ANALYSIS OF THE HORIZONTAL SHEAR LOAD CAPACITY

OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE STRUCTURES

Piotr Kmiecik1, Mieczysław Kamiński2
Wrocław University of Technology, Plac Grunwaldzki 11, 50-377 Wrocław, Poland
E-mail: 1pkmiecik@pwr.wroc.pl; 2mieczyslaw.kaminski@pwr.wroc.pl

Abstract. Composite concrete construction exists when one or more reinforced concrete or compressed elements are
bound together and cooperate in cross-section with complementary concrete layer applied later. The basic condition
which must be fulfilled in order to recognize such constructions to be composite is to maintain longitudinal shear ca-
pacity in interface layer where precast concrete element is bond to the complementary concrete layer. This sort of ca-
pacity can be achieved through substantially equivalent transverse reinforcement, natural adhesion and friction.
Analysis of stitching reinforcement performance leads to the conclusion that shear stress in interface can be trans-
ferred by stirrups when the mutual dislocation of the interface surfaces occurs. Nonetheless, according to EN 1992-1-
1 standard in order to calculate capacity the components of reinforcement and physico-chemical adhesion of the
bound elements should be summed up. Stirrups are activated when adhesive force is destroyed. The Standard as-
sumes that when interface is destroyed (namely a significant longitudinal slide between composite parts occurs),
stresses of stirrups reach yield strength of reinforcement. However, experimental study proves that the level of these
stresses is significantly lower, especially outside shear section. In addition, in the interface capacity formula, the
dowel force, i. e. pressure of transverse reinforcement vertical bars put upon concrete does not occur. This kind of
approach is reasonable since in real constructions the mechanism of transferring tangent forces by means of rein-
forcement pressure and friction occurs in combination and is interdependent. As a result, the standard formula does
not make a division of tangent forces into a part transferred by reinforcement crossing the interface, friction and ad-
hesion, but considers them as the sum of theses three components. This kind of division is rather conventional. Basic
overview regarding state of knowledge was prepared to determine in a more precise way the components of interface
capacity.

Keywords: composite constructions, concrete structures, capacity of interface, stitching reinforcement, friction, ad-
hesion between concrete layers, Eurocode 2.

Application of composite reinforced structures – repair of concrete structure by means of decre-

Composite reinforced concrete constructions are
such structures in which cross-section consists of con-
crete applied at the building site and precast concrete
bound together with reinforcement or bound without it.
These component parts of construction are bound in
such a way that it is possible to consider them in calcula-
tions as one structural element.
The characteristic feature of these units is that there
occurs full co-operation between precast concrete and
concrete topping overlay. These types of structures can be
applied in the following conditions:
– composite reinforced concrete constructions
where monolithic concrete is placed on the pre-
cast concrete element,
– precast structures where interface between the
precast concrete elements is filled with concrete
to produce monolithic construction,
691
ment filling or application of some new, addi-
tional layers.
Condition of interface load capacity
A composite element is such a structural element in
which all the components are bound with each other to
restrain longitudinal slide between each other and to pre-
vent separation of one part from the other.
In such elements crossing can be observed. This is
the case where real shear forces operate in the interface
and where sliding type of failure occurs. Some examples
of interfaces are shown in Fig 1.
Precast elements can be taken into account when
bending capacity of the composite cross-section is
checked only in case when they are located in the com-
pressed section.

Fig 1. Examples of interfaces
In addition, the following conditions must be ful-
filled in order to consider a structure to be a composite
construction (PN-B-03264:2002):
– sufficient longitudinal shear capacity is pre-
served in the interface of precast and comple-
mentary concrete,
– continuity in transmission of normal forces by
co-operating elements and between them is ob-
served,
– complementary concrete class is not lower than
C 16/20,
– the concrete layer thickness is not smaller than
40 mm.
In this case, the condition that the component ele-
ments must have transverse reinforcement crossing the
interface is not required. This is due to the application of
topping, i. e. a thin layer of complementary/additional
concrete applied in the floors of multi-storey buildings.
The basic calculation condition is then to preserve the
longitudinal shear capacity of interface which can be
determined according to the following formula (Euro-
code 2) (Fig 2):
τ Rdi = τ Rd 1 + τ Rd 2 + τ Rd 3 ≤ 0,5νf cd ,
where:
τRd1 – is a capacity component resulting from element
adhesion in the interface layer,
τRd2 – is a capacity component resulting from friction on
the interface surface,
τRd3 – is a capacity component resulting from the pres-
ence of reinforcement crossing the interface surface,
fcd – design value of concrete compressive strength,
ν – the reduction coefficient of shear cracked concrete
strength.
Adhesion
One of the components of interface capacity of the
two concrete layers is their natural adhesion. The most
important physico-chemical effects which occur in inter-
face are as follows: mechanical adhesion, adsorption, and
diffusion (Król et al. 1997). When concrete mixture is
being applied on the existing precast concrete element,
cement grout penetrates its pores and coarse parts and
after its hardening mechanical mesh occurs. In addition,
as a result of chemical reactions between cement grout an
adhesion stitch appears. Value of adhesion forces de-
pends on the way that old concrete layer was prepared
and also its roughness. Capacity component can be calcu-
lated by means of the following formula:
τ Rd 1 = cf ctd
where:
fctd – design value of concrete tensile strength determined
for lower class concrete,
c – coefficient dependent on the precast concrete surface
type.
Since different types of technologies are applied to
produce interface, some surface kinds of precast surfaces
were described:
– very smooth surface – obtained from steel cast-
ing mould, plastic or smooth wooden mould,
– smooth surface – obtained from slide mold or
press moulding. After vibration free surfaces
are left without any additional treatment,
– rough surface – prepared after application of
concrete layer with grooves at least 3 mm deep
and spacing not bigger than 40 mm or by un-
covering aggregate layer or using other meth-
ods with the same effect,
– indented construction joint – specially prepared
as shown in the figure below.
Fig 2. Indented construction joint (Eurocode 2:
Fig 6.9)
(1)
Due to the above given classification, each type of
surface (type of joint) is characterized by a coefficient
describing the longitudinal shear capacity caused by ad-
hesion (Table 1).
Table 1. Adhesion coefficient dependent on the surface type of
precast element
PN-B-
Surface type Eurocode 2 CEB-FIP
03264:2002
Very smooth 0.025÷0.10 0.10 0.02
Smooth 0.20 0.20 0.35
Smooth 0.40 0.40 0.45
Indented 0.50 0.40 0.50
The values of coefficient c presented in Eurocode 2,
the International Federation for Structural Concrete
(CEB-FIP 1999) and Polish Standard. It assumes the
given values when we apply the load in static manner. In
case of fatigue and dynamic loads it should be half de-
creased. Except this, if interface is under stretching
forces, coefficient c has value zero i. e. this capacity
component is not taken into consideration. To compare,
for a full monolithic interface coefficient c is 0.62 (PN-B-
03264:2002).
In order to achieve capacity values calculated ac-
cording to formula (2) precast surfaces must be properly
prepared. For example, according to Polish Standard,
(2)
surface designed for bonding should be:

692
 – rough,
– cleaned,
– without cement milk runs,
– sufficiently moisturized before cementation,
– using agents increasing adhesion of concrete
layers is allowed,
– consistency of additional concrete layer should
allow for better concrete workability without
segregation of components and its full thicken-
ing in site conditions.
However, in case of higher class concrete and its
high leak proof qualities, moisture content may have
adverse effect on interface strength (Ligęza 1993) be-
cause excess of water prevents cement grout penetration
through pores of the precast concrete layers.
Friction
The second component of the longitudinal shear ca-
pacity is connected with friction of the interface surfaces.
Here, as in physics, value of stress depends on the friction
coefficient:
τ Rd 2 = μσn ,
where:
σn – stress generated by force vertical to the interface
surface,
μ – is shear friction coefficient.
Friction of concrete against concrete in the interface
plane/surface taking into account tangent and normal
stresses operating on the cracked surface is called aggre-
gate interlock (Table 2).
Table 2. Coefficient of friction depends on the type of precast
element surface (Eurocode 2)
Type of surface μ interface exceeds sum of adhesion and friction capacities,
Very smooth 0.5
Smooth 0.6
Rough 0.7
Indented 0.9
Monolith 1.0
Coefficient of friction μ depends on the way surface
layer of the precast element is prepared. The same classi-
fication of the interface surfaces is applied as for adhe-
sion. It is assumed in the Standard conditions that normal
stresses σn are reduced to 60 % of the design value of
concrete compressive strength. Moreover, there exists an
assumption that these stresses are positive for compres-
sion and negative for stretching. Stretching stresses de-
crease capacity of interface, however negative component
of capacity cannot be regarded as „negative friction”
(Halicka 2003).
For the smooth interface surface longitudinal shear
capacity is characterised by great value dispersion. In
addition, as experimental study shows, coarse surface
allows to transfer about 70 % higher shear stresses in
comparison with smooth surface (Priebe and Szumocki
1986). So it is reasonable to avoid using smooth surfaces
if possible. However, producing rough surfaces in exist-
ing constructions, for example by means of graining does
not have any influence on the composite degree for lower
concrete strength. For higher concrete strength graining
can decrease composite degree by structural damage of
the surface precast concrete layer. It can be concluded
that it is advisable to produce the coarse surface exclu-
sively by means of sand blasting or high pressure stream
water (Ligęza 1993). As soon as the interface layer
achieves capacity i. e. fracture of mechanical adhesion
occurs, gradual decrease of physico-chemical adhesion
forces takes place in non-reinforced interface. When ad-
hesion completely disappears the only shear resistant
force is kinetic friction (Halicka 2003). It is shown in the
diagram below, drawing on literature data, where: ε1 –
interface capacity, fracture of mechanical adhesion; ε2 –
complete disappearance of physico-chemical adhesion
force; εgr – interface damage (Fig 3).
(3)
Fig 3. Dependance of deformation on tangent stresses
in shear non-reinforced interface (Halicka 2003)
Shear reinforcement
In case when the longitudinal shear reinforcement in
then transverse reinforcement in such interface must be
calculated in the following way:
τ Rd 3 = ρf yd ( μ sin α + cos α ) , (4)
where:
ρ = As / Ai – reinforcement ratio for the longitudinal shear
reinforcement,
As – cross-sectionial area of reinforcement in inter-
face/joint,
Ai – area of the interface,
α – angle between the interface surface and shear rein-
forcement included in interval 45 ° ≤ α ≤ 90 °.
Fig 4. Shear diagram representing the required inter-
face reinforcement (Eurocode 2: Fig 6.10)
693
 When standard shear reinforcement is applied on the
whole height of cross-section of composite construction
then it is possible to consider it while checking the longi-
tudinal shear capacity. Such types as stirrups, loops or
welded grids can be used for this purpose (Fig 5). Be-
sides, this kind of reinforcement should be sufficiently
anchored on both sides of interface according to standard
requirements for shear reinforcement. In case of inade-
quate bar anchoring, a damage of interface may occur by
pulling out of reinforcement from the weaker element.
Fig 5. Some examples of reinforcement bounding pre-
cast beam with complementary concrete (Starosolski
2006): a) stirrups, b) loops, c) framework, d) stir-
rups – inclined loops
When tangent stresses are transferred, a slide of in-
terface surfaces occurs. In the reinforced interface there
appears the so called dilatancy effect which means that
horizontal dislocations cause vertical dislocations of the
interface surfaces.
In this way there occur stretching stresses in rein-
forcement and compressive stresses perpendicular to the
interface surface (Tur et al. 2001). In case of rough sur-
face, the width of crack opening in interface can be calcu-
lated directly knowing the slide values (CEB-FIP 1998):
2
ΔV = 0.6 ( ΔL ) 3 , (5)
where:
ΔV – width of crack opening, in milimeters,
ΔL – value of sidle, in milimeters.
Fig 6. Shear-friction mechanism (Halicka 2007)
Therefore for the above mentioned reasons, stirrups
start to cooperate when the mutual dislocation of the in-
terface surfaces occurs and as a consequence fracture of
adhesion takes place. Stresses in the stitching reinforce-
ment depend on the condition of the cracked interface.
Thus, when natural adhesion is destroyed, stirrups gradu-
ally start to cooperate and this together with kinetic fric-
694
tion allows achieving the interface capacity (Fig 7). De-
crease of stresses after the interface is cracked achieves
greater values when compared with non-reinforced inter-
face. When minimum value is reached stabilization of
stresses occurs: line 1 or their increase: line 2. Line 3
resembles behaviour of the reinforced interfaces with
smooth surface and operating in a complex state of tan-
gent stress and normal stretching (Halicka 2006). This
diagram was made based on other diagrams showing the
results of scientific research.
Fig 7. Strain dependence in shear interface from tan-
gent stresses for the reinforced interface (Halicka
2006)
Thus, in case of the reinforced interface the additive
rule of adhesion and friction arises a doubt (Halicka
1999). Analysing formula (5), it can be observed that for
the interface slide up to 0.2 mm, the width of crack open-
ing in the interface surface is bigger than the slide value.
This effect is particularly intensified in the first
phase of the slide development. So, theoretically trans-
verse reinforcement should operate from the very begin-
ning of loading. However, as it is observed in experimen-
tal study, the stresses appear in stirrups only when the
interface limit strain is exceeded which means that natu-
ral adhesion is destroyed (Halicka 2003). Moreover,
transverse reinforcement acts as elastic constraints which
limits crack opening. It involves mainly stretching action
while shear action begins with the significant horizontal
displacements when composite construction can achieve
the ultimate limit state (Tur et al. 2001).
Analysis of Eurocode 2 model
The interface shear capacity calculated using for-
mula (2), (3) and (4) is described by quite simple model.
It does not include the capacity component connected
with friction involved by the stitching reinforcement
(standard formula describes only friction being a result of
direct external loading). Therefore, normal stresses σn are
in fact transferred not only by means of friction but also
by transverse reinforcement. According to component (4)
it was assumed that the stitching reinforcement stresses
achieve yield strength of reinforcement. However, in a
non cracked interface big enough displacements do not
occur. Both for the smooth and rough surfaces when dis-
placement involves adhesion fracture, reinforcement
stresses are far from achieving yield stress (Mishima et
al. 1995), especially in bending zone (Halicka 2005).
Capacity also depends on the condition of the cracked
interface. Similarly, standard rule does not determine the
effect of dowel action, i. e. pressure of transverse rein-
forcement vertical bars put upon interface (Fig 8). As a
result of this pressure, dowel force will be involved
(CEB-FIP 1998).
Fig 8. Shear transfer mechanism by means of bar pres-
sure put upon concrete (Wilczyński 2005)
Longitudinal shear capacity determined by depend-
ence (1) describes division of tangent forces on the part
transferred by adhesion, friction and stitching reinforce-
ment. Analysis of the shear transfer mechanism of rein-
forcement shows that the reinforcement stretching force,
friction force of the composite concretes and pressure
force of bars put upon concrete occur in combination and
are interdependent (Wilczyński 2005). This kind of divi-
sion described by standard formula is rather conventional.
It is reasonable to prepare theoretical model which should
include full description of the interface shear transfer
mechanism. It is especially significant for the part of
capacity resulting from the presence of the stitching rein-
forcement in cross-section. Optimum reinforcement ratio
should also be given. Calculation of the interface rein-
forcement according to Eurocode 2 might be insufficient
(Fig 4) because reinforcement influences the maximum
stresses value only in case of high reinforcement ratio.
Laboratory study confirms that in case of low reinforce-
ment ratio significant capacity increase is not observed
(Halicka 2007).
Extended analytical models
There exist several analytical models considering
dowel force. They are mainly based on dependence (5).
The basic assumption is model of the stitching bar as a
beam fixed in elastic and plasticized base which is con-
crete in the interface surface.
Fig 9. Stressing of joint reinforcement due to bending
moment and axial force (Randl and Wicke 2000)
695
As laboratory study shows, setting moment to zero
occurs precisely in interface. One of the criterions that
capacity is achieved is that the plastic articulated joint
appears in reinforcement (Fig 9) in a distance which is
about 1÷2 bar diameter from interface (Ackermamann
and Burchardt 1992; Randl and Wicke 2000).
Another proposed criterion to achieve capacity is in-
terface displacement which is equal to 2 mm (Tsoukantas
and Tassios 1989). This quantity could also be treated as
the serviceability limit state of interface because relative
displacements which equal 3 mm are generally propor-
tional limit of force increase and slide in the interface
surface (Furtak and Średniawa 1996).
Unconventional model of the reinforced interface
capacity is described in German Standard (DIN 1045-1).
It is based on the truss method where friction coefficient
is replaced by cotangent of angle θ determined from the
appropriate dependence. Physical interpretation of this
angle is the substitutional friction angle considering the
influence of concrete adhesion and stitching reinforce-
ment on the interface capacity.
Summary
Availability of models taking into account the real
behaviour of constructions suggests the possibility of
their implementation into standards. However, the com-
parative analysis of models (Halicka 2007) shows that
there exists quite a big dispersion of results both qualita-
tive and quantitative. The presented analytical solutions
are based on the different parameter output and criteria of
achieving the ultimate limit state. Particularly, the differ-
ent value of the concrete strength on the pressure near the
stitching reinforcement is assumed. The length of the
stitching rebar segment, where the stress resulting from
the opening of the interface appears, is assumed as well.
It can be observed nowadays that more multi parameter
models including many new factors are prepared. This
causes some difficulties to obtain a complete solution and
application of iteration methods. On the other hand there
exist other, more simplified methods such as those in-
cluded in ACI 318-2 Standard. It was assumed there that
the only mechanism of shear transfer is shear friction,
and the artificially assumed higher values of friction coef-
ficient take into account adhesion (Fig 6). Due to this
assumption this model is in compliance with laboratory
studies (Halicka 2007). Since laboratory results are quite
widely available, then both computer simulation and
finite element method can be applied to compare the pre-
sented methods. It can be a very helpful way to find a
solution which takes into account the construction behav-
iour and at the same time preserves some advantages of
analytical models.
References
Ackerman, G.; Burkhardt, M. 1992. Tragverhalten von Ver-
bundfugen Fertigteilen und Oftbeton in den Gren-
zzuständen der Tragfähigkeit und Gebrauchstauglichkeit
[Load Bearing of Reinforced Composite Joints by Prefab-
ricated Units and Concrete in Situ in the Ultimate and
Serviceability Limit States], Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
 [Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Structures] 87(8):
197–200.
CEB-FIP. 1998. Model Code 1990, Design Code. Comite Euro-
International Du Beton, Thomas Telford Services Ltd. 437
p. ISBN 0 7277 1696 4.
CEB-FIP. 1999. Practical design of structural concrete. Rec-
ommendation. 113 p. ISBN 1-874266-48-4.
DIN 1045-1 Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und
Spannbeton – Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion [Con-
crete, reinforced and prestressed concrete structures – Part
1: Design and construction]. Berlin, 2001.
Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings. Brussels, 2004. 225 p.
Furtak, K.; Średniawa, W. 1996. Przemieszczenia względne
zespolonych elementów betonowych ze stykiem zbro-
jonym poddanych obciążeniom ścinającym [Relative Dis-
placements of Reinforced Concrete Composite Elements
Undergoing Shear Loads], in IV Konferencja Naukowa
Konstrukcje Zespolone [4th conference Composite Struc-
tures], Referaty, Zielona Góra, 27–36.
Halicka, A. 2003. O normowej metodzie obliczania nośności
styku elementów zespolonych [Bond Strength Between
Prefabricated Concrete and Cast „In Situ” Concrete], In-
żynieria i Budownictwo [Engineering and Building Indus-
try] 6: 343–346.
Halicka, A. 2005. Mechanizm zniszczenia żelbetowych belek
zespolonych [Failure Mechanism of Composite Concrete
Beams], Inżynieria i Budownictwo [Engineering and
Building Industry] 8: 438–441.
Halicka, A. 2006. Podatność styku w żelbetowych elementach
zespolonych [Susceptibility of Interface in Reinforced
Concrete Composite Elements], Przegląd Budowlany
[Construction Overview] 10: 29–33.
Halicka, A. 2007. Studium stanu naprężeń i odkształceń w
płaszczyźnie styku i strefie przypodporowej elementów
zespolonych z udziałem betonów skurczowych i ekspansy-
wnych [A Study of the Stress-strain State in the Interface
and Support Zones of Composite Structures with Shrink-
ing and Expansive Concretes]. Wydawnictwo Politechniki
Lubelskiej, Lublin. 228 p. ISBN 987-83-749-022-8.
Halicka, A. 1999 Badania odkształceń i nośności styku w żelbe-
towych elementach zespolonych z nadbetonem
niskoekspansywnym [Testing of Strains and Load Capac-
ity of Concrete Composite Structures with Low Expansive
Complementary Concrete], in V Konferencja Naukowa
Konstrukcje Zespolone [5th conference Composite Struc-
tures], Tom II Referaty, Zielona Góra, 85–92.
Król, M.; Halicka, A.; Tur, W. 1997. Konstrukcje zespolone z
udziałem betonu zwykłego i ekspansywnego [Composite
Structures Involving Ordinary and Expansive Concrete].
696
Wydawnictwa Uczelniane Politechniki Lubelskiej, Lub-
lin. 339 p. ISBN 83-87270-46-6.
Ligęza, W. 1993. Połączenie betonu nowego i starego w świetle
badan własnych [The Fresh Concrete Adherence to the
Old One As a Result of Own Investigations], in III Kon-
ferencja Naukowa Konstrukcje Zespolone [3rd conference
Composite Structures], Referaty, Zielona Góra, 89–96.
Mishima, T.; Suzuki, A.; Shinoda, Y.; Maekawa, K. 1995.
Nonelastic Behavior of Axial Reinforcement Subjected to
Axial and Slip Deformation At Crack Surface, ACI Struc-
tural Journal 380–385.
PN-B-03264:2002 Konstrukcje betonowe, żelbetowe i sprężone.
Obliczenia statyczne i projektowanie [Plain, Reinforced
and Prestressed Concrete Structures – Analysis and struc-
tural design]. Warsaw, 2002. 142 p.
Priebe, H.; Szumocki, J. 1986. Współpraca dwóch betonów w
zespolonych belkach żelbetowych [Relations of Two Con-
cretes In the Connected Beams], in Konstrukcje
zespolone. I konferencja naukowa [1st conference Com-
posite Structures], Referaty, Zielona Góra, 135–142.
Randl, N.; Wicke, M. 2000. Schubübertragung zwischen Alt-
und Neubeton – Experimentelle Untersuchungen, teore-
tischer Hintergrund und Bemessungsansatz [Shear Trans-
fer Between Old and New Concrete – Experimental Inves-
tigations, Theoretical Background and Design Approach],
Beton- und Slahlbetonbau [Concrete and Reinforced Con-
crete Structures] 95(8): 461–473.
Starosolski, W. 2006. Konstrukcje żelbetowe według PN-B-
3264:2002 i Eurokodu 2 [Reinforced Concrete Structures
According to PN-B-3264:2002 Standard and Eurocode 2].
Tom I, Wydanie 10 rozszerzone, Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN, Warszawa. 515 p. ISBN 83-01-14889-6.
Tsoukantas, S. G.; Tassios, T. P. 1989. Shear Resistance of
Connections between Reinforced Concrete Linear Precast
Elements. ACI Structural Journal, May-June 1989.
Tur, W.; Szałobyta, T.; Król, M.; Halicka, A. 2001. Obliczanie
styków elementów zespolonych z betonu zwykłego i
ekspansywnego z uwzględnieniem analizy nieliniowej
[Calculating the Interfaces in Composite Elements Made
from Ordinary and Expansive Concrete Taking the
Nonlinear Analysis into Consideration], Inżynieria i Bu-
downictwo [Engineering and Building Industry] 3: 140–
143.
Wilczyński, R. 2005 Konstrukcje betonowe, żelbetowe i sprę-
żone. Komentarz naukowy do PN-B-03264:2002, Rozdział
18 Konstrukcje zespolone [Plain, Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Structures – Scientific comment to
PN-B-03264:2002 Standard – Chapter 18 Composite
Structures]. Tom 2, Edytor Bohdan Lewicki, Instytut
Techniki Budowlanej, Warszawa, 193–207. ISBN 83-
7413-651-0.