You are on page 1of 10



Title No. 111-S123

Inluence 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 inluence 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 distribution 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.
Keywords: effective width of slab; punching shear; shear; slab; structural
load test.

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 applicable 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 deine 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
determine the contribution of this load to the shear stress at
the support (Steenbergen et al. 2011). Very little information
on the shear distribution in bridges is available (Zokaie 1992).
The effective width is theoretically determined from the
stress distribution over the width of the element (Goldbeck
and Smith 1916; Goldbeck 1917) and is deined so that the
resisting action due to the maximum stress distributed over
the effective width equals the resisting action due to the variable stresses over the entire width (Fig. 1). In Dutch practice, a 45-degree horizontal load-spreading method from the
center of the load is used to determine the effective width
at the face of the support (Fig. 2(a)), and in French practice (Chauvel et al. 2007), the load spreading is taken from
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014

Fig. 1—Principle of effective width beff: area under curve
v(x) of shear stresses over width b equals area of maximum
shear stress vmax over beff.

Fig. 2—(a) Load spreading under 45 degrees and resulting
effective width as used in Dutch practice; and (b) load
spreading and resulting effective width as used in French
practice (Chauvel et al. 2007).
the farthest side of the load (Fig. 2(b)). In German practice, a conservative formula is used to deine the effective
width (Grasser and Thielen 1991). The Model Code 2010
(ib 2012) guidelines for the determination of the effective
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 6, November-December 2014.
MS No. S-2013-258, doi:10.14359/51687107, received February 19, 2014, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2014, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
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
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.


Taylor et al.2 ft x 11.). and three elements (BX series) sized 5.3 m (16.9 ft]) up to a certain value (1 m [3. as based on the Swiss Code (SIA 162 1968).8 in.c = [CRd. a threshold value was not observed for a load placed at a/dl = 4.8 in. The results of slabs S8 andρlfck)1/3 + k1σcp]bwdl≥ (vmin + k1σcp) bwdl (1) k = 1+ 200 dl ≤ 2. Ross et al. Previous research (Regan and Rezai-Jorabi 1988) showed increasing shear capacities for slabs with a concentrated load placed at such a location that a/dl = 5.8 in. If the concept of an effective width can be applied to wide concrete members loaded in shear.0 x 0. 3. and further increasing of the element width will not result in an increase in the shear carrying capacity. 2008.2 m [1.3 m (11. (2010) developed an expression.). The deformed bars with a diameter of 20 mm (0.3 m (16. increasing widths lead to increasing shear capacities. When slabs are not supported by a line support but instead by a number of discrete bearings. provided that dl ≤ av /2.3 to 3. In other experiments (Reißen and Hegger 2013). and the proposed effective width can be used for solid slab bridges subjected to truck loads. which previously was only based on local practice and rules of thumb.). For simply supported elements.8 in. and for clamped elements.2 (1).3 m (16. In the literature. 1962.0 x 0.) had fym = 537 MPa (77.5 x 0.2.5 m [1.5 x 0. additional methods for calculating the effective shear width for well-deined cases are suggested. from a previous series of experiments (Lantsoght et al.) is a 1:2 scale representation of typical Dutch solid slab bridges. As long as the element width is smaller than the effective width. none of which are suitable for extrapolation towards a more general use (Diaz de Cossio et al. but it is not suitable for solid-slab bridges.29 f ck bw dl (4) M ACI   ACI 318-08 recommends the use of nonlinear analysis or strut-and-tie models for members with concentrated loads within a distance twice the member depth from the support. to the shear force VEd may be multiplied by β = av/2dl. simple edge support (ib 2012). recommendations are given for the effective width. The depth of 0. and the bars with a diameter of 10 mm (0. All specimens were reinforced with deformed steel bars with a yield strength of 500 MPa (72.6(6) accounts for the beneicial inluence of direct load transfer through a compression strut for loads close to the support. sized 5. 3—Location and length of the control section beff for determination of shear resistance of wide members with point loads located close to support line. Zheng et al.).18/γc with γc=1. with notations altered to be uniform with the previously used notations).4 ft x 1. the contribution of a load.3 m (16.6 ksi) and fum = 658 MPa (95. The default values are CRd.3 m (16. a similar problem arises (Lubell et al.0 (2) The values of CRd.) had fym = 542 MPa (78. after which the shear capacity remained constant. then the shear capacity should cease to increase as the member width is increased after reaching a threshold value—the effective width. 1 MPa = 145 psi. three elements (BL series) sized 5.5 x 0. applied within a distance 0.0 x 1. CODE PROVISIONS According to NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 (CEN 2005) Section 6.4 ft x 8. however.0 x 2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The inluence of the member width on the one-way shear capacity of reinforced concrete wide beams subjected to concentrated loads is studied in a comprehensive series of experiments.2.c = 0.4 ft x 4. k1 = 0.0 x 0. 2012). 45 degrees.39 in. Regan and Rezai-Jorabi 1988.5 in general and vmin = 0.c and vmin are nationally determined parameters.4 ksi). An overview of the properties of these specimens is given in Table 1.4 ft x 6.0 x 1.6 ft x 11. describes the shear resistance as  V d  Vc =  0.3 ft x 11. the angle of horizontal load spreading is taken as 60 degrees. Experiments studying this problem did not result in generally applicable expressions for the case of members not loaded over their full width. the shear stress is checked at a distance x = dl from the support.4 ft x 3. the shear resistance for a structural member without stirrups is calculated as follows (SI units: fck in MPa.9 ksi) ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 .two-way shear.42 for increasing widths (0. 2013) were used to complete the series of specimens with increasing widths. width are given as indicated in Fig.9 ft x 11. For beams.5 ft]).8 in.15): Fig. For deck slabs in steel-concrete bridges. three elements (BM series) sized 5.2. Graf 1933. only the effective width at the support can carry the shear load.).79 in.16 f ck + 17ρl ACI l  bw dl ≤ 0.1 formula (11-5) for normalweight concrete (λ = 1. 2003).6 to 11. Based on these experiments.17 as the width increased (0.0 x 2.3 ft]).6 ft x 11.4 to 1. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION Specimens The experimental program consisted of three reinforced concrete elements (BS series) sized 5.5 to 3.8 in.5 ksi). The conducted experiments are important as they explore the transition zone from one-way shear to a mixed mode of one-way and 1442 VRd.035k 3/ 2 f ck1/ 2 (3) NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 Section 6. When the element width is larger than the effective width.5dl ≤ av ≤ 2dl from the edge of a support.2. The ACI 318-11 Section 11. In the Model Code approach.

a layer of plywood. the percentage of transverse lexural reinforcement is kept at ρt = 0. 5(a)) and close to the continuous support (sup 2.4 kip) for the S series.258 400 1.258 600 2. For wider elements.0 m (3.6 5. 5(c). only one prestressing bar was used.meas.4 6.258 600 2.3 ft. which corresponds to the compressive strengths found when testing cores taken from existing solid slab bridges.8 in. A full description of the materials and instrumentation and the experimental observations are given in the full test report (Lantsoght 2011).8 in. Test setup A top view of the test setup for the reinforced concrete elements is given in Fig. as shown in Fig. 5).51 200 180 BS3 0.) wide (Prochazkova and Lantsoght 2011).258 600 2.5 91.8 0. as shown in Fig.26 300 182 BM3 1.) wide.). 5(a)).258 600 2.948%.).5 6.26 300 171 BX1 2. days BS1 0. 4.996 0. % a. 5(c).0 81.26 300 189 BS2 0.258 600 2. Laser distance inders are used to measure the deformations. 5) consist of a steel beam (HEM 300) 300 mm (11.1 ksi).948 0.0 88.5 81.63 in.) contact surface for each wheel of the axle load used in the live load model (Load Model 1) of NEN-EN 1991-2:2002 (CEN 2003).996 0.2 kip) for the BL specimens.98 in.) over the reinforcement was applied.) or 300 x 300 mm (11. so that the support width bsup = 100 mm (3. MPa fct. the following failure modes are observed: • Failure as a beam in shear with a noticeable shear crack at the side (B.2 0.1 0. 5) and one at the continuous support (CS in Fig.948 0.5 6.26 200 40 S8 2. 1 MPa = 145 psi.0 91. Fig.0 6.258%. 5(a) and a section elevation is given in Fig.2 0. MPa ρl. and fum = 628 MPa (91.9 x 7.9 0.0 81.5 m (1. The concentrated load is applied in a displacementcontrolled way through a hydraulic jack (Fig.948 0.4 6. b. plus S8 and S9 for comparison Specimen no. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Test results On every specimen.8 5.2 (3) Table 3. 1443 .2 0.8 in. two prestressing bars were used.258 400 1. ixed to the strong loor of the laboratory.1 kip) per prestressing bar was used for the BS and BM specimens.) and depth to the transverse reinforcement dt was 250 mm (9.0 0.7 kip) for BX. 4—Reinforcement layout for test specimens: (a) top view of BS1. The reinforcement layout of the BS specimens is shown in Fig.1 0. The effective depth to the longitudinal reinforcement dl was 265 mm (10.6 ft) ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 Fig. m fc.8 0.51 200 77 Notes: 1 m = 3.258 400 1.26 300 55 BM1 1.5 88.9 in.2 ft.26 300 62 BL1 1.258 600 2.26 300 182 BL3 1.0 0.5 81. and 15 kN (3.0 0.948 0.5 77.9 in.948 0. 12 kN (2. mm a/d zload. The results are reported in Table 2. 5(b)) onto a steel loading plate either 200 x 200 mm (7.5 94.8 in.51 200 188 BL2 1.948 0.04 in.cyl of 61 MPa (8847 psi).0 6. The line supports (“sup 1” and “sup 2” in Fig.) loading plate is a 1:2 scale representation of the 400 x 400 mm (15. and for the specimens 1.1 (CEN 2005) was used with a target cylinder strength fc. For comparison to the previously tested slab specimens of 2. and (b) cross-section of BS1.3 ft) wide. the number of bars was increased to maintain the same reinforcement percentage of ρl = 0.0 70. All wider elements were tested with three prestressing bars. High-strength concrete of Class C53/65 from NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 Section 3.8 x 15. 5(a). A concrete cover of 25 mm (0.948 0.26 300 47 BX2 2. 1 mm = 0.8 6.8 x 11.948 0.9 0.04 in. CS in Fig.5 81. As shown in Fig. 10 kN (2.9 in. where the rotation is partially restrained by vertical prestressing bars.Table 1—Properties of specimens BS1 through BX3.0 78. 6. The 200 x 200 mm (7. % ρt.9 0.258 600 2.5 6. (Note: measurements in mm.258 600 2.9 x 7. Load cells were used to measure the force in the prestressing bars during the experiment. 1 mm = 0. and a layer of felt 100 mm (3.948 0.51 200 188 BM2 1.7 5.51 200 39 BX3 2. An initial force of 5 kN (1. one experiment was carried out at the simple support (SS in Fig.1 0. Glacial river aggregates with a maximum aggregate size of 16 mm (0.9 in. Experiments are carried out close to the simple support (sup 1.948 0. For the specimens 0.1. mm Age.258 400 1. 5(b).0 6.26 300 48 S9 2.5 m (8. SS in Fig.4 in.948 0.258 400 1.6 5.).) were used.) wide. A photograph is given in Fig.948 0.).4 5.258 600 2.5 81.meas. 6(a)).

6(b)).7 in. and the previously tested specimen S3 (Lantsoght et al.8 in.9 ft]). and (c) photograph showing laser distance inders on measurement frame. load and prestressing bars. the size of the loading plate is 200 x 200 mm (7. showing the measured average ratio of the shear capacity for a = 400 mm (15.9 in. Vexp. 2011). 2013) with the concentrated load at a = 600 mm (23.). 7) can develop. and S5 with the concentrated load at a = 400 mm (15.600. • • Failure as a wide beam in shear with cracks at an angle of the span direction. as known from the literature (Kani 1964) and observed in the previous experiments on one-way slabs subjected to concentrated loads (Lantsoght et al. is larger than for wider members (b ≥ 1. Fig. Shear span-depth ratio To study the relation between the member width and the inluence of the shear span-depth ratio (a/dl). while S3 and S5 were made from normal-strength concrete. The 1444 Fig. B-series specimens are made from high-strength concrete. For the B series of experiments. the increase in the shear capacity. (b) elevation. when the load is placed closer to the support. while for S3 and S5. the results of BS3.8 x 11. 6(c)). BM3. BM2.). In wide members. and (c) P: partial punching at the bottom face (S9T1). BL3. ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 . For members with a small width (0. (b) WB crack pattern: inclined cracks on the bottom face (BL3T1). a 300 x 300 mm (11. resulting in inclined cracks on the bottom (WB.5 m [4.5 m [1.400. BL2. Vexp. a fan of struts (Fig. BL1T2 at failure.) are compared to the results of BS2. The lower increase in capacity for a decrease in a/dl as observed for wider members can be explained when studying the compressive struts in wide members under concentrated loads.).) plate was used. the results in Table 3 show an inluence of the overall member width b on the quantity of the increase of the shear capacity with a decrease in the shear span-depth ratio. BX2. The results in Table 3 show a clear increase in shear capacity with decreasing distance to the support. 5—Test setup: (a) top view. 6—Observed failure modes: (a) B: shear crack at the side face (BS1T2).9 x 7. as initial assessment of the existing solid slab bridges indicated that the largest shear stresses at the support are found when the design truck is placed at a distance dl from the support.6 in. to the shear capacity for a = 600 mm (23.6 ft]).).7 in. The experimental observations are summarized in Table 3. line support.6 in. Moreover. BX3.Fig. Loading close to the support is studied. or Development of a partial punching surface on the bottom face (P. Fig.

BL1 and BL3. as was previously shown in preliminary research on slabs subjected to concentrated loads (Lantsoght et al.3 ft) in Table 4 show an increasing inluence of the loading plate size on the shear capacity as the overall width of the specimen increases.60 CS 623 B 212 562 43 519 BS2T1 0.) wide (Lantsoght et al. kN Failure mode† Fpres. the resulting a/dl will depend on the fan of struts and their resulting load path. a single strut develops over the distance a (shown as a/dl = 1 in Fig.5 m (3.60 SS 720 WB + B 127 591 –9 600 BM2T1 0.225 kip.40 CS 1434 WB + P 167 1332 57 1275 BX3T1 0.60 SS 356 B 57 293 –3 297 BS3T2 0. m Support type* Pexp. † B is beam shear failure.60 CS 1193 WB + B 210 1059 64 994 S8T1 0.3 ft.60 CS 1356 WB + B 278 1213 83 1130 S9T1 0.60 CS 895 WB + B 183 791 45 746 BL1T1 0. kN Vadd.60 CS 923 WB + B 160 811 41 769 BM1T2 0.60 CS 1596 WB + B + P 335 1415 85 1330 BX2T1 0. From this point of view. kN BS1T1 0.4 CS 1842 WB + P 255 1717 79 1637 * SS indicates simple support and CS is continuous support. Notes: 1 m = 3. Size of loading plate To study the relation of the overall member width to the inluence of the size of a square loading plate (representing a tire contact area) on the shear capacity of wide beams.40 CS 1708 WB + B 277 1586 68 1518 BL3T1 0. while for beams. 2010).Table 2—Experimental results for tested specimens Test a. and P is punching shear failure. 1 kN = 0. while slabs S1 and S2 were made of normal-strength concrete.60 SS 735 WB + B 110 607 –6 613 BM3T2 0.40 SS 1212 WB + B 167 1062 –15 1077 BM2T2 0. 2013).3 to 8.60 SS 1114 WB + B 242 907 –22 928 BL3T2 0. The results are shown in Table 4. kN Vexp.40 SS 633 B 100 552 –11 563 BS2T2 0. WB is wide beam shear failure.4 SS 1523 WB + P 175 1355 2 1354 S9T4 0. displaying the measured average increase in shear capacity for an increase in size of the loading plate.40 SS 1429 WB + B + P 217 1259 –11 1270 BX2T2 0.40 CS 1458 WB + B 262 1354 58 1296 BM3T1 0.60 SS 1141 WB + P 245 935 –16 951 BX3T2 0.5 m (8.60 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. The inluence of the size of the loading plate and its relation to the member width can be explained based on the transverse load-distribution capacity in wide members. 7).40 CS 976 B 267 919 52 868 BS3T1 0. These results can be compared to the inluence of the size of the loading plate on ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 the shear capacity of slabs S1 and S2 of 2. the results of BS1 and BS3 can be compared.60 SS 1331 WB + P 325 1080 –30 1109 BX1T2 0. It should be noted that all specimens from the B-series are made of high-strength concrete. In wide members. 1445 . as well as BM1 and BM3.60 SS 1481 WB + B 233 1226 –8 1234 S8T2 0.60 CS 449 B 107 399 25 374 BM1T1 0.2 ft.60 SS 290 B 37 242 0 242 BS1T2 0. The results of the specimens with widths ranging from 1 to 2. kN Vconc. it is clear that a larger loading plate provides a larger base from which the compressive struts can fan out. which is on average longer than the direct straight strut. This larger average a/dl can explain the smaller inluence of the shear span-depth ratio in wider members.60 CS 1153 WB + B 312 1035 74 961 BX1T1 0. and BX1 and BX3.

EFFECTIVE WIDTH Measured threshold effective width To deine the threshold effective width for the shear capacity. 8—Inluence of overall width on shear capacity. The columns in Table 5 show the average (AVG) increase of the shear capacity when an experiment at the continuous support. m Average increase Vexp.0 1. 7—Larger average a/dl ratio for wide elements as compared to elements of small width.133 12% Note: 1 m = 3. 2013) that were 2.6 S1. with a/dl = 2. The inluence of the moment distribution at the support decreases with an increase in the element width.5 1. For wider members. 1 kN = 0. (Notes: 1 mm = 0.061 4.130 11% S1 – S10 2. The intersection of these lines determines the measured threshold for the considered series. complimented with the results of specimens S1 to S10 (Lantsoght et al. showing that the shear capacity at the continuous support is larger than at the simple support.5 1. BL.5 m [1. 8.783 0.5 m [8.297 14.400/Vexp. % BS1 to BS3 0. m AVG Vexp.04 in.).5 BM1 to BM3 1.5 2.5 40. BM. the moment over the continuous support is on average only about 26% of the moment in a fully clamped support for the specimens from the S series and 31% for the B series.26 Fig. 4) is only applied at the beginning of every test.6 to 15.49 0.5 m (8.6 BX1 to BX3 2.5 0. As the force in the vertical prestressing bars close to the continuous support (CS in Fig.7 in.2 ft) wide.093 8% BX 2.1 BX2.8 S3 to S5 2.6 ft]).CS/Vexp.1 BL1 to BL3 1.) Moment distribution at support All specimens are tested at the simple and continuous support.3 ft. m AVG Vexp. 8.9 in.063 4.0 1. Specimens b. % BS 0. The inluence of the moment distribution at the support for complex loading situations was tested on girders in the Stevin II Laboratory (Yang 2012). The results are displayed by showing the shear capacity as a function of the member width in Fig. BX3 2.Table 3—Inluence of decrease in shear span from 600 to 400 mm (23. is compared to an identical experiment at the simple support.6 ft] to BX3 of 2 m [6. Table 5—Comparison between ultimate shear capacity at simple (Vexp. BX.0 0. The results for ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 . BL3 1.38 0.026 1.027 1.5 1.SS.2 ft]) (Lantsoght et al. as shown in Fig. BM3 1.9 Note: 1 m = 3.09 0. 4. as well as the associated standard deviation (STD) and coeficient of variation (COV).112 0.30 0. Test results for BS. the trendlines through datapoints at widths smaller than the threshold value are shown together with the lines of averaged constant shear capacities for wide members (above the threshold width) in Fig.225 0. the transverse moment starts to inluence the shear behavior and should be taken into account.73 0. The inluence of the moment distribution at the support on the shear capacity is studied in Table 5.) on observed increase of shear capacity Fig.8 x 11. Table 4—Measured increase in ultimate shear capacity Vexp for an increase in size of loading plate from 200 x 200 mm (7.SS STD COV.167 0.CS.9 x 7.) to 300 x 300 mm (11.8 in. all of which were made with high-strength concrete (Table 1).5 11.5 1.CS) Experiments b. The boundary line between “beams” and “slabs” at 5h from NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 (CEN 2005) is also given. 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. BS3 0.0 24.225 kip.492 28% BM 1. 1446 Specimens b.3 ft.069 5% BL 1.6 Note: 1 m = 3.3 ft. Vexp. S8 and S9 are shown.0 1.5 1.. The rows in Table 5 show the results with regard to the inluence of the moment distribution for the different widths that were tested.600 STD COV. the results of S8 and S9 (2. 2012) were compared to the results of the current series of specimens (BS1 of 0. % BS2.SS) and continuous support (Vexp. Vexp.6 BL2.329 0.2 BM2.0 1. Additionally. S2 2.

The code methods. The cylinder compressive strength fc. a/dl = 2. 10. The two load-spreading methods from Fig.0 6 200 x 200 mm CS. a/dl = 1. The mean values of the measured material properties are used and all partial safety factors are taken equal to 1.15 (Regan 1987) is used for mean values.26 1. To compare the shear provisions from NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 to the experimental results. 9(a)) and ACI 318-11 (Fig.7 1. COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND CODE PREDICTIONS The experimental shear capacities of the experiments from the B-series are compared to the shear provisions from ACI 318-11 and NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005. 1 mm = 0. while this ratio remains more constant when beff2 is used. The size of the loading plate is taken into account in the French load-spreading method as well as in the ib Model Code load-spreading method.3 ft. and that ACI 318-11 on average more closely predicts the shear capacity.5 1. however. CRd. which corresponds to the idea of horizontal load spreading from the load towards the support at a certain angle. m 1 300 x 300 mm SS. 9 that using beff2 (Fig. the results from Table 6 show that the effective width becomes smaller as the load is placed closer to the support.the estimated threshold effective width based on the experimental results are given in Table 6 and are compared to the calculated widths based on the load spreading methods from Fig. The comparison between the experimental results and the code methods is shown in Fig. The results in Fig. Fig. Moreover. a/dl = 1. compared to effective width based on different load-spreading methods No.26 2.1 1. 9—Comparison between experimental results and expected values according to ACI 318-11 and NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005.5 1. Series bmeas. The statistical properties of the comparison between the experiments and the code predictions are given in Table 7.7 1. 2 and 3. m beff1. using both beff1 and beff2.04 in.0 Notes: 1 m = 3. (Note: 1 kN = 0.7 1.6 4 200 x 200 mm CS.5 1. Fig. here expressed as Vexpdl/Mexp.9 0. The combination of beff2 and NEN-EN 19921-1:2005 results in the smallest coeficient of variation. 2(b)) in combination with ACI 318-11 and NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 gives a better estimate of the capacity than beff1. The results from Table 6 also show a different effective width depending on the size of the loading plate.7 1.8 1.cyl is assumed as 0.82 × fc.51 1.1 1.51 0. Overall better results are obtained when beff2 is used instead of beff1 (Fig. 9(b)).1 0. a/dl = 2. direct load transfer can lead shear capacities beyond the inclined cracking load. tion with the shear provisions from NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 (Fig. 9). Inluence of tested parameters on effective width The results of the threshold effective width from Table 6 show a difference between loading at the simple (SS) and continuous (CS) support. 2 are studied in combina- Table 6—Effective width as calculated from experimental results.0 3 200 x 200 mm SS. m bMC. a/dl = 2.1 1. When using beff1. Consistently. a/dl = 2.test = 0.1 0. The measured shear forces Vexp and moments Mexp at failure are used to determine the ratio VACIdl/MACI from ACI 318-11.1 1. The properties of the concrete are determined on cube specimens in the laboratory.26 1.3 1. the ratio between experimental and predicted value increases for an increasing specimen width.225 kip.0 2 300 x 300 mm CS. 9 show that NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 leads to conservative results for all experiments. lower effective widths are found at the continuous support as compared to the simple support due to the transverse moment.6 5 200 x 200 mm SS.26 1. m beff2.0 1.3 0. 9. In the current experiments.) ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 1447 . The comparison between the threshold width and the effective widths based on the load-spreading methods in Table 6 shows that the threshold width corresponds best to the effective width based on the French load-spreading method. as seen when the results of the ratio between the experimental and predicted shear capacities are plotted as a function of the specimen width. Regan 1987).meas (van der Veen and Gijsbers 2011). are aimed at the inclined cracking load of slender beams (Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426 1973.c. It can be seen in Fig.

where he received his MSc and PhD. A 45-degree load-spreading method was previously adopted in practice based on engineering judgment. L.36 0.56 0.EC/VR. These results were analyzed together with the results of slabs that were tested in earlier research. the inluence of the size of the loading plate increases and the inluence of the shear span-depth ratio decreases.0 m length x 0. the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.12 0.29 0.74 0.21 0.34 0.) while the combination of ACI 318-11 and beff2 results in the closest predictions of the experimental results.8 in. the inluence of the moment distribution at the support is taken into account by the factor VACIdl/MACI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Load-spreading methods are used in practice to determine a threshold for the relationship between the member width and the shear capacity.12 0.64 0.52 0. a series of 12 specimens of 5.26 0. In ACI 318-11.86 0.60 0. AUTHOR BIOS Eva O. concrete bridges. Both results can be explained by understanding that a threedimensional load-carrying mechanism is activated in wider specimens. She received her engineering degree from Vrije Universiteit Brussel.83 0.48 0.49 1.” and “BX” rows of Table 7.43 0.beff1 Vexp/VACI.60 0. The experiments show that.81 0.22 Fig. Atlanta.14 1. Quito.49 0. The average of the ratio between the experimental and predicted result increases with the width when beff1 is used.40 1. still leads to a larger average ratio of Vexp/VACI for tests carried out close to the continuous support than close to the simple support.21 1. the Netherlands.18 2.74 0. His research interests include remaining lifetime.45 1. (Note: 1 m = 3.EC/VR. The inluence of the moment distribution at the support becomes smaller as the member width increases.26 1.64 0.4 ft x 11. He received his MSc and PhD from Delft University of Technology. Previous series of experimental research were inconclusive about the existence of a threshold width and the determination of the effective width.32 2. Utrecht. Lantsoght is an Assistant Professor at Universidad San Francisco de Quito.88 0.34 2. Studying the results of Vexp.35 BM 1. however.beff1 Vexp. the Netherlands.39 0.) of variable widths was tested.EC/VR. Belgium.51 0. Joost C.15 BL 1. 10—Ratio between experimental results and calculated values according to ACI 318-11 and NEN-EN 1992-11:2005 as function of specimen width.42 0. The results of the experiments to deine the shear capacity on members with an increasing width are used to deine experimentally the threshold width. trafic loads and composites.3 m depth (16.15 0.84 0. 10. Therefore. ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 .96 0.35 2.beff2 Test data AVG STD COV AVG STD COV AVG STD COV AVG STD COV BS 1.42 0.90 0.82 0.c. it is recommended to take into account the inluence of the moment distribution at the support in NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 and to revise the expression from ACI 318-11 in terms of VACIdl/MACI.26 1.22 0.55 0. GA.52 0.38 1.c. Ane de Boer is a Senior Advisor at Rijkswaterstaat. as also observed in Fig.11 SS 1.56 0. existing structures. and computational mechanics.37 2. Delft.42 0.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.94 0.16 all 1. A total of 24 experiments were carried out.35 2.83 0.46 0.beff2 Vexp.” “BM. Brussels.3 ft.81 0.17 0. Walraven is an Emeritus Professor at Delft University of Technology.” “BL.52 0. Comparing the last two rows shows that the code methods underestimate the increased capacity at the continuous support.48 1.15 0.75 0. He received his MSc and PhD from Delft University of Technology.88 0. but it is now shown to be valid through rigorous experimentation. The inluence of the specimen width can be seen on the “BS.c shows that separating the results of the experiments at the continuous support from the results of the experiments at the simple support leads to a signiicant improvement of the coeficient of variation. Ecuador.11 CS 2.52 1. It is also found that the effective width from the French loadspreading method leads to the best predictions of the experiments when combined with the studied code provisions. computational mechanics. 1448 Therefore.95 0.26 1. This mechanism differs considerably from the two-dimensional load-carrying mechanism in members of small width.76 0.04 0.75 0.54 0. His research interests include high-strength steel iber concrete. and a Researcher at Delft University of Technology. as the member width increases.10 0.45 1. her MS from the Georgia Institute of Technology.16 BX 2. Cor van der Veen is an Associate Professor at Delft University of Technology.37 2.40 0.27 0. and remains more constant when beff2 is used.49 2.57 0.35 2. This experimental threshold width most closely resembles the effective width based on the French load-spreading method: horizontal load spreading from the far side of the loading plate under a 45-degree angle towards the face of the support. Applying this factor. and her PhD from Delft University of Technology.68 0.33 0.

pp. Lantsoght. V. E. V.” ACI Journal Proceedings. Zheng. Kuchma. E. 2012. D. No. 110. O. Regan. “Shear Resistance of Members without Shear Reinforcement. Chauvel.. No. C. and Hegger. Farmington Hills. Germany. 2007. pp. Lantsoght. 1917. Coin. D. O. Graf. No. O. “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1 General Rules and Rules for Buildings (NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005). pp. Bentz.” Stevin Report No. C. Droessler.1-5. Brussels. “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Frame Members Without Web Reinforcement.5-11-11.. UK. 2012.. P. 2003. Delft. C. E. Société suisse des ingénieurs et des architectes. I. 82-91. and M. 2010. Goldbeck.... 2. 107.und Stahlbetonbau. and Thielen. Mar.. Kani. 152-163. and Viest. Karlsruhe. Ventura. ib. 2011. V.-Dec. “Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures—Part 2: Trafic Loads on Bridges (NEN-EN 1991-2:2003). pp. “Shear Resistance of One-Way Slabs under Concentrated Loads.” Research Results Digest. E. No. pp. CEN. E.. Moe. Reineck... 441-467. Edition 1968.. REFERENCES ACI Committee 318. 1968. B. van der Veen... C.” ACI Structural Journal..” Polytechnic of Central London. and Lantsoght. V. pp.. 13. 1916. 1957.. 28 pp... L. V. G. Robinson. V. L. “Material Properties— Felt and Reinforcement For Shear Test of Reinforced Concrete Slab. and M.. Prochazkova. Thonier. “Design Code for the Calculation. pp. J. Faber. 187.” Proceedings of the ICE – Bridge Engineering. D. 73. eds.. and van der Veen. pp. Hoit. T. 240.” ACI Journal Proceedings. “One-Way Shear in Wide Concrete Beams with Narrow Supports. pp. C. Z. 503 pp. (in Dutch) Yang. Y. 1..” American Concrete Institute. in Reinforced Concrete and in Prestressed Concrete. G.. 1449 . de Boer. P. 2003. E. E.. pp.. and Serviceability. eds. 2006. the Netherlands. 25. International Federation for Structural Concrete. 150-157.. E. J. T. 1973. and Potter. Edinburgh.” ACI Structural Journal.. D. Zokaie. 5. SIA 162. 7. Mohamid and F.. B. C. V. No. Feb. and Walraven..” Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. pp. J. Lantsoght.. 2012. G. J. “The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its Solution. 2. July. 1108-1114.” Structures Congress 2011. van der Veen.. the Netherlands. 1-10.. C. Belgium. M. ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 Lantsoght. Sept.” Delft University of Technology. pp. and Collins.3141/2313-10 Sherwood. and Rezai-Jorabi. Hamilton.” Comité Européen de Normalisation. -1..” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.18. “Shear Capacity of Slabs and Slab Strips Loaded Close to the Support. V.. 229 pp. 275-284.. 2313.. H. O. 2005. No. Switzerland... P. S.. Proposal for CEB Model Code MC90. R. A. E. and Walraven. J. J.” 9th ib International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering. M. and Meason. R.. A. Brussels.. R. 2011. No.” Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering. “Shear Tests of Reinforced Concrete Slabs: Experimental Data of Undamaged Slabs. 86 pp. 2. 6 pp. No. Lantsoght. H. Y. 2011. pp. E. Bentz. 2013. Ames. A. 2. 512 pp.. and Gijsbers. Harvey. 350 pp. E. 324-333. V. “Model Code 2010: Final Draft. 25. 2011. Belgium. V. Vancouver.. V.. “Experimental Study of Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs.-Apr. 12 pp. CEN..” ACI Structural Journal. MI. 1991. Mar. 53. 1933. Jan. 65. and Bayrak. Bentz. V. pp. Fitik.. Delft. doi: 10. van der Veen. Hoit. and Ile.-Oct. “Experimental Investigations on the Effective Width for Shear of Single Span Bridge Deck Slabs. UK.. P. E. L. Taylor. France. 103. Anderson. 2011. L. J. 168 pp.. “The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members—An ACI Summary Paper. American Concrete Institute... (in German) Ross. A. van der Veen. 156. “Working Set Factors for Existing Concrete Bridges. Reißen. C. pp. Morrow. T. ASCE. E. 1323-1339. “One-Way Shear Strength of Thick Slabs and Wide Beams. Gould. and Cleland. L. S. Lausanne. No. Nov. O. N. “Shear Resistance of Slabs Not Provided with Shear Reinforcement. Goldbeck. 84 pp. W. 92-99. “Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks under Concentrated Loads Near to Supports. 2010. A. B. “ACI-DAfStb Database of Shear Tests on Slender Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups. F. 5. No. 2012. 1987. E. L. Rijkswaterstaat. and Walraven. D. 2013. 70.” Deutscher Ausschuss für Eisenbeton. 1-31. London. Zurich. the Construction and the Execution of Structures in Concrete.. Apr. 1992.. pp.. “Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Complex Loading Conditions. B. V. 4. Delft University of Technology. N. Feb.. 11. M.” ACI Journal Proceedings... 2011. K. J.. E. D. Delft University of Technology. 59. 3. “Real Strength of High-Performance Concrete Bridge Deck Slabs.-Feb. E. 78-88..-Apr.. D. Taylor. 2. “Investigation of Ultimate Strength of Deck Slabs in Steel-Concrete Bridges... pp. D. “Tests of Large Reinforced Concrete Slabs.” Structural Faults and Repair.. C. pp. N. 1988. and Cleland.” ACI Structural Journal. G. Diaz de Cossio. 108. 2008. pp. van der Veen. 28 pp. (in German) Steenbergen. “Experiments on the Capacity of Concrete Slabs Subjected to a Concentrated Load Close to a Support.. and research institute TNO. 1962.” Structures Congress 2008: Crossing Borders.” ACI Structural Journal. T. V. and Walraven.” Comité Européen de Normalisation. eds. J. Regan. V.-H. Lubell. G. and Smith. Delft. 2013. “Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges— Final Report of NCHRP Project 12-26.. 1964. Farmington Hills. SP-287. 833-869. No. O.. No. 794-802. O. BC. Las Vegas. O. the Netherlands. C. 32 pp. C. A.” Stevin Report Nr.” ACI Journal Proceedings. L..” ACI Journal Proceedings. 81-90. S.” ACI Journal Proceedings. D..ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Rijkswaterstaat) for inancing this research work and to InfraQuest for coordinating the cooperation between Delft University of Technology. 10-16. Canada.” Code 162. R.. 61. A.. Nov.. 12. “The Inluence of Total Width on the Effective Width of Reinforced Concrete Slabs Subjected to Central Concentrated Loading. 2.. Mar... J. J.5-11-07. 6.. L.. (in German) Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426. M. 867-876.. Switzerland. Rankin. M.” CEN/TC 250/SC 02 N 726. S. B. “Safety Assessment of Existing Concrete Slab Bridges for Shear Capacity.. 85. V. H.. No. J. 939-943. 43-48. K.. ASCE.. “Shear in One-Way Slabs Under Concentrated Load Close to Support. and Collins. V. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary. “Shear and Diagonal Tension—Discussion. MI. Malhas. “Design Aid for the Calculation of Sectional Forces and Deformations in Reinforced Concrete Structures.. pp. Design. 110. ed. pp.” ib Bulletin No. NV. 13th International Conference and Exhibition. I.” Beton. Lubell. “Effect of Bearing Pad Arrangement on Capacity of Slab Panel Bridge Members. 96-103.” Recent Development in Reinforced Concrete Slab Analysis. K. (in German) Grasser.

NOTES: 1450 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2014 .