This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PUNCHING SHEAR OF FLAT SLABS:
FAILURE AND CAPACITY CALCULATION
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT DESIGN PRACTICE
PROPOSED STRENGTHENING AND REMEDIAL PROCEDURES
EXPERIMENTAL TESTING OF REMEDIAL MEASURES
SCHALK WILLEM MARAIS
THESIS PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING (CIVIL)
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH
SUPERVISOR:
PROF. G.P.A.G. VAN ZIJL
STELLENBOSCH
APRIL 2005
2
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that the work contained in this thesis is my own original work
and has not been submitted in its entirety or in part for a degree at any other university.
______________ ____________
SW Marais Date
3
Opsomming
Moderne beton konstruksie maak meestal gebruik van plat blaaie sonder kolomkoppe of
blad verdikkings, in plaas van die meer konvensionele balkenblad stelsels. Die gebruik
van plat blaaie bied aansienlike voordele ten opsigte van koste, relatief maklike
konstruksie en meer vryheid met die argitektoniese uitleg van die gebou. Ongelukkig word
die volle voordele en kapasiteit van plat blaai nie noodwendig benut nie. Heelwat
ontwerpkodes bied onakkurate metodes om ponsskuif weerstand te voorspel.
Gepaardgaande hiermee word die gebruik van plat blaaie gepenaliseer in gebiede wat
onderhewig is aan matige seismiese aktiwiteit, as gevolg van moontlike moment
geïnduseerde ponsskuif swigting.
Hedendaags word al meer bestaande geboue omskep en herbenut. In baie gevalle
veroorsaak die nuwe uitlegte en veranderde gebruik dat ekstra strukturele kapasiteit van
die bestaande kolom en blad verbindings benodig word. Somtyds is daar reeds skade aan
hierdie verbindings as gevolg van ontwerpfoute of ongewenste praktyke tydens
konstruksie.
Na aanleiding van die voorafgenoemde spreek hierdie verslag die volgende aspekte aan:
Eerstens word „n aantal ontwerpkodes se voorspelling van ponsskuif swigting vergelyk. Uit
die vergelyking volg dat weinig van die benaderings in lyn is met moderne
betroubaarheidsbeginsels vir die ontwerp van strukture. Op hede is daar slegs een kode
wat op alle beskikbare toetsdata gekalibreer is om te voldoen aan 5% moontlikheid van
swigting. Hierdie kode is die nuutste DIN 10451 (2001) ontwerpkode.
Tweedens word verskeie metodes voorgestel vir die herstel en versterking van bestaande
kolom en blad verbindings. Gepaardgaande hiermee word „n universele klassifikasie van
skade voorgestel om te sorg dat die korrekte stappe vir remediërende werk geneem kan
word.
Derdens is „n kolom en blad verbinding eksperimenteel getoets. Hierdie toets het die
welbekende, bros gedrag van ponsskuif swigting uitgelig, asook „n groot verskil tussen die
4
voorspelde skuif kapasiteit en die getoetse kapasiteit van die model. Meganistiese
modellering toon dat die swiglas van die model wel in die regte ordegrootte was.
Laastens is daar gepoog om die beskadigde blad te herstel deur vertikale wapening stawe
in die blad te installeer met „n hoë sterkte epoksie. Hierdie stawe is binne die oorspronklike
skuifwapening omtrekke geïnstalleer, asook op „n nuwe wapeningsomtrek. Ongelukkig het
die herstelde blad nie dieselfde kapasiteit as die oorspronklike blad gehad nie. Ten spyte
hiervan kan die sukses van die herstel toegeskryf word aan die feit dat die uiteindelike
swigting buite die vegrote bewapening sone geskied het. Die addisionele skuifstaal het die
skuifkrake forseer om weg van die kolom te migreer en uiteindelik buite die versterkte
sone te swig.
Daar word voorgestel dat verdere toetse gedoen word om die presiese bydrae van die
addisionele skuif wapening te bepaal, sowel as die meer akkurate voorspelling van die
kapasiteit van herstelde blaaie.
5
Synopsis
Modern concrete construction favours the use of flat slabs without droppanels or column
capitols as opposed to more conventional slab and beam systems. Flat slabs offer
numerous advantages in terms of cost, ease of construction and architectural flexibility.
However, more often than not, the full advantage of using flat slabs is not harnessed.
Many design codes offer inaccurate formulations to predict punching shear capacity;
furthermore, they discriminate against their use in modestly active seismic regions due to
potential moment induced punching failure.
Lately, more and more existing structures are being refurbished and renovated. In many
cases the change in architectural layouts and altered use necessitate additional load
carrying capacity from the existing slabcolumn connections. In some cases the existing
structures already show distress due to underdesigned slabcolumn interfaces or dubious
construction methods.
Based on the aforementioned points the aims of this report are the following:
Firstly, a comparison of several current codified design approaches is performed to
highlight the fact that some of the favoured codified approaches do not comply with
modern reliabilitybased structural design philosophies. At this stage, there is only one
design approach that has been calibrated with virtually all available test data, and scaled
to comply with a 5% probability of failure. This is the formulation presented in the latest
DIN 10451 (2001) design code.
Secondly, numerous methods of strengthening and repair of existing slabcolumn
connections are presented. Accompanying these suggested methods, a universal
classification of damage is proposed to aid in the effective repair of damaged connections.
Thirdly, experimental testing shows the wellknown brittle behaviour of punching shear
failure and the difference between the predicted and actual failure loads measured.
Mechanistic modelling of the test panel shows the failure load to be in the correct order of
magnitude.
6
Lastly, an attempt was made to repair the damaged slab by adding vertically doweled
reinforcing bars, bonded with high strength epoxy grout within the original shear reinforced
zone, as well as on a new perimeter. Even though the failure load of the repaired test
panel did not meet that of the original panel, the effectiveness of the repair was evident in
the fact that punching failure did not take place within the extended shear reinforced zone.
The additional perimeter of shear reinforcing forced the inclined shear cracks to migrate
away from the column, causing failure outside the shear reinforced zone.
It is proposed that further future testing is done to quantify the added benefit of additional
reinforcing, as well as the accurate prediction of the punching shear capacity of repaired
slabcolumn connections.
7
Acknowledgments:
Special thanks go out to the following people for their patience, time, support, ideas and
critique:
Gideon van Zijl University of Stellenbosch
Billy Boshoff University of Stellenbosch
Wayne Ritchie Sutherland Associates (Pty) Ltd
Gerrit Bastiaanse BKS (Pty) Ltd
Ralph Kratz University of Cape Town
Without the support and enthusiasm of the engineering industry the experimental testing
would not have been possible. Very special thanks go out to each of the following
companies and their representatives for the supply of construction materials and expertise:
Dave Miles
Lafarge South Africa
Grant Pistor
HILTI South Africa
8
Contents
1. Overview of Punching Shear Failure 13
1.1. Introduction 13
1.2. Classical Punching Failure 16
1.3. Punching failure due to lateral loading of the structure 18
2. Proposed Analytical and Empirical Models 20
2.1. Synthesis of Punching Shear Failure, as proposed by Menétrey (2002) 20
2.1.1. Experimental results 20
2.1.2. Numerical simulations 21
2.1.2.1. Model description 22
2.1.2.2. Simulation of the punching failure 22
2.1.2.3. Parametric analysis 23
2.1.3. Analytical Model 26
2.1.3.1. Punching vs. Flexural capacity 27
2.1.3.2. Tensile force in the concrete 27
2.1.3.3. Contribution of the dowel effect 29
2.1.3.4. Contribution of the shear reinforcing 29
2.1.3.5. Contribution of prestressing tendons 33
2.2. Proposed Punching Capacity Increase due to the use of Fibre Reinforced
Concrete 33
2.2.1. Experimental testing 34
2.2.2. Prediction of Punching Shear Strength 35
2.2.3. Observations and discussions based on the experiments 36
3. Current Design Practice 39
3.1. German design code – DIN 10451988 40
3.2. British Standard 81101:1997 42
9
3.3. ACI 318M02 45
3.4. Eurocode 2 48
3.5. DIN 10451:2001 49
3.6. CSA A23.3 53
3.7. CAN/CSAS600 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code 54
3.8. Comparisons of code equations for punching shear with and without shear
reinforcing – standardized approach. 56
3.8.1. German design code DIN 1045 (88) 58
3.8.2. Eurocode 2 (EC2) 59
3.8.3. British Standard 81101:1997 61
3.8.4. ACI 31895 63
3.8.5. DIN 10451 (2001) 65
3.8.5.1. Punching shear resistance of a slab without shear reinforcing 66
3.8.5.2. Maximum punching shear capacity 66
3.8.5.3. Punching shear strength within the shear reinforced area 67
3.8.5.4. Punching shear strength outside the shear reinforced area 67
4. Accuracy of Modelling and Codified Design Rules 69
4.1. Accuracy of Experimental Testing 69
4.1.1. Single Column Tests 69
4.1.1.1. The effect of boundary conditions 70
4.1.1.2. The effect of compressive membrane action 71
4.1.2. Slab subsystems 72
4.2. Accuracy of Code Predictions 72
4.2.1. Compilation of databank 73
4.2.2. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat
Slabs without Shear Reinforcing 74
4.2.3. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat
Slabs with Shear Reinforcing 75
4.2.4. Discussion of the Comparison of Test Data and Codified Predictions 77
10
5. Proposed Repair Methods for Punching Shear Failure and Preventative Measures
against Punching Shear Failure 78
5.1. Strengthening of Existing Slabcolumn Connections 79
5.1.1. Increasing the Effective Slab Depth 79
5.1.1.1. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and vertical bolts 79
5.1.1.2. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and bonded steel plate80
5.1.2. Increasing the area of load transfer 81
5.1.3. Installation of additional shear reinforcing 82
5.1.3.1. Doweling additional bars into the existing slab 82
5.1.3.2. Slab strengthened with vertical bolts 83
5.2. Repairing slabcolumn connections showing distress due to punching shear
failure or near failure 84
5.2.1. Proposed Classification of Damage 84
5.2.1.1. Damage Level 1 – Minor to medium levels of damage 85
5.2.1.2. Damage Level 2 – Medium to severe levels of damage 85
5.2.1.3. Damage Level 3 – Extreme levels of damage 86
5.2.2. Proposed remedial works for the different levels of damage 86
5.2.2.1. Repair of Damage Level 1 87
5.2.2.2. Repair of Damage Level 2 87
5.2.2.3. Repair of Damage Level 3 88
5.3. Retrofitting of slabcolumn connections for improved behaviour under seismic
loading conditions 88
5.3.1. Fibre reinforced concrete infill panel 89
5.3.2. Demolition of part of the existing concrete slab and replacement thereof with
fibre reinforced concrete 90
6. Experimental Testing of an Undamaged Slabcolumn Connection 91
6.1. Experimental Test Setup 92
6.2. Proposed Test Procedure 95
6.3. Actual Test – Virgin test panel 96
11
6.3.1. Material Test Results 96
6.3.2. Load Application 97
6.3.3. Placement and Setting Up of the Test Panel 98
6.3.4. Original Panel – Load Application 1 99
6.3.5. Original Panel – Load Application 2 104
6.3.6. Original Panel – Load Application 3 106
6.3.7. Original Panel – Combination of results – Loads 1, 2 &3 109
6.3.8. Verification of test results with the method proposed by Menétrey (2002)
112
7. Experimental Testing of Repaired Slabcolumn Connection 117
7.1. Classification of Damage and Proposed Method of Repair 117
7.2. Repair of the damaged slab 118
7.3. Testing of the Repaired Panel 121
7.3.1. Material Test Results 121
7.3.2. Load Application 121
7.3.3. Repaired Panel – Load Application 1 122
7.3.4. Repaired Panel – Load Application 2 128
7.3.5. Dismantling of the failed slab panel 135
8. Conclusions and Recommendations 139
8.1. Conclusions 139
8.2. Recommendations 140
9. Appendix A – Estimation of the experimental model‟s punching shear capacity and
the design of the required shear reinforcing 142
10. Appendix B – Calculations using the Mechanistic Model Proposed by Menétrey147
10.1. Virgin Test Panel 147
10.2. Repaired Test Panel 152
12
11. Appendix C – Construction Details 155
12. Appendix D – Prediction of Flexural Failure at Slabcolumn Connections – Yield
Line Approach 158
13. Appendix E – Method for Epoxy Crack Injection 160
14. References 162
13
1. Overview of Punching Shear Failure
1.1. Introduction
Building construction with flat plates has become more and more popular lately.
This construction method may dominate all modern reinforced concrete
construction in conventional buildings.
Flat plates – better known as flat slabs – offer numerous advantages:
Architectural flexibility
More clear spaces
Reduced overall building height – equating to lower construction and
maintenance cost
Simpler and less costly formwork systems
Shorter construction times
Some of the disadvantages associated with the use of flat slabs systems are the
following:
From a serviceability point of view, designs are often governed by
deflection criteria. Accurate estimation of deflections in twoway spanning
slab systems is debatable.
Flat slab construction is penalised by certain codes in seismic regions, e.g.
Eurocode and SABS(SANS).
From an ultimate limit state point of view the greatest limiting factor in the
design process is punching shear failure of the flat slab at the columnslab
interfaces.
Punching shear failure can be defined for two specific cases. Firstly, flat slabs
without shear reinforcing, and secondly flat slabs with shear reinforcing.
Flat slabs without shear reinforcing typically tend to fail in a brittle manner with
the telltale signs of failure being a conical concrete plug perforating the slab in
14
combination with a fair amount of flexural cracking evident on the top surface of
the slab. The brittle behaviour of the slabcolumn connection at failure is clearly
depicted on a loaddeflection curve (Fig 1.1), showing a sudden loss in load
carrying capacity of the connection.
Flat slabs with shear reinforcing commonly fail in a less spectacular fashion. The
addition of shear reinforcing causes increases the toughness of the connection.
The failure mode is shifted from pure punching failure towards a more ductile
flexural failure mode. This intermediate failure behaviour can be seen on the
loaddeflection plot (Fig 1.1). Even though the connection is more resilient it still
shows a rather steep decline in load carrying capacity. At failure the connection
shows more warning of distress by means of a more pronounced flexural
cracking pattern originating at the column, and circumferential cracking around
the loaded surface. In some cases delamination of the concrete at the level of
the tension reinforcing may occur.
Fig. 1.1 Response curves for flexural and punching failure (Menétrey 2002)
Both failures, with and without punching shear reinforcing, can be considered as
brittle failure designated by the sudden reduction in the load carrying capacity of
the structure. Due to their sudden nature these failures are more often than not,
disastrous. However with shear reinforcement a more acceptable failure can be
achieved.
15
A number of structural failures and collapses can be attributed to punching
shear failure of slabcolumn connections, of these a few examples are shown in
Fig 1.2 and Fig 1.3.
Fig. 1.2 Progressive collapse of the Sampoong department store in Seoul Korea
(Gardner et al 2002)
During the years numerous ways of countering punching shear failure of flat
slabs have been proposed and used, all with varying rates of success. Some of
these methods are:
Drop panels
Column capitals
Additional flexural reinforcing
The use of prestress
Prefabricated shear heads
Shear reinforcing in the depth of the slab
16
Fig. 1.3 Collapse of the upper parking deck at Pipers Row Car Park,
Wolverhampton, UK (Wood et al, 1998)
Numerous codified approaches to the design of shearreinforced slabs exist, as
well as number of mechanical and numerical models to predict the punching
behaviour and capacity of flat slabs. Most of these methods are based on limited
number of tests and formulated in such a way that no clear comparison between
the methods can be used, even though most of them are defined by the same
parameters.
This report aims to compare the various approaches to predict shearing
resistance of slabcolumn connections. One approach for punching shear
enhancement is selected and studied both analytically and experimentally. After
initial testing of the undamaged plate a repair will be attempted. The capacity of
the repaired slab will be compared with the original capacity and verified with a
mechanistic failure model.
1.2. Classical Punching Failure
At overloading a typical slabcolumn connection will fail at a perimeter,
proportional to the effective depth of the slab, from the column face.
17
Excessive loading, in combination with an unbalanced moment over the column
will cause the shear stress on this critical perimeter to exceed the capacity of the
structural system.
These shear stresses cause angled cracks to develop from the column face to
the upper surface of the slab. In slabs without shear reinforcing the crack growth
is rapid resulting in a concrete plug being pushed out of the slab. This behaviour
is clearly illustrated in Fig 1.4.
Fig. 1.4 Punching failure of slab without shear reinforcing (Beutel 2002)
When the slab has been reinforced with shear reinforcing in the area around the
column the reinforcing stirrups, clips or studs bridge the cracks and prevents the
conical concrete plug to separate from the rest of the slab. The behaviour of a
slabcolumn connection with shear reinforcing is illustrated in Fig 1.5. The shear
reinforcing also causes cracking to migrate away from the column. If the shear
capacity of the concrete outside the shearreinforced zone is insufficient the
failure will be similar to a connection without shear reinforcing.
Fig. 1.5 Punching failure of slab with shear reinforcing (Beutel 2002)
18
Fig. 1.6 Punching failure zone evident on top of a failing slab (Wood et al 1998)
In the event that the moment transfer to the column is negligible, the punching
failure would typically be similar to the failure pattern shown in Fig 1.6. However,
when moment transfer is more significant, the circumferential degradation would
only be visible on one side of the column – corresponding to the stress
distribution indicated in Fig 1.7.
1.3. Punching failure due to lateral loading of the structure
It is common practise to design multistorey buildings with two independent
structural systems. The first for resisting gravity loading and the second to resist
lateral loading imposed by wind and earthquake excitations, where applicable. In
most cases these two systems are designed independently.
However, due to building drift and the flexibility of the gravity resisting structure
(mostly reinforced concrete or posttensioned slabs) unbalanced moments
develop over the columns. The stresses caused by the moment transfer to the
columns are additional to the stresses caused by the normal gravity loading –Fig
1.7.
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.7 Shear due to gravity loading (a) and unbalanced moments (b)
19
Consequently slabcolumn connections may fail at gravity loads below their
intended design scope if significant effects of lateral loading are present.
20
2. Proposed Analytical and Empirical Models
Various approaches to predict punching shear resistance have been formulated in the
available literature and the numerous structural design codes. In this section two
interesting approaches will be studied. Firstly the method proposed by Menétrey, a
particularly rigorous method, taking different components of resistance into account.
Secondly a method proposed to include the beneficial shear properties of fibre
reinforcing will be overviewed. In the next chapter the different approaches of various
design codes will be compared.
2.1. Synthesis of Punching Shear Failure, as proposed by
Menétrey (2002)
Menétrey presents a general model for predicting the punching capacity of a
slab. The punching resistance of the slab is obtained by integrating the vertical
components of the tensile stresses around the punching crack. The contribution
of flexural reinforcing, shear reinforcing, prestressing tendons and the inherent
resistance of the concrete are accounted for by means of addition of the vertical
components of tensile forces of each crossing the punching crack.
2.1.1. Experimental results
The tests conducted by Menétrey focused on the difference between
flexural and punching failure of slabs. Flexural and punching failure can be
distinguished with the help of a load vs. deflection plot for the test, see Fig
1.1. A steep capacity drop for increasing deflection characterizes punching
failure, while flexural failures show a rather steady decrease in load
carrying capacity with increased deflection.
The experiments show that increasing the crosssectional area of the
flexural reinforcing can increase the failure loads. However, by increasing
the bending steel even more, a transition is made from a flexural, fairly
tough failure to brittle punching shear failure at higher loads.
21
Another experimental observation was that controlling the shape of the
punching cone, i.e. different cone inclinations, it is possible to reveal a
transition between punching and flexural failure.
The inclination of a pure punching failure crack is in the order of 30°. This is
reported both by Menétrey and Mervitz (1971), who studied a series of flat
slab punching experiments. However, Menétrey managed to control the
inclination of the punching crack artificially. Placing a reinforcing ring
concentrically around the column position and varying the ring radius
achieved control of the crack inclination, since the shear crack always
crossed the reinforcing ring. By increasing the crack inclination (o), see Fig
2.1, the behaviour became less brittle. The most ductile failure was
achieved at o = 90°. This angle in fact implies flexural failure, as the crack
is perpendicular to the flexural stresses in the slab.
Fig. 2.1 Punching cone shape enforced by steel ring reinforcement
By denoting the failure load for
0
30 o o = =
as the punching load F
pun
, and
the load at flexural failure (
90 = o ) as F
flex
, these results could be fitted with
the following expression:
( ) ( )


.

\

÷ ·
· ÷
÷ + =
0
0
2
sin o o
o t
t
pun flex pun fail
F F F F
(2.1)
2.1.2. Numerical simulations
Finite element analyses were performed by Menétrey (2002) to study the
slab column interaction. Thereby insight was gained, leading to the
22
eventual formulation of an analytical expression for punching shear
capacity prediction.
2.1.2.1. Model description
Axisymmetry was considered for analysing punching shear in round
plates. Finite element analysis enabled the consideration of the
complicated stress state in the structure. As failure criterion, the
concrete constitutive law developed by Menétrey & William (1995)
was considered. The dilatancy observed experimentally is matched to
a specific flow rule. Concrete cracking is described using a smeared
crack approach with a strain softening formulation. For this softening
Hillerborg, et al‟s (1976) fictitious crack model is used for reducing the
tensile stresses (o
t
) as controlled by the crack opening (w) and the
fracture energy, which is defined as the amount of energy absorbed
per unit area in opening of the crack from zero to the crack rupture
opening w
r.
í
=
r
w
t f
dw G
0
o (2.2)
The fracture energy is forced to be invariant with the finite element
size by adoption of the crack band concept by Bazant and Oh (1983).
The connection between the brittleness of failure and the state of
stress is reproduced by the introduction of a fictitious number of
cracks.
2.1.2.2. Simulation of the punching failure
The analyses were done on slabs similar to those of Kinnunen &
Nylander (1960). These slabs were chosen because of their perfect
axially symmetric geometry. The cracking phenomenon in the vicinity
of the column is clearly shown by the simulation, in reasonable
agreement with experimentally observed cracking.
The punching crack is initiated by the coagulation of micro cracks at
the top of the slab. As the vertical displacement increases, the inclined
crack expands towards the corner of the slabcolumn intersection.
23
Simultaneously the other inclined micro cracks are closing. Failure
occurs when the inclined crack reaches the corner of the slabcolumn
connection.
The crack angle is found to be approximately 45°, as opposed to the
30°reported earlier. This phenomenon is ascribed to the effect of the
upper layers of flexural reinforcing, which directs the initially 40°45°
shear crack to an eventual 30°by delamination along the longitudinal
reinforcing. This observation was also made by Mervitz (1971).
2.1.2.3. Parametric analysis
Having found reasonable numerical results, a parametric analysis was
performed on a circular slab reinforced with orthogonally placed
reinforcing. Partial bond between the concrete and reinforcing steel
was simulated by means of rigidly fastening the reinforcing element to
the concrete at the end of a fictitious fastening length. This fictitious
length allows some cracks to grow, while others close. The fictitious
length is related to the observed spacing of cracks in tensile tests of
reinforced concrete.
In Fig 2.2 and Fig 2.3 it is shown that the load capacity increases with
increased uniaxial tensile strength of the concrete, as well as with
increasing fracture energy.
24
Fig 2.2 Influence of tensile concrete strength on response curves
(Menétrey 2002)
Fig 2.3 Influence of fracture energy on response curves (Menétrey
2002)
By varying the percentage of flexural reinforcing the following can be
shown: Firstly, all the slabs show a similar cracking pattern,
regardless of the percentage of longitudinal flexural reinforcing.
Secondly, all the slabs show similar initial elastic behaviour. Lastly it is
shown that the postelastic behaviours vary considerably with varying
percentages of reinforcing. The higher the reinforcing ratio is, the
higher is the failure load, and with increasing reinforcing percentages
the ductility of the connection decreases. This is in agreement with the
experimentally observed transition from flexural, tough failure to high
capacity brittle punching failure.
25
Fig 2.4 Influence of the percentage of flexural reinforcing on response
curves (Menétrey 2002)
The size effect was simulated using varying slab thicknesses with
similar scaling factors applied to the concrete geometry and
reinforcing steel area, while the boundary conditions and material
characteristics remained similar. The nominal shear stresses at failure
were computed as follows:
( ) d d r
P
s
failure
n
· + · ·
=
2 t
t
(2.3)
d Effective depth of the slab
P
failure
Failure load
r
s
Column radius
t
n
Nominal shear stress
Assuming constant fracture energy, the sizeeffect law by Bazant &
Cao (1987) can be used. The experimental data is adjusted using the
RILEM recommendations for linear regression yielding the following
equation:
2
1
34
1 55 . 1
÷

.

\

+ · · =
d
f
t n
t
(2.4)
d Effective depth of the slab
f
t
Uniaxial tensile strength of the
concrete
t
n
Nominal shear stress
26
Fig 2.5 Sizeeffect law obtained by numerical analysis (Menétrey
2002)
2.1.3. Analytical Model
The model is based on the assumption that the punching load is influenced
by the tensile stress in the concrete along the inclined punching crack. The
magnitude of the punching load is obtained by integrating the vertical
stress components along the punching crack and summation of the vertical
force components of the flexural reinforcing, shear reinforcing and
prestressed tendons crossing the punching crack. Thus the general
formulation is:
p sw dow ct pun
F F F F F + + + = (2.5)
F
ct
Vertical component of concrete
tensile force
F
dow
Dowel force contribution by the
flexural reinforcing
F
sw
Vertical components of force in
the shear reinforcing
F
p
Vertical components of force in
the prestressing tendons
Even though punching failure is sudden it is due to the amalgamation of
micro cracks. This formation takes place progressively and consequently
the steel forces are activated gradually and can be added to the tensile
concrete forces.
27
Fig 2.6 Typical crosssection showing relevant parameters (Menétrey 2002)
2.1.3.1. Punching vs. Flexural capacity
The influence of the inclination of the punching crack can be
expressed by equation 2.1, with
90 30 s so
.
The following special cases can be highlighted:
o = 30° ÷ F
fail
= F
pun
o = 90° ÷ F
fail
= F
flex
Menétrey calculated F
flex
using the following equation:
e
s
r
flex
r
r
m
F
÷
· ·
=
1
2 t
(2.6)
m
r
Bending moment resistance
r
s
Column radius
r
e
Radius of the slab
2.1.3.2. Tensile force in the concrete
The punching crack is assumed to form the border of the punching
cone. The bottom radius is defined as r1 and the top radius as r2.
28
o tan 10
1
·
+ =
d
r r
s
(2.7)
o tan
2
d
r r
s
+ = (2.8)
Subsequently the inclined length is:
( ) ( )
2 2
1 2
9 . 0 d r r s · + ÷ =
(2.9)
In order to simplify the formulation, a constant stress distribution is
assumed, leading to the vertical component of the concrete tensile
force being:
( )
( ) u n c t
o t
· · · · · + · =
· · + · =
3
2
2 1
2 1
t
v ct
f s r r
s r r F
(2.10)
The shear resistance is seen to be proportional to the concrete tensile
strength to the power
2
/
3
, i.e.
3
2
t ct
f F · (2.11)
From the results of the numerical simulations, Menétrey determined
the influence of the percentage of longitudinal reinforcing to be
approximated by the following relations:
35 . 0 46 . 0 1 . 0
2
+ · + · ÷ = p p c
for
% 2 0 s s p
87 . 0 = c
for
% 2 > p
(2.12)
The size effect is incorporated in the formulation with the following
expressions u:
2
1
1 6 . 1
÷


.

\

+ · =
a
d
d
u
with
a
d d 3 >
(2.13)
d
a
Maximum aggregate size
29
In order to predict the failure load of a slab with shear reinforcing and
a failure outside the shear reinforced area the parameter n is used.
25 . 1 5 . 0 1 . 0
2
+ · ÷ 
.

\

· =
h
r
h
r
s s
n
for
5 . 2 0 < <
h
r
s
625 . 0 = n
for
5 . 2 >
h
r
s
(2.14)
2.1.3.3. Contribution of the dowel effect
According to Menétrey the contribution of longitudinal reinforcing
crossing the punching crack can be evaluated as being equal to:
( )
¯
· ÷ · · · · =
bars
s c s dow
f f F o . o sin 1
2
1
2 2
(2.15)
s
s
f
o
. =
(2.16)
¯
·
=
bars
s
pun
s
A
F
o
o
tan
(2.17)
o
s
Bar diameter
o
s
Axial tensile stress in reinforcing bar
f
s
Reinforcing yield strength
o Angle between punching crack and
reinforcing, in the vertical plane
2.1.3.4. Contribution of the shear reinforcing
Different types of shear reinforcing are used to increase the failure
load of slabs and to lessen the sudden decrease in load carrying
capacity of the slab, i.e. to improved postpeak ductility. Generally
systems such as studs, stirrups, bentup bars and bolts are used.
Three different positions of the punching crack are possible at failure.
1. Punching crack between the column face and the first row of
stirrups.
30
The calculation should consider the interaction between the
punching load and the flexural capacity in terms of the crack
inclination o and the bending failure load.

.

\
 ÷
=
d
r r
s swi
arctan
1
o (2.18)
Fig 2.7 Crack position 1.
2. Punching crack outside the shear reinforced area. The capacity
of this scenario is calculated in a way similar to a slab without
shear reinforcing. Instead of using the column radius (r
s
), the
radius of the outermost row of reinforcement (r
sc
) should be
used. The size effect is to be considered using the parameter
n.
Fig 2.8 Crack position 2.
3. Punching crack crossing the shear reinforcing.
31
Fig 2.9 Crack position 3.
The ultimate punching load is to be the minimum value
calculated from the three cases presented above.
The punching load in scenario 3 can be calculated as follows:
Firstly some distinction is to be made with regard to the
bond properties of the shear reinforcing. Reinforcing made
of plain bars will be denoted as studs, and those made with
high bond (deformed) bars will be denoted as stirrups.
The contribution of injected strengthening bolts, installed
after drilling through the slab, will be determined similar to
either stirrups or studs, depending on their respective bond
properties.
Interestingly Menétrey & Brühwiler (1997) found that non
injected bolts do not interact and consequently the
concrete and shear reinforcing contributions cannot be
added.
32
Fig 2.10 Crack formation in a studreinforced slab
The failure mechanism is initiated by the formation of micro
cracks. Due to the crack formation the slab depth increases
and resulting in the reinforcing bars to start taking load. The
studs are subjected to displacement controlled loading. The
displacement corresponds to the summation of the micro
cracks opening.
The stud elongation at failure can be expressed as:
o cos · = A
r
w l (2.19)
Consequently the deformation is:
l
w
r
sw
o cos ·
= e (2.20)
The crack rupture opening (w
r
) is approximated as:
sw
f
r
f
G
w
·
=
5
(2.21)
The maximum force can then be expressed as:
¯
= · · < ·
· ·
·
· · =
studs
swy sw sw sw sw
sw
f
sw sw sw
F f A
l f
G
E A F  
o
sin sin
cos
5
(2.22)
Up to a stud length l
0
the force is limited by the yield
strength. However, if the stud length exceeds l
0
the
33
reinforcing contribution decreases at a rate inversely
proportional to the stud length.
sw
sw r
f
E w
l
· ·
=
o cos
0
(2.23)
The contribution of high bond bars can be evaluated in a
similar way. Due to the micro crack formation and the
increased slab depth the generated tensile forces in the
bars are distributed beyond the micro crack zone by means
of bond stress to the concrete along the transmission
length. The transmission length is defined as the length of
bar along which slip between the steel bar and concrete
occurs. If the necessary length is available the yield stress
of the stirrup can be reached.
¯
= · · =
stirrups
swy sw sw sw sw
F f A F  sin (2.24)
If the required length is not available, the force developed in
the stirrup is a function of the anchorage at the stirrup‟s
extremity.
2.1.3.5. Contribution of prestressing tendons
Taking the contribution of inclined prestressing tendons into account
can enhance the punching shear resistance of a slab.
¯
· · =
tendons
p p p p
A F  o sin (2.25)
2.2. Proposed Punching Capacity Increase due to the use of
Fibre Reinforced Concrete
Harajli et al (1995) propose a design equation to predict the increased
resistance to punching shear failure of flat slabs by using deformed steel fibre
reinforcing in the concrete. The equation is based on a number of smallscale
test specimens. These tests were also compared to work done by Alexander &
Simmonds (1992).
34
Due to the brittle nature of punching shear failure, it should be avoided at all
costs. The general design philosophy of the North American codes (ACI & CSA)
is to design flexural members in such a way that the structure develops a yield
mechanism and therefore fails in a ductile, flexural manner.
From this point of view and the known fact that fibre reinforcing enhances the
mechanical properties of concrete, by controlling crack growth, numerous
researchers have investigated the influence of fibres on slabcolumn
connections. Fibre reinforcing leads to higher load carrying capacities, improved
ductility of shear failure and better energy absorption properties.
However, experimental studies are still limited and there is no established
method to predict the contribution of the fibre reinforcement as a function of the
fibre parameters. Harajli et al used the following experimental setup to calibrate
the capacity enhancement due to fibres:
2.2.1. Experimental testing
The panels tested by Harajli et al (1995) consisted of square slabs (650mm
x 650mm) with a monolithically cast 100mm x 100mm column. Two slab
thicknesses were used, i.e. 55mm and 75mm. The specimens are
representative of slabs setups with spandepth ratios of 26 and 18
respectively. Two identical slabs for each different input variable were
tested to minimize possible scatter.
The slabs were rather heavily reinforced (p = 1.12%) in order to ensure that
they failed by means of punching prior to flexural failure. Fibre reinforcing
consisted of one of the following:
Loose 30/50 hooked steel fibres (30mm long, 0.5mm diameter)
Collated 50/50 hooked steel fibres
12.5mm long monofilament polypropylene fibres
The slabs were reinforced with fibres at the following densities:
80kg/m
3
– 1% 30/50 fibres
35
160kg/m
3
– 2% 30/50 fibres
35kg/m
3
– 0.45% 50/50 fibres
64kg/m
3
– 0.8% 50/50 fibres
8.8kg/m
3
– 1% polypropylene fibres
Fig. 2.11 Typical specimen crosssection showing reinforcing details
(Harajli et al 1995)
2.2.2. Prediction of Punching Shear Strength
In order to obtain the design capacity of the connection, the capacity of a
normal slab setup without fibres is added to the additional capacity
provided by the fibres.
The bestfit equation for the prediction of the additional capacity is:
( )
'
0
075 . 0 33 . 0
c f u
f d b V P · · · · + = A (2.26)
Adjusted to a zero yintercept and a reduction factor of 0.9 a reasonably
safe equation follows:
( )
'
0
096 . 0
c f u
f d b V P · · · · = A (2.27)
The above equations are limited to cases where fibre reinforcing is less
than 2% volume fraction and where the reinforcing used is similar to those
of the experiments, i.e. hooked, crimped, corrugated and paddle fibres.
36
2.2.3. Observations and discussions based on the
experiments
Harajli et al (1995) concluded the following:
1. The addition of steel fibres increased the ultimate punching shear
capacity of a slabcolumn connection by ±36%
2. The increased punching capacity is related to the volume fraction of
fibres added and not the length or aspect ratio of the fibres
3. Steel fibres cause the failure mode to change from punching to flexural
or combined flexuralpunching failure
4. Improved ductility of shear failures
5. The inclination of the shear failure plane decreased with the addition of
steel fibres. This causes the failure surface to move away from the
column face, resulting in an increased failure load.
6. Polypropylene fibres led to improved ductility and energy absorption in
the postfailure portion of the test. However, the polypropylene fibres
made an insignificant difference in the ultimate failure loads.
From the experimental results it is clear that the punching capacity increases
linearly with an increased volume of steel fibres. This increase is not
significantly influenced by the spandepth ratio of the slabs.
Table 2.1 provides a summary of the behaviour of the two groups of slabs
tested, accompanying this the load vs. deflection behaviour of the panels are
illustrated in Fig 2.12 and Fig 2.13.
37
Slab Fibre Volume
Fraction (%)
Aspect
Ratio
Failure
Mode
Test ACI Test/ACI
Normalized Strength
A1  0.0  Punch 0.53 0.33 1.61
A2 Steel 0.45 100 Punch 0.57 0.33 1.73
A3 Steel 0.8 100 Flexural 0.64 0.33 1.94
A4 Steel 1.0 60 Flex
Punch
0.64 0.33 1.94
A5 Steel 2.0 60 Flex 0.64 0.33 1.94
A6 Polypr.* 1.0 0.5in Punch 0.53 0.33 1.61
B1  0.0  Punch 0.52 0.33 1.58
B2 Steel 0.45 100 Punch 0.60 0.33 1.82
B3 Steel 0.8 100 Punch 0.61 0.33 1.85
B4 Steel 1.0 60 Punch 0.64 0.33 1.94
B5 Steel 2.0 60 Punch 0.79 0.33 2.39
B6 Polypr.* 1.0 0.5in Punch 0.60 0.33 1.82
* Polypropylene
Table 2.1 Summary of test variables and results (Harajli et al 1995)
Fig. 2.12 Normalized loaddeflection behaviour for Series A slabs (Harajli
et al 1995)
38
Fig. 2.13 Normalized loaddeflection behaviour for Series B slabs (Harajli
et al 1995)
39
3. Current Design Practice
The general approach to determine the punching shear capacity of slabcolumn
connections can be summarized as follows: The shear strength of the concrete is
determined on a predetermined critical perimeter (u
0
– See Fig 3.1) at a specified
distance from the loaded area (i.e. column) – this is to cater for the presence of an
inclined shear crack in the assumed region. If the capacity of the system is adequate,
the connection can be deemed satisfactory. If the resistance is inadequate, either the
slab depth or the cross section of the column needs to be increased. If this is not
desired, additional shear reinforcing in the slab depth needs to be provided.
The shear reinforcing provides resistance additional to the shear capacity of the
concrete and the dowel action of the flexural reinforcing. In order to determine the
amount of reinforcing needed, the required area of reinforcing steel is evaluated on
consecutive perimeters (u
1
, u
2
, u
3
, etc.) around the loaded area. Reinforcing is needed
up to a perimeter such that the following perimeter under consideration does not need
any additional shear reinforcing.
Various prescriptions of what the considered parameters, such as the critical
perimeters, contribution of the shear reinforcing, as well as other requirements are
given by the different codes. In this chapter the requirements of the most important
codified approaches are summarized.
Fig 3.1 Basics of evaluating punching shear capacity of a slabcolumn connection
40
Due to the unavailability of original copies of certain codes a simplified presentation
used by Albrecht (2002) is used for codes marked with **. The simplification uses the
following notation:
h
c c
·
+
=
2
2 1
o (3.1)
h d · = 85 . 0 (3.2)
List of symbols:
c1 First sectional dimension of the column
c2 Second sectional dimension of the column
h Total height i.e. depth of the concrete slab
d Effective depth i.e. distance from the centroid
of the tension reinforcement to the extreme
compression fibre
f
yd
Design yield stress of steel
u Control perimeter
V
ULS
Ultimate load imposed on the connection
¸
f
Common loading factor determined by the
weighted average of the load factors for
imposed and permanent loads (live and dead
loads)
p Percentage of longitudinal tension reinforcing
in the considered crosssection
V
rc
Resistance provided by the concrete
V
max
Maximum allowed punching shear resistance
with shear reinforcing
3.1. German design code – DIN 10451988 **
According to the 1988 formulation of the German design code the critical
perimeter is calculated as a circle concentric to an equivalent circular column
cross section. This circle is a distance 0,5d from the equivalent circular column
41
face. Moment transfer to the columns is ignored if the panel spans differ by less
than 33%.
Fig 3.2 Critical perimeter and relevant parameters
The calculations are based upon a circular column crosssection. However,
rectangular crosssections are converted to equivalent circles with radius d
st
.
2 1 13 . 1 c c d
st
· · =
(3.3)
From this the critical perimeter can be determined,
( ) d c c u + · · = 2 1 13 . 1 t
(3.4)
It should be noted that the ratio of the side lengths of a rectangular column is
limited to less than 1.5.
2 5 . 1 1 c c · s
(3.5)
The contribution by the concrete and the longitudinal tensile reinforcing is
expressed as
( )
2
33 . 1 1 48 . 2 h
V
f
rc
o p
¸
· + = (3.6)
The maximum shear resistance allowed for slabs with shear reinforcing is
rc
f
V
V
· ~ 4 . 1
max
¸
(3.7)
If the shear force is higher than the capacity of the concrete, shear reinforcing is
to resist 75% of the force, i.e.
ULS s sd
V V · = · 75 . 0 ¸ (3.8)
42
The required crosssectional area of shear reinforcing is:
yd
sd
sv
f
V
A = (3.9)
The shear reinforcing is to be placed into two consecutive perimeters. The first
placed at 0.5d from the column face and the second at 1.0d from the column
face.
3.2. British Standard 81101:1997
The requirements of the British standard stipulate that the critical perimeter is a
rectangle at a distance 1.5d from the column face.
Fig 3.3 Critical perimeter and relevant parameters
Accordingly the control perimeter is:
( ) d c c u 12 2 1 2 + + =
(3.10)
In order to allow for moment transfer to the column the total shear force needs to
be factored. In the absence of detailed calculation, internal column loads in
braced structures with approximately equal spans; the enhancement is done
with a predetermined factor of 1.15.
t eff
V V · = 15 . 1
(3.11)
In case moment transfer is calculated in the structural analysis, the shear load
enhancement is determined according to the following equation


.

\

·
+ =
x V
M
V V
t
t
t eff
5 . 1
1
(3.12)
43
At corner columns and edge columns bending about an axis parallel to the free
edge an enhancement factor of 1.25 can be used.
t eff
V V · = 25 . 1 (3.13)
Alternatively the enhanced shear force for edge columns bending about an axis
perpendicular to the free edge can be calculated with the following equation.


.

\

·
+ =
x V
M
V V
t
t
t eff
5 . 1
1
(3.14)
Alternatively the shear force should be enhanced with a factor of 1.4.
t eff
V V · = 25 . 1 (3.15)
It should be noted that M
t
may be reduced by 30% if an equivalent frame
analysis with pattern loading was done.
The maximum stress at the column face is not allowed to exceed the lesser
value of:
( ) MPa f MAX f
cu
5 , 8 . 0
max
· = (3.16)
The concrete contribution to the shear resistance is derived as follows:
3
1
4
1
3
1
25
1 400 100
79 . 0

.

\

· ·

.

\

·


.

\

·
·
· =
cu
m v
s
c
f
d d b
A
v
¸
(3.17)
The nominal shear stresses on the specific perimeter under consideration can
be calculated with the following equation:
d u
V
v
·
= (3.18)
If the shear stress at the control perimeter is less than v
c
, no additional shear
reinforcing is needed.
44
The shear stress is to be checked on consecutive perimeters, each taken at
0.75d from the former perimeter, until a perimeter is reached where no shear
reinforcing is needed. For the perimeters requiring reinforcing the amount of
shear steel is determined as follows:

c
v v · s 6 . 1
( )
yv
c
sv
f
d u v v
A
·
· · ÷
> ·
¯
95 . 0
sino (3.19)

c c
v v v · s s · 2 6 . 1
( )
yv
c
sv
f
d u v v
A
·
· · ÷ · ·
> ·
¯
95 . 0
7 . 0 5
sino (3.20)
List of symbols:
A
s
Crosssectional area of the longitudinal
tensile reinforcing
d Effective slab depth
f
cu
Characteristic concrete cube strength
f
yv
Characteristic strength of the shear
reinforcing
M
t
Design moment transferred to the column
u Control perimeter
u
0
First control perimeter taken at 1.5d
V Factored shear force
V
eff
Effective shear force
x Length of the side of the considered
perimeter parallel to the axis of bending
EA
sv
Area of shear reinforcement
o Angle between the plane of the slab and
the shear reinforcing
¸
m
Partial material factor (1.5 for concrete)
45
3.3. ACI 318M02
The ACI recommendations consider a critical perimeter taken at 0,5d from the
column face. Moment transfer to the column is assumed to be due to a stress
distribution as indicated in Fig 3.4.
Fig 3.4 Critical perimeter, relevant parameters and shear distribution due to
moment transfer
For nonprestressed members V
c
should be taken as the lesser value of the
following:
6
4 2
1
0
'
d b f
V
c
c
c


.

\
 ·
+ =

(3.21)
12
2
0
'
0
d b f
b
d
V
c
s
c


.

\

+ =
o
(3.22)
o
s
Critical Section with:
40 4 Sides, i.e. internal columns
30 3 Sides, i.e. edge columns
20 2 Sides, i.e. corner columns
Table 3.1 Shear enhancement factors
d b f V
c c 0
'
3
1
= (3.23)
For prestressed members V
c
should be taken as
( )
p pc c p c
V d b f f V + + =
0
'
3 . 0  (3.24)
with
 o
s
– As above
46



.

\

+
=
12
5 . 1
; 29 . 0
0
b
d
MIN
s
p
o
 (3.25)
 V
p
– The vertical component of prestress
 
c
is to be taken as the ratio of the longest overall dimension of the
effective loaded area to the largest overall perpendicular
dimension of the effective loaded area. The effective loaded area
is taken as the area that totally encloses the actual loaded are, for
which the perimeter is a minimum.
Shear reinforcement is allowable in slabs where the effective depth is greater
than 150mm.
c s n
V V V + = (3.26)
V
c
should be taken as above but not greater than d b f V
c c 0
'
6
1
= (3.27)
s
d f A
V
y v
s
= (3.27)
V
n
should not exceed d b f V
c n 0
'
2
1
= (3.28)
When shear reinforcing is used the yield strength of the reinforcing is limited to
420MPa. The maximum allowable yield strength of the shear reinforcing is an
empirical value. The reasoning behind limiting the tensile strength of the
reinforcing is that with decreasing slab depth, full yield capacity of the steel is
less likely to be reached before punching shear failure takes place.
The required shear reinforcing is placed in the slab similar to shear stirrups in
beams – see Fig. 3.5. The control perimeter outside the shearreinforced zone is
taken at a distance 0.5d outside the last line of shear stirrups. However, the
shape of the outer control perimeter is quite different from the original control
perimeter.
47
When using the ACI recommendations for punching shear design it should be
kept in mind that the required integrity steel must be provided and that the
tensile reinforcing is adequate to resist bending failure.
Integrity reinforcing is the provision of adequately anchored sagging (bottom)
reinforcing that has to be provided through the core of the column.
Fig 3.5 ACI control perimeters and shear reinforcing details (ACI 318M02)
List of symbols:
A
v
Area of shear reinforcing
b
0
Critical perimeter
d Effective depth
f
c
’ Characteristic compressive cylinder
strength of concrete
f
pc
Average prestressing stress after losses
f
y
Shear reinforcing yield stress
s Spacing of shear stirrups
V
c
Punching shear capacity of the concrete
V
p
Vertical component of prestress force after
losses
48
V
s
Punching shear capacity contributed by
shear reinforcing
o
s
Shear enhancement factor

c
Ratio of column dimensions
3.4. Eurocode 2 **
The Eurocode considers a control perimeter with rounded corners at 1.5d from
the column face.
Fig 3.6 Critical perimeter and relevant parameters
Moment transfer is considered as a shear force per unit of perimeter.
u
V
ULS
sd

v
·
= (3.29)
÷ For internal columns the enhancement factor is 1.15
The control perimeter is calculated as:
( ) d c c u t 3 2 1 2 + + =
(3.30)
It should be noted that the ratio of the column side lengths is limited to 2
2 2 1 c c · s
(3.31)
( )( )
2
5 . 0 1 40 2 . 1 2 . 2 h
V
f
rc
o p
¸
+ + = (3.32)
rc
V V · = 6 . 1
max
(3.33)
49
If the shear force is higher than the capacity of the concrete, shear reinforcing is
used with the total resistance calculated by the addition of the concrete and
steel resistances.
3.5. DIN 10451:2001
The latest DIN recommendations are formulated using a critical perimeter taken
at a distance equal to1.5d from the column face.
When dealing with rectangular columns or walls the critical perimeters should be
taken as indicated in Fig 3.7.
Fig 3.7 Critical perimeter for a rectangular column or wall
( )
( ) d b MIN b
b d b a MIN a
8 . 2 ;
6 . 5 ; 2 ;
1
1 1
=
÷ =
(3.34)
The critical perimeter is selected to be such that it has the shortest length and at
a distance 1.5d from the column face – see Fig 3.8.
Fig 3.8 Typical Columns
Penetrations in the close proximity of the column should be taken into account
as shown in Fig 3.9.
50
Fig 3.9 Penetrations close to the column
When corner and edge columns are located closer than 3d from edge of the
slabs the critical perimeter should be taken according to Fig 3.10.
Fig 3.10 Corner and Edge Columns
The geometrical parameters used in the calculation of the punching shear
capacity and the required reinforcing are indicated in Fig 3.11.
Fig 3.11 Calculation Parameters
51
In order to take moment transfer between the slab and the column into account,
the enhancement factors given in Table 3.2 are used to increase the shear
stress around the column.
 Type of Support:
1.05 Internal Column
1.4 Edge Column
1.5 Corner Column
Table 3.2 Shear enhancement factors
u
V
v
Ed
Ed
·
=

(3.35)
Flat slabs without shear reinforcing should conform to:
max , Rd Ed
v v s (3.36)
Flat slabs with shear reinforcing should conform to the following:
The upper limit of the punching capacity is given by
max , Rd Ed
v v s (3.37)
Within the shear reinforced area
sy Rd Ed
v v
,
s (3.38)
Outside the shear reinforced area
a ct Rd Ed
v v
, ,
s (3.39)
Flat slabs without shear reinforcing:
( )  d f v
cd ck l ct Rd
o p k n 12 . 0 100 14 . 0
3
1
1 ,
÷ = (3.40)
0 . 2
200
1 s + =
d
k (3.41)
( )
2
y x
d d
d
+
= (3.42)
02 . 0 40 . 0 s s · =
yd
cd
ly lx l
f
f
p p p (3.43)
52
2
, , y cd x cd
cd
o o
o
+
= [MPa] (3.44)
i c
i Ed
i cd
A
N
,
,
,
= o (3.45)
Flat slabs with shear reinforcing:
ct Rd Rd
v v
, max ,
5 . 1 = (3.46)
For the first perimeter of shear reinforcing within 0.5d from the column face
u
f A
v v
yd sw s
c Rd sy Rd
· ·
+ =
k
, ,
(3.47)
For the perimeters with reinforcing within spacing d s
w
75 . 0 s
w
yd sw s
c Rd sy Rd
s u
d f A
v v
·
· · ·
+ =
k
, ,
(3.48)
ct Rd c Rd
v v
, ,
= (3.49)
0 . 1
400
400
3 . 0 7 . 0 7 . 0 s
÷
+ = s
d
s
k (3.50)
Bent down bars within 0.5d from the column face is considered using the
following equation:
u
f A
v v
yd s
c Rd sy Rd
· ·
+ =
) sin( 3 . 1
, ,
o
(3.51)
Outside the shear reinforced area the critical perimeter is taken as 1.5d from the
last row of shear reinforcing, with
ct Rd a a ct Rd
v v
, , ,
· =k (3.52)
71 . 0
5 . 3
29 . 0
1 > ÷ =
d
l
w
a
k (3.53)
List of symbols:
A
c
Crosssectional area of concrete under
consideration
A
sw
Area of shear reinforcing in the considered
perimeter
53
d Effective depth of the tension steel
f
ck
Design crushing strength of a standard
cylinder
f
yd
Design yield strength of reinforcing steel
l
w
Radial distance from the column face to the
last reinforcing row
N Axial force on the above mentioned cross
sectional area
s
w
Spacing of the shear reinforcing
u Critical perimeter
V
Ed
Imposed axial column load
v
Ed
Design shear stress
V
Rd
Design resistance shear load
v
Rd
Design resistance shear stress
o Angle of the bent down bar measured from
horizontal.
o o
60 45 s so
 Factor f moment transfer
 Shear enhancement factor
n
1
1.0 for normal concrete – refer to DIN10451
for lightweight concrete
k Size effect factor
k
s
Effectiveness factor of shear reinforcing
o
cd
Effective prestress in the considered cross
section
3.6. CSA A23.3 **
The Canadian building code considers a critical perimeter taken at 0,5d from the
column face. Moment transfer between the slab and column is similar to the
assumptions of the ACI318 code – Fig 3.12.
54
Fig 3.12 Critical perimeter, relevant parameters and shear distribution due to
moment transfer
The control perimeter is:
( ) d c c u 4 2 1 2 + + =
(3.54)
The contribution of the concrete and longitudinal reinforcing is given by:
( ) ( )
2
3
1
37 . 0 1 100 59 . 4 h
V
f
rc
o p
¸
+ = (3.55)
The upper limit of resistance is set as:
2
max
82 . 12 h V
f
· · · = o ¸ (3.56)
Similar to the ACI recommendations the capacity of the concrete and the shear
steel can be added together. In principle the ACI and CSA approaches are
similar, but the detailing of the shear reinforcing differs. According to the ACI the
shear reinforcing is fixed as beam strips, while the CSA method uses evenly
arranged reinforcing on the control perimeters.
3.7. CAN/CSAS600 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
According to the Canadian Bridge Code the shear resistance of slabs should be
the more severe of the following cases:
1. Beam action, with a critical section extending in a plane across the entire
width and located at a distance, d, from the face of the concentrated load
or reaction area, or from any change in slab thickness.
2. Twoway action, with a critical section perpendicular to the plane of the
slab and located so that its perimeter, u, is a minimum. This perimeter
need not be closer than 0.5d to the perimeter of the concentrated load or
reaction area. The shear resistance should also be checked at critical
55
sections located at a distance no closer than 0.5d from any change in
slab thickness and should be located such that the perimeter, u, is a
minimum.
The shear resistance for twoway action is calculated as follows
f r
V V > (3.57)
( )
p p pc cr c r
V d u f f V · + · · · + = o o 25 . 0 (3.58)
List of symbols:
d Effective depth – distance from the extreme
compression fibre to the centroid of the
tensile force (mm)
f
cr
Cracking strength of concrete (MPa)
f
pc
The average of the compressive stresses in
the two directions in concrete after all
prestress losses have occurred, at the
centroid of the crosssection (MPa)
u Perimeter of the critical section (mm)
Vf Shear demand (factored applied load) (kN)
V
p
Shear resistance provided by reinforcing (kN)
Vr Shear resistance (kN)
o
c
Material resistance factor for concrete (0.75)
o
p
Material resistance factor for reinforcing
(0.95)
56
3.8. Comparisons of code equations for punching shear with
and without shear reinforcing – standardized approach.
In order to compare the provisions made for punching shear by the various
codes the method used by the International Federation of Structural Concrete
(fib) will be presented.
The fib has done extensive research on the topic of punching shear and the
related performance of available codified approaches to the problem of punching
shear failure. In their publication “Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs” (2001)
a comparison of the available test data and commonly used design code
predictions are presented. In order to compare the different codes
standardization was necessary. The results of their standardization and
comparisons are overviewed in the following sections.
Nominal punching shear stress is taken as a shear force (
F F
V · ¸ ), divided by a
control surface around the loaded area. The resistance partial shear factor to
avoid punching failure is determined by comparing the nominal shear stress of
tests with a strength parameter of the concrete.
To determine admissible punching shear strength, partial safety factors for the
actions (imposed loading) and resistances (material characteristics) are used.
R
R
F F
V
V
¸
ì s · (3.59)
This states that the demand is less than the capacity of the system.
Standardization of the punching shear capacity or resistance is done by
considering the concrete shear resistance and that of the reinforcing steel
superimposed as follows:
c c
outside c
s
s
c
c
R
Rd
V
V
V V V
¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
max
,
s s + = (3.60)
where the concrete shear capacity is
57
d u f k V
l c c
· · · · = ) (p t (3.61)
and the steel shear capacity contribution is
) sin(o k · · · =
y s sw s
f A V (3.62)
List of symbols:
A
sw
Cross sectional area of the shear reinforcing
d Effective depth
f(p
l
) Function of the longitudinal tension
reinforcing
f
y
Yield strength of the shear reinforcing
k Size effect factor of the effective depth
u Control perimeter
V
c
Characteristic punching resistance without
shear reinforcing, or the contribution of the
concrete to the punching shear capacity in
the presence of shear reinforcing
V
c,outside
Characteristic shear capacity outside the
shear reinforced area
V
f
Characteristic value of the acting force
V
max
Characteristic maximum shear capacity
V
R
Punching shear capacity
V
s
Characteristic shear capacity of the shear
reinforcing
P
l
,u
g
Ratio of the longitudinal tension reinforcing
o Inclination of the shear reinforcing
¸
c
Partial material factor for the concrete
¸
f
Partial safety factor for the imposed forces
¸
s
Partial material factor for the reinforcing steel
k
s
Efficiency of the shear reinforcing
t
c
Concrete shear capacity
58
In the following sections the standardised fib formulation of the different codified
approached are presented.
3.8.1. German design code DIN 1045 (88)
The German code considers the cube strength of the concrete and the
flexural reinforcing ratio as input parameters. The control perimeter is to be
taken at a distance d from the column face. Punching cones inclined at
angles between 30° and 45° were considered in the formulation. The
concrete contribution was calculated to be 25% of the ultimate load
capacity. It should be noted that punching shear failures outside an area of
1.2d was not investigated.
Safety factors: ¸
c
2.10
¸
s
1.75
Resistance without
shear reinforcing
3
2
200 , 011 011
056 . 0 ;
cu c c
f ~ · = t t ¸ t
(3.63)
g s l
f u n p · · = 3 . 1 ) (
(3.64)


.

\

+ · ~
500
1 7 . 0
y
s
f
n
(3.65)
% 5 . 1 25 % 5 . 0
200 ,
s · s s
y
cu
g
f
f
u
(3.66)
d b
A
beamstrip
beamstrip sl
g
·
·
=
% 100
,
u
(3.67)
Outside shear
reinforcing
Not investigated
Maximum shear
capacity
d u V
c
· · · · =
02 2 max
t k ¸
(3.68)
3
2
200 , 02
21 . 0
cu
f · ~ t
(3.69)
59
g s
u n k · · = 45 . 0
2
(3.70)
Within the shear
reinforced area
F c
V V · = 25 . 0
(3.71)
) sin(o · · =
y sw s
f A V
(3.72)
Additional rules Slab to be no less than 150mm
thick.
Stirrups to enclose tension and
compression flexural reinforcing.
Rectangular columns can be
transformed into round columns if
5 . 1 s
b
a
and the cross sectional area
is the same.
3.8.2. Eurocode 2 (EC2)
The Eurocode recommendations for punching shear failure consider the
following parameters:
Concrete cylinder strength
Flexural reinforcing ratio
Size effect of the effective slab depth
Shear capacity of the shear reinforcing
Safety factors: ¸
c
1.50
¸
s
1.15
Resistance
without
shear
reinforcing
(V
c
)
3
2
035 . 0
c c c
f · · =¸ t
(3.73)
1 6 . 1 > ÷ = d k (3.74)
l l
f p p · + = 40 2 . 1 ) (
(3.75)
60
% 5 . 1 s
l
p
(3.76)
Resistance
outside the
shear
reinforced
area
(V
c,outside
)
Similar to above under consideration of
an exterior control perimeter
Maximum
shear
capacity
(V
max
)
c
V V · = 6 . 1
max
(3.77)
Resistance
within the
shear
reinforced
area (V
c
+
V
s
)
V
c
÷ Punching capacity without shear
reinforcing
¯
· · = ) sin(o
y sw s
f A V
(3.78)
mm h 200 > (3.79)
( )
) sin(
6 . 0
_
o
load krit
MIN sw
A A
c A
÷
· · =
(3.80)
% 13 . 0 % 11 . 0 s s c
d
A
perimeter control
perimeter control sl
l
· u
=
_
_ ,
p
(3.81)
Some authors have criticized the Eurocode formulation and have
suggested the following changes. Firstly, the function expressing the
influence of the concrete strength should use the power
3
1
instead of
3
2
.
Secondly the shear strength t
c
should be increased by 20% and lastly, the
61
efficiency of the stirrups used as shear reinforcing should be changed to
5060% instead of 100%.
3
1
09 . 0 2 . 1 c
c c
f · · · =¸ t
(3.82)
¯
· · · = ) sin( ) 6 . 0 _ _ 5 . 0 ( o
y sw s
f A or V
(3.83)
According to Kordina (1994) the punching shear strength without shear
reinforcing in the EC2 control perimeter is 20% more than the uniaxial
shear capacity. In order to rectify this discontinuity the following two ways
can be used.
(1) The punching shear strength is defined as the uniaxial shear strength,
while the higher punching shear capacity is judged using a large control
perimeter.
(2) Using a fixed control perimeter with a transition zone the difference
between punching shear strength and the uniaxial shear strength can
be incorporated.
Kordina (1994) showed that the control perimeter of EC2 could be increased.
Due to this increase in control perimeter the local shear stress
concentrations diminish and consequently the geometry of the loaded area
on the acting shear stress can be neglected for lowlevel loads. For high
level loads (i.e. slabs with shear reinforcing) the stress concentrations cannot
be neglected and should be limited.
3.8.3. British Standard 81101:1997
The BS8110 prescriptions for punching shear design consider the following
parameters:
Concrete strength
Flexural reinforcing ratio
Size effect of the effective slab depth
Shear capacity of the shear reinforcing
62
The 1997 revision of the code takes the beneficial membrane forces acting
in a cracked flat slab into account. The inclination of the punching shear
crack has also been adjusted from 45º to 33º, causing a reduction in the
required shear reinforcing by up to 50%.
Safety factors: ¸
c
1.25
¸
s
1.15
Resistance
without
shear
reinforcing
(V
ct
)
3
1
27 . 0
5 . 1
cu
v
c
f
a
d
· ·
·
= t
(3.84)
Where a
v
is the distance from the column
face to the control perimeter
4
400
d
k = (3.85)
( ) ( )3
1
100
l l
f p p · =
(3.86)
% 3 s
l
p
(3.87)
Resistance
outside the
shear
reinforced
area
(V
c,outside
)
Similar to above under consideration of an
exterior control perimeter
Maximum
shear
capacity
(V
max
)


.

\

· · s · =
cu
c
f
MIN d u V V
5
; 8 . 0 0 . 2
0 max
(3.88)
63
Resistance
within the
shear
reinforced
area (V
c
+
V
s
)
V
c
÷ Punching capacity without shear
reinforcing
V
s
÷ Punching capacity provided by shear
reinforcing
V
sf
÷ Applied shear force
If
c f
v v 6 . 1 s then
) sin( 95 . 0 o
¯
=
y sw s
f A V
(3.89)
If
c f c
v v v 2 6 . 1 s s then
c c
V V 42 . 1 =
) sin( 27 . 0 o
¯
=
y sw s
f A V
(3.90)
(3.91)
Minimum
shear
reinforcing
¯
> ·
y
sw
f
ud A
95 . 0
1
4 . 0 ) sin(o
(3.92)
3.8.4. ACI 31895
The ACI code takes the following parameters into account for estimating
the punching shear resistance:
Concrete strength
Column geometry
Length of the control perimeter
The code does not take the influence of the longitudinal tension reinforcing
into account.
Safety factors: ¸
c
1.176
¸
s
1.176
Resistance
without
shear
reinforcing
(V
c
)
The Minimum value of the following:
c c
f · = 33 . 0 t
(3.93)
64


.

\

+ · · =
c
c c
f

t
4
2 083 . 0
(3.94)


.

\

·
·
+ · · =
ext resp
c c
u u
d
f
0
2 083 . 0
o
t
(3.95)
Resistance
outside the
shear
reinforced
area (V
c
)
Similar to above under consideration of an
exterior control perimeter
Maximum
shear
capacity of
stirrups
(V
max
)
d u f V
c
· · · = 5 . 0
max
(3.96)
Resistance
within the
shear
reinforced
area (V
c
+
V
s
)
ud f V
c c
167 . 0 = (3.97)
y sw s
f A V =
MPa f
y
414 s
(3.98)
Typical shear reinforcing arrangements according to the ACI
recommendations, as seen in practise, is shown in Fig 3.13 and Fig 3.14.
65
Fig 3.13 Shearstud rails on site – detailed and designed
according to the ACI318 recommendations
Fig 3.14 Shear stirrups on site – detailed and designed
according to the ACI318 recommendations
3.8.5. DIN 10451 (2001)
In principle the new DIN code is based on Model Code 90 (fib 1999), thus
using the following parameters to estimate the punching resistance of the
slabcolumn connection:
Concrete strength
The flexural reinforcing ratio, i.e. the longitudinal tensile reinforcing
The size effect of the effective depth
Shear Stirrup
(Shape Code 72)
Lacing Bar
Longitudinal
Reinforcing
66
The shear capacity of the shear reinforcing
This code is regarded as the latest and safest code at the moment. It has
been calibrated using all available test data published from over the world
to conform to accepted reliability criteria.
The codified formulation will be presented in the following parts.
3.8.5.1. Punching shear resistance of a slab without shear
reinforcing
The control perimeter is taken at 1.5d.
crit ct Rd ct Rd
u v V · =
, ,
(3.99)
( ) d f v
ck l ct Rd
· · · · · = k p
3
1
,
100 12 . 0 (3.100)
02 . 0 4 . 0 s s
yd
cd
l
f
f
p (3.101)
2
200
1 s + =
d
k (3.102)
d Effective depth [m]
f
ck
Characteristic compressive concrete
strength [MN/m
2
]
u
crit
Control perimeter [m]
V
Rd,ct
Punching shear resistance [MN]
v
Rd,ct
Punching shear capacity stress [MN/m
2
]
k Size effect parameter
pl Flexural reinforcing ratio
3.8.5.2. Maximum punching shear capacity
The maximum capacity has been confirmed by testing to correlate
with the load level at which crushing of concrete at the column face
occurs.
67
ct Rd Rd
V V
, max .
7 . 1 · = (3.103)
3.8.5.3. Punching shear strength within the shear reinforced
area
Within the shear reinforced area the resistance is provided by a
constant concrete contribution and by the shear strength of the shear
reinforcing. The level of contribution decreases with increasing
distance from the column. Due to stirrup anchorage slip the shear
strength of the reinforcing is limited to 70% of yield strength in thin
slabs.
i sy Rd i sy Rd
u v V · =
, , ,
(3.104)
i
yd i sw s
crd sy Rd
u
f A
v v
· ·
+ =
,
,
k
(3.105)
ct Rd crd
v v
,
= (3.106)
0 . 1
400
400
3 . 0 7 . 0 7 . 0 s
÷
+ s
d
(3.107)
d Effective depth [mm]
f
yd
Reinforcing design yield strength
u
i
Perimeter of each stirrup row [m]
V
Rd,sy,i
Shear capacity in every stirrup row i
v
Rd,sy
Shear capacity in every stirrup row per
meter
k
s
Effectiveness factor of the shear reinforcing
A
swi
Sum of the stirrup crosssectional area in
each row
3.8.5.4. Punching shear strength outside the shear
reinforced area
It is assumed that the control perimeter is located at a distance 1.5d
from the last row of stirrups.
68
a cta Rd cta Rd
u v V · =
, ,
(3.108)
ct Rd a cta Rd
v v
, , ·
= k (3.109)
83 . 0
5 . 3
167 . 0
1 >
·
·
÷ =
d
l
w
a
k (3.110)
u
a
Exterior control perimeter
l
w
Radial distance between the column face
and the last row of stirrups
69
4. Accuracy of Modelling and Codified Design Rules
In order to formulate the mathematical modelling of punching shear behaviour and
prediction of punching shear failure, representative experimental models of structures,
or part thereof are needed.
4.1. Accuracy of Experimental Testing
Due to the complexity of the punching shear problem, any analytical model has
to be based on, or verified with experimental test results to a certain extent.
Experimental testing of punching shear presents numerous problems.
Testing of real structures is not feasible due to the tremendous costs involved
and the large scale of such a test setup. The only practical option is to test
representative parts of the structure either at full scale or scaled down.
Most of the punching shear tests undertaken to date were done using single
column tests with little attention given to the boundary conditions of the slab
portion used. The validity of this approach is explained in the following sections.
4.1.1. Single Column Tests
In most cases the dimensions of isolated slabcolumn are selected to
coincide with the lines of contra flexure in the real structure. In other words,
the region of negative moments in the real slab is used for a single slab
column test.
These tests are relatively inexpensive and allow full scale testing. However,
there are a number of disadvantages in using a single column setup:
Simulation of real boundary conditions is ignored
Confinement of the concrete is ignored
Membrane forces in the slab is not present
Failure shear stresses are not influenced by the size effect (The size
effect causes a reduction of shear strength with increasing slab depth)
70
Load redistribution is not possible
Two different configurations of a single column test are possible. The two
setups should not be perceived as similar. Firstly the slab can be supported
on its boundary with the load applied on the column. This setup allows the
forces to distribute along the boundary. Secondly the slab specimen can be
supported on the column with the load applied at a fixed distance from the
column.
4.1.1.1. The effect of boundary conditions
Elstner & Hognestad (1956) tested the effect of different boundary
conditions in 1956. They set up three scenarios. Firstly, a square slab
with continuous simple supports along all four edges. Secondly, a
similar slab with continuous simple supports on two opposing edges
and lastly the four corners were simply supported.
A linear elastic finite element analysis on the three scenarios renders
similar shear stress distributions for all three cases. However, the
actual testing reveals a decrease in the punching shear capacity with
decreasing support provided to the slab boundary.
If the failure loads are normalized with respect to
'
c
f , the capacities
reduce from 100% for a slab with all four edges supported, to 85% for
two opposing edges supported, to 60.4% for a slab with corner
supports only. It seems that boundary forces develop in slabs
supported on all edges. These forces enhance the shear capacity of
the slabcolumn connection.
It should be noted that the effect of the moment to shear ratio is
included in these tests. This ratio will be the highest for the slab
supported on all four edges and consequently a higher punching
shear capacity can be expected.
71
Alexander and Simmonds (1992) reported similar results by using
three test scenarios providing rotational restraints with rollers. Firstly
they used a slab with rotations of the corners and edges restrained,
secondly, rotations of the edges alone restrained and thirdly rotations
of the corners alone restrained. The normalized capacities of these
tests are 100%, 89.7% and 82.1% respectively. Evidently increasing
rotational restraint enhances the punching capacity of the connection.
The punching shear strength of a slab is also influenced by the shear
span ratio ( d a
v
), where a
v
is the shear distance, i.e. the distance
from the loaded area to the support, and d the effective slab depth.
Although test data on the influence of the shear span ratio is rather
limited, it is safe to say that shear strength rises significantly for ratios
less than 1.5, but remains fairly constant for higher ratios – fib (2001).
Thus if the supports are too close to the applied load, they interfere
with the results. According to the fib (2001) it is reckoned that a
distance of at least three slab thicknesses is necessary between the
loaded area and the slab supports.
4.1.1.2. The effect of compressive membrane action
Due to the confinement of the slabcolumn connection by the adjacent
slab it also plays a role in the punching shear capacity of the
connection.
Compressive membrane action is considered as a secondary effect,
which occurs after cracking of the concrete and yielding of the
reinforcing steel. As the slab fails and deflects, the surrounding
concrete restrains the sagging portion of the slab by compressing
around it.
It has been found that the punching shear capacity increases if the
slab specimen extends beyond the nominal line of contra flexure.
Testing by Bond, Long, Masterson and Rankin indicate strength
72
increases ranging from 30% up to 50% compared to similar single
column setups.
Due to numerous reasons their test is thought to overestimate the
capacity enhancement. In addition to these, real slabs undergo
restrained shrinkage inducing tensile stresses, which in turn reduces
the shear capacity of the slab.
For design purposes compressive membrane action should not be
used as an enhancing factor for the predicted failure loads.
4.1.2. Slab subsystems
It is believed that a subsystem will render more realistic results than a
single column test. Sherif (1996) tested the most realistic subsystem to
date.
The slab consisted of a 150mm thick, continuously reinforced slab with
realistic boundary conditions along lines of zero shear centred on an
exterior column and an adjacent interior column.
Testing of this slab resulted in the conclusion that the punching shear
capacity for interior slabcolumn connections is similar for both single
column tests and full slab tests.
4.2. Accuracy of Code Predictions
Numerous punching shear tests have been done to date and most of the
codified design approaches are based on a limited number of these tests. The
biggest complication is that almost each code was developed from a different
set of experiments and that the various codes use different parameters to
predict the punching shear resistance of slabcolumn connections.
However, the fib technical report on punching shear  Bulletin 12 (Reineck et al
2001) presents a database of more than 400 punching shear test results as well
73
as a comparison of the prediction performance of the different codified
approaches.
4.2.1. Compilation of databank
In order to compile a set of data for the neutral comparison of code
formulas all available test data went through a rigorous classification and
filtering process performed by the fib task group.
150 of the more than 400 available test results were of flat slabs with shear
reinforcing. The following significant observations were made:
 All tests, except five were done with isolated slabcolumn connections.
 49% of the tests used stirrups and 34% used bentup bars as shear
reinforcing. Hooks and shear ladders account for 17% of the tests.
 Some of the older publications give no indication of the mode of failure.
The other reports indicated 30% failed outside the shear reinforced
zone, 25% failed at the column face and 45% of the slabs failed within
the shear reinforced zone.
 90% of the tests were done on plates with total depths less than
250mm. This raises some concern, since flat slabs in practise range
between 250mm and 350mm in depth, while foundation plates are
normally thicker than 500mm.
 Due to the fact that only thin plates were tested, the following should be
kept in mind. Firstly, there is a beneficial size effect if failure is due to
crushing of the concrete. Secondly it should be kept in mind that the
anchorage of stirrups and shear ladders in the compression zone was
underestimated because the height of the compression zone is in the
range of the concrete cover.
 Only nine specimens were tested with high strength concrete.
74
4.2.2. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and
Experimental Results for Flat Slabs without Shear
Reinforcing
Modern design codes are driven by reliability principles. It is generally
accepted that a characteristic value represented by the 5% fractile is
acceptable, i.e.
o c c · ÷ = 645 . 1
% 5 avg
(4.1)
This approach is based on the methods outlined in Eurocode 1.
Using the mean values of material strengths, 149 tests were used in the
statistical analysis of punching tests without shear reinforcing. Some
application rules of the specific codes necessitated that some test data
were not considered for certain codes. The required 5% fractile of the
safety factor, c
5%
, is 1.0. Comparing the codified capacity predictions with
the relevant test results yield the following:
code test m
V V = c (4.2)
Code n/n
0
c
m
o v c
5%
DIN 1045(88) 84/149 1.22 0.23 0.19 0.84
Model Code 90, FIP
Recommendations
149/149 0.98 0.16 0.16 0.72
BS81101:1997 149/149 1.03 0.17 0.16 0.76
Eurocode 2, Part 1 (1992) 112/149 1.28 0.25 0.20 0.87
ACI31895 149/149 1.29 0.27 0.21 0.85
DIN 10451 (2001) 149/149 1.38 0.23 0.17 1.00
Table 4.1 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions on test slabs
without shear reinforcing
Model Code 90 (MC90 1999) and the BS8110 recommendations give the
best approximation of the mean behaviour, as seen in Table 4.1. In order to
meet the 5% design value the shear capacity predicted by MC90 should be
75
decreased by ±27% and the BS8110 predictions should be decreased
±24%.
Eurocode 2 underestimates the beneficial influence of higher ratios of
longitudinal reinforcing; on the other hand it overestimates the contribution
of higher strength concretes. In order to bring it‟s predictions to a 5%
design value, the concrete contribution should be reduced by ±13%.
Due to the fact that the ACI recommendations ignore the contribution of the
longitudinal tensile reinforcing the scatter is unacceptably high. The fib
strongly recommends that the longitudinal reinforcing be taken into
consideration. The acceptable safety level of 5% will only be obtained if the
predicted punching strength is reduced by approximately 25%.
The latest German design code, DIN 10451, was calibrated using the
above mentioned test data bank; therefore it complies with the required
reliability criteria.
4.2.3. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and
Experimental Results for Flat Slabs with Shear
Reinforcing
Similar to the predictions for punching failure without shear reinforcing, the
fib compared the 5% fractiles of test slabs with shear reinforcing for three
different failure modes. The three considered modes being:
 Concrete crushing at the column face, i.e. maximum shear capacity
 Failure within the shear reinforced area, i.e. failure of the shear
reinforcing
 Failure outside the shear reinforced area
As seen in Table 4.2 the mean values of the predicted concrete crushing
failure are all above the required level, however the characteristic values
are noncompliant with the 5% fractile criterion.
76
Code n/n
0
c
m
o v c
5%
DIN 1045(88) 81/93 1.29 0.26 0.20 0.86
Model Code 90, FIP
Recommendations
42/141 1.31 0.26 0.20 0.88
BS81101:1997 85/141 1.15 0.32 0.28 0.62
Eurocode 2, Part 1 (1992) 37/141 1.26 0.31 0.25 0.74
ACI31895 13/141 1.27 0.30 0.24 0.78
DIN 10451 (2001) 39/141 1.34 0.19 0.14 1.02
Table 4.2 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions for the
maximum punching shear capacity of slabs with shear reinforcing
Similarly the mean ratios of the predicted capacities within the shear
reinforced area with the test results are more than 1.0, but the 5% fractile
does not reach the demanded safety level – see Table 4.3. It should be
noted that only 10% of the tests evaluated with DIN 1045(88), Eurocode 2,
MC90 and BS8110 failed within the shear reinforced area. On the other
hand, 86% of tests evaluated with the ACI recommendations failed within
the reinforced area.
Code n/n
0
c
m
o v c
5%
DIN 1045(88) 12/93 1.47 0.16 0.11 1.29
Model Code 90, FIP
Recommendations
16/141 1.30 0.29 0.23 0.82
BS81101:1997 22/141 1.08 0.25 0.23 0.67
Eurocode 2, Part 1 (1992) 12/141 1.27 0.30 0.23 0.78
ACI31895 122/141 1.73 0.57 0.33 0.80
DIN 10451 (2001) 71/141 1.71 0.41 0.24 1.16
Table 4.3 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions for the
punching shear capacity within the shear reinforced area
77
In Table 4.4 it is shown that not all codes comply with the required safety
levels outside the shear reinforced zone.
Code n/n
0
c
m
o v c
5%
DIN 1045(88) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Model Code 90, FIP
Recommendations
100/141 1.18 0.20 0.17 0.86
BS81101:1997 34/141 0.91 0.14 0.15 0.68
Eurocode 2, Part 1 (1992) 104/141 1.26 0.31 0.25 0.74
ACI31895 6/141 (1.25) (0.36) (0.29) (0.66)
DIN 10451 (2001) 31/141 1.24 0.14 0.11 1.02
Table 4.4 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions for the
punching shear capacity outside the shear reinforced area
4.2.4. Discussion of the Comparison of Test Data and
Codified Predictions
From the above results it is clear that the different codes predict quite
different capacities for the same structure. The predictions also show
unacceptably high standard deviations, causing the 5% fractile to be below
the required value.
The most obvious explanation for both the different values predicted by the
different codes and the high variances in the predicted capacities vs. actual
capacities can be attributed to the fact that the different codes were
formulated using limited test data.
Due to the variability of the predictions the fib decided to present an
improved codified formulation based on all the data presented in the
punching shear test databank. Taking the required reliability criteria into
consideration this process lead to the development of the latest German
DIN 10451 design code.
78
5. Proposed Repair Methods for Punching Shear Failure
and Preventative Measures against Punching Shear
Failure
Due to the brittle nature of pure punching shear failure it can easily result in
progressive collapse of a structure without much warning of structural distress.
However in most cases there are clear signs of distress in the structure prior to
collapse. Although the structure has failed, collapse does not take place due to the
following possible reasons:
Design codes ignore the possible positive contribution of compressive membrane
action in slabs
Some structural systems go into a state of catenary action
The slabs are suspended on the columns by means of adequately anchored bottom
reinforcing.
A slabcolumn connection in distress will show some of the following telltale signs of
structural deterioration:
Radial cracks on the top surface of the slab originating at the column
Circular cracks around the column
Formation of a flexural yield pattern above the affected column
Possibly excessive slab deflections
It will be beneficial if a fairly easy, nondisruptive and relatively inexpensive method(s)
can be used to either repair such a failed slab – without requiring the demolition of the
structure, or to increase the punching shear capacity of a slab if required due to change
of use or altered loading conditions.
In the following sections the author proposes numerous strengthening measures and
remedial measures for damaged slabcolumn connections.
79
5.1. Strengthening of Existing Slabcolumn Connections
Theoretically, in order to strengthen an existing slabcolumn interface, three
basics can be addressed in order to achieve the required increase in capacity,
i.e. (1) increasing the effective depth of the slab and adding flexural reinforcing,
(2) increasing the area of load transfer, thus increasing the critical perimeter, (3)
the addition of shear reinforcing.
Access to the affected slabcolumn connection will depend on the specific use of
the structure. For instance strengthening of a bridge deck connection would
require a method to be implemented from below the slab instead of from above
in order to minimize interference with traffic.
5.1.1. Increasing the Effective Slab Depth
5.1.1.1. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and
vertical bolts
By adding an additional concrete layer onto the existing slab, the
effective depth can be increased, along with this the addition of
longitudinal reinforcing is possible, both enhancing the punching
shear capacity of the slab. In order to prevent delamination vertical
reinforcing bars (shear reinforcing) need to be doweled into the
existing concrete.
This solution seems fairly simple in principle, but poses numerous
disadvantages and complications:
Additional dead weight of concrete – consuming some of the
added punching capacity
Doweling vertical reinforcing into the existing slab is rather costly
Proper bonding of the concrete layover to the existing concrete
substrate might be problematic
80
Fig. 5.1 Slab strengthened with additional concrete and vertical bolts
Recalculation of the punching shear capacity can now be done,
taking the increased slab depth; new longitudinal reinforcing and the
additional or new shear reinforcing into account.
5.1.1.2. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and
bonded steel plate
Similar to the above solution, a concrete layover increases the
effective depth of the slab. Additional longitudinal reinforcing is
added by means of bonding steel plates on top of the existing
concrete.
Possible problems with this strengthening method are:
Additional dead weight of concrete – consuming some of the
added punching capacity
Bonding of the steel plate to the existing concrete substrate is
often not done to specification. This can be due to the use of
unskilled or inexperienced labour, improper use of epoxy bonding
agents and/or incorrect preparation of the concrete substrate.
Fig. 5.2 Slab strengthened with additional concrete and bonded
plate
81
Recalculation of the punching shear capacity can now be done,
taking the increased slab depth and additional longitudinal
reinforcing (provided by the steel plate) into account. The
contribution of the plate needs to be investigated further. Reasons
for concern are the following:
The plate may act as a bond breaker between the existing
concrete and the new overlay, causing delamination of the slab
The cross sectional area provided by the plate is not necessarily
optimally utilized, mainly due to the fact that it is located quite far
from the extreme tension fibre in the slab section
5.1.2. Increasing the area of load transfer
By increasing the critical shear perimeter of the slabcolumn connection,
the punching shear capacity can be enhanced substantially. This can be
achieved rather easily by increasing the column diameter with shotcrete,
conventional concrete or selfcompacting concrete – see Fig 5.3 and Fig
5.4.
The use of selfcompacting concrete and shotcrete would be suited best for
this application. Practically speaking one would not be able to cast
conventional concrete to the underside of the existing slab. The only
options are one of the following: (1) cast the last portion of the column
through the existing slab or (2) grout the last portion of the column with an
expanding cementitious grout.
Shotcrete and selfcompacting concrete can easily be cast to fit snugly to
the existing slab.
If not properly addressed load transfer to the column can be a problem.
Due to differential creep the new concrete column will shorten and will
consequently not be loaded as envisaged. This can be problematic,
especially when casting the column head through the existing slab.
Differential shrinkage of the old and new concrete will cause the new
column head to separate from the older slab.
82
This remedial measure is cost effective, durable and reliable. However, it
can be time consuming and rather expensive to install.
Fig. 5.3 Punching capacity increased with added column head
Fig. 5.4 Punching capacity increased with increased column cross section
The punching shear capacity of the slabcolumn connection can now be
calculated using the enlarged column cross section, thus resulting in a
bigger critical perimeter being considered, rendering a higher shear
capacity.
5.1.3. Installation of additional shear reinforcing
The slabcolumn connection can be strengthened by means of installing
additional shear reinforcing. The new shear reinforcing would typically
consist of short reinforcing bars grouted into holes drilled in the slab.
5.1.3.1. Doweling additional bars into the existing slab
This remedial method will be very easy and fast to install, as well as
relatively inexpensive.
83
Fig. 5.5 Punching capacity increased with additional shear
reinforcing
The increased punching shear capacity can now be calculated
taking the additional shear reinforcing into account.
If a proper adhesive grout – e.g. HILTI HITRE 500
®
or similar – is
used, the bonded bars should be at least as effective as bars cast
into the slab during construction. For 450MPa reinforcing bars
pullout tests on bars grouted with these grouts mostly result in the
bars yielding before concrete pullout failure.
5.1.3.2. Slab strengthened with vertical bolts
In the case where an insufficient quantity of shear reinforcing is
provided, additional shear reinforcing can be added by merely
perforating the slab around the column to install steel bolts into the
slab – Fig 5.6.
Fig. 5.6 Slab strengthened with vertical bolts
Due to the fact that micro cracking of the slab takes place during
failure, the strength of the bolt is utilised along its length only if it is
properly bonded to the concrete – simply assuming that the restraint
provided by the bolt heads alone, is not adequate.
84
5.2. Repairing slabcolumn connections showing distress
due to punching shear failure or near failure
Similar to the strengthening of a slabcolumn connection there are certain basic
points that need to be addressed when repairing a damaged structure.
It should be kept in mind that most structural repairs are fairly to very expensive
and will be disruptive to the normal use of the structure or part thereof. The old
adage stating prevention is better than cure is especially true when it comes to
the design for punching shear.
5.2.1. Proposed Classification of Damage
The risk of collapse and the extent of damage on a structure must be
assessed by means of visual inspection. When dealing with punching shear
failure the following should be considered (Wood et al 1998):
 Prior to collapse no signs of distress will be evident on the soffits of the
slab under question
 Star / radial cracking on top of the slab is merely an indication of the
redistribution of permissible flexural stresses and does not give an
indication of the shear behaviour of the slabcolumn connection
Fig 5.7 Typical Star Cracking
 Circumferential cracking around the column is usually evident at about
80% of the ultimate punching shear capacity of slabs without shear
reinforcing.
85
 Due to deterioration of the cover concrete and numerous other reasons
the shear crack may never extend to the surface of the slab. The shear
crack can develop along the longitudinal tension reinforcing causing
delamination.
In order to determine the type and extent of remedial works necessary, a
system of grading the inflicted damage on the structure is needed. The
following grading is proposed:
5.2.1.1. Damage Level 1 – Minor to medium levels of
damage
Minor radial cracking originating from the column corners and
concentric cracks forming around the column
Minor deflection of the slab around the column and a possible
crack pattern around the column indicative of a flexural failure
5.2.1.2. Damage Level 2 – Medium to severe levels of
damage
Extensive radial and concentric cracking around the column,
with the possibility of shear cracks having developed through
the full depth of the slab
Crushing of the concrete at the column face
Fig. 5.8 Crushing of concrete at the column face
86
5.2.1.3. Damage Level 3 – Extreme levels of damage
o A myriad of diagonal shear cracks, radial and concentric cracking
on the slab surfaces and general disintegration of the concrete.
o Excessive deflection of the slab surrounding the column
o The slab being suspended on longitudinal reinforcing bars going
through the column core.
In essence the structure / slab could collapse at any instant if
additional loading is introduced or if the structure is damaged any
further.
5.2.2. Proposed remedial works for the different levels of
damage
In order to apply the correct remedial measures to a specific structure,
quite a number of factors must be taken into account. Some of these
factors are:
o Age and condition of the structure
o The use of the structure – i.e. the ratio of the level of permanent loads
to level of live / repetitive loads
o The importance of the structure – e.g. is the structure used as a
hospital or as a unimportant storage facility
o The expected servicelife of the repaired structure
o Possible alteration in the use of the structure – e.g. conversion of
offices into apartments
o The extent and severity of the damage to the structure
The interpretation of theses factors, especially the latter one, depends on
sound engineering judgement, sufficient understanding of the failure
mechanism and sufficient knowledge of the strengthening or structural
principles used in the remedial measures.
The proposed remedial works presented in the following sections serve
only as a guide and need to be adapted to suit each specific repair or
strengthening application using sound engineering judgement.
87
5.2.2.1. Repair of Damage Level 1
Typically the repair of a connection suffering a relatively minor
level of damage will be less involved or invasive as for more
extreme levels of damage. The repair will most likely consist of
methods similar to proposed strengthening procedures:
Epoxy crack injection
Installation of additional shear reinforcing
Plate bonding to provide additional longitudinal reinforcing
Additional drop panels or concrete overlays
Increasing the column crosssection or adding column
capitals
5.2.2.2. Repair of Damage Level 2
Repair of such a structure will at least entail the following
procedures:
Removal of all loose and unsound concrete
Cleaning of the concrete substrate and cracks by means of
high pressure water jetting
Epoxy injection of all structural cracks, i.e. cracks deemed
to impair the structural capacity of the connection
In addition to this, some or all of the following measures could be
implemented:
Installation of additional shear reinforcing
Increasing the slab thickness by means of added drop
panels or concrete overlays
Increasing the shear perimeter by means of increased
column crosssection or the addition of bolton steel column
heads
Replacing the upper portion of the original concrete with a
fibre reinforced concrete infill / overlay portion
88
5.2.2.3. Repair of Damage Level 3
Repair of a structure damaged to this extent will comprise of
extreme remedial measures, disruption of use and intervention.
The repair process will at least incorporate the following steps:
Propping of the slab adjacent to the damaged slabcolumn
connection(s)
Demolition of the slab surrounding the column, with special
care being taken not the damage the existing reinforcing
Jacking of the surrounding intact slab portions to an
appropriate level if necessary
Installation of dowels into the edge of the original concrete
slab
Epoxy injection of all the remaining visible cracks
Enlarging of the slabcolumn interface by means of
enlarging the column or addition of a column capital
Casting of a new slab with sufficient longitudinal reinforcing,
shear reinforcing and/or drop panels to resist the required
load capacity
5.3. Retrofitting of slabcolumn connections for improved
behaviour under seismic loading conditions
As described earlier, structures subject to lateral loading can show premature
punching shear distress due to unbalanced moments transferred to the
supporting columns.
Punching shear problems due to seismic or lateral loading can be addressed
similar to normal punching shear problems, i.e. increasing the effective depth of
the slab and adding flexural reinforcing, increasing the area of load transfer, thus
increasing the critical perimeter, and/or the addition of shear reinforcing (see
5.1). Similar methods to increase punching shear resistance have been
proposed by Martinez et al (1994) – Fig 5.9.
89
Fig 5.9 Proposed retrofitting of a slabcolumn connection for added seismic
resistance to punching shear (Martinez et al 1994)
For dynamic loading there is a need to increase the ductility of the slabcolumn
connection as much as possible. In addition to the conventional methods
proposed earlier, the use of fibre reinforced concrete (FRC) can be well suited to
this application. In most cases the addition of steel fibres can increase the
punching loads by up to 36% (Harajli et al 1995). Even more significant than the
increased capacity is the increased toughness of the connections, i.e. the
resistance of the connection is maintained over a large deflection range.
5.3.1. Fibre reinforced concrete infill panel
Fig 5.8 Fibre reinforced concrete infill
90
The replacement of the upper portion of concrete with FRC renders a
tensile zone in the slab with a wholly different behaviour under loading.
Failure of this FRC portion will be more ductile than conventional concrete
showing more but less pronounced cracks. According to some testing the
slabcolumn connection will tend towards flexural failure instead punching
shear failure.
Special attention should be given to:
 Shrinkage cracking and possible delamination from the existing
concrete substrate due to differential movement
 Delamination of the two different concrete portions under loading
5.3.2. Demolition of part of the existing concrete slab and
replacement thereof with fibre reinforced concrete
Fig 5.9 Concrete replacement with fibre reinforced concrete
Replacing the conventional concrete slab portion surrounding the column
with an FRC panel will result in a connection with a totally different
behaviour under both dynamic loading and static loading.
Given that proper and problemfree joining of the two concrete materials
can be achieved, the ultimate punching capacity of the slab can be
increased significantly.
91
6. Experimental Testing of an Undamaged Slabcolumn
Connection
For the proposed experimental testing it was decided that for the purpose of this
publication only one test slab would be constructed according to the latest German
design code, DIN 10451 (2001).
The reasons for following this route were:
Previous punching shear tests in the structures laboratory at the University of
Stellenbosch were done in 1971 on a series of slabs differing dimensionally from
this publication‟s test slab. Some teething problems with the test set up still need to
be resolved, since the support frames used for the previous testing were done away
with long ago.
The test would provide a basis on which the performance of the DIN code could be
assessed, even though such a judgement may be a hitandmiss affair.
The test will provide the basis for possible future research both in the updating of
the SABS 0100 concrete design code and research into the beneficial use of fibre
reinforced concrete for the retrofitting or repair of existing slabcolumn connections
The damaged slab is to serve as a springboard to judge the performance of some
of the proposed repair methods.
The obtained test data can also be used in future studies on punching shear failure
using finite element methods
Prediction of the punching capacity of the slab and the evaluation of the required shear
reinforcing was done in accordance with the DIN 10541 code. The reasons for using a
foreign code as opposed to the SABS 0100 code is the following:
The current SABS code is based on BS81101:1985.
According to the findings in the technical report “Punching of structural concrete
slabs” by the fib (2001) slabs designed according to BS8110 does not comply with
acceptable reliability criteria.
The only code conforming to acceptable reliability is DIN 10451. DIN 10451 has
been calibrated using all available test data to render a 5% fractile of safety.
92
Punching shear design for the final Eurocode2 will most likely be based on the DIN
10451 formulation.
6.1. Experimental Test Setup
For the purpose of this publication a single column setup was proposed. It was
set out to build and test a slabcolumn connection consisting of a 2400mm x
2400mm, 220mm thick 30MPa slab and a 200mm x 200mm square concrete
column. Longitudinal reinforcing provided would be such that flexural failure
does not occur – refer to Appendix A for calculations. Restraint of the slab and
load application to the column is illustrated in Fig 6.1.
Fig 6.1 Proposed laboratory setup
The punching shear capacity of the slab is estimated with the latest DIN 10451
recommendations and the accompanying shear reinforcement designed to
deliver a slabcolumn connection with an estimated failure load of approximately
375kN (Appendix A).
The construction sequence of the test panel is outlined in Fig 6.2.
93
Fig 6.2 Construction of the Test Panel
The decision to repair a slab with shear reinforcing instead of a slab without
shear reinforcing is due to the nature of punching shear failure. Testing a slab
without shear reinforcing could easily fail in a brittle manner and collapse, thus
making the risk too big for not being able to repair the test model.
The available laboratory is equipped with anchoring positions on a square grid
spaced at 914mm centretocentre, thus eight supports could be used to restrain
the slab – Fig 6.3. Effectively a 1828mm x 1828mm slab was tested  the excess
94
length of the panel providing ample space to anchor the reinforcing sufficiently
and as far away from the supports as possible.
Fig 6.3 Steel rods and hydraulic jack on the laboratory floor
The slab was anchored to the very stiff laboratory floor with 25mm diameter
threaded steel rods. The slab was loaded by placing the hydraulic jack(s) in
series with a load cell between the column and the laboratory floor – Fig 6.4.
Fig 6.4 Concrete slab lowered onto the steel rods
95
Fig 6.5 The test slab set up with all the instrumentation
For the acquisition of raw test data the following instrumentation was used:
5 LVDTs were placed on the top of the slab.
A single LVDT placed in the middle of the slab – designated as 1
Four LVDTs placed at the corner supports on the slab – designated as
2, 3, 4 & 5 – Fig 6.5
A load cell between the hydraulic jack and the column stub was used to
monitor the applied force
Both the LVDTs and the load cell were linked to a desktop computer via a
data acquisition system (Spider 8) for real time data recording
It was decided that no strain gauges were necessary since the focus is more on
the global behaviour of punching failure and the practical repair thereof, and not
of the fundamentals behind the failure and the modelling of numerous
parameters in order to estimate the punching shear capacity of the connection.
6.2. Proposed Test Procedure
In a series of tests the total loaddeformation behaviour of a slab can be
established. Subsequently, on a new slab specimen, one can study repair
methods by predamaging the specimen with the application of an increasing
96
load up to the point where a peak value is reached. Then grouting or another
repair method can be applied and it‟s effectiveness tested. In this study, time
allowed testing and repair of one slab only.
The repair and strengthening of the slab was envisaged as the installation
additional shear reinforcing in the slab. The additional reinforcing consisted of
vertical reinforcing bars doweled into the slab using epoxy grout.
From a technical point of view the reasons for using a high strength and flowable
epoxy grout are:
The grout is rather free flowing and will penetrate the cracks surrounding
the drilled hole to a certain extent to give some degree of epoxy injection
to mend the cracked concrete
This grout offers superior bonding strength between reinforcing and
concrete, as well as concrete and concrete.
Application of the product is uncomplicated
Rapid curing
After proper curing has taken place a second punching shear test will be done.
This time the slab will either be tested to total collapse or tested to a more
severe state of damage. If a higher degree of damage is to be repaired, the
abovementioned steps will be repeated until the slab is not fit to be repaired any
more.
6.3. Actual Test – Virgin test panel
6.3.1. Material Test Results
At construction of the test panel numerous 150mm concrete cubes were
cast. On the day of testing three (3) of the cubes were crushed, giving the
following results:
Cube 1: 49.6 MPa
Cube 2: 51.1 MPa
Cube 3: 54.0 MPa
97
Average: 51.6 MPa
Standard Deviation: 2.20 MPa
6.3.2. Load Application
The load on the concrete column stub was applied using a hydraulic 62.5
ton jack driven by a hand operated hydraulic pump. The jack was placed in
series with a digital load cell and a Tefloncoated swivelhead.
Operation of the hydraulic pump was stopped whenever any significant
events took place, e.g. audible concrete cracking and/or visible cracks
appearing on the concrete surface. When pumping stopped some hydraulic
fluid flowed back towards the pump and some creep in the concrete took
place. Due to the creep and/or loss of hydraulic pressure there are some
points on the load vs. deflection graphs where slight unloading of the test
panel takes place. However when pumping resumed, the graph rebounded
to the initial slope of the curve.
Due to unforeseen circumstances (as discussed in the following sections)
the panel was subjected to three (3) load applications. The three
applications are designated as Load 1, Load 2 and Load 3. Loads 1 & 2
were done with a single 62.5 ton jack, while Load 3 was done using two
similar jacks in series driven by a more powerful hand operated hydraulic
pump.
98
Fig 6.6 Column Load vs. Elapsed Time
6.3.3. Placement and Setting Up of the Test Panel
When lowering the test panel (Fig 6.7) onto the supporting rods the rods
and the penetrations in the slab did not line up properly PVC sleeves were
fixed to the shuttering and reinforcing prior to casting to provide the
necessary openings for the supporting rods to pass through. During the
casting process two of the sleeves moved. The one sleeve was misaligned
approximately 15mm and the hole had to be reamed with a concrete drill to
get the rod through. Due to the strength of the concrete the hole wasn‟t
vertical and the bolt rubbed against the sides of the hole.
Fig 6.7 Test Panel Placement
99
Due to the misalignment there was some friction on the rods indicated by
the increases in load without any significant deflection of the support
(designated with arrows on the graph. This is quite significant for Corner 3
and less pronounced for Corner 4.
6.3.4. Original Panel – Load Application 1
 The test slab was only restrained vertically. As the panel deformed the
flexible supporting rods would allow the edges to move inwards. The
deformation can be visualized as a square piece of paper forced to take
a conical shape, which is only possible if the edges move towards the
centre as the centre displaces vertically, thus no membrane forces
could develop. This also meant that the slab would move horizontally
underneath the LVDTs. Since LVDT 2 & 3 were screwed into Perspex
plates, the movement of the slab caused the stanchions on the LVDTs
to bend – Fig 6.8.
Fig 6.8 Bending of LVDT stanchions
 Due to this movement the LVDTs were placed on the concrete.
Subsequently the measured deflection values underwent a jump in
value and needed some adjustment. The adjustment was done by
inspection and adding/subtracting a constant value to the affected
measurements to render a more realistic curve. The measured and
adjusted behaviours of Corner 1 and Corner 2 can be seen in Fig 6.9
and Fig 6.10 respectively.
100
Fig 6.9 Corner 1 – Measured & Adjusted Deflection Values
Fig 6.10 Corner 2 – Measured & Adjusted Deflection Values
 Due to the friction on the steel rods and the crushing of little concrete
imperfections on the slab, the first loading sequence shows a fairly
jumpy load vs. deflection curve – Fig 6.11.
101
Fig 6.11 Load 1 – Column Load vs. Corner Support Deflections
From Fig 6.11 it is evident that the deflection behaviours of LVDTs 2 & 3
do not follow the same trend as that of LVDTs 4 & 5. Even though the
latter two are more affected by the friction between the supporting rods
and the slab, they follow a more acceptable linear behaviour of load vs.
deflection. Consequently all further calculations are based upon the
average deflections of LVDTs 4 & 5.
Fig 6.12 Load 1 – Column Load vs. Average Relative Middle Deflection
102
From Fig 6.12 the following can be concluded:
 0mm to ±2.5mm deflection, 0kN to ±350kN column load
The stiffness of the slab is initially parabolic and then settles to a linear
trend. The first visible cracking took place at approximately 1.5mm
deflection and 250kN – Fig 6.13 (a) & (b)
The horizontal movements on the graph are due to observers bumping
the test panel while inspecting and marking the newly formed cracks.
(a) (b)
(c)
Fig 6.13 First visible cracking on the concrete surface
From 250kN to 350kN the crack pattern grew into a radial pattern,
indicative of flexural cracking – Fig 6.13 (c).
 ±2.5mm to ±8.5mm deflection, ±350kN to ±550kN column load
The panel continued to behave with a linear increase in deflection for
the growing load. Once again the horizontal movements on the graph
are indicative of the stages where new cracks were inspected and
marked on the slab.
103
Fig 6.14 Growing flexural cracks
The flexural cracks continued to grow in a radial pattern towards the
edges, as seen in Fig 6.14. At approximately 475kN the first shear crack
appeared around the column – Fig 6.15.
Fig 6.15 Appearance of first shear cracks at 475kN
Before unloading a distinct radial crack pattern is visible – as can be
seen in Fig 6.16. The increased load caused the cracks formed at lower
loads to open up more significantly – Fig 6.17.
Fig 6.16 Radial crack pattern prior to unloading
104
Fig 6.17 Increased crack width
Due to behaviour of the LVDTs at Corner 1 & 2, the test was terminated
at approximately 550kN.
 ±8.5mm to ±3mm deflection (unloading)
Removing the applied column load caused an approximately linear
elastic unloading behaviour of the test specimen – Fig 6.12. The
positive residual deflection of the centre of the slab indicates plastic
deformation and a certain degree of damage (cracking) already inflicted
on the slab.
6.3.5. Original Panel – Load Application 2
Due to the fact that initial cracking had already taken place, the response of
the test panel was practically linear with the second load application – Fig
6.19.
Punching shear failure was not yet achieved at the maximum loading
capacity of the original test setup. Consequently, it was decided to unload
the slab and modify the test equipment to increase its loading capacity.
After unloading, it is clear that further plastic deformation took place. It
should be noted that the elastic limit for the bending steel has not yet been
reached. Should the slab start yielding due to flexural failure; the Load vs.
Deflection curve would form a plateau with increasing deflection, i.e. ductile
failure.
105
Fig 6.18 Load 2 – Column Load vs. Corner Deflections
With the second load application the effect of the misaligned support at
Corner 3 (LVDT 4) can be seen clearly. The friction causes the support to
have sudden deflections as the frictional forces are overcome at distinct
instances. As seen in Fig 6.18, the loaddeflection behaviour of Corner 3
differs considerably from that of the other corners. Subsequently the
average value of the corner deflections was calculated using only Corners
1, 2 & 4.
The second load application caused the existing cracks to become more
pronounced. As the jack approached the end of its capacity, pumping
became more strenuous to the operator. The lower rate of load application
seems to cause the response curve to flatten – as seen in Fig 6.19 from
±5mm deflection to unloading.
106
Fig 6.19 Load 2 – Column Load vs. Average Relative Middle Deflection
6.3.6. Original Panel – Load Application 3
In order to push the test panel to punching failure, the maximum loading
capacity of the setup was increased by introducing a second hydraulic jack
(Fig 6.20) and a bigger capacity hydraulic hand pump.
Fig 6.20 New hydraulic jack, load cell and swivelhead arrangement
107
Fig 6.21 Load 3 – Column Load vs. Corner Deflections
Once again the measurements taken at LVDT 5 (Corner 3) differed
substantially from the other three corner measurements – Fig 6.21. In order
to do plot the loaddeflection behaviour of the slab panel, the average value
of corners 1, 2 & 4 (LVDTs 2, 3 & 5) were used – Fig 6.22.
Fig 6.22 Load 3 – Column Load vs. Average Relative Middle Deflection
For the third load application the following significant stages can be
highlighted:
108
 0mm to ±6mm deflection, 0kN to ±725kN
Reloading of the slab shows a fairly linear relation between the applied
load and measured deflections.
Cracking of concrete was quite audible towards 725kN.
 ±6mm to ±8mm deflection, 725kN to ±850kN
The angle of response started to decrease in this stage of the load
application. Between 750kN and 850kN two significant observations
could be made. Firstly, crushing of the concrete at the interface of the
column and the slab soffit started – Fig 6.23.
Fig 6.23 Concrete crushing at the column face
Secondly, another shear crack appeared on the concrete surface,
further away from the column – Fig 6.24.
Fig 6.24 Appearance of the second shear crack
109
Fig 6.25 Highlighted possible punching shear cracks
 ±8mm to ±10.5mm deflection, ±850kN
Suddenly, the stiffness of the panel decreased, showing an increased
deflection for a fairly constant load. The test panel could be seen
deflecting, accompanied by audible cracking inside the concrete.
 ±10.5mm to ±13mm deflection, ±850kN to ±450kN
It was clear that the slab had reached its failure load. The deflection
increased dramatically with a lower resistance to the column load.
 ±13mm to ±5.5mm deflection, unloading
Upon unloading the slab once again recovered in a linear fashion;
however, the rate of recovery was much lower than for the previous two
load applications. The residual deflection is also substantially more than
for loads 1 & 2.
6.3.7. Original Panel – Combination of results – Loads 1, 2
&3
Due to the high punching resistance of the slab, the testing produced three
sets of data instead of one single series. For most materials a single test
from the undamaged state to failure produces an upper bound reaction
curve. For a limited number of load repetitions, as in the above tests,
110
unloading and reloading of the specimen should render a curve bounded
by that of a single test. Thus it is fairly safe to assume that the addition of
the three consecutive tests will produce a response curve of which the
envelope will be representative of a single test.
Using the data as adjusted previously and adding the residual
displacement of each preceding test (Fig’s 6.26 6.27 6.28) one obtains the
assumed envelope of response (Fig 6.29).
Fig 6.26 Load 1 – Response Curve
Fig 6.27 Load 2 – Translated Response Curve
111
Fig 6.28 Load 3 – Translated Response Curve
Fig 6.29 Combined Translated Response Curves – Load 1, 2 &3
From Fig 6.29 the behaviour of the panel can be summarized as follows:
For the first part the slab shows a fairly steep elastic behaviour. After
cracking of the concrete takes place the stiffness decreases to a lower, yet
constant value. Close to the failure load the deflection starts to increase
more drastically at a sustained load level and suddenly the slab loses its
load carrying capacity.
Even though the decrease in capacity is rather drastic, it is not typical brittle
behaviour. This is confirmed by the crack pattern.
112
It can be concluded that a mixed flexural shear failure occurred, with an
intermediate level of ductility between shear failure (brittle) and flexural
failure (ductile, with a plateau being reached at the peak resistance).
6.3.8. Verification of test results with the method
proposed by Menétrey (2002)
Punching shear failure of slabs with shear reinforcing is generally accepted
to be in the region of 30°. This same assumption was used in the
comparative calculations in the fip Bulletin 12 (2001). At this angle the
failure plane will cross both rows of shear reinforcing. Accordingly the
ultimate punching shear capacity calculation is as follows:
(The following equations are extracted from 2.1.3)
p sw dow ct pun
F F F F F + + + = (eq. 2.5)
Calculation of F
ct
mm r
r
l l
r
s
s
s
788 . 79
2
200 200
2
2 1
=
·
=
·
=
t
t
(6.1)
mm r
r
d
r r
s
46 . 106
30 tan 10
154
788 . 79
tan 10
1
1
1
=
·
+ =
·
+ =
o
(eq. 2.7)
mm r
r
d
r r
s
52 . 346
30 tan
154
788 . 79
tan
2
2
2
=
+ =
+ =
o
(eq. 2.8)
113
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
198 . 277
154 9 . 0 46 . 106 52 . 346
9 . 0
2 2
2 2
1 2
=
· + ÷ =
· + ÷ =
s
s
d r r s
(eq. 2.9)
According to the CEBFIP Committee the tensile strength of is
MPa f
f
f f
t
t
cu t
257 . 3
50 24 . 0
24 . 0
3
2
3
2
=
· =
· =
(6.2)
% 9141 . 0 10 141 . 9
1000 220
2011
3
= · =
·
=
÷
p (6.3)
( )
687 . 0
35 . 0 9141 . 0 46 . 0 9141 . 0 1 . 0
35 . 0 46 . 0 1 . 0
2
2
=
+ · + · ÷ =
+ · + · ÷ =
c
c
p p c
(eq. 2.12)
082 . 1
25 . 1
220
788 . 79
5 . 0
220
788 . 79
1 . 0
25 . 1 5 . 0 1 . 0
2
2
=
+ · ÷

.

\

· =
+ · ÷

.

\

· =
n
n
n
h
r
h
r
s s
(eq. 2.14)
Assuming the maximum aggregate size of 19mm
53 . 0
19
154
1 6 . 1
1 6 . 1
2
1
2
1
=

.

\

+ · =


.

\

+ · =
÷
÷
u
u
u
a
d
d
(eq. 2.15)
114
( )
( )
kN F
F
f s r r F
s r r F
ct
ct
t ct
v ct
56 . 341
53 . 0 082 . 1 687 . 0 257 . 3 198 . 277 ) 52 . 346 46 . 106 (
3
2
3
2
2 1
2 1
=
· · · · · + · =
· · · · · + · =
· · + · =
t
u n c t
o t
(eq. 2.10)
Calculation of F
dow
The calculation of F
dow
is more complicated, since the ultimate
punching load is needed to calculate the tensile stress in the
longitudinal reinforcing. In order to obtain the F
pun
value the Excel
solver is used with two constraining conditions, i.e.
p sw dow ct pun
F F F F F + + + = and MPa
s
450 < o .
A
s
is taken as the total area of longitudinal tensile reinforcing crossing
the circle defined by r
2
.
MPa
A
F
s
s
s
pun
s
606 . 397
67 . 4377 30 tan
10 93 . 1004
tan
3
=
·
·
=
·
=
¯
o
o
o
o
(eq. 2.17)
884 . 0
450
606 . 397
=
=
=
.
.
o
.
s
s
f
(eq. 2.16)
The number of bars is estimated by dividing the circumference of a
circle with radius r
2
, with the average spacing of the tensile
reinforcing.
77 . 21
100
52 . 346 2
_ #
=
· ·
=
t
bars
(6.4)
115
( )
( )
kN F
F
f f F
dow
dow
bars
s c s dow
70 . 97
30 sin 884 . 0 1 450 50 16 77 . 21
2
1
sin 1
2
1
2 2
2 2
=
· ÷ · · · · · =
· ÷ · · · · =
¯
o . o
(eq. 2.15)
Calculation of F
sw
Assuming that the yield stress of the shear reinforcing is reached the
contribution thereof is:
( )
kN F
F
f A F
sw
sw
sw sw sw sw
48 . 565
90 sin 450
4
10
16
sin
2
=
· ·
·
· =
· · =
¯
t

(eq. 2.22)
Failure Load
kN F
F
F F F F F
pun
pun
p sw dow ct pun
74 . 1004
0 48 . 565 7 . 97 56 . 341
=
+ + + =
+ + + =
This calculated capacity is higher than the experimental failure load.
By investigating a scenario with the shear crack originating outside the first
perimeter of reinforcing, i.e. mm r
s
175 = and 8 shear stirrups intersecting the
failure plane, the results are:
F
ct
= 410.58kN
F
dow
= 208.61kN
F
sw
= 282.74kN
→ F
pun
= 901.94kN
Again the calculated capacity of the system is higher than the experimental
failure load.
116
Similarly if the shear crack originates outside the second perimeter of
reinforcing, i.e. mm r
s
290 = and no shear stirrups intersecting the failure
plane, the results are:
F
ct
= 465.50kN
F
dow
= 304.54kN
F
sw
= 0.00kN
→ F
pun
= 770.04kN
The capacity of the slabcolumn connection outside the shear reinforced
area is less than the failure load achieved in the experiment. However it
corresponds roughly with the point at which the slope of the load vs.
displacement curve started to decrease.
Fig 6.25 Combined Translated Response Curves (Load 1, 2 & 3) and
Failure Load Calculated by Menétrey‟s Method.
Further discussion of the slab behaviour and conclusions based on the tests
can be found in Chapter 8.
117
7. Experimental Testing of Repaired Slabcolumn
Connection
The first test inflicted a substantial amount of damage to the slab and caused a rather
drastic capacity reduction. Ideally one would like to control the amount of damage
inflicted more accurately so that the achieved level of damage suits a predetermined
method of repair. This section describes the repair and testing of the damaged slab
column connection.
7.1. Classification of Damage and Proposed Method of
Repair
Using the damage classification proposed earlier, it is safe to say that the test
panel falls between Damage Levels 2 & 3. The facts leading to this conclusion
are:
 Extensive radial cracking around the column is visible
 Shear cracks have developed to the surface of the slab
 Delamination along the tension reinforcing is occurring at certain locations
around the column
 Crushing of concrete is taking place at the column and slab interface
Typically a columnslab connection in this condition would be extensively
repaired by removing all unsound concrete, epoxy crack injection, installation of
additional shear reinforcing, patching of the concrete slab and possibly
increasing the area of load transfer.
The reasoning behind this approach is, firstly, epoxy injection would yield a slab
with an unquantifiable amount of capacity added – it is difficult to judge how
much of the epoxy pumped into cracks are filling voids and how much of it is
actually bonding the disintegrated concrete. Secondly, the mere addition of
additional shear reinforcing is by far the quickest and easiest measure to
improve the punching capacity of the slab.
118
Using the mechanistic method proposed by Menétrey (2002), a calculation
similar to that shown in 6.3.8 was used to estimate the amount of new shear
reinforcing needed – see Appendix B. The following assumptions were made to
achieve a peak load similar to that achieved in the previous test
 The concrete contribution can be ignored for the calculations on perimeter 1
and 2. The contribution to shear resistance of the cracked concrete is
uncertain.
 Due to the ineffective anchorage of shear clips/stirrups in thin slabs, the
shear reinforcing has not yielded yet.
 The bending steel did not yield in the first test.
With the help of Menétrey‟s method is was decided to add eight dowel bars to
each of the original reinforcing perimeters and to add a third perimeter of shear
reinforcing by means of 24 vertically doweled bars – Fig 11.4. The installation of
additional shear reinforcing is similar to Fig. 5.5.
7.2. Repair of the damaged slab
The first step in the repair process was to map the position of the existing
reinforcing. This was done with the help of a HILTI Ferroscan instrument, which
allowed the accurate plotting of the underlying reinforcing relative to a reference
grid placed on the concrete surface – see Fig 7.1.
Accurate information on the position of the reinforcing helps to position the holes
for doweling the new shear reinforcing and to avoid hitting the existing
reinforcing bars during drilling. In addition to this it also gives added insight into
the meaning of the observed crack pattern.
119
Fig 7.1 Mapping the existing reinforcing with the HILTI Ferroscan
After plotting the positions of the existing longitudinal reinforcing the positions of
the shear clips and the control perimeters were superimposed on the slab
surface, as shown in Fig 7.2. The positions of the new shear reinforcing dowels
were then indicated on the slab and the drilling commenced.
Using the correct equipment drilling the required holes in the slab is fairly easy.
Even though the existing reinforcing was mapped (Fig 7.2) some bars were hit
during drilling. Some of these were shear clips; some were part of the bottom
reinforcing and others were bars that were probably misaligned during the
casting of the slab. Some of the bar positions were extrapolated from the data
acquired by mapping certain areas on the slab. Consequent to the Ferroscan
being unable to scan the Y10 bottom reinforcing bars it was decided to drill only
180mm deep to avoid drilling onto them.
As seen in Fig 7.3(a) the desired positions of the additional shear reinforcing
bars were marked on the slab and drilling took place accordingly. Fig 7.3(b)
shows the drilled holes in the slab.
During drilling one was able to distinguish from the drill feedback whether the
slab was cracked or not as the drillbit progressed into the slab. In some places
in the shear reinforced area one could feel brittle / hollow regions within the slab.
This offers some insight on the fact that during testing a great deal of cracking
was audible, without the accompanying cracks appearing somewhere on the
slab surface. It can only mean that not all the shear cracks developed to the
120
surface. These cracks probably evolved into delaminations along the tensile
reinforcing.
Fig 7.2 Shear reinforcing perimeters and reinforcing layout superimposed
on the crack pattern
(a) (b)
Fig 7.3 (a) Positions of new shear reinforcing superimposed on the slab
(b) Positions of the drilled holes
After drilling, all the holes were properly cleaned, filled with HILTI RE500 epoxy
adhesive and the reinforcing bars inserted in the holes – Fig 7.4. The epoxy was
allowed to cure for a weekend. A total of three HILTI RE500 tubes were used to
fill the holes.
121
Fig 7.4 Epoxy injection of the holes and the finished product
7.3. Testing of the Repaired Panel
7.3.1. Material Test Results
On the day of testing three 150mm concrete cubes were crushed.
Cube 1: 51.6 MPa
Cube 2: 53.1 MPa
Cube 3: 53.0 MPa
Average: 52.6 MPa
Standard Deviation: 0.84 MPa
7.3.2. Load Application
Similar to testing of the virgin panel two 62.5 ton hydraulic jacks driven by
a handoperated pump were used. The modus operandi was similar to
the initial testing of the slab.
Due to migration of the cracking towards the supports, unwanted stress
concentration and cracking occurred at the centre supports; consequently
the first load application was stopped.
The bearing conditions at the middle supports were modified and a
second load was applied. The load evolutions for the two applications are
shown in Fig 7.5 and Fig 7.6.
122
Fig 7.5 Load 1 – Column load vs. Elapsed Time
Fig 7.6 Load 2 – Column load vs. Elapsed Time
7.3.3. Repaired Panel – Load Application 1
Having learnt form the initial testing the LVDTs were set up so that the
end could move more freely on top of the concrete when inplane
movement of the panel took place – see Fig 7.7. Similar to the load
applications on the virgin test panel some of the supports presented
problems. This can be clearly seen in Fig 7.8.
123
Fig 7.7 Corner LVDT setup
Fig 7.8 Column load vs. Corner Support Deflections
From Fig 7.8 the following deductions can be made; firstly, Corner 3
shows erratic behaviour due to friction between the supporting rod and
the concrete. Secondly, it seems as if there were some interference with
the LVDT at Corner 1. This instrument shows a substantial deflection at
±200kN, while the LVDTs at Corners 2 and 4 do not.
In order to calculate an average corner deflection the measurements at
Corner 1 was scrutinized and adjusted to remove the unwanted jump in
the deflection and the measurements at Corner 3 were ignored.
124
Fig 7.9 Column load vs. Adjusted Corner Support Deflections
Fig 7.10 Column load vs. Relative Middle Deflection
From Fig 7.10 the following can be concluded:
 0mm to ±2.0mm deflection, 0kN to ±200kN column load
Initially the response of the slab was parabolic, settling to a linear
trend. At approximately 200kN the first of the original flexural cracks
started to open up – Fig 7.11
125
Fig 7.11 Reappearance of original cracks
 ±2mm to ±6.0mm deflection, ±200kN to ±400kN column load
Due to observers marking cracks on the slab some movement takes
place, causing the erratic behaviour seen on the curve at 200kN,
300kN and 400kN.
Virtually all the flexural cracks have opened up through the chalk
locating on the slab at this stage. The crack pattern at approximately
400kN is shown in Fig 7.12.
126
Fig 7.12 Crack pattern at ±400kN
A very important crack appeared at this stage of the test. A shear
crack was starting to appear on the concrete surface outside the
newly installed third perimeter of shear reinforcing. This happened
without the formation of new shear cracks within the shearreinforced
zone – Fig 7.13.
Fig 7.13 Appearance of new shear cracks outside the
perimeter of dowel bars
127
 ±6mm to ±10mm deflection, ±400kN to ±550kN column load
After the appearance of the shear crack outside the last perimeter of
shear reinforcing, the angle of response on the loaddeflection curve
decreased. Cracking was audible inside the slab, without significant
new flexural or shear cracks appearing on the concrete surface.
However, it seems as if the cracking started to migrate towards the
supports along the tensile reinforcing. This probably happened due to
stress concentrations at the middle supports between Corners 4 & 1
as well as Corners 1 & 2. Delamination of the concrete at theses
supports was clearly evident, as seen in Fig. 7.14.
Fig 7.14 Delamination due to cracking migrating to the supports
 ±10mm to ±12.5mm deflection, ±550kN to ±450kN column load
The load carrying capacity of the slab reached a peak at
approximately 550kN and the deflection started to increase
accompanied by a lessening load carrying capacity.
It was decided to stop the test. The support conditions had to be
altered before the panel could be tested to destruction.
Up to this point the new shear crack had become significantly visible
and the slab seemed to be increasing in thickness.
To get better insight into the behaviour of the repaired slab in comparison
with the original, the measurements of the different tests can be added
together. Fig 7.15 shows the load deflection behaviour of the repaired
slab when it is added to the response of the undamaged specimen.
128
Fig 7.15 Column Load vs. Relative Middle Deflection
Original Panel & Repaired Panel
7.3.4. Repaired Panel – Load Application 2
Due to the installation of additional shear reinforcing the shear cracking
was forced to migrate away from the column, causing shear cracks to
grow to the surface outside the shear reinforced zone.
In essence this proves that the installation of additional reinforcing is an
effective way of countering punching shear failure. However, due to the
observed migration of cracking, the support conditions of the slab were
interfering with the mode of failure. Delamination started to occur at the
small bearing plates.
It was thought best to increase the area of load transfer at the supports
before any further testing took place – Fig 7.16.
129
(a) (b)
Fig 7.16 Revised support conditions: (a) Original support, (b) Revised
Support
Due to the friction in the supports reloading of the repaired panel caused
erratic movements on the loaddeflection plots of the corner supports – as
seen in Fig 7.17.
Fig 7.17 Column load vs. Corner Support Deflections
In order to calculate the average support deflection the measurements of
only Corners 2 and 4 were used. The values measured at Corner 3 are
too erratic due to the friction between the tie rod and the slab. The
deflection behaviour of Corner 1 is most likely due to the delamination
and increased slab thickness observed in that quarter of the panel.
130
Fig 7.18 Column load vs. Corner Support Deflections
Fig 7.19 Column load vs. Relative Middle Deflection
From Fig 7.19 the following can be concluded:
 0mm to ±7.0mm deflection, 0kN to ±400kN column load
Reloading caused the slab to behave with an initial parabolic curve
settling to a linear response from ±100kN onwards. The two most
important observations for this portion of the test were; firstly, that
delamination of the concrete continued at the supports, despite the
enlarged support area – see Fig 7.20. Secondly, extensive cracking
within the slab was audible without any major crack appearances or
growth on the slab surface.
131
Fig 7.20 Delamination at middle support
 ±10mm to ±15mm deflection, ±400kN to ±400kN column load
At approximately 400kN the slope of the loaddeflection curve
decreased dramatically. A peak value can be observed at
approximately 425kN – Fig 7.19. Post peak the load carrying capacity
of the slab started to decrease with increased deflection.
On the top surface of the slab, as seen in Fig 7.21, the newly formed
shear crack was growing around the last row of shear reinforcing. The
direction of growth is indicated with dotted arrows.
Fig 7.21 Development of the outer shear crack
132
On the soffit of the slab punching of the column could be clearly seen
as well as concrete spalling below the original shear clips – see Fig
7.22.
Fig 7.22 Concrete spalling and punching of the column
 ±15mm to ±36mm deflection
Punching shear failure of the slab has clearly taken place and it was
decided to sustain the load application. With continued pumping of the
jacks the slab resistance remained fairly constant with very high and
increasing middle deflections.
The behaviour of the slab is similar to bending failure behaviour in
reinforced concrete.
Delamination of the cover concrete became highly defined on the one
end of the slab. Accompanying this, the slab thickness started to
increase as a cone of concrete was being pushed out of the original
slab. This can be clearly seen in Fig 7.23 & Fig 7.24.
133
Fig 7.23 Continued delamination and shear cracking
Fig 7.24 Bulging of the slab
134
Fig 7.24 – continued Bulging of the slab
Further pumping was stopped and the instrumentation removed. The
jacks were kept extended to support the slab in its bulging form.
In Fig 7.25 the compilation of all the loaddeflection curves can be seen.
Fig 7.25 Column Load vs. Relative Middle Deflection
Original Panel & Repaired Panel
135
7.3.5. Dismantling of the failed slab panel
With the jacks extended the loose cover concrete was removed and the
slab thoroughly inspected. The following observations were made:
 Delamination of the concrete was much worse on the one side of the
slab. When the loose concrete was removed it was clear that a very
large shear crack developed outside the outer perimeter of shear
reinforcing. The concrete surrounding this crack was disintegrating
quite badly. It was so loose that it could be removed with bare hands.
Fig 7.26 Removing the cover concrete
 The shearreinforced zone remained intact.
Fig 7.26 Intact shear reinforced zone
 The epoxy grout flowed into the cracks wherever the drilled holes
intersected inclined shear cracks.
136
Fig 7.27 Epoxy bonding of a shear crack
Due to the fact that the grout was only applied to the drilled holes with
the supplied applicator, the epoxy flowed into the cracks only to a
limited extent – Fig 7.28.
Fig 7.28 Extent of epoxy crack bonding
 Some of the dowel bars did not extend into the slab sufficiently. On
Fig 7.28 the bar on the left is clearly the shorter one of the two. When
still in the slab it was seen that the shear crack migrated to find a path
of least resistance underneath the shorter dowel. The dowel failed due
to an insufficient depth of embedment or insufficient filling of the hole
with epoxy.
137
Fig 7.29 Shear crack travelling beneath dowel
 The longitudinal reinforcing debonded outside the shearreinforced
zone. This happened because the shear cracks developed from the
slab soffit upwards at an angle and then continued along the top
reinforcing causing the observed delaminations.
 As the slab increased in thickness the original shear clips started to
take load. At some point the increasing slab thickness and
consequent axial loading of the shear clip caused the 90°hook at the
bottom of the slab to slip and bend open. The result of this opening of
the hook is evident in the soffit cover concrete spalling underneath the
shear clips – Fig 7.30.
138
Fig 7.30 Deformed shear clip and column punching through soffit
 Due to either asymmetric support conditions, asymmetric levels of
strength around the slab or eccentric loading of the column, the travel
of the column was not vertical – see Fig 7.31. This clearly caused a
moment on the column, which in turn caused a differential shear
stress distribution in the control perimeters. Consequently one side of
the slab punched before the other side.
Fig 7.31 Misaligned column
139
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1. Conclusions
Firstly an overview of the current design practise for the prevention of punching
shear failure has been presented. From the extensive work done by the
Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib) it is clear that current design codes do
not comply with the modern approach of reliability based design.
South African concrete design is based on the recommendations of BS81101.
The inaccurate and variable estimation of actual failure loads raises concern. In
lieu of the findings by the fib, the punching shear design approach in SABS
0100:2000 needs to be given attention. It is recommended that further
investigations be undertaken to verify the applicability of the new German design
code (DIN 10451 2001) to our construction and detailing practices.
The experimental testing of the original panel and the repaired panel leads to
the following conclusions:
 Due to the reliabilitybased approach in the formulation of codified design
formulas it is difficult to estimate the exact failure load of a structural system.
Modern code formulations allow a 5% probability of failure. Consequently it is
very likely that a slabcolumn connection will fail at a load much higher than
anticipated and calculated.
 Due to the fact that shear reinforcing causes failure to move away from pure
brittle failure, it would be good practice to detail all slabcolumn with shear
stirrups, regardless whether it is needed or not.
 Even though the repaired panel did not reach the failure load of the original
panel, repairing of the slab with vertical dowels and HILTI RE500 epoxy
grout, can be judged as successful in principle due to the following reasons:
(1) The extended shearreinforced zone remained intact
(2) Punching failure occurred outside the shear reinforced zone
(3) The doweled shear reinforcing bridged existing shear cracks and
prevented the slab to fail on the failure surface formed with the initial test
140
 Shear cracking appears to travel along the bottom reinforcing, past dowels
not installed to a sufficient depth and then grows at an angle towards the top
of the slab.
 With the additional testing the slab was most probably damaged further away
from the column than anticipated, causing boundary interference.
 Due to delamination of the concrete, the anchorage of the tension reinforcing
is compromised. Consequently the method of Menétrey (2002) may
overestimate the contribution of the doweling effect of the tension reinforcing.
 More punching shear tests with high strength concrete are needed. Only nine
specimens in the fib databank used high strength concrete.
8.2. Recommendations
 Due to cracking within the slab, epoxy injection of all cracks is essential for a
more effective repair. This should preferably be done after removing of all
unsound cover concrete and other loose concrete. Injection has to be done
under pressure.
 When installing vertical dowels it would be better to let the bars protrude from
the slab soffit. The best option would be to thread the ends of the bars and
install nuts and plates at both ends to provide better anchorage in addition to
the epoxy grout.
In the view of future testing of repaired models the following need to be
considered:
 It is essential to manufacture an undamaged panel with a known behaviour
under loading, as well as a known point of failure.
 If several panels of exactly the same virgin behaviour can be produced, it will
be possible to test the effectiveness of different repair methods at varying
levels of initial damage.
 It is proposed that a proper analysis and parametric study need to be
undertaken to quantify the effectiveness of different repair methods.
 The influence of the supports on the testing of both an undisturbed and
repaired panel need to be investigated and better understood. Other panel
layouts should be investigated and tested, i.e. circular, hexagonal, etc.
141
 The behaviour of a repaired slabcolumn connection subject to both vertical
loading and unbalanced moments needs to be investigated.
142
9. Appendix A – Estimation of the experimental model’s
punching shear capacity and the design of the
required shear reinforcing
In order to do a proper punching shear experiment, bending failure of the slab needs to
be prevented. Since the punching shear capacity is also related to the amount of
longitudinal reinforcing provided, it is important that the amount of provided bending
reinforcing is such that bending failure does not occur, while punching failure must not
be prevented.
According to Mervitz (1971) the ultimate bending capacity can be estimated using a
formulation found in ACI31863. The calculation below is done using the intended
concrete crushing strength of the slab as 30MPa with Y16 bars at 100mm spacing.
607 . 7
172 . 0
1828
200
1
1
8
172 . 0
1
1
8
=




.

\

÷
÷
=




.

\

÷
÷
=
L
D
x
(9.1)
kN
f
f
d f x P
cu
y
y bend
966
50 4
450
1000 154
2011
3
1 154 450
1000 154
2011
607 . 7
4
3
1
2
2
=




.

\

·
·
·
·
÷ · · ·
·
· =


.

\

·
· ·
÷ · · · · =
p
p
(9.2)
The chosen top reinforcing of the slab is sufficient to resist a column load of up to
±966kN without failing in flexure.
143
Column size: 200mm x 200mm
Slab thickness: 200mm
Cover: 30mm
Tension reinforcing o: 16mm
Concrete design strength: 30MPa
mm
c h d d
avg
154
16 30 200
=
÷ ÷ =
u ÷ ÷ = =
(9.3)
h Slab thickness
d Average effective slab depth
f
cu
Characteristic concrete cube strength
f
y
Characteristic steel yield stress
c Cover thickness
o Tension reinforcing diameter
p Ratio of tensile reinforcing
[Refer to 3.5 for clarification of the symbols used below]
Shear capacity without shear reinforcing
( )  
crit cd ck l ct Rd
u d f V · · · ÷ · · · · · = o p k n 12 . 0 100 1 . 0
3
1
,
(9.4)
0 . 1 = n for normal concrete
02 . 0 s
·
=
d b
A
w
sl
l
p (9.5)
0 . 2
200
1 s + =
d
k (9.6)
c
sd
cd
A
N
= o  for prestress N < 0 (9.7)
144
Calculation of required punching shear reinforcing
i sy Rd i sy Rd
u v V · =
, , ,
(9.8)
i
yd swi s
crd sy Rd
u
f A
v v
· ·
+ =
k
,
(9.10)
( )   d f v v
cd ck l ct Rd crd
· · ÷ · · · · · = = o p k n 12 . 0 100 1 . 0
3
1
,
(9.11)
( ) ( )
1000
12 . 0 100 1 . 0
3
1
i
i
yd swi s
cd ck l
u
u
f A
d f P ·
· ·
+ · · ÷ · · · · · =
k
o p k n (9.12)
Rearranging (9.12) yields the required area of shear reinforcing
( )  
y s
i cd c l
i
swi
f
u d f
u
P
A
· ·
·
· · ÷ · · · · · ÷
·
=
7 . 0
12 . 0 100 1 . 0
10
3
1
3
k
o p k n
(9.13)
Punching outside the shear reinforcing
ct Rd a a ct Rd
v v
, , ,
· =k (9.14)
71 . 0
5 . 3
29 . 0
1 > ÷ =
d
l
w
a
k (9.15)
Using these design equations a spreadsheet was set up to design the test panel. For
the design of the test panel the following parameters were considered to be unity:
 The enhancement factor ()
 Partial material factors (¸
rebar
, ¸
conc
)
145
Table 9.1 Punching Design with 30MPa Concrete
146
Table 9.2 Punching Design with 51.6MPa Concrete
147
10. Appendix B – Calculations using the Mechanistic
Model Proposed by Menétrey
As extracted from 6.3.8 the capacity calculation of the test panel using Menétrey‟s
method is done as follows:
10.1. Virgin Test Panel
p sw dow ct pun
F F F F F + + + =
Shear crack originating at the column face
Calculation of F
ct
mm r
r
l l
r
s
s
s
788 . 79
2
200 200
2
2 1
=
·
=
·
=
t
t
mm r
r
d
r r
s
46 . 106
30 tan 10
154
788 . 79
tan 10
1
1
1
=
·
+ =
·
+ =
o
mm r
r
d
r r
s
52 . 346
30 tan
154
788 . 79
tan
2
2
2
=
+ =
+ =
o
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
198 . 277
154 9 . 0 46 . 106 52 . 346
9 . 0
2 2
2 2
1 2
=
· + ÷ =
· + ÷ =
s
s
d r r s
According to the CEBFIP Committee the tensile strength of is
148
MPa f
f
f f
t
t
cu t
257 . 3
50 24 . 0
24 . 0
3
2
3
2
=
· =
· =
% 9141 . 0 10 141 . 9
1000 220
2011
3
= · =
·
=
÷
p
( )
687 . 0
35 . 0 9141 . 0 46 . 0 9141 . 0 1 . 0
35 . 0 46 . 0 1 . 0
2
2
=
+ · + · ÷ =
+ · + · ÷ =
c
c
p p c
082 . 1
25 . 1
220
788 . 79
5 . 0
220
788 . 79
1 . 0
25 . 1 5 . 0 1 . 0
2
2
=
+ · ÷

.

\

· =
+ · ÷

.

\

· =
n
n
n
h
r
h
r
s s
Assuming the maximum aggregate size of 19mm
53 . 0
19
154
1 6 . 1
1 6 . 1
2
1
2
1
=

.

\

+ · =


.

\

+ · =
÷
÷
u
u
u
a
d
d
( )
( )
kN F
F
f s r r F
s r r F
ct
ct
t ct
v ct
56 . 341
53 . 0 082 . 1 687 . 0 257 . 3 198 . 277 ) 52 . 346 46 . 106 (
3
2
3
2
2 1
2 1
=
· · · · · + · =
· · · · · + · =
· · + · =
t
u n c t
o t
Calculation of F
dow
The calculation of F
dow
is more complicated, since the ultimate
punching load is needed to calculate the tensile stress in the
149
longitudinal reinforcing. In order to obtain the F
pun
value the
Microsoft Excel solver is used with two constraining conditions,
i.e.
p sw dow ct pun
F F F F F + + + = and MPa
s
450 < o . The objective of
the solver is to maximize the ratio of F
calc
:F
test
. The calculated
value has no real value; it is merely used to comply with the
way the solver is set up in Microsoft Excel
A
s
is taken as the total area of longitudinal tensile reinforcing
crossing the circle defined by r
2
.
MPa
A
F
s
s
s
pun
s
606 . 397
67 . 4377 30 tan
10 93 . 1004
tan
3
=
·
·
=
·
=
¯
o
o
o
o
884 . 0
450
606 . 397
=
=
=
.
.
o
.
s
s
f
The number of bars is estimated by dividing the circumference
of a circle with radius r
2
, with the average spacing of the tensile
reinforcing.
77 . 21
100
52 . 346 2
_ #
=
· ·
=
t
bars
( )
( )
kN F
F
f f F
dow
dow
bars
s c s dow
70 . 97
30 sin 884 . 0 1 450 50 16 77 . 21
2
1
sin 1
2
1
2 2
2 2
=
· ÷ · · · · · =
· ÷ · · · · =
¯
o . o
Calculation of F
sw
150
Assuming that the yield stress of the shear reinforcing is
reached the contribution thereof is:
( )
kN F
F
f A F
sw
sw
sw sw sw sw
48 . 565
90 sin 450
4
10
16
sin
2
=
· ·
·
· =
· · =
¯
t

Failure Load
kN F
F
F F F F F
pun
pun
p sw dow ct pun
74 . 1004
0 48 . 565 7 . 97 56 . 341
=
+ + + =
+ + + =
Microsoft Excel Calculation
Fig 10.1 Menétrey – Crack from column face
Shear crack originating at the first perimeter of shear clips
By investigating a scenario with the shear crack originating outside the
first perimeter of reinforcing, i.e. mm r
s
175 = and 8 shear stirrups
intersecting the failure plane, the results are:
F
pun
= 901.94kN
F
ct
= 410.58kN
F
dow
= 208.61kN
151
F
sw
= 282.74kN
Fig 10.2 Menétrey – Crack from first shear perimeter
Shear crack originating at the second perimeter of shear clips
Similarly if the shear crack originates outside the second perimeter of
reinforcing, i.e. mm r
s
290 = and no shear stirrups intersect the failure
plane, the results are:
F
pun
= 770.04kN
F
ct
= 465.50kN
F
dow
= 304.54kN
F
sw
= 0.00kN
152
Fig 10.3 Menétrey – Crack from second shear perimeter
10.2. Repaired Test Panel
Using the calculations presented above and assuming a shear crack at 30º a
rough estimate of the repaired panel‟s capacity was attempted.
Four different cases were considered
(1) Shear crack originating at the column face
The following assumptions were made:
 The concrete contribution can be ignored
 24 bars cross the shear crack. Only 8 of the bars on the inner
perimeter are considered as still effective due to anchorage slip,
etc. On the second perimeter the 8 new bars and the 8 existing
clips are taken into account.
153
(2) Shear crack originating at the first perimeter of shear reinforcing
The following assumptions were made:
 The concrete contribution can be ignored
 16 bars cross the shear crack. Only the second perimeter is
assumed to bridge the shear crack.
(3) Shear crack originating at the second perimeter of shear reinforcing
The following assumptions were made:
 The concrete contribution can be ignored
154
 24 bars cross the shear crack. Only the third perimeter is assumed
to bridge the shear crack.
(4) Shear crack originating at the third perimeter of shear reinforcing
The following assumptions were made:
 The concrete contribution is taken into account
 No bars are crossing the shear crack.
155
11. Appendix C – Construction Details
Fig 11.1 Test Panel Reinforcing Schedule
156
Fig 11.2 Drawings for Formwork Manufacturing (not to scale)
157
Fig 11.3 Sketch for Placement of Original Shear Reinforcing
Fig 11.4 Sketch for Placement of Additional Shear Reinforcing
158
12. Appendix D – Prediction of Flexural Failure at Slab
column Connections – Yield Line Approach
(Goodchild 2003)
Internal Columns


.

\

·
÷ ·
·
= + · = +
3
1
2
) 1 ( '
V
A n V
i m m m
t
(11.1)
Edge Columns
m m = '
(11.2)
t e = =
180
(11.3)


.

\

·
÷ · = ·
3
1 14 . 5
V
A n
V m
(11.4)
Corner Columns


.

\

·
÷ · = ·
3
1 2
V
A n
V m (11.5)
General
( ) ( ) ( )


.

\

·
÷ · = · ÷ + · · = · ÷ + + ·
3
1 14 . 1 1 ' 2
V
A n
V i i m m m e t e e (11.6)
Extent of yield pattern
A n
V b a
r
·
·
·
=
t
(11.7)
159
m Positive ultimate moment kNm/m
m‟ Negative ultimate moment kNm/m
n Ultimate uniformly distributed load kN/m
2
A Area of column cross section m
2
V Ultimate load transferred to the column
from the tributary area
kN
e Inscribed angle of the corner
160
13. Appendix E – Method for Epoxy Crack Injection
Step 1:
Clean the cracks
Oil, grease, dirt, efflorescence and concrete particles will prevent desired
epoxy penetration and bonding. Mechanical means or appropriate solvents
should remove these foreign substances. Acids and corrosives are not
permitted. Cracks should be waterjetted to clean out solvents and then
blown out with compressed air and allowed to airdry.
Step 2:
Seal the surface
Surface cracks are to be sealed in order to prevent leakage of the epoxy
before it has gelled. Where the crack face cannot be reached, but where
there is backfill, the backfill material is often an adequate seal. Where
extremely high injection pressures are needed, cracks should be cut out to a
depth of about 13mm and about 20mm wide in a Vshape. This groove
should then be filled with epoxy and finished flush with the concrete surface.
Step 3:
Installation of injection ports
Three methods are generally used:
(a) Drilled holes with a fitting inserted. Commonly a pipe nipple or tire
valve is bonded into the hole
(b) Bonded flush fitting. These fittings are commonly used when the
cracks are not cut before sealing
(c) Interruption in seal. With the use of a special gasket epoxy can be
injected directly into the crack
Step 4:
Mixing of epoxy
Mixing takes place continuously or in batches. When using the batch mixing
procedure, care should be taken that the amount mixed should match the
amount that can be used before gel of the epoxy takes place. In the
continuous mixing system the two components of the epoxy pass through
161
individual driving and metering pumps before passing through an automatic
mixing head. Preferably injection equipment should be equipped with
sensors on both the component A and B reservoirs that will automatically
stop the machine when only one component is being pumped to the mixing
head.
Step 5:
Injection of the epoxy
Hydraulic pumps, paint pressure pots and airactuated caulking guns can be
used. Pressure of injection should be selected carefully. Increased pressure
often has no significant increase in filling rate of the crack. Excessive
injection pressure may cause propagation of the crack, causing further
damage to the structure. Vertical cracks should be filled from the lowest port
upwards. When epoxy reaches the upper port, the lower one can be capped
and injection continued at the upper one. Horizontal cracks are filled in a
similar manner – from one end to the other. A crack can be regarded as filled
when the injection pressure can be maintained, if not, epoxy is still filling the
crack, or a leak may be present.
Step 6:
Seal removal
The epoxy seal can be removed by means of grinding or other appropriate
method. Fitting holes should be patched with an epoxy compound.
162
14. References
14.1. ACI318M02 & ACI318RM02, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, 2002, American Concrete Institute, Michigan, USA
14.2. Albrecht U, Design of flat slabs for punching – European and North American
practices, 2002, Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002) pp. 531538,
Elsevier, www.elsevier.com
14.3. Alexander S, Simmonds S, Punching Shear Tests of Concrete Slabcolumn
Joints Containing Fibre Reinforcement, 1992, American Concrete Institute, pp
425432, Detroit, USA
14.4. Bazant ZP, Cao Z, Size effect in punching shear failure of slabs, 1987, ACI
Structural Journal, V.84, pp. 4453, Detroit, USA
14.5. Bazant ZP, Oh BH, Crack band theory for fracture of concrete, 1983, Materials
and Structures, 16(93), pp155177
14.6. Bazant ZP, Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete, rock, metal, 1984, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, V.110, pp. 518535
14.7. Beutel R, Hegger J, The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of the shear
reinforcing in the punching zone, 2002, Cement & Concrete Composites 24
(2002) pp. 539549, Elsevier, www.elsevier.com
14.8. BS81101:1997, Structural use of concrete – Part 1: Code of practice for design
and construction, 2002, BSI, United Kingdom
14.9. CAN/CSAS600, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, 2000, CSA
International, Toronto, Canada
14.10. DIN 10451, Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton, Teil 1:
Bemessung und Konstruktion, 2001, Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin,
Germany
14.11. Elstner RC, Hognestad E, Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs, 1956,
ACI Journal, V.28 (1956), No.1, July, pp.2958, Detroit, USA
14.12. Gardner NJ, Jungsuck Hugh, Lan Chung, Lessons from the Sampoong
department store collapse, 2002, Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002),
pp. 523529, Elsevier, www.elsevier.com
163
14.13. Gardner NJ, Relationship of the Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs with Concrete Strength, 1990, ACI Structural Journal V.87
(1990), No.1, JanuaryFebruary, pp. 6671, Detroit, USA
14.14. Goodchild C, Kennedy G, Practical Yield Line Design, British Cement
Association, 2003, pp. 8892, Crawthorne, United Kingdom
14.15. Harajli MH, Maalouf D, Khatib H, Effect of Fibers on the Punching Shear
Strength of SlabColumn Connections, Cement & Concrete Composites, 17
(1995), pp. 161170, Elsevier, www.elsevier.com
14.16. Hassanzadeh G, Sundqvist H, Strenghtening of Bridge Slabs on Columns, 1999,
Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden
14.17. Hillerborg A, Modeer M, Petersson PE, Analysis of crack formation and crack
growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite element, 1976,
Cement and Concrete Research, pp773782
14.18. Kinnunen S, Nylander H, Punching of concrete slabs without shear reinforcing,
1960, Transactions No. 158, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
14.19. Kordina K, Zum Tragsicherheitsnachweis gegenüber Schub, Torsion und
Durchstanzen nach EC 2, 1994, Teil 1: Erläuterungen zur Neuauflage von Heft
425 und Anwendungsrichtlinie zu EC 2. BuStb 89, H.4, pp97100
14.20. Krüger G, Burdet O, Favre R, Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Flat
Slabs with Eccentric Loading, 1998, 2
nd
International Ph.D. Symposium in Civil
Engineering, Budapest, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne,
Switzerland
14.21. Long AE, Bond D, Punching Failure of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Proc of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, May 1967, V.37, pp. 109135, London, United
Kingdom
14.22. MartinezCruzado JA, Qaisrani AN, Moehle JP, Posttensioned Flatplate Slab
column Connections Subjected to Earthquake Loading, 1994, 5
th
U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp. 139148.
14.23. MC90, Bulletin 1 to 3, Structural Concrete. Textbook on behaviour, design and
performance – updated knowledge of the CEB/FIP Model Code 1990, 1999, fib,
Lausanne, Switzerland
14.24. Menétrey P, Synthesis of Punching Failure in Reinforced Concrete, 2002,
Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002), pp. 497507, Elsevier,
www.elsevier.com
164
14.25. Menétrey P, William KJ, A triaxial failure criterion for concrete and its
generalization, 1995, ACI Structural Journal, V.92(2), Detroit, USA
14.26. Menétrey Ph, Brühwiler E, Punching shear strengthening of reinforced concrete:
experimental and analytical investigations, 1997, Structural Faults and Repair,
Edinburgh, United Kingdom, pp451458
14.27. Mervitz CP, Ponsskuif, 1971, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
14.28. Regan PE, Braestrup MW, Punching shear in reinforced concrete – A stateof
theart report, CEB Bulletin 168, 1985, International Federation of Structural
Concrete (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland
14.29. Reineck K, et al, Punching of structural concrete slabs, Technical Report,
Bulletin 12, 2001, International Federation of Structural Concrete (fib),
Lausanne, Switzerland
14.30. Sherif AG, Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs, 1996, The University of
Calgary, Canada
14.31. Van Zijl GPAG, Wium J, Engineered CementBased Composites for Seismic
Ductility, 2004, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
14.32. Wallace JW, Kang THK, Seismic Performance of Flat Plate Systems,
14.33. Wood JGM, Pipers Row Car Park, Woverhampton, Quantative study of the
causes of the partial collapse on 20
th
March 1997, 1998, Structural Studies &
Design Ltd., Surrey, United Kingdom
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that the work contained in this thesis is my own original work and has not been submitted in its entirety or in part for a degree at any other university.
______________
____________
SW Marais
Date
2
Opsomming
Moderne beton konstruksie maak meestal gebruik van plat blaaie sonder kolomkoppe of blad verdikkings, in plaas van die meer konvensionele balkenblad stelsels. Die gebruik van plat blaaie bied aansienlike voordele ten opsigte van koste, relatief maklike konstruksie en meer vryheid met die argitektoniese uitleg van die gebou. Ongelukkig word die volle voordele en kapasiteit van plat blaai nie noodwendig benut nie. Heelwat ontwerpkodes bied onakkurate metodes om ponsskuif weerstand te voorspel. Gepaardgaande hiermee word die gebruik van plat blaaie gepenaliseer in gebiede wat onderhewig is aan matige seismiese aktiwiteit, as gevolg van moontlike moment geïnduseerde ponsskuif swigting.
Hedendaags word al meer bestaande geboue omskep en herbenut. In baie gevalle veroorsaak die nuwe uitlegte en veranderde gebruik dat ekstra strukturele kapasiteit van die bestaande kolom en blad verbindings benodig word. Somtyds is daar reeds skade aan hierdie verbindings as gevolg van ontwerpfoute of ongewenste praktyke tydens konstruksie.
Na aanleiding van die voorafgenoemde spreek hierdie verslag die volgende aspekte aan: Eerstens word „n aantal ontwerpkodes se voorspelling van ponsskuif swigting vergelyk. Uit die vergelyking volg dat weinig van die benaderings in lyn is met moderne betroubaarheidsbeginsels vir die ontwerp van strukture. Op hede is daar slegs een kode wat op alle beskikbare toetsdata gekalibreer is om te voldoen aan 5% moontlikheid van swigting. Hierdie kode is die nuutste DIN 10451 (2001) ontwerpkode.
Tweedens word verskeie metodes voorgestel vir die herstel en versterking van bestaande kolom en blad verbindings. Gepaardgaande hiermee word „n universele klassifikasie van skade voorgestel om te sorg dat die korrekte stappe vir remediërende werk geneem kan word. Derdens is „n kolom en blad verbinding eksperimenteel getoets. Hierdie toets het die welbekende, bros gedrag van ponsskuif swigting uitgelig, asook „n groot verskil tussen die
3
Hierdie stawe is binne die oorspronklike skuifwapening omtrekke geïnstalleer. Ten spyte hiervan kan die sukses van die herstel toegeskryf word aan die feit dat die uiteindelike swigting buite die vegrote bewapening sone geskied het. Die addisionele skuifstaal het die skuifkrake forseer om weg van die kolom te migreer en uiteindelik buite die versterkte sone te swig.voorspelde skuif kapasiteit en die getoetse kapasiteit van die model. Ongelukkig het die herstelde blad nie dieselfde kapasiteit as die oorspronklike blad gehad nie. sowel as die meer akkurate voorspelling van die kapasiteit van herstelde blaaie. asook op „n nuwe wapeningsomtrek. 4 . Laastens is daar gepoog om die beskadigde blad te herstel deur vertikale wapening stawe in die blad te installeer met „n hoë sterkte epoksie. Meganistiese modellering toon dat die swiglas van die model wel in die regte ordegrootte was. Daar word voorgestel dat verdere toetse gedoen word om die presiese bydrae van die addisionele skuif wapening te bepaal.
a universal classification of damage is proposed to aid in the effective repair of damaged connections. more and more existing structures are being refurbished and renovated. This is the formulation presented in the latest DIN 10451 (2001) design code. However. Mechanistic modelling of the test panel shows the failure load to be in the correct order of magnitude. Lately. Thirdly. experimental testing shows the wellknown brittle behaviour of punching shear failure and the difference between the predicted and actual failure loads measured. Secondly. a comparison of several current codified design approaches is performed to highlight the fact that some of the favoured codified approaches do not comply with modern reliabilitybased structural design philosophies. Accompanying these suggested methods. furthermore. In many cases the change in architectural layouts and altered use necessitate additional load carrying capacity from the existing slabcolumn connections. Based on the aforementioned points the aims of this report are the following: Firstly. more often than not. the full advantage of using flat slabs is not harnessed. ease of construction and architectural flexibility. In some cases the existing structures already show distress due to underdesigned slabcolumn interfaces or dubious construction methods.Synopsis Modern concrete construction favours the use of flat slabs without droppanels or column capitols as opposed to more conventional slab and beam systems. and scaled to comply with a 5% probability of failure. numerous methods of strengthening and repair of existing slabcolumn connections are presented. they discriminate against their use in modestly active seismic regions due to potential moment induced punching failure. At this stage. Many design codes offer inaccurate formulations to predict punching shear capacity. Flat slabs offer numerous advantages in terms of cost. 5 . there is only one design approach that has been calibrated with virtually all available test data.
Lastly, an attempt was made to repair the damaged slab by adding vertically doweled reinforcing bars, bonded with high strength epoxy grout within the original shear reinforced zone, as well as on a new perimeter. Even though the failure load of the repaired test panel did not meet that of the original panel, the effectiveness of the repair was evident in the fact that punching failure did not take place within the extended shear reinforced zone. The additional perimeter of shear reinforcing forced the inclined shear cracks to migrate away from the column, causing failure outside the shear reinforced zone.
It is proposed that further future testing is done to quantify the added benefit of additional reinforcing, as well as the accurate prediction of the punching shear capacity of repaired slabcolumn connections.
6
Acknowledgments:
Special thanks go out to the following people for their patience, time, support, ideas and critique:
Gideon van Zijl Billy Boshoff Wayne Ritchie Gerrit Bastiaanse Ralph Kratz
University of Stellenbosch University of Stellenbosch Sutherland Associates (Pty) Ltd BKS (Pty) Ltd University of Cape Town
Without the support and enthusiasm of the engineering industry the experimental testing would not have been possible. Very special thanks go out to each of the following companies and their representatives for the supply of construction materials and expertise:
Dave Miles Lafarge South Africa
Grant Pistor HILTI South Africa
7
Contents
1.
Overview of Punching Shear Failure 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. Introduction Classical Punching Failure Punching failure due to lateral loading of the structure
13 13 16 18 20 20 20 21 22 22 23 26 27 27 29 29 33
2.
Proposed Analytical and Empirical Models 2.1. Synthesis of Punching Shear Failure, as proposed by Menétrey (2002)
2.1.1. Experimental results 2.1.2. Numerical simulations 2.1.2.1. Model description 2.1.2.2. Simulation of the punching failure 2.1.2.3. Parametric analysis 2.1.3. Analytical Model 2.1.3.1. Punching vs. Flexural capacity 2.1.3.2. Tensile force in the concrete 2.1.3.3. Contribution of the dowel effect 2.1.3.4. Contribution of the shear reinforcing 2.1.3.5. Contribution of prestressing tendons 2.2. Proposed Punching Capacity Increase due to the use of Fibre Reinforced Concrete 2.2.1. Experimental testing 2.2.2. Prediction of Punching Shear Strength 2.2.3. Observations and discussions based on the experiments 3. Current Design Practice 3.1. 3.2. German design code – DIN 10451988 British Standard 81101:1997
33 34 35 36 39 40 42
8
Punching shear strength outside the shear reinforced area 4. Slab subsystems 4.2.8.1. Single Column Tests 4.3 CAN/CSAS600 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code Comparisons of code equations for punching shear with and without shear reinforcing – standardized approach.1.2.8.5.5. German design code DIN 1045 (88) 3. Accuracy of Code Predictions 4.4.1.2.8.2.1. 3.1. Accuracy of Experimental Testing 4.5.4.4.5. 3.8.8.3.6.5.2. 3. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat Slabs with Shear Reinforcing 4.1.5.3. Discussion of the Comparison of Test Data and Codified Predictions 75 77 9 .8. DIN 10451 (2001) 3. The effect of boundary conditions 4. ACI 318M02 Eurocode 2 DIN 10451:2001 CSA A23.1. 3.8.2.4.1. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat Slabs without Shear Reinforcing 74 4.2. Eurocode 2 (EC2) 3.2.8.1.1. Punching shear resistance of a slab without shear reinforcing 3.2.3.2.1.7. Accuracy of Modelling and Codified Design Rules 4. Punching shear strength within the shear reinforced area 3. 3. ACI 31895 3. The effect of compressive membrane action 4.1. Maximum punching shear capacity 3.8. 45 48 49 53 54 56 58 59 61 63 65 66 66 67 67 69 69 69 70 71 72 72 73 3. British Standard 81101:1997 3.8. Compilation of databank 4.3.3.
2.1.1. Repair of Damage Level 2 5.1.2. Experimental Testing of an Undamaged Slabcolumn Connection 6. Fibre reinforced concrete infill panel 5. Retrofitting of slabcolumn connections for improved behaviour under seismic loading conditions 88 89 5.2.3.1.2.1.1. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and bonded steel plate80 5. Experimental Test Setup Proposed Test Procedure Actual Test – Virgin test panel 90 91 92 95 96 10 . 6.1.2.2.2. Demolition of part of the existing concrete slab and replacement thereof with fibre reinforced concrete 6.1.2.2.1.2.2. Repair of Damage Level 1 5.2.3. Proposed Repair Methods for Punching Shear Failure and Preventative Measures against Punching Shear Failure 5.1.1. Strengthening of Existing Slabcolumn Connections 78 79 79 79 5.1. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and vertical bolts 5. 6. 81 82 82 83 Repairing slabcolumn connections showing distress due to punching shear failure or near failure 84 84 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 5. Proposed remedial works for the different levels of damage 5.2.3.2. Damage Level 1 – Minor to medium levels of damage 5.1.1.2. Installation of additional shear reinforcing 5.1. Doweling additional bars into the existing slab 5. Increasing the Effective Slab Depth 5. Repair of Damage Level 3 5.1.3.3.3.2.1.2.1. Slab strengthened with vertical bolts 5. Damage Level 2 – Medium to severe levels of damage 5.1.1.1.5.3.3. Increasing the area of load transfer 5.3.2.2.2. Proposed Classification of Damage 5. Damage Level 3 – Extreme levels of damage 5.
Original Panel – Combination of results – Loads 1. Repaired Test Panel 147 152 11 . 7. Original Panel – Load Application 2 6.3.4. Load Application 6.3. Material Test Results 7. Load Application 7.6.3. Original Panel – Load Application 3 6.2.3.3.3. Appendix B – Calculations using the Mechanistic Model Proposed by Menétrey147 10.3.3.5.4.1. 8.3. Repaired Panel – Load Application 2 7. Material Test Results 6.2.3.3.1. Virgin Test Panel 10.7. Verification of test results with the method proposed by Menétrey (2002) 112 7.3. 9. Original Panel – Load Application 1 6.2.3. 7. Conclusions and Recommendations 8. Placement and Setting Up of the Test Panel 6.1. Repaired Panel – Load Application 1 7.6.1.3. Dismantling of the failed slab panel 8. Classification of Damage and Proposed Method of Repair Repair of the damaged slab Testing of the Repaired Panel 117 117 118 121 121 121 122 128 135 139 139 140 7.5.2.8. Conclusions Recommendations Appendix A – Estimation of the experimental model‟s punching shear capacity and the design of the required shear reinforcing 142 10.3. 2 &3 96 97 98 99 104 106 109 6.1.3.2. Experimental Testing of Repaired Slabcolumn Connection 7.
Appendix C – Construction Details 155 Appendix D – Prediction of Flexural Failure at Slabcolumn Connections – Yield Line Approach 158 160 162 13. 12.11. Appendix E – Method for Epoxy Crack Injection References 12 . 14.
Firstly. Accurate estimation of deflections in twoway spanning slab systems is debatable. Introduction Building construction with flat plates has become more and more popular lately. Flat slab construction is penalised by certain codes in seismic regions. flat slabs without shear reinforcing.g. From an ultimate limit state point of view the greatest limiting factor in the design process is punching shear failure of the flat slab at the columnslab interfaces. e. Overview of Punching Shear Failure 1.1.1. This construction method may dominate all modern reinforced concrete construction in conventional buildings. Punching shear failure can be defined for two specific cases. designs are often governed by deflection criteria. and secondly flat slabs with shear reinforcing. Flat slabs without shear reinforcing typically tend to fail in a brittle manner with the telltale signs of failure being a conical concrete plug perforating the slab in 13 . Eurocode and SABS(SANS). Flat plates – better known as flat slabs – offer numerous advantages: Architectural flexibility More clear spaces Reduced overall building height – equating to lower construction and maintenance cost Simpler and less costly formwork systems Shorter construction times Some of the disadvantages associated with the use of flat slabs systems are the following: From a serviceability point of view.
and punching failure (Menétrey 2002) Both failures. and circumferential cracking around the loaded surface. At failure the connection shows more warning of distress by means of a more pronounced flexural cracking pattern originating at the column. disastrous. The addition of shear reinforcing causes increases the toughness of the connection.1). Fig.1 Response curves for flexural. 14 . The brittle behaviour of the slabcolumn connection at failure is clearly depicted on a loaddeflection curve (Fig 1. Even though the connection is more resilient it still shows a rather steep decline in load carrying capacity. Flat slabs with shear reinforcing commonly fail in a less spectacular fashion. Due to their sudden nature these failures are more often than not.1). with and without punching shear reinforcing.combination with a fair amount of flexural cracking evident on the top surface of the slab. In some cases delamination of the concrete at the level of the tension reinforcing may occur. showing a sudden loss in load carrying capacity of the connection. This intermediate failure behaviour can be seen on the loaddeflection plot (Fig 1. The failure mode is shifted from pure punching failure towards a more ductile flexural failure mode. can be considered as brittle failure designated by the sudden reduction in the load carrying capacity of the structure. 1. However with shear reinforcement a more acceptable failure can be achieved.
2 and Fig 1.2 Progressive collapse of the Sampoong department store in Seoul Korea (Gardner et al 2002) During the years numerous ways of countering punching shear failure of flat slabs have been proposed and used. all with varying rates of success. Some of these methods are: Drop panels Column capitals Additional flexural reinforcing The use of prestress Prefabricated shear heads Shear reinforcing in the depth of the slab 15 . of these a few examples are shown in Fig 1. Fig.3.A number of structural failures and collapses can be attributed to punching shear failure of slabcolumn connections. 1.
1. proportional to the effective depth of the slab. 16 . 1998) Numerous codified approaches to the design of shearreinforced slabs exist.Fig. UK (Wood et al.3 Collapse of the upper parking deck at Pipers Row Car Park. as well as number of mechanical and numerical models to predict the punching behaviour and capacity of flat slabs. even though most of them are defined by the same parameters. Classical Punching Failure At overloading a typical slabcolumn connection will fail at a perimeter. After initial testing of the undamaged plate a repair will be attempted.2. The capacity of the repaired slab will be compared with the original capacity and verified with a mechanistic failure model. One approach for punching shear enhancement is selected and studied both analytically and experimentally. Wolverhampton. 1. Most of these methods are based on limited number of tests and formulated in such a way that no clear comparison between the methods can be used. from the column face. This report aims to compare the various approaches to predict shearing resistance of slabcolumn connections.
Excessive loading. Fig. 1. The behaviour of a slabcolumn connection with shear reinforcing is illustrated in Fig 1. clips or studs bridge the cracks and prevents the conical concrete plug to separate from the rest of the slab. This behaviour is clearly illustrated in Fig 1.4. If the shear capacity of the concrete outside the shearreinforced zone is insufficient the failure will be similar to a connection without shear reinforcing. The shear reinforcing also causes cracking to migrate away from the column. Fig.5 Punching failure of slab with shear reinforcing (Beutel 2002) 17 . These shear stresses cause angled cracks to develop from the column face to the upper surface of the slab.5. in combination with an unbalanced moment over the column will cause the shear stress on this critical perimeter to exceed the capacity of the structural system. 1. In slabs without shear reinforcing the crack growth is rapid resulting in a concrete plug being pushed out of the slab.4 Punching failure of slab without shear reinforcing (Beutel 2002) When the slab has been reinforced with shear reinforcing in the area around the column the reinforcing stirrups.
1. due to building drift and the flexibility of the gravity resisting structure (mostly reinforced concrete or posttensioned slabs) unbalanced moments develop over the columns. the circumferential degradation would only be visible on one side of the column – corresponding to the stress distribution indicated in Fig 1. when moment transfer is more significant. 1.7. The first for resisting gravity loading and the second to resist lateral loading imposed by wind and earthquake excitations. However.7 Shear due to gravity loading (a) and unbalanced moments (b) 18 . 1.7. Punching failure due to lateral loading of the structure It is common practise to design multistorey buildings with two independent structural systems. However. where applicable. In most cases these two systems are designed independently.3. the punching failure would typically be similar to the failure pattern shown in Fig 1.6 Punching failure zone evident on top of a failing slab (Wood et al 1998) In the event that the moment transfer to the column is negligible.6. (a) (b) Fig.Fig. The stresses caused by the moment transfer to the columns are additional to the stresses caused by the normal gravity loading –Fig 1.
19 .Consequently slabcolumn connections may fail at gravity loads below their intended design scope if significant effects of lateral loading are present.
1. Experimental results The tests conducted by Menétrey focused on the difference between flexural.1.1. Secondly a method proposed to include the beneficial shear properties of fibre reinforcing will be overviewed. a particularly rigorous method. shear reinforcing. fairly tough failure to brittle punching shear failure at higher loads. Proposed Analytical and Empirical Models Various approaches to predict punching shear resistance have been formulated in the available literature and the numerous structural design codes. see Fig 1. by increasing the bending steel even more. 20 . while flexural failures show a rather steady decrease in load carrying capacity with increased deflection.2. The contribution of flexural reinforcing. taking different components of resistance into account. The punching resistance of the slab is obtained by integrating the vertical components of the tensile stresses around the punching crack. prestressing tendons and the inherent resistance of the concrete are accounted for by means of addition of the vertical components of tensile forces of each crossing the punching crack. Flexural and punching failure can be distinguished with the help of a load vs. Synthesis of Punching Shear Failure. In this section two interesting approaches will be studied. In the next chapter the different approaches of various design codes will be compared.and punching failure of slabs. as proposed by Menétrey (2002) Menétrey presents a general model for predicting the punching capacity of a slab. However. The experiments show that increasing the crosssectional area of the flexural reinforcing can increase the failure loads. 2.1. a transition is made from a flexural. 2. deflection plot for the test. A steep capacity drop for increasing deflection characterizes punching failure. Firstly the method proposed by Menétrey.
This is reported both by Menétrey and Mervitz (1971). see Fig 2. since the shear crack always crossed the reinforcing ring.1.1) 2. 2. Fig. Placing a reinforcing ring concentrically around the column position and varying the ring radius achieved control of the crack inclination. leading to the 21 . i. However. who studied a series of flat slab punching experiments.1 Punching cone shape enforced by steel ring reinforcement By denoting the failure load for 30 0 as the punching load Fpun. By increasing the crack inclination (). The inclination of a pure punching failure crack is in the order of 30°.Another experimental observation was that controlling the shape of the punching cone. Numerical simulations Finite element analyses were performed by Menétrey (2002) to study the slab column interaction. different cone inclinations. This angle in fact implies flexural failure. The most ductile failure was achieved at = 90°. it is possible to reveal a transition between punching and flexural failure.e.2.1. Thereby insight was gained. the behaviour became less brittle. Menétrey managed to control the inclination of the punching crack artificially. as the crack is perpendicular to the flexural stresses in the slab. and the load at flexural failure ( 90 ) as Fflex. these results could be fitted with the following expression: F fail Fpun F flex Fpun sin 2 0 0 (2.
et al‟s (1976) fictitious crack model is used for reducing the tensile stresses (t) as controlled by the crack opening (w) and the fracture energy.2.2. The cracking phenomenon in the vicinity of the column is clearly shown by the simulation. G f t dw 0 wr (2. For this softening Hillerborg.1. 2. in reasonable agreement with experimentally observed cracking.eventual formulation of an analytical expression for punching shear capacity prediction.1.1. the inclined crack expands towards the corner of the slabcolumn intersection. Concrete cracking is described using a smeared crack approach with a strain softening formulation. Model description Axisymmetry was considered for analysing punching shear in round plates. the concrete constitutive law developed by Menétrey & William (1995) was considered.2. which is defined as the amount of energy absorbed per unit area in opening of the crack from zero to the crack rupture opening wr. 2. Finite element analysis enabled the consideration of the complicated stress state in the structure. These slabs were chosen because of their perfect axially symmetric geometry. The dilatancy observed experimentally is matched to a specific flow rule. As the vertical displacement increases. Simulation of the punching failure The analyses were done on slabs similar to those of Kinnunen & Nylander (1960). 22 . The punching crack is initiated by the coagulation of micro cracks at the top of the slab. The connection between the brittleness of failure and the state of stress is reproduced by the introduction of a fictitious number of cracks.2) The fracture energy is forced to be invariant with the finite element size by adoption of the crack band concept by Bazant and Oh (1983). As failure criterion.
which directs the initially 40°45° shear crack to an eventual 30° by delamination along the longitudinal reinforcing. The crack angle is found to be approximately 45°. 23 . as well as with increasing fracture energy. Parametric analysis Having found reasonable numerical results. This observation was also made by Mervitz (1971). Partial bond between the concrete and reinforcing steel was simulated by means of rigidly fastening the reinforcing element to the concrete at the end of a fictitious fastening length. a parametric analysis was performed on a circular slab reinforced with orthogonally placed reinforcing. Failure occurs when the inclined crack reaches the corner of the slabcolumn connection.3.Simultaneously the other inclined micro cracks are closing.2 and Fig 2.2. This fictitious length allows some cracks to grow.3 it is shown that the load capacity increases with increased uniaxial tensile strength of the concrete. This phenomenon is ascribed to the effect of the upper layers of flexural reinforcing. The fictitious length is related to the observed spacing of cracks in tensile tests of reinforced concrete. 2. as opposed to the 30° reported earlier. while others close. In Fig 2.1.
Lastly it is shown that the postelastic behaviours vary considerably with varying percentages of reinforcing. and with increasing reinforcing percentages the ductility of the connection decreases. Secondly.2 Influence of tensile concrete strength on response curves (Menétrey 2002) Fig 2. This is in agreement with the experimentally observed transition from flexural. all the slabs show a similar cracking pattern. all the slabs show similar initial elastic behaviour. 24 . regardless of the percentage of longitudinal flexural reinforcing. tough failure to high capacity brittle punching failure.Fig 2. the higher is the failure load. The higher the reinforcing ratio is.3 Influence of fracture energy on response curves (Menétrey 2002) By varying the percentage of flexural reinforcing the following can be shown: Firstly.
4) d ft n Effective depth of the slab Uniaxial tensile strength of the concrete Nominal shear stress 25 . the sizeeffect law by Bazant & Cao (1987) can be used.4 Influence of the percentage of flexural reinforcing on response curves (Menétrey 2002) The size effect was simulated using varying slab thicknesses with similar scaling factors applied to the concrete geometry and reinforcing steel area. The experimental data is adjusted using the RILEM recommendations for linear regression yielding the following equation: 1 d 2 n 1.3) d Pfailure rs n Effective depth of the slab Failure load Column radius Nominal shear stress Assuming constant fracture energy. The nominal shear stresses at failure were computed as follows: n 2 rs d d Pfailure (2.Fig 2.55 f t 1 34 (2. while the boundary conditions and material characteristics remained similar.
3. shear reinforcing and prestressed tendons crossing the punching crack.Fig 2.5) Vertical component of concrete tensile force Fct Fdow Fsw Fp Dowel force contribution by the flexural reinforcing Vertical components of force in the shear reinforcing Vertical components of force in the prestressing tendons Even though punching failure is sudden it is due to the amalgamation of micro cracks. The magnitude of the punching load is obtained by integrating the vertical stress components along the punching crack and summation of the vertical force components of the flexural reinforcing. 26 . This formation takes place progressively and consequently the steel forces are activated gradually and can be added to the tensile concrete forces. Analytical Model The model is based on the assumption that the punching load is influenced by the tensile stress in the concrete along the inclined punching crack.5 Sizeeffect law obtained by numerical analysis (Menétrey 2002) 2.1. Thus the general formulation is: Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw Fp (2.
1. Tensile force in the concrete The punching crack is assumed to form the border of the punching cone.6 Typical crosssection showing relevant parameters (Menétrey 2002) 2.Fig 2.6) Bending moment resistance Column radius Radius of the slab mr rs re 2. The bottom radius is defined as r1 and the top radius as r2. 27 . The following special cases can be highlighted: Ffail = Fpun Ffail = Fflex Menétrey calculated Fflex using the following equation: F flex 2 mr r 1 s re (2.2. with 30 90 . Punching.vs. Flexural capacity The influence of the inclination of the punching crack can be expressed by equation 2.3.3.1.1.1.
35 for 0 2% 0.12) The size effect is incorporated in the formulation with the following expressions : d 1.11) From the results of the numerical simulations.87 for 2% (2.9) In order to simplify the formulation. Fct f t 2 3 (2.10) The shear resistance is seen to be proportional to the concrete tensile strength to the power 2/3.1 2 0. i. Menétrey determined the influence of the percentage of longitudinal reinforcing to be approximated by the following relations: 0. leading to the vertical component of the concrete tensile force being: Fct r1 r2 s v r1 r2 s f t 3 2 (2.7) (2.e. a constant stress distribution is assumed.9 d 2 (2.8) Subsequently the inclined length is: s r2 r1 2 0.13) da Maximum aggregate size 28 .6 1 d a 2 1 with d 3d a (2.r1 rs r2 rs d 10 tan d tan (2.46 0.
15) s fs tan As bars (2.25 0 s 2. Three different positions of the punching crack are possible at failure.3. stirrups. in the vertical plane 2. 29 . 1.5 s 1.3.16) s Fpun (2. r r r 0.17) s s fs Bar diameter Axial tensile stress in reinforcing bar Reinforcing yield strength Angle between punching crack and reinforcing.In order to predict the failure load of a slab with shear reinforcing and a failure outside the shear reinforced area the parameter is used. Generally systems such as studs.625 rs 2.4.1 s 0.e.1. Punching crack between the column face and the first row of stirrups.3. Contribution of the dowel effect According to Menétrey the contribution of longitudinal reinforcing crossing the punching crack can be evaluated as being equal to: Fdow 1 s2 2 bars f c f s 1 2 sin (2.5 h h h for 2 0.1.14) 2.5 for h (2. Contribution of the shear reinforcing Different types of shear reinforcing are used to increase the failure load of slabs and to lessen the sudden decrease in load carrying capacity of the slab. to improved postpeak ductility. bentup bars and bolts are used. i.
8 Crack position 2. the radius of the outermost row of reinforcement (rsc) should be used. Fig 2. 30 . 2. The size effect is to be considered using the parameter . Instead of using the column radius (rs). Punching crack outside the shear reinforced area. 3.The calculation should consider the interaction between the punching load and the flexural capacity in terms of the crack inclination and the bending failure load. 1 arctan rswi rs d (2.7 Crack position 1. Punching crack crossing the shear reinforcing. The capacity of this scenario is calculated in a way similar to a slab without shear reinforcing.18) Fig 2.
will be determined similar to either stirrups or studs. The punching load in scenario 3 can be calculated as follows: Firstly some distinction is to be made with regard to the bond properties of the shear reinforcing. 31 .Fig 2. installed after drilling through the slab.9 Crack position 3.and shear reinforcing contributions cannot be added. Interestingly Menétrey & Brühwiler (1997) found that noninjected bolts do not interact and consequently the concrete. Reinforcing made of plain bars will be denoted as studs. The contribution of injected strengthening bolts. and those made with high bond (deformed) bars will be denoted as stirrups. The ultimate punching load is to be the minimum value calculated from the three cases presented above. depending on their respective bond properties.
22) Up to a stud length l0 the force is limited by the yield strength. The displacement corresponds to the summation of the micro cracks opening. if the stud length exceeds l0 the 32 .20) The crack rupture opening (wr) is approximated as: wr 5Gf f sw 5Gf f sw l cos (2. The studs are subjected to displacement controlled loading.19) Consequently the deformation is: sw wr cos l (2. Due to the crack formation the slab depth increases and resulting in the reinforcing bars to start taking load.21) The maximum force can then be expressed as: Fsw studs A sw E sw sin sw Asw f sw sin sw Fswy (2.Fig 2.10 Crack formation in a studreinforced slab The failure mechanism is initiated by the formation of micro cracks. However. The stud elongation at failure can be expressed as: l wr cos (2.
33 .25) 2.23) The contribution of high bond bars can be evaluated in a similar way.2. the force developed in the stirrup is a function of the anchorage at the stirrup‟s extremity.reinforcing contribution decreases at a rate inversely proportional to the stud length. The transmission length is defined as the length of bar along which slip between the steel bar and concrete occurs. The equation is based on a number of smallscale test specimens. Fsw stirrups A sw f sw sin sw Fswy (2.5. Due to the micro crack formation and the increased slab depth the generated tensile forces in the bars are distributed beyond the micro crack zone by means of bond stress to the concrete along the transmission length.3. l0 wr cos E sw f sw (2.24) If the required length is not available. Fp A tendons p p sin p (2. Contribution of prestressing tendons Taking the contribution of inclined prestressing tendons into account can enhance the punching shear resistance of a slab. Proposed Punching Capacity Increase due to the use of Fibre Reinforced Concrete Harajli et al (1995) propose a design equation to predict the increased resistance to punching shear failure of flat slabs by using deformed steel fibre reinforcing in the concrete. These tests were also compared to work done by Alexander & Simmonds (1992).1. If the necessary length is available the yield stress of the stirrup can be reached. 2.
Fibre reinforcing consisted of one of the following: Loose 30/50 hooked steel fibres (30mm long. improved ductility of shear failure and better energy absorption properties. However. From this point of view and the known fact that fibre reinforcing enhances the mechanical properties of concrete. Fibre reinforcing leads to higher load carrying capacities.e. numerous researchers have investigated the influence of fibres on slabcolumn connections. by controlling crack growth.5mm long monofilament polypropylene fibres The slabs were reinforced with fibres at the following densities: 80kg/m3 – 1% 30/50 fibres 34 .Due to the brittle nature of punching shear failure.12%) in order to ensure that they failed by means of punching prior to flexural failure. Two identical slabs for each different input variable were tested to minimize possible scatter. i. Harajli et al used the following experimental setup to calibrate the capacity enhancement due to fibres: 2. experimental studies are still limited and there is no established method to predict the contribution of the fibre reinforcement as a function of the fibre parameters. The slabs were rather heavily reinforced ( = 1. it should be avoided at all costs. flexural manner. 55mm and 75mm. The specimens are representative of slabs setups with spandepth ratios of 26 and 18 respectively. Two slab thicknesses were used.2.5mm diameter) Collated 50/50 hooked steel fibres 12.1. Experimental testing The panels tested by Harajli et al (1995) consisted of square slabs (650mm x 650mm) with a monolithically cast 100mm x 100mm column. The general design philosophy of the North American codes (ACI & CSA) is to design flexural members in such a way that the structure develops a yield mechanism and therefore fails in a ductile. 0.
11 Typical specimen crosssection showing reinforcing details (Harajli et al 1995) 2.096 V f b0 d f c' (2.8% 50/50 fibres 8. 2.e.2.26) Adjusted to a zero yintercept and a reduction factor of 0. 160kg/m3 – 2% 30/50 fibres 35kg/m3 – 0. i. the capacity of a normal slab setup without fibres is added to the additional capacity provided by the fibres. Prediction of Punching Shear Strength In order to obtain the design capacity of the connection.2. corrugated. 35 . The bestfit equation for the prediction of the additional capacity is: Pu 0.27) The above equations are limited to cases where fibre reinforcing is less than 2% volume fraction and where the reinforcing used is similar to those of the experiments.45% 50/50 fibres 64kg/m3 – 0. hooked.075 V f b0 d f c' (2.8kg/m3 – 1% polypropylene fibres Fig.and paddle fibres.9 a reasonably safe equation follows: Pu 0. crimped.33 0.
Steel fibres cause the failure mode to change from punching to flexuralor combined flexuralpunching failure 4.3. Table 2. The addition of steel fibres increased the ultimate punching shear capacity of a slabcolumn connection by ±36% 2. The increased punching capacity is related to the volume fraction of fibres added and not the length or aspect ratio of the fibres 3. Improved ductility of shear failures 5.2. From the experimental results it is clear that the punching capacity increases linearly with an increased volume of steel fibres. deflection behaviour of the panels are illustrated in Fig 2. Polypropylene fibres led to improved ductility and energy absorption in the postfailure portion of the test.2. resulting in an increased failure load. The inclination of the shear failure plane decreased with the addition of steel fibres. 6. However. This causes the failure surface to move away from the column face. This increase is not significantly influenced by the spandepth ratio of the slabs.13. accompanying this the load vs. the polypropylene fibres made an insignificant difference in the ultimate failure loads. 36 .12 and Fig 2. Observations and discussions based on the experiments Harajli et al (1995) concluded the following: 1.1 provides a summary of the behaviour of the two groups of slabs tested.
57 0.82 * Polypropylene Table 2.33 0.60 0.73 1.* 2.39 1.33 0.Slab Fibre Volume Fraction (%) Aspect Ratio Failure Mode Test ACI Test/ACI Normalized Strength A1 A2 A3 A4 Steel Steel Steel 0.33 1.61 0.64 0.5in 100 100 60 60 0.85 1.53 0.82 1.53 0.33 0.45 0.60 0.33 1.33 0.94 2.64 0.12 Normalized loaddeflection behaviour for Series A slabs et al 1995) (Harajli 37 .33 0.33 0.0 0.33 0.94 Fig.33 0.64 0.79 0.45 0.* Steel Steel Steel Steel Polypr.0 100 100 60 Punch Punch Flexural FlexPunch A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Steel Polypr.8 1.0 0.8 1.58 1.94 1.0 60 0.1 Summary of test variables and results (Harajli et al 1995) 0.0 1.5in Flex Punch Punch Punch Punch Punch Punch Punch 0.61 1.0 1.0 0.33 0.0 2. 2.33 0.52 0.64 0.94 1.61 1.
13 Normalized loaddeflection behaviour for Series B slabs et al 1995) (Harajli 38 . 2.Fig.
) around the loaded area. The shear reinforcing provides resistance additional to the shear capacity of the concrete and the dowel action of the flexural reinforcing. Reinforcing is needed up to a perimeter such that the following perimeter under consideration does not need any additional shear reinforcing. Various prescriptions of what the considered parameters. If the capacity of the system is adequate. as well as other requirements are given by the different codes. column) – this is to cater for the presence of an inclined shear crack in the assumed region. If this is not desired. such as the critical perimeters. the connection can be deemed satisfactory.e.1 Basics of evaluating punching shear capacity of a slabcolumn connection 39 . Current Design Practice The general approach to determine the punching shear capacity of slabcolumn connections can be summarized as follows: The shear strength of the concrete is determined on a predetermined critical perimeter (u0 – See Fig 3.3. Fig 3. In order to determine the amount of reinforcing needed. u3. additional shear reinforcing in the slab depth needs to be provided. the required area of reinforcing steel is evaluated on consecutive perimeters (u1. etc.1) at a specified distance from the loaded area (i. either the slab depth or the cross section of the column needs to be increased. contribution of the shear reinforcing. If the resistance is inadequate. In this chapter the requirements of the most important codified approaches are summarized. u2.
distance from the centroid of the tension reinforcement to the extreme compression fibre fyd u VULS f Design yield stress of steel Control perimeter Ultimate load imposed on the connection Common loading factor determined by the weighted average of the load factors for imposed and permanent loads (live and dead loads) Vrc Vmax Percentage of longitudinal tension reinforcing in the considered crosssection Resistance provided by the concrete Maximum allowed punching shear resistance with shear reinforcing 3.1. This circle is a distance 0. The simplification uses the following notation: c1 c 2 2h (3.Due to the unavailability of original copies of certain codes a simplified presentation used by Albrecht (2002) is used for codes marked with **.85 h (3.5d from the equivalent circular column 40 .e.1) d 0. depth of the concrete slab Effective depth i.2) List of symbols: c1 c2 h d First sectional dimension of the column Second sectional dimension of the column Total height i.e. German design code – DIN 10451988 ** According to the 1988 formulation of the German design code the critical perimeter is calculated as a circle concentric to an equivalent circular column cross section.
shear reinforcing is to resist 75% of the force.8) 41 .75 VULS (3. i. Moment transfer to the columns is ignored if the panel spans differ by less than 33%.5.e.13 c1 c2 d (3.33 h 2 (3. d st 1.7) If the shear force is higher than the capacity of the concrete. Vsd s 0. Fig 3.4) It should be noted that the ratio of the side lengths of a rectangular column is limited to less than 1.48 1 1.4 Vrc (3.2 Critical perimeter and relevant parameters The calculations are based upon a circular column crosssection.13 c1 c2 (3. rectangular crosssections are converted to equivalent circles with radius dst.3) From this the critical perimeter can be determined.face. However. u 1.5) The contribution by the concrete and the longitudinal tensile reinforcing is expressed as Vrc f 2. c1 1.6) The maximum shear resistance allowed for slabs with shear reinforcing is Vmax f 1.5 c2 (3.
12) 42 .0d from the column face.2.10) In order to allow for moment transfer to the column the total shear force needs to be factored.5M t Veff Vt 1 Vt x (3. Veff 1.11) In case moment transfer is calculated in the structural analysis. the enhancement is done with a predetermined factor of 1. the shear load enhancement is determined according to the following equation 1.3 Critical perimeter and relevant parameters Accordingly the control perimeter is: u 2c1 c2 12d (3. In the absence of detailed calculation. 3. The first placed at 0. Fig 3. British Standard 81101:1997 The requirements of the British standard stipulate that the critical perimeter is a rectangle at a distance 1.The required crosssectional area of shear reinforcing is: Asv Vsd f yd (3. internal column loads in braced structures with approximately equal spans.15.5d from the column face and the second at 1.9) The shear reinforcing is to be placed into two consecutive perimeters.5d from the column face.15 Vt (3.
5MPa (3. Veff 1.14) Alternatively the shear force should be enhanced with a factor of 1.4. Veff 1.25 can be used.8 f cu .At corner columns and edge columns bending about an axis parallel to the free edge an enhancement factor of 1.13) Alternatively the enhanced shear force for edge columns bending about an axis perpendicular to the free edge can be calculated with the following equation.16) The concrete contribution to the shear resistance is derived as follows: 100 As 3 400 4 1 f cu vc 0. 43 .25 Vt (3. 1.5M t Veff Vt 1 Vt x (3. The maximum stress at the column face is not allowed to exceed the lesser value of: f max MAX 0.15) It should be noted that Mt may be reduced by 30% if an equivalent frame analysis with pattern loading was done. no additional shear reinforcing is needed.25 Vt (3.79 b d d 25 m v 1 1 1 3 (3.17) The nominal shear stresses on the specific perimeter under consideration can be calculated with the following equation: v V ud (3.18) If the shear stress at the control perimeter is less than vc.
The shear stress is to be checked on consecutive perimeters.75d from the former perimeter.20) List of symbols: As d fcu fyv Mt u u0 V Veff x Crosssectional area of the longitudinal tensile reinforcing Effective slab depth Characteristic concrete cube strength Characteristic strength of the shear reinforcing Design moment transferred to the column Control perimeter First control perimeter taken at 1.6 vc v 2 vc A sv sin 5 0.7 v vc u d 0. each taken at 0. For the perimeters requiring reinforcing the amount of shear steel is determined as follows: v 1.95 f yv (3.5d Factored shear force Effective shear force Length of the side of the considered perimeter parallel to the axis of bending Asv m Area of shear reinforcement Angle between the plane of the slab and the shear reinforcing Partial material factor (1.5 for concrete) 44 . until a perimeter is reached where no shear reinforcing is needed.95 f yv (3.19) 1.6 vc A sv sin v vc u d 0.
Fig 3. Moment transfer to the column is assumed to be due to a stress distribution as indicated in Fig 3. relevant parameters and shear distribution due to moment transfer For nonprestressed members Vc should be taken as the lesser value of the following: 24 Vc 1 c f c' b0 d 6 (3.24) 45 . i.e. internal columns 3 Sides. i.23) For prestressed members Vc should be taken as Vc p f c' 0.5d from the column face.1 Shear enhancement factors Vc 1 3 f c' b0 d (3.21) d Vc s 2 b 0 f c' b0 d 12 s 40 30 20 Critical Section with: 4 Sides.e.3.4.3 f pc b0 d Vp with s – As above (3. corner columns (3.4 Critical perimeter. i. edge columns 2 Sides. ACI 318M02 The ACI recommendations consider a critical perimeter taken at 0.22) Table 3.e.3.
the shape of the outer control perimeter is quite different from the original control perimeter. 0 12 (3.28) Vn should not exceed Vn When shear reinforcing is used the yield strength of the reinforcing is limited to 420MPa. The required shear reinforcing is placed in the slab similar to shear stirrups in beams – see Fig. The control perimeter outside the shearreinforced zone is taken at a distance 0. Shear reinforcement is allowable in slabs where the effective depth is greater than 150mm.26) (3. 46 . Vn Vs Vc Vc should be taken as above but not greater than Vc Vs Av f y d s 1 2 f c' b0 d 1 6 f c' b0 d (3.5. for which the perimeter is a minimum. sd b 1. However. The maximum allowable yield strength of the shear reinforcing is an empirical value. The effective loaded area is taken as the area that totally encloses the actual loaded are.29.25)  Vp – The vertical component of prestress c is to be taken as the ratio of the longest overall dimension of the effective loaded area to the largest overall perpendicular dimension of the effective loaded area. The reasoning behind limiting the tensile strength of the reinforcing is that with decreasing slab depth.27) (3.5d outside the last line of shear stirrups. 3.27) (3. full yield capacity of the steel is less likely to be reached before punching shear failure takes place.5 p MIN 0.
Integrity reinforcing is the provision of adequately anchored sagging (bottom) reinforcing that has to be provided through the core of the column. Fig 3.5 ACI control perimeters and shear reinforcing details (ACI 318M02) List of symbols: Av b0 d fc ’ fpc fy s Vc Vp Area of shear reinforcing Critical perimeter Effective depth Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete Average prestressing stress after losses Shear reinforcing yield stress Spacing of shear stirrups Punching shear capacity of the concrete Vertical component of prestress force after losses 47 .When using the ACI recommendations for punching shear design it should be kept in mind that the required integrity steel must be provided and that the tensile reinforcing is adequate to resist bending failure.
sd VULS u (3.31) Vrc f 2.5 h 2 (3.4.30) It should be noted that the ratio of the column side lengths is limited to 2 c1 2 c2 (3.Vs Punching shear capacity contributed by shear reinforcing s c Shear enhancement factor Ratio of column dimensions 3.6 Vrc (3.29) For internal columns the enhancement factor is 1. Eurocode 2 ** The Eurocode considers a control perimeter with rounded corners at 1.33) 48 .15 The control perimeter is calculated as: u 2c1 c2 3d (3. Fig 3.2 40 1 0.5d from the column face.21.32) Vmax 1.6 Critical perimeter and relevant parameters Moment transfer is considered as a shear force per unit of perimeter.
Fig 3.5.7. shear reinforcing is used with the total resistance calculated by the addition of the concrete.5d from the column face.If the shear force is higher than the capacity of the concrete. Fig 3.6d b1 The critical perimeter is selected to be such that it has the shortest length and at a distance 1. DIN 10451:2001 The latest DIN recommendations are formulated using a critical perimeter taken at a distance equal to1.2b.5.9.5d from the column face – see Fig 3.34) b1 MIN b. 3.8 Typical Columns Penetrations in the close proximity of the column should be taken into account as shown in Fig 3.8.7 Critical perimeter for a rectangular column or wall (3.and steel resistances. 49 . When dealing with rectangular columns or walls the critical perimeters should be taken as indicated in Fig 3.8d a1 MIN a.2.
Fig 3.11 Calculation Parameters 50 .Fig 3.9 Penetrations close to the column When corner and edge columns are located closer than 3d from edge of the slabs the critical perimeter should be taken according to Fig 3.10.11. Fig 3.10 Corner and Edge Columns The geometrical parameters used in the calculation of the punching shear capacity and the required reinforcing are indicated in Fig 3.
0 d dy 2 d x l lx ly 0.42) (3.40) (3.02 yd 51 .5 Table 3.36) Flat slabs with shear reinforcing should conform to the following: The upper limit of the punching capacity is given by vEd vRd .ct 0.2 Type of Support: Internal Column Edge Column Corner Column Shear enhancement factors vEd VEd u (3.2 are used to increase the shear stress around the column.05 1.40 f cd f 0.39) Flat slabs without shear reinforcing: vRd .sy (3.max Within the shear reinforced area vEd vRd .43) 1 d 200 2.38) Outside the shear reinforced area vEd vRd .a (3.141 100 l f ck 3 0.41) (3.4 1. the enhancement factors given in Table 3.37) (3. 1.12 cd d 1 (3.35) Flat slabs without shear reinforcing should conform to: vEd vRd .ct .max (3.In order to take moment transfer between the slab and the column into account.
c 1.ct .7 s 0.3 As sin( ) f yd u (3.52) (3. cd cd .45) cd .ct (3.5d from the last row of shear reinforcing.sy vRd .7 0.c vRd . with vRd .29lw 0.5d from the column face vRd .i Flat slabs with shear reinforcing: vRd . y 2 [MPa] (3.ct (3.5vRd .0 400 (3.sy vRd .5d from the column face is considered using the following equation: vRd .75d vRd .44) (3.3 d 400 1.46) For the first perimeter of shear reinforcing within 0.c vRd .c s Asw f yd u (3.71 3.sy vRd .51) Outside the shear reinforced area the critical perimeter is taken as 1.max 1.50) Bent down bars within 0.49) 0.ct s Asw f yd d u sw (3.a a vRd .53) a 1 0.i Ac .i N Ed .5d List of symbols: Ac Asw Crosssectional area of concrete under consideration Area of shear reinforcing in the considered perimeter 52 .47) For the perimeters with reinforcing within spacing sw 0. x cd .48) (3.
5d from the column face.0 for normal concrete – refer to DIN10451 for lightweight concrete Size effect factor Effectiveness factor of shear reinforcing Effective prestress in the considered crosssection 3.d fck fyd lw N Effective depth of the tension steel Design crushing strength of a standard cylinder Design yield strength of reinforcing steel Radial distance from the column face to the last reinforcing row Axial force on the above mentioned crosssectional area sw u VEd vEd VRd vRd Spacing of the shear reinforcing Critical perimeter Imposed axial column load Design shear stress Design resistance shear load Design resistance shear stress Angle of the bent down bar measured from horizontal. Moment transfer between the slab and column is similar to the assumptions of the ACI318 code – Fig 3.3 ** The Canadian building code considers a critical perimeter taken at 0. CSA A23.6. 45o 60o 1 s cd Factor f moment transfer Shear enhancement factor 1.12. 53 .
5d to the perimeter of the concentrated load or reaction area. but the detailing of the shear reinforcing differs. d.59100 3 1 0. Twoway action. The shear resistance should also be checked at critical 54 . 3.82 f h 2 (3.55) The upper limit of resistance is set as: Vmax 12.Fig 3. Beam action.54) The contribution of the concrete and longitudinal reinforcing is given by: Vrc f 4.56) Similar to the ACI recommendations the capacity of the concrete and the shear steel can be added together. or from any change in slab thickness. In principle the ACI and CSA approaches are similar.37 h 2 1 (3.7. CAN/CSAS600 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code According to the Canadian Bridge Code the shear resistance of slabs should be the more severe of the following cases: 1. is a minimum. This perimeter need not be closer than 0. from the face of the concentrated load or reaction area. with a critical section extending in a plane across the entire width and located at a distance. 2. According to the ACI the shear reinforcing is fixed as beam strips. while the CSA method uses evenly arranged reinforcing on the control perimeters. relevant parameters and shear distribution due to moment transfer The control perimeter is: u 2c1 c2 4d (3. with a critical section perpendicular to the plane of the slab and located so that its perimeter. u.12 Critical perimeter.
25 f pc u d p Vp (3. The shear resistance for twoway action is calculated as follows Vr V f Vr c f cr 0.57) (3.sections located at a distance no closer than 0.75) Material resistance factor for reinforcing (0.58) List of symbols: Effective depth – distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid of the tensile force (mm) fcr fpc Cracking strength of concrete (MPa) The average of the compressive stresses in the two directions in concrete after all prestress losses have occurred.95) d c p 55 .5d from any change in slab thickness and should be located such that the perimeter. is a minimum. at the centroid of the crosssection (MPa) u Vf Vp Vr Perimeter of the critical section (mm) Shear demand (factored applied load) (kN) Shear resistance provided by reinforcing (kN) Shear resistance (kN) Material resistance factor for concrete (0. u.
3. The resistance partial shear factor to avoid punching failure is determined by comparing the nominal shear stress of tests with a strength parameter of the concrete. Standardization of the punching shear capacity or resistance is done by considering the concrete shear resistance and that of the reinforcing steel superimposed as follows: VRd R Vc c Vs s Vc .60) where the concrete shear capacity is 56 . VF F VR R (3. The fib has done extensive research on the topic of punching shear and the related performance of available codified approaches to the problem of punching shear failure. To determine admissible punching shear strength. partial safety factors for the actions (imposed loading) and resistances (material characteristics) are used. divided by a control surface around the loaded area. In their publication “Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs” (2001) a comparison of the available test data and commonly used design code predictions are presented. The results of their standardization and comparisons are overviewed in the following sections.8.59) This states that the demand is less than the capacity of the system. In order to compare the provisions made for punching shear by the various codes the method used by the International Federation of Structural Concrete (fib) will be presented. Nominal punching shear stress is taken as a shear force ( F VF ).outside c Vmax c (3. In order to compare the different codes standardization was necessary. Comparisons of code equations for punching shear with and without shear reinforcing – standardized approach.
Vc c k f ( l ) u d (3.61) and the steel shear capacity contribution is Vs Asw s f y sin( ) (3.g c f s s c Ratio of the longitudinal tension reinforcing Inclination of the shear reinforcing Partial material factor for the concrete Partial safety factor for the imposed forces Partial material factor for the reinforcing steel Efficiency of the shear reinforcing Concrete shear capacity 57 .62) List of symbols: Asw d f(l) fy k u Vc Cross sectional area of the shear reinforcing Effective depth Function of the longitudinal tension reinforcing Yield strength of the shear reinforcing Size effect factor of the effective depth Control perimeter Characteristic punching resistance without shear reinforcing. or the contribution of the concrete to the punching shear capacity in the presence of shear reinforcing Vc.outside Vf Vmax VR Vs Characteristic shear capacity outside the shear reinforced area Characteristic value of the acting force Characteristic maximum shear capacity Punching shear capacity Characteristic shear capacity of the shear reinforcing l.
67) Outside shear reinforcing Not investigated Maximum shear capacity Vmax c 2 02 u d (3.2d was not investigated.5% g 25 (3. 011 0. c s Safety factors: 2.1.69) 02 0.63) (3.3 s g 2 (3.056 f cu .10 1.7 1 fy 500 f cu . The control perimeter is to be taken at a distance d from the column face. 3.66) g Asl .65) s 0. 200 fy 1.64) (3.In the following sections the standardised fib formulation of the different codified approached are presented. German design code DIN 1045 (88) The German code considers the cube strength of the concrete and the flexural reinforcing ratio as input parameters. It should be noted that punching shear failures outside an area of 1.8. The concrete contribution was calculated to be 25% of the ultimate load capacity. 200 3 f ( l ) 1. Punching cones inclined at angles between 30 and 45 were considered in the formulation.75 Resistance without shear reinforcing c c 011.21 f cu . 200 3 2 58 .5% 0.68) (3.beamstrip 100% bbeamstrip d (3.
5 and the cross sectional area b is the same. Eurocode 2 (EC2) The Eurocode recommendations for punching shear failure consider the following parameters: Concrete cylinder strength Flexural reinforcing ratio Size effect of the effective slab depth Shear capacity of the shear reinforcing c s Safety factors: 1.50 1.2.2 40 l 59 . Stirrups to enclose tension and compression flexural reinforcing.71) (3.70) (3. Rectangular columns can be transformed into round columns if a 1.8.6 d 1 (3.035 f c 3 (3.72) Vs Asw f y sin( ) Additional rules Slab to be no less than 150mm thick.74) (3.73) 2 k 1.25 VF (3. 3. 2 s 0.15 Resistance without shear reinforcing (Vc) c c 0.45 g Within the shear reinforced area Vc 0.75) f ( l ) 1.
80) 0.outside) Maximum shear capacity (Vmax) Resistance within the shear reinforced area (Vc + Vs ) Vc Punching capacity without shear reinforcing Vmax 1.76) Similar to above under consideration of an exterior control perimeter (3.6 c Akrit Aload sin( ) (3. the function expressing the influence of the concrete strength should use the power 1 2 3 instead of 3. Firstly. Secondly the shear strength c should be increased by 20% and lastly.6 Vc (3.5% Resistance outside the shear reinforced area (Vc. the 60 .11% c 0.81) Some authors have criticized the Eurocode formulation and have suggested the following changes.77) Vs Asw f y sin( ) h 200mm (3.79) Asw _ MIN 0.78) (3.control_ perimeter control_ perimeter d (3. l 1.13% l Asl .
2 0.efficiency of the stirrups used as shear reinforcing should be changed to 5060% instead of 100%. (2) Using a fixed control perimeter with a transition zone the difference between punching shear strength and the uniaxial shear strength can be incorporated. 3. For highlevel loads (i. c c 1.5 _ or _ 0. Kordina (1994) showed that the control perimeter of EC2 could be increased.09 f c 3 Vs (0.3. British Standard 81101:1997 The BS8110 prescriptions for punching shear design consider the following parameters: Concrete strength Flexural reinforcing ratio Size effect of the effective slab depth Shear capacity of the shear reinforcing 61 .82) (3. Due to this increase in control perimeter the local shear stress concentrations diminish and consequently the geometry of the loaded area on the acting shear stress can be neglected for lowlevel loads.6) Asw f y sin( ) 1 (3. (1) The punching shear strength is defined as the uniaxial shear strength. In order to rectify this discontinuity the following two ways can be used.83) According to Kordina (1994) the punching shear strength without shear reinforcing in the EC2 control perimeter is 20% more than the uniaxial shear capacity. slabs with shear reinforcing) the stress concentrations cannot be neglected and should be limited. while the higher punching shear capacity is judged using a large control perimeter.8.e.
The inclination of the punching shear crack has also been adjusted from 45º to 33º.88) 62 .27 f cu 3 av (3.84) Where av is the distance from the column face to the control perimeter k4 400 d 1 (3.5 d 0.25 1.87) f l 100 l 3 l 3% Resistance outside the shear reinforced area (Vc. f cu Similar to above under consideration of an exterior control perimeter (3. c s Safety factors: 1.0 Vc u0 d MIN 0. causing a reduction in the required shear reinforcing by up to 50%.The 1997 revision of the code takes the beneficial membrane forces acting in a cracked flat slab into account.15 Resistance without shear reinforcing (Vct) c 1 1.86) (3.outside) Maximum shear capacity (Vmax) 5 Vmax 2.85) (3.8.
89) Vc 1.4ud 1 0.Resistance within the shear reinforced area (Vc + Vs ) Vc Punching capacity without shear reinforcing Vs Punching capacity provided by shear reinforcing Vsf Applied shear force If v f 1. c s Safety factors: 1.91) Vs 0.93) 63 .92) 3. ACI 31895 The ACI code takes the following parameters into account for estimating the punching shear resistance: Concrete strength Column geometry Length of the control perimeter The code does not take the influence of the longitudinal tension reinforcing into account.4.176 1.6vc then Vs 0.95 Asw f y sin( ) If 1.8.33 f c (3.176 Resistance without shear reinforcing (Vc) The Minimum value of the following: c 0.90) (3.42Vc (3.95 f y (3.27 Asw f y sin( ) Minimum shear reinforcing A sw sin( ) 0.6vc v f 2vc then (3.
64 .13 and Fig 3. is shown in Fig 3.97) f y 414 MPa (3.083 f c 2 c 4 (3.083 f c 2 u resp u ext (3.94) 0 d c 0.95) Resistance outside the shear reinforced area (Vc) Maximum shear capacity of stirrups (Vmax) Resistance within the shear reinforced area (Vc + Vs ) Vs Asw f y Similar to above under consideration of an exterior control perimeter Vmax 0. c 0.167 f c ud (3.14. as seen in practise.96) Vc 0.98) Typical shear reinforcing arrangements according to the ACI recommendations.5 fc u d (3.
i.8.13 Shearstud rails on site – detailed and designed according to the ACI318 recommendations Longitudinal Reinforcing Shear Stirrup (Shape Code 72) Lacing Bar Fig 3.e.Fig 3.14 Shear stirrups on site – detailed and designed according to the ACI318 recommendations 3. the longitudinal tensile reinforcing The size effect of the effective depth 65 . DIN 10451 (2001) In principle the new DIN code is based on Model Code 90 (fib 1999).5. thus using the following parameters to estimate the punching resistance of the slabcolumn connection: Concrete strength The flexural reinforcing ratio.
ct v Rd . 66 .12 100 l f ck 3 d (3.1.99) 1 v Rd .5. The codified formulation will be presented in the following parts. 3.8. The shear capacity of the shear reinforcing This code is regarded as the latest and safest code at the moment. Punching shear resistance of a slab without shear reinforcing The control perimeter is taken at 1.100) (3.ct Effective depth [m] Characteristic compressive concrete strength [MN/m2] Control perimeter [m] Punching shear resistance [MN] Punching shear capacity stress [MN/m2] Size effect parameter Flexural reinforcing ratio l 3.ct ucrit (3.4 f cd 0.8.02 f yd 1 200 2 d (3. It has been calibrated using all available test data published from over the world to conform to accepted reliability criteria.ct 0.2.101) l 0.5d. Maximum punching shear capacity The maximum capacity has been confirmed by testing to correlate with the load level at which crushing of concrete at the column face occurs. VRd .102) d fck ucrit VRd.5.ct vRd.
105) (3.sy ui (3. 67 .5.sy vcrd s Asw.i f yd ui vcrd v Rd . max 1.ct 0.4.104) (3.ct (3.VRd . The level of contribution decreases with increasing distance from the column.8.3.7 0.3 d 400 1.sy.7 0.7 VRd . Punching shear strength within the shear reinforced area Within the shear reinforced area the resistance is provided by a constant concrete contribution and by the shear strength of the shear reinforcing.sy.sy Effective depth [mm] Reinforcing design yield strength Perimeter of each stirrup row [m] Shear capacity in every stirrup row i Shear capacity in every stirrup row per meter s Aswi Effectiveness factor of the shear reinforcing Sum of the stirrup crosssectional area in each row 3. VRd .106) v Rd .107) d fyd ui VRd. Punching shear strength outside the shear reinforced area It is assumed that the control perimeter is located at a distance 1.5. Due to stirrup anchorage slip the shear strength of the reinforcing is limited to 70% of yield strength in thin slabs.0 400 (3.103) 3.i vRd.8.i vRd .5d from the last row of stirrups.
167 l w 0.109) (3.83 3.VRd .cta a vRd .ct (3.5 d Exterior control perimeter Radial distance between the column face and the last row of stirrups 68 .cta v Rd .110) a 1 ua lw 0.cta ua vRd .108) (3.
Most of the punching shear tests undertaken to date were done using single column tests with little attention given to the boundary conditions of the slab portion used. any analytical model has to be based on. the region of negative moments in the real slab is used for a single slabcolumn test. representative experimental models of structures. Accuracy of Modelling and Codified Design Rules In order to formulate the mathematical modelling of punching shear behaviour and prediction of punching shear failure. Accuracy of Experimental Testing Due to the complexity of the punching shear problem. However.4. Experimental testing of punching shear presents numerous problems.1.1. The validity of this approach is explained in the following sections. 4. 4. In other words. Single Column Tests In most cases the dimensions of isolated slabcolumn are selected to coincide with the lines of contra flexure in the real structure. or part thereof are needed. These tests are relatively inexpensive and allow full scale testing. there are a number of disadvantages in using a single column setup: Simulation of real boundary conditions is ignored Confinement of the concrete is ignored Membrane forces in the slab is not present Failure shear stresses are not influenced by the size effect (The size effect causes a reduction of shear strength with increasing slab depth) 69 . The only practical option is to test representative parts of the structure either at full scale or scaled down. or verified with experimental test results to a certain extent.1. Testing of real structures is not feasible due to the tremendous costs involved and the large scale of such a test setup.
the capacities reduce from 100% for a slab with all four edges supported. 4. However. These forces enhance the shear capacity of the slabcolumn connection. A linear elastic finite element analysis on the three scenarios renders similar shear stress distributions for all three cases.1.4% for a slab with corner supports only. a square slab with continuous simple supports along all four edges. It seems that boundary forces develop in slabs supported on all edges. It should be noted that the effect of the moment to shear ratio is included in these tests. Firstly the slab can be supported on its boundary with the load applied on the column. the actual testing reveals a decrease in the punching shear capacity with decreasing support provided to the slab boundary. If the failure loads are normalized with respect to f c' . to 85% for two opposing edges supported. The two setups should not be perceived as similar. 70 . They set up three scenarios. Secondly the slab specimen can be supported on the column with the load applied at a fixed distance from the column.1. a similar slab with continuous simple supports on two opposing edges and lastly the four corners were simply supported. to 60. Load redistribution is not possible Two different configurations of a single column test are possible. This setup allows the forces to distribute along the boundary.1. Secondly. The effect of boundary conditions Elstner & Hognestad (1956) tested the effect of different boundary conditions in 1956. Firstly. This ratio will be the highest for the slab supported on all four edges and consequently a higher punching shear capacity can be expected.
Although test data on the influence of the shear span ratio is rather limited.1% respectively. where av is the shear distance. the surrounding concrete restrains the sagging portion of the slab by compressing around it. Firstly they used a slab with rotations of the corners and edges restrained. The punching shear strength of a slab is also influenced by the shear span ratio ( av d ). but remains fairly constant for higher ratios – fib (2001).7% and 82. It has been found that the punching shear capacity increases if the slab specimen extends beyond the nominal line of contra flexure. Thus if the supports are too close to the applied load. i.5. they interfere with the results. Masterson and Rankin indicate strength 71 . Evidently increasing rotational restraint enhances the punching capacity of the connection. and d the effective slab depth. which occurs after cracking of the concrete and yielding of the reinforcing steel.2. rotations of the edges alone restrained and thirdly rotations of the corners alone restrained. it is safe to say that shear strength rises significantly for ratios less than 1. As the slab fails and deflects.1.1. secondly. The normalized capacities of these tests are 100%. Compressive membrane action is considered as a secondary effect. The effect of compressive membrane action Due to the confinement of the slabcolumn connection by the adjacent slab it also plays a role in the punching shear capacity of the connection. Long. 4. 89.Alexander and Simmonds (1992) reported similar results by using three test scenarios providing rotational restraints with rollers. According to the fib (2001) it is reckoned that a distance of at least three slab thicknesses is necessary between the loaded area and the slab supports. the distance from the loaded area to the support. Testing by Bond.e.
Slab subsystems It is believed that a subsystem will render more realistic results than a single column test. The biggest complication is that almost each code was developed from a different set of experiments and that the various codes use different parameters to predict the punching shear resistance of slabcolumn connections. Accuracy of Code Predictions Numerous punching shear tests have been done to date and most of the codified design approaches are based on a limited number of these tests. continuously reinforced slab with realistic boundary conditions along lines of zero shear centred on an exterior column and an adjacent interior column.Bulletin 12 (Reineck et al 2001) presents a database of more than 400 punching shear test results as well 72 . The slab consisted of a 150mm thick.1. real slabs undergo restrained shrinkage inducing tensile stresses. Sherif (1996) tested the most realistic subsystem to date. Testing of this slab resulted in the conclusion that the punching shear capacity for interior slabcolumn connections is similar for both single column tests and full slab tests. 4.2. In addition to these. For design purposes compressive membrane action should not be used as an enhancing factor for the predicted failure loads. However. Due to numerous reasons their test is thought to overestimate the capacity enhancement.increases ranging from 30% up to 50% compared to similar single column setups. which in turn reduces the shear capacity of the slab. 4. the fib technical report on punching shear .2.
Hooks and shear ladders account for 17% of the tests. except five were done with isolated slabcolumn connections. 49% of the tests used stirrups and 34% used bentup bars as shear reinforcing. 4. 25% failed at the column face and 45% of the slabs failed within the shear reinforced zone. 150 of the more than 400 available test results were of flat slabs with shear reinforcing. while foundation plates are normally thicker than 500mm.1. The other reports indicated 30% failed outside the shear reinforced zone. Some of the older publications give no indication of the mode of failure.as a comparison of the prediction performance of the different codified approaches. since flat slabs in practise range between 250mm and 350mm in depth. Only nine specimens were tested with high strength concrete. the following should be kept in mind. Firstly. Secondly it should be kept in mind that the anchorage of stirrups and shear ladders in the compression zone was underestimated because the height of the compression zone is in the range of the concrete cover. Due to the fact that only thin plates were tested. Compilation of databank In order to compile a set of data for the neutral comparison of code formulas all available test data went through a rigorous classification and filtering process performed by the fib task group. The following significant observations were made: All tests. This raises some concern.2. there is a beneficial size effect if failure is due to crushing of the concrete. 73 . 90% of the tests were done on plates with total depths less than 250mm.
16 0.1 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions on test slabs without shear reinforcing Model Code 90 (MC90 1999) and the BS8110 recommendations give the best approximation of the mean behaviour.645 This approach is based on the methods outlined in Eurocode 1.28 1.1) Using the mean values of material strengths. Some application rules of the specific codes necessitated that some test data were not considered for certain codes. as seen in Table 4.17 0. In order to meet the 5% design value the shear capacity predicted by MC90 should be 74 .29 1. Comparing the codified capacity predictions with the relevant test results yield the following: m Vtest Vcode m 1.2.03 1.20 0.76 0.85 1.17 0.87 0. 149 tests were used in the statistical analysis of punching tests without shear reinforcing. 5%. The required 5% fractile of the safety factor. Part 1 (1992) ACI31895 DIN 10451 (2001) n/n0 84/149 149/149 v 0.23 0.e. It is generally accepted that a characteristic value represented by the 5% fractile is acceptable. (4.4.16 5% 0.84 0. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat Slabs without Shear Reinforcing Modern design codes are driven by reliability principles.25 0. i.0.72 149/149 112/149 149/149 149/149 1.2.21 0.38 0.16 (4.19 0.1.2) Code DIN 1045(88) Model Code 90.00 Table 4.27 0. 5% avg 1.98 0. is 1.22 0. FIP Recommendations BS81101:1997 Eurocode 2.23 0.
2 the mean values of the predicted concrete crushing failure are all above the required level. the fib compared the 5% fractiles of test slabs with shear reinforcing for three different failure modes. Eurocode 2 underestimates the beneficial influence of higher ratios of longitudinal reinforcing. on the other hand it overestimates the contribution of higher strength concretes. The fib strongly recommends that the longitudinal reinforcing be taken into consideration. In order to bring it‟s predictions to a 5% design value.2. DIN 10451.e. however the characteristic values are noncompliant with the 5% fractile criterion. The latest German design code. 4. Due to the fact that the ACI recommendations ignore the contribution of the longitudinal tensile reinforcing the scatter is unacceptably high.e. was calibrated using the above mentioned test data bank. maximum shear capacity Failure within the shear reinforced area.decreased by ±27% and the BS8110 predictions should be decreased ±24%. the concrete contribution should be reduced by ±13%. The three considered modes being: Concrete crushing at the column face. The acceptable safety level of 5% will only be obtained if the predicted punching strength is reduced by approximately 25%. therefore it complies with the required reliability criteria.3. i. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat Slabs with Shear Reinforcing Similar to the predictions for punching failure without shear reinforcing. 75 . i. failure of the shear reinforcing Failure outside the shear reinforced area As seen in Table 4.
MC90 and BS8110 failed within the shear reinforced area.14 0. Part 1 (1992) ACI31895 DIN 10451 (2001) n/n0 81/93 42/141 m 1.20 0.20 5% 0.3.23 22/141 12/141 122/141 71/141 1.08 1.78 1.88 85/141 37/141 13/141 39/141 1.26 v 0.26 0.0.80 1.16 0.29 1.71 0.74 0.31 0.33 0.19 0.28 0.16 Table 4.3 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions for the punching shear capacity within the shear reinforced area 76 .30 0.24 0.27 1.78 0.62 0.29 0.25 0.86 0.11 0.29 5% 1.82 Code DIN 1045(88) Model Code 90.73 1.2 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions for the maximum punching shear capacity of slabs with shear reinforcing Similarly the mean ratios of the predicted capacities within the shear reinforced area with the test results are more than 1. On the other hand.26 1.23 0.25 0.27 1.32 0.30 0.23 0. but the 5% fractile does not reach the demanded safety level – see Table 4.47 1.57 0. m 1.41 0.15 1. FIP Recommendations BS81101:1997 Eurocode 2.31 0. FIP Recommendations BS81101:1997 Eurocode 2. 86% of tests evaluated with the ACI recommendations failed within the reinforced area.67 0. It should be noted that only 10% of the tests evaluated with DIN 1045(88).Code DIN 1045(88) Model Code 90. Part 1 (1992) ACI31895 DIN 10451 (2001) n/n0 12/93 16/141 v 0. Eurocode 2.24 0.34 0.02 Table 4.30 0.
In Table 4.4 it is shown that not all codes comply with the required safety levels outside the shear reinforced zone. m n/a 1.18 n/a 0.20 5% n/a 0.86
Code DIN 1045(88) Model Code 90, FIP Recommendations BS81101:1997 Eurocode 2, Part 1 (1992) ACI31895 DIN 10451 (2001)
n/n0 n/a 100/141
v n/a 0.17
34/141 104/141 6/141 31/141
0.91 1.26 (1.25) 1.24
0.14 0.31 (0.36) 0.14
0.15 0.25 (0.29) 0.11
0.68 0.74 (0.66) 1.02
Table 4.4 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions for the punching shear capacity outside the shear reinforced area
4.2.4. Discussion of the Comparison of Test Data and Codified Predictions
From the above results it is clear that the different codes predict quite different capacities for the same structure. The predictions also show unacceptably high standard deviations, causing the 5% fractile to be below the required value.
The most obvious explanation for both the different values predicted by the different codes and the high variances in the predicted capacities vs. actual capacities can be attributed to the fact that the different codes were formulated using limited test data.
Due to the variability of the predictions the fib decided to present an improved codified formulation based on all the data presented in the punching shear test databank. Taking the required reliability criteria into consideration this process lead to the development of the latest German DIN 10451 design code.
77
5. Proposed Repair Methods for Punching Shear Failure and Preventative Measures against Punching Shear Failure
Due to the brittle nature of pure punching shear failure it can easily result in progressive collapse of a structure without much warning of structural distress. However in most cases there are clear signs of distress in the structure prior to collapse. Although the structure has failed, collapse does not take place due to the following possible reasons: Design codes ignore the possible positive contribution of compressive membrane action in slabs Some structural systems go into a state of catenary action The slabs are suspended on the columns by means of adequately anchored bottom reinforcing.
A slabcolumn connection in distress will show some of the following telltale signs of structural deterioration: Radial cracks on the top surface of the slab originating at the column Circular cracks around the column Formation of a flexural yield pattern above the affected column Possibly excessive slab deflections
It will be beneficial if a fairly easy, nondisruptive and relatively inexpensive method(s) can be used to either repair such a failed slab – without requiring the demolition of the structure, or to increase the punching shear capacity of a slab if required due to change of use or altered loading conditions.
In the following sections the author proposes numerous strengthening measures and remedial measures for damaged slabcolumn connections.
78
5.1. Strengthening of Existing Slabcolumn Connections
Theoretically, in order to strengthen an existing slabcolumn interface, three basics can be addressed in order to achieve the required increase in capacity, i.e. (1) increasing the effective depth of the slab and adding flexural reinforcing, (2) increasing the area of load transfer, thus increasing the critical perimeter, (3) the addition of shear reinforcing.
Access to the affected slabcolumn connection will depend on the specific use of the structure. For instance strengthening of a bridge deck connection would require a method to be implemented from below the slab instead of from above in order to minimize interference with traffic.
5.1.1. Increasing the Effective Slab Depth
5.1.1.1. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and vertical bolts
By adding an additional concrete layer onto the existing slab, the effective depth can be increased, along with this the addition of longitudinal reinforcing is possible, both enhancing the punching shear capacity of the slab. In order to prevent delamination vertical reinforcing bars (shear reinforcing) need to be doweled into the existing concrete.
This solution seems fairly simple in principle, but poses numerous disadvantages and complications: Additional dead weight of concrete – consuming some of the added punching capacity Doweling vertical reinforcing into the existing slab is rather costly Proper bonding of the concrete layover to the existing concrete substrate might be problematic
79
Slab strengthened with additional concrete and bonded steel plate Similar to the above solution. taking the increased slab depth. a concrete layover increases the effective depth of the slab. Additional longitudinal reinforcing is added by means of bonding steel plates on top of the existing concrete. Fig. improper use of epoxy bonding agents and/or incorrect preparation of the concrete substrate. Possible problems with this strengthening method are: Additional dead weight of concrete – consuming some of the added punching capacity Bonding of the steel plate to the existing concrete substrate is often not done to specification. 5. new longitudinal reinforcing and the additional or new shear reinforcing into account. 5.1.2. This can be due to the use of unskilled or inexperienced labour.1.1 Slab strengthened with additional concrete and vertical bolts Recalculation of the punching shear capacity can now be done.2 Slab strengthened with additional concrete and bonded plate 80 .Fig. 5.
2. Practically speaking one would not be able to cast conventional concrete to the underside of the existing slab.4. mainly due to the fact that it is located quite far from the extreme tension fibre in the slab section 5.Recalculation of the punching shear capacity can now be done. The use of selfcompacting concrete and shotcrete would be suited best for this application. The only options are one of the following: (1) cast the last portion of the column through the existing slab or (2) grout the last portion of the column with an expanding cementitious grout. conventional concrete or selfcompacting concrete – see Fig 5.3 and Fig 5. Differential shrinkage of the old. the punching shear capacity can be enhanced substantially. especially when casting the column head through the existing slab. Due to differential creep the new concrete column will shorten and will consequently not be loaded as envisaged. Shotcrete and selfcompacting concrete can easily be cast to fit snugly to the existing slab. If not properly addressed load transfer to the column can be a problem. Increasing the area of load transfer By increasing the critical shear perimeter of the slabcolumn connection. The contribution of the plate needs to be investigated further. taking the increased slab depth and additional longitudinal reinforcing (provided by the steel plate) into account. 81 . causing delamination of the slab The cross sectional area provided by the plate is not necessarily optimally utilized.and new concrete will cause the new column head to separate from the older slab. This can be problematic. This can be achieved rather easily by increasing the column diameter with shotcrete. Reasons for concern are the following: The plate may act as a bond breaker between the existing concrete and the new overlay.1.
Fig. 82 . 5. Doweling additional bars into the existing slab This remedial method will be very easy and fast to install.3.1. durable and reliable. rendering a higher shear capacity. 5. as well as relatively inexpensive. thus resulting in a bigger critical perimeter being considered. it can be time consuming and rather expensive to install.1.1. However.3. Installation of additional shear reinforcing The slabcolumn connection can be strengthened by means of installing additional shear reinforcing. 5. 5.4 Punching capacity increased with increased column cross section The punching shear capacity of the slabcolumn connection can now be calculated using the enlarged column cross section.This remedial measure is cost effective. The new shear reinforcing would typically consist of short reinforcing bars grouted into holes drilled in the slab.3 Punching capacity increased with added column head Fig.
5. the bonded bars should be at least as effective as bars cast into the slab during construction. Slab strengthened with vertical bolts In the case where an insufficient quantity of shear reinforcing is provided. HILTI HITRE 500® or similar – is used.6. 5. If a proper adhesive grout – e. is not adequate. 5.g. the strength of the bolt is utilised along its length only if it is properly bonded to the concrete – simply assuming that the restraint provided by the bolt heads alone.2.5 Punching capacity increased with additional shear reinforcing The increased punching shear capacity can now be calculated taking the additional shear reinforcing into account. Fig. 83 .Fig.3.6 Slab strengthened with vertical bolts Due to the fact that micro cracking of the slab takes place during failure.1. additional shear reinforcing can be added by merely perforating the slab around the column to install steel bolts into the slab – Fig 5. For 450MPa reinforcing bars pullout tests on bars grouted with these grouts mostly result in the bars yielding before concrete pullout failure.
5. Repairing slabcolumn connections showing distress due to punching shear failure or near failure Similar to the strengthening of a slabcolumn connection there are certain basic points that need to be addressed when repairing a damaged structure.2. It should be kept in mind that most structural repairs are fairly to very expensive and will be disruptive to the normal use of the structure or part thereof. 84 .7 Typical Star Cracking  Circumferential cracking around the column is usually evident at about 80% of the ultimate punching shear capacity of slabs without shear reinforcing. When dealing with punching shear failure the following should be considered (Wood et al 1998): Prior to collapse no signs of distress will be evident on the soffits of the slab under question Star / radial cracking on top of the slab is merely an indication of the redistribution of permissible flexural stresses and does not give an indication of the shear behaviour of the slabcolumn connection Fig 5. Proposed Classification of Damage The risk of collapse and the extent of damage on a structure must be assessed by means of visual inspection.2.1.5. The old adage stating prevention is better than cure is especially true when it comes to the design for punching shear.
The shear crack can develop along the longitudinal tension reinforcing causing delamination.1.2.2. 5. Due to deterioration of the cover concrete and numerous other reasons the shear crack may never extend to the surface of the slab. The following grading is proposed: 5.1. Damage Level 1 – Minor to medium levels of damage Minor radial cracking originating from the column corners and concentric cracks forming around the column Minor deflection of the slab around the column and a possible crack pattern around the column indicative of a flexural failure 5. Damage Level 2 – Medium to severe levels of damage Extensive radial and concentric cracking around the column. with the possibility of shear cracks having developed through the full depth of the slab Crushing of the concrete at the column face Fig.2.8 Crushing of concrete at the column face 85 .1. In order to determine the type and extent of remedial works necessary. a system of grading the inflicted damage on the structure is needed.
quite a number of factors must be taken into account. depends on sound engineering judgement. 86 . In essence the structure / slab could collapse at any instant if additional loading is introduced or if the structure is damaged any further.2.1. o Excessive deflection of the slab surrounding the column o The slab being suspended on longitudinal reinforcing bars going through the column core. is the structure used as a hospital or as a unimportant storage facility o The expected servicelife of the repaired structure o Possible alteration in the use of the structure – e.2.2.g. Some of these factors are: o Age and condition of the structure o The use of the structure – i. the ratio of the level of permanent loads to level of live / repetitive loads o The importance of the structure – e.g.3. Proposed remedial works for the different levels of damage In order to apply the correct remedial measures to a specific structure.e. especially the latter one.5. The proposed remedial works presented in the following sections serve only as a guide and need to be adapted to suit each specific repair or strengthening application using sound engineering judgement. conversion of offices into apartments o The extent and severity of the damage to the structure The interpretation of theses factors. radial and concentric cracking on the slab surfaces and general disintegration of the concrete. Damage Level 3 – Extreme levels of damage o A myriad of diagonal shear cracks. 5. sufficient understanding of the failure mechanism and sufficient knowledge of the strengthening or structural principles used in the remedial measures.
2. some or all of the following measures could be implemented: Installation of additional shear reinforcing Increasing the slab thickness by means of added drop panels or concrete overlays Increasing the shear perimeter by means of increased column crosssection or the addition of bolton steel column heads Replacing the upper portion of the original concrete with a fibre reinforced concrete infill / overlay portion 87 .2. Repair of Damage Level 1 Typically the repair of a connection suffering a relatively minor level of damage will be less involved or invasive as for more extreme levels of damage.e. cracks deemed to impair the structural capacity of the connection In addition to this. i.2. The repair will most likely consist of methods similar to proposed strengthening procedures: Epoxy crack injection Installation of additional shear reinforcing Plate bonding to provide additional longitudinal reinforcing Additional drop panels or concrete overlays Increasing the column crosssection or adding column capitals 5. Repair of Damage Level 2 Repair of such a structure will at least entail the following procedures: Removal of all loose and unsound concrete Cleaning of the concrete substrate and cracks by means of high pressure water jetting Epoxy injection of all structural cracks.5.2.2.1.
and/or the addition of shear reinforcing (see 5.3. Punching shear problems due to seismic or lateral loading can be addressed similar to normal punching shear problems. Repair of Damage Level 3 Repair of a structure damaged to this extent will comprise of extreme remedial measures. increasing the area of load transfer. 88 .2. disruption of use and intervention. structures subject to lateral loading can show premature punching shear distress due to unbalanced moments transferred to the supporting columns. i.2. The repair process will at least incorporate the following steps: Propping of the slab adjacent to the damaged slabcolumn connection(s) Demolition of the slab surrounding the column.5.e.9. Similar methods to increase punching shear resistance have been proposed by Martinez et al (1994) – Fig 5. with special care being taken not the damage the existing reinforcing Jacking of the surrounding intact slab portions to an appropriate level if necessary Installation of dowels into the edge of the original concrete slab Epoxy injection of all the remaining visible cracks Enlarging of the slabcolumn interface by means of enlarging the column or addition of a column capital Casting of a new slab with sufficient longitudinal reinforcing. Retrofitting of slabcolumn connections for improved behaviour under seismic loading conditions As described earlier.3. thus increasing the critical perimeter. shear reinforcing and/or drop panels to resist the required load capacity 5.1). increasing the effective depth of the slab and adding flexural reinforcing.
9 Proposed retrofitting of a slabcolumn connection for added seismic resistance to punching shear (Martinez et al 1994) For dynamic loading there is a need to increase the ductility of the slabcolumn connection as much as possible. the resistance of the connection is maintained over a large deflection range.8 Fibre reinforced concrete infill 89 . In most cases the addition of steel fibres can increase the punching loads by up to 36% (Harajli et al 1995). Fibre reinforced concrete infill panel Fig 5.1. 5. i. Even more significant than the increased capacity is the increased toughness of the connections.e. the use of fibre reinforced concrete (FRC) can be well suited to this application.Fig 5.3. In addition to the conventional methods proposed earlier.
9 Concrete replacement with fibre reinforced concrete Replacing the conventional concrete slab portion surrounding the column with an FRC panel will result in a connection with a totally different behaviour under both dynamic loading and static loading. According to some testing the slabcolumn connection will tend towards flexural failure instead punching shear failure. the ultimate punching capacity of the slab can be increased significantly. Failure of this FRC portion will be more ductile than conventional concrete showing more but less pronounced cracks. 90 .The replacement of the upper portion of concrete with FRC renders a tensile zone in the slab with a wholly different behaviour under loading. Demolition of part of the existing concrete slab and replacement thereof with fibre reinforced concrete Fig 5.2.3. Given that proper and problemfree joining of the two concrete materials can be achieved. Special attention should be given to: Shrinkage cracking and possible delamination from the existing concrete substrate due to differential movement Delamination of the two different concrete portions under loading 5.
Some teething problems with the test set up still need to be resolved. The test will provide the basis for possible future research both in the updating of the SABS 0100 concrete design code and research into the beneficial use of fibre reinforced concrete for the retrofitting or repair of existing slabcolumn connections The damaged slab is to serve as a springboard to judge the performance of some of the proposed repair methods. The reasons for using a foreign code as opposed to the SABS 0100 code is the following: The current SABS code is based on BS81101:1985. Experimental Testing of an Undamaged Slabcolumn Connection For the proposed experimental testing it was decided that for the purpose of this publication only one test slab would be constructed according to the latest German design code.6. The only code conforming to acceptable reliability is DIN 10451. DIN 10451 has been calibrated using all available test data to render a 5% fractile of safety. DIN 10451 (2001). even though such a judgement may be a hitandmiss affair. since the support frames used for the previous testing were done away with long ago. The obtained test data can also be used in future studies on punching shear failure using finite element methods Prediction of the punching capacity of the slab and the evaluation of the required shear reinforcing was done in accordance with the DIN 10541 code. According to the findings in the technical report “Punching of structural concrete slabs” by the fib (2001) slabs designed according to BS8110 does not comply with acceptable reliability criteria. The reasons for following this route were: Previous punching shear tests in the structures laboratory at the University of Stellenbosch were done in 1971 on a series of slabs differing dimensionally from this publication‟s test slab. 91 . The test would provide a basis on which the performance of the DIN code could be assessed.
Longitudinal reinforcing provided would be such that flexural failure does not occur – refer to Appendix A for calculations. Restraint of the slab and load application to the column is illustrated in Fig 6. Experimental Test Setup For the purpose of this publication a single column setup was proposed. 92 . Punching shear design for the final Eurocode2 will most likely be based on the DIN 10451 formulation.1. It was set out to build and test a slabcolumn connection consisting of a 2400mm x 2400mm.2.1. 220mm thick 30MPa slab and a 200mm x 200mm square concrete column.1 Proposed laboratory setup The punching shear capacity of the slab is estimated with the latest DIN 10451 recommendations and the accompanying shear reinforcement designed to deliver a slabcolumn connection with an estimated failure load of approximately 375kN (Appendix A). Fig 6. 6. The construction sequence of the test panel is outlined in Fig 6.
thus making the risk too big for not being able to repair the test model.Fig 6. The available laboratory is equipped with anchoring positions on a square grid spaced at 914mm centretocentre. Effectively a 1828mm x 1828mm slab was tested . thus eight supports could be used to restrain the slab – Fig 6.2 Construction of the Test Panel The decision to repair a slab with shear reinforcing instead of a slab without shear reinforcing is due to the nature of punching shear failure.3.the excess 93 . Testing a slab without shear reinforcing could easily fail in a brittle manner and collapse.
length of the panel providing ample space to anchor the reinforcing sufficiently and as far away from the supports as possible.4. Fig 6. Fig 6.4 Concrete slab lowered onto the steel rods 94 . The slab was loaded by placing the hydraulic jack(s) in series with a load cell between the column and the laboratory floor – Fig 6.3 Steel rods and hydraulic jack on the laboratory floor The slab was anchored to the very stiff laboratory floor with 25mm diameter threaded steel rods.
Subsequently.Fig 6. Proposed Test Procedure In a series of tests the total loaddeformation behaviour of a slab can be established. one can study repair methods by predamaging the specimen with the application of an increasing 95 .2. 4 & 5 – Fig 6. 6. on a new slab specimen. A single LVDT placed in the middle of the slab – designated as 1 Four LVDTs placed at the corner supports on the slab – designated as 2. and not of the fundamentals behind the failure and the modelling of numerous parameters in order to estimate the punching shear capacity of the connection. 3.5 A load cell between the hydraulic jack and the column stub was used to monitor the applied force Both the LVDTs and the load cell were linked to a desktop computer via a data acquisition system (Spider 8) for real time data recording It was decided that no strain gauges were necessary since the focus is more on the global behaviour of punching failure and the practical repair thereof.5 The test slab set up with all the instrumentation For the acquisition of raw test data the following instrumentation was used: 5 LVDTs were placed on the top of the slab.
as well as concrete and concrete. Material Test Results At construction of the test panel numerous 150mm concrete cubes were cast. This time the slab will either be tested to total collapse or tested to a more severe state of damage.1. 6.3. In this study.1 MPa 54. Application of the product is uncomplicated Rapid curing After proper curing has taken place a second punching shear test will be done. Actual Test – Virgin test panel 6. From a technical point of view the reasons for using a high strength and flowable epoxy grout are: The grout is rather free flowing and will penetrate the cracks surrounding the drilled hole to a certain extent to give some degree of epoxy injection to mend the cracked concrete This grout offers superior bonding strength between reinforcing and concrete. giving the following results: Cube 1: Cube 2: Cube 3: 49. If a higher degree of damage is to be repaired. time allowed testing and repair of one slab only. The additional reinforcing consisted of vertical reinforcing bars doweled into the slab using epoxy grout.0 MPa 96 .6 MPa 51. Then grouting or another repair method can be applied and it‟s effectiveness tested.3. the abovementioned steps will be repeated until the slab is not fit to be repaired any more.load up to the point where a peak value is reached. The repair and strengthening of the slab was envisaged as the installation additional shear reinforcing in the slab. On the day of testing three (3) of the cubes were crushed.
Due to the creep and/or loss of hydraulic pressure there are some points on the load vs. 97 . Operation of the hydraulic pump was stopped whenever any significant events took place. Loads 1 & 2 were done with a single 62.20 MPa 6. Load Application The load on the concrete column stub was applied using a hydraulic 62.g. The three applications are designated as Load 1.6 MPa 2. the graph rebounded to the initial slope of the curve. When pumping stopped some hydraulic fluid flowed back towards the pump and some creep in the concrete took place.Average: Standard Deviation: 51.5 ton jack. The jack was placed in series with a digital load cell and a Tefloncoated swivelhead. Due to unforeseen circumstances (as discussed in the following sections) the panel was subjected to three (3) load applications. deflection graphs where slight unloading of the test panel takes place. Load 2 and Load 3.2.3. e. audible concrete cracking and/or visible cracks appearing on the concrete surface. However when pumping resumed. while Load 3 was done using two similar jacks in series driven by a more powerful hand operated hydraulic pump.5 ton jack driven by a hand operated hydraulic pump.
Elapsed Time 6. The one sleeve was misaligned approximately 15mm and the hole had to be reamed with a concrete drill to get the rod through.3. Due to the strength of the concrete the hole wasn‟t vertical and the bolt rubbed against the sides of the hole.6 Column Load vs.7) onto the supporting rods the rods and the penetrations in the slab did not line up properly PVC sleeves were fixed to the shuttering and reinforcing prior to casting to provide the necessary openings for the supporting rods to pass through.Fig 6.3. Placement and Setting Up of the Test Panel When lowering the test panel (Fig 6. During the casting process two of the sleeves moved. Fig 6.7 Test Panel Placement 98 .
Since LVDT 2 & 3 were screwed into Perspex plates.8 Bending of LVDT stanchions Due to this movement the LVDTs were placed on the concrete. Subsequently the measured deflection values underwent a jump in value and needed some adjustment. As the panel deformed the flexible supporting rods would allow the edges to move inwards. thus no membrane forces could develop.9 and Fig 6. which is only possible if the edges move towards the centre as the centre displaces vertically. The adjustment was done by inspection and adding/subtracting a constant value to the affected measurements to render a more realistic curve.Due to the misalignment there was some friction on the rods indicated by the increases in load without any significant deflection of the support (designated with arrows on the graph. The deformation can be visualized as a square piece of paper forced to take a conical shape. Fig 6.10 respectively.3. This also meant that the slab would move horizontally underneath the LVDTs.8. The measured and adjusted behaviours of Corner 1 and Corner 2 can be seen in Fig 6. Original Panel – Load Application 1 The test slab was only restrained vertically. 99 . the movement of the slab caused the stanchions on the LVDTs to bend – Fig 6. 6. This is quite significant for Corner 3 and less pronounced for Corner 4.4.
100 .10 Corner 2 – Measured & Adjusted Deflection Values Due to the friction on the steel rods and the crushing of little concrete imperfections on the slab.11. the first loading sequence shows a fairly jumpy load vs.Fig 6.9 Corner 1 – Measured & Adjusted Deflection Values Fig 6. deflection curve – Fig 6.
Corner Support Deflections From Fig 6. Fig 6. Average Relative Middle Deflection 101 .11 Load 1 – Column Load vs.Fig 6.11 it is evident that the deflection behaviours of LVDTs 2 & 3 do not follow the same trend as that of LVDTs 4 & 5. Even though the latter two are more affected by the friction between the supporting rods and the slab.12 Load 1 – Column Load vs. Consequently all further calculations are based upon the average deflections of LVDTs 4 & 5. deflection. they follow a more acceptable linear behaviour of load vs.
indicative of flexural cracking – Fig 6.5mm deflection. 102 . ±2. The first visible cracking took place at approximately 1. 0kN to ±350kN column load The stiffness of the slab is initially parabolic and then settles to a linear trend. Once again the horizontal movements on the graph are indicative of the stages where new cracks were inspected and marked on the slab.12 the following can be concluded: 0mm to ±2.5mm deflection and 250kN – Fig 6.13 (a) & (b) The horizontal movements on the graph are due to observers bumping the test panel while inspecting and marking the newly formed cracks.13 First visible cracking on the concrete surface From 250kN to 350kN the crack pattern grew into a radial pattern.5mm to ±8. (a) (b) (c) Fig 6.13 (c).5mm deflection.From Fig 6. ±350kN to ±550kN column load The panel continued to behave with a linear increase in deflection for the growing load.
Fig 6.14 Growing flexural cracks The flexural cracks continued to grow in a radial pattern towards the edges.16 Radial crack pattern prior to unloading 103 . as seen in Fig 6. Fig 6. The increased load caused the cracks formed at lower loads to open up more significantly – Fig 6.17.15 Appearance of first shear cracks at 475kN Before unloading a distinct radial crack pattern is visible – as can be seen in Fig 6.15.16. Fig 6. At approximately 475kN the first shear crack appeared around the column – Fig 6.14.
Consequently. The positive residual deflection of the centre of the slab indicates plastic deformation and a certain degree of damage (cracking) already inflicted on the slab. ±8.17 Increased crack width Due to behaviour of the LVDTs at Corner 1 & 2. Should the slab start yielding due to flexural failure.12.19. the Load vs.5. After unloading. it is clear that further plastic deformation took place. ductile failure. it was decided to unload the slab and modify the test equipment to increase its loading capacity.Fig 6. Original Panel – Load Application 2 Due to the fact that initial cracking had already taken place.3.e. the test was terminated at approximately 550kN. Punching shear failure was not yet achieved at the maximum loading capacity of the original test setup. 104 . It should be noted that the elastic limit for the bending steel has not yet been reached. i.5mm to ±3mm deflection (unloading) Removing the applied column load caused an approximately linear elastic unloading behaviour of the test specimen – Fig 6. Deflection curve would form a plateau with increasing deflection. the response of the test panel was practically linear with the second load application – Fig 6. 6.
19 from ±5mm deflection to unloading.18 Load 2 – Column Load vs. Subsequently the average value of the corner deflections was calculated using only Corners 1. The second load application caused the existing cracks to become more pronounced. pumping became more strenuous to the operator. the loaddeflection behaviour of Corner 3 differs considerably from that of the other corners. As the jack approached the end of its capacity. Corner Deflections With the second load application the effect of the misaligned support at Corner 3 (LVDT 4) can be seen clearly. 105 . The friction causes the support to have sudden deflections as the frictional forces are overcome at distinct instances. As seen in Fig 6. The lower rate of load application seems to cause the response curve to flatten – as seen in Fig 6. 2 & 4.18.Fig 6.
the maximum loading capacity of the setup was increased by introducing a second hydraulic jack (Fig 6.19 Load 2 – Column Load vs.20 New hydraulic jack.20) and a bigger capacity hydraulic hand pump. Original Panel – Load Application 3 In order to push the test panel to punching failure. Fig 6. load cell and swivelhead arrangement 106 .Fig 6.6.3. Average Relative Middle Deflection 6.
the average value of corners 1.21 Load 3 – Column Load vs.Fig 6. In order to do plot the loaddeflection behaviour of the slab panel. Average Relative Middle Deflection For the third load application the following significant stages can be highlighted: 107 .22 Load 3 – Column Load vs. 3 & 5) were used – Fig 6. Corner Deflections Once again the measurements taken at LVDT 5 (Corner 3) differed substantially from the other three corner measurements – Fig 6.22. 2 & 4 (LVDTs 2.21. Fig 6.
24 Appearance of the second shear crack 108 . 725kN to ±850kN The angle of response started to decrease in this stage of the load application. ±6mm to ±8mm deflection. Fig 6.23. crushing of the concrete at the interface of the column and the slab soffit started – Fig 6.24. Fig 6. Firstly. 0kN to ±725kN Reloading of the slab shows a fairly linear relation between the applied load and measured deflections. further away from the column – Fig 6. another shear crack appeared on the concrete surface.23 Concrete crushing at the column face Secondly. 0mm to ±6mm deflection. Cracking of concrete was quite audible towards 725kN. Between 750kN and 850kN two significant observations could be made.
5mm to ±13mm deflection. For most materials a single test from the undamaged state to failure produces an upper bound reaction curve.Fig 6. 6. the rate of recovery was much lower than for the previous two load applications. 109 .5mm deflection.25 Highlighted possible punching shear cracks ±8mm to ±10. the testing produced three sets of data instead of one single series. 2 &3 Due to the high punching resistance of the slab. as in the above tests. ±10. ±850kN Suddenly. The deflection increased dramatically with a lower resistance to the column load. accompanied by audible cracking inside the concrete. The test panel could be seen deflecting. unloading Upon unloading the slab once again recovered in a linear fashion.7. Original Panel – Combination of results – Loads 1. The residual deflection is also substantially more than for loads 1 & 2. ±850kN to ±450kN It was clear that the slab had reached its failure load. ±13mm to ±5. showing an increased deflection for a fairly constant load. the stiffness of the panel decreased.5mm deflection. however.3. For a limited number of load repetitions.
29).28) one obtains the assumed envelope of response (Fig 6.26 Load 1 – Response Curve Fig 6. Using the data as adjusted previously and adding the residual displacement of each preceding test (Fig’s 6. Thus it is fairly safe to assume that the addition of the three consecutive tests will produce a response curve of which the envelope will be representative of a single test. Fig 6.27 Load 2 – Translated Response Curve 110 .unloading and reloading of the specimen should render a curve bounded by that of a single test.27 6.26 6.
29 the behaviour of the panel can be summarized as follows: For the first part the slab shows a fairly steep elastic behaviour. After cracking of the concrete takes place the stiffness decreases to a lower. 2 &3 From Fig 6.Fig 6. yet constant value. This is confirmed by the crack pattern. 111 .28 Load 3 – Translated Response Curve Fig 6. it is not typical brittle behaviour. Close to the failure load the deflection starts to increase more drastically at a sustained load level and suddenly the slab loses its load carrying capacity.29 Combined Translated Response Curves – Load 1. Even though the decrease in capacity is rather drastic.
3.788 112 . This same assumption was used in the comparative calculations in the fip Bulletin 12 (2001). 2. 6. At this angle the failure plane will cross both rows of shear reinforcing.788mm (6. 2. Accordingly the ultimate punching shear capacity calculation is as follows: (The following equations are extracted from 2.1) d 10 tan 154 r1 79. with an intermediate level of ductility between shear failure (brittle) and flexural failure (ductile.8) 154 tan 30 r2 346. 2. with a plateau being reached at the peak resistance).8.3) Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw Fp (eq.It can be concluded that a mixed flexural.shear failure occurred.46mm r1 rs (eq.52mm r2 79.5) Calculation of Fct rs rs l1 l2 2 200 200 2 rs 79. Verification of test results with the method proposed by Menétrey (2002) Punching shear failure of slabs with shear reinforcing is generally accepted to be in the region of 30°.1.7) r2 rs d tan (eq.788 10 tan 30 r1 106.
9 1542 (eq.9141% 220 1000 (6.14) Assuming the maximum aggregate size of 19mm 1.25 h 79.1 0.788 0.198 According to the CEBFIP Committee the tensile strength of is f t 0. 2.3) 0.5 220 220 1.6 1 d da 1 2 154 2 1. 2. 2.6 1 19 0.12) 0.1 1.257 MPa 2011 9.9 d 2 346.25 0.s s r2 r1 2 0.9141 0.35 0.46 0.462 0.082 (eq.46 0.24 f cu f t 0. 2.1 s 0.52 106.1 2 0.91412 0.9) s 277.53 1 (eq.24 50 2 3 2 3 (6.2) f t 3.5 2 r h 2 rs 1.687 (eq.35 0.141103 0.15) 113 .788 79.
2.10) 3 0.52 100 (6. Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw Fp and s 450MPa .67 s 397.52) 277.606MPa (eq.Fct r1 r2 s v Fct r1 r2 s f t 3 2 Fct (106. 2. 2.93 103 tan 30 4377. As is taken as the total area of longitudinal tensile reinforcing crossing the circle defined by r2. with the average spacing of the tensile reinforcing. since the ultimate punching load is needed to calculate the tensile stress in the longitudinal reinforcing.e.53 Calculation of Fdow The calculation of Fdow is more complicated.082 0.687 1.77 2 346.17) s fs 397.198 3. In order to obtain the Fpun value the Excel solver is used with two constraining conditions.606 450 0. i. # _ bars 21.4) 114 .46 346.257 Fct 341.884 (eq.56kN 2 (eq.16) The number of bars is estimated by dividing the circumference of a circle with radius r2. s s tan As Fpun 1004.
48 0 Fpun 1004.15) 2 Fdow 97.74kN This calculated capacity is higher than the experimental failure load. i. the results are: Fct Fdow Fsw → = 410.56 97.70kN Calculation of Fsw Assuming that the yield stress of the shear reinforcing is reached the contribution thereof is: Fsw Asw f sw sin sw Fsw 16 102 4 Fsw 565.77 16 2 50 450 1 0.48kN 450 sin 90 (eq.7 565.1 Fdow s2 f c f s 1 2 sin 2 bars 1 Fdow 21. 2.e.58kN = 208. By investigating a scenario with the shear crack originating outside the first perimeter of reinforcing.61kN = 282.94kN Again the calculated capacity of the system is higher than the experimental failure load.22) Failure Load Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw Fp Fpun 341. rs 175mm and 8 shear stirrups intersecting the failure plane.74kN Fpun = 901. 115 . 2.884 2 sin 30 (eq.
Similarly if the shear crack originates outside the second perimeter of reinforcing, i.e. rs 290mm and no shear stirrups intersecting the failure plane, the results are: Fct Fdow Fsw → = 465.50kN = 304.54kN = 0.00kN Fpun = 770.04kN
The capacity of the slabcolumn connection outside the shear reinforced area is less than the failure load achieved in the experiment. However it corresponds roughly with the point at which the slope of the load vs. displacement curve started to decrease.
Fig 6.25
Combined Translated Response Curves (Load 1, 2 & 3) and Failure Load Calculated by Menétrey‟s Method.
Further discussion of the slab behaviour and conclusions based on the tests can be found in Chapter 8.
116
7. Experimental Testing of Repaired Slabcolumn Connection
The first test inflicted a substantial amount of damage to the slab and caused a rather drastic capacity reduction. Ideally one would like to control the amount of damage inflicted more accurately so that the achieved level of damage suits a predetermined method of repair. This section describes the repair and testing of the damaged slabcolumn connection.
7.1. Classification of Damage and Proposed Method of Repair
Using the damage classification proposed earlier, it is safe to say that the test panel falls between Damage Levels 2 & 3. The facts leading to this conclusion are: Extensive radial cracking around the column is visible Shear cracks have developed to the surface of the slab Delamination along the tension reinforcing is occurring at certain locations around the column Crushing of concrete is taking place at the column and slab interface
Typically a columnslab connection in this condition would be extensively repaired by removing all unsound concrete, epoxy crack injection, installation of additional shear reinforcing, patching of the concrete slab and possibly increasing the area of load transfer.
The reasoning behind this approach is, firstly, epoxy injection would yield a slab with an unquantifiable amount of capacity added – it is difficult to judge how much of the epoxy pumped into cracks are filling voids and how much of it is actually bonding the disintegrated concrete. Secondly, the mere addition of additional shear reinforcing is by far the quickest and easiest measure to improve the punching capacity of the slab.
117
Using the mechanistic method proposed by Menétrey (2002), a calculation similar to that shown in 6.3.8 was used to estimate the amount of new shear reinforcing needed – see Appendix B. The following assumptions were made to achieve a peak load similar to that achieved in the previous test The concrete contribution can be ignored for the calculations on perimeter 1 and 2. The contribution to shear resistance of the cracked concrete is uncertain. Due to the ineffective anchorage of shear clips/stirrups in thin slabs, the shear reinforcing has not yielded yet. The bending steel did not yield in the first test.
With the help of Menétrey‟s method is was decided to add eight dowel bars to each of the original reinforcing perimeters and to add a third perimeter of shear reinforcing by means of 24 vertically doweled bars – Fig 11.4. The installation of additional shear reinforcing is similar to Fig. 5.5.
7.2. Repair of the damaged slab
The first step in the repair process was to map the position of the existing reinforcing. This was done with the help of a HILTI Ferroscan instrument, which allowed the accurate plotting of the underlying reinforcing relative to a reference grid placed on the concrete surface – see Fig 7.1.
Accurate information on the position of the reinforcing helps to position the holes for doweling the new shear reinforcing and to avoid hitting the existing reinforcing bars during drilling. In addition to this it also gives added insight into the meaning of the observed crack pattern.
118
Fig 7.2.3(b) shows the drilled holes in the slab. without the accompanying cracks appearing somewhere on the slab surface. The positions of the new shear reinforcing dowels were then indicated on the slab and the drilling commenced. This offers some insight on the fact that during testing a great deal of cracking was audible. Using the correct equipment drilling the required holes in the slab is fairly easy. In some places in the shear reinforced area one could feel brittle / hollow regions within the slab.2) some bars were hit during drilling. as shown in Fig 7. some were part of the bottom reinforcing and others were bars that were probably misaligned during the casting of the slab. Even though the existing reinforcing was mapped (Fig 7. Fig 7. Some of these were shear clips. As seen in Fig 7. Some of the bar positions were extrapolated from the data acquired by mapping certain areas on the slab.1 Mapping the existing reinforcing with the HILTI Ferroscan After plotting the positions of the existing longitudinal reinforcing the positions of the shear clips and the control perimeters were superimposed on the slab surface.3(a) the desired positions of the additional shear reinforcing bars were marked on the slab and drilling took place accordingly. It can only mean that not all the shear cracks developed to the 119 . Consequent to the Ferroscan being unable to scan the Y10 bottom reinforcing bars it was decided to drill only 180mm deep to avoid drilling onto them. During drilling one was able to distinguish from the drill feedback whether the slab was cracked or not as the drillbit progressed into the slab.
A total of three HILTI RE500 tubes were used to fill the holes.2 Shear reinforcing perimeters and reinforcing layout superimposed on the crack pattern (a) (b) (a) Positions (b) Positions Fig 7.3 of new shear reinforcing superimposed on the slab of the drilled holes After drilling.surface. The epoxy was allowed to cure for a weekend. all the holes were properly cleaned.4. 120 . These cracks probably evolved into delaminations along the tensile reinforcing. filled with HILTI RE500 epoxy adhesive and the reinforcing bars inserted in the holes – Fig 7. Fig 7.
5 and Fig 7.3. Load Application Similar to testing of the virgin panel two 62.1 MPa 53.3. The load evolutions for the two applications are shown in Fig 7. 121 . consequently the first load application was stopped. unwanted stress concentration and cracking occurred at the centre supports.2.3. Cube 1: Cube 2: Cube 3: Average: Standard Deviation: 51. Material Test Results On the day of testing three 150mm concrete cubes were crushed.6 MPa 0. The modus operandi was similar to the initial testing of the slab.4 Epoxy injection of the holes and the finished product 7.0 MPa 52. Testing of the Repaired Panel 7.5 ton hydraulic jacks driven by a handoperated pump were used.6 MPa 53.1.84 MPa 7.6.Fig 7. Due to migration of the cracking towards the supports. The bearing conditions at the middle supports were modified and a second load was applied.
3.6 Load 2 – Column load vs. Repaired Panel – Load Application 1 Having learnt form the initial testing the LVDTs were set up so that the end could move more freely on top of the concrete when inplane movement of the panel took place – see Fig 7.8. This can be clearly seen in Fig 7.7. Similar to the load applications on the virgin test panel some of the supports presented problems.3. Elapsed Time Fig 7. 122 . Elapsed Time 7.Fig 7.5 Load 1 – Column load vs.
it seems as if there were some interference with the LVDT at Corner 1.8 Column load vs. Secondly.7 Corner LVDT setup Fig 7. firstly.Fig 7. 123 . while the LVDTs at Corners 2 and 4 do not. In order to calculate an average corner deflection the measurements at Corner 1 was scrutinized and adjusted to remove the unwanted jump in the deflection and the measurements at Corner 3 were ignored. Corner 3 shows erratic behaviour due to friction between the supporting rod and the concrete. Corner Support Deflections From Fig 7. This instrument shows a substantial deflection at ±200kN.8 the following deductions can be made.
Fig 7.9
Column load vs. Adjusted Corner Support Deflections
Fig 7.10 Column load vs. Relative Middle Deflection
From Fig 7.10 the following can be concluded: 0mm to ±2.0mm deflection, 0kN to ±200kN column load Initially the response of the slab was parabolic, settling to a linear trend. At approximately 200kN the first of the original flexural cracks started to open up – Fig 7.11
124
Fig 7.11 Reappearance of original cracks ±2mm to ±6.0mm deflection, ±200kN to ±400kN column load Due to observers marking cracks on the slab some movement takes place, causing the erratic behaviour seen on the curve at 200kN, 300kN and 400kN. Virtually all the flexural cracks have opened up through the chalk locating on the slab at this stage. The crack pattern at approximately 400kN is shown in Fig 7.12.
125
Fig 7.12
Crack pattern at ±400kN
A very important crack appeared at this stage of the test. A shear crack was starting to appear on the concrete surface outside the newly installed third perimeter of shear reinforcing. This happened without the formation of new shear cracks within the shearreinforced zone – Fig 7.13.
Fig 7.13
Appearance of new shear cracks outside the perimeter of dowel bars
126
However. Fig 7. The support conditions had to be altered before the panel could be tested to destruction. ±6mm to ±10mm deflection. It was decided to stop the test. Cracking was audible inside the slab. Fig 7. Up to this point the new shear crack had become significantly visible and the slab seemed to be increasing in thickness.15 shows the load deflection behaviour of the repaired slab when it is added to the response of the undamaged specimen. it seems as if the cracking started to migrate towards the supports along the tensile reinforcing. 7. the measurements of the different tests can be added together. To get better insight into the behaviour of the repaired slab in comparison with the original. without significant new flexural or shear cracks appearing on the concrete surface.5mm deflection.14. Delamination of the concrete at theses supports was clearly evident. ±550kN to ±450kN column load The load carrying capacity of the slab reached a peak at approximately 550kN and the deflection started to increase accompanied by a lessening load carrying capacity. as seen in Fig. This probably happened due to stress concentrations at the middle supports between Corners 4 & 1 as well as Corners 1 & 2. 127 .14 Delamination due to cracking migrating to the supports ±10mm to ±12. ±400kN to ±550kN column load After the appearance of the shear crack outside the last perimeter of shear reinforcing. the angle of response on the loaddeflection curve decreased.
4. However. the support conditions of the slab were interfering with the mode of failure. It was thought best to increase the area of load transfer at the supports before any further testing took place – Fig 7.16. Relative Middle Deflection Original Panel & Repaired Panel 7. causing shear cracks to grow to the surface outside the shear reinforced zone.3. Delamination started to occur at the small bearing plates.Fig 7.15 Column Load vs. In essence this proves that the installation of additional reinforcing is an effective way of countering punching shear failure. due to the observed migration of cracking. 128 . Repaired Panel – Load Application 2 Due to the installation of additional shear reinforcing the shear cracking was forced to migrate away from the column.
17 Column load vs. Corner Support Deflections In order to calculate the average support deflection the measurements of only Corners 2 and 4 were used. The values measured at Corner 3 are too erratic due to the friction between the tie rod and the slab.16 Revised support conditions: (a) Original support. 129 .17. Fig 7.(a) (b) Fig 7. The deflection behaviour of Corner 1 is most likely due to the delamination and increased slab thickness observed in that quarter of the panel. (b) Revised Support Due to the friction in the supports reloading of the repaired panel caused erratic movements on the loaddeflection plots of the corner supports – as seen in Fig 7.
Secondly.18 Column load vs. firstly.20. Corner Support Deflections Fig 7. 0kN to ±400kN column load Reloading caused the slab to behave with an initial parabolic curve settling to a linear response from ±100kN onwards. 130 .19 Column load vs.0mm deflection.Fig 7. that delamination of the concrete continued at the supports. The two most important observations for this portion of the test were. despite the enlarged support area – see Fig 7.19 the following can be concluded: 0mm to ±7. extensive cracking within the slab was audible without any major crack appearances or growth on the slab surface. Relative Middle Deflection From Fig 7.
21 Development of the outer shear crack 131 . On the top surface of the slab.Fig 7. A peak value can be observed at approximately 425kN – Fig 7. the newly formed shear crack was growing around the last row of shear reinforcing.21. ±400kN to ±400kN column load At approximately 400kN the slope of the loaddeflection curve decreased dramatically. Post peak the load carrying capacity of the slab started to decrease with increased deflection.19. The direction of growth is indicated with dotted arrows.20 Delamination at middle support ±10mm to ±15mm deflection. Fig 7. as seen in Fig 7.
24. 132 . the slab thickness started to increase as a cone of concrete was being pushed out of the original slab. The behaviour of the slab is similar to bending failure behaviour in reinforced concrete. With continued pumping of the jacks the slab resistance remained fairly constant with very high and increasing middle deflections.22 Concrete spalling and punching of the column ±15mm to ±36mm deflection Punching shear failure of the slab has clearly taken place and it was decided to sustain the load application.On the soffit of the slab punching of the column could be clearly seen as well as concrete spalling below the original shear clips – see Fig 7. This can be clearly seen in Fig 7. Accompanying this. Delamination of the cover concrete became highly defined on the one end of the slab.22. Fig 7.23 & Fig 7.
Fig 7.23 Continued delamination and shear cracking Fig 7.24 Bulging of the slab 133 .
25 Column Load vs.25 the compilation of all the loaddeflection curves can be seen. Fig 7. Relative Middle Deflection Original Panel & Repaired Panel 134 . The jacks were kept extended to support the slab in its bulging form.Fig 7.24 – continued Bulging of the slab Further pumping was stopped and the instrumentation removed. In Fig 7.
The following observations were made: Delamination of the concrete was much worse on the one side of the slab.26 Intact shear reinforced zone The epoxy grout flowed into the cracks wherever the drilled holes intersected inclined shear cracks.3. Fig 7. It was so loose that it could be removed with bare hands. The concrete surrounding this crack was disintegrating quite badly. Dismantling of the failed slab panel With the jacks extended the loose cover concrete was removed and the slab thoroughly inspected.5.26 Removing the cover concrete The shearreinforced zone remained intact.7. 135 . Fig 7. When the loose concrete was removed it was clear that a very large shear crack developed outside the outer perimeter of shear reinforcing.
Fig 7.28 the bar on the left is clearly the shorter one of the two. When still in the slab it was seen that the shear crack migrated to find a path of least resistance underneath the shorter dowel.28.Fig 7. 136 . The dowel failed due to an insufficient depth of embedment or insufficient filling of the hole with epoxy.28 Extent of epoxy crack bonding Some of the dowel bars did not extend into the slab sufficiently. the epoxy flowed into the cracks only to a limited extent – Fig 7. On Fig 7.27 Epoxy bonding of a shear crack Due to the fact that the grout was only applied to the drilled holes with the supplied applicator.
30. This happened because the shear cracks developed from the slab soffit upwards at an angle and then continued along the top reinforcing causing the observed delaminations.29 Shear crack travelling beneath dowel The longitudinal reinforcing debonded outside the shearreinforced zone.Fig 7. The result of this opening of the hook is evident in the soffit cover concrete spalling underneath the shear clips – Fig 7. At some point the increasing slab thickness and consequent axial loading of the shear clip caused the 90° hook at the bottom of the slab to slip and bend open. 137 . As the slab increased in thickness the original shear clips started to take load.
the travel of the column was not vertical – see Fig 7. asymmetric levels of strength around the slab or eccentric loading of the column.30 Deformed shear clip and column punching through soffit Due to either asymmetric support conditions.31. This clearly caused a moment on the column.Fig 7.31 Misaligned column 138 . which in turn caused a differential shear stress distribution in the control perimeters. Consequently one side of the slab punched before the other side. Fig 7.
Due to the fact that shear reinforcing causes failure to move away from pure brittle failure. The inaccurate and variable estimation of actual failure loads raises concern. it would be good practice to detail all slabcolumn with shear stirrups. Consequently it is very likely that a slabcolumn connection will fail at a load much higher than anticipated and calculated. the punching shear design approach in SABS0100:2000 needs to be given attention. From the extensive work done by the Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib) it is clear that current design codes do not comply with the modern approach of reliability based design.8. Even though the repaired panel did not reach the failure load of the original panel. regardless whether it is needed or not. Conclusions Firstly an overview of the current design practise for the prevention of punching shear failure has been presented. can be judged as successful in principle due to the following reasons: (1) The extended shearreinforced zone remained intact (2) Punching failure occurred outside the shear reinforced zone (3) The doweled shear reinforcing bridged existing shear cracks and prevented the slab to fail on the failure surface formed with the initial test 139 . Modern code formulations allow a 5% probability of failure. The experimental testing of the original panel and the repaired panel leads to the following conclusions: Due to the reliabilitybased approach in the formulation of codified design formulas it is difficult to estimate the exact failure load of a structural system. It is recommended that further investigations be undertaken to verify the applicability of the new German design code (DIN 10451 2001) to our construction and detailing practices. Conclusions and Recommendations 8. South African concrete design is based on the recommendations of BS81101. repairing of the slab with vertical dowels and HILTI RE500 epoxy grout. In lieu of the findings by the fib.1.
2. It is proposed that a proper analysis and parametric study need to be undertaken to quantify the effectiveness of different repair methods. as well as a known point of failure. the anchorage of the tension reinforcing is compromised. The influence of the supports on the testing of both an undisturbed and repaired panel need to be investigated and better understood. Due to delamination of the concrete. epoxy injection of all cracks is essential for a more effective repair. i. This should preferably be done after removing of all unsound cover concrete and other loose concrete. Shear cracking appears to travel along the bottom reinforcing. If several panels of exactly the same virgin behaviour can be produced.e. past dowels not installed to a sufficient depth and then grows at an angle towards the top of the slab. Only nine specimens in the fib databank used high strength concrete. circular. causing boundary interference. The best option would be to thread the ends of the bars and install nuts and plates at both ends to provide better anchorage in addition to the epoxy grout. Consequently the method of Menétrey (2002) may overestimate the contribution of the doweling effect of the tension reinforcing. Recommendations Due to cracking within the slab. hexagonal. etc. When installing vertical dowels it would be better to let the bars protrude from the slab soffit. 140 . In the view of future testing of repaired models the following need to be considered: It is essential to manufacture an undamaged panel with a known behaviour under loading. 8. With the additional testing the slab was most probably damaged further away from the column than anticipated. Injection has to be done under pressure. More punching shear tests with high strength concrete are needed. it will be possible to test the effectiveness of different repair methods at varying levels of initial damage. Other panel layouts should be investigated and tested.
The behaviour of a repaired slabcolumn connection subject to both vertical loading and unbalanced moments needs to be investigated. 141 .
142 .607 (9.1) 3 f y Pbend x f y d 2 1 4 f cu 2011 450 3 2011 2 7. 1 x 8 0. it is important that the amount of provided bending reinforcing is such that bending failure does not occur. while punching failure must not be prevented.2) The chosen top reinforcing of the slab is sufficient to resist a column load of up to ±966kN without failing in flexure. Since the punching shear capacity is also related to the amount of longitudinal reinforcing provided. bending failure of the slab needs to be prevented.172 1 200 1828 7.172 1 D L 1 8 0.607 450 154 1 154 1000 154 1000 4 50 966kN (9. Appendix A – Estimation of the experimental model’s punching shear capacity and the design of the required shear reinforcing In order to do a proper punching shear experiment.9. According to Mervitz (1971) the ultimate bending capacity can be estimated using a formulation found in ACI31863. The calculation below is done using the intended concrete crushing strength of the slab as 30MPa with Y16 bars at 100mm spacing.
02 bw d (9.for prestress N < 0 Ac 143 .7) N sd .6) (9.5) 1 cd 200 2.4) 1.3) h d fcu fy c Slab thickness Average effective slab depth Characteristic concrete cube strength Characteristic steel yield stress Cover thickness Tension reinforcing diameter Ratio of tensile reinforcing [Refer to 3.5 for clarification of the symbols used below] Shear capacity without shear reinforcing VRd .12 cd d ucrit 1 (9.0 d (9.ct 0.1 100 l f ck 3 0.0 for normal concrete l Asl 0.Column size: Slab thickness: Cover: Tension reinforcing : Concrete design strength: d d avg h c 200 30 16 154mm 200mm x 200mm 200mm 30mm 16mm 30MPa (9.
a a vRd .ct .5d Using these design equations a spreadsheet was set up to design the test panel.14) (9.sy ui vRd .71 3.8) (9.1 100 l f ck ui 0.12) A f u 1 P 0.ct (9.7 f y (9.12 cd d s swi yd i ui 1000 Rearranging (9. For the design of the test panel the following parameters were considered to be unity: The enhancement factor ( Partial material factors (rebar.i vRd .Calculation of required punching shear reinforcing VRd .sy.1 100 l f ck 3 0.12 cd d ui u Aswi i s 0.12 cd d (9.1 100 l f c 3 0.11) (9.12) yields the required area of shear reinforcing P 103 1 0.15) a 1 0. conc) 144 .29lw 0.13) Punching outside the shear reinforcing vRd .ct 0.sy vcrd (9.10) 1 3 s Aswi f yd vcrd vRd .
Table 9.1 Punching Design with 30MPa Concrete 145 .
6MPa Concrete 146 .2 Punching Design with 51.Table 9.
788mm d 10 tan 154 r1 79. Appendix B – Calculations using the Mechanistic Model Proposed by Menétrey As extracted from 6.52mm r2 79.10.1.198 According to the CEBFIP Committee the tensile strength of is 147 .462 0.46mm r1 rs r2 rs d tan 154 tan 30 r2 346.788 s s r2 r1 2 0. Virgin Test Panel Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw Fp Shear crack originating at the column face Calculation of Fct rs rs l1 l2 2 200 200 2 rs 79.52 106.8 the capacity calculation of the test panel using Menétrey‟s method is done as follows: 10.9 1542 s 277.788 10 tan 30 r1 106.9 d 2 346.3.
788 0.141103 0.6 1 d da 1 2 154 2 1.082 2 2 Assuming the maximum aggregate size of 19mm 1.25 h h 79.687 r r 0.788 79.53 1 Fct r1 r2 s v Fct r1 r2 s f t 3 2 Fct (106.6 1 19 0.52) 277.35 0.46 0.91412 0.5 220 220 1.1 0.687 1.257 Fct 341.257 MPa 2011 9.53 Calculation of Fdow The calculation of Fdow is more complicated.198 3.082 0.35 0.5 s 1.f t 0.24 50 2 3 2 3 f t 3.1 1.24 f cu f t 0.9141% 220 1000 0.46 346.56kN 2 3 0.9141 0.1 2 0.25 0.46 0.1 s 0. since the ultimate punching load is needed to calculate the tensile stress in the 148 .
longitudinal reinforcing.884 2 sin 30 2 Fdow 97. The objective of the solver is to maximize the ratio of Fcalc:Ftest.606MPa s fs 397.884 The number of bars is estimated by dividing the circumference of a circle with radius r2. Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw Fp and s 450MPa .77 2 346. with the average spacing of the tensile reinforcing.70kN Calculation of Fsw 149 .67 s 397.93 103 tan 30 4377. s s tan As Fpun 1004.52 100 1 Fdow s2 f c f s 1 2 sin 2 bars 1 Fdow 21. it is merely used to comply with the way the solver is set up in Microsoft Excel As is taken as the total area of longitudinal tensile reinforcing crossing the circle defined by r2.e.606 450 0.77 16 2 50 450 1 0. # _ bars 21. In order to obtain the Fpun value the Microsoft Excel solver is used with two constraining conditions. i. The calculated value has no real value.
e. the results are: Fpun Fct Fdow = 901. i.58kN = 208.74kN Microsoft Excel Calculation Fig 10.7 565.1 Menétrey – Crack from column face Shear crack originating at the first perimeter of shear clips By investigating a scenario with the shear crack originating outside the first perimeter of reinforcing.48kN 450 sin 90 Failure Load Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw Fp Fpun 341. rs 175mm and 8 shear stirrups intersecting the failure plane.56 97.94kN = 410.Assuming that the yield stress of the shear reinforcing is reached the contribution thereof is: Fsw Asw f sw sin sw Fsw 16 102 4 Fsw 565.61kN 150 .48 0 Fpun 1004.
74kN Fig 10.54kN = 0.50kN = 304. i. the results are: Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw = 770.2 Menétrey – Crack from first shear perimeter Shear crack originating at the second perimeter of shear clips Similarly if the shear crack originates outside the second perimeter of reinforcing.04kN = 465.Fsw = 282. rs 290mm and no shear stirrups intersect the failure plane.e.00kN 151 .
Four different cases were considered (1) Shear crack originating at the column face The following assumptions were made: The concrete contribution can be ignored 24 bars cross the shear crack. etc. On the second perimeter the 8 new bars and the 8 existing clips are taken into account. Repaired Test Panel Using the calculations presented above and assuming a shear crack at 30º a rough estimate of the repaired panel‟s capacity was attempted.3 Menétrey – Crack from second shear perimeter 10. 152 . Only 8 of the bars on the inner perimeter are considered as still effective due to anchorage slip.2.Fig 10.
(2) Shear crack originating at the first perimeter of shear reinforcing The following assumptions were made: The concrete contribution can be ignored 16 bars cross the shear crack. (3) Shear crack originating at the second perimeter of shear reinforcing The following assumptions were made: The concrete contribution can be ignored 153 . Only the second perimeter is assumed to bridge the shear crack.
154 . 24 bars cross the shear crack. Only the third perimeter is assumed to bridge the shear crack. (4) Shear crack originating at the third perimeter of shear reinforcing The following assumptions were made: The concrete contribution is taken into account No bars are crossing the shear crack.
Appendix C – Construction Details Fig 11.1 Test Panel Reinforcing Schedule 155 .11.
2 Drawings for Formwork Manufacturing (not to scale) 156 .Fig 11.
3 Sketch for Placement of Original Shear Reinforcing Fig 11.Fig 11.4 Sketch for Placement of Additional Shear Reinforcing 157 .
7) 158 .3) n A 5.5) General m 2 m' m 1 i 1.12.1) Edge Columns m' m (11.14 i V 1 3 n A V (11. Appendix D – Prediction of Flexural Failure at Slabcolumn Connections – Yield Line Approach (Goodchild 2003) Internal Columns m m' m (1 i) V 2 n A 1 3 V (11.14 m V 1 3 V (11.4) Corner Columns n A 2 m V 1 3 V (11.2) 180 (11.6) Extent of yield pattern r a b V n A (11.
m m‟ n A V Positive ultimate moment Negative ultimate moment Ultimate uniformly distributed load Area of column cross section Ultimate load transferred to the column from the tributary area Inscribed angle of the corner kNm/m kNm/m kN/m2 m2 kN 159 .
With the use of a special gasket epoxy can be injected directly into the crack Step 4: Mixing of epoxy Mixing takes place continuously or in batches. Acids and corrosives are not permitted. In the continuous mixing system the two components of the epoxy pass through 160 . Where the crack face cannot be reached. cracks should be cut out to a depth of about 13mm and about 20mm wide in a Vshape. Where extremely high injection pressures are needed. grease. Step 3: Installation of injection ports Three methods are generally used: (a) Drilled holes with a fitting inserted. but where there is backfill. Appendix E – Method for Epoxy Crack Injection Step 1: Clean the cracks Oil. care should be taken that the amount mixed should match the amount that can be used before gel of the epoxy takes place. Mechanical means or appropriate solvents should remove these foreign substances. dirt. the backfill material is often an adequate seal. When using the batch mixing procedure. Commonly a pipe nipple or tire valve is bonded into the hole (b) Bonded flush fitting. This groove should then be filled with epoxy and finished flush with the concrete surface. These fittings are commonly used when the cracks are not cut before sealing (c) Interruption in seal. Step 2: Seal the surface Surface cracks are to be sealed in order to prevent leakage of the epoxy before it has gelled.13. efflorescence and concrete particles will prevent desired epoxy penetration and bonding. Cracks should be waterjetted to clean out solvents and then blown out with compressed air and allowed to airdry.
When epoxy reaches the upper port. paint pressure pots and airactuated caulking guns can be used. Step 5: Injection of the epoxy Hydraulic pumps. Horizontal cracks are filled in a similar manner – from one end to the other.individual driving and metering pumps before passing through an automatic mixing head. A crack can be regarded as filled when the injection pressure can be maintained. causing further damage to the structure. Increased pressure often has no significant increase in filling rate of the crack. Fitting holes should be patched with an epoxy compound. Excessive injection pressure may cause propagation of the crack. Preferably injection equipment should be equipped with sensors on both the component A and B reservoirs that will automatically stop the machine when only one component is being pumped to the mixing head. Pressure of injection should be selected carefully. Step 6: Seal removal The epoxy seal can be removed by means of grinding or other appropriate method. epoxy is still filling the crack. Vertical cracks should be filled from the lowest port upwards. 161 . or a leak may be present. the lower one can be capped and injection continued at the upper one. if not.
2958. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. metal. United Kingdom 14. pp 425432. 2002. References 14. pp155177 14. www. 1992. BS81101:1997. pp.7. Canada 14. 1984. Detroit. Beutel R. Michigan. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.6. pp. Gardner NJ. 2002. Elsevier. Elstner RC. V. Materials and Structures. Design of flat slabs for punching – European and North American practices.elsevier. V. ACI Journal. Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002).1. ACI318M02 & ACI318RM02.84. Jungsuck Hugh.elsevier.com 14. www. Detroit. Alexander S. Simmonds S.110. Oh BH. DIN 10451.5. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Stahlbeton und Spannbeton. 1956.8. Elsevier.9. Lan Chung. American Concrete Institute. BSI. Bazant ZP.10. Deutsches Institut für Normung.elsevier. The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of the shear reinforcing in the punching zone. 2002. CAN/CSAS600. 4453. 531538. Bazant ZP. Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002) pp.28 (1956). Bazant ZP. Hognestad E.1. 16(93).11. 1983. www. 2002. Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs. pp. pp. Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002) pp. Toronto. ACI Structural Journal.3. Hegger J. Structural use of concrete – Part 1: Code of practice for design and construction. Detroit. Cao Z.4.com 162 . rock. Albrecht U. 2000. USA 14. Tragwerke aus Beton. 1987. USA 14. V. Berlin. 523529. CSA International. American Concrete Institute. Size effect in punching shear failure of slabs. 539549. Elsevier.12. Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete. Punching Shear Tests of Concrete Slabcolumn Joints Containing Fibre Reinforcement. 2002. USA 14.com 14. 2001.14. Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion. July. No. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. 518535 14. USA 14. Lessons from the Sampoong department store collapse.2. Germany 14.
Burdet O.18. pp773782 14. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Proceedings. 8892.S. Torsion und Durchstanzen nach EC 2. United Kingdom 14.17. Long AE. Stockholm. Qaisrani AN. 1999. pp.19. Royal Institute of Technology. Strenghtening of Bridge Slabs on Columns. Synthesis of Punching Failure in Reinforced Concrete. ACI Structural Journal V. 1976.16. design and performance – updated knowledge of the CEB/FIP Model Code 1990. pp. pp. 17 (1995). 1998. Relationship of the Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Concrete Strength. Elsevier. Teil 1: Erläuterungen zur Neuauflage von Heft 425 und Anwendungsrichtlinie zu EC 2. Proc of the Institution of Civil Engineers. MartinezCruzado JA. Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002).elsevier. Detroit. Modeer M. Practical Yield Line Design. Vol. 1960. 6671. Cement & Concrete Composites. 1994. Elsevier. Maalouf D. 109135. H. Sweden 14. Crawthorne. Textbook on behaviour. 1994. Kinnunen S. Moehle JP. Posttensioned Flatplate Slabcolumn Connections Subjected to Earthquake Loading. Cement and Concrete Research. USA 14. Menétrey P. www. 158.1. Harajli MH. British Cement Association. Favre R. Bulletin 1 to 3.elsevier. Lausanne. Bond D. pp.15. pp97100 14. Switzerland 14. Sweden 14.14. V. Kordina K.87 (1990). pp.D.com 14. pp. Goodchild C. 2nd International Ph.21. KTH. Effect of Fibers on the Punching Shear Strength of SlabColumn Connections.20. 161170.14. Zum Tragsicherheitsnachweis gegenüber Schub. www. Nylander H. BuStb 89. Sundqvist H. Punching of concrete slabs without shear reinforcing.com 163 .13. Switzerland 14.24. Kennedy G. Budapest. Stockholm. May 1967. Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite element. Structural Concrete. 497507. 1999. Khatib H. fib. 1990. Gardner NJ.37. London. 2002. 2. 2003. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.4. United Kingdom 14.22. Hassanzadeh G. 14. Symposium in Civil Engineering. Royal Institute of Technology. Transactions No. MC90. 5th U. 139148. Hillerborg A. Petersson PE. Lausanne. Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs with Eccentric Loading. Punching Failure of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Krüger G.23. JanuaryFebruary. No.
92(2). et al. Detroit. Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs. Structural Faults and Repair. 1998. Mervitz CP. pp451458 14.31. The University of Calgary. Structural Studies & Design Ltd. Punching shear strengthening of reinforced concrete: experimental and analytical investigations. 14. Quantative study of the causes of the partial collapse on 20th March 1997. 1997. ACI Structural Journal. Punching of structural concrete slabs.29. South Africa 14.30.14. Technical Report. Switzerland 14. Wood JGM. 1971. Menétrey P. 1985.. Canada 14. Wium J.32. University of Stellenbosch. CEB Bulletin 168. Seismic Performance of Flat Plate Systems.26. Bulletin 12. Lausanne. Woverhampton. Pipers Row Car Park. 2001. Switzerland 14. Van Zijl GPAG. Sherif AG. Kang THK. 1995. 1996.27. Ponsskuif. Braestrup MW. A triaxial failure criterion for concrete and its generalization. USA 14. Menétrey Ph. Wallace JW. Edinburgh. V. Regan PE.25. Punching shear in reinforced concrete – A stateoftheart report. 2004. University of Stellenbosch.28. International Federation of Structural Concrete (fib). Engineered CementBased Composites for Seismic Ductility.33. United Kingdom 164 . Reineck K. United Kingdom. Lausanne. Brühwiler E. International Federation of Structural Concrete (fib). Surrey. South Africa 14. William KJ.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.