ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 106-S29
Reinforced Concrete Slab Shear Prediction
Competition: Experiments
by Thomas Jaeger and Peter Marti
Twenty-eight large-scale tests were conducted at the Institute of
Structural Engineering at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
(ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland, to investigate the shear strength and
deformation capacity of orthogonally reinforced concrete slabs.
Test parameters included the slab thickness, the in-plane and the
transverse reinforcement ratios, and the deviation of the principal
shear (and moment) direction from the direction of the in-plane
reinforcement. Eight of the 28 tests were used for an international
competition to predict the expected load-deformation response.
This paper presents the information on the test concept, the test
specimens, and the test procedures given to the participants of the
prediction competition and summarizes and discusses the results of the
eight tests. It is shown that with a sufficient transverse reinforcement,
ductile flexural failures instead of brittle shear failures occurred and,
contrary to the specimens without transverse reinforcement,
the shear strength of thick slabs was not reduced compared to
thin slabs; that is, no size effect was observed for the specimens with
transverse reinforcement. It is also shown that a deviation of
45 degrees of the principal moment (and herein, shear) direction from
the reinforcement direction resulted in a significant decrease of the
cracked slab stiffness, accompanied by a further strength reduction for
the specimens without transverse reinforcement.
Keywords: deformation capacity; reinforced concrete; reinforcement;
shear; slabs; stiffness; stirrups; strength; tests.
INTRODUCTION
In 2002 and 2003, 28 large-scale tests to failure on 14
reinforced concrete slab specimens were conducted at the
Institute of Structural Engineering of the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland. The
objective of the experiments was to investigate the influence of
specific parameters on the shear strength and deformation
capacity of reinforced concrete slabs. The parameters included
the slab thickness, the in-plane and transverse reinforcement
ratios, and the deviation of the principal shear (and moment)
direction from the direction of the in-plane reinforcement.1
On the occasion of the fib Symposium in May 2005 in
Budapest, Hungary, researchers were invited to submit
predictions of the expected response for eight of the 28 tests.
The test results and predictions were presented and
compared at the Second International fib Congress in
Naples, Italy, in June 2006.2
This paper presents the information on the test concept, the
test specimens, and the test procedures given to the participants
of the prediction competition (refer to the Appendix*) and
summarizes and discusses the results of the eight experiments.
Entries to the prediction competition are described and
compared in a companion paper.3
*The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.
300
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The large-scale experiments described in this paper
demonstrate the significant influence of a deviation of the
principal shear (and moment) direction from the direction
of the in-plane reinforcement on the load-deformation
response and the shear strength of reinforced concrete
slabs. They also demonstrate that with sufficient transverse
reinforcement, a ductile flexural failure can be achieved,
that is, brittle shear failures can be avoided and the size
effect observed for the shear strength of reinforced concrete
slabs without transverse reinforcement can be eliminated.
TEST CONCEPT
Seven specimens with a thickness h of 200 mm (7.9 in.) and
seven geometrically similar specimens with a thickness h
of 500 mm (19.7 in.) were tested. The slab width b and the shear
span a were equal to 4h and 3.2h, respectively, for all specimens.
According to the original test report, the prediction competition
was limited to four slabs, A, B, C, and D, corresponding
to Specimens A1, A3, B1, and B3.1
Each slab was tested twice, as shown in Fig. 1. In Test 1,
the load F was increased monotonically up to the failure of
Cantilever C2. In Test 2, the deflection w under the load F
was increased in a deformation-controlled manner until the
deformation capacity of Cantilever C1 was exhausted. For
Test 2 on Slabs A and B, a support plate was placed at the top
of the specimens and a three-point bending test was
performed. Slabs C and D were rotated by 180 degrees after
Tests 1, and Tests 2 were performed, using the same
three-point bending test setup as for Test 1.
Except for the different lever arms of the reinforcements in
the n and t directions, every attempt was made to produce
uniform conditions in the y direction. Equal forces were
applied by the two jacks producing F, stiff loading and support
constructions were used to ensure that applied loads and
support reactions were spread uniformly across the slab width,
and deflections w were determined from measurements on
both sides of the specimens.
The test parameters included the slab thickness h, the direction
ϕ0 of the in-plane reinforcement (in the n and t directions), and
the ratios of the in-plane and transverse reinforcements (ρn,
ρt , and ρz, respectively) (refer to Table 1 and Fig. 1).
TEST SPECIMENS
Geometry and reinforcement of the four specimens are
shown in Fig. 2 to 5. All slabs were cast upside down prior
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 3, May-June 2009.
MS No. S-2007-301 received August 22, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2009, 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 in the March-April 2010
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2009.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009

ACI member Thomas Jaeger is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute of
Structural Engineering at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich,
Switzerland. His research interests include shear and deformation capacity problems
in structural concrete.
Peter Marti, FACI, is a Professor of structural engineering and Head of the
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering at ETH. His research
interests include structural concrete and masonry.
clear distance between the stirrup anchor plates was equal to
160 mm (6.30 in.).
The 30 mm (1.18 in.) diameter bars used for the
in-plane reinforcement of Slabs C and D were fitted with 35 x
60 x 165 mm (1.38 x 2.36 x 6.50 in.) welded steel anchor
plates. The stirrups with 20 and 14 mm (0.79 and 0.55 in.)
diameters had anchor plates measuring 20 x 75 x 75 mm and

to testing. The 12 mm (0.47 in.) diameter bars used for the

in-plane reinforcement of Slabs A and B were fitted with
15 x 25 x 65 mm (0.59 x 0.98 x 2.56 in.) welded steel
anchor plates. The stirrups with 8 and 6 mm (0.31 and 0.24 in.)
diameters had anchor plates measuring 8 x 30 x 30 mm and
6 x 25 x 25 mm (0.31 x 1.18 x 1.18 in. and 0.24 x 0.98 x 0.98 in.),
respectively. The concrete cover of the first layer of the
in-plane reinforcement measured 20 mm (0.79 in.) and the

Fig. 2—Geometry and reinforcement of Slab A: (a) longitudinal

section; and (b) plan. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Fig. 3—Geometry and reinforcement of Slab B: (a) longitudinal

section; and (b) plan. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Table 1—Main slab properties

Slab A B C D
Slab thickness h, mm 200 200 500 500
Direction of bending reinforcement ϕ0, degrees 45 0 45 0
Average effective depth dm, mm 156 162 390 405
Average ratio of reinforcement in
n direction ρn, % 1.812 1.745 1.812 1.745

Average ratio of reinforcement in

t direction ρt, % 1.812 0.873 1.812 0.873

Effective cross-sectional area of 14,13

1919 2262 11,996
reinforcement in x direction Asx, mm2 7
Cantilever C1: ratio of transverse
reinforcement ρz, % 0.611 0.309 0.611 0.308

Cantilever C2: ratio of transverse

reinforcement ρz, % 0 0 0 0

Cantilever C1: dead load gC1, kN/m 4.26 4.04 26.64 25.16
Cantilever C2: dead load gC2, kN/m 4.14 3.98 25.89 24.83
Fig. 1—Test concept: (a) Slabs A and B; and (b) Slabs C
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 kN/m =
and D. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) 0.00571 kips/in.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 301

15 x 55 x 55 mm (0.79 x 2.95 x 2.95 in. and 0.59 x 2.17 x second hand pump used for the two hydraulic jacks
2.17 in.), respectively. The concrete cover of the first layer of attached to this yoke allowed the adjustment of the support
the in-plane reinforcement measured 50 mm (1.97 in.) and the level. The fixed and moveable support plates had the
clear distance between the stirrup anchor plates was equal to dimensions 100 x 800 x 30 mm (3.9 x 31.5 x 1.2 in.).
400 mm (15.75 in.). Figure 7 illustrates the three-point bending test setup for
Average concrete properties are given in Table 2. Concrete the tests on Slabs C and D. The load was applied by two
with a maximum aggregate diameter of 16 mm (0.63 in.) was hydraulic jacks controlled by a pendulum dynamometer. A
used. For each slab, three 150 x 150 x 150 mm (5.9 x 5.9 x 5.9 in.) solid 300 x 200 x 2000 mm (11.8 x 7.9 x 78.7 in.) steel
cube tests and three 150 x 300 mm (5.9 x 11.8 in.) cylinder tests block bolted to the specimen with up to five 20 mm (0.8 in.)
were performed to obtain fcw and fcc, respectively; the loading diameter anchors was used to distribute the load on the top
rate was equal to 0.5 MPa/s (73 psi/s). The cylinder tests were of the specimen. The fixed support plate had the dimensions
also used to determine the modulus of elasticity Ec, that is, the
secant modulus between 0.5 MPa (73 psi) and fcw/3. The tensile
strength fct was determined from double-punch tests4,5 on four
150 x 150 mm (5.9 x 5.9 in.) cylinders per slab; the loading
rate was equal to 0.02 MPa/s (2.9 psi/s), referring to the whole
cross section of the cylinder.
Average reinforcing steel properties are given in Table 3.
Eight to 20 specimens were tested for each bar type. Up to
the yield strain, the stress rate amounted to 10 MPa/s
(1.45 ksi/s); thereafter, a strain rate of 3% per minute was
applied. At a strain of 0.55% as well as at the peak stress, the
strain was held constant for 2 minutes, resulting in the static
yield and ultimate strengths fsy,stat and fsu,stat, respectively.

TEST PROCEDURE
Figure 6 illustrates the test setup for the tests on Slabs A and
B. The slabs were fitted into the testing setup with the weaker Fig. 4—Geometry and reinforcement of Slab C: (a) longitudinal
ends (Cantilever C2) facing the side of the moveable support. section; and (b) plan. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
During the four-point bending test (Test 1), the load was applied
with four hydraulic jacks controlled by a hand pump. Each of
the two 100 x 800 x 30 mm (3.9 x 31.5 x 1.2 in.) support plates
was anchored to the test specimen by four 10 mm (0.39 in.)
diameter dowels. For the three-point bending test (Test 2), the
loading yoke on Cantilever C2 was moved 840 mm (33.1 in.)
toward the fixed support and served as an elastic support; a

Table 2—Average concrete properties

Slab A B C D
Age of concrete, days 42 281 56 276
Cube strength fcw , MPa 58.1 63.3 58.7 59.5
Cylinder strength fcc, MPa 52.4 58.8 52.4 53.7
Modulus of elasticity Ec, GPa 29.2 37.7 31.8 36.0
Tensile strength fct, MPa 4.56 4.16 4.29 3.90 Fig. 5—Geometry and reinforcement of Slab D: (a) longitudinal
Note: 1 MPa = 0.001 GPa = 145 psi. section; and (b) plan. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Table 3—Average reinforcing steel properties

Nominal diameter, mm 6 (B) 8 (A) 12 (A) 12 (B) 14 (D) 20 (C) 30
No. of specimens 11 8 8 20 20 12 20
Dynamic yield strength fsy,dyn, MPa 574* 536* 503* 561 538 532 561
Static yield strength fsy,stat, MPa 554 517 483 540 518 508 539
Dynamic ultimate strength fsu,dyn, MPa 601 626 608 671 617 629 663
Static ultimate strength fsu,stat, MPa 563 579 561 623 570 584 619
Strain at beginning of strain hardening εsv , % —† —† —† 1.49 2.95 2.63 1.76
Strain at peak stress Agt , % 2.28 5.43 6.74 9.55 10.88 13.10 10.81
Ultimate strain εsu , % 2.65 6.80 8.90 11.17 12.04 14.76 12.47
Modulus of elasticity Es, GPa 209.4 207.0 202.2 200.0 203.1 201.9 209.8
*0.2% strain limit stress.
†Coiled reinforcing steel.
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.001 GPa = 145 psi.

302 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009

200 x 2000 x 60 mm (7.9 x 78.7 x 2.4 in.). The moveable
support at a distance of 2360 mm (92.9 in.) from the fixed
support consisted of four flat jacks, steel distribution plates,
and a bearing on a 200 x 2000 mm (7.9 x 78.7 in.) steel plate.
For Test 2, with deflections w > 300 mm (11.8 in.), the
specimens were rotated around the fixed support and the
moveable support was supplemented with hard wood
wedges and additional steel girders to allow for the adjusted
geometry. The four flat jacks were controlled by a hand pump.
The load was applied in discrete load stages (up to four
per day for Specimens A and B and up to three per day for
Specimens C and D). At each load stage, average strains
were measured by placing mechanical strain gauges
(extensometers) onto aluminium targets glued to the
specimen surfaces. The targets formed a square mesh.
By measuring the side lengths and the diagonals of the
deformed squares, longitudinal and transverse as well as
shear strains could be determined. In addition, the horizontal
displacements and the vertical deflections at a number of
locations were measured by linearly variable displacement
transducers; crack patterns and crack widths were recorded
and jack forces were monitored by oil pressure gauges.
Performing one test took up to 4 days for Specimens A and
B and up to 7 days for Specimens C and D.
Fig. 6—Test setup for Slabs A and B: (a) Test 1; and (b) Test 2.
(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009
TEST RESULTS
General
Figure 8 shows a free-body diagram of the cantilevers of
Slabs A and B. The variables GA and gCi (refer to Table 1)
denote the dead load of the load application device and the
cantilever, respectively; F denotes the applied jack force; M
is the bending moment in the slab at the support cross section;
and w is the deflection under the load application point.
Figure 9 shows a similar free-body diagram of the
cantilevers of Slabs C and D. For large deflections w, the
deviation αF of the hydraulic jacks from the vertical had
to be taken into account, as shown in Fig. 10.
In the following, M-w diagrams are presented (refer to
Fig. 11) and the main experimental observations are
summarized for each test. Peak support moments M1,exp
and associated deflections w1,exp are listed in Table 4.
Slab A
Contrary to all other specimens with hot-rolled bar
reinforcement, the 12 mm (0.47 in.) diameter in-plane
Fig. 7—Test setup for Slabs C and D: (a) Tests 1 and 2; and
(b) Test 2 (w > 300 mm). (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
303
reinforcement of this specimen consisted of hot-rolled
coiled steel (refer to Table 3).
Close to failure of Cantilever 2 in Test 1, the flexural
cracks at the top of the specimen had an average spacing
of approximately 60 mm (2.4 in.) and a maximum width
of 0.3 mm (0.01 in.). On the side faces of the cantilevers,
inclined cracks with an inclination of approximately 35 to
45 degrees to the x-axis and a maximum width of 0.6 mm
(0.02 in.) were observed. Failure occurred in a brittle
manner (refer to Fig. 11). The steeper middle part of the
slightly S-shaped failure surface shown in Fig. 12(a)
followed an existing inclined crack; the flat parts at the bottom
(extending to the support) and at the top of the failure surface
(along the in-plane reinforcement) were formed at failure.
Test 2 showed a very ductile behavior (refer to Fig. 11).
Compared to Test 1, the crack pattern was similar but the
crack widths and crack lengths increased under higher loads.
The first signs of crushing cracks in the flexural compression
zone of the fixed support region appeared just before the load
stage prior to reaching the peak load. Then, spalling and later
crushing of the concrete in the y direction was observed at
the top of the specimen above the fixed support in the
vicinity of the anchorages of the in-plane reinforcement;
eventually, considerable crushing and spalling occurred at
the bottom of the specimen on the middle span side adjacent
to the fixed support (refer to Fig. 12(b) and (c)).
Slab B
Close to the failure of Cantilever 2 in Test 1, the flexural
cracks at the top of the specimen had an average spacing of
75 to 100 mm (3 to 4 in.) and a maximum width of 0.15 mm
(0.006 in.). On the cantilever side faces, inclined cracks with
an inclination of 45 to 55 degrees to the x-axis and a
maximum width of 0.15 mm (0.006 in.) were observed.
Failure occurred in a brittle manner (refer to Fig. 11). The
slightly S-shaped failure surface and the separation crack
extending along the in-plane reinforcement to the load
application point developed suddenly; the lower part of the
failure surface was very flat and extended over a length of
350 mm (13.8 in.) from the support (refer to Fig. 13(a)).
Test 2 showed a very ductile behavior (refer to Fig. 11).
Compared to Test 1, the crack pattern remained approximately
the same, but crack widths and crack lengths above the fixed
support and on the cantilever side faces increased under higher
loads. In addition, the inclination to the x-axis of the lower part
of the cracks on the cantilever side faces decreased from 30 to
45 degrees. After having reached the peak load, the additional
deformation was concentrated in the fixed support region. The
flexural cracks above the support became very wide and

Fig. 8—Structural analysis: Slabs A and B. (Note: 1 mm =

0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips.)

Fig. 10—Rotation of hydraulic jacks for Slabs C and D.

(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Table 4—Peak support moments and associated

deflections
Test M1,exp, kNm w1,exp, mm
A-1 107.5 24.2
A-2 161.7 49.1
B-1 169.2 15.4
B-2 216.2 35.4
C-1 1344 26.4
C-2 2421 72.1
D-1 2042 16.4
Fig. 9—Structural analysis: Slabs C and D. (Note: 1 mm = D-2 3218 47.5
0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips.) Note: 1 kNm = 0.738 kip·ft.; 25.4 mm = 1 in.

304 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009


Fig. 11—Support moment-deflection characteristics. (Note:
1 kNm = 0.738 kip·ft.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
concrete spalling occurred at the bottom of the specimen on
the middle span side adjacent to the fixed support (refer
to Fig. 13(b) and (c)). Eventually, spalling extended over a
depth of up to 55 mm (2.2 in.) and a length of 200 to 350 mm
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009
Fig. 12—Slab A: (a) Test 1 at failure; (b) Test 2 at peak
load; and (c) end of Test 2.
(7.9 to 13.8 in.); except for the two outermost stirrups, all
eight stirrups in the first row adjacent to the support ruptured.
Slab C
Close to failure of Cantilever 2 in Test 1, the flexural cracks
at the top of the specimen had an average spacing of
approximately 150 mm (5.9 in.) and a maximum width of 0.6
mm (0.02 in.). On the cantilever side faces, inclined cracks
with an inclination of approximately 35 to 45 degrees to the
x-axis and a maximum width of 0.7 mm (0.03 in.) were
observed. Failure occurred in a brittle manner (refer to Fig. 11).
The slightly S-shaped failure surface on the front face of the
specimen shown in Fig. 14(a) developed at failure; on the back
face, the middle part followed an existing inclined crack.
Test 2 showed a very ductile behavior (refer to Fig. 11)
similar to Test 2 on Slab A. At the peak load, crushing
cracks in the flexural compression zone above and adjacent
to the support plate on the middle span side, were visible.
A further deflection increase resulted in the crushing of the
concrete over the full slab width in the y direction over a
length of 500 to 600 mm (19.7 to 23.6 in.) at the top of the
slab above the support, as well as crushing and spalling at the
bottom of the specimen on the middle span side adjacent to
the support (refer to Fig. 14(b) and (c)).
Slab D
Close to failure of Cantilever 2 in Test 1, the flexural
cracks at the top of the specimen had an average spacing of
305

Fig. 13—Slab B: (a) Test 1 at failure; (b) Test 2 at peak
load; and (c) end of Test 2.
approximately 200 mm (7.9 in.) and a maximum width of
0.3 mm (0.01 in.). On the cantilever side faces, inclined
cracks with an inclination of 45 to 55 degrees to the x-axis
and a maximum width of 0.3 mm (0.01 in.) were observed.
Failure occurred in a brittle manner (refer to Fig. 11). The
slightly S-shaped failure surface and the separation crack
extending along the in-plane reinforcement to the load
application point developed suddenly; the lower part of the
failure surface was very flat and extended over a length of
450 mm (17.7 in.) from the support (refer to Fig. 15(a)).
Test 2 showed a very ductile behavior (refer to Fig. 11)
similar to Test 2 on Slab B. Close to the peak load, the
inclination to the x-axis of the lower part of the inclined cracks
on the cantilever side faces decreased to 10 to 25 degrees. At
the peak load, crushing cracks were visible in the flexural
compression zone on the middle span side adjacent to the
support. A further deflection increase resulted in extensive
crushing and spalling of the concrete in this region; eventually,
the concrete was spalled off over a depth of up to 140 mm (5.5
in.) and a length of 900 mm (35.4 in.) from the support (refer
to Fig. 15(b) and (c)). Except for the two outermost stirrups, all
nine stirrups in the first row adjacent to the support ruptured.
DISCUSSION
Figure 16 shows normalized support moment-deflection
diagrams allowing a direct comparison of the different
306
Fig. 14—Slab C: (a) Test 1 at failure; (b) Test 2 at peak
load; and (c) end of Test 2.
experiments. Deflections w are normalized by the shear span
a. Support moments M are normalized by dvAsx fsu,dyn where
the effective depth in shear is given by
A sx f su, dyn⎞
d v = d m ⋅ ⎛ 1 – ----------------------
(1)
⎝ 2bd m f c ⎠
where Asx is the effective cross-sectional area of the in-plane
reinforcement in the x direction (refer to Table 1) and the
effective concrete compressive strength in flexure is
assumed1,6 to be equal to
fc = 2.7( fcc)2/3 (MPa) (2)
In psi-units, the factor 2.7 in Eq. (2) has to be replaced by 14.2.
For Slabs A and C, with ϕ0 = π/4 and the chosen reinforcement
layout, Asx is equal to the total of the transformed cross-sectional
area of the in-plane reinforcement in the n (t) direction.
The comparison of Tests 1 and 2 for each slab shows the
influence of the transverse reinforcement. It can be seen that
without transverse reinforcement, brittle shear failures occurred,
whereas ductile flexural failures were obtained in all tests with
transverse reinforcement.
The comparison of the tests on Slabs A and C as well as Slabs
B and D shows that there is a considerable influence of slab
thickness (that is, a size effect) on the shear strength for the tests
without transverse reinforcement, whereas no such influence
was observed for the tests with transverse reinforcement.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009
 Finally, the comparison of the tests on Slabs A and B as well
as Slabs C and D shows a significantly stiffer response in the
tests with ϕ0 = 0 compared to the tests with ϕ0 = π/4. This can be
explained by strain transformation and the concrete compressive
stresses in the y direction produced by the anchorage forces of
the in-plane reinforcement for the case of ϕ0 = π/4; neglecting
tension stiffening effects, the principal strain in the x direction at
the level of the in-plane reinforcement equals εx = 2εn – εy
(instead of εn for the case ϕ0 = 0), where εy denotes the (negative)
compressive strain in the y direction and εn is the strain in the n
(t) direction (refer to Fig. 17). It can be seen that, compared to the
case ϕ0 = 0, the principal strain εx is more than doubled for
ϕ0 = ϕ/4, leading to proportionally larger deformations. The
comparison of Test 1 (without transverse reinforcement) on
Slabs A and B as well as Slabs C and D shows that the
increased deformations for the case ϕ0 = ϕ/4 were accompanied
by a reduced shear strength; no such reduction was observed for
Test 2 (with transverse reinforcement).
The experiments described in this paper were restricted to
uniaxial bending moments in the x direction, coinciding with the
principal shear direction. In general, slabs are subjected to biaxial
moments with principal directions deviating from the principal
shear direction; neither the principal moment direction nor the
principal shear direction are aligned with the reinforcement
directions. The dimensioning of reinforced concrete slabs under
such general states of stress can be based on a sandwich
model.3,7 Combined with suitable compression field models8-10
for the two covers and the core of the sandwich, not only the
strength but also the deformations of reinforced concrete slab
elements subjected to general combinations of forces and
moments can be treated in a rational manner.11

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the research, the following conclusions can be made:
1. All tests without transverse reinforcement exhibited brittle
shear failures. The addition of transverse reinforcements with
geometrical reinforcement ratios of approximately 0.3% and Fig. 15—Slab D: (a) Test 1 at failure; (b) Test 2 at peak
0.6% changed the failure modes to ductile flexural failures; load; and (c) end of Test 2.

Fig. 16—Normalized support moment-deflection diagrams.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009 307

Fig. 17—Stresses, strains, and associated Mohr’s circles at top of specimens: (a) ϕ0 = 0; and (b) ϕ0 = π/4.

2. The tests without transverse reinforcement showed a εsv = steel strain at beginning of strain hardening
significant influence of slab thickness on shear strength. No εx = strain in x direction
εy = strain in y direction
such size effect was observed for the tests with transverse γnt = strain in n direction
reinforcement; and ϕnt = shear strain in n and t direction
3. A deviation of 45 degrees of the principal moment (and ϕ0 = angle between x-axis and n-axis (principal shear [and moment]
herein, shear) direction from the reinforcement direction direction)
resulted in a significant decrease of the (cracked) stiffness of ρn = geometrical reinforcement ratio in n direction
ρt = geometrical reinforcement ratio in t direction
the orthogonally reinforced concrete slabs. Whereas the tests ρz = geometrical reinforcement ratio in z direction
without transverse reinforcement also showed a reduced σn = axial stress in n direction
strength, no such reduction was observed in the tests with σsn = steel stress in n direction
transverse reinforcement. σst = steel stress in t direction
σsx = steel stress in x direction
σx = axial stress in x direction
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS τnt = shear stress in n and t direction
Financial support from the association of the Swiss cement industry
(Cemsuisse) as well as from ETH Zurich is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Jaeger, T., and Marti, P., “Versuche zum Querkraftwiderstand und
NOTATION zum Verformungsvermögen von Stahlbetonplatten (Tests on the Shear
Agt = strain at peak stress Strength and the Deformation Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs),”
Asx = effective cross-sectional area of reinforcement in x direction Report No. 294, Institute of Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland,
a = shear span Feb. 2006, 358 pp.
asn = cross-sectional area per unit length of reinforcement in n direction 2. Jaeger, T., “Reinforced Concrete Slab Shear Prediction Competition,”
ast = cross-sectional area per unit length of reinforcement in t direction Structural Concrete, V. 7, No. 4, Dec. 2006, pp. 174-175.
b = slab width 3. Jaeger, T., and Marti, P., “Reinforced Concrete Slab Shear Prediction
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete Competition: Entries and Discussion,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 3,
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel May-June 2009, pp. 309-318.
F = applied jack force 4. Chen, W. F., “Double-Punch Test for Tensile Strength of Concrete,” ACI
fc = effective concrete compressive strength JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 12, Dec. 1970, pp. 993-995.
fcc = cylinder compressive strength of concrete 5. Marti, P., “Size Effect in Double-Punch Tests on Concrete Cylinders,”
fct = concrete tensile strength ACI Materials Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 597-601.
fcw = cube compressive strength of concrete 6. Muttoni, A., “Die Anwendbarkeit der Plastizitätstheorie in der Bemessung
fsu,dyn = dynamic ultimate strength of reinforcement von Stahlbeton (Applicability of the Theory of Plasticity to the Dimensioning of
fsu,stat = static ultimate strength of reinforcement Reinforced Concrete),” Report No. 176, Institute of Structural Engineering,
fsy,dyn = dynamic yield strength of reinforcement Zurich, Switzerland, June 1990, 158 pp.
fsy,stat = static yield strength of reinforcement 7. Marti, P., “Design of Concrete Slabs for Transverse Shear,” ACI
GA = dead load of load application device Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1990, pp. 180-190.
gCi = dead load of cantilever 8. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression Field
h = slab thickness Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI JOURNAL,
M = bending moment at support Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
M1,exp = peak moment at support 9. Kaufmann, W., and Marti, P., “Structural Concrete: Cracked Membrane
n = coordinate Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 12, Dec. 1998,
t = coordinate pp. 1467-1475.
w = deflection 10. Kaufmann, W., “Strength and Deformations of Structural Concrete
w1,exp = deflection at peak support moment Subjected to In-Plane Shear and Normal Forces,” Report No. 234, Institute of
x = coordinate Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, July 1998, 147 pp.
y = coordinate 11. Jaeger, T., “Querkraftwiderstand und Verformungsvermögen von
z = coordinate Stahlbetonplatten (Shear Strength and Deformation Capacity of Reinforced
αF = angle between jack axis and z-axis Concrete Slabs),” Report No. 305, Institute of Structural Engineering,
εeu = ultimate steel strain Zurich, Switzerland, 2007, 114 pp.

308 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2009

 RC SLAB SHEAR PREDICTION COMPETITION:

EXPERIMENTS – APPENDIX A

PREDICTING THE RESPONSE OF RC SLABS TO TRANSVERSE SHEAR

Announcement of an International Prediction Competition (May 2005)

INTRODUCTION

28 tests to failure on reinforced concrete slabs were performed in 2002 and 2003 at the Institute of

Structural Engineering (IBK) of the ETH in Zurich, Switzerland, to investigate the shear strength

and deformation capacity of reinforced concrete slabs. A comprehensive report describing these

tests will be published towards the end of 2005.

With this announcement, researchers are invited to submit predictions of the expected response

for eight selected tests by the end of September 2005. Test results and predictions will be presented

and compared at the 2nd International fib Congress in Naples, Italy (June 5-8, 2006) and the results

of the prediction competition will be published in the fib Journal.

TEST CONCEPT

Seven slabs with an overall depth of 200 mm (7.9 in.) and seven geometrically similar slabs with an

overall depth of 500 mm (19.7 in.) were tested. This prediction competition is limited to Slabs A, B,

C and D.

Each slab was tested twice as shown in Fig. A1. In Test 1, the load F was increased

monotonically up to the failure of Cantilever C2. In Test 2, the deflection w under the load F was

applied in a deformation-controlled manner until the deformation capacity of Cantilever C1 was

exhausted. For Test 2 on Slabs A and B a support was placed at the top of the specimens and a

three-point bending test was performed. Slabs C and D were turned around after Test 1 and Test 2

was performed using the same test setup as for Test 1.

1
 Test parameters included the overall slab depth h, the direction ϕ0 of the in-plane reinforcement

(in n- and t-direction) and the ratios of the in-plane and transverse reinforcements.

TEST SPECIMENS

Geometry and reinforcement of the four specimens are shown in Figs. A2 to A5. Main slab

properties are summarised in Table A1. All slabs were cast upside down, i.e. they were turned over

prior to testing.

The 12 mm (0.47 in.) diameter bars used for the in-plane reinforcement of Slabs A and B were

equipped with welded steel anchor plates with dimensions of 15×25×65 mm (0.59×0.98×2.56 in.).

The stirrups with diameters of 8 and 6 mm (0.31 and 0.24 in.) had anchor plates of 8×30×30 and

6×25×25 mm (0.31×1.18×1.18 and 0.24×0.98×0.98 in.), respectively. The concrete cover to the

first layer of the in-plane reinforcement measured 20 mm (0.79 in.) and the clear distance between

the stirrup anchor plates was equal to 160 mm (6.30 in.).

The 30 mm (1.18 in.) diameter bars used for the in-plane reinforcement of Slabs C and D were

equipped with welded steel anchor plates with dimensions of 35×60×165 mm (1.38×2.36×6.50 in.).

The stirrups with diameters of 20 and 14 mm (0.79 and 0.55 in.) had anchor plates of 20×75×75 and

15×55×55 mm (0.79×2.95×2.95 and 0.59×2.17×2.17 in.), respectively. The concrete cover to the

first layer of the in-plane reinforcement measured 50 mm (1.97 in.) and the clear distance between

the stirrup anchor plates was equal to 400 mm (15.75 in.).

Average concrete properties are given in Table A2. For each slab, three cube tests

(150×150×150 mm (5.9×5.9×5.9 in.)) and three cylinder tests (150×300 mm (5.9×11.8 in.)) were

performed to obtain fcw and fcc, respectively; the loading rate was equal to 0.5 MPa/s (73 psi/s). The

cylinder tests were also used to determine the modulus of elasticity, Ec (secant modulus between 0.5

MPa (73 psi) and fcw/3). Typical stress-strain diagrams are shown in Fig. A6. The tensile strength, fct,

was determined from double-punch tests [1, 2] on four cylinders (150×150 mm (5.9×5.9 in.)) per

2
slab; the loading rate was equal to 0.02 MPa/s (2.9 psi/s), referring to the whole cross-section of the

cylinder.

Average reinforcing steel properties are given in Table A3. Stress-strain diagrams are shown in

Fig. A7. 8 to 20 specimens were tested for each bar type. Up to the yield strain the stress rate

amounted to 10 MPa/s (1.45 ksi/s); thereafter, a strain rate of 3% per minute was applied. At a

strain of 0.55% as well as at the peak stress, the strain was held constant for 2 minutes, resulting in

the static yield and ultimate strengths fsy,stat and fsu,stat, respectively.

TEST PROCEDURE AND BASIS OF RESPONSE PREDICTION

Figs. A8 and A9 show the test setups.

For Slabs C and D, the deviation αF of the hydraulic jacks from the vertical (depending on the

defletion w) should be taken into account as shown in Fig. A10.

Fig. A11 shows representative free-body diagrams of the cantilevers of the specimens. GA and

gCi (see Table A1) denote the dead loads of the load application device and the cantilever,

respectively, while F denotes the applied jack force. In order to obtain consistent response

predictions, the moment MC in the slab at the support cross-section shall be plotted versus the

deflection w under the load application point, see Fig. A12. Note that the support plates shown in

Fig. A11(a) and (b) had widths of 100 and 200 mm (3.9 and 7.9 in.), respectively.

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSE PREDICTION

Response predictions shall be submitted as PDF files via e-mail to competition@ibk.baug.ethz.ch

by 30 September 2005. They shall include:

1. Name(s) and address(es) of the author(s) of the prediction.

2. MC-w-diagrams for all eight tests using the templates shown in Fig. A12. In addition, please

provide these diagrams in the form of Excel sheets (xls-files).

3
 3. Drawings of the crack patterns at peak load for all eight tests using the templates shown in

Fig. A13.

4. A brief description of the predicted response for all eight tests, highlighting cracking and

crushing of the concrete as well as yielding of the reinforcement(s).

5. A brief description of the method(s) of analysis used.

ENQUIRIES

Any questions relating to the prediction competition shall be directed to Thomas Jaeger via the

following address: competition@ibk.baug.ethz.ch

REFERENCES

[1] Chen, W.F., “Double-Punch Test for Tensile Strength of Concrete”, ACI Journal, Proceedings,

Vol. 67, No. 12, December 1970, pp. 993-995.

[2] Marti, P., “Size Effect in Double-Punch Tests on Concrete Cylinders”, ACI Materials Journal,

Vol. 86, No. 6, November-December 1989, pp. 597-601.

4
 TABLES AND FIGURES

List of Tables:

Table A1 – Main slab properties. Note: 1 m = 1000 mm = 39.37 in.; and 1 kN = 0.225 kips

Table A2 – Average concrete properties. Note: 1 MPa = 0.001 GPa = 145 psi

Table A3 – Average reinforcing steel properties. Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.; and 1 MPa = 0.001 GPa =

145 psi

List of Figures:

Fig. A1 – Test concept: (a) Slabs A and B; (b) Slabs C and D. Note: 1000 mm = 39.37 in.

Fig. A2 – Geometry and reinforcement of Slab A: (a) longitudinal section; (b) plan. Note: 1000 mm

= 39.37 in.

Fig. A3 – Geometry and reinforcement of Slab B: (a) longitudinal section; (b) plan. Note: 1000 mm

= 39.37 in.

Fig. A4 – Geometry and reinforcement of Slab C: (a) longitudinal section; (b) plan. Note: 1000 mm

= 39.37 in.

Fig. A5 – Geometry and reinforcement of Slab D: (a) longitudinal section; (b) plan. Note: 1000 mm

= 39.37 in.

Fig. A6 – Typical stress-strain diagrams of concrete (cylinder tests). Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi

Fig. A7 – Stress-strain diagrams of reinforcing steel. Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi

Fig. A8 – Test setup for Slabs A and B: (a) Test 1; (b) Test 2. Note: 1000 mm = 39.37 in.

Fig. A9 – Test setup for Slabs C and D: (a) Tests 1 and 2; (b) Test 2 (w > 300 mm). Note: 1000 mm

= 39.37 in.

Fig. A10 – Rotation of the hydraulic jacks for Slabs C and D. Note: 1000 mm = 39.37 in.

Fig. A11 – Structural analysis: (a) Slabs A and B; (b) Slabs C and D. Note: 1000 mm = 39.37 in.;

and 1 kN = 0.225 kips

Fig. A12 – Support moment-deflection characteristics: Slabs A, B, C and D. Note: 1 kNm = 0.738

5
kip⋅ft.; and 1000 mm = 39.37 in.

Fig. A13 – Crack patterns at peak load: (a) Slabs A and B; (b) Slabs C and D. Note: 1000 mm =

39.37 in.

6
Table A1–Main slab properties. Note: 1 m = 1000 mm = 39.37 in.; and 1 kN = 0.225 kips

Slab A B C D
Slab thickness, h [mm] 200 200 500 500
Direction of bending reinforcement, ϕ0 [°] 45 0 45 0
Average effective depth, dm [mm] 156 162 390 405
Average ratio of reinforcement in n-direction, ρn [%] 1.812 1.745 1.812 1.745
Average ratio of reinforcement in t-direction, ρt [%] 1.812 0.873 1.812 0.873
Effective cross-sectional area of reinforcement in x-
[mm2] 1919 2262 11996 14137
direction, Asx
Cantilever C1: ratio of transverse reinforcement, ρz [%] 0.611 0.309 0.611 0.308
Cantilever C2: ratio of transverse reinforcement, ρz [%] 0 0 0 0
Cantilever C1: dead load, gC1 [kN/m] 4.26 4.04 26.64 25.16
Cantilever C2: dead load, gC2 [kN/m] 4.14 3.98 25.89 24.83

Table A2–Average concrete properties. Note: 1 MPa = 0.001 GPa = 145 psi

Slab A B C D
Age of concrete [d] 42 281 56 276
Cube strength, fcw [MPa] 58.1 63.3 58.7 59.5
Cylinder strength, fcc [MPa] 52.4 58.8 52.4 53.7
Modulus of elasticity, Ec [GPa] 29.2 37.7 31.8 36.0
Tensile strength, fct [MPa] 4.56 4.16 4.29 3.90

7
Table A3–Average reinforcing steel properties. Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.; and 1 MPa = 0.001

GPa = 145 psi

Nominal diameter [mm] 6 (B) 8 (A) 12 (A) 12 (B) 14 (D) 20 (C) 30

Number of specimens [–] 11 8 8 20 20 12 20
Effective diameter [mm] 5.89 8.04 12.02 11.93 13.99 20.26 30.14
Dynamic yield strength,
[MPa] 594.61) 530.21) 501.11) 567.3 538.7 518.1 556.1
fsy,dyn
Static yield strength, fsy,stat [MPa] 573.9 511.4 480.8 546.0 519.0 495.3 533.6
Dynamic ultimate strength,
[MPa] 623.2 620.0 605.6 678.9 617.6 612.5 656.6
fsu,dyn
Static ultimate strength,
[MPa] 583.4 573.4 558.7 630.3 571.4 569.4 613.7
fsu,stat
Strain at beginning of
[%] –2) –2) –2) 1.49 2.95 2.63 1.76
strain-hardening, εsv
Strain at peak stress, Agt [%] 2.28 5.43 6.74 9.55 10.88 13.10 10.81
Ultimate strain, εsu [%] 2.65 6.80 8.90 11.17 12.04 14.76 12.47
Modulus of elasticity, Es [GPa] 209.4 207.0 202.2 200.0 203.1 201.9 209.8

1)
0.2%-strain limit stress.
2)
coiled reinforcing steel.

8
(a) (b)
y
n t
ϕ0
z z

2000
800

x x x
ϕ0 ϕ0 z

t n t n
y y
Cantilever C1 Cantilever C2 Cantilever C1 Cantilever C2
1310 1310 1875 2800 1875
2620 6550

Test 1 Test 1
F ρz F F ρz
200

500
x
x
C1 z
C2 C2 C1
w w z
640 1120 640 1600 2360

Test 2 Test 2
F ρz F ρz
200

500
x x

C1 z
C2 C1 C2
w w z
640 920 1600 2360

Fig. A1–Test concept: (a) Slabs A and B; (b) Slabs C and D. Note: 1000 mm = 39.37 in.

(a) 2620
750 (Cantilever C1) 1120 750 (Cantilever C2)
ρz = 0.611% ρz = 0.639% ρz = 0
20
200

Stirrups Ø8mm
2nd + 4th layer, Ø12mm@80mm
(b)
1st + 3rd layer, Ø12mm@80mm
46
113 113 114 113 113
800
188

122 679 (9×75.42) 905 (12×75.42) 857

57

Fig. A2–Geometry and reinforcement of Slab A: (a) longitudinal section; (b) plan. Note: 1000

mm = 39.37 in.

9
 (a) 2620
750 (Cantilever C1) 1120 750 (Cantilever C2)
ρz = 0.309% ρz = 0.353% ρz = 0

20
200
Stirrups Ø6mm
2nd layer, Ø12mm@80mm
(b)
1st + 3rd layer, Ø12mm@80mm

49
120 120 111 111 120 120
800
49

61 1680 (21×80) 879

Fig. A3–Geometry and reinforcement of Slab B: (a) longitudinal section; (b) plan. Note: 1000

mm = 39.37 in.

(a) 6550
1875 (Cantilever C1) 2800 1875 (Cantilever C2)
ρz = 0.611% ρz = 0.639% ρz = 0
50
500

Stirrups Ø20mm
2nd + 4th layer, Ø30mm@200mm
(b)
1st + 3rd layer, Ø30mm@200mm
115
283 283 283 283 283
2000
470

305 1697 (9×188.56) 2263 (12×188.56) 2144

141

Fig. A4–Geometry and reinforcement of Slab C: (a) longitudinal section; (b) plan. Note: 1000

mm = 39.37 in.

10
 (a) 6550
1875 (Cantilever C1) 2800 1875 (Cantilever C2)
ρz = 0.308% ρz = 0.346% ρz = 0

50
500
Stirrups Ø14mm
2nd layer, Ø30mm@200mm
(b)
1st + 3rd layer, Ø30mm@200mm

122
252 252 252 244 252 252 252
2000
122

4200 (21×200) 2197

153

Fig. A5–Geometry and reinforcement of Slab D: (a) longitudinal section; (b) plan. Note: 1000

mm = 39.37 in.

80 80

Slab B Slab D
60 60
Stress, -σc [MPa]

Stress, -σc [MPa]

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Strain, -ε c [ ] Strain, -ε c [ ]

Fig. A6–Typical stress-strain diagrams of concrete (cylinder tests). Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi

11
 800 800

600 600
Stress, σs [MPa]

Stress, σs [MPa]
400 400

200 200
Ø6 (Slab B) Ø14 (Slab D)

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Strain, ε s [ ] Strain, ε s [ ]

800 800

600 600
Stress, σs [MPa]

Stress, σs [MPa]
400 400

200 200
Ø8 (Slab A) Ø20 (Slab C)

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Strain, ε s [ ] Strain, ε s [ ]

800 800

600 600
Stress, σs [MPa]

Stress, σs [MPa]

400 400

200 200
Ø12 (Slab A) Ø30 (Slab C, D)

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Strain, ε s [ ] Strain, ε s [ ]

800
fsu,dyn

fsy,dyn
600
ε sv fsu,stat ε su
Stress, σs [MPa]

Stress, σs [MPa]

fsy,stat
400

200
Ø12 (Slab B) Key to σs-ε s-diagram

0
0 40 80 120 160
Strain, ε s [ ] Strain, ε s [ ]

Fig. A7–Stress-strain diagrams of reinforcing steel. Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi

12
(a)
200 (b)

200
932

932
1000

1000
110 640 1120 640 110 110 640 920 950

Fig. A8–Test setup for Slabs A and B: (a) Test 1; (b) Test 2. Note: 1000 mm = 39.37 in.

(a) (b)
2010

2010
485

485
500

500
78

78
1337

1337

275 1600 2360 2315 275 1600 2360 2315

6550 6550

Fig. A9–Test setup for Slabs C and D: (a) Tests 1 and 2; (b) Test 2 (w > 300 mm). Note: 1000

mm = 39.37 in.

13
 G1

αF

2010 + Stroke

2010

G2
735

G2’

G3’
G3
250

328
A

C
w A’
1600

Fig. A10–Rotation of the hydraulic jacks for Slabs C and D. Note: 1000 mm = 39.37 in.

a) b)

αF

110 640 275 1600

2745

gCi gCi

GA = 4.8 kN GA = 25.1 kN
200

500

MC MC
328

w w F sin α F
78

Fig. 11– Structural analysis: (a) Slabs A and B; (b) Slabs C and D. Note: 1000 mm = 39.37 in.;

and 1 kN = 0.225 kips

14
 240 3200
Slab A & B Slab C & D
180 2400
Moment, M C [kNm]

Moment, M C [kNm]
120 1600

60 800

0 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 0 100 200 300 400 500

Deflection, w [mm] Deflection, w [mm]

Fig. A12–Support moment-deflection characteristics: Slabs A, B, C and D. Note: 1 kNm =

0.738 kip⋅ft.; and 1000 mm = 39.37 in.

a) 100 b) 300
200

500

100 200
110 640 300 275 1600 750

Fig. A13–Crack patterns at peak load: (a) Slabs A and B; (b) Slabs C and D. Note: 1000 mm =

39.37 in.

15