Design for punching shear to AS5100.

5 Bridge Design - Concrete

Peter Burnton1 and Peter Statton2.
1 Arup Fellow, Arup.
2 Technical Executive Structures, WSP.

Abstract: This paper describes an investigation into the AS5100.5 - 2017 Bridge Design code clauses for
punching shear in RC slabs and proposes a replacement to clause 9.2. The investigation findings are
influenced by experience in the design of slabs greater than 1m thick supported by columns of a similar
dimension subjected to heavy loading. All columns are internal columns rather than edge or corner columns.
The findings suggest that the design code may be non-conservative and/or confusing in some situations.
Experienced practitioners apply the code rules with different interpretations of the clauses.

Some of the code clauses investigated apply to both beams and slabs. The discussion in this paper relates
to the application of these clauses in slabs, especially thick slabs. These clauses are similar to punching
shear clauses contained in AS3600. Findings may in some instances apply to AS3600 as well as AS5100.5.

Keywords: AS5100.5, Shear, Slabs, Bridges.

1. Introduction

It came to the authors’ attention that large slabs designed to the Bridge Design code clauses resulted in
design outcomes that appeared unreasonable including the extensive use of torsion bars located in the
middle zone of a thick slab span making the construction of these slabs unreasonably complex, and
reinforcement designed for the purpose of resisting punching shear comprising large diameter torsion bars
with the two vertical legs spaced well apart (the width of a torsion strip in a 1m thick slab with large columns)
located remote from the column support (equal to a quarter of the slab span).
This observation led to a reasonably detailed investigation into the punching shear clauses in AS5100.5-
2017, AS3600-2009 (and 2018) plus other codes such as ACI 318M-14. Reference 5 by Rangan listed in
the AS3600 Supplement is relevant. The investigation has not been exhaustive. The authors have not
studied research reports and data sets extensively. Calculations inspected have been largely those
associated with projects that have large thick slabs with internal columns. This paper presents a summary
of the investigation and a proposed replacement to clause 9.2 Strength of Slabs in Shear in AS5100.5-2017

2. AS 5100.5 Clauses 9.2.1 General

The words in Clause 9.2.1 (a) and (b) suggest that a slab is either a one-way or a two-way slab and not that
portions of a slab may be one-way and other portions may be two-way. The intent is that a single slab may
be a mix of one-way and two-way slab zones. The detailing and minimum reinforcement rules relevant to
the dominant mode should prevail in each slab zone.
Clause 9.2.1(a) directs the designer to Clause 8.2. Clause 8.2 provides guidance on the strength design for
beam shear. However, the general detailing rules for shear reinforcement are contained in Clause 8.3.
Clause 8.2 does not appear to direct the designer to clause 8.3. There are consequently limited detailing
rules for slab shear reinforcement when the slab acts as a one-way slab. The beam rules may not be
appropriate to a slab – there can be significant differences.
Reference to clause 8.2 introduces the new provisions based on Modified Compression Field Theory
(MCFT) while the punching shear provisions are based on truss analogies. This can be inconsistent.
There are three detailing rules in clause 8.3 that are considered in subsequent sections of this paper. The
first being the requirement to have minimum shear reinforcement in every slab greater than 750 mm thick,
irrespective of the shear forces acting on the slab – clause 8.2.1.6(c). The second relates to the reduced
bar spacing when the ligature is anchored by a hook in the tension zone – clause 8.3.2.4(b). The third relates
to the increasing use of headed shear reinforcing bars for slab shear.
3. AS 5100.5 Clauses 9.2.3 Shear strength of slabs without moment transfer

Clause 9.2.3 is valid only if there is no moment transfer to the column. In the 1980’s this would relate to a
design assumption for a pinned connection. This approach is seldom used today and the clause is
consequently only valid for punching shear around a mechanical bearing or around an applied point load.
ACI refers to the moment transfer being significant and greater flexibility could be afforded in how this clause
is used in preference to Clause 9.2.4.

Where the moment transferred to the column makes little difference to the uniform punching shear
distribution around a critical perimeter then this clause may still be valid. It may also be valid for any case
where the torsion in the torsion strip is significantly less than the torsion cracking moment, allowing for the
enhancement by a factor of 6 as described by Rangan. The entire ACI 318 method, irrespective of moment
transfer, is based around an approach similar to that intended by Clause 9.2.3.

Clause 9.2.3 contains little guidance on the selection of critical perimeters except for flat slabs. Drop panels
are common and do create their own challenges including the requirement to check for punching shear both
at the column face and at the drop panel perimeter. There is no guidance in the clause regarding the size
of the drop panel to ensure that punching shear failure plane does not daylight on the side of the drop panel.
Rules for upstands can be more complex as the critical perimeter is on the column side of the upstand face.
There is no guidance in clause 9.2.3 regarding the requirement to check punching shear at successive
critical perimeters and where to terminate the shear reinforcement.

The shear reinforcement required to achieve the upper bound strength obtained by the use of equation
9.2.3(2) is not explained. The equation suggests that this full strength offered by the equation is achieved
without any requirement to calculate the necessary area of shear reinforcement. Practitioners consequently
often provide no more than nominal shear reinforcement to comply with this clause. The plan extent of the
shear reinforcement is also not clearly stated in the clause. The Rangan paper and ACI 318 rules suggest
that equation 9.2.3(2) is an upper bound value for shear strength and that the shear reinforcement required
must be calculated on the basis of Vu = (Vuc + Vus). The extent of shear reinforcement determined by
calculation at successive concentric critical perimeters.

If equation 9.2.3(2) is correctly redefined as an upper bound strength Vuo max then the confusion is removed
regarding which value of Vuo is used in equations 9.3.4 (1) to (3) in AS3600.

There are no clear detailing rules for shear reinforcement whether standard ligatures or headed shear
bars/studs. The detailing, anchorage and arrangement of punching shear bars will be different to that for
beams and consequently designers may tend to follow the rules within clause 9.2.4 although these rules
are linked to a torsion strip concept that is not valid for clause 9.2.3. Rules specific to this design case should
be included in this clause. The basic plan layout of ligatures for punching shear around a column is
potentially very different in different design codes.

4. AS 5100.5 Clause 9.2.4 Shear strength of a slab with moment transfer

4.1 General

As AS5100.5 directs the designer to AS3600, the comments below relate to the clause 9.3.4 in AS3600 -
2018. The equations and approach in AS3600 for slab punching shear are based on the work of Rangan.
Reference 5 by Rangan “Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs”, 1987 listed in the AS3600
Supplement is relevant. Rangan published several similar papers on this same topic in the late 1980’s.

Rangan’s research appears to have been directed largely at edge and corner columns and challenges
associated with torsion cracking in spandrel beams and slab edges. He has however suggested that the
equations and approach can be used for internal columns and he has compared laboratory test results for
internal columns to his published approach.

Rangan does suggest that for most slabs the designer will size the concrete so that shear reinforcement is
not required because of the inefficiency and difficulty associated with slab shear reinforcement. This is
relevant for relatively thin typical building RC slabs but not always the case for large slabs occurring within
our transport network.

4.2 Definition of Vuo for use in 9.3.4 equations in AS3600

A significant issue with the current code equations is that the term Vuo used in equations 9.3.4 (1) to (3) is
not directly linked back to equation 9.3.3(1) in AS3600 (or equation 9.2.3(1) in AS5100.5). The examples in
the Rangan paper suggest that this is the intent. The 1.2 multiplier in equations 9.3.4(2) and (3) is possibly
a representation of the additional strength from nominal shear reinforcement, Vu = (Vuc + Vus). The
development of the equations in the Rangan paper demonstrate that the intent is to use 9.3.3(1) in all
equations in clause 9.3.4. Some practitioners adopt the value from equation 9.3.3(2) when evaluating
equations 9.3.4 (2) or (3). This could be significantly non-conservative and effectively double counting the
strength contribution of the shear reinforcement.

4.3 Upper stress limit of 0.5√f’c

The Rangan paper suggests that the shear strength has an upper bound limit based on the value of Vuo in
equation 9.3.3(2). A shear head is a large structural steel element cast into the slab and is not defined in
AS3600. This upper bound value of φ*0.5√f’c is consistent with ACI 318 Table 22.6.2.2 and possibly related
to ductile failure rather than web crushing. Web crushing limits are defined in equation 9.3.4(5). The limit as
required in the Rangan paper and given by equation 9.3.3(1) is not repeated in Clause 9.3.4. This may be
non-conservative and increase the risk of sudden brittle failure in the punching shear zone of a slab.

4.4 Strength increase for non-isolated torsion elements

The Rangan paper describes how the strength of a beam reinforced with torsion reinforcement increases
by a factor of 4 when the torsion element is connected to a slab system compared to a torsion element that
is isolated. The longitudinal strains from torsion are free to develop in an isolated element but restrained
when the element is attached to a slab system. Equation 25 from Rangan is copied below. This equation
forms the basis for equation 9.3.4(2) and 9.3.4(3) in AS3600 or equation 32 in the Rangan paper.

Figure 1 Equations, Rangan Paper 1987

Clause 9.2.4 of AS5100.5 must be used when there is any moment transfer to the column. Consequently,
equation 25 above may be used when the torsion is very small, effectively zero. In this limiting, but common
case for an internal column, the equation 25 above reduces to:
V* ≤ φ(4Vus).
However, the provision in clause 8.2 for beam shear provisions is:
V* ≤ φ(Vuc + Vus).
There can be a very significant disconnect between these two equations for what is effectively the identical
loading. We are not aware of any evidence to support the increased Vus on the basis of a beam being
attached to a slab. The Rangan equation may be appropriate for situations where there is significant torsion,
however there is no limit included within the code clauses. This suggests that the equations 9.3.4 (2) to (4)
may all be non-conservative for cases where there is relatively low torsion.
4.5 Reinforcement detailing

The approach in clause 9.3.6 of AS3600 is to require that all reinforcement is detailed as torsion
reinforcement and comprises two legs per ligature located at the sides of the notional torsion strip. The
torsion bars must extend to (span length /4) from the column face. This is consistent with Rangan.
Consider a 1m thick slab with similar size column. The design punching shear reinforcement is large
diameter torsion bars, possibly N24, with vertical legs 2m apart. Although there are rules for maximum
lateral spacing of these legs there is no requirement for the size of the intermediate shear legs and they do
not contribute to the calculated strength of the torsion strip. Smaller diameter bars placed between the
vertical torsion legs meet code requirements but probably are not an adequate design response. It is difficult
to explain why the torsion bars described above located towards the middle of the slab span serves any
purpose in relation to punching shear in the vicinity of a column.
Torsion reinforcement in wide torsion strips is difficult to bend and install in large thick slabs. Torsion
detailing should only be necessary where torsion stresses are at reasonable risk of causing torsion cracking.
Clause 9.3.4 does not include a comparison between the torsion and the torsion cracking moment in the
torsion strip. Torsion bars are contained within a notional torsion strip. The Code splice rules for torsion bars
are not relevant to vertical legs which are not adjacent to cover concrete.
The detailing rules in AS3600 clause 9.3.6 are understandable and relevant for a spandrel beam or free
slab edge where there is torsion for much of the span length. They are less useful for interior columns where
the torsion strip in entirely contained within the slab and the notional torsional stresses may be very small.
The current Clause 9.3.6 approach to reinforcement detailing is not appropriate for interior columns in thick
slabs. Additional rules are required so that the plan extent and form of ligatures can better respond to the
specific punching shear stresses at the critical perimeters. The outcome should be safe and constructible.

4.6 Assumptions embedded in equations

The Rangan paper lists many assumptions that have been embedded into the equations in order to simplify
the equations and calculation process. These are not readily apparent to the designer. Most assumptions
tend to be conservative to varying degrees although at least one is potentially non-conservative.
Examples include several geometric relationships that may be relevant for small slabs but often conservative
for large thick slabs. Others may have a greater impact such as 𝑓𝑓sy.f = 400 MPa and fcv = 1.7 MPa. The
authors have not explored the impact on the design outcome of using 500 MPa shear reinforcement or
possibly mild steel shear reinforcement. The fcv value may be much higher than assumed.
A further significant assumption is that the moment transferred to the side of a column by torsion equals
0.4Mv*. Papers by Rangan explain that this is based on an edge or corner column as this would be the
critical case. The torsion per side of a typical internal column would be closer to 0.2Mv*. ACI 318 also
recommends that 0.6Mv* is transferred direct to the column as bending and the remainder shared on the
two sides as torsion. ACI 318 provides an equation to vary this assumption at the designer’s discretion.

5. Shear reinforcement requirements

5.1 Minimum shear reinforcement Ds ≥ 750mm deep – Clause 8.2.1.6 (c) AS5100.5

Recent technical papers by USA researchers (ACI Structural Journal title no 116-S19 by Ghali and Gayed)
as well as Eurocodes and Canadian codes suggest that a factor added to the calculation of Vuc that
accommodates the strength reduction in thick elements is a more direct and reliable method than the current
approach given in both AS design codes. The reduction factor should relate to slabs rather than beams.
The design and construction impact of the current rule on large plan area slabs where the shear stress may
be low is very significant. The AS approach can result in a step function with a 749 mm thick slab requiring
very different minimum shear reinforcement than a 751 mm slab. This drives poor design choices.
5.2 Hooks anchored on tension side of element – clause 8.3.2.4 (b) AS5100.5

This detailing rule was introduced by AS3600 - 2001, copied into AS5100.5 - 2004, deleted from AS3600 -
2009 but retained in AS5100.5 - 2017. The authors are not aware of similar rules in other design codes
although several design codes do comment on the possible impact of anchoring ligatures in the tension
zone of an element. The simple logic behind the reduced clamping effect is understandable although the
actual response when allowing for flexural reinforcement is probably more complex.
The rule requires the leg spacing “s” to be reduced and offers no other option. For a slab it may be that the
transverse leg spacing could be reduced to achieve the same outcome. The area of shear steel and hence
anchorage perimeter could be increased from the design requirement to offset lost anchorage.
In thick slabs where the bar spacing “s” is 300 mm or less under current code rules, shear failure planes will
cross multiple shear reinforcement bars – in both directions. This is a rather different risk scenario compared
to a beam or thin slab with bars at D/2 where any shear failure may only ever cross one bar with two legs
and the failure plane will cross the bar at possibly less than 200 mm from the bar anchorage zone.

5.3 Flexural reinforcement

There is no provision in the punching shear clauses to ensure that flexural reinforcement is adequate and
extends far enough from the column face such that the assumptions made in the punching shear design
are met. Slab flexural reinforcement at the column must: meet all requirements for flexure as given
elsewhere in the design code; the bending strength across a slab strip of width equal to 3Ds can resist
0.6Mv*; and flexural bars must extend no less than Ds plus an anchorage length from the critical perimeter.
Recent research indicates possible reduced shear strength in deep slabs with low flexural reinforcement.

5.4 Headed shear reinforcement

The provisions of AS5100.5 - 2017 do not recognise the use of headed shear bars. These bars are covered
by ACI 318 and Eurocodes. Headed bars are used reasonably frequently in Australian construction. The
literature and other design codes indicate that headed bars are a valid form of shear reinforcement and
often preferred to standard ligatures.

6. Conclusions

The current slab punching shear design code rules are not appropriate for thick slabs or interior columns.
Some code rules can be mis-interpreted and may in some situations lead to non-conservative outcomes.

AS 5100 Part 5 is being amended and may not be revised for several years. It is not clear whether the
amendment will include extensive change to the punching shear provisions that results from the discussion
in this paper. The punching shear clauses are based on truss type analogies while beam shear clauses are
now based on the Modified Compression Field Theory. The punching shear approach will be updated to be
consistent with MCFT in future code revisions.

In the interim there is little guidance to designers in relation to this matter. The production of this paper and
the proposed revision to clause 9.2 of AS5100.5 – 2017 Amendment 1 included below represents the
authors contribution to filling this knowledge gap. The proposed amendments to Clause 9.2 of AS5100.5 is
the authors personal suggestion and has not been peer reviewed or more widely assessed. Consideration
included may apply to similar clauses within AS3600.

The proposed replacement clause 9.2 does not respond to all matters discussed in the paper but may
present a pragmatic interim position until the revised method based on MCFT is published. The proposal
follows elements of ACI in having a common method for both moment and no moment transfer cases. The
approach to successive critical perimeters and reinforcement detailing draw from European approaches
while existing beam shear rules are retained where relevant to slabs.
 Attachment A
AS5100.5:2017 Section 9.2 Strength of slabs in shear – proposed replacement

9.2 Strength of slabs in shear

9.2.1 General
The design shear strength of a slab shall be taken as ϕV u ,
Where an area of slab acts essentially as a wide beam and shear failure may occur across the entire width
or over a substantial width, the strength V u shall be determined in accordance with Clause 8.2.
Where the potential failure surface may form a truncated cone or pyramid around the support or loaded
area, the load V* and strength V u shall be determined in accordance with Clauses 9.2.2 and 9.2.3.
Where both failure modes are possible, the shear strength V u shall be calculated for both failure modes.
V*v is the shear force that crosses the critical perimeter under consideration and M*v is the bending moment
transferred from the slab into the support.
9.2.2 Shear strength of slabs without moment transfer
V* = V*v and M*v = 0 in both orthogonal axis. The ultimate shear strength of a slab with no moment transfer
(Vuo ) shall be taken equal to V u and shall be calculated as follows:

9.2.2.1 Where no shear reinforcement is provided

V uo = 𝑢𝑢𝑑𝑑om �𝑓𝑓cv + 0.3𝜎𝜎cp � . . . 9.2.2(1)
where
u = length of the critical shear perimeter as defined below
d om = mean value of d o, averaged around the critical shear perimeter (u)
f cv = concrete shear strength, given by
2
� �𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ≤ 0.34�𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ and �𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ≤ 8𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 . . . 9.2.2(2)
0.17 �1 +
𝛽𝛽ℎ

σ cp = average intensity of effective prestress in the concrete at the critical shear perimeter
βh = ratio of the longest overall dimension of the effective loaded area (Y) to the shortest overall
dimension (X) measured perpendicular to Y (see Figure 9.2.2)

The first critical shear perimeter is defined by a line geometrically similar to the boundary of the effective
area of a support or load and located at a distance of dom/2 from the boundary as shown in Figure 9.2.2. The
effective area of a support or load shall be that area totally enclosing the actual support or load for which
the perimeter is a minimum. The second and subsequent critical shear perimeters shall be at maximum
dom/2 increments from the first critical shear perimeter.
That part of the critical shear perimeter that is enclosed by radial projections from the centroid of the support
or load to the extremities of any critical opening shall be regarded as ineffective.
An opening shall be regarded as critical if it is located at a clear distance of less than 2.5bo from the critical
shear perimeter, where bo is the width of the critical opening as shown in Figure 9.2.2.
The position of the first critical shear perimeter may be further from the support face than dom/2 where the
support is close to discontinuities such as changes in slab thickness.
The first critical shear perimeter may be less than dom/2 from the support face where the applied load is
tensile.
Where stresses due to secondary effects such as creep, shrinkage and differential temperature are
significant, they shall be taken into account in the calculation of Vuc.
Flexural reinforcement in the slab shall extend at least 1.5Ds plus a development length Lsy.t from the support
face or Ds plus Lsy.t from the critical shear perimeter at which shear reinforcement is not required.
 Figure 9.2.2 First Critical Shear Perimeter

9.2.2.2 Where shear reinforcement is provided

(a) Combined shear strength
V uo = V uc +Vus …9.2.2(3)

where
V uc is calculated from equation 9.2.2 (1); and

V us is calculated from clauses (b) and (c) below; and

𝑉𝑉uo ≤ 𝑢𝑢𝑑𝑑om �0.5�𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ + 0.3𝜎𝜎cp � …9.2.2(4)

Consider successive critical perimeters until V*≤ ϕVuc and there are no discontinuities in the slab or loading
that may make further perimeters critical.
(b) Contribution to shear strength by the shear reinforcement
The contribution to the ultimate shear strength by shear reinforcement in a slab (Vus) shall be determined
from the following equations:
For perpendicular shear reinforcement:
𝑉𝑉us =  �𝐴𝐴sv 𝑓𝑓sy.f 𝑢𝑢/𝑠𝑠� 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐   𝜃𝜃𝑣𝑣 …9.2.2(5)

For inclined shear reinforcement

Vus = (Asv fsv.f u/s)(sin αv cot Ɵv + cos Ɵv) …9.2.2(6)

where
Ɵv is the angle between the compression strut and the longitudinal axis of the member and shall be taken
as 36 ≤ Ɵv ≤ 45 degrees; and
αv is the angle between the inclined shear reinforcement and the longitudinal tensile reinforcement; and
Asv.min is the sum of the area of all vertical shear legs on one peripheral line that is geometrically similar to
the critical shear perimeter under consideration; and
s is the centre to centre spacing of the peripheral lines of shear reinforcement.
(c) Minimum shear reinforcement
Provide minimum shear reinforcement in slabs where V*≥ ϕVuc. Provide minimum shear reinforcement in
slabs where Ds ≥ 750mm if V*≥ 0.7(ϕVuc). The minimum area of shear reinforcement (Asv.min) provided shall
be given by:
Asv.min = (0.06us√f’ c)/f sy.f ≥ 0.35us/f sy.f …9.2.2(7)

9.2.2.3 Hanging reinforcement

Tension loads applied to a slab shall be transferred to the far face of the slab by the provision of hanging
reinforcement of area consistent with strut-and-tie modelling.
9.2.2.4 Detailing of shear reinforcement
Shear reinforcement shall comprise stirrups or fitments making an angle of between 45° and 90° with the
longitudinal bars.
Shear reinforcement shall be spaced in a direction radial to the critical shear perimeter not further apart than
0.5Ds or 500 mm, whichever is less.
The maximum transverse spacing along the length of the critical shear perimeter shall not exceed the lesser
of 750 mm and Ds.
Shear reinforcement, of area not less than that necessary at any critical shear perimeter, shall be provided
for a distance Ds from that critical shear perimeter in the direction of decreasing shear. The first fitment shall
be positioned not more than 50 mm from the face of the support, or 75mm if Ds ≥ 750mm.
Shear reinforcement shall extend as close to the compression face and the tension face of the member as
cover requirements and the proximity of other reinforcement and tendons will permit. Bends in bars used as
fitments shall enclose a longitudinal bar with a diameter not less than the diameter of the fitment bar. The
enclosed bar shall be in contact with the fitment bend.
9.2.3 Shear strength of slabs with moment transfer
The shear V* per unit length of the critical shear perimeter for each orthogonal axis shall be the sum of the
shear due to the effects from V*v and M*vv. Consider M*vv in two orthogonal axis separately.
The shear on the critical shear perimeter due to V*v shall be uniform and equal to V*v/u.
The shear on the critical shear perimeter due to M*vv shall vary linearly about the centroid of the critical
shear perimeter and is equal to M*vvy /J ; where
y is the distance from centroid of the critical shear perimeter to the length of critical shear perimeter
under consideration; and
J is a property of the critical shear perimeter analogous to a polar moment of inertia.
M*vv = M* v - M*f …9.2.3(1)

where
M*vv is the moment resisted by eccentric shear on the critical shear perimeter; and
M*f is the moment resisted by flexure in the slab
M*vv shall be taken as:
(a) As determined by slab analysis; or
(b) 0.4M*v for internal columns with βh ≤ 2.
Vu shall be taken as equal to Vuo as determined in clause 9.2.2 with due allowance for the length of the
critical perimeter under consideration. Reinforcement detailing shall be determined from clause 9.2.2.
At internal supports the moment capacity in the slab over a width of 3Ds centred about the support centre
shall be greater than M*f. At edge supports the torsional capacity in one or the sum of both sides of the
support shall be greater than M*f.