omp osite construc tio n is an and the girder at their interface. The
48 PCI JOURNAL
and Hotbeck et al., 8a new concept called "shearfriction" was
introduced into the ACI Code in 1970. Saemann and Washa9 f.1 = 6 · 9 ,1_2 (MPa)
e Vu
and Nosseir and Murtha10 studied the interface shear strength
of composite beams to some extent. However, no other sig f..le = 1000/l} (psi)
nificant or systematic evaluation of horizontal shear strength Vu
appears to have been made thereafter.
We believe that the study presented here will provide new where LOA has been substituted for f.1 and A is a constant
insight into the behavior of "rough" joints in composite con used to account for the effect of concrete density.
crete beams and their capacity to develop interface shear for A = 1.0 for normal weight concrete
a wide range of steel ratios. A= 0.85 for sandlightweight concrete
A= 0.75 for alllightweight concrete
The design requirements of the peps are based on this
PREVIOUS RESEARCH equation. If these two equations are combined, a parabolic
In earlier studies, the shear strength of a joint was as equation for vu with respect to the clamping force is obtained:
sumed to vary directly with the amount of reinforcing steel
crossing it. However, parabolic equations for shear transfer
vu =A~6. 9</Jpvfy ~ 0.25f;A 2 and 6. 9A 2 (MPa)
(3b)
strength were suggested as early as 1968 by Birkeland 11 and vu = A{fOOO<(JpJY ~ 0.25f;A 2 and 1000A2 (psi)
later by Raths 12 and Loov. 13 Based on a report by Shaikh, 14
peps adopted a procedure which indirectly uses a parabolic where the capacity reduction factor, <P = 0.85 for shear.
equation. Walraven et al. 16 did an extensive statistical analy This equation is similar to Rath's equation 12 and Eq. (2).
sis on most of the data available from pushoff tests and Eq. (3) represents the test data more closely than Eq. (1), but
suggested an equation which provides a good fit but is not it does not include the effect of concrete strength variations.
convenient for use in a design office. In their discussion of
this paper, Mau and Hsu suggested a simpler design equa
tion.16 A detailed literature review of the subject can be Loov's Equation
found in Patnaik's Ph.D. thesis. 17 Loov 13 was apparently the first to incorporate the influ
Some equations applicable for reinforcement crossing ence of concrete strength:
perpendicular to the interface are given here. More than 30
shearfriction equations have been proposed by various re Vn = k~pvfYJ; (4)
searchers; therefore, symbols have been modified for con
sistency. The term Pv fy is referred to as the clamping stress. where k is a constant.
A k of 0.5 was suggested for initially uncracked shear in
terfaces. For fJ = 30.9 MPa (4480 psi), this equation is the
Linear ShearFriction Equation
same as Eq. (2). One advantage of this equation is that any
This equation was first introduced in 1958 by Mast6 and consistent system of units can be used without changes.
was later developed further by Birkeland, Anderson 18 and
their coworkers:
Walraven's Equation
(1)
A statistical analysis was conducted by Walraven et al. 16
where f.1 is the coefficient of friction. on the results of 88 pushoff tests. The following equation
The equation is simple but is very conservative for low was suggested for a precracked shear interface:
clamping stresses and unsafe for high clamping stresses. Vn = Ct(Pvfy)cz (MPa)
(5)
vn = C3(0.007 Pvfy)c4 (psi)
Birkeland's Equation
.Birkeland 11 was the first to introduce a parabolic function if J; is assumed to be equal to 0.85 of the compressive
for the shear strength along a joint: strength of 150 mm (6 in.) cubes:
JanuaryFebruary 1994 49
Limiting Slips
(6) Hanson 3 considered the maximum horizontal shear
strength to have been reached when a slip of 0.13 mm
and vn ~ 0.3J; (0.005 in.) occurred, and this limit was later adopted by Sae
mann and Washa9 in their study . However, the fixing of a
Equations for the shear strength of lightweight concrete limiting value was not without controversy (Grossfield and
can be found in Mattock et al.2° Birnstiel) .2 ' Larger shear strengths would be recorded if
larger slips were permitted. In their discussion of Ref. 9,
Hall and Mast suggested that, as for composite steel beams,
Mau and Hsu 's Equation there should be no limit for slip.
In their discussion of Eq. (5), Mau and Hsu' 6 suggested an
equation similar to Eq. (4) with k =0.66. They assumed that ACI Code 1
the factor 0.66 would be the same for both initially cracked The test data corresponding to horizontal shear failure ,
and uncracked shear interfaces. found in previous studies, are shown in Fig. 1 along with the
nominal shear specified by the ACI Code for a rough inter
face. The code provisions are a combination of special pro
PushOff Tests
visions for horizontal shear from Clause 17.5 ( 1 to 3 in the
Attempts were made by Hanson 3 to correlate pushoff tests following list) along with shearfriction provisions from
and beam tests. By comparing shearslip relations for the two Clause 11.7 (listed as 4 and 5 here). The lines shown in
types of specimens, he concluded that pushoff tests are rep Fig. 1 are based on a coefficient of friction J1 of 1.0 and a
resentative of beam tests for "rough bonded" connections. concrete strength of at least 27.5 MPa (4000 psi).
1000
0 0
0
0~
6 0 f'c ~ 27.5 MPo (4000 psi)
0 BOO
c;:; 0
0..
"'0..
:2 *
Vl
Vl
4
ll •0 600
v)
t/)
<!)
<!)
'
(/)
oro • Evans & Chung =
(/)
'
("()
u 0
0
•• Hanson
H~u
'
C'O
<!)
..c
..c (/)
(/)
• Kaar. Kriz & Raths 400
0 Mattock & Kaar
* Nosseir & Murtha
2 0 Saemann & Washa
200
0 0
0 2 4 6 8
Clamping Stress, PJy, MPa
Fig. 1. Shear stresses ACI 318M92 compared with previous test results.
50 PCI JOURNAL
Clamping Stress Range Shear Stress Lirrllt tal shear stresses at 0.13 mm (0.005 in.) slip fall somewhat
1. 0 to 0.33 MPa lower.
(0 to 50 psi) 0.6 MPa (80 psi) The maximum clamping stress which has been used in the
2. 0.33 to 2.83 MPa previous beam tests is only 3 MPa (430 psi); therefore, for
higher clamping stresses there appear to be no published
(50 to 400 psi) 1.8 + 0.6pvf y MPa
beam data to support the code equations.
(260 + 0.6pvfY psi)
3. 2.83 to 3.5 MPa
(400 to 500 psi) 3.5 MPa (500 psi)
ANALYSIS METHODS
4. 3.5 to 5.5 MPa
(500 to 800 psi) When a beam is uncracked and linearly elastic, horizontal
5. Over 5.5 MPa shear stresses can be evaluated by the equation:
(over 800 psi) 5.5 MPa (800 psi)
VQ
v   (7)
h Ib
The concrete strength does not affect the stress limits in v
any of these ranges except for Range 5. In this range, the where
shear stress is limited to 0.2J; when concrete strengths less
V = transverse shear fo;ce at location under consideration
than 27.5 MPa (4000 psi) are used. In Ranges 2 and 3 listed
above, these code provisions are a considerable improve
Q = first moment of area of portion above interface with
respect to neutral axis of section
ment over those used in previous editions of the ACI Code.
Although all of the plotted values have been described as I = moment of inertia of entire cross section
horizontal shear failures , a certain amount of caution is ad bv = width of interface
vised so that failures due to other causes are not ascribed to This equation can be used to evaluate the horizontal shear
horizontal shear. In particular, the result plotted for Beam stress for cracked beams if Q and I are based on the cracked
III0.61.66, tested by Kaar et al. ,' indicates that the beam section. Because it provides a common basis for compari
reached a load equivalent to 98 percent of the theoretical son, this equation was adopted in previous studies even
flexural capacity before apparently failing in horizontal though Hanson 3 and Saemann and Washa9 recognized that it
shear. does not give an exact representation of the horizontal shear
On the other hand, the photograph of this beam shows a stress at failure. This expression was included in the ACI
complete web failure . Thus, failure may have been due to a Code untill970.
combination of all three failure modes. Complete informa Clause 17.5.3 of the ACI Code 1 allows design based on
tion on the tests by Hsu 24 is not available. The plotted values equilibrium conditions by: "computing the actual change in
from Hanson correspond to those near failure. The horizon compressive or tensile force in any segment, and provisions
JanuaryFebruary 1994 51
made to transfer that force as horizontal shear to the sup 2. The concrete strength was varied for a fixed clamping
porting element." This relationship can be expressed as: stress of about 0.8 MPa (120 psi).
For the first variable, beams were tested with clamping
(8) stresses of 0.40, 0.77, 1.64, 2.73, 4.36, 6.06 and 7.72 MPa (58,
112, 238, 396, 632, 879 and 1120 psi). The test values cover
the practical range of clamping stresses. To study the effect of
where Cis the total compression in the flange and £v is the
variations in concrete strength, two beams were tested with a
length over which horizontal shear is to be transferred.
cylinder strength of about 19.4 MPa (2800 psi) and with con
The ultimate condition for horizontal shear cannot be
crete strengths of 44 and 48.3 MPa (6400 and 7000 psi).
achieved unless slip occurs between the precast and castin
place parts of a beam. The validity of the analysis of a com
posite concrete section using the procedures for a normal Materials
concrete section is somewhat questionable after slip has oc Three different concrete mixes were used. Fine aggregate
curred. In the closure of their paper, Saemann and Washa9 was washed local river sand and coarse aggregate was well
justify the use of Eq. (7) even after slip has occurred. They graded with a maximum size of 14 mm (0.55 in.). The con
assert that the designs will be safe if shear stresses, evalu crete control cylinders and the corresponding test beam
ated by using the elastic formula with cracked section prop were cured under similar conditions. The concrete strength
erties, are less than the corresponding test strengths deter fd of the web and the flange concrete was evaluated using
mined using the same procedure. standard cylinders. The modulus of elasticity of concrete
In contrast to the common use of the entire length of the was assumed to be (CAN3A23.3M84): 26
shear span for transferring the horizontal shear force, CTN'
recommends that all the compressive force in the flange be Ec = 5000{1; (MPa)
transferred in a length equal to one quarter of the span of the or
beam. Er = 60200JJ: (psi)
By requiring that the horizontal shear strength be greater The average observed modulus obtained from the con
than the factored shear force at the section under considera crete cylinders was 4100J]: MPa, or 494001/77 psi, which
tion [see Eq. (171) and Section 17.5 where the horizontal is considerably less. 17
shear is related to bvd], the code implies the following equa The average yield strength of longitudinal bars and stirrup
tion for horizontal shear stresses: steel in different beams is given in Table 1. Steel crossing
the interface in all the beams consisted of #3 (9.5 mm diam
(9) eter) bars. The modulus of elasticity for the reinforcing steel
. was taken as 200 GPa (29000 ksi).
Eqs. (7), (8) and (9) appear to be quite different from one
another and a designer could, understandably, be confused Sizes of Test Beams
as to which should be used.
Elevation views of the test beams are shown in Fig. 2.
In f~ct, the three equations are closely related. The terms
Beams 1 to 8 had flanges for their full length, while Beams
VQ/1 in Eq. (7) give the rate of change of force in the flange.
9 to 16 had their flanges discontinued at 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in.)
In Eq. (8), C 1 Cv is the average rate of change of force in
from the center of the beam. The two different shapes of
the flange between a section with a force C and a section a
cross sections used for the test beams are shown in Fig. 3.
distance £v away with zero force in the flange. This is the
The amount of steel crossing the interface and the width of
same as Eq. (7) for point loads because the shear is constant.
the precast concrete girder at the interface (bv) were adjusted
It is unsafe for uniform loading because the shear varies.
to achieve the desired level of clamping stress. The dimen
Eq. (9) is similar to the others because V = oM/ox is the
sions for different beams are summarized in Table 1.
rate of change of moment. If the compression zone is en
Two types of web reinforcement were used for beams
tirely within the flange, and the small variation in depth of
with a 75 mm (3 in.) web width. Stirrups crossing the inter
the stress block is ignored, then the compression force C
face were Lshaped and were provided in pairs. Stirrups
will be equal to Ml(d  a/2) and the rate of change of force
below the interface were Ushaped (see Fig. 3). Closed rect
in the flange will be V/(d a/2). Therefore, Vuld in Eq. (9)
artgular stirrups were used for the precast concrete girder of
is simply a nonconservative simplification of Eq. (7).
uniform width. Longer stirrups crossed the interface while
shorter stirrups were within the precast concrete girder. Stir
TEST PROGRAM rups were well anchored on both sides of the joint so they
Sixteen composite concrete beams were tested in this were able to reach yield at the interface (Mattock). 27
study. Typical details of beam reinforcement are shown in Fig.
4. Complete details of all test beams are given by Patnaik. 17
Variables
Two major variables were investigated: Joint Preparation
1. The clamping stress was varied while maintaining the The test specimens were constructed to simulate beams
concrete strength at about 35 MPa (5000 psi). with a precast concrete girder and a castinplace flange.
52 PCI JOURNAL
Flange
Web
T
(a) Test Beam with Full Length Flanges
400
Flange
Web
rs~3o_so______________________________~ 4
All Dimensions ore in mm
(1mm = 0._()394")
400
I·
400
·I I· ·I
~I
c:
llf ~
1J
0
...,
1/)
 1 by =150
(3 00 for Beom11)
~ ~
~ ~
150 150
I· I· ·I All Dimensions ore in mm
(300 for Beom11) ( 1mm = 0.0394")
(a) Beam Section with Thin Web (b) Beam Section with Uniform Web Width
JanuaryFebruary 1994 53
The web portion was first fabricated
S}'n:!metric
with stirrups projecting from it. Flange
concrete was placed three days later.
'XI _C_ 95 mm SupportBrs
0
54 PCI JOURNAL
FlANGE
Metal Insert
TO DATA ACQUISITION
from the edge of the support. The end portions of the beam
rotated about the support in a direction away from the
midspan to accommodate the flange slip, thereby creating
wide diagonal cracks extending from each support to the joint
[see Fig. 7(a)]. Cracks were observed on the top surface of the (b) Beam with short flanges.
flanges at this location. This behavior was observed in the
beams with flanges extending to the end of the beam and also Fig. 8. Typical failure modes.
in beams tested by others which failed in horizontal shear.
Beams 1 to 3 and Beams 5 to 8 failed in the manner just
described. Fig. 8(a) shows half of a beam which failed in
Symmetrical horizontal shear. The support reaction is at the bottom right
hand comer. The horizontal crack, the separation at the in
terface and the large deformations of the spring steel slip
gauges are noticeable.
\Interface Crock
Beams With Short Flanges
Attempts to determine the contribution of the interface be
yond the location where the horizontal crack meets the diag
onal crack proved inconclusive because of the complex
(o) Beom with Full Length Flanges strain conditions at this point. As the interface within the
end block appeared to be ineffective, it was decided to test
beams without a flange for the end 400 mm (15.7 in.)
Symmetrical length . Extra web reinforcement was provided in these
beams to prevent diagonal shear failure of the web.
These modified beams behaved in the same manner as the
beams with full length flanges that had failed in horizontal
shear, except that there was no diagonal cracking nor rota
tion of the beam ends [see Fig. 7(b)]. The average shear
\ Interface Crock
stress based on equilibrium was higher than for the beams
with flanges extending the full length of the beam. Slip ini
tially developed as described earlier, but at failure , the entire
flange on the weaker half sheared suddenly along the inter
(b) Beom with Short Flanges face with a large slip. The maximum slip for every beam
which failed in horizontal shear was greater than 2 mm
Fig. 7. Interface cracking modes. (0.08 in.).
JanuaryFebruary 1994 55
Fig. 10. Roughness of the joint in Beam 14.
56 PCI JOURNAL
8 1200
~
~
vl
Cll
d)
900
....'"'
Cf.l
'"'
~
d)
I
I I
I
..c:: I
.... I I
Cf.l I I I
I
~ 4 ~ ~ ~~ 600
s::: 1 I I I ,'
0
N : : : :1
·c I I
I
I
I
11
11
0 I 11
~
:I:
2  300
10  ~~~~~r~r~r~
I
I I I I
I I I I I I I
1200
t
1
r  t    ~ t~    t  ~t  
1 I I I I I I I
~ I I I I I I I I I
~ I I I I I I I I I
~
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
vl I I I I I I I I I
Cll I I I I I I I I I
900
....~
Cf.l
_ .j.__
I
I
1.l111111    
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I
'"'
~
d)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I
..c:: I

Cf.l
....s:::
~
0
  t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;~;,;:;.;_.,.~I4,._..,_,_=~_.::.;.Jr~
l::;t;::7;= 600
I' 1 I 11
1
I I I1 I
·c
N
0
I
I
I
I
:
I
I
:
I
I
I ,,..+!
I
I 1
I
I
I I, I
I I I
II
:I: I I
:
I
I I t"' I 1
I II
1
I
I
1 1
2      ~  1~ } :::r 300
1 11 I
I I I
Beam7 earn 12 Beam9 Beam 10 earnS : Beam 16 IBeam 15 .
I I
I I
0
JanuaryFebruary 1994 57
0.00
4000
3000
.....=
~
'"'
......
tl.l
0
.....u'"'
:E 2000
c.
E
.....
......
CZl
1000
0 ~..rrr~~,..r4
Slip, mm
Fig. 12. Typical slipstrain curves at the location of maximum slip in test beams.
58 PCI JOURNAL
Table 3. Loads sustained by the test beams. quantity Qc/Ucrbv) used to convert the
! Horizontal shear stress, vh
central point load into horizontal shear
Concrete Load, kN MPa stresses. The test result for Beam 14
Beam
No.
2
I
Pvfy
MPa
4.36
1.66
I
strength,!;
MPa
37.4
34.9
At 0.13 At 0.5
mm slip mm slip
179
121
282
151
At
failure
292
162
At 0.13
mm •lip ~ mm
4 81
3.22
7 50
4.00
'I
AtO.S I
7 76
4 27
At
£•"""_
shows that, for a relatively smooth
surface, the maximum shear stress is
significantly lower than in the other
beams.
2 300
0 Present Test Results
0 4.~r~~rr~.+
, 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
J a n uaryFebruary 1994 59
0.1
(Rough Interface)
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.1 + Pv fy 15 + Pv fy
stress in MPa or stress in psi
fI f I
c c
not included. The linear equation by Mattock [Eq. (6)] shown and Hawkins 32 had also suggested that the concrete com
in the figure represents test results reasonably well for clamp pressive strength sets an upper limit for clamping stress.
ing stresses between 2 and 7.5 MPa (290 and 1090 psi). The test results indicate that an upper limit of vn = 0.25 fd
Eq. (4), the parabolic equation, is able to fit these data is a reasonable value. If Mast's limit for clamping stress of
points better. A value of k of 0.6 in Eq. (4) gives the closest 0.15 fdis used in Eq. (4), then the maximum limit for hori
fit for the data up to a clamping stress of about 7 MPa (1000 zontal shear strength becomes:
psi). The equation by Walraven et al. [Eq. (5)], yields al
most the same values as Eq. (4), but it lacks the simplicity max vn = 0.6~(0. 15/;)J; = 0.23J;
of the latter. The PCI equation is somewhat conservative for
this concrete strength. which matches the value suggested earlier. Mattock's upper
limit of 0.3fd may be unsafe (see Fig. 13). The horizontal
shear stress achieved in Beam 12 (Pv f y =7.72 MPa or 1120
GENERAL EQUATION FOR psi) was 8.04 MPa (1170 psi) at a slip of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.)
HORIZONTAL SHEAR STRENGTH and 9.2 MPa (1330 psi) at failure. However, it may be possi
ble to achieve higher strengths if splitting is prevented.
These limits seem desirable until tests can be carried out to
Upper Limit
determine whether this is merely a detailing problem.
In Fig. 13, the low shear strength for Beam 12, the beam
with the highest clamping stress, indicates the possible ne
cessity for retaining an upper limit for horizontal shear Horizontal Shear Strength Without Steel
strength. This limit may be necessary to prevent local crush Concrete Technology Associates 25 suggested a horizontal
ing of concrete, which was also observed in heavily rein shear strength of 2 MPa (290 psi) for composite concrete
forced pushoff specimens tested by Walraven and Rein beams with a "rough" interface without ties. However,
hardt.30 Hofbeck et al.," Cowan and Cruden,3' and Mattock Beam LRC3 with a concrete strength of 26.4 MPa (3830
60 PCI JOURNAL
0.5
c Mattock and Others c
c c
)( Paulay, et al. IJ
0.4
~ c
~ c
IJ c
IJ C
0.3 IJ
c
IJ
IJ
v Eq. 12
I'c
0.2
0.1
k =0.6
A= 1.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Fig. 15. Comparison of the suggested equation with results of uncracked pushoff tests (normal density).
+ Anderson + 0 0 0
0
++ o o B o0 o
0.3
+
+
X 09!~0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
+
0 ~9:1 Eq. l2
T'c O'ffi!+O
0.2 0
0~
+
+
+
0.1 k =0.5
A= 1.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.1 + Pv fy 15 + Pv fy
stress in MPa or stress in psi
fI fI
c c
Fig. 16. Comparison of the suggested equation with the results of cracked pushoff tests (normal density).
For routine designs, it is desirable to use a slightly lower Mattock and others in Figs. 15 and 16.
shear strength to allow for the possibility of smoother inter Fig. 15 shows a comparison of Eq. (12) with pushoff test
faces. Therefore, for composite construction, a factor of 0.5 results for uncracked normal density concrete. Fig. 16 was
for k is suggested. For monolithic construction, there is no similarly plotted for an initially cracked condition and for
joint at the shear interface. Therefore, the additional level of specimens fabricated with the two parts cast at different
safety to account for the possible variation in roughness is times. In both of these situations, Eq. (12) is a lower bound
not warranted and the value of k can be kept as 0.6. The fac for almost all the test results.
tor A. varies for lightweight concrete as indicated in Eq. (3). The test data dealing with the shear transfer strength of
lightweight concrete are limited. The applicability of Eq.
(12) to such cases was examined using the results of tests
Comparison With Pushoff Tests
conducted by Mattock et al. 20 Their test results are compared
Several sets of results of pushoff tests available from with Eq. (12) in Fig. 17. Even though Eq. (12) underesti
other studies are compared with the suggested general equa mates strength for the initially uncracked condition, it repre
tion. The results plotted in Figs. 15 to 17 are from the fol sents the test results reasonably well for a cracked condition.
lowing publications:
(a) Anderson's
COMPUTATION OF
(b) Hanson 3
HORIZONTAL SHEAR STRESS
(c) Hoefbeck, Ibrahim and Mattocks
(d) Mattock and Hawkins 32
(e) Paulay, Park and Phillips33 Horizontal Shear Stress by Equilibrium
(f) Mattock, Li and Wang 20 The average horizontal shear stress can be evaluated using
(g) Walraven, Frenay and Pruijssers'6 Eq. (8) if the stresses in the flange at two sections distant fv
The test results from Refs. 8, 20 and 32 are referred to as from each other are known . The difference between the
62 PCI JOU RN AL
0.8
c Sanded lightweight for Uncracked Condition
• Sanded lightweight for Cracked Condition
•
• 0 k = 0.5 and A.= 0.75
0 AllLightweight for Uncracked Condition • 0
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Fig. 17. Comparison of the suggested equation with the results of Mattock et al. (Ref. 20) for pushoff tests with
lightweight concrete.
fc = J:(l + B:: Cx n )
(13)
equation by Desayi and Krishnan is shown as a broken line
when C:: is assumed to be equal to 0.002. The dotdash line
represents the same equation using the actual ~ measured
where
on the test cylinders for Beams 10 to 16. The thick solid line
x = t: IC::: A, B, C and n are constants represents Eq. (13) .
but Interestingly, the Desayi and Krishnan equation with the
C = ll(n 1) and A= (1 + B +C) two different t:~ produced almost identical results. The
f c =stress in concrete at strain t: depths to the neutral axis changed slightly but this change
JanuaryFebruary 1994 63
40
Beam 10 ... "'
......
......... 5000
, ,,,'
,,,
30 ,
,,, 4000
I
,, .....
~ I <IJ
I 0..
0.. I
~
I
I v)
3000 <IJ
v)
<IJ
20 ~
.....
~ ......
.........  Curves from Tests Cl)
Cl)
10
 Eq. by Desayi and Krishnan with Actual Ec'
Eq. 13 1000
0 ~~,~,.~r~1 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Micro Strain
Fig. 18. Stressstrain curves from tests compared with theoretical cu rves (typical).
did not significantly alter the compressive force in the The results obtained using the equilibrium equation for
flanges . The two sets of results were within 2 percent of beams with uniform loads, which have a uniformly varying
each other. These results, in tum, were found to be within 2 Vu, can be quite different depending on the care taken in the
percent of the results computed using Eq. (7). analysis. The computed shear stress is correct for the point
The stressstrain data from cylinder tests were fitted using midway between the two sections used. For short distances
Eq. (13). The horizontal shear stresses calculated using this between sections, the equilibrium procedure shows the cor
equation were also found to be within 2 percent of the re rect variation of stress along the span. Unfortunately, the
sults obtained by Eq. (7). equilibrium method is often used carelessly. If the entire
distance from midspan to the end is used, the stress which is
Horizontal Shear Stresses by Approximate Method found is correct at the quarter point but is only half the peak
value expected at the end.
The approximate method of Eq. (9) underestimated the
·shear stresses by 10 to 15 percent as compared to the other
two methods. This is understandable since d in the denomi CONCLUSIONS
nator of this equation should actually be (d  f3c), which
1. Elastic analysis using cracked transformed section
could be approximated as 0.9d for many circumstances.
properties appears to be the simplest and most practical
method for estimating the horizontal shear stresses in com
Comparison of the Methods posite concrete beams at failure.
The elastic method and the equilibrium method predicted 2. The general equation suggested in this study [Eq. (12)]
the same horizontal shear stresses for the beams tested . represents the test results far better than previous shearfric
Since a designer may not have the required time and com tion equations. This equation is equally applicable to sanded
puter programs to conduct a detailed section by section anal lightweight concrete and alllightweight concrete. For a con
ysis, it will often be more convenient to use the elastic for crete strength exceeding about 30 MPa (4350 psi), Eq. (12)
mula. If a detailed analysis is to be carried out, either the will result in designs with less stirrup reinforcing than those
equation by Desayi and Krishnan or Eq. (13) may be used. obtained using the current ACI or PCI equations.
The horizontal shear stress determined using the approxi 3. Because an ascast concrete surface with coarse aggregate
mate formula [Eq. (9)] should be multiplied by 1.15 for a left protruding from the surface can develop sufficient horizon
quick estimate of the shear stresses. tal shear resistance, more elaborate finishing is not required.
64 PC I JOURNAL
4. Slip and stirrup stresses in the test beams were insignif edge of the supports.
icant until the beam attained a horizontal shear stress of 2. Compute horizontal shear stresses at failure using:
about 1.5 to 2 MPa (220 to 290 psi). Vuh = VuQc/(/ctbv)
5. Large slips and separation observed in the test beams at
failure support the shearfriction theory, but the use of the 3. Use Eq. (12) as a replacement for the four ACI equa
shearfriction theory with steel stresses of fy along with a tions being used for clamping stresses in the range from 0 to
limiting slip of 0.13 mm (0.005 in.) is inconsistent because 5.5 MPa (0 to 800 psi).
stirrups do not yield at such a small slip. 4. Limit horizontal shear stresses to 0.25 J; unless further
6. A slip of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) can be expected at factored research can verify that top flanges detailed as in Recom
loads if stirrups are provided as determined using Eq. (12). mendation 5 can support larger stresses.
Such a slip is likely to yield the stirrups if the yield strength 5. Provide transverse bottom reinforcement in the top
is less than about 440 MPa (64 ksi). flange unless there is sufficient transverse bending to ensure
7. The effectiveness of stirrups is improved when they are a lateral compression sufficient to prevent vertical cracking.
placed further from the center of the span, but stirrups in the 6. For precast concrete girders, use an ascast top surface
region near the supports are not effective. and a concrete mix designed so that, after vibration, coarse
8. The flange splitting observed in Beam 12 probably re aggregate is firmly imbedded but protrudes from the surface
sulted from the lack of horizontal reinforcing steel in the as illustrated in Fig. 5.
bottom of the flange. It is possible that this premature failure 7. Revise ACI 31892 and ACI 318M92 in accordance
has falsely indicated a lower shear strength than the true with the suggestions in Appendix B.
limit which could be reached in a properly detailed beam.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS The financial support provided by the Natural Sciences
1. Investigate horizontal shear stresses only between the and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully
points at a distance equal to the effective depth d from the acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein nections Between Precast Beams and CastinPlace Slabs,"
forced Concrete (ACI 318M92)," American Concrete Insti ACI Journal, V. 61, No. 11, November 1964, pp. 13831408.
tute, Detroit, Ml, 1992. Discussion, V. 62, No.6, June 1985, pp. 18071810.
2. ACIASCE Committee 333, "Tentative Recommendations for 10. Nosseir, S. B., and Murtha, R.N., "Ultimate Horizontal Shear
Design of Composite Beams and Girders for Building," ACI Strength of Prestressed Split Beams," Technical Report
Journal, V. 57, No. 12, December 1960, pp. 609628. NCELTR707, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port
3. Hanson, N. W., "PrecastPrestressed Concrete Bridges  2. Hueneme, CA, January 1971,43 pp. Available as AD717 352
Horizontal Shear Connections," Journal PCA Research and from National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Spring
Development Laboratories, V. 2, No.2, 1960, pp. 3858; also field, VA.
PCA Development Department Bulletin D35, 1960, 21 pp. II. Mattock, A. H., Johal, L., and Chow, H. C., "Shear Transfer in
4. Kaar, P. H., Kriz, L. B., and Hognestad, E., "PrecastPre Reinforced Concrete With Moment or Tension Across the
stressed Concrete Bridges  1. Pilot Tests of Continuous Shear Plane," PCI JOURNAL, V. 20, No. 4, JulyAugust
Girders," Journal PCA Research and Development Laborato 1975, pp. 7693.
ries, V. 2, No. 2, May 1960, pp. 2137; also PCA Develop 12. Raths, C. H., Reader Comments on "Design Proposals for
ment Department Bulletin D34, 1960, 17 pp. Reinforced Concrete Corbels" by Mattock, A. H., PCI
5. Birkeland, P. W., and Birkeland, H. W., "Connections in Pre JOURNAL, V. 22, No.2, MarchApril1977, pp. 9398.
cast Concrete Construction," ACI Journal, V. 63, No. 3, 13. Loov, R. E., "Design of Precast Connections," Paper pre
March 1966, pp. 345367. sented at a seminar organized by Compa International Pte,
6. Mast, R. F, "Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Connections," Ltd., September 2527, 1978, Singapore, 8 pp.
ASCE Journal, V. 94, No. ST6, June 1968, pp. 14851504. 14. Shaikh, A. F., "Proposed Revisions to ShearFriction Provi
7. Kriz, L. B., and Raths, C. H., "Connections in Precast sions," PCI JOURNAL, V. 23, No. 2, MarchApril 1978,
Concrete Structures  Strength of Corbels," PCI JOURNAL, pp. 1221.
V. 10, No. I, February 1965, pp. 1661. 15. PC/ Design Handbook Precast and Prestressed Concrete,
8. Hofbeck, J. A., Ibrahim, I. 0., and Mattock, A. H., "Shear Fourth Edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute,
Transfer in Reinforced Concrete," ACI Journal, V. 66, No. 2, Chicago, IL, 1992, 528 pp.
February 1969, pp. 119128. 16. Walraven, J., Frenay, J., and Pruijssers, A., "Influence of Con
9. Saemann, J. C., and Washa, G. W., "Horizontal Shear Con crete Strength and Load History on the Shear Friction Capac
JanuaryFebruary 1994 65
ity of Concrete Members," PCI JOURNAL, V. 32, No. 1, 26. CAN3A23.3M84, 1984, "Design of Concrete Structures
JanuaryFebruary 1987, pp. 6684. Reader Comments, V. 33, for Buildings," Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale,
No. 1, JanuaryFebruary 1988, pp. 166168. Ontario, Canada.
17. Patnaik, A. K., "Horizontal Shear Strength of Composite Con 27. Mattock, A. H., "Anchorage of Stirrups in a Thin Castin
crete Beams With a Rough Interface," Ph.D. Thesis, Depart Place Topping," PCI JOURNAL, V. 32, No.6, November
ment of Civil Engineering, The University of Calgary, Cal December 1987, pp. 7085.
gary, Alberta, Canada, December 1992. 28. Johnson, R. P., Van Dalen, K., and Kemp, A. R., "Ultimate
18. Anderson, A. R., "Composite Designs in Precast and Castin Strength of Continuous Composite Beams," Structural Steel
Place Concrete," Progressive Architecture, V. 41, No. 9, Work: Research and Development, Conference of the British
September 1960, pp. 172179. Constructional Steelwork Association, September 1966, 9 pp.
19. Mattock, A. H., "Shear Transfer in Concrete Having Rein 29. Walraven, J. C., "Combining Precast and CastinSitu Con
forcement at an Angle to the Shear Plane," Shear in Rein crete," Progress in Concrete Research Annual Report1991,
forced Concrete, ACI Special Publication SP42, V. 1, Amer V. 2, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engi
ican Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1974, pp. 1742. neering, Delft, The Netherlands, 1991, pp. 101111.
20. Mattock, A. H., Li, W. K., and Wang, T. C., "Shear Transfer 30. Walraven, J. C., and Reinhardt, H. W., "Theory and Experi
in Lightweight Reinforced Concrete," PCI JOURNAL, V. 21, ments on the Mechanical Behaviour of Cracks in Plain and
No. 1, JanuaryFebruary 1976, pp. 2039. Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Shear Loading," Heron,
21. Grossfield, B., and Birnstiel, C., "Tests ofT Beams With Pre V. 26, No. lA, 1981.
cast Webs and CastinPlace Flanges," ACI Journal, V. 59, 31. Cowan, J., and Cruden, A. F., "Second Thoughts on Shear
No.6, June 1962, pp. 843851. Friction," Concrete, V. 9, No.8, August 1975, pp. 3132.
22. Mattock, A. H., and Kaar, P. H., "PrecastPrestressed Con 32. Mattock, A. H., and Hawkins, N. M., "Shear Transfer in Rein
crete Bridges  4. Shear Tests of Continuous Girders," forced Concrete  Recent Research," PCI JOURNAL,
Journal PCA Research and Development Laboratories, V. 3, V. 17, No.2, MarchAprill972, pp. 5575.
No. 1, January 1961, pp. 1946, also PCA Development 33. Paulay, T., Park, R., and Phillips, M. H., "Horizontal Con
Department Bulletin D45, 1961, 29 pp. struction Joints in CastinPlace Reinforced Concrete," Shear
23. Evans, R. H, and Chung, H. W., "Horizontal Shear Failure in Reinforced Concrete, ACI Special Publication SP42, V. 2,
of Prestressed Concrete TBeams With CastinSitu Light American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1974, pp. 599616.
weight Concrete Deck," Concrete, V. 3, No. 4, April 1969, 34. Desayi, P., and Krishnan, S., "Equation for the StressStrain
pp. 124126. Curve of Concrete," ACI Journal, V. 61, No.3, March 1964,
24. Hsu, T. T. C. "Horizontal Shear Tests of PSI Prestressed pp. 345350.
Composite Beams," Report to Prestressed Systems Inc., 35. Loov, R. E., "A General StressStrain Curve for Concrete 
August 1976. Implications for High Strength Concrete Columns," Proceed
25. CTA 76B4, "Composite Systems Without Ties," Technical ings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for
Bulletin 76B4, Concrete Technology Associates, Tacoma, Civil Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada,
WA, Aprill976. V. II, May 1991, pp. 302311.
Note: Discussion of this paper is invited. Comments must be confined to the scope of the
article. The deadline for receipt of discussion comments is June 1, 1994.
66 PCI JOURNAL
APPENDIX A  NOTATION
a = depth of equivalent rectangular stress block n = constant in Loov's concrete stressstrain equation
A =constant in Loov's concrete stressstrain equation Q = first moment of area of portion above level under
=l+B+C consideration with respect to neutral axis of section
Avf = area of reinforcement crossing the interface within Qcr = Q for cracked transformed section
a distances s = longitudinal spacing of stirrups
B =constant in Loov's concrete stressstrain equation V = shear force at section
bv = width of cross section at contact surface v = shear stress
c = depth to neutral axis vh = horizontal shear stress
C = total compressive force in flange of beam vn =nominal shear strength
C = constant in Loov's concrete stressstrain equation Vna= ultimate shear strength of an interface without
=1/(n1) stirrups
C 1,C2 = constants in equation by Walraven et al. in MPa Vu = factored shear force at section
C3,C4 = constants in equation by Walraven et al. in psi vuh= factored horizontal shear stress
d = effective depth x = ratio of t: and t;:
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete a = stress intensity coefficient
fc = stress in concrete at strain £ {3 = location of the resultant coefficient
f: = compressive strength of weaker of flange or web
t: =strain
concrete
f Y = specified yield strength of reinforcement
t;: = strain in concrete corresponding to peak stress f:
A, = correction factor related to concrete density
I = moment of inertia of entire cross section
J1 = coefficient of friction
Jet = moment of inertia of cracked transformed section
Jle = equivalent coefficient of friction in PCI equation
k = constant in parabolic equation
Pv = steel ratio = Avf lbvS
kd = depth to neutral axis in elastic analysis
£, =length of interface effective in transferring Pvfy = reinforcement index or reinforcement parameter
horizontal shear an = externally applied normal stress
M = bending moment at location under consideration cf> = capacity reduction factor
JanuaryFebruary 1994 67
APPENDIX 8  SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO ACI CODE
Section 11.1 and Section 17.5 of ACI 318M92 deal with (b) 11 = 0. 7 A for concrete anchored to asrolled structural
design requirements for shear transfer and horizontal shear steel, which is clean and free of paint, by headed
in composite concrete beams. studs or by reinforcing bars
11.0 Added Notation: 11.7.5.2  When shearfriction reinforcement is inclined
k = factor in shearfriction equations to the shear plane, such that the shear force produces tension
Pv = AvtfAc is ratio of area of reinforcing steel crossing in shearfriction reinforcement, shear strength vn shall be
shear interface to area of shear interface computed by:
11.7 ShearFriction
(1127b)
11.7.1 to 11.7.3 No changes
11.7.4 Shearfriction design method for rough surfaces 11.7.5.3  Shear strength Vn shall not be taken greater
Clauses 11. 7.4.1 to 11.7 .4.3 apply when concrete is than 0.2 fd Ac nor 800 Ac in pounds, where Ac is area of con
placed monolithically or when concrete is placed against a crete section resisting shear transfer.
rough hardened concrete surface which is clean and free of 11.7.6 to 11.7.8 No changes
laitance with the coarse aggregate protruding but firmly 11.7.9 11.7.10 Delete
fixed in the matrix.
11.7.4.1  When shearfriction reinforcement is perpen
dicular to the shear plane, shear strength vn shall be com CHAPTER 17 COMPOSITE CONCRETE
puted by: FLEXURAL MEMBERS
(1126a) Added Notation
68 PCI JOURNAL
17.5.2.3 For bottom supported members, horizontal tal shear strength vnh shall not be taken greater than 80 psi.
shear stresses need be investigated only between points at a When the factored horizontal shear stress vuh at the sec
distance equal to the effective depth d from the edge of the tion being considered exceeds 80 psi, design for horizontal
supports of the beam. Stirrups in the end zone shall be at the shear shall be in accordance with Clause 11.7.5.
same spacing as that required at distance d. 17.5.3.3 Same as current Clause 17.5.4 (except revise
17 .5.3  Horizontal shear strength 17.6 to 17.5.4)
Members shall be designed so that l/J vnh ~ Vuh where Vuh is 17.5.4 Ties for horizontal shear
factored horizontal shear stress at section considered and vnh 17.5.4.1 to 17.5.4.3 Same as current Clauses 17.6.1 to
is nominal horizontal shear strength in accordance with the 17.6.3
following provisions.
17.5.3.1 When no ties are provided but contact surfaces
are clean, free of laitance and rough, the nominal horizontal CONVERSION TO Sl UNITS
m.
shear strength vnh shall not be greater than 1. 8A.
J; is the specified compressive strength of the concrete Section 11.7.4.1 and 11.7.4.2 "15" becomes "0.1" in Eq.
(1126).
with the lowest strength adjacent to the interface.
When the factored horizontal shear stress vuh at the sec Section 11.7.4.3 "1150 Ac in pounds" becomes "8 Ac in
tion being considered exceeds 1.8¢A{7!, design for hori newtons" where Ac is in mrn2•
zontal shear shall be in accordance with Clause 11.7 .4. Section 11.7.5.3 "0.2 J;Ac nor 800 Ac in pounds" be
17.5.3.2 When minimum ties are provided in accor comes "0.2 J;Ac nor 5.5 Ac in newtons."
dance with Clause 17 .5.4 and contact surfaces are clean and Section 17.5.3.1 "1.8,1,{11" becomes "0.15kvf;."
free of laitance, but not rough (see Clause 11.7.4), horizon Section 17.5.3.2 "80 psi" becomes "0.6 MPa."
JanuaryFebruary 1994 69