Materials and Structures, 1992, 25, 224-230

The shear strength of extruded hollow-core slabs

A. P I S A N T Y *
School of Architecture and Engineering, The Polytechnic of Central London, 35 Marylebone Road,
London N W1 5LS, UK

The shear strength of extruded prestressed precast hollow-core slabs, investigated

experimentally and analytically, is reported. Ten slab specimens have been tested, all failin9 in
the shear mode (six in shear tension mode). The analysis explores ways of employin9 existin9
procedures for predictin9 the shear capacity. It is concluded that modification of the FIP
recommendations would lead to a better approximation of the test results.

For FIP [5]:

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
Some aspects of the design of hollow-core slabs (shear in
particular) are still a cause of some concern. Codes and
other recommendations are largely extrapolations of
methods proved for circumstances rather different from
those in the vicinity of the ends of hollow-core units,
where bearings are usually short and the prestressing
force is not fully developed. Added to this, the normal
production method of extrusion may result in the
formation in these elements of concrete, the features and
strength Of which are not properly represented by
the standard concrete strength monitoring procedures.
Finally, in spite of being a principal load-bearing
structural element, these slabs are exempted from the
mandatory minimum shear reinforcement due to production limitations.
Current design methods are supported by a limited
number of researches, including work by Beeker and
Beuttner [1,2], the Eindhoven group [3] and Walraven
and Mercx [4], who had a major impact on the FIP
recommendations [5].
This paper reviews the basis of the shear design in
some codes and reports of an experimental investigation
of the shear resistance [6]; the results are discussed with
reference to the aforementioned review and recommendations are made.

O.068bwd 1 +

VRa, , =

~dJ\~J

+ M~ ~

(2)

For ACI [8]:

V~i = ~ 0.6(f'c)l/2bwd + Vd + Mmax cr.]

(3)

where V,, VRd11, V~i = design shear strength in regions

cracked in flexure (according to the code). For details of
the terms in Equations 1-3 reference to the relevant codes
is to be made. Equations 1-3 yield design strengths. In
order to compare failure loads at tests with estimates
provided by these equations they have to be transformed
to ultimate limit strengths (failure), which may result in
differences while bringing them to a common denominator
due to differences in material safety factors. Also, in
their calibration there may be differences due to unequal
contributions from each of the two main parts in these
equations.
As a consequence, it is preferable to regard these
equations as producing a global value of shear capacity
for the purposes of comparison. For uncracked regions
the following expressions are offered in the aforementioned codes. For BS 8110 [7]:

V~o = 0.67bvh(f 2t + 0.8fcvf) 1/2

(4)

For FIP [5]:

2. SHEAR STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

Ibw

VRdl2 = y

A C C O R D I N G TO EXISTING CODES
Current knowledge and practices, as reflected in the
codes, distinguish between the shear strength evaluated
at cracked in flexure versus uncracked regions of the
prestressed concrete members. For cracked regions the
relevant expressions are as follows. For BS 8110 [7]:
V~r=

1-0.55

v~bvd+Mo~

(I)

* Permanent address: Department of Civil Engineering, Technion,

Haifa 3200, Israel.
0025-5432/92(C) RILEM

(fetd "Jr"0.9Ctacpf~td)1/2

(5)

For ACI [8]:

V~w = (o{[3.5(f'c) 1/2 + 0.3fpc]bwd + Vp}

(6)

where V~o, VRd12, V~w = design shear strength in regions

uncracked in flexure. Here again reference for the various
terms is to be made to the respective codes.
It is easier to compare Equations 4-6 as they are
strength-of-material derivatives, adjusted for concrete.
Equations 2 and 5, part of the FIP recommendations
[5], are due to Walraven and Mercx [4]. Equation 5 is

Materials and Structures

225

radically modified relative to the original formulation [4]

which was in the form
Vuk = 0.75

I~bw
2
S (f~t,sp + 0~O'Nfct,sp) 1/2

(7)

where /ct.sp : concrete average tensile splitting strength

and 0.75 = overall reduction factor. Equation 7 produced
considerably higher values than Equation 5. Comparisons
made in the following with the derivation of Walraven
and Mercx will be related partly to Equation 5 [5] and
to Equation 7 [4].
The shear resistance in cracked regions is a complex
topic involving numerous parameters to be investigated
and their relative importance to be assessed. It is felt that
at this stage insufficient experimental evidence is available.
The shear capacity in uncracked regions is a more
narrowly defined topic; thus it is believed that on the basis
of the accumulated experience (experimental also) the
formulations that assess shear capacity could be improved. That is attempted here on the basis of new
experimental evidence and a new outlook on shear
capacity evaluation.
3. SHEAR CAPACITY IN U N C R A C K E D
REGIONS
3.1 Basic considerations
For independent evaluation of the shear strength in
uncracked regions, it is necessary to focus on the
following questions:
1. What is the actual concrete tensile strength relevant
for this assessment?
2. What will be the appropriate compressive stress due
to prestressing, to be accounted for in combination with
the aforementioned tensile strength?
3. At what section should this assessment be carried
out?
4. Is there any justification for an overall reduction
factor (0.75 by Walraven and Mercx [4]) and if yes, what
should it be?

view of the fact that the technique employed for isolating

the test specimens may have reduced their actual strength.
Therefore, the unperturbed strength can only be higher.
In order to view the results of this experimental analysis
in a broad perspective it is observed that:
(a) The FIP recommendations [11] suggest that the
characteristic concrete flexural strength is in the range
of 8-10% of its compressive strength, for fck ~ 50 MPa.
(b) The relation for characteristic flexural versus
compressive strengths in the German codes is about 8.5%
(for fly ~ 45 MPa).
(c) The CEB Model Code [12], its 1990 draft [13]
and the EC 2 draft [14] all estimate the characteristic
flexural strength of concrete at about f~k ~ 50 MPa to
be in the vicinity of 9.5-10% of the compressive strength.
(d) The last two drafts [13,14] assume a ratio of 1.1
between the splitting and axial concrete tensile strengths,
and 0.55 between the splitting and flexural tensile
strengths.
It may be concluded, in view of the above observations,
that the flexural tensile strength obtained from the
experimental investigation [10] is of the expected order
of magnitude, though rather low.
Walraven and Mercx [4] claim a ratio of flexural
tensile to compressive strength of about 8.8%, which is
very well within the observations made above. On the
other hand, they report a ratio of a splitting to flexural
tensile strength of 0.887, later reduced to 0.748, which
even at this reduced level is too high and well outside
the accepted range.
A concluding remark is that the concrete in the web
is in a biaxial state of stress (principal tension and
transversal principal compression). Tests (e.g. those of
Kupfer [15]) indicate that in this combination the tensile
strength is reduced compared with the uniaxial tensile
strength. A question is whether a reduced uniaxial tensile
strength should not be applied for assessment of the shear
strength capacity. The average splitting strength may be
too high.
3.3 Compressive stress due to prestressing

3.2 Concrete tensile strength

Tests were carried out [9,10] to investigate directly the
actual (in situ) concrete tensile strength of the webs.
Prismatic specimens containing the webs of the slabs
were isolated and tested according to the code-specified
procedure to verify the concrete flexural tensile strength
in extruded hollow-core slabs 200 and 300 mm thick. The
results may be summarized as follows:
1. The concrete quality varied slightly from bottom to
top of the slabs. This, an inevitable outcome of the casting
process, diminishes with increase of the slab web
thickness.
2. Flexural tensile strength varied between 8 and 9.5%
of the characteristic compressive strength, with an
average of about 8.5%. This is an absolute minimum in

The uncertainty as to the appropriate compressive stress

due to prestress, in conjunction with the formerly
discussed tensile strength, to produce the failure under
discussion could be resolved indirectly: the producer, in
line with his interest (in most cases), will apply the
maximum prestressing force, the lesser of 0.80fpk or
0-90fpo. lk stress level (jacking force) according to most
codes [7,11]. Losses of about 8% for the stresses
immediately after transfer may be assumed (before further
losses), leaving the force as the lesser of 0.75fpk or
0.85fp0,1k. This issue is addressed in detail here due to
the rather obscure way it is mentioned elsewhere.
For the particular investigation conducted here the
prestressing force is taken as
Fp = 0.80fpk(1 -- 0.08)Ap

(8)

226
No further reductions should be made from this value
when analysing the test data, bearing in mind that the
tests are conducted at the ultimate limit (not design load)
level and no time-dependent losses should be considered,
which means that the value considered here is an absolute
maximum.

Pisanty

P
E
E

a)

J
-

L=1930mm

3.4 Section for verification of shear capacity and

transfer of prestress to concrete
The section where assessment of the shear capacity is
attempted is within the transfer length, where the effect
of prestressing is incomplete. As acknowledged by
Walraven and Mercx [41 and BS 8110 [71, the most
probable section where shear crack initiates is at a
distance Yb (the centroidal distance from the bottom face
of the stab) from the inner edge of the support (where
the most unfavourable shear crack is projected under a
very conservative assumption of 45 ~ inclination).
As for the stress build-up in the concrete section due
to prestress transfer, some sort of parabolic distribution
is accepted for most reinforcing and equally for prestressing bars, and in particular for twisted prestressing
strands. This is clearly accepted by all sources [4,5,7,81.
Walraven and Mercx [4] and FIP [5] assume a
conservative position by claiming that the prestressing
force to be taken into consideration for the compressive
stress at distance Yb from the edge of the support is that
at the face of the support. The actual meaning of this
concept is that force begins to spread from the inner face
from the support towards the centroid in the direction
of the span, which would leave the part of the element
above the support (above the centroid and left of line
a - a in Fig. 5 below) virtually unstressed. It is, however,
known that tllis region is very vulnerable to cracking due
to tensile stresses arising from the prestress closely above
the support [161, which can only be due to the
prestressing effectively taking place over the support as
well. There are, on the other hand, reports on excessive
slip of the strands [17], the consequence of which is a
delay in the effect of the transfer of prestressing.
In view of the above-mentioned, a parabolic distribution
with some overall reduction is believed to reflect
reasonably well the stress state in the transfer area. This
is the concept in BS 8110 ['7] - an assumption of a
parabolic distribution with a reduction factor of 0.80, an
approximate estimate for the effect of slip, in the absence
of a better estimate.
4. E X P E R I M E N T A L I N V E S T I G A T I O N
A series of tests was conducted as part of the investigation
of the shear capacity of prestressed precast hollow-core
slabs. The tests [6] are briefly described here, with the
main parameters listed in Table 1.
Ten specimens were tested, all from extruded prestressed
precast hollow-core slabs, 300 mm thick. The selection
of the 300 mm thickness was made on the basis that, for
the range of thicknesses produced, the ratio ~ bw/b

b)

I.o.O.OiOiO.O0.
SPEC. 1 - 4

SPEC. 9 - - 1 0

c)

).oo.I

Fig. 1 Test specimens and loading scheme.

(overall web width to slab width) was the lowest, enabling
one to attain a clear shear failure mode (Fig. 1).
Four specimens were slabs 900 mm wide (full slab
width) (Fig. lb). Six additional specimens were obtained
by dividing two full-width slabs into three parts each,
thus obtaining four side specimens, numbered 5-8, and
two central specimens, numbered 9 and 10 (Fig. lc). The
concrete characteristic strength as measured in 120 mm
cubes was the equivalent of 47 MPa, measured in 150 mm
cubes. Prestressing was introduced by eight wire strands
having 1770 MPa tensile strength: six q~ = 89in. (12.7 mm)
bottom strands and two 4) = ~ in. (5.6 mm) top strands
(against cracking), distributed in a manner that enabled
one, after dividing the specimens, to be left with two
bottom strands in a side specimen and four strands in a
central specimen (two bottom and two top strands). As
a consequence three levels of prestressing were obtained.
The clear span was 1930 mm and all specimens were
loaded by a point load at midspan (Fig. la). Under
loading some of the ten specimens developed a very small
flexural crack under the applied load, shortly before
failure, which however remained small. A complete failure
in the shear mode took place for all specimens (Nos 5-8
in the shear compression mode and the rest in shear
tension mode). The loads at cracking and failure are listed
in Table I and the modes of failure are illustrated in Figs
2-4.
Specimen 5 was loaded twice: the first loading device
allowed only 90 kN and after that the specimen was
unloaded and the loading device changed, which may
have led to a diminished capacity at failure.

Materials and Structures

227

Table 1 Main parameters of tests

Specimen
no.

No. of
strands

~ bw
(mm)

Section
area
(mm 2)

(I ~ bw)/S

Strand slip (mm)

(mm 3)
Before
loading
Min.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

8
8
8
8
2
2
2
2
4
4

327.5
329.5
328.5
325.5
126
126.5
126
124.5
74.5
74

150402
150402
150402
150402
54320
54 320
54320
54320
41792
41 792

74930
75388
75 159
74473
28979
29 094
28979
28 634
16840
16727

0.7
0.7
0.75
0.5
0.5

After
loading
Max.

1.3
1.2
1.9
1.1
0.8

Min.

0.8
1.8
0.9
0.8
0.87

Cracking
load
(kN)

Failure
load
(kN)

Shear at
failure
(kN)

Failure
load per
unit width
(N)

348.0
328.0
323.0
305.0
118.6
121.0
110.8

357.0
345.0
348.0
347.0
95.0
134.0
156.0
107.5
94.0
114.5

178.5
172.5
174.0
173.5
47.5
67.0
78.0
53.75
47.0
57.25

545.04
523.52
529.68
533.03
376.98
529.64
619.05
431.72
630.87
773.65

Max.

11.2
7.3
3.7
5.5
10.5

Fig. 4 Support edge in failure mode of specimen 2.

Fig. 2 Failure mode of specimens 1-4, 9 and 10.
Table 2 Comparison with ACI Code predictions [81
Specimen
no.

Fig. 3 Failure mode of specimens 5-8.

4.1 Comparison with code recommendations

A c o m p a r i s o n is p r o v i d e d here with the u l t i m a t e l o a d s
as assessed by the A C I code [8] a n d by the British c o d e
[7]. F o r the A C I code calculations, q~ (the strength
r e d u c t i o n factor) is omitted. F o r calculations a c c o r d i n g
to the codes, design strengths are replaced by characteristic

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Test
failure
load
(kN)

Predicted strength (kN)

Vr

Vei

Vow

178.50
172.50
174.00
173.50
47.50
67.00
78.00
53.75
47.00
57.25

154.34
155.29
154.81
153.40
59.38
59.62
59.38
58.61
35.11
34.87

157.05
157.23
157.14
156.89
55.26
55.30
55.26
55.13
46.57
46.53

199.15
200.36
199.75
197.93
74.25
74.55
74.25
73.37
49.06
48.73

strengths. W h e r e applicable, the prestressing force was

t a k e n a c c o r d i n g to E q u a t i o n 8 with m o d i f i c a t i o n s to suit
the p a r t i c u l a r code.
Results for the c o m p a r i s o n with A C I [8] are listed in
T a b l e 2. Except for specimen 5 (it was stated that due to
u n l o a d i n g a n d r e l o a d i n g d i m i n i s h e d strength c o u l d be

228

Pisanty

Table 3 Comparison with BS 8110 predictions [-7]

Specimen
no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Test
failure
load
(kN)

Predicted strength (kN)

~cr

~co

~co X 0.90

178.50
172.50
174.00
173.50
47.50
67.00
78.00
53.75
47.00
57.25

133.63
133.84
133.73
133.54
41.92
41.98
41.92
41.77
36.57
36.54

188.60
189.75
189.17
187.45
69.44
69.71
69.44
68.88
47.36
47.04

169.94
170.97
170.46
168.90
62.50
62.74
62.50
61.99
42.62
42.34

expected), measured capacities are within and above the

predicted values.
For the comparison with BS 8110 [7] (Table 3), the
design tensile strength of the concrete was multiplied by
the safety factor of 1.25 [7]. In Table 3 alternatives
for the uncracked region, V~o and V~o x 0.90, as well as
Vr (the alleged strength in the uncracked region) are
given. As specimens 5-8 are expected to fail in the V~r
mode, it is evident that they fail as predicted by the code.
Compared with V~o, only specimens 9 and I0 conform,
but compared with 0.9 V~oall specimens (of shear tension
mode) are in the range envisaged. The 10% reduction is
discussed later.
4.2 Comparison with the analysis of Walraven and M e r c x

The original equation of Walraven and Mercx [4] for

shear tension capacity was
V~k=0.75I~bw
2
S
(fr

~aNfet'~P)X/z

(9)

where fet, sp, the average concrete splitting strength, was

assumed to be (O.05fr + 1.0)MPa. a~ and ~ are
Table 4 Comparison with analysis of Walraven and
Mercx [4]
Specimen Test
no.
failure
load
(kN)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

178.50
172.50
174.00
173.50
47.50
67.00
78.00
53.75
47.00
57.25

Shear tension failure load (kN)

f~t,~p =

f~t,,o =

fc....

3.35 MPa 2.2 MPa

2.75MPa

211.81
213.11
212.46
210.52
80.41
80.73
80.41
79.45
49.81
49.47

177.81
178.90
178.36
176.73
67.29
67.56
67.29
66.49
42.11
41.83

146.54
147.43
146.98
145.64
55.23
55.45
5523
54.58
35.00
34.77

Shear
compression
failure
load (kN)

55.55
55.61
55.55
55.37

equivalent to ar and ~ in Equation 5. It was claimed that

the prestressing force transfer follows a parabolic
distribution, and shear capacity verification was at the
inner face of the support.
The values according to Walraven and Mercx (Table
4) were calculated under the following assumptions:
fpu = 1770 MPa, ap = 1303 MPa, bsupp = - 7 0 m m , It =
600 mm, fek = 47 MPa. Three values of fet, sp were used
in the calculations:
(i) fr
= 3.35 M P a which is 0.05fck + 1.0 MPa;
(ii) fr
= 2.2 M P a which is 0.55 from the flexural
tensile strength as observed in the tests [9];
(iii) f~t.sp = 2.75 M P a which is 0.55 from 10% of the
value of f~k, assumed to be a good estimate for fct,n.
It is evident that the assessed capacity with fct,sp =
2.75 M P a is a very good estimate (though both low
results are to be regarded with reservation, as in both
calculations compressive stresses due to a comparatively
low prestressing force have been considered).
Comparing the results of specimens 5-8 with the
estimated capacity in shear compression, except for
specimen 5 (due to reasons previously explained) they
appear to be compatible.
4.3 Discussion of test results and comparisons

1. It is evident that the flexural tensile strength,

assessed by direct measurement, is of the correct order
of magnitude, though on the low side. The actual concrete
tensile strength, as measured, could be a bit higher due
to possible damage to the test specimens in the course
of their preparation.
2. It is doubtful whether the tensile strength introduced
into the expression for evaluating the shear capacity
should be higher than the characteristic axial tensile
strength.
3. In comparison with BS 8110 [73 for the concrete
tensile strength, the value of 1.25 0.24f~/2 equals
2.06 MPa. Comparing with F I P [5], fctk, at characteristic
level, taken from CEB [133, will be fork, rain = 2.22 MPa.
In view of these values, the assumption of fctk= 2.2 M P a
(as previously mentioned 0.55 of the measured flexural
tensile strength) is very sound.
4. The strands slip while the slabs are being sawn and
separated from the casting bed. The consequences have
not been studied here, but even assuming that it does
not result in an overall reduction of strength, it would
at least mean that the prestressing force transfer in the
vicinity of the support should not be assumed to be
unperturbed; the force transfer may not follow a simple
parabolic distribution.
5. The prestressing force taken into consideration for
shear capacity evaluation should be at ultimate (not
design) level. Equation 8 appears to be a proper estimate
of this force.
6. Considerable importance must be attributed to the
decision as to the section for the shear capacity
verification. The distance c that equals Yb in Fig. 5 is that

Materials and Structures

229
Table 5 Comparison of predictions with experimental values

/"

--7

I ,b/'"

Ap

Fig. 5 Section for verification of shear capacity at distance c

from support edge.

supported by BS 8110 (and is accepted here) and is

supported also by test evidence. In all shear tension-mode
failures the principal shear crack projects from the inner
edge of the support, in the span direction at less than 45 ~.
7. The level of prestressing is of importance. It may
be observed that in specimens 1-4 the shear capacity is
fairly uniform (last column in Table 1) - about 4 MPa
at ultimate and 3 . 2 M P a at design levels (average
compressive stress in section under fully developed force).
In specimens 9 and 10 the prestressing level is considerably
higher (5.9 and 4.7 MPa, respectively) and so the shear
resistance is disproportionately higher. In specimens 5-8
the level of prestressing is low (3.34 and 2.68 MPa for
ultimate versus design levels, respectively) and their
behaviour was unstable (last column in Table 1). They
all failed in shear compression mode. In other words,
below a minimum prestressing level the elements become
vulnerable to a lower mode of shear failure due to earlier
flexural cracking.
8. Comparison with the ACI Code [8] (Table 2) shows
that the experimental values are well within or slightly
above those estimated by the code (no parametrical study
was attempted).
9. Comparison with BS 8110 [7] shows that reduction
of V~oby 10% (Table 3) brings the calculations according
to this code to a very close approximation with the tests.
This reduction is necessary in addition to the fact that
0.67bvh is less than (I ~ bw)/S for the section of the
hollow-core slabs, which has a shape similar to a 'double
tee' section. It appears that BS 8110 [7] underestimates
the capacity in cracked regions, as the values for Vcr
versus the test results and versus the estimates from other
sources are low.
10. Comparison with the original formulation of
Walraven and Mercx [4] shows that the assumption for
the concrete tensile strength in the form of high splitting
tensile strength was exaggerated, and reduction of this
strength brings the calculations to a realistic value. This
value was grossly reduced while drafting the FIP
recommendations [5].
11. The FIP recommendations [5] bring the tensile
strength to a reasonable level (if it is accepted that fctk
is fork,rain from [13]). It is, however, believed that a

Specimen Test
Predicted shear capacity (kN)
no.
failure
load
Walraven FIP
V~o
(kN)
modified
0.90
x 0.90

Equation 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

178.50
172.50
174.00
173.50
47.50
67.00
78.00

169.25
170.28
169.76
168.21
62.75
62.99
62.75

174.65
175.73
175.19
173.59
65.97
66.23
65.97

169.94
170.97
170.46
168.90
62.50
62.74
62.50

170.42
171.47
170.95
169.39
63.20
63.45
63.20

8
9
10

53.75
47.00
57.25

62.00
41.85
41.57

65.19
41.54
41.26

61.99
42.62
42.34

62.44
42.12
41.84

sufficiently strong case exists to claim that having

accepted that the section for verification is at a distance
Yb from the inner face of the support, it is for that distance
that the transmitted prestressing force should be calculated, namely bs,pp + Yb, with a reduction, however, to
account for the strands slip.
12. The test results suggest a shear capacity which is
lower by 10% from that estimated by BS 8110 and by
FIP [5]. Estimates according to both BS 8110 (for Vr
and FIP [5] are given in Table 5 reduced by 10% (with
prestressing force from Equation 8). Finally, the capacity
calculated according to the equation of Walraven and
Mercx (Equation 7), with the section for verification at
distance Yb from the inner face of the support and
fctk= 2.2 MPa, yields the values listed in Table 5 as
'Walraven modified'.
It is evident that if realistic values for the parameters are
used the existing formulations may be used for assessment
of the shear tension capacity.
5. S U M M A R Y AND C O N C L U S I O N S
The experimental investigation, together with the analysis
reported here, were conducted in response to demands
from the industry to reassess existing code recommendations concerning shear strength. The purpose was to
concentrate, as closely as possible, on a clear shear failure
mode, excluding as far as possible other failure modes
interfering with the interpretation of the results.
The purpose of the analytical investigation was to
check, and if needed to suggest modifications of, the code
recommendations. Code drafting is in most cases a
delicate extrapolation process from a limited number of
tests, and it was felt that a second look was necessary.
For shear compression (shear in flexurally cracked
regions) it is suggested that the BS 8110 recommendations
[7] underestimate the shear capacity considerably, while
those of ACI 318 [8], FIP [5] and Walraven and Mercx
[4] approximate this capacity more closely (in spite of
some scatter in the results).

230

Pisanty

With the failure load of specimens 6 and 7 being

relatively high, careful attention was paid to the mode
of failure, but there was no doubt that it was shear
compression, as the principal crack where the section in
failure was located was in the vicinity of the mid-span
and the remaining distance to the support was sufficiently
large.
For shear tension (shear in uncracked regions) the
parameters involved should be at their realistic values:
for concrete tensile strength, 55% of the flexural tensile
strength or fork,ml. (both render close values) is suggested;
for the compression stress, a prestressing force transfer
in parabolic distribution, with a reduction factor due to
possible slip. The relevant section for shear capacity
verification is at a distance from the inner face of the
support approximated as Yb (from the bottom face of the
slab to the section centroid).
Having taken into consideration that a reduction
factor is found to be necessary, this brings the expression
for shear capacity in shear tension mode to one of the
following:
I V bw
Vuk ~" 0.75 - z.,
2
(fctk,min
"F 0.80~O'Nfctk, min) 1/2
S

(10)

which is a modified version of Equation 7, or 0.90V~o

according to BS 8110. Equation 10 is preferred because
of the simple and clear expression for the concrete tensile
strength compared with that in BS 8110.
In Equation 10, fctk. min is according to CEB [13], c~ is
a reduction factor due to parabolic distribution of the
prestressing force in transfer, and aN is the average stress
due to fully transferred prestressing force in the ultimate
state (Equation 9).
The need for an additional reduction factor exists and
it is given in Equation 10, namely 0.75. It is preferred to
define shear capacity according to Equation 10 and then
reduce it by a single safety factor to design level.
The need for an overall reduction factor may tend to
diminish with growth of the web width, allowing an
improved performance, and there is a suggested direction
for continued research. It may not be waived completely,
due to the need for a shape factor and the possible loss
of tensile strength as the region is in a biaxial stress
state.

RESUME
R~sistance au cisaillement de dalles alv~olaires extrud~es

On rend compte de la rbsistance au cisaillement de dalles

alvbolaires extrudkes dtudibes expkrimentalement et analytiquement. Dix kchantillons de dattes ont kt~ essaybs, tous

REFERENCES
1. Becker, R. J. and Beuttner, D. R., ~Shear tests of extruded
hollow core slabs', PCI J. 30(2) (1985) 40-54.
2. Beuttner, D. R., 'Shear Capacity in Composite Spancrete
Hollow Core Slabs', Final Report to the Spancrete
Manufacturers Association (1974).
3. Kamerling, J. W. and Fijneman, H. J., 'Onderzoek Holle
Prefab Vloerplaten' (Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1980).
4. Walraven, J. C. and Mercx, W. P. M., 'The bearing capacity
of precast hollow core slabs', Heron (TNO for Building
Materials and Structures, Delft) 28(3) (1983).
5. FIP Recommendations, 'Precast Prestressed Hollow Core
Floors' (FIP, 1988).
6. Pisanty, A., 'Summary of Test Results on Precast Prestressed Extruded Hollow Core Slabs to Investigate
the Shear Strength Capacity', Final Report to SpancreteIsrael (1989) (in Hebrew).
7. BS 8110: Part I: 1985, 'Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1,
Code of Practice for Design and Construction' (British
Standards Institution, 1985).
8. ACI 318-89, 'Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete' (American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989).
9. Pisanty, A. and Regan, P. E., 'Direct assessment of the
tensile strength of the web in prestressed hollow core
slabs', Mater. Struct. 24(144) (1991) 451-455.
10. Pisanty, A., 'Direct Assessment of the Web Concrete Tensile
Strength in Prestressed Precast Hollow Core SIabs',
Final Report 010-089-1 (Technion Research and Development Foundation, Technion, Haifa, Israel, 1989).
11. FIP Recommendations, 'Practical Design of Reinforced
and Prestressed Concrete Structures' (FIP, 1984).
12. CEB-FIP, 'Model Code for Concrete Structures', CEB
Bulletin d'Information No. 124/125 (1978).
13. Idem, 'Model Code 1990, First Draft', Bulletin d'Information No. 195/196 (1990).
14. Eurocode No. 2, 'Design of Concrete Structures, Final
Draft', Eurocode 2 Editorial Group (1988).
15. Kupfer, H., 'Das Verhalten des Betons unter Mehrachsiger
Kurzzeitbelastung unter besonderer Berficksichtigung
der Zweiachsigen Beanspruchung', in 'Deutscher Ausschuss fiir Stahlbeton', Heft 229 (Springer, Berlin, 1973).
16. den Uijl, J. A., 'Tensile Stresses in the Transmission Zones
of Hollow Core Slabs Prestressed with Pretensioned
Strands', Report 5-83-10, Research No. 2.2.81.04 (Delft
University of Technology, 1983).
17. Brooks, M. S., Gerstle, K. H. and Logan, D. R., 'Effect of
initial strand slip on the strength of hollow core slabs',
PCI J. 33 (January-February 1988) 90-111.

dt rupture par cisaillement (six par cisaiIlement en traction).

On envisage comment utiliser les modes opdratoires
existants pour prbdire la tenue au cisaillement. On conclut
qu "une modification des recommendations F I P permettrait
une meilleure approximation des rbsultats d'essai.