Interface Shear Stress of Hollow Core Slabs with Concrete Toppings

Izni Syahrizal Ibrahim, B.Eng, M.Eng

School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

Kim S. Elliott, B.Tech, Ph.D, CEng, MICE

School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

Simon Copeland, HNC in Civil Engineering

Tarmac Topfloor Limited, United Kingdom

Abstract

This paper presents the effect of surface condition on the interface shear stress on
hollow core slabs with in-situ concrete topping. Horizontal shear stress at the interface
between two different concrete strengths varies between the various codes of practice.
Lack of information and inconsistency between these codes of topping construction
causes problems to the overall structural behaviour when cast in a monolithic manner.
Experimental push-off tests have been carried out to study the effects of surface
moisture, surface laitance and roughness at the interface. These parameters are the
major concern in the construction of toppings, which shows inconsistency with the
various codes of practice. The tests show that there are no significant differences on the
interface shear strength between the rough and smooth surface. However, surface
laitance and surface moisture have significance effects on the interface shear strength.
It was found that excess water at the surface reduces the shear strength at the interface.

Keywords: Hollow core slabs; in-situ concrete toppings; composite; interface shear
stress; push-off tests

1.0 Introduction

Cast in-situ concrete toppings are added to precast reinforced or prestressed concrete
floor slabs for the purpose of making a completed floor finish and to enhance the
structural performance of the floor by producing a composite structure (Figure 1). The
in-situ concrete topping is usually 40 100 mm in thickness and contains a small
amount of steel reinforcement (usually a prefabricated welded mesh) as shown in
Figure 2.

Structural toppings

Hollow core slabs

Figure 1: Structural toppings on hollow core slabs

1
The joint between the units are usually infill with concrete C30 before the execution of
topping to produce continuous slab. The topping would be laid in all weather
conditions onto aged concrete of unspecified surface characteristics. The topping is
usually a medium strength concrete, where as the base units are repeated precast units
manufactured using semi-dry high strength concrete. Figure 3 shows the edge of the
end construction of the composite slab.

Edge of concrete topping

Concrete C30 infill Edge of hollow core slab

Figure 2: Prefabricated mesh arranged Figure 3: End construction of

on hollow core slabs the composite slab

Lack of information of topping construction causes problems to the overall structural

behaviour when cast in a monolithic manner. This can be illustrated in Figure 4(a)
when moisture content, shrinkage and surface characteristics of the precast units are
neglected during topping construction. Some attempts to quantify surface texture are
given in the Fdration Internationale de la Prcontrainte (FIP) document on interface
shear in composite floor structures (FIP, 1982). The topping must be continuously
reinforced for the purpose of shrinkage, ideally at mid-depth, and as welded fabric is
the preferred choice, there are problems where 3 or 4 sheets are lapped as shown in
Figure 4(b).

In the Guide to Good Practice (FIP, 1982), the types of surface which a precast unit
may have, prior to receiving the in-situ concrete to form a composite section, are
identified into ten categories. They were categorised based on the end production of the
precast unit and difficult to distinguish between smooth and rough surface. In the
Swedish Standard (Swedish Standard, 1981), a specified instrument had been
established to measure the roughness at the interface. The surface roughness
represented by Ra is the arithmetical mean deviation of the profile, which is the average
value of the departure of the profile above and below the mean line throughout the
sampling length, L. To determine the centre arithmetical mean line of the profile, a
straight line PQ is drawn through the lowest profile valley and parallel to the general
course of the record. The area, A (Figure 5) between the profile and line PQ is
determined and the height, H of the centre arithmetical mean line above PQ is given
by:

A
H= (1)
L

The value of Ra is calculated over the sum area above and below the centre
arithmetical mean line by the sampling length. These measurements are based on the
procedure given in BS 1134 (BSi, 1988). Although this code appears to be focused on
materials in which the surface undulations are significantly smaller than those of
roughened concrete, the procedures are relevant to any textured surface. Detail

2
roughness measurement adopted from the Swedish Standard (Swedish Standard, 1981)
was investigated by Ros (Ros, Cabo et al., 1994). Three different surfaces were
measured; smooth, longitudinal and transverse roughness.

Load

Surface roughness (see Figure 4(b))

Shrinkage
Topping

Mesh arrangement
Interface shear
Tension
Debonding
Hollowcore
slab

Strand relaxation
Creep

(a) Overall problems

Mesh Topping

Cover Roughness

Ponding water Debris, dust

Hollowcore slab

(b) Surface roughness related problems

Figure 4: Problems associated with topping construction

Centre arithmetical mean line

A H

P Q
L

Centre arithmetical mean line

Ra

H
P Q

Figure 5: Determination of centre arithmetical mean line

3
The study shows that for smooth surface, Ra ranges between 0.40 0.49 mm, where as
the longitudinal and transverse roughness ranges between 1.97 4.00 mm. Similar
work had also been carried out by Gohnert (Gohnert, 2003) showing an Ra ranging
from 0.89 0.94 and 3.41 4.22 for smooth and rough surfaces, respectively.

Within the FIP Commission itself there is a popular theory that smooth (clean)
interfaces have better overall bond than roughened (often dusty and dirty) surfaces
where localised bond failures occur. FIP (FIP, 1982) recommends that contaminants
should be removed either by water flushing, compressed air or vacuum cleaning.
Sweeping is not sufficient as the small depressions of the interface will become full of
dust. Other than roughness of the interface, surface treatment plays a major role with
regard to the transfer of shear stress across the interfaces because:

(a) Laitance skin (Figure 6), dust, debris, water etc. are commonly found in the
crevices of the surface, where, as the tops tend to be less affected; the rougher
the surface, the less susceptible it is to the quality of workmanship in cleaning
and preparation.
(b) If the surface of the precast member, before casting, is very dry, this member
will absorb water from the in-situ concrete, so that the quality adjacent to the
interface is governing for the capacity of the interface.
(c) If the surface is very wet, i.e. ponded, the water-cement ratio at the interface
will be very high, resulting in weak bond strength in the immediate strata.

Figure 6: Laitance skin formed on top of hollow core slab

Repairs to damage caused to the topping, e.g. by relative shrinkage, can be as costly as
the topping itself. Compared with traditional forms of reinforced concrete floor
construction, laying a structural topping onto precast floor units could not be further
removed yet similar technology and construction methods exist.

2.0 Related Works

A composite member is designed to act monolithically. As the member bent in flexure,

the precast member and in-situ concrete tend to slide relative to each other as illustrated
in Figure 7. Horizontal shear transfer along the interface between precast unit and in-
situ concrete topping is an essential requirement to ensure composite action of the two
members. When in-situ concrete is cast on a precast unit there is usually no mechanical
key in form of reinforcement provided between the two types of concrete. Reliance has
to be made on the bond and shear strength between the contact surfaces. The texture of

4
the interface and the surface condition of the precast units are the important parameters
for determining the horizontal shear strength of the composite member.

ACI 318 (ACI, 1999) and FIP (FIP, 1982) specifies two categories of roughness, but no
concrete compressive strength is specified in ACI 318 (ACI, 1999) for the given
capacities (horizontal shear strength is assumed to be the same regardless of the
concrete compressive strength). On the other hand, BS 8110 (BSi, 1997) and EC2 (BSi,
2003), express the shear capacity as a function of compressive strength. Another
significant difference is categorising the degrees of roughness. BS 8110 (BSi, 1997)
merely states the type of instrument used to create the roughness, where as EC2 (BSi,
2003) assigns measurable properties, i.e.3 mm for rough surfaces and 5 mm or greater
for intended surfaces. Comparison of the codes cited above are illustrated in Figure 8,
which indicates a lack of congruency.

Tests carried out by Scott (Scott, 1973), Ros (Ros et al., 1994) and Ueda (Ueda &
Stitmannaithum, 1991) on precast hollow core slabs with concrete toppings were to
ensure monolithic behaviour up to the ultimate load. The bond between hollow core
slabs and the topping is essential and therefore it has to be checked in design and
ensured in construction. As shown in Figure 7, the distribution of horizontal shear
stresses along the contact surface in a composite member will reflect the distribution of
shear along the member. This horizontal shear can be modelled using a small-scale
push-off test. The push-off test results by Gohnert (Gohnert, 2000; Gohnert, 2003)
found that the scatter of data is in better correlation with surface roughness than with
the compressive strength of the concrete. It was also found that for every millimetre
change in roughness, the shear capacity changes by 0.2 N/mm2.

Although various relationships were found by the previous researcher, there is still
some lack of information on the surface condition in the production process and upon
casting and also the degree of roughness which may affect the overall performance of
the composite slab. These parameters which include surface roughness, surface
moisture and bond of the contact area using the push-off test method will be studied
in detail and comply with the recommendation from the various international codes.

P kN/m

Concrete topping r stress

tal shea
Horizon
Hollow core slab

P kN
Shear stress

P kN

Figure 7: Horizontal shear along the interface of a composite member bent in flexure

5
 2
BS 8110-Extruded

1.8 BS 8110-Brushed
BS 8110-Washed
1.6 FIP-Category (i)-(ii)
FIP-Category (iii)-(vi)
1.4
2

FIP-Category 2
Shear stress in N/mm

1.2 EC2-Very smooth

EC2-Smooth
1 EC2-3mm rough
EC2-5mm rough
0.8
ACI-Roughened
ACI-6.4mm rough
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
25 30 35 40

Concrete strength in N/m m 2

Figure 8: Comparison of horizontal shear stress with in-situ topping strength

3.0 Experimental Program

The hollow core slabs were supplied with two different surfaces; smooth and rough.
Smooth surface is as-cast surface, whereas rough surface was formed by means of
a stiff wire brush in the transverse direction. However, in differentiating between the
two surfaces, roughness was measured in the longitudinal direction and readings were
taken at the centre where the surface of the concrete topping is to be cast. Roughness
was measured using an instrument developed by Bensalem (Bensalem, 2001) as shown
in Figure 9. Two linear potentiometers, LP1 and LP2 were attached to the frame to
record vertical and horizontal movements. LP1 runs perpendicular to the concrete
surface and detects peaks and valleys of the slab surface, while LP2 runs parallel to the
surface and indicates the position of LP1 along the sampling length. The instrument is
placed on top of the slab to measure the roughness along a sampling length of 200 mm.
Once the instrument is in place, the slider moves freely without displacing the
instrument itself. Readings are taken at an increment of 1 mm.

LP2 Dry surface

F5
F3
F1
F6

300 mm F4
LP1
F2

300 mm
100 mm

Figure 9: Surface roughness instrument Figure 10: Casting of concrete topping

Three different types of surface conditions were considered before the execution of
concrete topping i.e. dry, wet and ponded. Compared to wet, ponded means excess
water were purposely left on the surface with a thickness of 2 mm (equivalent to a 20p

6
coin thickness). Six concrete toppings (F1 F6) of 300 x 300 x 100 mm deep were cast
on each slab as shown in Figure 10. A layer of steel mesh (A142) with 6 mm high yield
steel bars welded in a grid with spacing of 200 mm was provided for the toppings and
the concrete cover to the main reinforcement is 25 mm. The reinforcement is used to
control any sudden differential shrinkage and to distribute the load equally within the
concrete. To simulate dust or debris effect at the interface, a thin polythene sheet (0.01
mm thick) was laid on the hollow core slab for the half and full debonding parameters.
The concrete strengths are cube compressive strength measured on 100 100 100
mm cubes.

The test setup is shown in Figure 11(a). To avoid any local failure to the toppings, a
custom made U type shape load spreader was used to distribute the load (Figure
11(b)). The load spreaders were located at the end of the loading setup, which is
perpendicular to the surface of the toppings. Dial gauge was positioned at the end of the
topping to record any slip movement at the interface. Loading was applied at an
increment of 5 kN until failure, which is considered when the topping separated from
the base.

Load spreader

Concrete topping

(a) Side view (b) Plan view

Figure 11: Push-off test setup

4.0 Experimental Results and Discussions

In all the specimens, sudden failure was observed when the topping separated from the
hollow core slab. This sudden failure is illustrated typically in Figure 12. However, this
behaviour was not observed for the full-debonding parameters since the failure load
was zero. This is because there is no interaction between the hollow core slab and the
concrete topping and the test was not continued for the other specimens. Shear stress is
calculated by dividing the load against the contact area. The slip between the interface
is relatively small for all specimens except at failure, where large slips were observed.

The relationship between shear strength and concrete strength for smooth and rough
surfaces are shown in Figure 13(a) and 13(b). The results were also compared with the
allowable shear strength given in BS 8110 (BSi, 1997). In general, for half-bond
interface, the shear strength is slightly lower compared to the full-bond interface. It was
also found that rough surface has higher shear strength compared to smooth surface;
however, this is not significant to the overall observation.

As mention in the previous section, three types of surface conditions were considered
in this study, i.e. dry, wet and ponded. Figure 14 illustrates the relationship between

7
these three parameters with the shear strength. The overall result shows low shear
strength for the half-bonded surface, which can be seen throughout the dry and wet
surface. However, for ponded surface, the shear strength is slightly lower with no
influence to the full and half-bonded surface. The behaviour clearly shows that any
excess water should be removed before the execution of concrete topping.

Although roughness was categorised as smooth and rough, the test shows no effect to
the shear strength for different parameters. In fact, most of the data lies below the BS
8110 (BSi, 1997) values. This was further proved by looking into the relationship
between the shear strength and the measured roughness as illustrated in Figure 15. For
smooth surface, roughness ranges between 0.10 0.60 mm, whereas for rough surface,
it ranges between 0.10 1.00 mm. The scatter of data is so broad that any trend or
correlation is hardly distinguishable. The work by Gohnert (Gohnert, 2003) shows
similar pattern where roughness amplitude of the brushed surface does not exceed 1
mm, the results were poor and below the codes values. However, when roughness
amplitude exceeded 3 mm, the results were significantly better. The fault lies within the
code itself for not specifying a minimum roughness amplitude.

Surface conditions before and after testing are shown in Figure 16(a) 16(c). For full-
bond with dry, wet and ponded surface, it can be seen that most of the concrete from
the topping still intact to the hollow core slabs. This can be furthered illustrated in
Figure 17 showing the different surface profile before and after testing. The figure also
shows an increase in roughness of 0.16 mm after testing. For the half-bond parameters
only half of the surface is concrete free of which was covered with polythene sheet.
This also proved a reduction of shear strength up to half from the full-bond parameters.
Although the use of polythene sheet may not reflect the actual behaviour of surface
laitance, debris etc., it does show the importance of surface cleaning before casting.

1.2

1.0
2
Shear stress in N/mm

0.8

0.6

0.4

F1 F2
0.2 F3 F4

F5 F6

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Slip in m m

Figure 12: Typical relationship between shear stress and slip

8
 1.2

Full bond
2

0.8
Shear strength in N/mm

BS 8110 washed

0.6 BS 8110 brushed

Half bond
0.4 BS 8110 as-cast

0.2

0
20 25 30 35 40 45
Concrete strength in N/m m 2

Figure 13(a): Relationship between shear strength and concrete strength for smooth
surfaces

1.2
Full bond

1
2

0.8
Shear strength in N/mm

BS 8110 washed Half bond

0.6 BS 8110 brushed

0.4 BS 8110 as-cast

0.2

0
20 25 30 35 40 45
Concrete strength in N/m m 2

Figure 13(b): Relationship between shear strength and concrete strength for rough
surfaces

9
 Smooth Rough Smooth Rough Smooth Rough
1.2

1.0
2
Shear strength in N/mm

Full bond
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Half bond

0.0
Dry Wet Ponded

Figure 14: Relationship between shear strength with different surface preparation

1.2
Smooth
Rough

1.0
2

0.8
Shear strength in N/mm

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Roughness in m m

Figure 15: Relationship between shear strength and roughness

10
 (a) Before testing

Bond area

No bond

(b) After testing Full-bond (c) After testing Half-bond

Figure 16: Surface condition before and after testing

2.500

2.000
After testing
1.500

1.000
Before testing
Roughness in mm

0.500

0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191
-0.500

-1.000

-1.500
Ra before = 0.30 mm
-2.000 Ra after = 0.46 mm
-2.500 Length in m m

Figure 17: Surface profile before and after testing

11
5.0 Conclusion

Horizontal shear strength at the interface between hollow core slabs and concrete
toppings were investigated in this paper. Parameters of surface roughness, surface
moisture and contact surface were studied in details, which are a major concern in the
construction of toppings. Close inspection of the results of small scale push-off tests
implies that the surface should be properly wet before the execution of concrete topping.
Dry and too much excess water will weaken the bond at the interface and thus reduce
the shear strength. Ponded surface shows the critical states due to the weaken bond at
the interface. There is also a reduction of shear strength due to the presence of surface
laitance, debris etc. This was proved by debonding half of the contact area with a very
thin polythene sheet. The scatter of data between shear strength and roughness indicates
poor correlation and seems it does not differentiate between smooth and rough
surface. Raking or brushing can produce vast range of roughness values depends on the
amount of pressure applied by the operator and the viscosity or age of the mix.
Therefore, it is necessary for the codes to give a minimum roughness amplitude as a
guide to manufacturer.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge the Precast Flooring Federation (PFF) and
Tarmac Topfloor for its support and financial assistance during its research.

References

ACI. ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.
1999. American Concrete Institute.
Bensalem, K. (2001). The Structural Integrity of Precast Concrete Floor Systems used
as Horizontal Diaphragms. Ph.D Thesis. University of Nottingham.
BSi. BS 1134: Assessment of Surface Texture - Part 1: Methods and Instrument. 1988.
British Standard Institute.
BSi. BS 8110: Structural Use of Concrete - Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and
Construction. 1997. British Standard Institute.
BSi. DD ENV 1992-1-1: Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings (Draft). 2003. British Standard Institute.
FIP. Guide to Good Practice - Shear at the Interface of Precast and In-situ Concrete.
1982. Fdration Internationale de la Prcontrainte.
Gohnert, M.. "Proposed Theory to Determine the Horizontal Shear Between Composite
Precast and In-situ Concrete" in Cement and Concrete Composites. Vol: 22. No:
6. pp: 469-476. 2000. Elsevier Applied Science.
Gohnert, M.. "Horizontal Shear Transfer across a Roughened Surface" in Cement and
Concrete Composites. Vol: 25. No: 3. pp: 379-385. 2003. Elsevier Applied
Science.
Ros, P. S., Cabo, F. D. et al. "Experimental Research on Prestressed Hollow Core Slabs
Floors with Insitu Concrete Topping" in FIP 12th International Congress
Proceedings. pp: C33-C41. 1994. Fdration Internationale de la Prcontrainte.
Scott, N. L. "Performance of Precast Prestressed Hollow Core Slab with Composite
Concrete Topping" in PCI Journal. Vol: 18. No: 2. pp: 64-77. 1973. Precast
/Prestressed Concrete Institute.
Swedish Standard. SIS 81 20 05: Concrete Surfaces - Determination of Surface
Roughness. 1981. Swedish Standard Institute.

12
Ueda, T. and Stitmannaithum, B. "Shear Strength of Precast Prestressed Hollow Slabs
with Concrete Topping" in ACI Structural Journal. Vol: 88. No: 4. pp: 402-410.
1991. American Concrete Society.

13