ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 96-S13

TECHNICAL PAPER

Effect of Corner Angle on Efficiency of Reinforced Concrete Joints under Opening Bending Moment
by Hashim M. S. Abdul-Wahab and Shamil A. R. Salman
Results of an experimental investigation of the effect of the corner angle on the strength and behavior of reinforced concrete corners under opening bending moments are presented. Twelve specimens divided into two groups with two reinforcement details and the included angle varying from 60 to 180 deg were tested. From the results obtained, and from those reported by others, it was found that the efficiency of the joint is significantly affected by the angle and is at its minimum when at 120 deg. Theoretical analysis using finite element method (FEM) confirms the same variation of the diagonal tensile stress concentration with the angle.
Keywords: corner joints; diagonal tension; efficiency; experimental study; opening bending moment; reinforced concrete; ultimate strength.

Table 1Recommended reinforcement percentages for different corner angles1

Corner angle, deg 60 90 135 Steel yield strength fy 390 MPa 0.75 1.2 1.0 590 MPa 0.05 0.8 0.65 Inclined reinforcement 0.5 0.5 0.5 Remarks Corner should be haunched

fcu = 29.4 MPa; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

INTRODUCTION Reinforced concrete corners resisting positive bending moment which tend to open the corner are known to have low efficiency and special care is needed in their design. The efficiency of corners is usually defined as the ratio of failure moment of the corner to the moment capacity of the adjoining members.1,2 Most of the experimental studies reported in the literature, notably by Nilsson1,2 and others,3-9 were concerned with the effect of reinforcement layout, steel content, and bar diameter on the behavior and efficiency, and of knee joints (or right-angled corners). Limited tests on corner angles, other than 90 deg, were also reported by Nilsson1 on 60 and 135-deg corners and Wahab and Ali8 on 145-deg corners. However, little attention has been given to the study of the effect of the corner angle, as an independent factor, on the efficiency of the joints. From the available experimental data, there is a clear indication that corner efficiency is significantly reduced with an increase in the steel ratio.1-9 From his test results, Nilsson1 concluded that, to avoid failure of the corners, upper limits on the main reinforcement ratio p, as shown in Table 1, should be observed for the 60, 90, and 135-deg angles. Inclined reinforcement, or splays, should also be provided to control the initial flexural cracking and should be half the main reinforcement. For the 60-deg corners, the inclined reinforcement should be laid in a haunch, the size of the haunch being at least one-half of the adjoining member thickness. The given limits of maximum reinforcement percentages may be interpolated for intermediate corner angles and interpolated or extrapolated with regard to the yield strength for other steel qualities. This implies that a linear relationship is assumed between the corner angle and efficiency for the range of angles tested, and the given limits suggest that the 90-deg corners are the weakest. Similar limits to those suggested by Nilsson were also recommended by Prakash10 and Holmes and Martin.11 The choice of the most appropriate layout of reinforcement is derived from consideration of the flow of forces and ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

the stress distribution in the joint which indicates the need for inclined bars (or splays) to resist the tensile force that causes the initial crack at the inner angle of the corner. Also, some form of confinement reinforcement is needed to resist the secondary diagonal tension cracks that form in the upper triangular portion. The occurrence of these diagonal cracks often causes failure of the corner. Various reinforcement details, with or without stirrups (ties) or inclined bars (splays) have been tested, and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the most suitable detail for lightly reinforced corners that results in the highest efficiency is the one that combines the use of U-shaped bars with inclined bars.1,3-8 However, due to the scarcity of experimental results or other guidance for the design of acute and obtuse angled corners that occur in structures such as in folded plates, bridge abutments, water channels, and staircases, their design remains arbitrary. It has been suggested10,11 that the same fundamental reinforcement detail may be used for such angles in accordance with the same principles as applied to kneejoints. The need for experimental data to clarify the effect of corner angle on the behavior and efficiency of joints has prompted the present study. In the test program conducted for this purpose, a wide range of corner angles from 60 to 180 deg was considered using two common types of reinforcement details consisting of U-bars with or without inclined bars or splays. Some additional data were also used from results of tests on joints with similar reinforcement details and comparable steel ratios reported by others.1,6-9 A theoretical analysis of the stress distribution in the joints with various angles using the finite element method (FEM) is also included. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE There is little information on the effect of the corner angle, as an independent factor, on the behavior and efficiency of reinforced concrete joints under opening bending moment. In
ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, January-February 1999. Received April 2, 1997, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 1999, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the November-December 1999 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 1999.

115

ACI member Hashim M. S. Abdul-Wahab is Honorary Research Fellow in the Civil Engineering Department, University of Brighton, UK. He received his BSc in civil and structural engineering from Birmingham University in 1962 and his MEng and PhD degrees in concrete structures from Sheffield University in 1964 and 1967, respectively. His research interests include joints and connections in concrete structures and steel fiber reinforced concrete. Shamil A. R. Salman is senior structural engineer at Al-Idrisi Center for Engineering, Baghdad, Iraq. He obtained his BSc in civil engineering from the University of Baghdad in 1976 and his MEng in reinforced concrete structures from the University of Technology, Baghdad, in 1988.

Table 2Summary of specimens, details, and concrete properties

Concrete com- Concrete tenCorner Reinforcement pressive strength, sile strength, ft , MPa fc , MPa Specimen angle, deg detail (Fig. 1b) U shaped, 1 A1 60 33.40 4.00 detail (A) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 75 90 120 150 180 60 75 90 120 150 180 = = = = = U shaped + splay, detail (B) = = = = = 30.83 30.83 29.0 32.75 30.00 30.00 29.70 30.85 26.10 30.60 32.83 30.83 3.96 4.10 3.96 3.54 3.96 4.03 3.20 4.10 3.00 3.40 3.46 3.72

Average
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

Fig. 1Details of specimen and loading arrangement (1 in. = 25.4 mm). addition to the much-studied right angled or knee joint, a wide range of obtuse and acute angled corner joints frequently occurs in reinforced concrete structures such as folded plates, bridge abutments, water tanks, staircases, and pitched roof portal. In this experimental study, corner angles were varied from 60 to 180 deg using two commonly used reinforcement details. Theoretical analysis using FEM and test results indicate that the efficiency of corners is significantly affected by the corner angle, with corners of about 120 deg showing the least efficiency. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Test specimen dimensions and reinforcement details are given in Fig. 1 and Table 2. A total of 12 full-scale corner specimens were tested to failure under symmetrically applied loads. They were divided into two groups, A and B, each consisting of six specimens with the corner angle varying from 60 to 180 deg. In Group A, only U-shaped reinforcement was used at the joint, [Fig. 1(b)]. In Group B, inclined reinforcing bars (splays) were added to the bent reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The 180-deg speci116

mens had the same reinforcement as the rest of the specimens and were included to complete the range and to be used as a reference for comparisons. All specimens were 300 mm wide and 150 mm in total depth, with three-10 mm diameter bars as the main reinforcement, the steel ratio being p = 0.68%. Nominal transverse reinforcement of 10 mm diameter bars at 300 mm centers was provided to hold the main reinforcement. For Group B, three 10-mm diameter inclined bars were also provided near the inner angle of the corner. All steel used was of the deformed surface type with a yield strength fy = 467 MPa (67.7 ksi) and ultimate tensile strength fu = 700 MPa (101.5 ksi). The concrete was made with ordinary portland cement (Type I), washed sand with a maximum size of 10 mm, and coarse aggregate with a maximum size of 19 mm (0.75 in.) The mix proportions by weight were 1:1(1/2):3 of cement:sand:coarse aggregate. The water/cement ratio was 0.5. A horizontal pan mixer was used, and the specimens were cast with their sides laid horizontally, using a steel form. Control specimens of 150 x 150 x 150 mm (5.91 x 5.91 x 5.91 in.) cubes, 150 mm (5.91 in.) diameter x 300 mm (11.82 in.) cylinders, and 100 x 100 x 400 mm (3.94 x 3.94 x 15.76 in.) prisms were also cast with each test specimen to determine the compressive and tensile splitting strength, modulus of rupture, and modulus of elasticity. All specimens were tested at 28 days under pure positive (opening) bending moments using the basic loading arrangement shown in Fig. 1. The load was applied gradually by the hydraulic ram system. Special concrete pedestals were incorporated in the specimens to facilitate the application of the loads and care was taken to insure free horizontal movement at the supports. Concrete surface strains at selected locations at the corner were measured using mechanical strain gages 200 and 150 mm in length (7.9 and 5.9 in.), and dial gages were used to measure the vertical and horizontal displacements of the specimen, as shown in Fig. 1. The increase in corner angle under bending was also measured in all specimens. For this purpose, an inclinometer was used which was made up of a rigid steel angle with two dial gages mounted 100 mm apart on one leg, the second leg being fixed to the inside of one leg of the specimen ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

Table 3Test results

Specimen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Failure moment Calculated ultimate Corner angle, Cracking moment Muc, kNm Mut, kNm deg moment, kNm 60 75 90 120 150 180 60 75 90 120 150 180 2.00 2.00 2.24 3.00 3.30 0.54 2.87 2.13 2.30 3.15 3.30 3.78 9.24 7.53 7.47 5.80 7.60 10.04 18.16 12.93 11.58 9.00 15.90 19.79 11.94 11.88 11.88 11.83 11.92 11.86 11.86 11.85 11.88 11.74 11.87 11.93 Corner efficiency Mut /Muc 77.4 63.4 62.8 49.0 63.7 84.6 153.1 109.1 97.5 76.6 134.0 165.9 Type of failure Diagonal cracking and flexural yielding of bars at joint Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above Flexural yielding of bars at joint Diagonal cracking at joint Same as above Same as above Same as above Diagonal cracking at joint and flexural yielding of bars outside joint Flexural yielding of bars outside joint

1 kip-in. = 0.113 kNm.

Fig. 2Variation of strain with bending moment for Specimen B4 (1 kip-in. = 0.113 kNm). as close as possible to the corner. The dial gages used had a minimum graduation of 0.002 mm. As the test progressed, readings of the vertical and horizontal displacements and strains were taken at each stage of loading and the development and propagation of the cracks were noted as well as the load at first crack and the mode of failure. The control specimens were tested on the same day as the corner specimens; only the results for the compressive and tensile splitting strength are given in Table 2. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Behavior under load Table 3 gives the observed initial cracking moment, failure moment, and modes of failure as well as the calculated ultimate moment capacity and efficiency of the specimen tested. The ultimate moment of resistance of the adjoining members, and hence the corner efficiency Mut / Muc were calculated using the ACI 318-89 code12 method for reinforced concrete sections. In general, at the early loading stages, the specimens behaved in an elastic manner until the appearance of the first crack. The crack usually started at the inner angle of the corner and extended upwards, branching off around the bent bars, then running in the diagonal direction parallel to the inclined reinforcement towards the compression zones at the upper surfaces of the members. Diagonal tension cracks within the bent reinforcement zone also appeared in some cases as well as some flexural cracks that appeared along the ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

Fig. 3Typical variation of strain profile along corner diagonal (6-6) for Specimen B4 (1 kip-in. = 0.113 kNm). members. One exception was Specimen B6, in which the first crack appeared on one of the adjoining members and spread upwards. The strain variation in the joint parallel and perpendicular to the corner diagonal followed the expected pattern obtained from theoretical analysis and those reported by earlier studies.1,8 Figure 2 shows typical strain variation with applied moment for Specimen B4, and Fig. 3 shows the variation of the strain profile with moment along the corner diagonal for the same specimen. The influence of corner angle on corner deformation is illustrated by its effect on the vertical and horizontal displacements as well as the angular alteration of the corner. Figure 4 shows the variation of the vertical displacement at the joint with the applied moment for all specimens tested while Fig. 5 shows the variation in the average horizontal displacement. The vertical displacement measurements give the total deflection of the specimen at the joint contributed by the bending of the two members, the increase in angle, and the effect of the horizontal movement at the supports. It is evident that the general stiffness of the corner specimens after the appearance of the first crack is significantly reduced as the corner angle is increased from 60 to 120 deg (A4, B4), but the stiffness then increases as the angle increases up to 180 deg. On the other hand, horizontal displacements within 117

Fig. 4Variation of central deflection with applied bending moment for Groups A and B (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip-in. = 0.113 kNm).

Fig. 7Increase in angle with applied bending moment for Groups A and B (1 kip-in. = 0.113 kNm).

Fig. 5Variation of average horizontal displacement with applied bending moment for Groups A and B (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip-in. = 0.113 kNm). Fig. 8Effect of corner angle on increase in angle under 5 kNm bending moment (1 kip-in. = 0.113 kNm). the elastic range were generally similar for all specimens, but at the postcracking stage, the displacements were consistently reduced with the increase in angle from its highest value for 60 deg (A1, B1) to its lowest value for 150 deg (A5, B5), the value for 180 deg being assumed to be zero. The effect of the corner angle on vertical and horizontal displacement is further illustrated in Fig. 6 for an applied bending moment of 5 kNm (44.2 kip-in.). Figure 7 shows the measured increase in corner angle in radians with the applied bending moment. The increase in angle was also significantly affected by the corner angle at the post-cracking stage, the 120-deg corner specimens exhibiting the highest increase. Figure 8 shows the variation in the increase in the corner angle for an applied bending moment of 5 kNm (44.2 kip-in.) for the full range of angles tested. The results further confirm that the corner stiffness is least when the angle is about 120 deg. With the exception of Specimen A6 and B6 (180 deg), all specimens failed after the formation of diagonal tension ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

Fig. 6Effect of corner angle on vertical and average horizontal displacement under 5 kNm bending moment (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip-in. = 0.113 kNm). 118

Fig. 10Efficiency versus corner angle. of specimens with inclined bars, Group B, was much higher than that without the inclined bars, Group A, the ratio varying from 1.55 for B3/A3 to 1.97 for B1/A1. However, despite the significant improvement in efficiency due to the added inclined bars in Group B, the variation in efficiency followed the same pattern as for Group A and was below 100% when the angle was between 90 and 130 deg, the lowest efficiency recorded being for the 120-deg corners. It should be noted that the lower efficiency exhibited by the 120-deg corners may be due, in part, to the lower concrete tensile splitting strength, as shown in Table 2, which precipitates the diagonal tension failure. The adjusted efficiency values relative to the average concrete strength for each group are also shown in Fig. 10. While further tests may be necessary for corner angles in the range of 90 to 140 deg to determine precisely the most critical angle, it is evident that the design of such corners should be made with special care, with attention being given to the expected reduction in efficiency. The results also indicate that interpolation for the reinforcement quantity between 60, 90, and 135-deg corners as suggested by Nilsson would lead to overestimating the strength of the joints. There is no evidence of a linear relationship between strength and corner angle to justify linear interpolation or extrapolation. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATION To study the effect of varying the corner angle on the stress distribution in the joint, a plane stress analysis by FEM was used.13 The six cases considered in this study were analyzed assuming the material to be linearly elastic with Poissons ratio = 0.2 and the concrete strength values taken as measured. It should be noted that the state of stress in corners calculated by the theory of elasticity is valid only before cracking occurs. Nevertheless, the results obtained help to indicate the likely locations for the tensile stress and clarify the variation of the stress concentration with the change in angle. Figure 11 shows a typical example of the loading method and FEM mesh used for 60-deg corners. Variation of stress with corner angle From experimental evidence, the most common cause of failure in joints is due to diagonal tension cracks caused by the tensile stress parallel to the corner diagonal. For this reason the stress distribution obtained from the FEM analysis along 119

Fig. 9Failure patterns for Group B. cracks that caused the upper portion to be pushed out, coupled with the flexural yielding of the bars at the joint. In the 180-deg specimens, A6 and B6, as would be expected, failure was caused by flexural yielding of the bars either at the joint or just outside the joint region, as indicated in Table 3. It should also be noted that the inclusion of the inclined bars in Group B helped to control and delay the initial cracks on the inside of the corner and resist the separation of the two members. Figure 9 shows typical crack and failure patterns for the specimens of Group B. Efficiency and ultimate strength Table 3 gives the ultimate strength and efficiency of the tested specimens. The results obtained for the efficiency of corners with different angles are shown in Fig. 10. Also shown on the same figure are some experimental results obtained from tests reported by other investigators1,6-9 on joints of 60, 90, 135, and 145 deg with similar reinforcement details and the nearest comparable steel ratios, which are summarized in Table 4. However, allowance should be made for the variation in concrete strength, steel yield strength, and geometry of the specimens tested by others researchers, which have an important effect on the ultimate strength. For example, the higher efficiency values for the 90-deg corners reported by Nilsson are due to the fact that the adjacent members had different dimensions, the thickness being 250 and 300 mm (9.8 and 11.8 in.). Tests have shown that the efficiency is greatly improved when the thicknesses of the adjoining members were not the same.8 Also, diagonal tension failure, which was the common cause reported, depends mainly on the quality and strength of the concrete. As shown in Fig. 10, experimental results show that the efficiency of the corner joint decreased with the increase of the angle starting from 60 up to 120 deg, after which the efficiency increased with the angle up to 180 deg. The efficiency ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

Table 4Results of tests reported by other investigators

Source Specimen reference V53 V54 UV5 UV6 Nilsson1 UV7 U24 U51 U59 V2 V11 V13 BD1 B1 7702 7704 A3 A4 A10-6 A12-4 Corner angle, deg 60 60 90 90 90 90 90 90 135 135 135 90 90 90 90 145 145 90 90 Steel ratio r, percent 0.5 0.48 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 1.0 0.66 0.7 0.52 0.59 0.66 0.58 0.65 0.65 0.62 0.61 fcu , MPa 32.4 30.7 32.9 28.6 33.25 39 34.5 26.4 32.7 30.8 39.2 38 53 17.4 22.1 36.6 37.9 32 46 fy , MPa 662.2 684.2 422.3 412.5 415 432.1 656.8 696.5 402.2 662.2 665.1 498 433 573 564 470 470 487 543 Efficiency, percent 102 103 114 115 123 87 104 72 88 99 110 94 91 77 100 102 139 92 65 Inclined bars provided Yes with haunch Yes with haunch Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Noor6 Skettrup7 Wahab & Ali8 Jackson9

1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

Fig. 11Finite element mesh for 60-deg corner. various axes perpendicular to the corner diagonal and parallel to the inclined reinforcement were considered. Fig. 12 shows typical stress distribution for a 150-deg corner along two principal axes. The top axis, a-a, is at the apex of the bent reinforcement where the secondary diagonal tension cracks usually appear and tend to cause the upper portion of the corner to be pushed off. Axis b-b is taken at middepth of the corner diagonal where most of the specimens exhibited primary diagonal tension cracks leading to failure, as was shown in Fig. 9. Figure 13 shows the variation in the maximum diagonal tensile stresses along the two selected axes, a-a and b-b, with the corner angle. The diagonal tensile stress increased with the corner angle between 60 and 120 deg, after which the stress gradually decreased down to zero at 180 deg. On the same figure, the reduction in efficiency for the specimens tested, taken relative to Specimens A6 and B6, as well as 120

Fig. 12Distribution of calculated diagonal stresses along Axes (a-a) and (b-b) for 150-deg corner under bending moment of 2 kNm (1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa). some of those reported by others, is shown. The reduction in efficiency appears to follow the same pattern as the increase in the diagonal tensile stress with the corner angle. It is recognized1,2 that the confining effect of the bent reinforcement tends to close the diagonal crack that may appear inside the loop, thus contributing to the effective resistance of the diagonal tensile stress. However, at a point just outside the bent reinforcement along axis b-b, Fig. 12, the splitting tensile stress is not affected by the confining action of the bent bars and may be the point of a possible early formation of diagonal cracks that may extend and hasten the final failure of the joint. There may be no simple way to reinforce against all tensile stresses that occur, and the ultimate strength of the corner would, therefore, depend on the tensile strength of the ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999

Fig. 13Variation of calculated maximum diagonal tensile stress with corner angle under bending moment of 2 kNm in comparison with observed reduction in efficiency (1 ksi = 6.895 MPa). concrete. One possible solution that needs investigating is the use of steel fiber reinforcement in the joint to enhance the tensile resistance of concrete. The variation of the tensile stress at this location with the corner angle and the reduction in efficiency followed the same pattern as the maximum stress shown in Fig. 13. It is worth noting that in a recent study, Jackson9 suggested that the primary cause of failure at a bending moment less than that associated with yielding of the main reinforcement (i.e., reduced efficiency) is bond failure. For some reinforcement layouts where anchorage is insufficient, this may be the case, but in all the specimens tested in this study, as well as most of those reported by others, the failure pattern was due to diagonal tension cracking as previously discussed. CONCLUSIONS From the experimental investigation and the limited theoretical analysis reported herein, the following conclusions can be drawn for effect of the corner angle on the behavior of reinforced concrete joints under opening bending moment. 1. The efficiency of corners is significantly affected by the corner angle, with corners of 120 deg showing the least efficiency. 2. The use of inclined bars greatly improves the corner efficiency. For the steel content (p = 0.68%) and depth of members (150 mm) used in this study, an increase in the range between 55 and 100% was observed, depending on the angle. 3. The variation in strength with the corner angle is not linear, and interpolation for the amount of steel, as suggested by Nilsson,1 is not applicable. 4. The results obtained using FEM analysis for diagonal tension forces and stresses at critical sections and locations in the corner zone give a plausible explanation for the variation in efficiency of joints with the corner angle as observed in the experimental results. ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1999 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The experimental work reported in this paper was conducted at the Building and Construction Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad. The authors gratefully acknowledge the facilities made available and the valuable help and assistance of the technical staff of the department.

REFERENCES
1. Nilsson, I. H. E., Reinforced Concrete Corners and Joints Subjected to Bending MomentDesign of Corners and Joints in Frame Structures, Document No. D7-1973, National Swedish Institute for Building Research, Stockholm, 1973, 249 pp. 2. Nilsson, I. H. E., and Losberg, A., Reinforced Concrete Corners and Joints Subjected to Bending Moment, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 102, ST 6, June 1976, pp. 1229-1253. 3. Mayfield, B.; Kong, F. K.; Bennison, A.; and Davis, J. C. D., Corner Joint Detail in Structural Lightweight Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 5, May 1971, pp. 366-372. 4. Mayfield, B.; Kong, F. K.; and Bennison, A., Strength and Stiffness of Lightweight Concrete Corners, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 7, July 1972, pp. 420-427. 5. Somerville, G., and Taylor, H. P. J., Influence of Reinforcement Detailing on the Strength of Concrete Structures, The Structural Engineer (London), V. 50, No. 1, Jan. 1972, pp. 7-19. 6. Noor, F. A., Ultimate Strength and Cracking of Wall Corners, Concrete (London), V. 11, No. 7, July 1977, pp. 31-35. 7. Skettrup, E.; Strabo, J.; Anderson, N. H.; and Brondum-Nielson, T., Concrete Frame Corners, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No. 6, Nov.Dec. 1984, pp. 587-593. 8. Abdul-Wahab, H. M. S., and Ali, W. M., Strength and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Obtuse Corners under Opening Bending Moments, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 679-685. 9. Jackson, N., Design of Reinforced Concrete Opening Corners, The Structural Engineer, V. 73, No. 13, July, 1995, pp. 209-213. 10. Prakash Rao, D. S., Detailing of Reinforcement in Concrete Structures, Indian Concrete Journal (Bombay), V. 59, No. 1, Jan. 1985, pp. 22-25. 11. Holmes, M., and Martin, L. H., Analysis and Design of Structural ConnectionsReinforced Concrete and Steel, Ellis Harwood, Chichester, England, 1983, pp. 45-85. 12. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318M-89), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1992, 347 pp. 13. Hinton, E., and Owen, D. R. S., Finite Element Programming, Academic Press, London, 1977.

121