Databank of Concentric Punching Shear Tests of Two-way Concrete Slabs

without Shear Reinforcement at Interior Supports

Carlos E. Ospina1, Gerd Birkle2 and Widianto3

1
BergerABAM Inc., 800 Gessner Road, Ste 1280, Houston, TX 77024; PH (832)
384-7820; email: carlos.ospina@abam.com
2
Stantec Consulting Ltd., 200-325 25th Street SE, Calgary, AB T2A 7H8 Canada; PH
(403) 560-9274; email:gerd.birkle@stantec.com
3
ExxonMobil Development Company, 12450 Greenspoint Dr., Houston, TX 77060;
PH (709) 758-6239; email: widianto.widianto@exxonmobil.com

ABSTRACT
Hundreds of laboratory experiments have been conducted to date to investigate the
punching shear behavior of two-way reinforced concrete (RC) slabs at interior
supports. These experiments provide a mandatory frame of reference for the
development, calibration and evaluation of punching shear design provisions.
Unfortunately, because of the lack of dissemination and unavailability of some of the
references together with some level of arbitrariness by researchers and code
developers in selecting reference data, code provisions have been developed based on
a rather limited subset of the available test results.
To overcome these limitations, a task group was formed within ACI Committee 445
to gather, compile and post-process the results from laboratory tests studying the
concentric punching shear behavior of two-way RC slabs without shear reinforcement
at interior supports.
The development of the databank involved two stages: first, the creation of a
“collected” databank, where the characteristics of test specimens and test results were
compiled as faithfully as possible to what was reported by researchers. Secondly, the
development of a “selected” databank based on a series of Data Acceptance Criteria
(DAC), with the goal of endorsing a test result into an evaluation-level databank.
This paper describes the creation process and main features of the collected databank
and discusses several important aspects in databank development including the
selected platform being used to disseminate the information to users.
INTRODUCTION, SCOPE AND ASSUMPTIONS
A vast number of laboratory experiments have been conducted to date to examine the
punching shear response of two-way reinforced concrete (RC) slabs. These
experiments provide a mandatory frame of reference for the evaluation of punching
shear design procedures. Unfortunately, because of the lack of dissemination, the
unavailability of some of the references, and some arbitrariness by researchers in
selecting reference data, code provisions have been developed based on a rather
limited subset of the available test results.
In 2006, ACI 445 endorsed an initiative stemming from ACI Subcommittee 445C
(Punching Shear) and created a Task Group with the long-term goal of developing a
series of databanks to describe the tests and associated results from available
experiments studying punching shear in slabs. The first databank comprises the basic
case of concentric slab punching under gravity loads around interior column
locations. The databank development involved two stages: first, the creation of a
“Collected” databank, where test specimen properties and results were compiled as
faithfully as possible to what was reported by researchers. Secondly, the development
of a “Selected” databank based on a series of Data Acceptance Criteria (DAC), with
the goal of selecting undisputed test results to be part of an evaluation-level databank.
The main goal of this paper is to describe the “Collected” data with enough detail so
it can be used as a databank user’s guide, and also to expose the readers, albeit
succinctly, to the collected data. Unless noted otherwise, the term “databank” will be
used to refer tacitly to the “Collected” databank. The paper does not strive to provide
a phenomenological description of punching shear although it makes use of punching
concepts as a way to describe the data. To date, the “Collected” databank is
comprised of 532 tests. It comprises nothing more than “raw” data, set up in tabular
form, describing the test slabs, experiments, and listing the most relevant test results,
as reported by researchers. Interpretation of collected data has been kept to a
minimum, and solely with the goal of supplying information that has been overlooked
or not properly reported in the original source. The development of the “Selected”
databank is part of an ongoing effort and will not be discussed in detail herein.
This work is influenced in many respects by precursor efforts on documenting
punching shear tests of RC slabs, including the 1974 State-of-the-Art Report by
former ACI Committee 426 (now ACI 445), the 1985 CEB/FIP FIB punching shear
State-of-the-Art Report (Regan and Braestrup, 1985) and fib Bulletin No. 12 (2000)
which includes a databank in tabular form with punching tests of concentrically
loaded slabs from 1956 to 2000. The body of data in the ACI 445 punching databank
was collected independently from the previously listed references.
To facilitate the description of test specimens and allow a unified treatment of
governing variables, the majority of experimental results correspond to tests on
isolated slab specimens where concentric slab punching has been induced around the
column through different test set-ups. The results have been categorized depending
on the type of test set-up used. The vast majority of test specimens correspond to
isolated slab segments with column stubs above and below the slab supported and
loaded so as to induce a concentric punching failure. The most common set-up
corresponds to slabs simply supported around their edges and loaded at the column.
These specimens are intended to simulate the negative bending moment region
around supporting columns or the positive bending moment region around
concentrated loads. The dimensions of the slab segment approximately correspond to
the location of the points of inflexion in the prototype slab. In addition to providing a
reasonable representation of the problem, these test specimens are popular mainly
because they are affordable and easy to reproduce in a lab. Test results from multi-
panel slab systems have not been included in the databank because of the difficulties
in characterizing and describing these test set-ups.
All test slabs in the databank had orthogonal two-way reinforcement. Tests on slabs
with ring reinforcement (e.g. some of the slabs reported by Kinnunen and Nylander
(1960) and those tested by Bollinger (1985)), were not included. These tests are
interesting from an academic viewpoint but slab ring reinforcement arrays around
columns are not used in practice. Tests of slabs with rigid in-plane restraints (e.g.
Hewitt and de Batchelor (1975) and Kuang and Morley (1992)) were not included
either because the resulting in-plane restraint forces significantly enhance the slab
shear capacity. On the contrary, tests of slabs with rotationally restrained edges and
flexible lateral supports were included because in-plane membrane forces in set-ups
of this kind are not too pronounced. It is worth noting these test set-up conditions
may be more realistic than those simulated with isolated slab specimens. Punching
tests of footings, slabs with drop panels, bridge decks and lightweight aggregate
concrete slabs were left out. Punching tests of slabs with openings around the column
were also disregarded. Included in the “Collected” databank are the control slabs
tested as part of research programs studying the punching shear behavior of slabs
under specific considerations such as slabs with shear reinforcement, fiber-reinforced
slabs, slabs with openings around the column; and lightweight concrete slabs, among
others. Control slab tests were included provided there were at least two control tests
reported in the corresponding reference.
All dimensions are reported in SI units. Conversion into USCS units will be made
available in the near future.

DATA DESCRIPTORS
The databank is comprised of 5 main data blocks: i) Reference information, ii) Test
specimen description, iii) Material properties, iv) Slab reinforcement details, and v)
Selected test results.
Reference Information. This data block reports the test slab’s ID within the
collected data, the name(s) of the researcher(s), the year of publication and the test
specimen ID as reported by the researcher(s).
Test Specimen Description. This data block describes the test set-up, the specimen
geometry, and reports the slab age at testing time. Figure 1 shows the plan view of
typical test specimens indicating the different variables and notation used to describe
their geometric properties and support conditions.
D D1 d1

b1 b1

B1 B1 B1 B1 B1

B B B B B

Figure 1. Test Specimen Descriptors and Notation

The test set-ups were categorized in 7 main types. Test set-up designation is
expressed using letters signifying how the specimen was supported and loaded.
SS-CL :Slab Supported on all edges, Column Loaded
SSO-CL :Slab Supported on Opposite edges, Column Loaded
SSC-CL :Slab on inner Supports in Circular Pattern, Column Loaded
CS-SL :Column Supported, Slab Loaded
CS-SLO :Column Supported, Slab Loaded on Opposite Sides
CSL-SR :Column Supported and Loaded, Slab Reacted Against
CSL-SL :Column Supported and Loaded, Slab Loaded
Appendix 1 shows the test set-up categories for all the test slabs in the databank
including the number of test slabs per test set-up type. The test specimen description
data block reports additional variables to describe the type of restraint on the test slab,
the slab shape in plan, the slab dimensions (for square or rectangular slabs) or
diameter (circular or octagonal slabs), the shape and dimensions of the
support/loading array, the slab thickness and the shape and dimensions of the column
or loading plate.
Type of Restraint on Slab.
The following notation was used: N = No rotational restraint on slab; R = Rotational
restraint on slab edge; CR = Corner rotational restraint on slab. It is possible to find
test specimens that combine these.
Slab Shape in Plan.
S :Square slab
R :Rectangular slab
C :Circular slab
O :Octagonal slab.
Slab Dimensions or Diameter.
The designation of the slab dimensions in plan is shown in Fig. 1. For square and
rectangular slabs, slab dimensions are represented by B and D. For circular slabs, B
represents the slab diameter. For octagonal slabs, B represents the out-to-out octagon
dimension. If only B is reported it tacitly implies the slab is circular or octagonal. If
both B and D are reported, B is referred to as the width (dimension in the x direction).
Shape of Specimen Support/Loading Array.
This section was intended to characterize how the slabs were supported and/or
loaded. The following notation was used: C = Circular; S = Square; R = Rectangular,
supported/loaded on all sides; RX = Rectangular, supported/loaded discretely
(through point supports or loads) along the X side; RY = Rectangular,
supported/loaded discretely along the Y side; LX = line support along X side; LY =
line support along Y side; MU = uniform load applied through multiple point loads;
U = Uniformly loaded slab. The X and Y directions were assigned consistently with
the Cartesian orientation given to the test slab in the test specimen description section
of the source reference (regardless of how the slab was oriented in the test set-up).
Side Dimensions or Diameter of Support/Loading Array.
The designation of side dimensions or diameter for the support/loading array is
shown in Fig. 1. For square and rectangular slabs, side dimensions of support/loading
array are defined as B1 and D1. For circular and octagonal slabs, the side dimension
of the support/loading array is defined as B1. If only B1 is reported it tacitly means the
support/loading array is circular in plan.
Slab Thickness.
Slab thickness is represented as h. As mentioned before, tests of slabs with drop
panels were not included in the databank.
Shape of Column or Loading Plate.
Most of the test slabs were provided with short column stubs of variable height. Stubs
not only modeled the presence of a column but also served as a means for supporting
and/or loading the specimen. In some cases, no stubs were built and the load was
applied through plates positioned directly on the slab. For the slabs with column
stubs, stubs were provided above and below the slab or either above or below
depending on the test set-up. Column stub details other than dimensions in plan (i.e.
stub height, number of reinforcing bars, etc…) are not documented in the databank.
The following notation was adopted to describe the shape of the column stub or the
loading plate: S = Square; R = Rectangular; C = Circular.
Column/Loading Plate Side Dimensions or Diameter
The nomenclature for designation of side dimensions or diameter of the column or
loading plate is shown in Fig. 1. For square and rectangular columns/loading plates,
side dimensions are defined as b1 and d1. For circular columns/loading plates, the
diameter is defined as b1. If only b1 is reported it tacitly implies the column/loading
plate is circular.

Material Properties.
Concrete.
Slab concrete strength characterization concentrated on 3 areas: compressive strength,
flexural strength, and tensile strength.
Compressive strength specimen type and dimensions
The compressive strength of slab concrete has been evaluated by researchers through
testing on cylinders, cubes and prisms. In the “Collected” databank, and for
consistency with the ASCE/ACI 445 databanks, the prism compressive strength was
selected as the fundamental reference test. Ancillary test specimens were described as
follows: CY(dxh) = Cylinder; CU(a) = Cube; PR (bxl), where d and h represent,
respectively, the cylinder diameter and height, a represents the cube side dimension,
b is the prism base and height, and l is the prism length.
Compressive strength at time of slab testing and at 28 days
The databank reports the concrete compressive strengths at the time of slab testing
and at 28 days. Unfortunately, this information has been poorly documented by
researchers. Distinction between the 28-day strength and that at slab testing time is
seldom reported. The cylinder compressive strength is defined as fc whereas the cube
compressive strength is defined as fcu. The authors have chosen not to use “prime”
designations for fc as these refer to specified compressive strengths used mainly for
design. The databank does not elaborate whether the ancillary testing follows the
applicable ASTM or RILEM standards. Details of this kind are reported in the source
references.
Additional Compressive Strength Specimen Type and Dimensions
This column contains information on supplementary concrete compressive strength
tests reported by researchers other than cylinders, namely cubes and prisms. Ancillary
test specimens are described as follows: CU (a) = Cube; PR (bxl) = Prism, with
variables as defined earlier.
Tensile Strength of Slab Concrete
The tensile strength of slab concrete is reported by means of 3 parameters:
fct,sp :Splitting tensile strength of concrete
fct,f : Tensile flexural strength of concrete (~modulus of rupture fr )
fct :Uniaxial tensile strength of concrete.
Only those values at time of slab testing are reported.
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
The elastic modulus, Ec, is that at the testing time of the slab.
Maximum Aggregate Size
The maximum aggregate size is defined as da.
Slab Reinforcement.
Only the tension slab reinforcement data is reported in the databank.
Yield Strength of Slab Reinforcement
The yield strength of the slab reinforcement is defined as fy. No yield strength data is
reported for slabs with FRP reinforcement because of the brittle-elastic (i.e. no
yielding) nature of this type of reinforcement.
Tensile Strength of Slab Reinforcement
Tensile strength of slab reinforcement is defined as fu. This variable is used regardless
of the type of reinforcement examined (steel or FRP).
Modulus of Elasticity of Slab Reinforcement
The modulus of elasticity of the slab reinforcement is defined as Er. The subscript “r”
stands for “reinforcement”. The databank includes tests on slabs with either steel
reinforcing bars or slabs with either FRP reinforcing bars or FRP grids.
Slab Reinforcement Details.
Type of Slab Reinforcement
S: Steel reinforcing bar (which accounts for the vast majority of the test data); GB =
Glass FRP reinforcing bar or rod; GG = Glass FRP grid; CB = Carbon FRP
reinforcing bar or rod; CG = Carbon FRP grid; HB = Hybrid FRP bar.
Reinforcement Surface Characteristics
S = Smooth; D = Deformed; I = Indented; T = Twisted; R = Rough surface.
Reinforcing Bar Ends
This information is important to evaluate whether full development of the slab
reinforcement can be warranted to avoid a premature bond failure. Unfortunately, this
is an aspect seldom documented by researchers. Descriptors are S = Straight end; H =
Hooked end; SP = Steel plates welded to bar ends; NR = Not reported.
Effective Flexural Depth
The variables d, dx and dy define the position of the slab reinforcement running along
the x and y directions, respectively. See Fig. 2. If only d is reported it means the
researcher reported the average flexural depth only. If d is given, both dx and dy can
be calculated based on the bar diameter.

Figure 2. Slab Reinforcement Descriptors

Slab Reinforcement Distribution and Spacing
The (tensile) slab reinforcement spacing is defined either as uniform (U) or non-
uniform (N). The bar spacing is reported to calculate reinforcement ratios and also to
verify the values reported by researchers. The distinction between U and N is
necessary to avoid “masking” of tests with non-uniform bar spacing and sizes through
a broad slab reinforcement average. It also allows examining the effect of slab
reinforcement layout on punching strength. As shown in Fig. 2, the slab
reinforcement spacing in the x and y directions is defined as sx and sy, respectively.
These, in turn, are associated, respectively, with the flexural depths dx and dy. For
non-uniform slab reinforcement spacing, the spacing is defined by the string array
{mk1 x nk2 x ok3 x...} where the ki values are constants intended to describe any bar
spacing modularity, albeit partial, that may occur across the slab width. If the string
array starts with zero (i.e. m = 0) it means there is a reinforcing bar passing right
through the center of the column.
Average (Tensile) Slab Reinforcement Ratio Reported by Researcher
Despite the fact this is a derived quantity, it was included in the databank.
Selected Test Results
Failure Load Reported by Researcher
The failure load, Pu, corresponds to the load reported by the researcher at which
failure occurred. Unless explicitly reported in the source reference, it is very difficult
to determine whether this value includes the self weight of the test specimen and
loading apparatus. Unfortunately, the vast majority of researchers do not document
this properly.
Slab Failure Mode Reported by Researcher
This column reports the slab failure mode as reported by the researcher. Different
terms have been used by the sources, including: P = Punching failure; F = Flexural
failure; FP = Flexural Punching failure; DP = Ductile Punching failure; and B = Bond
failure. The exact meaning of each particular term cannot be generalized because
researchers did not use the same metric for slab failure mode definition. Evaluation of
the slab failure mode with the objective of discarding flexural or bond failures falls
outside of the scope of this paper. These evaluations are part of an ongoing effort.
Observations by Task Group
Miscellaneous observations about the quality of data reported by researchers are also
listed in this column. The observations include typographical errors, missing data,
specific clarifications needed about the collected data, or simply a statement to
attempt facilitating the user’s interpretation of the available data.

MINIMUM LEVEL DATA POST-PROCESSING

In order to visualize the quality of the collected test data, it was necessary to
undertake a minimum amount of data post-processing with the objective of
calculating a series of fundamental variables commonly used to characterize
punching failures. The following calculations were performed:
Concrete Compressive strength
The reference concrete strength is based on uniaxial compression tests of 150 mm by
300 mm cylinders. Other reported concrete test specimen sizes and shapes were
converted using an approach based on Reineck et al. (2003).
 f1c,cyl = 0.95 fc,cyl (150x300 cyls)
f1c,cu = 0.75 fc,cube (150x150x150 cubes)
f1c,pr = 1.00 fc,pr (120x120x360 prism)
For code equation evaluations:
fcm,cyl = f1c,cyl/0.95
fck,cyl = fcm,cyl - 4 (MPa)
f’c = fck +1.6 (MPa)
Table 3 shows the conversion factors used to relate cylinder, cube and prism strengths
to the reference 150x300 mm cylinder compressive strength.
Table 3 Conversion Factors for Concrete Compressive Strength
Reference Specimen Size Conversion
Specimen Shape (mm x mm) Factor
61 x 122 0.89
75 x 150 0.90
100 x 100 0.84
Cylinders 100 x 200 0.92
100 x 300 1.00
f1c
120 x 360 1.05
150 x 300
150 x 300 0.95
(6” x 12”)
160 x 320 1.00
Cylinder
100 x 100 0.68
120 x 120 0.71
Cubes
150 x 150 0.75
200 x 200 0.79
Prisms 120 x 120 x 360 1.00

Average Flexural Depth

The average flexural depth was calculated as (dx + dy)/2.
Equivalent Column Width
The equivalent column width, b1* , was introduced to convert a circular column into
equivalent square column with same perimeter.
Slab Reinforcement Ratio
The (tensile) slab reinforcement ratio was calculated in each of the two orthogonal
directions of the Cartesian system of coordinates (x and y) based on the average
spacing of the slab reinforcement. This leads to
Abx  d bx2
x  
d x s x 4d x s x [1a]
 Aby  d by2
y  
d ysy 4d y s y
[1b]
where Ab is the area of the reinforcing bar, db is the bar diameter and s is the bar
spacing, with the bars oriented as shown in Fig. 2. The average slab reinforcement
ratio is calculated as the arithmetic average of Eqs. 1a and 1b. For slabs with non-
uniformly spaced reinforcing bars, calculation of the slab reinforcement ratio near the
column, near, required the hand calculation of the number of bars located across an
effective slab width of b1 + 3h.
Shear span-to-depth ratio
The shear slenderness is evaluated through the shear span-to-depth ratio, a/d. For
slabs supported along the edges and loaded through the column, the shear span is the
distance between the slab supports and the column face. For slabs loaded with tie
rods, the shear span is the distance between the column face and the tie rod location.

OVERVIEW OF COLLECTED TEST DATA

Figures 3 through 5 show the test results associated with the entire body of data (532
tests) in the form of the observed normalized shear stress against key variables. The
figures are presented with the sole objective of showing trends relative to the
traditional 0.33 f c' equation of ACI 318-11. A detailed evaluation of the body of
data falls outside the scope of this paper. The tests have been labeled depending on
the mode of slab failure reported by the sources.
Figure 3 shows the normalized shear strength of the slabs as a function of the slab
reinforcement ratio. The critical perimeter used in the normalized shear stress
calculation is bo, located per ACI 318-11 (i.e. at 0.5d away from the column face).
1.6
Punching Failures
Flexural Failures
1.4
Bond Failures

1.2

1.0

0.8
Vtest
bo d f c'
0.6

0.4

0.2 ACI 318-11

Note: Slab failure mode as reported by researchers

0.0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040

Slab Reinforcement Ratio

Figure 3. Test Results - Slab Reinforcement Effect

Figure 3 shows the shear strength increases as the slab reinforcement ratio increases.
It also shows a large number of flexural failures for lightly reinforced slabs ( <
0.01). For  values less than 0.012, the traditional 0.33 f c' equation of ACI 318-11
may render unconservative capacity predictions. For larger  values, the ACI 318-11
equation is a safe lower bound.
Figure 4 shows the normalized shear stress as a function of the slab flexural depth.
1.6
Punching Failures
Flexural Failures
1.4 Bond Failures

1.2

1.0

Vtest
bo d f c' 0.8

0.6

ACI 318-11
0.4

0.2
Note: Slab failure mode as reported by researchers
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
d (mm)

Figure 4. Test Results – Slab Flexural Depth Effect

Figure 4 shows a decrease in punching capacity as the slab depth increases. Suffices
to say the true slab depth effect cannot be evaluated through this figure because the
test population is “masking” the effect of other variables.
Figure 5 shows the normalized shear stress for the test data as a function of the
column side to slab depth, b1/d, ratio. The critical section has been selected at the
 d
column face to highlight the b1/d effect. The dashed line represents 0.33 f c' 1  
 c .
 3.0
Punching Failures
Flexural Failures
Bond Failures
2.5
Notes:
1. Slab failure mode as reported by researchers
2. Critical perimeter taken at column face
2.0

Vtest 1.5

bd f c'

1.0

0.5

ACI 318-11 Equivalent

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 5. Test Results – b1/d Effect

Figure 5 shows that the shear strength increases as the b1/d ratio decreases. The trend
is well captured by the equivalent ACI 318-11 equation but it is evident there are
slabs whose capacity is underpredicted by the ACI equation.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DATABANK DEVELOPMENT

Data Collection
The first step in developing a databank is to make sure the data are correctly reported
in the source document and correctly recorded in the master spreadsheet. This
requires not only a thorough review of the original source but also a thorough
verification process within the databank keepers.
Test Parameters and Units
Researchers around the world report parameters according with definitions, symbols
and units used in their local governing codes and standards. As a result, there are
significant variations in the way parameters are reported, with the characterization of
concrete strength being the most notorious. To present all data consistently and to
perform statistical analyses, it was necessary to normalize various parameters into a
single set of units. Parameters can be adjusted and filtered depending on the databank
purpose. Two types of databanks can be developed: 1) Collected, where all data are
gathered as faithfully as possible to what was reported by researchers, and 2)
Selected, where data are filtered based on a series of Data Acceptance Criteria
(DAC). DACs are determined depending on the purpose of the databank. A
“Selected” databank is necessary to provide researchers and code developers with an
“undisputed” set of test results to enable a thorough examination and calibration of
design procedures. If the databank is intended to serve as a basis of statistical
analyses to evaluate code provisions, it is key to limit the statistical analyses to test
specimens that that are most representative of actual structures, in terms of both their
size and reinforcement details. Examples of DAC for the Selected Databank include
practical ranges for the compressive strength of concrete, the type of slab
reinforcement, slab thickness, slab reinforcement ratio, shear span-to-depth ratio,
column dimension-to-slab depth ratio and type of slab failure (e.g. punching vs.
flexure vs. bond).
Databank Management
To remain useful, the databank has to be widely available, continuously maintained
and updated. It is therefore of paramount importance to keep track of users and
encourage feedback from them. The databank needs to be revised and entries logged
anytime errors are found and every time new research data become available.
Databank Dissemination
The ACI 445 collected punching shear databank has been posted in the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Hub website
(https://nees.org/groups/aci445punchingsheardatabase/members) where the databank
and corresponding references in PDF format can be reached free of charge. Interested
users need to first register with NEES and be approved before accessing the databank.
The NEES website contains key features to make the databank more user-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper reports the basis of the ACI 445 punching databank containing test results
of slabs subjected to concentric punching shear at interior column locations.
Intervening variables and data collection strategies are described. The paper is meant
to be used as the databank user’s guide.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the contributions of J.P. Smith in early stages of databank
development and also the technical feedback from ASCE/ACI 445 Committee
members, and in particular, the contributions from N. Hawkins, A. Negele, M.
Braestrup, H. Sundquist, N. Gardner, W. Dilger, S. Alexander, M. Polak, K. Reineck,
E. Bentz, D. Sanders, D. Kuchma, G. Melho and O. Bayrak.

REFERENCES
ASCE/ACI Committee 426, “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members-
Slabs,” Journal of Structural Division, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 100, No. ST8, Aug.
1974, pp. 1543-1591.
Alexander, S.B.D., and Simmonds, S.H., “Tests of Column-Flat Plate Connections,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 5, Sep.-Oct. 1992, pp. 495-577.
Banthia, N., Al-Asaly, M., and Ma, S., “Behaviour of concrete slabds reinforced with
fiber-reinforced plastic grid,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 7,
No. 4, Nov. 1995, pp. 252-257.
Base, G.D., "Some Tests on the Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Slabs," Cement and Concrete Association, Technical Report TRA/321, July 1959, pp
1-5.
Birkle, G., “Punching of Flat Slabs: The Influence of Slab Thickness and Stud
Layout,” PhD-Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, 2004, 152p.
Corley, W.G., and Hawkins, N.M., “Shearhead Reinforcement for Slabs,” Journal of
the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, V. 65, No. 10, Oct. 1968, pp. 811-824.
Criswell, M.E., “Static and Dynamic Response of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column
Connections,” ACI Special Publication SP-42, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, No. 31,
1974, pp. 721-746.
Elstner, R.C., and Hognestad, E., “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,”
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, V. 53, No. 1, July 1956, pp.
29-58.
El-Ghandour, A.W., Pilakoutas, K., and Waldron, P., “Punching Shear Behavior of
Fiber Reinforced Polymers Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs: Experimental Study,”
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 7, Issue 3, Feb. 2003, pp. 258-
266.
fib Task Group 4.3, “fib Bulletin 12: Punching of Structural Concrte Slabs,”
Fédération Internationale du Béton, Lausanne, 2000, 307p.
Forssell, C., and Holmberg, E.," Concentrated Loads on Concrete Slabs," Betong, V.
31, No. 2, Feb. 1946, pp. 95-123.
Gardner, N.J.., “Relationship of the Punching Shear Capacity pf Reinforced Concrete
Slabs with Concrete Strength,” ACI Str. J., V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 66-71.
Ghannoum, C.M., “Effect of high-strength concrete on the performance of slab-
column specimens,” Masters Thesis, Mc Gill University, Montreal, Canada, 1998,
85p.
Graf, O., “Versuche über die Widerstandsfähigkeit von allseitig aufliegenden dicken
Eisenbetonplatten unter Einzellasten,” Deutscher Ausschuß für Eisenbeton, Heft 88,
Berlin, 1938, 26p.
Guandalini, S., “Poinçonnement symétrique des dalles,” PhD Thesis, École
Polytechnique Féderale de Lausanne, Switzerland, 2005, 179p.
Hallgren, M., “Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete
Slabs,” PhD Thesis, KTH Stockholm, TRITA-BKN. Bull. No. 23, 1996,150p.
Hawkins, N.M., Fallsen, H.B., and Hinojosa, R.C., “Influence of Column
Rectangularity on the Behavior of Flat Plate Structures,” ACI Publication, Cracking,
Deflection, and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab Systems, V. SP-30, No. 6, 1971, pp.
127-146.
Kinnunen, S., and Nylander, H., “Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear
Reinforcement,” Royal Institute of Technology, Transactions, No. 158, Stockholm,
Sweden, 1960, 110p.
Ladner, M., "Einfluss der Maßstabsgröße bei Durchstanzversuchen - Ableitung eines
begründeten Übertragungsgesetzes," Material und Technik, No. 2, 1973, pp. 60-68.
Ladner, M., Schaeidt, W., and Gut, S., “Experimentelle Untersuchungen an
Stahlbeton-Flachdecken,” Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Versuchsanstalt,
Bericht No. 205, Dübendorf, 1977.
Li, K.K.L., “Influence of size on punching shear strength of concrete slabs,” Masters
Thesis, Mc Gill University, Montreal, Canada, 2000, 65p.
Long, A.E., and Masterson, D.M., “Improved Experimental Procedure for
Determining the Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Structures,”
ACI SP-42: Shear in Reinforced Concrete, No.39, 1974 pp. 921-935.
Lovrovich, J.S., and Mclean, D.I., “Punching Shear Behavior of Slabs Varying Span-
Depth Ratios,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 5, Sep.-Oct. 1990, pp. 507-511.
Lunt, B.G., "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs at Column Supports," PhD
Thesis, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1988, 260 pp.
Manterola, M.J., "Punching of Slabs Without Shear Reinforcement," Comité Euro-
International du Béton, Bulletin d'Information, No. 57, 1966.
Marti, P., Pralong, J., and Thürlimann, B., “Schubversuche an Stahlbetonplatten,”
Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zürich, No. 7305-2, Sep. 1977, 123p.
Marzouk, H., and Hussein, A., “Experimental Investigation on the Behavior of High-
Strength Concrete Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1991, pp.
701-713.
Matthys, S., and Taerwe., L., “Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP Grids. II
Punching Resistance,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 4, Issue 3,
Aug. 2000, pp. 154-161.
McHarg, P.J., Cook, W.D., Mitchell, D., and Yoon, Y.-S., “Benefits of Concentrated
Slab Reinforcement and Steel Fibers on Performance of Slab-Column Connections,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 2, Mar-Apr. 2000, pp. 225-234.
Moe, J., “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings Under
Concentrated Loads,” Journal of Portland Cement Association, Research and
Development Laboratories, Bulletin, No. D47, Apr. 1961, 130p.
Mowrer, R.D., and Vanderbilt, M.D., “Shear Strength of Light Weight Aggregate
Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute,
Proceedings, V. 64, No. 11, Nov. 1967, pp. 722-729.
Nylander, H., and Sundquist, H., "Punching of Bridge Slabs with Non-Prestressed
Reinforcement on Columns," Royal Institute of Technology, Transactions, No. 104,
Stockholm, Sweden, 1972, 64p.
Oliveira, D.R.C., Regan, P.E., and Melo, G.S.S.A., “Punching resistance of RC slabs
with rectangular columns,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 56, No. 3, 2004, pp.
112-138.
Ospina, C.E., Alexander, S.D. B., and Roger Cheng, J.J., "Punching of two-way
concrete slabs with fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcing bars or grids," ACI
Structural Journal, V. 79, No. 2, Sep.-Oct. 2003, pp. 589-598.
Ospina, C.E., "Behaviour of Concrete Slabs with Fibre-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement,” Report No. 242, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, Oct. 2001, 355p.
Pralong, J., Brändli, W., and Thürlimann, B., “Durchstanzversuche an Stahlbeton-
und Spannbetonplatten,” Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zürich, No.
7305-3, 1979, 89p.
Rankin, G.I.B., and Long, A.E., “Predicting the Enhanced Punching Strength of
Interior Slab-Column Connections,” Institution of Civil Engineers, Proceedings, V.
82, No. 3, Dec. 1987, pp 1165-1186.
Ramdane, K.-E., “Punching Shear of High Performance Concrete Slabs,” Utilization
of High Strength/High Performance Concrete, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et
Chausées, Paris, V. 3, 1996, pp. 1015-1026.
Regan, P.E., “Symmetric Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 38, No. 136, Sep. 1986, pp 115-128.
Regan, P.E., “The Dependence of Punching Resistance Upon the Geometry of the
Failure Surface,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 36, No. 126, Mar. 1984, pp 3-8.
Regan P.E., Walker P.R., and Zakaria K.A.A., "Tests of Reinforced Concrete Flat
Slabs," CIRIA Project RP 220, London, UK, 1979, 217 p.
Regan, P.E., Al-Hussaini, A., Ramdane, K.E., and Xue, H.Y “Behavior of high
strength concrete slabs," International Conference Concrete 2000, Proceedings, Sept.
7-9, Vol. 1, 1993, pp. 761-773.
Regan, P.E. and Braestrup, M.W., “Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete: A State-
of-the-Art Report,” Comité Euro-International du Béton, Bulletin d'Information, No.
168, Lausanne, 1985, 232pp.
Reineck, K.-H., Kuchma, D.A., Kim, K.S., and Marx, S. (2003), “Shear Database for
Reinforced Concrete Members without Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp 240-249.
Richart, F.E., and Kluge, R.W., “Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs Subjected to
Concentrated Loads,” Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin, No. 314, University
of Illinois, Urbana, Oct. 1939, 71p.
Roll, F., Zaidi, S.T.H., Sabnis, G., and Chuang, K., "Shear Resistance of Perforated
Reinforced Concrete Slabs," ACI Publication, Cracking, Deflection and Ultimate
Load of Concrete Slab Systems, V. SP-30, 1971, pp. 77-101.
Rosenthal, I., “Experimental Investigation of Flat Plate Floors,” Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, V. 56, No. 12, Aug. 1959, pp. 153-166.
Schaefers, U., Konstruktion, Bemessung und Sicherheit gegen Durchstanzen von
balkenlosen Stahlbetondecken im Bereich der Innenstützen," Deutscher Ausschuss
für Stahlbeton, Heft 357, Berlin, 1984, 72p.
Schaeidt, W.; Ladner, M.; and Rösli, A., “Berechnung von Flachdecken auf
Durchstanzen,” Schriftenreihe der Schweizerischen Zement-Industrie, Wildegg,
Switzerland, 1970.
Sundquist, H., and Kinnunen, S. "The effect of column head and drop panels on the
punching capacity of flat slabs," Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden,
Bulletin No. 82, 2004.
Swamy, R., and Ali, S., “Punching Shear Behaviour of Reinforced Slab-Column
Connections Made with Steel Fiber Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 79, No. 2,
Sep.-Oct. 1982, pp. 392-406
Timm, M., “Durchstanzen von Bodenplatten unter rotationssymmetrischer
Belastung,” Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Heft 547, Berlin, 2004, 158p.
Tolf, P., "Plattjocklekens inverkan p betongplattors hllfasthet vid genomestansning.
Foumlrsk med cikulra plattor," Bulletin No. 146, Department of Structural Mechanics
and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1988, 64 pp.
Tomaszewicz, A., "High Strength Concrete," SINTEF Structures and Concrete,
Report No. STF70 A93082, Trondheim, Netherlands, 1993, 36p.
Vanderbilt, M.D., “Shear Strength of Continuous Plates,” Journal of Structural
Division, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 98, No. ST5, May 1972, pp. 961-973.
van den Boos, A.A., and Hofmeyer, H., “Experiments investigating Concrete Floor
Punching using Specific Reinforcement,” Heron, Proceedings, V. 50, No. 2, 2005,
pp. 93-108.
Widianto, Bayrak, O. and Jirsa, J.O., “Two-way Shear Strength of Slab-Column
Connections: Reexamination of ACI 318 Provisions,” ACI Structural Journal, V.
106, No. 2, March-April 2009, pp. 160-170.
Yamada, T., Nanni, A., and Endo, K., “Punching Shear Resistance of Flat Slabs:
Influence of Reinforcement Type and Ratio,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 4,
Sep.-Oct. 1992, pp. 555-563.
Yitzhaki, D., “Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, V. 63, No. 5, May 1966, pp. 527-541.
Appendix A. Test Set-up Categories
Set-up Supporting Element Loading Element Support/ Reference No. of
Category Loading Array Slabs
Slab Column Slab Column
Li (2000) 6
Ozawa et al (2000) 4
Sistonen et al (1997) 10
Banthia et al (1995) 3 (2 FRP)
Tomaszewicz (1993) 13
Marzouk & Hussein (1991) 17
Ranking & Long (1987) 27
Regan (1986) 10
Regan (1986) 16
S Swamy & Ali (1982) 2
Criswell (1974) 8
Long & Masterson (1974) 1
SS-CL Y (all edges) N N Y
Roll et al (1971) 8
Mowrer & Vanderbilt (1967) 2
Manterola (1966) 12
Taylor & Hayes (1965) 8
Moe (1961) 14
Elstner & Hognestad (1956) 25
Forsell & Holmberg (1946) 7
R Graf (1938) 2
Gardner (1990) 30
Lovrovich & McLean (1990) 5
C
Base (1959) 20
Rosenthal (1959) 4
LY Elstner & Hognestad (1956) 2
SSO-CL Y (opp. edges) N N Y
LX Richart & Kluge (1939) 14
Y (inner
Guandalini (2005) 4
SSC-CL supports, N N Y C8
Matthys & Taerwe (2000) 17
circular pattern)
Square Slab - S8 Corley & Hawkins (1968) 2
CS-SL N Y Y N
Square Slab - S12 Hawkins et al (1971) 3
 Guandalini (2005) 6
Timm (2003) 3
Square Slab - C8 El Ghandour et al (2003) 5 (FRP)
McHarg et al (2000) 2
Ghannoum (1998) 6
Square Slab - C12 Ladner et al (1977) 4
Pralong et al (1979) 1
Octagonal Slab - C8
Marti et al (1977) 1
Circular Slab - C Nightingale (1970) 17
R Oliveira et al (2003) 5
Square Slab - MU16 Lunt (1988) 13
Square Slab - U Vanderbilt (1972) 15
RY Oliveira et al (2003) 5
CS-SLO N Y Y (opposite sides) N
RX Oliveira et al (2003) 5
S Regan (1986) 8
S4 Van den Bos & Hofmeyer (2005) 3
R4 Nylander & Sundquist (1972) 4
Square Slab - C8 Ospina et al (2003) 4 (3 FRP)
Square Slab - C8 - ER/CR Alexander & Simmonds (1992) 8
Ospina et al (2001) 1
Square Slab - MU16 - ER
Long & Masterson (1974) 1
Y (Reacting against Octagonal Slab - C8 Birkle (2004) 3
CSL-SR N Y Y
column load) Circular Slab - C8 Regan (1986) 6
Hallgren (1996) 6
Ramdane (1996) 15
Circular Slab - C12 Tolf (1988) 8
Scahefers (1984) 2
Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) 12
Circular Slab Ladner et al (1973) 1
C16 Schaeidt et al (1970) 1
Y (adjusted edge
CSL-SL N Y Y ER Regan (1986) 4
restr.)
NOTES (in progress): 1. Boundary conditions not reported for Sundquist & Kinnunen (2004): 8 slabs; Yitzhaki (1966): 9 slabs; TOTAL No. of slabs = 501.
2. 26 additional tests to be added to this table to complete the full 527 collected databank entries.