Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Shear strength of the slab was s a t i s f a c t o r i l y predicted i n Test I by both Moe's equation and the I963 ACI Code.^^^ I n t h i s t e s t , loading was arranged so t h a t v e r t i c a l shear transmitted from the slab t o Column Ck was uniform about the periphery. This condition i s the simplest case of shear tr a n s f e r between slab and column. Test I I . F i r s t f a i l u r e i n Test I I occurred at Col\min E3 under an unex- pectedly low load. In the second part of Test I I , shear strength at Column Ek was investigated. Conditions of loading were very nearly the same i n both parts of the t e s t , and f a i l u r e at Ek was nearly i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t at E3. Calculated strength using methods f o r shear i n slabs overestimated shear capacity at Columns E3 and Ek. Since the slab was extremely s t i f f compared t o the columns, l i t t l e moment was transferred to the edge columns. Shear stresses were p r i n c i p a l l y from v e r t i c a l load. Computed shear strength of the edge beams at Columns E3 and Ek s a t i s f a c t - o r i l y predicted measured values. Although a shear cone was developed, i t appears that strength was governed by beam action. Slab action was not developed since there was essentially u n i a x i a l bending along the edge of the structure. From service load up to about the load that caused shear f a i l u r e at Column E3, the slab responded " e l a s t i c a l l y . " Only when the diagonal cracks opened at E3 was there evidence of distress. Just before f a i l u r e , load-strain and load-deflection relationships became non-linear i n d i c a t i n g r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n t e r n a l forces. The slab exhibited one-way action i n Test I I . With three adjacent panels loaded along the edge of the bu i l d i n g , the behavior of the slab was similar to t h a t of a propped cantilever beam. Nearly f u l l restraint was provided by continuity of the slabs along Line D while the edge columns at Line E pro- vided the v e r t i c a l props. 1- 52
