ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNA\ TECHNICAL PAPER Title no. 86-826 Shear Resistance of Connections between Rei Linear Precast Elements @2 by S. G. Tsoukantas and T. P. Tassios An analytical investigation is presented regarding the resistance of connections between linear reinforced concrete precast elements ‘against shear displacements, monotonically or cyclically imposed. Based on recent data regarding the shear transfer mechanisms (dowel ‘action, friction, pullout), the authors have propased design values for ‘the shear force transferred by each mechanism, for both smooth and rough interfaces. Design values also are proposed for the magnitude of the imposed shear displacements, corresponding to the ultimate and serviceability limit states, A closed formula is presented for the calculation of the design shear resistance of such connections, taking into account possible interactions between contributing mechanisms, Finally, some design examples are given Keywords: connections; exci loads; dowels: fiston; loads (ores); precast concrete; pullout tests; reinforced concrete; shear connectors sear srength A great number of prefabricated structures have been, built all over the world during recent years. Large-panel construction is used mainly for residential buildings, while prefabricated structures made of linear elements are mainly one to three-story industrial buildings ‘As is known, the main structural problem in precast construction is related to the connections between the prefabricated members. Considerable experimental and theoretical research has been devoted to large panel connections," whereas research concerning connec- tions of prefabricated linear elements seems to be less extensive. Although several experiments have been car- ried out on specific types of linear connections, theo- retical work concerning the resistance of such connec tions subject to normal forces and bending moments, against shear slidings (monotonically or cyclically im- posed), does not seem to be rich.™* ‘An analytical approach is presented predicting the shear response of certain types of connections between linear prefabricated elements simultaneously subjected to normal forces and bending moments. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Concerning the shear resistance of connections be- tween prefabricated linear elements, due to lack of mote specific data, designers are often obliged to make 242 inforced Concrete their own assumptions regarding failure criteria, which may lead to uneconomical or unsafe results. In this paper, analytical expressions are proposed re- lated to the mechanisms contributing to the shear resis- tance of such connections; design formulas for the cal- culation of their shear resistance also are developed. It is hoped that the approach presented will contribute to a more rational design of connections of precast linear elements, independent of their commercial type. SHEAR TRANSFER MECHANISMS Obviously, the most vulnerable parts of precast con- struction are the connections between the prefabricated members. More specifically, shear transfer across these connections seems to be the most particular problem; normal action effects may be treated, as in the case of monolithic elements. It is therefore important to study the shear transfer submechanisms mobilized by slip- page along the concrete-to-concrete interfaces of a con- nection: friction (due to external compression or pull- out forces) and dowel action. FRICTION Monotonic loading Shear may be transferred by means of friction along a concrete interface whenever a normal compressive stress is acting on this interface, due to an externally imposed load or to the clamping effect on reinforcing bars crossing the interface. In the latter case (schematically presented in Fig. 1), when a shear displacement s is imposed, a lateral dila- tancy w is produced due to the interlocking of the as- perities. The reinforcing bars (4,.) crossing the area un- der compression (when adequately anchored) respond ha tensile force EA, * 0,3 consequently an addi- ACT Structural Journal. V. 86, No.3, May-June 1989. Received Nov, 4, 1987, and reviewed under Insitute publication polis. Copyright © 1949, American Concrete loatitute. Al ph served, isloding the making of copie unless permission ig obcaliea from the copyright prope flor. Peitinent discussion will be published ia the March-April 1990 ACT insure! Journal i received by Nov. 1, 1989, ACI Structural Journal / May-June 1989T.P. Tassos, FACI, i an asstant professor of reinforced concrete structures, atthe National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece. He is honor ‘ary President of the Euro-Inernational Concrete Committee (CEB) and the ‘author of numerous publications on the behavior of reinforced concrete under ‘monotonic and eyelic actions SG, Teowkantas ia lecturer ax the Laboratory of Reinforced Conerete Sirue- tures, Nationl Technical Universiy of Alen, Athens, Greece. He i @ mem: ber of CEB, CIB, and RILEM working groups and the author af several pa- person the behavior of connections between prefabricated reinforced elements Subject to monotonic and cyelic ations tional compressive stress Ao. = pie * 0, appears on the concrete interface [pia = (Aq): Aad; subse- quently, friction is mobilized. ‘The lateral dilatancy w may be related to shear dis- placement s as follows? Smooth* interfaces: w = 0.05 - 5 a Rough* interfaces: w = 0.6 - @ where the units are in mm, The previous empirical equations are valid for values at least up to s = 2.0 mm for Eq. (1) and s = 2.5 mm. for Eq. (2) according to available experimental data presented in References 7 and 8, respectively. For low values of normal stress 4a’, this dilatancy is almost independent of Ao." In Fig. 2 and 3, the shear friction stress versus shear displacement is presented for smooth and rough concrete interfaces, respectively.”* The design value of the ultimate friction — shear stress (r,,.), under monotonic action may then be esti- mated as follows ‘Smooth interfaces Tw = O40. Cada = 004 or, for y. = 1.5 (rds = 0.27 + Oe (3) Rough interfaces Tr = 05 IR Oe toma 9S Be - ene NM “ 4 or, for yy = Sandy, = 1.5 (tyewda = 0.27 Uae 0, (4) Cyclic fully reversed displacements ‘According to Reference 10, the following empirical equations may be used for the estimation of the fric- © Conventionally, concrete interfaces are categorized as smooth when pro- duced against a sel formwork surface (eg. prec coneret), Concrete r= faoes produced after cracking, or smooth interfaces roughened by sand bss Ings afe categorized as rough ACI Structural Journal | May-June 1989 Tao, Fig. 1 — Qualitative description of friction mechanism Ueus 04 6¢e y= 035|/6ce DMPA for] WO Fig. 2 — Normalized friction-shear stress versus shear displacement curve for smooth interfaces’ (1 mm = 0.0394 in; 1 MPa = 145 psi) esege 342390 mm Si sMatanan a ath Vie gonna Wnteton Oo ao oo oo Oo Fig. 3 — Normalized friction-shear stress versus shear displacement curve for rough interfaces (I mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa =" 145 psi) tion degradation after m cycles, for smooth and rough interfaces Smooth interfaces Taw 1 — Vna Tits, > Ts Rough interfaces e 1- [0.02 - v2)" . @ 243atte fs) attr 0 ate ate 0 According to quit Os (ura Experimental vlues Fig, 4 — Experimental results versus results predicted by Eq. (7) (1 MPa = 145 psi) Fig. 5 — Simple model predicting local bond versus lo- cal slip relationship under fully reversed deformations” (n = number of cycles) where 1, denotes the frictional resistance mobilized under monotonic action and s! the shear slip of the in- terface that corresponds to the maximum mobilized friction under monotonic loading (see Fig. 2 and 3). For design purposes under severe seismic conditions, it may be taken n = 3 106. If we assume 1 = 5, the previous equations become Smooth interfaces Cade Grade 9,7 5) Grade ® where (r,,)¢ may be taken from Eq. (3) Rough interfaces terol) ato where (7,,,)s may be taken from Eq. (4) 244 PULLOUT Monotonic loading As mentioned, when an interface is subject to a shear displacement s, a lateral dilatancy w is produced due to the interlocking of asperities. The pullout resistance of the reinforcement crossing the interface is then acti- vated. Regarding the pullout resistance, based on a number of experimental results and theoretical considerations, the authors propose empirical Eq. (7) for the relation- ship between steel stress and slip sy at the loaded end of the bar ane tsde (2) stro 16/ where the units are in mm and N/mm’, In Eq. (7), the front slip s, is the integral of all strains of steel along its anchored length. The previous formula for the range of bar lengths 2d, <1, < 12d, fits quite well with relevant experimental results, as is shown in Fig. 4 (correlation factor ~ 0.8). However, note that the concrete cover and surrounding reinforcement are not taken into account in this expression. Actually, in practical situations, the available an- chorage lengths |, of the bars crossing an interface may be much larger than 12d,. If this is the case, for design purposes, the aforementioned formula leads to rather conservative results taking into account |, = 12d,. Be- sides, a model uncertainty factor yg = ¥% should be introduced (Fig. 4). Thus, when 1, > 12d, Ao, = 60 Vd, > fus* * $8 $ Sos 8) where the units are in mm and N/mm: Cyclic loading Systematic experimental data under cyclically im- posed pullout slip s, are missing. However, it is reason- able to assume that the reduction of the pullout resis tance is equal to the reduction of average local bond under cyclic conditions (Fig. 5). However, since full slip reversals are not expected, it is proposed to use a less severe reduction factor; thus, instead of ‘4 valid for full cycling (see References 11 and 12), a value equal to % is proposed, i.e. 1 Conds = 3 (Aea) where the Ao, values under monotonic loading are given by Eq. (8). Nevertheless, for prevailing cyclic conditions, this subject would necessitate a more de- tailed insight. DOWEL ACTION Monotonic loading The dowel response D, of a reinforcement subject to transversal displacements s» depends on a number of ACI Structural Journal | May-June 1989