Influence of Concrete Strength

and Load History on the

Shear Friction Capacity
of Concrete Members

Joost Wairaven
Professor of Structural
Engineering
Jerome Frenay
Research Engineer
Delft University of
#4
Arjan Pruijssers
Research Engineer
Delft University of
Darmstadt University of Technology Technology
Technology The Netherlands The Netherlands
West Germany

T hemethod
shear friction analogy is a design
which is familiar to most
engineers in practice. r- rr It is a valuable
and simple tool which can be used to
estimate the maximum shear force
transmitted across a cracked plane in a
reinforced concrete member. The cracks
considered may be caused by load ef-
fects, but also by a variety of other rea-
sons such as tensile forces due to re-
strained shrinkage or temperature de-
formations, or by accidental dropping.
The shear friction method is used in
the design of precast concrete structural
connections for estimating the shear
capacity of interfaces between precast
members and cast-in-place concrete and
for calculating the residual shear capac-
ity of cross sections which are weakened
by cracking. Well known is the applica-
tion for the design of short corbels
wherein a control of the interface
stresses is necessary to prevent a possi-
ble shear failure (see Fig. 1).
The role of shear friction in the design
of corbels was treated by Mattock.tO
Similarly, the principles concerning
interface shear capacity can also be

66
applied to many other structural systems
such as shear walls in caissons, which
form the frame of a concrete marine
platform (see Fig. 2). 12 In this type of
structure severe loading conditions may
occur due to the existence of so-called
"hard points" in the sea bed. A simpli-
fied loading configuration, as shown in
Fig. 3, can be considered to be a reason-
able approximation of these conditions.
An accurate determination of the
interface shear capacity at the junction
between the shear walls of such caissons
is difficult to predict principally because
the concrete in the structure is of very
high quality. For example, cylinder
compressive strengths (f^) of 7,000 to
10,000 psi (50 to 70 Nlmm 2 ) are common
practice. f3 However, the existing shear
friction equations are based on tests
conducted on concrete elements with
only moderate strengths as encountered
within the traditional building industry.
In order to obtain a better under-
standing of the behavior of shear walls
using high strength concrete, a compre-
hensive research program was con-
ducted at the Delft University of Tech-
nology. The research focused on the be-
havior of cracks in high strength con-
crete subject to static, dynamic and sus-
tained shear loading. Part of the program
involved shear friction tests. Since these
results significantly extend the range of
experimental data, it seemed appropri-
ate the study should reevaluate the va-
lidity of the existing shear strength
equations.
STATE OF THE ART ON
SHEAR FRICTION METHOD
The first articles on the shear friction
analogy were published by Birkeland'
and Mast2 in the late sixties. Since then,
numerous papers and discussions on the
subject have appeared in the litera-
ture. 3-' 6 In practice, the shear friction
method has been modified" and, cur-
rently, its provisions appear in various
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1987
Synopsis
Based on existing test data and the
results of recent experiments con-
ducted at the Delft University of Tech-
nology, the authors propose new
shear friction equations for determin-
ing the shear capacity at the cracked
interface of reinforced concrete mem-
bers.
The new formulas take into con-
sideration the influence of concrete
strength as a basic parameter. To
facilitate the calculations, a design
chart (which takes into account the
effect of high strength concrete) is in-
cluded.
Design examples compare the re-
sults of the proposed method with the
PCI Design Handbook.
Lastly, the influence of previous
load cycles on the shear capacity of
cracked concrete members is studied.
forms in the ACI Building Code,' 7 the
PCI Design Handbook- and the recent
"Proposed Design Requirements for
Precast Concrete. 'lS
The shear friction mechanism exists
by virtue of the roughness of the crack
interfaces. Because of this unevenness,
a type of wedging action develops in the
crack if the opposite sides are subjected
to a shear force (see Fig. 4). Therefore,
the crack faces not only move in the di-
rection parallel to, but also in the direc-
tion perpendicular to the crack plane.
As a consequence of this dilatation of
the crack, the reinforcement crossing
the crack is stressed and clamps both
parts together. The maximum capacity
of this mechanism is reached when the
reinforcement starts yielding. Hence, at
first sight, the most logical formulation
of the interface shear capacity is:
V, = Atrf„ tan a (1)
Dividing throughout by the area ofthe
67
 Fig. 1. Corbel column interface controlled by shear (Ref. 10).
shear plane, the relationship can be ex- recommends the value v, to be limited
pressed in terms of stress: by:
v u = p,f,, tan a (2)
where a is the inclination of the con-
crete surface. The value of tana de-
pends on the type of concrete: for nor-
mal concrete, the PCI Design Hand-
book t8 recommends a value tan a = 1.4.
In principal, it does not matter
whether the clamping force is provided
by the reinforcement or by an external
force. Therefore, Eq. (2) can be gener-
alized to:
v„ = (p„f i, + ex„) tan a (3)
where Q„ is the externally applied comn-
pressive stress perpendicular to the
crack.
For high values of (p t,f,, + cr„ ), the
clamping action is so tight, that failure
does not occur in the crack itself, but in
the concrete adjacent to it. In laboratory
tests this type of failure is initiated by
the formation of short cracks inclined to
the main crack. 4 For normal aggregate
concrete, the PCI Design Handbook
68
v< 0.3 fc (4)
Mattock s s found, however, that the
combination of Eqs. (3) and (4) is rather
conservative for low values of
Therefore, he proposed using a mod-
ified shear friction method which in-
cluded a cohesion term:
v,, = 400 + 0.8 (p„f„ + rra ) (psi) (5a)
or
c„=2.8+0.8(pLf„ +rrn)(Nlmm2)
(5b)
From a physical viewpoint, Eq. (5)
corresponds to a crack model according
to Fig. 5, where the crack faces are char-
acterized by a general roughness and a
local roughness. The cohesion term re-
flects the shearing off of local asperities
at the crack faces.
Eq. (5) corresponds to a mean line
through the test data obtained in shear
transfer tests of reinforced concrete
having a crack in the shear plane before
 Fig. 2. Offshore foundation caisson showing interconnected cells
(Ref. 12).

Fig. 3. Critical loading in section of offshore foundation caisson

(Ref. 12).

shear was applied. Mattock showed
further that moments on the shear plane,
less than or equal to the flexural ulti-
mate moment of the shear plane, do not
reduce the shear transfer strength.R
The use of Eq. (5), suitably modified
by the inclusion of the capacity reduc-
tion factor 0, leads to a safe and more
economic design than the original shear
friction expression, i.e., Eq. (2).10

PCI JOURNALIJanuary-February 1987 69

 Fig. 4. Shear friction mechnism showing behavior
at crack dilatation.

general roughness local roughness

Fig. 5. General and local roughness of a crack face.

NEEDED RESEARCH are transferred, By integrating all local

An analysis of the behavior of cracks
under static shear loading has shown
20 • 21
that the shear friction mechanism signif-
stresses at all contact areas, the relation
between the crack movements and the
forces, corresponding to these move-
ments, is found, 20

icantly differs from that suggested by
Figs. 4 and 5.
It has been shown that in reality the
transmission of forces across a crack
takes place at numerous contact areas
between the aggregate particles, em-
bedded in the crack faces, and the ma-
trix on the opposite face of the crack. The
mechanism, occurring at those contact
areas, is shown in Fig. 6.
Under the action of the shear and
normal (clamping) force, the matrix lo-
cally deforms. At the contact areas both
normal stresses Q,, and shear stresses r,.
According to this model, the matrix
strength should play an important role
in developing shear capacity. Because
the concrete quality depends on the
matrix strength, it seems logical that a
concrete quality related value, such as
the cylinder crushing strength, should
be included in the expression for shear
friction resistance.
The fact that concrete strength does
not appear to influence the outcome of
Eqs. (3) and (5) is explained by the con-
dition that the concrete strength of the
test specimens (from which the equa-

70
tions were derived) varied between nar-
row limits, i.e., nearly all the strength
values lay between 2900 and 4300 psi
(20 to 30 N/mm 2). Therefore, a possible
effect of the concrete strength is over-
ruled by the natural scatter of the exper-
imental results. It would, however, not
be surprising if tests over a wide range
of concrete quality would display
strength dependent tendencies.
Another aspect that needs consider-
ation is the fact that cracks in practical
situations may be subjected to load vari-
ations and sustained loading. It might
be questioned whether expressions for
the shear friction capacity, derived from
tests on monotonically loaded speci-
mens, also apply under those circum-
stances.
Recently, comprehensive tests were
conducted in the Netherlands dealing
with the issues discussed above,
namely, the effect of concrete strength
and load history on the shear friction
equations. When combined with exist-
ing data, these tests offer a broad range
of parameter variation, enabling a new
overall analysis of the subject. In the
following section, the existing data and
new results will be discussed.
EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS
The experimental results used in this
analysis were taken from four
sources. 3•' 5,2122 The detailed results are
presented in Tables 1 through 4. The
ratio of the concrete cylinder strength
(ff) to the cube strength if) is assumed
to be 0.85.
From Ref. 3, results of shear tests on
precracked push-off specimens are
available. The cylinder strength varied
between 2400 and 4400 psi (17 and 31
N/mm 2), whereas p, f„ varied between 50
and 1460 psi (0.35 and 10.24 N/mm2),
and f, was 50 or 66 ksi (350 or 464
N/mm 2). The bar diameter of the stirrups
perpendicularly crossing the crack
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1987
1G^Z
`C a c
0
Fig. 6. Transmission of forces
between crack faces.
plane was between 0.37 and 0.63 in. (9.5
and 15.9 mm). The concrete was made
from Type III portland cement and Ira in.
(22 mm) maximum size river gravel ag-
gre gate.
The first series of tests on reinforced
push-off specimens conducted at Delft,
comprised 31 results. 21 The cylinder
strength varied between 2400 and 6850
psi (17 and 48 N/mm 2). The concrete was
composed of glacial river aggregates
(Fuller grading curve and Type B port-
land cement). The maximum particle di-
ameter was 0.63 or 1.32 in. (16 or 32
mm). The value of p„fu ranged between
160 and 2170 psi (1.1 and 15.2 N/m►nz)
andf„was 66 ksi (460 N/mm2).
The tests were carried out on push-off
specimens (see Fig. 7) with a precracked
shear area of 4.7 x 11.8 in. (120 x 300
mm), perpendicularly crossed by stir-
nips having a bar diameter of 0.31 or
0.63 in. (8 or 16 mm). The experimental
results are summarized in Table 2.
Recently a new series of tests were
carried out by Pruijssers 22 and Fre nay's
using repeated and long-term shear
loads on push-off specimens similar to
those used by Walraven 2l (see Tables 3
and 4). In these tests the shear plane was
perpendicularly crossed by 0.31 in. (8
mm) diameter embedded reinforcing
bars. For these shear loading tests two
concrete grades were chosen, with cyl-
inder strengths of 6150 and 8550 psi (43
and 60 Nlmm 2 ), respectively. The con-
71
crete contained Type B portland cement
with a density of 20 or 26 lb per cu ft
(325 or 420 kg/ma) corresponding to a
water-cement ratio by weight of 0,50 or
0.38, respectively.
Glacial river aggregates (Fuller grad-
ing curve) with a maximum particle size
of 0.63 in. (16 min) diameter were used.
The Walz compaction factor was be-
tween 1.10 and 1.15. The value of ptifw of

250

prestressing
duct ---
0

II 014
— ! -

III o O°

n ^

}
200 200
4.
dimensions in mm

Fig. 7. Test specimen used in Refs. 15, 21 and 22.

72
 Table 1, Ultimate shear stress values of static push-off
experiments. Results obtained by Mattock (Ref. 3).

(1) (2)
Specimen p, f, f"C* u v az, rh i1)/(2)
No. [Nlmm2] [N/mm'1 ] [N/mm 2 ] [N/mnm 2 ] I-]
2.1 1.57 25.60 4.15 3.71 1.12
2.2 3.14 25.60 4.78 4.98 0.96
2.3 4.72 32.40 5.91 6.83 0.87
2.4 6.28 32.40 7.03 7.78 0.90
2.5 7.88 34.60 9.15 9.03 1.01
2.6 9.43 34.60 9.75 9.81 0.99

3.1 0.35 33.40 1.69 2,11 0.80

3.2 1.57 33.20 3.66 4.19 0.87
3.3 3.14 25.60 4.78 4.98 0.96
3.4 5.21 33.40 7.23 7.28 0.99
3.5 7.32 35.40 8.11 8.51 0.95

4.1 2.06 33,60 4.95 4.77 1.04

4.2 4.10 33.60 6.89 6.55 1.05
4.3 6.15 35.90 8.30 8.24 1.01
4.4 8.19 35.90 9.85 9.43 1.04
4.5 10.24 28.10 9.28 8.77 1.06

5.1 1.57 20.20 3.59 3.32 1.08

5.2 3.14 21.60 4.92 4.53 1.09
5.3 4.72 19.80 5.70 5.07 1.12
5.4 6.28 21.40 5.59 5.96 0.94
5.5 7.88 21.60 7.10 6.56 1.08

*Recalculated from cylinder strength usingf ', = O.85f.

Note: I Nlmm I = 145 psi.

the reinforcement ranged between 736
and 1760 psi (5.15 and 12.32 N/mm2).
Two steel grades were used with f0 = 66
and 79 ksi (460 and 550 N/mm 2). The
specimens were precracked before
testing. The range of the initial crack
width was between 0.0004 and 0.0040
in. (0.01 and 0.10 mm). All the tests
started at a concrete age of 28 days.
In the repeated loading tests, 22 the
number of cycles varied between
193,725 and 769,400. The repeated
shear loading was characterized by a
sinusoidal wave of 60 cycles per minute
alternating between zero and values
varying between 46 and 66 percent of
the static ultimate load. After these
series of cycles the specimens were un-
loaded and pushed-off in a static test (13
specimens).
In addition, twenty sustained loading
tests were carried out, 15 the shear stress
level of which varied between 40 and 82
percent of the static ultimate load. The
duration of preloading was t,,,,,,x days.
Periodically, the displacements parallel
and perpendicular to the crack plane
were measured. Next, the loading was
removed and the specimens were
pushed-off statically at an age t, (see Fig.
8). The preloading age t ma,,, varied be-
tween 76 and 273 days while the static
push-off age t, varied between 160 and
407 days.
Tables 2 through 4 present the de-
tailed data on the push-off specimens.

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1987 73

 Table 2. Ultimate shear stress values of static push-off
experiments. Results obtained by Walraven (Ref. 21) and
Pruijssers (Ref. 22).`

(1) (2)
Specimen pi, fr, V.. a:n vm. tk (1)1(2)
No. IN/mmx] [Nlmm x 1 [Nlmm 2 ] [N/mm2 ] [-]
110208t 2.43 35.90 5.08 5.33 0.95
110208 2.43 30.70 5.50 4.91 1.12
110208g 2.43 29.40 5.08 4.80 1.06
110408 4.86 30.70 6.44 6.69 0.96
I10608 7.29 30.70 7.39 8.03 0.92
110808h 9.72 29.40 8.39 8.85 0.95
110808hg 9.72 29.40 8.58 8.85 0.97
110706 5.58 31.70 7.19 7.27 0.99
210204 1.06 36.60 3.22 3.64 0.88
210608 7.29 36.60 9.72 9.05 1.07
210216 10.12 36.60 9.25 10.57 0.88
210316 15.17 36.60 10.11 12.79 0.79
210808h 9.72 25.20 7.97 7.94 1.00
120208 2.43 29.50 5.36 4.81 1.11
120408 4.86 29.50 6.53 6.53 1.00
120608 7.29 29.50 6.78 7.81 0.87
120808 9,72 29.50 7.31 8.87 0.82
120706 5.58 29.20 6.92 6.90 1.00
120216 10.12 29.20 6.53 8.97 0.73
230208 2.43 56.10 6.72 6.79 0.99
230408 4.87 56.10 I0.83 9.85 1.10
230608 7.29 56.10 12.56 12.25 1.03
230808 9.72 56.10 14.19 14.30 0.99
240208 2.43 19.90 4.65 3.92 1.19
240408 4.86 19.90 6.04 5.15 1.17
240608 7.29 19.90 6.55 6.03 1.09
240808 9.72 19.90 6.29 6.76 0.93
250208 2.43 38.20 6.83 5.51 1.24
250408 4.86 38.20 8.69 7.68 1.13
250608 7.29 38.20 9.65 9.32 1.04
250808 9.72 38.20 9.94 10.70 0.93
15t 7.73 52.08 10.92 12.01 0.91
16t 7.73 52.16 10.93 12.02 0.91
48t 9.24 45.10 10.20 11.80 0.86

`Recalculated frrnn cylinder strength usingf, = 0.85 f^.

tt. = 92 to 95 days.
Note: 1 Ni & = 145 psi.

74
 Table 3. Ultimate shear stress values of push-off specimens previously
subjected to repeated shear loading (Ref, 22).

Spec- (1) (2)

imen v/v. Nmt to f (t
. n) v. ern V 4. rh (1)1(2)
Pu.fev
No. [Nlmm 2 ] [-1 (cycles] [days] [N/mm' ] [Nlmm z 1 [N/mm2 ] [-]

23 5.15 0.61 455000 31 54.47 10.17 10.00 1.02

33 5.15 0.63 263337 42 50.20 10.10 9.47 1.07
51 6.16 0,64 346630 31 54.30 11.77 10.97 1.07
71 6.16 0.66 589380 28 50.99 12.44 10.50 1.19
25 7.73 0.51 769400 35 51.37 12.10 11.89 1.02
24 7.73 0.58 193725 30 50.40 11.21 11.73 0,96
18 7.73 0.61 478400 22 51.30 12.30 11.88 1.04
42 7.73 0.62 410000 30 57.30 12.48 12.89 0.97

29 5.15 0.60 512660 43 69.46 10.60 11.74 0.90

62 6,16 0.61 345925 38 75.34 12.66 13.89 0.91
26 7.73 0.46 550000 39 70.70 13.50 15.11 0.89
41 7.73 0.52 290000 32 71.68 14.27 15.26 0.94
40 7.73 0.56 325832 35 75,10 15.99 15.81 1.01

Table 4. Ultimate shear stress values of push-off specimens previously

subjected to sustained shear loading (Ref. 15).

Spec- (1) (2)

imerl pr fry vlt, t,,, to frc(to) vu. erp vr. en (1)/(2)
No. [N/mm 2 1 [-] [ days ] [days] [N/mm 2 ] [N/mm 2 [ [N/mm a ] 1-1
2 5.15 0.77 76 182 54.76 11.15 10.00 1.12
3 6.16 0.70 273 367 54.54 14.85 10.97 1.35
4 5.15 0.70 150 407 54.61 13.52 10.98 1.23
6 6.16 0.82 76 184 54.76 10.27 10.00 1.03
7 7.73 0.74 267 332 57.20 14.77 11.34 1.30
9 7.73 0.40 83 196 65.25 14.04 14.18 0.99
10 7.73 0.65 91 205 61.38 13.14 13.54 0.97
11 7.73 0.65 91 205 61.38 12.80 13.54 0.95
12 12.32 0.55 239 381 61.29 18.45 17.46 1.06

13 5.15 0.71 90 160 76.55 11.71 12.58 0.93

14 5.15 0.71 90 166 76.60 12.25 12.58 0.97
15 6.16 0.68 266 337 80.32 16.44 14.48 1.14
16 6.16 0.67 116 274 80.16 12,23 14.46 0.85
17 5.15 0.75 87 226 74.17 12.09 12.30 0.98
19 5.15 0.80 87 226 74.17 10.76 12.30 0,84
20 7.73 0.51 87 213 80.16 16.35 16.57 0.99
21 7.73 0.51 87 213 80.16 16.08 16.57 0.97
22 7.73 0.64 112 276 74,83 15.67 15.71 1.00
23 7.73 0.64 112 277 74,83 15.04 15.71 0.96
24 12.32 0.51 165 234 79.64 22.04 21.78 1.01

PCi JOURNAL/January-February 1987 75

 shear stress [N/mm2] shear stress [ N/mm 2 ]
vu vU------------

28 28
max to tmax to
age [days] age (days]

Fig. 8. Schematic view of testing sequence of push-off specimens preloaded by a

repeated load (Ref. 22) or by a sustained shear load (Ref. 15).

Table 5. Ratio of measured and ultimate Tu, th = C1 (Frfy ) c2 (N/mm 2) (6a)

shear stress values.
or
Number Standard = C 3 (0.007 p 1..f ) c4 (psi) (6b)
Refer- of Mean deviation, where for N/mm2.
ence specimens Y
C I = 0.822 fe0405
3,21 55 0.991 0.105 C E = 0,159.f 1 .3o3
15 20 1.032 0.135 and for psi:
22 13 0.999 0.084 Cs = 15.686 ffr°. ° s
C 4 = 0.0353 fccU.30
All tests 88 1.001 0.109
where
f", = concrete compressive strength of
5.9 in. (150 mm) cubes
J, =0.85f
EVALUATION OF Next, an overall comparison was made
EXISTING DATA between the experimental anti the the-
oretical values of v, according to Eq. (6).
Altogether, 88 push-off tests were For all the tests, including the speci-
evaluated statistically. Tables 1 through mens preloaded by either a repeated or
4 give the detailed results. Because a sustained shear load, the ratios of
theoretical considerations led to the ex- x = U,, e ^,, /v„ mare presented in Tables 1
pectation that the concrete strength through 4. Mean values of x and its stan-
should play a significant role in the dard deviations are given in Table 5.
analysis, special attention was given to For the total number of 88 experi-
ments, it is shown that x = 1.001 with a
this parameter. Since for most test data coefficient of variation of sf = 0.109.
only the cube compressive strength of Hence, a 5 percent lower bound expres-
the concrete f was available, this value sion is obtained with:
was chosen as the basis in evaluating the
data. = 0.82 v ,,,th (7)
Initially, only the 55 static tests were Despite the excellent precision of Eq.
considered. The analysis showed that (6), the formulas (due to their complex-
the following equation gave the best ity) are not directly usable in design
prediction of the experimental shear practice. To overcome this deficiency, a
friction capacity: design chart based on Eq. (6) has been

76


DESIGN CHART

V„!bd

[Ntmm 2 1 psi]

2200
15

14 2000

600 800 1000 1200 14uu 1Ju

V v0 200 400

6 7 8 9 10 11
0 1 2 3 4 5
[Nlmm2]

Fig. 9. Design chart for determining shear friction capacity by taking into account the
compressive strength of concrete.

PCI JOURNALJanuary-February 1997 77

 Vu,expl'u,th

2,8
o Stati( {3 }
• Static {21 1 •
24 q repented {22}
• sustained {i5} • •
0 ■ ■

2,0 0 ■
0•
• ■•

1,6 0000. •■
r

p
• 0 q
O 0*°°•M 00 :1.. •
12 Q
• 0
1,0

0,8

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 f' (psiI

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 f' [NImmzl

Fig. 10. Comparison between experimental shear stress vu,e=, and values calculated by
shear friction method [PCI Design Handbook, Eq. (8) J.

prepared (see Fig. 9). Using this chart, The values of v. = VIbd, according to
the required amount of shear reinforce- this formula, are compared with the ex-
ment can be read directly. By virtue of perimental values in Fig. 10. It can be
the choice of Eq. (7), an appropriate ca- seen that this expression is a safe lower
pacity reduction factor 0 is already in- bound, but the scatter is large. There is a
corporated in the chart,
tendency towards increased conserva-

COMPARISON WITH
tism for high strength concrete. The
same istrue f or1 ow va1 tic;,of p,; r, (
no f
reflected in Fig. 10).
EXISTING EQUATIONS The modified shear friction equation
is:
The accuracy of the proposed design
chart is compared with the shear friction
equation given in the PCI Design d – 0 . 8 Pr.fv + 400 < 0.3 ff (psi)
Handbook and the modified shear fric- (9a)
tion equation proposed by Mattock.
or
The PCI Design Handbook equation
for normal weight concrete is:
= 0.8 p„f„+ 2.8 <0.3 (NJmm2) d f
v " = 1.4 P,,f, < 0.30f^ (9b)
4bd (8)
where = 0.85 and p,fz,>200psi
where 4) = 0.85. (1.4 N/mm2).

78
 Vyexp/Vu,th

26 static {31
•static {21}
q repeated122)
• sustainedlt5] VA
2,2 ■

n q n •
1,8 q q^ 4 q^
•
•
• o o • qo
1,4 0 $

• o o 'er:
Op CX] •
1,0

0,8

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 f [psil

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 f,'[Nlmm2]

Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental shear stress v, ,g,, and values calculated by
modified shear friction method [ Mattock, Eq. (9)1.

The comparison with the experimen-
tal data is shown in Fig. 11. For concrete
strengths up to fc = 5000 psi (35 Nlmm2),
a good lower bound with low scatter is
obtained. With increasing concrete
strength, however, more conservatism is
observed.
The comparison of the values, ob-
tained using the design chart (Fig. 9),
with the experimental values, is shown
in Fig. 12. Over the whole range of val-
ues 50 < p,, f , < 2167 psi and 2416 < ff <
11474 psi (0.35 < p,,f„ < 15.17 N /mm2
and 17 <f < 68 N/mm 2) very good
agreement with low scatter is ob-
tained.
As shown in Fig. 6, the mechanism of
shear transfer across cracks depends
predominantly upon the interaction
between aggregate particles and the
concrete matrix at the opposing faces of
the crack. It is, therefore, essential that
the major part of the particles does not
break through. An inspection of the
crack faces after precracking showed
that the percentage of broken particles in
the tests considered was always lower
than 30 percent.
INFLUENCE OF
LOAD HISTORY
It appeared from the tests that neither
previous repeated loading nor previous
sustained loading influenced the shear
friction capacity of the specimens. This
can be explained by observing the
physical behavior of the specimens. Fig,
13 shows, using a simplified model, the
course of events. Since the concrete
matrix is brittle, it is crushed during the
penetration of aggregate particles. After
some cycles, however, the shape of the

PCI JOURNAL,'January-February 1987 79

 Vu^exp f Vu,th

o static {3}
• static 21}
o repeated {22}
• sustained (is}

1,8

■
1 • qn
1,4 0•• • ■
• ■ _
W
1,0
•

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 f,' [psi]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 fc' [Nlmm2]

Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental shear stress v,, ,ex. and values found from
design chart (Fig. 9).

crack face has adjusted to the type of
loading, i.e., excavations have been
formed in the matrix in which the aggre-
gate particles fit at peak loading.
Hence, a situation is reached in which
the behavior of the specimen is stable
and no appreciable further damage oc-
curs. If, after a certain amount of cycles,
the load is monotonically increased to
failure, the particles penetrate into a
part of the matrix which was not dam-
aged before. This explains the fact that
the ultimate strength is insensitive to
any previous loading.

I_iIIIIlllI1i
r gaff— partic[e

Fig. 13. Left: Deformation of specimen during cyclic loading; Right: Deformation of
specimen at ultimate load.

80
 Fig. 14. Design example of a corbel (Ref. 10).

According to the modified shear £ric-

DESIGN EXAMPLES tion analogy:
To illustrate the application of the
proposed method and to compare the re- y" – 0.5bd ^1 f„
A,,
sults with existing methods of design,
two numerical examples are given.
– (0.5) (14) (13.5) 160
Example I
As a first application of the use of the = 0.77 sq in. (497 mm2)
design chart (Fig. 9), Mattock's corbel
design example, treated in Ref. 10, is Using the design chart (Fig. 9), it is
considered. The dimensions of this cor- found that:
bel are shown in Fig. 14. The concrete Vu
strength is ff = 5000 psi (35 N11mm z) and "" bd
the yield strength of the reinforcing
steel is f„ = 60 ksi (414 Nlmm 2 ). The 95.8
(factored) design shear load is v, = 95.8 (14) (13.5)
kips (426 kN). = 0.51 ksi = 510 psi (3.5 N -rnm2)
According to the PCI Design Hand-
book, the required amount of shear Read p f„ = 195 psi (1.35 Nlmm2).
reinforcement is: Hence:
A= p,,bd
A °r cb.f1 L
19 5 (14) (13.5)
95.8 600tH)
0.85 (60) 1.4
= 0.61 sq in. (394 mm2)
= 1.34 sq in. (685 mm2)
81
PCI JOURNALJJanuary-February 1987
 Example 2
As a second design example, the cais-
son structure shown in Fig. 3 is consid-
ered. The concrete quality in such sub-
marine shear walls may be very high. It
is assumed that the concrete cylinder
strength is f/ = 8000 psi (56 N/mm 2) and
that the design shear stress, to be trans-
mitted across the interface at the junc-
tion between the two shear walls (dotted
line, Fig. 3), is V„Ibd = 1000 psi (7
N/mm l),
According to the PCI Design Hand-
book the required amount of reinforce-
ment is determined from:
- 17.5 < f,<65N/mm2
P^,fu = d Of;
1000
(0.85) (1.4)
= 840 psi (5.9 N/mmz)
According to the modified shear fric-
tion equation:
M = Ol$ (_400)
PJ
= — – 4001
0.8 0.85
= 970 psi (6.8 N/mm2)
Using the design chart (Fig. 9):
p,f„ = 460 psi (3.1 N/mm2)
The above example demonstrates the
desirability of having a shear friction
formula which is also valid for high
strength concrete. This formula will
prevent unnecessary conservatism for
such cases.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The traditional shear friction equa-
tion, without a cohesion term, is safe hut
conservative, especially in the region of
low reinforcement ratios or high con-
crete strengths. The modified shear
friction equation, as proposed by Mat-
tock, is a safe expression with good ac-
curacy for low and intermediate con-
82
crete strengths. For ff > 5000 psi (35
N/mmz), however, an increasing conser-
vatism is found.
2. Taking the concrete strength into
account as a basic influencing parame-
ter, an expression can he derived with
excellent accuracy over a very wide
range ofparameter variation:
100 < p„fy < 1500 psi and
2500 <ff < 9000 psi
or
0.7 <pJu <10N/mm 2 and
A necessary condition for the validity
of the above equations is that the aggre-
gate is sufficiently strong. , In the tests
considered, always less than 30 percent
of the aggregate particles were broken
by cracking.
3. Previous loading cycles (n =
200,000 to 750,000) with a maximum
shear stress up to 65 percent of the static
shear capacity did not influence the
shear capacity of the crack. The same is
true for sustained loading, up to 381
days on a level of 40 to 80 percent of the
static shear capacity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Most of the experiments used in this
paper to update the shear friction
method were carried out at the Delft
University of Technology in the
Netherlands. This research was finan-
cially supported by the Ministry of
Economic Affairs.
The assistance of Professor Reinhardt
and the other members of the Delft Uni-
versity faculty is gratefully acknowl-
edged. In addition, the authors are
greatly indebted to the CUR-VB
(Netherlands Committee for Research,
Codes and Specifications for Concrete)
for supporting the research program.
 REFERENCES
1. Birkeland, P. W., and Birkeland H. W.,
"Connections in Precast Concrete Con-
stnrctions," ACI Journal, V. 63, No. 3,
March 1966, pp. 345-368.
2. Mast, R. F., "Auxiliary Reinforcement in
Concrete Connections," Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, V. 94, ST6,
June 1968, pp. 1485-1504.
3. Hofbeck, J. A., Ibrahim, 1.0., and Mat-
tock, A. H., "Shear Transfer in Reinforced
Concrete," AC! Journal, V. 66, No, 2,
February 1969, pp. 119-128.
4. Mattock, A. H., and Hawkins, N. M.,
"Research on Shear Transfer in Rein-
forced Concrete," PCI JOURNAL, V. 17,
No. 2, March-April 1972, pp. 55-75.
5. Mattock, A. H., "Shear Transfer in Con-
crete Having Reinforcement at an Angle
to the Shear Plane," ACI Special Publi-
cation 42, Shear in Reinforced Concrete,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Michigan, 1974, pp. 17-42.
6. Mattock, A. H., Discussion of the paper
"Modified Shear Friction Theory for
Bracket Design," by B. R. Hermansen
and J. Cowan, ACI Journal, V. 71, No. 8,
August, 1974, pp. 421-423.
7. Houde, J., and Mirza, M. S., "A Finite
Element Analysis of Reinforced Con-
crete Beams," ACI Special Publication
42, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, V. 1,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Michigan, 1974, pp. 103-128.
8. Mattock, A. H., John!, L., and Chow,
H. C., "Shear Transfer in Reinforced
Concrete With Moment or Tension Act-
ing Across the Shear Plane," PCI
JOURNAL, V. 20, No. 4, July-August
1975, pp. 76-93.
9. Mattock, A. H., Li, W. K., and Wang,
T. C., "Shear Transfer in Lightweight
Reinforced Concrete," PCI JOURNAL,
V. 21, January-February 1976, pp. 20-39.
10. Mattock, A- H., "Design Proposals for
Reinforced Concrete Corbels," PCI
JOURNAL, V. 21, No. 3, May-June 1976,
pp. 18-42.
11. Shaikh, A. Fattah, "Proposed Revisions
to Shear-Friction Provisions," PCI
JOURNAL, V. 23, No, 2, March-April
1978, pp. 12-21.
PCI10URNAL; January- February 1987 83
12. Regan, P. E., and Harnadi, Y. D., "Con-
crete in the Oceans; Behavior of Con-
crete Caisson and Tower Members,"
Technical Report, Cement and Concrete
Association, No.4, 1981.
13. Moksnes, J., "Offshore Concrete — Re-
cent Developments in Concrete Mix De-
sign," Nord irk Beton, V. 2, No - 4, 1982,
pp. 102-105.
14. Cowan, J., and Cruden, A. F., "Second
Thoughts on Shear-Friction," Concrete,
August 1975, pp. 31-32-
15. Frfnay, J. W., "Shear Transfer Across a
Single Crack in Reinforced Concrete
Under Sustained Loading," Part 1, Ex-
periments, Stevin Report, 5-85-5, 1985,
114 pp.
16. Paulay, T., and Loeber, P. J., "Shear
Transfer by Aggregate Interlock," ACI
Special Publication 42, Shear in Rein-
forced Concrete, V. 1, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1974,
pp. 1-16.
17. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(AC! 318-83)," American Concrete In-
stitute, Detroit, Michigan, 1983, 112 pp.
18. PCI Design Handbook –Precast and
Prestressed Concrete. Third Edition,
Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago,
Illinois, 1985, 528 pp.
19. PCI Committee on Building Code and
PCI Technical Activities Committee,
"Proposed Design Requiremen ts for
Precast Concrete," PCI JOURNAL, V.
31, No. 6, November-Dece mber 1986,
pp, 32-47.
20. Walraven, J, C. "Fundamental Analysis
of Aggregate Interlock," Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, V. 11,
November 1981, p p. 2245-2270.
21. Walraven, J. C., and Reinhardt, H. W.,
"Theory and Experiments on the Me-
chanical Behavior of Cracks in Plain and
Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Shear
Loading," Heron, V. 26, No. 1, 1981.
22. Pruijssers, A. F., and Liqui Lung, G.,
"Shear Transfer Across a Crack in Con-
crete Subjected to Repeated Loading—
Experimental Results," Part 1, Stevin Re-
port 5-85-12, 178 pp.
 APPENDIX — NOTATION
b = width of member vu = nominal design shear stress
d = distance from extreme com- (v 1bd)
pression fiber to centroid of N. exp = experimental shear stress
tension reinforcement vu, M = calculated shear stress
= cylinder compressive strength A, = area of shear friction (transfer)
of concrete [6 x 12 in. reinforcement
(152 x 305 mm) ] a = angle of internal friction
f . = cube compressive strength of 1,. = coefficient of friction
concrete [5.9 in. (150 mm) each p,, =A,lbd
side] v,, = external compressive stress,
f –specified yield strength of normal to crack plane
reinforcing steel c(, = capacity reduction factor

NOTE: Discussion of this paper is invited. Please submit

your comments to PCI Headquarters by September 1, 1987.
84