A State-Of-Art Review On Shear Friction

Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448
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. Jlio b
a
b
ICIST, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, School of Technology and Management, Campus 2 Morro do Lena Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
ICIST, Instituto Superior Tcnico, TULisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 November 2011
Revised 12 June 2012
Accepted 27 June 2012
Available online 9 August 2012
Keywords:
Shear-friction
Concrete-to-concrete
Interface
Bond
Design
a b s t r a c t
Initially proposed in 1966, the shear-friction theory has been adopted in all design codes to analyse
concrete-to-concrete interfaces. In the last decades, several improvements were suggested to take into
account more inuencing factors, to increase the accuracy and to enlarge the application eld. The inclusion of the concrete strength and density and the consideration of the dowel action are examples of the
proposed improvements.
This paper presents a literature review on design expressions for shear-friction, chronologically
ordered, describing proposals from the earliest research studies, precursors of the theory, until the most
recent studies, incorporated in the newest b Model Code. The most signicant contributions are identied and a comparison between some of these design expressions is presented. Codes updates concerning
shear-friction provisions are also identied in the literature review herein presented.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Anderson (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Hanson (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Mattock and Kaar (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.
Saemann and Washa (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.
Gaston and Kriz (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.
Birkeland and Birkeland (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7.
Badoux and Hulsbos (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.
Birkeland (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9.
Mast (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.10.
Hofbeck, Ibrahim and Mattock (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.11.
Mattock and Hawkins (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.12.
Mattock (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.13.
Hermansen and Cowan (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.14.
Mattock, Johal and Chow (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.15.
Mattock, Li and Wang (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.16.
Raths (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.17.
Shaikh (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.18.
Loov (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.19.
Mattock (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.20.
Vecchio and Collins (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.21.
Walraven, Frnay and Pruijssers (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.22.
Mattock (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.23.
Mau and Hsu (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.24.
Lin and Chen (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.25.
Tsoukantas and Tassios (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 244 820 300; fax: +351 244 820 310.
E-mail address: pedro.santos@ipleiria.pt (P.M.D. Santos).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.036
436
437
437
437
437
437
438
438
438
438
439
439
439
439
439
440
440
440
440
440
440
441
441
441
441
441
442
436
3.
4.
5.
P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Jlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448
2.26.
Patnaik (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.27.
Loov and Patnaik (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.28.
Mattock (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.29.
Randl (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.30.
Ali and White (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.31.
Valluvan, Kreger and Jirsa (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.32.
Patnaik (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.33.
Mattock (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.34.
Patnaik (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.35.
Kahn and Mitchell (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.36.
Papanicolaou and Triantafillou (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.37.
Gohnert (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.38.
Mansur, Vinayagam and Tan (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.39.
Santos and Jlio (2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From research to codes and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conversion factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
442
442
442
442
443
443
443
444
444
444
444
445
445
445
446
447
447
447
447
This manuscript presents an extensive historical literature review on shear-friction, covering what has been published between
1960 and 2009, i.e. in almost 50 years of research. Several milestones are identied and compared. This state-of-the-art aims to
help understanding the design philosophy adopted in codes and
standards of concrete structures and how this changed through
time, a relevant matter for both researchers and practicing engineers dedicated to structural rehabilitation.
Several milestones are identied and a comparison between
some of the most relevant design expressions proposed is presented. Shear-friction provisions on design codes are also addressed and linked to expressions from research.
The strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces, subjected to longitudinal shear stresses, can be predicted using the shear-friction
theory. This theory was rst presented in 1966 and was adopted
in all design codes for reinforced concrete structures [110].
The shear-friction theory assumes that the shear forces transfer mechanism at a concrete-to-concrete interface, subjected
simultaneously to shear and compression forces, is ensured by friction only. A simple saw-tooth model is usually adopted to exemplify the basic principles of this theory (Fig. 1). The inuence of
both reinforcement placed crossing the interface and external
forces acting normal to the shear plane is considered.
The shear-friction theory can be used to predict the shear
strength of different types of concrete-to-concrete interfaces, e.g.:
(a) the interface between a precast element and a cast-in-place

part; (b) the interface between two parts of an element cast at different 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 highlighted 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 dowel 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 concrete 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 combination 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].
1. Introduction
437
cohesion between particles as mentioned by some researchers; (b)

shear-friction between concrete parts; and (c) shear reinforcement
crossing the interface.
The adhesion component is originated by chemical bond connections between the particles of old and new concrete. When its
maximum load capacity is reached, debonding occurs at the concrete-to-concrete interface and the shear stresses will be transferred by mechanical interlocking. If the interface is subjected to
compression, the shear stresses will be transferred by shear-friction. With the increase of the relative displacement between concrete parts, the reinforcement that crosses the interface will be
tensioned and yielding can occur. Therefore, the shear reinforcement will induce compression at the interface and the shear load
will be transferred by friction. Due to slippage, the shear reinforcement will also be subjected to shear, usually named as dowel
action.
The shear stress at a concrete-to-concrete interface, s(s), for a
given crack with a relative longitudinal displacement between
concrete parts equal to s, corresponding to a dilatancy of w, is then
given by:
ss sa s ssf s ssr s
where sa(s) is the contribution of the adhesion, ssf(s) is the contribution of the shear-friction and ssr(s) is the contribution of the shear
reinforcement for the shear stresses.
In some particular cases, such as I-beams with a concrete overlay placed on site, the shear stresses at the interface can be computed using the elastic beam theory, given by:
VS
Ib
where s is the shear stress; V is the shear force; S is the rst moment of area (static moment) above or below the interface; I is
the second moment of area (moment of inertia); and b is the section
width at the interface level.
The eld of application of the elastic theory can be extended to
cracked sections if the geometrical properties, the rst and second
moment of area, are evaluated for the cracked section instead of
the uncracked one. This solution is valid for the serviceability limit
states (SLS) but not for the ultimate limit states (ULS). It was also
proposed by Loov and Patnaik [15] and, according to these
researchers, this was the simplest and most practical method to
calculate shear stresses at the interface.
The inuence of several parameters, such as: (a) material constitutive law; (b) existence of cracking; (c) material time-dependent properties (creep, shrinkage and relaxation); and (d)
existence of different materials; makes the previous expression
unusable, for the assessment of the shear stresses at the concrete-to-concrete interface, leading to the development of more
accurate design expressions.
2. Literature review
Next, the conducted literature review on design expressions for
shear-friction is described. Expressions are presented, parameters
identied and the eld and limits of application discussed. A chronological order was adopted. In the scope of this paper, the term
ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface, denoted by
vu, means the full shear strength given by tests and not the design
value of the shear strength at the interface.
Since some of these expressions were originally proposed in
imperial units, while others were expressed in SI units, a dual unit
format is adopted whenever justied. In all cases, the notation
originally adopted by researchers was modied by the authors to
allow a better comparison between different proposals.
2.1. Anderson (1960)

Anderson [16] was one of the rst to propose a design expression to predict the longitudinal shear strength of concrete interfaces. The proposed expression was of the following type:
v u v o kq
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; vo

and k are two parameters that are experimentally obtained from
push-off tests; and q is the reinforcement ratio. The reinforcement
bars crossing the interface presented a yield strength of approximately 275 MPa (40.0 ksi).
This expression was calibrated for two different concretes, with
a compressive strength of 20.68 MPa (3000 psi) and 51.71 MPa
(7500 psi). For the weakest concrete, the design expression is as
follows:
v u 4:41 229q MPa

v u 640 33; 180q psi
4
5
For the strongest concrete, the design expression is as follows:
v u 5:52 276q MPa

v u 800 40; 000q psi
6
7
2.2. Hanson (1960)

Hanson [17] presented a design expression of the same type of
the one proposed by Anderson [16], also calibrated with experimental results obtained from push-off tests. The proposed expression was developed for rough interfaces and, probably for this
reason, presented different coefcients than those proposed by
Anderson [16].
v u 3:45 121q MPa

v u 500 17; 500q psi
8
9
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface;

and q is the reinforcement ratio. The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was of approximately 345 MPa
(50.0 ksi).
2.3. Mattock and Kaar (1961)
Mattock and Kaar [18] proposed a design expression based on
the shear span/effective depth ratio to determine the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface of composite reinforced concrete beams. The proposed expression is as follows:
18:6
121q MPa
5
10
2700
17500q psi
5
d
11
v u x
v u x
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 reinforcement 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 longitudinal shear strength of reinforced composite concrete elements.
The proposed expression is as follows:
438
18:6
33 X
207q 2
MPa
X5
X 6X 5
2700
33 X
30; 000q 2
psi
X5
X 6X 5
vu
12
vu
13
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

is the reinforcement ratio; and X is the ratio between the shear span
and the effective depth of the section. The surface condition was not
considered in the proposed expression because the authors concluded that its contribution for the shear strength is variable and
decreases with the increase of the shear reinforcement ratio. The
yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface
was of approximately 294 MPa (42.6 ksi).
The rst term of the proposed expression represents the ultimate longitudinal shear stress with no reinforcement crossing
the interface and the second term represents the contribution of
the clamping stresses when steel reinforcement is added.
2.5. Gaston and Kriz (1964)
Gaston and Kriz [20] suggested the following design expressions to estimate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress in scarf
joints of precast concrete. For smooth unbonded interfaces the design expression is as follows:
v u 0:30 0:78rn MPa

v u 43 0:78rn psi
14
15
For smooth bonded interfaces the design expression is as follows:
v u 0:76 0:70rn
v u 110 0:70rn
MPa
16
psi
17
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface

and rn is the normal stress at the interface.
glected; all tensile forces are absorbed by the steel reinforcement;

and shear forces are transmitted by friction.
As the unbonded concrete parts slide one over another, the
crack will open and the reinforcement steel will be tensioned.
Therefore, it is assumed that the longitudinal shear reinforcement
will compress the interface, resulting in frictional resistance along
the interface.
This expression, usually known as the shear-friction expression,
presents several advantages: (a) the shear-friction model, in which
it is based, is clearly understandable; (b) the expression is simple
and easy to use; and (c) it gives accurate results.
2.7. Badoux and Hulsbos (1967)
Badoux and Hulsbos [22] proposed a design expression to predict the ultimate longitudinal shear stress between precast concrete beams and cast-in-place slabs, when the composite beam is
subjected to repeated loading. The proposed expressions, dened
as conservative by the researchers, take into account: the reinforcement ratio; the surface preparation; and the shear span/effective depth ratio of the cross section of the beam.
Two different types of nishing surfaces were considered. Intermediate surfaces, as named by the researchers, obtained by applying a retarding agent on the fresh concrete and by steel brushing in
the day after to cast. Rough surfaces were obtained by two different methods: (a) with a board having a protruding nail; and (b) by
a metal plate with teeths. The yield strength of reinforcement bars
crossing the interface was of approximately 345 MPa (50.0 ksi).
For construction joints with an intermediate nish, the following expression was proposed:
vu
13:79
137:9q MPa
11 da
22
vu
2000
20; 000q psi
11 da
23
2.6. Birkeland and Birkeland (1966)

Birkeland and Birkeland [21] were the rst to propose a linear
expression to evaluate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress of
concrete interfaces. The proposed expression is as follows:
v u qfy tan u qfy l
vu
24:14
137:9q MPa
11 da
24
vu
3500
20; 000q psi
11 da
25
18

is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and / is the internal friction angle. The tangent of the internal friction angle is also designated as coefcient of friction, being
represented by the Greek letter l, and the term qfy is designated
as clamping stresses.
This expression was proposed for smooth concrete surfaces,
articially roughened concrete surfaces and concrete-to-steel
interfaces. The coefcient of friction was empirically determined,
varying with the surface preparation, and it was dened for several
situations, namely: (a) l = 1.7, for monolithic concrete (59.5); (b)
l = 1.4, for articially roughened construction joints (54.5); and
(c) l = 0.81.0, for ordinary construction joints and for concrete
to steel interfaces (38.745.0). This expression was limited to
the following conditions:
q 6 1:5%
For rough construction joints the following expression should be

adopted:
19
v u 6 5:52
and f c P 27:58 MPa
20
v u 6 800
and f c P 4000 psi
21
The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface

should be less than 414 MPa (60.0 ksi). The adopted design philosophy stated that: the tensile strength of concrete should be ne-

is the reinforcement ratio; a is the effective depth of the cross section; and d is the shear span.
According to Badoux and Hulsbos [22], the proposed design
expressions are the sum of two terms. The rst term represents
the contribution of the natural bond, as designated by the
researchers, while the second represents the contribution of the
reinforcement crossing the interface.
2.8. Birkeland (1968)
Birkeland [23], cited by Patnaik [24], was the rst researcher to
introduce a non-linear expression to predict the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface between concrete parts. The proposed expression was derived from a previous research work by
the author [21] but it was only published in lecture notes. A parabolic function was tted to the available experimental data, being
the ultimate longitudinal shear stress predicted by:
v u 2:78 qfy
26
vu
27
MPa
q
33:5 qfy psi
439

is the reinforcement ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the
reinforcement.
to an apparent cohesion of the interface and to dowel action of

the reinforcement and the second term is due to clamping stresses.
The coefcient of friction was equal to 0.8.
2.9. Mast (1968)
2.12. Mattock (1974)
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 coefcient of friction were also proposed: (a) l = 1.4, for concrete-toconcrete rough interfaces (54.5); (b) l = 1.0, for concrete-to-steel
composite beams (45.0); (c) l = 0.7, for concrete-to-steel eldwelded inserts (35.0); and (d) l = 0.7, for concrete-to-concrete
smooth interfaces (35.0).
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] presented a modied expression calibrated with average values from
experimental results, given by:
2.10. Hofbeck, Ibrahim and Mattock (1969)

Hofbeck et al. [26] performed an experimental study to quantify
the inuence 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) concrete strength; and (d) dowel action. The yield strength of reinforcement bars crossing the interface was of approximately
345 MPa (50.0 ksi).
A design expression was not presented but the proposals of other researchers, such as Gaston and Kriz [20], Birkeland and Birkeland [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 increase 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 inuence 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 signicant
only for concrete specimens with a pre-existing crack along the
shear plane. For initially uncracked specimens, the inuence of
the dowel action was insignicant 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 coefcient of friction of 1.4 was adopted. According to Hofbeck et al. [26], the shear-friction theory gives a conservative estimate 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 1:38 0:8qfy rn
v u 200 0:8qfy rn
MPa
28
psi
29

is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn is the normal stress at the interface. The yield strength
of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was in the range of
345455 MPa (50.066.0 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 rst term is due
v u 2:76 0:8qfy rn
v u 400 0:8qfy rn
MPa
30
psi
31

is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn is the normal stress at the interface. The yield strength
of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was of approximately 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 modied design expression to include
the orientation of the reinforcement steel crossing the interface.
The proposed expression is as follows:
v u 2:76 sin2 h qfs 0:8 sin2 h 0:5 sin2h

v u 400 sin2 h qfs 0:8 sin2 h 0:5 sin2h
MPa
32
psi
33
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 dened from experimental tests, for a coefcient of friction equal to 0.8, and is given by:
fs 0 : 0 6 h < 51:3
34
fs 1:6f y cosh 38:7 : 51:3 6 h < 90
35
fs fy : 90 6 h < 180
36
where fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement.

2.13. Hermansen and Cowan (1974)
Hermansen and Cowan [29] presented a modied 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 modications, limiting the use of the shearfriction theory to brackets where the failure mode by shear is assured and considering an apparent coefcient 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 4:0 0:8qfy
v u 580 0:8qfy
MPa
37
psi
38

reinforcement.
440
2.14. Mattock, Johal and Chow (1975)
le 6:90
Mattock et al. [30] investigated the suitability of using two design expressions, one proposed by Mattock [28], and another suggested by Birkeland [23], for the design of concrete connections,
such as corbels and columns foundations, where the bending moment and normal forces must be transferred between concrete
parts.
Mattock et al. [30] concluded that both design expressions can
be used for this purpose, being the expression proposed by Birkeland [23] more conservative than his proposal. A slight modication of the design expression was proposed, adopting a capacity
reduction factor equal to 0.85.
2.15. Mattock, Li and Wang (1976)
Mattock et al. [31] presented a design expression for lightweight reinforced concrete with an initially cracked condition.
For all (aggregates and sand) lightweight concrete, the design
expression is as follows:
v u 1:38 0:8qfy
v u 200 0:8qfy
MPa
39
psi
40
For sanded lightweight concrete, the design expression is as

follows:
v u 1:72 0:8qfy
v u 250 0:8qfy
MPa
41
psi
42

reinforcement.
The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was of approximately 345 MPa (50.0 ksi). The maximum value
for the ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater
than 0.2fc neither 5.52 MPa (800 psi) for all lightweight concrete
and 0.2fc and 6.90 MPa (1000 psi) for sanded lightweight concrete.
These design expressions were obtained for clamping stresses with
a minimum value of 1.38 MPa (200 psi).
2.16. Raths (1977)
v u C s 3:11 qfy
43
vu
44
MPa
q
C s 37:42 qfy psi
For a smooth interface in shear, with a coefcient of friction equal to

0.6, the design expression is as follows:
vu
vu
le 1000
C 2s
MPa
47
psi
48
vu
2.17. Shaikh (1978)

Shaikh [33] presented a revision of the shear-friction design
provisions and suggested the following expression to evaluate
the ultimate longitudinal shear stress of concrete-to-concrete or
concrete-to-steel interfaces:
v u /qfy le
49
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 reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and le
is an effective coefcient of friction.
The effective coefcient of friction is dened by:
le 6:90
C 2s l
le 1000
vu
MPa
50
psi
51
C 2s l
vu
where Cs is a constant related with the concrete density; and l is

the coefcient of friction.
The concrete density is taken equal to: (a) Cs = 1.00, for normal
weight concrete; (b) Cs = 0.85, for sand-lightweight concrete; and
(c) Cs = 0.75, for all-lightweight concrete. The coefcient of friction
is taken equal to: (a) l = 1.4, for concrete-to-concrete cast monolithically (54.5); (b) l = 1.0, for a concrete to hardened concrete
interface with a roughness amplitude of 6.4 mm (0.25 in.)
(45.0); (c) l = 0.6, for a concrete-to-steel interface (31.0); and
(d) l = 0.4, for a concrete-to-concrete smooth interface (21.8).
2.18. Loov (1978)
Loov [34], cited by Patnaik [24], was the rst researcher to
explicitly include the concrete strength, by proposing the following
non-dimensional expression:
s
qfy rn
k
fc
fc
vu
Raths [32] suggested a design expression very similar to the one

proposed by Birkeland [23]. The main difference was the inclusion
of the concrete density, being this expression applicable to both
normal and lightweight concrete. For monolithic specimens, the
expression is as follows:
v u C s 2:03 qfy
C 2s l
MPa
q
C s 24:49 qfy psi
52
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; fc

is the concrete compressive strength; k is a constant; q is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn
is the normal stress at the interface. For initially uncracked interfaces, Loov [34] suggested the value of 0.5 for the constant k.
For a concrete with a compressive strength equal to 30.89 MPa
(4480 psi), this expression is equal to the one proposed by Birkeland [23]. The proposed design expression can also be used with
any consistent system of units (SI or imperial).
2.19. Mattock (1981)
45
46
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; Cs

is a constant related with the concrete density; q is the reinforcement ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement.
The following values were proposed for the constant Cs: (a)
Cs = 1.00, for normal weight concrete; (b) Cs = 0.85, for sand-lightweight concrete; and (c) Cs = 0.75, for all lightweight concrete. An
effective coefcient of friction was also dened as follows:
Mattock [35] investigated the behaviour of concrete-to-concrete interfaces under cyclic loading. The main goal of this researcher was to determine how the design expressions,
developed for monotonic loading, should be modied in order to
be used also for cyclic loading.
Two design expressions developed by this researcher and his
co-workers, Mattock and Hawkins [27] and Mattock et al. [31],
for both normal and lightweight concrete, were adopted to assess
the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface of composite
specimens under cyclic loading.
Mattock [35] suggested that the shear strength of the concreteto-concrete interface under cyclic loading, should be taken equal to
0.8 of the shear strength under monotonic loading, for monolithic
specimens made of normal and lightweight concrete and rough
interfaces between concrete parts cast a different ages. The yield
strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was in
the range of 340500 MPa (49.372.4 ksi).
If the bond between concrete parts is destroyed, the shear strength
under cyclic loading should be taken as 0.6 of the shear strength under
monotonic loading. It was observed that the shear transfer mechanism of composite specimens after cracking, for both monotonic
and cyclic loading, is identical to that of monolithic specimens.
Vecchio and Collins [36] proposed an analytical model to predict the behaviour of reinforced concrete members subjected to
in-plane shear and normal stresses. Based on previous investigations by Walraven [37], these researchers proposed a design
expression for the assessment of the ultimate longitudinal shear
stress of a concrete crack. This expression has the particularity of
requiring the estimation of the crack width and is as follows:
v u 0:18v ci max 1:64f ci 0:82

v ci max
p
fc

24w
0:31 a16
v ci max
fci2
v ci max
MPa mm

24w
0:31 a0:63
53
54
psi in:
55
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress of the crack; vcimax

is the maximum shear stress that a crack can resist; fci is the positive compressive stress due to internal and external loads; fc is
the concrete compressive strength; w is the average crack width;
and a is the maximum aggregate size.
2.21. Walraven, Frnay and Pruijssers (1987)
C1
C2
MPa
0:822fc0:406
0:159fc0:303
56
MPa
57
MPa
58

is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. The yield
strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was in
the range of 345545 MPa (50.079.0 ksi).
In imperial units, the design expression appears as:
v u C 1 0:007qfy C
C1
C2
15:686fc0:406
0:0353fc0:303
Mattock [39], in the discussion of the paper by Walraven et al.

[38], presented a modied design expression incorporating the
normal stress at the interface. In this new expression, the rst term
represents the shear strength due to cohesion and the second one
represents the shear strength due to friction between aggregates.
The modied expression is as follows:
psi
59
psi
60
psi
61
This design expression is based on a model proposed by Walraven

[37], where the concrete is represented by the binding paste and
62
63

is the concrete compressive strength; q is the reinforcement ratio;
fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn is the normal
stress at the interface. The ultimate longitudinal shear stress is limited to the maximum value of 0.3 fc.
2.23. Mau and Hsu (1988)
Mau and Hsu [40], also in the discussion of the paper by Walraven et al. [38], presented a non-dimensional expression. The general form of the proposed design expression is given by:
a
qfy
k
fc
fc
64

fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and the coefcients k
and a are two parameters to be experimentally calibrated.
This expression is identical to the one previously proposed by
Loov [34] for initially uncracked interfaces. The main difference
is that Mau and Hsu [40] assumed a constant value of 0.66 for
the parameter k, for both initially uncracked and cracked interfaces. The proposed expression is as follows:
s
qfy
6 0:3
0:66
fc
fc
vu
In order to consider the concrete strength, Walraven et al. [38]

developed a large experimental study with 88 push-off specimens
and proposed a non-linear function to predict the shear strength of
initially cracked interfaces.
This design expression, including the reinforcement ratio; the
yield strength of the reinforcement; and the concrete compressive
strength, is as follows:
v u C 1 qfy
2.22. Mattock (1988)
vu
p
12 fc
C2
the aggregates (assumed as spheres) and where the interface between both is considered as the weakest zone and therefore cracks
will develop along this border.
v u 0:467fc0:545 0:8qfy rn MPa

v u 4:5fc0:545 0:8qfy rn psi
2.20. Vecchio and Collins (1986)
441
65

and fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement.
2.24. Lin and Chen (1989)
According to Lin and Chen [41], the shear-friction provisions
presented by ACI 318 (1983) are too conservative while the proposal of the PCI Design Handbook (1985) is non-conservative for
large values of the clamping stresses. Moreover, Lin and Chen
[41] stated that the design expressions proposed by Walraven
et al. [38] and Mattock [39] are only adequate for concretes with
lower compressive strengths, whereas for concrete with high compressive strengths these could be non-conservative. Therefore, Lin
and Chen [41] proposed a design expression, calibrated from 68
push-off tests using concrete with a compressive strength between
20.59 MPa and 68.65 MPa, given by:
v u le qfy rn
66
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; le

is an equivalent coefcient of friction; q is the reinforcement ratio;
fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and rn is the normal
stress at the interface. The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should
442
not be greater than 0.3fc neither 12.46 MPa. The adopted reinforcement ratio qfy was in the range 1.219.5 MPa (1752824 psi).
The equivalent coefcient of friction is given by:
le
le
p!0:5
1:75 fc
6 0:8fc0:25 MPa
qfy rn
p!0:5
21:12 fc
6 0:8fc0:25 psi
qfy rn
67
68
2.25. Tsoukantas and Tassios (1989)

Tsoukantas and Tassios [42] proposed two design expressions
to estimate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface
between precast members. The rst expression was proposed for
smooth interfaces and is given by:
v u 0:40rn
69
The second expression, for rough interfaces, is as follows:
v u 0:5
q
3
fc2 rn
70

rn is the normal stress at the interface due to internal and external
loads; and fc is the concrete compressive strength.
2.26. Patnaik (1992)
Patnaik [24] proposed a design expression to evaluate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress of composite concrete beams, based
on the results of 16 simply supported specimens, given by:
q
0:1 qfy fc MPa
q
0:6 15 qfy fc psi
v u 0:6
71
vu
72
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; k

is a constant; k is a correction factor related with the concrete density; q is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. The
maximum value of the longitudinal shear stress is limited to
0.25fc. The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the
interface was in the range of 407438 MPa (59.063.5 ksi).
The value of the constant k was suggested to be equal to 0.5 and
0.6, for composite and monolithic reinforced concrete members,
respectively. The coefcient k is taken equal to 1.00 for normal
weight concrete; 0.85 for sand-lightweight concrete; and 0.75 for
all lightweight concrete.
2.28. Mattock (1994)
Mattock [43], commenting the paper by Loov and Patnaik [15],
suggested that the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface should not be proportional to the term fc0:5 . A modied design
expression, dened with the experimental tests data conducted by
Loov and Patnaik [15], was proposed and is given by:
p 0:73
qfy fc
4:536
p 0:73
qfy fc
14:25
vu
MPa
77
vu
psi
78

is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. The maximum
value of the longitudinal shear stress is limited to 0.3 fc.
This expression was calibrated for the lower bound of the
experimental tests data and can be used to predict the ultimate
longitudinal shear stress across a crack in monolithic normal
weight concrete. For initially cracked specimens with a rough
interface, Mattock [43] suggested the following expression:
p 0:73
qfy fc
0:02f c
4:536
p 0:73
qfy fc
0:02f c
14:25

is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. The maximum
value of the ultimate longitudinal shear stress is limited to 0.25fc.
vu
MPa
79
vu
psi
80
2.27. Loov and Patnaik (1994)
2.29. Randl (1997)
Loov and Patnaik [15] proposed a design expression based in

previous research studies of Loov [34]. The proposed expression,
only applicable to rough interfaces, combines the effects of the
concrete strength, clamping stresses and concrete density.
For composite beams without stirrups, the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface can be predicted by the following
expression:
Randl [44] made a signicant contribution to the improvement

of the accuracy of the design expressions for the assessment of the
ultimate longitudinal shear stress at concrete-to-concrete interfaces. After Birkeland and Birkeland [21], Mattock and Hawkins
[27], Loov [34], Walraven et al. [38], and Randl [44] presented a design expression that explicitly includes the contribution of cohesion, friction and dowel action.
The rst term cohesion is related to the contribution of the
interlocking between aggregates; the second term friction is related to the contribution due to the longitudinal relative slip between concrete parts and is inuenced by the surface roughness
and the normal stress at the shear interface; and the third term
dowel action is related to the contribution of the exural resistance of the shear reinforcement crossing the interface.
The rst two terms are clearly related to the Coulomb shear friction hypothesis while the third term represents the contribution of
the deformation of the shear reinforcement due to the relative slip
between concrete parts. The proposed design expression is given as
follows:
q
0:1f c MPa
q
0:6 15f c psi
v u 0:6
73
vu
74

and fc is the concrete compressive strength.
Combining this design expression with the one proposed by
Loov [34], the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface
of composite beams, with reinforcement crossing the interface,
can be predicted by:
q
0:1 qfy fc MPa
q
kk 15 qfy fc psi
v u kk
vu
75
76
q
fc fy
v u scoh lrn aq
81
443

scoh is the concrete cohesion due to aggregate interlock; l is the
coefcient of friction; rn is the normal stress at the interface due
to external loading and tension in the shear reinforcement; a is a
coefcient to take into account for the exural resistance of reinforcement (dowel action); q is the reinforcement ratio; fc is the concrete compressive strength; and fy is the yield strength of the
reinforcement.
With the inclusion of partial safety factors, the design expression is as follows:
1=3
vu c
fck
ccoh
l qk
fyk
cs
rn
s
fyk fck
aq
cs cc
6 bm
fck
82
cc
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; c

is the coefcient of cohesion; fck is the characteristic value of concrete compressive strength; ccoh is the partial safety factor for the
cohesion; l is the coefcient of friction; q is the reinforcement ratio; k is a coefcient of efciency for the tensile force that can be
transmitted to the shear reinforcement; fyk is the characteristic value of yield strength of the reinforcement; cs is the partial safety factor for the shear reinforcement; rn is the normal stress at the
interface due to external loading; a is a coefcient for the exural
resistance of reinforcement (dowel action); cc is the partial safety
factor for concrete; b is a coefcient 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 reinforcement 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 inuenced 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 semiempirical experiments.
The proposed design expression is as follows:
s
qfy rn
1:47a
6 1:2b
fc
fc
vu
83

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 parameters to be experimentally calibrated.
2.31. Valluvan, Kreger and Jirsa (1999)
Valluvan et al. [47] presented a revision of the shear-friction
provisions of ACI 318 (1995). Based on the results of an experimental study, these researchers concluded that the actual specications of this design code are too conservative and proposed the
following design expression to estimate the ultimate longitudinal
shear stress:
v u lqfy rn
84
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; l

is the coefcient 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 lrn
85
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:
q
0:25 qfy fc MPa
q
0:55 36 qfy fc psi
v u 0:55
86
vu
87

is the reinforcement ratio; fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement; and fc is the concrete compressive strength. According to Patnaik [48], this expression also represents a lower bound of the
ultimate longitudinal shear stresses in monolithic concrete.
For surfaces not intentionally roughened, a slight modication
to the expression was proposed:
q
0:25 qfy fc MPa
q
0:5 36 qfy fc psi
v u 0:5
88
vu
89
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)
Coefcient of cohesion c ()
High-pressure water-blasting
Sand-blasting
Smooth
P3.0
P0.5
0.4
0.0
0.0
Coefcient of friction (l)

(fck P 20 MPa)
(fck P 35 MPa)
0.8
0.7
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.5
k ()
a ()
b ()
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.9
1.1
1.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
444
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 roughened, 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 K 1 0:8qfy rn
90

K1 is a coefcient that depends of the concrete density; 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. The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater than K2 fc neither K3.
When the normal stress at the interface, due to internal and
external loads, is less than K1/1.45 or when the ultimate longitudinal shear stress is less than 1.55K1, the ultimate longitudinal shear
stress at the interface is given by:
v u 2:25qfy rn
91
For normal weight and monolithic concrete, the coefcient 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 coefcient
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 coefcient 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 coefcient
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 substrate surface not intentionally roughened, the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface can be predicted by:
v u 0:6kqfy
92
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:
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 reinforcement bars crossing the interface was in the range of 340
704 MPa (49.3102.1 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:
v u 0:05f c 1:4qfy
96

fc is the concrete compressive strength; q is the reinforcement ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement. The adopted
coefcient of friction is equal to 1.4, corresponding to a monolithic 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).
2.36. Papanicolaou and Triantallou (2002)
Papanicolaou and Triantallou [52] developed an experimental
study to investigate the shear transfer capacity of interfaces between 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) compressive/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 connement; and (g) loading rate. Rough surfaces were
prepared with a special hammer, as designated by these researchers, while smooth surfaces were prepared using an abrasive disk.
The general form of the proposed design expression is given
by:
v u lqfy rn b C
97
The ultimate longitudinal shear stress should not be greater than

0.2fc neither 5.52 MPa (800 psi) for both cases. The coefcient k is
taken equal to 1.00 for normal weight concrete; 0.85 for sand-lightweight concrete; and 0.75 for all lightweight concrete.
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; l

is the coefcient 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:
2.34. Patnaik (2001)
C cf ctm
Patnaik [50] concluded that the shear-friction provisions for

smooth surfaces, proposed by the ACI 318 (1999), are too conservative. Based on experimental test results, this researcher proposed
the following expression to estimate the ultimate longitudinal
shear stress at smooth concrete interfaces:
where c is a coefcient 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 coefcients b and d, and for the
coefcients of friction and interface sizes are presented in Table 2.
For smooth interfaces was proposed the following expression:
v u 0:6 qfy
v u 87 qfy
v u 0:30qfy rn 1:7
v u 0:7kqfy
93
MPa
94
psi
95

is the reinforcement ratio; and fy is the yield strength of the rein-
vu
p
fct MPa
p
0:30qfy rn 20:47 fct psi
For rough interfaces was proposed the following expression:
98
99
100

Table 2
Coefcients of friction and cohesion according to Papanicolaou and Triantallou [52].
Size surface preparation (b 1;
d 0.5)
Coefcient of
friction l
Coefcient of
cohesion c
Small smooth
Small rough
Large smooth
Large rough
0.33
0.45
0.33
0.45
3.63
2.97
2.33
1.90
v u 0:45qfy rn 1:4 fct MPa

p
v u 0:45qfy rn 16:86 fct psi
101
102

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 fct is the tensile strength of the pumice aggregate concrete and
is given by:

q
fct 0:2fck2=3 0:4 0:6
MPa
2000

q
psi
fct 1:05fck2=3 0:4 0:6
2000
103
104
3
where q is the density of pumice aggregate concrete (kg/m ).

These expressions were dened for a coefcient c that quanties the interface size effect, assumed as three-quarters of the minimum value presented in Table 2 for smooth and rough surfaces.
The average yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the
interface was of 568 MPa (82.4 ksi).
2.37. Gohnert (2003)
Gohnert [53] proposed a design expression to evaluate the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface between precast ribs
and in situ concrete, based on the results of 90 composite specimens, given by:
v u 0:2090Rz 0:7719 MPa mm

v u 777Rz 112 psi in:
105
106
where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface

and Rz is a roughness parameter calculated as the difference between the average height of the peaks and the average height of
the valleys given from an arbitrary baseline of the surface prole.
The tested specimens were composed by commercial precast
ribs from ve different manufacturers and, therefore, presented different geometry, surface roughness and concrete compressive
strength. The cross section of the specimens, including the precast
rib and the in situ concrete, was rectangular. The width and thickness of the rib varied between 100 and 250 mm (3.94 and 9.84 in.)
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
section was of 210 mm (8.27 in.). The adopted length for the specimens was of 750 mm (29.53 in.). The substrate surface was prepared by the means of a stiff wire brush or a rake. The parameter
Rz was determined and presented values between 0.89 and
4.22 mm (0.035 and 0.1661 in.). The concrete compressive strength
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
and the surface roughness, herein represented by the texture
parameter Rz. A poor correlation was observed when the surface
roughness was replaced by the concrete compressive strength. This
researcher also concluded that an actual measurement of the surface roughness should be specied instead of simply describing the
nishing procedure or the equipment used to prepare the surface.
445
2.38. Mansur, Vinayagam and Tan (2008)

Mansur et al. [54] investigated the shear transfer across a crack,
both analytically and experimentally. A comparison between several design expressions, including the ones proposed by the ACI
318 (2005) and PCI Design Handbook (1992) and those suggested
by Mattock and his co-workers [27,31,49], Walraven et al. [38],
Mau and Hsu [40], Lin and Chen [41] and Loov and Patnaik [15],
was made.
It was concluded that the design expressions proposed by Walraven et al. [38] and by Mau and Hsu [40] give unsafe predictions
of the interface shear strength. Moreover, the design expression
proposed by Loov and Patnaik [15], similar to the one proposed
by Mau and Hsu [40] although with different values for the coefcients, presented identical unsafe predictions.
A single curve formulation was proposed by Mansur et al. [54],
based on the design expression by Mau and Hsu [40] and calibrated
with a set of 154 test results. The compressive strength of the concrete adopted in the experimental study was between 18 MPa
(2611 psi) and 100 MPa (14504 psi), while the normalized clamping forces ( qfy/fc) were between 0.02 and 0.39. The proposed
expression is given by:
s
qfy
0:566
6 0:3
fc
fc
vu
107

and fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement. The yield strength
of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface was of 300 MPa
(43.5 ksi) and 530 MPa (76.9 ksi).
Comparing the proposed expression with the experimental
data, Mansur et al. [54] concluded that this could be unsafe for
low values of the normalized clamping forces. Therefore, a trilinear
formulation was proposed.
For normalized clamping forces lower or equal to 0.075, corresponding to the rst branch of the trilinear formulation, the normalized ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface is
given by:
vu
fc
2:5
qfy
108
fc
For normalized clamping forces between 0.075 and 0.270, corresponding to the middle branch of the trilinear formulation, the normalized ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface is given
by:
vu
0:56
fy
0:55q
fc0:385
fc
v u 3:80
fy
0:385 0:55q
fc
fc
fc
fc
MPa
109
psi
110
For normalized clamping forces equal or higher than 0.270, corresponding to the third and last branch of the trilinear formulation,
the normalized ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface
is given by:
vu
fc
0:3
111
2.39. Santos and Jlio (2009)

Santos and Jlio [55,56] developed a large experimental study
to assess the bond strength of the interface between concrete layers cast at different ages. Different curing conditions; ages between
concrete layers; bond tests; and techniques to prepare the interface surface and increase its roughness, were considered.
446
Santos and Jlio [55,56] suggest that the coefcients of cohesion

and friction, present in the shear-friction design expressions,
should be predicted by the means of a texture parameter. The following expressions are proposed:
cd
1:062R0:145
vm
cd
1:698R0:145
vm
in:
113
1:366R0:041
vm
mm
114
in:
115
ld
ld
ccoh
ccoh
cfr
1:560R0:041
vm
cfr
mm
cracked, the coefcient 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.
112
3. From research to codes and standards
where cd is the design coefcient of cohesion; ld is the design coefcient of friction; Rvm is the Mean Valley Depth of the primary prole
of the surface; ccoh is the partial safety factor for the coefcient of
cohesion; cfr is the partial safety factor for the coefcient of friction.
The proposed expressions were obtained by adjusting a power
function to the experimental values of the coefcients of cohesion
and friction, determined for ve different surface conditions: left
as-cast; wire-brushing; sand-blasting; shot-blasting and handscrubbing or raking. Based in the coefcient of variation of both
coefcients, the authors propose the values of 2.6 and 1.2 for the
partial safety factors of the coefcients of cohesion and friction,
respectively.
The authors were the rst to propose partial safety factors for
the coefcients of cohesion and friction since these depend and
are highly inuenced by the characteristics of substrate material
and by the technician that perform the surface preparation or cast
the substrate.
For uniform interface surfaces, the roughness must be measured with a minimum accuracy of 10 micrometer; then, the Mean
Valley Depth (Rvm) has to be determined, taken as the average value
obtained considering at least ten 2D primary proles.
Based in the shear-friction provisions of Eurocode 2 [4], the
authors propose that when no reinforcement crossing the interface
is provided, the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the concreteto-concrete interface is given by:
v u cd fctd 6 0:25f cd
116
When reinforcement crossing the interface is provided, the ultimate

longitudinal shear stress is given by:
v u ld rn qfy 6 0:25f cd
117
The proposed methodology is adequate for uniform interface surfaces, which are considered by the authors as those resulting from:
as-cast against steel, plastic or specially prepared wooden moulds;
slipformed or extruded surface; free surface left without further
treatment after vibration; or surfaces prepared by wire-brushing,
sandblasting, shot-blasting, water-blasting or other equivalent
methods. For other cases, such as non-uniform interface surfaces
obtained by raking or presenting indentations, the values of the
coefcients of cohesion and friction should be evaluated for each
specic case, i.e., for each interface geometry.
Santos and Jlio [55,56] also proposed several recommendations to ensure a successful interface design. The differential
shrinkage between both concrete parts should be taken into consideration in the design and evaluated on site for each specic
case. The inuence of temperature should also be considered in
design. The differential stiffness between both concrete parts
should be taken into consideration in the design. The Young modulus of the added concrete layer should never be taken smaller
than that of the substrate concrete. Other requirements should
be also satised. In cases where the joint can be signicantly
The literature review conducted by the authors, aiming to identify the contributions given by researchers for the assessment of
the longitudinal shear strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces
in the last ve decades, showed that several milestones could be
dened. These are referred to contributions that have a major signicance, such as the inclusion of new parameters, load transfer
mechanisms, assessment methodology, among others.
The authors identied the following six major contributions: (1)
the design expression proposed by Birkeland and Birkeland [21] is
recognized worldwide as the original shear-friction theory; (2)
Mattock and Hawkins [27] were the rst researchers to propose
the consideration of a term that represents the contribution of
cohesion, being their design expression known as the modied
shear-friction theory; (3) Loov [34] was the rst researcher to include the contribution of the concrete strength; (4) Walraven et al.
[38], based on an innovative sphere model, proposed a non-linear function to predict the shear strength of initially cracked interfaces; (5) Randl [44] that proposed a design expression that
explicitly includes the contribution of the three load carrying
mechanism: cohesion, friction and dowel action; although Tsoukantas and Tassios [42] were the rst researchers to study the
dowel action; and (6) Santos and Jlio [55,56] proposed an innovative methodology to quantify the inuence of the surface
roughness and to correlate it with the bond strength of the concrete-to-concrete interface.
A comparison of the six design expressions is presented in
Fig. 3. Since the surface preparation is considered in some proposals, namely Birkeland and Birkeland [21], Randl [44] and Santos
and Jlio [55,56], the shear strength is dened for the upper and
lower bounds of the design expressions, i.e. for the most roughened
and smoothest surfaces and not for specic conditions such as
smooth or rough. The remaining design expressions, namely Mattock and Hawkins [27], Loov [34] and Walraven et al. [38], are presented as a single curve since they are independent of the surface
preparation.
With this approach the authors aim to simplify the comparison
of the six design expressions. Moreover, to help in the comparison,
a typical situation is dened considering a concrete with a compressive strength of 25 MPa (3.6 ksi), assumed as the weakest concrete layer, and shear reinforcement steel with a yield stress of
400 MPa (58.0 ksi). All values are assumed as characteristics and
no safety factors were adopted.
The design expressions proposed by Loov [34] and Walraven
et al. [38] are very similar and present, in general, the highest value
for the shear strength of the interface. The expressions proposed by
Mattock and Hawkins [27], Birkeland and Birkeland [21] and Santos and Jlio [55,56] appear as a lower bound of the design expressions proposed by Loov [34] and Walraven et al. [38], being similar
to a bilinear approximation of the non-linear expressions proposed
by the latter researchers.
The inuence of the surface preparation is visible in the design
expression suggested by Santos and Jlio [55,56] and Birkeland and
Birkeland [21] but it is highly amplied by the design proposal of
Randl [44]. In fact, comparing the shear strength predicted using
the design expression proposed by the latter researcher for surfaces with different preparations smooth, sand-blasted and
water-blasted the difference is signicant. These differences reveal the signicance of the surface preparation in the bond
447
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, signicant differences are also observed 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. Therefore, 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 [110] 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 currently adopted by all codes but all shear-friction provisions are
based on the research conducted by these researchers and in subsequent 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 proposed by Randl [44]. The Model Code 2010 [2,3] it is the rst design
code to propose a quantitative assessment of the surface roughness, instead of adopting just a qualitative visual inspection, to
help the designer dening the values for the coefcients of cohesion and friction. This improvement results from the research studies conducted by the authors [5557].
forcement was of 475 MPa (69.0 ksi). The most recent research
studies present reinforcement bars with a yield strength around
550 MPa (80.0 ksi).
Six milestones were identied. The research of Birkeland and
Birkeland [21], Mattock and Hawkins [27], Loov [34], Walraven
et al. [38], Tsoukantas and Tassios [42] and Randl [44] and, nally,
Santos and Jlio [5557], can be considered as some of the most
signicant and interesting contributions given to the development
of more accurate design expressions.
Current design codes [4,5] present some of the design expressions proposed by researchers and identied by the authors as major milestones. The recently published Model Code 2010 [2,3] also
includes shear-friction provisions based in recent research conducted by the authors [5557].
The main differences between design codes [110] are related
with the surface roughness classication, namely if it is very
smooth, smooth, rough or very rough or simply intentionally roughened or not and the coefcients of cohesion and friction assigned
to each category. This difference is also common to published
research.
The authors would like to highlight that, although being the
composite concrete member generally comprised by two concrete
layers of different age, the identied design expressions do not
consider the inuence of the curing conditions and the difference
between the concrete strength of both layers. Therefore, it can be
stated that differential shrinkage and differential stiffness are neglected in all the described expressions. Further research is necessary to assess the inuence of both parameters in the behaviour of
the concrete-to-concrete interface.
4. Summary and conclusions
5. Conversion factors
The analysis of the design expressions, obtained from published

research, shows that the load transfer mechanism at the concreteto-concrete interface is due to: (1) cohesion; (2) friction; and (3)
dowel action. The latter is frequently implicitly considered, disguised as cohesion and/or friction.
It can be stated that the roughness of the concrete substrate has
a very signicant inuence on the bond strength of concrete-toconcrete interfaces. This is a key parameter that is considered in
the design expressions in the form of the coefcients 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 reinforcement bars crossing the interface has varied over the last 50 years.
The rst studies, conducted by 1960, were performed using reinforcement bars with a yield strength of approximately 275 MPa
(40.0 ksi). Later, by 1970, the most common yield strength for rein-
1 mm = 0.039 in.
1 mm2 = 0.001550 in.2
1 MPa = 145 psi
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi
Acknowledgement
This research project has been funded by the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) with reference PTDC/
ECM/098497/2008.
References
[1] Model Code for concrete structures. Comit Euro-International du Bton,
Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990,
460 pp.
448
[2] Model Code 2010. First complete draft vol. 1. Comit Euro-International du
Bton, Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland,
2010, 318 pp.
[3] Model Code 2010. First complete draft vol. 2. Comit Euro-International du
Bton, Secretariat Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland,
2010, 312 pp.
[4] EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2 design of concrete structures Part 1: General rules
and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Avenue
Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp. (with corrigendum of 16th
January 2008).
[5] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318M-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 473 pp.
[6] CAN/CSA A23.3. Design of concrete structures - structures design. Canadian
Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 1R3,
2004, 258 p.
[7] AASHTO LRFD bridge design specications. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Ofcials, 4th edition, SI units edition, 2007, 1526
p.
[8] AASHTO standard specications for highway bridges. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Ofcials, 16th edition, 1996, 760 p.
[9] PCI design handbook. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 7th edition, 2010.
[10] BS 8110-1. Structural use of concrete. Part 1: Code of practice for design and
construction. London: British Standard Institute; 1997.
[11] Hsu TTC, Mau ST, Chen B. Theory of shear transfer strength of reinforced
concrete. ACI Struct J 1987;84(2):14960.
[12] Hwang SJ, Yu HW, Lee HJ. Theory of interface shear capacity of reinforced
concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 2000;126(6):7007.
[13] Gohnert M. Proposed theory to determine the horizontal shear between
composite precast and in situ concrete. Cement Concr Compos
2000;22(6):46976.
[14] Zilch K, Reinecke R. Capacity of shear joints between high-strength precast
elements and normal-strength cast-in-place decks. b International
symposium on high performance concrete. Orlando, USA, 2527 September
2000.
[15] Loov RE, Patnaik AK. Horizontal shear strength of composite concrete beams
with a rough interface. PCI J 1994;39(1):4869.
[16] Anderson AR. Composite designs in precast and cast-in-place concrete. Prog
Archit 1960;41(9):1729.
[17] Hanson NW. Precast-prestressed concrete bridges. 2. Horizontal shear
connections. Development Department Bulletin D35. Portland Cement Assoc
1960;2(2):3858.
[18] Mattock AH, Kaar PH. Precast-prestressed concrete bridges. 4. Shear tests of
continuous girders. J PCA R&D Lab 1961;3(1):1946.
[19] Saemann JC, Washa GW. Horizontal shear connections between precast beams
and cast-in-place slabs. J Am Concr Inst 1964;61(11):130983.
[20] Gaston JR, Kriz LB. Connections in precast concrete structures scarf joints. PCI
J 1964;9(3):3759.
[21] Birkeland PW, Birkeland HW. Connections in precast concrete construction. J
Am Concr Inst 1966;63(3):34568.
[22] Badoux JC, Hulsbos CL. Horizontal shear connection in composite concrete
beams under repeated loads. J Am Concr Inst 1967;64(12):8119.
[23] Birkeland HW. Precast and prestressed concrete. Class notes for
course. University of British Columbia, Spring; 1968.
[24] Patnaik AH. Horizontal shear strength of composite concrete beams with a
rough interface. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Canada, 1992, 263 p.
[25] Mast RF. Auxiliary reinforcement in precast concrete connections. ASCE J
Struct Div 1968;94(6):1485504.
[26] Hofbeck JA, Ibrahim IO, Mattock AH. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete. J Am
Concr Inst 1969;66(2):11928.
[27] Mattock AH, Hawkins NM. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete recent
research. PCI J 1972;17(2):5575.
[28] Mattock AH. Shear transfer in concrete having reinforcement at an angle to the
shear plane. American Concrete Institute. Special Publication 42-2, January
1974. p. 1742.
[29] Hermansen BR, Cowan J. Modied shear-friction theory for bracket design. J
Am Concr Ins 1974;71(2):5560.
[30] Mattock AH, Johal L, Chow HC. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete with
moment or tension acting across the shear plane. PCI J 1975;20(4):7693.
[31] Mattock AH, Li WK, Wang TC. Shear transfer in lightweight reinforced
concrete. PCI J 1976;21(1):2039.
[32] Raths CH. Reader comments of paper Design proposals for reinforced
concrete corbels, published in PCI Journal, MayJune 1976;21(3):1842, by
Mattock A. PCI J 1977;22(2):938.
[33] Shaikh AF. Proposed revisions to shear-friction provisions. PCI J
1978;23(2):1221.
[34] Loov RE. Design of precast connections. Paper presented at a seminar
organized by Compa International Pt., Ltd. Singapore, 1978, 8 p.
[35] Mattock AH. Cyclic shear transfer and type of interface. ASCE J Struct Div
1981;107(10):194564.
[36] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modied compression-eld theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. J Am Concr Inst 1986;83(2):21931.
[37] Walraven JC. Fundamental analysis of aggregate interlock. ASCE J Struct Div
1981;107(11):224570.
[38] Walraven J, Frnay J, Pruijssers A. Inuence of concrete strength and load
history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members. PCI J
1987;32(1):6684.
[39] Mattock AH. Reader comments of paper Inuence of concrete strength and
load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members published in
PCI Journal, JanuaryFebruary 1987;32(1):6684, by Walraven J, Frnay J,
Pruijssers A. PCI J 1988;33(1):1656.
[40] Mau S, Hsu T. Reader comments of paper Inuence of concrete strength and
load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members published in
PCI Journal, JanuaryFebruary 1987;32(1):6684, by Walraven J, Frnay J,
Pruijssers A. PCI J 1988;33(1):1658.
[41] Lin IJ, Chen YL. Shear transfer across a crack in reinforced high strength
concrete. In: Proceedings 2nd east AsiaPacic conference on structural
engineering & construction, Chiang Mai, Thailand, January, 1989. p. 50510.
[42] Tsoukantas SG, Tassios TP. Shear resistance of connections between reinforced
concrete linear precast elements. ACI Struct J 1989;86(3):2429.
[43] Mattock AH. Reader comments of paper Horizontal shear strength of
composite concrete beams with a rough interface published in PCI Journal,
JanuaryFebruary 1994;39(1):4869, by Loov RE, Patnaik AK. PCI J
1994;39(5):1068.
[44] Randl N. Investigations on transfer of forces between old and new concrete at
different joint roughness. PhD thesis, University of Innsbruck, 1997, 379 p. [in
German].
[45] ASTM E 965. Standard test method for measuring pavement macrotexture
depth using a volumetric technique. ASTM international, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2001.
[46] Ali MA, White RN. Enhanced contact model for shear friction of normal and
high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J 1999;96(3):34862.
[47] Valluvan R, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO. Evaluation of ACI 318-95 shear-friction
provisions. ACI Struct J 1999;96(4):47381.
[48] Patnaik AH. Reader comments of paper Evaluation of ACI 318-95 shearfriction provisions published in ACI Structural Journal, JulyAugust
1999;96(4):47383, by Valluvan R, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO. ACI Struct J
2000;97(3):52536.
[49] Mattock AH. Shear friction and high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J
2001;98(1):509.
[50] Patnaik AH. Behavior of composite concrete beams with smooth interface.
ASCE J Struct Eng 2001;127(4):35666.
[51] Kahn LF, Mitchell AD. Shear friction tests with high-strength concrete. ACI
Struct J 2002;99(1):98103.
[52] Papanicolaou CG, Triantallou TC. Shear transfer capacity along pumice
aggregate concrete and high-performance concrete interfaces. Mater Struct
2002;35(4):23745.
[53] Gohnert M. Horizontal shear transfer across a roughened surface. Cement
Concr Compos 2003;25(3):37985.
[54] Mansur MA, Vinayagam T, Tan KH. Shear transfer across a crack in reinforced
high-strength concrete. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 2008;20(4):294302.
[55] Santos PMD, Jlio ENBS. Factors affecting bond between new and old concrete.
ACI Mater J 2011;108(4):44956.
[56] Santos PMD, Jlio ENBS. Recommend improvements to current shear-friction
provisions of model code. In: 3rd b international congress, Washington, DC,
May 29June 02, 2010.
[57] Santos PMD, Jlio ENBS, Silva VD. Correlation between concrete-to-concrete
bond strength and the roughness of the substrate surface. Construct Build
Mater 2007;21(8):168895.

A State-Of-Art Review On Shear Friction

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A State-Of-Art Review On Shear Friction

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Jlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448

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

Fig. 1. Saw-tooth model.

Fig. 2. Load transfer mechanisms according to Zilch and Reinecke [14].

P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Jlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448

cohesion between particles as mentioned by some researchers; (b)

2.1. Anderson (1960)

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; vo

v u 4:41 229q MPa

For the strongest concrete, the design expression is as follows:

v u 5:52 276q MPa

2.2. Hanson (1960)

v u 3:45 121q MPa

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface;

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; x

P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Jlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

v u 0:30 0:78rn MPa

For smooth bonded interfaces the design expression is as follows:

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface

glected; all tensile forces are absorbed by the steel reinforcement;

2.6. Birkeland and Birkeland (1966)

v u qfy tan u qfy l

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

For rough construction joints the following expression should be

and f c P 27:58 MPa

and f c P 4000 psi

The yield strength of the reinforcement bars crossing the interface

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Jlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

to an apparent cohesion of the interface and to dowel action of

2.9. Mast (1968)

2.12. Mattock (1974)

Mast [25] adopted the expression proposed by Birkeland and

The design expression proposed by Mattock and Hawkins [27]

2.10. Hofbeck, Ibrahim and Mattock (1969)

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

v u 2:76 sin2 h qfs 0:8 sin2 h 0:5 sin2h

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; h

fs 1:6f y cosh 38:7 : 51:3 6 h < 90

fs fy : 90 6 h < 180

where fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement.

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Jlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448

2.14. Mattock, Johal and Chow (1975)

For sanded lightweight concrete, the design expression is as

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q

For a smooth interface in shear, with a coefcient of friction equal to

2.17. Shaikh (1978)

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; /

where Cs is a constant related with the concrete density; and l is

Raths [32] suggested a design expression very similar to the one

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; fc

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; Cs

P.M.D. Santos, E.N.B.S. Jlio / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 435448

v u 0:18v ci max 1:64f ci 0:82

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress of the crack; vcimax

where vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the interface; q