ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title No. 111-S32

TECHNICAL PAPER

Punching of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs with DoubleHeaded Shear Reinforcement

by Maurcio P. Ferreira, Guilherme S. Melo, Paul E. Regan, and Robert L. Vollum
Twelve slabs, 11 of which contained double-headed studs as shear reinforcement, were tested supported by central column and loaded concentrically. Their behavior is described in terms of deections, rotations, strains of the concrete close to the column, strains of the exural reinforcement across the slab width, and strains of the studs. All failures were by punching, in most cases within the shear reinforced region. The treatments of punching resistance in ACI318, Eurocode 2 (EC2), and the critical shear crack theory (CSCT) are described, and their predictions are compared with the results of the present tests and 39 others from the literature. The accuracy of predictions improves from ACI 318 to EC2 to CSCTthat is, with increasing complexity. However, the CSCT assumptions about behavior are not well supported by the experimentalobservations.
Keywords: codes; at slabs; punching; shear studs.

INTRODUCTION There is no generally accepted theoretical treatment of punching, and design is based on empirical methods given in codes of practice. While there is similarity between them in terms of general approach, there are considerable differences in their assumptions and the resulting equations, which leads to uncertainties about their reliability. A further cause of uncertainty is the wide variety of types of shear reinforcement, such as stirrups of various forms, bent-up bars, welded fabric, and stud systems. Comparisons of design equations with the results of tests using different types of shear reinforcement can result in a wide scatter, while comparisons of slabs with only one type are often limited by the restricted data available. This paper presents the results of tests1 of slabs with double-headed studs as shear reinforcement, followed by a short review of the design methods of ACI 318,2 Eurocode2 (EC2),3 and the critical shear crack theory (CSCT) of Muttoni et al.,4,5 which is the basis of the punching clauses of the b Model Code 2010 draft.6 The results of the present tests and of others on slabs with double-headed shear reinforcement are then compared with the three design methods. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE There are considerable differences between the design methods for punching in ACI 318, EC2, and the CSCT. The primary objective of the experimental study described in this paper was to assess the realism of the assumptions underlying these design methods. The principal variables in the test series were the sizes and spacings of the studs, and the size and shape of the columns. Extensive measurements were made of slab rotations and strains in the concrete, and exural and shear reinforcement. Comparisons between ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

Fig. 1Test arrangements. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1mm= 0.0394 in.) experimental and calculated strengths for the present tests and others are presented to evaluate the accuracies of themethods. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Twelve tests were made at the University of Brasilia. The specimens were square slabs 2.5 x 2.5 m (8.2 x 8.2 ft) on plan and 180 mm (7.1 in.) thick supported centrally by circular or square columns (Type C and S slabs, respectively). Equal downward loads were applied at eight points close to the slab edges, as shown in Fig.1.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 2, March-April 2014. MS No. S-2012-119, doi:10.14359.51686535, was received April 4, 2012, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2014, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journals date if the discussion is received within four months of the papers print publication.

363

The main variables were the shape and size of the column, the amount and distribution of the shear reinforcement, and some details of the main reinforcement. The concrete was made with ordinary portland cement, natural sand, and crushed limestone aggregate with a maximum size of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.). The concrete strength was determined from 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) control cylinders that were tested at the same time as the slabs. The arrangement of exural reinforcement was basically the same in all but two of the specimens (Slabs C5 and C6). The general arrangement of the upper tension reinforcement was 16 mm (No. 5) bars with fy = 540 MPa (78 ksi) and Es = 213 GPa (30,893 ksi) at spacings of 100 mm (4 in.) in the outer layer and 90 mm (3.54 in.) in the inner layer, providing almost equal exural resistances in two directions. The bottom reinforcement was 8 mm (0.315 in.) bars positioned directly below alternate top bars. At the edges, each top bar was lapped with a 12.5 mm (No. 4) hair-pin shaped bar with 500 mm (20 in.) horizontal legs. Only minor adjustments to this arrangement were needed to avoid clashes with shear reinforcement. In Slab C5, the tension reinforcement in the central parts of the widths was increased to 20 mm (No. 6) bars with fy = 544 MPa (79 ksi) and Es = 208 GPa (30,168 ksi) and that in the outer parts was decreased, to obtain a higher reinforcement ratio near the column without signicantly altering the exural capacity. The details of this slab are shown in Fig.2. As the failures of some of slabs appeared to be inuenced by crushing of the soft near the column, Slab C6 was provided with compression reinforcement comprised of four 16.0 mm (No. 5) bars through the column in each direction, and 12.5 mm (No. 4) bars below all the top bars in the rest of the width. The shear reinforcement was double-headed studs made of deformed 10 mm (No. 3) bars with fyw = 535 MPa (78 ksi) and Es = 211 GPa (30,603 ksi), or 12.5 mm (No. 4) bars with fyw = 518 MPa (75 ksi) and Es = 204 GPa (29,588 ksi). The heads, with diameters three times the bar size, were welded to the shanks, and the completed studs were spot-welded to nonstructural carrier rails, which were 10 mm (3/8 in.) wide and 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) thick. The shear reinforcement was positioned from above, with the carrier rails sitting on the upper tension bars either directly or via cross rails. Tests of studs, in which the loading was applied via the heads, showed that the welds between the heads and shanks were able to develop the full strengths of the bars with ductile failures away from the welds. In all but one of the slabs, the lines of studs ran outward from the columns along equally spaced radial lines (radial arrangement). The exception was Slab C4, where a cruciform arrangement was used. Typical details are shown in Fig. 3. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of all slabs. TEST RESULTS Deflections and rotations Deections of the top surfaces of the slabs were measured along their centerlines by dial gauges mounted from frames spanning over the slabs and supported on the laboratory 364

Fig. 2Flexural reinforcement of Slab C5. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) oor. An example of the deected proles is shown in Fig.4, where it can be seen that segments of the slab rotated about axes at or very close to the column face, and the top surfaces remained more or less straight on radial lines. The displacements of the slab very close to the column, visible in Fig.4, were likely due mostly to movements in the support of the column, and were not deections of the slab relative to thecolumn. Figure 5 shows envelopes of the experimental loadrotation relationships, and the theoretical ones according to CSCT. The experimental rotations plotted are the averages of values determined from deections, measured on the centerline of the slabs at distances 274 and 1049 mm (10.8and 41.3 in.) from the slab center in the North, South, East, and West directions. The CSCT values have been calculated from Eq. (13) and (14). The correlations between experimental and calculated results are good. Strains of concrete Strain gauges were used to measure the strains of the bottom surfaces of the concrete close to the columns. The general responses were similar to those observed by others. At low loads, the compression strains in both directions were similar, and increased with increasing load. As loading continued, the radial strains stabilized and then decreased, sometimes becoming tensile before failure. The tangential compressions increased at progressively higher rates. At circular columns, the maximum compression strains were from 2.5 to 2.8, where the gauges were 20 mm (0.8in.) from the column faces, and 3.1 to 3.2, where the gauges were 40 mm (1.6 in.) from the faces. In the slabs with square columns, the maximum compressions recorded were lower, but this was probably due to their being on the slab centerlines, while the greatest strains were likely at the corners of the columns. ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

Table 1Characteristics of test slabs

Shear reinforcement Slab No. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 S1 S2 S5 S7
*

Column size , mm (in.) 270 (10.6) 360 (14.2) 450 (17.7) 360 (14.2) 360 (14.2) 360 (14.2) 360 (14.2) 360 (14.2) 300 (11.8) 300 (11.8) 300 (11.8) 300 (11.8)

d, mm (in.) 143 (5.6) 140 (5.5) 142 (5.6) 140 (5.5) 140 (5.5) 143 (5.6) 144 (5.7) 144 (5.7) 145 (5.7) 143 (5.6) 143 (5.6) 143 (5.6)

,%

fc, MPa (ksi) 47.8 (6.9) 46.9 (6.8) 48.9 (7.1) 47.9 (6.9) 49.7 (7.2) 48.6 (7.0) 49.0 (7.1) 48.1 (7.0) 48.3 (7.0) 49.4 (7.2) 50.5 (7.3) 48.9 (7.1)

Studs

so, mm (in.) 70 (2.8) 70 (2.8) 70 (2.8) 70 (2.8) 70 (2.8) 70 (2.8) 55 (2.2) 70 (2.8) 70 (2.8) 70 (2.8) 70 (2.8)

sr, mm (in.) 100 (3.9) 100 (3.9) 100 (3.9) 100 (3.9) 100 (3.9) 100 (3.9) 80 (3.1) 100 (3.9) 100 (3.9) 100 (3.9) 100 (3.9)

1.48 1.52 1.49 1.52 2.00 1.48 1.47 1.47 1.46 1.48 1.48 1.48

10 10.0 x 6 10 10.0 x 6 10 10.0 x 6 12 10.0 x 6 10 10.0 x 6 10 10.0 x 6 10 10.0 x 7 12 10.0 x 6 12 10.0 x 2 12 10.0 x 4 12 12.5 x 4

Diameter in Series C, side length in Series S. Calculated as x y . In all slabs except C5, reinforcement distributed uniformly across widths. For C5, 2.00% is ratio in central (c + 6d), and 1.56% is ratio for full width.

Number of studs per perimeter, stud size (mm) by number of perimeters.

Fig. 3Shear reinforcement. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1mm = 0.0394 in.) The difference in maximum strains at distances of 20 and 40 mm (0.8 and 1.6 in.) points to restraint from the columns, and the strains 40 mm (1.6 in.) from the columns were probably high enough to indicate distress of the concrete due to tangential stresses, except in the one slab without shearreinforcement. ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

Fig. 4Load-displacement of Slab C3. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) 365

Fig. 5Load-rotation behavior of tested slabs. (Note: 1kN= 0.2248 kip.) Figure 6 shows the developments of strains measured in Slabs C2 and C6, the former having only nominal bottom steel, and the latter being the slab with considerable compression reinforcement. In C6, the maximum strain of 3.2 was reached at a load equal to the failure load of C2. Thereafter, the strain in C6 decreased as the load was increased to failure. This suggests that the 12% higher ultimate strength was achieved with the compression reinforcement locally taking over the function of the failing concrete. Strains of flexural reinforcement Strains of the exural tension reinforcement were measured by pairs of strain gauges at opposite ends of diameters of the upper bars, at a section just outside the column. The resulting proles of tangential strains for Slabs C1 through 4 and C8 are shown in Fig. 7. Strains beyond yield were recorded in considerable parts of the slab widths, but the yielding never reached the slab edge, that is, a yield line was never developed. Strains of shear reinforcement Strains were measured at the midheight of the shear studs in four lines of the shear reinforcement in all slabs. 366

Fig. 6Strains of concrete at softs of Slabs C2 and C6. (Note: 1kN= 0.2248 kip.) The strains were measured in the inner three rings of shear reinforcement in the slabs with circular columns, and at all perimeters for the slabs with square columns. The average stresses (strain Es) in the shear reinforcement are summarized in Table 2. Typical proles of stud stresses along radial lines are shown in Fig. 8. The stud stresses summarized in Table 2 are thought to be reasonably close to the maximum stresses in the studs because the studs were short. The difference between the measured and maximum stress depends on the product of the bond stress and the distance from the shear crack to the midheight of the studs. Allowing for bond along lengths between cracks and strain gauges, it appears that the rst perimeter of shear reinforcement is likely to have yielded in all the tests except C6, C7, and S7. Ultimate loads and modes of failure All of the slabs failed by punching, and Table 2 gives the ultimate loads and summarizes data from relevant strain measurements at or close to failure. The slabs with shear reinforcement failed inside the shear reinforced areas in all cases but S1, where there were only two perimeters of studs, and S7, where the diameter of the studs was 12.5 mm (No. 4). ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

Fig. 7Strains of exural reinforcement. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.)

Fig. 8Average stud stresses at Perimeters 1 to 3. (Note: 1kN = 0.2248 kip; 1 MPa = 0.1450 kip.) 367

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

Specimens C2, C5, and C6 (Table 1) were similar apart from the detailing of the exural reinforcement. Comparison of the shear strengths of C2 and C5 shows that the punching resistance was increased by approximately 15% by concentrating 60% of the exural reinforcement into a 1 m (39 in.) wide band centered on the column whilst maintaining the same exural capacity across the slab width as in the other tests. The shear strength of C6 was increased by approximately 12% relative to C2 through the provision of additional compression steel.

The specimens were saw-cut half width in two orthogonal directions to reveal the failure surfaces. For the inside failures, most of the surfaces ran from the soft at the column face to reach the level of the top steel at the second perimeter of studs, but there were exceptions. In both sections of SlabC1 and one of Slab C2, the failure surfaces crossed the inner studs very close to their upper heads. In Slabs C5, C6, and S2, they reached to the level of the top bars at the third or fourth perimeter of studs. In C7, there were multiple cracks reaching the main steel from the third to the fth perimeter in one section, while in the perpendicular direction, the surface ran just above the lower heads of the studs out to the fourth layer and reached the top steel at the sixth layer. In the outside failures, the surface was entirely outside the studs in S1, but did cross them just above their lower heads in S7. In some slabs, most notably C6, there was spalling of the slab around the column that commenced before failure. METHODS OF CALCULATION All three approaches considered herein take the punching strength of a slab with shear reinforcement as the least of VR,cs, VR,out, and VR,max, but not less that VR,c, where VR,c is the resistance of an otherwise similar slab without shear reinforcement; VR,cs is the combined resistance of the concrete and shear reinforcement; VR,out is the resistance from the concrete alone just outside the shear reinforcement; and VR,max is the maximum resistance possible for a given column size, slab effective depth and concrete strength. These resistances correspond to failures of the types shown in Fig. 9. The calculations are made for perimeters at specied distances from supports: uo is the perimeter at the outline of the support; u1 is the perimeter used in the calculation of VR,c and VR,cs; and uout is the perimeter used in the calculation of VR,out.

Fig. 9Types of punching failure. Table 2Summary of test results

Average stud stresses, MPa (ksi) Slab No. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 S1 S2 S5 S7

*

c,max ,
*

ry , mm (in.) 450 (17.7) 550 (21.7) 625 (24.6) 770 (30.3) 490 (19.3) 750 (29.5) 540 (21.3) 660 (26.0) 560 (22.0) 570 (22.4) 130 (5.1) 600 (23.6)

1 535 (77.6) 530 (76.9) 511 (74.1) 535 (77.6) 504 (73.1) 479 (69.5) 386 (56.0) 535 (77.6) 535 (77.6) 535 (77.6) 238 (34.5)

2 317 (46.0) 235 (34.1) 362 (52.5) 461 (66.8) 264 (38.3) 421 (61.0) 419 (60.8) 436 (63.2) 473 (68.6) 514 (74.5) 285 (41.3)

3 137 (19.9) 121 (17.5) 189 (27.4) 297 (43.1) 160 (23.2) 474 (68.7) 167 (24.2) 179 (26.0) 216 (31.3) 137 (19.9)

Vu, kN (kip) 858 (192.9) 956 (214.9) 1077 (242.1) 1122 (252.2) 1117 (251.1) 1078 (242.3) 1110 (249.5) 1059 (238.1) 1021 (229.5) 1127 (253.4) 779 (175.1) 1197 (269.1)

Failure mode In In In In In In In In Out In Out

2.66 2.81 2.54 2.28

||

3.24 3.20 3.14 3.14 2.37 2.15 1.47 2.67

c,max is maximum tangential strain of concrete (measured 20 mm from columns in C1 to C4, S1 and S2, and 40 mm from columns in C5 to C8 and S7). For slab Type S, strains measured on centerlines.
||

ry is radius in which tangential strain > y. Averages of Ess fyw in Perimeters 1, 2, and 3. Ultimate shear force including self-weights of slabs and loading system.

Measured at 0.85Vu.

368

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

Fig. 12Control perimeters: CSCT. Fig. 10Detailing and control perimeters: ACI 318. VR,cs = 0.75VR,c + VR,s (2) VR,s = d Asw f yw with fyw 414 MPa (60,000 psi) (3) sr VR,out = 1 6 fc uout d (4)

VR,max = 2 3 VR,max = 1 2

fc u1 d if sr 0.5d (5a)

fc u1 d if 0.5d sr 0.75d (5b)

fc is limited to 69 MPa (10,000 psi) for calculation purposes. Fig. 11Detailing and control perimeters: EC2. The locations and lengths of u1 and uout vary with the method of calculation. The symbols used for spacings of shear reinforcement are as follows: so is the distance from column to inner studs; sr is the radial spacing of studs; and st is the tangential spacing of studs at a perimeter. The effective depth d is taken as the average for orthogonal directions, d = (dx + dy)/2. The expressions for punching resistances are given below in SI units (N and mm) without any explicit safety factors. Those from ACI 318 are for nominal resistances, and the others are for characteristic resistances. The perimeters u1 and uout and the detailing requirements, in relation to the spacings of shear reinforcement, are illustrated by Fig. 10, 11, and 12 for ACI 318, EC2, and the CSCT, respectively. ACI 318-08 As double-headed studs are not considered explicitly, the equations used herein are those for studs with heads at their top ends and bottom anchorages provided by welds to structural rails VR,c = 1 3 fc u1 d (1) EC2-04 VR,c = 0.18k(100fc)1/3u1d (6) k = 1 + 200 / d 2 (7)

VR.cs = 0.75VR,c + VR,s (8) d Asw f yw,ef (9) sr

VR,s = 1.5

fyw,ef = 1.15(250 + 0.25d) fyw 600 MPa (87,000 psi) (10) VR,out = 0.18k(100fc)1/3uout,efd (11) fc u d (12) VR,max = 0.3 fc 1 250 o is the ratio of exural reinforcement calculated as x y , where x and y are the ratios in orthogonal directions determined for widths equal to those of the column plus 3d to

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

369

VR,s = Aswsi() Aswfyw (16)

VR,cs = VR,c + VR,s (17) VR,out = 0.75uout dv fc 1 + 15d / (16 + dg ) (18)

VR,max = 3VR,c (19) where si is the stress in the i-th perimeter of shear reinforcement which is related to the width of the critical shear crack, where it crosses the shear reinforcement.5 The summations Asw and Aswsi() are for all the shear reinforcement within a distance d from the column. The CSCT average method is intended to give approximately mean strengths. In it, the stresses in studs at different distances (d) from the column are calculated assuming that the width of the critical shear crack increases linearly, from zero at the slab soft to the width corresponding to a slab rotation and a crack opening angle of 0.5, at the level of the tension reinforcement. The stress in a stud is then obtained by equating the vertical component of the crack opening to the elongation of the stud for a given stress at the crack. COMPARISONS OF TESTS AND CALCULATIONS General Experimental strengths from the present tests and from others reported in the literature have been compared with resistances calculated by the three methods described previously. The shear reinforcement in the tests by Regan,7 Regan and Samadian,8 Beutel,9 and Birkle10 was double-headed studs made from either deformed or plain round bars. In the tests by Gomes and Regan,11 it was slices of steel I-beams with the anges acting as anchorages. The shear reinforcement was positioned radially unless noted as ACI type in Table A1 in Appendix A. The calculations of punching resistances were made using the expressions given previously, with their limits generally respected. Exceptions to this were as follows. For ACI 318 and EC2, the limits on so/d and sr/d were given a little tolerance. Values of sr/d up to 0.8 were treated as acceptable, and for EC2 the lower limit so/d < 0.3 was waived with values going down to 0.24. EC2 does not envisage the use of plain round shear reinforcement, but this has been ignored, and lower limits on d for the use of shear reinforcement were ignored. (The least effective depth in the tests used was 124 mm [4.9 in.] in six slabs by Birkle.10) The CSCT shear strengths were calculated using slab rotations calculated with Eq. (13), in which Vex was calculated with Eq. (14). The stresses in the shear reinforcement were calculated in accordance with the recommendations in (5). The resulting slab rotations were slightly greater than the measured slab rotations, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The predicted shear strengths typically increase by less than 5% for the slabs tested in this program if measured rotations are used instead of calculated rotations. For the CSCT, there ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

Fig. 13Punching strengths according to CSCT: Slab C1. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.) either side. 0.02 for calculation purposes, and the scope of EC2 is limited to fc 90 MPa (13,000 psi). Critical shear crack theory In the CSCT, punching resistances are related to the rotation of the slab, outside a critical crack. Half of this rotation is assumed to occur in the critical shear crack and, as the slab rotates, the concrete component of shear resistance at the crack is assumed to decrease, while the component from the shear reinforcement increases up to yield. The rotation is related to the ratio V/Vex, where V is the acting shear, and Vex is the shear force corresponding to the exural capacity, calculated by yield-line theory. Values of VR,c, VR,cs, VR,out, and VR,max can be determined as shown in Fig. 13, by plotting the resistances against and nding their intersections with Eq. (13) r fy V 2 = 1.5 s d Es V flex (13)
3

where rs is the distance from the column center to the line of radial contraexure; and is in radians. For typical punching test specimens, rs is the distance from the column center to the slab edge. The exural failure load Vex is approximatedby5 rs Vex = 2 mR r r (14) q c where mR is the moment resistance per unit length of yield line; rq is the radius at which loading is applied; and rc is the radius of the column and for square columns can be taken as 2c/, where c is the side length of the column. In the CSCT average method given in Reference 5 0.75u1 d fc VR,c = 1 + 15d / (16 + dg ) (15)

370

Table 3Comparisons with test results for slabs without shear reinforcement
Vu/Vcalc Slab No. d, mm (in.) , % S5 143 (5.6) 1.48 ACI 318 Ferreira1 1.30 1.20
11

Table 4Statistics of Vu /Vcalc for slabs with shear reinforcement

No. of tests ACI 318 Mean 1.47 COV 0.148 EC2 Mean Ferreira1 1.20 COV 0.160 Mean 1.23 CSCT COV 0.108

EC2

CSCT 1.24

EC2

1.10

11

Gomes and Regan 1 1A 1 7 10 159 (6.3) 159 (6.3) 124 (4.9) 190 (7.5) 260 (10.2) Mean Coefcient of variation
*

Regan7 and Regan and Samadian8 1.00 1.03 1.10 1.02 0.86 1.04 0.12 0.89 0.92 0.96 0.93 0.78 0.93 0.11 9 1.35 0.185 9 1.56 0.100 1.06 Beutel 6 1.72 0.093
9

1.27 1.27 1.53 1.29 1.10

1.16 1.20 Birkle10 1.30 1.12 0.88 1.16 0.13

0.96 1.01 1.11 0.94 0.78 0.99 0.15

0.087

1.05

0.102

1.34

0.087

1.16

0.101

Gomes and Regan11 10 1.76 0.134 1.28 Birkle

10

0.081

1.28

0.083

1.09 Total

0.105

1.06

0.050

EC2 calculations as for EC2, but with no upper limit on k = 1+(200/d).

are only a few cases in which there were two perimeters of shear reinforcement within a distance d from the support, but there are some where a second layer was not much further out (all of the slabs by Gomes and Regan11 where the distances varied from 1.0d to 1.04d and Slabs 2, 3, 9, and 12 by Birkle10 where the distances were from 1.09d to 1.18d). The second perimeter has been included in Asw, where the distance was less than 1.05d. Details of the individual slabs and the results obtained are given in Appendix A, while Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of the comparisons for slabs without and with shearreinforcement. Although there are only six results in Table 3, it is noteworthy that, for all the methods of calculation, Vu/Vcalc decreases with increasing effective depth. This is not surprising for ACI 318, which has no size factor, or for EC2, where the size factor is constant for d 200 mm (7.9 in.). It is surprising for the CSCT, which includes a size factor taking account of the effective depth and the maximum size of aggregate. The best correlation in the table is that for EC2*, which is the same as EC2, but without the limit on k=1 + (200 / d ). With this modication, however, the mean Vu/Vcalc is low, and the coefcient of 0.18 in Eq. (7) would need to be reduced. Table 4 summarizes the results of the comparisons with the 45 slabs with shear reinforcement, and all three methods of calculation are broadly satisfactory. The coefcient of variation of Vu/Vcalc decreases with increasing complexity in the method. The ACI method is the simplest and gives a coefcient of variation of 0.162. The EC2 method is slightly more complex, and reduces the coefcient by 0.026, while the CSCT is considerably more complicated, but gives a further reduction of 0.015. There are no unsafe predictions from ACI 318, but there are four from EC2 and the CSCT, with the lowest values of Vu/Vcalc being 0.88 for EC2, and 0.90 for the CSCT. An overall reduction of Vcalc by 4% would make each of these methods safe in the sense of limiting the probability of an unsafe prediction to 5%, assuming a statistically normal distribution of Vu/Vcalc. ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

45

1.56

0.162

1.19

0.136

1.16

0.121

ACI 318 and EC2 are basically empirical, but the CSCT claims a rational basis. Unfortunately, its modeling of slab deformations is incorrect. The rotation is predicted satisfactorily by Eq. (13), but, as can be seen from Fig. 4, it is not divided equally into movements at the column face and in a shear crack. In addition, the surfaces at which failure occurs are not at 45 degrees to the slab plane, but have variable geometries. Refer to the section entitled, Ultimate loads and modes of failure. In nine tests by Ferreira1 and ve by Birkle,10 EC2 predicts outside failures for slabs that actually failed in the shear-reinforced zones. Its predictions of failure modes in the other series are generally good. The main cause of the problem seems to be the overestimation of VR,cs. For the slabs by Ferreira,1 the mean Vu/VR,cs is 0.98, and the coefcient of variation is 0.061. For Birkles tests,10 the corresponding gures are 0.88 and 0.101, but would be improved if the four slabs with so/d less than 0.3 were excluded. The situation could be improved by either a reduction of VR,c or by interpreting the codes expression for the design value of the stud stress (fywd,ef) as not requiring a safety factor so long as fywd,ef is less than fyw/1.15that is, by taking fyw,ef as (250 + 0.25d) fyw. The EC2 predictions of VR,out for slabs with radial arrangements of shear reinforcement are generally satisfactory, though perhaps over-conservative for the slabs by Gomes and Regan.11 In these slabs, the 0.64d widths of the I-beam anges reduced the clear tangential spacing of the shear reinforcement. This could be allowed for, and would make Vu/VR,out for these tests similar to those for other series. The strength of Ferreiras1 Slab C4 with an ACI cross arrangement of studs which failed inside is predicted very conservatively with Vu/VR,out = 1.69. For Birkles10 slabs with the ACI layout, which failed outside, the strengths are well predicted with Vu/VR,out = 1.21. Slab C4 was unrealistic in relation to EC2 design because it had six perimeters of studs, while the same strength would be calculated for a slab with two perimeters of studs. The performance of C4 is in marked 371

Fig. 14Inuence of slab rotation on Vu/Vcalc CSCT. contrast to that of slabs by Mokhtar et al.,12 with up to eight perimeters of studs on stud rails. Their strengths are quite well predicted by EC2. Influence of slab rotation on shear resistance provided by concrete Unlike ACI 318 and EC2, the CSCT predicts that the shear resistance provided by concrete reduces with slab rotation, which is assumed to be proportional to (V/Vex)1.5. This has signicant implications for design because Vu/Vex may be close to one for practical slabs. Consequently, the CSCT can require signicantly greater areas of shear reinforcement than EC2. The inuence of slab rotation on Vu/Vcalc for the CSCT is illustrated by Fig. 14, where the ratio is plotted against the normalized rotation d/(16 + dg), with calculated by Eq. (13). There is a clear tendency for the CSCT to become more conservative with increasing slab rotation, which suggests that Vu is either independent of , or that the CSCT overestimates the inuence of rotation. In the case of outside failure, this is to be expected as the rotation develops close to the column and not within a crack outside the shearreinforcement. Muttoni4 plots Vu/u1d fc against d/(16 + dg) for 99 tests of slabs without shear reinforcement, and shows that experimental strengths are close to the predictions of Eq. (15), which may appear to contradict the preceding paragraph. This, however, is not the case. Figure 15 shows Vu/u1d fc plotted against d/(16 + dg) for slabs similar to Ferreiras1 C2, but without shear reinforcement, and with from 0.4 to 4.0%. The values of Vu have been calculated by EC2 and the CSCT, u1 is the CSCT control perimeter, and is the rotation calculated by Eq. (13). It can be seen that the effect shown in Muttonis gure can be accounted for by the EC2 relationship between VR,c and 1/3 without involving in the calculations. Failure surface and locations of shear reinforcement ACI 318 and the CSCT assume punching surfaces to be inclined at 45 degrees, while EC2 assumes an inclination of 26.6 degrees. These are simplications of a reality in which the angle increases with increasing shear reinforcement

Fig. 15Inuence of slab rotation on shear strength. (refer to Carvalho et al.13). Reasonable results can, however, be obtained in most instances with xed angles, provided the expressions for VR,c and VR,s are constructed appropriately. This seems to be the case with ACI 318 and EC2, with the former considering d/sr perimeters of studs acting at fyw, and the latter assuming 1.5d/sr perimeters acting at fyw,eff, which is typically approximately 0.7fyw for test slabs. The situation is more complex in the CSCT, as its numbers of perimeters depend on the exact distances of studs from the column. There are cases where the use of different failure surfaces has a signicant effect. Slabs 2, 3, 10, and 11 by Gomes and Regan11 are an example. In these slabs so = sr 0.5d, Asw = 226 mm2 (0.36 in.2) in Slabs 2 and 10, and 325 mm2 (0.5in.2) in Slabs 3 and 11. Slabs 2 and 3 had two perimeters of shear reinforcement, while Slabs 10 and 11 had three. Thus, for ACI 318, two perimeters are taken into account for all the slabs, while in EC2, two perimeters are active in Slabs 2 and 3, but three are active in Slabs 10 and 11. All four slabs failed inside their shear reinforced zones. The EC2 ratios Vu/VR,cs are 1.26 and 1.21 for Slabs 2 and 3, and 1.28 and 1.31 for Slabs 10 and 11. The ACI ratios are 1.39 and 1.28 for Slabs 2 and 3, and 1.58 and 1.61 for Slabs 10 and 11, showing that the extra perimeter of shear reinforcement had an effect. The same slabs illustrate a problem with the CSCTs considering the active shear reinforcement to be exactly that within a distance d from a column rather than using an expression in d/sr. Because of variations of effective depths, (so + sr) = 1.05d in three cases instead of the intended 1.0d. This discrepancy has been ignored in the calculations for Table A1, but if the CSCT were applied strictly the ratios Vu/VR,cs, which are already unusually high for Slabs 10 and 11, would be signicantly increased. CONCLUSIONS Comparisons have been made between the punching strengths of 45 slabs with and six slabs without shear reinforcement and those predicted by ACI 318, EC2, and the CSCT. ACI 318 is the simplest method, and gives only one unsafe prediction, which is for a slab without shear reinforcement. Its mean value of Vu/Vcalc for slabs with shear reinforcement is rather high, and the coefcient of variation is 0.162. The ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

372

most apparent weakness is the lack of any treatment of the depth effect in the shear resistance from the concrete. EC2 is only slightly more complicated, but reduces the coefcient of variation of Vu/Vcalc by 0.026. The mean is also reduced, and there are four unsafe predictions for slabs with and four for slabs without shear reinforcement. The simplest way to obtain a characteristic level of safety would be to reduce the constant in the expression for the concrete component of resistance and extend the range of slab depths affected by the depth factor. The CSCT is considerably more complex, and reduces the mean and coefcient of variation of Vu/Vcalc, by a further 0.015. There are unsafe predictions for four slabs with and one without shear reinforcement. The CSCT goes further than the other two approaches in attempting to model the slab behavior. Although its expression for total slab rotation seems good, the assumption that half of this rotation occurs in the critical shear crack is incorrect, as nearly all of it is at the column face. The assumption that all critical cracks are at 45 degrees to the slab plane is also incorrect. The relationship assumed between the concrete component of punching resistance and slab rotation is not conrmed by the test data, and the determination of the area of active shear reinforcement as that crossed by a particular 45 degree surface seems less satisfactory than considering d/sr perimeters.
ACI member Maurcio P. Ferreira is a Lecturer at the Federal University of Para, Belem, Brazil. He received his PhD from the University of Braslia, Braslia, Brazil, in 2010. His research interests include ultimate shear design, strut and tie, and nonlinear nite element modeling. ACI member Guilherme S. Melo is an Associate Professor at the University of Brasilia, where he was Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He is a member of ACI Committees 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. His research interests include punching and post-punching of at plates, the use of ber-reinforced plastic (FRP) in concrete structures, and strengthening and rehabilitation of structures. ACI member Paul E. Regan is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Westminster, London, UK, where he was Head of Architecture and Engineering. He was Chair of the European Concrete Committee (CEB) commission on member design. His research interests include member design in both reinforced and prestressed concrete, with particular emphasis on problems of punching, shear, and torsion. ACI member Robert L. Vollum is a Reader in concrete structures at Imperial College London, London, UK, where he also received his MSc and PhD. His research interests include design for shear, strut-and-tie modeling, and design for the serviceability limit states of deection and cracking.

side length of square column or diameter of circular column mean effective depth maximum size of aggregate depth from tension reinforcement to compression zone anchorage of shear reinforcement Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement fc = cylinder compression strength of concrete fy = yield stress of exural reinforcement so = distance from column face to rst perimeter of shear reinforcement sr = radial spacing of shear reinforcement st = tangential spacing of shear reinforcement st,max = maximum value of st (general in outer perimeter of shear reinforcement) u0 = length of column perimeter u1 = length of control perimeter for calculation of VR,c and VR,cs uout = length of control perimeter for calculation of VR,out uout,ef = effective value of uout for calculations by EC2, where st,max > 2d V = applied shear force Vcalc = calculated punching resistance Vex = exural strength of slab calculated by yield-line theory VR,c = punching resistance of slab without shear reinforcement VR,cs = punching resistance within shear reinforced zone VR,max = maximum punching resistance for given column size, slab effective depth, and concrete strength VR,out = punching resistance outside shear reinforced zone VR,s = contribution of shear reinforcement to punching resistance VR,cs Vu = experimental punching strength = ratio of exural reinforcement = x y (calculated for width of column plus 3d to either side in EC2) = rotation of part of slab outside critical shear crack

c d dg dv

= = = =

AUTHOR BIOS

The authors are grateful to the Brazilian Research Funding Agencies CAPES (Higher Education Co-ordination Agency) and CNPq (National Council for Scientic and Technological Development) for their support throughout this research and to RFA-Tech for their permission to include test results from Reference 7.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Asw =

area of shear reinforcement in one perimeter

NOTATION

1. Ferreira, M. P., Puno em Lajes Lisas de Concreto Armado com Armaduras de Cisalhamento e Momentos Desbalanceados, PhD thesis, Universidade de Braslia, Braslia, Brazil, 2010, 275 pp. (in Portuguese) available at http://repositorio.bce.unb.br/handle/10482/8965. 2. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp. 3. Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, CEN, EN 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp. 4. Muttoni, A., Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs without Transverse Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-Aug. 2008, pp. 440-450. 5. Fernadez-Ruiz, M., and Muttoni, A., Applications of the Critical Shear Crack Theory to Punching of R/C Slabs with Transverse Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 4, July-Aug. 2009, pp. 485-494. 6. Fdration internationale du bton, b Model Code 2010, First complete draftV. 2, Bulletin 56, b, Lausanne, Switzerland, Apr. 2010, 288 pp. 7. Regan, P. E., unpublished tests for RFA-TECH at Cambridge University, 2009. 8. Regan, P. E., and Samadian, F., Shear Reinforcement against Punching in Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs, The Structural Engineer, V.79, No. 10, May 2001, pp. 24-31. 9. Beutel, R., Punching of Flat Slabs with Shear Reinforcement at Inner Columns, Rheinisch-Westflischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 2002, 267 pp. (in German) 10. Birkle, G., Punching of Flat Slabs: The Inuence of Slab Thickness and Stud Layout, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, Mar. 2004, 152 pp. 11. Gomes, R., and Regan, P. E., Punching Strength of Slabs Reinforced for Shear with Offcuts of Rolled Steel I-Section Beams, Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 51, No. 2, 1999, pp. 121-129. 12. Mokhtar, A. S.; Ghali, A.; and Dilger, W., Stud Shear Reinforcement for Flat Concrete Plates, ACI Journal, V. 82, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 676-683. 13. Carvalho, A. L.; Melo, G. S.; Gomes, R. B.; and Regan, P. E., Punching Shear in Post-Tensioned Flat Slabs with Stud Rail Shear Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2011, pp.523-531.

REFERENCES

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014

373

APPENDIX A Table A1Comparison between theoretical and experimental results

Author Slab No. C1 C2 C3 C4* C5 Ferreira1 C6 C7 C8 S1 S2 S5 S7 1 Regan7 2 3 5 6 Regan and Samadian8 R3 R4 A1 A2 Z1 Z2 Beutel9 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 1 1a 2* Gomes and Regan11 3* 4* 5* 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2* 3 4* 5* Birkle10 6 7 8* 9* 10* 11*
*

Column size, mm 270 C 360 450 360 360 360 360 360 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 240 240 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 263 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 250 250 250 250 250 250 300 300 300 350 350 C C C C C C C S S S S S S S C C S S S S C C C C C C S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

d, mm 143 140 142 140 140 143 144 144 145 143 143 143 150 150 150 160 150 160 160 160 160 250 250 250 250 250 250 159 159 153 158 159 159 159 159 159 159 154 154 124 124 124 124 124 124 190 190 190 260 260

, % 1.48 1.52 1.49 1.52 2.00 1.48 1.47 1.47 1.46 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.45 1.76 1.76 1.65 1.75 1.26 1.26 1.64 1.64 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.25 1.25 1.27 1.27 1.32 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.31 1.31 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.10 1.10

fy, MPa 540 540 540 540 544 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 550 550 550 550 550 670 670 570 570 890 890 890 890 562 562 680 680 680 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 488 488 488 488 488 488 531 531 531 524 524

fc, MPa 48 47 49 48 50 49 49 48 48 49 50 49 33 30 26 62 42 33 39 37 43 25 26 24 32 28 37 40 41 34 39 32 35 37 34 34 40 35 35 36 29 32 38 36 33 35 35 35 31 30

Shear reinforcement fyw, s o, sr, Studs MPa mm mm 10 f10.0 x 6 535 70 100 10 f10.0 x 6 10 f10.0 x 6 12 f10.0 x 6 10 f10.0 x 6 10 f10.0 x 6 10 f10.0 x 7 12 f10.0 x 6 12 f10.0 x 2 12 f10.0 x 4 12 f12.5 x 4 10 f10.0 x 4 12 f10.0 x 6 10 f12.0 x 5 12 f12.0 x 5 12 f10.0 x 5 8 f12.0 x 4 8 f12.0 x 6 8 f10.0 x 6 8 f10.0 x 4 12 f14.0 x 5 12 f14.0 x 5 12 f14.0 x 5 12 f14.0 x 5 12 f16.0 x 5 12 f16.0 x 5 8 f6.0 x 2 8 f6.9 x 2 8 f8.0 x 3 8 f10.0 x 4 8 f10.0 x 4 8 f12.0 x 5 8 f12.0 x 6 8 f12.2 x 9 8 f6.0 x 5 8 f6.9 x 5 8 f9.5 x 6 8 9.5 x 6 8 9.5 x 5 8 9.5 x 5 8 9.5 x 5 8 9.5 x 5 8 9.5 x 6 8 12.7 x 5 535 535 535 535 535 535 535 535 535 518 550 550 550 550 550 442 442 519 519 580 580 580 580 544 544 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 393 393 465 465 465 460 460 409 70 70 70 70 70 55 70 70 70 70 80 60 60 80 75 80 80 80 80 100 88 95 88 94 94 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 45 45 30 30 30 50 75 65 100 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 120 100 120 120 120 120 80 80 120 200 200 188 175 188 188 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 90 90 60 60 60 100 150 130

stmax, mm 436 464 491 900 464 464 442 388 177 280 280 390 390 455 352 349 413 444 444 413 518 511 487 459 505 489 255 255 368 481 323 385 447 425 385 385 721 495 403 403 330 658 1188 856

Vu, kN 858 956 1077 1122 1118 1078 1110 1059 1022 1128 779 1197 881 1141 1038 1268 1074 850 950 1000 950 1323 1442 1616 1646 2024 1954 560 587 693 773 853 853 1040 1120 1200 1227 800 907 483 574 572 636 624 615 825 1050 1091 1046 1620

Failure mode In In In In In In In In Out In P Out Out Out Out In Max Max Max Max Max Max P P In In Out Out Out Out Out In In P In In Out Out Out P In In P In

Vu/ Vex 0.72 0.78 0.82 0.92 0.88 0.86 0.88 0.84 0.80 0.89 0.61 0.94 0.79 0.88 0.83 0.88 0.83 0.63 0.69 0.67 0.62 0.41 0.44 0.50 0.49 0.41 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.53 0.57 0.64 0.63 0.76 0.83 0.89 0.89 0.61 0.70 0.56 0.68 0.67 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.49 0.62 0.64 0.40 0.63

Vu/Vcalc and critical strength CSCT ACI 318-08 EC2-04 average 1.34 Max 0.96 Out 1.07 In 1.27 1.21 1.47 1.44 1.36 1.39 1.34 1.71 1.77 1.30 1.88 1.45 1.71 1.73 1.61 1.81 1.44 1.39 1.50 1.42 1.50 1.59 1.86 1.66 1.90 1.81 1.16 1.20 1.64 1.64 1.98 1.77 2.07 2.02 1.90 1.31 1.58 1.68 1.30 1.24 1.10 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.12 1.29 1.28 0.88 1.24 Max Out Max Max Max Max Max In Out P Out Out Out Out Max Max Out Out Out Out Max Max Max Max Max Max P P In In In Out Out Out Out Out In Out P Out Out In In Out P Out In P Out 1.11 1.20 1.69 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.03 1.36 1.12 1.20 1.19 1.02 1.13 1.22 0.88 1.04 1.04 1.10 1.08 1.03 1.26 1.30 1.57 1.27 1.31 1.31 0.94 0.98 1.26 1.21 1.27 1.24 1.23 1.38 1.48 1.09 1.28 1.31 1.11 1.19 1.12 1.21 1.21 1.18 0.94 0.98 1.06 0.78 1.00 Out Out Out Out Out Out Out Out Out P Out Out Out Out Out In Out Out Out In Max Max Max Max Max Max P P In In Out Out Out Out Out Out In In P Out Out Out Out Out P Out In P Out 1.12 1.15 1.50 1.29 1.24 1.09 1.14 1.37 1.24 1.24 1.32 1.06 1.11 1.09 1.12 1.24 0.90 0.93 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.08 1.20 1.18 1.28 1.23 1.00 1.03 1.12 1.20 1.26 1.13 1.34 1.38 1.38 1.26 1.33 1.42 1.10 1.08 1.02 1.09 1.09 1.04 1.02 0.97 1.15 0.86 1.02 In In Out In In Out In Out Out P Out In Out Out In In Out Out Out In In In In In In In P P Out Out Out Out Out Out Out Max In In P Out In Out Out Out P In In P In

12* 350 S 260 1.10 524 34 8 12.7 x 6 409 95 195 1541 1520 In 0.58 1.03 In 0.90 Out 1.08 In ACI stud layout. Notes: Vu includes self-weight; Vex is approximate yield-line capacity from Eq. (14). Shear reinforcement: In References 1 and 7: deformed studs, 3 heads, so as given for all lines; in Reference 8, slabs R, plain studs, 2.5 heads, Slabs A deformed studs, 2.5 heads, so as given for orthogonal lines, so = 40 mm for diagonal lines; in Reference 9, deformed studs, 3 heads, so as given for all lines; in Reference 11, I-beam slices, ange breath 102 mm, web breath 4.7 mm. values in the table are equivalent diameters giving the same areas as the actual web sections. so as given for orthogonal lines, so = 40 mm for diagonal lines; in Reference 10, plain studs with 3.2 heads, so as given for all lines. Birkles Slabs 5 and 6 had 7 perimeters of studs. The outer two, with sr = d, have been ignored. Aggregate (maximum size and type): In Reference 1, 9.5 mm crushed limestone. In References, 7, 8, 9, and 11, 20 mm gravel. In Reference 10, Slabs 1-614 mm; Slabs 7-1220 mm, type unknown. Failure modes: P is punching of slabs without shear reinforcement, In = failure inside shear reinforced zone (VR,cs), Out = failure outside shear reinforced zone (VR,out); Max = inclined compression failure of concrete close to column (VR,max); in Reference 7 and Slab 9 of Reference 10, the concrete soft around the column crushed and spalled due to tangential compression, the spalling extended and at failure there was inclined cracking starting at the end of the spalled area. 1 mm = 0.03937 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

374

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2014