Levels-of-Approximation Approach in Codes of Practice

Aurelio Muttoni, Prof.; Miguel Fernández Ruiz, Dr., Lecturer; Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne – ENAC – IBETON
Station 18, Lausanne, Switzerland. Contact: miguel.fernandezruiz@epfl.ch
DOI: 10.2749/101686612X13291382990688

Abstract a set of design equations. In the LoA

approach, the accuracy of the estimate
Civil engineering projects typically involve a number of design phases, such as of the various physical parameters is
preliminary design, tender design and executive design. The required degree of refined in each new LoA by devoting
accuracy for the analysis of the behaviour and strength of the structural mem- more time to the analyses, so that the
bers increases as a project evolves. Codes of practice, however, seldom reflect accuracy of the behaviour and strength
this situation and propose a single design expression to be used at all phases of a is also improved (see Fig. 1).
project. This is not convenient in a number of situations, leading to lengthy analy-
ses for initial design phases and sometimes not allowing to consider all potential The LoA approach is based on the fact
load-carrying mechanisms or strength reserves for advanced analyses (design of that all analyses performed for design
complex structures and assessment of critical existing structures). of structural members are approxima-
tions of reality. These approximations
In opposition to this approach, codes of practice can privilege a design strategy may however have different levels of
named the levels-of-approximation (LoA) approach. It is based on the use of accuracy. First level-of-approximation
physically sound theories where the accuracy of the mechanical parameters used provides simple and safe estimates of
in the design expressions can be refined, if needed, in successive LoA. In the the behaviour and strength of a struc-
initial design phases, simple and safe hypotheses allow performing preliminary tural member. These estimates are
design tasks within limited time, checking principal dimensions and identifying low time-consuming and are typically
critical regions and failure modes. Refinements on the values of the mechanical sufficient for preliminary design or to
parameters in successive LoA thereafter allow to increase the accuracy of the check that a design provision (related
estimate of the strength and behaviour. to a failure mode or other criterion) is
not governing. Structures that prove to
In this paper, the main ideas and advantages of the LoA approach are introduced
be safe or behave suitably according to
and explained. An example of how this approach can be used with reference to
the simple and safe assumptions of the
the shear design of bridge deck slabs is also presented and discussed.
first LoA do not require further com-
Keywords: levels-of-approximation approach; design codes; assessment codes; plex analyses. Higher order LoA can
design strategy; shear strength; punching shear; critical shear crack theory. be used nevertheless when more accu-
racy is required. This is typically the
case of executive design, when some of
the parameters required by the design
A reaction to this situation has been a equations can be better estimated and
Introduction therefore the overall resistance of the
debate on the need of “concise codes”
Codes of practice have shown the ten- for design and of “detailed codes” for member. The most refined LoA may
dency to increase their complexity since assessment tasks. In addition, some typically require numerical evalua-
their introduction about 100 years ago. design codes propose different provi- tion of the physical parameters of the
This has been justified in many cases sions for buildings and for bridges, and design equations. This requires devot-
when too simple provisions were not different provisions for reinforced and ing significant time for analysis, but is
sufficient to address a number of design for pre-stressed concrete structures. justified when significant savings can
topics with a suitable degree of safety. This leads in most cases to inconsis- be obtained. This is, for instance, the
Transferring to codes new knowledge tencies between the several provisions case of the design of complex struc-
that can be relevant in some design and creates confusion to designers. tures or of the assessment of critical
situations and specialization of tasks elements (where expensive strengthen-
A different strategy to provide flex- ing can be avoided if all load-carrying
(design and assessment) are leading to ible, consistent and easy-to-use code
rather lengthy provisions, tending to mechanisms and strength reserves are
provisions is the levels-of-approxima- accounted for).
overrule all possible aspects of designs. tion (LoA) approach, where the accu-
These situations are not comfortable racy of the estimate of the response The results obtained through the vari-
for most engineers. Codes are too com- of a structural member (behaviour or ous LoA are thus consistent between
plex for performing preliminary designs strength) can be progressively refined
and may still not be general enough to
Accuracy

through a better estimate of the Levels of

perform refined tasks.
Peer-reviewed by international ex-
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board
Paper received: July 29, 2011
Paper accepted: November 03, 2011
physical parameters involved in the IV
approximation
III
design equations. The LoA approach
II
is based on the use of rational theo- I
ries grounded on physical models. The
Time devoted to analysis
behaviour and strength of structural
members are characterized through a Fig. 1: Levels-of-Approximation approach:
series of parameters (mechanical, geo- accuracy of the estimate as a function of
metrical and material properties) and the time devoted to analyses

190 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 2/2012

the levels and respect the same safety
format. This is significant as it allows
combining different design tools. For
preliminary design purposes, the rather
simple analyses can be handmade with
the use of a calculator machine. For
more refined LoA, the use of specific
software or even nonlinear computer
programs is advised. The results in
each new LoA allow the designers to
improve their knowledge on the behav-
iour of the structure and to refine the
strength or behaviour estimates only in
the regions where it is needed.
Although most experienced engineers
have traditionally faced the design of
structures with a similar approach (by
calculating strength limits using sim-
plified procedures prior to performing
detailed designs), not many codes have
been written following this strategy.
Some codes1,2 already include simpli-
fied and refined methods with respect
to some design topics (as for instance
calculation of shear strength of rein-
forced concrete members subjected
to shear and flexure1 or the analysis
of design forces for punching shear2).
However, no systematic or consistent
treatment of this approach is available
through these codes.
In Switzerland, the LoA approach
was formally presented3,4 and intro-
duced in the Swiss code for structural
concrete5 in 2003. More recently, this
design strategy has also been adopted
by the first complete draft6,7 of Model
Code (MC) 2010 with reference to a
number of topics (shear and punching
shear and second order effects). During
these years, the method has proved to
lead to consistent designs, with physi-
cally based formulas that can be easily
explained to students and understood
by engineers.8–10 In the following, an
example of an application based on
the LoA approach will be presented to
highlight the strengths of this strategy.
An Example of Application:
Shear Design of Deck Slabs
of Bridges
Experimental and theoretical work11–17
has shown that failures in shear usually
govern the strength of deck slabs of
bridges subjected to heavy concen-
trated loads. Failures can occur by
punching shear around concentrated
loads as well as due to shear close-to-
linear supports.
In this section, the strength of the deck
slab of an actual box girder bridge
built in the 1970s in Switzerland is
Structural Engineering International 2/2012
(a)
(b)
(3φ20 + 1 φ 22) @ 1000
φ 16 @ 250
φ 12 @ 250
22
60
2 φ 14 @ 250
2 φ 12 @ 250
600
Fig. 2: Example of application: (a) view of
the box girder bridge and (b) cross section
and main dimensions (in mm) and rein-
forcement of the deck slab
investigated (see Fig. 2). Loads are cal-
culated according to the Swiss code18
SIA 261 (2003) accounting for updated
values of traffic loads19 (two vehicles of
four wheels on 400 × 400 mm surface
each). Spreading of the wheel forces
through the asphalt pavement is con-
sidered20 accounting for a spreading
slope of 1 : 2 and a pavement thickness
of 100 mm (see Fig. 3a). This results in a
concentrated load size of 500 × 500 mm.
The analyses performed in the following
are in accordance to the Critical Shear
Crack Theory (CSCT)10,21,22 which has
shown to lead to good predictions for
shear strength of deck slab of bridges
subjected to concentrated loads.20
Punching Shear Strength
Punching shear strength can be eas-
ily investigated by using the LoA
approach proposed, for instance in
the first complete draft7 of MC 2010
(based on the CSCT). According to
this theory, the punching shear strength
decreases for increasing opening of
the cracks in the shear-critical region.
These cracks are estimated propor-
tional to the product of the rotation
of the slab at the shear-critical region
times the effective depth of the mem-
ber (w ∝ y · d). According to a study
[see Reference 10], failure occurs when
the following condition is satisfied:
Rd
fck
b0 d v
(a) Q
100
Asphalt
layer
400
Concrete
500
(b) Qd,1
qd,1 Qd,2
qd,2 qd,2
φ 12 @ 250
φ 12 @ 250
d/2 2d
2d
Control
d/2
perimeter
Fig. 3: Punching shear strength: (a) spread-
ing of wheel loads through asphalt layer
(units: mm); and (b) governing load case
(Qd1 = 630 kN, Qd2 = 300 kN, qd1 = 6,75
kN/m2 and qd2 = 1,875 kN/m2) and control
perimeter
In this expression (failure criterion)
VRd is the shear strength, b0 is the shear-
resisting control perimeter (set at dv/2
of the edge of the edge of the concen-
trated load or supported area), dv is the
average shear-resisting effective depth
of the member (distance between the
centroid of the flexural reinforcement
and the surface at which the slab load
is applied), d is the average effective
depth (d = dv = 180 mm in the present
case), fck is the characteristic compres-
sive strength of concrete (a value fck =
43,1 MPa is assumed for this bridge
according to tests on cylinders obtained
from the structure), gc is the concrete
partial safety factor (gc = 1,5) and coef-
ficient kdg accounts for the maximum
aggregate size (dg) whose value can be
calculated as kdg = 48 [mm]/(16 + dg) =
1,0 (in this case dg = 32 mm).
dg Level of Approximation I
The governing load case is shown in
(1) Fig. 3b, where the heavier loads are
Scientific Paper 191
placed in the middle of the slab. A first
and safe estimate of the strength can
be easily obtained by considering
full yielding of the flexural reinforce-
ment.10 This assumes that, at punch-
ing failure, the largest crack widths
and lowest potential shear strength
develop. The governing rotation can
thus be calculated as10:
r fyd
y = 1,5 · __s ___ (2)
d Es
where fyd is the yield strength of the
flexural reinforcement (fyd = 390 MPa
in this case), Es is the value of the
modulus of elasticity of the flexural
steel and rs refers to the distance from
the concentrated load axis to the line
of contraflexure of radial bending
moments. In this case (maximum rota-
tion in the transverse direction of the
slab) rs can be assumed approximately
equal to 1,2 m (one-quarter of the
clear span). Thus,
1,2 390 = 1,95%
y = 1,5 · ____ · _______ (3)
0,18 200 000
Leading to:
Rd
(4)
Rules for calculating b0 are given in
Fig. 3 (b0 = (16 + π)dv = 3,44 m, as
justified elsewhere20). The value of
VRd is significantly higher than the
acting loads inside the control perim-
eter (VEd = 465 kN neglecting distrib-
uted loads). Thus, the punching shear
strength is sufficient with a value of
compliance factor VRd/VEd = 1,61.
Use of Higher Order LoA
The first complete draft of MC 2010
proposes a number of higher order
LoA to calculate the punching shear
strength in a more accurate manner. In
this case, however, it is not necessary to
perform them, as the punching shear
strength is shown to be sufficient with
LoA I.
Nevertheless, in order to show the
potential gain on strength that can be
achieved through these higher order
LoAs, the results in terms of the load-
rotation behaviour of the slab for the
most refined LoA (LoA IV according
to first complete draft7 of MC 2010)
are shown in Fig. 4. The strength is
calculated at the intersection between
the failure criterions (Eq. (1)) and the
192 Scientific Paper
load-rotation behaviour of the slab is Qd,1
qd,1 Qd,2
qd,2
calculated through a nonlinear analy- qd,2
sis of the flexural behaviour of the
slab. The length of the control perim-
eter is also calculated in a refined
manner on the basis of the shear
field of the slab according to the first
complete draft of MC 2010 (Fig. 4).
The results confirm that safety is suf-
ficient, with a calculated compliance
factor VRd/VEd = 2,07, higher than the
one calculated through LoA I. Such
calculation, which requires devot- νEd,max
ing several hours to the analysis, is
justified only in critical cases where
expensive strengthening can be
avoided.
Shear Strength
Failures in shear can also occur close
to linear supports as demonstrated
experimentally.12,16,17 In order to fol-
low a LoA approach, shear design
equations of the CSCT will also be
applied in the following.22 In this case, 2000
the design failure criterion can be writ-
ten as follows: 1500
VRd fck
V [kN]
Load-rotation
nRd dv (5) 1000
VRd
curve
b d kdg Failure criterion
Vd
500
where vRd is the shear strength per
unit length (at dv/2 of the linear sup- 0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2
port). Similar to the punching shear ψ [%]
criterion (Eq. (1)), the crack widths in
the shear critical region are assumed Fig. 4: Refined analysis (LoA IV) of
punching shear strength: analysis of shear
to be proportional to a reference
field and nonlinear load-rotation behav-
strain (correlated to e, strain at the
iour of the deck slab
level of the flexural reinforcement)
times the effective depth of the mem-
Qd,1
ber22 (w ∝ e · d). In accordance with qd,2 qd,1 Qd,2
qd,2
the CSCT, Eq. (5) leads to lower shear
strengths for larger crack widths.
LoA I: Linear Elastic Analysis
of Shear Force and Safe Estimate d/2
of Reinforcement Strain
Figure 5 shows the governing load case
for shear design. Loads are placed at
2dv to avoid direct support of the
loads.20 The maximum shear force per Control Wheel
unit length at the control section can section
be calculated through a linear elas-
Fig. 5: Control section and governing load
tic analysis of the member. This leads
case for shear design
to a maximum shear force acting in
the control perimeter equal to vEd =
reinforcement can be calculated in this
188 kN/m.
case as:
A first estimate of the shear strength fyd
can be obtained by using Eq. (5) and 390 = 0,195%
e = ___ = _______ (6)
assuming the reinforcement at yield- Es 200 000
ing. This is equivalent to the consid- Introducing this value into Eq. (5) leads
eration performed for punching shear to vRd = 175 kN/m, which is insufficient
in LoA I (with maximum crack width to ensure the shear safety of the slab
leading to minimum potential shear (vEd/vRd = 0,93). It is thus justified to
strength). The strain at the flexural perform higher order LoAs to obtain
Structural Engineering International 2/2012
more accurate estimates of the shear
strength and to check if the strength is
sufficient.
LoA II: Linear Elastic Analysis of
Shear Forces and Bending Moments
and Consideration of Reinforcement
Strain on Shear Strength
A more refined value of the strain at
the level of the flexural reinforcement
can be used to improve the estimate of
the crack widths and thus of the shear
strength. According to a study [see
Reference 22], assuming a linear rela-
tionship for the reference strain as a
function of the acting bending moment
is sufficient for design purposes. This
yields to the following expression:
fyd mEd
e = ___ · ____ (7)
Es mRd
where mEd is the design bending
moment per unit length acting in the
control section (same location as maxi-
mum shear force) and mRd is the flex-
ural strength per unit length. It can be
noted that Eq. (7) leads to the same
value as Eq. (6) at yielding (mEd =
mRd, suitable expressions that can be
applied accounting for plastic strains
in the flexural reinforcement can be
found elsewhere23).
In the design example of the deck slab,
the bending moment at the control
section can also be calculated using the
linear elastic analysis of the structure,
resulting in mEd = 98 kN m/m. Thus,
introducing this value together with the
bending strength (mRd = 139 kN m/m
according to the reinforcement of Fig.
2b), into Eq. (7), the value of the shear
strength can be directly calculated
through Eq. (5), resulting in vRd = 189
kN/m. This strength is sufficient (vEd/
vRd = 1,0) and ensures that no strength-
ening of the deck slab is necessary.
Use of Higher Order LoA
As for the punching shear strength,
the shear strength of the deck slab is
shown to be sufficient with LoA II and
no further analyses are required.
However, if more refined analyses
are necessary in other cases, a possi-
bility will be to perform a nonlinear
analysis of the flexural behaviour of
the slab (accounting for redistribu-
tions of internal forces after cracking).
In doing so, the shear field shown in
Fig. 6 is obtained for the deck slab
investigated, which allows decreas-
ing the shear force to vEd = 178 kN/m
with a corresponding bending moment
of mEd = 104 kN m/m. This leads to a
Structural Engineering International 2/2012
qd,2
Qd,1
qd,1 Qd,2
qd,2
Shear
field
trajectories
νEd,max
Control section
Fig. 6: Shear field and shear force distribu-
tion along the control section according to
a nonlinear analysis
strength vRd = 187 kN/m with a larger
safety margin than in LoA II (mostly
due to the better estimate of the act-
ing shear force). As previously stated,
however, in this case performing such
analysis is not required.
Choice of a Suitable LoA
In general, the designer has to decide
which LoA is suitable for the analysis
he is performing. This is a decision that
belongs to the designer. However, it
can be concluded from the previous
example that the following objective
criteria apply:
1. In general, it is sufficient to use a
low-order LoA (even if only the
first one) for many checks on fail-
ure modes or on serviceability
behaviour that are not governing.
In such cases, further analyses using
more accurate LoAs are not neces-
sary. This is true at any stage of a
project and results in safe, economi-
cal and time-efficient designs.
2. For complex structures or detailed
analyses (assessments), the use of
higher order LoA can be justified.
The choice of the most suitable LoA
is mostly determined by the knowl-
edge of the physical and mechanical
parameters implied. For instance,
with reference to the shear design
of a deck slab, the reinforcement
ratio is usually not known when per-
forming a preliminary design. Thus,
using LoA I is sufficient (and is the
only one possible unless a guess of
the bending reinforcement is made).
However, for tender or executive
design, the reinforcement is known
and performing a LoA II is well
justified.
3. The most refined LoA (based on
numerical methods) are typically
very time-consuming and provide in
most cases a rather limited increase
in the strength of the member (refer
for instance to the shear strength
example). Their use is only justified
in special cases (as the assessment of
critical structures) where significant
economical savings can potentially
be provided and all parameters for
the analysis (reinforcements, dimen-
sions, material strengths) are known.
It can be noted that the application of
the LoA approach also allows com-
bining different tools and approaches
for modelling the structural members,
from simple models providing safe
estimates of internal forces for low
LoA to refined models (usually
nonlinear finite elements) for more
refined LoA.
Conclusions
In this paper, the strategy of the LoA
approach for design and assessment of
structures is discussed. The main con-
clusions of the paper are:
1. Different degrees of accuracy are
required at different stages of a
project (preliminary design, ten-
der design, executive design) or
of an assessment. Codes should
provide consistent design models
whose accuracy can be refined when
necessary.
2. The LoA approach is a suitable
way to enhance the estimate of the
behaviour and strength of structural
members when it becomes neces-
sary. It is based on the use of physi-
cally sound theories whose various
mechanical parameters can be cal-
culated with increasing accuracy by
using different LoA. The LoA aim
at helping designers on the choice
of the physical parameters of the
design equations, proposing reason-
able and consistent estimates.
3. For first estimates of behaviour or
strength, simple and safe hypoth-
eses are adopted. The analyses
are low time-consuming and allow
identifying of potential failure
modes, problems on serviceability
behaviour or checking the main
structure.
4. If sufficient strength or unsuitable
serviceability behaviour is obtained
by using first LoA, no further
analyses are required. This allows
Scientific Paper 193
 checking most failure modes and
serviceability conditions as well as
designing most parts of a structure
in a timely, efficient manner.
5. If more refined analyses are required
(lack of strength, significant poten-
tial economical savings) more accu-
rate LoA are advised to be used.
The accuracy in the estimate of the
behaviour and strength increases,
but the time that has to be devoted
and the parameters that need to be
defined also increases.
6. The results obtained through the
various LoA are consistent among
them and the same safety format
can be respected. The use of the
LoA approach also allows to com-
bine different design tools (simpli-
fied analytical procedures for first
levels through refined numerical
simulations for highest levels).
7. Codes based on a LoA can be used
for both design and assessment tasks,
as well as for the different project
phases (from preliminary design
to executive project or advanced
assessment).
Nomenclature
Es Modulus of elasticity of the
reinforcement
VEd Design shear force
VRd Design shear strength
b Width
b0 Control perimeter
d Effective depth
dv Shear-resisting effective depth
dg Maximum aggregate size
fck Characteristic compressive
strength of concrete
fyd Design yield strength of
flexural reinforcement
kdg Aggregate size factor
mEd Design bending moment per
unit length
mRd Bending strength per unit
length
rs Distance from load axis to line
of contraflexure of bending
moments
vEd Design shear force per unit
length
vRd Design shear strength per unit
length
194 Scientific Paper
w Critical shear crack opening
e Reference strain
gc Partial safety factor of
concrete
y Rotation of the slab at the
shear-critical region
References
[1] ACI. Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-08). American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, 2008;
473.
[2] Eurocode 2. Design of Concrete Structures—
Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,
CEN, EN 1992-1-1. Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225.
[3] Muttoni A. Introduction to SIA 262 Code
(in French: Introduction à la norme SIA
262), Documentation SIA, Société Suisse des
Ingénieurs et des Architectes (SIA), D 0182.
Zürich, Switzerland, 2003; 5–9.
[4] Schertenleib P, Muttoni A, Schwartz J.
Compression Members (in French: Pièces
Comprimées), SIA Document, D 0182
(Introduction à la norme SIA 262). Société
Suisse des Ingénieurs et des Architectes (SIA),
Zürich, Switzerland, 2003; 67–77.
[5] SIA. Code 262 for Concrete Structures. Swiss
Society of Engineers and Architects: Zürich,
Switzerland, 2003; 94.
[6] Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib).
Model Code 2010 – First Complete Draft, vol. 1.
Fédération Internationale du Béton, Bulletin 55:
Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010; 318.
[7] Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib).
Model Code 2010 – First Complete Draft, vol. 2.
Fédération Internationale du Béton, Bulletin 56:
Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010; 312.
[8] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M. Design
through an incremental approach: the Swiss
experience. 2010 Joint IABSE-fib Conference,
Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2010; 8.
[9] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M, Fürst A,
Guandalini S, Hunkeler F, Moser K, Seiler H.
Structural Safety of Parking Garages (in French:
Sécurité Structurale des Parkings Couverts), SIA
Document, D 0226. Société Suisse des ingé-
nieurs et des architectes: Zürich, Switzerland,
2008; 105.
[10] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M. MC2010:
The Critical Shear Crack Theory as a Mechanical
Model for Punching Shear Design and its
Application to Code Provisions. Fédération
Internationale du Béton, Bulletin 57:
Switzerland, 2010; 31–60.
[11] Burdette EG, Goodpasture DW. Correlation
of bridge load capacity estimates with test data.
Structural Engineering International 2/2012
Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Report 306, 1988, 75.
[12] Vaz Rodrigues R, Fernández Ruiz M,
Muttoni A. Punching shear strength of R/C
bridge cantilever slabs. Eng. Struct. 2008; 30(11):
3024–3033.
[13] Miller R, Aktan AE, Shahrooz BM.
Destructive testing of decommissioned concrete
slab bridge. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 1994; 120(7):
2176–2198.
[14] Ibell TJ, Morley CT, Middleton CR. Strength
and behavior in shear of concrete beam-and-slab
bridges. ACI Struc. J. 1999; 96(3): 386–392.
[15] Lu H-Y. Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete
Cantilevers under Concentrated Loads. PhD
Dissertation, University of Cambridge, Girton
College, 2003, 244.
[16] Rombach G, Latte S. Shear strength of
bridge deck slabs without stirrups (in German:
Querkrafttragfähigkeit von Fahrbahnplatten
ohne Querkraftbewehrung). Beton
Stahlbetonbau 2009; 104(10): 642–656.
[17] Walraven J. Residual Shear Bearing
Capacity of Existing Bridges. Fédération
Internationale du Béton, Bulletin 57:
Switzerland, 2010; 31–60.
[18] SIA 261. Actions on Structures (in French
: Actions sur les structures porteuses), Norme
Suisse SN 505 261. Société Suisse des Ingénieurs
et Architectes: Zürich, Switzerland, 2003; 114.
[19] Meystre T, Hirt MA. Assessment of
Road Bridges with Updated Load Models (in
French: Évaluation de Ponts Routiers Existants
avec Modèle de Charge de Trafic Actualisée)
Documentation. Département Fédéral de
l’environnement, des Transports de l’énergie et
de la Communication, Office Fédéral de Routes:
Berne, Switzerland, 2006; 80.
[20] Fernández Ruiz M, Vaz Rodrigues R,
Muttoni A. Design and Assessment of Deck Slab
of Road Bridges (in French: Dimensionnement
et Vérification des Dalles de Roulement des
Ponts Routiers). Département Fédéral des
Transports, des Communications et de l’énergie,
Office Fédéral des Routes, Report 636: Bern,
Switzerland, 2009; 53.
[21] Muttoni A. Punching shear strength of rein-
forced concrete slabs without transverse rein-
forcement. ACI Struc. J. 2008; 105(4): 440–450.
[22] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M. Shear
strength of members without transverse
reinforcement as a function of the critical
shear crack width. ACI Struct. J. 2008; 105(2):
163–172.
[23] Vaz Rodrigues R, Muttoni A, Fernández
Ruiz M. Influence of shear on the rotation
capacity of R/C plastic hinges. ACI Struct. J.
2010; 107(5); 516–525.