ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 103-S80
One-Way Shear Strength of Thick Slabs and Wide Beams
by Edward G. Sherwood, Adam S. Lubell, Evan C. Bentz, and Michael P. Collins
While the basic expression for one-way shear in ACI 318-05 is the
same for narrow beams, wide beams, and slabs, an engineer is
permitted to design to higher shear stresses in the latter two cases
before shear reinforcement is mandated. There is concern that
these current provisions can be unconservative when applied to
thick slabs or large, wide beams. This paper discusses nine recent
tests designed to investigate these concerns. Member width was
observed to have no significant effect on the shear stress at failure
for one-way slabs and for wide beams. Further, the presence of
shrinkage and temperature reinforcement did not influence the
one-way shear capacity. Based on the experimental results and
related narrow slab strip tests from the literature, the paper concludes
that the ACI 318-05 shear provisions can result in inadequate levels of
safety for both thick slabs and large wide beams.
Keywords: beams; reinforced concrete; slabs; temperature reinforcement.
INTRODUCTION
In the design of buildings, modern architectural
constraints are pushing engineers to provide longer clear
spans at a reasonable cost. At the same time, there is a need
to minimize the overall structural depth, which can be
achieved through the use of wide beams or thick structural
slabs. When thick slabs are used, the time savings in
construction due to the simplicity of formwork, reinforcement
placement, and access by following trades can significantly
enhance the cost effectiveness of the overall project.
The ACI 318-05 Building Code1 requires that the shear
capacity of slabs be checked against both beam action, where
the critical section extends in a plane across the entire width
of the slab (that is, one-way shear), and two-way action,
where the failure involves punching out of a truncated cone
around a concentrated load or reaction. Design guides2,3
recommend that in checking one-way shear, engineers may
consider a slab as a series of narrower strips of arbitrary
width. Thus, the design procedure for a 300 mm (1 ft) wide
slab strip would be identical to that of a 300 mm (1 ft) wide
beam for the calculation of sectional shear demands. Based
on ACI 318-05,1 however, the useable sectional shear capacity
of the slab strip would be twice that of the geometrically
identical narrow beam if shear reinforcement was not
provided. Considerable research4-8 has shown that the basic
ACI expression for the shear capacity of large, narrow,
lightly reinforced beams can be highly unconservative. For
narrow beams, this deficiency is largely mitigated by the
requirement to reduce the useable fraction of Vc by 50%.
Both wide beams and slabs, however, are exempted from
this requirement and, hence, questions can be raised about
the shear safety of such members. Lubell et al.4 demonstrated
that by applying the provisions for wide beams, a prototype
large wide specimen fully conforming to the ACI 318-05
provisions could fail at a load less than the corresponding
design service load in shear. An extensive research program at
the University of Toronto is currently focused on formulating
794
TECHNICAL PAPER
shear design provisions that provide consistent safety across
the full range of member types. This paper provides results
from part of this program, which addressed the influence of
member width and the presence of shrinkage and temperature
reinforcement, two factors that may influence the shear
capacity of slabs.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A substantial number of tests have shown that the ACI
equations for the shear strength of large, lightly reinforced
narrow beams not containing shear reinforcement can be
seriously unconservative.4-8 These tests include members
subjected to both uniformly-distributed loading and the
concentrated loading that is more typical of large transfer
elements. The research presented in this paper indicates that
one-way shear behavior in wide beams and slabs is similar to
that in narrow beams, with no significant influence on the
shear capacity from member width or from shrinkage and
temperature reinforcement. This implies that it is appropriate to
use similar design procedures in checking the one-way shear
capacity of narrow beams, of wide beams, and of slabs.
ACI 318-05 SHEAR PROVISIONS
The ACI 318-05 Code specifies that the nominal shear
strength of a reinforced concrete section subjected to shear
and flexure, which does not contain shear reinforcement, can
be taken as (ACI 318-05, Eq. (11-3)):
( V c = 0.166 f c′ b w d ) (MPa units ) (1a)
( V c = 2 f c′ b w d ) (psi units ) (1b)
This expression, developed for the ACI 318-63 Code9,10
on the basis of 194 tests having an average size of 194 mm
(7.6 in.) wide by 340 mm (13.4 in.) deep, was intended to
be a conservative estimate of the average shear stress at
which diagonal shear cracks form. In the absence of shear
reinforcement to control these cracks, this was believed to
be an appropriate estimate of the shear strength of the
member. It is of interest that only four members in the original
data set had shear strengths below that given by Eq. (1),
while no result was below 88% of the predicted strength.
Because this expression was developed using tests on
relatively shallow members, it was not identified at the time
that the average shear stress at failure decreases as the
member depth increases.4-6,11 In 1971, the ACI code was
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 6, November-December 2006.
MS No. 05-180 received July 22, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 2006, 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 September-October 2007
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2007.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006

ACI member Edward G. Sherwood is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Civil
Engineering at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. His research
interests include improving infrastructure durability by integrating modern materials, reha-
bilitation techniques, and analytical methods with current reinforced and prestressed con-
crete design practices.
ACI member Adam S. Lubell is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He received his PhD from the
University of Toronto. His research interests include the design and rehabilitation of
reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, and the development of structural
detailing guidelines to allow for the use of high-performance materials.
ACI member Evan C. Bentz is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of Toronto. He is a member of ACI Committee 365, Service Life Prediction,
and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. His research interests
include the mechanics of reinforced concrete, service life modeling, and the creation of
practical tools that transfer reinforced concrete research into the engineering community.
Michael P. Collins, FACI, is University Professor and Bahen-Tanenbaum Professor of
Civil Engineering at the University of Toronto. He is a member of ACI Committees
318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 318-E, Shear and Torsion; 318-G, Precast
and Prestressed Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion.
His research interests include the development of rational and consistent shear design
specifications for structural concrete applications.
adjusted12 to require minimum levels of shear reinforcement
in narrow beams once the factored shear exceeded 0.5φVc.
This was partly to compensate for the detrimental effects of
unexpected tensile force, which was believed to be the cause
of a series of shear failures in Air Force warehouses.13 No
such change in requirements was made for several member
classifications, however, including wide beams with width-
to-height aspect ratios exceeding 2, and for slabs. For these
cases, the full value of φVc could be used prior to requiring
shear reinforcement. The commentary in Section R11.5.6.1
of ACI 318-05 discussing these exceptions notes that wide
beams and slabs are “excluded from the minimum shear
reinforcement requirement because there is a possibility of load
sharing between weak and strong areas.”1 This assumption
becomes questionable when a nearly uniform shear demand
exists across the full width of a one-way spanning member.
It is also important to note that commentary accompanying
the original 1971 exclusion wording12 identified the applicable
wide beam types as shallow, but this qualifier was removed
in later editions. Because large transfer slabs or wide beams
are often sized in thickness to avoid the need for shear
reinforcement, the importance of correctly predicting the
capacity of these members is critical.
The development of the 1963 ACI shear provisions is
explained in a report by ACI-ASCE Committee 326 entitled
“Shear and Diagonal Tension.”9 As part of the discussion of
this report, Diaz de Cossio14 offered new data from 57 tests
investigating width effects on the one-way shear capacity of
beams. Diaz de Cossio’s specimens can be characterized as
being heavily reinforced in flexure (approximately 2%
reinforcement) and rather shallow, with effective depths
typically less than 170 mm (6.7 in.). From these tests, Diaz
de Cossio asserted that the width-to-effective-depth (bw /d)
ratio was a significant parameter in predicting shear capacity. By
modifying the basic ACI 318 shear expression with this ratio, he
obtained better test-to-predicted-strength ratios for the data set.
In light of current knowledge concerning the size effect in shear,
where the shear stress at failure decreases as the member depth
increases, a reexamination of his data is warranted. Typical
results from Specimens A8.5-34A and A8.5-34B and
A34-8.5A and A34-8.5B in Reference 14, for example,
suggest a very different relationship than that proposed by
Diaz de Cossio. The Specimen A8.5 beams had dimensions
of bw = 85 mm (3.35 in.) and d = 340 mm (13.4 in.), while
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006
the Specimen A34 beams had bw = 339 mm (13.35 in.) and
d = 86 mm (3.4 in.). Thus, the two sets of beams had essentially
identical values of shear area bwd, but bw and d were
interchanged. The narrower (and taller) specimens failed
at the lowest shear stress of all of Diaz de Cossio’s beam
results, at approximately 0.187 f c ′ (MPa units), while the
shallow, wider companions failed in flexure while carrying
over twice the shear stress. Furthermore, the Specimen A8.5
beams have the lowest value of test-to-predicted results using
Diaz de Cossio’s modified equation, at 0.76, indicating that
the proposed model was ill-suited to deeper members.
Overall, these results cannot justify the claim that bw/d
directly affects the shear capacity of a wide member, when
the more relevant influence of the absolute value of d has
not been fully considered.
The influence of member width on the shear stress at
failure was also investigated by Kani.11 His test series
compared the capacities of 610 mm (24 in.) wide by 305 mm
(12 in.) deep beams with 162 mm (6 in.) wide by 305 mm
(12 in.) deep companion beams, at shear span-to-depth ratios
(a/d) of 3, 4, 5, and 6. The failure shear stresses in the wide
beams were within 10% of the failure shear stresses of the
corresponding narrow beams. Thus, in contrast to Diaz de
Cossio, Kani concluded that the width-to-depth ratio had no
significant influence on the shear stress at failure.
Shear by member classification
To evaluate the validity of ACI 318-05’s higher permitted
shear stresses in thick slabs or large wide beams, compared
to narrow beams, it is necessary to examine the member
characteristics that differentiate these three categories. A
principal difference is the width of the member: a wide beam
must have a width-to-height ratio exceeding 2, while slabs
will typically have much larger ratios. Slabs are required to
contain shrinkage and temperature reinforcement orthogonal
to the main flexural reinforcement, while beams have no
such requirement. Slabs have no requirement for distributed
crack control reinforcement over the member height, while
large beams must provide some crack control reinforcement
along the side faces. The cover requirements for slabs are
generally smaller, but because no accounting of this criterion
is provided separate from the average concrete contribution
in the Vc term, this is not of significant interest in the present
study. Slabs typically contain lower percentages of flexural
reinforcement than beams, and are permitted to have lower
minimum quantities of reinforcement. Finally, the dead-to-
live load ratios, or loading patterns, of slabs and beams may
vary. This is not a concern with regard to capacity predictions,
but would influence the relative levels of safety.
The present study is focused on members subjected to
concentrated loads applied such that a designer might
assume that the loads could be approximated as evenly
distributed over the member width. The experimental series
were designed to investigate the member geometry—both
width and height—and the temperature reinforcement
aspects of the slab, wide beam, and narrow beam classifications.
EFFECTS OF MEMBER WIDTH
ACI 318-05 provisions dictate different one-way shear
capacities between narrow beams and wide beams due to
member width, with slabs treated in a similar fashion to
wide beams. To address this distinction, the AT-2 series of
shear critical specimens was designed and fabricated with
member width as a principal test parameter.
795
Specimen design
Details of the five specimens in the AT-2 series are
provided in Fig. 1 and Table 1. The specimens were
constructed to a nominal thickness of 470 mm (18.5 in.) and
varied in width from 250 to 3005 mm (9.8 to 118.3 in.).
The widest specimen, shown at a load close to failure in
Fig. 2, represented a three-bay, one-way spanning transfer
slab. The companion specimens represented single bays and
narrow design strips taken from the larger slab. The three
different cross sections can be thought of as a slab, a wide
Fig. 1—Series AT-2 specimens for evaluating influence of
member width.
796
beam, and a narrow beam. All of the members contained the
same bar size and spacing for the longitudinal reinforcement.
Each longitudinal bar had a cross-sectional area of 500 mm2
(0.775 in.2) and yield strength of 465 MPa (67.4 ksi). The
wider specimens contained temperature reinforcement,
while the 250 mm (9.8 in.) wide specimens did not. The five
specimens were cast simultaneously using ready mixed
concrete, with a specified 28-day strength of 25 MPa
(3625 psi). At the time of testing, the strength was close to
40 MPa (5800 psi). The concrete was made using crushed
limestone aggregate with a specified maximum aggregate
size of 10 mm (3/8 in.). The members were designed to be
shear critical, with nominal flexural capacities approximately
30% higher than the corresponding nominal shear capacities
when predicted by the ACI 318-05 Code.
Experimental setup
The specimens spanned 2600 mm (102.3 in.) and were
each subjected to point loads applied at midspan, resulting in
an a/d of approximately 3.0, which is within the range for
which ACI 318-05’s sectional shear models apply. The
concentrated loads were applied through 152 x 152 mm
(6 x 6 in.) steel bearing plates on the top centerline of the
specimens in a force-controlled manner.
Specimens AT-2/250A and AT-2/1000B were supported
by 152 x 152 x 50 mm (6 x 6 x 2 in.) neoprene bearing pads
mounted on top of instrumented steel pedestals. A 12 mm
(0.5 in.) thick steel contact plate was placed between the
neoprene and the concrete. This arrangement provided a
relatively flexible support, which allowed horizontal
translation and bearing rotation with minimal restraint.
Specimens AT-2/250B and AT-2/1000A were supported
on conventional steel rollers with 152 mm (6 in.) steel
bearing plates across the full width of the specimens, but
maintained the 152 x 152 mm (6 x 6 in.) loading plate
dimensions at midspan.
For the three bay, 3 m (9.8 ft.) wide AT-2/3000 specimen,
three concentrated loads were evenly spaced across the
width of the specimen, and three neoprene pad assemblies
were used at each end for the supports. These supports were
at the locations marked with arrows in Fig. 2, with the specimen
spanning left to right. A stiff spreader beam attached to the
loading machine provided approximately equal loads into
each strip. The total load including the weight of the apparatus
was recorded from the machine head, with additional load
cells at each point load. Some variation in the magnitude of
each applied load occurred, however, near failure; these load
Fig. 2—Testing of Specimen AT-2/3000.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006
cells indicated that the three concentrated loads applied 33, failed at the lowest shear stress. This result is contrary to the
34, and 33% of the total load, for the west, center, and east loca- assumptions in the ACI 318-05 provisions, which permit
tions respectively.15 Electrical resistance strain gauges higher shear stresses in slabs and wide beams.
affixed to measure vertical strains on the four faces of each High resolution photographs were taken at a rate of
supporting steel pedestal were used to confirm the load paths approximately three frames per second for one side face on
and lateral restraint forces. Displacement transducers monitored each specimen. A load indicator display visible in each
the horizontal concrete movement on the underside of each photograph allowed for a correlation of crack development
specimen near the supports to confirm that minimal restraint history with the pre- and post-peak response of the specimens.
was provided by the supports. As shown in Fig. 5 and 6 for the cases of Specimen AT-2/
Electrical strain gauges were placed on the flexural and 250B and AT-2/3000, the typical cracking sequence
temperature reinforcement in each specimen. Locations consisted of: 1) flexural cracking in the high moment
were selected to investigate variations in bar forces in the region; 2) spreading of inclined flexural cracks towards the
column strips and middle strips. Vertical displacement supports; 3) extension of diagonal shear cracks from the
measurements were recorded from displacement transducers to upper ends of flexural cracks to approximately two-thirds of
capture differential deformations across the width of the the specimen height; 4) a drop in the displayed load indicating
members. The absence of slip between the longitudinal peak capacity achieved; 5) extension of the shear cracks
reinforcement and the surrounding concrete in the toward the loading plate; and 6) development of longitudinal
anchorage zone prior to the shear failure was confirmed cracking along the flexural reinforcement towards the support.
using displacement transducers connected to a high-speed Due to the typically brittle failure mode observed, Steps (4)
data acquisition system, to measure the movement of some through (6) occurred reasonably quickly, over approximately
reinforcing bar ends relative to the concrete surface. 40 photograph frames or approximately 15 seconds for
Each specimen was loaded with approximately seven load
increments up to failure. At each load stage, the load was
decreased approximately 10% for safety while the face
cracks were marked, measured using comparator gauges,
and photographed. Safety considerations prevented a
detailed examination of crack patterns on the underside of
the specimens. Continuous recording of displacements and
reinforcement strains were provided throughout the loading
history. Each test for the narrower specimens took
approximately 2.5 hours to complete. In the case of Specimen
AT-2/3000, the loading was halted after four load stages and
a peak load of approximately 2000 kN due to concerns with
lateral stability of the overall setup.15 The specimen was
unloaded, and the stability concerns were resolved. The
specimen was retested the following day with four additional
load steps prior to failure. To simplify comparisons, only the
load-deflection envelope is presented in this paper.

Experimental results
The load-deflection relationships for the five specimens,
normalized per meter width, are presented in Fig. 3. The
flexibility of the neoprene allowed some bending perpendicular
to the principle spanning direction in Specimen AT-2/3000,
resulting in the center bay column strip appearing approxi-
mately 15% less stiff than the outer column strips (Fig. 4).
The results provided in Table 1, which have been
corrected for self-weight of the specimen to a critical section
d from the edge of the support plate, show that specimen
width had no significant influence on failure shear stress. It Fig. 3—Load-displacement relationships for Series AT-2
is interesting to note that the 3 m (118.3 in.) wide specimen specimens.

Table 1—Series AT-2 tests to investigate width effects on shear in one-way slabs
Specimen bw, mm h, mm d, mm fc′, MPa ρlong, % ρtemp, % Support size, mm PTEST, kN VTEST, kN/m VTEST, MPa VACI , MPa VTEST /VACI
AT-2/250A 250 469 437 37.7 0.915 — 152 x 152 229 467 1.07 1.03 1.04
AT-2/250B 252 471 439 38.5 0.904 — 252 x 152 224 453 1.03 1.04 1.00
AT-2/1000A 1002 471 439 39.0 0.909 0.190 1002 x 152 942 479 1.09 1.04 1.05
AT-2/1000B 1002 470 438 37.9 0.911 0.191 152 x 152 880 448 1.02 1.03 0.99
AT-2/3000 3005 472 440 40.6 0.908 0.190 3 at 152 x 152 2564 436 0.99 1.06 0.93
Average 1.04 1.00
Coefficient of variation, % 3.80 4.67
Note: fc′ indicates cylinder strength on day of test; PTEST represents applied machine load including apparatus weight; VTEST represents applied shear force adjusted for specimen
self-weight at ACI 318 critical section for beam shear.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006 797

Specimen AT-2/3000. The crack development photographs
indicate that the longitudinal cracks along the reinforcement
occurred after failure and were not the initiators of the failure.
The cracking patterns observed on the side faces of all of
the members in the Specimen AT-2 series were of similar
shape, location, height, and width at comparable load stages.
After failure of the widest specimen, the concrete above the
primary failure crack was removed as a single unit. The
resulting surface (Fig. 7) showed a very uniform crack
shape, with only minor undulations occurring in the vicinity
of the loading points. A similar uniform crack shape from a
2 m (78.7 in.) wide beam failing in shear was reported by
Lubell et al.4 In the present test, the maximum crack widths
measured near the lower edge of Specimen AT-2/3000 after
reaching 94% of the failure load were 0.25 mm (0.010 in.). For
such a slab in an actual structure, only the cracks on the bottom
surface would be visible, appearing to be flexural cracks, and
these small crack widths would be of little cause for concern.
Nevertheless, when the load on the slab was increased by just
7%, the slab failed with the deflection at the peak load being
less than one five hundredth of the span.
Leonhardt and Walther16 tested a series of slab strips
under four-point loading, using supports that were the full
width of the test specimens. One of the loading plates on the
top face of each specimen was full width, while the other
loading plate was only approximately 15% of the member
width. Seven out of nine specimens reported to have failed in
shear did so on the side with the narrow loading plate,
suggesting an influence of loaded width not much greater
than typical experimental scatter. Serna-Ros et al.17 reported
on tests of shallow, wide members that did not contain shear
reinforcement, in which three specimens had full width load
and support conditions and one specimen had full width
loads but support widths that were each 40% of the member
width. The specimen with the narrow support conditions had
a shear capacity ranging from 85 to 105% of the three
companion specimens with full width conditions, after

Influence of load and support details

The tests in the AT-2 series included loads narrower than
the member and both full- and partial-width support sizes,
consistent with design practice. For both cases, ACI 318-05
would require the designer to evaluate the one-way shear
capacity by considering a cross section through the entire
member width. The relatively uniform failure surface shape
of Specimen AT-2/3000 (Fig. 7) suggests that this is appropriate
for the geometry considered. However, it is important to
understand the effect that the load and support details may
have on the actual shear capacity.

Fig. 4—Load-displacement relationships for each bay in Fig. 5—Crack development sequence, Specimen AT-2/250B
Specimen AT-2/3000. (crack widths in mm).

798 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006

normalizing the results by the square root of the concrete to load the entire width of the specimen evenly. Full width
strength. In the current study, reducing the width of the rollers and bearing plates were provided at each end, to allow
support to 15% of the member width for Specimen AT-2/ rotation and prevent axial restraint, which was verified by
1000B, reduced the failure load by approximately 5% when monitoring horizontal movements by means of dial gauges.
compared with Specimen AT-2/1000A. Instrumentation included electrical resistance strain gauges
This limited data supports the idea that load and support
points narrower than the specimen may have a small detrimental
effect on the shear capacity of a one-way spanning member.
Thus, evaluation principles adopted in design codes must be
sufficiently conservative to account for geometric variations
that occur in practice. The width ratios evaluated in the
present study are within this practical range.

EFFECTS OF SHRINKAGE AND

TEMPERATURE REINFORCEMENT
The ACI 318-05 Code requires that a minimum quantity of
reinforcement be provided in slabs orthogonal to the main
flexural reinforcement. A large slab may be partially
restrained against shrinkage and temperature movements
and thus subject to cracking. To minimize and control the
quantity, spacing, and widths of these cracks, temperature
reinforcement is required in the amount of 0.0018Ag for
Grade 60 steel, at a maximum bar spacing not exceeding five
times the slab thickness or 450 mm (18 in.).
It is important to note that the design code does not require
a specific vertical location for this reinforcement within the
slab. It is often placed as part of the continuous bottom
reinforcement mat, but a portion may be placed as part of an
upper mat at locations of negative moment over support
beams or columns. Thus, the temperature reinforcement may
be located on either the flexural tension or the flexural
compression side of the member. In the present study, only
reinforcement on the tension side is considered because it is
unlikely that reinforcement in the uncracked compression
zone would have a significant effect on the diagonal tension
cracking modes associated with one-way shear capacity.

Specimen design
The AT-3 test series was designed to evaluate the influence of
shrinkage and temperature reinforcement on the one-way
shear capacity of slabs. This test series consisted of four
members nominally 338 mm (13.2 in.) high by 700 mm
(27.5 in.) wide, with a central span of 2080 mm (81.9 in.).
The details of the specimens in the AT-3 series are provided
in Table 2 and Fig. 8. Two of the specimens contained
shrinkage and temperature reinforcement, while two did not.
The shrinkage and temperature reinforcement was well Fig. 6—Crack development sequence, Specimen AT-2/3000
anchored by means of standard 180-degree hooks within a (crack widths in mm).
horizontal plane (refer to Fig. 9). Each specimen contained
an identical configuration of longitudinal reinforcement
bars, each having a cross-sectional area of 500 mm2
(0.775 in.2) and a yield strength of 450 MPa (65 ksi). The
specimens were simultaneously cast using ready mixed
concrete containing 20 mm crushed Manitoulin Limestone
aggregate, with a nominal specified strength of 25 MPa and
expected strength of approximately 35 MPa. Thus, the
expected nominal flexural capacity was approximately 17%
greater than the expected nominal shear capacity, according
to ACI 318-05.

Experimental setup
All of the tests in the AT-3 series were conducted using
similar setup and test procedures. A single concentrated load
was applied at midspan, acting through a stiff spreader beam, Fig. 7—Failure crack surface of AT-2/3000.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006 799

on the flexural and temperature reinforcement, as shown in
Fig. 9. Displacement transducers were used to monitor
variations in the vertical deformations across the width of
the specimens.
Each specimen was loaded with approximately five load
increments to failure. At each load stage, the load was
reduced approximately 10% for safety and the crack patterns
and widths were marked and photographed. Continuous
recording of displacements, reinforcement strains, and the
average shear strains on one face of the members were
provided throughout the loading history. Each test took
approximately 2 hours to complete.
Experimental results
The results provided in Table 2, which have been
corrected for self-weight of the specimen to a critical section
d from the edge of the support plate, show that there was no
significant difference in the strength of the members with
and without temperature reinforcement. The load-deflection
relationships for the four members are shown in Fig. 10. All
of the beams failed in one-way shear. Electrical resistance
strain gauges at midspan of the two outer bars in each
specimen showed no indications of yielding in Specimens
AT-3A and AT-3B, and a small degree of nonlinear
response in one out of two bars in each of Specimens AT-3C
and AT-3D.
Electrical strain gauges installed at mid-width of some of
the temperature reinforcement bars provided the opportunity
to assess its effectiveness. Figure 9 illustrates the variation in
strain over the length of the specimen. Tensile strains larger
than those associated with concrete cracking were recorded,
with higher values near midspan. This is consistent with the
formation of some longitudinal cracking in the vicinity of the
flexural bars in the high moment region, and the strains
quickly stabilized. Because no discernible difference in
shear capacity was evident between specimens with and
without temperature reinforcement, however, its presence
does not appear to have resulted in any significant difference
in overall behavior.
No significant difference in the shape, location, or width
of the cracks was evident for the four beams in the present
study. Figure 11 shows the extent of cracking in each
specimen after failure.

EFFECTS OF MEMBER DEPTH

Fig. 8—Series AT-3 specimens for evaluating influence of
shrinkage and temperature reinforcement.
Over the past 40 years, there have been a large number of
studies5,6,11 on relatively narrow beams, documenting the
decrease in shear stress at failure that occurs as member depth
increases, for members that do not contain shear reinforcement.
This has been called the size effect in shear. The tests in the
AT-2 and AT-3 series presented in this paper and the test of

Fig. 9—Strain gauge readings at load stages, AT-3B and AT-3D.

Table 2—Series AT-3 tests to investigate influence of temperature reinforcement on one-way shear
Specimen bw, mm h, mm d, mm fc′, MPa ρlong, % ρtemp, % a/d PTEST, kN VTEST, kN/m VTEST , MPa VACI, MPa VTEST /VACI
AT-3A 697 339 307 37.5 0.93 — 3.39 475 346 1.13 1.02 1.10
AT-3B 700 338 306 37.8 0.93 0.19 3.39 506 367 1.20 1.03 1.17
AT-3C 706 338 306 37.1 0.93 — 3.39 517 371 1.21 1.02 1.19
AT-3D 706 339 307 37.1 0.93 0.19 3.39 497 357 1.16 1.02 1.14
Average 1.18 1.15
Coefficient of variation, % 3.28 3.36
Note: fc′ indicates cylinder strength on day of test; PTEST represents applied machine load including apparatus weight; VTEST represents applied shear force adjusted for specimen
self-weight at ACI 318 critical section for beam shear.

800 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006

the AT-1 series previously reported,4 demonstrate that the
failure shear stresses of slabs, wide beams, and narrow beams are
all very similar, if the members have the same depth, the same
concrete, the same loading ratios, and the same percentage of
longitudinal reinforcement. Thus, it is quite appropriate to use
test results from narrow beams to assess the safety of current
shear design methods for slabs and wide beams.
While the ACI shear design equations neglect the size
effect, a simple expression that accounts for this effect has
been proposed by Lubell et al.4
208
V c = ---------------------- f c ′b w d ( MPa units )
1000 + s e
100
V c = ---------------- f c ′b w d ( psi units )
38 + s e
with f c ′ not taken greater than 8.3 MPa (100 psi).
This expression considers the effect of member depth
through its influence on crack spacing by means of an
effective crack spacing term se. For members without
shear reinforcement and without longitudinal bars distributed
over the height for crack control, the crack spacing at mid-
depth is proportional to member depth. Larger members will
have larger crack spacing and hence larger crack widths. The
shear stress that can be transmitted across such cracks
decreases as the crack width increases and as the aggregate
size decreases. The recommended expression to account for
these effects is
31.5d
s e = ----------------- ( in mm )
a g + 16
1.24d
s e = ---------------------- (in inches)
a g + 0.63
Fig. 10—Load-displacement relationships for Series AT-3
specimens.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006
In members made of high strength concrete, cracks pass
through the aggregate rather than around the aggregate,
reducing the influence of aggregate size on crack roughness
as the concrete strength increases. Thus, when fc′ exceeds
70 MPa (10,000 psi), it is appropriate to take the maximum
aggregate size ag as zero when evaluating se. A linear
reduction in the aggregate to zero as fc′ goes from 60 to
70 MPa (8500 to 10,000 psi) is suggested to avoid a sharp
discontinuity in predicted strengths.
To illustrate the influence of the size effect parameter se on
failure shear stress, Fig. 12 compares the results from the
nine experiments described in this paper, and the 40 tests
(2a)
tabulated by Lubell et al.4 with the predictions of Eq. (1) and
(2). It can be seen that while Eq. (2) does a good job of
approximating the trend of the experimental results, Eq. (1)
(2b) becomes unconservative as the effective crack spacing
parameter increases.
Thick transfer slabs exceeding 750 mm (30 in.) are
becoming more prevalent in industrial practice and represent
one significant area of concern. If we consider that most
large transfer elements will have a ratio of dead load to live
load greater than 3, ACI 318-05 load and resistance factors
would indicate that the nominal shear capacity should be
approximately 1.7 times the service load in shear. This
means that the service load shear stress can reach approxi-
mately 0.098 f c ′ (MPa units) (1.18 f c ′ [psi units]). From
Fig. 12, the predicted shear strength from Eq. (2) will be less
than the corresponding ACI service load when the effective
crack spacing se exceeds approximately 1150 mm (47 in.).
This would correspond to effective depths of approximately
1280 mm (52 in.) for normal strength concrete having a
(3a) maximum aggregate size of 19 mm (3/4 in.). It must be stressed
(3b)
Fig. 11—Crack patterns at failure for Series AT-3 specimens
(crack widths in mm, at approximately 95, 99, 96, and 90%
of failure load).
801

Fig. 12—Effective crack spacing relationship with shear stress.
that these are depths at which the very thick slab is predicted
to collapse at service loads.
CONCLUSIONS
This investigation has demonstrated that the width of a
member does not have a significant influence on the shear
stress at failure. Similarly, the presence of shrinkage and
temperature reinforcement in a slab does not alter the one-
way shear stress at failure from that of a geometrically
identical beam without such reinforcement. Thus, ACI 318-05’s
provisions, which dictate different levels of useable shear
capacity for slabs, wide beams, and narrow beams are not
appropriate. Furthermore, because narrow design strips have
been shown to behave in shear in a similar manner to wider
members, the well-established size effect of decreasing shear
stress at failure as the member depth increases also applies to
wide beams and thick one-way slabs. It is recommended that
a reformulation of ACI 318-05’s basic expression for shear
strength be developed to better predict the shear capacity of
members regardless of depth or classification. The results of
one such method have been shown to provide good agreement
with the size effect trend in shear. In the interim, to ensure
adequate safety, it is recommended that slabs and wide
beams greater than 600 mm (24 in.) in depth that do not
802
contain shear reinforcement be designed for beam-shear
using Eq. (2).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The experimental research described in this paper was funded by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The
authors would like to thank this organization for its long-term support
of the shear research program at the University of Toronto. The assistance of
undergraduate student G. Potter during the construction and testing of the
specimens is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
2. MacGregor, J. G., and Wight, J. K., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and
Design, 4th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2005,
1314 pp.
3. “PCA Notes on ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete with Design Application,” Portland Cement Association, Skokie,
Ill., 2005, 1008 pp.
4. Lubell, A.; Sherwood, T.; Bentz, E.; and Collins, M. P., “Safe Shear
Design of Large Wide Beams,” Concrete International, V. 26, No. 1, Jan.
2004, pp. 66-78.
5. Shioya, T., “Shear Properties of Large Reinforced Concrete Members,”
Special Report, Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corp., Japan, No. 25, Feb.
1989, 198 pp.
6. Collins, M. P., and Kuchma, D., “How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly
Reinforced Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings?” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug. 1999, pp. 482-490.
7. Angelakos, D.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Effect of Concrete
Strength and Minimum Stirrups on Shear Strength of Large Members,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 3, May-June 2001, pp. 290-300.
8. Bentz, E. C., “Empirical Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Shear
Strength Size Effect for Members without Stirrups,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 102, No. 2, Mar-Apr. 2005, pp. 232-241.
9. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, “Shear and Diagonal Tension,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 1, 2, and 3, Jan., Feb., and Mar. 1962,
pp. 1-30, 277-344, and 352-396.
10. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-63),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich, 1963, 144 pp.
11. Kani, G. N. J., “How Safe are Our Large Concrete Beams?” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 64, No. 3, Mar. 1967, pp. 128-142.
12. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-71),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 1971, 104 pp.
13. Elstner, R. C., and Hognestad, E., “Laboratory Investigation of
Rigid Frame Failure,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 53, No. 1, Jan.
1957, pp. 637-668.
14. Diaz de Cossio, R., “Shear and Diagonal Tension,” discussion 59-9,
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, Sept. 1962, pp. 1323-1332.
15. Lubell, A. S., “Shear in Wide Reinforced Concrete Members,” PhD
dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada, May 2006,
455 pp.
16. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., “The Stuttgart Shear Tests, 1961,” Trans-
lation No. 111, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1964, 134 pp.
17. Serna-Ros, P.; Fenandez-Prada, M. A.; Miguel-Sosa, P.; and Debb,
O. A. R., “Influence of Stirrup Distribution and Support Width on the Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Wide Beams,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 54, No. 3, June 2002, pp. 181-191.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2006