×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model
2

If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

(OP)
If I don't have to use the Strut-and-tie model for analyzing the corbel in the attached sketch, can I design the corbel by:

1- Calculate bending moment about the C.L. of line 2 as V.eh+H.ev
2- Calculate shear at line 1,
3- provide main tension steel to resist the bending moment,
4- provide ties so that the shear friction capacity at line 1 is grater than the shear force,
5- shear friction capacity is only provided by the ties because shear plane is parallel to force or, do we have to account for the main tension steel also to resist shear?

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

Isn't the old simple mechanical method prescribed by ACI under CH.11 still valid? I guess it should.

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

(OP)
kslee100,
Thanks. I am familiar with ACI. Here in Canada, the CSA A23.3 uses the strut and tie model in analyzing corbels.

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

It will behave as a strut and tie regardless. It is not that hard, I recommend you get used to it.

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

(OP)
Sorry,
In my previous post I meant to say " I am NOT familiar with ACI". Thanks

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

Looks like you have to do strut and tie then.

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

(OP)
Csd72:
When I am doing a strut and tie model for problems solved in reference books including our Concrete Design Handbook, my models are not the same as those in the books. Even using TEDDS, TEDDS' model is different from the books, the forces are sometimes 25% different. That is why I am looking for a (closed-form solution)that not two engineers will disagree on.  

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

Ailmar:

In general, your approach is correct. If you can borrow a copy of ACI 318-xx (two digits indicating year it is in effect), "Building Code requirement for Structural Concrete and Commentary". Pay attention to Ch.11.9, "Special Provisions for Brackets and Corbels". From your standing, you will learn it in no time.

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

Note, the critical failure plane is line 2, for both tension and shear friction.

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

I think I am right in saying that corbels in current practice are almost always designed by a strut and tie (or truss analogy) method, so I think you should take the time to learn it.  Corbels are not flexural members.

Corbels have been the source of a lot of failures, and are one element where conservatism should be the norm.  For the reinforcement, think anchorage, anchorage, anchorage.

In your sketch, the load is getting close to the edge.  Corbels are usually loaded at about the centre.  If the top corner cracks, there is not much to prevent catastrophic collapse.  

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

Ailmar:

Hokie's right.

Canada has long before the US in adopting the strut-tie method in the concrete code (in the early 90s?). And it is there to stay.

I have limited exposure to this method, however, the concept is sound (through mechanical means rather purely relies on experimental studies), and I knew manys claim the freedom in constructing the truss model, and the simplicity of use after you have mastered the constraints.

Go for it, because you couldn't avoid.
 

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

See the new CPCI Design Handbook - there is a design example for corbels using the Cdn code, both with the S+T model and using the empirical methods (used by PCI).  The empirical method is quicker and easier to use and it steers you towards a safe design, whereas if you don't know what you are doing using S+T or design software, you could potentially come up with an unsafe design.

http://www.cpci.ca/?sc=publications&pn=fourth_edition

RE: If you don't like the Strut-and-tie model

There was a recent (several years ago) bridge failure in eastern Canada caused, at least in part, by poor design of the corbel supports.  Worthwhile reading.  It was discussed at some length on this site when the report came out.  Suggest you search for it when time permits.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources