SP 42-27

Horizontal Construction Joints

In Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete

By
T. Paulay, R. Park, and M. H. Phillips

Synopsis: The principal mechanisms of shear resistance along horiz-

ontal construction joints crossed by reinforcement in cast in place
concrete construction, such as shear walls, are shown to be bond,
dowel action of the reinforcement and interface shear along rough
surfaces. Thirty-six specimens were tested to study the contrib-
ution of dowel action, surface preparation and reinforcing content
towards the shear strength of construction joints subjected to
monotonic and cyclic loading. The failure plane of specimens with
rough bonded surfaces containing more than code minimum reinforcement
did not coincide with the plane of the construction joints. The
relevant requirements of ACI 318-71 satisfactorily and conservatively
predicted the strength of the specimens with rough bonded construction
joints. Design recommendations are made.

Keywords: bonding; building codes; construction joints; cyclic

loads; dowels; earthquake resistant structures; reinforced concrete;
reinforcing steels; shear strength; shear walls; structural design.

599
600 shear in reinforced concrete

Thomas Paulay studied civil engineering in Hungary and in New Zealand

where he is now a Reader in the University of Canterbury. In the past
twelve years he published numerous papers on his research in the shear
strength of concrete and seismic aspects of shear walls. During the
previous eight years he was engaged mainly in the design of multistorey
buildings.

Robert Park ~s professor of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbur~

New Zealand. He gained his BE and ME degrees at the University of
Canterbury and his Ph.D degree at the University of Bristol, England.
Professor Park has held academic appointments at both of these
universities. He is the author of many papers on aspects of reinforced
and prestressed concrete floors and frames.

Murray H. Phillips was awarded the degree of ME at the University of

Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, in 1972, where he studied
experimentally the behaviour of horizontal construction joints. At
present he is a design engineer with Morrison, Cooper and Partners,
Consulting Engineers and Registered Architects, in Wellington, New
Zealand.

INTRODUCTION

Recent earthquakes have shown that construction joints, particu-

larly in shear walls, can form the weakest link in the load resisting
mechanism of the structure. Horizontal construction joints in both
low and medium rise buildings became clearly visible during the earth-
quake in Anchorage, Alaska, in 1964 (1) and during the San Fernando
earthquake in 1972 (2). Some of the damage resulting from these was
almost beyond repair (3),

This paper reports a study of aspects of behaviour and strength of

construction joints similar to those used in cast in place concrete
shear wall structures. Only the most common types of joint preparat-
ions and steel arrangement, easily produced on the construction site,
were considered. A shear load acting along the plane of the joint,
simulating the effect of seismic accelerations, was used in the experi-
ments. The major aim of the study was to determine whether a horizon-
tal construction joint could be made strong enough, without undue
difficulty, to resist the shearing forces associated with the ultimate
capacity of adjacent wall elements.

THE COMPONENTS OF SHEAR MECHANISM

Shear transfer across concrete faces has been the subject of

several studies and the components of this mechanism are by now well
identified. Many researchers have made valuable contributions. A
state of the art review by Brook (4) was published in 1969. A major
advance in the understanding of the load transfer mechanism and the
 horizontal construction joints 601

simplification of design procedure was the "shear friction" concept of

Mast (5), and Mattock (6) and others (7,8,9).

In this paper the term "interface shear transfer" is used to

denote the tangential shear force transmitted along a plane, such as a
construction joint. The means of transmitting such shear by bond,
dowel action and interface friction is discussed in the following
sections.

Bond

Views and practices varied widely with respect to the degree of

bond which exists or could be achieved between the hardened concrete
surface and the fresh concrete placed upon it. As early as 1930 Davey
studied this aspect (10). From the subsequent work by Bate (11),
Waters (12) and the Unites States Army Waterways Experiment Station (13)
the following conclusions emerge:

1. Wetting the face of the joint before placing concrete

against it lowers the bond strength.

2. Cement grout or a mortar layer placed upon the joint has

no significant effect upon bond.

3. The age of the concrete has little influence.

4. Rough surfaces produce the greatest bond.

5. The quality of bond is more important when tensile stresses

are to be transferred across the joint.

These observations imply that bond could have a relatively small

effect on the interface shear transfer as long as a rough surface is
provided. The effect of an extreme case, the complete absence of bond,
will be illustrated later.

Dowel Action

Intuitively early designers often relied upon the dowel action of

the reinforcement passing through a joint for shear transfer in the
same way as they did on rivets and bolts in steel construction.
Mattock (6) and Hanson (B) have examined experimentally the mechanism
of dowel action in a situation similar to that which occurs at constr-
uction joints. The results obtained from tests on dowel action depend
greatly upon the particular test setup. Usually an attempt is made to
separate the dowel action from the other mechanisms of interface shear
transfer. As this separation is seldom completely successful it is
difficult to make a direct comparison of results obtained from differ-
ent research projects. However, it is evident that the capacity of
dowel action increases with the bar diameter and the concrete strength.
Significant shearing forces can only be generated if considerable
sliding displacements occur along the joint. This slip may well be in
excess of what could be considered acceptable within the limits of
structural usefulness. Thus an assessment of the available strength
602 shear in reinforced concrete

from dowel action should include consideration of the associated move-

ment as indicated by a load-displacement or shear-slip curve for the
particular situation of interface shear transfer.

Dowel strength may be derived from three mechanisms: the flexure

of the reinforcing bars, the shear across the bars and the kinking of
the reinforcement. These shear mechanisms are illustrated in Fig. 1.
In the diagram the associated shear force is also expressed in terms
of the bar strength. If flexure of bar predominates the shear force
transferred can be expected to increase with the cube of the bar diam-
eter. For shear across the bar and kinking the shear force transferred
would be proportional to the square of the bar diameter. When the
dowels are large the strength of the surrounding concrete in bearing,
rather than the yield strength of the reinforcement, will limit the
shear capacity of a dowel.

Shear by Interface Friction

The interface shear capacity along a crack will be greater when

the crack width is controlled. This requires compression to be applied
perpendicular to the plane of the crack. It prevents the two rough
surfaces from separating and enables shear to be transferred by
friction.

No significant difference in the capacity of joints was found by

Hanson (B) when the maximumamplitudeof surface roughness at the joint
varied between 1/16 and 3/B in. (3.2 and 9.5 mm). Loeber (14) found
that the load-displacement relationship for shear transfer by aggregate
interlock across preformed cracks was little affected when 3/8 or 3/4
in (9.5 to 19 mm) round or crushed coarse aggregates were used. The
extreme limit of roughness would be represented by preformed shear
keys. Hanson (B) found that such shear keys were no more effective
than rough surfaces with bond.

DESIGN STRENGTH CAPACITY

The design of a construction joint should be based on the premise

that the capacity of the joint should at least be equal to the shear
(diagonal tension) capacity of the adjoining parts. To ensure ductile
behaviour this diagonal tension capacity should in turn be in excess
of the flexural capacity.

A structural member, such as a cantilever shear wall, will contain

web reinforcement to control diagonal tension. The shear capacity at
a particular section is

V = (v +pf )bd=vbd (1)

u c vy w uw

where p = A /sb , in the traditional terms of the contribution of

the conc~ete Xnd ~tirrups. According to ACI 31B-71 (15) the maximum
value of p f which can be assumed in design calculations is Blf'
psi ( 2 .1 2Vf'vy
k f/cm 2 ) Hence t h e m~x1.m~m
' d esl.gn
· s h ear capacJ.ty
· c
c g of the sectl.on l.s
 horizontal construction joints 603

v
u
= (v
c
+ 8/f') b d
c w
(2)

If a horizontal construction joint in a wall is crossed by

vertical steel of area A f' the shear force which can be carried by
shear-friction across a p~tential crack at the joint is given by

V =jlA f (3)
uf vf y

where J1 is the coefficient of friction.

Most walls will carry an axial compression, N , originating from

gravity loads. This compressive load across the joint adds to the
normal force at the joint and the shear force which can be carried
across a potential crack becomes

Vu f = J1 (N + Av ff y ) (4)

In seismic areas, where shear along the construction joint may

become critical, the beneficial effect of axial compression should not
be overestimated and a reduction of at least 20% in N should be con-
sidered to allow for upward vertical accelerations.

Hence the design requirement that cf> Vuf > Vu can be expressed
using Eq. (4) and (1) as

cf>J1(0.8N+A ff) > v b d (5)

v y u w
This requires
A v
-~ > 0.8N
pvf- b Jl,
ww
~
u
y
r-
d
w
f b Jl,
y w w
(6)

ACI 318-71 stipulates a value of J1 = 1.4 for concrete cast mono-

lithically and J1 = l. 0 for concrete placed against hardened concrete.
For the latter case a rough surface with a full amplitude of approxi-
mately ~ in (6mm) is required. On this basis, for construction joints
formed in in-situ concrete,a coefficient of friction of approximately
1.0 would appear to be appropriate.

The required steel content from Eq. (6), by putting cp 0.85,

\1 1.0 and d/J/,w 0.8, becomes

0.94
pvf > (v u - 0.85: ) f
(7)
g y

with the maximum required steel content limited by Eq. (2). To

satisfy the ACI 318-71 requirements for minimum vertical steel content
P f must be at least 0.0025. Fig. 2 shows the vertical steel require-
m~nt across a construction joint for a yield strength of f = 40,000
psi (2812 kgf/cm2) and various values of N/A • Y
g
604 shear in reinforced concrete

Each reinforcing bar across the joint exerts a clamping force in

its immediate vicinity because it is anchored in the concrete immedi-
ately below and above the construction joint. It is therefore necess-
ary to distribute this steel uniformly over the whole wall section.
It is suggested that when pvf > 0,5% the spacing of the bars should
not exceed the wall thickness or 12 in (300 mm) whichever is the
smaller. Flexural reinforcement, placed near the edges of shear wall
sections, should not be considered as being able to contribute towards
the clamping force across the joint.

THE TEST PROGRAM

Thirty push-off type specimens of identical size were tested to

determine the shear capacity of construction joints. The surface
preparations were varied and three different amounts of reinforcement
across the joints were used, A few specimens were subjected to alter-
nating static cycling loading of high intensity, Subsequently six
more tests were made on identical specimens without construction
joints. In these six specimens the concrete was placed in a single
operation.

The Specimens

Details of the test specimens are shown in Fig, 3. The six bars
passing through the joint gave a yield force per unit area of constr-
uction joint of 155, 295 and 565 psi (10.9, 20,8 and 39,8 kgf/cm 2 )
respectively, Six specimens were cast simultaneously in the position
shown in Fig, 3, the lift being 2'-0", The age of the bottom concrete
varied between 9 to 25 days when the top part was placed, Either the
reinforcing content or the surface preparation was varied, Six
samples were cast at a time, Each specimen was inverted and placed in
a test rig as shown in Fig.4,

The concrete, with a certified strength of 2500 psi (172 kgf/cm 2 )

at 28 days, was supplied by a commercial plant, It contained good
quality rounded 3/4 in (20 mm) maximum size river gravel and was of
the type commonly used in the Canterbury district of New Zealand, The
actual cylinder strength varied between 2920 and 4350 psi (205 and
305 kgf/cm2) for an age of 24 to 105 days when the tests were carried
out. The significant data are presented in Table 1.

Steel strains were measured over a gauge length of 4 in (102 mm),

which straddled the plane of the construction joint. Details of
instrumentation and test procedure are reported elsewhere (16) • The
yield strength of the reinforcing bars varied between 42,700 and
50,000 psi (3,000 to 3,500 kgf/cm 2 ), Strain hardening commenced at
about 10 times the yield strain.

Surface Preparations

The following types of surface at the construction joint were

prepared:
 horizontal construction joints 605

l, Smooth surface. One hour after screeding the surface was

finished with a steel trowel.

2, Rough surface, One hour after screeding the surface was

sprayed with a chemical retarder. The following day the
surface over the construction joint area was washed and
scrubbed with a firm brush to expose the coarse aggregate
particles.

3. Rough scraped. The screeded surface was scraped with a

pointed trowel in a criss-cross fashion providing approxi-
mately 3/4 in (20 mm) deep grooves.

4. Rough washed. Approximately four hours after screeding the

surface was washed and the mortar was removed from between
the coarse aggregate particles with the aid of a brush, when
necessary.

5. Rough scabbled. Four days after the surface was screeded

it was chipped, using a chisel and hammer, to provide a
rough surface.

6. Keyed. Two 4 in (102 mm) long by 1~ in (38 mm) deep wooden

blocks were used to form two symmetrically placed recesses
over the 6 in (152 mm) width of the 16 in (406 mm) long
joint surface.

Generally all surfaces were swept clean with a soft brush and the
top section was cast on the dry concrete sm:face of the lower block.
Mortar or grout were not used in any of the specimens. Bond was
destroyed on some rough (retarded) surfaces by spraying on three coats
of varnish, and on some smooth (trowelled) surfaces by applying melted
wax with a paint brush to eliminate shear transfer as much as possible.
These specimens were used to determine the load-slip relationship for
dowel action.

DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

Dowel Action

In order to assess the behaviour of a construction joint with a

particular surface an attempt was made to determine independently the
contribution of dowel action. Smooth waxed surfaces were used for
this purpose. The load displacement relations up to a slip of 0.1 in
(2.5 mm) are shown in Fig. 5. For convenience the load is expressed
in terms of the shear stress over the gross area and also as a dowel
force per bar, The two tests for each curve gave a satisfactory
correlation as may be seen from the individual results.

To enable a comparison between the behaviour of different size

bars to be made the dowel strengths of these were reduced so as to
correspond to a yield force of 565 psi (39.8 kgf/cm2) per unit concrete
area of joint. This would imply the use of 22 - ~ in (6,35 mm) or
606 shear in reinforced concrete

11.5 - No.3 (9.53 mm) bars as equivalents of 6 - No.4 (12.7 mm) bars
at the same yield strength, The curves shown in Fig. 6 lie in a
reasonably narrow band suggesting that the dowel force is proportional
to the total steel area. This infers that shear and kinking, as
shown in Fig. 1, are the principal mechanisms of dowel action. The
superior performance of the smaller bars probably results from the
smaller development lengths required on either side of the plane of the
joint, and the more even distribution of the bearing forces against
the concrete as the number of bars increases.

Strain measurements showed that all bars yielded at a joint slip

of approximately 0,1 in (2.5 mm). When this slip was further
increased to 0.5 in (12.7 mm) the dowel shear has also increased by
88%, 43% and 9% when p f = 0.31%, 0.69% and 1.23% steel content was
used. The kinking eff~ct in the smallest bars, accounting for the
large postelastic strength gain, was most evident.

The large displacements associated with significant dowel

strength are likely to contribute to other forms of distress in a
shear wall structure, and hence, dowel action cannot be considered as
a viable shear component along construction joints.

The effects of surface roughness

A rough surface along a construction joint greatly increased its

capacity. Fig. 7 shows the load-slip curves for joints with differ-
ent surfaces, a constant steel content of 0.69% and a concrete
strength of approximately 4,000 psi (281 kgf/cm2), The lowest curve,
reproduced from Fig. 5, shows the contribution of 6 - No.3 (9,53 mm)
bars by dowel action. This quantity was subtracted from the measured
load-slip relationship of each specimen, so that all other curves show
good approximations for the shear transfer by concrete to concrete
alone. A subsequent specimen with no joint has also been included,
and it should be noted that the corresponding concrete strength is 84%
of that if the other specimens. Even with the most optimistic allow-
ance for this difference in concrete strength it may be said that the
specimen without a joint was not superior to the other samples with
rough surfaced construction joint.

Three significant levels of the average shear stress, computed

from Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) using a friction coefficient of ~ = 1.4 and
~ = 1.0, are also shown. They indicate that the current ACI Build-
ing Code (15) requirements are conservative.

It may be said that all joints with rough surfaces and bond (the
upper four curves of Fig. 7) showed satisfactory performance. It is
also to be noted that for these four cases the slip was about 0.005 in
(0.13 mm) when the full design strength was developed. When the steel
content was approximately doubled to 1.23% the slip at design shear
strength level, vf = 565 psi (39.7 kgf/cm2) was also doubled to 0.01
in (0.25 mm).

The third curve in Fig. 7 from the bottom shows the effect of the
loss of bond. Its significance is not in the 15% loss of ultimate
 horizontal construction joints 607

capacity but rather in the fact that in the useful range of loading
the slip was approximately doubled.

The trowelled surface, second curve from the bottom, was still
rough enough to transmit some 300 psi (21 kgf/cm2) shear stress but
its inferior performance is clearly evident.

The approximate contribution of dowel action at design strength

or slip level is only 16%.

The maximum load values attained in these tests coincided with the
onset of yielding of the reinforcement across the construction joint.

Absence of Bond

In Fig. 7 it was shown that increased slip occurs when the bond is
destroyed along a rough surfaced joint. This is even more apparent
with trowel finished surfaces. As the rough textured joints did not
generally fail along the plane of the construction joint the effect
of the loss of bond could not be evaluated in detail. However, Table 1
shows that for the same surface preparation (Series R) an ultimate
strength loss of between 21% and 59% occurred in terms of the apparent
coefficient of friction. The significance of proper bond lies in the
increased stiffness of a construction joint within the intended range
of the design load level.

The Failure Plane and Concrete Strength

From previous work on joints it is evident that failure can be

expected to occur along the plane of the construction joint unless a
premature diagonal tension failure occurs in the adjoining parts. In
this series of tests it was observed that, with the exception of the
trowelled and lightly reinforced rough joints, failure did not occur
along the plane of the joint.

The failure surface of a specimen, with a rough bonded joint,

is shown in Fig. B.a. It may be seen that the sliding surface is
situated about 1 in (2.5 mm) below the original horizontal plane of
the joint. The phenomenon was also observed when the concrete below
the joint had a greater strength than the concrete above. Fig. 8.b
shows that with a trowelled bonded surface the failure occurred at the
plane of the construction joint.

This observation suggests that the concrete in the topmost layer

of a "pour" must be of inferior quality. Indeed the phenomenon is
known from other studies, particularly from those on bond. The accumu-
lation of particles with low specific gravity, water gain and consequ-
ent local increase in water/cement ratio, and in particular the entrap-
ment of air under the coarse aggregate, account for the inferior
quality of this concrete layer. The bond between the coarse aggregate
particles and the mortar matrix, a potentially weak link in the
aggregate interlock mechanism, may be further weakened by sedimentation
in the fresh concrete. These effects are likely to be more severe in
full size structures where much larger lifts in the placing of concrete
608 shear in reinforced concrete

occur.

Fig. 8,c shows that in a keyed joint too the failure plane forms
in the lower concrete (the specimens in this figure are in an inverted
position, see Fig. 4), Hence a keyed joint is not likely to differ
substantially from any other construction joint with a bonded rough
surface.

From reports on earthquake damage (3) it is also evident that

failure is more likely to occur in the concrete below the joint, unless
the concrete above is very poorly compacted and contained honeycombed
patches. Under these circumstances the crushing strength of the well
compacted concrete cannot be considered as a suitable measure of the
strength of the construction joint. In controlled specimens with
preformed cracks Mattock (6) observed that with high steel content, the
shear strength of the interface will be controlled by the strength of
the concrete.

Reinforcing Content

These tests confirmed the effectiveness of the reinforcement in

the mechanism of interface shear transfer. This was particularly
evident when the contribution of bond was eliminated (see series
RiOlX in Table 1). Joints crossed by a small amount of reinforcement
benefited relatively more than those containing larger amounts of steel.
The apparent coefficient of friction for rough retarded surfaces with
bond were approximately 3. 4 , 2. 0 and 1. 6 for the three different
and increasing steel contents.

Cyclic Loading

Insufficient tests were carried out to enable convincing conclus-

ions to be drawn from these. The more significant results relating to
strength properties are presented in Table 1 (iiMi series) and further
details are reported by Phillips (16). However, the following features
are worth noting.

1. Specimens in which 75% of the maximum load, previously

obtained from monotonic load tests, was applied 5 times in
each direction showed no signs of distress and very small residual
slips. However, the most heavily reinforced specimens (p f = 1.23%)
were exceptions. When subjected to 700 psi (49.3 kgf,t:m2)v alternating
shear stresses they exhibited loss of stiffness with each cycle and
loss of strength after the 8th cycle of loading. It is to be noted,
however, that the maximum design shear strength for these would be that
obtained from Eq. (2), approximately 500 psi (71 kgf/cm2),

2. After the maximum loads, shown in Table 1, were attained, a

sliding displacement of the order of 0,09 to 0.15 in. (2.3 to
3,8 mm) was imposea in each direction. With the exception of the most
heavily reinforced specimens a shear strength in excess of the design
capacity was maintained. The heavily reinforced specimens maintained
only 90% of this value.
 horizontal construction joints 609

3, Across construction joints with only a trowelled finish no

permanent slip could be observed under cyclic loading when
the shear stress did not exceed 200 psi (14 kgf/cm2), However, when
the bond was broken these joints became virtually useless for subsequ-
ent loading because slips of the order of 0.5 in (13 mm) were required
in each direction to develop shear stresses of 200-300 psi (14 - 21
kgf/cm2) intensity.

4. These preliminary tests indicate that the design strength

capacities, as given previously in Eq. (3), would probably
be maintained during a large number of alternating load cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Adequately reinforced horizontal construction joints with a clean

and rough surface, to which the freshly placed concrete will bond,
can develop an interface shear strength which is equal to or larger
than the corresponding load capacity of the remainder of the shear
wall structure.

2) Using an apparent friction coefficient of unity the provisions of

ACI 318-71, with respect to the reinforcing content of construc-
tion joints, are sufficiently conservative to accomn~date adverse
effects which may arise from vertical seismic accelerations.

3) Horizontal construction joints so designed can be expected to

exhibit very small displacements at design strength levels. In
a well designed structure this load level will never be exceeded,

4) Benefit can be derived from the presence of compression across

construction joints, resulting from gravity. However, in this
case allowance should be made for upward vertical acceleration as
proposed by Eq. (6).

5) For design purposes the contribution of the dowel action of the

reinforcement should be ignored. Significant dowel forces can be
generated at the expense of excessive slips along a joint.

6) I~ss of bond across a rough surface will not only result in

reduced strength capacity but, what is more important, will
greatly increase the alip along a construction joint at a moderate
load level.

7) In a well designed and executed construction joint the plane of

failure can be expected to be located below the level of the
joint in a layer of inferior concrete, The strength capacity, there-
fore, would not be governed by the surface condition along a joint.
The quality of the concrete immediately below the joint of actual
structures is likely to be worse than that obtained in these tests.
For this reason the interpretation of the results obtained from this
study should not be considered as overly conservative.

8) Preliminary tests indicated that the design interface shear

capacity along a horizontal construction joint can be maintained
610 shear in reinforced concrete

during several cycles of alternating loading without the accumulation

of excessive residual slips.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The experimental work was carried out in and supported by the

Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand. The encouragement of the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Berg, V.B. and Stratta, J.L., "Anchorage and the Alaska Earth-
quake of March 27, 1964", American Iron and Steel Institute,
New York, 1964.

2. Jennings, P.C., "Engineering Features of the San Fernando Earth-

quake, February 9, 1971", California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, 1971.

3. Steinbrugge, K.V. and Degenkolb, H.J., "A Note of the Earthquake

Performance of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls", Bulletin
of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, V,2,
No. 2, June 1969, pp. 193-198.

4. Brook, K.M., "Construction Joints in Concrete", Cement and

Concrete Association Technical Report, TRA 414, May 1969.

5. Mast, R.F., "Auxiliary Reinforcement in Concrete Connections",

Proceedings, ASCE, V.94, ST6, June 1968, pp. 1485-1504.

6. Mattock, A.H., Hofbeck, J.F., and Ibrahim, I.O., "Shear Transfer

in Reinforced Concrete", ACI Journal, Proceedings, V.66,
No.2, Feb. 1969, pp. 119-128.

7. Anderson, A.R., "Composite Designs in Precast and Cast-in-Place

Concrete:, Progressive Architecture, V.41, No.9, Sept. 1960,
pp. 172-179.

8. Hanson, N., "Precast-Prestressed Concrete Bridges. 2. Horizontal

Shear Connections", Journal of the PCA Research and Devel-
opment Laboratories, V,2; No.2, 1960, pp. 38-58.

9. Birkeland, P.W., and Birkeland, n.w., "Connection in Precast

Concrete Construction", ACI Journal, Proceedings, V.63,
No.3, March 1966, pp. 345-368.

10. Davey, N., "Construction Joints in Concrete, Bonding New Concrete

to Old", Department of Scientific and Industrial Research,
Building Research Special Report No. 16.

11. Bate, E.II., "Some Experiments with Concrete", Reinforced Concrete

Review, V.4, No.7, Sept. 1957, pp. 421-447.
 horizontal construction joints 611

12. Waters, T., "A Study of the Tensile Strength of Concrete Across
Construction Joints", Magazine of Concrete Research, V.6,
No.l8, Dec. 1954, pp. 151-153.

13. United States Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station, Corps

of Engineers, "Investigation of Methods of Preparing Horiz-
ontal Construction Joints in Concrete. Tests of Joints in
Large Blocks", Report 2, Vicksburg, July 1963, p.20,
Technical Report No.6 - 518.

14. Loeber, P.J., "Shear Transfer by Aggregate Interlock", M.E. Thesis,

University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1970.

15. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced

Concrete (ACI 318-71)", American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1971, p.78.

16. Phillips, M.H., "Horizontal Construction Joints in Cast-in-Situ

Concrete", M.E. Report, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, Feb. 1972.

APPENDIX NOTATION

Ag gross concrete area

Avf steel area required for shear friction mechanism

b width of wall section

w
d effective depth

db diameter of bar

f~ concrete strength

f yield strength of steel

y
~w length of wall

N axial compression force

s spacing of web reinforcement

v v shear stress resisted by concrete, by friction and at

c I vf, u
ultimate
vd dowel shear force

v u' vuf shear force across joint

capacity reduction factor

<I>

pv' pvf reinforcement content

~ friction factor
612 shear in reinforced concrete

TAill,E 1 TEST RESU!,TS

Speclmen Haxlmum Steel Sur race Concrete ~trengtn IIppa rent

Code • Shear Stress Content Preparation pSl Coefficient
attained above below of
psi % joint joint friction +
TI\OlX - 0.31 -
TllOlX - 0.69 Smooth -
TCOlX - 1. 23 Waxed
2950 4090
RAOlX 215 o. 31 Rough 1. 39
RllOlX 475 0,69 1.61
no bond
RCOlX 645 1. 23 1.14
TllOl 347 0.69 Trowel 1.18
ZllOl 605 0.69 Trowel XXX 2.06
RBOl 585 0.69 Retarder 2,00
WBOl 720 0.69 ~lashed 4090 3930 2.45
SllOl 760 0.69 Scabbled 2,59
KllOl 740 0.69 Keyed 2.52
OBOl 660 0.69 No joint 3360 3360 2,25
Tl\02 210 o. 31 1. 35
TB02 403 0.69 Trowel 1. 37
TC02 615 1. 23 3930 3480 1.09
Rl\01 520 0.31 Retarder 3.35
Rl\02 530 0.31 Retarder 3. 4 2
01\01 503 o. 31 No joint J3bU JJbU 3.25
RB02 595 0. 69 Retarder 3930 3480 2.03
RC02 940 1. 23 Retarder 3930 3480 1.66
OCOl 759 1. 23 No joint 3360 3360 1. 35
RAfll 500 0.31 3,22
Rllfll 680 0.69 2.31
RllH2 670 0.69 Retarder 3480 4350 2.28
RCfll 700 1. 23 1. 23
RCH2 700 1. 23 1. 23
01\Hl 417 0.31
Oll~ll 662 0. 69
No
,Joint 3360 3360 ~:~~
OCMl 886 1. 23 1. 57
TI\Ml 325 o. 31 2.10
TBMl 500 0.69 Trowel 1. 70
TCMl 395 1. 23 2920 0.70
4350
TI\02X - ~:~~ Smooth
-
Tll02X
TC02X
-- 1. 23
waxed
-
-

Specimen code = 12345, where

Surface Preparation Reinforcing Specilllen No.
T Trowelled A 6 - ~ in.dia. 1, 2 etc.
R Rough, retarder B = 6 - No.3
z Trowelled, scraped c = 6 - No.4
W Washed
S Scabbled 3 Loading 5 nand
K Keyed 0 - Monotonic X = No bond
0 No joint ~I = Cyclic Rlank = Bonrl
+ Friction coefficient = vuf, max/pvffy

Note: psi x 0.0703 = kgf/cm 2

 horizontal construction joints 613

~ i~ ~
'
~
_l ' Vtt

\...j-J'"'
FLEXURE
v..2M.~~
SHEAR '
KINKING

d· l ·Jn l
V-~
tt·(J
I&= A5 fy cos (1

Fig. 1 - The mechanisms of dowel action.

~
... 1 . 7 5 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , . - - - - - ; , - - - - - - - - - , . . ,
<£
fy =40,000 psil2812kgfjcm2 J
~- --- - - - ---------
Pvf =I Vu-0.85 ..!!....) 0.94
1----'"-.~--- Ag fy

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 psi

Shear stress developed at ultimate, vu

Fig. 2 - Steel requirements across a horizontal construction joint.

6"

Lifting eyes ---.:H--1~

2#3---~-.......
2~ ~-t-----j==~~----11--t 2'-0"
2#5 - - - - - - 1 - 1 !{dla.or
##J or#4

s'-6" ~I
Fig. 3 - Details of test specimens
614 shear in reinforced concrete

rest specimen

Fig. 4 - The test set up.

;;-
e
·;; ~ ·SPECIMEN-

~ ~

250

1500

.
200
""
~
."
c

~
150
c
~
1000 ~ "
ti
100
~
~
500 ~
50

0.01 0.02 0.03 0,04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Slip

Fig,. 5 - Load-slip relationship for dowel action.

 horizontal construction joints 615

22
300 1----~--

2501---1--

-141 ~
12! ~
~

10 ~
Ylttld strtnglh
8
"'5
6 ~

2
o.s t.o (mmJ
0 oL--o-.~ot--o~.~02~-a-ru+---oJ.0~4--~0~.o~s-~~-~~--~r----~~--~~~~
Slip

Fig. 6 - Dowel action for constant steel content.

·..£QQE_· -REINFORCEMENT·
6 SBOI • RBOI #3 bars
• 1<801 oRBOIX t'c: 4000ps1 Pvr ,0.0069
o WBOI x TBOI
+ZBOI I'JQBOI 281kgf/cm 1

scabbfcd EJ*: No Joint (IC :3,360psi)

700 - keyed - - ~: ~ (f'c :235kgfjcm 1 l 50
I

)
• 600 45

'0
,., 40-
'E
35 t--
30 .
~
~
~

25 ~ "'
20 ~
15

to

2.5 (mmJ

o.ot 0.02 0.03 0.04 o.os 0.06 0.07 aoo 0.09 o.tO Un.l
Slip

Fig. 7 - Load-slip curves of concrete shear

transfer for various surface preparations.
616 shear in reinforced concrete

Fig. 8 - Failure
planes along
a

(a) Rough bonded

joint

(b) Trowelled bonded

joint

(c) Keyed joint