Magazine of Concrete Research, 1997, 49, No. 178, Mar.

, 3 5 4 3

Push-off shear strength with inadequately

anchored interface reinforcement
M. I. Baldwin* and L. A. Clark*

Universit,v of Birmingham

An essential requirement f o r composite construction, consisting of precast and in situ concrete elements, is that
the two component parts act together as a single unit under all load conditions. It is unclear how, or even this
is achieved when thereinforcementcrossinganinterfacialshearplaneisinadequatelyanchored. In orderto
provide experimental data, 63 single-bar push-off shear tests have been performed with anchorage lengths less
thanthosecurrentlyrequired.Theanchoragelengths ranged from 2.5 to 20 bardiameters. Two bartypesand
twocovers weretested.Theresultsindicatethattheinterfaceshearstrengthincreasesasthebondlength
increases.Thishasbeenattributed to anincreaseintheconcrete-to-concretefriction,broughtaboutby an
increase in the pressure normal to the interface. In order to predict the shear strength a modified shearfriction
equation is proposed, w3here the coefficient of friction is a function of the anchorage length of the reinforcement
crossing the interface. This approach is also used to predict the residual strength .found to remain after failure.
Comparisons are also made with predictions from the UK concrete bridge assessment code (BD44195) and it is
shownthatthiscode isconservative.

Introduction inadequatelyanchored. In order to provide basic test

data to assist assessment in such situations, the simple
Whenassessingexistingconcretebridgestructures, push-off
shear
tests
described in thispaper were
it is foundthattheyoften fail the assessmentbecause performed. In addition, a modified shear friction
of inadequatereinforcementdetailing and/or inade- theory is developedtopredicttheshearcapacityand
quate shearcapacity. The shearcapacityfailuresare residual strength when theinterfaceshearreinforce-
often associated with
inadequate
reinforcement an- ment is inadequatelyanchored.
chorage, because allowableshearstressesaredepen-
dent
on
the
effective area ofmain
tension re-
inforcement.When the reinforcement is inadequately
anchored in accordance with currentdesign and/or Current assessment in the UK
assessment codes it is not obvious how tocalculate Currently in the UK thestructuralassessment of
the contributionfromsuchreinforcement. As aresult concrete highway bridgesandstructuresisgoverned
structuresareoftenrepaired or replacedunnecessarily by a Highways Agency Departmental Standard, BD441
and, hence, scarce resources for
maintenanceare 95,' accompanied by an Advice Note, BA44/90.2
wasted. Bothofthesedocumentsarebased on the current
A particular problem
occurs in assessing
the British design code for concrete bridges, BS5400: Part
interfaceshearcapacity of compositebridges com- 4.3 It must be stressed, however, the BD44195 is
posed of precastbeamsand an insitu concretetop viewed only as a'first step to producingadocument
slab when thereinforcementcrossingtheinterfaceis forassessingconcrete bridge^'^ and, consequently, is
known to be conservative in some areas.
The longitudinalshearcapacity per unit length, V I ,
* School of Civil Engineering, The University of Birmingham, isassessedattheultimate limit stateusinganelastic
Edgbaston, UK. methodofanalysis and, isgiven as the lesser of

(MCR 539) Paper received 20 December 1995; accepted 14 (la>

February 1996

35

0024-9831
Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
0 1997 Thomas Telford Services Ltd
 Baldwin and Clark

The behaviourshould be monitored in acontrolled

manner beyond the
maximum load to
measure
where: kl = aconstantdependentupontheroughness residual capacity.
of the shear plane
f C u = characteristic, or worst credible,concrete Specimens
compressive cube strength In ordertomeet all of the above requirements,
ymc = the partial safety factor for concrete Mattock-style
push-off
specimens5 were adopted.
L, = breadth of the shear plane There were, however, a number of significant changes
V I = longitudinal shear strength of thecon- from the originalMattockspecimens, as can be seen
crete for the shear plane under considera- in Fig. 1.
tion The onlyreinforcement in the specimen was the
ymv = material partial safety factor for shear single 8 mm diameterreinforcingbarcrossing the
A , = areaof reinforcementper unit length interface. The reasonsfor this were threefold:
crossing the shearplane
The presence of any links
could have placed
f s = stress at theultimate limit state in the
steelreinforcement unwanted confining pressure around the bar under
investigation.
yms = partial safety factor for steel.
So thatthebehaviour could be carefully moni-
The interfacial shear stress, vu, associated with the tored:ifmore than one bar crossed the interface,
shear forceper unit length, V I , is given by: complexinteractionsand load redistribution may
have occurred,makinginterpretationdifficult.
VI Thespecimens were aseasy as possibleto fabri-
V" = -
L, cate.
The'upper portions' of the Mattock specimens,
Theguidance given in BD44/95 and BA44/90 re-
through which the load was transmittedto the shear
garding the value to be taken for f s when the
plane, were replaced by stiff metal loading plates. This
reinforcementisinadequatelyanchored is not based
was doneprimarilytomake fabrication of the speci-
on experimental evidence.
Consequently,the
tests
mensaseasy as possible.
described in thispaper were performedtoinvestigate
The test bar protruded through each end of the
the interface
shearstrength
withinadequately
an-
specimens. On the inadequately anchored side this was
choredreinforcement.
done in order thatslip of the bar relative to the
concretecould be measured. On the fully anchored
side, which was not directly relevant to the subsequent
Experimental work analysis of the results, the barextended past the end
of the concrete,where it was threaded and held in
Objectives position with a nut, therebypreventinganyslip.
In order to obtain basic test data to aid the Debonding of a length of reinforcing bar, necessary
assessment ofconcrete bridge members with inade- tonegate the effectof lateral pressuredueto the
quately anchored interface reinforcement, there were a restraints
when
subsequently tested, was achieved
numberof pointsthat it wasdesirableforthe test usingpolystyreneencasing the reinforcing bar. The
arrangement to fulfil: polystyrene was dissolved prior totestingusingace-
tone.
There should be aclearly defined interfacialshear
plane between two concretesurfaces cast at dif-
ferenttimes. Variable length polystyrene
The interface should be 'rough-as-cast'tosimulate debonding sleeve (10 mm square)
the usual precastbridgebeamsituation. 8 mm diameter reinforcing bar
The reinforcing bar should be fully anchored on one
sideoftheinterface so as to inducefailure on the
(Anchorage nut \
other side.
Thebond lengthonthe other sideoftheinterface
should be bothinadequate (to prevent anchorage
failure by steelyield) and capable of beingvaried. 200
The covershould be avariable. Anchored side ! Test slde
dimensions
All in mm.
There should be only one barcrossingtheinter- I

facial shearplane.
Thespecimens should be easilyhandled. Fig. l . Testspecimen
36 Magazine of Concrete Research, 1997, 49, No. 178

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Push-off shear strength of anchored interface reinforcement

The cover wasvariableandsmallest to only one AbacusIndustriesLtdload jack in orderto keep it

side, so that,shouldanylongitudinal cracking appear, andthespecimenfree from anyrotation. Thean-
its approximate location could be predicted and moni- chored side of the specimen was not in direct contact
tored. with theloadingplateand restraint, but had three
pairs of polytetrafluoroethylene(PTFE)slidingbear-
Materials and casting ings in between. This was in order to allow horizontal
The concretewasdesigned to have a28-day com- movement of
this half of
the
specimen,thereby
pressive cube strength of 30 N/mm2 and containeda permittinglateralopening of theinterface as the load
coarse aggregate of nominal maximum size of 10 mm. wasapplied.
Two typesof 8 mm diameterreinforcingbarwere Six RDP ElectronicsLtdlinearvariabledisplace-
investigated:aplain, cold drawnbarwithayield menttransducers were used to measure the freeend
stress of 410 N/mm2 and a deformed bar with a yield slip of the bar, shear displacement at the interface and
stressof 520 N/mm2 havingabar geometry as indi- theinterfaceopening.Thesedata,together with those
cated in Fig. 2. In order tofabricatearough-as-cast fromload
a cell were stored on Schlumberger
a
interface between the two concretes castat different IndustriesOrion Data logger. Thisloggedall seven
times, casting was a two-stage process. First, the fully channels simultaneously at S-second intervals through-
anchoredside was cast withthe bar verticalandthe out the duration of the test.
proposedinterface uppermost. Casting was in wooden Once thespecimens were placed in therigand the
mouldsusingthreelayersof concrete. Compaction Kaffir-Dplasterhardened,loggingstartedandacon-
tookplaceateachlayerusingastandardvibrating stant displacement rate of 1.8 mm/minute was applied.
table. Displacement control
was
used in orderto retain
Aftersevendays had past, duringwhichtimethe control past the pointofultimateload. Each test
specimensremainedcoveredwithpolythenesheeting, continuedfortenminutes.
the specimens were turned through
90"
and the
inadequatelyanchoredtestsidecastwiththereinfor-
cing bar horizontal. Thespecimens werethen left for Test results
24 hours, at whichtimedemouldingand removal to
the curing room occurred. The samples remained there General behaviour
at 20" 2°C and 96 f 2% relative humidity until the Itcan be seenfrom Fig. 4(a)and (b), which show
test side was 28 daysold. typical examplesofthebehaviourforanumberof
Three 100 mmcubes were alsomade ateach cast- plain and deformed bars, thatprior to theultimate
ing
and
stored
underidentical
conditions to the loadbeingreachedasteadyincrease in the load was
specimens. accompanied by verylittlefreeendslipandasteady
increase in sheardisplacement. The crack width was
Programme negligible until closetotheultimate load when the
A test programme was devisedthatenabledthe width increased rapidly.
effectofvaryingthebondlengthbetween 2.5 and Once theultimate load carrying capacity was ex-
20 bar diameters to be systematicallystudied. Two ceeded, the load reduced and levelled off at a residual
concretecovers were used:equal to two and fourbar valuethat tended toremainconstantas the shear
diameters.Thecomplete test programme isindicated deformationincreased.
in Tables l(a) and (b). At failure,
deformed bars exhibited
longitudinal
crackingover the bar on the face with the smallest
Testing and instrumentation cover, whereas plain bars left no visible signs
of
Atestrig,represented in Fig. 3(a)and (b), was damagetothesurfaceoftheconcrete.
devisedthatpermitteda shear force tobeapplied
alongtheinterfaceofthe test specimens. Primarily it Ultimate shear load
consisted of two stiff metal loadingplates between Tables I(a) and (b)
give the experimentalshear
which the specimen was bedded with Kaffir-D plaster. failurestress, vu, acrosstheshearplane. Also given
The specimenwasrestrainedagainstrotation at each are thecalculatedfailurestresses as assessed with
end.The uppermostloadingplatewasboltedto an BD44/95 withmaterialpartialsafetyfactors set to
unity and using the lower of the two concrete
strengths. It can be seen clearlythatconservatism
exists.
Figure 5 shows the failureshearstressesplotted
against
the
normalpressure
developed across the
interface by thereinforcement. The normalpressure
was calculated by dividing the forcewhichcould be
Fig.2. Dejbrmed bar geometnl developed in thereinforcement by the area ofthe
Magazine of Concrete Research, 1997, 49, No. 178 37

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Baldwin and Clark

Table 1. Test detailsandresults

(a) Deformedbars
Speciment fcuT: V": BD44195 U S" :
N/mm2 N/mm2 assessed N/mm2

20/4/1 31 3.7 1.2 2.0 0.58

'?. 37 4.9 1.6
3 4.2 l .4
4 4.9 I .6
5 3.8 1.3
10141I 40 1.4 1.02
2 38
3
4
5
6 l I 2.2
5/4/1 40 0.32
2 38
3
4
5
6
2.5/4/ 1 33 0.8 0.86
2 43
3
4
5
6
20121 1 33 2.0 0.78
2 34
3
4
5
6
10/2/ 1 34 I .2 I .02
2 31
3
4
5
6

t Bond length/cover/specimen number.

*First value is the 'anchored side'. second the test

Specimen+

20141 1
I .fc"::
N/mm'
38
BD44 195
assessed
I .6
2 34
3
4
5
10/4/ 1 34
2 34
3
4
5
6
39
40

Tuhlr l @)-continued opposite

38 Magazine of Concrete Research, 1991, 49, No. 178

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Push-oj“shear strength of anchored interface reinforcement

Table l@).Continued
20121 1 30 4.5 1.5 4.2 0.64 1.8
2 36 34 3.3 1.9
3 3.6 3.5 1.8
4 3.3 3.2 1.7
5 4.4 4.2 2.3
6 4.9 4.8 1.5
5/2/ 1 37 1.8 0.9 7.3 0-18 1.3
2 37 1.6 6.7 1.2
3 1.6 6.8 1.1
4 2.0 8.3 1.3
5 2.0 8.3 1.2

t Bond length/cover/specimen number.

* Firstvalue is the‘anchoredside’.secondthe test.

X is large scatter of the data, but, as one would expect,

thereis an increase in failurestress with an increase
in normal pressure (i.e. with an increase in reinforce-
ment anchorage lengthandforce).
16 mm
dia.
tie rods
Analysis of data
surface and housing Introduction
te loading Stiff Section XX
L X All dimensions in mm.
The testdataare considered in relationtoclassi-
calshear-frictiontheory,andmodifiedshear-friction
theory including a ‘cohesion’ term. The latter method
is analogous to the BD44/95 approach.

Classical shear-jiriction assessment

Shearfrictiontheoryiswidely used inAmerican
practice and, to a lesser extent in UK practice, to cal-
culate the capacity of interfaces subjected to shear.
The shear-friction equation is represented as:

vu =M s f s (31
where: Vu = shearing resistance
As = area of steel crossing the shear plane
f s = stress in steel
p = coefficient of friction.
Fig. 3. Test rig: (a) diagram: (b) photograph
By dividingbothsides of equation (3) by thearea
oftheshear plane, equation (3) can bewritten in
terms of stresses as:
shearplane. Thereinforcementforcewhichcouldbe
Vu = pun (4)
developed for
particular
a anchorage
lengthwas
determined using pull-outdata forsimilarbarsand where U,, = normalpressuredue to thereinforcement
concrete reported elsewhere by the authors.6 However, force.
the approach adopted is
very
similar
to
that
of Considerthe interfacial section represented in Fig.
BD44/95 which assumes a linear relationship between 6. Ifthereislongitudinalshearpresent,thetwo
steelstressandanchoragelength. It shouldbenoted componentswillattemptto moverelativeto each
that the definition of f s in Clause 7.4.2.3 of BD44/95 other.Assumingthatthesurfaceisroughandirregu-
isincorrect;partofthedefinitionwasomittedwhen lar, anyrelativehorizontalslip will be accompanied
BD44/90 was superseded by BD44/95. by an opening of the interface. This separation will be
It can beseen that thereisnoapparentdifference restrainedby any reinforcement crossingthefailure
between the data for deformed and plain bars. Hence, planewhichwillbecomestressed in tension. This in
they are treated as one population in this paper. There turn creates an
equal
compressive force
the
in
Magazine of Concrete Research, 1997, 49, No. 178 39
Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Baldwin and Clark
N
E l 1

-
L

-_ ” I m o!
0 62 4 12
8 10 16 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mean free end slip: mm
Mean free end slip: mm

2
$ ! , , , , I
5 0
0 1 3 4 5
5 o !
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
I

Mean crack width: mm Mean crack width: mm

.. V . m o ! 1
0 5 10 25 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25

(a) Mean shear displacement at the interface: mm (W Mean shear displacementthe

at interface: mm

Fig. 4. Typical behaviour: (a) plain bars: (h) &formed bars

6 A
A

“E 0 4 oA
E A :e A
2 4
0

g 3
c
a,
Reinforcing bar crossing the
-
I
E2
.- ., interface surface
lrreaular interfacial shear zone
3 1 ......... Proposed
-- g = 1.4
nW .

Two surfaces
0.0 0.5 1.o 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
sttempt to slide Initial crack opening
Normal pressure: N/mm2 relative to each due to surface
other irregularities
Fig. 5. Failure stress versus normal pressure at the interface

concreteacrossthe interface.Thecompressiveforce
provides
resistance
a to slip equalto
this
force
multiplied by the coefficient offriction. In simple Fig. 6. InterJirce section
shear-frictionassessment, therefore, sheartransferis
assumed todevelop by frictionand not by the bond clauses
for
interface
shear
strength. For a rough
between the two structural members oneachside of surface, BD44/95 gives p = 1.4. Equation (4) with
theinterface. p = 1.4 is shown in Fig. 5 as the p = 1.4 line. It can
BD44/95does covershearfriction, but not in the be seenthat it givesconservativepredictionsat low
40 Magazine of Concrete Research, 1997, 49, No. 178

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Push-off shear strength of anchored interface reinforcement

values of U,,. One method of overcoming this (3)) ignoresa‘cohesion’term and to compensate, p
conservatismistoconsider p asafunctionof on. mustincrease as the normalstressdecreases.
By substituting the appropriate stress f s in equation Combining equations (4) and (5) andtaking f c c =
(3), a value for the effective coefficient of friction ( p ) 0.8,fc, yields a relationship for the shear resistance of
can be found that makes the equationto
predict aninterfacewithinadequately anchored shearrein-
correctlythefailureload. The calculatedvalues of p forcement:
are shown in Tables l(a) and (b). It can be seen that p
decreasesas the bond lengthincreasesand,hence, as
theforce which can be developed across theinterface
increases. therefore
A similar effect has been observed by Tassios and
Vintzeleou7 who conducted research on plain concrete
panelsandconcludedthat the coefficient of friction
across theinterfacedecreasedasthe confining pres- where v,,$, = theoreticalultimateshearstress,and
sureperpendiculartotheinterfaceincreased.Their p = area of steeliarea of concrete.
relationshipwasrepresented by: The stresswhich canbe developed in abarwith
-2/3 averagebondstress r, anchoragelength 1 and bar
p = 0.44(2) diameter 4 is given by:

where on = confining pressureperpendiculartothe Substitutingfromequation (7) into(6c)yields:

shearplane,and f,, = concreteuniaxialcompressive
strength.
Equation ( 5 ) is shown in Fig. 7, superimposed upon
the values of p derived from the author’s tests. a,, has A graphical representation of theexperimental
been determined using the predicted values for f s , and versustheoretical
shear
failure
stress is shown in
f C Chas beentakento be 0.8fCu. Goodagreement Fig. 8, where it can be seen that reasonable agreement
clearly exists although the scatter is large. Such scatter exists.
is expectedforthistype of test. The scatteralso Very often in assessment, however, it the is
increases as on/f , , and, hence the
bond
length characteristicvaluesthat are considered. The charac-
decrease. This reflects the greatervariation in force teristic values foreach test serieshavebeenobtained
which can be developed for
a short bond
length by subtracting 1.64 times the standard deviation of the
compared with a long bond length.6 The test data also failurestressfromthe mean ofeach test series. The
indicatethat,forthe two bar typesand two different standarddeviationisindicated in Tables I(a)and (b)
covers,therelationbetween p and U, appearsto be by S,. The lineof best fit throughthecharacteristic
independent of bartypeand cover. However, U, is values isindicated in Fig. 8. Thisisrepresented by:
dependentupon ,fs, whichisdependent on thebond
Y,,k = O’34Cf,,)2”(pt1/~)’’3 (9)
stress,which in turn is dependentonbothbartype
and cover. Thus the p values areindirectly dependent where “u,k = characteristiclongitudinal shear failure
upon both bartype and cover. stress (N/mm2).
It can be seen that the p values are all greater than
unityand some areverylarge. The reasonfor this is
thattheconventionalshear-frictionequation(equation

A Deformed (c/+ = 4)
A Deformed (c/+ = 2)
0 Plain (c/$ = 4)
0 Plain (c/+ = 2)

and Vintzeleou (equation(5))

J n ‘ I
d t
Y I

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 Predicted ultimate interfaceshear stress: N/mm’
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
%lfcc Fig. 8. Experimental versus theoretical ultimate shear stress
using the shear-friction approach with equivalent coefficient
Fig. 7. Changeinthe coeffient of friction. (Numbersin of friction. (Numbers in key represent cover in bar
keyrepresentcoverinbardiameters) diameters)
Magazine of Concrete Research, 1997, 49, No. 178 41

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Baldwin and Clark

Thesefindings indicate
that
the
classical
shear- The plot of residualstress
versus the normal
friction equation can be usedtopredicttheshear pressureinduced by the steel,determined from the
failure stress.Some alterations, however, havebeen authors’previous work: isindicated in Fig. 9. It is
necessary in orderto permitcorrectmodellingof appropriatetotake the cohesionaszerobecausethe
inadequately anchored interfacereinforcement. interfacehasalready slipped and an interface crack
formed. If the same value for p of 0.8 adopted for the
Shear friction with cohesion ultimate load condition is used in the classical shear
The shear friction equation now becomes: friction
equation, then the solid line in Fig. 9 is
v, =c + pa, (10) obtained. It can be seen that this approach is very
conservative.
where c is the cohesionterm. The modifiedcoefficientoffrictionapproach is
It shouldbe noted
that
the BD44/95 approach now considered, equation ( 5 ) indicatesthat, in the
(equation (1)) is of this form with c = v1 and p = 0.8, range of normalpressureexperienced in the tests, the
and is plotted on Fig. 5withthepartialsafetyfactors effectivecoefficientof friction would be at least 7.
set to unity. The interfacialshearstress, V I , has been The results using this value in the shear-friction
calculated from BD44/95 as 0.63 N/mm2 for an aver- equationareindicatedon Fig. 9 by the ‘proposed’
ageconcrete strengthof 35N/mm2 anda‘rough- line. A good lower bound fit to the test data is indi-
as-cast
surface’. As has already
been
mentioned, cated.
BD44/95 isveryconservative,particularlyatsmall
values of U,. This is notsurprising because thebasic
test data’ used to
develop
the BD44/95 clauses Recommendations for assessment
indicate
that for a, less than
approximately 1.5 BD44/95 is conservative particularly for small
N/mm2,theshear failurestress (v,) is constantat amounts of interface reinforcement and/or inadequately
2 N/mm2. Hence, the latter value should be taken as a anchoredinterfacereinforcement.Suchconservatism
lower limit to the shear capacity. can be reduced by adoptingone of the following
If p istaken as 0.8, whichis theBD44/95 value, approaches for assessing interface stress strength.
thanavaluefor c of 1.4 N/mm2 (i.e. 0.04fc,, where
fCu is thecubestrength) wouldgiveagood lower (1) When using BD44/95 the values of v1 for a
bound to the testdata asshown in Fig. 5 by the deliberately roughened surface could be used for a
‘proposed’line. This valueofcohesion is over twice ‘rough-as-cast’ surface, and the characteristic shear
the BD44/95 value for a‘rough-as-cast’surface and failurestressfora‘rough-as-cast’surfaceshould
in
fact,
is the BD44/95 value for deliberately
a not be taken as less than 2 N/mm2.
roughenedsurface. However, it should be noted that (2) Analternativeapproach is to modify the shear-
Hughes’s data8fora‘rough-as-cast’surfacefor con- friction equationtoallow for change
a in the
crete strengths in the range 30 N/mm2 to 45 N/mmz coefficient of frictionof the concrete-to-concrete
also indicatethatanappropriatevalue of c is 1.2 interface as the bond length and associated normal
N/mm2. Hencethereappearsto be acase for in- pressureattheinterface is varied. The proposed
creasingtheBD44/95value. equationfortheshearcapacity is:
v, = w c ” ) 2 / 3 ( P w # 4 / 3
Residual shear load C 0.38Cfo)2’3((p,f;)’’3
A residualloadremained in all tests after failure. where K = 0.6 for the mean shearstrength and
The residuallongitudinal shear stress, v,, isindicated 0.34 for the characteristicshearstrength.
in Tables l(a) and (b). It should be noted at this point
thattheseresidualvaluesare of similar order tothe
ultimate predictedvalues as assessed by BD44/95. 1 A Deformed)
Thissuggests that
whenthe BD44/95 values are
adopted,fullyplasticbehaviourcan beassumed and
redistribution can develop.
Since littleprevious work hasbeenperformedon
residualloadsfor theshear transfermechanism, and,
hence, thereisnoestablishedsheardeformationat
which to compare residualloads,subsequent calcula-
tions in this paper arebasedonanominalsituation
when 5 mmshear deformation is present.Thisrepre- 0 01 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Normal pressure: Nimm’
sents a value at which the shear stress has reduced to
a value that remained constant for a considerable sub- Fig. 9. Residual stress against normal pressure at the
sequent shear displacement. inteTface
42 Magazine of’ ConcreteResearch, 1997, 49, No. 178

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Push-off shear strength of anchored intecfuce reinforcement

Conclusions coefficient
of
friction
taken as function
a of
the
amountof steel crossing the interface.
(1) In simplesingle-barpush-offtests,theassessed
interfacialshearstrength,aspredicted by BD44/9S,
exhibits considerableconservatism over the experi- References
mental results. The amount of
conservatism is a
1. HIGHWAY AGENCY.The assessment of concrete highwav bridges
function of the bondlength. and structures. Departmental Standard BD44/95, HMSO,
(2) A lower bound to the shear strength of a ‘rough- London, 1995.
as-cast’ surface can be predicted by usingthe shear 2. DEPARTMENT OF TR4NSPORT. The use uf Departmental Standard

frictionwithcohesionapproach ofBD44/95 fora BD44190 for the assessment of concrete highway bridges and
deliberatelyroughened surface rather than
for
a structures. Departmental Advice Note BA44190, DOT, London,
1990.
‘rough-as-cast’ surface with the interface reinforcement 3. BRITISHSTANDARDS INSTITUTION. Steel, concrete and composite
forcetaken as thepull-out value appropriate to the bridges. part 4: code of practice ,for design of concrete bridges.
actual anchorage length. BSI, London, 1990, BS5400.
(3) As an alternative to (2) above, a modified shear- 4. CLARK L. A. and CULLINGTOK D. W. Concrete bridge assessment
friction analysis can be used in whichthecoefficient in the UK. Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Bridge Rehabilitation,
Darmstadt. 1992, pp. 695-704.
of friction is a function of the interface reinforcement 5. MATTOCK A.H. and HAWKINS N. M . Shear transfer in reinforced
force and, hence,the anchorage lengthoftherein- concrete-recent research. Prestressed Conci: Inst. 1, 1972, 17.
forcement. No. 2, Mar./Apr., 55-57.
(4) In asituationoflongitudinalshear,aresidual 6. BALDWIN M. 1. and CLARKL. A. The assessment of reinforcing
stressremains in thepostultimatecondition.This bars with inadequate anchorage. Mag. Cuncr: Re.s., 1995. 47,
No. 171, June, 95-102.
impliesthat load redistribution can occurwithina 7. TASSIOST. I? and VINTZELEOU E. N. Concrete-to-concrete
structure. Themagnitude ofthis residual stress is friction. L Am. Soc. Civil. Eng.. Structural Division, 1987,
ofthe sameorderas the ultimatestress predicted 113. No. 4, Apr., 832-849.
by BD44/95.Thissuggests that when the BD44/9S 8. HUGHESG. Longitudinal shear in composite concrete bridge
values areadoptedforassessment fully plasticbeha- beams. Part 2: Experimental inwstigation and recommenda-
tions. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Contractor
viour canbeassumedand load
redistributioncan Report 52, Crowthome. 1987.
develop.
(S) The residualshearforcecan be predictedusing Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by
the classical shear frictionapproach with theeffective 26 September 1997

Magazine of Concrete Research, 1997, 49, No. 178 43

Downloaded by [ Purdue Univ Lib TSS] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.