READER COMMENTS Horizontal Shear Strength of Composite Concrete Beams With a Rough Interface* by Robert E. Loov and Anil K. Patnaik Comments by Alan H. Mattock and Authors ALAN H. MATTOCKt The authors are to be congratulated on a carefully exe- cuted experimental investigation that has yielded some valuable data in a field where data is short. On the basis of their test results and consideration of prior results, they have made proposals for changes in the “Shear Friction” provi- sions (Section 11.7) of the ACI Code," and in the provisions, for horizontal shear design (Section 17.5). The proposed Eq, (11-26a), based on Eq, (12) of the paper, includes the concrete compressive strength f’. How- ever, nowhere in the paper is it demonstrated that the shear friction resistance is proportional to /f’, as implied by Eq, (12). In Fig. 19, the measured shear strength, v,, is plot- ted against the reinforcement parameter, p,f, for four se- ries of initially cracked, monolithic push-off specimens, made of normal weight concrete; the difference between, the series being the concrete compressive strength, f. The compressive strengths indicated in Fig. 19 are the average compressive strengths for each series of tests. (These test results are taken from Refs. 8, 16, 20 and 36.) Also shown, in this figure are lines representing Eq. (12) for the four strengths of concrete. It can be seen that the lowest line, which corresponds to ff = 3875 psi (26.7 MPa), is a reasonable lower bound to the data points for the test series of this strength. However, as, the concrete strength increases, the calculated values ob- tained using Eq. (12) do not increase as rapidly as do the ex- perimental values, indicating that the shear friction resis- {ance is not proportional to fas assumed in Eq. (12). An “= PCLJOURNAL, V. 39, No Jamar Febrary 1996, 5p. 8-68. "ments Rrtesr of Cl Eagan, Univer f Waa, Sate Washing, 108 ples) = O.S((15 +A.t))¢CF pst $0.25", Ply ad Fig. 19. Comparison of Eq. (12) with test data from intially cracked, monolithic, normal weight concrete push-off specimens. additional shortcoming of Eq. (12), as applied to initially ‘racked concrete, is that it predicts there will be significant shear resistance when there is no reinforcement crossing the crack; this is not true. Assuming that the shear friction resistance, vq. is propor- tional to (9,4) which appears to be reasonable, the data from the four series of shear transfer tests of initially cracked, monolithic push-off specimens shown in Fig. 19 was analyzed again, It was determined that the shear fric- tion resistance is proportional to (f)"". In Fig. 20, (yf) is PCI JOURNALow fs ~ 3875 x = 5965, ea f 0 — 6516 p46 279/12.00 sos ph P6079/14.25 bP vite si) aN Waa = ot PMU E428 CE ds * oN PME Nin = igs = 0.02", sal et Pte /te Fig. 20. Comparison of Eq, (14) and Eq, (1) with test data {rom initially cracked, monolithic, normal weight concrete push-off specimens. plotted against (p,f)'"(2)"/f". The mean line through the data is given by the equation: (pf) *E°N2.00 € 0.36! (psi) fe aa) (Df) MEY 13.820 $ 0.36 (MPa) This equation yields a test/calculated strength ratio of, 1.00, with a standard deviation of 0.096. It can be seen that the distribution of the data points about this line is random with respect to the concrete strength. Following the philosophy for shear design, where a lower bound expression is preferred to a mean expression, the sec~ ond equation, shown in Fig. 20, would be suitable for de- sign in the case of initially cracked, monolithic, normal weight concrete: WAP MUEY NAS £0.36" (psi) My (as) (Pf)? ED"VA.536 § 0.36" (MPa) Assuming @ normal distribution of test data about the mean, 95 percent of test results should lie above this Tine, which is 1.645 times the standard deviation below the mean, line. The distribution of data points in Fig. 20 appears to confirm this Eqs. (14) and (15) above relate to shear transfer across a crack in monolithic normal weight concrete, Tests reported in Ref. 36 showed that the shear transfer strength across an initially cracked, rough interface between coneretes cast at different times was approximately 0.02’A, less than that of initially cracked monolithic specimens that were otherwise identical. A reasonable design expression for shear transfer across an initially cracked, roughened interface between concretes cast at different times would therefore be: (uh EY"N4.25 — 002K’ $0.34" (psi) (oA YEY"13 820 —0.02f! < 0.3¢! (MPa) ‘Soptomber-October 1994 Fig. 21. Comparison of Eq. (16) with test data from initially cracked, composite, normal weight concrete push-off specimens. In Fig. 21, this equation is compared to strength data re- ported in Ref. 36 for two series of initially cracked, normal weight concrete, composite specimens that had roughened interfaces as required by Section 11.7.9 of ACI 318-92.’ In Series B, the concrete compressive strength of both con- cretes was approximately 6000 psi (41.4 MPa) at the time of test. In Series D at the time of test, the initially cast concrete had a compressive strength of approximately 6000 psi (41.4 MPa), while the second cast concrete had an average strength of 3000 psi (20.7 MPa). The best correlation was, obtained when the average compressive strength of the two concretes was used for f’ in Eq. (16). The line correspond- ing to Eq, (16) is seen to be a reasonable lower bound to the test data for these two series. ‘The authors’ comments on the importance of ensuring ad- equate roughness of the surface of the precast unit in com- posite construction cannot be over-emphasized. If the inter- face is not adequately roughened, the shear strength of the interface can be drastically reduced. Because of this, itis believed that in order to ensure that adequate roughness is provided in practice, some numerical measure of that rough- ness should continue to be specified in the ACI Code,’ even if itis @ Title less than the '/ in, (6.35 mm) amplitude eui- rently required. The authors’ comments regarding the misuse of the equi- librium method when designing the interface reinforcement of a composite beam subject to a uniformly distributed load are correct. It was in an effort to overcome this problem that the new Section 17.5.3.1 was introduced in ACI 318- 92." This requires that when the equilibrium method is used, the tie reinforcement shall be distributed over the half span so that “the tie area to tie spacing ratio along the member shall approximately reflect the distribution of shear forces in the member.” The use of the expression (V,Q.)/(Jab,) to calculate the horizontal shear stress, v,4, at the interface in a composite beam was dropped from the ACI Building Code in the inter- est of simplification of the design process. Also, its applica- 107bility to composite beams in which the precast beam is pre- stressed is questionable, particularly when the tendons are draped so that the actual effective depth of 4, atthe support may be quite small. This was an additional reason why it was decided to express v,, as a simple nominal stress, Vaylbd, where dis taken as the greater of the actual effec- tive depth and 0.8 times the total depth of the section (Sec- tion 17.5.2.5 of ACI 318-92) AUTHORS’ CLOSURE by ROBERT E. LOOV* and ANIL K. PATNAIKt ‘The comments made by Dr. Mattock are greatly appreci- ated, The authors wish to respond to several of them. The effect of variations in { is a most interesting issue. As indicated in Eq. (5), Walraven et al." found that the shear strength is related to (f')'** with additional effects of (f'P applied to the exponent of the clamping stress, p,f,. ‘These factors were determined based on data from 88 push- off tests of precracked monolithically cast specimens with concrete cylinder strengths ranging from 16.4 to 68.3 MPa (2385 to 9900 psi). In a discussion of Walraven’s paper, Mattock" proposed that the influence of concrete strength be considered additive to that of the tie steel. The suggested exponent was (£/)'* {see Eq, (6). Based on these previous results from push-off test an in- termediate rounded value of ((/)"* was tentatively chosen by the authors for the proposed design equation. In the series of tests reported in this paper, four beams were made with different flange strengths in order to ascer- tain whether the variation in the horizontal shear strength of composite beams was affected by concrete strength in a manner similar to that found for push-off tests. As shown in Table 3, the flanges of Beams 13 and 14 were made with lower strengths while Beams 15 and 16 were made with higher strengths than that nced fo the other 1? heams ‘As was discussed in the paper, Beam 14 highlights the need for a rough interface, but the test result is not compara- ble to the remaining test results. Fig, 14 shows that the use, of (f°) brings the results from the three remaining tests di- rectly into line with the results from the other 12 beams. (Note, however, that Beams 15 and 16 failed in flexure and hhad not reached their limiting interface shear strength.) In his comments, Dr. Mattock has focused his attention con precracked push-off tests. He has combined six test re- sults from Ref. 20 (NI to N6) and eight from Ref. 36 (A1 to AT and AGA) along with 26 of the tests analyzed by Wal- raven et al. Based on the 40 test results chosen, he found, + Profenar of Gv aginering, University of Calay, Calgary Alerts, Canad, 7 Scr Engines, Whol Gland Paes, Pe, Wesem Awa, Ausab 108 Additional Reference 36. Mattock, A. H., “Shear Transfer Under Monotonic Loading, Across an Interface Between Concretes Cast at Different Times,” Report SM 76-3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1976, 67 pp. (Part I of Final Report for National Science Foundation Grant No. ENG74-2113.) ou 03 ‘02 R + nterett ‘toe a See 8 ae on, ug an a2 a Osos as ye Fig, 22, Test data for 102 monolithically cast, intially cracked, normal weight concrete push-off specimens. Fig. 23. Mean and fith percentile equations based on 82 specimens with (p, f/f’ < 0.36. PCI JOURNAL