You are on page 1of 8

Codes in Structural Engineering

Developments and Needs for International Practice


Joint IABSE fib Conference Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 3-5, 2010

Topic 3.6: Shear

SHEAR-FRICTION: CONCEPT, CODES AND NEW


TRENDS
Pedro M. D. Santos* & Eduardo N. B. S. Jlio**
* Adjunct Professor, ISISE, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, School of Technology and Management, Portugal

** Assistant Professor, ISISE, Dept. of Civil Engineering,


University of Coimbra, Portugal

Keywords: Concrete, Shear-Friction, Design Code, Roughness, Bond, Laser

Abstract: The shear strength at the interface between concretes cast at different times is
important to ensure the monolithic behaviour of RC composite members, such as precast
members with cast-in-place parts and bridge decks strengthened with a new concrete layer.
In this paper, a state of the art on this subject is presented, starting with the first
empirically based design expressions, followed by the most relevant subsequent
contributions, as the innovative concept of the shear-friction theory proposed in 1966 by
Birkeland and Birkeland 1; the modified version of this theory later proposed by Mattock
and Hawkins 2 in 1972; the inclusion of the concrete strength in 1978 by Loov 3; the
sphere model developed by Walraven 4 and his co-workers in 1987; and finishing with
the design expression proposed by Randl 5 in 1997, where the influence of cohesion,
friction and dowel action are explicitly identified. A comparison between different
approaches included in some of the most important design codes of structural concrete,
such as the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 6, the Eurocode 2 7, the CAN/CSA A23.3 8 and the
ACI 318 9, is also presented herein. Finally, the authors make a critical analysis of these
design expressions, identifying weaknesses and proposing changes to improve both
accuracy and precision. More specifically, a quantitative evaluation of the roughness of the
substrate is proposed and an innovative laser-based in situ method developed by the
authors and recently patented is presented.

- 903 -
Santos, Jlio: Shear-Friction: Concept, Codes and New Trends

1. INTRODUCTION
Concrete structures are usually repaired and/or strengthened by adding a new concrete
layer. Precast concrete members often include cast-in-place parts. Current design codes of
RC structures, such as the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 6; the Eurocode 2 7; the
CAN/CSA A23.3 8; and the ACI 318 9, present design expressions for the assessment of the
longitudinal shear strength at the interface between concretes cast at different times. These
design expressions are based on the shear-friction theory, as proposed by Birkeland and
Birkeland 1, and the following four fundamental parameters are considered: a) compressive
strength of the weakest concrete; b) normal stress at the interface; c) shear reinforcement
crossing the interface; and d) roughness of the substrate surface. Other parameters with a
significant influence on the behaviour of RC composite members are neglected, such as the
differential shrinkage and the differential stiffness between old and new concretes.
This paper presents an overview about the shear-friction concept, design expressions and
new trends, based in recent developments.

2. SHEAR-FRICTION
The shear-friction theory assumes that the shear strength of 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, Figure 1. The influence of both shear reinforcement crossing the interface and
normal stresses to the shear plane are considered.

Figure 1: Shear-friction.

Several design expressions were proposed to predict the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at
the concrete-to-concrete interface. The five most significant contributions are presented in
Table 1.

- 904 -
Santos, Jlio: Shear-Friction: Concept, Codes and New Trends

Researcher(s) Year Design expression


Birkeland and Birkeland 1
1966 vu = f y

Mattock and Hawkins 2 1972 vu = 1.38 + 0.8 ( n + f y )

Loov 3 1978 vu = k fc ( n + f y )

vu = C1 ( f y )
C2

Walraven et al. 4 1987 C1 = 0.822 f c


0.406

C2 = 0.159 f c
0.303

Randl 5 vu = cf c + ( n + kf y ) + f y fc fc
1 3
1997

Table 1: Shear-friction milestones

In these expressions (Table 1), vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the concrete-
to-concrete interface; is the coefficient of friction; is the reinforcement ratio; f y is
the yield strength of the reinforcement; n is the normal stress acting on the interface due
to external loading; k is a constant (Loovs expression); fc is the concrete compressive
strength; c is the coefficient of cohesion; k is a coefficient of efficiency related with the
reinforcement (Randls expression); is a coefficient for dowel action; is a coefficient
related with the concrete diagonal strut; and is a reduction factor for strength of the
concrete diagonal strut.
In Birkeland and Birkeland 1 expression, the coefficient of friction depends on the surface
preparation method and assumes the following values: a) = 1.7, for monolithic concrete;
b) = 1.4, for artificially roughened construction joints; and c) = 0.8 to 1.0, for ordinary
construction joints and for concrete to steel interfaces. The proposed design expression was
limited to the following conditions: 1.5%; vu 5.52MPa and fc 27.58MPa. This
design philosophy assumes that, due to relative slippage between old and new concrete
layers, the interface crack width increases, the steel reinforcement yields in tension thus
compressing the interface and the shear forces are transmitted by friction.
Mattock and Hawkins 2 proposed an improved design expression which explicitly includes
the contribution of cohesion. The first term is due to cohesion of the interface and the
second term is due to clamping stresses. The coefficient of friction is considered constant
and equal to 0.8. The proposed design expression was determined for the lower bound of
the experimental tests conducted by the authors and the ultimate longitudinal shear stress is
limited by the minimum value between 0.3fc and 10.34MPa. Moreover, the clamping
stresses have to be higher than 1.38MPa.
Loov 3 was the first to explicitly include the concrete strength. The constant of the design
equation was considered equal to 0.5 for initially uncracked interfaces.
Walraven et al. 4 conducted a large experimental study using push-off specimens and
proposed a non-linear function to predict the shear strength of initially cracked interfaces.

- 905 -
Santos, Jlio: Shear-Friction: Concept, Codes and New Trends

An innovative sphere model was developed to analyse the interaction between the
aggregates, the binding paste and the interface zone.
Randl 5 proposed a design expression that explicitly includes the contribution of: cohesion,
related to the contribution of the interlocking between aggregates; friction, related to the
contribution due to the longitudinal relative slip between concrete parts and thus influenced
by the surface roughness and the normal stress at the shear interface; and dowel action,
related to the contribution of the flexural resistance of the shear reinforcement crossing the
interface. The parameters of the design expression were calibrated and the values presented
in Table 2 were proposed. The surface roughness is quantitatively evaluated using the Sand
Patch Test 11.

Surface Coefficient
Coefficient of friction
Surface roughness
of cohesion
preparation R k
c
(mm) (fck 20MPa) (fck 35MPa)

High-pressure
3.0 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.4
water-blasting
Sand-blasting 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.3
Smooth - 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.2

Table 2: Values of the design parameters proposed by Randl 5

3. DESIGN CODES
In Table 3 the shear-friction provisions of four design codes for RC structures are presented
and discussed.

Design Code Year Design expression


CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 6
1990 vu = cf ctd + ( n + f y ) 0.25 f cd

Eurocode 2 7 2004 vu = cf ctd + n + f y ( sin + cos ) 0.5vf cd

CAN/CSA A23.3 8 2004 vu = c ( c + ( n + f y sin ) ) + s f y cos

ACI 318 9 2008 vu = f y ( sin + cos )

Table 3: Shear-friction provisions of design codes

In these expressions (Table 3), vu is the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the concrete-
to-concrete interface; c is the coefficient of cohesion (or cohesion in the case of the
CAN/CSA A23.3 8); f ctd is the tensile strength of the weakest concrete; is the
coefficient of friction; n is the normal stress acting on the interface due to external

- 906 -
Santos, Jlio: Shear-Friction: Concept, Codes and New Trends

loading; is the reinforcement ratio; f y is the yield strength of the reinforcement; f cd is


the design value of the concrete compressive strength; is the angle between the shear
reinforcement and the shear plane; v is a strength reduction factor; is a factor related to
the concrete density ; c is the resistance factor for concrete taken as 0.65; and s is the
resistance factor for reinforcing bars taken as 0.85.
According to the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 6, the ultimate longitudinal shear stress at the
concrete-to-concrete interface (vu) is given by the sum of the contribution of cohesion and
friction. Dowel action is not explicitly considered. Depending on the finishing condition,
the surface roughness can be defined as smooth or rough. A smooth surface can be
considered if concrete is cast against steel or wooden formwork or if a trowelled or a light
brushing surface is produced (c = 0.2; = 0.6). A rough surface can be obtained by raking,
by exposing the aggregates or by providing mechanical shear keys (c = 0.4; = 0.9).
Eurocode 2 7 adopted a design expression similar to the one proposed by the CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990 6. The main differences between both design codes are the consideration
in the latter of a variable orientation of the shear reinforcement and the classification
adopted for the surface roughness: very smooth; smooth; rough; or indented. The very
smooth surface is considered as a surface cast against steel, plastic or specially prepared
wooden moulds (c = 0.025 to 0.1; = 0.5). The smooth surface is a spliformed or extruded
surface or a free surface left without further treatment after vibration (c = 0.2; = 0.6). The
rough surface is a surface that has at least 3mm roughness at about 40mm spacing,
achieved by raking, exposing of aggregate or other methods giving an equivalent behaviour
(c = 0.4; = 0.7). The indented surface is a surface with indentations complying with a
specific geometry defined by the code (c = 0.5; = 0.9).
The approach of the Canadian design code CAN/CSA A23.3 8 is similar to those of both
CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 6 and Eurocode 2 7. It considers that cracking shall be assumed
to occur along a shear plane and that the relative displacement at the interface is resisted
only by cohesion and friction. The term c (c + ( n + f y sin )) shall not exceed
0.25c f c and the parameter shall be taken equal to: 1.00, for normal density concrete;
0.85, for structural semi-low-density concrete in which all the fine aggregate is natural
sand; and 0.75, for structural low-density concrete in which none of the fine aggregate is
natural sand. For the parameters c and , four situations are considered: concrete placed
against hardened concrete with the surface clean but not intentionally roughened (c = 0.25;
= 0.6); concrete placed against hardened concrete with the surface clean and intentionally
roughened to a full amplitude of at least 5mm (c = 0.5; = 1.0); concrete placed
monolithically (c = 1.0; = 1.4); and concrete anchored to as-rolled structural steel by
headed studs or by reinforcing bars (c = 0.0; = 0.6).
ACI 318 9 proposes an approach similar to that of the Canadian code in terms of surface
classification but adopts a significantly different design expression since it ignores the
contribution of cohesion. The same four surface conditions are considered: concrete placed
against hardened concrete with the surface clean but not intentionally roughened ( = 0.6);
concrete placed against hardened concrete with the surface clean and intentionally
roughened to a full amplitude of 6.35mm ( = 1.0); concrete placed monolithically
( = 1.4); and concrete anchored to as-rolled structural steel by headed studs or by

- 907 -
Santos, Jlio: Shear-Friction: Concept, Codes and New Trends

reinforcing bars ( = 0.7). The parameter is a modification factor related to concrete


density and shall be taken equal to: 1.00, for normal weight concrete; 0.85, for sand-
lightweight concrete; and 0.75, for all lightweight concrete.
For normal weight concrete, placed monolithically or cast against hardened concrete with
surface intentionally roughened, the ultimate longitudinal shear stress is upper limited by
the minimum value given by 0.2fc, (3.3 + 0.08fc) and 11MPa. For the remaining cases, the
ultimate longitudinal shear stress is upper limited by the minimum value given by 0.2fc and
5.52MPa. The yield strength of the reinforcement shall not be taken greater than 414MPa.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS


From the analysis of codes and published research it can be concluded that the roughness of
the concrete substrate has a very significant influence on the bond strength of concrete-to-
concrete interfaces. Moreover, it can be stated that in all design codes this parameter is
qualitatively assessed, although each one presents its own classification.
Furthermore, it can be seen that, even though it is recognized today 5 that the load transfer
mechanism at the concrete-to-concrete interface is due to cohesion, friction and dowel
action, the latter is neglected in all design codes. In fact, this is implicitly considered
disguised as cohesion and/or friction.
Common to all design codes is the absence of any provision related with the curing
conditions and, therefore, with the differential shrinkage between concrete parts. Also
neglected is the added concrete and thus the differential stiffness between concrete parts.
Taking into account the weaknesses of design codes referred to, it is proposed that a
quantitative methodology be adopted to avoid the subjective assessment of the surface
roughness. The authors developed a measuring device, named 2D Laser Roughness
Analyser 12, and proposed an innovative and non-destructive method to predict the bond
strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces. This new method proved to be effective, since it
is possible to obtain 2D profiles of the surface texture; to compute texture parameters from
these; and to correlate the latter with the bond strength of the concrete-to-concrete interface,
both in shear and in tension, with high coefficients of correlation. Moreover, it was
demonstrated that the proposed new method presents all the advantages, with even higher
accuracy, and overcomes all the disadvantages of existing methods 10, 11, 13.
Based in a recent research study 14 and adopting the Eurocode 2 7 design expressions, the
authors propose that the coefficients of cohesion and friction should be predicted using the
following expressions:
0.145
1.062 Rvm
cd = (1)
coh

0.041
1.366 Rvm
d = (2)
fr

where:
cd is the design coefficient of cohesion;
d is the design coefficient of friction;

- 908 -
Santos, Jlio: Shear-Friction: Concept, Codes and New Trends

Rvm is the Mean Valley Depth of the primary profile of the surface in millimetre;
coh is the partial safety factor for the coefficient of cohesion;
fr is the partial safety factor for the coefficient of friction.

The proposed expressions were obtained by adjusting a power function to the experimental
values of the coefficients of cohesion and friction, Figure 2, determined for five different
surface conditions: left as-cast (LAC); wire-brushing (WB); sand-blasting (SAB); shot-
blasting (SHB) and hand-scrubbing (HS) or raking. Based in the coefficient of variation of
both coefficients, the authors propose the values of 2.6 and 1.2 for the partial safety factors
of the coefficients of cohesion and friction, respectively.

1.6
SHB HS
1.4
WB HS
SAB
Coefficient of cohesion
Coefficient of friction

1.2
LAC SHB
1.0 Coeff. of cohesion
WB SAB Power Regression
0.8
LAC for Coeff. of cohe-
0.6 sion
Coeff. of friction
0.4 Power Regression
for Coeff. of friction
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Mean Valley Depth, Rvm (mm)

Figure 2: Correlation between the Mean Valley Depth (Rvm) and the coefficients of cohesion
and friction.

Finally, since recent investigations 14 proved that differential shrinkage and differential
stiffness can have a significant influence on the shear strength of the interface between
concretes cast at different times, these effects should at least be mentioned in codes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Portuguese Science and Technology
Foundation (FCT), PhD Grant number SFRH/BD/25510/2005. Acknowledgements are
extended to the companies Maprel Empresa de Pavimentos e Materiais Pr-Esforados
Lda, Sika Portugal SA, AFAssociados Projectos de Engenharia SA, Weber Cimenfix,
Cimpor Cimentos de Portugal, Beto-Liz and Euro-Planning Engenharia & Gesto Lda
also for their financial support.

- 909 -
Santos, Jlio: Shear-Friction: Concept, Codes and New Trends

REFERENCES
[1] Birkeland, P.W. & Birkeland, H.W. 1966. Connections in precast concrete
construction. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 63(3): 345-368.
[2] Mattock, A.H. & Hawkins, N.M. 1972. Shear transfer in reinforced concrete recent
research. Journal of the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 17(2): 55-75.
[3] Loov, R.E. 1978. Design of precast connections. Paper presented at a seminar
organized by Compa International Pte, Ltd. Singapore. 8 p.
[4] Walraven, J., Frnay, J. & Pruijssers, A. 1987. Influence of concrete strength and load
history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members. Journal of the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 32(1): 66-84.
[5] Randl, N. 1997. Investigations on transfer of forces between old and new concrete at
different joint roughness. PhD thesis. University of Innsbruck. 379 p. (in German)
[6] CEB-FIP Model Code. 1990. Comit Euro-International du Bton, Secretariat
Permanent, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. 437 p.
[7] Eurocode 2. 2004. Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000
Brussels, Belgium. 225 p. (with corrigendum dated of 16 January 2008)
[8] CAN/CSA A23.3. 2004. Design of concrete structures - Structures design. Canadian
Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 1R3,
Canada. 258 p.
[9] ACI 318. 2008. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and
commentary. American Concrete Institute, PO Box 9094, Farmington Hills, MI
48333-9094, USA. 471 p.
[10] ICRI (International Concrete Repair Institute). 1997. Selecting and specifying
concrete surface preparation for sealers, coatings, and polymer overlays. Technical
Guideline No. 03732, Des Plaines, Illinois, USA. 41 p.
[11] ASTM E 965. 2001. Standard test method for measuring pavement macrotexture
depth using a volumetric technique. American Society for Testing Materials, 100 Barr
Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428, USA. 3 p.
[12] Santos, P. & Jlio, E. 2008. Development of a laser roughness analyser to predict in
situ the bond strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces. Magazine of Concrete
Research 60(5): 329-337.
[13] Santos, P., Jlio, E. & Silva, V.D. 2007. Correlation between concrete-to-concrete
bond strength and the roughness of the substrate surface. Construction and Building
Materials 21(8): 1688-1695.
[14] Santos, P.M.D., Assessment of the Shear Strength between Concrete Layers, PhD
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, 2009, 338 pp.

- 910 -

You might also like