Construction joints are stopping places in the process of placing concrete and they arernrequired because in many structures it is impractical to place concrete in one continuousrnoperation. The region which separates the two dissimilar concretes is called interface. Thernconcept of concrete to concrete interface load transfer plays an important role in assuming thernmonolithic behavior of the resulting composite reinforced concrete members. rnMany researches have been done over the years to understand the interface shear transfer ofrnprecast elements and joints. However, most of the researches conducted to study interfacernshear strength are on pre-cracked or monolithic push off samples and not on constructionrnjoints. But the behavior of construction joints cannot be modeled by samples with or withoutrncracks. So a study in samples with construction joint could be valuable contribution to anrnalready existing vast knowledge on interface shear transfer. rnThe results of the experimental tests indicated that the presence of a construction joint reducesrnthe interface shear strength. Shear strength reduction up to 35% is noted. The test results alsornshow that the shear strength of both samples with and without construction joints increased asrnthe area of steel crossing the shear plane is increased. The shear strength of the monolithicrnsamples increased from 2.91MPa to 2.97MPa to 3.06MPa and the shear strength of samplesrnwith construction joint generally increase from 2.36MPa to 2.65MPa. We can also see fromrnthe test results that surface treatment could have a major effect in the interface shear strength.rnThe test result shows that the shear strength for a construction joint with a smooth surfacerntreatment is reduced from 2.91MPa to 1.91MPa (which is a 35% reduction). This reduction isrnmainly due to the reduction in the aggregate interlock forces because of the relatively smoothrninterface between the two forces of the shear plane. rnThe experimental results were compared against shear interface models proposed by differentrnresearchers and building codes. From this comparison, we can see that the results by thernbuilding codes and most researchers are very conservative for both samples with and withoutrnconstruction joint.