COMPARISON OF PUNCHING SHEAR REQUIREMENTS IN BS8110, EC2 AND

MC2010

Soares LFS and Vollum RL

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

Corresponding author: Dr Robert L Vollum

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

Email: [email protected]

Phone +44 (0)20 75945992

Fax: +44(0)20 75945934

1
Abstract

This paper compares design provisions for punching shear at internal columns in the

superseded British Standard BS8110, Eurocode 2 (EC2) and fib Model Code 2010

(MC2010). The latter is based on the Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT) of Muttoni which

relates shear resistance to the width of the so called “critical shear crack” which depends on

slab rotation. Parametric studies are presented which show BS8110 to require significantly

less shear reinforcement within 1.5d (where d is the slab effective depth) of the loaded area

than EC2 and MC2010 both of which have been extensively calibrated against test data. This

raises the question of whether flat slabs designed with BS8110 have an adequate factor of

safety against punching failure. This question is explored using nonlinear finite element

modelling in conjunction with MC2010 Level IV. It is shown that punching resistance at

internal columns can be increased significantly by restraint from the surrounding slab but the

strength increase is variable and in the case of uniformly loaded slabs already largely

included in BS8110 and EC2.

Notation

Asl area of tensile reinforcement

Asw area of shear reinforcement in each perimeter

c side length of square column

d average effective depth of slab

db shear reinforcement diameter

dg maximum diameter of aggregate

dv reduced effective depth of slab

Es modulus of elasticity of reinforcement

F total load applied to each panel of flat slab

fc compressive cylinder strength of concrete

2
fck characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days

fct tensile strength of concrete

fcu characteristic cube strength of concrete

fy yield strength of reinforcement

fyw yield strength of shear reinforcement

h slab thickness

kdg effectiveness coefficient dependent on maximum aggregate size

ke effectiveness coefficient for eccentric shear

ksys efficiency factor for punching shear reinforcement system

k coefficient relating shear resistance to slab rotation

L span between column centrelines

mR nominal moment capacity per unit width

ms average bending moment per unit width

Msup design support moment across panel width

rc radius of equivalent circular column (2c/π for square columns)

rq radius of load introduction

rs radius of an isolated slab element

so radial spacing to first perimeter of shear reinforcement from column face

sr radial spacing of shear reinforcement

u length of basic control perimeter

uout length of first control perimeter at which shear reinforcement is not required

V shear force

VR,c shear resistance of slab without shear reinforcement

VR,cs combined shear resistance of concrete and shear reinforcement

VR,max maximum possible shear resistance

3
VR,out shear resistance outside shear reinforced zone

VR,s shear resistance provided by shear reinforcement

Vtest measured failure load

 coefficient to account for uneven shear

c partial factor for concrete

m BS8110 partial safety factor for shear

s partial factor for reinforcement

y reinforcement yield strain

ρ flexural tension reinforcement ratio

ρxl, ρyl flexural tension reinforcement ratio in x and y directions

sw shear reinforcement stress

ψ slab rotation outside critical shear crack

Introduction

The paper considers design for punching shear at the internal columns of solid flat

slabs. The relative economy of flat slabs depends on their thickness which is governed by

either deflection limits or punching resistance. Thinner slabs not only save on direct material

costs of the frame and supporting foundations but also reduce cladding costs due to reduced

floor-to-floor heights. There is no generally accepted theoretical treatment of punching and

design methods are calibrated with data from test specimens like that shown in Figure 1 in

which the line of radial contraflexure is fixed and compressive membrane effects are

minimal. Neither of these assumptions is realistic for flat slabs in which punching resistance

can be significantly increased by restraint from the surrounding slab (Ockelston, 1955). The

benefit of compressive membrane action on punching resistance has been demonstrated

experimentally by researchers including Rankin and Long (1987), Chana and Desai (1992a)

4
and Salim and Sebastian (2003). Regan (1986) carried out tests on cross shaped solid slab

specimens which showed that punching resistance is increased by rotational restraint at slab

edges. More recently, Choi and Kim (2012) tested three internal slab-column connections

with a complex setup intended to provide zero rotation at the slab edges. The punching

resistance was found to be almost independent of the percentage of moment redistribution

used in the calculation of design moments contrary to the recommendations of BS8110 (BSI,

1997) and EC2 (BSI, 2004a) which relate shear resistance to the flexural reinforcement ratio

over columns.

EC2 is the current UK standard for concrete structures having replaced BS8110:1997

(BSI, 1997) in 2010. Interestingly, BS8110: 1985 (BSI, 1985) could halve the area of shear

reinforcement required by the previous UK code CP110 (BSI, 1972). Unsurprisingly, this

caused concern which resulted in a test programme (Chana and Desai, 1992b), funded jointly

by the Department of Environment and British Cement Association, that led to BS8110 being

revised in 1992. EC2 and MC2010 (fib, 2012) typically require significantly more punching

shear reinforcement within 1.5d of columns than the 1992 amendment to BS8110. Therefore,

it is striking that there is no evidence of punching failure in flat slabs designed with BS8110.

The most recent international design recommendations for punching are found in MC2010,

which may influence future revisions of EC2. The MC2010 recommendations are based on

the critical shear crack theory (CSCT) of Muttoni (2008), which relates punching resistance

to the slab rotation, outside the so called critical shear crack. EC2 and BS8110 neglect any

increase in punching resistance due to restraint from the surrounding slab but its effect can be

modelled with the CSCT (Einpaul et al. 2015) using MC2010 Level IV (Muttoni and

Fernandez-Ruiz, 2012).

5
Comparison of design methods for punching in BS8110, EC2 and MC2010

All three methods take the punching resistance of slabs with shear reinforcement as

the least of VR,cs and VR,out but not greater than VR,max where:

i. VR,cs = VR,c+ VR,s ≥ VR,c is the combined shear resistance of concrete VR,c where

≤ 1 and shear reinforcement VR,s.

ii. VR,c = vcud is the strength of an otherwise similar slab without shear reinforcement

in which vc is the design concrete shear stress, u is the basic control perimeter and

d is the average slab effective depth.

iii. VR,out = vcuoutd ≥ VR,c is the shear resistance provided by concrete along a perimeter

of length uout just outside the shear reinforcement.

iv. VR,max is the maximum possible punching resistance for given column size, slab

effective depth and concrete strength.

BS8110 adopts rectangular perimeters for u and uout that are located respectively at

1.5d from the column face and 0.75d from the outer perimeter of shear reinforcement. EC2

locates u at 2d from the column face and uout at 1.5d from the outer perimeter of shear

reinforcement. MC2010 adopts a similar approach but locates u at 0.5d from the column face,

unless the loaded area is recessed into the slab, and uout at 0.5dv from the outer perimeter of

shear reinforcement where dv is the effective depth for shear which is taken as d-25 mm in the

parametric studies of this paper (where 25 mm is the cover to the shear studs). BS8110 and

EC2 multiply the design shear force by  to account for the effects of uneven shear due the

support reaction being eccentric whereas MC2010 reduces the design shear resistance by the

multiple ke. At internal columns, in cases where lateral stability does not depend on frame

action,  can be taken as 1.15 and ke as 0.9. The maximum shear stress in the slab around the

column is limited to 0.8√fcu in BS8110 and 0.3(1-fck/250)fck/c in the UK National Annex to

6
EC2 (BSI, 2004b) in which c is the partial factor for concrete which EC2 and MC2010 take

as 1.5. All three codes take the design yield strength of reinforcement as fyk/s where s =

1.15.

BS8110

The punching resistance without shear reinforcement is given by:

1 400 1 (1)
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 (𝐵𝑆8110) = 𝑣𝑅𝑑𝑐 𝑢𝑑 = 0.27(100𝜌𝑓𝑐𝑢 )3 ( )4 𝑢𝑑/𝛾𝑚
𝑑
𝐴𝑠𝑙
where 𝜌 = ≤ 0.03 is the flexural reinforcement ratio, 𝑓𝑐𝑢 is the characteristic
𝑏𝑑

compressive concrete cube strength and d is the effective depth. m has a design value of

1.25. BS8110 limits fcu to 40 Mpa in its design equations for shear but this limit is not applied

in this paper as it is unduly restrictive.

BS8110 requires shear reinforcement to be provided in rectangular perimeters centred

on the column. The required area of shear reinforcement is calculated in terms of the design

shear stress v as follows:

(𝑣 − 𝑣𝑅𝑑𝑐 )𝑢𝑑 0.4𝑢𝑑

Σ1.5𝑑 𝐴𝑠𝑤 ≥ ≥ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑣 ≤ 1.6𝑣𝑅𝑑𝑐 (2)
𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑

5(0.7𝑣 − 𝑣𝑅𝑑𝑐 )𝑢𝑑

Σ1.5𝑑 𝐴𝑠𝑤 ≥ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 1.6𝑣𝑅𝑑𝑐 ≤ 𝑣 ≤ 2𝑣𝑅𝑑𝑐
𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 (3)

𝛽𝑉𝐸𝑑 𝑉𝑅𝑑𝑐
where 𝑣 = and 𝑣𝑅𝑑𝑐 = . The required shear reinforcement Σ1.5𝑑 𝐴𝑠𝑤 is provided
𝑢𝑑 𝑢𝑑

over at least two perimeters of which the first perimeter should not contain less than

0.4Σ1.5𝑑 𝐴𝑠𝑤 . The first perimeter of shear reinforcement is provided at 0.5d from the column

face with successive perimeters positioned at spacings of 0.75d. The spacing of shear

reinforcement around a perimeter must not exceed 1.5d. Equations (2) and (3) are

subsequently used to design the shear reinforcement on successive square perimeters spaced

at multiples of 0.75d from the basic control perimeter.

7
EC2

1
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 0.18(100𝜌𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 (1 + (200⁄𝑑 )0.5 )𝑢𝑑/𝛾𝑐 (4)

0.5
where 𝜌 = (𝜌𝑥𝑙 𝜌𝑦𝑙 ) ≤ 0.02 in which 𝜌𝑥𝑙 and 𝜌𝑦𝑙 are the flexural tension reinforcement

𝐴𝑠𝑙
ratios within a slab width equal to the column plus 3d to each side.
𝑏𝑑

The required area of shear reinforcement is calculated as follows:

𝑑 𝛽𝑉𝐸𝑑 − 0.75𝑉𝑅𝑑𝑐
1.5𝐴𝑠𝑤 ≥ (5)
𝑠𝑟 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑,𝑒𝑓

where 𝐴𝑠𝑤 is the area of shear reinforcement in each perimeter, sr is the radial spacing of the

shear reinforcement and 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑,𝑒𝑓 = (250 + 0.25𝑑) ≤ 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 .

In addition to limiting the maximum shear stress around the column, EC2 limits the

maximum possible design shear force to VRdc where  is a Nationally Determined Parameter

with a recommended value of 1.5 that is increased to 2 in the UK National Annex (BSI,

2004b).

Figure 6.22 of EC2 shows shear reinforcement being provided in radial or cross type

configurations of which radial is most efficient. The radial spacing of the first perimeter of

shear reinforcement from the column must lie between 0.3 and 0.5d. The maximum radial

spacing of successive perimeters of shear reinforcement is 0.75d. The circumferential spacing

of vertical legs of shear reinforcement should not exceed 1.5d within the first control

perimeter and 2d outside where “that part of the perimeter is assumed to contribute to the

shear capacity”.

MC2010

MC2010 has four levels of design of which Levels I to III are intended for design and

Level IV for assessment. Level III is recommended for slabs with irregular geometry. The

shear resistance is calculated in terms of the slab rotation which Level II calculates as

follows:
8
 𝑟𝑠 𝑓𝑦𝑑 𝑚𝐸𝑑 1.5
𝜓 = 1.5 ( ) (6)
𝑑 𝐸𝑠 𝑚𝑅𝑑

where rs denotes the position where the radial bending moment is zero with respect to the

column axis, mEd is the average bending moment per unit width in the support strip, which is

assumed to be of width 1.5rs where rs = 0.22L, and mRd is the design average flexural strength

per unit width of the support strip. For concentrically loaded inner columns, mEd = Vd/8 for

Level II.

The punching resistance is calculated as VRd VRd,c VRd,s where:

√𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 𝑘𝜓 𝑢𝑑𝑣 (7)
𝛾𝑐

in which fck is in MPa and 𝑑𝑣 is the shear resisting effective depth which is taken as d at u in

this paper.

The parameter kdepends on the rotations of the slab around the support region and is

calculated as:

1
𝑘𝜓 = ≤ 0.6 (8)
1.5 + 0.9𝑘𝑑𝑔 𝜓𝑑

32
𝑘𝑑𝑔 = ≥ 0.75 (9)
16 + 𝑑𝑔

where dg is the maximum aggregate size.

The shear resistance provided by transverse reinforcement is calculated as:

𝑉𝑅𝑑𝑠 = Σ𝑑𝑣 𝐴𝑠𝑤 𝑘𝑒 𝜎𝑠𝑤 (10)

where Σ𝑑𝑣 𝐴𝑠𝑤 is the cross-sectional area of all shear reinforcement within the zone

bounded by 0.35dv and dv from the border of the support region. sw is the stress that can be

mobilized in the shear reinforcement and is taken as:

𝐸𝑠 𝜓 𝑓𝑏 𝑑
𝜎𝑠𝑤 = (1 + ) ≤ 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 (11)
6 𝛾𝑐 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 𝑑𝑏

9
where db is the shear reinforcement diameter and 𝑓𝑏 is the bond strength which is taken as 4.5

MPa in this paper as allowed by MC2010.

The maximum punching resistance is limited by crushing of concrete struts near the

support region such that:

√𝑓𝑐𝑘 √𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑘𝑠𝑦𝑠 𝑘𝜓 𝑢𝑑𝑣 ≤ 𝑢𝑑𝑣 (12)
𝛾𝑐 𝛾𝑐

The coefficient ksys accounts for the performance of punching shear reinforcing

systems and is taken as 2.4 for stirrups and 2.8 for studs provided the radial spacing to the

first perimeter of shear reinforcement from the column face so is less than or equal to 0.5dv

and the spacing of successive perimeters of shear reinforcement is less than 0.6dv. The

spacing of vertical legs of shear reinforcement around a perimeter should not exceed 3dv

where that part of the perimeter is assumed to contribute to the shear capacity.

Evaluation of BS8110, EC2 and MC2010 design methods for punching with test data

It is well established that EC2 and the CSCT (Muttoni, 2008), on which MC2010 is

based, give similar and reasonable predictions of the punching resistance of test specimens

like Figure 1. For example, Ferreira et al. (2014) compared the predictions of EC2 and the

CSCT, with partial factors of 1.0, for 45 tests with shear reinforcement. They found the mean

() and covariance (COV) of Vtest/Vcalc to be  =1.19:COV=0.136 for EC2 and 

=1.16:COV=0.121 for the CSCT. Closer inspection shows the similarity of these statistics to

be misleading since in 14 cases EC2 falsely predicts failure to occur outside the shear

reinforcement compared with only 5 cases for the CSCT. This is concerning because the

introduction of partial factors c = 1.5 and s = 1.15 into EC2 makes failure outside the shear

reinforcement unlikely because it causes a 50% increase in uout which is not matched by a

corresponding increase in punching resistance within the shear reinforcement VRcs as

discussed by Vollum et. al. (2010).

10
 The BS8110 design provisions are not strictly applicable to the test specimens

considered by Ferreira et al. (2014) as the detailing of shear reinforcement did not comply

with the onerous requirement of BS8110 that the transverse spacing of vertical legs should

not exceed 1.5d. Nevertheless, an analysis was carried out to determine the accuracies of

BS8110, EC2 and MC2010 at predicting the punching resistance inside the shear

reinforcement Vin. Each method was used to calculate Vtest/Vin for 40 specimens that failed

within the shear reinforcement. The analysis considered 25 specimens of Ferreira et al.

(2014), specimens PL6 to PL12 inclusive of Lips et al. (2012) and specimens 2 to 9 of Chana

and Desai (1992b) which formed the basis of the 1992 amendment to BS8110. All the

specimens were reinforced with studs except those of Chana and Desai which were

reinforced with stirrups. In the case of MC2010, slab rotations were calculated as follows

(Muttoni, 2008):

𝑟𝑠 𝑓𝑦 𝑉 3⁄
𝜓 = 1.5 ( ) 2 (13)
𝑑 𝐸𝑠 𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥

Vflex was calculated in accordance with the recommendations of Muttoni (2008) as:

𝑟𝑠
𝑉𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥 = 2𝜋𝑚𝑅 (14)
𝑟𝑞 − 𝑟𝑐

in which rs is the radius of the slab, rq is the radius of load introduction and rc is the radius of

a circular column with the same perimeter as the column under consideration. The coefficient

ksys was taken as 2.8 in the calculation of VRdmax with equation (12).

Results are shown without and with partial factors in Figures 2a and b which also

show mean and lower characteristic (5%) values of Vtest/Vin. MC2010 gives conservative

estimates of Vin with c = s = 1.0 unlike BS8110 and EC2 of which BS8110 is least safe. The

BS8110 5% values of Vtest/Vin increase from 0.60 to 0.72 for c = s = 1.0 and from 0.74 to

0.89 for c = 1.5 and s = 1.15 when the limit on VRd,max is omitted due to reduction in scatter.

11
Modelling of restraint from surrounding slab with MC2010 Level IV

MC2010 Level IV was used to investigate whether restraint from the surrounding slab

is sufficient to explain the satisfactory performance of flat slabs designed to BS8110.

Consideration of equations (6) to (12) shows that the calculated shear resistance is

independent of the axial force in the slab which implies increases in strength from

compressive membrane action result from reductions in rotation. Justification for this

assumption is provided by analysis of tests on prestressed slabs (Clément et al., 2014). The

first step involved the development of a nonlinear finite element (NLFEA) procedure for

calculating slab rotations. The procedure was calibrated with data from the internal slab-

column punching tests of Guandalini et al. (2009) and Lips et al. (2012). All the slabs

measured 3 m square on plan. The flexural reinforcement ratios ranged between 0.33% and

1.63% as shown in Table 1 which gives details of the test specimens including geometry,

material properties, failure loads and ultimate rotations. The rotations were measured with

inclinometers positioned at 1.38m from the column centreline at the positions depicted with

small triangles in Figure 1.

The slabs were modelled with four-node quadrilateral isoparametric curved shell

elements incorporating embedded reinforcement bars. A 2 × 2 × 9 integration scheme was

adopted for the curved shell elements, where 9 denotes the number of integration points

through the slab thickness, as recommended by Vollum and Tay (2007). Following a mesh

sensitivity study, the element size was chosen to be around 50 mm square, with the exact

dimensions dependent on the column size over which the nodes of the slab were vertically

restrained.

The concrete was modelled with the ‘total strain fixed crack model’ in DIANA which

evaluates stress-strain relationships in the directions of the principal axes at first cracking. A

linear tension softening stress-strain relationship was used for concrete. Following the

12
recommendations of Vollum and Tay (2007), the tensile stress was assumed to reduce from a

peak value of 0.5fct, where fct is the mean indirect tensile strength calculated in accordance

with EC2 (see Table 1), to zero at half the reinforcement yield strain y. The Thorenfeldt

model (Thorenfeldt et al., 1987) was used to model concrete in compression. The reduction in

concrete compressive strength due to lateral cracking was modelled as recommended by

Vecchio and Collins (1993). A sensitivity study showed the calculated rotations to be almost

independent of the shear retention factor  which was taken as 0.9. The concrete elastic

modulus was calculated in accordance with EC2.

The NLFEA includes the effect of compressive membrane action unlike equation (6)

(Muttoni, 2008). The measured and calculated rotations agreed well up to around 50% of the

failure load when calculated with the full short term concrete elastic modulus but the

measured slopes were significantly underestimated at failure. Figure 3 shows that much better

estimates were obtained of the ultimate rotations when the concrete elastic modulus was

reduced to half its short term value.

Assessment of Chana and Desai (1992a) punching tests with membrane action

The tests of Chana and Desai (1992a) are particularly pertinent to this investigation.

They tested five 9 m square by 250 mm thick slabs which were supported at their centre on a

400 mm square plate and by block walls along all four edges. All the slabs had the same

flexural reinforcement and the cube strengths were similar at around 40 MPa. Four slabs had

shear reinforcement. The slabs were loaded at eight equally spaced points which were centred

on the loading plate at a radius of 1.2 m. The tests showed that restraint from the surrounding

slab increased the punching resistance by 30-50% compared with Chana and Desai’s (1992b)

punching specimens of the type shown in Figure 1.

The punching resistances of Chana and Desai’s (1992a) slabs FPS1 (without shear

reinforcement) and FPS5 (with shear reinforcement) were evaluated with MC2010 Level IV.

13
Comparisons were also made with the shear resistance of Chana and Desai’s (1992b) 3 m

square punching specimens. Rotations were calculated with NLFEA, using the procedure

described previously. The 3 m square panels were modelled with 50 mm square elements and

the 9 m square panels with 100 mm square elements. Figure 4a shows that the measured and

calculated deflections agree well which is significant as MC2010 attributes the increase in

punching resistance from restraint to the reduction in rotation and hence deflection. The

resulting load rotation responses are shown in Figure 4b along with the MC2010 punching

resistances for slabs FPS1 and FPS5. Rotations are shown along the slab centreline at the

loading radius, as measured in the tests of Lips et al. (2012), and additionally in the 9 m

square slab at 0.7 m from the column centreline where rotations were greatest. For

comparison, Figure 4b also shows rotations calculated with equation (13) which is applicable

to the 3 m square panels. The calculated failure load is given by the intersection of the

rotation and resistance curves. When the effect of continuity is included, the ratio Vtest/Vcalc

for maximum rotations is 1.12 for FPS1 and 1.41 for FPS5. A measure of the influence of

continuity is the ratio of the shear resistances given by the Level IV analysis with continuity

and equation (13). This ratio is 1.52 for FPS1, which is close to the measured ratio of 1.4, and

1.07 for FPS5 which is significantly less than the measured ratio of 1.4. The underestimate in

strength of FPS5 is a consequence of MC2010 neglecting shear deformation in the

calculation of shear reinforcement stress.

Parametric studies to compare shear reinforcement requirements of BS8110, EC2 and

MC2010

A parametric study was undertaken to investigate how the required areas of shear

reinforcement vary at the internal columns of flat slabs according to BS8110, EC2 and

MC2010 Level II. The span L between the column centrelines was taken as 7.5m and the

internal columns as 450 mm square. The superimposed dead load was taken as 1.5 kN/m2 and

14
the superimposed live load was varied between 2.5 kN/m2 and 10 kN/m2. Dead and imposed

load factors of 1.35 and 1.5 were used with EC2 and MC2010 and corresponding load factors

of 1.4 and 1.6 with BS8110. Characteristic material strengths of fck = 30 MPa and fyk = 500

MPa were adopted in conjunction with code recommended material partial factors. The slab

thickness was related to the design imposed loading in accordance with Goodchild’s (2009)

recommendations for economic frame construction. The resulting slab thicknesses and mean

effective depths are given in Table 2.

BS8110 and the UK National Annex to EC2 allow design moments for slabs to be

calculated using a single load case in which all spans are fully loaded provided the support

moments are redistributed downwards by 20% and span moments increased accordingly. The

parametric study investigates the effect of this moment redistribution on the amount of shear

reinforcement required by each code. Consequently, the hogging moment at the column

centreline was taken as either its elastic value of 0.083FL or 0.063FL from Table 3.12 of

BS8110 which includes the 20% moment redistribution mentioned above (F is the total load

on each panel). In each case the design span moment was taken as 0.063FL as given in Table

3.12 of BS8110 for interior panels. However, the same areas of hogging and sagging

reinforcement were provided in the panels designed for Msup = 0.083FL to simulate the

common practice of adding surplus flexural reinforcement in the span to control deflection

(Vollum, 2009). To maximise the difference between the two cases, the design hogging

moment for flexural reinforcement was taken at the centreline of the column for elastically

designed slabs and at hc/3 from the column centreline for slabs designed for Msup = 0.063FL.

The latter moments satisfy the BS8110 requirement that the sum of the maximum span

moment and average support moments across the panel width should exceed F(L-2hc/3)2/8.

Additionally, the calculated areas of flexural reinforcement were increased by 4% in the slabs

designed for Msup = 0.083FL to allow for rationalisation of the reinforcement arrangement.

15
The design hogging moment was proportioned between the column and middle strips in the

ratio 75:25 with two thirds of the column strip reinforcement placed in its central half in

accordance with the requirements of BS8110 and EC2. The design shear force was multiplied

by  = 1.15 in accordance with the recommendations of BS8110 and EC2. In the case of

MC2010, the control perimeter u was multiplied by ke = 0.9 and the maximum possible shear

resistance was calculated with ksys = 2.8 in equation (12) as recommended for studs.

The punching shear reinforcement was arranged radially in the EC2 and MC2010

designs but in square perimeters for the BS8110 designs. In the BS8110 and EC2 designs, the

spacing of perimeters of shear reinforcement was taken as 0.5d, 1.25d, 2.0d etc. from the

column face in accordance with UK practice. The perimeter spacing was reduced to 0.5d in

the MC2010 designs as the required area of shear reinforcement doubles for spacings of 0.5d,

1.25d, 2.0d etc. since only one perimeter crosses the critical shear crack.

Figure 5 shows the variation in V/ VRmax EC2 (where VRmax EC2 = 2VRdc EC2) with design

imposed load, and hence slab thickness, according to BS8110, EC2 and MC2010 for design

hogging moments of 0.063FL and 0.083FL. The economic slab thicknesses of Goodchild

(2009) are seen to comply with the BS8110 and UK National Annex to EC2 restrictions on

VRmax = 2VRdc but not the recommended code limit of VRmax = 1.5VRd,c which is intended for

stirrups. In the case of MC2010, VRmax is critical for all slabs with Msup = 0.063FL.

Figure 6a compares the total areas of shear reinforcement required by each code

within 1.5d of the column face neglecting the limit on VRmax which invalidates the MC2010

designs with Msup = 0.063FL. BS8110 requires the least area of shear reinforcement and

MC2010 the most. The difference between BS8110 and the other codes is greatest for slabs

designed for Msup = 0.083FL as the design shear force is less than 1.6VRd,c making equation

(2) of BS8110 applicable.

The shear reinforcement installation time depends on the total number of shear studs,

16
which is governed by uout, and spacing rules rather than Asw which determines the stud

diameter for a given shear reinforcement arrangement. Therefore, the required normal

distances from the column face to the outer row of shear reinforcement are compared for each

method in Figure 6b which shows remarkable disparities between the extents of shear

reinforcement required by each code particularly for Msup = 0.063FL where the extent of

shear reinforcement required by MC2010 is much greater than for BS8110 or EC2. The

difference is in part due to MC2010 basing shear resistance at uout on the critical shear crack

width around the column which is particularly unrealistic once reinforcement yields over the

column.

The minimum possible slab thickness can be limited by VRmax in thin slabs with edge

and corner columns being most critical. In this case, VRmax can be increased by providing

surplus hogging flexural reinforcement as shown in Figure 7a for a 265 mm thick slab. The

shear resistances in Figure 7a are normalised by VRdc EC2 calculated with Asprovided=Asrequired for

design support moments of 0.063FL and 0.083FL respectively. Figure 7a shows that MC2010

(with ksys = 2.8) gives significantly lower maximum possible shear resistances than BS8110

or the UK National Annex to EC2 which limit VRmax to 2VRdc. Figure 7b compares the areas of

shear reinforcement required by each code, within 1.5d of the column face, for a design

imposed load of 5 kN/m2. EC2 and MC2010 require greatly more shear reinforcement than

BS8110 particularly in cases where increasing Asprovided/Asrequired makes equation (2) govern.

Influence of restraint from surrounding slab

MC2010 Level IV was used to assess the influence of restraint from surrounding bays

on the punching resistance of the slabs designed in the previous section. Rotations were

calculated with NLFEA using the procedure described previously. The boundary conditions

were varied as shown in Figure 8 of which 8a represents a conventional punching shear

specimen of width 0.44L. Figure 8b represents 1/4 of an internal panel of a flat slab of span L

17
with rotational restraint at mid-span and 8c a slab with in-plane and rotational restraint at

mid-span. The isolated slab of Figure 8a was loaded at eight points around its perimeter to

simulate a conventional punching test whereas the continuous slabs were loaded uniformly.

The rotations were extracted from the NLFEA along the slab centreline at around 0.2L from

the column centre as measured by Lips et al. (2012). This position was chosen because it was

used in the calibration of the NLFEA and is close to the position of maximum rotation as

shown in Figure 9 for Msup =0.063FL and qk = 2.5 kN/m2. Figures 10a to d present the

calculated load versus rotation responses for slabs designed for Msup = 0.063FL and 0.083FL

with design imposed loads of 2.5 kN/m2 and 7.5 kN/m2. Additionally to NLFEA, rotations

were calculated with equations (6), (13) and Muttoni’s (2008) quadrilinear moment-curvature

relationship which includes tension stiffening. The NLFEA rotations are denoted as follows

in Figures 9 and 10:

 Conventional: NLFEA of isolated slab (see Figure 8a);

 Continuous: NLFEA of continuous slab with rotational restraint (see Figure 8b);

 Continuous + Axial: NLFEA of continuous slab with rotational and in-plane restraint

(see Figure 8c).

Figure 10 also shows the punching resistances according to MC2010 for the areas of shear

reinforcement required by BS8110, EC2 and MC2010 (respectively denoted “BS8110

resistance”, “EC2 resistance” and “MC2010 resistance”) as well as VRmax = 2.8VR,dc where

critical. The punching resistances were calculated with c = s = 1.0, ke = 0.9 and db = 12 mm.

Failure loads are given by the intersection of the resistance and rotation curves. The design

ultimate shear force VEd = F is shown for comparison as is the flexural failure load of a

comparable conventional test specimen which is denoted “PYL test specimen”. The rotations

given by Muttoni’s quadrilinear relationship compare well with those given by NLFEA of

isolated slabs up to around 70% of the flexural capacity given by equation (14). Figure 10

18
shows that rotational restraint at the panel edges increases punching resistance above that

given by Muttoni’s quadrilinear relationship or equation (13). Even greater resistances are

obtained with rotational and full in-plane restraint but the latter is not generally available in

flat slabs. Equation (6) is seen to conservatively estimate the benefit of rotational restraint

from surrounding panels.

The calculated punching resistances are summarized in Table 3 which also shows the

areas of shear reinforcement included in the calculation of punching resistance with MC2010.

Strikingly when rotational restraint is included, Vcalc/F is only around 20% greater for

MC2010 than BS8110 despite MC2010 requiring 2.25 to 4 times the area of shear

reinforcement within d of the column face. The ratio of resistances calculated with rotational

restraint (continuous) and equation (13) gives an upper bound to the increase in strength due

to rotational restraint. Table 3 shows this ratio varies between 1.12 and 1.49 and is typically

less than the 30-50% found by Chana and Desai (1992a). Despite this, rotational restraint

appears sufficient to explain the satisfactory performance of internal slab-column connections

designed with BS8110 though according to MC2010, which tends to underestimate strength,

the factor of safety is close to 1.0. The EC2 designs appear optimum from the view of

economy and safety.

Influence of continuity on punching resistance of nine panel flat slab

The effect of structural continuity on the punching resistance of uniformly loaded flat

slabs can be seen by analysing the 3/4 scale 9 panel flat slab tested by Guralnick and Fraugh

(1963). The slab was 133 mm thick, with a mean effective depth of 109.5 mm, and spanned

4.57 m between column centrelines. The internal columns were 457 mm square. No shear

reinforcement was provided. Deformed reinforcement bars were used with mean yield

strength of 276 MPa. The concrete cylinder strength was 32.5 MPa. The slab was loaded to

19
failure under a uniform load which was simulated by applying 25 concentrated loads to each

panel. Punching failure occurred at an interior column at an estimated internal column load of

399 kN (Guralnick and Fraugh, 1963). The uniformly distributed failure load was 1.05 times

that given by yield line analysis. Immediately before failure, the average recorded steel strain

at the four faces of the critical column was around seven times the yield strain. The

corresponding maximum strains in the span reinforcement were around ¾ of the yield strain.

The load deflection response also indicates that the slab was close to flexural failure even

though it failed in punching.

The shear resistance was calculated with BS8110, EC2 and MC2010 with c = s = m

= 1.0. The effect of moment transfer to the column was included in the BS8110 and EC2

strength assessments by multiplying the applied shear force by  = 1.15. In the case of

MC2010, ke was taken as 0.9. Slab rotations were calculated with equations (6), (13) and

from the measured slab deflections as follows:

𝜃~3𝑤/𝐿 (15)

where w is the mean mid-span deflection in the 4 panels surrounding the critical column and

L is the span.

Equation (15) was derived from NLFEA of the continuous slabs with rotational

restraint considered in the previous section. The equation is remarkably accurate as shown in

Figure 11a for a range of design support moments and column sizes. The 750 mm square

columns are 1/10 of the span as in the Guralnick and Fraugh test. Figure 11b shows the

calculated rotations as well as the punching resistance according to MC2010. Equation (13)

gives the rotation of a conventional isolated punching specimen with the same hogging

reinforcement as the tested slab and rs = rq = 0.22L for which Vflex = 299 kN. The shear

resistances corresponding to equations (13), (6) and (15) are 299 kN, 325 kN and 393 kN

respectively. The latter agrees well with the measured strength of 399 kN and illustrates the

20
benefit of flexural continuity which is only partly included in equation (6) which is used in

MC2010 Level II. The shear resistances given by BS8110 and EC2 are 413 kN and 377 kN

respectively which suggests that punching resistance was increased by rotational restraint but

not compressive membrane action due to the high utilisation of flexural reinforcement in

surrounding panels.

Conclusion

The paper compares the relative safety of the design rules for punching shear in

BS8110, EC2 and MC2010. Both BS8110 and EC2 are shown to overestimate strength

within the shear reinforced zone with BS8110 being least conservative. MC2010 performs

noticeably better in this respect which is significant because failure outside the shear

reinforcement is unlikely in practice since analysis shows that the introduction of partial

factors tends to make failure inside the shear reinforced zone critical.

Parametric studies (see Figure 5) show that limiting VRmax to ksysVR,dc in MC2010

prevents 20% downwards moment redistribution over the columns of flat slabs, which has

been allowed in the UK for many years. Assessment with MC2010 Level 4 shows that

punching resistance is increased by rotational continuity at mid-span and even more so by

combined in-plane and rotational restraint. The increase in calculated punching resistance due

to rotational continuity is best seen by comparing strengths calculated with rotations from

equation (13) and NLFEA of a complete panel with rotational restraint at mid-span. The

increase in strength due to rotational continuity is partially included in MC2010 Level II if

rotations are calculated with equation (6).

It is necessary to invoke flexural continuity to explain the observed strength of the

Guralnick and Fraugh slab with MC2010, but not BS8110 or EC2, as it increases punching

21
resistance by reducing rotations below those in comparable isolated punching specimens with

which MC2010 is calibrated. The wide variation in calculated failure loads of identical slabs

evident in Figure 10 suggests that the adoption of a rotational based failure criterion could

lead to disagreements between designers and checking engineers. Consequently, the more

empirical design methods of BS8110 and EC2 seem better suited for normal design though

MC2010 is useful for assessment. Rotational restraint from surrounding panels, along with

rounding up of calculated areas of reinforcement, seem sufficient to explain the satisfactory

performance of flat slabs designed to BS8110.

References

BSI (British Standards Institution) (1972) CP 110: The structural use of reinforced concrete

in buildings. BSI, London.

BSI (British Standards Institution) (1985 and 1997) BS 8110: Structural Use of Concrete.

BSI, London.

BSI (2004a) EN 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1:

General Rules and Rules for Buildings. BSI, London.

BSI (British Standards Institution) (2004b) UK National Annex to Eurocode 2, “Design of

Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings”, CEN, EN 1992-1-1.

Chana PS and Desai SB (1992a) Membrane action, and design against punching shear, The

Structural Engineer 1992, 70 (19): 339-343.

Chana PS and Desai SB (1992b) Design of shear reinforcement against punching, The

Structural Engineer 1992, 70(9): 159-164.

22
Choi J-W and Kim J-H J (2012) Experimental Investigations on Moment Redistribution and

Punching Shear of Flat Plates. ACI Structural Journal 109(3): 329-337.

Clément T, Ramos AP, Fernández Ruiz M , Muttoni A, (2014) Influence of prestressing on

the punching strength of post-tensioned slabs, Engineering Structures, 72(1): 56–69

Einpaul J, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A (2015), Influence of moment redistribution and

compressive membrane action on punching strength of flat slabs, Engineering structures,

86:43-57.

Fernández Ruiz M and Muttoni A (2009) Applications of Critical Shear Crack Theory to

Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Transverse Reinforcement. ACI Structural

Journal 106(4): 485-494.

Ferreira MP, Melo GS, Regan PE and Vollum RL (2014) Punching of Reinforced Concrete

Flat Slabs with Double-Headed Shear Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal 111(2): 363-

374.

fib Bulletin 66 (2012), Model Code 2010 Final Draft Volume 2. fédération international du

béton, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Goodchild CH, Webster RM and Elliot KS (2009) Economic concrete Frame Elements to

Eurocode 2. The Concrete Centre, ISBN 978-1-9046818-69-4.

Guandalini S, Burdet OL and Muttoni A (2009) Punching Tests of Slabs with Low

Reinforcement Ratios. ACI Structural Journal 106(1): 87-95.

Guralnick SA and Fraugh RW (1963) Laboratory Study of a 45-Foot Square Flat Plate

Structure. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 60(9), 1107-1185.

23
Lips S, Fernández Ruiz M, and Muttoni A (2012) Experimental Investigation on Punching

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

109(6): 889-900

Muttoni A (2008) Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs without transverse

reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal 105(4): 440–450.

Muttoni A and Fernandez-Ruiz MA (2012), The levels-of-approximation approach in MC

2010: application to punching shear provisions, Structural Concrete, 13(1): 32-41.

Ockleston AJ (1955) Load Tests on a three-storey reinforced concrete building in

Johannesburg. The Structural Engineer, 33: 304-322.

Rankin GIB and Long AE (1987) Predicting the enhanced punching strength of interior slab-

column connections, Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, 82, 1165-1186.

Regan PE (1986) Symmetric punching of reinforced concrete slabs. Magazine of Concrete

Research 38(136): 115-128.

Salim W and Sebastian WM (2003) Punching Shear Failure in Reinforced Concrete Slabs

with Compressive Membrane Action. ACI Structural Journal 100(4): 471-479.

Thorenfeldt E, Tomaszewicz A and Jensen JJ (1987) Mechanical properties of high-strength

concrete and applications in design. In Proc. Symp. Utilization of High-Strength Concrete

(Stavanger, Norway) (Trondheim), Tapir.

Vecchio FJ, Collins MP (1993), Compression response of cracked reinforced concrete.

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 119(12): 3590-3610

24
Vollum RL and Tay UL (2007), Modelling tension stiffening in reinforced concrete with

NLFEA, Concrete, 41(1): 40-41.

Vollum RL, Comparison of deflection calculations and span-to-depth ratios in BS8110 and

EC2 (2009), Magazine of Concrete Research, 61(6): 465-476.

Vollum RL, Abdel Fattah T, Eder M and Elghazouli AY (2010), Design of ACI type

punching shear reinforcement to Eurocode 2, Magazine of Concrete Research, 62(1): 3-16.

25
List of Tables

Table 1: Properties of slabs used in calibration of NLFEA

Table 2: Properties of slabs used in parametric studies

Table 3: Influence of continuity on shear strengths calculated with MC2010 with c = s = 1.0

and ke = 0.9

Table 1: Properties of slabs used in calibration of NLFEA

h ca d fc fct ρ fy Vr,test ψ
Specimen
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (kN) (‰)
PL1 250 130 x 130 193 36.2 2.272 1.63 583 682 6.0
PV1 250 260 x 260 210 34.0 2.16 1.50 709 974 7.6
531 ø20
PL4 320 340 x 340 267 30.5 2.02 1.58 1625 6.5
580 ø26
PL5 400 440 x 440 353 31.9 2.076 1.5 580 2491 4.7
PG10 250 260 x 260 210 28.5 1.94 0.33 577 540 22.3
PG11 250 260 x 260 210 31.5 2.06 0.75 570 763 10.0

Notes: a Dimension of loaded area in mm

Table 2: Properties of slabs used in parametric studies

Design Hogging Moment 0.063FL 0.083FLa

2
Design imposed live load [kN/m ] 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
Slab thickness [mm] 239 265 324 363 239 265 324 363
F [kN] 779 1039 1362 1647 779 1039 1362 1647
Average effective depth [mm] 194 220 279 318 194 220 279 318
As Centre column strip [mm2] 1917 2259 2316 2451 3255 3845 3897 4111
Mhog
As Edge column strip [mm2] 959 1130 1158 1226 1627 1922 1949 2056
Mhog - As Middle strip [mm2] 959 1130 1158 1226 1627 1922 1949 2056
As Column strip [mm2] 2498 2943 3017 3193 3580 4229 4287 4523
Mspan
As Middle strip [mm2] 2043 2408 2469 2613 2929 3460 3508 3700
L = 7.5m, columns 450 mm square, fck = 30 MPa, design imposed dead load 1.5 kN/m2

Note: a Asprovided/Asrequired =1.04 to allow for rationalisation of reinforcement arrangement.

26
Table 3: Influence of continuity on shear strengths calculated with MC2010 with c = s = 1.0

and ke = 0.9

Vcalc/F
Design method Msup = 0.063FL Msup = 0.083FL
Boundary
for shear qk = 2.5 qk = 7.5 qk = 2.5 qk = 7.5
conditions kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2
reinforcement
BS8110 Σ𝑑𝑣 𝐴𝑠𝑤 [mm2] 433b 1200c 368d 534c
Equations 13 &14 0.74 0.79e 0.80 0.94
Equation 6 0.77 0.83 0.87 0.96
Conventional a 0.82 0.85 0.96 1.05
Continuous a 0.95 0.99 1.01 1.10
Continuous/Eq 13f 1.28 1.25 1.26 1.17
Continuous + axiala 1.22 1.17 1.16 1.21
EC2 Σ𝑑𝑣 𝐴𝑠𝑤 [mm2] 878 1538 758 1365
Equations 13 &14 0.79 e 0.79e 0.93 1.01
Equation 6 0.92 0.90 0.99 1.03
Conventional a 0.90 0.89 1.08 1.11
Continuous a 1.06 1.05 1.14 1.13
Continuous/Eq 13f 1.34 1.33 1.23 1.12
Continuous + axiala 1.36 1.20 1.25 1.25
MC2010 Σ𝑑𝑣 𝐴𝑠𝑤 [mm2] 1508 2710 1161 2156
Equations 13 &14 0.79 e 0.79e 1.07 1.18
Equation 6 1.04 0.99 1.13 1.20
Conventional a 0.93 0.92 1.19 1.26
Continuous a 1.18 1.16 1.26 1.34
Continuous/Eq 13f 1.49 1.47 1.18 1.14
Continuous + axiala 1.68 1.38 1.39 1.31

Note: a Rotation calculated with NLFEA, b 50:50 split of Σ1.5𝑑 𝐴𝑠𝑤 between 1st and 2nd

perimeters, c 40:60 split of Σ1.5𝑑 𝐴𝑠𝑤 between 1st and 2nd perimeters, d
Asw BS8110min, e flexural

failure, f upper bound of enhancement in strength of isolated test specimen due to rotational

restraint.

27
List of Figures

Figure 1: Conventional punching shear specimen

Figure 2: Influence of shear reinforcement ratio on Vtest/VRcs calc for BS8110, EC2 and
MC2010 Level 2 with a) c = s = 1.0 [5% = -1.64sd] and b) with code recommended partial
factors m, c and s.

Figure 3: Comparison of measured and calculated load versus rotation response for slabs

PL1, PV1, PL5, PL4, PG10 and PG11

Figure 4: Analysis of Chana and Desai (1992a) slabs FPS1 (no stirrups) and FPS5 (with

stirrups) a) comparison of measured and predicted deflections and b) calculation of resistance

with MC2010.

Figure 5: Influence of design imposed load on VEd/VRmax for design support moments of

0.063FL and 0.083FL

Figure 6: Comparison of a) areas of shear reinforcement required within 1.5d of column and

b) required minimum distance to outer shear reinforcement for design support moments of

0.063FL and 0.083FL

Figure 7: Influence of surplus flexural reinforcement of a 265 mm thick slab with 450 mm

square column on a) maximum possible shear resistance and b) area of shear reinforcement

for F = 1039 kN.

Figure 8: Boundary conditions for MC2010 Level 4 analysis of interior panels of flat slab.

Figure 9: Variation in rotation along slab centreline for M= 0.063FL and qk = 2.5 kN/m2.

Figure 10: Influence of slab continuity on shear resistance for a) Msup = 0.063FL and qk = 2.5
kN/m2, b) Msup = 0.063FL and qk = 7.5 kN/m2, c) Msup = 0.083FL and qk = 2.5 kN/m2 and d)
Msup = 0.083FL and qk = 7.5 kN/m2.

28
Figure 11: Calculation of MC2010 shear resistance of Guralnick and Fraugh slab (1963) a)

calibration of equation (15) (columns 750 square unless noted otherwise) and (b) calculation

of MC2010 shear resistance.

Figure 1: Conventional punching shear specimen

29
 2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Vtest/VRcs

1
0.8
0.6 EC2
BS8110 Mean 0.85: 5% 0.73
0.4 EC2 Mean 0.98: 5% 0.70 BS8110
0.2 MC2010 Level 2: Mean 1.25 5% 1.07 MC2010
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
SAswfy/(udfc0.5)

a)

2.5

1.5
Vtest/VRcs

1
EC2
BS8110 Mean 1.04: 5% 0.89
0.5 BS8110
EC2 Mean 1.27: 5% 0.87
MC2010 Level 2: Mean 1.56 MC2010
0 5% 1.23
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Aswfy/(udfc0.5)

b)

Figure 2: Influence of shear reinforcement ratio on Vtest/VRcs calc for BS8110, EC2 and

MC2010 Level 2 with a) c = s = 1.0 [5% = -1.64sd] and b) with code recommended partial

factors m, c and s.

30
 PL1 PV1
0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5
V/(udfc0.5 ) MPa0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 Experimental 0.3

Experimental

0.2 Failure Load 0.2

Failure Load
FEA -- Ec FEA -- Ec
0.1 0.1

FEA -- 0.5Ec FEA -- 0.5Ec

0 0

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008

ψ ψ

PL4 PL5
0.6 0.6
V/(udfc0.5 ) MPa0.5

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 Experimental 0.3 Experimental

Failure Load Failure Load
0.2 0.2

FEA -- Ec FEA -- Ec
0.1 0.1

FEA -- 0.5Ec FEA -- 0.5Ec

0 0

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 0.002 0.004 0.006

ψ ψ

PG10 PG11
0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5
V/(udfc0.5 ) MPa0.5

0.4 0.4

Experimental Experimental
0.3 0.3

Failure Load Failure Load

0.2 0.2

FEA -- Ec FEA -- Ec
0.1 0.1

FEA -- 0.5Ec FEA -- 0.5Ec

0 0

0 0.02 0.04 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

ψ ψ

Figure 3: Comparison of measured and calculated load versus rotation response for slabs

PL1, PV1, PL5, PL4, PG10 and PG11

31
 2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
Load [kN]

1000 Experimental
800 Continuous
600 Conventional
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Deflection [mm]

a)

0.9

0.8

0.7 Vtest FPS1

0.6 Vtest FPS5

0.5 3 m square
V/(udfck0.5)

Resistance FPS5
0.4 9 m square (r =1200mm)

0.3 9 m square (r =700mm) -

max rotation
Eq 13
0.2

0.1 Resistance FPS1

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03

ψ [Radians]

b)

32
Figure 4: Analysis of Chana and Desai (1992a) slabs FPS1 (no stirrups) and FPS5 (with

stirrups) a) comparison of measured and predicted deflections and b) calculation of resistance

with MC2010.

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
VEd/VRmax

0.8

0.6
EC2 M=0.063FL EC2 M=0.083FL
0.4
BS8110 M=0.063FL BS8110 M=0.083FL
0.2
MC2010 M=0.063FL MC2010 M=0.083FL
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Design imposed load kN/m2

Figure 5: Influence of design imposed load on VEd/VRmax for design support moments of

0.063FL and 0.083FL

33
 6000 EC2 M=0.063FL
EC2 M=0.083FL
SAsw in 1.5d zone around column [mm2] 5000 BS8110 M=0.63FL
BS8110 M=0.083FL
MC2010 M=0.063FL
4000
MC2010 M=0.083FL

3000

2000

1000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Design imposed load [kN/m2]

a)

8
Distannce to outer ring of shear reinforcement/d

7 EC2 M=0.063FL

6 EC2 M=0.083FL

5 BS8110 M=0.063FL

4 BS8110 M=0.083FL

3 MC2010 M=0.063FL

MC2010 M=0.083FL
2

0
0 5 10 15
Design imposed load [kN/m2]

b)

34
Figure 6: Comparison of a) areas of shear reinforcement required within 1.5d of column and

b) required minimum distance to outer shear reinforcement for design support moments of

0.063FL and 0.083FL

35
 3

2.5
VRmax/VcEC2 Asprov = Asreq

2
BS8110 0.063FL
1.5
BS8110 0.083FL
EC2 0.063FL
1
EC2 0.083FL
0.5 MC2010 0.063FL
MC2010 0.083FL
0
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

Asprov/Asreq
a)

3500
SAsw in 1.5d zone around column [mm2]

3000

2500 BS8110 0.063FL

BS8110 0.083FL
2000
EC2 0.063FL
1500
EC2 0.083FL
1000
MC2010 0.063FL

500 MC2010 0.083FL

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Asprov/Asreq

b)

36
Figure 7: Influence of surplus flexural reinforcement for 265 mm thick slab with 450 mm

square column on a) maximum possible shear resistance and b) area of shear reinforcement

for F = 1039 kN.

0.5L AA'
a) Conventional

1/4 Slab Rotational

Symmetry

b) Fixity
0.22L


Rotational
8 c) and
A A' 0.5L Axial
Column
0.22L Fixity
Symmetry

Figure 8: Boundary conditions for MC2010 Level 4 analysis of interior panels of flat slab

Column face

1.2 c+d

1 0.2L
Normalised rotation

0.8 Conventional

Continuous
0.6
Continuous + axial
0.4 restraint
0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

r/L

Figure 9: Variation in rotation along slab centreline

37
 0.6

0.5 Design load

PYL test specimen

MC2010 resistance
Conventional
0.4
EC2 resistance
Continuous
V/(udfck0.5)

Continuous + axial
0.3
Eq 6

Eq 13
0.2 Muttoni quadrilinear

BS8110 resistance VRmax

0.1

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Rotation ψ [Radians]

a)

38
 0.6

0.5 Design load

PYL test specimen

MC2010
0.4 resistance
Conventional
V/(udfck0.5)

Continuous
0.3

Continuous + axial
EC2 resistance
0.2 Eq 6
BS8110 resistance
Eq 13
0.1
Muttoni quadrilinear

VRmax
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Rotation ψ [Radians]

b)

39
 0.6

Design load

0.5 PYL test specimen

Conventional

0.4
Continuous
V/(udfck0.5)

Continuous + axial
0.3
MC2010 resistance Eq 6

Eq 13
0.2 EC2 resistance
Muttoni quadrilinear
BS8110 resistance
0.1

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Rotation ψ [Radians]

c)

40
 0.6

0.5 Design load

PYL test specimen

0.4 MC2010 resistance Conventional

Continuous
V/(udfck0.5)

0.3
EC2 resistance Continuous + axial

Eq 6
0.2
BS8110 resistance Eq 13

Muttoni quadrilinear
0.1

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Rotation ψ [Radians]

d)

Figure 10: Influence of slab continuity on shear resistance for a) Msup = 0.063FL and qk = 2.5

kN/m2, b) Msup = 0.063FL and qk = 7.5 kN/m2, c) Msup = 0.083FL and qk = 2.5 kN/m2 and d)

Msup = 0.083FL and qk = 7.5 kN/m2.

41
 3000
NLFEA M=0.063FL q=2.5 450 col
2500
Equation (15) M = 0.063FL 450
col
2000 NLFEA M=0.063FL & q=2.5
Load [kN]

Equation (15) M=0.063FL &

1500
q=2.5

1000

500

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
ψ [Radians]

a)

700

Resistance
600
Equation (6)
500
Equation (13)
393
400 Equation (15)
Load [kN]

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Rotation [miliradians]

b)

Figure 11: Calculation of MC2010 shear resistance of Guralnick and Fraugh slab (1963) a)

calibration of equation (15) (columns 750 square unless noted otherwise) and (b) calculation

of MC2010 shear resistance.

42