See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324621981

Strength of Interface Shear Reinforcement with Limited Development

Length

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · July 2018

DOI: 10.14359/51702061

CITATION READS

1 816

3 authors, including:

Shih-Ho Chao
University of Texas at Arlington
83 PUBLICATIONS   1,411 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Full-Scale RC and HPFRC Frame Subassemblages Subjected to Collapse-Consistent Loading Protocols for Enhanced Collapse Simulation and Internal Damage
Characterization View project

Bond Stress-Slip of Reinforcing Bars and Prestressing Strands in HPFRC Composites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shih-Ho Chao on 04 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 115-S75
Strength of Interface Shear Reinforcement with Limited
Development Length
by Regina N. Waweru, Guillermo Palacios, and Shih-Ho Chao
The ability of a composite beam to act as a monolithic member
relies heavily on the bond between the precast beam and the
cast-in-place (CIP) slab. Insufficient anchorage of the interface
reinforcement could lead to direct pullout due to localized fracture
of the surrounding concrete, thereby failing to develop the rein-
forcement’s yield stress. The short embedded length of approxi-
mately 2 in. (50.8 mm) used for interface shear reinforcement is
a common practice for the box and slab bridge beams in 70% of
the states in the United States. In this study, 18 push-off specimens
were tested to evaluate the effect of clamping action of reinforce-
ment on the friction component of the interface (or “horizontal”)
shear capacity. In addition, 24 pullout specimens were tested to
evaluate the effect of width and bend angle on the pullout strength
of interface shear reinforcement. The tests conducted in this
research indicated that the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) equation used to account
for interface shear in composite concrete beams can overestimate
the contribution of the interface shear reinforcement to the fric-
tion force for composite beams with a short embedded length less
than 4 in. (101.6 mm). Experimental results indicate that, while the
clamping force is considerably lower for short embedded length,
the presence of the reinforcement effectively engages the concrete
in the CIP slab, which enhances the interlocking action and, hence,
the overall shear resistance. A modification to the current AASHTO
equation is proposed to provide more accurate estimation of the
friction force from interface shear reinforcement with a short
embedded length.
Keywords: box beam; composite beam; development length; embedded
length; interface shear; pullout test; push-off test; shear friction; slab beam.
INTRODUCTION
The success of composite action depends on the shear
resistance at the interface between the precast element and
the cast-in-place (CIP) element to allow full transfer of
stresses. The interface shear stress due to bending is equal
in magnitude to the vertical shear stress and can be derived
by either the classical mechanics approach or an alternative
method, which considers the shear force at strength limit
state as given by the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, Section
C5.8.4.2 (AASHTO 2014). Composite construction is also
an economical way of increasing stiffness and strength as
it reduces member depth, which not only serves to better
resist the applied loads but also the transportation weight of
precast elements. If no interface shear resistance exists and
a load is applied to a composite beam, the slab would slide
with respect to the beam and the system would respond as
if they were two separate elements. On the other hand, if
sufficient shear resistance is provided, the slip between the
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018
TECHNICAL PAPER
Fig. 1—Shear friction mechanism (reinforcing bar is repre-
sented by dotted line).
two elements can be prevented and composite action can
be counted on. Thus, a good connection between the two
components of the composite system is essential.
The current code design provisions for interface shear
resistance are based on the concept of shear friction analogy,
which describes how shear is transferred across a cracked
interface. Figure 1 shows that a wedging action develops in
the crack when the opposite sides of the crack are subjected
to a shear force. This wedging action results in not only a
slip along the interface, but also a dilatation perpendicular to
the cracked plane. Due to this dilatation, the reinforcing bar
crossing the crack is stressed in tension and clamps both parts
together. The equilibrium compression on concrete leads to
frictional force. The maximum capacity of the frictional
force is reached when the reinforcing bar starts yielding. In
addition to the friction, the protrusions of the aggregates on
the cracked surface provide an interlock action to the shear
resistance. This aggregate interlock has been traditionally
called “cohesion” (Mattock and Hawkins 1972; Walraven
et al. 1987; Ali and White 1999; Santos and Júlio 2014;
Wight 2016). Past research points to three major mecha-
nisms as contributing to interface shear resistance:
1. Cohesion (or aggregate interlock from the resistance of
the protrusions on the crack faces) (Mattock and Hawkins
1972; Ali and White 1999; AASHTO 2014). This can be
achieved by artificially roughening the interface, providing
a bonding agent or shear key (Bass et al. 1989).
2. Friction between the cracked faces due to surface
asperities with a scale smaller than the aggregates (Ali and
White 1999; AASHTO 2014). Friction resistance dimin-
ishes rapidly when the crack width (dilatation) increases
ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 4, July 2018.
MS No. S-2017-001.R4, doi: 10.14359/51702061, was received August 10, 2017,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2018, American
Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
983
due to the increased slip (or shear displacement), unless the
opening of the crack is controlled by effective clamping or
restraining forces (Park and Paulay 1975). Reinforcing bars
(that is, interface shear reinforcement) are generally placed
at right angles to the shear plane to provide a clamping
force between the two potential sliding surfaces. These bars
must be adequately anchored to ensure yielding before their
debonding and pullout. However, to engage the clamping
action of the interface shear reinforcement, the crack
between the surfaces must slightly open (Scholz 2004). In
addition to the clamping force, the friction can be supple-
mented by an externally applied compression force (such as
the self-weight of the slabs) across a shear plane.
3. Because of the relative slip at the interface, the interface
shear reinforcement will also be subjected to shear displace-
ment, which mobilizes the dowel action to transfer a certain
amount of shear. For small-size bars, the dowel strength
across an interface is primarily provided by the kinking of the
reinforcement (Paulay et al. 1974). If the interface is initially
uncracked, at small slip, the shear stress in the reinforcement
due to dowel action is considerably small compared to the
stress generated by aggregate interlock (Hofbeck et al. 1969;
Paulay and Loeber 1974; Paulay et al. 1974). The dowel
strength can only be fully developed at a large slip along the
interface, which may well exceed the accepted service limit
of structural members. Consequently, for design purposes,
the dowel strength would not normally be included in the
shear resistance of the interface (Birkeland and Birkeland
1966; Paulay et al. 1974).
The shear friction concept is used in both AASHTO Speci-
fications (AASHTO 2014) and ACI 318-14 (ACI Committee
318 2014) for calculating interface shear resistance. The
area of steel (Avf) is typically assumed to be loaded to its
yield strength (fy). This friction force along the interface is
the product of the friction coefficient (μ) and the normal
force (Avffy) and/or applied compression force across the
shear plane. In the current AASHTO specification (2014),
the interface shear resistance consists of: 1) resistance of the
protrusions on the crack faces to shearing (that is, aggre-
gate interlock)—also referred to as “cohesion factor” by
AASHTO; and 2) friction between the crack faces.
The AASHTO nominal shear resistance along the inter-
face plane is given by
Vni = cAcv + μ(Avffy + Pc) (1)
where cAcv is cohesion (aggregate interlock) resistance; c
is cohesion factor; μAvffy is friction due to clamping action
of the reinforcement; and μPc is friction due to externally
applied compression force (such as self-weight of the slabs)
across a shear plane.
The nominal shear resistance should, however, not be
greater than the lesser of
Vni ≤ K1fc′Acv (2)
or
Vni ≤ K2Acv (3)
984
For a cast-in-place concrete slab on clean concrete girder
surfaces, free of laitance with surface roughened to an ampli-
tude of 0.25 in. (6.35 mm), AASHTO states: c = 0.28 ksi
(1.93 MPa), and μ = 1.0; K1 = 0.3; K2 = 1.8 ksi (12.4 MPa)
for normalweight concrete.
Equation (2) is a limit preventing shearing or crushing
of aggregates, whereas Eq. (3) is due to lack of sufficient
experimental data beyond the limit K2. AASHTO limits
the yield stress of interface reinforcement (fy) to 60 ksi
(414 MPa) because previous research on precracked spec-
imens had determined that higher values of fy overesti-
mated the interface shear resistance (AASHTO 2014). Note
that Eq. (1) implicitly suggests that the peak strengths of
cohesion and friction occur simultaneously. However, as
observed in this study and other prior research (for example,
Santos and Júlio [2014]), because the cohesion component
and the shear friction component reach their peak values at
quite different values of interface slips, it is unlikely that
their peak strengths can coexist. Different from AASHTO,
ACI 318-14 ignores the cohesion component and assumes
that the shear is transferred entirely by friction.
Recently, interface cracks between CIP concrete slabs and
precast box beams were found in Texas’s bridges (Fig. 2).
These bridges were built in the 1980s, and the composite
section is only at the 6 ft (1.83 m) wide sidewalks. A thin
overlay was used on the top surface of box beams between
the two sidewalks. There was no interface reinforcement,
hence, the composite action solely relies on the aggregate
interlock. Although modern Texas Department of Transpor-
tation’s (TxDOT) box beam bridges have ample interface
shear strength with the concrete composite deck on the entire
top surface of the bridge, a concern was raised on the very
short embedded length of the interface shear reinforcement.
Five-inch (127 mm) thick composite concrete slabs are
typically used on prestressed slab and box beams in Texas’s
bridges. Given the thickness of the CIP slab and the need to
provide sufficient cover for the reinforcement, the embedded
length of interface shear reinforcement is only approximately
2 in. (50.8 mm) in current TxDOT standards for prestressed
slab and box beams (Fig. 3). AASHTO Section 5.8.4.1
(AASHTO 2014) requires that all reinforcement crossing
the interface should be fully developed on both sides of
the interface by embedment, hooks, or other methods to
develop the design yield stress. Because the interface shear
reinforcement used for composite bridges is typically in a
form similar to a hook (Fig. 3), the required development
length can be computed by following either AASHTO
Section 5.11.2.4 (AASHTO 2014) or ACI 318-14 Section
25.4.3, both of which provide guidelines for determining the
development length needed for standard hooks in tension
 f y ψeψc ψr 
ldh =   db ≥ 8db , or 6 in. (4)
 50λ f ′ 
 c 
where both fy and f c′ are in psi; and ldh and db are in
inches. The variable λ is a modification factor to reflect
the reduced mechanical properties of lightweight concrete
relative to normalweight concrete of the same compres-
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018
Fig. 2—Interface crack found in TxDOT box beam bridge built in 1980s.
Fig. 3—Standard TxDOT: (a) slab; and (b) box beam details.
sive strength. Interface shear reinforcement used in typical
composite bridge beams is not coated (ψe = 1.0) with a side
cover (normal to plane of hook) much greater than 2.5 in.
(63.5 mm) (ψc = 0.7), and has only minor confining rein-
forcement (ψr = 1.0). Concrete used for CIP slabs typically
has a nominal 28-day compressive strength of 4000 psi
(27.6 MPa). Equation (4) results in an embedded length of
6.7 in. (170.2 mm) for a No. 4 bar (d = 0.5 in. [12.7 mm]),
which is not possible for a 5 in. (127 mm) CIP slab that is
typically used in box or slab bridge beams. Because the
clamping action of the interface shear reinforcement relies
on yielding of the reinforcing bars (Item 3 of Eq. (1)), a
short-embedded length inside the composite slab can lead
to localized concrete fracture prior to yielding, consequently
providing insufficient friction. Therefore, the need to inves-
tigate the effect of interface shear reinforcement embedded
in thin slabs is crucial to bridge beam safety.
The authors attempted to collect survey data on box
and slab beams used in all 50 U.S. states (Waweru 2015)
(Fig. 4). Not all the states could provide the survey data
because some states do not use either box or slab beams.
Some states provide a thin asphaltic concrete as the wearing
surface and hence do not use interface shear reinforcement.
Figure 5 summarizes the interface shear reinforcement
used in different states, which can be categorized into six
types, where Type 1 and Type 5 consist of nearly 50% of the
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018
reinforcement used. The embedded length varies between 2
and 6 in. (50.8 and 152.4 mm), depending on the thickness
of the CIP slabs used in each respective state. The data show
that a short embedded length of interface shear reinforce-
ment is a common practice used for the box and slab beams
in most states. An embedment length of 2 to 2.5 in. (50.8 to
63.5 mm) was observed in nearly 70% of the states having
box and slab beams, whereas a width of 6 to 9 in. (152.4 to
228.6 mm) was found to be most commonly used for inter-
face shear reinforcement.
Past research findings
Very limited research was carried out for interface shear
reinforcement with short embedded length. The only work
that relates to this research was carried out by Mattock
(1987), who experimentally investigated the pullout
behavior of hook and loop stirrup anchorages embedded in
thin toppings. Variables included were the interface shear
reinforcement size, topping thickness, topping concrete
strength, and rough or smooth interface. As shown in
Fig. 6, the pullout setup used by Mattock (1987) consisted
of a 12 x 10 in. (304.8 x 254 mm) thick precast concrete
block from which the legs of the stirrup passed through a
plastic tube and were anchored in the topping cast on top
of the precast block. The lower ends of the stirrups were
anchored in another precast concrete block with a bar of
985
Fig. 4—Use of box and slab beams across United States.

Fig. 5—Types of standard interface shear reinforcement

configurations for DOTs in the United States.
equal diameter welded across their ends. The stirrups were
then loaded by a hydraulic ram placed centrally on the steel
plate covering the anchor block. This pushed against the
steel plate below the precast block through a load cell and Fig. 6—Test setup used by Mattock (1987).
a spherical bearing. Based on Mattock’s 1987 experiments,
if either standard 90-degree hooks or closed-loop anchor- with an embedded length of 2.25, 2.75, and 3.25 in. (57,
ages with an overall width of at least 9 in. (228.6 mm) were 70, and 83 mm) normalweight concrete toppings, respec-
used, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 stirrups could be developed tively. Note that the revised TxDOT detailing (Fig. 3(b)) for

986 ACI Structural Journal/July 2018

interface shear reinforcement used in box beams follows
what Mattock suggested—that is, using a closed-loop
anchorage with an overall width of 9 in. (228.6 mm).
However, the embedded length of 2 in. (50.8 mm) for No. 4
bars is still slightly less than what Mattock suggested (2.75 in.
[70 mm]). It should be noted that although Mattock’s
research suggested that a short embedded length could be
used to develop interface shear reinforcement of No. 5 and
smaller, his setup provided significant concrete confinement
due to the compressive force applied by the hydraulic ram,
which delayed the concrete cracking (as illustrated in Fig.
6). It is likely that this confinement may have resulted in a
higher pullout capacity and possible yielding of the reinforce-
ment before bond failure, giving an overestimated strength;
hence, unconservative results for design would be the result.
Indeed, as described by Mattock (1987): “The anchorage
failures occurred as a result of splitting of the cast-in-place
topping in the plane of the loop or hooks, or by breaking
out of the concrete cover above the tails of the 90-degree
hooks, or by a combination of these two modes of failure.”
The reported failure is different from that of a composite
beam where the failure starts from the interface after the
concrete cracks. Therefore, the bar pullout test setup used in
this research was designed to provide the least confinement
to the concrete and lead to more realistic results. The bar
pullout test setup is described later in this paper.
Hofbeck et al. (1969) investigated the interface shear
transfer across a plane for uncracked and precracked inter-
faces. The clamping stress, concrete strength, and reinforce-
ment yield strength were investigated by testing 38 push-off
specimens. Hofbeck et al. (1969) noted that the shear strength
of initially cracked specimens was not directly proportional
to the amount of reinforcement. Changes in strength, size,
and spacing of Grade 60 reinforcement were found not to
affect the interface shear strength for the same clamping
stresses. They also concluded that dowel action does not
contribute significantly to the shear transfer strength of
initially uncracked specimens, but has a significant effect on
initially cracked specimens.
Several researchers have experimentally examined the contri-
bution of dowel action on interface shear strength. Although
an attempt was made to separate the dowel action from the
other mechanisms of interface shear transfer, it was usually
not completely successful. Many researchers have proven that
the capacity of dowel action increases with bar diameter and
concrete strength (Paulay et al. 1974; Harries et al. 2012).
Hanson (1960) studied the composite action between
concrete girders with CIP concrete slabs. Sixty-two push-off
specimens and 10 composite T-beams were tested to inves-
tigate the interface shear transfer strength. U-shaped stirrups
were used with the open end extending 4 in. (101.6 mm)
into the 7 in. (177.8 mm) slab concrete from the precast
girder section. From the results of the beam tests, Hanson
concluded that composite action was lost at a slip value
of 0.005 in. (0.127 mm). He suggested that a maximum
shearing stress for composite action be 500 psi (3.5 MPa)
for a roughened bonded interface for concrete strength
between 3000 and 5000 psi (20.7 and 34.5 MPa). He also
suggested that approximately 175 psi (1.2 MPa) interface
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018
shear capacity may be added for each percent of shear rein-
forcement crossing the interface.
Harries et al. (2012) carried out an in-depth review of
previous work on interface shear as well as complementing
it with an experimental study. They concluded that the inter-
face shear equations in ACI 318 are computationally more
conservative than those in AASHTO. Eight push-off spec-
imens were tested having steel ties (in a closed-loop form)
across the interface that simulated interface reinforcement.
Interface reinforcement of No. 3 and No. 4 sizes were used.
All specimens had three double-legged ties crossing the
interface with the reinforcement embedded in the entire
depth of the CIP and precast part of the specimen. Harries
et al. (2012) further concluded that while the reinforcing
ratio affects the shear-friction capacity, the steel grade does
not. This is because the ultimate shear capacity at inter-
face is controlled by concrete and is reached well before
steel yielding occurs. They, therefore, suggested that the
clamping force is a function of the steel modulus rather
than the yield strength. Harries et al. (2012) also concluded,
similarly to Park and Paulay (1975), that due to the complex
nature of the shear-friction mechanism, it is not possible
to explicitly separate all parameters contributing to shear-
friction behavior or establish explicit predictive behavior.
They concluded that the 2007 AASHTO equation (the same
as Eq. (1)) for shear-friction capacity does not capture the
mechanism of shear-friction and incorrectly implies that the
interface reinforcement yields as the ultimate capacity is
reached. Their observations are consistent with the testing
results from both the pullout test and the push-off tests
conducted in the research as reported in this paper.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Interface shear reinforcement may play a crucial role in
the interface shear resistance of a composite beam. However,
due to the thickness of the CIP slab and minimum concrete
cover for reinforcement, it is not always possible to provide
sufficient embedment length. This has been observed in
slab and box bridge beams used in Texas as well as several
other states. Although push-off tests have been conducted
by various researchers to determine the effect of various
mechanisms of interface shear resistance, to the best of the
authors’ knowledge, no tests have been conducted to study
the effect of interface shear reinforcement with very short
embedded length in the range of 2 in. (50.8 mm) on the hori-
zontal shear resistance. The objective of this research is to
determine if adequate interface shear capacity is provided
by the 2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length in a 5 in. (127 mm)
thick concrete deck on slab and box beams. It also aims to
determine the contribution of interface shear reinforcement
to interface shear resistance and how the results relate to the
AASHTO nominal shear resistance equation.
EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
Push-off specimens
Eighteen push-off specimens were cast and tested to eval-
uate the effect of width and embedded length of the interface
shear reinforcement on the interface shear strength (Table 1).
No. 4 bars were used, as it is the bar size used as interface
987
Table 1—Push-off and pullout specimens test matrix
Bent-bar configuration Cases Push-off Pullout

3.5 in. (88.9 mm) width (180-degree angle)* 1 3 3

3.5 in. (88.9 mm) width (180-degree angle, longitudinally placed) 2 3 —

3.5 in. (88.9 mm) width (90-degree angle) 3 — 3

6 in. (152.4 mm) width (90-degree angle)† 4 3 3

6 in. (152.4 mm) width (90-degree angle, 4 in. [101.6 mm] embedment) 5 3 —

9 in. (228.6 mm) width (90-degree angle)‡ 6 3 3

9 in. (228.6 mm) width (90-degree angle, 4 in. [101.6 mm] embedment) 7 3 —

12 in. (304.8 mm) width (90-degree angle) 8 — 3

6 in. (152.4 mm) width and 90-degree angle long tail 9 — 3

9 in. (228.6 mm) width and 90-degree angle long tail 10 — 3

12 in. (304.8 mm) width and 90-degree angle long tail 11 — 3

Total 18 24
*
TxDOT practice before 2012 for box beams.
†
Details as shown in TxDOT standard drawings for slab beams.
‡
Current TxDOT practice for box beams.
Notes: Width measured from center-to-center.; No. 4 bar used in all configurations.

Fig. 7—Reinforcement layout for push-off specimen: (a) elevation view; and (b) section view.
shear reinforcement in all TxDOT bridge girders and beams.
Each test specimen measured 30 x 14 x 10 in. (762 x 355.6 x
254 mm), which provided a shear interface area of 252 in.2
(18 x 14 in.) (162,600 mm2 [457 x 356 mm]). This spec-
imen size was chosen to be close to one of the largest inter-
face areas in prior push-off experiments. The specimens
consisted of a 5 in. (127 mm) thick CIP slab consistent with
the CIP slab in TxDOT box and slab beams on top of a 5 in.
(127 mm) precast part (Fig. 7). Longitudinal and trans-
verse reinforcement was provided to prevent flexural failure
from occurring before the shear failure occurred along the
interface. Longitudinal bars were placed at both the top
and bottom of the specimen spaced at 3 in. (76.2 mm) on
center. Transverse reinforcement was also provided at 5 in.
(127 mm) spacing. Similar geometry and reinforcement
layout on the push-off specimen have been used by other
researchers (Hofbeck et al. 1969; Mattock and Hawkins
1972; Kahn and Mitchell 2002). It should be noted that this
reinforcement layout provides a higher slab reinforcement
ratio as compared to that used in actual slabs.
Two embedded lengths were considered for the inter-
face shear reinforcement: A 2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded
length was used to match what is currently used by TxDOT
and by most other DOTs as discussed earlier, and a 4 in.
(101.6 mm) embedded length was also considered to determine
its influence on the development of the reinforcement. A 4 in.
(101.6 mm) embedded length is the maximum length allow-
able in a 5 in. (127 mm) slab assuming a 1 in (25.4 mm)
cover. Strain gauges were installed on the interface shear
reinforcement on both sides to obtain strain (and thus,
stress) information. The strain gauges were located 0.5 in.
(12.7 mm) away from the interface to minimize damage
during testing. The interface shear reinforcement was then
tied to the reinforcement caging at approximately the center
of the interface area. Selected push-off specimens with
various bar embedded lengths, angles, and orientations are

988 ACI Structural Journal/July 2018

Fig. 8: Push-off specimens before casting of CIP topping:
(a) 9”-2”-90°; (b) 9”-4”-90°; (c) 3.5”-2”-180°; and (d)
3.5”L-2”-180° (refer to Type 6 in Fig. 5).
Fig. 9—Reinforcement configuration for bar pullout specimens.
shown in Fig. 8. Some state DOTs (Maine, Rhode Island,
and Massachusetts) place the interface shear reinforcement
perpendicular to the beam cross section (Type 6 in Fig. 5);
therefore, this orientation (Fig. 8(d)) was also investigated
to determine its effect (if any) on the dowel action of the
reinforcement.
Pullout specimens
Twenty-four pullout specimens were cast to evaluate the
effect of width and bend angle of the interface shear reinforce-
ment on the pullout (clamping action) behavior (Table 1). All
the pullout specimens had an interface shear reinforcement of
2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length in a 5 in. (127 mm) thick CIP
slab, as used in TxDOT practice. Different specimen geome-
tries were used depending on the width of the interface shear
reinforcement. The four different widths of interface shear
reinforcement tested were 3.5, 6, 9, and 12 in. (88.9, 152.4,
228.6, and 304.8 mm). The 3.5 in. (88.9 mm) width rein-
forcements tested were of both a 180- and a 90-degree bend
angle. The 6, 9, and 12 in. (152.4, 228.6, and 304.8 mm) width
reinforcement had two configurations: one with a continuous
bar and a 90-degree bend angle, and the other having two
bars spliced at the center to form one bar with a 90-degree
bend angle (Fig. 9). Figure 10(a) shows current TxDOT
CIP slab standard reinforcement layouts, where the trans-
verse reinforcement (No. 5) in the CIP slab is spaced at 6 in.
(152.4 mm) maximum and the longitudinal reinforcement
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018
Fig. 10—(a) Typical reinforcement layout in CIP slab;
and (b) bar pullout specimen configuration. Specimen was
cast with bend facing upward as done in practice. Spacing
between No. 4 bars in CIP slab = 12 in. (304.8 mm); spacing
between No. 5 bars in CIP slabs = 5.5 in. (139.7 mm).
(No. 4) is spaced at 12 in. (304.8 mm) maximum. It is also
noted in Fig. 10(a) that the spacing of the interface shear rein-
forcement is 12 in. (304.8 mm). In all the pullout specimens,
transverse reinforcement (No. 5) was provided at 5.5 in.
(139.7 mm) and longitudinal reinforcement (No. 4) at 12 in.
(304.8 mm) spacing with a 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) clear cover as
specified in the TxDOT standard drawings. The TxDOT stan-
dard drawings also show that the interface shear reinforcement
is located at 6 in. (152.4 mm) from the end of the beam. This
dimension was maintained for all the specimens with four
different bar widths; therefore, the total length of each spec-
imen was the bar width plus 6 in. (152.4 mm) on both sides
(Fig. 10(b)). This was done to represent the shortest dimension
in the standard drawings that will result in less confinement
of the bar by the surrounding concrete. This resulted in four
different specimen geometries: 24 x 12 x 5 in. (609.6 x 304.8 x
127 mm), 15.5 x 12 x 5 in. (393.7 x 304.8 x 127 mm), 18 x 12
x 5 in. (457.2 x 304.8 x 127 mm), and 21 x 12 x 5 in. (533.4
x 304.8 x 127 mm).
989
Material properties
Concrete used to make the specimens was obtained from
a local concrete supplier. TxDOT (2014) uses “Class H”
concrete on precast beams with a nominal 28-day compres-
sive strength of 5000 psi (35 MPa), whereas “Class S”
concrete is used for CIP slabs with a nominal 28-day compres-
sive strength of 4000 psi (27.6 MPa). The mixture compo-
sition for Class H concrete consists of aggregates that can
be either river gravel or crushed stone with a maximum size
of 1 in. (25.4 mm). A constant water-cementitious materials
ratio (w/cm) of 0.45 was specified for both the precast beams
and CIP slabs. The specimens and the compressive strength
cylinders were cured under similar conditions. The average
28-day compressive strength achieved for the push-off speci-
mens was 5.5 ksi (37.9 MPa) for the precast part, whereas the
CIP part was 3.9 ksi (26.9 MPa). For the pullout specimens,
the 28-day compressive strength was 3.9 ksi (26.9 MPa).
Concrete casting
The push-off specimens were cast in two parts with the
precast part of the specimens cast with Class H concrete. A
wood float finish was applied at the interface on all the spec-
imens, as this is the most commonly used finishing method
for box and slab beams by most of the precast plants in
Texas. The CIP part of the specimens was then cast 2 weeks
Fig. 11—Push-off test setup.
Fig. 12—Pullout test setup.
990
later with Class S concrete. The surfaces of the precast part
were air-blown to remove dust, dirt particles, and laitance
before casting the CIP part. The pullout specimens, repre-
senting the CIP slab, were cast with Class S concrete. Rehm
(1969) observed that the direction of casting affects the bar
slip (top-bar effect); hence, the bars were cast in the direc-
tion at which they are normally cast on site (Fig. 10(b)).
TEST SETUP AND INSTRUMENTATION
Push-off specimens
The test setup for the interface push-off test with inter-
face shear reinforcement is shown in Fig. 11. It consisted
of a 400 kip (1750 kN) hydraulic cylinder that applied the
shear force along the interface, a 200 kip (890 kN) load
cell to record the load, and a loading beam made of a wide-
flange section W8×24. Two 16 x 1 x 0.5 in. (406.4 x 25.4 x
12.7 mm) steel loading strips were used to transfer the load
between the specimen and apparatus. The height of the strip
was purposely made small (1 in. [25.4 mm]) to minimize
the eccentricity of loading, which can induce bending action
in the specimen. The specimen was instrumented with two
linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) placed on
both the CIP and precast parts to measure the slips during
testing. For specimens that had shear reinforcement with a
4 in. (101.6 mm) embedded length, an additional vertical
LVDT was placed to measure the crack width at the interface.
Pullout specimens
The bars used in pullout specimens had threaded tapered ends
with terminators to fix the bars at the test setup (Fig. 12). The
bars and terminators were obtained from a terminator provider
and later bent to the required widths by a local fabricator. The
test setup consists of a 100 kip (444.8 kN) servo-controlled
closed-loop machine, a top plate, and a bottom plate. The
specimen was placed on top of the bottom plate, and the
two threaded bars were passed through the holes in the top
plate, which were predrilled for each respective bar width.
The specimen was restrained by two restraining blocks on
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018
Table 2—Push-off test results
Specimen Average shear Strain εsu on bar at Stress σsu on bar at
Cases* A - B - C† Failure load, kip (kN) strength, kip (kN) failure, µε failure, ksi (MPa)
65.7 (292.2) 410 12 (82.7)
1 3.5″-2″-180o 64 (284.7) 62 (275.8) 608 18 (124.1)
56.3 (250.4) 900 26 (179.3)
60.3 (268.2) 245 7 (48.3)
2 3.5″L-2″-180 o ‡
65.5 (291.3) — —
70.6 (314.0) 323 9 (62.1)
61.5 (273.6) 294 9 (62.1)
4 6″-2″-90 o
63 (280.2) 63.5 (282.5) 510 15 (103.4)
66.1 (294.0) 667 19 (131.0)
80 (355.84) 1934 56 (386.1)
5 6″- 4″-90o 71 (315.8) 75.8 (337.2) 1084 31 (213.8)
76.5 (340.3) 2271 66§ (455.1)
66.5 (295.8) 449 13 (89.6)
6 9″-2″- 90 o
91.1 (405.2) 79.3 (352.7) 655 19 (131.0)
80.2 (356.7) 574 17 (117.2)
75.3 (334.9) 1500 44 (303.4)
7 9″- 4″-90 o
77.4 (344.3) 76.4 (339.8) 2030 59 (406.8)
‡
— —
*
Refer to Table 1.
†
Specimen notation: (A) bar width, (B) embedment length, (C) bend angle. L is reinforcement placed in the longitudinal direction.
‡
Failure not at interface (value neglected).
§
Actual yielding stress is 70 ksi (482.7 MPa)

the bottom plate, which had slotted holes to aid in adjusting

the side plates to fit the specimens. The bars were fastened
with a terminator onto the top block to be held in place as the
machine applied a tensile load. LVDTs were also provided to
measure bar slip, and strain gauges were mounted on the bar
to record bar strains. This setup, as mentioned in the intro-
duction, provided less confinement in the concrete compared
to the setup used by Mattock (1987) (Fig. 6).

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Fig. 13—Pullout failure of push-off specimens: (a) 3.5”-

Push-off specimens
The results of the push-off tests are summarized in Table 2.
It was observed that specimens having interface shear
reinforcement with a width of 3.5 in. (88.9 mm) placed
in both the longitudinal and transverse direction (Table 1,
Cases 1 to 3) showed no significant change in the failure
load. From the strain gauge information, it was observed
that the interface shear reinforcement did not reach its
nominal yield strength, and the main mechanism of failure
was by bar pullout (Fig. 13). These results are consistent
with results from the bar pullout test, which indicated that
the short embedded length (2 in. [50.8 mm]) could not
provide sufficient bond to allow bars to yield before pullout.
The average bar tensile stress (computed based on measured
strain for these specimens) was 12.7 ksi (87.3 MPa), which
was approximately 20% of its nominal yield strength of
60 ksi (413.7 MPa). These specimens experienced an explo-
180°; and (b) 3.5”L-180°.
sive pullout failure when the interface reinforcement reached
a strain between 200 and 900 microstrain (Fig. 14(a)).
Specimens having a 6 in. (152.4 mm) wide interface shear
reinforcement with a 90-degree angle and 2 in. (50.8 mm)
embedded length (Table 1, Case 4) failed at the interface
with the bar pullout from the CIP part (Fig. 15). An average
peak shear force of 63.5 kip (282.5 kN) was recorded, and
the average bar stress was 11.3 ksi (78.1 MPa). On the other
hand, specimens with a 6 in. (152.4 mm) wide interface
shear reinforcement embedded 4 in. (101.6 mm) into the
CIP showed a slightly higher peak shear force of 75.8 kip
(337.2 kN). At peak shear force, the bars in this case reached
a much higher average stress of 50 ksi (345 MPa). The bar in
the third specimen reached the nominal yield strain at a slip
of approximately 0.1 in. (2.54 mm). No bar pullout occurred;
hence, no failure plane could be examined after the test.

ACI Structural Journal/July 2018 991

Fig. 14—Push-off test. Shear force versus reinforcement strain of: (a) 3.5 in. (88.9 mm) wide interface shear reinforcement with
2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length; and (b) 6 in. (152.4 mm) wide interface shear reinforcement with 2 in. (50.8 mm) and 4 in.
(101.6 mm) embedded length.

Fig. 15—Pullout failure of push-off specimen with 6 in. (152.4 mm) width and 2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length.

Fig. 16—(a) Pullout failure of specimen 9”-2”-90° with 2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length; and (b) shear strength-versus-strain
plot of specimens 9”- 4”-90° with 4 in. (101. 6 mm) embedded length.
Figure 14(b) indicates that specimens with 2 in. (50.8 mm) shear force up to 79.3 kip (352.7 kN). The failure was by
embedded length, similar to those with a width of 3.5 in. bar pullout with no yielding experienced in all the speci-
(88.9 mm), failed when the interface reinforcement had a strain mens and a maximum bar stress of only 19 ksi (131 MPa)
of less than 900 microstrain. On the other hand, interface shear recorded. As shown in Fig. 16(a), the increased strength is
reinforcement in specimens with 4 in. (101.6 mm) embedded attributed to the wider width of the interface shear reinforce-
length reached a strain of approximately 2000 microstrain. ment, which engaged a greater volume of concrete in the CIP
These specimens did not fail in an explosive manner and part, thereby requiring a higher force to fracture the inter-
the reinforcement could keep the cracked interface unsep- face. A severe concrete fracture in the CIP part was observed
arated up to large slips. This shows the value of the higher in most of the specimens. This, as will be further discussed,
clamping force provided to engage the friction force. is consistent with the fracture noticed in pullout specimens
The specimens having a 9 in. (228.6 mm) bar width and with the same reinforcement configuration. For the speci-
2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length and a 90-degree angle mens having a 4 in. (101.6 mm) embedded length, the bars
(Table 2, Case 6) showed an increase in the average peak reached 2000 microstrain (approximate yielding strain) at a

992 ACI Structural Journal/July 2018

Fig. 17—Pullout test: modes of failure.
slip of slightly less than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm). An average peak
shear force of 76.4 kip (339.8 kN) was recorded for these
specimens. Similar to the specimens with a 6 in. (152.4 mm)
wide reinforcement and 4 in. (101.6 mm) embedded length,
due to higher clamping force (friction force), these speci-
mens had a more ductile failure mode, and reinforcement
could keep the cracked interface unseparated up to large
slips (Fig. 16(b)). The major reasons that the specimens
with 2 and 4 in. (50.8 and 101.6 mm) embedded lengths had
similar ultimate interface shear strengths are that: 1) a wider
(9 in. [228.6 mm]) interface shear reinforcement is able
to engage a larger concrete volume in the CIP part by the
reinforcement, and 2) the peak strengths of cohesion and
friction do not occur at the same slip (to be discussed later).
Pullout specimens
All the test specimens exhibited similar modes of failure,
as seen in Fig. 17. The test results are summarized in Table 3.
It can be seen that there was a great deal of scatter in the
steel strain values; however, the values were all below the
yielding strain. Cracks typically developed around the bar.
Once the cracks propagated further, the bar was gradu-
ally pulled out. Significant spalling was observed in some
of the specimens. The change in degree of bend angle for
the specimens having a 3.5 in. (88.9 mm) bar width did not
show a significant increase in strength. In addition, there
was only an 8% increase in average pullout strength (5.7 to
6.2 kip [25.4 to 27.6 kN]) when the width of the interface
shear reinforcement increased from 3.5 in. (88.9 mm)/180-
degree bend angle to 9 in. (228.6 mm)/90-degree bend angle
(as adopted by TxDOT for box beams after 2012). However,
the failure region did increase for a 90-degree bend angle
compared to an 180-degree bend angle. Further, due to the
greater engaged concrete volume in the CIP part when a 9 in.
(228.6 mm) wide interface shear reinforcement was used,
the overall shear strength increased as shown by the push-off
testing (Table 2). Therefore, the change implemented by
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018
TxDOT is likely to have a slight improvement in the inter-
face shear resistance. The specimens having lapped interface
shear reinforcements did not show any effect in the pullout
strength or mode of failure. The specimens with 12 in.
(304.8 mm) wide reinforcement showed a more explosive
failure. Observation of the specimens after failure showed
that the bar had significant bending (Fig. 17) due to the long
length between the hook corners. This bending likely led
to a concentrated high bearing stress near the hook corners
(Marques and Jirsa 1975) and a consequential localized frac-
ture of the surrounding concrete.
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND
DISCUSSIONS
The push-off test demonstrated that the 3.5 in. (88.9 mm)
wide interface shear reinforcement having a 2 in. (50.8 mm)
embedded length previously allowed (before 2012) for
TxDOT box beams (Fig. 3) failed by a brittle pullout of the
bar from the CIP slab (Fig. 14(a)). Strain gauge information
showed very little strain in the bar for specimens having a
2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length. This indicates that the
clamping action of the bar did not have a major contribution
to the maximum shear strength. Furthermore, no significant
difference in shear strength was observed when the interface
shear reinforcement was placed longitudinal to the beam
length (a practice used by some DOTs) and when placed
transversely to the beam length. Increase in the width of the
interface shear reinforcement to 6 or 9 in. (152.4 or 228.6 mm)
did not make a noticeable increase in the stress of interface
shear reinforcement. Extensive tests were also conducted by
the authors on push-off specimens with a wood float finish
without interface shear reinforcement (Palacios 2015). The
average cAcv obtained from the tests was 36 kip (160.1 kN),
which translates into a cohesion coefficient, where c is equal
to 0.14 ksi (0.97 MPa). The average friction coefficient μ
was 0.85. Therefore, according to the maximum shear forces
obtained from experimental results (Table 2), the friction
993
Table 3—Pullout test results
Specimen†
Case* A-B Block size, in. (mm) Bend angle, deg Failure load, kip (kN) Strain εsu on bar, µε Stress σsu on bar, ksi (MPa)
5.6 (24.9) 885 26 (179.3)
15.5 x 12 x 5
1 3.5-180 180 6.3 (28) 522 15 (103.4)
(394 x 305 x 127)
5.3 (23.6) 1011 29 (200.0)
5.3 (23.6) 1252 36 (248.2)
15.5 x 12 x 5
3 3.5-90 90 6.2 (27.6) 927 27 (186.2)
(394 x 305 x 127)
6.8 (30.2) 1055 31 (213.8)
6.3 (28.0) 1424 41 (282.7)
18 x 12 x 5
4 6-90 90 4.6 (20.5) 1815 53 (365.4)
(457 x 305 x 127)
5.5 (24.5) 978 28 (193.1)
7.7 (34.3) 1387 40 (275.8)
18 x 12 x 5
9 6-90L 90 6.3 (28.0) 863 25 (172.4)
(457 x 305 x 127)
5.0 (22.2) 1158 36 (248.2)
6.2 (27.6) 1241 36 (248.2)
21 x 12 x 5
6 9-90 90 6.5 (28.9) 1348 39 (268.9)
(533 x 305 x 127)
6.0 (26.7) 785 23 (158.6)
4.1 (18.2) 509 15 (103.4)
21 x 12 x 5
10 9-90L 90 6.1 (27.1) 875 25 (172.4)
(533 x 305 x 127)
4.0 (17.8) 957 28 (193.1)
5.7 (25.4) 1271 37 (255.1)
24 x 12 x 5
8 12-90 90 5.3 (23.6) 995 29 (200.0)
(610 x 305 x 127)
8.1 (36.0) 1230 36 (248.2)
6.9 (30.7) 1477 43 (296.5)
24 x 12 x 5
11 12-90L 90 6.9 (30.7) 910 26 (179.3)
(610 x 305 x 127)
7.8 (34.7) 1637 47 (324.1)
*
Refer to Table 1.
†
Specimen notation: (A) bar width; (B) bend angle; and (L) spliced bars. All specimens have 2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length.

contribution from the clamping action is approximately
26 kip (115.6 kN). However, using the measured strain
data, the calculated friction from clamping action was only
15.8 kip (70.3 kN). This is because even though the clamping
force did not contribute markedly to interface shear strength,
the presence of interface shear reinforcement engaged the
concrete in the CIP part (Fig. 13 and 15). This engagement
increased the interlocking resistance, which provided an
overall increase in interface shear strength.
The contribution of the clamping action considerably
increased when the embedded length was extended to
4 in. (101.6 mm). Unlike specimens with a 2 in. (50.8
mm) embedded length, the specimens with a 4 in. (101.6
mm) embedded length provided a clamping force that can
keep the two parts from separating up to a large slip (Fig.
14(b) and 16(b)). Among all specimens with 2 in. (50.8
mm) embedded length, the 9 in. (228.6 mm) wide inter-
face shear reinforcement led to a disproportionally higher
increase in shear strength (approximately 21%) than that
of the 6 in. (152.4 mm) wide specimen when compared to
the 3.5 in. (88.9 mm) wide interface shear reinforcement.
This is likely due to the larger size of the engaged concrete
volume in the CIP part where wider reinforcement was used.
Note that the average interface shear strength recorded from
push-off specimens was between 62 and 79.3 kip (275.8 and
352.7 kN) (Table 2), while the interface shear strength
predicted by AASHTO (Eq. (1)) was 95 kip (422.6 kN).
Figure 18 shows the responses of shear force versus slip
and crack width at the interface for two specimens that had
a 4 in. (101.6 mm) bar embedded length. While the inter-
face shear reinforcement reached its nominal yield strain at
a slip of approximately 0.1 in. (2.5 mm), the peak interface
shear force occurred at a slip of between 0.02 and 0.06 in.
(0.5 and 1.5 mm). This indicates that the reinforcement did
not fully participate in the shear transfer before the cohe-
sion (aggregate interlock) failed, as has been reported
by Harries et al. (2012). Also, assume the average cAcv is
36 kip (160.1 kN) (Palacios 2015). Figure 18 shows that the
cohesion (aggregate interlock) lost its strength at a crack
width of approximately 0.05 in. (1.3 mm) or smaller (note
that the crack opening was only measured at one location)
for the specimens that had a 4 in. (101.6 mm) bar embedded
length. The fact that the interface crack opened up at a rate
approximately three times greater than the slip indicates the
importance of the interface shear reinforcement in providing
the restraining force.

994 ACI Structural Journal/July 2018


Fig. 18—Push-off test: shear force verus slip and crack
width relation.
PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO AASHTO
EQUATION
Experimental findings obtained from this study show that
the clamping force (and, thus, the friction resistance) provided
by the interface shear reinforcement can be considerably lower
than assumed in AASHTO’s equation when a short embedded
length is used. The primary failure mode is the fracture of
concrete along the cracked interface. A modification to the
current AASHTO equation is recommended according to the
experimental data for 60 ksi (414 MPa) steel bars
Vni = cAcv + μ(Avf fs + Pc) (5)
 λ f c′ 
f s (ksi) =   l ≤ 60 ksi
 10db  e
 
(6)
 λ f c′ 
f s (MPa ) =   l ≤ 414 MPa
 0.12db  e
 
where le and db are the embedded length (in. or mm) and
diameter of the bar (in a hooked form) (in. or mm), respec-
tively; λ is the lightweight concrete modification factor; and
fc′ is the design compressive strength of concrete for the
slabs (psi or MPa). The variables db, λ, and √fc′ are included
in the proposed equation to be consistent with the major
factors influencing the development length as those used in
current codes (ACI Committee 318 2014; AASHTO 2014).
Other modifications for typical hooked bars, as per Eq. (4),
have been included by considering that interface shear
reinforcement used in typical composite bridge beams is
not coated (ψe = 1.0) with a side cover (normal to the plane
of hook) much greater than 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) (ψc = 0.7),
and has only minor confining reinforcement (ψr = 1.0). The
proposed equation also considers the fact that, although the
very short embedded length can only develop minor stress
at peak shear force, the embedded bar is able to engage the
concrete in the CIP part, which enhances the interlocking
action and, in turn, the overall shear resistance. Therefore,
Eq. (6) was formulated in a way to indirectly consider this
concrete engagement effect without changing the existing
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018
format of the current AASHTO equation (that is, Eq. (5)),
so the cAcv term can be kept the same. The influence from
the width and bend angle are conservatively ignored in the
proposed equation.
CONCLUSIONS AND DESIGN SUGGESTIONS
The survey carried out in this study indicates that an
embedment length of 2 to 2.5 in. (50.8 to 63.5 mm) was
observed in nearly 70% of the states having box and slab
beams, whereas a width of 6 to 9 in. (152.4 to 228.6 mm)
was found to be most commonly used for interface shear
reinforcement. Eighteen push-off and 24 pullout specimens
were tested in this study to investigate the applicability of
current AASHTO equations to composite sections using
interface shear reinforcement with a short-embedded length
(approximately 2 in. [50.8 mm]). Test results and discus-
sions have led to the following conclusions:
1. 2014 AASHTO provision Section 5.8.4.1 requires that
all reinforcement crossing the interface should be fully
developed on both sides of the interface by embedment,
hooks, or other methods to develop the design yield stress.
The interface shear reinforcement with a 2 in. (50.8 mm)
embedded length currently used in TxDOT practice for
box and slab beams does not yield at ultimate capacity as
observed in the push-off tests (Fig. 11) and supported by
the bar pullout tests (Fig. 12). All bars were pulled out at a
lower bar stress before yielding. The stress of the interface
shear reinforcement according to the measured strains was
approximately 20% of the nominal yield strength.
2. For specimens having an interface shear reinforce-
ment with 2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length, although the
clamping action (friction force) was much less, the presence
of interface shear reinforcement engaged the concrete in the
CIP part, which increased the interlocking action thereby
providing an overall increase in interface shear strength.
3. No significant difference was found in the interface
shear strength whether the interface shear reinforcement
was placed longitudinally or transversely to the beam length.
The bend angle (90 or 180 degrees) also has no effect on the
shear strength.
4. For specimens that had an interface shear reinforce-
ment with a 2 in. (50.8 mm) embedded length, increasing
the width of the interface shear reinforcement to 6 in. (152.4
mm) had no appreciable effect. However, while still unable to
develop interface shear reinforcement, the 9 in. (228.6 mm)
wide interface shear reinforcement did increase the overall
interface shear resistance by 21% due to a larger engaged
concrete volume in the CIP part by reinforcement. Therefore,
the suggestion by Mattock (1987) and the change imple-
mented by TxDOT for box beams after 2012 (from 3.5 in.
[88.9 mm]/180-degree bend angle to 9 in. [228.6 mm]/90-
degree bend angle) is likely to have a slight improvement on
the interface shear resistance.
5. For the specimens having a 4 in. (101.6 mm) embedded
length, the bars reached 2000 microstrain (approximate
yielding strain) at a slip of approximately 0.1 in. (2.5 mm).
No bar pullout was observed. Due to the higher clamping
force (friction force) provided by the reinforcement, these
specimens had a more ductile failure mode and the inter-
995
face remained intact even at larger slips. The peak interface
shear strength occurred at a slip of between 0.02 and 0.06 in.
(0.5 and 1.5 mm), which indicates that the reinforcement did
not fully participate in the shear transfer before the cohesion
(aggregate interlock) failed. Because cohesion and shear
friction components reach their strengths at quite different
interface slip values, arithmetically adding them (based on
current AASHTO practice) does not seem reasonable.
6. A modification (Eq. (5) and (6)) to the 2014 AASHTO
calculations (Eq. (5.8.4.1-3)) is proposed herein to provide
more accurate estimation of the friction force from inter-
face shear reinforcement with a short embedded length.
The modification considers the short embedded length of
the interface shear reinforcement and increased interlocking
force provided by the engaged concrete in the CIP part.
AUTHOR BIOS
Regina N. Waweru is a Project Engineer at Huitt-Zollars Inc., Dallas,
TX. She received her master’s and PhD degrees in structural engineering
from the University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX. Her research inter-
ests include design, behavior, and repair of reinforced concrete structures,
prestressed concrete, and fiber-reinforced concrete.
Guillermo Palacios is a Project Engineer at JQ Engineering, Dallas, TX.
He received his master’s and bachelor’s degrees from the University of
Texas at Arlington. His research interests include design and behavior of
reinforced concrete structures and seismic behavior of structural members.
ACI member Shih-Ho Chao is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of Texas at Arlington. He received the ACI Chester Paul Siess
Award for Excellence in Structural Research in 2011. He is a member of
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete. His research inter-
ests include fiber-reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, and seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this paper was sponsored by the Texas Depart-
ment of Transportation. The authors would like to thank J.-S. Cho, S. Sima-
sathien, C. Jiansinlapadamrong, and O. Kinash for their assistance in spec-
imen construction and testing. They would also like to thank L. Colarusso
and D. Reider from Electrical Railway Improvement Company (ERICO) for
their generous donation of bars and terminators. The authors would like to
especially thank TxDOT Project Director D. Jensen for his supervision, as
well as constructive comments given by former Project Director A. Smith.
REFERENCES
AASHTO, 2014, “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” seventh
edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials (AASHTO), Washington, DC, 1704 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 520 pp.
Ali, M. A., and White, R. N., 1999, “Enhanced Contact Model for Shear
Friction of Normal and High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 96, No. 3, May-June, pp. 348-360.
996
View publication stats
Bass, R. A.; Carrasquillo, R. L.; and Jirsa, J. O., 1989, “Shear Transfer
across New and Existing Concrete Interfaces,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 86, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 383-393.
Birkeland, P. W., and Birkeland, H. W., 1966, “Connections in Precast
Concrete Construction,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 63, No. 3, Mar.,
pp. 345-368.
Hanson, N. W., 1960, “Precast-Prestressed Concrete Bridges – 2. Hori-
zontal Shear Connections,” Journal PCA Research and Development Labo-
ratories, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 38-58; also PCA Development Department Bulletin
D35, 1960, 21 pp.
Harries, K. A.; Zeno, G. A.; and Shahrooz, B., 2012, “Toward an
Improved Understanding of Shear-Friction Behavior,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 109, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 835-844.
Hofbeck, J. A.; Ibrahim, I. O.; and Mattock, A. H., 1969, “Shear Transfer
in Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 66, No. 2, Feb.,
pp. 119-128.
Kahn, L. F., and Mitchell, A. D., 2002, “Shear Friction Tests with
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.,
pp. 98-103.
Marques, J. L. G., and Jirsa, J. O., 1975, “A Study of Hooked Bar
Anchorages in Beam-Column Joints,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 72,
No. 5, May, pp. 198-209.
Mattock, A. H., 1987, “Anchorage of Stirrups in a Thin Cast-in-
Place Topping,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 6, pp. 70-85. doi: 10.15554/
pcij.11011987.70.85
Mattock, A. H., and Hawkins, N. M., 1972, “Shear Transfer in Rein-
forced Concrete— Recent Research,” PCI Journal, V. 17, No. 2, pp. 55-75.
doi: 10.15554/pcij.03011972.55.75
Palacios, G., 2015, “Performance of Full-Scale Ultra-High Performance
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Column Subjected to Extreme Earthquake-Type
Loading and Effect of Surface Preparation on the Cohesion and Friction
Factors of the AASHTO Interface Shear Equation,” master’s thesis, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX,
625 pp.
Park, P., and Paulay, T., 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 769 pp.
Paulay, T., and Loeber, P. J., 1974, “Shear Transfer by Aggregate Inter-
lock,” Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 1-15.
Paulay, T.; Park, R.; and Phillips, M. H., 1974, “Horizontal Construction
Joints in Cast in Place Reinforced Concrete,” Shear in Reinforced Concrete,
SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 599-616.
Rehm, G., 1969, “Criteria for Evaluation of Reinforcement bars with
High Quality Composite, Reinforced Concrete,” Reports from Research
and Practice, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, pp. 79-96.
Santos, P. M. D., and Júlio, E. N. B. S., 2014, “Interface Shear Transfer
on Composite Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb., pp. 113-122.
Scholz, D. P., 2004, “Performance Criteria Recommendations for
Mortars used in Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panels Systems,”
master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacks-
burg, VA, 101 pp.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2014, “Standard Spec-
ifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and
Bridges,” Nov., Austin, TX, 919 pp.
Walraven, J.; Frenay, J.; and Pruijssers, A., 1987, “Influence of
Concrete Strength and Load History on the Shear Friction Capacity of
Concrete Members,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 1, pp. 66-84. doi: 10.15554/
pcij.01011987.66.84
Waweru, R. N., 2015, “Strength of Horizontal Shear Reinforcement with
Limited Development,” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, TX, 305 pp.
Wight, J. K., 2016, Reinforced Concrete—Mechanics and Design,
seventh edition, Pearson Education Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 1144 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/July 2018