratio of leg tensile reinforcement was approximately =0.15 (=(As/bd)fyk/fck), which in literature is considered to be rather high. Despite its high percentage

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

the tensile reinforcement yielded in all the specimens tested (see 1.4). This is a prerequisite for augmenting the efficiency of a corner1,4. Tensile reinforcement concrete cover was equal to 50 mm in all specimens, as was also in the bunkers, while in the reinforcement under compression, in specimen 1 the concrete cover was only 15 mm as in the bunkers (Fig. 3), and 50mm in specimens 2, 3 (Fig. 4) in order to fulfill the Greek concrete Code regarding the permissible radius of bend. The compressive strength of concrete is shown in Tab. 1 and was measured on cylinders 150 300 mm. The main reinforcement and the diagonal stirrups in the joint of specimen 3 were of deformed weldable steel bars with nominal yield strength 400 MPa and actual yield strength fsy=450 MPa. Stirrups in the legs of the corner consisted of plain mild steel bars 10 mm with nominal yield strength fsy=220 MPa.

1.2

Loading history

The specimens were tested in horizontal position (Fig. 1). They were subjected to repeated opening moment, by means of a hydraulic jack, so as to simulate the loading conditions of the bunkers when filled and emptied. Recycling, consisting of six half cycles, that took place at loads even close to the bearing capacity of the joints did not seem to influence the behaviour of the joint for higher loads (Fig. 5). The bearing capacities Pmax of the corners tested, as well as the corresponding displacement (max) are shown in Tab. 1.

Fig. 5 Load-displacement diagrams (P-) of specimens Tab. 1 Characteristics of specimens

Specimen
Spec.1 Spec.2 Spec.3

fcc [MPa]
29.5 28 29

Pmax [kN]
230 190 220

max [mm]
99.5 92.8 99.4

MR,a-a [kNm]
215.6 197.8 195.7

MR,b-b [kNm]
340.9 304.6 302.9

M max,a-a M R,a-a
1.07 0.96 1.12

M max,b-b M R,b-b
0.81 0.75 0.87

where: fcc = cylindrical compressive strength of concrete 3

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

= volumetric ratio of leg tensile reinforcement = (As/bd)fyk/fcc Pmax = maximum load applied at the test max = displacement corresponding to Pmax (variation of initial distance between legs) MR,a-a = calculated moment resistance of leg, section a-a (bending of inclined reinforcement Fig. 6) MR,b-b = calculated moment resistance of leg, section b-b (bending of inclined reinforcement Fig. 6) Mmax,a-a = experimental resistance at the leg section a-a (Fig. 6) for Pmax Mmax,b-b = experimental resistance at the leg section b-b (Fig. 6) for Pmax 1.3 Crack pattern and mode of failure

Cracking of the corners differed in the three specimens and depended on the detailing of the reinforcement, as may be seen in Fig. 8. All specimens failed at section a-a of the adjoining leg due to bending which resulted in compressive concrete failure (Fig. 9). Bending cracks first developed along the inner side of the legs (Fig. 10) as well as at the inner side of the joint (Fig. 11). Shear cracks did not appear at the legs, as was the intention at design, since the amount of stirrups at the legs was calculated so as to exclude shear failure. The presence of high percentage of tensile reinforcement in the adjoining members did not lead to failure at the joint, contrary to what is reported in the literature3-10. Specimen 1 with reinforcement identical to the corners of the bunkers was tested first. The corner was heavily cracked in both directions and cracks along axis X (Fig. 8) resulted in crushing of concrete at the free sides of the corner. In specimen 2 anchoring of the tensile reinforcement by a loop reduced cracking of the joint considerably, principally cracks along direction X (axis 2-2, Fig. 7) which are crucial for the integrity of the joint. In order to prevent cracking along axis X in specimen 3, stirrups were placed along the corner diagonal (axis Y), with cross-section 2 As1, calculated to undertake the resultant force of the leg tenslile reinforcement (where As1 is the cross section of the leg tenslile reinforcement). Cracking along the X axis was practically eliminated, the stirrups proved though to be over-dimensioned (see paragraph 1.4). Failure of the legs did not occur at section b-b (Fig. 6) in which the applied moment is larger, since at this section the constituent of the inclined reinforcement contributes to the leg moment resistance4,5. In section a-a, at which the legs actually failed in bending, although the induced moment Mmax= Pmaxz, where z=lever arm of the hydraulic jack, (equal to 1.00m for section a-a and 1.20m for section b-b) is lower, the moment resistance is also lower and the ratio Mmax/MR results to be higher for specimen 3 (Tab. 1). It is noted that the difference in the calculated leg moment resistance between specimens 1 and 2, 3 is due to the difference in the concrete cover of the reinforcement under compression (for specimen 1, concrete cover 1.5 mm while for specimens 2 and 3, concrete cover 5mm).

Fig. 6 Detailing of joint reinforcement in specimen 2

Fig. 7 Stresses at a corner subjected to opening moment

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

Specimen 1

Specimen 2 Fig. 8 Reinforcement layout and crack pattern of specimens

Specimen 3

Fig. 9 Compressive failure at the leg (section a-a)

Fig. 10 Crack pattern of corner leg

Fig. 11 Detailing of joint reinforcement in specimen 2

Fig. 12 Reinforcement layout at the corner of specimen 3

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

1.4

Other experimental results

The strains along the longitudinal reinforcement bars were measured by means of demountable mechanical strain gauges (DEMEC), situated at consecutive 200mm sections (e.g. 27-28), applied on pieces of 10-steel bars welded to the reinforcement bars (Fig. 12). At casting of concrete the 10-bars were surrounded by 20mm-rings of solid polystyrene that were later removed. Strains between consecutive points were measured by means of a caliper. Strains of stirrups and strains along the anchoring length of the main reinforcement were measured through electrical strain gauges (S.G.). In certain cases strains were measured by both methods and results were similar. In all specimens the strains of the compressive main reinforcement bars remained lower than 1% (Fig. 13, Fig. 14) while the tensile reinforcement of the adjoining legs yielded around the leg-section adjacent to the joint, as may be seen in Figs. 15 to 17. It has to be mentioned that due to the loading set-up (difference in the end-supports of the jack) the right-hand leg was more stressed at high loads, as it is evident by the strain measurements. It was this leg that failed in all specimens.

Fig. 13 Variation of strains in the compressive reinforcement of specimen 2 as a function of the load

Fig. 14 Variation of strains in the compressive reinforcement of specimen 3 as a function of the load

Fig. 15 Variation of strains of leg tensile reinforcement of specimen 1 as a function of the load

Fig. 16 Variation of strains of leg tensile reinforcement of specimen 2 as a function of the load

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

Fig. 17 Variation of strains of t leg ensile reinforcement of specimen 3 as a function of the load

Fig. 18 Variation of strains of the anchored parts of the inclined reinforcement as a function of the load

The strains measured along the inclined reinforcement bars for specimens 1 and 2 may be seen in Fig. 19 and Fig. 20, respectively. Despite the considerably more extensive cracking of the joint of specimen 1 for the same load levels, the reinforcement of specimen 1 did not appear to be more stressed. Anchoring of the main reinforcement in the body of the joint proved to be sufficient, due to the large dimensions of the joint and the presence of the haunch. The bars of the inclined reinforcement proved to be equally well anchored, as may be seen be the strains measured at the bent parts of the bars (Fig. 18). The stirrups used along the corner diagonal of specimen 3 practically prevented cracking along axis X, but their strains were very low (Fig. 21) according to the strain gauge measurements. This implies that the amount of stirrups necessary to undertake the forces of the main tensile reinforcement As1 of the legs could be less than the total constituent 2 As1. It is interesting to note that the part of the main reinforcement bent at 225 degrees, and almost parallel to the stirrups, had similar strains as the adjacent stirrups. It may be concluded that this part of the main reinforcement can also contribute to undertaking the tensile stresses y of the joint, provided that the dimensions of the joint guarantee sufficient anchoring to the bars.

Fig. 19 Variation of strains in inclined reinforcement of specimen 1 as a function of the load

Fig. 20 Variation of strains in inclined reinforcement of specimen 2 as a function of the load

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

Fig. 21 Variation of stirrup strains of specimen 3 as a function of the load

Corner Efficiency

To ensure ductility, failure of the adjoining member ought to precede failure of the joint. This goal is easily achieved in corners subjected to closing moment, in corners subjected to opening moment it depends on the reinforcement detailing in the joint. The term corner or joint efficiency often found in the literature, is expressed by the ratio of the moment causing failure of the entire corner divided by the flexural capacity of the member framing into the joint1,2,3,9-13. According to this definition, for the figures shown in Tab. 1, the corner efficiency at section a-a as ratio Mmax/MR is higher for specimen 3 among the specimens tested, as expected. However, the comparison of the corner efficiency between specimens 1 and 2 strictly in terms of the ratio Mmax/MR is misleading. In specimen 1 the body of the corner failed by extensive cracking along axis X under P=170 kN before the failure of its leg (P=230 kN). This was not the case with specimen 2: its corner was practically intact when the leg failed (P=190 kN). Consequently, a critical moment, (Mcrit,cor) should possibly be evaluated corresponding to an acceptable damage condition of the body of the corner. Only the above critical moment may effectively serve to define a structural efficiency ratio (Mcrit,cor/Mu,leg, where Mu,leg= moment resistance of the leg) that correctly represents the behaviour of the joint. In the presentation of experimental results in literature, no detailed information is provided about the damage level of the joint, nor about the way of calculating the moment resistance of the joint used for defining the corner efficiency. Therefore no use can be made of the data presented therein in order to define a more reliable structural efficiency ratio.

Conclusions

The anchoring of the tensile reinforcement of a corners adjoining member by 90-degree bending led to increased tensile cracking, to compressive failure of the body of the corner and side concrete spalling, despite the presence of inclined reinforcement and the large dimensions of the joint. Anchoring of the tensile reinforcement by a hook of 180 or 225 degrees resulted in reduction of overall cracking, especially of the undesirable cracks parallel to X axis. Inclined reinforcement in the joint switched failure from the section of maximum applied moment to the cross-section at which the inclined reinforcement is anchored in the legs compression zone. Stirrups placed in the direction Y of the main corner diagonal practically eliminated cracking along axis X. However attention should be paid so that the stirrups are not over-dimensioned. 8

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

For a reliable definition of the corner efficiency, the moment causing failure of the entire corner ought to correspond to a moment causing an acceptable damage level of the body of the corner.

This research was made possible with the financial support of the Sector of Thermoelectric Works of the Greek National Company of Electricity (DEH). Work to this study was contributed by Mr. Kritsotakis and Mrs. Chondrogianni (of the Greek National Company of Electricity) as well as the technical stuff in the Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete at the National Technical University of Athens. All support is acknowledged and gratefully appreciated.

References
[1]
Nilsson, I. H. E.: Reinforced Concrete Corners and Joins Subjected to Bending Moment. National Swedish Institute for Building Research, Document D7, Stockholm, Division of Concrete Structures, Chalmers University of Technology, PhD. Thesis, Publication 73:6, Gteborg, Sweden, 249 pp., 1973. Nilsson, I. H. E., and Losberg, A.: Reinforced Concrete Corners and Joins Subjected to Bending Moment. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 102, No. 6, pp. 1229-1254, 1976. Skettrup, E., Strabo, J., Andersen, N. H., Brondum-Nielsen, T.: Concrete Frame Corners, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, pp. 587-593, Nov.-Dec. 1984. Johansson, M.: Structural Behaviour in Concrete Frame Corners of Civil Defense Shelters, Division of Concrete Structures, Department of Structural Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, PhD. Thesis, Gteborg, Sweden, 2000. Johansson, M.: Reinforcement Detailing in Concrete Frame Corners, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 1, pp. 105-115, Jan.-Feb. 2001. Mayfield, B., Kong, F. K., Bennison, A., Twiston Davies J. C. D.: Corner Joint Details in Structural Lightweight Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 68, No. 1, May-June 1971, pp. 366-372. Mayfield, B., Kong, F. K., Bennison, A.: Strength and Stiffness in Lightweight Concrete Corners, ACI Structural Journal, V. 69, pp. 420-427, July-Aug. 1972. Kordina, K.: Bewehrungsfhrung in Ecken und Rahmenendknoten (Reinforcement Design of Corners and Joints in Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures). In German. Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 354, pp.5-93, 1984. Abdul-Wahab, H., M., S., Ali, W., A.: Strength and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Obtuse Corners under Opening Bending Moments, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, pp.679685, Nov.-Dec. 1989. Abdul-Wahab H., M., S., Salman, S., A., R.: Effect of Corner Angle on Efficiency of Reinforced Concrete Joints under Opening Bending Moment, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, pp. 115-21, Jan.-Feb. 1999. Singh, B., Kaushik, S., K.: Detailing of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Opening Corners, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, pp. 614-621, Sept.-Oct. 2002. Paulay, T., Priestley, M., J., N.: Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 716-752, 1992. Johansson, M.: Nonlinear Finite-Element Analyses of Concrete Frame Corners, Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 126, No. 2, pp.190-199, Feb. 2000.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 2B-1: Construction Technology

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

Dr Marina L. Moretti,
University of Thessaly Faculty of Civil Engineering Lab. of R.C. Technology & Structures Pedion Areos 383 34 Volos, Greece +30 22410 74141 +30 22410 74122 marmor@civ.uth.gr mmore @tee.gr

Prof. Theodosios P. Tassios, C.Eng.

National Technical University, Athens Faculty of Civil Engineering Lab. of R.C. Structures Iroon Polytechneiou 5 157 73 Zografou, Athens, Greece +30 210 6139280 +30 210 8045139 tassiost@central.ntua.gr

10