Title no. 105-S19


Influence of Slab Thickness on Punching Shear Strength
by Gerd Birkle and Walter H. Dilger
Tests to study the influence of slab thickness on the punching shear strength of flat slabs clearly demonstrate the significant effect of size on the shear stress resistance, particularly for tests without shear reinforcement. New tests in which the slab thickness varied between 160 and 300 mm (6.3 and 11.8 in.) and tests by others with slabs up to 500 mm (19.7 in.) thick indicate that slabs without shear reinforcement thicker than approximately 260 mm (10.2 in.) may not have a high factor of safety if designed according to ACI 318-05. For thick slabs with shear reinforcement, the shear stress resistance provided by concrete is also reduced but to a lesser degree.
Keywords: flat slab; punching shear; reinforcement; shear; stud.

calculated by dividing the nominal shear resistance by bod, where bo is the perimeter of the critical section at d/2 from the face of the support and d is the average effective depth. It can be expressed as v n ≤ 0.50 f c′ when s ≤ 0.50d v n ≤ 0.67 f c′ when s ≤ 0.75d

vn = vc + vs with


INTRODUCTION The design of slab-column connections according to ACI 318-051 is simple and thus practical. It was developed in the 1960s and was primarily based on work by Moe2 and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326.3 No considerable changes have been made to the punching provisions since. Nevertheless, this empirical design procedure has several shortcomings, one of them being the neglect of size effects.4-9 The main reason for the disregard of the size effect is the lack of conclusive experimental evidence. This lack of experimental data has triggered the main test series presented herein. A total of nine slab-column connections were tested, with the slab thickness as their main variable. Slabs with and without shear stud reinforcement designed to fail inside and outside the shear-reinforced zone were investigated. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The lack of a factor for size effect in the ACI 318-05 equations for the punching shear strength provided by concrete in slabs is a limitation of the code. Addressing this question is very timely in view of the current discussions in Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion, on size effect on beam shear. The evidence presented in this paper demonstrates conclusively that a size factor is urgently needed for the safe design of slabs with an effective depth larger than approximately 220 mm (8.7 in.). BACKGROUND The design for shear in two-way slabs according to ACI 318-05 is based on the concept of limiting the shear force that can be resisted along a defined failure surface. The design capacity of the connection, that is, the factored nominal shear resistance φVn , shall not be less than the shear force due to factored loads Vu. The nominal shear resistance Vn is the sum of the nominal shear capacities provided by the concrete and the shear reinforcement. In this paper, the slab thickness is one of the main variables. It is therefore more expedient to express the shear resistance in terms of stresses rather than forces; this facilitates direct comparison of the test results. The nominal shear stress resistance can be 180

where vc and vs are the shear stress resistances provided by the concrete and the steel, respectively, and s is the spacing of the shear studs. When headed studs are used as shear reinforcement, ACI 421.1R-9910 limits the nominal shear stress resistance vn, depending on the stud spacing s. For the tests reported in this paper, the nominal shear stress resistance of concrete without shear reinforcement is defined as vc = 0.33 f c′ (2)

where fc′ is the specified concrete strength in MPa. For the majority of slab-column connections encountered in practice, Eq. (2) governs the design. For slab-column connections with shear reinforcement, the contribution of the concrete to the shear strength is based on an expression similar to Eq. (2); however, the constant 0.33 is reduced to 0.17 for slabs with conventional shear reinforcement. For slabs reinforced with shear studs, the following value is proposed in ACI 421.1R-99 vc = 0.25 f c′ (3)

The reason for the higher value for slabs with shear studs is the slip-free anchorage of the headed studs. For the critical section at d/2 outside the shear-reinforced zone, the following equation applies vc = 0.17 f c′ (4)

The contribution of the shear reinforcement to the nominal shear stress resistance is expressed as A v f yv v s = ----------bo s (5)

ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, March-April 2008. MS No. S-2006-405.R2 received October 31, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the JanuaryFebruary 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2008.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

which is approximately half the punching shear strength of a two-way slab with a slab thickness of 150 mm (6.0 38. the stud spacing s was chosen to be 0. Canada. Av is the cross-sectional area of all vertical legs of shear reinforcement on a peripheral line parallel to the column perimeter. the upper limit for s.Gerd Birkle is a Structural Engineer with Stantec Consulting Ltd.3 in. and s is the spacing of the shear elements in the direction perpendicular to the critical section. mm 250 h. He is a member of ACI Committee 209.0 33. defining the position of the supports of the octagonal slabs. 9. and 11) were designed to fail outside the shear-reinforced zone. An investigation into the size effect was also recently reported by Li. Each of the three test series had slabs with thicknesses of 160.32 550 1. 1 and summarized in Table 1. To ensure shear failure in the vicinity of the column.4 30. Canada.7 in. fyv is the specified yield strength of the shear reinforcement. 8. The reinforcement ratio was slightly decreased for increasing slab thickness to keep the ratio between the predicted shear capacity (according to ACI 318-05) and the flexural capacity (established by yieldline theory) of the specimens constant. Germany. fc′ . This variation was chosen because the slab thickness is usually selected by minimum thickness requirements that are linearly related to the clear span in most major design codes. these tests had small span-depth ratios that were further reduced for the thicker slab. FACI.5 32. Calgary. † Cylinder strength at day of testing (100 x 200 mm cylinders). and 10) were designed to investigate the size effect on slabs without shear reinforcement. mm 1000 fy . Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi. This means that experimental evidence for the size effect in slabs is rather scarce. 25. This can only be achieved by a reduction in reinforcement ratio for an increase in slab thickness.4 mm = 1 in. hence. and his PhD from the University of Calgary. were varied linearly with the slab thickness.0 33.5 36. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Test parameters A total of nine slab-column assemblies were tested to investigate the influence of the slab thickness on the shear strength of slab-column connections in three series.0 350 300 260 1900 30. The specimens of Series 2 (Specimens 2. a tighter stud spacing s = 0. and the shear studs were extended to approximately 4d from the column faces.8 in. Recent experiments by Guandalini and Muttoni13 confirm this trend.m ave (6) Bc – cc Bc – 2 ( cx + cy ) ⁄ π 181 . mm 160 dave.0 35.2 29.).14 Unfortunately. Test specimens The shape of all test specimens was octagonal.* fc_test .3d from the column faces. (5).7 36. The distance between the first row of studs and the column face so was taken as 0. and 11. ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 Fig.) Table 1—Test parameters Test 1 2 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ref. The size of the square column c and the radius Bc.m ave ⇒ 2π -----------------------------------------.0 35. • Series 2: Slabs with shear reinforcement designed to fail inside the shear-reinforced zone.1 33. Walter H. AB. Richart12 came to the conclusion that the shear stress at failure decreases considerably with increasing effective depth of the tested footings. the fact that most experimental studies of the last 50 years were conducted on slabs with a thickness of approximately 150 mm (6 in. He received his Dipl-Ing degree in civil engineering from the University of Stuttgart. 1—Definition of specimen variables. The yield line pattern used in the design was derived from a standard yield line pattern for a circular specimen of radius Bc. the results of this test series only allow for limited conclusions in regard to a size factor. and 300 mm (6.4 mm = 1 in. The tests of Series 3 (Specimens 4.0 35. Calgary.8 — cylinder strength (100 x 200 mm cylinders). 13 520 200 464 2145 *Twenty-eight-day c.).10 524 1.2 31.3. which is a compromise between a square specimen being the most convenient to fabricate and a circular one that can be assumed to represent the line of contraflexure around the column for a two-way slab with equal spans in both directions. (Note: 25.4 0.) thick slab is more or less the same as the shear strength of beams failing in shear.5s to avoid shear failure between the column and the first row of shear studs. In Eq.% MPa Studs 33. is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Civil Engineering. Stuttgart.5d was chosen with the studs extending to approximately 2. with a circular column with the circumference of the circular column replaced by the circumference of the square column Bc Bc V flex = 2π --------------. in 2004.30 531 1. His research interests include creep of plain and structural concrete and reinforced and prestressed concrete. Shear and Torsion. 9.75d. mm 124 Bc.. University of Calgary. it is desirable to be at a similar level of flexural capacity when punching occurs.1 31. Therefore. An explanation for the lack of recognition for this important parameter in ACI 318-05 is. Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete. 7. and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445. and • Series 3: Slabs with shear reinforcement designed to fail outside the shear-reinforced zone. In 1948. The effect of the slab thickness on the punching shear resistance had been recognized as early as 1938 by Graf11 who reported that the shear strength at punching found in a 500 mm (19.).54 488 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 300 230 190 1500 35.0 36. AB.† ′ MPa MPa ρave. 230. Dilger. This approach was chosen over keeping a constant reinforcement ratio because the main influence of the reinforcement ratio on the punching capacity is to control cracking.1 27. • Series 1: Slabs without shear reinforcement. Therefore.1. and 12) were designed to fail in punching with the punching cone expected to develop inside the shear reinforced zone. The main test parameters are defined in Fig. perhaps. The tests of Series 1 (Specimens 1.

5).5 9.38d 0.25d 0.9 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 where ρave is the average flexural reinforcement ratio. 4. aggregate.Table 2—Concrete mixture proportions Water.4d 4.38d 0.0d 2. The bottom reinforcement (compression zone) comprised 10M bars with a cross-sectional area Ab = 100 mm2 (0. (Note: 25 mm = 1 in..4 mm = 1 in. The concrete cover was 20 mm (0. The bar forces were transferred to the concrete slab by 200 mm (8 in. 182 . 4—Stud layout for Test Series 2 and 3. 2—Flexural reinforcement layout.63 Note: 1 kg/m3 = 1.) for the 160 mm (6.3 in. Flexural reinforcement The flexural reinforcement layout is shown in Fig.79 in.) slabs and 20 mm (0.65 0. that is. dave is the average effective depth.25d 0.50d 0.50d 0. The test setup is described in more detail by Birkle. Both supporting systems were engineered to have similar stiffnesses so that all eight bars were more or less equally stressed during testing. kg/m3 195 180 Cement Fine Coarse (Type GU).55 in. Height.2) spaced at 200 mm (7.) 11 12 Note: 25. measurements were made by strain gauges fitted to opposing sides on the highstrength bars.87 in. MPa mm mm2 mm 9.). (Note: 25 mm = 1 in.2).75d Fig.5 12. Fig. (Note: 25.79 in.38d 0. the high-strength bars were supported either directly through the strong floor or by steel yokes. Three 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in. Fig.2d 4.4 mm = 1 in.7 71 71 127 120 190 260 465 393 460 409 Layout parameters dave. Depending on the size of the specimens.) cylinders were tested at 28 days and three on the days of the experiments. Each series of specimens had reinforcement from the same heat.1d 0. the ratio of average stress in the rectangular stress block to the specified concrete strength. 3 3 kg/m kg/m kg/m3 300 288 870 885 1085 1193 Specimens 1 to 6 7 to 12 w/c 0. It is recognized that the assumed simple yield pattern and Eq. 1 MPa = 145 psi. This was achieved by supporting the slabs by means of eight high-strength bars anchored in the strong floor and by placing the actuator between the specimen and the strong floor (refer to Fig. fyv. (6) give an approximate upper bound of Vflex. The maximum coarse aggregate size was 14 mm (0.2d 4.68 lb/yd3.310 and 0. 2 and all flexural reinforcement had a 180-degree hook at both ends to ensure proper anchorage. Test setup The testing of specimens with different dimensions requires a flexible test setup.3d 2. aggregate. listed in Table 1 was taken as the average of three tension tests at a 2% offset.) Table 3—Summary of stud parameters for Series 2 and 3 Stud dimensions Test 4 2 8 9 Diameter.75d 0.) diameter spherical seats to allow slab displacements to develop without bending the rods. Testing was done according to ASTM A370-05. and α1 is the stress block factor. The shear studs were double-head studs tack-welded to a steel rail to ensure proper spacing and accurate installation (refer to Fig. The 15M and 20M bars shown in Fig. The reinforcing bars had a specified yield strength of 400 MPa (58.155 in. The shear stud parameters are summarized in Table 3 and the layout of the studs is illustrated in Fig. Area.15 The yield strength. mm 124 190 260 so s Extent 2. fy .75d 0.25d 0. Concrete strength The target strength of the concrete at 28 days fc′ was 30 MPa (4350 psi).) where mave can be calculated as ρ ave d ave f y mave = ρavedave fy ⎛ d ave – -----------------------⎞ ⎝ 2α 1 f c′ ⎠ (7) Shear reinforcement In Test Series 2 and 3.50d 0.) for the thicker slabs.465 in. The proportions of the concrete mixtures are summarized in Table 2.0 ksi).). To monitor the bar forces. fy is the yield strength of the flexural reinforcement. 3). shear reinforcement in the form of shear studs was installed. respectively. 2 have a cross-sectional area Ab = 200 and 300 mm2 (0. 3—Stud rails.

3. % 36. The load was applied in steps of 50. ′ mm MPa Extent ρv. 7(b)). all tests failed at d/2 from the column face. 75. 6—Location of displacement transducers. location of the punching failure (inside meaning inside the shear-reinforced zone).0 33. calculated as the total area of shear reinforcement along the perimeter Av divided by the critical section bo and the spacing of shear reinforcement s.21 0.2 31. At each load step.0d — 2.50d Inside 0.1.00 — — 0.50d Outside 3. and 22. cracks were marked with a different color on the whitewashed surface and slab expansions were recorded. The recorded failure loads and the location of the punching cone are summarized in Table 4.5 32. in the case of the 300 mm (11. To locate the position of the shear cracks within the slab depth. Steel strains were monitored on the flexural reinforcement as well as the studs in one quadrant of the slab (refer to Fig.2 38. 8—Location of strain measurements on reinforcement. (Note: 25. Displacements of the specimens were measured at the five points shown in Fig.60 3.Fig.9.3d — 2.4 mm = 1 in. mm mm bo . (Note: 25. For the 160 mm (6.1d — — s — Failure vu. Table 4—Summary of test results Test 1 4 160 124 1496 h. 16.) thick specimens. by a pressure transducer that had been calibrated before each test. respectively.4d 4.22 2.0 35. percentage of shear reinforcement ρv.93 1.45 kN.32 0. and 300 mm (6.29 0. Measurements were taken on two studrails adjacent to one corner of the column. 7(a). 1 kip = 4.42 0.55 2. 8(a) and (b)).75d Inside 0. 230.82 2. TEST RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Failure loads With the exception of Specimen 4. This table also lists other important test parameters: slab thickness h. Fig. 183 .42 0. 9.4 mm = 1 in. All tests were terminated after punching had occurred and the load had dropped considerably.65 2. 13 500 Note: 25..4 300 260 464 2440 3936 30. Strains on studs were measured at midheight of the stem of the stud. location MPa — 2. fc_test .75d Inside — — — 0.5 kips) to the slabs of thickness 160. extent of the shear reinforcement ′ from the column faces. and 100 kN (11.2d 4.) Measurements The applied load was recorded using a calibrated load cell or.19 0.63 0. The dial gauges were attached to thin metal rods placed through small sleeves in the slab and anchored by 180-degree hooks at the bottom (refer to Fig.8 in. 5—Test setup (arrangement used for Specimens 1 to 6). whereas on all the other specimens. flexural strain measurements were taken on each bar.) Fig. average effective depth dave.0 35.) thick specimens.).3 in.75d Inside — — — Fig.0 29. dave.2d 4.4 — 2.18 0.0 230 190 1960 35. concrete strength fc_test at the time of testing. the transverse expansion of the slab was measured on Specimens 7 to 12 by means of dial gauges at the eight locations shown in Fig. duration of the tests depended on the number of load steps and the extent of cracking and took up to 3 hours. The applied load includes the self-weight of the specimens.2. and shear stress at failure vu inside or outside the shear reinforced zone. 6 using linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs).8 in. the measurements were taken on alternate bars. and 11.09 2. The ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ref.4 mm = 1 in.40 1.50d Inside 0. 7—Location of expansion dial gauges.

MPa vc = vn. The corresponding shear stress resistance is 1. The corresponding shear stress resistance (3.87 1.89 — 1. 9 in terms of the ratio vu/vn.29 MPa [187 psi]) was well above the allowable value of 1.82 2.96 2.00 MPa [435 psi]).4d) failed—as intended—outside the shear-reinforced zone under a load of 634 kN (143 kips). Specimen 8 (h = 230 mm [9. ‡Shear reinforcement in Specimen 4 did not reach yield. 1 kip = 4. at a slightly higher load than Specimen 8.31 0.69 MPa [390 psi]). The controlling values that are the values reflecting the actual failure location are printed in bold.99 — 0. Table 5 lists the shear stresses at failure.5d extending ~ 2.4 mm = 1 in.68 2. Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.95 2. MPa vn = vc + vs.01 MPa (146 psi) (refer to Table 5. (2.) Fig.55 2.40 4 vc .7 in. Punching shear failure in Specimen 8 occurred after the shear reinforcement had reached yield at exactly the nominal strength (refer to Table 5. Fig. ′ ′ †For slabs with shear reinforcement and s ≤ 0.60 3.75d failed—as expected—inside the shear-reinforced zone under a load of 574 kN (129 kips).93 0.7 in.23 0. The nominal shear stress resistance of 0.83 1.25√fc_test . even though it had less shear reinforcement. Columns 10 and 11).24 0.67 2.94 1.3.48 1.00 1.† MPa — 2.81 2.12 — 1.89 0.1 in.32 — 4.09 MPa [448 psi]) was higher than both the stress vc + vs (3. 230.Table 5—Evaluation of test results 1 2 Vu.95 1.13 2.17 f c′ = 1.85 2.03 1.) slabs are: 1. The shear stress at failure vu was 24% higher ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 .45 kN.09 2. MPa vmax .31 0.14 0.00 0. The continued decrease of the shear stress resistance is confirmed by a recent test by Guandalini and Muttoni13 on a 500 mm (19.73 Inside shear-reinforced zone Test 1 4‡ 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 * Outside shear-reinforced zone vu.65 2. Specimen 9 also failed by punching inside the shearreinforced zone under 1091 kN (245 kips).54 1.7 in.98 vs. Note that the influence of the maximum aggregate size on the punching capacity was not considered in this study but should be expected to have limited influence on the findings of this study.99 1. The relative values of vu/vn for 160.95 1.69 — 2. 300.68.22 — 1.33(fc′ )1/2 (refer to Eq.* MPa 1.71 — 1.5d: v ′ ′ max = 0.13 1. Column 10).22 2.1. kN 483 634 574 825 1050 1091 1046 1620 1520 3 vu.48 1.93 1.3 and 9.03 9 vu /vmax — 0. 10—Location of failure crack of Specimen 11. The data of this test is also added to Tables 1 and 4. the steel stresses in the studs were well below yield. The decrease of shear stress resistance at failure with increasing effective depth is shown in Fig. (4)) for slabs without shear reinforcement was only achieved by the 160 and 230 mm (6. respectively. Examining 184 Fig.75d: vmax = 0.67√fc_test .42 3. the nominal shear stresses vn = vc + vs. as well as the upper allowable limit of vn and the ratios vu/vn inside and outside the shear reinforced zones.83 10 11 12 vu/vc — 1.90 — 1.37 1.01 1. Specimen 2 with s = 0. Slabs with shear reinforcement—The failure loads of the slabs with shear reinforcement are listed in Table 4 and the evaluation is presented in Table 5.78 MPa (258 psi) (refer to Table 5.28 0. vu_in and vu_out.50√fc_test .89 — 1. which is 69% higher than the permissible value at d/2 outside the shear reinforced zone vc = 0.48 3.33√fc_test . 0.85 1.37 1.8 and 19.out.70 0. 9.66 — 1.78 1. The studs had reached yield at failure.45 5 6 7 8 vu/(vc + vs ) 1. and 500 mm (6.76 1.) thick slabs (Specimens 1 and 7). 9—Influence of slab thickness on failure stress in slabs without shear reinforcement. 0. (Note: 25.1 in. 9.29 0.15 — 0. the stresses at failure for the 300 and 500 mm (11.92 — 1.97 — 3.89 For slabs without reinforcement: vc = vn = 0.95 0. MPa — 1.87. Specimen 4 (s = 0.01 — 0.75d.70 1. 9 shows that for slabs without shear reinforcement.) thick slabs are only 89% and 63% of the ACI 318-05 nominal failure stress.) thick slab the result of which is added to the authors’ tests in Fig. the latter being the controlling value for this test. Column 8) before reaching the maximum allowable shear stress. and 0.8.05 MPa (152 psi) (refer to Columns 11 and 12).48.05 0. for slabs with stud shear reinforcement: vc = 0. At failure.99 4. and 19. 11. MPa 2. Effect of slab thickness Slabs without shear reinforcement—A very alarming finding of the test results listed in Table 4 is the rapid decrease of the shear stress resistance vu at the critical section d/2 from the column with increasing slab thickness.5d ≥ s ≤ 0.00.]) failed inside the shear reinforced zone under a load of 1050 kN (236 kips) even though the shear stress outside the shear reinforced zone (1.35 1. when 0. and the maximum shear stress allowed for slabs with s = 0.

). The location of the failure cone was confirmed by cutting the slab after the completion of the test (refer to Fig. (2). (1) and putting vn = vu. Figure 13 shows that the studs of Specimen 2 just reached yield at failure.45 kN = 1 kip).45 kN = 1 kip. It is to be noted. and 11. This percentage is similar to that reached in Specimen 10 (h = 300 mm [11. and 55% for specimens with a thickness of 160. 13 to 16.]) failed inside the shear-reinforced zone under a load of 1620 kN (364 kips). From these figures. 11—Influence of slab thickness on shear stress resistance in slabs with shear reinforcement. and 300 mm (6. Column 8). the shear stress resistance of the connection was increased considerably by providing shear reinforcement. On the other hand. 9. (Note: 25. Plotting the results of the tests that failed within the shear reinforcement in Fig.4 mm = 1 in. we find that vc reached only 90% of the value calculated according to Eq. Column 8). Specimen 11 (h = 300 mm [11. The increased effectiveness of the shear reinforcement for the 300 mm (11. 15 and 16 for Specimens 9 and 12. Column 12). (Note: 4. (Note: 4. 11 indicates a decreasing trend with increasing slab depth.Fig. corresponding to 1. 230. respectively. The studs had yielded before failure. The four shear-reinforced specimens of the other two series reached yield before failure as indicated in Fig. 12 illustrate the increased ductility by a plateau in the load deflection curve. Column 8).. 12—Load-deflection curves.4 mm = 1 in. 10).) specimens can be explained by the reduced shear stress resistance of the concrete at failure.8 in. The steel strains in the studs are plotted in Fig. One of the more obvious ones is that for all slab thicknesses. Transverse slab expansion The transverse slab expansion measured in Specimens 7 to 12 indicate the demand for shear reinforcement to prevent 185 . Another distinct benefit of the shear stud reinforcement is the substantial increase in ductility and post-failure capacity. that Specimen 4 failed outside the shear-reinforced zone and that the somewhat inconsistent ratios vu/vn do not necessarily allow definitive conclusions regarding the size effect for slabs with shear reinforcement. respectively. it is evident that yielding developed only in the studs closest to the column and that the punching cone developed in the region between the column face and SG3 because Studs SG1 through SG3 exhibit large strains. 13—Strains in shear studs for Specimen 2. thus increasing the relative contribution of the shear reinforcement to the total shear capacity of the connections. Specimen 12 failed at d/2 from the column at a load of 1520 kN (342 kips). 4.) Fig. The increase was up to 31%. whereas Fig. The shear stress reached outside the shear reinforced zone was 23% higher than the allowable value (Table 5.) Fig. however. The load deflection curves for the three test series shown in ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 Fig. Effect of shear reinforcement and stud strains There are several observations that can be made looking at the test results summarized in Table 5.45 kN = 1 kip. Calculating the contribution of the concrete to the shear stress resistance by rearranging Eq. 32%. (Note: 25.3.]) without shear reinforcement and leads to the conclusion that a size effect also exists for slabs with shear reinforcement.03 times the predicted failure load (Table 5. Fig. 14 clearly demonstrates that the stud strains in Specimen 4 were well below yielding when punching occurred outside the shear-reinforced zone.1.8 in. the shear stress resistance at d/2 reached only 95% of (vc + vs) after the studs had yielded (Table 5. 14—Strains in shear studs for Specimen 4.8 in.) than the calculated nominal shear stress resistance vn (refer to Table 5.8 in. The increase in post-failure capacity can be concluded from the gradual decline of the load with the applied displacements (displacement-controlled test setup).

) Fig.5 d (11) ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 . 7. the transverse displacements of the slab with shear reinforcement increases significantly and exceeds 1. and 10 exhibit sudden brittle failure typical for slabs without shear reinforcement. it is obvious that the slope of all three codes is too shallow in comparison with the test results and that both CSA and BS start to account for the size effect at slab thicknesses that are too high. Figure 17 shows that the demand for shear reinforcement is very small up to a load that creates a substantial shear crack that leads to failure in the specimen without shear reinforcement.≤ 1 1000 + d 200 EC217/DIN 1045-118: 1 + -------. (9). respectively. 7) and that Gauge 1 is the gauge furthest away from the column. 4.3-0416: -------------------. 9. (Note: 25. The flexural failure load according to the yield line theory was not reached in any of the tests9 confirming that all tests failed in shear. Deflections The load deflection curves for all three tests series presented in Fig. Specimens 1.).≤ 2 d BS 8110-9719: 400 -------.8 and 15. whereas the ratio vu/vn suggests that a size factor should come into effect at an effective depth of approximately 220 mm (8. the size factor can be approximated by kd = 200 -------. 17(a) and (b) shows that the transverse slab expansion of the two specimens was similar up to the failure of the slab without shear reinforcement (825 kN [185 kips]). 18—Strains in flexural reinforcement. The nominal shear stress resistances vn were calculated according to ACI 318-05.≥ 0. (10) was altered by dividing both sides by 2. 16—Strains in shear studs for Specimen 12. 11. This figure indicates that the bars in the vicinity of the column reached yield first and that even though the reinforcement ratio for the thicker slabs was reduced. Comparing measurements for slabs with and without shear reinforcement in Fig.45 kN = 1 kip.45 kN = 1 kip. 12 illustrate the difference between slabs with and without shear reinforcement. 12 are the measured center deflections minus the deflections at the supports.Fig.059 in. (Note: 4. This observation is confirmed by looking at the stud strains in Fig. Beyond this load. 19. The slabs with shear reinforcement (2. (Note: 4. From this figure. The size factors as well as the ratios of recorded ultimate shear stress resistances to nominal shear stress resistances vu/vn for the tests of slabs without shear reinforcement are plotted in Fig. at an effective depth of 300 and 400 mm (11. the amount of yielding in the thinner slabs was higher.6 in. 19. and 12) develop a small yield plateau and a gradual failure with some residual strength after yielding of the shear 186 reinforcement. To compare these different approaches with the size effect. 4.. 18 for Specimens 8 and 11. 17—Slab expansions for Specimens 7 and 8.) Fig.) Fig.7 in. namely.45 kN = 1 kip. The deflections presented in Fig. Note that the LVDT in Specimen 4 failed before the test was completed. (Note: 4.) at punching failure. Strains in flexural reinforcement A typical plot of steel strain in the flexural reinforcement versus applied load is presented in Fig.≤ 1 d (8) (9) 4 (10) The Canadian Standard16 differs from ACI only in that it includes the size factor of Eq.5 mm (0. 15—Strains in shear studs for Specimen 9. PROPOSED CODE CHANGES The influence of the slab thickness on the punching shear capacity has been recognized in many codes of practice.45 kN = 1 kip. Note that Gauges 1 to 4 in Fig.).4 mm = 1 in. Size effects in major design codes are as follows (d in mm) 1300 CSA A32. 8. Eq. however. To reflect the steep descent of the experimental curve of Fig.) failure. 17(a) and (b) are located on diagonal lines at an angle 45 degrees to the column faces (refer to Fig. 15.

2. 19. Calgary. ON. This low shear strength necessitates a consideration of the size effect.). and ⎝ d ⎠ 7. For slabs with shear reinforcement. does not provide enough evidence to draw definite conclusions. (12) with the test results in Fig. 19—Comparison of code provisions for size effect and test results. The minimum reinforcement ratio in Eq. Calgary. respectively. only 63% of the code value was reached. The most important conclusions from these experiments are: 1. and d the effective depth in mm.8 in. For slabs with shear reinforcement. It is well known. the data available is insufficient to propose an equation for the shear stress resistance of the concrete for thick slabs.S. (12) is 0. Canada. Considering the size factors presented in EC217 and BS8110-9719 in isolation. The flexural reinforcement and the concrete were donated by Harris Rebar.) Using this size factor in combination with Eq.) with and without shear reinforcement (shear studs) are presented. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Tests on slabs with thicknesses between 160 and 300 mm (6. Slabs with shear reinforcement showed a small decrease of the shear resistance with increasing slab depth. For a slab thickness of 300 mm (11.⎞ ≥ 0. Slabs with shear reinforcement showed a small decrease of the shear resistance with increasing slab depth. AB. Research on this topic is urgently required. The comparison of Eq.7 in.shear reinforcement (Specimen 10). however. Fig. The double-headed studs with forged heads were provided by DECON of Brampton. which is highly appreciated. 4. that is. 6. only 89% of the nominal shear resistance of ACI 318-05 was reached.5% and the lower limit of Eq. the constant changes to 150.17 f c′ .4-9 however. Birkle9 proposed the following expression for the nominal stress resistance of slabs without shear reinforcement f c′ ⋅ ρ v n = 16 ⎛ -----------. not considering the effect of the reinforcement ratio ρ also underestimate the size factor.) thick slab. Canada. Both BS and EC2 include ρ in their punching shear strength equations in the form of ρ1/3.⎞ ≥ 2 f c′ (psi) . 20—Influence of slab thickness using size factor.4 mm = 1 in. 3. which is gratefully acknowledged. Based on the statistical evaluations by Birkle.⎞ ⎝ d ⎠ 1⁄3 (12) where fc′ is the specified compressive strength of the concrete in MPa. ρ is the reinforcement ratio. In a recent test by Guandalini and Muttoni13 on a 500 mm (19. One tests series was designed to fail inside. (2) yields the broken line in Fig. Slabs with shear reinforcement resulted in significant increases in shear capacity and ductility compared with slabs without shear reinforcement. A single test. and another one to fail outside. the concrete component of the shear capacity is reduced relative to that of slabs without shear reinforcement. size factors suggested in CSA A23. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.17 f c′ (MPa) ⎝ d ⎠ In the U.3-0416 underestimate the influence of the effective depth on the punching shear capacity. There is a significant decrease of the shear stress resistance with increasing slab thickness. the shear reinforced zone. As mentioned in the discussion of the test results. Based on statistical evaluations. In Imperial units. (Note: 25. that the punching shear strength not only depends on the concrete strength and the slab thickness but also on the flexural reinforcement ratio ρ. Fig. 20 shows good agreement.8 in. 5. Standard system of units f c′ ⋅ ρ 1 ⁄ 3 v n = 150 ⎛ -----------. and Lafarge. For the test results presented.) thick slab (Specimen 11) is similar to that of the slab without ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 NOTATION Ab Av Bc bo c cc cx cy d = = = = = = = = = area of reinforcement bar total area of shear reinforcement perpendicular to critical section radius of round slab specimen (at supports) perimeter of critical section length of column side for square column diameter of circular column length of column side in x-direction length of the column side in y-direction effective depth 187 . there is evidence that the reduction of the shear stress resistance of the concrete of the 300 mm (11.3 and 11.9 the following equation is proposed for the nominal shear stress resistance of concrete in slabs without shear reinforcement f c′ ⋅ ρ 1 ⁄ 3 v n = 16 ⎛ -----------.8 in. (12) should be 0.

” DIN V 18932 (10. E. 16.. 2003. “Punching of Flat Slabs: The Influence of Slab Thickness and Stud Layout. 5. Regan. 168. DIN 1045-1.-Feb. West Conshohocken.. Sept.. W. PA. V. pp. 6. 152 pp. 23. 65 pp. McGill University. pp... 15 pp. 115-128. BS 8110-97. Lausanne.. ON. “Tragwerke aus Beton. 136. 148 pp. 6. “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. Li. 3. Regan.” Magazine of Concrete Research.” Bulletin No.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. London. No. 5. ACI Committee 318. No. “Reinforced Concrete Wall and Column Footings. “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings Under Concentrated Loads. No. “Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs. and Muttoni. Jan. Apr. 4. 1985. 1986.” ACI JOURNAL. P. pp. J. Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion.” DIN—Deutsches Institut für Normung. 130 pp. 167 pp. 97-127. “Design of Concrete Structures. Graf.3-94 Punching Shear Provisions for Interior Columns. Gardner. 12. L.” Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.” ACI Structural Journal. Guandalini. 502-510. Moe. Richart. 8. Rexdale. 22 pp. V. 430 pp.out = x α1 αs β εy φ ρave ρv = = = = = = = = average of effective depth in two directions of slab concrete design strength based on 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in. Sherif.” American Concrete Institute. pp.. 2005. K. pp. 117 pp. 1938. 44-53.” PhD thesis. 1997.dave = fc′ = fc_test = fy = fyv = h = mave = s = so = Vfex = Vn = Vu = = vc vmax = = vn = vs vu = vu. Z. 232 pp. S. DIN ENV 1992-1-1 (06. “Structural Use of Concrete. 15. University of Calgary.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2..G.3-04. W.” ASTM International. 2. A. Jan. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05). M. 11. 23. V. Farmington Hills. 675-696. D47. 1988. E. K.-Dec. V. N.. 9. and Cao. Stahlbeton und Spannbeton. QC. July 2001.) cylinder concrete cylinder strength at time of testing specified yield strength of flexural reinforcement specified yield strength of shear studs thickness of slab average moment capacity per unit width distance of shear elements perpendicular to column sides distance of first shear element to face of column flexural strength of slab-column connection (yield-line theory) nominal shear resistance of slab-column connection ultimate shear force applied to slab-column connection shear stress resistance provided by concrete shear stress limit nominal shear stress resistance shear stress resistance provided by shear reinforcement shear stress on critical section at ultimate loads shear stress on the critical section inside shear-reinforced zone at ultimate loads shear stress on the critical section outside shear-reinforced zone at ultimate loads distance between deflection transducers ratio of average stress in rectangular compression block to specified concrete strength factor that adjusts shear capacity for column location ratio of long side to short side of column yield strain of reinforcement global resistance factor for slab column connection average percentage of reinforcement ratio in two directions of slab percentage of shear reinforcement REFERENCES 1. Calgary. 84. 129 pp. Research and Development Laboratories. 38.. Nov. “Symmetric Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs..1R-99). 1996. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326. ACI Committee 421. Farmington Hills. and Bræstrup. 1987.. P. AB. Berlin. Birkle. 2004. 1992.” ACI Structural Journal.” Deutscher Ausschuß für Eisenbeton.91). V. 13. “Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete. O. No. “Punching Shear Provisions for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Flat Slabs. Berlin. Montreal. 14.. “Shear and Diagonal Torsion. pp. “Influence of Size on Punching Shear Strength of Concrete Slabs. Canada. 45. MI. “Punching Tests on Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement. CSA Standard A23. = vu. 188 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008 . “Planung von Stahlbeton. 998-1011. 2000. 6. G.92). 49 pp. F. Canada.” Canadian Portland Cement Association. 7. No. H. MI. 18. 19. Eurocode 2. 85.und Spannbetontragwerken. “Shear Reinforcement for Slabs (ACI 421. Comité Euro-International du Béton. Canada. “Critical Review of the CSA A23. 17. Proceedings V. Switzerland.” Bulletin d’Information No. 171 pp. Germany.” British Standard Institute. 2004. 1948. Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction. 1961. 10.. Journal of the Portland Cement Association. ASTM A370-05. Bažant. J. A.” American Concrete Institute. E. and Dilger. 2004. Z. UK.. “Versuche über die Widerstandsfähigkeit von allseitig aufliegenden dicken Eisenbetonplatten unter Einzellasten. P.” MSc thesis. Heft 88. Oct.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful