See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278830722

BEHAVIOUR OF FLAT SLABS WITH OPENINGS ADJACENT TO COLUMNS

Conference Paper · July 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 2,473

3 authors:

Tarek M. Fawzy Elshafiey Mohamed Hussein

Tanta University Tanta University
57 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mahmoud Abdel-Aziz
Tanta University
7 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Composite Constructions View project

Composite structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmoud Abdel-Aziz on 21 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BEHAVIOUR OF FLAT SLABS WITH OPENINGS ADJACENT TO COLUMNS
T. F. EL-Shafiey, M. Hussein, and M. A. Abdel-Aziz
Tanta University
Department of Structural Engineering,
Tanta 31511
Egypt
Eng.mahmoud_abdelaziz@yahoo.com

KEYWORDS: Behavior; Flat slabs; Opening; Punching shear

ABSTRACT
This paper presents both experimental and analytical investigations undertaken to evaluate the effect of
openings adjacent to columns on the punching capacity of flat slabs. A total of seven large-scale flat plate
slabs (1,700 x 1,700 x 150 mm) were constructed and loaded up to failure. The test specimens were
characterized as falling into two groups according to the opening position. Group I contains three
specimens with openings in front of column face, while, Group II contains three specimens with openings
at column corner. In addition, one specimen was constructed without openings to serve as control
specimen. The main parameters in this study were the opening dimensions and position, other parameters
as slab thickness, steel reinforcement and column dimensions were kept constant. A closed-form
analytical solution is proposed to predict the punching shear capacity of flat slab with openings adjacent
to column. The model is validated by comparing the predicted values with test results as well as nonlinear
finite element modeling. A quantitative criterion governing the punching shear failure of flat slabs with
openings is established.

INTRODUCTION
Currently the flat slab system is widely used in construction because of architectural flexibility, more
clear space, less building height, easier formwork and shorter construction time. The available design
procedures in various international codes of practice adequately cover punching shear design for flat slabs
with limited opening dimensions. Also, punching shear behavior of flat slab with openings (within the
international codes' recommended range) was characterized by many researchers (Moe, 1961; Hognestad,
et al. 1964; Fallsen, et al. 1971; El-Salakawy, et al., 1999; Essa, et al, 2003; Susanto, et al. 2004; Sherif, et
al., 2006; Wensheng Bu and M. A. Polak, 2011; El-shafiey and Atta 2011). However, their tests were
essentially concentrated on slabs with openings with limited dimensions. Therefore their results may not
be suitable for directed extrapolation to cases involving large opening.

In practice, large openings may be required to meet the requirements of connecting to public utilities such
as deflation or gas pipes. The designer has generally no control over the position of these openings which
may be required near or even adjacent to the supporting column. In such situation, the great loss of
concrete cross section resisting punching shear affects the slab load carrying capacity.

This paper focus on the punching shear behavior of flat slabs with opening dimensions exceeds the
maximum dimension recommended by international codes. The parameters included in the present
investigation are different opening size and location.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens
Seven rectangular specimens made of reinforced concrete were cast and tested. The specimens were
moist–cured for 10 days and, the average cube strength of concrete at an age of 28 days was 30 MPa. The
concrete mix consisted of siliceous sand, well-graded dolomite lime stone (10-20 mm size), ordinary
Portland cement and tap water. The concrete mix was designed to obtain the required strength after 28
days with a suitable workability to permit easy placement of concrete in the shutter. Bars with
yield/ultimate stress of 460/660 MPa were used as main and secondary reinforcement.

Table 1 Description of test slabs

Column Opening
Location of
Group Specimen notation dimensions/main and dimensions,
opening
secondary rft, mm mm
control SSC11#16 - -
*
SC11O(2,2)F 200×200/ main rft 200×200
D16mm@125mm Contacted with
GI SC11O(3,3)F 300×300
and sec. rft* column face
SC11O(4,4)F 400×400
D12mm@125mm
SC11O(2,2)C 200×200
Contacted with
GII SC11O(3,3)C 300×300
column corner
SC11O(4,4)C 400×400
*
rft = reinforcement
D12mm@100mm

Opening Opening Opening

200×200mm 300×300mm 400×400mm
1.7m
D16mm@100mm

1.7m 1.7m 1.7m

Specimens of group I
Opening Opening Opening
200×200mm 300×300mm 400×400mm

1.7m

1.7m 1.7m 1.7m

Specimens of group II
Figure 1: Details of tested slabs

The variables considered in this study were; the effects of opening size and location with respect to the
supporting column on the punching shear capacity of flat slabs. Fig. 1 shows the dimension and
reinforcement details of the tested specimens whereas Table 1 lists a summary of sectional proportioning.

The notation used to identify the slab without opening or with opening will begin with (SS) or (S)
respectively. The notation O (4,2) means that specimen with opening 400 mm in X-direction and 200 mm
in Y-direction. The location of opening at corner or at column face is noted by(C or F) respectively.

Test procedure and measurements

The slabs were simply supported over four edges. A special loading frame shown in Fig. 2 was used to
test the specimens. All the slabs were loaded in load control manner with load increment of 3kN up to
failure. A spherical seat was placed between the hydraulic jack and the steel loading plate to avoid uneven
application of the load. The slab's central deflection was recorded using a mechanical dial gage while, the
concrete strains at different points around the column (The concrete strains are measured at different
distances, such as: point (1) at (¼d), point (2) at (¾d) and point (3) at (1¼d) were near the opening.
Whereas, point (4) at (¼d), point (5) at (¾d) and point (6) at (1¼d) were far from the opening, as shown
in Fig. 3.a) were measured using detachable mechanical (DEMEC) strain gages. The DEMEC concrete
strain measurement system uses a sensitive device to measure the distance between two stainless steel
points that have been adhered to the concrete surface. The tensile strain of the steel reinforcement
crossing the column was recorded using electrical strain gauges at two points; the first one at the column
face (point 1) and another at the midpoint between column face and the support (point 2) as shown in Fig.
3.b. For each specimen, the first crack was observed and crack patterns were drawn on the whitewashed
surface of the slab.

Load cell
Column stub
Specimen
Steel bar 22 mm
4C – sec No. 300

Figure 2: Test setup.

(4) At 0.25 d
(5) At 0.75 d
(6) At 1.25 d

(3) At 1.25 d At 1.25 d (3)

(2) At 0.75 d At 0.75 d (2)
(1) At 0.25 d At 0.25 d (1)
1.7m 1.7m
At 0.25 d (4)
At 1.25 d (6)
At 0.75 d (5)

1.7m 1.7m

a. Illustration of concrete strains measurement locations for group I &2.

(2)

1.7m (1)

b. Illustration of steel
strains measurement
locations.
Fig. 3 illustration of
strain measurement
locations.
1.7m
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Serviceability behavior
Under loading, the first cracks (flexural) occurred at a load range of about 20% to 25% of the ultimate
punching capacity of the slabs. The cracks started with radial cracks running from the column stub toward
the slab edges. First crack took place in the solid specimen at the middle of the bottom layer parallel to
the support, whereas, the cracks started in all other slabs at the middle of the bottom layer from opening
corners near column. This was shortly followed by the formation of circumferential cracks around the
column stub and, as the load was increased circumferential cracks occurred at a location farther away
from the column stub. Inclined shear cracks at an angle of approximately 22 degrees, which could be seen
through the slab opening appeared at approximately 80 to 95% of the ultimate punching capacity. At the
end of each test, it was noticed a sudden penetration of the top layer beneath the applied load. This may
be attributed to excessive cracking and internal damage that could be termed as localized punching
failure. Fig. 4 shows the crack patterns for all tested slabs.

SSC11#16 SC11O(4,4)F SC11O(3,3)C

Figure (3-a): Crack pattern of Figure (3-b): Crack patterns of specimens

control specimen at compression surface

SC11O(2,2)F SC11O(3,3)F SC11O(4,4)F

Figure (3-c): Crack patterns of specimens of group I at bottom

f

SC11O(2,2)C SC11O(3,3)C SC11O(4,4)C

Figure (3-d): Crack patterns of specimens of group II at bottom

f
Figure 4: Crack patterns of tested specimens
 450
400
350
300

Load (kN)
250
200
150 SSC 11#16
100 SSC 11O (2,2)F
SSC 11O (3,3)F
50
SSC 11O (4,4)F
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
De fle ction (mm)

a. Load vs. deflection for the tested specimens in group I

450
400
350
300
Load (kN)

250
200
SSC11#16
150 SSC11O(2,2)C
100 SSC11O(3,3)C
50 SSC11O(4,4)C
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm)

b. Load vs. deflection for the tested specimens in group II

450 450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load (kN)

250
Load (kN)

250
200
200
SSC11#16 150 SSC11#16
150
SSC11O(2,2)C 100 SSC11O(4,4)C
100
SSC11O(2,2)F 50 SSC11O(4,4)F
50
0
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

c. comparison for Load vs. deflection for the tested specimens in group I and II
Figure 5: Load vs. deflection for the tested slabs

Load – deflection behavior

Fig. 5 shows the load-deflection curves of all tested specimens. As expected, the center point in all slabs
has the maximum deflection. The effect of opening was to increase the mid-span deflection for all slabs in
group I and II, compared to the control (slab without opening) at the same load level. However,
comparing the load-deflection curves of group I and II, it can be seen that slabs in group I have the
minimum stiffness compared to the similar slabs in group II, and this indicates that the position of
opening is equally important as the opening dimension.
Steel and concrete strains
Steel strains are demonstrated in Figs. 6 to 8. Fig. 6 shows the recorded strains at points 1 and 2 (as
defined earlier) for the solid specimen SC11#16. As expected, at all load levels, the recorded strain for
point 1 was high than that recorded for point 2. The same behavior was demonstrated by all other
specimens. Although, the recommended steel substitution was used round the openings in all test
specimens, the steel strains, at all load levels, were higher than that recorded for the control specimen
(Figs. 7&8). Figs. 9 to 15 depict the concrete strains at top surface of test slabs at different load levels. At
the same load level, data recorded for the measured concrete strains for group II specimens, confirmed
that the applied load was transferred to the supports through two perpendicular strips crossing the column
and the opening effect to be limited in omitting the confinement stresses around it's location. However,
the location of the opening in the group I intersecting the load path results in increase the concrete strain
along the continuous undisturbed strip only. The complete information about strain readings can be
obtained from Abdel Aziz, M., (2011).

450

400

350

300
Load (kN)

250

200

150
(1)
100

50 (2)

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Micro steel strain

Figure 6: steel strains at points1&2 for

specimen (SSC11#16)
450
400
350
450
300
Load (kN)

400
250
350
200
150 SSC11#16 300
SSC11O(2,2)F
Load (kN)

100 250
SSC11O(3,3)F
50 SSC11O(4,4)F 200 SSC11#
0 150 SSC11O
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 100 SSC11O
SSC11O
steel strain 50
0
Figure 7: steel strains at point (1) for Figure 8: steel strains at point (1) for
the test specimens in group I the test specimens in group II

450 350
400 300
350 250
Load (kN)

300
200
Load (kN)

250
150 (1) (1)
200
(1)
150 100 (3) (4)
(2) (5) (6)
100 50
50 (3)
0
0 0 -0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 -0.002 -0.0025
0 -0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 -0.002 -0.0025 -0.003 Top concrete stain neer opening and far from
Top concrete stain opening (mm)

Figure 9: concrete strains for Figure 10: concrete strains for

specimen (SSC11#16) specimen (SC11O(2,2)F)
 250
250

200 200
Load (kN)
150 150

Load (kN)
100 (1) (2) (1) (2)
100
(3) (4) (3) (4)
50 (5) (6) (5) (6)
50

0
0 -0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 0
Top concrete stain neer opening and far from 0 -0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0006 -0.0008 -0.001 -0.0012 -0.0014
opening (mm) Top concrete stain neer opening and far from opening (mm)

Figure 11: concrete strains for Figure 12: concrete strains for
specimen (SC11O(3,3)F) specimen (SC11O(4,4)F)

400 350
350
300
300
250
Load (kN)

250

Load (kN)
200
200
150 1 2 150
1 2
100 3 4 100
3 4
50 5 6 50 5 6
0
0
0 -0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 -0.002
0 -0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 -0.002
Top concrete stain neer opening and far from opening Top concrete stain neer opening and far from opening (mm)
(mm)

Figure 13: concrete strains for Figure 14: concrete strains for
specimen (SC11O(2,2)C) specimen (SC11O(3,3)C)
300

250

200
Load (kN)

150
1 2
100 3 4
5 6
50

0
0 -0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 -0.002
Top concrete stain neer opening and far from
opening (mm)

Figure 15: concrete strains for

specimen (SC11O(4,4)C)

Table 2: Test results

Max.
Pcr Pu Mode of
Group Specimen deflection
(kN) (kN) failure
(mm)
control SSC11#16 89.8 427 9.93 Punching
SSC11O(2,2)F 78.4 315 6.46 Punching
GI SSC11O(3,3)F 60.0 222 4.93 Punching
SSC11O(4,4)F 51.0 210 5.39 Punching
SSC11O(2,2)C 80.4 339 6.73 Punching
GII SSC11O(3,3)C 76.7 300 6.79 Punching
SSC11O(4,4)C 73.3 261 5.84 Punching
Punching shear strength
Table 2 shows a summary of the test results. Compared to the punching shear capacity of tested flat slab
without opening, reductions of about 26%, 48% and 51% was recorded for slabs with 20x20, 30x30,
40x40cm openings at column face respectively. However, changing the opening location to the column
corner reduced these reductions to 21%, 30% and 39%. Table 3 shows a comparison between punching
shear strength obtained from the experimental study and that calculated according to different codes’
recommendations. Although, the opening dimension used for specimens SC11O(4,4)C and SC11O(4,4)F
was 2 times higher than that recommended by both British BS 8110 and ECP 203-2007 a good
agreement was obtained as can be seen from Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison between experimental results and various codes

Euro code 2
ACI 318-02 British BS 8110 ECP 203-2007
(2004)
specimens Vexp
VACI VBS VEu Qup
VACI VBS VEu Qup
/Vexp /Vexp /Vexp /Vexp
SSC11#16 427 280.22 0.656 292.94 0.69 253.09 0.5927 297.01 0.7
SSC11O(2,2)F 315 210.17 0.667 219.70 0.70 189.82 0.6026 222.75 0.71
SSC11O(3,3)F 222 186.81 0.841 195.30 0.88 173.37 0.781 198.00 0.89
SSC11O(4,4)F 210 175.14 0.834 183.09 0.87 163.18 0.777 185.63 0.88
SSC11O(2,2)C 339 233.52 0.688 244.11 0.72 214.73 0.6334 247.50 0.73
SSC11O(3,3)C 300 227.66 0.758 238.00 0.79 208.55 0.6952 241.29 0.80
SSC11O(4,4)C 261 224.18 0.858 234.35 0.90 204.8 0.7847 237.60 0.91
Vexp = experimental punching load

NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Introduction
The data required for comprehensive parametric study is normally inadmissible in an experimental
program where the cost and time for conducting an extensive number of experimental tests would be
prohibitive. Comprehensive data are normally obtained using a suitable numerical technique. Due to the
complexity of the behavior of reinforced concrete sections, nonlinear finite element analysis is usually
appropriate for this purpose.

ANSYS 10 software package was used to perform the analysis using 8-noded three-dimensional brick
element with the option allowing the concrete to crack and crush when reaching its strength in tension and
compression. Link element with two nodes is used to simulate the steel elements. The multi-axial
criterion of William and Warnke was employed for concrete model, Fig. 16, that is expressed in the form
F/fc-S≥0.0 where F is a function of the principal stress state (σxp, σyp, σzp) and S is the failure surface
expressed in terms of the principal stresses and three material parameters ft, fc, and fcb which are the
ultimate uniaxial tensile, uniaxial compressive and biaxial compressive strength of concrete, respectively.
The failure of concrete was categorized into four domains. In each domain, independent functions are
used to describe F and the failure surface S. On the other hand, longitudinal reinforcing steel was
idealized as an isotropic elastic-perfectly plastic material. The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio for
steel 460/660 were taken 210 GPa and 0.30, respectively. Space truss element was used to represent
reinforcement. Fig. 17 illustrates the finite element mesh used in the numerical analysis.
 Table 4: Comparison between experimental
results and Finite element
yp

Cracking Cracking
specimens Vex VFE VFE /Vex fc
ft xp

SSC11#16#0 398 401.8 1.010

SSC11#16 427 431.2 1.010
SSC11#16#16 464 458.1 0.987

Cracking
zp 0 (cracking)
SSC11O(2,2)F 315 286.7 0.910 zp = 0 (crushing)
SSC11O(3,3)F 222 215.6 0.971 zp 0 (crushing)

SSC11O(4,4)F 210 205.8 0.980

fc
SSC11O(2,2)C 339 333.2 0.983
SSC11O(3,3)C 300 297.7 0.992
SSC11O(4,4)C 261 269.5 1.033
Figure 16: William-Warnke failure model for concrete

Figure 17: Concrete model and finite element mesh of some specimen.

250
350
500
450 200 300
400
250
350
Load (kN)

150
Load (kN)

300 200
Load (kN)

250 100 exprimental 150

200
exprimental
150 exprime
ansys 100
ntal 50
ansys
100 ansys 50
50
0 0
0 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 8
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
0 5 10 15
Deflection (mm)

SSC11#16 SC11O(3,3)F SC11O(3,3)C

Figure 18: Verification of load vs. central deflection between experimental work and numerical analysis

Figure 19: The crack pattern for SSC11#16 and SC11O(3,3)C

Verification of finite element model
The used software package (ANSYS 10) is verified by comparing the recorded ultimate load, load-
deflection response and crack patterns predicted experimentally to that obtained from finite element
analysis for selected slabs shown in Table 4 and Figs. 18&19. The experimental results and those
predicted using finite element analysis was noted to be in very close agreement.

Finite element investigation

Based on the confidence established in the analytical model, the analysis is extended to investigate the
influence of various parameters, believed to affect the punching shear capacity of flat slabs with openings.
The key parameters are identified as the opening location with respect to the supporting column and the
presence of more than one opening in the slab. Table 5 lists a summary of the study specimens.

The notation (SC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts) means that specimen with opening 200 mm in X-direction and 200 mm
in Y-direction at distance of half slab thickness from the column face. The notation (SC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts-
sm) means that specimen with two openings 200 mm in X-direction and 200 mm in Y-direction at
distance of half slab thickness from the column corner arranged symmetrically around perpendicular Axis
passed by column center.

Table 5: Summary of specimens' details

Opening
specimen

Arrangement of
Sub-set
Group

Column dimension in Location in X-

openings around
dimension X,Y direction mm
column
respectively
SC11O(2,2)F At 75 mm from
-0.5ts column face
SC11O(2,2)F At 150 mm from
I - ts column face
SC11O(2,2)F At 225 mm from
-1.5ts column face
I
SC11O(2,2)C At 75 mm from
-0.5ts column corner
SC11O(2,2)C At 150 mm from
II
- ts column corner
SC11O(2,2)C At 225 mm from
-1.5ts column corner
200 x 200 200 X 200 Two openings
arranged
SC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts-
symmetrically at
sm
two opposite
I
faces
Two openings
SC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts-
At 75 mm from arranged at two
II X
column face neighbor faces
Two opening
SC11O(2,2)C-
arranged at two
0.5ts-sm
neighbor corner
II
Two opening
SC11O(2,2)C-
arranged at two
0.5ts-X
opposite corner
Results of finite element investigation
Recorded finite element data are arranged in Tables 6-9 and Figs. 20-27. Data obtained for Group I
specimens suggests that there is an inverse relation between the punching load capacity of flat slab and
the location of the opening with respect to the supporting column, moreover, openings away from the
column with distance more than 1.5 times the slab thickness has insignificant effect on the slab punching
strength. Results of Group II specimens demonstrate that the best structural performance was obtained for
slabs having their openings at two opposite faces or at two neighboring corners.

Table 6: Recorded finite element results for group I, sub-set I

Ultimate Deflection at Ultimate Toughness Mode of

Specimen
Load (kN) Load (mm) kN.mm Failure
SSC11#16 431.2 9.89 2558.15 Punching
SC11O(2,2)F 286.65 5.59 948.61 Punching
SC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts 347.9 6.65 1348 Punching
SC11O(2,2)F-ts 392 7.63 1747.8 Punching
SC11O(2,2)F-1.5ts 406.7 8.55 2080 Punching

500
450
400
350
300
Load (kN)

250
SSC11#16
200
SSC11O(2,2)F
150
SSC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts
100 SSC11O(2,2)F-ts
50 SSC11O(2,2)F-1.5ts

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm)

Figure 20: Load-deflection curves for test specimens group I, sub-set I

Table 7: Recorded finite element results for group I, sub-set II

Ultimate Deflection at Toughness Mode of

Specimen
Load (kN) Ultimate Load (mm) kN.mm Failure
SSC11#16 431.2 9.89 2558.15 Punching
SC11O(2,2)C 333.2 6.267 1225.75 Punching
SC11O(2,2) C-0.5ts 362.6 7.62 1627 Punching
SC11O(2,2)C-ts 421.4 9.078 2288.45 Punching
SC11O(2,2)C-1.5ts 426.3 8.868 2243.23 Punching
 500
450
400
350

Load (kN) 300

250 SSC11#16
200 SSC11O(2,2)C
SSC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts
150
SSC11O(2,2)C-ts
100 SSC11O(2,2)C-1.5ts
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm)

Figure 21: Load-deflection curves for test specimens group I- sub-set II

Table 8: Recorded finite element results for group II, sub-set I

Ultimate Deflection at Toughness Mode of

Specimen
Load (kN) Ultimate Load (mm) kN.mm Failure
SSC11#16 431.2 9.89 2558.15 Punching
SC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts- 347.9 6.65 1348 Punching
SC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts-sm 330.75 7.35 1453.7 Punching
SC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts-X 240.1 4.46 646.21 Punching

500
450
400
350
300
Load (kN)

250
SSC11#16
200
150 SSC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts

100 SSC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts-X

50 SSC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts-sm

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm)

Figure 22: Load-deflection curves for test specimens group II, sub-set I

Table 9: Recorded finite element data for group II, sub-set II

Ultimate Deflection at Ultimate Toughness Mode of

Specimen
Load (kN) Load (mm) kN.mm Failure
SSC11#16 431.2 9.89 2558.15 Punching
SC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts- 362.6 7.62 1627 Punching
SC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts-sm 343 7.39 1507.7 Punching
SC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts-X 347.5 7.47 1546.5 Punching
 500
450
400
350

Load (kN) 300

250
200 SSC11#16

150 SSC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts
SSC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts-X
100
SSC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts-sm
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm)

Figure 23: Load-deflection curves for test specimens group II, sub-set II

500 500
450 450
400 400
350 350
Load (kN)

300
Load (kN)

300
250 250
SSC11#16
200 200 SSC11O(2,2)F
SSC11#16 150 SSC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts
150
SSC11O(2,2)F
100 SSC11O(2,2)F-ts
100 SSC11O(2,2)F-0.5ts
SSC11O(2,2)F-ts SSC11O(2,2)F-1.5ts
50 50
SSC11O(2,2)F-1.5ts
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 -0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 -0.002 -0.0025 -0.003
Top concrete strain neer opening
Micro steel strain

Figure 24: Longitudinal strains distribution Figure 25: The top concrete strains at d/4
along the tensile (bottom) reinforcement at from column face far from opening vs. load
column face for the tested specimens in for the tested specimens in group I sub-set I
group I sub-set I
500 500
450 450
400 400
350 350
Load (kN)

300 300
Load (kN)

250 250
200 SSC11#16 200 SSC11#16
SSC11O(2,2)C SSC11O(2,2)C
150 150
SSC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts SSC11O(2,2)C-0.5ts
100 SSC11O(2,2)C-ts 100 SSC11O(2,2)C-ts
50 SSC11O(2,2)C-1.5ts SSC11O(2,2)C-1.5ts
50
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 -0.0005 -0.001 -0.0015 -0.002 -0.0025 -0.003
Micro steel strain Top concrete strain

Figure 26: Longitudinal strains distribution Figure 27: The top concrete strains at d/4
along the tensile (bottom) reinforcement at from column face far from opening vs. load
column face for the tested specimens in for the tested specimens in group group I
group I sub-set II sub-set II
ANALYTICAL MODEL AND PROPOSED EQUATION
Various models have had been suggested by many researchers to estimate flat slab punching shear
capacity. Using the experimental and theoretical results of this research and those available in the
literature, it was found that the model proposed by Susanto Teng et al (2004) provided acceptable values
for flat slab punching shear capacity. This model was modified in this research by multiplying Susanto’s
equation by C C' to obtain a new model that takes into consideration the effect of opening dimension and
location. Hence the punching shear capacity in case of large opening could be estimated using the
following model.

Vu= C C' (ρ)1/3 (fc')1/3 (bo d) in MPa (1)

Vu = total ultimate shear force, ρ = flexural reinforcement ratio in percentage, fc′ = concrete cylinder
strength in MPa, bo = is the length of the critical perimeter taken at d/2 from column face , d = effective
depth of slabs in mm, The coefficient C is taken: C = 0.8 for solid slabs, C = the least of 0.75 or
0.75(c/a)1/3 or 0.75(L/20a)1/3 for slabs with openings Where, c is column dimension and a: is opening
dimensions. C' = (0.08 x / ts) + 1. ts is the slab thickness. The factor x is the opening distance from nearest
points between the opening and the column, see Fig.28.
0,075 0,15 0,225

d/2

8
31
2
21
6

0,
10

0,
0,

Figure 28: Shear Perimeter according to proposed equation for the studied cases.
Table 10show a comparison between experimental results and proposed equation. Table 11 shows a
comparison between numerical results and proposed equation. It is noticed that, the closed-form
analytical solution is proposed to predict the punching shear capacity of flat slab with openings adjacent
to column accurately.
Table 10: Comparison between experimental studies and proposed equation
Specimens Vexp Vu Vu/Vexp average
SSC11#16 427 425.08 0.995
SSC11O(2,2)F 315 298.88 0.949
SSC11O(3,3)F 222 232.09 1.045
SSC11O(4,4)F 210 197.69 0.941 0.97
SSC11O(2,2)C 339 332.09 0.980
SSC11O(3,3)C 300 282.83 0.943
SSC11O(4,4)C 261 253.04 0.969
 Table 11: Comparison between F.E results and proposed equation
Specimens VF.E Vu Vu/VF.E average
SC11O(2,2) F-0.5ts 347.9 355.23 1.021
SC11O(2,2)F-ts 392.0 387.35 0.988
SC11O(2,2)F-1.5ts 406.7 413.97 1.018 0.99
SC11O(2,2) C-0.5ts 362.6 364.91 1.006
SC11O(2,2)C-ts 421.4 394.33 0.936
SC11O(2,2)C-1.5ts 426.3 421.71 0.989

CONCLUSION
From the experimental study conducted in the present investigation, the following conclusions may be
drawn:

1. Experimental program carried out demonstrated that the ultimate punching load capacity of tested flat
slabs with opening is significantly affected by the opening dimensions. Compared to the capacity of
tested flat slab without opening, reductions of about 26%, 48% and 51% was recorded for slabs with
20x20, 30x30, 40x40cm opening dimensions at column face respectively. However, changing the
opening location to the column corner reduced these reductions to 21%, 30% and 39%. This indicates
that the position of opening is equally important as the opening dimension.
2. Openings with dimension span /10 and more than column dimensions affected the inclination of load -
deflection curve of the slab. The inclination of the curve is increased by about 15 % and 20% for slabs
with opening at column corner and at column face respectively.
3. For opening at column face; increasing the opening dimension to a value higher than the supporting
column dimension shows a high drop in punching shear at about 48% and 30% for slabs with opening
at column corner and at column face respectively.
4. Flat slabs with opening away from the column with distance more than 1.5 times the slab thickness has
insignificant effect on the slab punching strength
5. If two openings are required adjacent to the supporting column, it is recommended to arrange them at
two opposite faces or at two neighboring corners. This arrangement gives the minimum decreasing of
the ultimate punching load.
6. For slabs with opening dimension up to span/10; although these openings size is twice the codes limits,
both British BS 8110 and ECP 203-2007 show good prediction for the ultimate punching shear
strength
7. A closed-form analytical solution is proposed to predict the punching shear capacity of flat slab with
openings adjacent to column. The model is validated by comparing the predicted values with test
results as well as nonlinear finite element modeling. A quantitative criterion governing the punching
shear failure of flat slabs with openings is established.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The partial financial support from the HLCP fund project no. LP3-030-TAN, given by the Egyptian
government is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
Abdel Aziz, M., (2011), “Behavior of Flat Slabs with Openings Adjacent to Columns," M.Sc. Thesis,
Tanta University.
ACI Committee 318, (2002), “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, (ACI 318-02) and
Commentary, (318R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 443 pp.
British Standards Institution, (1997), “Structural Use of Concrete: Part 1, Code of Practice for Design and
Construction, (BS 8110: Part 1: 1997),” London, 120 pp.
Bazant, Z. P., and Cao, Z., (1987), “Size Effect Punching Shear Failure of Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 84, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 44-53.
Broms, C. E., (1990), “Punching of Flat Plates—A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial
Compression and Size Effect,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 3, May-June, pp. 292-304.
Canadian Standards Association, (1994), “Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings,” CAN3, A23.3-
M94, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 199 pp.
CEB-fib, (2001), “Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs,” Bulletin 12, CEBfib Task Group, Utilization
of Concrete Tension in Design, 307 pp.
CEB-FIP MC 90, (1993), “Design of Concrete Structures,” CEB-FIP Code 1990, Thomas Telford, 437
pp.
Chana, P. S., and Desai, S. B., (1992)a, “Design of Shear Reinforcement against Punching,” The
Structural Engineer, V. 70, No. 5, May, pp. 159-164.
Chana, P. S., and Desai, S. B., (1992)b, “Membrane Action, and Design Against Punching Shear,” The
Structural Engineer, V. 70, No. 19, Oct., pp. 339-343.
Corley, W. G., and Hawkins, N. M., (1968), “Shearhead Reinforcement for Slabs,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 65, Oct., pp. 811-823.
El-Shafiey, T., F., Atta, A., M. (2011),”Punching strengthening of two-way slabs using a prestressing
technique,” Proceedings of concrete solutions: 4 th international conference on concrete repair,
Dresden, Germany, p. 177- 185.
Essa, Ashraf., (2003) " Punching of high strength concrete flat plates with openings", Ph-D. Thesis, Cairo
University.
El-Salakawy, E. F.; Polak, M. A.; and Soliman, M. H., (1999), “Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Edge
Connections with Openings,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 79-87.
Elstner, R. C., and Hognestad, E., (1956), “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 53, No. 1, Oct., pp. 29-58.
“Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” European
Prestandard ENV (1992)-1-1: (1991), 253 pp.
Geng, J. Z., (2002), “Strength of Slab-Column Connections with Openings Transferring Biaxial
Unbalanced Moments,” PhD thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 279 pp.
Hallgren, M., (1997), “Punching Shear of Reinforced Concrete Slabs— Finite Element Analysis and
Modified Mechanical Model,” Advanced Design of Concrete Structures, CIMNE, Barcelona,
Spain.
Hawkins, N. M.; Fallsen, H.; and Hinojosa, R. C., (1971), “Influence of Column Rectangularity on the
Behavior of Flat Plate Structures,” Cracking, Deflection, and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab
Systems, SP-30, E. G. Nawy, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich, pp. 127-
146.
Hognestad, E.; Elstner, R. C.; and Hanson, J. A., (1964), “Shear Strength of Reinforced Structural
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Slabs,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61, No. 6, June, pp.
643-655.
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, (1974), “The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members,”
Proceedings, ASCE, V. 100, No. ST8,Aug., pp. 1543-1591.
Kinnunen, S., and Nylander, H., (1960), “Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement,”
Transaction No. 158, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 122 pp.
Susanto Teng, H. K. Cheong, K. L. Kuang, and J. Z. Geng (2004). " Punching Shear Strength of Slabs
with Openings and Supported on Rectangular Columns" ", AC1 Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5,
September-October. pp. 678-687.
Sherif, A., Ghanem, G., and Abdel-Razek, A., (2006), “Punching Shear Strength of Interior Flat-Slab
Connections with Openings”, 1st International Structural Speciality Conference, ISSC-1,
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Calgary, Canada, May 23-26
Kuang, K. L., and Teng, S., (2001), “Punching Shear Strength of Slabs with Openings and Supported on
Rectangularity Columns,” Final Report, A BCA-NTU Joint Research on Flat-Plate Structures,
Phase-1A, 298 pp.
Lee, S. C., and Teng, S., (1999), “Punching Shear Strength of Slabs with Rectangular Columns,” Interim
Research Report, School of Civil and Structural Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore, 93 pp.
Marzouk, H., and Hussein, A., (1991), “Punching Shear Analysis of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete
Slabs,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 18, No. 4, pp. 954-963.
Moe, J., (1961), “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings Under Concentrate
Loads,” Development Department Bulletin D47, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill., Apr.,
130 pp.
Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E., (1987), “Predicting the Punching Strength of Conventional Slab-
column Specimens,” Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, V. 82, Dec., pp. 1165-
1186.
Regan, P. E., (1986), “Symmetrical Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slab,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 38, No. 136, Sept., pp. 115-128.
Regan, P. E.; Al-Hussaini, A.; Ramdane, K.-E.; and Xue, H.-Y., (1993), “Behavior of High Strength
Concrete (HSC) and its Effect on the Shear Strength of Longitudinally Reinforced Concrete
Members,” Utilization of High Strength Concrete, Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium, V. 1, Lillehammer, Norway, Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo, June 20-24, pp.
269-276.
Roll, F.; Saidi, S. T. H.; Sabnis, G.; Chuang, K., (1971), “Shear Resistance of Perforated Reinforced
Concrete Slabs,” Crack, Deflection and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab System, SP-30, E. G.
Nawy, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 77-102.
Taylor, R., and Hayes, B., (1965), “Some Tests on the Effect of Edge Restraint on Punching Shear in
Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 17, No. 50, Mar., pp. 39-44.
Vanderbilt, M. D., (1972), “Shear Strength of Continuous Plates,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 98, No. ST5, May, pp. 961-973.
Wensheng Bu and Maria Anna Polak., (2011)," Effect of openings and shear bolt pattern in seismic
retrofit of reinforced concrete slab–column connections" Engineering Structures Volume 33, Issue
12, December 2011, Pages 3329–3340.

View publication stats