ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 109-S27

Experimental Investigations on Moment Redistribution and

Punching Shear of Flat Plates
by Jung-Wook Choi and Jang-Ho Jay Kim

Three slab-column connections were tested to investigate the provide valuable information about the reinforcement’s
moment redistribution and punching shear resistance of flat effect on the moment redistribution limit and punching shear
plates under realistic loading and boundary conditions. The test strength of a flat-plate structure.
specimens were essentially identical except that they had different
reinforcement layouts within a span to impose different ratios of the DESIGN CODES
end span and midspan design moments to total static moment. The ACI 318-081
test results showed that the different reinforcement layouts signifi-
In ACI 318-08,1 a limited moment redistribution of the end
cantly and minutely influenced the moment redistribution and the
punching shear resistance, respectively. The moment redistribu- span and midspan factored bending moments is permitted.
tion and punching shear resistance provisions in ACI 318 and EC2 The redistribution of the moments based on elastic theory
were used to analyze the test results. New code recommendations has to be less than
for moment redistribution limit and punching shear strength are
proposed based on the novel findings of this study. 1000 e t (%) ≤ 20(%) (1)
Keywords: flat plates; moment redistribution; punching shear; span
reinforcement layout. where εt is the net tensile strain in the extreme layer of the
longitudinal tension reinforcement.
INTRODUCTION For concentric punching shear, the design shear equation
Experimental research on punching resistance of flat of VACI is a function of the concrete compressive strength
plates has been ongoing since the middle of the last century. fc′; the control perimeter length bo of a critical section (at a
Design methods in building codes to calculate the punching distance of d/2 from the face of the column); and the effec-
resistance of flat plates are based on the results of this tive flexural depth of the slab, d. When both the ratio of the
research. As shown in Fig. 1(a), two test setups for flat plates long side to the short side of the column and the ratio of
under a gravity load have been used. One is a slab supported
by hinges with a concentrated load and the other is a slab
supported on a column stub with a uniform surface load.
These ordinary test setups are inexpensive and simple, but
they have the drawbacks of not being able to simulate actual
moment redistribution and boundary conditions of a flat-plate
system. In the newly proposed method shown in Fig. 1(b),
gravity loading and edge restraint systems were installed to
simulate actual moment redistribution and boundary condi-
tions. This setup is much more complex but successful in
simulating both moment redistribution and punching shear
behaviors of a flat-plate system.
Flat-plate specimens with three different reinforcement
layouts over a single span were tested in this study. The
main objectives of the study were as follows: 1) find out the
moment redistribution and punching shear of a flat plate with
different reinforcement layouts within a span; and 2) verify
ACI 318 and EC2 design provisions on the limits of moment
redistribution and punching shear strength.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A previous ordinary slab-column test method only simu-
lated the negative flexural behavior of a slab without consid-
ering moment redistribution behavior. The newly proposed
test method, however, applies realistic boundary conditions
to a flat-plate system that simulates the actual moment redis-
tribution and punching shear behaviors of the structure.
To study the effects of different bending moment ratios in
the end spans and midspans, three different reinforcement
layouts in the slab were considered. The study results will
Fig. 1—Setups for slab-column test.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 3, May-June 2012.
MS No. S-2010-077.R3 received May 26, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the March-April 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received
by November 1, 2012.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 329

Jung-Wook Choi is a Research Engineer at the Concrete Research Center, Korea
Concrete Institute (KCI), Seoul, Korea. He received his BS, MS, and PhD in
architectural engineering from Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea, in
1994, 1996, and 2003, respectively. His research interests include the conceptual
design of reinforced concrete structures, punching shear, and the modeling techniques
for flat plates.
Jang-Ho Jay Kim is an Associate Professor at the School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Yonsei University, Korea. He received his BS from the University of
California, Los Angeles, CA, in 1992; his MS from the University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, in 1993; and his PhD from Northwestern University, Evanston,
IL, in 1998. His research interests include concrete structural and material behaviors
under various loading conditions, especially extreme loading cases such as blasts,
impacts, typhoons, and so on.
the control perimeter to the effective depth are sufficiently
small, the punching shear strength is
1 assuming that a slab width equals the column width plus 3d on
VACI = l fc′bo d (in SI units; MPa, mm)
3 (2)
VACI = 4l fc′bo d (in U.S. customary units; psi, in.)
where λ is the modification factor for lightweight concrete,
taken as unity for normalweight concrete. If the average
splitting tensile strength fct of lightweight concrete is speci-
fied, λ can be substituted by fct/(0.56√fc′) ≤ 1.0 in SI units
(or fct/(6.7√fc′) ≤ 1.0 in U.S. customary units). Equation (2)
then becomes
3 varying by approximately 50%. The tests also showed that
VACI ,ct = fct bo d (in both SI and U.S. customary units) (3)
5 controlled largely by the reinforcement layout implemented
Eurocode 22
According to EC2, for concrete compressive strength
fc′ ≤ 50 MPa (7.3 ksi), the redistribution of bending moments
can be implemented in design without explicitly checking
the rotation capacity provided that
δ ≥ (k1 + k2 xu / d )
δ ≥ k5 where Class B and C reinforcements are used (4)
(refer to Annex C in EC2)
Fig. 2—Test slab design concept.
330
where δ is the ratio of the redistributed moment to the elastic
bending moment; and xu is the depth of the neutral axis at an
ultimate limit state after redistribution. The recommended
values of k1, k2, and k5 are 0.44, 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014/εcu2),
and 0.7, respectively. The ultimate strain εcu2 is equal to
0.0035 when fc′ is not more than 50 MPa (7.3 ksi).
For concentric punching shear failure, the design shear
equation of VEC2 is a function of the tension reinforcement
ratio ρ and the size effect factor k of the slab.
VEC 2 = 0.18k (100rfc′)1/3 u1 d (in SI units; MPa, mm) (5)
VEC 2 = 5k (100rfc′)1/3 u1 d (in U.S. customary units; psi, in.)
where u1 is the control perimeter length of a critical section
(at a distance of 2d from the face of the column). The tension
reinforcement ratio ρ can be computed as a mean value by
both sides. Additionally, the size effect factor k can be calcu-
lated using k = 1 + 200 mm/d (or k = 1 + 7.87 in./d ) ≤ 2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The slab-column systems for edge panels were tested by
Rangan and Hall.3 In the test, all reinforcements yielded
and the bending moment of the test slabs was fully redis-
tributed before punching shear failure occurred. The test
results4 showed that between the uncracked state and the
maximum load state there was a considerable redistribution
of moments, with the midspan and two end-span moments
near maximum load capacities, the moment redistribution is
by the designer.
For punching shear strength, the ACI 318 equation
(Eq. (2)) is often criticized for failing to account for the
contributions of flexural reinforcements. The CEB-FIP Task
Group5 showed that the punching shear strength is reduced
with a decreasing tension reinforcement ratio in a punching
shear zone, and this finding was verified by the test reports of
Collins and Kuchma6 and Guandalini et al.7 In addition, their
test results demonstrated that the ACI 318 shear equation,
which does not account for the tension reinforcement ratio,
may lead to a less conservative estimate of the punching
shear strength for slabs with low reinforcement ratios.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Design of test slabs
The current ACI 318 design code states that the flexural
strength VF varies approximately in proportion to the tension
reinforcement ratio, whereas the punching shear strength
VP does not correlate with the tension reinforcement ratio.
Thus, the flexural and punching failure lines can be repre-
sented by a diagonal line (a-a′) and a horizontal line (b-b′),
respectively (Fig. 2). The intersection of the diagonal and
horizontal lines is the transition point (c), which marks the
change in behavior from ductile failure to brittle failure of a
flat plate.
The design of the test slabs in this study focused on the
transition point such that the flexural and punching fail-
ures can occur simultaneously. The punching shear load
was calculated for the test slabs according to ACI 318-08
(Eq. (2)) and converted to the load distributed on the test
slabs. A total static moment Mo was then obtained from a free
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012
Table 1—Distribution ratios of end span and midspan moments to total static moment in test slab design
End span Midspan
Reinforcement amount—bar size Reinforcement amount—bar size
Specimen Distribution ratio of moments (nominal area) Distribution ratio of moments (nominal area)
MRA 65% 14-15M (2800 mm2 [4.34 in.2]) 35% 14-10M (1400 mm2 [2.17 in.2])
MRB 50% 11-15M (2200 mm2 [3.41 in.2]) 50% 20-10M (2000 mm2 [3.10 in.2])
MRC 35% 8-15M (1600 mm2 [2.48 in.2]) 65% 26-10M (2600 mm2 [4.03 in.2])

Table 2—Material properties of specimens

Concrete Reinforcement

Compressive Tensile splitting Elastic

cylinder strength strength of modulus of Top Bottom Yield strength of Tensile strength of Elastic modulus of
of concrete fcu, concrete fct, concrete Ec, reinforcement reinforcement reinforcing bar reinforcing bar fu†, reinforcing bar Es†,
Specimen MPa (psi) MPa (psi) MPa (psi) ratio ρT.E.*, % ratio ρB.M.*, % fy†, MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi)
MRA 37.0 (5366) 2.68 (389) 22,444 (3255) 1.059 0.306 (0.243)
404 (58.60) 592 (85.86) 195,854 (28,406)
MRB 30.5 (4424) 2.32 (336) 21,049 (3053) 0.832 0.433 (0.361)
[400] [(58.02)] [605] [(87.75)] [193,470] [(28,060)]
MRC 34.6 (5018) 2.56 (371) 21,696 (3147) 0.575 0.573 (0.455)
*
Top (or bottom) reinforcement ratio at end span (or midspan) for column strip (and for middle strip).
†
Material properties of reinforcing bars for 10M (φ11.3 mm [0.44 in.]) (and for 15M [φ16 mm (0.63 in.)]).

body diagram. All of the specimens were designed to have
an equal total static moment Mo, but the distribution ratios
of the end-span and midspan moments to the total static
moment were varied by assigning different span reinforce-
ment layouts. As shown in Table 1, the distribution ratios of
the end-span and midspan moments for MRA (the control
specimen) were set at 65% and 35%, respectively. The
distribution ratios of the end-span and midspan moments for
MRB and MRC (the parametric specimens) were then set at
50% and 50% and at 35% and 65%, respectively.
For the design, a concrete compressive strength and
reinforcement yield strength of 30 and 400 MPa (4351 and
58,000 psi) were used, respectively. The material proper-
ties of the reinforcement and the concrete (normalweight
concrete) tested just prior to the structural experiment are
summarized in Table 2.
Geometry and reinforcement
The test specimens consisted of a 4200 mm (165.4 in.)
square slab and a 356 mm (14 in.) square column with a
slab thickness of 152 mm (6 in.). The cover thickness for the
top and bottom bars of the test slab was 20 mm (0.79 in.),
and the effective depths of the end spans and midspans
were 116 and 121 mm (4.57 and 4.76 in.), respectively.
The flexural reinforcement layouts of each test slab are
shown in Fig. 3. To satisfy the design requirements for end-
span moments, 15M (φ16 mm [0.63 in.]) top bars were used
within the width of the column strip. To meet the integrity
requirement of the steel, two 10M (φ11.3 mm [0.44 in.])
bottom bars were passed through the column, and the
remaining bottom bars were placed with equal spacing over
the width of the design strip to satisfy the design midspan
moments. For anchorage, both ends of the top bars were
extended by 25 mm (0.98 in.) and both ends of the bottom
bars were welded to the 75 x 75 x 9 mm (2.95 x 2.95 x
0.35 in.) steel plates.
Setup and instrumentation
The test setup is shown in Fig. 4. The load was applied from
below by pushing the lower column upward using a 890 kN
(200 kip) hydraulic jack and was measured by a vertical load
cell (L1). This load was transferred to the gravity loading
system, which was installed to simulate the gravity loading
condition of the slab via 16 loading points. The gravity
loading system consisted of 16 vertical tie rods (φ19 mm
[0.75 in.]) connected to each loading point, eight horizontal
hollow steel sections (HSS, 100 x 200 x 5 mm [3.94 x 7.87 x
0.2 in.]), four horizontal HSS (150 x 150 x 9.5 mm [5.91 x
5.91 x 0.37 in.]), and four vertical tie rods (φ25 mm [0.98 in.]
rods). Four vertical tie rods were anchored to the strong floor
and four vertical load cells (L2 to L5) were placed at each
anchorage to measure the reaction forces. All of the joints
of the gravity loading system were connected using pins.
Thus, the applied gravity load was equally distributed to
the 16 loading points on the test slab.
Ideally, the slab under gravity load should produce a
non-zero deflection (DZ ≠ 0) and a zero rotation (Ry = 0) at
midspan, as shown in Fig. 1(b). To simulate the boundary
conditions at midspan, the edge restraint system was
mounted on the top of the test slab using eight independent
frame-type assemblies. Each assembly consisted of two rect-
angular HSS (160 x 160 x 10 mm [6.30 x 6.30 x 0.39 in.])
and a horizontal tie rod (φ25 mm [0.98 in.]) to connect them.
The tie rod was equipped with a horizontal load cell (L6 to
L13) to measure the midspan moment (=Ph × Lo; refer to
Fig. 1(b)).
Four sets of vertical extension arms were attached to
the north and south edges of the test slab. Two horizontal
linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) for
each set (D11 to D18) were installed at 305 and 686 mm
(12 and 27 in.) below the center of the slab section. Wires
were strung between the LVDTs to measure the rotation
of the test slab. Furthermore, to measure the strain of the
reinforcements, 55 embedded strain gauges were attached to
the bars, as shown in Fig. 3.
Experimental procedure
The experimental procedure was as follows:
1. The first loading was the application of a small amount
of pretension load to the horizontal tie rods in the edge

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 331

 Fig. 3—Layout of top and bottom reinforcements.
Fig. 4—Test setup.
restraint system to immediately operate the edge restraint
system with gravity loading.
2. Once the edge restraint system was in operation, the
four temporary supports of the test slabs were removed so
that the slabs could be deflected by self-weight.
3. Initial readings from all load cells, LVDTs, and strain
gauges were recorded before applying a gravity load to
the specimen.
332
4. Finally, loading was accomplished through the hydraulic
jack under the bottom column. The loading history for the
specimens is shown in Fig. 5.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Load-versus-displacement relationship
The load-displacement curve of each specimen obtained
from a load cell (L1) and an LVDT (D1) placed under the
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012
 Fig. 5—Loading history of test slabs. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips.)

Fig. 6—Load-displacement relationship.

bottom column is shown in Fig. 6, where the black lines

are envelope curves. The load-displacement relationship
from 0 to 100 kN (0 to 22.5 kips) due to self-weight is
plotted by an extrapolated straight line of the initial slope
obtained from the test.
The general responses of three specimens were similar.
A sudden stiffness degradation was observed at loads
of approximately 250, 230, and 210 kN (56.2, 51.7, and
47.0 kips) for MRA, MRB, and MRC, respectively. After the
stiffness degradation, the stiffness remained almost constant
before punching shear failure occurred. The specimen was
punched at loads of 458, 394, and 430 kN (103.0, 88.6, and
96.7 kips) for MRA, MRB, and MRC, respectively.

Moment distribution
The tensile forces of ties in the edge restraint system were
obtained from the measurements of the horizontal load cells
(L6 to L13). The moment M+ at the slab edge was calculated
by multiplying the tensile force Ph by the height Lo from the
ties to the center of the slab section (Fig. 1(b)), and the end-
span moment M– at the column face was then calculated by
subtracting the slab-edge moment M+ from the total static
moment Mo. The end-span and slab-edge moments were
nondimensionalized by dividing them by the total static
moment. These values are shown in Fig. 7, where the sum of
the ratios M–/Mo and M+/Mo is unity.
The test results showed that the moment ratios varied from
the uncracked state to the punching failure state. For all test
slabs, an M–/Mo ratio of approximately 0.77 was obtained Fig. 7—Moment distribution.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 333

in the uncracked state and this value decreased to 0.70 for
MRA, 0.68 for MRB, and 0.66 for MRC at the end of the first
cyclic load step. After this load step, the moment distribution
of each specimen showed a different pattern. For MRA, the
M–/Mo of 0.70 gradually increased up to 0.75, whereas for
MRC, the M–/Mo of 0.66 gradually decreased down to 0.59.
Fig. 8—Comparison of average corner deflection of test slabs.
Fig. 9—Edge rotations of MRA test slab.
Fig. 10—Relationship between test slab width and actual slab span.
334
Deflection
The average corner deflections of the test slabs as a func-
tion of applied load are shown in Fig. 8. At a load of 100 kN
(22.5 kips), the corresponding deflections in all three speci-
mens were 0.82 mm (0.032 in.). The deflections in the three
test slabs were almost the same. The deflections of the MRB
and MRC specimens were much larger than that of the MRA
specimen after the load of 200 kN (45.0 kips) was applied.
Compared to the MRA deflection, the deflections of MRB
and MRC increased by 68% and 124%, respectively, at a
load of 250 kN (56.2 kips).
The loads of 150, 200, and 250 kN (33.7, 45.0, and
56.2 kips) can be considered as light, moderate, and heavy
service loads, respectively, with corresponding distributed
loads of 2.83, 5.67, and 8.50 kN/m2 (59, 118, and 178 lb/ft2),
respectively. The maximum deflections of the MRA, MRB,
and MRC slabs in service load condition were approximately
5.0, 8.4, and 11.2 mm ([0.197 in., L/800], [0.331 in., L/476],
and [0.443 in., L/357]), respectively. These maximum values
satisfied the required deflection limits specified by the
ACI 318 and EC2 codes.
Edge rotation
The measured edge rotation of the MRA specimen from
the horizontal LVDTs (D11 to D18) is plotted as a function
of applied load in Fig. 9. The edge rotation increased linearly
as the load increased. There was no clear difference in the
trends of the three specimens.
The measurement of the edge rotation allows for deter-
mination of the rotational restraint imposed by the edge
restraint system. Because the edge restraint system was not
perfectly stiff, it could not impose a zero rotation condition
as intended. Due to the imperfect edge restraint system, the
test specimen’s edge rotation actually simulated a longer slab
span than the slab specimen’s width of 4.2 m (165.4 in.). The
relationship between the specimen’s width and the actual slab
span is shown in Fig. 10. In Fig. 10(a), M–/Mo and M+/Mo of
the actual slab under the uncracked state equaled 0.65 and
0.35, respectively, which are mainly used in the direct design
method as distributed moment ratios in an interior span.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012
Unexpected test values of 0.77 and 0.23 in Fig. 10(b) were
obtained due to the imperfect edge restraint system. To
make M–/Mo of 0.65, the test values are multiplied by 0.844
(=0.65/0.77) and it becomes 0.65 and 0.194, respectively.
The ratio of the test slab width to the actual slab span is then
obtained to 0.6 from the force equilibrium condition in the
free body diagram shown in Fig. 10(c). The slab width simu-
lates approximately 60% of the actual span, which equaled
approximately 6.8 m (267.7 in.). Even though the edge rota-
tion was not perfectly set to equal zero rotation in the test,
the moment redistribution ratio of the test slab was the same
as that of the actual slab, which clearly showed the effect of
different reinforcement layouts on moment redistribution.
Reinforcement strain
The strains of all reinforcements marked in Fig. 3 were
measured. Large reinforcement strains generally occurred
at the top or bottom region of the test slab where less
reinforcement was used (for example, the top reinforce-
ments in the MRC slab and the bottom reinforcements in
the MRA slab). For the top reinforcements at the end span,
the first reinforcement yield was observed at approximately
85% of the punching load, but some reinforcements still had
not yielded when the punching failure load was reached.
To compare the common trend of reinforcement strain, the
average values for the reinforcements at the end span and
the slab edge are plotted in Fig. 11. The strain of the bottom
reinforcements at the slab edge was much lower than the
strain of the top reinforcements at the end span, which is
mainly due to the imperfection in the edge restraint system.
No bottom reinforcement at the slab edge yielded in any of
the specimens because the reinforcement strain at the edge
of the slab specimen was approximately 55% (=0.194/0.35;
compare with Fig. 10) of the strain at the midspan of the
actual slab.
Cracking pattern
The top and bottom surface cracks were measured as the
load increased and are shown at punching failure in Fig. 12.
Each slab specimen showed a different number and width of
cracks according to the reinforcement layouts. More cracks
were observed at the top or bottom surfaces of the slab spec-
imen where more reinforcements were placed, but the crack
widths were much smaller. The maximum crack widths
for the top surface near the column were approximately
0.15, 0.2, and 0.3 mm (0.0059, 0.0079, and 0.0118 in.) for
MRA, MRB, and MRC, respectively, at the end of the first
cyclic load step, which simulated service load conditions.
These values satisfied allowable crack width limits of 0.3 or
0.4 mm (0.0118 or 0.0157 in.) specified by EC2. For the
punching failure angle, the test slab with more top reinforce-
ments near the column had steeper failure angles of approxi-
mately 33, 27.5, and 24.5 degrees for MRA, MRB, and
MRC, respectively.
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION
Effect of reinforcement layouts within span
During the test, concrete cracking initiated at the top
surface of the slab near the column. Due to this cracking,
moment redistributions of approximately 9%, 12%, and 18%
occurred for MRA, MRB, and MRC, respectively, from the
end span to the edge of the slab. After the initial moment
redistribution, a secondary redistribution from the slab
edge to the end span was observed when concrete cracking
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012
Fig. 11—Reinforcement strain of MRA test slab.
occurred at the bottom surface near the edge. Near punching
shear failure, the bending moment profile along the span was
controlled by concrete cracking and reinforcement yielding.
When punching failure load was reached, the moment
redistribution from the end span to the edge of the MRA,
MRB, and MRC slabs was approximately 3%, 9%, and
23%, respectively, compared to the uncracked state. It can
therefore be concluded that moment redistribution is largely
controlled by the reinforcement layout within the slab span.
Effect of ratio of punching and flexural strength
MRB and MRC were designed to have 23% and 46%
moment redistributions, respectively. At the failure state,
however, the redistributions of MRB and MRC were only 9%
and 23%, respectively, which were far less than the design
values. These differences can be attributed to insignificant
differences in punching shear strength and flexural strength
of the designed specimens, which were designed to fail in
a quasi-brittle manner. The ratios of the nominal punching
shear strength to the nominal flexural strength (VP/VF) calcu-
lated according to ACI 318 for MRB and MRC were 1.00 and
1.03, respectively, and all specimens failed in punching shear
mode prior to full yielding of the reinforcements.
These results contradicted the results found in Rangan
and Hall’s4 study. Rangan and Hall’s4 test showed that there
was a considerable redistribution of moment, approximately
50%, and the moment distribution ratio at the failure state
almost equaled the design values. In Rangan and Hall’s4 test,
the nominal strength ratios were 1.50, 1.57, and 2.10 for
Models 3, 4, and 5, respectively, with all of the reinforce-
ments in the end span yielding before punching shear
failure. The difference between the results of this test and
Rangan and Hall’s4 test indicates that the moment redistribu-
tion limit is directly associated with VP/VF. When VP/VF is
small, premature punching shear failure can occur before the
design moment redistribution capacity is reached.
ACI 318 and EC2 ensure ductile behavior and restrict
brittle failure by assigning different safety factors for member
and material strengths. In ACI 318, member safety factors of
0.9 for flexure and 0.75 for shear are given. In EC2, material
safety factors of 1.15 for reinforcement and 1.5 for concrete
are given. Thus, VP/VF of the slabs designed according to
ACI 318 and EC2 are approximately 1.2 (=0.9/0.75) and 1.3
(=1.5/1.15), respectively. The ACI 318 and EC2 codes cited
limit the redistribution of factored bending moments by 20%
and 30%, respectively, and these limits might be conserva-
tive due to the assignment of safety factors.
335
 Fig. 12—Crack pattern at punching failure state.

Table 3—Comparison of test strength and strength predicted by codes

Test Prediction Comparison, VTest /VCode
Specimen VTest, kN (kips) VACI, kN (kips) VEC2, kN (kips) VACI,ct, kN (kips) VTest /VACI VTest /VEC2 VTest /VACI,ct
MRA 458 (103) 444 (99.8) 420 (94.4) 344 (77.3) 1.03 1.09 1.33
MRB 394 (88.6) 403 (90.6) 358 (80.5) 298 (67.0) 0.98 1.10 1.32
MRC 430 (96.7) 429 (96.4) 326 (73.3) 329 (74.0) 1.00 1.32 1.31
Average — — — — 1.00 1.17 1.32
Standard deviation — — — — 0.03 0.13 0.01

For a more detailed design, a new moment redistribution PUNCHING SHEAR

limit for a flat plate assuming that the limit is proportional to Effect of tension reinforcement ratios in punching
VP/VF is proposed as shear zone
The punching shear zones (or end spans) of the
specimens were heavily, moderately, and lightly reinforced,
 VP 
(6) respectively, using reinforcement ratios of 1.059%, 0.832%,
 V − 1 × 100(%)
F and 0.575%, respectively. The comparison of the test results
to the values calculated using the punching shear equations
where VP and VF are the nominal punching shear strength of ACI 318 (Eq. (2)) and of EC2 (Eq. (5)) are shown
and the nominal flexural strength of a flat plate, respectively. in Table 3. The resulting comparison indicates that the

336 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

ACI 318 equation without a reinforcement ratio parameter
better predicts the test results than the EC2 equation with a
reinforcement ratio parameter.
Generally, when the tension reinforcement ratio in the
punching shear zone decreases, the punching shear resis-
tance decreases due to reductions in interface shear-transfer
and dowel action. The effect of the tension reinforcement
ratio on punching shear resistance, however, was not clearly
observed from the test results. This is probably due to the
effect of moment redistribution, which is controlled by the
reinforcement layout within the span. Although a smaller
tension reinforcement ratio would reduce punching shear
strength, a smaller bending moment due to moment redis-
tribution would improve punching shear strength. Therefore,
the punching shear strength reduction and improvement can
nullify one another and result in a minutely changed value.
The experimental setup was proposed to consider the
moment redistribution effect and punching shear resistance
as a function of tension reinforcement ratio. Based on the
test results, it can be concluded that the punching shear
strength is minutely affected by the tension reinforcement
ratios as long as appropriate reinforcements are provided to
resist the total static moment.
Effect of concrete tensile strength
In Table 3, the VACI,ct values are calculated by Eq. (3) even
though the test slabs were cast using normalweight concrete.
The comparison of VACI,ct with the experimentally obtained
punching shear strength VTest shows that the ratio VTest/VACI,ct
was almost the same for all of the specimens, which indi-
cates that the punching shear strength is mainly affected by
concrete tensile strength.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, the following conclu-
sions can be made:
1. The bending moment ratios to the total static moment
at the end span and slab edge continuously changed from
the uncracked state to the final failure state and are largely
controlled by the reinforcement layout within a slab span.
2. The moment redistribution limit is directly affected by
the ratio of the nominal punching shear strength to the nominal
flexural strength of a flat plate. The 20% and 30% limits
on moment redistribution stipulated by ACI 318 and EC2,
respectively, might be conservative for the slabs designed
using the current requirements in ACI 318 and EC2 due to
the assignment of safety factors.
3. Assuming that the moment redistribution limit is
proportional to VP/VF, the following new limit for flat plates
is proposed
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012
 VP 
 V − 1 × 100(%)
F
4. With respect to the punching shear strength of the
slab specimens, the ACI 318 equation without a tension
reinforcement ratio parameter better predicts the experi-
mental results than the EC2 equation with a reinforcement
ratio parameter.
5. Due to moment redistribution effects, the punching
shear strength is minutely affected by the tension reinforce-
ment ratios as long as sufficient reinforcements are provided
to resist a total static moment.
6. The following equation predicted the punching shear
strength of the slab specimens well
3
VACI ,ct = fct bo d (in both SI and U.S. customary units)
5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank S. D. B. Alexander for his excellent advice in
planning the test and L. Burden and R. Helfrich for their technical assis-
tance in conducting the tests at the I.F. Morrison Structural Laboratory
of the University of Alberta. The second author would like to thank the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) for partial financial support
from the research grant of Engineering Research Center (ERC) No. 2011-
0030846 funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology
(MEST) of Korea.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
2. CEN, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings,” EN 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium, 2004,
225 pp.
3. Rangan, B. V., and Hall, A. S., “Moment and Shear Transfer between
Slab and Edge Column,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 80, No. 3, May-June
1983, pp. 183-191.
4. Rangan, B. V., and Hall, A. S., “Moment Redistribution in Flat
Plate Floors,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1984,
pp. 601-608.
5. CEB-FIB Task Group, “Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs,”
CEB-FIP Technical Report, Bulletin 12, International Federation for Struc-
tural Concrete (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland, 2001, 307 pp.
6. Collins, M. P., and Kuchma, D., “How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly
Reinforced Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings?” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug. 1999, pp. 482-490.
7. Guandalini, S.; Burdet, O. L.; and Muttoni, A., “Punching Tests of
Slabs with Low Reinforcement Ratios,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 106,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2009, pp. 87-95.
337
 NOTES:

338 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

 DISCUSSION
Disc. 109-S25/From the May-June 2012 ACI Structural Journal, p. 307

Shear Behavior of Self-Consolidating Concrete Beams. Paper by Chien-Hung Lin and Jiunn-Hung Chen
Discussion by Mahdi Arezoumandi and Jeffery S. Volz
ACI members, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO

The authors should be complimented on their pursuit of Table 10—et for beams
the issue of shear strength in self-consolidating concrete
Specimen No. et
(SCC)—a topic worthy of considerable research given
the benefits of SCC within the construction industry. N1 0.0021
However, their conclusions need to be tempered due to N2 0.0030
the very high longitudinal reinforcement ratio used in all N3 0.0035
of their specimens: 4.67%. This amount of longitudinal
reinforcement fails to meet the limitations of ACI 318-08, N4 0.0030
Section 10.3.5,16 as shown in Table 10, even accounting for N5 0.0029
the compression steel (et at nominal strength shall not be less
N6 0.0029
than 0.004). Furthermore, as noted in the literature,16,20-24 the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement has a significant effect N7 0.0029
on the concrete contribution to shear strength, as shown in N8 0.0029
Fig. 5. With such high amounts of flexural reinforcement,
S11 0.0024
the neutral axis is much lower at failure, increasing the
shear strength contribution within the uncracked compres- S12 0.0029
sion zone, as well as increasing dowel action and poten- S13 0.0035
tially aggregate interlock effects due to smaller shear crack
widths. To state that the ACI equations are “quite conser- S14 0.0029
vative” neglects the fact that these equations are not neces- S15 0.0030
sarily applicable at this high level of longitudinal reinforce- S16 0.0031
ment, particularly because ACI 318-0816 places an upper
bound of (3.5√fc′)bwd on Eq. (11-5)—herein Eq. (5)—and a S17 0.0029
significant amount of previous test data fall well above this S18 0.0030
limit. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 5, shear test data has
S21 0.0022
significant scatter, and design equations must account for
this significant variation in test results. Instead of comparing S22 0.0032
the test results with the ACI equations, the authors should S23 0.0035
compare the results with the wealth of shear test data avail-
S24 0.0029
able in the literature. The authors should also normalize the
test results when comparing the different mixtures to remove S25 0.0029
the effect of differences in concrete strengths. S26 0.0030
The authors also state that the concrete contribution to
shear strength—in this case, taken as the diagonal cracking S27 0.0029
strength—is similar between beams both with and without S28 0.0029
web reinforcement. However, numerous researchers have
noted that the concrete contribution to shear strength increases
in the presence of transverse reinforcement,25-27 where it
is often referred to as the “concrete contribution to shear
strength in the presence of transverse reinforcement.”
Furthermore, the concrete contribution to shear strength for
members without transverse reinforcement is often higher
than that which initiates diagonal cracking. For instance,
the Modified Compression Field Theory accounts for the
concrete contribution to shear strength at the ultimate condi-
tion, not at the condition that causes diagonal cracking.
To compare the shear performance of different types of
concrete, it would have been more informative to test beams
without shear reinforcement to compare the relative shear
strengths of the different mixtures.

 V d Fig. 5—Shear strength versus longitudinal reinforcement

Vc =  0.16l fc′ + 17rw u  bw d (5)
 Mu  ratio; results from Reineck et al.23

332 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

 REFERENCES
20. AS 3600-2009, “Concrete Structures,” Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia, 2009, pp. 105-109.
21. Eurocode 2, “Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings,” European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium, 2005, pp. 84-92.
22. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, “Standard Specification for
Concrete Structures,” Japanese Society of Civil Engineering No. 15, Tokyo,
Japan, 2007, pp. 154-159.
23. Reineck, K. H.; Kuchma, D. A.; Kim, K. S.; and Marx, S., “Shear
Database for Reinforced Concrete Members without Shear Reinforcement,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 240-249.
24. Frosch, R. J., “Contribution of Concrete to Shear Resistance,” ASCE
Structures Congress, Austin, TX, Apr. 30-May 2, 2009, pp. 1579-1586.
25. El-Chabib, H., “Effect of Stirrups on the Contribution of Concrete
Compressive Strength and Tensile Steel to the Shear Strength of RC Beams
Using Artificial Neural Networks,” ASCE Structures Congress, Las Vegas,
NV, Apr. 14-16, 2011, pp. 552-559.
26. Hawkins, N. M.; Kuchma, D. A.; Mast, R. F.; and Marsh, M. L.,
“Simplified Shear Design of Structural Concrete Members,” NCHRP
Report 549, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2005.
27. Laskar, A.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Mo, Y. L., “Shear Strengths of Prestressed
Concrete Beams Part 1: Experiments and Shear Design Equations,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010, pp. 330-339.
AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
The authors would like to thank the discussers for their
comments. The topic of the paper is on shear behavior of
SCC beams. In the design of specimens, flexural failure
must be avoided. To take advantage of high flowability of
SCC and to be more realistic, beams with web reinforce-
ment were adopted. Due to the large variation in shear
strength—as the discussers mentioned—and to prevent flex-
ural failure, a higher amount of longitudinal reinforcement
needed to be used to ensure shear failure. Flexural behavior
was not a major concern in this study because flexural
strength was not reached. There is other research28-30 that
employed a high amount of longitudinal reinforcement in
beams with web reinforcement. Studies on beams without
shear reinforcement but with a high amount of longitudinal
reinforcement can also be found.23,31 It can be seen that the
effect of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio becomes insig-
nificant as the ratio becomes greater than approximately
3% from Fig. 5 in Reference 23 (Fig. 6) (Fig. 5 provided
by the discussers does not seem to be the original figure
from Reference 23, as indicated in the caption). Indeed, a
Fig. 6—Influence of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on
dimension-free shear force.23 (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013
larger amount of longitudinal reinforcement increases the
shear strength for smaller longitudinal reinforcement ratios,
but beams without web reinforcement violate the minimum
shear reinforcement requirement in ACI 318-0816 for design
also. In research, the code limits (for design purposes) are
frequently ignored to obtain the fundamental behavior of
the members. The effect of the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio on shear strength can be found elsewhere,18,23,31 but it
was not investigated in this paper.
Although the concrete strengths differed slightly between
the compared specimens, as shown in Table 2, the test results
were normalized using the ACI 318-0816 values (Tables 5,
6, and 9). No attempt was made to propose a new general
Vc equation in this study. Statements in the paper refer to
the results from the tests in this study. A general statistical
review was not within the scope of the paper. If the readers
are interested in shear in beams without shear reinforce-
ment, they may find Reineck et al.’s23 work valuable. The
authors never mentioned that “the concrete contribution
to shear strength is similar between beams both with and
without web reinforcement” in the paper. “Concrete contri-
bution to ultimate shear strength” (Table 6) is different
from “diagonal cracking strength.” After diagonal cracking
occurs, the concrete contribution to shear changes. It has
been pointed out, for most of the beams, that the (Vn,test –
Vs,test)/Vcr,ACI values were greater than 1.0 (refer to p. 312).
This means that concrete contribution to shear strength at
ultimate (Vn,test – Vs,test) was greater than that predicted by the
ACI 318-0816 Vc equation (Eq. (1) in the paper); however,
the paper states on p. 311 that Eq. (1) is the original diagonal
cracking strength Vcr for beams without shear reinforcement
derived in Reference 17,32 and that is how it was done in
ACI 318-08.16 The authors also stated on the same page that
it has been demonstrated18 that beams with web reinforce-
ment have similar diagonal cracking strengths Vcr as beams
without web reinforcement. This can also be justified by
the fact that strains in shear reinforcement before diagonal
cracking are negligible in this study (Fig. 3 before Point A).
However, there is no comparison of concrete contribution
to ultimate shear strength between beams with and without
shear reinforcement at all in the paper because tests on
beams without shear reinforcement were not carried out in
this study. No statement regarding “the concrete contribution
to shear strength for members without transverse reinforce-
ment” can be found in the paper, either.
REFERENCES
28. Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., “Shear Strength of High‐Strength
Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87,
No. 2, Mar.‐Apr. 1990, pp. 191‐198.
29. Lee, J.‐Y.; Choi, I.‐J.; and Kim, S.‐W., “Shear Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Beams with High‐Strength Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 108, No. 5, Sept.‐Oct. 2011, pp. 620‐629.
30. Kong, P. Y. L., and Rangan, B. V., “Shear Strength of High‐
Performance Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 6, Nov.‐
Dec. 1998, pp. 677‐688.
31. Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., “Shear Capacity of
Reinforced High‐Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI Journal, V. 83, No. 2,
Mar.‐Apr. 1986, pp. 297‐305.
32. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, “The Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 99,
No. ST6, June 1973, pp. 1091‐1187.
333
Disc. 109-S26/From the May-June 2012 ACI Structural Journal, p. 317
Behavior of Circular and Square Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns under Combined Loading Including
Torsion. Paper by S. Suriya Prakash, Qian Li, and Abdeldjelil Belarbi
Discussion by Andor Windisch
ACI member, PhD, Karlsfeld, Germany
The authors report on an experimental study investigating
the effect of different cross-sectional shapes, hysteretic
torsional and flexural response, damage distribution, and
ductility characteristics with respect to various torsion-to-
bending-moment ratios.
The authors are right: “understanding the behavior of
members subjected to pure torsion is necessary for a gener-
alized analysis of members…”; therefore, the discusser deals
herein with the results and conclusions concerning the tests
in pure torsion only. (An axial load equivalent to 7% of the
axial concrete capacity of columns should be kept in mind.)
When comparing the reinforcement patterns of the
columns tested in pure torsion, the following comments can
be made:
• The effective patterns of the longitudinal reinforcement
are quite different. The 12 diameters of 28 mm (No. 9)
in the circular cross section are all equally efficient;
however, a small contradiction can be detected—the
diameters of the longitudinal reinforcing bars are 25 mm
(No. 8) in Fig. 1(a) and 28 mm (No. 9) in Fig. 1(c).
Please clarify. In the case of the square cross section,
the 28 mm (No. 9) reinforcing bars in the corners are
less efficient than the two 25 mm (No. 8) reinforcing
bars along each side as, during the first loading phase,
the inclined cracks propagate relatively delayed to the
corners (refer to the elastic shear-stress pattern—in the
corners, the shear stresses are zero), whereas in the case
of the circular cross section, the shear stress is constant
along the perimeter of the cross section; hence, each
longitudinal reinforcing bar becomes equally efficient.
• The rates of transverse versus longitudinal reinforcement
are quite different:
◦◦  In the case of the circular column, the ratio is
0.837/4.45 = 0.188.
◦◦ At the square cross section, the ratio is 0.776/2.60
= 0.298. Note: in the square cross section, square
and octagonal ties—9 and 82 mm (0.35 and
3.23 in.) each—are placed, but their efficiencies
are different. This means that the rate is actually
much higher. This makes a comparison between the
different cross-section shapes more difficult.
Circular column
The crack pattern shown in Fig. 6-(1) reveals angles of
diagonal cracks of approximately 45 degrees (and not
approximately 40 degrees, as reported by the authors).
The authors’ model attaches great importance to the core
concrete and the confinement effect of the spirals. The
discusser means that the case is actually the opposite: the
concrete core makes the stirrups elongate (this is called
“locking” by the authors) and, after spalling of the cover
(caused by the helix during unlocking loading), the helix is
not efficient in tension. Any strength issues of the concrete
334
core and the concrete cover are indifferent for the behavior of
the member. The dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcing
bars (encased in the load studs) yields an important contribu-
tion to the torsional stiffness of the column at high cycles, as
correctly referred to by the authors. The stiffness degradation
during cyclic loading does not occur due to the softening of
any member of the truss (least of all the concrete strut), but
instead by “softening” of the bond between the reinforcing
bar and the surrounding concrete.
Square column
The crack pattern shown in Fig. 6-(1) reveals angles of
diagonal cracks of approximately 45 degrees (and not
approximately 40 to 42 degrees, as reported by the authors).
A comparison of the damage patterns under peak torsional
moment of the circular versus square columns, as shown in
Fig. 6(a)-(2) and Fig. 6(b)-(2), respectively, reveals the differ-
ence in the behavior of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The
four reinforcing bars in the corners of the square column let
the concrete cover spall rather quickly during the loading
process (these are taken along with the other parts of the
concrete cover). Longitudinal reinforcement of the circular
column let the concrete cover fail along substantial regions.
Considerable parts of the concrete cover remain attached to
the specimen even if loosened.
At both columns, the reason for the torsional plastic hinge
formed near midheight of the specimens might be the influ-
ence of the straight and stiff anchorage of the longitudinal
bars into the load stubs on the top and bottom.
The measured failure moments given in Table 3 and
shown in Fig. 5 are different—why? The circular test spec-
imen with a spiral ratio of 1.32% referred to in Table 3 is
not mentioned in the text of this paper. In a former paper,
Prakash et al. (2008) report on torsion tests with circular
columns with a spiral ratio of 1.32%, but the longitudinal
reinforcement consisted of reinforcing bars with a diameter
of 25 mm (No. 8) instead of a diameter of 28 mm (No. 9)
in the test presented in the paper. Therefore, the two results
presented in Table 3 are not comparable. Please clarify.
Comparing the reinforcement patterns and the failure
moments in pure torsion for the circular columns dealt with
in the paper and in Prakash et al. (2008) (the data shown
in the hysteresis curves are considered), the calculations in
Table 4 are found.
The measured failure moments (7) are nearly identical.
The difference between the sums of relative yield forces
(5) can be neglected, whereas the concrete strengths are
significantly different. This should emphasize that the
behavior is governed by the reinforcement and not by any
concrete-related issues (outer bond).
The authors are encouraged to continue their efforts for a
better understanding of the behavior of structural members
under combined loading conditions.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013
Table 4—Comparison of results for pure torsion
    Prakash et al. (2012) Prakash et al. (2008)
1 Longitudinal reinforcement 12 Ø28 12 Ø25
2 Longitudinal yield force/circumference, kN/mm 2035 1623
3 Helix diameter, mm 9 12.7
4 Helix yield force/pitch, kN/mm 377 750
5 (2) + (4) 2412 2373
2
6 Concrete strength, N/mm 33.4 25.78
7 Failure torsional moment (read from figures), kN-m 322 323
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN/mm = 68.54 lb/ft; 1 N/mm2 = 145 psi; 1 kN-m = 0.73756 kip-ft.

Table 5—Reinforcement ratios for circular and square columns

Parameter Circular columns Square columns

Longitudinal reinforcement ratio, %

100 Al 100 × 12 × 510 100 × (8 × 510 + 4 × 645)
rl = rl = = 2.1% rl = = 2.1%
Ag 291,715 260,100

Transverse reinforcement ratio, % 1

100 × p × 9.52 × 4 × 470
100 pdc × At (circular) rt = 4
rt = 100 × p × 547.3 × 126.6 82 × 470 2
s × Ac rt = = 1.32%
70 × 235,136 1
100 At × Pc (square) 100 × p × 9.52 × 1480
r = + 4 = 1.32%
s× A 82 × 470 2

REFERENCES columns had square and octagonal ties of 9.5 mm (No. 3)

Prakash, S. S.; Belarbi, A.; and Ayoub, A., 2008, “Behavior of RC Bridge
Columns under Cyclic Flexural-Torsional Loadings with Moderate Shear,”
The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China,
Oct. 12-17.
AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
The authors would like to thank the discusser for his
interest and valuable comments on the paper. Detailed
replies to his questions and comments are given herein.
Effective pattern of longitudinal reinforcement
The discusser has pointed out correctly that the efficiency
of longitudinal bars will be affected by the change in the
shape of the cross section. The effective patterns of the
longitudinal reinforcement in the circular and square cross
section are different due to the different shear-stress distribu-
tion characteristics along the perimeter of the cross section.
However, in this study, only longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement volumetric ratios were taken into consider-
ation for comparison of performances to limit the variables
and scope of work. The influence of the distribution of bars
on torsional performance for a given longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio with different cross-sectional shapes can be
considered as a scope for future work. In addition, there is a
typo in Fig. 1(a) and (c). All the circular columns had longi-
tudinal bars with a diameter of 25 mm (No. 8) and spiral
reinforcement of 12.7 mm (No. 4) spirals placed at a spacing
of 70 mm (2.76 in.) on center.
Rates of transverse versus longitudinal reinforcement
The discusser stated that the rates of transverse versus
longitudinal reinforcement are quite different in the circular
and square specimens, which makes a comparison between
the different cross-section shapes more difficult. In this
study, the circular columns had 12.7 mm (No. 4) spirals
placed at a spacing of 70 mm (2.76 in.) on center; the square
spaced at 82 mm (3.23 in.) on center. Also, longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement volumetric ratios were adopted
and calculated according to CALTRANS (2000). The volu-
metric reinforcement ratios of longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement for the circular and square columns are calcu-
lated and summarized in Table 5.
In the previous expressions, rt is the transverse reinforce-
ment ratio, rl is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, At is the
total area of longitudinal bars, Ag is the gross cross-sectional
area, Ac is the confined area enclosed by the centerline of the
transverse reinforcement, dc is the diameter of the confined
core of the concrete section measured with respect to the
centerline of the transverse reinforcement, s is the spacing
of the transverse reinforcement, and At is the cross-sectional
area of the spiral reinforcement. The previous information
clarifies that the reinforcement ratios in the circular and
square columns are similar.
Angles of diagonal cracks and confinement effect
of spirals in circular column
The discusser pointed out that the crack pattern in the
circular column, as shown in Fig. 6-(1), reveals approxi-
mately 45 degrees, which contradicted the approximation of
40 degrees, as reported by the authors. During the loading
process in this study, however, the first crack started at an
angle of 45 degrees and changed its direction as the level
of loading increased. The angle of cracks on the specimen
varied from 40 to 45 degrees at most of the locations on the
column. The value of 40 degrees reported was at the yielding
of transverse reinforcement.
In addition, the discusser proposed an opposite conception
about the confinement effect of spirals. However, the authors
would like to highlight that confinement mechanisms under
pure compression, bending and shear, and torsion are
different. Under pure torsional loading, the locking refers

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013 335

Table 6—Comparison of results with strut-and-tie model for pure torsion
Spiral ratio of 0.73%
Parameter Model
Pure torsional capacity T0, kN-m (kip-ft) 253 (187)
to the closing action of spiral reinforcement (similar to a
spring coil under twisting) and unlocking refers to opening
of spiral reinforcement. During the locking mechanism, the
spiral exerts a confinement pressure on the core concrete.
The authors also acknowledge the influence of dowel action
of longitudinal bars and softening of the bond between
reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete in torsional
stiffness contribution and its degradation, as correctly
pointed out by the discusser.
Angles of diagonal cracks and concrete cover
spalling in square column
The discusser pointed out that the crack pattern in the
square column, as shown in Fig. 6-(1), reveals approximately
45 degrees, which contradicted the approximation of 40 to
42 degrees, as reported by the authors. However, the angle of
cracks was measured to be in the range of 40 to 42 degrees at
different locations at the yielding of transverse tie reinforce-
ment in this column. The four longitudinal reinforcing bars in
the corners of the square columns did amplify the spalling of
the concrete cover, as indicated by the discusser. In addition,
the significant concrete cover spalling in the square cross
section was also caused by the bending effect in the concrete
strut, which was defined as the “warping effect.” However,
due to smooth shear flow in circular columns, considerable
parts of the concrete cover adhered to the specimen even at
the end of testing on complete failure.
Location of torsional plastic hinge
The discusser correctly pointed out the influence of rigid
boundary conditions from load stubs and stiff anchorage
of longitudinal bars on the formation of a torsional plastic
hinge near midheight of the specimens. In addition, the
square column with ties obtained more localized damage
distribution and lower height of plastic hinge location due
to a greater warping effect and less confinement of trans-
Disc. 109-S27/From the May-June 2012 ACI Structural Journal, p. 329
Experimental Investigations on Moment Redistribution and Punching Shear of Flat Plates. Paper by Jung-
Wook Choi and Jang-Ho Jay Kim
Discussion by Adrian E. Long and G. I. B. Rankin
FACI, School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK; School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen’s University
The authors of this paper are to be complimented on
having carried out tests on the punching resistance of slab-
column junctions with more realistic boundary conditions
than conventional punching tests so that the effects of
moment redistribution can be taken into account.
However, the authors will be interested to know that their
test setup is almost identical to that used by Long8 for slab-
column junctions subjected to shear and moment transfer.
Full details of the method of testing are given by Long
and Masterson9 and a figure from this paper is reproduced
in Fig. 13. Subsequently, this means of restraining the
boundaries of slabs was used for edge column punching
336
Circular Square
Spiral ratio of 1.32% Transverse ratio of 1.32%
Experiment Model Experiment Model Experiment
270 (199) 304 (224) 330 (243) 480 (353) 525 (386)
verse reinforcement, which caused the torsional stiffness and
rigidity redistribution along the columns.
Specimen details and measured failure moments
The discusser pointed out that the specimen details in the
paper contradicted those in a previous paper (Prakash et al.
2008); he also observed that the measured failure moments
given in Table 3 were different from the ones shown in
Fig. 5 in the paper. There is a typo in Table 3 in comparison
of results. The values of flexural capacity of the circular
columns were wrongly reported as torsional capacities.
The correct values of the torsional capacities are given in
Table 6 and are in agreement with Fig. 5. The authors would
like to thank the discusser for having pointed out this error.
As discussed previously, all the circular columns had
25 mm (No. 8) longitudinal bars. Please refer to the afore-
mentioned reply for comments on the reinforcement ratio
for further clarification. The specimens reported on by
Prakash et al. (2008), as referred to by the discusser, had
an aspect ratio (H/D) of 3. The paper discusses the results
of specimens with an H/D of 6, except for one specimen
(H/D(3)-T/M(∞)), which was tested under pure torsion,
where the influence of H/D can be considered as minimum.
Specimen H/D(3)-T/M(∞), which was tested under pure
torsion, was used for comparison due to similar transverse
reinforcement ratios.
In addition, Specimens M/V(0)-T/M(∞) and H/D(3)-T/M(∞),
tested under pure torsion and referred to in Prakash et al.
(2008) and the paper, are the same. The concrete strength of
this specimen is 28 MPa (4061 psi) (refer to Table 5). The
measured failure moments will also be the same, as indi-
cated in Table 6.
REFERENCES
CALTRANS, 2000, “Bridge Design Specifications,” LFD version,
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
tests,10 edge and interior column tests,11 and unbonded post-
tensioned slab-column tests.12,13
In his PhD research, Long8 realized that the strengths
of full-panel interior column tests with realistic boundary
conditions were not only enhanced by moment redistribution
but were also enhanced by compressive membrane action
(CMA). However, the extent of the CMA enhancement only
became apparent when further research was carried out by
Masterson and Long.14
Two subsequent papers by Rankin and Long15,16 contrast
the results for conventional slab-column specimens with
those for specimens representing full panels of a flat-plate
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013
 Fig. 13—Test setup used by Long and Masterson.9
system. It would be of interest to know whether the authors
noted any such enhancing effects in their tests.
REFERENCES
8. Long, A. E., “Punching Failure of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” PhD
thesis, Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, UK, May 1967.
9. Long, A. E., and Masterson, D. M., “Improved Experimental Procedure
for Determining the Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab
Structures,” Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-24, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1974, pp. 921-935.
10. Neth, V. W.; de Paiva, H. A. R.; and Long, A. E., “Behavior of Models
of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate Edge Column Connection,” ACI
Journal, V. 78, No. 4, Apr. 1981, pp. 269-275.
11. Long, A. E.; Cleland, D. J.; and Kirk, D. W., “Moment Transfer and
the Ultimate Capacity of Slab Column Structures,” The Structural Engineer,
V. 56 A, No. 4, Apr. 1978, pp. 95-102.
Disc. 109-S31/From the May-June 2012 ACI Structural Journal, p. 369
Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry Beams. Paper by Thomas Ring, Sreekanta Das, and David Stubbs
Discussion by Emil de Souza Sánchez Filho, Eduardo Rizzatti, Gihad Mohamad, and Cary Cassiano Cavalcanti Filho
ACI member, DSc, Professor at Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; DSc, Professor at the University of Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; DSc, Professor
at the University of Santa Maria; MSc, Professor at Fluminense Federal University
The authors should be congratulated on their objective
paper on the compressive strength of concrete masonry
beams, which is an important topic of structural masonry
design. The discussers would like to offer some comments
on the results of the laboratory tests presented by the authors.
1. The authors are accurate in their approach of the
compression zone of the masonry beams with web interrup-
tion with direct theoretical formulation to obtain fm′. This is
an issue that has received little research attention.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013
12. Franklin, S. O., and Long, A. E., “The Punching Behaviour of Un-
Bonded Post-Tensioned Flat Plates,” Proceedings of the Institution Civil
Engineers, Part 2, V. 73, Sept. 1982, pp. 6409-6431.
13. Cleland, D. J., and Long, A. E., “Post-Tensioned Concrete Flat Slabs
at Edge Columns,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 90, No. 3, May-June 1993,
pp. 207-213.
14. Masterson, D. M., and Long, A. E., “The Punching Strength of
Slabs, a Flexural Approach Using Finite Elements,” Shear in Reinforced
Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1974, pp. 747-768.
15. Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E., “Predicting the Punching Strength
of Conventional Slab-Column Specimens,” Proceedings of ICE, Part 1,
V. 82, Apr. 1987, pp. 327-346.
16. Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E., “Predicting the Enhanced Punching
Strength of Interior Slab-Column Connections,” Proceedings of ICE, Part 1,
V. 82, Dec. 1987, pp. 1165-1186.
2. The beam effective depth d is not clearly specified and
this parameter is essential to check the values of fm′. The
same is valid for the neutral axis location c. Figure 13 illus-
trates only Beam 2, which shows the depth of the neutral
axis; however, it is difficult to obtain the correct position by
one interpolation—the authors do not describe the neutral
axis depth of the other beams.
3. The discussers’ opinion is that the test results shown can
change radically with the change of the geometric longitu-
337
dinal reinforcement ratio r = As/bh = 1.875%. The param-
eter r influences the depth of the beam reinforcement and
the neutral axis location, which are important parameters in
Eq. (4). The three series of beams have the same value for r,
which is a very particular case.
4. The coefficient 0.85 considers the time of loading dura-
tion and is defined as a product of three empirical parameters
k = k1 k2 k3 (5)
where k1 = 0.95 considers the difference between the concrete
strength of the specimens (laboratory tests) and the strength
of the beam; k2 = 1.20 reflects the maturity of concrete; and
k3 = 0.75 contemplates the damaging effect of loading along
the time.
Therefore, the product is k = 0.95 × 1.2 × 0.75 ≅ 0.85. The
discussers’ opinion is that this coefficient should be consid-
ered unitary because the laboratory conditions are favorable
and loading is applied in a small time period.
5. The discussers observed that the experimental results
present a different behavior for beams with 100% of inter-
ruption. It is important to statistically compare the differ-
ences between averages of the three beam series because the
average ultimate load of the beams with 100% web inter-
ruption is 80.4 kips (358 kN); for the beams with 47% of
the web interruption, it is 74.6 kips (332 kN). The authors
should analyze the sensitivity of the model when they use the
experimental data a and c in Eq. (4) because the series with
100% web interruption has a higher ultimate load (Table 3)
but a smaller compressive strength (Fig. 15). The conclu-
sions related to these procedures need clarification.
6. A comparison of only nine experimental results with
very particular characteristics with code requirements is not
straightforward because the code provisions were designed
to be conservative; with these few experimental data, it is
difficult—or even impossible—to conclude that the Cana-
dian code is very conservative.
7. Finally, the discussers appreciate the authors’ effort in
producing a valuable contribution to structural masonry
design, which establishes a reference for future experimental
research on this subject. Therefore, the discussers would
greatly appreciate if the authors could clarify their queries and
provide some complementary information about the research.
AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
Initial comment
The authors sincerely appreciate and thank you for your
recognition. The authors believe that masonry research
requires more attention and support from both industry and
government agencies.
Comment 1
Thank you for acknowledging the importance of the
authors’ research.
Comment 2
Figure 14 in the paper shows the general definition of
effective depth. This definition is used for all the beams.
In Fig. 13, the authors showed the depth of neutral axis for
Beam 2 obtained from the test. This method is used for all
the beams tested in this study and, thus, the authors felt it
unnecessary to include similar figures for all the beams to
avoid duplication in the figures. However, the depths of all
three sets of beams are available in the section on strain
338
distributions. It should be noted that the authors did not
interpolate between two points only to obtain the depth
of the neutral axis. The authors used the data from eight
displacement gauges (six on the vertical face of the beam
and two on the top horizontal face of the beam) and a strain
gauge on the flexural reinforcement to obtain the location of
the neutral axis in each beam. A linear fitting method was
then used to obtain the depth of neutral axis c, as shown in
Fig. 13. This is discussed in the sections on instrumentation
and strain distributions.
Comment 3
All the beams had the same cross-sectional area and the
same amount of flexural reinforcement area. Therefore,
the discussers are correct about the reinforcement ratio
being the same for all the beams. The objective of this
project was to study the effect of various amounts of grout
area interruption by the presence of the block web and the
effect of loading direction on the compressive strength in
a reinforced masonry beam. Hence, the reinforcement ratio
was kept unchanged. Equation (4) was used to determine the
compressive strength parallel to the bed face and it can be
seen that this strength is a function of not only the neutral
axis depth but also other parameters. However, that relation-
ship is derived based on simple equilibrium and, hence, that
relationship (Eq. (4)) will remain valid for other beams with
other neutral axis depths as well.
Comment 4
The authors are not sure which coefficient (0.85) is referred
to here. They assume that it is the 0.85 that is multiplied with
the fm′ in the rectangular stress block in Fig. 14 and Eq. (3).
This factor (0.85), in the authors’ opinion, is not related to
what the discussers are talking about. This factor is used to
change the actual (parabolic) stress distribution (block) in
masonry to an equivalent rectangular stress block. Please
refer to Clause 11.2.1.6 of CSA S304.1-04.
Comment 5
The beam test specimens used in the study are very
large and costly. Hence, the authors could accommodate a
maximum of three identical beams for each web interrup-
tion and beams with three different amounts of web inter-
ruptions. Therefore, in the authors’ opinion, conducting
statistical analysis on a set of three would not provide any
meaningful benefit. The authors opted to provide coeffi-
cients of variation.
Comment 6
This research, like any other, has its own limitations. This
was clearly indicated in the first paragraph of the Conclu-
sions section of the paper. In the authors’ opinion, the current
Canadian standard provision for the effect of web interrup-
tion on its compressive strength is not based on any research
data; rather, it is more intuitively adopted. The authors’
research is the first study that shows that the current provi-
sion of CSA S304.1-04 is conservative.
Comment 7
The authors thank the discussers for reading the paper and
providing their queries and discussions. They tried their best to
clarify the discussers’ queries; however, the authors welcome
any further queries or comments, if any, from the discussers.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013
Disc. SP-284-21/From ACI SP-284, March 2012, p. 21-1
Serviceability and Safety of Multi-Story Flat Plate Buildings: Effect of Lateral Forces. Paper by Amin Ghali
and Ramez B. Gayed
Discussion by Jacky Q. Zhang
PEng, Associate, MMP Structural Engineering Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada
The flat plate is the most commonly used floor system
in North America due to its easy formwork and fast-paced
construction. The contribution of the flat plate and column
connections in resisting lateral loads of multi-story flat-
plate buildings is generally ignored in practice in spite of
the vulnerability of slabs to brittle punching shear failure.
Experimental research in the last two decades has shown that
properly reinforced flat plate-column connections can have
adequate strength and ductility to withstand the maximum
drift in severe earthquakes. ACI 421.2R-105 refers to the
mentioned research and gives details of the required design.
The investigation of the contribution of flat plate-column
connections to the stiffness and strength of multi-story flat-
plate buildings presented in this paper is greatly appreciated.
The authors prefer Design A, which resists the lateral loads
due to wind or earthquake by all monolithic components of
the building, over Design B, which considers resisting the
same loads solely by the shear walls. Design A results in
reduced thickness of shear walls and thus increases the usable
space; Design A also requires reinforcing each component
for its factual internal forces. The entire lateral load would
be resisted by shear walls, as assumed in Design B, only
after the slab-column connections fail to share their part of
the resistance (nonlinear behavior). While recommending
Design A, the paper warns that implementing the recom-
mendation has to be preceded by nonlinear time history
studies. Application of such analyses for the four buildings
considered in this paper is an exhaustive research that is not
necessary to justify recommending Design A; it can only
calibrate the safety of Design B, as permitted by codes (for
example, ACI 318).
Design complexities and cost implications arise with
Design A. Additional top reinforcement will be required in
the column strips and a large amount of bottom reinforce-
ment will be needed to provide sufficient yield strength at
the supports. The practice is to curtail bottom reinforce-
ment at the supports and eliminate the top reinforcement
at the middle of the spans; with Design A, the quantity of
reinforcement will be increased by at least 15%. The addi-
tional flexural reinforcement combined with the necessary
shear reinforcement will increase the cost. In a 50-story
building designed for Seismic Design Category (SDC) C,
with respect to the total concrete quantity, the floor slabs
and the shear wall are approximately 55% and 25%, respec-
tively; the reinforcement of the floor slabs and the shear wall
are approximately 45% and 30% of the total for the building,
respectively; and the reduction of the shear wall cost will not
offset the increase of the floor slab cost.
The time for analysis will increase significantly if all
components are taken into account. Take a 50-story building
as an example: the analysis can be completed in 2 hours
with Design B; however, the analysis for Design A will
require 1 day or more. For accuracy in Design A, the joints
between the slab and the walls require challenging finite
element meshes. The analysis in Design A will show that
the lateral forces resisted by the slab-column connections
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013
are different in every floor; thus, floors may have to be
designed individually.
In practice, Design B is recommended for buildings less
than 120 m (390 ft) high; Design A should be considered for
taller buildings and these also require wind tunnel testing.
As shown by the building examples analyzed in the paper,
Design A is more beneficial for the 50-story building; thus,
it will be worthwhile to include the slab and column for the
super-high-rise buildings. However, Design A for build-
ings with Rd > 1.5 or SDC D and above will not satisfy
ACI 318 and will result in a cost increase not favored by
building developers and contractors.
In conclusion, Design A or B should be permitted and the
economical impact should be considered.
AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
For design purposes, the internal forces in the compon-
ents of a flat-plate building due to lateral loads of wind or
earthquakes may be determined for a model idealizing all
monolithic components of the structure; the discusser refers
to this as Design A. ACI 318-111 permits elastic analysis
with Design A, requiring accounting for the effects of
cracking and reinforcement on the stiffness of the compon-
ents. For earthquake loads, however, Design A is permitted
for SDCs A to C only. The code also permits an analysis
model in which the lateral earthquake forces are resisted by
a lateral force-resisting system (LFRS) comprised solely of
shear walls for SDCs A to F. A design using this analysis
model is referred to by the discusser as Design B.
Elastic analysis, according to ACI 318-11,1 applied to
several example buildings, shows that monolithic compon-
ents other than shear walls have a significant contribu-
tion in resisting lateral forces. The paper recommends
Design A—the analysis of the internal forces due to lateral
forces on flat-plate multi-story buildings will be done for
LFRSs comprising all monolithic components of the struc-
ture; appropriate design loads due to wind or earthquakes
will be based on a factual, natural period of vibration; and
the design and detailing of all components will be done
for realistic internal forces. With properly designed shear
reinforcement, research shows that slab-column connections
can withstand, without failure, the maximum permissible
interstory drift ratio due to an earthquake. Thus, there is no
reason to ignore the contribution of the slab-column connec-
tions in resisting the lateral forces. For this reason, the paper
recommends that ACI 318 permit Design A for all SDCs of
flat-plate buildings. The discusser agrees with the recom-
mendation and considers that it does not need justification
by further nonlinear analyses. The linear analysis, as speci-
fied by the code, gives the internal forces in the components
without redistribution of resistance.
The authors agree with the discusser; for Design B, the
exhaustive nonlinear analyses, required by a reviewer, would
serve to verify that components of flat-plate buildings have
enough ductility to avoid local failure of individual compon-
ents until lateral forces are resisted solely by the assumed
339
LFRS (for example, the shear walls). Verifying the safety
and serviceability of all components in Design B, which
resists earthquake forces solely by the shear walls, is not an
objective of the paper.
All codes require Design A for the effect of wind. The
paper also recommends Design A for earthquakes because
it enhances safety and serviceability. Of course, it is
important to discuss the economic implications of adopting
the recommendation. Computer programs that can do the
necessary analysis are widely used in practice; the same
340
idealizing model can be employed for analyzing the effect
of wind or earthquakes.
The information about the cost and the amount of
reinforcement in the components of multi-story buildings
needs wide experience to acquire. Sharing this information
with the readers is very much appreciated. The increase in
reinforcement with Design A can be alleviated by appro-
priate repartition of the reinforcement between the compon-
ents of the structure and within each component. While
considering the cost, the discusser supports recommending
that codes permit Design A for all SDCs.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013