SHEAR AND MOMENT BEHAVIOR OF

COMPOSITE CONCRETE BEAMS

A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING

MOHANNAD HUSAIN MOHSIN AL-SHERRAWI

(M.Sc.)

SHAWAL 1421 DECEMBER 2000

 CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction:
In this chapter a review is made in the available previous experimental
works conducted on composite concrete beams in which a cast-in-place
concrete slab is attached to a precast concrete beam by means of shear
connectors. Experimental works done on shear transfer between two
concretes are also reviewed.

2.2 Composite concrete beam tests:

Several experimental investigations of composite concrete beams are
done in literature. Unfortunately, some of these investigations are not
available in Iraq. Tests were made as long ago as 1914 by Johonson and
Nichols Grossfield and Birnstiel, 1962).
Preliminary tests were made by Revesz (1953) at the Imperical
Collage of Science and Technology London University, London,
England, on five different composite T-beams of 4.267 m (14 ft) span to
destruction to observe the behavior of the beams under loads. No
provision had been made for stirrups, or serration at the top of the precast
beam. Age of concrete of cast-in-place flange and precast web at time of
test was 7 days and 29 days, respectively. The test load was applied at
third-points of the span. Deflections, strains and crack widths were
measured and recorded. Design and ultimate loads were examined in the
light of estimated values based on simplified assumptions. Observations
were drawn regarding warning of failure. A conclusion has been attained
that the variation in the quality of the cast-in-place concrete of T-beams
did not exert appreciable influence on the load capacity of composite
beams.
Tests carried out by Hanson (1960) on the problem of shear
connections between precast beams and cast-in-place slabs indicated that
the ultimate horizontal shear strength of a smooth bonded joint was about
2.069 MPa (300 psi) and that of a rough bonded joint was 3.449 MPa
(500 psi). In addition, it was found that the shear strength of a joint could
be increased approximately 1.207 MPa (175 psi) for each percent of
reinforcing steel crossing the joint. These values are substantially higher
than the tentative recommendations of ACI–ASCE Committee 333
(1960).

8
 A pilot test program of limited scope was undertaken by Grossfield
and Birnstiel (1962) to study the effect of three joint treatment methods
and the problems of instrumentation. Six composite beams and two
monolithic beams were tested. Two levels of horizontal shearing stress at
the joint were produced by varying the width of the contact surface
between the web and flange. The average age of the beam specimens at
testing was 5 months. Load was applied to the specimens at two points.
Vertical deflection, strains and slip measurements were made after each
increment of load until beam collapsed.
Saemann and Washa (1964) tested 42 T-beams. The tests, at the
University of Wisconsin, were designed as an attempt to provide
information on several variables:
1. Degree of roughness of contact surface.
2. Length of shear span.
3. Percentage of steel across the joint.
4. Effect of shear keys.
5. Position of the joint with respect to the neutral axis.
6. Concrete compressive strength.
All beams were tested 28 days after the slabs were cast, 35 days after
the webs were cast. Center deflections, strains, and slips along the joint
were measured. Results obtained indicated complex relations between
roughness of surface joint, percent steel across joint, and shear span.
An investigation of the strength of the joint, between a precast
concrete beam and a cast-in-place slab, when the composite beam was
subjected to repeated loading, has been done by Badoux and Hulsbos
(1967). The test program included 29 beams and the principal variables
were the amount of the ratio of the shear span to the effective depth of the
beam. Equations have been presented which yield a conservative
allowable stress for the horizontal shear in composite members under
repeated loads.

2.3 Shear transfer tests:

In the 1960’s Birkeland and Birkeland (1966) and Mast (1968) developed
a philosophy of connection design in which cracks are assumed to have
occurred disadvantageous locations within the region of the connection.
Reinforcement is then designed to transfer shear, normal force and
moment across these cracks when the connection is loaded. No
dependence is placed on the tensile strength of the concrete. They

9
proposed that the reinforcement needed to transfer shear across the cracks
be designed using the “Shear-Friction” method of design.
Provisions for the shear transfer reinforcement design using the
shear-friction method were subsequently included in the American
Concrete Institute, ACI, Building Code 318M-95. These provisions were
based on the test data obtained in monotonic loading tests of specimens
made from normal weight natural aggregates. Subsequent tests (Mattock
et al., 1976) showed that the shear transfer strength of lightweight
concrete under monotonic load is inferior to that of normal weight
concrete of the same compressive strength. It was, therefore, proposed
(Mattock et al., 1976) that the shear transfer strength of all-lightweight
concrete and of sand-lightweight concrete be taken, respectively, as 0.75
and 0.85 times the shear transfer strength of normal weight concrete of
the same compressive strength and having the same reinforcement.
Shear transfer across a definite plane must frequently be considered
in the design of precast concrete connections (Birkeland and Birkeland
1966, Mast 1968). A continuing study of the factors affecting shear
transfer strength was in progress at the University of Washington. Factors
so far included in the study were as follows:
1. The characteristics of the shear plane.
2. The characteristics of the reinforcement.
3. The concrete strength.
4. Direct stresses acting parallel and transverse to the shear plane.
5. Cyclic shear transfer.
The influence of the first three factors has been studied in tests
(Hofbeck et al., 1969) of monolithically cast “push-off” specimens as
seen in Fig. (2.1a). Tests (Chatterjee 1971, Vangsirirungruang 1971) to
study the influence of direct stresses acting parallel and transverse to the
shear plane were made on the “pull-off” and modified puss-off specimens
shown in Figs. (2.1b) and (2.1c), respectively.
Mattock et al. (1975) studied the effect of moment and normal force
in the shear plane on single direction shear-transfer strength. Tests were
reported of corbel type push-off specimens and of push-off specimens
with tension acting across the shear plane (Fig. (2.2)). To study the
influence of cyclic shear transfer, tests (Mattock, 1981) were made on a
crack in monolithic concrete or an interface between concretes cast at
different times. A typical specimen and the arrangements for test are
shown in Figs. (2.3) and (2.4), respectively.

10
 P P Shear transfer P
reinforcement

Shear plane

P P P

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. (2.1) Shear transfer test specimens: (a) push-off; (b) pull-off;
(c) modified push-off (Mattock et al., 1975).

Shear plane
V V
Shear plane

Bolts

V
(a) (b)
Fig. (2.2) Push-off specimens with moment or tension across shear plane
(a) corbel type, (b) tension type (Mattock et al., 1975).

11
 190.5 mm 190.5 mm

Shear plane
381 mm 254x127 mm

Closed stirrup shear

transfer

Secondary reinforcement, # 6 bars

# 3 bars

Shear transfer
reinforcement
190.5 mm

Faces “A”
Section

Fig. (2.3) Shear transfer specimen CB2M (Mattock, 1981).

In all cases, the shear transfer reinforcement crosses the shear plane
at right angles and is securely anchored so that it can develop its yield
strength in tension. Additional reinforcement was provided away from the
shear plane, to prevent failures other than along the shear plane. For
convenience, the ultimate shear strengths were expressed as average
shearing stresses (vu), obtained by dividing the ultimate shear force (Vu)
by the area of the shear plane.

12
Fig. (2.4) Arrangement for test (Mattock, 1981).

13
2.3.1 Characteristics of the shear plane:
Mast (1968) pointed out the need to consider the case where a crack may
exist along the shear plane before shear is applied. Such cracks occur for
a variety of reasons unrelated to shear, such as tension forces caused by
restrained shrinkage or temperature deformations or accidental dropping
of a member.
A crack in the shear plane reduces the ultimate shear strength of
under-reinforced specimens (Fig. (2.5)). The decrease is greater in the
push-off specimens than in the pull-off specimens. The shear strength of
the initially cracked specimens is not directly proportional to the amount
of reinforcement.

2.3.2 Characteristics of the reinforcement:

The reinforcement parameter (ρfy) can be changed by varying either the
reinforcement ratio (ρ), the reinforcement yield strength (fy), or both.
Also, for a given shear planes the reinforcement ratio can be changed by
changing the bar size and/or the bar spacing. In Fig. (2.6), the results are
compared to determine whether the way in which the reinforcement ratio
is changed has any effect on the relationship between ultimate shear
strength and the reinforcement parameter (ρfy). Fig. (2.7) shows that the
way in which ρ is changed does not affect the relationship between shear
strength and the reinforcement parameter (ρfy).
It was found (Mattock and Hawkins, 1972) that for given value of fy,
the specimens with 464 MPa (66 ksi) steel had slightly higher shear
strength than the specimens reinforced with the 350 MPa (50 ksi) steel.
This appears to indicate that at ultimate strength the higher strength steel
stirrups developed a stress greater than their yield point, i.e., strain
hardening had occurred. This is quite possible, as the yield plateau of the
higher strength reinforcement is considerably shorter than that of the
intermediate grade reinforcement. It therefore appears conservative to
assume that the relationship between ρfy and vu is the same for higher
strength reinforcement as for intermediate grade reinforcement, provided
the yield strength does not exceed 464 MPa.

14
 ρfy (MPa)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 1 2 3 4 5

10
1400 PUSH-OFF TESTS PULL-OFF TESTS
9
1200 Uncracked 8
Uncracked
1000 7

vu 6
800 vu
(psi) Initially cracked 5 (MPa)
600
in shear plane
4

3
400

Initially cracked 2
200
fc’ = 4000 psi (345 MPa)
fy = 50 ksi (345 MPa) in shear plane 1

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800
ρfy (psi)

Fig. (2.5) Variation of shear transfer strength reinforcement parameter

(ρfy), with and without an initial crack along the shear plane
(Mattock and Hawkins, 1972).

ρfy (MPa)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10
1400 PUSH-OFF TESTS
9
1200
Bar size varies, 8
spacing constant 7
1000

vu 6
vu
800
(psi) (MPa)
5

600 4
Bar size constant,
spacing varies 3
400

fc’ = 4000 psi (345 MPa) 2

200 fy = 50 ksi (345 MPa)
1
Specimens initially cracked
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
ρfy (psi)

Fig. (2.6) Effect of stirrup bar size and spacing on the shear transfer
strength of initially cracked push-off specimens (Mattock and
Hawkins, 1972).
15
 ρfy (MPa)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10
1400 PUSH-OFF TESTS
9
1200
fc’ =4000 psi (27.5 MPa) 8

1000 7

vu 6
vu
(psi) 800
5 (MPa)
600
fc’ = 2500 psi (17.2 MPa) 4

3
400
2
fy = 50 ksi (345 MPa)
200
Specimens initially cracked 1

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
ρfy (psi)

Fig. (2.7) Effect of concrete strength on the shear transfer strength of

initially cracked push-off specimens (Mattock and Hawkins,
1972).
ρfy (MPa)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

10
1400 UNCRACKED INITIALLY CRACKED
9
Push-off tests
1200
8
Push-off tests
1000 7

vu 6
(psi) 800 vu
5
(MPa)
600 4

Pull-off tests 3
400
Pull-off tests
2
200
1

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 1000
ρfy (psi)

Fig. (2.8) Effect on shear transfer strength of direct stress acting

parallel to the shear plane (Mattock and Hawkins, 1972).

16
2.3.4 Concrete strength:
The effect of variation in concrete strength on the shear strength of
initially cracked push-off specimens is illustrated in Fig. (2.8). For values
of ρfy below about 4.14 MPa (600 psi) the concrete strength does not
appear to affect the shear transfer strength. For higher values of ρfy the
shear strength is lower for the lower strength concrete. The concrete
strength therefore appears to set an upper limit value of ρfy, below which
the relationship between vu and ρfy established for 28.1 MPa (4000 psi)
concrete would hold for any strength of concrete equal to or greater than
the strength being considered, and above which the shear strength
increases at a lesser rate for concrete strength being considered.

2.3.5 Direct stress parallel to the shear plane:

In an earlier research (Hofbeck et al., 1969) a method was proposed for
the calculation of the shear transfer strength of initially uncracked
concrete. This was based on the average shear and normal stresses acting
on a concrete element in the shear plane, and made use of the failure
envelope for concrete proposed by Zia (1961). This approach predicted
the relationship between vu and ρfy very closely for the tests of initially
uncracked push-off specimens reported by Mattock and Hawkins (1972)
and also for tests of larger initially uncracked composite push-off
specimens reported by Anderson (1960). In the push off tests, direct
compressive stresses are exist parallel to the shear plane, and these were
taken into account in the calculation.
The ultimate shear strengths of the pull-off and push-off specimens
are compared in Fig. (2.9). For initially uncracked specimens, the pull-off
tests gave lower shear strengths than the push-off tests, indicating that a
direct tension stress parallel to the shear plane is detrimental to shear
transfer strength in initially uncracked concrete. However, the reduction
in shear strength appears to be due to a reduction in the cohesion
contribution of the concrete, and the rate of increase in vu with increase in
ρfy is approximately the same in both the pull-off and push-off tests. This
indicates that the method of calculation proposed by Hofbeck et al.
(1969) is faulty and cannot be extrapolated to the case of the pull-off test.

17
 ρfy (MPa)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

16
Initially cracked,
Concrete failure Modified push-off tests
2000 14
envelope
12

vu 1500
10 vu
(psi)
Uncracked, (MPa)
Modified push-off tests 8
1000
6
Uncracked,
Push-off tests
4
500
Initially cracked, fc’ =4000 psi (27.5 MPa) 2
Push-off tests fy = 50 ksi (345 MPa)
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
ρfy (psi)
Fig. (2.9) Effect on shear transfer strength of direct stress acting transverse
to the shear plane (Mattock and Hawkins, 1972).

For specimens cracked along the shear plane before being loaded in
shear, the shear strengths of the push-off and the pull-off specimens were
essentially the same for any given value of ρfy. This is important
practically, since it indicates that direct stresses parallel to the shear plane
may be ignored in design for shear transfer, if the design is based on the
relationship between vu and ρfy obtained in tests of initially cracked
specimens.

2.3.6 Direct stress transverse to the shear plane:

The effect of compressive stresses acting transverse to the shear plane
was studied by Chatterjee (1971) and Vangsirirungruang (1971) and
reported by Mattock and Hawkins (1972). Modified push-off specimens
were used. The ultimate shear strengths of the modified push-off
specimens which had shearing type failures are compared in Fig. (2.9)
with results from the push-off tests.
The effect of moment or tension force acting on the shear plane, on
the shear which can be transferred across a shear plane by a given

18
quantity and arrangement of reinforcement has been studied by Mattock
et al. (1975). Corbel type push-off specimens and push-off specimens
with tension acting across the shear plane have been used. It was found
that:
1. Moments in the shear plane less than or equal to the flexural ultimate
moment of the shear plane do not reduce the shear transfer strength.
2. Tension across the shear plane results in a reduction in shear transfer
strength equal to that, which would result from a reduction in the
reinforcement parameter (ρfy) by an amount equal to the tension
stress.

2.3.7 Cyclic shear transfer:

Mattock (1981) reviewed cyclically reversing and monotonic shear
transfer tests for companion initially cracked specimens of normal weight
and lightweight reinforced concrete. Both composite and monolithic
specimens were tested. The interfaces of all composite specimens were
roughened as required by Section 11.7.9 of the ACI Building Code 318-
77. In some cases the bond at the interface was deliberately broken. The
following conclusions has been obtained from the test results:
1. In the case of a shear plane in normal weight or lightweight
monolithic concrete and a rough interface between concretes cast at
different times, when good bond has been obtained at the interface,
the strength under cyclically reversing shear is about 80 percent of
the shear transfer strength under monotonic loading.
2. If the interface is roughened as specified in Section 11.7.9 of ACI
Code and if good bond is obtained at the interface, then after
cracking shear transfer behavior under both monotonic and cyclic
loading will be essentially the same as in the case of shear transfer
across a crack in monolithic concrete.
3. If bond at the interface between concretes cast at different times is
destroyed, shear transfer behavior under cyclic loading deteriorates
rapidly and the shear transfer strength is only about 0.6 of the shear
transfer strength under monotonic loading.

19
2.3.8 Slant shear test:
The most important aspect of the joining of two concretes is the strength
of the bond that can be achieved. This bond is crucial, as it determines
what forces can be transferred across the junction between the two
concretes. These forces arise mainly from strains in the additional
longitudinal reinforcement due to external loading; however, they may
also be caused by shrinkage and temperature differentials. The strength of
a junction between concretes cast at different times can be investigated by
a slant shear test. Impact tools are frequently used to roughen concrete in
practice (Cheong and MacAlerey, 2000).
Climaco (1990) has shown that the degree of roughening is relatively
unimportant as long as a reasonably rough surface is obtained, and
excessive damage to the concrete (i.e., cracking of the matrix or
dislodging of aggregate particles) is avoided.
Cheong and MacAlerey (2000) presented a description on an
experimental investigation into the behavior of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened by jacketing. Static and dynamic loads tests to failure were
carried out on 61 slant shear prisms and 13 jacketed reinforced concrete
T-beams. The concrete used in jacket was preplaced aggregate concrete.
The strength of the bond between preplaced aggregate concrete and plain
concrete was assessed by slant shear tests and a Mohr-Coulomb-type
failure envelope was derived. An example of the test results plotted for
fcu = 45 N/mm2 concrete is shown in Fig. (2.10).

Shear stress
τ 14
2
(N/mm )
12 φ angle of
friction
10

Cohesion
2
c
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Normal stress (N/mm2)

Fig. (2.10) Slant shear test parameters – grade 45 concrete

(Cheong and MacAlerey, 2000)
20
2.3.9 Strut-and-tie model:
A softened strut-and-tie model for determining interface shear capacity
was proposed by Hwang et al. (2000). Contrary to the shear-friction
concept, the proposed theory predicts that ultimate failure is caused by
the crushing of concrete in the compression struts formed after cracking
of the concrete. The shear strength predictions of the proposed model and
the empirical formulas of the ACI 318-95 building code were compared
with collected experimental data from 147 specimens. Examination of
existing experimental data indicated that the softened strut-and-tie model
was capable of predicting the interface shear strengths of both the push-
off and the pull-off specimens with or without the precracked shear
planes. The comparison showed that the performance of the softened
strut-and-tie model was better than the ACI code approach for the
parameters under comparison. The parameters reviewed included
concrete strength and amount of shear transfer reinforcement.

2.3.10 Dynamic shear transfer:

Displacement controlled shear tests on concrete lift joint specimens with
different surface preparations are conducted by Fronteddu et al. (1998) to
compare dynamic sliding joint behavior with the static behavior. Fig.
(2.11) shows the specimen geometry used in the shear test. Experimental
results indicate that the coefficient of friction decreases with the increase
in normal load, under both static and dynamic shear. The shear strength is
dependent on surface preparation.
Monolithic specimens and water-blast joints show higher shear
strengths than untreated joints and plane independent joint surfaces. An
empirical lift joint constitutive model was developed as a function of a
basic friction coefficient and a roughness friction coefficient that was
dependent upon the type of surface preparation.

21
Fig. (2.11) Specimen geometry (Fronteddu et al., 1998).

22