Anda di halaman 1dari 9

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 108-S54

TECHNICAL PAPER

Verication of Punching Shear Provisions for Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs


by Noel J. Gardner
This study compares the punching shear provisions of ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008), BS 8110-97 (1997), DIN 1045-1 (2001), CEB-FIP MC90 (1993), EN 1992-1-1 (2004), and Gardner (1996) for interior column slab connections with and without moment transfer and edge and corner column slab connections with published experimental data. The code equations cannot be directly compared due to the different philosophies used in their derivations. Comparisons with experimental data indicate that the equations of ACI 318-08 and Gardner (1996) for concentric punching shear used the 5% probability value to determine the equation coefcients, whereas CEB-FIP MC90, EN 1992-1-1, and DIN 1045-1 used the mean value coefcients. ACI 318-08 and Gardner (1996) have satisfactory equation safety indexes (3.40 and 3.14, respectively), whereas DIN 1045-1 and EN 1992-1-1 are marginally less satisfactory at 2.8 and 3.0, respectively. Expected equation coefcients derived using mean measured concrete strengthnot code equation coefcientsshould be used to compare a prediction equation to a single result or group of experimental results. The ACI 318-08 elastic eccentric shear interaction method and the CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 plastic eccentric shear interaction method are equally effective for interior column slab connections with moment transfer and edge and corner column slab connections with the eccentricity towards the slab. The BS 8110-97 equation is effective for interior column slab connections with moment transfer.
Keywords: code provisions; at slabs; punching shear; structural design.

punching shear equations. As unit strength decreases with increasing size, code equations should incorporate a size effect term; unfortunately, most experimental tests have been done on relatively thin slabs. Baant and Cao (1987) established a theoretical basis for the necessity of size effect terms in the punching shear prediction equations for concrete members. Reviews of codes and tests are given by Regan and Braestrup (1985), Silfwerbrand and Hassanzadeh (2000), and b Bulletin 12 (2001). This paper evaluates the punching shear provisions of four major codes: ACI 318-08, BS 8110-97, CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1, DIN 1045-1, and a method proposed by Gardner in 1996 for interior column connections without moment transfer, interior column connections with moment transfer, and edge and corner column connections.

INTRODUCTION Flat plates and at slabs have to be treated with caution, as they are susceptible to failure by punching shear that occurs without warning and can lead to progressive collapse of large areas of slab or even complete structures. Integrity steel, required in some codes, will minimize the risk of progressive collapse due to failure of one connection. Although most punching shear failures occur during construction when there is insufcient earlyage punching shear capacity under the relatively high construction loads (Feld 1968), failure can also occur with mature structures. The 1995 Sampoong (Seoul) Department Store (Gardner et al. 2002) collapse that killed 500 people due to punching shear is a severe example of a failure in service. Most design code provisions require a nominal shear stress, calculated on a control perimeter some fraction or multiple of the slab depth away from the column, to be less than a specied nominal strength. The nominal strength or capacity equations can include terms related to the concrete strength, exural reinforcement ratio, column rectangularity, slab thickness to column dimension ratio, and slab thickness (size effect). The punching shear provisions of ACI 318-08, first adopted in ACI 318-63 (ACI Committee 318 1963), are unusual in that there is no consideration of the effect of exural steel or a size effect. BS 8110-97, CEB-FIP MC90, DIN 1045-1, and EN 19921-1 have reinforcement ratio and size effect terms in their 572

w w

m . w

i d o

t ir a

k a s

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The punching shear provisions of ACI 318-08 evolved from the provisions of ACI 318-63 and are unchanged from those of ACI 318-99 (ACI Committee 318 1999). The recently approved EN 1992-1-1 is effectively identical to CEBFIP MC90, which was rst published in 1990; therefore, this code is referred to as CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1. Given the time that has elapsed since the derivations of the punching shear provisions of ACI 318-08 and EN 1992-1-1, it is timely to compare and review the appropriateness of both codes and other recent signicant codes.

b . t h

g lo

. fa

m o c

CODE PROVISIONS The Comit Europen du Bton was inuential in the development of model codes in 1970, 1978, and 1990 as suggestions for national code authorities, hence the similarity in many (European) code provisions. U.S. customary units of the appropriate equations are given in the Appendix. ACI 318-08 uses a behavior factor < 1 in the numerator, whereas BS 8110-97, CEB-FIP MC90, DIN 1045-1, and CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 use material partial safety factors > 1 in the denominator. ACI 318-08 The provisions of ACI 318-08 evolved from the provisions of ACI 318-63 and are unchanged from those of ACI 318-99, ACI 318-02 (ACI Committee 318 2002), and ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee 318 2005). ACI 318-08 species that the

ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 5, September-October 2011. MS No. S-2009-282.R2 received June 24, 2010, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2011, 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 July-August 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2012.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011

Noel J. Gardner, FACI, is a member of ACI Committees 209, Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete; 231, Properties of Concrete at Early Ages; 347, Formwork for Concrete; and 435, Deection of Concrete Building Structures. His research interests include shrinkage and creep of concrete, early-age loads due to the construction process, punching shear, and formwork pressures.

shear capacity be calculated on the minimum perimeter located at a distance d/2 from the periphery of the column or concentrated load. For square or rectangular columns, the critical section can be taken with four straight sides. The nominal shear strength for non-prestressed slabs and footings vr (vc in ACI 318-08 nomenclature) shall be the smallest of 4 fc vr = vc = 0.083 2 + c (1a)

d (1b) vr = vc = 0.083 s + 2 fc u vr = vc = 0.33 fc (1c)

the critical section; Ac is the concrete area of the assumed critical section; and x and y are the coordinates of any point on the critical section from the centroidal axis. The quantity Jcx used in Eq. (4) is a calculated property of the assumed critical section analogous to the polar moment of inertia. ACI 318-08, Section 13.5.3.3, permits the unbalanced moment transferred by shear to be ignored if the shear loads are less than 75% and 50% of the shear capacity for the edge and corner connections, respectively. For interior connections, the unbalanced moment transferred by exure can be increased by 25%, reducing the unbalanced moment transferred by shear, provided that the direct shear force is less than 40% of the section capacity. The net tensile strain required to develop the unbalanced moment f Mu shall be greater than 0.010. BS 8110-97 The British Standard BS 8110-97, the current evolution of the British Code of Practice CP 110-72 and BS 8110-85, uses a rectangular control perimeter 1.5d from the loaded area for both the circular and rectangular loaded areas. Although BS 8110-97 will be replaced in the UK by Eurocode 2, its inclusion is relevant, as it has been used as the basis for other national codes. Vf ud < vr = 0.79 (100)1/ 3 (400 / d )1/ 4 < 0.8 fcu m MPa (5)

where f c is the specied concrete cylinder strength in MPa; vr is the nominal shear strength (vc in ACI 318-08 nomenclature) in MPa; s = 40 for interior columns, 30 for edge columns, and 20 for corner columns; c is the ratio of the longer to shorter dimension of the loaded area; is the factor to account for concrete density (1.0 for normal-density concrete); and = 0.75 partial safety factor for shear. For shear loads without moment transfer, the factored applied shear stress is given by Vf (2) vf = Ac where Vf is the factored shear force; vf is the nominal factored shear stress; Ac is the area of critical section = ud in mm2; b is the side dimension of the rectangular column in mm; c is the diameter of the circular column in mm; d is the average effective slab depth in mm; u is the shear perimeter = (c + d) (interior circular columns) in mm; and u = b + 4d (interior rectangular columns) in mm. When gravity load, wind, earthquakes, or other lateral forces cause a transfer of moment Mf between a slab and column, a fraction vMf of the unbalanced moment is considered to be transferred by eccentricity of shear, which is assumed to vary linearly about the centroid of the critical section. vx = 1 1 + ( 2 3) b1 b2 1 (3)

where d is the slab depth in mm; fcu is the characteristic concrete cube strength in MPa; u = 4(c + 3d) for circular loaded areas in mm; u = 4 (b + 3d) for square loaded areas in mm; m = 1.25; = (x + y)/2 < 0.03; is the exural steel ratio calculated for a width equal to (c + 3d) or (b + 3d); and 400/d should not be taken as less than 1. For characteristic concrete cube strengths greater than 25 MPa (3625 psi), vr may be multiplied by (fcu/25)1/3 or (fcu/3625)1/3, respectively. The value of fcu should not be taken as greater than 40 MPa (5800 psi). BS 8110-97 provides two methods to calculate the effect of combined shear and unbalanced moments of interior columns: a variation of the eccentric shear expression or a simple shear force multiplier. The nominal factored shear stress vf at an interior column can be calculated by vf = V f 1.5 Ac M fx 1 + Ac Vf x (6)

where b1 and b2 are the sides of the control perimeter of a rectangular column. The variable b1 is the width of the shear section in the direction of the span in which the moment is determined (perpendicular to the moment vector) and b2 is perpendicular to b1. The nominal factored shear stress vf can be calculated by vf = Vf A c vx M fx y 1 + J cxV f Ac (4)

where Vf and Mfx are the factored shear force and factored unbalanced moment determined at the centroidal axis of ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011

where Vf and Mf are the factored shear force and unbalanced moments determined at the centroidal axis of the critical section; Ac is the concrete area of the assumed critical section; and x is the length of the side of the control perimeter parallel to the axis of bending. Alternatively, the nominal shear force can be increased by 15% to accommodate unbalanced moments at an interior column. Edge-column connections and corner-column connections subjected to moments perpendicular, moment vector parallel, to the slab edge acting towards the interior of the panel are treated by a single expression regardless of the eccentricity of the load. 573

of concrete in MPa; 1 is the exural reinforcement ratio = (xy)1/2 < 0.02; c is the concrete partial safety factor (= 1.5); cp is the average precompression (cx + cy)/2; and cx and cy are the normal concrete stresses at the critical section (compression positive). The applied shear stress at the critical section due to a factored concentrated force Vf and unbalanced factored moment Mfu is calculated as vf = = 1+ K Vf u1 d M fu u1 V f W1 (11) (10)

Fig. 1Distribution of shear stress assumed by CEB-FIP MC90.

Fig. 2Reduced shear perimeter permitted by CEB-FIP MC90. Table 1Fraction of unbalanced moment resisted by shear stress CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1
c1/c2 K 0.5 0.45 1.0 0.6 2.0 0.7 3.0 0.8

Notes: K is fraction of unbalanced moment Mf resisted by shear stresses; c1 is column dimension parallel to eccentricity of load; c2 is column dimension perpendicular to eccentricity of load.

vmax = 1.25 V f ud

(7)

CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 CEB-FIP MC90 was fundamental in the development of EN 1992-1-1. The EN 1992-1-1 punching shear provisions are similar to those of CEB-FIP MC90 but have limits on the size effect and reinforcement terms in the equation, a provision for in-plane stresses used in the equation, and the introduction of a minimum shear strength expression. A plastic distribution of shear stress on a critical section 2d from the periphery of the loaded areas, as shown in Fig. 1, is used. The shear strength is calculated as vr = 0.18 13 0.5 1 + ( 200 d ) (1001 fck ) c

where d is the effective thickness of the slab in mm; e is the distance of dl from the moment Mf axis; l is the subscript that refers to perimeter u1; Mfu is the applied unbalanced moment at the critical section due to the factored loads in N.mm; Vf is the applied shear force due to factored loads in N; vf is the applied shear stress due to factored loads in MPa; K is the fraction of the unbalanced moment Mf resisted by shear stresses, which is a function of c1 /c2 (the value of K may be obtained from Table 1); c1 is the column dimension parallel to the eccentricity of load in mm; c2 is the column dimension perpendicular to the eccentricity of load in mm; u1 is the basic shear perimeter 2d from the column in mm; u1 = (c + 4d) (interior circular columns) in mm; u1 = 2a + 2b + 4d (interior rectangular columns, where a/b < 2.0) in mm; W1 u is a property of 1 the critical section shown in Fig. 2 in mm2; W1 = e dl ; and dl is 0 an elementary length of the perimeter in mm. For edge and corner connections, provided that the eccentricity of the loading is towards the interior of the slab, the load-factored shear stress can be calculated as being uniformly distributed = 1 along the reduced control perimeters shown in Fig. 2 or, for structures where lateral stability does not depend on the frame action between the slab and the columns, using Eq. (10) with = 1.15 for an interior column connection, 1.4 for edge-column connections, and 1.5 for corner-column connections. DIN 1045-1 Except for the denition of the critical section, the DIN 1045-1 punching shear provisions are logically similar to the provisions of CEB-FIP MC90 but with a provision for in-plane stresses. The critical section for DIN 1045-1 is the minimum perimeter, rounded corners, 1.5d from the loaded region. Illustrations are used to dene the treatment of openings near the loaded area. The shear strength is given by 0.21 13 0.5 1 1 + ( 200 d ) (100fck ) 0.12 cd MPa v (12) r = c where fck is the characteristic concrete cylinder strength in MPa; the size effect = 1 + (200/d)0.5 < 2.0 with d in mm; c is the partial safety factor for concrete (1.5); 1 is the factor to account for concrete density (1.0 for normal-density concrete); 1 = (x + y)/2 < 0.40fcd/fy < 0.02; fcd = 0.85fck/c, where c = 1.5; and cd = Nx + Ny/2Ac average in-plane stress (NB tension +ve). The applied shear stress at the critical section due to a factored concentrated force Vf is ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011

+ 0.10 cp vmin + 0.10 cp


vmin = 0.035 1 + ( 200 d )

MPa
MPa

(8)

0.5 3 2

( fck )1 2

(9)

where d is the slab effective depth in mm; the size effect = 1 + (200/d)0.5 < 2.0 with d in mm; fck is the characteristic concrete cylinder strength in MPa; vr is the shear resistance 574

vf =

Vf u1 d

(13)

fc = fcm 2.4 MPa fck = fcm 4.0 MPa

( fc = fcm 350 psi)

(15a)

( fck = fcm 580 psi) (15b)

where = 1.05 for an interior column connection; u = (c + 3d) (interior circular columns); and u = 2a + 2b +3d (interior rectangular columns where a / b < 2.0). When a / b > 2.0, u = 2a1 + 2b1 + 3d. a a1 < 2b 5.6 d b1 b b1 < 2.8d For edge and corner connections, provided the eccentricity of the loading is towards the interior of the slab, the load factored shear stress can be calculated with = 1.4 for edgecolumn connections and 1.5 for corner-column connections. Gardner Gardner (1996) proposed a prediction equation for the punching shear strength of slab column connections of reinforced and prestressed concrete at slabs using a control perimeter at the periphery of the loaded area. All nonsquare cross-section columns were considered as equivalent square columns of the same crosssectional area (similar to ACI 318-08, Fig. R13.6.2.5). For reinforced concrete slabs, the shear strength is given by 250 1 2 h 1 2 vr = 0.55 1 + h 4c s f y c fck

All limitations on the magnitude of the concrete compressive strength, exural reinforcement ratio, and size effect are ignored in the comparisons. Excluding in-plane stresses and ignoring the limitations on size effect and reinforcement ratio reduces the EN 1992-1-1 provisions to those of CEB-FIP MC90, and they are evaluated as a single model. All comparisons are with results from tests on isolated specimens, except Walker and Regans (1987) results for corner-column slab connections. The description gravity loads for edge and corner connections is used to limit discussions to connections where the eccentricity is towards the interior of the slab panel. Interior square and circular section connections without moment transfer The Punching Shear Working Group of b Commission 4 (b Bulletin 12 [2001]) developed a databank of well-documented punching shear results for square and circular interior connections without moment transfer. The Working Group eliminated results attributed to exural failure and results for specimens with shear spans less than 4. The validity of the no-moment transfer and the punching shear provisions of ACI 318-08, BS 8110-97, CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1, DIN 1045-1, and Gardner (1996) were evaluated against the information from the b databank for square and circular interior connections. The code punching shear predictions were calculated using the specied strengths calculated using Eq. (15a) for ACI 318-08 and Gardner (1996) and the characteristic strengths using Eq. (15b) for BS 8110-97, CEBFIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1, and DIN 1045-1. The behavior partial safety factors (ACI 318-08) and m (BS 8110-97) and the material partial safety factors c and s (CEB-FIP MC90/ EN 1992-1-1, DIN 1045-1, and Gardner [1996]) were set to unity. To examine the validity of using a critical section with four straight sides permitted in ACI 318-08 for square and rectangular section columns, the ACI 318-08 statistics were calculated separately for square section load areas using both a square shear perimeter with rounded corners and a square shear perimeter with square corners. The circular section load areas were calculated using a circular shear perimeter. The calculated means, standard deviations, coefcients of variation, and safety indexes of the experimental and predicted results are given in Table 2. The mean experimental and calculated values of CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 and DIN 1045-1 are approximately 1, whereas the 5% probability experimental and calculated values of ACI 318 and Gardner (1996) are approximately 1. The coefcients of variation of the ACI 318-08 method are much larger than those of BS 8110-97, CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1, DIN 1045-1, and Gardner (1996). As the logics of the derivations of the code equation coefcients of CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 and DIN 1045-1 were different from ACI 318-08 and Gardner (1996), a direct comparison by simply setting = = 1 between the various provisions is not valid. The only valid comparisons are to compare the equation safety indexes, including behavior or material partial safety factors or to adjust the various methods to the same philosophy (for example, 5% probability coefcients). The safety indexes (reliability indexes) of the equations (Table 2) were 575

13

MPa

(14)

where c is the column dimension of the square column of the same area as the actual column in mm; d is the effective slab depth to reinforcement in mm; f c is the characteristic concrete cylinder strength in MPa; fy is the yield strength of the flexural reinforcement in MPa; h is the thickness of the slab in mm; u is the perimeter of the square column attached to the slab in mm; vr is the punching shear capacity in MPa; c = 0.67 ( c = 1/1.5) = a partial safety factor for concrete; s = 0.87 ( s = 1/1.15) = a partial safety factor for concrete; = 1 for normaldensity concrete and 0.85 for lightweight concrete; and is the ratio of flexural tensile reinforcement calculated over a width of c + 6d. For combined shear and moment transfer, two alternative methods were suggested: using the ACI 318-08 linear interaction formula with a control perimeter around the loaded area or simple BS 8110-97-type shear force multipliers. COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Code provisions use specied concrete strength f c or characteristic concrete strength fck, not the mean strength fcm reported for the experimental studies. Reineck et al. (2003) suggested that the specied strength and characteristic strength can be related to the mean strength by the following relationships. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011

Table 2Statistical indicators for code provisions for concentric punching shear (calculated using specied or characteristic concrete strength as appropriate)
Code Shear perimeter ACI 318-08 Minimum perimeter + d/2 Square columns BS 8110-97 Square + 1.5d CEB-FIP MC90/ EN 1992-1-1 DIN 1045-1 + 2d + 1.5d Gardner (1996) Square + 0d

Row Perimeter with Perimeter with number rounded corners square corners (1) Mean experiment/calculated 1.60 1.47 (2) Coefcient of variation, % 18 18 (3) 5% probability experiment/calculated 1.12 1.03 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
*

1.54 21 1.01

1.11 14 0.85 m = 1.25

All square and circular sections 1.01 1.03 14 14 0.77 0.79 c = 1.5 m = 0.67 s = 1.15 s = 0.87 2.83 0.18 0.14 0.17 2.99 0.21 0.17 0.21

1.35 15 1.02

Code partial safety factor Equation safety index* Code equation coefcient 5% probability coefcient (Row 3 Row 6) Expected experiment/calculated coefcient (using mean strength fcm) 4.08 0.33 0.53

= 0.75 3.66 0.33 0.46 3.40 0.33 0.33 0.49

2.20 0.79 0.67 0.84

3.14 0.55 0.56 0.72

Equation safety index calculated with code partial safety factor.

Table 3Equation safety index and probability of failure


Index 2.0 2.31 3.1 3.2 3.57 4.1 Probability of value < 1 3 4 5 McGregor (1976) Probability 0.0227 0.01 0.001 5 10 1 10 1 10

calculated using Allens (1975) Eq. (4) using the appropriate code-specied behavior or material partial safety factors. Table 3 gives the probability and reliability associated with selected safety indexes. Calculating a method safety index, as opposed to the equation safety index, would also require the code-specied load factors and an estimate of the statistical characteristics of the loads. By inspection of Eq. (8) (CEBFIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1) and Eq. (12) (DIN 1045-1), the use of the material partial safety factor c is exactly analogous to the ACI 318-08 and BS 8110-97 behavior factors and m, respectivelyrather than a material partial safety factor (under the cube root). In contrast, Gardner (1996) uses the material partial safety factors on the material strengths. The safety indexes of all equations, except BS 8110-97, are similar (a safety index of 2.31 is equivalent to a probability of 0.01 and 3.1 is equivalent to 0.001). The low safety index for BS 8110-97 is due to the low value of the behavior partial safety factor m = 1.25 (m = 0.8). The expected equation coefcients given in Row 8 of Table 2 were calculated using the reported mean concrete strengths from a separate analysis of the databank using measured concrete strengths. These would be used for a failure or laboratory investigation when the actual concrete strength is known. The comparison of the ACI 318-08 experimental and predicted values in Fig. 3 shows a slight trend to decreasing ratios with increasing concrete strength. Although the ACI 318-08 predictions become slightly less conservative with increasing concrete strength, there is no need for restrictions on the range of applicability of ACI 318-08 or any of the prediction equations with concrete strength. A comparison of the ACI 318-08 experimental and predicted values with the steel ratio, as shown in Fig. 4, however, indicates that the provisions become less conservative with the decreasing reinforcement ratio. Although the square corner simplication for square and rectangular sections permitted in ACI 318-08 is, 576

on average, satisfactory, all the values less than 1 are for square connection results. The ratios of the measured-to-predicted punching shear forces for Gardner (1996), which includes exural steel and size effect terms, are plotted against the steel ratio in Fig. 5. A comparison of Fig. 5 with Fig. 4 illustrates the effect of the smaller coefcient of variation of Gardner (1996) compared with ACI 318-08. The inclusion of a exural steel term in the punching shear strength equation reduces the number of comparison points below the 5% probability value. Interior rectangular section connections without moment transfer The calculated means, standard deviations, coefcients of variation, and safety indexes of the experimental and predicted results for the interior rectangular sections are given in Table 4. The data used were taken from the University of Alberta Research Report No. 223 by Afhami et al. (1998). The numbers are similar to those in Table 2 for interior square section connections without moment transfer, indicating that all methods of treating rectangular section interior connections are equally valid. Figure 6 is a graphical comparison of the test and predicted results plotted against the column dimension ratio using the 5% probability equation coefcients from Row 7 in Table 2 for BS 8110-97, DIN 1045-1, and CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1. Using the 5% probability coefcients means that few comparison points should be below 1. The values range from 1 to 1.6, conrming that all methods give satisfactory results for column rectangularity. Connections with shear and moment transfer To compare the various methods, the methods have to be brought to a common basis, which requires adjusting the equation coefcients. Equation coefcients can be modied to give an agreed-upon safety index to use the 5% probability equation coefcients (Table 2) or use the code equation coefcients modied by the behavior or material partial safety factors. Using the 5% probability equation coefcients from Table 2 for the BS 8110-97, DIN 1045-1, and CEB-FIP MC90/ EN 1992-1-1 calculations avoids using the material partial safety factors. For edge and corner connections, the moment must be adjusted, as the centroids of the shear perimeter ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011

Fig. 3Comparison of test and predicted results using ACI 318-08 with concrete cylinder strength.

Fig. 5Comparison of test and predicted results using Gardner (1996) against exural steel ratio.

Fig. 4Comparison of test and predicted results using ACI 318-08 against exural steel ratio. and the column are not coincident. The further the shear perimeter from the connection, the larger the adjustment. The predictions for interior connections without moment transfer show that incorporating the exural steel ratio reduces the coefcient of variation. At an interior connection, moment will cause a reduction or reversal of the shear stress on the opposite face with consequent problems in determining the appropriate reinforcement ratio. The effect of exural steel in the perpendicular plane, torsional faces, is not resolved. Edge-column slab connections can have different near-column steel ratios parallel and perpendicular to the slab edge. For edge and corner connections, where the eccentricity is towards the exterior, the bottom steel ratio would be appropriate, but this steel may not be adequately anchored and thus ineffective. DIN 1045-1 does not have a shear-moment transfer equation for interior, edge, or corner column connections. Given the similarity of the DIN 1045-1 provisions with the CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 provisions, however, Eq. (11) with the DIN 1.5d shear perimeter can be implied and was used. BS 8110-97 does not have general provisions for punching under combined shear and moment transfer for moment vectors parallel to the edge for edge and corner connections. The simple shear stress multipliers of BS 8110, CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1, and DIN 1045-1 are easy to use but are limited to gravity load moments of slab systems under distributed loads. These simple shear stress multipliers are not considered in the following sections. Similarly, the ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011 Fig. 6Comparison of test and predicted results for interior rectangular section column-slab connections without moment transfer. Table 4Statistical indicators for code provisions for concentric punching shear of rectangular section columns (calculated using specied or characteristic concrete strength as appropriate)
Code Mean experiment/ calculated Coefcient of variation, % 5% probability Code partial safety factor Equation safety index
*

ACI BS CEB-FIP MC90/ Gardner 318-08* 8110-97 EN 1992-1-1 DIN 1045-1 (1996) 1.31 13 1.03 1.02 11 0.84 2.91 0.94 11 0.76 c = 1.5 s = 1.5 3.11 0.92 10 0.77 1.19 11 0.97 c = 0.67 s = 0.87 3.22

m = 1.25 4.18 2.20

Rectangular column is rectangular shear perimeter with square corners. Equation safety index calculated with code under strength factor.

simplications of ACI 318-08, Section 13.5.3.3, are not considered in the following sections. Interior columns with moment transfer The data used were taken from the University of Alberta Research Report No. 223 by Afhami et al. (1998). The exural (tensile) steel ratio was calculated as for a connection 577

Edge connections under gravity loads The data used were taken from the University of Alberta Research Report No. 223 by Afhami et al. (1998). Figure 8 shows the ratio of the test to predicted results plotted against a normalized eccentricity Mu/(Vu25h) for edge columns that have moment transfer. For CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 and DIN 1045-1, Eq. (11) was reformulated for edge connections using the relevant shear perimeters. The 5% probability equation coefcients from Table 2 were used for all calculations. All methods are equally effective for edge column slab connections. Corner connections under gravity loads The data used were taken from Zaghool (1971) and Walker and Regan (1987). The range of eccentricities for which results are available is limited. For CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 and DIN 1045-1, Eq. (11) was reformulated for corner columnslab connections using the appropriate perimeters. The 5% probability equation coefcients from Table 2 were used. Figure 9 shows the ratio of the test-to-predicted results plotted against a nondimensional diagonal eccentricity Mu/(Vu25h) for corner column-slab connections. All methods are equally effective for corner column-slab connections. DISCUSSION OF COMPARISONS For concentric shear, any shear perimeter can be chosen, but the strength equation must include size effect and reinforcement ratio terms. ACI 318-08 and Gardner (1996) have equation safety indexes greater than 3.1, implying equation probabilities of less than 0.001. CEB-FIP MC90/ EN 1992-1-1 and DIN 1045-1 have safety indexes of 2.8 and 3.0, implying equation probabilities of 0.003 and 0.0014, respectively. As punching shear failures can be catastrophic, an equation safety index greater than 3.1 and a probability of less than 0.001 would be preferable. As most experimental tests have been conducted on relatively thin slabs, code equations should incorporate a size effect term. Unfortunately, experimental data are scarce for thick slabs. BS 8110-97, CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1, DIN 1045-1, and Gardner (1996), which have size effect and reinforcement ratio terms and use control perimeters 1.5d, 2.0d, and 1.5d from and at the column, respectively, have smaller coefcients of variation (14 to 15%) than ACI 318-08 for interior column slab connections without moment transfer (21%). It should be noted that although increasing the exural steel increases the punching shear capacity, the behavior of the connection becomes more brittle. It can be observed that the reinforcement ratios used in the experimental slabs ranged from 0.5 to 4%, presumably to ensure that the test slabs failed in shear instead of exure. Reinforcement ratios will rarely exceed 2% in real slabs. Slabs with low tensile steel reinforcing ratiosless than 0.5% in the vicinity of the columnscan form a circular yield mechanism (Vu = 2 (M+ + M), where M+ and M are the positive and negative moments per unit length, respectively) at loads lower than indicated by the punching shear equations (Wood 1961). In spite of the lack of rigorous derivations, the ACI 318-08 elastic eccentric shear interaction method, the CEB-FIP MC90/ EN 1992-1-1 plastic eccentric shear interaction method, and the BS 8110-97 equation are equally effective for interior column slab connections with moment transfer. The ACI 318-08 elastic eccentric shear interaction method and the CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 plastic eccentric shear interaction method are equally effective for edge- and corner column-slab connections. Given the similarity of the DIN 1045-1 provisions with the CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 provisions, Eq. (11) with the DIN 1.5d ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011

Fig. 7Comparison of test and predicted results for interior column-slab connections with moment transfer.

Fig. 8Comparison of test and predicted results for edge column-slab connections.

Fig. 9Comparison of test and predicted results for corner column-slab connections. without moment transfer. Figure 7 shows the ratio of the testto-predicted results plotted against a nondimensionalized eccentricity Mu/(Vu25h) for interior columns (this implies that a full panel would have a span thickness ratio of 25) using the 5% probability coefcients (Table 2). All provisions are equally effective for interior column-slab connections with moment transfer. 578

shear perimeter can be used and is also effective. BS 8110-97 does not have general provisions for punching under combined shear and moment transfer for moment vectors parallel to the edge for edge and corner connections. The edge and corner connection simple shear force multipliers of BS 8110-97, CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1, and DIN 1045-1 are only applicable for eccentricities approximately 6% towards the interior of the slab. Given the possibility of progressive collapse, all codes should adopt integrity steel provisions. CSA A23.3-04 (2004) requires integrity steel (continuous bottom steel through the column) sufcient to carry in direct tension the larger of dead plus live load shear force and twice the dead load shear force. EN 1992-1-1 and ACI 318-08 require that at least two bottom bars in each direction shall pass within the column core. CONCLUSIONS It should be noted that the median thickness of all the concentrically loaded slabs used in the comparisons was 150 mm (6 in.) with a maximum thickness of 320 mm (13 in.). These slab thicknesses are small compared with slabs used in practice. The reinforcement ratios ranged from 0.5 to 4% and the cylinder strengths reached up to 130 MPa (18,000 psi). Due to the different philosophies and the associated partial safety factors used in their derivations, code equations cannot be directly compared by simply setting = = 1. Comparisons with experimental data for concentric punching shear indicate that the equations of ACI 318-08 and Gardner (1996) used the 5% probability value to determine the equation coefcients, whereas CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 and DIN 1045-1 used the mean value coefcients. The only valid comparisons are to compare the equation safety indexes or to adjust the various methods to the same philosophy (for example, 5% probability coefcients). ACI 318-08 and Gardner (1996) have satisfactory equation safety indexes (3.40 and 3.14, respectively), whereas DIN 1045-1 and EN 1992-1-1 are marginally less satisfactory at 2.8 and 3.0, respectively. Expectednot codeequation coefcients should be used to compare a prediction equation to a single result or group of experimental results. The logic used to calibrate empirical code equation coefcients against experimental data should be stated in the code, and equation coefcients should not hide partial safety factors. The provisions of BS 8110-97, CEB-FIP MC90/EN 19921-1, DIN 1045-1, and Gardner (1996)all of which include reinforcement ratio and size effect termshave signicantly smaller coefcients of variation than the ACI 318-08 provisions. Using a critical section with four straight sides, which is permitted in ACI 318-08 for square and rectangular section columns, is (on average) satisfactory. All the experimental and predicted values less than 1, however, are for the square connection results. As unit strength decreases with increasing slab thickness and equation coefcients were derived from data obtained from tests done on relatively thin slabs, code equations should incorporate a size effect term. The ACI 318-08 elastic eccentric shear interaction method and the CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 plastic eccentric shear interaction method are equally effective for interior columnslab connections with moment transfer and edge- and corner column-slab connections with the eccentricity towards the slab. The BS 8110-97 equation is effective for interior column-slab connections with moment transfer. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011

All codes should adopt integrity steel provisions to minimize the possibility of punching shear at one connection, leading to progressive collapse.
ACI Committee 318, 1963, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 144 pp. ACI Committee 318, 1999, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 391 pp. ACI Committee 318, 2002, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 443 pp. ACI Committee 318, 2005, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 430 pp. ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 473 pp. Afhami, S.; Alexander, S. D. B.; and Simmonds, S. H., 1998, Strip Model for Capacity of Slab-Column Connection, Structural Engineering Report No. 223, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 231 pp. Allen, D. E., 1975, Limit States DesignA Probalistic Study, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 2, No. 1, Mar., pp. 36-49. Baant, Z. P., and Cao, Z., 1987, Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 44-51. BS 8110-97, 1997, Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction, British Standards Institution, London, UK, 117 pp. CEB-FIP MC90, 1993, Design of Concrete StructuresCEB-FIPModel Code 1990, Thomas Telford, London, UK, 437 pp. CSA A23.3-04, 2004, Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 358 pp. DIN 1045-1, 2001-07, Plain, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete StructuresPart 1: Design and Construction, Normenausschuss Bauwesen (NABau) im DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V. Beuth Verl. Berlin, 122 pp. EN 1992-1-1, 2004, EuroCode 2: Design of Concrete StructuresPart 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Brussels, Belgium, p. 2.25. Feld, J., 1968, Construction Failure, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 414 pp. b Bulletin 12, 2001, Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs, Utilisation of Concrete Tension in Design, Technical Report by the CEB/b Task Group, Lausanne, Switzerland, Apr., 314 pp. Gardner, N. J., 1996, Punching Shear Provisions for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Flat Slabs, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 23, No. 2, Apr., pp. 502-510. Gardner, N. J.; Huh, J.; and Chung, L., 2002, Lessons from Sampoong Department Store Collapse, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 24, No. 2, pp. 523-529. McGregor, J. G., 1976, Safety and Limit States Design for Reinforced Concrete, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 3, No. 4, Dec., pp. 484-513. Regan, P. E., and Braestrup, M. W., 1985, Punching Shear in Reinforced ConcreteA State of the Art Report, CEB Bulletin 168, Lausanne, Switzerland, Jan. Reineck, K.-H.; Kuchma, D. A.; Sim, K. S.; and Marx, S., 2003, Shear Database for Reinforced Concrete Members without Shear Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 240-249. Silfwerbrand, J., and Hassanzadeh, G., 2000, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs, TRITABKN, Bulletin 57, Kungl Tekniska Hgskolan, Stockholm, Sweden. Walker, P. R., and Regan, P. E., 1987, Corner Column-Slab Connections in Concrete Flat Plates, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 113, No. 4, Apr., pp. 704-720. Wood, R. H., 1961, Plastic and Elastic Design of Slabs and Plates, Thames and Hudson, London, UK, 344 pp. Zaghool, E. R. F., 1971, Strength and Behaviour of Corner and Edge Column Slab Connections in Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 366 pp.

REFERENCES

APPENDIXU.S. CUSTOMARY UNIT VERSIONS OF EQUATIONS ACI 318-08 The nominal shear strength for non-prestressed slabs and footings vr (vc in ACI 318 nomenclature) shall be the smallest of 579

4 fc psi vr = vc = 2 + c d vr = vc = s + 2 fc psi u vr = vc = 4 fc psi

shear resistance of concrete in psi; and cp is the average precompression (cx + cy)/2 in psi. (A1a) (A1b) (A1c) DIN 1045-1 The critical section for DIN 1045-1 is the minimum perimeter (rounded corners) 1.5d from the loaded region. The shear strength is given by vr = 5.85 0.5 1 1 + ( 7.9 d ) c
13

where f c is the specied concrete cylinder strength in psi; and vr is the shear resistance of concrete in psi. BS 8110-97 115 vr = (100)1 3 (15.7 d )1 4 < 9.6 fcu psi m (A5)

(1001 fck ) 0.12 cd psi

(A12)

where vr is the shear resistance of concrete in psi; d is the slab depth in in.; fcu is the characteristic concrete cube strength in psi; u = 4 (c + 3d) for circular loaded areas in in.; u = 4 (b + 3d) for square loaded areas in in.; m = 1.25; = (x + y)/2 < 0.03; and 15.7/d should not be taken as less than 1. For characteristic concrete cube strengths greater than 25 MPa (3625 psi), vr may be multiplied by (fcu/3625)1/3. The value of fcu should not be taken as greater than 40 MPa (5800 psi). CEB-FIP MC90/EN 1992-1-1 Shear stress is determined on a critical section at 2d from the periphery of the loaded area. 5 13 0.5 1 + ( 7.9 d ) (1001 fck ) vr = c vmin = 0.42 1 + ( 7.9 d ) + 0.10 cp vmin + 0.1 cp

where fck is the characteristic concrete cylinder strength in psi; vr is the shear resistance of concrete in psi; the size effect = 1 + (7.9/d)0.5 < 2.0 with d in in./mm; c is the partial safety factor for concrete (1.5); 1 is the factor to account for concrete density (1.0 for normal-density concrete); 1 = (x + y)/2 < 0.40fcd / fy < 0.02; fcd = 0.85fck/c, where c = 1.5; and cd = Nx + Ny /2Ac is the average in-plane stress (NB tension +ve) in psi. Gardner 9.85 1 2 h 1 2 vr = 2.9 1 + h 4c s f y c fck

(A14)

13

psi

0.5 3 2

( fck )1 2

(A8) (A9)

psi

psi

where d is the effective slab depth to reinforcement in in.; fck is the characteristic concrete cylinder strength in psi; vr is the

where c is the column dimension of the square column of the same area as the actual column in in.); d is the effective slab depth to reinforcement in in.; fck is the characteristic concrete cylinder strength in psi; fy is the yield strength of exural reinforcement in psi; h is the thickness of the slab in in.; u is the perimeter of the square column attached to the slab in in.; vr is the punching shear capacity in psi; c = 0.67 (c = 1/1.5) = a partial safety factor for concrete; s = 0.87 (s = 1/1.15) = a partial safety factor for concrete; and is the exural reinforcement ratio = (xy)1/2 < 0.02.

580

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011