Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Extended sandwich model for reinforced concrete slabs in flexure

Thomas Jaeger ⇑
Baenziger Partners Limited Company, Ringstrasse 34, CH-7000 Chur, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, the description of the flexural behavior of orthogonally reinforced concrete slabs with the
Received 21 December 2012 newly developed extended sandwich model is presented. On the basis of a sandwich model, the sandwich
Revised 19 August 2013 covers are treated with the cracked membrane model that considers rotating, stress free cracks as well as
Accepted 20 August 2013
tension stiffening. Bottom and top cover are coupled by using a compatibility condition. The influence of a
Available online 4 October 2013
deviation of the principal shear and moment direction from the direction of the in-plane reinforcement
on the flexural strength is presented and compared with the normal moment yield criterion. Verifications
Keywords:
against experimental data generally show a good agreement. Experimental evidence relating to devia-
Deformation capacity
Finite element modeling
tions of the principal shear and moment direction from the in-plane reinforcement direction is
Flexural strength confirmed.
Limit analysis Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reinforced concrete
Reinforcement
Slabs
Stiffness

1. Introduction
Unlike in beams, the in-plane reinforcement direction of
orthogonally reinforced concrete slabs does normally not coincide
with the principal shear and moment direction. Consider a simply
supported uniformly loaded square slab with restrained corners,
see Fig. 1(a). Based on an analysis of admissible moment fields
[1], the principle shear and moment direction coincide with the
in-plane reinforcement direction in the midst of the edge as shown
in Fig. 1(b) whereas the direction of the principal stress resultants
at the corner deviate from the direction of the in-plane reinforce-
ment, see Fig. 1(c). Regarding flexural strength, theoretical investi-
gations for slab elements in pure torsion [1,2] and corresponding
torsion tests on reinforced concrete slab elements [3] demon-
strated the importance of twisting moments relative to the in-
plane reinforcement directions. Also, tests on reinforced concrete
slab specimens with and without transverse reinforcement [4,5]
showed that a deviation of the principal shear and moment direc-
tion from the in-plane reinforcement direction leads to significant
influences on the strength and deformation capacity of reinforced
concrete slabs. Structural situations where the influence of sub-
stantial twisting moments relative to the in-plane reinforcement
directions should be considered are for example slabs that are sup-
ported on columns and short walls, thick foundation slabs with
concentrated loads or skew supported slabs.
On the basis of a sandwich model [6] for slab elements sub-
jected to transverse shear forces as well as flexural and twisting
moments, a new mechanical model for cracked, orthogonally rein-
forced concrete slab elements with and without transverse rein-
forcement was developed, the extended sandwich model (ESM)
of Jaeger [7–9]. While the sandwich model [8] provides a limit
analysis approach and the most of the commonly used nonlinear
FEM models take into account the influence of transverse shear
forces in an insufficient way, the extended sandwich model en-
ables a proper analysis of bending actions together with transverse
shear forces. Local effects like the punching shear strength are not
treated and the beneficial effect of membrane forces is prudently
neglected because of their sensitivity to unpredictable changes of
the boundary conditions. After a review of previous work on limit
analysis and a discussion of the flexural stiffness on the basis of a
sandwich model, this paper presents the description of the flexural
behavior of orthogonally reinforced concrete slabs with the new
model, a comparison of parametric studies with the normal
moment yield criterion as well as comparisons with experiments
conclude the paper.
2. Previous work
2.1. Limit analysis

Consider an orthogonally reinforced concrete slab element sub-

⇑ Tel.: +41 81 286 9600; fax: +41 81 286 9619. jected to flexural moments mx, my and twisting moments mxy = myx
E-mail address: t.jaeger@bp-ing.ch relative to the in-plane reinforcement directions. The flexural

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.032
2230 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239

(a) m xy
normal moment yield criterion
(yield-line analysis)

modified upper-bound

l/2
solution

A
x
m yu

l/2
mx m yu
B
m xu m xu
y reinforcement
q
my

Fig. 2. Limit analysis: yield conditions for reinforced concrete slabs.

l/2 l/2

whereas Eq. (2) provides an upper-bound solution, noting that the

(b) (c) π x reinforcing meshes are applied on the slab surface and the rein-
4 forcement yields. Note that as = cross-sectional area per unit length
z z
of reinforcement, fsy = yield strength of reinforcement, and
x 0 2 0 2
fc = effective concrete compressive strength. On the basis of a sand-
6 mu mu wich model, Nielsen [1] derived a complete solution within limit
v0 =
l analysis of perfect plasticity that can be written as
6 2 mu
v0 = 2
mu mu l mxyu ¼ fc h xð1  2xÞ ð3Þ
y 1 1 y where x 6 1/4. For very strong in-plane reinforcement ratios,
x > 1/4, only the concrete crushes while the in-plane reinforcement
6 2 mu
6 mu v0 = does not yield; the twisting moment is limited to mxyu = fch2/8.
v0 = l
l According to Eq. (2) results for x = 1/4 a maximum value of
y 1 1
x 0 2 0 2 mxyu = 1.75  fch2/8. Thus, for x = 1/4, the result obtained from
mu
Eq. (2) over-estimates the exact solution according to Eq. (3) by
z z 75%. Decreasing in-plane reinforcement ratios yields a better corre-
spondence between the two solutions. For general load cases, the
Fig. 1. Simply supported uniformly loaded square slab with restrained corners: (a)
system and loading; (b) stress resultants at A; (c) stress resultants at B. considerations that were made for Eq. (3) can be extended to a
modified upper-bound solution of the yield surface, see Fig. 2. Based
on the normal moment yield criterion, the stretched yield surface
contains the solution according to Eq. (3).
strengths for positive and negative moments are denoted by mxu,
The assumption that normal vectors to the median plane of a
myu and m0xu , m0yu , respectively. Comparing the moment capacity
slab remain straight and orthogonal to the median surface during
in a yield-line with the applied moment normal to the yield-line,
deformation results in a linear variation of the strains across slab
one obtains the normal moment yield criterion. It is described by
thickness. Thus, the kinematics of a slab element is described with
the yield criteria
six kinematic parameters; three strains ex0, ey0 and exy0 at median
Y ¼ m2xy  ðmxu  mx Þðmyu  my Þ ¼ 0 ð1aÞ plane and three curvatures vx, vy and vxy. The membrane forces
nx, ny and nxy = nyx as well as the flexural moments mx, my and
Y 0 ¼ m2xy  ðm0xu þ mx Þðm0yu þ my Þ ¼ 0 ð1bÞ twisting moments mxy = myx are determined by introducing the
stress–strain response for each layer [2]. Consider vanishing mem-
that correspond to two conical yield surfaces, see Fig. 2, brane forces one obtains a yield surface of the reinforced concrete


where (mxu  mx P 0), (myu  my P 0), m0xu þ mx P 0 and slab element.
(m0 yu + my P 0). The normal moment yield criterion is based on
kinematic methods of plasticity. Thus, it over-estimates the 2.2. Flexural stiffness
strength in the case of slabs subjected to considerable twisting mo-
ments in the in-plane reinforcement directions and high in-plane Introducing a sandwich model for orthogonally reinforced con-
reinforcement ratios [1,2]. crete slab elements [6], the covers are assumed to carry the flexural
Considering an isotropically reinforced concrete slab loaded in moments mx, my and twisting moments mxy = myx, while the shear
pure torsion, mx = my = 0, the normal moment yield criterion pre- forces are assigned to the core. For the dimensioning of the sand-
dicts an ultimate twisting moment mxyu = mu. Note that wich covers, limit analysis methods or compression field ap-
mxu ¼ myu ¼ m0xu ¼ m0yu ¼ mu . Assuming the effective depth equal proaches can be used. Deviations of the principal shear and
to the slab thickness h and introducing the mechanical reinforce- moment direction from the in-plane reinforcement direction lead
ment ratio x = (asfsy)/(hfc), the ultimate twisting moment can be to a significant softer response [4,5]. Applying a linear compression
expressed as field approach with stress free crack faces and neglecting concrete
2 strains [10], the applied tensile stresses rn and the associated
mxyu ¼ fc h xð1  x=2Þ ¼ mu ð2Þ
strains en perpendicular to the cracks are related by
 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239 2231

(a) (b) Top Cover

zT
mx
nx T = −
dv
x
m xy
z nxyT = −
y my dv
ny T = −
dv
d v Core

z T /2 vx
m yx
mx vx dv vy
h dv my
Bottom Cover
z B /2 m xy vy
zB
mx
nx B =
dv
m xy
nxyB =
my dv
ny B =
dv

(c) ϕ0 x (d) zT
z 0 Top Cover
y Top Cover
ρxT
zT Core f 0 dv
ρyT
m f d cos 2 ϕ 0 2 dv
nx T = − x + 0 v ρz
dv 2 2
ϕ0 x
m xy f 0 d v sin ϕ 0 cosϕ 0
nxyT = − + y
dv 2 z
my f d sin 2 ϕ 0 dv
ny T = − + 0 v
dv 2 Bottom Cover v0 2
dv ρxB ψr0 0
ρyB zB
mx f d cos 2 ϕ 0
nx B = + 0 v
dv 2 zB
Bottom Cover
m xy f d sin ϕ 0 cosϕ 0
nxyB = + 0 v
dv 2
my f d sin 2 ϕ 0
ny B = + 0 v f 0 dv
dv 2
2

Fig. 3. Sandwich model: (a) stress resultants; (b) equivalent forces; (c) forces acting on cover elements; (d) core element.

rn ¼ qn Es en
where Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel, and the ficti-
tious geometrical reinforcement ratio qn in n-direction is given by
qn ¼ qx cos4 un þ qy sin4 un
where un = angle between the normal crack direction and the
x-direction, and qx and qy = in-plane reinforcement ratio related
to the thickness of sandwich cover. Note that the n-direction per-
pendicular to the crack direction corresponds to the principal strain
direction of the cover element. It can be seen that for qx = qy and
un = p/4, the stiffness qnEs drops by a factor of 2 compared to the
case un = 0. Assuming a linear strain distribution across the slab
thickness, the flexural stiffness of the slab element is directly re-
lated to the load deformation response of the bottom and top cover.
ð4Þ where zB and zT denote the effective thickness of the bottom and
top cover. If a transverse reinforcement is required to transfer
the principal shear force v0, the diagonal compression field in
the core will lead to additional membrane forces in the sandwich
ð5Þ covers, see Fig. 3(c) and (d). Note that the additional tensile force f0
and the stress rszr in the transverse reinforcement at the crack face
is related by f0 = qzrszrcot2wr0, where qz = transverse reinforce-
ment ratio and wr0 = inclination of the diagonal compressive stress
field in the cracked core. A comprehensive description of the
treatment of shear forces is presented elsewhere [7–9]. The
in-plane reinforcement is dimensioned with the cracked
membrane model [11,12] that allows to calculate crack spacing
and crack width. It combines the basic ideas of the modified com-
pression field approach [13] with those of the tension chord model
[14,15].

3. Extended sandwich model

3.1. Basic assumptions
Consider a slab element subjected to two transverse shear
forces vx and vy, two flexural moments mx and my and the twisting
moments mxy = myx, see Fig. 3(a). The bottom and top cover has to
resist to equivalent in-plane forces due to flexural and twisting
moments, while the transverse shear is assigned to the core as
shown in Fig. 3(b). The lever arm of the in-plane forces, equal to
the effective shear depth of the core, is given by
dv ¼ h  ðzB þ zT Þ=2
3.2. Cracked membrane model
Crack faces are assumed to be stress free, able to rotate, and per-
pendicular to the major principal direction of the average strains.
Equilibrium is formulated at crack faces, whereas the concrete
principal stress directions at the crack coincide with the average
principal strain directions of the membrane element, see Fig. 4(i)
and (j). The applied stresses rx, ry and sxy correspond to the ap-
plied stress resultants divided by the thickness of the sandwich
cover, rx = nx/z, ry = ny/z and sxy = nxy/z. Thus, the steel stresses rsxr
and rsyr as well as the principal concrete compressive stress rc2r at
ð6Þ the crack face can be expressed by
2232 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239

(a) σs
(b) − σc 2
(c) fc (d)
fcc2/3
f su τb
Esh fc 2.5 τ b0
f sy 1 τ b0
1 0.4 + 30 ε1
Es τ b1
τ b1
1

ε sy ε su εs ε c0 − εc2 ε1 δy δ

sy
sr
(e) o/ y (f) σ sy
z
x
θr
sry sry
2r
srx σsyr
sry
σx
τ yx
sx sry

o/ x
sy
τ xy cot θr
y
σy 1r σc1M −< fct cot θM
(g) (h) − σc 2 r
− σc 2 M
sx
srx srx cot θ
σc 1
− σc 2
σsx sr

σsxr sr

ε tn τ tn
(i) (j) − σc 2 r

X
Xc X
concrete applied
stresses stresses
at crack
2 ϕ1r 1 2r ϕ1r 1r 2a 1a
θr εn θr ϕ1 σn

Pole Yc Y Pole
Y ρy σsyr
Pole
−ε 2 ε1 ρx σsxr

Fig. 4. Cracked membrane model: (a) stress–strain diagram for reinforcement; (b) stress–strain diagram for concrete; (c) compression softening; (d) bond shear stress–slip
relationship; (e) notation; (f) and (g) stresses in reinforcement; (h) principal concrete stresses; (i) strains; (j) applied stresses and concrete stresses at crack.

rsxr ¼ ðrx þ sxy cot hr Þ=qx ð7aÞ e2c2 þ 2ec2 ec0

rc2 ¼ fc ð9Þ
ec0
rsyr ¼ ðry þ sxy tan hr Þ=qy ð7bÞ
where ec0 = concrete strain at peak compressive stress, and
ec2 = concrete principal strain. Compression softening is considered
rc2r ¼ sxy =ðsin hr cos hr Þ ¼ sxy ðtan hr þ cot hr Þ ð7cÞ with the function
where hr = angle between the crack direction and the x-direction, 2=3
ðfcc Þ
and qx and qy = in-plane reinforcement ratio related to the thick- fc ¼ ð10Þ
0:4 þ 30e1
ness of sandwich cover. Considering the average total strains
ex = esxm, ey = esym and e2 = ec2, the inclination hr of the principal where fcc = cylinder compressive strength in MPa and
strain direction 2 to the x-axis is determined from e1 = ex + ey  e2 = major principal strain perpendicular to the direc-
tion of the compression field. Tension stiffening is treated using a
2 ey  e2 stepped, rigid-perfectly plastic bond shear stress-slip relationship
cot hr ¼ ð8Þ
ex  e2 according to Fig. 4(c). For the bond shear stresses prior to and after
onset of yielding of the reinforcement, it was suggested to assume
refer to Fig. 4(i), whereas the strains relative to the in-plane rein- sb0 = 2fct and sb1 = fct, where fct = 0.3(fcc)2/3 = tensile strength of con-
forcement directions correspond to the average steel strains. crete in MPa. The average steel strain esm as a function of the steel
The reinforcing steel is modeled with a bilinear stress–strain stress rsr at the crack face can be expressed by
diagram as defined in Fig. 4(a) while the concrete compressive
stress rc2 at the crack is given by a parabolic stress–strain
rsr sb0 sr
esm ¼  ; ðrsr  fsy Þ ð11aÞ
relationship Es ØEs
 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239 2233

2  
ðrsr  fsy Þ Ø Esh sb0 rsr  fsy sb0 fsy sb0 sr (a) < n 1i and n 1i > 0
E1: n 2i −
esm ¼ 1 þ  þ  ;
4Esh sb1 sr Es sb1 Es sb1 Es ØEs
x
ðrs;min  fsy  rsr Þ ð11bÞ z ϕ1i
1i 1i
rsr  fsy fsy sb1 sr θri 2i
esm ¼ þ  ðrs;min  fsy Þ; ð11cÞ n 1i z
Esh Es ØEsh zi
where Ø = diameter of the reinforcement bar, sr = crack spacing rel- 1 ri
2 ri n 1i
ative to the reinforcement direction, fsy = yield strength of reinforce-
ment, rs,min = minimum steel stress between cracks and Es and n 2i n 2i
Esh = modulus of elasticity and strain hardening of reinforcing steel, 2i y
respectively.
Considering a set of parallel, uniformly spaced cracks in an x
orthogonally reinforced concrete panel as shown in Fig. 4(e), the y
z
relation between the crack spacing sr and the crack spacing srx z i /2
and sry for uniaxial tension in the x- and y-directions are given by z ε xi , ε yi , ε xyi
z i /2 i
sr ¼ srx sin hr ¼ sry cos hr ð12Þ − fc −
< σc 2 ri −
< 0
Fig. 4(f) and (g) illustrate the steel stress distribution between the
cracks. Observing that for the maximum crack spacing the concrete (b) < n 1i −
E2: n 2i − <0
tensile stress at the center between the cracks reaches the concrete
x
tensile strength, the maximum crack spacing srx0 and sry0 for uniax- z ϕ1i
ial tension in the x- and y-directions can be written as
1i 1i
Øx ð1  qx Þ Øy ð1  qy Þ 2i z
srx0 ¼ ; sry0 ¼ ð13Þ n 1i
4q x 4qy zi

where Øx and Øy = diameter of the reinforcement bar. The crack − σc 2 i

− σc1i
spacing srx and sry in a fully developed crack pattern is limited by n 2i
srx0 sry0 2i y
6 srx 6 srx0 ; 6 sry 6 sry0 ð14Þ
2 2
1i
According to Fig. 4(h) the concrete tensile stress at the center 2i
between two consecutive cracks cannot be greater than the con- z
crete tensile strength. Analogous to Eq. (14) results for the crack z i /2
z ε1i ε 2i
spacing sr the limitation z i /2 i ε1i ε 2i
sr0 − εc 0 −
< ε 2i − < ε1 i −
< 0 = ε 12 i
6 sr 6 sr0 ð15Þ < σc 2 i −
− fc − < σc1i < ε 2i = 2 ε 2 i −
> − 2 εc 0 −
< ε1i
2 − 0
With regard to the shear strength, the extended sandwich mod-
Fig. 6. Sandwich cover elements: (a) Type E1 – uniaxial compression field; (b) Type
el considers solely maximum crack spacing whereas the crack E2 – biaxial compression field.
widths reach a maximum. In this case, an approximate value of
the maximum crack spacing can be derived as
 1
sin hr cos hr
sr ¼ sr0 ¼ þ ð16Þ
srx0 sry0
(a) x (b) x where the crack inclination hr can be found from a numerical anal-
z ϕ1 z ϕ1 ysis, whereas the total average steel strains ex and ey in Eq. (8) are
1 1 directly linked to the crack spacing taking account of the tension
chord model. Thus, the crack width wr can be approximately
expressed as
m1 m1
wr ¼ sr e1 ð17Þ

m2 −m2
2 y 2 y
m 1 > m 2 > 0 ( 0 > m 1 > m 2) m1 < 0 < m2
zT εx εy ε xy
2
zT − − −
dv zT dv zT ε xT ε yT ε xyT
dv
2 2 h χx χy χ xy
1 1 y 2
2 dv h 2 dv h ε x0 εy 0 ε xy 0
2 x dv
zB zB 2 + + +
zB 2 ε xB ε yB ε xyB
z z zB
z 2
Fig. 5. Thickness of sandwich cover elements: (a) principal moments of equal sign;
(b) principal moments of unequal sign. Fig. 7. Kinematic considerations: strain variation across slab thickness.
2234 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239

(a) ρy σsyr
τ tn ε tn
concrete 2 rT
stresses Y Y applied
at crack
c
stresses
Y − θrT 2T
− θrT
2r 2a 1r 1a 2 1 z
− θrT σn εn ϕ1T x

X 1rT ϕ1rT
X
Xc ρx σsxr 1T
y

(b) ρx σsxr
τ tn ε tn
concrete X
stresses X c X applied
at crack stresses
2r 2a 1r 1a 2 1 z
θrB σn θrB εn θrB ϕ1B x
ϕ1rB
2 rB
Y Y 2B 1B
Yc ρy σsyr y 1r
B

(c) εx εy εxy θr ε1 ε2
zT /2 −
ε xT ε yT ε xyT _ θ rT _ ε1T ε2T
y + + + z
dv
x + θr ϕ1rx
+ +
zB /2 ε xB ε yB ε xyB θrB ε1B − ε2B 2r y 1r

Fig. 8. Combination of Type E1 and Type E1: (a) top cover – Type E1; (b) bottom cover – Type E1; (c) strain variation across slab thickness.

(a) τ tn ε tn diagram four times

enlarged compared
Xc X a to (b) !
X
1a 1r 2 1
θrT θrT z
σn εn
θrT x
2 a 2r Yc Ya Y ϕ1rT = ϕ1T
2 rT 2 T
y 1rT 1T

(b) τ tn ε tn
ρy σsyr
concrete Y 2B
stresses Yc Ya applied 2rB
at crack stresses
2r − θrB 1r 2a 1a 2 − θrB 1 − θrB z
σn εn ϕ1B x

ρx σsxr Xa 1B ϕ1rB
X 1r B y

(c) z T /2
z
zT ε tT ε2T ϕ1rB
θrT x
n z T /2 h θrB ϕ1rT ϕ1 T
dv 2rT 2T t
t 1rB
2rB
zB ε tB z B /2 y 1rT 1T n
z

(d) εx εy εxy θr ε1 ε2
z T /2 − − −ε −θ
ε xT ε yT xyT rT ε1T ε2T
z T /2
y z
dv + − θr
x
+ ϕ1rx
+ + ε1B
z B /2 + ε xB ε yB ε xyB θrB ε2B 2r y 1r

Fig. 9. Combination of Type E1 and Type E2: (a) top cover – Type E2; (b) bottom cover – Type E1; (c) compatibility considerations; (d) strain variation across slab thickness.
 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239 2235

neglecting the concrete strain perpendicular to the crack face. element thickness is determined by a compatibility condition in
the direction of the major principal compressive force n2i, assum-
ing that relative to the principal compressive direction 2i the strain
3.3. Sandwich cover elements at the edge of the element facing to the core vanishes. Thus, at the
slab surface results an edge strain that is twice the major principal
Generally, the thickness of the sandwich cover depends on the compressive strain, e02i ¼ 2e2i .
stress state of the slab as shown in Fig. 5. Observing equilibrium,
it is assumed that the middle plane of the cover elements coincide
3.4. Compatibility conditions
with the middle plane of the reinforcing meshes except for slab
elements subjected to principal moments of equal sign, see
Assuming that the strains in the middle plane of the sandwich
Fig. 5(a), that only require an in-plane reinforcement on one side.
covers are characteristic for the deformation behavior as well as
Corresponding to the stress state, two general types of sand-
a linear strain distribution across the slab thickness as shown in
wich cover elements are introduced as shown in Fig. 6. For Type
Fig. 7, one gets the equations
E1, at least one principal stress resultant has to be positive, n2i 6 n1i
and n1i > 0, while the thickness is given by the in-plane reinforce- exB þ exT exB  exT
ment and the element can be treated according to the cracked ex ðzÞ ¼ ex0 þ zvx ¼ þz ð18aÞ
2 dv
membrane model. Type E2 is subjected to compression forces only,
n2i 6 n1i 6 0, whereas an existing reinforcement is neglected. The eyB þ eyT eyB  eyT
ey ðzÞ ¼ ey0 þ zvy ¼ þz ð18bÞ
2 dm

(a) exyB þ exyT exyB  exyT

x exy ðzÞ ¼ exy0 þ zvxy ¼ þz ð18cÞ
fcc = 50 MPa 2 dm
z ϕ
fsy = 500 MPa Thus, the deformation behavior of the slab is described with
θr n
fsu = 600 MPa three curvatures vx, vy and vxy as well as three strains ex0, ey0
Es = 205 GPa and exy0 at median plane of the core.
2r m nu εc 0 = 0.002 Fig. 8 illustrates a slab element subjected to stress resultants
ε su = 0.1 leading to a combination of Type E1 and Type E1 cover element.
o/ x = o/ y = 20 mm
1r
t y
(a) x
1rT fcc = 50 MPa
zT z ϕ
fsy = 500 MPa
ωx = 0.1 π n
m nu θrT fsu = 600 MPa
h t ωx = 0.2 4
n 2 Es = 205 GPa
ωx = 0.3 m tnu
θrB εc 0 = 0.002
zB ωx = 0.4
ε su = 0.1
2 rB 1 rB o/ x = o/ y = 20 mm
π
z ϕ 1= ϕ + zB = zT
y 4
t
2 rT 1
(b)
1.5 zT
normal moment normal moment ωx = 0.1
yield criterion yield criterion h
t ωx = 0.2
1.0 m tnu n ωx = 0.3
m nu zB ωx = 0.4
m xu
0.5
z
ωx = ωy ωx = ωy
z B = 0.2 h z B = 0.4 h
0 (b)
1.5 1.5
normal moment normal moment
yield criterion yield criterion

normal moment normal moment

1.0 yield criterion yield criterion
1.0
m nu m tnu
m xu m tnu π4
0.5 0.5
ωx = 2 ωy ωx = 2 ωy ωx = ωy ωx = ωy
z B = 0.2 h z B = 0.4 h z B = 0.2 h z B = 0.4 h
0 0
0 π π 0 π π 0 π π 0 π π
4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2
ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ

Fig. 10. Uniaxial flexural strength depending on the load direction: (a) notation; (b) Fig. 11. Torsional strength depending on the load direction: (a) notation; (b)
uniaxial flexural strength compared with normal moment yield criterion. torsional strength compared with normal moment yield criterion.
2236 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239

Hence, the effective depth in shear dv is established so that the bot-
tom and top cover can be independently dimensioned.
For a combination of Type E1 and Type E2 cover element, the
membrane thickness of Type E2 has to be solved in an iterative
manner. Fig. 9(a) and (b) shows an example whereas the top cover
and bottom cover corresponds to a Type E2 element and a Type E1
element, respectively. The compatibility condition is formulated
relative to the direction of the major principal compressive force
(t-direction) of Type E2 element, see Fig. 9(c), one obtains
2etT etB
¼ ð19Þ
zT dm  zT =2
for the unknown element thickness zT of Type E2 element. The
strain etB in the bottom cover is given by
etB ¼ e1B sin2 ðhrB  hrT Þ þ e2B cos2 ðhrB  hrT Þ
where e1B and e2B = principal strains in the bottom cover, and hrB
and hrT = angle between the crack direction and the x-direction in
the bottom and top cover. Fig. 9(d) depicts the strain variation with
the associated principal strains and principal strain direction.
3.5. General numerical method
For any given set of applied stress resultants mx, my, mxy, vx and
vy and considering the compatibility conditions, the deformation
behavior of the slab element as a function of three curvatures
and three strains at median plane of the core can be determined
in an iterative manner.
results are obtained within limit analysis of perfect plasticity [1,2].
Note that the mechanical in-plane reinforcement ratio is given by
asx fsy asy fsy
xx ¼ 2=3
; xy ¼ 2=3
ð21Þ
2:5ðh  zB =2Þðfcc Þ 2:5ðh  zB =2Þðfcc Þ
where asx and asy = cross-sectional area per unit length of reinforce-
ment, and fsy = yield strength of reinforcement.
Fig. 10 depicts the notation and the results of a slab element
subjected to a rotating uniaxial flexural moment mnu where mxu
denotes the flexural strength in x-direction. It can be seen that
the uniaxial flexural strength decreases with increasing deviation
of the load direction from the direction of the in-plane reinforce-
ment, whereas the thickness of the sandwich covers has a signifi-
cant influence on the strength. For a deviation u brittle concrete
ð20Þ failure occurs in the bottom cover due to the inclined uniaxial com-
pression field before yielding of the in-plane reinforcement. Espe-
cially for thin sandwich covers with high in-plane reinforcement
ratios, the normal moment yield criterion overestimates the
strength.
Fig. 11 shows the notation and the results of a slab element sub-
jected to a rotating twisting moment mtnu. Note that the torsional
strength mtnu(p/4) correlates to the strength of a slab element
loaded to principal flexural moments mxu = myu relative to the
in-plane reinforcement direction. The torsional strength is directly
influenced by the load direction u and the thickness of the sand-
wich covers, whereas the concrete strength normally limits the
strength of the slab element. Only for low in-plane reinforcement

3.6. Parametric studies (a) x

ϕ0
z
A parametric study was carried out to demonstrate the influ-
n
ence of a deviation of the principal moment direction from the
direction of the in-plane reinforcement on the flexural strength.
Figs. 10 and 11 show normalized strength-load direction diagrams
according to the extended sandwich model, allowing a direct com-
parison with the normal moment yield criterion. Contrary to the
normal moment yield criterion [1], the extended sandwich model
t y
considers the interaction between concrete shear and normal
stresses due to twisting and flexural moments relative to the direc-
tion of the in-plane reinforcement. Regarding strength, comparable (b) F ρz
500

Table 1 t n
Basic data of own experiments.
w bL
z
Test B1V2 B3V2 B4V2 B5V2 275 a = 1600 2360 2315
b = bB (mm) 2000 2000 2000 2000 6550
h (mm) 500 500 500 500
bL (mm) 200 200 200 200
bT (mm) 1697 2000 1697 1950 (c) F g
dm (mm) 390 405 420 435
a (mm) 1600 1600 1600 1600 V
a/dm (–) 4.103 3.951 3.810 3.678
u0 (°) 45 0 45 0 h
asx (mm2/m) 7069 7069 4712 4712 M
asy (mm2/m) 7069 3534 4712 3534 w bL /2
Øx = Øy (mm) 30 30 30 30 a
Øz (mm) 20 14 14 14
qn (%) 1.538 1.745 0.952 1.056
qz (%) 0.611 0.308 0.154 0.154
fcc (MPa) 52.4 53.7 54.2 51.8 (d) zT
fsy(x,y) (MPa) 561 561 561 561 dm h
fsu(x,y) (MPa) 663 663 663 663
esu(x,y) (–) 0.1247 0.1247 0.1247 0.1247
Es(x,y) (GPa) 209.8 209.8 209.8 209.8 bT
fsy(z) (MPa) 532 538 538 538 b = bB
fsu(z) (MPa) 629 617 617 617
esu(z) (–) 0.1476 0.1204 0.1204 0.1204
Es(z) (GPa) 201.9 203.1 203.1 203.1 Fig. 12. Comparison with experiments: (a) plan; (b) test concept; (c) free-body
diagram of cantilever; (d) effective width of top cover (Note: Dimensions in mm).
 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239 2237

1.2
B3V2, ρn = 1.75%, ϕ 0 = 0 B4V2, ρn = 0.95%, ϕ 0 = π /4

0.8
[ ]
d v Asn fsu
M

B1V2, ρn = 1.54%, ϕ 0 = π /4 B1V2, ρn = 1.54%, ϕ 0 = π /4

0.4

ESM ESM
Experiment Experiment

1.2
B3V2, ρn = 1.75%, ϕ 0 = 0 B5V2, ρn = 1.06%, ϕ 0 = 0

0.8
[ ]

B5V2, ρn = 1.06%, ϕ 0 = 0
d v Asn fsu
M

B4V2, ρn = 0.95%, ϕ 0 = π /4
0.4

ESM ESM
Experiment Experiment

0
0 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 0 .1 2 0 0 .0 4 0.08 0 .1 2
w[ ] w[ ]
a a

Fig. 13. Comparison with experiments: normalized support moment–deflection diagrams.

Table 2
Summary of test results.

Test Mu,exp Vu,exp su,expa wu,exp Mu,ESM Vu,ESM su,ESMb wu,ESM Mu,exp/Mu,ESM Vu,exp/Vu,ESM wu,exp/wu,ESM
(kN m) (kN) (MPa) (mm) (kN m) (kN) (MPa) (mm) (–) (–) (–)
B1V2 2421 1480 1.90 72.1 2357 1494 1.91 58.8 1.027 0.991 1.226
B3V2 3218 1984 2.45 46.1 2962 1852 2.29 57.9 1.086 1.071 0.796
B4V2 1934 1193 1.42 59.1 1792 1139 1.36 64.5 1.079 1.047 0.916
B5V2 2394 1470 1.69 65.9 2244 1402 1.61 85.6 1.067 1.049 0.770
Average 1.065 1.039 0.927
Standard deviation 0.026 0.034 0.209
Coefficient of variation 0.025 0.033 0.226
a
su,exp = Vu,exp/(bdm).
b
su,ESM = Vu,ESM/(bdm).

ratios in combination with thick sandwich covers the in-plane
reinforcement reaches the yield strength.
Generally, compared to the normal moment yield criterion the
extended sandwich makes it possible to treat flexural and twisting
moments relative to the direction of the in-plane reinforcement in
a satisfactory manner.
4. Comparisons with test data
Jaeger and Marti [4,5] conducted 28 tests to failure on fourteen
reinforced concrete slab specimens to investigate the influence of a
deviation of the principal shear and moment direction from the
direction of the in-plane reinforcement. In this paper the results
in accordance with the extended sandwich model are compared
with four selected tests on 500 mm thick slabs. These slabs are se-
lected as they all contained a transverse reinforcement enforcing a
ductile flexural failure. Basic data of the geometries and the mate-
rial properties are given in Table 1. The test concept with the asso-
ciated notation is illustrated in Fig. 12. Applied loads and support
reactions are spread uniformly across the slab width b = bB to pro-
duce uniform conditions in the t-direction. Note that the effective
width bT of the top cover is due to the bar spacing and the anchor-
age of the in-plane reinforcement.
Fig. 13 shows normalized support moment–deflection dia-
grams, allowing a direct comparison of the different slab speci-
mens. Deflections w are normalized by the shear span a. Support
moments M are normalized by dvAsnfsu where Asn = qndmb is the
effective cross-sectional area of the in-plane reinforcement in the
n-direction. Calculated and experimentally observed peak support
moments and shear forces with associated nominal shear stresses
and deflections are listed in Table 2.
In general, the computations agree well with the experiments. A
deviation u0 of the principal shear and moment direction from the
direction of the in-plane reinforcement leads to a softer response.
The slab specimens with an in-plane reinforcement direction of
u0 = 0 exhibit a flexural stiffness that is approximately twice that
of those with an in-plane reinforcement direction of u0 = p/4. For
slab specimens B1V2 and B4V2 with u0 = p/4, the smaller flexural
2238 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239

stiffness corresponds to larger concrete strains in the flexural com- b slab width
pression zone, resulting in a decreased flexural strength. bB, bT effective width of bottom and top cover
The calculations according to the extended sandwich model bL width of support plate
predict the same failure conditions as experimentally observed. dm average effective depth
The slab specimens B3V2 and B5V2 with u0 = 0 fail by yielding of dv effective depth in shear
the in-plane reinforcement and crushing of the concrete in the Es modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel
flexural compressive zone. For slab specimen B1V2 with u0 = p/4, Esh modulus of strain hardening of reinforcing steel
the peak compressive stress in the bottom and top cover is F applied jack force
achieved almost simultaneously; slab specimen B4V2 with f0 uniformly distributed stress in principal shear
u0 = p/4 as well fails by crushing of the concrete in the flexural direction
tension zone before arriving at the concrete strength in the flexural fc effective concrete compressive strength
compressive zone. fcc cylinder compressive strength of concrete
Regarding shear, the computations in Fig. 13 contain the influ- fct concrete tensile strength
ence of shear forces on the load deformation response and the cor- fsu ultimate strength of reinforcement
responding procedure is given elsewhere [7–9]. fsy yield strength of reinforcement
Due to the limited availability of experimental results on slab g dead load of cantilever
specimens with arbitrary deviations of the principal shear and mo- h slab thickness
ment direction from the direction of the in-plane reinforcement, l slab span
future experimental and theoretical investigations on isotropic M flexural moment at support
and orthotropic reinforced concrete slabs promise further progress. Mu,exp observed ultimate flexural moment at support
Mu,ESM computed ultimate flexural moment at support
5. Conclusions m1, m2 principal flexural moment per unit length
mnu flexural strength per unit length in n-direction
The extended sandwich model combines a sandwich model [6] mtnu torsional strength per unit length in n- and t-
with the basic concepts of the cracked membrane model [11,12]. It direction
allows the analysis of the flexural strength and the deformation mx, my flexural moment per unit length in x- and y-
behavior of slab elements subjected to general load conditions. direction
A deviation of the principal shear and moment direction from mxu, myu flexural strength per unit length in x- and y-
the direction of the in-plane reinforcement results in a significant direction
reduction of the flexural stiffness as well as a decrease of the flex- mxy twisting moment per unit length in x- and y-
ural strength. Utilization of the normal moment yield criterion direction
leads especially for high in-plane reinforcement ratios to an over- mu flexural strength per unit length
estimation of the flexural strength for load cases with substantial n, t coordinate
twisting moments relative to the in-plane reinforcement. nx, ny, nxy stress resultants per unit length in sandwich cover
The computations according to the introduced extended sand- sr crack spacing, diagonal crack spacing
wich model agree well with the available experimental evidence. sr0 maximum diagonal crack spacing
Future research should concentrate on the implementation of the srx, sry crack spacing in x- and y-direction
computational procedure in a FEM code, allowing a deepened ver- srx0, sry0 maximum crack spacing in x- and y-direction
ification of the extended sandwich model with available experi- sx, sy bar spacing in x- and y-direction
mental evidence. Finally, the model should be completed by V shear force at support
supplementing the stress resultants of the slab element with mem- Vu,exp observed ultimate shear force at support
brane forces. Vu,ESM computed ultimate shear force at support
v0 principal shear force per unit length
Acknowledgments
vx, vy shear forces per unit length in x- and y-direction
w deflection
The writer would like to express his grateful thanks to Professor
wr crack width
Peter Marti, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) for
wu,exp observed deflection at ultimate support moment
enabling research on the shear strength and the deformation
wu,ESM computed deflection at ultimate support moment
capacity of reinforced concrete slabs. Financial support from the
x, y coordinate
association of the Swiss cement industry (Cemsuisse) as well as
z thickness of sandwich cover
from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) is
d bond slip
gratefully acknowledged.
dy bond slip at beginning of steel yielding
e1, e2 principal strain
Appendix A. Notation
ec0 concrete strain at peak compressive stress
ec2 concrete strain
The following symbols are used in this paper:
en strain perpendicular to crack direction
es steel strain
Asn effective cross-sectional area of the reinforcement esm average steel strain
in n-direction esu ultimate steel strain
a shear span esxm, esym average steel strain in x- and y-direction
as cross-sectional area per unit length of esy yield strain of steel
reinforcement ex, ey, exy strain in x- and y-direction
asx, asy cross-sectional area per unit length of ex0, ey0, strain at median plane of core in x- and y-direction
reinforcement in x- and y-direction exy0
 T. Jaeger / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 2229–2239 2239

hr angle between x-axis and crack direction References

qn effective geometrical in-plane reinforcement ratio
[1] Nielsen MP. Limit analysis of reinforced concrete slabs. Civil engineering and
in n-direction building construction series, no. 26. Acta Polytechnica, Scandinavica; 1964.
qx, qy, qz geometrical reinforcement ratio in x-, y- and z- [2] Marti P, Kong K. Response of reinforced concrete slab elements to torsion. J
direction Struct Eng ASCE 1987;113(5):976–93.
[3] Marti P, Leesti P, Khalifa WU. Torsion tests on reinforced concrete slab
rc1, rc2 principal concrete stress
elements. J Struct Eng ASCE 1987;113(5):994–1010.
rc1M, principal concrete stress between two consecutive [4] Jaeger T, Marti P. Versuche zum Querkraftwiderstand und zum
rc2M cracks Verformungsvermögen von Stahlbetonplatten (Tests on the shear strength
rc2r principal concrete stress at crack and the deformation capacity of reinforced concrete slabs). Report no. 294.
Zurich, Switzerland (in German): Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH;
rn applied stress perpendicular to crack direction 2006.
rs steel stress [5] Jaeger T, Marti P. RC slab shear prediction competition: experiments. ACI Struct
rs,min minimum steel stress between cracks J 2009;106(3):300–8.
[6] Marti P. Design of concrete slabs for transverse shear. ACI Struct J
rsr steel stress at crack 1990;87(2):180–90.
rsx, rsy steel stress in x- and y-direction [7] Jaeger T. Querkraftwiderstand und Verformungsvermögen von
rsxr, rsyr, steel stress in x-, y- and z-direction at crack Stahlbetonplatten (Shear strength and deformation capacity of reinforced
concrete slabs). Report no. 305. Zurich, Switzerland (in German): Institute of
rszr Structural Engineering, ETH; 2007.
rx, ry axial stress in x- and y-direction [8] Jaeger T. Extended sandwich model for reinforced concrete slabs: shear
sb bond shear stress strength without transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct 2013;56(11):1142–53.
[9] Jaeger T. Extended sandwich model for reinforced concrete slabs: shear
sb0, sb1 bond shear stress prior to and after onset of steel strength with transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct, submitted for publication.
yielding [10] Gambarova PG. On aggregate interlock mechanism in reinforced concrete
su,exp observed nominal shear stress plates with extensive cracking. Final report, IABSE colloquium on advanced
mechanics of reinforced concrete, vol. 34. International Association for Bridge
su,ESM computed nominal shear stress
and Structural Engineering, IABSE; 1981. p. 99–120.
sxy shear stress in x- and y-direction [11] Kaufmann W. Strength and deformations of structural concrete subjected to
u0 angle between x-axis and 0-axis (principal shear in-plane shear and normal forces. Report no. 234. Zurich, Switzerland:
direction) Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH; 1998.
[12] Kaufmann W, Marti P. Structural concrete: cracked membrane model. J Struct
u1 angle between x-axis and principal direction of Eng ASCE 1998;124(12):1467–75.
applied stress resultants [13] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression field theory for reinforced
u1r angle between x-axis and principal strain concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 1986;83(2):219–31.
[14] Alvarez M. Einfluss des Verbundverhaltens auf das Verformungsvermögen von
direction in sandwich cover Stahlbeton (Influence of the bond behavior on the deformation capacity of
un angle between x-axis and normal crack direction reinforced concrete). Report no. 236. Zurich, Switzerland (in German):
in sandwich cover Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH; 1998.
[15] Marti P, Alvarez M, Kaufmann W. Tension chord model for structural concrete.
vx, vy, vxy curvature in x- and y-direction Struct Eng Int IABSE 1998;8(4):287–98.
wr0 crack inclination in sandwich core relative to
principal shear direction
xx , xy mechanical in-plane reinforcement ratio in x- and
y-direction
0 principal shear direction
1, 2 principal direction of applied stress resultants in
sandwich cover
1r, 2r principal strain direction in sandwich cover
Ø reinforcing bar diameter
Øx, Øy, Øz reinforcing bar diameter in x-, y- and z-direction