Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Review article
ICIST, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, School of Technology and Management, Campus 2 Morro do Lena Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
ICIST, Instituto Superior Tcnico, TULisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 November 2011
Revised 12 June 2012
Accepted 27 June 2012
Available online 9 August 2012
Keywords:
Shear-friction
Concrete-to-concrete
Interface
Bond
Design
a b s t r a c t
Initially proposed in 1966, the shear-friction theory has been adopted in all design codes to analyse
concrete-to-concrete interfaces. In the last decades, several improvements were suggested to take into
account more inuencing factors, to increase the accuracy and to enlarge the application eld. The inclusion of the concrete strength and density and the consideration of the dowel action are examples of the
proposed improvements.
This paper presents a literature review on design expressions for shear-friction, chronologically
ordered, describing proposals from the earliest research studies, precursors of the theory, until the most
recent studies, incorporated in the newest b Model Code. The most signicant contributions are identied and a comparison between some of these design expressions is presented. Codes updates concerning
shear-friction provisions are also identied in the literature review herein presented.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Anderson (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Hanson (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Mattock and Kaar (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.
Saemann and Washa (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.
Gaston and Kriz (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.
Birkeland and Birkeland (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7.
Badoux and Hulsbos (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.
Birkeland (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9.
Mast (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.10.
Hofbeck, Ibrahim and Mattock (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.11.
Mattock and Hawkins (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.12.
Mattock (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.13.
Hermansen and Cowan (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.14.
Mattock, Johal and Chow (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.15.
Mattock, Li and Wang (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.16.
Raths (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.17.
Shaikh (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.18.
Loov (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.19.
Mattock (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.20.
Vecchio and Collins (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.21.
Walraven, Frnay and Pruijssers (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.22.
Mattock (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.23.
Mau and Hsu (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.24.
Lin and Chen (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.25.
Tsoukantas and Tassios (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 244 820 300; fax: +351 244 820 310.
E-mail address: pedro.santos@ipleiria.pt (P.M.D. Santos).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.036
436
437
437
437
437
437
438
438
438
438
439
439
439
439
439
440
440
440
440
440
440
441
441
441
441
441
442
436
3.
4.
5.
2.26.
Patnaik (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.27.
Loov and Patnaik (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.28.
Mattock (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.29.
Randl (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.30.
Ali and White (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.31.
Valluvan, Kreger and Jirsa (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.32.
Patnaik (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.33.
Mattock (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.34.
Patnaik (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.35.
Kahn and Mitchell (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.36.
Papanicolaou and Triantafillou (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.37.
Gohnert (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.38.
Mansur, Vinayagam and Tan (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.39.
Santos and Jlio (2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From research to codes and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conversion factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
442
442
442
442
443
443
443
444
444
444
444
445
445
445
446
447
447
447
447
This manuscript presents an extensive historical literature review on shear-friction, covering what has been published between
1960 and 2009, i.e. in almost 50 years of research. Several milestones are identied and compared. This state-of-the-art aims to
help understanding the design philosophy adopted in codes and
standards of concrete structures and how this changed through
time, a relevant matter for both researchers and practicing engineers dedicated to structural rehabilitation.
Several milestones are identied and a comparison between
some of the most relevant design expressions proposed is presented. Shear-friction provisions on design codes are also addressed and linked to expressions from research.
The strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces, subjected to longitudinal shear stresses, can be predicted using the shear-friction
theory. This theory was rst presented in 1966 and was adopted
in all design codes for reinforced concrete structures [110].
The shear-friction theory assumes that the shear forces transfer mechanism at a concrete-to-concrete interface, subjected
simultaneously to shear and compression forces, is ensured by friction only. A simple saw-tooth model is usually adopted to exemplify the basic principles of this theory (Fig. 1). The inuence of
both reinforcement placed crossing the interface and external
forces acting normal to the shear plane is considered.
The shear-friction theory can be used to predict the shear
strength of different types of concrete-to-concrete interfaces, e.g.:
1. Introduction
437
ss sa s ssf s ssr s
where sa(s) is the contribution of the adhesion, ssf(s) is the contribution of the shear-friction and ssr(s) is the contribution of the shear
reinforcement for the shear stresses.
In some particular cases, such as I-beams with a concrete overlay placed on site, the shear stresses at the interface can be computed using the elastic beam theory, given by:
VS
Ib
where s is the shear stress; V is the shear force; S is the rst moment of area (static moment) above or below the interface; I is
the second moment of area (moment of inertia); and b is the section
width at the interface level.
The eld of application of the elastic theory can be extended to
cracked sections if the geometrical properties, the rst and second
moment of area, are evaluated for the cracked section instead of
the uncracked one. This solution is valid for the serviceability limit
states (SLS) but not for the ultimate limit states (ULS). It was also
proposed by Loov and Patnaik [15] and, according to these
researchers, this was the simplest and most practical method to
calculate shear stresses at the interface.
The inuence of several parameters, such as: (a) material constitutive law; (b) existence of cracking; (c) material time-dependent properties (creep, shrinkage and relaxation); and (d)
existence of different materials; makes the previous expression
unusable, for the assessment of the shear stresses at the concrete-to-concrete interface, leading to the development of more
accurate design expressions.
2. Literature review
Next, the conducted literature review on design expressions for
shear-friction is described. Expressions are presented, parameters
identied and the eld and limits of application discussed. A chronological order was adopted. In the scope of this paper, the term
ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface, denoted by
vu, means the full shear strength given by tests and not the design
value of the shear strength at the interface.
Since some of these expressions were originally proposed in
imperial units, while others were expressed in SI units, a dual unit
format is adopted whenever justied. In all cases, the notation
originally adopted by researchers was modied by the authors to
allow a better comparison between different proposals.
v u v o kq
4
5
6
7
8
9
18:6
121q MPa
5
10
2700
17500q psi
5
d
11
v u x
v u x
438
18:6
33 X
207q 2
MPa
X5
X 6X 5
2700
33 X
30; 000q 2
psi
X5
X 6X 5
vu
12
vu
13
14
15
v u 0:76 0:70rn
v u 110 0:70rn
MPa
16
psi
17
vu
13:79
137:9q MPa
11 da
22
vu
2000
20; 000q psi
11 da
23
vu
24:14
137:9q MPa
11 da
24
vu
3500
20; 000q psi
11 da
25
18
q 6 1:5%
19
v u 6 5:52
20
v u 6 800
21
v u 2:78 qfy
26
vu
27
MPa
q
33:5 qfy psi
439
v u 1:38 0:8qfy rn
v u 200 0:8qfy rn
MPa
28
psi
29
v u 2:76 0:8qfy rn
v u 400 0:8qfy rn
MPa
30
psi
31
MPa
32
psi
33
fs 0 : 0 6 h < 51:3
34
35
36
v u 4:0 0:8qfy
v u 580 0:8qfy
MPa
37
psi
38
440
le 6:90
Mattock et al. [30] investigated the suitability of using two design expressions, one proposed by Mattock [28], and another suggested by Birkeland [23], for the design of concrete connections,
such as corbels and columns foundations, where the bending moment and normal forces must be transferred between concrete
parts.
Mattock et al. [30] concluded that both design expressions can
be used for this purpose, being the expression proposed by Birkeland [23] more conservative than his proposal. A slight modication of the design expression was proposed, adopting a capacity
reduction factor equal to 0.85.
2.15. Mattock, Li and Wang (1976)
Mattock et al. [31] presented a design expression for lightweight reinforced concrete with an initially cracked condition.
For all (aggregates and sand) lightweight concrete, the design
expression is as follows:
v u 1:38 0:8qfy
v u 200 0:8qfy
MPa
39
psi
40
v u 1:72 0:8qfy
v u 250 0:8qfy
MPa
41
psi
42
v u C s 3:11 qfy
43
vu
44
MPa
q
C s 37:42 qfy psi
vu
vu
le 1000
C 2s
MPa
47
psi
48
vu
v u /qfy le
49
le 6:90
C 2s l
le 1000
vu
MPa
50
psi
51
C 2s l
vu
s
qfy rn
k
fc
fc
vu
v u C s 2:03 qfy
C 2s l
MPa
q
C s 24:49 qfy psi
52
45
46
Mattock [35] investigated the behaviour of concrete-to-concrete interfaces under cyclic loading. The main goal of this researcher was to determine how the design expressions,
developed for monotonic loading, should be modied in order to
be used also for cyclic loading.
Two design expressions developed by this researcher and his
co-workers, Mattock and Hawkins [27] and Mattock et al. [31],
for both normal and lightweight concrete, were adopted to assess
the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface of composite
specimens under cyclic loading.
Mattock [35] suggested that the shear strength of the concreteto-concrete interface under cyclic loading, should be taken equal to
0.8 of the shear strength under monotonic loading, for monolithic
specimens made of normal and lightweight concrete and rough
interfaces between concrete parts cast a different ages. The yield
strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was in
the range of 340500 MPa (49.372.4 ksi).
If the bond between concrete parts is destroyed, the shear strength
under cyclic loading should be taken as 0.6 of the shear strength under
monotonic loading. It was observed that the shear transfer mechanism of composite specimens after cracking, for both monotonic
and cyclic loading, is identical to that of monolithic specimens.
Vecchio and Collins [36] proposed an analytical model to predict the behaviour of reinforced concrete members subjected to
in-plane shear and normal stresses. Based on previous investigations by Walraven [37], these researchers proposed a design
expression for the assessment of the ultimate longitudinal shear
stress of a concrete crack. This expression has the particularity of
requiring the estimation of the crack width and is as follows:
p
fc
24w
0:31 a16
v ci max
fci2
v ci max
MPa mm
24w
0:31 a0:63
53
54
psi in:
55
C1
C2
MPa
0:822fc0:406
0:159fc0:303
56
MPa
57
MPa
58
v u C 1 0:007qfy C
C1
C2
15:686fc0:406
0:0353fc0:303
psi
59
psi
60
psi
61
62
63
a
qfy
k
fc
fc
64
s
qfy
6 0:3
0:66
fc
fc
vu
v u C 1 qfy
vu
p
12 fc
C2
the aggregates (assumed as spheres) and where the interface between both is considered as the weakest zone and therefore cracks
will develop along this border.
441
65
v u le qfy rn
66
442
not be greater than 0.3fc neither 12.46 MPa. The adopted reinforcement ratio qfy was in the range 1.219.5 MPa (1752824 psi).
The equivalent coefcient of friction is given by:
le
le
p!0:5
1:75 fc
6 0:8fc0:25 MPa
qfy rn
p!0:5
21:12 fc
6 0:8fc0:25 psi
qfy rn
67
68
v u 0:40rn
69
v u 0:5
q
3
fc2 rn
70
q
0:1 qfy fc MPa
q
0:6 15 qfy fc psi
v u 0:6
71
vu
72
p 0:73
qfy fc
4:536
p 0:73
qfy fc
14:25
vu
MPa
77
vu
psi
78
p 0:73
qfy fc
0:02f c
4:536
p 0:73
qfy fc
0:02f c
14:25
vu
MPa
79
vu
psi
80
q
0:1f c MPa
q
0:6 15f c psi
v u 0:6
73
vu
74
q
0:1 qfy fc MPa
q
kk 15 qfy fc psi
v u kk
vu
75
76
q
fc fy
v u scoh lrn aq
81
443
vu c
fck
ccoh
l qk
fyk
cs
rn
s
fyk fck
aq
cs cc
6 bm
fck
82
cc
s
qfy rn
1:47a
6 1:2b
fc
fc
vu
83
at the interface due to external loads; and a and b are two parameters to be experimentally calibrated.
2.31. Valluvan, Kreger and Jirsa (1999)
Valluvan et al. [47] presented a revision of the shear-friction
provisions of ACI 318 (1995). Based on the results of an experimental study, these researchers concluded that the actual specications of this design code are too conservative and proposed the
following design expression to estimate the ultimate longitudinal
shear stress:
v u lqfy rn
84
v u lrn
85
q
0:25 qfy fc MPa
q
0:55 36 qfy fc psi
v u 0:55
86
vu
87
q
0:25 qfy fc MPa
q
0:5 36 qfy fc psi
v u 0:5
88
vu
89
Table 1
Constants values according to Randl [44].
Surface preparation
Coefcient of cohesion c ()
High-pressure water-blasting
Sand-blasting
Smooth
P3.0
P0.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
(fck P 35 MPa)
0.8
0.7
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.5
k ()
a ()
b ()
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.9
1.1
1.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
444
v u K 1 0:8qfy rn
90
v u 2:25qfy rn
91
v u 0:6kqfy
92
v u 0:05f c 1:4qfy
96
v u lqfy rn b C
97
C cf ctm
v u 0:6 qfy
v u 87 qfy
v u 0:30qfy rn 1:7
v u 0:7kqfy
93
MPa
94
psi
95
vu
p
fct MPa
p
0:30qfy rn 20:47 fct psi
98
99
100
Coefcient of
friction l
Coefcient of
cohesion c
Small smooth
Small rough
Large smooth
Large rough
0.33
0.45
0.33
0.45
3.63
2.97
2.33
1.90
101
102
q
fct 0:2fck2=3 0:4 0:6
MPa
2000
q
psi
fct 1:05fck2=3 0:4 0:6
2000
103
104
3
105
106
445
s
qfy
0:566
6 0:3
fc
fc
vu
107
vu
fc
2:5
qfy
108
fc
For normalized clamping forces between 0.075 and 0.270, corresponding to the middle branch of the trilinear formulation, the normalized ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface is given
by:
vu
0:56
fy
0:55q
fc0:385
fc
v u 3:80
fy
0:385 0:55q
fc
fc
fc
fc
MPa
109
psi
110
For normalized clamping forces equal or higher than 0.270, corresponding to the third and last branch of the trilinear formulation,
the normalized ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface
is given by:
vu
fc
0:3
111
446
cd
1:062R0:145
vm
cd
1:698R0:145
vm
in:
113
1:366R0:041
vm
mm
114
in:
115
ld
ld
ccoh
ccoh
cfr
1:560R0:041
vm
cfr
mm
112
3. From research to codes and standards
where cd is the design coefcient of cohesion; ld is the design coefcient of friction; Rvm is the Mean Valley Depth of the primary prole
of the surface; ccoh is the partial safety factor for the coefcient of
cohesion; cfr is the partial safety factor for the coefcient of friction.
The proposed expressions were obtained by adjusting a power
function to the experimental values of the coefcients of cohesion
and friction, determined for ve different surface conditions: left
as-cast; wire-brushing; sand-blasting; shot-blasting and handscrubbing or raking. Based in the coefcient of variation of both
coefcients, the authors propose the values of 2.6 and 1.2 for the
partial safety factors of the coefcients of cohesion and friction,
respectively.
The authors were the rst to propose partial safety factors for
the coefcients of cohesion and friction since these depend and
are highly inuenced by the characteristics of substrate material
and by the technician that perform the surface preparation or cast
the substrate.
For uniform interface surfaces, the roughness must be measured with a minimum accuracy of 10 micrometer; then, the Mean
Valley Depth (Rvm) has to be determined, taken as the average value
obtained considering at least ten 2D primary proles.
Based in the shear-friction provisions of Eurocode 2 [4], the
authors propose that when no reinforcement crossing the interface
is provided, the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the concreteto-concrete interface is given by:
v u cd fctd 6 0:25f cd
116
v u ld rn qfy 6 0:25f cd
117
The proposed methodology is adequate for uniform interface surfaces, which are considered by the authors as those resulting from:
as-cast against steel, plastic or specially prepared wooden moulds;
slipformed or extruded surface; free surface left without further
treatment after vibration; or surfaces prepared by wire-brushing,
sandblasting, shot-blasting, water-blasting or other equivalent
methods. For other cases, such as non-uniform interface surfaces
obtained by raking or presenting indentations, the values of the
coefcients of cohesion and friction should be evaluated for each
specic case, i.e., for each interface geometry.
Santos and Jlio [55,56] also proposed several recommendations to ensure a successful interface design. The differential
shrinkage between both concrete parts should be taken into consideration in the design and evaluated on site for each specic
case. The inuence of temperature should also be considered in
design. The differential stiffness between both concrete parts
should be taken into consideration in the design. The Young modulus of the added concrete layer should never be taken smaller
than that of the substrate concrete. Other requirements should
be also satised. In cases where the joint can be signicantly
The literature review conducted by the authors, aiming to identify the contributions given by researchers for the assessment of
the longitudinal shear strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces
in the last ve decades, showed that several milestones could be
dened. These are referred to contributions that have a major signicance, such as the inclusion of new parameters, load transfer
mechanisms, assessment methodology, among others.
The authors identied the following six major contributions: (1)
the design expression proposed by Birkeland and Birkeland [21] is
recognized worldwide as the original shear-friction theory; (2)
Mattock and Hawkins [27] were the rst researchers to propose
the consideration of a term that represents the contribution of
cohesion, being their design expression known as the modied
shear-friction theory; (3) Loov [34] was the rst researcher to include the contribution of the concrete strength; (4) Walraven et al.
[38], based on an innovative sphere model, proposed a non-linear function to predict the shear strength of initially cracked interfaces; (5) Randl [44] that proposed a design expression that
explicitly includes the contribution of the three load carrying
mechanism: cohesion, friction and dowel action; although Tsoukantas and Tassios [42] were the rst researchers to study the
dowel action; and (6) Santos and Jlio [55,56] proposed an innovative methodology to quantify the inuence of the surface
roughness and to correlate it with the bond strength of the concrete-to-concrete interface.
A comparison of the six design expressions is presented in
Fig. 3. Since the surface preparation is considered in some proposals, namely Birkeland and Birkeland [21], Randl [44] and Santos
and Jlio [55,56], the shear strength is dened for the upper and
lower bounds of the design expressions, i.e. for the most roughened
and smoothest surfaces and not for specic conditions such as
smooth or rough. The remaining design expressions, namely Mattock and Hawkins [27], Loov [34] and Walraven et al. [38], are presented as a single curve since they are independent of the surface
preparation.
With this approach the authors aim to simplify the comparison
of the six design expressions. Moreover, to help in the comparison,
a typical situation is dened considering a concrete with a compressive strength of 25 MPa (3.6 ksi), assumed as the weakest concrete layer, and shear reinforcement steel with a yield stress of
400 MPa (58.0 ksi). All values are assumed as characteristics and
no safety factors were adopted.
The design expressions proposed by Loov [34] and Walraven
et al. [38] are very similar and present, in general, the highest value
for the shear strength of the interface. The expressions proposed by
Mattock and Hawkins [27], Birkeland and Birkeland [21] and Santos and Jlio [55,56] appear as a lower bound of the design expressions proposed by Loov [34] and Walraven et al. [38], being similar
to a bilinear approximation of the non-linear expressions proposed
by the latter researchers.
The inuence of the surface preparation is visible in the design
expression suggested by Santos and Jlio [55,56] and Birkeland and
Birkeland [21] but it is highly amplied by the design proposal of
Randl [44]. In fact, comparing the shear strength predicted using
the design expression proposed by the latter researcher for surfaces with different preparations smooth, sand-blasted and
water-blasted the difference is signicant. These differences reveal the signicance of the surface preparation in the bond
447
forcement was of 475 MPa (69.0 ksi). The most recent research
studies present reinforcement bars with a yield strength around
550 MPa (80.0 ksi).
Six milestones were identied. The research of Birkeland and
Birkeland [21], Mattock and Hawkins [27], Loov [34], Walraven
et al. [38], Tsoukantas and Tassios [42] and Randl [44] and, nally,
Santos and Jlio [5557], can be considered as some of the most
signicant and interesting contributions given to the development
of more accurate design expressions.
Current design codes [4,5] present some of the design expressions proposed by researchers and identied by the authors as major milestones. The recently published Model Code 2010 [2,3] also
includes shear-friction provisions based in recent research conducted by the authors [5557].
The main differences between design codes [110] are related
with the surface roughness classication, namely if it is very
smooth, smooth, rough or very rough or simply intentionally roughened or not and the coefcients of cohesion and friction assigned
to each category. This difference is also common to published
research.
The authors would like to highlight that, although being the
composite concrete member generally comprised by two concrete
layers of different age, the identied design expressions do not
consider the inuence of the curing conditions and the difference
between the concrete strength of both layers. Therefore, it can be
stated that differential shrinkage and differential stiffness are neglected in all the described expressions. Further research is necessary to assess the inuence of both parameters in the behaviour of
the concrete-to-concrete interface.
5. Conversion factors
1 mm = 0.039 in.
1 mm2 = 0.001550 in.2
1 MPa = 145 psi
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi
Acknowledgement
This research project has been funded by the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) with reference PTDC/
ECM/098497/2008.
References
[1] Model Code for concrete structures. Comit Euro-International du Bton,
Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990,
460 pp.
448
[2] Model Code 2010. First complete draft vol. 1. Comit Euro-International du
Bton, Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland,
2010, 318 pp.
[3] Model Code 2010. First complete draft vol. 2. Comit Euro-International du
Bton, Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland,
2010, 312 pp.
[4] EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2 design of concrete structures Part 1: General rules
and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Avenue
Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp. (with corrigendum of 16th
January 2008).
[5] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318M-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 473 pp.
[6] CAN/CSA A23.3. Design of concrete structures - structures design. Canadian
Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 1R3,
2004, 258 p.
[7] AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Ofcials, 4th edition, SI units edition, 2007, 1526
p.
[8] AASHTO standard specications for highway bridges. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Ofcials, 16th edition, 1996, 760 p.
[9] PCI design handbook. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 7th edition, 2010.
[10] BS 8110-1. Structural use of concrete. Part 1: Code of practice for design and
construction. London: British Standard Institute; 1997.
[11] Hsu TTC, Mau ST, Chen B. Theory of shear transfer strength of reinforced
concrete. ACI Struct J 1987;84(2):14960.
[12] Hwang SJ, Yu HW, Lee HJ. Theory of interface shear capacity of reinforced
concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 2000;126(6):7007.
[13] Gohnert M. Proposed theory to determine the horizontal shear between
composite precast and in situ concrete. Cement Concr Compos
2000;22(6):46976.
[14] Zilch K, Reinecke R. Capacity of shear joints between high-strength precast
elements and normal-strength cast-in-place decks. b International
symposium on high performance concrete. Orlando, USA, 2527 September
2000.
[15] Loov RE, Patnaik AK. Horizontal shear strength of composite concrete beams
with a rough interface. PCI J 1994;39(1):4869.
[16] Anderson AR. Composite designs in precast and cast-in-place concrete. Prog
Archit 1960;41(9):1729.
[17] Hanson NW. Precast-prestressed concrete bridges. 2. Horizontal shear
connections. Development Department Bulletin D35. Portland Cement Assoc
1960;2(2):3858.
[18] Mattock AH, Kaar PH. Precast-prestressed concrete bridges. 4. Shear tests of
continuous girders. J PCA R&D Lab 1961;3(1):1946.
[19] Saemann JC, Washa GW. Horizontal shear connections between precast beams
and cast-in-place slabs. J Am Concr Inst 1964;61(11):130983.
[20] Gaston JR, Kriz LB. Connections in precast concrete structures scarf joints. PCI
J 1964;9(3):3759.
[21] Birkeland PW, Birkeland HW. Connections in precast concrete construction. J
Am Concr Inst 1966;63(3):34568.
[22] Badoux JC, Hulsbos CL. Horizontal shear connection in composite concrete
beams under repeated loads. J Am Concr Inst 1967;64(12):8119.
[23] Birkeland HW. Precast and prestressed concrete. Class notes for
course. University of British Columbia, Spring; 1968.
[24] Patnaik AH. Horizontal shear strength of composite concrete beams with a
rough interface. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Canada, 1992, 263 p.
[25] Mast RF. Auxiliary reinforcement in precast concrete connections. ASCE J
Struct Div 1968;94(6):1485504.
[26] Hofbeck JA, Ibrahim IO, Mattock AH. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete. J Am
Concr Inst 1969;66(2):11928.
[27] Mattock AH, Hawkins NM. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete recent
research. PCI J 1972;17(2):5575.
[28] Mattock AH. Shear transfer in concrete having reinforcement at an angle to the
shear plane. American Concrete Institute. Special Publication 42-2, January
1974. p. 1742.
[29] Hermansen BR, Cowan J. Modied shear-friction theory for bracket design. J
Am Concr Ins 1974;71(2):5560.
[30] Mattock AH, Johal L, Chow HC. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete with
moment or tension acting across the shear plane. PCI J 1975;20(4):7693.
[31] Mattock AH, Li WK, Wang TC. Shear transfer in lightweight reinforced
concrete. PCI J 1976;21(1):2039.
[32] Raths CH. Reader comments of paper Design proposals for reinforced
concrete corbels, published in PCI Journal, MayJune 1976;21(3):1842, by
Mattock A. PCI J 1977;22(2):938.
[33] Shaikh AF. Proposed revisions to shear-friction provisions. PCI J
1978;23(2):1221.
[34] Loov RE. Design of precast connections. Paper presented at a seminar
organized by Compa International Pt., Ltd. Singapore, 1978, 8 p.
[35] Mattock AH. Cyclic shear transfer and type of interface. ASCE J Struct Div
1981;107(10):194564.
[36] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modied compression-eld theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. J Am Concr Inst 1986;83(2):21931.
[37] Walraven JC. Fundamental analysis of aggregate interlock. ASCE J Struct Div
1981;107(11):224570.
[38] Walraven J, Frnay J, Pruijssers A. Inuence of concrete strength and load
history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members. PCI J
1987;32(1):6684.
[39] Mattock AH. Reader comments of paper Inuence of concrete strength and
load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members published in
PCI Journal, JanuaryFebruary 1987;32(1):6684, by Walraven J, Frnay J,
Pruijssers A. PCI J 1988;33(1):1656.
[40] Mau S, Hsu T. Reader comments of paper Inuence of concrete strength and
load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members published in
PCI Journal, JanuaryFebruary 1987;32(1):6684, by Walraven J, Frnay J,
Pruijssers A. PCI J 1988;33(1):1658.
[41] Lin IJ, Chen YL. Shear transfer across a crack in reinforced high strength
concrete. In: Proceedings 2nd east AsiaPacic conference on structural
engineering & construction, Chiang Mai, Thailand, January, 1989. p. 50510.
[42] Tsoukantas SG, Tassios TP. Shear resistance of connections between reinforced
concrete linear precast elements. ACI Struct J 1989;86(3):2429.
[43] Mattock AH. Reader comments of paper Horizontal shear strength of
composite concrete beams with a rough interface published in PCI Journal,
JanuaryFebruary 1994;39(1):4869, by Loov RE, Patnaik AK. PCI J
1994;39(5):1068.
[44] Randl N. Investigations on transfer of forces between old and new concrete at
different joint roughness. PhD thesis, University of Innsbruck, 1997, 379 p. [in
German].
[45] ASTM E 965. Standard test method for measuring pavement macrotexture
depth using a volumetric technique. ASTM international, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2001.
[46] Ali MA, White RN. Enhanced contact model for shear friction of normal and
high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J 1999;96(3):34862.
[47] Valluvan R, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO. Evaluation of ACI 318-95 shear-friction
provisions. ACI Struct J 1999;96(4):47381.
[48] Patnaik AH. Reader comments of paper Evaluation of ACI 318-95 shearfriction provisions published in ACI Structural Journal, JulyAugust
1999;96(4):47383, by Valluvan R, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO. ACI Struct J
2000;97(3):52536.
[49] Mattock AH. Shear friction and high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J
2001;98(1):509.
[50] Patnaik AH. Behavior of composite concrete beams with smooth interface.
ASCE J Struct Eng 2001;127(4):35666.
[51] Kahn LF, Mitchell AD. Shear friction tests with high-strength concrete. ACI
Struct J 2002;99(1):98103.
[52] Papanicolaou CG, Triantallou TC. Shear transfer capacity along pumice
aggregate concrete and high-performance concrete interfaces. Mater Struct
2002;35(4):23745.
[53] Gohnert M. Horizontal shear transfer across a roughened surface. Cement
Concr Compos 2003;25(3):37985.
[54] Mansur MA, Vinayagam T, Tan KH. Shear transfer across a crack in reinforced
high-strength concrete. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 2008;20(4):294302.
[55] Santos PMD, Jlio ENBS. Factors affecting bond between new and old concrete.
ACI Mater J 2011;108(4):44956.
[56] Santos PMD, Jlio ENBS. Recommend improvements to current shear-friction
provisions of model code. In: 3rd b international congress, Washington, DC,
May 29June 02, 2010.
[57] Santos PMD, Jlio ENBS, Silva VD. Correlation between concrete-to-concrete
bond strength and the roughness of the substrate surface. Construct Build
Mater 2007;21(8):168895.