Full Thesis

IMPROVEMENT OF PUNCHING SHEAR CAPACITY OF EXISTING
FLAT PLATES BY USING SHEAR REINFORCEMENTS
Md. Tusar Khandokar
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
December, 2015
i
IMPROVEMENT OF PUNCHING SHEAR CAPACITY OF EXISTING FLAT PLATES
BY USING SHEAR REINFORCEMENTS
A Thesis
by
Md. Tusar Khandokar
Submitted to the
Department of Civil Engineering,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGNEERING (STRUCTURAL)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
December, 2015
ii
iii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my parents and teachers
iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to admit the blessings of almighty, merciful, gracious Allah who
enables me to accomplish this thesis successfully.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regard to my
thesis supervisor Professor Dr. Raquib Ahsan, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) for his exemplary guidance, quick response
and constant encouragement throughout the duration of the research. His valuable suggestions
and enthusiastic supervision were of immense help throughout my research work. Working
under him was an extremely knowledgeable experience for me.
I wish to express my gratitude and heartiest thanks to respected defence committee members
Prof. Dr. Abdul Muqtadir, Associate Prof. Dr. Mohammad Al Amin Siddique, Prof. Dr. Sharmin
Reza Chowdhury for their valuable advice and help in reviewing this thesis.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to Confidence Cement Limited and KSRM for their
material and technical support. It would not be possible to complete the thesis without their
assistance.
I would like to thank to all laboratory members for their advice and technical support throughout
the experimental program.
I pay my deepest homage to my family members. I am thankful to Ibrahim Hossain and Mst.
Nowrin Zakki for their unconditional help, inspire, blessings and great co-operation.
v
ABSTRACT
As reinforced concrete flat plates do not contain beams, all the loads on slabs are transferred
directly to the columns. During an earthquake, the displacement-induced unbalanced moments
causes shear forces at the flat plate-column connections. Due to transfer of shear forces
combined with induced unbalanced moments between slab and column, brittle punching failure
can occur. Because of increase in applied loads and/or lack of consideration of seismic effects
during design or construction, a significant number of existing flat plates are currently required
to be strengthened against punching shear to avoid brittle punching failure. From literature
review, it is observed that use of U-stirrups as shear reinforcements with strong epoxy is very
convenient and effective in strengthening the punching shear capacities of flat plates.
Based on critical shear crack theory and structural mechanics, shear reinforcements have been
designed in the present study. Due to ease of accessibility and placement, U-stirrups are used for
retrofitting flat plate column connections.
In this experimental study, eight numbers half scale frame specimens were tested under lateral
cyclic loading to observe the punching capacity of flat plates. The test was loading control so
that the horizontal hydraulic jacks were used for imposing the cyclic loading. The specimens
were subjected to incremental cyclic loading provided by hydraulic jacks under constant axial or
gravity load and their load-deformation behavior was measured by dial gauges and video
extensometer. The behaviors of the strengthened flat plate column connection are compared to
the control models to observe improvement of punching shear capacity.
The joints without shear reinforcement underwent brittle failure under cyclic loading, but their
ductility increased with increased concrete strength. The joints with smaller flat plate thickness
strengthened with shear reinforcements showed equivalent load bearing capacity as compared to
that of greater plate thicknesses with enhanced ductile behavior. Due to use of shear
reinforcements, horizontal and vertical displacement capacities of flat plates under lateral loading
were increased compared to those of control specimen.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................. iii
DECLARATION ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................v
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................x
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xvi
NOTATIONS ........................................................................................................................... xviii
CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1
1.1 General ..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background of the Study...................................................................................................1
1.3 Justification of the Study...................................................................................................5
1.4 Objectives of the Research ................................................................................................6
1.5 Methodology .....................................................................................................................6
1.6 Scope of the Work.............................................................................................................7
1.7 Organization of the Thesis ................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2 ...................................................................................................................................9
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................9
2.1 General ..............................................................................................................................9
2.2 Flat Plate ...........................................................................................................................9
2.3 Shear Reinforcements .....................................................................................................10
2.4 Requirement of Shear Reinforcements for Lateral Loading in Flat Plates .....................12
vii
2.5 Retrofitting Strategy........................................................................................................13
2.6 Guidelines for Use and Design of Shear Reinforcements in Flat Plates .........................14
2.6.1 Use of Shear Reinforcements ..................................................................................14
2.6.2 Design of Shear Reinforcements to improve punching shear capacity ...................16
2.6.3 Detailing of Shear Reinforcements in Plates ...........................................................24
2.7 Cyclic Load .....................................................................................................................25
2.8 Literature Review of Earlier Research on Improvement of Punching Shear Capacity of

Flat Plate ....................................................................................................................................26
2.9 Summary of Literature Review .......................................................................................32
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................33
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .....................................33
3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................33
3.2 Specimen Preparation .....................................................................................................33
3.2.1 Selection of Geometric Properties of Model Frames ..............................................33
3.2.2 Material properties ...................................................................................................40
3.3 Formation of Specimens .................................................................................................50
3.3.1 Base Beam and columns Construction ....................................................................50
3.3.2 Flat Plate floor slab and Column top Construction .................................................52
3.3.3 Retrofitting Work.....................................................................................................53
3.4 Experimental Set Up, Testing Procedure, Data Acquisition ...........................................59
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................................62
ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................62
4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................62
4.2 Test Set Up and Testing Procedure .................................................................................62
4.3 Failure Modes of Flat Plate .............................................................................................63
viii
4.4 Test Result of Specimen S-3-C-3....................................................................................64
4.7 Test Result of Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control) .................................................................70
4.11 Test Result of Specimen S-5.5-C-4 (Control) .................................................................79
4.12 Load-Deformation Response ..........................................................................................80
CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................................98
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................98
5.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................98
5.2 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................99
5.4 Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................................100
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................101
APPENDIX-A ............................................................................................................................106
APPENDIX-B .............................................................................................................................125
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 1.1: Comparison of the behavior and strength of two slabs with and without shear
reinforcement (Muttoni et al. 2008). ..................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2: Reinforcing of existing slabs against punching shear: (a) concreti ng or installing
of steel-precast capital; (b) widening of column; (c) addition of upper concrete layer; (d)
addition of glued flexural reinforcement; (e) post installed shear reinforcement with
mechanical anchorage; and (f) bonded post-installed shear reinforcement (Ruiz et al., 2010).
.............................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 1.3: Post-installed shear reinforcement: (a) typical cross section; (b) view of nut,
washers, and bar; (c) detail of anchor head; and (d) installing by drilling of inclined holes
(Ruiz et al., 2010). ................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2.1: Conventional stirrup cages (adopted from Nilson et al. 2010) ........................... 11
Figure 2.2: Shear Studs (adopted from Nilson et al. 2010) ................................................. 11
Figure 2.3: Shearhead Reinforcement (Nilson et al. 2010) ................................................. 12
Figure 2.4: Location of critical and effective section in flat plates. (Song et al. 2012) ........ 13
Figure 2.5: Penetrating post-installed punching shear reinforcement (Muttoni et al. 2008) . 15
Figure 2.6: Post-installed punching shear reinforcement applied only from bottom side of
the slab(Muttoni et al. 2008) ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.7: Critical shear crack and punching shear cone (adopted from Muttoni et al. 2008)
............................................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 2.8: Comparison of failure criterion for slabs without shear reinforcement (Eq. (2.3))
to 99test results (Ruiz et al. 2010) ....................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.9: Calculation of strength and deformation capacity at failure according to the
CSCT (Ruiz et al. 2010) ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.10: Effective depth and control perimeter outside the shear-reinforced zone as
function of the punching shear reinforcing system(Muttoni et. al. 2009).: (a) studs; (b)
stirrups; (c) bonded reinforcement with anchorage plates; and (d) shearheads (Ruiz et al.
2010) ................................................................................................................................... 19
x
Figure 2.11: Influence of cracking on crushing shear strength: (a) detail of compression
struts nearthe support region; (b) development of flexural crack; (c) development of a shear
crack; and(d) development of delamination crack. (Ruiz F. and Muttoni A., 2010) ............ 21
Figure 3.1 Typical RC Flat Plate Frame Building 3D View ................................................ 34
Figure 3.2 Selection of interior Flat Plate-column Frame Plan View (All Dimensions are in
milimetres) .......................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3.3: Selection of interior Flat Plate-column Frame Elevation ................................... 36
Figure 3.4: Typical Half Scaled Model Dimension ............................................................. 36
Figure 3.5: Placements of top and bottom bars of Flat Plate Floor Slab .............................. 38
Figure 3.6: Grain Size Distribution curve of fine aggregates ............................................... 42
Figure 3.7: Grain Size Distribution curve of coarse aggregates ........................................... 43
Figure 3.8.: Coarse Aggregate ............................................................................................. 44
Figure 3.9: Fine Aggregate ................................................................................................. 44
Figure 3.10: Concrete Mixing ............................................................................................. 45
Figure 3.11: Slump Test ...................................................................................................... 45
Figure 3.12: Concrete Cylinders are Stored in Water. ......................................................... 49
Figure 3.13. Compressive Strength Testing of Cylinders ................................................... 49
Figure 3.14: Formwork Ready for Base Beam and columns ............................................... 51
Figure 3.15: Concrete pouring into Formwork ................................................................... 51
Figure 3.16: Using Mechanical Vibrator ............................................................................ 51
Figure 3.17: Base Beams after column After Casting. ......................................................... 52
Figure 3.18: Base Beams and Columns Wrapped with Hessian for Curing.......................... 52
Figure 3.19: Preparation of Flat Plate Formwork ................................................................ 52
Figure 3.20: Formwork Ready for Flat Plate Casting .......................................................... 52
Figure 3.21: Reinforcments arrangement ........................................................................... 53
Figure 3.22: Flat Plate after Casting .................................................................................... 53
Figure 3.23: Casted Column top and curing of Flat Plate ................................................. 53
Figure 3.24: Curing of Flat Plate and Column top ............................................................ 53
Figure 3.25: U-stirrups as Shear Reinforcements. ............................................................... 54
Figure 3.26: Ferro Scanner .................................................................................................. 55
Figure 3.27: Ink marked loaction of drilling and location of existing flat plate rebars ...... 55
xi
Figure 3.28: Drilling Machine ............................................................................................. 55
Figure 3.29: Drilling from soffit of the Plate using Drilling Machine ................................. 55
Figure 3.30: Hand Grinding Machine ................................................................................. 55
Figure 3.31: Removing clear cover using Hand Grinding Machine .................................... 55
Figure 3.32: Hammer and Chisel ........................................................................................ 56
Figure 3.33: Removing clear cover using Hammer and Chisel ............................................ 56
Figure 3.34: Round Brush ................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3.35: Cleaning borehole using Round Brush ............................................................ 56
Figure 3.36: Bore Holes washing by water spreading .......................................................... 56
Figure 3.37: Epoxy Adhesive Chemicals ............................................................................ 57
Figure 3.38: Epoxy ingredients .......................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.39: Epoxy Mixure ................................................................................................ 58
Figure 3.40: Application of Epoxy ..................................................................................... 58
Figure 3.41: Pushing Epoxy by Steel Bar ............................................................................ 58
Figure 3.42: After Application of Epoxy ............................................................................. 58
Figure 3.43: Inserting Shear Reinforcement into the Flat Plate .......................................... 59
Figure 3.44: Inserting Shear Reinforcement by Hammering ............................................... 59
Figure 3.45: After Inserting Shear Reinforcement .............................................................. 59
Figure 3.46: After Inserting Shear Reinforcement around the column ................................ 59
Figure 3.47: Micro Concrete Mixure .................................................................................. 59
Figure 3.48: Rebuilding Clear cover ................................................................................... 59
Figure 3.49: Schematic Diagram of Loading condition during test ..................................... 61
Figure 4.1: Dial Gauge-1 ..................................................................................................... 63
Figure 4.2: Dial Gauge-2 ..................................................................................................... 63
Figure 4.3: Initial State of Test Specimen ........................................................................... 64
Figure 4.4: Final crack pattern of specimen S-3-C-3 ........................................................... 65
Figure 4.5: Left side crack of flat plate ............................................................................... 65
Figure 4.6: Right side crack of flat plate ............................................................................. 65
Figure 4.7: Left side bottom crack view after 5 th Cycle ....................................................... 66
Figure 4.8: Right side bottom crack view after 5th Cycle .................................................... 66
Figure 4.9: Left top crack view after 5 th cycle .................................................................... 66
xii
Figure 4.10: Left side crack view after 5 th cycle .................................................................. 66
Figure 4.11: Final crack pattern of specimen S-4-C-3 ......................................................... 67
Figure 4.12: Left side of flat plate after 5 th cycle ................................................................ 67
Figure 4.13: Right side of flat plate after 5 th cycle .............................................................. 67
Figure 4.14: Left side flat plate bottom view after 5 th cycle ................................................ 68
Figure 4.15: Right side flat plate bottom view after 5 th cycle .............................................. 68
Figure 4.16: Left side flat plate top view after 5 th cycle ...................................................... 68
Figure 4.18: Left side crack of flat plate ............................................................................ 70
Figure 4.19: Right side crack of flat plate .......................................................................... 70
Figure 4.20: Top crack view in left side of flat plate after 5 th cycle .................................... 70
Figure 4.21: Bottom crack view in right side of flat plate after 5 th cycle ............................. 70
Figure 4.22: Final crack pattern of specimen S-5.5-C-3(Control) ........................................ 71
Figure 4.25: Left side crack of flat plate after 5 th cycle ...................................................... 72
Figure 4.26: Right side crack of flat plate after 5 th cycle ..................................................... 72
Figure 4.27: Top crack view in flat plate after 5 th cycle ..................................................... 72
Figure 4.28: Right side crack of flat plate after 5 th cycle ..................................................... 72
Figure 4.32: Left side crack view after 5 th cycle .................................................................. 74
Figure 4.33: Right side crack view after 5th cycle ............................................................... 74
Figure 4.34: Left side top crack view after 5 th cycle ........................................................... 74
Figure 4.35: Right column bottom crack view after 5 th cycle .............................................. 74
Figure 4.37: Left side crack view of flat plate .................................................................... 76
Figure 4.38: Right side crack view of flat plate .................................................................. 76
Figure 4.39: Left side bottom crack view of flat plate after 5th cycle................................. 76
Figure 4.40: Right side bottom crack view of flat plate after 5 th cycle ............................... 76
xiii
Figure 4.48: Left bottom crack view of flat plate after 5 th cycle .......................................... 78
Figure 4.49: Right top crack view of flat plate after 5 th cycle .............................................. 78
Figure 4.50: Final crack pattern of specimen S-5.5-C-4 ...................................................... 79
Figure 4.53: Bottom crack view at left side of flat plate after 7th cycle ............................... 80
Figure 4.54: Right side crack view after 7 th cycle ............................................................... 80
Figure 4.55: Load- Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-3-C-3 ........................... 81
Figure 4.56: Load- Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-3-C-3 ......................... 82
Figure 4.57: Load- Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-4-C-3 ........................... 83
Figure 4.58: Load- Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-4-C-3 .......................... 83
Figure 4.59: Load-Deformation Response of Specimen S-5-C-3 ......................................... 84
Figure 4.60: Load- Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-5-C-3 ......................... 84
Figure 4.61: Load-Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control) ......... 85
Figure 4.62: Load-Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control) ........ 85
Figure 4.63: Load-Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-3-C-4 ............................ 85
Figure 4.64: Load-Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-3-C-4 .......................... 86
Figure 4.65: Load-Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-4-C-4 ........................... 86
Figure 4.67: Load-Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-5-C-4 ............................ 87
Figure 4.69: Load-Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-5.5-C-4(Control) .......... 88
Figure 4.70: Load-Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-5.5-C-4(Control) ......... 89
Figure 4.71: Summary Results of First Crack in Flat Plate .................................................. 92
xiv
Figure 4.72: Summary Results of Second Crack in Flat Plate ............................................. 93
Figure 4.73: Summary Results of Very First Crack in Specimen ......................................... 93
Figure 4.74: Summary Results of Specimen Failure ............................................................ 93
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 2.1: 𝐾𝑎𝑖 is a coefficient depending on the anchorage ................................................. 24

Table 3.1: Cross Section of Different Frame Components. ................................................. 37
Table 3.2: Group for Eight Frame Specimens. .................................................................... 39
Table 3.3: Detailing of Shear Reinforcements used in Flat Plate Column Connections
Retrofitting Work. ............................................................................................................... 40
Table 3.4: Physical properties of the fine aggregate (Sylhet Sand) according to ASTM
C128-88 .............................................................................................................................. 41
Table 3.5 Physical properties of the coarse aggregate (Stone Chips) according to ASTM
C128-88 .............................................................................................................................. 42
Table 3.6: Strength of Reinforcing Bars .............................................................................. 44
Table 3.7: Properties of Micro-concrete .............................................................................. 45
Table 3.8: Cylinder Strength for Targeted Strength 4000 psi for Base Beam and Column .. 46
Table 3.9: Cylinder Strength for Targeted Strength 3000 psi for Flat Plates. ...................... 47
Table 3.10: Cylinder Strength for Targeted Strength 27.59 MPa (4000 psi) for Flat Plates. 47
Table 3.11: Specifications using in designing punching shear reinforcements of flat plate . 49
Table 3.12: Theoretical punching shear capacity ................................................................. 50
Table 3.13: Loading History. .............................................................................................. 60
Table 4.1: Summary Results of Eight Specimens ................................................................ 90
Table 4.2: Summary of Maximum Horizontal and Vertical Displacement corresponding to
each cycle ........................................................................................................................... 94
Table 4.3: Summary of Maximum Lateral Deflection and Maximum Story Drift compared to
Allowable Minimum Story Drift as per ACI 352.1R ........................................................... 96
Table A.1: Load-Deflection Value for Specimen S-3-C-3 ................................................. 107
Table A.4: Load-Deflection Value for Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control) .............................. 113
xvi
Table A.8: Load-Deflection Value for Specimen S-5.5-C-4 (Control) .............................. 122
xvii
NOTATIONS
Asw = cross-sectional area of a shear reinforcement

Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement
V = shear force
Vcalc = calculated punching shear load
Vflex = shear force associated with flexural capacity of the slab
VR = punching shear strength
VR,c = concrete contribution to punching shear strength
V R,s = shear reinforcement contribution to punching shear strength
VR,crush = punching shear strength (governing crushing of concrete struts)
VR,in = punching shear strength (governing failure within shear-reinforced zone)
VR,out = punching shear strength (governing failure outside the shear-reinforced zone)
VSLS = shear force at time of strengthening
Vtest = measured punching shear load
b0 = perimeter of the critical section
b0,in = perimeter of the critical section (check of punching within the shear reinforced zone)
b0,out = perimeter of the critical section (check of punching shear outside the shear-reinforced
zone)
d = effective depth (distance from extreme compression fibre to the centroid of the longitudinal
tensile reinforcement)
db = diameter of a reinforcing bar
dinf = diameter of anchoring plate
dv = reduced effective depth
dg = maximum diameter of the aggregate
dg0 = reference aggregate size (16 mm (0.63 in))
fc = average compressive strength of concrete (measured on cylinder)
fy = yield strength of flexural reinforcement
fyw = yield strength of shear reinforcement
xviii
h = vertical distance between the tip of the crack and the point where the shear reinforcement
crosses the critical shear crack
l= span of a slab, length
rs = distance between the column of a slab and the line of contraflexure of moments
s0 = horizontal distance between the border of the support region and first shear reinforcement
sv = horizontal distance between two adjacent reinforcements of same radius
wb = relative displacement of the lips of the critical shear crack parallel to shear reinforcement
α= angle between the critical shear crack and the soffit of the slab
β = angle between the shear reinforcement and the soffit of the slab
tb = bond strength
r = flexural reinforcement ratio
rw = shear reinforcement ratio
y= rotation of slab outside the column region
ycalc = calculated rotation at failure
yR = rotation of slab outside the column region at failure
ySLS = rotation of slab at time of strengthening
ytest = measured rotation at failure
ss = steel stress
VRd = design punching shear strength
VR,c,d = design concrete contribution to punching shear strength
VR,s,d = design shear reinforcement contribution to punching shear strength
VR,crush,d= design punching shear strength (governing crushing of concrete struts)
fck = characteristic compressive strength of concrete (measured on cylinder)
f’c = specified compressive strength of concrete (measured on cylinder)
fywd = design yield strength of shear reinforcement
gc = safety factor of concrete
gs = safety factor of steel

∅𝑐 = concrete strength reduction factor
∅𝑠 = steel strength reduction factor
xix
𝜏𝑏,𝑑 = design bond strength
ssd = steel stress for design
ss,el,d = design steel stress during elastic activation of shear reinforcement
ss,b,d = design maximum shear reinforcement stress due to bond failure
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Flat plate slab system is widely adopted by engineers as it provides many advantages. The
system can reduce the height of the building, provide more flexible spatial planning due to
absence of beams and further reduce the material cost (Widianto et al., 2006). However, the main
problem associated with flat plates is the brittle punching shear failure of such slab. Punching
shear failure is caused by the vertical shear and unbalanced moment borne by the slab-column
connection, which makes the flat-slab connections a weak link in the whole flat-slab structure,
and then leading to serious damage or even collapse. Unbalanced moments commonly occur in
buildings with flat slabs, caused by unequal spans or loading on either side of the column (Binici
et al., 2003). Due to the increase of applied loads and deficiencies during design or construction,
a number of existing flat slabs currently require strengthening against punching shear for safety
reasons or to comply with more stringent code requirements. There are some available
strengthening methods, however, not completely satisfactory, or they cannot be applied in many
cases (depending on the possibilities to enlarge column sizes or to intervene on the upper face of
slabs or availability of economic solution) (Ruiz et al., 2010).
1.2 Background of the Study
Punching shear reinforcement is increasingly used in flat slabs because of the significant
improvements introduced both in terms of strength and ductility. The enhancement on the
behavior of the slab is shown in Figure 1.1 with reference to two tests with same geometric and
mechanical characteristics, one containing shear reinforcement and the other not. The strength is
almost doubled for the test with shear reinforcement. Also, the deformation capacity is
significantly increased, being more than three times that of the member without shear
reinforcements (Ruiz et al., 2010). In general, strengthening slab-column connections involves
1
installing external shear reinforcement and/or collars to increase the critical shear perimeter
(Widianto et al., 2006).
Figure 1.1: Comparison of the behavior and strength of two slabs with and without shear
reinforcement (Muttoni et al., 2008).
Due to increase on strength and ductility of members, the vulnerability of the structure with
respect to accidental actions (earthquake, explosion, fire, impact etc.) and slab thickness are
reduced (Ruiz et al., 2010). During an earthquake, significant horizontal displacement of a flat
plate-column connection may occur, resulting in unbalanced moments that induce additional slab
shear stresses. Brittle punching failure can occur due to the transfer of shear forces combined
with unbalanced moments between slabs and columns. As a result, some flat plate structures
have collapsed by punching shear in past earthquakes (Berg and Stratta, 1964). Hueste and
Wight (1999) studied a building with a post-tensioned flat plate that experienced punching shear
2
failures during the 1994 Northridge, earthquake. The displacement-induced unbalanced moments
and resulting shear forces at flat plate-column connections should be designed to prevent brittle
punching shear failure. Even when an independent lateral-force resisting system is provided, flat
plate-column connections should be designed to accommodate the moments and shear forces
associated with the displacements during earthquakes (ACI 421.2R-10, 2010). Some typical
solutions to strengthen against punching shear are shown in Figures 1.2(a) to 1.2(e). It comprises
enlargements of the support region (by the addition of column capitals or widening of the
columns strengthening of the flexural reinforcement (by casting a concrete topping or gluing
reinforcement or installing shear reinforcement. Those possibilities can, however, be impractical
in many situations, as they require accessing the upper face of the slab which is usually covered
by soil or floor, or enlarging the support region which is not always possible due to architecture
and space requirements. In this paper, the performance of an unusual solution, evolved from
previous works and overcoming previous problems, is investigated. The system (refer to Figures
1.2(f) and 1.3) consists of a series of inclined shear reinforcing bars, bonded within an existing
slab and installed by drilling holes only from the soffit of the slab (Ruiz et al.,2010).
Figure 1.2: Reinforcing of existing slabs against punching shear: (a) concreting or installing of
steel-precast capital; (b) widening of column; (c) addition of upper concrete layer; (d) addition of
glued flexural reinforcement; (e) post installed shear reinforcement with mechanical anchorage;
and (f) bonded post-installed shear reinforcement (Ruiz et al., 2010).
Figure 1.3(a) shows a cross section of a member reinforced with the investigated system. It
consisted of bars installed into inclined holes (hammer-drilled at 45 degrees from the soffit of an
3
existing slab [refer to Figure 1.3(d)]) and bonded by a high-performance epoxy adhesive. From
this analysis the critical shear crack theory described by the following:
Figure 1.3: Post-installed shear reinforcement: (a) typical cross section; (b) view of nut,
washers, and bar; (c) detail of anchor head; and (d) installing by drilling of inclined holes (Ruiz
et al., 2010).
 Inclined bonded bars are an effective way to reinforce existing slabs against
punching shear. This leads to economic solutions where only the soffit of the slab
has to be accessible.
 The shear failure of slabs reinforced with this system can develop by crushing
concrete struts, punching within the shear reinforced zone, and punching outside
the shear reinforced zone. For slabs with low flexural reinforcement ratios, the
development of a plastic mechanism is also possible if sufficient shear
reinforcement is provided.
4
 A consistent design concept based on the critical shear crack is provided for this
system. It accounts for the various failure modes and allows considering (amongst
others) the influence of bond, anchorage dimensions, and rotations of the slab on
the strength of the member at the time of reinforcing.
 Based on this theory, it is shown that to enhance efficiency of such a system, high
bond strength between the bars and the slab is required. Also, using inclined bars
helps developing their strength as bond and anchorage lengths increase.
1.3 Justification of the Study
Most of the RC buildings in Bangladesh including industrial buildings were constructed without
seismic detailing in the Flat Plate slabs before or even after the inception of BNBC (1993).
Those were designed considering only gravity loads. However, Bangladesh is in severe risk of
earthquake. Change in the building occupancy as residential buildings to commercial and
industrial buildings is very common in Bangladesh. Increase of number of floors without proper
design or analysis is also an important issue. These buildings are vulnerable to seismic hazard
and need to be strengthened. Conventional retrofitting methods are sometimes difficult due to the
nature of occupancy, importance of the structure, economic value of the non-operational period
and cost of the man and materials. Many buildings especially industrial ones using flat plate slab
are under the risk of punching failure. Thus most economic and available retrofitting solution is
needed urgently. Using shear reinforcement of conventional inclined stirrup with strong epoxy
could be the economic and easily available solution to retrofit. Several alternatives to increase
shear capacity at the critical section include (i) steel bars grouted into 45-degree inclined drilled
holes (Hassanzadeh and Sundqvist 1998), (ii) bolts to act as shear reinforcement (El-Salakawy et
al. 2003), and (iii) carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) stirrups (Binici, 2003). The shear
perimeter has been increased by (i) installing column capital using reinforced concrete, (ii)
attaching steel collars (Hassanzadeh and Sundqvist, 1998), and (iii) sandwiching the slab
between steel plates connected by through bolts (Ebead and Marzouk, 2002). The flexural
strength of a connection has been increased by applying CFRP on the slab surface thereby
increasing the shear strength of the connection (Harajli and Soudki, 2003). The efficiency of
CFRP is highly dependent on the ability to prevent an early delamination (Ebead and Marzouk,
2004). Song et al. (2012) conducted research on effective punching shear and moment capacity
5
of prefabricated flat plate using shear reinforcements as vertical stirrups, studs and bands but that
was not retrofitting design. An effective flat plate retrofitting related research was done by Ruiz
et al. (2010). They tested strengthening analysis of flat plate using post-installed shear
reinforcement by considering punching effect due to vertical loading only. They used inclined
bounded shear reinforcements with bolting. They also showed the design of punching shear
reinforcements using critical shear crack theory. Widianto et al. (2006) conducted research on
the rehabilitation of earthquake-damaged reinforced concrete flat-plate slab-column connections
for two-way shear using CFRP. This study attempted to access improvement of punching shear
of the interior flat plate column joints considering column strip. It also attempted to increase the
shear strength of the joints by post installing shear reinforcements as stirrup into the flat plate.
Use of shear reinforcements in Bangladesh is relatively easy and economic. In the present study,
punching effect of flat slabs strengthened with shear reinforcements due to lateral loading in
addition to vertical loading is investigated. The outcome of the study ensure the effect of
earthquake on flat plate as easy, available and economic way of retrofitting flat plate using shear
reinforcement. The research will also facilitate in developing methods of determining strength of
retrofitted joints and identify suitable procedures to retrofit interior flat plate by shear
reinforcements.
1.4 Objectives of the Research
The main objective of this thesis is to conduct experiments on six frames with post install shear
reinforcements and two frames without shear reinforcements by two different concrete strengths
to interpret experimental findings.
The objective of the investigation is as follows –
 To measure the change in punching shear capacity due to use of different amount of shear
reinforcements for various concrete strengths and slab thicknesses of flat plate for lateral
loading.
1.5 Methodology
To investigate the improvement of punching shear capacity of flat plates for lateral loading with
varying flat plate thickness and concrete strengths, cyclic static incremental horizontal load were
6
provided to test the frames with sustained vertical load. The specimens were retrofitted by using
shear reinforcements as stirrups and tested for lateral loading. Half scale RC model frames were
prepared, integral with a heavily reinforced concrete base. Frames were of 1000mm height and
2520mm span. To investigate the improvement of punching shear capacity of reinforced concrete
frame with varying concrete strengths and thicknesses of flat plates following parameters were
considered:
 Different types of flat plate thickness (75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm, 140mm).
 Two types of concrete strengths ( 20.69 MPa, 27.59 MPa )
A total of 8 (eight) frames were constructed for the study:
 Four frames were constructed with different plate thickness (75 mm, 100 mm, 125
mm, 140mm) for the concrete strength 20.69MPa. Among them three were
retrofitted using shear reinforcements as stirrups and other one without retrofitting
used as control frame specimen.
 Four frames were constructed with different plate thickness (75 mm, 100 mm, 125
mm, 140mm) for the concrete strength 27.59MPa. Among them three were
retrofitted using shear reinforcements as stirrups and other one without retrofitting
used as controlled frame model.
 Clear cover from bottom side of specimens was removed and holes were drilled at
45° to longitudinal bars.
 Vertical shear reinforcement (U-stirrups) were placed through those drilled holes
from flat slab soffit surrounding the column face and they were bounded by
strong adhesive glue named Epoxy and clear cover was rebuilt by micro-
concrete.
Finally, the load deflection curves were compared for the considered different frames with
retrofitted and without retrofitted.
1.6 Scope of the Work
The outcome of this study may be helpful in retrofitting design of existing flat plates floor slab
building to eliminate the punching failure possibilities. It will be possible to make
7
recommendations about effects of existing flat plate thickness on punching shear capacity in
relation to concrete strengths using experimental investigations.
1.7 Organization of the Thesis
Apart from this chapter, the remainder of the thesis has been divided into four chapters. Chapter
2 presents literature review concerning earlier research. It includes use of shear reinforcements in
flat plates, cyclic load and its effect on reinforced concrete structure. Chapter 3 presents the step
by step construction procedure of frame specimens and adopted procedure for testing under
cyclic loading in detail. It includes the details of the specimen dimensions, material properties,
casting procedures, workability observations, test setups, and test instrumentation. Chapter 4
presents the results from the experimental program of this research. Also summarize the
improvement of the punching shear capacity of the frames and the comparison of the responses
using shear reinforcements. Chapter 5 presents the final conclusions, which can be drawn out
from this research and also provides recommendations for future study.
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
This chapter discusses the flat plate, punching shear capacity of the flat plate structure, shear
reinforcements, types of shear reinforcements, design and detailing of shear reinforcements, the
effects of shear reinforcement on punching shear behavior under seismic condition, punching
shear resisting mechanism in flat plate column connection and cyclic load. In this chapter, pros
and cons of various retrofitting strategy are also highlighted. Post-install shear reinforcement as
U-stirrup draws attention of the designers as a retrofitting material due to its economical, easily
availability and easy placement methods. Many researchers worked on punching shear capacity
of the flat plate structures using various types of shear reinforcements and also evaluated their
punching behavior on flat plate under seismic conditions. Since no previous study on post-install
shear reinforcement for lateral loading has been made. The pre-install shear reinforcement for
lateral loading and post-install shear reinforcement for vertical loading on flat plates had been
done which will be mentioned. Outcome of some of the researches are also discussed in this
chapter.
2.2 Flat Plate
Flat plate is one of the most common floor systems for large span commercial buildings. The
advantages of a flat-Plate floor system are numerous. It provides architectural flexibility, more
clear space, less building height, easier form work, and, consequently, shorter construction time.
Low floor to floor heights reduce the total building height, thus reducing lateral loads, cost of
building cladding, cost of vertical mechanical and electrical lines, and air conditioning/heating
costs. For vertical loads, the structural performance and design of flat plates are well established.
Under lateral loads, many aspects of the behavior of flat plates are uncertain. A serious problem
that can arise in flat plates is brittle punching shear failure due to poor transfer capacity of
shearing forces and unbalanced moments between slabs and columns. In seismic zones, a
9
structure can be subjected to strong ground motions and for economical design a structure is
considered to undergo deformations in the inelastic range. Therefore in addition to strength
requirement, slab-column connections must undergo these inelastic deformations without
premature punching or shear failure. In other words slab column connections must have adequate
ductility.
2.3 Shear Reinforcements
Two kinds of shear may be critical in the design of flat plates. The first is the familiar beam-type
shear leading to diagonal tension failure. A potential diagonal crack extends in a plane across the
entire width of the slab. So the design strength must be at least equal to the required strength at
factored loads. Alternatively, failure may occur by punching shear, with the potential diagonal
crack following the surface of a truncated cone or pyramid around the column. The critical
section for shear is taken perpendicular to the plane of the slab and a distance of half of the
effective depth from the periphery of the support. Thus for preventing shear failure additional
reinforcement may be provided to be known as shear reinforcement. There are different type of
shear reinforcements which are discussed below.
Conventional stirrup cages
Conventional stirrup cages require large diameter longitudinal bars as anchors. These usually
interfere with the column reinforcement making the cages hard to install. A stirrup cage with
longitudinal rebar in both directions is difficult to place and interferes with the column
reinforcement (Figure 2.1).The first critical section for shear design in the slab is taken at d/2
from the column face as usual. Using stirrups it is extended outward from the column in four
directions for the typical interior case (three or two directions for exterior or corner columns,
respectively), until the concrete alone can carry the shear, with 𝑉𝑐 = 4 𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏0 𝑑 at the second
critical section. Within the region adjacent to the column, where shear resistance is provided by a
combination of concrete and steel, the nominal shear strength 𝑉𝑛 must not exceed 6 𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏0 𝑑,
according to ACI Code 318-08(11.12.3).
10
Shear studs reinforcements
This shear reinforcement consists of large-head studs welded to steel strips (Figure 2.1 to 2.2).
The steel strip is positioned with bar chairs and fastened to the form by nails driven through
holes in the steel strip. The chairs provide the required concrete cover and the nails anchor the
strip to prevent movement during construction. These studded steel strips have been designed to
be more effective than conventional shear reinforcement. Conventional shear reinforcement is
not fully effective because the stirrups can’t be adequately anchored into the concrete. In thin
slabs this ineffective anchorage increases the shear crack width and the shear reinforcement
never yields. The ACI Building Code, recognizing these limitations, requires a conservative
design recognizing these limitations requires a conservative design. The dimensions of the
studded steel strips (Figure 2.2) have been set to provide full anchorage and to ensure that at
ultimate load the steel studs yield. To achieve complete anchorage and yield at ultimate load, the
yield strength of the stud material is specified between 40,000 and 60,000 psi.
Figure 2.1: Conventional stirrup cages Figure 2.2: Shear Studs (adopted from Nilson
(adopted from Nilson et al., 2010) et al., 2010)
Shearhead Reinforcements
The shearhead reinforcement shown in figure 2.3. It serves to increase the effective perimeter 𝑏0
of the critical section for shear. In addition it may contribute to the negative bending resistance
of the slab. The reinforcement shown in figure 2.3 is particularly suited for use with concrete
11
columns. It consists of short lengths of I or wide flange beams, cut and welded at the crossing
point so that the arms are continuous through the column. Normal negative slab reinforcement
passes over the top of the structural steel, while bottom bars are stopped short of the shearhead.
Column bars pass vertically at the corners of the column.
Figure 2.3: Shearhead Reinforcement (Nilson et al., 2010)
2.4 Requirement of Shear Reinforcements for Lateral Loading in Flat Plates
Due to a series of factors not only the fire (which in fact was not very significant) but also
overloading of the structure (larger ground cover than expected), too coarse approaches on the
check of the punching shear strength (some of them in agreement to the codes applied at the time
the garage was designed), and deficiencies in the construction. In addition, the thickness of the
slab, large reinforcement ratio, and the fact that the slab did not have transverse reinforcement
severely limited the deformation capacity of the structure. As a consequence, once the slab
punched around one column, the progressive and sudden collapse of the structure could not be
avoided.
Flat plate structures are commonly used in moderate and low seismic zones as lateral force
resisting systems whereas they are coupled with shear walls or moment resisting frames in high
seismic zones. Because reinforced concrete flat plate structures do not contain beams, they are
able to transfer all the loads acting on slabs directly to the columns. The ductility of these
systems is generally limited by the deformation capacity of the slab-column connections.
Punching shear failure is the governing failure mode in the presence of pronounced gravity and
lateral load combinations. The ductility of the slab-column connections can be enhanced with the
12
use of shear reinforcement for new construction and the risk of punching shear failure can be
highly reduced when the connection is designed and detailed properly. At the time when the
loads are transferred, all moments that are generated by the delivery load and critical sections
that resist the moment (Figure 2.4) also converge on the slabs near the columns. When a moment
is caused by a delivery load, it is an unbalanced moment that occurs because of a direct shear
moment originating from a vertical load and eccentricity and to the lateral load of a vertical load.
Figure 2.4: Location of critical and effective section in flat plates. (Song et al., 2012)
2.5 Retrofitting Strategy
There are many methods available to strengthen the flat plates against punching shear failure
however some of them are not completely satisfactory. They cannot be applied in many cases
(depending on the possibilities to enlarge column sizes or to intervene on the upper face of
slabs). An innovative system for strengthening slabs against punching shear and overcoming
most of difficulties of existing method is described. It consists of inclined shear reinforcement
installed within existing slabs by drilling holes only from soffit of the slab and by bonding it with
high-performance adhesive.
Dimensioning of such reinforcement can be performed according to available models and codes
of practice. However, there is currently no general agreement on the interaction between the
concrete and shear reinforcement contributions to the shear strength. Thus, different codes
propose different models.
13
Existing slabs of cured concrete can also be strengthened: by increasing the size of the slab or the
column, by adding tensile reinforcement e.g. as glued laminates or by adding post-installed shear
reinforcement. Obvious advantages of the latter method are that the original geometry can be
maintained, that the installation work can be carried out from the lower side of the slab and that
the intervention remains invisible.
Post-installed punching shear reinforcements can be applied in two ways: if both the lower and
the upper side of the slab are accessible for work simultaneously, then holes can be drilled
through the slab. Steel bars can then be introduced through the holes and be prestressed against
the slab by tightening nuts on both sides. An appropriate mortar is then injected into the annular
gap through an injector washer. Thus the steel rods cannot move under shear load and water
cannot penetrate into the annular gap.
2.6 Guidelines for Use and Design of Shear Reinforcements in Flat Plates
2.6.1 Use of Shear Reinforcements
The method for the design and construction of externally shear reinforcements as vertical stirrups
for strengthening flat plate column connections against punching failure is carried out using
Critical shear crack theory, ACI 318-08, ACI 421.1R-08 and ACI 441.2R-10. Design theory is
based on a physical model allowing to calculate the strength and deformation capacity of
members failing in punching shear.
The safety against punching shear of existing concrete slabs is basically determined on the basis
of the geometry and the reinforcement of the slab and the column. Such data can be taken from
construction drawings if available or they are evaluated in situ by taking out concrete cores and
seeking the existing reinforcement.
Such methods which include working from the upper side of the slab also have certain
drawbacks: The cover of the slab has to be removed (earth, tiles etc). Moreover the
waterproofing system is penetrated and has to be repaired properly after installation of the
reinforcement.
As often the upper side is not accessible for work or is accessible only with a high effort, a
method has been developed to apply punching shear reinforcement only from the lower side of
14
the slab. Vertical U-Stirrups anchors are bonded into drill holes inclined towards the column by
means of an appropriate adhesive mortar like micro concrete. The drilled holes should protrude
until at least the level just below the lowest layer of the upper (tensile) reinforcements, but
preferably to the centre of the tensile reinforcement. As the effectiveness of punching shear
reinforcement strongly depends on the quality of its anchorage is carried out with U-stirrups.
Figure 2.5: Penetrating post-installed punching shear reinforcement (Muttoni et al., 2008)
As penetrating reinforcement according to figure 2.5 can be designed like cast-in-place punching
shear reinforcements on the safe side. According to figure 2.6 post-installed punching shear
reinforcement applied only from the lower side of the slab.
Figure 2.6: Post-installed punching shear reinforcement applied only from bottom side of the
slab (Muttoni et al., 2008)
U-stirrups anchors in combination with high adhesive glue Epoxy are used to install punching
shear reinforcement into already hardened concrete slabs.
15
Inclined holes are hammer drilled into the concrete slab under an angle of 45°and in the direction
towards the column. The length of the drilled holes should be such that they reach at least the
lowest level of the upper (tensile) reinforcement, but preferably, the holes should end at the level
between the tensile reinforcements in the two directions.
Adhesive epoxy is injected into the drilled holes and the U-stirrups anchors are set into the epoxy
filled holes. The tension anchor consists of a reinforcement bar of diameter 8mm in the upper
part.
After inserting epoxy adhesive within 10 minute through drilled holes U-stirrups are installed
from soffit of the slab by hammering. The epoxy provided such amount that it come out from
holes during installing U-stirrups.
The anchor bar can be installed on the concrete surface inclined at 45°or be embedded in an
enlarged part of the drilled hole. The embedded anchorage has the advantage that it can be
covered with a high adhesive epoxy and is not visible after the installation.
After installing U-stirrups through drilled holes with high adhesive epoxy micro concrete is used
to fill the bottom surface of the slab to smoothen.
2.6.2 Design of Shear Reinforcements to improve punching shear capacity
2.6.2.1 The Critical Shear Crack Theory
The critical shear crack theory was first developed for flat slabs without transverse reinforcement
failing in punching shear and it was later extended to beams without stirrups and slabs with shear
reinforcement (Ruiz et. al., 2010). The theory proposes that the shear load that can be carried by
members without shear reinforcement is a function of the opening and of the roughness of a
critical shear (Muttoni et. al., 2008).
𝑉𝑅
𝑏0 𝑑
= 𝑓𝑐 𝑓 𝑤, 𝑑𝑔 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2.1
where VR is the shear strength, b0 is a control perimeter (set at d/2 of the border of the support
region for punching shear), d is the effective depth of the member, fc is the compressive strength
of the concrete, w is the width of the shear critical crack and dg is the maximum size of the
aggregate (accounting for the roughness of the lips of the cracks).For two-way slabs, the opening
16
of the critical shear can be correlated in an effective way to the rotation of the slab (𝜓) times the
effective depth of the member (d), as figure 2.7:
𝑤 ∞ 𝜓. 𝑑………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………..2.2
Figure 2.7: Critical shear crack and punching shear cone (Muttoni et al., 2008)
The following failure criterion was proposed for punching shear failures in slabs without
transverse reinforcement:
𝑉𝑅 3 4
= Ψ .d 𝑺𝑰 − 𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒔: 𝑴𝑷𝒂, 𝒎𝒎 .........................................................................................2.3
𝑏0 𝑑 𝑓𝑐 1+15
𝑑 𝑔𝑜 +𝑑 𝑔
where dg0 is a reference aggregate size (equal to 16 mm). This failure criterion reduces the
maximum shear force that can be carried as deformations (rotations) increase. This is logical
since wider cracks reduce the ability of concrete to transfer shear. Figure 2.8 compares the
failure criterion of Eq. (2.3) to 99 test results available in the scientific literature showing good
agreement (Muttoni et. al., 2008).
Such punching shear criterion can be used to calculate the strength and ductility of slabs failing
in punching shear by considering a suitable load-rotation relationship for the slab as figure 2.9. A
design expression for this relationship has been proposed by Muttoni considering a number of
simplifications from a more general theoretically-derived expression:
17
3
𝑟𝑠 𝑓𝑦 𝑉𝑑 2
𝛹𝑑 = 1.5 ………………………………………………………………………………….2.4
𝑑 𝐸𝑠 𝑉 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥
Where 𝑟𝑠 =distance from column edge to line of contraflexure for bending moments [mm], for
Figure 2.8: Comparison of failure criterion for slabs without shear reinforcement (Eq. (2.3)) to
99test results (Ruiz et al., 2010)
rectangular slabs; 𝑟𝑠 = 0.22𝑙.
𝑓𝑦𝑑 =design yield strength of horizontal slab reinforcement [N/mm2]
𝐸𝑠 =Young’s modulus of steel [N/mm2]
𝑉𝑑 = Column load [kN]
𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥 = Design load required to develop flexural strength of the slab [kN]
2.6.2.2 Applications of the Critical Shear Crack Theory to Punching of Shear-

Reinforced Slabs
The Critical shear crack theory can be used to calculate the punching shear strength of the
various failure modes previously described (Figure 2.10). In this section, the way it allows
accounting for the particularities of each punching shear reinforcing system will be discussed.
With respect to the effective depth of the slab (dv), it accounts for the fact that the punching shear
crack develops around the shear reinforcement (Figure 2.10c). This value is thus dependent on
the type and geometry of the shear reinforcement, as shown in Figure 2.10 for various cases.
18
This approach provides very good agreement to test results. Taking advantage of the fact that the
deformation (rotation) of the slab is the key parameter governing the amount of shear carried by
concrete, the theory has also been extended to flat slabs with shear reinforcement (Muttoni et. al.,
2009).
Figure 2.9: Calculation of strength and deformation capacity at failure according to the CSCT
(Ruiz et al., 2010)
Figure 2.10: Effective depth and control perimeter outside the shear-reinforced zone as function
of the punching shear reinforcing system(Muttoni et. al., 2009).: (a) studs; (b) stirrups; (c)
bonded reinforcement with anchorage plates; and (d) shearheads (Ruiz et al., 2010)
This can be done by considering that as the rotations of the slab increase, the shear cracks open
(according to Eq. (2.2)), progressively activating the shear reinforcements, see Figure 2.10a.
19
The shear reinforcement develops thus tensile stresses depending on the opening of the critical
shear crack and on the shear reinforcement bond conditions, as figure 2.11b. This allows
adapting the model to the particularities of each shear reinforcing system (applications for
smooth and deformed bars can be found in Ruiz F. and Muttoni A., 2008).
For low or moderate rotations, shear reinforcement remains elastic and follows thus an activation
phase where its tensile stress increases with rotations (Profile A of Figure 2.11b, point A in
Figure 2.10d). This phase ends when the steel reinforcement yields (point B of Figure 2.10b),
leading to the maximum contribution of such reinforcement. The sum of all vertical components
of shear reinforcements (Figure 2.10c) allows determining the shear carried by the transverse
reinforcement (Figure 2.10d). It can be noted that when all shear reinforcements reach their yield
strength (or anchorage strength in some cases) the contribution of shear reinforcement remains
constant even if rotations increase (Point C in Figure 2.10d).
The total shear strength can finally be calculated by intersecting the failure criterion (accounting
for concrete and shear reinforcement contributions) with the load-rotation relationship of the
slab, as point D in Figure 2.10d. It is interesting to note that, with respect to the shear strength of
members without transverse reinforcement (value Vc0 in Figure 2.10d), the total shear strength is
increased by adding a shear reinforcement, although concrete contribution at failure diminishes
as the developed rotations are larger (Vc<Vc0).
2.6.2.3 Crushing Shear Failure
Crushing shear strength depends on the compressive strength of concrete near the column region.
This strength is mainly influenced by the concrete compressive strength and by the state of
transverse strains of concrete. According to figure 2.11, compression struts may be disturbed by
the presence of transverse cracking. Such cracks may be originated by bending of the slab
(Figure 2.11b, whose width is controlled by the flexural reinforcement), by shear (Figure 2.11c,
whose width is controlled by the transverse reinforcement as previously discussed) or by
delamination of the core (Figure 2.11d).
The actual crushing strength depends thus not only on the geometry of the slab and on its
mechanical and material properties, but it is also significantly influenced by the type shear
reinforcement used. This is justified because the position, development and opening of the cracks
20
affecting the compression struts is strongly influenced by the shear reinforcing system. As a
consequence, detailing rules (arrangement and angle of reinforcement, sizes of anchorages etc.)
have a significant influence on the crushing shear strength of a shear reinforcing system.
Figure 2.11: Influence of cracking on crushing shear strength: (a) detail of compression struts
nearthe support region; (b) development of flexural crack; (c) development of a shear crack;
and(d) development of delamination crack. (Ruiz F. and Muttoni A., 2010)
Even if shear reinforcement is provided, the codes usually define a maximum possible punching
shear strength accounting for failure of the compression zone of the slab near the column. On the
other hand’s side, the specific design concept for reinforcement defines a maximum resistance
that can be achieved with this method. This value should not be exceeded even if 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒 is
higher.
If the column load 𝑉𝑑 is higher than the punching shear resistance of the slab without shear
reinforcement, 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐𝑐 then the slab should be strengthened.
The design model for strengthening is based on the critical shear crack theory with the following
assumptions:
The punching shear strength of the strengthened slab is the sum of a contribution by the cracked
concrete and another contribution by the steel reinforcement. In order to activate the
reinforcement, the opening of the shear crack is initiated. The opening of the punching shear
crack and the maximum aggregate size of the concrete influence the remaining shear resistance
of the concrete slab.
21
The opening of the punching shear crack is represented by the rotation of the slab (Figure 2.11).
The line failure criterion shows how the punching shear resistance decreases with increasing
rotation of the slab, i.e. with increasing opening of the shear crack.
The remaining shear strength considering a rotation 𝛹𝑑 of the slab is:
2.Ƞ𝑡 . 𝑓 𝑐𝑘
𝑉𝑅𝑐,𝑑 = 𝛹 𝑑 .𝑑 . 𝑑. 𝑢′ ………………………………………………………………………………..2.5
4.5 1+20
𝑑 𝑔 +16
where 𝑉𝑅𝑐,𝑑 = concrete contribution to the punching shear resistance [N]

Ƞ𝑡 =factor for long term effects
𝑓𝑐𝑘 =characteristic compressive strength of concrete on cylinder [N/mm2]
𝑑𝑔 =maximum diameter of concrete aggregates [mm]
𝑑 = effective depth [mm]
𝑢′ = critical section at d/2 from column edge [mm]
The rotation of the slab under load 𝑉𝑑 [kN] is evaluated by
3
𝑟𝑠 𝑓 𝑦𝑑 𝑉𝑑 2
𝛹𝑑 = 1.5 ……………………………………………………….………………………..2.6
𝑑 𝐸𝑠 𝑉 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥
where 𝑟𝑠 =distance from column edge to line of contraflexure for bending moments [mm], for
rectangular slabs;𝑟𝑠 = 0.22𝑙.
𝑓𝑦𝑑 =design yield strength of horizontal slab reinforcement [N/mm2]
𝐸𝑠 =Young’s modulus of steel [N/mm2]
𝑉𝑑 =column load [kN]
𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥 =design load required to develop flexural strength of the slab [kN]
where 𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥 = 𝑎. 𝑚𝑅𝑑 is an approximation of the column force at which the flexural resistance of
the slab is reached, where 𝑚𝑅𝑑 the bending resistance of the slab is and is a constant depending
on the position of the column. The smallest value of 𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥 resulting from the different checks has
to be considered:
Interior columns: a=8check upper reinforcement in both directions
Edge columns: a=4check upper reinforcement parallel to edge
a=8check upper and lower reinforcement perpendicular to edge
Corner columns: a=2check upper and lower reinforcement in both directions
22
The design model uses a critical shear perimeter at a distance of1/2 times the effective depth of
the slab. The shear perimeter u′ will be multiplied by 𝐾𝑒 which a reduction factor is taking into
account for irregular distribution of the shear force around the column.
u′ =u0 .K e ; K e =1/ (1+ (e/b))……………………………………………………………..………………………………………2.7
If the column connection takes up a bending moment 𝑀𝐷 , then the irregular distribution of the
shear force is taken into account by 𝐾𝑒 =1/(1+(e/b)) where e is [𝑀𝐷 /𝑉𝐷 ] and b is the diameter od a
circle with the same area as is inside the critical shaer perimeter at ½ times the effective depth of
the slab. For internal columns with regular spacing 𝐾𝑒 =0.9 can be assumed.
If column load 𝑉𝐷 is not higher than the maximum possible resistance of the strengthed slab;
5.2.Ƞ𝑡 . 𝑓 𝑐𝑘
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 [𝑁] = 𝛹 𝑉 𝑅𝑑 ,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑑. 𝑢′ …………………………………………………………………………………………2.8
4.5 1+20
𝑑 𝑔 +16
𝛹 𝑉𝑅𝑑 ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is evaluated with equation (2) using 𝑉𝑅𝑑 ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 instead of𝑉𝑑 . The shear force which has
to be taken up by the strengthening anchors is then:
𝑉𝑅𝑑 ′ 𝑠,𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 𝑉𝑑 − 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 ≥ 0.2𝑉𝑑
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 is calculated using the rotation according to formula (2) with parameter 𝑉𝑑 .
The shear reinforcement is designed satisfying the following condition:

𝑛
𝑉𝑠,𝑑 ≤ 𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑑 sin 𝛽𝑖 𝑘𝑒

𝑖=1
where 𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑑 is the factored strength of the shear reinforcement and 𝛽𝑖 is the angle of the shear
reinforcement.
The design strength of the U-stirrups tension bar is equal to the minimum of the following
values:
𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑑 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑒𝑙 ,𝑑 𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑝𝑙 ,𝑑 𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑏,𝑑
where 𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑒𝑙 ,𝑑 is the force angle of the shear reinforcement that can be activated assuming an
elastic behavior of the bar. This value, according for the rotation of the slab at SLS results:
𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑒𝑙 ,𝑑 = 𝐾𝑎𝑖 ∆𝜓𝑑 𝑕𝑖 sin(𝛼 + 𝛽𝑖 ) [MN] ……………………………………………………….…2.9
where 𝛼 is the angle of the critical shear crack (normally set to 45°). In the standard case of
reinforcements set under 𝛽𝑖 = 45° the value of sin(𝛼 + 𝛽𝑖 ) = 1.0. 𝑕𝑖 is the height at decisive
rotation of the structure to be reinforced; ∆Ψ𝑑 = Ψ𝑑 + Ψ𝑆𝐿𝑆 .
23
𝑉𝑆𝐿𝑆 is the column load acting while the strengthening work is carried out. Therefore, equation
(2), in the case of interior columns, becomes:
3 3
𝑟𝑠 𝑓 𝑦𝑑 𝑉𝑑 2 𝑉𝑆𝐿𝑆 2
∆𝛹𝑑 = 1.5 𝑑 𝐸𝑠 8𝑚 𝑅𝑑
− 8𝑚 𝑅𝑑
……………………………………………………2.10
𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝟐. 𝟏: 𝑲𝒂𝒊 is a coefficient depending on the anchorage
16 20
Diameter[mm]
0.5 0.5
𝑓𝑐𝑐 ,𝑘 [𝑁 𝑚𝑚2 ] 𝑓𝑐𝑐 ,𝑘 [𝑁 𝑚𝑚2 ]
𝐾𝑎𝑖 2.62 3.67
25 25
Table 2.1: anchorage factors (𝑓𝑐𝑐 ,𝑘 =characteristic cube strength of concrete)
𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑝𝑙 ,𝑑 is the plastic resistance of the reinforcement bar, its value is:
𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑝𝑙 ,𝑑 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 . 𝑓𝑦𝑑 ……………………………………………………………………………..…………2.11
𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑝𝑙 ,𝑑 is the upper limit of the resistance due to the bond strength. It is assumed that the bar is
bonded between the point where it cuts the shear crack and its upper end.
𝑁𝑠𝑖,𝑏,𝑑 = 𝜏𝑏𝑑 . 𝑑𝑏 . 𝜋. 𝑙𝑏,𝑠𝑢𝑝 ,𝑖 ………………………………………………………………………………2.12
The design value of the bond strength is evaluated as 𝜏𝑏𝑑 = 𝜏𝑏𝑑

°
. 𝑓𝐵,𝑁
Where 𝜏𝑏𝑑
°
is the design strength in a concrete of class C20/25 and 𝑓𝐵,𝑁 takes into account the
effective concrete strength. The values are given 2. 𝑓𝑐𝑐 ,𝑘 should not be considered higher than 60
N/mm2.
Bond Strength 𝜏𝑏𝑑
°
= 2.00 𝑁 𝑚𝑚2
Influence of concrete strength: 𝑓𝐵,𝑁 = 𝑓 𝑐𝑐 ,𝑘 [

𝑁
]
0.1
𝑚𝑚 2
[25MPa ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑐 ,𝑘 ≤ 60MPa]
25
2.6.3 Detailing of Shear Reinforcements in Plates
In order obtain a good detailing, the following constructive rules should be followed when
designing punching shear reinforcement as Vertical U-stirrups.
24
 Number of radii
The tension U-stirrups anchors are placed along a series of redials where the angle
between tem has to be lower or equal than 45°.𝛼𝑕 ≤ 45°
 Number of reinforcement in a radial
At least one vertical U-stirrup should be placed at each radial
 Distance between reinforcements and column
The distance of the first anchorage to the border of the column should be lower than or
equal to 0.75d where d is the average effective depth of the structure to be
𝑑𝑥 + 𝑑𝑦
strengthened, 𝑑 = 2: 𝑆0 ≤ 0.75𝑑
If a very small value is selected, then the capacity of the first reinforcement bar may be
strongly reduced. The presented design concept takes this into account. Moreover a small
distance may lead to difficulties if there is dense column reinforcement.
 Axial distance
The minimal distance between axes of one stirrup to another has to be greater than 3
times of the bored hole.
 Direction of the drilled holes
The direction of the drilled holes should be an angle 45° compared to the slab surface and
towards the column:
𝛽𝑖 = 45°
 Length of the drilled holes
The height at which a U-stirrups anchor should be bonded is equal to d:
𝑕0 = 𝑑
2.7 Cyclic Load
Cyclic loading is ―
generated‖ by earthquakes which are one of the most dangerous and
destructive forms of natural hazard. Cyclic loading can be grouped into two categories; low-
cycle load, or a load history involving few cycles but having very large bond stress ranges. This
group of loading is very common to seismic and high wind loadings. The second group relates to
high-cycle or otherwise known as fatigue loading. The load history in this case includes many
25
cycles but at a low bond stress range. Offshore structures and bridge members are repeatedly
subjected to such kind of load.
2.8 Literature Review of Earlier Research on Improvement of Punching Shear Capacity

of Flat Plate
Kang et al. (2004)
Kang et al. (2004) presented research study was undertaken to assess performance of flat plate
systems constructed with slab shear reinforcement under dynamic loads. The research program
consisted of shake table tests and accompanying analytical studies of two, approximately one-
third scale, two-story, two-bay, slab-column frames. One specimen was constructed with
reinforced concrete (RC) slab, whereas the other specimen consisted of post-tensioned (PT) slab.
The shear capacity of the slab-column connections was enhanced by the use of stud-rails for both
specimens. Good agreement between analytical and experimental results was achieved by using
an innovative modeling approach. Test results for drift ratios at punching failure versus gravity
shear ratios on the slab critical section were evaluated to assess trends for slabs with and without
shear reinforcement, as well as new provisions adopted for ACI 318-05. Results for the shake
table tests conducted indicate substantially less drift capacity than for prior tests of isolated
connections, possibly due to the lower strain demands on the shear reinforcement and the
rotation of the slab-column connection due to the apparent loss of interface shear capacity. The
relationship between drift and gravity shear ratio adopted in the new ACI provisions is
essentially a lower bound estimate of when punching will occur for RC specimens without shear
reinforcement, as well as the shake table tests conducted as part of this study.
Stark et al. (2004)
Stark et al. (2004) provided an alternative method for upgrading existing flat plate building
connections that were designed to carry gravity loads and that are subjected to lateral
deformation reversals. Some slab-column connections specimens were tested under constant
gravity shear and lateral displacements were applied in reversed cyclic manner which were
upgraded by externally installed CFRP stirrups in two different patterns. Test specimens were
modeled from a typical interior connection of a four-story prototype structure which was a flat-
plate concrete building, designed for office occupancy in a moderate seismic zone. From test
26
result it was showed that punching shear failure occurred for the control specimens at a lateral
drift-ratio of about 2.3% but upgraded specimens had significant flexural yielding and sustained
deformations up to a drift ratio of about 8% without significant losses of strength. Punching
failure was not observed in the upgraded specimens.
Widianto et al. (2006)
Widianto et. al., (2006) presented rehabilitation technique of earthquake-damaged reinforced

concrete flat-plate slab-column connections for two-way shear against punching shear failure.
Two methods for strengthening earthquake-damaged connections with 0.5% top reinforcement
ratio were developed: (i) installation of the external CFRP stirrups and (ii) application of well
anchored CFRP sheets on the tension surface of the slab. Experimental research on 2/3-scale
slab-column connections was conducted to quantify the effects of earthquake-damage and low
reinforcement ratios on the punching shear strength, and to study the efficiency of various
rehabilitation techniques. Test results showed that connections with about 0.5 % top
reinforcement ratio within the (c+3h) region, which is typical in the older flat plate structures,
had about two-third of the two-way shear capacity estimated using ACI 318-05 expressions.
Installing external carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) stirrups and applying well-anchored
CFRP sheets on the tension surface of the slab were effective in increasing the punching shear
strength of the earthquake-damaged connections. In addition to increasing the punching shear
strength of the slab-column connection, the rehabilitation methods developed in this study also
improved the residual capacity after punching shear failure.
Binici (2007)
Binici (2007) also used a strengthening technique as using new economical and easy way to
install CFRP to enhance punching shear strength of reinforced slab-column connections. Four
test specimens that were simply supported along four edges with corners free to lift up,
representing the interior slab-column connection were tested. Self-manufactured CFRP dowels
were placed around the column stubs of the flat-plate specimens as vertical shear reinforcement.
As a result of experiments, it was observed that the vertical load carrying capacities of the
strengthened specimens were increased. The ultimate load capacities and failure modes of the
test specimens were compared with the ACI318-05 provisions. The test results show that the
27
proposed FRP retrofit technique can be used successfully to enhance punching shear capacity of
slab-column connections.
Cueva & Robertson (2008)

Cueva & Robertson (2008) presented an experimental program designed to compute
effectiveness of the use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) studs as a viable
retrofitting method/device to help increase the punching shear capacity and ductility of concrete
flat slabs (at their slab-column connections) during a cyclic loading event such as an earthquake.
The layout of the CFRP studs was determined using the standards set in the ACI 318-05 Code.
Two scaled specimens, a control slab (without studs) and an experimental slab (with studs), of a
typical slab-column connection in a flat slab building were subjected to several cycles of quasi-
static reverse-cyclic loads from a hydraulic ram until either punching occurred or the limit of the
hydraulic testing apparatus was reached. The results showed that the CFRP studs were able to
increase the retrofitted slab’s punching shear capacity and ductility by reaching the capacity of
the testing apparatus at 10 percent drift without punching shear failure, compared to the control
slab which experienced a sudden punching shear failure at 2.9 percent lateral drift.
Mirzaei (2008)
Mirzaei (2008) analyzed 24 flat slabs to investigate the post punching behavior of reinforced
slab-column connections with various flexural reinforcement layouts are introduced and
compared. The first series investigated the effect of available tensile reinforcement in the
negative moment area over the column on the post punching behavior of flat slabs. The second
series consisted of eight specimens. Four specimens to investigate the effect of additional straight
bars placing on the compression side of the slabs passing through the column and the other four
specimens included bent-up bars to investigate the effect of additional bars acting as shear
reinforcement without sufficient anchorage length. The third series consisted of twelve
specimens: Four specimens included bent-up bars with a sufficient anchorage length, two
specimens included straight compressive reinforcement, two had only tensile reinforcement, and
the last four included both tensile reinforcement and straight reinforcing bars passing through the
column on the compression side of the slab. It was generally observed that after the punching
shear strength has been reached, the load decreases rapidly. Then it started increasing with
further deflection. At this stage, because of the large strains at the slab top surface, cracks
28
propagate through the slab and yielding of reinforcement spreads throughout the slab. The load
was carried by the reinforcement acting as a tensile membrane and with further deflection, the
load carried increases until the reinforcement start to fracture.
Ruiz et al. (2009)
Ruiz et al. (2010) established an innovative system for strengthening of flat slabs against
punching shear using post-installed shear reinforcement as the combine use of nut, washers and
bars. They tested 12 full-size slabs models, strengthened by using inclined shear reinforcements
installed within existing slabs by drilling holes only from the soffit of the slab and by bonding it
with high-performance epoxy adhesive. The results show that such reinforcements are an
efficient way to increase both the strength and deformation capacity of flat slabs. Finally the
design of the reinforcement based on the critical shear-crack theory (CSCT) is presented.
Ruiz et al. (2010)

Ruiz et al. (2010) studied about performance and design of punching shear reinforcing systems
of Flat slabs. They explained critical shear crack theory with respect to the design of punching
shear reinforcing systems. They tasted full scale slabs with same flexural and shear reinforcing
ratio but with different punching shear reinforcing systems. The experimental results confirm
that the strength and deformation capacity are strongly influenced by the characteristics of the
shear reinforcing system. The results for the various systems are finally investigated within the
frame of the critical shear crack theory, leading to a series of recommendations for design.
Song et al. (2012)
Song et al. (2012) tested total of four flat plate interior joints were subjected to gravity and cyclic
lateral loads. Three 2/3 scale isolated interior flat slab-column connections that include three
types of shear reinforcements (stirrups, headed shear stud and shear bands) are used to observe
effective punching shear and moment capacity of flat plate-column connection for lateral
loading. It is showed that the flexural failure mode appears in most specimens while the
maximum unbalanced moment and energy absorbing capacity increases effectively, with the
exception of an unreinforced standard specimen. Finally, the results of the experiments, as well
as those of experiments previously carried out by researchers, are applied to the eccentricity
shear stress model presented in ACI 318-08. The failure mode is therefore defined in this study
29
by considering the upper limits for punching shear and unbalanced moment. In addition, an
intensity factor is proposed for effective widths of slabs that carry an unbalanced moment
delivered by bending.
Ferreira et al. (2012)
Ferreira et al. (2012) tested 12 slabs to evaluate the accuracies of the design methods using
comparisons between experimental and calculated strengths for punching of reinforced concrete
flat slabs with double-headed shear reinforcement. 11 slabs contained double-headed studs as
shear reinforcement, were tested supported by central column and loaded concentrically. Their
behavior is described in terms of deflections, rotations, strains of the concrete close to the
column, strains of the flexural reinforcement across the slab width, and strains of the studs. All
failures were by punching, in most cases within the shear reinforced region. The treatments of
punching resistance in ACI 318, Eurocode 2 (EC2), and the critical shear crack theory (CSCT)
are described, and their predictions are compared with the results of the present tests and 39
others from the literature. The accuracy of predictions improves from ACI 318 to EC2 to
CSCT—that is, with increasing complexity. However, the CSCT assumptions about behavior are
not well supported by the experimental observations.
Rha et al. (2013)
Rha et al. (2013) demonstrate gravity and lateral load-carrying capacities of reinforced concrete
flat plate systems. Total of five half-scale reinforced concrete slab-column frame specimens were
tested under gravity loads or combined gravity and lateral loads. Each specimen represented a
complete story of a two-bay by two-bay moment frame, in which a continuous flat plate system
was used with nine columns assumed isolated at inflection points between floors. The tested
variables were slab reinforcement ratio and loading history (monotonic versus reversed cyclic).
The tests showed that consecutive punching failures at the slab column connections induced
transient drops in the applied load, but the load-carrying capacity of the entire system was
recovered and maintained until the system completely collapsed. The amount of top and bottom
slab bars and loading history affected the punching shear capacity as well as the gravity or lateral
load carrying capacity, stiffness, and ductility. Finally, the ACI 318-11 punching shear
provisions were evaluated based on the test results and proved to be conservative for the tested
30
continuous flat plate systems. The test results are important in that the test replicated real
boundary conditions of inter-story flat plate systems and monitored the direct shear and
unbalanced moment at each connection of the continuous systems.
Khaleel et al. (2013)
Khaleel et al. (2013) tested 4 half-scale two-way slab-column interior connections which were
constructed and tested under punching shear caused by centric vertical load. It is carried out to
determine the efficiency of using Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) to strengthen the slab-
column connections subjected to punching shear. The use of steel links, external stirrups made
from glass specimen Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) and external stirrups made from Carbon
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) for strengthening the flat slabs against punching shear was
considered as a new application. The experimental results showed a noticeable increase in
punching shear resistance and flexural stiffness for the strengthened specimens compared to
control specimen. Also, the strengthened tested slabs showed a relative ductility enhancement.
Finally, equations for punching shear strength prediction of slab-column connections
strengthened using different materials (Steel, GFRP & CFRP) were applied and compared with
the experimental results.
Askar (2015)
Askar (2015) conducted some tests of repairing damaged flat plates by using vertical studs with
different arrangements through holes drilled in the plates to assess the efficiency of the suggested
repairing system and to investigate the slabs load carrying capacity, deformation characteristics
and cracking behavior. As per different codes and critical shear crack theory theoretical results, a
series of 8 specimens tested were done considering the shear reinforcement volume and concrete
compressive strength as two parameters of investigations. It is found that using the proposed
system on repairing damaged flat plates due to punching shear is very efficient to regain strength,
deformation capacity and ductility.
Moreno et al. (2015)
Moreno et al. (2015) used a strengthening technique of flat slabs-column connection. To

investigate the strengthening practice of existing flat slabs against punching shear failure, the
31
experimental programme carried out using carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP) and shear
reinforcements. Four normal strength concrete slabs (1100mmx1100mmx100mm) with and
without shear reinforcement, submitted to punching under a concentrated load. Moreover, the
near surface mounted technique has also been tested within current experimental work. Finally, a
fourth specimen servedas reference. The effects of shear reinforcement and of the carbon fibre
reinforced polymers enhancing punching shear capacity are observed.
2.9 Summary of Literature Review
Punching shear failures in flat plates are usually sudden and catastrophic because reinforced
concrete flat plate structures do not contain beams. During an earthquake, significant horizontal
displacement of a flat plate-column connection may occur, resulting in unbalanced moments that
induce additional slab shear stresses. As a result, some flat plate structures have collapsed by
punching shear in past earthquakes. Many researchers worked on strengthening the existing RC
flat plate column connections using different types of shear reinforcements, carbon fiber
reinforced polymers (CFRP) stirrups, bolts to act as shear reinforcement, Strengthening anchor
Hilti HZA-P and vertical studs but using post-installed inclined U-stirrups for strengthening flat
plate column connection for lateral cyclic loading is still not used as a research topic.
32
CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the experimental program of the present research consisting of specimen
preparation of half scale models of concrete frames. To investigate the improvement of punching
shear capacity using post-installed shear reinforcements in existing flat plate column connections
for lateral loading, eight reinforced concrete frames with different slab thicknesses and concrete
strengths have been tested. The material properties and experimental program are discussed
below.
3.2 Specimen Preparation
3.2.1 Selection of Geometric Properties of Model Frames
A typical full scale four storied flat plate column frame RC Building as shown in figure 3.1 was
analyzed as per BNBC. To identify the effect of seismic loading on flat plate with shear
reinforcement a one bay frame of the bottom story of a four storied building structure was
selected for the experimental program as shown in figure 3.1 to 3.3. The size of the flat plate and
columns connections frame has been taken from the analysis. Considering total cost and the
existing laboratory facilities half scale specimen has been finally selected to make the
investigation more convenient. Considering column strip from flat plate panel, equivalent flat
plate column frame selected as specimen giving details as shown in figure 3.4 to 3.5. Moreover
the dimensions of the as built specimens are shown in figure 3.4.
Two vertical point loads on two column and uniform dead loads on plates were applied to get the
effect of sustained gravity load along with a horizontal incremental static repeated loading for
seismic effect. All frames had the span length of 2520mm and height of 1000mm. Figure 3.4
33
Figure 3.1 Typical RC Flat Plate Frame Building 3D View
shows the layout and dimensions of the frames and the structural elements. Detail geometry and
reinforcement of a Flat plate frame is shown in Figure 3.5 and cross sectional details of columns
and base beam are presented in table 3.1.
Frames were constructed in two groups mainly based on flat plate thickness and presence of
shear reinforcements through retrofitting, categorized in table 3.2.
34
Figure 3.2 Selection of interior Flat Plate-column Frame Plan View (All Dimensions are in
milimetres)
The variations in flat plate thicknesses were 75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm and 140 mm. For
introducing more variations in frames two types of concrete strength were used, such as 20.69
MPa and 27.59 MPa and lastly two control frame were prepared without retrofitting for
comparing with the results of frames with retrofitting using shear reinforcements.
35
Figure 3.3: Selection of interior Flat Plate-column Frame Elevation
400mm Flat Plate Floor slab 400mm
300 mm
Column 2520m
1000 mm
Base Beam
2400 mm
Figure 3.4: Typical Half Scaled Model Dimension
36
Table 3.1: Cross Section of Different Frame Components.
Cross Section Reinforcement Details

Frame Part
Base Beam
B x D = 250 mm x 200 mm
Main bar: top 8-R12
Base Beam bottom 8-R12
Stirrup: R8 @100mm with
135 degree hook
Clear Cover= 20mm
L = 6d
Column
B x D = 190.5 mm x 190.5
Column mm
(Two columns Main bar: 8-R10
are symmetric) Hoop: R8 @150mm with
135 degree hook, L = 6d
Clear Cover= 20mm
Typical model:
Group A: Non-Retrofitted
There were two model specimens.
Column size: 190.5 mm x 190.5mm
Main Bars: 8-φ 10 mm deformed bar
Shear Reinforcement: φ 8 mm @150mm with 135 degree hook
Base Beam size: 250 mm x 200 mm
Main Bars: 8-φ 12 mm top bar and 8-φ 12 mm bottom bar
Flat Plate Column Connections: No shear reinforcement
37
Top Bar Bottom Bar
T8@75mm c/c
840mm
T8@150mm c/c
840mm
T8@150mm c/c
T8@75mm c/c
840mnm
T8@127mm c/c T8@152.4mm c/c
Figure 3.5: Placements of top and bottom bars of Flat Plate Floor Slab
38
Table 3.2: Group for Eight Frame Specimens.
Concrete strengths
Flat Plate thickness
20.69 Mpa (3ksi) 27.59 Mpa (4ksi)
Group A
Specimen with Flat plate
Non- S-5.5-C-3 S-5.5-C-4
thickness 140 mm (5.5inch)
Retrofitted
S-3-C-3 S-3-C-4
thickness 75 mm (3inch)
Group B Specimen with Flat plate
S-4-C-3 S-4-C-4
Retrofitted thickness 100 mm (4inch)
S-5-C-3 S-5-C-4
thickness 125 mm (5 inch)
Flat Plate size: length x Width = 2520mm x 840mm, Thicknesses: 140 mm
Bars Details: Bar Details was given in the Figure 3.5.
Group B: Retrofitted
There were six model specimens.
Column size: 190.5 mm x 190.5 mm
Main Bars: 8-φ 10 mm deformed bar
Base Beam size: 250 mm x 200 mm
Main Bars: 8-φ 12 mm top bar and 8-φ 12 mm bottom bar
Flat Plate size: length x Width = 2520mm x 840mm, Thicknesses: 75mm 100mm and 125mm
Bars Details: Bar Details was given in the Figure 3.5.
39
Flat Plate Column Connections: U-stirrups as φ 8 mm bars were used as shear reinforcements.
Details of shear reinforcements used in flat plate as retrofitting materials are in the following
below in table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Detailing of Shear Reinforcements used in Flat Plate Column Connections
Retrofitting Work.
Concrete Specime No. of Spacing Spacing Spacing

Flat Plate
Strengths n Name U- between between 1st between 2nd
Thickness
stirrups column face to U-stirrup to U-stirrup to
1st U-stirrup 2nd U-stirrup 3rd
75mm 20.70MPa S-3-C-3 32 30mm 30mm 30mm
(3inch) (3ksi)
100mm 20.70MPa S -4-C-3 16 40mm 40mm --
(4inch) (3ksi)
125mm 20.70MPa S-5-C-3 16 50mm 50mm --
(5inch) (3ksi)
75mm 27.59MPa S-3-C-4 32 45mm 25mm 25mm
(3inch) (4ksi)
75mm 27.59MPa S-4-C-4 16 45mm 25mm --
(4inch) (4ksi)
75mm 27.59MPa S -5-C-4 16 60mm 40mm --
(5inch) (4ksi)
All spacing was measured in the bottom surface of the flat plate.
3.2.2 Material properties
3.2.2.1 Cement
Cement is a binder, a substance that sets and hardens and can bind other materials together. The
most important uses of cement are as a component in the production of mortar in masonry, and
of concrete, a combination of cement and an aggregate to form a strong building material.
40
The experimental work of this research conducted using Ordinary Portland cement (CEM I).
3.2.2.2 Fine Aggregate
Sand is a naturally occurring granular material composed of finely divided rock and mineral
particles. It is defined by size, being finer than gravel and coarser than silt. Sand can also refer to
a textural class of soil or soil type; i.e. a soil containing more than 85% sand-sized particles (by
mass).Physical and chemical properties of the sand influence the strength and durability of
concrete. Coarse Sylhet sand has been used for all specimens. Important qualities of sand those
influence the quality of fresh and hardened concrete are specific gravity, absorption capacity,
moisture content, grading and chemical properties. If the dry sand absorbs large amount of water
then w/c ratio of the fresh concrete will be changed and if the sand contains free water then the
free water participates in the hydration process affecting the design strength of concrete.
Gradation of fine aggregates has direct impact on workability of fresh concrete and strength of
hardened concrete. Higher percentage of fines will add to workability of fresh concrete. Figure
3.6 shows the gradation curve and Table 3.4 presents property test results:
Table 3.4: Physical properties of the fine aggregate (Sylhet Sand) according to ASTM
C128-88
Basic properties of Sylhet Sand Value
Oven Dry Bulk Specific Gravity 2.53
SSD Bulk Specific Gravity 2.59
Apparent Specific Gravity 2.69
Oven Dry Rodded Unit Weight 1584 kg/m3
FM value 2.88
Moisture content (%) 5.80%
Absorption capacity (%) 2.33%
41
120.0
Percent Finner by Weight 100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size(mm)
Figure 3.6: Grain Size Distribution curve of fine aggregates
3.2.2.3 Coarse Aggregate
Construction aggregate, or simply "aggregate", is a broad category of coarse particulate material

used in construction, including sand, gravel, crushed stone, slag, recycled concrete and
geosynthetic aggregates. Aggregates are the most mined materials in the world. Strength and
durability of concrete depend on the type, quality and size of the aggregates. The summary of the
physical properties of the coarse aggregate are shown in Table 3.5 and the gradation curve are
shown in figure 3.7.
Table 3.5 Physical properties of the coarse aggregate (Stone Chips) according to ASTM
C128-88
Basic properties of Stone Chips Value

Oven Dry Bulk Specific Gravity 2.61
SSD Bulk Specific Gravity 2.63
Apparent Specific Gravity 2.67
42
Oven Dry Rodded Unit Weight 1429 kg/m3
FM value 5.00
Moisture content (%) 0.40%
Absorption capacity (%) 0.79%
120.0
100.0
80.0
Percent Finner by Weight
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.1 1 10 100
-20.0
Grain Size(mm)
Figure 3.7: Grain Size Distribution curve of coarse aggregates
3.2.2.4 Reinforcements
Reinforcing bars are used to take high tension, compression and shear forces induced in the
concrete member. Transfer of forces between concrete and the reinforcement depends on the
bond strength between them. At present, all commercial reinforcing bars are deformed bars and
have better bond performance with concrete than the plain reinforcing bars. Φ12 mm, Φ10 mm
and Φ8 mm bars were used for specimen constructions. Φ12 mm bars were used as longitudinal
reinforcement for base beam and Φ8 mm bars were used as stirrup and bars for columns and flat
plate slab.Φ8 mm bars are also used as U-stirrup shear reinforcements. Specimens were tested
for yield and ultimate capacity. The summary and details of the test result are given in Table 3.6.
43
Table 3.6: Strength of Reinforcing Bars
Diameter Elongation Cross Section of Bar Yield Strength Ultimate Strength

(mm) (%) ( mm2) (MPa) (MPa)
12 13 113.34 545 667
10 11 78.54 543 675
8 9.50 49.10 544 680
3.2.2.5 Concrete
For preparing concrete, Ordinary Portland Cement was used along with Sylhet sand as fine
aggregate and 12.5mm downgrade stone chips as coarse aggregates.
The concrete was mixed in a mixer machine which was used for casting the entire structural
element (Base Beam, Column and Flat Plates) of the frame specimen and the casting took place
at the concrete lab in BUET. Before using concrete, slump test was carried out to keep the slump
value in between 3 to 4 inch.
3.2.2.6 Micro concrete
Micro concrete used as rebuilding material to recover clear cover of bottom side of the flat plate.
Fresh Cement used in micro-concrete mixer. The mix ratio was 1:1.1:1.6 and water cement
Figure 3.8.: Coarse Aggregate Figure 3.9: Fine Aggregate
44
Figure 3.10: Concrete Mixing Figure 3.11: Slump Test
ratio was 0.34 to 0.36. No admixture was used in preparing micro concrete mixture. Fine
aggregate and coarse aggregate properties used in micro concrete mixture are given below in
Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Properties of Micro-concrete
Properties Name Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate

1) Specific Gravity 2.48 2.60
2) Absorption Capacity 2.17% 1.11%
3) Fineness Modulus 1.84 2.83
Determination of Target Strength
Based on calculation several mixture proportions of concrete are selected and their 14 days and
28 days strength are determined to obtain the strengths which are shown in Table 3.8 and Table
3.9.
For flat plates two types of concrete strengths was used in this research. 20.69 MPa (3000psi)
and 27.59 MPa (4000psi) were used for research. Casting concrete strengths test results for
requiring targeted strength are in the following Table 3.9.
45
Table 3.8: Cylinder Strength for Targeted Strength 4000 psi for Base Beam and
Column
14 days
Name of Mix Ratio 28 days Strengths
w/c Strengths Average Average
the (Weight
Ratio (psi) (psi)
Specimen Base)
(kN/m2) (psi) (kN/m2) (psi)
1:1.95:2.01 0.34 23665 3431 29768 4316
S-3-C-3 1:1.95:2.01 0.34 24537 3558 3600 28149 4082 4148
1:1.95:2.01 0.34 26280 3811 27900 4045
1:1.95:2.01 0.34 22544 3269 29270 4244

3401
S-4-C-3 1:1.95:2.01 0.34 23042 3341 28772 4172 4353
1:1.95:2.01 0.34 24786 3594 32011 4642
1:1.95:2.01 0.34 25035 3630 30391 4407
S-5-C-3 1:1.95:2.01 0.34 24163 3504 3666 31139 4515 4612
1:1.95:2.01 0.34 26654 3865 33879 4912
1:1.95:2.01 0.34 23489 3406 33256 4822
S-5.5-C-3 1:1.95:2.01 0.34 24119 3497 3558 32633 4732 4732
1:1.95:2.01 0.34 26008 3771 32011 4641
1:1.85:2.01 0.34 23489 3406 34751 5039
S-3-C-4 1:1.85:2.01 0.34 26008 3771 3625 26779 3883 4295
1:1.85:2.01 0.34 25504 3698 27327 3962
1:1.85:2.01 0.34 26260 3808 33313 4830
S-4-C-4 1:1.85:2.01 0.34 26008 3771 3712 32053 4648 4684
1:1.85:2.01 0.34 24748 3588 31550 4575
S-5-C-4 1:1.85:2.01 0.34 26008 3771 3495 32053 4648 4429
46
1:1.85:2.01 0.34 23992 3491 33061 4794
1:1.85:2.01 0.34 22229 3223 26511 3844
1:1.85:2.01 0.34 24118 3497 31298 4538
S-5.5-C-4 1:1.85:2.01 0.34 25378 3680 3649 27267 3954 4304
1:1.85:2.01 0.34 26008 3771 32557 4720
Table 3.9: Cylinder Strength for Targeted Strength 3000 psi for Flat Plates.
Mix Ratio 28 days Strengths

Name of the w/c Average
(Weight
Specimen Ratio (psi)
Base) (kN/m2) (psi)
1:2.05:2.00 0.28 28779 4173
S-3-C-3 1:2.05:2.00 0.28 26260 3808 4173
1:2.05:2.00 0.28 31298 4539
1:2.05:2.00 0.28 27267 3955
S-4-C-3 1:2.05:2.00 0.28 27267 3954 3966
1:2.05:2.00 0.28 27519 3990
1:2.05:2.00 0.28 27015 3917
S-5-C-3 1:2.05:2.00 0.28 27267 3954 3954
1:2.05:2.00 0.28 27519 3990
1:2.05:2.00 0.28 26008 3771
S-5.5-C-3 1:2.05:2.00 0.28 28275 4100 3942
1:2.05:2.00 0.28 27267 3954
Table 3.10: Cylinder Strength for Targeted Strength 27.59 MPa (4000 psi) for Flat
Plates.
47
Mix Ratio 28 days Strengths
Name of the w/c Average
(Weight
Specimen Ratio (psi)
Base) (kN/m2) (psi)
1:1.85:1.98 0.34 31014.00 4497
S-3-C-4 1:1.85:1.98 0.34 30889.43 4479 4503
1:1.85:1.98 0.34 31263.13 4533
1:1.85:1.98 0.34 30142.04 4371
S-4-C-4 1:1.85:1.98 0.34 30764.87 4461 4437
1:1.85:1.98 0.34 30889.45 4479
1:1.85:1.98 0.34 28778.59 4173
S-5-C-4 1:1.85:1.98 0.34 30038.09 4356 4465
1:1.85:1.98 0.34 33564.72 4867
1:1.85:1.98 0.34 28526.69 4136
S-5.5-C-4 1:1.85:1.98 0.34 29786.20 4319 4150
1:1.85:1.98 0.34 27519.09 3990
The compressive strength for each concrete casting was determined on 4x8 inch standard
concrete cylinders. The specimens were in the moulds for 24 hours; thereafter they were taken
from their moulds and stored at 100% relative humidity until testing. The compressive strength
was tested after 28 days for the entire specimen. Workability measurement was carried out on the
fresh concrete as fresh concrete as slump value, was approximately 3.5 inch as shown in Figure
3.12 to 3.13. It is observed that for 20.69MPa (3000psi) the average cylinder strengths is almost
4000psi but for the 27.59MPa (4000psi) the average cylinder strengths is almost 4500psi.
A measurement on hardened concrete was conducted as compressive strength according to

standard ASTM C39 / C39M.
48
Figure 3.12: Concrete Cylinders are Stored Figure 3.13. Compressive Strength Testing
in Water. of Cylinders
Table 3.11: Specifications using in designing punching shear reinforcements of flat

plate
Specification Name Specification
Full scale flat plate panel 11ftX20ft
Service Dead Load for 3000psi concrete strength 315psf

specimens
Service Dead Load for 4000psi concrete strength 325 psf

specimens
Service Dead Load for all specimens 42psf
Square column size 7.46in.X7.46in.
Clear Cover in half Scale 0.35 in.
Allowable 𝜑𝑉𝑐 4𝜑 𝑓𝑐′ (𝑝𝑠𝑖)𝑏0 𝑑
𝜑 0.75
Before designing shear reinforcements of flat plate the theoretical punching capacity was
calculated using design specifications.
Using Table 3.10 Specifications the theoretical punching shear capacity of existing flat plate was
calculated. Although it was targeted that specimen concrete strength for 3000psi will remain
49
3000psi but it was little bit higher. So for 3000psi concrete strength specimens designing for
punching shear reinforcements the concrete strengths of flat plate used 3500psi instead of
3000psi.
Table 3.12: Theoretical punching shear capacity
Specimen name Ultimate load (kip) Allowable load (kip)
S-3-C-3 27.04 9.01
S-4-C-3 27.54 16.11
S-5-C-3 28.56 24.63
S-5.5-C-3 28.80 29.42
S-3-C-4 27.04 9.63
S-4-C-4 27.81 17.22
S-5-C-4 28.56 26.33
S-5.5-C-4 28.80 31.45
3.3 Formation of Specimens
Frame specimens were formed in three different steps following the practical construction
practice. The base beam and two columns were casted horizontally but the flat plates and the
column top were casted vertically in three different time. At first the base beam and two columns
were constructed simultaneously. Subsequently the flat plate was erected, after flat plate was
prepared and lastly column top was constructed. The step by step pictorial descriptions of
specimen formation are given as follows:
3.3.1 Base Beam and columns Construction
At first base beams and two columns were constructed horizontally of length 2400mm and a
cross section of 200 mm x 250 mm. Form work was constructed to support the freshly placed
concrete and the reinforcement, as shown in the Figure 3.14. Basic concerns were the accuracy
of the design, pertaining to length and shape, as well as the finish of the beam. A number of
small mortar blocks were used on the inner base and on two sides of the formwork to maintain
50
20 mm clear cover and vibrator were used for proper compaction. Element used in the
construction of the formwork was 1 inch wood. The formwork was removed after 4 days of
casting and covered with wet jute hessian to maintain the moisture level as shown in figure 3.15
to 3.18. The beams were cured with water four times in every day up to 28 days.
Figure 3.14: Formwork Ready for Base Beam and columns
Figure 3.15: Concrete pouring into Formwork Figure 3.16: Using Mechanical Vibrator
51
Figure 3.17: Base Beams after column After Figure 3.18: Base Beams and Columns
Casting. Wrapped with Hessian for Curing.
3.3.2 Flat Plate floor slab and Column top Construction
After 32 days of construction of base beam flat plate floor slab were constructed to the proper
alignment of column position. Four different types of plate thicknesses were used such as 75
mm, 100 mm, 125mm and 140 mm to assess the effect of shear reinforcement on flat plate
column connections. Formwork was constructed to support the freshly placed concrete and the
reinforcement, as shown in the figure 3.19 to figure 3.21. A number of small mortar blocks were
used on all side to maintain 20 mm clear cover and vibrator was used for proper compaction.
Figure 3.19: Preparation of Flat Plate Figure 3.20: Formwork Ready for Flat Plate
Formwork Casting
52
Figure 3.21: Reinforcments arrangement Figure 3.22: Flat Plate after Casting
Figure 3.23: Casted Column top and curing of Figure 3.24: Curing of Flat Plate and
Flat Plate Column top
The formwork was removed after 3 days of casting, sees Figure 3.15 to figure 3.16 and covered
with wet jute hessian to maintain the moisture level. The Flat plates were cured with water four
times in every day up to 28 days.
3.3.3 Retrofitting Work
Vertical U-stirrups used as shear reinforcement which was main component of retrofitting work.
It was made by φ 8 mm bars as shown in fig 3.25. Three different steps have done for retrofitting
work. They are
1. Hole Drilling and Cleaning

2. Application of Epoxy
3. Inserting Shear Reinforcements and Rebuilding clear cover using Micro-concrete
53
Figure 3.25: U-stirrups as Shear Reinforcements.
3.3.3.1 Drilling and Cleaning
Inserting shear reinforcements into concrete, drilling is important step in retrofitting work. The
rebar diameter of shear reinforcements was 8mm, so drilling hole diameter was up to 8mm like
10mm and moderate hole lengths was 75mm to 175mm depending on the effective depth of flat
plates. If d is the effective depth of the flat plate then drilling length 𝑙 ≈ 2𝑑. Drilling angle was
maintained precisely at 45° to the surface to the required embedment depth using hammer-drill
with an appropriately sized carbide drill bit set in rotation hammer mode. Existing rebar location
was detected by Ferro scanner and marked by marker pencil. Drilling was done from soffit of the
flat plates around the column as shown in figure 3.28 to 3.29. It is important that the drilled holes
proceed up to at least just below the tensile reinforcement of the slab. Hammer drilling was
selected as proper way of drilling borehole and drilling was started about 10mm upward. Using
hand grinding machine and hammer with chisel clear cover was removed as shown in figure 3.31
to 3.32.
Load performance of chemical anchors is strongly influenced by the cleaning method such as
inadequate borehole cleaning causes poor load values. The borehole must be free of dust, debris,
water when applicable, ice, oil, grease and other contaminants. Compressed air blow from the
back of the borehole was performed at least two times. Round brash was inserted in borehole to
accomplish proper cleaning operation as shown in figure 3.35. Finally high pressure water flow
through boreholes executed proper cleaning operation as shown in figure 3.36.
54
Figure 3.26: Ferro Scanner Figure 3.27: Ink marked loaction of drilling
and location of existing flat plate rebars
Figure 3.28: Drilling Machine Figure 3.29: Drilling from soffit of the Plate
using Drilling Machine
Figure 3.30: Hand Grinding Machine Figure 3.31: Removing clear cover using Hand
Grinding Machine
55
Figure 3.32: Hammer and Chisel Figure 3.33: Removing clear cover using
Hammer and Chisel
Figure 3.34: Round Brush Figure 3.35: Cleaning borehole using Round
Brush
Figure 3.36: Bore Holes washing by water spreading
56
3.3.3.2 Application of Epoxy Adhesive
After drilling and cleaning bore holes, application of Epoxy was started. Epoxy provided high
bonding strength between steel and concrete so that used punching shear reinforcements could
not come out from concrete easily. An anchoring grout named Fosroc Lokfix S Base (Polyester
Resin Grouts) was used as epoxy adhesive glue as shown in figure 3.37 to 3.40. Lokfix is a two-
component polyester resin anchoring grout, meeting the requirements of retrofitting design:
Anchoring of reinforced steel bars. The details of Lokfix attached with Appendix B.
The grout mixture was inserted into borehole by expert who had done by hand and using a steel
rod to push epoxy glue to embedded depth as shown in figure 3.40 to 3.42.
Figure 3.37: Epoxy Adhesive Chemicals Figure 3.38: Epoxy ingredients
57
Figure 3.39: Epoxy Mixure Figure 3.40: Application of Epoxy
Figure 3.41: Pushing Epoxy by Steel Bar Figure 3.42: After Application of Epoxy
3.3.3.3 Installing Punching Shear Reinforcements and Rebuilding clear cover using
Micro-concrete
Before installing punching shear reinforcements, the total length of U-stirups checked by total
length of prepared holes depth and its spacing according to the design dimensions. Within 10
minutes of Epoxy application, punching shear reinforcements was installed into poured
boreholes by hammering as shown in figure 3.43 to 3.48.
After installing punching shear reinforcements, Micro-concrete was used to rebuild clear cover
(20mm).
58
Figure 3.43: Inserting Shear Reinforcement Figure 3.44: Inserting Shear Reinforcement
into the Flat Plate by Hammering
Figure 3.45: After Inserting Shear Figure 3.46: After Inserting Shear
Reinforcement Reinforcement around the column
Figure 3.47: Micro Concrete Mixure Figure 3.48: Rebuilding Clear cover
3.4 Experimental Set Up, Testing Procedure, Data Acquisition
The frames were tested under horizontal incremental cyclic loading along with constant axial
load. Lateral loading was applied using a loading control pattern. The specimens were tested
under cyclic loading conditions displacing them laterally, along the axis of the Flat Plates.
Loading and unloading was applied in 1 ton increments in the positive (rightward) and negative
59
(leftward) direction for every cycle. Whereas 3 ton, 5ton, 6.5ton, 8 ton , 10 ton, 12 ton and 12.5
ton loading increments were maintained for 1st, 2nd , 3rd , 4th ,5th 6th and 7th cycle. A constant
loading rate per cycle was maintained until the specimens experienced significant loss of
capacity. The loading history applied to the specimens is shown in Table 3.13.
Table 3.13: Loading History.
Rightward Leftward
Cycle Name
Loading Unloading Loading Unloading
Condition (ton) Condition (ton) Condition (ton) Condition (ton)
Cycle-I 0 to 3 3 to 0 0 to -3 -3 to 0
Cycle-II 0 to 5 5 to 0 0 to -5 -5 to 0
Cycle-III 0 to 6.5 6.5 to 0 0 to -6.5 -6.5 to 0
Cycle-IV 0 to 8 8 to 0 0 to -8 -8 to 0
Cycle-V 0 to 10 10 to 0 0 to -10 -10 to 0
Cycle-VI 0 to 12 12 to 0 0 to -12 -12 to 0
Cycle-VI 0 to 12.5 12.5 to 0 0 to -12.5 -12.5 to 0
All the frames were all through white washed to find out the crack and their absolute location
before testing. The test set-up began with picking up the frame by the crane with trolley and then
placed under the testing machine. The horizontal static repeated load was applied manually by
hydraulic jack at an increasing rate of displacement. During testing of specimen, the load was
recorded and horizontal displacement was also measured by two deflection gages to identify the
deflection behavior which was engaged with column and flat plate as shown in figure 4.1 to 4.2.
The positions of the applied loads for all groups were illustrated in figure 3.49.
60
Uniform Load distribution
by weight block
20 kip 20 kip
Cyclic Load Cyclic Load
2520mm
1000mm
Steel Stopper
2400mm
Figure 3.49: Schematic Diagram of Loading condition during test
61
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND
DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the qualitative and quantitative experimental results from test
specimen-1 to specimen-8. The qualitative results include photographs of each specimen through
the course of testing and displaying the crack patterns. Load corresponding to displacements and
different crack history were recorded for producing the quantitative results.
4.2 Test Set Up and Testing Procedure
After curing, the specimen was carried away to set into the Hydraulic Testing Machine
cautiously to elude any significant damages. The crane and the trolley were used to carry with
appropriate workman. When the specimen was set up then the loading hydraulic jacks were
anchored into position. The horizontal hydraulic jacks were linked to the side face of flat Plate
and the vertical hydraulic jacks were set in their position at the top of the column. To apply dead
load on flat plate, the plate was loaded uniformly by equivalent weight. Before applying the
uniform dead load, two dial gauges were set and readings were taken as reference points to
determine the deflection throughout the loading regime. One dial gauge was set vertically with
flat plate within distance of effective depth of flat plate from column face and another was set
horizontally with column face at the top of the plate-column connection as shown in figure 4.1 to
4.2. Dial gauge readings were recorded after imposing the uniform vertical load on plate to
determine the amount of compressive shortening. To commence each test, the vertical hydraulic
jacks were first loaded to a combined force of 20 ton, 10 ton on each column top and Dial gauge
readings were recorded again. The test was loading controlled so that the horizontal hydraulic
jacks were responsible for imposing the cyclic loading to the specimen through complete cycles
of 3, 5, 6.5, 8, 10, 12 and 12.5 ton. All cycle consisted of first loading and unloading the
62
specimens toward the positive (rightward) direction hereafter referred to as the negative
(leftward) direction.
The ultimate axial load carrying capacity of each column was 97.93kip (Considering as tied
column) and only 20.43% of total capacity was imposed on column so that there was no axial
failure of column.
Figure 4.1: Dial Gauge-1 Figure 4.2: Dial Gauge-2
4.3 Failure Modes of Flat Plate
Most of the specimens failed in flexure shear but only control specimens failed in punching
shear. Punching failure occurred with diagonal cracking emblem adjacent to the critical section
with large cracking depth, on the other hand flexural failure occurred with vertical crack emblem
commencing from bottom of the Flat Plate with large cracking depth.
Although first crack was observed in column joint with the base beam, but finally the flat plate
specimen failed with cracking in flat plate. Only one specimen was failed after the column joint
with base beam failed.
The final crack revealed in specimen at failure condition at greater distance than effective depth
of flat plate from column face is considered as flexure failure and the punching failure ensured
when final crack in specimen at failure condition revealed within effective depth of flat plate
from column face.
63
All eight specimens exhibited different cracking patterns throughout the course of testing. Figure
4.3 is a photograph of a specimen just prior to testing.
Figure 4.3: Initial State of Test Specimen
4.4 Test Result of Specimen S-3-C-3
The black marked cracks, represented the cracking that appeared during the loading and
unloading from leftward and rightward, as shown in figure 4.4 to figure 4.10. The shear cracking
seemed to be more widespread. The test of specimen-S-3-C-3 was associated with its first crack
of the flat slab at positive third cycle loading at flat plate with 6.5 ton load and corresponded to a
horizontal displacement of 3.40mm and vertical displacement of 0.40mm. The flat plate failed at
negative fifth cycle loading at left side with 10 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
displacement of 26.70mm and vertical displacement of 5.30mm. Very first crack was generated
64
at positive second cycle loading at left column with 5 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
displacement of 2.70 mm. The failure pattern of flat plate was flexure type.
Figure 4.4: Final crack pattern of specimen S-3-C-3
Figure 4.5: Left side crack of flat plate Figure 4.6: Right side crack of flat plate
65
Figure 4.7: Left side bottom crack view after Figure 4.8: Right side bottom crack view after
5th Cycle 5th Cycle
Figure 4.9: Left top crack view after 5th cycle Figure 4.10: Left side crack view after 5th
cycle
unloading from leftward and rightward, as shown in figure 4.11 to figure 4.16. The shear
cracking seemed to be more widespread. The test of specimen S-4-C-3 was associated with its
first crack of the slab at positive 2nd cycle loading at flat plate with 5 ton load and corresponded
to a horizontal displacement of 4.45mm and vertical displacement of 0.40mm and second crack
at flat plate at negative forth cyclic loading with 8 ton load at right side to a corresponding
horizontal displacement of 12.50mm and vertical displacement of 1.35mm. The flat plate failed
at negative 5th cycle loading at right side with 10 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
66
displacement of 19.70mm and vertical displacement of 2.21mm. Very first crack was generated
at positive 2nd cycle loading at left column with 3 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
Figure 4.12: Left side of flat plate after 5th Figure 4.13: Right side of flat plate after 5th
cycle cycle
67
Figure 4.14: Left side flat plate bottom view Figure 4.15: Right side flat plate bottom view
after 5th cycle after 5th cycle
Figure 4.16: Left side flat plate top view after 5th cycle
68
first crack of the slab at flat plate at negative 3rd cycle loading with 6 ton load and corresponded
to a horizontal displacement of 3.00 mm and vertical displacement of 1.00 mm and second large
crack at flat plate at negative 4th cyclic loading with 8 ton load at right side to a corresponding
horizontal displacement of 5.10 mm and vertical displacement of 1.58 mm. The flat plate failed
at negative 5th cycle loading at left side with 10 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
displacement of 15.60 mm and vertical displacement of 2.37 mm. Very first crack was generated
at positive 2nd cycle loading at left column with 5 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
displacement of 2.45 mm. The failure pattern of flat plate was punching shear type.
69
Figure 4.20: Top crack view in left side of Figure 4.21: Bottom crack view in right side of
flat plate after 5th cycle flat plate after 5th cycle
4.7 Test Result of Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control)
cracking seemed to be more widespread. The test of specimen S-5.5-C-3(control) was associated
70
with its first crack at flat plate at positive 3rd cycle loading with 6.5 ton load and corresponded to
a horizontal displacement of 3.02 mm and vertical displacement of 0.19 mm. The flat plate failed
at negative 5th cycle loading at left side with 10 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
at negative 1st cycle loading at left column with 3 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
displacement of 1.97 mm. The failure pattern of flat plate was punching type.
Figure 4.22: Final crack pattern of specimen S-5.5-C-3(Control)
71
Figure 4.25: Left side crack of flat plate Figure 4.26: Right side crack of flat plate after
after 5th cycle 5th cycle
Figure 4.27: Top crack view in flat plate Figure 4.28: Right side crack of flat plate after
after 5th cycle 5th cycle
72
first crack at flat plate at positive 3rd cycle loading with 6.5 ton load and corresponded to a
horizontal displacement of 5.35 mm and vertical displacement of 0.33 mm and second crack at
flat plate at negative 3rd cyclic loading with 6.5 ton load at right side to a corresponding
horizontal displacement of 6.80 mm and vertical displacement of 1.83 mm.. The flat plate was
failed at negative 6th cycle loading at left side with 10.5 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
at negative 1st cycle loading at left column with 5 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
73
Figure 4.32: Left side crack view after 5th Figure 4.33: Right side crack view after 5th
cycle cycle
Figure 4.34: Left side top crack view after 5th Figure 4.35: Right column bottom crack view
cycle after 5th cycle
74
flat plate at negative 3rd cyclic loading with 6.5 ton load at right side to a corresponding
horizontal displacement of 5.50 mm and vertical displacement of 1.79 mm.. The flat plate failed
at positive 6th cycle loading at right side with 11.5 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
displacement of 25.90 mm and vertical displacement of 10.60 mm. Very first crack was
generated at negative 1st cycle loading at left column with 3 ton load to a corresponding
horizontal displacement of 1.30 mm. The failure pattern of flat plate was flexure type.
75
Figure 4.37: Left side crack view of flat plate Figure 4.38: Right side crack view of flat
plate
Figure 4.39: Left side bottom crack view of Figure 4.40: Right side bottom crack view of
flat plate after 5th cycle flat plate after 5th cycle
76
horizontal displacement of 4.70 mm and vertical displacement of 0.40 mm. The flat plate failed
at negative 6th cycle loading at right side with 10 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
at negative 2nd cycle loading at left column with 5 ton load to a corresponding horizontal
77
Figure 4.44: Left side crack view of flat Figure 4.45: Right side crack view of flat
plate plate
Figure 4.46: Left side crack view of flat Figure 4.47: Right side crack view of flat
plate plate
Figure 4.48: Left bottom crack view of flat Figure 4.49: Right top crack view of flat plate
plate after 5th cycle after 5th cycle
78
4.11 Test Result of Specimen S-5.5-C-4 (Control)
cracking seemed to be more widespread. The test of specimen S-5.5-C-4 was associated with its
first crack at flat plate at positive 2nd cycle loading with 5 ton load and corresponded to a
flat plate at negative 2nd cyclic loading with 5 ton load at right side to a corresponding horizontal
displacement of 3.33 mm and vertical displacement of 0.49 mm. The flat plate failed at positive
7th cycle loading at right side with 12.5 ton load to a corresponding horizontal displacement of
25.47 mm and vertical displacement of 3.36 mm. Very first crack was generated at negative 1st
cycle loading at left column with 3 ton load to a corresponding horizontal displacement of 1.32
mm. The failure pattern of flat plate was punching type.
Figure 4.50: Final crack pattern of specimen S-5.5-C-4
79
Figure 4.51: Left side crack view of flat plate Figure 4.52: Right side crack view of flat
plate
Figure 4.53: Bottom crack view at left side of Figure 4.54: Right side crack view after 7th
flat plate after 7th cycle cycle
4.12 Load-Deformation Response
Load-deformation responses of all eight specimens were monitored by two dial gauges
throughout each test specimen. Two dial gauges were placed at the mid-height of the top column
80
face to record the lateral displacement. Testing was terminated when the specimen was failed.
Figures 4.55 to figure 4.67 provide the load-deformation responses of each specimen. [The
responses from dial gauges are available in the Appendices A].
Figures 4.55 to 4.56 show that after applying leftward 10 ton cyclic load the specimen was failed
which was apparent by quick horizontal and vertical displacements. The residual vertical
displacements indicated failure status. In Figures 4.57 to 4.58, specimen failure condition is
evident by vertical displacements.
Figures 4.59 to 4.60 show that the crack in flat plate commenced after 3rd cycle cyclic loading
and the residual vertical displacements gradually increased with increasing lateral cyclic loading
but the specimen failed at 10 ton leftward cyclic loading.
The greater elasticity behaviour of flat plate specimen was revealed by Figure 4.61 to 4.62 with
minimum horizontal and vertical displacements but the specimen was failed after 5th cycle lateral
loading.
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
-5
-10
-15
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.55: Load- Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-3-C-3
81
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-6.00 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
-5
-10
-15
Vertical Displacements (mm)
Figure 4.56: Load- Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-3-C-3

15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
-5
-10
-15
82
Figure 4.57: Load- Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-4-C-3
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
-5
-10
-15
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
-5
-10
-15
83
Figure 4.59: Load-Deformation Response of Specimen S-5-C-3
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00
-5
-10
-15
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
-5
-10
-15
84
Figure 4.61: Load-Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control)
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
-5
-10
-15
Veretical Displacements (mm)
Figure 4.62: Load-Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control)

15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
-5
-10
-15
Figure 4.63: Load-Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-3-C-4
85
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
-5
-10
-15
Figure 4.64: Load-Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-3-C-4

15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
-5
-10
-15
86
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
-5
-10
-15

15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00
-5
-10
-15
87
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-1.60 -1.40 -1.20 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20
-5
-10
-15
Vertical Displacement (mm)

15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
-5
-10
-15
Figure 4.69: Load-Lateral Deformation Response of Specimen S-5.5-C-4(Control)
88
15
10
5
Cyclic Load (ton)
0
-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
-5
-10
-15
Vertical Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.70: Load-Vertical Deformation Response of Specimen S-5.5-C-4(Control)
Figures 4.57 to 4.60 represent the load–displacement response of eight specimens at every
different cycle independently and a summary of the results in terms of very first crack in flat
plate, first crack in flat plate and specimen failure crack at every specimen are given in Table 4.1.
It was observed that during test the specimens have more load carrying capacity to reach collapse
type failure or final broken stage. Considering safety and ultimate capacity of testing machine
used in lab, the test with corresponding loading was carried as discussed above.
Figures 4.63 to 4.64 show that residual vertical displacement is increasing with lateral cyclic
loading and after rightward 10.5 ton lateral load the specimen was failed. The specimen in Figure
4.65 to 4.66 failed at rightward lateral cyclic loading which is elicited by quick horizontal and
vertical displacements.
Figures 4.69 to 4.70 reveal that sudden brittle failure was occurred at 12.5 ton lateral cyclic
loading by quick vertical displacements.
89
Table 4.1: Summary Results of Eight Specimens
Specimen Cycle Horizontal Vertical Horizontal

Phenomena
Name Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Force (ton)
rd
First crack S-3-C-3 Rightward 3 3.40 0.40 6.5
in Flat Plate cycle (Loading)
S-4-C-3 Rightward 2nd 4.45 0.40 5
cycle (Loading)
S-5-C-3 Leftward 3rd cycle 3.00 1.00 6
(Loading)
S-5.5-C-3 Rightward 3rd 3.02 0.19 6.5
(Control) cycle ( Unloading)
S-3-C-4 Rightward 3rd 5.35 0.33 6.5
cycle ( Loading)
S-4-C-4 Rightward 3rd 5.50 0.62 6.5
cycle ( Loading)
S-5-C-4 Rightward 3rd 4.70 0.40 6.5
cycle ( Loading)
S-5.5-C-4 Rightward 2nd 2.67 0.03 5
(Control) cycle ( Loading)
Second S-3-C-3 Leftward 4th cycle 15.3 1.94 10
Crack in (Loading)
Flat Plate S-4-C-3 Leftward 4th cycle 12.50 1.35 10
(Loading)
S-5-C-3 Leftward 4th cycle 5.10 1.58 8
(Loading)
S-5.5-C-3 Leftward 3rd cycle 3.34 1.25 6.5
(Control) ( Loading)
S-3-C-4 Leftward 3rd cycle 6.80 1.83 6.5
( Loading)
S-4-C-4 Leftward 3rd cycle 5.50 1.79 6.5
( Loading)
S-5-C-4 Leftward 2nd 4.25 1.05 5
90
cycle ( Loading)
S-5.5-C-4 Leftward 2nd 3.33 0.49 5
Very First S-3-C-3 Rightward 2nd 2.70 N/A 5
Crack cycle (Loading)
S-4-C-3 Rightward 2nd 2.30 N/A 3
cycle (Loading)
S-5-C-3 Rightward 2nd 2.45 N/A 5
cycle (Loading)
S-5.5-C-3 Leftward 1st cycle 1.97 N/A 3
(Control) (Loading)
S-3-C-4 Leftward 1st cycle 2.94 N/A 5
(Loading)
S-4-C-4 Leftward 1st cycle 1.30 N/A 3
(Loading)
S-5-C-4 Leftward 2nd 2.35 N/A 5
cycle (Loading)
S-5.5-C-4 Leftward 1st cycle 1.32 N/A 3
(Control) (Loading)
Flat Plate S-3-C-3 Leftward 5th cycle 26.70 5.30 10
Failure (Loading)
Crack S-4-C-3 Leftward 5th cycle 19.70 2.21 10
(Loading)
(Loading)
S-5.5-C-3 Leftward 5th cycle 11.90 0.85 10
(Control) (Loading)
S-3-C-4 Leftward 6th cycle 28.00 4.75 10.5
( Loading)
S-4-C-4 Rightward 6th 25.90 10.60 11.5
cycle ( Loading)
( Loading)
91
S-5.5-C-4 Rightward 7th 25.47 3.36 12.50
5 S-3-C-3
S-4-C-3
4 S-5-C-3
S-5.5-C-3 (Control)
3
S-3-C-4
2 S-4-C-4
S-5-C-4
1
S-5.5-C-4 (Control)
0
Horizontal Displacement Vertical Displacement Horizontal Force (ton)
(mm) (mm)
Figure 4.71: Summary Results of First Crack in Flat Plate

18
16
14
S-3-C-3
12 S-4-C-3
10 S-5-C-3
8 S-5.5-C-3 (Control)
6 S-3-C-4
S-4-C-4
4
S-5-C-4
2
S-5.5-C-4 (Control)
0
Horizontal Displacement Vertical Displacement Horizontal Force (ton)
(mm) (mm)
92
Figure 4.72: Summary Results of Second Crack in Flat Plate
6
S-3-C-3
4 S-4-C-3
S-5-C-3
S-3-C-4
2 S-4-C-4
S-5-C-4
0
Horizontal Displacement (mm) Horizontal Force (ton)
Figure 4.73: Summary Results of Very First Crack in Specimen

30
25
S-3-C-3
20
S-4-C-3
S-5-C-3
15
S-5.5-C-3 (Control)
S-3-C-4
10
S-4-C-4
5 S-5-C-4
S-5.5-C-4 (Control)
0
Horizontal Vertical Displacement Horizontal Force (ton)
Displacement (mm) (mm)
Figure 4.74: Summary Results of Specimen Failure
93
From the above figure it is observed that first crack in flat plate was revealed with low horizontal
and vertical displacement at control (5” thickness flat plate) specimen than low thickness
retrofitted specimens of group B. The horizontal force for first crack in flat plate was
unpredictable but the second crack in flat plate was revealed at non-retrofitted specimen with
minimum horizontal displacement, vertical displacement and horizontal force than retrofitted
specimens of group B. The very first crack in specimen was developed at column joint with base
beam.
In analyzing failure pattern of frame specimen, Flat Plate of control specimen failed with
minimum horizontal and vertical displacement than retrofitted specimen but the horizontal force
at failure were same for all flat plate of 20.69MPa specimens.
Table 4.2: Summary of Maximum Horizontal and Vertical Displacement

corresponding to each cycle
Cycle Positive Positive Corresponding Negative Negative Corresponding
Maximum Maximum Load (ton) Maximum Maximum Load (ton)
Specimen Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical
Name Displacement Displacement Displacement Displacement
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Cycle I 1.90 -1.38 3 0.10 -0.48 -3
Cycle II 4.00 -4.00 5 0.40 -0.95 -5
S-3-C-3 Cycle III 8.94 -6.80 6.5 1.00 -1.30 -6.5
Cycle IV 14.65 -11.70 8 2.06 -2.1 -8
Cycle V 18.80 -26.70 10 2.55 -5.3 -10
Cycle I 1.50 -1.30 3 0.05 -0.25 -3
Cycle II 4.45 -4.70 5 0.00 -85 -5
S-4-C-3 Cycle III 6.25 -6.00 6.5 -0.03 -0.88 -6.5
Cycle IV 10.00 -12.50 8 4.40 -1.35 -8
Cycle V 13.70 -19.70 10 1.8 -2.21 -10
Cycle I 0.86 -0.83 3 0.06 -0.12 -3
Cycle II 2.45 -1.50 5 0.14 -0.22 -5
S-5-C-3 Cycle III 3.50 -4.60 6.50 0.44 -1.10 -6.50
Cycle IV 5.90 -5.10 8 -0.31 -1.60 -8
Cycle V 10.11 -15.60 10 -0.53 -2.24 -10
S-5.5-C- Cycle I 0.86 -2.58 3 0.02 -0.02 -3
94
3 Cycle II 1.36 -2.58 5 0.11 -0.32 -5
(Control Cycle III 3.02 -4.58 6.5 0.05 -0.23 -6.5
) Cycle IV 4.32 -4.98 8 0.14 -0.27 -8
Cycle V 12.60 -11.90 10 0.19 -0.98 -10
Cycle I 1.24 -1.96 3 0.11 -0.63 -3
Cycle II 2.94 -4.76 5 1.00 -1.10 -5
Cycle III 5.35 -6.80 6.5 0.33 -1.83 -6.5
S-3-C-4
Cycle IV 11.50 -10.40 8 1.25 -2.40 -8
Cycle V 17.40 -14.50 10 2.17 -3.35 -10
Cycle VI 28.00 - 12(10.5) 4.75 - -
Cycle I 1.30 -1.48 3 0.77 -1.00 -3
Cycle II 2.95 -3.40 5 1.25 -1.20 -5
Cycle III 4.60 -5.50 6.5 0.62 -1.79 -6.5
S-4-C-4
Cycle IV 6.47 -8.50 8 1.55 -2.47 -8
Cycle V 14.64 -17.00 10 2.95 -3.91 -10
Cycle VI 25.90 - 12 10.65 - -
Cycle I 0.90 -0.85 3 0.03 -0.08 -3
Cycle II 1.60 -2.35 5 0 -0.15 -5
S-5-C-4 Cycle III 2.55 -5.70 6.5 -0.04 -0.40 -6.5
Cycle IV 4.10 -7.70 8 -0.13 -0.54 -8
Cycle V 6.20 -16.60 10 -0.03 -1.35 -10
Cycle I 1.32 -1.43 3 0.06 -0.14 -3
Cycle II 2.67 -3.33 5 0.03 -0.49 -5
S-5.5-C- Cycle III 4.17 -5.38 6.5 -0.09 -0.68 -6.5
4 Cycle IV 6.93 -8.33 8 -0.25 -0.74 -8
(Control Cycle V 9.97 -10.98 10 -0.25 -1.01 -10
) Cycle VI 14.07 -16.43 12 -1.22 -0.20
Cycle 25.47 - 14(12.5) 3.36 - -
VII
95
14
13
12
11
10
Cycle I
9
8 Cycle II
7 Cycle III
6 Cycle IV
5 Cycle V
4
Cycle VI
3
Cycle VII
2
1
0
S-3-C-3 S-4-C-3 S-5-C-3 S-5.5-C-3 S-3-C-4 S-4-C-4 S-5-C-4 S-5.5-C-4
(Control) (Control)
Figure 4.75: Maximum Load with Corresponding Cycle
According to 352.1R including inelastic deformations flat plate structures should have the
capability to withstand a design story drift ratio of at least 0.015. It is shown in Table 4.2
practical story drift compared with allowable minimum story drift. Except control specimen of
3ksi concrete strength, all others are effectively satisfied as per ACI 352.1R but S-5.5-C-4
specimens satisfied minimum story drift ratio requirement.
Table 4.3: Summary of Maximum Lateral Deflection and Maximum Story Drift
compared to Allowable Minimum Story Drift as per ACI 352.1R
Specimen Name Maximum Lateral Experimental Allowable Minimum

Deflection (mm) Maximum Story Drift Story Drift as per
ACI 352.1R
S-3-C-3 26.70 0.0267 0.015
S-4-C-3 19.70 0.0197 0.015
S-5-C-3 15.60 0.0156 0.015
96
S-5.5-C-3 13.15 0.01315 0.015
S-3-C-4 19.70 0.0197 0.015
S-4-C-4 25.90 0.0259 0.015
S-5-C-4 16.60 0.0166 0.015
S-5.5-C-4 25.47 0.02547 0.015
97
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
This study aims to strengthen existing flat plate against punching shear for safety reason (without
seismic detailing before, deficiencies during design or construction, increase of applied loads) or
to comply with more stringent code requirements. Special anchors (U-stirrups) in combination
with an adhesive epoxy are used to install punching shear reinforcement into already hardened
concrete. To achieve desirable punching shear capacity under seismic loading condition, cyclic
loading test was conducted on a half scale models of eight different reinforced concrete frames;
categorized in two different groups (Group A and Group B) as in chapter 3. Finally the test
results of Groups A and B were compared.
Two types of parameters were considered in the study: Concrete strength and Flat Plate
thickness. Groups A and B were consisted of two and six specimens respectively. Specimens of
Group A were constructed with two types of concrete strengths and uniform thickness of plate.
Specimens of Group B were constructed with two types of concrete strengths with three different
flat plate thicknesses. Preparation of Group A specimens consists of two steps but preparation of
Group B specimens consists of three steps. At every different step different frame component
was constructed following the usual construction practices. Frames were tested under
incremental horizontal cyclic loading along with constant vertical load. Tests were conducted
under load controlled cyclic loading.
During testing two dial gauges were used to determine the horizontal and vertical deflections of
flat plates. Among them one was installed at the interior side of column top and just beneath the
flat plate to determine the horizontal deflection of flat plate and the other one was installed at
bottom surface of flat plate to determine the vertical deflection. From these tests the
displacement corresponding to each cyclic load was recorded. With this recorded data load-
98
displacement response curves were prepared to compare the results of test specimens of different
group.
Finally some conclusions were drawn regarding the use of shear reinforcements as retrofitting
elements in reinforced concrete flat plate frame construction considering effects of plate
thicknesses and concrete strengths under cyclic loading.
5.2 Conclusions
Behavior of the flat plates under cyclic loading, both of the control specimens and the retrofitted
specimens, were investigated. Based on the results obtained from the tests, the following
conclusions can be drawn-
i. The failure lateral loads of the comparable specimens with 20.69MPa concrete strength
with different thicknesses of flat plates were nearly same but the failure crack pattern was
different. On the other hand in the case of specimens with 27.89MPa concrete strength. It
was observed that the failure load for control specimen was little higher than thinner
retrofitted specimens. Failure of control specimen was brittle type. The failure pattern of
the all the retrofitted specimens was ductile.
ii. Lateral and vertical displacements at failure of thicker specimens were less than
displacements of thinner specimens. These responses increased with increasing concrete
strength and decreasing plate thickness.
iii. The very first crack for all specimens appeared in the column joint with base beam at the
lower cycles. The number of cycle at which the very first crack appeared differed for
different concrete strengths and plate thicknesses.
iv. The first crack in slab for the specimens with higher plate thickness appeared at an earlier
cycle than that of thinner flat plate specimens. All other cracks in lower plate thicknesses
revealed near the column face at the lower cycle but in thicker flat plate specimens most
of the cracks revealed far from column face at the higher cycle.
v. The failure pattern of Group A was brittle but the failure pattern of Group B was ductile
type i.e. it showed the warning before specimen failed which was ensured by the residual
vertical displacements.
99
vi. The specimens of Group A showed less ductile behavior but the ductility increases with
increased concrete strength and decreased flat plate thickness specimens of group B.
5.4 Recommendations for Further Study
This research suggests many recommendations for further investigation.
 Non-retrofitted and retrofitted specimen with sane thicknesses and concrete strengths flat
plates should be tested to investigate the improvement of punching shear capacity more
precisely.
 A comprehensive study should be made by involving both experimental and finite
element analysis.
 More variables (steel ratio, column size etc) and more specimens should be considered to
investigate the effect on improving punching shear capacity.
 A full scale model may be investigated to get effects of shear reinforcements on punching
shear capacity more precisely.
100
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, ―

Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and
Commentary,‖ American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, 1-473 pp, (2008).
ACI Committee 352, ―Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic

Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352.1R-11)‖, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI 48331, 1-25 pp, (2011).
ACI Committee 364, ―

Increasing Shear Capacity Within Existing Reinforced Concrete
Structures (ACI 364.2T-08),‖ American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, 1-445
pp, (2008).
ACI-ASCE Committee 421, ―

Guide to Shear Reinforcement for Slabs (ACI 421.1R-08)‖,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, 1-27 pp, June (2008).
ACI-ASCE Committee 421, ―

Guide to Seismic Design of Punching Shear Reinforcement in Flat
Plates (ACI 421.2R-10),‖ American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, 1-30 pp,
April (2010).
Askar H. S. ―
Repair of RC flat plates failing in punching by vertical studs‖ Alexandria
Engineering Journal, Vol. 54, pp 541-550, May (2015).
Alkarani & Ravindra. R., ―

Evaluation of punching shear in flat slabs,‖ in International Journal of
Research in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 71, September, pp 102–105, (2014).
Binici B. & Bayrak O., ―

Punching Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Flat
Plates Using Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers‖ in Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 129,
No. 9, September, (2003).
Berg G. V. & Stratta J. L., ―

Anchorage and the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964,‖
American Iron and Steel Institute,Vol. 6, pp 346-366, (1964).
101
Binici B., Erdogan H., & Ozcebe G. ―
Punching Shear Strengthening of Flat Slabs: CFRP and
Shear Reinforcement,‖ fib Symposium, Copenhagen, May 18-20, (2015).
Binici B., Erdogan H., & Ozcebe G. ―

A New CFRP Strengthening Technique to Enhance
Punching Shear Strength of Slab-Column Connections,‖ Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in
Structures, S.T. Smith (ed.), pp. 233-238, (2007).
Cueva D. J. O. & Robertson I. N., ―

Retrofit of flat-slab column connections using CFRP studs to
resist punching-shear from cyclic Loading,‖ Research Report UHM/CEE/08-03, December
(2008).
Practical shear reinforcement for concrete flat slabs,‖ Concrete Construction.

Dilger, W.H., ―
Publication # C900223, February, (1990).
Ebead, U. & Marzouk H., ―Strengthening of two-way slabs using steel plates,‖ ACI Structural
Journal Vol. 99 (1), pp-23-31 ( 2002).
El-Salakawy E.F., Polak M.A. & Soudki, K. A., ―

New strengthening technique for concrete slab
column connections,‖ ACI Structural Journal 100(3), pp-297-304. (2003).
Eurocode 2, ―
Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings,‖
CEN, EN 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium, 225 p, (2004).
Ferreira M. P., Melo G. S., Regan P.E. & Vollum R. L., ―

Punching of Reinforcement Concrete
Flat Slabs with Double-Headed Shear Reinforcement,‖ ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 111, No. 2,
pp. 363-374, March-April (2014).
Guandalini, S., Burdet, O. & Muttoni, A., ―

Punching Tests of Slabs with Low Reinforcement
Ratios,‖ ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 1, pp. 87-95, Jan.-Feb. (2009).
Hueste MBD & Wight JK ―

Punching shear in reinforced concrete slabs,‖ Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 9, pp. 997-1008, Sept. (1999).
Hassanzadeh G., & Sundqvist. H., ―

Strengthening of bridge slabs on columns,‖ Nordic Concrete
Research 21, paper no.2. (1998).
102
Hamed S., Heba I., Hatem G. & Ahmed F., ―
Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete flat
slabs subjected to fire on their tension sides,‖ HBRC Journal, Vol. 8, Issue 1, April, Pages 36–
46, (2012).
Harajli, M.H. & K.A. Soudki,. ―Shea

r strengthening of interior slab-column connections using
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets,‖ Journal of Composites for Construction 7(2), pp-145-
153. (2003).
Design of Two-Way Slabs,‖ 4th edition, Structural Concrete

Hassoun, M. N. & Al-Manaseer, A. ―
Theory and Design, chap. 17, pp. 409-440, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey ,
Canada, (2008).
Kang T. H. K. & Wallace J. W. ―

Shake table tests of reinforced concrete flat plate frames and
post-tensioned flat plate frames,‖ 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 1119, August 1-6, (2004).
Kunz J., Ruiz M. F., & Muttoni A., ―

Enhanced safety with post-installed punching shear
reinforcement,‖ Tailor Made Concrete Structures, September, Pages 679–684, (2008).
Khaleel G. I., Shaaban I. G., Elsayedand K. M. & Makhlouf M. H., ―

Strengthening of Reinforced
Concrete Slab-Column Connection Subjected to Punching Shear with FRP Systems,‖
International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 657-661, December
(2013).
Marzouk, H., & Hussein A., ―

Experimental investigation on the behavior of high-strength
concrete Slabs,‖ ACI Structural Journal 88 (6), pp-701-713. (1991).
Moreno C., Ferreira D., Bennani A., Sarmento A. & Noverraz M., ―
Punching Shear
Strengthening of Flat Slabs: CFRP and Shear Reinforcement,‖ Innovation and design, fib
symposium, Copenhagen, May 18-20, (2015).
Post Punching Behavior of Reinforced Slab-column connections,‖ 7th fib PhD

Mirzaei Y., ―
symposium in Stuttgart, Germany, September 11-13, (2008).
103
Muttoni A. & Ruiz F., ―
Shear strength of members without transverse reinforcement as a
function of the critical shear crack width,‖ ACI Structural Journal, Farmington Hills, Mich., Vol.
105, No. 2, pp. 163-172, (2008).
Muttoni A., Ruiz F. M., Furst A.,Guandalini S., Hunkeler F., Moser K. & Seiler H. ―
Structural
safety of parking garages,‖ Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, Zurich, Switzerland,
Documentation D 0226 SIA, pp. 150, July (2008).
Muttoni, A., Ruiz F. & Kunz J., ―

Post-installed shear reinforcement for strengthening of flat
slabs,‖ 3rd fib International Congress, Vol. 83, , pp. 503-511, December (2008).
Analysis and Design of Slabs,‖ 14th edition. Design

Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D. & Dolan, C. W., ―
of Concrete Structures, chap. 13, pp. 462-476, McGraw-Hill, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, (2010).
Rha C., Kang T. H. K., Shin M. & Yoon J. B., ―

Gravity and Lateral Load-Carrying Capacities of
Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate Systems,‖ ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 4, July-August
(2013).
Ruiz F. M. & Muttoni, A., ―

Design Method for Post-Installed Punching Shear Reinforcement
with Hilti Tension Anchors HZA-P,‖ Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale, Report 06-A01-R1b,
Lausanne, Switzerland, 13 pp, (2007).
Ruiz M. F., M. Muttoni A. & Gambarova P. G., ―

Analytical Modeling of the Pre- and Post-Yield
Behavior of Bond in Reinforced Concrete,‖ Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 133,
No. 10, Oct., pp. 1364-1372. (2007).
Ruiz M. F., Muttoni A. & Kunz J., ―

Strengthening of Flat Slabs Against Punching Shear Using
Post-Installed Shear Reinforcement,‖ ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 107, No. 4, pp. 434-442, July-
August (2010).
Ruiz M. F. & Muttoni A., ―

Performance and Design of Punching Shear Reinforcing Systems,‖
3rd International Congress, pp. 1-14, July (2010).
104
Song J., Kim J. & Song H., ―
Effective Punching Shear and Moment Capacity of Flat Plate-
Column Connection with Shear Reinforcements for Lateral Loading,‖ International Journal of
Concrete Structures and Materials, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 19-29, March, (2012).
Stark A., Binici B. & Bayrak O. ―

Seismic Upgrade of Slab-Column Connections Using Carbon
Fiber Reinforcement,‖ 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 102,
August 1-6, (2004).
Voet A. F. V. D., Dilger W. H., & Ghali, A. ―

Concrete flat plates with well-anchored shear
reinforcement elements,‖ Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 107-114,
March, (1982).
Widianto, Tian Y., Argudo J., Bayrak O. & Jirsa J. O., ―

Rehabilitation of Earthquake-Damaged
Reinforced Concrete Flat-Plate Slab-Column Connections for Two-Way Shear,‖ National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 903, San Francisco, California, USA, April
18-22, (2006).
105
APPENDIX-A
106
Table A.1: Load-Deflection Value for Specimen S-3-C-3
Load Horizontal Vertical Load Horizontal Vertical
(ton) Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) (ton) Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Cycle-I Cycle-III
0 0.00 0.00 1 0.90 -0.15
1 0.50 0.01 2 1.35 -0.05
2 1.05 0.05 3 2.20 0.15
3 1.90 0.10 4 3.60 0.40
2 1.70 0.06 5 7.30 0.70
1 1.30 0.03 6 8.34 0.95
0 0.80 0.00 6.5 8.94 1.00
-1 0.15 -0.08 6 8.94 0.98
-2 -0.45 -0.20 5 8.50 0.92
-3 -1.38 -0.48 4 7.60 0.75
-2 -1.10 -0.40 3 6.70 0.55
-1 -0.70 -0.23 2 5.20 0.35
0 0.05 -0.13 1 4.00 0.18
Cycle-II 0 2.75 0.00
0 0.10 -0.19 -1 1.65 -0.20
1 0.50 -0.15 -2 0.25 -0.40
2 1.11 -0.08 -3 -1.10 -0.60
3 1.80 0.05 -4 -2.25 -0.85
4 2.70 0.24 -5 -3.90 -1.00
5 4.00 0.4 -6 -5.80 -1.20
4 4.00 0.35 -6.5 -6.80 -1.30
3 3.80 0.25 -6 -6.80 -1.30
2 3.10 0.16 -5 -6.50 -1.25
1 2.40 0.06 -4 -6.00 -1.20
0 1.65 0 -3 -5.40 -1.10
-1 0.65 -0.1 -2 -4.10 -1.00
-2 -0.10 -0.18 -1 -2.50 -0.85
-3 -1.13 -0.3 0 -0.25 -0.40
-4 -2.00 -0.65 Cycle-IV
-5 -4.00 -0.95 1 0.70 -0.25
-4 -3.60 -0.8 2 2.10 -0.12
-3 -3.00 -0.73 3 3.50 0.06
-2 -2.20 -0.65 4 5.30 0.4
-1 -1.30 -0.4 5 7.25 0.9
0 0.05 -0.28 6 9.45 1.5
107
7 11.70 1.8 10 18.80 2.55
8 14.65 2.06 9 18.30 2.6
7 13.78 1.85 8 17.80 2.45
6 12.75 1.75 7 16.70 2.15
5 11.10 1.55 6 15.50 1.85
4 9.60 1.2 5 14.00 1.75
3 8.10 0.9 4 12.50 1.5
2 6.50 0.55 3 10.30 1.1
1 5.10 0.35 2 7.90 0.6
0 3.85 0.18 1 6.40 0.3
-1 2.10 -0.05 0 4.15 0
-2 0.50 -0.4 -1 1.85 -0.25
-3 -1.05 -0.7 -2 -0.10 -0.65
-4 -2.20 -0.95 -3 -2.30 -1.1
-5 -3.79 -1.2 -4 -4.70 -1.35
-6 -6.20 -1.3 -5 -6.90 -1.5
-7 -8.30 -1.45 -6 -8.50 -1.65
-8 -11.70 -2.1 -7 -10.10 -1.9
-7 -11.17 -1.95 -8 -11.55 -2.1
-6 -10.50 -1.9 -9 -15.30 -2.45
-5 -9.40 -1.85 -10 -26.70 -5.3
-4 -8.10 -1.6 -9 -26.70 -5.25
-3 -7.05 -1.45 -8 -26.70 -5.2
-2 -5.50 -1.3 -7 -24.20 -5
-1 -3.90 -1.1 -6 -21.50 -4.85
0 -0.80 -0.7 -5 -16.10 -3.5
Cycle-V -4 -14.10 -2.75
0 -0.70 -0.7 -3 -12.75 -1.87
1 0.40 -0.5 -2 -8.10 -1.65
2 2.10 -0.2 -1 -7.50 -1.4
3 4.10 0.05 0 -5.90 -1
4 6.10 0.45
5 8.05 0.9
6 9.60 1.2
7 11.10 1.46
8 12.90 1.75
9 15.10 2.05
108

Cycle-I Cycle-III
0 0.00 0.00 1 -1.20 -0.34
1 0.15 0.01 2 -0.66 -0.30
2 0.70 0.02 3 0.45 -0.25
3 1.50 0.05 4 1.80 -0.22
2 1.45 0.04 5 2.90 -0.17
1 1.00 0.03 6 4.05 -0.13
0 0.50 0.00 6.5 5.40 -0.09
-1 -0.10 -0.05 6 6.25 -0.03
-2 -0.70 -0.15 5 6.19 -0.05
-3 -1.30 -0.25 4 6.10 -0.08
-2 -1.10 -0.24 3 5.50 -0.11
-1 -0.80 -0.22 2 4.80 -0.15
0 -0.18 -0.19 1 3.70 -0.18
Cycle-II 0 2.75 0.00
0 -0.15 -0.19 -1 1.10 -0.29
1 0.19 -0.15 -2 -0.10 -0.38
2 0.80 -0.13 -3 -1.10 -0.46
3 1.50 -0.1 -4 -2.10 -0.52
4 2.65 -0.08 -5 -3.15 -0.59
5 4.45 0 -6 -4.40 -0.63
4 4.50 -0.02 -6.5 -5.20 -0.68
3 4.15 -0.05 -6 -6.00 -0.88
2 3.40 -0.08 -5 -5.90 -0.87
1 2.50 -0.1 -4 -5.60 -0.85
0 1.72 -0.14 -3 -5.10 -0.80
-1 0.80 -0.24 -2 -4.50 -0.70
-2 0.05 -0.32 -1 -4.00 -0.60
-3 -0.80 -0.41 0 -2.95 -0.55
-4 -1.85 -0.63 Cycle-IV
-5 -4.70 -0.85 1 -1.55 -0.5
-4 -4.50 -0.75 2 -0.50 -0.44
-3 -4.20 -0.65 3 0.75 -0.29
-2 -3.25 -0.48 4 2.00 -0.15
-1 -2.70 -0.4 5 3.20 0.1
0 -1.25 -0.34 6 4.50 0.13
109
7 7.40 0.19 10 13.70 1.8
8 10.00 0.6 9 13.80 1.78
7 9.30 0.58 8 13.40 1.7
6 9.05 0.5 7 12.70 1.6
5 8.45 0.4 6 12.00 1.47
4 7.50 0.34 5 11.30 1.25
3 6.50 0.28 4 10.10 1.07
2 5.10 0.2 3 8.70 0.9
1 3.70 0.12 2 7.10 0.6
0 2.20 0 1 5.60 0.43
-1 0.90 -0.18 0 2.90 0.1
-2 -1.30 -0.35 -1 1.10 -0.15
-3 -2.60 -0.55 -2 -0.50 -0.53
-4 -3.90 -0.65 -3 -3.10 -0.78
-5 -5.50 -0.75 -4 -5.10 -0.96
-6 -6.80 -0.8 -5 -7.10 -1.06
-7 -8.60 -0.87 -6 -8.80 -1.22
-8 -12.50 -1.35 -7 -10.35 -1.33
-7 -12.15 -1.3 -8 -11.70 -1.42
-6 -11.60 -1.28 -9 -14.90 -1.6
-5 -10.50 -1.26 -10 -19.70 -2.21
-4 -9.50 -1.2 -9 -19.50 -2.2
-3 -8.80 -1.11 -8 -18.20 -2.14
-2 -6.72 -1.08 -7 -17.20 -2
-1 -5.40 -1.07 -6 -15.96 -1.95
0 -3.30 -1.05 -5 -15.55 -1.85
Cycle-V -4 -14.10 -2.75
0 -3.30 -1.05 -3 -13.80 -1.75
1 -1.30 -0.78 -2 -11.20 -1.74
2 0.20 -0.55 -1 -10.10 -1.65
3 1.90 -0.4 0 -9.70 -1.6
4 3.60 -0.15
5 6.20 0.1
6 7.40 0.23
7 8.20 0.3
8 9.10 0.46
9 11.70 1.15
110

Cycle-I Cycle-III
0 0.00 0.00 1 0.55 -0.02
1 0.19 0.00 2 0.86 0.03
2 0.41 0.03 3 1.22 0.13
3 0.86 0.06 4 1.70 0.20
2 0.76 0.05 5 2.20 0.30
1 0.56 0.04 6 2.90 0.35
0 0.26 0.01 6.5 3.50 0.44
-1 -0.14 -0.02 6 3.48 0.42
-2 -0.39 -0.06 5 3.40 0.40
-3 -0.83 -0.12 4 3.02 0.32
-2 -0.74 -0.10 3 2.50 0.25
-1 -0.49 -0.08 2 2.00 0.18
0 -0.14 -0.02 1 1.40 0.12
Cycle-II 0 2.75 0.00
0 0.25 -0.02 -1 0.20 -0.05
1 0.47 0.00 -2 -0.20 -0.24
2 0.80 0.02 -3 -0.70 -0.34
3 1.12 0.05 -4 -1.25 -0.51
4 1.45 0.08 -5 -1.80 -0.71
5 2.45 0.14 -6 -3.00 -1.00
4 2.30 0.12 -6.5 -4.60 -1.10
3 2.05 0.09 -6 -4.60 -1.06
2 1.60 0.08 -5 -4.45 -1.00
1 1.25 0.06 -4 -3.95 -0.95
0 0.80 0.04 -3 -3.05 -0.88
-1 0.40 0.00 -2 -2.35 -0.85
-2 0.00 -0.04 -1 -1.45 -0.80
-3 -0.40 -0.08 0 -0.68 -0.77
-4 -0.80 -0.13 Cycle-IV
-5 -1.50 -0.22 1 -0.30 -0.74
-4 -1.35 -0.21 2 0.20 -0.65
-3 -1.20 -0.18 3 0.85 -0.62
-2 -0.85 -0.14 4 1.60 -0.60
-1 -0.40 -0.11 5 2.40 -0.53
0 0.16 -0.07 6 3.15 -0.50
111
7 4.00 -0.43 10 10.11 -0.53
8 5.90 -0.31 9 9.75 -0.58
7 5.75 -0.38 8 9.35 -0.60
6 5.50 -0.43 7 8.84 -0.63
5 5.00 -0.43 6 7.95 -0.72
4 4.15 -0.45 5 7.11 -0.80
3 3.50 -0.53 4 6.44 -0.85
2 2.65 -0.56 3 6.00 -0.88
1 2.00 -0.64 2 5.00 -0.96
0 1.23 -0.66 1 4.20 -1.03
-1 0.40 -0.73 0 3.25 -1.06
-2 -0.20 -0.80 -1 2.65 -1.11
-3 -0.85 -1.00 -2 2.00 -1.16
-4 -1.75 -1.13 -3 1.24 -1.17
-5 -2.50 -1.28 -4 0.15 -1.27
-6 -3.16 -1.43 -5 -0.90 -1.35
-7 -3.88 -1.55 -6 -1.90 -1.43
-8 -5.10 -1.60 -7 -3.70 -1.70
-7 -5.00 -1.58 -8 -5.10 -1.90
-6 -4.50 -1.56 -9 -7.55 -2.07
-5 -3.85 -1.52 -10 -15.60 -2.24
-4 -3.20 -1.47 -9 -15.50 -2.32
-3 -2.85 -1.38 -8 -15.00 -2.25
-2 -2.35 -1.30 -7 -14.35 -2.00
-1 -1.90 -1.25 -6 -13.80 -1.90
0 -1.00 -1.20 -5 -12.80 -1.85
Cycle-V -4 -14.10 -2.75
0 -1.00 -1.20 -3 -10.20 -1.66
1 -0.35 -1.16 -2 -9.10 -1.57
2 0.35 -1.13 -1 -7.20 -1.52
3 0.75 -1.09 0 -6.30 -1.50
4 1.35 -1.05
5 2.20 -1.00
6 3.40 -0.90
7 4.10 -0.85
8 5.50 -0.70
9 6.75 -0.65
112
Table A.4: Load-Deflection Value for Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control)

Cycle-I Cycle-III
0 0.68 0 1 0.64 -0.07
1 0.90 0 2 0.86 -0.03
2 1.20 0.01 3 1.20 -0.01
3 1.54 0.02 4 1.68 0.01
2 1.50 0 5 2.20 0.02
1 1.18 -0.01 6 3.15 0.04
0 0.84 -0.01 6.5 3.70 0.05
-1 0.00 -0.01 6 3.45 0.05
-2 -0.88 -0.02 5 2.90 0.03
-3 -1.90 -0.02 4 2.45 0.02
-2 -1.50 -0.01 3 2.10 0
-1 -0.98 0 2 1.85 -0.02
0 -0.70 0 1 1.50 -0.03
Cycle-II 0 2.75 0.00
0 0.72 0 -1 0.45 -0.07
1 1.04 0 -2 -0.68 -0.09
2 1.38 0.01 -3 -1.40 -0.11
3 1.65 0.01 -4 -2.00 -0.12
4 1.80 0.05 -5 -2.50 -0.15
5 2.04 0.11 -6 -3.40 -0.19
4 1.90 0.08 -6.5 -3.90 -0.23
3 1.74 0.05 -6 -3.65 -0.22
2 1.50 0.02 -5 -3.15 -0.19
1 1.25 0 -4 -2.45 -0.15
0 0.95 -0.01 -3 -1.70 -0.14
-1 0.30 -0.09 -2 -1.20 -0.12
-2 -0.50 -0.15 -1 -0.50 -0.11
-3 -0.90 -0.22 0 0.15 -0.1
-4 -1.50 -0.28 Cycle-IV
-5 -1.90 -0.32 1 0.55 -0.08
-4 -1.85 -0.3 2 1.18 -0.05
-3 -1.30 -0.27 3 1.80 -0.03
-2 -0.91 -0.22 4 2.40 0
-1 -0.48 -0.15 5 3.20 0.03
0 0.40 -0.09 6 3.65 0.05
113
7 4.55 0.11 10 12.60 0.19
8 5.00 0.14 9 13.15 0.17
7 4.85 0.12 8 12.80 0.14
6 4.20 0.08 7 12.10 0.1
5 3.45 0.05 6 11.35 0.07
4 2.70 0.03 5 10.20 0.04
3 2.05 -0.01 4 9.35 0
2 1.55 -0.03 3 8.20 -0.02
1 0.95 -0.05 2 7.10 -0.07
0 0.50 -0.08 1 5.90 -0.1
-1 -0.40 -0.12 0 4.40 -0.12
-2 -0.85 -0.17 -1 1.10 -0.17
-3 -1.25 -0.18 -2 -1.30 -0.22
-4 -1.65 -0.19 -3 -2.50 -0.27
-5 -2.00 -0.21 -4 -4.00 -0.31
-6 -2.35 -0.23 -5 -4.80 -0.34
-7 -3.10 -0.24 -6 -5.80 -0.37
-8 -4.30 -0.27 -7 -6.50 -0.4
-7 -3.55 -0.27 -8 -7.00 -0.45
-6 -3.15 -0.26 -9 -8.30 -0.51
-5 -2.55 -0.25 -10 -11.90 -0.98
-4 -2.05 -0.23 -9 -11.25 -0.98
-3 -1.80 -0.22 -8 -10.20 -0.97
-2 -1.30 -0.2 -7 -9.40 -0.97
-1 -1.15 -0.17 -6 -8.20 -0.94
0 -0.45 -0.15 -5 -7.10 -0.92
Cycle-V -4 -14.10 -2.75
0 -0.45 -0.15 -3 -5.50 -0.87
1 1.05 -0.13 -2 -4.00 -0.84
2 1.70 -0.12 -1 -2.90 -0.82
3 2.45 -0.08 0 -2.45 -0.82
4 3.30 -0.02
5 4.08 0.02
6 4.55 0.05
7 4.90 0.06
8 5.40 0.09
9 6.95 0.13
114

Cycle-I Cycle-III
0 0.00 0.00 1 -1.20 -0.34
1 0.15 0.01 2 -0.66 -0.30
2 0.70 0.02 3 0.45 -0.25
3 1.50 0.05 4 1.80 -0.22
2 1.45 0.04 5 2.90 -0.17
1 1.00 0.03 6 4.05 -0.13
0 0.50 0.00 6.5 5.40 -0.09
-1 -0.10 -0.05 6 6.25 -0.03
-2 -0.70 -0.15 5 6.19 -0.05
-3 -1.30 -0.25 4 6.10 -0.08
-2 -1.10 -0.24 3 5.50 -0.11
-1 -0.80 -0.22 2 4.80 -0.15
0 -0.18 -0.19 1 3.70 -0.18
Cycle-II 0 2.75 0.00
0 -0.15 -0.19 -1 1.10 -0.29
1 0.19 -0.15 -2 -0.10 -0.38
2 0.80 -0.13 -3 -1.10 -0.46
3 1.50 -0.1 -4 -2.10 -0.52
4 2.65 -0.08 -5 -3.15 -0.59
5 4.45 0 -6 -4.40 -0.63
4 4.50 -0.02 -6.5 -5.20 -0.68
3 4.15 -0.05 -6 -6.00 -0.88
2 3.40 -0.08 -5 -5.90 -0.87
1 2.50 -0.1 -4 -5.60 -0.85
0 1.72 -0.14 -3 -5.10 -0.80
-1 0.80 -0.24 -2 -4.50 -0.70
-2 0.05 -0.32 -1 -4.00 -0.60
-3 -0.80 -0.41 0 -2.95 -0.55
-4 -1.85 -0.63 Cycle-IV
-5 -4.70 -0.85 1 -1.55 -0.5
-4 -4.50 -0.75 2 -0.50 -0.44
-3 -4.20 -0.65 3 0.75 -0.29
-2 -3.25 -0.48 4 2.00 -0.15
-1 -2.70 -0.4 5 3.20 0.1
0 -1.25 -0.34 6 4.50 0.13
115
7 7.40 0.19 10 13.70 1.8
8 10.00 0.6 9 13.80 1.78
7 9.30 0.58 8 13.40 1.7
6 9.05 0.5 7 12.70 1.6
5 8.45 0.4 6 12.00 1.47
4 7.50 0.34 5 11.30 1.25
3 6.50 0.28 4 10.10 1.07
2 5.10 0.2 3 8.70 0.9
1 3.70 0.12 2 7.10 0.6
0 2.20 0 1 5.60 0.43
-1 0.90 -0.18 0 2.90 0.1
-2 -1.30 -0.35 -1 1.10 -0.15
-3 -2.60 -0.55 -2 -0.50 -0.53
-4 -3.90 -0.65 -3 -3.10 -0.78
-5 -5.50 -0.75 -4 -5.10 -0.96
-6 -6.80 -0.8 -5 -7.10 -1.06
-7 -8.60 -0.87 -6 -8.80 -1.22
-8 -12.50 -1.35 -7 -10.35 -1.33
-7 -12.15 -1.3 -8 -11.70 -1.42
-6 -11.60 -1.28 -9 -14.90 -1.6
-5 -10.50 -1.26 -10 -19.70 -2.21
-4 -9.50 -1.2 -9 -19.50 -2.2
-3 -8.80 -1.11 -8 -18.20 -2.14
-2 -6.72 -1.08 -7 -17.20 -2
-1 -5.40 -1.07 -6 -15.96 -1.95
0 -3.30 -1.05 -5 -15.55 -1.85
Cycle-V -4 -14.10 -2.75
0 -3.30 -1.05 -3 -13.80 -1.75
1 -1.30 -0.78 -2 -11.20 -1.74
2 0.20 -0.55 -1 -10.10 -1.65
3 1.90 -0.4 0 -9.70 -1.6
4 3.60 -0.15
5 6.20 0.1
6 7.40 0.23
7 8.20 0.3
8 9.10 0.46
9 11.70 1.15
116

Cycle-I Cycle-III
0 0.00 0.00 1 -0.40 -0.37
1 0.20 0.05 2 0.30 -0.15
2 0.70 0.23 3 1.10 0.00
3 1.30 0.77 4 2.10 0.15
2 1.15 0.76 5 2.80 0.35
1 0.75 0.69 6 3.90 0.49
0 0.30 0.43 6.5 4.60 0.62
-1 -0.20 0.06 6 4.60 0.60
-2 -0.80 -0.40 5 4.20 0.54
-3 -1.48 -1.00 4 3.60 0.47
-2 -1.40 -0.85 3 3.10 0.32
-1 -0.90 -0.64 2 2.20 0.15
0 -0.40 -0.50 1 1.35 -0.10
Cycle-II 0 2.75 0.00
0 -0.40 -0.5 -1 -0.45 -0.47
1 0.05 -0.15 -2 -1.10 -0.75
2 0.50 0.15 -3 -1.80 -0.95
3 1.00 0.4 -4 -2.60 -1.25
4 1.70 0.6 -5 -3.40 -1.43
5 2.95 1.25 -6 -4.60 -1.69
4 2.80 1.22 -6.5 -5.50 -1.79
3 2.35 1.18 -6 -5.50 -1.84
2 1.80 1.12 -5 -4.95 -1.81
1 1.15 1.02 -4 -4.60 -1.76
0 0.60 0.86 -3 -3.90 -1.67
-1 -0.20 0.55 -2 -3.30 -1.56
-2 -0.80 0.15 -1 -2.50 -1.39
-3 -1.40 -0.15 0 -1.45 -1.10
-4 -2.20 -0.65 Cycle-IV
-5 -3.40 -1.2 1 -0.85 -0.89
-4 -3.30 -1.15 2 0.05 -0.47
-3 -2.85 -1.11 3 1.10 0.2
-2 -2.30 -1.01 4 2.10 0.48
-1 -1.75 -0.88 5 3.01 1.02
0 -1.00 -0.58 6 3.90 1.21
117
7 4.85 1.35 10 14.64 2.95
8 6.47 1.55 9 14.50 2.9
7 6.40 1.5 8 13.85 2.85
6 5.90 1.44 7 12.90 2.68
5 5.30 1.34 6 11.90 2.59
4 4.35 1.22 5 10.90 2.5
3 3.70 1.11 4 9.60 2.3
2 2.80 0.88 3 8.20 2.09
1 1.55 0.43 2 6.60 1.59
0 0.75 0.25 1 5.30 1.13
-1 -0.65 -0.83 0 3.80 0.75
-2 -1.30 -1.15 -1 2.10 0.5
-3 -2.15 -1.47 -2 0.50 0.1
-4 -3.10 -1.78 -3 -1.40 -0.5
-5 -3.50 -1.88 -4 -2.90 -1.36
-6 -4.10 -2.01 -5 -4.90 -1.96
-7 -6.90 -2.14 -6 -6.40 -2.23
-8 -8.50 -2.47 -7 -8.00 -2.49
-7 -8.20 -2.46 -8 -10.50 -2.9
-6 -7.70 -2.44 -9 -13.80 -3.25
-5 -7.50 -2.34 -10 -17.00 -3.91
-4 -6.20 -2.29 -9 -16.60 -3.77
-3 -5.25 -2.27 -8 -16.20 -3.7
-2 -4.85 -2.19 -7 -15.40 -3.62
-1 -3.89 -2.06 -6 -14.70 -3.47
0 -2.40 -1.82 -5 -12.60 -3.21
Cycle-V -4 -14.10 -2.75
0 -2.35 -1.75 -3 -9.20 -2.8
1 -1.50 -1.55 -2 -8.20 -2.61
2 -0.25 -1.25 -1 -6.00 -2.49
3 1.10 -0.65 0 -3.30 -2.05
4 2.30 0 Cycle-VI
5 3.35 0.44 0 -3.18 -2.02
6 4.50 0.76 1 -2.00 -1.75
7 5.50 1 2 -0.40 -1.25
8 6.40 1.42 3 2.10 -0.86
9 9.50 2 4 4.10 -0.2
118
Load (ton) Horizontal Deflection (mm) Vertical Deflection (mm)
5 6.10 0.42
6 7.30 0.65
7 9.10 0.9
8 10.60 1.25
9 12.20 1.88
10 13.40 2.5
10.5 16.20 4.25
10 25.90 10.65
9 25.90 10.65
8 25.90 10.65
7 25.90 8.9
6 25.90 8.2
5 25.40 7.95
4 24.20 7.61
3 23.00 7
2 21.00 5.8
1 18.00 4.72
0 15.00 3.56
119

Cycle-I Cycle-III
0 0.00 0.00 1 -0.10 -0.09
1 0.20 0.00 2 0.20 -0.07
2 0.48 0.01 3 0.65 -0.06
3 0.90 0.03 4 1.10 -0.06
2 0.90 0.03 5 1.50 -0.06
1 0.60 0.02 6 2.10 -0.06
0 0.30 0.00 6.5 2.55 -0.04
-1 -0.05 -0.04 6 2.55 -0.04
-2 -0.42 -0.06 5 2.35 -0.07
-3 -0.85 -0.08 4 1.95 -0.09
-2 -0.75 -0.07 3 1.60 -0.10
-1 -0.38 -0.06 2 1.15 -0.13
0 0.00 -0.06 1 0.70 -0.13
Cycle-II 0 2.75 0.00
0 0.00 -0.06 -1 -0.25 -0.21
1 0.25 -0.06 -2 -0.80 -0.22
2 0.50 -0.05 -3 -1.25 -0.22
3 0.85 -0.04 -4 -1.85 -0.25
4 1.20 -0.03 -5 -2.50 -0.29
5 1.60 0 -6 -3.70 -0.30
4 1.60 -0.02 -6.5 -5.70 -0.40
3 1.35 -0.03 -6 -5.70 -0.38
2 0.95 -0.03 -5 -4.85 -0.35
1 0.60 -0.04 -4 -4.20 -0.34
0 0.28 -0.05 -3 -3.65 -0.33
-1 -0.20 -0.07 -2 -3.00 -0.33
-2 -0.50 -0.09 -1 -2.35 -0.32
-3 -0.85 -0.11 0 -1.35 -0.32
-4 -1.35 -0.13 Cycle-IV
-5 -2.35 -0.15 1 -0.90 -0.32
-4 -2.38 -0.14 2 -0.20 -0.3
-3 -2.10 -0.13 3 0.60 -0.28
-2 -1.75 -0.13 4 1.20 -0.26
-1 -1.10 -0.12 5 1.60 -0.25
0 -0.45 -0.12 6 2.60 -0.2
120
7 2.90 -0.16 10 6.20 -0.03
8 4.10 -0.13 9 6.40 -0.06
7 4.00 -0.12 8 6.00 -0.1
6 3.60 -0.13 7 5.40 -0.12
5 3.10 -0.15 6 4.70 -0.12
4 2.55 -0.23 5 4.11 -0.2
3 2.00 -0.26 4 3.44 -0.25
2 1.50 -0.28 3 2.70 -0.28
1 1.00 -0.3 2 1.90 -0.36
0 0.25 -0.32 1 1.20 -0.4
-1 -0.65 -0.36 0 0.30 -0.45
-2 -1.30 -0.38 -1 -0.55 -0.49
-3 -2.15 -0.39 -2 -1.65 -0.51
-4 -3.00 -0.41 -3 -2.90 -0.51
-5 -3.75 -0.48 -4 -3.80 -0.57
-6 -4.75 -0.5 -5 -4.90 -0.65
-7 -5.50 -0.51 -6 -5.25 -0.73
-8 -7.70 -0.54 -7 -6.30 -1
-7 -7.30 -0.53 -8 -8.50 -1.2
-6 -7.10 -0.51 -9 -10.50 -1.28
-5 -6.40 -0.5 -10 -16.60 -1.35
-4 -5.50 -0.5 -9 -16.60 -1.32
-3 -5.00 -0.49 -8 -15.00 -1.3
-2 -3.90 -0.48 -7 -14.00 -1.2
-1 -3.00 -0.48 -6 -13.80 -1.1
0 -2.00 -0.48 -5 -12.80 -0.85
Cycle-V -4 -14.10 -2.75
0 -1.99 -0.48 -3 -10.20 -0.65
1 -1.10 -0.48 -2 -9.10 -0.57
2 -0.60 -0.46 -1 -7.20 -0.55
3 0.15 -0.43 0 -6.30 -0.55
4 0.95 -0.39
5 1.80 -0.35
6 2.40 -0.3
7 3.10 -0.2
8 3.88 -0.19
9 4.75 -0.1
121
Table A.8: Load-Deflection Value for Specimen S-5.5-C-4 (Control)
Cycle-I Cycle-III
0 0.00 0.00 1 -0.43 -0.30
1 0.27 0.02 2 0.17 -0.29
2 0.67 0.05 3 1.17 -0.25
3 1.32 0.06 4 1.87 -0.23
2 1.22 0.06 5 2.57 -0.20
1 0.77 0.05 6 3.17 -0.14
0 0.42 0.01 6.5 4.17 -0.09
-1 -0.13 -0.05 6 4.17 -0.11
-2 -0.54 -0.10 5 4.02 -0.17
-3 -1.43 -0.14 4 3.52 -0.20
-2 -1.23 -0.13 3 2.87 -0.20
-1 -0.83 -0.12 2 2.27 -0.21
0 -0.18 -0.11 1 1.52 -0.24
Cycle-II 0 2.75 0.00
0 -0.18 -0.11 -1 -0.25 -0.30
1 0.27 -0.1 -2 -1.03 -0.35
2 0.67 -0.06 -3 -1.83 -0.40
3 1.12 -0.02 -4 -2.53 -0.45
4 1.67 0 -5 -3.23 -0.53
5 2.67 0.03 -6 -4.48 -0.59
4 2.63 0.02 -6.5 -5.38 -0.68
3 2.37 0 -6 -5.38 -0.67
2 1.77 -0.03 -5 -5.13 -0.66
1 1.22 -0.06 -4 -4.63 -0.65
0 0.72 -0.1 -3 -4.03 -0.63
-1 0.07 -0.15 -2 -3.41 -0.61
-2 -0.53 -0.18 -1 -2.58 -0.57
-3 -1.23 -0.2 0 -1.43 -0.49
-4 -2.18 -0.32 Cycle-IV
-5 -3.33 -0.49 1 -0.88 -0.47
-4 -3.33 -0.48 2 0.17 -0.43
-3 -2.93 -0.47 3 1.27 -0.41
-2 -2.48 -0.43 4 2.17 -0.4
-1 -1.83 -0.37 5 3.47 -0.35
0 -0.88 -0.31 6 4.07 -0.32
122
7 5.02 -0.3 10 9.97 -0.25
8 6.93 -0.25 9 9.97 -0.27
7 6.93 -0.26 8 9.37 -0.33
6 6.47 -0.29 7 8.77 -0.36
5 5.92 -0.33 6 8.12 -0.4
4 5.27 -0.35 5 7.42 -0.45
3 4.57 -0.37 4 6.57 -0.5
2 3.77 -0.41 3 5.67 -0.53
1 2.72 -0.43 2 4.57 -0.55
0 1.97 -0.44 1 3.42 -0.56
-1 0.37 -0.47 0 2.37 -0.57
-2 -0.73 -0.5 -1 0.97 -0.6
-3 -2.33 -0.55 -2 -0.38 -0.65
-4 -3.23 -0.6 -3 -2.33 -0.7
-5 -4.03 -0.63 -4 -3.43 -0.78
-6 -4.83 -0.65 -5 -4.43 -0.81
-7 -6.23 -0.67 -6 -5.33 -0.83
-8 -8.33 -0.74 -7 -5.58 -0.85
-7 -8.33 -0.72 -8 -7.83 -0.87
-6 -6.83 -0.7 -9 -8.78 -0.94
-5 -6.33 -0.68 -10 -10.98 -1.01
-4 -5.53 -0.65 -9 -11.23 -0.99
-3 -4.83 -0.63 -8 -9.73 -0.96
-2 -4.03 -0.63 -7 -9.33 -0.94
-1 -3.23 -0.62 -6 -8.53 -0.91
0 -1.83 -0.6 -5 -8.13 -0.9
Cycle-V -4 -14.10 -2.75
0 -1.78 -0.6 -3 -6.13 -0.87
1 -0.83 -0.59 -2 -4.83 -0.86
2 0.27 -0.57 -1 -3.63 -0.84
3 1.62 -0.55 0 -2.28 -0.82
4 2.82 -0.52 Cycle-VI
5 4.57 -0.5 0 -2.28 -0.82
6 5.22 -0.47 1 -1.53 -0.79
7 5.87 -0.46 2 0.02 -0.75
8 6.67 -0.4 3 2.27 -0.69
123
9 7.77 -0.38 4 3.57 -0.65
5 4.77 -0.59 -7 -12.93 -1.1
6 6.87 -0.55 -6 -11.83 -1.07
7 7.37 -0.51 -5 -10.83 -1.05
8 7.97 -0.44 -4 -10.13 -1.03
9 9.07 -0.39 -3 -9.33 -1.01
10 10.37 -0.35 -2 -6.53 -1
11 11.57 -0.32 -1 -5.43 -0.97
12 14.07 -0.2 0 -3.33 -0.95
11 13.62 -0.21 Cycle-VII
10 13.07 -0.22 0 -3.33 -0.95
9 12.57 -0.25 1 -1.43 -0.9
8 12.07 -0.28 2 -0.43 -0.85
7 11.47 -0.3 3 1.57 -0.81
6 10.57 -0.32 4 3.87 -0.75
5 9.57 -0.37 5 5.57 -0.7
4 8.47 -0.43 6 6.57 -0.6
3 7.57 -0.47 7 7.87 -0.57
2 6.57 -0.53 8 9.67 -0.4
1 4.97 -0.56 9 10.77 -0.32
0 3.77 -0.59 10 11.87 -0.27
-1 1.37 -0.63 11 12.97 -0.15
-2 0.07 -0.65 12 14.57 0.14
-3 -1.23 -0.7 12.5 25.47 3.36
-4 -3.53 -0.75 12 25.47 3.35
-5 -5.03 -0.8 11 25.47 3.35
-6 -5.73 -0.85 10 25.47 3.35
-7 -7.03 -0.9 9 25.47 3.35
-8 -8.03 -0.95 8 23.77 3.2
-9 -9.28 -0.99 7 22.67 3.04
-10 -11.03 -1.01 6 21.77 2.7
-11 -13.08 -1.03 5 20.67 2.54
-12 -16.43 -1.22 4 19.57 2.25
-11 -15.93 -1.2 3 17.57 2.05
-10 -15.43 -1.18 2 15.07 1.73
-9 -14.58 -1.16 1 13.77 1.26
-8 -13.83 -1.13 0 12.32 1.01
124
APPENDIX-B
125
126

Full Thesis

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Full Thesis

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IMPROVEMENT OF PUNCHING SHEAR CAPACITY OF EXISTING

FLAT PLATES BY USING SHEAR REINFORCEMENTS

Md. Tusar Khandokar

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

Md. Tusar Khandokar

Department of Civil Engineering,

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGNEERING (STRUCTURAL)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

This thesis is dedicated to my parents and teachers

DECLARATION ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................x

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xvi

NOTATIONS ........................................................................................................................... xviii

1.1 General ..............................................................................................................................1

1.2 Background of the Study...................................................................................................1

1.3 Justification of the Study...................................................................................................5

1.4 Objectives of the Research ................................................................................................6

1.5 Methodology .....................................................................................................................6

1.6 Scope of the Work.............................................................................................................7

1.7 Organization of the Thesis ................................................................................................8

LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................9

2.1 General ..............................................................................................................................9

2.2 Flat Plate ...........................................................................................................................9

2.3 Shear Reinforcements .....................................................................................................10

2.6.1 Use of Shear Reinforcements ..................................................................................14

2.6.2 Design of Shear Reinforcements to improve punching shear capacity ...................16

2.6.3 Detailing of Shear Reinforcements in Plates ...........................................................24

2.7 Cyclic Load .....................................................................................................................25

2.8 Literature Review of Earlier Research on Improvement of Punching Shear Capacity of

2.9 Summary of Literature Review .......................................................................................32

MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .....................................33

3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................33

3.2 Specimen Preparation .....................................................................................................33

3.2.1 Selection of Geometric Properties of Model Frames ..............................................33

3.2.2 Material properties ...................................................................................................40

3.3 Formation of Specimens .................................................................................................50

3.3.1 Base Beam and columns Construction ....................................................................50

3.3.3 Retrofitting Work.....................................................................................................53

3.4 Experimental Set Up, Testing Procedure, Data Acquisition ...........................................59

ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................62

4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................62

4.2 Test Set Up and Testing Procedure .................................................................................62

4.3 Failure Modes of Flat Plate .............................................................................................63

4.5 Test Result of Specimen S-4-C-3....................................................................................66

4.6 Test Result of Specimen S-5-C-3....................................................................................69

4.7 Test Result of Specimen S-5.5-C-3 (Control) .................................................................70

4.8 Test Result of Specimen S-3-C-4....................................................................................73

4.9 Test Result of Specimen S-4-C-4....................................................................................75

4.10 Test Result of Specimen S-5-C-4....................................................................................77

4.11 Test Result of Specimen S-5.5-C-4 (Control) .................................................................79

4.12 Load-Deformation Response ..........................................................................................80

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................98

5.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................98

5.2 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................99

5.4 Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................................100

Table 2.1: 𝐾𝑎𝑖 is a coefficient depending on the anchorage ................................................. 24

Asw = cross-sectional area of a shear reinforcement

rw = shear reinforcement ratio

y= rotation of slab outside the column region