THEORY OF INTERFACE SHEAR CAPACITY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

By Shyh-Jiann Hwang,1 Hsin-Wan Yu,2 and Hung-Jen Lee3

ABSTRACT: A softened strut-and-tie model for determining interface shear capacity is proposed in this paper.
Contrary to the shear-friction concept, the proposed theory predicts that ultimate failure is caused by the crushing
of concrete in the compression struts formed after cracking of the concrete. The shear strength predictions of
the proposed model and the empirical formulas of the ACI 318-95 building code are compared with collected
experimental data from 147 specimens. Examination of existing experimental data indicated that the softened
strut-and-tie model developed in this study is capable of predicting the interface shear strengths of both the
push-off and the pull-off specimens with or without the precracked shear planes. The comparison shows that
the performance of the softened strut-and-tie model is better than the ACI Code approach for the parameters
under comparison. The parameters reviewed include concrete strength and amount of shear transfer reinforce-
ment.

INTRODUCTION
Situations exist in precast assemblies and composite con-
struction where shear must be transferred across an interface
between two dissimilar concretes. The highly stressed interface
is a potential failure plane, and failing to provide adequate
reinforcement across such a plane may produce a direct shear
failure. Because of external tension, shrinkage, or accidental
causes, a crack may form along such a plane even before shear
occurs (Mast 1968). Therefore, the design approach should
consider the interface shear capacities for both the initially
uncracked and initially cracked concretes.
A typical push-off specimen under direct shear without mo-
ment is presented in Fig. 1. It was observed (Hofbeck et al.
1969) that diagonal tension cracks crossed the shear plane at
an angle of 40–50⬚ for initially uncracked specimens under
loading (Fig. 1). Similar diagonal tension cracks occurred in
initially cracked specimens that contained a high percentage
of shear transfer reinforcement. Final failure was accompanied
by compression spalling in the region of the diagonal tension
cracks adjacent to the shear plane (Hofbeck et al. 1969).
Studies of push-off test specimens to evaluate interface
shear strength showed that considerably higher strengths were
attained for uncracked sections than for cracked sections (Mat-
tock and Hawkins 1972). More interface-reinforcement per-
centage and surface roughness improved the maximum-shear
stresses (Paulay et al. 1974). The interface shear capacity in-
creased with an increase in concrete strength (Walraven et al.
1987).
The design provisions on interface shear of the current ACI
318-95 building code were developed empirically according
to shear friction concepts. To reinforce against a potential
shear-friction failure, the design procedure is based on posi-
tioning steel reinforcement across the interface in order to pro-
duce a definite value of compression across the failure plane.
Therefore, interface shear will be withstood by friction be-
tween the faces, by resistance to shearing off the protruding
portions of the concrete, and by dowel action of the reinforce-
ment crossing the interface.
1
Prof., Dept. of Constr. Engrg., National Taiwan Univ. of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 10672.
2
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Chung Kuo Inst. of Technology
and Commerce, Taipei, Taiwan 117.
3
PhD Candidate, Dept. of Constr. Engrg., National Taiwan Univ. of
Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Note. Associate Editor: John W. Wallace. Discussion open until No-
vember 1, 2000. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on May 8,
1999. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
126, No. 6, June, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/00/0006-0700–0707/
$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 20901.
The shear-friction method does not correlate well with the
observed failure phenomenon of concrete crushing in the re-
gion adjacent to the shear plane. To prevent crushing of the
concrete in the crack, the ACI 318 building code (1995) places
a limitation on the maximum shear stress as the lesser of
0.2 f c⬘ or 5.5 MPa. This particular limitation in the ACI 318-
95 building code has imposed an unusual restriction on the
beneficial effect of increased concrete strength on the interface
shear capacity. Clearly, design methods based on a fundamen-
tal understanding of interface shear behavior would be pref-
erable to the present procedures.
A softened strut-and-tie model for determining the shear
strengths according to the compressive strength of the concrete
strut has been developed (Hwang and Lee 1999, 2000). This
model is based on the strut-and-tie concept and derived to
satisfy equilibrium, compatibility, and constitutive laws of
cracked reinforced concrete.
The theory presented in this paper is an extension of the
softened strut-and-tie model to predict the shear strengths
across an interface associated with the failure of the compres-
sion strut. In this paper, the theory will first be developed, and
then the precision of the analytical model is gauged by the
available experimental results. Data from a total of 147 spec-
imens were compiled and compared with predictions from the
proposed model and the ACI 318-95 building code.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper presents a new treatment of the prediction of
interface shear capacity based on the softened strut-and-tie
model. Contrary to the shear-friction concept, the proposed
theory predicts that the ultimate failure is caused by the crush-
ing of concrete in the compression struts formed after cracking
of the concrete. The softened strut-and-tie model was found to
be successful in predicting the shear transfer strengths of spec-
imens of various parameters.
HYPOTHESES FOR STRENGTH
Test observations have indicated that the shear failure across
an interface occurs after diagonal cracks have formed in a
FIG. 1. Shear Transfer Test Specimen

700 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000

Downloaded 25 Nov 2011 to 207.5.77.58. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
direction inclined to the shear plane (Fig. 1). The final failure
is usually due to the crushing of concrete in the compression
struts formed approximately parallel to the direction of the
tracks (Hofbeck et al. 1969). It is thus assumed that the inter-
face shear capacity is attained whenever the compressive
strength of the struts is reached. Because the formation of
struts is at the expense of concrete cracking, the compression
struts suffer from strength reduction, which has been called
the softening of concrete (Vecchio and Collins 1993; Zhang
and Hsu 1998). Hsu et al. (1987) also investigated the interface
shear capacity using the same strength hypotheses. The soft-
ened strut-and-tie model proposed in this paper, however, is
different in many aspects from the softened truss theory sug-
gested by Hsu et al. (1987).
It is commonly believed that a distinct difference exists in
shear-transfer behavior between initially uncracked and
cracked specimens. A strut-and-tie action is well recognized
for the former case, whereas the behavior in the latter speci-
mens is believed to be governed largely by the shear-slip char-
acteristics of the cracked plane (Mattock and Hawkins 1972;
Hsu et al. 1987). However, a different point of view, that the
strut-and-tie actions play a dominant role in both the initially
uncracked and cracked specimens, is raised in this paper. It is
believed that the initial cracks along the shear plane will not
suspend the development of struts, but that they will enlarge
the softening effect of concrete struts.
In this paper, the concrete struts are assumed to be aligned
with the direction of principal compressive stresses, which are
oriented in parallel with the diagonal tension cracks. The in-
clination of cracks varies at different loading stages. The di-
rection of the first crack is determined directly from the ex-
ternally applied stresses. After initial cracking, the changes in
direction of the subsequent cracks are due to changes in the
direction of the principal tensile stresses in the concrete, which
in turn are dependent on the strain conditions of the vertical
and horizontal steel. Dealing with the shear transfer across the
interface, the direction of principal stresses in the concrete near
the shear plane is most important in the determination of strut
orientation. Unfortunately, the surface preparation of the con-
crete interface will further complicate the problem in locating
the inclination angles of the concrete struts.
It is more reasonable that the inclination of the cracks (and
thus, the concrete struts) should be determined as the rotating
angle following the postcracking principal stresses of the con-
crete. This paper, however, simply assumes that the direction
of the cracks is inclined at the fixed angle following the prin-
cipal stresses of the applied loading. This simplification makes
the theory deviate from true behavior, but it greatly facilitates
the computational work.
Interface shear problems frequently involve situations where
new concrete is cast against an existing surface, especially for
seismic strengthening. It is realized that the upper and lower
blocks in Fig. 1 may contain concretes with different strengths.
In this paper, separate strut-and-tie models are used to model
the upper and lower blocks in Fig. 1. The weaker portion con-
trols the strength of shear transfer across the new and existing
concrete interface.
SOFTENED STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL
A statically indeterminate strut-and-tie model consisting of
diagonal, horizontal, and vertical mechanisms, to transfer a
diagonal compression, has been proposed (Hwang and Lee
1999, 2000). The diagonal mechanism is a diagonal compres-
sion strut with an angle of inclination ␪ that is the same as
that of the diagonal compression. The vertical mechanism in-
cludes one vertical tension tie and two steep compression
struts, and the horizontal mechanism is composed of one hor-
izontal tension tie and two flat compression struts.
Downloaded 25 Nov 2011 to 207.5.77.58. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
The horizontal shear Vh is resisted by the three mechanisms
as (Hwang and Lee 1999, 2000).
Vh = ⫺D cos ␪ ⫹ Fv cot ␪ ⫹ Fh (1)
where D = compression force in the diagonal strut (negative
for compression), and Fv and Fh = tension forces in the vertical
and horizontal ties, respectively (positive for tension).
The force ratios of the horizontal shear Vh assigned along
the three mechanisms are assumed as (Hwang and Lee 1999,
2000)
⫺D cos ␪:Fv cot ␪:Fh = Rd :Rv :Rh (2)
where Rd , Rv , and Rh = ratios of the shears resisted by the
diagonal, vertical, and horizontal mechanisms, respectively.
The values of Rd , Rv , and Rh are defined as (Hwang and Lee
1999, 2000)
(1 ⫺ ␥h)(1 ⫺ ␥v)
Rd = (3)
1 ⫺ ␥h␥v
␥v (1 ⫺ ␥h)
Rv = (4)
1 ⫺ ␥h␥v
␥h(1 ⫺ ␥v)
Rh = (5)
1 ⫺ ␥h␥v
where ␥v = fraction of vertical shear carried by the vertical tie
in the absence of the horizontal tie, and ␥h = fraction of hor-
izontal shear transferred by the horizontal tie in the absence
of the vertical tie. According to Schäfer (1996) and Jennewein
and Schäfer (1992), the values of ␥v and ␥h are defined as
2 cot ␪ ⫺ 1
␥v = for 0 ⱕ ␥v ⱕ 1 (6)
3
2 tan ␪ ⫺ 1
␥h = for 0 ⱕ ␥h ⱕ 1 (7)
3
Eqs. (6) and (7) indicate two extreme cases, namely, that
the entire shear is carried by the vertical mechanism (␥v = 1
and ␥h = 0) for ␪ ⱕ tan⫺1(1/2) and that the entire shear is
transferred by the horizontal mechanism (␥h = 1 and ␥v = 0)
for ␪ ⱖ tan⫺1(2). This model will be used to explain the
strength behavior of the interface shear.
Macromodel
The upper block of Fig. 2 presents a possible shear element
for interface shear transfer, and the lower block of Fig. 2
shows the proposed strut-and-tie model. The diagonal tension
cracks in the test specimen (Fig. 1) had revealed that the hor-
izontal interface shear force Vih is lifted up from the shear
plane to the top of the inclined cracks. Because of this shifting
of force, a counterclockwise moment is generated automati-
cally (Fig. 2), which makes the force Vih transferred as part of
a diagonal compression.
The vertical mechanism of the softened strut-and-tie model
(Hwang and Lee 1999, 2000) is chosen as the major load path
for the interface shear transfer. There are two reasons for this
selection: first, the vertical reinforcement across the shear
plane has long been recognized as the important element in
resisting interface shear; second, the steep struts of the vertical
mechanism could be reasonably accommodated by the diag-
onal tension cracks developed uniformly across the shear
plane. For common cases where the inclination angle ␣ of the
steep strut is equal to or less than 45⬚, i.e., ␪ ⱕ tan⫺1(1/2), the
entire shear is carried by the vertical mechanism. After the
yielding of the vertical tie, the diagonal mechanism then joins
the shear transfer, but at all times the horizontal mechanism
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 701
 When computing the cross-sectional area of the vertical tie,
it is roughly assumed that the vertical shear reinforcement
within the center half of the interface is fully effective, and
the other vertical steel is included at a rate of 50% (Hwang
and Lee 1999, 2000).

Equilibrium
Eqs. (1)–(7) are used to express the force distribution
among the struts and the ties. Because the horizontal mecha-
nism is excluded in the proposed model, the value of ␥h is
always taken to be zero.
The maximum compressive stress ␴2,max, resulting from the
summation of the compressive forces from the steep and di-
agonal struts (Fig. 2) on the nodal zone can be estimated as

␴2,max =
1
Astr
再D cos(␣ ⫺ ␪) ⫺
Fv
sin ␣
冎 (12)

If the bearing pressure on the nodal zone ␴2,max reaches the

capacity of the cracked concrete, shear strength across the in-
FIG. 2. Strut-and-Tie Model for Shear Transfer across Inter- terface is attained.
face
Constitutive Laws
does not participate in the resistance. For cases where ␣ > 45⬚,
According to Zhang and Hsu (1998), the softened stress-
i.e., ␪ > tan⫺1(1/2), the horizontal mechanism of the softened
strain curve of the cracked concrete can be expressed as
strut-and-tie model is also effective in shear transferring. How-

冋 冉 冊 冉 冊册
2
ever, the horizontal mechanism is not included in the proposed ⫺ε 2 ⫺ε 2 ⫺ε 2
model (Fig. 2), and this will be explained in a later section. ␴2 = ⫺␨ f ⬘c 2 ⫺ for ⱕ1 (13)
␨ε 0 ␨ε 0 ␨ε 0

冋 冉 冊册
An incomplete strut-and-tie model, composed of the vertical 2
and diagonal mechanisms, is proposed for the interface shear ⫺ε 2 /␨ε 0 ⫺ 1 ⫺ε 2
␴2 = ⫺␨ f ⬘c 1⫺ for >1 (14)
transfer. 2/␨ ⫺ 1 ␨ε 0
By lining up the steep struts of the vertical mechanism with
the direction of the principal compressive stresses, the config- 5.8 1 0.9
␨= ⱕ (15)
uration of the proposed model is thus defined by the angle ␣ 兹 f ⬘c 兹1 ⫹ 400ε1 兹1 ⫹ 400ε 1
(Fig. 2). The vertical and horizontal components of the diag-
onal compression across the interface can be related as with f c⬘ in MPa; where ␴2 = average principle compressive
stress of concrete in the 2-direction (positive for tension); ␨ =
Viv tan ␣ softening coefficient; ε1 and ε 2 = average principal strains in
= = tan ␪ (8)
Vih 2 the 1- and 2-directions, respectively (positive for tension); and
ε 0 = concrete cylinder strain corresponding to the cylinder
The failure of the compression strut is defined as the crush- strength f ⬘,
c which can be defined approximately as (Foster and
ing of concrete at the end of the steep strut that intersects with Gilbert 1996)

冉 冊
the diagonal strut and the interface (Fig. 2). In order to check
whether the failure stress is being reached, the area of the f c⬘ ⫺ 20
nodal zone which bears the pressure must be estimated. The ε 0 = 0.002 ⫹ 0.001 for 20 ⱕ f ⬘c ⱕ 100 MPa (16)
80
effective area of the steep strut Astr is defined as
with f ⬘c in MPa.
Astr = as ⫻ bs (9) If the stress-strain relationships of bare mild steel for the
where as = depth of the steep strut, and bs = width of the steep vertical shear reinforcement are assumed to be elastic–per-
strut that can be taken as the thickness of the test speci- fectly plastic, then
men (b). fv = Es εv for ε v < ε yv (17)
The depth of the steep strut (as) depends on its end condition
provided by the compression zone at the interface. It is intu- fv = fyv for ε v ⱖ ε yv (18)
itively assumed that
where Es = elastic modulus of the steel bars; fv and εv = av-
as = ai (10) erage tensile stress and strain of the vertical tie, respectively;
and fyv and εyv = yield stress and strain of the vertical shear
where ai = depth of the compression zone at the interface.
reinforcement, respectively.
For general purposes, ai can be determined by analysis of
Based on the simplified constitutive equation for steel, the
the fully cracked transformed section with straight-line theory.
relationship between force and strain of the tension tie can be
For simplicity, ai can be approximated using Paulay and Priest-
constructed:
ley’s equation (1992) for the depth of the flexural compression
zone of the elastic column: Fv = Atv Es ε v ⱕ Fyv (19)

ai = 冉0.25 ⫺ 0.85
␴v
冊
f ⬘c
ᐍi (11)
where At v = area of the vertical tie, and Fyv = yielding strength
of the vertical tie.
where ␴v = externally applied vertical stress acting on the in- Compatibility
terface (positive for tension); f ⬘c = compressive strength of a
standard concrete cylinder; and ᐍi = length of the interface in The sum of the normal strains in two perpendicular direc-
the direction of the shear force. tions is an invariant; that is
702 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000

Downloaded 25 Nov 2011 to 207.5.77.58. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 ε1 ⫹ ε 2 = εh ⫹ εv (20)
where εh and ε v = average normal strains in the h- and v-
directions, respectively (positive for tension).
Eq. (20) is used to estimate the value of the principal tensile
strain ε1, which is directly related to the extent of softening of
the concrete according to (15). To avoid overestimation of the
softening effect in situations where behavior is governed by
yielding of all reinforcement crossing the track, Vecchio and
Collins (1993) propose defining a limiting value of ε1, which
can be used in the softening formulations. It was recom-
mended that the value of the ε1 limit be defined as the strain
level at which the principal tensile stress is limited by the
yielding of the reinforcement crossing the crack (Vecchio and
Collins 1993). With this aim in mind, the value of ε v in (20)
is limited by ε yv after yielding.
For initially cracked specimens, the larger the crack width,
the larger the shear displacement, and the smaller the attain-
able ultimate strength. This strength behavior can be easily FIG. 3. Stress Element in Determining the First Cracking
simulated by inserting a nonzero value of εh into (20). Con- Angle
sequently the larger the value of εh, the larger the value of ε1,
and the larger the strength reduction of concrete struts. shear applied in line with the shear plane, and detailed with
Details of the solution procedure are presented elsewhere by the vertical shear reinforcement crossing the shear plane at
Hwang and Lee (1999, 2000). right angles.
The inclination angle ␣ of the principal compressive stress
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of concrete at failure is taken as the angle of the first cracks.
Push-Off Tests with Initially Uncracked Specimens For specimens without additional externally applied direct
stress ␴v , the angle of the first crack is determined according
Table 1 summarizes key parameters of 26 push-off experi- to Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, the normal stress ␴h is taken as the average
ments in which initially uncracked specimens were tested to stress of a transformed section. An externally applied tensile
measure the shear strengths across interfaces. Data includes stress acting normally to the shear plane is subtracted from
those investigated by Hofbeck et al. (1969) and Mattock et al. ␳v fyv in calculations of the ultimate shear transfer strength as
(1975, 1976). All of the test specimens considered in this paper recommended by Mattock et al. (1975), and an arbitrary value
were those made of normal weight concrete, tested with the ␣ = 30⬚ is used for specimens with tensile stress of ␴v (Table

TABLE 1. Experimental Verification for Initially Uncracked Push-Off Specimens

SOFTENED STRUT-AND-TIE
MODEL
Vi h,tes t /Vi h,c al c ACI
f ⬘c fy v ␳v ␴v Vi h,tes t ␣ w0
Researcher Specimen (MPa) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (kN) (ⴗ) (mm) General Simple Vi h,tes t /Vi h,cal c
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Hofbeck et al. (1969) 1.1A 27.1 350 0.47 0 167.1 38 0 1.27a 0.94a 2.39
1.1B 30.0 332 0.47 0 188.0 38 0 1.39a 0.99a 2.84
1.2A 26.5 351 0.94 0 222.8 38 0 1.24 1.07 1.60
1.2B 28.9 332 0.94 0 218.3 38 0 1.15 0.97 1.65
1.3A 26.5 350 1.40 0 245.1 38 0 1.19 1.17 1.52
1.3B 27.1 332 1.40 0 238.3 38 0 1.14 1.12 1.44
1.4A 31.2 350 1.87 0 303.0 38 0 1.17 1.20 1.81
1.4B 26.6 332 1.87 0 285.2 38 0 1.22 1.31 1.76
1.5A 31.2 350 2.34 0 311.9 38 0 1.09 1.21 1.87
1.5B 28.1 332 2.34 0 308.3 38 0 1.16 1.32 1.84
1.6A 29.8 350 2.81 0 319.0 38 0 1.07 1.27 1.91
1.6B 28.0 332 2.81 0 316.4 38 0 1.11 1.34 1.89
6.1 27.4 332 0.47 0 178.2 38 0 1.37a 1.01a 2.69
6.2 27.1 332 2.81 0 276.3 38 0 1.06 1.22 1.67
Mattock et al. (1975) EIU 28.0 364 1.05 0 407.5 39 0 1.25 1.12 1.40
E4U 26.7 339 1.05 1.38 354.0 30 0 1.24 1.13a 2.13
E6U 28.5 351 1.05 2.76 227.1 30 0 1.33a 1.07a 3.21
F1U 27.9 361 1.58 0 512.3 39 0 1.31 1.35 1.72
F4U 28.8 367 1.58 1.38 427.7 30 0 1.07 1.16 1.44
F6U 29.3 352 1.58 2.76 398.9 30 0 1.18 1.34 1.88
Mattock et al. (1976) M1 28.9 352 0.47 0 169.3 39 0 1.28a 0.93a 2.41
M2 26.9 364 0.94 0 218.3 39 0 1.23 1.05 1.50
M3 27.6 361 1.40 0 247.3 39 0 1.19 1.16 1.48
M4 28.7 352 1.87 0 254.0 39 0 1.05 1.11 1.52
M5 27.2 364 2.34 0 285.2 39 0 1.11 1.28 1.72
M6 28.5 364 2.81 0 294.1 39 0 1.04 1.24 1.76
Total 26 — — — — — — AVG 1.19 1.16 1.89
COV 0.08 0.11 0.25
a
Yielded vertical tie per analysis.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 703

Downloaded 25 Nov 2011 to 207.5.77.58. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
1). Since the specimens were initially uncracked, εh is set at
zero in the calculations. In Table 1, the general approach
means that the depth of the compression zone at the interface
ai is calculated by the program BIAX (Wallace 1992) for the
stage when the extreme tensile steel reaches yielding, whereas
the simple approach employs (11) to determine the value of
ai.
Table 1 compares the measured strengths with the predic-
tions of the proposed model and the ACI 318-95 building
code. Accuracy for the analytical models is gauged in terms
of a strength ratio, which is defined as the ratio of the mea-
sured to the computed strengths.
The softened strut-and-tie model reproduced the test results
with reasonable accuracy. The average strength ratio for the
general approach was 1.19 with a coefficient of variation
(COV) of 8% (Table 1). The average strength ratio for the
simple approach was 1.16 and the COV was 11% (Table 1).
A more conservative and scattered prediction was obtained
from the ACI 318-95 building code (Table 1).
Analysis showed that the vertical tie yielded only for the
specimens with low steel percentages in the range of 0.5%,
except for those specimens with externally applied tensile
stresses (Table 1). For specimens with applied direct tensile
stresses, the reduced ␳v fyv and the reduced ␣ angle are reason-
able measures to produce satisfactory predictions (Table 1).
Push-Off Tests with Initially Cracked Specimens
Table 2 presents the push-off tests with initially cracked
specimens tested by Hofbeck et al. (1969), Mattock et al.
(1975), and Mattock et al. (1976). The effect of the initial
crack width w0 is included in analysis by introducing
w0
εh = (21)
ᐍi
It is well known that the roughness of the shear plane will
create a vertical separation between the two blocks in Fig. 2,
which activates the vertical tie for shear resistance. Eq. (21)
converts the initial crack width w0 totally into the horizontal
slip and thus neglects the beneficial effect of the surface prep-

TABLE 2. Experimental Verification for Initially Cracked Push-Off Specimens

SOFTENED STRUT-AND-TIE
MODEL
Vi h,tes t /Vih,calc ACI
f ⬘c fy v ␳v ␴v Vi h,tes t ␣ w0
Researcher Specimen (MPa) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (kN) (ⴗ) (mm) General Simple Vi h,tes t /Vih,calc
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Hofbeck et al. (1969) 2.1 21.4 350 0.47 0 131.4 39 0.25 1.18 0.92a 1.88
2.2 21.4 350 0.94 0 151.5 39 0.25 1.03 0.95 1.16
2.3 26.9 350 1.40 0 187.1 38 0.25 0.96 0.95 1.14
2.4 26.9 350 1.87 0 222.8 38 0.25 1.02 1.09 1.36
2.5 28.8 350 2.34 0 289.4 38 0.25 1.16 1.31 1.73
2.6 28.8 350 2.81 0 308.6 38 0.25 1.15 1.38 1.85
3.1 27.9 345 0.10 0 53.5 38 0.25 1.05a 0.40a 3.47
3.2 27.7 392 0.42 0 115.8 38 0.25 0.97 0.69a 1.67
3.3 21.4 350 0.94 0 151.5 39 0.25 1.03 0.95 1.16
3.4 27.9 325 0.94 0 229.0 38 0.25 1.04 1.07 1.76
3.5 27.9 292 0.94 0 256.6 38 0.25 1.00 1.18 2.20
4.1 28.1 456 0.47 0 156.8 38 0.25 1.20 0.86a 1.73
4.2 28.1 292 0.94 0 218.3 38 0.25 1.24 1.06 1.30
4.3 30.0 456 1.40 0 282.5 38 0.25 1.35 1.30 1.69
4.4 30.0 456 1.87 0 311.9 38 0.25 1.31 1.38 1.87
4.5 23.4 456 2.34 0 294.1 38 0.25 1.33 1.62 2.06
5.1 16.9 350 0.47 0 113.6 39 0.25 1.16 0.94 1.63
5.2 18.1 350 0.94 0 155.9 39 0.25 1.17 1.14 1.42
5.3 16.5 350 1.40 0 180.4 39 0.25 1.27 1.44 1.79
5.4 17.8 350 1.87 0 177.1 39 0.25 1.06 1.28 1.63
5.5 18.0 350 2.34 0 225.0 39 0.25 1.23 1.59 2.05
6.3 27.4 331 0.47 0 71.3 38 0.25 0.58a 0.43a 1.07
6.4 27.2 331 2.34 0 205.6 38 0.25 0.86 0.98 1.24
Mattock et al. (1975) A1 27.5 366 1.11 0 267.3 42 0.25 1.30 1.20 1.26
B1 26.9 366 1.11 0 231.6 42 0.25 1.14 1.06 1.12
C1 27.5 366 1.11 0 225.0 42 0.25 1.10 1.01 1.06
D1 27.1 366 0.66 0 173.7 42 0.25 0.96 0.81 2.38
E1C 26.6 358 1.05 0 329.7 39 0.25 1.11 1.01 1.16
E2C 29.1 360 1.05 0.69 347.6 39 0.25 1.21 1.09a 1.48
E3C 27.4 364 1.05 1.13 267.2 39 0.25 1.04 0.96a 1.30
E4C 26.4 349 1.05 1.38 251.8 39 0.25 1.06a 1.00a 1.45
E5C 27.8 361 1.05 2.07 197.2 39 0.25 0.99a 0.89a 1.50
E6C 27.5 352 1.05 2.76 138.1 39 0.25 0.99a 0.80a 1.95
F1C 29.1 346 1.58 0 369.7 39 0.25 0.99 1.00 1.24
F4C 26.9 354 1.58 1.38 313.9 39 0.25 0.99 1.11 1.08
F6C 28.7 357 1.58 2.76 300.8 39 0.25 1.08 1.25a 1.38
Mattock et al. (1976) N1 28.9 352 0.47 0 102.5 39 0.25 0.81a 0.60a 1.45
N2 26.9 364 0.94 0 173.7 39 0.25 1.05 0.90 1.20
N3 27.6 361 1.40 0 213.8 39 0.25 1.11 1.08 1.28
N4 28.7 352 1.87 0 256.1 39 0.25 1.14 1.21 1.53
N5 27.2 352 2.34 0 261.7 39 0.25 1.11 1.27 1.58
N6 28.5 345 2.81 0 265.0 39 0.25 1.02 1.22 1.58
Total 42 — — — — — — AVG 1.08 1.06 1.57
COV 0.13 0.25 0.28
a
Yielded vertical tie per analysis.

704 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000

Downloaded 25 Nov 2011 to 207.5.77.58. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 TABLE 3. Experimental Verification
Vih,test /Vih,calc
SOFTENED ACI 318-95
STRUT-AND-TIE Code
General Simple
Number and f c⬘ ␳v ␴v ␣ w0 Aver- Aver- Aver-
Row Researcher specimen type Loading (MPa) (%) (MPa) (ⴗ) (mm) age COV age COV age COV
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
1 Walraven and Rein- 31 initially cracked push-off 17 to 48 0.1 to 3.4 0 39 0.1 1.21 0.12 1.16 0.18 1.70 0.19
hardt (1981)
2 Pruijssers and Liqui 3 initially cracked push-off 38 to 44 1.7 0 39 0.1 1.18 0.01 1.10 0.02 1.95 0.04
Lung (1985)
3 Pruijssers and Liqui 13 initially cracked push-off previously 43 to 64 1.1 to 1.7 0 39 0.1 1.38 0.09 1.18 0.08 2.24 0.14
Lung (1985) repeated shear
4 Frenay (1985) 20 initially cracked push-off previously 47 to 68 1.1 to 2.2 0 39 0.1 1.54 0.13 1.29 0.16 2.54 0.19
sustained shear
5 Mattock and Hawkins 6 initially uncracked pull-off 34 to 37 0.3 to 1.6 0 52 0 1.42 0.06 1.09 0.17 1.47 0.24
(1972)
6 Mattock and Hawkins 6 initially cracked pull-off 34 to 37 0.3 to 1.6 0 52 0.25 1.36 0.03 1.04 0.19 1.34 0.23
(1972)

aration. Because it is on the conservative side, (21) is used in
this paper.
For initially cracked specimens, the externally applied ten-
sile stresses pull only the vertical shear reinforcement, not the
concrete near the interface. Therefore, the ␣ angles of those
specimens were still calculated per Fig. 3. Satisfactory results
were obtained for the softened strut-and-tie model, as shown
in Table 2.
The statistical results of the predictions of Tables 1 and 2
indicate that the softened strut-and-tie model is equally reliable
for both the initially uncracked and cracked specimens. It is
thus concluded that the shear-transfer behavior between the
initially uncracked and cracked specimens is the same. The
strut-and-tie actions are fully developed in both specimens,
and their failure modes were the crushing of compression
struts near the shear plane.
Rows 1 and 2 of Table 3 present the initially cracked push-
off specimens reported by Walraven and Reinhardt (1981) and
Pruijssers and Liqui Lung (1985), respectively. Again, the soft-
ened strut-and-tie model was successful in predicting the test
strengths (Table 3).
Row 3 of Table 3 shows the precracked push-off specimens
previously subjected to repeated shear loading that were in-
vestigated by Pruijssers and Liqui Lung (1985). The repeated
shear loading alternated between zero and values varying be-
tween 46 and 66% of the static ultimate load. Row 4 of Table
3 presents the precracked push-off specimens previously sub-
jected to sustained loading that were tested by Frenay (1985).
The shear stress level of the sustained loading varied between
40 and 82% of the static ultimate load.
The softened strut-and-tie model yielded conservative esti-
mations for the test data reported by Pruijssers and Liqui Lung
(1985) and Frenay (1985), rows 3 and 4 of Table 3, and even
more pronounced conservatism is obtained by the ACI 318-95
building code. It is noted that the specimens tested by Pruijs-
sers and Liqui Lung (1985) and Frenay (1985) were made of
high-strength concrete ( f ⬘c > 42 MPa). In high-strength con-
crete, a significant portion of the aggregate particles will frac-
ture during cracking of the concrete. It is suspected that the
inclination angle ␣ of the principal compressive stress at fail-
ure for high-strength concrete is smaller than that of normal-
strength concrete. By using ␣ = 30⬚ in rows 3 and 4 of Table
3 instead of ␣ = 39⬚, comparable estimations in line with rows
1 and 2 of Table 3 will be obtained. The above argument is
only a supposition; experimental evidence is still required.
By comparing the test results in rows 1 through 4 of Table
3, Walraven et al. (1987) concluded that the load history, such
as previous sustained or repeated cyclic loading, had little ef-
fect on the interface shear strength. It is worthwhile to note
that the vertical shear reinforcement of specimens in rows 3
and 4 of Table 3 did not yield at failure per analysis using the
general approach. However, if the previous loading causes
yielding of the vertical shear reinforcement, the ultimate shear
strength is expected to be lower due to the residual strain,
which will enlarge the softening effect of the concrete strut.
The aforementioned situation will probably occur for speci-
mens with low steel percentages or high externally applied
tensile stresses.
Selection of Critical Zone
A cracked region is observed in the vicinity of the shear
plane after diagonal cracking and eventually leads to failure.
This cracked region will be called the critical zone. Mattock
and Hawkins (1972) reported that a typical height of this zone
was observed to be about 50 mm for a ᐍi = 250-mm-wide
specimen.
Compared with the above observation, the critical zone of
a single unit as stated in Fig. 2 seems too large. The most
important parameter for the configuration of the proposed
model is the inclination angle of the principal compressive
stress ␣. By preserving the angle ␣, the interface shear can be
transferred through multiple units (Fig. 4), if the vertical shear
reinforcement is detailed in multiple layers. The interface shear
transfer is believed to be more natural with a smaller critical
zone because less redistribution of shear is needed.
Test specimens in Tables 1 and 2 with at least three layers
of vertical shear reinforcement were recalculated by the pro-
FIG. 4. Selection of Critical Zone

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 705

Downloaded 25 Nov 2011 to 207.5.77.58. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
posed model using two and three units. As shown in Fig. 4, a
slight difference was detected for calculations using different
numbers of transfer units. A single transfer unit is used in this
paper for its simplicity.
The role of the horizontal reinforcement parallel to the shear
plane must also be addressed. In the proposed model, the hor-
izontal reinforcement will not participate in shear resistance if
␣ < 45⬚. Moreover, the multiple transfer units with shorter
concrete struts will also reduce the effectiveness of the hori-
zontal reinforcement. Therefore, the horizontal mechanism of
the softened strut-and-tie model (Hwang and Lee 1999, 2000)
is excluded in the proposed method (Fig. 2).
Experimental evidence of the ineffectiveness of the hori-
zontal reinforcement for shear capacity across the interface can
be found in the specimens used by Walraven and Reinhardt
(1981), Pruijssers and Liqui Lung (1985), and Frenay (1985). FIG. 5. Effect of Concrete Strength on Predictions of Shear
Those specimens (rows 1 through 4 of Table 3) were not de- Transfer Capacity
tailed with the horizontal reinforcement within the critical
zone, but their strength behavior was as good as that of the
test specimens detailed with heavier horizontal reinforcement
(Tables 1 and 2).

Pull-Off Tests

Rows 5 and 6 of Table 3 present the pull-off specimens

(Mattock and Hawkins 1972) with initially uncracked and
cracked shear planes, respectively. In the pull-off specimens,
a direct tensile stress existed parallel to the shear plane at the
time of diagonal tension cracking, which increased the incli-
nation angle of the first cracks. Following the suggestion of
Mattock, and Hawkins (1972), ␣ = 52⬚ is used for the pull-
off specimens.
Because the horizontal reinforcement is ineffective for the
critical zone, there is no restraint to limit the development of
cracks in the vertical direction in the vicinity of the shear
plane. According to previous studies (Hwang and Lee 1999,
2000), an inclined shear with ␣ > 45⬚ [␪ > tan⫺1(1/2)] will
transfer force through the horizontal tie, thus cracking the con-
crete in the vertical direction. In this paper, an arbitrarily cho-
sen value of 0.002 is imposed on εh in (20) for the cases of ␣
> 45⬚. For the pull-off specimens with precracked shear planes
(row 6 of Table 3), the additional softening effect due to the
initial crack width w0 is also added to εh.
Satisfactory results in row 5 and 6 of Table 3 indicate that
the softened strut-and-tie model can handle the pull-off spec-
imens equally well.
Figs. 5(a and b) show the effect of the concrete strength
f c⬘ on the shear strength predictions of the proposed model and
ACI 318-95 building code, respectively. On the whole, the
predictions of the softened strut-and-tie model using the gen-
eral approach are consistent except for specimens with high-
strength concrete [Fig. 5(a)]. But a greater scattering is found
for the ACI Code predictions, with even more conservative
estimations for the high-strength concrete specimens [Fig.
5(b)].
Fig. 6 presents the effect of the parameter ␳v fyv ⫺ ␴v on the
shear capacity predictions using various methods. Again, the
softened strut-and-tie model using the general approach con-
sistently predicts the shear strengths for a broad range of the
values of ␳v fyv ⫺ ␴v [Fig. 6(a)]. However, the ultimate strength
predictions by the ACI building code tend to be widely dis-
persed [Fig. 6(b)].
The performance of the softened strut-and-tie model is bet-
ter than the ACI building code approach for the parameters
under comparison (Figs. 5 and 6). It is therefore recommended
that the current design procedures for the interface shear be
reformed to incorporate the actual shear resisting mechanisms
as postulated by the softened strut-and-tie model.
706 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000
FIG. 6. Effect of Normal Stress on Predictions of Shear Trans-
fer Capacity
CONCLUSIONS
A proposal for determining the interface shear capacity has
been made. Contrary to the shear-friction concept, the pro-
posed theory predicts that ultimate failure is caused by the
crushing of concrete in the compression struts formed after
cracking of the concrete. Two separate strut-and-tie models are
developed to represent the force transfer within the new and
existing concretes, and the weaker portion controls the
strength. Based on the available test results in the literature
and their comparison with the proposed model and the ACI
Code formulas, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Examination of existing experimental data indicated that
the softened strut-and-tie model developed in this study
is capable of predicting the interface shear strengths of
both the push-off and the pull-off specimens with or
without the precracked shear planes.
2. The strut-and-tie actions are fully developed in both the
initially uncracked and the initially cracked specimens,
and their failure modes are the crushing of compression
struts near the shear plane.
3. The predictions of the ACI empirical equations are con-
servative for all of the selected test data, and more pro-
nounced conservatism can be found for specimens using
high-strength concrete.
4. In this paper, the inclination angles of the concrete struts
at failure are approximated as the first cracking angles,
and reasonably accurate predictions can be obtained.
However, the above approximation seems to be inappro-
priate for specimens using high-strength concrete or the
specimens with a highly roughened shear plane. This is-
sue is unclear and more studies are needed.

Downloaded 25 Nov 2011 to 207.5.77.58. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute. (1995). ‘‘Building code requirements for
structural concrete.’’ ACI 318-95 and Commentary (ACI 318R-95),
Committee 318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I. (1996). ‘‘The design of nonflexural mem-
bers with normal and high-strength concrete.’’ ACI Struct. J., 93(1), 3–
10.
Frenay, J. W. (1985). ‘‘Shear transfer across a single crack in reinforced
concrete under sustained loading—experimental results.’’ Part 1, Stevin
Rep., 5-85-5.
Hofbeck, J. A., Ibrahim, I. O., and Mattock, A. H. (1969). ‘‘Shear transfer
in reinforced concrete.’’ ACI J. Proc., 66(2), 119–128.
Hsu, T. T. C., Mau, S. T., and Chen, B. (1987). ‘‘Theory of shear transfer
strength of reinforced concrete.’’ ACI Struct. J., 84(2), 149–160.
Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J. (1999). ‘‘Analytical model for predicting
shear strengths of exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joints for
seismic resistance.’’ ACI Struct. J., 96(5), 846–857.
Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J. (2000). ‘‘Analytical model for predicting
shear strengths of interior reinforced concrete beam-column joints for
seismic resistance.’’ ACI Struct. J., 97(1), 34–44.
Jennewein, M., and Schäfer, K. (1992). ‘‘Standardisierte nachweise von
häufigen D-Bereichen.’’ DafStb., Heft No. 430, Beuth-Verlag, Berlin
(in German).
Mast, R. F. (1968). ‘‘Auxiliary reinforcement in concrete connections.’’
J. of Struct. Div., Proc., ASCE, 94(6), 1485–1504.
Mattock, A. H., and Hawkins, N. M. (1972). ‘‘Research on shear transfer
in reinforced concrete.’’ PCI J., 17(2), 55–75.
Mattock, A. H., Johal, L., and Chow, H. C. (1975). ‘‘Shear transfer in
reinforced concrete with moment or tension acting across the shear
plane.’’ PCI J., 20(4), 76–93.
Downloaded 25 Nov 2011 to 207.5.77.58. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Mattock, A. H., Li, W. K., and Wang, T. C. (1976). ‘‘Shear transfer in
lightweight reinforced concrete.’’ PCI J., 21(1), 20–39.
Paulay, T., Park, R., and Phillips, M. H. (1974). ‘‘Horizontal construction
joints in cast-in-place reinforced concrete.’’ Shear in reinforced con-
crete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
599–616.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Pruijssers, A. F., and Liqui Lung, G. (1985). ‘‘Shear transfer across a
crack in concrete subjected to repeated loading—experimental results.’’
Part 1, Stevin Rep., 5-85-12.
Schäfer, K. (1996). ‘‘Strut-and-tie models for the design of structural
concrete.’’ Notes of Workshop, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National
Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1993). ‘‘Compression response of
cracked reinforced concrete.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 119(12), 3590–
3610.
Wallace, J. W. (1992). ‘‘BIAX: Revision 1, a computer program for the
analysis of reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry sections.’’ Rep.
No. CU/CEE-92/4, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York.
Walraven, J. C., and Reinhardt, H. W. (1981). ‘‘Theory and experiments
on the mechanical behavior of cracks in plain and reinforced concrete
subjected to shear loading.’’ Heron, 26(1).
Walraven, J. C., Frenay, J., and Pruijssers, A. (1987). ‘‘Influence of con-
crete strength and load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete
members.’’ PCI J., 21(1), 66–84.
Zhang, L. X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C. (1998). ‘‘Behavior and analysis of
100 MPa concrete membrane elements.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
124(1), 24–34.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 2000 / 707