See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285773797

Shear strength of joints in precast concrete segmental bridges

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · January 2005

CITATIONS READS
27 2,496

3 authors:

Xiangming Zhou Neil Colin Mickleborough

Brunel University London The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
92 PUBLICATIONS   1,212 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   347 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zongjin Li
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
406 PUBLICATIONS   8,938 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

REMINE - Reuse of Mining Waste into Innovative Geopolymeric-based Structural Panels, Precast, Ready Mixes and Insitu Applications View project

Nonlinear Finite-Element Analysis of Reinforced-Concrete Beams Retrofitted with Externally Bonded Fibre-Reinforced Polymers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiangming Zhou on 02 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 102-S01
Shear Strength of Joints in Precast Concrete
Segmental Bridges
by Xiangming Zhou, Neil Mickleborough, and Zongjin Li
The behavior of precast concrete segmental box girder bridges at
both serviceability and ultimate strength conditions is dependent
on the behavior of the joints between the segments. To accurately
predict the bridge response throughout the complete range of
loading, knowledge of joint behavior is essential. In this study, a
series of full-scale joints, flat and keyed, dry and epoxied, single-
keyed and multiple-keyed, have been tested under different confining
stress levels and epoxy thicknesses. The shear behavior, shear
capacity, and shear transfer mechanisms of these different kinds of
joints have been studied. It was determined that the shear capacity
of joints increased as confining pressure increased, and epoxied
joints had consistently higher shear strength than dry joints; however,
the failure was more brittle than dry joints. The average shear
strength for a key in multiple-keyed dry joints was always found to
be less than those in single-keyed dry joints due to imperfections in
fitting of keys. The shear strength of keys in multiple-keyed epoxied
joints, however, was similar to those in single-keyed joints, indicating
epoxy mitigated the fixing imperfections and permitted the shear
load to be uniformly distributed. The experimental results obtained
in these tests were compared with the AASHTO and other design
criterion. It was seen that these relationships tended to underestimate
the shear strength of single-keyed joints and multiple-keyed
epoxied joints by a value up to 40%, but they always greatly over-
estimated the shear capacity of dry multiple-keyed joints. Hence,
the results indicate that some strength reduction factors should be
introduced to the design relationships when applied to multiple-
keyed dry joints.
Keywords: epoxy; joint; precast concrete; shear strength.
INTRODUCTION
The conception, development, and worldwide acceptance
of segmental construction in the field of prestressed concrete
segmental bridges (PCSBs) represents one of the most inter-
esting and important achievements in civil engineering.1 A
large number of post-tensioned PCSBs of varying lengths
have been constructed, resulting from the demand of an
economical and safe design, fast, versatile and practical
construction, and excellent serviceability.1,2 Segmental
bridges are recognized as a solution to many bridge prob-
lems with superior durability, low life-cycle costs, and
quality control readily achieved.1,2
The overall behavior, including the ultimate strength of
segmental bridges, depends on the behavior of the joints
between segments.2-4 Early forms of these bridges normally
used single keys in the web section, and these could be rein-
forced in the key area. Current practice, however, is to use
multiple keys that are generally unreinforced in the key zone,
distributed over the height of the web and flanges, and
provided an improved interlocking performance.5,6 These
joints represent locations of discontinuity through which
compression and shear forces are transmitted. The stiffness
and shear strength of the joints between the precast segments
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005
TECHNICAL PAPER
can be weaker than those of adjacent monolithic sections
within the segments. The keys in those joints serve three
functions. The first is to align the segments during erection.
The second is to transfer the shear force between segments
during service, and the third is to ensure durability by
protecting the prestress tendons against corrosion where the
tendons pass through the joints.2,5 The joints can be
constructed and erected either using an epoxy layer between
the segments or in a dry condition. In epoxy joints, the thin
layer epoxy usually has a thickness from 1 to 2 mm,1,5 with
the joints being aligned while the epoxy is still plastic.
Though PCSBs with dry joints may suffer durability prob-
lems and neither AASHTO5 nor most segmental design
engineers recommend dry joints for precast segmental
bridges, it seems to be more and more popular due to its
simplicity in construction.
Though precast segmental box girder bridges have been
widely used, there is relatively little information available on
the behavior and design of such bridges, especially related to
the joints between segments. Previous experimental investi-
gations that considered behavior under loading can be cate-
gorized into those concentrating on models of segmental
bridges and those concentrating on the shear behavior of the
joint. Investigations into the behavior of precast segmental
decks with external tendons and dry joints were conducted
by MacGregor, Kreger, and Breen7 and Rabbat and Sowlat.8
More recent researchers who considered the shear behavior
of the joints included Mattock and Hawkins,9 Koseki and
Breen,3 and Buyukozturk, Bakhoum, and Beattie.6 This
work was most likely limited to single-keyed joints and was
different in detail from that used in actual construction where
multiple-keyed joints are dominant. Initial investigations by
Rombach and Specker,10 based on numerical analyses, have
indicated that the analytical relationship from a single key
may give unsafe predictions when used in the design of
joints in a structure with more than one shear key. The tests
conducted and reported herein generally concluded that the
most significant parameters affecting the behavior of the
joints are the prestressing levels, thickness of the epoxy (if
epoxy is used), key shape, concrete strength, contact area
and friction coefficient, and mechanical interlock of shear
keys between segments.
The typical procedures for design of the keyed joints use
an empirical relationship in the form of a simple analytical
formula, such as those proposed by AASHTO5 and ACI.11
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 1, January-February 2005.
MS No. 03-003 received January 3, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2005, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors’ closure, if any, will be published in the November-
December 2005 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2005.
3

Xiangming Zhou is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil Engineering at The
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He received his BEng and MEng
from Tongji University, the People’s Republic of China, in 1997 and 2000, respectively.
His research interests include connections of prestressed concrete segmental box girder
bridges and numerical simulation of its shear transfer mechanism; applications of
extrusion in manufacturing fiber-reinforced high-performance cementitious composites;
numerical modeling of their constitutive behavior and their processing; and
micromechanics and durability of hardened fiber-reinforced cementitious composites.
ACI member Neil Mickleborough is the Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Engineering
and Technology of Asian University of Science and Technology, Chon Buri, Thailand.
He received his PhD from the University of Tasmania, Australia. His research interests
include the serviceability behavior and design of tall reinforced concrete, composite
buildings, and the analysis and design of concrete bridge structures.
ACI member Zongjin Li is an associate professor in the Department of Civil
Engineering at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He received
his PhD and MS in structural engineering from Northwestern University, Evanston,
Ill. His research interests include characterizing fiber-cement and aggregate-cement
interface; corrosion of reinforcing bars in concrete; reliability of concrete, fracture
mechanics, and nondestructive evaluation; processing methods for reinforced
concrete; and high-performance concrete.
The objectives of these shear design formulas are to prevent
shear failures initiated by diagonal cracking. The failure pattern
of “shearing-off failure,” however, always occurs through
shearing off the keys along the joint plane in a PCSB.3,6
In this paper, systematic experimental work that was
conducted to study shear behavior of typical joints used in
segmental box girder bridges (PCSBs) under monotonically
increased loading is presented. Experiments were conducted
on full-scale joint key models with a geometry closely
resembling the keyed joint of actual bridge segments with
flat (no-keyed) joints and keyed joints (single-keyed joints
and three-keyed joints representing multiple-keyed joints
used in practice) both in dry and epoxied conditions. The
effects of prestressing levels, epoxy thickness, and number
of keys on the shear behavior, as well as the sheer strength of
joints, was investigated. The shear capacity of each key in
different kinds of joints (single-keyed and multiple-keyed
joints) has been considered. The average shear capacity of
each key in multiple-keyed dry joints is always lower than
those of single-keyed dry joints due to fitting imperfections
that exist in multiple-keyed joints. These fitting imperfec-
tions reduce the overall shear capacity in multiple-keyed
joints. The epoxy in the joint decreases the effect of the
fitting imperfections between segments; hence, the average
shear capacity of a unit key in multiple-keyed epoxied joints
tend to be comparable to those in single-keyed epoxied
joints. Empirical relationships are developed that estimate
shear strength of different kinds of joints and are compared
with the widely used AASHTO5 provisions and the design
formula suggested by Rombach and Specker10 derived from
numerical analysis. The AASHTO and Rombach and
Specker’s design formulas always underestimate the shear
capacity of single-keyed joints but greatly overestimate the
shear capacity of multiple-keyed dry joints. Hence, they
could lead to unsafe designs when applied to multiple-keyed
joints. A shear strength reduction factor should be intro-
duced to those formulas derived from single-keyed joints to
estimate the shear capacity of multiple-keyed joints.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The work provides data that is used to check the applica-
bility of the available shear design provisions (AASHTO)
for structural members that were used in design to prevent
web shear cracking, flexural cracking, and diagonal web
crushing in typical keyed joints in PCSBs. This study has
found, and it has also been confirmed by other studies,3,6 that
4 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005
the keyed joints in PCSBs fail by shearing off at the keys.
The available shear design provisions tend to underestimate
the shear capacity of single-keyed joints and multiple-keyed
epoxied joints by a value up to 40%, but they greatly overes-
timate the shear strength of multiple-keyed dry joints. The
matching of surfaces and keys always has imperfections in
keyed joints, and thus does not permit the shear capacity of
keys in multiple-keyed joints to be fully developed. The
decrease of the overall shear strength of multiple-keyed
joints therefore occurred. This paper provides insights into
the variation of the shear capacity of keys for different types
of joints, and new design provisions are proposed that are
based on these analyses and experimental results.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND TEST PROCEDURE
Since the principal objective of these studies was to inves-
tigate the shear strength and behavior of joints in PCSBs, the
test setup enabled the shear plane to be subjected to shear
without moment. A pushoff testing setup, similar to that used
by Mattock and Hawkins9 to study the shear transfer
behavior of concrete, was adopted. Buyukozturk, Bakhoum,
and Beattie6 also used the similar test setup to study the shear
behavior of joints between PCSB segments. The specimens
used for the flat, single-keyed, and three-keyed joint tests are
shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). All of the specimens had a thick-
ness of 250 mm. Confining stress, simulating the effect of
prestress force in segmental bridges, was applied to the joint
surfaces through a framework driven by a hydraulic pump
and was verified by readings of a load cell and of the strain
gauges attached to the specimens remote from the keyed
areas in both parts of the joints during testing. The typical
setup of a keyed joint test is shown in Fig. 1(c). The setup for
flat joint tests was similar to that for the keyed joint, with the
exception that there were no keys along the joint surface.
Specimens were cast either in separate matching, male and
female, stainless steel machined molds with very finely
toleranced geometry, or through a match-cast method.
Commercial epoxy used in this test program was structural
epoxy glue from France. The epoxy was applied to the joint
surfaces 3 days before testing with small aluminum strips
that were placed at the border of the epoxy region to control
epoxy thickness and carry the confinement pressure when
epoxy was in a plastic state. These thin aluminum strips were
1, 2, and 3 mm thick for the different epoxy thicknesses
tested. The epoxied specimen was cured in the lab under a
confining pressure of approximately 0.3 MPa, as suggested
by PTI,12 for 3 days.
The displacement-control tests for all specimens were
conducted at a constant stroke rate of 0.005 mm/s (0.3 mm/
min). Data acquired during tests included the applied force,
measured by a calibrated internal load cell; stroke of the cross-
head of the test machine, measured by an internal LVDT
(linear variable differential transducer); horizontal confine-
ment pressure, measured by a load cell in hydraulic pump and
the relative vertical displacement by LVDTs, and the relative
horizontal displacement (separation of two parts of the joint
specimen) by LVDTs, as shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b).
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A test specimen identifying system was adopted. The test
identifier is represented as Mi-D (or Ej)-F (or Km)-n, where
M represents monotonic loading, and the numeral following
M indicates the confining stress in the unit of MPa; D is for
dry joints; E represents epoxied joints, and the numeral
 Table 1—Experimental results of joints tested
under monotonic loading
Ultimate
fc′ , strength, AASHTO,5 Error, Rombach and Error,
Test name MPa kN kN % Specker,10 kN %
M1-D-F 52.2 34 — — — —
M2-D-F-1 52.8 74 — — — —
M2-D-F-2 52.7 73 — — — —
M3-D-F 53.5 110 — — — —
M1-E1-F 56.6 281 — — — —
M2-E1-F 57.1 324 — — — —
M3-E1-F 55.6 366 — — — —
M1-E2-F 52.2 221 — — — —
M2-E2-F 52.8 347 — — — —
M3-E2-F 53.1 386 — — — —
M1-D-K1-1 38.7 193 200 3.84 168 –12.98
M1-D-K1-2 50.0 211 226 6.99 208 –1.66
M2-D-K1-1 56.2 335 292 –12.98 262 –21.88
M2-D-K1-2 59.6 337 299 –11.18 274 –18.81
M3-D-K1-1 80.1 448 403 –10.11 378 –15.66
M3-D-K1-2 48.8 360 324 –9.95 268 –25.47
M4-D-K1-1 37.1 354 334 –5.54 260 –26.60
M4-D-K1-2 36.7 392 333 –15.08 258 –34.07
M4.5-D-K1 37.7 375 360 –4.08 278 –25.81
M0.5-D-K3-1 30.2 287 464 61.84 358 24.64
M0.5-D-K3-2 53.5 392 613 56.45 602 53.67
M1-D-K3-1 35.7 446 564 26.51 456 2.26
M1-D-K3-2 35.2 437 560 28.26 451 3.17
M1-D-K3-3 42.2 471 611 29.69 524 11.33
M1.5-D-K3 59.1 661 791 19.66 742 12.32
M2-D-K3 63.7 740 895 20.99 831 12.34
M1-E1-K1 53.1 273 232 –14.95 218 –20.02
M2-E1-K1 53.1 405 284 –29.82 251 –38.06
M3-E1-K1 57.6 474 348 –26.51 299 –36.90
M1-E2-K1 53.5 251 233 –7.17 220 –12.45
M2-E2-K1 53.5 377 285 –24.36 252 –33.09
M3-E2-K1 55.2 488 342 –29.93 291 –40.43
M1-E3-K1 56.6 265 239 –9.81 231 –12.83
M2-E3-K1 59.6 318 299 –5.87 274 –13.96
M3-E3-K1 56.2 355 345 –2.93 294 –17.13
M0.5-E1-K3-1 56.6 558 630 12.97 635 13.79
M0.5-E1-K3-2 55.9 596 627 5.12 628 5.30
Fig. 1—Dimensions, transducer arrangement, and typical M1-E1-K3-1 42.7 712 614 –13.72 530 –25.62
experimental setup for keyed joints. M1-E1-K3-2 55.2 776 694 –10.53 661 –14.84
M1.5-E1-K3 52.8 914 750 –17.93 676 –26.01
following E represents the epoxy thickness in mm; and F M0.5-E2-K3 52.2 617 606 –1.79 589 –4.58
represents flat joints, while K indicates keyed joint and m M1-E2-K3 41.5 658 606 –7.90 517 –21.43
gives the key number. The last numeral n represents the test M2-E2-K3 53.3 964 824 –14.52 722 –25.09
number under same testing condition. For example, M4-D- M0.5-E3-K3 56.6 465 630 35.56 635 36.54
K1-1 represented the first single-keyed dry joint tested at a
M1-E3-K3 56.4 568 702 23.50 673 18.57
confining stress of 4 MPa under monotonic loading.

Tests of flat joints
In total, four flat dry joints and six flat epoxied joints were
tested with confining stress of 1, 2, and 3 MPa, respectively.
The epoxy thicknesses investigated were 1 and 2 mm. The
ultimate shear strength of flat joints is listed in Table 1.
Tests of flat dry joints—Data are presented graphically
where the abscissa represents the values of relative vertical
displacement between the two parts of the specimen, and the
ordinate represents the average normalized shear stress on
the joint. The normalized average shear stress is obtained
through normalizing the average shear stress with respect to
√fc′ to take into consideration the effect of the variation of
concrete strength in the specimens. This normalization is
also consistent with ACI and AASHTO provisions for shear
design of concrete members. The average shear stress is
defined as the applied shear force divided by the area of the
shear plane (50,000 mm2 for flat joints in this study). Typical
normalized shear stress-relative displacement curves for flat

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005 5


Fig. 2—Normalized shear stress-relative displacement
curves for flat dry joints.
Fig. 3—Normalized shear stress-relative displacement
curves for flat epoxied joints.
dry specimens are shown in Fig. 2. The normalized shear stress
increases approximately linearly to the stress level at which the
joint surfaces commence slipping. No cracks were observed on
the specimen, and the joint surfaces were not damaged except
for small-scale grinding as evidenced by crushing concrete
powder on the surface. An expression was determined for the
shear strength of flat dry joints in terms of the confining pres-
sure regardless of the effect of concrete strength, where the
shear strength is defined as the load level at which slippage
occurs or the maximum stress taken across the surfaces.
Dividing the shear load by the area of sliding surface
τ = µσn (1)
where τ = shear stress; µ = coefficient of friction; and σn =
confining stress. The shear capacity of dry flat joints can be
estimated as
Vdryjoint = µAjointσn (2)
where Ajoint is the area of the joint surface or the contacting
smooth surface between segments in PCSB. The friction
coefficient obtained from these tests had a value approxi-
mately equal to 0.72. It should be noted that the friction coef-
ficient between concrete surfaces varies on surface
conditions. ACI 318-0211 suggests a friction coefficient of µ
6 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005
= 0.6 for concrete placed against hardened concrete with the
interface not roughened intentionally, while the coefficients
suggested by Franz,13 Jones,14 Gaston and Kriz,15 and
Buyukozurk, Bakhoum, and Beattie6 are 0.7, 0.40 to 0.70,
0.87 to 1.1, and 0.50 to 0.80, respectively.
Tests of flat epoxied joints—Typical normalized shear
stress-relative vertical displacement curves for flat epoxied
joints are shown in Fig. 3. For epoxied flat joints, the shear
stress and relative displacement curves were almost linear up
to the maximum shear force. Cracks appeared prior to the
maximum load being reached and propagated through the
concrete layer adjacent to the epoxy. Specimens generally
failed by interface cracking between the epoxy and the
concrete surface, with some separation occurring within the
face of the concrete surface adjacent to the epoxy. This indi-
cated that the shear strength of epoxy-bonded joints was
determined by the tensile strength of the concrete under
shear load and agreed with the results of Schutz.16 Moustafa17
showed that when testing epoxy-glued concrete joints to
failure in pure shear, the failure always occurred in the
concrete layer adjacent to the epoxy resin adhesive, which also
verified the failure behavior of flat epoxied joints in this study.
A reduction in strength was observed just after peak load, indi-
cating that a large slip occurred between the male and female
parts of the specimen. Figure 3 indicates that failure loads
increased as the confining stress increased, but confining
stress does not have a significant effect on the stiffness.
The thickness of epoxy had no influence on the strength of
the joint for 1 and 2 mm thicknesses. For experimental results
of 1 and 2 mm thicknesses of epoxy, the following relationship
for strength of epoxied flat joints was determined
τ = f c′ ( 0.17σ n + 0.53 ) (3)
Hence, the shear strength of these epoxied joints can be
estimated as
Vepoxied-flatjoint = Ajoint f c′ ( 0.17σ n + 0.53 ) (4)
where fc′ is the concrete strength; σn is the normal stress;
and Ajoint is the area of the joint surface between segments
in PCSB.
Mohr-Coulomb friction failure criterion has been applied
to estimate shear strength of epoxied flat joints. Zelger and
Rusch18 stated that the ultimate shear strength of epoxied flat
joints is independent of concrete strength. If the epoxied
joints failed by separation of the epoxy from the concrete
surface, that is, adhesive failure occurred, such a Mohr-
Coulomb criterion may be applicable. If the epoxied flat
joints failed by separating the thin concrete layer adjacent to
the epoxy from the concrete block, that is, concrete cracked
rather than the epoxy and concrete interface failed as the case
in this study, the ultimate shear strength may have some rela-
tionship with concrete strength; hence, a design formula as
Eq. (4) may be effective.
Comparison of flat dry and epoxied joints–From experi-
mental results, the flat epoxied joints had much higher shear
strength than flat dry joints (Table 1), but failure of epoxied
joints was more brittle. The dry joints have shear load-
carrying capacity by friction between the male and female
parts of the specimen, while shear strength of epoxied joints
is derived from the tensile strength of the epoxy-bonded
Table 2—Combinations of parameters tested for
keyed joints
Normal stress, MPa
Joints type 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5
Dry joints 0 M SM M SM S S S
1 M SM M S S — —
Epoxy
thickness, 2 M SM — SM S — —
mm 3 M SM — S S — —
Note: S represents single-keyed joints; M represents three-keyed joints.

concrete. Adhesion has a much larger contribution to the

shear strength than does the friction. After adhesion is
damaged, the load-carrying capacity of the flat epoxied joint
drops quickly to the frictional value of an epoxy-bonded
concrete surface against concrete planes.
Fig. 4—Normalized shear stress-relative displacement
TESTS OF KEYED JOINTS curves for single-keyed dry joints.
A total 37 keyed specimens were tested under different
combinations of parameters. Table 2 presents these parame-
ters. Each specimen was generally under a different combi-
nation of parameters; at times, the same combination of
parameters was used, which acted as a control on the exper-
iments. The average shear stress is defined as the applied
load divided by the projected area of the joint or the shear
plane, 50,000 mm2 for single-keyed and 125,000 mm2 for
three-keyed joints in this study. A complete list of the test
results is presented in Table 1.

Tests of keyed dry joints

Tests of single-keyed dry joints—Typical normalized
shear stress-relative vertical displacement curves for single-
keyed dry joints are shown in Fig. 4. The load increased
linearly up to approximately 70% of the maximum stress
with a crack forming at the bottom of the key of the male
part of the joint, propagating away from the shear plane
at 45 degrees to the horizontal (shown in Fig. 5(a)). After
this crack formed, most of the load was transferred through
bearing of the lower surface of the key. Small cracks also
formed at the top corner of the key (shown in Fig. 5(b)). As
load increased continuously, these short diagonal cracks
started to appear and join along the root of the key, some of
them extending the lower face of the key, indicating the
formation of a compression strut. At the maximum load, the
cracks at the root of key joined and separated the key from
the male part (shown in Fig. 5(c)). This was accompanied by
a brittle slip between the two parts of the specimen. This is
the typical shear-off failure mode of keys in PCSB joints.
The crack initially formed at the root of the key and closed
after the key suffered shear failure. A direct failure plane
formed along the joint surface, and the load was then carried
mainly through frictional forces by aggregate interlock. The
large slip can be explained by the condition of the cracks
joining along the root of the key, which separates the key
from the male part of the specimen; the maximum resistance
of the concrete was reached, while the confining framework
kept the two parts of the specimen from separating. As
observed from the tests at higher confining force levels, the
reduction in the load due to cracking at the bottom corner of
the key was not as significant and the stress-relative
displacement curves were more likely to transfer smoothly
from prepeak to postpeak period. Higher confinement
stresses would retard cracking of concrete and slow the separation
of the shear key from the joint. The normalized shear stress
Fig. 5—Crack formulation sequence for single-keyed joints:
(a) through (c) for dry joints; and (d) through (f) for
epoxied joints.
of dry joints increased as confining pressure increased, as did
the stiffness of the joints.
Tests of three-keyed dry joints—Typical normalized shear
stress-relative vertical displacement curves for three-keyed
dry joints are shown in Fig. 6. The cracking behavior of
three-keyed joints was similar to single-keyed joints. The
first crack generally formed at the lower corner of the bottom
key, propagating from the shear plane at approximately
45 degrees to the horizontal. Similar cracks appeared at the
bottom of the other two shear keys at almost the same locations,
forming from the middle key to the upper key (Fig. 7(a)). Short
cracks then appeared at the root of the lowest key and
increased in a direction upward from the base of the key
similar to the crack-propagating mode of single-keyed joint
(Fig. 7(b)). Similar behavior occurred sequentially from the
middle and upper key zone (Fig. 7(c)). Once the root of the
bottom key was sheared off (Fig. 7(d)), a drop of load
occurred (Fig. 6). The shear load could increase slightly after
the load drop caused by shear failure of the bottom key but
was always less than the maximum load reached prior to the
bottom key failure. The sequence of failure was the shearing

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005 7

Fig. 6—Normalized shear stress-relative displacement
curves for three-keyed joints.
Fig. 7—Crack formulation sequence for three-keyed joints.
of the bottom key followed sequentially by each key above
the earlier key that failed. The load-carrying capacity
reduced with each successive key failure (Fig. 7(e) and (f)).
This behavior can be due to matching imperfections, which
exist between the two parts of the specimen. Stress concen-
trations may occur with the shear load distributed on the
three keys of different values. Alternatively, the shear
capacity of the three keys can be assumed as identical.
Hence, progressive failure of the shear keys will result.
Before the bottom key was sheared off, the load would be
carried by the three keys together with friction between the
smooth parts of the joint. Once the bottom key is completely
sheared off, its shear load-carrying capacity decreases to be
the summation of the friction between the failure plane and
the interlock force between aggregate across the failure
plane. The applied load would then be redistributed to the
remaining keys and contact surfaces between the male and
female parts of the joint. The sequence would continue, and
the middle key would be sheared off together with another
load drop (Fig. 6). The cycle repeated until the complete
failure of the joint. This successive failure mode of the shear
keys was very common in three-keyed dry joint tests.
Tests of epoxied keyed joints
Single-keyed epoxied joints—Typical normalized shear
stress-relative vertical displacement response for single-
keyed epoxied joints is presented in Fig. 8. Similar to the flat
epoxied joints, a nonlinear deformation behavior was
observed for these keyed joints. All specimens failed in a
brittle manner accompanied by a brittle slip between the two
parts of the joint when the epoxied keys suffered shear
failure. The initial crack forms in the root of the key and
8 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005
Fig. 8—Normalized shear stress-relative displacement
curves for single-keyed epoxied joints.
propagates throughout the key along the shear plane at a load
level close to the maximum load (Fig. 5(d)). Cracks also
formed at the top corner of the key and prolongated to the
lower face of the key as the shear force increased (Fig. 5(e)).
Short cracks appeared at the concrete surface region in the
male key adjacent to the epoxy along the smooth face of the
joint. Immediately prior to reaching the peak load, further
diagonal cracks appeared along the base of the key and
rapidly interconnected (Fig. 5(f)), which finally caused the
shearing-off failure.
Table 1 indicates that the failure load increased signifi-
cantly as the confining force increases. The shear strength
and initial stiffness of joints with 1 or 2 mm-thick epoxy is
greater than those of 3 mm, suggesting that the epoxy thick-
ness is less effective at a thickness greater than 2 mm. A
thicker epoxy layer may reduce the stiffness of epoxied joints
because the Young’s modulus of epoxy is approximately 5 to
20% of concrete.19
Three-keyed epoxied joints—Typical normalized shear
stress-relative displacement curves for three-keyed epoxied
joints are presented in Fig. 9. Three-keyed joints behaved
similarly to single-keyed joints; however, the deformation due
to cracking was greater. Initial cracks appeared almost simul-
taneously at the bottom corner of the three keys (Fig. 10(a))
and propagated through the roots of the keys (Fig. 10(b) and
(c)). Because the epoxy tended to mitigate imperfections
between the two parts of the specimen, the progressive
failure of keys was not as obvious as for dry joints. In three-
keyed epoxied joints, the three keys were sheared off almost
simultaneously (Fig. 10(d) through (f)), and the joint
behaved homogeneously and more like a single-keyed joint.
In comparison, the failure mode in dry joints of the keys
being sheared off sequentially from the lower to the upper
was dominant and significant. The epoxy reduces the
possible stress concentrations existing in the matching of the
male and female parts of the joint and helps distribute shear
load more uniformly. This results in increased joint strength
and stiffness. As discussed in a following section, the
normalized shear stress of keys in three-keyed joints was
comparable to those in single-keyed epoxy joints.
SHEAR CAPACITY OF JOINTS
Based on this shearing-off failure mode, the shear capacity
of a keyed joint can be taken as the summation of the shear
contribution of the contact flat parts between segments and
the shear contributions of keys. The shear capacity of the
contact flat component of the joint is analogous to the shear
capacity of flat joints. The shear load carried by keys is then
derived through subtracting the shear contribution of contact
flat parts from the overall shear capacity of joints. The
average shear capacity of a unit key in multiple-keyed joints
can be determined by assuming that all the keys have the
same contribution to the shear capacity of the joint.
The normalized average shear capacity of keys in single-
keyed and three-keyed dry joints in the tested samples are
presented in Fig.11(a), and the shear capacity of keys in
three-keyed joints is always lower than those in single-keyed
joints under the same normal stress. The normalized average
shear capacity of keys in three-keyed epoxied joints,
however, was comparable to those in single-keyed epoxied
joints (as shown in Fig. 11(b) through (d)), indicating that Fig. 9—Normalized shear stress-relative displacement
epoxy reduces the fitting imperfections between segments curves for three-keyed epoxied joints.
and hence increasing the rigidity of joints and redistributing
the shear load more uniformly among the keys. This is
consistent with the results presented by Koseki and Breen.3
In all tests conducted, the epoxy did help reduce the fixing
imperfection between the male and female parts of the
multiple-keyed joints. The epoxy significantly enhanced the
ultimate shear strength of flat joints, indicating that proper
mixing and application of epoxy can benefit the shear
strength of epoxied joints. Although the presented results of
keyed joints in this paper were all failed in direct shear mode,
some bending failures were observed for some epoxied
three-keyed joint samples under high confinements. Hence,
Fig. 10—Crack formulation sequence for three-keyed
the reduction in normalized average shear capacity of keys in
epoxied joints.
three-keyed epoxied joints compared with that in single-
keyed joints, as indicated in Fig. 11(d), could be attributed to tested in this study with those predicted by AASHTO
the bending effect. provisions together with Rombach and Specker’s suggestion.
The measured shear strength of joints has been compared Rombach and Specker’s predictions of strength were
with AASHTO5 provisions and the design formula always less than those of AASHTO, but both generally
suggested by Rombach and Specker10 mainly based on their underestimated the shear strength of single-keyed dry joints.
numerical simulations. AASHTO5 gives the following design The deviations between the measured strength and those
formula to estimate the shear capacity of joints in PCSB predicted by Rombach and Specker’s suggested a range of
12 to 34%. AASHTO’s estimation agrees relatively better
Vj = AK f c′ (12 + 0.017σn) + 0.6Asmσn (lb) (5) with the experimental results than Rombach and Specker’s.
The maximum difference between the AASHTO prediction
and experimental results is 13%. For three-keyed dry joints,
The corresponding equation in SI unit is
both AASHTO’s and Rombach and Specker’s give much
higher ultimate shear strength than experimental values. The
–3 differences between the estimated and experimental values
Vj = AK 6.792 × 10 f c′ (12 + 2.466σn) + 0.6Asmσn (MN) (6)
are much greater at low confinement conditions, such as
62% for AASHTO and 54% for Rombach and Specker at the
where Ak (in.2 in Eq. (5) and m2 in Eq. (6)) is the area of all confinement of 0.5 MPa. As confinement forces are
base of keys in the failure plane; fc′ (psi in Eq. (5) and MPa increased, the difference between the measured and
in Eq. (6)) is the compressive strength of concrete; σn (psi in predicted strengths decrease.
Eq. (5) and MPa in Eq. (6)) is the normal compressive stress This difference may be explained from the condition that
in concrete after allowance for all prestress loss determined the AASHTO relationship was derived from the experi-
at the centroid of the cross section; and Asm (in.2 in Eq. (5) mental work of single-keyed joints,5 the fixing imperfec-
and m2 in Eq. (6)) is the area of contact between smooth tions and stress concentration in joints increases as key
surfaces on the failure plane.5 number increases; the higher stress concentration and fixing
The design formula suggested by Rombach and Specker10 is imperfections mean that the summation of individual shear
capacity of keys in three-keyed joints cannot be fully devel-
Vj = 0.14fcAK + 0.65σnAjoint (7) oped. From this experimental work, the keys in three-keyed
dry joints do not fail simultaneously; they fail sequentially.
where fc is concrete strength; AK is the area of all the base of Rombach and Specker10 applied the calibrated finite element
keys; σn is the normal compressive stress in the joint; and model to estimate shear capacity of multiple-keyed joints. In
Ajoint = AK + Asm is the area of the joint. Table 1 presents the the analysis, it was assumed that all of the keys along the
comparison of measured ultimate shear strength of joints failure plane had the same shear capacity and the keys would

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005 9

 Fig. 11—Comparison of normalized shear stress of keys in single-keyed and three-keyed
joints.
fail in shear simultaneously in multiple-keyed joints. Hence,
the derived formula would give a higher estimation of the
multiple-keyed joints than that which is likely in practice.
Since there is a higher possibility of fixing imperfection in
dry multiple-keyed joints, loading of the shear keys would
not be uniformly distributed and the sum of the shear
capacity of keys could not be fully utilized, resulting in a
lower average ultimate shear strength per key. A strength
reduction factor would alleviate this problem when using the
relationship derived from single-keyed joints to estimate the
shear capacity of multiple-keyed joints.
For single-keyed epoxied joints, both AASHTO’s and
Rombach and Specker’s formulas underestimate the ultimate
shear strength when compared with experimental results.
The relative deviations are larger than those of single-keyed
dry joints, indicating that the relationships are more conser-
vative when applied to single-keyed epoxied joints. The
greatest deviation between the predicted strength and the
experimental results is approximately 30% for AASHTO
and up to 40% for Rombach and Specker. It was also shown
that the deviation between the experimental results and the
formulas’ estimations varied with the thickness of the epoxy.
The deviation is least for joints with epoxy thicknesses of
3mm that have a smaller ultimate strength compared with the
ultimate strength of 1 and 2 mm-thick epoxy joints. The
deviation was greater for joints with epoxy thicknesses of 1 and
2 mm, and again, Rombach and Specker’s estimation was
always smaller than AASHTO’s.
The deviations between the predicted strength and experi-
mental results are less for three-keyed epoxied joints than for
single-keyed epoxied joints. Both AASHTO and Rombach
10
and Specker’s relationships generally underestimate the joint
shear capacity for epoxy thicknesses of 1 and 2 mm under
confinement stresses greater than 0.5 MPa. The two relation-
ships, however, gave a larger estimation than the experi-
mental results for joints with 3 mm thick epoxy and those
having 1 mm epoxy at 0.5 MPa confinement forces.
Compared with the predictions of three-keyed dry joints, it is
found that the variation between measured strength and
predicted strength is much less in three-keyed epoxied joints,
confirming that the epoxy mitigates the fixing imperfections
and assists the shear capacity of keys in total to be fully
developed.
CONCLUSIONS
A series of tests of joints in PCSB were conducted to study
the shear behavior and strength of the joints. Joint behavior
during loading was investigated for different configurations.
The ultimate shear strength was compared with AASHTO
provisions. The following conclusions are drawn from these
experimental results:
1. The first crack formation generally develops on the
lower corner of the shear keys and propagates at an angle of
45 degrees to the horizontal. Short diagonal cracks then form
in the shear areas. Shearing off of the key(s) occurs when the
short diagonal cracks join together and extend to the root of
the key(s). Shear strength of the joints increases with an
increase in confining stress;
2. The dry joints had an ultimate strength of approximately
20 to 40% less than epoxied joints. Cracks formed in dry
joints before the maximum load was reached, while the
behavior of epoxied joints was more brittle. An epoxy thickness
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005
 of 1 or 2 mm gives greater shear strength than those of 3 mm,
and it may be that the most appropriate epoxy thickness for
practice is from 1 to 2 mm;
3. To compare the normalized shear stress of keys in
single-keyed and three-keyed joints, the shear contribution
of flat portions of the joint was first subtracted from the
measured overall shear strength. The remaining shear
capacity was considered as the contribution of keys. It was
found that the identical normalized shear strength of keys in
three-keyed dry joints was always less than those in single-
keyed dry joints because of the greater fixing imperfection
existing between the male and female parts of single-keyed
joints. Hence, a strength reduction factor would be appro-
priate for the proposed formula when applied to dry joints
with multiple keys. The identical normalized shear strength
of keys in three-keyed epoxied joints was comparable to
those in single-keyed epoxied joints, indicating that epoxy
could mitigate fitting imperfections between keys and
enhancing the ultimate shear strength of three-keyed joints;
4. AASHTO provisions give lower shear capacity for
single-keyed dry joints, but always greatly overestimate the
shear capacity of multiple-keyed dry joints; for epoxied
joints, the agreement is better with the experimental results.
Again, a reduction factor should be introduced when the
number of keys is greater than one; and
5. Rombach and Specker’s relationship underestimates the
shear capacity of single-keyed dry joints and epoxied joints,
both for single-keyed and multiple-keyed joints, but over-
estimates the shear capacity of multiple-keyed dry joints.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work conducted as part of this paper was co-sponsored by Research
Grants Council, Hong Kong, and DAAD, German Academic Exchange
Service, with N. Mickleborough as Principal Investigator. The contribution
of Chung Chu Fung and Chung Cheuk Man, from Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, and the valuable discussions on the manuscript by
G. Rombach and A. Specker from Technical University of Hamburg-
Harburg, Germany, are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Poston, R. W., and Wouters, J. P., “Durability of Precast Segmental
Bridges,” NCHRP Web Document 15, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, June 1998, http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/
NCHRP15/front.html.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2005
View publication stats
2. Wium, D. J. W., and Buyukozturk, O., “Precast Segmental Bridges—
Status and Future Directions,” Civil Engineering for Practicing and Design
Engineers, ACSE, V. 3, 1984, pp. 59-79.
3. Koseki, K., and Breen, J. E., “Exploratory Study of Shear Strength of
Joints for Precast Segmental Bridges,” Research Report 248-1, Center for
Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.,
Sept. 1983, pp. 1-83.
4. Ramos, G., and Aparicio, A. C., “Ultimate Analysis of Monolithic and
Segmental Externally Prestressed Concrete Bridges,” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ACSE, V. 1, No. 1, 1996, pp. 10-17.
5. AASHTO, “Guide Specifications for the Design and Construction of
Segmental Concrete Bridges,” Second Edition, 1999, pp. 3-118.
6. Buyukozturk, O.; Bakhoum, M. M.; and Beattie, S. M., “Shear Behavior
of Joints in Precast Concrete Segmental Bridges,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 116, No. 12, 1990, pp. 3380-3401.
7. MacGregor, R.; Kreger, M.; and Breen, J. E., “Strength and Ductility
of a Three-Span Externally Post-Tensioned Segmental Box Girder Bridge
Model,” Research Report 365-3F, Center for Transportation Research, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., Jan. 1989, pp. 315-338.
8. Rabbat, B., and Sowlat, K., “Testing of Segmental Concrete Girders
with External Tendons,” PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 2, 1987, pp. 86-107.
9. Mattock, A. H., and Hawkins, N. M., “Shear Transfer in Reinforced
Concrete—Recent Research,” PCI Journal, V. 17, No. 2, 1972, pp. 55-75.
10. Rombach, G. A., and Specker, A., “Segmentbrücken,” Beton-Kal-
ender, Teil 1, Verlag Ernst und Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 2004, pp. 177-211.
(in German)
11. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
12. PTI, “Precast Segmental Box Girder Manual,” Post-Tensioning Insti-
tute, Phoenix, Ariz., 1978, 116 pp.
13. Franz, G., “Versuche über die Querkraftaufnahem in Fugen von
Spannbetonträgern aus Fertigteilen,” Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, V. 54, No. 6,
1959, pp. 137-140. (in German)
14. Jones, L. L., “Shear Tests on Joints Between Precast Post-Tensioned
Units,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 11, No. 31, 1959, pp. 25-30.
15. Bakhoum, M. M., “Shear Behavior and Design of Joints in Precast
Concrete Segmental Bridges,” MIT PhD thesis, 1990, 308 pp.
16. Schutz, R. J., “Epoxy Adhesives in Prestressed and Precast Concrete
Bridge Construction,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 73, No. 3, Mar. 1976,
pp. 155-159.
17. Moustafa, S. E., “Ultimate Load Test of a Segmentally Constructed
Prestressed Concrete I-Beam,” PCI Journal, V. 19, No. 4, 1975, pp. 54-75.
18. Zelger, C., and Rusch, H., “Der Einfuss von Fugen auf die Feist-
igkeit von Fertigteilen,” Beton- und Stahlebetonbau, V. 10, 1961, pp. 234-
237. (in German)
19. Hugenschmidt, F., Strengthening of Existing Concrete Structures
with Bonded Reinforcement, Ciba-Geigy, Ltd., Basle, Switzerland, 1981,
pp. 68-72.
11