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

net/publication/268148684

Influence of Width on Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Members

Article in ACI Structural Journal · November 2014

DOI: 10.14359/51687107

CITATIONS READS

50 1,234

4 authors, including:

Eva Lantsoght Ane de Boer

Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) Ane de Boer Consultancy
238 PUBLICATIONS 1,957 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 926 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joost Walraven
Delft University of Technology
176 PUBLICATIONS 5,562 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eva Lantsoght on 11 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title No. 111-S123

Influence of Width on Shear Capacity of Reinforced

Concrete Members
by Eva O. L. Lantsoght, Cor van der Veen, Ane de Boer, and Joost C. Walraven

Code provisions for one-way shear assume a linear relation between

the shear capacity of a reinforced concrete member and its width.
For wide members subjected to a concentrated load, an effective
width in shear should be introduced. To study the effective width
and the influence of the member width on shear capacity, a series
of experiments was carried out on continuous one-way elements of
different widths. The size of the loading plate, the moment distri-
bution at the support, and the shear span-depth ratio were varied
and studied as a function of the member width. The effective width
can be determined by using a 45-degree load-spreading method
from the far side of the loading plate to the face of the support.
This proposed effective width is easy to implement, yet gives good
results in combination with code provisions. Fig. 1—Principle of effective width beff: area under curve
Keywords: effective width of slab; punching shear; shear; slab; structural
v(x) of shear stresses over width b equals area of maximum
load test. shear stress vmax over beff.

INTRODUCTION
The code provisions (ACI Committee 318 2011; CEN
2005) for shear assume a linear relation between the shear
capacity and the member width. The expressions for the
beam shear capacity are semi-empirical equations resulting
from databases of shear tests (Reineck et al. 2013) on mostly
small, heavily-reinforced, simply-supported beams in a
four-point bending test as developed by Regan (1987) for
the expressions in NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 and by Morrow
and Viest (1957) for ACI 318-11. Recent research on wide
members subjected to line loads (Sherwood et al. 2006)
showed that the code provisions for beam shear are appli-
cable to these cases. For loads that are smaller than the full
member width, it is necessary to introduce an effective width
in shear (Chauvel et al. 2007). A loading case in which it
is necessary to define such an effective width is the case
of a solid slab bridge subjected to design truck loads (from
NEN-EN 1991-2:2003). For this case, the wheel load or axle
load should be distributed over a certain effective width to Fig. 2—(a) Load spreading under 45 degrees and resulting
determine the contribution of this load to the shear stress at effective width as used in Dutch practice; and (b) load
the support (Steenbergen et al. 2011). Very little information spreading and resulting effective width as used in French
on the shear distribution in bridges is available (Zokaie 1992). practice (Chauvel et al. 2007).
The effective width is theoretically determined from the
the farthest side of the load (Fig. 2(b)). In German prac-
stress distribution over the width of the element (Goldbeck
tice, a conservative formula is used to define the effective
and Smith 1916; Goldbeck 1917) and is defined so that the
width (Grasser and Thielen 1991). The Model Code 2010
resisting action due to the maximum stress distributed over
(fib 2012) guidelines for the determination of the effective
the effective width equals the resisting action due to the vari-
able stresses over the entire width (Fig. 1). In Dutch prac- ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 6, November-December 2014.
tice, a 45-degree horizontal load-spreading method from the MS No. S-2013-258, doi:10.14359/51687107, received February 19, 2014, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2014, American Concrete
center of the load is used to determine the effective width Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
at the face of the support (Fig. 2(a)), and in French prac- obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
tice (Chauvel et al. 2007), the load spreading is taken from is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 1441

 two-way shear, and the proposed effective width can be used
for solid slab bridges subjected to truck loads.

CODE PROVISIONS
According to NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 (CEN 2005)
Section 6.2.2 (1), the shear resistance for a structural member
without stirrups is calculated as follows (SI units: fck in MPa;
1 MPa = 145 psi; k1 = 0.15):
Fig. 3—Location and length of the control section beff for
determination of shear resistance of wide members with VRd,c = [CRd,ck(100ρlfck)1/3 + k1σcp]bwdl≥ (vmin + k1σcp) bwdl (1)
point loads located close to support line; simple edge
support (fib 2012).
200
width are given as indicated in Fig. 3. For simply supported k = 1+ ≤ 2.0 (2)
elements, the angle of horizontal load spreading is taken as dl
60 degrees, and for clamped elements, 45 degrees, as based The values of CRd,c and vmin are nationally determined param-
on the Swiss Code (SIA 162 1968). In the Model Code eters. The default values are CRd,c = 0.18/γc with γc=1.5 in
approach, the shear stress is checked at a distance x = dl from general and
the support, provided that dl ≤ av /2.
In the literature, additional methods for calculating the vmin = 0.035k 3/ 2 f ck1/ 2 (3)
effective shear width for well-defined cases are suggested,
none of which are suitable for extrapolation towards a more NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 Section 6.2.6(6) accounts for
general use (Diaz de Cossio et al. 1962; Graf 1933; Regan the beneficial influence of direct load transfer through
and Rezai-Jorabi 1988; Taylor et al. 2003). When slabs are a compression strut for loads close to the support. For
not supported by a line support but instead by a number of beams, the contribution of a load, applied within a distance
discrete bearings, a similar problem arises (Lubell et al. 0.5dl ≤ av ≤ 2dl from the edge of a support, to the shear force
2008; Ross et al. 2012). Experiments studying this problem VEd may be multiplied by β = av/2dl.
did not result in generally applicable expressions for the case The ACI 318-11 Section 11.2.2.1 formula (11-5) for
of members not loaded over their full width. For deck slabs normalweight concrete (λ = 1, with notations altered to be
in steel-concrete bridges, Zheng et al. (2010) developed an uniform with the previously used notations), describes the
expression, but it is not suitable for solid-slab bridges. shear resistance as
If the concept of an effective width can be applied to wide
concrete members loaded in shear, then the shear capacity  V d 
should cease to increase as the member width is increased Vc =  0.16 f ck + 17ρl ACI l  bw dl ≤ 0.29 f ck bw dl (4)
after reaching a threshold value—the effective width. As  M ACI 
long as the element width is smaller than the effective width, ACI 318-08 recommends the use of nonlinear analysis or
increasing widths lead to increasing shear capacities. When strut-and-tie models for members with concentrated loads
the element width is larger than the effective width, only the within a distance twice the member depth from the support.
effective width at the support can carry the shear load, and
further increasing of the element width will not result in an EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
increase in the shear carrying capacity. Previous research Specimens
(Regan and Rezai-Jorabi 1988) showed increasing shear The experimental program consisted of three reinforced
capacities for slabs with a concentrated load placed at such a concrete elements (BS series) sized 5.0 x 0.5 x 0.3 m (16.4 ft x
location that a/dl = 5.42 for increasing widths (0.4 to 1.2 m 1.6 ft x 11.8 in.); three elements (BM series) sized 5.0 x 1.0 x
[1.3 to 3.9 ft]) up to a certain value (1 m [3.3 ft]), after which 0.3 m (16.4 ft x 3.3 ft x 11.8 in.); three elements (BL series)
the shear capacity remained constant. In other experiments sized 5.0 x 1.5 x 0.3 m (16.4 ft x 4.9 ft x 11.8 in.); and three
(Reißen and Hegger 2013), however, a threshold value was elements (BX series) sized 5.0 x 2.0 x 0.3 m (16.4 ft x 6.6 ft
not observed for a load placed at a/dl = 4.17 as the width x 11.8 in.). The results of slabs S8 and S9, sized 5.0 x 2.5 x
increased (0.5 to 3.5 m [1.6 to 11.5 ft]). 0.3 m (16.4 ft x 8.2 ft x 11.8 in.), from a previous series of
experiments (Lantsoght et al. 2013) were used to complete
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE the series of specimens with increasing widths. The depth of
The influence of the member width on the one-way shear 0.3 m (11.8 in.) is a 1:2 scale representation of typical Dutch
capacity of reinforced concrete wide beams subjected to solid slab bridges. An overview of the properties of these
concentrated loads is studied in a comprehensive series of specimens is given in Table 1.
experiments. Based on these experiments, recommendations All specimens were reinforced with deformed steel bars
are given for the effective width, which previously was only with a yield strength of 500 MPa (72.5 ksi). The deformed
based on local practice and rules of thumb. The conducted bars with a diameter of 20 mm (0.79 in.) had fym = 542 MPa
experiments are important as they explore the transition (78.6 ksi) and fum = 658 MPa (95.4 ksi), and the bars with a
zone from one-way shear to a mixed mode of one-way and diameter of 10 mm (0.39 in.) had fym = 537 MPa (77.9 ksi)

1442 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014

Table 1—Properties of specimens BS1 through BX3, plus S8 and S9 for comparison
Specimen no. b, m fc,meas, MPa fct,meas, MPa ρl, % ρt, % a, mm a/d zload, mm Age, days
BS1 0.5 81.5 6.1 0.948 0.258 600 2.26 300 55
BM1 1.0 81.5 6.1 0.948 0.258 600 2.26 300 62
BL1 1.5 81.5 6.1 0.948 0.258 600 2.26 300 189
BS2 0.5 88.6 5.9 0.948 0.258 400 1.51 200 188
BM2 1.0 88.6 5.9 0.948 0.258 400 1.51 200 188
BL2 1.5 94.8 5.9 0.948 0.258 400 1.51 200 180
BS3 0.5 91.0 6.2 0.948 0.258 600 2.26 300 182
BM3 1.0 91.0 6.2 0.948 0.258 600 2.26 300 182
BL3 1.5 81.4 6.2 0.948 0.258 600 2.26 300 171
BX1 2.0 81.4 6.0 0.948 0.258 600 2.26 300 47
BX2 2.0 70.4 5.8 0.948 0.258 400 1.51 200 39
BX3 2.0 78.8 6.0 0.948 0.258 600 2.26 200 40
S8 2.5 77.0 6.0 0.996 0.258 600 2.26 300 48
S9 2.5 81.7 5.8 0.996 0.258 400 1.51 200 77

Notes: 1 m = 3.3 ft; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.04 in.

and fum = 628 MPa (91.1 ksi). A concrete cover of 25 mm

(0.98 in.) over the reinforcement was applied. The effec-
tive depth to the longitudinal reinforcement dl was 265 mm
(10.4 in.) and depth to the transverse reinforcement dt was
250 mm (9.8 in.). The reinforcement layout of the BS spec-
imens is shown in Fig. 4. For wider elements, the number
of bars was increased to maintain the same reinforcement
percentage of ρl = 0.948%. For comparison to the previously
Fig. 4—Reinforcement layout for test specimens: (a) top
tested slab specimens of 2.5 m (8.2 ft.), the percentage of
view of BS1; and (b) cross-section of BS1. (Note: measure-
transverse flexural reinforcement is kept at ρt = 0.258%.
ments in mm; 1 mm = 0.04 in.)
High-strength concrete of Class C53/65 from NEN-EN
1992-1-1:2005 Section 3.1.2 (3) Table 3.1 (CEN 2005) was wide, only one prestressing bar was used, and for the spec-
used with a target cylinder strength fc,cyl of 61 MPa (8847 psi), imens 1.0 m (3.3 ft) wide, two prestressing bars were used.
which corresponds to the compressive strengths found when All wider elements were tested with three prestressing bars,
testing cores taken from existing solid slab bridges. Glacial as shown in Fig. 5(a).
river aggregates with a maximum aggregate size of 16 mm The concentrated load is applied in a displacement-
(0.63 in.) were used. controlled way through a hydraulic jack (Fig. 5(b)) onto a
steel loading plate either 200 x 200 mm (7.9 x 7.9 in.) or
Test setup 300 x 300 mm (11.8 x 11.8 in.). The 200 x 200 mm (7.9 x
A top view of the test setup for the reinforced concrete 7.9 in.) loading plate is a 1:2 scale representation of the 400 x
elements is given in Fig. 5(a) and a section elevation is 400 mm (15.8 x 15.8 in.) contact surface for each wheel of
given in Fig. 5(b). A photograph is given in Fig. 5(c). The the axle load used in the live load model (Load Model 1) of
line supports (“sup 1” and “sup 2” in Fig. 5) consist of a NEN-EN 1991-2:2002 (CEN 2003). Laser distance finders
steel beam (HEM 300) 300 mm (11.8 in.) wide, a layer of are used to measure the deformations, as shown in Fig. 5(c).
plywood, and a layer of felt 100 mm (3.9 in.) wide (Prochaz- A full description of the materials and instrumentation and
kova and Lantsoght 2011), so that the support width the experimental observations are given in the full test report
bsup = 100 mm (3.9 in.). Experiments are carried out close (Lantsoght 2011).
to the simple support (sup 1, SS in Fig. 5(a)) and close to
the continuous support (sup 2, CS in Fig. 5(a)), where the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
rotation is partially restrained by vertical prestressing bars, Test results
fixed to the strong floor of the laboratory. An initial force On every specimen, one experiment was carried out at
of 5 kN (1.1 kip) per prestressing bar was used for the BS the simple support (SS in Fig. 5) and one at the continuous
and BM specimens, 10 kN (2.2 kip) for the BL specimens, support (CS in Fig. 5). The results are reported in Table 2. As
12 kN (2.7 kip) for BX, and 15 kN (3.4 kip) for the S series. shown in Fig. 6, the following failure modes are observed:
Load cells were used to measure the force in the prestressing • Failure as a beam in shear with a noticeable shear crack
bars during the experiment. For the specimens 0.5 m (1.6 ft) at the side (B, Fig. 6(a));

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 1443

 Fig. 6—Observed failure modes: (a) B: shear crack at the
Fig. 5—Test setup: (a) top view; (b) elevation; and (c) photo- side face (BS1T2); (b) WB crack pattern: inclined cracks on
graph showing laser distance finders on measurement frame, the bottom face (BL3T1); and (c) P: partial punching at the
line support, load and prestressing bars, BL1T2 at failure. bottom face (S9T1).

• Failure as a wide beam in shear with cracks at an angle B-series specimens are made from high-strength concrete,
of the span direction, resulting in inclined cracks on the while S3 and S5 were made from normal-strength concrete.
bottom (WB, Fig. 6(b)); or The experimental observations are summarized in Table 3,
• Development of a partial punching surface on the showing the measured average ratio of the shear capacity
bottom face (P, Fig. 6(c)). for a = 400 mm (15.7 in.), Vexp,400, to the shear capacity for
a = 600 mm (23.6 in.), Vexp,600. The results in Table 3 show
Shear span-depth ratio a clear increase in shear capacity with decreasing distance
To study the relation between the member width and the to the support, as known from the literature (Kani 1964)
influence of the shear span-depth ratio (a/dl), the results of and observed in the previous experiments on one-way slabs
BS3, BM3, BL3, BX3, and the previously tested specimen subjected to concentrated loads (Lantsoght et al. 2011).
S3 (Lantsoght et al. 2013) with the concentrated load at Moreover, the results in Table 3 show an influence of the
a = 600 mm (23.6 in.) are compared to the results of BS2, overall member width b on the quantity of the increase of the
BM2, BL2, BX2, and S5 with the concentrated load at a = shear capacity with a decrease in the shear span-depth ratio.
400 mm (15.7 in.). Loading close to the support is studied, For members with a small width (0.5 m [1.6 ft]), the increase
as initial assessment of the existing solid slab bridges indi- in the shear capacity, when the load is placed closer to the
cated that the largest shear stresses at the support are found support, is larger than for wider members (b ≥ 1.5 m [4.9 ft]).
when the design truck is placed at a distance dl from the The lower increase in capacity for a decrease in a/dl as
support. For the B series of experiments, the size of the observed for wider members can be explained when studying
loading plate is 200 x 200 mm (7.9 x 7.9 in.), while for S3 the compressive struts in wide members under concentrated
and S5, a 300 x 300 mm (11.8 x 11.8 in.) plate was used. The loads. In wide members, a fan of struts (Fig. 7) can develop,

1444 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014

Table 2—Experimental results for tested specimens
Test a, m Support type* Pexp, kN Failure mode† Fpres, kN Vexp, kN Vadd, kN Vconc, kN
BS1T1 0.60 SS 290 B 37 242 0 242
BS1T2 0.60 CS 623 B 212 562 43 519
BS2T1 0.40 SS 633 B 100 552 –11 563
BS2T2 0.40 CS 976 B 267 919 52 868
BS3T1 0.60 SS 356 B 57 293 –3 297
BS3T2 0.60 CS 449 B 107 399 25 374
BM1T1 0.60 CS 923 WB + B 160 811 41 769
BM1T2 0.60 SS 720 WB + B 127 591 –9 600
BM2T1 0.40 SS 1212 WB + B 167 1062 –15 1077
BM2T2 0.40 CS 1458 WB + B 262 1354 58 1296
BM3T1 0.60 SS 735 WB + B 110 607 –6 613
BM3T2 0.60 CS 895 WB + B 183 791 45 746
BL1T1 0.60 SS 1034 WB + B 215 844 –17 862
BL1T2 0.60 CS 1252 WB + B 320 1119 75 1043
BL2T1 0.40 SS 1494 WB + B 212 1311 –17 1328
BL2T2 0.40 CS 1708 WB + B 277 1586 68 1518
BL3T1 0.60 SS 1114 WB + B 242 907 –22 928
BL3T2 0.60 CS 1153 WB + B 312 1035 74 961
BX1T1 0.60 SS 1331 WB + P 325 1080 –30 1109
BX1T2 0.60 CS 1596 WB + B + P 335 1415 85 1330
BX2T1 0.40 SS 1429 WB + B + P 217 1259 –11 1270
BX2T2 0.40 CS 1434 WB + P 167 1332 57 1275
BX3T1 0.60 SS 1141 WB + P 245 935 –16 951
BX3T2 0.60 CS 1193 WB + B 210 1059 64 994
S8T1 0.60 SS 1481 WB + B 233 1226 –8 1234
S8T2 0.60 CS 1356 WB + B 278 1213 83 1130
S9T1 0.4 SS 1523 WB + P 175 1355 2 1354
S9T4 0.4 CS 1842 WB + P 255 1717 79 1637
*
SS indicates simple support and CS is continuous support.
†
B is beam shear failure; WB is wide beam shear failure; and P is punching shear failure.
Notes: 1 m = 3.3 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

while for beams, a single strut develops over the distance a the shear capacity of slabs S1 and S2 of 2.5 m (8.2 ft.) wide
(shown as a/dl = 1 in Fig. 7). In wide members, the resulting (Lantsoght et al. 2010). It should be noted that all specimens
a/dl will depend on the fan of struts and their resulting load from the B-series are made of high-strength concrete, while
path, which is on average longer than the direct straight strut. slabs S1 and S2 were made of normal-strength concrete.
This larger average a/dl can explain the smaller influence of The results are shown in Table 4, displaying the measured
the shear span-depth ratio in wider members, as was previ- average increase in shear capacity for an increase in size of
ously shown in preliminary research on slabs subjected to the loading plate. The results of the specimens with widths
concentrated loads (Lantsoght et al. 2013). ranging from 1 to 2.5 m (3.3 to 8.3 ft) in Table 4 show an
increasing influence of the loading plate size on the shear
Size of loading plate capacity as the overall width of the specimen increases. The
To study the relation of the overall member width to the influence of the size of the loading plate and its relation to
influence of the size of a square loading plate (representing the member width can be explained based on the transverse
a tire contact area) on the shear capacity of wide beams, the load-distribution capacity in wide members. From this point
results of BS1 and BS3 can be compared, as well as BM1 and of view, it is clear that a larger loading plate provides a larger
BM3, BL1 and BL3, and BX1 and BX3. These results can be base from which the compressive struts can fan out.
compared to the influence of the size of the loading plate on

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 1445

 Table 3—Influence of decrease in shear span
from 600 to 400 mm (23.6 to 15.7 in.) on observed
increase of shear capacity
AVG
Specimens b, m Vexp,400/Vexp,600 STD COV, %
BS2, BS3 0.5 2.09 0.297 14.2
BM2, BM3 1.0 1.73 0.027 1.6
BL2, BL3 1.5 1.49 0.061 4.1
BX2, BX3 2.0 1.30 0.063 4.8
Fig. 7—Larger average a/dl ratio for wide elements as S3 to S5 2.5 1.38 0.026 1.9
compared to elements of small width.
Note: 1 m = 3.3 ft.

Table 4—Measured increase in ultimate shear

capacity Vexp for an increase in size of loading
plate from 200 x 200 mm (7.9 x 7.9 in.) to 300 x
300 mm (11.8 x 11.8 in.), with a/dl = 2.26
Specimens b, m Average increase Vexp, %
BS1 to BS3 0.5 11.5
BM1 to BM3 1.0 0.1
BL1 to BL3 1.5 0.6
BX1 to BX3 2.0 24.6
Fig. 8—Influence of overall width on shear capacity. Test S1, S2 2.5 40.6
results for BS, BM, BL, BX, S8 and S9 are shown. (Notes: Note: 1 m = 3.3 ft.
1 mm = 0.04 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
Table 5—Comparison between ultimate shear
Moment distribution at support capacity at simple (Vexp,SS) and continuous
All specimens are tested at the simple and continuous support (Vexp,CS)
support, as shown in Fig. 4. As the force in the vertical
prestressing bars close to the continuous support (CS in Experiments b, m AVG Vexp,CS/Vexp,SS STD COV, %
Fig. 4) is only applied at the beginning of every test, the BS 0.5 1.783 0.492 28%
moment over the continuous support is on average only BM 1.0 1.329 0.069 5%
about 26% of the moment in a fully clamped support for
BL 1.5 1.225 0.093 8%
the specimens from the S series and 31% for the B series.
The influence of the moment distribution at the support on BX 2.0 1.167 0.130 11%
the shear capacity is studied in Table 5. The rows in Table 5 S1 – S10 2.5 1.112 0.133 12%
show the results with regard to the influence of the moment Note: 1 m = 3.3 ft.
distribution for the different widths that were tested, compli-
mented with the results of specimens S1 to S10 (Lantsoght EFFECTIVE WIDTH
et al. 2013) that were 2.5 m (8.2 ft) wide. The columns Measured threshold effective width
in Table 5 show the average (AVG) increase of the shear To define the threshold effective width for the shear
capacity when an experiment at the continuous support, capacity, the results of S8 and S9 (2.5 m [8.2 ft]) (Lant-
Vexp,CS, is compared to an identical experiment at the simple soght et al. 2012) were compared to the results of the current
support, Vexp,SS, as well as the associated standard deviation series of specimens (BS1 of 0.5 m [1.6 ft] to BX3 of 2 m
(STD) and coefficient of variation (COV), showing that the [6.6 ft]), all of which were made with high-strength concrete
shear capacity at the continuous support is larger than at the (Table 1). The results are displayed by showing the shear
simple support. The influence of the moment distribution at capacity as a function of the member width in Fig. 8. The
the support decreases with an increase in the element width. boundary line between “beams” and “slabs” at 5h from
For wider members, the transverse moment starts to influ- NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 (CEN 2005) is also given. Addi-
ence the shear behavior and should be taken into account. tionally, the trendlines through datapoints at widths smaller
The influence of the moment distribution at the support than the threshold value are shown together with the lines of
for complex loading situations was tested on girders in the averaged constant shear capacities for wide members (above
Stevin II Laboratory (Yang 2012). the threshold width) in Fig. 8. The intersection of these lines
determines the measured threshold for the considered series.
These results show that the concept of using an effective
width for wide members is indeed valid as the shear capacity
does not increase linearly for larger widths. The results for

1446 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014

the estimated threshold effective width based on the experi- Table 6—Effective width as calculated from
mental results are given in Table 6 and are compared to the experimental results, compared to effective width
calculated widths based on the load spreading methods from based on different load-spreading methods
Fig. 2 and 3. No. Series bmeas, m beff1, m beff2, m bMC, m
300 x 300 mm
Influence of tested parameters on effective width 1 2.0 1.1 1.7 1.0
SS, a/dl = 2.26
The results of the threshold effective width from Table 6
show a difference between loading at the simple (SS) and 300 x 300 mm
2 1.8 1.1 1.7 1.0
CS, a/dl = 2.26
continuous (CS) support. Consistently, lower effective
widths are found at the continuous support as compared to 200 x 200 mm
3 1.3 0.7 1.1 0.6
SS, a/dl = 1.51
the simple support due to the transverse moment. The results
from Table 6 also show a different effective width depending 4
200 x 200 mm
0.9 0.7 1.1 0.6
on the size of the loading plate. The size of the loading plate CS, a/dl = 1.51
is taken into account in the French load-spreading method as 5
200 x 200 mm
1.5 1.1 1.5 1.0
well as in the fib Model Code load-spreading method. More- SS, a/dl = 2.26
over, the results from Table 6 show that the effective width 200 x 200 mm
6 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.0
becomes smaller as the load is placed closer to the support, CS, a/dl = 2.26
which corresponds to the idea of horizontal load spreading Notes: 1 m = 3.3 ft; 1 mm = 0.04 in.
from the load towards the support at a certain angle. The
comparison between the threshold width and the effective tion with the shear provisions from NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005
widths based on the load-spreading methods in Table 6 (Fig. 9(a)) and ACI 318-11 (Fig. 9(b)).
shows that the threshold width corresponds best to the effec- The results in Fig. 9 show that NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005
tive width based on the French load-spreading method. leads to conservative results for all experiments, and that
ACI 318-11 on average more closely predicts the shear
COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL capacity. The code methods, however, are aimed at the
RESULTS AND CODE PREDICTIONS inclined cracking load of slender beams (Joint ACI-ASCE
The experimental shear capacities of the experiments Committee 426 1973; Regan 1987). In the current experi-
from the B-series are compared to the shear provisions from ments, direct load transfer can lead shear capacities beyond
ACI 318-11 and NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005, using both beff1 the inclined cracking load.
and beff2. The mean values of the measured material proper- It can be seen in Fig. 9 that using beff2 (Fig. 2(b)) in combi-
ties are used and all partial safety factors are taken equal to 1. nation with ACI 318-11 and NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 gives
The properties of the concrete are determined on cube spec- a better estimate of the capacity than beff1, as seen when the
imens in the laboratory. The cylinder compressive strength results of the ratio between the experimental and predicted
fc,cyl is assumed as 0.82 × fc,meas (van der Veen and Gijsbers shear capacities are plotted as a function of the specimen
2011). To compare the shear provisions from NEN-EN width, Fig. 10. When using beff1, the ratio between experi-
1992-1-1:2005 to the experimental results, CRd,c,test = 0.15 mental and predicted value increases for an increasing spec-
(Regan 1987) is used for mean values. The measured shear imen width, while this ratio remains more constant when
forces Vexp and moments Mexp at failure are used to determine beff2 is used.
the ratio VACIdl/MACI from ACI 318-11, here expressed as The statistical properties of the comparison between the
Vexpdl/Mexp. The comparison between the experimental experiments and the code predictions are given in Table 7.
results and the code methods is shown in Fig. 9. The two Overall better results are obtained when beff2 is used instead
load-spreading methods from Fig. 2 are studied in combina- of beff1 (Fig. 9). The combination of beff2 and NEN-EN 1992-
1-1:2005 results in the smallest coefficient of variation,

Fig. 9—Comparison between experimental results and expected values according to ACI 318-11 and NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005.
(Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 1447

Table 7—Statistical properties obtained from comparing experimental results to predicted shear
capacities as prescribed by NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 and ACI 318-11
Vexp/VACI,beff1 Vexp/VACI,beff2 Vexp,EC/VR,c,beff1 Vexp,EC/VR,c,beff2
Test data AVG STD COV AVG STD COV AVG STD COV AVG STD COV
BS 1.52 0.75 0.49 1.52 0.75 0.49 2.12 0.74 0.35 2.12 0.74 0.35
BM 1.60 0.84 0.52 1.33 0.43 0.32 2.15 0.56 0.26 1.88 0.27 0.15
BL 1.96 0.88 0.45 1.34 0.49 0.37 2.68 0.55 0.21 1.86 0.29 0.16
BX 2.15 0.82 0.38 1.42 0.48 0.34 2.90 0.39 0.14 1.94 0.22 0.11
SS 1.57 0.76 0.48 1.21 0.42 0.35 2.10 0.54 0.26 1.64 0.17 0.11
CS 2.04 0.83 0.40 1.60 0.56 0.35 2.83 0.51 0.18 2.26 0.36 0.16
all 1.81 0.81 0.45 1.40 0.52 0.37 2.46 0.64 0.26 1.95 0.42 0.22

Therefore, a series of 12 specimens of 5.0 m length x 0.3 m

depth (16.4 ft x 11.8 in.) of variable widths was tested. A
total of 24 experiments were carried out. These results were
analyzed together with the results of slabs that were tested
in earlier research.
The experiments show that, as the member width increases,
the influence of the size of the loading plate increases and
the influence of the shear span-depth ratio decreases. Both
results can be explained by understanding that a three-
dimensional load-carrying mechanism is activated in wider
specimens. This mechanism differs considerably from the
two-dimensional load-carrying mechanism in members of
small width. The influence of the moment distribution at the
Fig. 10—Ratio between experimental results and calcu- support becomes smaller as the member width increases.
lated values according to ACI 318-11 and NEN-EN 1992-1- The results of the experiments to define the shear capacity
1:2005 as function of specimen width. (Note: 1 m = 3.3 ft.) on members with an increasing width are used to define
experimentally the threshold width. This experimental
while the combination of ACI 318-11 and beff2 results in the threshold width most closely resembles the effective width
closest predictions of the experimental results. The influ- based on the French load-spreading method: horizontal
ence of the specimen width can be seen on the “BS,” “BM,” load spreading from the far side of the loading plate under
“BL,” and “BX” rows of Table 7. The average of the ratio a 45-degree angle towards the face of the support. It is
between the experimental and predicted result increases also found that the effective width from the French load-
with the width when beff1 is used, and remains more constant spreading method leads to the best predictions of the exper-
when beff2 is used, as also observed in Fig. 10. Comparing the iments when combined with the studied code provisions. A
last two rows shows that the code methods underestimate the 45-degree load-spreading method was previously adopted in
increased capacity at the continuous support. In ACI 318-11, practice based on engineering judgment, but it is now shown
the influence of the moment distribution at the support is to be valid through rigorous experimentation.
taken into account by the factor VACIdl/MACI. Applying this
factor, however, still leads to a larger average ratio of Vexp/VACI AUTHOR BIOS
for tests carried out close to the continuous support than Eva O. L. Lantsoght is an Assistant Professor at Universidad San Fran-
cisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador, and a Researcher at Delft University of
close to the simple support. Studying the results of Vexp,EC/VR,c Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. She received her engineering degree
shows that separating the results of the experiments at the from Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; her MS from the Georgia
continuous support from the results of the experiments at Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA; and her PhD from Delft University of
Technology.
the simple support leads to a significant improvement of the
coefficient of variation. Therefore, it is recommended to take Cor van der Veen is an Associate Professor at Delft University of Tech-
into account the influence of the moment distribution at the nology, where he received his MSc and PhD. His research interests include
high-strength steel fiber concrete, concrete bridges, and computational
support in NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 and to revise the expres- mechanics.
sion from ACI 318-11 in terms of VACIdl/MACI.
Ane de Boer is a Senior Advisor at Rijkswaterstaat, the Ministry of Infra-
structure and the Environment, Utrecht, the Netherlands. He received his
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS MSc and PhD from Delft University of Technology. His research interests
Load-spreading methods are used in practice to deter- include remaining lifetime, existing structures, computational mechanics,
mine a threshold for the relationship between the member traffic loads and composites.
width and the shear capacity. Previous series of experi- Joost C. Walraven is an Emeritus Professor at Delft University of Tech-
mental research were inconclusive about the existence of a nology. He received his MSc and PhD from Delft University of Technology.
threshold width and the determination of the effective width.

1448 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Lantsoght, E. O. L.; van der Veen, C.; and Walraven, J. C., 2013, “Shear
The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to the in One-Way Slabs Under Concentrated Load Close to Support,” ACI Struc-
Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Rijkswaterstaat) for tural Journal, V. 110, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 275-284.
financing this research work and to InfraQuest for coordinating the coopera- Lubell, A. S.; Bentz, E.; and Collins, M. P., 2008, “One-Way Shear in
tion between Delft University of Technology, Rijkswaterstaat, and research Wide Concrete Beams with Narrow Supports,” Structures Congress 2008:
institute TNO. Crossing Borders, ASCE, D. Anderson, C. Ventura, D. Harvey, and M.
Hoit, eds., Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 1-10.
Morrow, J., and Viest, I. M., 1957, “Shear Strength of Reinforced
REFERENCES Concrete Frame Members Without Web Reinforcement,” ACI Journal
ACI Committee 318, 2011, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Proceedings, V. 53, No. 3, Mar., pp. 833-869.
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Prochazkova, Z., and Lantsoght, E. O. L., 2011, “Material Properties—
Farmington Hills, MI, 503 pp. Felt and Reinforcement For Shear Test of Reinforced Concrete Slab,”
CEN, 2003, “Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures—Part 2: Traffic Loads Stevin Report Nr. 25.5-11-11, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the
on Bridges (NEN-EN 1991-2:2003),” Comité Européen de Normalisation, Netherlands, 28 pp.
Brussels, Belgium, 168 pp. Regan, P. E., 1987, “Shear Resistance of Members without Shear Rein-
CEN, 2005, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1 forcement; Proposal for CEB Model Code MC90,” Polytechnic of Central
General Rules and Rules for Buildings (NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005),” Comité London, London, UK, 28 pp.
Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 229 pp. Regan, P. E., and Rezai-Jorabi, H., 1988, “Shear Resistance of One-Way
Chauvel, D.; Thonier, H.; Coin, A.; and Ile, N., 2007, “Shear Resistance Slabs under Concentrated Loads,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 2,
of Slabs Not Provided with Shear Reinforcement,” CEN/TC 250/SC 02 N Mar.-Apr., pp. 150-157.
726, France, 32 pp. Reineck, K.-H.; Bentz, E. C.; Fitik, B.; Kuchma, D. A.; and Bayrak,
Diaz de Cossio, R.; Moe, J.; Gould, P. L.; and Meason, J. G., 1962, O., 2013, “ACI-DAfStb Database of Shear Tests on Slender Reinforced
“Shear and Diagonal Tension—Discussion,” ACI Journal Proceedings, Concrete Beams without Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 5,
V. 59, No. 11, Nov., pp. 1323-1339. Sept.-Oct., pp. 867-876.
fib, 2012, “Model Code 2010: Final Draft,” fib Bulletin No. 65, Interna- Reißen, K., and Hegger, J., 2013, “Experimental Investigations on the
tional Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland, 350 pp. Effective Width for Shear of Single Span Bridge Deck Slabs,” Beton- und
Goldbeck, A. T., 1917, “The Influence of Total Width on the Effective Stahlbetonbau, V. 108, No. 2, pp. 96-103. (in German)
Width of Reinforced Concrete Slabs Subjected to Central Concentrated Ross, B. E.; Hamilton, H. R.; and Potter, W., 2012, “Effect of Bearing
Loading,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 13, No. 2, Feb., pp. 78-88. Pad Arrangement on Capacity of Slab Panel Bridge Members,” Transpor-
Goldbeck, A. T., and Smith, E. B., 1916, “Tests of Large Reinforced tation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, V.
Concrete Slabs,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 12, No. 2, Feb., pp. 324-333. 2313, -1, pp. 92-99. doi: 10.3141/2313-10
Graf, O., 1933, “Experiments on the Capacity of Concrete Slabs Sherwood, E. G.; Lubell, A. S.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. R., 2006,
Subjected to a Concentrated Load Close to a Support,” Deutscher Auss- “One-Way Shear Strength of Thick Slabs and Wide Beams,” ACI Structural
chuss für Eisenbeton, V. 73, pp. 10-16. (in German) Journal, V. 103, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 794-802.
Grasser, E., and Thielen, G., 1991, “Design Aid for the Calculation of SIA 162, 1968, “Design Code for the Calculation, the Construction
Sectional Forces and Deformations in Reinforced Concrete Structures,” and the Execution of Structures in Concrete, in Reinforced Concrete and
Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, V. 240, 86 pp. (in German) in Prestressed Concrete,” Code 162, Edition 1968, Société suisse des
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, 1973, “The Shear Strength of Rein- ingénieurs et des architectes, Zurich, Switzerland, 84 pp. (in German)
forced Concrete Members—An ACI Summary Paper,” ACI Journal Steenbergen, R. D. J. M.; de Boer, A.; and van der Veen, C., 2011,
Proceedings, V. 70, No. 7, July, pp. 939-943. “Safety Assessment of Existing Concrete Slab Bridges for Shear Capacity,”
Kani, G. N. J., 1964, “The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its Solution,” ACI Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, K. N. Faber,
Journal Proceedings, V. 61, No. 4, Apr., pp. 441-467. ed., pp. 1108-1114.
Lantsoght, E. O. L., 2011, “Shear Tests of Reinforced Concrete Slabs: Taylor, S. E.; Rankin, G. I. B.; and Cleland, D. J., 2003, “Real Strength of
Experimental Data of Undamaged Slabs,” Stevin Report No. 25.5-11-07, High-Performance Concrete Bridge Deck Slabs,” Proceedings of the ICE –
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, 512 pp. Bridge Engineering, V. 156, No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Lantsoght, E. O. L.; van der Veen, C.; and Walraven, J., 2010, “Exper- van der Veen, C., and Gijsbers, F. B. J., 2011, “Working Set Factors for
imental Study of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks under Concentrated Existing Concrete Bridges,” Delft University of Technology, Delft, the
Loads Near to Supports,” Structural Faults and Repair, 13th International Netherlands, 6 pp. (in Dutch)
Conference and Exhibition, Edinburgh, UK, 12 pp. Yang, Y., 2012, “Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams under
Lantsoght, E. O. L.; van der Veen, C.; and Walraven, J., 2011, “Experi- Complex Loading Conditions,” 9th fib International PhD Symposium in
mental Study of Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Structures Civil Engineering, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 43-48.
Congress 2011, ASCE, D. Ames, T. L. Droessler, and M. Hoit, eds., Las Zheng, Y.; Taylor, S.; Robinson, D.; and Cleland, D., 2010, “Investiga-
Vegas, NV, pp. 152-163. tion of Ultimate Strength of Deck Slabs in Steel-Concrete Bridges,” ACI
Lantsoght, E. O. L.; van der Veen, C.; and Walraven, J. C., 2012, “Shear Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 82-91.
Capacity of Slabs and Slab Strips Loaded Close to the Support,” Recent Zokaie, T., 1992, “Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges—
Development in Reinforced Concrete Slab Analysis, Design, and Service- Final Report of NCHRP Project 12-26,” Research Results Digest, V. 187,
ability, SP-287, M. Mohamid and F. Malhas, eds., American Concrete Insti- pp. 1-31.
tute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 5.1-5.18.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 1449

 NOTES:

1450 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014

View publication stats