ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 117-S96

Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Biaxial Voided

Square Slabs
by Radha Sagadevan and B. N. Rao
Biaxial voided slab is an innovative slab system which results in change in their structural performance.6,7 For example, the
a self-weight reduction of up to 50% in comparison with solid biaxial voided slab can have a 44% reduction in self-weight
slabs. In this paper, the effect of voids of various shapes on flex- as compared with a solid slab of the same flexural capacity.8
ural behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) square slabs was studied Investigations were carried out to study the one-way flex-
through experimental investigations. Five full-scale slab speci-
ural capacity of the voided slab by various researchers.2,4,9,10
mens under a 16-point load were tested with two different shapes
These investigations showed that the capacity of an RC
of voids, such as sphere and cuboid. The results obtained for solid
and voided slab specimens were compared and found that the ulti- voided slab is almost the same as an RC solid slab with
mate flexural capacity is almost the same. However, the presence slightly lower stiffness. The two-way flexural behavior
of voids influences flexural stiffness. While such influence accounts of voided RC slab systems was also studied similarly by
for a marginal deviation of the post-cracking flexural stiffness, the previous researchers.11-13 The capacity of voided slabs
initial stiffness of solid slabs is observed to be 37% higher than constructed using the spherical void former is 89 to 100%
that of voided slabs. Furthermore, the flexural load-carrying of the ultimate load of RC solid slab with equal depth and
capacity was estimated based on the yield line method with tensile shows marginal stiffness reduction.11 On the other hand, RC
membrane action and compared with experimental results. For slabs constructed using donut-type void former showed 25%
this, the experimental results of the present study (five specimens) lower flexural secant stiffness when compared to that of an
and test data collected from the literature (seven specimens) were
RC solid slab of the same dimensions and reinforcement.
compared with predictions. It was found that the beneficial effect of
However, the flexural capacity remains the same.12 Further,
tensile membrane action is applicable for biaxial voided RC slab
in enhancing the flexural load-carrying capacity. Furthermore, researchers have adopted various loading configurations to
through the comparison of experimental and analytical results, it is study the two-way flexural behavior of RC square solid and
found that the 16-point load can be adopted to simulate uniformly voided slabs. Application of single-point load at the center of
distributed loading condition. the slab often results in premature localized punching shear
failure.14 The punching shear failure was avoided by adopting
Keywords: biaxial voided slab; cuboid void; sphere void; tensile membrane five-point load in small-scale specimens11 and 12-point load
action; two-way flexure; yield line method.
in full-scale specimens.12 However, the load was concen-
trated at the central region alone, not equally distributed
INTRODUCTION throughout the slab surface. Loading configurations adopted
In a reinforced concrete (RC) building structure, the floor by various researchers were not able to capture the uniformly
system plays a vital role in resisting and transferring gravity distributed load (UDL) conditions. For example, based on
and lateral load to the beam, column, and other structural the assumptions of the yield line theory, the slab subjected
members. Generally, the slabs are classified as one-way and to UDL and slab subjected to 12-point load (equivalent to
two-way slabs based on their flexural behavior. The conven- 62.5% of UDL) results in the same deflection (refer to the
tional RC slab has a limitation on the span and floor height “Flexural Capacity of Slab by Yield Line Method” section
due to its size and self-weight and to overcome this, grid of this paper). In addition to the loading type effect on the
floor, ribbed slab, flat plate, and flat slab systems are being structural behavior of slabs, in the early 1960s, research on
adopted. However, each floor system has its limitations such the effect of tensile membrane action was initiated in the
as serviceability requirement, floor height, practical difficul- analysis and design of lightly RC slabs with large deflections.
ties in construction, and so on.1 Because of this, the one-way Researchers found that the effect of tensile membrane action
voided slab system is identified mainly to reduce the self- is significant in considerably enhancing the capacity of slab
weight of the slab without significant change in its flex- as compared to the capacity estimated by conventional flex-
ural capacity; however, it has a limitation on unidirectional ural theory.14-22 These works focused on conventional RC
capacity. Then research on two-way (biaxial) voided slab solid slabs with various shapes, aspect ratios, reinforcement
systems initiated. The voids are discontinuous and formed details, and yield line pattern and crack formation at the ulti-
by removing concrete from where it has limited use. RC mate stage. The question of whether such beneficial effect
biaxial voided slabs are produced with plastic void formers of capacity enhancement due to tensile membrane action at
of spherical, donut, or cuboid shape.2-5 These void formers
are typically placed at the middepth of the slab with rein- ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 5, September 2020.
MS No. S-2018-466.R2, doi: 10.14359/51724664, received August 8, 2019, and
forcing mesh at the top and bottom. It is well known that reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2020, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
voided slabs exhibit a reduction in self-weight up to 50% obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
in comparison with RC solid slabs without any significant closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 3

the ultimate stage exists in an RC voided slab is yet to be a loading configuration to eliminate the aforementioned
explored. This would help to determine the ultimate capacity shortcomings. Additionally, the effect of tensile membrane
of such slabs with reasonable accuracy. action on the flexural behavior of the biaxial voided slab
In this study, the two-way flexural capacity of biaxial was not investigated so far. In this study, a 16-point loading
RC voided slabs was investigated through experiments and configuration is adopted, which generated an equivalent
compared with analytical formulations. Experiments on 90% UDL and produced the same deflection as that of UDL.
five full-scale specimens were conducted with two types of Also, the ultimate capacity of biaxial voided slabs was deter-
void shapes: 1) sphere; and 2) cuboid. In the experiment, an mined with enhanced accuracy by incorporating the tensile
equivalent 90% UDL was simulated by adopting a 16-point membrane action. Further, the effect of different void former
load, which produces the same deflection as that of UDL. shapes on the two-way flexural behavior was investigated.
The experimental results (five specimens) of the current
study and test data collected from literature12,17,19 (seven EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
specimens) were compared with theoretical calculations The two-way flexural test helps to investigate the appli-
which are based on the yield line method (YLM) in conjunc- cation of voided slab as an alternative to the conventional
tion with provisions given in ACI 31823 and Indian Standard solid slab. In this experimental program, the behavior of the
(IS) 456.24 Furthermore, the flexural capacity of solid and slab system is to be examined in terms of the load-deflection
biaxial voided slab having the same reinforcement ratio response, flexural stiffness, crack pattern, yield, and ulti-
and cross-sectional dimensions was compared. The esti- mate capacities. The details of the void formers, test spec-
mated capacity by conventional flexural theory (YLM) was imens, materials adopted, test setup, and test procedure are
enhanced by the factor obtained by existing tensile membrane explained as follows in respective subsections.
theory16 and the applicability of the tensile membrane action
in the voided slab is verified. Effect of the shape of void Details of void formers
former on the flexural capacity was also studied. Void formers of sphere and cuboid shape, manufactured
from recycled polypropylene, were used to cast the voided
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE slab specimens. The specifications of the void formers are
Loading configurations such as single-point load at the summarized in the following.
center, five-point load, and 12-point load failed to capture Sphere void former—The sphere void formers are spher-
uniformly distributed loading condition effectively. This ical hollow plastic balls of wall thickness 3 mm (0.12 in.)
either resulted in premature localized punching shear of two different outer diameters: 90 and 180 mm (3.54 and
failure or inequitable distribution of load throughout the 7.09 in.). The top and bottom reinforcement mesh used to
slab surface. As a consequence, there is a need to look for keep the void former in position with 20 mm clear cover
at the bottom. The sphere void former was placed such
that the center-to-center spacing in longitudinal and trans-
verse directions is 160 mm (6.30 in.) (113 mm [4.45 in.] in
diagonal) and 210 mm (8.27 in.) for 90 mm (3.54 in.) and
180 mm (7.09 in.) diameter void formers, respectively. The
dimensions of the sphere void formers with their photograph
are shown in Fig. 1.
Cuboid void former—Commercially available cuboid
Fig. 1—Single unit of sphere void formers.
void formers (Fig. 2) without any sharp edges were used in
the study. Elevated feet of 50 mm (1.97 in.) are provided
at the bottom face of four corners, which facilitate to hold
this void former at the center of the slab. They are placed
at 600  mm (23.62 in.) center to center in longitudinal and
transverse directions using lateral spacers. The provided
clear cover to the void former was 50 mm (1.97 in.) at top
and bottom. The dimensions of the cuboid void former and
its photographs and lateral spacer are shown in Fig. 2.

Details of test specimens

Five slab specimens were tested, out of which four spec-
imens were RC voided slabs and the other was an RC
solid slab specimen, with identical reinforcement arrange-
ments. The plan dimensions of test specimens were 3300 x
3300 mm (129.92 x 129.92 in.). The slab specimens of the
present study were a full-scale prototype of a typical span in
a framed RC residential building. Flexural behavior of slabs
is mainly influenced by the tensile reinforcement provided
in longitudinal and transverse directions.14 Hence, the
Fig. 2—Single unit of cuboid void former and lateral spacer.

4 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020

Table 1—Details of test specimens
Ast, mm2/m
Specimen Void details Depth, mm Top Bottom Self-weight, kN fcm, N/mm2
TF-Solid — 150 343 343 39.6 31.2
TF-S90V Ø 90 mm sphere 150 343 343 36.0 31.0
TF-S180V Ø 180 mm sphere 250 257 257 54.8 29.4
TF-CV-1 Cuboid 260 146 274 55.9 26.1
TF-CV-2 Cuboid 260 146 274 55.9 24.4
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 mm2/m = 0.00047 in.2/ft; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 N/mm2 = 145 psi.

Fig. 3—Details of test specimen TF-Solid. Fig. 4—Details of test specimen TF-S90V.
minimum reinforcement ratio specified as per IS 45624 was tensile tests on reinforcements were conducted, and the
provided to ensure flexure failure rather than shear failure properties are summarized in Table 2.
because the voided slabs are vulnerable to shear. These rein-
forcements were arranged in the form of mesh along the Experimental test setup and instrumentation
longitudinal and transverse directions. The size of reinforce- Test setup—Sixteen-point load test was conducted to
ment bars was restricted to 6 and 12 mm (0.24 and 0.47 in.). study the two-way flexural behavior of the slab. Figures 7(a)
The specifications of test specimens such as plan dimension, and (b) show the schematic and actual test setup, respec-
cross section, and reinforcement details are summarized in tively. To avoid localized premature punching shear failure,
Table 1. The details of voided slab specimens are shown in the point load was applied through steel plate of size 170 x
Fig. 3 through 6. 170 x 12 mm (6.69 x 6.69 x 0.47 in.) as patch load, as shown
in Fig. 8. A pair of pseudo-dynamic hydraulic actuators were
Material properties of test specimens used to apply the load. The load was transferred through
Test specimens were cast using ready mixed concrete. hot-rolled steel sections to the slab specimens. The steel
Concrete cubes with a size of 150 mm (5.91 in.) were cast sections were supported on the rollers at their ends to enable
and cured under similar exposure conditions as that of slab free rotation along with specimen deformation. Discon-
specimens. The compression test on cubes was carried out tinuity of supports at corners minimizes the experimental
simultaneously with the flexure test on the companion slab errors such as stress concentration and generation of fixed
specimen. The observed mean compressive strength of end moment.12 This is achieved by employing a line-type
concrete cubes (fcm) is summarized in Table 1. Similarly, reaction hinge of length 2800 mm (110.24 in.) as support on

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 5

Fig. 5—Details of test specimen TF-S180V. Fig. 6—Details of test specimens TF-CV-1 and TF-CV-2.
master control system to ensure equal load distribution across
Table 2—Mechanical properties of reinforcement
each actuator. The adopted loading rate was 0.05  mm/s
Strength, N/mm2 Strain (0.002 in./s). The test was terminated when the load approx-
Diameter,
mm Nominal Yield Tensile Yield Ultimate imately reaches the maximum capacity of actuators.
6 500 560 650 0.0033 0.0591
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
12 500 585 670 0.0035 0.1084
Load-deflection behavior
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 N/mm2 =145 psi. All slab specimens exhibited typical flexural behavior
under two-way bending. The specimens remained elastic
each of the four sides of the slab. The support was located
until cracking; thereafter, the bottom reinforcements of the
at a distance of 150  mm (5.91 in.) from specimen edges.
slab start yielding initiating the inelastic action. The load
The applied load was measured by the inbuilt load cells
versus midspan deflection for all five tested specimens is
of the actuators. The deflection was measured at midspan
shown in Fig. 10. The load corresponding to the yielding
using a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) with
of reinforcement is marked in Fig. 10. The specimens
a measuring range of ±100 mm (3.94 in.). The corner uplift
with and without voids, having the same reinforcement
and translations in lateral and longitudinal directions were
and dimensions (TF-Solid and TF-S90V), show identical
measured using three LVDTs with a measurement range of
load-deflection behavior after cracking, although the initial
±20 mm (0.79 in.). Figure 9 shows the schematic arrange-
stiffness of solid slab specimen (TF-Solid) is 37% more than
ment of LVDTs. Strain in the bottom reinforcements located
that of the voided slab specimen (TF-S90V).
at the center of slab specimens was measured by strain
gauges with 10 mm (0.39 in.) gauge length. Strain gauges
Crack pattern
were provided in the longitudinal and transverse direction
The typical crack pattern observed on the bottom surface
of bottom reinforcements, as shown in Fig. 9. A data acqui-
of slab specimens is shown in Fig. 11. Typically, the cracks
sition system was used to obtain real-time experimental
originated from the center of the slab and formed an X-shape
data, which has a facility to record the load, deflection, and
along the diagonals similar to the assumed yield line pattern.
strain simultaneously.
Corner lever effect was observed in all the test speci-
Testing procedure—Displacement-controlled mono-
mens. The typical photographs of the tested specimen with
tonic tests were performed with a pair of pseudo-dynamic
observed crack are shown in Fig. 12. The observed different
hydraulic actuators of capacity 500 kN (112.4 kip) each. The
crack distribution mode is attributed to the void shape, size,
actuators were synchronized and operated using a single
and position.

6 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020

Fig. 7—(a) Schematic diagram of experimental test setup (16-point load test); and (b) actual experimental test setup (16-point
load test).

Fig. 8—Position of 16-point (patch) load.

Load-carrying capacity
The observed maximum load-carrying capacity of voided
slabs was almost the same as that of the solid slab. Load
and midspan deflection are summarized for all five tested
specimens in Table 3. The load corresponding to yield was Fig. 9—Instrumentation of test specimen.
defined based on the strain in bottom reinforcement—that
is, load corresponding to yield strain. The load versus rein- Flexural stiffness
forcement strain for all tested specimens is shown in Fig. 13. The flexural stiffness is defined as the ratio of load and
The difference in strain data measured along the longitudinal its corresponding deflection. It is estimated by taking secant
and transverse direction of bottom reinforcements is due to stiffness (Ky) corresponding to yield load (Py) of slab spec-
the difference in the depth of reinforcement. imen Eq. (1) and then compared with a solid slab

Ky = Py/δy (1)

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 7

where δy is the midspan deflection of slab corresponding to was based on the assumption that the crack forms for full-
yield load (Py). Even though the initial stiffness of a voided slab depth, which is ensured by limiting the average strain in the
(TF-S90V) is 37% less than that of a solid slab (TF-Solid), the reinforcement. Moreover, it is assumed that the slab deflects
secant stiffness corresponding to yield load for both the voided in the form of a parabolic curve.
and solid slab specimens were observed to be almost the same.
0.5 f y 3le 2
Limiting deflection δ= × (2)
Es 8
The limiting deflection is considered based on the limit state
of serviceability given in IS 45624—that is, le/250 (= 12 mm where Es is the elastic modulus of reinforcement. The esti-
[0.47 in.]). The load corresponding to limiting deflection is mated maximum deflection is 74.62 mm (2.94 in.) for all
obtained from Fig. 10 and compared with the ultimate load, the five tested specimens as the effective length, and rein-
as shown in Table 4. The estimated load is conservative as the forcement properties are the same. The observed maximum
load is applied as a 16-point load, and self-weight is ignored. deflection (Table 3) is less than that of the estimated
However, it helps to quantify the percentage of maximum maximum deflection of 74.62 mm (2.94 in.). Hence, the ulti-
load, which satisfies the serviceability requirement. mate capacity of tested slab specimens may be higher than
The maximum allowable deflection is calculated based on that of the observed maximum load considerably.
the Eq. (2), which was developed by Bailey.16 Equation (2)
ESTIMATION OF LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY OF
SLAB SPECIMENS
Moment capacity of slab section
The ultimate moment capacity (m) of a slab section per
unit length can be calculated by Eq. (3) based on the stress
distribution shown in Fig. 14. A layer of reinforcement
was provided at the top in each direction to place the void
formers. It was observed that the neutral axis lies within the
cover concrete to the top reinforcement—that is, top and
bottom reinforcements are in tension. Hence, the contribu-
tion from the top and bottom reinforcements are considered
for the capacity calculation. Moreover, if the slab’s NA lies in
the location of the void, then the contribution from compres-
sion side reinforcement (top) can be ignored conservatively.
Also, the presence of concrete below the top cover concrete
to the void former can be ignored conservatively, as the area
of concrete available to resist the compressive force is very
Fig. 10—Load versus midspan deflection behavior of tested small in the biaxial voided slab due the presence of voids.
specimens. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
m = Tb(de – x̅ ) + Tt(d′ – x̅ ) (3)

where Tb and Tt are the force in the bottom and top rein-
forcements, respectively; de and d′ are effective depth to
bottom and top reinforcements, respectively; and x̅ is depth
of resultant compressive force in concrete. The x̅ depends
on neutral axis depth (xu). The neutral axis depth needs to
be estimated based on an iteration by equating compressive
and tensile force.
Fig. 11—Observed typical crack pattern. The theoretical ultimate moment capacity of the slab
section is estimated using Eq. (3). The change in the magni-

Fig. 12—(a) Observed crack pattern of slab specimen TF-Solid; (b) observed crack pattern of slab specimen TF-S180V; and
(c) observed crack pattern of slab specimen TF-CV-1.

8 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020

Table 3—Results based on experimental study
Specimen Py, kN δy, mm Ky, kN/mm Pu*, kN δu, mm Wu, kN Wu1, kN Crack pattern (Fig. 11)
TF-Solid 571.45 26.95 21.20 961.21 61.00 1080.01 1119.61 a
TF-S90V 670.98 33.78 19.86 965.55 61.03 1084.89 1120.89 a
TF-S180V 616.71 12.29 50.18 937.89 32.50 1053.81 1108.61 b
TF-CV-1 637.23 12.19 52.27 913.57 49.62 1026.48 1082.38 c
TF-CV-2 647.02 15.36 42.12 882.55 48.65 991.63 1047.53 c
*
Specimen did not reach ultimate stage; maximum observed values are reported.
Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN/mm = 5.7056 kip/in.

Fig. 13—Load versus reinforcement strain.

tude of the moment capacity with respect to the stress-strain
relationship of concrete in compression is insignificant as
the neutral axis depth (xu) and strain in concrete (εc) are
small in comparison with effective depth (de) and strain in
reinforcement (εst,b), respectively. In this study, the moment
capacity is estimated by the provisions of ACI 318-1923 and
IS 45624 and the key parameters related to the stress-strain
relationship of concrete in compression for each standard are
summarized as follows.
ACI 318-19—The stress-strain relationship of concrete Fig. 14—Strain and stress distribution in slab section.
in compression given in ACI 318 is given in Eq. (4a) and
Fig. 15(a) strength of concrete cylinders; εc is strain in concrete; and ε0
is strain in concrete at the maximum concrete stress. In ACI
fc = k1k3(0.85fcm′) (4a) 318, the stress-strain relationship of concrete in compres-
sion is converted as equivalent rectangular with respect to
2 maximum limiting strain in the concrete of 0.003 for easy
ε  ε 
k1 = 2  c  −  c  for ε c ≤ 0.003 (4b) calculation purposes.
ε  ε 
0 0 IS 456:2000—The stress-strain relationship of concrete
where fc is flexural compressive stress in concrete; k1 in compression given in IS 456 is given in Eq. (5a) and
is concrete stress factor, which depends on the strain εc Fig. 15(b)
(Eq. (4b)); k3 (≈ 0.8) is a factor to account for conversion of
cube strength to cylinder strength; fcm′ is mean compressive fc = k1k3fcm (5a)

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 9

Fig. 15—Stress versus strain behavior of concrete.
Table 4—Limit state of serviceability The observed experimental results and estimated load-
carrying capacity by YLM of slab specimens are summa-
Specimen Ps, kN Ws, kN/m 2
Pu, kN Ps/Pu, %
rized in Table 6. Based on the yield line method of analysis,
TF-Solid 344.31 42.99 961.21 35.82 the ultimate capacity of the slab may be calculated based
TF-S90V 250.10 31.22 965.55 25.90 on suitable assumptions of failure modes and crack
TF-S180V 612.03 76.41 937.89 65.26 patterns.27 Therefore, the yield line for the square slabs
was assumed to form in an X-shape along the diagonals,
TF-CV-1 633.58 79.10 913.57 69.35
under two-way flexural action. This results in dividing
TF-CV-2 580.25 72.44 882.55 65.75 the slabs into four equal triangular parts. The expression
Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 kN/m = 0.0209 kip/ft .
2 2 for collapse load for the assumed yield line pattern could
be derived by considering the equilibrium of the slab and
  εc   εc  2 its various segments. It may be carried out either by the
2 − for ε c < 0.002 direct application of static equilibrium (equilibrium of
k1 =   0.002   0.002  (5b)
1 slab parts), by the concept of virtual displacements, or by
 for 0.002 ≤ ε c ≤ 0.0035 skew moment method.28 In this study, an expression for
where fc is flexural compressive stress in concrete; k1 collapse load was derived based on the equilibrium of slab
is concrete stress factor which depends on the strain εc parts. The schematic slab with the yield line and deforma-
(Eq. (5b)); k3 (= 0.67) is a factor to account for size effect tion contour is shown in Fig. 16, 17, and 18 for 16-point,
and conversion of cube strength to cylinder strength; fcm is 12-point, and uniformly distributed loading types, respec-
mean concrete cube strength; and εc is strain in concrete. tively. The detailed procedure to obtain the collapse load
The moment capacity of the slab section is estimated for the slab specimen with 16-point load alone is explained
base on the materials’ properties and specimen details herein. The load corresponding to the formation of the
summarized in Table 5 and given in Table 6. The estimated yield line is expected to be not affected significantly due
capacity (Table 6) based on ACI 318 and IS 456 provisions to the presence of void or the void formers. However, the
are observed to be the same as the yielding of reinforcement voids formed in the slab may affect the propagation of the
govern the failure and the compressive strain in concrete is yield line in the slab. To quantify such effects on the flex-
less than 0.002. ural capacity of the biaxial voided slab, a greater number
of experiments, by varying different parameters of void
Flexural capacity of slab by yield line method formers, needs to be carried out. Such a study falls beyond
Prediction of failure load of the slab by inelastic approach the scope of this manuscript. In the present study, any such
would give more accurate results than that by elastic effect is ignored.
approaches.1,25 One of the suggested inelastic approaches to The ultimate moment capacity per unit length of the yield
determine the ultimate load-carrying capacity of slab speci- line (mθ) can be calculated by considering moment equilib-
mens under two-way flexure is based on yield line method. rium in the direction of mθ (Fig. 19) and given by Eq. (6)
Assuming rigid plastic theory, the yield line method (YLM)
estimates the failure loads corresponding to the plastic mθ = mxsin2θx + mycos2θx (6)
moment resistances.12,25,26 Hence, the ultimate load-carrying
capacity of voided slab test specimens was estimated using where mx and my are ultimate moment capacity of slab per
the YLM. unit length in x and y directions, respectively; and θx is
The experimental results based on the test data avail- the inclination of yield line with respect to x-direction. As
able in the literature (seven specimens) and current study given in Table 6, the values of mx and my are either equal or
(five specimens) were compared with the estimations by have marginal differences (Eq. (7)); the marginal difference
YLM in conjunction with ACI 318 and IS 456. The test between mx and my is attributed to the reinforcement area
specimen details such as dimensions, materials’ proper- and effective depth in orthogonal directions. The slab speci-
ties, and loading configuration are summarized in Table 5. mens are square-shaped, and reinforcements were arranged

10 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020

Table 5—Details of slab specimens of various researchers
Reinforcement area, mm2/m Reinforcement strength, N/mm2
Concrete
Top Bottom
Slab Loading strength*,
Reference ID type Dimension, mm x y x y type N/mm2 Yield (Strain) Tensile
S1 1980 x 1980 x 50.80 — 233.78 280.53 35.05 375.76 (0.0039) 486.76
Taylor et al.17 Solid 16-point
S9 1980 x 1980 x 76.20 — 146.11 155.85 33.23 375.76 (0.0039) 486.76

Brotchie and 12 400 x 400 x 38.10 — 309.88 23.30 379.21 (0.0019) 482.63
Solid UDL
Holley19 19 400 x 400 x 76.20 — 657.86 16.14 365.42 (0.0018) 484.70
Solid Solid 3300 x 3300 x 250 432.30 767.90 19.36 473.00 (0.0024) 665.00
Chung et
TF-D-S-P.P Voided 3300 x 3300 x 250 432.30 767.90 12-point 19.36 473.00 (0.0024) 665.00
al.12†
TF-D-M-P.P Voided 3300 x 3300 x 250 432.30 767.90 19.36 473.00 (0.0024) 665.00
TF-Solid Solid 3300 x 3300 x 150 343.00 343.00 31.20 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
TF-S90V Voided 3300 x 3300 x 150 343.00 343.00 31.00 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
Current study TF-S180V Voided 3300 x 3300 x 250 257.00 257.00 16-point 29.40 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
TF-CV-1 Voided 3300 x 3300 x 260 146.00 274.00 26.10 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
TF-CV-2 Voided 3300 x 3300 x 260 146.00 274.00 24.40 560.00 (0.0033) 650.00
*
Concrete cylinder strength is taken as 80% of cube strength if required.
†
Contribution from presence of top reinforcement is not considered as it is above neutral axis and under compression.
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 m = 39.37 in.; 1 N/mm2 =145 psi.

Table 6—Experimental and estimated capacity comparison

Moment capacity of slab Capacity by Capacity
Experimental results section, kN-m/m YLM Ratio Factor with TM Ratio
Reference ID Wu, kN δu, mm mx my mx/my Wn, kN Wu/Wn e Wn1, kN Wu/Wn1
S1 166 *
81.28 3.56 3.75 0.95 94.9 1.75 1.61 153 1.08
Taylor et al.17
S9 151 83.82 3.60 3.56 1.01 93.0 1.62 1.39 129 1.17
12 81 13.36 3.07 3.07 1.00 77.4 1.05 1.00 77 1.05
Brotchie and Holley19
19 326 2.46 12.78 12.78 1.00 322.0 1.01 1.00 322 1.01
Solid 2039 56.60 70.59 70.59 1.00 1961.7 1.04 1.00 1962 1.04
Chung et al.12 TF-D-S-P.P 1934 60.69 70.59 70.59 1.00 1961.7 0.99 1.00 1962 0.99
TF-D-M-P.P 2018 70.50 70.59 70.59 1.00 1961.7 1.03 1.00 1962 1.03
TF-Solid 1120 *
61.00 23.96 24.17 0.99 635.3 1.76 1.14 724 1.55
TF-S90V 1121 *
61.03 23.94 24.15 0.99 634.8 1.77 1.14 724 1.55
Current study TF-S180V 1109 *
32.50 31.51 31.12 1.01 826.7 1.34 1.04 860 1.29
TF-CV-1 1082* 49.62 32.27 33.68 0.96 870.5 1.24 1.06 923 1.17
TF-CV-2 1048 *
48.65 32.20 33.61 0.96 868.7 1.21 1.06 921 1.14
*
Specimen did not reach ultimate stage; maximum observed values are reported.
Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

symmetrically in both longitudinal and transverse directions; Yield line pattern with deformation contour for test config-
hence the value of θx can be assumed to be 45 degrees. Based uration (16-point load) is shown in Fig. 16. The moment
on Eq. (7) and the afore-assumed value of θx, the equation of developed by the externally applied load must be balanced
flexural strength (Eq. (6)) can be written as Eq. (8). by the component of the yield line moments, as shown in
Fig. 19.
mx = my = m (7)
 P 3l   3P l 
mθ = m (8) ∑ M AB = 0 ⇒  n × e  +  n × e  − mθ l = 0 (9)
 16 8   16 8 

From Eq. (8), it can be interpreted that if the flexural From Eq. (9), the ultimate load-carrying capacity (Pn) of
capacity of slab per unit length is the same in the two orthog- the slab specimen is calculated as Eq. (10).
onal directions, then the flexural capacity of the slab will
remain the same in any direction. Pn = 64mθl/3le (10)

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 11

Fig. 16—Assumed yield line pattern with deformation Fig. 18—Assumed yield line pattern with deformation
contour: 16-point load. contour: UDL.
of slab, and length remain the same in all the three loading
types, then the ratio of UDL to 12-point load is 0.625. Simi-
larly, the ratio of UDL to 16-point load is 0.89. Equivalent
UDL values (Wu and Wn) corresponding to 12-point and
16-point loads are computed based on these ratios as listed
in Table 6. It is to be noted that the actual ultimate deflection
may not be the same for different loading type. However,
in this paper, for the purpose of comparison, the ultimate
load-carrying capacity of slab specimens with different
loading types is converted to equivalent UDL based on the
aforementioned estimated ratios. The ultimate load from the
experiment is compared with a theoretically estimated ulti-
mate load of a solid slab. It is found that the ratio between
experimental and estimated capacity was in the range of
0.99 to 1.77 (Table 6). Theoretical ultimate load-carrying
capacity estimated using yield line theory for both the solid
and voided slabs are the same because the contribution from
the concrete below the neutral axis is ignored. Thus, yield
line theory applies to voided slabs as well.
Fig. 17—Assumed yield line pattern with deformation
contour: 12-point load. Tensile membrane action in slabs
The theoretically predicted ultimate load of the slab by
Similarly, for the slab subjected to 12-point load (Fig. 16),
yield line method is usually less than the experimental
the ultimate load-carrying capacity (Pn) is derived as
value13,29; the same is observed in this study as well. The
Eq. (11).
difference is mainly due to effects of tensile membrane (TM)
action, which developed post-yield stage at large deflec-
Pn = 15mθl/le (11)
tion and effects of strain hardening in reinforcements.29
Depending on the magnitude of these effects, the predictions
Similarly, for the slab subjected to UDL (Fig. 17), the ulti-
of yield line theory can underestimate the ultimate capacity
mate load-carrying capacity (Wn) is derived as Eq. (12).
of the slab. Various researchers16,18,29,30 attempted to develop
a relationship between deflection and ultimate load, which
Wn = 24mθl/le (12)
accounts for load enhancement due to tensile membrane
action. In this study, the load enhancement factor is calcu-
The expression for collapse load was derived based on the
lated based on the theory developed by Bailey.16 The key
equilibrium of slab parts and given in Eq. (10), (11), and
parameters are summarized as follows. The load enhance-
(12) for 16-point, 12-point, and UDL type, respectively. It
ment factor (e) is expressed as the sum of enhancement
is observed that if the ultimate deflection, moment capacity
factor due to membrane forces em (Eq. (13)) and enhance-

12 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020

ment factor due to bending action eb (Eq. (14)) as shown in
Eq. (15)

2b  w 
em = (13)
3 (3 + g 0 )  d e , n 

b 2 (1 − g 0 )
eb = 1 − (14)
3 (3 + g 0 )

e = em + eb ≥ 1.0 (15)

where b is parameter defining the magnitude of membrane

force given by Eq. (16); g0 is a parameter to fix the depth
of compressive stress block when no membrane force is
present; w is the deflection of yield line; and de,n is the effec-
tive depth of the slab.

 f 
b = 1.5  u  (16) Fig. 19—Moment capacity of yield line and application of
 fy  equilibrium of slab parts.
where fu and fy are ultimate and yield stress of reinforcement, voided slab under two-way flexure can be estimated using
respectively. The calculated load enhancement factor for all yield line theory.
specimens are summarized in Table 6. The enhancement 4. The shape of the void former does not affect the flexural
factor is based on the deflection observed at maximum load capacity of the biaxial RC voided slab as the neutral axis
in the experiment. It is found that the ratio between exper- lies in the cover concrete to top reinforcement, with a minor
imental and estimated capacity including tensile membrane difference in the flexural stiffness.
action was in the range of 0.99 to 1.55. It evidences that 5. Although the initial flexural stiffness of solid slab was
the tensile membrane action is applicable for biaxial voided 37% more than that of the biaxial RC voided slab, the secant
slab as well. The observed wide variation in the ratio stiffness corresponding to yield load of voided and solid slab
between current experimental and estimated capacity may specimens were observed to be almost the same.
be attributed to the effects of presence of significant top 6. The capacity of the biaxial voided slab can be estimated
reinforcement and reinforcement orientation18; more experi- by conventional flexural theory, and it was observed that the
ments are required to validate the same. tensile membrane action is applicable for biaxial voided slab
as well.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Structural behavior of voided slab specimens was studied AUTHOR BIOS
considering parameters such as load-versus-deflection Radha Sagadevan is a PhD Scholar in the Civil Engineering Depart-
behavior, crack pattern, load-carrying capacity, and flexural ment at Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai, India. He
received his BE from College of Engineering Guindy (CEG), Anna Univer-
stiffness. The following observations are drawn based on the sity, Chennai, India, and his MTech from IITM. His research interests
experimental and analytical investigations conducted on the include studies on the behavior of reinforced concrete members and struc-
slabs under two-way flexure. tures, analysis and design of reinforced concrete, and steel and composite
structures.
1. The 16-point loading condition closely matches with
the uniformly distributed loading condition in comparison B. N. Rao is a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at IITM.
with single-point, five-point, and 12-point loading condi- He received his BTech from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Univer-
sity, Hyderabad, India; his ME from The Maharaja Sayajirao University
tions. Thus, 16-point load can be adopted to simulate the of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat, India; and his PhD from the University
uniformly distributed load on the slab. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. His research interests include studies on hollow-
2. The voided slabs showed typical two-way flexure core  reinforced concrete slabs, computational mechanics, finite element
analysis, meshless analysis, stochastic mechanics, and related fields.
behavior similar to the solid slab. The major cracks were
observed in an X-shaped pattern, which originated at the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
center of the slab and progressed toward the corners. This work was supported by Department of Science & Technology, India
3. The observed maximum load-carrying capacity of (SR/S3/MERC/0040/2012) and M/s Post Tension Services India Pvt. Ltd.
(PTSI), Vadodara, Gujarat, India (WO/GEN/0001/16-17). The authors wish
voided and solid slabs was almost equal. The ratio of exper- to acknowledge the assistance and facilities offered by the Technical Staff,
imental to estimated capacity lies in the range of 0.99 to Structural Engineering Laboratory, IITM, Chennai, India.
1.55. The theoretical load-carrying capacity of the solid and
voided slab using the yield line method along with ACI 318 NOTATION
and IS 456 provisions by incorporating the tensile membrane Ast = area of reinforcement
Ast,b = area of bottom reinforcement
effect are the same. Thus, the load-carrying capacity of the Ast,t = area of top reinforcement

ACI Structural Journal/September 2020 13

b = parameter defining magnitude of membrane force 7. Harding, P., “BubbleDeckTM–Advanced Structure Engineering,”
C = force in concrete per unit length of slab BubbleDeck Article, 2004, pp. 15-6.
d = overall depth of slab 8. BubbleDeck Technology, “BubbleDeck Voided Flat Slab Solutions -
d′ = effective depth to top reinforcement Technical Manual & Documents,” UK, 2008, pp. 1-10.
de = effective depth to bottom reinforcement 9. Valivonis, J.; Jonaitis, B.; Zavalis, R.; Skuturna, T.; and Šneideris,
de,n = effective depth of slab A., “Flexural Capacity and Stiffness of Monolithic Biaxial Hollow Slabs,”
Es = elastic modulus of reinforcement Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, V. 20, No. 5, 2014,
e = enhancement factor pp. 693-701. doi: 10.3846/13923730.2014.917122
eb = enhancement factor due to bending action 10. Sagadevan, R., and Rao, B. N., “Analytical Studies on Flexural
em = enhancement factor due to membrane forces Capacity of Biaxial Hollow Slab,” Proceedings, International Conference
fcm = mean compressive strength of concrete cubes on Composite Materials and Structures, Hyderabad, India, 2017.
fcm′ = mean compressive strength of concrete cylinders 11. Ibrahim, A. M.; Ali, N. K.; and Salman, W. D., “Flexural Capacities
fst,b = stress in bottom reinforcement of Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Bubbledeck Slabs of Plastic Spherical
fst,t = stress in top reinforcement Voids,” Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, V. 6, No. 2, 2013, pp. 9-20.
fu = ultimate stress of reinforcement 12. Chung, J. H.; Jung, H. S.; Bae, B.; and Choi, “Two-Way Flex-
fy = yield stress of reinforcement ural Behavior of Donut-Type Voided Slabs,” International Journal of
g0 = parameter to fix depth of compressive stress block Concrete Structures and Materials, V. 12, No. 1, 2018, p. 26 doi: 10.1186/
Ky = flexural secant stiffness corresponds to Py s40069-018-0247-6
k1 = concrete compressive strength factor 13. Sagadevan, R., and Rao, B. N., “Experimental and Analytical Inves-
k2 = factor for the depth of equivalent compressive stress (rectan- tigations on Two-way Flexural Capacity of Biaxial Voided Slab,” Proceed-
gular) in concrete ings, National Conference on Advances in Structural Technologies, 2019,
k3 = factor to account for size effect and conversion of cube strength pp. 635-648.
to cylinder strength 14. Matešan, D.; Radnić, J.; and Grgić, N., “Strength Capacity of Square
l = overall length of slab Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Materials Science and Engineering, V. 43,
le = effective length of slab No. 5, 2012, pp. 399-404.
MAB = moment developed by externally applied load about support AB 15. Chung, J. H.; Bae, B.; Choi, H.-K.; Jung, H.-S.; and Choi, C.-S.,
m = ultimate moment capacity per unit length of slab “Evaluation of Punching Shear Strength of Voided Slabs Considering the
mx = ultimate moment capacity per unit length of slab in x-direction Effect of the Ratio bo/d,” Engineering Structures, V. 164, 2018, pp. 70-81.
my = ultimate moment capacity per unit length of slab in y-direction doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.085
m θ = ultimate moment capacity per unit length of yield line 16. Bailey, C. G., “Membrane Action of Unrestrained Lightly Reinforced
Pn = theoretical ultimate load of solid slab based on YLM Concrete Slabs at Large Displacements,” Engineering Structures, V. 23,
Ps = experiment load corresponding to limiting deflection No. 5, 2001, pp. 470-483. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00064-X
Pu = observed maximum load in the experiment 17. Taylor, R.; Maher, D. R. H.; and Hayes, B., “Effect of the Arrange-
Py = load corresponding to yielding of reinforcement ment of Reinforcement on the Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,”
Tb = force in bottom reinforcement Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 18, No. 55, 1966, pp. 85-94. doi:
Tt = force in top reinforcement 10.1680/macr.1966.18.55.85
xu = neutral axis depth at ultimate 18. Wood, R. H., Plastic and Elastic Design of Slabs and Plates, Thames
x̅ = depth of resultant compressive force in concrete and Hudson, London, UK, 1961, 344 pp.
Wn = theoretical ultimate load (UDL) of solid slab based on YLM 19. Brotchie, J. F., and Holley, M. J. “Membrane Action in Slabs,”
Wn1 = theoretical ultimate load (UDL) of solid slab based on YLM and Cracking, Deflection and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab Systems, SP-30,
membrane action American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1971, pp. 345-377.
Ws = equivalent UDL of Ps 20. Burgess, I., “Yield-Line Plasticity and Tensile Membrane Action in
Wu = equivalent UDL of Pu without considering self-weight of slab Lightly-Reinforced Rectangular Concrete Slabs,” Engineering Structures,
Wu1 = equivalent UDL of Pu inclusive of self-weight of slab V. 138, 2017, pp. 195-214. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.072
w = deflection of yield line 21. Eyre, J. R., “Direct Assessment of Safe Strengths of RC Slabs under
ε0 = strain in concrete at maximum stress Membrane Action,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 123, No. 10,
εc = strain in concrete 1997, pp. 1331-1338. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:10(1331)
εst,b = strain in bottom reinforcement 22. Herraiz, B., and Vogel, T., “Novel Design Approach for the
εst,t = strain in top reinforcement Analysis of Laterally Unrestrained Reinforced Concrete Slabs Considering
δ = theoretical maximum midspan deflection Membrane Action,” Engineering Structures, V. 123, 2016, pp. 313-329. doi:
δu = midspan deflection of slab corresponding to Pu 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.05.033
δy = midspan deflection of slab corresponding to Py 23. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
θx = inclination of yield line with respect to x-direction Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19),” American
Ø = diameter Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019, 624 pp.
24. IS 456, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice,” Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 2000.
REFERENCES 25. Hognestad, E., “Yield-Line Theory for the Ultimate Flexural
1. Pillai, S. U., and Menon, D., Reinforced Concrete Design, third Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 49,
edition, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, India, 2012. No. 3, Mar. 1953, pp. 637-656.
2. Kim, B. H.; Chung, J. H.; and Choi, H. K., “Flexural Capacities of 26. Hsueh, P. K., “The Yield-Line Theory for Concrete Slabs,” PhD
One-Way Hollow Slab with Donut Type Hollow Sphere,” Key Engineering thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 1966.
Materials, V. 452-453, 2011, pp. 773-776. 27. ACI Committee 421, “Guide to Design of Reinforced Two-Way Slab
3. Churakov, A. G., “Biaxial Hollow Slab with Innovative Types of Systems (ACI 421.3R-15),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Voids,” Construction of Unique Buildings and Structures, V. 6, No. 21, MI, 2015, 28 pp.
2014, pp. 70-88. 28. Quintas, V., “Two Main Methods for Yield Line Analysis of
4. Sagadevan, R., and Rao, B. N., “Evaluation of One-Way Flexural Slabs,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 129, No. 2, 2003,
Behaviour of Biaxial Voided Slab,” Indian Concrete Journal, V. 98, No. 5, pp. 223-231. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2003)129:2(223)
2019, pp. 7-16. 29. Taylor, R., “A Note on A Possible Basis for A New Method of
5. Sagadevan, R., and Rao, B. N., “Numerical Study on Flexural Ultimate Load Design of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Magazine of
Capacity of Biaxial Hollow Slab,” Recent Advances in Structural Engi- Concrete Research, V. 17, No. 53, 1965, pp. 183-186. doi: 10.1680/
neering, Volume 1—Select Proceedings of SEC 2016, A. R. M. Rao and K. macr.1965.17.53.183
Ramanjaneyulu, eds., Springer, Singapore, 2019, pp. 97-105. 30. Hayes, B., “Allowing for Membrane Action in the Plastic Analysis of
6. Björnson, G., “BubbleDeck - Two-Way Hollow Slab,” Denmark, Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Magazine of Concrete Research,
2003, pp. 1-16 pp. V. 20, No. 65, 1968, pp. 205-212. doi: 10.1680/macr.1968.20.65.205

14 ACI Structural Journal/September 2020