Friction Systems in Temporary Structures

JAUME BARÓ
Tutor: Joan Ramon Casas
Chalmers University of Technology/Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya

ABSTRACT

Systems using friction to transfer loads often represent a practical and economical solution for
temporary structures in Civil Engineering, due to their low consequences on the permanent structure,
their simplicity and their easy mounting. However, construction codes do not give complete guidance
for their design and execution. and engineers have to tailor their own approach. There is a need to
assemble current knowledge on the field.

The aim of this master’s thesis is to investigate types and characteristics of presently used friction
systems and to give guidance for their design and execution. Two main types of friction systems have
been identified: grip systems and anchor systems. For both of them, several kinds of interfaces between
different materials have been analysed. As the first outcome, this project work provides a set of
expressions to calculate design shear capacities of these systems. Guidelines to identify and verify all
their possible failure modes are also proposed. Further, specifications concerning execution and control
procedures are presented as well.

A final analysis of design criteria for temporary structures has shown that presently used friction
systems can represent high performing solutions. So, no breakthrough solutions are required in the
field. Nevertheless, an improvement is proposed using artificial roughness. This type of system reduces
shear slips and minimizes risks, accounting a high safety range. As an example, the proposed system
has been applied to support the hammerhead formwork of a balanced cantilever bridge, which was
from the very beginning an application of major relevance for this project work.

Key words: temporary structure, friction joint, friction system, grip system, anchor system, shear
transfer, crushing, coefficient of friction, slippage, artificial roughness.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 I

Friction Systems in Temporary Structures
JAUME BARÓ
Tutor: Joan Ramon Casas
Chalmers University of Technology/Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya

RESUM

Els sistemes basats en la transferència d’esforços per fricció representen sovint solucions pràctiques i
econòmiques en el món de l’Enginyeria Civil donada la seva simplicitat, facilitat de muntatge y el fet
que no deixin marques en l’estructura permanent. Malgrat això, les normatives tècniques avui en dia no
ofereixen un esquema complet de disseny i d’execució d’ aquestos sistemes i per tant els enginyers es
veuen obligats a realitzar les seves pròpies assumpcions. Es a dir, existeix una necessitat de fer un
recull dels coneixements actuals que afecten aquest domini .

L’objectiu d’aquesta master’s thesis es investigar els tipus i les característiques dels sistemes de fricció
més utilitzats actualment i proposar recomanacions per al seu disseny i execució. En particular,
s’identifiquen dos tipus de sistemes de fricció principals: sistemes d’abraçadora i sistemes d’ancoratge.
En ambdós casos, l’anàlisi de la fricció s’efectua per a contactes entre materials de naturaleses
diferents. El resultats més importants d’aquesta master’s thesis són un conjunt de fórmules
matemàtiques que permeten calcular la tensió tangencial màxima dels sistemes de fricció, així com la
identificació de tots els mecanismes de col·lapse de cada sistema, y la descripció de les prescripcions
necessàries per a l’execució i el control de cada un d’ells.

En darrer lloc, s’utilitza un anàlisis de criteris de disseny d’estructures provisionals per a demostrar que
els sistemes de fricció utilitzats actualment poden representar en general solucions de caràcter òptim.
Es a dir, s’arriba a la conclusió parcial que no existeix cap necessitat de trobar innovacions en el
domini de les estructures provisionals. Malgrat aquest fet, en la present master’s thesis es proposa una
alternativa de disseny basada en el concepte de la rugositat artificial. Aquest tipus de sistema redueix
els lliscaments i minimitza els riscos de manera que el marge de seguretat s’amplia considerablement.
Com a exemple pràctic, aquest sistema s’utilitza per a suportar l’encofrat de la primera secció del
taulell d’un pont en doble voladiu, donant resposta d’aquesta manera a una aplicació pràctica
d’importància capital per al transcurs d’aquesta masther’s thesis.

Mots clau: Estructures provisionals, juntes de fricció, sistema d’abraçadora , sistema d’ancoratge,
transferència de tensions tangencials, coeficient de fricció, lliscament, rugositat
superficial.

Ç
II CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280
Contents
ABSTRACT I
RESUM II
CONTENTS III
PREFACE V
NOTATIONS VI
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem description 2
1.3 Definition of the goal, objectives and scope 2
1.3.1 Goal 3
1.3.2 Objectives 3
1.3.3 Scope and limitations 3
1.4 Definition of the methodology 3
2 REVIEW OF STATE-OF-THE-ART: FRICTION SYSTEMS PRESENTLY
USED IN TEMPORARY STRUCTURES 5
2.1 Grip system 5
2.1.1 Example: Gröndal Bridge 5
2.1.2 Performance of the friction system 7
2.1.3 Other applications & variations 8
2.1.4 Design method 11
2.1.5 Execution process 11
2.1.6 Identified problems 11
2.1.7 Interaction with permanent structure 13
2.2 Anchor system 13
2.2.1 Example: Lundby Tunnel 13
2.2.2 Performance of the friction system 14
2.2.3 Design method 14
2.2.4 Other applications and variations 15
2.2.5 Execution process 16
2.2.6 Interaction with permanent structure 16
2.3 Need for basic provisions 17
2.4 Need for further improvements and new solutions 18
3 REVIEW OF THEORY: FRICTION AND SHEAR TRANSFER 19
3.1 Basic mechanisms of shear transfer 19
3.2 Combined mechanisms of shear transfer 33
3.3 The step from shear stresses to shear forces 53
3.4 Inclined compressive fields 55
3.5 Shear failure in post-tensioned steel bars 56
4 BASIC PROVISIONS FOR PRESENTLY USED FRICTION SYSTEMS 59
4.1 Basic provisions regarding design of friction systems 59
4.1.1 Basic provisions concerning design shear stresses of a joint i Rd,i 59
4.1.2 Basic provisions concerning design shear capacity of a Joint i VRd,i 64

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 III

4.1.3 Additional Provisions Regarding Inclined Compressive Fields 65
4.1.4 Additional provisions for shear failure in post-tensioned steel bars 66
4.1.5 Basic provisions regarding design shear capacity of friction systems 67
4.1.6 Specifications for drawings and work description 70
4.2 Basic provisions regarding execution and control of friction systems 70
5 IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW SOLUTIONS 72
5.1 Best solutions at a general level 72
5.1.1 Required capacity 72
5.1.2 Easy and fast mounting-demounting 73
5.1.3 Minimizing consequences and permanent marks 73
5.1.4 Minimum slips 73
5.1.5 Minimum risks 75
5.1.6 Economy 76
5.2 Best solution for the grip system at top of the pier 76
6 CONCLUSIONS 82
6.1 Conclusions regarding the review of state-of-the-art 82
6.2 Conclusions regarding the review of shear transfer theory 82
6.3 Basic provisions for presently used friction systems 83
6.4 Improvements and new solutions 84
6.5 Further research 84
7 REFERENCES 86
7.1 Literature 86
7.2 Lecture notes 86
7.3 Handbooks and codes 87
7.4 Homepages 87
APPENDIX 1: PROJECTS 88
A1.1 List of projects 88
A1.2 Gröndal Bridge 89
A1.3 Hølen Bridge 91
A1.4 Trollhättan Lifting Bridge 92
A1.5 Göta Tunnel 94
A1.6 MjøsBrua 96
APPENDIX 2: CRUSHING CURVES 98

APPENDIX 3: VALUES FOR FRICTION PARAMETERS: C,  K AND  99

APPENDIX 4: DESIGN OF POST-TENSIONED JOINTS WITH ARTIFICIAL

ROUGHNESS 106

IV CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Preface
This Master’s Thesis has been carried out from June 2003 to December 2003 at the
Department of Structural Engineering and Mechanics at Chalmers University of
Technology (CTH) in cooperation with Skanska Teknik AB, which is the strategic
technical centre of the Skanska Group.

The initiator of this project work as well as supervisor and examiner has been Ingvar
Olofsson, Adjunct Professor of Production Integrated Structural Design Methodology
at CTH and Vice President of Skanska Teknik AB. I would like to thank him for
giving me the opportunity to work in this interesting field as well as for making
possible for me to work at the headquarters of the company in Göteborg, in direct
contact with experienced people in the field of my research. I would also like to thank
him for all those valuable advices and key suggestions all along the process.

I would like to acknowledge Per Kettil, structural designer at Skanska Teknik AB,
assistant professor at the department of Structural Engineering and Mechanics at CTH
and supervisor of this thesis, and Björn Engström, Professor in Concrete Structures,
Director of the International Master Programme of Structural Engineering at CTH and
supervisor as well. To them, I would like to thank their devote guidance, support and
commitment, despite their busy jobs. They always had a moment to bring the light to
my thoughts.

I would also like to acknowledge all the people I have interviewed for this project
work, Joan Ramon Casas, director of the Civil Engineering school at Universitat
Politècnica de Catalunya and supervisor of this thesis, among them. I appreciate their
cooperative and participative attitude and their will to share ideas, experience and
knowledge with me.

Thanks also to all the personnel of Skanska Teknik AB for their warm and welcoming
treatment. Thanks specially to Ida Sunstedt and Annika Persson for their comradeship
and interminable patience teaching the Swedish language to me. Last but not least,
thanks to my family for their support in every respect.

Göteborg December 2003

Jaume Baró

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 V

Notations
Roman upper case letters

Ac Area of concrete

As Area of steel

Esd Design modulus of elasticity of steel

Nc0 Initial compressive force on the concrete at the joint interface

Nc Compressive force on the concrete at the joint interface

Ncd Design compressive force on the concrete at the joint interface

VRd,i Design shear capacity (resistance or strength) of a shear joint i

Roman lower case letters

a Weld throat

b Reduction factor of the compressive strength of a cracked strut of concrete

c Cohesion between two materials at a certain interface

c0 Coefficient that considers the bearing strength of concrete embedding a dowel

ce Coefficient that considers the effect of an eccentric load in a dowel

fcd Design compressive strength of concrete

fck Characteristic compressive strength of concrete

fctd Design tensile strength of concrete

fyd Design yield strength of reinforcing steel

fyk Characteristic yielding strength of reinforcing steel

fvwd Design shear strength of a weld

k Crushing factor limiting shear stresses

k Ratio between shear-keyed area and total area of a joint according to BBK 94
(3.11)

lbar Length of the reinforcing or post-tensioning steel bars

s Shear slip

VI CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

su Ultimate shear slip corresponding to Rd,i

w Crack or joint opening of a shear joint. Also lateral dilatancy

wmax Maximum crack or joint opening

wu Crack opening corresponding to su

Greek letters

 Crushing factor limiting compressive stresses

 Diameter

Rd Reduction factor of the bending capacity of a dowel

 Coefficient of friction of the interface between two materials

v Effectivity factor according to Eurocode (6.5)

 Ratio between area of steel and area of concrete in an interface

 Stress (positive in compression)

c0 Initial compressive stress in the concrete at the joint interface

c Compressive stress in the concrete at the joint interface

cd Design normal compressive stress on the concrete at the joint interface (after
long-term effects)

s0 Initial tensile stress given to the steel

s Normal tensile stress in the steel

sd Tensile stress in the steel (after long-term effects)

 Shear stress

Rd,i Design shear stress of a shear joint i

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 VII

Comentado [mp2]: This page may be necessary to leave blank,
in order to make the main text start on a right hand page. Otherwise,
you can delete this section break.

VIII CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Two main concepts define the scope of this project work: temporary structures and
friction systems.

Temporary Structures are structures designed to support a certain structural element

during a limited period of the construction time. Traditional examples of temporary
structures are scaffolding or formworks for concrete. Temporary structures are
eventually removed and do not remain permanently in the final structure.

Systems using friction for transfer of loads, or simply Friction Systems, are systems
that transfer loads taking profit of a phenomenon ongoing at the interface between two
materials. In the example shown in Figure 1.1, shear loads V can be transferred from
the upper element to the lower one by compressing the joint N, forcing the rough
interface between the two materials to act as an interlocking mechanism.
N
V

N
Figure 1.1 Friction joint transferring shear loads

The background of this project work is provided by all the situations where the two
concepts presented above, temporary structures and friction systems, come across
together. Figure 1.2 presents an example of major relevance for this project work: the
platform supporting the hammerhead formwork on balanced cantilever bridges.
Cantilevering girder
Vertical truss platform Friction system
Hammerhead
formwork
Platform

A B C

Figure 1.2 Different possibilities for a temporary supporting system.

In this kind of bridges the first section of the deck (section ‘zero’) must be built on top
of the pier with a hammerhead formwork. In order to carry the loads of the formwork
and the cast concrete, a supporting platform has to be provided. This platform can be
provided in different manners, e.g. vertical truss (A), cantilevering girder platform (B)
or friction system (C).

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 1

If the friction system (C), shown in detail in Figure 2.3, is compared to a vertical truss
(A), its mounting-demounting time frame can certainly be shorter. Further, it can
always be applicable, whereas a vertical truss is not applied for high piers (very
expensive) or when the piers are founded in the river/sea bed.

Now, if the friction system is compared to option (B), the consequences over the
permanent structure will be much lower. Friction systems do not need any
cantilevered girder embedded in the core of the pier to support the platform. So, there
will be no need for post-treatment works covering up a gap after the girder is removed
(expensive at certain heights) and no need to design the interior reinforcement of the
pier in order to allocate the girder. Hence, friction systems represent a meaningful
alternative for this kind of temporary structure.

1.2 Problem description

As the previous example shows, engineers and designers are aware of the advantages
of using friction systems. On the contrary, they are also aware of the main
disadvantages, so there is a clear knowledge to distinguish in which applications a
friction system could represent a feasible alternative.

However, the knowledge is not so well-based on some other aspects:

 As far as the design of friction systems for temporary structures is concerned,

construction codes and handbooks do not have a complete approach to treat the
subject. Rather often engineers have to recall their intuition and their own
experience when designing friction systems. There is a need to gather and unify
design approaches in the field and to contrast them with the present provisions
in the codes and extend them when it is necessary.

 Execution and control of friction systems is also a field which does not have
well-established procedures. Although most of the friction systems executed so
far performed well, malfunctioning occurred sometimes. Defaults in execution
and control were attributed as the main causes. Present work instructions lack of
thorough design specifications.

 Optimization and improvement of presently used friction systems is also a of

major relevance. Present systems are sensitive from the risk point of view
compared to more robust and massive alternatives. Risk as well as economy and
consequences for permanent structure are variables that should be minimized in
presently used systems.

1.3 Definition of the goal, objectives and scope

In the light of the needs detected in the previous chapter, the bases of this project
work are stated as follows:

2 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

1.3.1 Goal
From an overall prospective, this project aims at investigating types and
characteristics of presently used temporary supporting systems in bridge and civil
engineering projects. In particular the requirements and actual behaviour of recent
applications of friction systems should be investigated.

As a specific application of main interest, requirements for the use of friction systems
for hammerhead formwork in balanced cantilever bridges or similar applications
should be investigated.

1.3.2 Objectives
 State-of-art and praxis should be mapped through literature reviews and
interviews with experienced consultants and contractors. Main frictional
systems in temporary works must be identified and characterized into detail.
 Requirements for the use of present friction systems should be analysed. In
particular, friction systems in connection with primary load carrying systems
for hammerhead formwork to free cantilevering bridges or similar applications
should be studied.
 Interaction with the permanent structure as well as influences in the project
economy and logistics should be evaluated for every application.
 Ideas for new systems or modifications to the current systems should be
developed and analysed, if possible.

1.3.3 Scope and limitations

At a general level, this project work is focused in the field of structural engineering,
so friction systems will be analyzed within this field. At a specific level, friction
systems in bridge engineering will be a matter of major interest due to the relevance
of the application in balanced cantilever bridges.

Other alternatives substituting friction systems will not be studied in this project
work. The comparison among different feasible solutions is considered to be out of
the scope of this work and highly dependant of each particular application.
Apart from examples of friction systems in Skanska Teknik AB, other construction
companies and entities will be looked upon.

1.4 Definition of the methodology

In order to accomplish the goal and objectives stated for this project work, the
methodology shown in Figure 1.3 has been followed:

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 3

Structure

1st CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION
Background, Problem Description, Goal and
Objectives, Structure and Scope of the Project

2. REVIEW OF STATE-OF-THE- ART:

Friction Systems presently used in Temporary structures

Interviews Reviews of Projects

2nd CHAPTER
with experienced consultants, Executed projects in different
contractors and professors companies have been reviewed

Identification and Description of main frictional systems presently used

Identification of needs for basic Identification of needs for

provisions in presently used systems improvements and new solutions
3rd CHAPTER

3. REVIEW OF THEORY:
Theory concerning Friction Joints and Shear Transfer
Theoretical background for provisions and improvements
4th & 5th CHAPTER

4. BASIC PROVISIONS FOR 5. IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW

PRESENTLY USED SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS
Interpreting, assembling and
extending Construction Codes
provisions
6th CHAPTER

6. CONCLUSIONS
- Conclusions
- Need for further Research

Figure 1.3 Scheme summarizing the structure of this Master’s Thesis.

4 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

2 Review of State-of-the-art: Friction Systems
Presently Used in Temporary Structures
The Review of state-of-the-art has been performed in several steps, see Figure 1.4.

 A compilation of projects of real temporary structures using friction systems

has been elaborated with the help of engineers working in different companies.
A detailed list of over 10 projects can be found in Appendix 1. Each specific
project has been thoroughly analysed by interviewing at least one engineer,
consultant or professor involved in its design or execution.

 As a result of this compilation of data, two main friction systems have been
identified and described: the grip system and the anchor system. Some of the
points that have been analysed are presented below:

 The way the friction system performs

 The way it is designed
 The way it is executed
 Malfunctioning
 Consequences and marks on the permanent structure
 Other applications and variations of the system

 Any uncertainty, lack of knowledge or malfunctioning detected at any point of

the previous checklist, has been pointed out in a text box as an Observation.
At the end of the chapter, all these observations have been interpreted,
summarized and classified in two tables: Need for provisions in presently used
systems and Need for improvements and new solutions. These tables are the
basis for the following chapters.

2.1 Grip system

2.1.1 Example: Gröndal Bridge
The Gröndal Bridge is a balanced cantilever bridge built in Stockholm (Sweden), in
1997. This bridge has been taken as an interesting example because the same type of
grip system was used to aid the erection of the bridge in two different situations as it
is shown in Figure 2.1.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 5

a) The Gröndal Bridge
System 1
System 2

b) Initial step in the construction of the bridge: placement of the friction systems

c) Intermediate step: completion of the balanced cantilevers around pier 7

Figure 2.1 The Gröndals Bridge and some of its construction stages

Friction system 1 (see Figure 2.1 b) was temporarily attached to the top of the piers of
the main span. Its basic function was to provide a support for the hammerhead
formwork used to cast the section ‘zero’ of the superstructure of the bridge. System 2
was used on top of the piers of the approaching spans with a different purpose. Both
systems had the same elements but different dimensions and layout. Grip system 2 is
shown in Figure 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. Grip system 1 was the same system displayed in the
perpendicular direction (rotated 90º around the axis of the pier).

6 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Figure 2.2 Friction system used in the Gröndal Bridge.

2.1.2 Performance of the friction system

The structural system works as follows. The two long steel girders take the loads of
the formwork and the concrete cast in the first section and they transfer them to the
pier by the friction system shown in Figures 2.4 and 2.5 (which are sections of Figure
2.3).

Figure 2.3 Vertical section of Figure 2.2 Figure 2.4 Horizontal section of Figure 2.2

The friction system consists of a square-shaped piece of pre-cast concrete placed

between the girder and the vertical surface of the concrete pier. The whole system is
compressed by post-tensioned steel bars to ensure the transfer of loads by friction.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 7

2.1.3 Other applications & variations
The system presented above can be implemented in many different ways between
different materials, different layout, different load demands, etc. Some of the most
interesting variations are described in the following.

Variation: No steel bars going trough the permanent structure. Hølen Bridge

In the Gröndal Bridge friction system, 4 steel bars were designed to cross the core of
the pier of the bridge. Other applications of the same grip system have been
implemented on piers of more reduced dimensions, see Figure A1.3 in Appendix
A1.3: Hølen Bridge. Consequently the post-tensioning steel bars could perfectly
adapt an outer position, not crossing any interface, thus minimizing the risk of cut of
and not leaving any marks (holes) to repair in the pier of the bridge.

Different application: the grip system to hold a tower of a the Trollhättan Lifting
Bridge

The Trollhättan Lifting Bridge was built in 2000 (see Figure 2.5). Owing to project
constraints, one of its four towers had to be built up aside some 20 meters away from
its final location. So, the strategy was to build the pier aside over a wheeled wagon
and roll it down over a railway to its final place. The wheeled wagon was a grip
system that enabled a very easy put-in-place process. The system is actually very
similar to the one used in Gröndal, but with concrete girders instead of steel girders,
see Appendix A1.4: Trollhättan Bridge. The construction sequence is schematically
explained in Figure 2.6.

Friction
system

Figure 2.5 Construction phase of the bridge. The tower on the right was not built in
its final position. The friction system can be seen at the bottom.

8 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

1 2 Traslation 3 Put-in-

Figure 2.6 Explanation of the construction sequence in Trollhättan Bridge.

Different application and different type of interfaces: precast concrete to

grouting and steel plate to grouting

All the grip systems described so far were precast concrete to cast in-situ concrete
friction. In this case, the contact surface remains intact when the system is eventually
removed.

The next friction system was used during the construction of the Göta Tunnel. For
each one of the columns of Rosenlundshuset, a grip system carried part of the weight
of the building and transferred it to enormous trusses, See Figure 2.7. These trusses
allowed the underground excavation of the tunnel. Once the construction of the tunnel
will be completed, the columns of the building will be connected to the roof slab of
the tunnel.

GÖTA TUNNEL

Figure 2.7 Göta Tunnel friction systems and trusses.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 9

Since the appearance of the columns was not an important criterion for the client
whereas minimum slips were of major concern, the type of interfaces chosen is
different from the previous applications. Each system actually consists of a steel shirt
with transverse welded steel bars surrounding the concrete column and grout filling
the gap in between. The concrete column surface had previously been roughened and
watered to ensure a good bond with the grout. This is an example of grout to concrete
and grout to indented steel friction. More details can be found in Appendix A1.5:
Göta Tunnel.

More applications

Many other grip systems can be found in other temporary structures. For instance,
they can be used in devices implemented to test bond effect in concrete piles (Öresund
Bridge) or in providing a platform to cast a concrete slab over an array of piles in
harbour structures (see Figure 2.8).

Grip system

Figure 2.8 a Elevation of the friction system used on top of the piles

Figure 2.8 b Top view of the friction system used on top of the piles. The rectangular
array of steel beams provides a platform to cast the concrete slab
connecting the heads of the piles.

10 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

2.1.4 Design method
Friction systems using precast concrete to cast in-situ concrete friction have most
commonly been designed according to the basic approach F=μN, where F is the shear
load and N the compressive force. The value of μ, the coefficient of friction, is
normally set to 0.2-0.4, according to experience and codes provisions for friction
concrete to concrete (mainly BBK 94).

The grout to existing concrete friction joint has not been thoroughly calculated. It is
believed that the bond between grout and concrete is stronger than the shear strength
of the concrete itself and therefore the joint has not been calculated more in detail.

Grout to indented steel is calculated according to compression failure of the concrete.

No friction contribution is considered in the design approach. It is assumed that the
system will fail by crushing rather than slipping.

OBSERVATIONS (I)

 F=μN is an approach for the capacity of the interface between two materials,
but there might be also the possibility of other failures as for example material
crushing due to over compression. So, it is essential to identify all the possible
failures of the system and give the capacity for each one of them, especially for
concrete to concrete, grout to concrete and steel to grout.

 F=μN is also a rather simple approach. It is interesting to determine whether

other variables such as cohesion between grout and existing concrete can also
affect the capacity of the joint.

 The value of μ can be affected by several factors. These values differ from code
to code. Mapping and recommendations upon the value of the parameters could
be interesting.

2.1.5 Execution process

The Execution Process of a grip system varies significantly depending on the
particular system and the situation where it is used. Each type of interface requires a
specific set of measures to achieve a good performance.

However, there are a few steps common for all systems that are of major importance
and should not be dismissed. In some occasions, some of these steps have been
omitted and major consequences occurred under construction (see next Chapter).

2.1.6 Identified problems

Hølen Bridge

During the construction of the Hølen Bridge, the friction system (see Appendix A.1.3:
Hølen Bridge) underwent unexpected slips. Construction works suffered some delay.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 11

The malfunctioning was attributed to the fact that the post-tensioning steel bars were
not re-tensioned before loading the system. During the time range between the set up
of the system and the loading, long-term and second order effects can reduce the
compression level across the joint and therefore the system can decrease its capacity.
Some of these factors could be:

 Possible relaxation of the prestressed steel bars (despite their short length).

 Possible shrinkage or creep on the concrete of the pier or on the concrete

friction element.

 Elastic deformation.

OBSERVATIONS (II)

Re-tensioning of the system before loading it is important to rule out long-term and
second order effects. So far it is not regarded in work descriptions, but it should
definitely be considered as a design specification and during the execution process.

Trollhättan Lifting Bridge

During the construction of the Trollhättan Bridge, the friction system supporting the
tower built aside (see Appendix A.1.4: Trollhättan Bridge) underwent a significant
slip when the pier was almost completed. Some of the steel bars compressing the joint
were cut off due to the slip and the whole pier slightly tilted. Nevertheless, no major
consequences occurred.

The causes of the incident may have been attributed to poor quality of the concrete
contact surface (pieces of paper were not removed from the concrete surface).
However, there was no big difference between the diameter of the ducts and the
diameter of the steel bars. Any shear slip and/or misalignment could have punched the
steel bar crossing the core of the tower at the interface.

OBSERVATIONS (III)

 Careful handcraft of the contact surfaces is of major importance. This is also an

important step during the execution of the system.

 Minimum diameter of ducts and maximum misalignment between them should

be taken into account in the design and execution stage.

 Systems with steel bars going through the structure seem to be more sensitive to
shear slips, because there is a risk to cut off a bar. Systems with outer position of
steel bars should be applied if possible. They will minimize risk of collapse.

12 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

2.1.7 Interaction with permanent structure
It has been touched upon that some systems will leave permanent marks on the final
structure and some others not, depending on the inner or outer layout of the steel bars.
Sometimes the final ‘clean’ appearance of the structure is of main importance for the
client. The least permanent marks should be left on the structure, because that will
require a post-treatment.

OBSERVATIONS (IV)

Systems with outer layout of steel bars minimize marks and consequences over the
permanent structure. A good design will have the least bars but will ensure good
contact as well.

2.2 Anchor system

2.2.1 Example: Lundby Tunnel
An example of anchor system within a temporary structure was used in the
construction of a ventilation shaft in the Lundby Tunnel, in 1996.

The basic purpose of the frictional system shown in Figure 2.9 is to transfer loads
from the hanging horizontal platform to the vertical rock wall of the shaft. The
platform was used to allocate personnel and machinery during the works.

Rock
Grout

Anchorage steel
bar Steel
(Post-tensioned) plate

Figure 2.9 Anchor system used in the construction of a ventilation shaft (Lundby
Tunnel).

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 13

2.2.2 Performance of the friction system
The platform carrying personnel and machinery is carried by vertical hangers. Each
one of these hangers transfers the vertical load to a metallic plate (350x200x12mm)
by two welding strings. The metallic plate (with some transverse welding strings) then
transfers the loads by friction to the grout and consequently to the rock. To entirely
ensure the transfer of shear loads by friction, the whole system is compressed by a
post-tensioned steel bar that makes all its way through the various interfaces and it is
anchored in the inside of the rock.

There are three surfaces where friction is developed to transfer loads (Figure 2.10):

S2
S1 S3

S1 Steel plate- Steel plate 

N
S2 Steel plate (slightly indented) -Grout

S3 Grout-Rock
A G

d2
F d1

Figure 2.10 Friction interfaces

2.2.3 Design method

Anchor systems have usually been analysed according to the basic friction law F=μN.
In reality, the system can fail in several different ways. On basis of the system layout
shown in Figure 2.10, it could be said that under shear loads F:

 The grout mass-rock interface (S3) could fail and the grout mass (G) together
with the steel plate could slide down.

 The steel-grout interface (S2) could fail and the steel plate could slide down.

Comparing these two possible failure modes, the traditional approach in terms of
design is to find out the coefficient of friction between steel and grout, compare it to
the coefficient of friction between grout and rock (which is higher than de first one)
and consequently assume S2 as the critical interface. The normal force on the post-
tensioning steel bar is determined then using F=μN. The value of the coefficient of
friction is normally around μ=0.2 for steel to grout.

However, this seems to be a very rough approach. On the first hand, there might be
the possibility to find a more refined approach for the design shear stress of both
interfaces. S2 could be modelled as F=μN, but then μ could be increased to some
extent to consider the action of the transverse welding strings. On the other hand, it is
hard to believe that the interface between grout and rock can be modelled by F=μN.
Grout is a special good material for this kind of applications because it gives a high

14 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

bond or cohesion with the rock that ensures minimum slip. So, maybe the Mohr-
Coulomb law F=c+μN supported in test results for the value of c would suit better the
phenomenon.

Secondly, the approach assumed above for grout-rock interface could lie on the unsafe
side when the joint is not completely perpendicular to the direction of the compressive
force N. In that case, as it will be discussed in Chapter 4.1.3, the shear capacity of the
  sin   cos  
joint is F     N where  is shown in Figure 2.10
 sin    cos  

Finally, it is important to note that the eccentricity of the load F (d1 and d2), can
modify significantly the behaviour of the joint. In reality the compression field
imposed by the force N across the interfaces S2 and S3 must be superposed to the
compressive field imposed by the moment Fd1 and Fd2 respectively. So, in some spots
of the joint faces, the combination of the compressive stresses and shear stresses can
reach critical values and consequently the material can fail (crushing) before than the
interface fails itself.

OBSERVATIONS (V)

 Further than basic approaches such as F=μN, expressions for the capacity
considering cohesion or presence of indentations (weld strings) could be
analysed.

 The capacity of a joint could be reduced due to inclination of the compressive

field. A general approach to consider this reduction should be provided.

 As it was observed in the grip system, all the possible failures of the system
(considering all the joints) should be analysed. The capacity given by the most
critical failure mode would give the capacity of the whole system.

 Crushing of the material can happen across the joint or localized in some spots.
An approach to verify crushing (regarding the combination of shear and
compressive stresses) could be interesting. Guidance for some examples where
crushing can occur could also be of great help.

2.2.4 Other applications and variations

The anchor system may not have major variations because this type of steel-grout-
rock joint performs in an excellent way, transferring shear loads and keeping shear
slips down.

The same system can be used in many different applications. As an example Figure
2.11 presents an anchor system used in off-shore structures. In a first stage, part of the
platform is built on a dry dock and later tugged offshore to its definitive place. Ships
tug the platform using long and heavy steel chains attached to the platform by anchor
friction systems. Notice that the anchor system is carrying the transverse component

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 15

FT of the tug force F and therefore it is required to work on friction. In this case, the
joint was steel-grout-concrete as it can be seen in Figure 2.11.

FT

Figure 2.11 Application of the anchor system in tug works

2.2.5 Execution process

As it was suggested for the grip system, some execution and control basic steps
should be listed and checked out. Although no malfunctioning has been reported for
this system, cleaning of surfaces, re-tensioning and other aspects are of major
importance.

2.2.6 Interaction with permanent structure

When an anchorage friction system is used, there is a need to drive a hole through the
embedding material to secure the anchor. In case the embedding material is the final
structure, some marks of the hole will remain in the surface and a post-treatment will
be required if aesthetics and sustainability are important criteria.

16 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

2.3 Need for basic provisions
Table 2.1 Summary of provisions required in friction systems

NEED FOR PROVISIONS IN FRICTION SYSTEMS

DESIGN
Post-tensioned
ULTIMATE SHEAR Precast concrete-
CAPACITY OF A Cast in-situ Basic provisions:
FRICTIONAL JOINT 1. Design Shear Capacities VRd,i as a function
concrete
VRd,I of parameters (,c)
Post-tensioned 2. Recommended Values for parameters
Grout- Precast
concrete or Rock Additional provisions:
Post-tensioned 3. Modification of the capacity in inclined joints
Grout- Indented 4. Provisions for dimensioning minimum
Steel Plate diameter of ducts in post-tensioned joints

Others

ULTIMATE SHEAR
GRIP SYSTEMS 1. Identification of all the joints in a friction
CAPACITY OF THE
system and all the possible failure modes.
FRICTIONAL SYSTEM AND
Each mode or joint will have a Ultimate
VRd,system VARIATIONS Shear Capacity VRd,i

N 2. Determination of the capacity of the joint as

ANCHOR the minimum of all the ultimate shear
capacities of the failure modes:
G
SYSTEMS AND
F VARIATIONS VRd,system= min (VRd,i)

SPECIFICATIONS IN Instructions to be carefully specified in design so

DRAWINGS AND General that the contractor do not dismiss them, referring
DESCRIPTIONS to the execution and control stage.

EXECUTION and CONTROL &

General Clean surfaces in contact and roughening
SPECIFICATIONS IN specifications methods.
EXECUTION
Determination of the Post-tensioned joints Re-tensioning before loading and maximum
indispensable steps in misalignment of the ducts
execution of friction Joints where
systems. Working procedure to develop cohesion at the
cohesion is expected
interface.
between joint faces

General
Control of shear slips
SPECIFICATIONS IN specifications
CONTROL
(during service life) Post-tensioned joints Control of slips and tensions

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 17

2.4 Need for further improvements and new solutions
Table 2.2 Summary of possible improvements and new solutions for friction systems

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS for FRICTION SYTEMS

Use of systems that minimize shear slip to give the best

MINIMUM
performance and to fulfil the needs of those applications where no
SLIPPAGE
shear slips are allowed.

Use systems designed to minimize risks and hazards:

 Use designs that avoid hazardous situations (systems
without post-tensioning steel bars that can be cut off by a
certain slippage).
MINIMUM  Use designs that provide a detailed set of specifications on
RISKS the execution and control procedures of the friction system
against dangerous situations (loss of compression across
the joint, bad handicraft of contact surfaces, etc).

Use systems that can handle hazards and harmful situations in the
best way i.e. systems with a broad safety range.

MINIMUM
MARKS OVER Use systems with external post-tensioning steel where the
THE consequences and marks over the permanent structure should be
PERMANENT minimized for aesthetical reasons.
STRUCTURE

LOWER COSTS New systems with lower costs could always be regarded

18 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

3 Review of Theory: Friction and Shear Transfer
3.1 Basic mechanisms of shear transfer
A friction joint is a particular case of a Shear Transfer Mechanism. A Shear Transfer
Mechanism is something that enables the transfer of a load F to a certain body A, as it
is schematically shown in Figure 3.1. Understanding of friction joints requires overall
understanding of shear transfer mechanisms.

Figure 3.1 Shear Transfer Model

There are four Basic Shear Transfer Mechanisms: cohesion (or adhesion), friction,
dowel effect and mechanical devices. The basic mechanisms are thoroughly analysed
in the following pages by means of their respective Basic Shear Transfer Model, see
Figure 3.2. In this project work, models are used to identify and specify the main
characteristics of a certain mechanism: failure modes, maximum capacity, relevant
parameters and variables as well as mechanical behaviour.

In addition, Basic Shear Transfer Mechanisms provide the clue to analyse more
Complex Shear Transfer Mechanisms, i.e. mechanisms that turn out to be
combination of various basic mechanisms (cohesion and friction, friction and dowel
effect, etc.). Chapter 3.2 will run trough the analysis of this second type of
mechanisms.

Basic Shear Transfer MECHANISMS & MODELS

F F F
F
(Suction
N
pad)

COHESIVE JOINTS FRICTION JOINTS DOWEL EFFECT MECHANICAL DEVICES

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Figure 3.2 Basic Shear Transfer Mechanisms and Models

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 19

MODEL 1 COHESIVE JOINTS




Cohesion is a shear transfer mechanism that relies on nothing else than the union between
the two faces of a joint, regardless of other aspects such as the geometry of the joint or the
level of compression.

Shear Capacity & Failure modes

A model based on cohesion fails as soon as the value of the maximum cohesion c is reached.
Figure 3.3 shows this failure criterion in a normal stress-shear stress plot:

 
Vmax
Rd,i  Rd ,i   mean
c  Rd , i  c (3.1)
Vmax


Figure 3.3 Failure of a cohesive joint. Concept of design shear stress

Variables and parameters

Parameters: c is cohesion. Cohesion is accepted to be a chemical/physical rather than a

mechanical phenomenon. It actually recalls to the molecular attraction that
holds two or more bodies together. So, it depends very much on the properties
of the materials in contact, their affinity and the conditions of the execution of
the joint. As an example, imagine a joint between a precast concrete-cast in situ
concrete. In this case, cohesion can be expected when particles of both
concretes close to the interface mix together and create some sort of ‘links’.
Cohesion might vary across the joint surface, but it can be assumed to be
constant when the phenomenon is analysed in a low scale.

Variables: Rd,i is the Design Shear Stress of joint i, which is the maximum shear stress that
can be transferred between two pieces of material loaded in shear without
reaching failure, averaged across the joint. A graphic representation of Rd,i is
shown in Figure 3.3.

20 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Shear Capacity and Failure modes according to the Codes: Design

Construction codes normally do not use cohesion models. They are instead treated as a
particularization of a more general model that integrates various mechanisms such as
friction. Isolating the effect of cohesion in these models it can be seen that the cohesion
between two different concretes is a value of the order of 0,05  0,4  f ctd .

Mechanical behaviour

SHEAR STRESS-SHEAR SLIP RELATIONSHIP (-s)

After the stress limit is reached Rd,i=c, the joint cannot take shear stresses any further. Shear
slip then increases indefinitely and resistance drops down to zero. These kinds of joints can
have a brittle failure. They do not usually undergo large deformations before they reach
failure. The evolution of the slip when the shear stress increases resembles what is shown in
Figure 3.4.
 

Rd,i

Figure 3.4 Qualitative mechanical behaviour of a cohesive joint

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 21

MODEL 2 FRICTION JOINTS





Two

essential conditionsto create a friction system are an interface with a certain
roughness () and normal stress perpendicular to the plane of the joint (cc):
 If the interface is not rough at all, the two pieces in contact could be imagined as
two ice blocks that slide one respect the other, regardless of what is the compressive
force. Intuitively, it can be seen that a smooth contact would imply lower shear
capacity than a rough contact.
 If there were no normal stresses across the joint, any demand on shear would trigger
a relative displacement of the blocks. Although the system would be provided with
a resistant mechanism (), it would actually not be mobilized.
Variables and parameters

Parameters:  is known as the coefficient of friction. It might depend on loads of different

factors (, moisture, T, etc). However, in this project work it will be assumed
that  only depends on the microstructure of the surfaces (i.e. rough, smooth,
indented, etc.)

Variables: cd is the averaged normal compressive stress across the joint due to external
actions and/or prestressing. It is calculated taking account of the f factors,
corresponding to favourable effects of permanent and variable actions.

Shear Capacity and Failure modes

a) SLIPPAGE ALONG THE INTERFACE
According to the traditional Coulomb’s Theory, failure in a pure friction system is reached
when  reaches a value proportional to  as shown in figure 3.5. So, the maximum shear
stress that a joint can carry  is times the external compressive stress: the higher normal
stress across the joint, the higher shear capacity.

Rd,i


1

  Rd , i   cd (3.2)

Figure 3.5 Failure curve of a pure friction joint

22 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

b) CRUSHING OF THE MATERIAL

Coulomb’s linear approach describes only the failure of the contact between two materials,
i.e. the possibility of slippage. However, if the design is according to  (F=N), the
value of the normal stress combined with the value of the shear stress () could be so
demanding that the material at the vicinity of the interface fails before than the joint slips,
i.e. the principal stress in the material overcome the maximum uniaxial compressive
strength: fcd (assuming that the material biaxially loaded fails when it reaches its
maximum uniaxial strengths), see Figure 3.6.

 
 
 
fcd


  
 fcd 
 
  fctd fcd 

fctd
a) b) c)

Figure 3.6 The material in Joint a) in the loading case () shown in b) would crush
according to the yielding criteria c)

Proposal for a crushing criterion

If we look carefully at what happens to a piece of concrete loaded as in Figure 3.6 a) (only
compression in one direction), it can be demonstrated that the principal stresses will reach
first fctd than fcd . So firstly, the material will crack rather than crush.
The cracks will appear in a certain angle , which can be estimated by means of expression
3.3 and the crack pattern shown in Figure 3.7.



  
(2 fctd2  fctd )
tan 2  (3.3)


Figure 3.7 Crack generation in a shear joint compressed in one direction

However, cracked concrete can accept additional loads as long as the material does not
reach maximum compression and crushes. The assumed post-cracked behaviour is based
in:
 No shear stresses will be transferred across a crack
 The crushing combination of loads () will be that one that exhausts the capacity of a
strut between two cracks. See Figure 3.8.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 23

 A certain strut cannot offer the maximum compressive strength fcd because it has been
cracked, so a reduction factor b is assumed. The value of this factor should not be
chosen constant but varying approximately between b0=0,5 (=0) and b1=1(=fcd)
according to BBK 94. This variation will be assumed to be linear.


·A



’

fcd
·A
 R

R  (b  f cd )  A'

(  2   2 )  A  (b  f cd ) A  sin 

b1  b0
  b 2  f cd2  sin 2    2 where b  b0   (3.4)
f cd

Figure 3.8 Post-cracked response of concrete in shear joints

Now, if this failure criterion is plotted in coordinates and overlapped to the criterion
that governs slippage between joint faces, the result can be seen in Figure 3.9. Observe that
the crushing criterion tells that the material will fail when =fcd when =0.

 

≈0.4fcd

SAFE ZONE

fcd
Figure 3.9 Qualitative crushing-slipping failure diagram  a friction joint
for

In Appendix 2 crushing curves for several types of Swedish concretes can be found.

Shear capacities and Failure modes according to the Codes: Design

All the codes recognise two main kinds of failures for pure friction joints: slippage and
crushing.

24 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Slippage is considered in the same way as it has been presented above, with some
variations. Some codes consider that coulomb’s linear approach does not fully describe the
failure of a rough interface, so they propose an alternative approach taking account of
shear contribution by damage of the joint face. Model Code (1990). See Appendix 3.
2 1
 Rd ,i  0,4  f cd3   cc3 (3.5)

Crushing is approached in a simplified way. Instead of considering a crushing criterion

similar to the one presented above, all construction codes assume a simplified approach
that does not take normal stresses into account.

This approach is formulated as equation 3.6 shows and it represents the failure curve (line)
in Figure 3.10 a). Different codes provide different values for k. Those values can be found
in Table A3.1. If the crushing criterion is superposed to the slipping criteria the new safe
zone proposed by the codes can be seen in Figure 3.10 b).
  

k·fcd K1 k·fcd k·fcd

K2
K3 SAFE ZONE
 rd ,i  k  f cd (3.6)
 fcd 
a) b)

Figure 3.10 Qualitative crushing-slipping failure diagram for a friction joint according to
construction codes
The advantage of the codes approach is that it is very simple and easy to work with. The
disadvantage is that the approach may sometimes lie on the unsafe side. This can be
verified by taking a look at Point A in Figure 3.11.

Point A represents a failure on the material because fcd but it would be on the safe side
of the codes approach. So, there is a zone where their approach lies on the safe side
(compared to the previous crushing criteria) and another zone where they should not apply
any longer, more or less when it comes to values of normal stress ( f cd ).

   f cd


k·fcd

 SAFE ZONE A
according to the
codes
 fcd 
SAFE UNSAFE

Figure 3.11 The codes tend to be on the unsafe side when  approaches fcd
So, there seems to be two possibilities to come up with a safe design:

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 25

 Design according to    and verify crushing by a criterion that takes normal
stresses into account. The proposal of this project work is:   b 2  f cd2  sin 2    2

 Design according to    and verify crushing according to the codes

approach   k  f cd , but limiting the normal stresses to a certain value   f cd . It has
been observed that the value of  depends on the reference code. Thus:
BBK 94   k  f cd where k=0,4   cc    f cd =0,8
All other codes   k  f cd where k~0,25   cc    f cd =0,9
Values for the coefficients involved in the Design of a Pure Friction Joint (, k) can be
found in Appendix 3, where the approaches of the most relevant Construction Codes are
summarized.
Mechanical Behavior
a) SHEAR STRESS-SHEAR SLIP RELATIONSHIP (-s)
Vintzelou and Tassius (1985) studied the mechanical behaviour of concrete joints loaded in
shear. The test results can be seen in Figure 3.12. Observe that the behaviour is slightly
different depending on the roughness of the surface. Notice as well the importance of the
compressive stress in the ultimate shear stress.

Figure 3.12 -s relationships for smooth and rough interfaces. Vintzelou & Tassius (1985)
On basis of these tests, some analytical models were built and have been compiled in
Model Code (1990), see Figure 3. 3.

Figure 3.13 Analytical Model built from test results. Model Code (1990).

26 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

SMOOTH JOINT FACES s u  0,15  cc where cc is in MPa and su in mm (3.7)
ROUGH JOINT FACES su  2mm (this value depends very much on the type of roughness) (3.8)
b) SHEAR SLIP-DILATANCY RELATIONSHIP (s-w)

As soon as a shear slip s appears on a joint, the joint faces will tend to separate one respect
the other creating a certain dilantancy w, as shown in Figure 3.14.
w s

Figure 3.14 ‘Shear slip-crack opening generation’ concept

This separation depends on the roughness of the interface, the shear slip developed and the
level of compression of the joint. Vintzelou and Tassius (1985) did also some testing on
these phenomena on concrete and presented some results. The behaviour of a rough joint
can be seen in Figure 3.15. Observe that dilatancy increases for increasing shear slips and
for low levels of compression. However, there is a limit where dilantancy does not
increase any longer and takes a constant value wmax.

Figure 3.15 s-w relationships for rough interfaces. Vintzelou & Tassius (1985)

From these empirical results, the same authors based in Wallraven et al. (1979) appointed
simplified analytical models that are also compiled in Model Code (1990). Notice that
these expressions do not explicitly depend on the compressive stress across the joint. That
factor is taken into account when considering the shear slip s.

w  0,05  s  2.0mm (wmax) for smooth interfaces (3.9)

w  0,6  s 2 3  2.5mm (wmax) for rough interfaces (3.10)

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 27

MODEL 3 DOWEL EFFECT
F

e F
e
F

One-sided dowel Double-sided dowel

Dowel effect can be provided by bars, bolts, studs, pins, etc. These transverse elements are
normally made of steel. They can take shear forces and transfer them to the embedding
material. The loading condition results in flexural stresses for the steel element and
pressure over the embedding material, as shown in Figure 3.16.

Figure 3.16 Response of a dowel to shear loading

Dowel effect can come across in very different manners. One-sided dowel, double-sided
dowels, eccentricities in loads (e) and symmetric conditions are some of the factors than
can change among different cases.

One special mention has to be done when dealing with double-sided dowels. As long as
the axial displacement of the steel element is allowed (nor end anchor plates neither high
bond stresses) the dowel effect may be studied as an individual contribution to the shear
resistance, see Figure 3.17. Otherwise, when one of the conditions mentioned above is not
satisfied and the joint faces are in contact, dowel effect is combined with friction as far as
the failure mode is concerned. Slips

F
Figure 3.17Axial displacement allowed for the embedment conditions

28 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Failure modes

a) ONE-SIDED DOWEL

Material strengths, dimensions and eccentricities will determine the failure mode of the
system.
 A weak steel dowel in a high strength concrete may trigger a shear failure of the dowel.
The Model Code gives a recommendation for the maximum shear capacity.
V Rd ,i  0,6  f yd As where As is the area of steel (3.11)

 A high strength steel dowel in a low strength concrete bed or simply a poor cover of
concrete confining the steel might trigger a splitting failure on the concrete. Figure
3.18.a. Proper reinforcement design can avoid this failure.

 When a good confinement is ensured (great covers or splitting reinforcement) the steel
dowel tends to bend and fail due to plastic deformations. Plastic deformations will
generate plastic hinges, which will likely be placed somewhere below the joint
interface where the bending stresses along the dowel are greater. These plastic
deformations will also compress the concrete surrounding the dowel, causing a
combined steel-concrete failure: flexural failure for the steel and crushing for the
concrete, see Figure 3.18 b.
An expression for the maximum shear capacity can be thus derived using plastic theory
(both materials reach the plastic stage). Notice the eccentricity factor ce in the
expression 3.12 is a reduction factor. Therefore eccentricity should be avoided as much
as possible.

1
V Rd ,i  c0  ce   2 f ck f yk c 0  1,0 ºaccording to CEB/FIP (3.12)
 Rd
c e  1    c 0     c 0
2
(3.13)

e f ck
 3 ,  Rd = 1.3 (3.14)
 f yk

Crushed
Plastic concrete
Crushed hinge
concrete

Figure 3.18 a and b are two failure modes for a steel dowel embedded in concrete.
Engström (2003)

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 29

b) DOUBLE-SIDED DOWEL (symmetric conditions)

In this case, the bending failure will develop a different mechanism. When a dowel
element is embedded in elements in each side, plastic hinges will be developed in each
side as well, as shown in Figure 3.16. When no end anchors and not high bond stresses are
provided, the dowel will slide longitudinally.

The interesting effect comes when trying to give an expression for VRd,i. When symmetry
conditions are given in the joint, the dowel will have its point of inflection due to bending
right in its middle (considering eccentricity or not). So, the plastic hinge will be located in
the same place it is located when analysing a one-side-dowel, as it is shown in Figure 3.19.
Hence, the expressions for VRd,i can be withdrawn from the previous page.

Figure 3.19 Double-sided dowel with symmetric conditions. Engström (2003)

b) DOUBLE-SIDED DOWEL (non-symmetric conditions)

Besides all the possibilities that have readily been analysed, it is quite often that non-
symmetric conditions appear on a shear joints: different concretes on both sides of the
joint, different anchorage conditions, etc. Engström (2003) studies some of these cases and
gives their maximum capacities according to the bending failures.

Variables and parameters

Parameters: As it has been touched above, lots of parameters come into the dowel shear
transfer model: section and type of dowel, proximity to free ends, material
properties, eccentricities, anchorage, embedment and symmetry. All these
parameters need to be analysed into detail when determining the maximum
capacity of the joint.

Variables: The maximum capacity of Model 3 system has been given in terms of forces
VRd,i , whereas it was done in terms of stresses Rd,i for previous models. This
approach should be easily understood provided that dowel effect is such a local
effect that it is meaningless to describe the behaviour in terms of average
stresses.

30 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Shear capacities and Failure modes according to the Codes: Design

All the capacities presented in the previous chapter are expressions that can be found in
construction codes. However, failure modes are not so broadly treated.

Shear stress-shear slip

Several parameters influence the response of a dowel subjected to transverse shear

displacement s when loaded until failure su. If we look at a steel dowel embedded in
concrete as an example, the bar diameter, the distance to the free edges, the type of
concrete and the distance to the free edges among other factors are important parameters to
take into account.

When the dowel undergoes a flexural bending failure, a plastic hinge on the steel bar as
well as crushing on the concrete occur. The predicted relationship between Force F and
shear slip s was studied by Vintzelou and Tassius (1985), and it is given in Figure 3.20.

Figure 3.20 Qualitative Shear stress-shear slip relationship for a dowel embedded in
concrete

As it can be seen, the dowel first undergoes an elastic stage that finishes when sel is
reached. Afterwards, the plastic deformation follows until the failure is reached at su. Other
types of failure give other mechanical behaviour.

NOTE: Dowel effect is a phenomenon that hardly ever comes alone. Friction and dowel
can be normally associated in the same system, especially when dealing with reinforced
concrete joints. This kind of combinations will be studied more into detail in following
chapters.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 31

MODEL 4 MECHANICAL DEVICES

Mechanical devices do not really fit into the basic shear transfer system concept, mainly
because they are not basic but rather complicated systems. They sometimes integrate other
basic mechanisms, such as dowels or friction, see figure 3.21. To some extent, they should
not be treated as a basic shear transfer mechanisms. Nevertheless, they can consist of a
simple idea, a special shear transfer system, which is none of the ones seen beforehand. So
they represent a basic mechanism.

‘Mechanical devices in shear transfer can be details that are welded or bolted to steel
plates, which in turn are embedded and anchored on the joint material’ (Engström, 2003).

So, plates are the elements conducting the shear loads between different elements, even
though they are helped by dowels, anchor and friction elements. This kind of devices is
common in segmentary construction, where pre-fabricated concrete elements are attached
together by using steel plates either in floors or in vertical walls.

Figure 3.21 Steel plate with dowels embedded into concrete slabs acting as a mechanical
device transferring shear loads

Parameters, failure modes and mechanical behaviour

Parameters, failure modes and mechanical behaviour in terms of Shear Force-Shear Slip
are specific for each mechanical device. It could be said that there is no common
theoretical background that can explain their behaviour, as it could be friction theory for
friction systems. Testing and empirical relationships turn out to be really helpful in
mechanical devices design.

32 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

3.2 Combined mechanisms of shear transfer
Since combined or complex mechanisms are nothing else but combinations of basic
shear transfer mechanisms, it might be relatively easy to find many different examples
of them. However, only five combined mechanisms will be analysed in this project
work (Figure 3.22) because they are believed to represent the most common examples
in real life as well as in the relevant applications presented in Chapter 2.

Complex Shear Transfer MECHANISMS & MODELS

F F
F

N
N

REINFORCED JOINT POSTENSIONED JOINT POSTENSIONED JOINT

BETWEEN BETWEEN TWO BETWEEN PRECAST
DIFFERENT CONCRETES CAST CONCRETE & GROUT
CONCRETES SEPARATELY Model 7
Model 5 Model 6  Lundby Tunnel
 Hølen Bridge  Göta Tunnel
 Gröndal Bridge

F
F A

SHEAR KEYED JOINT POSTENSIONED JOINT

Model 8 BETWEEN INDENTED STEEL
PLATE AND GROUT
Model 9
 Lundby Tunnel
 Göta Tunnel

Figure 3.22 Complex Shear Transfer Mechanisms and Models

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 33

MODEL 5 REINFORCED JOINT BETWEEN DIFFERENT CONCRETES
Model 5 describes a reinforced joint between two concretes cast in different ages. The
reinforcement may be ribbed bars, pins, dowels, etc. Despite friction systems do not
normally use this kind of joint, Construction Codes and other references do normally
dedicate long chapters on this issue. Therefore, the understanding of a Reinforced joint
between concretes with the help of Codes and References can certainly help the
understanding of more complex mechanisms that are not so well treated in Concrete
Literature. s





Figure 3.23 Wedging effect

Model 5 should be understood as a combination of Model 1, 3 and 2:

 Model 1. COHESION between the two faces of the joint could be developed as a
product of the reaction during the hardening of the latest concrete against the old one.
Proper cleaning (with or without water-wasting) as well as a proper watering of the
interface will enhance the cohesive phenomena.
 Model 3. Reinforcement crossing the interface could provide DOWEL EFFECT. As the
shear slip increases in the interface the bars might carry shear loads in bending and so
contribute to the total shear capacity.
 Model 2. FRICTION due to a certain roughness of the surface and compressive stresses
across the interface. However, the particularity of this model is that compressive
stresses can be either generated by external loading (cd) or self-generated by the
reinforcement. This phenomenon is so-called wedging effect.
Wedging effect: When shear acts along a joint, one joint face slips relative to the other,
see Figure 3.23. If the joint faces are rough and irregular, this slip (s) is accompanied by
separation of the joint faces (w). When there is a good bond concrete-reinforcement,
this separation will stress axially the steel crossing the interface (∆). That immediately
creates a clamping effect on the concrete, which consequently undergoes a compressive
field (∆). This compressive stress across the joint could be superposed to any
external loading or prestressing as well (cd).

In the lines above, it has been presented that the steel crossing the interface can contribute
to the total shear capacity in two different ways: dowel effect and clamping effect.
However, when the capacity of the steel is requested in axial stresses by the wedging
effect, there is no bending capacity left for a possible dowel effect and vice versa.

Two variables that will determine how much steel capacity is used in axial elongation or in
dowel effect are: roughness of the surface and bond between steel elements and concrete.

34 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Shear Capacity and Failure modes
a) YIELDING OF STEEL
When the joint interface is rough enough, has high bond steel-concrete (high resistance to
pullout) and little reinforcement (small diameters), the bars will be taken through an ∆
until they reach yielding. Not necessarily the whole bar will reach yielding, but the part
around the joint where the additional demands on deformations are localized. No further
increase of design shear stress can be obtained beyond that point. The design shear stress is
provided by the following expression:

 Rd ,i  f yd where  
Asteel
(3.14)
A jo int
b) DOWEL FAILURE
When the joint has a smooth interface and no bond is provided between steel bars and
concrete (this could be the case of dowel pins not anchored at all), shear slip will not cause
any extra-demands on the steel. So the steel will not be axially stressed. All the capacity is
left for bending in dowel effect. If the effect of the friction between the smooth interfaces
is neglected, then the capacity of a joint with n dowels can be expressed as:
VR,i  n Di where Di is the capacity of a single dowel (3.15)
1
Di  c0  ce 2 fck fyk (see Chapter 3.2.1.1)
 Rd

c) COMBINATION FAILURE OF FRICTION AND DOWEL EFFECT

In all intermediate cases, a shear slip will generate a crack opening and consequently an
∆on the steel that however will not reach fyd. So, the steel will have capacity left for
bending and will contribute in two different ways to the final capacity of the joint:
clamping effect and dowel effect. When n dowels are crossing the interface, the following
expression can be derived:

VRd,i  (wmax) Ajo int  n  Di,reduced (3.16)

1
where Di,reduced  c0  ce   2 f cd f yd,reduced
 Rd

Observe than both terms are below their respective maximum.

 The first term is lower than the yielding failure capacity VRd,i  f yd Ajoint , provided that
(wmax) is lower than fyd in a combined friction-dowel failure. See Figure 3.24.

 The second term n·Di,reduced is below the maximum dowel capacity n·Di,, because
f y,reduced  f yd .

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 35

n n

fyd fyd

(wmax)

wy wmax w wmax wy w

Failure: Yielding of steel Failure: Combined failure,

friction-dowel
wmax>wy s,failure=fyd wy >wmax steel= (wmax)
Figure 3.24 Maximum self-generated compressive in two different failures stress a)
yielding is achieved, b) yielding is not achieved. Based in Engström, 2003.

Despite expression 3.16 describes the real failure of this type of joints, the values of
(wmax) and f y,reduced are difficult to calculate. In consequence, this approach is not widely
used and codes propose other expressions, as it will be presented further down.

d) CRUSHING OF CONCRETE
As the last possible failure, crushing represents a failure on the embedding material. In the
hypothetic case of an abuse of good bond reinforcement, its yielding capacity would never
be reached whatever it was the shear stress. So much reinforcement would set off the
demands in terms of ∆and no bar would reach its yielding strength. In that case, the
failure will never come from the reinforcement side, but from the concrete side that will
crush, as we already saw in Model 2. The maximum shear stress according to the
simplified approach of the codes would correspond to:

 Rd ,i  k  f cd (3.17)

Shear Capacity and Failure modes according to Codes: Design

Only two failures are possible for most of the Construction codes: yielding of the
transverse steel and crushing of the concrete. Their sets of failures do not regard the steel-
concrete bond or the roughness of the interface. The expressions for the capacity have been
derived adjusting test results to a general analytical model considering the possible effect
of cohesion c and external loading cd as well.
 Rd,i  c    f yd  cc   k  f cd (3.18)

Rough (c1, 1); Smooth (c2, 2), etc

Observe that the friction parameters (c, ) depend on the roughness of the interface.
Appendix 3 presents a summary of those values according to several construction codes.

NOTE: When there is an external compression across the joint  cd , it is recommended to

limit its value to  cd    f cd , according to Model 2.

36 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Variables and parameters
As it has been demonstrated, lots of parameters influence the behaviour of a reinforced
joint between different concretes: roughness of the interface , steel-concrete bond,
reinforcement quantity, reinforcement and concrete capacities fyd fcd, cohesion c, etc. All
them do not only influence the behaviour of the joint, but also determine its failure mode
and consequently their maximum capacity.

Mechanical Behaviour (basically for good bond conditions)

Mechanical behaviour of reinforced concrete joints vary drastically as a function of the
parameters mentioned above. The most extensively studied type of reinforced joint is a
joint between different concretes reinforced by ribbed bars (good bond). Two relationships
can be found in Codes and other references:

a) DESIGN SHEAR STRESS  -SHEAR SLIP s

Despite this relationship is affected by many
different parameters as well:  fcd fyd, etc, the
Model Code (1990) provides an indicative non-
linear relationship, which applies for rough surfaces.
See Figure 3.25.
Notice that the joint is undergoing a sort of ‘plastic
behaviour’. Close to fu,d , what it is called Rd,i in
this project work, the steel reaches yielding and
shear slips increase rapidly for small increments of
shear stress.

According to the Model Code (1990), Rd,i can be

calculated using formula (3.18) whereas the value of Figure 3.25  -s for rough
su is 2,0 mm for rough surfaces (rough estimation). interfaces according
to Model Code
(1990)

b) SHEAR SLIP s - DILATANCY w

We already had an insight in the shear slip- w 

dilatancy relationship when we analysed
Model 2, Figure 3.15. However the situation wmax1  
considering clamping effect, slightly changes
because there is no constant compressive
wmax2
 
stress over the concrete of the joint: the
compression is increasing as shear slip
wmax3 
increases, as it is shown in the dotted line in  
Figure 3.26, which is only a trend in a s
qualitative level. Figure 3.26 Qualitative s-w
relationship for rough
interfaces and good bond
conditions

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 37

MODEL 6 POSTENSIONED JOINT BETWEEN TWO CONCRETES CAST SEPARATELY

Model 6 describes friction joints where two separately cast concretes are attached together
and post-compressed by steel bars to transfer shear forces. The steel elements can be
placed outside or inside the system.

This kind of interfaces can be readily found in temporary structures. Some applications
were used in the construction of the Hølen Bridge 1996, Gröndals Bridge 1997 and
Trollhättan Bridge 2001. In some case, this type of friction joint was expected to transfer
loads up to 220 Tones.

If this model is compared to Model 5, it can easily be seen that Model 6 is not based in as
many basic shear transfer mechanisms as Model 5:
 NO COHESION, because the two pieces in contact have been cast separately
 NO DOWEL EFFECT. Compressive bars are never embedded into the massive concrete
because they eventually undergo a post-tensioning process. They are either placed
outside or inside ducts. Therefore they cannot take bending stresses.
 FRICTION is the main mechanism in this model. So, the system is very much based in
Model 2. However, the model is not as basic as Rd,i cd. The post-tensioning steel has
in fact a double effect here:
Primary effect of the post-tensioning steel
Steel bars are post-tensioned to s0 to provide external compressive stresses to the
concrete c0, which after discounting unfavourable short-term and long terms losses
(creep, shrinkage, elastic shortening and relaxations) turn into sd and cd (value used
in design).
 Rd ,i     cd   sd (3.19)
Secondary effect of the post-tensioning steel
Once the friction joint starts to slip s, the joint faces will separate w and this will put an
extra demand for elongation of the steel bars l. The steel bars will be overstressed
l
 
s  E and so, the concrete will be     ( l  E ) .
s c s
lbar lbar
Notice that need for elongation is taken by the whole bar in Model 6 whereas it was
highly localized at the vicinity of the interface in Model 5. The formulation of the shear
capacity yields:
lmax
 Rd,i  sd  ( sd   s )  ( sd   Es ) (3.20)
lbar

38 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Compared to the capacity proposed in (3.19), expression (3.20) considers an
additional source of compression  s and therefore there is a question on the air:

Which is the relative importance of the secondary effect  s compared to the

primary effect  sd ? Should the secondary effect be neglected?
The answer to this question is  s may generally be neglected. However,
 s should be considered in joints with a certain roughness and/or short steel bars
( lbar  1,5m ), i.e. friction systems for columns on buildings and thin pillars. In
these cases, elongations of 1 to 2.5 mm could provide increases of the 10-30% in
terms of shear capacity.

NOTE 1: lmax can be assumed to be equal to the maximum crack opening wmax ,
as long as the system behaves as shown in Figure 3.27:

l l
w

w=  l w  l

Figure 3.27 Right and wrong assumptions to consider l max  wmax

If none other measure can be provided, wmax can be calculated on basis to Model 2
according to Model Code (1990).
23
su  2mm wmax  0.6  su  2.5mm
ROUGH Interface
(3.21)
SMOOTH Interface
su  0.15  cc wmax  0.05 su  2,0mm
SMOOTH-ROUGH Interface

NOTE: In any case, shear capacity according to expression (3.20) belongs to an

analysis stage. In a Design stage, the secondary effect of the post-tensioning steel
should not be taken into account and therefore shear capacity should be estimated
as formula (3.19), see Table 4.1.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 39

Shear Capacity and Failure Modes
a) OUTER POSITION OF PRESTRESSING BARS
When the steel bars are not crossing the interface, two main failure modes can occur:
Shear Friction exhaustion or Crushing of the material.

As it has been discussed above the expression of the maximum SHEAR FRICTION
CAPACITY according to shear transfer can be stated as:

wmax
 Rd,i  ( sd   s ) where  s   E s for lbar  1,5m (3.22)
lbar

 s  0 for l bar  1,5m

On the other hand, likewise to all other shear friction joints, a post-tensioned joint between
to pre-cast concretes is also likely to crush the material. Therefore CRUSHING must be
considered as a possible failure. The maximum shear capacity according to crushing can
be estimated as:

 Rd ,i  k  f cd as long as  cd    f cd (3.23)

b) INNER POSITION OF PRESTRESSING BARS

Everything that applies for case a) applies for case b) as well. Nevertheless there is an extra
failure mode to take into account.

When the prestressing steel goes interiorly through the joint, it is normally allocated inside
longitudinal ducts. Any misalignment or any excessive shear slip might cause a punching
effect on the bar at the vicinity of the interface, as shown in Figure 3.28.

Figure3.28 Failure by punching effect of the steel bar

Prestressed steel bars should never undergo any localized shear effect because they might
undergo a brittle failure. This is the reason why this system layout should be avoided as
much as possible or designed according to certain requirements established in Chapter
4.1.4.

40 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Shear Capacity and Failure Modes according to the Codes: Design
All the capacities given so far should be used only in the verification phase. They should
not be used in Design Stage. For design, codes do propose a more simplified approach that
stays on the safe side disregarding uncertain terms such as  s  wmax  E s .
lbar

 The failure of the joint (shear friction failure) is most of the times approached by taking
the general analytical model seen in reinforced concrete joints (Model 5) and
disregarding the effect of the reinforcement and the cohesion on equation (3.18) of the
capacity. So:
REINFORCED CONCRETE CONCRETE-GROUT JOINTS
JOINTS


 Rd,i  c    f yd cd   
 Rd,i  c    f yd cd   cd    sd (3.24)

 The failure of the material (crushing) is regarded by the equation:

 Rd ,i  k  f cd as long as  cc    f cd (3.25)

 Finally, dimensioning of ducts for the steel bars should be done with regard to Chapter
4.1.4.

Values for the coefficient of friction , as well as the values for k and  according to
various construction Codes can be found in Appendix 3.

Variables and parameters

Looking at the approach used in Design, only the coefficient of friction  and the
compression given to the concrete  cd turn out to be relevant parameters for this type of
joint. Notice that shrinkage of the concrete, relaxation of the concrete, creep and other
possible losses must be considered in the reduction of the initial compression given to the
concrete.
However, as it has been touched above, some other parameters can play and important
role: l, wmax, lbar and Es.

Mechanical behavior
Unfortunately, the mechanical behaviour of post-tensioned joints has not been studied as
extensively as the mechanical behaviour of reinforced concrete joints (Model 5). However,
as it has already been presented, these joints perform basically as pure friction joints cd
(Model 2), with a slight difference: compression across the joint cd varies as the shears
slip develops because steel bars provide additional stresses  s .

Since no tests results have been found concerning post-tensioned concrete joints,
quantitative empirical relationships cannot be given. Instead, qualitative behaviours can be
appointed in basis of test results obtained for Model 2.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 41

a) DESING SHEAR STRESS-SHEAR SLIP

Since compression is increasing across the joint, the Design Shear capacity increases
compared to constant compressive stress concrete as shown in Figure 3.29. The ultimate
shear slip su will be slightly greater too.



Rd,i variable

 

Figure 3.29 Qualitative shear stress-shear slip relationship in post-tensioned joints

b) SHEAR SLIP-DILATANCY

A similar behaviour applies for this relationship. As compression increases across the
joint, the maximum opening decreases compared to a constant compression model.

w
 
wu variable

  

Figure 3.30 Qualitative shear slip-crack opening relationship in post-tensioned joints

42 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

MODEL 7 POST-TENSIONED JOINT BETWEEN CONCRETE AND GROUT

Model 7 describes the resistant mechanism in joints between grout and concrete (or rock)
compressed by post-tensioning steel bars to ensure the development of friction at the
interface. The steel elements can adopt either an inner or an outer position.

Grout

Concrete
or Rock

This type of joints can be found in various real applications such as the friction system
used for example in Roselundshuset 2003 (Göta Tunnel) or Lundby Tunnel 1996.
Engineers tend to frequently use this joint owing to its good performance ensuring
minimum slips.

Model 7 is a combination of Model 1 and Model 6. Some of the characteristics of this type
of joint are:

 COHESION is certainly an important factor in Grouted Joints (Model 1). Cohesion

between concrete (or rock) and grout is ensured because the hardening process of the
grout takes place in situ and its penetration in the concrete is normally empowered by
watering the substratum (during 2 days), increasing heavily the interaction between
materials. It is important to remark that cohesion can reach values up to 0.6 MPa
(according to tests run by ELU Konsult). Due to these great values of cohesion, it could
perfectly happen that the shear failure occurs out of the joint plane.

 NO DOWEL EFFECT can be considered as the steel is not embedded in the massive
materials. In such a case, the steel cannot take any bending stresses.

 FRICTION should be understood in Model 7 in the same way as it was understood in

Model 5, especially when the surface of the concrete is water-washed or sandblasted,
which makes it particularly rough.

So the two effects of the post-tensioning steel should be considered: primary

compression cd sd in all cases, and extra-compression due to elongation
lmax
 s  (  Es ) in cases where l bar  1,5m and the joint presents a certain
lbar
roughness that ensures a relevant lmax .

If none other measure can be provided, lmax = wmax can be roughly calculated on basis
to Model 2 according to Model Code (1990), expression (3.21).

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 43

Shear Capacity & Failure Modes
a) OUTER POSITION OF PRESTRESSING BARS
When the steel bars are not crossing the interface, two main failure modes are likely to
occur.

 Maximum SHEAR FRICTION CAPACITY of the joint considering the effect of

cohesion can be estimated as:

 Rd,i  c  ( sd   s ) where  s  wmax  E s for lbar  1,5m (3.26)

lbar

 s  0 for l bar  1,5m (3.27)

 CRUSHING of the concrete at the vicinity of the joint can be avoided by verifying the
following equation:

 Rd ,i  k  f cd as long as  cc    f cd (3.28)

b) INNER POSITION OF PRESTRESSING BARS

As it applied for Model 6, post-tensioning steel bars are also in this case sensitive to shear
slips because they should not undergo any localized shear effect at the interface (punching
effect). However, this type of failure is more unlikely to happen in Model 7 than in Model
6 because cohesion contributes to minimize shear slips initially, so a high capacity can be
mobilized with minor shear slips (Figure 3.32). Nevertheless, cohesion does not help in
ultimate limit state.

Shear Capacity & Failure Modes according to the Codes: Design

As for Model 7, provisions given above should only be considered in a verification stage.
For design of post-tensioned joints of pre-cast concrete:

 The failure of the joint (shear friction-cohesion failure) can be normally approached
disregarding the effect of the reinforcement on equation (3.18) dedicated to reinforced
concrete joints. So:
REINFORCED CONCRETE CONCRETE-GROUT JOINTS
JOINTS


 Rd,i  c    f yd  cd   
 Rd,i  c    f yd  cd  c   cd (3.30)

 The failure of the material is  Rd ,i  k  f cd as long as  cc    f cd (3.31)

 Finally, dimensioning of holes for the steel bars should be done with regard to Chapter
4.1.4.

Values for c, , k and  according to various construction codes can be found in Appendix
3. However, the values proposed for the cohesion between grout and concrete could be
truly conservative.

44 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

If the designer is interested in a more accurate value for c, a tensile and compressive
failure test can be done on a cylindrical sample of joint (as it was a conventional test for
plain concrete) and a rough value of c can be derived from fc and ft, according to the
simplified linear Mohr failure criteria, see Figure 3.31. Notice that material 1, material 2 or
the joint itself can fail in this system. Thus, the response exemplified in Figure 3.31 b)
corresponds to the response of the complete system.
  c  
ft fc

ft fc 

ft  fc  ft 

c   1 (3.32)
2  f c  ft 

Figure 3.31. Suggestion for a practical test to derive the value of the cohesion of the
complete system.

Variables and parameters

All variables and parameters have already been explained in Model 5, except from
cohesion, which was explained in Model 1

Mechanical behavior
a) SHEAR STRESS-SHEAR SLIP
No test results have been found in shear loading of this kind of joints. However, qualitative
behaviours can be appointed from the basic understanding of the two former mechanisms
of Model 7: cohesion and pure friction, so if we superpose both effects, the final shear
stress-shear slip relationship could resemble what it is shown in Figure 3.32.
   COHESION+FRICTION

PURE
Rd,i
Rd,i FRICTION

COHESION + Rd,i 

s s su s

Figure 3.32 Qualitative shear stress-shear slip relationship in Model 7.

Two stages can be distinguished in this mechanical behaviour. First, the maximum shear
stress  Rd ,i is reached with a relatively low shear slip su. Cohesion and friction work
together. Secondly, the joint loses its cohesion and its residual behaviour turns out to be
purely frictional. This kind of joints could be recommended for systems with low shear
slips.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 45

MODEL 8 SHEAR KEYS



f  n

In principle, indented joints might be seen as very basic shear transfer system since they
can transfer shear loads only by taking profit of their geometry. Shear stresses can be
decomposed in two components, a perpendicular component to the key face n and a
parallel component f. If we assume that friction is the only mechanism providing resistance
to slippage (f<n), a little calculation will show which is the condition for a stable system:
<arctan , which shows that an angle under 35° will give no slippage for concrete
(assuming ) and so the system would perfectly satisfy the design needs.

However, indented joints can become very complex systems. Especially because neither
friction is the only phenomenon to be taken into account, nor it is usual to rely only on the
tooth angle when designing shear keys. In the particular case of concrete, normal stresses
or reinforcement are provided across the joint so the system increases very much its
reliability and capacity.

Variables and parameters

Roughness of the interface as well as normal stress and reinforcement across the joint, if
given, are variables that influence the response of Shear-keyed joints. Nevertheless, as it
was demonstrated by Eriksson (1978), the mechanical behaviour, the capacity and the
failure mode of a shear-keyed joint are particularly dependent on the tooth angle 

Shear Capacity and Failure Modes

On basis of the work done by Eriksson (1978), four different failure modes can be
identified in shear-keyed joints, especially for concrete joints.

(1) (2) (3) (4) Crushed

concrete

Figure 3.33 Failure modes for shear-keyed joints

1) Slipping along the contact surface 2) Local failure at the key corner

3) Shear of the entire key 4) Compression failure (crushing)

46 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

The failure modes related to slipping and shear failure are of main concern. A compression
failure mode is normally unlikely to happen, because some other failures would occur
before this model is fully developed (Eriksson, 1978).

a) SLIPPING ALONG CONTACT SURFACE

 When no compression acts across the joint, the condition that ensures no slippage is:
  arctan  (3.33)
A system with >arctan  cannot transfer any shear loads with any external help. 
 When a certain compression can act across the joint, either due to external
compressive stresses cd or some reinforcement across the joint, the cinematic
condition is:
 (3.34)
  arctan   arctan

(where is the external stress cc or the contribution of the reinforcement fyd).
Observe, that compressive stresses across the joint allow greater tooth angles and
therefore smoother keys, more suitable for practical reasons. If the, expression
above is interpreted in terms of stresses, it yields:

 Rd ,i   ( f yd   cd ) (where  can be taken as 0.7) (3.35)

b) FAILURE ON THE MATERIAL

In some other cases, as it will be discussed in the following chapter, the material fails
rather than the joint slips. This phenomenon on concrete was thoroughly studied by
Swhing (1975) and Eriksson (1978). For shear keys with <35° and 0.1<B/A<0.4,
Eriksson proposes the following ultimate shear stress:

 Rd ,i  0.6 f cd (0.05  k )(0.09  f yd  cc ) (3.36)

Akeys Asteel
where: k  and  
Atotal Aconcrete

Shear Capacity and Failure Modes according to the Codes: Design

As it occurred for Model 5, Construction codes simplify to a great extent the design
approach for shear keyed joints in terms of failure modes as well as variables and
parameter involved in the capacity of the joint.

The design approach is actually the same as for Reinforced joints but adjusting the
parameters of friction c and , so that they present a certain agreement with test results.
 Rd,i  c    f yd  cc   k  f cd c,  for shear keys (3.37)

The geometry and layout of the keys are roughly considered in some codes affecting the
value of the cohesion, see table A3.1.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 47

Mechanical Behaviour
Figure 3.34 exposes experimental results obtained by Eriksson (1978) after testing shear-
keyed joints in concrete.

Sliding failure

Failure on the material

Figure 3.34 Mechanical behaviour of shear keyed joints with different tooth angle ()
 The failure mode of shear-keyed joints with a high tooth angle (40º) seems to
differ from the failure modes of joints with a lower tooth angle.
 High tooth angle joints typically show a ductile behaviour
characterized by two stages. First, the joint copes with the slip showing certain
stiffness. Afterwards, the shear stress reaches a maximum value and it does not
increase any longer. This is a typical Sliding failure.
 Lower tooth angle joints and particularly 20° to 30° (which are
usual in concrete applications) have a peak at maximum shear stress (normally 0.5-
1.0mm). They have higher capacity, more initial stiffness and more brittle failure
than those joints with higher . This behaviour is typical from a failure on the
material. However, the maximum capacity Rd,i is drastically reduced at some 2mm
and from that moment on, the joint shows a residual behaviour which is more
typical from a sliding failure. This is because slippage takes place on a certain
fracture plane after the material is crushed. The new residual capacity of the system
r can be derived by friction theory. However, the value of the residual coefficient
of friction rdepends very much on the type of failure.
 r   r ( f yd   cc ) (3.38)

where r=1.1 when the entire keys fails by shear (3)

r=1.4 when there is failure at the key corners (2)

48 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

MODEL 9 POST-TENSIONED JOINT BETWEEN GROUT AND INDENTED STEEL

Model 9 describes joints where grout is cast against a steel plate with some indentations in
its surface. These indentations can be welding strings a), ribbed reinforcement bars welded
to the plate b) or other kind of bars with different section (c and d). Following, the whole
joint is compressed by post-tensioning steel bars that can go trough the potential sliding
surface or can adopt an outer position.

Grout
h
Steel

a) b) c) d)
Figure 3.35 a) Post-tensioned joint between grout and indented steel plate. b) Different
geometries for indentations.

This type of joints can be found in various real applications such as the friction system
used for example in Roselundshuset 2003 (Göta Tunnel) or Lundby Tunnel 1996.

In some sense, this kind of joint could be understood and analyzed as shear-keyed joints.
However, the small size of the indentations, their different geometry (in relation to shear
Akeys
keys) and the poor ratio of indentations (normally k  <0,1) suggest not to treat them
Atotal
exactly as shear-keyed joints. Some common approaches might be recalled anyhow.

Shear Capacity and Failure Modes

a) SLIDING ALONG THE SURFACE
Sliding along the interface steel-grout could be a possibility when the indentations have
soft angles that allow shear slip (see cases a and c in Figure 3.35 and Figure 3.36). Both,
the primary compression of post-tensioning steel s as well as the secondary
compression due to the need for extra-elongation of steel  s   ( wmax  Es ) should be
lbar
considered. As a rough estimation, it could be assumed that wmax=h in Figure 3.35.
w
 Rd,i    (cd   max  Es ) (3.39)
lbar

Figure 3.36 Slippage of the system

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 49

b) FAILURE ON THE CONCRETE: Crushing

When shear slip is not allowed by the geometry (cases b or d in Figure 3.35), other failure
modes are more likely to happen. Engineers should spent most of their attention in
analysing other mechanisms more likely to happen, disregarding slippage: crushing.

So far, crushing was ideally treated between two plain surfaces of concrete in contact, as
Figure 3.37 a) shows. In such a case, from the principal stresses field, a certain direction of
the cracks could be appointed and following a maximum capacity in the isolated struts was
derived. In the case it concerns at the moment, Model 9, small indentations could cause a
local effect and could concentrate the possibilities of crushing in a very localized area
besides the indentations, see Figure 3.37 b). However, this localization is highly dependant
on the geometry of the indentations. Some geometry may enhance this local crushing
effect, some other may not.

It is hard to provide guidance and expressions for the design of this type of joints with
regard to crushing. Various geometries imply various approaches.

 One first step is to verify crushing at a certain distance of the interface, where the local
effect of the indentations is not present. In such a case, crushing could be treated as it
has been treated so far because the principal stresses field may be assumed to be the
same as for a plain joint. However this is a simplified approach because it does not
regard the localized crushing phenomenon.

 A second step could be to verify crushing at the vicinity of the indentations as well, so
this is a more thorough verification. This could be done by assuming the same crack
pattern  as for a plain joint (Model 2). Following a certain width of the compressive
strut d should be assumed depending on the particular geometry of the indentation.
Finally, the capacity of the strut should be reduced in terms of b  f cd (see Model 2)
and so an expression for the crushing capacity VRd ,i would yield.

 n

VRd,i
 
d 
LOCAL
CRUSHING
CRUSHING ON THE
WHOLE STRUT




A) B)
Figure 3.37 Difference in terms of global crushing on a strut and local crushing next to the
indentation

50 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

c) FAILURE OF THE WELDS
a
Apart from the concrete, the filet welds could also fail
in shear demands, especially when there is not a high
length of welding across the joint. The shear capacity
of all the filet welds across the joint is according to
Figure 3.38:

V Rd ,i  l total  a  f vwd (3.40)

Figure 3.38 Welds layout
where a is the filet throat and ltotal   l filet

Apart from this capacity on the filets, the steel plate has also capacity to take some shear
demands by friction, according to V  N as seen in Model 6, which can be added to the
capacity in expression (3.40)

V Rd ,i  ltotal  a  f vwd  N (3.41)

d) FAILURE OF THE POST-TENSIONING STEEL BARS: Shear Failure due to punching

effect

In case any post-tensioning steel bar crosses the potential slipping surface, local punching
of the bar at the interface can occur due to a certain shear slip. However, as it was the case
for Model 7, Model 9 is a friction joint that minimizes shear slip and this failure turns out
to be rather improbable.

Shear Capacity and Failure Modes according to the Codes: Design

 In order to provide a design approach on the safe side, codes would understand the
sliding failure in an indented surface as if it was not indented. So, the difference
between the approach proposed for verification in the lines above and the approach
proposed for the Design codes would be the following (See Table 4.3):
VERIFICATION DESIGN ACCORDING TO CODES
w
 Rd,i    ( cd   max  Es )
lbar
 Rd,i  cd with  concrete-steel (3.42)

However, engineers should be aware that this design approach could yield extremely
conservative, meaningless for some geometry of indentations that clearly do not allow
shear slips.

 With regard to crushing, codes also propose a very rough approach, which does not
consider the possibility of local crushing. The approach has already been presented:

 Rd ,i  k  f cd as long as  cc    f cd (3.43)

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 51

 The failure of the welds should be considered also tending to a safe approach. So the
expression proposed in the lines above only would apply for verification but the last
term regarding friction concrete-steel should be disregarded in design.
VERIFICATION DESIGN ACCORDING TO CODES

V Rd ,i  ltotal  a  f vwd  N V Rd ,i  ltotal  a  f vwd (3.44)

 Finally, dimensioning of ducts for the steel bars should be done with regard to Chapter
4.1.4.
All values for parameters of friction can be found in Table A3.1 in Appendix 3. All the
formulas proposed in Design and Verification can be found in Table 4.3.

Variables and parameters

The majority of the variables and parameters involved in the performance of grout-
indented steel joints have already been explained in Model 6. However two new aspects
are of special interest: the geometry of the indentations and the capacity of the welds.

As it has been presented above the geometry of the indentations can decide which failure
mode should focus the attention of the engineer in a design stage. Some geometries
enhance the possibility of slippage and some others rule it out, proposing crushing of the
material as the only possible failure of the joint.

The capacity of the welds acquires special importance when the friction between steel and
concrete is expected to be relatively low. In that case, shear transfer will be localized at the
welds and not across the surface of the steel plate. The length of welding strings as well as
their capacity should satisfy the capacity demands.

Mechanical behavior
As a qualitative manner, grout-indented steel joints could be seen as shear-keyed joints.
When the geometry allows shear slips, the failure could be mainly frictional, if the
compression across the joint provided by the post-tensioning steel has relatively values
(Case a). When the geometry is non accepting shear slips or the compression is simply
high across the joint, the failure mode is initially undergoing a crushing peak and
following a residual frictional response, Case b. In this second case, the joint will clearly
show lower shear slips and it might be recommendable for applications where that criteria
is of special importance.


a

Figure 3.39 Qualitative behaviour of Model 9 for differents geometry of indentations

52 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

3.3 The step from shear stresses to shear forces
As a traditional rule, friction joints (typically Models 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) are designed
according to the friction (not crushing) failure. Given a certain shear force F, a value
for a compression across the joint N is obtained by the relevant model (e.g. F    N 
N F
 in case of Model 2). Then, crushing and other failure modes are checked. The
process is straightforward.

However, all the models analysed so far formulate the design approach in terms of
stresses () instead of forces (F), which also considers the areas of the contact
surfaces. An approach formulated in terms of forces would certainly present more
advantages because their values could be directly compared to loads over the
structure, so it is preferred VRd,i    Ncd rather than  Rd,i     cd , VRd,i  c  Ac    Ncd rather
than  Rd,i  c    cd and so on. Thus, when can we design in terms of forces instead of
stresses?

The answer to this question lies in the verification of two primary conditions:

 crushing is not reached in any point of the joint

 The parameters (c,) assumed to hold for a stress approach i.e  Rd,i  c    cd ,
represent averaged values across the joint. Therefore, residuals and other effects
should be avoided in the contact surface (papers, sand, etc), otherwise the
approach would not hold any longer.

In order to illustrate these phenomena, let’s imagine three different situations in a pure
friction joint:

F
cd
cd
 

Figure 3.40 Analysis of a joint in terms of forces or stresses

EXAMPLE 1: No crushing stresses across the joint

 We know that VRd,i 

Ai
 Rd,i dA , where Ai is the area of the joint i, and N  dA . Let’s
Ai

assume we are dealing with a joint that can be described by Model 6. Let’s say
that given an external shear load to transfer V, the normal forces across the joint
are calculated according to the friction approach in terms of forces VRd,i  Ncd , so

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 53

V
Ncd 

and the compressive stresses uniformly distributed across the joint are:
V
cd  .
A

 Now, in order to verify the joint: Rd,i is the minimum value between
   cd (sliding) and k  fcd (crushing).

 If we assume that crushing will not occur at any point according to the
simplified criteria of the codes, then    cd  k  fcd and cd    fcd . So  Rd,i     cd :

V Rd ,i 

Ai
Rd ,i dA   (
Ai
cd )dA  
Ai
cd dA N cd VRd ,i  N cd

And the design shear capacity VRd,i is equal to the external shear load V, so the
system fulfil requirements and the analysis can perfectly be done in terms of
forces.

EXAMPLE 2: Crushing stresses across the joint

 In this case, we will assume that the external shear load to transfer V has a fairly
higher value. We will however run the approach in terms of forces VRd,i  Ncd , so
V V
a similar Ncd 

and cd 
A
will be given across the joint.

 Rd,i is likewise the minimum value between    cd (sliding) and k  fcd (crushing).

 However, the difference is that shear stresses are greater across the joint (V is
greater). So, let’s say    cd  k  fcd . In this case, the minimum between those two
is  Rd,i  k  fcd . So:

V Rd ,i 

Ai
Rd ,i dA   (k  f
Ai
cd ) dA  ( k  f cd )  Ai  (    cd )  Ai  N cd VRd ,i  N cd

VRd,i <V, and so the system would not fulfil the design requirements. The
analysis cannot be done in terms of forces!

Contradicting the simple approach VRd,i  Ncd , this is saying that we cannot
increase indefinitely V and/or Ncd across the joint because the material will
crush    cd  k  fcd or  cd    fcd .. That can be checked out in terms of stresses,
as it has been demonstrated.

NOTE: A similar result would have yield if the second crushing criteria had
been violated. So, shear and compression stresses should be verified to satisfy
the crushing limit.

54 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

EXAMPLE 3: The roughness is below  in a certain region

 In this case, we will assume that a certain portion of the area A1 of contact has
some stuck papers and the coefficient of friction is1.

 In these conditions:

V Rd , i 

Ai
Rd , i dA 
 
Ai
( cd )dA 1

A1
cd dA  

A2
cd dA  

Ai
cd dA  N cd VRd ,i  N cd

3.4 Inclined compressive fields

Compression is an indispensable factor for friction systems. Remember how the most
basic friction law can be written as follows:    .However, this compression 
must be ensured to be perpendicular to the joint face.

In some real applications, the elements supposed to provide normal compression

across the joint (reinforcing steel or post-tensioning bars) might have an inclined
direction in relation to the joint face, see Figure 3.41 a and b. In these cases, not all
the compression provided by these elements  can be understood as normal
compression across the joint. There will always be a perpendicular component to the
joint   and a parallel component   . The capacity of the system depends on the
values of these components.

N 



F

 
 


CASE a. Reinforced joint between concretes CASE b. Post-tensioned joint between grout
with inclined reinforcement layout and rock with inclined bars

Figure 3.41 Inclined compressive fields

Reinforced joints. CASE a

Codes approach the inclination of the stress field by introducing the angle  in the
expressions of capacity. Different codes propose different expressions. They are

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 55

basically variations of the same model shown below. Capacities considering possible
inclination of reinforcement can be found summarized in Table A3.1.

    

 Rd ,i  c  f yd  Rd ,i  c   (  sin   cos  )  f yd

Observe that angles of 45 will give the maximum capacity, 90 will give the
conventional capacity and 135 will give the minimum capacity

Post-tensioned joints. CASE b

The same effect applies for post-tensioned joints:

    

 Rd ,i  c   s  Rd ,i  c   (  sin   cos  )   s

Now, observe the consequences that the inclination of the steel bars respect the joint
interface can have in terms of design, where capacity is dealt in terms of forces

    

  sin   cos  
F  N F     N
 sin    cos  

When the angle is 45the system reaches its maximum capacity, 90 will give the
normal capacity and 135 will give the minimum capacity.

When designing an anchorage friction system (case b) this provision should be taken
into account, and the possibility of unfavourable inclination of the rock substratum
should be considered to reduce the maximum capacity calculated for 90

Capacities expressed regarding the possibility of an inclination of the steel bars can
found in Table A3.1.

3.5 Shear failure in post-tensioned steel bars

Prestressed joints are sometimes designed accepting that some post-tensioning steel
bars and their respective ducts will go through a potential sliding surface between the
two materials in contact at the interface. Some of these cases have been already
presented in Models 6, 7 and 8.

In such cases, there is the risk that a certain relative displacement of the joint faces
creates a very local punching effect on the highly tensioned steel and the bar
undergoes a brittle and non expected failure. This phenomena turns out to be
especially hazardous in rigid prestressing elements such as steel bars (not steel
tendons made of several strands).

56 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Two effects can trigger a relative displacement between joint faces:

Need for shear slip

This is probably the most important effect. V
A certain joint always needs to undergo a
certain shear slip su to reach its maximum Vmax
capacity Vmax, as shown in Figure 3.42. As
it has been already stated, su depends
basically on the roughness of the surface,
the compression across the joint and the
possible cohesion between materials.
However, it could be stated in a very  s
general way that the maximum shear slip
Figure 3.42
cd Need for shear slip
will hardly ever be greater than 5 mm
(according to expressions 3.7 and 3.8)

Need for relative rotation

A second possibility that can generate a relative movement between the joint faces
can be explained by taking a close look at the following example.

Pier shaft

Steel bars Vertical shear slip +

horizontal displacement due to rotations

Figure 3.43 Example of relative rotation on a friction system for a pier shaft

The way the concrete girder is longitudinally loaded implies that the sections where
the friction systems are set up will undergo a certain vertical displacement in relation
to its initial position as well as a certain rotation.

The vertical displacement will not cause any differential displacement between
friction system and pier shaft because the girder will deflect the same as the pier shaft.
The rotation may however cause a differential displacement between them because
the girder does rotate but the pier shaft does not. So the steel bars may undergo local
shearing effects if the diameter of the ducts cannot allow these differential
displacements.

In addition, the effect of these two factors (slips and rotations) can be worsened by a
third factor: misalignment of the ducts. As Figure 3.44 shows, although the diameter
of the ducts in each side of the joint has been determined considering the need for a

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 57

gap to allow shear slip or rotation of the system, misalignment between the two ducts
do not allow the joint to undergo any further differential displacement.

m misalignement

Figure 3.44 Unfavourable effect of misalignment

As a conclusion it could be said that the diameters and layout of the ducts for post-
tensioning steel bars should be designed regarding these three effects (see Chapter
4.1.4).

58 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

4 Basic Provisions for Presently Used Friction
Systems
4.1 Basic provisions regarding design of friction systems
4.1.1 Basic provisions concerning design shear stresses of a joint i
Rd,i
The following chapter presents a summary of the Design Shear Stresses of the most
common types of presently used shear joints as well as all the relevant friction joints
for this project work, analyzed in Chapter 3.1 and 3.2.

As a general remark it could be said that for each type of joint, two expressions for
the design capacity are provided:

 The most important one, under the heading ‘Design’, should be used as the word
expresses itself to design the joint.

 The second one, under ‘Analysis’, should not be used to design the joint but could
be recalled to understand the phenomena, its failures and all the variables and
parameters involved in the capacity of the system. Hence, this expression will be
rather often more complicated than the expression used in design.

In addition, this expression sometimes provides the basis to calculate additional

sources of capacity disregarded in design because of their uncertainty. So
assuming that we can figure out the uncertainty in our particular design, they
present the possibility to calculate additional safety ranges.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 59

Table 4.1: Summary of BASIC SHEAR-TRANSFER MODELS
ANALYTICAL MODEL
MECHANISM Failure
Design Shear Stress Rd,i NOTES
Failure mode Possibilities Analysis Design (Codes)


MODEL 1  COHESION EXHAUSTED  Rd ,i  c  Rd ,i  c  Design: Values for c can be
COHESION found in Appendix 3

 The design approach in most

cc FAILURE AT THE ROUGH
2 1
 Rd , i  0 , 4  f cd 3   cd3 of the codes do not consider
MODEL 2  INTERFACE
 Rd ,i     cd different expressions for rough or
 Friction smooth contacts
PURE exhausted SMOOTH  Rd ,i     cd  Analysis: All variables and
FRICTION
cc parameters are explained in
Model 2
FAILURE ON THE MATERIAL:
 Rd ,i  b 2  fcd
2
 sin 2    cd 2 Rd,i  k fcd and cd   fcd  Design: Values for  can be
Crushing
found in Appendix 3

One-sided SPLITTING OF THE EMBEDDING

Should be avoided, with proper reinforcement design
dowel MATERIAL

V D Rd , i  0,6  f yd As D Rd , i  0,6  f yd As
e SHEAR FAILURE OF THE DOWEL
MODEL 3
 The approach proposed in
design and verification coincide
DOWEL One-sided 1
EFFECT Double-sided 1 2 D Rd , i  c0  ce   2 f ck f yk
BENDING D Rd , i  c0  ce   f ck f yk  Rd  Variables and parameters are
dowel FAILURE OF THE  Rd
fully described in Model 3
DOWEL Double-sided
V symmetric
V
Double-sided
non-symmetric
Depends on the particular case

MODEL 4  BROAD VARIATION OF Each particular mechanical device has got its own features. The
MECHANICAL  MECHANICAL DEVICES AND capacity of these systems cannot be stated with a common
DEVICES FAILURE MODES equation

60 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Table 4.2 Summary of COMPLEX SHEAR-TRANSFER MODELS (I)

ANALYTICAL MODEL
FAILURES
MECHANISM Design Shear Stress Rd,i NOTES
Failure mode Possibilities Analysis Design (Codes)

 The approach of the codes

 Rd,i  c    f yd   cd 
SHEAR does not take into account
FRICTION: ROUGH+
GOOD BOND different bond conditions or
yielding of steel roughness when determining
MODEL 5 the possible failure modes.

REINFORCED
DOWEL EFFECT ALL  Rd,i  c    s (wmax) cc  n Di,reduced  Rd,i  c    f yd  cc   Analysis: variables and
+ INTERMEDIATE parameters are all explained in
JOINT SHEAR FRICTION CASES Model 5.
BETWEEN
TWO  Design: values for
DIFFERENT DOWEL EFFECT
SMOOTH+BAD
BOND
VR,i  n  Di parameters c,, k and  can be
CONCRETES found in Appendix 3. They
have been obtained by
FAILURE ON THE CONCRETE:
 Rd ,i  b 2  f cd2  sin 2    cd 2 Rd,i  k fcd and cd   fcd adjusting an analytical model to
Crushing test results.

SHORT STEEL
 The design approach in
BARS wmax
MODEL 6 (lbars)< 1,5 m &  Rd,i    ( cd    Es ) Codes do not consider the extra
RELEVANT lbar contribution due to the
SHEAR FRICTION ROUHGNESS  Rd ,i     cd elongation of the steel bars
POST- EXHAUSTED wmax
TENSIONED ALL OTHER
  Es
JOINT CASES
 Rd,i     cd lbar
BETWEEN (lbars)> 1,5 m
TWO  Analysis : all variables,
CONCRETES parameters and equations are
CAST FAILURE ON THE CONCRETE:  Rd ,i  b 2  f cd2  sin 2    cd 2 Rd,i  k fcd and cd   fcd explained in Model 6
SEPARATELY
Crushing  Design: values for , k and
 can be found in Appendix 3
(or between
concrete and FAILURE OF THE STEEL BAR:
steel) In order to avoid this failure mode, ducts and holes for steel bars
Shear failure of the bar due to should be designed according to Chapter 4.1.4
punching

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 61

Table 4.3 Summary of COMPLEX SHEAR-TRANSFER MODELS (II)

ANALYTICAL MODEL
FAILURES
MECHANISM Design Shear Stress Rd,i NOTES
Failure mode Possibilities Analysis Design (Codes)

SHORT STEEL  The design approach in

BARS wmax Codes do not consider the extra
SHEAR (lbars)< 1,5 m &  Rd,i  c    ( cd    Es ) contribution due to the
FRICTION RELEVANT lbar
 Rd ,i  c     cd  c   sd elongatrion of the steel bars
ROUHGNESS
+
MODEL 7 COHESION  Analysis : all variables,
EXHAUSTED ALL OTHER  Rd,i  c    cd parameters and equations are
POST-
Grout CASES explained in Model 7
TENSIONED (lbars)>1,5 m
JOINT
Concrete
BETWEEN  Design: values for c,, k
PRECAST FAILURE ON THE CONCRETE:
 Rd ,i  b 2  fcd
2
 sin 2    cd 2 Rd,i k fcd and cd   fcd and  can be found in
CONCRETE & Crushing Appendix 3.
GROUT
FAILURE OF THE STEEL BAR: In order to avoid this failure mode, ducts and holes for steel bars
Shear failure of the bar due to should be designed according to Chapter 4.1.4
punching

SLIDING ALONG SURFACE

 Rd , i   ( f yd   cd )  Codes approaches are not
accurate in terms of failure
modes, but they choose a
LOCAL FAILURE AT THE KEY certain analytical model and
cc CORNER 
 Rd ,i  0.6 f cd 0.05  k  0.09    f yd cd   Rd ,i  c   ( f yd   cd ) adjust the values of the
 parameters to test results so that
MODEL 8 they describe the obtained
 SHEAR FAILURE OF THE
check failures.
ENTIRE KEYS  Analysis : all variables,
SHEAR KEYS
cc parameters and equations are
s Rd,i k fcd and cd   fcd explained in Model 8

COMPRESSION OF THE Rather unlikely to happen as the  Design: values for c,, k
CONCRETE and  can be found in
first failure Appendix 3
.

Table 4.4 Summary of COMPLEX SHEAR-TRANSFER MODELS (III)

62 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

ANALYTICAL MODEL
FAILURES NOTES
Design Shear Stress Rd,i
MECHANISM
Failure mode Possibilities Analysis Design

 This Design approach could

be extremely conservative for a
certain geometry of the
indentations that does not allow
shear slips
 Given a certain geometry of
w indentations, the designer should
SLIDING ALONG SURFACE  Rd,i    ( cd   max  Es )  Rd,i     cd
lbar consider of disregard this possible
failure.
 Verification: all variables,
parameters and equations are
explained in Model 9
MODEL 9
 Design: values for  can be
Grout found in Appendix 3.
POST-
TENSIONED  Design: Friction steel plate-
JOINT Steel
BETWEEEN FAILURE OF THE WELDS V Rd ,i  ltotal  a  f vwd  N V Rd ,i  ltotal  a  f vwd grout should be disregarded and
rely only in the indentations (and
GROUT & welds) to transfer shear loads
INDENTED
STEEL
 Verification: the
Overall
 Rd ,i  b 2  fcd
2
 sin 2    cd 2 Rd,i  k fcd and cd   fcd recommendations to calculate
FAILURE OF THE crushing
overall and local crushing can be
GROUT: found explained in Model 9
Crushing Depending on the geometry and layout
Local  Design: Codes do not regard
crushing of the indentations the possibility of local crushing

FAILURE OF THE STEEL BAR:

In order to avoid this failure mode, ducts and holes for steel bars
Shear failure of the bar due to
should be designed according to Chapter 4.1.4
punching

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 63

4.1.2 Basic provisions concerning design shear capacity of a Joint i
VRd,i
Tables 4.1 to 4.4 mostly formulate the design approach in terms of Design Shear
Stresses (Rd,i) instead of Design Shear Capacities (VRd,i). In order to obtain shear
capacities, shear stresses must be integrated over the area of the joint:

Ai

VRd,i   Rd,i dA
(4.1)

where Ai is the area of the joint i

and  Rd ,i  c for Model 1

 Rd ,i     cd as long as Rd,i  k fcd and cd   fcd for Model 2,6,9

 Rd,i  c    f yd   cc  as long as Rd,i  k fcd and cd   fcd for Model 5,8

 Rd,i  c     cd as long as Rd,i  k fcd and cd   fcd for Model 7

and no local crushing

In order to give more compact expressions, the previous equations can adopt the
traditional approach in terms of forces as long as the two conditions discussed in
Chapter 3.3 are fulfilled. Table 4.5 summarizes the traditional expressions for the
capacity and the conditions.

Table 4.5 Design Shear Capacities for friction joints

Model Design Capacities Conditions

Model 1 VRd ,i  c  Ai 1. Crushing is not

reached in any point
Model 2, 6 and 9 VRd,i    Ncd
Rd,i  k fcdand cd   fcd
Model 5 and 8 VRd,i  c  Ai    ( As  f yd  Ncd ) (no local crushing in
indented steel plates)
Model 7 VRd,i  c  Ai    Ncd
2. The values of c and
are not lower in
any portion of the
area

NOTE: If the one of those two conditions is violated a sectional analysis should be
done. a) In case of imperfections on the contact surface (lower c or ), integration of
two areas with different friction parameters is recommended. b) In case of crushing a
plastic analysis would be recommendable. The following table pinpoints some
examples were crushing should be especially verified.

64 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

In cases where the compression force is
High compression
concentrated, the compressive field across the
Assumed joint might not be uniformly distributed and
field ideal, but rather concentrated and with high
Real field values of .
With such elevated values of , crushing is
N rather likely to occur locally. Either the
simplified crushing criteria Rd,i  k fcd and
 cd    fcd or the complex one
2
 Rd ,i  b 2
f cd2  sin    cd can
2
certify that
d possibility:

Recommendation: Compressive forces should

be as uniformly
In cases distributed
where there as possible
is a relevant .
eccentricity e,
Eccentricities in loading the compressive field might not be uniform
across the joint, but rather linear. In such case,
Realfield elevated compressive stresses in some spots
combined with the requests in terms of shear
N stresses could be harmful and cause local
crushing. The crushing limits could be overcome:

V Rd,i  k fcd and cd    fcd or

2 2
 Rd ,i  b  f cd2 2
 sin    cd

e Recommendation: eccentricities should be

avoided as much as possible or taken carefully
into account
Eccentricities in loading
Sometimes possible eccentricities in loading
are not so easy to predict. The system cannot
work as expected.
n n Recommendation: Compressive forces
should be as uniformly distributed as possible

Figure 4.1 Cases where crushing should be carefully assessed

4.1.3 Additional Provisions Regarding Inclined Compressive Fields

According to Chapter 3.4, reinforcing or post-tensioning bars not perpendicular to the
interface, give inclined compressive fields across the joint. In that case the capacity of
the friction joint is modified according to the general formula:

 Rd ,i  c   (  sin   cos  )  f yd ( can be seen in Figure 3.41)

The formulas for each particular model can be found in Appendix 3, Table A3.1.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 65

4.1.4 Additional provisions for shear failure in post-tensioned steel
bars
According to Chapter 3.5, additional provisions may be given as follows:

Table 4.7 Additional recommendations to avoid local shear effect.

Additional provisions regarding shear failure in post-tensioned steel

bars

These provisions should mainly be considered when rigid and semi-rigid highly
post-tensioned steel bars are going trough a potential slipping surface

 When no need for differential displacements can be expected, the diameter of a

duct containing a rigid high tensioned steel bar should be at least 5-10 mm
greater than the diameter of the steel bar to allow the ultimate shear slip. It is also
recommended to place the gravity centre of the section of the steel bar in the
gravity centre of the section of the duct. In that case a 5-10 mm gap should be
ensured in each side of the steel bar, as the following drawing shows.

5-10 mm
m misalignement
5-10 mm

Figure 4.3 Minimum gap distances Figure 4.4 Concept of unfavourable

between duct and steel bar misalignment
 When differential rotation can occur, the diameter of the ducts and their layout
should be calculated with regard to those effects, besides of providing the
minimum gap distances presented in the previous point.

 Besides the calculation for the proper diameter of the duct, the designer should
specify maximum values for unfavourable misalignment between two
consecutive ducts for the same steel bar defined according to Figure 4.4.
Table 4.6 Allowed misalignment as a function of the diameter of the bar

Misalignment duct - bar

(mm) (mm)
<1 mm 5-10 mm
<3 mm 10-20 mm
<5 mm 15-20 mm
Note: Semi-rigid steel members such as steel strands are not as sensible to local
shearing effect but their ducts should also be designed with regard to this chapter.

66 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

4.1.5 Basic provisions regarding design shear capacity of friction
systems
A friction system is a structural system transferring loads by means of friction across
shear joints. A friction system can consist of a single shear joint or a combination of
them.

The Design Shear Capacity of a Friction System V Rd ,system is the minimum Design
Shear Capacity of all its joints: V Rd ,i , V Rd , j , V Rd ,t , etc. So, all the possible failure modes
of each joint should be determined, following the Design Shear Capacity of each joint
and eventually the Design Shear Capacity of the Friction System.

In order to make this provision clear, the Design Shear Capacity of some of friction
systems will be analysed.

Table 4.8 Example 1

EXAMPLE 1: Grip system at the bottom of a pier

This is an example of a grip system with only one friction joint between two pre-cast concretes (Joint
1). Since a smooth concrete surface (pier) and a rough concrete surface (friction element) are in
contact, the values for the coefficient of friction correspond to smooth interface coefficient of friction.

(See Appendix A1.4) FAILURES DESIGN

JOINT 1 Model 6
 Sliding of the Design according to:
joint faces VRd,i    Ncd

Joint 1
 Crushing of the Derive the compressive stresses
Friction
element 1 Friction concrete on the distribution across the joint and
element 2
Ncd pier check crushing:
Ncd
PIER
 Crushing of the Rd,i k fcd,1and cd    fcd,1
PIER
concrete of the FRICTION ELEMENT
V
friction element
V Rd,i k fcd,2 and cd    fcd,2
cd
Check crushing here
 Cutting of the In order to avoid this failure,
prestressing steel the diameter of the ducts should
bars because be designed regarding shear
localized shear. slip and rotation of the girder,
according to Chapter 4.1.4.

Recommendations
 As a product of a risk assessment, the same analysis should be run assuming that
one of the steel bars brakes down.
 In order to meet the Design capacities, a set of specifications upon the execution a
control process should be detailed in the drawings and work procedure according to
chapter 4.1.6.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 67

Table 4.9 Example 2

EXAMPLE 2: Grip system at the column of a building

This is another example of a grip system with two friction joints. One of them is between grout and
old concrete (column of the building), Joint 1. The second one is between grout and a steel plate with
some indentations performed by transversal welding strings, Joint 2.

FAILURES DESIGN
JOINT 1 Model 7
 Sliding of the Design according to:
(See Appendix A1.5) grout-old VRd,1  c  A  1  Ncd
concrete surface
Derive the compressive stresses
 Crushing of the distribution across the joint and
concrete on the check crushing:
V Joint 2 V column COLUMN
Concrete
column Rd,1 k fcd,1and cd    fcd,1
Ncd Ncd
GROUT
 Crushing of the Rd,1 k fcd,2 and cd    fcd,2
grout
Joint 1
JOINT 2 Model 9
cd Check crushing here  Sliding of the Design according to:
steel-grout
VRd,i  2  Ncd
surface

 Failure of the Check:

welds V Rd , 2  l welds ,total  a  f vwd

 Failure of grout Check:

 Overall crushing: Rd,1  k  fcd,2
and cd    fcd,2
 Local crushing close to
indentations as
recommended in Model 9
Take the minimum between V Rd ,1 and V Rd , 2

Recommendations
 In order to meet the Design capacities, a set of specifications upon the execution a
control process should be detailed in the drawings and work procedure according to
chapter 4.1.6.

Table 4.10 Example 3

EXAMPLE 3: Anchor system against rock

68 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

This is an example of anchor system with two friction joints. One of them is between grout and rock
(column of the building), Joint 1. The second one is between grout and a steel plate with some
indentations performed by transversal welding strings, Joint 2, as it has been seen in the previous
example. Apparently, it looks like the same joint but, the layout and load conditions are a bit different.

FAILURES DESIGN
JOINT 1 Model 7
 Sliding of the Design according to:
grout-rock VRd,1  c  A  1  Ncd
Joint 1
Joint 2
surface

 Crushing of the Derive the compressive

grout stresses distribution across the
N joint 1 and check crushing:
GROUT
Rd,2 k fcd, and cd   fcd,
A G
JOINT 2 Model 9
d2  Sliding of the Design according to:
d1
V steel-grout
VRd,i  2  Ncd
surface

 Failure of the Check:

welds V Rd , 2  l welds ,total  a  f vwd
cd
 Crushing of the Check:
grout  Overall crushing: with
Check crushing the respective stress
here distribution (II)
 
Rd,2 k fcd, and cd    fcd,

 Local crushing close to

indentations as
recommended in Model 9
 Cutting of the In order to avoid this failure,
prestressing the diameter of the ducts
steel bars should be designed regarding
because shear slip according to
localized shear. Chapter 4.1.4.

Take the minimum between V Rd ,1 and V Rd , 2

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 69

Recommendations
 As a product of a risk assessment, the same analysis should be run considering a
possible reduction of capacity due to a certain inclination of the rock substratum
respect the compressive force.
 A risk assessment shows that a failure in the single steel bar compressing the
system would cause the complete collapse of the system. So, either shear slips are
closely controlled or the system is displayed with more than one steel bar, if
possible out of the sliding area.
 In order to meet the Design capacities, a set of specifications upon the execution a
control process should be detailed in the drawings and work procedure according to
chapter 4.1.6.

4.1.6 Specifications for drawings and work description

Specifications for drawings as well as the work description of friction systems in
temporary structures should be done with regard to Chapter 4.2.

4.2 Basic provisions regarding execution and control of

friction systems
This section is a reference for designers who need to provide design specifications for
a particular friction system and also for field engineers who are responsible for the
execution and control of the system.

Following, some of the indispensable measures and specifications are listed. Table
4.9 summarizes the most important provisions concerning Execution and control of
friction systems.

Table 4.11 Provisions concerning execution and control process of friction systems

Basic provisions regarding Execution & Control Process of Friction

Systems

GENERAL SPECIFIC

70 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

POST-TENSIONED SYSTEMS
 Post-tensioned steel bars should be
re-tensioned previous to the loading of
the system. In some cases there might
be a long time range between the set
 Each face of a friction joint up of the system (firs tensioning) and
should be carefully cleaned before the loading. So relaxation, shrinkage,
mounting the system. No dirt, dust, creep and other secondary effects can
rests of sand or any other particles reduce substantially the initial tension,
should avoid the system to present thus it is important the retensioning
the maximum area of friction or
cohesion.  When the post-tensioning elements
EXECUTION

are design to go through several ducts,

 As long as a joint face does not the misalignment between them should
need to remain smooth and not overcome the limits provided in
aesthetically pleasant after the 4.1.3. It is of great importance not to
service life of a friction system, hammer or force the steel bars all the
joint faces should be roughened the way trough the wholes when setting
most to ensure good friction: Water them up for the first time.
washing or sand blasting among
other measures can provide the JOINTS WHERE COHESION IS
desired roughness. EXPECTED BETWEEN
CONCRETES
 In this case, the surface of the
readily cast concrete should present
particularly clean and it should be
watered until saturation in order to
ensure maximum chemical interaction
with the latest layer of concrete.

 Once the system is implemented, POST-TENSIONED SYSTEMS

CONTROL

the evolution of shear slips should  Besides shear slips, tensions should
be controlled. In cases shear slips be controlled in post-tensioned joints,
overcome the expected limits, especially when the service life of the
appropriate measures should be system may be particularly long.
taken

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 71

5 IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW SOLUTIONS
5.1 Best solutions at a general level
After reviewing the State-of-the-art in Chapter 2, some possibilities of improvements
and new solutions were detected in Table 2.2. Taking a close look at them, it appears
that they all correspond to what could be considered as Design criteria for friction
systems in temporary structures. Figure 5.1 summarizes graphically these design
criteria. Observe that non-relevant criteria for temporary structures, such as Duration
or Maintenance have been simply disregarded.

MINIMUM
CONSEQUENCES
2 Easy & fast 3 AND PERMANENT
MOUNTING-
MARKS 4
DEMOUNTING
MINIMUM
SLIPS (SLS)

What is a
good friction
system for
temporary
structures?

Required
CAPACITY MINIMUM
1 (ULS)
ECONOMY 6 5 RISK

Figure 5.1 Design criteria for friction systems in temporary structures

The following six subchapters will map the state of current applications in each one of
this six fields and will appoint new solutions when the need was detected according
Table 2.2.

5.1.1 Required capacity

Every temporary structure is designed to meet a certain demand in terms of loads. So
far, presently used friction systems have demonstrated that they can carry fairly high
loads, i.e. the system with highest capacity (Gröndal Bridge) was able to carry loads
over 249 tones. To the knowledge of the author, no friction system has failed because
the expected capacity was not reached.

So, apparently there is no need to appoint new solutions with increased capacity,
because systems have no restrictions in terms of capacity, e.g. the greater surcharge
the greater compressive forces and/or the bigger system.

Another issue would be whether present systems can provide a certain capacity with a
relatively low price, but this will be treated further below, in Chapter 5.1.6.

72 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

5.1.2 Easy and fast mounting-demounting
This is an important criterion for temporary structures. Friction systems with plenty of
elements and a long execution procedure will not represent a good and competitive
design.

However, all the friction systems used so far can truly be described as simple
structures. In general, ‘easy and fast mounting demounting process’ is one of the
corner stones of friction systems, provided their simplicity and their very low number
of structural elements, i.e. post-tensioning steel bars and friction elements. The system
referred in previous chapter (Gröndal Bridge) could be implemented in 2 days. So, no
additional friction systems with an easier or faster mounting-demounting process will
be provided.

5.1.3 Minimizing consequences and permanent marks

Temporary structures could imply changes in the permanent structure such as
reinforcement gaps to allocate temporary structural members. This is what is meant by
consequences on the permanent structure. In addition, temporary structures could also
leave marks after removal, such as little defects that need a certain post-treatment:
holes, defective areas, etc.

In this sense, present friction systems can provide very good solutions with minor
marks and influence for the permanent structure compared to other alternatives.
When all steel bars cross exterior to the pier of the bridge, no marks will remain in the
pier after removing the temporary structure. The pier or its reinforcement does not
need to be designed regarding the temporary structure. When some steel bars cross
interior to the pier, the holes for the steel bars and their ducts do not probably modify
the distribution of the reinforcement in the pier, but they need to be eventually
covered up. However this is still a minor issue compared to the post-treatment work
required in other alternatives, i.e. cantilevering girder platforms (Figure 1.2), where at
least two steel girders cross the core of the pier and consequently and the
reinforcement has to be designed according to the gap needed for the girders and the
openings need eventually to be cover up.

In case the marks left out by the friction system want to be avoided, as for example at
the top of a pier, it is recommended to set up the system always in the short direction
of the pier, with an increased inertia of the beams anchoring the post-tensioning steel
bars.

5.1.4 Minimum slips

Minimum shear slips are of major importance when ensuring a good performance of
the system. Although all friction systems must undergo a certain shear slip (5-10mm
at maximum) to develop their maximum capacity (see Chapter 4.1.3), some systems
have an lower ultimate shear slip and therefore may be more suitable for some
applications, such as the Rosenlundshuset, where shear slips were basically not
allowed.

Following two examples of the best two systems with minimum shear slips are
compared to the most frequently used friction system.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 73

Table 5.1 Recommended systems minimizing shear slips

FRICTION SYSTEM Advantages and Disadvantages

Most frequently used Advantages

Post-tensioned systems of  Fast implementation.
concrete to cast in-situ
concrete or steel to  No post-treatment works required to leave a nice and
concrete clean surface.
CONCRETE

Disadvantages
 Relatively high ultimate shear slip su (5-10mm).
 Unexpected effects can cause major consequences:
CONCRETE OR STEEL defective interface, post-tensioning losses, etc.

Occasionally used Advantages

Recommendation 1  Lower ultimate shear slip su (<2mm) because of the
Post-tensioned systems of cohesion.
concrete or grout cast
against existing concrete
Disadvantages

CONCRETE
 Longer period of execution: roughening, watering,
OR GROUT
casting, hardening and loading.
 Important post-treatment works required to leave nice
and clean surface.
EXISTING
CONCRETE
 Unexpected effects can cause major consequences:
defective interface, post-tensioning losses, etc.
New solution Advantages
Recommendation 2  Low ultimate shear slip su.
Post-tensioned systems The artificial roughness turns any minor shear slip into
with artificial roughness a relatively wide joint opening and therefore it imposes
(concrete to steel) overdemands on the steel elements, which will
increase the compression across the joint. Certain
geometries give more opposition to shear slips
 Very safe from the risk management point of view.
Any unexpected effect that might lead the system to a
NOTE: Provisions to design
fatal failure (bad contact surface, overloading,
this type of system are given decompression of the tendons, etc) would generate a
in Appendix 4. An example shear slip that automatically would generate additional
of application can be found
compression across the join.
in Chapter 5.2
The limit would be the full capacity of the presstressing
tendons. Considering that presstressing steel is
normally presstressed to tensions around half its
ultimate capacity, this type of joints might have a
safety up to range of 100% (depending on the length
h
of the bars) VRd,i      Es
lbar

 No post-treatment works required to leave nice and

clean surface

74 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Disadvantages
 Special geometry of the interface, which is to be given
h
by special formworks. Hence, the design of the
temporary structure needs to get into the design
process of the main structure from the very beginning.
CONCRETE
STEEL ELEMENT
(stiffeners)
The engineer or the architect should think of the best
way to integrate these geometries in the final design of
the bridge or whatever other structure.

5.1.5 Minimum risks

The following table shows a list of possible risks associated to friction systems in
temporary structures

Table 5.2 What-if analysis for friction systems in temporary structures

What if…..?

1 …the structural system is loaded over the design loads?

…rests of papers, sand or other residuals remain in the friction interface and
2 therefore the roughness of the interface is much lower than expected?

3 …a cohesive joint if not handcrafted properly (watering or cleaning the interface

is omitted)?

4 …low surface strength?

5 …long-term effects (shrinkage, relaxation, creep) are more relevant than

expected and they reduce substantially compression across the joint?

6 …a certain post-tensioning steel bar is cut off? Will the compression across the
joint be sufficient to stabilize the system anyhow?

….the temporary structure must hold in place for a period of time which is
7 longer than expected? Will the secondary effects become of major importance in
that case?

8 …the temporary structure undergoes some cyclic loading or vibrations?

As far as presently used friction systems are concerned, most of the hazards listed in
Table 5.2 might lead the temporary structure to the same extreme events: high shear

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 75

slips or total collapse. Hence, they can be understood as sensitive systems from the
risk point of view. However, following carefully the provisions concerning a detailed
execution and control process of the system (Chapter 4.2) and avoiding situations that
might lead to shear failure of steel bars (Chapter 4.1.3) as well as crushing failures
(Chapter 4.1.2), presently used systems can become significantly safer and highly
reliable.

As another possibility, post-tensioned systems with artificial roughness (last row of

Table 5.2) are not as sensitive as presently used systems. As explained in Chapter
5.1.4, systems with artificial roughness can increase the compression across the joint
when things start to go wrong, i.e. when shear slips increase unexpectedly. Therefore,
hazards 1-5 in Table 5.2 can be compensated to some extent with the extra safety
h
range VRd,i      Es , given by the favourable geometric conditions (maximum
lbar
dilatancy is h). So systems for artificial roughness are also recommendable from the
risk and safety point of view and yet become a recommendation for a good overall
friction system.

5.1.6 Economy
Economy is always an important parameter and especially in temporary structures,
where the structural system often becomes a waste after it has been used during the
construction period.

There are no big differences in terms of costs between different friction systems. In
general they are economic solutions because they all consist of a low number of
basically conventional structural elements that have a non-complex layout. So,
workmanship and materials are not relatively expensive.

Nevertheless, friction systems with artificial roughness would probably turn out to be
a little more expensive provided that they require additional handcraft for the concrete
surface and for the special steel elements. Anyway, the advantages in terms of slips
and risk can perfectly pay off this slight downside.

As a final remark it should be mentioned that it is always of major importance to

compare (technically and economically) different construction methods among them.
In this sense, for the case of the platform in balanced cantilever bridges, the ‘best
friction system’ should be compared to other alternatives such as cantilevering girder
platforms in order to obtain the most cost-effective solution. Next two chapters
present two examples of this thinking.

5.2 Best solution for the grip system at top of the pier
As far as the temporary structure to support the hammerhead formwork is concerned,
the engineer could think of several solutions in a conceptual design stage. When the
pier has a certain height, there are two systems that could be used (the vertical truss
from the ground level is clearly not economic for such a case):

76 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

a)Friction system at the top of the pier

b)Cantilevering girder platforms

at the top of the pier

Figure 5.2 Alternatives for the platform supporting the hammerhead formwork

The best alternative among these two systems will come up by comparing them
according to a set of design criteria (such as the one shown in Figure 5.1). The scope
of this master thesis is not to appoint the better of the two alternatives, but rather to
provide the best possible design within the first alternative: friction systems.

As it has been said, presently used systems (Gröndal Bridge) perform well as long as
basic provisions are accomplished. However, risks and slips are not certainly
minimized. In this sense, post-tensioned systems with artificial roughness will
perform better. According to the discussion held in Chapter 5.1, they can reach high
capacities, rapid mounting and demounting process, minimum consequences and
marks on the pier of the bridge, relatively good budget and what is more important:
minimum slips and the least risk among friction systems.

In the light of these results, Figure 5.3 to 5.5 present the new solution for grip systems
and Figure 5.6 the construction sequence.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 77

Figure 5.3 Detail of the friction system with artificial roughness

Figure 5.4 Perspective of the complete friction system before proceeding with the
mounting of the platform to support the formwork

78 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Figure 5.5 Final appearance of the permanent structure.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 79

Step 1: Step 2: Casting Step 3: Prestressing Step 4: Removal
Placement of concrete of the formwork
the formwork Steel girder girder
Stocky sections Head

Steel indented
formwork Bolts

The indented The concrete is The steel girder is The formwork

steel formwork cast and the top bolted to the stocky is finally
is put in place of the pier is sections. Post- removed and
together with reached. Then tensioning bars with the surface of
the stocky the system is their respective head the pier
sections. This secured on top give compression to remains as
formwork will until proceeding the system. After all, shown
remain there with the next the upper support is
until the whole step removed to allow the
friction system casting of the section
is removed zero.

Figure 5.6 Construction sequence for a friction system with artificial roughness at the
top of the pier.

Apart from this geometry chosen for the indentations (which was used by ELU
consult in MjøsBrua, Norway, see Appendix A1.6: MjøsBrua), Figure 5.7 shows
some more possibilities.

80 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Figure 5.7 Other possible geometries enabling artificial roughness.

Systems using artificial roughness are not only applicable in this field. Observe that
grip systems at the bottom of a pier shaft or a tower or any other structural element
could be implemented using the same principle.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 81

6 Conclusions
6.1 Conclusions regarding the review of state-of-the-art
1) A review of the state-of-the-art was performed interviewing experienced
consultants and contractors (11). Ten executed or ongoing projects where friction
systems were used in temporary structures were analysed. The review showed that
friction systems in temporary structures have represented and still represent a
general and extended practice in the civil engineering field.

2) According to this review, two friction systems are presently used in temporary
structures. In this project work, they have been called grip system and anchor
system.

3) A detailed study of the systems (performance, design method, execution

procedure, malfunctioning and problems) showed that construction codes do not
provide a complete approach to properly design, execute and control friction
systems in temporary structures. The needs basically lied in expressions for
ultimate shear capacities of different frictional joints and systems as well as
specifications for the execution and control process.

4) As a product of the same study, some needs for improvements and new systems
could also be identified. These needs lied in design of systems with minimum
shear slips, minimum risks and if possible, minimum marks on the structure and
minimum costs.

6.2 Conclusions regarding the review of shear transfer

theory
1) Shear transfer theory was studied in scientific literature and construction codes in
order to provide understanding of the friction phenomena and successively
develop design provisions and improvements. The knowledge have been
assembled from current literature but also fruit of own derivations.

2) Nine mechanisms of shear transfer (nine types of joints) have been analysed: 1
Cohesive joints, 2 Pure friction joints, 3 Dowelled joints, 4 Joints with mechanical
devices, 5 reinforced concrete joints, 6 post-tensioned joints between two
concretes cast separately, 7 between grout and concrete, 9 between grout and
indented steel plates and 8 shear-keyed joints. Several features have been studied
for all these models: failure modes and shear capacity, main variables and
parameters, codes approach for the design of the joint and mechanical behaviour
(ultimate shear slips).

3) For all those joints participating of the friction mechanism (Models 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

and 9) the slippage does not represent the only possible failure. Crushing of the
material at the vicinity of the joint (mainly concrete) as well as shear failure of
post-tensioning steel bars due to punching effect give raise to other types of
failure. Consequently, design approaches used so far according to the basic law
F=N, which describe only the sliding failure, do not fully regard all possibilities

82 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

of failure. Codes’ expressions for design shear capacities should not be understood
as descriptions of the different failure modes.

4) The approach for the crushing failure of concrete given by most of the codes
 Rd ,i  k  f cd does not depend on the compressive stresses cd across the joint. This

approach states that a joint compressed beyond the compressive strength fcd will
not fail. In the light of this inconsistency, an analytical model considering the
effect of normal stresses has been proposed:  Rd ,i  b2  fcd2  sin 2    cd 2 . Considering
the complexity of this formula, a simplified extension of the codes approach was
suggested:  Rd ,i  k  fcd and  cd    fcd , where k and  are related. Since different
codes recommend different values of k , they will also need different values of  .

6.3 Basic provisions for presently used friction systems

1) A set of basic provisions regarding design, execution and control of friction
systems have been compiled as if they were part of a code or a construction
handbook. The provisions are based on existing specifications on the codes and
own research.

2) The first set of provisions presents expressions to calculate design shear capacities
of ten different shear joints. Two different approaches have been proposed. One of
them is to be used in a design stage and consequently it is based on existing
provisions of construction codes. The other one is to be used in analysis: it
basically considers additional contributions to the capacity of the joint disregarded
by the codes owing to its uncertainty. Therefore it is not as conservative as the
design approach.

3) Most of the design approaches have been formulated in terms of stresses (Rd,i). In
order to obtain the approach in terms of forces, the stresses must be integrated
over the contact area VRd,i  
Ai
Rd,i dA . Traditional approaches based on the sliding

failure can be used in terms of forces ( VRd,i    Ncd or VRd,i  c  Ai    Ncd ) as long
as the crushing limit is not reached and the values for the parameters (cand )
represent average values across the joint. Otherwise, the final design could lie in
the unsafe side.

4) Values for the relevant parameters to design friction systems (c, k and ) have
been searched throughout codes and literature and then summarized and
compared. A certain scatter in the values has been observed between different
codes.

5) Recommendations concerning minimum diameters and maximum misalignment of

ducts containing post-tensioning steel bars have been provided. Ducts should
always be dimensioned regarding the need for slip (ultimate shear slip), need for
differential rotations and possible misalignment.

6) A set of provisions concerning execution and control of friction systems have been
provided. The designer should make sure that all these provisions turn into design

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 83

specifications in drawings and work procedure. The contractor should also make
sure to follow these instructions.

6.4 Improvements and new solutions

1) A very important conclusion of this project work is that presently used friction
systems can be high performing solutions as long as all provisions specified in
Chapter 4 of this project work are fulfilled, especially those ones regarding
minimum diameters and misalignment of ducts, as well as those regarding
execution and control procedures. Presently used systems can also bring solutions
with minimum marks on the structure and very low costs.

2) Presently used friction systems and friction systems in general have two main
disadvantages compared to other types of shear transfer systems. On the one hand,
friction systems must undergo shear slips under service life in order to develop a
certain capacity. Ultimate shear slips (corresponding to the ultimate capacity of the
joints) are of the order of 5 to 10 mm maximum. On the other hand, friction
systems are sensitive from the risk point of view, i.e. common hazards
(overloading, defective handcraft, loss of compression, etc) can trigger total
collapse.

3) In order to minimize these two drawbacks, a new solution has been proposed:
post-tensioned friction systems with artificial roughness. The geometry of these
systems increases compression across the interface when the slippage starts, so
shear slips are minimized and the ultimate capacity is increased. These systems do
not only base their capacity on the type of interface but they also utilize extra
capacity from the post-tensioning steel. An example of implementation has been
proposed for the grip system supporting the hammerhead formwork of a balanced
cantilever bridge.

4) Although it is proved in this project work that friction systems may provide
solutions with high capacities, rapid mounting-demounting, minimum marks on
the structure and relatively low slips, risks and costs, they should be compared to
other feasible alternatives in a conceptual design stage in order to obtain the best
solution.

6.5 Further research

Once the basis for the performance of friction systems are set up, comparative
analysis between friction systems and other feasible alternatives for temporary
structures could be done. In the field of bridge engineering, it could be interesting to
compare economically friction systems and cantilevering girder platforms for
different project characteristics and constraints.

On basis of all the applications in temporary structures presented in this Master

Thesis, some work could be directed to investigate new and further applications of
friction systems. As an example, Friction systems performing under water in harbour
applications can be mentioned.

Finally, some research could be carried out to characterise the mechanical behaviour
of friction joints, particularly joints between precast concretes or grouts to existing

84 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

concretes. Analytical models providing approximations for ultimate shear slips as well
as maximum joints openings could be used then to design and control more accurately
presently used friction systems.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 85

7 References
7.1 Literature
Bedford A., Fowler W.: Sthatics. Mechanics for Engineers. Addison-Wesley
Iberoamereicana, Wilmington, Delaware, E.U.A.

Borbolla L., Mazzola A. (2003): Finite Element simulations of the crack development
in the Gröndal Bridge. Master Thesis 03:01, Department of Structural Engineering,
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2003.

Engström E. (1977): Swedish-English Technical dictionary. Lagerblads, Karlshamn,

Sweden.

Eriksson A. (1978): Structural Behaviour of veritcal jonts in Large Panel Buildings.

Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Structural Engineering, Chalmers University of
Technology, Publication no. 01:2, Tröllerby, Sweden, 2001.

Karshenas A.(2003): Interaction between topping of high performance repair concrete

and normal strength concrete. Master Thesis 03:02, Department of Structural
Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2003.

Nielsen M.P. (1999): Limit analysis and concrete plasticity, New direction in Civil
Engineering, CRC Press, 1999.

Park P. and Paulay T.(1975): Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley & Sons,
INC, New York, United States

Samuelsson A. and Wiberg N-E. (1993): Byggnadsmekanik Hållfasthetslära (Strength

of Materials). Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden. 124-129 pp.

Tassios T.P., Vintzelou E.N.: Concreto-to-concrete friction. Submitted for

publications in the Journal of teh Structural Division, ASCE.

Vintzelou E.N., Tassios T.P.: Mechanisms of load transfer along interfaces in

reinforced concrete: prediction of shear force vs. shear displacement curves. Corso
di Perfezionamento per le Coztruzioni in Cemento Armato F.lli Pesenti.
Politecnico di Milano. Studi e richerche, vol. 7, 1987.

Wallraven J.C. and Stroband J.: The behaviour of cracks in plain and reinforced
concrete subjected to shear. IABSE Colloquium: Advanced Mechanics of
Reinforced Concrete, Delft, 1981.

7.2 Lecture notes

Aguado A.: Reinforced Concrete, course literature, UPC, Barcelona, Spain,2001.

Engström B. (2002): Structural Concrete, Lecture notes and Sxtracts, Department of

Structural Engineering, Division of Concrete Structures, CTH, Göteborg, Sweden,
2002

86 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

7.3 Handbooks and codes
ACI (2001): Building code requirements for structural concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills Mich. 2001.

Boverket (1994): Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner BBK 94, Band 1,

Konstruktion (Boverket´s handbook on Concrete Structures BBK 94, Vol. 1
Design. In Swedish), Boverket, Byggavdelningen, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Boverket (1994): Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner BBK 94, Band 2,

Material, Utförande, Kontroll (Boverket´s handbook on Concrete Structures BBK
94, Vol. 2 Material, Execution and Control. In Swedish), Boverket,
Byggavdelningen, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Boverket (1994): Boverkets handbok om stålkonstruktioner BSK 94 (Boverket´s

handbook on Steel Structures BSK 94. In Swedish), Boverket, Byggavdelningen,
Karlskrona, Sweden, 81 pp.

BTS (1991): Betongprovning med svensk standard, BST Handbok 12, utgåva 6, BST –
Byggstandarderingen- och SIS- Standarderingkommissionen i Sverige- (Concrete
testing with swedish standards, BST Handbook 12, Publication 6, BST and SIS, in
Swedish), BST, Linköping, Sweden, 85 pp.

Comitée Euro-International du Béton (1991): CEB-FIP Model code, Lausanne,

Switwerland, (1990).

Eurocode 2 (1990): Design of concrete structures. Comitée Européen de

Normalisation, European Standard, 1990.

Eurocode 3 (1990): Design of steel structures. Comitée Européen de Normalisation,

European Standard, 1990.

Fédération Internationale du Béton (2000): Guidance for good bridge design, Bulletin
9. Fib. Lausanne, Switzerland.125-169 pp.

Fédération Internationale du Béton (2003), Task Group 6.2: Connections: Structural

connections for precast concrete buildings, Chapter 8: Transfer of shear force,
Draft report 2003-06-20.

Ministerio de Fomento (2000): Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural (Structural

Concrete Design Handbook. In Spanish). Ministerio de Fomento, Madrid, Spain.

Prestressed Concrete Institute (1985): PCI handbook: precast and prestressed

concrete, PCI, Chicago, Illinois, 6-18 to 6-19 pp.

Svensk Byggtjänst(1980): Betong Handbok, Konstruktion (Design Handbook for

concrete. In Swedish). Svensk Byggtjänst, Stockholm, Sweden. 642, 523-526 pp.

7.4 Homepages
www.structurae.de

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 87

Appendix 1: Projects
A1.1 List of projects
Table A.1.1 presents the list of projects analyzed in this Mater’s Thesis. All of them
involved the implementation of at least one friction system in a temporary structure.
The respective consultant and/or engineer contacted for each case is also listed.

Table A1.1 Relation of projects, consultants and contractors

Project Year Design Execution Type

Ingvar Olofsson Grip

Angered Bridge 1976
(Skanska Teknik)

Ingvar Olofsson ----

Allsund Bridge 1980
(Skanska Teknik)

P. O. Johansson Grip
Mjøs Brua 1984
(ELU konsult)

Per Kettil Anchor

Lundby Tunnel 1996
(Skanska Teknik)

Hasse Gustås Grip

(Skanska Teknik)
Hølen Bridge 1996
Per Kettil
(Skanska Teknik)

Hasse Gustås Grip

(Skanska Teknik)
Gröndal Bridge 1997
Per Kettil
(Skanska Teknik)

Jan Olofsson Anders O Johansson Grip

Trollhättan (Skanska Teknik) (Skanska Sverige AB)
2001
Bridge Per Kettil
(Skanska Teknik)
P. O. Johansson
P. O. Johansson (ELU Konsult)
Göta Tunnel 2003
(ELU konsult) Gunnar Holamberg
Grip
(Skanska Teknik)

Off-shore Hasse Gustås Anchor

platforms (Skanska Teknik)

P. O. Johansson Grip
Harbour (ELU konsult)
Structures Christer Thunströim
(SCC now Rambøll)

88 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

A1.2 Gröndal Bridge
The Gröndal Bridge was built in Stockholm (1997). The main spans were built with
the balanced cantilever method, using a friction system for the platform supporting the
hammerhead formwork, see Figure A.1.1. The same type of system was used in the
approaching spans despite the construction method was not the same, see Figure
A.1.2.

Figure A.1.1Friction system at the main piers of the Gröndal Bridge

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 89

Figure A.1.2 Friction system at the approaching spans of the Gröndal Bridge

90 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

A1.3 Hølen Bridge
The Hølen Bridge was built in 1996 with the balanced cantilevering method for the
main spans. A friction system on top of the pier provided the platform to place the
hammerhead formwork. See Figure A1.3

Figure A.1.3 Friction system at the main piers of the Hølen Bridge

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 91

A1.4 Trollhättan Lifting Bridge
The friction system in the Trollhättan lifting bridge was built to hold one of the towers
while it was erected some 20 meters away from its final position. The tower could not
be erected in its final position due to external constraints. The friction system was
placed at the bottom of the tower highlighted in Figure A.1.4. It consisted of two
concrete girders compressed against the tower walls by 16 steel bars, see Figure
A.1.5. It was friction concrete to concrete. Some of the steel bars had to adopt an
inner position, so they were actually crossing potentially sliding surfaces.

Tower where
the friction
system was used

Figure A.1.4 Trollhättan Bridge sketch

92 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Figure A.1.5 Friction system used at the Trollhättan lifting bridge

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 93

A1.5 Göta Tunnel
The plan of all the columns and friction systems implemented in Roselundshuset can
be found in Figure A.1.6. The friction system itself is represented in Figure A.1.7.

Figure A.1.6 Plan of the situation of the columns and friction systems in
Roselundshuset.

94 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Figure A.1.7 Friction system used at Roselundshuset

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 95

A1.6 MjøsBrua
Mjøs Brua was built in Norway in 1984, as a launched bridge. The friction system in
Figure A.1.9 was required on top of every pier to carry the weight of the launched
formwork plus the weight of the cast concrete deck (Figure A.1.8). Observe that this
is an example of post-tensioned systems with artificial roughness.

Figure A.1.9 Friction system receiving the launching truss at MjøsBrua.

96 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Figure A.1.9 Friction system used at MjøsBrua.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 97

Appendix 2: Crushing curves

CRUSHING FAILURE CURVES FOR DIFFERENT CONCRETES

(for the particular case of K30, three crushing approaches have been compared)

25

20
 (MPa)

15
Crushing curve K30

10 Crushing curve K30

(according to BBK 94)

Crushing curve K30

5 (according to EHE)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50

 (MPa)
K30 K35 K40 K45 K50

K55 K60 EHE BBK 94

98 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Appendix 3: Values for Friction Parameters: c,  k
and 

The following Appendix contains the following information:

 Table A3.1: Summary of values for Relevant Parameters c,  and k according to

different Codes.

 Figure A3.1: Graphic summary of Friction Relevant Parameters.

 Table A3.2: Classification of interfaces according to different Codes

NOTE:

Construction codes do not present characteristic values of the parameters c,  and k,

but design values. So, their value should not be affected for any safety factor.

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 99

Table A2.1(I) Summary of the values for relevant parameters according to different codes.

DESIGN APPROACH
CHAPTER/
REFERENCE
SECTION Values for
Possibility1 Model Notes
parameters
BBK 94 Smooth C=0 =0.7

3.11 Try both pairs and check

Kraftoverforing Design: C=0 =1.2 what gives a lover value of
Rough  Rd ,i
genom fogar C=0.04fcd =0.8
Rd,i  c  cd        0.3cos  f yd (I)
C=0 =1.2 Try both pairs, and check
Water washed Check: C=0.04fcd =0.8 that  Rd , i  0 . 4 MPa

 Rd ,i  kf cd k  0 .4 (II)
Try both pairs and check
 cd    f cd   0 .8 the minimum value.
C=0 =2.0
Indented
C=k1.5fctd* =0.8 Akeys
Where k
Atotal

Concrete to This range of values is

= 0.3 -0.9
concrete considering the possibility
6.8.3 of favourable and
Upplagskonsol Concrete to steel VRd ,i    N cd = 0.2 -0.6 unfavourable effect of
friction(minimum values
Concrete to and maximum values
= 0.1 -0.5 respectively)
rubber
1
NOTE: The criteria for classification of different interfaces (smooth, rough, indented, etc) is summarized in Table A3.2

100 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Table A2.1(II) Summary of the values for relevant parameters according to different codes.

Eurocode 2 6.2.5 Shear Very smooth Design: C=0.025fctd =0.5

at the interface
Smooth
 Rd,i  c  cd     sin  cos   f yd C=0.35 fctd =0.6  f ck 
between   0,61 
concretes cast Check: 
Rough C=0.45 fctd =0.7  250 
at different
times
 Rd ,i  kf cd k  0 ,5
(fck in Mpa)
Indented C=0.5 fctd =0.9
 cd    f cd   0 .9

47. ULS by Design: Under fatigue or dynamic

=0.6
shear at the Smooth  Rd,i  c  cd     sin  cos   f yd
C=0.2fctd loading, the values of c
EHE interface must be reduced in a 50%
between Check:
Spanish different
Code concretes Rough
 Rd ,i  kf cd k  0 , 25 C=0.4fctd =0.9

 cd    f cd   0 .9
Monolithical C =0 according to ACI
ACI Code Design =1.4
concrete provisions although if it is
Concrete cast on proved that cohesion exists,
11.7 Shear- -hardened rough VRd ,i  N cd  Asteed  sin   cos   f yd =1.0 c can take a value different
friction surface Concrete from 0
Concrete cast on
Check: values for sand-
hardened smooth =0.6
surface Concrete lightweight concrete should
Concrete- steel VRd ,i  k  f cd Aconcrete k  0,2 be multiplied by 0.85
anchored by
studs or bars There is no specific
N cd    f cd Aconcrete   0 ,9 approach for indented
=0.7
Precast concrete interfaces
to precast
VRd ,i  800 Aconcrete (lb)
concrete

NOTE: The criteria for classification of different interfaces (smooth, rough, indented, etc) is summarized in Table A3.2

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 101

Table A2.1(II) Summary of the values for relevant parameters according to different codes.

Table A2.1(III) Summary of the values for relevant parameters according to different codes.
Smooth
Model Code (recommended Crushing is not regarded in
approach for precast  Rd , i  0 . 4  cd =0.4 APPROACH 1 of Model
APPROACH 1 concrete to precast Code
(1990) concrete)
3.9.2. Design
 Rd,i  0.4 fcd2 3 cd   sin  cos  f yd 1 3
shear stresses
Rough =0.4
(Small regions)

APPROACH 2 Smooth Design: C=0.2fctd =0.6

 Rd,i  c  cd     sin  cos   f yd
6.10 ULS of
shear joints Check:
(greater regions)  Rd ,i  kf cd k  0 , 25
Rough C=0.4fctd =0.9

 cd    f cd   0 .9

APPROACH 3 Design
Smooth c  N cd  As  sin   cos  f yd C=0 =0.5
VRd,i 
3.14.3.3  rd  rd is 1.0 when it is
Ultimate Rough C=0 =0.9
resistance of
Check allowed a good inspection
for filling with concrete, if
shear joints VRd ,i  k  f cd Ac k  0 .3 not  rd  1.0
Indented N cd    f cd Aconcrete   0 ,9 C=0.1fcd Akey =0.9

NOTE: The criteria for classification of different interfaces (smooth, rough, indented, etc) are summarized in Table A3.2

102 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Figure A3.1 Graphic Summary of the values of Relevant Parameters

FRICTION PARAMETERS: and c

1,2
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION ()

 EUROCODE 2

0,8
EHE

0,6
BBK 94

0,4
Model Code. Approach 2

0,2
ACI

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5

0,70 CLASS
CLASS CLASS CLASS CLASS
1 2 3 4
0,60
c Rough
and
BBK 94
COHESION (MPa)

0,50 Smooth Indented

water-
blasted
0,40
Very
EUROCODE 2 Smooth Rough Indented
Smooth
0,30
EHE Smooth Rough
0,20 ACI Smooth Rough
MODEL CODE.
Smooth Rough Indented
0,10 Approach 2

0,00
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 NOTE: It has been assumed concrete K40 to
CLASS derive the values for cohesion

CRUSHING PARAMETERS: kand 

 Rd ,i  kf cd  cc    f cd
0,45 0 ,9 2
CONSTANT OF CRUSHING (b)

0,4 0 ,9

k
CONSTANT OF CRUSHING (k)

0,35 0 ,8 8

0,3 0 ,8 6 
0,25 0 ,8 4

0,2
0 ,8 2

0,15
0 ,8
0,1
0 ,78
0,05
0 ,76
0
0 ,74
ACI
1 MODElCODE
2 EHE
3 BBK
4 94 E2
5 ACI 1 MODEL CODE
2 EHE3 BBK4 94 E2
5

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 103

Table A3.2: Classification of interfaces according to different Codes

CLASSIFICATION OF INTERFACES
REFER
ENCE
CLASS DESCRIPTION

Smooth s  1,5mm according to SS 81 20 05

Rough s  1,5mm according to SS 81 20 05

BBK 94
The surface has been roughened by high-pressure water
Water washed
that removes the aggregate and leaves the gravels.

Indented The surface has indentations.

A surface cast against steel, plastic or specially prepared

Very smooth
wooden moulds

A slip formed or extruded surface left without further

Smooth
treatment after vibration
EC 2
A surface with at least 3mm roughness at about 40 mm
Rough spacing, achieved by raking, exposing of aggregate or other
methods giving an equivalent behaviour

Indented The surface has got shear keys

A surface:
- obtained by extrusion
Smooth - which has been deliberately textured by lightly brushing
the concrete when wet smoothing fresh concrete
without affecting gravels-mortar adherence
A surface:
- Casting concrete against any checked pattern or
expanded metal.
EHE - Raking a surface in perpendicular direction to the shear
load
- which has been thoroughly compacted, but no attempt
has been made to smooth, tamp or texture the surface
Rough in any way, having a rough surface with coarse
aggregate protruding, but firmly fixed in the matrix
- obtained by vibrating interiorly the concrete avoiding the
formation of the ‘lechada’
- Water-washing or sand-blasting
- Which has indentations in the perpendicular direction to
the shear load.

104 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280

Monolithical
concrete

Concrete- Interface roughened to a full amplitude of approximately ¼

hardened rough in.
surface
Concrete
ACI
Concrete- Interface with a full amplitude under ¼ in
hardened
smooth surface
Concrete

Concrete- steel
anchored by
studs or bars

I. Smooth surfaces, as obtained by casting against

steel or timber shutter
II. a surface which lies between trowelled or floated to
a degree, which is effectively as smooth as (I)
III. a surface that has been trowelled or tamped in such
Smooth a way that small ridges, indentations or undulations
(Category 1) have been left
IV. a surface achieved by slip forming of vibro-beam
screeding
V. a surface achieved by extrusion
VI. a surface, which has been deliberately textured by
lightly brushing the concrete when wet
Model
Code VII. as for (VI), but with more pronounced texturing, as
obtained by brushing, by a transverse screeder, by
combining with a steel rake or with an expanded
metal
VIII. a surface which has been thoroughly compacted,
Rough but no attempt has been made to smooth, tamp or
texture the surface in any way, having a rough
(Category 2) surface with coarse aggregate protruding, but firmly
fixed in the matrix
IX. where the concrete has been sprayed when wet, to
expose the coarse aggregate without disturbing it
X. a surface which has been provided with mechanical
shear keys

CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280 105

APPENDIX 4: Design of post-tensioned joints with artificial roughness
ANALYTICAL MODEL
FAILURES NOTES
Design Shear Stress Rd,i
MECHANISM
Failure
Possibilities Analysis Design
mode

 Analysis: Most of the variables,

 sin  cos h parameters and equations are explained
 Rd,i   ( cd    Es )  sin  cos in Model 9. h can be found in the
cd
MODEL 10  SLIDING ALONG SURFACE sin   cos lbar  Rd,i 
sin   cos
 cd
Figure.
Rd,i  Design: values for  can be found
POST- in Appendix 3.
TENSIONED
SYSTEMS
h
Overall
crushing  Rd ,i  b2  fcd
2
 sin 2    cd 2 Rd,i  k fcdand cd   fcd
WITH
ARTIFICIAL FAILURE
ROUGHNESS OF THE  Design: Local crushing cannot be
CONCRETE checked by the approach of the codes.
(Steel to : Crushing Local crushing (at Depending on the geometry
concrete) the ‘indentations’) Check the struts. Figure A4.1

N V VRd,i
Rd,i
LOCAL CRUSHING
 R R
 d R  b  f cd  d  D
d
LOCAL
d depending on the geometry. To the
CRUSHING
criteria of the designer
D Width perpendicular to the paper
b Reduction factor. 0.5<b <1

106 CHALMERS/ETSCCPB, Tesina 706-TES-CA-1280