CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGIN EERING REPORTS

E-ISSN 2450-8594 CEER 2021; 31 (1): 0093-0105

DOI: 10.2478/ceer-2021-0007
Original Research Article

ANALYSIS OF THE SHEAR RESISTANCE

IN THE INDENTED INTERFACE BETWEEN TWO
CONCRETE PARTS OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAM

Grzegorz SADOWSKI1, Piotr WILIŃSKI2, Anna HALICKA3

1,2
Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Mechanics and
Petrochemistry, Płock, Poland
3
Lublin University of Technology, Civil Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Lublin,
Poland

Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of shear resistance in the interface between
two concrete parts of concrete composite beam. The construction joint was performed as
indented one in accordance with Eurocode 2 and fib Model Code 2010. The numerical
calculation results were confronted with the actual results of tests of a composite beam
subjected to 4-point bending. The displacement values of tested element were obtained
using dial sensors and the digital image correlation method (DIC). The analysis shows that
the recommendations of Eurocode 2-1-1 and fib Model Code 2010 do not reflect the actual
behavior of concrete composite beam with indented surface.
Keywords: shear resistance, concrete composite beam

1
Corresponding author: Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Mechanics and Petrochemistry, 09-400 Płock, ul. Łukasiewicza 17, e-mail:
[email protected]
94 Grzegorz SADOWSKI, Piotr WILIŃSKI, Anna HALICKA

1. INTRODUCTION
The subject of this paper is concrete composite beam consisted of two parts: down
part simulating the precast member with indented joint surface and upper layer of
new concrete simulating the in-situ concrete. A comparative analysis of the
composite beam behaviour under the four-point bending, was carried out using
digital image correlation method (DIC) and numerical calculations. The obtained
results were confronted with the standard recommendations concerning the
calculation of shear resistance at the interface of two concrete – Eurocode 2 [8]
(hereinafter as EC2 referred), the fib Model Code 2010 [10] (hereinafter as
MC2010 referred) and the analysis of standard methods included in publication
[4].
According to EC2, the shear resistance at the interface of two concrete parts is the
sum of:
 adhesion, depending on the average tensile strength of the weaker jointed
concrete,
 friction, depending on the surface roughness and normal stress resulting
from the external load,
 load capacity of stirrups counteracting the stress, resulting from shear
friction.
The papers [3, 5, 11] indicate that the simple summation of these three
components is incorrect. The studies presented in the paper [3] show that stress
exceeding the 15-20% of the yield strength appears in stirrups only when the new
concrete is separated from the precast element.
Fib Model Code 2010 classifies the joint between concrete parts cast at different
times as “rigid” and “non-rigid”. A rigid joint characterized by a strong adhesive
connection takes place if no or a low stirrups ratio (ρ < 0.05 %) is used and the
displacement of concrete parts in relation to each other does not exceed 0.05 mm
until the breaking of the adhesion. The mechanism of destruction of the rigid joint
consists in breaking the adhesion and slipping of the connected parts in relation to
each other, accompanied by friction. For non-rigid joints (stirrups ratio ρ > 0.05 %
and slip between concrete parts ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 mm) in MC2010, in
addition to the three above-mentioned destruction mechanisms, the dowel action
of the stirrups is included. Once the adhesive bond has been broken and the
concrete layers are slipped, the main role in shear stress transmission is taken over
by friction, shear friction and dowel action.
Both EC2 and MC2010 standards, introduce the “indented construction joint” into
the classification of the concrete surfaces. They give the same recommendations
for the geometry and spacing of the notches. However, the coefficients used to
determine the load capacity component resulting from adhesion are different – in
EC2 its value is directly dedicated to the indented construction joint, whereas in
MC2010 the coefficient for the indented joint is of the same value as for a very
rough surface.
ANALYSIS OF THE SHEAR RESISTANCE IN THE INDENTED INTERFACE BETWEEN 95
TWO CONCRETE PARTS OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAM

The aim of this paper is to widen the knowledge on the destruction mechanism of
concrete composite beams with the indented construction joint of different
geometry and to find out whether the methods given in EC2 and MC2010 reflect
the actual behaviour of such composite elements.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Preparation of elements for testing

The tested composite beam consisted of a precast element of 3000 x 150 x 250mm
in dimensions and the indented upper surface with notches in 80 mm spacing and
70 mm thick layer of new concrete. The surface geometrical characteristic is
shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Precast indented surface with notches

The precast elements were made of ready-mix C25/30 concrete made with use of
CEMI 42.5R cement. The main (bottom) reinforcement constituted the 3Ø20 mm
ribbed bars made of B500B steel. Ribbed Ø8 mm stirrups made of B500B steel
were used at 80 mm spacing in the support zones (1120 mm long), while in the
remaining part of beam their spacing was equal to 110 mm. Concrete layers were
connected by a joining reinforcement consisted of two-armed Ø6 mm ribbed
stirrups made of B500B steel at 160 mm spacing. The dimensions and
reinforcement of beam were shown in Figure 2.
96 Grzegorz SADOWSKI, Piotr WILIŃSKI, Anna HALICKA

Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcement scheme for composite beam

New concrete layer was laid after 71 days of precast concrete curing. It was made
of CEM II/B-V 32.5N-LH/HSR/NA cement (producer Grupa Ożarów S.A.), fine
0–4 mm aggregate and gravel of 4–16 mm. In order to obtain an appropriate
consistency of the concrete mix BETOCRETE-F27 (FM) liquefying admixture in
the amount of 1% of cement mass was used. The tap water was used. The class of
new concrete was determined in accordance with PN-EN 206+A1: 2016-12 [7] as
C25/30 and the consistency class as F4.
During each concreting, samples were made to determine the concrete
compressive strength (10 samples 150×150×150 mm) and tensile strength by
splitting (6 samples 150×150×150 mm) and elasticity modulus (3 cylinders  150
mm, h=300 mm). The beams and samples were stored in the laboratory for 113
days (precast element) and 42 days (new concrete) until testing in air-dry
conditions. The determined material parameters used to the analysis were shown
in Table 1.
Table 1. Material parameters of concrete and structural steel

Concrete Steel
fcm. cube fctm Ecm fy ES
[MPa] [MPa] [GPa] [MPa] [GPa]
New concrete 43.57 2.40 31.85 stirrups  6 545 200
Precast
36.30 2.30 27.99 stirrups  8 545 200
concrete
main reinforcement
547 200
 20

2.2 Description of the laboratory stand

Diagram of the composite beam, arrangement of sensors and zones recorded by
digital cameras are shown in Figure 3. The stand was equipped with Sylvac S_dial
SWISS MODE electronic dial sensors for measuring the deflections (sensors 7-
9), strain in the middle of the span (sensors 2-6, measuring base ~200 mm),
supports displacements (sensors 10-13). The value of load P was read from the
ANALYSIS OF THE SHEAR RESISTANCE IN THE INDENTED INTERFACE BETWEEN 97
TWO CONCRETE PARTS OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAM

dynamometer (sensor 1). The load was applied to the element monotonously with
the speed of about 2.7 kN/min until the element was damaged. The measurement
results were recorded continuously at a frequency of 1 second and recorded in the
data sheet.
Simultaneously, photos necessary for image analysis were taken. Figure 3 shows
the locations of photos (I – zone photographed by the camera no. 1, II – zone
photographed by the camera no. 2, III – zone photographed by the camera no. 3).
The dial sensors were located on the opposite side of beam in relation to the
photographed zones.

Fig. 3. The scheme of tested composite beam: position of dial indicators (1-13) and
location of zones recorded by digital cameras (I. – III.)

2.3 Description of the digital image correlation method (DIC)

The image of the beam changing in destruction process was analysed using the
digital image correlation method (DIC). The one side of test elements was
prepared by painting with white paint and then applying the pattern of black dots,
which are markers used in the process of image processing.
Three 24-megapixel digital cameras with APS-C size CMOS sensors were used.
Each of them took photos of a part of beam surface of approximately 320 x 600
mm (as shown in Figure 3). The photos were taken automatically every 20
seconds, and the synchronization with dial sensor results was achieved by
correlating the internal time of digital cameras with a computer. Due to the fact
that each analysed fragment of the beam was photographed with one camera, the
analysis of photos was conducted using the 2D digital image correlation method.
The use of lenses with APS-C matrices aimed at minimizing optical defects
(among others, distortions and spherical aberrations were minimized).
Obtained images were analysed using GOM Correlate software. The software
operates on the principle of correlation and searching for elements with identical
shapes and determining the change of their coordinates. To the characteristic
points of analysed image, the software assigns square or rectangular areas called
“facets”, which sizes are usually 15 x 15 pixels. In each assigned area there is a
98 Grzegorz SADOWSKI, Piotr WILIŃSKI, Anna HALICKA

unique pattern, which is directly used to analyse displacements and deformations.

A detailed description of the operation principle of DIC method, preparation and
execution of tests and inaccuracies of the method can be found in publications [1,
6, 7, 12-14].

3. RESULTS

3.1 Results of laboratory tests

Figure 4 shows the recorded displacements of beam analysed using GOM
Correlate at different load levels.

Fig. 4 Cracks pattern of the composite beam obtained with the GOM Correlate software
analysing the Y-axis displacements, a) P=100.2 kN, b) P=180 kN, c) P=198.7 kN
The mechanism of beam destruction was as follows. The first vertical cracks in
the pure bending zone appeared under a load of 9.5 kN, and diagonal cracks in the
constant transverse force zone occurred under the load of 80 kN. The first crack
between the precast element and new concrete layer also appeared in the constant
transverse force zone under the load of 100.2 kN. This interface crack appeared
in the horizontal plane of notch on its one side, as shown in Figures 4a and 5. At
that time numerous bending cracks and the first diagonal shear cracks existed yet,
but the interface crack was independent of them. As the load increased, the first
interface crack extended and widened, and new interface cracks formed at the
subsequent notches towards the support, as shown in Figure 4b. Figure 4c shows
ANALYSIS OF THE SHEAR RESISTANCE IN THE INDENTED INTERFACE BETWEEN 99
TWO CONCRETE PARTS OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAM

the element displacement under the ultimate load of 198.70 kN. The beam was
destroyed as a result of concrete compression in the upper part of section (crushing
of the concrete), as shown in Figure 6. Delamination of the new concrete from
precast element along the entire beam length, was not observed.

Fig. 5. Cracks pattern of the composite beam obtained with the GOM Correlate software
analysing the Y-axis displacements, a) detail A under 100.2 kN load as shown in Figure
4a, b) detail B under 100.2 kN load as shown in Figure 5a

Fig. 6. View of test item after test (own photo), a) general view, b) detail – A

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Calculation of shear resistance and shear stress in the interface

between concrete parts cast at different times
The shear resistance calculations were conducted in accordance with EC2 and
MC2010 standards.
The design value of the interface shear resistance in EC2 is given by the equation:
𝜈 = 𝑐 𝑓 + 𝜇 𝜎 + 𝜌 𝑓 (𝜇 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼),
but not more than 0,5 fcd (4.1)
where:
c, µ – factors depending on the roughness of the interface (according to point 6.2.5
EC2 c = 0.5 for the surface with notches, while µ = 0.6 is adopted for smooth
surface),
fctd – design value of concrete tensile strength,
100 Grzegorz SADOWSKI, Piotr WILIŃSKI, Anna HALICKA

fcd – design value of concrete compressive strength,

σn – stress caused by the minimum external force normal to the interface,
ν – strength reduction factor for concrete cracked in shear, according to point 6.2.2
of the standard [8],
ρ – ratio of the reinforcement crossing the interface (for the tested element
ρ = 0.24%),
α – slope angle of the reinforcement crossing the interface (for the tested element
α = 90o).
The upper limit value was 0,5νfcd = 6,17 MPa and is significantly greater than ν .
According to MC2010, the design shear resistance at the interface must be
determined by the following equation:

/
𝜏 =𝑐 𝑓 + µ𝜎 + 𝜅 𝜌 𝑓 (𝜇 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼) + 𝜅 𝜌 𝑓 𝑓 ≤ 𝛽 𝜈𝑓 ,
(4.2)
where:
cr – coefficient of influence of aggregate interlock (the value for the rough contact
cr = 0.2 was adopted),
κ1 – coefficient of efficiency for tensile force that can be activated in the
reinforcement (the value for the surface with notches κ1 = 0.5 was adopted),
κ2 – coefficient for flexural resistance of reinforcement (the value for smooth
surface according to Table 7.3-2 of the Standard [10] κ2 = 1.1 was adopted),
µ – coefficient of friction (the value for smooth surface according to table 7.3-2
MC2010 µ = 0.6 was adopted),
βc – coefficient allowing for angle of diagonal concrete strut (βc = 0.5 was
adopted).
Limit shear stress of the interface β νf = 6.24 MPa are much bigger than τ .
It was assumed that the interface at the beam points under consideration is not
loaded with an external load, thus in formulae (4.1) and (4.2) µσn = 0 was adopted.
From the paper [5] it can be concluded that normal stresses, perpendicular to the
interface in the beam loaded with concentrated forces are created also in places
out of forces region. Due to difficulties in their determination and their local range,
they were omitted at this stage of analysis.
The design shear resistance according to EC2 and MC2010 standards was
calculated using the actual values of material parameters listed in Table 1.
The design value of the shear stress in the interface was determined from the
relation contained in both EC2 and MC2010.
𝜈 =𝛽 , (4.3)

in which:
VEd – transverse shear force,
ANALYSIS OF THE SHEAR RESISTANCE IN THE INDENTED INTERFACE BETWEEN 101
TWO CONCRETE PARTS OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAM

z – lever arm of composite section; this value, determined from the position of
compression zone centre of gravity according to figure 7 is equal to 25.53 cm,
while calculated according to the standard recommendations 0.9 d =
25.83 cm,
bi – width of the interface (bi = 15 cm),
β – the ratio of the longitudinal force in the new concrete and the total longitudinal
force either in the compression or tension zone, both calculated for the
section considered.
In order to determine β coefficient, the range of compression zone, was
determined in the section where the delamination between the precast element and
new concrete occurred (Figure 4a and Figure 5). This range was obtained from the
analysis of deformations recorded with “virtual” strain gauges using GOM
Correlate software [2] as shown in Figure 7. The characteristic value of the shear
stress in the interface was calculated for a 180 kN load close to the ultimate load
(Figure 4b).

Fig. 7. Diagram of “virtual strain gauges” location in the second zone of image recording
(see Fig. 3), c strain distribution under P=100.2 kN determined with these gauges and
the c stress distribution (based on the EC2-1-1 c-c relationship) used for calculation
of the β coefficient
Based on deformations of the “virtual strain gauges” and assuming a parabolic-
rectangular c-c relationship according to [8, 11], the values of longitudinal force
in the new concrete (PB) and precast element (PA) were calculated by integrating
the appropriate part of the stress block (Figure 7). The ratio of longitudinal force
PB and the total longitudinal force in the compression zone (PA + PB) expressed
the β coefficient value.
Table 2 shows the characteristic values shear resistance of the interface according
to EC2 and MC2010. It was determined as the sum of individual components
according to formulas (4.1) and (4.2), i.e. for the concrete strength, yield strength
of stirrups and dowel action. For comparison with the characteristic of the shear
102 Grzegorz SADOWSKI, Piotr WILIŃSKI, Anna HALICKA

stress obtained in tests, characteristic value of shear resistance of the interface was
calculated, assuming:
 characteristic values of material parameters instead of fctm and fyd in formula
(4.1)
 the first component related to interlocking of aggregates multiplied by the
/
material factor 1.4 to obtain 1.4c f and in the other components
characteristic values fck and fyk in formula (4.2).
Calculation of the interface shear stress was conducted for the load causing the
first crack between the precast element and new concrete (100.2 kN) and for
180 kN load.
Table 2. Characteristic values of shear resistance at the interface

Shear resistance at the interface according to fib Model Code 2010 Rdi [MPa]

Concrete (adhesion/ Stirrups (shear Dowel

Sum
aggregate interlock) friction) action
0.927 0.388 0.367 1.683

Shear resistance at the interface according to Eurocode 2 νRdi [MPa]

Concrete
Stirrups (shear
(adhesion/aggregate Sum
friction)
interlock)
1.152 0.784 – 1.936
Shear stress in the interface
according to Eurocode 2 and fib Model Code 2010

Force [kN] Coefficient β Shear stress in the interface νEdi [MPa]

100.2 0.93 1.210

180.0 ~1 2.450

4.2 Analysis of the test results and the calculated interface shear stress
The characteristic value of shear resistance of the indented reinforced interface
calculated for the analysed composite beam, according to EC2 is 15.03% higher
than calculated according to MC2010. Fib Model Code 2010 significantly
changes the calculation of the design shear resistance of the interface with joining
reinforcement. The concrete contribution into design shear resistance (adhesion /
ANALYSIS OF THE SHEAR RESISTANCE IN THE INDENTED INTERFACE BETWEEN 103
TWO CONCRETE PARTS OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAM

aggregate interlock) according to EC2 is 24.27% is higher than that calculated

according to MC2010. This is due to the fact that MC2010 does not differentiate
the coefficients for joints with notches and very rough ones and the impact factor
cr of aggregate interlock for the notches should be adopted as for the very rough
surface. With regard to the component resulting from the reinforcement, the
coefficient of efficiency κ1 in MC2010 reduces the load capacity component
resulting from the shear friction by 50.51% compared to Eurocode. The sum of
dowel action and shear friction calculated according to MC2010 is slightly lower
(by 3.70%) in comparison with the EC2 calculation.
The characteristic value of the shear stress in the interface according to EC2 and
MC2010 is calculated from the formula (4.3). Table 2 shows the values of shear
stress for 100.2 kN load, in which separation of new concrete from the precast
element was optically observed, and for 180 kN load, are close to ultimate load.
The interface shear stress under 100.2 kN load is equal to 1.21 MPa. It is slightly
higher than the design shear resistance of the interface due to concrete only,
calculated according to EC2 (1.152 MPa), which results in the cracks between
layers in tested beam.
In the analysed section, under a load of 100.2 kN, at the moment of interface
cracking (breaking of adhesion between concrete) the shear stress reaches its
maximum value. The cracks pattern is followed by slippage of layers in relation
to each other, blocked by the existence of diagonal notch surfaces, while shear
friction and dowel action due to stirrups have less contribution to the characteristic
of interface shear resistance [3, 5].
Under the 180 kN load, close to the ultimate load, the shear stress in the interface
is equal to 2.45 MPa. Due to the fact that the beam was destroyed by bending, it
can be concluded that the interface load capacity was higher. The values of the
obtained shear stress in the interface are close to the characteristic interface shear
resistance according to EC2. The obtained characteristic shear resistance
according to MC2010 is 31.31% less than the characteristic of the shear stress
calculated at 180 kN load. The big difference between the values may be caused
by assigning coefficient of the surface with notches to a very rough surface.
In the test, the beam was destroyed by bending and not by reaching the resistance
in the interface, and therefore it can only be concluded that the joint load capacity
was greater than the obtained ultimate load.
By analysing the imaging method and calculation results, it can be concluded that
for composite elements with the indented interface, the EC2 and MC2010
formulas do not reflect the actual behaviour of joints between concrete parts.
Assignment of the indented surface to a very rough surface in the fib Model Code
2010 leads to a significant underestimation of the characteristic of interface shear
resistance.
104 Grzegorz SADOWSKI, Piotr WILIŃSKI, Anna HALICKA

Both standard [8] and comment [10] provide general guidance on the geometry of
the indented construction joint. In further studies, the authors would like to point
out that the spacing and height of notches may have a significant impact on the
characteristic of the interface shear resistance. In addition, it should also be
pointed out that the surface of notches may be characterized by a different
roughness coefficient, which may result in variation of joint between concrete
parts performance.

5. CONCLUSION
The following conclusions regarding the performance of indented interface in
composite concrete beam can be formulated on the basis of the observations with
the image method and the calculation results:
 destruction of tested beam occurred in bending and the characteristic of
interface shear resistance was not achieved, which leads to the conclusion
that the joint load capacity was greater than ultimate load,
 studies showed a progressive, but local, character of the interface
cracking, which appeared horizontally in the lower plane of one of the
notches in support zone, and then with an increase in load in subsequent
notches,
 the characteristic value of shear resistance at the interface both according
to PN-EN 1992-1-1:2008 and fib Model Code 2010 was lower than
obtained in tests,
 the assumption in MC2010 of a roughness coefficient for notched surface
identical to that assigned to very rough one significantly underestimates
the interface shear resistance, while the introduction of dowel action in
MC2010 more accurately reflects the mechanism of joints than in EC2,
 problem of performance of the composite beams with indented
construction joint requires further studies concerning the impact of shape
and size of notches on the interface cracking and characteristic of
interface shear resistance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The paper was elaborated as a part of scientific research financed from the
statutory funds of the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Mechanics and Petrochemistry
of the Warsaw University of Technology.

REFERENCES
1. Aggelis, DG, Verbruggen, S, Tsangouri, E, Tysmans, T and Van Hemelrijck,
D 2013. Characterization of mechanical performance of concrete beams with
ANALYSIS OF THE SHEAR RESISTANCE IN THE INDENTED INTERFACE BETWEEN 105
TWO CONCRETE PARTS OF CONCRETE COMPOSITE BEAM

external reinforcement by acoustic emission and digital image correlation.

Construction and Building Materials 47, 1037–1045.
2. GOM Corellate [Access: 15.12.2018], [Online:] http://www.gom.com/3d-
software/gom-correlate/download.html.
3. Halicka, A 2007. A study of the stress-strain state in the interface and support
zones of composite structures with shrinkable and expansive concretes (in
Polish). Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane.
4. Halicka, A and Jabłoński, Ł 2015. The joint of two concrete members of
different ages – parameters and capacity according to fib Model Code 2010
(in Polish). Inżynieria i Budownictwo 7, 346–350.
5. Jabłoński, Ł 2018, Influence of surface parameters on static performance of
concrete composite t-shaped beams (in Polish). Lublin: Wydawnictwo
Uczelniane.
6. Kowalewski, ZL, Dietrich, L, Kopeć, M, Szymczak, T and Grzywna, P 2016.
Modern optical systems in mechanical testing - construction, operations,
applications (in Polish). XII Seminarium Nieniszczące Badania Materiałowe,
Zakopane, Polska, Marzec, 16-18, 1-32.
7. Krawczyk, Ł, Gołdyn, M and Urban, T 2017. About inaccuracies of dic
system (in Polish). Journal of Civil Engineering, Environment and
Architecture 64, 259-270.
8. PN-EN 1992-1-1:2008 Eurokod 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings.
9. PN-EN 206+A1:2016-12, Concrete—Specification, Performance,
Production and Conformity.
10. Walraven, JC, and Ajdukiewicz, A (tł.) 2014. fib Model Code 2020 for
concrete structures. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Polski Cement.
11. Sadowski, G and Wiliński, P 2017. Study of influence of surface shape on
deflection concrete beams cast in two stages (in Polish). Inżynieria i
Budownictwo 4, 206–210.
12. Sadowski, G and Wydra, M 2019. Comparison of methods applied to analysis
of crack propagation in reinforced concrete composite beam (in Polish). Acta
Scientiarum Polonorum Architectura 1, 3-12.
13. Szczecina, M, Tworzewski, P and Uzarska, I 2018. Numerical modeling of
reinforced concrete beams, including the real position of reinforcing bars.
Structure and Environment 1, 28–38.
14. Tsangouri, E, Aggelis, DG, Van Tittelboom, K, De Belie, N and Van
Hemelrijck D 2013. Detecting the activation of a self-healing mechanism in
concrete by acoustic emission and digital image correlation. The Scientific
World Journal, 1-10.
Editor received the manuscript: 17.11.2020