(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Punching shear resistance of post-tensioned steel fiber reinforced concrete

flat plates
Long Nguyen-Minh a,c, Marián Rovňák b,⇑, Thanh Tran-Ngoc c, Them Le-Phuoc c
a
Division of Structural Design, Faculty of Civil Engineering, HCMC University of Technology, Building B6, 268 Ly Thuong Kiet, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
b
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Arts, Technical University of Kosice, Letná 9, 042 00 Kosice, Slovakia
c
Structural Engineering Laboratory of Faculty of Civil Engineering, HCMC University of Technology, Building C2, 268 Ly Thuong Kiet, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper presents results of an experimental study on punching shear behavior and resistance of post-
Received 5 July 2011 tensioned steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) slab–column connections using unbonded tendons. Eight
Revised 14 May 2012 large-scale specimens were tested, in which fiber amount and concrete compressive strength were vary-
Accepted 27 June 2012
ing. The results show that an increasing amount of steel fibers results in an increase of punching shear
resistances and energy absorption capacity and contributes to the improvement of slab–column connec-
tion integrity. The paper presents also a semi-empirical formula for estimation of punching shear resis-
Keywords:
tances of post-tensioned SFRC slab–column connections with unbonded tendons. Along with taking into
Steel fiber reinforced concrete
Post-tensioned flat slab
account effects of concrete strength, prestress, and vertical component of prestressing force on the total
Punching shear resistance punching shear resistance, the proposed design formula considers also such factors as: volume of steel
Formula fibers, size effect, effect of span to effective slab depth ratio, and effective depth of tendons. The formula
Evaluation enables an adequate estimation of real resistances of post-tensioned slab–column connections, either
with or without steel fibers.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Post-tensioned concrete flat slabs represent a relatively large
proportion of prestressed concrete constructions due to their
unquestionable advantages over reinforced concrete slabs, espe-
cially with regard to high loads and large spans. Punching shear is
an undesirable failure mode of both, reinforced and post-tensioned
concrete flat slabs. Therefore, several methods aiming at the
improvement of punching shear capacity of flat slabs have already
been proposed and introduced into practice [15,19,35]. Punching
shear resistance and cracking control of reinforced concrete (RC)
slab–column connections has proven to be notably improved by
using steel fibers in the concrete matrix [3,35,16,22,25,10,9b]. Steel
fibers enhance also the overall performance of slab–column con-
nections subjected to lateral loads, e.g. seismic loads, due to their
ability to absorb the energy dissipation in the structure
[23,11,27]. Nevertheless, no research results related to the investi-
gation of the effect of steel fibers on punching shear capacity of
post-tensioned slab–column connections have been published yet.
Current formulas for estimation of the punching shear capacity
of post-tensioned reinforced concrete flat slabs (ACI Code
[1], EC2 [14a], CEB-FIP MC 90 [9a], CEB-FIB MC 2010 [9b],
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +421 907 669 245.
E-mail address: marian.rovnak@gmail.com (M. Rovňák).
CAN3-A23.3 [8], BS 8110 [5], and AS 3600 [4]) are based on empir-
ical approach, in which punching shear capacity of slabs is calcu-
lated as the sum of the punching shear resistance of
conventional steel reinforced concrete flat slab and of the resis-
tance contribution of prestressing. The use of the formulas usually
gives large scatter of results [2,32].
The paper presents results of an experimental study on the
effect of steel fibers on the punching shear resistance of post-ten-
sioned SFRC flat slabs with unbonded tendons, as well as a semi-
empirical formula to enable its prediction. The evaluation of the
formula in terms of its accuracy for estimation of the punching
shear capacity of post-tensioned SFRC and conventional RC flat
slabs is also dealt with in the paper.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
Test slabs were divided into two groups, A and B. Concrete for
group A contained: cement PC40 (420 kg/m3); natural sand
(0–4 mm, 624 kg/m3); coarse aggregate (22 mm, 1440 kg/m3);
water (185 kg/m3) and plasticizer (4.5 l/m3). Concrete for group B
consisted of: cement PC40 (453 kg/m3); natural sand (0–4 mm,
660 kg/m3); coarse aggregate (22 mm, 1242 kg/m3); water
(181 kg/m3); and plasticizer (5 l/m3). Hooked-end steel fibers were

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.027
 Author's personal copy

L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337 325

Nomenclature

aC inclined-shear cracking position of effective beam, mm Vf fiber volume, %, = 100 mf/8750, where mf is fiber
aT horizontal projection length of the diagonal crack, mm amount per 1 m3 of concrete
bcr,1, bcr,2width of beam cross-sections, mm Vp vertical component of force in tendons, N
c dimension of column section, mm Vp,ACI vertical component of force in tendons calculated
d effective depth of slab, mm according to ACI 318-08, N
dp depth to prestressing tendons, mm Vp,EC-CEB vertical component of force in tendons calculated
fc0 nominal cylinder compressive strength of concrete, N/ according to EC 2-2004, CEB FIP MC 90, and CEB FIP
mm2 MC 2010, N
fcm, fcm,sp mean compressive and splitting cube strength of con- Vre reaction force, N
crete, N/mm2 Vu punching resistance, N
fpc effective prestress, fpc = RP/A, N/mm2 Vu,ACI design punching resistance calculated according to ACI
ft maximum tensile stress of the test slabs, MPa 318-2008, N
fu ultimate tensile strength of steel re-bars, N/mm2 Vu,d,prop design punching resistance calculated according to EC 0,
fy yield strength of steel re-bars, N/mm2 N
np the number of tendons Vu,d design punching resistance, N
P prestressing force in a tendon, N Vu,EC2 design punching resistance calculated according to EC
wu width of crack observed at failure, mm 2-2004, N
x depth of concrete compressive zone, mm Vu,FIB 1990 design punching resistance calculated according to
xpunch depth of concrete compressive zone in punching shear, CEB-FIB MC 1990, N
mm Vu,FIB 2010 design punching resistance calculated according to
z vertical projection length of diagonal crack, mm CEB-FIB MC 2010, N
zC arm of internal forces, mm Vu,theor theoretical punching resistance, N
A sectional area of slab, A = L1  D, mm2 Vu,exp (Vu,exp,0) experimental punching resistance (for Vf = 0), N
Ap sectional area of tendons, mm2 s average fiber–matrix interface bond stress, N/mm2
D slab depth, mm a angle of shear crack to horizontal axis, degree
Df fiber diameter (equivalent diameter for a fiber of rectan- du slab deflection relating to Vu,exp, mm
gular section, = perimeter of rectangular section/p), mm ec compressive strain of concrete
Ec elasticity modulus of concrete, N/mm2 ec,punch compressive strain of concrete at punching failure
Eps, Es elasticity modulus of tendons and tensile re-bars, N/ ec0 concrete strain at peak stress
mm2 epe effective elastic strain of tendons, = fpc/Eps
Fc compressive force of concrete, N eps strain of tendons at ultimate
FF punching shear contribution of steel fibers, N gf fiber efficiency factor for fiber shape and surface charac-
Fp force in tendons, N teristics: 0.5 for round fibers, 0.75 for deformed fibers,
Hp horizontal component of force in tendons, N 1.0 for hooked-end fibers
L1, L2 theoretical spans of beam (distances between two q longitudinal reinforcement ratio, %, = [area of reinforce-
inflection points of the deflection curve of slab, = L/4, ment/(L d)]  100
in which L is shorter span of real slab), mm r1, r2 normal stresses
Lf fiber length, mm rc,punch punching shear compressive stress of concrete, N/mm2
Va, Vc, Vd aggregate interlocking force, shear force across the com- s1, s2 shear stresses
pression zone, and dowel action force, N u experimental coefficient, u = 10
Vcr cracking force, N h angle of tendon to horizontal axis (°)

used as the fiber reinforcement. Length, diameter, tensile strength
and elastic modulus of particular fibers were 60 mm, 0.75 mm,
1100 MPa and 200 GPa, respectively. Cube specimens (150 mm)
were used to determine both, compressive and splitting tensile
strength of concrete. The average concrete compressive and splitting
tensile strengths fcm and fcm,sp are summarized in Table 1.
Unbonded seven-strand prestressing tendons of 12.7 mm diam-
eter and ribbed reinforcing bars of 10 mm diameter were used in
tested slabs. Mechanical properties of tendons and re-bars were
determined based on tensile tests. The average yield stress of
tendons was fyp = 1690 MPa, their ultimate tensile strength was
fup = 1860 MPa. The respective values of steel re-bars were fy
= 410 MPa and fu = 585 MPa. The modulus of elasticity of tendons
and re-bars was 200 GPa.
2.2. Test specimens
A total of eight large-scale slab–column connections were
tested. Dimensions of column cross sections were 200  200 mm,
in order to ensure sufficiently high punching shear stresses in
slabs. The slabs 2200  2200  150 mm were prestressed after
28 days by 12.7 mm strands shortly before testing. The initial pre-
stressing force was 130 kN per tendon, corresponding to a com-
pressive prestress fpc = 1.1 MPa according to ACI 318 [1] (Table 3).
The post-tensioned slabs (Fig. 1) were designed according to ACI
318 [1] as uncracked members. Therefore, prestressing forces in
tendons were0:5 controlled to meet the requirement for class U:
ft < 0.5 fc0 , where ft (MPa) is the calculated extreme tension
stress and fc0 (MPa) is the cylinder compressive strength of con-
crete. Stresses were computed by means of the program SAFE,
Ver. 12.3.0 – a structural analysis program based on FEM [13].
The maximum computed tension stress ft = 2.13 MPa (Fig. 2) for
slabs S0A (without fibers, fc0 = 26.5 MPa) was in compliance with
 0:5
the requirement: ft = 2.13 MPa < 0.5 fc0 = 2.34 MPa. Since the
aim of the study was to investigate the effect of steel fibers and
tendons on punching shear capacity of slab–column connections,
compression reinforcement was not used. Tested slabs were di-
vided into two groups with mutually different concrete compres-
sive strengths. Each group comprised three post-tensioned SFRC
slabs and one post-tensioned slab without fibers (Table 2). Fiber
volume of particular slabs in a group varied from 0 up to 60 kg/m3.
Slabs in each group were cast from the same batch of concrete. The
 Author's personal copy

326 L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337

Table 1
Test results.

Group Slabs Dimensions Vf (kg/ fcm fcm,sp Vcr Vu ecu eps esu wu du Eb  106
m3) (MPa) (MPa) (kN) (kN) (‰) (‰) (‰) (mm) (mm) (N mm)
A S0A 2200  2200  150 mm 0 26.5 1.56 80 245 1.68 8.55 5.10 4.0 13.7 2643
S1 30 1.78 88 265 1.79 8.84 5.53 4.0 14.9 3135
S2 45 2.01 98 300 1.78 8.90 5.20 3.8 17.4 4076
S3 60 1.96 105 310 1.86 10.10 5.45 3.5 17.6 4385
B S0B 0 35.5 2.35 85 275 1.82 8.93 5.23 4.2 14.4 3064
S4 30 2.40 95 295 1.87 9.40 5.45 3.9 14.9 3409
S5 45 2.43 105 330 1.97 9.65 5.76 3.9 17.8 3927
S6 60 2.39 108 340 2.02 9.95 5.80 3.8 18.8 5112

observed slumps of SFRC and plain concrete were 110 mm and (Table 1). At punching failure of slabs, a large scale yielding of
130 mm, respectively. All slabs were cured under similar condi- re-bars in the middle of slabs was observed. Obtained strains,
tions (at the temperature of approximately 26 °C and humidity of esu = 0.51–0.58%, were significantly greater than the yield strain
around 70%) and tested after 28 days. (0.2%).

2.3. Test procedure and instrumentation 3.2. Load–displacement responses and energy absorption capacity

Particular slabs, simply supported by a steel frame on all their
four sides, were tested under a concentrated load acting on the col-
umn-stab in the middle of each slab (Figs. 1 and 3). Three linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were used to determine
deflections at the mid-span and at the quarter-span of each slab.
Eight electrical strain gauges, bonded on tendons and reinforcing
bars in two principal directions, were installed to measure steel
strains. Four another gauges were applied on top surface of slabs,
near the column face, to measure concrete strains. Metal pins were
fixed on bottom surface of slabs (Fig. 1) to measure widths of
cracks by using a digital deformeter with a level of precision of
0.001 mm. Slabs were loaded by a 1000 kN capacity hydraulic test-
ing machine up to failure, under the load control in increments of
20 kN. The loading rate was approximately 15 kN per minute. At
each load level, loading was stopped for about 3 min to enable
recording of deflections, concrete strains, strains in re-bars, and
crack development. All instrumentation locations are depicted in
Fig. 3.
3. Test results and discussion
3.1. Failure of specimens
Fig. 8 shows the load–displacement diagram for tested slabs.
The initial negative deflections are the consequence of prestress.
Afterwards, the behavior of slabs is practically bilinear, with the
point of slope change corresponding to the beginning of the crack
development. At the same load level, deflections of SFRC slabs were
smaller than those of slabs without fibers. Increase of the fiber vol-
ume resulted in the reduction of slab deflections.
In group A (slabs with fcm = 26.5 MPa), at the failure load level of
slabs without fibers, deflections of tested slabs with 30 kg/m3 of fi-
bers were reduced by approximately 9%. For slabs with 45 kg/m3
and 60 kg/m3 of fibers, deflections were decreased by 26% and
37%, respectively.
In group B (slabs with fcm = 35.5 MPa), the reduction of deflec-
tions was even more apparent. Fibers in the amount ranging from
30 kg/m3 to 60 kg/m3 caused the reduction of slab deflections from
27% to 42%.
Energy absorption capacity of tested slabs, Eb, was calculated as
the size of the area under the load–deflection curve. A considerable
increase of energy absorption capacity of slabs with fibers was ob-
served. The use from 30 kg/m3 to 60 kg/m3 of steel fibers caused an
increase of the energy absorption capacity from 15% to 39% for
slabs in group A, and from 10% to 40% for slabs in group B, respec-
tively (Table 1).

Patterns of punching shear cracks for some typical slabs are

shown in Fig. 4. For slabs without fibers, the distance between
the perimeter of the failure cone (on the top surface of the slab)
and the column surface was approximately 2.1D (D is the overall
depth of a slab). It corresponds to an angle of 25° of the punching
failure surface. For slabs with 30 kg/m3 and 45 kg/m3 of fibers, the
obtained distances were 2.6D and 2.8D, respectively, which
corresponds to angles of 21° and 19°, respectively. The amount of
60 kg/m3 of fibers, however, did not change the angle of the punch-
ing cone in comparison with the slabs with 45 kg/m3 of fibers
(Fig. 5). This fact implies that the increase of the fiber volume over
a certain limit may not influence further decrease of the angle of
the punching shear cone. The test results also show that the incli-
nation of the failure surface of tested slabs was not affected by the
concrete strength.
All tested slabs failed in punching shear, with yielding of ten-
dons. Prior to failure, strains in tendons, ep, ranged from 0.85% to
1.0% (Table 1), reaching slightly higher values than the measured
yield strain (0.84%). At slab failure, concrete strains, ecu, varied from
0.17% to 0.2%. Relationship between loads and strains in both, ten-
dons and concrete, is illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7. Increase of the
amount of fibers led to a moderate increase of tendon strains
3.3. Punching shear resistance
As it is evident from Table 2, steel fibers considerably enhance
punching shear resistances of slabs. The improvement appears to
depend on the amount of fibers used in tested slabs (Fig. 9). While
steel fibers in the amount of 30 kg/m3 led only to a slight improve-
ment of the punching shear resistances (8% in group A and 7% in
group B), the latter was increased considerably (up to 22% in group
A and 20% in group B) by using 45 kg/m3 of fibers. It has to be noted
that 60 kg/m3 of fibers resulted in a much slower increase of shear
resistances than it was expected (26% in group A and 24% in group
B). The results confirm that steel fibers are more effective for low-
er-strength concrete than they are for higher-strength concrete.
Further studies need to be carried out to ascertain the efficiency
of steel fibers in high performance concrete.
4. Theoretical investigation
Punching shear capacity of prestressed slabs depends not only
on effects of particular factors, such as concrete strength, presstre-
sed load, trajectory of tendons, slab dimensions, fiber volume or
 Author's personal copy

L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337 327

Table 2
Evaluation of the proposed formula.

Ref. Sign. of slabs L (mm) d (mm) c (mm) dp (mm) fc0 (MPa) q (%) Vf (%) fpc (MPa) Vu,exp (kN) Vu,theor (kN) Vu,theor/Vu,exp

Burn and Hamekon [7] SI5 1200 65 200 60 34 0.46 – 2.24 128.6 123.3 0.96
SI6 1200 65 200 60 34 0.46 – 2.24 152.6 123.3 0.81
SI7 1200 65 200 60 34 0.46 – 2.24 157 123.3 0.79
SI10 1200 65 200 60 34 0.46 – 2.24 162.4 123.3 0.76
Shehata [30] SP1 1840 157 150 140 36.5 0.27 – 3.94 988 994.3 1.01
SP4 1840 157 150 140 41.7 0.27 – 4.81 884 851.1 0.96
SP5 1840 157 150 140 40.9 0.27 – 3.28 780 818.6 1.05
SP6 1840 157 150 140 42.5 0.27 – 3.50 728 661.5 0.91
Kordina and Noltig [21] V1 2160 128 200 120 33.6 0.62 – 1.70 450 415 0.92
V2 2160 126 200 120 36 0.9 – 1.66 525 432 0.82
V3 2160 128 200 120 36 0.62 – 3.09 570 586 1.03
V5 160 128 200 75 30.4 0.62 – 1.77 375 281 0.75
V6 2160 128 200 120 31.2 0.62 – 1.77 475 412 0.87
V7 2160 128 200 120 35.2 0.62 – 1.77 518 431.9 0.83
Hassanzadeh [17] A1 2300 150 250 144 31 0.18 – 2.79 668 603.7 0.90
A2 2300 150 250 144 28.7 0.18 – 2.79 564 508.7 0.90
B2 2300 190 250 110 43.8 0.29 – 1.99 827 761 0.92
B3 2300 190 250 176 41.1 0.29 – 1.99 1113 1088 0.98
B4 2300 190 250 176 43.2 0.29 – 1.99 952 927 0.97
Correa [12] LP2 1600 105 150 65 52.4 1.17 – 2.19 355 330 0.93
LP3 1600 105 150 65 52.4 1.17 – 4.28 415 425 1.02
LP4 1600 105 150 104 50.7 1.17 – 0.80 390 321 0.82
LP5 1600 105 150 104 50.7 1.17 – 1.33 475 358 0.75
LP6 1600 105 150 104 52.4 1.17 – 1.76 437 391 0.90
Silva et al. [31] A1 1600 105 100 100 37.8 0.62 – 3.31 380 351 0.92
A2 1600 105 100 101.6 37.8 0.47 – 2.14 315 286 0.91
A3 1600 105 100 102.4 37.8 0.62 – 3.16 352 326 0.93
A4 1600 105 100 103.2 37.8 0.51 – 1.98 321 268 0.84
B1 1600 115 200 99.2 40.1 0.6 – 3.39 582 587 1.01
B2 1600 115 200 99.2 40.1 0.48 – 2.23 488 459 0.94
B3 1600 115 200 99.2 40.1 0.63 – 3.12 519 531 1.02
B4 1600 115 200 99.2 40.1 0.5 – 2.16 458 446 0.97
C1 1600 110 300 100.8 41.6 0.61 – 3.33 720 658 0.91
C2 1600 110 300 97.6 41.6 0.5 – 2.26 556 508 0.91
C3 1600 110 300 99.2 41.6 0.64 – 3.48 636 625 0.98
C4 1600 100 300 98.4 41.6 0.52 – 2.31 497 506 1.02
D1 1600 100 200 99.2 44.1 0.68 – 3.34 497 402 0.81
D2 1600 100 200 98.4 44.1 0.5 – 2.23 385 327 0.85
D3 1600 100 200 100 44.1 0.51 – 2.27 395 322 0.82
D4 1600 100 300 100 44.1 0.48 – 2.22 531 417 0.78
a
M4 2200 134 180 128 51.9 0.92 – 1.95 773 715.2 0.93
b
R9 2200 140 300 132 29 0.45 – 2.22 564 477.5 0.85
c
Ramos and Lúcio [28] AR8 1000 80 200 70 41.6 1.26 – – 380 283.9 0.78
AR10 1000 80 200 70 41.4 1.26 – – 371 286.1 0.77
AR11 1000 80 200 70 38 1.26 – – 342 270.1 0.79
AR12 1000 80 200 70 31.3 1.26 – – 280 265.6 0.95
AR13 1000 80 200 70 32.5 1.26 – – 261 253.7 0.97
AR14 1000 80 200 50 28.2 1.26 – – 208 201.5 0.97
AR15 1000 80 200 50 31.7 1.26 – – 262 209.4 0.8
AR16 1000 80 200 70 30.6 1.26 – – 351 267.3 0.76
Current tests S-0 2000 125 200 90 26.5 0.36 0 1.1 245 243.4 0.99
S-1 2000 125 200 90 26.5 0.36 0.38 1.1 265 269.8 1.02
S-2 2000 125 200 90 26.5 0.36 0.57 1.1 300 283.0 0.94
S-3 2000 125 200 90 26.5 0.36 0.76 1.1 310 296.3 0.96
S-4 2000 125 200 90 35.5 0.36 0 1.1 275 268.1 0.97
S-5 2000 125 200 90 35.5 0.36 0.38 1.1 295 297.2 1.01
S-6 2000 125 200 90 35.5 0.36 0.57 1.1 330 311.7 0.94
S-7 2000 125 200 90 35.5 0.36 0.76 1.1 340 326.3 0.96
Post-tensioned SFRC slabs
Mean 0.96
Coefficient of Variation (COV) 0.02
Post-tensioned SFRC and RC slabs
Mean 0.91
Coefficient of Variation (COV) 0.10
a
Melges [24].
b
Burns and Hemakon [6].
c
Transmission of the horizontal component of the prestressing force to the slab was avoided by test arrangement.
 Author's personal copy

Table 3

328
Comparison of the proposed formula and existing formulas from design codes.

Ref. Sign. of slabs L (mm) d (mm) c (mm) dp (mm) fc0 (MPa) fpc (MPa) Vp,EC-CEB (kN) Vp,ACI (kN) Vu,exp (kN) Vu,ACI/Vu,exp Vu,EC2/Vu,exp Vu,FIP-1990/Vu,exp Vu,FIP-2010/Vu,exp Vu,d,prop/Vu,exp

Burns and Hemakon [7] SI5 1200 65 200 60 34 2.24 0 0 128.6 0.89 0.72 0.72 0.88 0.69
SI6 1200 65 200 60 34 2.24 0 0 152.6 0.75 0.61 0.61 0.74 0.58
SI7 1200 65 200 60 34 2.24 0 0 157 0.73 0.59 0.59 0.72 0.57
SI10 1200 65 200 60 34 2.24 0 0 162.4 0.70 0.57 0.57 0.69 0.55
Shehata [30] SP1 1840 157 150 140 36.5 3.94 103.3 18.5 988 0.41 0.53 0.41 0.43 0.73
SP4 1840 157 150 140 41.7 4.81 100.5 21.0 884 0.52 0.66 0.54 0.56 0.70
SP5 1840 157 150 140 40.9 3.28 16.5 0.0 780 0.49 0.54 0.47 0.50 0.76
SP6 1840 157 150 140 42.5 3.5 35.3 0.0 728 0.55 0.62 0.52 0.56 0.66
Kordina and Nölting [21] V1 2160 128 200 120 33.6 1.7 113.9 65.7 450 0.67 0.88 0.71 0.65 0.67
V2 2160 126 200 120 36 1.66 105.9 60.6 525 0.57 0.79 0.65 0.55 0.60
V3 2160 128 200 120 36 3.09 200.6 115.6 570 0.69 0.95 0.71 0.66 0.74
V5 2160 128 200 75 30.4 1.77 0 0 375 0.67 0.73 0.67 0.60 0.54
V6 2160 128 200 120 31.2 1.77 117.1 67.5 475 0.63 0.83 0.66 0.61 0.63
V7 2160 128 200 120 35.2 1.77 121.9 70.3 518 0.61 0.79 0.64 0.59 0.60
Hassanzadeh [17] A1 2300 150 250 144 31 2.79 145.1 41.6 668 0.66 0.72 0.61 0.70 0.65

L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337

A2 2300 150 250 144 28.7 2.79 61.2 0 564 0.71 0.70 0.60 0.69 0.65
B2 2300 190 250 110 43.8 1.99 0 0 827 0.71 0.67 0.63 0.65 0.67
B3 2300 190 250 176 41.1 1.99 230 53.5 1113 0.55 0.70 0.56 0.58 0.71
B4 2300 190 250 176 43.2 1.99 111.8 0.0 952 0.62 0.70 0.57 0.58 0.70
Correa [12] LP2 1600 105 150 65 52.4 2.19 0 0 355 0.58 0.75 0.71 0.61 0.67
LP3 1600 105 150 65 52.4 4.28 0 0 415 0.61 0.76 0.69 0.60 0.74
LP4 1600 105 150 104 50.7 0.8 17 7.6 390 0.46 0.64 0.61 0.52 0.60
LP5 1600 105 150 104 50.7 1.33 29.1 13.0 475 0.41 0.57 0.53 0.46 0.55
LP6 1600 105 150 104 52.4 1.76 35.5 11.0 437 0.47 0.67 0.59 0.51 0.65
Silva et al. [31] A1 1600 105 100 100 37.8 3.31 50.8 9.0 380 0.46 0.69 0.58 0.56 0.67
A2 1600 105 100 102 37.8 2.14 48.9 10.0 315 0.49 0.70 0.58 0.61 0.66
A3 1600 105 100 102 37.8 3.16 17.4 0 352 0.47 0.64 0.56 0.53 0.67
A4 1600 105 100 103 37.8 1.98 16.4 0 321 0.45 0.59 0.52 0.49 0.60
B1 1600 115 200 99.2 40.1 3.39 92.5 32.4 582 0.54 0.67 0.53 0.55 0.73
B2 1600 115 200 99.2 40.1 2.23 61.8 29.9 488 0.56 0.64 0.53 0.57 0.68
B3 1600 115 200 99.2 40.1 3.12 48.7 12.6 519 0.56 0.66 0.54 0.53 0.74
B4 1600 115 200 99.2 40.1 2.16 47.1 12.5 458 0.57 0.65 0.53 0.54 0.70
C1 1600 110 300 101 41.6 3.33 104.3 40.5 720 0.54 0.59 0.48 0.56 0.66
C2 1600 110 300 97.6 41.6 2.26 63 35.4 556 0.62 0.61 0.51 0.61 0.66
C3 1600 110 300 99.2 41.6 3.48 61.6 17.7 636 0.60 0.62 0.51 0.57 0.71
C4 1600 100 300 98.4 41.6 2.31 50.9 15.4 497 0.60 0.58 0.49 0.63 0.74
D1 1600 100 200 99.2 44.1 3.34 46.9 10.0 497 0.51 0.59 0.50 0.53 0.59
D2 1600 100 200 98.4 44.1 2.23 46.8 12.1 385 0.59 0.65 0.54 0.67 0.61
D3 1600 100 200 100 44.1 2.27 31.3 0 395 0.55 0.60 0.51 0.61 0.59
D4 1600 100 300 100 44.1 2.22 72.3 39.9 531 0.60 0.58 0.51 0.71 0.57
a
M4 2200 134 180 128 51.9 1.95 61.2 26.8 773 0.43 0.58 0.51 0.41 0.67
b
R9 2200 140 300 132 29 2.22 0 0 564 0.68 0.62 0.62 0.65 0.90
Ramos and Lúcio[28] AR10 1000 80 200 70 41.4 – 56 56.0 371 0.42 0.53 0.53 0.59 0.56
AR11 1000 80 200 70 38 – 40 40.0 342 0.41 0.51 0.51 0.57 0.57
AR12 1000 80 200 70 31.3 – 66 66.0 280 0.53 0.68 0.68 0.74 0.69
AR13 1000 80 200 70 32.5 – 34 34.0 261 0.49 0.61 0.61 0.68 0.70
AR14 1000 80 200 50 28.2 – 0 0 208 0.46 0.56 0.56 0.65 0.70
AR15 1000 80 200 50 31.7 – 0 0 262 0.39 0.47 0.47 0.54 0.58
AR16 1000 80 200 70 30.6 – 74 74.0 351 0.43 0.56 0.56 0.61 0.55
c
S–0 2000 125 200 90 26.5 1.1 0 0 245 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.72
S–4 2000 125 200 90 35.5 1.1 0 0 275 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.88 0.71
Mean 0.58 0.66 0.58 0.61 0.66
COV 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.11
a
Melges [24].
b
Burns and Hemakon [6].
c
Current tests
 Author's personal copy

L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337 329

Axis of supporting steel frame (I — 250x200x12x8)

100
200 200 Holes for Strain gauge
anchorage bolts for tendons

Strain gauge

200 200
for concrete

2000
200 Tendons 200 200

100
Metal pin

100 2000 100 Re-bars

(a)
150
200 90
450
∅10@200
Tendons

1000 200 1000

Strain gauge
for re-bars 2200
(b)

(c)
Fig. 1. Arrangement of testing slabs. (a) Arrangement of metal pins and strain gauges for concrete. (b) Arrangement of tendons and their strain gauges. (c) Arrangement of
minimum reinforcement and their strain gauges. (All dimensions shown are in mm.)

y y MPa
y

+2,13
x
+2,13

x x
σx - bottom surface σy - bottom surface
130 kN per tendon 130 kN per tendon

Fig. 2. Computed stresses in tested slabs after application of prestressing forces.

another technical parameters of fibers, but also on their cross-
interaction. Empirical formulas presented in ACI Building Code
[1], EC 2 [14b], CEB-FIP MC 90 [9a], CEB-FIP MC 2010 [9b], CAN-
A23.3 [8], BS 8110 [5], and AS 3600 [4] are, therefore, often of lim-
ited use. Hence the need to develop a more suitable model for
punching shear analysis of slabs, which would satisfy not only
the equilibrium of internal stresses, but also compatibility condi-
tions and material constitutive laws in slabs.
4.1. Proposed formula
Development of stresses at the critical section is a three-dimen-
sional stress state [29]. However, it can be transformed to two-
dimensional compressive and shear stresses, rc = rc1 and sc = sc1
(Fig. 10), according to EC 2 [14b] and CEB-FIB MC 90 [9a].
Punching shear capacity of slab–column connections can be
determined based on the flat slab model as follows:
 Author's personal copy

330 L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337

150 200
Steel
beam LVDT1 LVDT2 LVDT3

Steel plate
200×200×25
Anchorage bolt- Ø32
800

Hydraulic testing
machine
Steel
support

Strong floor

100 500 500 500 500 100

2200

Fig. 3. Details of test slab and test arrangement.

30
Angle of punching shear cone
25
(degrees)

20

15 Group A, fcm = 26.5 MPa

Group B, fcm = 35.5 MPa

10
0 15 30 45 60
3
Fiber amount (kg/m )

Fig. 5. Effect of fiber amount on angle of punching shear cone of tested slabs.

Hp þ F f sin a þ F s ¼ F c ; ð2Þ

V c þ V p þ V F ¼ V re;1 ; ð3Þ
a 
T
V re1 ðaC  aT Þ þ V F þ V c aT ¼ F c ½dp  ðxpunch  xT Þ þ F s ðd  dp Þ:
2
ð4Þ
In Eq. (2), the horizontal component of forces in tendons Hp (N) is
given:
Hp ¼ F p cos h: ð5Þ
Forces in tendons Fp (N) can be calculated from the equation:
F p ¼ Eps eps AP nP ; ð6Þ
2
where Eps (MPa) is the elastic modulus of tendons; Ap (mm ) is the
Fig. 4. Typical failure pattern of tested slabs–bottom face. (a) without fibers; (b)
with fibers – 30 kg/m3; and (c) with fibers – 45 kg/m3.
area of the tendon cross-section; np is the number of tendons ar-
ranged in each direction; eps is the ultimate strain in tendons.
Tam and Pannell [34] suggest to determine the strain eps in unbond-
ed tendons from the formula:
V u ¼ V u1 þ V u2 ; ð1Þ
eps ¼ epe þ uec;punch ðdp  xpunch Þ=L1 : ð7Þ
where Vu1 and Vu2 are shear resistances of two orthogonal beams of Here, u = 10 is an experimental coefficient [34]; epe = fpc/Eps is the
spans L1 and L2 (Fig. 10) that represent distances between two effective elastic strain in tendons; fpc = RP/A (MPa) is the mean pre-
inflection points of the deflection curve of real slabs. Taking into ac- stress of concrete; P (N) is prestressing force in a tendon; A = L2D
count contributions of both, prestress and fibers, the equilibrium of (mm2) is the area of the slab cross-section; xpunch (mm) is the depth
the free body of the beam (Fig. 11) can be expressed by the follow- of the concrete compressive zone at punching failure; dp (mm) is
ing equations: the depth to tendons (Figs. 10 and 11). Compressive strain of
 Author's personal copy

L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337 331

400 400
Group A, fcm = 26.5 MPa Group B, fcm = 35.5 MPa

300 300

Load (kN)
200 200
S0A-0 kg/m3 S0B-0 kg/m3
S1-30 kg/m3 S4-30 kg/m3
100 100
S2-45 kg/m3 S5-45 kg/m3
S3-60 kg/m3 S6-60 kg/m3
0 0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Strain in tendon (%) Strain in tendon (%)

Fig. 6. Load–tendon strain diagrams of tested slabs.

400 400
Group A, f cm = 26.5 MPa Group B, fcm = 35.5 MPa

300 300
Load (kN)

200 200
S0A-0 kg/m3 S0B-0 kg/m3
S1-30 kg/m3 S4-30 kg/m3
100 100
S2-45 kg/m3 S5-45 kg/m3
S3-60 kg/m3 S6-60 kg/m3
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Concrete strain (%) Concrete strain (%)

Fig. 7. Load–concrete strain diagrams of tested slabs.

350 1.30
Group A, fcm = 26.5 MPa
300
Vu,exp / Vu,exp,0

250
Load (kN)

1.20
200
150 S0A-0 kg/m3
S1-30 kg/m3 1.10
100
S2-45 kg/m3
50 S3-60 kg/m3 Group A
Group B
0 1.00
-3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 15 30 45 60 75
Fiber amount (kg/m3)
350 Group B, fcm = 35.5 MPa
300 Fig. 9. Punching resistance vs. fiber amounts of the tested slabs.
250
Load (kN)

200
S0B-0 kg/m3
150
Vre,2

S4-30 kg/m3 Support line

100
S5-45 kg/m3
α

50 S6-60 kg/m3
0
bcr,2

-3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
L2
c2

Mid-span displacement (mm) c1

Fig. 8. Load–displacement diagrams of tested slabs. Critical
perimeter σc2
Vre,2

bcr,1
σc1 σc1
concrete corresponding to the punching failure is approximately ec,-
σc2 c1
punch = 0.002 [20]. c1
c2
Upon substituting Eqs. (6) and (7) into (5), the horizontal com- α
ponent of the tendon force can be calculated as follows:
Vre,1 σc1 σc1
L1 Vre,1
Hp ¼ Eps AP nP ½epe þ uecu ðdp  xpunch Þ=L1  cos h: ð8Þ c1

In Eq. (2), the contribution of steel fibers Ff (N) can be expressed as

Fig. 10. Idealized beam model.
([26]):
nf Lf V f aT
F f ¼ 0:82 ðc2 þ aT Þ s; ð9Þ where gf, Vf (%), Lf (mm), Df (mm) are bond factor, volume fraction,
Df cos a
length and diameter of fibers, respectively (gf see in the List of Sym-
 Author's personal copy

332 L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337

σ centroid of area of
stress-strain diagram
fc
σc,punch

tendons

α T

εcT εo ε
rebars
εc,punch

Vu,1 σc,punch
εc,punch

xpunch
Fc
α εcT

xT
dp Ff VF
Vc

zC

D
d
M
z
Hp εps
εs
Fs Fp
Vp θ
Vre,1 aT
aC 0.5c1
L1/2

Fig. 11. Free body diagram of a simply supported beam and geometrical assumptions for shear crack.

bols); for rectangular section of fibers, Df can be determined as the Upon substituting Eqs. (13)–(16) into Eq. (12), compressive force in
equivalent diameter; c2 (mm) is the dimension of the column cross- concrete, Fc, can be expressed by the equation:
section; s is the average bond stress at the fiber–matrix interface, "   2 #
ec;punch ec;punch x2punch
dependent on the fiber shape (bond factor gf), s = 4.15 MPa [33]. F c ¼ bcr;1 fc0 xpunch  : ð17Þ
Projected length aT (mm) of the diagonal crack is determined as e0 e0 3
(Fig. 11):
Upon further substituting Eqs. (8), (9), (11), and (17) into (2) and
aT ¼ ðd  xpunch Þ= tan a: ð10Þ using the MatLab program Ver. 6.5, the depth of the concrete com-
pressive zone at punching failure, xpunch (mm), can be approxi-
The tensile force, Fs, in longitudinal re-bars is calculated based on
mately calculated (with variation of ±4.5%) from the expression:
the assumption of yielding of steel re-bars:
qffiffiffiffi
3
F s ¼ As fy ¼ qbcr1 dfy : ð11Þ xpunch ¼ 6:25 fc0 ð0:2f pc þ 0:3Þð24:5V f þ 1Þðq
Here, bcr,1 = c2 + 2d/tan a (Fig. 10), is the width of the cross-section þ 0:015Þbcr;1 ðd=1000Þ1:1 : ð18Þ
of the first beam; q is the tensile reinforcement ratio; fy (MPa) is
the yielding stress of tensile reinforcement; d (mm) is the effective The distance xT in Eq. (4) is given as follows (Fig. 11):
depth of the slab. xT ¼ ðecT xpunch Þ=ec;punch ; ð19Þ
The compressive force in concrete Fc (N) can be expressed as:
Z where ecT is the compressive strain of concrete at the centroid of the
xpunch
area under the stress–strain diagram, which can be obtained when
F c ¼ bcr;1 rc dx: ð12Þ
0 calculating the integral:
Z ec;punch  Z ec;punch 
The compressive stress in concrete rc can be determined [18] from
the equation:
ecT ¼ ec rc dec rc dec : ð20Þ
0 0

rc ðec Þ ¼ fc0 ½2ðec =e0 Þ  ðec =e0 Þ2 ; ð13Þ Upon substituting Eqs. (13)–(15) into (20) and resolving the inte-
gral, Eq. (20) obtains the form:
where fc0 (MPa) is the mean cylinder compressive strength of con-
pffiffiffiffi
crete; e0 is the compressive strain at peak stress: 3:45  2 fc0
ecT ¼ ec;punch pffiffiffiffi : ð21Þ
e0 ¼ 2fc0 =Ec ; ð14Þ 4:60  3 fc0
qffiffiffiffi Upon substituting Eq. (21), Eq. (19) gives:
Ec ¼ 4700 fc0 : ð15Þ pffiffiffiffi
3:45  2 fc0
xT ¼ xpunch pffiffiffiffi : ð22Þ
Assuming the linear strain diagram (Fig. 11), the compressive strain 4:60  3 fc0
of concrete, ec, is given by:
In Eq. (4), zC is the arm of internal forces (Fig. 11):
ec ¼ ðec;punch xÞ=xpunch : ð16Þ
zC ¼ d  ðxpunch  xT Þ: ð23Þ
 Author's personal copy

L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337 333

1400 0:2  0:33  q 0:2

V re1 ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi X fc0 ðfpc
4
d=1000 100
1200
  
V f þ 3:5 Vp
1000 þ 5Þ þ 500 bcr;1 d; ð26Þ
100 1000
Vu,theor (kN)

800
Coefficient X can be calculated from the equation:
600
X ¼ ðdp =L1 Þ0:35 =½ðc2 =dÞ0:1 ðL1 =d  c1 =dÞ: ð27Þ
400

200 Mean : 0.91 The shear capacity of the first beam, Vu,1 (N), can be expressed as
COV : 0.10 follows:
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 V u;1 ¼ 2V re;1
Vu,exp (kN) 0:4  0:33  q 0:2
¼p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi X fc0 ðfpc
Fig. 12. Comparison between predicted and experimental punching shear
4
d=1000 100
capacities.
  
V f þ 3:5 Vp
þ 5Þ þ 500 bcr;1 d: ð28Þ
100 1000
The shear force across the compression zone, Vc, can be expressed The shear capacity of the second beam, Vu,2 (N), can be determined
from Eq. (3): by equating the mid-span deflections of both beams:
V c ¼ V re;1  V p  V F ; ð24Þ   3
bcr;2 L1
V u;2 ¼ V u;1 : ð29Þ
where Vp = Fp sin h. bcr;1 L2
Considering Eq. (24), Eq. (4) can be rewritten as follows:
Upon substituting Eqs. (28) and (29) into the Eq. (1), the semi-
V re1 ¼ fðV p þ V F =2ÞaT þ F c ½dp  ðxpunch  xT Þ þ F s ðd empirical formula for punching shear resistance of the interior SFRC
 dp Þg=aC : ð25Þ slab–column connections obtains its final form:
!
bcr;2 L31 0:4  q 0:2
The angle of the punching cone of post-tensioned slab–column con- Vu ¼ 1þ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Xðfc0 Þ0:33 ðfpc
bcr;1 L23 100
nection was found out to vary from 20° to 30° [30,28]). Assuming 4
d=1000
the angle equal to 30°, substituting Eqs. (8)–(11), (18), (22), and   
V f þ 3:5 Vp
(23) into Eq. (25), and using the MatLab program Ver. 6.5, the reac- þ 5Þ þ 500 bcr;1 d: ð30Þ
100 1000
tion Vre1 can be approximated in the following form (with variation
of ±1.4%): For square slabs and square column cross-sections, Eq. (30) obtains
a simplified form:

2.0 2.0
(a) (b)
Vu,theor / Vu,exp

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
fc’ (MPa) fpc (MPa)
0.0 0.0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 1 2 3 4 5

2.0 2.0
(c) (d)
Vu,theor / Vu,exp

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
d (mm) L/d
0.0 0.0
50 100 150 200 10 12 14 16 18 20

2.0 2.0
(e) (f)
Vu,theor / Vu,exp

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
dp/d Vf (%)
0.0 0.0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Fig. 13. Evaluation of proposed formula for various parameters: (a) fc0 ; (b) fpc; (c) d; (d) L/d; (e) dp/d; and (f) Vf.
 Author's personal copy

334 L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337

1.00 5. Evaluation of proposed formula

5.1. Comparison of theoretical and test results

Vu,d / Vu,exp

0.75
Theoretical resistances calculated by the proposed formula
(Table 2) were compared not only with already published 52
0.50
experimental results of post-tensioned simply supported flat slabs
without fibers ([7,30,21,17,12,31,28]), but also with the results of
ACI-318-08 EC2-2004 CEB-FIB MC-90 Proposed CEB-FIB MC-2010 experiments of post-tensioned flat slabs with steel fibers per-
0.25
Tests formed within the presented study. The main influence factors var-
ied as follows: concrete strength fc0 from 20.5 to 52.4 MPa, effective
Fig. 14. Comparison of design to experimental punching resistance ratio.
depth of slab d from 75 to 220 mm, span to effective depth ratio L/d
from 11.7 to 20, effective concrete prestress fpc from 1.1 to 4.8 MPa,
0:8  q 0:2 and fiber volume Vf from 0.38% to 0.76%. Mean value (Mean) and
Vu ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Xðfc0 Þ0:33 ðfpc coefficient of variation (COV) of the ratio Vu,theor/Vu,exp (Table 2)
4
d=1000 100
   show a good agreement of punching shear capacities estimated
V f þ 3:5 Vp by the proposed formula with the experimental results. While for
þ 5Þ þ 500 bcr d; ð31Þ
100 1000 slabs without fibers, Mean = 0.91 and the corresponding
COV = 0.10, for post-tensioned SFRC slabs, Mean = 0.96 and
where X is given by Eq. (27). Symbols used in Eqs. (27) and (30) are
COV = 0.02. Comparison of theoretical punching shear resistances
described in the List of Symbols.

1200 1200
ACI-318-08 EC 2-2004
1000 1000 Mean : 0.66
Mean : 0.58
COV : 0.23 COV : 0.16
800 800
Vu,EC2 (kN)
Vu,ACI (kN)

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Vu,exp (kN) Vu,exp (kN)

1200 1200
CEB-FIB MC 90 Proposed
1000 1000
Mean : 0.58 Mean : 0.66
Vu,FIB -1990 (kN)

800 COV : 0.15 COV : 0.11

Vu,d,prop (kN)

800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Vu,exp (kN) Vu,exp (kN)

1200
CEB-FIB MC 2010
1000
Mean : 0.61
COV : 0.16
Vu,FIB 2010 (kN)

800

600

400

200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Vu,exp (kN)

Fig. 15. Comparison of design and experimental punching shear resistances.

 Author's personal copy

Table 4
Quantification of individual contributions in total punching shear resistance.

Ref. Sign. of slabs Vu,pred Contribution of concrete Vc Contribution of prestressing force Contribution of fibers Ff
Horizontal. component Hp Vertical component Vp
% kN % kN % kN % kN % kN
RC flat slabs prestressed by tendons with parabolic trajectory
Kordina et al. [21] V1 100 415.5 47.2 196.1 25.4 105.4 27.4 113.9 – –
V2 100 431.7 50.5 218.0 24.9 107.6 24.5 105.9 – –
V3 100 585.8 27.6 161.5 38.2 223.8 34.2 200.6 – –
V6 100 411.9 45.4 187.1 26.1 107.7 28.4 117.1 – –
V7 100 431.9 45.6 197.1 26.1 112.9 28.2 121.9 – –
Shehata [30] SP1 100 994.3 45.5 452.8 44.1 438.2 10.4 103.3 – –
SP4 100 851.1 56.1 477.9 32.0 272.7 11.8 100.5 – –
SP5 100 818.6 58.4 477.8 39.6 324.3 2.0 16.5 – –
SP6 100 661.5 73.1 483.5 21.6 142.7 5.3 35.3 – –
Hassanzadeh [17] A1 100 603.7 40.2 242.4 35.8 216.2 24.0 145.1 – –
A2 100 508.7 52.6 267.4 35.4 180.1 12.0 61.2 – –
B3 100 1088 74.2 807.7 4.6 50.3 21.1 230.0 – –

L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337

B4 100 927.0 83.3 772.3 4.6 42.9 12.1 111.8 – –
b
LP4 100 321.0 80.9 259.7 13.8 44.3 5.3 17.0 – –
LP5 100 358.0 70.9 253.7 21.0 75.2 8.1 29.1 – –
LP6 100 391.0 64.9 253.7 26.0 101.8 9.1 35.5 – –
Silva et al. [31] A1 100 351.0 45.7 160.3 39.8 139.8 14.5 50.9 – –
A2 100 286.0 52.9 151.3 30.0 85.7 17.1 49.0 – –
A3 100 326.0 55.9 182.4 38.7 126.2 5.3 17.4 – –
A4 100 268.0 65.5 175.6 28.4 76.0 6.1 16.4 – –
B1 100 587.0 43.8 257.3 40.4 237.2 15.8 92.5 – –
B2 100 459.0 55.7 255.6 30.8 141.6 13.5 61.8 – –
B3 100 531.0 52.4 278.3 38.4 204.0 9.2 48.7 – –
B4 100 446.0 59.3 264.4 30.2 134.5 10.6 47.1 – –
C1 100 658.0 44.2 290.7 40.0 263.0 15.8 104.3 – –
C2 100 508.0 56.5 286.8 31.1 158.1 12.4 63.0 – –
C3 100 625.0 49.1 306.9 41.0 256.5 9.9 61.6 – –
C4 100 506.0 58.3 295.2 31.6 159.9 10.1 50.9 – –
D1 100 402.0 48.3 194.1 40.0 161.0 11.7 46.9 – –
D2 100 327.0 54.8 179.3 30.8 100.9 14.3 46.9 – –
D3 100 322.0 59.1 190.2 31.2 100.5 9.7 31.3 – –
D4 100 417.0 51.9 216.4 30.7 128.2 17.4 72.4 – –
a
M4 100 715.2 63.4 453.3 28.1 200.7 8.6 61.2 – –
Mean 55.3 30.4 14.3
RC flat slabs prestressed by tendons with straight trajectory
Burns and Hemakon [7] SI5 100 123.3 69.1 85.2 30.9 38.1 – – – –
SI6 100 123.3 69.1 85.2 30.9 38.1 – – – –
SI7 100 123.3 69.1 85.2 30.9 38.1 – – – –
SI10 100 123.3 69.1 85.2 30.9 38.1 – – – –
d
V5 100 281.0 73.9 207.5 26.1 73.5 – – – –
e
B2 100 761.0 69.8 531.2 30.2 229.8 – – – –
b
LP2 100 330.0 69.5 229.5 30.5 100.5 – – – –
LP3 100 425.0 53.9 229.0 46.1 196.0 – – – –
c
R9 100 477.5 69.3 330.7 30.7 146.8 – – – –
Mean 68.1 31.9
SFRC flat slabs prestressed by tendons with straight trajectory
The current tests S-1 100 269.8 62.3 168.1 18.0 48.7 – – 19.7 53.1
S-2 100 283.0 54.0 152.9 18.0 51.0 – – 27.9 79.1

(continued on next page)

335
 Author's personal copy

336 L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337

with the experimental ones is shown in Fig. 12. In Fig. 13, the ratio
Contribution of fibers Ff

Vu,theor/Vu,exp is plotted against the following six parameters: mean

compressive strength of concrete fc0 ; effective concrete prestress
fpc; effective depth of slab d; span to effective depth ratio L/d; depth
of tendons to the effective slab depth dp/d; and fiber volume Vf.
Small scatter of Vu,theor/Vu,exp for all investigated parameters con-
firms stability of the proposed formula for prediction of
75.1
52.2
77.7
86.5
kN

resistances.
Due to admittedly rather limited number of tested post-ten-
sioned SFRC flat slabs in the presented study, there is a need for
25.3
17.6
24.9
26.5
23.7

further testing, based on which the limits of validity and reliability

%

assessment of the proposed design formula would be specified

more precisely.

5.2. Comparison of the proposed design formula and design formulas

Vertical component Vp

given in codes
kN
–
–
–
–

Based on 52 results of punching shear tests on post-tensioned

slabs without fibers (Table 2) and using the evaluation procedure
according to EC0 [14a] a design resistance model comprising a
safety factor of 0.83 was derived. Since properties of concrete from
%
–
–
–
–

a real structure (cast in situ) may be worse than properties of con-

Contribution of prestressing force

crete specimens cured in a laboratory, the following factor = 1.15

was used [14b]. Upon using the final value of the safety factor of
0.72 (= 0.83  1/1.15), the design punching shear resistance Vu,d,prop
Horizontal. component Hp

can be calculated from the formula:

53.4
53.6
56.2
58.8
kN

0:576  q 0:2
V u;d;prop ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Xðfc0 Þ0:33 ðfpc
4
d=1000 100
  
V f þ 3:5 Vp
þ 5Þ þ 500 bcr d: ð32Þ
100 1000
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
%

Results obtained by means of the formula (Eq. (32)) were compared

with the results obtained from several design formulas presented in
ACI 318 [1], EC2 [14b], CEB-FIB MC 2010 [9b], and CEB-FIB MC 90
[9a]. The mean values and the COVs of the design to experimental
Contribution of concrete Vc

punching shear capacity ratios are summarized in Table 3 and

167.8
191.4
177.8
181.0

Fig. 14. All chosen design formulas provide safe results, implying
kN

thus their suitability for punching shear design. Among the investi-
gated design formulas from codes, the formula according to ACI 318
[1] provides the most conservative results (Mean = 0.58, the corre-
sponding COV = 0.23). The proposed design formula (Mean = 0.66,
56.6
64.4

55.5
58.3

COV = 0.11) gives results with evidently the smallest scatter in com-
57.0
%

parison with the formulas from codes. While with the increasing
values of design resistances calculated according to the codes the
obtained results become more and more conservative, for resis-
296.3
297.2
311.7
326.3

tances of over 650–700 kN, the ‘‘safety’’ of the proposed formula

kN

seems to remain quasi-constant (Fig. 15).

Vu,pred

100
100
100
100

5.3. Contribution of concrete strength, prestressing force and volume of

%

steel fibers to punching shear resistance

The calculated contributions of the following factors: concrete

Sign. of slabs

shear force Vc (Eq. (24)), horizontal component Hp (Eq. (5)), vertical

component Vp = Fp sin h of prestressing force Fp (Eq. (6)), and steel
S-3
S-5
S-6
S-7

fiber force Ff (Eq. (9)) to the total punching shear resistance Vu,pred
of tested slabs are presented in Table 4. The results show that the
largest contribution to the punching shear capacity is provided by
Kordina and Nölting [21].
Burns and Hemakon [6].

concrete (about 60%). The obtained theoretical contribution of the

vertical component of the prestressing force (approximately 14%)
Hassanzadeh [17].

is in a good agreement with the experimental observations by Ra-

Table 4 (continued)

Melges [24].

mos and Lúcio [28]. For post-tesioned RC slabs, the contribution of

Correa [12].

prestress by straight tendons (32%) is lower than the contribution

of prestress by curved tendons (45%), the latter almost being equal
Mean
Ref.

to the sum of particular contributions of both, fibers and prestress

c
b
a

by straight tendons (46%). For post-tesioned SFRC slabs, the

 Author's personal copy
L. Nguyen-Minh et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 324–337
contribution of fibers themselves (24%) is slightly higher than the
contribution of prestress by straight tendons (18%). The surpris-
ingly small contribution of the prestressing force is evidently
caused by the small effective concrete prestress (fcp = 1.1 MPa).
6. Summary and conclusions
Based on the results obtained in the study, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
1. The increasing amount of steel fibers (30–60 kg/m3) in flat slabs
results in the increase of both, the punching shear resistance
(8–26%) and the energy absorption capacity (10–40%) in com-
parison to slabs without fibers. The effect of steel fibers on
punching shear resistance of higher-strength concrete slabs
has shown to be lower than that of lower-strength concrete
slabs.
2. Among the investigated design formulas, the formula by ACI
318-08 gives the most conservative results. Despite providing
slightly lower conservative resistances, the proposed design
formula appears to be the most stable, with a quasi-constant
‘‘safety’’ level.
3. Punching shear resistances predicted by the proposed formula
provide a very good agreement with the test results for both,
post-tensioned slabs with or without steel fibers. It has shown
that the use of fibers may simplify prestressing with regard to
the shape of tendons (i.e. to use only straight tendons) and to
the size of the prestressing force. Furthermore, fibers can be
very useful in the transfer of additional, redistributed stresses,
which may arise as a result of prestress losses in tendons.
4. It is necessary to point out that in order to provide a more com-
plex assessment of the effect of steel fibers on punching shear
resistances of SFRC post-tensioned slabs, further punching tests
need to be performed, namely for slabs with higher effective
prestresses and for higher-performance fiber concrete.
Acknowledgments
This research is funded by Vietnam National University Ho Chi
Minh City (VNU-HCM) under grant number B2012-20-36 and
BEKAERT Singapore Ltd. The experimental investigation of this
study was conducted at Structural Engineering Laboratory at Ho
Chi Minh City University of Technology of Vietnam.
References
[1] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and
commentary (ACI 318-08/ACI 318R-08). American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
MI; 2005. 430p.
[2] ACI-ASCE 445R-99. Recent approaches to shear design of concrete structures.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Committee 445; 1999. 55p.
[3] Alexander SDB, Simmonds SH. Punching shear tests of concrete slab–column
joints containing fiber reinforcement. ACI Struct J 1992;89(4):425–32.
[4] AS 3600. Australian standard for concrete structures. Standards Association of
Australia; 1994. 110p.
[5] BS 8110: Part 1. Structural use of concrete: code of practice for design and
construction. British Standard Institution, London; 1997. 168p.
[6] Burns NH, Hemakon R. Test of post-tensioned flat plate with banded tendons. J
Struct Div, ASCE 1985;111(9):1899–915.
337
[7] Burns NH, Hemakon R. Test of scale model post-tensioned flat plate. J Struct
Div, ASCE 1977;103(ST6):1237–55.
[8] CAN-A23.3-04. Code for the design of concrete structures for buildings.
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont.; 2004. 258p.
[9] (a) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Design code. Comité Euro-International du
Béton, Redwood Books, England; 1993. 437p.
(b) CEB-FIP Model Code 2010. First complete draft - Volume 2. Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2010, 311p.
[10] Cheng MY, Parra-Montesinos GJ. Evaluation steel fibers reinforcement for
punching shear resistance in slab–column connections – Part 1: Monotonically
increased load. ACI Struct J 2010;107(1):101–9.
[11] Cheng MY, Parra-Montesinos GJ. Evaluation steel fibers reinforcement for
punching shear resistance in slab–column connections – Part 2: Lateral
displacement reversals. ACI Struct J 2010;107(1):110–8.
[12] Corrêa GS. Puncionamento em Lajes Cogumelo Protendidas com Cabos Não
Aderentes. M.Sc. dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Brasília, Brazil; 2001. 153p.
[13] CSI. SAFE ver. 12.3.0. Berkeley (CA): Computer and Structures, Inc.; 2012.
<http://www.csiberkeley.com>.
[14] (a) EC0. Eurocode 0 - Basis of structural design. EN 1990:2002, European
Commitee for Standardization, 87p.
(b) EC2. Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures. EN 1992:2004, Part 1 – 1:
General rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for
Standardization, 225p.
[15] Feretzakis A. Flat slabs and punching shear: reinforcement systems. MSc
thesis, University of Dundee, UK; 2005.
[16] Harajli MH, Maalouf D, Khatib H. Effect of fibers on the punching shear
strength of slab–column connections. Cem Concr Compos 1995;17:161–70.
[17] Hassanzadeh G. Betongplattor pa Pelare: Dimensionerings Metoder för Plattor
Med Icke Vidhäftande Spännarmering. TRITA-BKN Bulletin 43, Institutionen
för Byggkonstruktion, Kungl-Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm, Sweden; 1998.
p. 110–30.
[18] Hognestad E. A study of combined bending and axial load in reinforced
concrete members. University of Illinois engineering experimental station,
bulletin series no. 399, November; 1951. 128p.
[19] Kang THW, Wallace JW. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete slab–
column connections with thin plate stirrups. ACI Struct J 2008;105(5):617–25.
[20] Kinnunen S, Nylander H. Punching of concrete slabs without shear
reinforcement. Transactions no. 158. Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm; 1960. 112p.
[21] Kordina K, Nölting D. Tragfähigkeit durchstanzgefährdeter stahlbetonplatten.
Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Berlin, Germany; 1986. 60p.
[22] McHarg PJ, Cook WD, Mitchell D, Young-Soo Y. Benefits of concentrated slab
reinforcement and steel fibers on performance of slab–column connections.
ACI Struct J 2000;97(2):225–34.
[23] Megally S, Ghali A. Punching shear design of earthquake resistant slab–column
connections. ACI Struct J 2000;97(5):720–30.
[24] Melges JLP. Análise Experimental da Punção em Lajes de Concreto Armado e
Protendido. PhDEng thesis, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Universidade
de São Paulo, São Carlos, Brasil; 2000. 350p.
[25] Naaman AE, Likhitruangsilp V, Parra-Montesinos GJ. Punching shear response
of high performance-fiber-reinforced-cementitious composite slabs. ACI Struct
J 2007;104(2):170–9.
[26] Narayanan R, Darwish IYS. Use of steel fibers as shear reinforcement. ACI
Struct J 1987;84(3):216–27.
[27] Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK. Seismic responses of exterior RC column to
steel beam connections. J Struct Eng 2000;126(10):1112–21.
[28] Ramos A, Lúcio V. Safety on punching of prestressed flat slabs. In: Proceedings
of the 2nd international congress, FIB, June 5–8, 2006, Naples, Italy.
[29] Regan PE, Braestrup MW. Punching shear in reinforced concrete. A state of art
report by CEB Bull. 168, Lausanne, January; 1985. 232p.
[30] Shehata IA. Punching of prestressed and non-prestressed reinforced concrete
flat slabs. MSc thesis, Polytechnic of Central London, London; 1982. 336p.
[31] Silva RJC, Regan PE, Melo GSSA. Punching of post tensioned slabs-tests and
codes. ACI Struct J 2007;104(2):123–32.
[32] Silva, RJC. Punção em Lajes Cogumelo Protendida. PhD thesis, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasília, Brasil; 2004. 223p.
[33] Swamy RN, Mangat PS, Rao CVSK The mechanics of fibre reinforcement of
cement-matrices. Fibre Reinforced Concrete, ACI SP-44;1974. 1–28.
[34] Tam A, Pannell FN. Ultimate moment of resistance of unbonded partially
prestressed reinforced concrete beams. Mag Concr Res 1976;28(97):203–8.
[35] Theodorakopoulos DD, Swamy N. Contribution of steel fibers to the strength
characteristics of lightweight concrete slab–column connections falling in
punching shear. ACI Struct J 1993;90(4):342–55.