ANALYSIS OF THE HORIZONTAL SHEAR LOAD CAPACITY

OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE STRUCTURES

Piotr Kmiecik1, Mieczysaw Kamiski2
Wrocaw University of Technology, Plac Grunwaldzki 11, 50-377 Wrocaw, Poland
E-mail: 1pkmiecik@pwr.wroc.pl; 2mieczyslaw.kaminski@pwr.wroc.pl
Abstract. Composite concrete construction exists when one or more reinforced concrete or compressed elements are
bound together and cooperate in cross-section with complementary concrete layer applied later. The basic condition
which must be fulfilled in order to recognize such constructions to be composite is to maintain longitudinal shear capacity in interface layer where precast concrete element is bond to the complementary concrete layer. This sort of capacity can be achieved through substantially equivalent transverse reinforcement, natural adhesion and friction.
Analysis of stitching reinforcement performance leads to the conclusion that shear stress in interface can be transferred by stirrups when the mutual dislocation of the interface surfaces occurs. Nonetheless, according to EN 1992-11 standard in order to calculate capacity the components of reinforcement and physico-chemical adhesion of the
bound elements should be summed up. Stirrups are activated when adhesive force is destroyed. The Standard assumes that when interface is destroyed (namely a significant longitudinal slide between composite parts occurs),
stresses of stirrups reach yield strength of reinforcement. However, experimental study proves that the level of these
stresses is significantly lower, especially outside shear section. In addition, in the interface capacity formula, the
dowel force, i. e. pressure of transverse reinforcement vertical bars put upon concrete does not occur. This kind of
approach is reasonable since in real constructions the mechanism of transferring tangent forces by means of reinforcement pressure and friction occurs in combination and is interdependent. As a result, the standard formula does
not make a division of tangent forces into a part transferred by reinforcement crossing the interface, friction and adhesion, but considers them as the sum of theses three components. This kind of division is rather conventional. Basic
overview regarding state of knowledge was prepared to determine in a more precise way the components of interface
capacity.
Keywords: composite constructions, concrete structures, capacity of interface, stitching reinforcement, friction, adhesion between concrete layers, Eurocode 2.

Application of composite reinforced structures

Composite reinforced concrete constructions are
such structures in which cross-section consists of concrete applied at the building site and precast concrete
bound together with reinforcement or bound without it.
These component parts of construction are bound in
such a way that it is possible to consider them in calculations as one structural element.
The characteristic feature of these units is that there
occurs full co-operation between precast concrete and
concrete topping overlay. These types of structures can be
applied in the following conditions:
composite reinforced concrete constructions
where monolithic concrete is placed on the precast concrete element,
precast structures where interface between the
precast concrete elements is filled with concrete
to produce monolithic construction,

repair of concrete structure by means of decrement filling or application of some new, additional layers.

Condition of interface load capacity

A composite element is such a structural element in
which all the components are bound with each other to
restrain longitudinal slide between each other and to prevent separation of one part from the other.
In such elements crossing can be observed. This is
the case where real shear forces operate in the interface
and where sliding type of failure occurs. Some examples
of interfaces are shown in Fig 1.
Precast elements can be taken into account when
bending capacity of the composite cross-section is
checked only in case when they are located in the compressed section.
691

where:
fctd design value of concrete tensile strength determined
for lower class concrete,
c coefficient dependent on the precast concrete surface
type.
Since different types of technologies are applied to
produce interface, some surface kinds of precast surfaces
were described:
very smooth surface obtained from steel casting mould, plastic or smooth wooden mould,
smooth surface obtained from slide mold or
press moulding. After vibration free surfaces
are left without any additional treatment,
rough surface prepared after application of
concrete layer with grooves at least 3 mm deep
and spacing not bigger than 40 mm or by uncovering aggregate layer or using other methods with the same effect,
indented construction joint specially prepared
as shown in the figure below.

Fig 1. Examples of interfaces

In addition, the following conditions must be fulfilled in order to consider a structure to be a composite
construction (PN-B-03264:2002):
sufficient longitudinal shear capacity is preserved in the interface of precast and complementary concrete,
continuity in transmission of normal forces by
co-operating elements and between them is observed,
complementary concrete class is not lower than
C 16/20,
the concrete layer thickness is not smaller than
40 mm.
In this case, the condition that the component elements must have transverse reinforcement crossing the
interface is not required. This is due to the application of
topping, i. e. a thin layer of complementary/additional
concrete applied in the floors of multi-storey buildings.
The basic calculation condition is then to preserve the
longitudinal shear capacity of interface which can be
determined according to the following formula (Eurocode 2) (Fig 2):
Rdi = Rd 1 + Rd 2 + Rd 3 0,5f cd ,

Fig 2. Indented construction joint (Eurocode 2:

Fig 6.9)

(1)

Due to the above given classification, each type of

surface (type of joint) is characterized by a coefficient
describing the longitudinal shear capacity caused by adhesion (Table 1).

where:
Rd1 is a capacity component resulting from element
adhesion in the interface layer,
Rd2 is a capacity component resulting from friction on
the interface surface,
Rd3 is a capacity component resulting from the presence of reinforcement crossing the interface surface,
fcd design value of concrete compressive strength,
the reduction coefficient of shear cracked concrete
strength.

Table 1. Adhesion coefficient dependent on the surface type of

precast element

Adhesion
One of the components of interface capacity of the
two concrete layers is their natural adhesion. The most
important physico-chemical effects which occur in interface are as follows: mechanical adhesion, adsorption, and
diffusion (Krl et al. 1997). When concrete mixture is
being applied on the existing precast concrete element,
cement grout penetrates its pores and coarse parts and
after its hardening mechanical mesh occurs. In addition,
as a result of chemical reactions between cement grout an
adhesion stitch appears. Value of adhesion forces depends on the way that old concrete layer was prepared
and also its roughness. Capacity component can be calculated by means of the following formula:
Rd 1 = cf ctd

Surface type

Eurocode 2

CEB-FIP

Very smooth
Smooth
Smooth
Indented

0.0250.10
0.20
0.40
0.50

0.10
0.20
0.40
0.40

PN-B03264:2002
0.02
0.35
0.45
0.50

The values of coefficient c presented in Eurocode 2,

the International Federation for Structural Concrete
(CEB-FIP 1999) and Polish Standard. It assumes the
given values when we apply the load in static manner. In
case of fatigue and dynamic loads it should be half decreased. Except this, if interface is under stretching
forces, coefficient c has value zero i. e. this capacity
component is not taken into consideration. To compare,
for a full monolithic interface coefficient c is 0.62 (PN-B03264:2002).
In order to achieve capacity values calculated according to formula (2) precast surfaces must be properly
prepared. For example, according to Polish Standard,
surface designed for bonding should be:

(2)
692

ing constructions, for example by means of graining does

not have any influence on the composite degree for lower
concrete strength. For higher concrete strength graining
can decrease composite degree by structural damage of
the surface precast concrete layer. It can be concluded
that it is advisable to produce the coarse surface exclusively by means of sand blasting or high pressure stream
water (Ligza 1993). As soon as the interface layer
achieves capacity i. e. fracture of mechanical adhesion
occurs, gradual decrease of physico-chemical adhesion
forces takes place in non-reinforced interface. When adhesion completely disappears the only shear resistant
force is kinetic friction (Halicka 2003). It is shown in the
diagram below, drawing on literature data, where: 1
interface capacity, fracture of mechanical adhesion; 2
complete disappearance of physico-chemical adhesion
force; gr interface damage (Fig 3).

rough,
cleaned,
without cement milk runs,
sufficiently moisturized before cementation,
using agents increasing adhesion of concrete
layers is allowed,
consistency of additional concrete layer should
allow for better concrete workability without
segregation of components and its full thickening in site conditions.
However, in case of higher class concrete and its
high leak proof qualities, moisture content may have
adverse effect on interface strength (Ligza 1993) because excess of water prevents cement grout penetration
through pores of the precast concrete layers.
Friction
The second component of the longitudinal shear capacity is connected with friction of the interface surfaces.
Here, as in physics, value of stress depends on the friction
coefficient:
Rd 2 = n ,

(3)

where:
n stress generated by force vertical to the interface

surface,
is shear friction coefficient.

Friction of concrete against concrete in the interface

plane/surface taking into account tangent and normal
stresses operating on the cracked surface is called aggregate interlock (Table 2).

Fig 3. Dependance of deformation on tangent stresses

in shear non-reinforced interface (Halicka 2003)

Shear reinforcement
Table 2. Coefficient of friction depends on the type of precast
element surface (Eurocode 2)
Type of surface
Very smooth
Smooth
Rough
Indented
Monolith

In case when the longitudinal shear reinforcement in

interface exceeds sum of adhesion and friction capacities,
then transverse reinforcement in such interface must be
calculated in the following way:

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0

Rd 3 = f yd ( sin + cos ) ,

(4)

where:
= As / Ai reinforcement ratio for the longitudinal shear

reinforcement,
As cross-sectionial area of reinforcement in interface/joint,
Ai area of the interface,
angle between the interface surface and shear reinforcement included in interval 45 90 .

Coefficient of friction depends on the way surface

layer of the precast element is prepared. The same classification of the interface surfaces is applied as for adhesion. It is assumed in the Standard conditions that normal
stresses n are reduced to 60 % of the design value of
concrete compressive strength. Moreover, there exists an
assumption that these stresses are positive for compression and negative for stretching. Stretching stresses decrease capacity of interface, however negative component
of capacity cannot be regarded as negative friction
(Halicka 2003).
For the smooth interface surface longitudinal shear
capacity is characterised by great value dispersion. In
addition, as experimental study shows, coarse surface
allows to transfer about 70 % higher shear stresses in
comparison with smooth surface (Priebe and Szumocki
1986). So it is reasonable to avoid using smooth surfaces
if possible. However, producing rough surfaces in exist-

Fig 4. Shear diagram representing the required interface reinforcement (Eurocode 2: Fig 6.10)

693

tion allows achieving the interface capacity (Fig 7). Decrease of stresses after the interface is cracked achieves
greater values when compared with non-reinforced interface. When minimum value is reached stabilization of
stresses occurs: line 1 or their increase: line 2. Line 3
resembles behaviour of the reinforced interfaces with
smooth surface and operating in a complex state of tangent stress and normal stretching (Halicka 2006). This
diagram was made based on other diagrams showing the
results of scientific research.

When standard shear reinforcement is applied on the

whole height of cross-section of composite construction
then it is possible to consider it while checking the longitudinal shear capacity. Such types as stirrups, loops or
welded grids can be used for this purpose (Fig 5). Besides, this kind of reinforcement should be sufficiently
anchored on both sides of interface according to standard
requirements for shear reinforcement. In case of inadequate bar anchoring, a damage of interface may occur by
pulling out of reinforcement from the weaker element.

Fig 7. Strain dependence in shear interface from tangent stresses for the reinforced interface (Halicka
2006)

Fig 5. Some examples of reinforcement bounding precast beam with complementary concrete (Starosolski
2006): a) stirrups, b) loops, c) framework, d) stirrups inclined loops

Thus, in case of the reinforced interface the additive

rule of adhesion and friction arises a doubt (Halicka
1999). Analysing formula (5), it can be observed that for
the interface slide up to 0.2 mm, the width of crack opening in the interface surface is bigger than the slide value.
This effect is particularly intensified in the first
phase of the slide development. So, theoretically transverse reinforcement should operate from the very beginning of loading. However, as it is observed in experimental study, the stresses appear in stirrups only when the
interface limit strain is exceeded which means that natural adhesion is destroyed (Halicka 2003). Moreover,
transverse reinforcement acts as elastic constraints which
limits crack opening. It involves mainly stretching action
while shear action begins with the significant horizontal
displacements when composite construction can achieve
the ultimate limit state (Tur et al. 2001).

When tangent stresses are transferred, a slide of interface surfaces occurs. In the reinforced interface there
appears the so called dilatancy effect which means that
horizontal dislocations cause vertical dislocations of the
interface surfaces.
In this way there occur stretching stresses in reinforcement and compressive stresses perpendicular to the
interface surface (Tur et al. 2001). In case of rough surface, the width of crack opening in interface can be calculated directly knowing the slide values (CEB-FIP 1998):
2

V = 0.6 ( L ) 3 ,

(5)

where:
V width of crack opening, in milimeters,
L value of sidle, in milimeters.

Analysis of Eurocode 2 model

The interface shear capacity calculated using formula (2), (3) and (4) is described by quite simple model.
It does not include the capacity component connected
with friction involved by the stitching reinforcement
(standard formula describes only friction being a result of
direct external loading). Therefore, normal stresses n are
in fact transferred not only by means of friction but also
by transverse reinforcement. According to component (4)
it was assumed that the stitching reinforcement stresses
achieve yield strength of reinforcement. However, in a
non cracked interface big enough displacements do not
occur. Both for the smooth and rough surfaces when displacement involves adhesion fracture, reinforcement
stresses are far from achieving yield stress (Mishima et
al. 1995), especially in bending zone (Halicka 2005).

Fig 6. Shear-friction mechanism (Halicka 2007)

Therefore for the above mentioned reasons, stirrups

start to cooperate when the mutual dislocation of the interface surfaces occurs and as a consequence fracture of
adhesion takes place. Stresses in the stitching reinforcement depend on the condition of the cracked interface.
Thus, when natural adhesion is destroyed, stirrups gradually start to cooperate and this together with kinetic fric694

Capacity also depends on the condition of the cracked

interface. Similarly, standard rule does not determine the
effect of dowel action, i. e. pressure of transverse reinforcement vertical bars put upon interface (Fig 8). As a
result of this pressure, dowel force will be involved
(CEB-FIP 1998).

As laboratory study shows, setting moment to zero

occurs precisely in interface. One of the criterions that
capacity is achieved is that the plastic articulated joint
appears in reinforcement (Fig 9) in a distance which is
about 12 bar diameter from interface (Ackermamann
and Burchardt 1992; Randl and Wicke 2000).
Another proposed criterion to achieve capacity is interface displacement which is equal to 2 mm (Tsoukantas
and Tassios 1989). This quantity could also be treated as
the serviceability limit state of interface because relative
displacements which equal 3 mm are generally proportional limit of force increase and slide in the interface
surface (Furtak and redniawa 1996).
Unconventional model of the reinforced interface
capacity is described in German Standard (DIN 1045-1).
It is based on the truss method where friction coefficient
is replaced by cotangent of angle determined from the
appropriate dependence. Physical interpretation of this
angle is the substitutional friction angle considering the
influence of concrete adhesion and stitching reinforcement on the interface capacity.

Fig 8. Shear transfer mechanism by means of bar pressure put upon concrete (Wilczyski 2005)

Longitudinal shear capacity determined by dependence (1) describes division of tangent forces on the part
transferred by adhesion, friction and stitching reinforcement. Analysis of the shear transfer mechanism of reinforcement shows that the reinforcement stretching force,
friction force of the composite concretes and pressure
force of bars put upon concrete occur in combination and
are interdependent (Wilczyski 2005). This kind of division described by standard formula is rather conventional.
It is reasonable to prepare theoretical model which should
include full description of the interface shear transfer
mechanism. It is especially significant for the part of
capacity resulting from the presence of the stitching reinforcement in cross-section. Optimum reinforcement ratio
should also be given. Calculation of the interface reinforcement according to Eurocode 2 might be insufficient
(Fig 4) because reinforcement influences the maximum
stresses value only in case of high reinforcement ratio.
Laboratory study confirms that in case of low reinforcement ratio significant capacity increase is not observed
(Halicka 2007).

Summary
Availability of models taking into account the real
behaviour of constructions suggests the possibility of
their implementation into standards. However, the comparative analysis of models (Halicka 2007) shows that
there exists quite a big dispersion of results both qualitative and quantitative. The presented analytical solutions
are based on the different parameter output and criteria of
achieving the ultimate limit state. Particularly, the different value of the concrete strength on the pressure near the
stitching reinforcement is assumed. The length of the
stitching rebar segment, where the stress resulting from
the opening of the interface appears, is assumed as well.
It can be observed nowadays that more multi parameter
models including many new factors are prepared. This
causes some difficulties to obtain a complete solution and
application of iteration methods. On the other hand there
exist other, more simplified methods such as those included in ACI 318-2 Standard. It was assumed there that
the only mechanism of shear transfer is shear friction,
and the artificially assumed higher values of friction coefficient take into account adhesion (Fig 6). Due to this
assumption this model is in compliance with laboratory
studies (Halicka 2007). Since laboratory results are quite
widely available, then both computer simulation and
finite element method can be applied to compare the presented methods. It can be a very helpful way to find a
solution which takes into account the construction behaviour and at the same time preserves some advantages of
analytical models.

Extended analytical models

There exist several analytical models considering
dowel force. They are mainly based on dependence (5).
The basic assumption is model of the stitching bar as a
beam fixed in elastic and plasticized base which is concrete in the interface surface.

References
Ackerman, G.; Burkhardt, M. 1992. Tragverhalten von Verbundfugen Fertigteilen und Oftbeton in den Grenzzustnden der Tragfhigkeit und Gebrauchstauglichkeit
[Load Bearing of Reinforced Composite Joints by Prefabricated Units and Concrete in Situ in the Ultimate and
Serviceability Limit States], Beton- und Stahlbetonbau

Fig 9. Stressing of joint reinforcement due to bending

moment and axial force (Randl and Wicke 2000)

695

Wydawnictwa Uczelniane Politechniki Lubelskiej, Lublin. 339 p. ISBN 83-87270-46-6.

Ligza, W. 1993. Poczenie betonu nowego i starego w wietle
badan wasnych [The Fresh Concrete Adherence to the
Old One As a Result of Own Investigations], in III Konferencja Naukowa Konstrukcje Zespolone [3rd conference
Composite Structures], Referaty, Zielona Gra, 8996.
Mishima, T.; Suzuki, A.; Shinoda, Y.; Maekawa, K. 1995.
Nonelastic Behavior of Axial Reinforcement Subjected to
Axial and Slip Deformation At Crack Surface, ACI Structural Journal 380385.
PN-B-03264:2002 Konstrukcje betonowe, elbetowe i sprone.
Obliczenia statyczne i projektowanie [Plain, Reinforced
and Prestressed Concrete Structures Analysis and structural design]. Warsaw, 2002. 142 p.
Priebe, H.; Szumocki, J. 1986. Wsppraca dwch betonw w
zespolonych belkach elbetowych [Relations of Two Concretes In the Connected Beams], in Konstrukcje
zespolone. I konferencja naukowa [1st conference Composite Structures], Referaty, Zielona Gra, 135142.
Randl, N.; Wicke, M. 2000. Schubbertragung zwischen Altund Neubeton Experimentelle Untersuchungen, teoretischer Hintergrund und Bemessungsansatz [Shear Transfer Between Old and New Concrete Experimental Investigations, Theoretical Background and Design Approach],
Beton- und Slahlbetonbau [Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Structures] 95(8): 461473.
Starosolski, W. 2006. Konstrukcje elbetowe wedug PN-B3264:2002 i Eurokodu 2 [Reinforced Concrete Structures
According to PN-B-3264:2002 Standard and Eurocode 2].
Tom I, Wydanie 10 rozszerzone, Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN, Warszawa. 515 p. ISBN 83-01-14889-6.
Tsoukantas, S. G.; Tassios, T. P. 1989. Shear Resistance of
Connections between Reinforced Concrete Linear Precast
Elements. ACI Structural Journal, May-June 1989.
Tur, W.; Szaobyta, T.; Krl, M.; Halicka, A. 2001. Obliczanie
stykw elementw zespolonych z betonu zwykego i
ekspansywnego z uwzgldnieniem analizy nieliniowej
[Calculating the Interfaces in Composite Elements Made
from Ordinary and Expansive Concrete Taking the
Nonlinear Analysis into Consideration], Inynieria i Budownictwo [Engineering and Building Industry] 3: 140
143.
Wilczyski, R. 2005 Konstrukcje betonowe, elbetowe i sprone. Komentarz naukowy do PN-B-03264:2002, Rozdzia
18 Konstrukcje zespolone [Plain, Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Structures Scientific comment to
PN-B-03264:2002 Standard Chapter 18 Composite
Structures]. Tom 2, Edytor Bohdan Lewicki, Instytut
Techniki Budowlanej, Warszawa, 193207. ISBN 837413-651-0.

[Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Structures] 87(8):

197200.
CEB-FIP. 1998. Model Code 1990, Design Code. Comite EuroInternational Du Beton, Thomas Telford Services Ltd. 437
p. ISBN 0 7277 1696 4.
CEB-FIP. 1999. Practical design of structural concrete. Recommendation. 113 p. ISBN 1-874266-48-4.
DIN 1045-1 Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und
Spannbeton Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion [Concrete, reinforced and prestressed concrete structures Part
1: Design and construction]. Berlin, 2001.
Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings. Brussels, 2004. 225 p.
Furtak, K.; redniawa, W. 1996. Przemieszczenia wzgldne
zespolonych elementw betonowych ze stykiem zbrojonym poddanych obcieniom cinajcym [Relative Displacements of Reinforced Concrete Composite Elements
Undergoing Shear Loads], in IV Konferencja Naukowa
Konstrukcje Zespolone [4th conference Composite Structures], Referaty, Zielona Gra, 2736.
Halicka, A. 2003. O normowej metodzie obliczania nonoci
styku elementw zespolonych [Bond Strength Between
Prefabricated Concrete and Cast In Situ Concrete], Inynieria i Budownictwo [Engineering and Building Industry] 6: 343346.
Halicka, A. 2005. Mechanizm zniszczenia elbetowych belek
zespolonych [Failure Mechanism of Composite Concrete
Beams], Inynieria i Budownictwo [Engineering and
Building Industry] 8: 438441.
Halicka, A. 2006. Podatno styku w elbetowych elementach
zespolonych [Susceptibility of Interface in Reinforced
Concrete Composite Elements], Przegld Budowlany
[Construction Overview] 10: 2933.
Halicka, A. 2007. Studium stanu napre i odksztace w
paszczynie styku i strefie przypodporowej elementw
zespolonych z udziaem betonw skurczowych i ekspansywnych [A Study of the Stress-strain State in the Interface
and Support Zones of Composite Structures with Shrinking and Expansive Concretes]. Wydawnictwo Politechniki
Lubelskiej, Lublin. 228 p. ISBN 987-83-749-022-8.
Halicka, A. 1999 Badania odksztace i nonoci styku w elbetowych elementach zespolonych z nadbetonem
niskoekspansywnym [Testing of Strains and Load Capacity of Concrete Composite Structures with Low Expansive
Complementary Concrete], in V Konferencja Naukowa
Konstrukcje Zespolone [5th conference Composite Structures], Tom II Referaty, Zielona Gra, 8592.
Krl, M.; Halicka, A.; Tur, W. 1997. Konstrukcje zespolone z
udziaem betonu zwykego i ekspansywnego [Composite
Structures Involving Ordinary and Expansive Concrete].

696