!

uh

M 2 M1 " C2 " C1 d v 2 d v1 = = # xbv # xbv

(2)

where C1, C2 =  total compression force acting on the bottom components on faces 1 and 2, respectively dv = effective shear depth M1, M2 =  bending moment acting on faces 1 and 2, respectively T1, T2 =  total tension force acting on the top components on faces 1 and 2, respectively x = girder segment length Method B is valid at any load level because it is based on equilibrium.4 The compression forces C1 and C2 can be conveniently calculated at only two sections: at the maximum moment section (at which Whitneys equivalent rectangular compression block can be assumed) and at the point of inflection, at which C is zero. Between these two sections, the stress distribution may be nonlinear and difficult to determine. Therefore, while method B can be

convenient in determining the total interface shear demand between zeromoment and maximum-moment sections, it does not determine shear distribution along the member. Furthermore, this method cannot easily separate composite from non-composite load effects. Total factored load would normally be used in the analysis, resulting in conservative estimates of the demand for interface shear. Method CMethod C is a simplification of method B. The first derivative of the moment over member length is the shear force Vu. Referring to Fig. 7, (M2 - M1)/x is thus equal to V. If an average effective shear depth dv is used for both sections, then Eq. (2) can be simplified as:

uh =

Vu bv d v

The corresponding interface (horizontal) shear force per unit length of the interface or shear flow vuh is:

uh =

Vu dv

(3)

where bv = width of interface dv = effective shear depth Vu = factored shear force at section Vuh =  factored interface (horizontal) shear Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05)7 and both AASHTO specifications5,8 favor this simplified approach, either directly or indirectly. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications directly compare the factored-load interface shear flow with the interface shear capacity. ACI 318 and the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges provide for computation of the vertical shear at a section that corresponds to the interface shear capacity provided at that section. That vertical shear is then compared with the factored-load vertical shear at the section being considered. A point of discussion that has yet to be resolved is the definition of the loads used in calculating the shear flow demand at the interface. Most designers use the total factored loads, even

Table 1. Code Equations for Calculating the Nominal Interface Shear Stress
Interface Shear Strength Strength Reduction Factor Nominal Shear Stress vnh Equations, ksi
Avh f y bv s bv s

Upper Limit, ksi

0.260 + 0.60 ACI 318-057 0.75

0.5 ksi

0.5 0.2 fc' or 0.8

0.50 < AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges8 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications5 Loov and Patnaik6

Avh f y

0.90

0.35 +

0.40 Avh f y bv s Avh f y bv s

None

0.90

0.1 +

(4)

0.2 fc' or 0.8

None

! Avh f y $ 0.5 # 0.015 + & f' bv s % c " for

Avh f y bv s

(5)

0.25 fc'

< 0.276 : 2.25

Avh f y bv s Avh f y bv s

Mattock9

None for

Avh f y bv s

0.3 fc' or 2.4 fc'

0.276 : 0.40 + 0.80

Note: AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; LRFD = load and resistance factor design.1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

84

PCI JOURNAL