CONCRETE-TO-CONCRETE FRICTION

By Theodossius P. Tassios 1 and Elisabeth N. Vintzeleou 2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: The mechanism of load transfer along unreinforced concrete inter-

faces by means of friction has been experimentally investigated for several sur-
face roughnesses. The results of the parametric studies investigating the fric-
tional behavior of interfaces under both monotonic and fully reversed large
displacements are presented with comments. The proposed formalistic models
based on the experimental results can be used for the prediction of the frictional
resistance of reinforced concrete interfaces, according to a procedure described
in the paper.

INTRODUCTION

Concrete-to-concrete friction (or "aggregate interlock") as a shear transfer

mechanism has been the object of numerous experimental investiga-
tions. The development of models for a theoretical prediction of the fric-
tional shear stress shear displacement diagram has also been attempted
by several researchers (Bazant and Gambarova 1980; Gambarova 1979;
Fardis and Buyukozturk 1979; Walraven 1980).
Most of the monotonic tests reported in the literature (Fenwick 1966;
Loeber 1970) have been carried out under constant crack opening. How-
ever, in real structures, both normal stresses and crack widths may in-
crease with increasing shear load. Therefore, the results of such tests,
although they provide important qualitative information, cannot be used
directly as a constitutive material law.
Shear transfer by means of concrete-to-concrete friction along cracks
("aggregate interlock") under cyclically imposed shear stresses has been
parametrically investigated in extensive experimental programs carried
out mainly at Cornell University (White and Holley 1972; Laible 1973;
Laible, et al. 1977); however, the behavior of interfaces subjected to
earthquakes (large amplitude deformation reversals) has not yet been
thoroughly studied.
The behavior of both smooth and rough interfaces of plain concrete
subjected to monotonically or cyclically imposed shear displacements was
investigated by means of several series of tests carried out in the Lab-
oratory of Reinforced Concrete Structures, National Technical University
of Athens. The results of those tests are briefly presented in this paper.
Formalistic models (this term is used here for empirical analytical expres-
sions) for monotonic and cyclic actions for both smooth and rough in-
terfaces are proposed on the basis of these experimental results.
'Prof, of Reinforced Concrete, National Tech. Univ. of Athens, 42 Patission St.,
106
2
82 Athens, Greece.
Asst, Lab. of Reinforced Concrete, National Tech. Univ. of Athens, 106 82
Athens, Greece.
Note.—Discussion open until September 1, 1987. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication
on January 16, 1986. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 113, No. 4, April, 1987. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/87/0004-0832/$01.00. Paper

832

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF MECHANISM

Shear may be transferred by means of friction when there is a normal

compressive stress acting on the interface. This normal stress may be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

due either to an externally imposed load or to reinforcing bars crossing

the interface.
Let us consider a concrete interface, schematically shown in Fig. 1,
crossed by a reinforcing bar and subjected to a shear displacement s.
This relative displacement causes some deformation and/or cut-off of
protruding asperities. Due to this overriding, a lateral dilatancy is pro-
duced (i.e., a local increase, w, of the crack width). To this dilatancy the
reinforcing bar responds by a pullout force Asos. For the purpose of
equilibrium this tensile force is equal to a compressive force ACCTC acting
on the concrete at the vicinity of the bar. Therefore, we find
&c = PCTS • (1)

It is precisely due to this compressive force that a shear resistance is

developed at the interface; this is the contribution of the transverse re-
inforcement to the frictional resistance of the interface.
Along smooth interfaces (e.g., in precast elements connections), small
cement-paste particles are mainly protruding; therefore, significant di-
latancies are not expected, even for large shear displacements. Conse-
quently, this kind of shear resistance, owed to the transverse reinforce-
ment, may not be substantial in the case of smooth interfaces.
On the contrary, due to the interlocking of the aggregates protruding
across rough interfaces (e.g., cracks through reinforced concrete ele-
ments), shear displacements are accompanied by a considerable dila-
tancy and, as a consequence, high tensile stresses, which may reach the
yield stress of the steel, are induced in the bars. In such a case, the
frictional resistance due to the transverse reinforcement may be a con-
siderable part of the total shear resistance of the interface.
If an external compression force is acting on the interface considered,
small or large asperities pressed together will offer resistance against
shear displacement, thanks to their interlocking secured by the compres-
sive force.
In any case, since the phenomena causing mobilization of the frictional
mechanism are similar both for smooth and rough interfaces, the term

FIG. 1.—-A Qualitative Description of Friction Resistance, i>, besides Dowel Re-
sistance, D

833

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 of concrete-to-concrete friction will be used throughout this paper, in-
dependently of the roughness of the interface considered. Thus, "ag-
gregate interlock" will be but one particular case among all friction-gen-
erating mechanisms.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Nevertheless, several differences between smooth and rough inter-

faces, especially in what concerns the mode of deterioration and failure
of the mechanism, are illustrated in the following sections.

RESEARCH PROGRAM

The dimensions of specimens used are shown in Fig. 2. Unreinforced

concrete blocks 0.90 m long, 0.30 m high, and 0.15 m wide were cast in
metal molds. During concreting two grooves (15 mm deep and 0.30 m
long) were provided at each face of the specimen. Before testing, the
specimens were cracked by splitting (pressing across the grooves on both
specimen's faces). Thus, between adjacent concrete sub-blocks (0.30 m
long, 0.30 m high, and 0.15 m wide), two interfaces were formed. The
three concrete sub-blocks were held together by means of four external
steel rods, 30 mm in diameter.
The experimental setup is schematically shown in Fig. 3: the end sub-

precracked
/Interfaces \

300

-300- -300 j 300 •

-150—(—
ISO mm

-T-
-900 -

FIG. 2.—Dimensions of Specimen Used for Investigation of Conerete-to-Concrete

Friction

steel plates

Transducers I to IV:shear slip(I,D:front face-ITJ.IV:back face of pressure

the specimen)
I t o S :dilatancy(1to«:front face-5to8:back face)

FIG. 3.—Experimental Set Up (Schematically Shown) and Instrumentation for

Measurement of Shear Slip and Dilatancy

834

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4.—How Frictional Resistance, T„ , of Reinforced Interface Can Be Predicted

by Means of Friction Tests on Plain Concrete Interfaces, Tested under Constant
External Compressive Stresses, ac

blocks are fixed, while shear displacements are imposed to the central
block. A normal compressive pressure (held constant during the test) is
imposed to the interfaces by means of a flat jack.
All tests (both monotonic and cyclic) were displacement-controlled, so
that the falling branch of the shear stress versus shear displacement dia-
gram could also be recorded. The shear displacement was imposed by
means of mechanical jacks; the response of the specimen was measured
by means of load-cells.
Shear displacement and dilatancy (crack widths) were continuously
recorded by means of transducers: two transducers at each interface (one
for each specimen's face, accuracy: 0.002 mm) were used to measure
shear displacements. The crack width of each interface was measured
by means of four transducers (two transducers at each specimen's face,
accuracy: 0.001 mm).
All tests were carried out under constant normal stress. Obviously, in
real reinforced concrete structures when an interface is subjected to shear,
it may be expected that, together with shear displacement and crack width,
normal stresses are also increasing.
Therefore, when planning tests on the development of the frictional
mechanism under imposed shear displacements, some parameter (CTC or
w) has to be kept constant during each test. When normal stress is kept
constant, the experimental results found on plain interfaces [Fig. 4(a)]
may be readily used for the prediction of the frictional resistance of rein-
forced cracks under imposed shear displacements.
Let us take the example of such an interface under zero external
compression. From tests of plain concrete interfaces under several com-
pressive stresses, a given shear displacement s corresponds to a crack
width w [Fig. 4(b)]. Further, since the bond characteristics arid the an-
chorage conditions of the reinforcing bars that cross the interface are
known, pullout diagrams for those bars can be drawn [Fig. 4(c)]. There-
fore, for the previously determined crack width value, the tensile stress
<rs of the transverse bars can be read on these pullout diagrams.
As has already been said (Eq. 1), the corresponding concrete com-
835

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 TABLE 1.—Combinations of Parameters
Interface Concrete compressive Normal Displacements' Specimen's
roughness strength (MPa) stress (MPa) history designation8
(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Smooth or 30.0 0.50 Monotonic S—30,0.50/M

sand-blasted SB—30,0.50/M
±s„ S—30,0.50/1.0
SB—30,0.50/1.0
1.00 Monotonic S—30,1.0/M
SB—30,1.0/M
S—30,1.0/1.0
SB—30,1.0/1.0
2.00 Monotonic S—30,2.0/M
SB—30,2.0/M
S—30,2.0/1.0
SB—30,2.0/1.0
Rough 16.0 1.00 Monotonic R—16,1.0/M
R—16,1.0/1.0
30.0 0.50 Monotonic R—30,0.50/M
±s„/2 R—30,0.50/0.5
±s„ R—30,0.50/1.0
±2s„ R—30,0.50/2.0
1.00 Monotonic R—30,1.0/M
±s»/2 R—30,1.0/0.5
±s„ R—30,1.0/1.0
±2s„ R—30,1.0/2.0
2.00 Monotonic R—30,2.0/M
±s„/2 R—30,2.0/0.5
±s„ R—30,2.0/1.0
±2s„ R—30,2.0/2.0
40.0 1.00 Monotonic R—40,1.0/M
R—40,1.0/1.0
Specimens' designation: Roughness - fcci ac/Displacements' history
Roughness: R = Rough fee-. 16.0 = 16.0 MPa
S = Smooth 30.0 = 30.0 MPa
SB = Sand-blasted 40.0 = 40.0 MPa
crc: 0.5 = 0.50 MPa Displacements' history: M = Monotonic
1.0 = 1.00 MPa 0.5 = ±0.5s„
2.0 = 2.00 MPa 1.0 = ±1.0s„
2.0 = ±2.0s„

pressive stress is equal to ac = prjs. For this <JC -value and for the applied
shear displacement s, a friction-shear stress value can be read on the
experimentally obtained T, S diagrams of Fig. 4(a). This is the frictional
response of the reinforced interface to the imposed shear displacement
s; of course, for the total resistance of this interface, dowel resistance
and pullout/push-in resistance of inclined bars should also be added.
Applying the same procedure for different s-values, a shear resistance
TR versus shear displacement diagram (for varying normal stresses and
crack widths) can be drawn [Fig. 4(d)].
In conclusion, plain concrete friction tests carried out under constant
normal concrete pressure are very useful as input data for the prediction
of frictional resistance of reinforced interfaces under imposed shear dis-
placements.
The following parameters have been experimentally investigated:
836

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 1. Roughness of the interface: Three kinds of interfaces have been in-
vestigated: smooth interfaces, rough interfaces (natural cracks obtained
by precracking of the specimens), and sand-blasted interfaces (obtained
by sand blasting of rough interfaces).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Smooth interfaces were produced as follows: Plain concrete blocks 0.30

m long, 0.30 m high, and 0.15 m wide were cast in metal molds. Before
testing, three of those blocks (put together as shown in Fig. 3) consti-
tuted a test specimen.
2. Concrete compressive strength: Three concrete qualities have been
considered: fa = 16.0, 30.0, and 40.0 MPa. For all three concrete quali-
ties, limestone crushed aggregates were used.
3. Normal compressive stress: Three a c -values have been used: 0.50
MPa, 1.00 MPa, and 2.00 MPa.
4. Loading history: Preliminary monotonic tests were carried out. For
several combinations of parameters (Table 1), the maximum shear stress
mobilized and the corresponding shear displacement were determined.

The loading histories of specimens subjected to cyclic actions were

achieved as follows:

1. A shear slip s was imposed, equal to half the displacement s„, cor-
responding to the maximum shear stress under monotonic actions. After
this slip, the specimen was unloaded and subsequently reloaded in the
opposite direction up to a slip value equal to - s„ /2. Then full displace-
ment reversals were imposed between the extreme values + s„/2 and
- s „ / 2 until response stabilization was reached. In most cases, six full
reversals were performed. Finally, large slips (s = 20 mm) were mono-
tonically applied to the specimen.
2. The same procedure as in paragraph 1 was followed, but slip re-
versals between the extreme values +s„ and — s„ were performed.
3. Similarly, slip reversals between +2s„ and -2s„ were imposed to
the specimens.

TEST RESULTS—MONOTONIC LOADING

Smooth Interfaces.—In Fig. 5(a) shear stress versus shear displace-

ment diagrams are shown, while in Fig. 5(b) the friction coefficient val-
ues |xmax, corresponding to the maximum mobilized friction-shear stress
are plotted against the normal stress acting on the interface.
The parameter of concrete compressive strength has not been inves-
tigated, since the frictional capacity of smooth interfaces is not expected
to be significantly influenced by the concrete strength.
Rough Interfaces.—In Fig. 6, shear stress versus shear displacement
curves are shown for several normal stress values.
The influence of the concrete compressive strength /„ and of the nor-
mal stress ac on the mobilized shear stress is shown in Fig. 7(a-b), re-
spectively.
The relationship between the dilatancy (increase of the crack width w)
and the imposed shear slip s is shown in Fig. 8.
Sand-Blasted Interfaces.—The results for sand-blasted interfaces are
837

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2.0 o c (MPa)

FIG. 5.—Smooth Interfaces: (a) Friction-Shear Displacement Curves for Monoton-

ically Loaded Interfaces under Several Normal Stress Values; (b) Influence of Nor-
mal Compressive Stress on Maximum Mobilized Friction Coefficient

ROUGH INTERFACE

FIG. 6.—Friction-Shear Stresses versus Shear Displacement Curves for Mono-

tonically Loaded "Natural" Cracks (Rough Interfaces)

similar to those obtained for rough interfaces, since sand-blasted inter-

faces were slightly smoother than natural cracks.

TEST RESULTS—-CYCLIC LOADING

Smooth Interfaces.—Typical hysteresis loops for smooth interfaces

subjected to slip reversals are shown in Fig. 9(a). The relationship be-
tween dilatancy and shear slip is shown in Fig. 9(b) for all cycles.
Rough Interfaces.—Typical hysteresis loops, as well as a typical di-
latancy versus shear displacement diagram for cyclic loading are given
in Fig. lO(a-b), respectively.
Sand-Blasted Interfaces.—Similar test results were obtained for sand-
blasted interfaces.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS—MONOTONIC LOADING

Smooth Interfaces.—The frictional resistance of smooth interfaces in-

creased for increasing normal stresses [see Fig. 5(a)]; for vc increasing
from 0.50-2.00 MPa, an increase of the maximum mobilized shear stress
838

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 ^T(ng(MPa|
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

f cc IMPa)
40.0

FIG. 7.—Rough Interfaces: (a) Influence of Concrete Compressive Strength on

Frictional Capacity of Interfaces; (b) Influence of Normal Stress on Frictional Ca-
pacity of Interfaces

w(mm)
-j-~x~x~~x x x Q °
o o °

• ' o °
x
a/ » oo o
ROUGH INTERFACE
</ . > « • • ^ • ^ A

/" jtfTy i
f cc =: 25.0 MPa
«AX O c =2.0MPa
MS «>.)-,»,o 0 c =1.OMPa

f
•.o,i.» O c =0.5MPa

s(mm}
_j _L_

FIG. 8.—Dilatancy versus Shear Displacement Curves for Rough Interfaces

from 0.25 MPa to approximately 0.80 MPa is observed. No considerable

degradation of the maximum friction coefficient |xmax was observed [see
Fig. 5(b)], at least for the crc-values used within the tests described in
this paper.
No falling branch of the shear stress versus shear displacement dia-
gram has been recorded. In fact, as Fig. 5(a) shows, no response deg-
radation is observed even for imposed slips as large as 4.0 or 5.0 mm.
This is probably because no significant deterioration of the very smooth
interfaces tested could occur during testing.
Rough Interfaces.—The maximum shear stress transferred by a rough
interface increases for increasing imposed normal stress ac (Fig. 6). How-
ever, as one can see in Fig. 7(b), this increase of frictional strength is not
proportional to the normal stress. The same feature was observed also
by Daschner (1980) for high normal stress values.
839

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

w(mm)
0.2 © rupture
S-30.0.5/10
3®

D
©
0.02
. slmmj
-10 -die -as -ds -Q2 00 Q2 6.1 06 08 10

FIG. 9.—(a) Typical Hysteresis Loops for Smooth Interfaces Subjected to Full Slip
Reversals; (b) Typical Dilatancy versus Shear Displacement Diagram for Cyclically
Loaded Smooth Interfaces

A possible explanation of this feature may be the following: The failure

of the aggregate interlocking mechanism is usually attributed to the cut-
off of the peaks of aggregates and cement paste particles protruding across
the interface, as well as to the overriding of asperities. Higher com-
pressive stresses, in spite of the more intimate interlocking they secure,
also produce a shortening of protruding asperities and subsequently re-
duce overriding resistance. In addition, it may happen that, for a shear
stress value smaller than the one necessary for the overriding of asper-
ities, the shear resistance of the protruding asperities under high normal
stress may be higher than the tensile strength of the matrix. Thus, a
diagonal crack through the matrix may occur (see Fig. 11) prior to the
cutoff and overriding of the asperities. Hence, a premature failure of the
mechanism.
Such diagonal cracks appeared on the side faces of several specimens,
especially when a high normal stress (equal to 2.0 MPa) was applied to
the interface. In this connection, it is worth noting that the upper limit
of frictional resistance rfrtU seems to be less dependent on crc. It is roughly
equal to the tensile strength of concrete (in Fig. 7 we notice that T^„ =
0.12 fa = /,.,). More generally, (see Vintzeleou 1984), taking into account
the tensile strength reduction due to a transversal compressive stress <rc,
it is found that

= 0.30 10+
max TA,„
*!)-(!/JU (2)

In Fig. 8 the local crack widths w (dilatancy) versus shear slip s for
several normal stress values are shown. One can observe that, although
840

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R-30.a5/2.0

-50 -40 -3.0 -2.0 -10 0 10 20 3.0 4.0 5.0

FIG. 10.—(a) Typical Hysteresis Loops for Rough Interfaces Subjected to Full Slip
Reversals; (b) Typical Dilatancy versus Shear Displacement Diagram for Cyclically
Loaded Rough Interfaces

^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ s ^ *

>
^P^>^i^dP\^)^> s.s.
^T

FIG. 11.—Failure of Mechanism Due to FIG. 12.—How Dilatancy versus Shear

Cracking of Matrix (Weakened by Si- Displacement Relationship Is Influ-
multaneous Action of Normal and Shear enced by Initial Crack Width w„ (Quali •
Stresses) tative Diagrams)

841

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 13.—Typical Profile of Rough Surface

the distribution of heights of the protruding aggregates along the inter-

faces is random, the w-s curves for different specimens are situated within
a relatively narrow band.
In the general case in which there is an initial crack width w0, a shear
slip s0 occurs under almost zero increase of the crack width before the
frictional mechanism is mobilized along the interface (Fig. 12). The larger
the initial crack width, the larger the free slip, s0 and the smaller the
mobilized shear resistance for the same shear displacement, s.
In all specimens tested within this program, the initial local crack width
was small (<0.10 mm). Thus, no free slip has been recorded (Fig. 8).
Therefore, the results presented in this paper do not cover the case of
larger initial crack widths.
An attempt was made to measure the roughness of the interfaces tested
(Fig. 13). Such measurements were conducted both before and after test-
ing of the interfaces so as to have an indication of the deterioration due
to the imposed shear slips.
The method used for the evaluation of the interface roughness is that
specified by BS 1134/1972 Method for the assessment of surface texture (1972)
related to the roughness of metal surfaces.
Note in Fig. 13 that the line X-X is parallel to the general course of
the profile over length L. The center line Y-Y is parallel to the line X-X.
The sum of the areas r{ above the center line is equal to the sum of the
areas s, below the center line. The roughness index hRi is determined as
follows: hRi = (2r, + 2si)/L. In this example, 2r, = 46.13 + 2.93 + 83.08
= 132.14 mm2; 2s,- = 3.68 + 30.33 + 62.05 + 41.33 = 137.39 mm2; and
L = 200 mm. Therefore, hRi = (132.14 + 137.39/200 = 1.35 mm).
Since such measurements, described in detail in Vintzeleou (1984), are
rather time-consuming, roughness measurements have been effectuated
only on two specimens (four interfaces before and after testing). Sur-
prisingly enough, the nominal rougness of all four interfaces before test-
ing was approximately equal (1.75 mm), while after testing their rough-
ness was lower (approximately equal to 1.45 mm). This leads to the
assumption that the roughness of natural cracks is a "material" char-
acteristic. Such an assumption may also explain the relatively small scat-
ter of w-s curves (see Fig. 8).
Sand-Blasted Interfaces.—All comments made for rough interfaces in
the preceding paragraph are also valid for sand-blasted interfaces, which,
however, are slightly less rough than the natural cracks.
842

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

, ,(ln:t»l

(b) |s n : Suf 1.00l

K,A,9 experimental v, a. „l u„e,s.
».»,. predicted

*Sf 2BMPa

4 MivHl

x.*,» experimental uv _a li ul l ea
. , « . predicted

FIG. 14.—Rough Interfaces: Decrease of Maximum Friction Coefficient Due to Cy-

cling as Function of Normal Stress and for Several Normalized Displacement (s,,/
s„) Ratios

The nominal roughness of sand-blasted interfaces was also measured

before and after testing. It was found to be 1.50 mm before testing (ver-
sus 1.75 mm for natural cracks) and 1.25 mm after testing (versus 1.45
mm for rough interfaces).
843

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS—CYCLIC LOADING

Smooth Interfaces.—The smooth interfaces that have been subjected

to cyclic loading have shown the following common characteristics [see
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9(a-b)]:

1. In the case of normal stress equal to 0.50 or 1.00 MPa, the response
in the second loading direction was approximately 30% lower than the
response in the first loading direction, for all loading cycles. In the case
of normal stress equal to 2.0 MPa, the specimens have mobilized the
same shear stress in both loading directions.
2. The response degradation due to cycling has been found to be rel-
atively small. Therefore, one can conclude that there is no significant
deterioration of the smooth interface during loading. The fact that no
falling branch was recorded during monotonic loading [see Fig. 5(a)] may
have led to the same conclusion.
3. No pinching effect is apparent, and the area of the hysteresis loops
(hysteretic damping) is large.
4. Crack widths (dilatancy) measured during cyclic tests were very small
(not greater than 0.20 mm), although they increased with cycling. It was
observed that the residual crack width w res , corresponding to zero shear
slip, increased for increasing number of cycles [Fig. 9(b)]. This is prob-
ably due to the small cement paste particles (cut from the interface dur-
ing loading), which remain between the two surfaces and prevent them
from approaching each other.

Rough Interfaces.—Some features, typical for all shear sensitive rein-

forced concrete elements have been observed in the case of rough in-
terfaces [Figs. lO(a-b)]:

1. A pronounced asymmetry of the hysteresis loops is apparent: The

response in the second loading direction (especially during the first re-
versal) is considerably lower than the response in the first loading di-
rection. In subsequent loading cycles, the difference between the two
responses becomes less important.
2. A dramatic decrease of the shear stiffness is observed after the first
reversal, followed by a considerable decrease of the hysteresis loop area.
3. Due to the smoothing of the interfaces, the residual shear slip after
unloading is practically equal to the maximum shear slip for each load-
ing cycle (irreversible displacement).
4. The force-response degradation is very high, due to the surface de-
terioration (cutoff of protruding aggregates). The force-response degra-
dation (more pronounced during the early loading cycles) has been found
to depend on both the maximum applied shear displacements and the
normal stress acting on the interface (Fig. 14).
5. Since rough interfaces undergo significant deterioration with cy-
cling, the maximum dilatancy decreases with cycling (the mean height
of the asperities diminishes due to the cutoff of certain aggregate peaks).
For the same reason, the residual crack-width that corresponds to zero
shear displacement also decreases with the number of cycles.
844

fena.™._. .._

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 Sand-Blasting Interfaces.—Evidently, all the above mentioned fea-
tures are also valid for the sand-blasted (rough) interfaces.

FINAL ANALYSIS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

On the basis of the experimental results presented in this paper, for-

malistic models for both smooth and rough interfaces subjected to either
monotonic or cyclic actions are proposed (Figs. 15-19). Two empirical
equations (useful in modeling) are reproduced here, predicting the fric-
tional stress-response T^„ to the nth cycle, after a displacement equal to
s„; the constant normal compressive stress acting on the interface is de-
noted byCTC. Thus for smooth interfaces

(3)

where T^I = 0.40 crc .. (4)

For rough interfaces
1 / \ -il/3
&c\ IS,
?fr,n - T/r,l i 1 0.002(n - 1) (5)
\Jcc/ \S)

where T^I may be any friction-shear stress mobilized under o-c-pressure

*t|r

Tft.-TUH^l

^,, U -V,, U ('TV^')

»t|r

®
Jim.. • O I « ( T M

0\Syjac '
ROUOH INTERFACE

I Q10 tt!2 0.14 0.16

FIG. 15.—Maximum Friction Coeffi- FIG. 16.—Formalistic Models for Shear

cient, |j,ma» = T/r,„/ac, for Hough Inter- Transfer against Smooth Interfaces
faces as Function of Normal Stress <JC , Subjected to Cyclic Actions: (a) For Low
Normalized to Concrete Compressive Normal Stresses; (b) for High Normal
Strength, /„. Stresses Acting on Interface (s in mm
and ov in MPa)

845

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 and s„ -displacement during the first cycle (Fig. 18).
Finally, Fig. 20 shows a rather roughly linearized approximation of the
dilatancy of natural cracks under cyclic symmetric imposed slip-displace-
ments ± s„. Dilatancy degradation is approximated by the following em-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pirical expression:

wn = w1 i--V^i) (6)
12 /
However, it has to be admitted that, at this stage, prediction of di-
latancy under cyclic actions is subject to many uncertainties.
Last but not least, loading patterns and scale effects constitute other
considerable sources of uncertainty.
Thus, the notion of local friction versus local displacement has to be
introduced as a means for analytical investigation of every interface. The
length I = 300 mm chosen in this paper as a reference length needs to
be critically examined: A minimal length should be sought with nearly
uniform shear stress distribution for as many loading levels as possible;

ROUGH INTERFACE

Slmm)
0 02 0.4 0-6 0.6 10 12 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

FIG. 17.—Crack-Width Values (Dilatancy) as Function of Shear Slip

T
fr/Tfr,u

: v*
.^t-~rr~'
*A
E

", ,^r •
.° A /
<*
ROUGH INTERFACE

".!/"
£ '
i-™&f
r- for f- ^ 1.0
Su

3:su

0.0 0.20 040 0.60 0.80 1.00

FIG. 18.—Rough Interfaces: Normalized Shear Friction Resistance versus Nor-

malized Displacement; Experimental Results by Vintzeleou (1984) and Walraven
(1980)

846

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 19.—Formaiistie Model for Rough Interfaces Subjected to Cyclic Displace-

ments; Frictional Stress Response to nth Cycle: T^„ = tfrl {l - [0.002(n - l)(o-c/
/cc)-(s„/s„)]1/3}

slip displacement

FIG. 20.—Very Rough Model for Dllatancy Prediction of "Natural" Cracks under
Cyclic Shear Slip-Displacements

however, this length should be large enough to encompass the statistical

heterogeneity of concrete, as well as permitting at least one inclined crack
similar to that shown in Fig. 11.

CONCLUSIONS

The behavior of plain, smooth, and rough concrete interfaces under

imposed monotonic and cyclic shear displacements was experimentally
investigated.
Shear stress versus shear displacement diagrams under constant nor-
mal stress, as well as dilatancy versus shear slip curves were presented.
The results taken from tests on plain concrete interfaces can be used
for the prediction of the frictional behavior of reinforced concrete inter-
faces, according to a procedure described in this paper.
The formaiistie models proposed for smooth and rough interfaces un-
der monotonic and cyclic actions may be used to analytically model shear
slip behavior, pending some reservations related to scale-effects.
847

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

Bazant, Z. P., and Gambarova, P. G. (1980). "Rough cracks in reinforced con-

crete," /. Struct. Div., ASCE, 106(4), 819-842.
Daschner, F. (1980). "Schubkraftiibertragung in Rissen von Normal- und Leicht-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

beton," Preliminary report, Technical University of Munich, West Germany (in

German).
Fardis, M. N., and Buyukozturk, O. (1979). "Shear transfer model for reinforced
concrete," /. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 105(4), 255-275.
Fenwick, R. C. (1966). "Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams," thesis pre-
sented to the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Gambarova, P. G. (1979). "Shear transfer by aggregate interlock in cracked rein-
forced concrete subject to repeated loads," Studi e Ricerche, Corso di Perfe-
zionamento per le Costruzioni in Cemento Armato, Vol. 1, Department of
Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy, 43-70 (in Italian). -
Laible, J. P. (1973). "An experimental investigation of interface shear transfer and
applications in the dynamic analysis of nuclear containment vessels," thesis
presented to Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., in partial fulfillment of the re-
quirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Laible, J. P., White, R. N., and Gergely, P. (1977). "Experimental investigation
of seismic shear transfer across cracks in concrete nuclear containment ves-
sels," Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, ACI-Special Publication 53,
Detroit, Mich., 203-226.
Loeber, P. J. (1970). "Shear transfer by aggregate interlock," thesis presented to
the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
Method for the assessment of surface texture. (1972). BS1134, British Standard Insti-
tution, London, England.
Vintzeleou, E. N. (1984). "Mechanisms of load transfer along reinforced concrete
interfaces under monotonic and cyclic actions," thesis presented to the Na-
tional Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece, in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in Greek).
Walraven, J. C. (1980). "Aggregate interlock: A theoretical and experimental
analysis," thesis presented to Delft University of Technology, Delft, Nether-
lands, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy (in English).
White, R. N., and Holley, M. J. (1972). "Experimental studies of membrane shear
transfer," /. Struct. Div., ASCE, 98(8), 1835-1852.

APPENDIX II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Ac = area of the concrete interface;

As = area of the steel crossing the crack;
fcc = concrete compressive strength;
fct = concrete tensile strength;
n = n u m b e r of cycles;
s = shear slip;
s„ = imposed slip displacement during the «th cycle;
s„ = free slip;
s„ = shear slip corresponding to the maximum mobilized shear stress
u n d e r monotonic actions;
w = local crack-width (dilatancy);
w0 = initial crack-width;

848

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.

 |x = friction coefficient;
p = reinforcement percentage (As/Ac);
<JC = normal compressive stress acting on the interface;
crs = steel stress;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ben Gurion University Of The Negev on 10/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

jfr = shear stress due to friction;

Tfr,„ = frictional response during the nth loading cycle, for a given dis-
placement; and
T^I = frictional response of the interface during the first loading cycle,
for a given displacement.

849

J. Struct. Eng. 1987.113:832-849.