Punching Shear Resistance of Slab
Punching Shear Resistance of Slab
Punching Shear Resistance of Slab
International
52
ABSTRACT
The use of high-strength concrete in reinforced concrete slabs is becoming popular in Australia and other countries. Current design provisions of AS3600 and other major codes throughout the world are based on empirical relationships developed from tests on low-strength concrete. In this paper, the experimental results from 4 research studies are used to review the existing recommendations in design codes for punching shear failure of slabs. Design codes referred in this study are AS3600 and CEB-FIP MC 90. In AS3600 the punching shear strength is expressed as proportional to fc1/2. However in CEB-FIP MC 90 punching shear strength is assumed to be proportional to fc1/3. It is shown that the present provisions in AS3600 are applicable up to 100 MPa.
KEYWORDS
Punching shear; slabs; high-strength concrete; CEB-FIP model code; design standards
1. Introduction
Concrete with strengths above 50 MPa is currently used due to an increasing requirement for higher strengths and improved long-term properties. HSC is being utilised in many projects around Australia [1]. High-strength concrete members exhibit, in some instances, different failure mechanisms and simply extrapolating models and equations meant for normal strength to high-strength concrete may lead to unsafe designs. One of the reasons why some structural engineers are reluctant to use high-strength concrete is due to the lack of provisions in the Concrete Structures Standard, AS3600 [2], to address this issue. The reinforced concrete flat slab system is a widely used structural system. Its formwork is very simple as no beams or drop panels are used. However, the catastrophic nature of the failure exhibited at the connection between the slab and the column has concerned engineers. This area (Fig.1) becomes the most critical area as far as the strength of flat slabs is concerned due to the concentration of high bending moments and shear forces. The failure load may be considerably lower than the unrestrained flexural capacity of the slab. A typical punching shear failure of a bridge deck during testing is shown in Fig.2. The use of high-strength concrete improves the punching shear resistance allowing higher forces to be transferred through the slab-column connection. In spite of the wide use, only a few research projects have been conducted on the punching shear resistance of high-strength concrete slabs. The empirical expressions given in design codes are based on the experimental results from slabs with concrete strengths between 15-35 MPa. Hence it is necessary to re-examine the applicability of the present punching shear design methods for HSC slabs, using the published data. ig 1
53
Slab
present code. The square-root formula in AS3600 is adopted from the ACI code [4]. ACI
54
provisions for punching shear are derived from Moes work on low strength concrete [5]. The ultimate shear strength for slabs without prestress is given by Vuo = ud ( f cv ) where: u= length of the critical perimeter, taken at a distance of d/2 from the column (mm) see Fig.2 fcv = punching shear strength (MPa)
(1)
Fsd = 0.12(100f ck )3 u1 d
1
(2)
where:
= 1+
55
In the ultimate limit state the partial safety factor is 1.5. For the calculation of punching load capacity Eq. (2) is multiplied by 1.5, which gives Eq. (3).
Fsd = 0.18(100f ck )3 u1 d
1
(3)
56
Table 2 compares the experimental ultimate loads (Ptest) of the slabs to the values predicted by AS3600 and CEB-FIP MC-90 as given by Eqns. (1) and (3) respectively. In these expressions, the limits with respect to the concrete strength have been ignored. The capacity reduction factor is assumed to be equal to 1. The mean and standard deviations for all the slabs are also given. Fig.4 shows the ratios between test results and the failure loads predicted by different formulae plotted with respect to the concrete strength. The concrete strengths for the test results considered in this study vary from 54 to 120 MPa. As seen only two points from AS3600 fall below the safety margin with one result for a slab with a concrete strength of 108 MPa. Therefore the AS3600 formula [Eq. (1)] can be considered to be applicable up to 100 MPa. However the ratios between observed and calculated loads clearly show that AS3600 is less conservative for the HSC slabs and high scatter is found. As AS3600 provisions are similar to ACI provisions, these conclusions are applicable to ACI 318-95. Generally CEB-FIP formula is less conservative and may be unsafe for some cases. Therefore if the CEB-FIP code formula [Eq. (2)] is used to calculate the punching shear strength, the concrete strength limit of 80 MPa should be maintained.
1.80 1.60 Ptest/Ppred. 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 40 60 80 100 120 Concrete Strength (MPa) AS3600 CEB-FIP
g
Fig. 4 - Ratios of experimental and predicted shear strengths
4. Conclusions
1. The use of high-strength concrete improves the punching shear resistance allowing higher forces to be transferred through the slab-column connection. However current design provisions of AS3600 for punching shear are based on empirical relationships developed from tests on low strength concrete. Hence it is necessary to re-examine the applicability of these provisions for HSC. Generally the punching shear strength values specified in different codes vary with concrete compressive strength fc and is usually expressed in terms of fcn. In AS3600 the punching shear strength is expressed as proportional to punching shear strength is assumed to be proportional to 3.
3
2.
The experimental results from 4 research studies are used to review the existing recommendations in AS3600 for punching shear failure of slabs. A brief description of these projects is given and the experimental results are summarised. The comparison of experimental results show that the AS3600 formula is applicable up to 100 MPa. However
57
the ratios between observed and calculated loads clearly show that AS3600 is less conservative for the HSC slabs. As AS3600 provisions are similar to ACI provisions, these conclusions are applicable to ACI 318-95. 4. Generally CEB-FIP formula is less conservative for HSC slabs and may be unsafe for some cases.
REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mendis, P. and Pendyala, R. HPC Applications in Australia, 4th International Symposium on Utilization of High-strength/High-performance Concrete. Paris, 1996, pp. 1581-1590. AS3600: Concrete Structures Standard. Standards Association of Australia, 1994. CEB-FIP State-of-the-art report on high-strength concrete. 90/1/1, Bulletin dInformation No. 197, 1990. ACI Committee 318: Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. Detroit. American Concrete Institute. 1995. Moe, J. Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings under Concentrated Loads. Development Bulletin No. D47, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 1961, 130 pp. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Thomas Telford Ltd., London, 1993. Ramdane, K.E. Punching Shear of High Performance Concrete Slabs. 4th International Symposium on Utilization of High-strength/High-performance Concrete. Paris, 1996, pp. 1015-1026. Hallgren, M. and Kinnunen, S. Increase of Punching Shear Capacity by using High-Strength Concrete. 4th International Symposium on Utilization of High-strength/High-performance Concrete. Paris, 1996, pp. 1037-1046. Marzouk, H. and Hussein, A. Experimental Investigation on the Behaviour of High-Strength Concrete Slabs. ACI Structural Journal, Nov.-Dec., V. 88, No. 6, 1991, pp. 701-713.
8.
9.
10. Tomaszewicz, A. High-strength Concrete SP2 - Plates and Shells. Report 2.3, Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Report No. STF70A93082, SINTEF, Trondheim, 1993.
58
Table 1 - Test variables Type Ramdane [7] slab 5 slab 12 slab 15 slab 16 slab22 slab 23 HSC0 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 HS2 HS7 HS3 HS4 HS5 HS12 HS13 HS14 HS15 nd65-1-1 nd95-1-1 nd95-1-3 nd115-1-1 nd65-2-1 nd95-2-1 nd95-2-3 nd115-2-1 nd115-2-3 nd95-3-1 Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square Square 1372 1372 1372 1372 1372 1372 2400 2400 2400 2400 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 1100 54.4 60.4 68.4 99.2 84.2 56.4 90.3 85.7 91.6 108.8 70.2 73.8 69.1 65.8 68.1 75 68 72 71 64.3 83.7 89.9 112 70.2 88.2 89.5 119 108.1 85.1 150 150 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 220 300 200 200 200 200 150 150 150 150 150 100 125 125 125 125 125 125 240 240 240 240 120 120 120 120 150 90 90 120 120 320 320 320 320 240 240 240 240 240 120 0.58 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 0.87 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.84 1.19 1.47 2.37 0.64 1.52 2 1.47 1.47 1.42 1.42 2.43 1.42 1.66 1.66 2.49 1.66 2.49 1.72 Diameter/width (mm) fc (MPa) Column Dia./width (mm) Slab Depth (mm) Slab Rft %
Tomaszewicz [10]
59
Table 2 - Comparison of experimental and predicted shear strengths Exp. (kN) Ramdane [7] slab 5 slab 12 slab 15 slab 16 slab22 slab 23 HSC0 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 Marzouk and Hussein [9] HS2 HS7 HS3 HS4 HS5 HS12 HS13 HS14 HS15 Tomaszewicz [10] nd65-1-1 nd95-1-1 nd95-1-3 nd115-1-1 nd65-2-1 nd95-2-1 nd95-2-3 nd115-2-1 nd115-2-3 nd95-3-1 Mean Std. Dev. 2050 2250 2400 2450 1200 1100 1250 1400 1550 330 1532.7 1748.7 1812.3 2022.8 861.4 965.6 921.3 1121.6 1069.0 228.8 1863.1 2032.5 2486.1 2237.6 1163.5 1254.6 1390.4 1384.9 1533.8 340.9 1.34 1.29 1.32 1.21 1.39 1.14 1.36 1.25 1.45 1.44 1.33 0.22 1.10 1.11 0.97 1.09 1.03 0.88 0.90 1.01 1.01 0.97 1.04 0.13 249 356 356 418 365 258 267 498 560 265.2 271.9 263.1 238.3 261.2 172.8 172.7 345.3 430.0 288.7 329.2 345.4 369.7 261.3 231.9 253.7 404.8 465.1 0.94 1.31 1.35 1.75 1.40 1.49 1.55 1.44 1.30 0.86 1.08 1.03 1.13 1.40 1.11 1.05 1.23 1.20 190 319 276 362 405 341 965 889 1041 960 191.5 201.8 214.7 258.6 238.2 200.5 913.5 851.7 920.1 1010.0 227.9 306.3 319.1 360.8 341.8 271.3 975.1 915.4 1120.0 950.2 0.99 1.58 1.29 1.40 1.70 1.70 1.06 1.04 1.13 0.95 0.83 1.04 0.86 1.00 1.19 1.26 0.99 0.97 0.93 1.01 AS3600 CEB-FIP Exp /AS3600 Exp /CEB-FIP