Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Shear Friction at Monolithic Concrete Confusion

Status
Not open for further replies.
StrEng007

StrEng007

Structural
Aug 22, 2014
510
According to ACI 318-19, it is necessary to check shear friction at locations of potential cracks. This includes monolithic pours.

Screenshot_2024-09-30_172225_wtvmfz.png


Screenshot_2024-09-30_172343_kvzcqw.png


I typically check the ends of my monolithic beams for shear using Vn = Vc + Vs. If required, I provide shear steel in the form of vertical stirrups to resist diagonal tension.

I always extend my bottom bars into the column supports, but I don't go out of the way to check shear friction unless it's a 2nd pour at a cold joint. Does everyone do the shear friction check at monolithic pours?
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
I don't think I've ever checked shear friction at a monolithic joint
But we always provide top and bottom steel from beam into column, so it's never going to be an issue

Our code gives interface friction mu = 1.4 at monolithic interfaces with a section change, so you get 1.4 x As x fy = a very large number for your capacity
You compare that to your vertical shear reinforcement etc in your beam and I can't imagine it would ever be a problem for any realistic beam configuration

I could see it being important for some sort of transfer beam supporting a wall above as shear at the beam ends could be huge relative to flexure
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This was a case where an intentional crack was induced, but where a potential crack would likely form anyway due to shrinkage restraint.

thread507-521962

I think the key is detailing bar anchorage to be fully developed into the support, which isn’t always feasible or required by other parts of the code.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Note the requirement for shear friction for the reinforcement to be fully developed. Traditionally - bottom reinforcement is not fully developed at column supports.

I do not check shear friction at every monolithic pour. Agree with Greenalleycat that it is likely a better check at specific conditions and locations
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Greenalleycat said:
But we always provide top and bottom steel from beam into column, so it's never going to be an issue
Click to expand...

I also provide top bars at the ends of simple supports. This was the way I was taught to detail and to me it's for the convenience of being able to hang the vertical stirrups. I believe there have been discussions here about providing a minimum 1/3 +Moment reinforcing as top bars, but I've searched through ACI 318-19 and cannot find anything on it. Simply, I'm not sure why we are putting top bars other than a) old detailing habits b)place to hang stirrups.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, simply putting the same bottom and top bars really "changes" the intended design of the beam. If you put equivalent bars, say (2)#5's top and bottom, you've really just detailed a beam with fixed ends, and not a simple span?

EZBuilding said:
Note the requirement for shear friction for the reinforcement to be fully developed. Traditionally - bottom reinforcement is not fully developed at column supports.
Click to expand...
I understand both sentences, but they seem to contradict each other, no?

If we design for shear reinforcing, are we not assuming the bar to reach fully yield? Therefore, the bar portion that extends into the column support is never fully developed in situation where it extends the 6" code minimum into a column.

Nowhere here does it say anything to do with shear friction:
Screenshot_2024-10-01_104044_tep9rm.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes that contradiction is exactly my point - extension of bottom reinforcement at a column may provide some dowel action, but it does not provide shear friction.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Can we reduce the development length requirement by the amount of excess steel provided?

Good luck navigating this section:
Screenshot_2024-10-01_114757_ooq4th.png


Is basically says, yes you can reduce development length. But for every situation at the end of beam (i.e. non continuous supports) or where a column doesn't allow at least 12" development, you cannot reduced the development length into the column. I take it as, for every location where shear friction is to be developed at the end of a monolithic beam pour, you cannot realistically develop said shear reinforcing unless you have columns that are deep enough. For 90% of typical construction, this is not possible.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I am 95% sure that the shear friction provisions require full development of fy on each side of the section in question. Thus, no reduction in development length allowed.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
StrEng007 said:
For 90% of typical construction, this is not possible.
Click to expand...

You typically wouldn't need to rely on shear friction of the longitudinal bars for shear transfer at the supports of a concrete beam. We have other ways of taking care of that (i.e, Vc + Vs).

There may be unique situations like the thread I linked to earlier where you would need the shear friction dowel action of the longitudinal bars.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bones206 said:
You typically wouldn't need to rely on shear friction of the longitudinal bars for shear transfer at the supports of a concrete beam.
Click to expand...
I understand and I'm not trying to be argumentative (quite the opposite actually, I really appreciate your help) but how do you know when you aren't suppose to rely on it? The way the code is written, it's so vague. They specifically say "existing or potential crack". As far as I'm concerned, you cannot eliminate any potential crack in concrete.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I like when these kind of topics come up because they make you think and challenge assumptions, which is great brain exercise and provides an opportunity to review fundamentals underlying our design practices. I think the code is meant to be vague here, because it's not necessarily mandating that the shear friction model be used. It's saying if you are going to use this method, these are the rules of the road. At least that's my interpretation. It's up to the designer to judge when it's applicable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shear friction theory is just that, a theory. It is a set of arbitrary rules loosely derived from testing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In theory, any arbitrary plane cut through a concrete structure should satisfy a shear friction check. That's not to say we need to check every conceivable location.

Recently I had to do a deep dive into this whole thing, and found that when checking certain interfaces either through monolithic concrete or roughened construction joints, these will occasionally suggest a failure especially across unreinforced or lightly reinforced planes. The more places you start looking for potential failure planes, the more you will find, and I don't believe it is necessarily realistic.

I think the reason is that mu = 0.9~1.4 used in various codes for this situation is quite conservative. There is a meta study of hundreds of different shear tests called "Examination of the effective coefficient of friction for shear friction design" by Krc et al. 2016, which is an interesting read. The actual tested value is anywhere from mu = 1 up to around 7, with an average value in the order of 2-3.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bugbus said:
In theory, any arbitrary plane cut through a concrete structure should satisfy a shear friction check. That's not to say we need to check every conceivable location.
Click to expand...

So where do you draw the line? Where do we say a crack might happen here, so we need to satisfy the shear friction theory, and where can we dismiss it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tomfh said:
So where do you draw the line? Where do we say a crack might happen here, so we need to satisfy the shear friction theory, and where can we dismiss it?
Click to expand...

Typically at transitions from one element to another or at a change in section.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Deker said:
Typically at transitions from one element to another or at a change in section.
Click to expand...

Agree. But the codes say any “potential crack” location, which is pretty much anywhere in a monolithic concrete structure, eg a slab.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, one could interpret that to mean any conceivable plane, but that seems unrealistic.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The “shall apply where appropriate” bit implies using judgment about when and where to apply the method.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I, and others, did massive amount of work on this back in 2014 that would be worth your time to review: Link

As a teaser, the thread includes the sketches below and some accompanying numerical work.

c01_egshst.jpg


c02_tvjx4w.jpg


c03_lyv6ai.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
More from this thread: Link. Seriously, I probably lost two years of my life obsessing over shear friction. Frankly, it's a wonder that I'm still married.

c04_ztjn9h.jpg


c05_eyduqz.jpg


c06_rst2xx.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

KC__
  • Question
Interface Shear for Concrete Cast at Different Times
Replies
12
Views
435
cam_b
cam_b
VT17
  • Locked
  • Question
Shear Friction - Area of Concrete Resisting Shear Transfer
Replies
10
Views
417
SteamedHams
SteamedHams
north_man
  • Question
Excavating adjacent to concrete cast-in-place friction piles
Replies
4
Views
2K
haynewp
haynewp
W460x68
  • Question
Punching Shear at Varying Slab Thickness
Replies
12
Views
667
structSU10
structSU10
StrEng007
  • Question
CFS Stud Bracing Confusion
Replies
14
Views
3K
human909
human909

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom