ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 109-S27

TECHNICAL PAPER

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 moment redistribution and punching shear resistance of flat plates under realistic loading and boundary conditions. The test specimens were essentially identical except that they had different reinforcement layouts within a span to impose different ratios of the end span and midspan design moments to total static moment. The test results showed that the different reinforcement layouts significantly and minutely influenced the moment redistribution and the punching shear resistance, respectively. The moment redistribution and punching shear resistance provisions in ACI 318 and EC2 were used to analyze the test results. New code recommendations for moment redistribution limit and punching shear strength are proposed based on the novel findings of this study.
Keywords: flat plates; moment redistribution; punching shear; span reinforcement layout.

provide valuable information about the reinforcements effect on the moment redistribution limit and punching shear strength of a flat-plate structure. DESIGN CODES ACI 318-081 In ACI 318-08,1 a limited moment redistribution of the end span and midspan factored bending moments is permitted. The redistribution of the moments based on elastic theory has to be less than 1000 e t (%) 20(%) (1)

INTRODUCTION Experimental research on punching resistance of flat plates has been ongoing since the middle of the last century. Design methods in building codes to calculate the punching resistance of flat plates are based on the results of this research. As shown in Fig. 1(a), two test setups for flat plates 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 conditions. 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 simulated the negative flexural behavior of a slab without considering moment redistribution behavior. The newly proposed test method, however, applies realistic boundary conditions to a flat-plate system that simulates the actual moment redistribution 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 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

where et is the net tensile strain in the extreme layer of the longitudinal tension reinforcement. For concentric punching shear, the design shear equation of VACI is a function of the concrete compressive strength fc; the control perimeter length bo of a critical section (at a distance of d/2 from the face of the column); and the effective flexural depth of the slab, d. When both the ratio of the long side to the short side of the column and the ratio of

Fig. 1Setups 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 authors closure, if any, will be published in the March-April 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 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.

where 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/ecu2), and 0.7, respectively. The ultimate strain ecu2 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 r 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 r can be computed as a mean value by assuming that a slab width equals the column width plus 3d on both sides. Additionally, the size effect factor k can be calculated 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 redistributed 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 varying by approximately 50%. The tests also showed that near maximum load capacities, the moment redistribution is controlled largely by the reinforcement layout implemented 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 represented 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 failures 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

the control perimeter to the effective depth are sufficiently small, the punching shear strength is 1 VACI = l fcbo d (in SI units; MPa, mm) 3 VACI = 4l fcbo d (in U.S. customary units; psi, in.) where l is the modification factor for lightweight concrete, taken as unity for normalweight concrete. If the average splitting tensile strength fct of lightweight concrete is specified, l can be substituted by fct/(0.56fc) 1.0 in SI units (or fct/(6.7fc) 1.0 in U.S. customary units). Equation (2) then becomes VACI ,ct = 3 fct bo d (in both SI and U.S. customary units) 5 (3)

(2)

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 (k1 + k2 xu / d ) k5 where Class B and C reinforcements are used (4) (refer to Annex C in EC2)

Fig. 2Test slab design concept. 330

Table 1Distribution ratios of end span and midspan moments to total static moment in test slab design
End span Specimen MRA MRB MRC Distribution ratio of moments 65% 50% 35% Reinforcement amountbar size (nominal area) 14-15M (2800 mm2 [4.34 in.2]) 11-15M (2200 mm2 [3.41 in.2]) 8-15M (1600 mm2 [2.48 in.2]) Distribution ratio of moments 35% 50% 65% Midspan Reinforcement amountbar size (nominal area) 14-10M (1400 mm2 [2.17 in.2]) 20-10M (2000 mm2 [3.10 in.2]) 26-10M (2600 mm2 [4.03 in.2])

Table 2Material properties of specimens

Concrete Compressive Tensile splitting cylinder strength strength of of concrete fcu, concrete fct, Specimen MPa (psi) MPa (psi) MRA MRB MRC
*

Reinforcement Elastic modulus of concrete Ec, MPa (psi) 22,444 (3255) 21,049 (3053) 21,696 (3147)

Top Bottom Yield strength of Tensile strength of reinforcement reinforcement reinforcing bar reinforcing bar fu, ratio rT.E.*, % ratio rB.M.*, % fy, MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) 1.059 0.832 0.575 0.306 (0.243) 0.433 (0.361) 0.573 (0.455) 404 (58.60) [400] [(58.02)] 592 (85.86) [605] [(87.75)]

Elastic modulus of reinforcing bar Es, MPa (ksi) 195,854 (28,406) [193,470] [(28,060)]

37.0 (5366) 30.5 (4424) 34.6 (5018)

2.68 (389) 2.32 (336) 2.56 (371)

Top (or bottom) reinforcement ratio at end span (or midspan) for column strip (and for middle strip). Material properties of reinforcing bars for 10M (f11.3 mm [0.44 in.]) (and for 15M [f16 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 reinforcement 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 properties 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 endspan moments, 15M (f16 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 (f11.3 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 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

(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 (f19 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 (f25 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 rectangular HSS (160 x 160 x 10 mm [6.30 x 6.30 x 0.39 in.]) and a horizontal tie rod (f25 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 331

Fig. 3Layout of top and bottom reinforcements.

Fig. 4Test 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. 5Loading history of test slabs. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips.)

Fig. 6Load-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 endspan 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 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

Fig. 7Moment distribution. 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.

Deflection The average corner deflections of the test slabs as a function of applied load are shown in Fig. 8. At a load of 100 kN (22.5 kips), the corresponding deflections in all three specimens 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 determination 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 specimens edge rotation actually simulated a longer slab span than the slab specimens width of 4.2 m (165.4 in.). The relationship between the specimens 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.

Fig. 8Comparison of average corner deflection of test slabs.

Fig. 9Edge rotations of MRA test slab.

Fig. 10Relationship between test slab width and actual slab span. 334 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 simulates approximately 60% of the actual span, which equaled approximately 6.8 m (267.7 in.). Even though the edge rotation 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 reinforcements 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 specimen 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 reinforcements near the column had steeper failure angles of approximately 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. 11Reinforcement 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) calculated 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 Halls4 study. Rangan and Halls4 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 Halls4 test, the nominal strength ratios were 1.50, 1.57, and 2.10 for Models 3, 4, and 5, respectively, with all of the reinforcements in the end span yielding before punching shear failure. The difference between the results of this test and Rangan and Halls4 test indicates that the moment redistribution 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 conservative due to the assignment of safety factors. 335

Fig. 12Crack pattern at punching failure state. Table 3Comparison of test strength and strength predicted by codes
Test Specimen MRA MRB MRC Average Standard deviation VTest, kN (kips) 458 (103) 394 (88.6) 430 (96.7) VACI, kN (kips) 444 (99.8) 403 (90.6) 429 (96.4) Prediction VEC2, kN (kips) 420 (94.4) 358 (80.5) 326 (73.3) VACI,ct, kN (kips) 344 (77.3) 298 (67.0) 329 (74.0) VTest /VACI 1.03 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.03 Comparison, VTest /VCode VTest /VEC2 1.09 1.10 1.32 1.17 0.13 VTest /VACI,ct 1.33 1.32 1.31 1.32 0.01

For a more detailed design, a new moment redistribution limit for a flat plate assuming that the limit is proportional to VP/VF is proposed as VP V 1 100(%) F (6)

where VP and VF are the nominal punching shear strength and the nominal flexural strength of a flat plate, respectively. 336

PUNCHING SHEAR Effect of tension reinforcement ratios in punching shear zone The punching shear zones (or end spans) of the specimens were heavily, moderately, and lightly reinforced, respectively, using reinforcement ratios of 1.059%, 0.832%, and 0.575%, respectively. The comparison of the test results to the values calculated using the punching shear equations of ACI 318 (Eq. (2)) and of EC2 (Eq. (5)) are shown in Table 3. The resulting comparison indicates that the 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 resistance 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 redistribution 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 indicates that the punching shear strength is mainly affected by concrete tensile strength. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions 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

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 experimental 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 reinforcement 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 VACI ,ct = 3 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 assistance 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. 20110030846 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 StructuresPart 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 Structural 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.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

337

NOTES:

338

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012