ArticlepubliparleLaboratoiredeConstructionenBtondel'EPFL

PaperpublishedbytheStructuralConcreteLaboratoryofEPFL

Title:

BackgroundtotheModelCode2010ShearProvisions-PartIIPunchingShear

Authors:

MuttoniA.,FernndezRuizM.,BentzE.C.,FosterS.J.,SigristV.

Publishedin:

StructuralConcrete,Ernst&Sohn

DOI

10.1002/suco.201200064

Pages:

37p.

City,country:

Berlin,Germany

Yearofpublication:

2013

Typeofpublication:
Peerreviewedjournalarticle
EPFLInfoSciencelink: http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/186977

Pleasequoteas:

MuttoniA.,FernndezRuizM.,BentzE.C.,FosterS.J.,SigristV.,Background
to the Model Code 2010 Shear Provisions - Part II Punching Shear,Structural
Concrete,Ernst&Sohn,Berlin,Germany,2013,37p..

[Muttoni13a]Downloadedfrom131.180.61.201on23.11.201312:46

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page1

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Background to the Model Code 2010 Shear Provisions

Part II Punching Shear

Aurelio Muttoni (cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, Switzerland)

Miguel Fernndez Ruiz (cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, Switzerland)
Evan Bentz (University of Toronto, Canada)
Stephen Foster (University of New South Wales, Australia)
Viktor Sigrist (Hamburg University of Technology, Germany)

Abstract
This paper outlines the theoretical background of the punching shear provisions implemented in
the fib Model Code 2010 and presents a practical example of its application. It is the aim to
explain the mechanical model that forms the basis of the punching design equations, to justify
the relevance of the provisions and to show their suitability for the design and assessment of
structures.

This article hasbeen accepted for publication and undergone full peer reviewbut has notbeen through the copyediting,
typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of
Record.Pleasecitethisarticleasdoi:10.1002/suco.201200064.

Submitted: 20Dec2012
Revised: 29Apr2013
Accepted: 24May2013

2013Ernst&SohnVerlagfrArchitekturundtechnischeWissenschaftenGmbH&Co.KG,Berlin

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page2

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Key-words:
Model

Code

2010,

punching

shear,

flat

slabs,

critical

shear

crack

theory,

Level-of-Approximation

1. Introduction
The Model Code 2010 [1,2] constitutes a significant step forward with respect to basing design
on more physical and more comprehensive models. With regards to the punching shear
provisions, an in-depth review of the previous versions of the code (Model Codes 78 [3] and 90
[4]) was performed. At the time they were published, MC 78 and MC 90 constituted the
state-of-the-art and, as such, these codes later inspired a generation of standards such as
Eurocode 2 [5]. When MC 78 and MC 90 were published, the first mechanical models for

punching shear that were based on physical behaviour were already available [6,7]. However,
these models led to rather cumbersome design expressions and were difficult to use in practice.
Thus, an empirical approach was preferred by national and international standards. The
corresponding design formulas (derived on the basis of dimension analysis and statistical
regression) accounted for the influence of a number of properties and phenomena on the shear
resistance, such as concrete compressive strength, size effect, reinforcement ratio or the
influence of unbalanced moments transferred by the slab.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page3

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Since the publication of MC 90, a significant amount of research has been undertaken on the
punching shear strength of slab connections and extensive reviews on the topic can be found in
[8,9,10]. Many contributions provided physical models and theoretical advances [11,12,13,14]
that lead to simple design expressions with comparable, or improved, accuracy than previous
empirical approaches. These expressions are rationally derived on the basis of the physical
models supporting the grounding theories and include some material constants fitted on the
basis of test results. These advances in mechanical modelling were acknowledged when
preparing MC 2010. The new and physically grounded design equations have the advantage
that the underlying principles can still be understood by practitioners, thus enabling
phenomenological approaches to punching shear. These models can be considered as an
evolution of the previous empirical design approaches, providing physical approaches that
explain the role of the various parameters. This is justified since the role and the influence of the
previously empirically-fitted governing parameters had been derived and incorporated on the
design expressions on the basis of mechanical analogies.
With respect to the punching shear provisions, the Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT), based
on a physical model, was selected as the reference model. Grounding design rules based on
physical models has a number of advantages:
-

rules based on a physical model can be explained, understood and justified on physical
principles and have the potential for further development;

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page4

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

they provide a consistent platform for design in various situations (eg. with and
without shear reinforcement, fibres, etc); and
design equations can be adapted to different cases (even if they are still not considered
in current design equations) by suitably evaluating the mechanical parameters.

With respect to the CSCT, it provides simple design equations that are widely checked against
experimental results and enables the use of a Level-of-Approximation (LoA) approach for
design and analysis, consistent with the general principles of MC 2010 [15]. It is also worthy of
note that an earlier form of the CSCT model was already adopted in Swiss concrete structures
standards [16] with positive experiences.
Details on the LoA approach and on how punching shear provisions take advantage of it can be

found elsewhere [15]. The idea of the approach is that the number and accuracy of the
mechanical parameters used in the physical model (and thus the accuracy of the estimate of the
strength) can be refined (if necessary) in a number of steps. For a preliminary estimate of the
strength of a member, the mechanical parameters of the design expressions are determined in a
safe and simple manner. This allows for checking the dimensions and main properties of a
structure with minimum effort and sufficient accuracy and conservatism. In addition, in many
cases, such safe and simplified checks are sufficient to ensure that punching is not governing
and hence, no further effort is required (this is the case when column size and slab thickness are

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page5

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

governed by other design criteria). When a more accurate estimate of the strength is required for
critical or non-conventional elements, the calculation of the mechanical parameters of the
design expressions can be refined, which requires some additional work (successive LoA). The
LoA approach allows for a consistent use of the same theory and design equations during the
different phases of a project (preliminary design, tender or executive design, assessment of
critical details) with improving the accuracy of the strength estimates as, and when, required.

2. Code provisions
The MC 2010 establishes a consistent basis for design of beams and one-way and two-way
slabs and is based on physical models. The influence of strain and size effects on the strength of
beams in shear have long been established [17,18,19]. The same influences have been observed
for punching in two-way slabs and the physical mechanisms are similar [12,13,20]. With

respect to the punching shear provisions of MC2010, references [20] and [21] are of particular
interest, as these illustrate the basis for the design formulations.

2.1 Failure criterion

According to the CSCT the shear strength depends on the crack widths (and thus on the strains)

developing in the shear-critical region [20], see Figure 1a. For slabs failing in punching shear, a
strong gradient of bending moments and shear forces occur in the vicinity of supported areas (or

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page6

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

of concentrated loads) [22]. A suitable parameter for describing the strains in the shear-critical
region (near the concentrated forces) was identified in [6] as the rotation of the slab (), which
can be considered as an integral of the curvatures for such region, see Figure 1a. According to
the CSCT, the crack widths in the shear-critical region can be correlated to the product of
rotation and flexural effective depth of the slab ( w d [24]). In MC2010, this dependency

is incorporated in the calculation of the punching shear strength (VRd,c) as:

VRd ,c = k

f ck

b0 d v

(1)

Where b0 refers to the length of the control perimeter (set at dv/2 of the edge of the supported
area), dv to the shear-resisting effective depth of the member (accounting for penetration of the
supported area in the slab), fck to the characteristic compressive strength of concrete measured

in cylinder (in [MPa]), c is the partial safety factor for concrete and k is the factor accounting
for the opening and roughness of the cracks:

k =

1
0.6
1.5 + 0.9k dg d

(2)

With factor kdg defined as for shear (kdg = 32/(16+dg) 0.75, where dg refers to the maximum

size of the aggregate in [mm]) and d is the effective depth to be introduced in [mm]. It can be

noted that Eq. (2) is based on the criterion given in [20] where the constant terms have been
adapted to the definition of term kdg.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page7

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Note that this approach can be adapted to different situations. For instance, the contributions to
the punching shear strength (VRd) of any shear reinforcement can be accounted for by adding the
shear reinforcement contribution (VRd,s) to the concrete contribution (VRd,c) [21] (see Figure 2e).
That is:

V Rd = V Rd ,c + V Rd , s

(3)

Extensive theoretical justification and experimental validation of Eq. (2) and details of the
equations defining the activation of the shear reinforcement as a function of the slab rotations
are presented elsewhere [23,25] accounting for the contributions of aggregate interlock and

tensile strength of concrete. The same approach has also been adopted in MC 2010 to account
for the contribution of steel fibres to punching shear strength [26]. Also, application to
prestressed slabs [27,28], post-installed shear reinforcement [29] or non-axis-symmetric slabs
[30,31] can be found elsewhere.

2.2 Load-rotation behaviour of the slab

Contrary to shear in beams and one-way slabs in the companion paper [32], where the
relationship between strains (crack openings) and acting bending moments can be assumed as
proportional after flexural cracking, the load-rotation behaviour of a slab is significantly
nonlinear [6,12,13,20].

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page8

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

A general approach for obtaining such a relationship was already investigated by Muttoni [20]
on the basis of an axis-symmetric slab accounting for equilibrium and compatibility conditions
(considering concrete tensile strength, tension-stiffening of the reinforcement and the
elastic-plastic behavior of the reinforcement and concrete). The resulting expression was
derived on the basis of a quadri-linear moment-curvature diagram (see Figs. 1b-h) and results
in:

V =

2
rq rc

mr r0 + m R ry r0 + EI 1 ln(r1 ) ln(ry ) +

EI r r + m r r + EI ln(r ) ln(r )
cr
cr
1
0
s
cr
1 TS 1 y

(4)

where x is equal to x if x>0 and 0 otherwise, and the various parameters are defined in
Figures 1a,b,g. This law is aimed at performing refined analyses of the behavior of slabs and is
particularly suitable for assessing the strength of existing structures (typically corresponding to
a LoA IV). For design of new structures, it can however be simplified on the basis of some

conservative assumptions leading to larger rotations for a given load level (thus associated to
larger crack widths and lower punching shear strength). For instance, by neglecting the tensile
strength of concrete and its tension-stiffening behavior (i.e. considering a bilinear
moment-curvature diagram, Fig. 1g) one can obtain the following load-rotation expression [20]
(Fig. 1h):

V=

2
EI 1
rq rc

r
1 + ln s
r0

for ry r0 (elastic regime)

(5)

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page9

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

V =

2
EI 1
rq rc

r
1 + ln s

ry

for r0 ry rs (elastic-plastic regime)

(6)

It can be noted that these expressions are similar to those already proposed by Kinnunen and
Nylander for characterizing the behaviour of slabs [6] and in a general manner they can be
written as:
V =

V
2
EI 1 f 1 E
V
rq rc
flex

(7)

where f1(V/Vflex) is a function depending on the ratio between the applied load and the bending
strength of the slab ( V flex = 2 m R rs /( rq rc ) ). Then, the load-rotation diagram can be further

simplified by introducing the suitable values of the bending strength (Vflex, mR) and the cracked
flexural stiffness (EI1):
m R = d 2 f y g1 ( x pl / d )

(8)

EI 1 = E s d 3 g 2 ( xel / d )

(9)

where refers to the flexural reinforcement ratio, d to its effective depth fy to the yield strength
of the reinforcement, is a factor accounting for non axis-symmetric reinforcement layout (that
can be set approximately to 0.6 according to [20]), Es is the modulus of elasticity of the

reinforcement; g1(xpl/d) is a function depending on the parameter between brackets (depth of

plastic compression zone, a solution assuming a rigid-plastic behaviour for the materials can be
found in [20]) and g2(xel/d) is a function depending on the parameter between brackets (depth of

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page10

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

elastic compression zone, a solution assuming an elastic behaviour for concrete with no tensile
strength and an elastic behaviour for the reinforcement can be found in [20]). Thus:
V =

V
2
EI 1 f1
V
rq rc
flex

V
= flex EI 1 f1 V
r m
V
s R
flex

(10)

That can alternatively be written as:

rs m R V
f2
V
EI 1
flex

rs d 2 f y g1 ( x pl / d ) V
=
f
E d 3 g (x / d ) 2 V
s
el
2

flex

rs f y V
=
f
d E 3V
s

flex

(11)

The function f3(V/Vflex) contains thus the information on the development of the rotations for the
level of applied load. According to MC 2010, such function can be estimated on the basis of the
acting bending moments and flexural strength as:
V
f3 E
V
flex

= k m ms
m

1 .5

1.5

r f y ms

so that = k m s
d E s mR

(12)

where ms refers to the moment used for calculation of the reinforcement in the support strip [15]

and mR to the corresponding bending strength. The shape of the curve given by Eq. 12

reproduces with sufficient accuracy that obtained from other models(refer to Fig. 1h), such as
those found from a quad-linear or bi-linear approximation of the m- curve (refer to Fig. 1g).
A factor of proportionality (km) is also given to account if simpler (Level-of-Approximation II,
km = 1.5) or more refined (Level-of-Approximation III, km = 1.2) estimates of the acting

moment in the design strip (ms) are considered. For design purposes, the previous formulas can

be directly used by introducing the pertinent safety format and its corresponding values (design

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page11

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

moment strip msd, design bending strength mRd and design yield strength of the reinforcement
fyd).

For preliminary design purposes, a safer estimate of the rotation of the slab can be used by
setting ms = mR (full reinforcement yielding at the support strip). This is typically adopted at a
LoA I, in order to check if the general dimensions of a slab are suitable.

2.3 Design and calculation of failure loads

Performing a design using this strain-based method is rather simple. It suffices to calculate the

rotation of the slab () that corresponds to the acting shear force (VE) and, with that, to

determine the strength according to the failure criterion (VR). In the case VE VR, the strength is
sufficient (Fig. 2b). Otherwise, the punching shear strength is insufficient (Fig. 2c) and the
design of the slab has to be modified (e.g. by placing of shear reinforcement or shearheads,
enlargement of the supported area, increasing of the slab thickness or of the flexural
reinforcement).
If it is necessary to calculate the actual punching strength (which might be necessary for the
assessment of an existing structure), the intersection point of the failure criterion, which
provides the available punching shear strength for a given rotation, and the load-rotation curve

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page12

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

of the slab, which represents shear force for a given rotation, has to be determined (refer to
Figure 2d).
The accuracy of the MC 2010 approach is compared in Figure 3a-b to test results on slabs
without transverse reinforcement for Levels-of-Approximation II (given by Eq. 12) and using a
LoA IV approximation (Eq. 4) based on a quad-linear moment-curvature diagram. Details on
the tests compared to MC 2010 in Figure 3a-b have been presented in reference [20]. The
results compare well for both cases, with a logical improvement in accuracy for LoA IV
calculations, compared to those of LoA II. It has to be noted though that LoA II already
provides very good estimates for the measured strengths and, in these cases of punching in
symmetric slabs without moment transfer, performing a LoA III or LoA IV calculation has only
a limited influence on the results. On the other hand, the LoA III and LoA IV models provides
significant improvement in accuracy when designing slabs of irregular geometry [23].

Comparison to shear-reinforced slabs is also shown in Figure 3c for the tests presented in
references [21,25]. The results are presented for LoA II, showing how various failure modes
(punching within the shear-reinforced area, by crushing of concrete struts and outside the
shear-reinforced area) can be governing [21]. The results are again in nice agreement to the
measured failure loads.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page13

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

3. Design example

In this section, the MC 2010 provisions are used for the punching shear design of a flat slab.
The structure under consideration is a five-storey residential building with the geometry and
main dimensions given in Figure 4. In the following, the design of the flat slab against punching
of the inner column (C5) is discussed.
For the concrete, the strength class C30/37 (fck = 30 MPa, c = 1.5) is assumed and for the

reinforcing steel a grade B500S (fyk = 500 MPa, Es = 200 GPa, s = 1.15, ductility class B) is

assumed. The factored design load accounting for self-weight, dead load and live load is
qd = 15.6 kN/m 2 .

3.1 First LoA: Check of the main dimensions of the structure

For preliminary design it is usually sufficient to check whether the thickness of the slab and the
size of the slab connections (columns, walls) are adequate to ensure a sufficient punching shear
strength. For the selected design example, and without performing a rigorous analysis, the
design reaction can be estimated on the basis of contributive areas, refer to Figure 5. For the
inner column, this results in REd = 692 kN. If the loads applied on the inside the control

perimeter are neglected, which is a safe and reasonable assumption with respect to the degree of
accuracy, the shear force results in VEd = REd = 692 kN.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page14

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

The punching shear strength for members without shear reinforcement is calculated as [2]:

VRd = VRd ,c = k

f ck

b0 d v

(13)

The control perimeter b0 can be estimated assuming a basic perimeter at a distance of dv/2 from

the supported area and a safe value of the eccentricity coefficient ke of 0.90 (accounting for

concentrations of loads within the shear field [15]). Thus, the control perimeter results in:

b0 = k e (4 bc + d v ) = 0.90 (4 260 + 200) = 1501 mm

(14)

Assuming an average effective depth of d = 200 mm and dv (defined as the distance from the
centroid of the reinforcement layers to the supported area) equal to d, as the construction joint

between the slab and the column is assumed to be at the base of the slab; that is, there is no
column penetration.
For estimating the punching shear strength, the rotation of the slab is the governing parameter.
A first and safe estimate of this value can be obtained assuming that failure of the slab occurs at
full yielding of the flexural reinforcement in the support strip, which is a conservative
assumption with respect to the crack widths [15]. This allows calculation of the the governing
rotation as a function of the slenderness of the slab (expressed in terms of the ratio rs/d, where rs
denotes the radius of contraflexure of radial bending moments) and of the yield strain of the
flexural reinforcement [15]. The distance rs can be approximated for flat slabs with regular bays

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page15

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

as [2]: rsx = 0.22Ax = 1.32 and rsy = 0.22Ay = 1.23 m (where A refers to the bay span). In this case,
the rotation around the x-direction is governs (larger value of rs) and can be calculated as [2]:

x = 1.5

rs , x f yd
d Es

= 1.5

1.32 435
= 0.0215
0.200 200000

(15)

Thus, the value of k (accounting for the opening of the shear-critical crack and for its
roughness [15]) is:

k =

1
1
=
= 0.227 (< 0.6)
1.5 + 0.9 d k dg 1.5 + 0.9 0.0215 200 0.75

(16)

Assuming that the aggregate size is larger than 27 mm, a value kdg = 0.75 is obtained(kdg =

32/(16+dg) 0.75). The punching shear strength can thus be calculated according to MC 2010
[2] as:

VRd , c = k

f ck

b0 d v = 0.227

30
1501 200 103 = 249 kN VEd
1.5

(17)

In this case, the punching shear resistance is lower than the design shear force. In order to check
whether the placement of shear reinforcement will suffice to strengthen the slab or other
alternatives have to be provided (shearheads, changes of thickness or of supported area

dimensions), the maximum punching shear strength of a shear-reinforced slab has to be

determined. In the MC 2010 [2] this can be done with help of the coefficient ksys. This
coefficient is equal to the ratio between design shear force and the shear strength due to the
concrete contribution. A similar approach has also been adopted by other authors [33] on the

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page16

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

basis of the Eurocode 2 empirical formulas [5]. The coefficient ksys varies between 2.0, for
lower performing systems, and 2.8, for higher performing systems. In the present case there is a
demand of:

k sys =

VEd
692
=
= 2.78
VRd ,c 249

(18)

This value implies that it is possible to choose shear reinforcement that will provide sufficient

strength and no increases of the column size or of the thickness of the slab are necessary.

3.2 Second LoA: Design for punching shear

For preliminary design purposes and in order to check the dimensions of a structure, it is
assumed that the flexural reinforcement yields at failure of the slab. However, in a tender or
executive design this (safe) assumption can be improved, if necessary. To do so, the amount of
flexural reinforcement over the column needs to be known.
The design of the flexural reinforcement can be carried out for example with help of the
advanced strip method [34], the direct design method, the equivalent frame method [35]

or by using the finite element method (FEM). For the following, the latter option was used
resulting in the reinforcement layout shown in Figure 6. The resistance in bending is calculated
according to the rigid-plastic theory as:

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page17

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

mRd = d2fyd(1-0.5fyd/fcd )

(19)

which, for the investigated region, leads to a value of mRd = 115 kNm/m (calculated with d =

204 mm). Based on the FEM analysis a more refined value of the design reaction of Rd =
664 kN is obtained, which is in close agreement with the previous estimate and the
corresponding bending moments acting on top of the column are found as MEd,x = 8 kNm and
MEd,y = 1 kNm. The total bending moment MEd 8 kNm.

According to MC 2010 [2], the design shear force can be reduced by subtracting the loads
applied within the control perimeter from the column reaction (Figure 7):

Ac = bc2 + 2bc d v +

d v2 = 0.206 m2,

thus

VEd = Rd qd Ac = 661 kN

(20)

In this case the design shear force is only slightly reduced; however, in other cases (such as

foundations or post-tensioned slabs) this reduction might be significant. The calculation of the
eccentricity coefficient ke can also be performed in a more accurate manner. Instead of the safe
estimate adopted in LoA I (ke = 0.90) the the general expression provided by MC 2010 for this
parameter [2] can be used:
ke =

1
1 + eu bu

(21)

The load eccentricity eu is calculated to eu = |MEd/VEd| = 8103/661 = 12 mm, accounting for the

coincident position of the centroids of the column and of the control perimeter. The diameter of

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page18

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

a circle with the same surface as the region Ac inside the basic control perimeter is bu =
(4Ac/)0.5 = 513 mm. This yields ke = 0.977 and b0 = 1642 mm.

The determination of the design rotations, accounting for the flexural reinforcement, starts with
the definition of the width of the bending moment support strip. This parameter can be
calculated as [15] bs = 1.5(rsxrsy)0.5 = 1.91 m. The bending moments acting in the support strip
result in:

M Ed , x VEd ex 661
V
8
=
+
= 84.7 kNm/m
msd , x = Ed +
8
2bs
8
2 1.91

(22)

Finally, at LoA II, the estimate of the design rotations can be improved with respect to LoA I
[2]:

1.5

f yd msd
r

x = 1 .5 s , x
d Es mRd , x

1. 5

1.32 435 84.7

= 1 .5

0.204 200000 115

= 0.0133

(23)

where the rotation around the x-axis is governing (rotation in the y-axis is smaller with msd,y =

82.9 kNm/m and y = 0.0121). Thus:

k =

1
1
=
= 0.30 ( 0.6)
1.5 + 0.9 d kdg 1.5 + 0.9 0.0133 204 0.75

VRd ,c = k

f ck

b0 d v = 0.300

30
1642 204 103 = 367 kN VEd
1.5

(24)

(25)

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page19

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

The punching shear strength of the slab without shear reinforcement is insufficient and
reinforcement is required. The shear carried by the concrete, however, is assessed to be higher
from that of the LoA I model and, thus, the total steel reinforcement required is reduced.
This result confirms that of the LoA I analysis. Taking advantage of the improved values k and

, a detailed design of the required shear reinforcement can be performed. To do so, the three
potential failure modes of shear-reinforced slabs (i.e., crushing of concrete struts, punching
within the shear-reinforced zone and punching outside the shear-reinforced zone [21]) have to
be checked.

a) Maximum punching shear strength (crushing of concrete struts)

The required value of ksys results from the previous value of VRd,c:

k sys =

VEd
661
=
= 1.80
VRd ,c 367

(26)

This implies that the slab can be shear-reinforced using any available shear reinforcement
system. In this example vertical stirrups or links suitably detailed according to MC 2010 [2] are
used.

b) Design of punching shear reinforcement

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page20

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

At failure, VEd is equal to VRd and the punching shear strength is calculated as VRd = VRd,c + VRd,s,
where the contribution of the shear reinforcement VRd,s = VEd VRd,c has to satisfy VRd,s 0.5VEd

(minimum shear reinforcement); in the present case this condition is governing: VRd,s 331 kN.
The required shear reinforcement can thus be determined as [2]:
VRd , s = Asw ke swd

(27)

where Asw denotes the cross-sectional area of the shear reinforcement located between 0.35dv
and dv from the edge of the supported area (Figure 8) and swd is the average stress activated in

the shear reinforcement due to the opening of the critical shear crack. This latter parameter can
be calculated as:

swd ( f ywd ) =

Es
6

1 + f bd d = 200000 0.0133 1 + 3 204

6
f ywd w
435 8

= 521 MPa swd = f ywd

(28)

The values fbd, fywd and w refer to the bond strength, yield strength and diameter of the shear
reinforcement, respectively. Thus

Asw =

VRd , s
k e swd

331
= 779 mm2
0.977 435

(29)

Choosing, for instance, 8 mm-diameter links at a spacing of 100 mm in both x- and y-directions

(w = 0.5%) results in Asw = wAcw = 1263 mm2, where Acw is the concrete area within dv and

0.35dv from the supported area (0.253 m2), refer to Figure 8.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page21

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

For shear studs or other types of shear reinforcement arranged either radially or in a cruciform
shape (see Figure 9), Asw may be determined from:
Asw = nrAd/s

(30)

where nr is the number of lines of stud, or shear, reinforcement radiating from the column, s is

the nominal stud spacing, s = max(s1; s0+0.5s1), where s0 is the distance of the first shear
reinforcement unit to the supported area and s1 is the spacing of the studs in the radial direction,
and A is the cross-sectional area of one stud.

c) Extent of the shear-reinforced area

The extent of the area where shear reinforcement has to be provided can be determined by
calculating the punching shear strength outside the shear-reinforced area (accounting for the
concrete contribution VRd,c only). The shear-resisting effective depth (dv,out) has to be reduced in

this case because of the concrete cover of the shear reinforcement in the compression side
(soffit) of the slab (dv,out = d c = 174 mm). The required perimeter to ensure sufficient

punching shear strength results in

661 103
= 3468 mm
=
b0 =
30
174
d v 0.300
k
1 .5
c
VEd
f ck

(31)

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page22

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

which is smaller than that available: b0,out = 0.99 (4800+174) = 3708 mm, see Figure 8,
where the factor 0.99 is the coefficient ke for the outer perimeter. It can be noted that the
reduction of the shear forces acting inside the control perimeter have been neglected as a safe

assumption.

4. Conclusions

Punching shear design procedures - especially those of the previous Model Codes (MC 1978
and MC 1990) - have been thoroughly reviewed during the preparation of the Model Code
2010. The new Model Code provisions provide a consistent, physical, approach to shear design,
including that of punching, with design equations on the mechanical model provided by the
Critical Shear Crack Theory. It is to be recognised that the CSCT approach for two-way shear
and the SMCFT approach for one-way shear, presented in the Part I paper, are coherent and, for
the first time, a consistent physical modelling philosophy is established that links these two
situations.

The main advantages of having a physically based model are:

1. A set of clear and understandable design equations are established that directly
incorporate size and strain effects and enables a consistent treatment of members with
transverse reinforcement and/or fibres.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page23

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

2. The accuracy of the strength estimate can be progressively improved, if necessary, by

following a Level-of-Approximation approach. Simple, safe and low effort
expressions are provided for preliminary design. If more accurate estimates of the
shear strength are required (for instance for tender or executive designs or for the
assessment of existing structures), the accuracy of the design expressions can easily be
improved by performing some additional work better reproducing the actual
load-rotation behaviour of the member.

3. As the design expressions are based on physical models both for determining the
strength and load-rotation behaviour, they are open for incorporation future
developments and construction technologies (new punching shear reinforcing
systems, new grades or types of steel and/or concrete) as the mechanical parameters
and the underlying model(s) for determining them can be adjusted, or extended,
simply.

Finally, an example is presented that demonstrates how the LoA methodology may be utilised
effectively depending on the accuracy needed and/or the level of design required, preliminary

or detailed, and on the determination of shear reinforcement, using different arrangements, to

achieve a required performance.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page24

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Acknowledgements

The authors are appreciative of the help and comments of Dr. Stefan Lips (cole Polytechnique
Fdrale de Lausanne, Switzerland), Dr. Juan Sagaseta Albajar (Univ. of Surrey, United
Kingdom), Dr. Luca Tassinari (former PhD student at cole Polytechnique Fdrale de
Lausanne) and Carsten Siburg (Rheinisch-Westflische Technische Universitt, Germany) in
preparing and checking the design example of this article.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page25

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Appendix 1: Notation

The following symbols are used within this paper:

Ac

cross-sectional area of concrete

Acw

cross-sectional area of concrete where shear reinforcement is activated

Ac

cross-sectional area of one shear reinforcement

Asw

cross-sectional area of a shear reinforcement

Es

modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement

EI0

uncracked flexural stiffness

EI1

cracked flexural stiffness

MEd

transfer moment (design value; subscripts

directions)

REd

reaction of supported area (design value)

shear force

VE

acting shear force

VEd

design value of acting shear force

Vflex

level of shear force leading to failure in bending

VR

punching shear strength

VRd

design punching shear strength

VRd,c

design concrete contribution to punching shear strength

VRd,s

design shear reinforcement contribution to punching shear strength

b0

shear-resisting control perimeter

bc

size of square column

bs

strip width

bu

Diameter of a circle with the same surface as the region inside the basic control
perimeter

dv

shear-resisting effective depth

effective depth

dg

maximum diameter of the aggregate

referring to the considered

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page26

StructuralConcrete

load eccentricity with respect to the centroid of the basic control perimeter

fi, gi

functions

fbd

design bond strength

fck

characteristic compressive strength of concrete (measured on cylinder)

fcd

fy

yield strength of flexural reinforcement

fyd

design yield strength of flexural reinforcement

fyk

characteristic value of the yield strength of the flexural reinforcement

fywd

design yield strength of the shear reinforcement

kdg

coefficient for aggregate size (= 32 /(16 mm +dg))

ke

coefficient of eccentricity

km

factor of proportionality

ksys

efficiency factor of a punching shear reinforcing system

factor accounting for crack widths and roughness of cracks on shear strength

span length (subscripts x , y referring to the considered directions)

mcr

cracking moment

mr

radial moment

ms

average moment per unit length (design of flex. reinforcement) in the strip

msd

average design moment per unit length (design of flex. reinforcement) in the strip
(subscripts x , y referring to the considered directions)

mR

average flexural strength per unit length in the support strip

mRd

average design flexural strength per unit length in the support strip (subscripts x , y
referring to the considered directions)

nr

number of lines of studs

qd

applied load (design value)

r0

radius of the critical shear crack

r1

radius of the zone where cracking is stabilized

rq

distance between the column the line of contraflexure of bending moments

Accepted Article

eu

design value of the compressive strength of concrete (measured on cylinder)

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page27

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

rs

distance between the column and the line of contraflexure of moments (subscripts
x , y referring to the considered directions)

rc

column radius

ry

radius of yielded zone

reference stud spacing

s0

distance of the first shear reinforcement unit to the supported area

s1

spacing of the studs in the radial direction

critical shear crack opening

xel

depth of uncracked concrete

xpl

depth of plastic zone of concrete

efficiency factor of the bending reinforcement for stiffness calculation

curvature

TS

reduction of curvature due to tension-stiffening

partial safety factor of concrete

partial safety factor of steel

diameter of shear reinforcement

flexural reinforcement ratio

transverse reinforcement ratio

swd

design stress in shear reinforcement

rotation of the slab outside the supported area region (subscripts x , y referring to
the considered directions)

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page28

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

References

[ 1]

Fdration Internationale du Bton (fib), Model Code 2010 - Final draft, Vol. 1,

fdration internationale du bton, Bulletin 65, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012, Vol. 2, 350 p.
[ 2]

Fdration Internationale du Bton (fib), Model Code 2010 - Final draft, Vol. 2,

fdration internationale du bton, Bulletin 66, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012, Vol. 2, 370 p.
[ 3]

CEB-FIP, Model Code for Concrete Structures, Comit Euro-International du Bton

(CEB), 3rd ed., Lausanne, 1978, 348 p.

[ 4]

CEB-FIP MC 90, Design of concrete structures. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Thomas

Telford, London, 1993, 460 p.

[ 5]

Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for

buildings, CEN, EN 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 p.

[ 6]

Kinnunen S., Nylander H., 1960, Punching of Concrete Slabs Without Shear

Reinforcement, Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, N 158, 112 p.

[ 7]

Braestrup M. W., Nielsen M. P., Jensen B. C., Bach F. Axisymetric Punching of Plain

and Reinforced Concrete, Afdelingen for Baerende Konstruktioner - Danmarks Tekniske

Hojkole, Nr. 75, Lyngby, Denmark, 1976, 33 p.

[ 8]

Silfwerbrand J. and Hassanzadeh G. (Ed.), International Workshop on Punching Shear

Capacity of RC Slabs, Royal Institute of Technology, 2000, 527 p.

[ 9]

Fdration Internationale du Bton (fib), 2001, Punching of structural concrete slabs,

fib, bulletin No 12, Lausanne, Switzerland, 314 p.

[ 10]

Pollak, M.-A. and ACI committee 445, 2005, Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete

Slabs, American Concrete Institute, SP-232, 298 p.

[ 11]

Muttoni A., Schwartz, J., Behaviour of Beams and Punching in Slabs without Shear

Reinforcement, IABSE Colloquium, Vol. 62, Zurich, Switzerland, 1991, pp. 703-708

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page29

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

[ 12]

Hallgren, M., Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Slabs,

doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1996, 206 pp.
[ 13]

Broms, C. E., Concrete Flat Slabs and Footings: Design Method for Punching and

Detailing for Ductility, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2006, 114 pp.

[ 14]

Hong-Gun Park, Kyoung-Kyu Choi, Lan Chung, Strain-based strength model for

direct punching shear of interior slabcolumn connections, Engineering Structures, Volume

33, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 1062-1073

[ 15]

Muttoni, A., Fernndez Ruiz, M., The levels-of-approximation approach in MC 2010:

applications to punching shear provisions, Structural Concrete, Ernst & Sohn, Germany, Vol.

13, No. 1, 2012, pp. 32-41

[ 16]

SIA, Code 262 for Concrete Structures, Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects,

Zrich, 2003, 94 p.
[ 17]

Kani, G.N.J., How Safe are Our Large Reinforced Concrete Beams?, ACI Journal

Proceedings, Vol. 64, No. 3, 1967, pp. 128-141

[ 18]

Collins, M.P., Kuchma, D., How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly Reinforced Concrete

Beams, Slabs, and Footings?, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96,

No.

4,

1999,

pp.

482-490
[19]

Muttoni A., Fernndez Ruiz M., Shear strength of members without transverse

reinforcement as function of critical shear crack width, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No 2,

2008, pp. 163-172

[ 20]

Muttoni A., Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs without transverse

reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No 4, 2008, pp. 440-450

[ 21]

Fernndez Ruiz, M., Muttoni, A., Applications of the critical shear crack theory to

punching of R/C slabs with transverse reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 4,

2009, pp. 485-494

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page30

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

[ 22]

Muttoni, A., Fernndez Ruiz, M., Shear in slabs and beams: should they be treated in

the same way?, fdration internationale du bton, Bulletin # 57, 2010, pp. 105-12

[ 23]

Muttoni, A., Fernndez Ruiz, M., MC2010: The Critical Shear Crack Theory as a

mechanical model for punching shear design and its application to code provisions, fdration

internationale du bton, Bulletin # 57, 2010, pp. 31-60

[ 24]

Guandalini S., Burdet O., Muttoni A., Punching tests of slabs with low reinforcement

ratios, ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, N1, USA, 2009, pp. 87-95

[ 25]

Lips S., Fernndez Ruiz M., Muttoni A., Experimental Investigation on Punching

Strength and Deformation Capacity of Shear-Reinforced Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, Vol.

109, USA, 2012, pp. 889-900.

[ 26]

Maya, L. F., Fernndez Ruiz, M., Muttoni, A., Foster, S., Punching shear strength of

steel fibre reinforced concrete slabs, Engineering Structures, Elsevier, Vol. 40, 2012, pp. 83-94

[ 27]

Clment, T., Pinho Ramos, A., Fernndez Ruiz, M., and Muttoni, A., Design for

punching of prestressed concrete slabs, Structural concrete, Accepted manuscript online:

26.11.2012 | DOI: 10.1002/suco.201200028

[ 28]

Faria, D. M. V., Lcio, V.J.G., Pinho Ramos, A., Strengthening of flat slabs with

post-tensioning using anchorages by bonding, Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2011, pp.
20252043
[ 29]

Fernndez Ruiz M., Muttoni A., Kunz J., Strengthening of flat slabs against punching

shear using post-installed shear reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 107 N 4, USA,

2010, pp. 434-442.

[ 30]

Farzam, M., Fouad, N.A., Grnberg, J., Fard, M.Y., Punching of RC slabs under

eccentric loads, Structural Concrete, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2010 , pages 211-220
[ 31]

Sagaseta, J., Muttoni, A., Fernndez Ruiz, M., Tassinari, L., Non axis-symmetrical

punching shear around internal columns of RC slabs without transverse reinforcement,

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page31

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Magazine of Concrete Research, Thomas Telford Publishing Ltd., London, Vol. 63, No. 6,
2011, pp. 441-457
[ 32]

Sigrist, V., Bentz, E., Fernndez Ruiz, M., Foster, S.J., Muttoni, A., Background to the

Model Code 2010 Shear Provisions - Part I: Beams and Slabs, Structural Concrete, Ernst &

Sohn, Germany, companion paper to this manuscript.

[ 33]

Hegger, J., Walraven, J. C., Hausler, F., Punching of Flat Slabs according to Eurocode

2 (in German: Zum Durchstanzen von Flachdecken nach Eurocode 2), Beton- und

Stahlbetonbau, Vol. 105, No. 4, 2010, pp. 206-215

[ 34]

Hillerborg, A., The advanced strip method a simple design tool, Magazine of

Concrete Research, Volume 34, Issue 121, pages 175 181, 1982
[ 35]

ACI, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and

Commentary (ACI 318R-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., USA, 473

p.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page32

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Figures

(a)

critical shear crack

m
rc

(d)

(e)

(f )

T S
quad-linear

rq

r0

mcr

mt

mt

Figure 1:

bi-linear
1

EI0

mr

EI1

mt

cr

(h)

mr

mR

rs

(b)

(c)

(g)

r
y

Neglected

V
Vf lex

quad-linear
m diagram

1.0

Vf lex
bi-linear
m diagram

0.8

r
mr = mR

r
0

0.6
LoA II (by Eq. 12)

mr = mcr

0.4

cr

r1

rcr

0.2

0.0
0

r0

ry

mt = mR

rs

[%]

mt = mcr

Physical model for obtaining suitable load-roation relationships in flat slabs: (a)
investigated region and critical shear crack; (b) acting moments, forces and
dimensions; (c-d) acting radial curvature and moments; (e-f) acting tangential
curvature and moments; (g) quadrilinear moment-curvature diagram; and (h)
corresponding

load-rotation

relationships

(results

calculated

for

an

axis-symmetric slab = 0.48%, h = 155 mm, rc = 150 mm, rs = rq = 856 mm)

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page33

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

(a)

Figure 2:

critical shear crack

V
(b) V

loadrotation curve
VR
VE
strength

(c)

V
loadrotation curve
VE

VR
strength

(d) V

loadrotation curve
VR

failure
strength
R

(e)

V
loadrotation curve
VR

strength (VR,c +VR,s )

reinforcement contribution (VR,s)
concrete contribution (VR,c)

Calculation of punching shear strength according to the CSCT: (a) rotation of the
slab near the supported area region; (b,c) calculation of the punching shear
strength (VR) for the rotation developed for a given applied load (VE); (d)
intersection between failure criterion and load-rotation curve for calculation of
punching shear strength (VR); and (e) failure criterion accounting for concrete
and shear reinforcement contribution

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page34

StructuralConcrete

3.0
2.5

number of tests: 78
Average VR,test/VR,calc: 1.23
CoV: 11.5%
5%: 0.97

2.0

Vtest
Vcalc

[-]

Accepted Article

(a)

1.0
0.5
0.0
0

[%]
3.0
2.5

number of tests: 75
Average VR,test/VR,calc: 1.11
CoV: 9.2%
5%: 0.95

2.0

Vtest
Vcalc

[-]

(b)

1.5

1.0
0.5
0.0
0

[%]
3.0
within
crushing
outside

2.5

number of tests: 102

Average VR,test/VR,calc: 1.26
CoV: 11.2%
5%: 1.06

2.0

Vtest
Vcalc

[-]

(c)

1.5

Figure 3:

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

w [%]

Comparison of Model Code 2010 provisions with test results: (a) and (b)
specimens without transverse reinforcement for LoAs II and IV, respectively;
and (c) specimens with transverse reinforcement for LoA II.

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page35

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

(a)

(c)

(b)

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Design example: (a) view of building; (b) cross section of flat slab and
supporting columns; and (c) main dimensions (in [m], Ax = 6.00 m, Ay = 5.60 m)

Approximated contributive areas for each column

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page36

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Figure 6:

Figure 7:
cross-section

Sketch of flexural reinforcement.

(a)

(b)

Loads applied within the control perimeter: (a) plan view; and (b)

www.ernstundsohn.de

Page37

StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

(a)

(b)

Shear reinforcement arrangement: (a) plan view; and (b) cross-section

(a)

(c)

nr

shear
reinforcement
nr

(b)

s0

s1

Arrangement of shear reinforcement: (a) radial arrangement (nr = 8 in this case);

(b) detail of distances of first and second shear reinforcement; and (c) cruciform
shape (nr = 8 in this case)