Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Reliability of models aimed at evaluating the punching resistance of flat T

slabs without transverse reinforcement
⁎
Jaroslav Halvoník , Jana Kalická, Lucia Majtánová, Mária Minárová
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Radlinského 11, 81368 Bratislava, Slovakia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reinforced concrete flat slabs are structural members frequently used in building construction. Despite their
Reinforced concrete many advantages, such structural systems suffer from several drawbacks. From a safety point of view, the
Flat slab concentration of shear forces at the vicinity of local supports, e.g., columns, edges and corners of walls, can lead
Punching to possible structural failure from punching. Punching is a dangerous phenomenon due to its brittle mode of
Safety
failure and its ability to spread over a whole structure, which can be followed by a progressive collapse. Several
models for the assessment of punching capacity have been developed and calibrated using experimental results
from laboratory tests. Some models are fully empirical, e.g., EC2 (2004), while other models reflect the physical
nature of the phenomenon; however, their safety level was calibrated using experimental data, as the model
presented in Model Code 2010 or the CSCT-based model, which is expressed in a closed form. This paper deals
with a statistical evaluation of the safety level of the previously mentioned models for punching resistance
without transverse reinforcement. A database which includes the results of more than 600 experimental tests of
flat slab specimens has been used. The relations between the safety of the model and the quality of the concrete
used, the amount of the bending reinforcement, and the effective depth were found using advanced statistical
methods.

1. Introduction
Punching is one of the most dangerous forms of structural failure in
reinforced concrete slabs due to its brittleness. Failure at one local
support may lead to the overloading of neighbouring areas and then
may spread over the whole structure, thereby resulting in a progressive
collapse, see Fig. 1. Therefore, design models for the assessment of
punching resistance should at the same time be both conservative and
reasonably accurate to avoid unnecessary increases in construction
costs. The design model for punching introduced in Eurocode 2 [1] is
based on the model originally presented in Model Code 1990. The
model is empirical since the most influential parameters of the
punching resistance were statistically evaluated using the results of
experimental tests mostly carried out in the 1960s to 1980s.
A new model for punching based on the Critical Shear Crack Theory
(CSCT) was developed in the 1990s by Muttoni. The principles of the
CSCT were published by Muttoni and Schwartz [3] in 1991 for the first
time. The theory was later refined by Muttoni [4] and finally became
the fundamental design model for the assessment of punching re-
sistance in Model Code 2010 [2]. The model is more complex than the
EC2 (2004) model from a designer′s point of view, because the
punching capacity assessed depends on the deformations of the long-
itudinal reinforcement, shear slenderness, and maximum aggregate
size. The radial bending moments at the support and their distribution
over the span also play an important role in the estimation of the
punching capacity.
For the sake of simplicity a new model based on the CSCT theory
was developed and formulated by Muttoni and Ruiz [6] in 2017. The
formula for punching resistance was expressed in a closed form. The
model was originally proposed for the second generation of Eurocode 2.
2. EC2 (2004) model
The EC2 (2004) model was based on a formula proposed by Zsutty
[8] in 1968. Zsutty statistically evaluated the relation between the
shear strength and the amount of the main reinforcement, expressed by
the reinforcement ratio ρ and the concrete compressive strength on
cylinders fc [MPa]. After some refinements, the final equation (1) was
published in Model Code 1990.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jaroslav.halvonik@stuba.sk (J. Halvoník), jana.kalicka@stuba.sk (J. Kalická), lucia.majtanova@stuba.sk (L. Majtánová),
maria.minarova@stuba.sk (M. Minárová).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.055
Received 23 July 2018; Received in revised form 16 March 2019; Accepted 18 March 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
J. Halvoník, et al. Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636

Fig. 1. Progressive collapse of a parking garage due to the punching of the roof slab, Bratislava (2012).

CRk,c
VRd,c = k (100 ∗ ρfck )1/3u1 d
γC (1)

where

CRk,c is a empirical factor CRk,c = 0.18 MPa

fck characteristic concrete compressive cylinder strength
ρ reinforcement ratio, ρ = (ρxρy)0.5
ρx(y) reinforcement ratios of the main reinforcement in orthogonal
directions ρx(y) = Asx(y)/(dx(y)b)
d effective depth, the average value of the effective depths in two
orthogonal directions dx and dy
k factor which takes into account the size effect k = 1+(200 [mm]/
d)0.5 ≤ 2.0
γC partial safety factor, γC = 1.5
u1 basic control perimeter measured at a distance 2d from the face of
a column

3. Critical Shear Crack Theory Model (CSCT)

CSCT is a mechanical model for the assessment of punching re-

sistance. The model was verified by the results of 99 experiments. The
principles of the theory were derived by assuming that a critical crack
develops in the vicinity of a column, see Fig. 2. The punching resistance
is then ensured by an aggregate interlock along the critical crack and by
the tensile strength of the concrete. The shear resistance depends,
therefore, on the friction in the critical crack. The friction decreases Fig. 2. Principle of the Theory of Critical Shear Crack – based on the experi-
with the widening of the crack and is therefore proportional to the slab mental results, Muttoni (2008).
rotation ψ. The friction is influenced by the maximum aggregate size dg
as well. The relation between the punching capacity VR,c and slab ro-
tation ψ is expressed by the so-called failure criterion. Muttoni proposed fck
VRd,c = k ψ b0 d v
a hyperbolic failure criterion in 2008 with formula (3) below. γC (5)

VR,c = k ψ fc b0 d v (2) where

0.75 1 dv is the effective depth of the slab for shear, usually dv = d

kψ = ψd
= ≤ 0.6 b0 length of the control perimeter at a distance dv/2 from the face of
1 + 15 ∗ 1.333 + 0.625 ∗ k dg ψd
dg + 16 (3) a column
kdg factor depending on the maximum aggregate size dg,max [mm],
In order to increase the model′s safety, the failure criterion (3) was kdg = 32/(16 + dg,max)
modified later (5% quantile), which resulted in formula (4). This cri-
terion is used in the MC 2010 model with the design equation (5) Model Code 2010 also provides methods for the assessment of ψ,
below. depending on the load, Muttoni and Ruiz [5]. The assessment is based
1 on four levels of approximation (LoA), depending on the degree of
kψ = ≤ 0.6 accuracy required. Except for LoAIV, the rotation ψ can be calculated
1.5 + 0.9 ∗ k dg ψd (4)
using formula (6) below, which is based on a non-linear parabolic law

628
J. Halvoník, et al. Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636

derived from a quadri-linear model, where for LoAI, the ratio mSd/mRd
can be taken as equal to one. For LoAII the bending moment mSd can be
determined as mSd = VEd/8 for an axi-symmetric condition that refers
to an internal column and zero unbalanced moments. In the case of
LoAIII, rs and mSd can be determined using a linear elastic analysis.
LoAIV assesses ψ by using a non-linear analysis that accounts for
cracking and tension stiffening.
1.5
rs fyd ⎛ mSd ⎞
ψ = km ⎜ ⎟
where
ddg is a coefficient that takes into account the type of concrete and
its aggregate properties, i.e., 32 [mm] for concrete of a normal
weight
av shear span, the geometric average of the shear spans in both
orthogonal directions and not less than 2.5d
μ parameter accounting for the shear force and bending moment in
the region of the shear, for an internal column without an un-

d Es ⎝ mRd ⎠ (6) balanced moment μ = 8.

where
5. Closed form CSCT model (2018) – failure criterion update
rs is the distance measured from the column′s axis to the line of the
contraflexure of the radial bending moments The failure criterion (7) used for an evaluation of the fundamental
km factor, km = 1.5 for LoAI and LoAII and 1.2 for LoAIII formulae for the assessment of punching resistance (8) and (9) is less
fyd yield strength of the main reinforcement reliable than criterion (4) in MC2010. Therefore, we have proposed a
mRd average design bending capacity of a slab per unit length modification of (7), where instead of 25 in (7), a value of 33 has been
mSd average design bending moments per unit length. used. This has led to an update of formula (9) to the form in formula
(10).
Due to the higher degree of accuracy, the level of approximation
d
LoAIII was selected for a statistical evaluation of the safety level of the kb = 6.5 ∗ μ
model; see also Fig. 4, with a simplification, where mSd was determined b0 (10)
by the formula taken from LoAII for an internal column without un-
balanced moments.
6. Database of experimental tests

4. Closed form of the CSCT model (2017)

An experimental test database was created at RTWH Aachen and
collected by Carsten Siburg in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. Since
The closed form of the CSCT model (2017), “CF CSCT (2017)”, is
2015, the database has been regularly updated by Lucia Majtánová
based on the CSCT theory. In order to simplify the design of flat slabs
from the Slovak University of Technology (SUT) in Bratislava by adding
for punching, the basic formula (4) has been changed and expressed in
new tests published in journals and proceedings. The oldest experi-
closed form (8) below; as such, it looks now very similar to the EC2
ments in the database are from 1956 and the newest from 2017. A total
(2004) formula. The evaluation of the CF CSCT (2017) was published
of 660 test results are recorded in the database for specimens without
by Muttoni and Ruiz in [6] and [7]. The design expression (8) was
transverse reinforcement tested under axis-symmetric conditions. For
derived using the power-law criterion (7), instead of the original hy-
the purpose of the statistical evaluation, a detailed review of the da-
perbolic failure criterion (3).
tabase has been carried out in order to exclude non-standard tests, such
2 as those on specimens reinforced with non-metallic reinforcement or
1 d dg ⎞ 3
k ψ = 0.55 ∗ ⎛⎜ ∗ ⎟ ≤ 0.55 with smooth bars, tests where Lightweight Aggregate Concrete (LWAC)
⎝ 25 ψd ⎠ (7) was used, or tests where some important parameters were missing. Only
1/3 tests on slabs with an effective depth greater than 50 mm are included
kb ⎛ d dg ⎞ fck
VRd,c = ⎜100 ∗ ρfck ⎟ b d v ≤ 0.6 ∗ b0 d v in the analysis.
γC ⎝ av ⎠ 0
γC (8) The results of 404 tests are included in the statistical analysis for the
EC2 (2004) model and 385 tests for the CSCT closed form models. The
d difference between the amount of tests is due to the absence of some
kb = 8∗μ
b0 (9) important information, e.g., a missing shear span rs or av in the case of

Fig. 3. Comparison of the failure criteria used in the particular assessments.

629
J. Halvoník, et al.
Fig. 4. Comparison of LoAII and LoAIII as well as CF CSCT (2017) and CF CSCT (2018) using box and whisker graphs with the outliers highlighted in black (outliers)
and grey points (far out data) outside the boxes and whiskers.
the models based on CSCT. In the case of the MC2010 model, the ag-
gregate size dg,max is an important parameter for an evaluation of the
punching capacity, see formula (4). However, this information is
missing for many tests in the database, which leads to a significant loss
of the data from 385 to 241. Therefore, two datasets of the tests were
created and then analysed. The first dataset included all the relevant
tests, where if dg,max was unknown, the value of 16 mm has been used
(MC2010 LoAIII). The second set only included tests where dg,max was
known (MC2010 LOAIII*).
7. Statistical evaluation of the models for punching resistance
A statistical evaluation of the models for the prediction of punching
resistance without shear reinforcement has been carried out for four
models and five data sets, i.e., EC2 (2004), Model Code 2010, and
closed form CSCT models (2017) and (2018) with the partial safety
factor γC = 1.0. For strength fck the mean value of the actual concrete
strength on cylinders was used. The control perimeters have been as-
sumed at a distance of 2d from the face of a column for the EC2 (2004)
model and d/2 for the other models. Accordingly, the four formulae can
be validated.
For the sake of a comparison of the suitability of the four formulae,
the ratio Pi = (Vtest/VRd,c)i as the statistical variable was assigned,
where “i” is the number of the test; Vtest is the resistance obtained from
the test, i.e., the so-called experimental or test value; and VRd,c is the
punching resistance obtained from the particular design equation of one
of the four theoretical models.
For this purpose a so-called box and whisker graph was used that
depicts the groups of data through their quartiles. First, the median (the
thin gap within the coloured boxes in Figs. 4 and 6–8) splits the data
into two halves. Then, the median of the upper/lower half is taken as
the upper/lower bound of the box enfolding the nearest data to the
median. Then both the upper and lower whiskers delimit the 1st and
4th quartiles. Methods exist for detecting so-called outstanding data,
which are far from the others and can affect the analysis, thereby re-
sulting in wrong deductions. Accordingly, the outstanding data has to
be treated carefully. Sometimes a reason exists, e.g., an indication of an
experimental error, for omitting these data. However this decision is
left up to an expert.
“Pi greater than 1.0” means that the model is on the safe side; if it is
no greater than 1.0, then it is unsafe. Therein, a match of the para-
meters input in both the theoretical and test values has to be ensured.
The ratio Vtest/VRd,c – index is a one-parametric dataset. There were
405, 385, and 241/385 pairs of data tested in the EC2 (2004), CF CSCT,
and MC2010 models respectively. Each theoretical value is calculated
with the same geometrical and physical parameters as the one mea-
sured in the lab test. Thus the effect of these parameters decreases and
even becomes negligible. Such an approach enables the validation of
the empirical forms of the four models addressed along the entire range
630
Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636
of the input parameters.
The aim of the statistical analysis is to compare the four approaches
with each other by a comparison of the relevance of their design for-
mulae. All the calculations were carried out using Mathematica 11.1
software. At first, the normality of the Pi data set distribution was in-
spected. The Kolmogorov – Smirnov test indicates the degree of nor-
mality in all five cases. The rational histograms are provided in Fig. 5.
Then the outstanding data were detected and excluded from any
further analysis. For this purpose a special outstanding data test based
on the quartile deviation was used:
I = [Q1 − k (Q3 − Q1), Q3 − k (Q3 − Q1) (11)
where
Q1,Q3 the lower and upper quartiles
k coefficient: if k = 1.5 and x ∉ I, then x are outliers
if k = 3 and x ∉ I then x are far out data
The symmetry of this test ensures the existence and variability of the
extremal values. The resulting number of outstanding values are 24, 11,
19, 10 and 14 for EC2 (2004), CF CSCT (2017), CF CSCT (2018), and
Model Code 2010, respectively.
A comparison of the data range with and without the outstanding
data is in Figs. 6 and 8 in the box and whisker graphs.
Fig. 7 indicates the differences between the two MC2010 datasets in
a more detailed way. The first plot shows a comparison of the histo-
grams where the LoAIII dataset contains 385 tests and the LoAIII* 241
tests. The second plot is a box and whisker graph with the outstanding
data. The plot shows a slightly better level of accuracy of the model if
only the tests with the known dg,max are included in the statistical
analysis.
The 5% quantile Pk,0.05 is considered as the critical value. The
characteristic values of the normal distributions of the models are as-
sembled in Table 1 (see Fig. 9).
8. Discussion of the results obtained
The statistical analysis of the safety models concerning the results of
the tests carried out on the flat slab specimens for punching proved that
the MC2010 model, i.e., the level of approximation III, was the most
reliable one. It stands on the safety side and is sufficiently precise at the
same time. The statistical evaluation where the outstanding values of
the ratio P = Vtest/Vmodel are omitted reveals that the data of P are
normally distributed. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and other tests of the
data′s normality were used. Only 10 (14) outstanding elements of data
were withdrawn from the analysis; they represented 4.2% (3.6%) of the
entire dataset. The mean value of the ratio Pm reached 1.177 (1.157)
with a variation coefficient of 0.131 (0.137). The values in brackets are
valid for the dataset that also includes the tests with an unknown
J. Halvoník, et al.
Fig. 5. Ratio test/normative punching resistance histograms: (a) EC2 (2004), (b) MC 2010 LoAIII, (c) MC 2010 LoAIII*, (d) CF CSCT (2017), and (e) CF CSCT (2018).
The outstanding data are still included.
aggregate size. The values of the CoV document the very good accuracy
of the model. The characteristic value of the model’s reliability ex-
pressed by the 5% quantile Pk,0.05 exceeds 0.90 (0.88), which is an
acceptable value for this type of structure even though according to EN
1990, the target value is 1.0. The acceptance of this level of safety
follows from the favourable effects of the membrane forces and the
redistribution of the internal forces in the actual flat slabs. These effects
cannot develop in isolated slab specimens. Therefore, the model can be
regarded as safe.
The currently valid EC2 (2004) provides good results as well, even
though the highest number of outstanding data that were recorded, i.e.,
a total of 24 measurements, it was 5.9% of all the values that were
referred. The normality tests confirm a normal distribution, too. The
mean value of the ratio Pm reached 1.122, and the coefficient of var-
iation reached 0.165; thus the value of Pk,0.05 is 0.81, which is still an
acceptable level of reliability.
The CF CSCT (2017) model has the lowest level of reliability in
comparison with the other ones. The most positive thing to note is that
only 11 outstanding elements of the data were omitted, which was 2.9%
of all the tests. The normal distribution of the statistical variable P was
also detected. The mean value of the ratio Pm reached 0.962, and more
than 62% of the test data fell below one, while, e.g., in the case of EC2
(2004), it was 23.9%, and in the case of MC2010 LoAIII, it was only
Vtest/VRd,c
Fig. 6. Box and whisker graphs with outstanding data as shown in black (outliers) and grey points (far out data) outside of the boxes and whiskers.
631
Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636
12.1% (13.7%). The coefficient of variation was 0.129, which was the
best result, but the characteristic value of the factor Pk,0.05 was only
0.76. The reason is that Muttoni and Ruiz used a less reliable failure
criterion here than in the MC2010 model, see Fig. 3.
The proposed modification of the failure criterion in the CF CSCT
(2018) model increases the model safety. The normal distribution of the
statistical variable P was also detected. The mean value of the variable
P reached 1.036, and 38.5% of the test data fell below one, which is a
much better result than in the case of the CF CSCT (2017) model with
original failure criterion. The model was still accurate as shown by the
CoV, which did not exceed 0.133.
An additional statistical analysis focused on the relationship be-
tween the ratio P and the cylinder strength of the concrete fck, the ratio
P and the effective depth d of the slab and, finally, the ratio P and the
reinforcement ratio ρ. The most detailed analysis was carried out for the
concrete strength.
The statistical set was split into five strength ranges, i.e., less than
20 MPa, (20–40 MPa), (40–60 MPa), (60–80 MPa), and (80–120 MPa).
Table 2 provides the mean values, Table 3 the coefficients of variation
CoVs, and Table 4 the 5% quantiles of the ratio P for each strength
range, (see also Fig. 10).
No significant differences were observed along the individual
strength ranges of fck in the values of Pm and Pk,0.05. The best results
J. Halvoník, et al.
LoAIII LoAIII*
Vtest/VRd,c
frequency frequency
Fig. 7. Histograms and box and whisker graph model with outstanding data for MC2010.
were obtained for the concrete strengths below 20 MPa and the worst
for the strength range (80–120 MPa) in the case of EC2 (2004). Such
results were expected because the model was calibrated for data from
the most frequently used range of the concrete cylinder strength. In the
case of CF CSCT (2017), the strength range (20–40 MPa) yielded the
best results, while those in the range (60–80 MPa) yielded the worst
results. In the case of MC2010, the best results are for the strength range
(80–120 MPa) and the worst again for (40–60 MPa).
In this study, the focus was on the strength range (20–40 MPa),
which is nowadays typical of concrete for slabs. In each model, the
characteristic values of the ratio P affiliated with this interval were very
close to the results obtained in the global range. In the case of EC2
(2004), they are almost the same, while in the case of the CSCT models,
they are slightly better in comparison with the global analysis, e.g., in
the case of CF CSCT (2017), the 5% quantile increased from 0.76 to
0.773, and in the case of CF CSCT (2018), from 0.793 to 0.812. In the
case of MC2010, the values are nearly the same, i.e., 0.91 and 0.909.
When the extended data set for the MC2010 model is assumed, some
improvement is again observable, i.e., from 0.885 to 0.906.
Generally, the coefficient of variation CoV can be regarded as the
best statistical parameter showing the quality of the design equations.
The CF CSCT (2017) model has the lowest value and thus the highest
quality. Also, the other CSCT-based expressions have quite similar va-
lues of the CoV. These models mainly differ by their safety level. From
this point of view, the MC2010 model has the highest safety level for
both datasets, while the CF CSCT (2017) model has the lowest. The
statistical evaluation of the CF CSCT (2018) model shows that the small
modification of the failure criterion may increase the safety level, while
the CoV remains nearly the same.
The highest CoV was evaluated for the EC2 (2004) design equation.
Nevertheless, the model cannot be regarded as a low-quality model. The
acceptable safety level of the model provides designers with an efficient
Vtest/VRd,c
Fig. 8. Range of the data values after omitting the outstanding data.
632
Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636
LoAIII
LoAIII*
tool for the safe design of flat slabs against punching.
The diagrams in Fig. 11 indicate the relation between ratio P and
the cylinder strength of the concrete fck. Since the data are evenly
distributed around 1, we can generally claim that the proposed design
equation proves to be rather effective in fitting the test results. The
effectiveness of the different equations in fitting the test results was
checked either by parametric statistical analysis in the case of the dis-
similarity of statistically non-significant parameters or by the non-
parametric statistical analysis in the case of insufficient similarity.
In the next four plots in Fig. 12, the relation between the ratio P and
reinforcement ratio ρ is shown for each model. The EC2 (2004) was
calibrated for ρmax = 0.02; however, no limit was imposed in our ana-
lysis. Nevertheless, EC2 (2004) also provides very good results for
ρ > ρmax. In the case of the models based on CSCT, the limit for ρ was
extended up to 0.04. A very good global level of fitness between the
experimental and theoretical values was within the entire range of the
data. This is apparent from the plots and is proved by the tools of the
statistical factor analysis as well. However, a tendency, which is mainly
for a reinforcement ratio ranging from 0.5% to 2.5%, can be seen. The
safety level of the MC2010 model is slightly decreasing, while in the
case of CF CSCT (2018), it is increasing. The results are very similar for
the higher reinforcement ratios.
Fig. 13 Relation ratio P vs. effective depth d for the EC2 (2004),
MC2010 and CF CSCT models. The outliers are coloured in yellow.
The last four plots in Fig. 13 indicate the relation between the ratio
P and the effective depth of the slab d. In the case of EC2 (2004), there
are some doubts concerning the factor k that take into account the size
effect, mainly for thicker slabs. In the plot we can see that the safety
level of the model is decreasing in the interval from 50 mm to 150 mm.
The explanation is clear as the factor k is limited by 2.0 for slabs with an
effective depth d < 200 mm. However, the important issue is that the
ratio P becomes stable and oscillates around 1.0 for slabs with an
J. Halvoník, et al. Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636

Table 1
Statistical evaluation of the reliability of the models for the assessment of punching resistance.
Model Number of specimens with OD Number of specimens without OD Mean value [Pm] CoV [VP] Pk,0.05 % of data below one

EC2 (2004) 405 381 1.122 0.165 0.810 23.9

CF CSCT (2017) 385 374 0.962 0.129 0.760 62.7
CF CSCT (2018) 385 366 1.036 0.133 0.793 38.5
MC 2010 LoAIII 385 371 1.157 0.137 0.885 13.7
MC 2010 LoAIII* 241 231 1.177 0.131 0.910 12.1
OD – outstanding data (outliers), VP = Pm/σP – coefficient of variation, σP – standard deviation

Fig. 9. Ratio test/normative punching resistance histograms, (a) EC2 (2004), (b) MC2010 LoAIII, (c) MC2010 LoAIII*, (d) CF CSCT (2017), and (e) CF CSCT (2018)
without the outlier data.

Table 2 Table 4
Statistical evaluation of the model safety for the concrete strength ranges, mean Statistical evaluation of the model safety for the concrete strength ranges,
values. Pk,0.05.
Strength ranges EC2 (2004) CF CSCT CF CSCT MC2010 MC2010 Strength ranges EC2 (2004) CF CSCT CF CSCT MC2010 MC2010
(2017) (2018) LoAIII LoAIII* (2017) (2018) LoAIII LoAIII*

Global 1.128 0.962 1.033 1.165 1.177 global 0.810 0.760 0.793 0.885 0.910
≤20 MPa 1.166 0.987 1.050 1.191 1.165 ≤20 MPa 0.858 0.659 0.719 0.885 0.915
20–40 MPa 1.127 0.959 1.032 1.162 1.172 20–40 MPa 0.810 0.773 0.812 0.906 0.909
40–60 MPa 1.137 0.936 1.014 1.152 1.166 40–60 MPa 0.758 0.677 0.739 0.798 0.840
60–80 MPa 1.126 0.966 1.053 1.155 1.235 60–80 MPa 0.819 0.652 0.712 0.822 0.849
80–120 MPa 1.048 0.993 1.081 1.182 1.183 80–120 MPa 0.774 0.747 0.816 0.970 0.970

Table 3 following conclusions can be drawn:

Statistical evaluation of the model safety for the concrete strength ranges, CoVs. The ratio Vtest/Vmodel is characterised by a normal distribution for
Strength ranges EC2 (2004) CF CSCT CF CSCT MC2010 MC2010 all the models analysed before and also after ignoring the outstanding
(2017) (2018) LoAIII LoAIII* data.
The highest level of reliability was detected for the MC 2010 model.
Global 0.165 0.129 0.133 0.137 1.131
The characteristic value of the safety level of the model expressed by
≤20 MPa 0.162 0.151 0.171 0.161 1.130
20–40 MPa 0.163 0.127 0.128 0.133 1.137
the 5% quantile (Pk,0.05) reached a value of 0.91. Also for the extended
40–60 MPa 0.173 0.117 0.114 0.139 1.139 dataset dealing with tests where the aggregate size was unknown, the
60–80 MPa 0.183 0.161 0.162 0.166 1.116 value of Pk,0.05 was 0.88; the most used concrete strength range (20–40)
80–120 MPa 0.136 0.088 0.090 0.082 1.082 MPa had even better results, i.e., 0.90. The high quality of the design
formulae confirmed the low value of the coefficient of variation with
the value of 0.13. The model is safe and still provides economic solu-
effective depth of over 200 mm. In the case of the CSCT models, the
tions.
ratio P can be seen to be decreasing with the increasing effective depth
An acceptable level of reliability is also provided by the current EC2
of the slab. The global level of fitness is very good again.
model. The value of Pk,0.05 was 0.81 for both the global analysis and
also for the statistical set of the tests with a concrete strength in the
9. Conclusion range of 20–40 MPa. The model works well even for reinforcement
ratios greater than 0.02. The formula accounting for the size effect also
Based on the statistical analysis carried out in this study, the seems to be good for higher effective depths up to 350 mm. The model

633
J. Halvoník, et al. Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636

Vtest/VRd,c

Concrete strength ranges [MPa]

Fig. 10. Box and whisker graph of EC2 (2004), MC2010 and CF CSCT model comparisons.

Fig. 11. Relation ratio P vs. concrete strength fc for the EC2 (2004), MC2010 LoAIII and CF CSCT models. The outliers are coloured in yellow. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

provided the highest value of the CoV in comparison with the other
models. However, the value of 0.166 is still very good.
The CF CSCT (2017) model has the lowest value of Pk,0.05, i.e., only
0.76; when nearly 66% of the test results fell below one, slightly better
results of 0.773 were achieved in the case of the specimens cast from
the concrete (20–40 MPa). On the other hand, the model has the highest
degree of accuracy because only 11 outstanding elements of data were
detected, which is 2.9% of all the tests. Also, the coefficient of varia-
tions was the lowest among the models investigated, i.e., only 0.129.
Nevertheless, the lowest level of reliability is given by the mean value,
which is only 0.962.
The CF CSCT (2018) model with modified failure criterion, provides
a higher level of safety than the original one. The 5% quantile has been
increased to 0.793 and the mean value to 1.036; only 38.5% of the test
results fell below 1.0, which is half of the previous solution. Better
results were also obtained for the specimens cast from concrete with a
strength ranging from 20 to 40 MPa. The 5% quantile reached 0.812.
The low value of CoV = 0.128 shows the very good degree of accuracy
and thus the quality of the model.
If we take a look at the models analysed from the point of view easy
of use, the best model for practitioners is the EC2 model. Besides geo-
metrical parameters, i.e., an effective depth and column dimensions,
the punching resistance VRd,c only depends on two variables, which are
the reinforcement ratio and the concrete strength. The CF CSCT model
is a bit complicated, because the shear span length has to be known to
evaluate the punching resistance. The most complicated are the
MC2010 design equations because the rotation ψ has to be directly
calculated. So, the model’s ranking is inverted in comparison to the
results of the statistical analysis. Therefore, our recommendation is to
use the CF CSCT model. However, the reliability of CF CSCT (2017) has
to be increased to at least the value of the current EC2 model or
somewhere in between EC2 and MC2010 if the model is going to be
used in design codes. For example, the application of the modified
failure criterion has brought about a higher level of safety of the CF

634
J. Halvoník, et al. Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636

Fig. 12. Relation ratio P vs. reinforcement ratio ρ for the EC2 (2004), MC2010 LoAIII, CF CSCT models. The outliers are coloured in yellow. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 13. Relation ratio P vs. effective depth d for the EC2 (2004), MC2010 and CF CSCT models. The outliers are coloured in yellow. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

CSCT model and, in the case of slabs cast from the most used concrete,
the 5% quantile is greater than in the case of the current EC2 model.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development
Agency under Contract No. APVV-15-0658 and by the Scientific Grant
Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the
Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences Contract No. 1/
0254/19. Many thanks to Carsten Siburg and Prof. Joseph Hegger from
RWTH Aachen University for providing the database of the tests.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Experimental database used for evaluation of the model’s reliability.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.

635
J. Halvoník, et al.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.055.
References
[1] EN1992-1-1 Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1 General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, May 2004.
[2] Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib), Model Code 2010 – Final draft, Vol. 1,
Fédération Internationale du Béton, Bulletin 65, Lausanne, Switzerland, vol. 2; 2012.
[3] Muttoni A, Schwartz J. Behaviour of beams and punching in slabs without shear
reinforcement, IABSE Colloquium, vol. 62, Zurich, Switzerland; 1991. p. 703–8.
[4] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M. Shear strength of members without transverse re-
inforcement as function of critical shear crack width. ACI Struct J
636
Engineering Structures 188 (2019) 627–636
2008;105(2):163–72.
[5] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M. The levels-of-approximation approach in MC 2010:
applications to punching shear provisions. Struct Concr Ernst Sohn, Germany
2012;13(1):32–41.
[6] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M. The critical shear crack theory for punching design:
from mechanical model to closed-form design expressions, Punching shear of struc-
tural concrete slabs. In: Honoring Neil M. Hawkins ACI-fib International Symposium,
April 2017. p. 237–52.
[7] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M, Simões JT. The theoretical principles of the critical
shear crack theory for punching shear failures and derivation of consistent closed-
form design expressions. Struct Concr 2017:1–17.
[8] Zsutty T. Beam shear strength prediction by analysis of existing data. ACI J
1968;65(11):943–51.