Punching Shear Capacity of Interior SFRC

Slab-Column Connections
Long Nguyen-Minh, Ph.D.1; Marián Rovňák, Ph.D.2; and Toan Tran-Quoc3

Abstract: The paper deals with the punching shear behavior and the capacity of interior steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) slab-column
connections. In the experimental study, the effect of the amount of fibers on the punching shear resistance and cracking behavior of slabs was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

investigated on a total of 12 small-scale flat slabs of varying dimensions. The results show a significant increase in the punching shear
capacity, reduction of the average crack widths, and improved integrity of the SFRC slab-column connections in the postcracking stage
in comparison with conventional reinforced concrete slabs. A new semiempirical, fracture-mechanics-based formula for estimation of
the punching shear resistance of the interior SFRC slab-column connections is also presented in the paper. Its accuracy was verified through
the comparison of the test results provided by the authors with those of other researchers, as well as with some already published formulas.
The obtained results show that the proposed formula provides a higher prediction accuracy of the punching shear capacity of the SFRC slab-
column connections in comparison with the existing prediction formulas. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000497. © 2012 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Cracking; Fiber-reinforced materials; Shear resistance; Connections; Concrete columns; Concrete slabs.
Author keywords: Formula; Fracture mechanics; Steel fiber-reinforced concrete; Flat slab; Punching shear resistance; Cracking behavior.

Introduction to seismic action, because of their ability to increase deformation

Although a number of methods focusing on the increase of the
punching shear capacity of flat slabs have already been proposed,
their applicability is often limited, e.g., traditional shear reinforcing
by means of stirrups is applicable only to slabs with the depth
greater than 150 mm (ACI Committee 318 2008), reinforcement
using headed studs (Feretzakis 2005) or thin plate stirrups (Kang
and Wallace 2008) prolong construction time, etc. Recently a new
technique using steel fibers in the concrete matrix to improve
punching shear resistance, performance, and cracking control
of the column-slab connections has been proven to give good
results (Swamy and Ali 1982; Alexander and Simmonds 1992;
Theodorakopoulos and Swamy 1993; Harajli et al. 1995; McHarg
et al. 2000; Naaman et al. 2007; Cheng and Parra-Montesinos
2010a). Steel fibers also improve performance of the slab-column
connections of structures subjected to lateral loads, e.g., attributable
1 dards Association 1984). On the basis of the regression analysis of
Lecturer, Div. of Structural Design, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
HCMC Univ. of Technology, 268 Ly Thuong Kiet, District 10, Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam; Dept. of Masonry and Concrete Structures,
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical Univ. of Košice, Letná 9, 042
00 Košice, Slovakia. E-mail: minhlong_nguyen@yahoo.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Masonry and Concrete Structures,
Faculty of Civil Engineering; Dept. of Architecture, Faculty of Art,
Technical Univ. of Košice, Letná 9, 042 00 Košice, Slovakia (correspond-
ing author). E-mail: marian.rovnak@gmail.com
3 2007). Even though the empirical formulas are simple and easy to
Lecturer, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc Thang Univ., 98 Ngo
Tat To, Binh Thanh District, TP. HCM City, Vietnam; M.Sc., Div. of Struc-
tural Design, Faculty of Civil Engineering, HCMC Univ. of Technology,
268 Ly Thuong Kiet, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. E-mail:
toant2md@yahoo.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 8, 2010; approved
on August 19, 2011; published online on August 22, 2011. Discussion per-
iod open until October 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 138, No. 5, May 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2012/5-613–
624/$25.00.
and capacity of energy dissipation of the structure (Megally and
Ghali 2000; Cheng and Parra-Montesinos 2010b).
Owing to their small spacing, steel fibers effectively bridge
cracks throughout the entire volume of concrete and consequently
improve the integrity of the slab-column connections. In additon to
the use of an adequate amount of fibers leads to an increase in the
tensile strength of the concrete matrix, which results in the in-
creased cracking punching shear force. Despite these evident ben-
efits, relatively few works dealing with the use of steel fibers in the
slab-column connections have been published and therefore further
research on this topic is clearly desirable.
At present, various formulas for estimation of the punching
shear capacity of the concrete flat slabs are available in numerous
design standards or codes, e.g., ACI Building Code (ACI Commit-
tee 318 2008), Eurocode 2 [European Committee for Standardiza-
tion (CEN) 2004], CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (1993), British
Standard (BS 8110 1997), and Canadian Standard (Canadian Stan-
experimental data, the formulas were developed for conventional
reinforced concrete (RC) slabs. Consequently their applicability
to a prediction of the punching shear resistance of steel fiber-
reinforced concrete (SFRC) slabs is questionable.
Several formulas for prediction of the punching shear resistance
of SFRC slabs have been derived purely empirically (Shaaban and
Gesund 1994; Harajli et al. 1995) or semiempirically (Choi et al.
use, because of their experimental nature, they can lead to inaccu-
rate results with a large scatter. Moreover the empirical formulas
do not account for the effects of the length, the length-to-diameter
ratio, or the shape of fibers on the punching shear resistance,
even though these parameters significantly affect the bond and
tensile strength of SFRC. The empirical approach is of limited
use also in many further cases, particularly when considering
members of extraordinary sizes, unusual shapes, or new materials
[e.g., fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) reinforcement]. For instance,

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012 / 613

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 Choi’s formula is on the basis of such a strength model, which di- Support

Vre,2
rectly links the failure criterion of fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) line
to the punching shear capacity of the column-slab connections. The
formula has been obtained on the basis of the assumption that a

bcr,1

L2
c2
large-scale yielding of the tensile reinforcement occurs prior to Failure c1
the punching shear failure. However such assumption is valid only perimeter

Vre,2
for thin slabs (i.e., large span-to-thickness ratio), in which flexural bcr,2 c2

deformation is dominant. Since the behavior of thick slabs is gov- c1 c1

erned mostly by the shear deformation, the justifiability of the c2 τc1 τc1
τc2
assumption requires verification. The previously mentioned formu-
las do not account for the effect of the dowel action of the tensile
Vre,1 L1 Vre,1 c1
τc1
c1
reinforcement of the slab and the span-to-thickness ratio on the
punching shear resistance, which could lead to inaccurate results,
especially for slabs with high-reinforcement ratios. Evidently there Fig. 1. Idealized beam model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is a need to develop such a rational model, which would describe

the mechanisms of the punching shear transfer more appropriately,
satisfy the equilibrium of internal forces as well as the compatibility
conditions and the material constitutive laws in slabs.
Some researchers have focused on the application of fracture
mechanics to the analysis of the shear failure of the RC structures
and have developed analytical models with a sound physical foun-
dation (Jenq and Shah 1989; Bažant and Kazemi 1991; So and
Karihaloo 1993; Gastebled and May 2001). In comparison with
the empirical approach, the mechanical fracture approach may lead
to more accurate formulas for prediction of the shear resistance of
SFRC flat slabs and to a reasonable explanation of the size effect in
punching shear.
This paper presents an experimental study on the effect of steel
fibers on the punching shear resistance and cracking behavior of
SFRC slabs and a new semiempirical formula for estimation of
the punching resistance of SFRC slabs. The accuracy of the for-
mula and some existing formulas for prediction of the punching
shear capacity of SFRC flat slabs is also evaluated in this paper.
three-dimensional strain state developing at the critical section cor-
respond to compressive σc ¼ σc1 and shear stresses τ c ¼ τ c1 acting
in the compressive zone of the cross section in accordance with the
EC 2 (CEN 2004) or CEB-FIB Model Code 1990 (1993).
The punching shear capacity of an interior slab-column connec-
tion can be determined on the basis of the flat slab model as a sum
of capacities of two orthogonal beams of spans L1 and L2 (Fig. 1),
respectively, representing the distance between two inflection
points of the slab deflection curve.
The punching shear capacity can be calculated from the equation
V u ¼ V u1 þ V u2 ð1Þ
where V u1 and V u2 = shear resistances of the two orthogonal beams,
respectively. The shear resistance V u1 (or V u2 ) can be calculated by
superimposing the contribution of the shear resistance of the beam
without fibers V bo1 and the contribution of fibers V F1 :
V u1 ¼ V bo1 þ V F1 ð2Þ

Theoretical Investigation-Proposed Formula
Development of stresses at the critical section is a three-
dimensional strain state in which two orthogonal normal stresses
(σc1 and σc2 ) and shear stresses (τ c1 and τ c2 ) exist (Fig. 1). The
normal stress σc2 and the shear stress τ c2 act on the face
perpendicular to the cross section that might affect the punching
shear capacity of the slab-column connection. The stresses are di-
rectly transmitted to the column through the corner of the column
section attributable to the very high rigidity of the slab-column joint
(Regan and Braestrup 1985). It can be simplified that the
Regarding the shear capacity of structural concrete members, the fol-
lowing five major shear transfer mechanism components have been
observed: (1) shear stresses in the uncracked compression zone of
concrete, (2) inclined compression force in the compression zone
corresponding to arch action, (3) interface shear transfer along the
diagonal shear crack through aggregate interlock, (4) dowel action
of the tensile reinforcing bars, and (5) residual normal stresses across
the shear crack attributable to strain softening. In accordance with
these shear transfer mechanisms, the shear resistance V b0;i consists
of the shear force across the compression zone V conc , the aggregate
interlocking force V a , and the dowel action force V d (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Free body diagram of a simply supported beam and geometrical assumptions for shear crack

614 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 The contribution of concrete to shear (V conc ) has appeared to Simmonds 1992; Harajli et al. 1995; Theodorakopoulos and
carry most of the shear force. In the existing formulas, the contri- Swamy 1993; McHarg et al. 2000), Eq. (9) can be expressed as
bution of the dowel action (V d ) was ignored. Nevertheless it was follows:
reported (Chana 1986) that the tensile longitudinal rebars prevent
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
the shear crack from opening, influencing thus the aggregate inter-
lock and concrete strain softening. They also control spreading the
V re;1 ¼ GIIF As E s bcr;1 ð0:385a2T þ 0:577aT zc Þ a ∕ C
ð10Þ
shear crack into the compressive zone, which results in the reduc-
tion of the area of uncracked concrete carrying shear. The horizontal projected length of the diagonal crack aT can be
The effect of interlocking (force V a ) is significant for narrow determined as (Fig. 2)
cracks. Experimental observations show however, that the maxi- pffiffiffi
mum crack width at a slab-column connection can be as large aT ¼ z∕ tan α ¼ 3ðd  xÞ ð11Þ
as 4 mm (Farhey et al. 1993). Since such crack widths (Reinhardt where x = depth of the concrete compressive zone
and Walraven 1982) significantly decrease the effect of the aggre-
gate interlocking, it can be neglected. x ¼ kd ð12Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The calculation model is based on the relation of fracture

mechanics for crack growth (Fig. 2): The factor k can be obtained from the formula (Park and Paulay
1974)
V re;1 aC β ¼ GIIF bcr;1 Δs ð3Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k ¼ 2ρðEs ∕Ec Þ þ ½ρðE s ∕Ec Þ
2  ρðEs ∕Ec Þ ð13Þ
The left side of Eq. (3) is external energy, i.e., the external work
required for opening the angle of rotation β. The right side repre-
where ρ = tensile reinforcement ratio.
sents the elastic energy required for initiation and extension of the
Accounting for Es ¼ 200;000 MPa and E c ¼ 4700ðf c Þ0:5 (ACI
shear crack and is also needed for creating the unbonded length Δs
Committee 318 2008), where f 0c = nominal cylinder compressive
of the longitudinal reinforcement. GIIF (N mm∕mm2 ) = shear frac-
strength of concrete, Eq. (12) can be rewritten as follows:
ture energy of concrete; bcr;1 ¼ c2 þ 2d∕ tan α = length of the edge
of the failure-punching cone perimeter, where c2 = side length of
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi 
the column section; d = effective depth of the slab; and α = angle of x¼ 85:1ρ∕ f 0c þ ð42:55ρ∕ f 0c Þ2  42:55ρ∕ f 0c d ð14Þ
the shear crack to the horizontal axis (Fig. 1).
The equilibrium of moments for the inclined section at point M After substituting Eq. (14) into Eq. (11), the horizontal projected
(Fig. 2) can be expressed as length of the shear crack aT can be expressed in the form
V re;1 aC ¼ V d aT þ F s zC ð4Þ (
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
aT ¼ 1  85:1ρ∕ f 0c þ ð42:55ρ∕ f 0c Þ2
where V d (N) = dowel force in longitudinal tensile rebars crossing
)
the diagonal crack; aT ðmmÞ = horizontal projected length of the pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffi
diagonal crack; F s (N) = axial force in the longitudinal tensile re- 0
 42:55ρ∕ f c 3d ð15Þ
bars; and zC ðmmÞ = arm of internal forces.
The axial force F s and the dowel force V d in tensile rebars cross-
ing the diagonal crack (Fig. 2) can be determined on the basis of the By using the program MatLab Ver. 6.5 and assuming that f 0c and ρ
the theory of elasticity as can vary from 15–90 MPa and from 0.15–0.9%, respectively,
Eq. (15) can be considerably simplified without losing much accu-
F s ¼ As E s εs ¼ As E s Δus ∕Δs ¼ As E s aT β tan α∕Δs ð5Þ racy (with the range of variation of 1%):
V d ¼ As Gs γs ¼ As Es Δvs ∕½2ð1 þ νÞΔs
aT ¼ 0:483ðf 0c Þ0:06 ρ0:17 d ð16Þ
¼ 0:385As Es aT β∕Δs ð6Þ
The arm of internal forces zC (Fig. 2) can be determined as
where Gs ¼ E s ∕½2ð1 þ υÞ
ðMPaÞ is shear modulus; and υ ¼ 0:3 is zC ¼ d  xð1  εcT ∕εc;punch Þ ð17Þ
Poisson’s ratio of steel. For other symbols used in Eqs. (4)–(6) see
the “Notation” list. Here εcT = compressive strain of concrete at the centroid of the
Substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eq. (4) gives area under the stress-strain diagram. It can be calculated from
the formula
V re;1 aC ¼ ðAs E s ∕ΔsÞð0:385a2T þ aT zC tan αÞβ ð7Þ Z  Z 
Under the assumption that the angle of rotation β is the function of
εcT ¼
εc;punch

0
εc σc dεc ∕
εc;punch
σc dεc
0
ð18Þ
the unbonded length Δs of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement,
Eq. (7) can be rewritten in the form where εc;punch = compressive strain in the concrete corresponding to
the punching shear failure. Its value is approximately 0.002
β ¼ V re;1 aC Δs∕½As E s ð0:385a2T þ aT zC tan αÞ
ð8Þ (Kinnunen and Nylander 1960).
The compressive stress of concrete σc used in Eq. (18) can be
Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (3) gives determined according to Mander et al. (1988) as

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
V re;1 ¼ GIIF As Es bcr;1 ð0:385a2T þ aT zC tan αÞ a ∕ C
ð9Þ σc ðεc Þ ¼ f 0c ½2ðεc ∕ε0 Þ  ðεc ∕ε0 Þ2
ð19Þ

where εo = compressive strain at peak stress:

Assuming that the punching shear crack angle of SFRC
slab-column connection is approximately 30° (Alexander and ε0 ¼ 2f 0c ∕Ec ð20Þ

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012 / 615

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ec ¼ 4;700 f 0c ð21Þ V bo;1 ¼ 2V re;1 ¼ 400∕d ½24∕ðL1 ∕d  c1 ∕dÞ
ρ0:4 ðf 0c Þ0:4 bcr;1 d
ð31Þ
After substituting Eqs. (19)–(21) into Eq. (18) and solving the in-
tegral (by using the program MatLab), Eq. (18) obtains the form The first term in Eq. (31), representing the size effect, is a good
 pffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffi compromise between the term ½1 þ ðd∕200Þ0:5
by CEB-FIP MC
εcT ¼ εc;punch 3:4545  2 f 0c ∕ 4:606  3 f 0c ð22Þ 1990 (1993) or EC2 (CEN 2004) and the term ½ð400∕dÞ0:25
accord-
ing to BS 8110 (1997).
Substituting Eq. (22) into Eq. (17) , the arm of internal forces zC can The contribution of steel fibers V F;1 in Eq. (2) according to
be expressed as Narayanan and Darwish (1987) was modified by incorporating
 pffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffi the effect of the area of the shear failure surface, assuming the shear
zC ¼ d  x 1:1515  f 0c ∕ 4:606  3 f 0c ð23Þ crack angle α ¼ 30°. The contribution of fibers to shear can be cal-
culated on the basis of the total effective bond area of fibers across
The application of Eqs. (14)–(23) gives the final formula for the inclined cracked section and the average fiber-concrete-matrix
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

parameter zC interfacial bond stress. The total effective bond area of fibers is
computed by multiplying the number of fibers at the cross section
(
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
pffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffi2 pffiffiffiffi with the effective bond area of individual fibers. The average fiber-
zC ¼ 1  0
85:1ρ∕ f c þ 42:55ρ∕ f c  42:55ρ∕ f c 0 concrete-matrix interfacial bond stress is determined by Swamy
et al. (1974). The contribution of fibers to the shear resistance

 )
pffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffi can be expressed as
0 0
× 1:1515  f c ∕ 4:606  3 f c d
V F;1 ¼ 1:12ðnf Lf V f ∕Df Þðc1 þ aT ÞaT ð32Þ
ð24Þ
where nf , V f , Lf , and Df = bond factor, volume fraction, length, and
To simplify the formula (with the range of variation of 1%), it is diameter of the fibers, respectively, for nf , see the list. The horizontal
assumed that f 0c and ρ can vary from 15–90 MPa and from projected length of the shear crack aT is calculated from Eq. (16).
0.15–0.9%, respectively. By using the program MatLab Ver. 6.5, Substituting Eqs. (31) and (32) into Eq. (2) gives the shear
the arm of internal forces zC can be determined approximately as capacity of the first beam
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
zC ¼ 0:68ðf 0c Þ0:025 ρ0:05 d ð25Þ 400 24 
V u;1 ¼ ρ0:4 f 0c 0:4 bcr;1 d
d ðL1  c1 Þ∕d
In Eq. (10), GIIF is the fracture energy of the shear mode (Mode II) ð33Þ
nf Lf V f 
of concrete. Since GIIF is much more difficult to determine than the þ 1:12 c1 þ aT aT
fracture energy GIF of the tensile mode (Mode I), no formula has Df
been yet available for calculation of GIIF and its assessment has
merely been on the basis of experimental results. For instance, The shear capacity of the second beam can be determined by equat-
according to the experimental study carried out by Xu and ing the midspan deflections of both beams
  3
Reinhardt (2005), the value of the shear energy has been found to bcr;2 L1
be 20–24 times greater than that of the tensile energy: V u;2 ¼ V u;1 ð34Þ
bcr;1 L2
GIIF ¼ 24GIF ð26Þ
Substituting Eqs. (33) and (34) into Eq. (1) gives a predictive
According to CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (1993), GIF is deter- semianalytical formula for punching shear capacity of the interior
mined empirically as SFRC slab-column connections in the form
 
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
GIF ¼ 0:001ð0:0469d 2a  0:5d a þ 26Þðf cm ∕10Þ0:7 ð27Þ bcr;2 L31 400 24 
Vu ¼ 1þ ρ0:4 f 0c 0:4 bcr;1 d
bcr;1 L32 d ðL1  c1 Þ∕d
where d a ðmmÞ = maximum aggregate size; and f cm = mean 
nf L f V f 
cylinder compressive strength. þ 1:12 c1 þ aT aT ð35Þ
Using d a ¼ 22 ðmmÞ and f cm ¼ f 0c , Eq. (27) can be expressed Df
as
For a square slab and a square column cross section, Eq. (35) can be
GIF ¼ 0:0377ðf 0c ∕10Þ0:7 ð28Þ simplified as follows:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Substituting Eqs. (16), (25), and (28) into Eq. (10) gives 400 48 
Vu ¼ ρ0:4 f 0c 0:4 bcr d
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi d ðL  cÞ∕d
1
V re;1 ¼ 0:18ðf 0c Þ0:7 As Es bcr;1 ½0:43ðf 0c Þ0:1 ρ0:2 d 2
ð29Þ nf L f V f 
aC þ 2:24 c þ aT aT ð36Þ
Df
Accounting for E s ¼ 200;000 MPa; As ¼ ρbcr;1 d; and aC ¼ 0:5
ðL1  c1 Þ (Fig. 2) Eq. (29) can be rewritten in the form where bcr = length of the edge of the failure-punching cone perim-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi eter, bcr ¼ c þ 2d∕ tan α. The angle α of shear crack is supposed to
V re;1 ¼ 400∕d ½12∕ðL1 ∕d  c1 ∕dÞ
ρ0:4 ðf 0c Þ0:4 bcr;1 d ð30Þ be 30°. However, as the failure perimeter decreases with the de-
creasing span-to-effective depth ration L∕d, the angle of 45° is nec-
As a result, the shear capacity V bo;1 (N) of the first beam without essary to be used for L∕d ≤ 10. For other symbols used in Eq. (36)
fibers can be calculated from the formula see the “Notation” list.

616 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 Table 1. Test Results
Vf f c;cube f sp;cube V cr V u;exp εcu εsu w150 wu δu
Slabs Dimension (kg∕m3 ) (MPa) (MPa) (kN) (kN) (%) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm)
A0 1;050 × 1;050 × 125 0 27.1 1.95 20 284 0.38 0.211 0.26 4.39 4.12
A1 30 27.9 2.23 30 330 0.37 0.22 0.22 3.78 5.45
A2 45 29.2 2.42 40 345 0.36 0.19 0.19 4.65 6.82
A3 60 31.6 2.57 45 397 0.34 0.18 0.17 4.39 6.71
B0 1;350 × 1;350 × 125 0 27.1 1.95 25 275 0.35 0.23 0.28 3.92 11.7
B1 30 27.9 2.23 35 328 0.37 0.21 0.25 3.85 13.2
B2 45 29.2 2.42 40 337 0.36 0.22 0.22 3.61 13.1
B3 60 31.6 2.57 45 347 0.35 0.23 0.18 4.20 14.0
C0 1;650 × 1;650 × 125 0 27.1 1.95 30 264 0.35 0.23 0.31 4.35 22.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C1 30 27.9 2.23 46 307 0.37 0.24 0.26 4.51 23.6

C2 45 29.2 2.42 50 310 0.34 0.24 0.20 4.29 23.1
C3 60 31.6 2.57 55 326 0.34 0.26 0.18 4.25 26.5

Experimental Program
Materials
Test slabs were made from concrete, which contained cement
PC40 (453 kg∕m3 ), natural sand (0–4 mm, 624 kg∕m3 ), coarse
aggregate (22 mm, 1;242 kg∕m3 ), water (181 kg∕m3 ), and plasti-
cizer (5 L∕m3 ). Hooked-end steel fibers (tensile strength of
1,100 MPa, elastic modulus of 200 GPa) were used in the test pro-
gram. The length and diameter of individual fibers were 60 and
0.75 mm, respectively. The average compressive concrete strengths
f c;cube and splitting tensile strengths f sp;cube (cube edge of 150 mm)
are summarized in Table 1.
Steel ribbed rebars of 10 mm in diameter were used as the slab
tensile reinforcement. On the basis of the tensile tests, the average
yield stress f y ¼ 492 MPa, the ultimate tensile strength
f u ¼ 667 MPa, and modulus of elasticity E s ¼ 200 GPa were
determined.
Test Specimens
A total of 12 slabs of different dimensions (1:05 × 1:05 m,
1:35 × 1:35 m, and 1:65 × 1:65 m) related to spans L1 and L2 in
the beam model, were chosen on the basis of the analysis of the
prototype structures with flat slab bays of 3:6 × 3:6 m,
4:8 × 4:8 m, and 6:0 × 6:0 m. The dimensions of the column cross
sections of 200 × 200 mm were used to ensure sufficiently high
punching shear stresses in the slabs. The slab depth was
125 mm and the tensile reinforcement ratio ρ ¼ 0:66% in both prin-
cipal directions (Fig. 3). As the aim of the study is to investigate the
effect of steel fibers (and tensile reinforcement) on the punching
shear capacity of the slab-column connections, the compression
reinforcement has not been used.
The slabs were divided into three groups: A, B, and C on the
basis of the ratios a∕d, where a = distance from the loading point to
the slab support and d = effective slab depth. The following ratios
a∕d were used: 8.5, 11.0, and 14.0 for Group A, B, and C, respec-
tively. Each Group comprised three SFRC slabs and one reference,
conventionally RC slab (Table 1). The fiber amount in SFRC slabs
in each group was varying (30, 40, and 60 kg∕m3 ).
Test Procedure and Instrumentation
The slabs, simply supported by a steel frame on all four sides, were
tested under the concentrated load acting on the column-stab in the
middle of each slab (Figs. 3 and 4). Three linear variable differen-
tial transformers (LVDTs) were used to determine deflections at the
midspan and at the quarter-span of the slabs. Eight strain gauges
were bonded in two principal directions on the longitudinal tensile
rebars [Fig. 3(b)], and four gauges on the top surface of the slabs to

Axis of supporting steel frame 650

I – 200x150(100*)x12x8 Ø10 @ 150 Ø10 @ 90 Ø10 @ 150
Ø10 @ 150
75 (50*)

200
Strain gauge
for re-bars
L+150 (100*)

Strain gauge
Ø10 @ 90

200 for concrete

650
L

Ø10 @ 150
75 (50*)

200
Metal pin

75 (50*) L (50*) 75 L+150 (100*)

(a) (b)
Note: * values for the slabs of group A

Fig. 3. Test slab arrangement: (a) metal pins, strain gauges for concrete, and supports; (b) tensile rebars and strain gauges for rebars

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012 / 617

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 Hydraulic testing
machine control in increments of 10 kN up to failure. The loading rate
Strain gauge for was approximately 12 kN∕minute. Deflections, strain in concrete,

I – 200x150(100*)x12x8
re-bars Strain gauge for
200 125 150

concrete strain in rebars, and crack development were recorded at each load
level. All instrumentation locations are shown in Fig. 4.
Steel
frame
LVDT1 LVDT3
Test Results and Discussion
LVDT2
RC support
800

Failure of Specimens
The punching-shear-crack patterns for typical slabs are illustrated
in Fig. 5. Shear failure of slabs without fibers was sudden and brit-
L/4 L/4 L/4 L/4 tle, accompanied by falling apart the bottom concrete cover. In
(50*) 75 L 75 (50*) slabs containing fibers however cracks of only smaller widths were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: * values for the slabs of group A

Fig. 4. Details of test slab and test arrangement
measure concrete strains [Fig. 3(a)]. The location of strain gauges
for reinforcement is identical with that of strain gauges for concrete,
approximately 25 mm from the surface of the column. Metal pins
were fixed on the bottom surface of the slabs [Fig. 3(a)] to measure
the average width of cracks by using a digital deformeter with a
level of precision of 0.001 mm. The slabs were tested by a
hydraulic testing machine (capacity 1,000 kN) under the load
created and their distribution was more uniform. It indicates that
steel fibers improve slab integrity in the vicinity of the slab-column
connections. The distance between the perimeter of the failure cone
(on the bottom surface of slabs) and the column surface has been
determined to be approximately 2:2h (h is the overall depth of
slabs) for slabs without fibers whereas 2:8h for SFRC slabs. This
fact implies that steel fibers decrease the angle of punching shear
surface of slabs, which is in a good agreement with the works of
Harajli et al. (1995).
The measured values of strain of the concrete and longitudinal
rebars at slab failure are summarized in Table 1. The maximum
concrete strain ranged approximately from 0.33–0.38%. The maxi-
mum tensile steel strain was between 0.18 and 0.24%. This proves

Fig. 5. Typical crack pattern in tested slabs (1; 650 × 1; 650 mm)—bottom face: (a) without fibers; (b) with fibers—30 kg∕m3 ; (c) with fibers
—45 kg∕m3 ; (d) with fibers—60 kg∕m3

618 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 that slabs failed in punching shear without yielding (εsy ≈ 0:25%)
or with a very small yielding scale of the tensile reinforcement
(Slab C3). The test was terminated at the moment of appearance
of the punching cone simultaneously with rapid decreasing of
the loading. After having been unloaded, the midspan displace-
ments of slabs decreased significantly and rapidly, which confirms
the elastic behavior of rebars.
Cracking Behavior of Slabs
According to RILEM TC 162 TDF (2003) in cases when no other
requirements are specified, the crack width of 0.30 mm can be con-
sidered to be the limit value for design of FRC structures at the
serviceability limit state. The test results (Table 1) show that the
average width of cracks of 0.30 mm in Slab C0 (the largest slab
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
without fibers) was reached under the load of 150 kN (approxi-
mately 57% of the punching shear capacity of Slab C0). At the
same loading level, the average width of cracks observed in Slab
C3 (largest slab with 60 kg∕m3 ϑ fibers) was only 0.18 mm, which
represents a reduction up to 40%. For slabs in Group A and B, at the
same loading level, reduction was approximately 34% and 36%,
respectively. At higher load levels, the differences in the average
widths of cracks between slabs with and without fibers consider-
ably increased, ranging from 41%–89%.
Load-Displacement Responses and Punching Shear
Resistances
The relative load-displacement diagrams of tested slabs are shown
in Fig. 6. To make clear comparison of slabs with different dimen-
sions, the relationship between relative displacement (δ∕L) and
relative load (V∕V u;exp;0 ) is shown in the diagram, where V u;exp;0
= experimental punching shear resistance of slab without fibers.
In general, the behavior of the slabs can be divided in two stages.
Whereas in the first (precracking) stage all slabs behaved similarly
and approximately linearly, in the second (postcracking) stage, the
slab stiffness decreased. At the same loading level, the displace-
ments of SFRC slabs were lower in comparison with slabs without
fibers. At the failure loading level of slabs without fibers, deflec-
tions of slabs with a volume of fibers of 30 kg∕m3 and of 45 kg∕m3
decreased in 8 ∼ 16% and in 16 ∼ 31%, respectively. Adding up to
60 kg∕m3 fibers to concrete resulted in approximately a 36%
reduction of the slab deflections.
From the results summarized in Table 1 follows that steel fibers
considerably increase the punching shear capacity of slabs attrib-
utable to their beneficial effect to bridge cracks within the entire
concrete matrix. Even in the stage of initiation and propagation
of cracks, the tensile zone of SFRC slabs is still able to participate
in carrying loads. This results in increasing of the failure cone (fail-
ure surface) that led to increase the punching shear resistance of
1.5
1
V / Vu,exp,0
A0-0 kg/m3 A1-30 kg/m3
0.5 A3-45 kg/m3 A4-60 kg/m3
B0-0 kg/m3 B1-30 kg/m3
B2-45 kg/m3 B3-60 kg/m3
C0-0 kg/m3 C1-30 kg/m3
C2-45 kg/m3 C3-60 kg/m3
0 Gesund 1994
0 5 10 15
δ/L (x10 -3)
Fig. 6. Relative load—displacement diagram of tested slabs
J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.
slabs. Adding a varying amount (30, 45, and 60 kg∕m3 ) of steel
fibers to concrete increased the punching shear resistance in 16 ∼
39% for Group A, 19 ∼ 25% for Group B, and 16 ∼ 23% for
Group C.
Evaluation of the Proposed Formula and Its
Comparison with the Existing Formulas
Numerical results predicted by the proposed and the existing for-
mulas (Table 2) were compared with the test results carried out by
the authors and 73 already published test results (Swamy and Ali
1982; Alexander and Simmonds 1992; Theodorakopoulos and
Swamy 1993; Harajli et al. 1995; McHarg et al. 2000; Cheng
and Parra-Montesinos 2010a). The 73 used reference experimental
results cover a relatively wide spectrum of material and geometric
properties of SFRC slabs used in practice. They were obtained on
the basis of punching shear tests of simply supported SFRC flat
slabs for a variety of mean concrete strengths f c ’ (from 12.4 to
59.4 MPa), effective depths of slabs d (from 39 to 139 mm), span
to effective depth ratios L∕d (from 8 to 20), tensile reinforcement
ratios ρ (from 0.26 to 1.46%), volume of fibers (from 0 to 2%), fiber
length to diameter ratios Lf ∕Df (from 0 to 100), and different types
of fibers. It should be emphasized that all safety factors and partial
material factors in the existing formulas were equal to 1.0. Mean
value (Mean), standard deviation (STD), and coefficient of varia-
tion (COV) of the predicted-to-experimental punching shear capac-
ity ratio V u;pred ∕V u;exp are summarized in Table 3.
The results show a good agreement between the shear capacity
values obtained from the proposed formula and those on the basis
of experiments (Fig. 7). Using the existing formulas, the following
values of the mean value of ratio V u;pred ∕V u;exp and the correspond-
ing COV were obtained: 0.97 and 0.23 [Harajli et al. (1995),
Eq. 38], 0.91 and 0.24 [Shaaban and Gesund (1994), Eq. 37];
and 0.89 and 0.23 [Choi et al. (2007), Eq. 39], respectively. It
is evident that the proposed formula shows the smallest scatter
in the results, giving the mean value of ratio V u;pred ∕V u;exp ¼ 0:9
and the corresponding COV ¼ 0:1.
The comparison of shear resistances predicted by the proposed
formula and those obtained from the existing formulas (including
results for slabs without fibers) is presented in Fig. 8, in which the
value of the ratio V u;pred ∕V u;exp is plotted against the following five
parameters: fiber volume V f , tensile reinforcement ratio ρ, com-
pressive strength of concrete f c ’, effective depth d, and the span
to effective depth ratio L∕d.
Fig. 8(a) shows the relationship between the ratio V u;pred ∕V u;exp
and the fiber volume V f (%). The diagram indicates that the pro-
posed formula gives reasonably accurate results within the entire
range (0–2%) of the investigated parameters V f . When compared
with the test results, the formulas by Harajli et al. (Eq. 38), Shaaban
(Eq. 37), and Choi et al. (Eq. 39) provide much higher shear
resistances for V f < 1:5%, whereas for V f ranging from 1.5 to
2% the values are smaller.
Table 2. Existing Formulas for Estimation of Punching Shear Capacity of
SFRC Slab-Column Connections
Authors Formulasa
pffiffiffiffi
Shaaban and V u ¼ FS½ð0:3W f þ 6:8Þ f 0c
bo d
20 pffiffiffiffi
Harajli et al. 1995 V u ¼ ðζ þ 1:15V f Þbo d f 0c
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Choi et al. 2007 V u ¼ λs 0:9f t ½0:9f t þ ðα  α2 ∕3Þf cf
AC þ V fr
a
For symbols used in these formulas see the Notation list.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012 / 619
 Table 3. Evaluation of the Proposed and Existing Formulas
Vf bo d f 0c ρ V u;exp V u;pred ∕V u;exp
Signature
Reference of slabs (%) Lf ∕Df Fiber type (mm) (mm) (MPa) (%) (kN) Eq. 38 Eq. 37 Eq. 39 Proposed (Eq. 36)
Swamy and Ali 1982 S-1 0 0 — 1,000 100 40.0 0.52 198 1.06 1.08 0.94 0.75
S-2 0.6 100 Crimped 1,000 100 41.3 0.52 244 1.03 0.97 1.01 0.84
S-3 0.9 100 Crimped 1,000 100 41.3 0.52 263 1.02 0.94 1.05 0.87
S-4 1.2 100 Crimped 1,000 100 41.3 0.52 281 1.02 0.92 1.08 0.90
S-5 0.9 100 Crimped 1,000 100 41.3 0.52 267 1.01 0.93 1.03 0.86
S-6 0.9 100 Crimped 1,000 100 41.3 0.52 239 1.12 1.03 1.15 0.96
S-7 0 0 — 1,000 100 40.0 0.85 222 0.95 0.97 0.84 0.85
S-13 0.9 83 Straight 1,000 100 41.3 0.85 237 1.13 1.04 0.99 1.03
S-12 0.9 100 Hooked 1,000 100 41.3 0.85 249 1.08 0.99 1.11 0.96
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

S-11 0.9 100 Crimped 1,000 100 41.3 0.85 262 1.03 0.94 1.05 0.97
S-8 0.9 100 Crimped 1,000 100 41.3 0.85 256 1.05 0.97 1.08 1.00
S-16 0.9 100 Crimped 1,000 100 35.5 0.35 213 1.17 1.08 1.17 0.97
S-10 0.9 100 Crimped 1,000 100 35.5 0.31 203 1.23 1.13 1.23 1.00
S-9 0.9 100 Crimped 1,000 100 31.2 0.26 179 1.31 1.20 1.29 0.95
S-19 0 0 — 1,000 100 40.0 0.26 131 1.60 1.64 1.42 0.89
Theodorakopoulos FS-1 0 0 — 1,000 100 30.9 0.52 174 1.06 1.08 0.89 0.80
and Swamy 1993 FS-2 0.5 100 Crimped 1,000 100 29.8 0.52 225 0.92 0.88 0.80 0.79
FS-3 1.0 100 Crimped 1,000 100 31.2 0.52 247 0.97 0.88 0.87 0.89
FS-4 1.0 100 Crimped 1,000 100 32.7 0.52 224 1.09 1.00 0.99 0.99
FS-5 1.0 100 Crimped 1,000 100 33.3 0.35 198 1.25 1.14 1.14 0.95
FS-6 1.0 100 Crimped 1,000 100 31.2 0.35 175 1.37 1.24 1.23 0.93
FS-7 1.0 100 Crimped 1,000 100 32.1 0.35 192 1.26 1.15 1.14 0.97
FS-19 0 0 — 1,000 100 30.2 0.35 137 1.33 1.36 1.11 0.86
FS-20 1.0 100 Crimped 1,000 100 32.4 0.35 211 1.15 1.05 1.05 0.99
FS-8 0 0 — 800 100 32.1 0.52 150 1.00 1.02 0.80 0.82
FS-9 1.0 100 Crimped 800 100 31.2 0.52 217 0.88 0.80 0.78 0.86
FS-10 0.0 0 — 1,200 100 31.9 0.52 191 1.18 1.20 1.03 0.84
FS-11 1.0 100 Crimped 1,200 100 30.0 0.52 260 1.08 0.99 0.98 0.96
FS-12 1.0 60 Japanesse 1,000 100 31.6 0.52 218 1.10 1.01 0.95 0.86
FS-13 1.0 100 Hooked 1,000 100 29.3 0.52 236 0.98 0.89 0.88 0.91
FS-14 1.0 70 Paddle 1,000 100 30.6 0.52 240 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.81
FS-15 1.0 90 Crimped 1,000 100 27.3 0.52 238 0.94 0.86 0.89 0.79
FS-16 1.0 70 Paddle 1,000 100 24.4 0.52 228 0.93 0.84 0.80 0.79
FS-17 1.0 70 Paddle 1,000 100 41.0 0.52 268 1.02 0.93 0.95 0.81
FS-18 1.0 70 Paddle 1,000 100 12.4 0.52 166 0.91 0.83 0.71 0.80
a
FSU 0.5 60 Hooked 1,408 127 43.3 0.96 422 1.06 1.02 0.92 0.82
FSB 0.5 60 Hooked 1,408 127 43.3 1.46 438 1.02 0.98 0.89 0.91
Alexander and P11F0 0 0 — 1,356 139 33.2 0.53 257 1.40 1.43 1.09 0.93
Simmonds 1992 P11F3 0.4 100 Corrugated 1,356 139 35.8 0.53 324 1.29 1.25 1.12 0.95
P11F66 0.84 100 Corrugated 1,356 139 35.0 0.53 345 1.33 1.23 1.25 1.08
P38F0 0 0 — 1,248 112 38.1 0.66 264 1.09 1.11 0.95 0.76
P38F34 0.43 100 Corrugated 1,248 112 38.4 0.66 308 1.05 1.01 0.99 0.81
P38F69 0.88 100 Corrugated 1,248 112 38.5 0.66 330 1.09 1.01 1.10 0.92
Harajli et al. 1994 A1 0 0 — 556 39 29.6 1.12 63 0.62 0.63 0.70 0.70
A2 0.45 100 Hooked 556 39 30.0 1.12 68 0.66 0.63 0.76 0.75
A3 0.8 100 Hooked 556 39 31.4 1.12 78 0.64 0.59 0.75 0.73
A4 1 60 Hooked 556 39 24.6 1.12 69 0.67 0.61 0.68 0.72
A5 2 60 Hooked 556 39 20.0 1.12 62 0.82 0.69 0.79 0.87
B1 0 0 — 620 55 31.4 1.12 99 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.95
B2 0.45 100 Hooked 620 55 31.4 1.12 115 0.62 0.60 0.66 0.90
B3 0.8 100 Hooked 620 55 31.8 1.12 117 0.67 0.62 0.73 0.96
B4 1 60 Hooked 620 55 29.1 1.12 118 0.67 0.61 0.64 0.88
B5 2 60 Hooked 620 55 29.2 1.12 146 0.66 0.56 0.63 0.81

620 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 Table 3. (Continued.)
Vf bo d f 0c ρ V u;exp V u;pred ∕V u;exp
Signature
Reference of slabs (%) Lf ∕Df Fiber type (mm) (mm) (MPa) (%) (kN) Eq. 38 Eq. 37 Eq. 39 Proposed (Eq. 36)
Cheng and S1 0 0 — 1,116 127 47.7 0.83 433 0.75 0.77 0.63 0.95
Parra-Montesinos S2 0 0 — 1,116 127 47.7 0.56 379 0.86 0.88 0.72 0.92
2010 S3 1 60 Hooked 1,116 127 25.4 0.83 386 0.79 0.72 0.62 0.98
S4 1 60 Hooked 1,116 127 25.4 0.56 389 0.79 0.72 0.62 0.87
S5 1.5 70 Crimped 1,116 127 59.4 0.83 530 0.98 0.86 0.93 1.00
S6 1.5 70 Crimped 1,116 127 57.9 0.56 444 1.16 1.01 1.10 1.06
S9 1.5 80 Hooked 1,116 127 46.1 0.83 530 0.86 0.75 0.84 1.00
S10 1.5 80 Hooked 1,116 127 59.1 0.56 503 1.03 0.90 1.03 1.04
Current tests A0 0 0 — 1,220 105 21.7 0.66 284 0.72 0.74 0.58 0.91
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A1 0.38 80 Hooked 1,220 105 22.3 0.66 330 0.71 0.69 0.61 0.88
A2 0.57 80 Hooked 1,220 105 23.4 0.66 345 0.75 0.71 0.66 0.90
A3 0.76 80 Hooked 1,220 105 25.3 0.66 397 0.72 0.67 0.66 0.84
B0 0 0 — 1,220 105 21.7 0.75 275 0.75 0.76 0.60 1.02
B1 0.38 80 Hooked 1,220 105 22.3 0.75 328 0.72 0.70 0.61 0.95
B2 0.57 80 Hooked 1,220 105 23.4 0.75 337 0.77 0.73 0.68 0.98
B3 0.76 80 Hooked 1,220 105 25.3 0.75 345 0.83 0.78 0.76 1.03
C0 0 0 — 1,220 105 21.7 0.70 264 0.78 0.79 0.62 0.80
C1 0.38 80 Hooked 1,220 105 22.3 0.70 307 0.77 0.74 0.65 0.79
C2 0.57 80 Hooked 1,220 105 23.4 0.70 310 0.83 0.79 0.74 0.84
C3 0.76 80 Hooked 1,220 105 25.3 0.70 326 0.88 0.82 0.80 0.86
RC and SFRC slabs
Mean 0:97 0:91 0:89 0:90
Coefficient of variation (COV) 0:20 0:23 0:23 0:10
RC slabs (V f ¼ 0%)
Mean 0:87
Coefficient of variation (COV) 0:08
a
McHarg et al. (2000).

The inaccuracy of the formulas by Harajli et al. (Eq. 38) and
Shaaban and Gesund (Eq. 37) could be attritude to the fact that
the shape of fibers and the effect of the fiber length to diameter
ratio Lf ∕Df on the punching shear resistance of slab-column con-
nections have not been considered. The large scatter of results pro-
vided by the formula of Choi et al. (Eq. 39) might be the
consequence of the inaccurate determination of the average distrib-
uted stresses in the compressive zone. By Choi’s formula, an
increase of V f leads to a decrease in the average compressive
stresses which however contradicts with the experimental
observation.
In Fig. 8(b), the ratio V u;pred ∕V u;exp is plotted against the longi-
tudinal reinforcement ratio ρ. For parameter ρ ranging from 0.6 to
1.5%, the existing formulas provide safe but too conservative
results in comparison with the test results. In the existing formulas,
the effect of the tensile rebar ratio on the punching shear resistance

Proposed (eq. 36) Shaaban (eq. 37) Harajli et al (eq.38) Choi et al (eq. 39)
Mean : 0.90 Mean : 0.91 Mean : 0.97 Mean : 0.89
STD : 0.09 STD : 0.21 STD : 0.22 STD : 0.21
COV : 0.10 COV : 0.24 COV : 0.23 COV : 0.23
500 500

400 400
Vu,exp (kN)

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Vu,pred (kN) Vu,pred (kN)

Fig. 7. Comparison between predicted and experimental punching shear capacities

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012 / 621

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 1.6 1.6
(a) (d)
1.4 1.4

Vu,exp / Vu,pred
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 30 60 90 120 150
Vf (%) L/d
1.6 1.6
(b) (e)
1.4 1.4
Vu,exp / Vu,pred

1.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
ρ (%) d (mm)
1.6
(c) Shaaban and Gesund (1994) - Eq. (37)
1.4 Harajli et al (1995) - Eq. (38)
Vu,exp / Vu,pred

1.2 Choi et al. (2007) - Eq. (39)

1.0 Proposed - Eq. (36)
0.8
0.6
0.4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
fc’ (MPa)

Fig. 8. Evaluation of formulas for various parameters: (a) V f ; (b) ρ; (c) f 0c ; (d) d; (e) L∕d

has not been accounted. Neglecting the contribution of the dowel
action of longitudinal rebars and the depth of the compression zone
could be the reason of the underestimation of the shear punching
resistance. On the contrary, the proposed formula has appeared to
give not only safe results, but also a relatively small scatter of shear
resistance values for all considered values of the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio ρ.
The values of the ratio V u;pred ∕V u;exp plotted against the values
of the concrete compressive strength f 0c are presented in Fig. 8(c). In
comparison with the test results, the values obtained from the
existing formulas for f 0c ≤ 30 MPa are much lower, whereas for
f 0c > 30 MPa they are higher. This clearly indicates the instability
of the existing formulas.
Fig. 8(d) shows the results obtained from the existing and the
proposed formula for various effective slab depths d. Though the
existing formulas give safe results, these are very low in compari-
son with the results of experiments for d ranging from 40 to 90 mm.
For d varying from 90 to 150 mm, they lose the accuracy, because
neither Harajli et al. (Eq. 38) or Shaaban and Gesund (Eq. 37) have
considered the influence of the effective slab depth d (size factor)
on the punching shear capacity. The inaccuracy of the formulas
proposed by Choi et al. (Eq. 39) might follow from their
assumption that significant yielding of the tensile reinforcement oc-
curs along with the punching shear failure. This assumption, how-
ever, can only be valid for thin slabs (small d), the behavior of
which is dominated by flexural deformations. For relatively large
and thick slabs or slabs with high tensile reinforcement ratios, in
which shear deformations predominate, the previously mentioned
assumption requires reconsideration.
In Fig. 8(e), the ratio V u;pred ∕V u;exp is plotted versus the span to
effective depth ratio L∕d. For L∕d varying from 8 to 12, the existing
formulas provide conservative results with a large scatter. For L∕d
ranging from 14 to 20, they lose the accuracy, presumably attribute
to the fact that the effect of the span to effective depth ratio L∕d on
the punching shear capacity of slab-column connections has not
been taken into account.
In comparison with the existing formulas, the values of the
punching shear resistance calculated from the proposed formula
are more stable and show smaller scatter for each of the investigated
parameters. For slabs without fibers (i.e., conventional RC slabs,
V f ¼ 0%), the proposed formula gives the mean value of ratio
V u;pred ∕V u;exp ¼ 0:87 and the corresponding COV ¼ 0:08 tan
(Table 3). Evidently, the proposed formula provides good results
also for the conventional RC slabs.
Summary and Conclusions
the results obtained from the study, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The use of steel fibers in tested slabs subjected to punching
shear loads has proven to have the following benefits:
‐ Increase in the punching shear resistance (up to 39%),
‐ Reduction of the average crack width (up to 40% in servi-
ceability limit state),
‐ Reduction of the deflection (up to 36%),

622 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012

J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.

 which has been accompanied with an increase of the slab stiffness,
concrete ductility, and integrity in the vicinity of slab-column
connections.
2. Parameters, such as the shape of fibers and the fiber length to
diameter ratio, etc. should be taken into account in calculations
of the punching shear resistance of interior SFRC slab-column
connections. Neglecting the contribution of the dowel action of
the tensile reinforcement and the depth of the compression
zone leads to an underestimation of the punching shear resis-
tance of slab-column connections, which is particularly evident
for slabs with high reinforcement ratios.
3. The punching shear resistance predicted by the proposed for-
mula is in a good agreement with the experimental results. The
mean values of the ratio of the predicted punching shear resis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tances to test results and the corresponding coefficient of var-
iation were 0.90 and 0.10, respectively. In comparison with the
existing prediction formulas, the proposed semiempirical for-
mula provides a more stable prediction of the punching shear
capacity of interior SFRC slab-column connections within the
entire range of the parameters investigated.
Acknowledgments
This paper was funded by Ho Chi Minh University of Technology
of Vietnam SR (Project No. T-KTXD-2010-18) and BEKAERT
Indonesia Co. The experimental investigation of this study was
conducted at Structural Engineering Laboratory at Ho Chi Minh
University of Technology of Vietnam SR.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
AC = failure surface area of compressive zone of concrete,
mm2 ;
aC = inclined-shear cracking position of beam, mm;
as = experimental coefficient, as ¼ 40 for internal column;
¼ 30 for edge column; ¼ 20 for corner column;
aT = horizontal projected length of the diagonal crack, mm;
bcr1 , bcr2 = length of the edge of failure perimeter of punching
cone, mm;
bo = critical perimeter located at a distance d∕2 from edge
of column;
c = dimension of column section, mm;
d = slab effective depth, mm;
d a = maximum aggregate size, mm;
Df = fiber diameter, mm;
Ec = elasticity modulus of concrete, N∕mm2 ;
Es = elasticity modulus of tensile rebars, N∕mm2 ;
F c = compressive force of concrete, N;
f 0c = mean cylinder compressive strength of concrete,
N∕mm2 ;
0
f c = 0:8f c;cube ;
f c;cube , f sp;cube = compressive and splitting cube strength of
concrete, N∕mm2 ;
f cf = compressive strength of SFRC, N∕mm2 ;
F f ;1 = tensile force of steel fibers, N;
F s = tensile force of reinforcement, N;
f t = tensile strength of plain concrete, N∕mm2 ;
f u = ultimate tensile strength of steel rebars, N∕mm2 ;
f y = yield strength of steel rebars, N∕mm2 ;
FS = safe factor, SF ¼ 1:0;
GIf = fracture energy of Mode I, N∕mm;
GIIf = fracture energy of Mode II, N∕mm;
h = slab depth, mm;
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012 / 623
J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.
L = theoretical span of slab, mm;
L1 , L2 = theoretical span of two orthogonal beams, mm;
Lf = fiber length, mm;
M = acting point of concrete compressive force;
nf = fiber efficiency factor for fiber shape and surface
characteristics: 0.5 for round fibers, 0.75 for deformed
fibers, 1.0 for hooked-end fibers (Narayanan and
Darwish 1987);
S = length of inclined crack;
s = size factor;
T = centroid of the area under the stress-strain diagram;
V = concentrated load, kN;
V 150 = service load of slabs without fibers (150 kN)
corresponding to 0.3 mm crack width;
V a , V c , V d = aggregate interlocking force, shear force across the
compression zone, and dowel action force, kN;
V b0;1 = shear resistance of the first beam without fibers, kN;
V cb = shear resistance of effective beam without stirrups,
kN;
V cr = cracking force, kN;
V f = fiber volume, %;
V F , V fr = punching shear contribution of steel fibers, kN;
V F;1 = shear contribution of steel fibers, kN;
V re1 , V re2 = reaction force, kN;
V u = punching shear resistance, kN;
V u;pred , V u;exp = predicted and experimental punching shear
resistance, kN;
V u;exp;0 = experimental punching shear resistance of slabs
without fibers, kN;
W ext = external energy, Nmm;
W f = percent of fibers by weight of concrete;
W int = internal energy, Nmm;
wu = width of crack observed at failure, mm;
x = depth of concrete compressive zone, mm;
xT = depth of concrete compressive zone corresponding to
εcT ; mm;
z = vertical projection length of diagonal crack, mm;
zC = arm of internal forces, mm;
≅ = average fiber-matrix interface bond stress, N∕mm2 ;
α = angle of shear crack to horizontal axis, degree;
β = angle of rotation, rad;
β c = ratio of long side-short side of column;
Δs = unbonded length of tensile rebar;
δ u = slab deflection measured at rupture, mm;
Δus , Δus = horizontal and vertical projected length of unbonded
length of tensile rebar;
εc = concrete strain;
εc;punch = compressive strain of concrete at punching failure;
εcT = compressive strain of concrete at centroid of area
under stress-strain diagram;
εsu ,εsy = max and yielding tensile bar strain;
ε0 = concrete strain at peak stress;
ζ = coefficient determined according to ACI 318,
ζ ¼ minð2 þ 4∕β c ; as d∕bo ; 4:0Þ;
ρ = longitudinal reinforcement ratio;
σc;punch = punching shear compressive stress of concrete,
N∕mm2 ;
σc1 , σc2 = orthogonal normal stresses; and
τ c1 , τ c2 = shear stresses.
References
ACI Committee 318. (2008). Building code requirements for reinforced
concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
 Alexander, S. D. B., and Simmonds, S. H. (1992). “Punching shear tests of
concrete slab-column joints containing fiber reinforcement.” ACI Struct.
J., 89(4), 425–432.
Bažant, Z. P., and Kazemi, M. T. (1991). “Size effect on diagonal shear
failure of beams without stirrups.” ACI Struct. J., 88(3), 268–276.
BS 8110. (1997). Part 1. Structural use of concrete: Code of practice for
design and construction, British Standard Institution, London.
Canadian Standards Association. (1984). “Code for the design of concrete
structures for buildings.” CSA standard CAN3-A233-M84, Rexdale,
Ontario, Canada.
CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. (1993). Design code. Comité Euro-
International du Béton, Redwood Books, England.
Chana, P. S. (1986). “Shear failure of reinforced concrete beams.”
Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of London.
Cheng, M. Y., and Parra-Montesinos, G. J. (2010a). “Evaluation steel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fibers reinforcement for punching shear resistance in slab-column con-
nections—Part 1: Monotonically increased load.” ACI Struct. J., 107(1),
101–109.
Cheng, M. Y., and Parra-Montesinos, G. J. (2010b). “Evaluation steel
fibers reinforcement for punching shear resistance in slab-column
connections—Part 2: Lateral displacement reversals.” ACI Struct. J.,
107(1), 110–118.
Choi, K. K., Reda Taha, M., Park, H. G., and Maji, A. K. (2007). “Punching
shear strength of interior concrete slab-column connections reinforced
with steel fibers.” Cement & Concrete Composites, 29, 409–420.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2004). “Design of
concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.”
Eurocode 2, Brussels, Belgium.
Farhey, D. N., Adin, M. A., and Yankelevsky, D. Z. (1993). “Flat
slab-column subas-semblages under lateral loading.” J. Struct. Eng.,
119(6), 1903–1916.
Feretzakis, A. (2005). “Flat slabs and punching shear: Reinforcement
systems.” M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Gastebled, O. J., and May, I. M. (2001). “Fracture mechanics model applied
to shear failure of reinforced concrete beams without stirrups.” ACI
Struct. J., 98(2), 184–190.
Harajli, M. H., Maalouf, D., and Khatib, H. (1995). “Effect of fibers
on the punching shear strength of slab-column connections.” Cem.
Concr. Compos., 17(2), 161–170.
Jenq, Y. S., and Shah, S. P. (1989). “Shear resistance of reinforced concrete
beams—A fracture mechanics approach.” Fracture mechanics—Appli-
cation to concrete, ACI SP-118, V. Li and Z. P. Bažant, eds., American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 237–258.
Kang, T. H.W., and Wallace, J. W. (2008). “Seismic performance of rein-
624 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2012
J. Struct. Eng. 2012.138:613-624.
forced concrete slab-column connections with thin plate stirrups.”
ACI Struct. J., 105(5), 617–625.
Kinnunen, S., and Nylander, H. (1960). “Punching of concrete slabs with-
out shear reinforcement.” Transactions No. 158, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. of Struct. Eng., 114(8),
1804–1826.
McHarg, P. J., Cook, W. D., Mitchell, D., and Yoon, Y. S. (2000). “Benefits
of concentrated slab reinforcement and steel fibers on performance of
slab-column connections.” ACI Struct. J., 97(2), 225–234.
Megally, S., and Ghali, A. (2000). “Punching shear design of earthquake
resistant slab-column connections.” ACI Struct. J., 97(5), 720–730.
Naaman, A. E., Likhitruangsilp, V., and Parra-Montesinos, G. J. (2007).
“Punching shear response of high-performance-fiber-reinforced-
cementitious composite slabs.” ACI Struct. J., 104(2), 170–179.
Narayanan, R., and Darwish, I. Y. S. (1987). “Use of steel fibers as shear
reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 84(3), 216–227.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1974). Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley,
New York.
Regan, P. E., and Braestrup, M. W. (1985). “Punching shear in reinforced
concrete.” A State of Art Report by CEB Bull. 168, CEB, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Reinhardt, H. W., and Walraven, J. C. (1982). “Cracks in concrete subject to
shear.” J. Struct. Div., 180(1), 207–224.
RILEM TC 162-TDF. (2003). “Test and design methods for steel fibre
reinforced concrete.” Mater. Struct., 36(262), 560–567.
Shaaban, A. M., and Gesund, H. (1994). “Punching shear strength of steel
fiber reinforced concrete flat plates.” ACI Struct. J., 91(4), 406–414.
So, K. O., and Karihaloo, B. L. (1993). “Shear capacity of longitudinally
reinforced beams—A fracture mechanics approach.” ACI Struct. J.,
90(6), 591–600.
Swamy, R. N., and Ali, S. A. R. (1982). “Punching shear behavior of
reinforced slab–column connections made with steel fiber concrete.”
ACI Struct. J., 79(5), 392–406.
Swamy, R. N., Mangat, P. S., and Rao, C. V. S. K. (1974). “The mechanics
of fibre reinforcement of cement-matrices.” Fibre Reinforced Concrete,
ACI SP-44, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1–28.
Theodorakopoulos, D. D., and Swamy, N. (1993). “Contribution of steel
fibers to the strength characteristics of lightweight concrete slab-column
connections falling in punching shear.” ACI Struct. J., 90(4), 342–355.
Xu, S., and Reinhardt, H. W. (2005). “Shear fracture on the basis of fracture
mechanics.” Otto-Graf-J, 16, 21–78.