Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 313 – 320

International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and Masonry
Structures AMCM’2017

Finite element simulation of concrete slabs with various placement

and amount of shear bolts
Aikaterini Genikomsoua,*, Maria Anna Polakb
a
Queen’s University, 58 University Avenue, Kingston K7L 3N6, Canada
b
University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo N2L 3G1, Canada

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3-D) finite element analysis (FEA) in ABAQUS software examines the punching shear behaviour of
reinforced concrete slabs. Four interior reinforced concrete slab-column connections (one slab is without shear reinforcement,
while the other slabs are with shear bolts) previously tested under static loading are analysed. The shear reinforced slabs differ in
the amount of the shear bolts. The coupled plasticity damaged model previously calibrated is considered for modelling the
concrete. In this paper, parametric studies are presented to examine the effect of the amount and placement of the shear bolts. The
amount of shear bolts is increased by adding more rows of shear bolts and also decreased by considering less shear bolts in each
row. Also, two different arrangements are studied: rectangular and radial. The adopted FEA model is used to analyse and
investigate the failure modes, loads and the crack patterns of the slab-column connections. The numerical results are compared to
two current design codes for punching shear (ACI 318-14 and EC2-2004).

©
©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in
Conceptsand
Concrete in Masonry
ConcreteStructures
and Masonry Structures.

Keywords: punching shear; shear bolts; finite element analysis; concrete damaged plasticity model; design codes

1. Introduction

Punching shear failure of reinforced concrete slabs is brittle and it can lead to a progressive collapse of the
structure. In order to avoid punching shear, shear reinforcement is installed around the slab-column connections to
increase the punching shear capacity and ductility of the slabs.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-226-339-3813; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .

E-mail address: aikaterini.genikomsou@queensu.ca

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and
Masonry Structures
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.219
314 Aikaterini Genikomsou and Maria Anna Polak / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 313 – 320

In a new slab-column connection, shear reinforcement consists of stirrups or bent bars [1-6], shear heads [7-9]
and shear studs [10,11,12]. In existing slabs with inadequate punching shear, strengthening techniques can be
considered [13,14]. For retrofit purposes, Adetifa and Polak (2005) [15] and Polak and Bu (2015) [16] tested slabs
with shear bolts. The shear bolt system consists of smooth steel bars with a forged circular head on the one end while
the other end is threaded with a washer and a nut for anchorage. Shear bolts were found as an appropriate retrofit
technique since they increased both the load capacity and ductility of the slabs.
The punching shear failure of reinforced concrete slabs can be examined using nonlinear finite element analysis
(FEA). FEA can provide important information about the predicted failure modes within a rapid and non-expensive
manner. Many researchers used FEA methods to simulate the behavior of reinforced concrete slabs. Research has
been conducted with the layer approach [17,18] and three-dimensional (3D) FEA models [19, 20].
In this paper, the concrete damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS [21], previously calibrated, is considered for
parametric investigation to study the effect of placement and amount of shear reinforcement. Finally, the numerical
results are compared with two current code provisions for punching shear, where ACI 318-14 [22] uses different
equations for slabs with stirrups and shear studs, while EC2-2004 [23] considers the same equation for all different
types of shear reinforcement. Regarding the arrangement of the shear reinforcement, ACI 318-14 proposes the
rectangular placement, while EC2-2004 considers both the rectangular and the radial placements.

2. Test specimens and results

Four interior reinforced concrete slab-column connections tested by Adetifa and Polak (2005) [15] and analyzed
by Genikomsou and Polak (2016) [20,24] are viewed in this study as the control specimens to examine the effect of
the amount and placement of the shear bolts. All slabs were tested under static loading through the column stub. The
square columns (150 x150 mm) are extended 150 mm from the top and bottom slabs’ surfaces, while the thickness
of the slabs is 120 mm and the effective depth is equal to 90 mm. The dimensions of the slabs and the applied loads
are presented in Fig. 1. The flexural reinforcement consists of 10M bars placed at distance 100 mm and 90 mm in
tension side and 200 mm in compression side. Slab SB1 has no shear reinforcement, while SB2, SB3 and SB4 have
two, three and four rows of shear bolts, respectively. Prior to testing, holes of 16 mm diameter were drilled around
the slab-column connections to install the shear bolts. The placement of the shear bolts was concentric and parallel to
the perimeter of the column and each row of shear bolts had two parallel bolts to each face of the column (eight bolts
in each row in total). The first row of the shear bolts was placed at a distance of 45 mm from the face of the column,
while all following rows were spaced at 80 mm. The material properties of concrete and reinforcement for the slabs
are shown in Table 1, while Table 2 presents the test results. Fig. 2 shows the test results for the slabs in terms of
load-deflection response. Slab SB1 failed in punching shear and the flexural yield lines did not fully form; no cracks
at the compression surface observed. Slab SB2 failed in a mixed punching/flexure mode, where first the flexural
capacity was achieved and then the punching shear cone was formed outside the shear reinforced area. Slabs SB3
and SB4 first showed yielding of the tensile flexural reinforcement followed by a general yielding of the flexural
reinforcement. Finally, both slabs failed in punching shear (secondary failure) outside the shear-reinforced zone. Fig.
3 presents the crack patterns of the slabs SB1 and SB4 on the tension surface at failure.

Table 1. Material properties of the slabs

Concrete Steel
Slab f'c f't Gf Ec fy ft Es fy,bolts
(MPa) (MPa) (N/mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
SB1 44 2.2 0.082 36483 455 620 200000 -
SB2
41 2.1 0.077 35217 455 620 200000 381
SB3
SB4
 Aikaterini Genikomsou and Maria Anna Polak / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 313 – 320 315

Table 2. Test results

Slab No. of rows of Failure load Failure Failure mode
bolts (kN) displacement (mm)
SB1 0 253 11.9 Punching
SB2 2 366 17.1 Punching/Flexure
SB3 3 378 25.9 Flexure
SB4 4 360 29.8 Flexure

Fig. 1. Schematic drawings of the slabs (dimensions, loading, reinforcement).

400

350

300

250
Load (kN)

200 SB1
SB2
150
SB3
100
SB4
50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 2. Load-deflection responses of the tested slabs.

316 Aikaterini Genikomsou and Maria Anna Polak / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 313 – 320

a) b)

Fig. 3. Crack patterns on tension surface at failure: a) SB1; b) SB4.

3. Finite element analysis

The concrete damaged plasticity model is a continuum plasticity based damaged model that considers both the
tensile cracking and the compressive crushing of concrete as possible failure modes. This model is non-associated
and uses a Drucker-Prager hyperbolic function as the plastic potential function. The cracking is visualized at points
where the maximum principal plastic strain is positive. In tension, the stress-strain curve of concrete is linear elastic
until the failure stress. At this failure stress, the micro-cracking in concrete starts. Beyond this failure stress, the
micro-cracking is presented macroscopically with a stress-strain softening response that prompts strain localization.
In ABAQUS, the reinforcement is modeled with rebars embedded into the concrete. Bond slip and dowel action are
modelled indirectly by considering tension stiffening to simulate the load transfer across the cracks though the rebar.
Tension stiffening is modeled using a fracture energy cracking criterion, where the fracture energy is the energy
required to open a unit area of crack. With this approach, the brittle behavior of concrete is characterized by a stress-
displacement response instead of the typical stress-strain response.
Due to symmetry, one quarter of the slab-column connections is analyzed. Concrete is modeled with 8-noded
hexahedral elements with reduced integration (C3D8R) and the longitudinal flexural reinforcement is modeled with
2-noded linear truss elements (T3D2). Concrete and reinforcement are connected with the embedded method that
assumes perfect bond. Through the thickness of the slabs, 6 square elements of 20 mm are used. For the shear
reinforced slabs, beam elements are adopted to model the shear bolts [24]. Quasi-static analysis in
ABAQUS/Explicit is considered and simple supports are applied along the bottom edges of the specimens. SB2,
SB2A, SB3, SB3A, SB4, SB4A, SB5 and SB5A slabs have eight bolts in each row, slabs SB2B, SB2C, SB3B,
SB3C, SB4B and SB4C have four bolts in each row, while slabs SB4D and SB4E have four bolts in the first and
third rows and eight bolts in the second and fourth rows. Fig. 4 presents the different slabs that are examined. Fig. 5
shows the FEA results in terms of load-deflection response for the specimens that have four and five rows of shear
bolts. As it is obvious in Fig. 5, slab SB5A showed the higher punching shear load, while specimen SB4E showed
the higher ductility. The radial placement of the shear bolts increases both the punching shear capacity and ductility
of the slabs, compared to the rectangular arrangement. All the analyzed specimens failed in flexure and then in
punching outside the shear reinforced area. The specimens SB2B, S2C, SB3B, SB3C, SB4B, SB4C failed in flexure
and then in punching shear within the shear reinforced area. Fig. 6 shows the maximum principal plastic strains that
indicate the cracking of the specimens SB5A and SB4E at failure.
Aikaterini Genikomsou and Maria Anna Polak / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 313 – 320 317

Fig. 4. Slabs with different amount amount and placement of shear bolts.
450
SB5A
400
SB4E
350
300
Load (kN)

250
200 SB4
SB4A
150 SB4B
SB4C
100
SB4D
50 SB5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Deflection (mm)

Fig. 5. Load versus deflection-FEA results.

318 Aikaterini Genikomsou and Maria Anna Polak / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 313 – 320

Fig. 6. Crack patterns of slabs SB5A (left) and SB4E (right).

4. Current design provisions for punching shear

Tables 3 and 4 present the punching shear resistance of the slabs according to ACI 318-14 and EC2-2004 design
codes, respectively. The punching shear loads are calculated inside and outside the shear reinforced area, where the
italic bold font shows the governing failure load of each slab. The FEA punching shear loads are shown for
comparison purposes on the last column of the tables. Based on the results obtained from both design codes, it can
be said that the most conservative predictions are given from ACI 318-14; however for the specimens SB3C, SB4B,
SB4C and SB5, EC2 (2004) is more conservative. ACI gives unrealistic predicted failure loads for the slab-column
connections SB2, SB2A, SB2B, SB2C and SB3B, where the failure loads are less compared to the predicted failure
load that ACI considers for the slab SB1 (no shear reinforcement). Similar to ACI, EC2 predicts smaller failure
loads for the slabs SB2B, SB2C, SB3B, SB3C, SB4B and SB4C compared to the predicted load of SB1. A reduction
in the number of shear bolts installed in each row shows more conservative results for EC2 compared to the results
obtained with the eight bolts in each row.

Table 3. Ultimate load (kN) according to ACI318-14

ࢌᇱࢉ ࢈࢕ ࢈࢕࢛࢚ ࢊ ࡭࢙࢜ ࢌ࢟ࢊ ࢙ ࢂࢉ ࢂࡾ ࢂ࢕࢛࢚ ࢂࡲࡱ࡭
Slab
(MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
SB1 44 960 - 90 - - - 189 - - 234
SB2 41 960 1589 90 566.4 381 80 - 381 151 317
SB2A 41 960 1679 90 566.4 381 80 - 381 160 321
SB2B 41 960 1414 90 283.2 381 80 - 260 134 291
SB2C 41 960 1589 90 283.2 381 80 - 260 151 299
SB3 41 960 2042 90 566.4 381 80 - 381 194 350
SB3A 41 960 2159 90 566.4 381 80 - 381 205 356
SB3B 41 960 1867 90 283.2 381 80 - 260 178 314
SB3C 41 960 2042 90 283.2 381 80 260 194 319
SB4 41 960 2495 90 566.4 381 80 - 381 237 365
SB4A 41 960 2644 90 566.4 381 80 - 381 251 389
SB4B 41 960 2319 90 283.2 381 80 - 260 221 331
SB4C 41 960 2495 90 283.2 381 80 - 260 237 322
SBD 41 960 2644 90 566.4* 381 80 - 381 251 371
SBE 41 960 2644 90 566.4* 381 80 - 381 251 358
SB5 41 960 2840 90 566.4 381 80 - 381 270 368
SB5A 41 960 3096 90 566.4 381 80 - 381 294 407
Note: ݂௖ᇱ =compressive strength of concrete, ܾ௢ = critical/control perimeter, ܾ௢௨௧ = critical/control perimeter outside the shear-reinforced zone,
݀= effective depth of the slab, ‫ܣ‬௩௦ = cross section area of one row of shear bolts, ݂௬ௗ = yield strength of shear bolts, ‫ =ݏ‬spacing between the shear
bolts, ܸ஼ = punching shear strength of slabs without shear bolts, ܸோ = punching shear strength of slabs within the shear bolts, ܸ௢௨௧ = punching
shear strength of slabs outside the shear bolt area.
*assumed 8 bolts in each row.
 Aikaterini Genikomsou and Maria Anna Polak / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 313 – 320 319

Table 4. Ultimate load (kN) according to EC2-2004

ࢌࢉ࢑ ࢈࢕ ࢈࢕࢛࢚ ࢊ ࡭࢙࢜ ࢌ࢟࢝ࢊǡࢋࢌ ࢙ ࢂࢉ ࢂࡾǡ࢓ ࢂ࢕࢛࢚ ࢂࡲࡱ࡭
Slab
(MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
SB1 42.4 1730 - 90 - - - 202 - - 234
SB2 39.4 1730 2032 90 566.4 273 80 - 407 232 317
SB2A 39.4 1730 2296 90 566.4 273 80 - 407 261 321
SB2B 39.4 1730 1568 90 283.2 273 80 - 277 178 291
SB2C 39.4 1730 1568 90 283.2 273 80 - 277 178 299
SB3 39.4 1730 2132 90 566.4 273 80 - 407 243 350
SB3A 39.4 1730 2768 90 566.4 273 80 - 407 315 356
SB3B 39.4 1730 1568 90 283.2 273 80 - 277 178 314
SB3C 39.4 1730 1568 90 283.2 273 80 - 277 178 319
SB4 39.4 1730 2204 90 566.4 273 80 - 407 251 365
SB4A 39.4 1730 3248 90 566.4 273 80 - 407 369 389
SB4B 39.4 1730 1568 90 283.2 273 80 - 277 178 331
SB4C 39.4 1730 1568 90 283.2 273 80 - 277 178 322
SB4D 39.4 1730 3248 90 566.4* 273 80 - 407 369 371
SB4E 39.4 1730 3248 90 566.4* 273 80 - 407 369 358
SB5 39.4 1730 2300 90 566.4 273 80 - 407 261 368
SB5A 39.4 1730 3697 90 566.4 273 80 - 407 420 407
Note: ݂௖௞ = characteristic compressive strength of concrete= ݂௖ᇱ െ ͳǤ͸‫ܽܲܯ‬, ݂௬௪ௗǡ௘௙ = effective yield strength of shear bolts. All the other
parameters are defined in Table 3.
*assumed 8 bolts in each row.

5. Conclusions

The FEA software ABAQUS using the concrete damaged plasticity model is considered for the parametric
analyses. Reinforced concrete slabs with shear bolts are examined with different placement and amount of shear
bolts. The current design codes in punching shear (ACI 318-14 and EC2-2004) suggest different formulae to
calculate the punching shear capacity of the slabs and propose different arrangement for the shear reinforcement.
FEA can used after the appropriate calibration in order to examine the response of the slabs and perform parametric
studies. The comparison between radial and rectangular placement of shear bolts in the parametric studies show that
the radial arrangement (suggested by EC2-2004) increases the load capacity and ductility of the slabs. The amount
of shear bolts installed in each row suggests the failure type of the slabs. Yielding of the shear bolts is observed in
all specimens with the reduced amount of shear bolts leading to punching shear failure inside the shear reinforced
area. Finally, the numerical results are compared with the predictions that the design codes give. ACI is the most
conservative for all slabs except for the specimens SB3C, SB4B, SB4C and SB5 where EC2-2004 predicts smaller
failure loads compared to the loads that ACI 318-14 gives. Future studies will investigate the response of reinforced
concrete slabs with different types of shear reinforcement by considering arrangements.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support for the presented work provided by a research grant
from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.

References

[1] R.C. Elstner, Hognestad, E. Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs, ACI Journal. 53 (1956) 29–58.
[2] S.U. Pillai, W. Kirk, L. Scavuzzo. Shear Reinforcement at Slab-Column Connections in a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate Structure, ACI
Journal. 79 (1982) 36-42.
320 Aikaterini Genikomsou and Maria Anna Polak / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 313 – 320

[3] C.E. Broms. Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates, ACI Structural Journal. 87 (1990) 696-705.
[4] P.S. Chana, S.B. Desai. Membrane action, and design against punching shear, Structural Engineer, 70 (1992) 339-343.
[5] R. Beutel, J. Hegger. Punching Behaviour of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs at Interior Columns–Effective and Economic Shear System,
Proceedings, International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs, Stockholm, 2000, pp. 171-179.
[6] C.E. Broms. Elimination of flat plate punching failure mode, ACI Structural Journal. 97 (2000) 94- 101.
[7] W.H. Wheeler. Thin Flat-Slab Floors Prove Rigid under Test, Engineering News Record, 116 (1936) 49-50.
[8] W.G. Corley, N.M. Hawkins. Shearhead reinforcement for slabs, ACI Journal, 65 (1968) 811-824.
[9] N.M. Hawkins, W.G. Corley. Moment Transfer to Columns in Slabs with Shearhead Reinforcements, ACI SP 42 Shear in Reinforced
Concrete, 1974, pp. 847-879.
[10] W.H. Dilger, A. Ghali. Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Slabs, Journal of Structural Division, 107 (1981) 2403-2420.
[11] A.S. Mokhtar, A. Ghali, W. Dilger. Stud Shear Reinforcement for Flat Concrete Plates, ACI Journal, 82 (1985) 676-683.
[12] S. Megally A. Ghali. Design Considerations for Slab-Column Connections in Seismic Zones, ACI Structural Journal, 91 (1994) 303-314.
[13] A. Ghali, M. Sargious, A. Huizer. Vertical Prestressing of Flat Plates Around Columns, ACI-SP 42-38, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, 1974,
pp. 905-920.
[14] U. Ebead, H. Marzouk. Strengthening of two-way slabs using steel plates, ACI Structural Journal, 198 ( 2002) 16-23.
[15] B. Adetifa, M.A. Polak. Retrofit of interior slab-column connections for punching using shear bolts, ACI Structural Journal, 102 (2005) 268-
274.
[16] M.A. Polak, W. Bu. Design considerations for shear bolts in punching shear retrofit of reinforced concrete slabs, ACI Structural Journal,
110 (2013) 15-25.
[17] M.A. Polak. Shell finite element analysis of RC plates supported on columns for punching shear and flexure, International Journal for
Computer-Aided Engineering and Software, 22 (2005) 409-428.
[18] H. Guan, M.A. Polak. Finite element studies of reinforced concrete slab-edge column connections with opening. Canadian Journal of Civil
Eng, 34 (2007) 952-965.
[19] J. Ožbolt, H. Vocke, R. Eligenhausen. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of punching failure. Proc. of the international workshop on
punching shear capacity of RC slabs, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Structural Engineering, Stockholm, 2000, pp. 65-74.
[20] A.S. Genikomsou, M.A Polak. Finite element analysis of punching shear of concrete slabs using damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS,
Engineering Structures, 98 (2015), 38-48.
[21] ABAQUS Analysis user’s manual 6.12-3 2012. Dassault Systems Simulia Corp, Providence, RI, USA.
[22] ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary”, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2014.
[23] European Committee for Standardization. (2004). “Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.” Eurocode
2, Brussels, Belgium.
[24] A.S. Genikomsou, M.A. Polak. Finite Element Analysis of reinforced concrete slabs with punching shear reinforcement, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, 2016. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001603.