Improvement of punching shear resistance of RC slabs using GFRC: An

Experimental Study
Puneet Chugh
Post Graduate Student, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
K.K Bajpai
Senior Scientific Officer, Structural Engineering Lab, IIT Kanpur
Supratik Bose
Post Graduate Student, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Agrim Gupta
Post Graduate Student, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

ABSTRACT: This study discusses an experiment investigating the improvement in Punching Shear Re-
sistance (PSR) of Reinforced Concrete (RC) slabs used as manhole covers, by using Glass Fiber Reinforced
Concrete (GFRC) with both steel and Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) reinforcements. The slabs were de-
signed for typical vehicular loads of an Indian National Highway and tested for punching shear strength up to
failure. The experimental data is analyzed to draw some visible conclusions and compared with the some of
the predictions made using analytical models for the punching shear strength. It was observed that addition of
glass fiber in concrete improves the mechanical properties and gives better performance in terms of strength
and ductility for the same section of slab. Also, when designed for the same load, the punching shear strength
of FRP reinforced slabs is found to be lesser than those of the steel reinforced ones. The analytical models
were conservative in predicting the punching shear strength of the slabs and hence there is a need for more
accurate analytical models.

1 INTRODUCTION al reinforcement improves the punching

RC slabs are used as manhole covers and suffer
from various problems due to the conditions in
which they are placed. Their environment is acidic –
leading to corrosion of reinforcement. Replacing
steel with FRP has resolved this problem to a certain
extent in the past decade. This may also reduce the
concrete cover requirement which in significant for
slabs. Further, RC slabs manhole covers face the
punching loads of the vehicles running over them
and they should perform adequately under this load.
Hence, PSR of RC slabs is an important parameter
in their design. The behavioral efficiency of the
GFRC used these days is far superior to the normal
concrete. This looks like a promising solution to im-
prove the PSR of the RC Slabs.
Nguyen et al [1] investigated the effect of the
amount of steel fibers on punching shear cracking
behavior and resistance of the slabs was studied and
the results show a significant increase of the PSR
and a considerable improvement of cracking behav-
ior. Wahab et al [2] presented the results of a two-
phase experimental program and found Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) shear reinforcement to
be inefficient in enhancing significantly the slab ca-
pacity due to its brittleness. Esfahani et al [3] studied
punching shear strengthening of flat slabs using
CFRP sheets and showed that the use of CFRP
sheet, in addition to steel reinforcing bars, as flexur-
shear strength of slabs. Tan et al [4] strengthened six
prototype one way RC slabs with openings by exter-
nally bonded CFRP systems which were subjected to
concentrated line loads. The CFRP system proved to
be effective in enhancing the load-carrying capacity
and stiffness of RC slabs with an opening, provided
that premature failure due to CFRP debonding is ex-
cluded. Maya et al [5] presented a mechanical model
for predicting the punching strength and behavior of
concrete slabs reinforced with steel fibers as well as
conventional reinforcement. A wide number of ex-
periments were performed for validation of the pro-
posed model, based on which a simple design equa-
tion for the punching shear capacity of steel fiber
reinforced concrete (SFRC) slabs was proposed.
Though the literature on effect of steel and carbon
fiber on punching shear has been found in plenty,
the literature on behavior and capacity of glass fiber
reinforced concrete has not been reported much. Re-
search and experimental investigation needs to be
done for development of an understanding of the be-
havior of GFRC flexural elements such as slabs.
This paper presents the experimental phase of such a
study done at IIT Kanpur including the experimental
work, key experimental results, and the most im-
portant conclusions derived.
2 EXPERIMENT DESIGN
Table 2: Properties of the materials used
The aim of the experiments was to study and ana- Property Value
lyze the change in mechanical properties like punch- Steel
ing shear strength, ductility, load vs. deflection be- Ultimate Tensile Strength 515MPa
havior etc. of normal concrete slabs (used as Young’s Modulus 200GPa
manhole covers) on adding glass fiber to the mix for Density 7.85 g/cm3
both steel and FRP reinforcements. 8 specimens of 4 Fiber Reinforced Polymer
different kinds (two of each kind) of dimension 740 Ultimate Tensile Strength 818GPa
mm x 740 mm x 130 mm were designed for the Young’s Modulus 49.6GPa
study. These included: Density 1.5g/cm3
Glass Fiber
Table 1: Details of the specimen tested Strand Tensile Strength 1.7 GPa
Specimen Details Elastic Modulus 72GPa
S1 and S2 Concrete Slabs with steel reinforcement Specific Gravity 2.68
S3 and S4 Concrete Slabs with FRP reinforcement Strain to failure 2.4%
S5 and S6 GFRC slabs with steel reinforcement Softening Point 860oC
S7 and S8 GFRC slabs with FRP reinforcement Fire Performance Incombustible
Length 12mm
The reinforcements (steel and FRP) were designed
keeping in mind both the dead load of the slab and a
typical fire-fighter truck load of 16 ton spread over 2.4 Concrete Mix Design
and area of 300 mm x 300 mm which is the design As per IS: 10262 – 1982 (reaffirmed 2004), IS: 9103
load for typical Indian National Highways as in IRC – 1999 and, IS: 456 – 2000 using design criteria
6: 2000. The reinforcement details are given below: (section 2) and properties of materials (section 3), in
order to achieve a target mean compressive strength
2.1 Steel Reinforcement of 26.6MPa at 28 days, the concrete mix was de-
signed for samples S1, S2, S3 and S4 as given in
10 mm steel bars were used at 75 mm c/c distance Table 3. For samples S5, S6, S7 and S8 glass fiber
in both directions with 20mm cover. Strain gauges was also added.
were placed at two locations in the reinforcement Table 3: Concrete mix design
matrix shown as dark rectangles in Figure 1. Amount
Ingredient (in 1m3 concrete)
Water 165litres
2.2 FRP Reinforcement
Cement PPC (Make: Birla Gold) 330Kg
6.5 mm FRP bars were used at 40mm c/c distance in Coarse Sand 611.11Kg
both directions with 20mm cover. The strain gauge 20mm aggregates 634.6Kg
locations are shown as dark rectangles in Figure 2. 10mm aggregates 634.6Kg
Chemical Admixture (Conplast SP430, 3.3litres
Make: FOSROC Superplasticiser)
Glass Fiber (Cem-FIL anti-crack HD)* 5Kg
*Used only in sample S5, S6, S7 and S8

The mix design is based on the SSD condition of

Figure 1: Steel Reinforce-
ment design – 75mm c/c dis-
tance in both directions
2.3 Material Properties
The properties of various materials used are given in
Table 2.
both fine and coarse aggregates with a water cement
ratio of 0.5 and a slump of 70mm.
Cement: Sand: Coarse Aggregates::1: 1.852: 3.846
Figure 2: FRP Reinforce-
ment design – 40mm c/c dis- 2.5 Testing arrangement
tance in both directions
The testing arrangement consisted of a frame over
which the slab was supported to imitate the way an
actual manhole cover is kept. The frame with the
slab over it was placed under the testing machine
and punching load was applied using a circular
punch of diameter 225mm from above until the fail-
ure of the slab. A schematic testing procedure is
shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Schematics of the test setup
3 RESULTS
3.1 Concrete compressive strength
A total of 12 concrete cubes of size 150mm x
150mm x 150mm were tested to determine the 7 day
compressive strength and 12 for 28 day compressive
strength as per IS:516. The data of the 7 day com-
pressive strength along with the mean and 90% con-
fidence intervals are shown in Figure 4
Figure 4: Ten out of twelve specimen lie within 90% confi-
dence interval for 7 day cube strength
Similar data for 28-day cube strength is shown in
Figure 5. It can be seen for all the data, a reasonably
good number of samples fall within the 90% confi-
dence interval.
Figure 5: Ten out of twelve specimen lie within 90% confi-
dence interval for 28 day cube strength
3.2 Punching shear strength of the slabs
The punching shear strength of specimen reinforced
with steel and FRP with and without glass fiber in
the mix are reported in the Table 4. It can be seen
that there is an improvement of about 16.4% for
steel reinforced slabs whereas 3.4% for FRP rein-
forced slabs in the PSR when glass fibers are added
to the mix. Also, for the same design load, steel rein-
forced slabs give better PSR.
Table 4: Punching shear strengths
Specimen Average Punching shear
strength (kN)
S1 and S2 385.617
S5 and S6 448.854
S3 and S4 326.769
S7 and S8 337.832
3.3 Load - deflection curves
A comparison of the load deflection curves for S1
and S5 is presented in Figure 6. It can be seen that
on adding glass fiber to the mix, the peak load in-
creases whereas the deflection at the peak load re-
duces. So overall, the stiffness of the slab increases
with the addition of glass fiber to the mix.
Figure 6: Load vs deflection curve for S1 and S5
A similar comparison for FRP reinforced slabs
(S3 and S7) has been shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Load vs deflection curve for S3 and S7
The data for deflection at peak load is given in
Table 5. It can be seen from the data that with the
addition of glass fibers, both for steel and FRP rein- drawn from the energy data in Table 6 that addition
forcement, the deflection at peak load reduces. For of glass fiber to the mix improves the ductility per-
steel reinforced slabs, the average reduction is about formance of RC slabs for both types of reinforce-
34.44% whereas for FRP reinforced slabs, it is about ments.
21.45%. Addition of glass fibers for improving the
deflection has shown better performance with steel
reinforcement than with FRP reinforcement. 4 ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
Table 5: Deflection at peak load The punching shear resistance of the slabs was
Specimen Deflection at peak load predicted using various models from the literature to
(mm) compare with the experimental values and comment
S1 and S2 5.090 on the accuracy of the predictions. The results have
S5 and S6 3.337 been reported in Table 8.
S2 and S4 5.150
S7 and S8 4.045 Table 8: Predicted values of punching shear strength from lit-
erature

3.4 Energy absorbed Specimen Predicted Punch- Vexpt/V

ing Shear Strength pred
The energy absorbed up to the peak load computed (kN)
from the area under the load - deflection curve is S1
given in Table 6. From the data it can be observed ACI 318-05 217.83 1.56
that the energy absorbed for punching failure to oc- S2
cur was more in case of the steel reinforced slabs ACI 318-05 217.83 1.98
S3
than their FRP reinforced counterparts. However for El-Ghandour et al. (1999) 124.7 2.13
both types of reinforcements, an increase in energy S3
required for punching failure when glass fiber was Matthys and Taerwe (2000) 136.79 1.94
added to the mix was expected. Although in case of S3
steel reinforcement, the increase was not very signif- Ospina et al. (2003) 152.30 1.74
icant, in FRP reinforced slabs, the energy required S3
for punching failure increased by about 57.93% with El-Gamal et al. (2004) 130.98 2.02
the addition of glass fiber. Since the energy absorbed S4
is a measure of ductility of the system, we can con- El-Ghandour et al. (1999) 124.7 3.11
clude that GFRC slabs are more ductile than simple S4
Matthys and Taerwe (2000) 136.79 2.84
RC slabs for both types of reinforcement. S4
Ospina et al. (2003) 152.30 2.55
Table 6: Energy absorbed upto peak load
S4
Specimen Energy absorbed (Joules) El-Gamal et al. (2004) 130.98 2.96
S1 and S2 1188.8
S5 and S6 1198.7 As can be seen from the table, all the models give
S2 and S4 545.01 the lower bound of the punching shear strength of
S7 and S8 860.76 the slabs since the ratio in the last column is always
greater than unity. The analytical models are hence
3.5 Ductility factor conservative in nature and there is a need for more
accurate models to predict the punching strength.
Ductility factor (µ) is defined as the ratio of dis-
placement at Vmax and the displacement at 0.8 Vmax,
where Vmax is the maximum strength in the load de- 5 CONCLUSIONS
flection curves. The ductility factors for each of the
eight samples are given in Table 7. From the results, it can be seen that addition of glass
fibers to the RC mix is beneficial for improvement
Table 7: Ductility factors for various specimen of Punching Shear Resistance (PSR) as well as duc-
Specimen Average Ductility Factor tility of both steel and FRP reinforced concrete
S1 and S2 1.185 slabs. The effect is however more pronounced in
S3 and S4 1.365 case of steel reinforcements. The most important ad-
S5 and S6 1.375 vantage is that these improvements can be attained
S7 and S8 1.625 without changing the depth of the section.
There is an increase of 15.2% in the ductility factor For the typical conditions on highways, fatigue con-
in case of steel reinforced slabs and 18.2% in case of siderations are also important and it is expected that
FRP reinforced slabs. This reaffirms the conclusions GFRC can be beneficial for improving the fatigue
capacity of the slabs as well. Experimental work
however is needed to prove the validity of this asser-
tion. Further work in this direction may be undertak-
en to see the effectiveness of GFRC in improving
the fatigue capacity. Also since it can be seen that
analytical predictions give only the lower bound and
are very conservative in nature, therefore a finite el-
ement model can be investigated to see if it can give
better predictions of punching shear resistance of the
slabs.
However regardless of that, with the results of the
current study we can recommend to use Glass Fiber
Reinforced Concrete (GFRP) for the slabs where
PSR is important (as in case of manhole covers on
highways) for a better performance in terms of
strength and ductility with the same section.
6 REFERENCES [2, 3, 6-8][1, 2, 4, 9-23]
[1] L. Nguyen-Minh, M. Rovňák, T. Tran-Quoc,
and K. Nguyenkim, "Punching Shear
Resistance of Steel Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slabs," Procedia Engineering,
vol. 14, pp. 1830-1837, 2011.
[2] A. W. El-Ghandour, K. Pilakoutas, and P.
Waldron, "Punching Shear Behavior of Fiber
Reinforced Polymers Reinforced Concrete
Flat Slabs: Experimental Study," Journal of
Composites for Construction, vol. 7, pp. 258-
265, 2003.
[3] M. R. Esfahani, M. R. Kianoush, and A. R.
Moradi, "Punching shear strength of interior
slab–column connections strengthened with
carbon fiber reinforced polymer sheets,"
Engineering Structures, vol. 31, pp. 1535-
1542, 2009.
[4] K. H. Tan and H. Zhao, "Strengthening of
Openings in One-Way Reinforced-Concrete
Slabs Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Systems," Journal of Composites
for Construction, vol. 8, pp. 393-402, 2004.
[5] L. F. Maya, M. Fernández Ruiz, A. Muttoni,
and S. J. Foster, "Punching shear strength of
steel fibre reinforced concrete slabs,"
Engineering Structures, vol. 40, pp. 83-94,
2012.
[6] "IS 10262: 1982 (Reaffirmed 2004),"
Recommended Guidelines for Concrete Mix
Design.
[7] "IS 9103: 1999," Concrete Admixtures
Specification.
[8] "IS 516: 1959 (Reaffirmed 1999)," Methods
of test for strength of concrete.
[9] A. Committee, A. C. Institute, and I. O. f.
Standardization, "Building code
requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-08) and commentary," 2008.
[10] S. U. P. M. Devadas, Reinforced concrete
design: Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2003.
[11] S. Eswari, P. N. Raghunath, and K. Suguna,
"Ductility Performance of Hybrid Fibre
Reinforced Concrete," American Journal of
Applied Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 1257-1262.
[12] N. A. Hoult, E. G. Sherwood, E. C. Bentz,
and M. P. Collins, "Does the Use of FRP
Reinforcement Change the One-Way Shear
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slabs?,"
Journal of Composites for Construction, vol.
12, pp. 125-133, 2008.
[13] A. C. Institute, "Guide for Design and
Construction of Structural Concrete
Reinforced with FRP bars " ACI 440.1R-06.
[14] A. s. o. t. a. materials, "Standard
Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
" ASTM - C 1116/C 1116M–09.
[15] S. Matthys and L. Taerwe, "Concrete Slabs
Reinforced with FRP Grids. I: One-Way
Bending," Journal of Composites for
Construction, vol. 4, pp. 145-153, 2000.
[16] R. Park and W. L. Gamble, Reinforced
concrete slabs: John Wiley & Sons Inc,
2000.
[17] O. Reinforcements, "Application data sheet -
Cem-FIL® Fibers, Glass Fiber Reinforced
Concrete (GRC)."
[18] O. Reinforcements, "Application information
- Anti-Crak® Fibers, Solution For
Commercial and Industrial Floors."
[19] C. E. Reynolds and J. C. Steedman,
Reinforced concrete designer's handbook:
Taylor & Francis, 1988.
[20] T. Sekar, "Fiber Reinforced Concrete from
Industrial Waste Fibers – A Feasibility
Study."
[21] S. Specifications, "Code of Practice for Road
Bridges," Section–II, Loads and Stresses-
Fourth Revision, IRC, pp. 6-2000, 1958.
[22] I. Standard, "IS-456. 2000," Plain and
Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan,
vol. 9.
[23] U. S. Yilmaz, I. Saritas, M. Kamanli, and M.
Y. Kaltakci, "An experimental study of steel
fibre reinforced concrete columns under axial
load and modeling by ANN," Sci. Res.
Essays, vol. 5, pp. 81-92, 2010.