Structural Concrete

2000,1,

No.3

Sept., 143-149

Ultimate limit state of punching in

the (fib) FIP recommendationsfor
the design of post-tensioned slabs
and foundations
v. J. G.Lcio

New University

J. A.5. Appleton
J. F. Almelda

Technical

of Lisbon, Portugal
University

of Lisbon, Portugal

Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal

Thls paper descrlbes the formulatlon of the Ultlmate LlmltState of punchlng reslstance of prestressed slabs proposed In the new FIP Recomo
mendatlons for the deslgn of post-tensloned slabs and foundatlon rafts. The prestress effects were consldered on the actlon slde deflnlng an effectlve applled punchlng load. For the evaluatlon of the punchlng reslstance, CEB-FIP Model Code 90 was followed. An example of the
appllcatlon of thls method to an Interior column of a prestressed flat slab 15presented.

Introductlon
After the publication of CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (MC90)
became

necessary

it

to update the previous FIP recommendations

for the design of flat slabs in post-tensioned concrete,

in 1980. The new document,

'Recommendations

post-tensioned slabs and foundation rafts',

2 published
for the design of

This new formulation considers a rectangular distribution, over

was prepared by a

working group of FIP Commission

3 on practical design, and was

finally published in 1999 by SETO(for the fib).
The ultimate limit state of punching resistance of prestressed
slabs is one of the subjects revised in the documento In that revi sion the concept of prestress as an action was considered in the
quantification ofthe applied punching load. The effects ofthe pre
stress (isostatic and hyperstatic) on the punching load are sepa
rated into the effects
of the equivalent
prestress
forces
perpendicular to the slab plan and the effects of equivalent pre
stress forces in the plane of the slab (compression
due to
prestress).
The equivalent prestress forces perpendicular to the slab plane
include the moments due to eccentricities at the anchorages and
the transversal deviation forces of the strands. For the evaluation
of the effects of these forces on the punching force, the deviation
forces within a perimeter at 0.5 h from the periphery of the column
1464-4177 @ 2000 Thomas Telford Ltd and fib
------ -

--

may be considered to be transferred directly to the column re

ducing the value of the effective punching load.
The eccentricity of the punching force is taken into account
using the formulation presented in MC90. 1
the control perimeter, of the shear stresses that equilibrate part
of the moment transferred between the column and the slab. This
method is much less conservative than the one previously
adopted in MC78, which used a triangular distribution ofthe shear
stresses.4

For the quantification of the punching resistance, with or

without transversal reinforcement, the formulation proposed by
MC90 is adopted. The quantification ofthe punching resistance is

column equal to 2 d, allowing resistant

made

considering

a control

perimeter

at a distance
shear

from the

stresses

for

punching to equal the ones used for the shear resistance of slabs,
and avoiding the previous difficulties in the case of large columns.
The quantification of the maximum punching resistance is more
rational than before since the crushing resistance of the concrete
in the column perimeter governs it. In this way the value of the
maximum punching resistance is again less conservative than
those proposed by the previous recommendations.
143

Lcio et aI.

eccentric punching force PSd(p),due the applied load p, by a factor

(3 greater than the unity, to take into consideration the eccen
tricity effect on the stresses around the control perimeter:
PSd.ett= (3PSd(p)

(1)

The effective punching force must also account for the prestress
effects: the effect the equivalent prestressing forces transversal
to the slab PSd(P),and the in plane prestress force effect

PPo:
(2)

Transversal prestress effect

Rg. 1 Transversal effect of the prestress for a typified prestressed flat
slab

The punching force is determined taking nto consideration the

An example of the application of the formulation described in

this paper is presented.

loads applied to the slab and the equivalent prestressing forces

transversal to the slab ( PSd(p,P)), including its hyperstatic effect.
For this quantification ali the transversal equivalent prestress
forces (Figure 1) are considered, except those which are trans
ferred directly to the column and do not influence the shear

Effective value of the punchlng force

Theeffective designvalue ofthe punchingforce ( PSd.efl) is defined
as the value of a concentric punching force that produces uniform
shear stresses, over the control perimeter equal to the maximum
shear stress caused by the eccentric punching force. The effec
tive value of the punching force may be obtained multiplying the

stresses around the column. For this purpose it is considered that

the prestress equivalent forces acting inside a perimeter 0.5 h
from the column periphery, together with the applied loads in that
area, are transferred directly to the column (Figure 2(a)). This is
equivalent to reducing the column reaction by the value of Ptan a
of the tendons which cross that perimeter (Figure 2(b)), where
a
is the angle between the tendons and the plane of the slab at a
distance 0.5 h from the column.

Rg. 2 Punching load

ITIllJ
Plana

O.5h

Plana

O.5h

O.5h

(a)

P~(p, P)

(b)

PSd(p, P)

Rg. 3 Moments transferred between the slab

and the columns

H
~MI

Rg. 4 Contrai perimeter u,

144

Structural Concrete , 2000, 1, No. 2

ULS 01 punching in the ( fib) FIP recommendations

The lesser 01

Eccentricity of the punching force

1.5d and O.5c1

c,

Usually the forces transferred between the slab and the columns
are not centred with the column centroid. Due to horizontal forces

applied to the structure, unequal spans or unequalload values on

two adjacent spans, or at the columns of an end span (Figure 3),
there are moments transferred between the slab and the columns.
The maximum shear force per unit width on the control perim
eter (vmax) may be evaluated

as follows,

where

I~

MSd = MSd(P, P) is

the moment transferred between the slab and the column, due to
the applied loads and the effects of the prestress:
PSd

kMSd

u1

w1

Vmax=-+-

(a)
(3)

(b)

Flg. 5 Contrai perimeters at edge columns

The control perimeter ( u1) is taken at a distance 2 d from the

periphery of the applied force or column and must be constructed
50 as to minimize its length (Figure 4).
The parameter w1 is defined as
__u1

(4)

The lesser 01
1.5d and O.5c

where di is an elementary length of the perimeter and e is the distance of d I to the axis about which the moment MSdacts.
The coefficient k represents the proportion of applied moment
(MSd)transferred to the slab by shear stresses along the control
perimeter. This coefficient depends on the ratio between the
columndimensions c1(parallelto the eccentricity MSdI PSd) and c2
(perpendicular to the eccentricity):

(a)

(b)

Flg. 6 Contrai perimeters at comer columns

c.1 C2
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0

0.45
0.60
0.70
0.80

In accordance with MC90,

the effective punching force due to

the eccentricity effect may be estimated as

(5)
where

13is given by

(6)

13= 1 + k MSd u1
PSdw1

In the case of double eccentricity of the punching force the foi

lowing expression may be used:

' ke
13=1+u1./

ke

()()
w1.+

(7)

w1 y

where e. and ey represent the eccentricities MSdlPSdalong x and

y, respectively.
In the new recommendations, simpler expressions are proposed

Flg. 7 Compression due to prestress

for interior rectangular and circular columns:

(8)

expression (8) are very close to the ones of expression (7) for
common slab and column dimensions.

(9)

tions, where the eccentricity perpendicular to the slab edge is

towards the interior, it is considered that the punching force is

13= 1+1.8.{::J +(~J

for rectangular columns, and

".

le 2 + e 2

13

= 1 + 0.61r

D+4d

Slab-edge column connectlons.

for circular columns, where b. and by(Figure 4) are the dimensions

of the control perimeter and D is the diameter of the circular
column. Expression (8) was obtained using the 'Ieast squares'
method on the values of expression (7). The values obtained with
Structural Concrete , 2000,1, No. 3

At slab-edge column connec-

uniformly distributed along the control perimeter u~, as defined in

Figure 5. Thevalue of 13maythen be determined as
(10)

145

Lcio et ai.

Campressian effects af the prestress

The compression effects of the prestress influence the punching
behaviour of the slab.
The value of this compression

depends

on the position

of the an

chorages in relation to the punching area and the restriction to

the in plane deformation of the slab caused by the vertical struc
tural elements, like shear walls or large columns (Figure 7).
For foundation rafts, where the friction between the foundation

Flg. 8 Decompression

punching force p'o due to compression effect

.
.
..
/..-

. .
___--e,, .

A- -. - -8 -'~\

/ / .

.,11'8

.+~.I

..

. .\'. . ...
\
.

and the subgrade may be significant, a detailed analysis must be

performed in order to quantify the compression stresses.
Unless the prestress force is very high, the influence of the
compression stresses on the punching behaviour is usually very
small. For doubtful situations the compression effect is
neglected.
The compression effect of the prestress may be considered on
the action side of the ultimate limit check (expression (2, and

8-_

-.- -j

different compression stresses in two directions ( x and y) may be

considered. The compression stresses due to prestress delay the
opening of the shear cracks, reduce their widths and increase the
depth of the concrete compressed area at the slab cross-section
near the column faces.

.TT.

..T.
. . . .

S,__

///

. . .

A decompression punching force Ppois defined as the force

needed to compensate the compression stresses due to the com pression effect of the prestress. To take into account different
prestress forces in two orthogonal directions x and y the decompression punching force may be evaluated as follows:

Flg. 9 Punching-shear reinforcement

(12)
where b. and by are the dimensions of the control perimeter along
x and y, respectively, and p'o and Pyoare the decompression forces
corresponding to the prestress forces in those directions (Figure
8).
It is assumed that the decompression punching force is the
punching force which corresponds to a bending moment that
causes tension stresses on the slab top surface equal to the com pression stresses due to the compression effect of the prestress,
as is shown in the following paragraphs.
The decompression forces in each direction may be easily eval
uated as a proportion to the actual punching force

Flg. 10 Control perimeters for maximum resistance

PSd(p, P) and

bending moments M.Sd(P,P) and MySd(p,P):

(13)

where e is the component of the eccentricity parallel to the slab

edge.
If the eccentricity perpendicular to the slab edge is not towards
the interior, expression (6) applies.
In any case, in the definition of the control perimeter, the space
needed for the anchorage recess must not be considered

The moments M.Sd(p, P) and MySd(p, P) are the total bending

moments at the columnface in the widths b

and by'respectively,

and M.o and Myo stand for the decompression

widths b. and by' respectively, defined as

moments in the

(14)

(Rgure 5).
SlalH:orner column connectlons.

At slab-corner column connec -

tions, where the eccentricity is towards the interior of the slab, it

is assumed that the punching force is uniformly distributed along
the control perimeter u~, as defined in Rgure 6. The {3value may
then be considered as
(11)

where

I7cP'

stress

axial compression,

and

I7cpy

are the mean concrete stresses, due to the pre in the

by and b. widths,

respectively.

Punchlng reslstance
In order to check the ultimate limit state of punching resistance,
the effective punching force must not be greater than the
punching resistance:

If the eccentricity is towards the exterior, expression (6) applies.

146

PSd. ell ~ PRd (15)

Structural Concrete , 2000, 1, No. 2

ULS of punching in the ( fib) FIP recommendations

Flg. 11 Slab geometry (dimensions in mm)

-I

I
I
I

I
TI
I
I

CenlreUnes01
lhe slabpanel

A-

0.80.~

-r

+I

Ix= 9.0

For the quantification of the punching resistance the CEB-FIP

Model Code is followed.

Section A-A

--------

Punching resistance without shear reinforcement

The punching resistance. along the control perimeter
taken as

u1. may be

PRd,= 0.12((100p,"k)1/3u1d

(16)

where (= 1 + -../(200/ d) expresses the size effect, d (mm) being

the effective depth of the slab. If more than one layer of bonded reinforcement exists. the mechanical centre of resistance must be
considered in the definition of d. The ratio of reinforcement may be

--------Flg. 12 Prestress tendons

Seclion A-A
016/10.15

determined as (= -../(PXpy),
where Px and Py are the ratios of ali
bonded reinforcement (reinforcing bars and bonded tendons) in
the two orthogonal directions. These reinforcement ratios are cal

0.225

culated as the average along the widths by and bx. respectively.

The characteristic value ofthe concrete cylinder's compression

------

strength fCk(MPa), in this expression, is limited to 50 MPa.

Flg. 13 Ordinary reinforcement (dimensions in m, diameter in mm)

Punching

resistance with

shear reinforcement

The punching resistance with shear reinforcement may be evalu

ated as
(17)

PR~ = tPRd + 1.5:1 A.w f jd sina

5,

fcd2 = 0.60

1-

fck

250

fcd

(19)

where Aswis the total area of shear reinforcement in a layer around

the column, 5, is the radial spacing between layers (Figure 9) and
a is the angle between the shear reinforcement and the plane of

The segments of perimeters Uonormal to the slab edge at comer

and edge columns are limited to 1.5 d as are shown in Figure 10.

the slab. The design strength of the reinforcement

taken greater than 300 MPa.

Example

fydshall not be

In this section an example of the application of these recommen

dations is presented.

Maximum punching resistance

The maximum load /3PSd(P),not considering the prestress effects,
must not be greater than

(18)
where Uois the length of the periphery of the supporting column
and ,"d2the design resistance. of the concrete under compression
in a cracked zone, and is given by
Structural

Concrete

2000,

1. No.

Design data
The example refers to the punching check of an interior panel of a
prestressed solid slab, shown in Rgure 11. The slab is 0.225 m
thick, with spans I. = 9.0 m and Iy= 7.0 m. The prestress consists of unbonded tendons with an effective prestress, after
losses, of P = 150 kN per tendon. There are 16 and 12 tendons on
147

Lcio

et ai.

------------------------

Punching reinforcementisthus needed for load combination 2.

Considering

vertical stirrups, with

radial spacing

s, = 0.125 m

___06

A.

p.

< O.75d

(Figure 14), then

_:lp,

Sd,eff 4 Rd,l
(1.5d/ s,)xf yd

then

A.w=

817

- i x 663

- X 104 = 4.67

cm2

Ten6 mm dia. stirrups with two

(5.66 em

legs were used in each

layer

per layer), as shown in Figure 14.

-,

1-

Punching resistance considering the prestress compression

effect
Assuming thatalithe compression due to prestressis transmitted

to the

slab

panel

width,

ered

in the

and

the

compression

the favourable
following

stresses

compression

are

uniform

effects may

along

the

be consid

calculations:

Px = 16 x 150 kN = 2400 kN
Flg.14

Punching reinforcement (dimensions in m, diameter in m)

. Py= 12 x 150 kN = 1800

kN

O"cpx
= 2400 kN/(0.22 5 m x 7.0 m) = 1524 kPa
O"cpy
= 1800 kN/(0.22 5 m x 9. Om) = 889 kPa
the

column

lines

in the

and

directions,

respectively

(Figure

12).
The
both

amount
x

of

and

flexural

directions

reinforcement
(Figure

13).

is
The

As

13.4

materiais

cm2/m

used

in

in the

design are concrete grade C30 and steelgrade forordinaryrein-

MO
y

= 15241.36

mx(0.225 m)2 -17.5 kN m

6

M O = 8891.56 m x (0.225 m)2 = 11.7 kN m

6

forcement 5500, and the prestress reinforcement is defined by

= 1800

fptk

For

the

MPa.

Comblnatlon 1.

geometry

of

this

column

and

slab

effective

u1 = 2 x (0.80 + 0.60) + 1\"x 4 x 0.19

Acting

=5.19

kN m

p = 17.5 kN m x 550 kN =88 kN

Xo 110~0 kN m

10-3

p = 11.7 kN m x 550 kN =80 kN

yo 80.0 kN m

forces

p = 80 x 1.56 + 88 x 1.36 = 84 kN
Po
1.56 + 1.36

The forces transferred between the slab and the column are
shown inTable 1. The first
load combination refersto gravityloads
plus

on

M xSd= 80 kN m

by= 0.6 + 4 x 0.19 = 1.36 m

= 7.05

= 110

MySd

bx= 0.8 + 4 x 0.19 = 1.56 m

Py

for the totalbending moments

the slab widths bx and b" respectively:

d= (dx+ dy)/2 = 0.19 m:

p = Px'"

Considering

depth

the

binations

transversal
refer

prestress

to the

action,

and

quasi-permanent

the

value

other
of the

two

load

gravity

com

psd.ett= I3PSd(p,P) - PpO= 644 - 84 = 560 kN

-

Table 3

presents

these

results for alithe load combinations.

loads

These values are slightly

lower than those presented inTable 2,
and

the

earthquake

actions

along

x and

y directions

plus

the

pre

where the compression effectof prestresswas neglected.

stress action.

Comparing

Effective punching

force

force

may

be

quantified

as

shown

in Table

= 663
148

kN < PSd.ell

(combination

than in the

the

maximum

the

value

reinforcement

previous

punching

uo = 2 x (0.80 x 0.60)
,"d2

+ --J(200/190 mm)](100 x
0.00705 x 30 MN/mm 2)1/3x 103 x
5.19 m x 0.19 m

PSd, ellwith

of

PRd.1

663

kN

is required for

case: Asw= 3.45 cm2 per

layer, with s, = 0.125 m.

Checking

=0.12[1

of

less punching

2.

Punching resistance neglecting the prestress compression

effect
PRd,1

values

load combination 2

From the eccentricitiesin Table 1 the value of the effective

punching

the

it can be seen that

= 0.6[1-

= 2.80

(30/250)] x 20

force

= 10.56

MPa

=0.5 x 10.56 MN/m2x

PRd,max

103 x 2.80 m x 0.19 m

2)

= 2809

kN > I3PSd(p)

Structural Concrete , 2000, i, No. 3

ULS of punching in the ( fib) FIP recommendations

Table 1 Transferred forces between the slab and the column

PSd (kN)

Load combination 1:

Load combination 2:

Load combination 3:

1.5(g + q) + P

g + 'l'2q + P + 1.5E,

g + 'l'2Q + P + 1.5Ey

550

180

180

40

30

380

MSd' (kN m)

(0.073)

(ey (~))

(0.167)

60

Msdy (kN m)

(0.109)

(e, (m))

(2.11)

480

40

(2.667)

(0.222)

Table 2 Effective punching load neglecting the compression due to prestress

/3
PSd.eff = /3PSd(kN)

Load combination 1

Load combination 2

Load combination 3

1.17
644

4.54
817

3.45
621

Load combination 2

Load combination 3

Table 3 Effective punching load including the compression effect due to prestress
Load combination 1
MySd

(kN m)

P 'o (kN)
MySd

110
88

36
88

36
88

80
80

26
80

26
80

84
560

84
733

84
537

Load combination 1:

Load combination 2:

Load combination 3:

1.5(g + Q)

g + .'l'2Q+ 1.5E,

g + 'l'2Q + 1.5Ey

(kN m)

P'o (kN)
P""
PSd.ett

Table 4 Maximum punching force check

PSd(P) (kN)

857

487

487

40

30

380

MSd' (kN m)
(ey(m))

(0.047)

MSdY(kN m)

60

(e, (m))

(0.070)

(0.986)

1.11

2.31

(3

(0.062)

951

(3PSd(p) (kN)

(0.780)

480

40
(0.082)
1.91

1125

The values of /3PSd(P)are obtained from Table 4, where the pre

stress effects were not considered.

References

930

V.J. G.Lcio,PhD

. Thomas

1.

CEB-FIP. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Design Code

London, 1993.

2.

FIP. RP Recommendations for the Design of Flat Slabs in Posttensioned Concrete (Using Unbonded and Bonded Tendons) Cement
and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs, 1980. .
fib. Design of post-tensioned
slabs and foundation rafts. FIP

Telford,

Researcher of ICIST (UTL), Associated Professor at

UNL, Dep. Eng. Civil, Universidade Nova de Lisboa,
Quinta da Torre, 2825-114 Caparica, Portugal

3.

recommendations,
4.

SETO (for fib), London, 1999.

fib. Structural Concrete, Textbook

Performance. fib, Lausanne, 1999.

on

Behaviour,

Design

and

. Prepared by a Working Group with the following members: Joo Almeida

(POR), Thomas Friedrich (CH), M. Jartoux (F, FIP Commission 2) Manfred
Miehlbradt (CH), K. Schtt (D, FIP Commission 4), Jlio Appleton (POR), H.
Ganz (CH), Vlter Lcio (POR), L Schbert (D), Paul Regan (UK, CEB
Commission).

Structural

Concrete

, 2000,

--

1, No. 3

J. A. S. Appleton,

PhD

Head of ICIST (UTL), Fuli Professor at 1ST,Dep. Eng.

Civil, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Av. Rovisco Pais,
1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

J. F. Almelda,PhD
Researcher of ICIST (UTL), Associated Professor at
1ST,Dep. Eng. Civil, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Av.
Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

149