Technical Paper
Andreas Galmarini*
Daniel Locher
Peter Marti
Predicting the responses of reinforced
concrete slab strips subjected to axial
tension and transverse load – a competition
Six large-scale tests on reinforced concrete slab strips were
carried out at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in
Zurich, Switzerland, in order to investigate the loadbearing be-
haviour of reinforced concrete slabs subjected to axial tension
and transverse load. Four of these tests were used for an interna-
tional competition to predict the responses of the test specimens.
The specimens differed in the axial tension applied and the pres-
ence of stirrups.
This paper presents the test concept, the four test specimens, the
test results and the predictions received, and also evaluates the
results of the competition. Simplified hand calculation analyses of
the experiments are also included.
The tests showed that there is significant shear strength in rein-
forced concrete slabs under axial tension, and that the system
capacity of such slab strips is not limited by a local shear failure.
The prediction competition revealed that the modelling of a
cracked reinforced concrete slab strip is still a significant chal-
lenge, even for experienced researchers using the latest analysis
tools.
Keywords: reinforced concrete, slab, axial tension, shear, combined loading,
tests, prediction, competition
1 Introduction
In 2012 six large-scale tests to failure on reinforced con-
crete slab strips were conducted at the Institute of Struc-
tural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
(ETH), Zurich, Switzerland [1]. The objective of the test
series was to investigate the influence of axial tension on
the overall loadbearing behaviour and the shear strength
of reinforced concrete slabs. Four of these tests were se-
lected for an international competition to predict the re-
sponse of the test specimens. All specimens had identical
dimensions, were cast from the same batch of concrete
and contained identical axial reinforcement. The first
three specimens differed in the axial tension applied,
which varied from 0 to 1911 kN, and the fourth, tested at
an axial tension of 1911 kN, contained stirrups. The maxi-
mum axial tensile force of 1911 kN corresponded to a ten-
* Corresponding author: andreas.galmarini@waltgalmarini.ch
Submitted for review: 21 May 2014
Revised: 10 September 2014
Accepted for publication: 27 September 2014
172 © 2015 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201400097
sile stress of 300 MPa in the longitudinal reinforcement,
which was about half the tensile strength.
This paper describes the test setup and test speci-
mens given to the competition participants, the test results
and the predictions received, and also evaluates the re-
sults of the competition.
Four teams of researchers submitted predictions for
the responses of four large-scale tests on reinforced con-
crete slab strips under axial tension and transverse load-
ing, using different methods of analysis. The competition
showed a significant scatter of the predictions. Many
would-be participants reported numerical difficulties
which prevented them from finalizing a competition en-
try. This revealed that the modelling of cracked reinforced
concrete is still a significant challenge, even for experi-
enced researchers equipped with the latest analysis tools.
The authors therefore believe that it is useful to present
simple hand calculation analysis methods that allow the
overall structural behaviour to be estimated and which
can serve as a plausibility check for finite element solu-
tions.
2 Tests
In order to include the three typical slab regions – end
support, midspan and intermediate support – in one test,
the test specimens were designed as simply supported
beams with a cantilever at one end. Three loading yokes in
the span simulated a distributed transverse loading and
additional jacks at the end of the cantilever were used to
control the forces in the test specimen at the intermediate
support. The axial tension was applied at the end support.
2.1 Test setup
The test setup consisted of a steel reaction structure on a
strong floor, three loading yokes and a total of nine hy-
draulic cylinders. The end support A and the intermediate
support B were suspended from the reaction structure,
thus allowing longitudinal movement and rotation about
the transverse horizontal axis. The test specimens were
positioned in the test setup with a crane using a spreader
beam and chains attached to the specimens via cast-in lift-
ing lugs. The test setup is shown in Fig. 1 and a longitudi-
nal section is given in Fig. 2a. The loads at axes 1, 2 and 3
were introduced via steel bearing plates measuring 100 ×
 A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

Table 1. Loading scheme for transverse loads

Test T0 T2 T1, T5

T [kN] 0 956 1911

Q [kN] P [kN]

0 0 0 0

0 5.6 13.0 14.9

5 15.8 21.6 25

10 23.0 29.8 35.1

15 30.2 37.9 45

20 37.4 45.9 54.7

Fig. 1. Overview of test setup
25 44.6 54.0 64.1

30 51.8 62.1 73.4

500 mm in the x-y direction. At support B, a stack of steel
35 59.0 70.2 82.5
bearing plates was used, with the uppermost bearing plate
measuring 90 × 540 mm in the x-y direction. 40 66.2 78.4 91.6
All tests followed the same procedure: First, axial
45 73.4 86.6 101
load T was increased monotonically up to the chosen val-
ue (and held constant throughout the remainder of the 50 80.6 94.9 110
test). Second, transverse loads Q and P were increased
55 87.8 103 119
monotonically following a predefined scheme (Table 1)
until the formation of a plastic hinge at support B was ob- 60 95.0 112 130
served. Third, load Q was increased monotonically while
the hydraulic circuit of P remained closed and the deflec- 65 102 123 141
tion wC at C was kept constant. The loads and the deflec- 70 1) 134 2)
tions discussed are illustrated in Figs. 2b and 2c.
> 70 1) 2) 2)

2.2 Test specimens 1) P = 8.58 kN + 1.44Q

The test specimens were 200 mm thick by 600 mm wide
slab strips with an overall length of 8.89 m (centre-to-cen-
tre end supports). All specimens were cast with protruding
longitudinal reinforcement at both ends. Longitudinal re-
inforcement was in the form of two layers of six 26 mm
dia. bars, corresponding to a reinforcement ratio ρx =
5.31 %; the bars were continuous (no splices) and had
2) deflection wC constant, P measured only
rolled-on 30 mm threads at their ends. The reinforcement
arrangement was adopted from an existing structure. A
second test series with lower longitudinal reinforcement
ratios was conducted in 2013 in order to investigate the in-
fluence of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the

(a)

A 1 2 3 B C D

(b) 221 169 810 2400 2400 1200 1300 169 221 2000

load by jacking Q Q Q P
4.07 kN 1.8 kN 1.8 kN 1.8 kN 4.07 kN 3.8 kN
dead load G / 8.11 m
T

(c) x
w2 wC
w

Fig. 2. Test setup: a) longitudinal section and axes, b) loads, c) coordinates and deflections

Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 173

A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

(a) 50 100 100 100 100 100 50

(b) 26 357 217

65 42
70 122
65 36
bars Ø26 stirrup Ø8

100 23 x 2 stirrups 2 x 6 bars 4 x 2 lifting lugs 100

(c)

2x100 3x55
35 3x55 360 100 1640 100 560 100 2x100 1050 100 850 2x100 35

1 2 3 B

100 50 x 2 stirrups 2 x 6 bars 4 x 2 lifting lugs 100

(d)

3x55 100 100

35 3x100 10x200 100 13x200 150 150 5x200 100 4x200 150 3x55 35

Fig. 3. Reinforcement arrangement in test specimens: a) longitudinal reinforcement, b) stirrups, c) plan on and longitudinal section through T0, T1, T2,
d) plan on and longitudinal section through T5 (dims. in mm)

structural behaviour of such slab strips [2]. Transfer plates Table 2. Average concrete properties
were slipped over the protruding reinforcing bars and the
nuts were fastened with a torque wrench. Clevis brackets Cube strength fcw [N/mm2] 52.3
connected the transfer plates to the jack for the axial force
Cylinder strength fcc [N/mm2] 41.2
at one end and to a steel rod at the other end. Except for
specimen T5, stirrups were only used at positions of tem- Tensile strength fct [N/mm2] 3.21
porary or permanent load application in order to avoid
Strain at peak compressive stress εcu [10–3] 1.82
premature failure due to local load spreading effects. The
stirrups in specimen T5 corresponded to a reinforcement Modulus of elasticity Ec [kN/mm2] 32.4
ratio ρz = 0.17 %. All specimens were cast in the laboratory
from the same batch of concrete with a maximum aggre-
gate size of 16 mm. Eight lugs were cast in to ensure that stress rate amounted to 10 MPa/s; thereafter, a strain rate
lifting of the specimens did not cause visible cracking. of 50 · 10–6/s was applied. At a strain of 0.55 %, as well as
Geometry and reinforcement of the four test specimens at the peak stress, the strain was held constant for 2 min,
are shown in Fig. 3. resulting in the static yield and ultimate strengths fsy,stat
Average concrete properties are given in Table 2. At and fsu,stat respectively. The stress-strain relations of the re-
the beginning of the test series (age of concrete 93 days), inforcing steel are shown in Figs. 4b and 4c.
in the middle (139 days) and at the end (181 days), one
cube test (150 × 150 × 150 mm) and three cylinder tests 2.3 Test results
(150 dia. × 300 mm high) were performed to obtain
fcw and fcc respectively; the loading rate was equal to A summary of the test results relevant for the prediction
0.5 MPa/s. The cylinder tests were also used to determine competition is given in Table 4. Rigid body movements
the modulus of elasticity Ec (secant modulus between caused by the flexibility of the support structure were de-
0.5 MPa and fcw/3). The tensile strength fct was deter- ducted from the measurements, so the deflection values
mined from double-punch tests [3], [4] on three sets of four given correspond to the definition in Fig. 2c.
cylinders (150 × 150 mm); the loading rate was equal to After the first failure of T0 (at Q = 64 kN, on the can-
0.02 MPa/s (related to the whole cross-section of the tilever side of support B), the load increased with increas-
cylinder). The properties measured did not show any sig- ing deformation, whereas after the second failure of T0 (at
nificant influence of concrete age. Consequently, the aver- Q = 67 kN, bending failure under loading yoke 2), the load
age properties given to the competitors were determined decreased with increasing deformation. Consequently, the
from all samples together. The stress-strain relations of the system capacity was only reached at the second failure
concrete are shown in Fig. 4a. (global failure) and the first failure was a local failure.
Average reinforcing steel properties are given in After the shear failure of T1 (at Q = 149 kN, shear
Table 3. Eight and twelve specimens were tested for the 8 failure in section 3-B), the load increased to higher values
and 26 mm bars respectively. Up to the yield strain, the (max. tested: Q = 165 kN) with increasing deformation.

174 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2

 A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

- σc [N/mm2] σs [N/mm2] σs [N/mm2]

50 800 800
(a) (b) (c)
600 600

25 400 400

200 200
Ø8 Ø26

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
- εc [o/oo] ε s [o/oo] ε s [o/oo]

Fig. 4. Stress-strain relations: a) concrete, b) and c) reinforcing steel

Table 3. Average reinforcing steel properties (values related to nominal In test T5 the load was increased until the capacity
diameter) of the test setup was reached (at Q = 253 kN) without fail-
ure of the test specimen. Crushing of the concrete in the
Nominal diameter [mm] 8 26 compression zone was observed over support B and under
Dynamic yield strength fsy,dyn [N/mm2] 5171) 527
loading yokes 1 and 2.

Static yield strength fsy,stat [N/mm2] 492 498 3 Prediction competition

Dynamic ultimate strength fsu,dyn [N/mm2] 585 632
In July 2012 the chairs of fib Commission 4, Structural
Static ultimate strength fsu,stat [N/mm2] 536 587 Modelling and Design, and ACI-ASCE Committee 445,
Shear and Torsion, announced a prediction competition.
Strain at onset of hardening εsv [10–3] 2) 21
In addition, the participants of a previous prediction com-
Strain at peak stress Agt [10–3] 51 119 petition [5], [6] were invited to participate and the an-
nouncement was published online. Researchers were invit-
Ultimate strain εsu [10–3] 69 140
ed to submit predictions of the expected response of the
1) 0.2 % strain limit stress four tests described previously by the end of November
2) coiled reinforcing steel 2012.

3.1 Basis and requirements

Table 4. Summary of main test results (B = bending failure, S = shear
failure) [1] A description of the test setup, test specimens and materi-
al properties similar to sections 2.1 and 2.2 was published
Test Failure/Max Load Deflection online and given to interested teams. Additionally, it was
defined that rod C-D in Fig. 2a was to be taken as weight-
Type Region T Q P w2 wC
[kN] [kN] [kN] [mm] [mm] less and infinitely stiff.

T0 BS B+ 0 64 103 142 27 Response predictions were expected to include:

B 2 0 67 56 230 31 1. Name(s) and address(es) of the author(s) of the predic-
T2 S 3-B 949 146 111 316 42 tion
‘max’ 943 145 88 339 43 2. Q-w2 and Q-wC diagrams for all four tests using given
templates and in the form of Excel files
T1 S 3-B 1913 149 136 188 32 3. Drawings of the crack patterns at failure for all four
max 1916 165 115 223 32 tests using given templates
T5 max 1912 253 141 354 37 4. A brief description of the predicted responses for all
four tests, highlighting cracking and crushing of the
concrete as well as yielding of the reinforcement
5. A brief description of the method(s) of analysis used
Consequently, the system capacity was not reached and
the shear failure was a local failure. 3.2 Prediction entries
Specimen T2 showed a load increase trend similar to
T1. Due to the limitations of the test setup regarding the Modelling problems and lack of time caused a number
maximum deformation, the load was not increased be- of teams to pull out of the competition. In the end,
yond the value of the shear failure (Q = 146 kN, shear fail- four teams submitted a competition entry, see Table 5.
ure in section 3-B). Notwithstanding, the failure was con- A summary of the main results is given in Table 6, the
sidered to be a local failure. Q-w diagrams are plotted in Fig. 5 and the crack pattern

Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 175

A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

Table 5. Participants

Entry Authors Organization Country

1 Belletti, B.1), Damoni, C.1), Hendriks, M.2) 1) University of Parma 1) Italy

2) Delft University of Technology 2) Netherlands

2 Cervenka, V. Cervenka Consulting, Prague Czech Republic

3 Kuchma, D., Moon, D. S. University of Illinois, Urbana USA

4 Luu, K. C. H., Tan, S., Mo, Y. L., Hsu, T. T. C. University of Houston USA

Table 6. Prediction results: local failure (lf) and Qmax (max)

Test Belletti et al. Cervenka Kuchma et al. Luu et al. Test results

Q w2 wC Q w2 wC Q w2 wC Q w2 wC Q w2 wC
kN mm mm kN mm mm kN mm mm kN mm mm kN mm mm

T0 lf 40 64 91 65 114 123 55 93 15 50 58 36 64 142 27

max 40 64 91 65 114 123 55 93 15 59 69 26 67 230 31

T2 lf 35 58 61 127 259 46 110 195 74 29 40 66 146 316 42

max 70 137 212 1461) 338 46 110 195 74 35 48 54 145 339 43

T1 lf 34 39 44 127 154 46 140 168 45 14 –13 130 149 188 32

max 65 80 101 1701) 222 46 140 168 45 17 –2 118 165 223 32

T5 lf 36 38 40 128 156 47 190 245 45 13 –13 130 – – –

max 65 78 98 236 325 47 190 245 45 17 –2 119 253 354 37
1) values corresponding to Qpred (w2,pred = w2max,exp)

predictions are depicted in Fig. 6. The methods of
analysis used by the various authors are summarized be-
low.
Belletti et al.
A numerical, non-linear finite element analysis was per-
formed considering both physical and geometrical non-
linear behaviour [7]. Concrete behaviour was modelled
with a parabolic law in compression and an exponential
law in tension, both based on fracture energy. The ulti-
mate compressive strain of the concrete was set at 6 ‰. A
rotating crack model was used to determine crack pat-
terns. A reduction in the concrete compressive strength
due to lateral cracking was considered. The steel rein-
forcement was modelled using a trilinear material law for
the longitudinal reinforcement and a bilinear material law
for the stirrups. Perfect bond between reinforcement and
concrete was assumed.
considered. Concrete crushing was used for predicting lo-
cal failure.
Kuchma et al.
Moment-curvature diagrams were calculated with a multi-
layer sectional analysis program [9]. The stress-strain rela-
tionship was assumed to be parabolic for the concrete in
compression and trilinear for the steel reinforcement. The
crushing strain of the concrete was set at 3 ‰. The same
analysis program was used to determine the shear capaci-
ty based on modified compression field theory. Inelastic
stress resultants acting on the slab strips were calculated
with an analysis and simulation program using a fibre-
based approach. A bilinear model for the steel reinforce-
ment as well as a uniaxial constant confinement model for
the concrete was used in this program. Failure was identi-
fied by comparing the stress resultants with the cross-sec-
tional capacities.

Cervenka Luu et al.

A three-dimensional numerical simulation was performed
using a non-linear finite element program for reinforced
concrete structures [8]. Analysis of the concrete tensile be-
haviour was based on a smeared crack concept and frac-
ture mechanics considerations, whereas concrete com-
pressive behaviour was described by incremental plasticity
and non-associated flow rule. The steel reinforcement was
modelled using a multi-linear material law with hardening
and limited ductility. Concrete and reinforcement were
modelled as brick and embedded truss elements respec-
tively. Bond slip between reinforcement and concrete was
The analysis was carried out using a non-linear finite ele-
ment program [10]. The model used consisted of 23 nodes
and 22 non-linear beam-column elements developed for
flexural prediction [11]. Concrete behaviour was based on
the Kent-Scott-Park concrete material model in compres-
sion with a crushing strain of 6 ‰ and linear softening in
tension. The steel reinforcement was modelled as bilinear
elastic-plastic with strain hardening. Failure was assumed
to occur as soon as the strain in the concrete reached its
crushing strain. At a positive strain of 0.08 ‰, cracking of
the respective elements was assumed.

176 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2

 A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

100
T0 T0
Q [kN]

50

250
T2 T2

200
Q [kN]

150

100

50

250
T1 T1

200
Q [kN]

150

100

50

250
T5 T5

200
Q [kN]

150

100

50 experiment
Belletti et al.
Cervenka
origin Kuchma et al.
0 failure Luu et al.

0 100 200 300 0 100 200

w2 [mm] wC [mm]
Fig. 5. Load-deflection characteristics: predictions and test results

Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 177

A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

T0 T2
3 B C 3 B C

Experiment

Belletti et al.

Cervenka

Kuchma et al.

Luu et al.

T1 T5
3 B C 3 B C

Experiment

Belletti et al.

Cervenka

Kuchma et al.

Luu et al.

Fig. 6. Crack patterns: predictions and test results

3.3 Comparison and evaluation

Q [kN]

The competition entries were reviewed considering the

following aspects:

Local failure prediction Q fail,exp

experiment
The predicted failure load Q and the associated secant Q fail,pred
stiffness K = Q/w2 were related to the values observed ex- prediction
perimentally by introducing the following coefficients:
1
Kpred Kexp
tan −1(Kexp /K pred ) 1
f= −1 (1)
π 4
0
Q pred
s= −1 (2) 0 w2 [mm]
Qexp
Fig. 7. Strength and flexibility: how predictions deviate from test results
r = s2 + f 2 (3)

as shown in Fig 7. Coefficient f is a measure of the devia-

tion of the flexibility. In a normalized Q-w diagram, Kexp
corresponds to a 45° slope and f·π/4 corresponds to the
angular deviation of slope Kpred from 45°. Coefficient s is a
measure of the deviation of the strength. In an f-s diagram,
r is the distance of the predicted failure point from the ori-
gin. Coefficient r is used to judge the overall quality of a
failure prediction. The corresponding values for each en-
try are listed in Table 7 and shown graphically in Fig. 8.
For test T0, the first failure (Q = 64 kN) was used for
this comparison. For test T5, due to the lack of failure
within the loads tested, the maximum load tested was used
for computing the f, s and r values.

178 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2

 A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

Table 7. Competition results: local failure (lf) and Qmax (max)

Test Belletti et al. Cervenka Kuchma et al. Luu et al. mean

s f r s f r s f r s f r s f r

T0 lf –0.38 –0.26 0.46 0.01 –0.21 0.21 –0.14 –0.23 0.28 –0.23 –0.44 0.49 –0.18 –0.29 0.36
max –0.40 –0.44 0.60 –0.02 –0.40 0.40 –0.17 –0.42 0.46 –0.11 –0.59 0.60 –0.18 –0.46 0.51

T2 lf –0.76 –0.16 0.78 –0.13 –0.04 0.13 –0.24 –0.13 0.28 –0.80 –0.29 0.85 –0.48 –0.15 0.51
max –0.52 –0.11 0.53 0.01 –0.01 0.01 –0.24 –0.17 0.30 –0.76 –0.33 0.82 –0.38 –0.15 0.42

T1 lf –0.77 –0.06 0.77 –0.15 –0.03 0.15 –0.06 –0.03 0.07 –0.91 –1.84 2.05 –0.47 –0.49 0.76
max –0.61 –0.05 0.61 0.03 –0.02 0.04 –0.15 –0.07 0.17 –0.90 –1.13 1.44 –0.41 –0.32 0.57

T5 lf –0.86 –0.18 0.88 –0.49 –0.09 0.50 –0.25 –0.05 0.26 –0.95 –1.78 2.02 –0.64 –0.52 0.91
max –0.74 –0.10 0.75 –0.07 –0.01 0.07 –0.25 –0.05 0.26 –0.93 –1.12 1.46 –0.50 –0.32 0.63

mean lf –0.69 –0.17 0.72 –0.19 –0.09 0.25 –0.17 –0.11 0.22 –0.72 –1.09 1.35 –0.44 –0.36 0.64
max –0.57 –0.18 0.62 –0.01 –0.11 0.13 –0.20 –0.18 0.29 –0.67 –0.79 1.08 –0.36 –0.31 0.53

1 1
(a) (b)
T0 T2 Belletti Kuchma
1/2 1/2 et al. et al.

0 0

-1/2 -1/2
strength deviation

strength deviation

-1 -1
1 1
T1 T5 Cervenka Luu et al.
1/2 1/2

0 0

-1/2 -1/2 local failure

-1.8 / 1.1 -1.8 / 1.1 -1.8 / 1.1 maximum
-1 -1
-1 -1/2 0 1/2 1 -1 -1/2 0 1/2 1 -1 -1/2 0 1/2 1 -1 -1/2 0 1/2 1
flexibility deviation flexibility deviation

Fig. 8. Competition results: a) per test, b) per entry

The comparison shows that the local failure predic- a local failure in tests T1, T2 and T5. None of the partici-
tions generally underestimate the failure loads and the pants predicted the continued loadbearing capacity of
corresponding deflections. The local failure predictions specimen T0 after the first failure.
by Kuchma et al. were closest to the test results, closely
followed by Cervenka and, at some distance, by Belletti et Crack pattern prediction
al. and Luu et al. Test T0 was predicted best and T5 was The predicted and observed crack patterns were com-
the most difficult to predict. pared qualitatively. The aspects compared were the posi-
tion of the shear cracks (on which side of intermediate
Load-deflection behaviour prediction support B), the angle a of the predicted shear cracks , the
The maximum load Qmax predicted and the corresponding spacing Δx of the bending cracks and the depth Δz of the
deflection w2 were compared with the respective values bending cracks. To compare the predictions, a numerical
observed in the test using the method described above. value between 0 (no agreement) and 1 (good agreement),
The results of the comparison are given in Table 7 and with the intermediate steps 1/4 and 1/2, was attributed to
shown graphically in Fig. 8. each aspect, see Table 8.
The results confirm a qualitative comparison. The The comparison shows that the crack pattern predic-
general load-deflection behaviour is predicted best by tion by Belletti et al. came closest to the observed pattern,
Cervenka, followed by Kuchma et al., Belletti et al. and followed by Cervenka and Kuchma et al. Bending cracks
Luu et al. Both Belletti et al. and Cervenka predicted that were well predicted (only for T0 was there a noteworthy
the system would continue resisting increasing loads after difference: the test specimen showed bending cracks on

Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 179

A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

Table 8. Competition results: comparison of crack patterns per test

Test Belletti et al. Cervenka Kuchma et al. Luu et al.

shear bending shear bending shear bending shear bending

pos. α Δx Δz pos. α Δx Δz pos. α Δx Δz pos. α Δx Δz

T0 1/2 1 1 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 1/2 0 1/2 1 1/2 – – 1/2 1/2

T2 1 1 1 1/2 1 1/2 1 1 1 1/4 1 1 – – 1/2 1/2

T1 1 1 1 1 1 1/2 1 1 1 1/4 1 1 – – 1/2 1

T5 1 1 1 1/2 1/4 1/2 1 1 1/4 1/2 1 1 – – 1/2 1

the underside close to yoke 3), while it was more difficult Bending behaviour was assumed as rigid-perfectly
to predict the position and especially the shallow angle of plastic with maximum bending moments equal to Mu. The
the shear cracks. self-weight of the test specimens within span A–B was ide-
alized using statically equivalent point loads acting at axes
4 Authors’ analysis 1, 2 and 3. For any loading Q and P according to Table 1,
the stress resultants at axes 1, 2, 3 and B are defined by the
The authors thought it would be both worthwhile and fair equilibrium equations on the deformed system. As soon as
to present a simple hand calculation based on common the bending moment exceeded Mu at any of these four ax-
methods described in the literature. The crack pattern is es, a plastic hinge occurred there. The corresponding de-
not analysed in this. flection w was determined from the condition Mi = Mi0 –
Assuming rigid-perfectly plastic material behaviour Twi = Mu at the given axis, where Mi0 is the first-order
for concrete and reinforcement, with stresses set to 0 or bending moment.
–fcc and –fsy,stat or +fsy,stat for concrete and reinforcement Local failure was defined as occuring when the shear
respectively, the M-N interaction diagram was calculated force between axes 3 and B achieved the shear resistance
and the bending moment resistance Mu found for the Vu for tests with axial load T > 0. Any residual shear
three axial forces T applied during the tests, see Fig. 9. strength between axes 3 and B was neglected. Conse-
The shear resistance was calculated according to the quently, for any further load increase, the bending mo-
upper bound solution given by [12], i.e. ments at these two axes were set to zero, M3 = MB = 0, and
the section 3-B essentially continued to carry load as a
⎧ ⎡ 2 ⎤ ⎫ rod.
⎪1 ⎢ ⎛ a⎞ a⎥ fsy,stat a ⎪ The predicted shear failures of specimens T1 and T2
Vu = ⎨ 1+⎜ ⎟ − + ρz ⎬ bhfc (4)
⎢ ⎝ h⎠ h⎥
⎪2 ⎢ ⎥
fc h ⎪ did not limit the system resistance. No failure at all was
⎩ ⎣ ⎦ ⎭ predicted for specimen T5. The system resistance of speci-
men T0 coincided with the bending capacity at axis B giv-
where a = 1.105 m is the clearance between the loading en by MB = –Mu. Shear failure was not critical in this test.
plate of yoke 3 and the bearing plate of support B and fc Fig. 10 shows experimentally observed and comput-
is the effective concrete compressive strength, taken as ed Q-w2 diagrams. Table 9 lists the values of load Q and
fc = kcfcc, with kc varying between 0.6 and 1.0. deflections w2 and wC at local failure and maximum load.

(a) bc bs (c) N
Ø 4000

e
h y
e T1, T5

z T2
M
0 T0
b 100 200

(b) ε σc σs
x fsy,stat -4000
M
N - fcc - fsy,stat
symmetric

-8000 [kN, kNm]

Fig. 9. Rigid-perfectly plastic model: a) geometry, b) strain plane and stress distribution, c) M-N diagram

180 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2

 A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

100
T0 T0
Q [kN]

50

250
T2 T2
kc = 1.0
200
Q [kN]

150
kc = 1.0

100 kc = 0.6
kc = 0.6

50

250
T1 T1

200
kc = 1.0 kc = 0.6
Q [kN]

150
kc = 0.6
100

50

250
T5 T5

200
Q [kN]

150

100

50
origin experiment
0 failure analysis

0 100 200 300 0 100 200

w2 [mm] wC [mm]
Fig. 10. Load-deflection characteristics: authors’ analysis

Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 181

A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

Table 9. Authors’ analysis: local failure (lf) and Qmax (max)

Test Analysis

kc = 0.6 kc = 1.0 Test results

Q w2 wC Q w2 wC Q w2 wC
kN mm mm kN mm mm kN mm mm

T0 lf 58 0 0 58 0 0 64 142 27
max 58 0 0 58 0 0 67 230 31

T2 lf 77 59 60 210 476 60 146 316 42

max 1441) 339 60 1661) 339 60 145 339 43

T1 lf 112 117 45 – – – 149 188 32

max 1641) 223 45 1791) 223 45 165 223 32

T5 lf – – – – – – – – –
max 2631) 355 45 2631) 355 45 253 354 37
1) values corresponding to Qpred (w2,pred = w2max,exp)

Table 10. Authors’ analysis: comparison even for experienced researchers equipped with sophis-
ticated analytical tools.
Test kc = 0.6 kc = 1.0 2. Failure loads and the corresponding deflections at
midspan were generally underestimated by the partici-
s f r s f r
pants, whereas the global stiffness of the specimens was
T0 lf –0.09 – – –0.09 – – generally overestimated.
max –0.13 – – –0.13 – – 3. All specimens showed an increasing loadbearing ca-
pacity after the occurrence of a local failure. This was
T2 lf –0.47 –0.57 0.74 0.44 0.03 0.44
only predicted by some participants and in some tests.
max –0.01 0.00 0.01 0.14 –0.09 0.17
4. Predictions of bending cracks were good in general,
T1 lf –0.25 –0.12 0.28 – – – whereas predicting shear cracks correctly was more dif-
max –0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 –0.05 0.10 ficult for all participants.
5. The simple hand calculations presented by the authors
T5 lf – – – – – –
max 0.04 –0.02 0.05 0.04 –0.02 0.05 show good agreement with the overall load-deflection
behaviour observed during the tests on specimens sub-
jected to axial force. Upper and lower boundaries for
the load causing shear failure can be found with this
Table 10 lists the corresponding f, s and r values for all method. The method can be used for initial estimates
tests. The comparison is made for kc = 0.6 and kc = 1.0. and as a plausibility check for more sophisticated
As the comparison shows, the hand calculation models.
based on simple upper bound solutions presented by the
authors predicts the overall load-deflection behaviour of Acknowledgements
the specimens subjected to axial force well, especially for
higher loads. In particular, it can be shown that a shear Financial support from ETH Zurich is gratefully acknowl-
failure in these specimens does not limit the system capac- edged.
ity. The load causing shear failure is not predicted well by
the method. However, upper and lower boundaries are Notation
found. The observed failure load was between these
boundaries. For test T0, the method only gives an estimate Agt strain at peak stress of steel
of the ultimate load, which fits quite well, but not the de- Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete
flections. The increasing loadbearing capacity after reach- G self-weight of test specimen
ing the bending capacity at B was not predicted. K secant stiffness
A more detailed theoretical discussion of the tests Kexp experimentally observed value of K
described above, and of the structural response of rein- Kpred predicted value of K
forced concrete slab strips generally under axial tension, M bending moment
can be found in [13]. Mu bending moment resistance
M0 first-order bending moment
5 Conclusions N normal force
P transverse load applied at end of cantilever
1. The prediction competition showed that the modelling Q transverse load applied per yoke in the span
of reinforced concrete subjected to axial tension and Qexp experimentally observed value of Q
transverse loading still leads to significant problems, Qfail,exp experimentally observed value of Q at failure

182 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2

 A. Galmarini/D. Locher/P. Marti · Predicting the responses of reinforced concrete slab strips subjected to axial tension and transverse load – a competition

Qfail,pred predicted value of Q at failure 5. Jaeger, T., Marti, P.: Reinforced Concrete Slab Shear Predic-
Qmax maximum value of Q tion Competition: Experiments. ACI Structural Journal, vol.
Qpred predicted value of Q 106, No. 3, 2009, pp. 300–308.
6. Jaeger, T., Marti, P.: Reinforced Concrete Slab Shear Predic-
T axial load applied
tion Competition: Entries and Discussion. ACI Structural
Vu shear resistance
Journal, vol. 106, No. 3, 2009, pp. 309–318.
a clearance 7. Manie, J.: DIANA user’s manual. TNO DIANA BV, Delft,
b width of test specimen The Netherlands, 2009.
bc width of concrete section 8. Cervenka, J., Jendele, L., Cervenka, V.: ATENA Program doc-
bs width of steel section umentation. Cervenka Consulting, Prague, Czech Republic,
e eccentricity 2009, http://www.cervenka.cz.
f flexibility deviation 9. Bentz, E., Collins, M. P.: Response 2000 User Manual. Uni-
fc effective compressive strength of concrete versity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 2001, http://www.ecf.
fcc cylinder strength of concrete utoronto.ca/~bentz/r2k.htm.
fct tensile strength of concrete 10. Fenves, G. L.: Annual workshop on Open System for Earth-
quake Engineering Simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineer-
fcw cube strength of concrete
ing Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, USA,
fsy,dyn dynamic yield strength of steel
2005.
fsy,stat static yield strength of steel 11. Taucer, F., Spacone, E., Filippou, F. C.: A fiber beam-column
fsu,dyn dynamic ultimate strength of steel element for seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete
fsu,stat static ultimate strength of steel structures. Technical Report UCB/EERC-91/17, Earthquake
h height of test specimen Engineering Research Center, University of California,
kc reduction factor Berkeley, USA, 1991.
r resultant deviation 12. Nielsen, M. P., Hoang, L. C.: Limit Analysis and concrete
s strength deviation plasticity, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011.
w deflection 13. Galmarini, A.: Influence of Axial Tension on the Structural
Response of Reinforced Concrete Slab Strips. IBK Report
w2 deflection at midspan
No. 358, ETH Zurich, 2014.
w2max,exp maximum experimentally observed value of w2
w2,pred predicted value of w2
wC deflection at end of cantilever
x, y, z coordinates
Δx spacing of bending cracks
Δz depth of bending cracks
α angle of predicted shear cracks
ε strain
εcu strain at peak compressive stress of concrete Andreas Galmarini
Project Manager
εsu ultimate strain of steel
Walt + Galmarini AG
εsv strain at onset of hardening of steel 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
ρx geometrical longitudinal reinforcement ratio Tel: +41 43 2226622
ρz geometrical transverse reinforcement ratio andreas.galmarini@waltgalmarini.ch
σc concrete stress
σs steel stress
∅ diameter of reinforcing bar

References Daniel Locher

Research Associate
1. Galmarini, A., Locher, D., Wyss, J., Marti, P.: Versuche an Institute of Structural Engineering
Plattenstreifen aus Stahlbeton unter Längszug und Quer- Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
belastung. IBK Report No. 349, ETH Zurich, 2013. 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
2. Locher, D., Galmarini, A., Wyss, J., Dubach, R., Marti, P.:
Versuche an Plattenstreifen aus Stahlbeton unter Längszug
und Querbelastung, 2. Serie. IBK Report No. 353, ETH Zu-
rich, 2014.
3. Chen, W. F.: Double-Punch Test for Tensile Strength of Con-
crete. ACI Journal, Proc., vol. 67, No. 12, 1970, pp. 993–995.
4. Marti, P.: Size effect in Double-Punch Tests on Concrete Peter Marti
Cylinders. ACI Materials Journal, vol. 86, No. 6, 1989, pp. Professor emeritus of structural engineering
597–601. ETH Zurich

Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 183

Copyright of Structural Concrete is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.