Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Conventional design methods for concrete plates consider
potential punching failures in the vicinity of concentrated
loads. Nominal shear stresses at well-defined critical sections
are limited to guard against such failure modes. According
to this method, the nominal shear stress due to gravity load
is determined at an assumed vertical critical section around
the column. The shear stress should be limited to a nominal
shear strength that is usually assumed to be a function of
concrete strength and geometric parameters. Although such
a method lacks physical reality, it is simple and leads to
reasonable estimates if properly formulated.
The current research presents a rational and simple strutand-tie model to evaluate the ultimate punching shear
capacity of both normal- and high-strength concrete slabs
subjected to symmetric and nonsymmetric loading. The basis
of this model was developed earlier by the rational classical
model developed by Kinnunen and Nylander.1 Slabs with
shear reinforcement were also considered under symmetric
loading. The strut-and-tie models were compared to experimental test results reported in the literature and were verified
using different design codes equations.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Rational models and design formulas for punching shear are
based on the results of experimental tests performed mostly
on thin slabs. The few available tests performed on thick slabs
exhibit a notable size effect. As a consequence, there is a need
for a rational model that correctly describes and accounts for
size effect. This paper presents rational yet simple practical
strut-and-tie models to evaluate punching shear capacity of
thick concrete plates. The proposed models account for the
size effect factor. The proposed models were verified using
experimental test results available from the literature.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2012
677
( )
0.3
(2b)
lch = 105.1 fc
(in.)
Zhou et al.8 developed a simple equation, based on curve
fitting, as follows
(3a)
(3b)
lch =
Ec G f
(1)
fct 2
( )
lch = 600 fc
678
0.3
(mm)
(2a)
fcu =
fc
0.85 fc
0.8 + 170 1
(4)
2y
Perimeter of cone = D +
tan
(5)
y sin / 2
sin
(6)
CT =
Pult
2 y y sin / 2
= D +
fcu
sin / 2
tan sin
(7)
CT =
Pult
2 y y sin / 2
0.33
(8)
= D+
fcu (lch / d )
sin / 2
tan sin
y = ys = y f
2 y y sin / 2
Pult = D +
fcu (lch / d )0.33 sin / 2 (9)
tan sin
l=
dy
sin
(10)
y1 =
l sin
6
(11)
y=
2 ys y f
ys + y f
(12)
where ys is the depth of the compression zone of the shearcritical section at punching; and yf is equal to the depth of the
compression zone at flexure.
Depth of shear-critical section
Theodorakopoulos and Swamy15 found that for test slabs,
which showed yielding of reinforcement in the vicinity of
the column before punching, the quantity fcu/rfy varied from
5.0 to 9.0, with the majority of values varied between 6.0 and
8.0, where fcu is the cube concrete strength and fy is the steel
680
(13)
(14)
ys = 0.25d
yf =
k1 = 0.67
0.8f y
k1 fc
fc
cu A o / 3
, o =
cu
3680
(15)
(16)
Pult = 0.75Vc + Vs
2 y y sin( / 2)
Pult = 0.75 D +
tan sin
(17)
(18)
fy
1.15
(19)
M fb = f M f
M fv = 1 f M f
f y
Mrb = f y bt d 2 1
1.7 f
c
(20)
(21)
f =
1+
2 b1
3 b2
(22)
Mrv = v M o
(23)
(25)
where
v = 1
P
Pe
+
1.0
Pult Mult
(24)
1
2 b1
1+
3 b2
(26)
Mo =
vc J1
1
0.5 (C1 + d ) v
(27)
(28)
column capitals, or any type of shear reinforcement. Specimens cast with lightweight concrete were excluded. The
collected experimental results are available in the literature
and were conducted by different researchers.1,4,9,17,21-39 The
concrete compressive strength fc for the analyzed database
ranges from 13 to 120 MPa (1885 to 17,400 psi) and the
ratio of tension reinforcement ranges from 0.25 to 5%,
while the slab effective depth d ranges from 35 to 500 mm
(1.4 to 20 in.).
Table 1 provides the mean value (the ratio of VTest/VSTM),
the standard deviation, and the coefficient of variation of the
strength ratio obtained by a strut-and-tie model (Eq. (9)). The
mean of VTest/VSTM is 1.00, and the coefficient of variation of
23% for the analyzed data is still better than the North American codes. These coefficients of variation are fairly small
in spite of the simplicity of the equation. The mean value
provided by BS 8110-9716 is near unity, whereas the mean
value provided by CEB-FIP 199013 is 0.95. This means that the
estimated values are close to experimental values. The coefficients of variation in BS 8110-9716 and CEB-FIP 199013 are
small13%. The coefficient of variation of ACI 318-0840 is
Table 1Analytical results
Equation
Mean
Standard
deviation
Coefficient of
variation, %
VTest/VACI 318-08
1.03
0.28
27
VTest/VBS 8110-97
1.02
0.13
13
VTest/VCEB-FIP-90
0.95
0.13
13
VTest/VSTM
1.00
0.23
23
Fig. 5VTest versus Veq obtained from different code equations: (a) ACI 318-08; (b) BS 811097; (c) CEB-FIP 90; and (d) STM Eq. (10). (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2012
683
Table 2Strut-and-tie model for nonsymmetric punching shear: comparison with published test results
Authors
Moe22
Marzouk et al.42
Hawkins et al.43
Slab No.
d, mm
C, mm
, %
fc, MPa
fy, MPa
e, mm
Mult, kN.m
PTest, kN
PTest/PSTM
M2A
114
305
1.50
15.5
481
185
110
213
1.10
M7
114
254
1.34
25.0
328
61
75
311
1.08
M6
114
254
1.34
26.5
328
168
76
239
1.15
M8
114
254
1.91
24.6
328
437
97
150
1.03
M10
114
254
1.91
21.1
328
307
94
178
1.07
SM1.5
122
305
2.00
39.9
476
1031
198
129
0.88
SM1.0
122
305
1.33
33.4
476
988
136
129
1.17
NNHS1.0
125
250
1.00
36.2
460
550
100
130
0.99
NHHS1.0
125
250
1.00
35.3
460
550
100
135
1.04
6AH
133
305
0.60
31.3
472
584
98
169
1.35
9.6AH
133
305
0.96
30.7
415
584
116
187
1.34
14AH
133
305
1.40
30.3
420
584
143
205
1.27
6AL
133
305
0.60
22.7
472
130
92
244
1.05
9.6AL
133
305
0.96
28.9
415
130
115
257
0.87
14AL
133
305
1.40
27.0
420
130
139
319
0.99
Notes: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 0.2248 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN.m = 8851 in.-lb.
Table 3Strut-and-tie model for slabs with shear reinforcement: comparison with published test results
Authors
Van Der Voet et al.44
Slab No.
fc, MPa
fy, MPa
C, mm
d, mm
PSTM, kN
PTest, kN
PTest/PSTM
MV2
29.5
331
250
113
T-headed
560
602
1.08
MV4
31.3
344
250
113
T-headed
594
588
0.99
MV5
36.5
339
250
113
T-headed
672
592
0.88
HS22
60.0
450
250
120
T-headed
576
605
1.05
HS23
60.0
450
250
120
T-headed
576
590
1.02
27.7
488
250
124
Stud rail
925
634
0.69
36.1
488
250
124
Stud rail
795
574
0.72
35.0
531
300
190
Stud rail
1058
1050
0.99
36.1
531
300
190
Stud rail
1058
1091
1.03
11
30.0
524
350
260
Stud rail
1625
1620
1.00
12
33.8
524
350
260
Stud rail
1409
1520
1.08
CONCLUSIONS
The phenomenon of punching shear behavior of
concrete slabs of various compressive strengths can be
adequately modeled using a strut-and-tie model.
For symmetric loading situations, the punching shear
behavior can be modeled using a strut-and-tie model.
The ultimate punching slab capacity can be predicted
using elastic theory equations based on the classic
Kinnunen and Nylander1 plate theory rational model
and concrete failure criteria, and is adjusted to account
for size effect.
The proposed strut-and-tie models for punching shear
compare quite well with experimental test results. For
symmetric punching using the proposed model, the
overall average theory/test ratio is 1.00 with a coefficient of variation of 23% when compared to 244 experimental test results. This gives strong support to the
ability of the theory to explain the structural behavior of
concrete slabs. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2012
model appears to be equally valid for high- and normalstrength thick and thin concrete slabs.
For nonsymmetric loading situations, the strut-andtie model developed to describe symmetric punching
is used in conjunction with an interaction equation to
model the punching behavior.
A strut-and-tie model consisting of fan-shaped compression struts held in place by tension ties can be used to
describe the situation where shear reinforcement is present.
The work done in this investigation could be expanded
to include other punching shear situations in slabs.
These include exterior column situations in building
construction, different types of slab systems such as
hat slabs with drop panels, punching shear for offshore
concrete structures, and punching shear related to dropping objects on concrete slabs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) for providing the funds for this project.
a
bef
bmin
C
CT
D
d
fc
fck
fct
fctm
fcu
fsp,t
fy
fywd,ef
h
k1
l
lch
Peq
Pult
s
t
Vc
VSTM
VTest
Vu
y
yf
ys
y1
e1
cu
o
f
v
s
NOTATION
= shear span
= effective width of bottle-shaped strut
= width of bearing area
= side length of square column
= total compression force acting on thickness of conical shell strut
around periphery of circular column
= diameter of column
= effective depth of slab
= uniaxial compressive strength of concrete (cylinder strength)
= characteristic compressive strength of concrete in MPa
= tensile stress in concrete
= mean value of concrete tensile strength at time that crack forms
=
limiting compressive stress in concrete strut or cube
concrete strength
= splitting bond stress
= yield stress of steel
= effective design strength of punching shear reinforcement
= slab height
= maximum concrete stress-block parameter
= length of strut from face-to-face of nodes
= characteristic length
= equivalent load
=
denotes corresponding ultimate punching shear capacity
failure mechanism
= spacing between peripheral lines of vertical members
= thickness of strut
= nominal shear strength provided by concrete
= predicted punching load estimated by strut-and-tie model
= test punching failure load
= ultimate punching shear
= depth of flexural compression zone in slab (depth of neutral plane)
= depth of compression zone of flexural critical section
= depth of compression zone of shear-critical section
= distance from NA to center of lower tensile force
= principal tensile strain in cracked concrete due to factored loads
= ultimate concrete strain
= concrete strain at level of end of rectangular concrete stress block
= factor used to determine unbalanced moment transferred by
flexure at slab-column connections
= factor used to determine unbalanced moment transferred by
eccentricity of shear at slab-column connections
= angle of inclination of normal to crack to x reinforcement
= smallest angle between strut and adjoining ties
= flexural reinforcement ratio
REFERENCES
3. Marzouk, H.; Rizk, E.; and Tiller, R., Design of Shear Reinforcement Using a Strut and Tie Model, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
V. 37, No. 2, 2010, pp. 181-194.
4. Hallgren, M., Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength
Concrete Slabs, doctoral thesis, Department of Structural Engineering,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1996, 206 pp.
5. Muttoni, A., and Schwartz, J., Behavior of Beams and Punching in
Slabs without Shear Reinforcement, IABSE Colloquium, V. 62, Zrich,
Switzerland, 1991, pp. 703-708.
6. Marzouk, H., and Chen, Z., Fracture Energy and Tension Properties
of High-Strength Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, V. 7, No. 2, 1995, pp. 108-116.
7. Hilsdorf, H., and Brameshuber, W., Code-Type Formulation of Fracture Mechanics Concepts for Concrete, International Journal of Fracture,
V. 51, 1991, pp. 61-72.
8. Zhou, P.; Barr, B.; and Lydon, F., Fracture Properties of High Strength
Concrete with Varying Silica Fume Content and Aggregates, Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 25, No. 3, 1995, pp. 543-552.
9. Marzouk, H., and Hussein, A., Experimental Investigation on the
Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 88,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1991, pp. 701-713.
10. Hegger, J.; Ricker, M.; and Sherif, A., Punching Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Footings, ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2009,
pp. 706-716.
11. Hallgren, M.; Kinnunen, S.; and Nylander, B., Punching Shear Tests
on Column Footings, Nordic Concrete Research, Publication No. 21, Oslo,
Norway, 1998, pp. 1-22.
12. Schlaich, J., and Weischede, D., Detailing of Concrete Structures,
Bulletin dInformation 150, Comit Euro-International du Bton, Paris,
France, 1982, 163 pp.
13. Comit Euro-International Du Bton-Fdration de la Prcontrainte
(CEBFIP), Model Code 1990, Bulletin DInformation No. 203-305, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990, 462 pp.
14. CSA-A23.3-04, Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings,
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2004, 258 pp.
15. Theodorakopoulos, D., and Swamy, R., Ultimate Punching Shear
Strength Analysis of Slab-Column Connections, Cement and Concrete
Composites, V. 24, No. 6, 2002, pp. 509-521.
16. BS 8110-97, Structural Use of Concrete, BS8110: Part 1Code
of Practice for Design and Construction, British Standards Association,
London, UK, 1997, 168 pp.
17. Marzouk, H., and Jiang, D., Experimental Investigation on Shear
Enhancement Types for High-Strength Concrete Plates, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, pp. 49-58.
18. EN 1992-1-2, Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete StructuresPart 1-1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 230 pp.
19. Siao, W., Punching Shear Resistance of Flat Slabs: A BeamStrip Analogy, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1994,
pp. 594-603.
20. Broms, C., Punching of Flat PlatesA Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 87, No. 3, May-June 1990, pp. 292-301.
21. Elstner, R., and Hognestad, E., Shearing Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 53, No. 1, Jan. 1956,
pp. 29-58.
22. Moe, J., Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings under Concentrated Loads, Bulletin D47, Portland Cement Association Research and Development Laboratories, Skokie, IL, 1961, 130 pp.
23. Yitzhaki, D., Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 5, May 1966, pp. 527-540.
24. Mowrer, R., and Vanderbilt, M., Shear Strength of Lightweight
Aggregate Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 64, No. 11, Nov. 1967, pp. 722-729.
25. Kinnunen, S.; Nylander, H.; and Tolf, P., Investigations on Punching
at the Division of Building Statics and Structural Engineering, Nordisk
Betong, No. 3, 1978, pp. 25-27.
26. Magura, D., and Corley, W., Tests to Destruction of a Multipanel
Waffle Slab Structure, Full-Scale Testing of New York Worlds Fair Structures, Publication 1721, V. II, Building Research Advisory Board, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1969, pp. 10-135.
27. Regan, P.; Walker, P.; and Zakaria, K., Tests of Reinforced Concrete
Flat Slabs, CIRIA Project No. RP 220, Polytechnic of Central London,
London, UK, 1979, 217 pp.
28. Rankin, G., and Long, A., Predicting the Punching Strength of
Conventional Slab-Column Specimens, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, V. 82, Part 1, 1987, pp. 327-346.
685
686
37. Birkle, G., and Dilger, W., Influence of Slab Thickness on Punching
Shear Strength, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2008,
pp. 180-188.
38. Marzouk, H., and Hossin, M., Crack Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Two-Way Slabs, Research Report RCS01, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
Johns, NL, Canada, 2007, 159 pp.
39. Rizk, E.; Marzouk, H.; and Hussein, A., Punching Shear of Thick
Plates with and without Shear Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 108, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2011, pp. 581-591.
40. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
41. Ghali, A., and Elgabry, A., Tests on Concrete Slab Column Connections with Shear-Stud Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-Moment Transfer,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1987, pp. 433-442.
42. Marzouk, H.; Emam, M.; and Hilal, M., Effect of High-Strength
Concrete Columns on the Behavior of Slab-Column Connections, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 545-554.
43. Hawkins, N.; Bao, A.; and Yamazaki, J., Moment Transfer from
Concrete Slabs to Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.Dec. 1989, pp. 705-716.
44. Van Der Voet, A.; Dilger, W.; and Ghali, A., Concrete Flat Plates
with Well-Anchored Shear Reinforcement Elements, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, V. 9, No. 1, 1982, pp. 107-114.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.