This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Title no. 109-S27

TECHNICAL PAPER

**Experimental Investigations on Moment Redistribution and Punching Shear of Flat Plates
**

by Jung-Wook Choi and Jang-Ho Jay Kim

Three slab-column connections were tested to investigate the moment redistribution and punching shear resistance of flat plates under realistic loading and boundary conditions. The test specimens were essentially identical except that they had different reinforcement layouts within a span to impose different ratios of the end span and midspan design moments to total static moment. The test results showed that the different reinforcement layouts significantly and minutely influenced the moment redistribution and the punching shear resistance, respectively. The moment redistribution and punching shear resistance provisions in ACI 318 and EC2 were used to analyze the test results. New code recommendations for moment redistribution limit and punching shear strength are proposed based on the novel findings of this study.

Keywords: flat plates; moment redistribution; punching shear; span reinforcement layout.

provide valuable information about the reinforcement’s effect on the moment redistribution limit and punching shear strength of a flat-plate structure. DESIGN CODES ACI 318-081 In ACI 318-08,1 a limited moment redistribution of the end span and midspan factored bending moments is permitted. The redistribution of the moments based on elastic theory has to be less than 1000 e t (%) ≤ 20(%) (1)

INTRODUCTION Experimental research on punching resistance of flat plates has been ongoing since the middle of the last century. Design methods in building codes to calculate the punching resistance of flat plates are based on the results of this research. As shown in Fig. 1(a), two test setups for flat plates under a gravity load have been used. One is a slab supported by hinges with a concentrated load and the other is a slab supported on a column stub with a uniform surface load. These ordinary test setups are inexpensive and simple, but they have the drawbacks of not being able to simulate actual moment redistribution and boundary conditions of a flat-plate system. In the newly proposed method shown in Fig. 1(b), gravity loading and edge restraint systems were installed to simulate actual moment redistribution and boundary conditions. This setup is much more complex but successful in simulating both moment redistribution and punching shear behaviors of a flat-plate system. Flat-plate specimens with three different reinforcement layouts over a single span were tested in this study. The main objectives of the study were as follows: 1) find out the moment redistribution and punching shear of a flat plate with different reinforcement layouts within a span; and 2) verify ACI 318 and EC2 design provisions on the limits of moment redistribution and punching shear strength. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE A previous ordinary slab-column test method only simulated the negative flexural behavior of a slab without considering moment redistribution behavior. The newly proposed test method, however, applies realistic boundary conditions to a flat-plate system that simulates the actual moment redistribution and punching shear behaviors of the structure. To study the effects of different bending moment ratios in the end spans and midspans, three different reinforcement layouts in the slab were considered. The study results will ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012

where et is the net tensile strain in the extreme layer of the longitudinal tension reinforcement. For concentric punching shear, the design shear equation of VACI is a function of the concrete compressive strength fc′; the control perimeter length bo of a critical section (at a distance of d/2 from the face of the column); and the effective flexural depth of the slab, d. When both the ratio of the long side to the short side of the column and the ratio of

**Fig. 1—Setups for slab-column test.
**

ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 3, May-June 2012. MS No. S-2010-077.R3 received May 26, 2011, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2012, 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 March-April 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2012.

329

and so on. respectively. their test results demonstrated that the ACI 318 shear equation. psi. Korea. LITERATURE REVIEW The slab-column systems for edge panels were tested by Rangan and Hall. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Design of test slabs The current ACI 318 design code states that the flexural strength VF varies approximately in proportion to the tension reinforcement ratio.S. The CEB-FIP Task Group5 showed that the punching shear strength is reduced with a decreasing tension reinforcement ratio in a punching shear zone.) where u1 is the control perimeter length of a critical section (at a distance of 2d from the face of the column). and the modeling techniques for flat plates. mm) (5) VEC 2 = 5k (100rfc′)1/3 u1 d (in U. which marks the change in behavior from ductile failure to brittle failure of a flat plate. and 2003. Thus.ct = 3 fct bo d (in both SI and U. typhoons.0 in U.3 ksi). and PhD in architectural engineering from Chonnam National University. mm) 3 VACI = 4l fc′bo d (in U. CA.3 In the test.18k (100rfc′)1/3 u1 d (in SI units. in 1992. The punching shear load was calculated for the test slabs according to ACI 318-08 (Eq. whereas the punching shear strength VP does not correlate with the tension reinforcement ratio.0014/ecu2). 330 . CA. Equation (2) then becomes VACI . His research interests include the conceptual design of reinforced concrete structures. The design of the test slabs in this study focused on the transition point such that the flexural and punching failures can occur simultaneously. impacts. punching shear. The ultimate strain ecu2 is equal to 0. For punching shear strength. MS. in. psi. He received his BS from the University of California. and k5 are 0. especially extreme loading cases such as blasts.87 in. and his PhD from Northwestern University. The recommended values of k1. If the average splitting tensile strength fct of lightweight concrete is specified. which does not account for the tension reinforcement ratio. customary units. and 0. MPa. customary units). and xu is the depth of the neutral axis at an ultimate limit state after redistribution.Jung-Wook Choi is a Research Engineer at the Concrete Research Center. the size effect factor k can be calculated using k = 1 + 200 mm/d (or k = 1 + 7. Gwangju. taken as unity for normalweight concrete. customary units. The test results4 showed that between the uncracked state and the maximum load state there was a considerable redistribution of moments. 1. his MS from the University of California.6 + 0. Korea. Berkeley. 2). k2.0 in SI units (or fct/(6. (2)) is often criticized for failing to account for the contributions of flexural reinforcements. with the midspan and two end-span moments varying by approximately 50%. IL. in 1993. in 1998. Yonsei University.7√fc′) ≤ 1. Evanston./d ) ≤ 2. VEC 2 = 0.S. 1996. The intersection of the diagonal and horizontal lines is the transition point (c). Seoul.S.7 In addition. He received his BS.56√fc′) ≤ 1. His research interests include concrete structural and material behaviors under various loading conditions. Korea Concrete Institute (KCI). A total static moment Mo was then obtained from a free ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 the control perimeter to the effective depth are sufficiently small.3 ksi). Additionally. for concrete compressive strength fc′ ≤ 50 MPa (7.) where l is the modification factor for lightweight concrete. The tension reinforcement ratio r can be computed as a mean value by assuming that a slab width equals the column width plus 3d on both sides. the moment redistribution is controlled largely by the reinforcement layout implemented by the designer.25(0. MPa. 2—Test slab design concept. the punching shear strength is 1 VACI = l fc′bo d (in SI units.S. in 1994. in. Berkeley. the flexural and punching failure lines can be represented by a diagonal line (a-a′) and a horizontal line (b-b′). the design shear equation of VEC2 is a function of the tension reinforcement ratio r and the size effect factor k of the slab.7. Jang-Ho Jay Kim is an Associate Professor at the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. where δ is the ratio of the redistributed moment to the elastic bending moment. may lead to a less conservative estimate of the punching shear strength for slabs with low reinforcement ratios. respectively (Fig. respectively. l can be substituted by fct/(0. Korea.44. all reinforcements yielded and the bending moment of the test slabs was fully redistributed before punching shear failure occurred. customary units) 5 (3) (2) Eurocode 22 According to EC2. the redistribution of bending moments can be implemented in design without explicitly checking the rotation capacity provided that δ ≥ (k1 + k2 xu / d ) δ ≥ k5 where Class B and C reinforcements are used (4) (refer to Annex C in EC2) Fig. (2)) and converted to the load distributed on the test slabs. The tests also showed that near maximum load capacities. the ACI 318 equation (Eq. For concentric punching shear failure. and this finding was verified by the test reports of Collins and Kuchma6 and Guandalini et al.0035 when fc′ is not more than 50 MPa (7. Los Angeles.

E. To meet the integrity requirement of the steel.63 in.433 (0. a concrete compressive strength and reinforcement yield strength of 30 and 400 MPa (4351 and 58. eight horizontal hollow steel sections (HSS. Four sets of vertical extension arms were attached to the north and south edges of the test slab. concrete fct.63 in.87 x 0. as shown in Fig.2]) 20-10M (2000 mm2 [3. and the remaining bottom bars were placed with equal spacing over the width of the design strip to satisfy the design midspan moments.]) bottom bars were passed through the column.75)] Elastic modulus of reinforcing bar Es†.91 x 0. which was installed to simulate the gravity loading condition of the slab via 16 loading points.68 (389) 2.]) top bars were used within the width of the column strip. two 10M (f11. 1(b). respectively. Thus.76 in.6 (5018) 2.060)] 37. The material properties of the reinforcement and the concrete (normalweight concrete) tested just prior to the structural experiment are summarized in Table 2. Specimen MPa (psi) MPa (psi) MRA MRB MRC * † Reinforcement Elastic modulus of concrete Ec.573 (0. respectively.696 (3147) Top Bottom Yield strength of Tensile strength of reinforcement reinforcement reinforcing bar reinforcing bar fu†. Geometry and reinforcement The test specimens consisted of a 4200 mm (165. Setup and instrumentation The test setup is shown in Fig. 4. Wires were strung between the LVDTs to measure the rotation of the test slab.]) connected to each loading point. the slab under gravity load should produce a non-zero deflection (DZ ≠ 0) and a zero rotation (Ry = 0) at midspan.470] [(28.0 (5366) 30. To simulate the boundary conditions at midspan.86) [605] [(87. as shown in Fig. % ratio rB. MPa (ksi) 195. respectively.M.41 in.) square slab and a 356 mm (14 in.91 x 5.)]).95 x 0. respectively.2]) 26-10M (2600 mm2 [4.2]) 11-15M (2200 mm2 [3.30 x 6. Four vertical tie rods were anchored to the strong floor and four vertical load cells (L2 to L5) were placed at each anchorage to measure the reaction forces.44 in. The load was applied from below by pushing the lower column upward using a 890 kN ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 (200 kip) hydraulic jack and was measured by a vertical load cell (L1).5 (4424) 34.]) to connect them. 3. Ideally.] rods).57 and 4.059 0.) square column with a slab thickness of 152 mm (6 in.4 in. Experimental procedure The experimental procedure was as follows: 1.) steel plates. As shown in Table 1.243) 0. Two horizontal linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) for each set (D11 to D18) were installed at 305 and 686 mm (12 and 27 in.049 (3053) 21. to measure the strain of the reinforcements.*. but the distribution ratios of the end-span and midspan moments to the total static moment were varied by assigning different span reinforcement layouts.35 in. Furthermore. 15M (f16 mm [0.37 in.30 x 0. All of the specimens were designed to have an equal total static moment Mo.98 in.444 (3255) 21. and the effective depths of the end spans and midspans were 116 and 121 mm (4. 100 x 200 x 5 mm [3.56 (371) Top (or bottom) reinforcement ratio at end span (or midspan) for column strip (and for middle strip).44 in. The tie rod was equipped with a horizontal load cell (L6 to L13) to measure the midspan moment (=Ph × Lo. MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) 1.832 0. refer to Fig. The cover thickness for the top and bottom bars of the test slab was 20 mm (0.). ratio rT.17 in.2]) Distribution ratio of moments 35% 50% 65% Midspan Reinforcement amount—bar size (nominal area) 14-10M (1400 mm2 [2.000 psi) were used. 3.98 in.03 in. The flexural reinforcement layouts of each test slab are shown in Fig.) and both ends of the bottom bars were welded to the 75 x 75 x 9 mm (2. 1(b)). and four vertical tie rods (f25 mm [0.]).2 in. % fy†. the edge restraint system was mounted on the top of the test slab using eight independent frame-type assemblies.361) 0.575 0. The first loading was the application of a small amount of pretension load to the horizontal tie rods in the edge 331 . the distribution ratios of the end-span and midspan moments for MRA (the control specimen) were set at 65% and 35%.]) and a horizontal tie rod (f25 mm [0. four horizontal HSS (150 x 150 x 9.).) below the center of the slab section.*.98 in. body diagram.2]) Table 2—Material properties of specimens Concrete Compressive Tensile splitting cylinder strength strength of of concrete fcu.455) 404 (58.3 mm [0. The distribution ratios of the end-span and midspan moments for MRB and MRC (the parametric specimens) were then set at 50% and 50% and at 35% and 65%.Table 1—Distribution ratios of end span and midspan moments to total static moment in test slab design End span Specimen MRA MRB MRC Distribution ratio of moments 65% 50% 35% Reinforcement amount—bar size (nominal area) 14-15M (2800 mm2 [4.]). Material properties of reinforcing bars for 10M (f11. 55 embedded strain gauges were attached to the bars. For anchorage.306 (0. All of the joints of the gravity loading system were connected using pins. Each assembly consisted of two rectangular HSS (160 x 160 x 10 mm [6. both ends of the top bars were extended by 25 mm (0.10 in.60) [400] [(58. For the design.32 (336) 2.79 in.406) [193.75 in.854 (28.34 in. the applied gravity load was equally distributed to the 16 loading points on the test slab. MPa (psi) 22. This load was transferred to the gravity loading system. The gravity loading system consisted of 16 vertical tie rods (f19 mm [0.39 in.94 x 7.02)] 592 (85.).]) (and for 15M [f16 mm (0.48 in.95 x 2. To satisfy the design requirements for endspan moments.3 mm [0.2]) 8-15M (1600 mm2 [2.5 mm [5.

2. and strain gauges were recorded before applying a gravity load to the specimen. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Load-versus-displacement relationship The load-displacement curve of each specimen obtained from a load cell (L1) and an LVDT (D1) placed under the ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 . 3—Layout of top and bottom reinforcements. 5. Initial readings from all load cells. The loading history for the specimens is shown in Fig. 332 4. Once the edge restraint system was in operation.Fig. loading was accomplished through the hydraulic jack under the bottom column. restraint system to immediately operate the edge restraint system with gravity loading. the four temporary supports of the test slabs were removed so that the slabs could be deflected by self-weight. 4—Test setup. 3. Fig. Finally. LVDTs.

After the stiffness degradation. The specimen was punched at loads of 458. 7—Moment distribution.Fig. 6—Load-displacement relationship.) Fig.0 kips) for MRA. 5—Loading history of test slabs. The general responses of three specimens were similar. MRB. and MRC. Moment distribution The tensile forces of ties in the edge restraint system were obtained from the measurements of the horizontal load cells (L6 to L13).5 kips) due to self-weight is plotted by an extrapolated straight line of the initial slope obtained from the test. and 430 kN (103. 333 . 51. 6. 394. MRB. 88. and 47.6. an M–/Mo ratio of approximately 0. (Note: 1 kN = 0. bottom column is shown in Fig. where the black lines are envelope curves. 1(b)). The test results showed that the moment ratios varied from the uncracked state to the punching failure state. the stiffness remained almost constant before punching shear failure occurred. and 210 kN (56.0. A sudden stiffness degradation was observed at loads of approximately 250. where the sum of the ratios M–/Mo and M+/Mo is unity.7. The end-span and slab-edge moments were nondimensionalized by dividing them by the total static moment. and the endspan moment M– at the column face was then calculated by subtracting the slab-edge moment M+ from the total static moment Mo. The load-displacement relationship from 0 to 100 kN (0 to 22.2.77 was obtained ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 Fig. The moment M+ at the slab edge was calculated by multiplying the tensile force Ph by the height Lo from the ties to the center of the slab section (Fig. For all test slabs. respectively. respectively.225 kips.7 kips) for MRA. These values are shown in Fig. 7. and MRC. and 96. 230.

032 in..443 in.4.35. 10.5 kips). For MRA. M–/Mo and M+/Mo of the actual slab under the uncracked state equaled 0. the M–/Mo of 0. 9—Edge rotations of MRA test slab.). 118. respectively.2 kips). 200. The deflections in the three test slabs were almost the same. moderate. Due to the imperfect edge restraint system. and [0. the moment distribution of each specimen showed a different pattern.59. 45.4 in. the M–/Mo of 0.2 m (165. the deflections of MRB and MRC increased by 68% and 124%.0 kips) was applied.. The deflections of the MRB and MRC specimens were much larger than that of the MRA specimen after the load of 200 kN (45. 334 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 . L/800]. MRB.2 kips) can be considered as light. The maximum deflections of the MRA.).in the uncracked state and this value decreased to 0.50 kN/m2 (59.331 in. respectively.68 for MRB. 8.66 gradually decreased down to 0.0. Deflection The average corner deflections of the test slabs as a function of applied load are shown in Fig.75.197 in. 8. whereas for MRC. 5. Edge rotation The measured edge rotation of the MRA specimen from the horizontal LVDTs (D11 to D18) is plotted as a function of applied load in Fig. the test specimen’s edge rotation actually simulated a longer slab span than the slab specimen’s width of 4. respectively.7. The edge rotation increased linearly as the load increased. Fig. and heavy service loads. L/476]. The measurement of the edge rotation allows for determination of the rotational restraint imposed by the edge restraint system. 10—Relationship between test slab width and actual slab span.67. which are mainly used in the direct design method as distributed moment ratios in an interior span. Compared to the MRA deflection. 9.66 for MRC at the end of the first cyclic load step. respectively. 8—Comparison of average corner deflection of test slabs. [0.70 for MRA. 10(a).0. and 8. and 178 lb/ft2).2 mm ([0. 0. After this load step. with corresponding distributed loads of 2. Fig. respectively. The relationship between the specimen’s width and the actual slab span is shown in Fig.. These maximum values satisfied the required deflection limits specified by the ACI 318 and EC2 codes. and 250 kN (33. the corresponding deflections in all three specimens were 0. and 11.70 gradually increased up to 0. it could not impose a zero rotation condition as intended.65 and 0. and MRC slabs in service load condition were approximately 5. and 56. at a load of 250 kN (56.82 mm (0. and 0. The loads of 150. L/357]). There was no clear difference in the trends of the three specimens.83. At a load of 100 kN (22. Fig. In Fig. Because the edge restraint system was not perfectly stiff.

0157 in. Each slab specimen showed a different number and width of cracks according to the reinforcement layouts. but some reinforcements still had not yielded when the punching failure load was reached. Large reinforcement strains generally occurred at the top or bottom region of the test slab where less reinforcement was used (for example.65/0. The maximum crack widths for the top surface near the column were approximately 0.4 mm (0.15).75) and 1.0118 or 0.3 or 0. After the initial moment redistribution.3 mm (0.7 in. however.Unexpected test values of 0. respectively. MRB. the moment redistribution ratio of the test slab was the same as that of the actual slab. The ACI 318 and EC2 codes cited limit the redistribution of factored bending moments by 20% and 30%. respectively. from the end span to the edge of the slab. concrete cracking initiated at the top surface of the slab near the column. and 18% occurred for MRA. and these limits might be conservative due to the assignment of safety factors. Thus. the test slab with more top reinforcements near the column had steeper failure angles of approximately 33. respectively. respectively. 10(b) were obtained due to the imperfect edge restraint system. MRB. The ratios of the nominal punching shear strength to the nominal flexural strength (VP/VF) calculated according to ACI 318 for MRB and MRC were 1. In EC2. For the punching failure angle. moment redistributions of approximately 9%.15 for reinforcement and 1. member safety factors of 0.8 m (267.10 for Models 3. 1. respectively.) specified by EC2. 12%. MRB.65 and 0. 0. and all specimens failed in punching shear mode prior to full yielding of the reinforcements. respectively. and 23%. 4. with all of the reinforcements in the end span yielding before punching shear failure.0079. the nominal strength ratios were 1.57. The slab width simulates approximately 60% of the actual span.194/0. To compare the common trend of reinforcement strain. the top reinforcements in the MRC slab and the bottom reinforcements in the MRA slab). the test values are multiplied by 0.9/0. the redistributions of MRB and MRC were only 9% and 23%.844 (=0. No bottom reinforcement at the slab edge yielded in any of the specimens because the reinforcement strain at the edge of the slab specimen was approximately 55% (=0.5 for concrete are given. the average values for the reinforcements at the end span and the slab edge are plotted in Fig. compared to the uncracked state.23 in Fig. the moment redistribution from the end span to the edge of the MRA.3 (=1. When VP/VF is small. and 24. a secondary redistribution from the slab edge to the end span was observed when concrete cracking ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 Fig.0118 in. MRB.50. and MRC. the first reinforcement yield was observed at approximately 85% of the punching load.35. and MRC slabs was approximately 3%.15. These differences can be attributed to insignificant differences in punching shear strength and flexural strength of the designed specimens. the bending moment profile along the span was controlled by concrete cracking and reinforcement yielding. and MRC. The difference between the results of this test and Rangan and Hall’s4 test indicates that the moment redistribution limit is directly associated with VP/VF. Effect of ratio of punching and flexural strength MRB and MRC were designed to have 23% and 46% moment redistributions. premature punching shear failure can occur before the design moment redistribution capacity is reached. 12. 335 . In Rangan and Hall’s4 test. The ratio of the test slab width to the actual slab span is then obtained to 0. respectively. Cracking pattern The top and bottom surface cracks were measured as the load increased and are shown at punching failure in Fig.194. at the end of the first cyclic load step. and the moment distribution ratio at the failure state almost equaled the design values. material safety factors of 1.2. which simulated service load conditions. These results contradicted the results found in Rangan and Hall’s4 study. approximately 50%. which is mainly due to the imperfection in the edge restraint system. 11—Reinforcement strain of MRA test slab. respectively. These values satisfied allowable crack width limits of 0.6 from the force equilibrium condition in the free body diagram shown in Fig. ACI 318 and EC2 ensure ductile behavior and restrict brittle failure by assigning different safety factors for member and material strengths. and 0.). Even though the edge rotation was not perfectly set to equal zero rotation in the test.03. and 5. MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION Effect of reinforcement layouts within span During the test. 9%.00 and 1. For the top reinforcements at the end span. Reinforcement strain The strains of all reinforcements marked in Fig. At the failure state. and 2.5.77 and 0. When punching failure load was reached. 0. and MRC.75 for shear are given. The strain of the bottom reinforcements at the slab edge was much lower than the strain of the top reinforcements at the end span. In ACI 318. 3 were measured.0059. To make M–/Mo of 0. Due to this cracking. More cracks were observed at the top or bottom surfaces of the slab specimen where more reinforcements were placed.77) and it becomes 0. occurred at the bottom surface near the edge. compare with Fig.2 (=0. VP/VF of the slabs designed according to ACI 318 and EC2 are approximately 1.9 for flexure and 0.5/1. 10) of the strain at the midspan of the actual slab. respectively. which were far less than the design values. 10(c).65. which equaled approximately 6. 11.) for MRA. but the crack widths were much smaller. Rangan and Hall’s4 test showed that there was a considerable redistribution of moment. Near punching shear failure.5 degrees for MRA. respectively. which clearly showed the effect of different reinforcement layouts on moment redistribution. respectively. 27. and 0. It can therefore be concluded that moment redistribution is largely controlled by the reinforcement layout within the slab span. which were designed to fail in a quasi-brittle manner.

6) 430 (96.8) 403 (90. 336 PUNCHING SHEAR Effect of tension reinforcement ratios in punching shear zone The punching shear zones (or end spans) of the specimens were heavily.Fig.01 For a more detailed design.00 1.32 0.ct 1. moderately.0) 329 (74.10 1. and 0.4) 358 (80.33 1. (5)) are shown in Table 3. a new moment redistribution limit for a flat plate assuming that the limit is proportional to VP/VF is proposed as VP V − 1 × 100(%) F (6) where VP and VF are the nominal punching shear strength and the nominal flexural strength of a flat plate. 0. kN (kips) 420 (94.00 0.03 0. 12—Crack pattern at punching failure state. The resulting comparison indicates that the ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 . using reinforcement ratios of 1.98 1.6) 429 (96.4) — — Prediction VEC2.3) 298 (67.03 Comparison. The comparison of the test results to the values calculated using the punching shear equations of ACI 318 (Eq. kN (kips) 458 (103) 394 (88.32 1. kN (kips) 444 (99.575%.32 1.7) — — VACI.17 0.3) — — VACI. kN (kips) 344 (77. and lightly reinforced.09 1. VTest /VCode VTest /VEC2 1. respectively.059%.ct. (2)) and of EC2 (Eq. Table 3—Comparison of test strength and strength predicted by codes Test Specimen MRA MRB MRC Average Standard deviation VTest.31 1.832%.5) 326 (73.13 VTest /VACI.0) — — VTest /VACI 1. respectively. respectively.

respectively. July-Aug. 3. 7. No. Due to moment redistribution effects. Slabs. V. “How Safe Are Our Large. Science. L. B. 4. Lausanne. 1984. 5. Proceedings V. the punching shear strength is minutely affected by the tension reinforcement ratios as long as sufficient reinforcements are provided to resist a total static moment. Generally. 81. “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. 183-191. REFERENCES 1. 1. the ACI 318 equation without a tension reinforcement ratio parameter better predicts the experimental results than the EC2 equation with a reinforcement ratio parameter. “Moment Redistribution in Flat Plate Floors. Assuming that the moment redistribution limit is proportional to VP/VF. Rangan. 6. the following conclusions can be made: 1. Helfrich for their technical assistance in conducting the tests at the I.” EN 1992-1-1. Bulletin 12. Based on the test results. which is controlled by the reinforcement layout within the span. and Muttoni. Therefore. Burden and R.S. Switzerland.. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study. “Moment and Shear Transfer between Slab and Edge Column. 6. 2009.” ACI JOURNAL.. Although a smaller tension reinforcement ratio would reduce punching shear strength. 482-490. 2004. the punching shear strength reduction and improvement can nullify one another and result in a minutely changed value. B.ct was almost the same for all of the specimens. 307 pp. The bending moment ratios to the total static moment at the end span and slab edge continuously changed from the uncracked state to the final failure state and are largely controlled by the reinforcement layout within a slab span. Burdet. 6. pp. Jan. “Punching Tests of Slabs with Low Reinforcement Ratios. Lightly Reinforced Concrete Beams.. Guandalini. and Technology (MEST) of Korea. A. when the tension reinforcement ratio in the punching shear zone decreases. the following new limit for flat plates is proposed VP V − 1 × 100(%) F 4. Brussels. The second author would like to thank the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) for partial financial support from the research grant of Engineering Research Center (ERC) No. 87-95. Farmington Hills. 3. MI. the punching shear resistance decreases due to reductions in interface shear-transfer and dowel action. May-June 1983. Belgium. The experimental setup was proposed to consider the moment redistribution effect and punching shear resistance as a function of tension reinforcement ratio.ct = 3 fct bo d (in both SI and U. and Kuchma.. and Hall. The moment redistribution limit is directly affected by the ratio of the nominal punching shear strength to the nominal flexural strength of a flat plate.” ACI Structural Journal.. 2.ct values are calculated by Eq. and Footings?” ACI Structural Journal. 225 pp. Nov. which indicates that the punching shear strength is mainly affected by concrete tensile strength. The following equation predicted the punching shear strength of the slab specimens well VACI .-Feb. 106.” ACI JOURNAL. No. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 337 . No. 601-608. pp. CEN. CEB-FIB Task Group.. P. 20110030846 funded by the Ministry of Education. M.ACI 318 equation without a reinforcement ratio parameter better predicts the test results than the EC2 equation with a reinforcement ratio parameter. Rangan. Effect of concrete tensile strength In Table 3. D. “Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs. pp. it can be concluded that the punching shear strength is minutely affected by the tension reinforcement ratios as long as appropriate reinforcements are provided to resist the total static moment. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary. B.. This is probably due to the effect of moment redistribution. 473 pp.-Dec. V. 96. A. ACI Committee 318. might be conservative for the slabs designed using the current requirements in ACI 318 and EC2 due to the assignment of safety factors.. 5. International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). The comparison of VACI. V. Alexander for his excellent advice in planning the test and L.. O. a smaller bending moment due to moment redistribution would improve punching shear strength. S. No. S. The effect of the tension reinforcement ratio on punching shear resistance. The 20% and 30% limits on moment redistribution stipulated by ACI 318 and EC2.F.” American Concrete Institute. 2008. customary units) 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank S. 1999. Proceedings V. 80. 3. With respect to the punching shear strength of the slab specimens. was not clearly observed from the test results. V.ct with the experimentally obtained punching shear strength VTest shows that the ratio VTest/VACI.” CEB-FIP Technical Report. 4. D. S. however. 2001. pp. Morrison Structural Laboratory of the University of Alberta. (3) even though the test slabs were cast using normalweight concrete. A. Collins. the VACI. 2. and Hall.

NOTES: 338 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2012 .

- Extreme Loading for Structures
- ORACLE
- IS-875-ALL-IN-ONE
- Extreme Loading for Structures 3.1 Features
- Strength of Materials & Mechanics of Solids
- Theory of Elasticity chapter4
- Building Design
- Extreme Loading for Structures
- 6
- 58915469
- F90 Basics
- Brochure
- net june2013
- ibnetjune2013
- New Material in Construction
- Specifications
- FEM
- Electronic Basis of the Strength of Materials Gilman J CUP 2003
- yield
- 802_1_1
- Design of Steel Strctures
- Lenovo
- Manual
- infrastructure studies
- Limit Analysis of Plates and Slabs Using a Meshless Equilibrium Formulation

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- [2010 f]Final Concret Lab, Hw, 2nd Yr, 1st Term, 2010 ,Strength of Concretby designsamtco
- Spin Practical Aspects in Concrete Mix Designby BartoFreitas
- 4.1. Modelling Confinement in Concrete Columns and Bridge Piers Through 3D Nonlinear Finite Element Analysisby Faraaz Faisal
- Why Buildings Collapse.doc1by housepoint

- FIB Bulletin - Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete
- Bridge Deck Behavior Purdue Epubs
- engineering failure
- Sdtb0803-1
- Stress-Strain Model UnconfinedConcretes ACI SJ
- 176418880-Losses-on-Prestress-Concrete.pdf
- Factors Affecting Strength
- Part 2B - Concrete Diversion Structures
- stie1198
- 07A50102-CONCRETETECHNOLOGY.pdf
- Testing Concrete Cores
- Code of Pratice Rcc
- ACI 214-77
- 214_77
- 214_77
- تخمين خصائص الخرسانة المعرضة للحريق
- [2010 f]Final Concret Lab, Hw, 2nd Yr, 1st Term, 2010 ,Strength of Concret
- Spin Practical Aspects in Concrete Mix Design
- 4.1. Modelling Confinement in Concrete Columns and Bridge Piers Through 3D Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis
- Why Buildings Collapse.doc1
- Comparison of Russian, Finnish and European Norms for Reinforced Concrete Structures
- BP and AB Design
- Anchorage
- Errata Aci 318-08a
- Commentary to Eurocode
- A Comprehensive Experimental Study
- Concrete Myth 1
- art%3A10.1007%2Fs40069-013-0045-0
- Duddingston Loch
- BondekPerformanceJanuary2010.pdf
- 109-s27