Finite-Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

with Punching Shear Reinforcement

Aikaterini S. Genikomsou, S.M.ASCE 1; and Maria Anna Polak, M.ASCE 2

Abstract: Finite-element analyses (FEA) of reinforced concrete slab-column connections with shear reinforcement are presented and dis-
cussed. Ultimate loads and crack patterns are shown and compared to the experimental findings. The damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

previously calibrated and validated on tested slabs without shear reinforcement, is adopted to properly simulate the behavior of slab-column
connections with shear reinforcement. Four interior slab-column specimens were tested under vertical loading applied through the column.
One slab specimen was without shear reinforcement, while the other three differed in the amount of the shear bolts. The objective of this
paper is to propose a novel numerical modeling strategy for simulating and analyzing shear reinforced slabs with shear bolts. For that purpose,
in the numerical analyses, four different approaches for modeling the shear bolt are introduced and described. Discussion and comparison
on the predicted failure loads from the design codes and models in conjunction with the experimental and numerical data, are presented.
Finally, a parametric numerical study is conducted, where the rectangular and the radial shear reinforcement arrangements are compared.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001603. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Shear bolts; Punching shear; Crack pattern; Finite-element analysis; Damaged plasticity model; Flat concrete slabs;
Design codes; Shear reinforcement arrangements; Analysis and computation.

Introduction material properties. In that sense, finite-element analyses (FEA)

Punching shear failure can be a critical phenomenon in flat concrete
slabs that can lead to a brittle failure. To increase the capacity and
the ductility of a slab, shear reinforcement can be installed. The
shear reinforcement is placed to intercept the inclined cracks inside
the slab, around the column. Many researchers conducted tests
examining shear reinforced concrete slabs by using and proposing
different types of shear reinforcements, for example: bent-up bars,
stirrups, shear heads, and shear studs. Bent-up bars were used,
among others, by Elstner and Hognestad (1956), Hawkins (1974),
Islam and Park (1976), Dilger and Ghali (1981), and Broms (2000).
Closed stirrups were examined by Hanna et al. (1975), Islam and
Park (1976), and Robertson et al. (2002). Shear heads were intro-
duced by Corley and Hawkins (1968). Shear studs, were used by
Langohr et al. (1976), Seible et al. (1980), Dilger and Ghali (1981),
Elgabry and Ghali (1990), El-Salakawy et al. (1998, 2000, 2002),
Megally and Ghali (2000), Robertson et al. (2002), Kang and
Wallace (2005), Tan and Teng (2005) and Broms (2007). A new
type of shear reinforcement, the shear bolt system, proposed by
El-Salakawy et al. (2003) was used for interior slab-column connec-
tions tested by Adetifa and Polak (2005). This type of shear
reinforcement can be installed in existing slabs as a retrofit method
in such cases where increase in punching shear capacity is necessary.
The existing database of tested slabs with shear reinforcement is
difficult to categorize and use for the evaluation of the design codes
due to the variety of shear reinforcements, slab dimensions, and
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1 (corresponding author).
E-mail: agenikom@uwaterloo.ca
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1. E-mail: polak@uwaterloo.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 13, 2015; approved
on May 3, 2016; published online on July 13, 2016. Discussion period open
until December 13, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
can be viewed as an extension of testing to guide in the development
of the design approaches. Properly calibrated FEA can provide infor-
mation on the effect of a variety of parameters on the punching shear
strength, guiding in the development of rational design approaches.
Nonlinear finite-element analyses for reinforced concrete slabs
can provide insight into the slabs’ behavior, predict the possible
failure modes, support the experimental conclusions, and extend
these conclusions in cases where the test measurements are not
known. FEA of reinforced concrete slabs have been performed
by many researchers (Menétrey 1994; Hallgren 1996; Ožbolt et al.
2000; Staller 2000; Beutel 2001; Polak 2005; Guan and Polak 2007;
Negele et al. 2007; Eder et al. 2010; Mamede et al. 2013; Wosatko
et al. 2015; Genikomsou and Polak 2015; Shu et al. 2015; Reis et al.
2015). However, FEA of shear reinforced concrete slabs are limited.
Beutel (2001) used the FEA code MAcroscopic Space Analysis
(MASA) developed by Ožbolt et al. (2000). He analyzed shear-
reinforced slabs using three-dimensional (3D) solid elements for
the concrete and truss elements for the reinforcement. The stirrups
were modeled with bar elements, where several geometric forms of
anchor systems were considered. The test and numerical results
were found to be in good agreement. Polak (2005) used shell ele-
ments with layered integration where the reinforcement was mod-
eled as a property of the concrete modifying the stiffness in the
reinforcement’s direction. Also, Guan and Polak (2007) used layered
finite-element methods to investigate the influence of shear stud
reinforcement of flat slabs. Negele et al. (2007) used 3D nonlinear
FEA with a microplane material model (MASA FEA code) using the
smeared crack approach together with the crack band method. The
simulations were able to predict the ultimate load for the slabs SB1–
SB4 tested by Adetifa and Polak (2005), but in terms of the ultimate
deflections, the predictions were not able to illustrate the influence
of the amount of the shear bolts. Eder et al. (2010) used 3D finite
elements for the simulation of the concrete and shell elements em-
bedded into the solid elements for the simulation of the shear heads.
The research work done using FEA for shear-reinforced slabs
is limited due to the complexity of the nonlinear finite-element

© ASCE 04016129-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016129

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Schematic drawings of the specimens, dimensions, and reinforcement details
models and due to the difficulty in modeling shear reinforcement.
In this paper, the concrete damaged plasticity model, which is of-
fered in ABAQUS, is used for the 3D finite-element simulations of
four interior reinforced concrete flat slabs (SB1, SB2, SB3, and
SB4) that were previously tested by Adetifa and Polak (2005).
The main objective of this research is to provide information
and propose advanced methods of modeling shear reinforcement
of the slabs and, in particular, the shear bolts.
The concrete damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS is based on
the fictitious crack model (Hillerborg 1985) that uses the fracture
energy for describing the tensile stress-strain relationship, prevent-
ing mesh sensitivity and securing numerical convergence (Bazant
and Oh 1983). However, the finite-element models must be cali-
brated based on selected experimental results. Specimen SB1 (slab
without shear reinforcement) has already been simulated effectively
with the concrete damaged plasticity model by Genikomsou and
Polak (2015). In this paper, the calibrated model is applied for
the simulation of the other specimens (SB2, SB3, SB4)—specimens
with shear reinforcement. The numerical results are compared to
the test results in terms of deflections, strength, and crack patterns.
Comparison between ACI 318-14 (ACI 2014), EC2 (CEN 2004),
Model Code 2010 (fib 2010) and Critical Shear Crack Theory—
CSCT (Muttoni 2008; Fernandez and Muttoni 2009) is conducted
in terms of ultimate punching shear strength and failure modes of
the tested slabs. Differences in design codes and models are dis-
cussed. Finally, a parametric study is performed to examine the in-
fluence of different shear reinforcement patterns on the punching
shear capacity and ductility of the slabs.
Test Specimens
Four interior slab-column connections (SB1, SB2, SB3, and SB4)
were tested under static loading applied through the column by
Adetifa and Polak (2005). The specimens had identical dimensions
and were cast from concrete with the same material specifications
© ASCE 04016129-2
J. Struct. Eng., 04016129
(aggregate size and concrete strength). The schematic drawings
of the specimens are presented in Fig. 1. The dimensions of these
square slabs were 1,800 × 1,800 × 120 mm, in which simple sup-
ports at 1,500 × 1,500 mm were applied. All slabs were reinforced
in the same way, using 10M bars at 100 mm and 90 mm for the
tension mat and 10M bars at 200 mm for the compression mat. The
spacing of the tension reinforcement is different in the two direc-
tions to achieve the same moment capacity in both orthogonal di-
rections. The yield strength of the flexural reinforcement was
455 MPa. The concrete cover was 20 mm, and the dimensions
of the cross section of the square columns were 150 × 150 mm.
The columns extended 150 mm beyond the top and the bottom sur-
faces of the slabs, and they were reinforced with four 20M bars and
8M ties. The thickness of the slabs was 120 mm, and the effective
depth (d) was equal to 90 mm. In the experiment, the slabs were
tested upside down compared to the real slab-column system. Thus,
the tension reinforcement of the slab was placed on the bottom of
the slabs. The shear reinforcement consisted of shear bolts that
were postinstalled in the slabs. The shear bolts consist of smooth
steel bars having a forged circular head on the one end and the other
end threaded [Fig. 2(a)]. SB1 slab is the control specimen that has
no shear reinforcement. The other slabs (SB2, SB3, and SB4) were
retrofitted with shear bolts. Prior to the testing, holes of 16-mm
diameter were drilled in the slabs to install the 9.5-mm diameter
shear bolts. Before testing and to ensure good contact between
the washers and the slab surface, the shear bolts were torqued
to a strain equivalent to 5–10% of their strain at yield. The arrange-
ment of the shear bolts was with concentric rows parallel to the
perimeter of the column. Each row had two parallel bolts to each
face of the column; therefore, there were eight bolts in each row in
total. The first row of the shear bolts was placed at distance 45 mm
(0.5 d) from the face of the column, and the next rows were spaced
at approximately 80 mm [Fig. 2(b)]. The yield strength of the
shear bolts was 381 MPa. Slab SB2 had two rows of shear bolts,
and SB3 and SB4 had three and four rows, respectively. The
material properties of the slabs are presented in Table 1.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Fig. 2. (a) Shear bolt; (b) cut section of SB4 slab

Table 1. Material Properties of the Slabs

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Concrete Flexural reinforcement Shear bolt

Slab specimen f c0 (MPa) f t0 (MPa) Gf (N=mm) Ec (MPa) f y (MPa) f t (MPa) Es (MPa) fys (MPa)
SB1 44 2.2 0.082 36,483 455 620 200,000 —
SB2, SB3, SB4 41 2.1 0.077 35,217 455 620 200,000 381
Note: Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete; Es = modulus of elasticity of flexural reinforcement; fc0 = compressive strength of concrete; ft = ultimate strength
of flexural reinforcement; f t0 = tensile strength of concrete; fy = yield strength of flexural reinforcement; f ys = yield strength of shear bolts; Gf = fracture
energy of concrete.

Ultimate Loads and Failure Modes from Tests

The yield line theory according to Rankin and Long (1987) was
used to estimate the theoretical flexural capacity of the reinforced
concrete slabs (V flex ¼ 358 kN). In slabs without shear reinforce-
ment where the flexural reinforcement ratio is high: V flex > V c ,
where V c is the shear strength of concrete based on the design
codes. In such slabs the failure mode is punching. Slab SB1 (con-
trol specimen without shear reinforcement) was designed to fail in
punching shear, and according to the test observations, it failed in
such manner ðV test ¼ 253 kNÞ. However, sometimes it is hard to
estimate the failure modes, especially in slabs that failed in flexure
because punching can cause a secondary failure. All three shear
reinforced specimens (SB2, SB3, and SB4), after achieving their
flexural capacity failed in flexure with a secondary failure outside
the shear-reinforced area, indicating that punching is critical at Fig. 3. Load-deflection response of tested slabs (SB1, SB2, SB3,
the outer critical section. Specimen SB2 (two rows of shear bolts), and SB4)
failed in a punching/flexure mode where the general yielding of the
flexural reinforcement happened right after the punching failure oc-
curred outside the shear reinforced area. The load-displacement
Table 2. Test Results
curve that drops in a brittle way after reaching the flexural capacity
indicates the mixed failure mode. Slab SB3 (three rows of shear Yield line
bolts) failed in a flexure mode, but after some further deflections, Number of flexural Failure Displacement
Slab rows of capacity load at failure Failure
the punching cone formed and caused a secondary punching shear
specimen shear bolts (kN) (kN) (mm) mode
failure. Finally, in specimen SB4, the general yielding of the tensile
flexural reinforcement occurred prior to punching of the slab and SB1 0 358 253 11.9 Punching
SB2 2 358 366 17.1 Punching/flexure
limited the capacity of the connection. The graph that presents the
SB3 3 358 378 25.9 Flexure
load-displacement response of that slab shows the flexure failure SB4 4 358 360 29.8 Flexure
mode followed by punching after substantial deformations. The
punching shear cone for the specimens SB2, SB3, and SB4 was
formed outside the shear bolt zone. Thus, according to the test ob-
servations, it was found that the shear bolts increased the ductility the punching shear cone was formed outside the shear-reinforced
zone, where the flexural yield lines were defined well.
of the slabs and provided means for changing the failure modes
from punching to flexure. Fig. 3 presents the test observations
in terms of ultimate load versus displacement for the tested slabs. Finite-Element Simulations
Table 2 shows the yield line flexural capacity, the failure load, the
failure displacement, and the failure mode for each specimen. Fig. 4
shows the crack pattern of the slabs on their tension sides. Slab SB1 Methodology
failed in punching shear where the flexural yield lines did not fully Considering the symmetry, one quarter of the slab-column connec-
formed. All other slabs achieved their flexural capacity first; then tions is simulated and analyzed in ABAQUS. The initial calibration

© ASCE 04016129-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016129

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Crack pattern of tested slabs: (a) SB1; (b) SB2; (c) SB3; (d) SB4
of the FEA model was done on SB1, which is a slab without shear
reinforcement and a control slab within the described test series
(Genikomsou and Polak 2015). The material, geometrical, and
loading parameters for the slab SB1 were the same as for the slabs
SB2, SB3, and SB4. The only difference was that SB1 did not con-
tain shear bolts and the other slabs did. The concrete is modeled
by using eight-noded hexahedral (brick) elements with reduced
integration (denoted as C3D8R in ABAQUS), and the longitudinal
reinforcement is implemented using two-noded linear truss
elements (denoted as T3D2 in ABAQUS). The concrete and the
reinforcement are connected via the embedded method that consid-
ers perfect bond. However, the interaction between concrete and
reinforcement is enforced through the tension stiffening behavior
of concrete after cracking, which can be considered in the concrete
plasticity model. The embedded method is also considered for
modeling the bond between the shear bolts and the slab. The em-
bedded method (perfect bond) is chosen because the mechanical
principles of how the shear reinforcement works in thin slabs is
not significantly dependent on bond along the bar. The shear bolt
works because of the end anchorages on slab’s surfaces. The bolt
stem strains are relatively small in both test and analysis. Thus,
modeling end anchorages of the bolts is examined in detail in this
work. Through the thickness of the slabs (120 mm), six mesh
elements with 20-mm mesh size are used. This mesh size was con-
sidered after a mesh sensitivity analysis that was performed on the
slab SB1 (Genikomsou and Polak 2015). Quasi-static analysis in
ABAQUS/Explicit is implemented, and simple supports are applied
at the bottom edges of the specimens.
Slab SB4 is considered as the control specimen for the shear-
reinforced slabs and for modeling the shear reinforcement. Four
© ASCE 04016129-4
J. Struct. Eng., 04016129
different numerical ways for modeling the shear bolt system are
examined. The next section presents the modeling approaches
and the observations made in each case. The concrete at the column
is simulated as linear elastic to avoid numerical problems with dam-
age of the column itself. During the experiment, the failure was
observed only in the slab and not in the column because the column
volume within the slab is highly confined by the surrounding slab
(Adetifa and Polak 2005). Other researchers reported similar find-
ings, like e.g., Pan and Moehle (1992) and Durrani et al. (1995).
In the FEA, this confinement must be addressed, and in this work,
it is done by a simple approach of creating linear elastic column.
This approach in FEA has been also used by other researchers,
e.g., Liu et al. (2015).
Shear Bolt Modeling Investigation on Specimen SB4
The FEA modeling of reinforced concrete slabs without shear
reinforcement is examined by Genikomsou and Polak (2015),
where 3D solid elements for the concrete and 3D truss elements
for the flexural reinforcement were used. In this research, the main
concern was the modeling of the shear bolts. The questions that
were raised, are (1) what type of finite elements (trusses/beams/
shells/solids) should be used for modeling the shear bolts, (2) what
type of geometry for the possible truss or beam elements should be
adopted, and (3) what type of constraints should be applied. The in-
vestigation is presented in the next section, considering four different
ways to model the shear bolts: truss, beam, shell, and solid elements.
All numerical analyses are performed using a workstation with
16 GB RAM and an Intel Core i7 processor running at 3.4GHz.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Fig. 5. Truss/beam configuration for shear bolt modeling of SB4: (a) truss/beam elements simulate the shear bolt; (b) mesh design of SB4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The ABAQUS version that is used is the 6.12-3 and during all the which 8,470 are C3D8R elements, 765 are T3D2 elements, and 240
analyses parallelization is considered using seven processors and are S4R elements.
seven domains in ABAQUS/Explicit. The computational cost in
terms of demand time for each of the presented analyses is approx- Solid Elements
imately 2 min for the truss elements, 14 min for the beam elements,
3 min for the shell elements and 330 min for the solid elements. The last examined solution to simulate the shear bolts is to use 3D
solid elements. The diameter of the bolts’ stud is 9.5 mm, and the
diameters of the head and the washer are 30 mm and 44 mm, re-
Truss Elements–Beam Elements spectively. The bolts are installed into the 16-mm drilled holes of
First, two-noded 3D linear truss elements (T3D2) are used for the slab. Tie constraints are adopted to model the interaction be-
tween the washers of the bolt and the slab surface and the contact
the simulation of the shear bolts. The main disadvantage of the truss
between the different parts of the bolt. Tie constraints tie two sep-
elements is that they can carry only tensile or compressive loads,
arate surfaces together for no relative motion between them to exist.
and they have no resistance to bending due to the only three trans-
The advantage of this type of constraint is that it allows the two
lational degrees of freedom. However, this problem according to
regions to be fused together even if their meshes are not similar.
Negele et al. (2007) could be solved by distributing the load to
Finally, no contact properties are given between the bolt studs
the surrounding nodes by connecting additional truss elements
and the inner faces of the slab’s holes. In reality, the diameter of
to these nodes. Additional truss elements are modeled at the top
the bolt was 9.5 mm and, the diameter of the hole was 16 mm, thus
and bottom of the shear bolts as it is shown in Fig. 5. These anchor-
no substantial contact occurred. The proper mesh of the slab is very
age types of truss elements are considered to prevent local failures
important due to the presence of holes. For that reason, the mesh is
of concrete at the nodes. The T3D2 elements representing the shear
created after the proper partition of the slab. Fig. 7 illustrates the
bolts are embedded into the solid concrete elements. After perform-
shear bolt modeling done by using solid elements and the mesh
ing the appropriate mesh in the model, there were 11,534 nodes and
configuration of the bolt and the surrounding area on the slab.
9,539 elements from which 8,470 are C3D8R elements and 1,069
The adopted mesh provides 44,551 nodes and 35,437 elements
are T3D2 elements.
(34,672 are C3D8R elements and 765 are T3D2 elements).
Then, as a second option, beam elements for the shear bolt de-
sign are adopted. The 3D quadratic beam elements (denoted as B32
in ABAQUS) are shear deformable and account for finite axial Numerical Results
strains, having six degrees of freedom. The shear bolt configuration The comparison between the load-deflection responses obtained
is the same as the previous one (truss elements) (Fig. 5). Again, from the previously described modeling approaches is presented
perfect bond between concrete and steel is considered through in Fig. 8. Based on the slab’s load-deflection response, the ap-
the embedded method. After performing the appropriate mesh in proach using beam elements for simulating the shear bolts seems
the model, there were 11,838 nodes and 9,539 elements from which to be better, and the response of the slab is reasonable compared
8,470 are C3D8R elements, 765 are T3D2 elements, and 304 are to the test results. The truss elements cannot contribute to such an
B32 elements. increase of the punching shear capacity of the slab as it was ob-
served from the test; however, they improve the ductility of the slab.
Shell Elements
3D continuum shell elements with reduced integration (denoted as
S4R in ABAQUS) are also considered for modeling the shear bolt
system. The S4R elements have six degrees of freedom, and they
are embedded into the concrete-brick elements. The rebar layer
definition is used to define the amount and position of the shear
reinforcement. With this procedure, the shear bolts are considered
as smeared layer with constant thickness. The thickness can be cal-
culated equal to the area of the cross section of the shear bolt di-
vided by the spacing between the shear bolts. Fig. 6 illustrates the
shear bolt configuration using shell elements. After the appropriate
Fig. 6. Shell elements simulate the shear bolts of SB4
mesh, in the model there are 11,508 nodes and 9,475 elements from

© ASCE 04016129-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016129

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Solid elements for shear bolt modeling of SB4: (a) solid elements simulate the shear bolt; (b) mesh design of SB4
Fig. 8. Load-deflection response of SB4 (shear bolt modeling
investigation)
Shell and solid elements seem to be able to simulate the increase
in the load, but they do not show the same deflection as happened in
the test.
Comparison between the FEA crack patterns is presented in
Fig. 9. It should be noted that cracking is parallel to the direction
of the maximum principal plastic strains due to the smeared crack
approach that concrete damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS
adopts. Therefore, the crack formation in FEA can be tracked
through the principal equivalent tensile strains in concrete. The
cracking starts tangentially at the area of the maximum bending
moment near the column and then spreads radially towards the
slab’s edges as the load increases. During the test, SB4 experienced
bending cracks near the column on the tension side of the slab. The
shear cracks were developed outside the shear reinforced area caus-
ing a secondary failure (punching) after the general yielding of the
flexural reinforcement. Cracks were also observed between the first
and second row of the shear bolts leading to a second postfailure
shear cracking. Comparing the crack patterns obtained from the
FEA (Fig. 9) and the test (Fig. 4), the case where the shear bolts
are modeled with beam elements [Fig. 9(b)], captures best the test
cracking that was discussed earlier.
© ASCE 04016129-6
J. Struct. Eng., 04016129
Material Modeling
A constitutive model for concrete, called the Barcelona model, was
developed by Lubliner et al. (1989) and later modified by Lee and
Fenves (1998). This modified model is implemented in ABAQUS,
named as concrete damaged plasticity, and herein, it is adopted for
modeling the concrete behavior of the slabs. Concrete damaged
plasticity considers both the tensile cracking and compressive
crushing of concrete as possible failure modes, and its yield func-
tion is developed in the effective stress space. The material param-
eters that are used for the simulation of the specimen SB1 (slab
without shear reinforcement) are described in detail by Genikomsou
and Polak (2015). Herein, the same plasticity parameters of the
model are adopted (Table 3). The adoption of the same material
model for concrete is based on the fact that all slabs were cast
together, with the same aggregate size and cured in the same man-
ner. They had identical dimensions, and boundary and loading con-
ditions during the test. The only difference was the addition of shear
bolts as shear reinforcement. Therefore, the concrete model cali-
brated on a slab without shear reinforcement (SB1) can be consid-
ered valid for slabs with shear reinforcement (SB2, SB3, and SB4).
For the tension response of concrete, the stress-fracture energy ap-
proach is used. The stress-crack displacement behavior is defined
by a bilinear tension stiffening response. Concrete in compression
is modeled with the Hognestad type parabola. The steel is modeled
with a plastic behavior using a bilinear strain hardening yield stress-
plastic strain curve.
Finite-Element Analysis Results
Load-Deflection Response
Fig. 10 shows the comparison between experimental and analytical
results in terms of load deflection for all specimens. The FEA re-
sults for the slabs SB2, SB3, and SB4 that had been retrofitted
with the shear bolts are in good agreement with the tested results
in terms of ultimate punching shear capacity and displacement. The
beam elements that are employed to simulate the shear bolts seem
to increase both the ductility and the punching shear resistance of
the slabs.
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Crack patterns of SB4 (shear bolt modeling investigation): (a) truss elements; (b) beam elements; (c) shell elements; (d) solid elements

Table 3. Material Properties and Plasticity Parameters of Concrete

Crack Pattern
for Slab (SB1) The failure crack development of all slabs from tests and FEA is
Material parameters of concrete damaged Material properties presented in Fig. 11. The punching shear cone of specimen SB1 that
plasticity model of slab SB1 failed by punching is noticed due to the sudden opening of the shear
cracks. All other specimens achieved their flexural strength first
Compressive strength of concrete, f c0 (MPa) p44 ffiffiffiffiffi
Tensile strength of concrete, f t0 (MPa) 0.33 f c0 ¼ 2.2 (flexural failure) then after further deformation, they experienced
Gfo ðf cm =f 0.7 shear cracking outside the shear reinforcement area and bending
Fracture energy of concrete, Gf (N=mm) ffiffiffiffiffi Þ ¼ 0.082
pcmo
Modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec (MPa) 5,500 f c0 ¼ 36483 cracks around the column. As the shear reinforcement is increased
Poisson’s ratio, v 0.2 (SB3, SB4) more cracks can be seen at the column area. The simu-
Dilation angle, ψ (degrees) 40 lated cracks match the experimentally observed cracks well.
Eccentricity, ε 0.1
Ratio of initial equibiaxial to initial uniaxial 1.16
compressive yield stresses, σbo =σco Strains on Flexural Reinforcement
Ratio of stress invariants, K c 0.667 The strains on the tensile longitudinal reinforcement were mea-
Viscosity parameter, μ 0
sured during the test. The obtained results for the specimen SB1

© ASCE 04016129-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016129


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Load-deflection response of slabs (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB4)
showed that the first yielding occurred at a load of 240 kN just
before the failure. The first yielding of the reinforcement of the slab
SB2 was observed at load of 224 kN, while for specimens SB3 and
SB4 the first yielding occurred at loads 260 kN and 242 kN, re-
spectively. The first yielding of the flexural reinforcement of the
slab SB4 in FEA is observed at a load of 285 kN. Initial yielding
of the tension reinforcement is observed for slabs SB1, SB2, and
SB3 at loads 228 kN, 275 kN, and 297 kN, respectively. Fig. 12
presents the FEA strains on the flexural reinforcement at the posi-
tions that first yielded for all specimens. During the tests the strain
gauges were damaged at strains around 0.007 mm=mm. For that
reason, the test results for the ultimate loads are not comparable
to the FEA results and are not presented herein.
Fig. 11. Crack pattern from FEA at ultimate load: (a) SB1; (b) SB2; (c) SB3; (d) SB4 (note: the cracks in ABAQUS are shown in the form of
maximum principal plastic strains)
© ASCE 04016129-8
J. Struct. Eng., 04016129
Activation of the Shear Bolts
The strains were measured on the shear bolts during the testing.
Small strains were observed until the ultimate load of the slabs.
Only the first bolt started to be activated earlier at a load of
200 kN. In general, the bolts of all slabs started to be activated
at loads higher than the ultimate load of the specimen without shear
reinforcement (SB1) because the cracking occurs at similar loading
for the slabs without and with shear reinforcement. However, the
bolts limit the opening of the shear cracks. The first row of bolts
experiences higher strains compared to the subsequent rows due to
the presence of the shear cracks at the area near the column. The
outer rows of the bolts were strained suddenly at the ultimate load
suggesting that shear cracking reached all the way to the last row of
bolts. After the peak load, approximately 350 kN for all specimens,
the bolts showed the highest strains. In the FEA, the activation of
the shear bolts starts earlier compared to the tests, due to the mod-
eling that is adopted with the assumed perfect bond between the
shear reinforcement and the concrete. The perfect bond is consid-
ered to simplify the model and to avoid any numerical singularities.
The important feature is that at the final loads, the strains in the
numerical and experimental cases are similar, meaning that in both
cases, the bolts contributed similarly to the load carrying capacity.
These results are presented to show how the adopted modeling af-
fects the bolt strains and to show that at the final load, the strains are
similar in the test and the FEA. Fig. 13 presents the strains on the
bolts obtained from the test and FEA results for the specimen SB4.
Effect of Shear Reinforcement Arrangement
The effectiveness of the shear reinforcement to increase the punch-
ing shear capacity of a slab-column connection depends also on the
J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Strains on flexural reinforcement according to FEA
arrangement of the shear reinforcement around the column.
Two different approaches are proposed in the design codes: the rec-
tangular [ACI 318-14 (ACI 2014)] and the radial arrangement
(CEN 2004). All slabs in this paper had the rectangular arrange-
ment for placement of the shear bolts as suggested by ACI 318-
14 (ACI 2014). To investigate the difference between rectangular
and radial arrangement, in terms of peak load, ductility, and crack-
ing, the slabs are analyzed with the same amount of shear bolts but
this time with the radial placement. Fig. 14 presents the comparison
between the two different types of arrangement of the shear bolts.
The peak load in FEA of SB4 with the rectangular arrangement is
365 kN, and the displacement at such load is 29.5 mm. The analysis
of the SB4 with the radial arrangement of the shear bolts increases
both punching shear capacity and ductility. The peak load of this
slab is 380 kN at a displacement of 47.5 mm. The placement of the
radial reinforcement within the critical section means better (more
uniform around the column perimeter) distribution of shear rein-
forcements compared to the rectangular arrangement. The forma-
tion of the cracking starts earlier in the slabs with the rectangular
placement of shear bolts. This is because within the critical shear
section, there are places with no shear reinforcement. This earlier
cracking seems to also lead to a slightly earlier failure. The peak
load and the deflection are also increased for Slabs SB2 and SB3,
when the radial placement of the shear bolts was considered. How-
ever, the increase is not as significant as it is for Slab SB4. The
numerical results of Slab SB2 (rectangular placement of the bolts)
showed a peak load of 317 kN at a displacement of 17.8 mm. The
Fig. 13. Load versus bolt strains of SB4: (a) Bolts 1 and 2; (b) Bolts 3 and 4
© ASCE 04016129-9
J. Struct. Eng., 04016129
radial arrangement increased the peak load to 321 kN and the
displacement to 18.9 mm. Specimen SB3, according to the FEA
results using the rectangular arrangement, showed a peak load
of 349 kN at a displacement of 21.4 mm. The adoption of the radial
arrangement increased the peak load to 356 kN and the deflection
to 22.9 mm. Fig. 15 illustrates the cracking at the bottom side of the
slab with the radial arrangement, and this can be compared with
Fig. 10 that shows the crack patterns with the rectangular placement
of the shear bolts.
Comparison between Design Codes and Models
Design codes (ACI 318-14 and EC2), Model Code 2010 (fib 2010)
and Critical Shear Crack Theory—CSCT (Muttoni 2008; Fernandez
and Muttoni 2009) adopt approaches involving a critical section at a
certain distance from the column perimeter to calculate the shear
capacity of the slab. The critical section in EC2 is located at a dis-
tance 2d from the column faces, while in ACI 318-14 (ACI 2014),
Model Code 2010, and CSCT at 0.5d, where d is the effective depth
of the slab. With a different way is also considered from the codes
the control perimeter for the punching shear resistance outside the
shear reinforcement area. Fig. 16 illustrates the location and the
shape of the control perimeter according to ACI 318, EC2, Model
Code 2010, and CSCT. One other difference is that the ACI318-14
code does not account directly for the effect of the flexural
reinforcement ratio and size effects in the calculation of shear re-
sistance, while EC2, Model Code 2010, and CSCT consider these
effects. ACI318 is based on Moe’s research (Moe 1961), EC2 is
based on Regan’s research (1974), CSCT is a theory that was pro-
posed by Muttoni (2008), and Model Code 2010 is based on the
CSCT. One difference between the design codes (ACI and EC2)
compared to Model Code 2010 and CSCT is that both Model Code
2010 and CSCT examine directly the failure of the shear reinforced
slabs due to the crushing of concrete struts near the column. ACI
and EC2 account for the failure due to crushing of concrete strut by
limiting the maximum punching shear strength of slabs without
shear reinforcement. Below, the basic equations used by each code
and model to compute the punching shear resistance for slabs
without and with shear reinforcement are presented. The punching
shear resistance for slabs without shear reinforcement according
to ACI318-14 and EC2 is calculated based on Eqs. (1) and (2),
respectively
pffiffiffiffiffi
V c ¼ 0.33bo d fc0 ð1Þ
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Load-deflection response according to the rectangular and radial placement of the shear reinforcement: (a) SB2; (b) SB3; (c) SB4

Fig. 15. Crack pattern of the radial arrangement of shear reinforcement: (a) SB2; (b) SB3; (c) SB4

© ASCE 04016129-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016129

 For both design codes and in all shear reinforced slabs presented
in this paper (SB2, SB3, and SB4), the governing failure mode
(punching outside the shear reinforced area) was estimated as this
one leading to the minimum punching shear strength. The punching
shear resistance for the shear-reinforced slabs outside the shear
reinforced area is calculated according to Eq. (6) for ACI318-14
(ACI 2014) and Eq. (7) for EC2
pffiffiffiffiffi
V R ¼ 0.165bout d f c0 ð6Þ

V Rd ¼ 0.18kbout dð100ρl f ck Þ1=3 ð7Þ

where bout = control perimeter at distance 0.5d from the last line
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of the shear reinforcement for ACI 318-14 (ACI 2014). For EC2
this distance is 1.5d.
Model Code 2010 (fib 2010) is based on the Critical Shear
Crack Theory—CSCT (Muttoni 2008; Fernandez and Muttoni
2009), where the punching shear strength depends on the rotation
of the slab. Model Code 2010 adopts different levels of approxi-
mation, and here, Level III that can be used for special cases or
in general for an analysis of an existing structure was adopted.
For slabs without shear reinforcement the punching shear resistance
is equal to Eqs. (8) and (9) for Model Code 2010 and CSCT,
respectively
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V R;c ¼ kψ fck bo d ð8Þ
Fig. 16. Control perimeter according to ACI, EC2, Model Code 2010
(fib 2010), and CSCT (Muttoni 2008; Fernandez and Muttoni 2009) pffiffiffiffiffi
3 bo d f c
V R;c ¼ ð9Þ
4 1 þ 15 d ψd
þd
g0 g

V Rd;c ¼ 0.18kbo dð100ρl f ck Þ1=3 ≥ V min ¼ 0.035ðkÞ3=2 ðfck Þ1=2 bo d where bo = control perimeter at distance 0.5d from the column’s
ð2Þ face; d = effective depth of the slab; f ck = characteristic compres-
sive strength of concrete; fc = average compressive strength of
where bo = control perimeter; d = effective depth of the slab; fc0 = concrete; dg0 is a reference aggregate size equal to 16 mm; dg =
compressive strength of concrete; ρl = flexural reinforcement ratio maximum aggregate size; and kψ is a parameter that is defined as
limited to the maximum value of 0.02; fp = characteristic
ck ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi 1
compressive strength of concrete; and k ¼ 1 þ 200=d ≤ 2, = size kψ ¼ ≤ 0.6 ð10Þ
effect factor (d in mm). 1.5 þ 0.9ψdkdg
The shear bolts are considered as shear studs for the calculation where kdg ≥ 0.75 is a factor depending on the aggregate size (dg ).
of the punching shear resistance according to ACI. The punching For the level of approximation III, the rotation of the slab (ψ) in
shear resistance of slabs with shear reinforcement (shear studs) is Model Code 2010 is calculated according to Eq. (11) as
pffiffiffiffiffi Avs f yv d  
Avs fyv d rs fys mS 3=2
V R ¼ 0.75V c þ ¼ 0.25bo d fc0 þ ð3Þ ψ ¼ 1.2 if mS ≤ mR ð11Þ
s s d Es mR
where bo = critical shear perimeter; d = effective depth of the slab; where rs = distance between the axis of the column and the contra-
f c0 = compressive strength of concrete; Avs = area of the shear flexure; fys = yield strength of the tensile flexural reinforcement;
reinforcement (one row of shear bolts); fyv = specified yield Es = modulus of elasticity of the tensile flexural reinforcement;
strength of the shear reinforcement; and s = spacing between mS = applied average moment per unit length in the support stri;
the perimeters of the shear reinforcement. and mR = flexural strength.
The punching shear resistance for slabs with stirrups as shear The rotation of the slab ðψÞ in CSCT is calculated according to
reinforcement according to EC2 is defined as Eq. (12) as
   
d rs fys V E 3=2
V Rd ¼ 0.75V Rd;c þ 1.5 A f ð4Þ ψ ¼ 1.5 if V E ≤ V flex ð12Þ
s vs ywd;ef d Es V flex

where Avs = area of the shear reinforcement (one row of shear
bolts); s = spacing between the perimeters of the shear reinforce-
men; and f ywd;ef = effective design strength of the shear reinforce-
ment that is defined according to Eq. (5) as
f ywd;ef ¼ 1.15ð250 þ 0.25dÞ ≤ fywd ð5Þ
where fywd = yield strength of the shear reinforcement.
where rs = distance between the axis of the column and the contra-
flexure; fys = yield strength of the tensile flexural reinforcement;
Es = modulus of elasticity of the tensile flexural reinforcement;
V E = applied shear force; and V flex = resistance to flexure.
The punching shear strength of slabs with shear reinforcement,
for both Model Code 2010 and CSCT, is calculated by adding the
contribution of the shear reinforcement (V s ), V R ¼ V R;c þ V s ,
where V s is expressed as

© ASCE 04016129-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016129

 Table 4. Ultimate Load (kN) according to ACI318-14
Slab f c0 (MPa) bo (mm) bout (mm) d (mm) Avs (mm2 ) fyd (MPa) s (mm) V c (kN) V R (kN) V out (kN)
SB1 44 960 — 90 — — — 189 — —
SB2 41 960 1,589 90 566.4 381 80 — 381 151
SB3 41 960 2,042 90 566.4 381 80 — 381 194
SB4 41 960 2,495 90 566.4 381 80 — 381 237
Note: Avs = cross-section area of one row of shear bolts (Avs ¼ 8 · 70.8 mm2 ¼ 566.4 mm2 , where 8 denotes the number of bolts in one row and 70.8 is the
cross-section area of one bolt 3.14 · ð9.5=2Þ2 ¼ 70.8 mm2 ); bo = control perimeter; bout = control perimeter outside the shear-reinforced zone; d = effective
depth of the slab; f c0 = compressive strength of concrete; fyd = yield strength of shear bolts; s = spacing between the shear bolts; V C = punching shear strength
of slabs without shear bolts; V R = punching shear strength of slabs within the shear bolts; V out = punching shear strength of slabs outside the shear bolt area;
bold values define the values that should be considered in each case in order to predict the punching shear capacity.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 5. Ultimate Load (kN) according to EC2-2004

Slab f ck (MPa) bo (mm) bout (mm) d (mm) Avs (mm2 ) fywd;ef (MPa) s (mm) V c (kN) V R (kN) V out (kN)
SB1 42.4 1,730 — 90 — — — 202 — —
SB2 39.4 1,730 2,032 90 566.4 313 80 — 445 232
SB3 39.4 1,730 2,132 90 566.4 313 80 — 445 243
SB4 39.4 1,730 2,204 90 566.4 313 80 — 445 251
Note: f ck = characteristic compressive strength of concrete = f c0 − 1.6 MPa; fywd;ef = effective yield strength of shear bolts [Eq. (5)]; all other parameters are
defined in Table 4; bold values define the values that should be considered in each case in order to predict the punching shear capacity.

Es ψ
Vs ¼ A ≤ fywd Asw
6 sw
where Asw = cross section of all reinforcement in one row; and
f ywd = yield strength of the shear reinforcement.
The punching shear resistance outside the shear reinforced area
is defined according to Eq. (14) for Model Code 2010 and Eq. (15)
for CSCT. In these equations, bo should be replaced by bout that is
calculated at distance 0.5d from the outermost perimeter of the
shear reinforcement. In the same equations, d should be replaced
with dv , as the reduced effective depth (dv ) accounts for the pullout
of the shear reinforcement.
Model Code 2010 and CSCT also calculate the punching shear
resistance due to failure of the concrete strut. Model Code 2010
multiplies the punching shear strength of the slabs without shear
reinforcement by a factor ðksys Þ [Eq. (14)], while CSCT does so
by a factor (λ) [Eq. (15)]. The factor ksys corresponds to 2.4 for
slabs with stirrups and to 2.8 for slabs with double-headed studs.
In CSCT, the factor λ can be assumed equal to 3 for studs or in
general for systems with perfect anchorage conditions. For other
systems, such as stirrups, where the reinforcement is developed
by bond, the factor λ can be assumed equal to 2.5
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V R;crush ¼ ksys kψ fck bo d ≤ f ck bo d ð14Þ
pffiffiffiffiffi
3 bo d f c
V R;crush ¼λ
4 1 þ 15 d ψd
þd
g0 g
loads for each specimen. Point A indicates the failure load and
ð13Þ
rotation according to Model Code 2010 (fib 2010), while point
B indicates the failure load and rotation according to CSCT.
Comparing the observed results, we can conclude that ACI 318-
14 (ACI 2014) predicts the most conservative failure loads. This
happens because ACI 318-14 (ACI 2014) does not consider the
effect of the flexural reinforcement ratio. According to Alexander
and Hawkins (2005), the ACI code does not predict accurately the
punching shear strength of the slabs; however, it provides a lower
limit. All the presented calculation results support the above state-
ment. The disadvantage of EC2 is that it does not account for
different shear reinforcement systems.
For the slab without shear reinforcement (SB1), all predictions
give quite similar results. However, the punching shear strength of
the slabs with shear reinforcement provides significant differences.
It is remarkable to note that Slab SB2 according to ACI 318-14
(ACI 2014) fails at a load of 151 kN (lower strength than for Speci-
men SB1). This is unrealistic and happens because of the equation
that is used to calculate the punching shear resistance for slabs with
shear reinforcement outside the shear reinforced area. Specimen
SB2 had only two peripheral rows of shear bolts, thus the control
perimeter outside the shear reinforced area bout at distance d=2
from the last row of shear bolts, is not increased a lot compared
to SB1. Yet, according to the ACI code, the punching shear strength
should be calculated using Eq. (6), which has reduced strength by
half. In contrast, the capacity of SB2 that EC2, Model Code 2010,
ð15Þ and CSCT predict is increased compared to the strength of SB1.

Table 4 presents the punching shear resistance of the slabs ac-

cording to ACI318-14 (ACI 2014), while Table 5 shows the calcu- Table 6. Comparison of Failure Load (kN) between Test, FEA, and
lated punching shear resistance of the slabs according to EC2-2004. Theoretical Predictions
These two tables give all the important and needed data for calcu-
lating the punching shear resistance of the slabs for both failure Critical shear
Slab Test FEA Model code crack theory
modes: punching inside the shear reinforced area and punching
specimen results results ACI EC2 2010 (fib 2010) (Muttoni 2008)
outside the shear reinforced area, where the italic bold font shows
the governing failure load and mode of each slab. Table 6 shows the SB1 253 234 189 202 198 219
peak loads for all specimens according to test, FEA, codes, and SB2 366 317 151 232 282 237
CSCT model. Fig. 17 presents the load-rotation curves according SB3 378 350 194 243 324 281
SB4 360 365 237 251 339 317
to Model Code 2010 (fib 2010) and CSCT to estimate the failure

© ASCE 04016129-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016129

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 17. Punching shear strength of slabs according to Model Code 2010 (fib 2010) and CSCT (Muttoni 2008; Fernandez and Muttoni 2009):
(a) SB1; (b) SB2; (c) SB3; (d) SB4
Quite interesting is the failure analysis of Slab SB4 that failed at
a load of 360 kN followed by punching outside the shear reinforced
zone. Based on ACI 318-14 (ACI 2014) and EC2, SB4 failed out-
side the shear reinforced area at loads of 237 kN and 251 kN, re-
spectively. The Model Code 2010 predicts that SB4 fails due to
flexure failure (339 kN) within the shear reinforced area, while
CSCT predicts that SB4 fails outside the shear reinforced area
at a load of 317 kN.
Conclusions
Finite-element simulations of reinforced concrete slabs using the
concrete damage plasticity model are undertaken and analyzed.
Four interior slab-column connections are analyzed in terms of ul-
timate load, displacement, and cracking propagation. The outcomes
of these analyses assess the capability of the proposed calibrated
model in analyzing punching shear of reinforced concrete slabs.
Finite-element analysis provides a useful tool allowing for an in-
sight into punching shear behavior and failure. However, proper
modeling of both concrete and shear reinforcement must be con-
sidered to achieve numerical accuracy. The calibrated concrete
damaged plasticity model previously used in the analysis of Slab
SB1 with no shear bolts (Genikomsou and Polak 2015) is shown
herein to properly predict the numerical response of the shear re-
inforced slabs. The adopted modeling of the shear bolts in the stud-
ies presented in this paper is carried out with the beam elements.
This type of modeling can be applicable also for modeling other
types of shear reinforcement. Discussion on different modeling ap-
proaches for shear bolt modeling is included in the paper. These
© ASCE 04016129-13
J. Struct. Eng., 04016129
FEA can be effective for supplementing tests of concrete slab-
column connections, which are expensive, time consuming, and
provide information only on selected aspects of punching shear
behavior. FEA can be used for parametric studies on a variety
of issues associated with the behavior of such slabs.
The main conclusions of this paper could be summarized as
follows:
1. The calibration of the concrete model is an important step in
the FEA. The proposed calibrated concrete model, which
was used for the analysis of companion slabs without shear
reinforcement, is shown to be effective for simulating the beha-
vior of shear reinforced slabs. Load-deflection responses and
cracking propagation of all slabs provided by the FEA are in
good agreement with the experimental findings. All shear rein-
forced specimens failed outside the shear reinforced area as in
the tests.
2. Code provisions and models are assessed in terms of ultimate
load. ACI code presents the most conservative results. Both
design codes (ACI and EC2) seem to underestimate the contri-
bution of the amount of the shear reinforcement compared
to Model Code 2010 (fib 2010) and CSCT (Muttoni 2008;
Fernandez and Muttoni 2009). The predictions based on Model
Code 2010 and CSCT are closer to the test results. Model Code
2010 predicts that SB4 fails inside the shear-reinforced area,
while all others show that the SB4 slab fails outside the shear
reinforcement area.
3. The two shear reinforcement arrangements proposed by the
design codes are simulated and compared. The rectangular ar-
rangement suggested by ACI is compared to the radial place-
ment recommended by EC2 in terms of failure load and
J. Struct. Eng.
 displacement. Radial arrangement seems to increase both failure
load and deflection in the FEA of the slabs presented in
this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by a re-
search grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council (NSERC) of Canada.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ABAQUS [Computer software]. Dassault Systèmes, Waltham, MA.
ACI. (2014). “Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-
14) and commentary.” Farmington Hills, MI.
Adetifa, B., and Polak, M. A. (2005). “Retrofit of slab column interior
connections using shear bolts.” ACI Struct. J., 102(2), 268–274.
Alexander, S. D. B., and Hawkins, N. M. (2005). “A design prospective
on punching shear.” ACI SP232-06, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 97–108.
Bazant, Z. P., and Oh, B.-H. (1983). “Crack band theory for fracture of
concrete.” Mater. Struct. (RILEM, Paris), 16(3), 155–177.
Beutel, R. (2001). “3D numerical punching analysis of shear reinforced flat
slabs-variation of quantity and arrangement of stirrups.” Technical Rep.,
Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs, CEB/fib International
Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland, 79–85.
Broms, C. E. (2000). “Elimination of flat plate punching failure mode.” ACI
Struct. J., 97(1), 94–101.
Broms, C. E. (2007). “Flat plates in seismic areas: Comparison of shear
reinforcement systems.” ACI Struct. J., 104(6), 712–721.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). “Design of
concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.”
Eurocode 2, Brussels, Belgium.
Corley, W. G., and Hawkins, N. M. (1968). “Shearhead reinforcement for
slabs.” ACI J., 65(10), 811–824.
Dilger, W. H., and Ghali, A. (1981). “Shear reinforcement for concrete
slabs.” J. Struct. Div., 107(12), 2403–2420.
Durrani, A. J., Du, Y., and Luo, Y. H. (1995). “Seismic resistance of non-
ductile slab-column connections in existing flat-slab buildings.” ACI
Struct. J., 92(4), 479–487.
Eder, M. A., Vollum, R. L., ELghazouli, A. Y., and Abdel-Fattah, T. (2010).
“Modelling and experimental assessment of punching shear in flat slabs
with shearheads.” Eng. Struct., 32(12), 3911–3924.
Elgabry, A. A., and Ghali, A. (1990). “Design of stud-shear reinforcement
for slabs.” ACI Struct. J., 87(3), 350–361.
El-Salakawy, E. F., Polak, M. A., and Soliman, M. H. (1998). “Reinforced
concrete slab-column edge connections subjected to high moments.”
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 25(3), 526–538.
El-Salakawy, E. F., Polak, M. A., and Soliman, M. H. (2000). “Reinforced
concrete slab-column edge connections with shear studs.” Can. J. Civ.
Eng., 27(2), 338–348.
El-Salakawy, E. F., Polak, M. A., and Soudki, K. A. (2002). “Rehabilitation
and strengthening of reinforced concrete slab-column connections.”
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 29(4), 602–611.
El-Salakawy, E. F., Polak, M. A., and Soudki, K. A. (2003). “New shear
strengthening technique for concrete slab-column connections.” ACI
Struct. J., 100(3), 297–304.
Elstner, R. C., and Hognestad, E. (1956). “Shearing strength of reinforced
concrete slabs.” J. ACI, 53(7), 29–58.
Fernandez, R. M., and Muttoni, A. (2009). “Applications of critical shear
crack theory to punching of reinforced concrete slabs with transverse
reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 106(4), 485–494.
fib (Federation Internationale du Béton). (2010). Model code for concrete
structures 2010, Ernst & Sohn, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Genikomsou, A. S., and Polak, M. A. (2015). “Finite element analysis of
punching shear of concrete slabs using damaged plasticity model in
ABAQUS.” Eng. Struct., 98(4), 38–48.
© ASCE 04016129-14
J. Struct. Eng., 04016129
Guan, H., and Polak, M. A. (2007). “Finite element studies of reinforced
concrete slab-edge column connections with opening.” Can. J. Civ.
Eng., 34(8), 952–965.
Hallgren, M. (1996). “Punching shear capacity of reinforced high strength
concrete slabs.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hanna, S. N., Mitchell, D., and Hawkins, N. M. (1975). “Slab-column con-
nections containing shear reinforcement and transferring high-intensity
reversed moments.” Rep. No. SM 75-1, Division of Structures and
Mechanics, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Hawkins, N. M. (1974). “Shear strength of slabs with shear reinforcement.”
ACI SP-42, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, 785–816.
Hillerborg, A. (1985). “The theoretical basis of a method to
determine the fracture energy GF of concrete.” Mater. Struct., 18(4),
291–296.
Islam, S., and Park, R. (1976). “Tests on slab-column connections with
shear and unbalanced flexure.” J. Struct. Div., 102(3), 549–568.
Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W. (2005). “Dynamic responses of flat plate
systems with shear reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 102(5), 763–773.
Langohr, P. H., Ghali, A., and Dilger, W. H. (1976). “Special shear
reinforcement for concrete flat plates.” ACI J., 73(3), 141–146.
Lee, J., and Fenves, G. L. (1998). “Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading
of concrete structures.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(1998)124:8(892), 892–900.
Liu, J., Tian, Y., and Orton, S. L. (2015). “Resistance of flat-plat buildings
against progressive collapse. II: System response.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001295, 04015054.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., and Oñate, E. (1989). “A plastic-damage
model for concrete.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 25(3), 299–326.
Mamede, S. N. F., Ramos, A., and Faria, D. (2013). “Experimental and
parametric 3D nonlinear finite element analysis on punching shear
of flat slabs with orthogonal reinforcement.” Eng. Struct., 48(38),
442–457.
Megally, S., and Ghali, A. (2000). “Seismic behavior of edge column-slab
connections with stud shear reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 97(1),
53–60.
Menétrey, P. (1994). “Numerical analysis of punching failure in reinforced
concrete structures.” Ph.D. thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de
Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Moe, J. (1961). “Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs and footings
under concentrated loads.” Development Dept. Bulletin D47, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Muttoni, A. (2008). “Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs
without transverse reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J., 105(4), 440–450.
Negele, A., Eligehausen, R., Ožbolt, J., and Polak, M. A. (2007).
“Finite-element simulations on punching tests of shear retrofitted
slab-column connections.” Proc., IA-FraMCoS-6: Int. Association of
Fracture Mechanics for Concrete and Concrete Structures, Taylor &
Francis, London, 911–918.
Ožbolt, J., Vocke, H., and Eligenhausen, R. (2000). “Three-dimensional
numerical analysis of punching failure.” Proc., Int. Workshop on
Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs, Royal Institute of Technology,
Dept. of Structural Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, 65–74.
Pan, A. D., and Moehle, J. P. (1992). “An experimental study of slab-
column connections.” ACI Struct. J., 89(6), 626–638.
Polak, M. A. (2005). “Shell finite element analysis of RC plates supported
on columns for punching shear and flexure.” Int. Comput.-Aided Eng.
Software, 22(4), 409–428.
Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E. (1987). “Predicting the punching strength
of conventional slab-column specimens.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 82(1),
327–346.
Regan, P. E. (1974). “Design for punching shear.” Struct. J., 52(6),
197–207.
Reis, N., de Brito, J., Correia, J. R., and Arruda, M. R. T. (2015). “Punching
behaviour of concrete slabs incorporating coarse recycled concrete
aggregates.” Eng. Struct., 100(20), 238–248.
Robertson, I. N., Kawai, T., Lee, J., and Enomoto, B. (2002). “Cyclic test-
ing of slab-column connections with shear reinforcement.” ACI Struct.
J., 99(5), 605–613.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Seible, F., Ghali, A., and Dilger, H. W. (1980). “Preassembled shear
reinforcing units for flat plates.” ACI J., 77(1), 28–35.
Shu, J., Fall, D., Plos, M., Zandi, K., and Lundgren, K. (2015). “Development
of modelling strategies for two-way RC slabs.” Eng. Struct., 101(42),
439–449.
Staller, M. A. (2000). “Analytical studies and numerical analysis of
punching shear failure in reinforced concrete slabs.” Proc., Int. Work-
shop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs, Royal Institute of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Technology, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden,
376–374.
Tan, Y., and Teng, S. (2005). “Interior slab-rectangular column connections
under biaxial lateral loadings.” ACI SP232-09, Punching Shear in
Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Farmington Hills, MI, 147–174 .
Wosatko, A., Pamin, J., and Polak, M. A. (2015). “Application of damage-
plasticity models in finite element analysis of punching shear.” Comput.
Struct., 151(11), 73–85.

© ASCE 04016129-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 04016129