Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Parametric computational analysis for punching shear in RC slabs T

a a,b,⁎ a
M. Navarro , S. Ivorra , F.B. Varona
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alicante. San Vicente Del Raspeig, Apartado 99, 03080, Spain
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Queen's Building, University Walk, Clifton, Bristol BS8 1TR, United Kingdom

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the key phenomena in flat slab structures is their punching shear behaviour. The real importance of
Punching shear punching shear consists of a sudden brittle fracture, which can trigger catastrophic consequences for humans.
Reinforced concrete This paper presents a nonlinear numerical model based on finite elements in order to study the punching shear
Flat slabs phenomenon of reinforced slabs. The numerical model developed has been configured with hexahedral 3D
Nonlinearity
elements for concrete and linear elements (2D truss) for steel reinforcements. Constitutive equations for concrete
Parametric analysis
and steel include the nonlinearity of these materials. The slab has been simulated in ABAQUS software and the
FEM analysis
Concrete damaged plasticity model has been calibrated in comparison to experimental results developed in the University of Waterloo by
Adetifa and Polak, and some additional analytical results developed by Polak, in order to validate the model. The
calibration has also been contrasted with some experimental results from ACI database for punching tests.
Afterwards, a parametric analysis has been performed to study the influence of different geometric and me-
chanical parameters which define a classic slab-column structure. This discussion also addresses the adequacy of
some mechanical approaches, such as the CEB Model Code 2010.

1. Introduction are worth mentioning, where different geometric and mechanical

Punching shear produced failures are brittle in real structures or, in
other words, sharply and without warning. Therefore, its consequences
are often mainly tragic [1,2]. An example occurred in Switzerland is
described by Fernández-Ruiz et al. [3]: after a fire in a parking, the slab
failed by punching shear at a column, which triggered a complete
collapse of the whole frame causing the death to seven firemen. In this
case, in addition to the fire exposure, many other factors were reported:
(i) an unexpected load located on the roof, (ii) calculations that un-
derestimated the punching shear phenomenon, (iii) lack of transverse
reinforcement, which significantly limited the ultimate deformation.
This case is brought up to indicate that, in terms of safety requirements,
punching shear represents the most important mechanism of resistance
within a conventional structure built with flat or waffle slabs. Hence,
punching shear deserves to be addressed through an exhaustive and
detailed study of every factor involved.
There are many and different researches based on the development
of experimental studies that assess this kind of phenomenon. For ex-
ample, Adetifa and Polak [4] carried out a study on a full scale flat slab-
column system made of reinforced concrete, obtaining the load vs.
deflection curve and the ultimate load corresponding to punching
failure.
Other punching tests by Lips et al. [5] and Marzouk and Hussein [6]
parameters involved in punching shear failure were addressed.
On the other hand, there are a number of numerical studies aimed at
modelling the punching shear mechanism. For example, Polak [7],
Genikomsou and Polak [8] developed a FEM model which was able to
accurately simulate the reinforced concrete (RC) subject to punching
shear as well as the collapse mechanism.
Wosatko et al. [9] studied and compared two plastic damage the-
ories. The first one is called “Gradient-enhanced damage plasticity” in
which the gradients make the constitutive model to be nonlocal. The
second one is called “Rate-dependent damage plasticity” in which a
viscoplastic parameter is introduced.
De Borst and Nauta [10], Cervera et al. [11] and Shehata and Regan
[12] were among the first researchers to study the punching shear
failure numerically. The latter analysed the failure mechanism through
the growth of a microcrack that propagates until failure.
One of the most recent works about the influence of fracture me-
chanics on punching failure is by Shu et al. [13], in which the influence
of fracture energy factors, shear retention and flexure reinforcement
was studied.
Nevertheless, there are not many studies on the influence of dif-
ferent factors on punching failure, such as the yield strength of steel, the
compressive strength of concrete and the dimensional ratios (e.g. sup-
port width to thickness of slab ratio). For instance, Menétrey et al. [14]

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alicante. San Vicente Del Raspeig, Apartado 99, 03080, Spain.
E-mail addresses: sivorra@ua.es, Salvador.Ivorra@bristol.ac.uk (S. Ivorra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.035
Received 27 December 2016; Received in revised form 13 March 2018; Accepted 13 March 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263

published the first study on how some variables (strength of concrete, Table 1
ratio of flexural reinforcement, geometric relations) affect to the Material properties of the slab tested in [4].
punching strength, using an axisymmetrical model with a circular cross-
Compressive strength of Tensile strength of Yield strength of steel
sectional column. Later on Menétrey published a synthesis of punching concrete [MPa] concrete [MPa] reinforcement [MPa]
failure in RC [15], showcasing experimental results and numerical si-
mulations, deriving an analytical model. On the other hand, Guan [16] 44 2.2 455
studied the influence of another parameter, the size and location of
openings and inserts with respect to the column. Belletti et al. [17]
compared numerical predictions based on non-linear finite elements
and multi-layered shell modeling of RC slabs with experimental results
and analytical values obtained using formulation in standards.
This paper is focused on analyzing the influence of the aforemen-
tioned factors, which will be carried out through a parametric study
based on a FE structure developed with ABAQUS, taking advantage of
the available plastic-damage models for concrete [18–20]. Numerical
simulations have proven to help saving costs in terms of experimental
studies of RC failure mechanisms [21], thus facilitating further para-
metric research and proposals as well as the incorporation of different
formulation and behaviour models.
Following this introduction, the second section of this paper de-
scribes the experimental study by Adetifa and Polak [4] to assess the
punching shear failure, which is used later to calibrate the proposed
slab numerical model.
The third section of the present paper makes a full description of the
numerical model proposed in this paper and its features. The para-
meters of the model are validated by comparison with experimental [4]
and numerical [8] results.
The fourth section presents the parametric study, based on the ca-
librated FEM model. The parameters analyzed in the parametric study
of the punching shear failure will be the yield strength of steel, com-
pressive strength of concrete, column width to slab width ratio and Fig. 1. Punching shear failure from experimental study [4].
column width to slab thickness ratio. Load-deflection curves will be
developed for each case and used for comparison. Some of the im-
four 20 M bars (transversal section of 300 mm2) of flexural reinforce-
plications of the experimental results in [6] and the analytical approach
ment and four 8 M bars for shear reinforcement (transversal section of
of CEB Model Code 2010 [22] will be addressed in the discussion. The
50 mm2). The effective depth of columns is 130 mm. In terms of the
novelty of this paper consists in developing a parametric study where
boundary conditions, the slab was simply supported along the edges on
main geometric and mechanical factors involved in punching shear of
little neoprene supports, creating spans of 1500 mm in the X and Y
flat slabs are studied through a nonlinear behaviour three-dimensional
directions.
numerical model.
The slab was tested under a static vertical load through the column
The fifth section highlights the most relevant conclusions and pro-
until failure, in this particular case, by punching shear and behaving in
poses some future research objectives.
a brittle way. It is important to mention that the slab configuration is
A future study in the context of this research is to provide a suffi-
backwards in comparison to a real structure in order to facilitate the
ciently accurate modelling tool to assess the real capacity of reinforced
test. The shape of the crack pattern is showed in Fig. 1.
flat and waffle slabs in order to retrofit the design if necessary, e.g. with
The test was performed with displacement controlled velocity, re-
FRP reinforcements (see Meisami et al. [23] and Faria et al. [24]).
gistering the relation between the applied load and the displacement in
the centre of inner face of the column. Experimental results and the
2. Description of the experimental background
load-deflection curve reported in [4] are represented in Table 5 and in
Figs. 6–8.
Tests performed at University of Waterloo by Adetifa and Polak [4]
have been used in order to validate the slab numerical model described
and developed in the next section of the present paper. In that experi- 3. Implementation of the slab numerical model
mental campaign full scale models of RC slab-to-column connection
were tested. The arrangement replicated a part of a continuous slab- 3.1. Features of the numerical model
column system.
Slab dimensions were 1800 × 1800 × 120 mm and the column had The slab model has been developed in the finite element based
a square cross-section of 150 × 150 mm. The height of the column stubs software ABAQUS [20]. This program is capable of accurately simu-
extending from the top and the bottom faces of the slab was 150 mm. lating the nonlinearity of materials like steel or concrete, and it has
The mechanical properties of the concrete and the steel rebars are given been used to simulate reinforced concrete structures by authors like
in Table 1. Mirza [25], Obaidat [26] and Alfarah et al. [27].
The slab has two steel meshes, an upper one and a lower one, both In order to simulate the test by Adetifa and Polak [4], a slab portion
built with 10 M bars (transversal section of 100 mm2). Bars situated on with an axially loaded central column has been modelled. Spans from
the compression zone (upper face) have an equidistance of 200 mm the real test have been maintained in the model. Given the symmetry of
whereas bars situated on the stress zone (lower face) have 100 mm. the geometry, the boundary conditions and the loading procedure, just
Therefore, the slab was reinforced with equal flexure reinforcement in a quarter of slab-column connection has been modelled in ABAQUS,
both directions. The thickness of the slabs was 120 mm, and the ef- with simple supports along both external edges. Symmetry conditions
fective depth (d) was equal to 100 mm. The column was reinforced with have been applied on internal faces. The quasistatic test is performed by

255
M. Navarro et al.
Fig. 2. Geometry and boundary conditions of the model.
a linearly controlled displacement on the column top face with a
maximum limited value of 20 mm. It is shown in Fig. 2.
Concrete Damage Plasticity model from ABAQUS [11] has been
applied. This model assumes that concrete presents two different failure
mechanisms: cracking and squashing. The model is a modification of
the one proposed by Drucker and Prager [28] and is based on the cri-
terion by Lubliner et al. [19], incorporating adjustments by Lee and
Fenves [18] in order to heed the evolution of compression and tensile
resistances. Having principal stresses in various directions, the strain-
stress relation is defined in Eq. (1):
σ = (1−d )Del0 : (ε−ε pl )
where d is the scalar stiffness degradation variable, which can take
values in the range from zero (undamaged) to one (fully damaged
material); Del0 is the initial (undamaged) elasticity matrix, ε is the total
strain and ε pl is the plastic deformation. Table 2 shows the values that
have been adopted for the parameters of the Concrete Damage Plasti-
city model.
The constitutive behaviour of concrete is the one proposed by CEB
Model Code 2010 [22] and is represented in Fig. 3, where σc is the
compression stress, εc is the concrete deformation, fcm is the char-
acteristic compression strength of concrete, εc,lim is the ultimate strain,
Ecm is the elastic tangent modulus and Ec1 is the elastic secant modulus.
The constitutive model based on linear softening via fracture energy
proposed by Hillerborg et al. [29] has been chosen for the uniaxial
tensile behaviour of concrete (Fig. 4), where σt is the tensile stress, εc is
the concrete strain, w is the crack width, and Gf is the fracture energy.
The bi-linear model defined in Eurocode 2 [30] has been chosen for
the steel rebars. This model starts with an elastic curve until it reaches
the yield strength of the material, which segues into a second plastic
curve until it reaches the ultimate strain where the material fails
(Fig. 5), where σs is the steel stress, εs is the steel strain, f y is the yield
strength, εy is the strain that corresponds to the yield strength, fu is the
ultimate stress of steel and εu is the strain that corresponds to the ul-
timate stress. Additionally, Von Mises failure criterion is applied to
steel.
Perfect bonding conditions have been assumed between concrete
and steel, as it is commonly known that for the global analysis of re-
inforced concrete elements it can be applied, see e.g. Genikomsou and
Polak [8] and Wosatko et al. [9].
Hexahedral 8-nodes reduced-integration elements (C3D8R) have
been used for the concrete mesh, whereas shell 4-nodes reduced-in-
tegration elements (S4R) have been used for the steel mesh. Hence,
Table 2
Parameters considered for the application of the Concrete Damage Plasticity model.
Dilation Eccentricity ε Viscosity μ Shape Max. compression
angle ψ parameter K c axial/biaxial
36° 0.1 0.00001 1.16 0.667
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
Fig. 3. Constitutive compression behaviour of concrete according to Model Code CEB
[22].
reinforcement has been established in a spread way with a constant
thickness.
In a similar way to the real test, the numerical model is controlled
through displacement, i.e., applying a constant displacement speed
which simulates the loading of the slab. In this way, convergence pro-
blems that may arise with a force-controlled analysis are minimized.
Prior to the parametric study, the influence of different parameters
not specifically related to the punching failure of reinforced concrete
has been studied. The first of these parameters is the size of the FEM
(1) mesh. A sensitivity analysis has been performed, using element sizes of
15, 20 and 24 mm (Fig. 6).
For a small mesh size (15 mm) it can be observed in Fig. 8 that the
ultimate load reached (216 kN) is slightly lower than the experimental
one (253 kN) and, moreover, the ultimate deflection (8.40 mm) is also
significantly lower than the one measured in tests (12.2 mm). For a
large mesh size (24 mm) it can be observed that the ultimate reached
load (218 kN) is also lower than the experimental one. The ultimate
deflection (11.5 mm) is also lower than the one measured in tests.
Eventually, for a medium mesh size (20 mm) an accurate approxima-
tion to experimental tests is obtained for both the ultimate load
(237 kN) and the ultimate deflection (12.5 mm).
In addition to the mesh size study, the influence of two of the
parameters that define the Concrete Damage Plasticity model has been
studied. The first parameter is the dilatancy angle, for which the fol-
lowing values have been considered: 30°, 36° and 40°. The second
parameter is the viscosity parameter, for which values of 1 · 10−4 and
1 · 10−5 have been considered. The most accurate results have been
found when using 36° and 1 · 10−5 for the dilatancy angle and the
viscosity parameter, respectively.
Likewise, being a nonlinear problem, the influence of performing a
static or dynamic (quasi-static) analysis has been studied. As it is shown
in Fig. 7, more accurate results are obtained with a static analysis.
The slab model by Genikomsou and Polak [8] has been used as a
reference model in order to evaluate the calibration of the present
model. Whereas the geometry and boundary conditions of both models
are obviously alike, there are some differences. The parameters of the
Concrete Damage Plasticity model and the mechanical properties of
concrete that were adopted by Genikomsou and Polak [8] are shown in
Tables 3 and 4.
Genikomsou and Polak [8] used an average mesh size of 20 mm,
C3D8R elements for concrete and T3D2 elements for steel (i.e. a dis-
crete reinforcement approach instead of the distributed reinforcement
presented here). Experimental results and the load-deflection curve
reported in [8] are represented in Fig. 8 and in Table 5.
3.2. Validation of the calibration for the slab model
The comparison between the experimental test by Adetifa and Polak
[4], the model by Genikomsou et al. [8] and the slab model presented in
256
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263

Fig. 4. Constitutive tensile behaviour of concrete. Hillerborg’s model: (a) before cracking and (b) softening after cracking [29].

Fig. 5. Constitutive behaviour of steel according to Eurocode 2 [30].

Fig. 7. Load–deflection response of slabs according to analysis type.

Table 3
Parameters for Concrete Damaged Plasticity model considered by Genikomsou and Polak
[8].

Dilation Eccentricity ε Viscosity μ Shape Max. compression

angle ψ parameter K c axial/biaxial

38° 0.1 0.000085 1.16 0.67

Table 4
Concrete properties considered by Genikomsou and Polak [8].

Modulus of elasticity of concrete Poisson’s ratio Fracture energy of

[MPa] concrete

34,400 0.2 0.09

Fig. 6. Load–deflection response of slabs for different mesh size.
this paper is shown in Fig. 8 and in Table 5.
As shown in Table 5, the model presented in this paper accurately
represents the experimental test results with a slightly higher accuracy
than previous model by Genikomsou and Polak [8]: the relative error
with respect to the ultimate load is 6.3% and the relative error with
respect to the ultimate deflection is 2.5%. Another feature of the load-
deflection curve obtained with the model presented in this paper is an
intermediate stiffness between the slab model by Genikomsou and
Polak [8] and the experimental test.
Not only a quantitative calibration has been performed, but also a

257
M. Navarro et al.
Fig. 8. Comparative of load–deflection responses obtained in the test by Adetifa and
Polak [4], the model proposed by Genikomsou and Polak [8] and the slab model pre-
sented here.
qualitative one. The cracking pattern reported by Adetifa and Polak [4]
is shown in Fig. 9a. This pattern is almost apparent in the solution of the
slab numerical model through the actively yielding elements field, re-
presented through red coloured elements in Fig. 9b, using the ‘AC yield’
variable which is available in ABAQUS. The plot represented in Fig. 9b
corresponds to the slab model simulation for a vertical deflection of
12.8 mm, which is slightly higher than the deflection that corresponds
to the ultimate load given in Table 5. The cone of punching shear at the
same step of the simulation can be seen in the cross-sections re-
presented in Fig. 9c–f: the ‘AC yield’ variable is shown in Fig. 9d and f
whereas the equivalent plastic strain for concrete damaged plasticity
(PEEQT) is shown in Fig. 9c and e. Two distinct cross-section have been
chosen: one parallel to the boundary of the slab model, crossing
through the column (Fig. 9c and d) and a second one at an angle of 45°
crossing through the column axis (Fig. 9e and f). The ‘AC yield’ plot of
the cross-section in Fig. 9b could reasonably be related to the definition
of the control perimeter used in the analytical models of the Eurocode 2
[30] and the CEB Model Code 2010 [22]: Eurocode 2 establishes the
control perimeter at a distance of two times the effective depth of the
slab measured from the loaded area (i.e., the perimeter of the column)
whilst the CEB Model Code 2010 reduces the distance to 0.5 times the
effective depth of the slab. Judging from the ‘AC yield’ plot in Fig. 9b it
could be argued that the position for the control perimeter given in
Eurocode 2 is roughly valid, at least for this particular geometry.
4. Parametric study
In order to validate the parametric study presented in this section,
the database created by The American Concrete Institute Committee
Table 5
Results of the slab model for load–deflection compared with Refs. [4,8].
Adetifa and Polak [4] Genikomsou and Polak [8]
Ultimate load Ultimate deflection Ultimate load
(kN) (mm) (kN)
253 12.2 274
258
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
445C [31] has been revised. The results reported by Marzouk and
Hussein [6] and included in the aforementioned database have been
selected for the validation, because of the similar geometry, the prop-
erties of the materials and the arrangement of the test and boundary
conditions. In the discussion that follows, several of the conclusions
indicated by them have been satisfactorily predicted by our slab model.
Moreover, the influence of the geometric ratios associated with the
column width, the slab thickness and the slab width – which is ad-
dressed in the parametric discussion – has also been compared with the
analytical models in Eurocode 2 and the CEB Model Code 2010.
4.1. Reference configuration and parameters discussed
In order to perform the parametric study the configuration used as
reference model is defined through the parameters shown in Table 6.
The parameters which are analysed in this section are the following:
yield strength of steel, characteristic compressive strength of concrete,
flexural reinforcement, column width/slab width ratio and column
width/slab thickness ratio. For each of these parameters, different
models have been calculated and these are shown in Tables 7–11. In all
the variations shown in Tables 7–11 the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio in compression is half the longitudinal reinforcement ratio in
tension.
In the case of variations D.1 and D.2 the width of the column cross-
section (0.15 m) and the slab thickness (0.12 m) have been kept con-
stant and it is the width of the slab (span) which has been varied as
shown in Table 12. In the case of variations E.1 and E.2 the width of the
column (0.15 m) and the slab width (1.5 m) have been maintained and
it is the slab thickness which has been varied accordingly, as shown in
Table 13.
4.2. Influence of the yield strength of steel
The load-deflection curves for the reference model ( f y = 500 MPa)
and variations A.1 ( f y = 400 MPa) and A.2 ( f y = 600 MPa) are shown
in Fig. 10. For the reference model (Table 6) the slab model predicts an
ultimate load of 260.9 kN and an ultimate deflection of 10.3 mm.
It can be observed that the ultimate load of the slab reinforced with
the 400 MPa yield strength steel is lower than the other two designs:
247.3 kN obtained with fy = 400 MPa, against 260.9 kN obtained with
fy = 500 MPa and 263.1 kN obtained with fy = 600 MPa. On the con-
trary, the ultimate deflection with fy = 400 MPa (12.1 mm) is higher
than with fy = 500 MPa (10.3 mm) and fy = 600 MPa (10.2 mm). This
means that the increase in the loading capacity that is attained when a
steel of higher yield strength is used, also entails a loss of plastic be-
haviour. The results obtained with the 600 MPa yield strength steel are
nearly equal to those obtained with fy = 500 MPa, suggesting that there
is no significant advantage in the use of reinforcing steel with a yield
strength higher than 500 MPa.
4.3. Influence of the concrete strength
The load-deflection curves for the reference model ( fc = 25 MPa)
and variations B.1 ( fc = 35 MPa) and B.2 ( fc = 45 MPa) are shown in
Fig. 11.
Larger ultimate loads can be appreciated as the concrete strength
Calibrated slab model
Ultimate deflection Ultimate load Ultimate deflection
(mm) (kN) (mm)
11.5 237 12.5
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263

Fig. 9. Punching failure: (a) cracks on the tension face reported by Adetifa and Polak [4]; (b) actively yielding elements (‘AC yield’) in red on the tension face, obtained in the slab model
immediately after the ultimate load; (c) equivalent plastic strain (PEEQT) across the slab thickness; (d) ‘AC yield’ variable across the slab thickness; (e) PEEQT variable across the slab
thickness (45° plane); (f) ‘AC yield’ variable across the slab thickness (45°plane).

Table 6 Table 7
Value of parameters in the reference model for parametric study. Models for studying the influence of the yield strength of steel.

Variable Value Variable Reference Variation A.1 Variation A.2

model
Yield strength of steel 500 MPa
Concrete type C25/30 Yield strength of steel 500 MPa 400 MPa 600 MPa
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio 1.5% Concrete type C25/30 C25/30 C25/30
Slab width 1.5 m Longitudinal reinforcement 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Column width/Slab width ratio 0.1 ratio
Column width/Slab thickness ratio 1.25 Column width/Slab width ratio 0.1 0.1 0.1
Column width/Slab thickness 1.25 1.25 1.25
ratio
increases: 260.9 kN for C25/30; 277.8 kN for C35/45; and 290.8 kN for
C45/55. A slight increase in the stiffness is also observed. However, the
increase in ductility is yet more significant for higher concrete 4.4. Influence of the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement
strengths: 10.3 mm for C25/30; 11.7 mm for C35/45 and 17.6 mm for
C45/55. Consequently, and increment of plastic behaviour with con- The load-deflection curves for the reference model (ρs = 1.5%) and
cretes of higher strength is confirmed. This trend was reported by variations C.1 ( ρs = 0.67%) and C.2 ( ρs = 2.68%) are shown in Fig. 12.
Marzouk and Hussein [6], who concluded that using concrete with Parameter ρs refers to the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement, including
higher strength fc increases the stiffness of the load-deflection curve and both the tension and the compression side of the slab.
also increases the ductility is increased when using concretes with a Similarly to the way in which the yield strength of steel operates,
higher strength. the increase of the reinforcement ratio entails a higher ultimate load

259
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263

Table 8
Models for studying the influence of the concrete strength.

Variable Base model Variation B.1 Variation B.2

Yield strength of steel 500 MPa 500 MPa 500 MPa

Concrete type C25/30 C35/45 C45/55
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Column width/Slab width ratio 0.1 0.1 0.1
Column width/Slab thickness ratio 1.25 1.25 1.25

Table 9
Models for studying the influence of the flexural reinforcement.

Variable Base model Variation C.1 Variation C.2

Yield strength of steel 500 MPa 500 MPa 500 MPa

Concrete type C25/30 C25/30 C25/30
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio 1.5% 0.67% 2.68%
Column width/Slab width ratio 0.1 0.1 0.1
Column width/Slab thickness ratio 1.25 1.25 1.25

Table 10
Models for studying the influence of the column width/slab width ratio.

Variable Base model Variation D.1 Variation D.2 Fig. 10. Load–deflection response of slabs with steels of different yield strength.

Yield strength of steel 500 MPa 500 MPa 500 MPa

Concrete type C25/30 C25/30 C25/30
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Column width/Slab width ratio 0.1 0.075 0.125
Column width/Slab thickness ratio 1.25 1.25 1.25

Table 11
Models for studying the influence of the column width/slab thickness ratio.

Variable Base model Variation E.1 Variation E.2

Yield strength of steel 500 MPa 500 MPa 500 MPa

Concrete type C25/30 C25/30 C25/30
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Column width/Slab width ratio 0.1 0.1 0.1
Column width/Slab thickness ratio 1.25 0.75 1.5

Table 12
Geometry of model in variations D.1 and D.2.

Geometry Ratio of column width to slab width

0.075 0.1 0.125

Column width 0.15 m 0.15 m 0.15 m

Slab width 2.00 m 1.50 m 1.20 m

Fig. 11. Load–deflection response of slabs with concretes of different strength.

Table 13
Geometry of model in variations E.1 and E.2. ∅12 mm rebars at a distance of 95 mm (tension side) and attains the
Geometry Ratio of column width to slab thickness
aforementioned ultimate values of 260.9 kN and 10.3 mm. Eventually,
in the case of ρs = 2.68% (∅16 mm rebars at a distance of 95 mm in the
0.75 1.25 1.5 tension side) the ultimate load is 323.7 kN and the ultimate deflection is
8.5 mm. Likewise, Marzouk and Hussein [6] also concluded that as the
Column width 0.15 m 0.15 m 0.15 m
Slab thickness 0.20 m 0.12 m 0.10 m
steel reinforcement ratio is increased, the stiffness of the slab gets in-
creased whereas the ductility is reduced.

but lower ultimate deflection and less ductility. However, in this case,
the differences in the load–deflection curves are more notorious. In
other words, plastic behaviour decreases while stiffness increases.
Reinforcement ratio ρs = 0.67% corresponds approximately to ∅8 mm
rebars at a distance of 95 mm (tension side) and achieves an ultimate
displacement exceeding the deflection limit of 20 mm and an ultimate
load up to 166.4 kN. The value ρs = 1.5% corresponds approximately to
4.5. Influence of the ratio of column width to slab width
The column width to slab width ratio is designated as bcol / wslab . The
load-deflection curves for the reference model (bcol / wslab = 0.1) and
variations D.1 (bcol / wslab = 0.075) and D.2 (bcol / wslab = 0.125) are shown
in Fig. 13. Column width is 0.15 m and slab thickness is 0.12 m in the
three models.

260
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263

is the average longitudinal reinforcement ratio in tension, fck is the

characteristic compressive strength of concrete and vmin is the minimum
shear strength.
The punching strength of reinforced concrete slabs without shear
reinforcement according to CEB Model Code 2010 can be calculated
through Eq. (3):
VRd,CEB = VRd,c + VRd,int (3)

where VRd,c is the design shear strength attributed to concrete and VRd,int
is the additional resistance provided by the integrity reinforcement
after punching. Resistance VRd,c can be calculated through Eq. (4):

fck
VRd,c = k ψ b0 d
γc (4)

where b0 is the control perimeter at a distance 0.5d from the column

perimeter and k ψ is a coefficient that depends on the rotation ψ of the
slab around the support region. CEB Model Code 2010 gives four levels
of approximation for the calculation of ψ . For the present study Level II
has been applied. On the other hand, resistance VRd,int , which has been
taken into account in the present study as well, depends on the long-
itudinal reinforcement in the compression side of the slab and its
ductility class.
Fig. 12. Load–deflection response of slabs with different reinforcement ratios. The results obtained with the FEM model and trough application of
the aforementioned code provisions are shown in Table 14. The de-
flection value according to Model Code 2010 has been calculated by
means of the rotation angle ψ and the distance between the centre of
the column and the slab supports. The formulation of Eurocode 2 is not
able to represent the influence of the ratio between the column width
and the slab width, but gives a conservative prediction of the ultimate
load. On the other hand the results obtained trough the Model Code
2010 equations do not match exactly the results of the FEM model, but
they are less conservative than those obtained with Eurocode 2 and are
able to represent the influence of the column width to slab width ratio,
not only in terms of the ultimate load but also in terms of the maximum
deflection, as estimated through angle ψ .

4.6. Influence of the ratio of column width to slab thickness

The column width to slab thickness ratio is designated as bcol / tslab .

The load-deflection curves for the reference model (bcol / tslab = 1.25) and
variations E.1 (bcol / tslab = 0.75) and E.2 (bcol / tslab = 1.5) are shown in
Fig. 14. Column width is 0.15 m in the three models and slab thickness
is variable and is given in Table 13.
For thicker slabs a notable increase in the ultimate load is observed,
along with a reduction of the ultimate deflection. However, the increase
of the ultimate load counterbalances the reduction of deflections and
the thickest slab shows higher ductility (i.e., the area between the load-
Fig. 13. Load–deflection response of slabs with different column width to slab width deflection curve and the displacement axis). Conclusions reported by
ratio. Marzouk and Hussein [6] corroborate these results, both the increase in
the stiffness with deeper slabs, accompanied by a reduction of the
As the column width remains constant, an increase in bcol / wslab is ductility. As in the previous case, the results obtained with the FEM
equivalent to a reduction of the slab width (from 2 m to 1.2 m). Fig. 13 models are compared with the calculations according to Eurocode 2 and
shows that for wider slabs, the ultimate load increases slightly but also CEB Model Code 2010 in Table 15. In this case, the formulation in
loses plastic capacity and ductility. Eurocode 2 is able to represent the influence of the column width to
For this set of variations the punching strength models of Eurocode
Table 14
2 [30] and the CEB Model Code 2010 [22] have been applied. The
Results of punching analysis in slabs with different column width/slab width ratio.
punching strength of reinforced concrete slabs without shear re-
inforcement according to Eurocode 2 can be calculated through Eq. (2): Column width Ultimate load [kN] Max. deflection [mm]
to slab width
0.18 ratio FEM Eurocode 2 CEB Model FEM CEB Model
VRd,EC − 2 = u1 d k 3 100 ρl fck ≮ u1·d·vmin
γc (2) model Code 2010 model Code 2010

0.075 248.2 207.7 226.2 16.1 17.7

where u1 is the control perimeter at a distance of 2d from the column
0.1 260.9 207.7 241.9 10.3 10.8
perimeter, d is the effective depth, γc is the partial safety factor of 0.125 272.5 207.7 254.3 7.8 7.3
concrete, k is a size parameter that depends on the effective depth d, ρl

261
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263

• Increasing the compressive characteristic strength of concrete also

increases the ultimate load of the slab and the final displacement,
which implicates a higher ductility.
• Increasing the flexural reinforcement also increases the ultimate
load of the slab but decreases the final displacement, thus reducing
the ductility.
• Increasing the relation between column width and slab width pro-
duces a slight increase of the ultimate load, but significantly reduces
the final displacement and the ductility.
• Increasing the relation between column width and slab thickness
drastically decreases the ultimate load and increases the final dis-
placement.

Results of the parametric analysis concerning the geometric ratios

have been compared to the results derived from analytical models
proposed by Eurocode 2 – which gives more conservative results– and
CEB Model Code 2010 – which not only allows to calculate the ultimate
load but could also provide an estimation of the final displacement.
Based on these conclusions, a more complex study could be carried
out to design flat and waffle slabs against punching shear, analysing
geometric and mechanical particularities of each specimen.

Acknowledgements
Fig. 14. Load–deflection response of slabs for different column width/slab thickness
ratio. The authors would like to thank the Technical University of
Valencia for their collaboration in order to use their ABAQUS software
Table 15 license to develop this research framed in Miguel Navarro's doctoral
Results of punching analysis in slabs with different column width/slab thickness ratio. studies. A special mention is made of Dr. Vicente Albero and Dr. David
Pons for their assistance and advice in the use of this software.
Column width to Ultimate load [kN] Max. deflection [mm]
slab thickness
ratio FEM Eurocode 2 CEB Model FEM CEB Model References
model Code 2010 model Code 2010
[1] Kunz J, Fernández-Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Enhanced safety with post-installed punching
0.075 198.2 145.6 180.2 13.0 15.5 shear reinforcement vol. l. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2008.
0.1 260.9 207.7 241.9 10.3 10.8 [2] Foti D. Shear vulnerability of historical reinforced-concrete structures. Int J Archit
0.125 586.5 561.6 556.7 8.4 4.3 Herit 2015;9(4):453–67.
[3] Fernández-Ruiz M, Muttoni A, Kunz J. Strengthening of flat slabs against punching
shear using post-installed shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2010;107(4):434–42.
[4] Adetifa B, Polak MA. Retrofit of slab column interior connections using shear bolts.
slab thickness ratio and the results are conservative with respect to the
ACI Struct J 2005;102(2):268–74.
Model Code 2010 and the FEM models for thinner slabs. The ultimate [5] Lips S, Fernández-Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Experimental investigation on punching
load calculated with the formulation in the Model Code 2010 is closer strength and deformation capacity of shear-reinforced slabs. ACI Struct J
to the predictions of the FEM models, but remains conservative. The 2012;109(6):889–900.
[6] Marzouk H, Hussein A. Experimental investigation on the behavior of high-strength
calculation of deflections based on the rotation angle ψ given in the concrete slabs. ACI Struct J 1991;88(6):701–13.
Model Code 2010 gives similar results to FEM models in the case of [7] Polak MA. Modeling punching shear of reinforced concrete slabs using layered finite
thinner slabs, but in the case of bcol / tslab = 0.75 it seems that Model elements. ACI Struct J 1998;95(1):71–80.
[8] Genikomsou AS, Polak MA. Finite element analysis of a reinforced concrete slab-
Code 2010 would predict a stiffer behaviour in the punching failure column connection using ABAQUS. In: Structures congress 2014; 2014. p. 813–23.
mechanism. [9] Wosatko A, Pamin J, Polak MA. Application of damage–plasticity models in finite
element analysis of punching shear. Comput Struct 2015;151:73–85.
[10] de Borst R, Nauta P. Non-orthogonal cracks in a smeared finite element model. Eng
5. Conclusions Comput 1985;2(1):35–46.
[11] Cervera M, Hinton E, Hassan O. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete plate and
Simulations have been presented using finite elements with shell structures using 20-noded isoparametric brick elements. Comput Struct Jan.
1987;25(6):845–69.
ABAQUS software in order to analyze the punching shear in flat slabs [12] Shehata IAEM, Regan PE. Punching in R.C. slabs. J Struct Eng Jul.
structures, which has been quantitatively and qualitatively calibrated 1989;115(7):1726–40.
using external tests. [13] Shu J, Plos M, Zandi K, Johansson M, Nilenius F. Prediction of punching behaviour
of RC slabs using continuum non-linear FE analysis. Eng Struct 2016;125:15–25.
The most complicated aspect to consider in modelling reinforced
[14] Menétrey P, Walther R, Zimmermann T, Willam KJ, Regan PE. Simulation of
concrete structures is precisely the choice of a proper behaviour model punching failure in reinforced-concrete structures. J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):652–9.
for concrete. In this study the Concrete Damage Plasticity model has [15] Menétrey P. Synthesis of punching failure in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr
been applied. The calibration of the model has been done through the Compos 2002;24(6):497–507.
[16] Guan H. Prediction of punching shear failure behaviour of slab-edge column con-
contrast of reported experimental and numerical results. nections with varying opening and column parameters. Adv Struct Eng
Based on this model, a parametric study has been performed in 2009;12(1):19–36.
order to investigate the influence of different variables which define a [17] Belletti B, Walraven JC, Trapani F. Evaluation of compressive membrane action
effects on punching shear resistance of reinforced concrete slabs. Eng Struct
flat slab structure and its phenomenon of punching shear. The main 2015;95(July):25–39.
conclusions relatives to this parametric study are the next: [18] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J
Eng Mech 1998;124(8):892–900.

• Increasing the yield strength of steel increases the ultimate load of [19] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J
Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299–326.
the slab but decreases the final displacement, which may induce [20] Abaqus Theory Manual (6.14). Dassault Systemes, Providence, RI, USA, 2014.
lower ductility. [21] Calderón PA, Adam JM, Ivorra S, Pallarés FJ, Giménez E. Design strength of axially

262
M. Navarro et al.
loaded RC columns strengthened by steel caging. Mater Des 2009;30(10):4069–80.
[22] International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). fib Model Code for Concrete
Structures 2010. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn; 2013.
[23] Meisami MH, Mostofinejad D, Nakamura H. Punching shear strengthening of two-
way flat slabs with CFRP grids. J Compos Constr 2014;18(2):4013047.
[24] Faria DM, Einpaul J, Ramos AMP, Fernández-Ruiz M, Muttoni A. On the efficiency
of flat slabs strengthening against punching using externally bonded fibre re-
inforced polymers. Constr Build Mater 2014;73:366–77.
[25] Mirza O, Uy B. Behaviour of headed stud shear connectors for composite steel–-
concrete beams at elevated temperatures. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(3):662–74.
[26] Obaidat YT, Heyden S, Dahlblom O. The effect of CFRP and CFRP/concrete inter-
face models when modelling retrofitted RC beams with FEM. Compos Struct
2010;92(6):1391–8.
263
Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
[27] Alfarah B, López-Almansa F, Oller S. New methodology for calculating damage
variables evolution in Plastic Damage Model for RC structures. Eng Struct
2017;132:70–86.
[28] Drucker DC, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q Appl
Math 1952;10(2):157–65.
[29] Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Petersson PE. Analysis of crack formation and crack
growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr
Res 1976;6(6):773–81.
[30] European Committee for Standarisation. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures -
part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings. Madrid: AENOR; 2013.
[31] Ospina CE, et al. NEES: ACI 445 Punching Shear Collected Databank;
2011 < https://datacenterhub.org/resources/256 > .