ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 117-S96
Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Biaxial Voided
Square Slabs
by Radha Sagadevan and B. N. Rao
Biaxial voided slab is an innovative slab system which results in
a self-weight reduction of up to 50% in comparison with solid
slabs. In this paper, the effect of voids of various shapes on flex-
ural behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) square slabs was studied
through experimental investigations. Five full-scale slab speci-
mens under a 16-point load were tested with two different shapes
of voids, such as sphere and cuboid. The results obtained for solid
and voided slab specimens were compared and found that the ulti-
mate flexural capacity is almost the same. However, the presence
of voids influences flexural stiffness. While such influence accounts
for a marginal deviation of the post-cracking flexural stiffness, the
initial stiffness of solid slabs is observed to be 37% higher than
that of voided slabs. Furthermore, the flexural load-carrying
capacity was estimated based on the yield line method with tensile
membrane action and compared with experimental results. For
this, the experimental results of the present study (five specimens)
and test data collected from the literature (seven specimens) were
compared with predictions. It was found that the beneficial effect of
tensile membrane action is applicable for biaxial voided RC slab
in enhancing the flexural load-carrying capacity. Furthermore,
through the comparison of experimental and analytical results, it is
found that the 16-point load can be adopted to simulate uniformly
distributed loading condition.
Keywords: biaxial voided slab; cuboid void; sphere void; tensile membrane
action; two-way flexure; yield line method.
INTRODUCTION
In a reinforced concrete (RC) building structure, the floor
system plays a vital role in resisting and transferring gravity
and lateral load to the beam, column, and other structural
members. Generally, the slabs are classified as one-way and
two-way slabs based on their flexural behavior. The conven-
tional RC slab has a limitation on the span and floor height
due to its size and self-weight and to overcome this, grid
floor, ribbed slab, flat plate, and flat slab systems are being
adopted. However, each floor system has its limitations such
as serviceability requirement, floor height, practical difficul-
ties in construction, and so on.1 Because of this, the one-way
voided slab system is identified mainly to reduce the self-
weight of the slab without significant change in its flex-
ural capacity; however, it has a limitation on unidirectional
capacity. Then research on two-way (biaxial) voided slab
systems initiated. The voids are discontinuous and formed
by removing concrete from where it has limited use. RC
biaxial voided slabs are produced with plastic void formers
of spherical, donut, or cuboid shape.2-5 These void formers
are typically placed at the middepth of the slab with rein-
forcing mesh at the top and bottom. It is well known that
voided slabs exhibit a reduction in self-weight up to 50%
in comparison with RC solid slabs without any significant
ACI Structural Journal/September 2020
TECHNICAL PAPER
change in their structural performance.6,7 For example, the
biaxial voided slab can have a 44% reduction in self-weight
as compared with a solid slab of the same flexural capacity.8
Investigations were carried out to study the one-way flex-
ural capacity of the voided slab by various researchers.2,4,9,10
These investigations showed that the capacity of an RC
voided slab is almost the same as an RC solid slab with
slightly lower stiffness. The two-way flexural behavior
of voided RC slab systems was also studied similarly by
previous researchers.11-13 The capacity of voided slabs
constructed using the spherical void former is 89 to 100%
of the ultimate load of RC solid slab with equal depth and
shows marginal stiffness reduction.11 On the other hand, RC
slabs constructed using donut-type void former showed 25%
lower flexural secant stiffness when compared to that of an
RC solid slab of the same dimensions and reinforcement.
However, the flexural capacity remains the same.12 Further,
researchers have adopted various loading configurations to
study the two-way flexural behavior of RC square solid and
voided slabs. Application of single-point load at the center of
the slab often results in premature localized punching shear
failure.14 The punching shear failure was avoided by adopting
five-point load in small-scale specimens11 and 12-point load
in full-scale specimens.12 However, the load was concen-
trated at the central region alone, not equally distributed
throughout the slab surface. Loading configurations adopted
by various researchers were not able to capture the uniformly
distributed load (UDL) conditions. For example, based on
the assumptions of the yield line theory, the slab subjected
to UDL and slab subjected to 12-point load (equivalent to
62.5% of UDL) results in the same deflection (refer to the
“Flexural Capacity of Slab by Yield Line Method” section
of this paper). In addition to the loading type effect on the
structural behavior of slabs, in the early 1960s, research on
the effect of tensile membrane action was initiated in the
analysis and design of lightly RC slabs with large deflections.
Researchers found that the effect of tensile membrane action
is significant in considerably enhancing the capacity of slab
as compared to the capacity estimated by conventional flex-
ural theory.14-22 These works focused on conventional RC
solid slabs with various shapes, aspect ratios, reinforcement
details, and yield line pattern and crack formation at the ulti-
mate stage. The question of whether such beneficial effect
of capacity enhancement due to tensile membrane action at
ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 5, September 2020.
MS No. S-2018-466.R2, doi: 10.14359/51724664, received August 8, 2019, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2020, 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.
3
the ultimate stage exists in an RC voided slab is yet to be
explored. This would help to determine the ultimate capacity
of such slabs with reasonable accuracy.
In this study, the two-way flexural capacity of biaxial
RC voided slabs was investigated through experiments and
compared with analytical formulations. Experiments on
five full-scale specimens were conducted with two types of
void shapes: 1) sphere; and 2) cuboid. In the experiment, an
equivalent 90% UDL was simulated by adopting a 16-point
load, which produces the same deflection as that of UDL.
The experimental results (five specimens) of the current
study and test data collected from literature12,17,19 (seven
specimens) were compared with theoretical calculations
which are based on the yield line method (YLM) in conjunc-
tion with provisions given in ACI 31823 and Indian Standard
(IS) 456.24 Furthermore, the flexural capacity of solid and
biaxial voided slab having the same reinforcement ratio
and cross-sectional dimensions was compared. The esti-
mated capacity by conventional flexural theory (YLM) was
enhanced by the factor obtained by existing tensile membrane
theory16 and the applicability of the tensile membrane action
in the voided slab is verified. Effect of the shape of void
former on the flexural capacity was also studied.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Loading configurations such as single-point load at the
center, five-point load, and 12-point load failed to capture
uniformly distributed loading condition effectively. This
either resulted in premature localized punching shear
failure or inequitable distribution of load throughout the
slab surface. As a consequence, there is a need to look for
Fig. 1—Single unit of sphere void formers.
Fig. 2—Single unit of cuboid void former and lateral spacer.
4 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020
a loading configuration to eliminate the aforementioned
shortcomings. Additionally, the effect of tensile membrane
action on the flexural behavior of the biaxial voided slab
was not investigated so far. In this study, a 16-point loading
configuration is adopted, which generated an equivalent
90% UDL and produced the same deflection as that of UDL.
Also, the ultimate capacity of biaxial voided slabs was deter-
mined with enhanced accuracy by incorporating the tensile
membrane action. Further, the effect of different void former
shapes on the two-way flexural behavior was investigated.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The two-way flexural test helps to investigate the appli-
cation of voided slab as an alternative to the conventional
solid slab. In this experimental program, the behavior of the
slab system is to be examined in terms of the load-deflection
response, flexural stiffness, crack pattern, yield, and ulti-
mate capacities. The details of the void formers, test spec-
imens, materials adopted, test setup, and test procedure are
explained as follows in respective subsections.
Details of void formers
Void formers of sphere and cuboid shape, manufactured
from recycled polypropylene, were used to cast the voided
slab specimens. The specifications of the void formers are
summarized in the following.
Sphere void former—The sphere void formers are spher-
ical hollow plastic balls of wall thickness 3 mm (0.12 in.)
of two different outer diameters: 90 and 180 mm (3.54 and
7.09 in.). The top and bottom reinforcement mesh used to
keep the void former in position with 20 mm clear cover
at the bottom. The sphere void former was placed such
that the center-to-center spacing in longitudinal and trans-
verse directions is 160 mm (6.30 in.) (113 mm [4.45 in.] in
diagonal) and 210 mm (8.27 in.) for 90 mm (3.54 in.) and
180 mm (7.09 in.) diameter void formers, respectively. The
dimensions of the sphere void formers with their photograph
are shown in Fig. 1.
Cuboid void former—Commercially available cuboid
void formers (Fig. 2) without any sharp edges were used in
the study. Elevated feet of 50 mm (1.97 in.) are provided
at the bottom face of four corners, which facilitate to hold
this void former at the center of the slab. They are placed
at 600  mm (23.62 in.) center to center in longitudinal and
transverse directions using lateral spacers. The provided
clear cover to the void former was 50 mm (1.97 in.) at top
and bottom. The dimensions of the cuboid void former and
its photographs and lateral spacer are shown in Fig. 2.
Details of test specimens
Five slab specimens were tested, out of which four spec-
imens were RC voided slabs and the other was an RC
solid slab specimen, with identical reinforcement arrange-
ments. The plan dimensions of test specimens were 3300 x
3300 mm (129.92 x 129.92 in.). The slab specimens of the
present study were a full-scale prototype of a typical span in
a framed RC residential building. Flexural behavior of slabs
is mainly influenced by the tensile reinforcement provided
in longitudinal and transverse directions.14 Hence, the
Table 1—Details of test specimens
Ast, mm2/m
Specimen Void details Depth, mm Top Bottom Self-weight, kN fcm, N/mm2
TF-Solid — 150 343 343 39.6 31.2
TF-S90V Ø 90 mm sphere 150 343 343 36.0 31.0
TF-S180V Ø 180 mm sphere 250 257 257 54.8 29.4
TF-CV-1 Cuboid 260 146 274 55.9 26.1
TF-CV-2 Cuboid 260 146 274 55.9 24.4
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 mm2/m = 0.00047 in.2/ft; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 N/mm2 = 145 psi.

Fig. 3—Details of test specimen TF-Solid.
minimum reinforcement ratio specified as per IS 45624 was
provided to ensure flexure failure rather than shear failure
because the voided slabs are vulnerable to shear. These rein-
forcements were arranged in the form of mesh along the
longitudinal and transverse directions. The size of reinforce-
ment bars was restricted to 6 and 12 mm (0.24 and 0.47 in.).
The specifications of test specimens such as plan dimension,
cross section, and reinforcement details are summarized in
Table 1. The details of voided slab specimens are shown in
Fig. 3 through 6.
Material properties of test specimens
Test specimens were cast using ready mixed concrete.
Concrete cubes with a size of 150 mm (5.91 in.) were cast
and cured under similar exposure conditions as that of slab
specimens. The compression test on cubes was carried out
simultaneously with the flexure test on the companion slab
specimen. The observed mean compressive strength of
concrete cubes (fcm) is summarized in Table 1. Similarly,
Fig. 4—Details of test specimen TF-S90V.
tensile tests on reinforcements were conducted, and the
properties are summarized in Table 2.
Experimental test setup and instrumentation
Test setup—Sixteen-point load test was conducted to
study the two-way flexural behavior of the slab. Figures 7(a)
and (b) show the schematic and actual test setup, respec-
tively. To avoid localized premature punching shear failure,
the point load was applied through steel plate of size 170 x
170 x 12 mm (6.69 x 6.69 x 0.47 in.) as patch load, as shown
in Fig. 8. A pair of pseudo-dynamic hydraulic actuators were
used to apply the load. The load was transferred through
hot-rolled steel sections to the slab specimens. The steel
sections were supported on the rollers at their ends to enable
free rotation along with specimen deformation. Discon-
tinuity of supports at corners minimizes the experimental
errors such as stress concentration and generation of fixed
end moment.12 This is achieved by employing a line-type
reaction hinge of length 2800 mm (110.24 in.) as support on

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 5

Fig. 5—Details of test specimen TF-S180V. Fig. 6—Details of test specimens TF-CV-1 and TF-CV-2.
master control system to ensure equal load distribution across
Table 2—Mechanical properties of reinforcement
each actuator. The adopted loading rate was 0.05  mm/s
Strength, N/mm2 Strain (0.002 in./s). The test was terminated when the load approx-
Diameter,
mm Nominal Yield Tensile Yield Ultimate imately reaches the maximum capacity of actuators.
6 500 560 650 0.0033 0.0591
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
12 500 585 670 0.0035 0.1084
Load-deflection behavior
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 N/mm2 =145 psi. All slab specimens exhibited typical flexural behavior
under two-way bending. The specimens remained elastic
each of the four sides of the slab. The support was located
until cracking; thereafter, the bottom reinforcements of the
at a distance of 150  mm (5.91 in.) from specimen edges.
slab start yielding initiating the inelastic action. The load
The applied load was measured by the inbuilt load cells
versus midspan deflection for all five tested specimens is
of the actuators. The deflection was measured at midspan
shown in Fig. 10. The load corresponding to the yielding
using a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) with
of reinforcement is marked in Fig. 10. The specimens
a measuring range of ±100 mm (3.94 in.). The corner uplift
with and without voids, having the same reinforcement
and translations in lateral and longitudinal directions were
and dimensions (TF-Solid and TF-S90V), show identical
measured using three LVDTs with a measurement range of
load-deflection behavior after cracking, although the initial
±20 mm (0.79 in.). Figure 9 shows the schematic arrange-
stiffness of solid slab specimen (TF-Solid) is 37% more than
ment of LVDTs. Strain in the bottom reinforcements located
that of the voided slab specimen (TF-S90V).
at the center of slab specimens was measured by strain
gauges with 10 mm (0.39 in.) gauge length. Strain gauges
Crack pattern
were provided in the longitudinal and transverse direction
The typical crack pattern observed on the bottom surface
of bottom reinforcements, as shown in Fig. 9. A data acqui-
of slab specimens is shown in Fig. 11. Typically, the cracks
sition system was used to obtain real-time experimental
originated from the center of the slab and formed an X-shape
data, which has a facility to record the load, deflection, and
along the diagonals similar to the assumed yield line pattern.
strain simultaneously.
Corner lever effect was observed in all the test speci-
Testing procedure—Displacement-controlled mono-
mens. The typical photographs of the tested specimen with
tonic tests were performed with a pair of pseudo-dynamic
observed crack are shown in Fig. 12. The observed different
hydraulic actuators of capacity 500 kN (112.4 kip) each. The
crack distribution mode is attributed to the void shape, size,
actuators were synchronized and operated using a single
and position.

6 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020

Fig. 7—(a) Schematic diagram of experimental test setup (16-point load test); and (b) actual experimental test setup (16-point
load test).

Fig. 8—Position of 16-point (patch) load.

Load-carrying capacity
The observed maximum load-carrying capacity of voided
slabs was almost the same as that of the solid slab. Load
and midspan deflection are summarized for all five tested
specimens in Table 3. The load corresponding to yield was Fig. 9—Instrumentation of test specimen.
defined based on the strain in bottom reinforcement—that
is, load corresponding to yield strain. The load versus rein- Flexural stiffness
forcement strain for all tested specimens is shown in Fig. 13. The flexural stiffness is defined as the ratio of load and
The difference in strain data measured along the longitudinal its corresponding deflection. It is estimated by taking secant
and transverse direction of bottom reinforcements is due to stiffness (Ky) corresponding to yield load (Py) of slab spec-
the difference in the depth of reinforcement. imen Eq. (1) and then compared with a solid slab

Ky = Py/δy (1)

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 7

where δy is the midspan deflection of slab corresponding to
yield load (Py). Even though the initial stiffness of a voided slab
(TF-S90V) is 37% less than that of a solid slab (TF-Solid), the
secant stiffness corresponding to yield load for both the voided
and solid slab specimens were observed to be almost the same.
Limiting deflection
The limiting deflection is considered based on the limit state
of serviceability given in IS 45624—that is, le/250 (= 12 mm
[0.47 in.]). The load corresponding to limiting deflection is
obtained from Fig. 10 and compared with the ultimate load,
as shown in Table 4. The estimated load is conservative as the
load is applied as a 16-point load, and self-weight is ignored.
However, it helps to quantify the percentage of maximum
load, which satisfies the serviceability requirement.
The maximum allowable deflection is calculated based on
the Eq. (2), which was developed by Bailey.16 Equation (2)
Fig. 10—Load versus midspan deflection behavior of tested
specimens. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 11—Observed typical crack pattern.
Fig. 12—(a) Observed crack pattern of slab specimen TF-Solid; (b) observed crack pattern of slab specimen TF-S180V; and
(c) observed crack pattern of slab specimen TF-CV-1.
8 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020
was based on the assumption that the crack forms for full-
depth, which is ensured by limiting the average strain in the
reinforcement. Moreover, it is assumed that the slab deflects
in the form of a parabolic curve.
0.5 f y 3le 2
δ= × (2)
Es 8
where Es is the elastic modulus of reinforcement. The esti-
mated maximum deflection is 74.62 mm (2.94 in.) for all
the five tested specimens as the effective length, and rein-
forcement properties are the same. The observed maximum
deflection (Table 3) is less than that of the estimated
maximum deflection of 74.62 mm (2.94 in.). Hence, the ulti-
mate capacity of tested slab specimens may be higher than
that of the observed maximum load considerably.
ESTIMATION OF LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY OF
SLAB SPECIMENS
Moment capacity of slab section
The ultimate moment capacity (m) of a slab section per
unit length can be calculated by Eq. (3) based on the stress
distribution shown in Fig. 14. A layer of reinforcement
was provided at the top in each direction to place the void
formers. It was observed that the neutral axis lies within the
cover concrete to the top reinforcement—that is, top and
bottom reinforcements are in tension. Hence, the contribu-
tion from the top and bottom reinforcements are considered
for the capacity calculation. Moreover, if the slab’s NA lies in
the location of the void, then the contribution from compres-
sion side reinforcement (top) can be ignored conservatively.
Also, the presence of concrete below the top cover concrete
to the void former can be ignored conservatively, as the area
of concrete available to resist the compressive force is very
small in the biaxial voided slab due the presence of voids.
m = Tb(de – x̅ ) + Tt(d′ – x̅ ) (3)
where Tb and Tt are the force in the bottom and top rein-
forcements, respectively; de and d′ are effective depth to
bottom and top reinforcements, respectively; and x̅ is depth
of resultant compressive force in concrete. The x̅ depends
on neutral axis depth (xu). The neutral axis depth needs to
be estimated based on an iteration by equating compressive
and tensile force.
The theoretical ultimate moment capacity of the slab
section is estimated using Eq. (3). The change in the magni-
Table 3—Results based on experimental study
Specimen Py, kN δy, mm Ky, kN/mm Pu*, kN δu, mm Wu, kN Wu1, kN Crack pattern (Fig. 11)
TF-Solid 571.45 26.95 21.20 961.21 61.00 1080.01 1119.61 a
TF-S90V 670.98 33.78 19.86 965.55 61.03 1084.89 1120.89 a
TF-S180V 616.71 12.29 50.18 937.89 32.50 1053.81 1108.61 b
TF-CV-1 637.23 12.19 52.27 913.57 49.62 1026.48 1082.38 c
TF-CV-2 647.02 15.36 42.12 882.55 48.65 991.63 1047.53 c
*
Specimen did not reach ultimate stage; maximum observed values are reported.
Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN/mm = 5.7056 kip/in.

Fig. 13—Load versus reinforcement strain.

tude of the moment capacity with respect to the stress-strain
relationship of concrete in compression is insignificant as
the neutral axis depth (xu) and strain in concrete (εc) are
small in comparison with effective depth (de) and strain in
reinforcement (εst,b), respectively. In this study, the moment
capacity is estimated by the provisions of ACI 318-1923 and
IS 45624 and the key parameters related to the stress-strain
relationship of concrete in compression for each standard are
summarized as follows.
ACI 318-19—The stress-strain relationship of concrete Fig. 14—Strain and stress distribution in slab section.
in compression given in ACI 318 is given in Eq. (4a) and
Fig. 15(a) strength of concrete cylinders; εc is strain in concrete; and ε0
is strain in concrete at the maximum concrete stress. In ACI
fc = k1k3(0.85fcm′) (4a) 318, the stress-strain relationship of concrete in compres-
sion is converted as equivalent rectangular with respect to
2 maximum limiting strain in the concrete of 0.003 for easy
ε  ε 
k1 = 2  c  −  c  for ε c ≤ 0.003 (4b) calculation purposes.
ε  ε 
0 0 IS 456:2000—The stress-strain relationship of concrete
where fc is flexural compressive stress in concrete; k1 in compression given in IS 456 is given in Eq. (5a) and
is concrete stress factor, which depends on the strain εc Fig. 15(b)
(Eq. (4b)); k3 (≈ 0.8) is a factor to account for conversion of
cube strength to cylinder strength; fcm′ is mean compressive fc = k1k3fcm (5a)

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 9

Fig. 15—Stress versus strain behavior of concrete.
Table 4—Limit state of serviceability
Specimen Ps, kN Ws, kN/m 2
Pu, kN
TF-Solid 344.31 42.99 961.21
TF-S90V 250.10 31.22 965.55
TF-S180V 612.03 76.41 937.89
TF-CV-1 633.58 79.10 913.57
TF-CV-2 580.25 72.44 882.55
Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 kN/m = 0.0209 kip/ft .
2 2
  εc   εc  2
2 − for ε c < 0.002
k1 =   0.002   0.002  (5b)
1
 for 0.002 ≤ ε c ≤ 0.0035
where fc is flexural compressive stress in concrete; k1
is concrete stress factor which depends on the strain εc
(Eq. (5b)); k3 (= 0.67) is a factor to account for size effect
and conversion of cube strength to cylinder strength; fcm is
mean concrete cube strength; and εc is strain in concrete.
The moment capacity of the slab section is estimated
base on the materials’ properties and specimen details
summarized in Table 5 and given in Table 6. The estimated
capacity (Table 6) based on ACI 318 and IS 456 provisions
are observed to be the same as the yielding of reinforcement
govern the failure and the compressive strain in concrete is
less than 0.002.
Flexural capacity of slab by yield line method
Prediction of failure load of the slab by inelastic approach
would give more accurate results than that by elastic
approaches.1,25 One of the suggested inelastic approaches to
determine the ultimate load-carrying capacity of slab speci-
mens under two-way flexure is based on yield line method.
Assuming rigid plastic theory, the yield line method (YLM)
estimates the failure loads corresponding to the plastic
moment resistances.12,25,26 Hence, the ultimate load-carrying
capacity of voided slab test specimens was estimated using
the YLM.
The experimental results based on the test data avail-
able in the literature (seven specimens) and current study
(five specimens) were compared with the estimations by
YLM in conjunction with ACI 318 and IS 456. The test
specimen details such as dimensions, materials’ proper-
ties, and loading configuration are summarized in Table 5.
The observed experimental results and estimated load-
carrying capacity by YLM of slab specimens are summa-
Ps/Pu, %
rized in Table 6. Based on the yield line method of analysis,
35.82 the ultimate capacity of the slab may be calculated based
25.90 on suitable assumptions of failure modes and crack
65.26 patterns.27 Therefore, the yield line for the square slabs
was assumed to form in an X-shape along the diagonals,
69.35
under two-way flexural action. This results in dividing
65.75 the slabs into four equal triangular parts. The expression
for collapse load for the assumed yield line pattern could
be derived by considering the equilibrium of the slab and
its various segments. It may be carried out either by the
direct application of static equilibrium (equilibrium of
slab parts), by the concept of virtual displacements, or by
skew moment method.28 In this study, an expression for
collapse load was derived based on the equilibrium of slab
parts. The schematic slab with the yield line and deforma-
tion contour is shown in Fig. 16, 17, and 18 for 16-point,
12-point, and uniformly distributed loading types, respec-
tively. The detailed procedure to obtain the collapse load
for the slab specimen with 16-point load alone is explained
herein. The load corresponding to the formation of the
yield line is expected to be not affected significantly due
to the presence of void or the void formers. However, the
voids formed in the slab may affect the propagation of the
yield line in the slab. To quantify such effects on the flex-
ural capacity of the biaxial voided slab, a greater number
of experiments, by varying different parameters of void
formers, needs to be carried out. Such a study falls beyond
the scope of this manuscript. In the present study, any such
effect is ignored.
The ultimate moment capacity per unit length of the yield
line (mθ) can be calculated by considering moment equilib-
rium in the direction of mθ (Fig. 19) and given by Eq. (6)
mθ = mxsin2θx + mycos2θx (6)
where mx and my are ultimate moment capacity of slab per
unit length in x and y directions, respectively; and θx is
the inclination of yield line with respect to x-direction. As
given in Table 6, the values of mx and my are either equal or
have marginal differences (Eq. (7)); the marginal difference
between mx and my is attributed to the reinforcement area
and effective depth in orthogonal directions. The slab speci-
mens are square-shaped, and reinforcements were arranged

10 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020

Table 5—Details of slab specimens of various researchers
Reinforcement area, mm2/m Reinforcement strength, N/mm2
Concrete
Top Bottom
Slab Loading strength*,
Reference ID type Dimension, mm x y x y type N/mm2 Yield (Strain) Tensile
S1 1980 x 1980 x 50.80 — 233.78 280.53 35.05 375.76 (0.0039) 486.76
Taylor et al.17 Solid 16-point
S9 1980 x 1980 x 76.20 — 146.11 155.85 33.23 375.76 (0.0039) 486.76

Brotchie and 12 400 x 400 x 38.10 — 309.88 23.30 379.21 (0.0019) 482.63
Solid UDL
Holley19 19 400 x 400 x 76.20 — 657.86 16.14 365.42 (0.0018) 484.70
Solid Solid 3300 x 3300 x 250 432.30 767.90 19.36 473.00 (0.0024) 665.00
Chung et
TF-D-S-P.P Voided 3300 x 3300 x 250 432.30 767.90 12-point 19.36 473.00 (0.0024) 665.00
al.12†
TF-D-M-P.P Voided 3300 x 3300 x 250 432.30 767.90 19.36 473.00 (0.0024) 665.00
TF-Solid Solid 3300 x 3300 x 150 343.00 343.00 31.20 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
TF-S90V Voided 3300 x 3300 x 150 343.00 343.00 31.00 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
Current study TF-S180V Voided 3300 x 3300 x 250 257.00 257.00 16-point 29.40 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
TF-CV-1 Voided 3300 x 3300 x 260 146.00 274.00 26.10 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
TF-CV-2 Voided 3300 x 3300 x 260 146.00 274.00 24.40 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
*
Concrete cylinder strength is taken as 80% of cube strength if required.
†
Contribution from presence of top reinforcement is not considered as it is above neutral axis and under compression.
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 m = 39.37 in.; 1 N/mm2 =145 psi.

Table 6—Experimental and estimated capacity comparison

Moment capacity of slab Capacity by Capacity
Experimental results section, kN-m/m YLM Ratio Factor with TM Ratio
Reference ID Wu, kN δu, mm mx my mx/my Wn, kN Wu/Wn e Wn1, kN Wu/Wn1
S1 166 *
81.28 3.56 3.75 0.95 94.9 1.75 1.61 153 1.08
Taylor et al.17
S9 151 83.82 3.60 3.56 1.01 93.0 1.62 1.39 129 1.17
12 81 13.36 3.07 3.07 1.00 77.4 1.05 1.00 77 1.05
Brotchie and Holley19
19 326 2.46 12.78 12.78 1.00 322.0 1.01 1.00 322 1.01
Solid 2039 56.60 70.59 70.59 1.00 1961.7 1.04 1.00 1962 1.04
Chung et al.12 TF-D-S-P.P 1934 60.69 70.59 70.59 1.00 1961.7 0.99 1.00 1962 0.99
TF-D-M-P.P 2018 70.50 70.59 70.59 1.00 1961.7 1.03 1.00 1962 1.03
TF-Solid 1120 *
61.00 23.96 24.17 0.99 635.3 1.76 1.14 724 1.55
TF-S90V 1121 *
61.03 23.94 24.15 0.99 634.8 1.77 1.14 724 1.55
Current study TF-S180V 1109 *
32.50 31.51 31.12 1.01 826.7 1.34 1.04 860 1.29
TF-CV-1 1082* 49.62 32.27 33.68 0.96 870.5 1.24 1.06 923 1.17
TF-CV-2 1048 *
48.65 32.20 33.61 0.96 868.7 1.21 1.06 921 1.14
*
Specimen did not reach ultimate stage; maximum observed values are reported.
Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

symmetrically in both longitudinal and transverse directions;
hence the value of θx can be assumed to be 45 degrees. Based
on Eq. (7) and the afore-assumed value of θx, the equation of
flexural strength (Eq. (6)) can be written as Eq. (8).
mx = my = m (7)
mθ = m (8)
Yield line pattern with deformation contour for test config-
uration (16-point load) is shown in Fig. 16. The moment
developed by the externally applied load must be balanced
by the component of the yield line moments, as shown in
Fig. 19.
 P 3l   3P l 
∑ M AB = 0 ⇒  n × e  +  n × e  − mθ l = 0 (9)
 16 8   16 8 

From Eq. (8), it can be interpreted that if the flexural From Eq. (9), the ultimate load-carrying capacity (Pn) of
capacity of slab per unit length is the same in the two orthog- the slab specimen is calculated as Eq. (10).
onal directions, then the flexural capacity of the slab will
remain the same in any direction. Pn = 64mθl/3le (10)

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 11

Fig. 16—Assumed yield line pattern with deformation
contour: 16-point load.
Fig. 17—Assumed yield line pattern with deformation
contour: 12-point load.
Similarly, for the slab subjected to 12-point load (Fig. 16),
the ultimate load-carrying capacity (Pn) is derived as
Eq. (11).
Pn = 15mθl/le (11)
Similarly, for the slab subjected to UDL (Fig. 17), the ulti-
mate load-carrying capacity (Wn) is derived as Eq. (12).
Wn = 24mθl/le (12)
The expression for collapse load was derived based on the
equilibrium of slab parts and given in Eq. (10), (11), and
(12) for 16-point, 12-point, and UDL type, respectively. It
is observed that if the ultimate deflection, moment capacity
12
Fig. 18—Assumed yield line pattern with deformation
contour: UDL.
of slab, and length remain the same in all the three loading
types, then the ratio of UDL to 12-point load is 0.625. Simi-
larly, the ratio of UDL to 16-point load is 0.89. Equivalent
UDL values (Wu and Wn) corresponding to 12-point and
16-point loads are computed based on these ratios as listed
in Table 6. It is to be noted that the actual ultimate deflection
may not be the same for different loading type. However,
in this paper, for the purpose of comparison, the ultimate
load-carrying capacity of slab specimens with different
loading types is converted to equivalent UDL based on the
aforementioned estimated ratios. The ultimate load from the
experiment is compared with a theoretically estimated ulti-
mate load of a solid slab. It is found that the ratio between
experimental and estimated capacity was in the range of
0.99 to 1.77 (Table 6). Theoretical ultimate load-carrying
capacity estimated using yield line theory for both the solid
and voided slabs are the same because the contribution from
the concrete below the neutral axis is ignored. Thus, yield
line theory applies to voided slabs as well.
Tensile membrane action in slabs
The theoretically predicted ultimate load of the slab by
yield line method is usually less than the experimental
value13,29; the same is observed in this study as well. The
difference is mainly due to effects of tensile membrane (TM)
action, which developed post-yield stage at large deflec-
tion and effects of strain hardening in reinforcements.29
Depending on the magnitude of these effects, the predictions
of yield line theory can underestimate the ultimate capacity
of the slab. Various researchers16,18,29,30 attempted to develop
a relationship between deflection and ultimate load, which
accounts for load enhancement due to tensile membrane
action. In this study, the load enhancement factor is calcu-
lated based on the theory developed by Bailey.16 The key
parameters are summarized as follows. The load enhance-
ment factor (e) is expressed as the sum of enhancement
factor due to membrane forces em (Eq. (13)) and enhance-
ACI Structural Journal/September 2020
ment factor due to bending action eb (Eq. (14)) as shown in
Eq. (15)
2b  w 
em = (13)
3 (3 + g 0 )  d e , n 
b 2 (1 − g 0 )
eb = 1 − (14)
3 (3 + g 0 )
e = em + eb ≥ 1.0 (15)
where b is parameter defining the magnitude of membrane
force given by Eq. (16); g0 is a parameter to fix the depth
of compressive stress block when no membrane force is
present; w is the deflection of yield line; and de,n is the effec-
tive depth of the slab.
 f 
b = 1.5  u  (16)
 fy 
where fu and fy are ultimate and yield stress of reinforcement,
respectively. The calculated load enhancement factor for all
specimens are summarized in Table 6. The enhancement
factor is based on the deflection observed at maximum load
in the experiment. It is found that the ratio between exper-
imental and estimated capacity including tensile membrane
action was in the range of 0.99 to 1.55. It evidences that
the tensile membrane action is applicable for biaxial voided
slab as well. The observed wide variation in the ratio
between current experimental and estimated capacity may
be attributed to the effects of presence of significant top
reinforcement and reinforcement orientation18; more experi-
ments are required to validate the same.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Structural behavior of voided slab specimens was studied
considering parameters such as load-versus-deflection
behavior, crack pattern, load-carrying capacity, and flexural
stiffness. The following observations are drawn based on the
experimental and analytical investigations conducted on the
slabs under two-way flexure.
1. The 16-point loading condition closely matches with
the uniformly distributed loading condition in comparison
with single-point, five-point, and 12-point loading condi-
tions. Thus, 16-point load can be adopted to simulate the
uniformly distributed load on the slab.
2. The voided slabs showed typical two-way flexure
behavior similar to the solid slab. The major cracks were
observed in an X-shaped pattern, which originated at the
center of the slab and progressed toward the corners.
3. The observed maximum load-carrying capacity of
voided and solid slabs was almost equal. The ratio of exper-
imental to estimated capacity lies in the range of 0.99 to
1.55. The theoretical load-carrying capacity of the solid and
voided slab using the yield line method along with ACI 318
and IS 456 provisions by incorporating the tensile membrane
effect are the same. Thus, the load-carrying capacity of the
ACI Structural Journal/September 2020
Fig. 19—Moment capacity of yield line and application of
equilibrium of slab parts.
voided slab under two-way flexure can be estimated using
yield line theory.
4. The shape of the void former does not affect the flexural
capacity of the biaxial RC voided slab as the neutral axis
lies in the cover concrete to top reinforcement, with a minor
difference in the flexural stiffness.
5. Although the initial flexural stiffness of solid slab was
37% more than that of the biaxial RC voided slab, the secant
stiffness corresponding to yield load of voided and solid slab
specimens were observed to be almost the same.
6. The capacity of the biaxial voided slab can be estimated
by conventional flexural theory, and it was observed that the
tensile membrane action is applicable for biaxial voided slab
as well.
AUTHOR BIOS
Radha Sagadevan is a PhD Scholar in the Civil Engineering Depart-
ment at Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai, India. He
received his BE from College of Engineering Guindy (CEG), Anna Univer-
sity, Chennai, India, and his MTech from IITM. His research interests
include studies on the behavior of reinforced concrete members and struc-
tures, analysis and design of reinforced concrete, and steel and composite
structures.
B. N. Rao is a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at IITM.
He received his BTech from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Univer-
sity, Hyderabad, India; his ME from The Maharaja Sayajirao University
of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat, India; and his PhD from the University
of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. His research interests include studies on hollow-
core  reinforced concrete slabs, computational mechanics, finite element
analysis, meshless analysis, stochastic mechanics, and related fields.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Department of Science & Technology, India
(SR/S3/MERC/0040/2012) and M/s Post Tension Services India Pvt. Ltd.
(PTSI), Vadodara, Gujarat, India (WO/GEN/0001/16-17). The authors wish
to acknowledge the assistance and facilities offered by the Technical Staff,
Structural Engineering Laboratory, IITM, Chennai, India.
NOTATION
Ast = area of reinforcement
Ast,b = area of bottom reinforcement
Ast,t = area of top reinforcement
13
b = parameter defining magnitude of membrane force
C = force in concrete per unit length of slab
d = overall depth of slab
d′ = effective depth to top reinforcement
de = effective depth to bottom reinforcement
de,n = effective depth of slab
Es = elastic modulus of reinforcement
e = enhancement factor
eb = enhancement factor due to bending action
em = enhancement factor due to membrane forces
fcm = mean compressive strength of concrete cubes
fcm′ = mean compressive strength of concrete cylinders
fst,b = stress in bottom reinforcement
fst,t = stress in top reinforcement
fu = ultimate stress of reinforcement
fy = yield stress of reinforcement
g0 = parameter to fix depth of compressive stress block
Ky = flexural secant stiffness corresponds to Py
k1 = concrete compressive strength factor
k2 = factor for the depth of equivalent compressive stress (rectan-
gular) in concrete
k3 = factor to account for size effect and conversion of cube strength
to cylinder strength
l = overall length of slab
le = effective length of slab
MAB = moment developed by externally applied load about support AB
m = ultimate moment capacity per unit length of slab
mx = ultimate moment capacity per unit length of slab in x-direction
my = ultimate moment capacity per unit length of slab in y-direction
m θ = ultimate moment capacity per unit length of yield line
Pn = theoretical ultimate load of solid slab based on YLM
Ps = experiment load corresponding to limiting deflection
Pu = observed maximum load in the experiment
Py = load corresponding to yielding of reinforcement
Tb = force in bottom reinforcement
Tt = force in top reinforcement
xu = neutral axis depth at ultimate
x̅ = depth of resultant compressive force in concrete
Wn = theoretical ultimate load (UDL) of solid slab based on YLM
Wn1 = theoretical ultimate load (UDL) of solid slab based on YLM and
membrane action
Ws = equivalent UDL of Ps
Wu = equivalent UDL of Pu without considering self-weight of slab
Wu1 = equivalent UDL of Pu inclusive of self-weight of slab
w = deflection of yield line
ε0 = strain in concrete at maximum stress
εc = strain in concrete
εst,b = strain in bottom reinforcement
εst,t = strain in top reinforcement
δ = theoretical maximum midspan deflection
δu = midspan deflection of slab corresponding to Pu
δy = midspan deflection of slab corresponding to Py
θx = inclination of yield line with respect to x-direction
Ø = diameter
REFERENCES
1. Pillai, S. U., and Menon, D., Reinforced Concrete Design, third
edition, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, India, 2012.
2. Kim, B. H.; Chung, J. H.; and Choi, H. K., “Flexural Capacities of
One-Way Hollow Slab with Donut Type Hollow Sphere,” Key Engineering
Materials, V. 452-453, 2011, pp. 773-776.
3. Churakov, A. G., “Biaxial Hollow Slab with Innovative Types of
Voids,” Construction of Unique Buildings and Structures, V. 6, No. 21,
2014, pp. 70-88.
4. Sagadevan, R., and Rao, B. N., “Evaluation of One-Way Flexural
Behaviour of Biaxial Voided Slab,” Indian Concrete Journal, V. 98, No. 5,
2019, pp. 7-16.
5. Sagadevan, R., and Rao, B. N., “Numerical Study on Flexural
Capacity of Biaxial Hollow Slab,” Recent Advances in Structural Engi-
neering, Volume 1—Select Proceedings of SEC 2016, A. R. M. Rao and K.
Ramanjaneyulu, eds., Springer, Singapore, 2019, pp. 97-105.
6. Björnson, G., “BubbleDeck - Two-Way Hollow Slab,” Denmark,
2003, pp. 1-16 pp.
14
7. Harding, P., “BubbleDeckTM–Advanced Structure Engineering,”
BubbleDeck Article, 2004, pp. 15-6.
8. BubbleDeck Technology, “BubbleDeck Voided Flat Slab Solutions -
Technical Manual & Documents,” UK, 2008, pp. 1-10.
9. Valivonis, J.; Jonaitis, B.; Zavalis, R.; Skuturna, T.; and Šneideris,
A., “Flexural Capacity and Stiffness of Monolithic Biaxial Hollow Slabs,”
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, V. 20, No. 5, 2014,
pp. 693-701. doi: 10.3846/13923730.2014.917122
10. Sagadevan, R., and Rao, B. N., “Analytical Studies on Flexural
Capacity of Biaxial Hollow Slab,” Proceedings, International Conference
on Composite Materials and Structures, Hyderabad, India, 2017.
11. Ibrahim, A. M.; Ali, N. K.; and Salman, W. D., “Flexural Capacities
of Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Bubbledeck Slabs of Plastic Spherical
Voids,” Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, V. 6, No. 2, 2013, pp. 9-20.
12. Chung, J. H.; Jung, H. S.; Bae, B.; and Choi, “Two-Way Flex-
ural Behavior of Donut-Type Voided Slabs,” International Journal of
Concrete Structures and Materials, V. 12, No. 1, 2018, p. 26 doi: 10.1186/
s40069-018-0247-6
13. Sagadevan, R., and Rao, B. N., “Experimental and Analytical Inves-
tigations on Two-way Flexural Capacity of Biaxial Voided Slab,” Proceed-
ings, National Conference on Advances in Structural Technologies, 2019,
pp. 635-648.
14. Matešan, D.; Radnić, J.; and Grgić, N., “Strength Capacity of Square
Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Materials Science and Engineering, V. 43,
No. 5, 2012, pp. 399-404.
15. Chung, J. H.; Bae, B.; Choi, H.-K.; Jung, H.-S.; and Choi, C.-S.,
“Evaluation of Punching Shear Strength of Voided Slabs Considering the
Effect of the Ratio bo/d,” Engineering Structures, V. 164, 2018, pp. 70-81.
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.085
16. Bailey, C. G., “Membrane Action of Unrestrained Lightly Reinforced
Concrete Slabs at Large Displacements,” Engineering Structures, V. 23,
No. 5, 2001, pp. 470-483. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00064-X
17. Taylor, R.; Maher, D. R. H.; and Hayes, B., “Effect of the Arrange-
ment of Reinforcement on the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,”
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 18, No. 55, 1966, pp. 85-94. doi:
10.1680/macr.1966.18.55.85
18. Wood, R. H., Plastic and Elastic Design of Slabs and Plates, Thames
and Hudson, London, UK, 1961, 344 pp.
19. Brotchie, J. F., and Holley, M. J. “Membrane Action in Slabs,”
Cracking, Deflection and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab Systems, SP-30,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1971, pp. 345-377.
20. Burgess, I., “Yield-Line Plasticity and Tensile Membrane Action in
Lightly-Reinforced Rectangular Concrete Slabs,” Engineering Structures,
V. 138, 2017, pp. 195-214. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.072
21. Eyre, J. R., “Direct Assessment of Safe Strengths of RC Slabs under
Membrane Action,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 123, No. 10,
1997, pp. 1331-1338. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:10(1331)
22. Herraiz, B., and Vogel, T., “Novel Design Approach for the
Analysis of Laterally Unrestrained Reinforced Concrete Slabs Considering
Membrane Action,” Engineering Structures, V. 123, 2016, pp. 313-329. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.05.033
23. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019, 624 pp.
24. IS 456, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice,” Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 2000.
25. Hognestad, E., “Yield-Line Theory for the Ultimate Flexural
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 49,
No. 3, Mar. 1953, pp. 637-656.
26. Hsueh, P. K., “The Yield-Line Theory for Concrete Slabs,” PhD
thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 1966.
27. ACI Committee 421, “Guide to Design of Reinforced Two-Way Slab
Systems (ACI 421.3R-15),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2015, 28 pp.
28. Quintas, V., “Two Main Methods for Yield Line Analysis of
Slabs,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 129, No. 2, 2003,
pp. 223-231. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2003)129:2(223)
29. Taylor, R., “A Note on A Possible Basis for A New Method of
Ultimate Load Design of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 17, No. 53, 1965, pp. 183-186. doi: 10.1680/
macr.1965.17.53.183
30. Hayes, B., “Allowing for Membrane Action in the Plastic Analysis of
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Magazine of Concrete Research,
V. 20, No. 65, 1968, pp. 205-212. doi: 10.1680/macr.1968.20.65.205
ACI Structural Journal/September 2020