94 ACIStructuralJournal/January-February2000

ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, January-February 2000.

Received September 23, 1998, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright 2000, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Perti-
nent discussion will be published in the November-December 2000 ACI Structural
Journal if received by July 1, 2000.

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
A design concept that eliminates the punching failure mode of
flat plates is verified by testing, and design recommendations
are given. Only standard reinforcement is used, which is so
easy to fabricate and rapid to install that the solution should be
suitable as standard practice for ordinary flat plates as well as
for such extreme applications as air-raid shelters. The system
provides excellent safety against progressive collapse of flat
plate buildings, a basic requirement that seems to be over-
looked in many current concrete codes. The provisions of the
ACI Code 318-95 for two-way shear capacity of slabs are
found unsafe for critical sections outside shear reinforcement
and presumably also around large columns.
Keywords: bent-up bars; building codes; deflection; ductility; flat concrete
plates; flexural strength; punching shear; stirrups; structural design; tests.
INTRODUCTION
The flat plate is a very common and competitive structural
system for cast-in-place slabs in buildings since no beams, col-
umn capitals, or drop panels are involved, which means that
formwork becomes extremely simple. The structural concept is
at a great disadvantage, however, because of the risk of a brittle
punching failure at the columns. Large research efforts have
been made in the pastand are still being madeto develop
methods for a reliable prediction of the punching shear capacity.
In this context, it should be remembered that modern building
codes require a structure to be designed in such a way that it
will not be damaged by events like explosions, impact, or con-
sequences of human errors, to an extent disproportionate to the
original cause.
1
In other words, a local failure shall not lead to
progressive collapse of the entire structure. Do flat plates de-
signed according to current structural concrete codes (see be-
low) really fulfill this basic requirement for structural integrity?
In the opinion of this author the answer is no, because flat
plates have a very limited rotation capacity at the columns.
2,3
Punching will occur if the rotation capacity is exceeded. A
punching failure at one column due to a gas explosion, for ex-
ample, will therefore most probably lead to subsequent punch-
ing at the adjacent columns due to large slab rotationsthe risk
of a progressive collapse is impending. It is therefore surpris-
ing that the Eurocode 2,
1
for instance, requires a minimum
shear reinforcement in primary beams in order to prevent a brit-
tle shear failure, but no ductility requirement is put on flat plates
despite the fact that a punching failure of a flat plate may lead
to worse consequences than a shear failure of a beam. A similar
approach exists in the ACI Code 318-95
4
where a minimum
area of shear reinforcement is required in beams if the shear
force exceeds one-half the design shear strength provided by
concrete.
ACI Committee 352,
5
Joints and Connections in Monolithic
Concrete Structures, has recognized the described shortcoming
of flat plates and has recommended a method with concentrated
bottom reinforcement from column to column in order to create
a catenary system in the event of a punching failure. The system
does not, however, prevent punching from occurring in the first
place, anddue to the large deflectionslocal damage will re-
sult in global repair needs. Furthermore, the reliability of the
system could be questioned since the sharp bending of the cate-
nary reinforcement bars over the column edge in combination
with dynamic effects may result in rupture of the bars. More-
over, the system is not intended to prevent progressive collapse
of typical two-way slab structures that are grossly overloaded
over a large portion of the structure.
6
Consequently, there is a
need for a better concept than the one described in Reference 5.
One possible solution is described in this paper.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
One aim of this paper is, once again,
7
to draw attention to the
shortcomings of flat plates and to describe a reinforcement sys-
tem that allows a flat plate to form plastic hinges at the columns
and in the midspans with no tendency for brittle punching fail-
ure, which is in compliance with the basic requirement for struc-
tural integrity. So designed, flat plates become suitable even for
air-raid shelters and may also be suitable in severe earthquake
regions in buildings with separate bracing. The latter statement
is to be verified by further research currently being conducted
by the author.
A slab system that displays a brittle failure mode when over-
loaded should not be accepted in a modern building. Another
aim of this paper is, therefore, to inspire researchers to find rem-
edies against the punching failure mode instead of developing re-
fined capacity predictions.
PUNCHING FAILURE MECHANISM
If a solution for preventing punching shear is to be found, the
basic principles of the failure mechanism should be perceived.
Most concrete codes define the punching capacity in terms of
nominal shear stress acting on a vertical surface a certain dis-
tance away from the column. This approach is unfortunate since
it incorrectly implies that the punching capacity is governed by
the diagonal tensile strength of the concrete slab. In fact, diag-
onal cracks normally develop at a load level in the order of 1/
2 to 2/3 of the ultimate load.
8
These cracks can completely sur-
round the column. The slab is still stable and can be unloaded
and reloaded several times at that load level without any de-
crease of the ultimate capacity.
8

The punching failure occurs instead when the concrete in
compression at the bottom of the slab near the column is dis-
tressed by the high tangential squeezing due to the global flex-
ural curvature.
2,3
At columns with small diameters, the
inclined compression stress in the radial direction below the
shear crack may govern.
3
The punching load can be derived from Fig. 1 by the condi-
tion of equilibrium in the vertical direction for the concrete con-
ical shell under the diagonal crack. The crack is assumed to form
a 30 degree angle to the horizontal, which is a typical value for
normal strength concrete. The capacity of the conical shell for
Title no. 97-S11
Elimination of Flat Plate Punching Failure Mode
by Carl Erik Broms
Capacdade de rota- o
ACIStructuralJournal/January-February2000 95
vertical load is then at maximum if the cone forms a 15 degree an-
gle to the horizontal
(1)
(2)
Using y = 0.29d, which is valid for low reinforcement ratios
(3)
where the ultimate strength f
c
is a function of several factors,
3
such as
Concrete strength;
Size effect (height of compression zone);
Increasing brittleness of concrete with increasing strength;
and
Concrete softening due to the tangential squeezing.
By chance, Eq. (3) has the same format as the normal code ex-
pression Eq. (4), which explains why the code approach can
V
15degree s i n
------------------------------ B 2y
1
30degree t a n
------------------------------ +


=
y 15degree sin
30degree sin
--------------------------------- f
c

V 0.134 B 3.46y + ( )yf
c

V B d + ( ) d 0.04f
c
=
give a good prediction of the punching capacity despite the in-
correct shear stress analogy. A prerequisite is of course that the
formal punching strength f
v 2
is not merely expressed as a function
of the concrete strength but also as a function of the reinforce-
ment ratio and the slab thickness (size effect)
(4)
The failure mechanism described above clarifies why stirrups
or stud rails generally do not result in the desired ductile behav-
ior. For such shear reinforcement a capacity increaseas well
as some ductility increaseis normally encountered in rela-
tion to a flat plate without shear reinforcement, although the
failure mode is still a sudden punching failure.
If the stirrups or studs extend far enough from the column to
prevent a shear failure outside the shear reinforcement, typical-
ly a steep shear crack forms near the column passing be-
tween the stirrups (studs)
7,8
at failure. This occurs because the
distressed compressed concrete near the column becomes too
soft when the tangential strain reaches a critical levela scenar-
io that differs from beams and one-way slabs where tangential
compression does not occur.
The detrimental effect on the tensile capacity of the concrete
in perpendicular direction to the tangential compression is dem-
onstrated if the shear reinforcement is not extended far enough
from the column. A diagonal tension failure will then ultimately
develop outside the shear reinforcement. Once the diagonal
crack opens up, it will immediately propagate within the soft
concrete cover under the shear reinforcement all the way up to
the column (Fig. 2).
REINFORCEMENT FOR DUCTILITY
One way to overcome the deficiency with stirrups and studs is
described in Reference 7. The test specimens were provided with
bent bars as hangers into the column in combination with stirrup
cages from welded wire fabric over a fairly large area around the
column (Fig. 3). The bent bars were given a flat slope to bridge
over the zone with wide flexural cracks near the column. This
concept turned out to be very effective in creating an extremely
ductile structural system without any punching tendency at rein-
forcement ratios exceeding 0.75
b
, loads exceeding 2V
c 0
, and
openings distributed around the column.
The reinforcement system is now further developed and ver-
ified by the tests reported below. The basic principle still holds,
but the stirrup cagesmade from welded wire fabricare sim-
plified in both fabrication and installation (Fig. 4). The stable
stirrup cages and the bent bars are tied on top of the bottom flex-
V B d + ( ) d f
v2
=
Fig. 1Punching failure mechanism.
Fig. 2Diagonal tension failure outside shear reinforcement.
Fig. 3Original reinforcement system for ductility.
ACI member Carl Erik Broms is a specialist consultant at the consulting engineers
J&W, (AB Jacobson & Widmark), Stockholm, Sweden. He received his MSc from the
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, in 1962.
96 ACI StructuralJournal/January-February 2000
ural reinforcement followed by the top flexural reinforcement
(Fig. 5). The installation procedure is very simple (no bar
threading is involved) because the stirrups do not enclose any
flexural reinforcement. The bent bars are provided with long
bottom legs that act as catenary reinforcement in reliable coop-
eration with the bottom flexural reinforcement.
CODE PREDICTIONS
The test results shall be compared with predictions of the ACI
Code 318-95
4
and Model Code 90.
9
The latter code is more re-
fined than the ACI Code because it accounts for the size effect
(decreasing shear strength with increasing member height), as
well as the positive influence on the shear capacity by a high
flexural reinforcement ratio.
The Model Code 90 is considered by the author to be the best
current code for prediction of the punching failure load. The
provisions for shear capacity outside shear reinforcement are,
however, too optimistic. Therefore, a modified approach is pro-
posed here, termed Modified Model Code 90.
The code expressions in the following equations are slightly
rearranged to demonstrate that the two codes treat the transition
from one-way shear to two-way shear in a similar way.
ACI 318-95
4
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
= 20 for interior columns;
= 15 for edge columns; and
= 10 for corner columns.
(The values seem to be too high, compare Model Code 90.
Moreover, it is remarkable that, as a consequence of the pre-
scribed values, higher shear stress is permitted for edge col-
umns and corner columns than for interior columns along
critical sections placed at the same distance from the columns.)
f
v1
f
c

6
--------- [MPa] (one-way shear) =
f
v2
b
0
d +
b
0
----------------------- f
v1
2f
v1
(two-way shear) =
V
c
f
v2
b
0
d =
b
0
4c 4d (square columns) + =
Model Code 90 (ultimate strength)
The code expressions are rearranged herein to suit the ACI
method with a critical section at the distance 0.5d from the col-
umn face
(9)
(10)
= flexural tension reinforcement ratio within column strip =
(11)
(12)
b
0
= 4c + d square columns (13)
= 3 interior columns
= 1.5 edge columns
= 0.75 corner columns
Modified Model Code 90 (proposed herein by author)
The Model Code equations are valid with the following
amendments
(14)
f
v1
0.18 100 f
c
( )
1
3
---
[MPa] =
1
200
d
--------- [mm] (size effect) + =

f
v2
b
0
d +
b
0
----------------------- f
v1
=
V
c
f
v2
b
0
d =
f
v2
2f
v1

Fig. 4Stirrup cage.

Fig. 5Detailing of reinforcement for ductility.
ACIStructuralJournal/January-February2000 97
If shear reinforcement is provided, the critical section shall be
placed according to Fig. 6, 7
8
and the shear capacity at the crit-
ical section shall be computed by Eq. (15)
(15)
TEST DATA
The test series comprised seven specimens, all of which had
the same dimensions and approximately the same flexural
capacity, but with different reinforcement arrangements ac-
cording to Table 1 and Fig. 8 through 12. The material proper-
ties are summarized in Table 2.
The test setup (Fig. 13) was identical to the one reported in
Reference 7. The 2600 mm square and 180 mm thick slabs were
simply supported at eight points. The supports were symmetri-
cally distributed on the sides of a 2000 mm square. The effective
depth for the flexural tension reinforcement was 150 mm for all
specimens.
All specimens were cast with normal density concrete. The
concrete strength was recorded on 100 mm test cubes that were
stored under the same conditions as the test specimens. The cor-
responding standardized cylinder strength f
c
has been calculat-
ed according to Eq. (16)
V
c
f
v2
b
0 eff ,
d =
Fig. 6Critical section outside bent bars.
Fig. 7Critical section outside stirrup cages.
= 0.75 edge columns (limited confinement by surround-
ing slab)
= 0 corner columns (no confinement, one-way shear governs).
Fig. 8Reinforcement arrangement for Slabs 9 and 9a.
Fig. 9Reinforcement arrangement for Slab 10.
98 ACI StructuralJournal/January-February 2000
(16)
where
f
100
= compression strength of 100 mm cube;
0.95 = factor to transform to 150 mm cube strength; and
0.80 = factor to transform cube strength to cylinder
strength.
The concrete strength was deliberately kept relatively low to
simulate the possible under-strength in situ of a concrete with
nominal compression strength f
c
= 25 MPa. The nominal yield
strength of the reinforcement was 500 MPa and the chosen flex-
ural reinforcement ratio of approximately 0.5% represents a re-
alistic level for ordinary buildings.The load was increased in 25
kN steps. At ductile behavior of the slab, the load steps were
changed to 5 mm deflection steps.
Load and deflection recordings were made twice: immediately
after applying the load and after approximately 10 min to al-
low for the initial relaxation. The latter recordings are displayed
graphically in this paper.
The reference Specimens 9 and 9a had no shear reinforce-
ment. Specimens 10 and 11 were provided with bent 12 mm
bars as shear reinforcement. All the bent bars were placed with-
in the column cage. The bottom legs were 450 mm long and
placed on top of the bottom flexural reinforcement for Specimen
10, whereas the bottom legs were made 900 mm long and an-
chored under the bottom reinforcement for Specimen 11.
Specimens 12 through 14 were provided with a combination
of bent 12 mm bars and stirrup cages as shear reinforcement.
The longitudinal bars of the cages were placed in the same level
as the first layer of the bottom reinforcement for Specimen 12.
For Specimens 13 and 14, the cages were placed after the com-
pleted bottom reinforcement, i.e., with the longitudinal bars
parallel with the bars in the second layer of the bottom rein-
forcement.
The bent bars were designed so that the vertical component of
their ultimate force should exceed the shear force corresponding
to the ultimate flexural capacity of the specimen.
In all specimens the distance from the eight supports to the
shear reinforcement exceeded 3d, thereby eliminating the possi-
bility of direct transfer of forces to the shear reinforced zone.
TEST RESULTS
The test results are depicted in Fig. 14 and 15 and compared
to predictions according to ACI 318-95
4
and the Modified Mod-
el Code 90 (Fig. 14 and 15, and Table 3 and 4). Specimens 9 and
9a with no shear reinforcement both failed in punching at loads
close to predictions according to the two codes.
f
c
0.95 0.80 f
100
=
Table 1Specimen data
Specimen
Top flexural
reinforcement,
each way
Bottom flexural
reinforcement,
each way
Bent bars,
each way
Stirrup legs,
each way
9, 9a 22 10 16 8
10 17 10 16 8 3 12
11 17 10 12 8 3 12
12 17 10 12 8 3 12 5 @ 100 mm
13, 14 16 10 12 8 3 12 5 @ 100 mm
Fig. 11Reinforcement arrangement for Slab 12.
Table 2Material properties
Concrete Reinforcement
Specimen
f
c
, MPa
Specimen
Diameter,
mm
f
y
, MPa f
u
, MPa
10
, %
9 26.9
9-12
8 1) 662 17
9a 21.0
10 19.4 10 510 594 17
11 18.4
12 1) 552 20
12 17.3
13 20.9
13, 14
5 2) 689 2)
8 1) 633 22
14 20.4
10 1) 618 19
12 427 632 22
Fig. 12Reinforcement arrangement for Slabs 13 and 14.
Note: All flexural reinforcement bars uniformly distributed within width 2200 mm.
Note: 1) No yield plateau; 2) Not recorded.
Fig. 10Reinforcement arrangement for Slab 11.
ACIStructuralJournal/January-February2000 99
It is obvious that the bent bars in Specimens 10 and 11 had lim-
ited effect on the punching capacity and ductility of these speci-
mens. The post-punching behavior was improved, however, but
the deflection curves in Fig. 14 demonstrate that considerable
slab displacement at the shear cracking outside the bent bars oc-
curred before they became fully active as hangers. They would,
however, most probably act as catenary hangers with more reli-
able behavior than the design concept described in References 5
and 6, since they are not anchored or spliced within the softened
concrete near the column.
The ACI Code 318-95
4
grossly overestimates the punching ca-
pacity for Specimens 10 and 11 if the critical section for two-way
shear is placed 0.5d outside the outer bends of the bent bars (Table
3). The Code apparently makes no difference between a direct
support provided by a column and the weak indirect supports
within the slab thickness at discrete points that are provided by
bent bars, stirrups, or studs. (A more conservative approach was
applied in ACI 318-83, where one-way shear was considered
governing outside the shear reinforcement.)
The Modified Model Code 90 accurately predicts the shear ca-
pacity outside the bent bars of Specimens 10 and 11 (Table 4).
The approach is also verified by other tests performed by the au-
thor, where the column reaction was forced to be transferred to
the slab by bent bars only.
Specimens 12 through 14 behaved in the desirable manner
with a continuously increasing load capacity all the way up to
100 mm deflection, where the testing was stopped. The ultimate
deflection was so large that membrane action of the slab could
develop. This is why the predicted ultimate flexural capacity
could be reached in spite of the reduced effective depth due to
spalling of the bottom concrete cover across the entire width of
the specimens along the two principal axes.
No difference in behavior could be observed between Specimen
12 (with 12 mm concrete cover to the longitudinal bars of the stir-
rup cages) and Specimens 13 and 14 (with 20 mm concrete cov-
Fig. 14Load-deflection curves for Specimens 9 through 11.
Fig. 15Load-deflection curves for Specimens 12 through 14.
Table 3Test results and comparison with ACI
318-95
Specimen
Test results Calculated properties
V
test
,
kN
Failure
mode
V
f l
,
kN
V
c0
,
kN
V
cl
,
kN
V
s
,
kN
V
cal c
,
kN
V
test
/
V
calc
9 408 Punching 468 415 415 0.98
9a 360 Punching 462 367 367 0.98
10 345 Shear, V
cl
423 352 491 429 491 0.70
11 377 Shear, V
cl
414 343 495 429 495 0.76
12 420 Yield 410 323 818 429 410 1.02
13 443 Yield 421 366 899 491 421 1.05
14 440 Yield 421 361 887 491 421 1.05
Table 4Test results and comparison with
Modified Model Code 90
Specimen
Test results Calculated properties
V
test
,
kN
Failure
mode
V
f l
,
kN
V
c0
,
kN
V
cl
,
kN
V
s
,
kN
V
cal c
,
kN
V
test
/
V
calc
9 408 Punching 468 405 405 1.01
9a 360 Punching 462 374 374 0.96
10 345 Shear, V
cl
423 333 316 429 333 1.04
11 377 Shear, V
cl
414 327 347 429 347 1.09
12 420 Yield 410 321 622 429 410 1.02
13 443 Yield 421 335 637 491 421 1.05
14 440 Yield 421 332 632 491 421 1.05
Note: Contribution of bent bars to flexural capacity of slab is included in value V
fl
. Le-
ver arm around column edge = (d-a/2) cos35 degree.
Note: Contribution of bent bars to flexural capacity of slab is included in value V
fl
. Le-
ver arm around column edge = (d-a/2) cos35 degree.
Fig. 13Test setup.
100 ACI StructuralJournal/January-February 2000
er). The deflection shape resembled a truncated pyramid. A
small local punching movement at the column also occurred
(0.6 mm at Specimen 14), which indicates diagonal cracking
and demonstrates the ability of the bent bars to transfer the
shear load to the columnif supplemented by stirrups. The bent
bars were also 100% effective in resisting the bending moment
around the column edge.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATION
The tests have demonstrated that flat plates with shear rein-
forcement arranged in accordance with Fig. 5 will exhibit a very
ductile behavior similar to that of ordinary reinforced concrete
slabs supported by beams or walls, if the following design prin-
ciples are complied with.
The bent bars act as hangers. The vertical component of their
yield force shall be at least equal to the column reaction V
y
, cor-
responding to the formation of flexural yield hinges along the
support lines and in the midspans for uniformly distributed
loading.
The bent bars shall be placed within the column cage. The
sloping part shall start at the column edge and the inclination
shall not be steeper than 35 degrees to the horizontal. The bot-
tom legs shall be given a full development length, but, in order
for the bars to be effective for catenary action of the slab, they
shall extend not less than the distance 0.25 l
n
from the face of
the column.
The stirrup legs shall be uniformly distributed around the col-
umn and cover a square outside of which the design shear capac-
ity of the slab exceeds the column reaction V
y
(Eq. (17)). The
stirrups shall extend, however, to a distance at least 1.5d outside
the outer bend of the bent bars
(17)
with
b
0
according to Fig. 7 and f
v2
according to Eq. (11); and
= 1.5 (partial safety factor for concrete, which here also
includes the possible increase of V
y
by strain hardening
of the flexural reinforcement).
The stirrup cages shall be placed with their longitudinal an-
chor bars on top of the first bottom flexural reinforcement layer
and extend up to the top face of the slab with minimum concrete
cover. The spacing of the stirrup legs shall not exceed 0.7d in
both directions, their diameter d
b
should not exceed 8 mm,
and the inside diameter of the bends shall be 6d
b
. The longitudi-
nal bars in the stirrup cage should have a diameter not less than
1.4d
b
and the shearing strength of the weld to the stirrup legs
shall exceed the design force in the stirrup leg by a minimum of
25%. The design strength of the stirrups should therefore be lim-
ited to 200 MPa.
The stirrups shall be designed to transfer the support reaction
V
y
to the bent bars. Only stirrup legs within the distance 2.5d
red
from the outer bend of the bent bars are thereby considered ac-
tive in accordance with the variable strut inclination method
outlined in Eurocode 2
1
(Fig. 16). Until further research
shows otherwise, the reinforcement ratio
w
of stirrup legs
should exceed 0.0020 and should be limited to 0.0035. The up-
per limit was applied in the tests described in Reference 7.
It is recognized that the recommendations above do not con-
form to rules for beams in ACI 318-95 where U-stirrups from
welded wire fabric should enclose the flexural reinforcement
and each leg should be anchored in the compression zone by two
welded longitudinal wires.
The tests have demonstrated, however, that the described
concept will give the slab the desired ductility.
V
y
V
c

-----
f
v2

------ b
0
d =
CONCLUSIONS
Slab systems in modern buildings should display a ductile
failure mode in case of overloading. An objective of this paper,
therefore, is to draw attention to the inconsistency of many con-
crete codes that require primary beams to behave in a ductile
manner but accept a brittle failure mode for flat plates.
It is demonstrated that by using very simple precautions, it is
indeed possible to obtain the same good ductility for flat plates
as for slabs supported by beams or walls. The risk of a sudden
punching failure is thereby eliminated and the basic require-
ment for structural integrity is fulfilled.
The described bent bar and stirrup combination is easy to fab-
ricate and install in a stable way. For a typical flat plate struc-
ture, eight stirrup cages at each column are normally sufficient
(Fig. 5). The extra cost (including labor cost)as compared to
a conventional brittle flat plate without any shear reinforce-
mentis assessed at less than 1.5% of the total cost for the slab.
In this context it is worthwhile mentioning that this extra cost in
reality means a cost reduction in Sweden, since the Swedish
concrete code assigns a premium in the form of a 10% increased
design strength for ductile structural members in relation to
nonductile members. Moreover, a ductile flat plate is insensitive
to moment redistribution, which the designer can use for a cost-
effective reinforcement distribution.
The design recommendations are valid for interior columns,
but the same concept is applicable for edge columns, too. The
system should be suitable as standard practice for flat plates, and
extends the use of flat plates to protective structures against
weapon attacks and perhaps also to separately braced buildings
in severe earthquake regions.
It is important that the stirrup cages extend far enough from
the column to ensure the desired ductility. The provisions of the
ACI Code 318-95 seem to be unsafe in this respect.
NOTATIONS
A
sv
= area of stirrup leg
a = depth of equivalent rectangular concrete stress block at flexure
B = diameter of circular column
b
0
= perimeter of critical section
b
0,eff
= effective perimeter of critical section (Fig. 6)
c = width of square column
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of two ten-
sion reinforcement layers = 0.5 (d
x
+ d
y
)
d
red
= distance from top flexural reinforcement to bottom leg of bent
bars (Fig. 6)
Fig. 16Force transfer from stirrups to bent bars.
ACIStructuralJournal/January-February2000 101
d
b
= nominal diameter of bar
f
c
= radial inclined compression stress around column at punching
(Fig.1)
f
c
= compressive cylinder strength of concrete
f
u
= ultimate strength of reinforcement
f
v1
= nominal one-way shear strength of concrete
f
v2
= nominal two-way shear strength of concrete
f
y
= yield strength of reinforcement
f
100
= compressive strength of 100 mm cube
l
n
= clear span measured face-to-face of supports
s = spacing of stirrup legs
V = shear force transferred from slab to column
V
calc
= calculated shear capacity of specimen for observed failure mode
V
c0
= calculated punching capacity provided by concrete (without
shear reinforcement)
V
c1
= calculated shear capacity outside shear reinforcement
V
fl
= calculated shear force at ultimate flexural capacity of specimen
V
s
= calculated ultimate shear capacity provided by bent bars
V
test
= maximum force recorded at test, 10 min after load step application
V
y
= column reaction at formation of yield hinges along support lines
and midspans
y = height of compression zone in radial direction near column
= coefficient in expression for two-way shear strength

10
= elongation of reinforcement bar at rupture
= partial safety factor
= ratio of tension reinforcement =

b
= reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions

w
= A
sv
/s
2
, stirrup reinforcement ratio

x,

y
= ratio of tension reinforcement in x- and y-directions, respectively
= size effect factor
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 mm = 0.0394 in.
1 m = 3.281 ft
1 kN = 0.2248 kip
1 MPa = 145 psi
x y
1 1
200
d
--------- + + =
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The tests were carried out at the Department of Structural Design at Tallinn
Technical University, Estonia, under the supervision of Vello Otsmaa and were
financed by the consulting engineers AB Jacobson & Widmark, Stockholm.
This is gratefully acknowledged. A special acknowledgment is given to Fundia
Bygg AB, Sweden, for supplying the stirrup cages free of charge and to Kent
Arvidsson (AB J&W) for fruitful and valuable opinions during the study.
REFERENCES
1. European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 2, Design of
Concrete Structures Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, ENV
1992-1-1:1991.
2. Kinnunen, S., and Nylander, H., Punching of Concrete Slabs without
Shear Reinforcement, Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology,
No. 158, Stockholm, 1960, 112 pp.
3. Broms, C. E., Punching of Flat PlatesA Question of Concrete
Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect, ACI Structural Jour-
nal , V. 87, No. 3, May-June 1990, pp. 292-304.
4. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318M-95), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
5. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Recommendations for Design of Slab-
Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,
(ACI 352.1R-89), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 1989, 22 pp.
6. Mitchell, D., and Cook, W. D., Preventing Progressive Collapse of
Slab Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No. 7,
July 1984, pp. 1513-1532.
7. Broms, C. E., Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat
Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1990, pp. 696-705.
8. Regan, P. E., and Braestrup, M. W., Punching Shear in Reinforced
Concrete: A State-of-the-Art Report, Bulletin dInformation, No. 168,
Comit Euro-International du Bton, Lausanne, 1985, 232 pp.
9. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, MC 90, Bulletin dInformation, No.
213/214, Comit Euro-Internationale du Bton, Lausanne, 1993, 437 pp.