KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2021) 25(6):2065-2077 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-021-0791-5 www.springer.com/12205

Structural Engineering

Contribution of Shear Reinforcements and Concrete to the Shear

Capacity of Interfaces between Concretes Cast at Different Times
a,b
Jie Liu , Yangmin Bub, Juanjuan Chenb, and Qing Wang b

a
Hubei Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China
b
Dept. of Civil Engineering & Architecture, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 6 May 2020 Currently, shear transfer models have diverse assumptions about the contribution of shear
Revised 4 November 2020 reinforcements and concrete to the shear capacity of interfaces between concretes cast at
Accepted 17 January 2021 different times (that is, cold joints). Furthermore, the knowledge about the effect of high–
Published Online 26 March 2021 strength shear reinforcements (HSSR) having a nominal yield strength exceeding 414 MPa (60
ksi), is still limited. This study aims to determine the extent to which shear reinforcements and
KEYWORDS concrete contribute to the shear capacity of cold joints and explore the effect of HSSR on
shear transfer behavior. To this end, nine cold joint push–off specimens were tested to
Cold joint investigate the effects of yield strength of shear reinforcement (YSSR) and concrete compressive
Shear capacity strength (CCS) on the interface shear strength and stiffness. In addition, code provisions
Cohesion evaluation was used to identify the degree of concrete contribution, based on a database of
High-strength shear reinforcement 108 cold joint push–off test results established in this study. Test results indicate that the
Push-off test
increase of YSSR (rising from 400 MPa to 600 MPa) has no evident effect on the shear strength
and stiffness of cold joints, whereas the increase of CCS can significantly increase them.
Moreover, when CCS rises from 20 MPa to 50 MPa, the interface shear capacity of push–off
specimens increases by approximately 110%, i.e., from 103.5 kN to 217.5 kN. Hence,
concrete has a considerable contribution, whereas the contribution of shear reinforcements is
not as great as expected. Code provisions evaluation results also indicate that concrete
considerably contributes to the shear capacity in the form of cohesion. On the basis of these
findings and current design equations, a shear capacity equation, which accounts for the effect
of CCS and the limited participation of shear reinforcements, is proposed. This equation is
found to provide reasonable prediction of cold joint shear capacity, especially for the cold
joint composed of high–strength concrete.

1. Introduction the original concept, for the reinforced cold joint, the shear
capacity originates from two aspects: the shear reinforcement
Transfer of shear forces across the interface between concretes and concrete. Birkeland and Birkeland (1966) first proposed the
cast at different times (that is, cold joint) is vital to the strength of “shear friction theory”, based on which the simple shear–friction
many concrete structures. In general, concrete structural applications equation was proposed as follows:
for which shear transfer design is warranted include the interface
V = A f tan ϕ , (1)
between precast concrete girders and cast–in–place concrete n vf y

bridge decks, the interface between the existing girder and the
elements newly added in structural rehabilitation, and the interface
between the precast segments and cast–in–place splice regions of
post–tensioned spliced girder bridges (Barbosa et al., 2017;
Williams et al., 2017).
This study addresses the shear capacity of cold joints. Back to
where Avf is area of shear reinforcement; fy is yield strength of
shear reinforcement; tanφ = 1.7, 1.4, and 0.8 − 1.0 for monolithic
concrete, artificially roughened joints, and ordinary joints,
respectively.
Nearly all design equations of codes and calculation formulas
proposed by researchers contain the parameter Avf fy, thereby

CORRESPONDENCE Qing Wang postwq@163.com Dept. of Civil Engineering & Architecture, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China
ⓒ 2021 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
2066 J. Liu et al.
implying that the contribution of shear reinforcement to the
interface shear capacity is considered as dominant. Undoubtedly,
shear reinforcements play a great role in a certain stage of the
entire shear resistant process, especially in terms of enhancing
the shear ductility. However, when the interface reaches the
ultimate shear capacity, whether shear reinforcements play a
decisive role remains to be discussed. To protect the strain gauges of
shear reinforcement from damage during concrete casting and
from interface slip and cracking, the strain gauges are usually
located at a short distance from the interface itself (Harries et al.,
2012; Semendary et al., 2020). Therefore, the actual strain of
shear reinforcement at the interface is difficult to test. Most
literature, as Birkeland and Birkeland (1966) did at first, only
assumes that the shear reinforcement has yielded when the
interface reaches the ultimate shear capacity. Kono and Tanaka
(2000) and Kono et al. (2001) reported that shear reinforcements
do not generally yield when the maximum shear is reached and
the assumption often used in design codes that shear reinforcements
have yielded at the peak stress should be reconsidered. Harries et
al. (2012) demonstrated that the stress in the interface steel
reinforcement is remarkably lower than its yield strength when
the peak shear load is achieved. Barbosa et al. (2017) showed
that for specimens containing #16M (with a nominal diameter of
15.9 mm) reinforcing bars across the interface, the bars reach the
nominal yield strain before the peak interface shear load is
observed. However, the interface reinforcement for the #13M
(with a nominal diameter of 12.7 mm) specimens does not reach
the nominal yielding strains.
Given the complex observations of shear reinforcement strain,
another feasible method can be proposed to determine the
contribution of shear reinforcement. If the change of shear
reinforcement strength greatly influences the interface shear
capacity, then the shear reinforcement has a great contribution to
the interface shear capacity, and vice versa. However, the
literature investigation shows that most of the existing cold joint
push–off tests focused on normal–strength shear reinforcements,
and only the push–off tests conducted by Barbosa et al. (2017)
and Harries et al. (2012) addressed the high–strength shear
reinforcements (HSSR) having a nominal yield strength exceeding
414 MPa (60 ksi). Barbosa et al. (2017) concluded that although
the ultimate shear capacity of the specimens reinforced with
Grade 550 (550 MPa) #16M steel bars is greater than that of the
Grade 420 (414 MPa) #16M steel bars, a similar increase is not
observed in the #13M specimens in which negligible differences
are observed in the ultimate shear capacity. Harries et al. (2012)
reported that the ultimate shear capacity is unaffected by the
grade of reinforcing steel for push–off cold joint specimens with
ASTM A615/A615M (with a nominal yield strength of 414 MPa
[60 ksi]) and A1035/A1035M bars (with a nominal yield strength of
690 MPa [100 ksi]). Shear transfer models, which are based on
“shear friction theory,” are semi–empirical models that have
been calibrated, mainly using push–off test data (Rahal et al.,
2016); thus, additional push–off tests containing HSSR are
required to explore the effect of HSSR and identify the degree of
shear reinforcement contribution. In addition, the push–off tests
conducted by Barbosa et al. (2017) and Harries et al. (2012) only
focused on roughened cold joints, and this study intended to
carry out push–off tests on smooth cold joints including HSSR,
which can serve as useful supplements to the existing tests.
Another aspect that needs consideration is the contribution of
concrete. Birkeland and Birkeland (1966) first proposed the
simple shear–friction equation which did not consider the
contribution of concrete, based on a limited range of concrete
strengths (Walraven et al., 1987). In the following decade, nearly
all the concrete strength of test specimens laid between 3,000
and 6,000 psi (21 and 41 N/mm2) (Mattock, 2001). The effect of
concrete strength is relatively small and is explained as the
natural scatter of experimental results; moreover, the contribution of
concrete was ignored. Due to the simple form and relative high
accuracy, the shear–friction equation, which maintained its
firstly proposed simple format, was codified in the 1977 ACI
Building Code, ACI 318-77 (ACI 318, 1977). With the increase
of concrete strength in push–off tests, researchers have found
that the increase in concrete strength can increase the shear
capacity of interface to some extent, and a few researchers proposed
the calculation formula including a parameter of concrete strength
(Walraven et al., 1987). However, as mentioned above, researchers
still believed that the contribution of shear reinforcement is
dominant. Therefore, on one hand, nearly all calculation formulas,
whether including the concrete strength parameter or not, still
take Avf fy as the main parameter (Walraven et al., 1987; Loov and
Patnaik, 1994; Mattock, 1994; Mattock, 2001; Kahn and
Mitchell, 2002); on the other hand, instead of rethinking the
contribution of concrete, most researchers focused on examining
and modifying the existing calculation models, especially those in
codes, to make them suitable for high–strength concrete (Mattock,
2001; Kahn and Mitchell, 2002).
With regard to the degree of concrete contribution, similar to
the principle about the shear reinforcement, if the change of
concrete strength has a great influence on the interface shear
capacity, then concrete has a great contribution to the interface
shear capacity, and vice versa. Furthermore, the calculation
accuracy of shear–friction design equations in ACI 318-19 (ACI
318, 2019), AASHTO LRFD 2017 (AASHTO, 2017), and CSA–
S6 (2000), can be used to evaluate the degree of concrete
contribution. The reason for this method is as follows. The
shear–friction design equation of each code includes the friction
term, and the value of coefficient of friction is the same, that is,
the three codes have a consensus on the contribution of shear
reinforcement. However, the contribution of concrete is considered
differently. Regardless of the increasing complexity in terms of
understanding arising from high–strength concrete, the ACI 318–
19 design equation has maintained the simple format proposed by
Birkeland and Birkeland (1966), including the friction term only.
The AASHTO LRFD 2017 and CSA–S6 design equations
regard the contribution of concrete as a constant cohesion for a
certain interface condition, and the cohesion in the former is
considerably bigger than the one in the latter. Generally, the

design equation with a higher calculation accuracy considers the
contribution of concrete more reasonably.
This study aims to determine the extent to which shear
reinforcements and concrete contribute to the shear capacity of
cold joints and explore the effect of HSSR on the shear transfer
behavior. Compared with studying the contribution of shear
reinforcement or concrete alone, studying them together can
bring a more in–depth and systematic understanding. However,
research that focuses on them together are rare. In this study, the
effects of shear reinforcement strength and concrete strength on
the interface shear behavior were studied by push–off tests.
Accordingly, the degrees of shear reinforcement contribution and
concrete contribution to the interface shear capacity were
determined. Furthermore, the calculation accuracy of design
equations in the three codes mentioned above was analyzed on
the basis of a database of 108 push–off test results established in
this study. Then, the degree of concrete contribution was also
identified. Additionally, this study is the only known study of
shear transfer behavior of smooth cold joints including HSSR.
2. Experimental Program
Figure 1 shows the details of the push–off specimen. An L shape
of old concrete and another of new concrete that are connected
together at an interfacial zone formed each specimen. The
interface zone is rectangular with a dimension of 300 mm long
by 200 mm wide. The test variables included in this study are
CCS (concrete compressive strength) and YSSR (yield strength
of shear reinforcement). C20 and C50 concrete was selected as
the example of low–strength and high–strength concrete,
respectively. HRB400 and HRB600 steel reinforcing bars with a
nominal diameter of 8mm and nominal strengths of 400 MPa
and 600 MPa, respectively, were used as shear reinforcements
and vertically placed across the interface. All specimens had
three double–legged stirrups crossing the interface, resulting in
Fig. 1. Dimensions and Reinforcement Details of the Push–Off Specimen
(All dimensions in mm): (a) Front View, (b) Section A-A
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2067
an interface reinforcement ratio of 0.005 (6 × 3.14 × 8 × 8/4/200/
300 = 0.005). Three groups of push–off specimens were designed:
C2N group, C5N group, and C5T group. In the group names, the
first two characters stand for the design CCS, “C2” for 20 MPa
and “C5” for 50 MPa. The next character denotes the nominal
YSSR, “N” for 400 MPa and “T” for 600 MPa. There were three
duplicated specimens in each group, and a total of nine specimens
were tested.
Wood molds were used to cast all specimens. The old concrete
portion was cast first, and the new–to–old concrete interface
mold was removed after 24 h and the interface was kept in a
naturally smooth condition (that is, no interface roughened
measure was taken), as shown in Fig. 2. After an interval of 28
days, the new concrete portion was cast. The specimens were
stored in laboratory environmental conditions for curing purposes.
The mechanical properties of the shear reinforcement and
concrete on the day of push–off testing (approximately 50 days
after new concrete casting) can be found in Table 1. The shear
reinforcement did not have a flat–top yield curve, and the 0.2%
offset method was used to calculate the yield stress (Barbosa et
al., 2017; Kahn and Mitchell, 2002).
Tests on push–off specimens were conducted using a
servocontrolled actuator with a capacity of 1,000 kN. The load
was applied through two steel plates with a size of 200 × 150 ×
15 mm (length × width × height) and was concentric with the test
interface, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Before starting the test, a force
of 1.0 kN was imposed on the specimen, and then the load was
applied at a rate of 0.3 kN/s until the specimen failed. The
vertical relative slip and lateral dilation between the two parts of
the interface were measured by three LVDTs [see Fig. 3]. The
LVDTs were attached to plastic fixers which were glued to one
side of the specimen through a mortar with epoxy resin. The tips
Fig. 2. After Casting of Old Concrete
Table 1. Mechanical Properties of the Shear Reinforcement and
Concrete
Yield strength of Compressive strength of concrete
Group shear reinforcement
New concrete Old concrete
(MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
C2N 451 19.8 25.8
C5N 451 51.0 55.6
C5T 645 51.0 55.6
2068 J. Liu et al.

Fig. 4. Condition of the Interface after Final Release of Load

an example for the reason of similarities and simplicity. After

Fig. 3. Loading and Layout of LVDTs
of the LVDTs were in contact with angle steels which were fixed
to the other side of the specimen. The angle steel remained
detached from the side of the specimen on which the LVDTs
were located. The load and LVDTs readings were automatically
recorded at preset intervals.
3. Test Results and Analysis
3.1 Test Results
The shear load was applied until the gap between the two L–
shaped concrete was nearly closed, and large amounts of spalling
of concrete cover of shear reinforcements was observed after
release of load, as presented in Fig. 4. Table 2 summarizes the
test results for ultimate shear capacity Vu, displacements at Vu
(including shear slip parallel to the interface δult and crack width
perpendicular to the interface ωult), residual capacity Vre and
cracking force Vcr. Fig. 5 shows the shear force–slip V–δ and
shear force–crack width V–ω, taking a specimen from each set as
spalling together with the concrete cover, LVDTs no longer
worked and Fig. 5 only presents the curve measured by LVDTs.
As shown in Fig. 5, the response of C5T–1 and C5N–1 was
generally characterized by three distinct stages. In the first stage,
linear elastic behavior was observed, and the mechanism of
adhesion between two concrete parts contributed. Interface
concrete cracks began to develop at the end of this stage (at a
shear force referred to as the cracking load, which is the linear
proportional limit at the beginning of loading). Further loading
caused visible debonding at the interface and caused the shear
reinforcements to be more involved in shear resistance in the
second stage. The behavior was relatively linear in this ascending
stage of the response, and the applied shear force reached its
peak value, which was referred to as the ultimate capacity, at the
end of the second stage. The shear force was transferred mainly
by cohesion (or aggregate interlock) and friction resulting from
shear reinforcements. After reaching the ultimate capacity, with
the increase in the relative slip between two concrete parts, the
applied shear force decreased significantly in the third stage,
primarily due to the loss of cohesion. Owing to the now–large
interface displacement, the shear reinforcement was assumed to

Table 2. Summary of Push–Off Test Results

Ultimate shear Shear slip at ultimate Crack width at ultimate Residual shear Cracking force Vcr
Groups Specimens
capacity Vu (kN) shear capacity δult (mm) shear capacity ωult (mm) capacity Vre (kN) (kN)
C2N C2N–1 102.8(1.71) 0.971 0.253 99(1.65) 65.3(1.09)
C2N–2 100.5(1.68) 1.835 0.239 98.5(1.64) 64.5(1.08)
C2N–3 107.1(1.79) 1.567 0.202 105.8(1.76) 68.4(1.14)
C5N C5N–1 241(4.02) 0.031 0.030 125.3(2.09) 151.4(2.52)
C5N–2 197.2(3.29) 0.041 0.028 129.3(2.16) 135.5(2.26)
C5N–3 214.3(3.57) 0.023 0.055 125.8(2.10) 143.6(2.39)
C5T C5T–1 203.2(3.39) 0.022 0.044 129.8(2.16) 152.6(2.54)
C5T–2 239.4(3.99) 0.066 0.061 155.4(2.59) 138.8(2.31)
C5T–3 221.9(3.70) 0.022 0.042 148.42(2.47) 154.3(2.57)
Note: The shear stress is given in ( ) with unit of MPa.

Fig. 5. Shear Force versus Displacement for Specimens: (a) V-δ, (b) V-ω
yield during this process. The application of further deformation
was attained at a relatively constant force, which was referred to
as the residual capacity. Afterward, the applied shear force
tended to increase, attributing to the strain hardening of shear
reinforcements. Finally, the spalling of the concrete cover of
shear reinforcements began, damaging the interface; moreover,
the shear reinforcements were deformed due to dowel action, as
shown in Fig. 4. The dowel action played an important role in the
latter part of the third stage. However, it is found to be relatively
insignificant for slip values up to at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm)
(Walraven and Reinhardt, 1981). Consequently, it is not explicitly
considered in shear–friction calculations (Harries et al., 2012).
In contrast to the observation in C5T–1 and C5N–1, the
behavior of C2N–1 in the second stage was evidently nonlinear,
and no reduction in the resistance was observed in the third
stage. This result was obtained because the concrete strength of
C2N–1 is low, and the spalling of concrete cover starts from the
second stage, whereas the spalling of the concrete cover of C5T–
1 and C5N–1 begins from the end of the third stage. When the
concrete cover begins to spall, the interface resistance becomes
limited. Specifically, the shear force–displacement response of
C2N–1 considerably softened due to the spalling of concrete
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2069
Fig. 6. Comparison of Ultimate Shear Capacity Vu for Determining the
Effect of YSSR
cover, and the shear reinforcement hardening of C5T–1 and
C5N–1 was not completed for the same reason. If the concrete
cover of C5T–1 and C5N–1 is strong enough to not spall off
during the hardening of shear reinforcements, then the specimen
may be damaged due to the shearing off of shear reinforcements.
3.2 Effect of Yield Strength of Shear Reinforcement
3.2.1 Effect of YSSR on Interface Shear Strength
To study the influence of YSSR on the ultimate shear capacity of
interface Vu, group C5N (having 451 MPa shear reinforcements)
was designed to be identical with group C5T (having 645 MPa
shear reinforcements) in all respects except for YSSR. A
comparison of Vu of the two groups is illustrated in Fig. 6.
As shown in Fig. 6, Vu is almost unaffected by YSSR, and the
difference among specimens of different groups is not larger than
that among specimens of the same group. The test results in
Table 2 reveal that the average values of Vu of groups C5N and
C5T are 217.5 kN and 221.5 kN, respectively, which shows that
the group C5T is approximately 1.8% higher than the group
C5N. Numerous studies have shown that scatter in the order of
10 − 15% of duplicate specimens in push–off tests is generally
acceptable (Rahal et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2019). Therefore, the
analysis above indicates that when nominal YSSR increases
from 400 MPa to 600 MPa, the change in Vu can be ignored. The
possible reason for this phenomenon is that when the interface
ultimate shear capacity is achieved, the stress of the shear
reinforcement does not reach its yield strength. If the stress of the
shear reinforcement has reached its yield strength, then the
specimens of group C5T, having significantly higher nominal
values of YSSR, would be expected to achieve remarkably
greater ultimate shear capacities than that of the specimens of
group C5N.
3.2.2 Effect of YSSR on Interface Stiffness
Figure 7 shows the comparison of interface displacements at Vu
2070 J. Liu et al.

Harries et al. (2012), Jiang et al. (2016) and Semendary et al.

(2020) determined the shear reinforcement clamping component
of shear friction using the measured shear reinforcement strain
and found that the shear reinforcement contributes to the minority
of the interface shear capacity. However, in the discussion of the
paper of Harries et al. (2012), Mattock (2013) asserted that the
strain gauges Harries et al. (2012) placed were located 3 in. (76 mm)
away from the shear plane and the actual strain where the
reinforcement crosses the shear plane will be much greater than
the measured. This study does not involve in the controversy
about the measured strain of the shear reinforcement. From the
perspective of the effect of YSSR, this study demonstrates that
the contribution of shear reinforcement to the interface shear
capacity is not as great as expected.

3.2.3 Effect of YSSR on Interface Residual Strength

The test results in Table 2 reveal that the average values of Vre of
groups C5N and C5T are 126.8 and 144.5 kN, respectively,
which shows that YSSR has a significant effect on Vre. This can
be explained by the fact that the dowel action played an important
role in the latter part of the third shear resistant stage (as described
in the Section 3.1), and the higher shear reinforcement strength can
increase the dowel action to some extent.

3.3 Effect of Concrete Compressive Strength

3.3.1 Effect of CCS on Interface Shear Strength

To investigate the influence of CCS on Vu, group C2N (having
20 MPa concrete) was designed to be identical with group C5N
(having 50 MPa concrete) in all respects except for CCS. Fig. 8
Fig. 7. Comparison of Shear Slip δ and Crack Width ω
ult ult for illustrates the comparison of Vu between them. As shown in Fig.
Determining the Effect of YSSR: (a) δ , (b) ω
ult ult
8 and Table 2, Vu of each specimen in group C5N is significantly
higher than that of each specimen in group C2N. Further
(that is, shear slip δult and crack width ωult) between groups C5N calculations demonstrate that the average values of these two
and C5T. groups of specimens are 217.5 kN and 103.5 kN, respectively,
As can be seen from Fig. 7, the interface displacement of each indicating that Vu increases by approximately 110% when CCS
group of specimens is within 0.1 mm, and the difference among
them is not evident. In addition, the difference among specimens
of different groups is not larger than that among specimens of the
same group. Further calculations show that for groups C5N and
C5T, the average values of δult are 0.032 and 0.037 mm, respectively,
and the average values of ωult are 0.038 and 0.049 mm, respectively.
These small differences can be explained as the natural scatter of
experimental results. Hence, when nominal YSSR increases
from 400 MPa to 600 MPa, the change in δult and ωult can be
ignored.
The increase in YSSR has no significant effect on Vu, δult, and
ωult; thus, it can be inferred that the effect of YSSR on the shear
strength and stiffness of interface can be ignored. Therefore,
when the interface reaches the ultimate shear capacity, the shear
reinforcement has not yet yielded (assumed to yield in the third
stage of the shear resistant process, as described in the Section
3.1). Consequently, its contribution to the shear strength and Fig. 8. Comparison of Ultimate Shear Capacity Vu for Determining the
stiffness is not as great as expected. Effect of CCS

rises from 20 MPa to 50 MPa. Therefore, CCS has a remarkable
effect on Vu. The greater the concrete strength, the greater the
ultimate shear capacity of interface.
For the shear transfer mechanism of interface, the widely–
used shear friction mechanisms include: 1) cohesion (understood
as aggregate interlock) between concrete surfaces that form the
interface; 2) friction resulting from the normal stress being
applied by both normal loads and shear reinforcements that
tension due to the dilation caused by the roughness of the interface
combined with the relative displacements of the concrete parts;
and 3) dowel action from shear reinforcements that cross the
interface (Zilch and Reinecke, 2000). When the interface reaches
the ultimate shear capacity, the dowel action is insignificant, and
the concrete strength can only explicitly affect the first of these
three components (i.e., cohesion). Furthermore, the greater the
strength of concrete, the greater the cohesion of interface (Mattock,
2001; Mansur et al., 2008). Therefore, the experimental result
that the shear capacity of interface increases with the increase of
concrete strength, indicates that cohesion has a significant
contribution to the ultimate shear capacity of interface.
Fig. 9. Comparison of Shear Slip δ and Crack Width ω for Determining
ult ult
the Effect of CCS: (a) δ , (b) ω
ult ult
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2071
3.3.2 Effect of CCS on Interface Stiffness
Figure 9 presents the comparison of δult and ωult between groups
C2N and C5N. As shown in Fig. 9 and Table 2, the displacement
of each specimen in group C5N is remarkably smaller than that
of each specimen in group C2N. Furthermore, for groups C2N
and C5N, the average values of δult are 1.458 and 0.032 mm,
respectively, and the average values of ωult are 0.231 and 0.038
mm, respectively. These results show that when CCS rises from
20 MPa to 50 MPa, δult and ωult are reduced markedly. Therefore,
CCS has a notable effect on δult and ωult. The higher the concrete
strength, the smaller the interface displacements. This is because
when the concrete strength is low, the concrete cover begins to
spall before the interface reaches the ultimate capacity, as
discussed previously, and the behavior of the interface softens
due to spalling.
According to the analysis above, when CCS rises from 20 MPa
to 50 MPa, Vu increases by approximately 110%, and the
corresponding slip δult apparently decreases, indicating that the
increase of CCS can significantly increase the shear strength and
stiffness of interface. Therefore, concrete significantly contributes to
the shear strength and stiffness of interface in the form of
cohesion.
Using the measured shear reinforcement strain, Harries et al.
(2012), Jiang et al. (2016) and Semendary et al. (2020) determined
the shear reinforcement clamping component of shear friction.
Furthermore, the concrete component was calculated by subtracting
the shear reinforcement component from the applied shear load.
They found that the concrete component contributes to the
majority of the shear capacity of the interface. Specifically,
Semendary et al. (2020) stated that the concrete component
contributes to at least 73.5% of the shear capacity. From the
perspective of the effect of CCS, this study shows that concrete
significantly contributes to the shear capacity.
3.3.3 Effect of CCS on Interface Residual Strength
The test results in Table 2 reveal that the average values of Vre of
groups C2N and C5N are 101.1 and 126.8 kN, respectively,
indicating that CCS has a remarkable effect on Vre. This result
may be attributed to the spalling of the concrete cover in the
second shear resistance stage (as described in Section 3.1), which
limits the dowel action of the shear reinforcements of group
C2N.
4. Evaluation of Code Provisions for Determining
Concrete Contribution
4.1 Code Provisions of Cold Joint Shear Design
Considering only normal–weight concrete and shear reinforcement
oriented perpendicular to the interface and ignoring load factors
and strength reduction factors, Table 3 summarizes the provisions
for shear capacity of cold joint from ACI 318–19 (ACI 318,
2019), AASHTO LRFD 2017 (AASHTO, 2017) and CSA–S6
(2000) to calculate the nominal shear capacity Vn. To facilitate the
comparison, the form of design equations and notation presented
2072 J. Liu et al.

Table 3. Design Provisions in ACI 318–19, AASHTO LRFD 2017 and CSA–S6
Code ACI 318–19 AASHTO LRFD 2017 CSA–S6
Design equation V =A f µ
n vf y Vn =c ⋅ Acv + µ ⋅ ( Avf f y + Pc ) Vn =c ⋅ Acv + µ ⋅ ( Avf f y + Pc )

Vn ≤ K 1 f c′Acv ; Vn ≤ K 2 Acv ; V n ≤ K 1 f c′Acv ; Vn ≤ K2 Acv ; Vn ≤ K 1 f c′Acv ; Vn ≤ K2 Acv ;

Limitations
f y ≤ 414 MPa f y ≤ 414 MPa f y ≤ 500MPa

Parameter μ K1 K2 (MPa) c (MPa) μ K1 K2 (MPa) c (MPa) μ K1 K2 (MPa)

Roughened interface 1.0 0.20 11.03 1.65 1.0 0.25 10.34 0.50 1.0 0.25 6.5
Smooth interface 0.6 0.20 5.52 0.52 0.6 0.20 5.52 0.25 0.6 0.25 6.5
Note: Vn is nominal interface shear resistance, N; Avf is area of interface shear reinforcement, mm2; fy is yield strength of interface shear reinforcement,
MPa; μ is coefficient of friction; K1 is fraction of concrete strength available to resist interface shear; K2 is limiting interface shear resistance; fc' is con-
crete compressive strength, MPa; Acv is area of concrete shear interface, mm2; c is cohesion factor reported to account for cohesion and aggregate
interlock in AASHTO and CSA–S6; Pc is permanent net force. 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

in the following were adjusted as necessary to maintain consistency
between different provisions.
The nominal capacity in AASHTO LRFD 2017 and CSA–S6
is based on the cohesion between the interface surfaces and
friction that results from shear reinforcements crossing the
interface. Significantly, the cohesion in AASHTO LRFD 2017 is
assumed to have a greater contribution to the shear capacity in
comparison with that in CSA–S6. The interface shear transfer
model in ACI 318–19 considers shear capacity by friction only.
Thus, the ascending order of the assumed cohesion contribution
to interface shear capacity is as follows: ACI 318–19 equation,
CSA–S6 equation, and AASHTO LRFD 2017 equation.
4.2 Evaluation Results and Analysis
As presented in Table 3, the shear–friction equations in these
three codes adopt the same coefficient of friction for the interface
of the same type. However, two major differences exist among
the provisions. Except for different considerations about cohesion,
the limitations are also different. ACI 318–19 and AASHTO
LRFD 2017 limit the design yield strength of any HSSR for
interface shear applications to 414 MPa, and CSA–S6 500 MPa.
Besides, the upper limits of shear capacity vary. Given the
purpose of code evaluation in this study, the limitations in the
other two codes are modified to the one in ACI 318–19 in the
following evaluation. In doing so, the consideration about cohesion
becomes the only difference among the provisions, and the
influence of cohesion on the calculation accuracy of design
equations can be specifically and reasonably considered. On this
basis, the code evaluation in this study differs from that in other
literature.
Based on 108 test data on classical normal–weight cold joint
push–off specimens (without inclined reinforcement across the
interface or an external force perpendicular to the interface),
which was composed of 9 test data from this study and 99 available
published test data collected from the literature (Mattock, 1976;
Kahn and Mitchell, 2002; Harries et al., 2012; Shaw and Sneed,
2014; Figueira et al., 2015; Barbosa et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019;
Semendary et al., 2020), the accuracy of design equations of the
three codes was analyzed. Among the test data, 48 and 60 test
data originated from specimens with a smooth and roughened
interface, respectively. The overview and values of experimental–
to–nominal shear capacity ratio Vu /VACI, Vu /VAAS, and Vu /VCSA
are listed in detail in Tables 4 and 5, wherein Vu is the
experimental shear capacity, and VACI, VAAS, and VCSA are the
nominal shear capacities according to the design equations of
ACI 318–19, AASHTO LRFD 2017, and CSA–S6, respectively.
In addition, Vu /VACI, Vu /VAAS, and Vu /VCSA are plotted against the
concrete cylinder compressive strength of specimens fc' in Fig.
10. For cold joint specimens with different concrete strengths on
each side of the interface, the lower cylinder compressive
strength was reported.
The average values of the experimental-to-nominal shear
capacity ratio shown in Tables 4 and 5 reveal that the ascending
order of calculation accuracy is as follows: ACI 318–19 equation,
CSA–S6 equation, and AASHTO LRFD 2017 equation; this
order is the same as that of the assumed cohesion contribution to
the interface shear capacity. This analysis result indicates that the
AASHTO LRFD 2017 equation considers the contribution of
concrete more reasonably and cohesion has a significant contribution
to the shear capacity of interface. In addition, all minimums of
the experimental–to–nominal shear capacity ratio are bigger than
0.75, which is the shear strength reduction factor of ACI 318–19.
This finding indicates that even if the ACI 318–19 design equation
is modified to the design equation in CSA–S6 or AASHTO
LRFD 2017, retaining the existing limitations in ACI 318–19, it
can still be used to guide engineering designs. The maximums of
Vu /VACI are 3.97 and 6.82 for smooth and roughened interfaces,
respectively, indicating that without the cohesion term, ACI 318–
19 equation is excessively conservative for high–strength concrete.
As shown in Fig. 10, Vu /VACI, Vu /VAAS, and Vu /VCSA are positively
correlated with CCS. This is because that the cohesion of
interface is positively related to the strength of concrete forming
the interface (Mattock, 2001; Mansur et al., 2008), whereas the
design equations in the three codes do not consider the effect of
concrete strength on cohesion. This phenomenon also indicates
that cohesion contributes significantly to the shear capacity of
interface. In addition, compared with the smooth interfaces, the
positive relationship between the experimental–to–nominal shear
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2073

Table 4. Push–Off Tests of Classical Normal Weight Concrete Specimens with Smooth Cold Joint
Reference Specimens fc' (MPa) ρ fy (MPa) Vu (N) Vu / VACI Vu / VAAS Vu /VCSA
Kahn and Mitchell SF–10–1–CJ 98.8 0.0037 572 141,135 3.97 2.53 3.12
(2002) SF–10–2–CJ 83.1 0.0074 572 219,242 3.08 2.40 2.71
Liu et al. (2019) M–1 56.6 0.005 446 252,500 3.39 2.39 2.82
M–2 56.6 0.005 446 216,500 2.91 2.05 2.42
M–3 56.6 0.005 446 211,600 2.84 2.00 2.36
M–4 56.6 0.005 446 207,700 2.79 1.96 2.32
M–5 56.6 0.005 446 212,500 2.85 2.01 2.37
M–6 56.6 0.005 446 254,500 3.42 2.41 2.84
M–7 56.6 0.005 446 214,600 2.88 2.03 2.40
M–8 56.6 0.005 446 213,900 2.87 2.02 2.39
M–9 56.6 0.005 446 201,400 2.70 1.91 2.25
M–10 56.6 0.005 446 197,500 2.65 1.87 2.21
Mattock (1976) C1 40.5 0.0044 351 46,704 1.56 1.00 1.23
C2 40.5 0.0088 351 80,064 1.34 1.05 1.18
C3 41.2 0.0132 348 95,187 1.07 0.90 0.98
C4 41.2 0.0176 356 133,440 1.10 0.97 1.03
C5 42.6 0.022 364 173,472 1.12 1.01 1.07
C6 42.6 0.032 312 196,157 1.10 1.10 1.10
G1 40.5 0.0044 351 35,584 1.19 0.76 0.94
G2 40.5 0.0088 351 58,714 0.98 0.77 0.87
G3 41.2 0.0132 348 85,402 0.96 0.81 0.88
G4 41.2 0.0176 356 111,200 0.92 0.81 0.86
G5 42.6 0.022 364 130,326 0.84 0.76 0.80
G6 42.6 0.032 312 173,027 0.97 0.97 0.97
H1 40.2 0.0044 382 41,811 1.28 0.85 1.03
H2 41.9 0.0088 382 71,613 1.10 0.87 0.98
H3 41.9 0.0132 382 102,304 1.05 0.89 0.97
H4 41.9 0.0176 370 113,424 0.90 0.79 0.85
H5 42.6 0.0248 323 145,450 0.94 0.85 0.89
H6 40.7 0.032 323 169,024 0.95 0.95 0.95
Shaw and Sneed N–5–S–4 33.5 0.013 456 137,221 1.33 1.15 1.24
(2014) N–5–S–5 33.5 0.013 456 154,257 1.50 1.29 1.39
N–5–S–6 33.5 0.013 456 174,139 1.69 1.45 1.57
N–8–S–1 52.0 0.013 456 291,611 2.83 2.44 2.62
N–8–S–2 52.0 0.013 456 237,078 2.30 1.98 2.13
N–8–S–3 52.0 0.013 456 246,108 2.39 2.06 2.21
Figueira et al. (2015) 1 44.2 0.0107 605 202,184 2.03 1.70 1.85
2 44.2 0.0107 605 196,148 1.97 1.65 1.80
3 44.2 0.0107 605 201,321 2.02 1.69 1.85
This study C2N–1 19.8 0.005 450 102,800 1.38 0.97 1.15
C2N–2 19.8 0.005 450 100,800 1.35 0.95 1.13
C2N–3 19.8 0.005 450 107,100 1.44 1.01 1.20
C5N–1 51.0 0.005 450 241,000 3.23 2.28 2.69
C5N–2 51.0 0.005 450 197,200 2.65 1.87 2.20
C5N–3 51.0 0.005 450 214,300 2.88 2.03 2.39
C5T–1 51.0 0.005 645 203,200 2.73 1.92 2.27
C5T–2 51.0 0.005 645 239,400 3.21 2.26 2.67
C5T–3 51.0 0.005 645 221,900 2.98 2.10 2.48
Average 1.99 1.51 1.72
Coefficient of Variation 0.46 0.40 0.42
Maximum 3.97 2.53 3.12
Minimum 0.84 0.76 0.80
Note: The limitations in AASHTO LRFD 2017 and CSA–S6 are modified to the one in ACI 318–19 in the calculation of nominal shear capacity.
2074 J. Liu et al.

Table 5. Push–Off Tests of Classical Normal Weight Concrete Specimens with Roughened Cold Joint
Reference Specimens fc' (MPa) ρ fy (MPa) Vu (N) Vu / VACI Vu / VAAS Vu /VCSA
Barbosa et al. (2017) 4G60–1 30.9 0.0041 473 1,241,180 2.95 1.50 2.28
4G60–2 30.9 0.0041 473 1,141,180 2.71 1.38 2.10
4G60–3 28.9 0.0041 473 1,087,590 2.59 1.31 2.00
4G60–4 28.9 0.0041 473 1,175,370 2.80 1.42 2.16
4G60–5 28.9 0.0041 473 1,200,000 2.85 1.45 2.21
4G80–1 30.1 0.0041 591 1,035,550 2.46 1.25 1.90
4G80–2 28.9 0.0041 591 1,083,240 2.58 1.31 1.99
4G80–3 28.9 0.0041 591 1,123,130 2.67 1.35 2.06
4G80–4 28.9 0.0041 591 1,166,550 2.78 1.41 2.14
4G80–5 28.9 0.0041 591 1,292,740 3.08 1.56 2.38
5G60–1 31.6 0.0064 443 1,215,530 2.47 1.52 2.07
5G60–2 31.6 0.0064 443 1,227,000 2.49 1.53 2.09
5G60–3 28.6 0.0064 443 1,233,780 2.50 1.54 2.11
5G60–4 28.6 0.0064 443 1,210,580 2.46 1.51 2.07
5G60–5 28.6 0.0064 443 1,223,950 2.48 1.53 2.09
5G80–1 31.6 0.0064 589 1,342,060 2.72 1.68 2.29
5G80–2 28.6 0.0064 589 1,359,700 2.76 1.70 2.32
5G80–3 28.6 0.0064 589 1,389,690 2.82 1.74 2.37
5G80–4 28.6 0.0064 589 1,257,330 2.55 1.57 2.15
5G80–5 28.6 0.0064 589 1,322,190 2.68 1.65 2.26
Harries et al. (2012) 615–3A 40.0 0.0041 464 500,400 2.85 1.44 2.20
615–3B 40.0 0.0041 464 429232 2.40 1.22 1.86
615–4A 40.0 0.0073 424 509,296 1.58 1.02 1.36
615–4B 40.0 0.0074 424 573,792 1.79 1.16 1.54
1035–3A 40.0 0.0042 896 400,320 2.27 1.16 1.76
1035–3B 40.0 0.0041 869 467,040 2.65 1.35 2.05
1035–4A 40.0 0.0074 965 603,594 1.88 1.22 1.62
1035–4B 40.0 0.0075 905 504,848 1.57 1.02 1.35
Semendary et al. P–SR–A 63.0 0.0055 414 160,400 2.73 1.58 2.24
(2020) P–SR–B 63.0 0.0055 414 166,900 2.84 1.65 2.33
Kahn and Mitchell SF–7–1–CJ 80.9 0.0037 572 240,192 4.05 1.95 3.05
(2002) SF–7–2–CJ 80.9 0.0074 572 365,181 3.08 2.00 2.65
SF–7–3–CJ 86.0 0.0111 572 490,614 2.76 2.03 2.49
SF–7–4–CJ 86.0 0.0148 572 590,161 2.49 1.96 2.30
SF–10–3–CJ 89.3 0.0111 572 506,672 2.85 2.10 2.57
SF–10–4–CJ 89.3 0.0148 572 560,626 2.36 1.86 2.19
SF–14–1–CJ 101.7 0.0037 572 404,368 6.82 3.28 5.14
SF–14–2–CJ 101.7 0.0074 572 441,197 3.72 2.42 3.20
SF–14–3–CJ 104.9 0.0111 572 599,190 3.37 2.48 3.04
SF–14–4–CJ 104.9 0.0148 572 681,078 2.87 2.26 2.65
Mattock (1976) B1 40.3 0.0044 353 108,309 2.16 1.05 1.63
B2 40.3 0.0088 348 155,680 1.57 1.02 1.35
B3 41.7 0.0132 353 234,410 1.56 1.15 1.41
B4 41.7 0.0176 371 283,782 1.35 1.31 1.31
B5 40.6 0.0248 340 349,168 1.64 1.64 1.64
B6 40.6 0.032 340 378,080 1.77 1.77 1.77
D1 26.0 0.0044 353 131,216 2.62 1.27 1.98
D2 26.0 0.0088 353 204,608 2.04 1.33 1.76
D3 20.3 0.0132 386 224,624 1.72 1.72 1.72
D4 20.3 0.0176 386 222,845 1.70 1.70 1.70
D4A 17.2 0.0176 372 221,066 1.99 1.99 1.99
D5 20.4 0.0248 320 269,104 2.05 2.05 2.05
D5A 19.3 0.0248 319 278,000 2.24 2.24 2.24
B1 40.3 0.0044 353 108,309 2.16 1.05 1.63
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2075

Table 5. (continued)
Reference Specimens fc' (MPa) ρ fy (MPa) Vu (N) Vu / VACI Vu / VAAS Vu /VCSA
Shaw and Sneed N–5–R–4 33.5 0.013 456 262,699 1.53 1.36 1.40
(2014) N–5–R–5 33.5 0.013 456 237612 1.38 1.23 1.26
N–5–R–6 33.5 0.013 456 237,701 1.38 1.23 1.27
N–8–R–1 52.0 0.013 456 329,330 1.92 1.47 1.75
N–8–R–2 52.0 0.013 456 249,488 1.45 1.11 1.33
N–5–R–4 33.5 0.013 456 262,699 1.53 1.36 1.40
Average 2.44 1.59 2.07
Coefficient of Variation 0.34 0.27 0.29
Maximum 6.82 3.28 5.14
Minimum 1.35 1.02 1.26
Note: The limitations in AASHTO LRFD 2017 and CSA–S6 are modified to the one in ACI 318–19 in the calculation of nominal shear capacity.

cause the roughness of low–strength concrete interfaces to be

larger than that of high–strength concrete interfaces and thus
have greater cohesion.

5. Proposed Calculation Equation of Interface

Shear Capacity

Design equations listed in Table 3 are used as a basis for

Fig. 10. Concrete Compressive Strength versus Experimental–to–Nominal
Shear Capacity Ratio for Classical Normal–Weight Cold Joint
Push–Off Specimens: (a) Smooth Cold Joint Push–Off Specimens,
(b) Roughened Cold Joint Push–Off Specimens
capacity ratio and CCS is not evident for the roughened interfaces.
This result is due to the great differences in the roughened
measures adopted by different researchers; these differences may
modification. Given that concrete has a significant contribution
to the interface shear capacity, in the form of cohesion which is
positively related to CCS, and the shear reinforcement is only
partially involved when the interface reaches the ultimate shear
capacity. Thus, the proposed calculation equation of interface
shear capacity should be composed of a cohesion term considering
the effect of CCS and a friction term considering the limited
participation of shear reinforcements. According to this idea and
multiple regression analysis on the test results presented in Tables
4 and 5, the proposed shear capacity equation is as follows:
Vn = a ⋅ f c′ ⋅ Acv + b ⋅ µ ⋅ Avf f y ≤ 0.2 f c′ ⋅ Acv , (2)
where a and b are parameters obtained by the regression analysis
on the test results. Thus, the value of a = 0.02 and 0.06 for the
smooth and roughened cold joints, respectively, and b = 0.6 can
be obtained. In addition, fy is limited to 414 MPa and an upper
limit for the shear capacity is set at 0.2fc'·Acv because that agreed
with the test results and they are the same as ACI 318–19.
For the smooth cold joints
V n = 0.02 ⋅ f c′ ⋅ Acv + 0.36 ⋅ Avf f y ≤ 0.2 f c′ ⋅ Acv . (3)
For the roughened cold joints
Vn = 0.06 ⋅ f c′ ⋅ Acv + 0.6 ⋅ Avf f y ≤ 0.2 f c′ ⋅ Acv . (4)
Based on the 108 test data mentioned above, Table 6 shows
the statistical characteristics of the experimental–to–nominal
shear capacity ratio Vu/Vpro, wherein Vpro is the nominal shear capacity
according to the proposed equation of this study. Additionally,
the ratio Vu/Vpro was plotted against the concrete cylinder
compressive strength of specimens fc' in Fig. 11.
2076 J. Liu et al.
Table 6. The Statistical Characteristics of the Experimental–to–Nominal
Shear Capacity Ratio Vu /Vpro
Interface condition Smooth Roughened
Average 1.68 1.63
Coefficient of variation 0.30 0.21
Maximum 3.07 2.49
Minimum 0.81 1.00
Fig. 11. Concrete Compressive Strength versus the Ratio of Experimental
Shear Capacity to the Nominal Shear Capacity Computed
Using the Proposed Equation of This Study
Table 6 and Fig. 11 reveal that, Vu /Vpro has a reasonable
average, and compared with Vu /VACI, Vu /VAAS, and Vu /VCSA, it has
a smaller coefficient of variation and no longer presents a
tendency of increasing with the increase of CCS. This indicates
that the proposed equation of this study can be well used to
predict the interface shear capacity, and CCS has no effect on its
calculation accuracy.
It should be specially pointed out that, for high–strength
concrete specimens (with CCS larger than 60 MPa), the average
values of Vu /Vpro, Vu /VACI, Vu /VAAS, and Vu /VCSA are 1.69, 3.52,
2.47, and 2.92 for smooth cold joints, respectively, and 1.49,
3.33, 2.13, and 2.82 for roughened cold joints, respectively. This
indicates that compared with the three design equations mentioned
above, the proposed equation of this study can be better applied
to high–strength concrete.
6. Conclusions
The contribution of shear reinforcements and concrete to the
shear capacity of cold joints was reconsidered together, and the
effect of HSSR was also investigated in this study. Push–off tests
and code provisions evaluation were employed to determine the
degrees of shear reinforcements contribution and concrete
contribution. Based on the conducted study, main conclusions
can be drawn as following:
1. The push–off test results demonstrate that when nominal
YSSR increases from 400 MPa to 600 MPa, the change in
the ultimate shear capacity of interface Vu and the corresponding
interface shear slip δult and crack width ωult can be ignored,
indicating that YSSR has no significant effect on the shear
strength and stiffness of interface. This may be due to the
fact that when the interface reaches the ultimate shear
capacity, the shear reinforcement has not yet yielded, and it
is only partially involved in the interface shear resistance.
2. It is observed in the push–off tests that when CCS rises
from 20 MPa to 50 MPa, Vu increases by approximately
110% and δult apparently decreases, showing that the increase
in CCS can substantially increase the shear strength and
stiffness of interface. This indicates that concrete significantly
contributes to the shear capacity and stiffness of interfaces.
In summary, the push–off test results of this study show
that concrete has a significant contribution to the interface
shear capacity, whereas the contribution of shear
reinforcements is not as great as expected.
3. The results of the code provision evaluation show that, the
ascending order of design equation calculation accuracy is
the same as the ascending order of the assumed cohesion
contribution to interface shear capacity (i.e., ACI 318–19
equation, CSA–S6 equation, and AASHTO LRFD 2017
equation). This indicates that concrete has a notable
contribution to the interface shear capacity in the form of
cohesion. In addition, the phenomenon in which the
experimental–to–nominal shear capacity ratios Vu /VACI, Vu /
VAAS, and Vu /VCSA are positively correlated with CCS
confirms this issue.
4. The proposed shear capacity equation of this study, which
accounts for the effect of CCS and the limited participation
of shear reinforcements, can be well used to predict the
cold joint shear capacity, especially for the cold joint
composed of high–strength concrete. In addition, no obvious
relationship between the experimental–to–nominal shear
capacity ratios Vu /Vpro and CCS is noted.
5. Both YSSR and CCS have a significant effect on the
residual strength of interface. This can be explained by the
fact that when the residual strength is reached, the shear
force is transferred mainly by dowel action, which is
affected by both shear reinforcements and concrete.
The results from this study aid in the clarity of the degree to
which the shear reinforcement and concrete contribute to the
shear capacity of cold joints. Variables out of the scope of the
study (e.g., interface roughness, reinforcing bar sizes, reinforcing
bar spacing, and more reinforcement and concrete strengths)
should be evaluated. It is suggested that more tests should be
carried out on this topic.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51641807), Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province

(Grant No. 2018CFB664), and Open Research Fund Project of
Hubei Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
(China Three Gorges University) (Grant No. 2018KJZ06). The
authors also thank Zhongguo John Ma from University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN, United States, for his valuable suggestions.
ORCID
Jie Liu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4730-9497
Qing Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8524-1465
References
AASHTO (2017) AASHTO bridge design specifications, 8th edition.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington DC, USA
ACI 318 (1977) ACI 318–77: Building code requirements for structural
concrete. ACI 318–77, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, USA
ACI 318 (2019) ACI 318–19: Building code requirements for structural
concrete. ACI 318–19, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, USA
Barbosa AR, Trejo D, Nielson D (2017) Effect of high–strength
reinforcement steel on shear friction behavior. Journal of Bridge
Engineering 22(8):04017038, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.
0001015
Birkeland PW, Birkeland HW (1966) Connections in precast concrete
construction. ACI Journal Proceedings 63(3):345-368
CAN/CSA–S6–00 (2000) CAN/CSA–S6–00: Canadian highway bridge
design code. Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, ON, Canada
Figueira D, Sousa C, Calçada R, Neves AS (2015) Push–off tests in the
study of cyclic behavior of interfaces between concretes cast at
different times. Journal of Structure Engineering 142(1):0401510,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001364
Harries KA, Zeno G, Shahrooz B (2012) Toward an improved understanding
of shear friction behavior. ACI Structural Journal 109(6):835-844
Jiang H, Fang Z, Ma ZJ, Fang X, Jiang Z (2016) Shear-friction behavior
of groove interface in concrete bridge rehabilitation. Journal of
Bridge Engineering 21(11):04016081, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.
1943-5592.0000953
Kahn LF, Mitchell AD (2002) Shear friction test with high–strength
concrete. ACI Structural Journal 99(1):98-103
Kono S, Tanaka H (2000) Interface shear transfer for high strength
concrete and high strength reinforcement. 12th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zeland, 0641
Kono S, Tanaka H, Watanabe F (2001) Interface shear transfer for high
strength concrete and high strength shear friction reinforcement.
International conference on high performance materials in bridges,
July 29-August 3, Kona, HI, USA, 319-328
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2077
Liu J, Fan JX, Chen JJ, Xu G (2019) Evaluation of design provisions for
interface shear transfer between concretes cast at different times.
Journal of Bridge Engineering 24(6):06019002, DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001393
Loov RE, Patnaik AK (1994) Horizontal shear strength of composite
concrete beams with a rough interface. PCI Journal 38(1):48-69
Mansur MA, Vinayagam T, Tan KH (2008) Shear transfer across a
crack in reinforced high–strength concrete. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering 20(4):294-302, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561
(2008)20:4(294)
Mattock AH (1976) Shear transfer under monotonic loading across an
interface between concretes cast at different times. Rep. SM 76-3,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA, USA
Mattock AH (1994) Reader comments: Horizontal shear strength of
composite concrete beams with a rough interface. PCI Journal
39(5):106-108
Mattock AH (2001) Shear friction and high–strength concrete. ACI
Structural Journal 98(1):50-59
Mattock AH (2013) Toward an improved understanding of shear-
friction behavior. ACI Structural Journal 110(5):890-891
Rahal KN, Khaleefi AL, Al–Sanee A (2016) An experimental investigation
of shear–transfer strength of normal and high strength self compacting
concrete. Engineering Structures 10:16-25, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.
2015.11.015
Semendary AA, Hamid WK, Steinberg EP, Khoury I (2020) Shear
friction performance between high strength concrete (HSC) and
ultra high performance concrete (UHPC) for bridge connection
applications. Engineering Structures 205:110122, DOI: 10.1016/
j.engstruct.2019.110122
Shaw D, Sneed LH (2014) Interface shear transfer of lightweight–
aggregate concretes cast at different times. PCI Journal 59(3):130-
144
Walraven J, Frenay J, Pruijssers A (1987) Influence of concrete strength
and load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete members.
PCI Journal 32(1):66-84
Walraven J, Reinhardt H (1981) Theory and experiments on the mechanical
behaviour of cracks in plain and reinforced concrete subject to shear
loading. Heron 26(1A):1-68
Williams CS, Massey JB, Bayrak O, Jirsa JO (2017) Investigation of
interface shear transfer using push-through tests. ACI Structural
Journal 114(1):173-185
Xiao J, Sun C, Lange DA (2016) Effect of joint interface conditions on
shear transfer behavior of recycled aggregate concrete. Construction
and Building Materials 105:343-355, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2015.12.015
Zilch K, Reinecke R (2000) Capacity of shear joints between high
strength precast elements and normal–strength cast–in–place decks.
PCI/FHWA/FIB international symposium on high performance
concrete, September 25-27, Orlando, FL, USA, 551-560