ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 108-S49

Punching Shear in Post-Tensioned Flat Slabs with Stud

Rail Shear Reinforcement
by Alessandra L. Carvalho, Guilherme S. Melo, Ronaldo B. Gomes, and Paul E. Regan

oc m
.fa
This paper describes an experimental study of the punching
resistance of unbonded post-tensioned slabs with shear reinforcement.
Seventeen slabs 200 mm (7.87 in.) thick and 3.0 m (9.84 ft) square
were loaded at their centers and simply supported near their edges.
Fifteen contained shear reinforcement in the form of stud rails

glo
and the principal variables in the series were those of the shear
reinforcement. The behavior of the slabs and the strains of the
shear reinforcement are described in some detail. The treatment of
ultimate strength is limited to showing the effects of the principal
variables of the shear reinforcement.

.ht b
Keywords: post-tensioned concrete; punching shear; shear reinforcement;
unbonded tendons.

INTRODUCTION
Although codes of practice include recommendations for
the design of punching shear reinforcement for prestressed
slabs, there is very little published experimental evidence

ksa
available to substantiate their approaches. Fig. 1Plan showing positions of loads and reactions.
Several programs of tests of post-tensioned slabs1-8 have (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
included single specimens with shear reinforcement and its
effects have been positive. However, the tests of References 1 strengths. The information will allow comparisons to be
to 3 were on models of bridge slabs with a high prestress from made with the predictions of design methods, all of which
bonded tendons in the longitudinal direction and none in the

tria -
presently appear to lack experimental substantiation.
transverse direction. That of Reference 4 was of a specimen
that was supported on a lift-slab collar and was without any EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
non-prestressed flexural reinforcement. The tests by Dilger and
Seventeen tests are made on slabs that are 3 m (9.84 ft)
Shatila5 were of connections to edge columns and the loading
square on plan and 200 mm (7.87 in.) thick. Upward loads are
system was one of constant shear and increasing moment.
applied at the center of the slabs and reactions are provided
Those by Ritchie and Ghali6 on edge connections and by
by four tie bars at each edge, as shown in Fig. 1. The flexural

iod
Gayed and Ghali7 on interior connections were concerned with
seismic design and also used loading systems of constant shear
and cycled moments. This seems to leave only a single test by
Hassanzadeh8 to cover normal unbonded post-tensioned floor
slabs on interior columns.
Three recent Brazilian series have addressed the subject
of shear reinforcement around interior supports of unbonded
post-tensioned floor slabs. Melges9 conducted three tests,
reinforcement is not varied. It is comprised of 12 unbonded
tendons each way, giving a mean prestress of approximately
2.3 MPa (333 psi) in the concrete and supplementary bars
with an area 0.54% of the gross concrete section in each
direction. There are some unintended variations in the
effective depths of the tendons and bars. Actual depths are
measured immediately before the casting of the concrete and
are given in Table 1. Concrete cylinder strengths range from

.w m
two of which were on slabs containing stud rails. The present
series10 comprised 18 slabs, 15 of which had stud rails as
shear reinforcement. The third series was by Fortunato,11
whose seven shear-reinforced slabs were similar to slabs in
the present work, except they had higher concrete strengths.
Because of the scarcity of information on the behavior of
slabs of this type, the present tests are described herein in
26.4 to 46.0 MPa (3830 to 6670 psi).
All shear reinforcement is in the form of stud rails. The
principal variables are the stud diameters (6.3 to 12.5 mm
[0.25 to 0.49 in.]), the radial spacing of the studs (75 to
120 mm [2.95 to 4.72 in.]), the number of studs per rail (two
to six), and the arrangements of the rails on plan.

ww
some detail and only direct experimental data are used in In the slabs of Group L, the loading plates are 200 mm
reviewing the experimental strengths. (7.87 in.) square and, in most cases, there are eight rails

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
There are extremely few published results from punching
tests of post-tensioned slabs with shear reinforcement.
This paper reports tests of 15 slabs with stud rails as shear
reinforcement and two slabs without shear reinforcement,
giving details of behavior, failure types, and punching
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 5, September-October 2011.
MS No. S-2007-184.R4 received January 30, 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 523

Alessandra L. Carvalho is a Civil Engineer. She received her MSc from the Federal
University of Gois, Goinia, Brazil, and her PhD from the University of Braslia,
Braslia, Brazil.
ACI member Guilherme S. Melo is an Associate Professor at the University of
Braslia, where he was Head of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
and the Postgraduate Course in Structures and Construction. He is a member of
ACI Committee 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement, and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 445, Shear and Torsion.
Ronaldo B. Gomes is a Professor at the Federal University of Gois, where he was
Head of the Postgraduate Course in Civil Engineering.
ACI member Paul E. Regan is a Professor Emeritus of the University of Westminster,
London, UK.
radiating from the centers of the slabs. In Group S, the plates
are 250 mm (9.84 in.) square and there are generally 12 radial
rails. In each group, there is one slab with the rails in a
cruciform configuration.
Concrete
The concrete is made with a granite coarse aggregate with
a maximum size of 19 mm (0.75 in.). The average strengths
of eighteen to twenty 150 x 300 mm (5.91 x 11.81 in.)
cylinders cured with the slabs and tested on the days of the
slab tests are given in Table 1, together with the other test
results. Ages at testing are from 7 to 21 days.
Bar reinforcement
The non-prestressed flexural tension reinforcement is
comprised of sixteen 16 mm (0.63 in.) bars in each direction,
arranged as shown in Fig. 2(a). The yield strengths of these
bars are 559 MPa (81.1 ksi) in Slabs L1 to L4R and 529 MPa
(76.7 ksi) in the remaining slabs. The yield plateaus are long
and significant tension stiffening is unlikely to have occurred
in the tests. Bottom reinforcement is 8 mm (0.31 in.) bars at
150 mm (5.91 in.) centers in both directions and 12.5 mm
(0.49 in.) U-bars are provided at the edge adjacent to the top
bars to assist their anchorage.
Post-tensioned reinforcement
The post-tensioned reinforcement is twelve 12.7 mm
(0.5 in.) greased and plastic-sheathed strands (Asp = 98.7 mm2
[0.15 in.2]) in each direction, arranged on plan, as shown in
Fig. 2(b). The tendon profiles are approximately bilinear, as
shown in Fig. 3, and the minor deviations from this that were
measured would have had a negligible effect. The strands have
a 0.2% proof strength of 160 kN (35.97 kips) and an ultimate
strength of 182 kN (40.92 kips). The tendon forces are given in
terms of mean concrete stresses fpc in the table of test results.

Fig. 2Details of bar reinforcement and plan arrangement
of prestressing tendons. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm =
0.0394 in.)
Shear reinforcement
The studs are made of short-length deformed reinforcement,
which are welded at one end to a rail and at the other to individual
40 mm (1.57 in.) square anchor plates. The yield strengths of
the bars range from 539 to 581 MPa (78.2 to 84.3 ksi) and
are given in Table 2, together with other details of the shear
reinforcement. Tensile tests are conducted on the studs in
complete stud rails and show strengths equal to those of the
bars and fractures generally away from the welds.

Table 1Summary of test data

Slab no. fc, MPa d, mm dp1/dp2, mm Asw/sr , mm un, mm fpc, MPa fpcu, MPa Vu, kN Mode du, mm
L1A 26.4 165 145/128 800 2.32 2.44 750 12
L2C 27.0 155 140/125 3.35 1884 2.24 2.48 887 in-2 22
L2R 32.2 164 155/135 3.35 1837 2.28 2.56 900 in-2 19
L3R 36.7 163 155/140 5.24 2572 2.30 2.72 1079 in-1 27
L3RII 38.8 144 137/120 5.24 2572 2.18 2.44 950 in-1 23
L4R 34.6 159 150/130 5.24 3306 2.44 2.80 1000 in-1 34
L4RII 46.0 164 155/125 8.18 3306 2.28 2.72 1185 in-1 40
L6RR 37.7 154 135/125 12.27 3551 2.56 2.90 1093 in-0 33
S1 39.4 156 145/133 1000 2.30 2.50 900 17
S2R 44.5 144 137/123 11.78 1708 2.20 2.52 1050 out 26
S3R 41.1 156 145/125 11.78 2267 2.22 2.74 1200 out 38
S4R 37.9 144 135/118 11.78 2764 2.60 3.18 1210 out 42
S5R 40.9 144 136/122 11.78 3261 2.32 2.94 1205 out 50
S5RII 33.8 148 137/125 7.54 3261 2.36 2.92 1150 in-2 42
S5C 39.8 147 135/122 11.78 3263 2.28 2.80 1121 out 44
S6R 43.7 144 135/118 3.12 4190 2.34 2.66 900 in-3 27
S6RII 36.3 143 135/122 5.03 4190 2.32 2.80 1043 in-3 30
Notes: dp1 and dp2 are effective depths of upper and lower strands on slab center lines: fpc and fpcu are averages for two directions of mean prestress at initial stage (start of loading) and
at failure; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.

524 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011

 It should be noted that the areas of the anchor plates
are larger than those in commercially produced stud shear
reinforcement. The ratio of the plate area to that of the bar
section is 13 for the 12.5 mm (0.49 in.) studs and greater for
the smaller sizes as compared with the ratio of 9 or 10 that
is normal in commercial products. The slab sections of Fig. 4
show typical details of the stud rails and their positioning
relative to other reinforcement. The plan arrangements of the
shear reinforcement are shown in Fig. 5. In all slabs but one,
the spacing of the studs complied with all the requirements
of EN 1992-1-1.12 Some of the radial spacing did not comply
with ACI 318-08,13 but they did comply with ACI 421.2R-07.14
Instrumentation
Deflection was measured by 11 deflectometers positioned
at the center of the slab along a line parallel to the x-axis.
Strain gauges of flexural rod reinforcement were positioned
at two points: at 9.45 and 15.75 in. (240 and 400 mm)
from the center of the column. Deformations of shear
reinforcement were measured until at least 91% of failure
load. Figure 6 shows the test setup.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The test data are summarized in Table 1. All failures were
by punching. Flexural cracking, initially on lines parallel
to the reinforcement and shortly after on other radial lines,
began at a load of approximately 300 kN (67 kips) and
rapidly extended to the slab edges. At loads of 500 to 600 kN
(112 to 134 kips), it was followed by limited circumferential
cracking in the regions near the supports (Fig. 7).
The failure loads varied from 699 to 1210 kN (157 to
272 kips). Internal cracking and failure surfaces are shown
in the drawings of Fig. 8, which were made when the slabs
were cut after failure. The types of failure surface can be
categorized as:
Surfaces in slabs without shear reinforcement, which
ran from the edges of the load plate to reach the level
of the bar reinforcement 400 to 500 mm (15.75 to
19.69 in.) out;
Surfaces running from the edges of the plate at inclinations
similar to those in slabs without shear reinforcement and
intersecting two or three circumferential layers of studs;
Surfaces running up from the plate at approximately
45 degrees and intersecting only one layer of studs
or, in one case, a surface at more than 45 degrees not
intersecting any studs; and
Surfaces running from the bottom of the slab at, or close
to, the outer perimeter of the shear reinforcement and
progressing upward at an inclination slightly lower than
that in slabs without shear reinforcement.
As can be seen in Fig. 8 and 9(b), the inclination angle
of the diagonal shear cracks for the slabs are not generally
straight, and they are better defined by the number of layers
of studs they intersected than by angles. As can be requested,
however, the following angles can be given: 35 (Slabs L1A
and L2C), 34 (Slab L2R), 40 (Slab L3R), 45 (Slab L4R),

Fig. 3Cross sections (half slab) showing strand profiles. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm
= 0.0394 in.)

Table 2 Details of shear reinforcement

Slab no. No. of layers sr , mm (in.) f, mm (in.) fyw, MPa (psi) No. of studs per layer stmax, mm (in.)
L2C 2 120 (4.7) 8.0 (0.31) 581 (84,267) 8 311 (12.2)

L2R 2 120 (4.7) 8.0 (0.31) 581 (84,267) 8 230 (9.1)

L3R 3 120 (4.7) 10.0 (0.39) 570 (82,672) 8 321 (12.6)

L3RII 3 120 (4.7) 10.0 (0.39) 562 (81,511) 8 321 (12.6)

L4R 4 120 (4.7) 10.0 (0.39) 570 (82,672) 8 413 (16.3)

L4RII 4 120 (4.7) 12.5 (0.5) 539 (78,175) 8 413 (16.3)

L6RR 5 120 (4.7) 12.5 (0.5) 539 (78,175) 8 444 (17.5)

S2R 2 80 (3.15) 10.0 (0.39) 562 (81,511) 12 142 (5.6)

S3R 3 80 (3.15) 10.0 (0.39) 562 (81,511) 12 189 (7.4)

S4R 4 80 (3.15) 10.0 (0.39) 562 (81,511) 12 230 (9.1)

S5R 5 80 (3.15) 10.0 (0.39) 562 (81,511) 12 272 (10.7)

S5RII 5 80 (3.15) 8.0 (0.31) 548 (79,481) 12 272 (10.7)

S5C 5 80 (3.15) 10.0 (0.39) 562 (81,511) 12 566 (22.3)

S6R 6 80 (3.15) 6.3 (0.25) 597 (86,588) 8* 262 (10.3)

S6RII 6 80 (3.15) 8.0 (0.31) 548 (78,175) 8* 262 (10.3)

*
Slabs S6R and S6RII had eight studs per layer in Layers 1 to 3 and 16 studs per layer in Layers 4 to 6.
Note: r0 = 180 mm (7.1 in.) for Slab L, 200 mm (7.9 in.) for Slab S2R, and 205 mm (8.1 in.) for other slabs S.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011 525

25 (outside shear reinforcement), 43.5 (inside shear
reinforcement) (Slab L4RII), 69.5 (Slab L6RR), 28
(Slab S1), 15.5 (Slab S2R), 27 (Slab S3R), 17.5 (Slab S4R),
20 (outside) and 60 (inside) (Slab S5R), 42.5 (Slab S5RII), 21
(Slab S5C), 38 (Slab S6R), and 34.5 degrees (Slab S6RII).
More details on the failure surfaces of the slabs can be found
in Reference 10.
Although all the failures were by punching, some of the
slabs were close to flexural failure (refer to the Appendix,
in which the flexural capacity is estimated at approximately
1250 kN [281 kips]). The reasons for the variety of failure
surfaces observed are discussed later in this paper.
Deflections
Deflections were measured by 11 dial gauges mounted
from a frame spanning over one center line and supported
at the lines of the reactions. An example of deflected profiles
at various load stages is shown in Fig. 10(a), where it
can be seen that they can be approximated well by rigid-
body rotations about axes close to the sides of the loading
plates. Close to failure, the dial gauge measurements were
Fig. 4Sections showing stud rails. (Note: Dimensions in
mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 5Plan arrangements of shear reinforcement. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm =
0.0394 in.)
526
discontinued and onward deflections of the centers of the
slabs were monitoredup to maximum loadsusing a
surveying level. The ultimate deflections given in Table 1 are
from the level readings. A complete load-deflection response
including both types of measurement is given in Fig. 10(b).
Strains of flexural reinforcement
Pairs of strain gauges at opposite ends of diameters were
used to monitor bar strains in the vicinities of the load plates.
When both radial and tangential strains were measured,
they were found to be approximately equal. The strains of
radial bars were measured throughout the test series and
Fig. 11 shows typical developments of these strains with
increasing load. They were small up to the cracking load of
approximately 300 kN (67 kips) and then increased much
more rapidly to reach yield values at loads of 800 to 900 kN
(180 to 200 kips). Beyond this, the strains either increased
very fast or, in a few cases, became stationary, indicating
yielding at a nearby section, with the bond between the
gauges and the yielding section being sufficient to prevent
the spread of large deformations.
Forces in prestressing strands
The forces in the strands were measured by hollow load
cells positioned between the anchorages and the sides
of the slabs. Force increments were small up to loads of
approximately 500 to 600 kN (112 to 135 kips). Figure 12
shows the total force increments (DFp)u, from the start of
testing up to maximum load, averaged for the 10 inner
strands in each direction, plotted against ultimate rotations
obtained as ultimate deflection/clear distance from load to
reaction line. For Slab S4R, only the strains of the lower
strands are plotted due to a problem with readings from load
cells on the upper strands. The relationships between (DFp)u
and qu are approximately linear, with (DFp)u larger for the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011
Fig. 6Test setup and instrumentation.
Fig. 8Transverse sections after failure.

Fig. 7Patterns of flexural cracking. Fig. 9Strains on innermost studs on rails perpendicular
and diagonal to sides of load plates and studs effective
upper than for the lower strands. For both groups of strands, across failure surface (shown black). (Note: 1 kN =
the force increments of the outer strands were approximately 0.2248 kips.)
two-thirds of those for the inner 10. The lines drawn in
Fig. 12 are the results of calculations using the rigid-body
deformation model of the Appendix, with the neutral axis
depth taken as 40 mm (1.57 in.) (lower lines) or 50 mm
(1.97 in.) (upper lines) and the effective depths of the strands
taken as the average values for the inner tendons.

Strains of shear reinforcement

The strains of the shear reinforcement were measured
by pairs of strain gauges at midheight of the studs. All the
studs in Slabs L2C and L2R were strain-gauged, but the
proportion instrumented decreased as the number of studs Fig. 10Deflected profiles and deflections, Slab S5R.
in a slab increased. (Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =
Figure 9(a) shows the strains in the innermost layers of 0.2248 kips.)
studs in Slabs L2R to L4R plotted against the applied load. In
all cases, the strains were minimal for loads up to 500 kN
(112 kips). Thereafter, they increased at a rate that increased
with the load. By failure, yield strains were developed in Slabs
L2R and L3R and were most likely reached in the other
two slabs. The strains of studs on rails perpendicular and
diagonal to the sides of the supports are shown separately,
as their distances from the supports were different80 mm
(3.15 in.) on the perpendicular lines but only 39 mm (1.54 in.)
(approximately 0.25d) on the diagonals. In each case, the
studs on the diagonal lines developed the higher strains at
low loads, but by failure any differences between the studs
on different lines were insignificant.
In most of Group S, the difference in distances from the
load plates to the studs on different rails was less than in
Group L. The exceptions were in Slabs S6R and S6RII,
where the distances were 80 mm (3.15 in.) for the inner studs
on rails parallel and perpendicular to the plates sides and
28 mm (1.10 in.) (approximately 0.2d) for those on diagonal
rails. In each of these slabs, only three studs in the inner
layer were instrumented: two on parallel/perpendicular rails Fig. 11Radial strains of flexural reinforcement. (Note:
and one on a diagonal rail. The limited data are inconclusive 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011 527

as to the relationships between the strains. In both series, the
relative distances from the supports to the studs on different
rails were insignificant beyond the first layer.
Ten of the slabs with shear reinforcement failed in the
region with shear reinforcement. Idealized, but realistic,
failure surfaces for these slabs are drawn in Fig. 9(b), which
indicates the layers of shear reinforcement active across the
failure surfaces. Figure 13 shows the evolutions of the average
measured strains for the relevant layers of studs. The values
have generally been calculated as the means of the strains
measured on all the studs where both gauges functioned. The
exceptions are where the yield strains were exceeded. Where
this occurred, the yield strain has been substituted to avoid
misleading impressions of the average stresses.
The measured strains are necessarily somewhat below the
values where the studs cross cracks, due to the bond along
the short lengths between the cracks and the gauges. With
this in mind, it seems reasonable to conclude that studs
crossed by failure surfaces yielded or at least reached a stress
of 500 MPa (72.5 ksi) in all the slabs of Fig. 13. Such a stress
is unlikely to have been reached in Slab L6RR and this is
consistent with the failure surface having been between the
load plate and the first layer of shear reinforcement. Strains
from Slab S6RII are not plotted in the figure, as the readings
obtained appear to be unreliable.
Figure 14 shows the variation of the mean stud strains
per layer with the distance from the slab center for slabs
with four to six layers of shear reinforcement. The strains
of the first two layers are approximately equal, whereas
those in the second layer are often larger. From layer three
onward, there is a decrease of strain but the stud forces
remain considerable, showing that shear cracking extended
out to the edges of the shear-reinforcement regions prior to
failure, which occurred outside the shear reinforcement in
Fig. 12Force increments in strands. (Note: 1 kN =
0.2248 kips.)
Fig. 13Strains of studs within failure zones. (Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kips; x = 200 kN.)
528
Slabs S5R and S5C. In Slab S6R, the stud areas in layers
four to six were twice those in layers one to three and, if stud
stresses are calculated as strain elastic modulus, the total
forces in layers four and five at 850 kN (191 kips) (0.94Vu)
are greater than those in layers one and two.
DISCUSSION
The observations of failure surfaces point to their location
and geometry being governed by conditions determining
the minimum punching resistance. The location can be
described as either outside or inside the region with
shear reinforcement.
In the former case, the failure surface runs from the
underside of the slab at a perimeter close to that of the outer
studs and goes upward and outward at an inclination similar
to that in a slab without shear reinforcement. The resistance
is the sum of a major contribution from the concrete and
a minor one from the vertical components of the forces
in the tendons crossing the failure surface. The concrete
component can be expected to be the product of the length
of a perimeter somewhat outside the outer perimeter of studs
and a resistance per unit length dependent on the parameters
affecting the punching resistances of slabs without
shear reinforcement.
The resistance to a failure inside the zone with shear
reinforcement is the sum of contributions from the concrete
Vc, the shear reinforcement crossing the failure surface Vs,
and the vertical components of the tendon forces crossing
the failure surface Vp. In the present tests, all the relevant failure
surfaces reached the slab soffits at the sides of the load plate,
so their geometry can be described simply in terms of a, the
horizontal distance from the edge of the plate to the surfaces
intersection with the bonded flexural reinforcement.
As dVs /da was negligible in the test slabs, the surface
of minimum resistance is defined by d(Vs + Vc)/da = 0,
assuming that studs crossed by the failure surface yield dVs /
da = Asw f yw /sr. The evaluation of dVc/da is more difficult. As
a decreases, the length of the outer perimeter of the failure
surface is reduced, but the reduction is more than offset by
the increase of resistance per unit length, which is similar in
nature to that in beams failing at steeply inclined surfaces. A
more detailed discussion on the failure mechanisms, together
with the applications of EN 1992-1-112 and ACI 318-08,13
will be presented in a follow-up paper.
With dVs/da being negative and dVc/da being positive,
the critical value of a reduces as A sw fyw /sr increases beyond
a minimum until it reaches a value equal to the distance
from the load to the innermost shear reinforcement.
Beyond this, any further increase of Asw fyw /sr can have
practically no effect.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011
 For normal distances from loads (or supports) to the
inner shear reinforcement of approximately 0.5d or less,
by the stage at which the maximum capacity is achieved,
the criterion of failure for the concrete has changed from
that governing typical punching failures to one much more
dependent on compressive strength (as in web compression
and shearing failures).
Although the aforementioned seems to be a rational
explanation for the types of failure observed, its use in
an empirical treatment of the results is limited. Figure 15
provides an empirical overview of the test results by plotting
Fig. 14Average strains per layer of shear reinforcement.
(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)
Fig. 15Ultimate strengths of slabs. (Note: 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.2248 kips.)
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011
the ultimate shears against the primary influential factors,
which varied in tests. The effects of some secondary factors
can also be observed in these figures.
The strengths of the slabs that failed outside the shear
reinforcement are plotted against the length of the external
perimeter un of the shear reinforcement in Fig. 15(a), which
includes the two slabs without the shear reinforcement, with
un taken as the perimeter of the load. The variable Vu varies
linearly with un up to a maximum of approximately 1200 kN
(270 kips) and the influence of the limited variation of fc can
be seen to be small. This was to be expected, as fc influences
only a part of the unit shear resistance (not that dependent
on prestress) and even in the affected part its effect is only
proportional to fc1/2 or fc1/3. The most plausible reference for
the tested slabs is fc1/3.
The only point falling significantly below the line is that
for Slab S5C, which had its stud rails in a cruciform pattern
and had the greatest circumferential spacing of studs in the
outer layer (s1,max = 3.85d). The arrow from this point in
Fig. 15(a) indicates the effect of limiting un to the parts of
the perimeter within d of a stud. It can be seen that this brings
the point close to those for the other slabs. Such modification
to un does not affect any of the other results, as the others
are radial. For non-prestressed concrete, the compressive
strength of concrete represents an even more important
component in the shear strength.15
In Fig. 15(b), for inside failures, the strengths of the slabs
with shear reinforcement varies linearly with Asw/sr up to
approximately 1200 kN (270 kips), with the exception of
that for Slab L6RR, which is discussed in the following. The
extension of the line to Asw/sr = 0 is, however, lower than
the strengths of the two slabs without shear reinforcement.
The influence of the variation of concrete strength among
the slabs with studs appears negligible. For the slabs without
shear reinforcement, it has an influence, although the larger
load plate for Slab S1 is also relevant. The diameter of the
studs does not appear to have any influence beyond that
accounted for in Asw.
529
 The only result significantly below the line is that for Slab
L6RR, in which Asw/sr has its highest value and where the
failure surface was very steep and did not intersect even the
inner layer of studs. This type of failure can be expected from
the considerations at the start of this section. It is interesting
that Slab L6RR was weaker than Slab L4RII, and two factors
probably contributed to thisd was 6% greater in Slab L4RII
and fc was 22% higher and has an almost proportionate increase
on the resistance at failure surfaces between the load plate and
the innermost studs. The point for Slab L3RII is also slightly
below the line and this is probably because its ratio sr/d was
0.83, whereas for the other slabs it was approximately 0.75 in
Group L and 0.55 in Group S. These figures refer to d defined
as the effective depth of the bonded reinforcement.
The upper limit of Vu drawn in Fig. 15 is specific to the general
details of the slabs tested and, to an extent, to the type of shear
reinforcement used. However, some of their characteristics are
likely to be of general significance. The inclined line in
Fig. 15(a) shows that for outside failures, all else being equal,
the punching resistance was normally proportional to the length
of a perimeter 2d outside the outer periphery of studs (or of the
load plate, in the absence of shear reinforcement). Exceptions to
this arose at an upper limit approximately equal to the flexural
capacity and where the spacing of the outer studs exceeded
approximately 2d. In both of these cases, the strengths were
below the general trend.
The gradient of the line in Fig. 15(b) is 75 kN/mm
(51.39 lb/ft). Replacing A s w /sr by As w f yw(d/sr), with fyw
500 MPa (72.5 ksi) and d 60 mm (6.3 in.), gives a gradient
of Vu equal to Asw fyw(d/sr), suggesting that the contribution to
Vu from the studs is approximately equal to the yield resistance
of the studs in a radial width equal to d. (Note that 500 N/mm2
[72,515 psi] is approximately 10% lower than the average yield
stress of the studs, but nearly all the relevant results are above
the line in Fig. 15(b).) Although the upper limit of Vu in this
figure is similar to that in Fig. 15(a), it probably corresponds to
a web crushing or shearing limit to the capacity of the concrete
adjacent to the load plate.
An account for variations of all significant parameters in
a context wider than that of this test series is needed. This
requires a framework for analysis, which comes best from
codes of practice. EN 1992-1-112 and ACI 318-0813 are used
for this purpose.16
The difference in the performance of slabs with shear studs in
radial and cross (orthogonal) directions could not be measured
well, as there were only two slabs with cross display (Slabs L2C
and S5C). Nevertheless, the slabs with radial shear studs display
(Slabs L2R and S5R) presented ultimate loads, respectively,
at 1.5 and 7% higher than the cross shear studs display. More
revealing results would have been found with a slab such as Slab
S5C with 8.0 mm (0.31 in.) studs that could be compared with
Slab S5RII.
CONCLUSIONS
The stud rail shear reinforcement used was effective in
increasing punching resistance. The maximum increase
relative to the strengths of control slabs without shear
reinforcement was approximately 60% and the maximum
loads of several slabs were close to the calculated flexural
capacity. Ductility was also improved with a maximum
increase in deflection of 194%.
Studs crossed by punching failure surfaces developed
yield stresses of approximately 550 MPa (79,770 psi) or
values close to this.
530
Two main types of failure were observedfailure outside
(at the edge of) the shear reinforcement and failure within
the shear-reinforced zone. In the latter type, the failure
surfaces always ran to the edges of the central loading plate
but their inclinations varied, increasing as the ratio of shear
reinforcement increased.
Resistance to punching outside the shear reinforcement
increased with the length of the external perimeter un of
the studs. The resistance was generally proportional to un
+ 4pdthat is, the length of a perimeter 2d outside that of
the studs. Resistance within the reinforced zone increased
in proportion to As w f yw(d/sr), where Asw is the area of shear
reinforcement per circumferential layer; and sr is the radial
spacing of the layers, even though the radial projection of the
failure surface decreased as Asw increased.
Resistances to both types of failure had similar upper
limits. For the inside failures, the limit corresponded to a
crushing or shearing failure of the concrete between the load
and inner studs, but for outside failures it appeared to be
related to the proximity of flexural failure.
Regarding the parameters of the shear reinforcement, the
most important are the length of its outer perimeter, which is
a function of the length and number of rails, and the intensity
A s w f yw (d/sr), which depends on the stud diameter; the
number of rails; and, of course, the yield stress and radial
spacing. There is an indication that the radial spacing should
not exceed 0.75d and that the tangential spacing in the outer
layer should not be greater than approximately 2d if the full
length of the outer perimeter is to be effective.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express gratitude to FURNAS Centrais Eltricas
(Goinia, Brazil), where the tests were carried out, the University of Braslia,
the Federal University of Gois, CNPq and CAPES, Brazilian Research
Development Agencies, ANEEL, PROTENDE, IMPACTO Protenso,
Belgo Mineira, and Perfinasa for supporting the experimental program.
NOTATION
Asp = cross-sectional area of strand
Asw = area of shear reinforcement in one circumferential layer
d = effective depth of bonded reinforcement (average for two directions)
dp1, dp2 = effective depths of upper and lower strands at slab center lines
Ep = elastic modulus of strand
Fpi = prestress force per strand at start of test
Fpu = force per strand at ultimate load of slab
fc = cylinder compression strength of concrete
fpc = mean prestress of concrete at start of test
fpcu = equivalent of fpc but calculated from strand forces at slab failures
fyw = yield strength of shear reinforcement
r0 = radius from center of slab to innermost studs
sr = radial spacing of circumferential layers of shear reinforcement
st = tangential spacing of studs in layer (stmax = maximum spacing)
un = perimeter of outer layer of shear reinforcement
Vu = ultimate load (punching force)
x = neutral axis depth
(DFp)u = increase of strand force during loading of slab ((DFp)u = Fpu Fpi)
d = deflection of center of slab relative to reactions (du is ultimate deflection)
f = diameter of stud
q = rotation of slab
REFERENCES
1. Nylander, H.; Kinnunen, S.; and Ingvarsson, H., Punching of
Column Supported Slab Bridges of Concrete with Prestressed and
Non-Prestressed Reinforcement, Meddelande Nr 123, Institutionen fr
Byggnadsstatik, Kungliga Tekniska Hgskolan, Stockholm, Sweden,
1980, 56 pp. (in Swedish)
2. Kinnunen, S.; Nylander, H.; and Tolf, P., The Influence of
Slab Thickness on the Punching Resistance of Concrete Slabs:
Tests of Rectangular Slabs, Meddelande Nr 137, Institutionen fr
Byggnadsstatik, Kungliga Tekniska Hgskolan, Stockholm, Sweden,
1980, 73 pp. (in Swedish)
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011
 3. Regan, P. E., The Punching Resistance of Prestressed Concrete
Slabs, Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, V. 79, London,
UK, Dec. 1985, pp. 657-680.
4. Gerber, L. L., and Burns, N. H., Ultimate Strength Tests of Post-
Tensioned Flat Plates, PCI Journal, V. 16, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1971, pp. 40-58.
5. Dilger, W. H., and Shatila, M., Shear Strength of Prestressed
Concrete Edge Slab-Column Connections with and without Shear Stud
Reinforcement, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 16, No. 6,
1989, pp. 807-819.
6. Ritchie, M., and Ghali, A., Seismic-Resistant Connections of Edge
Columns with Prestressed Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr. 2005, pp. 314-323.
7. Gayed, R. B., and Ghali, A., Seismic-Resistant Joints of Interior
Columns with Prestressed Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 5, Fig. A1Collapse mechanism.
Sept.-Oct. 2006, pp. 710-719.
8. Hassanzadeh, G., Concrete Slabs on Columns: Design Methods
for Slabs with Unbonded Prestressed Reinforcement, TRITA-BKN moment can be calculated. The conditions of equilibrium
Bulletin 43, Kungliga Tekn., Hgskolan, 1998, 160 pp. (in Swedish) then give the ultimate load as a function of dimension g
9. Melges, J. L. P., Experimental Analysis of Punching in Reinforced and of Fig. A1. The flexural capacity can then be calculated
Prestressed Concrete Slabs, PhD thesis, University of So Paulo, So Carlos
School of Engineering, So Paulo, Brazil, 2001, 414 pp. (in Portuguese)
by minimizing the ultimate load as a function of g. If a
10. Carvalho, A. L., Punching Shear in Post-Tensioned Concrete Flat compression stress block at fc is assumed to act over 0.8x
Slab with Unbonded Tendons and Shear Reinforcement, PhD thesis, all along the hinges, the flexural resistance calculated for
Civil Engineering Department, University of Braslia, Braslia, Brazil, Slab S5R is approximately 1250 kN (281 kips) and the
2005, 423 pp. (in Portuguese)
11. Fortunato, P. A. G., Punching of Prestressed Concrete Flat Slabs corresponding neutral axis is approximately 36 mm (1.42 in.).
with Shear Reinforcement, masters dissertation, Federal University of This was the slab with the largest measured deflection
Gois, Goinia, Brazil, 2005, 210 pp. (in Portuguese) (corresponding to q = 0.041) that failed by punching at
12. EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete StructuresPart 1: General 1205 kN (271 kips). The flexural calculation thus seems
Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium, 2003, 230 pp. reasonable, but there must be some doubt over the treatment
13. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural of the concrete compression used to calculate x.
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Although it is difficult to calculate the deformations of the
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
14. ACI Committee 421, Seismic Design of Punching Shear
concrete in a square slab, the problem is simple for a circular
Reinforcement in Flat Plates (ACI 421.2R-07), American Concrete slab with a circular loaded area. If the overall deformation is
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2007, 22 pp. assumed to be one of rigid-body rotations of radial segments
15. Park, H.; Choi, K.; and Wight, J. K., Strain-Based Shear Strength about the axes at the perimeter of the load for a rotation q,
Model for Slender Beams without Web Reinforcement, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 103, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2006, pp. 783-793.
the circumferential strain at the compressed surface at a
16. FIP Recommendations, Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs and radius r is q(x/r). There is thus a large difference between
Foundations, SETO, London, UK, 1999, 44 pp. the strains close to the load and those at the edges of the
slab, and it is impossible for the compression force to be
APPENDIXFLEXURE uniform along a radius. The average compression must thus
According to FIP recommendations,16 the ultimate deflection of a be less than 0.8fcx per unit length, which must increase x. If
post-tensioned flat slab with a typical slenderness ratio of 30 to q = 0.04 and x = 36 mm (1.42 in.), the strain at a radius of
40 and failing in flexure can be assumed to be approximately 177 mm (7.97 in.) (the radius to the corners of the load
span/50. This corresponds to a failure mechanism with plates of the Group S slabs) is 0.008, which is far above
parallel hinges at column lines and at midspan with rotations the normal limit of 0.003 or 0.0035. If x is increased to
of 0.04 radians from the horizontal. If it is assumed that the take account of the variation of compression along a radius,
same limit applies to the rotations at the column faces in the the strain becomes still higher. There is thus good reason
mechanism of Fig. A1, the ultimate forces at flexural failure to believe that compressive strains of concrete could be
of the present slabs can be determined from their extensions
critical and limit resistances to both flexure and punching for
due to the deformations shown.
punching close to a load plate (or a support). A failure of
At each hinge line, the extension of a tendon crossing the
the compression zone could be caused by a combination
line is
of circumferential strains and inclined compression from
e = rotation(d p x ) (A1)
shear. For punching at the edge of a shear-reinforced zone,
where the rotation is that in the plane of the tendon; dp is the the problem could be the weakening of the circumferential
effective depth of the tendon at the line; and x is the neutral compression action needed for the equilibrium of the truss
axis depth. The ultimate force in a tendon is then system produced by the shear reinforcement. Compression
strains could be the basic cause of the upper limit of
e resistance of approximately 1200 kN (270 kips) found for
Fpu = Fpi +
Ap E p (A2)
l both types of punching failure.
where the summation is for all the hinge lines crossed by Such effects would be unlikely in test slabs loaded at their
the tendon; l is the length between its anchorages; Ap is the edges or in most normal floors, where failure by the simple
tendons area; and Ep is the tendons elastic modulus. folding mechanism, envisaged in the FIP recommendations,16
Bonded reinforcement can be assumed to yield at hinges is possible. For such slabs, the ultimate flexural capacity
and the total tension at each hinge and hence the resistance would, however, be lower than those of the present slabs.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2011 531