Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 1

Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs under Concentrated Loads

Karin REISSEN Josef HEGGER

Research Engineer Professor
RWTH Aachen University RWTH Aachen University
Germany Germany
kreissen@imb.rwth-aachen.de jhegger@imb.rwth-aachen.de
Karin Reissen, born 1981, Josef Hegger, born 1954, received
received her degree in civil his PhD degree from the
engineering from RWTH Aachen University of Braunschweig in
University in 2007. Since 2010 1984. He has been a professor at
she has been a research engineer the Institute of Structural
at the Institute of Structural Concrete at RWTH Aachen
Concrete at RWTH Aachen University since 1993.
University.

Summary
The increasing traffic loads in the last decades and changes in design rules may lead to deficits in
calculated shear capacity for existing bridges. Most of the present design rules for the shear-bearing
capacity of members without shear reinforcement were developed based on empirical evaluations of
shear databases consisting of beam tests. So far, only few shear tests on slabs have been conducted.
Thus, a research project with an extensive testing programme funded by the Federal Highway
Research Institute of Germany (BASt) was carried out at the Institute of Structural Concrete at
RWTH Aachen University. This paper presents the experimental results as well as the results of the
parametric finite element studies on the shear capacity of slabs without shear reinforcement under
concentrated loads. The tests revealed that the experimental bearing capacities were higher than
calculated due to an underestimation of the effective slab width.
Keywords: shear, bridge, slab, reinforced concrete, effective width, tests, haunched slab,
numerical simulation.

1. Introduction
The requirements for the load-carrying capacity of bridges have increased significantly due to rising
traffic loads in the last decades. Furthermore, the design concept of the German codes ([1], [2], [3])
has changed, which leads to higher calculated amounts of shear reinforcement in concrete
superstructures. Therefore, a large part of existing concrete bridge decks in Germany is built with
less than the current calculated amount of shear reinforcement. Since shear failure and enhanced
crack formation in existing bridges was not observed so far, bridges are evidently able to carry the
increased traffic loads even though they are designed with less shear reinforcement than required by
the current code provisions. After the increase of traffic loads implemented in the changes of the
German design codes ([4], [5]), the shear loads will further increase by the introduction of
DIN EN 1991-2 [6] with the national appendix [7], which is under construction at the moment.
Hence, the determination of the shear resistance of reinforced concrete bridge deck slabs will
become even more important soon.
The shear resistance of beams and slabs without shear reinforcement can be calculated according to
equation (1) [2]. It depends on the height of the uncracked compression zone (which is proportional
to (100 · ρl)1/3, where ρl means the longitudinal reinforcement ratio), the tensile strength of the
concrete (which is proportional to fck1/3), the size-effect κ, the influence of the axial longitudinal
stresses σcd and the dimensions of the member, where bw is the shear carrying width and d the
effective depth [8]. The empirical factor cd = 0,15/γc with γc = 1,5 is based on an international shear
database consisting almost exclusively of shear tests on beams. So far, only few tests on the shear-
bearing capacity of slabs under concentrated loads have been conducted.
VRd,ct = [cd · κ · (100 · ρl ·fck)1/3 - 0,12 · σcd] · bw · d (1)
In practical dimensioning of bridge deck slabs, the effective widths for shear and bending are used
according to the rules in book 240 of the German Committee for Structural Concrete [9], calculated
2 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

under consideration of a load spreading under 45° or approximated by linear-elastic finite element
calculations. Determining the effective width for shear beff,b240 according to [9], first a vertical load
distribution under 45° from the load introduction to the centre line of gravity of the slab according
to equation (2) and Fig. 1 is assumed. With this, the width t for the vertical load transfer depends on
the height of the covering layer h1 and the slab thickness h. Secondly, the effective width beff,b240 is
calculated depending on the load distance from the support (Fig. 2) and the static system (single
span beam, cantilever slab) according to equation (3) and (4) respectively.
t y = b 0 + 2 · h1 + h (2)
Single span beam: beff,b240 = ty + 0,5 · a ≤ b (3)
valid for: 0 < a < l, ty ≤ 0,8 · l, tx ≤ l
Cantilever slab: beff,b240 = ty + 0,3 · a ≤ b (4)
valid for: 0,2 · lk < a < lk, 0,2 · lk ≤ ty < 0,4 · lk, tx ≤ 0,2 · lk
Assuming a load spreading under 45°, the effective width beff,45° is calculated as twice the distance
between the centre of the load and the decisive design location without considering any further
vertical load transfer. In design practice, the distance av between the centre of the load and the front
edge of the support as shown in Fig. 3 is taken into account.

Fig. 1: Definition of width t Fig. 2: Effective width beff,b240 Fig. 3: Effective width beff,45°
for vertical load [9]
transfer [9]
The rules in book 240 are based on the theory of elasticity and for some cases strongly conservative
[9]. Since the assumption of a 45° load spreading does not distinguish between different support
conditions or geometries of the slab and the loading plate, it may not properly cover all cases, too.
Therefore, the question of the broadening of a concentrated load, in other words the effective width
for shear in the cracked state, is still to be answered.
In members with variable height, the rated value
of the shear forces VEd can be calculated
considering the vertical components of the
tension and compression forces ([2], [3]). For
bridge deck cantilever slabs with an inclined
compression zone as shown in Fig. 4, the shear
forces are reduced by the vertical component of
the compression force Vccd according to
equation (5):
Fig. 4: Shear components of cantilever slabs
with inclined compression zone VEd = VEd,0 – Vccd (5)
Investigations in [10] indicate some inadequacies of this approach leading to an unsafe design. In
consequence, a further question to be answered is whether it is reasonable to reduce the shear force
by the vertical component of the compression force.
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 3

2. Experimental investigations
2.1 Test programme and results
Altogether, 17 tests were performed in two series. Within the first test series, the effective width
contributing to the shear resistance in the cracked state was investigated by tests on beams
Fig. 5: First test series: top: S5B to S35B;
bottom: S35A and S35C
Fig. 6: Second test series: CS35B: without
preload fq, CP35B: with preload fq
Table 1: Specimen widths, shear-span-to-depth
ratios, cylindrical concrete strengths,
experimental maximum loads and
corresponding shear forces
b a/d f c,cyl Fu V F,u
test m - MPa kN kN
S5B-1 0,5 4,16 39,2 183 137
S5B-2 0,5 4,16 40,5 215 143
S5B-3 0,5 4,16 33,7 204 136
S15B-1 1,5 4,16 37,7 543 407
S15B-2 1,5 4,16 38,2 683 425
S25B-1 2,5 4,16 27,9 664 498
S25B-2 2,5 4,16 29,5 780 520
S35B-1 3,5 4,16 35,9 985 739
S35B-2 3,5 4,16 38,2 1024 683
S35C-1 3,5 5,41 39,6 1166 787
S35A-1 3,5 2,91 41,3 1143 876
S35C-2 3,5 5,41 29,5 924 624
S35A-2 3,5 2,91 29,0 892 684
CS35B-1 3,5 4,16 37,0 569 569
CS35B-2 3,5 4,16 38,4 475 475
CP35B-1 3,5 4,16 34,3 538 538
CP35B-2 3,5 4,16 34,8 451 451
amounted between 28 and 41 MPa. The given values for the concrete properties in Table 1 are
average values of three tests. In addition, the specimen widths b, the shear-span-to-depth ratios a/d,
the reached maximum loads Fu and corresponding shear forces VF,u of the tests are given.
respectively slabs under concentrated loads with
different widths of 0,5 m, 1,5 m, 2,5 m and 3,5 m
(S5 to S35, further information in [11]) and
different shear-span-to-depth ratios of 2,91 (A),
4,16 (B) and 5,41 (C) (Fig. 5). Each specimen
was tested twice (1.T and 2.T) in a three-point
shear test by means of a static load, which was
applied via a 0,4 m-quadratic steel plate
according to the wheel loads in [6]. The varying
widths cover the transition from beams to slabs
exposed to concentrated loads.
By four tests with a shear-span-to-depth ratio of
4,16 on cantilever slabs of two double-webbed
T-beams with a width of 3,5 m (CS35B and
CP35B) the influence of the shear component of
an inclined compression force due to bending
was investigated in the second test series. Each
T-beam had one straight and one haunched
cantilever slab, which were tested by a single
load in the first and second test (Fig. 6). In
addition, the cantilever slabs of the second
T-beam (CP35B) were preloaded by a preload of
fq = 85 kN/m at the cantilever end in order to
increase the bending moment and thus the
vertical component of the compression force.
The specimens were designed as a section of a
bridge deck, where the shear forces are
transferred in lateral direction to the beam or
web of the superstructure. Therefore, the lateral
reinforcement of the specimens conforms to the
longitudinal reinforcement of the bridge deck.
For all specimens, a uniform reinforcement ratio
of 0,98 % was applied. The tensile reinforcement
was realized by high strength steel bars Ø15/7,5
(fyk = 900 MPa). The further reinforcement
layers consisted of normal strength steel bars
(fyk = 500 MPa), Ø10/15 in the compression zone
and Ø12/10 in lateral direction in the tension and
compression zone according to typical existing
bridge decks. The concrete cover was 2 cm
resulting in an effective depth of d = 0,24 m.
Due to the limited number of tests, the concrete
strength was not varied. Normal strength
concrete with a compressive strength of
approximately fcm = 34 MPa according to many
older bridges was used in all tests. The
maximum aggregate size was 16 mm. The
compressive strength fc,cyl at the day of testing
4 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

2.2 Evaluation of the first test series: slab tests

Within the following evaluation, the maximum shear forces VF,u are used to calculate an equivalent
shear carrying width. Further test results of the tests on S5B to S35B like the crack development
and the results of various measurements, which were taken during the tests (e.g. load-deflection
behaviour, variation of slab thickness and deformation readings), were reported in [11].
According to current design rules [2], the shear resistance of members without shear reinforcement
can be determined on design level according to equation (1). In order to calculate the shear
resistance over the slab width on mean-value level, the mean value of the shear resistance has to be
divided by the specimen width according to equation (6) and the empirical factor cd in equation (1)
has to be substituted by the mean value, which amounts 0,18 according to [12]. The characteristic
compressive concrete strength fck was calculated according to equation (8) as fc,cyl - 4 MPa.
VRm,ct
vRm,ct = (6)
b
with: VRm,ct = [0,18 · κ · (100 · ρl ·fck)1/3 - 0,12 · σcd] · bw · d (7)
fck = fc,cyl – 4 MPa (8)
In equation (9) the experimental equivalent width beq,exp is calculated. Here, the experimental
maximum shear force (including the shear force due to the dead weight of the load plate GL
= 1,7 kN) is devided by the mean value of the shear resistance over the slab width vRm,ct minus the
shear force due to the dead weight of the specimens vg. For the latter, the shear forces in the middle
between the load introduction and the support are calculated with a density of the reinforced
concrete of γc,g = 25 kN/m³.
VF,u + VG, L
beq,exp = (9)
v Rm,ct − v g
Thus, by using the equivalent width beq,exp as shear carrying width, the experimental shear capacity
equals the calculated shear capacity. In Fig. 7 and 8 the experimental equivalent widths beq,exp are
plotted versus the specimen width (Fig. 7) and the shear-span-to-depth ratio (Fig. 8) respectively.

1.T
3 beq,exp = b 3
2.T
beq,exp [m]

beq,exp [m]

2 2
beff,45° = 1,9 m beff,45°

1 1
beff,b240 = 1,18 m beff,b240

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 6
specimen width b [m] shear-span-to-depth ratio a/d [-]
Fig. 7: Experimental equivalent widths beq,exp Fig. 8: Experimental equivalent widths beq,exp
for a shear-span-to depth-ratio of 4,16 for a specimen width of 3,5 m depen-
dependant on the specimen width dant on the shear-span-to-depth ratio
Dashed lines for the effective width beff,b240 according to [9], the effective width beff,45° under
consideration of a load spreading under 45° and the bisecting line with beq,exp = b are added. The
equivalent widths of the tests on specimens with a width of 0,5 m and 1,5 m are slightly bigger than
the actual specimen widths (Fig. 7). This indicates the full activation of the width respectively a
beam-bearing behaviour for b ≤ 1,5 m. In contrary, the equivalent width of the specimens with a
width of b ≥ 2,5 m is smaller than the actual slab width indicating that not the full width of the
specimens has been activated. It can be noted, that the shear capacity (Table 1) and thus the
equivalent width (Fig. 7) of the tests on slabs with a width of 3,5 m still increases in comparison to
the tests on S25B with b > beq,exp. In comparison with the effective widths beff,b240 and beff,45°, the
experimental equivalent widths of the 3,5 m wide slabs are considerably bigger (Fig. 8). Hence, the
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 5

shear resistance of slabs without shear reinforcement according to the current design rules is
conservative, when the effective width beff,b240 according to [9] or under consideration of a load
spreading under 45° is considered.
Regarding the maximum experimental shear forces VF,u of the tests S35A (a/d = 2,91), S35B
(a/d = 4,16) and S35C (a/d = 5,41) in Table 1, a clear influence of the shear-span-to-depth ratio on
the shear capacity cannot be observed. This is probably due to the different contrasting effects
which are not considered in the shear resistance according to equation (1). While the shear capacity
decreases with increasing shear-span-to-depth ratio due to the influence of the direct compression
strut, the simultaneously increasing effective width increases the capacity. The calculated
experimental equivalent widths in Fig. 8 seem to be contradictory to the assumptions of an
increasing effective width with increasing shear-span-to-depth ratio according to book 240 [9] or
under consideration of a load spreading under 45°. This is due to the influence of the direct
compression strut, which is neglected in equation (1).

2.3 Evaluation of the second test series: cantilever tests

In the second test series, the influence of an inclined compression zone was investigated by four
tests on haunched and straight cantilever slabs with and without preload at the cantilever end
respectively. Fig. 9 shows the crack pattern of
CS35B (without preload) after failure. During
the tests, first bending cracks developed at the
upper surface in the area of the clamped edge.
After further load increase, the cracks spread
over the full specimen width and were observed
at the slab sides as well. Up to a load level of
approximately 70 % of the failure load, the
crack direction was almost parallel to the
clamped edge. The following cracks close to the
load plate inclined indicating the lateral
bending. As illustrated in the top view in Fig. 9,
this was more pronounced in test CS35B-2 on
the haunched cantilever slab due to the lower
bending stiffness.
Only test CP35B-1 (straight cantilever slab,
with preload) failed in a brittle manner by a
single shear crack running through the full slab.
In all other cases, no shear cracks at the lateral
surfaces have been observed until ultimate load.
This indicates, that the effective width was less
than the provided slab width. Nevertheless, the
shear cracks in tests CS35B-1 (Fig. 9, above)
Fig. 9: Crack pattern of CS35B: above and and CP35B-2 further developed to one lateral
below: side views; middle: top view surface after exceeding ultimate load.
Comparing the experimental maximum loads Fu+G,L in Fig. 10 (black part of the column diagram),
the first tests on straight cantilever slabs reached always - regardless of the preload - approximately
20 % higher maximum loads than the corresponding second tests on haunched cantilever slabs. The
lower shear capacity of the haunched cantilever slabs is partially due to the smaller effective depth
at the critical section where the shear crack developed. Hence, the determination of the decisive
design location is essential.
The preload fq+g,L = 86,4 kN/m (including the dead weight of the loading construction gL
= 1,4 kN/m) is illustrated with the grey part of the column diagram. Obviously, the tests on the
cantilever slabs of CP35B resisted despite the additional preload nearly the same single loads Fu+G,L
as the corresponding cantilever slabs of CS35B without preload. From another point of view, the
total shear capacity is clearly increased when a preload is applied. Either the additional bending
6 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

moment affects the effective width or this may

refer to an increased compression zone. The
latter is not properly captured by equation (1)
for the present tests. Since the uncracked
Fu+G,L + fq+g,L · b [kN]

800 fq*3,5
fq+g,l · b
Fu+G,L
Fu compression zone is taken into account by the
600 factor (100 · ρl)1/3, where ρl is the longitudinal
400 reinforcement ratio,the different flexural loads
are not considered because of the uniform
200 reinforcement ratio.
0 In conclusion, the test results give no indication
Pb1, 1.TV CS35B-2
CS35B-1 Pb1, 2.TV CP35B-1
Pb2, 1.TV CP35B-2
Pb2, 2.TV
that the reduction of the shear force by the
vertical component of the compression force
+ 47 % + 58 %
exclusively for haunched cantilevers according
Fig. 10: Experimental maximum loads Fu+G,L to equation (5) is reasonable. Since the
and preloads fq+g,L application of an additional preload resulted
always - regardless of whether the cantilever
slab was haunched - in a higher shear resistance, the favourable influence of the flexural loads
should be integrated in the calculation of the effective width or considered otherwise.
In Fig. 11 the experimental and calculated shear capacities are compared for various combinations
of different design locations and effective widths. With the investigated design locations at the front
edge of the load plate (crosses in Fig. 11) and at the clamped edge of the cantilever slab (circles in
Fig. 11), the limits for the critical area are covered. The experimental shear capacities according to
equation (10) consider maximum single loads Fu+G,L (Table 1, plus the dead weight of the load plate
GL) and the shear forces due to the dead weight of the specimen vg as well as the preload fq+g,L
(including the dead weight of the loading construction gL) over the effective width beff.
Vtest = Fu+G,L + (vg + fq+g,L) · beff (10)
For both the experimental shear forces Vtest and the calculated shear resistances VRm,ct the effective
widths beff,b240 according to equation (4) (neglecting the limitation of tx ≤ 0,2 · lk) and beff,45° under
consideration of a load spreading under 45° according to Fig. 3 are considered. The effective width
beff,b240 (black signs in Fig. 11) is independent of the decisive design location and amounts 0,98 m
for the first tests on straight cantilever slabs and 0,91 m for the second tests on haunched cantilever
slabs respectively. The effective width beff,45° amounts regardless the geometry of the slab (haunched
or not) 1,9 m at the clamped edge of the cantilever slabs (red circles in Fig. 11). For the haunched
cantilever slabs, additional evaluations are made where the reductions of the vertical components of
the compression forces due to bending are considered (Fig. 11 b).

800 800
beff,b240 design location:
600 600 front edge of
Vtest -Vccd [kN]

beff,b240
load plate
Vtest [kN]

400 beff,45° 400

beff,45° clamped edge
200 200 of cantilever

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
a) VRm,ct [kN] b) VRm,ct [kN]
Fig. 11: Comparison between experimental and calculated shear capacity for various design
locations and effective widths
The used approaches are conservative for nearly all investigated combinations of design locations
and effective widths. According to the test results, only the assumptions of the decisive design
location at the clamped edge of the cantilever slab in combination with a load spreading under 45°
(beff,45°) lead to an unsafe design, when the reduction of Vccd according to equation (5) is considered
(red circles in Fig. 11 b).
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 7

3. Numerical investigations
Based on the tests of the first test series, nonlinear numerical simulations were carried out with the
finite element programme abaqus [13]. Within parametric studies on the shear capacity of slabs
without shear reinforcement under concentrated loads, further influences were investigated. The
concrete strength, the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratio, the reinforcement in the
compression zone, the slab height, width and span were varied based on the dimensions, the
reinforcement ratios and the static system of S35-1.
dt The concrete, the support and the load plate
F
0,92 ≙ w =0,1 mm Load plate were modelled by volume elements with eight
nodes. With the applied concrete damaged
plasticity model, the damage of the concrete can
be visualized as shown in Fig. 12 by the tension
damage parameter dt. This was used in order to
support
determine the critical shear crack load. In
analogy to equation (9), the equivalent widths
Fig. 12: Damage of S35-1 at ultimate load by for the several investigated parameters were
the tension damage parameter dt determined by comparison of the numeric shear
crack loads with the mean values of the shear
resistance over the slab width according to
equation (6) minus the shear forces due to the dead weight of the specimens. By dividing these
equivalent widths by the full slab width respectively a reference width, several factors λ could be
derived depending on the various parameters. Since the shear crack loads and not the ultimate
numeric shear capacities were used for the evaluation, possible redistributions of the internal forces
after shear cracking are not captured by this approach. Hence, with regard to the design in the
ultimate limit state, this approach provides slightly conservative results.
It could be proved, that the influences of the concrete strength, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio
and the effective depth, as they are described by equation (1), are also valid for simply supported
slabs under concentrated loads. Furthermore, no influence of the reinforcement in the compression
zone was detected. With this, the test results of the shear tests on beams without shear
reinforcement, from which the empirical factor in equation (1) was derived and which normally do
not have longitudinal reinforcement in the compression zone, may be transferred to bridge deck
slabs, which have longitudinal reinforcement in the compression zone by default. The identified
influences of the slab width b, the transverse reinforcement ratio ρQ, the span l and the shear-span-
to-depth ratio a/d were integrated in the factor approach in equations (11) to (15).
beq = b · λb · λρQ · λl · λa/d (11)
with: λb = 1,2 – 0,12 · b ≤ 1,0 for b ≤ 5,5 m (12)
0,4
λρQ = 0,74 + 2,2 · ρQ for 0 ≤ ρQ ≤ 0,7 % (13)
λl = 0,81 + 0,045 · l ≤ 1,04 for l ≥ 2 m (14)
a a
λ a/d = 1,8 − 0,19 ⋅ for 2,91 ≤ ≤ 5,41 (15)
d d
The shear crack load and thus the equivalent width increases with increasing slab width, span and
transverse reinforcement ratio in the tension zone due to the higher potential for load distribution.
Since the equivalent width beq is calculated by multiplying the factors λ with the full slab width b,
the equivalent width increases with increasing slab width although the factor λb decreases. The
influence of the shear-span-to-depth ratio has been investigated both on numerical models with a
width of 2,5 m and 3,5 m respectively. Due to the decreasing influence of the direct compression
strut, the shear crack load and thus the equivalent width respectively the factor λa/d decreases nearly
linearly with increasing shear-span-to-depth ratio.

4. Summary and outlook

Current design methods for the shear capacity of reinforced concrete slabs without shear
reinforcement under concentrated loads were proved and modified based on the results of
experimental and numerical investigations. Due to an underestimation of the effective slab width
8 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

according to the rules in book 240 of the German Committee for Structural Concrete or under
consideration of a load spreading under 45°, the actual shear bearing capacity of slabs without shear
reinforcement under concentrated loads is higher than calculated.
Furthermore, the influence of an inclined compression zone and the question if the reduction of the
shear force by the vertical component of the compression force is reasonable, have been
investigated. The application of flexural loads resulted always – regardless of whether the cantilever
slab was haunched - in a higher shear resistance. Hence, the reduction of Vccd exclusively for
haunched members does not properly describe the influence of flexural loads on the shear resistance.
The data bases to verify new approaches are limited. Therefore, additional considerations are
required when the modified approach shall be used with the actual design concepts. Additionally,
for the design of bridge deck slabs, the influences of the longitudinal and transverse prestressing as
well as the interaction of several wheel loads may be of further interest.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the funding by the Federal Highway Research Institute of Germany (BASt) and
the discussions with the project committee.

5. References
[1] DIN 1045, “Beton und Stahlbeton, Bemessung und Ausführung“ (German Design Code
1045: Concrete and Reinforced Concrete, Design and Construction), Berlin/Germany, 1988
[2] DIN Fachbericht 102, “Betonbrücken“, (German Design Code Technical Report 102:
Concrete Bridges), Berlin/Germany, 2009
[3] Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings;
German version EN 1992-1-1:2004 + AC:2010, Berlin/Germany, 2011
[4] DIN 1072, “Lastannahmen für Straßen und Wegbrücken“ (German Design Code 1072:
Actions on Roads and Bridges), Berlin/Germany, 1985
[5] DIN Fachbericht 101, “Einwirkungen auf Brücken“, (German Design Code Technical
Report 101: Actions on Bridges), Berlin/Germany, 2009
[6] DIN EN 1991-2, “Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges;
German version EN 1991-2:2003 + AC:2010”, Berlin/Germany, 2010
[7] DIN EN 1991-2/NA, “National Annex - Nationally determined parameters - Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges”, Berlin/Germany, draft July 2011
[8] DAfStb, “Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton Heft 525: Erläuterungen zu DIN 1045-1“,
(German Committee for Structural Concrete Book 525: Comments on DIN 1045-1), Beuth
Verlag, Berlin/Germany, 2010
[9] DAfStb, “Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton Heft 240: Hilfsmittel zur Berechnung der
Schnittgrößen und Formänderungen von Stahlbetonbauwerken.“, (German Committee for
Structural Concrete Book 240: Tools for calculation of internal forces and changes in shape
of reinforced concrete members), 3rd Version, Beuth Verlag, Berlin/Germany, 1991
[10] ROMBACH, G.; NGHIEP, V.: “Versuche zur Querkrafttragfähigkeit von gevouteten
Stahlbetonbalken ohne Querkraftbewehrung“, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 106, No. 1,
pp. 11-20, 2011
[11] REISSEN, K., HEGGER J.: ”Experimental Study on the Shear Capacity of Concrete Slabs”,
Conference Proceedings IABSE-IASS Symposium London, 2011
[12] ROMBACH, G.; LATTE, S.; STEFFENS, R.: “Querkrafttragfähigkeit von Fahrbahnplatten
ohne Querkraftbewehrung“, Forschung Straßenbau und Straßenverkehrstechnik, Book 1011,
2009
[13] ABAQUS: Abaqus 6.9 Online Documentation, 2009