Clemson University

TigerPrints
All Dissertations Dissertations

12-2016

Interface Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete

Members: Code Evaluation, Modeling, and Testing
Mahmoodreza Soltani
Clemson University, msoltan@g.clemson.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations

Recommended Citation
Soltani, Mahmoodreza, "Interface Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete Members: Code Evaluation, Modeling, and Testing" (2016).
All Dissertations. 1819.
http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1819

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by
an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact awesole@clemson.edu.
INTERFACE SHEAR TRANSFER IN REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS:
CODE EVALUATION, MODELING, AND TESTING

A Dissertation
Presented to
the Graduate School of
Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Civil Engineering

by
Mahmoodreza Soltani
December 2016

Accepted by:
Dr. Brandon E. Ross, Committee Chair
Dr. Thomas E. Cousins, Committee Co-Chair
Dr. Weichiang Pang
Dr. Amin Khademi
 ABSTRACT

Transfer of shear forces across concrete-to-concrete interfaces is critical to the

strength of many reinforced concrete structures. One common example is the horizontal

interface between precast concrete girders and cast-in-place concrete bridge decks.

Composite action between the girder and deck, and thus bridge stiffness and strength,

relies on the capacity of the interface to transfer shear forces. This concept is explained

through Interface Shear Transfer (IST) theory. In this dissertation, trinary objectives are

presented to describe and scrutinize this theory. These objectives include evaluating the

current code-based IST models, creating a new IST model, and demonstrating a new

method for experimentally testing IST.

Firstly, a database of IST experiments on uncracked reinforced concrete

specimens was created from published test results. A total of 774 tests were reviewed,

with data coming from tests conducted between 1969 and 2014. Once compiled, the

database was used to evaluate the accuracy of the interface shear transfer provisions from

the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Eurocode 2, and CSA A23.3.

Through this evaluation it was determined that experimental capacities were an average

of 1.49, 1.93, and 2.83 times greater than the code-calculated nominal capacities for the

LRFD, Eurocode, and CSA codes, respectively. While each of the codes was

conservative on average, the degree of conservatism was found to be dependent on design

variables such as concrete compressive strength, amount of interface reinforcement, and

member size.

ii
 In the first phase of the dissertation, it was shown that current code-based IST

models produce inconsistent levels of accuracy for different values of design variables. In

the second phase, sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the variables having the

greatest impact on the IST capacity, and to create a design model that produces consistent

levels of accuracy. Using a database of experimental results, an Artificial Neural Network

(ANN) model was created to estimate IST strength and to perform a sensitivity analysis

of the design variables. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that compressive strength

was the most significant variable affecting IST capacity. A multiple linear-regression

analysis was also performed to aide in development of a new design model. Based on the

results of the sensitively analysis, the new model directly accounted for compressive

strength of concrete as one of the model variables. The model was strongly correlated

with the experimental data and produced consistent levels of accuracy for a range of

design variables.

Finally, IST test methods were scrutinized and a new IST test method was

proposed. Traditionally, IST capacity has been tested using a push-off test method, in

which direct shear is induced through compression loads placed at the ends of notched

test specimens. In this research, the 4-point bending test method, as proposed by

Iosipescu in 1967, was investigated to study IST. The 4-point bending test created direct

shear by strategically placing the supports and loads on a beam. It had the advantages of

using test specimens that were easier to assemble. Additionally, it produced a more

uniform stress state at the interface compared to the interface stress distribution of the

push-off test, making the 4-point bending test a better representation of the stress state at

iii
cast-in-place deck and bridge girder connections. In this study, these two test methods

were compared and contrasted through an experimental program along with analytical

modeling. The conditions in which the proposed test method was an acceptable

alternative for the push-off method were identified.

iv
 DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my kind mother, Fatemeh Pahlavani, and my

supportive father, Nosratollah Soltani, for their unreserved dedication to my success.

Without their loving support, I could not have made it this far or written this dissertation.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to wholehearted thank my advisors, Dr. Brandon E. Ross and

Dr. Thomas E. Cousins, for their continuous and patient support of my PhD study. Their

guidance greatly improved the quality of my research and led to the writing of this

dissertation. In addition to my advisors, I also would like to thank the rest of my PhD

committee, Dr. Weichiang Pang and Dr. Amin Khademi, for their helpful comments and

guidance.

Glenn Department of Civil Engineering lab supervisor Daniel Metz, his crew, and

also Clemson University graduate students Luay Abo-Alarab, Indika Mapa, Sachin

Sreedhara, Shreyas Indurkar, and Mikayla Bladow are gratefully acknowledged for their

assistance during experimental phase of this dissertation.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank my parents for helping me realize my

potential by emotionally supporting me in the writing of this dissertation and in my life in

general.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

Interface Shear Transfer ........................................................................... 1

Research Objective and Scope ................................................................. 3
Dissertation Organization ........................................................................ 4
References ................................................................................................ 5

II. DATABASE EVALUATION OF INTERFACE SHEAR TRANSFER IN

REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS .............................................. 6

Introduction .............................................................................................. 6
Research Significance .............................................................................. 7
Background .............................................................................................. 8
Code Provisions for Interface Shear Transfer ........................................ 11
Interface Shear Transfer Database ......................................................... 17
Filtering Processes ................................................................................. 17
Code-Specific Database Characteristics ................................................ 20
Evaluation of Codes ............................................................................... 21
Overall Evaluation ................................................................................. 22
Detailed Evaluation ................................................................................ 25
Summary and Conclusions .................................................................... 31
Notation.................................................................................................. 34
References .............................................................................................. 35

vii
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page

III. A STATISTICAL APPROACH TO REFINE DESIGN CODES FOR

INTERFACE SHEAR TRANSFER IN REINFORCED CONCRETE
STRUCTURES ...................................................................................... 42

Introduction ............................................................................................ 42
Background ............................................................................................ 44
Interface Shear Transfer Database ......................................................... 48
Evaluation Using Artificial Neural Network ......................................... 49
Proposed Interface Shear Transfer Model ............................................. 53
Summary and Conclusions .................................................................... 62
Notation.................................................................................................. 64
References .............................................................................................. 65

IV. EVALUATION OF A 4-POINT BENDING TEST METHOD FOR

INTERFACE SHEAR TRANSFER IN CONCRETE MEMBERS ...... 69

Introduction ............................................................................................ 69
Background ............................................................................................ 71
Analytical Program ................................................................................ 75
Experimental Program ........................................................................... 79
Summary and Conclusions .................................................................... 88
References .............................................................................................. 89

V. SUMMARY AND CONTRIBUTIONS ...................................................... 92

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 96

APPENDIX A: List OF REFERENCES FOR THE ACI DATABASE PAPER AND

DATABASE EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 97

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Chapter 2

Table 1- Factors for LRFD ............................................................................................ 13

Table 2- Factors for Eurocode ...................................................................................... 15

Table 3- Factors for CSA ............................................................................................... 16

Table 4- Distributions of experimental variables in code-specific databases ............... 21

Table 5-Summary of code comparisons ......................................................................... 24

Table 6- Bin evaluation of experimental variables ........................................................ 28

Chapter 3

Table 1- The range of input parameters ........................................................................ 50

Table 2- Coefficients of the proposed model ................................................................. 55

Table 3- Statistical parameters of the regression analysis ............................................ 56

Table 4- Results of the t-test for with and without reinforcement populations .............. 57

Table 5- Comparison of the proposed model with the design codes ............................. 59

Chapter 4

Table 1- Test matrix of experimental program .............................................................. 79

Table 2-Material properties ........................................................................................... 81

Chapter 5

Table 1- Key findings and significance of different phases in this study ....................... 93

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Chapter 1

Fig. 1- Interface shear transfer between precast girder and cast-in-place ..................... 1

Fig. 2- Interface Shear Transfer, saw-tooth model (after Santos and Jlio 2012 [1]).... 2

Fig. 3- Iosipescu V-Notched 4-point bending test method ............................................... 4

Fig. 4- Conventional IST test method, Push-Off .............................................................. 4

Chapter 2

Fig. 1- Interface shear transfer between precast girder and cast-in-place deck............. 7

Fig. 2- Interface Shear Transfer (after Santos and Julio [35]) ....................................... 9

Fig. 3- Filtering process of the database ....................................................................... 18

Fig. 4- Test methods ....................................................................................................... 19

Fig. 5- Distributions of interface shear transfer strength ratio ..................................... 23

Fig. 6- Interface shear transfer strength ratios compared to experimental variables .. 27

Fig. 7- Interface shear transfer strength ratios compared to concrete unit weight and
surface roughness. Boxes indicate the upper and lower quartile of scatter, whiskers
indicate the range. ......................................................................................................... 30

Chapter 3

Fig. 1- Interface shear transfer between precast girder and cast-in-place deck........... 42

Fig. 2- Interface Shear Transfer, saw-tooth model (after Santos and Jlio 20125) ...... 45

Fig. 3- Schematic of ANN model.................................................................................... 51

Fig. 4- ANN performance for the entire database (1 kip= 4.448 kN) ........................... 51

Fig. 5- IST sensitivity analysis using ANN model .......................................................... 52

x
List of Figures (Continued)

Figure Page

Fig. 6- Multiple linear-regression performance of the proposed (1 kip= 4.448 kN) .... 56

Fig. 7- IST strength ratios compared to experimental variables. .................................. 58

Fig. 8- Comparison of the performance of the proposed model (PM) and LRFD, EC,
and CSA through moving average of datasets ............................................................... 60

Fig. 9- Percentage of unconservative results for different SAF. ................................... 62

Chapter 4

Fig. 1-Interface shear transfer between precast girder and cast-in-place deck............ 70

Fig. 2- Conventional IST test method, push-off ............................................................. 70

Fig. 3- V-Notched Iosipescu 4-point bending test method ............................................. 71

Fig. 4-Saw-tooth model (after Santos and Julio [4])..................................................... 72

Fig. 5- Interface shear transfer test methods ................................................................. 74

Fig. 6- Horizontal set-up of the Push-Off test................................................................ 74

Fig. 7- Meshing, boundary condition, and loading configuration of analytical program,

VN model (left) and PO model (right) ........................................................................... 76

Fig. 8- Shear stress (left) and normal stress (right) for PO vs. VN ............................... 77

Fig. 9- Mesh convergence study of Shear stress (left) and normal stress (right) for PO vs.
VN (the squares show the point used to conduct the convergence study) ..................... 78

Fig. 10- Nomenclature of test specimens ....................................................................... 80

Fig. 11- Loading configuration of experimental program, VN test (left) and PO test
(right) ............................................................................................................. 81

Fig. 12- Installment configuration of string pods, VN test (left) and PO test (right) .... 82

Fig. 13- Reinforcement plan of experimental program, VN (left) and PO (right)......... 83

xi
List of Figures (Continued)

Figure Page

Fig. 14- Stiffeners attached to the PO specimens .......................................................... 84

Fig. 15- Results of the experimental program ............................................................... 85

Fig. 16- Interface shear versus interface horizontal slip graphs................................... 86

Fig. 17- Binding in the smooth interface of VN tests and application of normal force . 87

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Interface Shear Transfer

Transfer of shear forces across concrete-to-concrete interfaces is critical to the

strength of many Reinforced Concrete (hereafter referred to as RC) structures. The

horizontal interface between precast concrete girders and cast-in-place concrete bridge

decks is an example of a situation where this concept must be considered (Fig. 1). A

bridges superstructure is usually built in two phases. Firstly, the girders are placed, and

the bridge deck is constructed over them. Transfer of the shear force from the deck to the

girders plays an important role for load-carrying capacity of the structure. Composite

action between the girder and deck, and thus bridge stiffness and strength, relies on the

capacity of the interface to transfer shear forces. The Interface Shear Transfer (Hereafter

referred to as IST) theory explains the concept.

Fig. 1- Interface shear transfer between precast girder and cast-in-place deck

1
 Shear forces are carried across concrete-to-concrete interfaces through three

mechanisms including: 1) shear-friction, 2) cohesion between concrete surfaces, and 3)

dowel action of reinforcement [1],[2]. The shear-friction concept was initially proposed

by Mast (1968)[3] and Birkeland and Birkeland (1966)[4] to explain shear force transfer

across cracks in RC members. Shear-friction can be explained using a saw-tooth model

[1], as illustrated in Fig. 2. Shear force causes horizontal displacement, h, between two

concrete surfaces. The horizontal displacement is accompanied by vertical displacement,

v, due to concrete interlock. Vertical displacement causes tension in steel reinforcement

crossing the interface; this tension results in a clamping force and friction along the

interface. Cohesion is the bond between concrete interface surfaces. Dowel action is due

to the direct shear resistance of the reinforcement crossing the interface. When load is

small shear force is resisted almost exclusively through cohesion. However, at higher

loads cracks form as cohesion is broken, and forces are carried through a combination of

shear-friction and dowel action [1].

Interface
Reinforcement Concrete
Layer 2

Concrete
Layer 1

Fig. 2- Interface Shear Transfer, saw-tooth model (after Santos and Jlio 2012 [1])

2
Research Objective and Scope

This research is conducted in three phases. First, among all the research on the

IST, there has been no comprehensive database that can be used to compare and validate

design models. Such a database is created in the current research and is used to evaluate

the IST provision of design codes including AASHTO LRFD 2014 [5], Eurocode 2 2004

[6], CSA A23 2014 [7]. The accuracy, coefficient of variation, consistency level of

accuracy of each code are scrutinized across the range of design variables including the

compressive strength of concrete, reinforcement index, and interface cross-section area.

Potential issues and limitations of the current codes are identified and discussed.

In the second phase, a sensitivity analysis using Artificial Neural Networks

(Hereafter referred to as ANNs) is conducted to elucidate the relation of variables to

IST capacity. The analysis is also used to determine the most influential variables

affecting IST capacity. Subsequent to the sensitivity analysis, multiple-linear regression

analysis is used to create a new IST design model. The proposed model is more accurate

and consistent in comparison with the aforementioned design codes.

In the third phase, this research evaluated the Iosipescu V-Notched 4-point

bending test (Fig. 3) [8] for testing IST. This test is compared and contrasted with the

more conventional push-off method (Fig. 4). Experimental and numerical analyses are

used to compare and contrast these two test methods. The experimentation pros and cons

in addition to the observed specimen behavior of these two test methods are presented.

3
 Fig. 3- Iosipescu V-Notched 4-point bending test method

Fig. 4- Conventional IST test method, Push-Off

Dissertation Organization

In this dissertation, Chapters 2, 3, and 4 are written as stand-alone technical

papers. Chapter 2 corresponds to the first phase of the research. In this chapter the results

of experimental studies on interface shear transfer available in literature are reviewed and

are compiled into a database. Evaluations of AASHTO LRFD 2014, Eurocode 2 2004,

4
and CSA A23 2014 specifications for IST are also presented. Chapter 3 corresponds to

the second phase of the research, and presents a sensitivity analysis and also proposes a

new IST model. Chapter 4 describes the third phase of research. Comparison results of

two IST test methods are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains conclusions and

recommendations of the study.

References

[1] P. M. Santos and E. N. Jlio, A state-of-the-art review on shear-friction,

Engineering Structures, vol. 45, pp. 435448, 2012.

[2] R. Jimenez-Perez, P. Gergely, and R. N. White, Shear transfer across cracks in

reinforced concrete, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (USA), 1978.

[3] R. F. Mast, Auxiliary reinforcement in concrete connections, Journal of the

Structural Division, 1968.

[4] P. W. Birkeland and H. W. Birkeland, Connections in precast concrete

construction, in ACI journal, Proceedings, 1966, vol. 63, pp. 345367.

[5] AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th ed., AASHTO,

2014.

[6] British Standards Institution, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, in

Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, 2004.

[7] Canadian Standard Association, CSA Standard A23.3-14, Canadian Standard

Association, 2014.

[8] N. Iosipescu, New accurate procedure for single shear testing of metals, J MATER,

vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 537566, 1967.

5
 CHAPTER TWO

DATABASE EVALUATION OF INTERFACE SHEAR TRANSFER IN

REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERSi

INTRODUCTION

Transfer of shear forces across concrete-to-concrete interfaces is critical to the

strength of many reinforced concrete structures. One common example is the horizontal

interface between precast concrete girders and cast-in-place concrete bridge decks (Fig.

1). Composite action between the girder and deck, and thus bridge stiffness and strength,

relies on the capacity of the interface to transfer shear forces.

The objective of this paper is to evaluate code-based interface shear transfer

design procedures through comparison with a database of experimental tests. The

database was created from test results published in North America and Europe. Three

codes were evaluated: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (hereafter

"LRFD")1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures (hereafter "EC")2, and CSA

A23.3: Design of Concrete Structures (hereafter "CSA")3.

This paper adds to the growing number of studies using databases to evaluate

code provisions for the shear capacity of reinforced and prestressed concrete

members4,5,6. Similar to previous works, the current paper also elucidates the

conservatism and accuracy of design codes, and identifies conditions for which the codes

may be unconservative. The paper also identifies the bias and coefficient of variation in

i
Soltani, M. and Ross, B. E., Interface Shear Transfer Database for Uncracked Concrete Members, ACI
Structural Journal, in press, 2016.

6
the codes, values which can be used by other researchers in performing reliability

analyses involving interface shear transfer.

Fig. 1-Interface shear transfer between precast girder and cast-in-place deck

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

The motivation and objective of this paper is to benchmark the accuracy of

current interface shear transfer code provisions and to identify possible unconservative

design scenarios. Technical contributions are threefold. First, this paper presents and

documents a newly created database of interface shear transfer experiments in uncracked

concrete members. Second, this paper evaluates the overall conservatism and accuracy of

each of the three mentioned codes. Finally, this paper evaluates the relationship of

different variables to the conservatism -or lack thereof- inherent in each code; conditions

that may result in unconservative calculations are identified. The database and analyses

7
will provide a ledge for future research on improving code provisions, and for future

reliability studies of structures utilizing interface shear transfer.

BACKGROUND

Shear friction

In 1960s, the shear friction concept was proposed to explain shear force transfer

across cracks in reinforced concrete members7,8. The concept is based on a saw-tooth

model as shown in Fig. 2a. Shear force causes horizontal displacement, h, between two

concrete surfaces. Because of aggregate interlock the horizontal displacement is

accompanied by vertical displacement, v. Vertical displacement leads to tension in steel

reinforcement crossing the crack; this tension results in a clamping force on the interface.

In shear friction theory, capacity is equal to the clamping force multiplied by a friction

coefficient.

Using the concept described in Fig. 2a, researchers have proposed methods for

calculating shear strength across different types of concrete interfaces such as between

precast and cast-in-place elements, at cold joints, between existing and repaired elements,

and at cracks9,10. These efforts led to shear friction provisions being introduced in 1977

edition of ACI 31811. Shear friction provisions in the 2014 edition of ACI 31812 are

similar to those first introduced in 1977.

Interface shear transfer

The shear friction concept used in ACI 318 is based on force transfer across an

existing or assumed crack. Strength and behavior of initially uncracked specimens differ

from those with preexisting cracks. Tests have shown that uncracked specimens can have

8
approximately 10% to 100% more capacity than similar specimens with preexisting

cracks (e.g. 10,13).

(a) Saw-tooth model (b) Mechanics

Fig. 2- Interface Shear Transfer (after Santos and Julio [35])

In contrast with the shear friction concept, Hsu et al.14 proposed an interface shear

transfer concept based on a truss model, wherein failure occurs by crushing of concrete

struts. Hwang and Gohnert proposed similar models and applied them to both cracked

and uncracked shear planes15,16. In the current paper the term interface shear transfer is

used to denote shear transfer across interfaces that are not initially cracked. An example

of an uncracked interface would be the aforementioned connection between precast

girders and cast-in-place composite bridge decks.

Shear friction is one of three different mechanisms that transfer shear forces

across uncracked interfaces in reinforced concrete members. The mechanisms include: 1)

shear friction (as previously explained), 2) cohesion between concrete surfaces across the

interface, and 3) dowel action from reinforcement that crosses the interface17,18. The

relative contributions of these components vary based on the magnitude of the applied

9
shear force and the degree of slip displacement occurring between the interfaces (Fig.

2b)17,18. At low load levels the shear force is resisted almost exclusively through

cohesion. At higher loads cracks form at the interface, cohesion is broken, and forces are

carried through a combination of shear-friction and dowel action.

The interface shear transfer concept is the basis of provisions in LRFD, EC, and

CSA. These codes consider the contributions from cohesion and friction; contributions

from dowel action are not explicitly considered. Details of the codes are provided later in

the paper.

Previous database studies

Mattock19 created a database of 192 pre-cracked specimens from 10 experimental

studies. Specimens were categorized according to unit weight of concrete, load type

(cyclic, sustained, and static), and interface roughness. It was concluded that the shear

friction provisions of ACI 318-9920 unnecessarily limited the benefits of high strength

concrete. Equations were proposed for determining an upper-limit shear friction

capacity; application of these equations allows the beneficial effects of high strength

concrete on shear friction capacity to be realized. These equations were included in the

200221 and subsequent editions of the ACI 318 code.

A database of 537 tests were collected by Lang22 to evaluate the LRFD interface

shear transfer provisions. The study focused on concrete weight and interface surface

treatments. Results indicated that the reliability index for the LRFD interface shear

provisions is lower than the desired target reliability index of 3.5. The reliability index is

a measure of the likelihood of a failure; higher reliability indexes denote less probability

10
of failure. Lang concluded that improved equations are needed for calculating interface

shear capacity. The study considered both pre-cracked and uncracked specimens and did

not consider the minimum interface reinforcement provisions from LRFD. The current

paper is distinct from Langs work in that it includes updated test data, focuses

exclusively on uncracked reinforced specimens, considers LRFD minimum

reinforcement requirements, and includes evaluations of EC and CSA.

To investigate interface shear transfer in lightweight concrete, Sneed and Shaw23

created a database of 300 specimens from eight experimental studies. Normal weight,

sand-lightweight, and all-lightweight concretes were considered. The database was

compared to provisions in both the PCI Design Handbook24 and the ACI 318-11 code. It

was concluded that concrete unit weight does not affect shear friction and interface shear

transfer strengths.

CODE PROVISIONS FOR INTERFACE SHEAR TRANSFER

LRFD

Provisions for interface shear strength are contained in section 5.8.4 of LRFD1.

Nominal capacity is based on cohesion between the interface surfaces and by friction that

results from reinforcement crossing the interface.

The nominal interface shear resistance (Eq. 5.8.4.1-3) is given by:

(1)

where c is the cohesion factor, is the area of concrete considered to be engaged in

interface shear transfer, is the friction factor, is the area of interface shear

11
reinforcement crossing the shear plane within the area , is the yield stress of

reinforcement but design value not exceed 414 MPa (60 ksi), and is the permanent net

compressive force normal to the shear plane.

The nominal interface shear resistance calculated by Equation (1) is limited to the

lesser of:

(2)

(3)

where is the fraction of concrete strength available to resist interface shear, is the

specified 28-day compressive strength of the weaker concrete on either side of the

interface and is the limiting interface shear resistance. Specified compressive strength

must be greater than 16.55 MPa (2.4 ksi). The resistance factor for shear ( ) is 0.8 for

lightweight concrete and 0.9 for normal weight concrete.

The factors c, , , and are presented in LRFD Section 5.8.4.3 and are listed

in Table 1. According to the commentary in LRFD, these values were derived from

multiple experimental studies9,13,19,25,26,27,28.

12
 Table 1-Factors for LRFD
Condition c (ksi) K1 K2 (ksi)

Cast-in-place concrete slab on clean concrete girder 1.8 NWC

surfaces, free of laitance, surface roughened to an 0.28 1 0.3
amplitude of 6 mm 1.3 LWC

Normal-weight concrete placed monolithically 0.4 1.4 0.25 1.5

Lightweight concrete placed monolithically, or non-

monolithically, against a clean concrete surface, free of 0.24 1 0.25 1
laitance, surface roughened to an amplitude of 6 mm

Normal-weight concrete placed against a clean concrete

surface, free of laitance, with surface intentionally 0.24 1 0.25 1.5
roughened to an amplitude of 6 mm

Concrete placed against a clean concrete surface, free of

0.075 0.6 0.2 0.8
laitance, but not intentionally roughened
Concrete anchored to as-rolled structural steel by headed
studs or by reinforcing bars where all steel in contact with 0.025 0.7 0.2 0.8
concrete is clean and free of paint

LRFD requires that a minimum area of reinforcement cross concrete-to-concrete

interfaces. Minimum area of interface reinforcement, , is given as:

(4)

Equation (4) is not dimensionally consistent. The value for must be input in

in2 or cm2, and the value for must be input in ksi or MPa. Units for the resulting value

for minimum reinforcement are then taken as cm2 (if US Customary units are used, in2).

13
EC

Provisions for shear capacity at the interface between concrete cast at different

times is presented in section 6.2.5 of EC2. Shear capacity due to cohesion and friction are

considered. The provisions are stress-based. Shear stress capacity of an interface ( )

is given by:

(5)

where is the design tensile strength of concrete; is the stress per unit area caused

by the minimum external normal force across the interface that can act simultaneously

with the shear force, positive for compression, such that ; is the design

yield strength of reinforcement, not more than 600 MPa (87.02 ksi); is the cross

sectional area of reinforcement; is the area of the interface; is the angle between

concrete interface and interface reinforcement; and is the design value of concrete

compressive strength. and are factors that depend on the roughness of the interface;

values are listed in Table 2. The strength reduction factor, , is given by:

(6)

where is the characteristic compressive cylinder strength (in MPa) of concrete at 28

days in range of 12 MPa (1.74 ksi) to 90 MPa (13.05 ksi).

14
 Table 2-Factors for Eurocode
Condition C
Very smooth interface roughness condition; A surface cast against steel,
0.025 0.5
plastic or specially prepared wooden molds.
Smooth interface roughness condition; A slip-formed or extruded
0.2 0.6
surface, or a free surface left without further treatment after vibration.
Rough interface condition; A surface with at least 3 mm roughness at
about 40 mm spacing, achieved by ranking, exposing of aggregate or 0.4 0.7
other methods giving an equivalent behavior.
Indented interface condition; A surface with indentations complying
more than 3 mm roughness and also depth of groove should be more
0.5 0.9
than 5 mm and width of groove should be more than 10 times of the its
depth.

CSA

The interface shear transfer model in CSA3 considers shear resistance by cohesion

and by friction. As with EC, interface shear transfer provisions in CSA are stress-based.

The following equation for interface shear resistance is given in section 11.5:

(7)

where is 1.00 for normal-weight and 0.75 lightweight concrete; area of shear-

friction reinforcement; is the area of concrete section resisting shear transfer; is the

specified yield strength of non-prestressed reinforcement or anchor steel, not more than

500 MPa (72.52 ksi); and is the angle between shear friction reinforcement and shear

plane. The cohesion and friction factors, and , are listed in Table 3. The resistance

factor for concrete, , is 0.65, and the resistance factor for non-prestressed reinforcing

bars, , is 0.85. Minimum compressive strength of concrete allowed by the design code

is 19.99 MPa (2.9 ksi). The compressive stress on the interface, , is calculated as:

15
 (8)

where is the unfactored permanent load perpendicular to the shear plane.

Table 3-Factors for CSA

c
Condition
(MPa)
For concrete placed against hardened concrete with the surface
0.25 0.6
clean but not intentionally roughened
For concrete placed against hardened concrete with the surface
clean and intentionally roughened to a full amplitude of at least 5 0.5 1
mm
For concrete placed monolithically 1 1.4
For concrete anchored to as-rolled structural steel by headed
0 0.6
studs or by reinforcing bars.

Additional code considerations

LRFD, EC, and CSA are similar in that they each consider interface shear

resistance to be a combination of cohesion and friction components. The factors used to

weight these components, however, are different in each code. For example, cohesion is

assumed to have a greater share of shear resistance in LRFD in comparison to the other

codes (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). Differences are also noted in the friction coefficients

( used in each code.

LRFD requires a minimum amount of shear reinforcement across interfaces

(Equation 4). The other two codes do not contain such a requirement. Limits on material

properties are also different for each code. The maximum reinforcement yield strength

for design is 414 MPa (60 ksi), 600 MPa (87.02 ksi), and 500 MPa (72.52 ksi) for LRFD,

EC, and CSA, respectively. Additionally, minimum allowed concrete compressive

16
strength for LRFD, EC, CSA are 16.55 MPa (2.4 ksi), 12 MPa (1.74 ksi), and 19.99 MPa

(2.9 ksi), respectively.

Treatment of strength reduction factors is different in each code. LRFD uses a

single reduction factor based on concrete unit weight. EC has a safety factor applied

within the design tensile strength of concrete ( ) and a reduction factor that is also

applied within the maximum limit allowed for interface shear stress (see Equation 5).

CSA has separate reduction factors for the concrete and reinforcement contributions (see

Equation 7).

INTERFACE SHEAR TRANSFER DATABASE

Data from experimental tests of reinforced concrete specimens with uncracked

interfaces were gathered through a literature search. A total of 774 specimens from 25

references were reviewed. Among them 220, 311, and 383 tests were identified for use in

evaluating LRFD, EC, and CSA, respectively. Details of the individual specimens are

listed in the Appendix. The filtering process used to identify applicable data for each

code is discussed below.

Filtering Processes

The filtering process was conducted in two stages. The first phase excluded

specimens that are not relevant to interface shear transfer. The second phase was used to

create code-specific databases for LRFD, EC, and CSA. In this manner each code was

evaluated using specimens that are consistent with its unique requirements. For example,

the LRFD database only included specimens that satisfy the minimum reinforcement

limit; EC and CSA have no such limit and their databases include specimens without

17
reinforcement. Because each code is evaluated using a unique database, comparisons

between codes are not warranted.

The filtering process is diagramed in Fig. 3. In the initial phase of filtering the

primary reason for excluding specimens was that they were pre-cracked. Pre-cracked

specimens are applicable for comparison with design codes such as ACI-318 (2014)12

that are based exclusively on shear-friction and assume a crack has formed at the

interface plane. The aforementioned paper by Mattock19 compared the shear friction

provisions of ACI with a database of pre-cracked specimens.

Fig. 3- Filtering process of the database

Type of test method was also a common reason for exclusion; only those methods

relevant to interface shear design provisions were included. Test methods used in the

18
referenced papers are shown in Fig. 4. Splitting tests were excluded because they do not

create shear forces along an interface; corbel tests because they induce both shear and

moment; and pull-off tests because they rely on reinforcement parallel and near the

interface to transfer tensile forces to the concrete. Push-off, incline shear, and beam

specimens were included in the database. Other reasons for exclusion included failure

modes other than interface shear failure, unidentified interface roughness condition, and

presence of grout at the interface. The initial filtering process reduced the number of

specimens to 428.

(a) Splitting (b) Corbel with moment (c) Pull-off

(a) Push-off (e) Slant-shear (f) Beam

Fig. 4-Test methods

19
 For the LRFD database, the secondary filtering removed 178 specimens that had

less than minimum reinforcement (Equation 4), and 30 specimens with compressive

strength lower than the 16.6 MPa (2.4 ksi) limit. The final database for LRFD had a total

of 220 specimens.

In EC monolithic concrete is not included as a part of interface shear transfer.

Accordingly, 76 monolithic specimens were removed from the EC database during

secondary filtering. Also, 43 specimens with compressive strength lower than 12 MPa

(1.74 ksi) were removed. The final database for EC had 311 specimens.

For the CSA database, the secondary filtering removed 45 specimens with compressive

strengths lower than 20 MPa (2.9 ksi). The final database for CSA had a total of 383

specimens.

Code-Specific Database Characteristics

The average compressive strength of concrete ( ) for LRFD, EC, and CSA code-

specific databases were 34.1 MPa (6.25 ksi), 37.83 MPa (5.48 ksi), and 39.38 MPa (5.71

ksi), respectively. Moreover, the average area of concrete interface ( ) for LRFD, EC,

and CSA code-specific databases were 776.30 cm2 (120.36 in2), 921.82 cm2 (142.92 in2),

and 908.04 cm2 (140.78 in2), respectively. Finally, the average interface reinforcement

index ( ) for LRFD, EC, and CSA code-specific databases were 44.49 MPa (6.45 ksi),

38.45 MPa (5.58 ksi), and 42.80 MPa (6.21 ksi), respectively. In cases where different

concretes were used in the same specimen, the lower strength was recorded in the

database. In the database, compressive strength of concrete is calculated based on

uniaxial compressive strength of cylinder specimens. In cases where cube strengths are

20
reported, they were converted to cylinder strengths using relations in EC2. The

reinforcement index provides a measure of the amount and strength of reinforcement

crossing the interface, where is defined as:

(9)

Table 4 presents details of the final databases for each code including interface

roughness condition, concrete weight, test method, and failure mode. In some cases,

specimens had normal weight and lightweight concrete on opposite sides of the interface.

Such specimens were considered lightweight in Table 4 and in the code comparisons.

Table 4- Distributions of experimental variables in code-specific databases

Parameters LRFD EC CSA

(220 tests), % (311 tests), % (383 tests), %
Concrete LWC 32 18 23
weight NWC 68 82 77
Monolithic 29 0 19
Interface Smooth 22 20 16
condition Roughened<6mm 0* 27 33
Roughened6mm 49 53 32
Failure Interface 40 73 64
mode Substrate 41 27 36
Not specified 19 0 0
Test type Push-off 88 61 89
Beam 9 37 2
Slant-shear 3 2 9
*Per section 5.8.4.3 of LRFD, roughness amplitudes less than 6mm are considered as
smooth.

EVALUATION OF CODES

The experimental-to-nominal interface shear capacity ratio (hereafter strength

ratio), , was calculated for each specimen in the final database to evaluate the

21
conservatism of each design code. The average strength ratio is the bias between the

nominal and experimental capacities. Values of strength ratio greater than 1.0 indicate

that the code-calculated capacity is conservative relative to the experimental capacity.

The coefficient of variation (COV) of the strength ratios was also calculated for each

code. COV provides a measure of how consistently a given code produces a level of

conservatism. As the degree of consistency increases, the COV decreases.

To provide a frame of reference for evaluating the interface shear transfer code

provisions it is helpful to consider strength ratio and COV for other shear provisions in

the building codes. The rationale for this comparison is that interface shear capacity

calculations should provide a similar level of conservatism as other code-based nominal

shear strengths. Strength ratios (bias factors) for shear capacity of prestressed beams

have been reported as 1.14 to 1.30 with COV of 0.14 to 0.2029,30,31,32,33. Thus the interface

shear transfer provisions of LRFD, EC, and CSA are more conservative than prestressed

beam shear capacity calculations when they have strength ratios greater than 1.30, and

are less consistent when they have COV greater than 0.20. Additionally, the NCHRP

Report #733, using the shear transfer provision of LRFD, reported the bias factor of 1.27

and 1.16 with COV of 0.23 and 0.19 for light weight and normal weight concretes,

respectively34.

Nominal capacities were calculated using the tested yield strength of

reinforcement up until the code-based upper limits. Tested concrete strengths were used

in the calculations. Capacities with and without strength reduction factors were

calculated.

22
 Each design code was assessed based on its own unique database, wherein all

specimens satisfied the specific requirements of the given code. Thus, results from the

different codes are not compared to each other.

Overall Evaluation

Results of the code evaluations are summarized in Table 5 and Fig. 5. In general,

the interface shear transfer provisions of LRFD, EC, and CSA are more conservative than

code provisions for beam shear, which is desirable, because they also produce less

consistent levels of conservatism than the beam shear provisions. Overall observations of

the individual codes are discussed below.

LRFD: The average strength ratio of LRFD was 1.49 and the COV of the

strength ratio was 0.38. Although not as consistent as beam-shear provisions, the LRFD

code produced relatively consistent levels of conservatism across the LRFD database.

This result can also be qualitatively observed in the histograms shown in Fig. 5, wherein

strength ratios for LRFD have a relatively tight distribution around the mean.

Unconservative results occurred in 18 out of 220, or 8.2% of tests.

(a) LRFD (220 tests) (b) EC (311 tests) (c) CSA (383 tests)
Fig. 5-Distributions of interface shear transfer strength ratio

23
 Table 5-Summary of code comparisons
(a) No reduction factor applied
LRFD EC CSA
Number of tests 220 311 383
Minimum strength ratio 0.59 0.62 0.55
Maximum strength ratio 3.87 4.54 21.7
Mean strength ratio 1.49 1.93 2.83
Strength ratio standard deviation 0.57 0.71 2.28
Strength ratio COV 0.38 0.37 0.80
Unconservative cases 18 16 29
Unconservative % 8.2% 5.1% 7.6%
(b) Reduction factor of design codes applied
LRFD EC CSA
Number of tests 220 311 383
Minimum strength ratio 0.74 0.66 0.56
Maximum strength ratio 4.40 6.81 21.7
Mean strength ratio 1.85 2.49 4.00
Strength ratio standard deviation 0.67 1.07 3.54
Strength ratio COV 0.36 0.43 0.88
Unconservative cases 4 5 9
Unconservative % 1.8% 1.6% 2.3%

The results presented in Table 5 (b) are based on calculations using strength

reduction (i.e. resistance) factors. These results are useful for comparing the design

strength, which engineers calculate in practice. For LRFD, the strength reduction factors

resulted in a strength ratio of 1.85 and a COV of 0.36. Unconservative cases reduced to 4

cases, or 1.8% of the database.

EC: The average strength ratio of EC was 1.93, with a COV of 0.37.

Unconservative cases occurred in 16 out of 311 tests (5.1%). Minimum and maximum

strength ratios from the EC analyses were 0.62 and 4.54, respectively. When considering

24
the safety factor that is applied to the design tensile strength of concrete and the reduction

factor in the maximum limit for interface shear stress, the average strength ratio increased

to 2.49, with only five (1.6%) specimens having unconservative capacities.

CSA: The average strength ratio and COV of CSA were 2.83 and 0.80,

respectively. The relatively high COV indicates that conservatism of the CSA code was

inconsistent for the experimental data. Unconservative cases were observed in 29 out of

383 tests (7.6%). Applying CSA resistance factors to the calculated strengths, average

strength ratio was 4.0 and COV was 0.88. Unconservative results occurred in only 9

cases (2.3%) when the resistance factors were included in the analysis.

Detailed Evaluation

Fig. 6 presents the strength ratios for each code relative to different experimental

variables. Dashed lines in the figure are moving averages of the strength ratio. The

moving average gives an indication of the degree to which conservatism changes across

the range of a given variable. A flat line occurs when conservatism is consistent across

the range of values; steep lines occur when the degree of conservatism differs. For the

discussion presented in this paper, the degree of conservatism is based on the strength

ratio, with higher ratios indicating greater conservatism.

A bin analysis was also used to evaluate relationships between strength ratio and

specimen variables. The range of each variable was divided into four equally-spaced bins.

Table 6 reports the average strength ratio, COV, number of tests, number of

unconservative tests, and unconservative percentage for each bin. The bin analysis and

25
moving averages shown in Fig. 6 are based on the strength ratio without strength

reduction factors.

The effects of concrete unit weight and interface surface condition were also

studied, with the results shown using box-and-whiskers plots in Fig. 7. Data presented in

Fig. 7 does not consider the strength reduction factors.

LRFD: Referring to the moving average line in Fig. 6 it can be seen that LRFD

produced varying levels of conservatism across the range of concrete strengths in the

experimental data. Lower concrete strengths related to lower average strength ratios. This

can also be observed from the bin analysis, wherein the average strength ratio of concrete

compressive strength between 30 MPa (4.3 ksi) to 60 MPa (8.6 ksi) is 1.41, and 11% of

the specimens in the bin had unconservative results.

Both the moving average and the bin analysis suggest a slight downward trend in

conservatism as the interface area increases. The average strength ratio for the bin with

the smallest specimens (<750 cm2) was 1.57, whereas the strength ratio was 1.24 for the

bin with the largest specimens (>2250 cm2). This trend, however, is much less

pronounced than the trend observed for the compressive strength. No obvious trends are

noted with regard to reinforcement index.

26
 (a) LRFD (220 tests) (b) EC (311 tests) (c) CSA (383 tests)

Fig. 6-Interface shear transfer strength ratios compared to experimental variables

27
 Table 6- Bin evaluation of experimental variables
(a) LRFD
parameter , MPa (ksi) , MPa (ksi) , cm2 (in2)
<30 30 60 >90 <3 3 (0.4)- 6 (0.8)- >9 <750 750 1500 >2250
(4.3) (4.3)- (8.6)- (13.0) (0.4) 6 (0.8) 9 (1.2) (1.2) (116) (116)- (232)- (348)
60 90 1500 2250
(8.6) (13.0) (232) (348)
Average 1.29 1.41 2.51 1.65 1.53 1.50 1.41 1.62 1.57 1.44 1.29 1.24
Strength
ratio
COV 0.23 0.34 0.27 0.05 0.33 0.48 0.32 0.42 0.41 0.31 0.33 0.23
Tests 74 113 23 10 78 60 66 16 134 60 7 19
Uncons. 6 12 0 0 5 10 2 1 7 6 2 3
Tests
Uncons. 8.1 11 0.0 0.0 6.4 17 3.0 6.2 5.2 10 29 16
%
(b) EC
parameter , MPa (ksi) , MPa (ksi) , cm2 (in2)
<30 30 60 >90 <3 3 (0.4)- 6 (0.8)- >9 >750 750 1500 >2250
(4.3) (4.3)- (8.6)- (13.0) (0.4) 6 (0.8) 9 (1.2) (1.2) (116) (116)- (232)- (348)
60 90 1500 2250
(8.6) (13.0) (232) (348)
Average 2.16 1.67 2.30 - 2.15 1.66 1.37 1.24 1.89 2.02 1.79 1.72
Strength
ratio
COV 0.79 0.55 0.61 - 0.67 0.67 0.38 0.64 0.63 0.81 0.45 0.44
Tests 36.3 32.72 26.51 0 30.9 40.40 27.68 51.8 33.41 39.95 25.35 25.86
7 0 4
Uncons. 129 153 29 0 211 39 50 11 115 153 15 28
Tests
Uncons. 4 10 2 - 3 4 4 5 4 11 1 0
%
(c) CSA
parameter , MPa (ksi) , MPa (ksi) , cm2 (in2)
<30 30 60 >90 <3 3 (0.4)- 6 (0.8)- >9 >750 750 1500 >2250
(4.3) (4.3)- (8.6)- (13.0) (0.4) 6 (0.8) 9 (1.2) (1.2) (116) (116)- (232)- (348)
60 90 1500 2250
(8.6) (13.0) (232) (348)
Average 3.14 2.28 3.05 5.32 3.74 1.51 1.19 0.95 2.14 3.38 2.59 3.77
Strength
ratio
COV 0.88 0.72 0.46 0.19 0.65 0.25 0.19 0.32 1.25 0.50 0.27 0.59
Tests 174 164 33 12 241 60 66 16 170 172 13 28
Uncons. 13 16 0 0 0 7 11 11 21 8 0 0
Tests
Uncons. 7.5 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 7 69 12 4.7 0.0 0.0
%

28
 Fig. 7 shows distribution of strength ratios based on concrete weight and interface

roughness condition. Differences in average strength ratio based on concrete unit weight

are within the scatter of the data. The data shown in Fig. 7 are based on the different

factors proscribed in LRFD for light weight and normal weight concretes. Because of the

consistent strength ratios, it appears that LRFD adequately accounts for any effects of

concrete unit weight. For LRFD, smooth interfaces resulted in more conservative

capacities relative to monolithic and roughened surfaces (R6mm). The latter two have

approximately the same level of conservativism.

EC: Conservatism of the EC code varied across each of the variables presented in

Fig. 6. The only variable with a clear trend, however, was for the reinforcement index;

the strength ratio of EC was inversely related to the reinforcement index. Unreinforced

specimens had an average strength ratio of 2.59. The difference between unreinforced

and reinforced specimens accounts for the abrupt increase in average strength ratio as the

index approaches zero. The average strength ratio for reinforced specimens was 1.75,

with more heavily reinforced specimens resulting in smaller strength ratios (i.e. less

conservatism).

Referring to Fig. 7 it can be observed that the average strength ratio of light-weight

concrete specimens is higher than the ratio for normal weight; however the difference

was within the scatter of the data. In contrast to LRFD and CSA, EC does not treat for

light-weight concrete differently when calculating interface shear capacity. Fig. 7 also

shows that specimens having surfaces that are roughened to amplitudes of 6mm or less

resulted in larger degrees of conservatism than did other interface conditions.

29
 (a) LRFD (220 tests) (b) EC (311 tests) (c) CSA (383 tests)
Fig. 7-Interface shear transfer strength ratios compared to concrete unit weight and

surface roughness. Boxes indicate the upper and lower quartile of scatter, whiskers

indicate the range.

CSA: Based on the results presented in Fig. 6, conservatism of the CSA code varies

with changes to each of the considered variables. In general conservatism goes up with

larger interface area, down with greater amounts of interface reinforcement, and up with

increasing concrete strength.

Perhaps the most alarming result from the entire study is the unconservative strength

ratio for CSA for specimens with large amounts of interface reinforcement. This can be

observed from the bin analysis, wherein heavily reinforced specimens with > 9 MPa

had an average strength ratio of 0.95. The same bin had the highest incident of

30
unconservative results in the entire study, with 11 of the 16 specimens (69%) failing to

reach the CSA-based nominal interface shear transfer capacity. These results suggest the

need for caution on the part of engineers using the CSA code to design heavily reinforced

concrete interfaces. Additional testing is recommended to elucidate this result and to

determine if the CSA code should be modified to provide an increased safety margin for

interface shear transfer in heavily reinforced members.

As with EC, the CSA code resulted in higher levels of conservatism for unreinforced

specimens. The average strength ratio for CSA was 4.48 for unreinforced specimens and

2.39 for reinforced specimens. No unconservative results were observed for unreinforced

or lightly ( < 3 MPa) reinforced specimens.

While not as definitive as the relationship with reinforcement index, the analyses

suggest that the concrete compressive strength and interface size are also correlated with

the strength ratio of CSA. Smaller compressive strengths and interface areas correspond

to lower degrees of conservatism. The bin analysis hints at these relationships, wherein

unconservative results only occurred in the bins with specimens having concrete

compressive strength less than 60 MPa and interface areas less than 1500 cm2.

From Fig. 7 it is observed that the CSA code resulted in larger degrees of conservatism

for specimens having surfaces that are roughened to amplitudes up to 6mm. The degree

of conservatism is relatively consistent for monolithic, smooth, and roughened >6mm

interfaces.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

31
 A database of interface shear transfer tests was compiled from the existing

literature, and was used to evaluate accuracy of models from three codes: AASHTO

LRFD 2014, Eurocode 2 2004, and CSA A23.3-14 2014. The evaluations focused on

specimens that did not have cracks (uncraked) prior to testing. This condition is similar to

uncracked cold-joints between attached elements, such as at deck-to-girder interfaces.

The overall database was filtered in order to create code-specific databases for LFRD,

EC, and CSA. For example, specimens without interface reinforcement were removed

from the LRFD database because of the minimum reinforcement requirements in LRFD.

Because a unique database was used for each code, the subsequent evaluations are useful

for comparing the codes against test data, but are not used to compare between codes. In

general, the code-calculated nominal capacities were conservative relative to the

experimental data. Key conclusions and observations from the code-specific evaluations

are as follows:

LRFD

When strength reduction factors were not included in the analyses, the

average experimental-to-nominal strength ratio for LRFD was 1.49 and the

coefficient of variation was 0.38. Unconservative results (experimental

capacity less than calculated nominal capacity) were observed in 18 of 220

(8.2%) specimens.

When the strength reduction factor was applied in the analyses,

unconservative results occurred in only 4 of 220 (1.8%) specimens. The

average experimental-to-nominal strength ratio was 1.85.

32
 As compressive strength decreased, the degree of conservatism also

decreased. The average strength ratio of specimens having compressive

strength less than 30 MPa was 1.24, and individual unconservative results

were only observed when the concrete compressive strength was lower than

60 MPa (8.6 ksi).

EC

The average experimental-to-nominal strength ratio and COV were 1.93 and

0.37, respectively, when strength reduction factors were not considered.

When the strength reduction factor was considered the strength ratio

increased to 2.49, but the number of unconservative results did not change.

Five of 311 (1.6%) specimens were unconservative in both cases.

Conservatism of the EC code is inversely related to the interface

reinforcement index (a measure of the strength and amount of interface

reinforcement). Presence or lack of reinforcement was also significant; the

average strength ratio was 2.59 for unreinforced specimens and 1.75 for

reinforced specimens.

CSA

The average experimental-to-nominal strength ratio and COV for the CSA

were 2.83 and 0.80, respectively, when strength reduction factors were not

considered. Out of 383 specimens, 29 (7.6%) demonstrated less than nominal

capacity.

33
 Applying strength reduction factors, the average experimental-to-nominal

strength ratio and COV were 4.00 and 0.88, respectively. Unconservative

cases were 9 (2.3%).

The most alarming observation is the relationship between reinforcement

index and conservatism of CSA. Eleven (69%) of the 15 specimens having a

reinforcement index greater than 9 MPa failed at loads lower than the CSA-

calculated nominal value. The average strength ratio of these specimens was

0.95. Additional studies are recommended to add data and insights regarding

this potentially unsafe condition.

NOTATION

= Area of concrete interface in AASHTO LRFD 2014 and CSA A23.3-14 (cm2)

= Area of concrete interface in Eurocode 2 (cm2)

= Area of interface reinforcement in AASHTO LRFD 2014 and CSA A23.3-14 (cm2)

= Area of interface reinforcement in Eurocode 2 (cm2)

= Width of interface concrete cross-section (cm)

= Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days in Eurocode 2

(MPa)

= Specified compressive strength of concrete in AASHTO LRFD 2014 and CSA

A23.3-14 (MPa)

= Design value of concrete compressive strength in Eurocode 2 (MPa)

= Yield strength of reinforcement in AASHTO LRFD 2014 and CSA A23.3-14 (MPa)

34
 = Design yield strength of reinforcement in Eurocode 2 (MPa)

= Fraction of concrete strength available to resist interface shear in AASHTO LRFD

2014

= Limiting interface shear resistance in AASHTO LRFD 2014 (MPa)

= Length of interface concrete cross-section (cm)

= Un-factored permanent load perpendicular to the shear plane in Eurocode 2 (kN)

= Permanent net compressive force normal to the shear plane in AASHTO LRFD 2014

(kN)

= Nominal shear resistance of interface shear transfer in Eurocode 2 (MPa)

= Nominal shear resistance of interface shear transfer in CSA A23.3-14 (MPa)

= Nominal shear resistance of interface shear transfer in AASHTO LRFD 2014 (kN)

= Nominal interface shear transfer strength calculated from codes (kN)

= Ultimate experimental interface shear transfer (kN)

= Angle between shear reinforcement and interface in CSA A23.3-14

= Angle between shear reinforcement and interface in Eurocode 2

= Compressive stress in CSA A23.3-14 (MPa)

= Concrete weight factor

= Strength reduction factor in Eurocode 2

REFERENCES

[1] AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th ed. AASHTO, 2014.

[2] British Standards Institution, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, in

Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, 2004.

35
[3] Canadian Standard Association, CSA Standard A23.3-14. CSA, 2014.

[4] Reineck, K. H., Kuchma, D. A., and Fitik, B. Extended databases with shear tests on

structural concrete beams without and with stirrups for the assessment of shear

design procedures, University of Stuttgart, University of Illinois, 2010.

[5] Nakamura, E. Nakamura, A. R. Avendao, and O. Bayrak, Shear Database for

Prestressed Concrete Members, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 110, no. 6, 2013.

[6] Reineck, K.-H., Kuchma, D. A., Kim, K. S., and S. Marx, Shear database for

reinforced concrete members without shear reinforcement, Structural Journal, vol.

100, no. 2, pp. 240249, 2003.

[7] Mast, R. F., Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Connections, Journal of the

Structural Division, 1968.

[8] Birkeland, P. W., and Birkeland, H. W., Connections in Precast Concrete

Construction, ACI Journal Proceedings, vol. 63, no. 3, 1966.

[9] Hofbeck, J. A., Ibrahim, I. O., and Mattock, A. H., Shear Transfer in Reinforced

Concrete, ACI Journal Proceedings, vol. 66, no. 2, 1969.

[10] Mattock, A. H., and Hawkins, N. M., Shear transfer in reinforced concrete-recent

research, Pci Journal, no. 17, 1972.

[11] ACI 318-77: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and

Commentary, ACI Committee 318, 1977.

[12] ACI committee 318, ACI 318-14: Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete and Commentary, ACI Committee 318, 2014.

36
[13] Kahn, L. F., and Mitchell, A. D., Shear Friction Tests with High-Strength

Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 99, no. 1, 2002.

[14] Hsu, T. T., Mau, S. T., and Chen, B., Theory on Shear Transfer Strength of

Reinforced Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 84, no. 2, 1987.

[15] Hwang, S. J., Yu, H. W., and Lee, H. J., Theory of Interface Shear Capacity of

Reinforced Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. 700

707, 2000.

[16] Gohnert, M., Proposed theory to determine the horizontal shear between composite

precast and in situ concrete, Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 22, no. 6, pp.

469476, Dec. 2000.

[17] Santos, P. M. D., and Jlio, E. N. B. S., Interface Shear Transfer on Composite

Concrete Members, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 113122, 2014.

[18] Tsoukantas, S. G., and Tassios, T. P., Shear Resistance of Connections Between

Reinforced Concrete Linear Precast Elements, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 86, no.

3, 1989.

[19] Mattock, A. H., Shear Friction and High-Strength Concrete, ACI Structural

Journal, vol. 98, no. 1, 2001.

[20] ACI 318-99: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and

Commentary, ACI Committee 318, 1999.

[21] ACI committee 318, ACI 318-02: Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete and Commentary, ACI Committee 318, 2002.

37
[22] Lang, M., Analysis of the Aashto LRFD Horizontal Shear Strength Equation,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2011.

[23] Sneed, L. H., and Shaw, D. M., Lightweight Concrete Modification Factor for

Shear Friction (No. NUTC R276/R317), Oct. 2013.

[24] PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete Institute, 7th ed. Chicago:

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 2010.

[25] Loov, R. E., and Patnaik, A. K., HORIZONTAL SHEAR STRENGTH OF

COMPOSITE CONCRETE BEAMS WITH A ROUGH INTERFACE, PCI

Journal, vol. 39, no. 1, Feb. 1994.

[26] Patnaik, A. K., EVALUATION OF ACI 318-95 SHEAR-FRICTION

PROVISIONS. DISCUSSION, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 97, no. 3, May 2000.

[27] Kahn, L. F., and Slapkus, A., Interface shear in high strength composite T-beams,

PCI journal, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 102110, 2004.

[28] Mattock, A. H., Li, W. K., and Wang, T. C., Shear transfer in lightweight

reinforced concrete, PRECAST/PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INSTITUTE.

JOURNAL, vol. 21, no. 1, 1976.

[29] Nowak, A. S., Rakoczy, A. M., and Szeliga, E. K., Revised statistical resistance

models for r/c structural components, ACI Special Publication, vol. 284, 2012.

[30] Nowak, A. S., and Szerszen, M. M., Bridge load and resistance models,

Engineering structures, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 985990, 1998.

[31] Rakoczy, A. M., and Nowak, A. S., Resistance model of lightweight concrete

members, ACI Materials Journal, vol. 110, no. 1, 2013.

38
[32] Nowak, A. S., Park, C.-H., and Casas, J. R., Reliability analysis of prestressed

concrete bridge girders: comparison of Eurocode, Spanish Norma IAP and AASHTO

LRFD, Structural Safety, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 331344, 2001.

[33] Nowak, A. S., Load model for bridge design code, Canadian Journal of Civil

Engineering, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 3649, 1994.

[34] Cousins, T. E., Roberts-Wollmann, C. L., and Brown, M. C., High-

performance/high-strength lightweight concrete for bridge girders and decks, . Vol. 733.

Transportation Research Board, 2013.

[35] Santos, P. M. D., and Jlio, E. N. B. S., A state-of-the-art review on shear-friction,

Engineering Structures, vol. 45, pp. 435448, Dec. 2012.

[36] Shaw, D. M., and Sneed, L. H., Interface shear transfer of lightweight-aggregate

concretes cast at different times., PCI Journal, vol. 59, no. 3, 2014.

[37] Harries, K. A., Zeno, G., and Shahrooz, B., Toward an Improved Understanding of

Shear-Friction Behavior, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 109, no. 6, 2012.

[38] Santos, P. M. D., and Julio, E. N. B. S., Factors Affecting Bond between New and

Old Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, vol. 108, no. 4, 2011.

[39] Scott, J., Interface shear strength in lightweight concrete bridge girders, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2010.

[40] Zeno, G. A., USE OF HIGH-STRENGTH STEEL REINFORCEMENT IN

SHEAR FRICTION APPLICATIONS, University of Pittsburgh, 2009.

39
[41] Mansur, M. A., Vinayagam, T., and Tan, K. H., Shear Transfer across a Crack in

Reinforced High-Strength Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol.

20, no. 4, pp. 294302, 2008.

[42] Banta, T. E., Horizontal Shear Transfer Between Ultra High Performance Concrete

And Lightweight Concrete, 2005.

[43] Gohnert, M., Horizontal shear transfer across a roughened surface, Cement and

Concrete Composites, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 379385, Apr. 2003.

[44] Papanicolaou, C. G., and Triantafillou, T. C., Shear transfer capacity along pumice

aggregate concrete and high-performance concrete interfaces, Mat. Struct., vol. 35,

no. 4, pp. 237245, May 2002.

[45] Valluvan, R., Kreger, M. E., and Jirsa, J. O., Evaluation of ACI 318-95 Shear-

Friction Provisions, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 96, no. 4, 1999.

[46] Walraven, J., and Stroband, J., Shear friction in high-strength concrete, ACI

Special Publication, vol. 149, 1994.

[47] Hoff, G. C., High Strength Lightweight Aggregate Concrete for Arctic

ApplicationsPart 3: Structural Parameters, ACI Special Publication, vol. 136, 1993.

[48] Frnay, J. W., and TU Delft: Civil Engineering and Geosciences: Design &

Construction, Shear transfer across a single crack in reinforced concrete under

sustained loading. Part I: Experiments. Delft University of Technology, Faculty

Civil Engineering and Geosciences, 30-Jun-1985.

40
[49] Pruijssers, A. F., "Shear Transfer Across a Crack in Concrete Subjected to Repeated

Loading: Experimental Results." Stevin-Laboratory of the Department of Civil

Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 1985.

[50] Walraven, J. C., and Reinhardt, H. W., Theory and experiments on the mechanical

behaviour of cracks in plain and reinforced concrete subjected to shear loading,

HERON, 26 (1A), 1981, 1981.

[51] Mattock, A. H., Shear Transfer under Monotonic Loading, across an Interface

between Concretes Cast at Different Times, University of Washington report SM,

pp. 763, 1976.

[52] Mattock, A. H., Johal, L., and Chow, H. C., Shear transfer in reinforced concrete

with moment or tension acting across the shear plane, PRECAST/PRESTRESSED

CONCRETE INSTITUTE. JOURNAL, vol. 20, no. 4, 1975.

41
 CHAPTER THREE

A STATISTICAL APPROACH TO REFINE DESIGN CODES FOR INTERFACE

SHEAR TRANSFER IN REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURESi

Introduction

Many Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures depend on transfer of shear forces

across concrete-to-concrete interfaces. The Interface Shear Transfer (hereafter referred to

as IST) theory describes the mechanisms by which shear forces are transferred across

RC interfaces. The connection of precast concrete girders and cast-in-place concrete

bridge decks is a common example of the IST (Fig. 1). Bridge stiffness and strength

depend on the composite action between the girder and deck, which action requires

interface transfer of shear forces.

Fig. 1- Interface shear transfer between precast girder and cast-in-place deck

i
Soltani, M., Ross, B. E., & Khademi, A., A Statistical Approach to Refine Design Codes for Interface
Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete Structures, submitted (under review), 2016.

42
 Previous research by Soltani and Ross1 has demonstrated that current code-based

IST models produce inconsistent levels of accuracy. For example, accuracy of the

AASHTO LRFD 20142 (Hereafter referred to as LRFD) IST model varies significantly

for different compressive strengths of concrete. When compared to experimental data,

LRFD model resulted in an average factor of safety of 1.29 for specimens with

compressive strength of concrete less than 30 MPa (4.3 ksi). In contrast, the average

factor of safety was 2.25 for specimens with compressive strength greater than 60 MPa

(8.6 ksi).

Recognizing the limitations of current code-based IST design models, the current

paper has two objectives. First, this paper presents a sensitivity analysis, which identifies

parameters having the greatest impact on the IST capacity. The sensitivity analysis is

based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) models, that were developed using a

previously compiled database1. ANN was chosen for the sensitivity analysis because of

the methods demonstrated accuracy for evaluating experimental data from tests of

reinforced concrete structures3,4. Second, a multiple linear-regression analysis was used

to create a new design model for IST capacity. The proposed IST model was created to

produce consistent levels of accuracy throughout the considered range of design

parameters. By using a multiple linear-regression approach, the model was formulated in

a manner that it can be readily applied by structural designers. Thus, this paper elucidates

the relative importance of different design parameters on IST capacity and also proposes

a new model that improves upon the primary limitation (inconsistent accuracy) of current

code models.

43
Background

Interface Shear Transfer

Shear forces are carried across concrete-to-concrete interfaces through three

mechanisms including: 1) shear-friction, 2) cohesion between concrete surfaces, and 3)

dowel action of reinforcement5,6. The shear-friction concept was initially proposed by

Mast7 and Birkeland and Birkeland8 to explain shear force transfer across cracks in RC

members. Shear-friction can be explained using a saw-tooth model5 as illustrated in Fig.

2. Shear force causes horizontal displacement, h, between two concrete surfaces. The

horizontal displacement is accompanied by vertical displacement, v, due to concrete

interlock. Vertical displacement causes tension in steel reinforcement crossing the

interface; this tension results in a clamping force and friction along the interface.

Cohesion is the bond between concrete interface surfaces. Dowel action is due to the

direct shear resistance of the reinforcement crossing the interface. When load is small

shear force is resisted almost exclusively through cohesion. However, at higher loads

cracks form as cohesion is broken, and forces are carried through a combination of shear-

friction and dowel action5.

IST in Design Codes and Research Motivation

Current design codes such as LRFD 2014, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete

Structures 20049 (Hereafter referred to as EC), and Canadian Standard Association

201410 (Hereafter referred to as CSA) contain provisions for calculating IST capacity.

Although IST provisions in each of these codes have some unique features (such as the

values given for the coefficients), the general form of their IST models is similar:

44
 Equation 1

where is the nominal IST strength of the concrete member; c is the cohesion factor;

is the area of concrete considered to be engaged in interface shear transfer; is the

friction factor; is the area of interface shear reinforcement crossing the shear plane

within the area ; is the yield stress of reinforcement; and is the permanent net

compressive force normal to the shear plane. Thus, the codes consider IST capacity to be

the summation of cohesion and friction. Contributions from dowel action are not

explicitly considered.

Fig. 2-Interface Shear Transfer, saw-tooth model (after Santos and Jlio 20125)

The effects of concrete strength are of interest in this study. Each of the

considered codes (LRFD, EC, and CSA) use compressive strength of concrete for

calculating upper-bound IST capacity; higher compressive strength leads to increased

values for the upper bound. The EC code also considers concrete tensile strength when

calculating the contribution of cohesion to IST capacity. Each of these codes also have a

45
minimum compressive strength for structural concrete. Thus, the codes indirectly

consider compressive strength of concrete when determining IST capacity.

In a previous study by the authors (Soltani and Ross1), a database of IST tests was

compiled and then used to evaluate the accuracy and conservatism of the LRFD, EC, and

CSA codes. It was reported that the average experimental-to-nominal IST capacity ratio

(hereafter referred to as strength ratio), , was 1.49, 1.93, and 2.83 for the LRFD,

EC, and CSA, respectively. The previous study also determined that the accuracy of the

IST models in the codes varies for different values of the design parameters. As

mentioned above, accuracy of the LRFD model varies as a function of concrete

compressive strength. These results were the primary motivations for the current paper.

To what degree does concrete strength affect IST capacity? How can concrete strength be

directly considered when calculating IST capacity? Can a model be developed that

produces a consistent degree of conservatism for different values of design parameters?

Artificial Neural Network and Regression Modeling

Artificial Neural Network (hereafter referred to as ANN) are a class of artificial

intelligence models that operate in a manner analogous to that of biological nervous

systems11,12. As a strong computational tools, ANN models are capable of learning from

data to identify patterns, categorize data, and predict relationships between inputs and

outcomes. The behavior of an ANN system is governed by connections between

individual computing components, called neurons, and by the weights or strengths of

those connections13. In an ANN, information is transmitted from the input layer to

46
neurons contained within the so-called hidden layers, and eventually to an output layer.

The quality and accuracy of the model training is influenced in part by the selection of

hidden layer quantity14,15,16.

Essentially, an ANN is sophisticated regression model, and is typically more

accurate and flexible than traditional regression methods17. However, one downside of

ANN models is that they are black boxes which do not allow direct observation of the

mathematical formulation in the model. In contrast, traditional regression models, such

as multiple linear regression, can be used to create observable mathematical functions.

Because of the strengths and limitations of theses modeling approaches, this paper uses

different approaches to address different research questions. The sensitivity analysis was

conducted using the more accurate ANN approach. To facilitate the creation of practical

design equations, the multiple linear regression approach was used for developing the

proposed model.

ANN Applied to Concrete

ANN models have been used increasingly in different areas of science, including

civil engineering18. With regard to concrete, ANN models have been used successfully

for predicting shear strength for RC beams19,3,20,21, compressive strength of concrete

mixes (e.g. 4 and 22), and other characteristics of concrete mix designs23,24,25. These

studies demonstrate that ANN can be effectively applied to complex problems in concrete

materials and structures, particularly those with multiple interacting variables.

Interface Shear Transfer Database

47
 A database of IST experiments complied by Soltani and Ross1 was used in the

current study. The database is comprised of 354 tests of IST capacity on non-monolithic

RC specimens. Because concrete unit weight is of interest in the current study, the

database was split into 256 tests with normal-weight concrete (NWC) and 98 tests with

light-weight concrete (LWC). The 98 LWC specimens include those built completely of

LWC and also specimens with built with both LWC and NWC. Parameters in the

database included, peak experimental capacity ( ), compressive strength of concrete

( ), area of concrete interface ( ), interface shear reinforcement index ( , applied

normal stress ( ), and roughness amplitude of interface ( ). In cases where two different

strengths of concrete were used in one specimen, the smaller compressive strength was

retained in the database.

The interface shear reinforcement index, , provides a measure of the amount

and strength of reinforcement crossing the interface, where is defined as:

Equation 2

The applied normal stress is given by:

Equation 3

Details of the database including minimum value, maximum value, average,

standard deviation, and midrange of input parameters are summarized in Table 1. A more

detailed discussion of the database, including database values and references, is available

in the aforementioned paper (Soltani and Ross 2016).

Evaluation Using Artificial Neural Network

48
Methodology ANN Model

The MATLAB Neural Network Toolbox (MATLAB 2014)26 was used to create

the ANN models. Two models were built, one for specimens with NWC and one for

specimens with LWC. To begin, the source data for each model were randomly selected

so that 70% were used for ANN training, 15% for testing, and 15% for validation. The

70% training set was used to develop and train a network, which was initially compared

to the 15% testing set. The training and testing processes were repeated to seek a well-

fitted solution. Once a solution was identified, the validation set was used to measure

network generalization and to stop training when generalization stops improving. The

testing set had no influence on training, but provided an independent measure of network

performance after training. All training, testing, and validation operations were

automated within MATLAB.

The ANN models in this study were developed having five input parameters ( ,

, , , and ), ten hidden layers (Fig. 3), and one output parameter ( ). These

input parameters were chosen because they represent the variables considered in current

code-based IST models. The input-output and curve fitting algorithm from the MATLAB

ANN toolbox was used as the training algorithm. Once the ANN models were created

and validated, sensitivity analyses were performed using a one-factor-at-a-time process.

The ANN models were used to estimate IST strength for each different level of the

variable, and the process was repeated for each input parameter. The basepoint used in

the sensitivity analyses was taken as midrange of the input parameters (Table 1). Because

49
the NWC and LWC datasets have different ranges, basepoints were different depending

on concrete unit weight.

Table 1- The range of input parameters

NWC LWC

min Max average St. midrange min max average St. midrange
Dev. Dev.
, 19.3 106.2 42.0 20.0 62.7 11.7 53.8 31.7 15.2 32.7
MPa (2.8) (15.4) (6.1) (2.9) (9.1) (1.7) (7.8) (4.6) (2.2) (4.75)
(ksi)
, 319.3 3581.3 962.6 497.4 1950.3 169.7 2477.4 814.8 860.0 1323.5
(49.5) (555.1) (149.2) (77.1) (302.3) (26.3) (384) (126.3) (133.3) (205.15)
( )
, 0 2.5 0.3 0.5 1.3 0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.05
MPa (0) (0.37) (0.05) (0.07) (0.18) (0) (0.14) (0.05) (0.05) (0.07)
(ksi)
, 0 11.7 1.0 2.5 5.9 0 2.0 0.4 0.5 1.0
MPa (0) (1.70) (0.14) (0.36) (0.85) (0) (0.29) (0.06) (0.08) (0.14)
(ksi)
, 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3
c (0) (0.25) (0.14) (0.1) (0.12) (0) (0.25) (0.17) (0.11) (0.12)
( )

Validation

Performance of the ANN models for NWC and LWC are illustrated in Fig. 4. The

ANN-estimated IST strength ( ) for both NWC and LWC were compared to the

experimental IST strengths ( ). For the NWC and the LWC models, the value of

was 0.93 and 0.96, respectively. These values demonstrate a high level of correlation

between the ANN models and experimental data.

50
 Fig. 3- Schematic of ANN model

(a) NWC (b) LWC

Fig. 4- ANN performance for the entire database (1 kip= 4.448 kN)

Results and Discussions

51
 Sensitivity analyses were performed using the ANN models for NWC and LWC.

The five input parameters were analyzed to determine the degree to which they affect

predicted IST strength, . Results are presented in Fig. 5. The vertical axis in the

figure is the model-predicted capacity divided by the baseline capacity. The horizontal

axis is the normalized input parameter, which is the value of the input variable divided by

the baseline value. For example, the baseline value for compressive strength of concrete

of NWC is 62.7 MPa (9.1 ksi). Thus, a normalized concrete strength of 1.1 corresponds

to a strength of 68.9 MPa (10.0 ksi). Individual curves on the plot are based on a one-

way sensitivity analysis, wherein the factor (parameter) under consideration was varied

and the others were held constant.

(a) NWC (b) LWC

Fig. 5- IST sensitivity analysis using ANN model

Three observations are made from Fig. 5. First, an increase in the input

parameters range always resulted in an increase in predicted capacity. Second, the

52
relationships between input parameters and predicted capacity are approximately linear.

This observation suggests that linear models, such as the multiple linear regression model

used later in this paper, could adequately describe the given source data. Third, the

predicted IST strength is most sensitive to the compressive strength of concrete, .

Sensitivity can be determined by comparing the slope of the lines for each parameter.

The line for compressive strength of concrete has the steepest slope for both the NWC

and LWC models, indicating that changes in concrete strength have the greatest impact

on predicted capacity.

Proposed Interface Shear Transfer Model

With the knowledge that each of the five parameters from the sensitivity study

have approximately linear impact on IST capacity, a new design model was developed

based on a multiple linear-regression analysis. As was done with the ANN modeling,

separate linear regression models were built for NWC and LWC. For each model, 80%

of the source data were randomly selected to calibrate the multiple linear-regression

model; the remaining 20% were used to for validation. A spreadsheet was used to

conduct the regression analysis.

Development of the Proposed Model

The proposed IST model is based on the observed behavior from the sensitivity

analyses and on the general form of the current codes (Equation 1). However, in contrast

with the current code IST models, the proposed model directly considers concrete

compressive strength within the cohesion and friction coefficients. Additionally,

53
roughness amplitude is treated as a continuous variable. The proposed model is as

follows:

Equation 4

where is the cohesion coefficient, is the friction coefficient for the shear-friction

mechanism, and is the friction coefficient for the normal force. The coefficients are

taken as functions of and . The physical notion behind this model is that resistance

due to cohesion and friction are based on interface roughness and concrete strength. The

coefficients are defined as:

Equation 5

Equation 6

Equation 7

In expressions mentioned above, unit of , , , , , , and are kN,

cm2, cm2, MPa, kN, and cm in SI system, respectively; similarly, units in US customary

system are kip, in2, in2, ksi, kip, in, and ksi, respectively.

The coefficients to were determined through multiple linear-regression

analysis, and are listed in Table 2. A zero value for a coefficient means the corresponding

input parameter(s) has no influence on the calculated IST strength. Coefficients to

in both datasets are approximately the same. The coefficients associated with normal

force, , are different for NWC and LWC. The Significance-F values determined from

54
multiple linear-regression analysis for NWC and LWC datasets are 8.65E-138 and 4.23E-

62, respectively. The maximum p-values for the non-zero coefficients for NWC and

LWC datasets were 2.86E-07 and 0.000121, respectively. These values indicate that the

linear model describes the data with a desired level of confidence. Because of the value

of these statistical parameters, simple multiple linear regression analysis is deemed

sufficient for this study.

Table 2- Coefficients of the proposed model

Coefficient NWC LWC

SI units
(US customary units)
, MPa 0.4 0.34
(ksi) (0.25) (0.22)
0.01 0.02
(0.02) (0.03)
0 0
(0) 0
10 11
(3.25) (3.75)
3.8 22
(0.35) (2.05)
20 0
(0.65) (0)

Validation

The R2 values for the training and validation databases are presented in Table 3.

The proposed design model has a high level of correlation with the experimental data.

The minimum was 0.88 for training, validation, and total sets of both NWC and LWC.

The multiple linear-regression performance of the total set (training and validation data)

of NWC dataset (256 tests) and LWC dataset (98 tests) are presented graphically in Fig.

55
 6. These results demonstrate that the proposed model can describe the data for calculating

IST capacity with a high level of confidence.

(a) NWC (b) LWC

Fig. 6- Multiple linear-regression performance of the proposed model (1 kip= 4.448 kN)

Table 3- Statistical parameters of the regression analysis

Statistical NWC LWC NWC and

parameter LWC
Training Validation Total Training Validation Total Total
(205 tests) (51 tests) (256 tests) (78 tests) (20 tests) (98 tests) (354 tests)
Average 1.09 1.12 1.09 1.05 0.99 1.04 1.08
strength
ratio
Standard 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.29
deviation
COV 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.26
0.95 0.88 0.89 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.92

T-tests -assuming two samples with unequal variances- were performed for each

of the NWC and LWC datasets for checking the accuracy of the proposed model when

two populations are considered: tests with and without reinforcement. A t-test is a

56
statistical test used to determine whether two population means are different when the

population variances are unknown and unequal. The t-test results are shown in Table 4.

The t Stat values for the NWC and LWC were -0.17 and 0.92, respectively. Considering

the critical probability values for one-tail and two-tails, the two sample test did not have

different means (Table 4). Thus, the two populations are likely consistent; consequently,

the proposed model is considered applicable for calculating IST capacity in RC structures

with and without reinforcement across the interface.

Table 4- Results of the t-test for with and without reinforcement populations

t-test parameter NWC LWC

With Without With Without
reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement
Average strength 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.00
ratio
Variance 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.05
Observations 201 55 73 25
df 159 34
t Stat 0.17 0.92
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.43 0.18
t Critical one-tail 1.65 1.69
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.87 0.36
t Critical two-tail 1.97 2.03

Fig. 7 presents the strength ratios for the proposed model relative to different

experimental variables. Each data point in the figure represents the strength ratio for a

unique test specimen from the database. Dashed lines in the figure are moving average of

the strength ratio, and are based on the average of 20 points. The moving average gives

an indication of the degree to which conservatism and accuracy change across the range

of a given variable. A flat line occurs when accuracy is consistent across the range of

57
values; steep lines occur when the degree of accuracy differs. For all the experimental

variables, the strength ratio of the proposed model hovers at approximately 1.0, which

indicates consistent accuracy over the ranges of variables.

Fig. 7- IST strength ratios compared to experimental variables including NWC and LWC

Comparison with IST Design Codes

58
 To evaluate the quality of the proposed model, it is compared with the LRFD,

EC, and CSA codes as shown in Table 5. Comparisons are based on the code-specific

databases reported by (Soltani and Ross 2016). The complete filtering process was

detailed in the previous paper. These databases only include specimens that comply with

the requirements of a given code. For example, LRFD requires a minimum amount of

interface reinforcement, and unreinforced specimens are not included in the LRFD

database. Because the databases are different for each code, comparisons are not made

between codes, but are only made between the codes and the proposed model.

Table 5- Comparison of the proposed model with the design codes

LRFD Database EC Database CSA Database

(155 tests) (311 tests) (309 tests)
Statistical Proposed LRFD LRFD Proposed EC EC Proposed CSA CSA
parameter model * ** model * ** model * **
Average 1.09 1.56 1.95 1.08 1.93 1.93 1.09 2.69 3.73
strength ratio
Standard 0.31 0.64 0.8 0.29 0.71 0.71 0.29 1.57 2.18
deviation
COV 0.28 0.41 0.41 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.27 0.58 0.58
Unconservative 44.5 9.0 2.0 43.2 5.1 5.1 42.7 6.8 2.6
results, %
*Do not include strength reduction factors
**Strength reduction factors included

It is desirable to have a model that accurately represents physical capacity

(average strength ratio) and that has limited variability (coefficient of variation, COV).

Based on these metrics, the proposed IST model is superior to the current code models.

The average strength ratio of the proposed model is 1.08 to 1.09. This is a 30% to 60%

improvement over the accuracy of the code models when strength reduction factors are

not included. When strength reduction factors are included, the improvement is 44% to

59
70%. Scatter is also reduced in the proposed model. COV, a metric indicating the

consistency level of the accuracy ranges from 0.27 to 0.28 for the proposed model, which

represents a 32% to 53% improvement over the code models.

In addition to being accurate in an average sense, it is also desirable for the

accuracy to be consistent across different values of input parameters. Fig. 8 compares

accuracy of the proposed and code models as a function of compressive strength of

concrete. Lines shown in the figure are the moving average using 20 data points. The

moving average line for the proposed model is consistently closer to a strength ratio of

1.0. While the proposed model is superior in terms of accuracy across the range of

variables, it is not as conservative as the LRFD, EC, and CSA models. The next section

discusses how safety can be considered when using the proposed model.

EC
LRFD

Fig. 8- Comparison of the performance of the proposed model (PM) and LRFD, EC, and

CSA through moving average of datasets

60
Conservatism of the Proposed Model

At the outset of this section, it is acknowledged that modern codes are based on

relatability theory and that reliability is the preferable means for addressing safety of the

proposed IST model. Such analyses are recommended for future work, but are beyond the

scope of the current paper. A Strength Adjustment Factor (SAF) as an alternative -albeit

less rigorous- method is presented to address conservatism of the proposed model.

Fig. 9 presents the percent of unconservative results that occur for different

levels of SAF. As the SAF increases, the number of unconservative results decreases and

the model become safer. For the NWC dataset, the percent of unconservative results was

5%, 1.2% and 0.4% for SAF equal to 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0, respectively. The LWC dataset

had 6% and 0% unconservative results, when SAF is equal to 1.5 and 1.75, respectively.

The lowest percent of unconservative results from the code models was 2.0% (Table 5).

Thus SAF of 1.75 produces a similar degree of conservatism as the codes, and SAF of 2.0

produces a greater degree of conservatism than the codes. In the absence of a reliability

analysis, a SAF of 1.75 is recommended when applying the proposed model.

61
 Fig. 9- Percentage of unconservative results for different SAF

Summary and Conclusions

Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and multiple linear regression analyses were

used to study Interface Shear Transfer (IST) and to develop a new IST design model.

Sensitivity analyses were conducted using ANN models; creation of the proposed design

model was based on the linear regression analysis. Modeling and analyses considered

members with normal weight concrete (NWC) and light weight concrete (LWC). Source

data for the modes came from a database presented in a previous paper (Soltani and Ross

2016). Design variables in the analyses included compressive strength of concrete ( ),

area of concrete interface ( ), interface shear reinforcement index ( , applied

normal stress ( ), and roughness amplitude of interface ( ). The proposed model was

compared to the IST models from three design codes: AASHTO LRFD 2014, Eurocode 2

2004, and CSA A23.3-14 2014. Finally, a Factor of Safety (FS) approach was presented

62
for addressing conservatism of the proposed model. Salient conclusions and observations

are as follows:

The ANN and multiple linear regression models were able to represent the

experimental IST capacities with a high level of confidence. The lowest R2 value

for any model in the study was 0.89. The R2 value of the ANN models were

approximately 4% higher than for the multiple linear regression models.

Sensitivity analyses demonstrated each of the considered design variables are

approximately linearly influential on IST strength. Among the variables,

compressive strength of concrete was the most influential. Notably, this parameter

is only indirectly considered in IST capacity of LRFD, EC, and CSA design

codes; compressive strength of concrete is only considered in upper-bound

equations for IST strength.

The proposed design model is accurate when compared to the experiential data.

The average strength ratio of the model was 1.06. The COV of the model was

0.26, a 32% to 53% improvement over current codes. Most significantly, the

proposed model produces consistent levels of accuracy for different values of the

design variables.

A strength adjustment factor value of 1.75 applied to the proposed model

produces unconservative results in 1.2% to 0% of experimental cases for normal-

weight and light-weight concrete, respectively. These percentages are more

conservative than to the 2% to 5% of unconservative cases resulting from current

code models.

63
Notation

The following symbols are used in this paper:

= Area of concrete considered to be engaged in interface shear transfer

= Area of interface shear reinforcement crossing the shear plane within the area

= Permanent net compressive force normal to the shear plane

= Roughness amplitude of interface

= IST strength of test using Artificial Neural Network

= Nominal IST strength of the concrete member

= Experimental IST strength

= Nominal IST strength

= Predicted IST strength from multiple regression analysis

= Cohesion factor

= Yield stress of reinforcement

= Compressive strength of concrete

n = Sample size

= Number of model parameters

= Friction factor

= Interface shear reinforcement index

= Applied normal stress

64
References

[1] Soltani, M., and Ross, B. E. (2016). Database Evaluation of Interface Shear

Transfer in Reinforced Concrete Members. ACI Structural Journal, in press.

[2] AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials).

(2014). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 7th ed. Washington,

D.C.

[3] Mansour, M. Y., Dicleli, M., Lee, J. Y., & Zhang, J. (2004). Predicting the shear

strength of reinforced concrete beams using artificial neural networks.

Engineering Structures, 26(6), 781-799.

[4] Kasperkiewicz, J., Racz, J., & Dubrawski, A. (1995). HPC strength prediction

using artificial neural network. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 9(4),

279-284.

[5] Santos, P. M., & Jlio, E. N. (2012). A state-of-the-art review on shear-

friction. Engineering Structures, 45, 435-448.

[6] Jimenez-Perez, R., Gergely, P., & White, R. N. (1978). Shear transfer across

cracks in reinforced concrete (No. PB-288885). Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

(USA).

[7] Mast, R. (1968). Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Connections. Journal of

the Structural Division.

65
[8] Birkeland, P. W., & Birkeland, H. W. (1966). Connections in precast concrete

construction. In ACI journal, Proceedings (Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 345-367).

[9] British Standards Institution. (2008). Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures.

British standard. London: BSi.

[10] Canadian Standard Association (CSA). (2014). Design of concrete

structures. CSA Standard A23.3-14. Ontario, Canada.

[11] Kartam, N., Flood, I., & Garrett, J. H. (1997). Artificial neural networks

for civil engineers: fundamentals and applications. American Society of Civil

Engineers.

[12] Mitchell, T. (1997). Artificial Neural Networks. Machine Learning, 81

127.

[13] Liong, S. Y., Lim, W. H., & Paudyal, G. N. (2000). River stage

forecasting in Bangladesh: neural network approach. Journal of computing in

civil engineering, 14(1), 1-8.

[14] Masters, T. (1993). Practical neural network recipes in C++. Morgan

Kaufmann.

[15] Demirbas, A. E. (1998). Modelling of Seismically Excited Structures

Using ANN. Master Thesis, METU, Ankara.

66
[16] zta, A., Pala, M., zbay, E., Kanca, E., aglar, N., & Bhatti, M. A.

(2006). Predicting the compressive strength and slump of high strength concrete

using neural network. Construction and Building Materials, 20(9), 769-775.

[17] Jain, A. K., Mao, J., & Mohiuddin, K. M. (1996). Artificial neural

networks: A tutorial. IEEE computer, 29(3), 31-44.

[18] Flood, I., & Kartam, N. (1994). Neural networks in civil engineering. I:

Principles and understanding. Journal of computing in civil engineering, 8(2),

131-148.

[19] Cladera, A., & Mari, A. R. (2004). Shear design procedure for reinforced

normal and high-strength concrete beams using artificial neural networks. Part I:

beams without stirrups. Engineering Structures, 26(7), 917-926.

[20] Sanad, A., and Saka, M. P. (2001). Prediction of ultimate shear strength

of reinforced-concrete deep beams using neural networks. Journal of Structural

Engineering, 127(7), 818-828.

[21] Elshafey, A. A., Rizk, E., Marzouk, H., & Haddara, M. R. (2011).

Prediction of punching shear strength of two-way slabs. Engineering

Structures, 33(5), 1742-1753.

[22] Yeh, I. C. (1999). Design of high-performance concrete mixture using neural

networks and nonlinear programming. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 13(1),

36-42.

67
[23] Bai, J., Wild, S., Ware, J. A., & Sabir, B. B. (2003). Using neural

networks to predict workability of concrete incorporating metakaolin and fly ash.

Advances in Engineering Software, 34(11), 663-669.

[24] Ji-Zong, W., Hong-Guang, N., & Jin-Yun, H. (1999). The application of

automatic acquisition of knowledge to mix design of concrete. Cement and

Concrete Research, 29(12), 1875-1880.

[25] Dias, W. P. S., & Pooliyadda, S. P. (2001). Neural networks for

predicting properties of concretes with admixtures. Construction and Building

Materials,15(7), 371-379.

[26] MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release R2014b. (2014). The

MathWorks, Inc., Massachusetts, United States.

68
 CHAPTER FOUR

EVALUATION OF A 4-POINT BENDING TEST METHOD FOR INTERFACE

SHEAR TRANSFER IN CONCRETE MEMBERSi

Introduction

Interface Shear Transfer theory (hereafter referred to as IST) is a model for the

mechanisms by which shear forces are transferred across an interface between two

concrete members. One important application of this concept is in the connection

between a precast bridge girders and cast-in-place concrete decks as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Composite action between the girder and deck, and therefore bridge stiffness and

strength, relies on the capacity of the interface to transfer shear forces. The IST theory

will be discussed in more detail in the section BACKGROUND.

The push-off method (hereafter referred to as PO) (Fig. 2) is conventionally

used to test IST in Reinforced Concrete (RC) members. This test method was first used

by Hofbeck et al. in 1969 [1]. In this test method, two L-shaped concrete elements are

cast having a common interface. A force is applied from one end of the test specimen,

while the other end is supported as shown in Fig. 2. The test can be conducted vertically

or horizontally. Load is applied concentrically with the interface, thus direct shear (no

moment) acts on the interface.

i
Soltani, M., & Ross, B. E., Evaluation of A 4-Point Bending Test Method for Interface Shear Transfer in
Concrete Members, submitted (under review), 2016.

69
 Fig. 1-Interface shear transfer between precast girder and cast-in-place deck

Fig. 2- Conventional IST test method, push-off

The Iosipescu V-notched 4-point bending shear test method (hereafter referred to

as VN) (Fig. 3) was originally proposed by Iosipescu in 1967 [2] for measuring the

70
shear strength of isotropic and homogenous materials, such as metals. The Iosipescu

shear test uses a uniform thickness test specimen which has two 90-degree V-shaped

notches on either sides of the shear interface. A large force is applied on the edge of the

notch, P, and a relatively small load, P, is applied at the end of the test specimen. Shear

passes through the notched section with no moment as shown in Fig. 3.

Shear diagram

Moment diagram

Fig. 3- V-Notched Iosipescu 4-point bending test method

The objective of this paper is to introduce and evaluate the VN test method as an

alternative for testing IST in reinforced concrete members. Pros and cons of these the VN

and PO methods are compared and contrasted in this study. An experimental program and

finite element analysis are used as comparative tools. Ease of fabrication of test

specimens and test protocols are also compared and contrasted.

Background

Interface Shear Transfer

71
 In IST, shear forces are carried through three mechanisms: cohesion between

concrete surfaces across the interface, shear-friction, and dowel action from

reinforcement that crosses the interface [3],[4]. The cohesion is the concrete bond due to

the adhesion between concrete interface surfaces. Some researchers have also included

aggregate interlock as a sub-mechanism of cohesion [4]. The shear-friction concept was

proposed by Mast [5] and Birkeland and Birdeland [6] to explain shear force transfer

across cracks in RC members. The shear-friction mechanism is explained in the

subsequent paragraph. Dowel action is caused by direct shear force passing through the

interface reinforcement. At low load levels, the shear force is resisted almost exclusively

through cohesion. At higher load, however, cracks are formed and cohesion is broken,

resulting in forces being carried by a combination of shear-friction and dowel action.

The shear-friction concept is explained based on a saw-tooth model as shown in

Fig. 4. As the elements on either side of the interface slide relative to each other, the

roughness of the interface causes separation in a direction perpendicular to the interface.

This perpendicular separation to the interface creates tension in the interface

reinforcement. Tension in the reinforcement creates a normal force at the interface. The

normal force then creates friction at the interface that resists horizontal displacement.

This mechanism is the basis for shear-friction provisions of the ACI 318-14 design code

[7].

72
 Fig. 4-Saw-tooth model (after Santos and Julio [4])
Hsu et al. [8] investigated transfer of shear across initially uncracked planes,

where concrete bond at the interface must be broken prior to engaging the shear-friction

and dowel action mechanisms. The cohesion and shear-friction mechanisms are the basis

for IST provisions of AASHTO LRFD 2014 [9], Eurocode 2 [10], and CSA A23.14 [11]

design codes.

Interface Shear Transfer Test Methods

There have been many different test methods used to test IST (Fig. 5). The slant-

shear and splitting tests (Fig. 5 (a) and (d)) were used by Santos and Julio [12]; the pull-

off test (Fig. 5 (c)) was used originally by Mattock and Hawkins [13]; the corbel with

moment test (Fig. 5 (b)) was applied by Johal [14]; and the beam test (Fig. 5 (e)) was

conducted originally by Loov and Patnaik [15]. However, most IST studies have utilized

the PO (Fig. 2) method [1],[16],[17]. The current study therefore, is focused on the PO as

the most common IST test method. The PO can be conducted horizontally, as shown in

Fig. 6 [18]. In this set-up, normal forces perpendicular to the interface can be applied by

simply adding dead load to the top of the specimen.

73
 (a) Splitting (b) Corbel with moment (c) Pull-off

(d) Slant-shear (e) Beam

Fig. 5- Interface shear transfer test methods

Fig. 6- Horizontal set-up of the push-off test

74
Iosipescu 4-Point Bending Test and Its Application to RC Members

Since its inception, the Iosipescu test has been used to characterize the shear

strength of many different materials. For example, ASTM Standard D5379 [19] is a

modified version of the Iosipescu 4-point bending method, which is used for testing shear

properties of fiber-polymer laminated composites. Modified versions of the test have also

been applied to concrete. Ross [20] tested shear strength of concrete reinforced by

external Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) material using a modified Iosipescu shear test.

The program included analytical and experimental work. In order to increase shear

capacity of concrete members, external FRP reinforcement was scrutinized. Unlike the

research conducted by Ross [20], the current study does not consider external FRP.

Guenther [21] and Guenther et al. [22] conducted experimental and analytical

programs to validate a modified Iosipescu 4-point bending test as a means of measuring

the direct shear of plain concrete sections. Finite element models were used to study the

effects of different load configurations on the distribution of shear stress at the interface.

Experiments were also conducted. Test specimens did not contain interface

reinforcement, nor did the specimens include notches as proposed by Iosipescu. The

current study builds on the work of Guenther et al. and Ross by extending application of

the Iosipescu method to test IST in reinforced concrete members.

Analytical Program

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of PO and VN tests were modeled using

ABAQUS CAE [23]. The models were linear elastic with 2D Shell Planar (plane-stress)

elements having 2.54cm (1in.) thickness. The models did not include reinforcement and

75
assumed monolithic concrete. Fig. 7 shows the meshed model, load, and support

configurations. Load magnitudes, load locations, and support locations were designed to

create an interface shear of 22.2 kN (5 kip) for both models. The length of the interface

was 20.3 cm (8in.). Shear and normal stress distributions of the models along the length

of interface were considered. A mesh convergence study was conducted as a part of the

analysis as is discussed in a subsequent paragraph.

Fig. 7- Meshing, boundary condition, and loading configuration of analytical program,

VN model (left) and PO model (right)

Stress distributions along the interface are presented in Fig. 8. For both types of

specimens, the maximum shear stress occurred at the edges of the interface, while the

minimum shear stress occurred at the midpoint of the interface. The maximum tensile

normal stress occurred at the interface edges, while the maximum compression stress

76
occurred at the midpoint of the interface. In the normal stress graph (Fig. 8 right), the

tensile and compressive stresses are shown with negative and positive values,

respectively.

T C

Fig. 8- Shear stress (left) and normal stress (right) for PO vs. VN

To quantitatively compare the PO and VN stress states at the interface, stress at a

point 1.25cm (0.5in.) from the end was selected (Fig 8). This point was chosen because it

is near the locations of extreme stresses, but has stress values that coverage when mesh

density is increased. Stresses at the ends of the interface of the PO model do not

converge with increased mesh density. Results of a mesh convergence study for the

selected point are presented in Fig. 9. The results indicate that an element size of 0.25cm

(0.1in.) produces stability of stress distribution for both models. Thus, quantitative

comparisons between the models are made at a point 1.25cm (0.5in.) from the end and

with a model having a nominal element size of 0.25cm (0.1in.).

77
 Point of comparison

Fig. 9- Mesh convergence study of Shear stress (left) and normal stress (right) for PO vs.

VN (the squares show the point used to conduct the convergence study)

The VN model had much lower concentration of shear stress (50% lower) at the

comparison point relative to the PO model (Fig. 8). Additionally, the normal stress

(perpendicular axis of shear interface) at the comparison point in VN test was -2.41 MPa

(-0.35 ksi); this is a lower stress compared to the -2.90 MPa (-0.42 ksi) stress in the PO

model. At the comparison point normal stress of VN model was 17% lower than PO

model.

Abrupt change of the cross-section in the PO model caused a stress concentration

at the edge of the interface. In contrast to the PO model, the VN model results in a

relatively uniform distribution of the shear stress across the interface. Therefore, the

elastic (prior to cracking) stress distribution of the VN model is much closer to the stress

distribution of the cast-in-place deck and bridge girder connection (Fig. 1).

78
 While the analytical program did not include the interface roughness,

reinforcement, and nonlinear properties, nevertheless, it demonstrated the effects of the

test methods on the elastic stress state of the interface. The geometry and loading of the

PO tests leads to stress concentrations at the interface edges. By comparison, the

magnitudes of the extreme stresses in the VN tests are lower.

Experimental Program

Specimen Details and Materials

An experimental program was also conducted to compare and contrast the PO and

VN test methods. The experimental test matrix is shown in Table 1 and based on the

nomenclature in Fig. 10. The test program was conducted with eight VN members and

eight PO members. All specimens had interface area of 206.4 cm2 (32 in2), 10.1cm (4in.)

width and 20.2cm (8in.) length. Variables in the test program included interface

roughness condition and type of test. Two different interface conditions were included:

intentionally roughened to amplitude of 6mm (0.25in.) (R) and smooth with no

roughened amplitude (S).

Table 1- Test matrix of experimental program

Specimen Replicates Specimen ID Test Reinforcement Interface

type Type # and Avf, cm2 Condition
size (in2)
NR 4 NR1, NR2, VN 4#3 2.84 R
NR3, NR4 (0.44)
NS 4 NS1, NS2, VN 4#3 2.84 S
NS3, NS4 (0.44)
PR 4 PR1, PR2, PO 4#3 2.84 R
PR3, PR4 (0.44)
PS 4 PS1, PS2, PO 4#3 2.84 S
PS3, PS4 (0.44)

79
 Fig. 10- Nomenclature of test specimens

All the reinforcement used in program were metric bar size of #10 (imperial bar

size of #3). Concrete and reinforcement material properties are listed in Table 2. All

specimens were cast with the same concrete batch and at the same time during the fall of

2015. The aggregate was crushed stone having a maximum size of 17mm (0.75in.);

water-to-cement ratio of 0.54; and the slump was 102mm (4in.).

Test Procedure

PO and VN test specimens were tested using the set-ups shown in Fig. 11. PO

specimens were placed horizontally and pushed from the top of the specimens. A steel I-

beam was used as spreader at top of the VN specimens to apply load. Knowing the load

and geometry of the spreader, the reactions on the spreader (loads on the specimen) could

be determined through Statics. In this manner, the set-up for the VN specimens was also

statically determinate.

80
 Table 2-Material properties

Material Properties
Concrete 28-day compressive strength of layer 1 18.1 MPa (2.62 ksi)
28-day compressive strength of layer 2 17.9 MPa (2.60 ksi)
38-day compressive strength of layer 1 19.1 MPa (2.77 ksi)
31-day compressive strength of layer 2 18.7 MPa (2.72 ksi)
55-day compressive strength of layer 1 20.0 MPa (2.90 ksi)
48-day compressive strength of layer 2 19.6 MPa (2.88 ksi)
Note: The same concrete was used for all specimens; all
were tested between 38 and 55 days after casting layer 1;
and/or 31 and 48 days after casting layer 2.
#3 ASTM A615-12 Gr 420/60
Reinforcement Yield strength 495.7 MPa (71,900 psi)
bars Tensile strength 764.6 MPa (110,900 psi)

Fig. 11- Loading configuration of experimental program, VN test (left) and PO test

(right)

Displacement and force was monitored and logged using a computer data

acquisition system. Two string potentiometers monitored the horizontal displacement

81
(parallel to the interface), where each was attached to one layer of the specimens as

shown in Fig. 12. The load was applied using a hydraulic jack at a rate of approximately

0.22 kN per second (50 pounds per second) and was distributed from actuator to the

specimen through steel spreader plates and neoprene bearing pads. The applied load was

recorded using a pressure gage installed in the hydraulic line supplying the jack. Area of

the jack was 46.6 cm2 (7.2 in2), therefore the force was computed by multiplying the gage

pressure by the area of the jack. The pressure gage was calibrated just before conducting

the tests. The maximum IST capacity was determined from the peak load resisted by the

specimen.

Fig. 12- Installment configuration of string pods, VN test (left) and PO test (right)

Constructability Comparison of Test Methods

The reinforcement plans of two tests are shown in Fig. 13. The PO tests needed a

relatively more complicated reinforcement scheme to induce failure at the interface. The

VN tests had an easy-to-implement reinforcement plan, which required only straight bars.

82
Despite the reinforcement provided in the PO specimens, the first two PO specimens

tested in this study failed away from the interface. Thus, external steel plates were added

to the remaining PO specimen as shown in Fig. 14. Each of the specimens with the steel

plates failed as intended at the interface. Previous researchers have demonstrated that it is

possible to conduct successful PO tests without external steel plates if sufficient internal

reinforcement is provided [1],[16]. Regardless of the location (internal/external) of the

reinforcement, PO specimens require more complicated reinforcing schemes than do VN

specimens.

Fig. 13- Reinforcement plan of experimental program, VN (left) and PO (right)

In comparing test set-up configurations of the two test methods (Fig. 11), it is also

important to mention that external normal forces can be more easily applied to PO tests.

Such forces mimic dead loads in structures which can increase IST capacity. When

conducting horizontal PO tests (Fig. 6), a normal force perpendicular to the interface can

be introduced by simply placing a dead load on top of the specimen. Application of

83
normal force to the interface of VN specimens would be more challenging. One

possibility would be the use of clamps which apply compressive forces at the ends of the

specimens. This condition was not addresses in the current test program.

Fig. 14- Stiffeners attached to the PO specimens

Experimental Results and Discussion

Experimental IST capacity (Vtest) was determined from the peak force recorded

during testing. For the PO test, experimental IST capacity is equal to the peak applied

force. For the VN test, experimental IST capacity was calculated from the peak applied

load, specimen geometry, and static equilibrium. The experimental program was

designed to elucidate basic similarities and differences between the two test methods

under roughened and smooth interface conditions. A comprehensive program, including

84
variation in specimen size, reinforcement quantity and concrete strength is recommended

as an extension of the current study.

Results of the test program are summarized in Fig. 15, where minimum,

maximum, and average capacities of each specimen type are presented. Shear-

displacement behaviors of the specimens are presented in Fig 16. Shear in the figure is

the applied interface shear force and displacement is movement of the sides parallel to the

interface.

Fig. 15- Results of the experimental program

Referring to Fig. 16 (left), the interface shear force corresponding to first slip

displacement was lower in PO tests as compared to VN tests, when the interfaces are

smooth. This result is attributed to the elastic stress conditions that occur in the

specimens prior to cracking. According to the FEA model, the PO test has higher stress

concentration compared to the VN. Consequently, the PO test specimens cracked and

experienced interface slip at loads lower than the VN specimens, which did not have the

same level of stress. A slip of 0.5mm (0.02in.) was selected to quantitatively compare

85
the shear force are first slip. The average interface shear force of the PO tests at this level

of slip was 38% lower than the VN tests at the same level.

Roughened Interface

Fig. 16- Interface shear versus interface horizontal slip graphs

For specimens with a smooth interface, the average IST capacity of the PO tests

was only 56% of the VN capacity. The additional capacity of the VN tests was the result

of binding action at the interface (Fig. 17). Slip displacement in the VN tests was

accompanied by rotation of the specimen halves. The applied loads near the interface, P,

were always applied vertically. As the specimen halves rotated, projected components of

P were a force parallel to the interface, , and a force perpendicular to the interface, .

The forces from the top and bottom supports created compression on the interface and

the binding mechanism. Forces generated an increase in the shear-friction resistance at

the interface, which ultimately led to an increase in the IST capacity of VN specimens.

Such binding action was not present in the PO specimens.

86
 The behavior of the specimens with roughened interfaces was distinct from the

behavior of specimens with smooth interfaces. Referring to Fig 16 (right), specimens

with roughened interfaces had similar shear forces at first crack for both test methods.

The average shear force at a slip of 0.5mm (0.02in.) was only 12% lower for the PO

specimens than for the VN specimens. Recall that the difference was 38% for the smooth

interface specimens. The reduced difference in the roughened-interface specimens is

attributed to stress concentrations occurring due to roughness of the interface; stress

concentrations due to roughness occur in both PO and VN specimens and partially

mitigate the effects of stress differences occurring due to test type. The FEA analysis did

not consider the effects of surface roughness and is not applicable to the roughened

interface specimens.

Fig. 17- Binding in the smooth interface of VN tests and application of normal force

The average IST capacity of the VN and PO test were only 5% different in the

specimens with roughened interfaces. This is different than was observed for smooth-

interface specimens, wherein binding action led to significantly higher IST capacity in

the VN tests. The roughened interface increased the stiffness of both the PO and VN

specimens when compared to the smooth-interface specimens. For the VN tests with

87
roughened interfaces, increased stiffness resulted in less slip displacement and rotation at

peak load. Because there was less slip and rotation, binding was not a factor in VN

specimens with rough interfaces. Thus, for roughened specimens the shear resistance at

the interface was similar for VN and PO, and the peak loads were similar.

Summary and Conclusion

The Iosipescu V-Notched 4-point bending test method (VN) was proposed to test

Interface Shear Transfer (IST) in reinforced concrete members. The VN method was

compared to the more conventional push-off (PO) test. Sixteen specimens were tested

with variables including the type of test (VN or PO) and the condition of the interface

(smooth or roughened). Ease of fabrication of test specimens and test protocols were also

compared and contrasted during the experimental program. Using finite element analysis,

an analytical program was also conducted to compare elastic (prior to cracking) stresses

in the VN and PO test specimens. Salient conclusions of this study are as follows:

The analytical program demonstrated that the VN model more closely simulates

the stress condition at the interface of cast-in-place decks and bridge girders. The

PO model resulted in stress concentrations at the interface ends that are not

present in the VN model.

Fabrication of the PO specimens was relatively more difficult than the VN

specimens. The reinforcement assembly of the PO specimens was more

complicated. In the PO specimens, additional external steel reinforcement was

required to prevent failure away from the interface.

88
 The experimental program showed that the VN and PO had the similar IST

capacity (5% difference), when the interfaces were roughened. Additional tests

are recommended to confirm that this result is generally applicable under a

broader range of conditions.

The experimental program demonstrated that the VN and PO are not comparable

for smooth interface specimens. For such smooth interfaces, the average IST

strength of VN specimens was 79% greater than that of the PO specimens. The

increased capacity of the VN specimens is attributed to binding action that occurs

at the interface when the slip displacement and rotation are large.

Although the effects of external normal forces applied to the interfaces was not

considered in the test program, it is noted that application of normal force is relatively

more difficult in VN tests compared to the PO tests. This benefit of the PO tests is

also worth considering when selecting a test method.

References

[1] Hofbeck, J. A., Ibrahim, I. O., & Mattock, A. H. (1969, February). Shear transfer in

reinforced concrete. In Journal Proceedings (Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 119-128).

[2] Iosipescu, N. (1967). New accurate procedure for single shear testing of metals. J

MATER, 2(3), 537-566.

[3] Jimenez-Perez, R., Gergely, P., & White, R. N. (1978). Shear transfer across cracks

in reinforced concrete (No. PB-288885). Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (USA).

[4] Santos, P. M., & Jlio, E. N. (2012). A state-of-the-art review on shear-

friction. Engineering Structures, 45, 435-448.

89
[5] Mast, R. F. (1968). Auxiliary reinforcement in concrete connections. Journal of the

Structural Division.

[6] Birkeland, P. W., & Birkeland, H. W. (1966, March). Connections in precast concrete

construction. In ACI journal, Proceedings (Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 345-367).

[7] ACI Committee, American Concrete Institute, & International Organization for

Standardization. (2014). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI

318-14) and commentary. American Concrete Institute.

[8] Hsu, T. T., Mau, S. T., & Chen, B. (1987). Theory on shear transfer strength of

reinforced concrete. Structural Journal, 84(2), 149-160.

[9] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

(2014). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 7th edition, Washington, D.C:

[10] British Standards Institution. (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures.

London. UK.

[11] Canadian Standard Association (CSA). (2014). CSA Standard A23.3-14,

Canadian Standard Association, Ontario, Canada.

[12] Santos, P. M. D., & Jlio, E. N. B. S. (2011). Factors affecting bond between new

and old concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 108(4), 449-456.

[13] Mattock, A. H., & Hawkins, N. M. (1972). Shear transfer in reinforced concrete-

recent research. PRECAST/PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INSTITUTE.

JOURNAL, 17(2).

[14] Johal, L. (1975). Shear transfer in reinforced concrete with moment or tension

acting across the shear plane. PCI JOURNAL, 77.

90
[15] Loov, R. E., & Patnaik, A. K. (1994). Horizontal shear strength of composite

concrete beams with a rough interface. PCI Journal, 39(1), 48-69.

[16] Mattock, A. H., Li, W. K., & Wang, T. C. (1976). Shear transfer in lightweight

reinforced concrete. PCI journal, 21(1), 20-39.

[17] Walraven, J., Frenay, J., & Pruijssers, A. (1987). Influence of concrete strength

and load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members. PCI

journal, 32(1), 66-84.

[18] Banta, T. E. (2005). Horizontal shear transfer between ultra high performance

concrete and lightweight concrete (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University).

[19] Standard, A. S. T. M. (1997). Standard test methods for shear properties of

composite materials by the v-notched beam method. West Conshohocken (PA):

ASTM, 100.

[20] Ross, B. E. (2002). Analytical modeling and standardized testing of concrete

beams with web bonded FRP shear reinforcement. In Masters Abstracts

International (Vol. 45, No. 06).

[21] Guenther, C. L. (2007). Evaluation of shear and diagonal tension in plain

concrete. ProQuest.

[22] Helmick, C. G., Toker-Beeson, S., & Tanner, J. E. Evaluation of Shear and

Diagonal Tension in Plain Concrete.

[23] Abaqus manual guide (2014). Version 6.14-1. Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp.,

Providence, RI.

91
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY AND CONTRIBUTIONS

This dissertation is motivated by the desire to understand interface shear transfer

and to provide engineers with better tools for designing reinforced concrete structures

that resist interface shears. Toward that end, this research leveraged database studies,

neural networks and statistical models, and physical experimentation.

Much of the work in this dissertation is based on a newly-compiled

comprehensive database of uncracked RC members tested in Interface Shear Transfer

(hereafter referred to as IST). The database was used to evaluate the IST provisions of

different design codes and to identify limitations of the current codes. Subsequent work

was motivated by the desire to create a new design model, which corrects the limitations

of the current design codes. In the final portion of the dissertation research, a new 4-point

bending IST test method was introduced, demonstrated, and compared to the most

conventional IST test method, the push-off test. The new test method can reduce the

effort required to experimentally assess IST capacity. The key findings, contributions,

and significance of this dissertation are presented in Table 1.

92
 Table 1- Key findings and significance of different phases in this study

Phase/ Key Findings/ Contributions Significance

Chapter
Phase 1/ Creation of a comprehensive Largest database of uncracked IST
Chapter 2 database of uncracked IST members complied to date.
members
Evaluation of the IST models of Code-based models showed inaccuracy
LRFD, EC, and CSA and inconsistency throughout the range
of design variables.
Phase 2/ Compressive strength of concrete Compressive strength of concrete is
Chapter 3 was the most influential design indirectly considered in code-based
parameter affecting the IST models. This is one limitation of the
strength current codes.
A new IST design model was The proposed model improved the
proposed limitations of code-based models; it
directly considered compressive strength
of concrete and is more accurate and
consistent throughout the range of
design variables.
Phase 3/ Demonstration of the Iosipescu VN tests can decrease the effort required
Chapter 4 V-Notched 4-point bending (VN) for testing IST; compared to Push-Off
test method for testing IST (PO) tests, VN test specimens were
relatively easier to fabricate.
VN tests mimic the interface stress
distribution at cast-in-place deck to
bridge girders connections.
For specimens with roughened
interfaces, VN test results were similar
to PO tests results.

In the first phase of this dissertation, a comprehensive database of uncracked IST

members was created, which contained 774 tests from research conducted from 1969 to

2015. To date, this is the largest database that has been complied for uncracked IST

specimens. Code-based IST models from three different major concrete design codes,

93
including LRFD, EC, and CSA, were evaluated using the database. When strength

reduction factors were not considered, the average experimental-to-nominal strength ratio

(strength ratio) of the LRFD, EC, and CSA were 1.49, 1.93, and 2.59, respectively. The

coefficient of variation of the aforementioned design codes were 0.38, 0.37, and 0.80,

respectively. The strength ratios were not consistent throughout the range of design

variables. Hence, IST provisions of these design codes showed inaccuracy and

inconsistency of accuracy throughout the range of design variables, and therefore is ripe

for improvement.

In the second phase of this dissertation, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to

determine the effects of compressive strength of concrete, reinforcement index, interface

cross-sectional area, roughness amplitude, and interface normal force on IST strength.

The analysis was conducted using artificial neural networks. It was shown that each

parameter was approximately linearly related to the IST strength of concrete members.

The compressive strength of concrete was the most influential among the design

variables; however, compressive strength of concrete is only indirectly considered in

code-based IST models. Based the results of the sensitivity analysis, a new design model

was proposed, which model was derived using multiple-linear regression analysis. The

proposed design model has a high level of correlation with the experimental data, with a

minimum R2 value of 0.88. The proposed design model alleviated limitations of the

current design codes by producing more accurate and more consistent results throughout

the range of design variables.

94
 Finally, the Iosipescu V-Notched 4-point bending test method was demonstrated

for testing IST of reinforced concrete members. This test method was compared to the

most conventional IST test method, the push-off test. The 4-point bending tests reduced

the effort required for testing IST compared to the PO tests, largely because VN test

specimens were relatively easier to fabricate. Results of the demonstrations showed that

when specimen interfaces were roughened, the IST strength of new 4-point bending

specimens were similar to specimens tested using the traditional method.

95
APPENDICES

96
 Appendix A

List OF REFERENCES FOR THE ACI DATABASE PAPER AND DATABASE

EVALUATION

All references collected to develop the database are listed in Appendix A along with

number of tests used in the final databases.

Reference Total Tests included Tests included in final databases Reasons for exclusion
tests after initial LRFD EC CSA in initial filtering
filtering
Shaw and Sneed 36 36 36 36 36 -
2014 [36]
Harries et al. 2012 8 8 0 8 8 -
[37]
Santos and Julio 2011 60 30 0 30 30 Splitting tests
[38]
Scott 2010 [39] 36 27 18 27 27 Failure of deck
Zeno 2009 [40] 8 8 8 8 8 -
Mansur et al. 2008 19 19 19 19 19 -
[41]
Banta 2005 [42] 24 20 10 20 20 Undefined
interface roughness
Kahn and Slapkus 6 3 3 3 3 Flexural failure
2004 [27]
Gohnert 2003 [43] 90 90 0 90 90 -
Kahn and Mitchell 50 31 23 12 31 Pre-cracked tests
2002 [13]
Papanicolaou and 36 36 0 0 0 -
Triantafillou 2002 [44]
Gohnert 2000 [16] 12 12 0 12 12 -

Valluvan et al. 1999 16 14 5 7 7 Grout at interface

[44]
Loov and Patnaik 16 13 13 13 11 Flexural failure
1994 [25]
Walraven and 6 0 0 0 0 Pre-cracked tests
Stroband 1994 [46]
Hoff 1993 [47] 18 0 0 0 0 Pre-cracked tests
Hsu et al. 1987 [14] 26 26 26 26 26 -
Frnay 1985 [48] 20 0 0 0 0 Pre-cracked tests
Pruijssers 1985 [49] 13 0 0 0 0 Pre-cracked tests

97
Walraven and 52 0 0 0 0 Pre-cracked tests
Reinhardt 1981 [50]
Mattock et al. 1976 60 27 24 0 27 Pre-cracked tests
[28]
Mattock 1976 [51] 31 0 0 0 0 Pre-cracked tests
Mattock et al. 1975 27 7 7 0 7 Corbel and pre-
[52] cracked tests
Mattock and 66 6 6 0 6 Pull-off and Pre-
Hawkins 1972 [10] cracked tests
Hofbeck et al. 1969 38 15 14 0 15 Pre-cracked tests
[9]
Total 774 428 220 311 383

The detailed information of the 383 tests included in the evaluation of final database is

shown as follows:

specimens Acv, f'c, Avf, Fy, P c, Vexp, Weight Code-specific

Rough.
ID cm2 cm2

***
Mpa Mpa kN kN ** databases
(in2) (ksi)` (in2) (ksi) (kip) (kip) LRFD EC CSA
Shaw and Sneed 2014 [32]
N-5-R-4 319.3 33.8 4.5 456.4 263.0 NWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (4.9) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (59.1)
N-5-R-5 319.3 33.8 4.5 456.4 237.6 NWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (4.9) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (53.4)
N-5-R-6 319.3 33.8 4.5 456.4 237.6 NWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (4.9) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (53.4)
N-5-S-4 319.3 33.8 4.5 456.4 145.5 NWC S X X X
(49.5) (4.9) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (32.7)
N-5-S-5 319.3 33.8 4.5 456.4 154.4 NWC S X X X
(49.5) (4.9) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (34.7)
N-5-S-6 319.3 33.8 4.5 456.4 174.0 NWC S X X X
(49.5) (4.9) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (39.1)
S-5-R-1 319.3 31.0 4.5 456.4 227.8 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (4.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (51.4)
S-5-R-2 319.3 31.0 4.5 456.4 224.3 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (4.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (50.4)
S-5-R-3 319.3 31.0 4.5 456.4 239.8 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (4.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (53.9)
S-5-S-1 319.3 31.0 4.5 456.4 171.3 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (4.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (38.5)
S-5-S-2 319.3 31.0 4.5 456.4 151.7 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (4.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (34.1)
S-5-S-3 319.3 31.0 4.5 456.4 177.1 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (4.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (39.8)
A-5-R-1 319.3 42.1 4.5 456.4 0.0 215.4 LWC R2 X X X

98
 (49.5) (6.1) (0.7) (66.2) (48.4)
A-5-R-2 319.3 42.1 4.5 456.4 235.0 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (6.1) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (52.8)
A-5-R-3 319.3 42.1 4.5 456.4 228.7 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (6.1) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (51.4)
A-5-S-1 319.3 42.1 4.5 456.4 184.7 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (6.1) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (41.5)
A-5-S-2 319.3 42.1 4.5 456.4 178.4 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (6.1) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (40.1)
A-5-S-3 319.3 42.1 4.5 456.4 174.4 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (6.1) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (39.2)
N-8-R-1 319.3 51.7 4.5 456.4 329.3 NWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (74.0)
N-8-R-2 319.3 51.7 4.5 456.4 249.6 NWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (56.1)
N-8-R-3 319.3 51.7 4.5 456.4 285.2 NWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (64.1)
N-8-S-1 319.3 51.7 4.5 456.4 291.9 NWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (65.6)
N-8-S-2 319.3 51.7 4.5 456.4 237.2 NWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (53.3)
N-8-S-3 319.3 51.7 4.5 456.4 246.1 NWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.5) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (55.3)
S-8-R-1 319.3 49.6 4.5 456.4 320.4 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.2) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (72.0)
S-8-R-2 319.3 49.6 4.5 456.4 299.9 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.2) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (67.4)
S-8-R-3 319.3 49.6 4.5 456.4 296.8 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.2) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (66.7)
S-8-S-1 319.3 49.6 4.5 456.4 298.1 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.2) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (67.0)
S-8-S-2 319.3 49.6 4.5 456.4 257.6 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.2) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (57.9)
S-8-S-3 319.3 49.6 4.5 456.4 262.6 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.2) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (58.9)
A-8-R-1 319.3 53.8 4.5 456.4 275.0 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.8) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (61.8)
A-8-R-2 319.3 53.8 4.5 456.4 284.3 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.8) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (63.9)
A-8-R-3 319.3 53.8 4.5 456.4 285.2 LWC R2 X X X
(49.5) (7.8) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (64.1)
A-8-S-1 319.3 53.8 4.5 456.4 205.1 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.8) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (46.1)
A-8-S-2 319.3 53.8 4.5 456.4 213.6 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.8) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (48.0)
A-8-S-3 319.3 53.8 4.5 456.4 230.1 LWC S X X X
(49.5) (7.8) (0.7) (66.2) 0.0 (51.7)
Harries et al. 2012 [33]
615-3 A 1034.6 40.0 4.5 464.0 500.4 NWC R2 X X X
(160.4) (5.8) (0.7) (67.3) 0.0 (112.5)
615-3 B 1052.6 40.0 4.5 464.0 0.0 429.2 NWC R2 X X X

99
 (163.2) (5.8) (0.7) (67.3) (96.5)
615-4 A 1064.2 40.0 7.7 424.0 509.3 NWC R2 X X X
(165.0) (5.8) (1.2) (61.5) 0.0 (114.5)
615-4 B 1048.1 40.0 7.7 424.0 509.3 NWC R2 X X X
(162.5) (5.8) (1.2) (61.5) 0.0 (114.5)
1035-3 A 1015.9 40.0 4.5 896.3 400.3 NWC R2 X X X
(157.5) (5.8) (0.7) (130.0) 0.0 (90.0)
1035-3 B 1035.5 40.0 4.5 868.7 467.1 NWC R2 X X X
(160.7) (5.8) (0.7) (126.0) 0.0 (105.0)
1035-4 A 1048.1 40.0 7.7 965.3 603.6 NWC R2 X X X
(162.5) (5.8) (1.2) (140.0) 0.0 (135.7)
1035-4 B 1036.5 40.0 7.7 905.3 504.9 NWC R2 X X X
(160.7) (5.8) (1.2) (131.3) 0.0 (113.5)
Santos and Julio 2011 [35]
LAC-L28- 562.6 66.2 0.0 - 272. 2 471.9 NWC S X X
slant (87.2) (9.6)* (61.2) (106.1)
WB-L28- 562.6 66.2 0.0 - 311.8 540.0 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (9.6)* (70.1) (121.4)
SAB-L28- 562.6 66.2 0.0 - 481.7 834.9 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (9.6)* (108.3) (187.7)
SHB-L28- 562.6 66.2 0.0 - 591.2 1024.4 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (9.6) * (132.9) (230.3)
SH-L28- 562.6 66.2 0.0 - 661.0 1145.4 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (9.6) * (148.6) (257.5)
LAC-L56- 562.6 88.7 0.0 - 270.4 468.8 NWC S X X
slant (87.2) (11.7) * (60.8) (105.4)
WB-L56- 562.6 88.7 0.0 - 404.8 701.5 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (11.7) * (91.0) (157.7)
SAB-L56- 562.6 88.7 0.0 - 503.5 872.3 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (11.7) * (113.2) (196.1)
SHB-L56- 562.6 88.7 0.0 - 646.8 1120.9 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (11.7) * (145.4) (252.0)
SH-L56- 562.6 88.7 0.0 - 607.2 1052.4 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (11.7) * (136.5) (236.6)
LAC-L84- 562.6 72.4 0.0 - 436.4 NWC S X X
slant (87.2) (10.50) 251.8 (98.1)
* (56.6)
WB-L84- 562.6 72.4 0.0 - 463.0 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.50) 270.3 (104.1)
* (60.1)
SAB-L84- 562.6 72.4 0.0 - 520.4 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.50) 300.2 (117.0)
* (67.5)
SHB-L84- 562.6 72.4 0.0 - 564.0 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.50) 325.6 (126.8)
* (73.2)
SH-L84- 562.6 72.4 0.0 - 349.6 605.8 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.5) * (78.6) (136.2)
LAC-E28- 562.6 68.2 0.0 - 227.3 394.1 NWC S X X
slant (87.2) (9.9) * (51.1) (88.6)
WB-E28- 562.6 68.2 0.0 - 261.5 453.3 NWC R1 X X

100
slant (87.2) (9.9) * (58.8) (101.9)
SAB-E28- 562.6 68.2 0.0 - 274.0 475.1 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (9.9) * (61.6) (106.8)
SHB-E28- 562.6 68.2 0.0 - 311.8 540.0 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (9.9) * (70.1) (121.4)
SH-E28- 562.6 68.2 0.0 - 324..3 561.8 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (9.9) * (72.9) (126.3)
LAC-E56- 562.6 71.0 0.0 - 266.9 462.6 NWC S X X
slant (87.2) (10.3) * (60.0) (104.0)
WB-E56- 562.6 71.0 0.0 - 310.0 536.9 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.3) * (69.7) (120.7)
SAB-E56- 562.6 71.0 0.0 - 354.5 614.7 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.3) * (79.7) (138.2)
SHB-E56- 562.6 71.0 0.0 - 386.0 667.7 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.3) * (86.6) (150.1)
SH-E56- 562.6 71.0 0.0 - 460.4 798.0 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.3) * (103.5) (179.4)
LAC-E84- 562.6 69.6 0.0 - 180.1 312.3 NWC S X X
slant (87.2) (10.1) * (40.5) (70.2)
WB-E84- 562.6 69.6 0.0 - 185.5 321.6 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.1) * (41.7) (72.3)
SAB-E84- 562.6 69.6 0.0 - 198.8 344.7 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.1) * (44.7) (77.5)
SHB-E84- 562.6 69.6 0.0 - 221.5 383.9 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.1) * (49.8) (86.3)
SH-E84- 562.6 69.6 0.0 - 270.9 469.3 NWC R1 X X
slant (87.2) (10.1) * (60.9) (105.5)
Scott 2010 [36]
LL-0-A 2477.4 40.3 0.0 - 11.1 587.2 LWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.2) (2.5) (132.0)
LL-0-B 2477.4 40.3 0.0 - 11.1 622.7 LWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.2) (2.5) (140.0)
LL-0-C 2477.4 40.3 0.0 - 11.1 791.8 LWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.2) (2.5) (178.0)
NN-0-A 2477.4 40.0 0.0 - 11.1 680.6 NWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.1) (2.5) (153.0)
NN-0-B 2477.4 40.0 0.0 - 11.1 711.7 NWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.1) (2.5) (160.0)
NN-0-C 2477.4 40.0 0.0 - 11.1 693.9 NWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.1) (2.5) (156.0)
NL-0-A 2477.4 40.3 0.0 - 11.1 827.4 LWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.2) (2.5) (186.0)
NL-0-B 2477.4 40.3 0.0 - 11.1 582.7 LWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.2) (2.5) (131.0)
NL-0-C 2477.4 40.3 0.0 - 11.1 876.3 LWC R2 X X
(384.0) (6.2) (2.5) (197.0)
LL-1-A 2477.4 40.3 2.6 413.7 11.1 1076.5 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.2) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (242.0)
LL-1-B 2477.4 40.3 2.6 413.7 11.1 653.9 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.2) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (147.0)
LL-1-C 2477.4 40.3 2.6 413.7 11.1 836.3 LWC R2 X X X

101
 (384.0) (6.2) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (188.0)
NN-1-A 2477.4 40.0 2.6 413.7 11.1 547.1 NWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.1) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (123.0)
NN-1-B 2477.4 40.0 2.6 413.7 11.1 627.2 NWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.1) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (141.0)
NN-1-C 2477.4 40.0 2.6 413.7 11.1 769.5 NWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.1) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (173.0)
NL-1-A 2477.4 40.3 2.6 413.7 11.1 751.7 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.2) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (169.0)
NL-1-B 2477.4 40.3 2.6 413.7 11.1 778.4 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.2) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (175.0)
NL-1-C 2477.4 40.3 2.6 413.7 11.1 814.0 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.2) (0.4) (60.0) (2.5) (183.0)
LL-3-A 2477.4 37.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 894.1 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (5.7) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (201.0)
LL-3-B 2477.4 37.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 991.9 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (5.7) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (223.0)
LL-3-C 2477.4 37.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 1023.1 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (5.7) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (230.0)
NN-3-A 2477.4 40.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 867.4 NWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.1) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (195.0)
NN-3-B 2477.4 40.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 969.7 NWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.1) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (218.0)
NN-3-C 2477.4 40.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 1018.6 NWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (6.1) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (229.0)
NL-3-A 2477.4 37.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 1076.5 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (5.7) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (242.0)
NL-3-B 2477.4 37.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 1058.7 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (5.7) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (238.0)
NL-3-C 2477.4 37.0 12.0 413.7 11.1 814.0 LWC R2 X X X
(384.0) (5.7) (1.9) (60.0) (2.5) (183.0)
Zeno 2009 [37]
P-615-3A 1034.8 40.0 4.3 464.0 500.4 NWC R2 X X X
(160.4) (5.8) (0.7) (67.3) 0.0 (112.5)
P-615-3B 1052.9 40.0 4.3 464.0 429.2 NWC R2 X X X
(163.2) (5.8) (0.7) (67.3) 0.0 (96.5)
P-615-4A 1064.5 40.0 7.6 424.0 509.3 NWC R2 X X X
(165.0) (5.8) (1.2) (61.5) 0.0 (114.5)
P-615-4B 1048.4 40.0 7.6 424.0 573.8 NWC R2 X X X
(162.5) (5.8) (1.2) (61.5) 0.0 (129.0)
P-1035- 1016.1 40.0 4.3 896.3 400.3 NWC R2 X X X
3A (157.5) (5.8) (0.7) (130.0) 0.0 (90.0)
P-1035- 1036.8 40.0 4.3 868.7 467.1 NWC R2 X X X
3B (160.7) (5.8) (0.7) (126.0) 0.0 (105.0)
P-1035- 1048.4 40.0 7.6 965.3 603.6 NWC R2 X X X
4A (162.5) (5.8) (1.2) (140.0) 0.0 (135.7)
P-1035- 1036.8 40.0 7.6 897.0 504.9 NWC R2 X X X
4B (160.7) (5.8) (1.2) (131.3) 0.0 (113.5)
Mansur et al. 2008 [38]
AN-2 359.3 40.0 3.1 530.2 292.7 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (5.8) * (0.5) (76.9) 0.0 (65.8)

102
AN-4 359.3 40.0 6.1 530.2 364.5 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (5.8) * (1.0) (76.9) 0.0 (81.9)
AN-6 359.3 40.0 9.3 530.2 463.7 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (5.8) * (1.4) (76.9) 0.0 (104.2)
AM-2 359.3 68.9 3.1 530.2 270.4 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (10.0) * (0.5) (76.9) 0.0 (60.8)
AM-3 359.3 68.9 4.6 530.2 411.6 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (10.0) * (0.7) (76.9) 0.0 (92.5)
AM-4 359.3 68.9 6.1 530.2 503.5 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (10.0) * (1.0) (76.9) 0.0 (113.2)
AH-2 359.3 86.9 3.1 530.2 280.2 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (12.6) * (0.5) (76.9) 0.0 (63.0)
AH-3 359.3 86.9 4.6 530.2 443.8 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (12.6) * (0.7) (76.9) 0.0 (99.8)
AH-4 359.3 86.9 6.1 530.2 508.4 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (12.6) * (1.0) (76.9) 0.0 (114.3)
B1-4 359.3 73.1 4.1 299.9 240.5 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (10.6) * (0.6) (43.5) 0.0 (54.1)
B2-2 359.3 84.8 2.1 299.9 186.0 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (12.3) * (0.3) (43.5) 0.0 (41.8)
B2-4 359.3 84.8 4.1 299.9 262.8 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (12.3) * (0.6) (43.5) 0.0 (60.0)
B2-5 359.3 84.8 5.2 299.9 295.0 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (12.3) * (0.8) (43.5) 0.0 (66.3)
B2-6 359.3 84.8 6.1 299.9 329.6 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (12.3) * (1.0) (43.5) 0.0 (74.1)
B3-4 359.3 95.1 4.1 299.9 285.1 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (13.8) * (0.6) (43.5) 0.0 (64.1)
B4-2 359.3 106.2 2.1 299.9 215.7 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (15.4) * (0.3) (43.5) 0.0 (48.5)
B4-4 359.3 106.2 4.1 299.9 302.5 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (15.4) * (0.6) (43.5) 0.0 (68.0)
B4-5 359.3 106.2 5.2 299.9 332.3 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (15.4) * (0.8) (43.5) 0.0 (74.7)
B4-6 359.3 106.2 6.1 299.9 357.0 NWC S X X X
(55.7) (15.4) * (1.0) (43.5) 0.0 (80.27)
Banta 2005 [39]
12S-0L-0- 645.2 40.7 0.0 - 0.9 47.6 LWC S X X
A (100.0) (5.9) (0.2) (10.7)
12S-0L-0- 645.2 40.7 0.0 - 0.9 84.5 LWC S X X
B (100.0) (5.9) (0.2) (19.0)
12S-2L-2- 645.2 40.7 2.8 496.4 0.9 185.0 LWC S X X X
A (100.0) (5.9) (0.4) (72.0) (0.2) (41.6)
12S-2L-2- 645.2 40.7 2.8 496.4 0.9 182.1 LWC S X X X
B (100.0) (5.9) (0.4) (72.0) (0.2) (40.9)
18S-1L-1- 1032.2 40.7 0.7 496.4 1.3 131.7 LWC S X X
A (160.0) (5.9) (0.1) (72.0) (0.3) (29.6)
18S-1L-1- 1032.2 40.7 0.7 496.4 1.3 114.8 LWC S X X
B (160.0) (5.9) (0.1) (72.0) (0.3) (25.8)
18S-2L-1- 1032.2 40.7 1.4 496.4 1.3 104.1 LWC S X X X
A (160.0) (5.9) (0.2) (72.0) (0.3) (23.4)

103
18S-2L-1- 1032.2 40.7 1.4 496.4 1.3 102.3 LWC S X X X
B (160.0) (5.9) (0.2) (72.0) (0.3) (23.0)
18S-2L-2- 1032.2 40.7 2.8 496.4 1.3 209.1 LWC S X X X
A (160.0) (5.9) (0.4) (72.0) (0.3) (47.0)
18S-2L-2- 1032.2 40.7 2.8 496.4 1.3 185.9 LWC S X X X
B (160.0) (5.9) (0.4) (72.0) (0.3) (41.8)
18S-2L-3- 1032.2 40.7 5.4 496.4 1.3 286.5 LWC S X X X
A (160.0) (5.9) (0.7) (72.0) (0.3) (64.4)
18S-2L-3- 1032.2 40.7 5.4 496.4 1.3 250.4 LWC S X X X
B (160.0) (5.9) (0.7) (72.0) (0.3) (56.3)
18S-0L-0- 1032.2 40.7 0.0 - 1.3 94.7 LWC S X X
A (160.0) (5.9) (0.3) (21.3)
18S-0L-0- 1032.2 40.7 0.0 - 1.3 72.9 LWC S X X
B (160.0) (5.9) (0.3) (16.4)
18C-0L-0- 1032.2 40.7 0.0 - 1.3 285.1 LWC R2 X X
A (160.0) (5.9) (0.3) (64.1)
18C-0L-0- 1032.2 40.7 0.0 - 1.3 222 LWC R2 X X
B (160.0) (5.9) (0.3) (49.9)
24S-0L-0- 1419.3 40.7 0.0 - 1.8 206.3 LWC S X X
A (220.0) (5.9) (0.4) (46.4)
24S-0L-0- 1419.3 40.7 0.0 - 1.8 222.4 LWC S X X
B (220.0) (5.9) (0.4) (50.0)
24S-2L-2- 1419.3 40.7 2.8 496.4 1.8 193.7 LWC S X X X
A (220.0) (5.9) (0.4) (72.0) (0.4) (43.5)
24S-2L-2- 1419.3 40.7 2.8 496.4 1.8 184.4 LWC S X X X
B (220.0) (5.9) (0.4) (72.0) (0.4) (41.4)
Kahn and Slapkus 2004 [24]
7_5 1529.0 50.1 4.8 556.4 0.0 625.1 NWC R2 X X X
(237.0) (7.3) (0.7) (80.7) (140.5)
7_7 1529.0 50.1 6.8 556.4 0.0 1035.1 NWC R2 X X X
(237.0) (7.3) (1.0) (80.7) (232.7)
7_9 1529.0 50.1 8.7 556.4 0.0 1055.1 NWC R2 X X X
(237.0) (7.3) (1.3) (80.7) (237.2)
Gohnert 2003 [40]
A-1 1041.1 22.8 0.6 413.7 119.0 NWC R1 X X
(161.4) (3.3) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (26.7)
A-2 1131.1 22.8 0.6 413.7 75.0 NWC R1 X X
(175.3) (3.3) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (17.0)
A-3 1135.3 22.8 0.6 413.7 117.0 NWC R1 X X
(176.0) (3.3)* (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (26.3)
A-4 1126.4 22.8 0.6 413.7 141.0 NWC R1 X X
(174.6) (3.3)* (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (31.7)
A-5 1126.4 22.8 0.6 413.7 89.0 NWC R1 X X
(174.6) (3.3)* (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (20.0)
A-6 1154.8 22.8 0.6 413.7 100.0 NWC R1 X X
(179.0) (3.3)* (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (22.5)
B-1 1141.3 22.8 0.0 - 72.1 NWC R1 X X
(176.9) (3.3)* 0.0 (16.2)
B-2 1141.3 22.8 0.0 - 123.1 NWC R1 X X
(176.9) (3.3)* 0.0 (27.7)
B-3 1141.3 22.8 0.0 - 0.0 103.1 NWC R1 X X

104
 (176.9) (3.3)* (23.2)
B-4 1165.8 22.8 0.0 - 146.9 NWC R1 X X
(180.7) (3.3)* 0.0 (33.3)
B-5 1045.1 22.8 0.0 - 124.7 NWC R1 X X
(162.9) (3.3)* 0.0 (28.6)
B-6 1147.3 22.8 0.0 - 124.7 NWC R1 X X
(177.8) (3.3) * 0.0 (28.6)
C-1 1145.2 25.5 0.6 413.7 106.8 NWC R1 X X
(174.8) (3.7)* (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (24.3)
C-2 1151.1 25.5 0.6 413.7 155.0 NWC R1 X X
(176.7) (3.7) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (34.9)
C-3 1144.2 25.5 0.6 413.7 157.9 NWC R1 X X
(174.4) (3.7)* (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (35.5)
C-4 1161.6 25.5 0.6 413.7 220.2 NWC R1 X X
(176.7) (3.7)* (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (49.5)
C-5 1124.4 25.5 0.6 413.7 145.9 NWC R1 X X
(173.0) (3.7)* (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (32.8)
C-6 1132.2 25.5 0.6 413.7 219.3 NWC R1 X X
(173.9) (3.7) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (49.3)
D-1 1163.9 31.4 0.6 413.7 144.1 NWC R1 X X
(180.4) (4.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (32.4)
D-2 1170.2 31.4 0.6 413.7 149.0 NWC R1 X X
(181.3) (4.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (33.5)
D-3 1163.9 31.4 0.6 413.7 109.0 NWC R1 X X
(180.4) (4.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (24.5)
D-4 1169.2 31.4 0.6 413.7 135.2 NWC R1 X X
(182.0) (4.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (30.4)
D-5 1163.9 31.4 0.6 413.7 129.0 NWC R1 X X
(180.4) (4.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (29.0)
D-6 1169.2 31.4 0.6 413.7 148.1 NWC R1 X X
(182.0) (4.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (33.3)
E-1 1155.2 29.2 0.6 413.7 171.2 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.2) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (38.5)
E-2 1155.2 29.2 0.6 413.7 176.1 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.2) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (39.6)
E-3 1155.2 29.2 0.6 413.7 189.9 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.2) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (42.7)
E-4 1155.2 29.2 0.6 413.7 135.2 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.2) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (30.4)
E-5 1155.2 29.2 0.6 413.7 193.9 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.2) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (43.6)
E-6 1155.2 29.2 0.6 413.7 193.9 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.2) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (43.6)
F-1 1155.2 23.9 0.6 413.7 175.2 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (3.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (38.7)
F-2 1155.2 23.9 0.6 413.7 173.2 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (3.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (37.6)
F-3 1165.2 23.9 0.6 413.7 125.0 NWC R1 X X
(179.5) (3.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (28.1)
F-4 1165.2 23.9 0.6 413.7 175.2 NWC R1 X X
(179.5) (3.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (38.9)

105
F-5 174.37 23.9 0.6 413.7 148.1 NWC R1 X X
(3.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (33.3)
F-6 1155.2 23.9 0.6 413.7 177.0 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (3.5) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (39.8)
G-1 1155.2 30.5 0.6 413.7 173.0 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.4) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (38.9)
G-2 1155.2 30.5 0.6 413.7 176.5 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.4) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (39.1)
G-3 1155.2 30.5 0.6 413.7 175.2 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.4) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (38.5)
G-4 1165.2 30.5 0.6 413.7 176.9 NWC R1 X X
(179.5) (4.4) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (39.4)
G-5 1165.2 30.5 0.6 413.7 176.9 NWC R1 X X
(179.5) (4.4) * (0.1) (60.0) 0.0 (39.4)
G-6 1155.2 30.5 0.3 413.7 177.0 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (4.4) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (39.8)
H-1 1155.2 26.4 0.3 413.7 172.1 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (3.8) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (38.7)
H-2 1155.2 26.4 0.3 413.7 153.0 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (3.8) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (34.4)
H-3 1155.2 26.4 0.3 413.7 144.1 NWC R1 X X
(175.9) (3.8) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (32.4)
H-4 1240.8 26.4 0.3 413.7 145.0 NWC R1 X X
(192.3) (3.8) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (32.6)
H-5 1215.0 26.4 0.3 413.7 147.2 NWC R1 X X
(188.3) (3.8) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (33.1)
H-6 1215.0 26.4 0.3 413.7 173.9 NWC R1 X X
(188.3) (3.8) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (39.1)
I-1 864.5 25.3 0.2 413.7 160.1 NWC R1 X X
(134.0) (3.7) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (36.0)
I-2 864.5 25.3 0.2 413.7 139.2 NWC R1 X X
(134.0) (3.7) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (31.3)
I-3 864.5 25.3 0.2 413.7 130.0 NWC R1 X X
(134.0) (3.7) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (29.2)
I-4 864.5 25.3 0.2 413.7 173.9 NWC R1 X X
(134.0) (3.7) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (39.1)
I-5 864.5 25.3 0.2 413.7 176.1 NWC R1 X X
(134.0) (3.7) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (39.6)
I-6 864.5 25.3 0.2 413.7 136.1 NWC R1 X X
(134.0) (3.7) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (30.6)
J-1 189.07 29.6 0.3 413.7 172.1 NWC R1 X X
(4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (38.7)
J-2 1215.0 29.6 0.3 413.7 155.2 NWC R1 X X
(188.3) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (34.9)
J-3 1215.0 29.6 0.3 413.7 169.0 NWC R1 X X
(188.3) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (38.0)
J-4 1215.0 29.6 0.3 413.7 153.9 NWC R1 X X
(188.3) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (34.6)
J-5 1215.0 29.6 0.3 413.7 138.3 NWC R1 X X
(188.3) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (31.3)
J-6 1215.0 29.6 0.3 413.7 153.0 NWC R1 X X
(188.3) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (34.4)

106
K-1 890.3 29.6 0.2 413.7 173.9 NWC R1 X X
(138.3) (4.3) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (39.1)
K-2 890.3 29.6 0.2 413.7 168.1 NWC R1 X X
(138.3) (4.3) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (37.8)
K-3 890.3 29.6 0.2 413.7 173.0 NWC R1 X X
(138.3) (4.3) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (38.9)
K-4 890.3 29.6 0.2 413.7 177.0 NWC R1 X X
(138.3) (4.3) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (39.8)
K-5 890.3 29.6 0.2 413.7 135.2 NWC R1 X X
(138.3) (4.3) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (30.4)
K-6 890.3 29.6 0.2 413.7 165.0 NWC R1 X X
(138.3) (4.3) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (37.1)
L-1 1148.4 33.9 0.3 413.7 181.0 NWC R1 X X
(178.8) (4.9) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (40.7)
L-2 1148.4 33.9 0.3 413.7 181.0 NWC R1 X X
(178.8) (4.9) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (40.7)
L-3 1148.4 33.9 0.3 413.7 189.0 NWC R1 X X
(178.8) (4.9) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (42.5)
L-4 1148.4 33.9 0.3 413.7 189.0 NWC R1 X X
(178.8) (4.9) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (41.6)
L-5 1148.4 33.9 0.2 413.7 189.0 NWC R1 X X
(178.8) (4.9) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (42.5)
L-6 1148.4 33.9 0.3 413.7 188.2 NWC R1 X X
(178.8) (4.9) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (42.3)
M-1 1148.4 29.6 0.3 413.7 179.3 NWC R1 X X
(178.8) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (40.3)
M-2 1148.4 29.6 0.3 413.7 164.1 NWC R1 X X
(178.8) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (36.9)
M-3 1167.8 29.6 0.3 413.7 201.1 NWC R1 X X
(181.1) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (45.2)
M-4 1167.8 29.6 0.3 413.7 179.3 NWC R1 X X
(181.1) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (40.3)
M-5 1167.8 29.6 0.3 413.7 178.3 NWC R1 X X
(181.1) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (40.0)
M-6 1167.8 29.6 0.3 413.7 153.9 NWC R1 X X
(181.1) (4.3) * (0.04) (60.0) 0.0 (34.6)
N-1 1851.6 38.3 0.2 413.7 175.2 NWC R1 X X
(287.9) (5.6) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (39.4)
N-2 1851.6 38.3 0.2 413.7 140.1 NWC R1 X X
(287.9) (5.6) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (31.5)
N-3 1851.6 38.3 0.2 413.7 179.3 NWC R1 X X
(287.9) (5.6) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (40.3)
N-4 1851.6 38.3 0.2 413.7 175.2 NWC R1 X X
(287.9) (5.6) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (39.4)
N-5 1851.6 38.3 0.2 413.7 179.3 NWC R1 X X
(287.9) (5.6) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (40.3)
N-6 1851.6 38.3 0.2 413.7 167.2 NWC R1 X X
(287.9) (5.6) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (37.6)
O-1 1851.6 28.2 0.2 413.7 149.0 NWC R1 X X
(287.9) (4.1) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (33.5)
O-2 1367.7 28.2 0.2 413.7 69.8 NWC R1 X X
(212.4) (4.1) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (15.7)

107
O-3 1309.7 28.2 0.2 413.7 120.1 NWC R1 X X
(204.0) (4.1) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (27.0)
O-4 1309.7 28.2 0.2 413.7 120.1 NWC R1 X X
(204.0) (4.1) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (27.0)
O-5 1309.7 28.2 0.2 413.7 125.0 NWC R1 X X
(204.0) (4.1) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (28.1)
O-6 1896.8 28.2 0.2 413.7 177.0 NWC R1 X X
(294.5) (4.1) * (0.03) (60.0) 0.0 (39.8)
Kahn and Mitchell 2002 [10]
SF-7-1-CJ 929.0 64.5 0.7 572.3 240.2 NWC R2 X X
(144.0) (9.3) (0.1) (83.0) 0.0 (54.0)
SF-7-2-CJ 929.0 64.5 1.1 572.3 365.2 NWC R2 X X X
(144.0) (9.3) (0.2) (83.0) 0.0 (82.1)
SF-7-3-CJ 929.0 70.7 2.1 572.3 490.6 NWC R2 X X X
(144.0) (10.3) (0.3) (83.0) 0.0 (110.3)
SF-7-4-CJ 929.0 70.7 2.8 572.3 590.3 NWC R2 X X X
(144.0) (10.3) (0.4) (83.0) 0.0 (132.7)
SF-10-1- 929.0 76.7 0.7 572.3 141.0 NWC R2 X X
CJ (144.0) (11.1) (0.1) (83.0) 0.0 (31.7)
SF-10-2- 929.0 65.6 1.1 572.3 219.3 NWC R2 X X X
CJ (144.0) (9.5) (0.2) (83.0) 0.0 (49.3)
SF-10-3- 929.0 65.6 2.1 572.3 506.6 NWC R2 X X X
CJ (144.0) (9.5) (0.3) (83.0) 0.0 (113.9)
SF-10-4- 929.0 65.6 2.8 572.3 560.5 NWC R2 X X X
CJ (144.0) (9.5) (0.4) (83.0) 0.0 (126.0)
SF-14-1- 929.0 88.2 0.7 572.3 404.3 NWC R2 X X
CJ (144.0) (12.8) (0.1) (83.0) 0.0 (90.9)
SF-14-2- 929.0 88.2 1.1 572.3 441.3 NWC R2 X X X
CJ (144.0) (12.8) (0.2) (83.0) 0.0 (99.2)
SF-14-3- 929.0 86.2 2.1 572.3 599.2 NWC R2 X X X
CJ (144.0) (12.5) (0.3) (83.0) 0.0 (134.7)
SF-14-4- 929.0 86.2 2.8 572.3 681.0 NWC R2 X X X
CJ (144.0) (12.5) (0.4) (83.0) 0.0 (153.1)
SF-4-1-U 929.0 46.9 0.7 479.2 257.5 NWC M X
(144.0) (6.8) (0.1) (69.5) 0.0 (57.9)
SF-4-2-U 929.0 46.9 1.1 479.2 356.3 NWC M X X
(144.0) (6.8) (0.2) (69.5) 0.0 (80.1)
SF-4-3-U 929.0 46.9 2.1 479.2 381.6 NWC M X X
(144.0) (6.8) (0.3) (69.5) 0.0 (85.8)
SF-7-1-U 929.0 80.9 0.7 572.3 389.2 NWC M X
(144.0) (11.7) (0.1) (83.0) 0.0 (87.5)
SF-7-2-U 929.0 85.6 1.1 572.3 525.3 NWC M X X
(144.0) (12.4) (0.2) (83.0) 0.0 (118.1)
SF-7-3-U 929.0 90.3 2.1 572.3 615.6 NWC M X X
(144.0) (13.1) (0.3) (83.0) 0.0 (138.4)
SF-7-4-U 929.0 86.0 2.8 572.3 663.2 NWC M X X
(144.0) (12.5) (0.4) (83.0) 0.0 (149.1)
SF-10-1- 929.0 83.1 0.7 572.3 445.3 NWC M X
U-a (144.0) (12.0) (0.1) (83.0) 0.0 (100.1)
SF-10-1- 929.0 98.8 0.7 572.3 408.8 NWC M X
U-b (144.0) (14.3) (0.1) (83.0) 0.0 (91.9)

108
SF-10-2- 929.0 101.2 1.1 572.3 580.9 NWC M X X
U-a (144.0) (14.7) (0.2) (83.0) 0.0 (130.6)
SF-10-2- 929.0 101.2 1.1 572.3 551.6 NWC M X X
U-b (144.0) (14.7) (0.2) (83.0) 0.0 (124.0)
SF-10-3- 929.0 111.7 2.1 572.3 644.1 NWC M X X
U-a (144.0) (16.2) (0.3) (83.0) 0.0 (144.8)
SF-10-3- 929.0 96.0 2.1 572.3 657.9 NWC M X X
U-b (144.0) (13.9) (0.3) (83.0) 0.0 (147.9)
SF-10-4- 929.0 106.9 2.8 572.3 693.9 NWC M X X
U-a (144.0) (15.5) (0.4) (83.0) 0.0 (156.0)
SF-10-4- 929.0 113.6 2.8 572.3 711.7 NWC M X X
U-b (144.0) (16.5) (0.4) (83.0) 0.0 (160.0)
SF-14-1- 929.0 120.6 0.7 572.3 422.1 NWC M X
U (144.0) (17.5) (0.1) (83.0) 0.0 (94.9)
SF-14-2- 929.0 120.6 1.1 572.3 482.6 NWC M X X
U (144.0) (17.5) (0.2) (83.0) 0.0 (108.5)
SF-14-3- 929.0 111.4 2.1 572.3 650.3 NWC M X X
U (144.0) (16.3) (0.3) (83.0) 0.0 (146.2)
SF-14-4- 929.0 111.4 2.8 572.3 693.9 NWC M X X
U (144.0) (16.3) (0.4) (83.0) 0.0 (156.0)
Gohnert 2000 [13]
1 1122.9 21.4 0.0 - 117.9 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (3.3) 0.0 (26.5)
2 1122.9 21.4 0.0 - 77.4 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (3.3) 0.0 (17.4)
3 1122.9 21.4 0.0 - 115.6 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (3.3) 0.0 (26.0)
4 1122.9 21.4 0.0 - 140.3 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (3.3) 0.0 (31.5)
5 1122.9 21.4 0.0 - 86.5 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (3.3) 0.0 (19.9)
6 1122.9 21.4 0.0 - 97.7 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (3.3) 0.0 (22.0)
7 1122.9 31.4 0.0 - 139.3 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (4.5) 0.0 (31.3)
8 1122.9 31.4 0.0 - 139.3 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (4.5) 0.0 (31.3)
9 1122.9 31.4 0.0 - 108.4 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (4.5) 0.0 (24.4)
10 1122.9 31.4 0.0 - 131.7 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (4.5) 0.0 (29.6)
11 1122.9 31.4 0.0 - 123.9 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (4.5) 0.0 (27.8)
12 1122.9 31.4 0.0 - 139.3 NWC R1 X X
(174.0) (4.5) 0.0 (31.3)
Valluvan et al. 1999 [42]
B1 825.8 24.1 8.5 475.7 502 NWC R2 X X X
(128.0) (3.5) (1.3) (69.0) 0.0 (113.0)
B2 825.8 24.1 17.0 475.7 578.3 NWC R2 X X X
(128.0) (3.5) (2.6) (69.0) 0.0 (130.0)
B3 825.8 24.1 0.0 - 569.4 1129.8 NWC R2 X X

109
 (128.0) (3.5) (128.0) (254.0)
B4 825.8 24.1 0.0 - 854.0 1294.4 NWC R2 X X
(128.0) (3.5) (192.0) (291.0)
B5 825.8 24.1 8.5 475.7 569.4 1175.3 NWC R2 X X X
(128.0) (3.5) (1.3) (69.0) (128.0) (264.0)
B6 825.8 24.1 17.0 475.7 569.4 1218.8 NWC R2 X X X
(128.0) (3.5) (2.6) (69.0) (128.0) (274.0)
B9 825.8 24.1 8.5 475.7 199.3 742.8 NWC R2 X X X
(128.0) (3.5) (1.3) (69.0) (44.8) (167.0)
Loov and Patnaik 1994 [22]
1 894.5 37.4 24.1 437.9 690.8 NWC R2 X X X
(138.6) (5.4) (3.7) (63.5) 0.0 (155.3)
2 894.5 34.9 9.9 437.9 382.3 NWC R2 X X X
(138.6) (5.1) (1.5) (63.5) 0.0 (86.0)
3 894.5 30.5 15.6 431.9 610.7 NWC R2 X X X
(138.6) (4.4) (2.4) (62.6) 0.0 (137.3)
5 894.5 34.7 9.9 431.9 493.3 NWC R2 X X X
(138.6) (5.0) (1.5) (62.6) 0.0 (110.9)
6 894.5 37.1 9.9 428.0 468.7 NWC R2 X X X
(138.6) (5.4) (1.5) (62.1) 0.0 (105.4)
7 894.5 35.8 34.1 431.9 826.4 NWC R2 X X X
(138.6) (5.2) (5.3) (62.6) 0.0 (185.8)
8 1789.0 35.6 9.9 407.0 555.1 NWC R2 X X X
(277.3) (5.2) (1.5) (59.0) 0.0 (124.8)
9 894.5 37.1 7.1 431.9 413.2 NWC R2 X X X
(138.6) (5.4) (1.1) (62.6) 0.0 (92.9)
10 1789.0 37.6 7.1 407.9 616.7 NWC R2 X X X
(277.3) (5.4) (1.1) (59.2) 0.0 (138.6)
11 3581.1 32.7 7.1 420.0 913.7 NWC R2 X X X
(555.1) (4.7) (1.1) (60.9) 0.0 (205.4)
12 894.5 34.6 34.1 407.9 820.2 NWC R2 X X X
(138.6) (5.0) (5.3) (59.2) 0.0 (184.4)
13 1789.0 19.2 7.1 431.9 518.2 NWC R2 X X
(277.3) (2.8) (1.1) (62.6) 0.0 (116.5)
14 1789.0 19.6 7.1 431.9 345.3 NWC S X X
(277.3) (2.8) (1.1) (62.6) 0.0 (77.6)
Hsu et al. 1987 [11]
1.1 A 541.9 27.0 2.4 349.6 280.2 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (0.4) (50.7) 0.0 (63.0)
1.1 B 541.9 29.9 2.4 331.0 315.4 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.3) (0.4) (48.0) 0.0 (70.9)
1.2 A 541.9 27.0 4.5 349.6 373.6 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (0.7) (50.7) 0.0 (84.0)
1.2 B 541.9 29.0 4.5 331.0 366.2 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.2) (0.7) (48.0) 0.0 (82.3)
1.3 A 541.9 27.0 7.2 349.6 411.0 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (1.1) (50.7) 0.0 (92.4)
1.3 B 541.9 27.0 7.2 331.0 399.8 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (1.1) (48.0) 0.0 (89.9)
1.4 A 541.9 31.1 9.5 349.6 508.2 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.5) (1.5) (50.7) 0.0 (114.2)

110
1.4 B 541.9 27.0 9.5 331.0 478.3 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (1.5) (48.0) 0.0 (107.5)
1.5 A 541.9 31.1 11.9 349.6 520.4 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.5) (1.8) (50.7) 0.0 (117.6)
1.5 B 541.9 28.3 11.9 331.0 515.5 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.1) (1.8) (48.0) 0.0 (115.9)
1.6 A 541.9 29.9 14.3 349.6 533.7 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.3) (2.2) (50.7) 0.0 (120.1)
1.6 B 541.9 28.3 14.3 331.0 530.6 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.1) (2.2) (48.0) 0.0 (119.3)
6.1 541.9 27.0 2.4 331.0 298.9 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (0.4) (48.0) 0.0 (67.2)
6.2 541.9 27.0 11.9 331.0 463.5 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (1.8) (48.0) 0.0 (104.2)
M1 541.9 29.0 2.4 349.6 284.0 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.2) (0.4) (50.7) 0.0 (63.8)
M2 541.9 27.0 5.0 363.3 366.2 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (0.7) (52.7) 0.0 (82.3)
M3 541.9 27.6 7.2 363.3 414.7 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.0) (1.1) (52.7) 0.0 (93.2)
M4 541.9 28.3 9.5 349.6 426.0 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.1) (1.5) (50.7) 0.0 (95.8)
M5 541.9 27.0 11.9 363.3 478.3 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (1.8) (52.7) 0.0 (107.5)
M6 541.9 28.3 14.3 363.3 493.3 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.1) (2.2) (52.7) 0.0 (110.9)
E1U 541.9 28.3 5.7 363.3 407.3 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.1) (0.9) (52.7) 0.0 (91.6)
E4U 541.9 27.0 5.7 338.5 74.7 351.2 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (3.9) (0.9) (49.1) (16.8) (79.0)
E6U 541.9 28.3 5.7 349.6 149.5 227.7 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.1) (0.9) (50.7) (33.6) (51.2)
F1U 541.9 27.6 8.5 360.0 512.0 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.0) (1.3) (52.2) 0.0 (115.1)
F4U 541.9 29.0 8.5 366.8 74.7 426.0 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.2) (1.3) (53.2) (16.8) (95.8)
F6U 541.9 29.0 8.5 351.6 149.5 396.1 NWC R2 X X X
(84.0) (4.2) (1.3) (51.0) (33.6) (89.0)
Mattock et al. 1976 [25]
A0 322.6 29.2 0.0 - 0.0 111.2 LWC M X
(50.0) (4.2) (25.0)
A1 322.6 25.8 1.4 328.9 0.0 168.8 LWC M X X
(50.0) (3.7) (0.2) (47.7) (37.9)
A2 322.6 28.3 2.8 369.6 0.0 203.3 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (0.4) (53.6) (45.7)
A3 322.6 27.0 5.3 366.8 0.0 226.8 LWC M X X
(50.0) (3.9) (0.7) (53.2) (51.0)
A4 322.6 28.3 6.5 350.9 0.0 244.6 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (0.9) (50.9) (55.0)
A5 322.6 27.3 7.1 350.9 0.0 264.7 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (1.1) (50.9) (59.5)

111
A6 322.6 29.2 8.5 357.1 0.0 298.9 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.2) (1.3) (51.8) (67.2)
E1 322.6 28.3 1.4 360.6 0.0 173.5 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (0.2) (52.3) (39.0)
E2 322.6 27.3 2.8 360.6 0.0 193.9 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (0.4) (52.3) (43.6)
E3 322.6 28.3 5.3 360.6 0.0 213.5 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (0.7) (52.3) (48.0)
E4 322.6 27.3 6.5 366.8 0.0 255.8 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (0.9) (53.2) (57.5)
E5 322.6 28.3 7.1 348.2 0.0 267.9 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (1.1) (50.5) (60.0)
E6 322.6 27.3 8.5 360.6 0.0 298.1 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (1.3) (52.3) (62.5)
G0 322.6 27.3 0.0 - 0.0 117.9 LWC M X
(50.0) (4.0) (26.5)
G1 322.6 28.3 1.4 360.6 0.0 182.4 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (0.2) (52.3) (41.0)
G2 322.6 25.8 2.8 348.2 0.0 188.1 LWC M X X
(50.0) (3.7) (0.4) (50.5) (42.3)
G3 322.6 28.3 5.3 357.1 0.0 235.7 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (0.7) (51.8) (53.0)
G4 322.6 30.5 6.5 346.8 0.0 255.8 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.4) (0.9) (53.2) (57.5)
G5 322.6 27.3 7.1 357.1 0.0 253.5 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (1.1) (51.8) (57.0)
G6 322.6 27.3 8.5 357.1 0.0 264.7 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (1.3) (51.8) (59.5)
M0 322.6 27.1 0.0 - 0.0 131.2 LWC M X
(50.0) (3.9) (29.5)
M1 322.6 29.2 1.4 350.9 0.0 169.0 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.2) (0.2) (50.9) (38.0)
M2 322.6 27.1 2.8 363.3 0.0 218.0 LWC M X X
(50.0) (3.9) (0.4) (52.7) (49.0)
M3 322.6 27.3 5.3 360.6 0.0 246.9 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (0.7) (52.3) (55.5)
M4 322.6 28.3 6.5 350.9 0.0 253.5 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (0.9) (50.9) (57.0)
M5 322.6 27.1 7.1 363.3 0.0 284.7 LWC M X X
(50.0) (3.9) (1.1) (52.7) (64.0)
M6 322.6 28.3 8.5 363.3 0.0 293.6 LWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (1.3) (52.7) (66.0)
Mattock et al. 1975 [49]
E1U 541.9 28.0 5.7 363.3 406.9 NWC M X X
(84.0) (4.1) (0.9) (52.7) 0.0 (91.5)
E4U 541.9 26.6 5.7 338.5 74.7 353.4 NWC M X X
(84.0) (3.9) (0.9) (49.1) (16.8) (79.5)
E6U 541.9 28.4 5.7 351.6 149.5 226.8 NWC M X X
(84.0) (4.1) (0.9) (51.0) (33.6) (51.0)
F4C 541.9 26.6 8.5 351.6 74.7 313.6 NWC M X X
(84.0) (3.9) (1.3) (51.0) (16.8) (70.5)

112
F1U 541.9 27.6 8.5 359.9 511.5 NWC M X X
(84.0) (4.0) (1.3) (52.2) 0.0 (115.0)
F4U 541.9 28.0 8.5 366.8 74.7 427.0 NWC M X X
(84.0) (4.1) (1.3) (53.2) (16.8) (96.0)
F6U 541.9 29.2 8.5 351.6 149.5 398.1 NWC M X X
(84.0) (4.2) (1.3) (51.0) (33.6) (89.5)
Mattock and Hawkins 1972 [7]
9.1 464.5 37.9 7.1 361.3 787.3 787.9 NWC M X X
(72.0) (5.5) (1.1) (52.4) (177.0) (177.1)
9.2 464.5 37.9 8.5 359.9 473.3 819.9 NWC M X X
(72.0) (5.5) (1.3) (52.2) (106.4) (184.3)
9.3 464.5 27.2 8.5 360.6 129.4 483.6 NWC M X X
(72.0) (3.9) (1.3) (52.3) (29.1) (108.7)
9.4 464.5 27.2 8.5 370.2 442.1 NWC M X X
(72.0) (3.9) (1.3) (53.7) 0.0 (99.4)
9.5 464.5 44.4 5.7 351.6 530.2 919. 6 NWC M X X
(72.0) (6.4) (0.9) (51.0) (119.2) (206.6)
9.6 464.5 44.4 2.8 351.6 512.0 887.1 NWC M X X
(72.0) (6.4) (0.4) (51.0) (115.1) (199.4)
Hofbeck et al. 1969 [6]
1,0 322.6 27.8 0.0 - 106.7 NWC M X
(50.0) (4.0) 0.0 (24.0)
1.1A 322.6 27.0 1.4 349.6 162.4 NWC M X X
(50.0) (3.9) (0.2) (50.7) 0.0 (37.5)
1.1B 322.6 29.9 1.4 330.9 186.8 NWC M X X
(50.0) (4.3) (0.2) (48.0) 0.0 (42.0)
1.2A 322.6 26.5 2.8 349.6 222.4 NWC M X X
(50.0) (3.8) (0.4) (50.7) 0.0 (50.0)
1.2B 322.6 27.0 2.8 330.9 218.0 NWC M X X
(50.0) (3.9) (0.4) (48.0) 0.0 (49.0)
1.3A 322.6 31.1 4.2 349.6 244. 6 NWC M X X
(50.0) (4.5) (0.7) (50.7) 0.0 (55.0)
1.3B 322.6 26.5 4.2 330.9 238.0 NWC M X X
(50.0) (3.8) (0.7) (48.0) 0.0 (53.5)
1.4A 322.6 31.1 5.7 349.6 302.5 NWC M X X
(50.0) (4.5) (0.9) (50.7) 0.0 (68.0)
1.4B 322.6 26.5 5.7 330.9 284.7 NWC M X X
(50.0) (3.8) (0.9) (48.0) 0.0 (64.0)
1.5A 322.6 31.1 7.1 349.6 311.4 NWC M X X
(50.0) (4.5) (1.1) (50.7) 0.0 (70.0)
1.5B 322.6 28.3 7.1 330.9 306.9 NWC M X X
(50.0) (4.1) (1.1) (48.0) 0.0 (69.0)
1.6A 322.6 29.6 8.5 349.6 318.0 NWC M X X
(50.0) (4.3) (1.3) (50.7) 0.0 (71.5)
1.6B 322.6 27.6 8.5 330.9 315.8 NWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (1.3) (48.0) 0.0 (71.0)
6.1 322.6 27.6 1.4 330.9 177.9 NWC M X X
(50.0) (4.0) (0.2) (48.0) 0.0 (40.0)
6.2 322.6 27.0 7.1 330.9 275.8 NWC M X X
(50.0) (3.9) (1.1) (48.0) 0.0 (62.0)

113
* was tested using cube specimens. They were converted to cylinder results to
comparison in the database.
**NWC= Both sides are normal weight concrete; and LWC= At least one side is
lightweight concrete
***M=Monolithic; S= Smooth interface; R1= Intentionally roughened interface test with
amplitude less than 6mm; and R2= Intentionally roughened interface test with amplitude
more than or equal to 6mm

114