Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Inuence of stirrup detailing on punching shear strength of at slabs

Alejandro Prez Caldentey , Patricio Padilla Lavaselli, Hugo Corres Peiretti, Freddy Ariez Fernndez
Structural Concrete Research Group, School of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 3 July 2012
Revised 13 December 2012
Accepted 14 December 2012
Available online 9 February 2013
Keywords:
Punching shear
Detailing
Design codes
Current construction practice

a b s t r a c t
Most concrete design codes agree that it is important for punching shear reinforcement stirrups in slabs
to engage the tensile longitudinal reinforcement bars. However, due to the practical difculties that this
anchorage detail entails, it has been common construction practice in some countries (including Spain) to
place closed stirrups without encircling the main tensile reinforcement. The Structural Concrete Research
Group at the Polytechnic University of Madrid tested eight slabs with four different shear reinforcement
dispositions and the results show that slabs with the shear reinforcement disposition that matches Spanish practice show punching shear strength that is quite similar to the one shown by slabs with the transverse reinforcement disposition specied in the codes. The results also show a signicant reduction in
punching shear strength when longitudinal reinforcement does not pass through the slabcolumn
connection.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The majority of concrete design codes emphasize that punching
shear reinforcement stirrups, to be acceptably effective, must be
suitably anchored. Some codes, such as ACI 318-08 [1], specify that
stirrups should engage the tensile longitudinal reinforcement of the
slab and claim this disposition to be an essential aspect to ensure
the stirrups anchorage. The reasoning behind this requirement is
that when the structures reinforcement is analyzed as a Strutand-Tie Model, it is necessary for the tensile longitudinal reinforcement to transmit the variation of stresses to the vertical branches of
the stirrups. Nevertheless, ACI 318-08 as well as other international
design codes [2] acknowledge that this anchorage requirement is
particularly difcult to materialize, especially in thin slabs.
Thus, it has been common practice to implement alternative
transverse reinforcement dispositions that facilitate reinforcement
installation as well as expedite construction. For instance, in the UK
it is common to use single leg links, which do not fully encircle the
tensile rebars, as punching shear reinforcement [3]. Additionally,
Beutel and Hegger have performed tests that show that stirrups that
do not enclose the bottom exural reinforcement but use welded
transverse bars as anchor elements are actually quite effective to increase the punching shear capacity of the structure [4].
In Spain, however, it is traditional practice for contractors to
rst place the longitudinal reinforcement in the slabs formwork
and then set punching shear stirrups without encircling the main
Corresponding author. Address: School of Civil Engineering, UPM, C/Professor
Aranguren, s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Tel.: +34 91 336
6700x16; fax: +34 91 336 6702.
E-mail address: apc@he-upm.com (A. Prez Caldentey).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.12.032

longitudinal reinforcement bars but engaging them with construction wire, or by other means not ofcially recognized by any code.
This disposition does not meet the requirements set by the Strutand-Tie Model (see Fig. 1).
The purpose of this paper is to present the results and conclusions drawn from the punching shear tests that were carried out
in the Structures Laboratory of the Civil Engineering School at
the Polytechnic University of Madrid in order to assess the inuence that different transverse reinforcement dispositions have on
the punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs and compare these results with theoretical punching shear strengths determined with formulations of the Spanish Concrete Code (EHE-2008
[2]), ACI 318-08 [1], Eurocode 2 [5] and b Model Code 2010 [6].
Although several authors have analyzed and compared sets of
experimental results to theoretical values calculated with current
concrete design codes for the case of RC slabs subjected to punching shear failure [79], there are few studies available on the
importance of stirrup detailing in ultimate punching shear
strength and practically none considering the common construction disposition seen in Fig. 2.
2. Experimental research
A total of eight concrete slab samples were tested considering
four different rebar disposition typologies. In this way, for each
reinforcement bar disposition there were two identical specimens.
2.1. Denition of the test samples
The test samples were concrete slabs with dimensions:
2.80  2.80  0.25 m3 and a load introduction zone (column) with

856

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

Fig. 1. Examples of disposition of punching shear stirrups that meet the requirements of ACI 318-08 [1] and an actual picture sample of this disposition from the tested slabs
where the tension reinforcement (bottom in this case) is encircled by the transverse reinforcement.

separation of 45 between each supporting point as can be seen

in Fig. 3. In order to facilitate the execution of the tests, the load
was applied on top of the superior surface of the slab, for which
the positive bending moment reinforcement bars were placed in
the bottom face of the test samples. As can be seen in Fig. 9, the
load was applied to top of the column by means of four hydraulic
jacks.
The concrete mix of the test samples was designed to reach a
28-day compressive characteristic strength of 30 MPa, with
358 kg/m3 of cement class II/A-V 42.5 R, a water/cement ratio of
0.5 and a maximum aggregate size of 20 mm.
The eight test samples had the following punching shear reinforcement dispositions:

Fig. 2. Example of disposition of punching shear stirrups that matches the Spanish
practice.

dimensions: 0.45  0.45  0.20 m3. The slabs rested on eight supporting points, which were disposed on a circumference with radius of 1.25 m from the center of the slabs and with an angular

 Two slabs had no punching shear reinforcement and served as

reference test samples (slabs 1 and 2). This disposition is shown
in Fig. 4.
 Two slabs had punching shear reinforcement that did not
engage the tensile longitudinal reinforcement, a practice not
endorsed by the design codes (slabs 3 and 4). This disposition
is shown in Fig. 5.
 Two slabs had punching shear reinforcement that was disposed
in accordance with the hypothesis adopted by the Strut-and-Tie
modeling and as specied in design codes, engaging the tensile
longitudinal reinforcement (slabs 5 and 6). This disposition is
shown in Fig. 6.
 Two slabs had the same punching shear reinforcement disposition as slabs 5 and 6 but the tensile longitudinal reinforcement
bars were interrupted at the section where the slab connects to

Fig. 3. Geometric denition of the test samples.

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

857

Fig. 4. Reinforcement disposition in test slabs 1 and 2. (A) Cross section of slab; (B) bottom layer of exural reinforcement.

Fig. 5. Reinforcement disposition in test slabs 3 and 4. (A) Cross section of slab; (B) bottom layer of exural reinforcement; (C) detail of the reinforcement stirrups and load
application column in plane view (the rst row of transverse reinforcement is placed at a distance of10 cm from the column face).

Fig. 6. Reinforcement disposition in test slabs 5 and 6. (A) Cross section of slab; (B) bottom layer of exural reinforcement; (C) detail of the reinforcement stirrups and load
application column in plane view (the rst row of transverse reinforcement is placed at a distance of10 cm. from the column face).

the column and were overlapped with additional reinforcement

placed around the edges of the column (slabs 7 and 8). This disposition is shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7 only shows the bottom layer of
the reinforcement of the slab, the top layer of rebars was continuous through the support.

fy  575 MPa), that is about 60% higher than the expected (and observed) capacity in punching.
2.2. Monitoring
All tests were monitored with the following equipment:

The bottom reinforcement of all of the tested samples consisted

of bars of 20 mm diameter spaced 0.20 m + 12 mm diameter
spaced 0.20 m. The punching shear reinforcement used in slabs 3,
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 consisted of 2 closed stirrups of 8 mm diameter
spaced 0.15 m in each face of the support as can be seen in Figs. 5
7. With the described longitudinal reinforcement, the reinforcement ratio q of the sample slabs would be of q = 1.07%, which is
a normal value for solid slabs used in current engineering practice.
All specimens were designed to fail by punching. The estimated
capacity in bending allowed to carry a load of approximately
1979 kN (considering mean strength values for materials,

 Eight load cells placed in each slab support in order to measure

the load distribution in the slab.
 Five wire deectometers attached to the bottom surface of the
slab. These devices consist of tensioned wires anchored to the
structure that measure the deection in the center of the slab,
as well as in one-fourth and one-eighth sections in two perpendicular directions of the slab as shown in Fig. 8.
 Sixteen analog dial deectometers (12 on the upper surface and
4 on the lower surface of the slab) that measure the deection
of the slab at the points shown in Fig. 8.

858

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

Fig. 7. Reinforcement disposition in test slabs 7 and 8. (A) Cross section of slab; (B) bottom layer of exural reinforcement. This gure shows only the bottom layer. The top
layer was continuous through the support; (C) detail of the reinforcement stirrups and load application column in plane view (the rst row of transverse reinforcement is
placed at a distance of 10 cm from the column face).

Fig. 8. Schematic disposition of the monitoring devices.

Fig. 9. Set-up of a test sample.

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

 Four inclinometers placed on the upper surface of the slab in

order to measure the slopes of the samples.
 Six vibrating wire strain gauges placed on the upper surface of
the slab. These gauges measure the strain of the compressed
area of the structure. The decompression in this area is a sign
of upcoming punching shear failure [10].
The disposition of all the monitoring devices described above is
shown in Fig. 8. Some of these devices can also be seen in Fig. 9.
2.3. Test results
Besides punching shear tests, uniaxial compression tests were
performed on concrete cylinders of 150  300 mm at an age of concrete of 4, 7, 28, 90 and 120 days. The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Uniaxial compression test results.
Uniaxial
compression test
sample

Age of
concrete
(days)

Compressive
strength (MPa)

Mean compressive
strength (MPa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

4
7
7
28
28
90
120
120
120

23.9
30.8
30
34
33.7
36.5
41.5
42.1
42.2

23.9
30.4
33.9
36.5
41.9

Table 2
Age at testing of slabs and estimated mean concrete strength (using Eurocode 2 [5]).
Concreted
Slab number

07/12/2007
Tested

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

10/19/2007
11/12/2007
11/21/2007
1/30/2008
01/16/2008
12/05/2007
12/19/2007
02/12/2008

Age at testing t,
(days)

Estimated strength
at testing, fcm(t) (MPa)

99
123
132
202
188
146
160
215

37.23
37.63
37.76
38.43
38.33
37.93
38.08
38.52

859

Considering the results shown in Table 1, it is possible to prepare Table 2 that shows the age of each slab at testing and the estimated mean concrete strength at the time of the test. This value
was obtained using the expressions of Eurocode 2 [5], considering
a concrete strength at 28 days of 33.9 MPa. Fig. 10 shows good
agreement between measured values and the estimates determined according to [5], except for the value measured at 120 days.
2.3.1. Deections
The general deection behavior of the different sample slabs
has been rather uniform in all of the performed tests. All tests
exhibited punching shear failure. The loaddeection curves
(shown in Figs. 1113) show a linear zone, which corresponds to
uncracked behavior, followed by a zone where the slabs deect
with reduced stiffness. In no case was there any sign of uncontrolled strain produced by plastic deformation of reinforcement
steel bars. Fig. 11 shows the deections measured at one-eighth
of the length of one sample of each of the four slab typologies
tested while Fig. 12 shows the same deections measured at midpan of the same sample slabs.
Even though Figs. 11 and 12 illustrate the deections measured
in four sample slabs it should be mentioned that the general
behavior of the deection recorded in all eight tested slabs has
been rather similar. Additionally, Fig. 13 shows how the deection
of the slab varies along the span, at one-eighth, to one-fourth and
one-half of the length of the sample slabs 3 and 5. Once again all
eight sample slabs have shown a similar behavior; however, to ensure the readability of Fig. 13, it only displays the results measured
in sample slabs 3 and 5.
2.3.2. Slopes
It is interesting to study the behavior of the inclinometers because they reect the kinematics of the strain that is caused by
the progressive growth of the punching shear cracks [11]. The results show that all of the rotation is concentrated around the critical crack in such a way that the same slope is measured at the
supports and at a distance of 1/8 of the slabs radius. This data ts
the concepts set by Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT) as explained
by Fernndez Ruiz and Muttoni [12]. Critical Shear Crack Theory
states that the opening of the critical shear crack decreases the
strength of the inclined concrete compressive strut carrying shear
and leads thus to punching shear failure [13]. Fig. 14 shows the sets
of slopes recorded in the same sample slabs examined in Figs. 11

Fig. 10. Evolution of concrete strength with time (measured, and estimated at date of tests).

860

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

Fig. 11. Deections measured in tested slabs at one-eighth of the span of the slabs.

Fig. 12. Deections measured in tested slabs at the slabs midspan.

and 12 at two different points of the sample: at the support and at

one-eighth of the length of the slab.
Table 3 shows the maximum slopes recorded in the slabs before
punching shear failure. These values will be used in Sections 3.1.2.3
and 3.1.3.4 to determine the theoretical strength of the slabs
according to b Model Code 2010 [6].
The slabs failure mechanism is shown in Fig. 15.

2.3.3. Upper ber strain

Throughout the performed tests, a careful control of the slabs
upper ber radial strain (compressed area) was carried out due
to the fact that the imminent failure by punching shear is rst noticed by the decompression of that ber. This phenomenon has
been observed in every test performed. Fig. 16 shows the clear
decompression measured by extensometer 5 (shown in Fig. 8) in
all tested slab typologies.

2.3.4. Failure load

Table 4 shows the failure loads reached by the 8 tested slabs.
The difference in ultimate strength between slabs 3 and 4; and
slabs 5 and 6 is insignicant. However, this is not the case for slabs
7 and 8, which show a punching shear strength which is 15% smaller than that of the other samples (excluding slabs 1 and 2 with no
transverse reinforcement).
In order to complement the test results, Fig. 17 shows saw cuts
from sample slabs 3 to 8 taken after the experimental tests. Unfortunately, no saw cuts were performed for slabs 1 and 2.

3. Comparison of obtained results with theoretical models

The following concrete design codes were adopted to be compared with the experimental results: ACI 318-08 [1], Eurocode 2
[5], the Spanish concrete design code EHE-08 [2], and b Model

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

861

Fig. 13. Deections measured in slabs 3 and 5 at one-eighth, one-fourth and one-half of the slabss span.

Fig. 14. Mean slope measured by inclinometers placed in the support and in one-eighth of the slabs length.

Table 3
Maximum recorded slopes () before punching shear failure in
sample slabs.
Slab

Maximum recorded slope ()

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

0.46
0.45
0.49
0.54
0.50
0.53
0.48
0.46

Code 2010 [6]. In order to compare the punching shear strength of

the tested slabs with the theoretical models from the design codes,
the following technical criteria were adopted:
Fig. 15. Failure mechanism. The rotation concentrates in the cracked section.

 For the concrete, the compressive strength that corresponds to

the age of slab at the time of testing shown in Table 2 was
adopted.

 The yield strength of the transverse reinforcing steel, fywd was

limited to the value stated in the different codes:

862

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

Fig. 16. Evolution of the upper ber radial strain in the proximity of one of the slabs supports.

Table 4
Punching shear failure load results.
Slab

Punching shear failure load (kN)

1
2

968
950

3
4

1143
1247

5
6

1143
1197

7
8

1044
996

ACI 318-08: 414 MPa.

EHE-08: 400 MPa.
Eurocode 2: 250 + 0.25  d = 300 MPa.
In order to calculate the reinforcements punching shear
strength, b Model Code 2010, as it will be further detailed in Section 3.1.3.3, uses a particular formulation to calculate the stress
carried by the transverse reinforcement involving the slabs rotation (see Eq. (15)).
The limit to the stress in the reinforcement, which is more
widely known as a way to indirectly control cracking of concrete

in the web in SLS, is also relevant in ULS because concretes ability

to transmit shear forces is highly dependent on the crack width
[12]. Furthermore, as the stirrups surpass their yielding limit; this
translates into an increase in the opening of the shear cracks,
which reduces the concrete contribution to shear strength by
reducing the aggregate interlock effect [12]. This may imply that
some stirrups crossing the gap do not yield prior to failure.
In the expressions of Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 below, the
following notation applies: u represents the critical perimeter
according to the expressions of Section 3.1.1, fc0 is the compressive
strength of concrete at the age of the test shown in Table 2, d is the
mean effective depth of the test samples, taken as 200 mm, Vrc is
the punching shear strength contribution of concrete, Vrs is the
punching shear strength contribution of stirrups, and Vrd is the total punching shear strength of the slab as dened in Eq. (11).

3.1. Ultimate punching shear strength

3.1.1. Critical perimeter
Ultimate punching shear strength is veried on a critical perimeter that surrounds the column with a radius between one-half to
two times the effective depth of the slab [3]. ACI 318-08 adopts a

Fig. 17. Saw cuts of sample slabs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

critical perimeter that is separated 0.5d from the face of the

supporting column and is calculated according to Eq. (1).

u 4  c 4  d

863

The value of Pex was determined using Eq. (9)

Pflex 2  ma  L 

4
Ls

The value of c corresponds to the length of one side of the square

column and d corresponds to the effective depth of the slab.
EHE-08 and EC 2 consider a distance of 2  d as shown in the following equation:

where L is the width of the slab (in all cases L = 2.8 m), Ls is the distance between the slab supports (in all cases Ls = 2.5 m) and ma is
the maximum bending resistance moment per meter of slab calculated according to the following equation:

u 4  c 4  p  d

ma  Asl  fy  0:9  d

Finally, b Model Code 2010, as ACI 318, considers a distance of

0.5  d from the sides of the column, however, its critical perimeter
is calculated according to Eq. (3) which considers rounded corners.

u 4  c p  d

3.1.2. Slabs without transverse reinforcement

3.1.2.1. ACI 318-08. Eq. (4) shows the expression that ACI 318-08
(SI units) uses to calculate the punching shear resistance of
concrete in a slab without transverse reinforcement.

1
ud
3

q
fc0

3.1.2.2. EC 2 and EHE-08. Eq. (5) shows the expression that EC 2 as

well as EHE-08 (SI units) uses to calculate the punching shear resistance of concrete in a slab without transverse reinforcement.


q 
1=3
V rc 0:18  u  d  1 200=d  100  q  fc0

3.1.2.3. Fib Model Code 2010. Eq. (6) shows the expression proposed
by b Model Code 2010 (SI units) to calculate the punching shear
resistance of concrete.

V rc kw  u  d 
kw

q
fc0

1


1:5 0:6  w  d  48=16 dg

The variable dg is the maximum aggregate size of the concrete mix

in mm, in this case dg = 20 mm and w is the slabs slope in radians.
The value of w can determined with Eq. (8) or by adopting the
values measured in the test samples and shown in Table 3. In this
paper it was seen t to adopt both procedures and compare the
results.

1:5  r s  fy Pu
d  Es
Pflex

In Eq. (10), Asl is the longitudinal reinforcement area per meter (considering the reinforcement detailed in Section 2.1), Asl = 21.36 cm2/m, which
results that in a value of ma = 21.36  57.5  0.9  0.2 = 221.08 kN m/m.

Considering a mean effective depth of the slabs of 200 mm and

that one side of the connection column has a length of 450 mm
(see Fig. 3), the critical perimeter calculated with Eq. (1) is
2600 mm, while the critical perimeter calculated with Eq. (2)
is 4313 mm and the critical perimeter obtained with Eq. (3) is
2428 mm.

V rc

10

1:5
8

In Eq. (8), rs is, in this case, the distance between the column axis
and the supports (in all cases rs = 1.25 m), fy is the mean yield
strength of the longitudinal reinforcement steel (given no tensile
tests were carried out for the reinforcement actually used in the
slabs, in all cases fy was taken as 575 MPa, an approximate value
for steel B 500 SD consistent with the authors experience in other
tests, and unofcial information received from ARCER, an association grouping the main Spanish reinforcing steel manufacturers),
Es is the modulus of elasticity of steel (in all cases Es = 200,000 MPa),
Pu is the ultimate load at punching and Pex the ultimate load in
exure assuming yielding of all the column strip reinforcement.

3.1.2.4. Comparison to experimental values. In order to quantify the

proportion of the self-weight of the slab that contributes to punching shear failure, a pyramidal failure surface was assumed with a
top surface corresponding to the perimeter of the column and bottom surface corresponding to a square with side dimensions of the
column width plus three times the height of the slab (corresponding to a 1.5H:1V slope for the sides of the surface failure). The volume of this frustum can be determined with the Heronian mean of
the top and bottom faces, and the volume of the column can easily
be determined as a straight parallelepiped. Thus, assuming that the
specic weight of concrete is 25 kN/m3 the self-weight of the column segment, plus the weight of the punching frustum surface
would have an approximate self-weight (SW) of:


0:25 
0:452 0:45 3  0:252
SW 25  0:452  0:2
3
q
5:57 kN
0:452  0:45 3  0:252
The value of the self-weight of the failure surface is small so
that the value of the assumed slope of its side faces is not very
important in the evaluation presented below.
Adding this value to the failure loads corresponding to slabs 1
and 2 in Table 4, results in the punching shear strength of the slabs
without transverse reinforcements. Comparing this value with the
ones obtained considering Eqs. (4)(6) it is possible to elaborate
Table 5, where Pcode represents the punching shear capacity of
the slab considering the respective code and Pexp represents the
experimental value obtained summing the results shown in Table 4
and the self weight of the slab.
From this table, it can be concluded that all models provide
good estimates of the observed failure loads. The fact that these
values are slightly on the unsafe side in this case is not alarming
since, in design, the 28-day characteristic strength of concrete
would be used together with a resistance factor, guaranteeing adequate safety levels.
3.1.3. Slabs with transverse reinforcement
In the case of slabs with transverse reinforcement, some codes
hold that theoretical punching shear strength of concrete should
be decreased because wider shear cracks develop in these structures and therefore contribute to decrease the ability of concrete
to transfer shear stresses [12]. Other codes add the punching shear
strength of concrete to the punching shear strength of transverse
reinforcement but nevertheless make specic provisions regarding
the minimum amount of punching shear force the transverse reinforcement should absorb. In all cases, the ultimate punching shear
strength of an element can be determined with:

V rd V rc V rs

11

Given the disposition of the transverse reinforcement of the

reinforced sample slabs, Eq. (12) is applicable to determine the

864

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

Table 5
Comparison between experimental results and values calculated with design codes for slabs without transverse reinforcement (slabs 1 and 2).
Slab

fcm(t)

1
2

37.23
37.64

Pexp

973.57
955.57

ACI 318-08

EHE-08

Pcode

Pexp
Pcode

1057.58
1063.38

0.92
0.90

Average values

EC-2

Pcode

Pexp
Pcode

1060.61
1064.49

0.92
0.90

0.91

b-MC 2010 (theoretical slopes)

Pcode

Pexp
P code

Slope (Code)

1060.61
1064.49

0.92
0.90

0.0092
0.0092

0.91

g  Asw  fywd  d

q
Asw  fywd  d
fc0
s

13

3.1.3.2. EC-2 and EHE-08. The punching shear strength of the transversally reinforced slabs according EHE-08 and EC-2 should be:


q
V rd 0:75  0:18  u  d  1 200=d  100  q  fc0 1=3
1:5  Asw  fywd  d
s

14

Although both codes use the same expression, they adopt a different value for fywd, as explained at the beginning of Section 3.
3.1.3.3. b Model Code 2010. In order to determine the punching
shear strength of transverse reinforcement, b Model Code 2010
considers the rotation of the slab, according to the following
equation:

ryd

Pexp
Pcode

995.54
1001.00

0.98
0.95

0.0081
0.0080

1059.82
1071.76

0.92
0.89

Es  w
6

0.97

0.91

16

3.1.3.4. Comparison with experimental values. As can be seen in

Figs. 57, a perimeter of punching shear stirrups consist of 4
groups of 2 stirrups, each with 2 legs with an 8 mm diameter.
For Eqs. (13) and (14), the value of the reinforcement area is
Asw = 4  2  2  0.503 = 8.048 cm2. Whereas for Fib MC 2010,
between the distances of 0.35  d = 7 cm and d = 20 cm, there is
only one perimeter of stirrups, which also equals, Asw = 4
 2  2  0.503 = 8.048 cm2. Table 6 shows the comparison between
the experimental values and the predictions made by the formulations of the different design codes considering the values corresponding to slabs 3 and 4, slabs 5 and 6, and slabs 7 and 8,
respectively.
From the information of Table 6 it can be seen that the theoretical predictions made using the formulations from EC 2 and b MC
2010 are very close to the experimental values obtained in slabs 3,
4, 5 and 6 with errors smaller than 9%. For these slabs EHE-08
tends to slightly overestimate the punching shear capacity of the
slab, with errors of up to 21%. However, regarding slabs 7 and 8,
it can be observed that the experimental results diverge considerably more from the ones calculated with EHE-08, EC 2 and b MC
2010 with maximum errors that vary between 31% and 17%,
depending on the model, but all on the unsafe side.
Regarding the correlation between the experimental results and
the predictions by the formulations from ACI 318-08, it can be seen
that there is an average error of 21% in slabs 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the
safe side and a mean error of 5% for slabs 7 and 8. In all of the cases,
unlike the European codes, ACI 318-08 underestimates the punching shear strength of the slabs. This is understandable considering
that in slabs with transverse reinforcement ACI 318-08 reduces the
punching shear strength of concrete to one half of the value it previously estimated for slabs without transverse reinforcement,
whereas the reduction in other codes was, at most, of 25%. Albrecht
[3] has shown that at slabs that meet ACI 318 standards will require a signicantly greater amount of transverse reinforcement
steel than those that are designed following European codes.

3.1.3.1. ACI 318-08. According ACI 318-08, the punching shear

strength of transversally reinforced slabs should be:

Pcode

where Asw is the sum of the cross sectional area of all transverse
reinforcement within a zone bounded by distances 0.35  d and d
[6].

12

1
ud
6

Slope (exp)

V rs Asw  ryd

where Asw is the transverse area of one perimeter of shear reinforcement around the column, fywd is the admissible stress of the vertical
reinforcement steel developed for each code in Section 3, s is the
mean separation between stirrups (in all cases s = 0.15 m) and g is
an efciency factor that varies in each code. b Model Code 2010
has a different expression and a different denition of Asw, this
being the section of the transverse bars crossing the potential
punching shear failure surface (see Section 3.1.3.3).

V rd

Pcode

0.91

punching shear strength of the reinforcement for ACI 318-08, EHE08 and EC 2, assuming an equal number of transverse rebars in
each perimeter.

V rs

b-MC 2010 (experimental slopes)

P exp
Pcode

15

In this equation ryd, is the tension of the transverse reinforcement.

The punching shear strength of transverse vertical reinforcement is
determined by:

Table 6
Comparison between experimental results and values calculated with design codes for slabs with transverse reinforcement.
Slab

3
4
5
6

fcm(t)

37.76
38.43
38.33
37.93

Pexp

1148.57
1252.57
1148.57
1202.57

ACI 318-08

38.08
38.52

1050.58
1002.58

Average values

EC-2

fIb-MC 2010 (theoretical slopes)

fIb-MC 2010 (experimental slopes)

P exp
P code

Pcode

Pexp
Pcode

Pcode

Pexp
Pcode

Slope (Code)

Pcode

Pexp
Pcode

Slope (exp)

Pcode

Pexp
Pcode

976.82
981.54
980.81
978.03

1.18
1.28
1.17
1.23

1443.09
1447.80
1447.07
1444.29

0.80
0.87
0.79
0.83

1282.13
1286.84
1286.11
1283.33

0.90
0.97
0.89
0.94

0.0119
0.0119
0.0119
0.0119

1195.53
1203.30
1202.09
1197.52

0.96
1.04
0.96
1.00

0.0090
0.0094
0.0090
0.0093

1256.56
1254.47
1264.16
1250.56

0.91
1.00
0.91
0.96

Average values
7
8

EHE-08

Pcode

1.21
979.08
982.16

1.07
1.02
1.05

0.82
1445.34
1448.41

0.73
0.69
0.71

0.92
1284.38
1287.45

0.82
0.78
0,80

0.99
0.0119
0,0119

1199.24
1204.31

0.88
0.83
0.85

0.95
0.0084
0.0080

1279.17
1298.91

0.82
0.77
0.80

A. Prez Caldentey et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 855865

It is also interesting to observe that the ultimate punching shear

strength of slabs 3 and 4, which used transverse reinforcement elements not anchored as specied by the codes, is almost the same as
the ultimate shear strength of slabs 5 and 6, which used the transverse reinforcement disposition prescribed by the codes. It can be
interpreted that despite the fact that no truss-like behavior is clear
in slabs 3 and 4, the closed stirrups that do not encircle the tensile
longitudinal reinforcement are actually efcient in controlling the
opening of punching shear cracks, and thus increase the punching
shear strength of the slab. This effect would also explain the
acceptable results shown by vertical studs (with an anchorage
head not clearly connected with the tensile longitudinal reinforcement) used as punching shear reinforcement and seem to adhere
to the precepts of CSCT.
Additionally, the ultimate punching shear strength measured in
slabs 3, 4, 5 and 6 is similar to the values predicted by three concrete design codes (EHE-08, EC 2 and b Model Code 2010) while
ACI 318-08 underestimates the actual strength of the slabs. The
use of the experimental slopes or theoretical slopes for the application of Fib Model Code 2010 shows little difference in the nal results for these slabs.
However, in the case of slabs 7 and 8 in which the longitudinal
bending reinforcement does not cross the column area the experimental punching shear resistance of the slabs is, in average, 15%
lower than in the other samples with transverse reinforcement.
This low punching shear strength can be related to a lower efciency of the stirrups legs located near the central zone of the column due to the fact that longitudinal tensile stresses are
concentrated in the lateral faces of the column. Elaborating on this,
the lower capacity of these slabs can be due to the concentration of
stresses in the stirrup legs located near the overlapped bars. These
stirrup legs would yield earlier, resulting in a premature reduction
of the force carried by concrete, prior to yielding of the stirrup legs
located near the center of the column face. The brittle nature of the
failure would not allow full redistribution of forces in order to yield
the central legs of the stirrups once yielding of the side legs has
been reached.

4. Conclusions
From the discussion presented in the previous paragraphs, the
following conclusions may be drawn:
 All of the tested slabs have shown a very similar deection and
stiffness behavior during testing.
 The two slabs without punching shear reinforcement have
shown very similar failure loads which show good agreement
with the values calculated with all of the considered design
codes.
 Taking into account the considerable divergence between the
experimental punching shear strength of the elements and the
punching shear strength predicted by ACI 318, it seems that
ACI 318 can underestimate the concrete punching shear
strength for elements with low transverse ratios. This does
not occur with the other considered design codes.
 b Model Code 2010 provides ultimate punching shear strength
formulations that rely on the physical behavior of the slab and
produces results that are similar to the ones observed in the
experimental tests performed at the Polytechnic University of
Madrid.

865

 There have been no signicant differences between the failure

loads in slabs 3 and 4 (with the inadequate anchorage detail)
and the failure loads in slabs 5 and 6 (with a design codeendorsed anchorage detail). Also, in these cases the punching
shear strength predicted by three of the codes considered is
quite similar to the ultimate measured punching shear strength
of slabs 3, 4, 5 and 6. These results indicate that despite not fullling the specic requirements of most construction codes, vertical stirrups that are placed in at slabs not directly encircling
the longitudinal rebars can act as an admissible transverse reinforcement option by limiting the opening of critical shear crack.
 The punching shear strength in slabs 7 and 8, in which the longitudinal bending reinforcement does not cross the column area
is, in average, 15% lower than the other samples with transverse
reinforcement and is also lower than the values predicted by
three of the design codes. It is believed that this behavior may
be explained by uneven distribution of forces between stirrup
legs, with an overstress in the legs located near the overlapped
bars. This is an unsafe behavior and it would be interesting to
test other elements where the positioning of the stirrups is
changed, symmetrically moving the stirrup legs located at the
column center closer to the sides of the column to observe if
this disposition is more efcient in resisting punching shear
actions in slabs with longitudinal reinforcement that does not
cross the column connection area.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Fomento de Construcciones y
Cotratas (FCC) for nancing this experimental campaign, and also
Javier Ezeberry, Tobias Petschke, Ales Mensik, Jos Torrico, Isidro
Garca and Miguel Angel Pea for their help in designing and
implementing the test set-up and carrying out the tests.
References
[1] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-08) and commentary (ACI 318R-08). Farmington Hills (MI): American
Concrete Institute; 2008.
[2] Spanish Minister of Public Works. Instruccin de Hormign Estructural EHE-08
(Spanish Structural Concrete Code); 2008.
[3] Albrecht U. Design of at slabs for punching European and North American
practices. Cem Concr Compos 2002;24(6):5318.
[4] Beutel R, Hegger J. The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of shear
reinforcement in the punching zone. Cem Concr Compos 2002;24(6):53949.
[5] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 2 (CEN). Design of concrete
structures Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels, Belgium;
2004.
[6] Federation Internationale du beton (b). Punching of structural concrete slabs.
Technical report bulletin 12. Lausanne; 2000.
[7] Ramos A, Lucio V, Regan P. Punching of at slabs with in-plane forces. Eng
Struct 2011;33(3):894902.
[8] Hegger J, Husler F, Ricker M. Zur maximalen Durchstanztragfhigkeit von
Flachdecken. Beton Stahlbetonbau 2007;102(11):7707.
[9] Hegger J, Walraven J, Husler F. Zum Durchstanzen von Flachdecken nach
Eurocode 2. Beton Stahlbetonbau 2010;105(4):20615.
[10] Prez A, Corres H. Evaluacin de la Inuencia en la Resistencia a
Punzonamiento de la Forma de Disposicin de la Armadura Transversal.
Polytechnic University of Madrid, Structures Laboratory of the Civil
Engineering School, test report 20080317.
[11] Muttoni A. Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs without
transverse reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2008;105(4):44050.
[12] Fernandez Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Applications of critical shear crack theory to
punching of reinforced concrete slabs with transverse reinforcement. ACI
Struct J 2009;106(4):48594.
[13] Rodrigues R, Muttoni A, Fernandez Ruiz M. Inuence of shear on rotation
capacity of reinforced concrete members without shear reinforcement. ACI
Struct J 2010;107(5):51625.