Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Strengthening of RC slabs with reinforced concrete overlay on the tensile

face
Hugo Fernandes a,⇑, Válter Lúcio b, António Ramos b
a
FCT – Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Portugal
b
CERIS - ICIST, FCT – Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Strengthening of concrete structures with a new concrete layer has been commonly used for columns,
Received 21 October 2015 beams and slabs. This technique is economic and efficient for structural strengthening since it uses the
Revised 19 August 2016 same base materials, steel and concrete. It is usually applied on the compressed face of the concrete ele-
Accepted 10 October 2016
ment due to concrete’s recognized behaviour under compression, posing several challenges to control
cracking and resistance when applied on the tensile face.
For assessing the performance of the strengthening method, twelve slab specimens were designed and
Keywords:
tested monotonically. The main parameters to assess in this work were the debonding behaviour and
Slab strengthening
Concrete layer
load, and the relationship between the latter and the relative displacements at the interface of the two
Reinforced concrete concrete layers. The performance of the strengthened structures strongly relies on the interaction of
Steel connectors the two concrete layers, with this being the main subject of the research about overlaid concrete. The load
Interfacial bond transfer capacity of the interface depends on the interface shear strength, which in turn is highly depend-
able on substrate roughness, cleanliness and curing conditions of the newly added layer. Interface perfor-
mance may be improved by using steel connectors crossing the interface, properly anchored on both
layers. The importance for these elements grows as the existing concrete is more deteriorated, since
adhesion strength will decrease with lower quality concrete.
This paper presents the experimental research for the application of bonded concrete overlays on the
tensile face of reinforced concrete slabs, mainly aimed at office buildings and parking facilities, where
spatial clearances or inaccessibility to the lower side of the slabs are recurrent. A ductile behaviour upon
debonding was achieved for the specimens with reinforcement crossing the interface, and a debonding
load up to three times that of the reference specimens without reinforcement crossing the interface.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction When applied on the tensile face of concrete elements, bonding

Strengthening of concrete structures by adding a new concrete
layer is well known when applied to the compressed face of con-
crete elements. Examples of that are beams and columns strength-
ened with concrete jacketing. Depending on the intended reason
for strengthening/retrofitting the existing structure should be
relieved of existing loads until strengthening is applied. This is
more important with damaged or deteriorated structures since
loading will further aggravate the existing structural condition.
Bonded concrete overlay becomes a relevant strengthening and
repairing technique since the base material has to be replaced with
new concrete.
between two concrete layers is affected by the normal stresses that
appear due to the difference in stiffness of the concrete layers. This
technique relies on the quality of bond between the two concrete
layers, therefore varying with surface preparation, and if steel con-
nectors are installed crossing the interface. If no connectors are
used, adhesion is the only component of the resisting mechanism
acting on the interface, and brittle failure shall occur. This relies
strongly on roughness, which allows for interlocking of the two
layers and consequently bonding stresses to develop along the
interface. With steel connectors crossing the interface between
the two concrete layers, three components of the resisting mecha-
nism illustrated in Fig. 1 shall develop [1]:

1. Adhesion, due to chemical bond between the two layers, and

mechanical interlocking, if macroscopic surface roughness is
⇑ Corresponding author. present, shall be considered for slips up to 0.5 mm [2].
E-mail address: HDPFernandes@fct.unl.pt (H. Fernandes).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.011
0141-0296/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550
Adhesion/Interlocking + Friction
Fig. 1. Resisting mechanism for concrete-to-concrete interfaces with steel connectors adapted from [4].
2. Friction is a direct consequence of external loads perpendicular
to the interface, or due to steel connectors crossing the interface
that are mobilized in tension for higher relative displacements,
usually larger than 0.5 mm [2], with equilibrium guaranteed by
compressive forces at the interface.
3. Larger relative slips mobilize dowel action inducing bending,
shear and tension in the steel connectors crossing the interface.
The dowel action maximum value depends on the resistance of
the steel connector (bending + tension and shear) and the
crushing of the surrounding concrete [2,3].
Bond performance of the interface will depend on the appropri-
ate conditions for these resisting mechanisms. Some authors pro-
vide recommendations for surface preparation and curing
conditions of the added concrete layer. Contamination of the con-
crete surface before casting the new layer, methods used for sur-
face preparation, and surface microcracking, are according to [2]
the main quality parameters for the application of this technique.
A special attention to edge zones is also referred to in the docu-
ment since the discontinuity of the cross section allows for the
development of significant tensile and shear stresses.
Interface bond performance varies from null to full transfer of
horizontal stresses between the two layers, allowing monolithic
behaviour to be achieved, according to Fig. 2.
Usually interaction between layers in the cross section is
characterized as partial, and relative displacement between the
two layers is accounted for. Several behaviour models have been
developed over the years [5–7], where relative displacement, both
horizontal and vertical, is comprised.
Fig. 2. Interface performance regarding shear stress transfer between layers.
541
Dowel Action
Stress transfer between the two concrete layers is based on the
shear friction theory [8–12]. The behaviour models developed using
the basis of this theory account for relative slip and interface crack
opening or dilation, which are increased in an unconfined state.
Normal and tangential relative displacements are of the utmost
importance when tensile stresses govern the interface stress field.
Models for relative displacement analysis and some models for
stress analysis do not specifically account for steel connectors
crossing the interface. This is a behaviour changing aspect for
detailing the interface since it limits interface crack opening, pro-
viding for greater stresses to develop and reaching of larger slips.
Shear connectors crossing the interface, properly anchored to both
layers to improve strength, can reduce uncertainty about interface
performance, and should be accounted for in the design of these
interfaces [13]. Due to the orthogonal directions of interface defor-
mations, behaviour of reinforcement crossing the interface will be
ruled by pullout of the embedded length and dowel action of the
steel bar. The relationship between the two phenomena has been
identified and studied, since pullout can be affected by transverse
shear, and dowel action in turn is affected by the pullout of the
steel bar [14]. Another ruling aspect for these mechanisms to
develop is aggregate interlock, which causes the interface crack
to open as the two layers slip relatively to another [4,15]. The latter
mechanism is highly dependable on the quality of the surface
preparation chosen for the existing structure substratum.
Surface preparation also plays a major role on interface
behaviour due to the interlocking mechanism, which causes the
interface crack to open when relative slip occurs [16]. There are
several methods for surface preparation, as jackhammering,
542 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550
recognized as being one of the most aggressive surface preparation
methods, and hydro-demolition, one of the least aggressive meth-
ods, allowing also for selective concrete removal [17–20]. These
methods are more or less intrusive in terms of microcracking of
the existing concrete layer and can cause premature debonding
of concrete chunks and reduced interface performance, reaching
a depth of 3 mm [21] to 10 mm [22] on the existing concrete layer.
Since a new concrete layer is to be cast against the existing one, a
greater roughness is required, with exposed aggregate particles for
improved interlocking. This is quantified in terms of an average
roughness parameter, which can be assessed through several tech-
niques. This value defines the interface in terms of roughness,
according to [23], from smooth to very rough, with a specific pro-
file geometry. For improved performance of the interface, a very
rough profile is recommended, with an average roughness param-
eter equal or greater than 3.0 mm, since it directly improves all
other components of the resisting mechanism.
Chipping with an electric or pneumatic hammer and steel moil
point, despite the disadvantages of microcracking, and hydro
demolition with high-pressure water jet, are the most common
surface preparation methods. The latter technique is the most
efficient in terms of roughening and reduced microcracking of the
surface, but also characterized by difficult logistics and higher costs.
For this reason, chipping with an electric hammer and steel moil
point is the easiest and least specialized method for surface
roughening in a strengthening/retrofitting situation. Alongside the
surface preparation techniques, it is also referred to in [24] the
importance of moisture on the existing surface. An optimum com-
bination of factors is presented for saturated substrate and appar-
ently dry surface, for better bonding of the overlaid concrete.
Values for adhesive tensile stress are provided in [18] for the steel
moil point and the high-pressure water jet of 1.10 MPa and
1.46 MPa, respectively.
Besides geometrical characteristics of the interface, perfor-
mance of the strengthened structure also depends on materials
of both substrate and the new layer to be overlaid. They directly
influence both local and global behaviour, through adhesive capac-
ity and crushing resistance of concrete, and through bending and
shear resistance of the composite layers. According to [25], the
newly added layer should be of greater resistance than the sub-
strate and low shrinkage, and should be fluid enough to penetrate
the grooves on the existing surface.
Table 1
Relevant specimen geometrical parameters.
S-REF
Thickness [m]
Length [m]
Overlay
Width [m]
As,o [–]
Interface As,i [mm2]
As,s [–]
Width [m]
Substrate Length [m]
Thickness [m]
Fig. 3. Rebar detailing and strain gauge placing for reference specimens (S-REF).
2. Experimental programme
2.1. Definition of the strengthened specimens
For characterizing the behavioural aspects of concrete layers in
a strengthening situation, three different detailings of the interface
and one for reference, were tested. The reference specimens were
tested with only surface roughening and no rebar crossing the
interface. Relevant data regarding specimens geometry is provided
in Table 1, where As,o and As,s are the longitudinal reinforcement
area for the overlay and substratum, respectively, and As,i the area
of the reinforcement crossing the interface. The experimental tests
were comprised by the following specimens:

Surface roughening only (S-REF).

Steel connectors distributed along the interface, with 50 mm of
anchorage length (S-STC, 1–3), and 70 mm of anchorage length
(S-STC-4).

Anchoring of the longitudinal reinforcement bars of the new
layer at the ends, since the deformation of the specimens in
bending suggests the lifting of the overlaid concrete in this zone
[25], with 50 mm of anchorage length (S-ANC, 1–3) and 70 mm
of anchorage length (S-ANC-4).

All of the aforementioned techniques combined for improving
bond at the interface (S-STANC).
Also in the MC 2010 [23] the lifting phenomenon at the overlaid
concrete edge is considered relevant since deformation due to
shrinkage is greatest in this zone and debonding shall occur.
Roughening of the substrate surface was accomplished for all spec-
imens with an electric hammer and steel moil point.
The slenderness of the slabs was always a limiting factor for the
intended stress at the interface. Therefore, the solution that guar-
anteed structural integrity until debonding consisted on bundled
longitudinal reinforcement and reduced contact area between the
two layers. The slab substrates were then reinforced with 10 mm
bundled longitudinal bars and reinforcement for the overlaid con-
crete layer consisted of six double 12 mm bars (Fig. 3).
The contact area between the two layers was reduced transver-
sally to increase bond stress. This layer also did not reach the sup-
ports for all specimens, since confinement of the rebar does not
necessarily happen in a real strengthening situation. Surface
S-STC S-ANC S-STANC
0.07
1.00
0.60
2Ø12//0.10 m (22.62 cm2/m)
– 336 678 1014
2
2Ø10//0.10 m (15.7 cm /m)
1.00
2.30
0.12
 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550 543

preparation for casting the new layer was performed with an elec-
tric chipping hammer and steel moil point eighteen days after cast-
ing of the substrate concrete. The final surface can be observed in
Fig. 4. Despite the disadvantages concerning microcracking of the
existing surface, this method was chosen due to its practical and
economical characteristics. Surface roughness was evaluated for
each specimen, with concern that the moil tip should not go deeper
than 10 mm. This protects the longitudinal rebar and the minimum
concrete cover.
Several methods for surface roughness assessment can be used
[17], with the sand patch method (SPM) being the most widely
referred in the literature and recommended in the MC 2010 [23].
Due to the availability of other methods, and with knowledge from
[26] that this method is limited for very rough surfaces, another
method by point measurement was used to evaluate the roughness
profile, shown in Fig. 4. Since the SPM can only determine the aver-
age ‘‘peak-to-mean” roughness Rp [23], this parameter was calcu-
lated according to Eq. (1), where n is the number of peak pi to
mean z profile measurements [17].
1X n
Rp ¼ jp  zj
n i¼1 i
The resulting parameters for each of the specimens are pre-
sented in Table 2, where six assessment lengths (n = 6) were con-
sidered. Characterization of the surface roughness was performed
according to [27], where a lower limit roughness is set at 3.0 mm
for using the SPM (Rt,SPM), or 2.2 mm when considering the Rp
parameter. Since the actual SPM was not performed the latter
parameter was considered, allowing for a surface characterization
of ‘‘very rough” according to [27] and the classification provided on
the MC 2010 [23].
The overlaid concrete was cast seventy-five days after casting
the substrate concrete, with the rebars instrumented with strain
gages, as well as the substrate rebars, at midspan and 0.25 m from
this point. Interface detailing, with longitudinal rebars crossing the
interface or steel connectors with anchorage lengths of 50 mm and
70 mm, can be observed in Figs. 5–7.
Shear connectors particularly, which consisted on right angle
rebars, were tied to the longitudinal reinforcement to prevent slip-
ping of the reinforcement at the overlay anchorage portion. Bond-
ing of the anchorages in the substrate layer was performed with
SikaÒ Grout, rather than an epoxy solution, due to the economy
and ease of application in a practical situation.
2.2. Materials characterization
Material characterization was performed for the different con-
crete layers, rebar sizes, and grout used for anchoring the rebar
crossing the interface. The mechanical properties for the grout
ð1Þ were tested for the compressive and tensile strength, and with
pullout tests for assessing bond strength. The parameters for this
material were a flexural tensile strength of 9.7 MPa, a compressive
strength of 78.8 MPa, and an average bond strength of 16.2 MPa.
Pullout testing of unconfined rebar embedded in concrete holes
with a diameter at least double that of the rebar allowed for deter-
mining the latter strength. Anchorage failure resulted in the pull
out of the rebar sliding through the steel-grout interface. The test

Fig. 4. Substrate surface roughness assessment setup and detail.

Table 2
Average peak-to-mean roughness parameter.

Rp [mm] Reference Steel connectors Anchorage Steel connectors +

(REF) (STC) (ANC) Anchorage (STANC)
S-1 2.2 2.2 2.2
S-2 2.2 2.2 2.9
2.6
S-3 2.2 2.3 2.3
S-4 – 2.6 2.9

Fig. 5. Rebar detailing and strain gauge placing for S-ANC specimens.
544 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550

Fig. 6. Rebar detailing and strain gauge placing for S-STC specimens.

Fig. 7. Rebar detailing and strain gauge placing for S-STANC specimens.

results for the other materials can be observed below in Tables 3 Table 4
and 4. Strength characteristics for the steel bars used.

Diameter Ø6 Ø 10 Ø 12

2.3. Test setup fy [MPa] 541.0 530.6 532.1

fu [MPa] 692.7 627.5 627.4

The specimens were subjected to monotonic loading in a three
point bending test, as shown in Fig. 8. Loading was imposed at
midspan with hydraulic jacks, and reactions at two symmetrical
supports, according to the figures below. Forces at the supports
were measured with four TMLÒ CNC-200KNA load cells and the
deformation at the coordinates identified in the left picture below,
with TMLÒ CDP-100 displacement transducers. These tests were
performed with prestressing strands at the supports.
For assessing relative displacements between the two layers,
TMLÒ CDP-50 displacement transducers were fixed on the sub-
strate layer, as shown in Fig. 9.
For data acquisition, four HBMÒ Spider8 datalogger units were
used along with one HBMÒ UPM100 datalogger unit, all monitored
by HBMÒ Catman V6.0 software. Loading was controlled by force
with a WALTER+BAIÒ PKNS19D electronically controlled hydraulic
pump, at a speed of 0.10 kN/s for all tests.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Failure modes
Behaviour was consistent for all specimens in terms of cracking,
debonding of the overlaid concrete, and failure load. Cracking at
fy – mean yield stress of steel.
fu – mean tensile strength of steel.
the interface level for the reference specimens started from the
ends of the overlaid concrete layer and evolved along the interface
to midspan, according to Fig. 10. The phenomenon occurs when the
tensile strength of the interface is reached, and subsequent failure
of the substrate layer (Fig. 10, right, flexural failure).
For specimens with longitudinal rebar anchored on the sub-
strate layer, beginning of interface cracking was similar to the ref-
erence specimens, occurring again at the overlaid concrete ends.
The debonding load was very close to the failure load on these
specimens. One specimen failed in shear (S-ANC-1), as shown in
Fig. 11, with the other two specimens resulting in flexural failure
of the substrate layer rebar.
Some specimens with smaller anchorage length (50 mm), had
failure controlled by pullout of the rebars anchored in the sub-
strate, as shown in Fig. 12.
For specimens with steel connectors distributed along the inter-
face, cracking was similar to anchored rebar ones, with two speci-
mens failing in shear (see Fig. 13). There was also no visible full
debonding of the overlaid concrete, with failure occurring for the
two layers resisting the load.

Table 3
Concrete strength characteristics for all specimens.

Reference Steel connectors Anchorage Steel connectors Anchorage Steel connectors + Anchorage
(S-REF, 1–3) (S-STC, 1–3) (S-ANC, 1–3) (S-STC, 4) (S-ANC, 4) (S-STANC)
fc,cube [MPa] Substrate 45.3 40.6 37.4 55.5 54.8 56.4
Overlay 47.8 47.8 47.8 41.1 39.4 41.5
fct [MPa] Substrate 2.8 2.5 2.3 3.9 3.9 4.0
Overlay 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.1

fc,cube – mean value for the compressive strength of concrete in cubic specimens.
fct – mean value for the tensile splitting strength of concrete.
 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550 545

Fig. 8. General test setup.

Fig. 9. Relative displacement measurement setup.

Fig. 10. Interface failure for reference specimens (S-REF-1). Fig. 11. Shear failure for S-ANC-1 specimen.

Anchorage failure occurred for some specimens with pullout at
the steel-grout interface visible through the interface crack right
after testing. Through a longitudinal sectioning of the specimens,
the evolution of the shear crack for the specimen that failed in
bending can be observed. The insufficient anchorage length caused
the shear crack to fail intercepting the steel connectors (see Fig. 14).
All three specimens with a larger anchorage length of rebars
crossing the interface (70 mm) failed in shear, as visible in
Fig. 15. This attests the increase in performance when reinforce-
ment crosses the interface, properly anchored, achieving an almost
monolithic behaviour until failure.
3.2. Debonding and failure loads
The relationship between load and deflection at midspan was
analysed to characterize the behaviour of the strengthened speci-
mens. Figs. 16 and 17 present the relationship between vertical
load and deflection at midspan, comparing specimens with rein-
forcement crossing the interface and reference ones. The marker
on the load-deflection curves illustrates the moment when the
highest strain was registered for the overlaid concrete rebars.
The load-deflection curves above show an approximately linear
behaviour for all tests up to a load of 40 kN at midspan, followed by
a reduction in stiffness. This was consistent with the cracking load
for the geometry of the cross section. For the reference specimens,
debonding of the overlaid concrete occurred for a load of 80 kN at
midspan. Stiffness was reduced to approximately zero, observed
graphically by an horizontal plateau. This was followed by reload-
ing of the substrate layer, until flexural failure occurs for a load of
160 kN at midspan.
For the specimens with longitudinal rebar anchored 50 mm in
the substrate (Fig. 16, left), the failure load was about the same
as for the reference specimens. The debonding load of 142 kN rep-
resents an increase of 79% when compared to reference specimens.
546 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550
Fig. 12. Failure for specimens with small anchorage length of the longitudinal rebars.
Fig. 13. Shear failure for specimens with steel connectors (S-STC-1).
For specimens with steel connectors anchored 50 mm in the sub-
strate (Fig. 16, right), debonding load increased about the same
as the latter (76%), with the resulting failure load 10% higher than
the reference tests. Debonding phenomenon was not visible during
testing, and only identified through the strain measurement at the
longitudinal rebars.
The three specimens with 70 mm anchorage length differed
from the first set of tests mainly due to greater debonding and ulti-
mate loads. The relationships between vertical load and deflection
at midspan for these specimens are presented in Fig. 17.
From the load-deflection curves, one can observe that the
increase in anchorage length also increased debonding and failure
loads. The latter showed an increase of 39% for the anchored longi-
tudinal rebar specimens, 27% for the slabs with steel connectors,
and 43% for all techniques combined. Also noticeable is the small
increase for the failure load of the specimen that combined all
techniques (S-STANC), when compared to anchored longitudinal
rebar tests (S-ANC). This attests the impact of the latter in the over-
all behaviour of the interface, due to longitudinal rebars with
higher diameter and anchorage positioning at the overlaid concrete
Fig. 14. Steel connectors anchorage detail and section for the S-STC specimens.
ends. The limitation on the evolution of both interface crack open-
ing and relative slip results in smaller relative displacements that
reach the steel connectors, thus reducing its contribution to the
resisting strength of the interface. However, these are activated
later in the loading history, with smaller stresses.
Table 5 lists the failure loads for all strengthened specimens,
and the load for which maximum strain was reached in the over-
laid concrete rebars, which is also the load for maximum stress
at the interface. Failure modes are identified as shear of the sub-
strate layer (Ss) or flexural failure of the substrate rebar (Fs).
The vertical and horizontal relative displacements at the over-
lay end are summarized in Table 6 for each detailing of the inter-
face. Regarding the specimens where the overlaid concrete fully
debonded, the displacement values were considered for maximum
steel strain at the overlay rebars. For the specimens without strain
gauge information, this value was estimated based on the irrespec-
tive load-deflection curve, comparing with instrumented speci-
mens with the same detailing of the interface. Highlighted values
refer to the highest values of relative displacement registered for
specimens where failure occurred by shear of the substrate layer.
The results also show higher crack dilation and interface slip for
the higher failure loads of specimens S-STC-4, S-ANC-4, and
S-STANC, denoting the mobilization of the dowel action of the
reinforcement crossing the interface with proper anchoring in
the substrate (see Table 6).
4. Discussion
The provisions on concrete-to-concrete interface resistance pre-
sented in the Model Code 2010 [23] were considered for behaviour
characterization and quantification of the components of the
resisting mechanism, aggregate interlock, friction, and dowel
action.
Shear stresses at the interface are a consequence of the varia-
tion of force DFso along the longitudinal rebar of the overlaid con-
crete, that are transferred to the substrate layer. These stresses are
responsible for the integrity of the composite section, since failure
 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550 547

Fig. 15. Shear failure for specimens with larger anchorage length of rebars crossing the interface (left, S-ANC-4; centre, S-STC-4; right, S-STANC).

Deflection at midspan [mm] Deflection at midspan [mm]

Fig. 16. Load-deflection curves for specimens w/reinforcement crossing the interface anchored 50 mm. highest strain registered for the overlay concrete rebars.

forces leads to an average shear stress mi at the interface level. This

is proportional to the variation of forces in length of the overlaid
concrete rebars, according to Eq. (2), where b is the width of the
interface.

Fig. 17. Load-deflection curves for specimens w/reinforcement crossing the inter-
face anchored 70 mm. highest strain registered for the overlay concrete rebars.
of the interface can cause failure of the strengthened element.
Shear stress can be evaluated in terms of the force transferred
between the two concrete layers over its interface. In a concrete
element of length Dl between cracked sections, equilibrium of
DF so
vi ¼ ð2Þ
Dl  b
The strain gages installed in the longitudinal rebars provided a
linear distribution of steel strains, which is consistent with a uni-
form distribution of shear stresses across the interface. The values
for the steel strains at midspan (es) and corresponding values for
shear stress at the interface (mi) can be observed in Table 7. These
values are the maximum strains registered for the longitudinal
rebars at the overlaid concrete. Only two specimens of each detail-
ing were instrumented with strain gages at the rebars.
Evaluation of the shear resistance at the interface was carried
out according to Randl [2] and the MC 2010 [23]. The resisting
mechanisms at the interface are divided in three main compo-
nents: aggregate interlock, friction, and dowel action of the rein-
forcement crossing the interface.
The low stiffness of slabs results in large vertical deflections and
large horizontal displacements. In [2] a distinction is made
between stiff and more brittle behaviour of the interface in terms
of the relative slip s. This limit is set at 0.05 mm, governed by

Table 5
Maximum strain at the overlaid concrete rebars and failure load at midspan.

Specimen S-REF S-STC S-ANC S-STANC

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Values for maximum strain Midspan load [kN] 82.4 – 80.1 140.3 – 144.3 200.3 – 150.0 140.0 190.3 214.7
at the overlay rebars Overlay rebars Fso [kN] 138.9 – 141.3 218.7 – 226.5 375.9 – 305.5 273.6 408.2 483.4
Substrate rebars Fs [kN] 90.8 – 88.6 179.7 – 175.9 408.1 – 153.6 137.3 272.7 235.2
Failure load at midspan [kN] 163.1 155.3 160.8 177.2 171.2 180.1 201.8 151.1 153.6 157.3 221.2 227.7
Failure mode Fs Fs Fs Ss Fs Ss Ss Ss Fs Fs Ss Ss
548 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550

Table 6
Relative displacements at the interface end.

S-REF S-STC S-ANC S-STANC

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Load at midspan [kN] 82.4 79.6 80.1 177.2 148.1 180.1 201.8 151.1 150.0 140.0 221.2 227.7
Crack dilation [mm] 1.52 0.87 1.42 4.11 2.89 4.33 4.98 2.33 2.06 2.51 5.46 4.18
Interface slip [mm] 0.58 0.39 0.57 1.45 1.02 1.43 2.38 0.35 0.51 0.49 2.49 2.21

Table 7
Overlay steel strains and shear stress at the interface.

Specimen S-REF S-STC S-ANC S-STANC

1 3 1 3 4 2 3 4 –
es [106] 511.7 520.6 805.7 834.5 1384.9 1125.5 1008.0 1503.9 1780.9
mi [MPa] 0.46 0.47 0.73 0.76 1.25 1.02 0.91 1.36 1.61

aggregate interlock and friction from external forces. For slips over
this limit, the behaviour is considered more ductile, with adhesion
replaced by friction/interlocking and dowel action. The following
equations taken from [2] quantify both these scenarios, without
accounting for external actions that are favourable to the resisting
mechanism:

s 6 0:05 mm; v R;ad ¼ ca f ctd 6 0:5 m f cd ð3Þ

Fig. 18. Vertical tensile stresses at the end of the interface.

s P 0:05 mm; v R;ilþfrþdow ¼ cr f 1=3

ck þ l qi k1 f yd
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ k2 qi f yd f cd 6 bc m f cd
where
vR,ad is the design value for the adhesive shear stress for the
interface;
ca ; cr are the coefficients for surface condition;
f ctd is the design value for concrete tensile strength;
m is the reduction coefficient for compressive forces
(m ¼ 0:55  ð30=f ck Þ 6 0.55);
1=3
f cd is the design value for concrete compressive strength;
vR,il+fr+dow is the design value for shear stress of the interface for
interlocking, friction, and dowel action;
f ck is the characteristic compressive strength for concrete;
l is a friction coefficient;
qi is the ratio of reinforcement crossing the interface
(qi ¼ As;i =Ai );
k1 is the latter reinforcement performance reduction factor
(k1 ¼ rs;i =f y 6 1.0) where rs,i is the actual tensile stress in the
steel crossing the concrete interface;
f yd is the design value for steel yielding stress;
k2 is the interaction coefficient for flexural resistance of the
rebar (61.6 for circular cross-sections and C20/25 - C50/60);
bc is the coefficient that accounts for the strut inclination of
concrete in compression.
An adjustment is proposed for some coefficients in an analysis
situation that fits better with test results. Coefficient cr is proposed
as 0.2 for the very rough surfaces of the present test specimens
which is lower than recommended in [2,23] when considering
mean values. One should notice that for the present case the inter-
face comprises perpendicular tensile stresses, whereas the cr val-
ues according to [2,23] refer to non-tensioned interfaces only.
The related shear strength due to aggregate interlock for the refer-
ence specimens thus resulted in 0.66 MPa, calculated considering
the lower concrete compressive strength of the two concretes. This
value overestimates the test results of about 0.19 MPa for the two
reference slabs in Table 7. The microcracking due to the surface
preparation and the tensile stresses that result from equilibrium
ð4Þ at the end of the interface (Fig. 18) can justify this behaviour,
debonding prematurely for a brittle resisting mechanism.
The coefficient of friction l was calculated as proposed in [23]
and also in [28] for very rough interfaces. Considering the rough-
ness classification presented in Section 2.1, the friction coefficient
takes the value of 1.4. For the coefficient k1 a new method is pro-
posed, that contemplates the amount of horizontal force at the
interface not resisted by dowel action of the rebar. This shear force
at the interface (kFDFso) is accounted for in the quantification of
the steel stresses for the rebars crossing the interface, by means
of a coefficient ‘kF’ as follows:
F s;c ðkF  DF so Þ tan h kF  ti  tan h
rsi ¼ ¼ ¼ ð5Þ
Asi Asi qsi
where Fs,c is the tensile force in the steel connectors or longitudinal
rebar anchorage and qsi is the reinforcement ratio crossing the
interface (Asi/Ai). h is the angle between the interface plane and
the concrete strut that results from nodal equilibrium, as illustrated
in Fig. 19.
The values for the coefficient kF were determined according to
the amount of stresses resisted by dowel action of the rebar
crossing the interface. Around 70% of the total horizontal load at
the interface for the steel connectors was determined for the
aggregate interlock and friction resisting mechanisms (kF = 0.7).
The remaining stresses were then resisted by dowel action of
the rebars. For the specimens with longitudinal rebar anchored,
the value kF was reduced in half (kF = 0.35) empirically in
good approximation to the test results, since the edge lifting
phenomenon is present, thus resulting in tension of the anchored
rebars. An angle h of 21.8° was considered, with good correlation
to test results, which is also the lower bound for the angle of con-
crete struts according to [29]. The considered values for these
parameters are a tentative approach accounting for the rather
complex situation at the considered overlay edges subject to strong
delamination and shall be confirmed with further test results.
Dowel action resistance alone can be calculated according to [2]
with Eq. (6), where maximum allowable dowel action of the
 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550 549

Fig. 19. Resisting mechanism of the overlay rebars anchorage (left) and shear connectors (right).

Table 8
Dowel action resistance.

Specimen S-STC S-ANC S-STANC

1 3 4 2 3 4 (Ø6) (Ø12)
Asi [mm2] 336 678 336 678
s [mm] 0.48 0.53 2.38 0.51 0.49 1.32 1.69
k1 [–] 0.34 0.35 0.59 0.24 0.21 0.32 0.25
VF [kN] 62.5 62.2 60.6 91.1 91.7 140.1 72.7 146.7
mF [MPa] 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.30 0.31 0.47 0.73
mF/mi [–] 0.29 0.27 0.16 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.45

Table 9
Shear stress for friction and interlocking of protruding aggregates.

Specimen S-STC S-ANC S-STANC

1 3 4 2 3 4
mil [MPa] 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.63 0.64
mfr [MPa] 0.29 0.30 0.49 0.20 0.18 0.27 0.31
mfr+il/mi [–] 1.27 1.24 0.90 0.81 0.88 0.66 0.59
mfr+il+F [MPa] 1.13 1.14 1.33 1.12 1.11 1.37 1.69
mfr+il+F/mi [–] 1.55 1.51 1.06 1.10 1.21 1.00 1.05

2 The coefficient k2 is taken as 1.5, fitting within the values pre-

Shear stress at the interface [MPa]

scribed in [2], without safety factor. The value for the resisting
1.6 stress that results from dowel action, considering smax = 0.10Ø,
are presented in Table 8.
1.2 Contribution of the rebar crossing the interface is significant,
accounting in the S-STANC solution for almost one-half of the hor-
0.8 izontal load at the interface by dowel action of the rebar. For most
of the other specimens, this mechanism accounted for around one
0.4 third of the horizontal load at the interface.
The remaining resisting mechanisms at the interface can then
0 be estimated according to [2] with Eq. (7), and are presented in
S-STC-1 S-STC-3 S-STC-4 S-ANC-2 S-ANC-3 S-ANC-4 S-STANC
Table 9. along with the total value for the resisting strength of
Dowel action Friction Interlocking Experimental
the interface.
Fig. 20. Estimated shear stresses in the interface and experimental shear stresses. v ilþfr ¼ cr  f 1=3
cm þ l  k1  qi  f y ð7Þ

An overestimation for the shear stress at the interface seems

reinforcement is scaled down due to the interaction between bend-
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi characteristic for the specimens with smaller anchoring of the rein-
2
ing and tensile stresses in the rebars ( 1  k1 ), and due to the rel- forcement crossing the interface (S-STC-1, S-STC-3, S-ANC-2 and
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ative slip of the interface crack ( s=smax 6 1:0). This phenomenon SANC-3, see Fig. 20). A good correlation with the model is found
is particularly important for surfaces with a higher roughness, for the specimens with proper anchoring of the reinforcement
where horizontal relative displacement leads to vertical displace- crossing the interface (S-STC-4, S-ANC-4, and S-STANC, see
ment, causing the interface crack to open. Fig. 20). The anchorage length of the reinforcement crossing the
interface shall be determined considering the resistance of the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2ffi Asi  f y grout used in the hole, the total roughness of the surface, and the
V F ðsÞ ¼ V F;max  s=smax  1  k1 6 pffiffiffi ð6Þ failure mechanisms of grouted anchors under shear and tension,
3
according to [30].
where
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5. Conclusions
V F;max ¼ k2  Asi  f c;cube  f y is the maximum allowable force for
dowel action; Twelve flexural tests were performed on slab specimens
Asi is the area of the reinforcement crossing the interface; strengthened with a new concrete overlay. Failure mode for each
f c;cube is the concrete compressive strength in cubic specimens; detailing of the interface was identified, along with several con-
f y is the steel yield stress; straints to the application of this strengthening technique. Full
s is the relative slip of the layers at the interface; brittle debonding of the new layer occurred for the reference spec-
smax is the relative slip for V F;max , limited to 0.10Ø–0.20Ø. imens, attesting the importance of reinforcement crossing the
550 H. Fernandes et al. / Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 540–550
interface. The smaller dispersion of results attests the constant
behaviour of concrete elements strengthened with this technique,
thus crediting its application in actual strengthening and retrofit-
ting situations. Zones where the interface surface could be
observed were identified with adhesive or cohesive failure. The lat-
ter could be observed generally in the substrate layer, where con-
crete was weakest.
One constraint identified after testing was the insufficient
anchorage length of the reinforcement crossing the interface in a
first series of tests, which lead to a complementary experimental
campaign. Insufficient bonding length in the existing layer penal-
ized the resisting strength of the interface, leading to lower resis-
tance and premature debonding. The embedment length of the
steel connectors or anchoring of longitudinal rebar must account
for the anchorage failure mechanisms and the maximum rough-
ness of the interface. This parameter should also be controlled on
site.
When compared to the reference specimens, detailing with
rebars crossing the interface reached a performance gain for each
solution in terms of maximum shear stress at the interface. Rebar
crossing the interface with greater anchorage length resulted in a
performance gain of more than double the shear stress of the ref-
erence specimens. Even with insufficient anchorage length, the
reinforcement crossing the interface resulted in a performance
gain of 60–110% for the shear stress at the interface. For the solu-
tion with both steel connectors and longitudinal rebar anchored,
the shear stress at the interface was three times that of the refer-
ence specimens.
Provisions on the Model Code 2010 [23] for concrete-to-
concrete interfaces, considering the proposed coefficients, fit well
with the experimental results for specimens with proper anchoring
of the reinforcement crossing the interface.
This work, by simplifying the horizontal shear stress problem to
one direction, allowed for a better understanding of the concrete-
to-concrete interaction phenomenon on a tensile face, and will
allow for the development of two direction shear specimens, char-
acteristic for punching strength on flat slabs.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e
Tecnologia – Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior
through project EXPL/ECM–EST/1371/2013 and grant SFRH/
BD/89505/2012. Contributions of CONCREMAT SA and SIKA AG
are also acknowledged for the production of concrete specimens
and providing the bonding agent for anchoring the reinforcement
crossing the interface.
References
[1] Münger F, Wicke M, Randl N. Design of shear transfer in concrete-concrete
composite structures. IABSE reports; 1997. p. 163–8.
[2] Randl N. Design recommendations for interface shear transfer in fib Model
Code 2010. Struct Concr 2013;14:230–41.
[3] Koseki K, Breen J. Exploratory study of shear strength of joints for precast
segmental bridges. Research report 248-1; 1983.
[4] Millard S, Johnson R, Gambarova P, Karakog C. Shear transfer across cracks in
reinforced concrete due to aggregate interlock and to dowel action. Mag Concr
Res 1985;36:47–51.
[5] Walraven J, Reinhardt H. Theory and experiments on the mechanical behavior
of cracks in plain and reinforced concrete subjected to shear loading. Concr
Mech 1981;26:65.
[6] Okamura H, Maekawa K. Nonlinear analysis and constitutive models of
reinforced concrete. Tokyo: Gihodo-Shuppan; 1991.
[7] Vecchio F, Lai D. Crack shear-slip in reinforced concrete elements. J Adv Concr
Technol 2004;2:289–300.
[8] Birkeland P, Birkeland H. Connections in precast concrete construction. J Am
Concr Inst 1966;63:345–67.
[9] Mattock A, Hawkins N. Shear transfer in reinforced concreterecent research. J
Prestress Concr Inst 1972;17:55–75.
[10] Loov R, Patnaik A. Horizontal shear strength of composite concrete beams with
rough interface. PCI J 1994;39:48–69.
[11] Walraven J. Aggregate interlock: a theoretical and experimental analysis [Ph.D.
thesis]. TU Delft; 1980.
[12] Randl N. Investigations on load transfer between old and new concrete at
different surface roughnesses [Ph.D. thesis]. University of Innsbruck; 1997.
[13] Silfwerbrand J, Beushausen H, Courard L. Bonded cement based material
overlays for the repair, the lining or the strengthening of slabs or
pavements. Netherlands: Springer; 2011. p. 51–79.
[14] Maekawa K, Qureshi J. Embedded bar behavior in concrete under combined
axial pullout and transverse displacement. J JSCE, Divis E: Mater, Concr Struct
Pavem 1996;30:183–95.
[15] Bažant Z, Gambarova P. Crack shear in concrete: crack band microplane model.
J Struct Eng 1985;110:2015–35.
[16] Santos P, Júlio E. Interface shear transfer on composite concrete members. ACI
Struct J 2014;111:113–21.
[17] Santos P, Júlio E. A state-of-the-art review on roughness quantification
methods for concrete surfaces. Constr Build Mater 2013;38:912–23.
[18] Silfwerbrand J. Improving concrete bond in repaired bridge decks. Concr Int
1990;12:61–6.
[19] Saucier F, Pigeon M. Durability of new-to-old concrete bonding. In:
Proceedings of the ACI international conference on evaluation and
rehabilitation of concrete structures and innovations in design; 1991. p.
689–707.
[20] Abu-Tair A, Rigden S, Burley E. Testing the bond between repair materials and
concrete substrate. ACI Mater J 1996;93:553–8.
[21] Bissonnette B, Courard L, Beushausen H, Fowler D, Trevino M, Vaysburd A.
Recommendations for the repair, the lining or the strengthening of concrete
slabs or pavements with bonded cement-based material overlays. Mater Struct
2012;46:481–94.
[22] Transportation Research Board. Removing concrete from bridges. NCHRP
synthesis. Report 169, Washington, D.C.; 1991. p. 42.
[23] fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Ernst & Sohn; 2013. 434p.
[24] Emmons P. Concrete repair and maintenance. R. S. Means Company; 1994.
314p.
[25] Bissonnette B, Courard L, Fowler D, Granju J. Bonded cement based material
overlays for the repair, the lining or the strengthening of slabs or pavements.
State-of-the-art report of the RILEM Technical Committee 193-RLS; 2011.
[26] Bissonnette B, Vaysburd A, von Fay K. Best practices for preparing concrete
surfaces prior to repairs and overlays. Report number MERL 12-17; 2012.
[27] Lenz P. Beton-Beton-Verbund, Potenziale für Schubfugen [Ph.D.
thesis]. Technische Universität München; 2012.
[28] Santos P, Júlio E. A state-of-the-art review on shear-friction. Eng Struct
2012;45:435–48.
[29] European Committee for Standardization. EN 1992-1-1: eurocode 2-design of
concrete structures - part I: general rules and rules for buildings, Brussels;
2004.
[30] Miltenberger P. Capacity design of grouted anchors. In: 16th international
conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology, Washington, DC;
2001.