Challenges, Opportunities and Solutions in Structural Engineering

and Construction Ghafoori (ed.)

2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-56809-8

Punching shear strength of RC slabs using lightweight concrete

H. Higashiyama
Kinki University, Osaka, Japan

M. Mizukoshi
Takamatsu National College of Technology, Kagawa, Japan

S. Matsui
Osaka Institute of Technology, Osaka, Japan

ABSTRACT: Lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) is useful to reduce the structural dead load. The
punching shear strength of reinforced concrete (RC) slabs using LWAC decreases in comparison to that using
normal-weight aggregate concrete (NWAC) due to the weakness of the aggregate in concrete. Therefore, a reduction factor for LWAC is specified in several international design codes/standards of JSCE, ACI, CEB-FIP, etc. In
the present study, a reduction factor for the punching shear strength of RC slabs using LWAC was investigated
using the experimental and analytical results. Consequently, the punching shear strength decreases with the
density of LWAC and the reduction factor is remarkably related to the characteristic length of concrete proposed
by Hillerborg et al. (1976).

The corresponding proposed reduction factor, which

is derived from the experimental and analytical results,
is compared with several design codes/standards.

INTRODUCTION

Density of lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC)

using expansive shale is 20 to 30% smaller than that
of normal-weight aggregate concrete (NWAC). Therefore, LWAC is useful to reduce the dead load to the
substructures and improve the earthquake resistance
of concrete structures. The tensile and shear strengths
of LWAC, however, decrease due to the lower strength
of lightweight aggregate itself. Applying LWAC to
highway bridge slabs, it is important to adopt a suitable design method taking into account the fracture
properties of the material.
In the practical design procedures, a reduction factor for LWAC is accepted in several design codes/
standards such as JSCE, ACI, and CEB-FIP. The JSCE
standard specifications (2002) have a constant reduction factor of 0.7 for all lightweight aggregate concrete
(ALWAC). The other LWAC is not specified in the
JSCE standard specifications. The ACI code (2005)
gives constant reduction factors considering the density of LWAC. On the other hand, the CEB-FIP Model
Code 90 (2001) has an equation of reduction factor
varying with the concrete density. From the previous test results (Higashiyama et al. 2006), however,
the punching shear capacities of reinforced concrete
(RC) slabs using LWAC decreased with the concrete
densities.
The purpose of this study is to propose experimentally and analytically the reduction factor for the
punching shear capacity of RC slabs using LWAC.

DESIGN CODES/STANDARDS
AND PREDICTING EQUATION

2.1

JSCE standard specifications

According to the JSCE standard specifications (2002),

the punching shear capacity, Vc is:
Vc = fpc d p r up d

(1)


fpc = 0.20 fc 1.2

(2)

d =


4
1/d 1.5

p =


3
100p 1.5

111

r = 1 +

(d : m)

1
1 + 0.25u/d

(3)
(4)
(5)

where fc is the compressive strength of concrete,

d is the average effective depth, p is the average reinforcement ratio, u is the perimeter of the concentrated
load, and up is the perimeter of the critical section
located at a distance of 0.5d from the periphery of the
concentrated load (=u + d).

The JSCE standard specifications (2002) give a

constant reduction factor of 0.7 for ALWAC. All safety
factors and material resistance factors in this calculation are taken as 1.0 for the objective of this research
work. Hereinafter, the same procedure is followed.

2.4

Several punching shear predicting equations have been

proposed so far worldwide. In the present study, the
failure model proposed by Maeda & Matsui (1984) as
shown in Figure 1, which has been recognized with
applicability to the highway bridge RC slabs in Japan,
is employed to evaluate the punching shear capacity.
The equation can be expressed as follows:

2.2 ACI code

According to ACI code 318-05 (2005), the punching
shear capacity, Vc , is taken as the smallest of:


Vc =

Vc =

  
f
s d
+ 2 c b0 d
b0
12

1  
fc b0 d
3

Vc = fcv {2 (a + 2xm ) xd + 2 (b + 2xd ) xm }

+ ft {2 (a + 2dm ) Cd + 2 (b + 2dd + 4Cd ) Cm }
(11)

(6)

ft = 0.269fc 2/3

(12)

fcv = 0.656fc 0.606

(13)

(7)

(8)

a
f cv

ft

where fc is the compressive strength of concrete,

d is the average effective depth, b0 is the perimeter of the critical section located at a distance of 0.5d
from the periphery of the concentrated load, is a
reduction factor to account for the concrete density,
is the ratio of the long side to short side of the concentrated loaded area, and s is a factor to account for the
location of the slab-column connection.
The ACI code (2005) requires reduction factors
of 0.85 for sand lightweight aggregate concrete
(SLWAC) and 0.75 for ALWAC.

where a and b are side lengths of a loading plate in the

main bar and distribution bar directions, respectively,
xm and xd are depths of the neutral axis neglecting
the tension side of concrete in the main bar and
distribution bar directions, respectively, dm and dd
are effective depths of tensile reinforcement for the
main and distribution bars, respectively, Cm and Cd
are depths of cover concrete for the tensile main

45
C

CEB-FIP Model Code 90

According to the CEB-FIP Model Code 90, Fib (2001),

the punching shear capacity is given by:

t = 0.4 + 0.6

xm
2C d

(9)

dd


2200

xm

(10)

where fc is the compressive strength of concrete, d is

the average effective depth, b0 is the perimeter of the
critical section located at a distance of 2d from the
periphery of the concentrated load, p is the average
reinforcement ratio, t is a reduction factor, and is
the oven-dry density of the LWAC.
The CEB-FIP Model Code 90, Fib (2001) gives the
equation of reduction factor taking into account the
concrete density as outlined in Equation 10.

dd

Vc = 0.18t 1 +


200
(100pfc )1/3 b0 d
d

2C d

xd b xd

2C

2.3

  

f
2
c b0 d
Vc = 1 +

Matsuis predicting equation

2C m

dm

dm

2Cm

Figure 1. Punching shear failure model proposed by

Maeda & Matsui (1984).

112

and distribution bars, respectively, ft and fcv are

the tensile strength and shear strength of concrete
(N/mm2 ), respectively.
3

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

3.1

(D10). Table 3 gives the details of slabs tested in the

present study.
Five types of slabs, which were varied in size, reinforcement ratio, and concrete material, were prepared
and two same slabs in each type were made considering unexpected deviations of experimental results.
All slabs were square, flat RC slabs. Figure 2 shows

Materials and test specimens

Table 1 gives the details of materials used herein.

Ordinal Portland cement was employed. River sand
and artificial lightweight aggregate were used for
fine aggregates. And crushed stone and artificial
lightweight aggregate were used for coarse aggregates.
The fine and coarse artificial lightweight aggregates
are composed of expansive shale. Mix proportions
of concrete for specimens tested herein are listed in
Table 2. Reinforcing bars with a deformed shape were
used with a diameter of 6.35 mm (D6) and 9.53 mm
Table 1.

Mixture proportions.

Unit content (kg/m3 )

Mix
No. W/C W C
S
G
1
2

0.48
0.50

Ad

180 375 812 (RS) 555 (ES) 0.75 (Ad-1)

167 334 656 (ES) 913 (CS) 3.34 (Ad-2)

Notes: RS = river sand; ES = expansive shale; CS = crushed

stone; Ad-1 = high performance air-entraining & water
reducing admixture; Ad-2 = air-entraining & water reducing
admixture.

Material properties.

Material

Type

Properties

Cement
Fine
aggregate

Portland
River sand

Density: 3.15 g/cm3

Density: 2.59 g/cm3
Absorption: 1.39%
Maximum size: 2.5 mm
Density: 1.94 g/cm3
Absorption: 16.0%
Maximum size: 2.5 mm
Density: 2.70 g/cm3
Absorption: 0.71%
Maximum size: 20 mm
Density: 1.65 g/cm3
Absorption: 28.0%
Maximum size: 15 mm

Expansive
shale
Coarse
aggregate

Crushed stone

Expansive
shale

Note: Density of aggregates is on saturated surface-dry

condition.
Table 3.

Table 2.

Figure 2.

View of test setup.

Details of test slabs.

Main bar
(mm)

Dist. bar
(mm)

Specimen

Mix
no.

Span
length
(mm)

Thickness
(mm)

Upper bar
Lower bar

Upper bar
Lower bar

LC-1

1000

100

LC-2

1000

100

LC-3

1000

150

LC-4

1000

150

LC-5

600

80

D10-ctc. 160
D10-ctc. 80
D10-ctc. 240
D10-ctc. 120
D10-ctc. 160
D10-ctc. 80
D10-ctc. 240
D10-ctc. 120
non
D6-ctc. 50

D10-ctc. 160
D10-ctc. 80
D10-ctc. 240
D10-ctc. 120
D10-ctc. 160
D10-ctc. 80
D10-ctc. 240
D10-ctc. 120
non
D6-ctc. 50

113

Effective depth
(mm)

Main bar

Dist. bar

Compressive
strength
(N/mm2 )

Concrete
density
(kg/m3 )

80.0

70.5

41.3

1810

80.0

70.5

41.3

1810

110.0

100.5

38.7

1840

110.0

100.5

38.7

1840

56.8

50.4

37.8

2084

2.0

1.5

1.5

Vexp / VACI

Vexp / VJSCE

2.0

1.0
Authors
Hamada et al.
JSCE
Ito et al.

0.5

0.0
1400

1600

1800

2000

1.0

0.0
1400

2200

2200

1.0
0.8

Vexp / VMatsui

Vexp / VFIB

2000

(b) ACI code

1.5

1.0
Authors
Hamada et al.
JSCE
Ito et al.

0.5

1600

1800

2000

0.6
0.4

Authors
Hamada et al.
JSCE
Ito et al.

0.2
0.0
1400

2200

1600

1800

2000

2200

Concrete desnity (kg/m )

Concrete density (kg/m )

(c) CEB-FIP Model Code 90

(d) Matsui s equation

Comparison of design codes/standards and predicting equation with experimental results.

the view of test setup. All slabs were simply supported

along four sides, which were free to rising of the slab
corners. Concentrated load was applied at the center
of slab by an oil jack through the square steel plate.
Since the number of specimens tested herein was
limited, test results conducted by Hamada et al. (2002),
JSCE Concrete Library (2001), and Ito et al. (2005)
were also included to evaluate the punching shear
capacity. Hamada et al. (2002) tested using natural
sand and expansive shale for the fine aggregate and
expansive shale for the coarse aggregate. JSCE Concrete Library (2001) tested using natural sand for the
fine aggregate and high strength lightweight aggregate made of fly ash for the coarse aggregate. Ito et al.
(2005) tested using natural sand for the fine aggregate
and high performance artificial lightweight aggregate
made of sediments from the Yellow River in China for
the coarse aggregate.

3.2

1800

Concrete density (kg/m )

2.0

Figure 3.

1600

Concrete density (kg/m )

(a) JSCE standard specifications

0.0
1400

Authors
Hamada et al.
JSCE
Ito et al.

0.5

almost linear trend between the normalized punching

shear capacities and the concrete densities. The
normalized punching shear capacity of the smaller
concrete density, however, is less than 1.0 as shown in
Figure 3 (a) to (c). Matsuis equation overestimates in
all test results. From these results, it is noticed that the
reduction factor for LWAC is significantly related to
the concrete density.

4
4.1

ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Finite element analysis

To propose a reduction factor for the punching shear

capacity of RC slab using LWAC, the punching shear
behavior was analyzed by means of a commercially
available 3D finite element program, ATENA (Cervenka Consulting 2002). In this analysis, a fictitious
crack model based on a crack opening law and fracture energy after cracking in tension was used. The
stress-crack opening relation was used the formulation
derived by Hordijk (1991) as follows:

Comparison of design codes/standards and

predicting equation with experimental results

Normalized punching shear capacities, which mean

the experimental values divided by the predicted values,
versus the concrete densities are plotted in
Figure 3 (a) to (d). It is noted that the normalized
punching shear capacities decrease when lowering the
concrete densities with some scattering. The design
codes/standards, except for Matsuis equation, have an

114


 


t
w 3
w
exp c2 cr
= 1 + c1 cr
ft
wt
wt

w 
1 + c13 exp(c2 )
wtcr

(14)

4.2

Figure 4. Stress-strain relation in compression on the

ascending branch.

wtcr = 5.14

(15)
k = 0.4 + 0.6

where t is the tensile stress in the crack, ft is the

tensile strength, w is the crack opening, wtcr is the crack
opening at the complete release of stress, Gf is the
fracture energy, and the constant values are c1 = 3.0
and c2 = 6.93.
The stress-strain relation in compression on the
ascending branch is linear up to fco and is given by the
following formula from fco to fc (see Figure 4):


c eq
p
c

fco =

2 
f
3 c

(17)

cp =

fc
Ec

(18)

(16)

where c is the compressive stress, fc is the compresp

sive strength, eq is the equivalent plastic strain, and
Ec is the Youngs modulus of concrete.
Furthermore, the stress-displacement relation on
the descending branch is given by the following formula derived by van Mier (1986):


wc
c = 1 cr fc
wc

(20)

2400

(21)

where, ft,L and ft,N are the tensile strengths of LWAC

and NWAC, respectively, and is the concrete density
(kg/m3 ).

2

c =

fco

fco

fc

Two types of RC slabs were determined as the analytical model as shown in Table 4. The thickness was
100 mm and 150 mm, the effective depth was 75
mm and 105 mm, and the reinforcement ratio was
1.19% and 1.17%. RC slabs were simply supported
along four sides with a span length of 1000 mm. The
analytical model is shown in Figure 5. The compressive strength of concrete was fixed at 40 N/mm2 .
The concrete density was varied from 1400 kg/m3 to
2200 kg/m3 . Furthermore, the tensile strength (Walraven 2000), the Youngs modulus (AIJ 1991), and
the fracture energy (Higashiyama et al. 2006) corresponding to the concrete density were determined by
the following equations:
ft, L = k ft, N

Gf
ft

Parameters of analytical model


Ec = 2.1 10

1.5 

fc
200

where Ec is the Youngs modulus of concrete (kgf/cm2 ),

fc is the compressive strength (kgf/cm2 ), and is the
concrete density (t/m3 ), 0 = 2.3 t/m3 .

Gf = 2.85 fc (/1000)2.45
Table 4.

(23)

Analytical models.

Span
Average
Average
length Thickness reinforcement effective
Specimen (mm) (mm)
ratio (%)
depth (mm)
Model-1
Model-2

1000
1000

100
150

1.19
1.17

Figure 5.

Finite element model.

(19)

where c is the compressive stress, fc is the compressive strength, wc is the plastic displacement, and wccr is
the plastic displacement at the zero compressive stress
(=0.5 mm in this study).
The details of the finite element program are referred
to ATENA Program Documentation (Cervenka
Consulting 2002).

115

(22)

75
105

From the analytical results mentioned above, the

reduction factor for the punching shear capacity of
RC slab using LWAC proportionally relates with the
characteristic length of concrete as follows:

1.2

Reduction factor

1.0
0.8


= k 1 + k2

0.6

t = 150 mm
Experiment

0.0
1200

(24)

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

where lch,L and lch,N are the characteristic lengths of

LWAC and NWAC, respectively, and k1 and k2 are
constant values.
Equation 24 can be rewritten by substituting Equations 20 through 23 as follows:

Concrete density (kg/m )

Figure 6. Relation between the normalized punching shear

capacity and the ratio of characteristic length.

= k 1 + k2

2.95
(25)

where is the concrete density (kg/m3 ), and 0 =

2300 kg/m3 (generally used value in Japan).
When Matsuis equation is used to predict the
punching shear capacity, the values of the constant,
k1 and k2 , are derived as 0.28 and 0.72, respectively,
by using the least-squares curve fitting with the experimental data as shown in Figure 7. It should be pointed
out that the reduction factor derived in Equation 25 is
applicable only for the LWAC investigated herein.

1.2
Normalized punching
shear capacity

t = 100 mm

0.4
0.2

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t = 100 mm
0.2

t = 150 mm

0.0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

CONCLUSIONS

1.2

Ratio of characteristic length

Figure 7. Relation between the reduction factor and the

concrete density.

where Gf is the fracture energy (N/m), fc is the compressive strength (N/mm2 ), and is the concrete density (kg/m3 ).
4.3

lch, L
lch,N

Proposed reduction factor

Reduction of the punching shear capacity of RC slab

using LWAC depends on a difference of the material
fracture properties of concrete in tension. The characteristic length (Hillerborg et al. 1976) is a measure
for the brittleness of the material and is defined by
three material parameters, the Youngs modulus (Ec ),
the tensile strength (ft ) and the fracture energy (Gf ).
Figure 6 shows the relation between the normalized
punching shear capacities, which mean the analytical
values divided by Matsuis equation, Equation (11),
and the ratios of the characteristic lengths of LWAC
and NWAC. It is noted that there is a proportional
relationship between those values.

This paper presents the punching shear capacity of RC

slabs using LWAC. The punching shear test results
were compared with several design codes/standards.
Several codes/standards give the reduction factor for
LWAC. However, the predicting equations in design
codes/standards for the punching shear capacity tend
to be conservative. The normalized punching shear
capacity linearly relates to the characteristic length of
concrete. Predicting accuracy is the average of 0.99
and the standard deviation of 0.077. The reduction
factor proposed herein is applicable for the punching
shear capacity of RC slabs using LWAC.

REFERENCES
ACI 318R-05. 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
AIJ. 1991. Standard for Structural Calculation of ReinforcedConcrete Structures, Architectural Institute of Japan (in
Japanese).
Cervenka Consulting. 2002. ATENA Computer Program for
Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Program Documentation.
Fib. 2001. Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs, Bulletin
12, Federation Internationale du Beton, Lausanne.

116

Hamada, S., Mao, M., Yoshitake, I. & Tanaka, H. 2002. Slabs

with Lightweight Aggregate Concrete of High Strength,
Session 9: High-performance concrete, Proc. of 1st fib
congress, Osaka, pp. 267272.
Higashiyama, H., Mizukoshi, M. & Matsui, S. 2006. Prediction Method on Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced
Lightweight Concrete Slabs Considering Fracture Characteristics, Concrete Research Technology, JCI, Vol. 17,
No. 2, pp. 2331 (in Japanese).
Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M. & Petersson, P.E. 1976. Analysis of Crack Formation and Crack Growth in Concrete
by Means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements,
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 6, pp. 773782.
Hordijk, D.A. 1991. Local Approach to Fatigue of Concrete,
Doctoral Dissertation, Delft University of Technology.
Ito, H., Iwanami, M. & Yokota, H. 2005. Influence of PVA
Short Fibers on Punching Shear Behavior of Lightweight
Concrete Slab, Journal of Structural Engineering, JCSE,
Vol. 54A, pp. 13211331 (in Japanese).

117

JSCE Concrete Library. 2001. Recommendations for Design

and Construction of Concrete Structures Using High
Strength Lightweight Aggregate Made of Fly Ash, 106
(in Japanese).
JSCE Standard Specifications. 2002. Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures-2002, Structural Performance Verification, Japan Society and Civil Engineers
(in Japanese).
Maeda, Y. & Matsui, S. 1984. Punching Shear Equation of
Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Journal of JSCE, No. 348/V-1,
pp. 133141 (in Japanese).
van Mier, J.G.M. 1986. Multiaxial Strain-softening of Concrete, Part I, Fracture, Materials and Structures, RILEM,
Vol. 19, pp. 179190.
Walraven, J. 2000. Design of Structures with Lightweight
Concrete: Present Status of Revision EC2, Proc. of the
Second International Symposium on Structural
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, Kristiansand, pp. 5770.