ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 105-S19

TECHNICAL PAPER

Influence of Slab Thickness on Punching Shear Strength

by Gerd Birkle and Walter H. Dilger
Tests to study the influence of slab thickness on the punching shear strength of flat slabs clearly demonstrate the significant effect of size on the shear stress resistance, particularly for tests without shear reinforcement. New tests in which the slab thickness varied between 160 and 300 mm (6.3 and 11.8 in.) and tests by others with slabs up to 500 mm (19.7 in.) thick indicate that slabs without shear reinforcement thicker than approximately 260 mm (10.2 in.) may not have a high factor of safety if designed according to ACI 318-05. For thick slabs with shear reinforcement, the shear stress resistance provided by concrete is also reduced but to a lesser degree.
Keywords: flat slab; punching shear; reinforcement; shear; stud.

calculated by dividing the nominal shear resistance by bod, where bo is the perimeter of the critical section at d/2 from the face of the support and d is the average effective depth. It can be expressed as v n 0.50 f c when s 0.50d v n 0.67 f c when s 0.75d

vn = vc + vs with

(1)

INTRODUCTION The design of slab-column connections according to ACI 318-051 is simple and thus practical. It was developed in the 1960s and was primarily based on work by Moe2 and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326.3 No considerable changes have been made to the punching provisions since. Nevertheless, this empirical design procedure has several shortcomings, one of them being the neglect of size effects.4-9 The main reason for the disregard of the size effect is the lack of conclusive experimental evidence. This lack of experimental data has triggered the main test series presented herein. A total of nine slab-column connections were tested, with the slab thickness as their main variable. Slabs with and without shear stud reinforcement designed to fail inside and outside the shear-reinforced zone were investigated. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The lack of a factor for size effect in the ACI 318-05 equations for the punching shear strength provided by concrete in slabs is a limitation of the code. Addressing this question is very timely in view of the current discussions in Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion, on size effect on beam shear. The evidence presented in this paper demonstrates conclusively that a size factor is urgently needed for the safe design of slabs with an effective depth larger than approximately 220 mm (8.7 in.). BACKGROUND The design for shear in two-way slabs according to ACI 318-05 is based on the concept of limiting the shear force that can be resisted along a defined failure surface. The design capacity of the connection, that is, the factored nominal shear resistance Vn , shall not be less than the shear force due to factored loads Vu. The nominal shear resistance Vn is the sum of the nominal shear capacities provided by the concrete and the shear reinforcement. In this paper, the slab thickness is one of the main variables. It is therefore more expedient to express the shear resistance in terms of stresses rather than forces; this facilitates direct comparison of the test results. The nominal shear stress resistance can be 180

where vc and vs are the shear stress resistances provided by the concrete and the steel, respectively, and s is the spacing of the shear studs. When headed studs are used as shear reinforcement, ACI 421.1R-9910 limits the nominal shear stress resistance vn, depending on the stud spacing s. For the tests reported in this paper, the nominal shear stress resistance of concrete without shear reinforcement is defined as vc = 0.33 f c (2)

where fc is the specified concrete strength in MPa. For the majority of slab-column connections encountered in practice, Eq. (2) governs the design. For slab-column connections with shear reinforcement, the contribution of the concrete to the shear strength is based on an expression similar to Eq. (2); however, the constant 0.33 is reduced to 0.17 for slabs with conventional shear reinforcement. For slabs reinforced with shear studs, the following value is proposed in ACI 421.1R-99 vc = 0.25 f c (3)

The reason for the higher value for slabs with shear studs is the slip-free anchorage of the headed studs. For the critical section at d/2 outside the shear-reinforced zone, the following equation applies vc = 0.17 f c (4)

The contribution of the shear reinforcement to the nominal shear stress resistance is expressed as A v f yv v s = ----------bo s (5)

ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, March-April 2008. MS No. S-2006-405.R2 received October 31, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the JanuaryFebruary 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2008.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

Gerd Birkle is a Structural Engineer with Stantec Consulting Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada. He received his Dipl-Ing degree in civil engineering from the University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, and his PhD from the University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, in 2004. Walter H. Dilger, FACI, is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary. He is a member of ACI Committee 209, Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete, and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. His research interests include creep of plain and structural concrete and reinforced and prestressed concrete.

In Eq. (5), Av is the cross-sectional area of all vertical legs of shear reinforcement on a peripheral line parallel to the column perimeter; fyv is the specified yield strength of the shear reinforcement; and s is the spacing of the shear elements in the direction perpendicular to the critical section. The effect of the slab thickness on the punching shear resistance had been recognized as early as 1938 by Graf11 who reported that the shear strength at punching found in a 500 mm (19.7 in.) thick slab is more or less the same as the shear strength of beams failing in shear, which is approximately half the punching shear strength of a two-way slab with a slab thickness of 150 mm (6.3 in.). In 1948, Richart12 came to the conclusion that the shear stress at failure decreases considerably with increasing effective depth of the tested footings. Recent experiments by Guandalini and Muttoni13 confirm this trend. An investigation into the size effect was also recently reported by Li.14 Unfortunately, these tests had small span-depth ratios that were further reduced for the thicker slab. Therefore, the results of this test series only allow for limited conclusions in regard to a size factor. An explanation for the lack of recognition for this important parameter in ACI 318-05 is, perhaps, the fact that most experimental studies of the last 50 years were conducted on slabs with a thickness of approximately 150 mm (6 in.). This means that experimental evidence for the size effect in slabs is rather scarce. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Test parameters A total of nine slab-column assemblies were tested to investigate the influence of the slab thickness on the shear strength of slab-column connections in three series. Series 1: Slabs without shear reinforcement; Series 2: Slabs with shear reinforcement designed to fail inside the shear-reinforced zone; and Series 3: Slabs with shear reinforcement designed to fail outside the shear-reinforced zone. Each of the three test series had slabs with thicknesses of 160, 230, and 300 mm (6.3, 9.1, and 11.8 in.). The main test parameters are defined in Fig. 1 and summarized in Table 1. The tests of Series 1 (Specimens 1, 7, and 10) were designed to investigate the size effect on slabs without shear reinforcement. The specimens of Series 2 (Specimens 2, 9, and 12) were designed to fail in punching with the punching cone expected to develop inside the shear reinforced zone. To ensure shear failure in the vicinity of the column, the stud spacing s was chosen to be 0.75d, the upper limit for s, and the shear studs were extended to approximately 4d from the column faces. The distance between the first row of studs and the column face so was taken as 0.5s to avoid shear failure between the column and the first row of shear studs. The tests of Series 3 (Specimens 4, 8, and 11) were designed to fail outside the shear-reinforced zone. Therefore, ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

Fig. 1Definition of specimen variables. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.) Table 1Test parameters
Test 1 2 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ref. 13 520 200 464 2145
*Twenty-eight-day

c, mm 250

h, mm 160

dave, mm 124

Bc, mm 1000

fy , fc ,* fc_test , MPa MPa ave,% MPa Studs 33.1 27.7 36.1 33.5 36.2 29.0 38.0 35.0 35.0 35.2 31.4 30.0 33.5 32.4 0.32 550 1.10 524 1.30 531 1.54 488 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

300

230

190

1500

35.0 36.1 31.0

350

300

260

1900

30.0 33.8

cylinder strength (100 x 200 mm cylinders). Cylinder strength at day of testing (100 x 200 mm cylinders). Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 25.4 mm = 1 in.

a tighter stud spacing s = 0.5d was chosen with the studs extending to approximately 2.3d from the column faces. Test specimens The shape of all test specimens was octagonal, which is a compromise between a square specimen being the most convenient to fabricate and a circular one that can be assumed to represent the line of contraflexure around the column for a two-way slab with equal spans in both directions. The size of the square column c and the radius Bc, defining the position of the supports of the octagonal slabs, were varied linearly with the slab thickness. This variation was chosen because the slab thickness is usually selected by minimum thickness requirements that are linearly related to the clear span in most major design codes. The reinforcement ratio was slightly decreased for increasing slab thickness to keep the ratio between the predicted shear capacity (according to ACI 318-05) and the flexural capacity (established by yieldline theory) of the specimens constant. This approach was chosen over keeping a constant reinforcement ratio because the main influence of the reinforcement ratio on the punching capacity is to control cracking; hence, it is desirable to be at a similar level of flexural capacity when punching occurs. This can only be achieved by a reduction in reinforcement ratio for an increase in slab thickness. The yield line pattern used in the design was derived from a standard yield line pattern for a circular specimen of radius Bc, with a circular column with the circumference of the circular column replaced by the circumference of the square column Bc Bc V flex = 2 --------------- m ave 2 ------------------------------------------ m ave (6) Bc cc Bc 2 ( cx + cy ) 181

Table 2Concrete mixture proportions

Water, kg/m3 195 180 Cement Fine Coarse (Type GU), aggregate, aggregate, 3 3 kg/m kg/m kg/m3 300 288 870 885 1085 1193

Specimens 1 to 6 7 to 12

w/c 0.65 0.63

Note: 1 kg/m3 = 1.68 lb/yd3.

Fig. 2Flexural reinforcement layout. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.)

Table 3Summary of stud parameters for Series 2 and 3

Stud dimensions Test 4 2 8 9 Diameter, Area, Height, fyv, MPa mm mm2 mm 9.5 9.5 12.7 71 71 127 120 190 260 465 393 460 409 Layout parameters dave, mm 124 190 260 so s Extent 2.2d 4.0d 2.4d 4.3d 2.2d 4.1d

0.25d 0.50d 0.38d 0.75d 0.25d 0.50d 0.38d 0.75d 0.25d 0.50d 0.38d 0.75d

Fig. 3Stud rails. (Note: 25 mm = 1 in.)

11 12

Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Flexural reinforcement The flexural reinforcement layout is shown in Fig. 2 and all flexural reinforcement had a 180-degree hook at both ends to ensure proper anchorage. The concrete cover was 20 mm (0.79 in.). The reinforcing bars had a specified yield strength of 400 MPa (58.0 ksi). The 15M and 20M bars shown in Fig. 2 have a cross-sectional area Ab = 200 and 300 mm2 (0.310 and 0.465 in.2), respectively. The bottom reinforcement (compression zone) comprised 10M bars with a cross-sectional area Ab = 100 mm2 (0.155 in.2) spaced at 200 mm (7.87 in.). Each series of specimens had reinforcement from the same heat. Testing was done according to ASTM A370-05.15 The yield strength, fy , listed in Table 1 was taken as the average of three tension tests at a 2% offset. Fig. 4Stud layout for Test Series 2 and 3. (Note: 25 mm = 1 in.) where mave can be calculated as ave d ave f y mave = avedave fy d ave ----------------------- 2 1 f c (7) Shear reinforcement In Test Series 2 and 3, shear reinforcement in the form of shear studs was installed. The shear studs were double-head studs tack-welded to a steel rail to ensure proper spacing and accurate installation (refer to Fig. 3). The shear stud parameters are summarized in Table 3 and the layout of the studs is illustrated in Fig. 4. Test setup The testing of specimens with different dimensions requires a flexible test setup. This was achieved by supporting the slabs by means of eight high-strength bars anchored in the strong floor and by placing the actuator between the specimen and the strong floor (refer to Fig. 5). Depending on the size of the specimens, the high-strength bars were supported either directly through the strong floor or by steel yokes. Both supporting systems were engineered to have similar stiffnesses so that all eight bars were more or less equally stressed during testing. To monitor the bar forces, measurements were made by strain gauges fitted to opposing sides on the highstrength bars. The bar forces were transferred to the concrete slab by 200 mm (8 in.) diameter spherical seats to allow slab displacements to develop without bending the rods. The test setup is described in more detail by Birkle.9 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

where ave is the average flexural reinforcement ratio, dave is the average effective depth, fy is the yield strength of the flexural reinforcement, and 1 is the stress block factor, that is, the ratio of average stress in the rectangular stress block to the specified concrete strength. It is recognized that the assumed simple yield pattern and Eq. (6) give an approximate upper bound of Vflex. Concrete strength The target strength of the concrete at 28 days fc was 30 MPa (4350 psi). Three 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders were tested at 28 days and three on the days of the experiments. The maximum coarse aggregate size was 14 mm (0.55 in.) for the 160 mm (6.3 in.) slabs and 20 mm (0.79 in.) for the thicker slabs. The proportions of the concrete mixtures are summarized in Table 2. 182

Fig. 7Location of expansion dial gauges. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.)

Fig. 5Test setup (arrangement used for Specimens 1 to 6).

Fig. 8Location of strain measurements on reinforcement. Table 4Summary of test results

Test 1 4 160 124 1496 h, dave, mm mm bo , fc_test , mm MPa Extent v, % 36.2 38.0 29.0 35.0 230 190 1960 35.0 35.2 31.4 300 260 464 2440 3936 30.0 33.5 32.4 2.2d 4.0d 2.4d 4.3d 2.2d 4.1d s Failure vu, location MPa 2.60 3.09 2.22 2.82 2.93 1.65 2.55 2.40 1.18

0.63 0.50d Outside 3.42 0.42 0.75d Inside 0.00 0.29 0.50d Inside 0.19 0.75d Inside 0.32 0.50d Inside 0.21 0.75d Inside

Fig. 6Location of displacement transducers. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.) Measurements The applied load was recorded using a calibrated load cell or, in the case of the 300 mm (11.8 in.) thick specimens, by a pressure transducer that had been calibrated before each test. The applied load includes the self-weight of the specimens. Displacements of the specimens were measured at the five points shown in Fig. 6 using linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs). To locate the position of the shear cracks within the slab depth, the transverse expansion of the slab was measured on Specimens 7 to 12 by means of dial gauges at the eight locations shown in Fig. 7(a). The dial gauges were attached to thin metal rods placed through small sleeves in the slab and anchored by 180-degree hooks at the bottom (refer to Fig. 7(b)). Steel strains were monitored on the flexural reinforcement as well as the studs in one quadrant of the slab (refer to Fig. 8(a) and (b)). For the 160 mm (6.3 in.) thick specimens, flexural strain measurements were taken on each bar, whereas on all the other specimens, the measurements were taken on alternate bars. Strains on studs were measured at midheight of the stem of the stud. Measurements were taken on two studrails adjacent to one corner of the column. The load was applied in steps of 50, 75, and 100 kN (11.2, 16.9, and 22.5 kips) to the slabs of thickness 160, 230, and 300 mm (6.3, 9.1, and 11.8 in.), respectively. At each load step, cracks were marked with a different color on the whitewashed surface and slab expansions were recorded. The ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

2 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ref. 13 500

Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.

duration of the tests depended on the number of load steps and the extent of cracking and took up to 3 hours. All tests were terminated after punching had occurred and the load had dropped considerably. TEST RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Failure loads With the exception of Specimen 4, all tests failed at d/2 from the column face. The recorded failure loads and the location of the punching cone are summarized in Table 4. This table also lists other important test parameters: slab thickness h; average effective depth dave; concrete strength fc_test at the time of testing; extent of the shear reinforcement from the column faces; percentage of shear reinforcement v, calculated as the total area of shear reinforcement along the perimeter Av divided by the critical section bo and the spacing of shear reinforcement s; location of the punching failure (inside meaning inside the shear-reinforced zone); and shear stress at failure vu inside or outside the shear reinforced zone. 183

Table 5Evaluation of test results

1 2 Vu, kN 483 634 574 825 1050 1091 1046 1620 1520 3 vu,in, MPa 2.60 3.42 3.09 2.22 2.82 2.93 1.65 2.55 2.40 4 vc ,* MPa 1.99 1.54 1.35 1.95 1.48 1.48 1.85 1.37 1.45 5 6 7 8 vu/(vc + vs ) 1.31 0.76 1.03 1.13 1.00 1.24 0.89 0.95 1.03 9 vu /vmax 0.83 1.15 0.95 0.99 0.70 0.83 10 11 12 vu/vc 1.70 1.22 1.28 0.89 1.23 0.73 Inside shear-reinforced zone Test 1 4 2 7 8 9 10 11 12
*

Outside shear-reinforced zone vu,out, MPa vc = vn, MPa 1.78 1.12 1.29 0.90 1.14 0.71 1.05 0.92 1.01 1.01 0.93 0.98

vs, MPa vn = vc + vs, MPa vmax , MPa 2.94 1.66 1.33 0.89 1.31 0.87 1.99 4.48 3.00 1.95 2.81 2.37 1.85 2.68 2.32 4.13 2.69 2.96 2.97 3.67 2.89

For slabs without reinforcement: vc = vn = 0.33fc_test ; for slabs with stud shear reinforcement: vc = 0.25fc_test . For slabs with shear reinforcement and s 0.5d: v max = 0.67fc_test ; when 0.5d s 0.75d: vmax = 0.50fc_test . Shear reinforcement in Specimen 4 did not reach yield. Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.

Fig. 9Influence of slab thickness on failure stress in slabs without shear reinforcement. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.)

Fig. 10Location of failure crack of Specimen 11. Effect of slab thickness Slabs without shear reinforcementA very alarming finding of the test results listed in Table 4 is the rapid decrease of the shear stress resistance vu at the critical section d/2 from the column with increasing slab thickness. The nominal shear stress resistance of 0.33(fc )1/2 (refer to Eq. (4)) for slabs without shear reinforcement was only achieved by the 160 and 230 mm (6.3 and 9.1 in.) thick slabs (Specimens 1 and 7). The decrease of shear stress resistance at failure with increasing effective depth is shown in Fig. 9 in terms of the ratio vu/vn. The continued decrease of the shear stress resistance is confirmed by a recent test by Guandalini and Muttoni13 on a 500 mm (19.7 in.) thick slab the result of which is added to the authors tests in Fig. 9. The data of this test is also added to Tables 1 and 4. Examining 184

Fig. 9 shows that for slabs without shear reinforcement, the stresses at failure for the 300 and 500 mm (11.8 and 19.7 in.) thick slabs are only 89% and 63% of the ACI 318-05 nominal failure stress, respectively. The relative values of vu/vn for 160, 230, 300, and 500 mm (6.3, 9.1, 11.8, and 19.7 in.) slabs are: 1.00, 0.87, 0.68, and 0.48. Note that the influence of the maximum aggregate size on the punching capacity was not considered in this study but should be expected to have limited influence on the findings of this study. Slabs with shear reinforcementThe failure loads of the slabs with shear reinforcement are listed in Table 4 and the evaluation is presented in Table 5. Table 5 lists the shear stresses at failure, vu_in and vu_out, the nominal shear stresses vn = vc + vs, as well as the upper allowable limit of vn and the ratios vu/vn inside and outside the shear reinforced zones. The controlling values that are the values reflecting the actual failure location are printed in bold. Specimen 4 (s = 0.5d extending ~ 2.4d) failedas intendedoutside the shear-reinforced zone under a load of 634 kN (143 kips). The corresponding shear stress resistance is 1.78 MPa (258 psi) (refer to Table 5, Column 10), which is 69% higher than the permissible value at d/2 outside the shear reinforced zone vc = 0.17 f c = 1.05 MPa (152 psi) (refer to Columns 11 and 12). At failure, the steel stresses in the studs were well below yield. Specimen 2 with s = 0.75d failedas expectedinside the shear-reinforced zone under a load of 574 kN (129 kips). The corresponding shear stress resistance (3.09 MPa [448 psi]) was higher than both the stress vc + vs (3.00 MPa [435 psi]), and the maximum shear stress allowed for slabs with s = 0.75d, (2.69 MPa [390 psi]), the latter being the controlling value for this test. The studs had reached yield at failure. Specimen 8 (h = 230 mm [9.1 in.]) failed inside the shear reinforced zone under a load of 1050 kN (236 kips) even though the shear stress outside the shear reinforced zone (1.29 MPa [187 psi]) was well above the allowable value of 1.01 MPa (146 psi) (refer to Table 5, Columns 10 and 11). Punching shear failure in Specimen 8 occurred after the shear reinforcement had reached yield at exactly the nominal strength (refer to Table 5, Column 8) before reaching the maximum allowable shear stress. Specimen 9 also failed by punching inside the shearreinforced zone under 1091 kN (245 kips), at a slightly higher load than Specimen 8, even though it had less shear reinforcement. The shear stress at failure vu was 24% higher ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

Fig. 11Influence of slab thickness on shear stress resistance in slabs with shear reinforcement. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.) than the calculated nominal shear stress resistance vn (refer to Table 5, Column 8). Specimen 11 (h = 300 mm [11.8 in.]) failed inside the shear-reinforced zone under a load of 1620 kN (364 kips). The location of the failure cone was confirmed by cutting the slab after the completion of the test (refer to Fig. 10). The shear stress reached outside the shear reinforced zone was 23% higher than the allowable value (Table 5, Column 12). On the other hand, the shear stress resistance at d/2 reached only 95% of (vc + vs) after the studs had yielded (Table 5, Column 8). Calculating the contribution of the concrete to the shear stress resistance by rearranging Eq. (1) and putting vn = vu, we find that vc reached only 90% of the value calculated according to Eq. (2). This percentage is similar to that reached in Specimen 10 (h = 300 mm [11.8 in.]) without shear reinforcement and leads to the conclusion that a size effect also exists for slabs with shear reinforcement. Specimen 12 failed at d/2 from the column at a load of 1520 kN (342 kips), corresponding to 1.03 times the predicted failure load (Table 5, Column 8). The studs had yielded before failure. Plotting the results of the tests that failed within the shear reinforcement in Fig. 11 indicates a decreasing trend with increasing slab depth. It is to be noted, however, that Specimen 4 failed outside the shear-reinforced zone and that the somewhat inconsistent ratios vu/vn do not necessarily allow definitive conclusions regarding the size effect for slabs with shear reinforcement. Effect of shear reinforcement and stud strains There are several observations that can be made looking at the test results summarized in Table 5. One of the more obvious ones is that for all slab thicknesses, the shear stress resistance of the connection was increased considerably by providing shear reinforcement. The increase was up to 31%, 32%, and 55% for specimens with a thickness of 160, 230, and 300 mm (6.3, 9.1, and 11.8 in.), respectively. The increased effectiveness of the shear reinforcement for the 300 mm (11.8 in.) specimens can be explained by the reduced shear stress resistance of the concrete at failure, thus increasing the relative contribution of the shear reinforcement to the total shear capacity of the connections. Another distinct benefit of the shear stud reinforcement is the substantial increase in ductility and post-failure capacity. The load deflection curves for the three test series shown in ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

Fig. 12Load-deflection curves. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.; 4.45 kN = 1 kip).

Fig. 13Strains in shear studs for Specimen 2. (Note: 4.45 kN = 1 kip.)

Fig. 14Strains in shear studs for Specimen 4. (Note: 4.45 kN = 1 kip.) Fig. 12 illustrate the increased ductility by a plateau in the load deflection curve. The increase in post-failure capacity can be concluded from the gradual decline of the load with the applied displacements (displacement-controlled test setup). The steel strains in the studs are plotted in Fig. 13 to 16. Figure 13 shows that the studs of Specimen 2 just reached yield at failure, whereas Fig. 14 clearly demonstrates that the stud strains in Specimen 4 were well below yielding when punching occurred outside the shear-reinforced zone. The four shear-reinforced specimens of the other two series reached yield before failure as indicated in Fig. 15 and 16 for Specimens 9 and 12, respectively. From these figures, it is evident that yielding developed only in the studs closest to the column and that the punching cone developed in the region between the column face and SG3 because Studs SG1 through SG3 exhibit large strains. Transverse slab expansion The transverse slab expansion measured in Specimens 7 to 12 indicate the demand for shear reinforcement to prevent 185

Fig. 15Strains in shear studs for Specimen 9. (Note: 4.45 kN = 1 kip.)

Fig. 17Slab expansions for Specimens 7 and 8. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.; 4.45 kN = 1 kip.)

Fig. 18Strains in flexural reinforcement. (Note: 4.45 kN = 1 kip.) Fig. 16Strains in shear studs for Specimen 12. (Note: 4.45 kN = 1 kip.) failure. Comparing measurements for slabs with and without shear reinforcement in Fig. 17(a) and (b) shows that the transverse slab expansion of the two specimens was similar up to the failure of the slab without shear reinforcement (825 kN [185 kips]). Beyond this load, however, the transverse displacements of the slab with shear reinforcement increases significantly and exceeds 1.5 mm (0.059 in.) at punching failure. Note that Gauges 1 to 4 in Fig. 17(a) and (b) are located on diagonal lines at an angle 45 degrees to the column faces (refer to Fig. 7) and that Gauge 1 is the gauge furthest away from the column. Figure 17 shows that the demand for shear reinforcement is very small up to a load that creates a substantial shear crack that leads to failure in the specimen without shear reinforcement. This observation is confirmed by looking at the stud strains in Fig. 15. Strains in flexural reinforcement A typical plot of steel strain in the flexural reinforcement versus applied load is presented in Fig. 18 for Specimens 8 and 11. This figure indicates that the bars in the vicinity of the column reached yield first and that even though the reinforcement ratio for the thicker slabs was reduced, the amount of yielding in the thinner slabs was higher. The flexural failure load according to the yield line theory was not reached in any of the tests9 confirming that all tests failed in shear. Deflections The load deflection curves for all three tests series presented in Fig. 12 illustrate the difference between slabs with and without shear reinforcement. The deflections presented in Fig. 12 are the measured center deflections minus the deflections at the supports. Specimens 1, 7, and 10 exhibit sudden brittle failure typical for slabs without shear reinforcement. The slabs with shear reinforcement (2, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12) develop a small yield plateau and a gradual failure with some residual strength after yielding of the shear 186 reinforcement. Note that the LVDT in Specimen 4 failed before the test was completed. PROPOSED CODE CHANGES The influence of the slab thickness on the punching shear capacity has been recognized in many codes of practice. Size effects in major design codes are as follows (d in mm) 1300 CSA A32.3-0416: -------------------- 1 1000 + d 200 EC217/DIN 1045-118: 1 + -------- 2 d BS 8110-9719: 400 -------- 1 d (8)

(9)

(10)

The Canadian Standard16 differs from ACI only in that it includes the size factor of Eq. (9). To compare these different approaches with the size effect, Eq. (10) was altered by dividing both sides by 2. The size factors as well as the ratios of recorded ultimate shear stress resistances to nominal shear stress resistances vu/vn for the tests of slabs without shear reinforcement are plotted in Fig. 19. From this figure, it is obvious that the slope of all three codes is too shallow in comparison with the test results and that both CSA and BS start to account for the size effect at slab thicknesses that are too high, namely, at an effective depth of 300 and 400 mm (11.8 and 15.7 in.), respectively, whereas the ratio vu/vn suggests that a size factor should come into effect at an effective depth of approximately 220 mm (8.6 in.). The nominal shear stress resistances vn were calculated according to ACI 318-05. To reflect the steep descent of the experimental curve of Fig. 19, the size factor can be approximated by kd = 200 -------- 0.5 d (11)

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

shear reinforcement (Specimen 10). A single test, however, does not provide enough evidence to draw definite conclusions. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Tests on slabs with thicknesses between 160 and 300 mm (6.3 and 11.8 in.) with and without shear reinforcement (shear studs) are presented. One tests series was designed to fail inside, and another one to fail outside, the shear reinforced zone. The most important conclusions from these experiments are: 1. There is a significant decrease of the shear stress resistance with increasing slab thickness. For a slab thickness of 300 mm (11.8 in.), only 89% of the nominal shear resistance of ACI 318-05 was reached. In a recent test by Guandalini and Muttoni13 on a 500 mm (19.7 in.) thick slab, only 63% of the code value was reached. This low shear strength necessitates a consideration of the size effect. Slabs with shear reinforcement showed a small decrease of the shear resistance with increasing slab depth; 2. Slabs with shear reinforcement showed a small decrease of the shear resistance with increasing slab depth; 3. Slabs with shear reinforcement resulted in significant increases in shear capacity and ductility compared with slabs without shear reinforcement; 4. For the test results presented, size factors suggested in CSA A23.3-0416 underestimate the influence of the effective depth on the punching shear capacity; 5. Considering the size factors presented in EC217 and BS8110-9719 in isolation, that is, not considering the effect of the reinforcement ratio also underestimate the size factor; 6. Based on the statistical evaluations by Birkle,9 the following equation is proposed for the nominal shear stress resistance of concrete in slabs without shear reinforcement f c 1 3 v n = 16 ------------ 0.17 f c (MPa) d In the U.S. Standard system of units f c 1 3 v n = 150 ------------ 2 f c (psi) ; and d 7. For slabs with shear reinforcement, the data available is insufficient to propose an equation for the shear stress resistance of the concrete for thick slabs. Research on this topic is urgently required. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, which is gratefully acknowledged. The double-headed studs with forged heads were provided by DECON of Brampton, ON, Canada. The flexural reinforcement and the concrete were donated by Harris Rebar, Calgary, AB, Canada, and Lafarge, Calgary, respectively, which is highly appreciated.

Fig. 19Comparison of code provisions for size effect and test results.

Fig. 20Influence of slab thickness using size factor. (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.) Using this size factor in combination with Eq. (2) yields the broken line in Fig. 19. It is well known,4-9 however, that the punching shear strength not only depends on the concrete strength and the slab thickness but also on the flexural reinforcement ratio . Both BS and EC2 include in their punching shear strength equations in the form of 1/3. Based on statistical evaluations, Birkle9 proposed the following expression for the nominal stress resistance of slabs without shear reinforcement f c v n = 16 ------------ d
13

(12)

where fc is the specified compressive strength of the concrete in MPa, is the reinforcement ratio, and d the effective depth in mm. In Imperial units, the constant changes to 150. The minimum reinforcement ratio in Eq. (12) is 0.5% and the lower limit of Eq. (12) should be 0.17 f c . The comparison of Eq. (12) with the test results in Fig. 20 shows good agreement. For slabs with shear reinforcement, the concrete component of the shear capacity is reduced relative to that of slabs without shear reinforcement. As mentioned in the discussion of the test results, there is evidence that the reduction of the shear stress resistance of the concrete of the 300 mm (11.8 in.) thick slab (Specimen 11) is similar to that of the slab without ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

NOTATION
Ab Av Bc bo c cc cx cy d = = = = = = = = = area of reinforcement bar total area of shear reinforcement perpendicular to critical section radius of round slab specimen (at supports) perimeter of critical section length of column side for square column diameter of circular column length of column side in x-direction length of the column side in y-direction effective depth

187

dave = fc = fc_test = fy = fyv = h = mave = s = so = Vfex = Vn = Vu = = vc vmax = = vn = vs vu = vu,in = vu,out = x 1 s y ave v = = = = = = = =

average of effective depth in two directions of slab concrete design strength based on 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinder concrete cylinder strength at time of testing specified yield strength of flexural reinforcement specified yield strength of shear studs thickness of slab average moment capacity per unit width distance of shear elements perpendicular to column sides distance of first shear element to face of column flexural strength of slab-column connection (yield-line theory) nominal shear resistance of slab-column connection ultimate shear force applied to slab-column connection shear stress resistance provided by concrete shear stress limit nominal shear stress resistance shear stress resistance provided by shear reinforcement shear stress on critical section at ultimate loads shear stress on the critical section inside shear-reinforced zone at ultimate loads shear stress on the critical section outside shear-reinforced zone at ultimate loads distance between deflection transducers ratio of average stress in rectangular compression block to specified concrete strength factor that adjusts shear capacity for column location ratio of long side to short side of column yield strain of reinforcement global resistance factor for slab column connection average percentage of reinforcement ratio in two directions of slab percentage of shear reinforcement

REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp. 2. Moe, J., Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings Under Concentrated Loads, Bulletin No. D47, Journal of the Portland Cement Association, Research and Development Laboratories, Apr. 1961, 130 pp. 3. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, Shear and Diagonal Torsion, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1988, pp. 675-696.

4. Regan, P. E., and Brstrup, M. W., Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete, Bulletin dInformation No. 168, Comit Euro-International du Bton, Jan. 1985, 232 pp. 5. Regan, P. E., Symmetric Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 38, No. 136, Sept. 1986, pp. 115-128. 6. Baant, Z. P., and Cao, Z., Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 6, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 44-53. 7. Gardner, N. J., Punching Shear Provisions for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Flat Slabs, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 23, 1996, pp. 502-510. 8. Sherif, A.G., and Dilger, W. H., Critical Review of the CSA A23.3-94 Punching Shear Provisions for Interior Columns, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 23, No. 5, 1996, pp. 998-1011. 9. Birkle, G., Punching of Flat Slabs: The Influence of Slab Thickness and Stud Layout, PhD thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2004, 152 pp. 10. ACI Committee 421, Shear Reinforcement for Slabs (ACI 421.1R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 15 pp. 11. Graf, O., Versuche ber die Widerstandsfhigkeit von allseitig aufliegenden dicken Eisenbetonplatten unter Einzellasten, Deutscher Ausschu fr Eisenbeton, Heft 88, Berlin, Germany, 1938, 22 pp. 12. Richart, F. E., Reinforced Concrete Wall and Column Footings, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 45, No. 2, Oct. 1948, pp. 97-127. 13. Guandalini, S., and Muttoni, A., Punching Tests on Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004, 129 pp. 14. Li, K. K. L., Influence of Size on Punching Shear Strength of Concrete Slabs, MSc thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2000, 65 pp. 15. ASTM A370-05, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, 49 pp. 16. CSA Standard A23.3-04, Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Portland Cement Association, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2004, 167 pp. 17. Eurocode 2, Planung von Stahlbeton- und Spannbetontragwerken, DIN V 18932 (10.91), DIN ENV 1992-1-1 (06.92), 1992, 171 pp. 18. DIN 1045-1, Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton; Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion, DINDeutsches Institut fr Normung, Berlin, July 2001, 148 pp. 19. BS 8110-97, Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction, British Standard Institute, London, UK, 1997, 117 pp.

188

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008