1

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 balk-en-blad 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 1045-1 (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 drop-panels 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 slab-column connections. In some cases the existing
structures already show distress due to under-designed slab-column 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 reliability-based 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 1045-1 (2001) design code.

Secondly, numerous methods of strengthening and repair of existing slab-column
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 well-known 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
slab-column 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 1045-1988 40
3.2. British Standard 8110-1:1997 42
9
3.3. ACI 318M-02 45
3.4. Eurocode 2 48
3.5. DIN 1045-1:2001 49
3.6. CSA A23.3 53
3.7. CAN/CSA-S6-00 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 8110-1:1997 61
3.8.4. ACI 318-95 63
3.8.5. DIN 1045-1 (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 Slab-column 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 Slab-column 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 Slab-column 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 Slab-column 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 two-way 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 column-slab
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 slab-column connection at failure is clearly
depicted on a load-deflection 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
load-deflection 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 slab-column 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 pre-stress
 Pre-fabricated 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 shear-reinforced 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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
slab-column 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 shear-reinforced 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 multi-storey 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 post-tensioned 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 slab-column 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 cross-sectional 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
Axi-symmetry 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 slab-column intersection.
23
Simultaneously the other inclined micro cracks are closing. Failure
occurs when the inclined crack reaches the corner of the slab-column
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 post-elastic 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 size-effect 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 Size-effect 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 cross-section 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 post-peak ductility. Generally
systems such as studs, stirrups, bent-up 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 stud-reinforced 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 small-scale
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 slab-column
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 span-depth 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 cross-section 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 best-fit 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 y-intercept 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 slab-column 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 flexural-punching 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 post-failure 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 span-depth 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 load-deflection behaviour for Series A slabs (Harajli
et al 1995)

38

Fig. 2.13 Normalized load-deflection behaviour for Series B slabs (Harajli
et al 1995)


39
3. Current Design Practice

The general approach to determine the punching shear capacity of slab-column
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 slab-column 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 cross-section
V
rc
Resistance provided by the concrete
V
max
Maximum allowed punching shear resistance
with shear reinforcing
3.1. German design code – DIN 1045-1988 **
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 cross-section. However,
rectangular cross-sections 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 cross-sectional 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 8110-1:1997
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
Cross-sectional 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 318M-02
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 non-prestressed 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 shear-reinforced 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 318M-02)
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 pre-stressing 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 pre-stress 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 1045-1:2001
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
Cross-sectional 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 DIN1045-1
for lightweight concrete
k Size effect factor
k
s
Effectiveness factor of shear reinforcing
o
cd
Effective pre-stress 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 ACI-318 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/CSA-S6-00 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. Two-way 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 two-way 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 cross-section (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
50-60% 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 low-level 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 8110-1:1997
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 318-95
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 Shear-stud rails on site – detailed and designed
according to the ACI-318 recommendations


Fig 3.14 Shear stirrups on site – detailed and designed
according to the ACI-318 recommendations
3.8.5. DIN 1045-1 (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
slab-column 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 cross-sectional 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 slab-column connections.
- 49% of the tests used stirrups and 34% used bent-up 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
BS8110-1:1997 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
ACI318-95 149/149 1.29 0.27 0.21 0.85
DIN 1045-1 (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 1045-1, 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
BS8110-1:1997 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
ACI318-95 13/141 1.27 0.30 0.24 0.78
DIN 1045-1 (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
BS8110-1:1997 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
ACI318-95 122/141 1.73 0.57 0.33 0.80
DIN 1045-1 (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
BS8110-1:1997 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
ACI318-95 6/141 (1.25) (0.36) (0.29) (0.66)
DIN 1045-1 (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 1045-1 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 slab-column 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, non-disruptive 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 slab-column connections.

79
5.1. Strengthening of Existing Slab-column Connections
Theoretically, in order to strengthen an existing slab-column 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 self-compacting concrete – see Fig 5.3 and Fig
5.4.

The use of self-compacting 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 self-compacting 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 HIT-RE 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 slab-column connections showing distress
due to punching shear failure or near failure
Similar to the strengthening of a slab-column 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 slab-column 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 service-life 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 cross-section 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 cross-section or the addition of bolt-on 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 slab-column
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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 slab-column
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
slab-column 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 problem-free 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 Slab-column
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 1045-1 (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 hit-and-miss 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 slab-column 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 1054-1 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 BS8110-1:1985.
 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 1045-1. DIN 1045-1 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
1045-1 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 slab-column 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 1045-1
recommendations and the accompanying shear reinforcement designed to
deliver a slab-column 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 centre-to-centre, 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 load-deformation behaviour of a slab can be
established. Subsequently, on a new slab specimen, one can study repair
methods by pre-damaging 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 Teflon-coated swivel-head.

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 load-deflection 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 swivel-head 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 load-deflection 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 CEB-FIP 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 slab-column 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 Slab-column
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 column-slab 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 drill-bit 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 RE-500 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 RE-500 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 hand-operated 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 in-plane
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 shear-reinforced
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 load-deflection 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 load-deflection 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 load-deflection 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 load-deflection 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 shear-reinforced 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 de-bonded outside the shear-reinforced
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 BS8110-1.
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 1045-1 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 reliability-based 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 slab-column 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 slab-column 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 RE-500 epoxy
grout, can be judged as successful in principle due to the following reasons:
(1) The extended shear-reinforced 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 slab-column 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 ACI318-63. 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 CEB-FIP 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 water-jetted to clean out solvents and then
blown out with compressed air and allowed to air-dry.
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 V-shape. 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 air-actuated 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. ACI318M-02 & ACI318RM-02, 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. 531-538,
Elsevier, www.elsevier.com
14.3. Alexander S, Simmonds S, Punching Shear Tests of Concrete Slab-column
Joints Containing Fibre Reinforcement, 1992, American Concrete Institute, pp
425-432, Detroit, USA
14.4. Bazant ZP, Cao Z, Size effect in punching shear failure of slabs, 1987, ACI
Structural Journal, V.84, pp. 44-53, Detroit, USA
14.5. Bazant ZP, Oh BH, Crack band theory for fracture of concrete, 1983, Materials
and Structures, 16(93), pp155-177
14.6. Bazant ZP, Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete, rock, metal, 1984, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, V.110, pp. 518-535
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. 539-549, Elsevier, www.elsevier.com
14.8. BS8110-1:1997, Structural use of concrete – Part 1: Code of practice for design
and construction, 2002, BSI, United Kingdom
14.9. CAN/CSA-S6-00, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, 2000, CSA
International, Toronto, Canada
14.10. DIN 1045-1, 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.29-58, Detroit, USA
14.12. Gardner NJ, Jungsuck Hugh, Lan Chung, Lessons from the Sampoong
department store collapse, 2002, Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002),
pp. 523-529, 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, January-February, pp. 66-71, Detroit, USA
14.14. Goodchild C, Kennedy G, Practical Yield Line Design, British Cement
Association, 2003, pp. 88-92, Crawthorne, United Kingdom
14.15. Harajli MH, Maalouf D, Khatib H, Effect of Fibers on the Punching Shear
Strength of Slab-Column Connections, Cement & Concrete Composites, 17
(1995), pp. 161-170, 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, pp773-782
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, pp97-100
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. 109-135, London, United
Kingdom
14.22. Martinez-Cruzado JA, Qaisrani AN, Moehle JP, Post-tensioned Flat-plate Slab-
column Connections Subjected to Earthquake Loading, 1994, 5
th
U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp. 139-148.
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. 497-507, 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, pp451-458
14.27. Mervitz CP, Ponsskuif, 1971, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
14.28. Regan PE, Braestrup MW, Punching shear in reinforced concrete – A state-of-
the-art 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 Cement-Based 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 balk-en-blad 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 1045-1 (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

voorspelde skuif kapasiteit en die getoetse kapasiteit van die model. asook op „n nuwe wapeningsomtrek. 4 . Meganistiese modellering toon dat die swiglas van die model wel in die regte ordegrootte was. Ongelukkig het die herstelde blad nie dieselfde kapasiteit as die oorspronklike blad gehad nie. Laastens is daar gepoog om die beskadigde blad te herstel deur vertikale wapening stawe in die blad te installeer met „n hoë sterkte epoksie. Daar word voorgestel dat verdere toetse gedoen word om die presiese bydrae van die addisionele skuif wapening te bepaal. Die addisionele skuifstaal het die skuifkrake forseer om weg van die kolom te migreer en uiteindelik buite die versterkte sone te swig. 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. sowel as die meer akkurate voorspelling van die kapasiteit van herstelde blaaie.

furthermore. more and more existing structures are being refurbished and renovated. Flat slabs offer numerous advantages in terms of cost. 5 . However. Mechanistic modelling of the test panel shows the failure load to be in the correct order of magnitude. Accompanying these suggested methods. the full advantage of using flat slabs is not harnessed. At this stage. In many cases the change in architectural layouts and altered use necessitate additional load carrying capacity from the existing slab-column connections. and scaled to comply with a 5% probability of failure. ease of construction and architectural flexibility. they discriminate against their use in modestly active seismic regions due to potential moment induced punching failure. more often than not. Based on the aforementioned points the aims of this report are the following: Firstly. In some cases the existing structures already show distress due to under-designed slab-column interfaces or dubious construction methods. numerous methods of strengthening and repair of existing slab-column connections are presented. This is the formulation presented in the latest DIN 1045-1 (2001) design code. Many design codes offer inaccurate formulations to predict punching shear capacity. experimental testing shows the well-known brittle behaviour of punching shear failure and the difference between the predicted and actual failure loads measured. 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 reliability-based structural design philosophies.Synopsis Modern concrete construction favours the use of flat slabs without drop-panels or column capitols as opposed to more conventional slab and beam systems. Secondly. Thirdly. a universal classification of damage is proposed to aid in the effective repair of damaged connections. there is only one design approach that has been calibrated with virtually all available test data. Lately.

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 slab-column 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 1045-1988 British Standard 8110-1:1997

33 34 35 36 39 40 42

8

1. Accuracy of Modelling and Codified Design Rules 4.1.7.3.2.1.5. The effect of boundary conditions 4.3.2. DIN 1045-1 (2001) 3.8. Punching shear strength within the shear reinforced area 3.8. German design code DIN 1045 (88) 3.4. 3.8.4. Slab subsystems 4.5.3 CAN/CSA-S6-00 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code Comparisons of code equations for punching shear with and without shear reinforcing – standardized approach. ACI 318M-02 Eurocode 2 DIN 1045-1:2001 CSA A23. Accuracy of Experimental Testing 4. ACI 318-95 3. Maximum punching shear capacity 3. Compilation of databank 4.3. 3.8. 3.2. Discussion of the Comparison of Test Data and Codified Predictions 75 77 9 .1.8. Punching shear resistance of a slab without shear reinforcing 3.1.2. Accuracy of Code Predictions 4. British Standard 8110-1:1997 3.1. 3.8. Single Column Tests 4.2. 3.1.6.2.5.5. Eurocode 2 (EC2) 3.1.2.1. Punching shear strength outside the shear reinforced area 4.2. 45 48 49 53 54 56 58 59 61 63 65 66 66 67 67 69 69 69 70 71 72 72 73 3. The effect of compressive membrane action 4. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat Slabs with Shear Reinforcing 4. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat Slabs without Shear Reinforcing 74 4.8.3.1.4.5.3.1.5.2.8.8.4.2.1.8.

1. Increasing the area of load transfer 5.1.2.3.2.2.1.3. 81 82 82 83 Repairing slab-column connections showing distress due to punching shear failure or near failure 84 84 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 5.1.2. 6. Experimental Testing of an Undamaged Slab-column Connection 6.3. Retrofitting of slab-column connections for improved behaviour under seismic loading conditions 88 89 5.2.2.2.1.2. Proposed Classification of Damage 5. Damage Level 1 – Minor to medium levels of damage 5.2. Fibre reinforced concrete infill panel 5.2.1.2.2.3.1.3.1.1.1. Damage Level 3 – Extreme levels of damage 5.1.3.3. Slab strengthened with vertical bolts 5. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and vertical bolts 5.3.2. Damage Level 2 – Medium to severe levels of damage 5.3. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and bonded steel plate80 5.1. Strengthening of Existing Slab-column Connections 78 79 79 79 5. Repair of Damage Level 2 5. Proposed remedial works for the different levels of damage 5. 6.2.1.2.2. Demolition of part of the existing concrete slab and replacement thereof with fibre reinforced concrete 6. Repair of Damage Level 1 5. Increasing the Effective Slab Depth 5.2.1. Doweling additional bars into the existing slab 5.1. Experimental Test Setup Proposed Test Procedure Actual Test – Virgin test panel 90 91 92 95 96 10 .1.2.2.1. Installation of additional shear reinforcing 5.5.1. Repair of Damage Level 3 5.1.1. Proposed Repair Methods for Punching Shear Failure and Preventative Measures against Punching Shear Failure 5.2.1.

3.5.7.3.3.3. Material Test Results 7.4.3. 8. Experimental Testing of Repaired Slab-column Connection 7.3. Virgin Test Panel 10. 7. Original Panel – Combination of results – Loads 1. 7. Placement and Setting Up of the Test Panel 6. Verification of test results with the method proposed by Menétrey (2002) 112 7.3.1.3. 9. Conclusions and Recommendations 8.2.3. Material Test Results 6.1. Appendix B – Calculations using the Mechanistic Model Proposed by Menétrey147 10. Conclusions Recommendations Appendix A – Estimation of the experimental model‟s punching shear capacity and the design of the required shear reinforcing 142 10.2. Original Panel – Load Application 3 6.8.6.3.3.2. Original Panel – Load Application 1 6. 2 &3 96 97 98 99 104 106 109 6.3.1. 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 7.1.1. Repaired Panel – Load Application 1 7. Dismantling of the failed slab panel 8.3. Original Panel – Load Application 2 6. Repaired Panel – Load Application 2 7. Load Application 6. Repaired Test Panel 147 152 11 .4.3.3.6.2. Load Application 7.3.2.5.

Appendix E – Method for Epoxy Crack Injection References 12 .11. 14. Appendix C – Construction Details 155 Appendix D – Prediction of Flexural Failure at Slab-column Connections – Yield Line Approach 158 160 162 13. 12.

Accurate estimation of deflections in two-way spanning slab systems is debatable. and secondly flat slabs with shear reinforcing. Firstly. designs are often governed by deflection criteria. e.   Flat slab construction is penalised by certain codes in seismic regions. 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 column-slab interfaces. flat slabs without 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 .1. Punching shear failure can be defined for two specific cases. This construction method may dominate all modern reinforced concrete construction in conventional buildings. Eurocode and SABS(SANS). Overview of Punching Shear Failure 1. Introduction Building construction with flat plates has become more and more popular lately. 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.g.1.

disastrous. The addition of shear reinforcing causes increases the toughness of the connection. and circumferential cracking around the loaded surface. However with shear reinforcement a more acceptable failure can be achieved. This intermediate failure behaviour can be seen on the load-deflection plot (Fig 1. can be considered as brittle failure designated by the sudden reduction in the load carrying capacity of the structure.1 Response curves for flexural. Flat slabs with shear reinforcing commonly fail in a less spectacular fashion. Due to their sudden nature these failures are more often than not. 14 . In some cases delamination of the concrete at the level of the tension reinforcing may occur. At failure the connection shows more warning of distress by means of a more pronounced flexural cracking pattern originating at the column. 1.1).and punching failure (Menétrey 2002) Both failures. The brittle behaviour of the slab-column connection at failure is clearly depicted on a load-deflection curve (Fig 1.combination with a fair amount of flexural cracking evident on the top surface of the slab.1). with and without punching shear reinforcing. showing a sudden loss in load carrying capacity of the connection. Fig. The failure mode is shifted from pure punching failure towards a more ductile flexural failure mode. Even though the connection is more resilient it still shows a rather steep decline in load carrying capacity.

A number of structural failures and collapses can be attributed to punching shear failure of slab-column connections. of these a few examples are shown in Fig 1. Fig.2 and Fig 1. Some of these methods are:       Drop panels Column capitals Additional flexural reinforcing The use of pre-stress Pre-fabricated shear heads Shear reinforcing in the depth of the slab 15 . all with varying rates of success. 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.3.

as well as number of mechanical and numerical models to predict the punching behaviour and capacity of flat slabs. This report aims to compare the various approaches to predict shearing resistance of slab-column connections. 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. 16 . Classical Punching Failure At overloading a typical slab-column connection will fail at a perimeter. 1. 1. UK (Wood et al. Wolverhampton.3 Collapse of the upper parking deck at Pipers Row Car Park. After initial testing of the undamaged plate a repair will be attempted. from the column face. proportional to the effective depth of the slab. One approach for punching shear enhancement is selected and studied both analytically and experimentally.2. even though most of them are defined by the same parameters. 1998) Numerous codified approaches to the design of shear-reinforced slabs exist.Fig. The capacity of the repaired slab will be compared with the original capacity and verified with a mechanistic failure model.

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. The shear reinforcing also causes cracking to migrate away from the column. The behaviour of a slab-column connection with shear reinforcing is illustrated in Fig 1.4. These shear stresses cause angled cracks to develop from the column face to the upper surface of the slab.5.Excessive loading. 1. Fig. In slabs without shear reinforcing the crack growth is rapid resulting in a concrete plug being pushed out of the slab. 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. clips or studs bridge the cracks and prevents the conical concrete plug to separate from the rest of the slab. 1.5 Punching failure of slab with shear reinforcing (Beutel 2002) 17 . Fig. This behaviour is clearly illustrated in Fig 1. If the shear capacity of the concrete outside the shear-reinforced zone is insufficient the failure will be similar to a connection without shear reinforcing.

1. 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. Punching failure due to lateral loading of the structure It is common practise to design multi-storey buildings with two independent structural systems. However. 1. due to building drift and the flexibility of the gravity resisting structure (mostly reinforced concrete or post-tensioned slabs) unbalanced moments develop over the columns. The first for resisting gravity loading and the second to resist lateral loading imposed by wind and earthquake excitations. In most cases these two systems are designed independently.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. 1.Fig. (a) (b) Fig. However.3. The stresses caused by the moment transfer to the columns are additional to the stresses caused by the normal gravity loading –Fig 1.6.7 Shear due to gravity loading (a) and unbalanced moments (b) 18 . where applicable.7. the punching failure would typically be similar to the failure pattern shown in Fig 1.7.

Consequently slab-column connections may fail at gravity loads below their intended design scope if significant effects of lateral loading are present. 19 .

Flexural and punching failure can be distinguished with the help of a load vs. 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.2. a particularly rigorous method. A steep capacity drop for increasing deflection characterizes punching failure. see Fig 1. Firstly the method proposed by Menétrey. 2.1.1. However. The contribution of flexural reinforcing. In the next chapter the different approaches of various design codes will be compared. The punching resistance of the slab is obtained by integrating the vertical components of the tensile stresses around the punching crack. by increasing the bending steel even more. a transition is made from a flexural. 2. while flexural failures show a rather steady decrease in load carrying capacity with increased deflection. Secondly a method proposed to include the beneficial shear properties of fibre reinforcing will be overviewed. fairly tough failure to brittle punching shear failure at higher loads. Experimental results The tests conducted by Menétrey focused on the difference between flexural. Synthesis of Punching Shear Failure. 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.1. The experiments show that increasing the cross-sectional area of the flexural reinforcing can increase the failure loads. deflection plot for the test. 20 .and punching failure of slabs. as proposed by Menétrey (2002) Menétrey presents a general model for predicting the punching capacity of a slab. shear reinforcing. In this section two interesting approaches will be studied. taking different components of resistance into account.1.

The most ductile failure was achieved at  = 90°. However. By increasing the crack inclination (). since the shear crack always crossed the reinforcing ring. the behaviour became less brittle. Thereby insight was gained. Numerical simulations Finite element analyses were performed by Menétrey (2002) to study the slab column interaction. different cone inclinations.1 Punching cone shape enforced by steel ring reinforcement By denoting the failure load for   30   0 as the punching load Fpun. Fig.e.1) 2. see Fig 2.2. leading to the 21 . The inclination of a pure punching failure crack is in the order of 30°. it is possible to reveal a transition between punching and flexural failure. and the load at flexural failure (   90 ) as Fflex. as the crack is perpendicular to the flexural stresses in the slab. 2. these results could be fitted with the following expression:    F fail  Fpun  F flex  Fpun  sin    2       0   0   (2. Menétrey managed to control the inclination of the punching crack artificially. This is reported both by Menétrey and Mervitz (1971). who studied a series of flat slab punching experiments.1.Another experimental observation was that controlling the shape of the punching cone. i. This angle in fact implies flexural failure.1. Placing a reinforcing ring concentrically around the column position and varying the ring radius achieved control of the crack inclination.

2. The punching crack is initiated by the coagulation of micro cracks at the top of the slab. 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. Simulation of the punching failure The analyses were done on slabs similar to those of Kinnunen & Nylander (1960). 2. Finite element analysis enabled the consideration of the complicated stress state in the structure. 2. the inclined crack expands towards the corner of the slab-column intersection.1. 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.1. For this softening Hillerborg. As failure criterion. As the vertical displacement increases. G f    t dw 0 wr (2. 22 . the concrete constitutive law developed by Menétrey & William (1995) was considered. in reasonable agreement with experimentally observed cracking. The cracking phenomenon in the vicinity of the column is clearly shown by the simulation.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).1. These slabs were chosen because of their perfect axially symmetric geometry. The dilatancy observed experimentally is matched to a specific flow rule. Model description Axi-symmetry was considered for analysing punching shear in round plates. Concrete cracking is described using a smeared crack approach with a strain softening formulation.eventual formulation of an analytical expression for punching shear capacity prediction. The connection between the brittleness of failure and the state of stress is reproduced by the introduction of a fictitious number of cracks.

This observation was also made by Mervitz (1971). In Fig 2. 23 . which directs the initially 40°-45° shear crack to an eventual 30° by delamination along the longitudinal reinforcing.3 it is shown that the load capacity increases with increased uniaxial tensile strength of the concrete. 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. while others close.Simultaneously the other inclined micro cracks are closing. 2. 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. Failure occurs when the inclined crack reaches the corner of the slab-column connection. as well as with increasing fracture energy. a parametric analysis was performed on a circular slab reinforced with orthogonally placed reinforcing. Parametric analysis Having found reasonable numerical results.2 and Fig 2.3. as opposed to the 30° reported earlier. This fictitious length allows some cracks to grow. The crack angle is found to be approximately 45°.1.

This is in agreement with the experimentally observed transition from flexural. tough failure to high capacity brittle punching failure. all the slabs show a similar cracking pattern.3 Influence of fracture energy on response curves (Menétrey 2002) By varying the percentage of flexural reinforcing the following can be shown: Firstly.Fig 2. the higher is the failure load. 24 . Lastly it is shown that the post-elastic behaviours vary considerably with varying percentages of reinforcing. Secondly.2 Influence of tensile concrete strength on response curves (Menétrey 2002) Fig 2. The higher the reinforcing ratio is. regardless of the percentage of longitudinal flexural reinforcing. and with increasing reinforcing percentages the ductility of the connection decreases. all the slabs show similar initial elastic behaviour.

4) d ft n Effective depth of the slab Uniaxial tensile strength of the concrete Nominal shear stress 25 .Fig 2.55  f t  1    34  (2. The experimental data is adjusted using the RILEM recommendations for linear regression yielding the following equation: 1 d 2   n  1. The nominal shear stresses at failure were computed as follows: n    2  rs  d   d Pfailure (2. the size-effect law by Bazant & Cao (1987) can be used.3) d Pfailure rs n Effective depth of the slab Failure load Column radius Nominal shear stress Assuming constant fracture energy.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.

26 .3. shear reinforcing and prestressed tendons crossing the punching crack.Fig 2.5 Size-effect law obtained by numerical analysis (Menétrey 2002) 2. This formation takes place progressively and consequently the steel forces are activated gradually and can be added to the tensile concrete forces.1. Thus the general formulation is: Fpun  Fct  Fdow  Fsw  Fp (2. 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.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.

Tensile force in the concrete The punching crack is assumed to form the border of the punching cone. with 30    90 .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.vs.1. 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.Fig 2.1.3.1.1. Flexural capacity The influence of the inclination of the punching crack can be   expressed by equation 2.3. Punching. 27 .6 Typical cross-section showing relevant parameters (Menétrey 2002) 2.2.

i. Fct  f t 2 3 (2.7) (2.35 for 0    2%   0.8) Subsequently the inclined length is: s r2  r1 2  0.10) The shear resistance is seen to be proportional to the concrete tensile strength to the power 2/3.1  2  0.9  d 2 (2.9) In order to simplify the formulation. Menétrey determined the influence of the percentage of longitudinal reinforcing to be approximated by the following relations:   0.46    0.87 for   2% (2.6  1   d a  2    1 with d  3d a (2.r1  rs  r2  rs  d 10  tan  d tan  (2.13) da Maximum aggregate size 28 .e. leading to the vertical component of the concrete tensile force being: Fct    r1  r2   s   v    r1  r2   s  f t 3       2 (2. a constant stress distribution is assumed.12) The size effect is incorporated in the formulation with the following expressions :  d   1.11) From the results of the numerical simulations.

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    (2.1.625 rs  2.5 h h h for 2   0.5 for h (2. in the vertical plane 2.3.1. bent-up bars and bolts are used. stirrups.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.3.1   s   0.3. Three different positions of the punching crack are possible at failure. i.25 0  s  2. r r  r   0. Generally systems such as studs. 29 . Punching crack between the column face and the first row of stirrups. to improved post-peak ductility.17) s s fs  Bar diameter Axial tensile stress in reinforcing bar Reinforcing yield strength Angle between punching crack and reinforcing.5  s  1.16) s  Fpun (2.15)   s fs tan    As bars (2.e.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.14) 2. 1.

Punching crack outside the shear reinforced area. 1  arctan  rswi  rs    d  (2. the radius of the outermost row of reinforcement (rsc) should be used. 3. 2. Instead of using the column radius (rs). Punching crack crossing the shear reinforcing.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.18) Fig 2. 30 .8 Crack position 2. The capacity of this scenario is calculated in a way similar to a slab without shear reinforcing. Fig 2. The size effect is to be considered using the parameter .7 Crack position 1.

Reinforcing made of plain bars will be denoted as studs. The contribution of injected strengthening bolts. 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.Fig 2. and those made with high bond (deformed) bars will be denoted as stirrups. depending on their respective bond properties.and shear reinforcing contributions cannot be added. will be determined similar to either stirrups or studs.9 Crack position 3. installed after drilling through the slab. Interestingly Menétrey & Brühwiler (1997) found that noninjected bolts do not interact and consequently the concrete. 31 . The ultimate punching load is to be the minimum value calculated from the three cases presented above.

Fig 2.20) The crack rupture opening (wr) is approximated as: wr  5Gf f sw 5Gf f sw  l  cos  (2.10 Crack formation in a stud-reinforced slab The failure mechanism is initiated by the formation of micro cracks. if the stud length exceeds l0 the 32 .19) Consequently the deformation is: sw  wr  cos  l (2. However. The displacement corresponds to the summation of the micro cracks opening.22) Up to a stud length l0 the force is limited by the yield strength. The studs are subjected to displacement controlled loading. 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. The stud elongation at failure can be expressed as: l  wr  cos  (2.

the force developed in the stirrup is a function of the anchorage at the stirrup‟s extremity.5. 33 . The equation is based on a number of small-scale test specimens. These tests were also compared to work done by Alexander & Simmonds (1992). Contribution of prestressing tendons Taking the contribution of inclined prestressing tendons into account can enhance the punching shear resistance of a slab. Fsw  stirrups A sw  f sw  sin  sw  Fswy (2. l0  wr  cos   E sw f sw (2. If the necessary length is available the yield stress of the stirrup can be reached. 2.1. The transmission length is defined as the length of bar along which slip between the steel bar and concrete occurs. Fp  A tendons p   p  sin  p (2.23) The contribution of high bond bars can be evaluated in a similar way. 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.25) 2.reinforcing contribution decreases at a rate inversely proportional to the stud length.24) If the required length is not available.2.3. 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.

it should be avoided at all costs. Two slab thicknesses were used. From this point of view and the known fact that fibre reinforcing enhances the mechanical properties of concrete. The specimens are representative of slabs setups with span-depth ratios of 26 and 18 respectively. by controlling crack growth.e. numerous researchers have investigated the influence of fibres on slab-column connections.1. Two identical slabs for each different input variable were tested to minimize possible scatter. 0.5mm diameter) Collated 50/50 hooked steel fibres 12. 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. However. i. Fibre reinforcing consisted of one of the following:    Loose 30/50 hooked steel fibres (30mm long.Due to the brittle nature of punching shear failure. Harajli et al used the following experimental setup to calibrate the capacity enhancement due to fibres: 2. 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 slabs were rather heavily reinforced ( = 1. improved ductility of shear failure and better energy absorption properties.5mm long monofilament polypropylene fibres The slabs were reinforced with fibres at the following densities:  80kg/m3 – 1% 30/50 fibres 34 .12%) in order to ensure that they failed by means of punching prior to flexural failure. flexural manner.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. 55mm and 75mm. Fibre reinforcing leads to higher load carrying capacities.

075  V f  b0  d  f c' (2.9 a reasonably safe equation follows: Pu  0.8% 50/50 fibres 8.096  V f  b0  d  f c' (2. crimped-.e.26) Adjusted to a zero y-intercept and a reduction factor of 0. Prediction of Punching Shear Strength In order to obtain the design capacity of the connection.2. the capacity of a normal slab setup without fibres is added to the additional capacity provided by the fibres. corrugated.45% 50/50 fibres 64kg/m3 – 0. 35 . 2. i.11 Typical specimen cross-section showing reinforcing details (Harajli et al 1995) 2.and paddle fibres.    160kg/m3 – 2% 30/50 fibres 35kg/m3 – 0.8kg/m3 – 1% polypropylene fibres Fig.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.33  0. hooked-. The best-fit equation for the prediction of the additional capacity is: Pu  0.

resulting in an increased failure load.1 provides a summary of the behaviour of the two groups of slabs tested.2. This increase is not significantly influenced by the span-depth ratio of the slabs. This causes the failure surface to move away from the column face.13.12 and Fig 2. Table 2. 36 . The inclination of the shear failure plane decreased with the addition of steel fibres. the polypropylene fibres made an insignificant difference in the ultimate failure loads. Steel fibres cause the failure mode to change from punching to flexuralor combined flexural-punching failure 4. accompanying this the load vs.3. Observations and discussions based on the experiments Harajli et al (1995) concluded the following: 1.2. The increased punching capacity is related to the volume fraction of fibres added and not the length or aspect ratio of the fibres 3. However. 6. From the experimental results it is clear that the punching capacity increases linearly with an increased volume of steel fibres. The addition of steel fibres increased the ultimate punching shear capacity of a slab-column connection by ±36% 2. Polypropylene fibres led to improved ductility and energy absorption in the post-failure portion of the test. Improved ductility of shear failures 5. deflection behaviour of the panels are illustrated in Fig 2.

0 100 100 60 Punch Punch Flexural FlexPunch A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Steel Polypr.61 1.33 0.0 1.5in Flex Punch Punch Punch Punch Punch Punch Punch 0.85 1.82 * Polypropylene Table 2.60 0.33 0.61 0.0 0.8 1.45 0.0 1.33 0.* Steel Steel Steel Steel Polypr.33 1.58 1.33 0.0 2.64 0. 2.33 0.61 1.33 0.57 0.53 0.8 1.94 1.1 Summary of test variables and results (Harajli et al 1995) 0.* 2.52 0.33 1.82 1.94 Fig.0 0.64 0.73 1.Slab Fibre Volume Fraction (%) Aspect Ratio Failure Mode Test ACI Test/ACI Normalized Strength A1 A2 A3 A4 Steel Steel Steel 0.94 2.53 0.5in 100 100 60 60 0.39 1.64 0.94 1.64 0.0 60 0.79 0.33 0.12 Normalized load-deflection behaviour for Series A slabs et al 1995) (Harajli 37 .60 0.0 0.33 0.45 0.33 0.33 0.

Fig. 2.13 Normalized load-deflection behaviour for Series B slabs et al 1995) (Harajli 38 .

u3.e. u2.1) at a specified distance from the loaded area (i. Reinforcing is needed up to a perimeter such that the following perimeter under consideration does not need any additional shear reinforcing. either the slab depth or the cross section of the column needs to be increased. If the capacity of the system is adequate. column) – this is to cater for the presence of an inclined shear crack in the assumed region. In order to determine the amount of reinforcing needed. Fig 3. In this chapter the requirements of the most important codified approaches are summarized. Various prescriptions of what the considered parameters. etc. Current Design Practice The general approach to determine the punching shear capacity of slab-column connections can be summarized as follows: The shear strength of the concrete is determined on a predetermined critical perimeter (u0 – See Fig 3. such as the critical perimeters. If the resistance is inadequate. additional shear reinforcing in the slab depth needs to be provided. contribution of the shear reinforcing.3. If this is not desired. the connection can be deemed satisfactory. the required area of reinforcing steel is evaluated on consecutive perimeters (u1. The shear reinforcing provides resistance additional to the shear capacity of the concrete and the dowel action of the flexural reinforcing. as well as other requirements are given by the different codes.1 Basics of evaluating punching shear capacity of a slab-column connection 39 .) around the loaded area.

e.1.2) List of symbols: c1 c2 h d First sectional dimension of the column Second sectional dimension of the column Total height i. German design code – DIN 1045-1988 ** 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.5d from the equivalent circular column 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: c1  c 2 2h  (3.1) d  0.85  h (3.e. This circle is a distance 0. 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 cross-section Resistance provided by the concrete Maximum allowed punching shear resistance with shear reinforcing 3. depth of the concrete slab Effective depth i.

However. c1  1.6) The maximum shear resistance allowed for slabs with shear reinforcing is Vmax f  1.face.5) The contribution by the concrete and the longitudinal tensile reinforcing is expressed as Vrc f  2.5. rectangular cross-sections are converted to equivalent circles with radius dst.3) From this the critical perimeter can be determined.7) If the shear force is higher than the capacity of the concrete.4) It should be noted that the ratio of the side lengths of a rectangular column is limited to less than 1.13  c1 c2  d   (3.4 Vrc (3.5  c2 (3. 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 cross-section. u   1. shear reinforcing is to resist 75% of the force.75 VULS (3. Vsd   s  0. d st  1. i.13  c1  c2 (3.e.8) 41 .33   h 2 (3.48  1  1.

internal column loads in braced structures with approximately equal spans. In the absence of detailed calculation. Veff  1.11) In case moment transfer is calculated in the structural analysis.The required cross-sectional area of shear reinforcing is: Asv  Vsd f yd (3. the shear load enhancement is determined according to the following equation  1.9) The shear reinforcing is to be placed into two consecutive perimeters.5d from the column face.15. Fig 3.10) In order to allow for moment transfer to the column the total shear force needs to be factored. British Standard 8110-1:1997 The requirements of the British standard stipulate that the critical perimeter is a rectangle at a distance 1.5M t Veff  Vt 1   Vt  x      (3.5d from the column face and the second at 1.0d from the column face.3 Critical perimeter and relevant parameters Accordingly the control perimeter is: u  2c1  c2  12d (3. The first placed at 0.2. 3.12) 42 .15  Vt (3. the enhancement is done with a predetermined factor of 1.

5MPa   (3.4. no additional shear reinforcing is needed.16) The concrete contribution to the shear resistance is derived as follows:  100  As  3  400  4 1  f cu  vc  0. Veff  1.25 can be used.8  f cu .25 Vt (3.25 Vt (3.  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.79    b  d    d      25      m   v  1 1 1 3 (3.18) If the shear stress at the control perimeter is less than vc.5M t Veff  Vt 1   Vt  x      (3.15) It should be noted that Mt may be reduced by 30% if an equivalent frame analysis with pattern loading was done. 43 .14) Alternatively the shear force should be enhanced with a factor of 1. Veff  1.17) The nominal shear stresses on the specific perimeter under consideration can be calculated with the following equation: v V ud (3. The maximum stress at the column face is not allowed to exceed the lesser value of: f max  MAX 0.At corner columns and edge columns bending about an axis parallel to the free edge an enhancement factor of 1.

For the perimeters requiring reinforcing the amount of shear steel is determined as follows:  v  1. each taken at 0.6  vc A  sv  sin   v  vc   u  d 0.The shear stress is to be checked on consecutive perimeters.5 for concrete) 44 .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 (1.19) 1.95  f yv (3.7  v  vc   u  d 0.20) List of symbols: As d fcu fyv Mt u u0 V Veff x Cross-sectional 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 1.75d from the former perimeter.6  vc  v  2  vc A sv  sin   5  0. until a perimeter is reached where no shear reinforcing is needed.

internal columns 3 Sides. corner columns (3.4 Critical perimeter. Moment transfer to the column is assumed to be due to a stress distribution as indicated in Fig 3.24) 45 . i. ACI 318M-02 The ACI recommendations consider a critical perimeter taken at 0.e.21)  d  Vc   s  2   b   0  f c' b0 d 12 s 40 30 20 Critical Section with: 4 Sides. i.1 Shear enhancement factors Vc  1 3 f c' b0 d (3.22) Table 3. edge columns 2 Sides.e. i. Fig 3.e.5d from the column face.3 f pc b0 d  Vp with s – As above   (3. relevant parameters and shear distribution due to moment transfer For non-prestressed members Vc should be taken as the lesser value of the following:  24   Vc  1   c    f c' b0 d 6 (3.4.3.23) For prestressed members Vc should be taken as Vc   p f c'  0.3.

 0   12       (3. The effective loaded area is taken as the area that totally encloses the actual loaded are.27) (3. The reasoning behind limiting the tensile strength of the reinforcing is that with decreasing slab depth. for which the perimeter is a minimum.5      p  MIN 0. the shape of the outer control perimeter is quite different from the original control perimeter.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.27) (3.26) (3. Shear reinforcement is allowable in slabs where the effective depth is greater than 150mm.29. The required shear reinforcing is placed in the slab similar to shear stirrups in beams – see Fig.5d outside the last line of shear stirrups. The maximum allowable yield strength of the shear reinforcing is an empirical value. However.-   sd     b  1. 3. full yield capacity of the steel is less likely to be reached before punching shear failure takes place. 46 . The control perimeter outside the shear-reinforced zone is taken at a distance 0.5. 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 (3.28) Vn should not exceed Vn  When shear reinforcing is used the yield strength of the reinforcing is limited to 420MPa.

5 ACI control perimeters and shear reinforcing details (ACI 318M-02) 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 pre-stressing stress after losses Shear reinforcing yield stress Spacing of shear stirrups Punching shear capacity of the concrete Vertical component of pre-stress 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. Fig 3. Integrity reinforcing is the provision of adequately anchored sagging (bottom) reinforcing that has to be provided through the core of the column.

31) Vrc f  2.5 h 2 (3.6 Critical perimeter and relevant parameters Moment transfer is considered as a shear force per unit of perimeter.  sd  VULS   u (3.6 Vrc (3.4. Eurocode 2 ** The Eurocode considers a control perimeter with rounded corners at 1. Fig 3.29)  For internal columns the enhancement factor is 1.2  40 1  0.15 The control perimeter is calculated as: u  2c1  c2  3d (3.5d from the column face.Vs Punching shear capacity contributed by shear reinforcing s c Shear enhancement factor Ratio of column dimensions 3.21.32) Vmax  1.33) 48 .30) It should be noted that the ratio of the column side lengths is limited to 2 c1  2  c2 (3.

8.6d  b1  The critical perimeter is selected to be such that it has the shortest length and at a distance 1. 49 .7.5d from the column face. Fig 3.7 Critical perimeter for a rectangular column or wall (3. When dealing with rectangular columns or walls the critical perimeters should be taken as indicated in Fig 3.and steel resistances.5. 3.5.9.5d from the column face – see Fig 3.If the shear force is higher than the capacity of the concrete. DIN 1045-1:2001 The latest DIN recommendations are formulated using a critical perimeter taken at a distance equal to1.2b.34) b1  MIN b.8d  a1  MIN a. shear reinforcing is used with the total resistance calculated by the addition of the concrete. Fig 3.2.8 Typical Columns Penetrations in the close proximity of the column should be taken into account as shown in Fig 3.

11 Calculation Parameters 50 . Fig 3.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 3.11.9 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.

40 f cd f  0.141 100 l f ck  3  0.sy (3.0 d  dy  2 d x l  lx  ly  0.35) Flat slabs without shear reinforcing should conform to: vEd  vRd .36) Flat slabs with shear reinforcing should conform to the following: The upper limit of the punching capacity is given by vEd  vRd .02 yd 51 .43)   1 d 200  2.In order to take moment transfer between the slab and the column into account.39) Flat slabs without shear reinforcing: vRd .38) Outside the shear reinforced area vEd  vRd .ct  0.42) (3.05 1.12 cd d 1   (3.2 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.4 1.max Within the shear reinforced area vEd  vRd .a (3.37) (3.40) (3.5 Table 3.41) (3.max (3.  1.ct . the enhancement factors given in Table 3.

a   a  vRd .c  vRd .i Ac .46) For the first perimeter of shear reinforcing within 0.5d from the last row of shear reinforcing.max  1.5vRd .ct (3.sy  vRd .44) (3.0 400 (3.7  0. y 2 [MPa] (3.53)  a  1 0.75d vRd .5d from the column face is considered using the following equation: vRd .48) (3.29lw  0.51) Outside the shear reinforced area the critical perimeter is taken as 1.sy  vRd .ct  s  Asw  f yd  d u  sw (3.i  N Ed .71 3.3 As  sin( )  f yd u (3.ct .49) 0.7   s  0.45)  cd .52) (3.5d from the column face vRd .c  1.5d List of symbols: Ac Asw Cross-sectional area of concrete under consideration Area of shear reinforcing in the considered perimeter 52 .ct (3.sy  vRd . x   cd .c  vRd .c   s  Asw  f yd u (3.i Flat slabs with shear reinforcing: vRd . with vRd .50) Bent down bars within 0.47) For the perimeters with reinforcing within spacing sw  0.3 d  400  1. cd   cd .

5d from the column face. Moment transfer between the slab and column is similar to the assumptions of the ACI-318 code – Fig 3. 45o    60o    1  s cd Factor f moment transfer Shear enhancement factor 1.6.12. CSA A23.0 for normal concrete – refer to DIN1045-1 for lightweight concrete Size effect factor Effectiveness factor of shear reinforcing Effective pre-stress in the considered crosssection 3.3 ** The Canadian building code considers a critical perimeter taken at 0. 53 .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.

This perimeter need not be closer than 0.59100 3 1  0.7. According to the ACI the shear reinforcing is fixed as beam strips.12 Critical perimeter.Fig 3.55) The upper limit of resistance is set as: Vmax  12. u.5d to the perimeter of the concentrated load or reaction area. In principle the ACI and CSA approaches are similar. while the CSA method uses evenly arranged reinforcing on the control perimeters. with a critical section perpendicular to the plane of the slab and located so that its perimeter.37 h 2 1 (3. but the detailing of the shear reinforcing differs. Two-way action. with a critical section extending in a plane across the entire width and located at a distance. Beam action. is a minimum.56) Similar to the ACI recommendations the capacity of the concrete and the shear steel can be added together. 2. 3.54) The contribution of the concrete and longitudinal reinforcing is given by: Vrc f  4. d. CAN/CSA-S6-00 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. relevant parameters and shear distribution due to moment transfer The control perimeter is: u  2c1  c2  4d (3. or from any change in slab thickness.82   f    h 2 (3. from the face of the concentrated load or reaction area. The shear resistance should also be checked at critical 54 .

5d from any change in slab thickness and should be located such that the perimeter.95) d c p 55 .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.sections located at a distance no closer than 0.57) (3. The shear resistance for two-way action is calculated as follows Vr  V f Vr  c f cr  0.25  f pc  u  d   p Vp (3. u.75) Material resistance factor for reinforcing (0. is a minimum. at the centroid of the cross-section (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.

To determine admissible punching shear strength. 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 .3. partial safety factors for the actions (imposed loading) and resistances (material characteristics) are used. The results of their standardization and comparisons are overviewed in the following sections. 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 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. divided by a control surface around the loaded area. VF  F  VR R (3.59) This states that the demand is less than the capacity of the system.outside c  Vmax c (3.8. Nominal punching shear stress is taken as a shear force (  F  VF ). 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. Comparisons of code equations for punching shear with and without shear reinforcing – standardized approach. 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.

Vc   c  k  f (  l )  u  d (3.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.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 .61) and the steel shear capacity contribution is Vs  Asw   s  f y  sin( ) (3.62) 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.

68) (3.beamstrip  100% bbeamstrip  d (3.7  1     fy   500   f cu . The control perimeter is to be taken at a distance d from the column face.3  s   g 2 (3.2d was not investigated.5%   g  25  (3.65)  s  0.In the following sections the standardised fib formulation of the different codified approached are presented.21  f cu . c s Safety factors: 2. It should be noted that punching shear failures outside an area of 1.63) (3. 200 3 f (  l )  1.8. 200 3 2 58 .1. 011  0.64) (3.10 1. 200 fy  1.056 f cu . 3. Punching cones inclined at angles between 30 and 45 were considered in the formulation.67) Outside shear reinforcing Not investigated Maximum shear capacity Vmax   c   2   02  u  d (3. German design code DIN 1045 (88) The German code considers the cube strength of the concrete and the flexural reinforcing ratio as input parameters.66) g  Asl .75 Resistance without shear reinforcing  c   c   011.69)  02  0. The concrete contribution was calculated to be 25% of the ultimate load capacity.5% 0.

15 Resistance without shear reinforcing (Vc)  c   c  0. 3.25  VF (3.2.74) (3.70) (3.75) f (  l )  1.71) (3. 2   s  0.45   g Within the shear reinforced area Vc  0.035  f c 3 (3.2  40   l 59 .8.73) 2 k  1.6  d  1 (3. 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 1.5 and the cross sectional area b is the same. Stirrups to enclose tension and compression flexural reinforcing. Rectangular columns can be transformed into round columns if a  1.72) Vs  Asw  f y  sin( ) Additional rules Slab to be no less than 150mm thick.

81) Some authors have criticized the Eurocode formulation and have suggested the following changes.79) Asw _ MIN  0.80) 0.5% Resistance outside the shear reinforced area (Vc. Firstly.11%  c  0. l  1. the function expressing the influence of the concrete strength should use the power 1 2 3 instead of 3. Secondly the shear strength c should be increased by 20% and lastly.6  c   Akrit  Aload  sin( ) (3.6  Vc (3. the 60 .78) (3.76) Similar to above under consideration of an exterior control perimeter (3.13% l  Asl .77) Vs   Asw  f y  sin( ) h  200mm (3.control_ perimeter  control_ perimeter  d (3.outside) Maximum shear capacity (Vmax) Resistance within the shear reinforced area (Vc + Vs ) Vc  Punching capacity without shear reinforcing Vmax  1.

8.83) According to Kordina (1994) the punching shear strength without shear reinforcing in the EC2 control perimeter is 20% more than the uniaxial shear capacity.09  f c 3 Vs  (0. while the higher punching shear capacity is judged using a large control perimeter. (1) The punching shear strength is defined as the uniaxial shear strength. For highlevel loads (i. slabs with shear reinforcing) the stress concentrations cannot be neglected and should be limited.efficiency of the stirrups used as shear reinforcing should be changed to 50-60% instead of 100%.  c   c 1.82) (3.6)   Asw  f y  sin( ) 1 (3. In order to rectify this discontinuity the following two ways can be used.2  0. 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 low-level loads. Kordina (1994) showed that the control perimeter of EC2 could be increased. (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. British Standard 8110-1:1997 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 .e.5 _ or _ 0. 3.

25 1. causing a reduction in the required shear reinforcing by up to 50%. c s Safety factors: 1.85) (3.  f cu    Similar to above under consideration of an exterior control perimeter (3.87) f l   100  l 3 l  3% Resistance outside the shear reinforced area (Vc.0  Vc  u0  d  MIN  0.outside) Maximum shear capacity (Vmax)  5   Vmax  2.8.5  d  0.27  f cu 3 av (3.15 Resistance without shear reinforcing (Vct) c  1 1.88) 62 .The 1997 revision of the code takes the beneficial membrane forces acting in a cracked flat slab into account.84) Where av is the distance from the column face to the control perimeter k4 400 d 1 (3. The inclination of the punching shear crack has also been adjusted from 45º to 33º.86) (3.

176 1.92) 3.93) 63 .6vc then Vs  0.33  f c (3.27 Asw f y sin( ) Minimum shear reinforcing A sw  sin( )  0.8. ACI 318-95 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.89) Vc  1.176 Resistance without shear reinforcing (Vc) The Minimum value of the following:  c  0.4ud 1 0.95 f y (3. c s Safety factors: 1.6vc  v f  2vc then (3.95 Asw f y sin( ) If 1.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  1.91) Vs  0.4.90) (3.42Vc (3.

97) f y  414 MPa (3.083  f c   2       c  4   (3. is shown in Fig 3.94)  0 d    c  0.13 and Fig 3.083  f c   2   u resp  u ext    (3.96) Vc  0. 64 .5  fc  u  d (3. as seen in practise.167 f c ud (3.14. c  0.98) Typical shear reinforcing arrangements according to the ACI recommendations.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.

8. thus using the following parameters to estimate the punching resistance of the slab-column connection:    Concrete strength The flexural reinforcing ratio. the longitudinal tensile reinforcing The size effect of the effective depth 65 . DIN 1045-1 (2001) In principle the new DIN code is based on Model Code 90 (fib 1999).14 Shear stirrups on site – detailed and designed according to the ACI-318 recommendations 3.13 Shear-stud rails on site – detailed and designed according to the ACI-318 recommendations Longitudinal Reinforcing Shear Stirrup (Shape Code 72) Lacing Bar Fig 3.5. i.Fig 3.e.

Punching shear resistance of a slab without shear reinforcing The control perimeter is taken at 1.100) (3.1. 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.5. VRd .4 f cd  0.ct  0.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 3.8.ct vRd.2.99) 1 v Rd .8.5. The codified formulation will be presented in the following parts.102) d fck ucrit VRd.ct  v Rd . 3.ct  ucrit (3. 66 .12  100   l  f ck  3    d (3. It has been calibrated using all available test data published from over the world to conform to accepted reliability criteria.5d.02 f yd   1 200 2 d (3. The shear capacity of the shear reinforcing This code is regarded as the latest and safest code at the moment.101)  l  0.

104) (3.sy.ct 0.7  VRd . Punching shear strength outside the shear reinforced area It is assumed that the control perimeter is located at a distance 1.5.3 d  400  1.3.i  vRd .4.107) d fyd ui VRd. 67 .7  0.sy  ui (3.106) v Rd .5d from the last row of stirrups.5.0 400 (3. The level of contribution decreases with increasing distance from the column.i  f yd ui vcrd  v Rd .7  0.sy. Due to stirrup anchorage slip the shear strength of the reinforcing is limited to 70% of yield strength in thin slabs.105) (3.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 cross-sectional area in each row 3.103) 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.ct (3.8.8.VRd .sy  vcrd   s  Asw.i vRd. max  1. VRd .

cta  v Rd .109) (3.cta  ua vRd .167  l w  0.5  d Exterior control perimeter Radial distance between the column face and the last row of stirrups 68 .cta   a vRd .108) (3.VRd .110) a  1  ua lw 0.ct (3.83 3.

4.1. In other words. Accuracy of Experimental Testing Due to the complexity of the punching shear problem. 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 region of negative moments in the real slab is used for a single slabcolumn test. any analytical model has to be based on. Testing of real structures is not feasible due to the tremendous costs involved and the large scale of such a test setup. representative experimental models of structures. These tests are relatively inexpensive and allow full scale testing.1. 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. or verified with experimental test results to a certain extent. The validity of this approach is explained in the following sections. However. Accuracy of Modelling and Codified Design Rules In order to formulate the mathematical modelling of punching shear behaviour and prediction of punching shear failure. or part thereof are needed. Single Column Tests In most cases the dimensions of isolated slab-column are selected to coincide with the lines of contra flexure in the real structure. The only practical option is to test representative parts of the structure either at full scale or scaled down. 4.1.4. Experimental testing of punching shear presents numerous problems.

It seems that boundary forces develop in slabs supported on all edges. Firstly the slab can be supported on its boundary with the load applied on the column. 4. the capacities reduce from 100% for a slab with all four edges supported. This setup allows the forces to distribute along the boundary.1. a similar slab with continuous simple supports on two opposing edges and lastly the four corners were simply supported. The effect of boundary conditions Elstner & Hognestad (1956) tested the effect of different boundary conditions in 1956.1. 70 . to 60. A linear elastic finite element analysis on the three scenarios renders similar shear stress distributions for all three cases. Secondly. to 85% for two opposing edges supported. However. They set up three scenarios.1. If the failure loads are normalized with respect to f c' . The two setups should not be perceived as similar. Load redistribution is not possible Two different configurations of a single column test are possible. Secondly the slab specimen can be supported on the column with the load applied at a fixed distance from the column. a square slab with continuous simple supports along all four edges. This ratio will be the highest for the slab supported on all four edges and consequently a higher punching shear capacity can be expected. These forces enhance the shear capacity of the slab-column connection. It should be noted that the effect of the moment to shear ratio is included in these tests.4% for a slab with corner supports only. the actual testing reveals a decrease in the punching shear capacity with decreasing support provided to the slab boundary. Firstly.

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.7% and 82. it is safe to say that shear strength rises significantly for ratios less than 1. Thus if the supports are too close to the applied load. the distance from the loaded area to the support. 4. As the slab fails and deflects. i. The normalized capacities of these tests are 100%.1. Testing by Bond. Masterson and Rankin indicate strength 71 . Evidently increasing rotational restraint enhances the punching capacity of the connection.Alexander and Simmonds (1992) reported similar results by using three test scenarios providing rotational restraints with rollers.e.1% respectively. secondly. the surrounding concrete restrains the sagging portion of the slab by compressing around it.5. they interfere with the results. and d the effective slab depth.1. Firstly they used a slab with rotations of the corners and edges restrained. 89. Although test data on the influence of the shear span ratio is rather limited. The effect of compressive membrane action Due to the confinement of the slab-column connection by the adjacent slab it also plays a role in the punching shear capacity of the connection. rotations of the edges alone restrained and thirdly rotations of the corners alone restrained. where av is the shear distance. Compressive membrane action is considered as a secondary effect. but remains fairly constant for higher ratios – fib (2001). which occurs after cracking of the concrete and yielding of the reinforcing steel. The punching shear strength of a slab is also influenced by the shear span ratio ( av d ). Long. It has been found that the punching shear capacity increases if the slab specimen extends beyond the nominal line of contra flexure.2.

For design purposes compressive membrane action should not be used as an enhancing factor for the predicted failure loads. The slab consisted of a 150mm thick.1.2. Slab subsystems It is believed that a subsystem will render more realistic results than a single column test. continuously reinforced slab with realistic boundary conditions along lines of zero shear centred on an exterior column and an adjacent interior column. Due to numerous reasons their test is thought to overestimate the capacity enhancement. In addition to these. Testing of this slab resulted in the conclusion that the punching shear capacity for interior slab-column connections is similar for both single column tests and full slab tests. Sherif (1996) tested the most realistic subsystem to date. 4. 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.2. 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 slab-column connections. the fib technical report on punching shear .increases ranging from 30% up to 50% compared to similar single column setups.Bulletin 12 (Reineck et al 2001) presents a database of more than 400 punching shear test results as well 72 . which in turn reduces the shear capacity of the slab. 4. real slabs undergo restrained shrinkage inducing tensile stresses. However.

4. The following significant observations were made:    All tests.2. Hooks and shear ladders account for 17% of the tests. 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. since flat slabs in practise range between 250mm and 350mm in depth. there is a beneficial size effect if failure is due to crushing of the concrete. 49% of the tests used stirrups and 34% used bent-up bars as shear reinforcing.1. 25% failed at the column face and 45% of the slabs failed within the shear reinforced zone. Some of the older publications give no indication of the mode of failure. 150 of the more than 400 available test results were of flat slabs with shear reinforcing.  Only nine specimens were tested with high strength concrete. Firstly. This raises some concern. the following should be kept in mind. except five were done with isolated slab-column connections. 73 . The other reports indicated 30% failed outside the shear reinforced zone.  90% of the tests were done on plates with total depths less than 250mm.  Due to the fact that only thin plates were tested. while foundation plates are normally thicker than 500mm. 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.as a comparison of the prediction performance of the different codified approaches.

2.22 0. 149 tests were used in the statistical analysis of punching tests without shear reinforcing.85 1.23 0. 5%  avg  1. Some application rules of the specific codes necessitated that some test data were not considered for certain codes.38 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. The required 5% fractile of the safety factor. It is generally accepted that a characteristic value represented by the 5% fractile is acceptable.00 Table 4. is 1.e. Comparing the codified capacity predictions with the relevant test results yield the following: m  Vtest Vcode m 1.23 0.16 (4.29 1. Part 1 (1992) ACI318-95 DIN 1045-1 (2001) n/n0 84/149 149/149 v 0.17 0.20 0.19 0. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat Slabs without Shear Reinforcing Modern design codes are driven by reliability principles.25 0.84 0.28 1.72 149/149 112/149 149/149 149/149 1.1) Using the mean values of material strengths. (4.87 0. as seen in Table 4.21 0.4.16 5% 0.2) Code DIN 1045(88) Model Code 90.27 0. FIP Recommendations BS8110-1:1997 Eurocode 2.76 0. i.17 0. In order to meet the 5% design value the shear capacity predicted by MC90 should be 74 .16 0.03 1. 5%.2.0.645   This approach is based on the methods outlined in Eurocode 1.1.98  0.

2 the mean values of the predicted concrete crushing failure are all above the required level. i. DIN 1045-1. 75 . 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.decreased by ±27% and the BS8110 predictions should be decreased ±24%. In order to bring it‟s predictions to a 5% design value. 4.3.2. Comparisons between Design Code Rules and Experimental Results for Flat Slabs with Shear Reinforcing Similar to the predictions for punching failure without shear reinforcing. i. failure of the shear reinforcing Failure outside the shear reinforced area As seen in Table 4. the concrete contribution should be reduced by ±13%.e. The latest German design code.e. 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. was calibrated using the above mentioned test data bank. however the characteristic values are noncompliant with the 5% fractile criterion. The three considered modes being: Concrete crushing at the column face. maximum shear capacity Failure within the shear reinforced area. therefore it complies with the required reliability criteria. on the other hand it overestimates the contribution of higher strength concretes. The acceptable safety level of 5% will only be obtained if the predicted punching strength is reduced by approximately 25%.

3 Statistical results of codified capacity predictions for the punching shear capacity within the shear reinforced area 76 .82 Code DIN 1045(88) Model Code 90.15 1.25 0. but the 5% fractile does not reach the demanded safety level – see Table 4.11 0. It should be noted that only 10% of the tests evaluated with DIN 1045(88).41 0.67 0.24 0. Part 1 (1992) ACI318-95 DIN 1045-1 (2001) n/n0 81/93 42/141 m 1.27 1.78 0.29 5% 1.26 v 0.20 5% 0.74 0.0.26 1.30 0.78 1.29 0. Eurocode 2.14 0.26 0. FIP Recommendations BS8110-1:1997 Eurocode 2.30  0.23 22/141 12/141 122/141 71/141 1.08 1. 86% of tests evaluated with the ACI recommendations failed within the reinforced area.02 Table 4. MC90 and BS8110 failed within the shear reinforced area.62 0.86 0. Part 1 (1992) ACI318-95 DIN 1045-1 (2001) n/n0 12/93 16/141 v 0.19 0.47 1.16 0.80 1.20 0.57 0.28 0.23 0.31 0.34 0.25 0.88 85/141 37/141 13/141 39/141 1.3.31  0.30 0.32 0.33 0.23 0. FIP Recommendations BS8110-1:1997 Eurocode 2.73 1. m 1. On the other hand.29 1.24 0.2 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.Code DIN 1045(88) Model Code 90.16 Table 4.71 0.27 1.

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 BS8110-1:1997 Eurocode 2, Part 1 (1992) ACI318-95 DIN 1045-1 (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 1045-1 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 slab-column 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, non-disruptive 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 slab-column connections.

78

5.1. Strengthening of Existing Slab-column Connections
Theoretically, in order to strengthen an existing slab-column 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 slab-column 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

2 Slab strengthened with additional concrete and bonded plate 80 . 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.Fig. This can be due to the use of unskilled or inexperienced labour.1. Slab strengthened with additional concrete and bonded steel plate Similar to the above solution. 5. 5. Additional longitudinal reinforcing is added by means of bonding steel plates on top of the existing concrete.1. 5. a concrete layover increases the effective depth of the slab. new longitudinal reinforcing and the additional or new shear reinforcing into account. taking the increased slab depth.1 Slab strengthened with additional concrete and vertical bolts Recalculation of the punching shear capacity can now be done. improper use of epoxy bonding agents and/or incorrect preparation of the concrete substrate. Fig.2.

causing delamination of the slab The cross sectional area provided by the plate is not necessarily optimally utilized. The contribution of the plate needs to be investigated further.2. the punching shear capacity can be enhanced substantially. The use of self-compacting concrete and shotcrete would be suited best for this application. This can be achieved rather easily by increasing the column diameter with shotcrete. If not properly addressed load transfer to the column can be a problem. Differential shrinkage of the old. 81 . Reasons for concern are the following:   The plate may act as a bond breaker between the existing concrete and the new overlay. especially when casting the column head through the existing slab. mainly due to the fact that it is located quite far from the extreme tension fibre in the slab section 5. This can be problematic. conventional concrete or self-compacting concrete – see Fig 5. 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. Practically speaking one would not be able to cast conventional concrete to the underside of the existing slab.and new concrete will cause the new column head to separate from the older slab.Recalculation of the punching shear capacity can now be done. Shotcrete and self-compacting concrete can easily be cast to fit snugly to the existing slab.1.3 and Fig 5. Due to differential creep the new concrete column will shorten and will consequently not be loaded as envisaged. Increasing the area of load transfer By increasing the critical shear perimeter of the slab-column connection.4. taking the increased slab depth and additional longitudinal reinforcing (provided by the steel plate) into account.

it can be time consuming and rather expensive to install. Installation of additional shear reinforcing The slab-column connection can be strengthened by means of installing additional shear reinforcing.1. as well as relatively inexpensive. 82 . 5. Doweling additional bars into the existing slab This remedial method will be very easy and fast to install. Fig. 5. thus resulting in a bigger critical perimeter being considered.3.1. However. durable and reliable.3 Punching capacity increased with added column head Fig.1.This remedial measure is cost effective. rendering a higher shear capacity. 5. The new shear reinforcing would typically consist of short reinforcing bars grouted into holes drilled in the slab. 5.4 Punching capacity increased with increased column cross section The punching shear capacity of the slab-column connection can now be calculated using the enlarged column cross section.3.

1.Fig. HILTI HIT-RE 500® or similar – is used. 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. the bonded bars should be at least as effective as bars cast into the slab during construction. 5. 83 .5 Punching capacity increased with additional shear reinforcing The increased punching shear capacity can now be calculated taking the additional shear reinforcing into account.3. Fig.2. 5. Slab strengthened with vertical bolts In the case where an insufficient quantity of shear reinforcing is provided.6. For 450MPa reinforcing bars pullout tests on bars grouted with these grouts mostly result in the bars yielding before concrete pullout failure.6 Slab strengthened with vertical bolts Due to the fact that micro cracking of the slab takes place during failure. If a proper adhesive grout – e. 5. additional shear reinforcing can be added by merely perforating the slab around the column to install steel bolts into the slab – Fig 5.g. is not adequate.

The old adage stating prevention is better than cure is especially true when it comes to the design for punching shear. Repairing slab-column connections showing distress due to punching shear failure or near failure Similar to the strengthening of a slab-column connection there are certain basic points that need to be addressed when repairing a damaged structure.2. 5.5. 84 .2.1.7 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 slab-column 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. 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.

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: 5.2.2.8 Crushing of concrete at the column face 85 .1. with the possibility of shear cracks having developed through the full depth of the slab  Crushing of the concrete at the column face Fig.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.- Due to deterioration of the cover concrete and numerous other reasons the shear crack may never extend to the surface of the slab. Damage Level 2 – Medium to severe levels of damage  Extensive radial and concentric cracking around the column. The shear crack can develop along the longitudinal tension reinforcing causing delamination.1.2. 5.

e. 86 .2. Damage Level 3 – Extreme levels of damage o A myriad of diagonal shear cracks. sufficient understanding of the failure mechanism and sufficient knowledge of the strengthening or structural principles used in the remedial measures. depends on sound engineering judgement. quite a number of factors must be taken into account. 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. Proposed remedial works for the different levels of damage In order to apply the correct remedial measures to a specific structure.1. especially the latter one.g. o Excessive deflection of the slab surrounding the column o The slab being suspended on longitudinal reinforcing bars going through the column core.3. Some of these factors are: o Age and condition of the structure o The use of the structure – i. radial and concentric cracking on the slab surfaces and general disintegration of the concrete. is the structure used as a hospital or as a unimportant storage facility o The expected service-life of the repaired structure o Possible alteration in the use of the structure – e.5. 5. conversion of offices into apartments o The extent and severity of the damage to the structure The interpretation of theses factors. In essence the structure / slab could collapse at any instant if additional loading is introduced or if the structure is damaged any further. the ratio of the level of permanent loads to level of live / repetitive loads o The importance of the structure – e.2.2.g.

e.5.2. i.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.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 cross-section or the addition of bolt-on steel column heads  Replacing the upper portion of the original concrete with a fibre reinforced concrete infill / overlay portion 87 . 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 cross-section or adding column capitals 5.2. 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.1.2. cracks deemed to impair the structural capacity of the connection In addition to this.

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. increasing the effective depth of the slab and adding flexural reinforcing.2.9. thus increasing the critical perimeter. structures subject to lateral loading can show premature punching shear distress due to unbalanced moments transferred to the supporting columns. Similar methods to increase punching shear resistance have been proposed by Martinez et al (1994) – Fig 5. The repair process will at least incorporate the following steps:        Propping of the slab adjacent to the damaged slab-column connection(s) Demolition of the slab surrounding the column.e.3. 88 . 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 slab-column interface by means of enlarging the column or addition of a column capital Casting of a new slab with sufficient longitudinal reinforcing. and/or the addition of shear reinforcing (see 5.1). i.3. disruption of use and intervention.2. Retrofitting of slab-column connections for improved behaviour under seismic loading conditions As described earlier.5. Punching shear problems due to seismic or lateral loading can be addressed similar to normal punching shear problems. shear reinforcing and/or drop panels to resist the required load capacity 5.

3. In most cases the addition of steel fibres can increase the punching loads by up to 36% (Harajli et al 1995).Fig 5. Fibre reinforced concrete infill panel Fig 5.8 Fibre reinforced concrete infill 89 .e. i. Even more significant than the increased capacity is the increased toughness of the connections.9 Proposed retrofitting of a slab-column 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 slab-column connection as much as possible. 5. the resistance of the connection is maintained over a large deflection range.1. In addition to the conventional methods proposed earlier. the use of fibre reinforced concrete (FRC) can be well suited to this application.

According to some testing the slab-column connection will tend towards flexural failure instead punching shear failure. Demolition of part of the existing concrete slab and replacement thereof with fibre reinforced concrete Fig 5.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. 90 .2.3. 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. the ultimate punching capacity of the slab can be increased significantly. Given that proper and problem-free joining of the two concrete materials can be achieved.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.

6. 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 slab-column connections   The damaged slab is to serve as a springboard to judge the performance of some of the proposed repair methods.   The test would provide a basis on which the performance of the DIN code could be assessed. 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. Experimental Testing of an Undamaged Slab-column 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. Some teething problems with the test set up still need to be resolved. DIN 1045-1 (2001). even though such a judgement may be a hit-and-miss affair. 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 1045-1. 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 1054-1 code. DIN 1045-1 has been calibrated using all available test data to render a 5% fractile of safety. The reasons for using a foreign code as opposed to the SABS 0100 code is the following:   The current SABS code is based on BS8110-1:1985. 91 . since the support frames used for the previous testing were done away with long ago.

Restraint of the slab and load application to the column is illustrated in Fig 6.1 Proposed laboratory setup The punching shear capacity of the slab is estimated with the latest DIN 1045-1 recommendations and the accompanying shear reinforcement designed to deliver a slab-column connection with an estimated failure load of approximately 375kN (Appendix A). 220mm thick 30MPa slab and a 200mm x 200mm square concrete column.2. Punching shear design for the final Eurocode2 will most likely be based on the DIN 1045-1 formulation. The construction sequence of the test panel is outlined in Fig 6. It was set out to build and test a slab-column connection consisting of a 2400mm x 2400mm. Fig 6.1. Experimental Test Setup For the purpose of this publication a single column setup was proposed. 6. Longitudinal reinforcing provided would be such that flexural failure does not occur – refer to Appendix A for calculations. 92 .1.

thus making the risk too big for not being able to repair the test model.Fig 6. Testing a slab without shear reinforcing could easily fail in a brittle manner and collapse. Effectively a 1828mm x 1828mm slab was tested .the excess 93 .3.2 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. thus eight supports could be used to restrain the slab – Fig 6. The available laboratory is equipped with anchoring positions on a square grid spaced at 914mm centre-to-centre.

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. Fig 6.length of the panel providing ample space to anchor the reinforcing sufficiently and as far away from the supports as possible.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.4. Fig 6.

2. 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. one can study repair methods by pre-damaging the specimen with the application of an increasing 95 . Subsequently. 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. on a new slab specimen. 4 & 5 – 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.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.Fig 6. Proposed Test Procedure In a series of tests the total load-deformation behaviour of a slab can be established. 3.

load up to the point where a peak value is reached. 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. the abovementioned steps will be repeated until the slab is not fit to be repaired any more. time allowed testing and repair of one slab only.0 MPa 96 .1 MPa 54.3. as well as concrete and concrete. If a higher degree of damage is to be repaired.6 MPa 51. On the day of testing three (3) of the cubes were crushed. 6. In this study. giving the following results: Cube 1: Cube 2: Cube 3: 49. Actual Test – Virgin test panel 6. Then grouting or another repair method can be applied and it‟s effectiveness tested. This time the slab will either be tested to total collapse or tested to a more severe state of damage. The repair and strengthening of the slab was envisaged as the installation additional shear reinforcing in the slab.1. The additional reinforcing consisted of vertical reinforcing bars doweled into the slab using epoxy grout.3. Application of the product is uncomplicated Rapid curing After proper curing has taken place a second punching shear test will be done. Material Test Results At construction of the test panel numerous 150mm concrete cubes were cast.

the graph rebounded to the initial slope of the curve.5 ton jack. Operation of the hydraulic pump was stopped whenever any significant events took place. Loads 1 & 2 were done with a single 62.Average: Standard Deviation: 51.20 MPa 6.g. 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. The jack was placed in series with a digital load cell and a Teflon-coated swivel-head. Due to the creep and/or loss of hydraulic pressure there are some points on the load vs. e.5 ton jack driven by a hand operated hydraulic pump. The three applications are designated as Load 1. Load Application The load on the concrete column stub was applied using a hydraulic 62. Load 2 and Load 3.6 MPa 2.2. 97 . while Load 3 was done using two similar jacks in series driven by a more powerful hand operated hydraulic pump. audible concrete cracking and/or visible cracks appearing on the concrete surface. However when pumping resumed.3. When pumping stopped some hydraulic fluid flowed back towards the pump and some creep in the concrete took place.

3. Due to the strength of the concrete the hole wasn‟t vertical and the bolt rubbed against the sides of the hole.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. Elapsed Time 6.3. During the casting process two of the sleeves moved.Fig 6. Placement and Setting Up of the Test Panel When lowering the test panel (Fig 6.6 Column Load vs. Fig 6. The one sleeve was misaligned approximately 15mm and the hole had to be reamed with a concrete drill to get the rod through.7 Test Panel Placement 98 .

The adjustment was done by inspection and adding/subtracting a constant value to the affected measurements to render a more realistic curve.10 respectively. 6. Original Panel – Load Application 1  The test slab was only restrained vertically.4. The measured and adjusted behaviours of Corner 1 and Corner 2 can be seen in Fig 6. Since LVDT 2 & 3 were screwed into Perspex plates.3. As the panel deformed the flexible supporting rods would allow the edges to move inwards. This is quite significant for Corner 3 and less pronounced for Corner 4. The deformation can be visualized as a square piece of paper forced to take a conical shape. Fig 6.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 movement of the slab caused the stanchions on the LVDTs to bend – Fig 6. 99 . thus no membrane forces could develop.8 Bending of LVDT stanchions  Due to this movement the LVDTs were placed on the concrete.9 and Fig 6. This also meant that the slab would move horizontally underneath the LVDTs.8. which is only possible if the edges move towards the centre as the centre displaces vertically. Subsequently the measured deflection values underwent a jump in value and needed some adjustment.

9 Corner 1 – Measured & Adjusted Deflection Values Fig 6.11. 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. the first loading sequence shows a fairly jumpy load vs. deflection curve – Fig 6.Fig 6.

deflection. Consequently all further calculations are based upon the average deflections of LVDTs 4 & 5. they follow a more acceptable linear behaviour of load vs. Corner Support Deflections From Fig 6.Fig 6. Even though the latter two are more affected by the friction between the supporting rods and the slab.11 it is evident that the deflection behaviours of LVDTs 2 & 3 do not follow the same trend as that of LVDTs 4 & 5. Fig 6.11 Load 1 – Column Load vs.12 Load 1 – Column Load vs. Average Relative Middle Deflection 101 .

±350kN to ±550kN column load The panel continued to behave with a linear increase in deflection for the growing load.  ±2.13 (c).5mm deflection.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 6.5mm deflection and 250kN – Fig 6. 102 .12 the following can be concluded:  0mm to ±2. indicative of flexural cracking – Fig 6.5mm to ±8.From Fig 6.5mm deflection.13 First visible cracking on the concrete surface From 250kN to 350kN the crack pattern grew into a radial pattern. 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.

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. The increased load caused the cracks formed at lower loads to open up more significantly – Fig 6.16.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. Fig 6.14. At approximately 475kN the first shear crack appeared around the column – Fig 6.17.

5. i.5mm to ±3mm deflection (unloading) Removing the applied column load caused an approximately linear elastic unloading behaviour of the test specimen – Fig 6. the response of the test panel was practically linear with the second load application – Fig 6.12. Deflection curve would form a plateau with increasing deflection. ductile failure.17 Increased crack width Due to behaviour of the LVDTs at Corner 1 & 2. 6. it is clear that further plastic deformation took place. it was decided to unload the slab and modify the test equipment to increase its loading capacity. Should the slab start yielding due to flexural failure.Fig 6. the test was terminated at approximately 550kN. Consequently.19. After unloading.e. Original Panel – Load Application 2 Due to the fact that initial cracking had already taken place. Punching shear failure was not yet achieved at the maximum loading capacity of the original test setup. 104 .  ±8.3. the Load vs. It should be noted that the elastic limit for the bending steel has not yet been reached. 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.

2 & 4.Fig 6. The second load application caused the existing cracks to become more pronounced. As seen in Fig 6.19 from ±5mm deflection to unloading. Subsequently the average value of the corner deflections was calculated using only Corners 1.18. 105 .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. As the jack approached the end of its capacity. pumping became more strenuous to the operator. the load-deflection behaviour of Corner 3 differs considerably from that of the other corners. The lower rate of load application seems to cause the response curve to flatten – as seen in Fig 6. The friction causes the support to have sudden deflections as the frictional forces are overcome at distinct instances.

20) and a bigger capacity hydraulic hand pump. load cell and swivel-head arrangement 106 . Fig 6.19 Load 2 – Column Load vs. Original Panel – Load Application 3 In order to push the test panel to punching failure.3. Average Relative Middle Deflection 6.20 New hydraulic jack.Fig 6.6. the maximum loading capacity of the setup was increased by introducing a second hydraulic jack (Fig 6.

In order to do plot the load-deflection behaviour of the slab panel.21. Fig 6.22 Load 3 – Column Load vs.21 Load 3 – Column Load vs. Average Relative Middle Deflection For the third load application the following significant stages can be highlighted: 107 .22. Corner Deflections Once again the measurements taken at LVDT 5 (Corner 3) differed substantially from the other three corner measurements – Fig 6. 2 & 4 (LVDTs 2. the average value of corners 1. 3 & 5) were used – Fig 6.Fig 6.

Cracking of concrete was quite audible towards 725kN.23 Concrete crushing at the column face Secondly. Between 750kN and 850kN two significant observations could be made. further away from the column – Fig 6. 0kN to ±725kN Reloading of the slab shows a fairly linear relation between the applied load and measured deflections. Firstly.  ±6mm to ±8mm deflection. another shear crack appeared on the concrete surface.24.23. 0mm to ±6mm deflection.24 Appearance of the second shear crack 108 . crushing of the concrete at the interface of the column and the slab soffit started – Fig 6. Fig 6. 725kN to ±850kN The angle of response started to decrease in this stage of the load application. Fig 6.

±850kN to ±450kN It was clear that the slab had reached its failure load. 6.  ±10. as in the above tests. For a limited number of load repetitions.5mm deflection.7. the testing produced three sets of data instead of one single series.25  Highlighted possible punching shear cracks ±8mm to ±10. 109 .  ±13mm to ±5. accompanied by audible cracking inside the concrete.5mm deflection. however. The deflection increased dramatically with a lower resistance to the column load. the stiffness of the panel decreased.5mm to ±13mm deflection. The test panel could be seen deflecting.3. Original Panel – Combination of results – Loads 1. showing an increased deflection for a fairly constant load. For most materials a single test from the undamaged state to failure produces an upper bound reaction curve. the rate of recovery was much lower than for the previous two load applications. ±850kN Suddenly.Fig 6. 2 &3 Due to the high punching resistance of the slab. The residual deflection is also substantially more than for loads 1 & 2. unloading Upon unloading the slab once again recovered in a linear fashion.

Using the data as adjusted previously and adding the residual displacement of each preceding test (Fig’s 6.27 6.27 Load 2 – Translated Response Curve 110 .26 Load 1 – Response Curve Fig 6. Fig 6.29).26 6.28) one obtains the assumed envelope of response (Fig 6.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.

This is confirmed by the crack pattern.28 Load 3 – Translated Response Curve Fig 6.29 Combined Translated Response Curves – Load 1. 2 &3 From Fig 6. Even though the decrease in capacity is rather drastic. 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. 111 .Fig 6. yet constant value. After cracking of the concrete takes place the stiffness decreases to a lower. it is not typical brittle behaviour.29 the behaviour of the panel can be summarized as follows: For the first part the slab shows a fairly steep elastic behaviour.

1) d 10  tan  154 r1  79. Accordingly the ultimate punching shear capacity calculation is as follows: (The following equations are extracted from 2.52mm r2  79.788mm (6.788  112 .3.3) Fpun  Fct  Fdow  Fsw  Fp (eq. This same assumption was used in the comparative calculations in the fip Bulletin 12 (2001). with an intermediate level of ductility between shear failure (brittle) and flexural failure (ductile.shear failure occurred.It can be concluded that a mixed flexural.46mm r1  rs  (eq.8) 154 tan 30 r2  346.5) Calculation of Fct rs  rs  l1  l2 2 200  200 2 rs  79.7) r2  rs  d tan  (eq.1. At this angle the failure plane will cross both rows of shear reinforcing.788  10  tan 30 r1  106. 2.8. 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°. with a plateau being reached at the peak resistance). 2. 6. 2.

15) 113 . 2.35   0.24  50 2 3 2 3 (6.52  106.6  1     d   da   1 2  154  2   1.5  2 r  h 2 rs  1.24  f cu f t  0.141103  0.9 1542 (eq.9141% 220 1000 (6.198 According to the CEB-FIP Committee the tensile strength of is f t  0.3)   0.25 h 79.1    1.6  1   19     0.257 MPa  2011  9.788    0.1  2  0.91412  0.1   s   0.788  79.12)   0.9  d 2 346.35   0.082 (eq.53 1 (eq.14) Assuming the maximum aggregate size of 19mm   1.462  0.2) f t  3.46    0.687 (eq.9141  0.25   0.5  220  220    1.46  0.1 0. 2. 2. 2.s s r2  r1 2  0.9) s  277.

257 Fct  341.77 2    346.46  346.Fct    r1  r2   s   v Fct    r1  r2   s  f t 3       2 Fct    (106. i. 2.198  3.10) 3  0.e. As is taken as the total area of longitudinal tensile reinforcing crossing the circle defined by r2. # _ bars   21.93 103 tan 30  4377.16) The number of bars is estimated by dividing the circumference of a circle with radius r2.52 100 (6.56kN 2 (eq.606 450   0.17)     s fs 397.67  s  397. Fpun  Fct  Fdow  Fsw  Fp and  s  450MPa .687  1. 2.606MPa (eq.53 Calculation of Fdow The calculation of Fdow is more complicated. s  s  tan    As Fpun 1004. with the average spacing of the tensile reinforcing. In order to obtain the Fpun value the Excel solver is used with two constraining conditions.884 (eq.082  0. 2.4) 114 . since the ultimate punching load is needed to calculate the tensile stress in the longitudinal reinforcing.52)  277.

By investigating a scenario with the shear crack originating outside the first perimeter of reinforcing.94kN Again the calculated capacity of the system is higher than the experimental failure load.e.48kN  450  sin 90 (eq.15) 2 Fdow  97.61kN = 282. rs  175mm and 8 shear stirrups intersecting the failure plane. i.22) Failure Load Fpun  Fct  Fdow  Fsw  Fp Fpun  341. 115 .1 Fdow    s2  f c  f s  1   2  sin  2 bars 1 Fdow   21. 2.74kN This calculated capacity is higher than the experimental failure load.884 2  sin 30  (eq.74kN Fpun = 901.56  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. 2.77 16 2  50  450  1  0. the results are: Fct Fdow Fsw → = 410.7  565.48  0 Fpun  1004.58kN = 208.

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 slab-column 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 Slab-column 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 column-slab 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

2) some bars were hit during drilling. The positions of the new shear reinforcing dowels were then indicated on the slab and the drilling commenced. as shown in Fig 7.3(b) shows the drilled holes in the slab. This offers some insight on the fact that during testing a great deal of cracking was audible. Even though the existing reinforcing was mapped (Fig 7. 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. Using the correct equipment drilling the required holes in the slab is fairly easy.3(a) the desired positions of the additional shear reinforcing bars were marked on the slab and drilling took place accordingly. In some places in the shear reinforced area one could feel brittle / hollow regions within the slab. As seen in Fig 7. Fig 7. It can only mean that not all the shear cracks developed to the 119 .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. without the accompanying cracks appearing somewhere on the slab surface. 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. Some of the bar positions were extrapolated from the data acquired by mapping certain areas on the slab. During drilling one was able to distinguish from the drill feedback whether the slab was cracked or not as the drill-bit progressed into the slab.2.Fig 7.

2 Shear reinforcing perimeters and reinforcing layout superimposed on the crack pattern (a) (b) (a) Positions (b) Positions Fig 7. Fig 7. These cracks probably evolved into delaminations along the tensile reinforcing. The epoxy was allowed to cure for a weekend.4.3 of new shear reinforcing superimposed on the slab of the drilled holes After drilling. all the holes were properly cleaned.surface. 120 . filled with HILTI RE-500 epoxy adhesive and the reinforcing bars inserted in the holes – Fig 7. A total of three HILTI RE-500 tubes were used to fill the holes.

Testing of the Repaired Panel 7. The modus operandi was similar to the initial testing of the slab.3. unwanted stress concentration and cracking occurred at the centre supports.1. The bearing conditions at the middle supports were modified and a second load was applied.6 MPa 53.4 Epoxy injection of the holes and the finished product 7. Load Application Similar to testing of the virgin panel two 62. 121 . The load evolutions for the two applications are shown in Fig 7.Fig 7.5 ton hydraulic jacks driven by a hand-operated pump were used.3.0 MPa 52.5 and Fig 7. Due to migration of the cracking towards the supports.6 MPa 0.3. consequently the first load application was stopped. Material Test Results On the day of testing three 150mm concrete cubes were crushed.84 MPa 7.1 MPa 53.2. Cube 1: Cube 2: Cube 3: Average: Standard Deviation: 51.6.

122 .5 Load 1 – Column load vs.7.3. Elapsed Time Fig 7.3. 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 in-plane movement of the panel took place – see Fig 7. Elapsed Time 7.Fig 7. This can be clearly seen in Fig 7.8. Similar to the load applications on the virgin test panel some of the supports presented problems.6 Load 2 – Column load vs.

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.8 Column load vs. firstly.Fig 7. Secondly.7 Corner LVDT setup Fig 7. Corner Support Deflections From Fig 7. 123 . This instrument shows a substantial deflection at ±200kN. while the LVDTs at Corners 2 and 4 do not. Corner 3 shows erratic behaviour due to friction between the supporting rod and the concrete. it seems as if there were some interference with the LVDT at Corner 1.8 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 shear-reinforced zone – Fig 7.13.

Fig 7.13

Appearance of new shear cracks outside the perimeter of dowel bars

126

14. The support conditions had to be altered before the panel could be tested to destruction. it seems as if the cracking started to migrate towards the supports along the tensile reinforcing. Up to this point the new shear crack had become significantly visible and the slab seemed to be increasing in thickness. It was decided to stop the test. Cracking was audible inside the slab. Fig 7. 7. ±400kN to ±550kN column load After the appearance of the shear crack outside the last perimeter of shear reinforcing. without significant new flexural or shear cracks appearing on the concrete surface.15 shows the load deflection behaviour of the repaired slab when it is added to the response of the undamaged specimen.5mm deflection. the angle of response on the load-deflection curve decreased. ±6mm to ±10mm deflection. However. To get better insight into the behaviour of the repaired slab in comparison with the original. Delamination of the concrete at theses supports was clearly evident. 127 . the measurements of the different tests can be added together. ±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. Fig 7.14 Delamination due to cracking migrating to the supports  ±10mm to ±12. 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.

Fig 7.16. It was thought best to increase the area of load transfer at the supports before any further testing took place – Fig 7. However. due to the observed migration of cracking. In essence this proves that the installation of additional reinforcing is an effective way of countering punching shear failure.3. 128 . the support conditions of the slab were interfering with the mode of failure. causing shear cracks to grow to the surface outside the shear reinforced zone. Delamination started to occur at the small bearing plates. Relative Middle Deflection Original Panel & Repaired Panel 7.15 Column Load vs.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.

17 Column load vs. (b) Revised Support Due to the friction in the supports reloading of the repaired panel caused erratic movements on the load-deflection plots of the corner supports – as seen in 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. Fig 7.16 Revised support conditions: (a) Original support. Corner Support Deflections In order to calculate the average support deflection the measurements of only Corners 2 and 4 were used.17. The values measured at Corner 3 are too erratic due to the friction between the tie rod and the slab. 129 .(a) (b) Fig 7.

The two most important observations for this portion of the test were.Fig 7. Secondly.18 Column load vs. that delamination of the concrete continued at the supports. 0kN to ±400kN column load Reloading caused the slab to behave with an initial parabolic curve settling to a linear response from ±100kN onwards. firstly. 130 .19 Column load vs. 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.20. Relative Middle Deflection From Fig 7. Corner Support Deflections Fig 7.0mm deflection.

The direction of growth is indicated with dotted arrows.21. as seen in Fig 7.21 Development of the outer shear crack 131 .19.20  Delamination at middle support ±10mm to ±15mm deflection. Fig 7.Fig 7. the newly formed shear crack was growing around the last row of shear reinforcing. A peak value can be observed at approximately 425kN – Fig 7. ±400kN to ±400kN column load At approximately 400kN the slope of the load-deflection curve decreased dramatically. On the top surface of the slab. Post peak the load carrying capacity of the slab started to decrease with increased deflection.

Accompanying this.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. Delamination of the cover concrete became highly defined on the one end of the slab.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. Fig 7. With continued pumping of the jacks the slab resistance remained fairly constant with very high and increasing middle deflections.22. This can be clearly seen in Fig 7.23 & Fig 7. The behaviour of the slab is similar to bending failure behaviour in reinforced concrete. 132 .24. the slab thickness started to increase as a cone of concrete was being pushed out of the original slab.

24 Bulging of the slab 133 .Fig 7.23 Continued delamination and shear cracking Fig 7.

In Fig 7.25 the compilation of all the load-deflection curves can be seen.25 Column Load vs. The jacks were kept extended to support the slab in its bulging form.24 – continued Bulging of the slab Further pumping was stopped and the instrumentation removed. Fig 7.Fig 7. Relative Middle Deflection Original Panel & Repaired Panel 134 .

It was so loose that it could be removed with bare hands.3.26  Intact shear reinforced zone The epoxy grout flowed into the cracks wherever the drilled holes intersected inclined shear cracks. The following observations were made:  Delamination of the concrete was much worse on the one side of the slab. Dismantling of the failed slab panel With the jacks extended the loose cover concrete was removed and the slab thoroughly inspected. The concrete surrounding this crack was disintegrating quite badly. Fig 7.26  Removing the cover concrete The shear-reinforced zone remained intact.5.7. When the loose concrete was removed it was clear that a very large shear crack developed outside the outer perimeter of shear reinforcing. 135 . Fig 7.

Fig 7. The dowel failed due to an insufficient depth of embedment or insufficient filling of the hole with epoxy.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. 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 the bar on the left is clearly the shorter one of the two.28  Extent of epoxy crack bonding Some of the dowel bars did not extend into the slab sufficiently. Fig 7. 136 . the epoxy flowed into the cracks only to a limited extent – Fig 7.28. On Fig 7.

29  Shear crack travelling beneath dowel The longitudinal reinforcing de-bonded outside the shear-reinforced zone.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. The result of this opening of the hook is evident in the soffit cover concrete spalling underneath the shear clips – Fig 7. 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. 137 .  As the slab increased in thickness the original shear clips started to take load.30.

31.31 Misaligned column 138 . asymmetric levels of strength around the slab or eccentric loading of the column. which in turn caused a differential shear stress distribution in the control perimeters. Fig 7. This clearly caused a moment on the column. Consequently one side of the slab punched before the other side. the travel of the column was not vertical – see Fig 7.30 Deformed shear clip and column punching through soffit  Due to either asymmetric support conditions.Fig 7.

the punching shear design approach in SABS0100:2000 needs to be given attention. it would be good practice to detail all slab-column with shear stirrups. 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. Consequently it is very likely that a slab-column connection will fail at a load much higher than anticipated and calculated. Conclusions Firstly an overview of the current design practise for the prevention of punching shear failure has been presented.  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.1. regardless whether it is needed or not. It is recommended that further investigations be undertaken to verify the applicability of the new German design code (DIN 1045-1 2001) to our construction and detailing practices. repairing of the slab with vertical dowels and HILTI RE-500 epoxy grout. can be judged as successful in principle due to the following reasons: (1) The extended shear-reinforced 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 . In lieu of the findings by the fib. South African concrete design is based on the recommendations of BS8110-1. The experimental testing of the original panel and the repaired panel leads to the following conclusions:  Due to the reliability-based approach in the formulation of codified design formulas it is difficult to estimate the exact failure load of a structural system.  Even though the repaired panel did not reach the failure load of the original panel. Conclusions and Recommendations 8. Modern code formulations allow a 5% probability of failure.8.

past dowels not installed to a sufficient depth and then grows at an angle towards the top of the slab. Injection has to be done under pressure. it will be possible to test the effectiveness of different repair methods at varying levels of initial damage. This should preferably be done after removing of all unsound cover concrete and other loose concrete. Consequently the method of Menétrey (2002) may overestimate the contribution of the doweling effect of the tension reinforcing. etc. the anchorage of the tension reinforcing is compromised. 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. hexagonal. 8. Only nine specimens in the fib databank used high strength concrete. epoxy injection of all cracks is essential for a more effective repair. The influence of the supports on the testing of both an undisturbed and repaired panel need to be investigated and better understood.   With the additional testing the slab was most probably damaged further away from the column than anticipated. 140 .  More punching shear tests with high strength concrete are needed. If several panels of exactly the same virgin behaviour can be produced. Recommendations  Due to cracking within the slab. circular.2.  When installing vertical dowels it would be better to let the bars protrude from the slab soffit.   It is proposed that a proper analysis and parametric study need to be undertaken to quantify the effectiveness of different repair methods. Other panel layouts should be investigated and tested. i. Due to delamination of the concrete.e. causing boundary interference. as well as a known point of failure. 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. Shear cracking appears to travel along the bottom reinforcing.

141 . The behaviour of a repaired slab-column connection subject to both vertical loading and unbalanced moments needs to be investigated.

   1  x  8  0.172   1  200     1828   7. 142 . The calculation below is done using the intended concrete crushing strength of the slab as 30MPa with Y16 bars at 100mm spacing. 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.607 (9.607   450 154  1  154  1000 154 1000 4  50        966kN (9. According to Mervitz (1971) the ultimate bending capacity can be estimated using a formulation found in ACI318-63.9.2) 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. 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.172  1 D    L       1  8  0.1)  3   f y   Pbend  x    f y  d 2  1   4  f cu    2011    450   3 2011 2   7. bending failure of the slab needs to be prevented.

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 3.7) N sd .5 for clarification of the symbols used below] Shear capacity without shear reinforcing VRd .12   cd  d  ucrit 1   (9.1    100  l  f ck  3  0.4)   1.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 (9.0 for normal concrete l  Asl  0.for prestress N < 0 Ac 143 .02 bw  d (9.0 d (9.5)   1  cd  200  2.ct  0.6) (9.

15)  a  1 0.a   a  vRd .12   cd  d   ui  u  Aswi   i  s  0.Calculation of required punching shear reinforcing VRd . conc) 144 .12   cd  d  (9.sy.sy  ui vRd .1     100   l  f c  3  0.12)  A  f  u  1  P   0.sy  vcrd  (9. For the design of the test panel the following parameters were considered to be unity:   The enhancement factor ( Partial material factors (rebar.ct .1     100  l  f ck  3  0.29lw  0.ct (9.7  f y   (9.ct  0.5d Using these design equations a spreadsheet was set up to design the test panel.12   cd  d  s swi yd   i ui   1000 Rearranging (9.13) Punching outside the shear reinforcing vRd .71 3.12) yields the required area of shear reinforcing    P 103  1  0.14) (9.10) 1 3  s  Aswi  f yd vcrd  vRd .11) (9.1    100  l  f ck   ui  0.i  vRd .8) (9.

Table 9.1 Punching Design with 30MPa Concrete 145 .

Table 9.2 Punching Design with 51.6MPa Concrete 146 .

52mm r2  79.462  0.46mm r1  rs  r2  rs  d tan  154 tan 30 r2  346.788  s s r2  r1 2  0.3.1.788mm d 10  tan  154 r1  79.52  106. 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  79.9  d 2 346.788  10  tan 30 r1  106.10.8 the capacity calculation of the test panel using Menétrey‟s method is done as follows: 10.198 According to the CEB-FIP Committee the tensile strength of is 147 . Appendix B – Calculations using the Mechanistic Model Proposed by Menétrey As extracted from 6.9 1542 s  277.

082  0.25 h h 79.141103  0.24  50 2 3 2 3 f t  3.687  1.56kN 2 3  0.6  1   19     0.5  s  1.25   0.52)  277.082 2 2 Assuming the maximum aggregate size of 19mm   1.198  3.9141% 220 1000   0.6  1     d   da   1 2  154  2   1.35   0.91412  0.687 r r    0.24  f cu f t  0.53 Calculation of Fdow The calculation of Fdow is more complicated.257 Fct  341.35   0.46    0.46  346.f t  0.1 0.46  0.1    1.9141  0.5  220  220    1.788  79.1   s   0.53 1 Fct    r1  r2   s   v Fct    r1  r2   s  f t 3       2 Fct    (106. since the ultimate punching load is needed to calculate the tensile stress in the 148 .257 MPa  2011  9.1  2  0.788    0.

77 16 2  50  450  1  0.93 103 tan 30  4377. # _ bars   21.e. 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. In order to obtain the Fpun value the Microsoft Excel solver is used with two constraining conditions.606MPa     s fs 397.67  s  397.70kN     Calculation of Fsw 149 . with the average spacing of the tensile reinforcing.longitudinal reinforcing.52 100 1 Fdow    s2  f c  f s  1   2  sin  2 bars 1 Fdow   21. The objective of the solver is to maximize the ratio of Fcalc:Ftest.884 2  sin 30  2 Fdow  97. Fpun  Fct  Fdow  Fsw  Fp and  s  450MPa .606 450   0. s  s  tan    As Fpun 1004.77 2    346. The calculated value has no real value. i.884 The number of bars is estimated by dividing the circumference of a circle with radius r2.

rs  175mm and 8 shear stirrups intersecting the failure plane.48kN  450  sin 90 Failure Load Fpun  Fct  Fdow  Fsw  Fp Fpun  341. i.74kN 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.94kN = 410.48  0 Fpun  1004.7  565.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 .e. the results are: Fpun Fct Fdow = 901.58kN = 208.56  97.

54kN = 0.04kN = 465. the results are: Fpun Fct Fdow Fsw = 770.50kN = 304. rs  290mm and no shear stirrups intersect the failure plane.00kN 151 .74kN Fig 10.e.Fsw = 282.2 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.

On the second perimeter the 8 new bars and the 8 existing clips are taken into account. 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.Fig 10.2. 152 . etc. Only 8 of the bars on the inner perimeter are considered as still effective due to anchorage slip. 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.

(3) Shear crack originating at the second perimeter of shear reinforcing The following assumptions were made:  The concrete contribution can be ignored 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.

(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. 24 bars cross the shear crack. Only the third perimeter is assumed to bridge the shear crack. 154 .

1 Test Panel Reinforcing Schedule 155 .11. Appendix C – Construction Details Fig 11.

2 Drawings for Formwork Manufacturing (not to scale) 156 .Fig 11.

Fig 11.3 Sketch for Placement of Original Shear Reinforcing Fig 11.4 Sketch for Placement of Additional Shear Reinforcing 157 .

12.14  i   V  1  3    n A   V   (11.2)   180   (11.6) Extent of yield pattern r a b   V n A (11.5) General   m  2       m'  m    1  i   1.1) Edge Columns m'  m (11.14  m  V  1  3  V    (11.3)  n A   5.4) Corner Columns  n A   2  m  V  1  3  V    (11.7) 158 . 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.

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 .

Where extremely high injection pressures are needed. Cracks should be water-jetted to clean out solvents and then blown out with compressed air and allowed to air-dry. grease. Mechanical means or appropriate solvents should remove these foreign substances.13. 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. Step 3: Installation of injection ports Three methods are generally used: (a) Drilled holes with a fitting inserted. Where the crack face cannot be reached. cracks should be cut out to a depth of about 13mm and about 20mm wide in a V-shape. This groove should then be filled with epoxy and finished flush with the concrete surface. Appendix E – Method for Epoxy Crack Injection Step 1: Clean the cracks Oil. Acids and corrosives are not permitted. dirt. efflorescence and concrete particles will prevent desired epoxy penetration and bonding. In the continuous mixing system the two components of the epoxy pass through 160 . the backfill material is often an adequate seal. 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. but where there is backfill. Step 2: Seal the surface Surface cracks are to be sealed in order to prevent leakage of the epoxy before it has gelled.

causing further damage to the structure. 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. A crack can be regarded as filled when the injection pressure can be maintained. Horizontal cracks are filled in a similar manner – from one end to the other. When epoxy reaches the upper port. if not. Step 6: Seal removal The epoxy seal can be removed by means of grinding or other appropriate method.individual driving and metering pumps before passing through an automatic mixing head. paint pressure pots and air-actuated caulking guns can be used. Increased pressure often has no significant increase in filling rate of the crack. or a leak may be present. Excessive injection pressure may cause propagation of the crack. 161 . epoxy is still filling the crack. the lower one can be capped and injection continued at the upper one. Fitting holes should be patched with an epoxy compound. Vertical cracks should be filled from the lowest port upwards. Step 5: Injection of the epoxy Hydraulic pumps.

Beutel R. Stahlbeton und Spannbeton. 2000. Elsevier. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of the shear reinforcing in the punching zone. 2002. 531-538. Bazant ZP. Oh BH. United Kingdom 14. Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion.28 (1956). 539-549. Gardner NJ.3. Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002). pp. 1956.com 14. Detroit.10. Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs. BS8110-1:1997. Structural use of concrete – Part 1: Code of practice for design and construction. Hognestad E.110. ACI Journal. Toronto. Bazant ZP. ACI318M-02 & ACI318RM-02. V.2. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Berlin. CSA International. 2002. metal. pp. pp155-177 14. Germany 14. American Concrete Institute. Bazant ZP. Albrecht U. 1992. rock. pp. V. Alexander S. 523-529. Lessons from the Sampoong department store collapse.6. www. CAN/CSA-S6-00. Design of flat slabs for punching – European and North American practices. Michigan.29-58. DIN 1045-1. Size effect in punching shear failure of slabs. Elsevier. USA 14.elsevier. Elsevier. USA 14. Elstner RC. USA 14. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 2002. BSI. USA 14. V. Punching Shear Tests of Concrete Slab-column Joints Containing Fibre Reinforcement. www. ACI Structural Journal.12.elsevier.1. 16(93). American Concrete Institute. Simmonds S. 1984.elsevier. Detroit. www. 1987. Hegger J. Deutsches Institut für Normung. 2002. Canada 14.9. pp.84. Cao Z.8. 1983.4. Materials and Structures. Tragwerke aus Beton. Lan Chung. 44-53.com 14.com 162 . July. No. Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002) pp. 518-535 14.7.11. Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete. pp 425-432. 2001. Jungsuck Hugh. Detroit.1.5.14. References 14. 2002. Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002) pp.

pp. 1998. Sweden 14.1. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Synthesis of Punching Failure in Reinforced Concrete. Practical Yield Line Design. Bond D. Post-tensioned Flat-plate Slabcolumn Connections Subjected to Earthquake Loading.com 163 . Gardner NJ. 161-170. pp773-782 14. Menétrey P.16. Strenghtening of Bridge Slabs on Columns. Proc of the Institution of Civil Engineers. January-February. fib. Torsion und Durchstanzen nach EC 2. 14. KTH. Goodchild C.21. 497-507. Krüger G. Punching of concrete slabs without shear reinforcing. Cement & Concrete Composites. Stockholm. Kinnunen S. Symposium in Civil Engineering. Sweden 14. 139-148. 1999. 1994. Elsevier. Vol. Teil 1: Erläuterungen zur Neuauflage von Heft 425 und Anwendungsrichtlinie zu EC 2.19. 1994. V. United Kingdom 14. 1990. Structural Concrete.4. Nylander H. Favre R. 2nd International Ph. 66-71.elsevier. 1976. 1960.23. Kordina K. Effect of Fibers on the Punching Shear Strength of Slab-Column Connections. MC90. 2002. Elsevier. ACI Structural Journal V. pp97-100 14. 1999. Harajli MH. 158. pp.D. Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs with Eccentric Loading. Lausanne.24. Bulletin 1 to 3.S.13. 88-92. Kennedy G. Hassanzadeh G. Sundqvist H. London. Budapest. www. design and performance – updated knowledge of the CEB/FIP Model Code 1990.14. Detroit. 2.14. H. Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002).18. Khatib H. Lausanne. Switzerland 14. pp. Zum Tragsicherheitsnachweis gegenüber Schub. Qaisrani AN. Crawthorne. Burdet O. pp. 5th U. Moehle JP.22.elsevier. Stockholm. Switzerland 14. United Kingdom 14. Royal Institute of Technology. Punching Failure of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. pp. 2003. No.15. Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite element. Modeer M. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Proceedings. www.com 14. BuStb 89.20. Martinez-Cruzado JA. Petersson PE. Transactions No. May 1967. 109-135. Royal Institute of Technology. Maalouf D. pp.17. British Cement Association. Textbook on behaviour.87 (1990). USA 14.37. Relationship of the Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Concrete Strength. Hillerborg A. Long AE. 17 (1995). Cement and Concrete Research.

31. Wallace JW. Edinburgh. Seismic Performance of Flat Plate Systems. Woverhampton. University of Stellenbosch. International Federation of Structural Concrete (fib). Punching of structural concrete slabs. Surrey. 2001.26. Menétrey Ph. 1971.30. Switzerland 14. Bulletin 12. Engineered Cement-Based Composites for Seismic Ductility. Reineck K. 2004. Detroit. Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs. Sherif AG. Quantative study of the causes of the partial collapse on 20th March 1997.32. CEB Bulletin 168. United Kingdom. United Kingdom 164 . Ponsskuif. South Africa 14. Pipers Row Car Park. Switzerland 14. Punching shear in reinforced concrete – A state-ofthe-art report. 1997. Mervitz CP. Lausanne. Canada 14. International Federation of Structural Concrete (fib). USA 14. 1985. Brühwiler E. V.14. Structural Faults and Repair. 1998. ACI Structural Journal. University of Stellenbosch.27. The University of Calgary. Van Zijl GPAG.92(2). pp451-458 14. Menétrey P. Wood JGM. Kang THK. A triaxial failure criterion for concrete and its generalization. William KJ.29.25. 1996. Structural Studies & Design Ltd. 14.. et al. Punching shear strengthening of reinforced concrete: experimental and analytical investigations. Lausanne. Technical Report.28. Regan PE. 1995. Braestrup MW. South Africa 14. Wium J.33.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.