Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Review article

A state-of-the-art review on shear-friction

Pedro M.D. Santos a,⇑, Eduardo N.B.S. Júlio b
a
ICIST, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, School of Technology and Management, Campus 2 – Morro do Lena – Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
b
ICIST, Instituto Superior Técnico, TULisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Initially proposed in 1966, the ‘‘shear-friction theory’’ has been adopted in all design codes to analyse
Received 23 November 2011 concrete-to-concrete interfaces. In the last decades, several improvements were suggested to take into
Revised 12 June 2012 account more influencing factors, to increase the accuracy and to enlarge the application field. The inclu-
Accepted 27 June 2012
sion of the concrete strength and density and the consideration of the dowel action are examples of the
Available online 9 August 2012
proposed improvements.
This paper presents a literature review on design expressions for shear-friction, chronologically
Keywords:
ordered, describing proposals from the earliest research studies, precursors of the theory, until the most
Shear-friction
Concrete-to-concrete
recent studies, incorporated in the newest fib Model Code. The most significant contributions are identi-
Interface fied and a comparison between some of these design expressions is presented. Codes updates concerning
Bond shear-friction provisions are also identified in the literature review herein presented.
Design Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
2.1. Anderson (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
2.2. Hanson (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
2.3. Mattock and Kaar (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
2.4. Saemann and Washa (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
2.5. Gaston and Kriz (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
2.6. Birkeland and Birkeland (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
2.7. Badoux and Hulsbos (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
2.8. Birkeland (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
2.9. Mast (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
2.10. Hofbeck, Ibrahim and Mattock (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
2.11. Mattock and Hawkins (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
2.12. Mattock (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
2.13. Hermansen and Cowan (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
2.14. Mattock, Johal and Chow (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
2.15. Mattock, Li and Wang (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
2.16. Raths (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
2.17. Shaikh (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
2.18. Loov (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
2.19. Mattock (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
2.20. Vecchio and Collins (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
2.21. Walraven, Frénay and Pruijssers (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
2.22. Mattock (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
2.23. Mau and Hsu (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
2.24. Lin and Chen (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
2.25. Tsoukantas and Tassios (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 244 820 300; fax: +351 244 820 310.
E-mail address: pedro.santos@ipleiria.pt (P.M.D. Santos).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.036
436 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448

2.26. Patnaik (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442

2.27. Loov and Patnaik (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
2.28. Mattock (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
2.29. Randl (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
2.30. Ali and White (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
2.31. Valluvan, Kreger and Jirsa (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
2.32. Patnaik (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
2.33. Mattock (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
2.34. Patnaik (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
2.35. Kahn and Mitchell (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
2.36. Papanicolaou and Triantafillou (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
2.37. Gohnert (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
2.38. Mansur, Vinayagam and Tan (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
2.39. Santos and Júlio (2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
3. From research to codes and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
4. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
5. Conversion factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

1. Introduction (a) the interface between a precast element and a cast-in-place

This manuscript presents an extensive historical literature re-
view on shear-friction, covering what has been published between
1960 and 2009, i.e. in almost 50 years of research. Several mile-
stones are identified and compared. This state-of-the-art aims to
help understanding the design philosophy adopted in codes and
standards of concrete structures and how this changed through
time, a relevant matter for both researchers and practicing engi-
neers dedicated to structural rehabilitation.
Several milestones are identified and a comparison between
some of the most relevant design expressions proposed is pre-
sented. Shear-friction provisions on design codes are also ad-
dressed and linked to expressions from research.
The strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces, subjected to lon-
gitudinal shear stresses, can be predicted using the ‘‘shear-friction
theory’’. This theory was first presented in 1966 and was adopted
in all design codes for reinforced concrete structures [1–10].
The ‘‘shear-friction theory’’ assumes that the shear forces trans-
fer mechanism at a concrete-to-concrete interface, subjected
simultaneously to shear and compression forces, is ensured by fric-
tion only. A simple saw-tooth model is usually adopted to exem-
plify the basic principles of this theory (Fig. 1). The influence of
both reinforcement placed crossing the interface and external
forces acting normal to the shear plane is considered.
The ‘‘shear-friction theory’’ can be used to predict the shear
strength of different types of concrete-to-concrete interfaces, e.g.:
part; (b) the interface between two parts of an element cast at dif-
ferent times; (c) the interface between an element and a support;
(d) the interface between an existing element and a repairing/
strengthening layer; and (e) the interface between two parts of
an element generated by a crack.
Two different situations can be considered: (a) interface shear
strength without loss of adhesion and (b) interface shear strength
with relative slip between both concrete parts. It must be high-
lighted that the ‘‘shear-friction theory’’ only applies to the second
case, where the interfacial behaviour is assumed to be controlled
by cohesion (understood as aggregate interlock), friction and dow-
el action. It has also to be stated that all design expressions have
been calibrated from experimental results, being push-off tests
usually adopted in these studies.
The shear transfer across an initially uncracked plane was
investigated by Hsu et al. [11]. In opposition to the ‘‘shear-friction
theory’’, these authors proposed a shear transfer theory, based on a
truss model, where failure is caused by crushing of concrete struts.
Hwang et al. [12] proposed a similar theory but applicable to both
initially cracked and uncracked shear planes. Gohnert [13] also
proposed a theory for shear at the interface between precast con-
crete and cast-in-place parts that was developed for both cracked
and uncracked sections.
As stated by Zilch and Reinecke [14] (Fig. 2), the shear strength
at a concrete-to-concrete interface can be described by a combina-
tion of three different load carrying mechanisms: (a) adhesion, or

Fig. 1. Saw-tooth model. Fig. 2. Load transfer mechanisms according to Zilch and Reinecke [14].
 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448 437

cohesion between particles as mentioned by some researchers; (b) 2.1. Anderson (1960)
shear-friction between concrete parts; and (c) shear reinforcement
crossing the interface. Anderson [16] was one of the first to propose a design expres-
The adhesion component is originated by chemical bond con- sion to predict the longitudinal shear strength of concrete inter-
nections between the particles of old and new concrete. When its faces. The proposed expression was of the following type:
maximum load capacity is reached, debonding occurs at the con-
crete-to-concrete interface and the shear stresses will be trans-
v u ¼ v o þ kq ð3Þ
ferred by mechanical interlocking. If the interface is subjected to where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; vo
compression, the shear stresses will be transferred by shear-fric- and k are two parameters that are experimentally obtained from
tion. With the increase of the relative displacement between con- push-off tests; and q is the reinforcement ratio. The reinforcement
crete parts, the reinforcement that crosses the interface will be bars crossing the interface presented a yield strength of approxi-
tensioned and yielding can occur. Therefore, the shear reinforce- mately 275 MPa (40.0 ksi).
ment will induce compression at the interface and the shear load This expression was calibrated for two different concretes, with
will be transferred by friction. Due to slippage, the shear reinforce- a compressive strength of 20.68 MPa (3000 psi) and 51.71 MPa
ment will also be subjected to shear, usually named as dowel (7500 psi). For the weakest concrete, the design expression is as
action. follows:
The shear stress at a concrete-to-concrete interface, s(s), for a
given crack with a relative longitudinal displacement between
v u ¼ 4:41 þ 229q ðMPaÞ ð4Þ
concrete parts equal to s, corresponding to a dilatancy of w, is then v u ¼ 640 þ 33; 180q ðpsiÞ ð5Þ
given by:
For the strongest concrete, the design expression is as follows:
sðsÞ ¼ sa ðsÞ þ ssf ðsÞ þ ssr ðsÞ ð1Þ
v u ¼ 5:52 þ 276q ðMPaÞ ð6Þ
where sa(s) is the contribution of the adhesion, ssf(s) is the contribu- v u ¼ 800 þ 40; 000q ðpsiÞ ð7Þ
tion of the shear-friction and ssr(s) is the contribution of the shear
reinforcement for the shear stresses.
In some particular cases, such as I-beams with a concrete over- 2.2. Hanson (1960)
lay placed on site, the shear stresses at the interface can be com-
puted using the elastic beam theory, given by: Hanson [17] presented a design expression of the same type of
the one proposed by Anderson [16], also calibrated with experi-
VS mental results obtained from push-off tests. The proposed expres-
s¼ ð2Þ
Ib sion was developed for rough interfaces and, probably for this
where s is the shear stress; V is the shear force; S is the first mo- reason, presented different coefficients than those proposed by
ment of area (static moment) above or below the interface; I is Anderson [16].
the second moment of area (moment of inertia); and b is the section v u ¼ 3:45 þ 121q ðMPaÞ ð8Þ
width at the interface level.
The field of application of the elastic theory can be extended to v u ¼ 500 þ 17; 500q ðpsiÞ ð9Þ
cracked sections if the geometrical properties, the first and second where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface;
moment of area, are evaluated for the cracked section instead of and q is the reinforcement ratio. The yield strength of the reinforce-
the uncracked one. This solution is valid for the serviceability limit ment bars crossing the interface was of approximately 345 MPa
states (SLS) but not for the ultimate limit states (ULS). It was also (50.0 ksi).
proposed by Loov and Patnaik [15] and, according to these
researchers, this was the simplest and most practical method to
2.3. Mattock and Kaar (1961)
calculate shear stresses at the interface.
The influence of several parameters, such as: (a) material con-
Mattock and Kaar [18] proposed a design expression based on
stitutive law; (b) existence of cracking; (c) material time-depen-
the shear span/effective depth ratio to determine the ultimate lon-
dent properties (creep, shrinkage and relaxation); and (d)
gitudinal shear stress at the interface of composite reinforced con-
existence of different materials; makes the previous expression
crete beams. The proposed expression is as follows:
unusable, for the assessment of the shear stresses at the con-
crete-to-concrete interface, leading to the development of more 18:6
accurate design expressions.
v u ¼ x  þ 121q ðMPaÞ ð10Þ
d
þ5
2700
2. Literature review
v u ¼ x  þ 17500q ðpsiÞ ð11Þ
d
þ5

Next, the conducted literature review on design expressions for
shear-friction is described. Expressions are presented, parameters
identified and the field and limits of application discussed. A chro-
nological order was adopted. In the scope of this paper, the term
‘‘ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface’’, denoted by
vu, means the full shear strength given by tests and not the design
value of the shear strength at the interface.
Since some of these expressions were originally proposed in
imperial units, while others were expressed in SI units, a dual unit
format is adopted whenever justified. In all cases, the notation
originally adopted by researchers was modified by the authors to
allow a better comparison between different proposals.
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; x
is the shear span; d is the effective depth; and q is the reinforce-
ment ratio. The minimum reinforcement ratio should be equal or
higher than 0.15%. The yield strength of the reinforcement bars
crossing the interface was of approximately 341 MPa (49.4 ksi).
2.4. Saemann and Washa (1964)
Saemann and Washa [19] developed an experimental study to
determine a design expression for the prediction of the longitudi-
nal shear strength of reinforced composite concrete elements.
The proposed expression is as follows:
438 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448

18:6 33  X glected; all tensile forces are absorbed by the steel reinforcement;
vu ¼ þ 207q 2 ðMPaÞ ð12Þ
Xþ5 X þ 6X þ 5 and shear forces are transmitted by friction.
2700 33  X As the unbonded concrete parts slide one over another, the
vu ¼ þ 30; 000q 2 ðpsiÞ ð13Þ crack will open and the reinforcement steel will be tensioned.
Xþ5 X þ 6X þ 5
Therefore, it is assumed that the longitudinal shear reinforcement
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q will compress the interface, resulting in frictional resistance along
is the reinforcement ratio; and X is the ratio between the shear span the interface.
and the effective depth of the section. The surface condition was not This expression, usually known as the shear-friction expression,
considered in the proposed expression because the authors con- presents several advantages: (a) the shear-friction model, in which
cluded that its contribution for the shear strength is variable and it is based, is clearly understandable; (b) the expression is simple
decreases with the increase of the shear reinforcement ratio. The and easy to use; and (c) it gives accurate results.
yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface
was of approximately 294 MPa (42.6 ksi). 2.7. Badoux and Hulsbos (1967)
The first term of the proposed expression represents the ulti-
mate longitudinal shear stress with no reinforcement crossing Badoux and Hulsbos [22] proposed a design expression to pre-
the interface and the second term represents the contribution of dict the ultimate longitudinal shear stress between precast con-
the clamping stresses when steel reinforcement is added. crete beams and cast-in-place slabs, when the composite beam is
subjected to repeated loading. The proposed expressions, defined
2.5. Gaston and Kriz (1964) as conservative by the researchers, take into account: the rein-
forcement ratio; the surface preparation; and the shear span/effec-
Gaston and Kriz [20] suggested the following design expres- tive depth ratio of the cross section of the beam.
sions to estimate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress in scarf Two different types of finishing surfaces were considered. Inter-
joints of precast concrete. For smooth unbonded interfaces the de- mediate surfaces, as named by the researchers, obtained by apply-
sign expression is as follows: ing a retarding agent on the fresh concrete and by steel brushing in
v u ¼ 0:30 þ 0:78rn ðMPaÞ ð14Þ the day after to cast. Rough surfaces were obtained by two differ-
ent methods: (a) with a board having a protruding nail; and (b) by
v u ¼ 43 þ 0:78rn ðpsiÞ ð15Þ
a metal plate with teeths. The yield strength of reinforcement bars
For smooth bonded interfaces the design expression is as follows: crossing the interface was of approximately 345 MPa (50.0 ksi).
For construction joints with an intermediate finish, the follow-
v u ¼ 0:76 þ 0:70rn ðMPaÞ ð16Þ ing expression was proposed:
v u ¼ 110 þ 0:70rn ðpsiÞ ð17Þ
13:79
vu ¼   þ 137:9q ðMPaÞ ð22Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface 11 þ da
and rn is the normal stress at the interface. 2000
vu ¼   þ 20; 000q ðpsiÞ ð23Þ
11 þ da
2.6. Birkeland and Birkeland (1966)
For rough construction joints the following expression should be
Birkeland and Birkeland [21] were the first to propose a linear adopted:
expression to evaluate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress of
24:14
concrete interfaces. The proposed expression is as follows: vu ¼   þ 137:9q ðMPaÞ ð24Þ
11 þ da
v u ¼ qfy tan u ¼ qfy l ð18Þ
3500
vu ¼   þ 20; 000q ðpsiÞ ð25Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q 11 þ da
is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforce-
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
ment; and / is the internal friction angle. The tangent of the inter-
is the reinforcement ratio; a is the effective depth of the cross sec-
nal friction angle is also designated as coefficient of friction, being
tion; and d is the shear span.
represented by the Greek letter l, and the term qfy is designated
According to Badoux and Hulsbos [22], the proposed design
as clamping stresses.
expressions are the sum of two terms. The first term represents
This expression was proposed for smooth concrete surfaces,
the contribution of the natural bond, as designated by the
artificially roughened concrete surfaces and concrete-to-steel
researchers, while the second represents the contribution of the
interfaces. The coefficient of friction was empirically determined,
reinforcement crossing the interface.
varying with the surface preparation, and it was defined for several
situations, namely: (a) l = 1.7, for monolithic concrete (59.5°); (b)
l = 1.4, for artificially roughened construction joints (54.5°); and 2.8. Birkeland (1968)
(c) l = 0.8–1.0, for ordinary construction joints and for concrete
to steel interfaces (38.7–45.0°). This expression was limited to Birkeland [23], cited by Patnaik [24], was the first researcher to
the following conditions: introduce a non-linear expression to predict the ultimate longitu-
dinal shear stress at the interface between concrete parts. The pro-
q 6 1:5% ð19Þ posed expression was derived from a previous research work by
the author [21] but it was only published in lecture notes. A para-
v u 6 5:52 and f c P 27:58 ðMPaÞ ð20Þ bolic function was fitted to the available experimental data, being
the ultimate longitudinal shear stress predicted by:
v u 6 800 and f c P 4000 ðpsiÞ ð21Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
v u ¼ 2:78 qfy ðMPaÞ ð26Þ
The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
should be less than 414 MPa (60.0 ksi). The adopted design philos-
vu ¼ 33:5 qfy ðpsiÞ ð27Þ
ophy stated that: the tensile strength of concrete should be ne-
 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
is the reinforcement ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the
reinforcement.
2.9. Mast (1968)
Mast [25] adopted the expression proposed by Birkeland and
Birkeland [21] but suggested an upper limit of (0.15fc tan /) for
the ultimate longitudinal shear stress. Different values for the coef-
ficient of friction were also proposed: (a) l = 1.4, for concrete-to-
concrete rough interfaces (54.5°); (b) l = 1.0, for concrete-to-steel
composite beams (45.0°); (c) l = 0.7, for concrete-to-steel field-
welded inserts (35.0°); and (d) l = 0.7, for concrete-to-concrete
smooth interfaces (35.0°).
2.10. Hofbeck, Ibrahim and Mattock (1969)
Hofbeck et al. [26] performed an experimental study to quantify
the influence of the following parameters on the shear strength of
concrete-to-concrete interfaces: (a) pre-cracked shear plane; (b)
strength, size and arrangement of shear reinforcement; (c) con-
crete strength; and (d) dowel action. The yield strength of rein-
forcement bars crossing the interface was of approximately
345 MPa (50.0 ksi).
A design expression was not presented but the proposals of oth-
er researchers, such as Gaston and Kriz [20], Birkeland and Birke-
land [21] and Mast [25], were analysed and discussed.
Hofbeck et al. [26] stated that pre-existing cracks along the
shear plane results in an decrease of the shear strength and in a in-
crease of the relative slip between both concrete parts. Changes in
the strength, geometry and arrangement of shear reinforcement
crossing the interface also affect the clamping stresses qfy.
The concrete strength showed to have influence in the shear
strength of the interface. For values of the clamping stresses below
4.14 MPa (600 psi), the concrete strength does not affect the shear
strength. Above this limit, the shear transfer is affected and the
shear strength increases with the increase of the concrete strength.
The dowel action due to the shear reinforcement was significant
only for concrete specimens with a pre-existing crack along the
shear plane. For initially uncracked specimens, the influence of
the dowel action was insignificant since the relative slip between
concrete parts was too small.
The shear strength of initially cracked specimens was computed
using the design expression proposed by Birkeland and Birkeland
[21]. A coefficient of friction of 1.4 was adopted. According to Hof-
beck et al. [26], the shear-friction theory gives a conservative esti-
mate of the shear strength of the concrete-to-concrete interface for
specimens with a pre-existing crack along the shear plane.
2.11. Mattock and Hawkins (1972)
Mattock and Hawkins [27] presented a design expression to
predict the ultimate longitudinal shear stress. The lower bound
of the experimental tests was represented by:
v u ¼ 1:38 þ 0:8ðqfy þ rn Þ ðMPaÞ ð28Þ
v u ¼ 200 þ 0:8ðqfy þ rn Þ ðpsiÞ ð29Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforce-
ment; and rn is the normal stress at the interface. The yield strength
of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was in the range of
345–455 MPa (50.0–66.0 ksi).
The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater
than 0.3fc neither 10.34 MPa (1500 psi). The clamping stresses
have to be higher than 1.38 MPa (200 psi). The first term is due
439
to an apparent cohesion of the interface and to dowel action of
the reinforcement and the second term is due to clamping stresses.
The coefficient of friction was equal to 0.8.
2.12. Mattock (1974)
The design expression proposed by Mattock and Hawkins [27]
was developed for the lower bound of the experimental tests used
for calibration. In a subsequent publication, Mattock [28] pre-
sented a modified expression calibrated with average values from
experimental results, given by:
v u ¼ 2:76 þ 0:8ðqfy þ rn Þ ðMPaÞ ð30Þ
v u ¼ 400 þ 0:8ðqfy þ rn Þ ðpsiÞ ð31Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforce-
ment; and rn is the normal stress at the interface. The yield strength
of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was of approxi-
mately 345 MPa (50.0 ksi).
The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater
than 0.3fc neither 10.34 MPa (1500 psi) and the clamping stresses
should be higher than 1.38 MPa (200 psi).
It was also presented a modified design expression to include
the orientation of the reinforcement steel crossing the interface.
The proposed expression is as follows:
v u ¼ 2:76 sin2 h þ qfs ð0:8 sin2 h  0:5 sinð2hÞÞ ðMPaÞ ð32Þ
v u ¼ 400 sin2 h þ qfs ð0:8 sin2 h  0:5 sinð2hÞÞ ðpsiÞ ð33Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; h
is the angle between the reinforcement and the shear plane; and q
is the reinforcement ratio. The ultimate longitudinal shear stress is
limited to the maximum of 0.3fc.
The term fs was defined from experimental tests, for a coeffi-
cient of friction equal to 0.8, and is given by:
fs ¼ 0 : 0 6 h < 51:3 ð34Þ
fs ¼ 1:6f y cosðh þ 38:7 Þ : 51:3 6 h < 90 ð35Þ
fs ¼ fy : 90 6 h < 180 ð36Þ
where fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement.
2.13. Hermansen and Cowan (1974)
Hermansen and Cowan [29] presented a modified shear-friction
theory for the design of concrete brackets. This new theory was
proposed because the adoption of the basic shear-friction theory
led to conservative values of the brackets shear strength.
Using two simple modifications, limiting the use of the shear-
friction theory to brackets where the failure mode by shear is as-
sured and considering an apparent coefficient of cohesion, these
researchers have successfully predicted the shear strength of 40
concrete specimens. The other failure modes, due to bending and
secondary causes (high bearing stresses and anchorage failures),
were also considered. For failure in bending, a design expression
was presented and for failure due to secondary causes it has been
considered that this can be avoided by adequately detailing.
Hermansen and Cowan [29] also concluded that the ultimate
longitudinal shear stress of an uncracked concrete interface, which
fails in shear, could be predicted by the following expression:
v u ¼ 4:0 þ 0:8qfy ðMPaÞ ð37Þ
v u ¼ 580 þ 0:8qfy ðpsiÞ ð38Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
is the reinforcement ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the
reinforcement.
440 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448

2.14. Mattock, Johal and Chow (1975) C 2s l

le ¼ 6:90 ðMPaÞ ð47Þ
vu
Mattock et al. [30] investigated the suitability of using two de-
C 2s l
sign expressions, one proposed by Mattock [28], and another sug- le ¼ 1000 ðpsiÞ ð48Þ
gested by Birkeland [23], for the design of concrete connections,
vu
such as corbels and columns foundations, where the bending mo-
ment and normal forces must be transferred between concrete 2.17. Shaikh (1978)
parts.
Mattock et al. [30] concluded that both design expressions can Shaikh [33] presented a revision of the shear-friction design
be used for this purpose, being the expression proposed by Birke- provisions and suggested the following expression to evaluate
land [23] more conservative than his proposal. A slight modifica- the ultimate longitudinal shear stress of concrete-to-concrete or
tion of the design expression was proposed, adopting a capacity concrete-to-steel interfaces:
reduction factor equal to 0.85.
v u ¼ /qfy le ð49Þ

2.15. Mattock, Li and Wang (1976) where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; /
is a capacity reduction factor, equal to 0.85 for shear; q is the rein-
Mattock et al. [31] presented a design expression for light- forcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and le
weight reinforced concrete with an initially cracked condition. is an effective coefficient of friction.
For all (aggregates and sand) lightweight concrete, the design The effective coefficient of friction is defined by:
expression is as follows: C 2s l
le ¼ 6:90 ðMPaÞ ð50Þ
v u ¼ 1:38 þ 0:8qfy ðMPaÞ ð39Þ vu
v u ¼ 200 þ 0:8qfy ðpsiÞ ð40Þ C 2s l
le ¼ 1000 ðpsiÞ ð51Þ
vu
For sanded lightweight concrete, the design expression is as
where Cs is a constant related with the concrete density; and l is
follows:
the coefficient of friction.
v u ¼ 1:72 þ 0:8qfy ðMPaÞ ð41Þ The concrete density is taken equal to: (a) Cs = 1.00, for normal
v u ¼ 250 þ 0:8qfy ðpsiÞ ð42Þ weight concrete; (b) Cs = 0.85, for sand-lightweight concrete; and
(c) Cs = 0.75, for all-lightweight concrete. The coefficient of friction
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q is taken equal to: (a) l = 1.4, for concrete-to-concrete cast mono-
is the reinforcement ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the lithically (54.5°); (b) l = 1.0, for a concrete to hardened concrete
reinforcement. interface with a roughness amplitude of 6.4 mm (0.25 in.)
The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the inter- (45.0°); (c) l = 0.6, for a concrete-to-steel interface (31.0°); and
face was of approximately 345 MPa (50.0 ksi). The maximum value (d) l = 0.4, for a concrete-to-concrete smooth interface (21.8°).
for the ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater
than 0.2fc neither 5.52 MPa (800 psi) for all lightweight concrete 2.18. Loov (1978)
and 0.2fc and 6.90 MPa (1000 psi) for sanded lightweight concrete.
These design expressions were obtained for clamping stresses with Loov [34], cited by Patnaik [24], was the first researcher to
a minimum value of 1.38 MPa (200 psi). explicitly include the concrete strength, by proposing the following
non-dimensional expression:
2.16. Raths (1977) sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vu qfy þ rn
¼k ð52Þ
Raths [32] suggested a design expression very similar to the one fc fc
proposed by Birkeland [23]. The main difference was the inclusion
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; fc
of the concrete density, being this expression applicable to both
is the concrete compressive strength; k is a constant; q is the rein-
normal and lightweight concrete. For monolithic specimens, the
forcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn
expression is as follows:
is the normal stress at the interface. For initially uncracked inter-
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
faces, Loov [34] suggested the value of 0.5 for the constant k.
v u ¼ C s 3:11 qfy ðMPaÞ ð43Þ
For a concrete with a compressive strength equal to 30.89 MPa
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(4480 psi), this expression is equal to the one proposed by Birke-
vu ¼ C s 37:42 qfy ðpsiÞ ð44Þ
land [23]. The proposed design expression can also be used with
For a smooth interface in shear, with a coefficient of friction equal to any consistent system of units (SI or imperial).
0.6, the design expression is as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2.19. Mattock (1981)
v u ¼ C s 2:03 qfy ðMPaÞ ð45Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Mattock [35] investigated the behaviour of concrete-to-con-
vu ¼ C s 24:49 qfy ðpsiÞ ð46Þ crete interfaces under cyclic loading. The main goal of this re-
searcher was to determine how the design expressions,
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; Cs developed for monotonic loading, should be modified in order to
is a constant related with the concrete density; q is the reinforce- be used also for cyclic loading.
ment ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement. Two design expressions developed by this researcher and his
The following values were proposed for the constant Cs: (a) co-workers, Mattock and Hawkins [27] and Mattock et al. [31],
Cs = 1.00, for normal weight concrete; (b) Cs = 0.85, for sand-light- for both normal and lightweight concrete, were adopted to assess
weight concrete; and (c) Cs = 0.75, for all lightweight concrete. An the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface of composite
effective coefficient of friction was also defined as follows: specimens under cyclic loading.
 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448 441

Mattock [35] suggested that the shear strength of the concrete-
to-concrete interface under cyclic loading, should be taken equal to
0.8 of the shear strength under monotonic loading, for monolithic
specimens made of normal and lightweight concrete and rough
interfaces between concrete parts cast a different ages. The yield
strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was in
the range of 340–500 MPa (49.3–72.4 ksi).
If the bond between concrete parts is destroyed, the shear strength
under cyclic loading should be taken as 0.6 of the shear strength under
monotonic loading. It was observed that the shear transfer mecha-
nism of composite specimens after cracking, for both monotonic
and cyclic loading, is identical to that of monolithic specimens.
the aggregates (assumed as spheres) and where the interface be-
tween both is considered as the weakest zone and therefore cracks
will develop along this border.
2.22. Mattock (1988)
Mattock [39], in the discussion of the paper by Walraven et al.
[38], presented a modified design expression incorporating the
normal stress at the interface. In this new expression, the first term
represents the shear strength due to cohesion and the second one
represents the shear strength due to friction between aggregates.
The modified expression is as follows:

2.20. Vecchio and Collins (1986)

v u ¼ 0:467fc0:545 þ 0:8ðqfy þ rn Þ ðMPaÞ ð62Þ
v u ¼ 4:5fc0:545 þ 0:8ðqfy þ rn Þ ðpsiÞ ð63Þ
Vecchio and Collins [36] proposed an analytical model to pre-
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; fc
dict the behaviour of reinforced concrete members subjected to
is the concrete compressive strength; q is the reinforcement ratio;
in-plane shear and normal stresses. Based on previous investiga-
fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn is the normal
tions by Walraven [37], these researchers proposed a design
stress at the interface. The ultimate longitudinal shear stress is lim-
expression for the assessment of the ultimate longitudinal shear
ited to the maximum value of 0.3 fc.
stress of a concrete crack. This expression has the particularity of
requiring the estimation of the crack width and is as follows:
2.23. Mau and Hsu (1988)
fci2
v u ¼ 0:18v ci max þ 1:64f ci  0:82 ð53Þ
v ci max Mau and Hsu [40], also in the discussion of the paper by Wal-
pffiffiffiffi raven et al. [38], presented a non-dimensional expression. The gen-
fc eral form of the proposed design expression is given by:
v ci max ¼   ðMPa mmÞ ð54Þ  a
24w
0:31 þ aþ16 vu qfy
¼k ð64Þ
fc fc
pffiffiffiffi
12 fc where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; fc
v ci max ¼   ðpsi in:Þ ð55Þ
24w is the concrete compressive strength; q is the reinforcement ratio;
0:31 þ aþ0:63
fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and the coefficients k
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress of the crack; vcimax and a are two parameters to be experimentally calibrated.
is the maximum shear stress that a crack can resist; fci is the posi- This expression is identical to the one previously proposed by
tive compressive stress due to internal and external loads; fc is Loov [34] for initially uncracked interfaces. The main difference
the concrete compressive strength; w is the average crack width; is that Mau and Hsu [40] assumed a constant value of 0.66 for
and a is the maximum aggregate size. the parameter k, for both initially uncracked and cracked inter-
faces. The proposed expression is as follows:
2.21. Walraven, Frénay and Pruijssers (1987) sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vu qfy
¼ 0:66 6 0:3 ð65Þ
In order to consider the concrete strength, Walraven et al. [38] fc fc
developed a large experimental study with 88 push-off specimens
and proposed a non-linear function to predict the shear strength of where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; fc
initially cracked interfaces. is the concrete compressive strength; q is the reinforcement ratio;
This design expression, including the reinforcement ratio; the and fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement.
yield strength of the reinforcement; and the concrete compressive
strength, is as follows: 2.24. Lin and Chen (1989)
C2
v u ¼ C 1 ðqfy Þ ðMPaÞ ð56Þ According to Lin and Chen [41], the shear-friction provisions
C1 ¼ 0:822fc0:406 ðMPaÞ ð57Þ presented by ACI 318 (1983) are too conservative while the pro-
posal of the PCI Design Handbook (1985) is non-conservative for
C2 ¼ 0:159fc0:303 ðMPaÞ ð58Þ
large values of the clamping stresses. Moreover, Lin and Chen
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q [41] stated that the design expressions proposed by Walraven
is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforce- et al. [38] and Mattock [39] are only adequate for concretes with
ment; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. The yield lower compressive strengths, whereas for concrete with high com-
strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was in pressive strengths these could be non-conservative. Therefore, Lin
the range of 345–545 MPa (50.0–79.0 ksi). and Chen [41] proposed a design expression, calibrated from 68
In imperial units, the design expression appears as: push-off tests using concrete with a compressive strength between
20.59 MPa and 68.65 MPa, given by:
v u ¼ C 1 ð0:007qfy ÞC 2
ðpsiÞ ð59Þ
v u ¼ le ðqfy þ rn Þ ð66Þ
C1 ¼ 15:686fc0:406 ðpsiÞ ð60Þ
C2 ¼ 0:0353fc0:303 ðpsiÞ ð61Þ where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; le
is an equivalent coefficient of friction; q is the reinforcement ratio;
This design expression is based on a model proposed by Walraven fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn is the normal
[37], where the concrete is represented by the binding paste and stress at the interface. The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should
442 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448

not be greater than 0.3fc neither 12.46 MPa. The adopted reinforce- where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; k
ment ratio qfy was in the range 1.2–19.5 MPa (175–2824 psi). is a constant; k is a correction factor related with the concrete den-
The equivalent coefficient of friction is given by: sity; q is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the rein-
pffiffiffiffi!0:5 forcement; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. The
1:75 fc maximum value of the longitudinal shear stress is limited to
le ¼ 6 0:8fc0:25 ðMPaÞ ð67Þ
qfy þ rn 0.25fc. The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the
pffiffiffiffi!0:5 interface was in the range of 407–438 MPa (59.0–63.5 ksi).
21:12 fc The value of the constant k was suggested to be equal to 0.5 and
le ¼ 6 0:8fc0:25 ðpsiÞ ð68Þ
qfy þ rn 0.6, for composite and monolithic reinforced concrete members,
respectively. The coefficient k is taken equal to 1.00 for normal
weight concrete; 0.85 for sand-lightweight concrete; and 0.75 for
2.25. Tsoukantas and Tassios (1989) all lightweight concrete.

Tsoukantas and Tassios [42] proposed two design expressions 2.28. Mattock (1994)
to estimate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface
between precast members. The first expression was proposed for Mattock [43], commenting the paper by Loov and Patnaik [15],
smooth interfaces and is given by: suggested that the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the inter-
v u ¼ 0:40rn ð69Þ face should not be proportional to the term fc0:5 . A modified design
expression, defined with the experimental tests data conducted by
The second expression, for rough interfaces, is as follows:
Loov and Patnaik [15], was proposed and is given by:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:73
v u ¼ 0:5 3
fc2 rn ð70Þ qfy fc
vu ¼ ðMPaÞ ð77Þ
4:536
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:73
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface;
qfy fc
rn is the normal stress at the interface due to internal and external vu ¼ ðpsiÞ ð78Þ
loads; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. 14:25
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
2.26. Patnaik (1992) is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforce-
ment; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. The maximum
Patnaik [24] proposed a design expression to evaluate the ulti- value of the longitudinal shear stress is limited to 0.3 fc.
mate longitudinal shear stress of composite concrete beams, based This expression was calibrated for the lower bound of the
on the results of 16 simply supported specimens, given by: experimental tests data and can be used to predict the ultimate
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi longitudinal shear stress across a crack in monolithic normal
v u ¼ 0:6 ð0:1 þ qfy Þfc ðMPaÞ ð71Þ weight concrete. For initially cracked specimens with a rough
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi interface, Mattock [43] suggested the following expression:
vu ¼ 0:6 ð15 þ qfy Þfc ðpsiÞ ð72Þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:73
qfy fc
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q vu ¼  0:02f c ðMPaÞ ð79Þ
4:536
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:73
is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforce- qfy fc
ment; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. The maximum vu ¼  0:02f c ðpsiÞ ð80Þ
14:25
value of the ultimate longitudinal shear stress is limited to 0.25fc.

2.27. Loov and Patnaik (1994) 2.29. Randl (1997)

Loov and Patnaik [15] proposed a design expression based in Randl [44] made a significant contribution to the improvement
previous research studies of Loov [34]. The proposed expression, of the accuracy of the design expressions for the assessment of the
only applicable to rough interfaces, combines the effects of the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at concrete-to-concrete inter-
concrete strength, clamping stresses and concrete density. faces. After Birkeland and Birkeland [21], Mattock and Hawkins
For composite beams without stirrups, the ultimate longitudi- [27], Loov [34], Walraven et al. [38], and Randl [44] presented a de-
nal shear stress at the interface can be predicted by the following sign expression that explicitly includes the contribution of cohe-
expression: sion, friction and dowel action.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The first term – cohesion – is related to the contribution of the
v u ¼ 0:6 0:1f c ðMPaÞ ð73Þ interlocking between aggregates; the second term – friction – is re-
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi lated to the contribution due to the longitudinal relative slip be-
vu ¼ 0:6 15f c ðpsiÞ ð74Þ tween concrete parts and is influenced by the surface roughness
and the normal stress at the shear interface; and the third term –
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; dowel action – is related to the contribution of the flexural resis-
and fc is the concrete compressive strength. tance of the shear reinforcement crossing the interface.
Combining this design expression with the one proposed by The first two terms are clearly related to the Coulomb shear fric-
Loov [34], the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface tion hypothesis while the third term represents the contribution of
of composite beams, with reinforcement crossing the interface, the deformation of the shear reinforcement due to the relative slip
can be predicted by: between concrete parts. The proposed design expression is given as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
follows:
v u ¼ kk ð0:1 þ qfy Þfc ðMPaÞ ð75Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vu ¼ kk ð15 þ qfy Þfc ðpsiÞ ð76Þ
v u ¼ scoh þ lrn þ aq fc fy ð81Þ
 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448 443

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface;
scoh is the concrete cohesion due to aggregate interlock; l is the
coefficient of friction; rn is the normal stress at the interface due
to external loading and tension in the shear reinforcement; a is a
coefficient to take into account for the flexural resistance of rein-
forcement (dowel action); q is the reinforcement ratio; fc is the con-
crete compressive strength; and fy is the yield strength of the
reinforcement.
With the inclusion of partial safety factors, the design expres-
sion is as follows:
  sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1=3
fck fyk fyk fck fck
vu ¼ c þ l qk þ rn þ aq 6 bm
ccoh cs cs cc cc
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; c
is the coefficient of cohesion; fck is the characteristic value of con-
crete compressive strength; ccoh is the partial safety factor for the
cohesion; l is the coefficient of friction; q is the reinforcement ra-
tio; k is a coefficient of efficiency for the tensile force that can be
transmitted to the shear reinforcement; fyk is the characteristic va-
lue of yield strength of the reinforcement; cs is the partial safety fac-
tor for the shear reinforcement; rn is the normal stress at the
interface due to external loading; a is a coefficient for the flexural
resistance of reinforcement (dowel action); cc is the partial safety
factor for concrete; b is a coefficient allowing for angle of concrete
diagonal strut; and v is a reduction factor for strength of concrete
diagonal strut. The values of these constants were calibrated by
Randl [44] and are given in Table 1. The yield strength of the rein-
forcement bars crossing the interface was of 500 MPa (72.5 ksi).
The surface roughness is quantitatively evaluated using the Sand
Patch Test [45]. The adopted partial safety factors were of 1.15 and
1.50 for steel and concrete, respectively. Randl [44] proposed the
value of 2.00 for the partial safety factor of concrete cohesion since
this is strongly influenced by the surface preparation.
2.30. Ali and White (1999)
Ali and White [46] presented a methodology to predict the
shear strength capacity of concrete-to-concrete interfaces made
of both normal and high strength concretes. The four fundamental
parameters were considered: (a) surface roughness; (b) concrete
strength; (c) shear reinforcement crossing the interface; and (d)
normal stress at the interface.
The similarity between the proposed design expression and the
one proposed by Mau and Hsu [40] is remarkable, as stated by Ali
and White [46]. Moreover, while this expression was developed on
a purely analytical basis and calibrated with experimental data, the
design expression proposed by Mau and Hsu [40] is based on semi-
empirical experiments.
The proposed design expression is as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vu qfy þ rn
¼ 1:47a 6 1:2b
fc fc
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; fc
is the concrete compressive strength; q is the reinforcement ratio;
fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; rn is the normal stress
at the interface due to external loads; and a and b are two param-
eters to be experimentally calibrated.
2.31. Valluvan, Kreger and Jirsa (1999)
Valluvan et al. [47] presented a revision of the shear-friction
provisions of ACI 318 (1995). Based on the results of an experimen-
tal study, these researchers concluded that the actual specifica-
tions of this design code are too conservative and proposed the
following design expression to estimate the ultimate longitudinal
shear stress:
ð82Þ v u ¼ lðqfy þ rn Þ ð84Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; l
is the coefficient of friction; q is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the
yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn is the normal stress at
the interface due to external loads. This design expression is valid
when the normal stress, due to external loads, is lower or equal
to 5.52 MPa (800 psi). The ultimate longitudinal shear stress at
the interface should not be greater than 0.25fc neither 5.52 MPa
(800 psi). The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing
the interface was of 475 MPa (69.0 ksi).
When the normal stress, due to external loads, is higher than
5.52 MPa (800 psi), the design expression takes the following form:
v u ¼ lrn ð85Þ
In this case, the ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be
greater than 0.6 fc neither 14.49 MPa (2100 psi).
2.32. Patnaik (2000)
Patnaik [48], in the discussion of the paper by Valluvan et al.
[47], proposed the following expression for the prediction of the
ultimate longitudinal shear stress of intentionally roughened
surfaces:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
v u ¼ 0:55 ð0:25 þ qfy Þfc ðMPaÞ ð86Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vu ¼ 0:55 ð36 þ qfy Þfc ðpsiÞ ð87Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforce-
ment; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. According to Pat-
naik [48], this expression also represents a lower bound of the
ultimate longitudinal shear stresses in monolithic concrete.
For surfaces not intentionally roughened, a slight modification
to the expression was proposed:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
v u ¼ 0:5 ð0:25 þ qfy Þfc ðMPaÞ ð88Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vu ¼ 0:5 ð36 þ qfy Þfc ðpsiÞ ð89Þ
ð83Þ The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater than:
(a) 0.2fc and 5.52 MPa (800 psi), for surfaces not intentionally
roughened; (b) 0.25fc and 7.93 MPa (1150 psi), for intentionally
roughened surfaces; and (c) 0.2 fc and 8.96 MPa (1300 psi), for
monolithic concrete.

Table 1
Constants values according to Randl [44].

Surface preparation Surface roughness R (mm) Coefficient of cohesion c (–) Coefficient of friction (l) k (–) a (–) b (–)
(fck P 20 MPa) (fck P 35 MPa)
High-pressure water-blasting P3.0 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.4
Sand-blasting P0.5 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.3
Smooth – 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.2
444 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448
2.33. Mattock (2001)
Mattock [49] presented design expressions applicable to all
strengths of concrete, from normal to high-strength concrete. To
estimate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress across monolithic
concrete and across the interface between concrete cast against
hardened concrete, with the substrate surface intentionally rough-
ened, two expressions were proposed by this researcher.
When the normal stress at the interface, due to internal and
external loads, is greater or equal to K1/1.45, or when the ultimate
longitudinal shear stress is greater or equal to 1.55K1, the ultimate
longitudinal shear stress at the interface is given by:
v u ¼ K 1 þ 0:8ðqfy þ rn Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface;
K1 is a coefficient that depends of the concrete density; q is the rein-
forcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn
is the normal stress at the interface due to external loads. The ulti-
mate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater than K2 fc nei-
ther K3.
When the normal stress at the interface, due to internal and
external loads, is less than K1/1.45 or when the ultimate longitudi-
nal shear stress is less than 1.55K1, the ultimate longitudinal shear
stress at the interface is given by:
v u ¼ 2:25ðqfy þ rn Þ
For normal weight and monolithic concrete, the coefficient K1
should not be greater than 0.1fc neither 5.52 MPa (800 psi); K2 is
equal to 0.3; and K3 is equal to 16.55 MPa (2400 psi).
For normal weight concrete placed against hardened concrete
with the substrate surface intentionally roughened, the coefficient
K1 is equal to 2.76 MPa (400 psi); K2 is equal to 0.3; and K3 is equal
to 16.55 MPa (2400 psi).
For sand-lightweight concrete, the coefficient K1 is equal to
1.72 MPa (250 psi); K2 is equal to 0.2; and K3 is equal to
8.27 MPa (1200 psi). For all lightweight concrete, the coefficient
K1 is equal to 1.38 MPa (200 psi); K2 is equal to 0.2; and K3 is equal
to 8.27 MPa (1200 psi).
For concrete placed against hardened concrete with the sub-
strate surface not intentionally roughened, the ultimate longitudi-
nal shear stress at the interface can be predicted by:
v u ¼ 0:6kqfy
and for concrete anchored to clean, unpainted, as-rolled steel by
headed studs or by reinforcing bars, the ultimate longitudinal shear
stress at the interface is predicted by:
v u ¼ 0:7kqfy
The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater than
0.2fc neither 5.52 MPa (800 psi) for both cases. The coefficient k is
taken equal to 1.00 for normal weight concrete; 0.85 for sand-light-
weight concrete; and 0.75 for all lightweight concrete.
2.34. Patnaik (2001)
Patnaik [50] concluded that the shear-friction provisions for
smooth surfaces, proposed by the ACI 318 (1999), are too conserva-
tive. Based on experimental test results, this researcher proposed
the following expression to estimate the ultimate longitudinal
shear stress at smooth concrete interfaces:
v u ¼ 0:6 þ qfy ðMPaÞ
v u ¼ 87 þ qfy ðpsiÞ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
is the reinforcement ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the rein-
forcement. The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be
greater than 0.2fc neither 5.52 MPa (800 psi). This researcher also
suggests that shear strength should not be considered for clamping
stresses lower than 0.35 MPa (50 psi). The yield strength of the rein-
forcement bars crossing the interface was in the range of 340–
704 MPa (49.3–102.1 ksi).
2.35. Kahn and Mitchell (2002)
Kahn and Mitchell [51] developed a research study to extend
the current shear-friction provisions of the ACI 318 (1999) to high
strength concretes. The suggested design expression, to be used
with normal and high strength concretes, is as follows:
ð90Þ
v u ¼ 0:05f c þ 1:4qfy ð96Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface;
fc is the concrete compressive strength; q is the reinforcement ra-
tio; and fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement. The adopted
coefficient of friction is equal to 1.4, corresponding to a mono-
lithic concrete connection, and the maximum longitudinal shear
stress is limited to 0.2fc. The yield strength of the reinforcement
bars crossing the interface was of 479 MPa (69.5 ksi) and
572 MPa (83.0 ksi).
ð91Þ
2.36. Papanicolaou and Triantafillou (2002)
Papanicolaou and Triantafillou [52] developed an experimental
study to investigate the shear transfer capacity of interfaces be-
tween pumice aggregate concrete and high-performance concrete.
Pumice is a natural and porous glass aggregate, very common in
volcanic regions such as Greece.
The push-off test was adopted and 126 specimens were tested.
Two interface lengths were considered: (a) small, specimens with
170 mm of length; and (b) large, specimens with 240 mm of
length. The following parameters were considered: (a) compres-
sive/tensile strength of the pumice aggregate concrete; (b) density
of the pumice aggregate concrete; (c) ratio of shear reinforcement
crossing the interface; (d) interface length; (e) surface preparation;
(f) lateral confinement; and (g) loading rate. Rough surfaces were
prepared with a special hammer, as designated by these research-
ers, while smooth surfaces were prepared using an abrasive disk.
ð92Þ
The general form of the proposed design expression is given
by:
v u ¼ lðqfy þ rn Þb þ C ð97Þ
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; l
ð93Þ
is the coefficient of friction; q is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the
yield strength of the reinforcement; rn is the normal stress at the
interface due to external loads; and C is a generalized cohesion
term. The latter depends on the tensile strength of the pumice
aggregate concrete, and is given by:
d
C ¼ cf ctm ð98Þ
where c is a coefficient to take into account the interface size effect;
and fctm is the mean tensile strength of the pumice aggregate
concrete.
The values proposed for the coefficients b and d, and for the
coefficients of friction and interface sizes are presented in Table 2.
For smooth interfaces was proposed the following expression:
ð94Þ pffiffiffiffiffi
v u ¼ 0:30ðqfy þ rn Þ þ 1:7 fct ðMPaÞ ð99Þ
ð95Þ pffiffiffiffiffi
vu ¼ 0:30ðqfy þ rn Þ þ 20:47 fct ðpsiÞ ð100Þ
For rough interfaces was proposed the following expression:
 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448 445

Table 2 2.38. Mansur, Vinayagam and Tan (2008)

Coefficients of friction and cohesion according to Papanicolaou and Triantafillou [52].

Size – surface preparation (b  1; Coefficient of Coefficient of Mansur et al. [54] investigated the shear transfer across a crack,
d  0.5) friction l cohesion c both analytically and experimentally. A comparison between sev-
Small – smooth 0.33 3.63 eral design expressions, including the ones proposed by the ACI
Small – rough 0.45 2.97 318 (2005) and PCI Design Handbook (1992) and those suggested
Large – smooth 0.33 2.33 by Mattock and his co-workers [27,31,49], Walraven et al. [38],
Large – rough 0.45 1.90
Mau and Hsu [40], Lin and Chen [41] and Loov and Patnaik [15],
was made.
It was concluded that the design expressions proposed by Wal-
pffiffiffiffiffi raven et al. [38] and by Mau and Hsu [40] give unsafe predictions
v u ¼ 0:45ðqfy þ rn Þ þ 1:4 fct ðMPaÞ ð101Þ
pffiffiffiffiffi of the interface shear strength. Moreover, the design expression
v u ¼ 0:45ðqfy þ rn Þ þ 16:86 fct ðpsiÞ ð102Þ proposed by Loov and Patnaik [15], similar to the one proposed
by Mau and Hsu [40] although with different values for the coeffi-
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q
cients, presented identical unsafe predictions.
is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforce-
A single curve formulation was proposed by Mansur et al. [54],
ment; rn is the normal stress at the interface due to external loads;
based on the design expression by Mau and Hsu [40] and calibrated
and fct is the tensile strength of the pumice aggregate concrete and
with a set of 154 test results. The compressive strength of the con-
is given by:
crete adopted in the experimental study was between 18 MPa
 q  (2611 psi) and 100 MPa (14504 psi), while the normalized clamp-
fct ¼ 0:2fck2=3 0:4 þ 0:6 ðMPaÞ ð103Þ
2000 ing forces ( qfy/fc) were between 0.02 and 0.39. The proposed
 q 
fct ¼ 1:05fck2=3 0:4 þ 0:6 ðpsiÞ ð104Þ expression is given by:
2000 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where q is the density of pumice aggregate concrete (kg/m ). 3 vu qfy
¼ 0:566 6 0:3 ð107Þ
These expressions were defined for a coefficient c that quanti- fc fc
fies the interface size effect, assumed as three-quarters of the min- where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; fc
imum value presented in Table 2 for smooth and rough surfaces. is the concrete compressive strength; q is the reinforcement ratio;
The average yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the and fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement. The yield strength
interface was of 568 MPa (82.4 ksi). of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was of 300 MPa
(43.5 ksi) and 530 MPa (76.9 ksi).
2.37. Gohnert (2003) Comparing the proposed expression with the experimental
data, Mansur et al. [54] concluded that this could be unsafe for
Gohnert [53] proposed a design expression to evaluate the ulti- low values of the normalized clamping forces. Therefore, a trilinear
mate longitudinal shear stress at the interface between precast ribs formulation was proposed.
and in situ concrete, based on the results of 90 composite speci- For normalized clamping forces lower or equal to 0.075, corre-
mens, given by: sponding to the first branch of the trilinear formulation, the nor-
malized ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface is
v u ¼ 0:2090Rz þ 0:7719 ðMPa mmÞ ð105Þ
given by:
v u ¼ 777Rz þ 112 ðpsi in:Þ ð106Þ
vu qfy
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface ¼ 2:5 ð108Þ
fc fc
and Rz is a roughness parameter calculated as the difference be-
tween the average height of the peaks and the average height of For normalized clamping forces between 0.075 and 0.270, corre-
the valleys given from an arbitrary baseline of the surface profile. sponding to the middle branch of the trilinear formulation, the nor-
The tested specimens were composed by commercial precast malized ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface is given
ribs from five different manufacturers and, therefore, presented dif- by:
ferent geometry, surface roughness and concrete compressive vu 0:56 fy
strength. The cross section of the specimens, including the precast ¼ þ 0:55q ðMPaÞ ð109Þ
fc fc0:385 fc
rib and the in situ concrete, was rectangular. The width and thick-
v u 3:80 fy
ness of the rib varied between 100 and 250 mm (3.94 and 9.84 in.) ¼ 0:385 þ 0:55q ðpsiÞ ð110Þ
fc fc fc
and 60 and 70 mm (2.36 and 2.76 in.), respectively. The width of the
cross section was the same of the rib and the total depth of the cross For normalized clamping forces equal or higher than 0.270, corre-
section was of 210 mm (8.27 in.). The adopted length for the spec- sponding to the third and last branch of the trilinear formulation,
imens was of 750 mm (29.53 in.). The substrate surface was pre- the normalized ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface
pared by the means of a stiff wire brush or a rake. The parameter is given by:
Rz was determined and presented values between 0.89 and
vu
4.22 mm (0.035 and 0.1661 in.). The concrete compressive strength ¼ 0:3 ð111Þ
fc
varied between 22.8 MPa (3306 psi) and 56.2 MPa (8149 psi).
Gohnert [53] concluded that a better correlation was obtained
between the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface 2.39. Santos and Júlio (2009)
and the surface roughness, herein represented by the texture
parameter Rz. A poor correlation was observed when the surface Santos and Júlio [55,56] developed a large experimental study
roughness was replaced by the concrete compressive strength. This to assess the bond strength of the interface between concrete lay-
researcher also concluded that an actual measurement of the sur- ers cast at different ages. Different curing conditions; ages between
face roughness should be specified instead of simply describing the concrete layers; bond tests; and techniques to prepare the inter-
finishing procedure or the equipment used to prepare the surface. face surface and increase its roughness, were considered.
446 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448
Santos and Júlio [55,56] suggest that the coefficients of cohesion
and friction, present in the shear-friction design expressions,
should be predicted by the means of a texture parameter. The fol-
lowing expressions are proposed:
1:062R0:145
vm
cd ¼ ðmmÞ
ccoh
1:698R0:145
vm
cd ¼ ðin:Þ
ccoh
1:366R0:041
vm
ld ¼ ðmmÞ
cfr
1:560R0:041
vm
ld ¼ ðin:Þ
cfr
where cd is the design coefficient of cohesion; ld is the design coef-
ficient of friction; Rvm is the Mean Valley Depth of the primary profile
of the surface; ccoh is the partial safety factor for the coefficient of
cohesion; cfr is the partial safety factor for the coefficient of friction.
The proposed expressions were obtained by adjusting a power
function to the experimental values of the coefficients of cohesion
and friction, determined for five different surface conditions: left
as-cast; wire-brushing; sand-blasting; shot-blasting and hand-
scrubbing or raking. Based in the coefficient of variation of both
coefficients, the authors propose the values of 2.6 and 1.2 for the
partial safety factors of the coefficients of cohesion and friction,
respectively.
The authors were the first to propose partial safety factors for
the coefficients of cohesion and friction since these depend and
are highly influenced by the characteristics of substrate material
and by the technician that perform the surface preparation or cast
the substrate.
For uniform interface surfaces, the roughness must be mea-
sured with a minimum accuracy of 10 micrometer; then, the Mean
Valley Depth (Rvm) has to be determined, taken as the average value
obtained considering at least ten 2D primary profiles.
Based in the shear-friction provisions of Eurocode 2 [4], the
authors propose that when no reinforcement crossing the interface
is provided, the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the concrete-
to-concrete interface is given by:
v u ¼ cd fctd 6 0:25f cd
When reinforcement crossing the interface is provided, the ultimate
longitudinal shear stress is given by:
v u ¼ ld ðrn þ qfy Þ 6 0:25f cd
The proposed methodology is adequate for uniform interface sur-
faces, which are considered by the authors as those resulting from:
as-cast against steel, plastic or specially prepared wooden moulds;
slipformed or extruded surface; free surface left without further
treatment after vibration; or surfaces prepared by wire-brushing,
sandblasting, shot-blasting, water-blasting or other equivalent
methods. For other cases, such as non-uniform interface surfaces
obtained by raking or presenting indentations, the values of the
coefficients of cohesion and friction should be evaluated for each
specific case, i.e., for each interface geometry.
Santos and Júlio [55,56] also proposed several recommenda-
tions to ensure a successful interface design. The differential
shrinkage between both concrete parts should be taken into con-
sideration in the design and evaluated on site for each specific
case. The influence of temperature should also be considered in
design. The differential stiffness between both concrete parts
should be taken into consideration in the design. The Young mod-
ulus of the added concrete layer should never be taken smaller
than that of the substrate concrete. Other requirements should
be also satisfied. In cases where the joint can be significantly
cracked, the coefficient of cohesion should be taken as zero, for
all types of interface surfaces. Under fatigue or dynamic loads,
the design shear resistance at the interface due to cohesion
should not be considered.
ð112Þ
3. From research to codes and standards
ð113Þ The literature review conducted by the authors, aiming to iden-
tify the contributions given by researchers for the assessment of
ð114Þ the longitudinal shear strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces
in the last five decades, showed that several milestones could be
defined. These are referred to contributions that have a major sig-
ð115Þ
nificance, such as the inclusion of new parameters, load transfer
mechanisms, assessment methodology, among others.
The authors identified the following six major contributions: (1)
the design expression proposed by Birkeland and Birkeland [21] is
recognized worldwide as the original ‘‘shear-friction theory’’; (2)
Mattock and Hawkins [27] were the first researchers to propose
the consideration of a term that represents the contribution of
cohesion, being their design expression known as the ‘‘modified
shear-friction theory’’; (3) Loov [34] was the first researcher to in-
clude the contribution of the concrete strength; (4) Walraven et al.
[38], based on an innovative ‘‘sphere model’’, proposed a non-lin-
ear function to predict the shear strength of initially cracked inter-
faces; (5) Randl [44] that proposed a design expression that
explicitly includes the contribution of the three load carrying
mechanism: cohesion, friction and dowel action; although Tsou-
kantas and Tassios [42] were the first researchers to study the
dowel action; and (6) Santos and Júlio [55,56] proposed an innova-
tive methodology to quantify the influence of the surface
roughness and to correlate it with the bond strength of the con-
crete-to-concrete interface.
A comparison of the six design expressions is presented in
Fig. 3. Since the surface preparation is considered in some propos-
als, namely Birkeland and Birkeland [21], Randl [44] and Santos
and Júlio [55,56], the shear strength is defined for the upper and
lower bounds of the design expressions, i.e. for the most roughened
and smoothest surfaces and not for specific conditions such as
smooth or rough. The remaining design expressions, namely Mat-
ð116Þ tock and Hawkins [27], Loov [34] and Walraven et al. [38], are pre-
sented as a single curve since they are independent of the surface
preparation.
With this approach the authors aim to simplify the comparison
of the six design expressions. Moreover, to help in the comparison,
ð117Þ
a typical situation is defined considering a concrete with a com-
pressive strength of 25 MPa (3.6 ksi), assumed as the weakest con-
crete layer, and shear reinforcement steel with a yield stress of
400 MPa (58.0 ksi). All values are assumed as characteristics and
no safety factors were adopted.
The design expressions proposed by Loov [34] and Walraven
et al. [38] are very similar and present, in general, the highest value
for the shear strength of the interface. The expressions proposed by
Mattock and Hawkins [27], Birkeland and Birkeland [21] and San-
tos and Júlio [55,56] appear as a lower bound of the design expres-
sions proposed by Loov [34] and Walraven et al. [38], being similar
to a bilinear approximation of the non-linear expressions proposed
by the latter researchers.
The influence of the surface preparation is visible in the design
expression suggested by Santos and Júlio [55,56] and Birkeland and
Birkeland [21] but it is highly amplified by the design proposal of
Randl [44]. In fact, comparing the shear strength predicted using
the design expression proposed by the latter researcher for sur-
faces with different preparations – smooth, sand-blasted and
water-blasted – the difference is significant. These differences re-
veal the significance of the surface preparation in the bond
 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448
Fig. 3. Comparison of design expressions.
strength of the interface. It should be highlighted that the proposal
of Randl [44] gives, in general, and always for reinforcement ratios
not less than approximately 1.0%, the lowest shear strength.
Besides surface roughness, significant differences are also ob-
served in the predicted shear strength with the increase of the steel
reinforcement ratio. It must be highlighted that these design
expressions were calibrated with experimental results obtained
with specimens presenting different: (1) geometry; (2) materials;
(3) curing conditions; and (4) stress state at the interface. There-
fore, although presenting different values they represent a true
and valid estimation of the shear strength under the considered
conditions by each researcher.
All major design codes of concrete structures [1–10] adopted
the design philosophy proposed by Birkeland and Birkeland [21],
i.e. the ‘‘shear-friction theory’’, to predict the longitudinal shear
strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces. The initial design
expression proposed by Birkeland and Birkeland [21] is not cur-
rently adopted by all codes but all shear-friction provisions are
based on the research conducted by these researchers and in sub-
sequent studies by others. It should be highlighted that the ACI 318
(2008) adopted the design expression proposed by Mattock [49].
The new Model Code [2,3] adopted the design expression pro-
posed by Randl [44]. The Model Code 2010 [2,3] it is the first design
code to propose a quantitative assessment of the surface rough-
ness, instead of adopting just a qualitative visual inspection, to
help the designer defining the values for the coefficients of cohe-
sion and friction. This improvement results from the research stud-
ies conducted by the authors [55–57].
4. Summary and conclusions
The analysis of the design expressions, obtained from published
research, shows that the load transfer mechanism at the concrete-
to-concrete interface is due to: (1) cohesion; (2) friction; and (3)
dowel action. The latter is frequently implicitly considered, ‘‘dis-
guised’’ as cohesion and/or friction.
It can be stated that the roughness of the concrete substrate has
a very significant influence on the bond strength of concrete-to-
concrete interfaces. This is a key parameter that is considered in
the design expressions in the form of the coefficients of cohesion
and/or friction. These are linked to the surface preparation method
and are qualitatively assessed by the means of a visual inspection
of the prepared surface.
It must be highlighted that the yield strength of the reinforce-
ment bars crossing the interface has varied over the last 50 years.
The first studies, conducted by 1960, were performed using rein-
forcement bars with a yield strength of approximately 275 MPa
(40.0 ksi). Later, by 1970, the most common yield strength for rein-
447
forcement was of 475 MPa (69.0 ksi). The most recent research
studies present reinforcement bars with a yield strength around
550 MPa (80.0 ksi).
Six milestones were identified. The research of Birkeland and
Birkeland [21], Mattock and Hawkins [27], Loov [34], Walraven
et al. [38], Tsoukantas and Tassios [42] and Randl [44] and, finally,
Santos and Júlio [55–57], can be considered as some of the most
significant and interesting contributions given to the development
of more accurate design expressions.
Current design codes [4,5] present some of the design expres-
sions proposed by researchers and identified by the authors as ma-
jor milestones. The recently published Model Code 2010 [2,3] also
includes shear-friction provisions based in recent research con-
ducted by the authors [55–57].
The main differences between design codes [1–10] are related
with the surface roughness classification, namely if it is very
smooth, smooth, rough or very rough or simply intentionally rough-
ened or not and the coefficients of cohesion and friction assigned
to each category. This difference is also common to published
research.
The authors would like to highlight that, although being the
composite concrete member generally comprised by two concrete
layers of different age, the identified design expressions do not
consider the influence of the curing conditions and the difference
between the concrete strength of both layers. Therefore, it can be
stated that differential shrinkage and differential stiffness are ne-
glected in all the described expressions. Further research is neces-
sary to assess the influence of both parameters in the behaviour of
the concrete-to-concrete interface.
5. Conversion factors
1 mm = 0.039 in.
1 mm2 = 0.001550 in.2
1 MPa = 145 psi
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi
Acknowledgement
This research project has been funded by the Portuguese Sci-
ence and Technology Foundation (FCT) with reference PTDC/
ECM/098497/2008.
References
[1] Model Code for concrete structures. Comité Euro-International du Béton,
Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990,
460 pp.
448 P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Júlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435–448
[2] Model Code 2010. First complete draft – vol. 1. Comité Euro-International du
Béton, Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland,
2010, 318 pp.
[3] Model Code 2010. First complete draft – vol. 2. Comité Euro-International du
Béton, Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland,
2010, 312 pp.
[4] EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2 – design of concrete structures – Part 1: General rules
and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Avenue
Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp. (with corrigendum of 16th
January 2008).
[5] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318M-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 473 pp.
[6] CAN/CSA A23.3. Design of concrete structures - structures design. Canadian
Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 1R3,
2004, 258 p.
[7] AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 4th edition, SI units edition, 2007, 1526
p.
[8] AASHTO standard specifications for highway bridges. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, 16th edition, 1996, 760 p.
[9] PCI design handbook. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 7th edition, 2010.
[10] BS 8110-1. Structural use of concrete. Part 1: Code of practice for design and
construction. London: British Standard Institute; 1997.
[11] Hsu TTC, Mau ST, Chen B. Theory of shear transfer strength of reinforced
concrete. ACI Struct J 1987;84(2):149–60.
[12] Hwang SJ, Yu HW, Lee HJ. Theory of interface shear capacity of reinforced
concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 2000;126(6):700–7.
[13] Gohnert M. Proposed theory to determine the horizontal shear between
composite precast and in situ concrete. Cement Concr Compos
2000;22(6):469–76.
[14] Zilch K, Reinecke R. Capacity of shear joints between high-strength precast
elements and normal-strength cast-in-place decks. fib International
symposium on high performance concrete. Orlando, USA, 25–27 September
2000.
[15] Loov RE, Patnaik AK. Horizontal shear strength of composite concrete beams
with a rough interface. PCI J 1994;39(1):48–69.
[16] Anderson AR. Composite designs in precast and cast-in-place concrete. Prog
Archit 1960;41(9):172–9.
[17] Hanson NW. Precast-prestressed concrete bridges. 2. Horizontal shear
connections. Development Department Bulletin D35. Portland Cement Assoc
1960;2(2):38–58.
[18] Mattock AH, Kaar PH. Precast-prestressed concrete bridges. 4. Shear tests of
continuous girders. J PCA R&D Lab 1961;3(1):19–46.
[19] Saemann JC, Washa GW. Horizontal shear connections between precast beams
and cast-in-place slabs. J Am Concr Inst 1964;61(11):1309–83.
[20] Gaston JR, Kriz LB. Connections in precast concrete structures – scarf joints. PCI
J 1964;9(3):37–59.
[21] Birkeland PW, Birkeland HW. Connections in precast concrete construction. J
Am Concr Inst 1966;63(3):345–68.
[22] Badoux JC, Hulsbos CL. Horizontal shear connection in composite concrete
beams under repeated loads. J Am Concr Inst 1967;64(12):811–9.
[23] Birkeland HW. Precast and prestressed concrete. Class notes for
course. University of British Columbia, Spring; 1968.
[24] Patnaik AH. Horizontal shear strength of composite concrete beams with a
rough interface. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Canada, 1992, 263 p.
[25] Mast RF. Auxiliary reinforcement in precast concrete connections. ASCE J
Struct Div 1968;94(6):1485–504.
[26] Hofbeck JA, Ibrahim IO, Mattock AH. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete. J Am
Concr Inst 1969;66(2):119–28.
[27] Mattock AH, Hawkins NM. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete – recent
research. PCI J 1972;17(2):55–75.
[28] Mattock AH. Shear transfer in concrete having reinforcement at an angle to the
shear plane. American Concrete Institute. Special Publication 42-2, January
1974. p. 17–42.
[29] Hermansen BR, Cowan J. Modified shear-friction theory for bracket design. J
Am Concr Ins 1974;71(2):55–60.
[30] Mattock AH, Johal L, Chow HC. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete with
moment or tension acting across the shear plane. PCI J 1975;20(4):76–93.
[31] Mattock AH, Li WK, Wang TC. Shear transfer in lightweight reinforced
concrete. PCI J 1976;21(1):20–39.
[32] Raths CH. Reader comments of paper ‘‘Design proposals for reinforced
concrete corbels’’, published in PCI Journal, May–June 1976;21(3):18–42, by
Mattock A. PCI J 1977;22(2):93–8.
[33] Shaikh AF. Proposed revisions to shear-friction provisions. PCI J
1978;23(2):12–21.
[34] Loov RE. Design of precast connections. Paper presented at a seminar
organized by Compa International Pt., Ltd. Singapore, 1978, 8 p.
[35] Mattock AH. Cyclic shear transfer and type of interface. ASCE J Struct Div
1981;107(10):1945–64.
[36] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. J Am Concr Inst 1986;83(2):219–31.
[37] Walraven JC. Fundamental analysis of aggregate interlock. ASCE J Struct Div
1981;107(11):2245–70.
[38] Walraven J, Frénay J, Pruijssers A. Influence of concrete strength and load
history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members. PCI J
1987;32(1):66–84.
[39] Mattock AH. Reader comments of paper ‘‘Influence of concrete strength and
load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members’’ published in
PCI Journal, January–February 1987;32(1):66–84, by Walraven J, Frénay J,
Pruijssers A. PCI J 1988;33(1):165–6.
[40] Mau S, Hsu T. Reader comments of paper ‘‘Influence of concrete strength and
load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members’’ published in
PCI Journal, January–February 1987;32(1):66–84, by Walraven J, Frénay J,
Pruijssers A. PCI J 1988;33(1):165–8.
[41] Lin IJ, Chen YL. Shear transfer across a crack in reinforced high strength
concrete. In: Proceedings 2nd east Asia–Pacific conference on structural
engineering & construction, Chiang Mai, Thailand, January, 1989. p. 505–10.
[42] Tsoukantas SG, Tassios TP. Shear resistance of connections between reinforced
concrete linear precast elements. ACI Struct J 1989;86(3):242–9.
[43] Mattock AH. Reader comments of paper ‘‘Horizontal shear strength of
composite concrete beams with a rough interface’’ published in PCI Journal,
January–February 1994;39(1):48–69, by Loov RE, Patnaik AK. PCI J
1994;39(5):106–8.
[44] Randl N. Investigations on transfer of forces between old and new concrete at
different joint roughness. PhD thesis, University of Innsbruck, 1997, 379 p. [in
German].
[45] ASTM E 965. Standard test method for measuring pavement macrotexture
depth using a volumetric technique. ASTM international, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2001.
[46] Ali MA, White RN. Enhanced contact model for shear friction of normal and
high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J 1999;96(3):348–62.
[47] Valluvan R, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO. Evaluation of ACI 318-95 shear-friction
provisions. ACI Struct J 1999;96(4):473–81.
[48] Patnaik AH. Reader comments of paper ‘‘Evaluation of ACI 318-95 shear-
friction provisions’’ published in ACI Structural Journal, July–August
1999;96(4):473–83, by Valluvan R, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO. ACI Struct J
2000;97(3):525–36.
[49] Mattock AH. Shear friction and high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J
2001;98(1):50–9.
[50] Patnaik AH. Behavior of composite concrete beams with smooth interface.
ASCE J Struct Eng 2001;127(4):356–66.
[51] Kahn LF, Mitchell AD. Shear friction tests with high-strength concrete. ACI
Struct J 2002;99(1):98–103.
[52] Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC. Shear transfer capacity along pumice
aggregate concrete and high-performance concrete interfaces. Mater Struct
2002;35(4):237–45.
[53] Gohnert M. Horizontal shear transfer across a roughened surface. Cement
Concr Compos 2003;25(3):379–85.
[54] Mansur MA, Vinayagam T, Tan KH. Shear transfer across a crack in reinforced
high-strength concrete. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 2008;20(4):294–302.
[55] Santos PMD, Júlio ENBS. Factors affecting bond between new and old concrete.
ACI Mater J 2011;108(4):449–56.
[56] Santos PMD, Júlio ENBS. Recommend improvements to current shear-friction
provisions of model code. In: 3rd fib international congress, Washington, DC,
May 29–June 02, 2010.
[57] Santos PMD, Júlio ENBS, Silva VD. Correlation between concrete-to-concrete
bond strength and the roughness of the substrate surface. Construct Build
Mater 2007;21(8):1688–95.