Momenat I Proboj

NOTE TO USERS
Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are

unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript
was scanned as received.
page 298
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Punching Shear Strength of Interior and Edge Column-Slab

Connections in CFRP Reinforced Flat Plate Structures
Transferring Shear and Moment
by
Ashraf Zaghloul, B.Eng./M.A.Sc.
A thesis submitted to
The faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
The Doctor of Philosophy Program in Civil Engineering

is a joint program with University of Ottawa,
administrated by the Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Civil Engineering
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
February 2007
2007, Ashraf Zaghloul
Library and
Archives Canada
Bibliotheque et
Archives Canada
Published Heritage
Branch
Direction du
Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street

Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
395, rue Wellington

Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
Your file Votre reference
ISBN: 978-0-494-27120-9
Our file Notre reference
ISBN: 978-0-494-27120-9
NOTICE:
The author has granted a non
exclusive license allowing Library
and Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or non
commercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
AVIS:
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter,
distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans
le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres,
sur support microforme, papier, electronique
et/ou autres formats.
The author retains copyright

ownership and moral rights in
this thesis. Neither the thesis
nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur

et des droits moraux qui protege cette these.
Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de
celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.
In compliance with the Canadian

Privacy Act some supporting
forms may have been removed
from this thesis.
Conformement a la loi canadienne

sur la protection de la vie privee,
quelques formulaires secondaires
ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included

in the document page count,
their removal does not represent
any loss of content from the
thesis.
Bien que ces formulaires

aient inclus dans la pagination,
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
i*i
Canada
Abstract
The purpose o f this investigation is to study the punching shear strength of interior and
edge column-slab connections where the slabs are reinforced for flexure, or for flexure
and shear, with CFRP, and they are subjected to combined shear and moment transfer.
Two interior and ten edge column-slab connections are tested to study the effect of a
number of parameters, including the type and amount of slab flexural and shear
reinforcement. The flexural reinforcement is either steel or CFRP while the shear
reinforcement is either steel headed studs or a CFRP shear rail introduced in this study. It
is found that the shear reinforcement increases the punching shear strength by 20% to
26.7% in the case of the interior column connection and by only about 10% in the case of
the edge column connections. This increase is predicted with a reasonable degree of
conservatism by using the basic (vc+v5) approach of the ACI Code in conjunction with a
proposed equation for calculating vc, i.e. the concrete contribution to the punching shear
strength, which accounts for the effects of the slab flexural reinforcement rigidity and the
column size, relative to the slab thickness, on the punching shear strength.
In addition to the above simplified method, a refined and more rational model for
predicting the strength of the tested specimens is also introduced. This model uses the
compatibility and equilibrium requirements at the connection and a more realistic
punching shear perimeter for calculating the punching shear capacity of slab-column
connections, but its results are not as accurate as those of the simplified method.
Consequently, the use o f the proposed simplified method is recommended for practical
applications.
iii
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank God for providing him the strength, and showing him the
way during the work in this thesis. The writer wishes that this thesis be for God sake and
for the sake of useful knowledge and he will be rewarded for that.
{Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the Night
and the Day; in the sailing of the ships through the Ocean for the profit of mankind;
in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives
therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through
the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they trail like their
slaves between the sky and the earth - (here) indeed are Signs for a people that are
wise} Quaran- AlBaqarah - verse 164.
The author would like to express his gratitude to his supervisor, Professor A.G.
Razaqpur, for his financial support, his keen supervision of this research and his
enormous effort during the thesis production. I am also grateful to Professors G. Hartley
and O.B. Isgor for their help and guidance. Special thanks are extended to the Carleton
University Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research and to NSERC for their financial
assistance. This research was funded by a joint grant from Materials and Manufacturing
Ontario, an Ontario Centre o f Excellence and AUTOCON Composites Co. of Toronto. I
am grateful for their generosity and am particularly grateful to Mr. John Crimi, president
of AUTOCON, for providing the CFRP grids on time and per my specifications. I wish
to also acknowledge DECON Canada for donating the steel studs.
iv
Special thanks go out to the technical staff of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering Laboratories at Carleton for their professional help and advice without
which the experimental work would not have been possible. Many thanks are due to
Messrs Ken McMartin, Pierre Trudel, Jim Whithome and Stanley Conley. The author
also likes to thank his fellow graduate students who helped in the casting of the
specimens, particularly Mr. Abd El-Zaher Mostofa, Ahmed Mostofa and Essam ElTahawy.
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................iii
A know ledgm ents................................................................................................................... iv
Table of contents ..................................................................................................................vi
List of ta b le s .......................................................................................................................... xi
List of figures.........................................................................................................................xiv
List of symbols.................................................................................................................... xxvi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem definition..............................................................................................................3
1.3 Objectives and scope...........................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2
L iterature review
.................................................................................. 6
Part I: Punching shear of FRP reinforced slabs......................................................................6

2.1 General.................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Punching shear in slabs reinforced with FRP...................................................................7
(a) Concentric shear.................................................................................................................. 7
(b) Eccentric shear.................................................................................................................. 14
(c) Shear reinforcement.......................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Punching strength analysis methods for FRP reinforced slabs..................................... 19
2.3.1 Concentric punching......................................................................................................19
2.3.2 Design codes and guidelines.........................................................................................22
2.3.3 Eccentric punching.........................................................................................................24
vi
Part II: Research background on steel reinforced slabs and the current design methods for
punching shear........................................................................................................................ 27
2.4 Eccentric punching shear o f interior and edge column-slab connections.................... 27
2.5 Use o f shear reinforcement for slab-column connections.............................................54
2.6 Summary............................................................................................................................61
CHAPTER 3
Experimental program ..................................................................... 74
3.1 General..............................................................................................................................74
3.2 Test program.................................................................................................................... 75
3.2.1 Test materials................................................................................................................. 75
3.2.2 Interior column-slab connection test specimens......................................................... 81
3.2.3 Edge column-slab connection test specimens............................................................. 82
3.3 Instrumentation................................................................................................................. 86
3.3.1 Electrical strain gauges................................................................................................. 87
3.3.2 Internal crack detection bar..........................................................................................88
3.3.3 LVDT locations.............................................................................................................88
3.4 Loading..............................................................................................................................88
3.5 Test set-up
.................................................................................................................... 89
3.5.1 Interior connections...................................................................................................... 89

3.5.2 Edge column slab connections..................................................................................... 90
3.6 Specimens construction ............................................................................................... 90
3.6.1 Preparation of reinforcement cages............................................................................. 90
3.6.2 Casting............................................................................................................................91
3.6.3 Curing.............................................................................................................................92
vii
CHAPTER 4
Experimental results and discussion................................................133
4.1 General............................................................................................................................. 133

4.2 Behaviour and strength of interior column-slab specimens.........................................133
4.2.1 Crack development and propagation......................................................................... 134
4.2.2 Load Deflection Behaviour......................................................................................... 136
4.2.3 Reinforcement strain....................................................................................................138
4.3 Edge column-slab connections......................................................................................143
4.3.1 Specimens without shear reinforcement.................................................................... 143
4.3.1.1 Crack development and propagation...................................................................... 143
4.3.1.2 Load-deflection curves and ultimate strength.........................................................145
4.3.2 Edge column specimens with shear reinforcement....................................
150
4.3.2.1 Crack development and propagation...................................................................... 150

4.3.2.2 Load-deflection relationship....................................................................................152
4.3.2.3 Strain in slab flexural reinforcement....................................................................... 161
(a) Specimens without shear reinforcement........................................................................ 161
(b) Specimens with shear reinforcement............................................................................. 166
(i) Slab reinforcement strain............................................................................................... 171
(ii) Shear reinforcement strain............................................................................................. 172
4.3.2.4 Slab through thickness deformations...................................................................... 177
4.3.3 Summary of results....................................................................................................179
CHAPTER 5
Analysis of test results...................................................................... 236
5.1 General...........................................................................................................................236
5.2 Punching shear analysis of interior column-slab connections without shear

reinforcement........................................................................................................................ 237
(a) Calculation of nominal shear stress, vu......................................................................... 237
(b) Calculation of punching shear resistance......................................................................240
5.3 Punching shear resistance of interior column-slab connections with shear
reinforcement....................................................................................................................... 242
5.4 Analysis of edge column-slab connections...................................................................243
5.5 Comparison of predicted and observed punching shear capacity of slab column
connections using the basic ACI approach......................................................................... 244
5.5.1 Interior column-slab connections subjected to concentric shear.............................245
5.5.1.1 FRP reinforced slabs................................................................................................ 245
(a) Existing methods.............................................................................................................245
(b) Proposed method.............................................................................................................246
5.5.1.2 Steel reinforced slabs............................................................................................... 250
5.5.2 FRP reinforced interior column-slab connections transferring shear and moment.....
................................................................................................................................................ 251
5.5.2.1 ACI method...............................................................................................................251
5.5.2.2 Proposed refined method.........................................................................................252
(a) Description o f the refined method................................................................................. 252
(b) Comparison of test results to predicted values by the refined method....................... 256
5.5.3 Edge column-slab connections transferring shear and unbalanced moment..........257
5.5.4 Refined method for predicting the punching shear strength of FRP reinforced edge
column specimen using the proposed non-rectangular critical shear perimeter..............260
ix
5.5.5 Semi-Analytical method for calculating the punching shear capacity of edge
column-slab connections...................................................................................................... 261
5.5.5.1 Model formulation.................................................................................................. 262
5.5.4.2 Model implementation procedure........................................................................... 273
5.5.4.3 Model verification and comparison with test results............................................ 274
5.5.6 Analysis of slab-column connections by using Afhami et al.m ethod................... 276
5.6. Analysis of slab-column connections with shear reinforcement.............................277
5.6.1 Analysis method...........................................................................................................277
5.6.2 Results of the analysis................................................................................................. 280
5.7 Summary.......................................................................................................................282
CHAPTER 6 Summary, conclusions and recommendations for future study ...315

6.1 Summary........................................................................................................................ 315
6.2 Conclusions....................................................................................................................316
6.3 Recommendations for future work...............................................................................320
Appendix A................................................................................................................... 322

Appendix B ...................................................................................................................342
References..................................................................................................................... 351
List of tables
Table 2.1 - Proportions o f moment balanced by flexure, torsion and shear for interior and
edge column connections....................................................................................................... 62
Table 3.1: Concrete compressive strength at time of testing for first group of
specimens.................................................................................................................................93
Table 3.2: Concrete compressive strength at time of testing for second group of
specimens.................................................................................................................................93
Table 3.3: Properties of interior slab-column specimens.....................................................94
Table 3.4: Grouping of interior slab-column specimens according to the investigated
parameters................................................................................................................................95
Table 3.5: Reinforcement detailing of proposed edge slab column specimens................. 96
Table 3.6: Grouping of edge column-slab specimens according to the investigated
parameters................................................................................................................................97
Table 3.7: Number of strain gauges applied to each specimen........................................... 98
Table 4.1: Distribution of cracks appearance according to location and the load level for
specimens without shear reinforcement.............................................................................. 182
Table 4.2: Distribution of crack appearance according to location and the load level for
specimens with shear reinforcement....................................................................................183
Table 4.3: Loads at which diagonal tension cracks formationwas detected.....................184
Table 5.1: Comparison o f observed and predicted punching shear capacity of FRP slabs
under concentric shear......................................................................................................... 284
Table 5.2: Comparison of observed and predicted punching shear capacity of steel
reinforced slabs under concentric punching.......................................................................286
xi
Table 5.3: Comparison of observed and predicted shear capacity of FRP reinforced
interior column-slab connections transferring shear and moment (ACI method)
288
Table 5.4: Comparison of observed and predicted punching shear capacity of FRP
reinforced interior slabs under shear and unbalanced moment (Refined method)
289
Table 5.5: Comparison of predicted and observed punching shear capacity of FRP
reinforced edge column connections based on the ACI 318 critical shear perimeter and
different vc equations...........................................................................................................290
Table 5.6: Comparison o f predicted and observed punching shear capacity of FRP
reinforced edge column connections based on the proposed critical shear perimeter with
inclined sides and different vc equations........................................................................... 291
Table 5.7: Comparison of predicted and observed punching shear capacity of FRP
reinforced edge column-slab specimens using the refined method.................................. 292
Table 5.8: Comparison of test results and predicted values using the proposed semianalytical method without considering the bond efficiency of steel perpendicular to free
edge........................................................................................................................................ 293
Table 5.9: Comparison o f test results and predicted values using the semi-analytical
method model considering the proposed bond efficiency of steel perpendicular to free
edge........................................................................................................................................ 295
Table 5.10: Interaction diagram principal points for Afhami et al (1998) model
297
Table 5.12: Predicted punching shear capacity of specimens reinforced with FRP shear
reinforcement based on (vc AC] + vs ) ................................................................................ 299
xii
Table 5.13: Predicted punching shear capacity of specimens
reinforced
with
FRPshear
reinforcement based on (vc Pr0jtjl + v^)................................................................................ 299

Table 5.14: Predicted punching shear capacity of specimens
reinforcement based on ( vc
reinforced
with
2 + vs ) ................................................................................ 300
Table 5.15: Predicted punching shear capacity of the test specimens with shear
reinforcement based on vc propX +vs < vc max......................................................................300
xiii
FRPshear
List of figures
Fig. 2.1: Critical section for diagonal tension and assumed distribution of shear stresses
according to Di Stasio and Van Buren (1960)......................................................................63
Fig. 2.2: Distribution of shear stresses at ultimate, according to Moe (1961)................... 64
Fig. 2.3: Hanson and Hansons test specimens and loading arrangements....................... 65
Fig. 2.4: Dimension and reinforcement for edge and comer connections tested at Imperial
College (Stamenkovic, 1969)................................................................................................. 66
Fig. 2.5: Dimensions and reinforcement for edge connections tested by Zaghlool
(1971)....................................................................................................................................... 67
Fig. 2.6: Slab-column connection under externalactions atcriticalsection, (Park
and
Islam 1976)..............................................................................................................................68
Fig. 2.7: Flexural collapse mechanism, (Goli and Gesund, 1979)...................................... 69
Fig. 2.8: Test specimens of Zidan (1981)............................................................................. 70
Fig. 2.9: Free body diagram of an edge connectionaccording to strip model(Afhami,
1997)........................................................................................................................................ 71
Fig. 2.10: Moment-shear diagram for the capacity of edge connections according to strip
model (Afhami, 1997).............................................................................................................72
Fig. 2.11: Critical section outside shear reinforced zone for ACI and CSA Codes...........73
Fig. 3.1: Test set-up for concrete cylinders........................................................................... 99
Fig. 3.2: Typical stress strain curve of a concrete cylinder for Group 1.............................99
Fig. 3.3: Typical stress strain curve for a concrete cylinder of Group 2 ...........................100
Fig. 3.4: CFRP ribs stress strain relationship as provided by the manufacturer.............. 100
Fig. 3.5: Cutting the carbon fibre grids for installation in the slab specimens................ 101
xiv
Fig. 3.6: The CFRP tension coupon held in the universal testing machine...................101
Fig. 3.7: Typical CFRP tension coupons and its end anchors..........................................101
Fig. 3.8: Typical stress-strainrelationship for C19 asobtained
in the current testing
program.................................................................................................................................. 102
Fig. 3.9: CFRP shear reinforcement rails dimensions...................................................... 102
Fig. 3.10: Photo of CFRP NEFMAC shear reinforcement consisting of five legs,
Zaghloul (2002)................................................................................................................... 103
Fig. 3.11: CFRP shear reinforcement disposition in the slab............................................ 103
Fig. 3.12: CFRP shear reinforcement for slab of specimen ZJEFCS............................... 104
Fig. 3.13: CFRP shear reinforcement in specimen ZJESCS............................................. 104
Fig. 3.14: CFRP shear reinforcementdeposition in the
slabrelative
to theflexural
reinforcement and column stub.......................................................................................... 105

Fig. 3.15: Layout o f CFRP shear grids in specimen ZJEFCS........................................... 105
Fig. 3.16: Specimen ZJEFSS flexural and shear reinforcement........................................106
Fig. 3.17: Layout o f steel studs shear reinforcement in specimen ZJEFSS..................... 106
Fig. 3.18: Vertical section of the slab showing the layout o f steel studs..........................107
Fig. 3.19: Steel studs in position inside slab of specimen ZJEFSS.................................. 107
Fig. 3.20: Flexural and shear reinforcement for specimen ZJESSS..................................108
Fig. 3.21: Layout of steel studs in specimen ZJESSS........................................................108
Fig. 3.22: The steel studs inside slab of specimen ZJESSS.............................................. 109
Fig. 3.23: Typical interior column test specimen............................................................... 109
Fig. 3.24: Specimen ZJF8 reinforcement............................................................................110
Fig. 3.25: Typical test specimens of edge column-slab connection.................................I l l
xv
Fig. 3.26: CFRP edge column specimen reinforcement................................................. 112

Fig. 3.27: The CFRP grid dimensions and disposition inside typical edge column-slab
specimen............................................................................................................................... 113
Fig. 3.28: Strain gaugeslocations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEF1.... 114
Fig. 3.29: Strain gaugeslocations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEF2....114
Fig. 3.30: Strain gaugeslocations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEF3.... 115
Fig. 3.31: Strain gaugeslocations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEF5....115
Fig. 3.32: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEF7. ...116
Fig. 3.33: Strain gaugeslocations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJES
116
Fig. 3.34: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEFCS..117
Fig. 3.35: Strain gauges locations on the shear reinforcement of Specimen ZJEFCS.... 117
Fig. 3.36: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEFSS.. 118
Fig. 3.37: Strain gauges locations on the shear reinforcement of Specimen ZJEFSS.... 118
Fig. 3.38: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJESCS..119
Fig. 3.39: Strain gauges locations on the shear reinforcement of Specimen ZJESCS... 119
Fig. 3.40: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJESSS..120
Fig. 3.41: Strain gauges locations on the shear reinforcement of Specimen ZJESSS.. ..120
Fig. 3.42: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement o f Specimen ZJF8.......121
Fig. 3.43: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement (main direction) of
Specimen ZJF9......................................................................................................................122
Fig 3.44: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement (secondary direction) of
Specimen ZJF9.......................................................................................................................123
Fig. 3.45: Crack detection bar details..................................................................................124
xvi
Fig. 3.47: Location of the LVDTs on the bottom slab surface of Specimen ZJEF1
125
Fig. 3.48: Location of the LVDTs on the bottom surface of Specimen ZJF9................. 125
Fig. 3.49: Front view of test set-up for interior column connection................................. 126
Fig. 3.50: Side-view of test set-up for interior column connection.................................. 127
Fig. 3.51: Plan view o f test set-up for interior column-slab connection...........................128
Fig. 3.52: The steel Z-section placed on the top edges of the slab................................... 129
Figure 3.53: Tie rods tying down the Z-section to the supporting frame.........................129
Fig. 3.54: The crack detectors hollow tubes attached to the formwork............................ 130
Fig. 3.55: Close up view of the steel reinforcement of specimen ZJESCS..................... 130
Fig. 3.56: Reinforcement in position inside the formwork for specimen ZJEFSS.......... 131
Fig. 3.57: Casting of concrete slabs using the bucket and the crane................................ 131
Fig. 3.58: Casting the upper column stub........................................................................... 132
Fig. 3.59: Specimens after the removal of formwork........................................................ 132
Figure 4.1: Typical concentric punching failure pattern.................................................... 185
Fig. 4.2: Schematic crack patterns of interior and edge column connectionswith slab
under eccentric load.............................................................................................................. 186
Figure 4.3: Important slab parts identification and critical section location for interior
column-slab connection........................................................................................................187
Figure 4.4: Crack pattern on the bottom of specimen ZJF8 slab.......................................188
Figure 4.5: Crack pattern on the bottom of specimen ZJF9 slab.......................................188
Figure 4.6: Load deflection curves of specimens ZJF4,ZJF6 and ZJF8...........................189
Figure 4.7: Normalized load deflection curves of specimens ZJF4,ZJF6 and ZJF8.......189
Figure 4.8: Load deflection curves of specimens ZJF4, ZJF7 and ZJF9..........................190
xvii
Figure 4.9: Normalized load deflection curves of specimens ZJF4, ZJF7 and ZJF9
190
Figure 4.10: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to south face of
column stub in specimen ZJF8............................................................................................ 191
Figure 4.11: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to east face of
column stub in specimen ZJF8........................................................................................... 191
Figure 4.12: Strain distribution
in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJF8... 192
Figure 4.13: Strain distribution
in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJF9... 192
Figure 4.14: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJF9, (gauges 1,2 and
3)....................................................
193
Figure 4.15: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJF9, (gauges 6,7 and
8).............................................................................................................................................193
Figure 4.16: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJF9, (gauges 10,11
and 12)................................................................................................................................... 194
Figure 4.17: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJF9, (gauges
13,14,15 and 16)................................................................................................................... 194
17,18,19,20 and 21)................................
195
Figure 4.19: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJF9.....................195

Figure 4.20: Crack pattern o f specimen ZJEF1..................................................................196
Figure 4.21: Side cracks of specimen ZJEF1..................................................................... 196
Figure 4.22: Punching o f specimen ZJEF2, from south west comer................................ 197
Figure 4.23: Punching of Specimen ZJEF1 and spalling of concrete cover.................. 197
Figure 4.24: Crack pattern at the bottom of alab in specimen ZJEF2.............................. 198
xviii
Figure 4.25: Crack distribution through the thickness of the slab at its connection with
column in specimen ZJEF2.................................................................................................. 198
Figure 4.26: Crack pattern o f the slab bottom in specimen ZJES.....................................199
Figure 4.27: Side cracks o f specimen ZJES........................................................................ 199
Figure 4.28: Punching of specimen ZJES and spalling of concrete cover....................... 200
Figure
4.29:
Normalized
load-deflection
curves
of specimens
without
shear
reinforcement........................................................................................................................ 200
Figure 4.30: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF3.............................201
Figure 4.31: Normalized load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF3
201
Figure 4.32: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1, ZJEF5 and ZJEF7...............202

Figure 4.34: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJES...............................203
Figure 4.36: Crack pattern o f the bottom of the slab in specimen ZJEFCS.................... 204
Figure 4.37: Side cracks of specimen ZJEFCS...................................................................204
Figure 4.38: Crack pattern of specimen ZJESSS............................................................... 205
Figure 4.39: Side cracks o f specimen ZJESSS...................................................................205
Figure 4.40: Crack pattern of the bottom of the slab in specimen ZJEFSS..................... 206
Figure 4.41: Side cracks o f specimen ZJEFSS...................................................................206
Figure 4.42: Crack pattern at the bottom of the slab in specimen ZJESCS..................... 207
Figure 4.43: Side cracks o f specimen ZJESCS...................................................................207
Figure 4.44: Torsional cracks on the west side of specimen ZJEFCS..............................208
Figure 4.45: Opening o f torsional cracks on the west side of specimen ZJEFCS...........208
xix
Figure 4.46: Load-deflection curves of shear reinforced samples.................................. 209

Figure 4.47: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3
and ZJEFCS..................... 209
Figure 4.48: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJEFSS.......................... 210

Figure 4.49: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJESSS..........................210
Figure 4.50: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJEFSS......................211
Figure 4.51: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESCS...................... 211
Figure 4.52: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESSS....................... 212
Figure 4.53: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJESCS and ZJESSS......................212
Figure 4.54: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFSS and ZJESSS....................... 213
Figure 4.55: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJES and ZJESSS.......................... 213
Figure 4.56: Load-deflection curve of specimens ZJES and ZJESSS..............................214
Figure 4.57: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement, parallel to south columnslab interface in specimen ZJEF1........................................................................................214
Figure 5.58: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEF5, (gauges
2,5 and 6).............................................................................................................................215
4,15,18 and 19)..................................................................................................................... 215
Figure 4.60: Strain distribution of bottom reinforcement parallel to free surface, in
specimen ZJEF1.................................................................................................................... 216
column stub in specimen ZJEF2..........................................................................................216
Figure 4.62: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to free edge in
specimen ZJEF2.................................................................................................................... 217
xx
Figure 4.63: Strain distribution in
the bottomreinforcement parallel to south face of
column stub in specimen ZJEF7..........................................................................................217

the bottom reinforcement parallel to free edge in
specimen ZJEF7.................................................................................................................... 218

the bottom reinforcement parallel to south face of
column stub in specimen ZJES............................................................................................218

specimen ZJES...................................................................................................................... 219

the bottom reinforcement normal to south face of
column stub in specimen ZJEFCS...................................................................................... 219

specimen ZJEFCS.................................................................................................................220
specimen ZJEFSS.................................................................................................................220
column stub in specimen ZJESCS...................................................................................... 221
column stub in specimen ZJESSS........................................................................................221
specimen ZJESCS.................................................................................................................222
specimen ZJESSS.................................................................................................................222
xxi
4.5 and 6)...............................................................................................................................223
8,13 and 14).......................................................................................................................... 223
2.6 and 7)...............................................................................................................................224
Figure 4.77: Strain distribution in the bottom
reinforcement in specimen ZJEFCS,
(gauges 8,11,13 and 19)....................................................................................................... 224

Figure 4.78: Strain distribution in the bottom
reinforcement in specimen ZJEFSS,
(gauges 34,36,38 and 42)..................................................................................................... 225

Figure 4.79: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in
specimen
ZJEFCS,(gauges
25,26,27 and 28)...................................................................................................................225

Figure 4.80: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in
specimen
ZJESCS,(gauges
24,25,26 and 27)................................................................................................................... 226

Figure 4.81: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFCS, (gauges
40.41.42 and 43)................................................................................................................... 226
Figure 4.82: Distribution o f shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESCS, (gauges
37,38 and 39)...................................................................................................................... 227
Figure 4.83: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESCS, (gauges
41.42 and 43)........................................................................................................................ 227
Figure 4.84: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESSS, (gauges 5,6
and 8)..................................................................................................................................... 228
xxu

36,37,38 and 39).................................................................................................................228
Figure 4.86: Distribution o f shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESSS, (gauges
12,13,14 and 15)................................................................................................................... 229
Figure 4.87:
Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFCS at
ultimate..................................................................................................................................229
Figure 4.88:
Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFSS at
ultimate..................................................................................................................................230
Figure 4.89:
Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESCS at
ultimate..................................................................................................................................230
Figure 4.90: Through-thickness
slab strain in specimen ZJEF1............................. 231
slab strain in specimen ZJF9................................ 233
Figure 4.95: CFRP studs strain in specimen ZJEFCS, (for strain gauge location see Fig
3.35)....................................................................................................................................... 234
Figure 4.96: CFRP studs strain in specimen ZJESCS, (for strain gauge locations see Fig.
3.39)....................................................................................................................................... 234
Figure 4.97: Steel studs strain in specimen ZJESSS, (see Fig. 3.41 for strain gauge
locations)...............................................................................................................................235
xxm
Fig. 5.1: Typical distribution of shear stresses around an interior column-slab connection
transferring shear and moment (McGregor and Wight 2005)..........................................301
Fig. 5.2: Typical distribution o f shear stresses around an edge column-slab connection
transferring shear and moment. (McGregor and Wight 2005).........................................302
Fig. 5.3: The idealized failure surfaces under combined shear and moments................ 303
Fig. 5.4: Proposed critical section for shear stress distribution to be used in conjunction
with proposed refined method............................................................................................ 303
Fig. 5.5: Critical section location and its properties based on A C I318
recommendations.................................................................................................................304
Fig. 5.6: Proposed inclined critical section for punching shear in slabs......................... 305
Fig. 5.6: Proposed inclined and rectangular critical sections and geometric properties for
edge column-slab connection............................................................................................. 306
Fig. 5.7: General layout o f the critical section and shear stress distribution.................. 307
Fig. 5.8: Idealized failure mechanism for an edge column-slab connection...................308
Fig. 5.9: Assumed Mohr-Coulomb envelope according to Guralnik and Sheikh et al (
Zaghlool and de Paiva 1973 a,b)........................................................................................ 309
f
v
Fig. 5.10: The relationships between - ^ r and kp = ~
fc
................................................. 309
fc
Fig. 5.11: Shear-moment interaction diagram for edge column connection according to
strip model prediction for specimen ZJEF1...................................................................... 310
strip model prediction for specimen ZJEF2.......................................................................310
xxiv
Fig. 5.14:Shear-moment interaction diagram for edge column connection according to
strip model prediction for specimen ZJES.........................................................................312
Fig. 5.17a: Critical sections for shear in slab at d/2 from outermost peripheral of last line
of studs..................................................................................................................................313
Fig. 5.17b: Critical sections for shear in slab at d/2 from outermost peripheral of last line
of studs..................................................................................................................................314
xxv
List of Symbols
= width o f column-slab interface
a'
= distance from the first bar parallel to the slab edge to the slab edge
= steel perpendicular to free edge
Asp]
= area o f one bar
Ast
- total area o f transverse steel crossing the column-slab interface
Asv
= area o f shear reinforcement along the perimeter of critical section
Av
= area of set of bent bars
= perimeter of the critical reaction taken at the periphery o f the column.
b0
= rectangular critical shear perimeter
bi
= width of the critical shear section normal to the axis of bending
b2
= width o f the critical shear section parallel to the axis of bending
= cracked transformed section neutral axis depth
= half width of a square column = r!2
Cl
- column side perpendicular to moment vector
Ci
= length o f critical section parallel to the plane of the bending moment
C2
= column side parallel to moment vector
C2
= length o f critical section perpendicular to the plane of the bending

moment
xxvi
= effective depth
= distance o f the centriod of the critical section from the column centriod
E f , E frp
= modulus o f elasticity of FRP reinforcement
Es, Esteei
= Modulus o f elasticity of steel
fc
= concrete cylinder compressive strength
f ca
average compressive stress at failure
fcab
= average compressive stress in the compression zone perpendicular to

the neutral axis
f cas
= average concrete compressive stress in the compression zone.
f ck
= concrete cube compressive strength
If
= maximum tensile stress in FRP, which is obtained by strain compatibility

analysis
/ f
= the tensile strength of FRP reinforcement
fr
= modulus o f rupture of concrete
f pi
= stress in the steel Aspi
fy
= yield stress of steel
fyv
= yield stress of shear reinforcement
= distance between column and critical section centroids
= total thickness o f slab
Jc
= polar moment o f inertia of the assumed critical section
kt
= friction coefficient
xxvii
- modular ratio (EJEC)
= total external moment acting on the connection
Mac
= flexural moment resisted by the slab section BC
M0
= bending moment for infinite eccentricity
Ms
= portion o f unbalanced moment resisted by shear reinforcement
Ms
= moment resisted by the slab section on one side o f the column
Mtu
= the total unbalanced moment acting at the centroid of the critical section
Mty
= flexural capacity associated with the top reinforcement of a strip adjacent

to the spandrel strips
Mu
= unbalanced bending moment strength of interior column-slab connections
Mv
= bending moment produced by the eccentricity of the part of the column

load transferred to the slab at the inside face of the column
= number of column-slab interfaces parallel to the applied moment
= number o f steel bars, in tension, that crosses the inside column face
77/
= modular ratio
= reinforcement index
= spacing o f shear reinforcement, or spacing o f the steel bars placed

perpendicular to the free edge of the slab
= slab thickness
= the peripheral length of loaded area
= the ultimate shear strength
xxviii
= shear force or total axial force acting on the column
Vc
= punching shear strength
vc
= shear stress resistance of concrete
Vc,bs
= punching shear strength according to British Standards
Vc,el
= punching shear strength according to ElGandour
VCie
~ punching shear strength according to ElSalakawy
Vc,m &t
= punching shear strength according to Matthys and Taerwe
VCio
= punching shear strength according to Ospina
Vc,z &r
= punching shear strength according to Zaghloul and Razaqpur
Vca
- average shear stress at the moment of failure
vCh
= the average shear stress in the compression zone parallel to the neutral
axis.
Vcyb
= average shear stress in the compression zone o f the failure section

perpendicular to the plane of applied bending moment and perpendicular
to the neutral axis
Vcys
= average shear stress in the compression zone of the skewed section and
perpendicular to its neutral axis
Vfiex
= flexural resistance of slab calculated using yield line theory approach.
Vn
- nominal punching shear capacity of the slab near its connection with the
column
Vmax
= the maximum allowed shear stress
xxix
V0
= shearing force for zero eccentricity
Vs
= vertical component of force in a set of bent bars
vs
= the shear resistance of the shear reinforcement
vu
= ultimate shear stress
wx
- the amount o f shear that can be transferred by slender flexural action in

the slab strip
Xb
= depth o f the equivalent concrete compression block at failure
xs
= depth o f equivalent rectangular stress block from the top of

compressive surface o f the slab
= distance of the point of maximum shear stress from the centroid of the
critical section perimeter
y c.g.
- is the distance between the centroid of the critical punching shear section
and the center of the column
= angle of inclination of the bent bars to horizontal
pc
= ratio o f longer side of column to shorter side
Ef
: strain in the FRP reinforcement at failure
es
= yield strain of steel reinforcement
yv
= the portion o f the unbalanced moment that is transferred by eccentric

shear
0o
~ Vtest! Vfiex
= concrete density factor (1 for normal weight concrete)
XXX
= the average value of the slab reinforcement ratio in the two directions
pi
= the ratio o f the tension reinforcement placed normal to the moment vector
Pf
= mean reinforcement ratio of FRP reinforcement mat
ps
= the steel equivalent reinforcement ratio
ps
= steel reinforcement ratio
= the nominal shear stress associated with the tensile force in the
reinforcement
= reduction factor assumed by the ACI code (1983) = 0.85
<|>c
= concrete resistance factor (0 .6 )
xxxi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
In cold regions o f the world reinforced concrete parking structures are often exposed
to de-icing salts, which cause corrosion of steel reinforcement and damage to concrete.
To solve this problem, one needs to investigate whether one can replace the steel
reinforcement
by
corrosion-immune
carbon
fibre
reinforced
polymer
(CFRP)
reinforcement. Such a substitution would not be possible unless the CFRP reinforced
structures can economically satisfy the strength and serviceability requirements of
parking structures.
These structures often have the structural form of flat plate/slab structures that are
subjected to concentration of shear forces and moments near the slab-column
connections. Flat plate structures consist of slabs directly supported on columns while flat
slabs contain drop panels. As far as strength is concerned, the connections between the
floor slab and the columns are critically important because these regions must be able to
resist large bending moments and shear forces. Due to combined shear and moment
transfer, a connection failure can be relatively brittle and it should be prevented.
1
The shear and moment to be transferred by a connection are due to different effects.
Dead and live loads acting on the slab are obvious sources, but there are other effects that
also contribute to these forces. For example, although major lateral forces caused by wind
and earthquakes are often resisted by shear walls, designers are increasingly relying on
the slab-column connections to cany an increasing portion of the lateral loads [ACI
Committee 318 (1995, 1999)]. Considerable unbalanced moment may be introduced in a
column due to uneven distribution of live loads on either side of it due to random and
unequal spacing of columns and due to volume changes caused by differences of
temperature.
Differential creep between adjacent floors results
in differential
displacement o f the top and bottom columns, which induces moments at the slab-column
connections. In the presence of such moments, the punching shear stress distribution
becomes unsymmetrical and it reduces the strength o f the slab. This phenomenon has
been observed by a number of researchers, (Hanson and Hanson, 1968, Zaghlool, 1971,
Hawkins et al, 1989, Zaghloul, 2002), and is accounted for in the modem design codes
for reinforced concrete (ACI Committee 318 (2005), CSA A23.3-94 CSA (1994), BS
8110, BSI (1997), CEB-FIP, 1993, Eurocode 2, 1992, European Committee of Concrete,
1966).
CFRP has high tensile strength, high elastic modulus and a reasonable ultimate strain
capacity. Due these characteristics and its corrosion-immunity, it has the potential to
replace the steel reinforcement in the slab, provided it can satisfy the serviceability and
strength requirements of parking structures. Limited experimental data on the punching
behaviour of FRP reinforced slabs is available in the literature, but most of the existing
3
data are derived from tests on FRP reinforced slabs subjected to concentric punching
shear stresses only. To date no tests have been conducted on the punching behaviour of
edge column-slab connections reinforced with FRP. Since such connections are prevalent
in flat plate/slab structures, their punching shear behaviour must be investigated to derive
safe design guidelines. This need forms the motivation for the present study.
1.2 Problem definition
Carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) reinforcement is virtually immune from

corrosion. The problem that we need to investigate is whether FRP reinforced parking
structures can satisfy the serviceability and strength requirements. In flat plate/slab
parking structures a crucial structural component is the slab-column connection, which is
often subjected to large shear forces and bending moments. These forces can create
severe stresses in the connections, particularly in edge and comer column connections
with the slab. The writer is not aware of any study to date related to the strength and
behaviour of FRP reinforced edge and comer column-slab connections. Hence, before
any FRP reinforced parking structure can be constructed, it is important to investigate the
behaviour and strength of the latter connections.
1.3 Objectives and scope
This research is aimed at the investigation of the punching shear behaviour of CFRP
reinforced slab-column connections, including edge and interior columns connections.
4
Slab-column connections subjected to combined axial load and unbalanced bending
moments will be tested.
The study will focus on the effect of some key parameters that are known to affect
the punching shear strength and behaviour of similar steel reinforced concrete structures.
In addition, the effect of the specific characteristics of CFRP, such as its high strength to
elastic modulus ratio and its linear elastic behaviour will be studied. To increase the
punching shear strength of FRP reinforced slab-column connections, a new FRP shear
reinforcement system will be introduced and tested.
In addition, the applicability of some existing design methods or code
recommendations for punching shear to CFRP reinforced slab-column connections will
be investigated, and if necessary, modifications will be suggested to generalize the
current design recommendations to FRP reinforced structures.
More specifically, in order to study the effect of the following parameters on punching
shear behaviour of edge column-slab connections, ten specimens were constructed and
loaded to failure. The parameters of interest are:
1. MTV ratio.
2. Column side, C2 , over effective depth, d, ratio, C2/d.
3. Column stub aspect ratio, C1/C2 . i.e. loading area aspect ratio.
4. Presence o f shear reinforcement and its behaviour.
5. Ratio of slab flexural reinforcement, p.
6
. Type o f flexural reinforcement, i.e. steel versus CFRP.
5
In addition, two interior column-slab connections will be tested to supplement a pilot
study result previously performed by the writer. The purpose of the study is primarily to
further investigate the efficacy of the proposed new CFRP shear reinforcement.
It is expected that the present experimental data, supplemented with available data in the
literature, will provide adequate basis for the derivation of a suitable design method for
both interior and edge column connections.
It should be emphasized that the scope of this study is limited to one type o f FRP
reinforcement; namely, a CFRP grid known as NEFMAC. Despite this fact, the results
may be interpreted and analyzed in the context of key characterizing parameters, such as
elastic rigidity and geometric properties of the connection.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW__________________________
Part I: Punching shear of FRP Reinforced slabs
2.1 General
One-way shear in structural members reinforced with FRP has been investigated by a
number of researchers and is the subject of on-going research while two-way shear in
slabs reinforced with FRP reinforcement has not been widely studied. A few researchers
(Ahmad et al 1994, Banthia et al 1995, Mathys and Taerwe 1997, El-Ghandour et al
1997, Ospina et al 2003) have studied, with variable levels of detail, two-way punching
shear in flat plates and bridge decks. However, all existing studies have been concerned
with punching shear due to axial loading only. Only the work conducted by Zaghloul and
Razaqpur, (2002, 2003-A, 2003-B) included two-way punching shear of interior flat slabcolumn connections reinforced with CFRP grids subjected to combined action of shear
and unbalanced moment.
This chapter begins with a review of available experimental studies concerned
with punching shear in structural slabs reinforced with different types of internal FRP
reinforcement. For the sake of comparison and to help understand those aspects of the
punching shear behaviour o f FRP reinforced members that have not been fully
investigated yet, literature pertinent to the punching behaviour of steel reinforced slabs is
6
7
subsequently discussed.
2.2 Punching shear in slabs reinforced with FRP

(a) Concentric shear
As stated earlier, only limited experimental work is available regarding the concentric
shear resistance o f FRP reinforced slabs or of slab-column connections reinforced with
FRP. Ahmad et. al. (1994), Matthys and Taerwe, (1997, 1998, 2000), ElGhandour et al.
(1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003) and Opsina et al. (2000) conducted some studies on the
punching shear strength of FRP reinforced slabs. However, the behaviour of FRP slabcolumn connections is still a subject that requires extensive investigation.
Ahmad et al. (1994) conducted a preliminary study on punching shear of slabs
reinforced with carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) fabric. They tested six 76 mm
thick square concrete slabs with side length of 690 mm. Four of the slabs were reinforced
with 3-D continuous carbon fibre fabric while the other specimens were reinforced with
conventional mild steel reinforcement. Two of the CFRP reinforced specimens and the
two steel reinforced control specimens were fabricated with a column stub connected to
one face o f the slab; the remaining two CFRP reinforced specimens did not have column
stub.
The reinforcement ratios of the 3D grids in the three directions (x, y and z) for the
CFRP reinforcement slabs were 0.95 percent and the average effective depth of the three
layers of the 3D fabric was 41 mm. The average value for the apparent modulus of
elasticity of the CFRP reinforcement was 113 GPa with an ultimate strain varying
8
between 0.8% and 1.18%. The steel bars used for reinforcing the slabs were deformed
bars with average yield strength of 400 MPa and the reinforcement ratios in the in the two
orthogonal directions
were 1.18% and 1.35%. The average effective depth in both
directions was 61 mm and the concrete strength was 30 MPa.

The slabs were subjected to concentric punching and their crack pattern at
ultimate load indicated that they failed in punching shear. It also indicated that the total
area of the perimeter crack surrounding the loaded area was smaller for CFRP slabs
compared to steel reinforced slabs. The pre-cracking behaviour and the initial stiffness of
the two slab types were similar; however, the post cracking behaviour of CFRP
reinforced slabs drastically differed from that of the steel reinforced slabs. After initial
cracking, the stiffness o f the CFRP slabs substantially diminished whereas the reduction
in the stiffness of the steel reinforced slabs was small. The CFRP reinforced slabs
exhibited significant non-linear behaviour before the maximum load, and the softening
portion of the deformation was significant. Ahmad et al. considered the post-peak load
softening behaviour as a relative measure of ductility and an indication of redistribution
of stresses after the maximum load. The experimental ultimate load values were
to 27
percent higher than that predicted by the ACI Code equations (ACI 318-89, 1989) and 10
to 25 percent lower than that predicted by the British Standard BS-8110-87 (BSI, 1987).
Banthia et al. (1995) studied the behaviour of slabs reinforced with 2D FRP grids
and compared it with that of slabs reinforced with a steel mesh. Their experimental
program comprised four 600 X 600 X 75 mm slabs with an effective depth of 55 mm.
Three specimens were reinforced with a CFRP grid called NEFMAC, which had 5 ribs in
each direction with centre-to-centre spacing of 100 mm in both directions. The cross
9
sectional area o f each rib was 20.54 mm2. The composite tensile strength and modulus of
elasticity were 1200 MPa, and 100 GPa, respectively. The remaining slab was reinforced
with ordinary steel mesh whose centre-to-centre spacing was
102
mm with a bar cross-
sectional area of 19.62 mm ' The steel mesh was made of high-carbon steel with yield
strength of 448 MPa and ultimate strength of 917 MPa. The compressive strength of the
slabs concrete based on 100 x 200 mm concrete cylinders at 14 days were 41.0, 41.5 and
52.9 MPa for normal strength, normal strength with fibres, and high strength concrete
respectively,
The slabs were tested under concentric load, using a 100 mm diameter loading
cap and were simply supported with a clear span of 500 mm. The maximum strain
measured on the FRP ribs was 4000 micro-strains.
It was reported that slabs reinforced with FRP grids are more brittle than the slabs
reinforced with steel mesh. In all the slabs failure was due to punching and the punched
area was more pronounced in the steel reinforced slab. The FRP reinforced slabs energy
absorption and strength was improved remarkably by the use of steel fibres while the
high strength concrete slab capacity was less than that of
normal concrete steel
reinforced slab but its overall energy absorption was higher.

Matthys and Taerwe, (1996, 1997, 2000a, 2000b) performed 17 concentric
punching tests on square slabs with side length of
1000
mm and a total thickness of
120
mm or 150 mm. All test specimens, except two, were obtained by saw-cutting 1 m from
longer one-way slabs previously tested in bending. The saw-cut specimens had three to
five pre-existing cracks prior to punching shear test. The remaining two specimens were
steel reinforced slabs which were cast later and used as reference (R2 and R3).
10
These slabs were designed based on two different criteria, the first being the
flexural strength and the second the flexural stiffness to satisfy serviceability
requirements. The investigated parameters were reinforcement ratio, slab thickness and
loaded area. It is worth mentioning that these slabs did not have reinforcement near the
compression face.
The test specimens were subdivided into three series: the first series consisted of
four steel reinforced reference slabs; the second series comprised eight slabs reinforced
with different types of carbon FRP grid; and the third series contained five slabs
reinforced with a hybrid glass-carbon fibre FRP. In the first series the slabs were
reinforced with <|)10, (j>12, (j>14, and S500 steel meshes and corresponding reinforcement
ratio of 0.58%, 1.29%, and 1.79%, and effective depth of 90 mm,
88
mm and
respectively. The second series included two subsets; the first one included
86
mm,
specimens
reinforced with CFRP NEFMAC grids, and the second subset consisted of two specimens
reinforced with CFRP CS mesh (carbon bars <(>5 mm, sanded surface). The NEFMAC
grids used were CIO, C l3 and C16 grids. The NEFMAC reinforcement ratio was 0.27%,
1.05% or 0.52%, corresponding to effective depth of 96 mm, 95 mm and 126 mm,
respectively. The CS mesh reinforced slabs were 120 mm thick and had a reinforcement
ratio of 0.19% with an effective depth of 95 mm.
The third series of slabs were reinforced with the hybrid or H type NEFMAC
designated as H10, HI 6 and H I9. The corresponding reinforcement ratios for the later
slabs were 0.62%, 1.22% and 3.76%, respectively, with effective depth of 95 mm,
122mm, or 89 mm, respectively.
11
The average concrete cylinder strength varied from 26.3 MPa to 35.1 MPa except
for one slab in the H series, which was made of high strength 96.7 MPa concrete. The
slabs were supported on
equidistant points arranged in a circular pattern with a 900 mm
diameter. The steel loading plate had diameter of 80 mm, 150 mm, or 230 mm and the
load was applied concentrically.
The test results showed that the stiffness of the slabs under loads up to 25% to
35% of their ultimate strength was basically independent of the reinforcement ratio or
type and for specimens designed with comparable flexural rigidity, stiffness degradation
was similar up to failure . However, the stiffness of FRP reinforced slabs was less than
that of the steel reinforced slabs designed for comparable flexural strength.
Matthys and Taerwe noted that prior to failure the damage was dominated by two
or three wide flexural cracks running parallel to the directions of the grid reinforcement
and extending over the total slab width, but ultimately the punching cone developed in all
the slabs and failure occurred due to punching shear. The average angle of inclination for
the punching cone were 30.7 for steel reinforced slabs, 29.2 for different CFRP grids
and 26.8 for H type slabs. They stated that the cracking behaviour of slabs reinforced
with steel or CS meshes were similar but significantly different from the cracking
behaviour o f slabs reinforced with CFRP or H type grids. They attributed the latter to the
good bond behaviour of the steel and CS meshes, and the lack of good bond in the ribs of
CFRP and H type grids. In the case of good bond behaviour; cracks radiated outwards in
all directions, while in the case of poor bond mechanical anchorage of transverse ribs of
the grids initiated wide cracks over the total slab width parallel to the grid ribs. Although
slippage occurred in all the tested specimens, it was more pronounced in slabs reinforced
12
with CFRP and H type grids where it caused the cracks to suddenly widen. They also
noticed that whenever slippage happened, the failure was less brittle.
Matthys and Taerwe reported that for FRP reinforced slabs with similar flexural
strength as the steel reinforced slabs, the failure load was considerably smaller than the
steel reinforced slabs, except for one H type slab made of high strength concrete, which
failed in flexure. Also these FRP reinforced slabs showed low stiffness in the cracked
state, resulting in greater deflection which was twice as large as in the reference slabs.
For the FRP reinforced slabs with higher reinforcement ratio or increased slab depth with
comparable flexural stiffness in the fully cracked state as the reference steel reinforced
slabs the punching failure loads were higher or similar to those of the reference slabs. The
slab with greater slab depth exhibited the best overall behaviour, i.e. higher cracking and
ultimate load and a higher stiffness in the fully cracked state. Also, higher failure loads
were found with increasing loading plate diameter; however, this parameter was less
important than the reinforcement ratio and slab thickness.
These investigators calculated the punching failure load of their test slabs using
some well-known empirical or code equations and compared the results with their
experimental data. They found that these equations give fairly good results if an
equivalent reinforcement ratio is used. This ratio is calculated by multiplying the actual
reinforcement ratio by the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement to the
modulus o f elasticity o f steel. They found that MC90 Code (1990) equation showed the
smallest scatter. Also the modified mechanical model based on Hallgrens (1996) work
predicted the behaviour of both steel and FRP reinforced slabs rather well. Finally, they
noted that the results of the simplified model by Menetrey (1996), a model derived based
13
on finite element analysis results, were largely dependant on the assumption of the cone
angle and underestimated the punching capacity considerably.
El-Ghandour et al. (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000) reported the test results for eight
concentrically loaded slab-column connections in a flat plate structure. The 2.0 x 2.0 m 2
slabs were 175 mm thick with a square column stub located centrally below the plate.
Each slab was reinforced with symmetrical top flexural reinforcement mat, four
reinforced with glass FRP bars and the other four with FRP carbon bars. Two of each
slab type contained carbon FRP shear reinforcement. Unfortunately, the first four
specimens had rather low reinforcement ratio and wide spacing between the
reinforcement bars and consequently failed due to bond slip at loads less than their
expected flexural and punching shear capacities. The shear reinforcement increased the
slab load capacity, and it retarded slip initiation, but did not eliminate it. The remaining
four slabs failed in punching, and were used to verify their theoretical analysis. The
analysis involved modification to the British Standards BS-8110 equation for calculating
punching shear strength using a modified strain approach and they reported accurate
punching shear capacity predictions for both the GFRP and the CFRP reinforced slabs.
Ospina et al. (2000) tested four specimens to simulate full-scale isolated interior
slab-column connection under a concentric load applied to the column stub. This load
reacted against eight loading points on the slab, at a distance of 900 mm from the centre
of the column stub. Two slabs were reinforced with GFRP deformed bars, the third with a
GFRP NEFMAC grid, and the last one with ordinary steel. The slab specimens were
square and of side length 2150 mm.
14
They noticed that the responses of specimens reinforced with deformed GFRP bars,
known as C-bars, and NEFMAC were bilinear, lacking the kind of behaviour associated
with the yield phase of steel reinforced slabs. Also the crack patterns of these specimens
closely matched the layout of the top reinforcing mat. For the purposes of calculating the
ultimate shear strength of their test specimens, they adopted the expression recommended
by Matthys and Taerwe (1997).
Hussein et al. (2004) presented the results of an experimental programme that was
carried out to investigate the behaviour of two-way slabs reinforced with GFRP bars. The
reinforcement ratio o f the slabs varied between 0.95% and 1.67%. The slabs were square
with side dimension of 1900 mm 2 and thickness of 150 mm, and were subjected to
concentric load applied through a 250 x 250 mm column stub. The test results revealed
that the crack pattern at failure and the strain distribution of the FRP reinforcement were
different from those reported in the literature from similar investigations. The cracking
along the reinforcement reported by other investigators was not observed and there was
no apparent bond failure. The test results revealed that increasing the reinforcement ratio
would not increase the connection capacity significantly. They compared the test results
with the estimated shear capacity based on modified forms of the ACI and British codes.
They found that the equation proposed by Matthy and Taerwe provided reliable
prediction of the punching capacity of their test slabs.
(b) Eccentric shear

Zaghloul (2002), and Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2003, 2003-A, 2003-B, 2004), performed
studies on interior column-slab connections. They tested eight slab specimens, seven
15
specimens were reinforced with CFRP NEFMAC grids and one specimen with traditional
steel reinforcement. The main investigated parameters comprised the following:
1- The ratio o f the applied moment to shear (M/V) acting on the connection, with
M/V = 0, 0.22 or 0.30 m.
2- The slab reinforcement ratio (p = 0.87%, 1.33%, and 1.48%)
3- Type of reinforcement, steel reinforcement bars and CFRP grids.
4- The slab thickness, t = 100 mm or 125 mm.
5- The column aspect ratio, C1/C2 = 1.0 or 1.4.
6-
The presence of FRP shear reinforcement.
The test specimens comprised a 1760 x 1760 mm slab and a 250 x 250 mm or 250 x 350
mm column stub extending above and below the slab, and were made of 35MPa concrete.
The CFRP NEFMAC grids used included C l3, C l 6 and C l9,with the cross-sectional
areas of the ribs equal to 65 mm2, 100 mm 2 and 148 mm2,respectively. All three grids are
isotropic with 100 mm rib spacing. From coupon tests their elastic modulus was found to
be approximately 100 GPa, the same as specified by the manufacturer, but their tensile
strength was 1.7 GPa, significantly higher compared to the manufacturer recommended
value of 1.2 GPa. During the tests, the slabs were supported on four sides and were
prevented from lifting. Due to the constant eccentricity of the axial load from the column
centre, the ratio o f the moment to the shear was held constant through out the test.
Overall the behaviour o f the specimens reinforced with CFRP grids resembled that of the
specimen reinforced with steel insofar as the formation of cracks and overall deformation
pattern are concerned.
Based on their study they reported the following:
(1)
16
The failure mode of the CFRP reinforced slab-column connections in punching
shear is similar to that of steel reinforced connections. The failure mode is ductile
with large deformations, but without significant loss in strength. Also in the CFRP
reinforced specimens, the punching perimeter is closer to the slab-column interfaces
than in a similar steel reinforced slab.
(2)
The crack pattern and density in the CFRP reinforced slabs were also comparable to
those in the steel reinforced slab, but the crack width for the same reinforcement
ratio was somewhat larger. However, the larger cracks were still within the
acceptable limits o f the current Canadian standard.
(3)
The overall load-deflection response of the CFRP reinforced specimens was

basically the same as that of the steel reinforced specimen, but due to the lower
elastic modulus o f FRP, the stiffness was much smaller.
(4)
A 25% increase in the slab thickness would cancel the negative effects of the lower
elastic modulus of CFRP reinforcement on the stiffness and strength of the interior
slab-column connections,
(5)
The high strength o f CFRP does not increase the slab-column connection punching
shear capacity nor can this strength be fully utilized in design.
(6 )
The punching shear capacity is governed, among other factors, by the rigidity of the
reinforcement, which depends on the reinforcement ratio and its elastic modulus. An
increase in the reinforcement ratio from 0.87% to 1.33% increased the ultimate
strength of the connection by approximately 19%.
(7)
Based on the overall evaluation of the test results, the CFRP reinforcement can be
used in flat plate structures, but an increase in the slab thickness around the column,
17
i.e. a drop panel, would be needed to compensate for the lower stiffness of the FRP.
(8 )
The ACI, CSA and BS 8110 codes satisfactorily predicted the ultimate strength of
the tested connections, but further study is needed to fully verify the generality of
this statement.
(9)
Further work is needed on edge and comer columns connections to fully assess the
use of FRP in flat plate/slab structures.
(c) Shear Reinforcement

El-Ghandour et al. (1997,1998,2000,2003) used specially manufactured CFRP corrugated
shearbands, each shearband being
10
mm wide,
mm thick and comprising 16 legs with
leg spacing of 100 mm. The maximum strain measured in this reinforcement ranged
between 1400 to 2300 microstrain. The shear reinforcement increased the apparent bond
of the flexural reinforcement and reduced its slippage. It also prevented splitting of
concrete around flexural bars, consequently, it increased the strength of the connection by
17%. These investigators recommended the use of 0.5d spacing between the shearband
legs instead of the 0.75d used in their tests. They recommended a maximum strain of
0.0045 for calculating the shear capacity of the CFRP shearband reinforcement.
Zaghloul (2002) carried out a pilot test to investigate a new type of shear
reinforcement that insures simplicity in installation, reduction in fabrication time, non
interference with flexure reinforcement, and economy. One specimen was reinforced with
this reinforcement while two companion specimens were not. The shear reinforcement
had 5 legs, all connected to a monolithic lower spine and were spaced at 100 mm. This
reinforcement is presented and discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this proposal.
18
The reinforcement was placed around the column such that the closest leg was
located at 85 mm (0.85d) from the slab-column interface so it was not expected to
interfere with the location of the critical section, but would intercept the internal diagonal
shear cracks. These cracks are normally inclined at 30 to 35 in slabs without shear
reinforcement. A shear crack is thus intercepted by the shear reinforcement situated
within a distance approximately equal to the effective depth of the slab.
The shear reinforced specimen failed by punching within the shear-head zone.
The strain measured in the first, second, third and fourth legs of the shear reinforcement
were found to be, 0.0011, 0.00215, 0.0008, and 0.0003, respectively, while the strain in
the fifth leg was not measured. The locations of the first four leg were 0.85 d, 1.85d, 2.85
d, and 3.85 d from column face, respectively. The load carried by the second shear leg at
1.85 d from the column face was calculated to be 21.5 KN at failure. These
measurements indicate among other things that shear reinforcement within at least a
distance = 2 d from the column face are fully effective in carrying shear forces.
The calculated ultimate shear stress at the critical section, at a distance d/2 from the
column face, in the CFRP reinforced specimens without shear reinforcement, ranged
between 0.36-//^to 0 . 4 7 while the corresponding value for the specimen provided
with shear reinforcement was 0.58 ^
shear reinforcement was 0.54
and that for the steel reinforced specimen without
. These shear stress values are comparable to those
measured by other researchers in steel reinforced slab connections. The shear-reinforced

specimen had a punching strength 27% higher than the companion specimen without
19
shear reinforcement. Thus the CFRP shear reinforcement was able to fully compensate
for the lower elastic modulus of the FRP flexural reinforcement in the slab.
Zaghloul recommended that more studies be carried on this type of shear reinforcement
in order to investigate the effect of a number of parameters on its performance, but he
speculated that it would satisfy the codes requirements concerning shear reinforcement
and will prove to be an effective means for increasing the punching shear capacity of
FRP reinforced slab-column connections.
2.3 Punching Strength Analysis Methods for FRP Reinforced Slabs
2.3.1 Concentric punching
Matthys and Taerwe suggested a modification to the empirical formula of BS8110 (BSI 1987) to adapt it for determining the punching shear capacity of FRP
reinforced slabs. They multiplied the reinforcement ratio by the modular ratio
to
obtain the modified shear capacity, VC[m &t as
c.M&r
b0 d
where
d = slab effective depth (mm)
Ef(Es) = Elastic modulus of FRP (steel), MPa
(2 . 1)
20
f'c = concrete cylinder compressive strength, MPa
p f = mean reinforcement ratio of FRP reinforcement mat
b0= rectangular critical shear perimeter, mm.

The critical section in Eq. (2.1) is assumed to be located at 1.5d from the face of the
column, but in the ACI and CSA codes is assumed to be located at d/2 from the column
face.
Note that unless specified otherwise, the units for subsequent equations will be also SI
units as indicated above.
El-Ghandour et al. (1997, 1999, 2000) investigated both the strain and stress approaches
to transform the FRP reinforcement to an equivalent steel area o f equal punching shear
capacity. They concluded that the strain approach represents a lower limit and the stress
approach an upper limit for the actual punching capacity. Consequently, they introduced
a new approach for achieving equivalency which incorporates both the strain and stress
approaches. The equivalent reinforcement area was used directly in the BS-8110 (BSI
1987) formula, Eq. (2.2), to predict the punching shear capacity of slabs irrespective of
the type o f reinforcement
VCtBS =0.79(100p.)
1/3
"400'
.
1/3
1/ 4
fck
25 _
b0 d
(2 .2 )
where, f ck is the cube characteristic concrete compressive strength, p s is the steel

equivalent reinforcement ratio = p ( E f / E s )q>, where cp = s y / e s = 1.8, b0 is the
rectangular critical perimeter at a distance of 1.5 d from the loaded area, and d is the
21
average flexural depth of the slab. Based on test results, they also suggested a
modification to the ACI 318-02 (2002) equation for punching shear capacity, designated
as Vc, el
(2.3)
Test results showed that this modification leads to accurate predictions of the punching
capacity of the tested FRP reinforced slabs without shear reinforcement.
Ospina et al.(2000) introduced a small modification to the equation presented by
Matthys and Taerwe (2000), Eq. (2.4), to predict the punching shear capacity of their
tested slabs
FCj0 = 2.77(P / / c')
(2.4)
Zaghloul (2002), and Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2004), multiplied the one way shear
strength of FRP reinforced slabs and beams in CSA S806-02 by two, similar to the ACI
code approach for steel reinforced slabs, and it was used to predict the punching capacity
of their tested slab. The resulting equation is
(2.5)
where the critical section is taken at d/2 from the column face or loading area and X and
q>c are the usual concrete parameters related to its density and statistical variability.
22
Eq. (2.5) predicts the mean punching shear strength well, but its results show greater
scatter than expected; therefore, it will be modified in this study by including a size effect
coefficient.
El-Salakawy (2005) presented another modification to the ACI 318 equation, (see Eq. 2.6) to
predict the punching shear capacity of concrete slabs. Their modification takes into
consideration the most important factors which affect the punching shear capacity and leads
to better agreement with the experimental results for concentric shear.
(2.6)
where
a = 0.5 (p E) m (1 + 8 d / b Q)
(2.7)
This model was proposed to predict the punching shear capacity of concrete slabs
reinforced with FRP or steel and its accuracy was evaluated by comparing its predictions
with existing test data, with good agreement between the two.
2.3.2 Design Codes and Guidelines

For concrete slabs reinforced with FRP flexural reinforcement, but without special
shear reinforcement, the Japanese design recommendations, (Japanese Society of Civil
Engineers 1997) recommend the same critical section for punching stress as the ACI 318
code and it accounts for size effect of the loaded area, the reinforcement ratio, and the
rigidity of FRP reinforcement as indicated in Eq. (2.8).
Ve ~ P d P p Pr fpcd bo d
where
(2.8)
23
fpcd = m in (Q 2 ^fc , 1 .2 0 )
(2.9)
Pd = min(p\000 / d , 1.5)
( 2 . 10)
( 2 . 11)
1
fir=
1+ 1+ 0.25 u / d
(2 . 1 2 )
where u is the peripheral length of loaded area; b0 is the perimeter of the critical section
at a distance of d/ 2 from the concentrated load and p is the average value of the slab
reinforcement ratio in the two directions.
ACI Committee 440H (ACI 440.1R-05, 2005) recommends Eq. (2.13) to calculate the
punching shear capacity of concrete slabs reinforced with FRP bars or grids. This
equation considers the effect of reinforcement stiffness to account for the two-way shear
transfer in concrete slabs.
4
(2.13)
where
b0 = perimeter of critical section for slabs and footings, mm
c = cracked transformed slab section neutral axis depth, c = k d
(2.14)
where
P f - A f Ibd = reinforcement ratio
24
nf ~ Ef / Ec = modular ratio
E f - modulus of elasticity of reinforcement
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
In Eq. (2.13 ), b0 should be evaluated at d/2 from the column face. In addition, the shape
of the critical surface should be the same as that of the column. Equation (2.13 ) can be
rewritten as Eq. (2.15 ). This equation is simply the basic ACI 318-02 (2002) concentric
punching shear equation for steel reinforced slabs modified by the factor ( 5 k / 2) which
accounts for the axial stiffness of the FRP reinforcement.
(2.15)
2.3.3 Eccentric punching

Zaghloul (2002) an Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2004) presented a method for
calculating the ultimate strength of interior column-slab connections under the combined
action o f shear and moment using the basic approach of ACI 318-02 and CSA A23.3-94
for eccentric punching, with a modified expression for vc as given earlier in Eq. (2.5).
The basic assumptions of the method are:
(i) The critical section adopted by the method is the same as the one recommended by the
Canadian Standard CSA A23.3-94. The Canadian Standard recommends that the critical
section for eccentric shear be located at a distance of d/2 from the column-slab interfaces.
(ii) The shear stress distribution around the punching area perimeter is assumed to be
linear as in the CSA standard.
25
(iii) The portion of the unbalanced moment that is transferred by eccentric shear, yVj is
determined from y - 1-
as recommended by the CSA code.
where b{ and b2 are width of the critical shear section, normal and parallel to the axis of
bending, respectively.
Using the latter expression for vcin Eq. (2.5), the shear capacities o f the test
specimens were calculated and compared with the corresponding test values.
Zaghloul et al. (2004) presented a refined model for calculating the ultimate
strength of interior slab-column connections under the combined action of shear and
moment. It is essentially an eccentric shear stress model similar to that of ACI 318-95
method, but it differs from it in two main ways. These differences are related to the shape
of the critical section for shear stress and the proportioning of the moment transferred by
shear and flexure. The method introduces a new equation for determining the fraction of
unbalanced moment transferred by eccentric shear, yv. It is contended that yv not only
depends on the column geometry, as indicated by the ACI, but it also depends on the ratio
of the bending moment to shear force acting at the slab-column connection, the slab
reinforcement ratio and effective depth. In connections reinforced with traditional steel
reinforcement, the steel at the immediate slab-column connections is assumed to reach
yielding, but in connections with FRP reinforcement this assumption does not apply.
Therefore, a method is proposed based on first principles, i.e. equilibrium of forces,
compatibility o f strain, and constitutive relationships of concrete and FRP to determine
26
the FRP stress at ultimate. The method was verified via comparison with the authors test
results. More details about this model will be given in the thesis.
Part II: Research Background on Steel Reinforced Slabs and

The Current Design Methods for Punching Shear
2.4 Eccentric Punching Shear of Interior and Edge Column-Slab
Connections
To date there is no work available about the punching shear behaviour of FRP edge
column-slab connections subjected to eccentric shear. Due to lack of knowledge about
this topic, it is instructive to review the available literature on the behaviour of interior
column-slab connections reinforced with steel and subjected to unbalanced moment and
shear force.
Hognestad (1953) presented the results of an investigation on shear failure of footings. He
recognized the effect of flexure on the ultimate shear strength and introduced the ratio <9
= Vtest / V/iex as one of the parameters in his statistical study of the test results. He
suggested that the shear stresses could be computed at zero distance around the loaded
area since this seemed to give the best measure of the shear strength. He suggested that
the ultimate shear strength, v (psi), could be calculated by using the following equation:
V
v=
b'd
' 0 .0 3 5 + ^
0o
f c +130 psi
(2.16)
where
b = perimeter of the critical reaction taken at the periphery of the column (in.).
d - the effective depth of the slab (in)..
f c = concrete strength (psi)
27
28
V = shear force (lbs)
Elstner and Hognestad (1956) reported the test results for 38 square slabs subjected to
combined shear and moment. Based on their results, the following equation was found to
predict with good accuracy the shear strength of their slabs
V
- b 'd
8
0 .0 4 6 /'
J +333
6
(2.17)
where as in Eq.(2.16) the units are the customary American units.

Scordelis et al. (1958) investigated the shear strength of prestressed lift slabs and found
that their test results agreed well with the predicted values based on the expression
proposed by Elstner and Hognestad (1956). Rosenthal (1959) reported the results of tests
on simply supported circular reinforced concrete slabs. He tested eleven specimens of
interior slab-column connections. Three of these specimens were loaded eccentrically to
produce the combined effect o f shear and moment acting on the connections. For one of
the latter three specimens, which were found to have failed in punching, a clear
unsymmetrical crack pattern was observed, accompanied by a 15% reduction in the
connection capacity. This reduction was attributed to the effect of the moment induced in
the connection by the eccentrically applied axial load. He concluded that the Elstner
Hognestad empirical equation, which considered the combined effect of shear and flexure
in a centrally loaded slab, when used for slabs containing tension reinforcement only
resulted in satisfactory agreement with the test data.
Di Stasio and Van Buren (1960) presented a working stress method of analysis for
calculating the maximum shear stress to determine both the diagonal tension and
29
punching shear due to combined shear and bending moment acting on exterior or interior
column-slab connections. They suggested that two critical sections of the slab in the
vicinity of the column have to be checked for its shear capacity:
1) A critical section for diagonal tension following a periphery parallel to the column
faces at a distance (t-1.5) inch, where t is the slab thickness.
2) A critical section for punching shear at the column-slab intersection. The applied shear,
V, and moment, M, were assumed to cause shear stresses as shown in Fig. 2.1.
The maximum and minimum shear stresses were calculated by equations of the form:
(1) For exterior edge connection (Fig. 2.1-a)
f TT ( 1 , T.,
T7 \ \
81 V , { M - M BC-V e)
+ ---------------- - a x C
v. =
1 Id \
Jc
J
3L V
Id A
( M - M BC-Ve)
'i
Mo
C*
(2.18-a)
(2.18-b)
where
Ac(2 Ci + C2) t
Ci = length o f critical section parallel to the plane of the bending moment.
Ci = length of critical section perpendicular to the plane of the bending
moment.
e - distance of the centriod of the critical shear perimeter from the column
centriod.
a\ = C\!2 - g
a2 = Ci/2 + g
30
g = distance between column and critical section centroids
t = slab thickness
d = effective depth of the slab
C * = ------ ------l +(m -l)p
m = modular ratio (EJEC)
p - ratio of total (top and bottom)steel of slab
Mbc = flexural moment resisted by the slab along section BC (see Fig.2.1)
Jc = property o f the assumed critical section analogous to the polar moment of
inertia.
Jc = 2 t Ci3/12 + 2Ci t SYl + 2Cl ? g + C 2t (Ci 12 - g f
(2) For interior connection (Fig. 2.1-b):
81
v | (m -
Id
St_ V
V2 =
Id
m a d - m bc ) c
2J
(M -M
ad- M
(2.19-a)
C !
b c) {
(2.19-b)
Where,
A c= 2 (Ci + C2) t
Jc= 2 t Ci3 /12+ 2 C i? /12 + 2 C2t (Ci/2)2
Equation 2.18(a), (b) and Eq. 2.19(a), (b) are for the critical section of diagonal tension.
For the critical section for the punching shear, the same formulas are applied in
conjunction with substitution of the proper values for MBc,
M Ad
and the consideration of
the appropriate dimensions to conform to the requirements of thesmaller periphery.
Di Stasio andVan Buren limited the maximum shear stress to 0.0625/c on a critical
section and this limiting stress is almost twice the maximum allowable diagonal tension
in concrete given by the ACI Building Code of 1956 which was applicable at that time,
vu = 0.03f c 5s 100psi
(2.20-a)
provided at least 50% of the required column strip steel crosses the section,
or
vu = 0.025 f c' < 85psi
(2.20-b)
provided at least 25% of the required column strip steel crosses the section.
Moe (1961) presented results from 43 tests on square slabs. The slabs were designed to
simulate an interior column-slab connection. They were simply supported along all four
edges in such away that no negative reactions could be taken at the supports. The load
was applied through a centrally located square column stub. Moes major variables were
effect o f openings near the face of the column, effect of column size, effect of eccentricity
of the applied load, and the effectiveness of a special type of shear reinforcement. He also
included a statistical study of 140 footings and 120 slabs tested earlier. He concluded that:
(a) The critical section governing the ultimate shear strength of slabs and footings is
the section along the perimeter of the loaded area.
32
(b) The shear strength o f slabs and footings is to some extent dependant on the
flexural strength.
(c) Using US customary units, the ultimate shear strength of slabs and footings can
be predicted with good accuracy by the following formula:
/
(2 .21)
Vfiex = Flexural resistance of slab calculated using yield line theory approach.
r = Side length o f square column or width of a rectangular column
(d) In cases of moment transfer betweens square columns and slabs, test results indicated
that it was safe to assume that a portion of the moment is transferred through vertical
shear stresses which are distributed along the perimeter of the column as shown in
Fig.(2.2). Maximum shear stress due to combined action of vertical load and moment
should not exceed the limits specified by Eq. (2.21).
For the interior column-slab connections tested by Moe, the load was applied to the
connections at different eccentricities through centrally located square column stubs. The
eccentricity of the applied load varied from 0 to 24 inches. He suggested that if M/V were
small i.e. less than r!2, where r is the width of a rectangular column, the behaviour of the
slab would be approximately the same as that of slabs loaded by axial load only. If M/V
were greater than r/2, or if the slabs were subjected to bending moment only, the problem
would become more complicated than an axially loaded slab. From the test results Moe
33
derived an empirical equation, which was shown to predict the strength of the tested slabs
with sufficient accuracy.
In developing his strength criteria Moe assumed that
(1) The axial load V results in producing uniform nominal shear stress in the critical
section given by
V* = T
A
P-22)
where
A = 4 rd
(2) The bending moment M is resisted by
(a) flexural moment of slab sections AD and BC (Fig. 2.2-a)
(b) torsional moment Mt on sides AB and CD.
(c) vertical shear stresses on the four sides of the critical section.
The resultant o f the internal moments produced in (a), (b) and (c) must balance M . The
fraction o f the bending moment resisted by the vertical shear stresses was assumed equal
to k M where A: is a constant which was determined from the test results. Considering the
distribution of the vertical shear stresses shown in Fig. 2.2-c, Moe determined the
maximum shear stress vm as
vm
r 2d
or
(2.23-a)
34
me
(2.23-b)
where
vm= maximum vertical shear stress produced by the bending moment portion k M
C = half width of a square column = r!2
Jc = 2 r3 d/3
Moe stated that failure of a column-slab connection subjected to the type of loading
shown in Fig. 2.2-a takes place when the maximum value of the shear stress, vi, (Fig. 2.2d), reaches a critical value equal to the shear strength of the same slab under concentric
load determined from Eq. (2.21). The maximum shear stress, vi, is obtained as the
summation of vv and vm as follows
Vi = Vv
+ vm
(2.24-a)
or
v me
------b -------
(2.24-b)
Using the above assumption, he used his test data and concluded that the value of k
in Eq. (2.24-b), and therefore the fraction of the total moment transferred by shear
stresses was approximately one-third.
In calculating vi for the case of concentric load, Eq. (2.24-b) was used. For design, he
recommended a limiting vertical shear stress (psi) of
for rid < 3
and
(2.25)
35
v = (2.5 - 10 dir)
for rid > 3
(2.26)
These were conservative limits, intended to produce flexural rather than shear failure.
ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1962) conducted a study of Moe's (1961) work which
resulted in a recommendation that a limiting shear stress vu be established using the
following expression in which the critical section follows the periphery o f the column :
(2.27)
Therefore, the punching shear capacity of a concentrically loaded connection could be
evaluated as
v = vu b 'd
(2.28)
where b' is the perimeter of the critical section, coincident with the periphery of the
column.
The ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1962) recommended a procedure similar to Di Stasio

and Van Buren's (1960), but with two modifications. It was proposed that the critical
section be taken at d/2 from the faces of the column and that the effective depth rather
than the total depth be used in the calculation of^4c and Jc.
At interior columns the recommended equation for design was
(2.29)
where v = ultimate shear stress.

Best agreement with available tests was obtained with a k value of 0.20.
36
The ACI Commentary 318-63 (1963) gave a working stress design method similar to that
of Di Stasio and Van Buren but dropped the multiplier 7/8. Also it did not take into
account the dowel effect of the steel. A critical section (n +d) and (r2 +3 t) for interior
columns was allowed by this method, where r\ is the side width of a rectangular column
in the direction of the plane in which the bending moment acts and r2 is the width of the
other side of the column. The following equation was given to calculate the limiting
stress:
V
v= +
A,
M -(M
ad
JC
+ M cb) c ,
- 1-
(2.30)
The calculated shear stress by this method was limited to an allowable value specified in
the ACI (318-63) Building Code (1963).
Hanson and Hanson (1968) reported results of tests from 17 specimens involving
combined shear and bending moment. Sixteen specimens contained square or rectangular
concentric columns. Only one specimen had a square edge column simulating the
conditions of an edge connection, Fig. 2.3.
Pairs of holes were blocked out of the slab in eight of the specimens with square
columns. These holes were located adjacent to the column. The principal variables were
the location of the blocked out holes and the loading arrangement, Fig. 2.3-a. The three
loading arrangements considered caused eccentricities varying from zero to almost
infinity.
As a result o f the examination of their tests and previous tests reported by Moe (1961),
the following are some of their important conclusions:
37
(1) The working stress method recommended by Di Stasio and Van Buren (1960),
modified to agree with 1963 ACI code, was found to have a variable factor of safety
always greater than 2.
(2) The ultimate strength design method recommended by Moe (1961) was found to be
simple in application and to give good results except for the case of the edge connection.
(3) The ultimate strength design method recommended by ACI-Committee 326 (1962)
was found to give a good prediction of the strength of the column-slab connections only
when the ratio o f moment resisted by vertical shear to total applied moment, k, was
changed from 0.2 to 0.4
Based on the recommendations of the ACI-ASCE joint Committee, the following

equation was adopted by the ACI 318-83 (1983).
k = l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2.31)
, 2 ,ri + d
1 + - ------------3 y r2 + d
where
(t"2 +d) = is the width of the face of the critical section resisting the moment.
(ri +d) = is the width of the face of the critical section at right angle to the (r2 + d)
Equation (2.31) gives k = 0.4 for square column.
Zaghlool, (1968), and Zaghlool et al. (1970) reported the results for four flat plate
structures tested to failure. Each structure was a full size, square single panel flat plate
structure cast monolithically with a square column at each corner. The column bases
38
rested on steel balls so that rotation, but not translation, of the lower end of the column
was permitted. The variables studied were the column width to slab depth ratio and the
concrete strength. The structures were loaded by uniform loads simulated by 16 point
loads.
Considering a simplified approach to the analysis of their results and using the principal
tensile strength o f the failure cone, they obtained the following expression, using US
customary units, for the shear stress at ultimate, which showed good correlation with the
test results:
v - - ^ f - ( 5 -6 + 2 t ) ^
(232)
where
b = 2 r
V= vertical shear force.
Stamenkovic (1969) tested 52 models of column slab connections designed to simulate
interior, edge and comer connections in flat plate structure. They were tested under the
action o f axial load, bending moment and their combination. The exterior column-slab
connections, i.e. comer and edge connections are described below.
The edge connections were supported along three edges with the column stub being
located at the center o f the free edge and the comer connections had two free edges
adjacent to the column. The slabs were reinforced with two similar steel meshes near the
top and bottom faces. Typical slab reinforcement for edge and comer connections is
shown in Fig. 3.4. The principal variables were the type of loading and the location of
39
holes in the slabs at the column faces with respect to the plane in which the bending
moment acted.
The analysis o f the test specimens given by Stamenkovic are summarized as follows:
(1) For the slab specimens which were provided with holes through the slab parallel to
the plane in which the bending moment acted, the bending capacity of the connections
was assumed to be equal to the ultimate strength predicted by the ACI 1953 Building
Code equation
Mb= 0.9 b<Pfcq ( \ - 0 .5 9 ? ;
(2.33)
where
b = width of the column face perpendicular to the plane of applied bending
moment.
d = effective depth of the slab.
q = reinforcement index.
= p fy 'fc '
p = ratio of the tension steel crossing the inside column face.

(2) For the case of specimens with a hole in the slab perpendicular to the plane of
bending, the bending moment applied through the column stub was assumed to be
resisted through torsion by the slab section (or sections) on the column side (or sides)
parallel to the plane of applied moment. To obtain the torsional capacity of the slab
section, Stamenkovic suggested the following plasticity-based relation
..
1
Nxt1
tA
..
^
40
where
N = number of column-slab interfaces parallel to the applied moment.
r = the nominal shear stress associated with the tensile force in the reinforcement.
Kt = friction coefficient.
Asi = total area of transverse steel crossing the column slab interface.
f y = yield stress o f steel.
a - width o f column-slab interface.
t = total slab thickness.
Using a single test result from each type of connection he determined Kt = 0.7 for edge
and comer column connections and 1.0 for interior column connection.
For connections subjected to axial load, he used Eq. (2.21) as follow:
(a) For interior column connections
(2.35)
v,u
flex
(b) For edge column connections

/
(2.36)
v,u
\
1+ 5.25----V,flex
(c) For corner column connections

r
(2.37)
Equations (2.36) and (2.37) for edge and comer connections, respectively, were obtained
by modifying Eq. (2.21) by a factor which expresses the relative length of the critical
section taken at a distance d from the column perimeter.
(3) For the case where no holes were provided, the capacity of the comer or edge
connection in bending was calculated as follows:
(2.38)
where N is one for comer connection of the type tested and two for an edge connection.
For the combined bending and axial load cases, Stamenkovic proposed an interaction
equation of the following form:
I
f v
where
M q= bending moment capacity with infinite eccentricity.
V0 = shear strength with zero eccentricity and M was defined as follows for an edge
connection
a
2
(2.40-a)
42
and for a comer connection with column side length r and subjected to combined action
of axial load and bending moment about one major axis of the column cross section,
\
(2.40-b)
where
= 0.4 ( Mtest - V ^ )
It is of interest to mention that Stamenkovic (1969), Zaghlool, (1968), Zaghlool et al.

(1970) found that extrapolation of existing methods of analysis for interior columns to
predict the ultimate capacity of exterior connections was extremely conservative.
Mast (1970-a, 1970-b) presented an analytical method for calculating the stresses in
flat plates near interior (1970-a) and edge (1970-b) columns. The method was based on
the elastic theory of plates. He calculated the proportions of column moment transmitted
to the slab by flexure, torsion and vertical shear stresses. The proportions for a square
periphery of a critical section of a side length equal to 0.20 L, where L is one panel width,
are shown in Table (2.1).
From Table (2.1) the coefficient k which allocates the portion of the column
moment transmitted by torsion and vertical shear combined agrees with Di Stasio and
Van Buren's (1960) method and is equal to 0.66 for interior and 0.746 for edge column
43
connection. Also the k values conform to Moes (1961) suggested vales of 0.504 for the
interior connection and 0.482 for the edge connection.
Zaghlool (1971) tested 19 specimens of column-slab connections designed to

simulate comer and edge connections in a flat plate structure. The test program was
subdivided into seven series of tests. Four series were concerned with comer connections
consisting of
11
specimens and three series were concerned with edge connections
consisting o f 8 specimens.
In the edge connection series and the first three series on the comer connection, the
principal variables were the column side to the effective slab depth ratio, r/d, the
unbalanced moment to the axial load ratio, MZV, and the reinforcement ratio. The fourth
series conducted on the comer connection was concerned with the static reversal of
loading.
All the edge connections were rectangular in plan (see Fig. 2.5). The edge
connections were supported along three edges with the column stub being located at the
center of the free edge. The loads were applied to the test specimens through the column
stubs. The bending moment was applied by means of two vertical rams.
Based on idealizations of observed failure mechanisms, Zaghlool (1971) and
Zaghlool and de Paiva, (1973-a) developed expressions for the strength of edge and
comer connections. These expressions satisfy moment and shear equilibrium, and
compatibility requirements, on the failure surface. Solution of the resultant equations
required an iterative process. This analytical approach is general and applies to any corner
44
or edge connection provided that failure does not occur in the slab away from the column
region. Based on his test results , Zaghlool (1971) reached the following conclusions:
(1) The punching of the column through the slab at ultimate can be considered a
secondary phenomenon, which follows the destruction of the compression zone, due to
combined action of moment and shear.
(2) The ultimate capacity of an exterior connection depends mainly on the amount of steel
reinforcement provided in the column vicinity and not on the concrete compressive
strength f c.
(3) The nominal ultimate shear stress, as assumed by the ACI (1963), is not constant and
dependent on f c only, but it varies according to the M /V ratio.
(4) The ACI code greatly underestimates the capacity of the exterior flat plate
column-slab connection in moment and shear transfer, and does not consider the effect of
the variation in the steel reinforcement and M/V ratios.
(5) Prior to failure, cracks leading to the punching failure develop.
(6 ) In flat plate with low concrete strength, the danger of punching failure arises earlier
even if the reinforcement ratio remains high.
Park and Islam (1976) presented an approach for the determination of the shear and
unbalanced bending moment capacity of reinforced concrete interior column-slab
connections, with or without shear reinforcement. To predict the punching strength of the
connection a beam analogy for the slabs considering the flexural, torsional and shear
strength of the slab adjacent to the column was used. The unbalanced bending moment
strength presented by Park and Islam for interior column-slab connections without shear
45
reinforcement is given by the following formula:
- ( w + m u ] B 2
+ \ ^ - i T c B 2 d - Q - 5 V u { K AB + K
cd)
+ - A 25i4.8 fc
3
1
1
where
Bi = Cj+d
B 2 = C2+d
mu = p fy db2 { \ -0.59 p 4 )
fc
mu' ^ p f y db2 ( l - 0 . 5 9 p ^ r )
p = area o f slab bottom steel per unit width !db

p ' = area of slab top steel per unit width !dt
db = effective depth of slab bottom steel
dt = effective depth of slab top steel
fy = yield strength of steel
f c = compressive cylinder strength of concrete
Vu = ultimate shear force to be transferred but which cannot exceed V 0
V o - 4 ^ [ f J rf[2(C / + <0 + 2(C2 + fiO]
vu = vertical shear stress on faces BC and DA (see Fig.2.6)
(2.41)
46
K bc Vu _ W ,
d C q + rf) rf(C,+rf)
In case o f symmetrically loaded column-slab connection Kbc = -K/m gives the portion of
F being transferred to faces BC and DA. Kab and K cd depend on the area of slab at faces
AB, BC, CD and DA.
d *hd
d = effective depth of slab steel d = ---- Ct,C2 - column dimensions (see Fig. 2 .6 )
h = total thickness of slab.
The unbalanced bending moment strength for interior column-slab connections with shear
reinforcement was given by the following formula:
(2.42)
Mi7 Me + Ms
M c =(mc +mu)(C 2 + d ) + [ 2 ^ (C 2 + d)d-0.50V , (K AB + Kco)](C, +d)
(2.43)
= Vs (C, +d)
M s - A v f y sin a (C,+ d)
where
Ms = unbalanced moment strength due to the shear reinforcement
Ay= area o f set of bent bars at face AP
Vs = vertical component of force in set of bent bars at face AB
a = angle of inclination of the bent bars to horizontal
Although this method proved to be very conservative when compared with their test
47
results, it seemed to represent a good trend for predicting the behaviour of column-slab
connections. This trend was also adopted by other investigators (Zaghlool 1968 andl971,
Yitzhaki 1966, Zidan 1981) although they approached the problem differently.
Goli and Gesund (1979) presented an analytical method to predict the ultimate
flexural strength o f exterior panels of reinforced concrete flat slabs on rectangular
columns. Their method o f analysis was based on failure patterns observed in the tests of
earlier investigators, such as Stamenkovic (1969) and Zaghlool (1971), and using the
usual assumptions o f the yield line theory. They concluded that there are four possible
yield line mechanisms that can lead to the lowest collapse load of a slab supported on
rectangular exterior columns. Two of these involve local flexural yielding around the
columns while the other two are triggered by overall flexural faiulure. Figure 2.7 shows
three of the four mechanisms, the fourth one being failure of the slab cantilever beyond
the outer faces of the exterior columns.
Zidan (1981) reported about 7 edge column-slab connections tested to failure. The
specimens were full scale and designed to simulate edge connections in flat plate
structures. The test program was subdivided into two main groups. Five specimens were
included in the first group where the principal variables were the ratio of the column
perimeter and sides to the effective slab depth and the aspect ratio of the column.
Two specimens were included in the second group to investigate the effect of
openings in the slab at the inner comers of the column-slab interface on the behavior and
strength of the edge connections, Fig. 2.8.
Based on idealizations of observed failure mechanisms, Zidan presented a
48
theoretical investigation by using the expressions for the strength of edge connections
developed by Zaghlool (1971) and Zaghlool and de Paiva (1973), to predict the ultimate
capacity of the tested specimens under the combined action of bending moment and axial
force. Those expressions satisfy moment and shear equilibrium and compatibility
requirements on the failure surface. From the test results it was possible to draw the
following conclusions:
(1) As reported by Zaghlool, (1971) the punching of the column through the slab at
ultimate load can be considered a secondary phenomenon following the destruction of the
compression zone due to the combined action of bending moment and shear.
(2) The loss of confinement of concrete in the compression zone close to the openings,
especially at the inner comers of the column stub, reduces the strength of the connection.
The theoretical prediction overestimates the strength of such a connection by
to 10
percent and is therefore satisfactoiy.

(3) In a flat plate with low concrete strength, the danger of punching arises earlier.
(4) The ultimate capacity of an exterior column slab connection depends on the concrete
compressive strength f c , the column size and the column sides rectangularity aspect ratio.
(5) The punching shear strength provisions of ACI 318-71 are conservative for columns
with different degrees of rectangularity in the same way as it was found earlier by
Zaghlool (1968 and 1971), Zaghlool et al (1970) and Zaghlool and de Paiva (1973) for
square columns.
(6 ) The nominal ultimate shear stress as assumed by ACI code is not constant and
depends not only on f but also on the a/d and b/d ratios.
49
Pillai and Scavuzzo (1982) reported 4 tests on column-slab connections. The

specimens consisted of an exterior and an interior panel extending laterally to the center
lines between the columns. The most important conclusion was that the limit of 4
\j~fc (psi) as a maximum shear stress due to shear and moments is realistic and safe.
ACI Building Code (318-83) adopted the method of The Joint Committee (1962)
for calculating the ultimate capacity of column-slab connections under combined bending
moments and axial load. Furthermore, it was proposed that the critical section be taken at
d/2 from the column faces. Shear stresses resulting from moment transfer by eccentricity
of shear was assumed to vary linearly about the centroid of the critical section. Maximum
shear stress due to shear forces and moments, vc were limited as below
vc = H 2 + j - ' ) 4 f i
rc
(2-44)
where
vc = limiting shear stress o f slab (psi)
^ = reduction factor assumed by the ACI code (1983) = 0.85
Pc - ratio of longer side of column to its shorter side
f c' = concrete strength, psi
The British Code (BS8111-1985) of Practice recommended the following relation to
calculate the ultimate punching strength of slabs.
50
100^4
v c ~ 0-79
where
4 o o y '7 /f V'3
\ d y v 25 y
(MPa)
(2.45)
>4,= effective steel area crossing the critical shear perimeter
^ ^ < 3 .0 0 ,
bd
>1.00
d
and
f cu<40 MPa
cu
This equation was recommended on the basis that the critical section lies at 7.5 d from the
column faces.
Walker and Regan (1987) reported results of 12 tests on square isolated panels of
flat plates. Each panel was supported on 4 comer columns. The variables included in their
study were the column dimensions, slab thickness and reinforcement ratio.
From the examination of their tests, they concluded that:
The ACI Code 318-83 is correct in its assumption that the column dimensions are the
primary factors governing the stiffness of column-slab connections. Reinforcement details
do, however, have some influence.
Afhami et al. ( 1998 ) proposed a modification to the strip model first introduced
by Alexander (1994). In that model the slab-column connection is divided into strips and
quadrants. For edge slab-column connections the strips are divided into two spandrel
strips and radial strips that are parallel and perpendicular to the free edge respectively as
in Figure 2.9. The Strip Model describes the transfer of loads between slab and columns
in term o f beam and arch action. Non-proportional behaviour of the strips, where not all
of the strips are loaded to their nominal capacity, was also recognized in the model. In
such a case, the failure of the connection occurs when the load in any one strip exceeds its
ultimate capacity. The share of the load being applied to each strip is determined by
considering both equilibrium and compatibility of deformations
Figure 2.9 shows free body diagram of edge connection according to the strip
model. Total load to be transferred through the connection, P, and the moment at the
centerline of the column, M, are expressed in terms of interaction diagram, Figure 2.10,
which shows a typical interaction diagram of the edge connection. The first point on the
interaction diagram is point 4 where no vertical load is acting on the connection and the
total moment transferred by the connection is
A /4
Msx + 2 Mtc
2 4 6 )
Here M~x is the flexural capacity of the radial strip and M tc is the torsional
moment on each side face of the column. M tc is the lesser of two values, torsional
moment capacity of the side faces of the column, M tr, and the flexural capacity
associated with the top reinforcement placed perpendicular to the free edge outside the
column. Afhami et al. used the shear friction concept to calculate M tr.
The next points to be calculated on the interaction diagram are points 3a and 3b
corresponding to the maximum moment that an edge connection can transfer. At point 3b
zero shear is carried by the spandrel strips while at point 3a some limited shear is
transferred through the spandrel strips by beam action. The vertical force that can be
carried at point 3b is calculated as follows:
52
p - ib = p x =
2V(M+Mi+2M&K
(2.47)
where M tx is the negative flexural capacity of a strip of slab adjacent to the interior radial
strip, the width of this strip is chosen equal to 1.5h and M tx should not be more than M tr.
M*x is the positive moment at the remote end of the strip. The quantity wx is the amount
of shear that can be transferred by slender flexural action in the slab strip for steelreinforced concrete slabs, w is taken as
(2.48)
In the case of slabs reinforced with FRP reinforcement w is reduced to half this value.
From the free body diagram the amount of moment that can be resisted by the
connection is calculated as follows
M 3a= M 3b= M ,+ P 3b^ -
(2.49)
where M4 is the moment calculated previously at point 4 and cîs the column side
dimension in x direction. The vertical force that can be resisted at point 3a is
Pla=P-ib+2Pcyx
(2.50)
where coefficient /?, ranging from zero to one, accounts for the one way shear to be
transferred by one way action in the spandrel strips.
The maximum shear that can be transferred through connection occurs when all
strips reach their nominal capacities, represented by point
on the interaction diagram
and is calculated as follows

P2 = 2^2(M ~ + M +
Sy)wy +
+ M+x)wx
(2.51)
while the associated bending moment can be determined using Eq. 2.52 below
M 2 = M~x + cy
+M*x ) wx
(2.52)
The last point on the interaction diagram to be discussed is point 1, which

represents the case where moment is equal to zero (M j = 0). Shear transfer in this case is
similar to that o f a simply supported beam. Shear is transferred by beam action (gradient
in the positive bending moment direction) to the side faces of spandrel strips, and from
there by arching action to the column. The shear capacity of the connection is calculated
using Eq. 2.53
P = cxwy + 2^2 (M~ + M+y + M ty)Wy
where
(2.53)
is the flexural capacity associated with the top reinforcement of the strip
adjacent to spandrel strips, the width of strip being equal to 1.5h.

Ospina et al. (2003) modified the strip method to evaluate the term w required for
a slender FRP-reinforced concrete member. Assuming that this strength can be expressed
as a fraction o f that of a steel-reinforced concrete member, the w term in the modified
strip model formulation for slabs with internal FRP reinforcement is
wf =kww = k , ( o . l 6 l 4 Z d )
(2.54)
54
According to Deitz et al. (1999), the one way shear strength of concrete members
reinforced with GFRP bars can be estimated as
(2.55)
Using the latter equation and experimental results, Ospina et al. found the term
K =3 =0.50 for C-bar and 2-D grid reinforcement and suggested that the same value
hs
be used for CFRP and hybrid carbon-glass reinforcement due to lack of data.
2.5 Use of shear reinforcement for slab-column connections

The level of shear stress in a slab-column connection subjected to shear or shear and
moment must not exceed the shear capacity of the connection; if it does, one must either
use a thicker slab or provide shear reinforcement around the column.
Shear
reinforcement in the form o f steel sections, called shear-heads, was introduced by

Wheeler (1936). However, design rules were not incorporated in the ACI Code until
1971. An extensive review and evaluation of the data available in the literature for
connections reinforced against punching with shear-heads, bent bars or stirrups can be
found in the work of Hawkins (1974) and in the report of the ASCE-ACI Task
Committee 426 (1974). These reviews have revealed that the aforementioned types of
shear reinforcement when properly detailed can be effective in increasing the shear
capacity o f a connection and in enhancing its behavior. However, practical considerations
might limit the general use o f one type or another. Structural sections are undesirable if
they obstruct passage of the column bars through the connections. Stirrups may be
55
undesirable if they cannot be readily positioned after most of the slab reinforcement is in
place.
Relatively new types of shear reinforcement for slab-column connections have appeared.
These have the advantage of being easy to install in position without interference with
flexural reinforcement. Seible et al. (1980) reported tests on specimens of interior
slab-column connections with three different types of preassembled shear reinforcement
units. The first type of unit was in the form of I-beam segments cut out from standard
I-beams and welded at equal spacing to two straight bars to form a shear unit. The second
type was made up of headed shear studs welded to a steel strip, thus forming a shear unit.
The third type was welded wire fabric cut and bent to form a shear unit.
Three criteria were considered in evaluating the appropriateness of any type of punching
shear reinforcement: strength, ductility, and economy as represented by ease of
installation. Test results on these units showed that enough increase in strength and
ductility o f a flat plate at its connection with a column can be expected when using any
one of them, the I-beam segments and shear stud were easier and more accurate in
placement than welded fabric units.
Dilger and Ghali, (1981) proposed a procedure for the design of stud shear
reinforcement for slab-column connections. The method recommends that for stud
reinforcement, which meets certain requirements concerning anchorage, the maximum
allowable shear stress in a critical section at a distance d/2 from the column face be
increased from 6 -^ f^ psi (0.5 -\[f^ MPa), which was allowed by the ACI 318-83 Code
56
(1983) to 8 tJ / c psi, (0.67
MPa). Moreover, the method allows for the concrete
within the shear reinforced region to have an increased shear strength of 3

(0.25
psi
MPa), as opposed to the fixed value of 2 -Jf^ p si (0.17-^/^ MPa).
The proposed method of Dilger and Ghali (1981) was followed by an experimental
program conducted by several researchers on different kinds o f connections reinforced
with stud reinforcement and under different loading conditions. The tests were intended
to check the reliability of the method as a design tool and to check the effectiveness of
stud reinforcement in resisting punching failure in slabs.
Mokhtar et al. (1985) tested eight interior connections concentrically loaded. The test
results confirmed the effectiveness of stud reinforcement in enhancing the connection
strength and ductility even in lightweight concrete slabs.
Elgabry and Ghali (1987) tested five specimens of interior connections transferring shear
force and unbalanced moment. One of these specimens had no shear reinforcement while
the remaining four were provided with stud reinforcement of various arrangements. Test
results verified that studs are effective in increasing the strength and ductility of interior
connections transferring shear and moment. The results also verified the validity of the
design rules of Dilger and Ghali (1981).
Mortin and Ghali (1991) reported tests on six edge connections loaded in shear and
moment. Four of them contained stud shear reinforcement and two had no shear
reinforcement. The tests showed a considerable improvement in shear strength and
ductility when studs were provided. Increases in strength between 43 and 64 percent were
57
noticed. Deflections at failure for specimens with studs were twice as much as those with
no shear reinforcement. The two specimens with no shear reinforcement failed in
punching. On the other hand all four specimens with stud reinforcement failed in flexure.
The stud reinforcement changed the failure mode from brittle punching shear failure to
the more ductile flexural failure. Comparison was made of the shear stresses at failure
with the upper limits of the ACI Code (1981) and with those suggested by Dilger and
Ghali (1981). It was found out that the ACI Code (1995) predictions for the shear
capacities were consistently conservative whereas those proposed by Dilger and Ghali
were higher than the actual test values for the specimens which failed in flexure but was
close to the failure load for specimens which exhibited punching after failing in flexure.
The A C I 318-05 Code

According to the ACI code the total shear stress resistance of slabs with shear
reinforcement is expressed by the following equation
V
vr = Vycs +' Vs
< Vmax
where v, = total punching shear stress

vCJ = component of shear resisted by concrete
= component of shear stress resisted by shear reinforcement
vmax= maximum allowed shear stress
where the values adopted for vcs, vs and vmax are as follows:
58
In slabs with shear reinforcement the shear resistance of concrete vCJis reduced to
0.167-^/^ (MPa), which implies that deformations required to develop yielding of the
shear reinforcement reduce the resistance of the concrete.
The shear resistance of the shear reinforcement
Ys =
is computed as
^svfyv
7
b0s
(2.56)
where
Asv = area of shear reinforcement along the perimeter of critical section
fyv = yield stress of shear reinforcement, not to be taken greater than 414 MPa to
provide control of the diagonal crack width
s = spacing of shear reinforcement
b0- perimeter o f shear critical section at d/2 from column face
The maximum allowed shear stress vmax is 0 . 5 (MPa) in this case.
For the critical section outside the shear reinforcement, the shear strength of the concrete
is limited to 0 . 1 6 7 (MPa), which is the same as in one-way shear.
The CSA Standard A23.3-04

Recognizing the advantages of the shear stud reinforcement, the CSA Standard
distinguishes between stirrups and shear studs in the following way:
(a) Properly anchored stirrups may be used as shear reinforcement in slabs 300 mm
in depth or greater
59
(b) The factored shear resistance vCJof concrete inside the shear reinforced zone is
reduced to O.2A,0-Jf^ (MPa).
(c) The factored shear resistance of the shear reinforcement vs is computed as
V
where <j)s is a resistance factor for steel (0.85). The shear reinforcement is required to
be extended to the section where the shear stress is not greater than 0.2k(j>c
but
at least a distance 2d from the column face. The maximum allowed factored shear
stress is taken as Q.6X<f)c^ c (MPa).
In the case o f shear stud reinforcement
(a) The factored shear resistance vCJof the concrete inside the shear
reinforced zone is reduced to 0 . 2 8 (MPa).
(b) The factored shear resistance of the shear reinforcement vs.is computed
according to Eq. 2.57 with the following limitation on spacing:
(c ) The distance between the column face and the first line of studs, s0, shall be the
smaller of d/4 or s, with the spacing s < 0.75d when vf < O.6A0c^ ff^ and s < 0.5d
when vf > O.6A0ctJ j ^ . The maximum allowed factored shear stress
vmaxis
0 .7 5 ^ cA/ Z (MPa).
For the critical section outside the shear reinforced zone (see Figure 2.11), the shear
60
strength o f the concrete is limited to 0.2^ c^~fc (MPa), the same value used in one-way
shear.
The British Standard B S 8110-85

The British Standard allows the use of shear reinforcement to increase the shear capacity
o f slabs more than 200 mm thick. The amount of shear reinforcement is calculated
according to the following equation
(2.58)
' J yv
where:
Asv= area of shear reinforcement ( mm2)
a = angle between the shear reinforcement and the plane of the slab
f
= characteristic strength of shear reinforcement (MPa)
= the perimeter o f critical section
vc = shear stress resistance of concrete

v - vc > 0.4 MPa
In design, the zone immediately adjacent to a loaded area (i.e., the zone whose inner
perimeter touches the loaded area and outer perimeter is 1.5d from the loaded area) is
checked first. If this zone does not require shear reinforcement, then no further checks are
required. If shear reinforcement is required, then successive zones (of 1.5d widths) are
checked, until a zone is reached which does not require shear reinforcement.
61
2.6 Summary
The available literature on steel reinforced slab-column connections and their strength is
quite large, both for the interior and edge column connections. On the other hand, for
FRP reinforced slab-column connections, there is some literature available about the
interior column connections, but none about the edge or comer column connections. It is,
however, important to point out that the research on FRP reinforced slab-interior column
connections has shown that the material and geometric parameters which influence the
punching shear capacity o f steel reinforced connections similarly influence the capacity of
FRP reinforced connections. Consequently, it would be reasonable to assume that the
behaviour o f FRP reinforced slab-edge column connections would be influence by the
same parameters as those affecting the behaviour of steel reinforced slab-edge column
connections. This premise is the basis for the selection of the test parameter in the current
experimental program described in the following chapter.
62
Table 2.1 - Proportions o f moment balanced by flexure, torsion and shear for interior
and edge column connections.
Connection
Flexure
Torsion
Shear
Interior
Mast (1970-a)
0.34
0.156
0.504
Total
0.34
Edge
Mast (1970-b)
0.254
Total
0.254
0.66
0.264
0.482
0.746
63
i-------critical
section
sh ea r
s tre s s
(a) Edge connection
c ritic a l
/s e c tio n
4
1
i
L
0
4
B
I +
I
Cl
shear
s tre s s
(b) Interior connection

Fig. 2.1: Critical section for diagonal tension and assumed distribution of shear
stresses according to Di Stasio and Van Buren (1960)
64
CB
CB
column slab
in terface
( b ) Distribution of shear s tre s s e s

due to load
(c)
(b )
Distribution of shear s tre s s e s
(c)
due to moment M
(d )
Distribution of shear s tre s s e s

due to combined v and M
Fig. 2.2: Distribution of shear stresses at ultimate, according to Moe (1961)
(d)
6 x 12 in col.
3' - 3'
12x 6 r> col.

_ /
3 -9
6 x 6 in col.
(a)
Line load
30
48
36
42
36
42
Note: Base pivot is not shown
Fig. 2.3: Hanson and Hansons test specimens and loading arrangements
(b )
js
JSA OO î-H-
&
>
ou
*<*
Qr
sv
.* I .'f- | i- - i- m -
g tr V fe V '<*
#
fcXfi
t? *
Hi
y
1
1S
4)
ttE D m i
v fr **ff
.5*
ur
JP
1
JL f
i>
*n
<C
X
*
a]
2
w
Fig. 2.4: Dimension and reinforcement for edge and comer connections tested at Imperial collage (Stamenkovic, 1969)
66
67
O
*(0
r>
rt
Vn
I*u~,L
HI
Ii
*
!*
n>
(D
.-- W r
Ul)
(M
.9 -.I
-AlI
M
IT
ht,1 I l I,
-".2
11
VnJBScuqiJi^n
-|M
o
i
.8 -,e
aiOM Mbnojm . f i *
oI
u
-4
. -,s
Fig. 2.5: Dimensions and reinforcement for edge connections tested by Zaghlool (1971)
68
d/2
h
Vu. = rPl - P
r1
Mu=
M2
( b)
Fig. 2.6: Slab-column connection under external actions at critical section, (Park and
Islam 1976).
69
Free edge of stab
Slab segment pivots
about
( a ) Overall flexural failure
Free edge of slab
I'fr c -t- \
-Circular Arcs-*
Entire slab outside
Yield Fanjg Drops
j r
( b ) Local flexural failure

Free edge of slab
*k
Slab segment pivots
about
( c ) C om bi ned overall a nd local flexural failure
# Positive yield line :

# Negative yield line :
Fig. 2.7: Flexural collapse mechanism, (Goli and Gesund, 1979)
a x ia l lo a d
transverse load
200
200
tr a n sv e rse load
Test specimens ( A1) through ( A5)
axial load
tr a n sv e r se load
200
200
tr a n sv e rse load
Test specimens (S1) & (S2)

Fig. 2.8: Test specimens of Zidan (1981)
71
M ,tx
Mt
Interior radial strip
o o o o -e-0
Px/2=wxlx
Cx_
Px/2=wxlx
. . .-Axis.of^ymmetry.. ..
M^sx
M,tx
|> Mt
v*tx
i i
Py
<$>
CKK) O Q -Q
Px/2
Py=Wyly
Mty G>
P/2
Free
edge
Spandrel
Quadrant
() Upward load
Downward
Fig. 2.9: Free body diagram of an edge connection according to strip model (Afliami,
1997)
72
Moment at centerline of column, M

Mt
1
|
M'sx
Mt
w *y
3a
3b <S>| M'sx
Mt
Mt
M',
Py
Py=PCyWX
Px=
Mt
Mt
shear capacity of interior radial strip
<8> p y
P|
Px4
M'.
Py=
Px=
shear capacity of spandrel strip

shear capacity of interior radial strip
Py=
Px=
M+
shear capacity of spandrel strip

cxwy
Fig. 2.10: Moment-shear diagram for the capacity of edge connections according to
strip model (Afhami, 1997)
73
d/2
Fig. 2.11: Critical section outside shear reinforced zone for ACI and CS A Codes
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
3.1 General
The studies conducted on the punching behaviour and strength of flat plate structures
since the fifties have been almost exclusively performed on floor slabs reinforced with
conventional steel bars or with prestressed steel cables. Only recently a few research
studies have been reported using fibre reinforced polymers reinforcement. However, FRP
related tests to date have primarily focussed on punching behaviour of slabs subjected to
simple concentric shear forces (Banthia (1994), El-Ghandour et al. (2000), Matthys and
Taerwe (2001), Ospina et al. (2002), and Hussein et al. (2004)). Only one study was
carried out by Zaghloul (2002) to study the interior connections subjected to shear and
unbalanced moment.
Zaghloul (2002) and Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2003) studied interior slab-column
connections subjected to shear and unbalanced moment, where the slabs were reinforced
with CFRP NEFMAC grids. Their tests revealed the effects of certain important
parameters on the punching shear behaviour and strength of interior slab-column
connections. Their results also showed a significant increase in the shear strength of these
connections due to the introduction of a new type of FRP shear reinforcement, but the
74
75
effectiveness and behaviour of this type of shear reinforcement needs more study.
In the present study, two interior column-slab connections reinforced with FRP will
be tested to further examine the effects of column aspect ratio and of a newly proposed
type o f FRP shear reinforcement on their behaviour and punching shear strength. In
addition to the interior slab-column connections, another ten specimens will be tested to
investigate the effect of a number of important parameters, including shear
reinforcement, on the behaviour and punching shear strength of edge column-slab
connections reinforced with either CFRP or traditional steel. The details of the test
program are discussed in the following.
3.2 Test Program

The test program involves the design, construction, instrumentation and testing of
two interior and ten edge slab-column connections.
3.2.1 Test Materials

Concrete
The test specimens were cast in two groups. Each group was cast in two batches. The first
group and second group each include one interior specimen and five edge specimens. The
first group specimens are designated as ZJF9, ZJEF3, ZJEFCS, ZJESSS, ZJESCS, and
ZJEFSS while the second group specimens are ZJF8, ZJEF1, ZJEF2, ZJEF5, ZJEF7 and
ZJES. The first batch was for casting the slabs of test specimens and the lower part of
their column stubs. The concrete used in the slabs had a specified strength of 35 MPa and
maximum aggregate size of 10 mm while the column stub was made of 40 MPa concrete
76
with the same maximum aggregate size. Super-plasticizer and two hours retarder were
used in both concrete mixes.
The concrete cylinders were cast and compacted according to ASTM standards, and were
cured under the same laboratory conditions as the test specimens. The cylinders were
subsequently tested to determine their compressive and splitting tensile strengths.
Compressive cylinder tests were performed at 28 days after casting and at the same time
as the testing of each specimen. The concrete splitting tests were performed also at 28
days. Five concrete cylinders were tested for each specimen.
The 35 MPa concrete had 80 mm slump before the addition of super-plasticizer

and 190 mm after, and had in fact 14 mm maximum aggregate size, its average
compressive strength at 28 days, was 57.3 MPa without super plasticizer and 54.8 MPa
with superplasticizer. The splitting strength after adding super-plastizer was 4.4 MPa.
The measured concrete strength for each specimen in Group 1 at the time of testing is
shown in Table 3.1.
Unfortunately the concrete with the specified strength of 40 MPa had 28 day compressive
strength of 33.4 MPa. The low strength was due to short curing time, but is within the
acceptable range. Since this concrete was used in the column stub and the column is
heavily reinforced, it is not going to fail prematurely.
The concrete in Group 2 slabs had 50 mm slump before adding the super-plasticizer and
200 mm slump after. The 28day compressive strength of the concrete was 53.34 MPa
before adding the super-plasticizer and 25.47 MPa after. The cylinder splitting strength
was 2.74 MPa for the concrete with super-plasticizer. The low strength was caused by the
77
improper mixing according to Lafarge Canada. The right amount of super-plasticizer was
used, three litres of super-plasticizer were added to 3 cubic metres of concrete. The low
strength is still within the practical range and this will be accounted for when the results
are analyzed. The results of concrete strength for each specimen of Group 2 at time of
testing are shown in Table 3.2.
The strength of the second batch of second grouping was 52.17 MPa.
The stress-strain relationships of concrete cylinders tested under compressive
stress for the concrete slabs of first and second group are shown in Figs 3.2 and 3.3,
respectively. Due to higher strength of the concrete in Group 1 specimens, they failed in a
brittle manner while Group 2 concrete failed gradually with a pronounced post-peak
softening branch.
Steel reinforcement
Mild steel reinforcement 400W was used for reinforcing all the columns stubs, and the
slabs of specimens, ZJES, ZJESSS, and ZJESCS. Bars No.20 and No.25 were used as
columns stubs main reinforcement and bars No. 10 and No. 15 as ties.
Carbon fibre grids

Carbon fibre reinforced polymer grids, known as NEFMAC CFRP grids, and produced
by AUTOCON Canada were used for reinforcing most of the test specimens. According
to the manufacturer specifications (NRC 1994), the fibres in NEFMAC are made of
pitch-based carbon with tensile strength of 4800 MPa and elastic modulus o f 230GPa.
The resin has a tensile strength of 68-78 MPa and elastic modulus of 3.4GPa. For this
grid the manufacturers recommended values for modulus of elasticity,
E c frp
78
= lOOGPa
and maximum tensile stress Fu=T.2GPa (AUTOCON 1998). CFRP is a completely linear
elastic material as illustrated in Figure 3.4. Due to the high tensile strength of NEFMAC,
failure o f the connections due to failure of the grids is not expected. It is important to
state that the ribs of NEFMAC contain 34% carbon fibres outside the nodes or grid
junctions and that the fibres are embedded in a vinylester resin. Figure 3.5 shows a
typical grid while being cut by a normal carbide blade.
The CFRP NEFMAC grids used in this study are designated as C16 and C l9, with rib
cross sectional areas of 100 mm and 148 mm , respectively. The C l6 grid used in
specimen ZJF9 has rib spacing of 100 mm, and has the same properties as the grid used
in a previous study by Zaghloul and Razaqpur, (2003, 2003-A, and 2003-B, and 2004).
From coupon tests, the elastic modulus of this grid was approximately the same as
specified by the manufacturer,
E c frp
= lOOGPa, but its strength was significantly higher,
i.e. Fu =1.7GPa, versus the manufacturer recommended value of 1.2GPa (AUTOCON,

1998).
The new C16 grids used in the remaining specimens has 90 mm rib spacing, and were
placed only on compression side of the slabs, therefore, their tensile strength will not be
mobilized.
Coupons of the C19 grids in CFRP reinforced slabs were tested under axial tension until
rupture, Fig. 3.6. Figure 3.7 shows a typical coupon with its ends embedded in polymer
grout filled steel tubes. Notice that the specimen is held in the machine jaws through the
steel tubes. Figure 3.8 shows a typical stress-strain relationship for C l9 as obtained in the
79
current testing program.
Shear reinforcement
NEFMAC grids are ideally suited to flexural reinforcement of slabs. In the current study
they are used as shear reinforcement too, akin to steel stud reinforcement. Fig. 3.9
schematically illustrates the shape and dimensions o f the CFRP shear reinforcement that
was used in the current test specimens, while Fig. 3.10 shows a photograph of such shear
reinforcement. This reinforcement was proposed before by Zaghloul, (2002) and proved
to be successful in increasing the punching shear capacity of interior connections. There
are two main differences between the grids used in the current test program and those
previously used by Zaghloul. The first difference is the spacing between the shanks, 90
mm instead o f 100 mm, and the second difference is the number of legs or shanks, four in
the current study instead o f the five in the previous study.
The present CFRP shear reinforcement rails are manufactured so that the spacing
between the shanks is the same as the spacing of the flexural reinforcement grid but not
more than 0.75d, where d is the effective depth of the slab. The latter spacing limitation
was specified by Dilger and Ghali (1981) for steel stud shear reinforcement. Vertically,
the shanks should be long enough so they can be anchored to the top and bottom flexural
reinforcement in the slab.
The first limitation on the horizontal spacing is allowing for easy and practical
installation o f CFRP shear reinforcement in the slabs while the second limitation is for
compliance with the requirements of the ACI and CSA codes with respect to the steel
80
studs. One should also consider the cover and anchorage requirements of CFRP shear
reinforcement.
Figure 3.11 shows a vertical section through the slab and the typical location of the CFRP
shear reinforcement. Note that the shear reinforcement is well-anchored to the top and
bottom flexural reinforcement. Figure 3.12 shows the CFRP shear reinforcement inside
specimen ZJEFCS.
When traditional steel bars are used as flexural reinforcement, the CFRP shear
reinforcement can be anchored to either layer of steel reinforcement; either the top or the
bottom mat in either direction. Figure 3.13 shows the CFRP shear reinforcement in
specimen ZJESCS, which has steel as flexural reinforcement.
In general the cover of FRP shear reinforcement is less than the flexural reinforcement
cover in the reinforced concrete structures. The minimum cover for CFRP reinforcement
is 20 mm, as specified in the CSA Standard S806-02 (2002).
The arrangement of the CFRP reinforcement in specimen ZJEFCS is illustrated in
Figs. 3.14, while Fig. 3.15 illustrates the shear reinforcement only. Notice that the first
leg of shear reinforcement is located 50 mm to 60 mm from the column face, which is
less than or equal to half of the effective depth of the slab.
Steel studs
The steel studs are used in this study to compare their effectiveness compared to the
proposed CFRP shear reinforcement. Steel studs are used as shear reinforcement in thick
flat plates or in footings to increase their punching shear strength and the ductility of
slab-column connections. Steel studs have better anchorage and are easier to install than
ordinary steel stirrups. The latter is generally found to be ineffective in slabs (Dilger et al
1978, Seible et al 1980, Mokhtar et al 1985, Ghali and Hammil 1992, and Ghali 1989).
The steel studs were used in this investigation in two specimens ZJESSS and ZJEFSS.
The studs used had 345 MPa yield stress and minimum tensile strength o f 450 MPa. The
steel studs used were half-inch diameters, cross-sectional area of 127 mm2, and overall
height of 120mm. The layout of the steel studs in specimen ZJEFSS is shown in Figs.
3.16, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19. While in specimen ZJESSS it can be seen in Figs. 3.20, 3.21
and 3.22. Notice again that the first steel stud is placed 60 mm from the slab-column
interface, which is half the effective depth of the slab. Also the spacing between studs
legs equal 90 mm, which is 0.75% of the effective depth of the slabs.
The steel studs were not tested, but the manufacturers recommended values for strength
and stiffness will be used. The reason is that yielding of the studs is not expected, but
strain gauges will be mounted on some of them and their deformations, particularly their
yield strain, will be compared with the manufacturers specified value.
3.2.2 Interior column-slab connection test specimens

Figure 3.23 shows the typical geometry and dimensions of the interior column-slab
82
connection test specimens. Notice these specimens will be loaded via the cantilever that
is part o f the upper column stub, and by adjusting the eccentricity of the axial load P, the
desired moment to shear ratio (M/V) will be achieved.
Specimens ZJF8 and ZJF9 in the current testing program are interior column-slab
connection specimens. The difference between the two specimens is in their columns
aspect ratio (C2/C1), which is 1.4 for ZJF8 and 1.0 for ZJF9. The reinforcement details for
the two specimens are given shown in Fig. 3.24 and in Table 3.3, where one may observe
that the CFRP grid architecture for the two specimens is not the same, but despite this
difference their reinforcement ratios in both directions are equal. In addition, specimen
ZJF9 is reinforced with CFRP headed studs to increase shear strength. The results of this
specimen will be compared to those of another similarly reinforced specimen tested by
Zaghloul (2002). The main differences between the previously tested and current
specimen are the C2 /C1 ratio and the configuration of shear reinforcement. The flexural
and the shear reinforcement details for all specimens will be discussed later.
Specimens ZJF8 and ZJF9 are given and grouped according to the studied parameters as
shown in Table 3.4.
3.2.3 Edge Column-Slab Connection Test Specimens

Ten edge specimens were tested to investigate the effect of a number of parameters on
the punching shear behaviour and strength of edge slab-column connections. Figure 3.25
shows the typical geometry and dimensions of these specimens. Notice that for all the
specimens the dimensions of the slab are 1770 x 1060 mm while its span length parallel
and normal to its free edge are 1600 mm and 975 mm, respectively. The column stub
83
dimensions and the eccentricity of the load P vary among these specimens. As indicated
in Table 3.5. The specimens represent a half scale flat slab structure with 8.0 m span
between the columns centres.
Figures 3.26 and 3.27 show the typical slab and the column reinforcement in these
specimens. For the specimens with shear reinforcement, the details will be shown later. It
should be mentioned that in all the test specimens the column reinforcement is
conventional steel rebars and the reason is that FRP has relatively low compressive
strength and is not recommended as axial reinforcement in columns.
The actual type, amount and spacing of the slab reinforcement for each specimen are
given in Table 3.5. The NEFMAC reinforcement is either C19 or C16 while steel
reinforcement is No. 15 rebar. The target concrete strength for all the specimens was 42
MPa.
The test specimens in Table 3.6 are grouped according to the following parameters.
1. Applied moment to shear ratio (M/V).
2. Column side, C2 , over effective depth, d, ratio, C2/d.
3. Column aspect ratio (c2/c0 or loading area aspect ratio.
4. Presence of shear reinforcement.
5. Flexural reinforcement ratio, p.
6. Type of flexure reinforcement, i.e. steel versus FRP.
Notice that generally there are two specimens per group, except for two groups; the
groups involving C2 /d ratio and shear reinforcement group as test parameters. In the latter
84
case, in addition to the control specimen without shear reinforcement, there are two
specimens with steel studs and two with FRP shear reinforcement.
Specimens with steel flexural reinforcement and FRP shear reinforcement or vice versa
will be tested. Although the combination of steel flexural reinforcement and FRP shear
reinforcement is not practical, it is used to determine the effect of
lo n g it u d in a l
reinforcement stiffness on the performance of the shear reinforcement. The other

parameters in the study are varied sufficiently to be able to assess their influence on the
punching shear behaviour o f the slab.
Although ideally one should use repeat specimens and more than two values of a test
parameter to fully cover the effect of both the random and the systematic variation of a
parameter, in the present study limitations of time and cost do not permit the realization
of the ideal situation.
Despite these limitations, it is expected that the test results, combined with available
analysis methods, would provide useful information about the behaviour and
performance of FRP reinforcement used to resist punching shear in flat slabs.
The first grouping in Table 3.6 is made of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF3, which are used
to investigate effect of moment to shear (M/V) ratio. The second grouping is concerned
with the effect of column side length C2 over the slab effective depth ratio, where C2 was
is shown in Fig. 3.23. Specimens ZJEF1, ZJEF5, and ZJEF7, form the second grouping,
the third grouping, comprises specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF7, which is used to investigate
the column aspect ratio C1/C2 .
The fourth group is used to study the effect of shear reinforcement and comprises 5
samples. Specimens ZJEF3, ZJEFCS, and ZJEFSS are reinforced with CFRP grids while
specimens ZJESCS, and ZJESSS are reinforced with traditional steel bars No. 10 and 15.
The letter E in the designation of each specimen refers to edge connection, and the letter
that follows it, S or F, indicates steel or NEFMAC reinforcement. The last two letters in
each designation either S S or CS refer to steel shear studs or CFRP shear reinforcement.
The fourth group can be subdivided into six sub-parameters, using some of the specimens
in more than one sub-group. The following are the sub-parameters that are investigated
(a) Specimens ZJEF3 and ZJEFCS will be compared to study the effectiveness of the
CFRP shear reinforcement. These specimens are used to investigate the applicability of
the shear reinforcement requirements in the current codes of practice, which were
developed for slabs reinforced with traditional steel bars, to FRP reinforced slabs.
(b) Difference in behaviour between steel shear studs and CFRP NEFMAC shear
reinforcement for CFRP reinforced flat plates will be investigated using specimens
ZJEFCS and ZJEFSS.
(c) Specimens ZJESCS and ZJESSS will be used to study the difference between
traditional shear studs and CFRP shear studs in flat plates reinforced with conventional
steel.
(d) Specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESCS will be used to study the effect of steel versus FRP
flexural reinforcement.
(e) Specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESSS will be used to study the difference between using a
flat plate structure fully reinforced with FRP reinforcement and a flat plate structure
similarly reinforced with steel only according to existing codes of practice.
86
(f) Specimens ZJES and ZJESSS will be used to compare the effect of steel headed stud
shear reinforcement on the strength of slab-column connections reinforced with steel.
The fifth grouping consists of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF2 which are used to study the
effect of stiffness of flexural reinforcement on punching strength. Although the literature
review carried by Sherif (1996) for traditionally reinforced slabs showed that the
reinforcement ratio does not significantly affect the punching shear strength of edge
column-slab connections, this parameter will affect the joint capacity, and will affect the
amount of moment transfer between the slab and column, (A C I318-2005).
The sixth group in Table 3.6 contains Specimens ZJEF1 and ZJES to study the effect of
type of reinforcement on the punching shear strength of edge column-slab connections.
Specimen ZJEF1 is reinforced with CFRP and has reinforcement ratio of 1.37%, while
specimens ZJES is reinforced with conventional steel bars and has average reinforcement
ratio in the two direction equal to 1.4%. This group is expected to reveal the effect of
type of reinforcement in the slab; i.e. steel versus CFRP, on the behaviour and strength of
edge column-slab connections.
3.3 Instrumentation
The specimens are extensively instrumented to collect as much data as possible about
their behaviour and deformations. LVDTs are used to measure displacements, electrical
resistance strain gauges to measure reinforcement strains and Demec points to measure
concrete surface strains. A special internal crack detection device is used to monitor the
development of the internal cracks that form the surface of the failure cone in punching
shear.
87
3.3.1 Electrical Strain Gauges

The strain in the steel reinforcement bars and the CFRP grid ribs strains on the
tension and compression sides of the slab will be monitored by electrical resistance strain
gauges. The strain gauges are attached at predetermined locations to the bars (Showa
5mm long strain gauges) before casting the concrete. The reinforcement surface was
cleaned with CSM-1A degreaser and rubbed with M-Prep conditioner A and left to dry,
then the surface was rubbed again with M-Prep Neutralizer 5A before installing the
gauge. The adhesive used to attach the gauge was M-Bond 200. Similarly, some longer
electrical strain gauges (Showa 10mm strain gauges for static loading) were applied to
the concrete surface.
Table 3.7 shows the number of strain gauges applied to the top and bottom bars or
grids in each specimen, while Figs. 3.28 through 3.44 show the actual locations of these
gauges as well as the direction in which strain is measured.
In the latter figures, the arrows indicate the direction of strain measurement and the
number designates the gauge number. Notice that the bottom reinforcement is more
extensively instrumented due its expected higher stresses. We also notice that some
specimens are more extensively instrumented than the others. This was done in order to
gather more detailed data about the behaviour of at least some of the specimens, which
may be needed during the analysis of the test results.
88
3.3.2 Internal Crack Detection Bar

The full details of the internal crack detector bar and its instrumentations are shown in
Fig. 3.45. The bar was placed in a hole through the slab thickness and its ends were
lightly bolted to the top and bottom surfaces of the slab as indicated. The hole was made
by attaching a half inch steel tube to the formwork. Each detector bar was instrumented
with an electrical resistance strain gauge to measure the relative vertical movements of
the top and bottom surfaces of the slab after the formation of the diagonal cracks through
the thickness of the slab. A typical location of the crack detection bar is on the centreline
of the slab and column at 60 mm and 120 mm away from the column south face. See
figure 3.46 for location of crack detection bar on the slab.
3.3.3 LVDTLocations
Linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) were used to measure slab deflections
and column stub rotation. The deflection of the slabs will be measured either from the top
or bottom surface. All the LVDTs will have 3-6 inch (75-150 mm) stroke. Figs. 3.47
and 3.48 show typical LVDT locations for specimen ZJF1 and ZJF8 while the LVDT for
the other specimens will be similarly located.
3.4 Loading
The load is applied by means of a single 400 kip (1776 KN) actuator placed on the upper
column stub. Loading is applied monotonically under displacement control in increments
of 10 kN during the pre-cracking stage, followed by 20 KN increment at the service load
89
level, or 30 KN for high capacity specimens. The load will be maintained constant to
allow for recording of the manual measurements of Demec strains, the visual
observations and the marking and measurement of cracks width. In each test due to the
constant eccentricity of the axial load from the column centre, the ratio of the moment to
the shear will be held constant.
3.5
TEST SETUP
3.5.1 Interior connections

The test set-up for these specimens is shown in Figs. 3.49, 3.50 and 3.51, which
respectively, show the front, side and plan views. Each specimen is supported along the
periphery of its slab with the slab being horizontal and the column stub being vertical.
The test frame consists of four wide flange columns connected by two steel girders. The
slab is supported on a horizontal frame resting on the two main I girders connecting the
supporting columns. The slab rests on neoprene pads and steel strips. The neoprene strips
are 50 mm wide and 10 mm thick; similarly the steel strips are 50 mm wide and 10 mm
thick. The distance between the centrelines of parallel steel strips represents the span of
the slab and is equal to 1.50 m.
The specimen comers are prevented from lifting during loading using steel Z sections,
but the in-plane movement or rotation of the comers is not restrained (Fig. 3.52). The
preceding precaution guards against unwanted cracks near and around the comers, and
represents with a good degree of approximation the real behaviour of the portion of the
slab between the column and the lines of contra-flexure in the prototype flat plate
structure.
90
3.5.2 Edge column slab connections

For testing the edge column-slab connections, the column was located at the centre of the
horizontal test frame and the loading cantilever was located in the plane of the hydraulicjack. The hydraulic jack is shifted from the centre of the test frame along the cantilever
axis by an amount equal to the eccentricity measured from the column stub centre of
gravity to the centre of the actuator.
In this case the slab will be supported only along its three sides, while the side closest to
the column stub will be free. The 50 mm overhanging part of the slab, will not be
supported by the supporting plates or the packing plate between the Z section and top
surface of the slab. The two Z-sections holding the slab along its two short sides is tied at
midpoints, by tie rods connected to the horizontal supporting frame to prevent the
uplifting of the slab under eccentric loading, (see Fig. 3.53).
3.6
Specimens construction
3.6.1 Preparation o f reinforcement cages

The slab steel or CFRP grid reinforcement was assembled with the column stub
steel reinforcement using tie wires. The concrete cover was maintained using concrete or
plastic chairs. The upper carbon grids were held in place by plastic chairs. The lower
reinforcement was tied and held in position by steel wires passing through the plywood
sheets in the formwork. The purpose of tying the lower reinforcement was to prevent the
CFRP grid from floating during casting. The upper and lower grids were connected
together tightly by tying wires to prevent them from shifting during casting and to
maintain the correct top and bottom concrete cover. The column reinforcement was
assembled separately from the slab reinforcement whenever possible and then passed
through the slab reinforcement from the top and tied to it. Subsequently, the lower
column stirrups were placed and tied from underneath. The crack detector holes were
located by placing vertically a 1/2 inch diameter steel tubes at the appropriate locations,
with the tubes being tied to the formwork. (See details in Figs. 3.54 through 3.56 for
specimens reinforced with CFRP or steel).
Finally, each specimen was fitted with four steel rebar hooks, each located near a
corner of the slab on the top surface. These hooks were installed in order to facilitate the
lifting and moving o f the specimens.
3.6.2 Casting
The reinforcement was maintained aligned in the right positions before casting
and the strain gauge wires were attached to the reinforcement and passed through the
form. The upper column stub reinforcement was positioned and levelled in its correct
position and then supported on two middle frames supporting the slab formwork.
The concrete was delivered from ready mix plant in a concrete mixing truck. The slump
was checked before the start of casting for each concrete batch. The concrete was carried
from the truck to the test specimens using a metal bucket and the crane in the laboratory,
Figure 3.57. After proper vibration of the concrete, the upper slab surface was levelled
and smoothly finished. The concrete was sprayed with water and covered with a
polyethylene sheet the next day and allowed to cure. The upper column stub was cast a
week after the casting of the slab (see Figure 3.58)
92
3.6.3 Curing
The concrete surface was covered with a plastic sheet the next day after casting to
reduce the water evaporation from the top surface of the slab. The slab surface was
flooded with water and covered with the plastic sheet for a week. The concrete cylinders
were ponded with water the morning after casting and then covered with plastic sheet as
well. The cylinders were sprayed every time the slabs were sprayed. The cylinders were
removed from their moulds the same day as the specimens formwork was stripped. Then
both the specimens and cylinders were left exposed to the laboratory ambient conditions.
Some typical specimens are shown in Fig. 3.59 after stripping of the formwork.
93
Table 3.1: Concrete compressive strength at time of testing for first group specimens
Specimen
Age (days)
Property
ZJEF3
ZJEFCS
ZJESSS
ZJESCS
ZJEFSS
ZJEF9
28
241
249
259
269
275
316
Curve fitting strength

(MPa)
54.80
58.05
58.10
58.16
58.22
58.26
58.47
Characteristic strength(For
average of 5 specimens)
54.7
56.8
59.36
58.08
58.39
58.99
57.63
Table 3.2: Concrete compressive strength at time of testing for second group of
specimens
Specimen
age (days)
Property
ZJES
ZJEF1
ZJEF7
ZJEF2
ZJEF5
ZJF8
28
217
223
228
231
239
256
Curve fitting strength

(MPa)
26.53
26.70
26.70
26.70
26.70
26.70
26.71
Characteristic strength(For
average of 5 specimens
25.47
27.83
24.96
27.76
26.23
28.43
25.22
Table 3.3: Properties o f interior slab-column specimens

Specimen Column
Stub
Slab
Effective Concrete
thickness
cover
depth d
C2X C 1
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Shear
M/V
reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement

perpendicular
parallel to
to moment
moment
icular to
to moment
vector
vector
moment
vector
ratio perpend ratio parallel
vector
mm x
P
fi
mm
mm
mm
mm
ZJF8
350x250
125
101*
15
27C16
24C16
1.48%
1.48%
N/A
0.22
ZJF9
250x250
125
100*
15
18C19
16C19
1 .4 8 %
1.48%
CFRP
0.22
f2
fi
PV2
* Average effective depth for two layers of CFRP ribs
VO
Table 3.4: Grouping of interior slab-column specimens according to the investigated parameters
S tu d ie d
S p e c i
P a r a m e te r
m en
C o lu m n
A sp ect
R a tio
C2/C i
Shear
am ount
R e in f.
fc'
L oad
C o lu m n
c 2/d
stu b
c 2/ c i
S la b
E f f e c t iv e
R e in f.
Shear
M/V
r a tio
th ic k
d e p th , d
r a tio , p
r e in f.
ra tio
C2 X C !
n ess
kN
mm x mm
mm
mm
So
ZJF6
4 7 .9
235
250x350
2 .5
0 .7 1
125
100
N /A
N /A
1 .4 8
N /A
0 .2 2
ZJF4
4 7 .5
2 5 0 .1
250x250
2 .5
1 .0
125
100
N /A
N /A
1 .4 8
N /A
0 .2 2
ZJF8
2 6 .7 0
1 8 5 .4
350x250
3 .5
1 .4
125
1 01 *
N /A
N /A
1 .4 8
N /A
0 .2 2
ZJF4
4 7 .5
2 5 0 .1
250x250
2 .5
1 .0
125
100
N /A
N /A
1 .4 8
N o.
0 .2 2
ZJF7
4 5 .7
3 1 7 .7
250x250
2 .5
1 .0
125
100
0 .8 5 d
1 .4 8
CFRP
0 .2 2
ZJF9
5 7 .6 3
3 2 8 .3
250x250
2 .5
1 .0
125
100
0 .5 0 d
0 .7 5 d
1 .4 8
CFRP.
0 .2 2
S 0 = d is t a n c e o f fir s t sh e a r r e in fo r c e m e n t le g fr o m th e c o lu m n fa c e
S = s p a c in g o f s h e a r r e in fo r c e m e n t
* A v e r a g e e f f e c t iv e d e p th
Table 3.5: Reinforcement detailing of proposed edge slab column specimens

Specimen
Column
Stub
Effective Concrete
Slab
thickness depth d
clear
cover
Bottom
reinforcement
AF2/AF1
Top
Effective Bottom
Effective depth
depth reinforce reinforcement
ment number of ribs or
ratio
bars AF2/A'F1
dT
d2 di (average)
d2'
mm Mm
mm
mm
Top
reinforce
ment ratio
(average)
c2
Ci
mm mm
mm
mm
mm
ZJEF1
250 250
150
120
23
20C19/12C19
120 120 1.370%
20C16/12C16
120
120
0.94%
ZJEF2
250 250
150
120
25
20C16/12C16
120 120 0.94%
20C16/12C16
120
120
0.94%
ZJEF3
250 250
150
120
23
20C19/12C19
120 120 1.370%
20C16/12C16
120
120
0.94%
ZJEF5
250 250
110
81
23
20C16/12C16
81 1.372%
20C19/12C19
80
80
1. 67%
ZJEF7
250 420
150
120
23
20C19/12C19
120 120 1.370%
20C16/12C16
120
120
0.94%
ZJEFCS
250 250
150
120
23
20C19/12C19
120 120 1.370%
20C16/12C16
120
120
0.94%
ZJEFSS
250 250
150
120
23
20C19/12C19
120 120 1.370%
20C16/12C16
120
120
0.94%
ZJESCS
250 250
150
119*
15*
16 No.15/8 No.15 127 111 1.400% 16NO.10/8NO.10
129
118
0.70%
ZJESSS
250 250
150
119*
15*
16 No.15/8 No.15 127 111 1.400% 16 No. 10/8 No.10
129
118
0.70%
ZJES
250 250
150
119*
15*
16 No.15/8 No.15 127 111 1.400% 16No.10/8No.10
129
118
0.70%
81
# Average shear depth on the two sides

* bottom main reinforcement cover, effective depth is d2
as
Table 3.6: Grouping of edge column-slab specimens according to the investigated parameters
Studied
parameter
M/V
(c2/d)
Specimen
Slab
Effective
thickness
depth d
Ci
c2
mm
mm
mm
mm
ZJEF1
ZJEF3
ZJEF1
250
250
250
250
250
150
150
250
ZJEF5
ZJEF7
ZJEF3
ZJEFCS
ZJEFSS
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
420
250
420
250
250
250
150
110
150
150
150
150
150
150
120
120
120
81
120
120
120
120
120
120
ZJESCS
250
250
150
119*
ZJESSS
250
250
250
150
119*
150
150
250
250
150
150
ZJEF1
ZJEF7
Shear
reinforcement
Column Stub
Reinforcement
ratio, p
ZJEF1
ZJEF2
250
250
250
Type of
reinforcement
ZJEF1
ZJES
250
250
Bottom
Reinforcement
A1/A2
20C19/12C19
20C19/12C19
20C19/12C19
20C16/12C16
20C19/12C19
20C19/12C19
Bottom
reinforce
ment ratio
(average)
M/V
ratio
fc
MPa
0.265
0.415
0.265
42
42
42
0.265
0.265
Steel studs
Shear
reinforcement
1.370%
1.370%
1.370%
1.372%
1.370%
1.370%
1.370%
1.370%
1.370%
1.370%
0.265
0.265
0.415
0.415
0.415
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
16No.15/8No.15
1.400%
0.415
42
CFRP
1.400%
1.370%
0.94
0.415
0.265
0.265
42
120
120
16No.15/8No.15
20C19/12C19
20C16/12C16
42
42
Steel studs
None
None
120
119
20C19/12C19
16No.15/8No.15
1.370%
1.400%
0.265
0.265
42
42
None
None
20C19/12C19
20C19/12C19
20C19/12C19
20C19/12C19
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
CFRP
* Average shear depth on the two sides
VO
o
98
Table 3.7: Number of strain gauges applied to each specimen
Elect. Strain Gauges
Fixed on Bottom
Fixed on Upper
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
(Slab Tension side)
(Slab Comp. Side)
ZJEF1
32
ZJEF2
17
ZJEF3
33
ZJEF5
17
ZJEF7
25
ZJES
18
ZJEFCS
22
23
ZJEFSS
20
25
ZJESCS
20
20
ZJESSS
20
23
ZJF8
21
ZJF9
17
Specimen
Identificati
on No.

Fixed on Shear
Reinforcement
31
99
Fig. 3.1: Test set-up for concrete cylinders.

60
50
40
30
stress strain curve
20
10
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
strain
Fig. 3.2: Typical stress strain curve of a concrete cylinder for Group 1
100
30
stress strain curve
0.001
0.002
0 .0 0 4
0 .0 0 3
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 0 6
0 .0 0 7
strain
Fig. 3.3: Typical stress strain curve for a concrete cylinder of Group 2
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
Strain
Fig. 3.4: CFRP ribs stress strain relationship as provided by the manufacturer
101
Fig. 3.5: Cutting the carbon fibre grids for installation in the slab specimens
III
Fig. 3.6: The CFRP tension coupon held

in the universal testing machine.
Fig. 3.7: Typical CFRP tension coupons

and its end anchors.
102
2500
2000
M 1500
gauge 1
Si
gauge 2
1000
gauge 3
500 -
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
microstrain
Fig. 3.8: Typical stress-strain relationship for C19 as obtained in the current testing
program.
C16
Top flange
90 mm
90 mm
12.0
Shank
90 mm
115 mm
12/ mm
25 mm
25 mrp 25 mm
25mm
30 mm
25 mm
25 mi
25mm,
Bottom flange
270 mm
360 mm
Fig. 3.9: CFRP shear reinforcement rails dimensions
103
Fig. 3.10: Photo of CFRP NEFMAC shear reinforcement consisting of five legs,
Zaghloul (2002).
250
50-60 mm
Typical shear reinforcement location
90mm
c l6 @ 40 mm
150.0
760 mm
Fig. 3.11: CFRP shear reinforcement disposition in the slab.
Fig. 3.13: CFRP shear reinforcement in specimen ZJESCS
105
C1*C2= 250mm * 250mm
90 mm sp a c in g b e tw e e n CFRP ribs
Typical shear reinforcement

Legs or shanks
250
i
I
a
1600 ----20 ribs @ 90 mm

1770 ------
Fig. 3.14: CFRP shear reinforcement deposition in the slab relative to the flexural
reinforcement and column stub.
-250-
~|30~
175
50
50 90
90
90
50
90
i
90
-4
1060
800
i-115-4-115-|
IT
-V
- 1600
1770 -
Fig. 3.15: Layout of CFRP shear grids in specimen ZJEFCS
S p e c im e n Z J E F S S
1060
20 nbs @ 90 mm
Fig. 3.16: Specimen ZJEFSS flexural and shear reinforcement.

! | 50
So
Jj
175
i
'7
S=EE
___
EEE=33
So 90
'J i
So
"n
EHD
90
90
1060
800
Ur85
-V
-
1600 1770 -
Fig. 3.17: Layout of steel studs shear reinforcement in specimen ZJEFSS.
107
250
Typical steel stud

c l 6 @ 90 mm
90mm
150
760mm
Fig. 3.18: Vertical section of the slab showing the layout of steel studs
Fig. 3.19: Steel studs in position inside slab of specimen ZJEFSS
108
250
S p e c im e n Z J E S S S
-1
1600
------------------------------------------- ................
16 No. 15 b a rs-------------------------------------------- -
-............................ 1 7 7 0 -----------
- ......... -........-.... -
Fig. 3.20: Flexural and shear reinforcement for specimen ZJESSS.

-250___
rr
Sol
I
"T
......
| | 50
u-zriziixi
IfrT
v~~ ~
175
--
So, 90 , 90 , 90
r|) (') rt
So
1b
1060
800
-V
85
.
1600 1770
Fig. 3.21: Layout of steel studs in specimen ZJESSS
Fig. 3.22: The steel studs inside slab of specimen ZJESSS
250x500mm
Support
es
1500x1500mm
125 mm x.
900 mm
1770 mm
Column stub
Fig. 3.23: Typical interior column test specimen
110
6=]
2#15
10 horizontal ties
( colum n) #10@100 mm
750
CFRPNEFMAC ribs
5#15@75 mm
250
125
N o t e : A l l d im e n s io n s
a r e in m m a n d
a ll b a r s a r e
m e t r ic
S e c tio n A -A
250
6#20
900
250
1500
1770
Fig. 3.24: Specimen ZJF8 reinforcement.
Il l
X >
Loading cantilever
500 mm
Column stub
250*250 mm
Fig. 3.25: Typical test specimens of edge column-slab connection
2 branch stirrups^
250
@ 60 mm
750
500
750
3 #25
3 #20
....
500
c16 @ 90 mm
50
4
150
3 stirrups
40 mm
3 vertical stirrups
2 branches # 15
Fig. 3.26: CFRP edge column specimen reinforcement
113
C 1*C 2= 2 50 m m * 250m m
9 0 m m sp a c in g b e tw e e n C F R P ribs
250
40
<>
iM
1600
20 ribs @ 90 m m
1770 -------
Fig. 3.27: The CFRP grid dimensions and disposition inside typical edge column-slab
specimen.
114
!i
250
140
'14,'
f1
r!78, '18
16
1
19
'20 ' '21

22, r 23, I 24, i 25
10
'p , 27 '
y
<r28 13' '29 ' '30
i'31
1060
' '32
09
<N
90-
|
8
1
----------------------------------------------
20 ribs @ 90 mm
---------------------------------------------- *
k * ----------------------------------------------------------- 1770 ----------------------------------------------------------- m
Fig. 3.28: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEF1
250
'18
&
1060
oa\
a
cs
09
1
1600
20 ribs
iriTn
1770
115
501
250
140
,2
I1
y
-16
10'
1r22 '23 '24

r28
*4
, 17 r18
'19 ' 20
f25 126
29
,3
'14 1 15
r21
- 27
30 1r31
>12
32
33
-90-
o
o>
1
I
250
' 15 ' 1 6 1 '17
&
<J3
os
--------------------------------------------
20 ribs @ 90 mm
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------- 1 7 7 0 -------------------------------------------------------- mm
116
50 J
L40
420
9 '10
*zfa 'i2
'13
14'' 15' r 16'
IV
1060 mm
20
17? 18T
22" 23 ' 24"
1060
2 5 'r
rC
90
1
20 ribs @ 90 mm
1770 ------
50
40
16
rl
15
17
' r4
'
r3
18
' F5
14
00
<2
13
140
120
1rl l
ro
1r12
110
i: 0
110
110
100
90
100
10
110
110
110
110
120
140
in
160(
1770
Fig. 3.33: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJES
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
Fig. 3.34: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEFCS
25
115
48
47
29
46
45
44
27
28
r
175
p.
115
26
33
30
32
34oaowowwwggBiiniiiiiiiniiymin
35
40 | *
31
36 ^ 9 0
90
41
1060
37 ~ i
42|
38
800
43|
1-1154-11
i
L.
85
- 16001770-
Fig. 3.35: Strain gauges locations on the shear reinforcement of Specimen ZJEFCS
118
r34
12 ribs @ 90 mm spacing
'37
r43
-r45
On
20 ribs @ 90 mm
Fig. 3.36: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJEFSS
60
40
-G E E 2 E E 3 E 3 E B
1060
115
14
1600
b-------------------------------------------------------------- 1 7 7 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------- -
Fig. 3.37: Strain gauges locations on the shear reinforcement of Specimen ZJEFSS
119
250
1060
150
110
100
120
120
135
160
1770
Fig. 3.38: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJESCS
250
50
24
25
26
27
28
=32=
30
31
32
33
So
43
42
41
So
: 37 T
34
38
35
39
36
1060
: 40
1770
Fig. 3.39: Strain gauges locations on the shear reinforcement of Specimen ZJESCS
120
40
,30
37
8 M 15 bars
38
39
130
120
31
36
24
100
1060
130
110
120
135
1600
16 M 15 bars
1770
Fig. 3.40: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJESSS
-Q E E 3 E 3 E E 3 B
115
1060
19
1600
-------------------------------------------------------- 1770--------------------------------------------------------- *~
Fig. 3.41: Strain gauges locations on the shear reinforcement of Specimen ZJESSS
121
1' r 2 " 3" 4' ' 5' 19' '6
Fig. 3.42: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement of Specimen ZJF8
122
40 41 42 43
32 35 36 37
38
39
Fig. 3.43: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement (main direction) of
Specimen ZJF9
123
48
47 49 50
46
45
44
Fig 3.44: Strain gauges locations on the bottom reinforcement (secondary direction) of
Specimen ZJF9
124
10 mm
Plate 45mm *4 5mm

4 T = 12.57 mm
Nut =W
thickness of concrete
<? .
r
A
'
5 mm
, 20 mm
4"A '
- A
4
'
mm,
75-100 mm
125 or 150 mm
A
A
ad
20 mm
5 mm
d -
9999999
Nut= w
10 mm
/ i/
1/2 to d
Fig. 3.45: Crack detection bar details
Cj
v
d/2=60mm
d/2=60mm
Fig. 3.46: Location of crack detection bar with respect to the column
125
<g>7
180
265
Fig. 3.47: Location of the LVDTs on the bottom slab surface of Specimen ZJEF1.
250
Fig. 3.48: Location of the LVDTs on the bottom surface of Specimen ZJF9
126
Loading Frame
Loading Frame
Hydraulic Actuator
mpression maximi
Loading stub
ension
face
\ Supporting^
Deck Beams
Column stub
Supporting Frame
Supporting Frame
/
Strong Floor
Fig. 3.49: Front view of test set-up for interior column connection
127
Loading Fram e
\ Hydraulic A etnator
Loading stub
Least Stressed Faces
Column stulj.
J Supporting
Deck Beams
Supporting Fram e
Supporting F ra n e
Floor
Fig. 3.50: Side-view of test set-up for interior column connection.
Fig. 3.51: Plan view of test set-up for interior column-slab connection.
128
129
I
m
Fig. 3.52: The steel Z-section placed on the top edges of the slab.
Figure 3.53: Tie rods tying down the Z-section to the supporting frame
130
Fig. 3.54: The crack detectors hollow tubes attached to the formwork
Fig. 3.55: Close up view of the steel reinforcement of specimen ZJESCS
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
Fig. 3.56: Reinforcement in position inside the formwork for specimen ZJEFSS
Fig. 3.57: Casting of concrete slabs using the bucket and the crane.
Fig. 3.59: Specimens after the removal of formwork.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 General
In this chapter results o f the experimental program are presented and discussed. The
discussion is mainly focused on unexpected behaviour of the tested specimens insofar as
existing knowledge and models are concerned. Presentation of the results will commence
with those o f the interior column-slab connections, followed by more comprehensive
results obtained for the edge-column-slab connections. It is important to recall that the
principal focus of the current study is the punching shear behaviour of the edge columnslab connection, rather than the interior column-slab connection, and of the influence of
the proposed shear reinforcement on punching shear strength.
4.2 Behaviour and strength of interior column-slab specimens
Specimens ZJF8 and ZJF9 represent interior column-slab connections. They differ in
their column aspect ratios (C2/C1), which is 1.4 for ZJF8 and 1.0 for ZJF9. Both specimens
have the same amount of flexural reinforcement, but ZJF9 also contains CFRP shear
reinforcement. It may be recalled that Zaghloul (2002) tested interior column-slab
connections in a previous study and the current two specimens were tested to
133
134
complement the results of the previous study. The specimens in the previous study were
designated as ZJF4, ZJF6 and ZJF7. These specimens differed from the current two
specimens in their columns aspect ratios and their reinforcement.
4.2.1 Crack Development and Propagation

Before we begin the discussion of die results of the current testing program, it is helpful
to briefly describe the punching failure process. Fig. 4.1 illustrates the partial plan and a
vertical section through an interior column-slab connection. The figure also illustrates the
various types of cracks that typically develop before punching and the punching or failure
cone that eventually leads to failure. This figure illustrates the failure pattern for a typical
concentric punching, but the types of cracks, i.e. radial, tangential, etc. also appear in
other kinds of slab-column connections, including edge column connections. Fig. 4.2(a)
and (b) further illustrate the various types of cracks.
In addition to the types of cracks illustrated in Figs 4.land 4.2, in Fig. 4.3 torsional
and flexural cracks as well as most compressed region of the punching area and the
portion of the slab in the vicinity of the connection subjected to torsion are identified.
These figures are intended to facilitate the ensuing discussion regarding the results of the
specimens tested in this investigation
In specimens ZJF8 and ZJF9 cracks began to appear at 20 kN and 35 kN,
respectively. These loads are approximately 11% of the respective ultimate load capacity
of the two specimens. With reference to Fig. 4.4, in ZJF8 the initial cracks formed at the
south, east and west column slab interfaces, followed by the formation of additional
cracks in the south column strip at 30 kN (for geographical directions, please refer to
135
Figs. 3.23 and 3.25). These cracks were parallel to one of the column faces and are
assumed to be flexural cracks. The torsional cracks, i.e. planar cracks inclined to the
column faces, appeared at 40 kN in the west column strip and at 50 kN in the east column
strip. At 70 kN radial flexural cracks formed in the south column strip and more
specifically in the south-east quadrant of the slab. In addition, at this load level more
torsional and flexural cracks formed. New torsional cracks formed in the east column
strip at 90 kN, followed by more radial cracks at 110 kN, 130 kN and 150 kN. Punching
of the column through the slab occurred at 178.3 kN.
In specimen ZJF9 when the load was increased from 35 kN to 45 kN, initial
flexural cracks appeared near the south, east and west interfaces of the column with the
slab, Fig. 4.5. Torsional cracks appeared at 65 kN in the east column strip and continued
to increase in number up to 130 kN. The torsional cracks in the west column strip initially
formed at 65 kN and continued their formation up to 150 kN. On the other hand, radial
flexural cracks appeared in the south column strip at 85 kN while tangential cracks
parallel to the south column face formed at 110 kN. Additional radial flexural cracks
formed at 130 kN and 170 kN. The tangential and radial cracks crossed over at 190 kN.
The maximum load resisted by the column was 327 kN, which was followed by a
gradual drop in resistance and the eventual punching of the slab by the column stub. The
punching was accompanied by noticeable widening of the torsional cracks on two sides
of the column. Upon further increase in the imposed displacement on the column, some
of the concrete near the top surface of the slab was severely damaged and the test had to
be stopped at 272 kN.
136
4.2.2 Load Deflection Behaviour

The deflection of the slab was measured beside the column stub, using an LVDT. The
applied load versus this deflection graphs for specimens ZJF8 and ZJF9 are plotted in
Figs. 4.6 to 4.9. These figures also show the relevant load-deflection curves of similar
eccentrically loaded interior column-slab specimens previously tested by Zaghloul
(2002), which are denoted as ZJF4 and ZJF6. The purpose of these load-deflection curves
is to investigate the effect of the various parameters discussed in the previous chapter on
the behaviour and strength of these specimens.
Effect o f Column Aspect Ratio (c/cj)

As indicted in Table 3.4 specimens ZJF6, ZJF9 and ZJF8 have column aspect ratios of
0.71, 1.0 and 1.4 respectively. Note, however that the concrete strength of specimen ZJF8
is only 55% o f that for specimens ZJF6 and ZJF4; therefore, as discussed below, one
cannot compare the behaviour and strength of these specimens without taking this
difference into account.
In Fig. 4.6 the load-deflection curves of the latter specimens are drawn based on
the raw data obtained from the tests. We notice that ZJF6 and ZJF8 have practically the
same strength and stiffness up to the peak load while their post-peak behaviours are
slightly different. On the other hand, ZJF8 has significantly lower strength and stiffness.
However, if the loads for these specimens are normalized b y \ [ f , with f 'c being the
pertinent slab concrete strength, and the results are re-plotted as in Fig. 4.7 we would
notice that they are not as different as implied by the results in Fig. 4.6.
137
Based on the results in Fig. 4.7 the punching strength of the slab decreases with
increased C2/C1. In the present case, doubling the C2/C1 ratio decreased the punching shear
strength by 15%, but the effect of this parameter on the stiffness of the slab is negligible.
As for the post-peak load response of these specimens they are very similar despite the
apparently higher deformation capacity of ZJF8. It should be pointed out that during the
testing of ZJF4 and ZJF6, the test was stopped before the column stub completely
punched through the slab because it was felt that the failure might be abrupt if all the FRP
ruptured and it might damage the test equipment.
Effect o f Am ount o f Shear Reinforcement

Specimens ZJF4, ZJF7 and ZJF9 were tested to investigate the effect of the amount of
FRP shear reinforcement on the behaviour and strength o f interior column-slab
connections under combined shear and unbalanced moment. As indicated in Table 3.4,
ZJF4 had no shear reinforcement while ZJF7 and ZJF9 had CFRP shear reinforcement
(rib area 100 mm2) spaced at 100 mm and 50 mm, respectively. In addition, in ZJF7 the
first leg of the shear reinforcement was located at 85 mm from the column face while the
corresponding distance for ZJF9 was 50 mm.
Using the raw experimental data, the load-deflection curves of these specimens are
plotted in Fig. 4.8, where one can clearly see the significantly higher strength of the shear
reinforced slabs, but with practically no difference in stiffness among the three
specimens. ZJF7 and ZJF9 have practically the same strength and stiffness, but ZJF9
exhibits significantly higher ductility.
138
Since ZJF9 has higher concrete strength than the two companion specimens, the loads of
these slabs are normalized by the slabs respective
and the results are plotted in Fig.
4.9. From the latter figure we can see that the shear reinforcement increased the punching
strength of the slabs, relative to the un-reinforced slab, by 24.6% and 30.4% for ZJF9 and
ZJF7, respectively. This increase is significant and comparable to the increase that can be
achieved using steel stud shear reinforcement.
The even more beneficial benefit of this reinforcement is the dramatic increase in
ductility, particularly in specimen ZJF9. This specimen had approximately 33% more
shear reinforcement and this reinforcement was placed closer to the column face. If the
punching area perimeter on the top surface of the slab were to be located at a distance d
from the face of the column and if the cracks were inclined through the thickness of the
slab at approximately 45, then the leg located at 0.5d would be able to more effectively
intercept the shear cracks than a leg that is located 0.85d from the column face.
Consequently it would be good practice to place the first leg of shear reinforcement at
0.5d from the face of the column.
4.2.3 Reinforcement Strain

The strain in the bottom flexural reinforcement of specimens ZJF8 andZJF9 was
measured as well as the strain in the shear reinforcement in specimen ZJF9. These were
measured at several locations, both parallel and perpendicular to the direction of the
applied moment. Their magnitude and distribution will be presented and discussed in this
section.
139
Strain in the Bottom Reinforcement Layer
Figures 4.10 through 4.12 show the normal strain distribution in the bottom
reinforcement grid in specimen ZJF8. In each figure the direction of the measured strain
and locations of the strain gauges are indicated. In Fig. 4.10 the strain variation adjacent
to the column face is plotted for several load levels, where Vmax refers to the ultimate load
of the specimen. We notice that the reinforcement is uniformly strained up to the comer
of the column but near the column comer it precipitously drops and it again increases at
some distance from the comer. This behaviour is expected because the slab in the
immediate vicinity o f the column comer is confined by the column in both planar
directions and is thus not likely to crack. This is the reason for the assumption that the
critical section is located at some distance from the face of the column. Notice that the
maximum strain in this reinforcement did not exceed 5800 (0.58%), which is
significantly less than the 1.4% rapture strain of CFRP grid. This means that strength of
CFRP could not be fully utilized. Since the 5800 /j.s is almost three times the yield strain
of steel, it is hypothesized that such a large strain value is indicative of wide cracks.
Given that punching shear transfer after cracking is primarily through aggregate
interlock, large separation of the crack faces diminishes shear transfer by this mechanism.
Therefore, both the strength and the rigidity of the slab flexural reinforcement play
important roles in increasing the punching shear strength.
Figure 4.11 shows the strain in the direction parallel to the moment vector in the bottom
reinforcement layer, along a section located in the immediate vicinity of the column.
Strain gage 16, as shown in the inset of the figure, malfunctioned and its readings are
140
omitted. It is clear that the greatest strain is measured near the middle of the column. This
is unexpected because according to prevailing methods of analysis for the combined
shear stress due to shear force and unbalanced moment. In this case is expected that the
strain will decrease as one moves along the width of the column from the south to the
north, (see e.g. Fig. 2.1). The distribution in Fig. 4.11 tends to be parabolic and similar to
distribution of stresses in a beam. Therefore, while the theoretical distribution may be
true for sections at some distance from the column face, it does not seem to be true for
sections in the immediate vicinity of the column.
Figure 4.12 shows the variation of strain in the bottom reinforcement in a
direction perpendicular to the moment vector. It is generally assumed that the critical
shear section is located at an average distance of d/2, where d is the slab effective depth,
from column face. Since d for ZJF8 is approximately 100 mm, one would expect the
maximum strain to occur somewhere between strain gauges 3 and 7, but in fact the
highest strain is measured at the location of strain gauge 3. This can be partially
explained by the fact that the shear failure surface is conical and it virtually intersects the
column face at the bottom of the slab while it is located at nearly distance d from the
column face on the top surface of the slab. Hence in the bottom reinforcement the
greatest strain is more likely to occur near the column face as indicated by the results in
Fig. 4.12. The distribution of the flexural strains along the carbon fibre reinforcing rib,
Fig. 4.12, is typical of all specimens. They reveal gradual transfer of stresses from
concrete to carbon grid, and show that good bond between CFRP and concrete was
maintained until failure.
141
Observe that the maximum strain in bottom reinforcement reached almost
6000 n e , which is nearly double the value of the maximum strain in Fig. 4.11. The
higher strain is expected in this direction because the shear stress due to the applied shear
force and the maximum shear stress due to unbalanced moment are additive on the south
side of the present column. Although the previous maximum strain is approximately three
times the yield strain of conventional reinforcing steel, due to the lower elastic modulus
of FRP, it does not translate into noticeable increase in the punching shear capacity of the
slab. As stated earlier, these large strains are accompanied by concurrent reduction in the
shear transfer by aggregate interlock and no significant increase in strength.
Figure 4.13 shows the distribution of strain in the bottom reinforcement of specimen
ZJF9 in a direction perpendicular to the moment vector. It is clear that the strain
decreases as one moves away from the column face, a phenomenon similar to that
observed in Fig. 4.12. Therefore, generally in flexural strips, as expected the shear stress
decreases as one moves away from the column face towards the lines of contraflexure in
the slab.
In Figs 4.14 through 4.19 the strain distributions in the shear reinforcement of
specimen ZJF9 are shown. The strain is measured at mid-height of the various legs of this
reinforcement. Figure 4.14 shows that at failure the maximum strain occurs in the leg that
is located at a distance d from the column face while the leg located at d/2 from the
column face has the smallest strain when punching occurs. Notice that up to 0.8 Vmax, the
strain does not vary significantly with the location of the shear reinforcement from the
142
column face, which means that the shear cracks might not have crossed the shear
reinforcement before the latter load level.
The maximum strain measured in the shear reinforcement located on the south
side of the column is approximately 1150 fj,s, which corresponds to a stress of
approximately 115 MPa. This is not a very high stress compared to the tensile strength of
this reinforcement. Consequently, the reinforcement was not effectively engaged. The
strain distributions in Fig. 4.14 confirm the statement made earlier with respect to the
location of the critical section from the face of the support. We notice that the shear
reinforcement leg located at 100 mm, which equals the effective depth of the slab, from
the face of the column has the highest strain. The magnitude of this strain is almost
1200 u s , which is close to the largest value in Fig. 4.15. The higher measured strain at
200 mm than at 150 mm from the column face may be due to the interception o f the crack
by the reinforcement at 200 mm and not at 150 mm. The exact location of the shear
cracks and their inclination are not easy to predict.
Figures 4.16 through 4.18 show the shear reinforcement strain at various locations
from the column centre in the direction of the moment vector. We notice that in all the
three figures the strain mostly decreases as one moves away from the column face.
Therefore, in this torsional strip the critical section is located near the column face while
in the flexural strips it was located at a distance d from the column face. The writer is not
aware of any standard which defines the location of the critical punching parameter based
on the type o f moment acting on the slab strip. This could be a topic for future enquiry.
143
The maximum strain in the shear reinforcement located in the west side of the
column exceeds 2500 p s , which corresponds to a stress of 250 MPa. This is a reasonably
high stress and as a result the shear reinforcement would contribute appreciably to the
slab punching resistance. The strain distributions in Fig. 4.19 confirm that the combined
shear stress diminishes as one moves from the south towards the north along the west
face of the column. It further shows that the shear reinforcement should be concentrated
in the locations where the combined shear due to unbalanced moment and shear force are
additive. Furthermore, it would be more advantageous to place the latter reinforcement in
the torsional strips as close to the face of the column as practical.
4.3 Edge Column-SIab connections
In this section the behaviour and strength of the edge column-slab specimens are
presented. These specimens are divided into two broad categories, viz. those with and
without shear reinforcement.
4.3.1 Specimens without Shear Reinforcement

Specimens ZJEFi (i = 1,2,3,5,7) and ZJES belong to this group. The slabs of these
specimens were reinforced with CFRP except for specimen ZJES, which was reinforced
with steel and was used as the control specimen.
4.3.1.1 Crack Development and Propagation

Figure 4.20 shows the underside of the slab of ZJEFI in its vicinity with the column and
the distribution of the cracks in this region while Fig. 4.21 shows the inclined shear
144
cracks through the thickness of the same slab along its free edge. The punched area can
be more clearly seen in Figs. 4.22 and 4.23, which also show the spalling of the concrete
cover in the punched region.
The formation and propagation of these cracks are typical in that similar cracks
appeared in the other specimens in this group. Cracks normally first appeared parallel to
the column sides, followed by radial flexural cracks and inclined torsional cracks.
Subsequently more flexural cracks begin to form and radiate from the column sides
towards the supports (see Fig. 4.20). Finally tangential cracks appeared and their
propagation and widening eventually led to the punching failure of the slab. The
distribution of cracks and the punching zone of specimen ZJEF2 are shown in Figs. 4.24
to 4.25. One can see the similarity between the crack patterns of this specimen and that of
ZJEFI. Similar photographs for ZJEF3, ZJEF5 and ZJEF7 are shown in Appendix A.
To be able to compare the crack patterns of the CFRP reinforced specimens with
that of the companion steel reinforced specimen, Figs. 4.26 through 4.28 show for
specimen ZJES the crack distribution on the bottom of the slab, the cracks through the
slab along its free edge and the contour of the punched cone, respectively.
Fundamentally, there is not much difference between the crack patterns of the CFRP and
the steel reinforced slabs, but the through thickness cracks in the steel reinforced slab,
Fig. 4.27, appear to be less inclined to the edge of the slab than those in the CFRP
reinforced slabs as in Figs. 4.21 and 4.25.
To follow the progression of cracks under increasing load, reference can be made
to Table 4.1, which summarizes the type and location of cracks and the load at which
145
they occurred in all the specimens in this group. Notice that the type of reinforcement
does seem to have significant effect on the advent and propagation of cracks. For
instance, the first radial crack near the column-slab interface occurred at practically the
same load in all specimens. Measurement of the width of the cracks was not within the
scope of this research because the principal focus of the study is on the ultimate punching
strength. However, it is likely that due to the lower stiffness of CFRP than steel, the
cracks in the FRP reinforced slabs were wider.
The fact that the type of reinforcement may not have significant effect on the
advent and progression of cracks is not surprising. In slabs subjected to punching shear,
the reinforcement is not fully mobilized until the concrete is practically fully cracked
through the thickness of the slab. At that time the crack pattern would have fully
developed and slab deformations would be primarily concentrated in the critical cracks
that form the punching surface.
4.3.1.2 Load-Deflection Curves and Ultimate Strength

The normalized load-deflection curves of all the specimens in this group are shown in
Fig. 4.29. This figure gives a picture of the overall behaviour of these specimens, but one
cannot draw any conclusions by comparing their strength and deformations because they
do not have identical reinforcement or geometry. It is, however, instructive to observe
that the overall behaviour of steel reinforced slab, including its post-peak load response,
is not noticeably different from those of the companion CFRP reinforced specimens.
Note, however that the drop in the load immediately after the peak load for some of the
CFRP reinforced specimens is less sudden than in the steel reinforced specimen.
146
The ductility, as measured by the ratio of the maximum displacement to the
displacement corresponding to the peak load, is practically the same for these specimens,
albeit ZJEF5 has significantly lower strength and stiffness, and correspondingly large
displacement at peak load, which makes its ductility ratio relatively smaller. The reason
for the low strength and stiffness of ZJEF5 is its smaller effective depth, i.e. 81 mm
versus 120 mm, for the other specimens.
The response of these specimens can be more advantageously compared and
analysed by dividing them into subgroups according to the parameters of interest as
indicated in Table 3.6. Accordingly, in the following, the behaviour of each subgroup
will be discussed
Effect o f Moment/Shear Ratio (MZV)

Specimens ZJEFI and ZJEF3 are nominally the same except M/V ratio, or the
eccentricity of the axial load from the centroid of the column, in the former is 0.265 and
the latter 0.415. Also their concrete strengths at the time of testing were 27.8 MPa and
56.8 MPa, respectively. Figure 4.30 shows the load-deflection curves of the two
specimens. From this figure we can see that ZJEFI has an ultimate Load of 188.4 kN
while the corresponding load for ZJEF3 is 210.9 kN. However, since the concrete
strength o f ZJEF3 is almost twice that of ZJEFI, the higher strength is partially due to the
higher concrete strength. To eliminate the influence of the concrete strength, in Fig. 4.31,
their normalized load deflection curves are plotted, where the load is normalized by the
relevant \[ f^ for each slab. In the latter figure it can be observed that ZJEFI has
147
approximately 16% higher normalized strength than ZJEF3. Consequently, it can be
concluded that an increase of 50% in the MTV decreased the strength by 16%.
It should be pointed out that the relationship between the strength and M/V ratio is
actually very complex. While an increase in M/V ratio is expected to decrease the
punching shear strength of the slab, the extent of the reduction will depend on the slab
geometry and reinforcement ratio as well as the column dimensions. In the next chapter,
it will be investigated whether the observed reduction could be predicted analytically.
Effect o f Long Side o f Column to Slab Depth Ratio (c?/d)

Fig. 4.32 shows the load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFI, ZJEF5 and ZJEF7,
which have C2 /d ratios of 2.1, 3.1 and 3.5, respectively. Note, however, that the effective
slab thickness in specimen ZJEF5 is 81 mm versus 120 mm in the other two specimens.
Therefore, it is expected that its strength would be only 67% of the strength of the other
two specimens. The measured failure load of these specimens were 188.3, 97.10 and
196.16 kN, respectively. We notice that the strengths of ZJEFI and ZJEF7 are
comparable while that of ZJEF5 is approximately 50% of the average strength of the
other two specimens. On the other hand, the C2/d ratio of ZJEFI and ZJEF7 are
significantly different, yet their strengths are rather close to each other. Hence, it would
be reasonable to conclude that this parameter does not have a significant effect on the
strength of the edge column-slab connection.
Notice, however, that despite their similar strengths, specimens ZJEFI and ZJEF7 have
noticeably different stiffness. The higher stiffness of ZJEF7 can be attributed to its larger
column size, which, as stated before, decreases the slab deflections.
148
Effect o f Column Aspect Ratio, C1/C2
Figure 4.33 depicts the load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFI and ZJEF7. These
specimens are nominally the same except that the column dimensions in specimen ZJEFI
are 250x250 mm while those in ZJEF7 are 250x420 mm, hence their C1/C2 ratios are 1.0
and 0.6, respectively.
As the latter figure indicates, it seems that this parameter does not have a
significant effect on either the ductility or the ultimate strength of the edge column-slab
connection, but it does affect its stiffness. The effect on stiffness is not entirely
unexpected because the column rotation affects the slab displacements and an increase in
column dimensions increases its stiffness and reduces its rotation.
The effect o f C1/C2 on strength is rather complicated because according to CSA
A23.3-04 an increase in the ratio of long side to short side of the column, denoted as f5c
in the above standard, beyond 2.0 will decrease the shear stress resistance of the
connection, but it will have no effect when it is less than 2.0. However, even if these
connections had the same strength, the failure load would depend on the column
geometry and its orientation. Consequently, one must perform a more detailed analysis to
properly assess the effect of the column aspect ratio on the strength of the edge columnslab connection. Such analyses would be performed in the next chapter.
Effect o f Reinforcement Material Stiffness

Specimens ZJEFI and ZJES are nominally the same, except the former is reinforced with
CFRP and the latter with steel. The reinforcement ratios of the slabs are practically the
149
same, but the elastic modulus of steel is double that of the CFRP grid used in this study,
hence their reinforcement rigidities are not the same.
The load-deflection relationships of these specimens are shown in Fig. 4.34, and it
can be observed that their strengths are almost equal, but the stiffness of the steel
reinforced specimen is greater than that of the CFRP reinforced specimen. The secant
stiffness o f ZJEFI is approximately 70% of the secant stiffness of ZJES, and this fraction
is practically identical to the square root of the ratio of the elastic modulus of the CFRP
to that of steel, i.e. Vl/2
Notice that in terms of post-peak load response and ductility, there is no
significant difference between the two specimens. Hence, the linear elastic behaviour of
FRP does not adversely affect the ductility of column-slab connection. Finally, the much
greater strength of CFRP than steel does not increase the strength of the slab-column
connection. As stated before, once shear cracks open sufficiently wide, the aggregate
interlock shear transfer mechanism is rendered ineffective and the connection starts to
loose its strength. As discussed in chapter 2, most existing design methods for FRP
reinforced slabs recognize the significance of reinforcement rigidity rather than strength
with respect to its punching shear strength.
Effect o f Reinforcement Ratio

The reinforcement rigidity can be changed by either changing the amount of
reinforcement or by changing its elastic modulus. Specimens ZJEFI and ZJEF2 have
reinforcement ratios of 1.37 and 0.94, respectively, otherwise they are nominally
identical.
150
Figure 4.35 shows the load deflection relationships of the latter specimens. Their
strengths are 188.3 kN and 155.9 kN, respectively, but their stiffnesses are practically
equal. Clearly, the amount of reinforcement affects the punching strength of the slab, but
the strength and reinforcement ratio relationship is not linear. In this case, the ratio of the
reinforcement area o f specimen ZJEFI to that of ZJEF2 is 1.46 while the ratio of their
strengths is 1.21. It is obvious that the strength ratio is essentially equal to the square root
of the reinforcement ratio. Based on this finding and the finding in the preceding section,
the punching shear strength is proportional to the square root of the reinforcement
rigidity, which is commonly denoted as E f P f - Ospina et al. (2003) reached a similar
conclusion.
4.3.2 Edge Column Specimens with Shear Reinforcement

With reference to Table 3.6, four edge column specimens were tested which contained
either steel stud or the proposed CFRP shear reinforcement. Among these, Specimen
ZJEFCS was reinforced for flexure and shear with CFRP, ZJESSS was reinforced for
flexure and shear with steel, ZJESCS was reinforced with steel for flexure and with
CFRP for shear, and ZJEFSS was reinforced for flexure with CFRP and for shear with
steel studs. Note that the three letters after ZJE in each designation identify the type of
flexural and shear reinforcement. The first letter, i.e. F or S, designate CFRP or steel,
respectively. The next two letters, i.e. CS or SS, represent carbon stud or steel stud, shear
reinforcement, respectively. Specimen ZJEF3 is included in this group as a control
specimen and is without shear reinforcement. In the following sections, the behaviour of
these specimens are described and compared.
151
4.3.2.1 Crack Development and Propagation
The formation and propagation of cracks in these specimens were similar to those in the
companion edge column specimens without shear reinforcement. However, at the same
load level, the density and width of cracks were smaller than those observed in the
specimens without shear reinforcement. In the case of the specimens reinforced with steel
studs, the crack pattern indicated a larger number of cracks forming at greater distance
from the column faces compared to the specimens without shear reinforcement.
Table 4.2 summarizes the type of cracks that formed at various load levels in the
shear reinforced specimens. In this table, it can be observed that generally the type of
reinforcement, whether flexural or shear, does not have a major effect on the load level at
which cracks form or propagate. On the other hand, it does affect the crack pattern and
width.
Figures 4.36 and 4.37 show the cracks in the bottom of the slab and through the
slab thickness along its free edge respectively. Notice the almost parallel series of cracks
in the flexural strip, which practically follow the CFRP grid ribs. Figure 4.37 shows the
concrete spalling at the free edge of the column, but more importantly it shows the
critical torsional crack that forms the boundary of the failure cone. Notice the rather steep
angle of this crack relative to the middle plane of the slab. To compare the crack pattern
of the CFRP reinforced slab with that of steel reinforced slab, Figs. 4.38 and 4.39 show
the bottom of the slab and its free edge, respectively. We observe that there are fewer
tangential cracks in the steel reinforced slab, but the flexural cracks are similar in the two
slabs. The critical torsional crack that led to failure was somewhat shallower in the steel
152
reinforced specimen than in the CFRP reinforced specimen, but overall there was not
much difference between them. Figure 4.39 shows the critical crack that led to failure.
Figures 4.40 and 4.41 show the bottom and free edge of the slab in specimen
ZJEFSS, which has CFRP flexural reinforcement and steel shear reinforcement. We can
see that the flexural cracks pattern is quite similar to that in Fig. 4.36 for specimen
ZJEFCS, which was also reinforced with carbon fibre grid for flexure. The torsional
cracks distribution through the slab, Fig. 4.41, is different in this slab than that in
ZJEFCS. This means that the type of shear reinforcement affects the torsional cracks but
not the flexural cracks. Although the critical torsional crack is also steep in this case, it
appears to be located further from the column face than in the case of slab with CFRP
shear reinforcement.
Finally, Figs. 4.42 and 4.43 show the crack pattern for the bottom of the slab and
along the free edge of specimen ZJESCS. This specimen has steel flexural reinforcement
and CFRP shear reinforcement. Therefore, the flexural crack of this element is quite
similar to that o f ZJESSS albeit it appears that the cracks are fewer and more widely
spaced. The critical torsional crack is less visible in Fig. 4.43, but in fact it was similar to
that for specimen ZJEFCS.
As is so often the case with members under shear, it is difficult to predict the
location of the critical crack angle precisely. What initially appears to be the critical crack
is not always the case. For example, Figs. 4.44 and 4.45 show a major crack developing
through the thickness o f specimen ZJEFCS, i.e. the long shallow crack, while another
steep crack begins to form a little later and it appears to be of relatively small width.
153
However, upon further increase in load failure occurs along that steep crack. It is
significant to observe the rather steep angle of the shear crack, which will have an effect
on the location of the critical shear section from the column face.
4.3.2.2 Load-Deflection Relationship

The applied load versus the slab vertical deflection for all the specimens in this group are
plotted in Fig. 4.46. Notice that the ultimate loads of the specimens with either flexural
and/or shear steel reinforcement are practically the same, i.e. 266.2 kN, 261.8 kN and
254.7 kN for specimens ZJEFSS, ZJESSS and ZJESCS, respectively, but the strength of
the specimens with CFRP reinforcement only is smaller and is 229.5 kN for specimen
ZJEFCS. Specimen ZJEF3 had no shear reinforcement; therefore, it has the lowest
strength, which is 210.9 kN.
Although at first glance it may appear that the CFRP shear reinforcement did not
perform as well as the steel studs, this is in fact not true as will be demonstrated later in
this section. In the following, the effect of the various parameters on the behaviour and
strength o f these specimens will be discussed
Effect o f CFRP Shear Reinforcement

In Fig. 4.47 the load deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJEFCS are plotted.
These specimens have the same amount and type of flexural reinforcement and the only
difference between them is the presence of shear reinforcement in ZJEFCS. From this
figure, it is evident that the shear reinforcement caused an increase in strength and
ductility, but it did not increase the stiffness of the column-slab connection.
154
As indicated earlier, the ultimate strength of these specimens are 210.9 kN and
229.5 kN, respectively. Therefore, the increase of strength due to shear reinforcement is
relatively modest, i.e. 8.8%, but its effect on member ductility is much more pronounced.
While the specimen without shear reinforcement lost strength rapidly after peak load, the
one with shear reinforcement retained almost 88% of its peak load at failure. Hence, the
shear reinforcement may be used advantageously to increase the column-slab connection
deformability or ductility. It must be pointed out that one purpose of using steel stud has
been to increase the ductility o f slab-column connections.
Effect o f Steel Shear Reinforcement

Figure 4.48 shows the load deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJEFSS,
which are otherwise nominally the same except that ZJEFSS is reinforced with steel studs
and ZJEF3 is not. It is evident that the shear reinforcement noticeably increased both the
strength and the ductility of the connection. The ultimate strength of ZJEFSS is 266.2 kN
and that of ZJEF3 is 210.9 kN while the maximum deflection of the former is almost 18
mm and the latter approximately 10 mm. The 10 mm deflection corresponds to the peak
load of ZJEF3 and it is more appropriate to use this deflection for comparison with that of
ZJEFSS because the steep drop in the resistance of ZJEF3 beyond the latter deflection
reduces its capacity substantially and it is questionable whether the deflection beyond this
point could be practically useful. Thus the steel shear reinforcement increased the
capacity o f the connection by 26% while the CFRP shear reinforcement increased it by
only 8.8%. On the other hand, the increases in ductility due to the CFRP and steel shear
reinforcement are approximately the same.
155
It is important to mention two points about the mechanical properties of the two
types of shear reinforcement used in this study. The steel studs used in this study had
cross-sectional area o f 127 mm2 and elastic modulus of 200 GPa while the CFRP shear
reinforcement had cross-sectional area of 100 mm2 and elastic modulus of 100 GPa.
Consequently, the rigidity o f the steel studs is 2.54 times that of the CFRP reinforcement.
If the shear transfer capacity of the reinforced connection could be written as vc + v5. ,
where vv is the contribution of shear reinforcement and vc is that of concrete and
assuming vs to be proportional to ErAr, where E r and Ar are the elastic modulus and
area of the shear reinforcement, respectively, then in the case of the specimens in this
testing program it is expected that the vs for the steel studs would be 2.54 times higher
than for the CFRP shear reinforcement. Since ZJEF3 has no shear reinforcement, its
shear resistance is due to vc only. Therefore, the difference between the ultimate strength
of ZJEF3 and that of ZJEFCS, i.e. 18.6 kN, is due to the shear reinforcement. Similarly,
the corresponding difference between ZJEF3 and ZJEFSS is 55.3 kN. The ratio
55 3
= 3,
18.6
is higher than 2.54. This means that the steel studs are superior to the carbon CFRP shear
reinforcement in the case of edge column-slab connections.
Effect o f Combined Flexural and Shear Reinforcement Types

The load-deflection relationships of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJESSS are plotted in Fig.
4.49. It may be recalled that both the flexural and shear reinforcement of the latter
specimen are steel. The ultimate loads of these specimens are 210.9 kN and 261.8 kN,
156
while their maximum useful deflections are 10 mm and 20 mm, respectively. Notice that
the strength o f ZJESSS is less than that of ZJEFSS, which is unexpected because the steel
flexural reinforcement is supposed to give higher strength.
The observed higher strength and ductility of ZJESSS compared to ZJEF3 is
expected due to the higher modulus of the steel and the presence of shear reinforcement.
It is difficult to apportion the relative contribution of shear and flexural reinforcement to
the strength of ZJEF3. The current CSA and ACI design codes do not explicitly
recognize the role of the flexural reinforcement albeit it is implicitly assumed that
adequate flexural reinforcement will exist in the slab-column connection. Other
standards, such as the British Code, explicitly includes the reinforcement ratio in the
punching shear resistance equation. In the next chapter, the ultimate resistance of these
specimens will be determined using various methods of analysis and will be determined
whether these methods could predict the difference between the punching shear
resistance of steel versus CFRP reinforced column-slab connections.
Effect o f CFRP Versus Steel Shear Reinforcement

Figure 4.50 shows the load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJEFSS.
These specimens differ in that the former has CFRP shear reinforcement and the latter
steel shear reinforcement but both have CFRP flexural reinforcement. Their ultimate
strengths are 229.9 kN and 266.2 kN, respectively, while their ultimate deflection and
overall behaviour are very similar. The 15% higher strength of ZJEFSS is attributed to
the steel stud reinforcement. However, given the 27% higher amount of steel shear
157
reinforcement and the 100% greater elastic modulus of steel versus CFRP, the 15%
increase is relatively modest.
The results of these specimens and those of ZJESSS indicate that the ultimate
strength o f slab-column connections is governed by a number of inter-connected
parameters, which require careful analysis. The fact that specimen ZJEFSS had higher
strength than ZJESSS is entirely unexpected. On the other hand, the results for ZJEFCS
are not as good as one would expect because in the case of interior column-slab
connections the CFRP shear reinforcement increased the strength quite significantly
while the increase for the edge column specimen is rather modest.
Effect o f CFRP versus Steel Flexural Reinforcement

Figure 4.51 shows the load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESCS, both of
which have CFRP shear reinforcement, but the former has CFRP flexural reinforcement
and the latter steel flexural reinforcement. Their ultimate strengths are 229.5 kN and
254.7 kN, while their ultimate deflections are approximately 16 mm and 18 mm,
respectively. It is clear that due to the higher stiffness of steel, ZJESCS has higher
stiffness relative to ZJEFCS, but the 10% higher strength of ZJESCS is not as high as one
might expect. Generally, it is assumed, at least in the case of concentric punching, that
the punching shear resistance is proportional to \[E^ , where E r is the elastic modulus of
the flexural reinforcement. It is clear that this is not the case for edge-column specimens
subjected to combined bending and shear. It must be pointed out that in practice it is
unlikely that one would use a mix of steel and CFRP reinforcement in a flat slab. The
objective of the present exercise is to see whether one can quantify the effect of the
158
strength and stiffness of the flexural and shear reinforcement on the punching shear
strength of slab-column connections in flat plates.
Effect o f Reinforcement Properties

The load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESSS are plotted in Fig.4.52.
The former specimen is reinforced entirely with CFRP while the latter is reinforced with
steel only. In practice these will be the most likely choices for a designer. The ultimate
strength of these specimens are 229.5 kN and 261.8 kN, and their corresponding
maximum deflections are approximately 16 mm and 19 mm, respectively. Clearly, and as
expected, the steel reinforced specimen is significantly stiffer, but the difference between
the strengths o f two specimens is only 14%. Once again it may be recalled that the steel
studs have 27% more cross-sectional area and twice the elastic modulus of the CFRP.
Therefore, the only noticeable benefit of the steel reinforcement is its higher stiffness,
which increases the stiffness of the column-slab connection.
It should be pointed out the current CSA standard CSA A23.3-04 (2004) limits
the maximum punching shear stress of a column-slab connection with steel shear
reinforcement to 0.75
assuming the material resistance and concrete density factors
to be 1.0. We will see in the next chapter, whether the current results obey this limitation.
Effect o f CFRP versus Steel Shear Reinforcement in Slabs with Steel Flexural
Reinforcement.
In a previous section we examined the behaviour of specimens that had CFRP flexural
reinforcement, but CFRP or steel shear reinforcement. In the present case, we examine
159
the behaviour of two specimens both reinforced with steel for flexure, but one is
reinforced with CFRP and the other with steel for shear. Figure 4.53 shows the loaddeflection curves of specimens ZJESSS and ZJESCS and which indicate their ultimate
strengths to be 261.75 kN and 254.65 kN, respectively. As the figure shows, in terms of
strength and ultimate deflection, or ductility, these specimens are practically the same,
but the ZJESSS has 15% higher stiffness and only 2.8% higher strength. It would appear
from these results that the type of shear reinforcement does not have a major effect on the
punching shear strength. This confirms the early observation that the CFRP shear
reinforcement could be as effective as the steel studs provided the flexural reinforcement
is steel. The type and amount of flexural reinforcement seem to have more significant
influence on the punching shear strength of edge column-slab connections than the type
of shear reinforcement.
Effect o f Flexural Reinforcement Elastic Modulus

Once again we examine the effect of the type of flexural reinforcement on the behaviour
and strength o f two specimens which only differ in their type of flexural reinforcement
while they are both reinforced with steel studs to increase their shear resistance. Fig. 4.54
depicts the load-deflection relationships of specimens ZJESSS and ZJEFSS, and as it can
be seen they have ultimate strength of 261.8 kN and 266.2 kN and maximum deflection
of approximately 19 mm and 17.5 mm, respectively. In this case the slightly higher shear
strength o f ZJEFSS is unexpected because it has CFRP flexural reinforcement while
ZJESSS has steel flexural reinforcement. However, the difference between the ultimate
strengths of the two specimens is less than 2%, while their maximum deflections differ
160
by 8%. These differences are practically small and the two specimens have practically the
same ultimate behaviour.
On the other hand, due to its all steel reinforcement, specimen ZJESSS has higher
stiffness. Based on the secant modulus at peak load, specimen ZJESSS has 60% higher
modulus than specimen ZJEFSS. The results in Fig. 4.54 make it difficult to assert that
the all steel reinforced column-slab connection will always have higher strength. It is
apparent from these results and from some of the previously discussed results that the
flexural and shear reinforcement act synergistically and as long as the critical shear
cracks are maintained relatively narrow, the column-slab connections can resist high
shear stresses. The latter can be achieved by both the shear and the flexural
reinforcement, but their combined effect is not a simple sum of their individual
contribution to the shear resistance. Furthermore, the punching shear capacity of the slab
is limited by its thickness and its concrete strength, regardless of the amount and type of
either shear or flexural reinforcement.
Effect o f Steel Stud Shear Reinforcement

Figure 4.55 shows the load-deflection curves of specimens ZJES and ZJESSS, both of
which have steel flexural reinforcement, but ZJESSS is reinforced with steel studs to
increase its punching shear capacity while ZJES is devoid of shear reinforcement. Since
the concrete strengths for the two specimens were not the same, the results in the latter
figure do not provide a realistic basis for the comparison of the behaviour of these
specimens. Consequently, we normalize their loads by their corresponding \[ f ^ and re
plot the results in Fig. 4.56. We can see that the normalized strength of the specimen with
161
shear reinforcement is only 7.7% higher than that of specimen without shear
reinforcement. Note that the increase in strength are apparently modest, this is because
that Specimens ZJESSS was subjected to high M/V ratio, 57% higher than that of ZJES
which was subjected to a small M/V ratio, e=0.265, as mentioned earlier. If M/V were the
same as for ZJESSS, the difference in the shear strength of the two specimens have been
appreciably greater and the results would be closer to those found by Mortin and Ghali
(1991), and Elsalakawy et al (1998), where the increase in the punching strength due to
the provision o f steel studs were 50% and 23%, respectively.
It should be pointed out that the relationship between the strength and provision of shear
studs when higher torsion exists is actually very complex. While provision of shear studs
is expected to increase the punching shear strength of the slab, the extent of the increase
will depend on the existence of high torsion on the column sides, the slab geometry, and
its reinforcement ratio as well as the column dimensions.
4.3.2.3 Strain in Slab Flexural Reinforcement

Before the detailed strain distribution in the reinforcement is presented, it is important to
point out that the recorded strains are due to the combined effect of shear and bending in
the slab. It may be recalled that a portion of the unbalanced moment acting on the
column-slab connection is resisted by shear while the remaining part is resisted by
flexure. Thus, the total punching shear is the sum of the direct shear and the shear caused
by the unbalanced moment. The direct shear stresses are assumed constant around the
critical shear perimeter, but the imbalanced moment shear and the bending stresses vary.
Since the maxima and minima of the latter stresses do not occur at the same location, one
162
cannot easily infer the intensity of the punching shear stresses at a given location from
the measured strain values. Our main interest in the measured strains is first to monitor
whether bond slippage may have occurred and secondly to determine the maximum stress
in the reinforcement.
(a) Specimens without Shear Reinforcement

In this section, the strain variation in the slab reinforcements both normal and parallel to
the directions of the applied moment is presented.
Figure 4.57 shows the variation of strain in the bottom reinforcement of the slab
in specimen ZJEFI in the vicinity of the column and in a direction perpendicular to the
free edge of the slab. Strain gauge #25, which is located close to the column comer,
failed, hence its readings are omitted. Theoretically, the strain distribution with respect to
column centreline is symmetric, and the results in Fig. 4.57 seem to confirm it.
Furthermore, the portion of the slab which connects to the column will have higher strain
in its bottom reinforcement in the vicinity of the column due to the combined effects of
shear and bending stresses in this region of the slab. As one moves away from the
column, both stresses tend to diminish. The results in Fig. 4.57 demonstrate this
behaviour.
The relatively smooth variation of strains in Fig. 4.57 indicate lack of any bond slippage
and the ability o f the NEFMAC grid to develop high stresses at relatively small distance
from the free edge of the slab. In planning the current experimental program, there was
concern that due to the short distance from the free edge of the slab to the inner face of
the column, the grid may not be able to mobilize sufficient stress at the latter face. In the
163
case of steel reinforcement this concern does not arise because the bar end located near
the free edge of the slab is bent into a hook with sufficient extended length to satisfy the
bar development requirement. On the contrary FRP bars and grids cannot be bent,
therefore one must rely on their normal bond strength, but FRP grids can develop their
strength over a relatively short distance due to the presence of the cross-bars and
mechanical interlock. The current results tend to confirm the latter assertion.
Observe that the maximum strain in the CFRP grid reached almost 4800 /u s, which
corresponds to stress of 480 MPa. The stress, however, drops rapidly as one moves away
from the column. This indicates that the existing codes recommendations that the length
o f critical section for flexure be (C2 + 3ts), and that most of the slab reinforcement be
concentrated in the so-called middle strip apply to CFRP reinforced flat plates.
The measured strains along the CFRP reinforcing rib at the most stressed zone, Fig. 5.58
for specimen ZJEF5, are typical and reasonably similar to those observed in the other
tested specimens. They reveal gradual transfer of stresses from concrete to the carbon
grid i.e. without slippage. This was not the case in areas close to either side of the column
where torsional cracks (lines across which high tensile stresses are exist) occurred and
intersect with the reinforcing fibre ribs. The strain distribution along the CFRP
reinforcement rib placed perpendicular to the free edge of the slab, Fig. 4.59 for
Specimen ZJEF5, is typical for all the tested connections. It shows that the outer most rib
closest to the free edge, suffers lack of strain (due to loss of bond) because the fibre ribs
can not be bent to form hook or which would enable it to achieve its full developed
164
length. Further from outermost rib, the distribution of the measured strain, Fig. 4.59,
revealed gradual transfer of stresses from concrete to the carbon grid.
Figure 4.60 shows the strain in the bottom reinforcement of the slab of ZJEFI in a
direction parallel to the free edge of the slab. The slab strip in this direction is subjected
to torsion and shear. The distribution of strain at higher load levels exhibits a great
amount of symmetry with respect to the column centreline. The latter is somewhat
unexpected because one would expect that the strain/stress will increase gradually as one
moves away from the free edge towards the centre of the slab, but the reduction in strain
passed the column centreline is expected. The maximum strain is almost 4200 fj,s which
correspond to 420 MPa of stress in the grid. Again this is relatively high stress that is
reached without any slippage or bond loss.
Figures 4.61 and 4.62 show the slab bottom reinforcement strains in specimen
ZJEF2 normal and parallel to its free edge. Since Fig. 4.59 shows the data from only
three strain gauges, the strain graphs may not represent the actual variation of strain
across the middle strip, but the recorded values are realistic. The maximum recorded
strain is 4400 pis, which corresponds to stress of 440 MPa in the CFRP grid. The
maximum stress normally occurs near the column centre-line, therefore the absolute
maximum stress is expected to be higher than those shown in the latter figure. Hence,
again the grid developed very high stresses over a short embedment length without bond
slippage.
Figure 4.62 shows an almost linear variation of strain with distance from the free
edge of the column. The figure presents the strain in the slab bottom reinforcement
165
parallel to the free edge. If one were to assume that the latter strain is primarily due to
punching shear, the plotted variation would not be in accord with the expected variation
according to the ACI 318 and CSA A23.3 Codes. According to these codes, the
maximum strain is expected to occur somewhere between strain gauges 10 and 12 (see
Fig. 4.62) and it would be minimum at location of strain gauge 8. However, it is clear that
significant bending must also occur parallel to slab free edge, which diminishes as one
moves away from the free edge towards the opposite edge of the slab.
Notice that the maximum strain is almost 5000 p is, which corresponds to a stress
of 500 MPa. This is a significant amount of stress and it shows that the CFRP can
develop significant stresses without failure. Of course, the latter stress is less than 50% of
the ultimate strength of the CFRP grid used.
The strain variation in the bottom reinforcement of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJEF5
are shown in Appendix A. These strains are not discussed because they show similar
trend as the strain in specimens ZJEFI and ZJEF2. However, ZJEF3 had a MTV ratio of
0.415 compared to 0.265 ratio for specimen ZJEFI; consequently, its reinforcement
experienced maximum strain of almost 6000 p is . Hence, due to the higher moment, the
larger strain in this specimen is expected.
Specimen ZJEF5 also experienced high strain due to its smaller slab thickness.
The maximum strain in this specimen reached 5800 p is . Due to the smaller thickness of
the slab, significant bending stress will develop in the bottom reinforcement in the
vicinity of the column.
166
The strain variation in the slab bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEF7 is
plotted in Figs. 4.63 and 4.64, normal and parallel to the slab free edge, respectively. This
specimen has a rectangular column section with aspect ratio of 1.68. We can observe in
Fig, 4.63 that due to the wider column dimension parallel to the free edge of the slab, the
strain in the reinforcement o f this slab is less than 4000 p.e, both parallel and normal to
the free edge of the slab. The lower strain is due the smaller shear stresses expected in
this specimen
The strain variation in the slab bottom steel reinforcement in specimen ZJES is
shown in Figs. 4.65 and 4.66. The pattern of strains for this specimen is very similar to
those for CFRP reinforced specimens. Notice that the steel reinforcement in both
directions, i.e. parallel and normal to the free edge yielded, but the reinforcement parallel
to the edge yielded at only two locations close to the free edge, As expected, due to the
higher bending stresses, more wide-spread yielding occurred normal to the free edge.
(b) Specimens with Shear Reinforcement

Figures 4.67 and 4.68 show the slab bottom reinforcement strain normal and
parallel to the free edge o f the slab. In Fig. 4.67 the strain gauge 18 appears to have
malfunctioned because the rather small strain values recorded by this strain gauge are
unexpected. If we ignore the readings of this gauge, the remaining readings are consistent
with theoretical expectations. For instance with respect to north-south centreline of the
column, the results are, as expected, reasonably symmetric.
The maximum strain reached is approximately 9500 fj.s, which is rather large, but
the average strain is closer to 7000 ju s . Recall that specimen ZJEF3 is the companion
167
specimen to ZJEFCS, but it has no shear reinforcement. The maximum strain in that
specimen was 6000 /u s, but strain across the middle strip was more uniformly distributed.
Hence, it would appear that the shear reinforcement tends to concentrate the stress locally
rather than distributing it more uniformly, which may eventually lead to local concrete
failure and loss of resistance. This may also explain the relatively small increase in the
strength of specimen ZJEFCS compared to ZJEF3.
Figure 4.68 shows the bottom reinforcement strain variation parallel to the slab
free edge. As expected the strain close to the free edge is relatively small because the
shear stresses in this region are small compared to where strain gauge No. 4 is located.
The higher strain at the location of strain gauge No. 3 may be attributed to the higher
bending stresses. The maximum strain of 4000 jj reached in this direction corresponds
to 400 MPa stress in the bottom reinforcement parallel to slab edge, which is almost the
same as the maximum stress in the same direction in the bottom reinforcement of
specimen ZJEF3. Again the difference between the strain distributions of the two
specimens is the concentration of stresses near the middle of the column side in specimen
ZJEFCS, contrary to the more uniform distribution observed in ZJEF3 (see Appendix A,
Fig. A.2).
The strain distribution in the slab bottom reinforcement parallel to the free edge in
specimen ZJEFSS is shown in Fig. 4.69. The manner in which the strain varies with
distance from the free edge is very similar in this specimen to that in the previous
specimen. As in Fig. 4.68 the strain seems to peak near the column centre and it drops as
one moves closer to the free edge. However, the maximum strain of ZJEFSS is almost
168
5000 // versus the 4000 pie in specimen ZJEFCS. It may be recalled that their ultimate
strengths are 229.5 kN and 266.2 kN, respectively. Hence the higher strain does not
translate into commensurate high strength because the high strain in ZJEFSS is localized
and is not uniformly distributed. This phenomenon was observed previously when
comparing the behaviour of two specimens one with and other without shear
reinforcement. The principle conclusion that one could draw from these observations is
that shear reinforcement in edge column-slab connections tend to locally strengthen the
slab, but does not allow for significant stress redistribution.
Figures 4.70 and 4.71 show the strain variation in the slab bottom reinforcement
in specimens ZJESCS and ZJESSS in the direction normal to the slab free edge. Notice
the significantly high strain values at failure in both specimens. Strain values of
13400 pie and 18000 pie were recorded which would indicate that the steel reinforcement
might have reached strain hardening. These strain values are also indicative of high
ductility. However, once again the high strain is concentrated in a small zone near the
column centreline and then it drops precipitously. Thus the average strain is not as high
and this means that the load carrying capacity is not correspondingly high.
It is important to observe that the strain distribution patterns of the two specimens
are rather similar; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the CFRP and steel
reinforcement do not have significantly different stress redistribution characteristics.
Figures 4.72 and 4.73 show the strain variation in the slab bottom reinforcement
parallel to the free edges of the preceding two specimens. In the case of the strain in the
latter direction, the behaviours of the two slabs seem to be similar up to 90% of the
169
maximum load, for in both cases the strain is almost uniformly distributed across the
torsional strip, but at failure the strain in the steel reinforced slab increases dramatically
near the free edge. The same does not happen in the CFRP reinforced slab because it
maintains its stiffness and the maximum strain reached is below the failure strain of the
CFRP. Thus, the CFRP reinforced slab would experience less deflection after the peak
load.
It is also significant to observe that yielding in specimen ZJESSS started at 70%
of the maximum load and at the same load level the CFRP maximum strain, Fig. 4.72, is
also approximately 2000 fx s . This behaviour indicates that punching shear in the slab
involves certain deformations that are not significantly influenced by the stiffness of
either the flexural or shear reinforcement in the slab. This observation requires further
investigation.
Figures 4.74 and 4.75 have shown the strain variation in the slab bottom reinforcement in
specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF5, respectively, in the direction parallel to the free edge. It
may be recalled that these slabs have effective depth of 120 mm and 81 mm, respectively,
but they have the same reinforcement ratio. Thus ZJEF5 has 32.5% less reinforcement
and effective depth than ZJEF1. Their ultimate loads are 183.3 kN and 92.1 kN,
respectively. According to the latter figures, the maximum strain in ZJEF1 is 4000 u s
while that in ZJEF5 is approximately 3300jj,e. The maximum strain in both cases occurs
near the face of the column, but the manner in which the strain varies with distance from
the face of the column is not the same in the two specimens. This may be attributed to the
proximity of the strain gauge to a crack in the slab. It can be observed, however, that the
170
maximum strain at 350 mm from the centre of the column is approximately 3000 fie for
ZJEF1 and 2100 fie for specimen ZJEF5.
While due to the higher ultimate load of ZJEF1, the higher strain is expected, it is also
evident from these strain values that the slab thickness plays a major role in mobilizing
the reinforcement contribution to the punching shear resistance.
The preceding maximum strain values are only a small fraction of the ultimate strain
capacity of the slab reinforcement. Consequently, one must limit the punching shear
strength irrespective o f the amount of reinforcement in the slab. For instance, one could
limit the nominal punching shear stress to a set value as is done in the case of direct shear
in beams and slabs.
Figure 4.76 shows the strain variation in specimen ZJEF7 similar to Figure 4.74
in specimen ZJEF1. The latter two specimens have different column sizes, but are
otherwise identical. These specimens have practically the same ultimate load. By
comparing the maximum strain values in Figs. 4.74 and 4.76, we observe that they are
relatively close, but that in the wider column vicinity being a little smaller. However,
these maximum values are at different distances from the column centre but at the same
distance from column faces, and if we use the column centre as the reference, the wider
column has greater strain values than the narrower column. Overall, these differences are
not large enough to indicate that the column dimensions have a major effect on the
punching strength of the column-slab connection
171
Specimens with Shear Reinforcement
(i) Slab Reinforcement Strain
Figures 4.77 and 4.78 show the slab bottom reinforcement strain in specimens ZJEFCS
and ZJEFSS in the direction normal to the free edge. The ultimate load of these
specimens are 229.5 kN and 266.2 kN, respectively. First, it should be pointed out that
strain gauge #.13 malfunctioned, therefore its reading should be ignored.
From theses figures, we observe that the steel shear studs tend to increase the
stiffness of the connection and as result reduce the maximum strain in the slab
reinforcement. Although the ultimate strength of ZJEFSS is 14% higher than that of
ZJEFCS, its maximum strain is only 5000 p e compared to almost 8000 p e for specimen
ZJEFCS. If the measured strain values are due to combined action of flexure and
punching shear as well as direct shear, the smaller strain values in specimen ZJEFSS may
be attributed to the greater contribution of the steel studs to the punching shear resistance
of the slab compared to the proposed CFRP studs. Therefore, as stated before, the rigidity
of both the flexural and shear reinforcement play an important role in determining the
ultimate strength of the column-slab connection. Clearly, the strength of the
reinforcement is also important, but an increase in strength beyond a certain limit has
negligible influence over the failure load.
It may be o f interest to point out that the measured strain lines are along different
distances from the column side faces. For specimen ZJEFCS, it is measured in the
immediate vicinity o f the column-slab interface and therefore it is greatly confined by the
column. For Specimen ZJEFSS, the strains are measured on a reinforcing fibre rib more
172
than 100 mm away from column side face. In the latter, the outermost rib suffers from
lack of sufficient anchor length. This deficiency will be dealt with in the analysis
procedure in Chapter 5. One may notice that at farther ribs from the free edge, the
difference in the measured strains for both specimens are not very much due to the fact
that they both have the same type of flexural reinforcement and the same bond conditions
and the difference in the specimens ultimate loads due to the use of stiff steel studs is
only 14%.
Additional strain measurements for selected specimens are given in Appendix A.
These strains generally confirm the previous observations and conclusions with respect to
the importance of the rigidity of the reinforcement.
(ii) Shear Reinforcement Strain

Selected specimens were strain gauged to determine the variation of strain in the shear
reinforcement at various locations from the faces of the column. Figures 4.79 and 4.80
show the strain variation in the shear reinforcement located at various distances from the
column face in the direction parallel to the free edge. These specimens have different
types of flexural reinforcement, but the same type of shear reinforcement. We observe
that in ZJEFCS the shear reinforcement is first engaged at 70% of its ultimate load while
in ZJESCS there is a small amount of engagement at even 30% of the ultimate load.
On the other hand, the maximum strain reached in specimen ZJEFCS is nearly 7000 fis
vis-a-vis only 1550 jus in ZJESCS. The basic variation of strain in the two specimens is
the same, but the steel reinforced slab tends to have better stress redistribution ability
than the CFRP reinforced slab. Consequently, the strain variation is smoother in the
173
former specimen than the latter and in both cases the shear reinforcement located closest
to the column face makes significant contribution to the shear resistance.
It may be surprising that despite the smaller contribution of the shear reinforcement to the
strength of specimen ZJESCS, this specimen has 11% higher strength than specimen
ZJEFCS. This can be explained by the fact that punching shear transfer is governed by a
Mohr-Coulomb type failure criterion. In the case of the CFRP reinforced specimens,
generally due to the lower stiffness of the CFRP, it permits the shear cracks to widen
more than in similar steel reinforced slab. Consequently, the aggregate interlock, or
frictional type of shear resistance mechanism is significantly degraded while the shear
reinforcement contribution is concurrently increased. It would appear that overall the
reinforcement resistance cannot make up for the loss of aggregate interlock. The restraint
of crack width depends on the reinforcement rigidity rather than strength; therefore, it is
quite clear that the higher strength of carbon fibre reinforcement cannot make up for its
smaller stiffness.
Next let us examine the strain in the shear reinforcement of the same two
specimens in the direction normal to the free edge. Figures 4.81 and 4.82 show the strain
in the CFRP shear reinforcement at various locations from the column face. Again we
observe that the specimen with all CFRP reinforcement experiences significantly higher
strain values than the one with mixed reinforcement. In both cases, the shear
reinforcement leg located at approximately 150 mm from the column face experienced
the greatest strain. This means that in the bending strips the maximum strain occurs at
some distance from the column face while in the torsional strips, it occurs near the
174
column face. Current design standards assume the critical shear section to be located at
the same distance from both faces of the column. However, generally it is difficult to
determine the actual distribution of stresses from the strain measurements at selected
locations because the strain in the reinforcement depends not only on the load level, but
also on its location from the nearest crack. Furthermore, the location of the attached strain
gauge on the reinforcement with respect to the nearest crack also influences the measured
strain values.
Figures 4.83 and 4.84 show the strain in the shear reinforcement of specimens ZJESCS
and ZJESSS at various locations from the column face in the direction parallel to the free
edge. Clearly, for the all steel reinforcement of ZJESSS we expect smaller strain values
in this specimen, but the latter figures show comparable strain values in the two
specimens with the maximum strain in ZJESSS being slightly higher than in ZJESCS.
The ultimate strength values of these specimens are less than 3% different but their
maximum strain values are 8.4% different. The latter difference does not have a major
significance because the overall strain distribution around the critical section determines
the punching shear capacity. Notice also the linear distribution of strain with distance
from the face of the column.
From the latter figures it can be concluded that the slab flexural reinforcement and
its rigidity play a more significant role in determining the punching shear capacity of the
edge column-slab connection than the shear reinforcement and its strength and/or rigidity.
We will investigate in the next chapter, whether the prevailing methods for determining
the shear reinforcement contribution to the punching shear strength of column-slab
175
connections can be applied to slabs reinforcement with either FRP alone or mixed FRJP
and steel reinforcement.
Let us examine the strain variation in the shear reinforcement of specimens with either all
CFRP or all steel reinforcement. Figures 4.85 and 4.86 have shown the latter strain in
specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESSS at various locations from the column face in the
direction normal to the free edge. As expected, the strain values in ZJESSS are smaller
despite its higher ultimate strength. The high rigidity of its flexural and shear
reinforcement enables it to mobilize greater aggregate interlock resistance, despite the
fact that the maximum strain in the shear reinforcement is only a fraction of its yield
strain. Furthermore the strain variation is almost uniform with distance from the column
face while a more irregular strain distribution exists in the CFRP reinforced slab. On the
other hand, the maximum force resisted by the CFRP shear reinforcement is almost the
same as that resisted by the steel shear studs. Hence, it is the weakening of the aggregate
interlock mechanism that prevents the CFRP reinforced slabs to achieve higher punching
shear strength. Furthermore, the linear elastic behaviour of the CFRP does not allow
significant stress redistribution and tends to locally concentrate stresses in the
reinforcement closest to a shear crack.
Finally, consider Figs. 4.87 through 4.89, which show the strain distribution in the
shear reinforcement located in the torsional strips of specimens ZJEFCS, ZJEFSS and
ZJESCS, respectively. Comparing the strain values and distribution in Figs 4.87 and 4.88,
we can see that in both cases the strain values are generally the highest near the column
face and diminish as one moves away from the column. Also the strain values are
176
generally higher closer to the free edge. If we consider the strain distribution parallel to
the column-slab interface, in the case of the all FRP reinforced specimen, once again
there is a high concentration of strain in the reinforcement near the free edge, while in the
specimen with steel shear studs, the strain is almost uniformly distributed, with an
average strain of almost 1850 /u s. The average strain in the CFRP shear reinforcement
located at the same distance from the column face is approximately 4200 jus . This means
that the CFRP shear reinforcement resisted average stress of 420 MPa versus 370 MPa in
the steel shear studs. Given that the steel studs have 27% higher cross-sectional area, the
average shear force resisted by the steel shear reinforcement would be almost 12%
higher.
Also since the steel studs keep the shear cracks tighter, the overall shear strength would
be higher due to the greater aggregate interlock resistance. Since the ultimate strength of
these specimens differed by 16%, only 4% of this difference may be attributed to
aggregate interlock.
If we compare the results in Figs. 4.87 and 4.89, we would be able to examine the
effect of the type of flexural reinforcement on punching shear. The specimens
corresponding to these figures have different types of flexural reinforcement, but the
same shear reinforcement. Once again we observe that the strain distribution in the
specimen with steel reinforcement, i.e. ZJESCS, is relatively uniform compared to that in
specimen ZJEFCS. Furthermore, the average strain in the shear legs located closest to the
column face in specimen ZJESCS is approximately 1630 p is, compared to 4200 jis in
ZJEFCS, yet their ultimate strengths are 229.5 kN and 254.7 kN, respectively. It is
Ill
obvious that the steel flexural reinforcement restrains the cracks and maintains very high
aggregate interlock resistance. This finding is in agreement with the previous
observations made with respect to the effectiveness of the steel flexural reinforcement in
maintaining the aggregate interlock mechanism.
4.3.2.4 Slab Through Thickness Deformations

It may be recalled from the previous chapter that in order to detect the movement of the
punching cone, crack detectors were installed in each test specimen without shear
reinforcement. Typically two detectors were installed in each specimen along its column
north-south centreline. Detector A was placed at d/2=60 mm and detector B at d=120 mm
from the south column face, where d is the effective depth of the slab. A strain gauge was
attached to each detector to measure the slab through thickness movement.
Since the detector was designed to measure the relative deformation between the
top and bottom surfaces of the slab, it would only function if part of it is embedded in the
punching cone and the other in the main part of the slab. In other words, to function
properly, the detector must intercept the critical shear cracks that form the punching shear
perimeter. Since pinpointing the location of these cracks is not easy, in many of the test
specimens the detectors failed to record any meaningful data. In few cases however it
was possible to measure the through thickness deformations.
Figures 4.90 through 4.95 show the strain recorded by the detectors in specimens
ZJEF2, ZJEF3, ZJEF5 and ZJEF7. In each case, the load at which the shear crack began
to intercept the detector can be ascertained from these graphs. The plateau in the graphs
indicates yielding o f the detector bar. Notice that once the crack forms, the detector
178
experiences significant strain, which is indicative of large relative movement between the
top and bottom surfaces of the slab at the location of the detector.
The load at which the slope of the graph begins noticeably depart from 90 is
assumed to correspond to the formation of the diagonal or shear cracks through the slab
at the location of the detector. Table 4.3 shows the value of this load for each specimen as
well as its relative value as a percentage of the failure load of the relevant specimen. We
observe that the diagonal cracks cross the detector from as low as 61% to as high as 85%
of the ultimate load. Of course, this does not mean that the through-thickness shear cracks
form around the column at the same load level. It does, however, indicate that diagonal
cracks begin to form at as low as 61% of punching shear strength of the slab. The
presence of the reinforcement in the slab tends to restrain the cracks from widening and
the slab continues to carry higher load until either the reinforcement yields or the
concrete fails. This is another indication of the important role that the slab flexural
reinforcement plays with respect to its punching shear strength.
In the case of slabs with shear reinforcement, the shear reinforcement can be used to
monitor the slab through thickness deformations. The shear reinforcement legs located at
60 mm or 150 mm from the south column face were strain gauged to measure their
deformations. The exact location of the monitored shear reinforcement can be found by
reference to the caption of relevant load-strain diagrams that follow.
Figures 4.95 through 4.97 show the strain variation in the selected shear
reinforcement legs in specimens ZJEFCS, ZJESCS and ZJESSS. Once again we measure
the load corresponding to a clear change in slope from 90 in each graph as the shear
179
crack initiation load. It is important to emphasize that such cracks may have formed at
smaller or larger load at other locations in the slab. Nevertheless, the recorded data gives
an indication of the relative value of the cracking load to the ultimate load of the
specimen.
Table 4.3 shows the value of the crack initiation load for each of the shear
reinforced specimens. The notation N/A in the table indicates that either the
instrumentation failed to record the data or the recorded data was faulty and was not
usable. In this table we notice that the diagonal shear cracks formed at relatively low
level of load compared to the ultimate strength of each specimen. In the case of specimen
ZJESSS, it appears to have formed at 19% of the ultimate load. This value is rather low
and unexpected, but given that the concrete tensile strength can vary widely, the diagonal
crack initiation load, which is a direct function of the tensile strength of concrete, could
also vary similarly. Another possible reason may be the presence of shrinkage cracks
which is more likely to form in the heavily steel reinforced specimen ZJESSS. Note,
however, that the formation of these early cracks does not affect the ultimate strength of
the slab
4.3.3 Summary o f Results

The data in this chapter has provided sufficient information to gauge the effectiveness of
the shear reinforcement and to establish the important influence of the slab flexural
reinforcement and its mechanical characteristics on the slab punching shear capacity. The
slab reinforcement strain measurements have provided clear evidence of the effectiveness
of the CFRP flexural reinforcement to resist the applied flexural and shear stresses
180
without slippage. It should be observed that the CFRP cannot be bent to form hooks that
would enable it to achieve its full development length. This is a major concern because in
the case of these specimens, the CFRP grid was required to develop significant stresses at
only 300 mm from the free edge of the slab, at which location its embedded length was
only 260 mm. It is clear that the cross bars of the grid provide strong mechanical
interlock and prevent it from slippage. Hence, the concern that additional anchoring of
the reinforcement may be needed at the free edge is not well founded.
As for the effectiveness of the shear reinforcement, the results are mixed. In the
case of interior column-slab connection, both the proposed CFRP and the steel stud shear
reinforcement performed very well and increased the punching shear capacity of the slab
quite noticeably. On the other hand, in the edge column specimens, the contribution of
either shear reinforcement to the punching strength was particularly significant.
Generally, the slab flexural reinforcement had more significant effect than the shear
reinforcement. Furthermore, the rigidity of the latter reinforcement plays an important
role with regard to the punching shear capacity of the slab. The lower stiffness of the
CFRP allows shear cracks to widen, which diminishes the contribution of the aggregate
interlock mechanism to the shear resistance of the slab. On the other hand, some of the
loss of the aggregate interlock resistance is compensated for by the high strength of the
CFRP, which resists increasing stress even when it is subjected to strains five to six times
greater than the yield strain of conventional reinforcing steel.
For edge column specimens the combination of CFRP flexural reinforcement and steel
stud shear reinforcement yielded the highest punching shear strength, which was 1.7%
181
higher than the shear strength of the companion all steel reinforced specimen. Given that
generally the increase in strength due to the shear reinforcement was in the range of 10%
or less, it is not evident that the provision of shear reinforcement in edge column-slab
connections can be economically justified. A more practical and effective means for
increasing this resistance may be to provide drop panels by increasing the slab thickness
in the vicinity of the column. This topic needs further research and was not part of the
current investigation.
In the next chapter, we will investigate whether the observed strength of these
specimens can be determined using existing methods of analysis. The key parameter that
needs to be closely examined is the rigidity of the slab reinforcement and its effect on the
punching shear strength of the slab.
Table 4.1: Distribution of cracks appearance according to location and the load level for specimens without shear
reinforcement
specimen
Flexural radial cracks
ZJES
Column slab Column strip

interfaces
20,35
20,35
ZJEF1
20
ZJEF2
Torsional cracks on both sides

of column stub
East
west
Flexural cracks along

specimen diagonal
West
East
Tangential
cracks
45,95
35,65,130
35,65,110,155
45,65,110,155
95,110,155
20,30
20,30,70,130
90,110
40,70
50,70,90,110
130
20,30
30,50
30,50,85
60
30,40,105
60,85
105
ZJEF3
20,30
50
70
40,90
40,70,80
80
110
ZJEF5
20
20
20,30,50
20,40,50
30,40,60
60
60,75
ZJEF7
20,30
30,40,50,85,125
50,105
20,50,105
40,85,150
85,125
125,150
Table 4.2: Distribution of crack appearance according to location and the load level for specimens with shear
reinforcement
specimen
Flexural radial cracks
Torsional cracks on both sides

of column stub
East
west
Flexural cracks along

specimen diagonal
East
west
Tangential
cracks
ZJESCS
Column slab Column strip

interfaces
20,40
20
20,170
80,100
150,190
60,100,150
170,190
ZJEFCS
20
30,40,50
50,85,185
50,105,185
60,125,185
60,125,185
125,170
ZJEFSS
20,50
30,50
50,60
40,60
70,135,155
ZJESSS
20,40
55
65,120
55,120
60,90,110,135
155
90,100,120
110,135,155,
175
140
90,120,140
O
UO
)
184
Table 4.3: Loads at which diagonal tension cracks formation was detected
Specimen
ZJEF1
ZJEF2
ZJEF3
ZJEF5
ZJEF7
ZJES
ZJEFCS
ZJESCS
ZJESSS
ZJEFSS
ZJF8
ZJF9
Diagonal tension load

(kN)
126
116
130
77
168
N/A
112
100
50
N/A
N/A
140
Percentage of ultimate load

66.9%
74.4%
61.6%
79.3%
85.7%
N/A
49%
39.4%
19%
N/A
N/A
42.7%
185
R a d ia l C r a c k s
T a n g e n tia l C r a c k s
A
P u n c h in g S u r f a c e
TOP VIEW
Column
S la b
2 5 t o 35*
P u n c h in g S u r f a c e
f,P u n c h in g
L oad
S e c t i o n A-A
Figure 4.1: Typical concentric punching failure pattern
186
> a
T ension S ide
gential
(
(Transverse)
FN
Flexural
C ra c k s
1,76 rri
Id e n t a l io atio n s;
1-
T orsional C rocks
::2 Fiexuroi Radio! C rack s C lose to D iagonal

3 Flexural Radial C racks
4-~ ^T angential (T ra rja v srse ) F lexural C ra c k s::
(a) interior column-slab connection

T ension S id e
1.50 m
S u p p o rt lin es
^ j onqential :
(T r a n s v e rs e )
F texurai C ra c k s
o
1.76 rrt
Id e n te flc a tio n s :
. 1 T orsional C ra c k s
2-
F lexural R adial C ra c k s C lose t o D iagonal
3 - F lexural R adial C ro c k s
4 -1 T a n g e n tia l (T r a n s v e rs e ) F lexural C r a c k s 1
(b) Edge column-slab connection

Fig. 4.2: Schematic crack patterns of interior and edge column connections with slab
under eccentric load
187
C o m p r e s s io n s id e
(u p p e r s u r fa c e )
Nearly neutral surfaces

(low strains)
Tension side
(bottom surface)
Torsion member
Cracked linel (flgxure)

M ost c o Inpressed
; h ie ----------
X
'
Cracked line 2
(torsion)
Figure 4.3: Important slab parts identifications and critical section location for interior
column-slab connection
Figure 4.4: Crack pattern on the bottom of specimen ZJF8 slab
Figure 4.5: Crack pattern on the bottom of specimen ZJF9 slab
189
300
250
Z JF6
200
Load (KN)
Z JF4
150
Z JF8
100
ZJF8
ZJF6
m mZJP4
23
-50
deflection mm
Figure 4.6: Load deflection curves of specimens ZJF4,ZJF6 and ZJF8
80
70
Load/(fc')A(1/3)
60
50
40
-Z J F 8
30
-Z J F 6
ZJF4
20
10
0
18
23
-10
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.7: Normalized load deflection curves of specimens ZJF4,ZJF6 and ZJF8
190
350
ZJF9
300
ZJF7
250
ZJF4
200
ZJF7
150
ZJF4
ZJF9
100
50
10
15
25
20
30
35
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.8: Load deflection curves of specimens ZJF4, ZJF7 and ZJF9
100
90
80
CO
70
C.
60
50
ZJF7
to
40
ZJF4
_i
30
ZJF9
<
20
10
15
20
25
30
35
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.9: Normalized load deflection curves of specimens ZJF4, ZJF7 and ZJF9
191
6000
5000
4000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-it- - 0.70Vmax
tr '
3000
- - X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
c
2000
1000
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
distance from column centre (mm)
column stub in specimen ZJF8
3500
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-it- - 0.70Vmax
- - X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
3000
2500
(0
*->
(0
o
o
L.
ss
5)
2000
1500
S.g. 19
1000
500 -
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
Figure 4.11: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to east face of
192
6000
5000
to
o
0
1
c
7 '
4000
3000
2000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-hr - 0.70Vmax
1000
- - X - -0.90Vmax
Vmax
T
50
100
150
T
200
250
300
350
400
500
450
Figure 4.12: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJF8
12000
S^35
10000
JO
r
(0
O
8000
.a
6000
4000
0)
2000
0.3Vmax
H i 0.5Vmax
-hr - 0.7Vmax
-X- - -0.8Vmax
- * 0.9Vmax
Vmax
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure 4.13: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJF9
193
1200
1000
C
800
-----0.3Vmax
0.5Vmax
-A- - 0.7Vmax
- - X - -0.8Vmax
JK 0.9Vmax
Vmax
600
O
E
c
2
to
400
- -A
200
20
100
60
120
140
1110
-200
distance from column face (mm)
and 3)
1400
1200
S.g.6
1000
800
S2
600
400
s.g.8
E,
0.3Vmax
0.5Vmax
-A- - 0.7Vmax
- - -X- - -0.8Vmax
5K 0.9Vmax

Vmax
(0
5) 200
k.
0
-200
100
150
2 ! >0
and 8)
194
3000
2500
C 2000
o
0
1
c
1500
u.avmax
0.5Vmax
-A- - 0.7Vmax
- -X - -0.8Vmax
JK 0.9Vmax
Vmax
1000
500
20
40
100
60
120
140
11 >0
-500
and 12)
2500
S.g. 13
1 11
2000
C
CO
k.
1500
o
c
0.3Vmax
0.5Vmax
-A- - 0.7Vmax
- - -X- - -0.8Vmax
5K 0.9Vmax
S
Vmax
1000
2
55
500
50
100
150
200
250

13,14,15 and 16)
195
1600
1400
1200
1000
,
C
a
(0
800
0 .3 V m a x
0 .5 V m a x
-A- - 0 .7 V m a x
- - X - - 0 .8 V m a x
* 0 .9 V m a x
V m ax
600
400
200
50
100
150
200
250
300

17,18,19,20 and 21)
3000
4^
Specim en ZJF9
2500
-------------------- ' ___
8 17
2 12
p?1
C
2000
1500
4 3
A1
V0
\
\
A.
1000
'in
L.
4*
(0
\
* - A..
c
-11 D
''A-..
500
50
100
150
200
--A--E
250
Figure 4.19: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJF9
300
Figure 4.21: Side cracks of specimen ZJEF1
197
Figure 4.22: Punching of specimen ZJEF2, from south west corner
Figure 4.23: Punching of Specimen ZJEF1 and spalling off concrete cover
198
Figure 4.24: Crack pattern at the bottom of alab in specimen ZJEF2
Figure 4.25: Crack distribution through the thickness of the slab at its connection with
column in specimen ZJEF2
199
Figure 4.26: Crack pattern of the slab bottom in specimen ZJES
Figure 4.27: Side cracks of specimen ZJES
Figure 4.28: Punching of specimen ZJES and spalling of concrete cover.
0
T
<*
-ZJEF2
Q
<
O
-10
-15
-20
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.29: Normalized load-deflection curves of specimens without shear

reinforcement
-25
201
Load (kN)
200
150
100
ZJEF1
ZJEF3
-2
-6
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
deflection (mm)
Load/(fc')A(1/3)
Figure 4.30: Load-deflection curve of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF3
50
40
30
ZJEF1
20
ZJEF3
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.31: Normalized load-deflection curve of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF3
202
180
160
140
T3
120
O
_l
100
CD
80
60
ZJEF1
ZJEF5
ZJEF7
4I
-10
-20
-15
-25
D eflection (mm)
Figure 4.32: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1, ZJEF5 and ZJEF7
180
160
140
TJ
(0
120
100
80
60
ZJEF1
ZJEF7
40
-10
-12
-14
-16
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.33: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF7
-18
180
160
140
: 120
TnJ
o
_i
100
80
ZJES
60
ZJEF1
; 40
2
-4
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.34: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJES
; iso
160
; 140
?
120
100
ZJEF1
ZJEF2
60
:
40
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.35: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1 and ZJEF2
204
Figure 4.36: Crack pattern of the bottom of the slab in specimen ZJEFCS
Figure 4.37: Side cracks of specimen ZJEFCS
Figure 4.39: Side cracks of specimen ZJESSS
Figure 4.41: Side cracks of specimen ZJEFSS
Figure 4.43: Side cracks of specimen ZJESCS
208
L J
Figure 4.44: Torsional cracks on the west side of specimen ZJEFCS
Figure 4.45: Opening of torsional cracks on the west side of specimen ZJEFCS
209
300ZJEFSS
250
ZJESSS
200
Load(kN)
ZJEFC!
150
ZJEFCS
100
ZJESSS
ZJESCS
ZJEFSS
ZJEF3
-10
-20
-15
-25
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.46: Load-deflection curves of shear reinforced samples
200
z
150
73
o
_l
100
ZJEF3
ZJEFCS
50
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.47: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJEFCS
210
250
200
O
150
100
ZJEF3
ZJEFSS
50
-2
*8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.48: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJEFSS
300
250
200
z
a
re
o
150
_i
100
Z JE F3
- - - Z JE S S S
-10
-15
-20
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.49: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJESSS
-25
211
#00
250
200
*
U
(0
o
_l
150
100
ZJEFCS
ZJEFSS
50
-2
-10
-12
-14
-16
-20
-18
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.50: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJEFSS
250
Load (kN
200
150
100
ZJEFCS
ZJESCS
50
-2
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.51: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESCS
212
250
200
150
ZJEFCS
ZJESSS
100
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.52: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFCS and ZJESSS
250
200
u
o
_l
150
ZJESSS
100
ZJESCS
-10
-15
-20
-25
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.53: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJESCS and ZJESSS
213
300
250
200
150
ZJESSS
ZJEFSS
100
-10
-15
-20
-25
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.54: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEFSS and ZJESSS
300
250
200
1C
u
m
o
_i
150
ZJES
- - ZJESSS
100
-5
-10
-15
-20
deflection (mm)
Figure 4.55: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJES and ZJESSS
-25
214
50
40
O
30
ZJES
ZJESSS
-10
-5
-20
-15
-25
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.56: Load-deflection curve of specimens ZJES and ZJESSS
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
-0.30Vmax
-0.50Vmax
-0.90Vmax
-Vmax
X'
2500
c
(0
2000
1500
1000
500
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Figure 4.57: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement, parallel to south column slab
interface in specimen ZJEF1
215
6000
S .g.2
5000
c
4000
.2
3000
2000
E,
c
L.

0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - -X- - -0.90Vmax
JK Vmax
(/>
1000
50
100
200
150
250
300
400
350
Figure 5.58: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEF5,

(gauges 2,5 and 6)
3500
S .g.4
3000
(0
2500
' 15
is
X -.
19
ha
+*
-
0.30Vmax
H I 0.50Vmax
(A
O 2000
-A- - 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
. 1500
'5
(0
1000
500
0
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150

(gauges 4,15,18 and 19)
216
4000 3500 C
2
"55
3000 -
o
o
E
c
2500 -
1500 -
2000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
- - X - -0.90Vmax
3K Vmax
(A
1000
500 -
-400
-200
-300
-100
100
200
Figure 4.60: Strain distribution of bottom reinforcement parallel to free surface, in

specimen ZJEF1
6000 j --------------
:
0 .3 0 V m a x
0 .5 0 V m a x
5000
4000
- - -X - - 0 .9 0 V m a x
V m ax
-----V
"5
i
_ o.70Vm ax
in
0
5
1w
3000
2 2000
A ..
A-----
V)
1000
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
column stub in specimen ZJEF2
217
6000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - -X - -0.90Vmax
Vmax
10
5000
C
2
w
o
.SJ
4000
. -X
3000
it
A~
2000
1000
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
100
50
150
200
specimen ZJEF2
4000
3500
0)
3000
14'
2500
o
1_
1 st r 1 r: X71 ' I S > 19' f 20 '
A----------- A~
.a 2000
E,
.E
S.g.20
A.
1500
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
55 1000
500
-200
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
218
6000
0.30Vmax
- 0.50V max
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - -X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
5000
c
2
4000
.y
3000
E,
s.g. 1
. -X
C
B 2000
1000
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
specimen ZJEF7
4000
3500
3000
*
0)
0.30Vmax
HU 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
-X - -0.90Vmax
-X Vmax
-X
t-
2500
.y 2000
C
1500
S.g. 6
ir
1000
500
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
column stub in specimen ZJES
219
2500
16
4L.
2000
'c
1g
1500
0
1
^ 1000
2
0.30Vmax
HU 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
-X Vmax
c/5
500
0
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
d is t a n c e fro m c o lu m n c e n tr e (m m )
specimen ZJES
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-6 - - 0.70Vmax
X - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
10000
S.g. 16
'Ho M e M t ' I s 1 He
8000
6000
S.g.15,
E 4000
2000
-250
et
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
d is ta n c e from c o lu m n c e n tr e (mm )
Figure 4.67: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement normal to south face of
column stub in specimen ZJEFCS
200
220
4500
4000
3500
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
O
0.70Vmax
- - X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
3000
2500
2000
c
L.
</>
1500
1000
500
-100
-150
-50
100
50
150
specimen ZJEFCS
6000
5000
5
w
o
.Ji
E,
c
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-/H
r- - 0.70Vmax
- - X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
29
4000
-x
3000
2000
1000
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
specimen ZJEFSS
221
14000
12000
ok.
O
10000
8000
0.30Vmax
HI 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
5K Vmax
6000
2
tn
4000
A-----
2000
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
distance from centreline of column (mm)
column stub in specimen ZJESCS
20000
18000 16000 .E
s.g.m .
1400012000
3S
-
0.30Vmax
* 0.50Vmax
-A 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
Jlf Vmax
.S2 1 0 0 0 0 E
8000 -
n
k.
6000
O)
35
4000
- -A-
2000
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
column stub in specimen ZJESSS
222
-
0.30Vmax
ii 0.50Vmax
4500 : - -A 0.70Vmax
- - X -0.90Vmax
4000 : * Vmax
5000
.E
(0
(0
o
3500 :
.9
E
2500
3000
^ 2000 ;
2 1500 ;
55
-A- -.
1000
500
-200
-150
-100
-50
100
50
150
200
250
300
350
specimen ZJESCS
12000
10000
26
2
w
o
.9
E
'w'
c
8000
.25
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A 0.70Vmax
- - -X- - -0.90Vmax
m Vmax
k_
6000
4000
24
2000
-300
A-
A-
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
specimen ZJESSS
223
4500
4000
m4 ii5 i 6
^
3500
3000
_c
</>
2 2500
o
, 2000
0.30Vmax
HI 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
X - -0.90Vmax
- X Vmax
c
'5
1500
W 1000
500
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400

(gauges 4,5 and 6)
3500
S.g. 8
3000
1.3
c
5
I 4
2500
+*
W
o
k. 2000
o
E, 1500
c
'5
+*
W 1000
500
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

(gauges 8,13 and 14)
400
224
4000
3500
_c
3000
2500
2 2000
X.
S.g. 7
------0.30V m ax
0.50V m ax
1500
-A - - 0.70V m ax
(0 1000
-X - -0.90V m ax
- X Vm ax
500
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
d is t a n c e fro m c o lu m n c e n t r e (m m )

(gauges 2,6 and 7)
9000
8000
0.30V m ax
0.50V m ax
7000
-A - - 0.70V m ax
2 6000
-X- - -0.90V m ax
to
X Vmax
2 5000
o
, 4000
c
"5 3000
4-*
(A
2000
1000
0
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
d is t a n c e fro m c e n t r e o f c o lu m n (m m )
Figure 4.77: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEFCS,

(gauges 8,11,13 and 19)
225
6000
5000
c
n
0.30Vmax
- - X - -0.90Vmax
0.50Vmax -A- - 0.70Vmax

Vmax
-34
' 3 6
38
4000
(0
o
.S 3000
E,
c
2000
1000
-200
-150
-100
-50
100
50
150
distance from column centre
Figure 4.78: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEFSS,

(gauges 34,36,38 and 42)
8000
s.g.25
7000
6000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - X - -0.90Vmax
* Vmax
5000
re
4000
aoi
o
E
c
3000
(0
2000
re
1000
x
-
50
100
150
200
,T- a a
250
300
3S0
-1000

25,26,27 and 28)
226
1600
24
1400
2
w
1200
1000 :
o
k.
.y
800
.E
600
E,
2
55
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
400
X -.
200
0
100
50
150
200
250
300
350

24,25,26 and 27)
4000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
e
(0
o
0
1
c
2
U)
3500
- - -A - -0.70Vmax
3000 -
-X - - 0.90Vmax
2500 2000
3K Vmax
X.
1500
1000
Xr
500 -
-500
50
100
150
200
250
300
3! i0

40,41,42 and 43)
227
1600
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
A- - 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
5K Vmax
1400
1200
37
R 1000
oV.
39
.SJ
800
600
5)
400
wE
T
O
h.
200
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300

37,38 and 39)
1400
1200
42
41
C 1000
800
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - -X- - -0.90Vmax
3K Vmax
600
400
200
'
0
50
100
150
m
200
250
300

41,42 and 43)
228
1600
1400
c
ra
1200
1000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
- - a- - 0.70Vmax
- - - x - - - 0.90Vmax
* Vmax
.2 8oo
E,
600
(A
400
(0
V.
A ..
200
100
50
150
200
250
300
350
Figure 4.84: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESSS, (gauges

5,6 and 8)
3000
0.30Vmax
H 0.50Vmax
-A 0.70Vmax
- -X- -0.90Vmax
5K Vmax
2500
C
2000
w
o
k.
.2 1500
E
c
2
tn
1000
A-
500
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

36,37,38 and 39)
229
900
800
^
700
600
4*
0.30Vmax
H 0.50Vmax
-A 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
5K Vmax
2o
500
E. 400
_c
'<5
300
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Figure 4.86: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESSS, (gauges

12,13,14 and 15)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
C 3000
2
55
A-
2000
1000 :
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Figure 4.87: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFCS at ultimate
230
2500
i-A
2000
1500
c
75
L.
(/>
1000
500
100
50
150
250
200
300
350
Figure 4.88: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFSS at ultimate
2500
2000
853A
1500
-
1000
500
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Figure 4.89: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESCS at ultimate
231
200
180 ;
160 ;
;
;
;
140
120
100
crack detector A
so ;
60 :
40 :
20
-500
500
1500
1000
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
strain (microstrain)
Figure 4.90: Through-thickness slab strain in specimen ZJEF1
160
140 120
S' 100 crack d etecto r A
80 60 40 -
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Strain (microstrain)
4500
232
- 20 0 , . .
-150V
z
J*
o
m
o
_l
-100
-50 500
1000
1500
2500
2000
3C DO
100
90
80 70 Z
60
o 50
o
_l 40 -
crack d etecto r A
30 20
10
-200
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
200
180 ;
160
uo
z
120
100
detector A
Detector B
so ;
60
40
20
- ;
-200
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Strain (microstrain)
3&0300
250 200
100
50 -
-200
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Figure 4.95: Through-thickness slab strain in specimen ZJF9
1400
234
200
150 -
TJ
(0
O
100
_l
Strain40
Strain41
50
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
s tr a in (m ic r o s tr a in )
Figure 4.95: CFRP studs strain in specimen ZJEFCS, (for strain gauge location see Fig
3.35)
300
250
200
Z
JX
Strain37
Strain38
o 150
OS
o
_l
100
50
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
str a in (m ic r o s tr a in )
Figure 4.96: CFRP studs strain in specimen ZJESCS, (for strain gauge locations see
Fig. 3.39)
235
366-
250
200
Z
150
TJ
(B
O
Strain 12
_l
Strain13
100
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Figure 4.97: Steel studs strain in specimen ZJESSS, (see Fig. 3.41 for strain gauge
locations)
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS_______ ____________
5.1 General
The purpose o f this chapter is to investigate whether existing methods of analysis can be
used to predict the punching shear strength of the specimens tested in the current study,
and if they cannot, to propose a new or improved method of analysis which could predict
the experimental results reasonably well. Also the proposed method must be able to
predict other pertinent experimental results in the literature.
Since to date practically all experimental data pertaining to punching shear in FRP
reinforced slabs are obtained from concentric shear tests, we begin with the analysis of
this type o f shear. This will be followed by the analysis of column-slab connections
subjected to eccentric punching.
It is important to point out that complex methods of analysis requiring iterative
solutions are not commonly used in practice. The punching shear analysis/design
provisions of all major design codes are relatively simple to apply and have been found to
be safe and generally conservative. In the light of these comments, the objective of the
present analysis is to ascertain whether similarly simple methods could be used to
determine the ultimate load capacity of FRP reinforced slab-column connections. Clearly,
236
237
any suggested method must include the influence of the FRP reinforcement and its
properties on the punching shear capacity of slabs.
5.2 Punching Shear Analysis of Interior Column-Slab Connections

without Shear Reinforcement
In Chapter 2 a number of methods related to concentric punching were discussed.
These methods are essentially modified forms of existing methods for predicting the
punching shear capacity of steel reinforced concrete slabs. In all these methods one
begins by defining the location of the critical shear perimeter, followed by the calculation
of the applied nominal shear stress. Subsequently, the calculated nominal shear stress is
compared to the punching shear capacity of the slab. The punching shear capacity is a
function of the slab effective depth, its concrete strength and, in the case of some
methods, of the slab reinforcement ratio and the column aspect ratio.
(a) Calculation o f Nominal Shear Stress, v

Figure 5.1(a) shows a typical interior column-slab connection subjected to
concentric shear force Vu and unbalanced M u = M ul - M uZ, and the corresponding shear
stresses in the slab, which resist the applied forces, Fig. 5.1(b). It is assumed that the
concentric shear force Vu produces uniform shear stresses at the critical shear perimeter in
the slab. The magnitude o f this stress is calculated by dividing Vu by the area of the
critical shear planes that form the perimeter of the critical shear section, denoted by b0,
which according to north American codes is located at d/2 from the face of the column
while according to the British code it is situated at 1.5d from the column face. When
unbalanced moment also acts on the connection, a portion of that moment is assumed to
238
be resisted by torsional shear stresses as indicated in Fig. 5.1(c). The magnitude and
distribution of the latter stresses are calculated using procedures similar to those used to
calculate torsional stresses in a beam. The parameters yv and Jc denote the fraction of the
unbalanced moment transferred by shear and the polar moment of inertia of the planes
resisting the torsion. The net shear stresses due to combined effect of applied shear force
and unbalanced moment is obtained by the superposition of the two as indicated in Fig.
5.1(d).
In order to perform the above analysis, one must first locate the critical shear
failure perimeter. In both the A C I318-05 (A C I2005) and the CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004)
codes, the critical section is located at a distance of d/2 from the column faces. This is
predicated on the assumption of 45 inclined cracks through the slab. Using the ACI
notation, the net nominal shear stress vu calculated as
V
y M c
v = TJ7 i V L
M
(5.1)
Jc
Note that Vu and M u refer to factored or ultimate shear force and unbalanced moment.
The shear Vu and moment Mu are assumed to act through the centroid of the critical shear
section and distance c is measured from that centroid to the point where shear stress is
calculated. The term J c is a property of the critical shear section, similar to the polar
moment o f inertia, about its centroidal axes.
In the case o f interior column-slab connections the centroid of the column and the
critical shear section coincide, therefore, the distance c would be equal to
Cj + d y
where
d is the dimension of the column perpendicular to the axis of bending. Once the nominal
239
shear stress is determined per Eq. 5.1, its value is compared to the slab punching shear
resistance vc. If vu >vc, the slab will fail in punching shear, otherwise it would not.
Before we proceed further, it should be stated that we will follow the ACI 318-05
procedures and equations to calculate the punching shear resistance of the specimens
tested in this investigation and any other specimens, but not the CSA A23.3-04 method.
In fact the CSA method is entirely based on the ACI method, but the various empirical
coefficients have been adjusted to account for the difference in load factors between the
two codes.
The fraction yv of the unbalanced moment transferred by shear is given by (ACI
318-05)
1
(5.2)
where cx= is column side perpendicular to moment vector

c2= is column side parallel to moment vector
Let vu = vc, Vu = Vn and M u =Vn e, where e is the eccentricity of the shear force from
the centroid of the critical shear section, then inserting these relations in Eq. (5.1) would
yield
(5.3)
240
Where V = nominal punching shear capacity of the slab near its connection with the
column. This equation would be used to calculate the punching shear capacity of the
specimens tested in the current investigation.
The punching shear resistance of the slab depends on a number of geometric and
material parameters in the slab-column assembly as shown below.
(b) Calculation o f Punching Shear Resistance, vc
A C I 318-05 Method
According to the ACI code, ACI 318-05 method (ACI 2005), for steel reinforced slabcolumn connections, vc is equal to the smallest of
(MPa)
(5.4)
where fic= ratio of long side to short side of the column, concentrated load or reaction
area
(MPa)
(5.5)
where a = 40 for interior columns, 30 for edge columns and 20 for comer columns
(MPa)
(5.6)
Notice that the slab flexural reinforcement is assumed to have negligible effect on the
slab punching shear resistance and the only important material parameter in this respect
is the compressive strength of the concrete.
241
Zaghloul and Razaqpur Method (2004)
Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2004) presented the following relation to calculate vc for FRP
reinforced slabs
l
vc = 0.07 (f'cp f EFRFy
(MPa)
(5.7)
where p j and EFRPare the reinforcement ratio and elastic modulus of the slab flexural
reinforcement in the column strips. This equation was suggested based on the ACI
punching shear analysis method, which essentially assumes that the punching shear
resistance of a slab is twice its beam shear resistance. The CSA standard CSA S806-02
(2002) gives the beam shear resistance of an FRP reinforced slab to be half of the value
given by Eq. (5.7). Notice that Eq. (5.7) includes the effect of the flexural reinforcement
rigidity and the concrete strength
Other Available Methods

In addition to Eq.(5.7), in Chapter 2 a number of other methods were described for
calculating Vc =vcb0d in the case of concentric shear. These include equations suggested
by Matthys and Taerwe (2000), Eq. 2.1, Ospina et al (2000), Eq. 2.4, El-Salakawi (2005),
Eq. (2.6), and ACI Committee 440 H (ACI 2005), Eq. (2.15). Note that in the Ospina et
al. and Matthys and Taerwe equations the critical shear perimeter is assumed to be
located at 1.5d from the faces of the column or loaded area while in the other methods it
is considered to be at 0.5d from the column faces
242
5.3 Punching Shear Resistance of Interior

Connections with Shear Reinforcement
CoIumn-Slab
In the case of slabs with shear reinforcement, the ACI code does not permit the use of
headed shear studs (McGregor and White 2005) while the CSA Standard A23.3-04 does.
On the other hand, ACI Committee 421 (ACI 1999) recommends the use of headed shear
studs and gives a design method similar to that in CSA A23.3-04. The ACI
recommendations are as follows:
CSA A23.3 stipulates that
(1) The nominal shear stress, vu shall be not greater than 0.5
(5.8)
(3) The factored shear stress resistance of headed studs, v ,, shall be
where
n = number o f lines of shear studs intersected by the peripheral line under
consideration
Ab = the area o f one headed shear stud

d = projection of 45 inclined crack on the slab surface or average effective depth
o f the slab
bQ= length o f .the shear perimeter

s = spacing of studs along a line of shear studs (lines of studs are parallel to the
column sides)
243
The total shear resistance of the slab is assumed to be equal to the sum of the
contributions of concrete, vc, and of the shear reinforcement, v5. Thus in Eq. (5.3) vc is
replaced by (vc +vs) to obtain Vn.
The critical shear perimeter in the case of slabs with headed shear studs may be located at
d/2 from the face of the column or at a second peripheral line located at d/2 outside the
outermost set o f headed shear studs.
5.4 Analysis of Edge Column-Slab Connections

The analysis of edge column-slab connections transferring shear and unbalanced moment
proceeds in the same way as that of the interior column-slab connections. Fig.5.2(a)
shows a typical edge column-slab connection subjected to shear force Vu and unbalanced
moment M u . The distributions of shear stresses due to Vu and y vM u at the critical shear
perimeter are shown in Figs. 5.2(b) and (c), respectively while their combined effect is
shown in Fig. 5.2(d). Observe that the Vu and M u are assumed to be acting at the
centroid of the critical shear section. In establishing the critical shear perimeter, the
column-slab interface adjacent to the slab free edge is assumed to be free of any shear
stress.
The parameter yv is given by
1
(5.10)
244
Using the appropriate value of vc for edge columns and relevant yv and J values for the
edge column critical shear perimeter, Vn can be calculated using Eq. (5.3). In Eq. (5.10)
c2 denotes the column dimension parallel to the axis of bending under consideration.
For the case of column-slab connections with shear reinforcement, vc will be
replaced by (vc +
) in Eq. (5.3) in the same manner as in interior column-slab
connections. Before proceeding further to consider other refined methods of analysis, we

will use the foregoing ACI method to calculate the punching shear capacity of the
column-slab connections tested in the current investigation.
5.5 Comparison of Predicted and Observed Punching Shear

Capacity of Slab Column Connections using the Basic ACI
Approach
In this section the punching shear capacity of the tested slab-column connections will be
determined using the previously described method of the ACI. However, when
calculating vc for the FRP reinforced slabs, the ACI recommendations will not be used
because as previously shown by Ospina et al (2003), they do not yield good results. It
should be emphasized that the ACI 318 recommendations for vc are intended for steel
reinforced slabs only. When steel reinforced slabs are considered, the vc expression of
the ACI will be used.
245
5.5.1 Interior Column-Slab Connections Subjected to Concentric Shear

5.5.1.1 FRP Reinforced Slabs
(a) Existing Methods
Although the focus o f this study is not concentric shear in interior column-slab
connections, nevertheless we begin with this type of connection because in practically
every method the limiting punching shear capacity of the slab is compared to its
concentric shear capacity.
Table 5.1 lists a number of slabs or slab column connections tested under
concentric shear by various investigators, as indicated in column 1 of the table. The slabs
tested by Ahmad et al (1994), El-Ghandour et al (1999), Ospina et al (2003), Hussein et
al. (2004) and Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2004) had column stubs and were loaded through
the stub while the remaining slabs in this table were loaded via a loading plate.
Furthermore, in some cases, such as the slabs tested by El-Ghandour et al and by Banthia
et al inadequate bond strength or slippage affected the punching strength. Hence, when
one compares the latter results to their predicted values, it is important to remember that
the theoretical models assume full bond behaviour.
As indicated in column 4 of Table 5.1 the slabs were reinforced by either GFRP
bars or aramid or CFRP grids. The table also provides other details of these slabs. The
observed punching shear capacity of the slabs is given as VcTest while the ratio of the
observed to the predicted strength by the different methods is given in the subsequent
columns. The various subscript used to identify the different methods in the table are:
246
Z&R = Zaghloul and Razaqpur, O = Ospina et al, M&T = Matthys and Taerwe, E = ElSalakawi and ACI = American Concrete Institute Method (see Eq. 2.15).
We observe that the mean of the ratio of the test/predicted capacity by the various
methods ranges from 1.02 to approximately 2 and the standard deviation from 0.13 to
0.39. Generally, the results are conservative but the relatively large standard deviation
values suggest a fundamental deficiency in the way the various parameters are accounted
for. Ideally, the ratio should be as close to 1.0 as possible with a relatively small standard
deviation. To achieve this goal, we will introduce two new relations, one being a
modification of Eq. (5.7), originally proposed by Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2004).
(b) Proposed Method

To rectify the previously mentioned shortcomings of the previous equations used in Table
5.1, we first modify the Zaghloul and Razaqpur equation by introducing the shear
perimeter size effect. This factor is recognized as being important by the Japanese Design
Recommendations (JSCE 1997) and by other researchers (Sherif and Dilger 1996, and
El-Salakawi, 2005). Furthermore, the effect of the slab reinforcement ratio is recognized
by all the existing methods for determining the punching shear capacity of FRP
reinforced slabs and by a number of standards, including the British and Japanese
standards, for steel reinforced slabs. The results of the current investigation as well as
previous investigations by others have shown that the rigidity of slab reinforcement,
Erp r, is an important parameter, where Er and p r are the elastic modulus and ratio of
the slab reinforcement, respectively.
247
Although the strength o f the reinforcement will also be important if it is very low,
generally, for both steel and FRP reinforcement, this parameter is not as significant. The
results in this study clearly indicate that despite the fact that the CFRP reinforcement has
strength greater than three times the steel reinforcement, the higher strength of the CFRP
did not increase the slab punching shear capacity significantly. The reason for this
observation can be in part explained by the fact that the flexural steel helps the slab resist
the punching shear stresses by keeping the inclined shear cracks in the slab relatively
narrow. The narrow cracks can transfer higher shear by the aggregate interlock
mechanism. Once either the reinforcement yields or the cracks get wide enough, the
aggregate interlock mechanism is weakened and shear failure follows. Alternatively, the
shear failure will occur once the maximum shear capacity of the concrete is reached.
Collins and Mitchell (1991) adopted the following expression for maximum shear
transfer by aggregate interlock, vci, in steel reinforced members.
(5.11)
where w is the crack width and a is the maximum aggregate size, both measured in mm.
Since the crack width is controlled by the reinforcement rigidity, it is obvious that a
reduction in the rigidity will increase the crack width and will diminish the maximum
shear that can be resisted by the crack. Determination of the actual crack width is
difficult, hence it is more practical to reflect the effect of the crack width by the
parameter Erp r .
248
Notice that concrete strength, crack width and aggregate size are deemed to be the
important parameters that affect shear transfer across a crack. However, the inclusion of
the aggregate size in the above equation is based on very limited data and the maximum
aggregate size in slabs is not expected to vary over a wide range. Consequently, the two
important parameters would be crack width and concrete strength.
The functional relationship in Eq. (5.11) is obtained by a curve fitting process and
is empirical. Hence, it is possible to establish a somewhat less complicated expression for
vci. Here we propose two expressions based on existing punching shear strength
equations, both of which will account for the effect of the reinforcement rigidity, the
concrete strength and punching perimeter relative size.
Proposed Equation 1
It may be noticed in column 10 of Table 5.1 that the Zaghloul and Razaqpur proposed
equation has the best mean and standard deviation compared to all the other existing
methods, but it also gives unconservative results for 14 of the specimens. Other methods
give more conservative results but they also have higher standard deviation. To improve
the Zaghloul and Razaqpur equation, a so-called shear perimeter size effect is introduced.
The size effect is already included in the Japanese recommendations and was observed
and reported by Vanderbilt (1972) and Zidan (1981). This parameter is denoted by ,
K
where d is the slab effective depth and b0 is the critical shear perimeter length. With this
modification Eq. (5.7) is rewritten as
249
0 .< s{ 5.16-jt + 0. M \ E FRPp f / c) n b0d
(5.12)
Note that this equation includes the effect of reinforcement rigidity, the concrete strength
and the shear perimeter size.
Results o f this equation are shown in column 15 of Table 5.1. We observe that the
mean of the test/predicted strength for this method is still better than the other existing
methods and it has the smallest standard deviation. Although it is still unconservative for
a number o f specimens the degree of unconservatism is smaller than before.
Proposed Equation 2
One problem with all the existing methods is that once the slab reinforcement becomes
very small, these methods predict its punching shear capacity to be practically negligible.
In the limit if p = 0, they yield vc = 0. This is clearly contrary to practical observations
and the real behaviour o f slabs. To rectify this problem, we assume that total shear
resistance of the slab comprises two components, a cohesion component and aggregate
interlock component. This would be similar to the conventional interfacial shear models
of the ACI and CSA codes. By splitting the shear resistance in this manner, the cohesion
term will always yield a certain shear resistance, irrespective of the amount of
reinforcement. The proposed equation given below was obtained empirically in this study
V o J
The results o f this, equation are compared with the experimental data in column 16 of
Table 5.1. we observe that the mean value of the test/predicted strength is 1.25 with a
250
standard deviation o f 0.154. Although these numbers are higher than those for the
proposed Equation 1, the latter equation has the advantage that practically all the
predicted strengths are on the conservative side and for slabs with relatively low
reinforcement ratio, it does not give unrealistically low punching shear capacity. The
equation is based on a Mohr-Coulomb type failure criterion, akin to the shear friction
equations of the ACI and CSA codes.
5.5.1.2 Steel Reinforced slabs

To check whether Eq. (5.12) can be applied to steel reinforced slabs, a small modification
was necessary by changing the coefficient 0.07 to 0.054 as follows
K ^ eel =
0-054 5 . l 6 y + 0.44
3b,d
(5.14)
where 5and p s are the elastic modulus and ratio of the slab steel reinforcement,
respectively.
Table 5.2 compares the results of this equation with corresponding experimental
data for a number of slabs tested by various investigators as indicated in column 1 of the
table. Also shown are the predictions of the ACI code equations in Column 9 of the table.
We can clearly see that the proposed equation gives better results than the ACI equation
albeit the ACI results are on the conservative side for all the slabs. The proposed equation
results are also on the conservative side, but not as highly conservative as the ACI. It can
therefore be concluded that the proposed equation captures the influence of the basic
parameters that affect the punching shear capacity of both steel and FRP reinforced slabs,
with or without column stubs.
251
5.5.2 FRP Reinforced Interior

Column-Slab
Transferring Shear and Moment
Connections
5.5.2.1 A C I Method
As stated previously to the writers knowledge the only work on punching shear behaviour
of column-slab connections with FRP reinforcement and subjected to shear and moment
is that by Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2004). Hence we will use the proposed Eqs. 5.12 and
5.13 to calculate the ultimate capacity of these specimens. These are referred to as
K,Propi and K,ProP 2 >in subsequent discussion. In addition, the ACI 318 vc limit will also
be used to check how it compares with the test values. It must be emphasized that ACI
does not recommend the use of the vc in ACI 318-05 to FRP reinforced concrete slabs.
Hence the comparison is only for reference purposes in this study. We will not use the
other investigators methods because as shown in the previous section they do not yield
better results than the proposed equations even for concentric punching. Table 5.3 shows
results of the analysis.
It is clear from the results in the latter table that the ACI 318 method gives very good
results for FRP reinforced interior column-slab connections under combined shear and
unbalanced moment. The Zaghloul and Razaqpur method gives unconservative results for
three specimens, but the mean value of the predicted strengths by this method is closer to
one, with standard deviation the same as the ACI method. The proposed equations 1 and
2 yield more conservative result and have higher standard deviation.
Although the ACI method yielded good results for these specimens, it may be
recalled that its results for the FRP reinforced slab-column connections under concentric
shear were highly conservative and not as accurate as those predicted by the proposed
252
equations. On the other hand, the proposed equations yielded more accurate results for
the concentric shear tests. Hence, it appears that no single method based on the ACI basic
method is able to provide consistently accurate results for all types of slab-column
connections.
In the following a more refined method will be used to find out whether this
method which utilizes the equilibrium and compatibility requirements will yield more
accurate results compared to the basic ACI method which is based on equilibrium
requirements only.
S.5.2.2 Proposed Refined Method

(A) Description o f the Refined Method
Based on the results of the tests presented in the last section, an alternative method is
proposed for predicting the punching shear strength of interior column-slab connections
in a flat plate structure transferring shear and moment. The method is essentially an
eccentric shear stress model with two main differences from that of the ACI. These
differences are related to the shape of the critical section for shear stress and to the
proportioning of the moment transferred by shear and flexure. The proposed critical
section is suggested after observing the actual failure surface in tests and is idealized as
shown in Figs. 5.3 and 5.4. The critical section is assumed to be located at a distance d/2
from the periphery of maximum compression lines around the column. This position of
the critical section conforms to the choice of the limiting shear stress v suggested by
Zaghloul and Razaqpur (2004) and by the ACI and CSA methods. In Fig. 5.4, EABF is
253
the periphery of maximum compression around the column and JGHK is the suggested
critical section.
The proposed method involves certain basic and simplifying assumptions; The First
assumption is that the compressive stresses induced in the reinforcing bars located in the
slab compression zone are negligible, and analogous to the usual bending analysis, the
slab compression zone is assumed uniformly stressed over a depth a at the ultimate limit
state. The second assumption is that the steel bars crossing the failure surface are
assumed to have yielded as nearly always the case in tests (Zaghloul and Ben-Sasi 2003).
The last assumption is that the concrete strain in the least stressed region normal to line
CD is negligible. Accordingly, the flexural moment induced in the slab along that line is
ignored. Following the foregoing assumptions, the main equations for predicting the
punching strength o f an interior connection transferring shear and moment are presented
below. The development of these equations for steel reinforced slabs has been given by
Zaghloul and Ben-Sasi (2003).
The total unbalanced moment, denoted as Mtu, acting at the centroid of the critical section
is computed using
M tu=M u +Vu y c,g,
(5.15)
where Vu and Mu are, respectively, the shear force and moment acting at the centre of the
column cross section, yc.g. is the distance between the centroid of the critical punching
shear section and the center of the column, see Fig. 5.4. The moment Mtu is assumed to be
internally equilibrated by two components; namely, the moment Mv or yv Mtu resisted by
eccentricity of shear at the critical section and moment Mf or yy Mtv , resisted by the
254
flexural resistance o f the slab over a width bf normal to the moment vector. Moment Mf is
calculated using the usual flexure formula, i.e.
Mf =bf f sP\d\
(5.16)
1 -0 .5 9 pi A
JcJ
while the bf value can be calculated as follows:
. _
.
bf =c2 + 2 1.5 ^ + (Cj tan (X
1.5f
2
.(
(5.17)
C2 ,
-
For square columns, bf is equal to (c2 + 2 c{) while for rectangular columns it is equal to
[C2 + 2 (1.5 f)] when c\ > 2 C2. Note that t is the slab thickness, dj is the slab effective
depth for tension reinforcement normal to moment vector, pi is the ratio of the tension
reinforcement placed normal to the moment vector. For steel reinforced slab the stress in
steel bars, f s , is set equal to f y while for FRP reinforced slab it is the maximum tensile
stress in FRP, fp , which is obtained by strain compatibility analysis as
f F - J & iA fc
'
e cu^F
, I
ec cu.ÊF A 2
( s'c m, E F '
Fu
(5.18)
Pf
in which, a\ = 0.85, ecu = 0.003. Note fpis the stress in FRP reinforcement due to ultimate
flexural moment at the critical section and f Fu is its strength. To avoid confusion, the
subscript F is used to denote FRP while subscript/ denotes flexure. As usual, P\ is 0.85
for concrete strength up to 4000 psi (28 MPa). For strengths above 4000 psi, [i\ shall be
reduced continuously at a rate of 0.05 for each 1000 psi (7 MPa) in excess of 4000 psi,
but shall not be less than 0.65. The preceding procedure is consistent with the ACI
255
approach for flexural analysis, but the CSA uses different fix and a x values. The fraction
yv is now given by:
rv
M
=
(5.19)
1-
Substituting from Eq. (5.15) into Eq. (5.19) gives:
Vu
(5.20)
M + . (cx + d)/3
Vu 2 [^(l + V2 ) + l]_
where r is a factor determined through least squares regression equation as found in
r v =r 1 -
Zaghloul and Ben-Sasi (2003):
M
Mf
r = 1.142-0.008 -(c, +d) 0 . 4 9 8 - ^
Vu
Vu rB'
(5.21)
The factor P is the aspect ratio of the shear critical section around the column stub
defined as
J3=cx+d_
c2 +d
(5.22)
The ultimate shear stress is calculated using
v = + lJL- L
A
jc
< V.
(5.23)
Where vc is the maximum permitted shear stress in the connection, and
AC=(LX+2L2+Li ')d
(5.24)
The lengths L\ is GH, Li is HK (or GJ) and Z3 is KJ and they are the lengths of the sides
of the critical section in Fig. 5.4. Similarly y\ and yz are the distances of lines GH and KJ,
respectively, from the centroid of the critical section in Fig. 5.4. The quantity Jc is
calculated using
It should be mentioned that Jc in Eq. 5.25 can be replaced by an alternative expression as

suggested by ACI 421.1R-99 (1999).
(b) Comparison o f test results to predicted values by the refined method
Using the Zaghloul and Razaqpur expression for vc, we set vu = vc in Eq. 5.23 to
calculate the punching shear capacity of the slab-column connections tested by the writer.
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 5.4. The table gives the geometric and
material properties of the tested slab-column connections as well as their predicted
strength according to the proposed methods. It can be seen that the ACI method gives
safe but somewhat conservative estimate of the observed strengths, while the ZaghloulRazaqpur method overestimate the strength of two specimens. The Zaghloul and
Razaqpur Vc shows less scatter than the ACI method and is overall less conservative.
In analyzing slab-column connection ZJF6 and ZJF 8 , which have rectangular columns
sides i.e. columns with aspect ratio greater than one, the effect of column rectangularity
was taken into consideration. It was reported in Chapter 2 based on test results by
Hawkins and Corley (1971), Hawkins (1971), Zaghloul (1971) and Zidan (1981) that the
shear strength of a connection is reduced as the aspect ratio of the column deviates from
one. In this investigation, comparison of shear strength of interior column-slab
connections ZJF1, ZJF 6 and ZJF 8 , which have column sizes 250x250, 350x250,250x350
mm respectively, reveals their shear strength ratios to be 1, 0.61, and 0.77, relative to
257
shear strength of connection ZJF1 respectively. This comparison shows a reduction of
23% and 33% compared to the strength of connection ZJF1, which has a square column.
In reporting the results in Table 5.4 reduction in strength of 25% was applied when
analyzing connections ZJF 6 and ZJF 8 .
The proposed Eq. 5.12 estimates quite well the capacity of the indicated specimens.
Although the latter predicted results are conservative, they are still well within the
acceptable range for shear design. Note that the ACI vc expression in conjunction with
the proposed refined method also gives excellent prediction of the strength of the tested
specimens.
It is important to point out that the proposed model of the critical section and the refined
method of analysis predict the capacities of the FRP reinforced slab column connections
with the same degree o f accuracy as it predicts the strength of steel reinforced
connections. Furthermore, the use of the limiting ultimate shear at the critical section
periphery using the method proposed for the ultimate shear strength of FRP reinforced
slabs-column connections by the writer, is suitable in conjunction with the proposed
method of calculating v because the results are on the safe side but not excessively
conservative.
5.5.5 Edge
Column-Slab Connections Transferring Shear and

Unbalanced Moment
The punching shear capacity o f edge column slab connections can be predicted using Eq.
5.3. In using this equation one must decide on the values of vc and b0, i.e. the critical
shear perimeter location. ACI 318 recommends the critical shear location at d/2 from the
258
column faces, but the actual failure surface may deviate from the latter assumed location.
In this section we will calculate the punching shear capacity of the edge column
specimens using both the ACI recommendations and an assumed critical shear perimeter
that is closer to the actual punching shear perimeter as observed in tests. We will also
substitute vc Propl and vc Plop2 for vc in Eq. 5.3 to calculate the nominal punching shear
capacity of the FRP reinforced specimens. The critical shear section for edge column-slab
connection according to ACI 318(ACI 2005) are shown in Fig. 5.5. The figure also shows
how the Jc and other properties of the section can be calculated.
Figure 5.6 illustrates an edge column-slab connection and a proposed critical
shear perimeter as observed in tests. Figure 5.7(a) shows the plan view of the edge
column critical shear perimeter while Fig. 5.7(b) shows the typical distribution of stresses
along the same parameter. The geometric properties of the parameter can be determined
as indicated in Figs. 5.6(a) and (b), for the cases of free edge of the slab being flush with
the column edge and not being flush, respectively.
The preceding critical shear perimeter is closer to the real punching shear
perimeter because the slab strips parallel to the moment vector are subjected to high
torsional and bending moments, which can be resolved into a single moment acting at an
inclined angle to the sides of the column. On the other hand, the slab strips perpendicular
to the moment vector are primarily subjected to bending moment.
Table 5.5 shows the results of the analysis for the edge column specimens tested
in the current investigation using the ACI critical shear location recommendations. The
vc values used to calculate the nominal shear capacities are those according to ACI 318
and the proposed Eqs. (5.12) and (5.13), respectively. However, since specimen ZJES is
259
steel reinforced, the proposed Eq. (5.14) was used to calculate its strength as indicated in
columns 11 and 12 of the table.
We can see that once again the ACI results are somewhat more conservative than
either proposed methods 1 or 2, but the latter methods results are less conservative than
found earlier when investigating interior column-slab connections. Both proposed
methods predict the capacity of the slabs rather well, but Eq. (5.12) gives the best results,
with a mean value of test/predicted strength of 1.156 and standard deviation of 9.5%.
Furthermore, all the predicted strength is on the safe side. Steel reinforced slabs were also
analyzed using Equation 5.14 and the results are shown in Appendix B, Table B.l, which
indicates that they are on the conservative side.
Table 5.6 shows the calculated punching shear capacities of the preceding
specimens using the punching shear perimeter with inclined sides, Fig. 5.7. We observe
that for FRP reinforced specimens the predicted strength values based on the ACI and the
proposed vc values are less accurate than the corresponding values calculated based on
the ACI recommended critical shear perimeter.
Since the ACI recommendations are much simpler to apply and since they yield
results that closely agree with experimental values, it is recommended that the critical
shear perimeter for FRP reinforced slabs be located the same as for steel reinforced slabs
in accordance with the ACI 318 recommendations. For the value of vc, it is
recommended that the proposed Eq. (5.13) be used instead of the ACI recommendations.
To gauge the applicability of the proposed equations for vc and the position of the
critical shear perimeter, a number of edge column-slab connections with steel
260
reinforcement were also analyzed. Because the focus of this study is FRP reinforced
slabs, the latter results are shown in Table B.2 of appendix B, and it cab be observed that
they are in good agreement with available experimental data. However, the ACI method
also yields reasonable results and is generally conservative.
5.5.4 Refined method for predicting the punching shear strength of

FRP reinforced edge column specimen using the proposed nonrectangular critical shear perimeter
This method follows the same basic approach used earlier for the analysis of interior
column-slab connections with slabs reinforced with FRP and the only difference that bf
is assumed to be given by the following equation.
bf =c2 + d
(5.26)
where, bf is the width across which the flexural moment is resisted at an edge columnslab connection. This width is smaller than that used in the case of interior connections
since in edge column connections flexural moment was found to be more localized near
the south face of the column. The reduced width can be ascertained by examining
experimental strain measurements on the reinforcing bars crossing the slab-column
interfaces. The properties of the critical shear area Ac and J c, associated with edge
column-slab connection, are given in Figs. 5.6 and 5.7.
Table 5.7 shows the predicted punching shear strength of the edge column
specimens according to the proposed critical shear perimeter and using either the ACI
recommended vc or the ones proposed in this investigation (Eqs. 5.12 and 5.13). For the
steel reinforced specimen ZJES, vc as given in Eq. 5.14, was applied rather than that
261
given by Eq. 5.12. Steel reinforced slabs were also analysed by the proposed method and
the results are given in Table B.3 of Appendix B.
It is clear from the results in Table 5.7 that the non-rectangular critical shear
perimeter does not give results that are as good as those given by using the ACI critical
shear perimeter, irrespective of the vc value used. Both the mean and standard deviation
of the ratio of observed or test strength to the predicted strength are higher than those
obtained using the ACI recommended critical shear perimeter. Consequently, the use of
the non-rectangular section is not recommended for FRP reinforced column-slab
connections.
5.5.5 Semi-Analytical method for calculating the punching shear
capacity o f edge column-slab connections.

The need for a rational or semi-analytical model exists due to its potential generality and
applicability to both FRP and steel reinforced slabs. Such a model needs to be based on a
punching shear perimeter that is closer to that observed in this research program. A
method is proposed here that will follow the approach originally proposed by Zaghlool (
1971), Zaghlool and de Paiva (1973 a,b) and later verified by Zidan (1981). Their model
requires an iterative process which could be time consuming. In the following a non
iterative simplified approach for calculating the punching shear capacity of edge columnslab connections is proposed. The model takes into account the effect of the major
parameters which affect the punching capacity of the slab, including the steel or FRP
reinforcement and concrete. It will be seen that satisfactory results can be obtained using
262
the proposed model despite some assumptions that make it theoretically less rigorous
than the original model of Zaghlool (1971).
S. 5.5.1 M odel Formulation
(a) B a s ic a s s u m p tio n s
The model is to be used to predict the ultimate strength of an edge column-slab

connection with a given reinforcement configuration and subjected to combined
bending and shear. The approach involves satisfaction of both equilibrium and
compatibility conditions at failure. In addition, the concrete in the compression zone is
assumed to have reached some critical stress condition.
To satisfy the above conditions, certain assumptions are necessary. Most of these will
be discussed in the following, others will be discussed when they first appear in the
derivation
1. At failure, concrete under tension is assumed to have zero strength.
2. All the steel reinforcement crossing the failure crack is assumed to be stressed
uniformly.
3. The concrete in compression above the neutral axes is also assumed to be uniformly
stressed over a portion o f the slab depth, similar to the usual flexural analysis for beams
and slabs
4. Area of the reinforcement per unit length is constant within the column region.
5. The reinforcement in compression zone is neglected when considering the
equilibrium o f forces due to the fact that the depth o f concrete in compression is very
263
small in slabs and the steel in compression is usually close to the neutral axes.
Zaghlool (1971), measured the strain in the compression steel in two cases and those
measurements support this assumption.
6. The resultants of the shear and compressive stresses within the compression zone act at
the same level.
In considering the strength of the compression zone, it will be assumed as an
approximation, that the average compression and shear stresses are distributed in the
compression zone according to the familiar rectangular stress block and are designated as
f ca and vca, respectively. It is obvious that the shear and compressive stresses vary
continuously along and across the compression zone, Fig. 5.8a, and it is the combination
of these stresses in the compression zone which leads to failure. The ratio of the average
shear stress to compressive stress, vca / f ca, closely relates to the most critical
combination of shear and compressive stresses in the failure zone. The effect of the
presence of shear stresses in the compression zone is to reduce its compressive strength
capacity as well as its rotational capacity.
Full consideration o f the strength of concrete under a complex state of stress is
outside the scope of this thesis, but in the present analysis the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion will be applied. Although this criterion may not be applicable to concrete under
a state of triaxial stress, it has proven reliable for concrete under in plane stress conditions
(Cowan (1953), Guralnik (1959), Hepworth (1969), Sheik et al. (1968), Walther (1964).
Several variations of Mohr-Coulomb failure theory have been proposed (Cowan
(1953), Guralnik 1959, Kinnunen and Nylander (1960), Walther (1964)). The writer has
utilized the form proposed of Sheik et al. (1968) which yields the relation to be
264
subsequently presented. For more details one may refer to, Sheik et al. (1968), Zaghloul
(1971) and Hepworth (1969).
By reference to Fig. 5.9, Guralnik (1959) used the straight line envelope based on pure
tensile and compressive strength circles (Circle 2 and 1 Fig. 5.9). Sheikh, De paiva and
Neville (1968) adopted a similar approach but instead of pure tension, pure shear (Circle
3) was used since the stresses at failure in the majority of beams and slabs lie between
pure shear and pure compression circles. They concluded that the assumption of a straight
line envelope within this limited range of stresses seemed justified. The relation used is
- =
fc
o 2 +
o ( l - 2 o ) ( ^ )
+ ( o 2 + o ) ( - ^ f ) 2
fc
(5 .2 7 )
fc
Where
vCa= average shear stress on the failure plane
f ca = average compressive stress on the failure plane
f r = modulus o f rupture o f concrete

f 'c = compressive strength of concrete
Let
= kp
to be determined from equilibrium consideration as shown later
fc a
+
Jc
J 'C
+ )(4 -)2
(5.28)
J c
Rearranging Eq. 5.28

(co2 - to - k \ ) ( J p f + o (l - 2co) (isL) + a? = o
fC
fc
(5.29)
265
which yields
(5.30)
Solution o f this equation gives two values for
one o f which will be negative or

c
greater than one and should be discarded. It is apparent that if kp = 0

f
dm 2
i.e. concrete achieves its full compressive strength without concomitant shear
The effect o f choosing different values for co can be easily assessed. For this work, the
value o f the modulus o f rupture,
for the shear circle was taken as0.75-y f'c according
to Comite European du Beton (1964).
(b) Model Development
In this sub-section the method for the analysis of an edge column connection
subjected to axial load and a bending moment in a plane perpendicular to the free edge
of flat plate structure is given. The assumed idealized failure perimeter depicted in Fig.
5.8 as initially proposed by Zaghlool (1971), and this was found to be in reasonable
agreement with the failure profiles observed in the present research program, (see
Chapter 4). The development will follow the following basic steps.
266
First, consider one o f the skew sides of the failure surface shown in Fig. (5.8a ).
Equilibrium o f internal forces perpendicular to the plane of compression gives
fc a s X s ( c 2 + 2 ) = / ,
where
A s a + f s p A sp
- ) C
( 5 -3 1 )
a = column side perpendicular to the free edge of slab

a = distance from the first bar parallal to the slab edge to the slab edge, (see
Fig. 5.8a)
A s = reinforcement passing through the column side a
Asp = steel perpendicular to the free edge
c = projection o f the neutral axis on the free edge o f the slab
fc a s=
f s
fs P
average concrete compressive stress in the compression zone.
= stress in reinforcement passing by column side.

= stress in reinforcement perpendicular to free edge
1= tJ c 2 + a 2
s = spacing of the steel bars placed perpendicular to the free edge of the slab
xs = Xj in the idealized failure surface = depth of equivalent rectangular stress
block from the top of compressive surface of the slab = (Kud)
Ku = ratio o f the depth of the compression zone at failure to the effective
depth o f the slab.
= see Fig. 5.8a
Equilibrium o f the internal forces parallel to the neutral axis gives
vchx,(.c2 + a2) = f s A ,c + f
(1 --)
a
(5.32)
267
where vch- the average shear stress in the compression zone parallel to the neutral
axis.
Equilibrium o f the internal and external forces in the direction of the applied
axial load gives
(5.33)
where
V - is the total axial load acting on the connection.
vcyb = average shear stress in the compression zone o f the failure section perpendicular
to the plane o f applied bending moment, and perpendicular to the neutral axis
vcys = average shear stress in the compression zone o f the skew section and
perpendicular to its neutral axis.
xb
= x 2 in idealized failure surface = the depth of the equivalent concrete

compression block o f the failure surface that is perpendicular to the plane
o f applied moment.
If it is assumed that the part of the axial load to be transferred to the slab through a
column side is equal to the ratio of the side length to the total length o f the three sides
o f the column, then
(5.34)
Substituting from (5.34) into (5.33) yields:
(5.35)
268
Considering the equilibrium of the internal and external moments about an axis
through the centre o f compression and parallel to the neutral axis yields
M sc = f sAs a ( d - 0.5 xs) + f sp Asp- ( l - ) ( t - d '- 0 . 5 x s)c
S
(5.36)
(X
Next, consider the equilibrium condition of the
section o f the failure
perpendicular to the plane o f the applied moment.Equilibrium of the
surface
internal forces
perpendicular to the neutral axis of this section gives

fcab^b - nfsplAspX
(5.37)
where,
fcab= average compressive stress in the compression zone perpendicular to the
neutral axis
n = number of steel bars, in tension, that crosses the inner column face
Aspi = area o f one bar
f spi = stress in the steel Aspi
Equilibrium o f the external and internal moment about an axis parallel to the
neutral axis gives,
M - 2M S- M v = f eabxb{t - d'-0.5xb)
(5.38)
where,
Ms = moment resisted by the slab section on one side of the column
M = total external moment acting on the connection
Mv = bending moment produced by the eccentricity of the part of the column
load transferred to the slab on the inside face of the column
269
M
Vb
(2 a + b)
V = total axial force acting on the column
To facilitate the analysis, Eq. (5.36) can be written in the following form
M sc = C6
(5.39a)
where
C6 = f,A ,a ( d - 0.5x,) + /
i - f l - ~ \ t - d -0.5x,)c
s
a
(5.39b)
Substituting for Ms from Eq. (5.38) into Eq. (5.39 a) gives

c
'
Vbci
- (M - f c^ bK < - d - 0.5,6) - ^ - ^ ) = C6
If we let = r in the above relation we obtain

V
which yields
C6 + |
V =
fca b x b b ( t ~ d '~ - 5 x b )
yc
2
-----------------
abc
4(2 a + b)
(5.40a)
From Eq. (5.37) f cab xb b = n f sp\ Aspl

Therefore, Eq. (5.40 a) can be rewritten in the following form
c 6 + ^ n fspiAsPi ( t- d '- 0 .5 x b)
V
(5.40 b)
Yc
2
abc
4(2 a + b)
Substituting for V from Eq. (5.40 b) into Eq. (5.35) yields
270
Q + T f spiApi (t-d '~ 0 .5 x b)
VcySX s ^ C 2
+ a2
abc
4(2 a + b)
- ( 1-
(2 a + b)
Rearranging the terms in the above expression gives
^cys
(c6 + - n f splAspl( t- d '- 0 .5 x b) ) ( \ - - - - ^ )

2
y y
(2 a + b)
abc
(2 X^ c 2 + a2) ^ )
2 4(2 a+b)
For simplicity this expression can be written as

vv cys =
( C 7)
(5.41 a)
(2 xs^ c 2 + a2)
where
( c 6- f
l4l ( t - d '- 0.5x*)XI 2
J ~ r )
abc
)
4(2 a + b)
(5.41 b)
Also Eq. (5.32) can be written as
v ch
C8
(5.42 a)
xs (c2 + a2)
where
(5.42 b)
From Eqs. (5.41 a) and (5.42 a) the resultant o f the average shear stresses in the
compression zone can be expressed as
2
:= i j vch+v<
cys
271
Cl
C 7_
2
x l(c + a )
4 xi;(cz
f + a z)
Therefore,
_ yj C l + C 2(c2 + a 2) / 4
Vc~
(5.43)
xs(c2 + a2)
Dividing Eq, (5.43) by Eq. (5.31) yields

a/ c8
2+ C7V
VC
+ 2)/4
2c
a' *cas
f sAsa + f spAsp (1 - ) c
s
a
(5.44 a)
Alternatively,
(5.44 b)
Yc ~ k**ps Jf cas
where,
V c 82 + C7V + a 2) / 4
a'
+
(i--)c
s
a
(5.44 c)
From Eq. (5.38)
M - 2(2a + o)
M=
+^
* (' -
As before l e t ^ = y , expression (5.45 a) leads to
n r - * = 2M , + / ^ ( t -rf'-o .5 x t )
2(2a + 6)
Rearranging the above expression gives
(5.45 a)
272
2 M s + f cabxbb(t - d'-0.5xb)
ab
r ~ 2(2 a + b)
(5.45b)
This again can be rewritten in the following form

2M s + n f sp\Asp\(t - d'-0.5xb)
ab
7 ~ 2(2a + b)
(5.45 c)
Substitute for V from Eq. (5.45 c) into Eq. (5.33)

2M s + n f x A x( t- d '- 0 .5 x b)
/ 2
2
Vcybxbb = ------------^ ------------------ 2vcys xsi c + a
=A**
(5.46 a)
Y ~ 2(2a + b)
where,
/<**
n f s p i A sp\ { t d 0 . 5 ^ )
,4 * * = ------------- -
i 2
2vrv, x, Vc + a
jf
(5.46 b)
r _ 2(2a + &)
Dividing Eq. (5.46 a) by Eq. (5.37)
**
^cyb ~
r
a
n fsp \-^ s p l
^cyb
^p b ^cab
fcab
(5.47)
or
(5.48 a)
where
(5.48 b)
kpb
!fs p l^ s p l
273
5.5.4.2 M odel Implementation Procedure
Equilibrium Analysis
For most of the analyzed edge column connections the values of kps as given by
v
Eq. (5.44 c), which may also be defined as kps = - 2 L y and kPb> which may be defined
fc a s
Vcyb
also as kpb = - ^ ranges between 0.40 and 0.45. Eq. 5.30 gives the relationships
fc a b
between
, kp and co (defined as the ratio of the modulus of rupture of concrete, f r , to
fc
its compressive strength,/J). If the relationship between kp and
fc a
...
is plotted it would
fc
appear as in Fig. 5.10, For kp between 0.4 and 0.5 Fig. 5.10 gives
f
:L~ = 0.5 and
fc
fcab_^ o.5
fc
Considering the above values, one proceeds as follows to perform the analysis:
1. calculate c, the projection of the main side crack parallel to the inner face of the
column, Fig. 5.8. Assuming x, the depth of the neutral axis, as 0 or another small value, c
is calculated using the following relation
c = t +a tan (90-f3) - x
where /3 is shown in Figure 5.8a
f
f
2. Assuming ^ = 0.5 and
/J c
J/ c
- 0.5 then, the values xs and xb can be determined
using Eqs. 5.31 and 5.37, knowing the reinforcement configuration in the column-slab
connection zone.
3. Calculate C6 using Eq. 5.39 b
274
4. Calculate V, the total shear capacity of the slab-column connection, using either Eq.
5.40 ao rE q . 5.40 b.
5. Calculate Ms using Eq. 5.39 a.
6. Calculate Mv from the portion of the unbalanced moment produced by the eccentricity
of the part o f the column load transferred to the slab at the inner face of the column
_
V c2 * C1
2 c, + c2 2
7. Calculate M, the moment capacity of the slab-column connection, using Eq. 5.38.
8. For steel reinforced slabs the stress in steel bars, f s, is set equal to f y. For FRP
reinforced slabs a difficulty can arise when finding the stress in the non-yielding FRP
reinforcement o f the slab-column connection. One way for overcoming this problem is to
consider the maximum stress in FRP,7/r, which can be reached by using (Eq. 5.18) in this
chapter. The values offp calculated by using Eq. 5.18 were found not to be in conformity
with the actual measured values but were somewhat higher than the experimental values
and will be dealt with later.
5.5.4.3 Model Verification and Comparison with Test Results

The proposed method of analysis was checked against available data found in the
literature. Table 5.8 shows that the average V teJ VcaiCuiated is 0.95 and its standard
deviation is 0.13 for all the specimens, including steel and FRP reinforced test specimens,
but for FRP reinforced test specimens alone, the average Vtest/ VcaiCuiated is 0.85 and with a
standard deviation of 0.10. These results are deemed to be good knowing that the results
are sensitive to the steel distribution in the slab-column connection and to the anchorage
of the reinforcing bars placed perpendicular to the slab free edge and crossing the major
275
inclined torsional crack at the column sides, which are not readily known. Only a few test
specimens deviate significantly from the calculated results; they are Specimens C/E/1 in
Stamenkovic and Chapman test series, specimen LI in Lamb test series, and specimens
SE1 and SE4 in the Regan test series.
In the absence of precise knowledge regarding the type of anchorage and exact
disposition of steel reinforcing bars perpendicular to the free edges of the slabs, it may be
justified to consider an efficiency reduction factor to account for these factors. A
reduction factor of 0.9 was assumed by setting the steel stress at failure equal to 0.9 /
As mentioned earlier, assuming the FRP reinforcement that is located adjacent to the
column sides to have reached its maximum stress as given by Eq. 5.18 does not agree
with experimental data. Therefore, a suitable reduction factor has to be applied to account
for this observation and to account for possible loss of bond slip. A reduction factor of
0.8 is suggested in this study. The reduction factor for the stress in the steel that crosses
the slab-column interfaces (i.e. east and west column sides) is proposed to be 0.75
because it is well anchored in the concrete that is subjected to high compressive stresses
due to the axial load acting on the column. These factors will account for the difference
between the actual stress and the calculated stress in this reinforcement. The analysis
results considering the above-mentioned reductions in reinforcing bars stresses are
remarkably good as observed in Table 5.9. The average Vtest/ VcaiCuiated is found to be 1.03
and the standard deviation is 0.14, with coefficient of variation of 0.14 for all the
traditionally steel and FRP reinforced test connections. For FRP reinforced test
specimens alone, the average Vtest/ VcaiCuiated is found to be 0.99, with standard deviation
276
of 0.08, and coefficient of variation of 0.08 which shows that the results in both cases are
remarkably good and acceptable from the practical points of view.
Note, however, that this method still gives values that are not on the conservative side in
some cases. Given the complexity of this method and its relative accuracy, compared to
the standard ACI method, it is difficult to justify its application in practice, but from the
research point of view, since it uses the equilibrium and compatibility requirements, it
still has some merit. Clearly, further improvements are needed to make its results more
accurate.
5.5.6 Analysis o f slab-column connections by using Afhami et al.

method (1998).
Afhami et al. ( 1998 ) modified the strip model that was first introduced by Alexander
(1994). Afhami et al. strip model was described in Chapter 2. In that model the slabcolumn connection is divided into strips and quadrants. For edge column-slab
connections the strips are divided into two spandrel strips and a radial strip that are
parallel and perpendicular to the free edge, respectively, (see Fig. 2.9). The Strip Model
describes the transfer o f loads between slab and columns in term of beam action and
arching action. Non-proportional behaviour of the strips, where not all of the strips are
loaded to their nominal capacity, was also recognized in the model. The failure of the
connection occurs when the load in any one strip exceeds its ultimate capacity. The share
of the load being applied to each strip is determined by considering both equilibrium and
compatibility of deformations.
277
Figure 2.9 shows the free body diagram of an edge column connection according to the
strip model. The total load to be transferred through the connection, p, and the moment at
the centreline of the column, M, are expressed in terms of interaction diagram, Fig. 2.10,
which shows a typical interaction diagram.
The strip model will be applied to analyse the slab-column connections without shear
reinforcement after adapting it for non-yielding FRP reinforcement in the slab. When
calculating the flexural capacity of the strips, the adaption involves evaluation of the
tensile stress in the FRP reinforcement,^-, by strain compatibility as given by Eq. 5.18.
The calculation involves the combination of shear and moment acting on the column-slab
connection which would cause the connection to fail. The calculated values for each point
on the interaction diagram for all the tested connections are given in Table 5.10 , along
with the corresponding interaction diagrams, Figs. 5.12 through 5.17. The analyses using
the proposed modification and the corresponding interaction diagrams show that the
predicted punching shear capacities are on the conservative side. Again, although this
model appears to be more rational than the standard ACI method, it is also more complex
and its results are not in good agreement as the ACI method with the experimental data
5.6 Analysis of slab-column connections with shear reinforcement

In this section the ultimate strength of the specimens with shear reinforcement will be
determined using the basic ACI approach. The requirements and limits for the provision
of shear reinforcement are assumed to follow the limits set forth by ACI-318-05 Code
Standard or the ACI Committee 421 (1992) recommendations.
278
5.6.1 Analysis Method

The analysis method to be used is essentially the same as the basic ACI method as
described in section 5.2. We begin by calculating the nominal punching shear stress at
failure for each specimen using Eq.(5.1). The Vu and M u used in these equations are the
shear force and bending moment values measured at failure for the relevant specimen in
the test. The critical punching shear perimeter will be assumed to be either at d/2 from the
column faces or at d/2 from the last row of legs of shear reinforcement. The geometric
property J c used in Eq. (5.1) is calculated for the interior column-slab and edge columnslab connections as indicated in Figs. (5.17a) and (5.17b), respectively. The parameter yv
is calculated using Eq. (5.2).
Next, the punching shear strength of each specimen is calculated using the usual
(vc +vs ) approach. However, the capacity of the connection is limited by the maximum
allowable value o f the punching shear stress of the slab, regardless o f the amount and
type (CFRP versus steel) of shear reinforcement. The calculated shear capacity of each
specimen is then compared to the measured nominal shear stress to assess the
applicability of this approach to specimens with mixed CFRP and steel reinforcement.
According to ACI 318-05, the maximum allowable value of the nominal shear
stress at d/2 from the column faces is 0 . 5 while at d/2 from the outermost periphery
of the shear reinforcement legs is 0 . 1 6 7 . In other words, in the shear reinforced zone
(vc + vj) - 0-5<\[fc . In the present analysis, this limit will be complied with.
279
When calculating vc, the ACI recommendation for slabs with shear reinforcement
will be followed. It may be recalled that according to ACI vc = 0 . 1 6 7 (MPa) for
slabs with shear reinforcement made of stirrups and Q25^[fc (MPa) for those with
headed steel stud shear reinforcement. In this study, the CFRP shear reinforcement will
be treated the same as stirrups because this reinforcement does not have the kind of wide
heads that enable the steel studs to effectively confine the concrete in its vicinity.
Additionally In addition, vc will be calculated using half the values given by
equations (5.12) and (5.13). Since the ACI equation neglects the effect of slab flexural
reinforcement and its properties on vc , we will find out whether this is reasonable for
CFRP reinforced slabs with shear reinforcement. Eq. (5.12) and (5.13) explicitly include
the effect of the slab flexural reinforcement rigidity. When calculating
for the slabs
with CFRP shear reinforcement, the stress in the CFRP shear reinforcement is assumed
equal to 0.25 f Fu, where f Fu is the ultimate strength of the FRP. Alternatively, the
maximum permissible strain in the CFRP shear reinforcement may be assumed to be
0.003. The strain limit is more appealing because it can be related to the maximum crack
width that is bridged by the shear reinforcement legs. As stated earlier, limiting the crack
width is crucial to the effectiveness of the aggregate interlock mechanism, which is
represented by vc . It is recognized that the above limit is tentative. Clearly further
investigation is required to confirm its general validity.
280
5. 6.2 Results o f the Analysis
Table 5.11 shows the maximum nominal shear stress in each specimen based on
the observed failure load, designated as vuTest and its maximum permissible value
according to the ACI. These values are calculated for two critical punching shear
sections, one at d/2 from the column faces and the other at d/2 from outermost periphery
of the shear reinforcement legs.
The calculated nominal stress is also expressed as a fraction of
. We can
clearly see that with the exception of specimen ZJEFCS, for all the other specimens, the
ACI limit applies. Furthermore, none of the specimens has more than 16% higher
strength than the maximum value based on that limit. For most specimens, their actual
strength values are within 6% o f the same limit.
It is clear from these results that the ACI limit on the maximum punching shear
capacity of slabs with shear reinforcement applies to these specimens. Hence, the upper
limit is independent of the type or amount of shear and flexural reinforcement in the slab.
Specimen ZJEFCS did not reach the limit value at failure; this does not invalidate
the early statement with respect to the applicability of the ACI upper limit. Clearly, a slab
could fail at lower shear stress than the maximum permissible value. We will see next
whether its strength could be predicted by the method of analysis described in section
5.6.1.
Let us now calculate the punching shear capacity of these specimens using the
(ve + Vj) approach method described earlier Tables 5.12 to 5.14 show the predicted
punching shear strength of the tested specimens as well as their actual or measured
281
strength. These tables differ in the manner in which vcis calculated. The vc values
shown in tables 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14 are calculated based on the ACI recommendations,
Eq. (5.12) and Eq. (5.13), respectively.
It is clear from these tables that without respecting the upper limit on shear
strength imposed by the ACI, the results would be highly unsafe. This is particularly true
for the specimens with steel stud reinforcement. Furthermore, the proposed equations and
the ACI recommended vc value give similar results. Whether the latter is coincidence or
a reflection of the true behaviour of these specimens is not evident, but the proposed
equations are more rational because they explicitly account for the effect of certain
parameters that are known to affect punching shear. Consequently the writer prefers that
they be used instead of the ACI recommendation.
Since most o f the v
edicted values in Tables (5.12) to (5.14) exceed the upper
limit of shear stress values given in Table 5.11, it is obvious that the calculated strength
values should be limited to the maximum allowable values for each specimen per Table
5.11.
Following the above procedure, Table 5.15 gives the new calculated punching
shear capacity o f the tested specimens. For all the specimens, except specimen ZJF9,
their strength is limited by the maximum permissible value of the punching shear as
indicated in Table 5.11. For specimen ZJF9 whose vc + vs < vc max, regardless of how vc
is calculated, we have selected the predicted value according to vc
, + vi in Table
5.13. Choosing one of the other two values in table 5.12 or 5.14 would give equally good
prediction.
282
We can see in Table 5.15 that the actual and predicted punching shear stress
values compare well. Although the results for specimen ZJEFCS axe on the non
conservative side, they are still within 10% of the actual value. Clearly the results for four
specimens are very good while for one specimen it is somewhat conservative. Overall in
the writers opinion they are satisfactory
5.7 Summary
In this chapter a number of existing and new methods were applied to calculate
the punching shear capacity of both interior column and edge column slab connections.
The methods were applied to both steel reinforced and FRP reinforced slabs, with and
without shear reinforcement
The two significant perimeters which govern the punching shear strength of slabs; viz.;
the shear strength o f concrete, vc, and the location of the critical shear perimeter, were
calculated using existing methods as well as proposed new methods. In addition,
procedures similar to the ACI 318-05 were employed to calculate the punching shear
capacity of the specimens tested in the current research program.
Since the ACI method is primarily empirical, derived based on results of steel
reinforced slab-column connections, its applicability to FRP reinforced slab-column
connections is not evident. On the other hand, semi-analytical or rational methods that
rely on equilibrium and compatibility requirements are more likely to be applicable to
slabs reinforced with steel or FRP. For this reason, such rational methods were applied to
the current test specimens.
283
The results of these analyses indicated that the basic ACI 318-05 method in
conjunction with the proposed vc expressions give very reasonable estimate of both the
FRP and steel reinforced interior column and edge column-slab connections. The semianalytical method also gives reasonable results, but it requires significantly more effort to
calculate the strength of the connection. Hence, it is difficult to justify its application in
practical design situations.
For the column-slab connections with shear reinforcement, the existing ACI
method was found to be satisfactory, irrespective of the type of reinforcement. In using
the latter method, the FRP shear reinforcement must be treated the same as steel stirrups
and not the same as headed shear studs. Furthermore, it is tentatively proposed that the
maximum stress in the CFRP shear reinforcement be limited to one quarter of its rupture
strength or its maximum strain be limited to 0.003, whichever yields smaller stress. It is
also proposed that the vc expression given by Eq. (5.12) be used instead of the ACI
recommended value, for slabs with flexural reinforcement that has very low rigidity, Eq.
(5.13) may yield better results than Eq. (5.12) and should be used.
Table 5.1: Comparison o: observed and predicted punching shear capacity o f FRP slabs under concentric shear
1
R e fe r e n c e
sla b
S N 'l
A hm ad
SN 2
E ta l
SN 3
SN 4
(1 9 9 4 )
B a n th ia
I
e t a l (1 9 9 5 )
II
SG I
ELG handour S C I
SG 2
E ta l
(2 0 0 3 )
SG 3
SC 2
M a tth y s
& T aerw e
(2 0 0 0 )
d
C o lu m n R e in f.
ty p e
s iz e
(m m )
(m m )
Ca
S75
61
Ca
61
S75
Ca
S100
61
Ca
61
S100
Ca
55
C 100
Ca
55
C 100
142
G
S200
S200
S200
S200
S200
C 150
C 230
C 150
C 230
C 150
C 230
C 150
C 230
C 150
C 150
C 80
C 150
C 80
Ca
G
G
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
H
H
H
H
H
142
142
142
142
96
96
95
95
126
126
95
95
95
89
89
122
122
10
f 'c
Pf
E frp
V c,Test
(M P a )
4 2 .4 0
4 4 .6 0
3 9 .0 0
3 6 .6 0
4 1 .0 0
5 2 .9 0
3 3 .3 0
(% )
0 .9 5
0 .9 5
0 .9 5
0 .9 5
0 .3 1
0 .3 1
0 .1 8
(G P a )
113
113
113
113
100
100
45
(k N )
93
78
96
99
65
61
170
v c.Z&R
3 4 .7 0
4 6 .6 0
3 0 .3 0
2 9 .6 0
3 6 .7 0
3 7 .3 0
3 5 .7 0
3 6 .3 0
3 3 .8 0
3 4 .3 0
3 2 .6
3 3 .2
1 1 8 .0
3 5 .8
3 5 .9
3 2 .1
3 2 .1
0 .1 5
0 .3 8
0 .3 8
0 .3 5
0 .2 6
0 .2 6
1 .0 5
1 .0 5
0 .5 2
0 .5 2
0 .1 9
0 .1 9
0 .6 4
3 .7 8
3 .7 8
1 .2 1
1 .2 1
110
45
45
110
9 1 .8
9 1 .8
95
95
92
92
1 4 7 .6
1 4 7 .6
3 7 .3
4 0 .7
4 0 .7
4 4 .8
4 4 .8
229
271
237
317
0 .9 4
1 .0 0
1 .0 1
1 .0 4
181
189
255
273
347
343
142
150
207
231
171
237
217
1 .3 3
1 .0 4
1 .1 9
0 .9 5
1 .4 1
1 .0 7
1 .0 4
0 .8 2
1 .0 4
1 .0 2
1 .0 7
0 .9 8
1.2 1
Vc,Tes/
1 .1 2
0 .9 2
1 .0 1
1 .0 6
1 .1 7
1 .0 1
0 .9 0
11
12
V c.Tes/ V o W
Vc.M&T V c,0
1 .8 2
2 .0 3
1 .5 0
1 .6 8
1 .8 2
1 .6 3
1 .9 2
1 .7 2
2 .0 6
1 .9 4
1 .7 8
1 .6 7
2 .0 1
1 .7 0
2 .1 1
2 .2 3
2 .2 5
2 .3 2
2 .7 0
2 .1 1
2 .4 1
1 .9 3
3 .0 6
2 .3 3
2 .1 1
1 .6 7
2 .1 1
2 .0 3
2 .1 2
2 .1 2
2 .6 2
1 .5 4
1 .8 9
1 .9 1
1 .6 9
2 .2 3
1 .7 5
1 .9 9
1 .6 0
2 .3 7
1 .8 1
1 .6 2
1 .2 8
2 .0 4
1 .9 6
2 .0 5
1 .8 7
2 .3 0
13
14
15
16
V c.Test/ V cT est/ V^Tcst / Vc.Test!

Vc,E
V c,PropI Vc,Prop2
Vc.ACI
1 .2 0
1 .1 0
1 .7 6
1 .3 4
0 .9 8
1 .4 6
1 .1 0
0 .9 1
1 .5 8
1 .3 2
1 .0 8
1 .1 9
1 .1 4
1 .2 7
1 .6 6
1 .4 0
1 .4 5
1 .9 7
1 .5 6
1 .3 0
1 .7 2
1 .2 9
1 .1 2
1.2 1
1 .0 2
0 .9 2
1 .2 2
1 .0 9
1 .7 7
1 .2 7
1 .2 5
1 .7 5
2 .2 1
1 .7 3
1 .7 4
1 .4 0
2 .1 6
1 .6 5
2 .0 9
1 .6 6
1 .2 4
1 .0 7
1 .1 2
1 .1 1
1 .3 6
1 .1 4
1 .1 3
1 .2 2
1 .2 8
1 .7 4
1 .5 3
1 .5 6
1 .4 1
1 .7 3
1 .4 8
1 .4 0
1 .2 3
1 .1 3
1 .3 6
1 .2 1
1 .2 4
1 .3 1
0 .9 6
1 .0 2
1 .0 3
1 .0 6
1 .4 1
1 .2 7
1 .2 6
1 .1 7
1 .3 7
1 .2 0
1 .1 1
1 .0 1
1 .1 1
1 .1 1
0 .9 5
0 .9 7
1 .0 0
1 .0 9
1 .1 2
1 .1 9
1 .2 4
1 .5 9
1 .4 5
1 .4 2
1 .3 2
1 .5 7
1 .3 7
1 .2 7
1 .1 8
1 .0 8
1 .2 2
1 .0 6
1.1 1
1 .1 6
284
Cl
Cl
C2
C 2'
C3
C 3'
CS
C S'
HI
H2
H 2'
H3
H 3'
Table 5.1: continued

1
R e fe r e n c e
s la b
O s p in a
E ta l
(2 0 0 3 )
GFR1
G FR2
NEF1
H u s s e in
& R a s h id
(2 0 0 4 )
G -S l
G -S 2
G -S 3
G -S 4
Z a g h lo u l&
R azaqp ur
(2 0 0 4 )
ZJF5
C o lu m n
s iz e
(m m )
S250
S250
S250
S250
S250
S250
S250
R e in f.
ty p e
f 'c
Pf
E frp
Vc,Test
(m m ) (M P a ) (% )
2 9 .5
0 .7 3
120
1 2 0 2 8 .9
1 .4 6
120
3 7 .5
0 .8 7
100
4 0 .0
1 .1 8
100
1 .0 5
3 5 .0
1 .6 7
100
2 9 .0
1 0 0 2 6 .0 0 .9 5
(G P a )
3 4 .0
3 4 .0
2 8 .4
4 2 .0
4 2 .0
4 2 .0
4 2 .0
(k N )
217
260
206
1 .3 3
1 0 0 .0
V cjJ
V C.Z&R
0 .9 0
0 .8 6
0 .7 9
0 .9 4
0 .8 9
0 .9 0
0 .9 8
12
11
13
Test''1 V.Test/
VAXes'/
VC,M&T Vc,0
Vc.ACI
14
15
16
Vc.Test /
Vc.E
V c,Test /
Vc,Propl
V c.Test /
Ve,Proi>2
1 .2 3
1 .1 8
1 .0 4
1 .9 3
1 .8 5
1 .6 9
1 .9 3
1 .8 3
1 .8 4
2 .0 1
1 .7 8
1 .7 1
1 .6 1
1 .8 0
1 .7 1
1 .7 2
1 .8 8
0 .9 5
0 .8 7
0 .7 8
1 .0 4
1 .0 0
0 .9 7
1 .0 9
1 .3 1
1 .2 7
1 .1 0
1 .3 7
1 .3 3
1 .3 8
1 .5 4
1 .0 5
1 .0 0
0 .9 2
1 .1 6
1 .1 0
1 .1 1
1 .2 2
1 .3 2
1 .2 8
1 .3 1
1 .4 7
234
0 .8 8
1 .6 8
M ean
1 .0 1 5
2 .0 7 2
S T D E V 0 .1 3 7
0 .3 1 1
COV
0 .1 3 5
0 .1 5 0
C r e fe r s to c ir c u la r c o lu m n s , S r e fe r s t o sq u a r e c o lu m n s , A C I r e fe r s t o A C I 4 4 0 .1 R - 0 5 ( 2 0 0 5 )
1 .4 6
1 .7 9 9
0 .2 3 7
0 .1 3 2
1 .3 0
1 .4 3 6
0 .3 9 1
0 .2 7 2
1 .3 6
1 .3 3 9
0 .1 7 0
0 .1 2 7
1 .1 9
1 .1 0 4
0 .1 2 8
0 .1 1 6
1 .3 4
1 .2 4 8
0 .1 5 4
0 .1 2 4
S250
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
10
Ca
75
4 4 .4
249
218
240
210
C a c a r b o n , G g la s s , H h y b r id r e in fo r c e m e n t
P r o p l is s h e a r s tr e n g th a c c o r d in g t o e q u a tio n 5 .1 2 , P r o p 2 is sh e a r str e n g th a c c o r d in g t o e q u a tio n 5 .1 3
to
oo
LA
286
Table 5.2: Comparison of observed and predicted punching shear capacity of steel
reinforced slabs under concentric punching
1
R e fe r e n c e
2
s la b
3
C o lu m n
4
d
5
A
Pf
Ef
V c.Tesi
(% )
1 .1 5
1 .1 5
1 .1 5
1 .1 5
1 .1 5
2 .4 7
2 .4 7
2 .4 7
2 .4 7
3 .7 0
3 .7 0
3 .7 0
1 .1 5
2 .4 7
2 .0 0
3 .0 0
3 .0 0
0 .8 0
0 .7 9
1 .0 1
1 .0 4
0 .4 9
0 .4 8
1 .1 0
1 .1 0
(G P a )
200
200
200
(k N )
302
365
366
352
356
334
400
467
512
356
445
534
400
534
504
330
579
255
275
430
408
258
258
312
312
11
V c.Test / V CjACI
VC.Test / V c steel
S iz e
A -la
A -lb
E lstn e r
and
H o g n e s ta d
(1 9 5 6 )
A -lc
A -ld
A -le
A -2 a
A -2 b
A -2 c
A -7 b
A -3 a
A -3 b
A -3 c
A -4
A -5
B -9
B -1 0
B -ll
K in n u n e n
and
N y la n d e r
(1 9 6 0 )
H o g n e s ta d
e t a l (1 9 6 4 )
5
6
24
25
32
33
H IL 3
H IL 4
(m m )
S254
S254
S254
S254
S254
S254
S254
S254
S254
S254
S254
S254
S356
S356
S254
S254
S254
C 150
C 150
C 150
C l 50
C 150
C 150
S250
S250
E q . 5 .1 4
(m m ) (M P a )
1 4.1
117
1 1 7 2 5 .2
1 1 7 2 9 .0
1 1 7 3 6 .8
1 1 7 2 0 .2
114
1 3 .7
114
1 9 .5
1 1 4 3 7 .5
1 1 4 2 8 .0
114
1 2 .8
1 1 4 2 2 .6
1 1 4 2 6 .6
1 1 7 2 6 .2
1 1 4 2 7 .8
1 1 4 4 3 .9
114
1 3 .5
1 1 4 5 0 .5
1 1 7 2 8 .5
1 1 8 2 7 .8
1 2 8 2 8 .0
1 2 4 2 6 .7
1 2 3 2 8 .0
1 2 5 2 8 .3
1 1 4 3 0 .0
1 1 4 2 7 .5
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
1 .4 1 6
1 .4 3 1
1 .3 7 5
1 .2 3 1
1 .4 9 3
1 .2 5 0
1 .3 3 0
1 .2 5 5
1 .5 1 2
1 .2 0 6
1 .2 3 5
1 .4 0 2
1 .2 1 6
1 .2 3 8
1 .3 9 3
1 .1 6 8
1 .3 1 9
1 .5 5 0
1 .6 7 2
2 .0 9 8
2 .0 9 0
1 .8 0 3
1 .7 7 1
1 .2 3 5
1 .2 6 8
1 .1 9 3
1 .1 8 8
1 .1 3 7
1 .0 1 0
1 .2 4 7
1 .0 7 7
1 .1 4 7
1 .0 7 7
1 .3 0 1
1 .0 2 6
1 .0 6 2
1 .2 0 7
1 .1 2 4
1 .1 8 8
1 .1 8 3
1 .0 0 2
1 .1 3 3
1 .0 5 2
1 .1 3 2
1 .4 1 0
1 .4 2 3
1 .1 5 5
1 .1 2 6
1 .0 2 1
1 .0 5 1
287
Table 5.2 Continued
1
11
r e se a r c h e r
s la b
C o lu m n
Pf
Ef
V c.Tbi
Vc.Test ! V c,ACI
Vc.Test / Vc,steel
(G P a )
(k N )
320
249
356
356
418
396
365
1.1 1
1 .61
2 .3 3
0 .9 5
1 .5 2
2
1 .4 7
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
1 .4 7
1 .0
1 .0
200
200
200
S iz e
(m m )
&
R e fe r e n c e
C 150
C 150
C 150
95
95
95
95
90
120
125
C 150
C 150
C 150
C 150
C 150
C 150
C 150
C 150
120
120
120
120
70
70
70
95
4 2 .0
7 0 .0
7 4 .0
6 9 .0
6 6 .0
3 0 .0
6 8 .0
7 0 .0
6 9 .0
7 4 .0
8 0 .0
7 0 .0
7 5 .0
6 8 .0
7 2 .0
C 150
H S15
S250
2
E m am
S250
(1 9 9 5 )
8
C r e fe r s t o c ir c u la r c o lu m n s
95
120
120
7 1 .0
3 7 .0
6 7 .0
NS1
H S2
m arzouk
an d
H u s s e in
(1 9 9 1 )
H S3
H S4
NS2
H S5
H S6
H S7
H S8
H S9
H S10
H S11
H S12
H S13
H S14
C 150
C 150
C 150
C 150
E q . 5 .1 4
(m m ) (M P a ) (% )
r e fe r s to s q u a r e c o lu m n s
A C I r e frers to A C I 3 1 8 - 0 5 ( 2 0 0 5 )
1 .4 7
0 .8 4
1 .1 9
1 .4 7
2 .3 7
0 .9 4
0 .6 4
0 .9 4
489
436
543
645
196
258
267
498
560
489
511
1 .8 1 9
1 .5 3 3
1 .8 6 3
1 .7 4 4
1 .8 5 4
2 .1 3 9
1 .7 2 6
2 .0 6 2
1 .7 2 2
1 .8 0 4
1 .3 6 0
1 .0 7 5
1 .3 4 4
1 .2 8 2
1 .4 2 9
1 .4 5 6
1 .0 8 1
1 .3 5 6
2 .7 2 0
1 .7 6 7
1 .5 5 1
1 .1 4 9
1 .2 3 5
1 .2 6 2
1 .3 5 7
1 .4 9 3
1 .4 5 7
1 .7 6 8
1 .9 9 7
1 .4 1 5
1 .2 1 3
M e a n v a lu e
1 .6 2 3
1 .2 4 2
S t. D e v ia t io n
0 .3 5 0
0 .2 0 1
C o . o f V a r ia tio n
0 .2 1 6
0 .1 6 2
1 .8 0 9
1 .7 3 1
1 .8 3 8
1 .7 5 7
2 .4 0 8
Table 5.3: Comparison of observed and predicted shear capacity of FRP reinforced interior column-slab connections transferring
shear and moment (ACI method)_________________________ ______________________________________________________
4
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
12
9
10
11
13
Specimen
e=M/V
/v
Effective Cl
C2
Yxest VTest/Vn>ACIVTest/Vn>Z&RVTest/Vn,propl VTest/Vn,prop2
Pf
w *
d (mm) mm
mm
mm
ZJF1
75
45.8 0.0133
250
250
220
0.4 171.00
1.415
1.146
1.554
1.735
ZJF2
75
46.8 0.0087
250
250
220
0.4 144.20
1.502
1.180
1.108
1.694
ZJF3
75
46.0 0.0133
250
250
300
0.4 134.25
1.044
1.415
1.288
1.579
ZJF4
100
0.4 250.00
45.6 0.0148
250
250
220
1.394
1.090
1.348
1.462
ZJF5
44.8 0.0133
75
250
250
0
0.4 234.00
1.087
0.877
1.189
1.332
ZJF6
47.0 0.0148
100
350
250
220
0.46 235.00
1.145
1.111
0.873
1.255
ZJF8*
100
250
0.34 185.37
26.7 0.0148
350
220
1.211
1.084
0.776
1.017
ZJS
45.2 0.0140
81
250
220
0.4 218.20
250
1.034
1.724
1.638
1.472
* Tested in this research program
Mean o f !7RP specimens
1.223
0.988
1.310
1.467
StDev for FRP specimens
0.143
0.143
0.198
0.210
COY
0.117
0.145
0.152
0.143
Using ACI equation as suggested by ACI Committee 318
to
O
oo
Table 5.4: Comparison o f observed and predicted punching shear capacity of FRP reinforced interior slabs under shear and
S p e c i
m en
C o lu m n S tu b S la b E f f e c
th ic k t iv e
(C lx C 2 )
n e s s d e p th
(0
(m m x m m )
(d )
R e in f.
r a tio
M /V
=e
fc'
Vtest
Zv
A C I 3 1 8 -9 9
Z a g h lo u l & R a z a q p u r
P r o p o s e d E q . 5 .1 2
Pf
(m m ) (m m )
V c,ACl
(m m ) M P a
kN
v*
V C,Z&R
Vrest
V c.Propl
kN
K ,aci
kN
K,z&/{
kN
^ c,P rq pl
Z JF 1
250x250
100
75
0 .0 1 3 3
220
4 5 .8
171
0 .4 9
120
1 .4 3
148
1 .1 6
109
1 .5 7
Z JF2
250x250
100
75
0 .0 0 8 7
220
4 6 .8
144
0 .5 0
123
1 .1 7
131
1 .1 0
97
1 .4 9
ZJF3
250x250
100
75
0 .0 1 3 3
300
4 6 .0
1 3 4 0 .4 7
102
1 .3 2
126
1 .0 7
92
1 .4 5
Z JF4
250x250
125
100
0 .0 1 4 8
220
4 5 .6
250
0 .3 4
214
1 .1 7
273
0 .9 2
221
1 .1 3
ZJF5
250x250
100
75
0 .0 1 3 3
4 4 .8
234
215
1 .0 9
267
0 .8 8
197
1 .3 7
Z JF6
350x250
125
100
0 .0 1 4 8
220
4 7 .0
235
0 .4 7
177
1 .3 3
225
1 .0 5
171
1 .4 6
2 5 .2
183
0 .4 0
121
1 .5 3
169
1 .0 9
127
1 .1 0
4 5 .2
218
0 .5 0
139
1 .5 7
188
1 .1 5
210
1 .5 3
Z JF 8*
250x350
125
100
0 .0 1 4 8
220
ZJS
250x250
100
81
0 .0 1 4 0
220
S ta n d a r d D e v ia t io n fo r C F R P S p e c im e n s Z JF 1 th r o u g h Z J F 8
0 .1 6
0 .1 0
0 .1 8
A v e r a g e V a lu e o fV -r ^ t/V a a *h fo r C F R P S p e c im e n s Z J F 1 th r o u g h Z J F 6
S ta n d a rd D e v ia t io n fo r C F R P S p e c im e n s Z J F 1 th r o u g h Z J F 6 a n d S te e l
R e in fo r c e d S p e c im e n Z J S
A v e r a g e V a lu e o f V Te s /V Predicted fo r C F R P S p e c im e n s Z J F 1 th r o u g h Z J F 6 a n d
S te e l R e in fo r c e d S p e c im e n Z J S
1 .2 9
1 .0 4
1 .3 7
0 .1 8
0 .1 1
0 .1 8
1 .3 3
1 .0 3
1 .3 9
0 .1 2
0 .1 0
0 .1 3
C o e f fic ie n t o f v a r ia tio n s
* T e s te d in th is r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m
to
oo
VO
^ n
o m
Î ^
o' CN cn
> > 4
{,r
r-H
lH
1 -H
rH
1H
oo 'o ^ i i
so
r<m
r
* s-h <
C
Oi
r
* i
H t<
^H
4-1
Os
in in in in
so SO so so so
CN CN CN CN N
O O O O O
in
<
't
<a
00
l>
s-h cn i
i oo i-h
ro Os so
B S oo Os
O O l/"> 1s1 C''
^ ^ CN ^ VI 00
r
00 Tf
> o n rt
*
^
oo
t>s
> S3 OO oo
OO O
r
1
(A
9-
rH
("-'O f"
oo h oo
in
ICS so
Os oH
r-H rH CN
1.337
0.050
0.037
rH
O CN Os Os
oo cn oo
aL
^ iH t-H O O cn
*
> >
T*H
^H
1.156
0.095
0.082
r
<
r-H
r-H
| 1.216
0.108
0.089
_ *
Mean for ]FRP Specimens

Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation
o t sf ^ O -1
s ^ os oo
8 S ,O
co cn CN CN cn
> >
oICS oIO IC
oS oICS otN oICS
so CN E
HC
N CN CN CN T}- CN
CO
Q.
0 0 .0 0 0
-1 CN to (N CN CN
r-H
_ h
fc
MPa
CN
r-H
r-H
r 1 r - H
p" i> 't t> t*tn cn os m cn

Hd S
r-H
r-H
r-H
so cn cn so no
OO Os V (N
S
od so K
CN CN CN CN CN
fH
-rf
in CN CO
C/5 PL, Pi, pL, PL,
t q p q p q w p q 1W
T -H
& L,
H -*
>*
IN IN IN IN N! N
>
* based on equation 5.14
o o o o o o
in in in in in to
O gj C
N CN CN CN CN CN
mm
in
Specimen
Table 5.5: Comparison of predicted and observed punching shear capacity of FRP reinforced edge column connections
based on the ACI 318 critical shear perimeter and different vc equations
CN
>
*
oo
o
h
h
O f l oo o
D r - - cn t-h o n t-h c n
1 i r*H T
H [ 1 T
H il
S3 S
yi
>
>
nVJ
c/i
>
J 2
>
c n > n n o o i n no
O n o o CN ^
c n TfCN c n rH ii i' c n
rH
H
1-H
1.222
0.132
0.108
l
H
H
o
l-H
'- i
o
-<
ro
iH r*<
1.155
0.135
0.117
>
(N ^
vo
^
cn
* i1 H
cn
1.332
0.110
0.083
CN
OO
H^" r-H < n r-H 0 0 T-H
oo cn h cn on in
O n O n < n tt ti
^
N f (N ' t n
oo
M Hy
>
VO
S' |
OO r f
O
c n t-H
0 6 OO
le i
0 0 0 0 ON i n
T1 T-H
t-H
oo
NO
r-H
NO
ON
t1
oo
o
r-H
ns
iJ O ii ii ii ii
i n i n m i n (N i n
CN CN CN CN Tt- CN
o o o o o o
i n i n m i n i n >n
CN CN CN CN CN CN
o _ o o o
So CN
CN CN
yi r*-H *C
d
mm
rH
ON
T1 CN
1H
Q.
-h .
Specimen
CN
<D
2 Z
3
cn
NO NO NO NO NO t- h
CN CN CN CN CN N -
c-'
n- i>- o
cn
. c n c n On c n
'
14 1 T 3 tH TH
r- no cn cn no
oo on ^ cn r ' .
N ^ 00 no S
CN CN CN CN CN
q o
C/3
t-h m
[Ih
pH
cN C^- cn
P i
P h
P h
W W W
W- J B- J WH -a
( >
t )
N N SI M M N
Mean fcor FRP Specimens

Standard Deviation
io io in <n in iri
8
H
Os
fc
MPa
Table 5.6: Comparison of predicted and observed punching shear capacity of FRP reinforced edge column connections
based on the proposed critical shear perimeter with inclined sides and different vc equations
<N #
a
Table 5.7: Comparison o f predicted and observed punching shear capacity of FRP reinforced edge column-slab specimens
using the refined method.___________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
P
d
fc
Cl
C2
Vtest
Mtest e~Mxest/VTest VTest/
Vtest/
Vtest/
Specimen MPa
%
mm
mm
mm
kN
kN.m
m
V c,ACI V C.DrODl V c,Droo2
ZJES
27.87
1.4
119
250
250
188.08
49.84
0.265
0.947
0.862* 0.776*
ZJEF1
24.96
1.37
120
250
250
188.34
49.91
0.265
1.010
0.881
1.041
ZJEF5
28.43
1.37
81
250
250
97.1
25.73
0.265
1.000
1.011
1.211
ZJEF2
26.23
0.94
120
250
250
155.87
41.31
0.265
0.725
0.723 0.857
ZJEF7
27.76
1.37
120
250
420
196.16
51.98
0.265
0.748
0.724 0.860
ZJEF3
56.8
1.37
120
250
250
210.87
87.51
0.415
1.216
1.216 1.274
Mean for ?RP Specimens
0.94
0.911
1.048
Standard Deviation
0.205
0.209 0.194
0.218
0.229 0.185
to
Table 5.8: Comparison of test results and predicted values using the proposed semianalytical method without considering the bond efficiency of steel perpendicular to free
edge_______________________________________________________________
A u th o r a n d
R esearch
S p e c i
m en
2
1
Z a g h lo u l
&
B e n -S a s i
S10
(2 0 0 3 )
Z id a n ( 1 9 8 1 ) A - l
A -2
Z a g h lo u l
(1 9 7 1 )
Mfest
V cfl]c
Mcalc
mm
mm
kN
k N .m
kN
k N .m
10
11
2 9 8 .0
160
160
61
3 2 .5 0
1 1 .6 0
3 0 .3 6
2 5 0 1 1 8 .5
3 5 0 1 1 8 .5
1 4 6 .4 0
1 5 3 .6 0
6 0 .0 0
6 0 .0 0
1 4 6 .9 8
1 6 2 .4 1
4 5 0 1 1 8 .5
1 8 0 .0 0
7 2 .0 0
1 .0 4 0
1 8 0 .0 0
7 2 .0 0
1 7 3 .0 5
1 8 5 .9 2
7 0 .0 5
2 5 0 1 1 8 .5
7 5 .1 5
0 .9 6 8
8 3 .0 0 2 1 3 .6 6
8 5 .8 5
0 .9 7 6
5 0 .0 0
4 8 .0 0
1 3 9 .5 8
1 3 9 .6 3
5 6 .6 5
5 6 .6 2
0 .8 6 3
1 21 1 2 2 .3 2
1 21 2 1 1 .5 3
1 21 2 4 6 .8 6
4 5 .0 2 1 3 3 .1 3
8 4 .6 1 2 5 9 .3 8
5 0 .2 9
1 0 4 .2 8
0 .9 1 9
0 .8 1 6
9 3 .5 6 2 9 3 .3 2
1 1 2 .8 6
0 .8 4 2
1 1 8 2 6 8 .2 1
121 1 1 6 .9 8
1 21 2 6 5 .1 0
1 0 3 .6 0 2 9 6 .3 7
8 8 .1 4 1 2 5 .7 9
1 0 6 .8 5 2 9 7 .5 1
1 1 5 .9 7
9 7 .3 6
0 .9 0 5
0 .9 3 0
c,
M Pa
M Pa
mm
2 0 .0
c2
2 6 0 .0
250
250
A -3
2 5 2 .0
2 5 2 .0
A -4
2 7 .0
2 4 0 .0
250
350
A -5
S -l
S -2
1 8 .0
2 3 0 .0
450
2 8 .5
2 4 0 .0
250
2 5 0 1 1 8 .5 2 0 8 .6 0
2 5 0 1 1 8 .5 1 2 5 .0 0
1 8 .0
2 3 0 .0
250
3 5 0 1 1 8 .5
Z -V (l)
Z -V (2 )
2 7 .4
3 4 .4
4 7 6 .0
4 7 3 .9
178
267
178
267
Z -V (3 )
4 0 .5
4 7 3 .9
267
267
Z -V (4 )
3 8 .8
3 1 .3
4 7 5 .3
267
267
267
267
356
356
127
127
5 5 .9
4 9 6 .0
4 9 6 .0
127
127
127
127
5 5 .9
5 5 .9
4 9 6 .0
127
127
5 5 .9
3 0 .2
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
100
114
68
75
41
3 5 .9
4 1 .2
4 8 0 .0
114
2 7 .6
4 8 0 .0
114
75
75
38
38
C /E /4
K -l
K -2
K -3
K -4
L am b
(1 9 8 4 )
L -l
L -2
G o s s e lin
(1 9 8 4 )
G -l
G -2
26
3 1 .5
3 3 .0
3 4 .0
2 7 .8
4 7 6 .7
4 7 6 .0
4 4 6 .4
38
1 2 0 .5 0
12
1 1 .3 3
6 1 .0 3
6 4 .4 1
1 .0 7 1
0 .9 9 6
0 .9 4 6
0 .8 9 6
1 2 1 .3 5
0 .8 9 1
1 1 0 .3 6
8 .7 2
5 8 .2 6
2 2 .4 3
1 0 .5 0
9 .9 9
9 .2 7
8 .7 4
0 .6 6 3
0 .9 3 9
1 .1 1 0
1 .0 4 2
2 .3 8
2 0 .5 3
2 .3 4
1 8 .2 0
1 .8 0
2 1 .1 8
2 6 .1 1
2 0 .0 6
2 .3 2
2 5 .1 0
2 .0 7
2 .4 8
7 3 .1 7
5 4 .7 1
5 .5 9
9 .1 8
2 4 .9 1
1 0 .9 4
1 0 .0 6
8 .8 4
2 4 .0 0
2 0 .9 0
1 .1 6 9
0 .9 8 7
2 .7 6
0 .9 6 1
2 .2 8
0 .9 0 7
3 4 .7
3 9 5 .0
150
150
2 7 .6 0
3 .4 9
3 7 .2 0
3 9 5 .0
225
225
49
4 3 .8
49
3 0 .7 0
5 .1 2
2 6 .6 1
4 .7 0
4 .4 4
0 .7 4 2
1 .1 5 4
3 8 .1
3 7 5 .0
225
150
65
3 8 .0 0
7 .2 3
3 5 .4 2
6 .7 3
1 .0 7 3
39
3 7 5 .0
225
150
81
4 3 .6 0
1 1 .1 6
3 8 .4 3
9 .8 8
1 .1 3 5
200
3 9 .5 0 2 6 1 .9 9
3 4 .0 0 1 9 1 .6 4
3 0 .5 0 2 0 6 .4 9
3 8 .5 0 1 7 8 .2 2
5 2 .9 7
0 .7 5 6
3 3 .8 9
4 1 .5 4
4 2 .8 4
1 .0 0 2
0 .7 3 6
0 .9 2 0
3 3 .2 8
3 9 .5 7
0 .8 2 6
0 .8 2 0
SE1
SE2
SE4
3 5 .5
4 4 .4
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
300
300
2 6 .6
4 8 0 .0
SE5
4 4 .9
4 8 0 .0
200
200
SE6
3 2 .9
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
200
4 8 0 .0
SE7
vtest/
V Calc
3 0 .0
Z -V I (l)
S ta m e n k o v ic C /E /1
& C h a p m a n C /E /2
(1 9 7 4 )
C /E /3
R egan
(1 9 7 9 )
vtest
2 5 .0
2 5 .0
Z -V (6 )
K ane
(1 9 7 8 )
fc
SE8
3 9 .8
4 2 .1
SE9
4 1 .9
4 8 0 .0
SE 10
SE11
4 1 .1
5 1 .5
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
200
300
300
98
1 01
98
98
1 9 8 .0 0
1 9 2 .0 0
300
300
98
1 4 9 .0 0
200
98
300
250
100
98
1 2 9 .0 0
1 3 6 .0 0
250
98
1 2 3 .0 0
250
250
250
250
98
98
1 1 4 .0 0
1 3 8 .0 0
3 6 .0 0
3 9 .5 0
1 1 8 .3 7
1 5 2 .0 0
1 6 4 .0 0
2 7 .5 0
3 1 .7 0
1 8 0 .3 3
1 5 7 .2 6
3 3 .7 0
1 5 3 .9 0
3 8 .4 8
0 .8 8 4
3 5 .7 0
1 1 5 .0 8
3 3 .3 5
1 .0 6 9
1 0 4 .2 1
3 2 .8 6
3 3 .8 4
1 .0 9 4
1 .1 6 6
294
Table 5.8 continuec
A u th o r a n d
R esearch
S p e c i
m en
1
Scaw uzzo
(1 9 7 8 )
H a n so n &
H a n so n
(1 9 6 8 )
K e tu t
S u n d a r sa n a &
G a rd in e r (
2001)
A sh raf
Z a g h lo u l
(P r e s e n t
P rogram )
f'c
f.
M Pa
M pa
c,
c2
vteit
Mtest
Vcalc
M caic
mm
mm
mm
kN
k N .m
kN
k N .m
10
11
Vtest/
Vcalc
12
S -l
3 7 .9
3 7 9 .4 1 5 .2 4 1 0 1 .6
50
3 2 .1 2
4 .6 6
2 9 .4 8
4 .3 2
1 .0 8 9
D 16
3 1 .1
3 6 5 .6 1 5 2 .4 1 5 2 .4
57
1 2 .2 9
1 0 .1 3
1 2 .2 0
1 0 .2 1
1 .0 0 8
105
105
1 2 7 .4 0
3 4 .4 0
4 9 .8 0
1 1 1 .2 6
7 2 .4 1
3 0 .5 0
4 2 .7 7
1 .1 4 5
1 .2 1 8
El
3 4 .9
4 2 0 .0
203
E l-2
4 2 .2
4 3 0 .0
203
203
203
E l-4
E 2 -1
4 2 .2
4 3 0 .0
203
203
105
1 1 7 .8 7
4 4 .3 1
4 3 0 .0
203
203
105
1 1 4 .2 0
1 3 0 .5 0
4 1 .1 0
4 2 .2
3 4 .7 0
1 1 8 .6 0
3 1 .9 3
0 .9 6 9
1 .1 0 0
ZJE S
2 6 .7
4 0 0 .0
250
250
120
1 8 8 .0 8
4 9 .8 4 2 7 4 .5 5
7 4 .4 8
0 .6 8 5
ZJEF1
2 6 .7
3 9 0 .3
250
250
120
1 8 8 .3 4
4 9 ,9 1 2 1 5 .6 7
5 7 .9 8
0 .8 7 3
ZJEF5
Z JEF2
2 6 .7
3 9 0 .0
250
250
81
9 7 .1 0
4 8 9 .8
250
420
1 5 5 .8 7
3 9 0 .3
250
250
120
ZJEF7
2 6 .7
2 6 .7
120
Z JEF3
5 8 .1
5 1 9 .1
250
250
8 8 .2 0
1 0 5 .2 0
2 8 .2 0
0 .9 2 3
4 9 .8 7
1 9 6 .1 6
4 1 .3 1 1 8 5 .9 3
5 1 .9 8 2 3 8 .3 8
6 3 .1 9
0 .8 3 8
0 .8 2 3
1 2 0 2 1 0 .8 7
8 7 .5 1 2 1 5 .4 5
8 9 .8 4
0 .9 7 9
2 5 .7 3
M e a n fo r a ll s p e c im e n s
0 .9 5
S ta n d a r d D e v ia t io n
0 .1 3
C o e f f ic ie n t o f V a r ia tio n %
0 .1 4
M e a n F o r F R P S p e c im e n s
0 .8 5
0 .1 0
0 .1 1
295
Table 5.9: Comparison of test results and predicted values using the semi-analytical
method model considering the proposed bond efficiency of steel perpendicular to free
edge_______ ___________ _____ ____________________________________________
A u th o r a n d
R esearch
S p e c i
m en
fc
c,, c2,
M Pa M Pa
1
Z a g h lo u l &
B e n -S a si (2 0 0 3 )
Z id a n
(1 9 8 1 )
Z a g h lo u l ( 1 9 7 1 )
S ta m e n k o v ic &
C hapm an
(1 9 7 4 )
K ane
(1 9 7 8 )
L am b
(1 9 8 4 )
G o s s e lin
(1 9 8 4 )
R egan (1 9 7 9 )
S10
A -l
A -2
A -3
A -4
A -5
S -l
S -2
Z -V (l)
Z -V (2 )
Z -V (3 )
Z -V (4 )
Z -V (6 )
Z -V I (l)
C /E /1
C /E /2
C /E /3
C /E /4
K -l
K -2
K -3
K -4
L -l
L -2
G -l
G -2
SE1
SE2
SE4
SE5
SE6
SE7
SE8
SE9
SE10
SE 11
2 0 .0
3 0 .0
2 5 .0
2 5 .0
2 7 .0
1 8 .0
2 8 .5
1 8 .0
2 7 .4
3 4 .4
4 0 .5
3 8 .8
3 1 .3
26
3 1 .5
3 3 .0
3 4 .0
2 7 .8
3 0 .2
3 5 .9
4 1 .2
2 7 .6
3 4 .7
4 3 .8
3 8 .1
39
3 5 .5
4 4 .4
2 6 .6
4 4 .9
3 2 .9
3 9 .8
4 2 .1
4 1 .9
4 1 .1
5 1 .5
2 9 8 .0
2 6 0 .0
2 5 2 .0
2 5 2 .0
2 4 0 .0
2 3 0 .0
2 4 0 .0
2 3 0 .0
4 7 6 .0
4 7 3 .9
4 7 3 .9
4 7 5 .3
4 7 6 .7
4 7 6 .0
4 4 6 .4
4 9 6 .0
4 9 6 .0
4 9 6 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
3 9 5 .0
3 9 5 .0
3 7 5 .0
3 7 5 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
4 8 0 .0
v,est
Mtest
V te st/
V c a lc
mm
mm
mm
kN
k N .m
kN
k N .m
10
11
12
160
250
250
250
350
450
250
250
178
267
267
267
267
356
127
127
127
127
100
114
114
114
225
225
225
225
300
300
200
200
200
200
300
250
250
250
160
250
350
450
250
250
250
350
178
267
267
267
267
356
127
127
127
127
68
75
75
75
150
150
150
150
200
200
300
300
300
300
100
250
250
250
61
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 21
1 21
121
118
1 21
1 21
5 5 .9
5 5 .9
5 5 .9
5 5 .9
41
38
38
38
49
49
65
81
98
1 01
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
3 2 .5 0
1 4 6 .4 0
1 5 3 .6 0
1 8 0 .0 0
1 8 0 .0 0
2 0 8 .6 0
1 2 5 .0 0
1 2 0 .5 0
1 2 2 .3 2
2 1 1 .5 3
2 4 6 .8 6
2 6 8 .2 1
1 1 6 .9 8
2 6 5 .1 0
7 3 .1 7
5 4 .7 1
2 4 .9 1
1 0 .9 4
2 4 .0 0
2 0 .9 0
2 5 .1 0
1 8 .2 0
2 7 .6 0
3 0 .7 0
3 8 .0 0
4 3 .6 0
1 9 8 .0 0
1 9 2 .0 0
1 5 2 .0 0
1 6 4 .0 0
1 4 9 .0 0
1 2 9 .0 0
1 3 6 .0 0
1 2 3 .0 0
1 1 4 .0 0
1 3 8 .0 0
1 0 .7 6
5 7 .2 6
6 0 .8 4
6 6 .4 5
7 0 .0 4
8 0 .1 4
5 3 .1 3
5 3 .6 8
4 7 .3 4
9 8 .3 1
1 0 6 .0 6
1 0 9 .0 8
9 1 .9 9
1 1 4 .3 8
8 .2 3
9 .4 1
8 .7 3
8 .2 6
2 .2 3
2 .2 1
2 .6 1
2 .1 7
4 .3 1
4 .0 6
6 .1 5
9 .1 3
4 9 .3 1
3 0 .9 5
3 9 .1 0
4 0 .6 1
3 1 .0 9
3 7 .5 1
3 5 .4 2
3 0 .7 9
3 0 .3 5
3 1 .2 1
1 .1 3 7
1 .0 6 6
1 .0 0 6
1 .1 0 2
1 .0 4 2
1 .0 5 0
0 .9 5 8
0 .9 1 6
0 .9 8 1
0 .8 7 0
0 .9 0 0
0 .9 6 7
0 .9 9 1
0 .9 5 0
0 .7 0 5
1 .0 0 2
1 .1 8 5
1 .1 1 0
1 .2 3 6
1 .0 4 5
1 .0 2 3
0 .9 6 2
0 .8 0 9
1 .2 6 0
1 .1 7 4
1 .2 2 9
0 .8 1 4
1 .0 9 7
0 .7 8 5
0 .9 7 4
0 .8 8 6
0 .8 6 9
0 .9 6 2
1 .1 5 9
1 .1 8 6
1 .2 6 5
1 1 .6 0
6 0 .0 0
6 0 .0 0
7 2 .0 0
7 2 .0 0
8 3 .0 0
5 0 .0 0
4 8 .0 0
4 5 .0 2
8 4 .6 1
9 3 .5 6
1 0 3 .6 0
8 8 .1 4
1 0 6 .8 5
5 .5 9
9 .1 8
1 0 .0 6
8 .8 4
2 .3 8
2 .0 7
2 .4 8
1 .8 0
3 .4 9
5 .1 2
7 .2 3
1 1 .1 6
3 9 .5 0
3 4 .0 0
3 0 .5 0
3 8 .5 0
2 7 .5 0
3 1 .7 0
3 3 .7 0
3 5 .7 0
3 6 .0 0
3 9 .5 0
2 8 .5 9
1 3 7 .3 6
1 5 2 .6 9
1 6 3 .3 7
1 7 2 .7 4
1 9 8 .7 0
1 3 0 .4 1
1 3 1 .5 8
1 2 4 .6 4
2 4 3 .1 6
2 7 4 .4 0
2 7 7 .4 5
1 1 8 .0 6
2 7 8 .9 7
1 0 3 .7 6
5 4 .6 0
2 1 .0 1
9 .8 6
1 9 .4 1
2 0 .0 1
2 4 .5 3
1 8 .9 2
3 4 .1 0
2 4 .3 7
3 2 .3 6
3 5 .4 9
2 4 3 .1 7
1 7 4 .9 5
1 9 3 .6 3
1 6 8 .3 1
1 6 8 .1 3
1 4 8 .4 7
1 4 1 .4 1
1 0 6 .1 7
9 6 .1 5
1 0 9 .0 9
296
Table 5.9 Continued
A u th o r a n d
R esearch
f,
S p e c i
m en
M Pa M Pa
1
2
S cavvu zzo
S -l
(1 9 7 8 )
H a n so n &
H a n so n
(1 9 6 8 )
D 16
K e tu t
El
S u n d a r sa n a &
E l-2
G a rd n e r ( 2 0 0 1 )
E l -4
E 2 -1
A s h r a f Z a g h lo u l Z J E S
, (P r e s e n t
ZJEF1
program
ZJEF5
ZJEF2
ZJEF7
ZJEF3
C i,
c2,
vtes.
Mtest
mm
mm
mm
kN
k N .m
kN
k N .m
10
11
3 2 .1 2
4 .6 6
2 7 .3 4
4 .0 2
1 1 .4 1
9 .6 0 .
1 .0 7 8
1 0 3 .9 0
2 8 .5 7
4 9 .8 0 6 8 .0 9
4 0 .4 4
4 1 .1 0 1 1 0 .8 4
4 1 .8 9
3 4 .7 0 1 1 0 .6 8
2 9 .8 7
4 9 .8 4 2 5 6 .3 3
6 9 .8 6
4 9 ,9 1 1 9 3 .5 5
5 2 .3 0
2 5 .7 3
9 3 .9 2
2 5 .3 0
4 1 .3 1 1 6 6 .6 5
4 4 .8 8
5 1 .9 8 2 1 4 .3 4
5 6 .9 9
8 7 .5 1 1 8 9 .7 9
7 9 .3 8
M e a n a ll s p e c im e n s
S ta n d a r d D e v ia t io n .
M e a n f o r F R P S p e c im e n s
1 .2 2 6
1 .2 9 5
3 7 9 .4
1 5 .2 4 1 0 1 .6
3 1 .1
3 6 5 .6
1 5 2 .4 1 5 2 .4
57
1 2 .2 9
1 0 .1 3
3 4 .9
4 2 .2
4 2 .2
4 2 .2
2 6 .7
2 6 .7
2 6 .7
2 6 .7
2 6 .7
5 8 .1
4 2 0 .0
203
105
105
105
105
120
120
81
120
120
120
1 2 7 .4 0
8 8 .2 0
1 1 4 .2 0
1 3 0 .5 0
1 8 8 .0 8
1 8 8 .3 4
9 7 .1 0
1 5 5 .8 7
1 9 6 .1 6
2 1 0 .8 7
3 4 .4 0
3 7 .9
4 3 0 .0
4 3 0 .0
4 3 0 .0
4 0 0 .0
3 9 0 .3
3 9 0 .0
4 8 9 .8
3 9 0 .3
5 1 9 .1
203
203
203
203
250
250
250
250
250
250
203
203
203
250
250
250
250
420
250
50
V te st/
V c a lc
12
1 .1 7 5
1 .0 3 0
1 .1 7 9
0 .7 3 4
0 .9 7 3
1 .0 3 4
0 .9 3 5
0 .9 1 5
1 .1 1 1
1 .0 3
0 .1 4
0 .1 4
0 .9 9
0 .0 8
0 .0 8
Table 5.10: Interaction diagram principal points for Afhami et al (1998) model
Calculated data
point Shear, N
Specimen
Moment, N.mm
1
ZJEF1
131,322.0
0.0
M'sx =22,488,498.8
2
164,465.75
31,019,524.8
M -y =22,488,498.8
ZJEF2
ZJEF3
ZJEF5
ZJEF7
ZJES
M tc = 11,340,000
3a
122,608.6
57,258,323.1
M u =20,239,649
3b
96,718.6
57,258,323.1
wx =51.78
0.0
45,168,498.8
M~x = 19,980,984
125,888.8
0.0
M-sy =19,980,984
155,308.5
28,022,343.3
M tc =10,813,500
3a
118,422.35
53,212,028.5
M u = 17,982,885.6
3b
92,832.35
53,212,028.5
wx =51.58
0.0
41,607,984
M 'x =34,825,852
187,010.4
0.0
M~y =34,825,852
248,978.1
47,717,113.1
M tc =11,340,000
3a
167,188
70,632,788.5
M u =31,343,266.8
3b
129,015.5
70,632,788.5
wx =76.35
0.0
54,505,852
=10,252,136.7
73,228
0.0
M~r =10,252,136.7
91,397.95
14,984,420.68
M lc =4,622,771
3a
69,683.96
26,023,798.8
M a =6,766,410
3b
52,208.96
26,023,798.8
wx = 34.95
0.0
19,497,678.8
=37,780,677.9
140,124.6
0.0
=22,488,498.7
184,977.3
48,838,151.3
M,c =11,340,000
3a
137,794.5
74,448,739.6
M lx =20,239,648
3b
111,904.5
74,448,739.6
w, =51.78
0.0
60,460,677.9
= 17,549,800.36
179,892.7
0.0
=17,549,800.36
205,833.86
28,207,197.5
M tc =11,080,833.75
3a
180,026.7
55,742,926
M u = 15,794,820.2
3b
128,251.7
55,742,926
w, =103.55
0.0
39,711,467.86
299
reinforcement based on ( vc ACI + v s )
Connection
Specimen
û,Test
vc,ACI
û,predicted
ûjest
û,Predicted
Edge
Interior
ZJEFCS
1.27
2.75
4.03
0.86
ZJESCS
3.451
3.883
1.27
4.03
0.96
ZJEFSS
4.062
1.91
2.76
4.03
5.94
0.68
ZJESSS
3.944
4.079
1.91
4.02
5.93
0.67
1.28
1.14
5.14
1.71
6.42
2.85
Mean
STDEV
0.64
1.38
0.86
0.28
ZJF9
ZJF7
3.947
reinforcement based on ( vc Vropl +vs)
Connection
Specimen
û,Test
vc,Propl
v,
Vu,predicted
û,Test
û,Predicted
Edge
Interior
ZJEFCS
3.451
1.52
2.75
4.27
0.81
ZJESCS
3.883
1.48*
2.76
4.24
0.92
ZJEFSS
4.062
2.27
4.03
6.30
0.64
ZJESSS
3.944
2.23*
4.02
6.25
0.63
ZJF9
ZJF7
4.079
3.947
1.25
1.16
5.14
1.71
6.39
2.87
Mean
0.64
1.37
0.84
STDEV
0.29
* calculated according to Eq. 5.14
300
reinforcement based on ( v c prop2 + v s )
Connection
Specimen
û,Test
Vc,Prop2
û,predicted
û,Test
û,Predicted
Edge
Interior
ZJEFCS
ZJESCS
ZJEFSS
3.451
3.883
4.062
1.47
1.48*
2.20
2.75
2.76
4.03
4.22
4.24
6.23
0.82
0.92
0.65
ZJESSS
ZJF9
ZJF7
3.944
2.23*
1.20
1.07
4.02
5.14
1.71
6.25
0.63
0.64
1.42
0.85
0.30
4.079
3.947
6.34
2.79
Mean
STDEV
* calculated according to Eq. 5.14
Table 5.15: Predicted punching shear capacity of the test specimens with shear
reinforcement based on vc propX + v, < vcmax
Connection
Specimen
vu,Test
Vc,Proposed
û,Test
û,Proposed
Edge
Interior
ZJEFCS
3.451
3.852
0.896
ZJESCS
3.883
3.840
1.011
ZJEFSS
4.062
3.821
1.063
ZJESSS
3.944
3.811
1.035
ZJF9
4.079
3.823
1.067
ZJF7
3.947
2.870
1.370
Mean
1.074
STDEV
0.158
301
S h e a r s t r e s s e s due t o
'htO&ul -Mti2 )
(a ) T r a n s f e r o f unbalanced m onents t o
column.
v= Vu
bod
<b> S h e a r s t r e s s e s due t o
Vu
_ iv (M ul -Mu2 ) c
id ) S h e a r due t o u n b alan ced moment,
<d> T o t a l s h e a r s tr e s s e s .
Fig. 5.1: Typical distribution of shear stresses around an interior column-slab

connection transferring shear and moment( McGregor and Wight 2005)
302
Free edge
Shear stresses
dueto7-yMu
(cO Transfer of norient at edge colunn.
V= -57
Cb) S hear s t r e s s e s due t o Vu
v =
7yMUC
Jc
Cc) S h e a r s t r e s s e s d u e t o Mu.
k s f \f f l
\
\y
N
<d) T o ta l sh ear s tre s s e s .
Fig. 5.2: Typical distribution of shear stresses around an edge column-slab connection
transferring shear and moment. (McGregor and Wight 2005)
303
C olum n c i x c g
Most stressed
slab region in
the shear and
moment
S la b
R e x r-a l
s'te'el
CS
(a) Section through diagonal failure
surface parallel to the moment plane
(b) Idealized failure surfaces of the critical section

showing sections subjected to flexure and torsion
Fig. 5.3: The idealized failure surfaces under combined shear and moments
N;B,i c.e. Column c e n tre ,

e.g. Critical section
cen tro id ,
Fig. 5.4: Proposed critical section for shear stress distribution to be used in conjunction
with proposed refined method
304
d/a
cx
Critical
Section
d/a
Certtrald
t~ i
d5a
A
m
-X
v-
yi
*yi
(2
Free
Edge
Critical ,<
V (up)
u
v Critical
4 Section
d /2
Muy
q
I n t e r i o r Column
fo) E d g e Column
X^ 1 2 ( 2 1 ^ )
Ve.g. /x \ t 2 Yy y
j = d ( ^t*- +A *
6
7 3
I I 2
I c= d ( ^ - + J L ^ - )
c
6
4
/4C= 2 d ( l xX + l yX)
J c = d ( ^ + 2 lxl Y 2 + - 4 f - + Z V )
/ e r f ( ^ - + 2 / * r e/
+/,I^
2)
A = d ( 2 l xX + l y l )
Fig. 5.5: Critical section location and its properties based on A C I318 recommendations
305
C e n r t r o i d ,D:f
I. j = lx i I Crl-tlcal Section
d/2
a- Case where column outer face EF flush with the free edge of the slab
C ritic a l
\j-lyX
Centroid DP
Section
Section
/2
ôlunn
b- case where column outer face EF is at a distance gx from the free edge of the slab
U0 =lxi+ 2 h
(i)
(, c ,+ d- + g x)^
2 i h ------ 1-------- ]
(ii)
Fig. 5.6: Proposed inclined critical section for punching shear in slabs
306
d
d 2 (c, + )
h (/) + 2 / 3 (Cl + 2 + g *
2 ,
2
j x = d[iA y 2 +
-ylr
+
]
2
6
d
ci
+
^+ gx
, h ih if
J , = l , =<?[/ i f + - ^ - + 2 / , (
- Y , ) 2]
Where,
= c 2
(iv)
A ~ lx\ - c 2+ d ( ----- tan or)

cos or
(iii)
l y \ ~ C\ + X + .
+2[(ci + gx)\axia+^~- ]
2 cos a
h = i|[(ci +g*) ta n a r+ ^ ta n a ]2 +(c, + gx +-^)2

'xl
d /2
d /2
/2
d /2
C o lu m n
C- C r itic a l s e c t io n a t d /2 fr o m c o lu m n f a c e r e c o m m e n d e d b y th e A C I - 2 0 0 5 w h e n o u te r
c o lu m n f a c e E F is a t d is ta n c e g x fr o m fr e e e d g e o f th e s la b , o b ta in e d w h e n a n g le a = 0 .0 .
Fig. 5.6: Proposed inclined and rectangular critical sections and geometric properties for
edge column-slab connection
307
C ritical
C entroid Of
[ [ = i xi I C ritical S e b tb n
a- plan showing the critical section IJKL

ii=ixi
V < V
u~ n
C e n tro id . .Of
Critical Section
C ritical
S e c tio n
M V
\ \C o lu n n\
<d/2)/coso(+ <9x+c1 H a n
\
Edge
b- Shear stresses due to Shear and Unbalanced moment at the critical section
Fig. 5.7: General layout of the critical section and shear stress distribution
308
Ihside face
o f column
Xe
a-
Idealized failu re mechanism
b- Plan of the column and bottom fa ilu re crack.

A, A
Free
edge
Supply supported
Column
B
A,/
M ,V
l" "
fre e
I
A
c- Plan of edge column-slab connection
Fig. 5.8: Idealized failure mechanism for an edge column-slab connection
309
G u ra ln ik 1 9 5 9
S h e ik h , D e p a iv a
a n d N eville
Normal
s tre s s
Fig. 5.9: Assumed Mohr-Coulomb envelope according to Guralnik and Sheikh et al (

Zaghlool and de Paiva 1973 a,b)
V
1 .2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.
0 .2 5
Fig. 5.10: The relationships between
0.75
f
fc
- and kp =
v
fc
310
200.00
180.00
160.00
Z
140.00
x
120.00
o>
a 100.00
<
05)
80.00
CO
60.00
40.00
Strip model
20.00
ZJEF1
o.oo
0
10
30
20
40
50
70
60
M om ent (kN.m)
strip model prediction for specimen ZJEF1.
180.00
160.00
140.00
1 120.00
a
u
w
J=
w
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
Strip model
20.00
ZJEF2
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
M om ent (kN.m)
311
300.00
250.00
z
200.00
c
*
150.00
100.00
Strip model
50.00
ZJEF3
o.oo
0
10
20
30
50
40
60
70
80
90
100
Moment (kN.m)
120
100
z
c
<D
ah_
60
a)
CO
40
Strip model
ZJEF5
20
10
15
20
25
30
Moment (kN.m)

312
250.00
200.00
c
CD
O
k.
150.00 -
n 100.00
o
j=
CO
Strip model
ZJEF7
50.00 -
0.00
10
30
20
40
50
60
70
80
M om ent (kN.m)
250
200
z
E 150
ra 1 0 0 <D
.c
CO
Strip model
ZJES
10
20
30
40
50
60
Moment (kN.m)

strip model prediction for specimen ZJES.
313
u t e r n o s t P e r ip h e r a l
L in e O f' S ^ u d s
v
\ X
V Cup?
u
calX X
S ectio n
a) Interior Column
- For Fig. (a)
+tan#,)
l xX=Cx + d ( ;
(a-l)
CO S#,
lyl=cy +d(~Q^ -+tan^2)
(a-2)
b0 = 2(lxl + l yl)+41
(a-3)
j y =iy =6?{4 +^ A +1[I(/jc2~ixl)2m x2 +ixl)2i}
(a-4)
where,
l ^Vx l - l x l f + Vy l - l y l ) 2
(a-5)
Fig. 5.17a: Critical sections for shear in slab at d/2 from outermost peripheral of last line
of studs
314
O u te m o s t
LI f ie
P e rip h e ra l
O f
S tu d s
ad
C r tic a l
c tlo t
C e n tro id
If u y
b) Edge Column
For Fig. (b)

/xi= c*+4( V + t a n ^
2 COS&!
J_
lyi=cy + d {
(b-1)
)+ gx
+ \ m 3 2)
(b -2 )
VCOS &2
b0 ~ 2 lx\ +lyi +21
(b-3)
WxiOx 2 ~ ) + l (lx2J xl)l

* s c = -----------------------f r-------------- * ----------
(b ~ 4 )
y0
J c = l y = d { l y [ X 2SG + 2 l x l (lx2 - 0 . 5 lxl - X SG) 2 + l - xl
Where,
*xl)
+ 2
1 { X SG
l= ^ 4 U x2- ^ ) 2 +Uy2- lyi)2
(b -5 )
(b-6)
Fig. 5.17b: Critical sections for shear in slab at d/2 from outermost peripheral of last line
of studs
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
6.1 Summary
This investigation is focussed on punching shear behaviour and strength of interior and
edge column-slab connections reinforced with CFRP flexural and/or shear reinforcement.
The connections are tested under combined shear and moment transfer and the effect of a
number o f parameters on their punching shear strength is studied. One of the key
parameters in this study is the new type of CFRP shear reinforcement and its
effectiveness to increase the punching shear capacity of the slab. This reinforcement is
developed in the present investigation, albeit one interior column specimen was tested by
the author in a previous study which was reinforced with the same type of shear
reinforcement.
In addition to shear reinforcement, the other parameters that are investigated
include the extensional rigidity of the slab flexural reinforcement, the slab depth to its
punching shear perimeter ratio, the effective depth of the slab, the moment to shear ratio
315
316
transferred by the connection and the column aspect ratio. Test data were gathered using
LVDTs and strain gauges, primarily from the gauges installed on the reinforcement.
The data was analysed to determine the effect of the above parameters on the
behaviour and strength of the test specimens. Furthermore, various existing and new
methods were used to predict their ultimate strength. The proposed method for predicting
the punching shear capacity of the current test specimens is based on the ACI vc + vs
method, but the vc term is calculated using a more refined expression which accounts for
the flexural reinforcement rigidity, the concrete strength and the loading area perimeter,
or column cross-section perimeter, to slab effective depth ratio. The reinforcement
rigidity is expressed in terms of E p where E and p are the elastic modulus and ratio of
the slab flexural reinforcement. The reinforcement strength is not considered because it
was found not be important in the case of the current specimens. Other more detailed
methods of analysis based on equilibrium and compatibility requirements around the
punching shear perimeter are also developed and used, but their results are not as
accurate as those obtained by the modified ACI method. However, these methods may
prove useful in explaining the observed modes of failure and may provide rational basis
for the observed shape and location of the punching shear perimeter.
Based on the results obtained in the current investigation, a number of
conclusions can be drawn as follows.
6.2 Conclusions
The results of this investigation support the following conclusions:
317
(1) The basic punching shear behaviour of CFRP reinforced slab-column connections
is the same as that of similar steel reinforced connections.
(2) Despite the lack of ductility of CFRP, CFRP reinforced connections exhibit
essentially the same amount of ductility as steel reinforced connections
(3) The high strength of the CFRP used in the current test specimens did not have
much influence on their punching shear strength.
(4) The slab flexural reinforcement extensional rigidity has a noticeable effect on its
punching shear strength.
(5) The punching shear strength of slabs without shear reinforcement is proportional
to the cubic root of their flexural reinforcement rigidity.
(6) The effect o f concrete strength on the punching shear strength of a slab is
independent of the type of flexural reinforcement of the slab.
(7) The ratio o f the slab effective depth to the length of the critical shear perimeter
has a noticeable effect on the punching shear strength o f CFRP reinforced slabs.
(8) In the case of interior column-slab connections, the column aspect ratio has an
effect on the punching shear capacity of the slab. Doubling the c2l cx ratio caused
a 15% reduction in the punching strength.
(9) The proposed shear reinforcement increased the punching shear strength of
interior column-slab connections by 24.6% and 30.4%, when the first leg of the
shear reinforcement was located 0.5d and 0.85d from the column face,
respectively. This increase in punching capacity is comparable to the increase that
can be achieved when using steel headed studs.
318
(10) In the edge-column specimens without shear reinforcement an increase of 50%
in the MTV ratio decreased the punching shear capacity by 16%. This effect can be
captured by the prevailing CSA and ACI design methods.
(11) The c2/ d ratio has negligible effect on the punching shear strength of the CFRP
reinforced edge-column slab connections.
(12) The c2 / q , or column aspect ratio, does not have a significant effect on the
punching shear strength of CFRP reinforced edge-column slab connections. A 68%
increase in this ratio, which resulted in 35% increase in the critical shear perimeter,
increased the punching shear strength by 3% only. This means that an increase in
aspect ratio, without concomitant increase in the length of the critical punching shear
perimeter, decreases the strength.
(13) The effect o f slab flexural reinforcement rigidity on the punching shear capacity
of edge column-slab connections is the same as its effect on the strength of interior
column-slab connections.
(14) The CFRP shear reinforcement increased the punching shear capacity of edge
column-slab connections, but the punching shear strength is limited by the concrete
shear strength, as specified by ACI, regardless of the amount o f shear reinforcement.
(15) The CFRP shear reinforcement increases the ductility of the edge column-slab
connection. Ductility in the current discussion is measured by the ratio of the ultimate
deflection o f the slab to its deflection under peak load.
(16) The higher strength of CFRP shear reinforcement, compared to the yield stress of
the steel headed studs, does not increase the edge column-slab connection punching
shear capacity.
319
(17) Due to its grid structure, the CFRP NEFMAC reinforcement is able to develop
high stresses at a short distance from the free edge of the slab. This is made possible
by the cross ribs of the grid which provide mechanical anchor for the ribs in the
orthogonal direction.
(18) The ACI vc +V, method for calculating the punching shear strength of interior
and edge colunm-slab connections applies to the present slab-column connections
with or without shear reinforcement. However, it is recommended that the concrete
contribution to the punching shear strength, vc , be calculated using the proposed
equations in this study in lieu of the vc expression suggested by ACI.
(19) The upper limit of ACI for punching shear stress in slabs with shear
reinforcement is applicable to both edge and interior column-slab connections,
irrespective o f the type and amount of either shear or flexural reinforcement.
(20) In using the ACI vc + y, method to calculate the punching shear capacity of slabcolumn connections reinforced with CFRP shear reinforcement, the maximum stress
and strain in the shear reinforcement should not be greater than 0.25 f Fu and 0.003,
respectively, where f Fu is the tensile strength of the CFRP shear reinforcement.
These values are for the present reinforcement system and may not be applicable to
other types o f reinforcement.
(21) Using the ACI method in conjunction with the proposed vc expressions, the
punching shear strengths of the present test specimens were predicted with a
reasonable degree o f accuracy. Only one specimens strength was 10% over
estimated, while the predicted strengths of four specimens were within 6% of their
320
experimental values. On the other hand, the predicted strength o f one specimen was
36% lower than its actual strength. The latter is not as accurately predicted as the
other values, but it is on the conservative side and therefore acceptable.
(22) When using the ACI method to calculate the punching shear strength of slabcolumn connections with CFRP reinforcement, for the purposes of calculating vc , the
CFRP shear reinforcement should be treated equivalent to steel stirrups rather than
steel head studs or other types of shear reinforcement in the slab.
6.3 Recommendations for future work
To be able to develop a complete and general design method, further investigation is

needed. Some important topics for these investigations should include:
(1) Testing of comer column-slab connections reinforced with the FRP
(2) Testing of interior, edge and comer column-slab connections reinforced with
other types of FRP reinforcement and subjected to moment and shear transfer
(3) Testing of other arrangements of shear reinforcement in different types of
slab-column connections.
(4) Testing o f slab-column connections subjected to biaxial unbalanced moment
and shear transfer
(5) Testing of FRP reinforced slab-column connections in flat plates with drop
panels or with column capitals.
(6) Testing o f interior, edge and comer column connections reinforced with FRP
and subjected to cyclic moment and shear transfer
321
(7) Studies to better identify and quantify the contribution of the various shear
resistance mechanics to the punching shear resistance of slab-column
connections.
(8) Investigation of the punching shear strength of CFRP prestressed slab-column
connections
(9) Study of the behaviour and strength of FRP reinforced slab-column
connections under quasi-static dynamic loads in order to study their seismic
response.
Appendix A
8000
7000

A
*
6000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
0.70Vmax
0.90Vmax
Vmax
'22. ' '23.
5000
4000
U
1
3000
2000
1000
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
200
150
d ista n c e from colu m n e .g . (mm)
250
300
350
Figure A. 1: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to south face of

5000
4500
4000
c
(0
0)
3500
0.30Vmax
3000
0.50Vmax
2500
-0.70Vmax
2000
0.90Vmax
1500
Vmax
1000
500
-400
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
distance from e.g. of column
Figure A.2: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to free edge in
specimen ZJEF3
322
323
7000
6000
. 5000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
4000
E
c
2
55
- - X- - -0.90Vmax
Vmax
3000
2000
- -A
1000
-50
-100
50
100
200
150
250
Figure A.3: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to south face of
5000
4500
4000
3500
4-1
(0
oL . 3000
.2 2500
E
^ 2000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - -X- - -0.90Vmax
Vmax
-A----------------AT
'A-
1500
1000
500
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
d ista n c e from colum n centre (mm)
Figure A.4: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to free edge in
specimen ZJEF5
324
Figure A. 5: Crack pattern of specimen ZJEF3
Figure A.6: Side cracks of specimen ZJEF3
Figure A.7: Punching of specimen ZJEF5
Figure A. 8: Tangential cracks open during punching of specimen ZJEF5
Figure A.9: crack pattern of specimen ZJEF5
HH
Figure A. 11: Rotation of column stub of specimen ZJEF7
Figure A. 12: Crack pattern of specimen ZJEF7
ip H P
Figure A. 13: Side cracks of specimen ZJEF7
Figure A. 14: Punching of specimen ZJES
329
12000
10000
c
8000 -
0.3Vmax
0.5Vmax
& 0.7Vmax
X - -0.8Vmax
38 0.9Vmax
Vmax
~ \ S . g . 37
SJ
6000
2
55
4000
2000 -
-100
-50
50
100
200
150
250
300
Figure A. 15: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to south face of
3000 -i
2500
C
2000 w
o
k_
4-<
k.
48
0.3Vmax
0.5Vmax
-A- - 0.7Vmax
- - X - -0.8Vmax
38 0.9Vmax
9
Vmax
147
46
44
500 -
-400
-300
-200
-100
100
200
d ista n c e from co lu m n ce n tr e (mm)
Figure A. 16: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement parallel to east face of
330
4000
3500
'c
3000
2
{J 2500
O
k.
.2 2000
B
0.30Vmax
HI 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - -X- - -0.90Vmax
* Vmax
C 1500
'5
k.
<55
1000
500
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure A. 17: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEF1,

(gauges 1,2 and 3)
4000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
0.90Vmax
Vmax
0.70Vmax
3500
3000
(0
k.
T5 2500
.2 2000
E,
C
1500
(0
(0 1000
500
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100

(gauges 13,16,19,26 and 30)
150
331
4000
3500
3000
g. 25
151
4-* 2500
w
01.
u 2000
1
2 l1
251
cI 1500
5
V )
0.30Vmax
HB 0.50Vmax
1000
-A- - 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
500
Vmax
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
distance from centre of column (mm)

0.30Vmax
M 0.50Vmax
- r - - 0.70Vmax
-X - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
3000
2500 -
10i
5 2000 -
to
o
23
S.g. 23,
A-
. - -X-
- A- -
- &,
Jr
55
500
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
Distance from column centre (mm)
Figure A.20: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEF7,

(gauges 8,11,13,19 and 23)
2000
1800
^ 1600
c
'S 1400
g
1200
M
E
1000
800
600
0.30Vmax
H i 0.50Vmax
- 0.70Vmax
X - -0.90Vmax
3K Vmax
200
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Figure A.21: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJES,

4500
4000
3500
| 3000
<0
o
o
2500
0.30Vmax
, 2000
c
S 1500
i.50Vmax
0.70Vmax
(0
0.90Vmax
1000
5KVmax
500
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figure A.22: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEFCS,

(gauges 2,6 and 7)
5000 1ss?pr
4500 -
0.30Vmax
4000 -
1112
'c
3500 -
1 *14
2
o
3000-
i.50Vmax
0.70Vmax
- - X - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
S.g. 12
.S2 2500 -
,
c
2000-
(A
1500 -
nV .
1000
500
-100
-80
-60
-20
-40
20
40
60
100
80
Figure A.23: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEFCS,

5000
4500
^
4000
3500
'c
I.
I
II
g 3000
30
22
.a
2500
2000
0.30Vmax
-Ht-0.50Vmax
1500
-A - - 0.70Vmax
1000
-X- - -0.90Vmax
-X Vmax
</)
500
23
Ar -
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure A.24: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEFSS,

334
1800
1600
1400
2 1200
0)
2 iooo
o
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - X - -0.90Vmax
* Vmax
800
c
2 600
4-*
400
0)
200
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
d is t a n c e fro m c o lu m n f a c e (m m )
Figure A.25: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFSS, (gauges

1,2,3 and 4
12000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - -X - -0.90Vmax
3K Vmax
10000
c
"(5
u.
4-1
8000
(0
o
.2
6000
E,
40
43
4000
co
-45
2000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Figure A.26: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJEFSS,

(gauges 40,43,44 and 45)
335
14000
0.30Vmax
- 0.50Vmax
0.70Vmax
X- - -0.90Vmax
12000
. loooo
s
u
O
o
-X Vmax
8000
6000
c
S
(0
4000
2000
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure A.27: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJESCS,

(gauges 2,5 and 8)
5000
4500
^ 4000
c
jo 3500
j 3000
.a
2500
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
-3JS Vmax
E
^ 2000
g 1500
w 1000
500
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure A.28: Strain distribution in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJESCS,

336
1600
25I
1400
29
1200
c
'(5
V-
1000
1o0
o
800
600
31
32
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-- -0.70Vmax
-X 0.90Vmax
X Vmax
(8
4-*
(0
30
400
200
100
50
-200
200
150
250
300
3! 0
d is t a n c e fro m c o lu m n c e n t r e
Figure A. 29: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFCS, (gauges

29,30,31 and 32)
4000
3500
(0
3000
35
2500
0.30Vmax
Hi-0.50Vmax
-0.70Vmax
-X 0.90Vmax
X Vmax
.y 2000
E,
.E
X.
1500
1000
X.
500
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figure A.30: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFCS, (gauges

33,34 and 35)
337
1400
1200
(0
m
o
O
&
800
-----0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - X - -0.90Vmax
3K Vmax
600
400
A-
200
0
100
50
200
150
250
300
350
Figure A.31: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESCS, (gauges

28,29,30 and 32)
2500
2000
c
2
w
o1_
o
32_ . 33
1500
E
^ 1000
2
0.30Vmax
- 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
-5K Vmax
53
500
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160

32 and 33)
338
1400
Sc
1200
1000
34
800
35
-X
600
0. 30Vmax
- 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - X - -0.90Vmax
3K Vmax
400
200
Ar
+
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160

34 and 35)
800
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
A 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
700
c
<0
(0
c_
600
500
o
.2
E,
400
.E 300
(0
+1.
S .g.3
(/) 200
100
^ X
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Figure A.34: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESSS, (gauges

1,3 and 4)
339
1400 -|
1200
0.30Vmax
HI 0.50Vmax
-A 0.70Vmax
X- - -0.90Vmax
Vmax
800
600
400
X-
200 0
50
100
150
200
250
300

9,10 and 11)
1600
S.g. 21
1400
tT 1200 ;
'<5
#o> 1000
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-h 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
5K Vmax
800 :
E,
600 :
X-
400
-x
200
50
100
150
200
250
300

21,22 and 23
340
1800
1600
1400
c
s
w
o
ka
o
1200
0.30Vmax
0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - X - -0.90Vmax
S Vmax
1000
800
c
'5
4-
0)
600
400
200
0
100
50
200
150
250
300
350

5,6,7 and 8
2500
2000
c
1500
0
1
{T 1000
0.30Vmax
HI 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
- - -X- - -0.90Vmax
ak.
co
500
* Vmax
50
100
150
200
250
300

9,10 and 11
341
1600
0.30Vmax
HI 0.50Vmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
X- - -0.90Vmax
X Vmax
1400
1200
2
%
1000
o
.2
800
600
,
<5
CO
400
200
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160

12,and 13
1200
1000
c
n
800
- 0.30Vmax
- O.SOVmax
-A- - 0.70Vmax
-X- - -0.90Vmax
-X Vmax
200
50
100
150
200
250
300

22,23and 24)
0 0 ON ^
(T) o o
O O M /1 ^
o
m vo
cn c n
i-H
T h o
VO
- h
^*3 i - I
n tj- r r >n
n o vo h
oo
O
in
CN
o
os
vo cn
OS o
o
wn
c n -h i~h o o o o
m t-- o
o s
^ t I* f " n v o f O ^
-i i n r *
OS CN VO
r
<nVS N
OON vVoOmm
^ r ( fv j C -
cn
on
*-N Tfr CN
o
t> No
os
d
00
r00
00
^
VO
in
r**
OS
f>.
c-*
o
> >
in
<N r*HI o o
oo <N r - oo
n
-<
M
O
CN
<A rt
CN 0 0 O n
VO ^ OS
O (N
^
0 0 VO
(N
o o h * on
i n (N
rH OO
tc*- o s vo
CN
H ^ v o m o o in
I*
on
On
t J-
r-*
cn
0 0 <N
r*
m r - oo
CN CN
cn
*
H
VO
VO
N"
00 m
'Cf i
m
in oo
O s ^-4
00
VO
TJ- Tl- t~"
*-h c n o s
vo n
cn cn ^
in
. *
>
vs
m
rt
iI v o v d i-H " r cn o o
^
o s r^- o s r fH n
o d d
vo i cN in
< cn -h os
H
r<
o s ^ r
v o o t
cn o o
Os
cN i n O s m
i n vo
CN r-H CN ^
vo
CN *-< CN (N
m
*i st in
os
vo
oo
h
CN
cn
r -cn
^r
CN
or
W
CN
VO^ C3 h
Appendix B
oo
i>
O
^ m in i
^
H
O
r - * -t o o ( N ^
T f VO
' OS
h - ( N Is * rH
cn
^
v s cn
i n o i H Q H O
^
CN CN
^ CN
oo
^r
h
in
cn
in
vo
^
os
cn
^
VO
oo
CN
vo
r
d
oo
vo
cn
00 T f
vo
< ^
o d
00 Os
OS
o
o
o
OS O s o s
OS OS OS

d d
v q c n *-< o o
in o s d
oo
-h wn o o o
CN CN CN -i i n
CN C*^ OS
cn
t*- i n c n
CN
T f i n o o CN
CN CN CN
CN
^
i> t CN CN CN
oo m
OS
vo r-*
in
rr
OS o s o s OS
h
h
ih
n in i n in r t
oni n o o r - o o
v s lO
os
00*- v o o o T f
cn
^
N" t t

c*-
o o f-H
r- On
OO - H c s v o
cn ^
m
^
i> oo c n
cn
cn
i n > n M t
oo o s o s cn
^ m cn in
cncn ^
r-
vo
cn o s
cn ^
in ^
in
M in
"3*OO
Os Os
Th o o
c n cn
o s cn
i n C '* c n c n r-**
OS
i<
cn o s vo cn
os
oo
m
cn cn cn i>
d o
cN *-h k
o s cn vo c^
c n CN t*- v s tt
CN
H ON ON c n o s t**- O s
vo

>n
o3
cn
os
CN
*i
3s *
Os
>n
cn
r-* CN
r-
in
c n CN CN c n
os
vo
oo
vo
On
CN
os
in
vo
OO
cn
cn
vo
d
v s c - <is c n
^
o o c n vo o s
^
vo
r - r**
00 00 o o
OS
in
N-
cn
cn
d
cn
d
cn cn

oo od
cn cn
oo
r^
t-*-
vo os
-i
in
cn
cn cn
i> c - f - r - vo
vovo vo vo m
CNc n c n c n c n
O
in in
cn c n
cn
in
cn
CN
CN CN c n

vo vo i n i n i n m
in m m
CN CN CN CN
CN CN CN CN
CN CN
c c
I V F
wn m i n i n i n m i n
o o O 00 o
o
OO OO 00 00 00 00 00 OS O s OS O s i n
c n CN CN CN - CN CN
vo oo
in in
t h
Tt- ^
n >o cn c n c n cn c n c n cn
H
* CN CN CN CN CN CN CN
CN CN CN
s h
in
cn
d
in
i n i n t> oo
CN CN CN
in
cn
d
CN r*: o o
oo oo ^
^
cn
<N
4 CN CN c n
r^
d
0 0 Os
cn cn
i i
w on cn
*7 ^
O
O
CO
3
<
cn
O
0
1
E L
i>
vq
d
(N c n v o
/ s1*s^' V*HH
'-i 04 c<1 Sh
CI >I >I >I >I >l i CNi c ni ^ i ni
N
N
N N N M
<!<<<!<
^
&X
<D
vq
cn
rr

m
in
m i n wn i n
m i n VO VO
i n o o <N O ) CN v q
s j- m o o c n
*< c n
^
o oo ^ vd d
o
< o --1 r - ' ^
c n c n c n CN c n CT> -S t CS CN c n
t j *c n c n c n c n
"3
VO
m
(N
d
CN CN
r* co no
O O
in m m
cn c n
os
00
vo
in
vq
v6 in in in
i n vo oo i> in vd cn d
oo in d
CN CN
- h s f v o -h \
> n o o o o cN CN c n CN CN c n
< ii ri < cn 1 1
CN(N CN ^ CN
o o r s c ^ c ^ ^ v o
vd
vdvd vo in
vo
vovo vo m
^
CN
( N c n cN c n
cn
o s vo
cn n
CN CN
m [-
vo
cn
vo
-i OS
ooO Ooo
vo
VO v o CN
O nO O
cn ^

CN
OS
oo
cn
cn
cn
CN
OS O n O s
CN c n
CN wn v o
vq vq vq ^ a s p

o vd
00 cOnncn ooo
v o v o ( s oc on vd s io to
CN CN CN CN c n o s o s o s O i n
m in m in Os o s o s H H
(S) i-H r-< r -( c n CN
CN
cn
cn
cn cnos cno >
'T
C'-' C-* l >

CN CN CN CN
vo
in
o
cn
cn cn o
i CN ^
CN VO c n CN VO
v o t-* m
c n o o i n c- i n t-* O s m
^
(N < -
00 ^ Is'
t s
m
h m h
03
n *h h
i- h
jcn o
r^ ^
o
o o c n r - CN OS r** c n
o
OS OS i' i-H c n r** c n r - t
v o 00 VO Tj- i n
c n *' c*^ 00
> i
J55
(N
o
oo
CO
a* a
on
.a
1.092
109944
207154
243 0 0 5
184760
282093
236538
190952
1.291
1.268
1.295
109125
111236
14 2 8 3 5
Beresford, 1967
0.457
54.8
57.2
| 31.1 2.18
MG-2A 31.6 1.97 114.3 254
O tT-cM \rm <D N .ooo)t-TLLlUJUJUiUJUiUJUJUJLU i

{ o w m c o m t n m c o w r o CO
254 ,120.1 !
90003
183825
220261
154839
279568
224294
165831
142520
268533
315007
239503
365676
306623
2 47530
141458
144195
185157
60.5
60.3
43.9
250 140.9
250 141.0
250 185.0
43.2 0.95 121.0 250
32.2 1.28 122.0 2 50
1 1 4 0 250
29.5
Mark
1.202
1.373
1.438
10.5
12.1
CNin'N CNCOTi-COCOOO
S C M U 3 M 0 t-OO(O(D(D
^ d - r - 'rJ d-r-''r-: d d d
i n \ r ( D O ) O ) 0 0 T - o > i - i n 03
in-srco^cNcricN-r^-r^^
o o ^ c M ' ^ - c o c o - s r - ^ - ^ f i o CO
CN d o o o
to in in in in
v- CN CN CN CN
^ "N" T- TN" N" 00 CO
O) O) OO 00
m in in in
r^. r
d d d d
o m o o
od cd cd d
00 CO 00 CO
00 CO r* O
(b
cd v* d d cm
CD V- LO 00 00 CD
t" CM r r r
CO CO CD CD (O CD
00 00 00 00 00 00
CMCMCMCMCN CM
CMCMCMCMCMCM
00 CO CO 00 00
CO CO CO M* 00 00
l o l o m co m in
O) 05 O) 05 G) 05
in in in in l o l d
T- T- T- r" t- TCN CN CN CN CN CN
co co ro co co co
T~ t- r- t- t r T" T- T- T- r- TN CO cn O) 1 N"
d o co d d co
CN CO T- CO CO CN
t- cn co n in io
o o o o o o o o o o
cocN C N âiaidco^fod
a)CD10(D'5-C\IMfMi-n
152.4
d ^r o o
uj o) in
(NCOc t o o o o
in in in m
CN CN CN CN
D15
XXX
Hxxx
SF1
Sf2
JS1
JS4
S1-2
1.069
co
co cm o
^ cd 00 00 00 CO
io N CN CO N CD
CMCN CMCMCMCN
Author &
Research
Regan (1981)
Table B.l Continued
r~
fo. Ro
MPa
CM
cn o co co cn
CO O in N h* t- O)
CO O) O) CD CD CO O)
d d d d d d
0.429 117177
0.428 102696
0.237 128675
CMo o o
r- O CO o
00 CO CD 00
o d d d
00 0) 0)
CN 00 CO
S CN N
N- CO CN
in n s
n n in io
CN r- O) CO
co in in co
d d d d
ini ooi in cn
N IO N1 ^
oo -sr oo oo
LUUJ
CO
1.040
15027
1.241
9712
^
O
00
O
o)
o
o
00
d
CO rCN h3 co co
d d d
\r co ^
d
CM O CN CM CMO
LO 00 lO LO LO CO
o o o o o o o o o o
OOOOOOOIOIOIO
N- <vE cncncocococot - cncncn
o E
O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o o i n i n m
CO ^ E oCOCOCNCNCNCNCOCNCNCN
E
o o o o o o o o o o
coTôocddcdododcdod
in
0>00)0)0)0)0)010I01
N-
11592
27374
t'- co
r"
N CO O CO
oo cn in in
1.03 49. 5 152 101.6 32.1
>*-
) n n
0 )0 1 (0
oo i^- oo
oo co
in N N
m dicoO T -cN
O (O 1- N N CD
00 00 00 CO h- 00
d d d d d d
Scavuzzo (1978)
Hanson and
Hanspn (1968)
El-Salakawy,
Polak, and
Soliman, (1998,
1999, 02)
Mortin and Ghali,
1991
Sherif, 1996
Megaliy and
Ghali, 2000
oo
CN 0 ) 0 ) 0 1 ( 0
O N
O) LO O)
CO CN t- tJd
o
0
hO)
CNLOCNiOCOM'M-COCOCN
a in'M-CDCM^-CMCD't-OCM
^r;U )^ C O (N |r;T -r;r;
CM K b
> >
COM-CVJOONCOCOCOCOCM
OOCNCOCMt- L O t- O C O O
(O N C O rlO (O C O O (00
0N M O (O lO <O O tO C O
- >u C O ( D O ) r T - O r r O M
t- rr- r r- v" t- r* t0 ) N t- 1 0 I O ( D 8 ) 0 ( D ( D
0)N O C 0't'J0lT -00
CO C t- v-CNCN t -CNCNCNCOCN
fl)
C
d d d d d d d d d d
o
S
i>
l o o i n m i n s N N O i f l N;
o oci k F co iri (D oi
I ^ ro
O)
cococococncococococo
&
CD
00
00
co
m
30051
^ W
<J> TT 1^
CO CO 00
CO CO Nm m- o
n - o- co
0.145
- (N
co 8-^
vi
cn
cm to
io in O) ro
cq iq cq cn
t - t - r* r-
6660
8Z6 0
9660
00
M
LO
CO
5060
0(00^ 0)T -I0(*)(000

ooocococo-sfcnco-N-co
(N O )N O 't(D O )ffiO O O
O O N O O t- OOIOIO t CN
m
'fo jo o ro ro n co co o )
r- rt
Io s r>
n N o o T -so it-fin
N O O N in O N O W t
''"a* c N
O L O O t- cmO [ ^ . t- O tr r r ^ r r r O ^ r ^
> >
193512
121730
139660
140083
118532
127868
176290
111434
105060
120385
1.173
(O W T -O ftftO jO i-N
C M itrt-N O O IO O eO
n q ^ rin tq co o 'j^ 'j
1
A
)
V
i
CO
1 N r
r v- i > V
343
To
0
03
To
7.
Q
)b
00
*
r^- <5
fc,
CM
M ark
M Pa
co
R egan, 1990
1.041
0.236
0.227
1.294
o o o p OO 00 p CO T- 05 CM 05
l O N o i d o d o 00 00 N id (D o
CO CO CO ^
M" oo oo 05 in 05 t T- T
T- T - CM
o o o o o o o o o o o o
O LO O O O O in in m in cm in
r t- CM t- CM
CM CM CM CM M- CM
o o o o o o O O O O O O
o o o o o in in in in in in m
T- T- T- CM CM r - CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o O o o p o p O O O O C3 o
CM O CM CM CM CM CM CM 0 1 0 ^ 0 0 0
00 CO LO LO lO LO LO LO 1CM 00 CM CM CM
IDO
Author &
R e sea rch
Table B.l Continued
Ro
CD
Cl,
mm
E
E
d,
mm
05
co N- co
M- co ^ T- CO T- CO TCO 05 ID
1^ 05 MLO 1^ 00 LO 00 05
05 05 in t tr^CM
M' ^ CM M" in 00
M ean
Standard D ev.
Cefficient of V ar.%
Mean for F R P
S p e c im e n s
Standard D ev.
Cefficient of V ar.%
lu '>sa*A
/ f t s a i ) n |/ \ | = a
o c o t in in in in in in
CO CM CO 05 N CO CO CD CD CO CO tT,X
CM CM CM CM CM Mo o ci o o ci 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.082
t- m o
145399
139226
83139
137156
176035
160856
' i z
>
0.082
N- mN- CO CO
00 <30 O 05 CM 00
t - CM m CD M- CM
LO N- t LO CO LO
CM CM CO CO M- CO
03
00
O
o
t- r- t- r- t- CO
fv. h- N- NO O O O
o) (D ^ co
CO N CN N
co sj- co
t- CM CO ^
NO
io
00
co
U)
CD ^ n o ro co n
O
T TC5 T- I
05 O M- CM 00 00
in cd co
cci
CN
^r CM CM CM CM CM in
(D
tin cm i*- co
(O U
_U
. li. U
.L
L
L
UL
UL
UU
JL
UL
U
5-o ~
5555
MN N N N M
Gilbert & G la s s ,
1987
Z ag h lo u l
(p re se n t
p ro g ra m )
1.190
92663
21112
>
200 108.2
170 21.9
>
00
CM
CO CM
O O
1.156
1.168
1.037
O CO S 05 CM N M- CO 00 CO M- <
05 LO CO <- ID ID CD in co co t- t
CO CO1 CM *-_ O t ; CM 00 >- T<- CO
250
170
CM
03 T
h- tC O
t- r-
O
CO
CM
o
1.216
0.108
74335
18641
irt CM t - CM f CO 05 lO CO 05 0 CO
t- 05 CM CO 05
CM lO O O CO O
v- O O 00 M" M" t -CO LO t- N S
00 05 t- in CM CD S <35 CD CO t - O
CM CM CO CO M- CO O U) 00 M* CO CO
CM t t- r - t-
48.3 0.39
28.4 0.41
<N
g'1-;
CO <s ^
> w**
-
1.177
1.214
1.154
1.120
1.111
1.349
1.326
0.305
1.887
1.523
57344
1438d
1.456
1.175
IC5 CO N CO O r - 00 O f - 03
M- (M
N C
t - LO
CM O 00 CM 00
N
NO -iT-r- O ^ r - O O
O
T t -
> >
o r-'- t - co
co
05 m
t o 't
tT r* r -
9 600
*c
CO CM ID G5 CO in co co co cm ^ ^r
05 t- t- t- in oo N- CO CO T- CO 00
co
os co
o N r* r* t- O (\|
t- CN CO S CM CO 03 lO
03 CO CO
CM CM CM CM CO CM in in co co m o
TT
T T r -
0.258
0.427
w g,
m "3_.
*2
> wo
o
in
co
-r-
8600
CD S3 *
> >
xr
rcp
r-
0 .7 7 8
62264
0 .6 0 0
72642
1 .1 3 7
0 .9 2 6
45614
0 .7 1 4
53217
0 .9 6 6
31743
1 .2 0 1
1 .7 6 9
20411
20812
30001
0 .8 7 7
0 .7 4 5
37033
35001
0 .9 9 1
i-H
1 .3 6 5
121547
0 .9 3 8
188440
133258
1 .2 5 8
1 .0 4 1
172957
1 .0 9 8
133286
1 .1 1 7
113162
204176
214154
201732
189078
145858
28142
24611
26844
1 .1 6 7
CO
0 0
0 .9 2 7
*-H
^
24280
-H
CN
CN
^
-H
r-H
VO CN
CO
CN 0 0
T f f 'l
H H
i
H rH
23813
dN O
CN
(N wo
OO H
^ VO
r-H r-H
vo 0 0
on 0
ON O
v o wo
On C^*
r-H
1 .1 0 7
CO
O
VO
M
CN
rH
1 .1 5 8
11169
25821
1 .5 3 8
41213
21722
62903
O CO
VO vo i-H
0
wo On
CN CO CN
VO 00 t>
IH 1H i-H
r-H
0 .6 3 2
68988
0 .6 2 5
60848
0 .6 2 2
0 .5 5 0
50208
49331
1 .2 1 4
18536
1 .8 0 5
oo
0
0
0
0
p 0
^ i n OO 0 vq vq vq hh on 0
^7 *""? i n
co co 0 0 vd O O CN CN CO O OO r-H OO c d wi
oo CN CN CN < wo
00 ON O 00 O vo vo i > c * 0 0 i n ^ 1-H
0 .2 5 6
00
1 1 .2
On On
cn tj* cn
4 3 .6
00 CO ON vo CO CO 0
*- 0
0
vo on i> 0 0 i n 0
i ON
CO CO CO CO t*- Tf ^ cn N]
0
0 0
iH
0 .1 9 0
r-H
vo co
^ co
co
n in
Cs 00
0 .1 2 6
^H
hh
0 .1 6 7
r-H
r->
CN
O
o\
CO
7 .2
vq cn ^
w-i O n o
0 0
vo
T f vo
'
Oi ^ Ol
>h h a
O r H CN
3 8 .0
f a
1H
r-H
t|00
01
in
ON
0 .3 6 0
J?
00
oo
6600
VO 00
F - VD O
^
2
3S
rH
lO (N
ON 0 CN
00 ^ VO
CN On VO
CN VO ^
18003
tO
CN
O
^
co
0 .3 6 0
17907
19209
7496
15601
15075!
0 0 T f co wo 0 0
WO
W~t VO O Tj- CN
CN CN 00 0 0 00 O (N O H 00 O H H
0 0 0 0 i-H vq 0 0
i n i n vq c q i n co ^
H H rH (\j H IH
0 0
rH
II >
<D
On
m
eo
N
i
H
O O
CO
ON N
VO I>
vo 1'
6600
T-H
>o
N
i
H
0 0
>
6600
43107
rH
in
m
t
rH
28456
os
>t
M
rH
o O n ON CN O On On c o 0 ^ 0 0
^ oo CN r*'' ON rj- co co wo co co On
*< on on
oo
0 0 *t *h cr> 0
CN
H rH
o O ^H ^H r-H r
<n c s o
ON (N
VO
ciHs " s 2 VO ON VO T f
5
> >
- ts
s - t
(N i n CN
cn on <N
O 0
Nt H i n
CN CN CN
1-H
-h
m
IO
^H
143036
CN ON
m o
VO VN ^ O
o o a CS CO
H
CN CN
oo ' t
vo ^ co 0 co t
0 0
r-* ON CN ^J* 0 0 M
"vl; i> co vq T t i t
rH ^H
15713
S
i-i CN
U > OS CO
v-> to v> cn n ni n
r< o'
>
CT4
W
n oo
VO c s
ih cn
f ^ ^
N- ^
cl
rH
> >
_t> 1-H
h-
0 0
0
137470
0 0 ^ h O VN ON VO ON
O (N o C" o o n n
cn CN O
i ON
^H rH ^H i-J -h -;
1 .3 0 7
Jr
> >
i
5
6600
r-H
0 0
r-H
i-H
i-H
rH
CN CN CN
* CN CN
i-H i-H
3 0 .7
2 2 .5
2 7 .6
225
225
8 1 .0
t t- r- '
225
3 8 .0
3 8 .0
3 8 .0
in m n
4 1 .0
O n O n On O n
vq O O O O O O O
O O
vo
i n i n n n n i n n i n vo
m CN CN (N CO tJ- CN CN r-H r-H
CO
6 5 .0
C-;
r-;
VO VO vo vo
vo vo vo vo
CN CN CN CN
225
4 9 .0
0 0
4 9 .0
^
rH
i-H
5 9 .0
^
rH
r-H
5 9 .0
|H
1 1 8 .5
1-1
1 1 8 .5
rH
1 1 8 .5
r-H
1 1 8 .5
rH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O O O O O O
i n n n n n n n vo VO i n i n i n i n
CN CO rfr CN CN CN CO i-H r-H r H r-H ^H ^H
1 1 8 .5
rH
vq 0
0
vq 0
in
vd cd 0
0
0 0
wd O
T f Wl 00 00 CN CN
1 1 8 .5
^H
CN O J
0 0
wo
vo > 1 VD
CN 1-4 <N
vo
vo VO WN
CN CN CO
1 1 8 .5
c-* t> c-
CN CN CN CN O
VO
75l
<Q a
O g
75
r-
(N l> ON ON O ON r-H (N CO CO ON
cn T f Nt o ^ O ini oo cn wS vd
> n c s -< CN CN CN i (N r~H N"
1 CN CN
r - c-- r-* t-*
oo r - r-*
l> vo VO
CN CN (N CN
1 CN CN
75
i s
> 2
68
00
3 2 .5
0 .4 7
0 .6 7
3 9 .0
3 4 .7
4 3 .8
1 8 .0
20.0
21.2
1 8 .0
2 7 .0
2 8 .5
n>
i-J
G -l
G -2
v ^
tzi &o
G osselin ( 1 9 8 4 )
(1 9 7 1 )
Z a gh lou l
(1 9 7 8 )
*7
7 T
Nl <c < < < : < :
/-"s
OO
ON
1-H
'w '
To
(1 9 8 4 )
L am b
S -1 3 *
2 5 .0
i-H
s-10
/s /\
Z a gh lou l a n d
B e n -S a si ( 2 0 0 3 )
C /E /4
/ ' " s / " n
> > > > > >t
K ane
C /E /3
C /E /1
C /E /2
S ta m e n k o v ic '
and
Shapman ( 1 9 7 4 )
M ark
A uthor &
R esearch
hh
oc ro 0
00 ^h* VO
CO CO CN
3 8 .1
3 0 .0
r-
0 .3 5
^ co vo CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
^ 1
-H ^
CN CN CN CN CN CN CN
r-H i-H rH ^H rH rH r-H
cd CN CN CN CN
r-H
0 .3 5
ON r o ^
2 5 .0
1 .9 9
1 .9 9
1 .9 9
Ro
n"H ^ H
r-H
>0 0 0 00 CN ON CN vq v f r f n
cd t-< m ' f s O
rH
rf O
c n m m <N CO C> n* CN CN CO
CN
CN CN CN CN
n n n n
r-H
IIT
N-
2 .0 3
xf
i n
Table B.2: Comparison of predicted and observed punching shear capacity of steel and FRP reinforced edge column
connections based on the critical perimeter with inclined sides and different vc equations
VO
345
n v sio c n ^ ro o v sc N O
_ cO- c
ifNcn^cNoom^HOs
i-h *-< CN
so t*- 0 0
s o m oo
'O 60
CN ^ o s
OS cn cn
CN i- h i- m
^
{S
oo
o
o o cn v s o s
oocn
oo
oo oo s o
o o o o
cn
oo
oo
o
vs
os
oo
r - cn o s v s
oo oo o o s
cn m o r* '
o i-< vo
s o O < v s
CN CN cn CN
o
ri
VS CN
oo ^
so so
o
ii
oo
so
o
> >
l>
r-<>
^
00
s o s o SO T t wo
co
o s v") s o
oo
in oo oo
SO O h
> w
S71
r i vo
oo m
o s cn
cn *n
v s Os
r*- cN
o oo
o O
os
Os
so
os
oo
oo
cN
os
(N
o
oo c n Os v s oo ^ CN C*- Os 6 s
O V S O S O O S O C N S O O O O -N q ^ O H C N q ^ H O H
rH
-r CN
vs
> oi
hH
rH
r-H
r-H
r-H
CO
00
cn
so
cn
oo
os
O
os
Tt
CN
oo
oo
r^
so
os o
rCN so
i n 00 r-H
CN
cn
00 O
vo
1-H CN CN
0 0 rH VS
CN CN N-
so VO 00
oo r-H O S
O
Os
00
r-
0 0
so
l>
CN
t*VS
so
CN
so
00
cn
vs
^
CN
hh
Tf
o s t"* rH
VS
cn ^
CN OO
so
CN cn
r
H ^H
C N O O O C N ^m O sC N O scn
vscNCN^tmosr^m^-oo
^socnTrvscN^fr-'soo
socnooooc^sooor-HH^-o
O s C N c n c n i - H C N t ^ i i o
cn
l>
VS
C-*
Os
CN
00
vs
cn
so
Os
-H
Os
h
O C ^ ^ r H - ^ O O l ' C ^ v s
c n c N t^ -^ -C N ^ j-v s c N O c N
OO CN O
h 00 o
cn CN v s
r - cn
CN O
CN N-
o o s c-* Os o s s o t
o o s cn
'C f n O h n m 'O H t s f l N
o
os
SO
o
Os
o
cn
oo
Tf
CN
>>
^cncnt
î nocNOOs o
O O O SO cnC N Ô O O SC N C N
m r-osr^ r-(0-H oocN
v s vs
cn r**
r-H vo
vo
vs r -
r-H
vs
os
vs
o
O
\
h v s v s s o oo s o s o
CiC'OcnooTj-ôsHoo
^^HCNCNr-HCNCNCNcncN
VS
Nr-H
?e
vs o vs vs vs
oo*
i-H
os
cn cn cn cn CNcn
os
0 * 0 0 0 0 0
CN O
r*- O
cn
o
00
i> c^: o vs
cn v s s o o s
cn cn cn cn
Tf*
oo
rr
r-*
OS
v s cn
cn o s
o
cn
i-H
O
t Jcn
CN
11
(N
vs
OS
o
so
o
^
^
oo
CN
vo
cn
vs
OS
os
CN
CN
oo o s oo
o s os so
o o o
O
CN
N1
0\
Os
so
00
r-H
nCN
CN SO
cn r-H
0 0 o
o ^
TT
b ' cpT cn cn ni*
h o o o VS CN
cn
OS
i n SO SO CN ^
oo
o s v s i-H t*- o s -H
oo t- < v s c
SO
r-H
CN CN
O O
vo O
s o cn
OS 00
CN C
N
rj-
oo T f t
^ o
v s CN O CN CN CN O
v> cn v s v s i n so
VS 00
vs cn
cn ^ oo cn
T t s o oo oo
vs
cn oo
CN CN CN CN
Os
oo
so
SO
^h
oVO so
vs
cn Tf
o N;
oo cn
r - so
CN CN
^
p
oocNCNôsossdcn-ôd
ososvsso^cNcncN^Hcn
p N; p
CN v s o s v s
o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o m v s v s
cN C N cncncncn^H C N C N C N
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o vs vs vs
o o o o o
cn cn cn CN CN CN cn CN CN CN
p
od^Hodedodododododoo
O S O O S O S O S O sO S O sO S O S
N IO ^
H- -
00 00 oo
t ^ N V l ' 0 - 0 0 ' 0 v O
o r-H r-H o
r-H O
O O
CN SO
r-H
r-H
v s v s vs
o o
vs vs
CN CN CN
CN CN
o o o
vs vs vs
CN CN CN
o o
vs vs
CN CN
^
i-H
Tf*
cn
o s o s oo
r-H CN
CN CN
vs
vs
vs 00
vs
r- r- rCN
OS CN
p vs o
c n vd cn
cn cn cn
CN CN
c n cn
N* c n
VS^ppOSOO-Hp^HVS
cnî*cN^rcncn^r,d-',d vs
V S T t S O - ' d - C N O S C N r - i - H ^ H
C*H
Table B.2 Continued
SO
cn
so
o
CN
>
0
rin
00
SO
OS
' ^ r - H i n T j - C n C N r - H r - H r - H r - H
o
CN CN
CN
cn h o n - so
i-H Os CN ^
H VS 00 00 so
CN
O s OS O s O s O s O s
CN CN CN CN CN CN
CN CN CN CN CN CN
cn cn cn i-H cn cn
cn cn cn t J* cn cn
v s v s v s s o v s vs
OS
vs
rH
OS o s OS OS OS
vs vs vs vs vj
tH
r-H ^
r-H i
N
N N N N CS
" F - cn c n c n cn c n cn
Os
1-H
so
oo )
Os
M cn h
r-
<
6
cn
os
^ ^
o s cn
N (n Tf wl lO
<N
CN
r' N ^ V S S O h O O O l H r H
w w w w w w w w w w
ca
CO
- s
5 S3
^3
3 3
< Pi M
rt 4<>
n
SJ
Os
os
r OS
'tfco co
_ s
S'O o
Os |
2
>>CN
S
3
I f
*2 ON
rVO
Os
r-H
T*
<S
co
. a
346
oo
CN
rH
vo
cn
*-H
rH
tp o
oo Tt
ON r-H cn
O rH rH
rH
oo
^h
ro
CN
vo
oo
tn
>n
CN
in
^
in
oo
vo
t"
^
oo
>n
rH
oo
cn
oo
h
rH
cn
(N
rH
m
oo
Cn
rH
m
cn
H
rH
oo
h
H
H
wn vo
cn
rH fO
rH rH
1 .4 9 7
0 .1 7 4
0 .2 2 6 1
0 .1 1 7
0 .1 1 7
oo
ON
0 .1 3 5
3- cn -4 T f tn cn oo cn
r - On r*- O n cn
w O .^3 *00
< M N M O h h
i - i
Sf
rH
m
M n
'H* CO On O
tN 00 oo (N
m
ts ^
ro <n ro
rH rH rH
1 .1 5 5
C*"- CN
oo
(N ^ 00 O
*-h ^ m VO
rH h - n
cn cn
to
rH rH
0 .2 1 6 1
CN
Is
cn
rH
cn
1 .0 4 5
VO
O
cn
VO
CN
0 .2 3 6
t o cn CN
tj*
r - (N ^
13 rH <n oo vo vn
m ^
in
rH 5 10 vo CN (N
> cr
W
1 .3 5 5
'
0 .3 0 6
cn cn r* r*- cn wn cn cn C" v cn i n vo vo
-cn tjwn vo ,*fr r - vo r - r - cn
o OO t o v vo vq ^
^ -j wn
cn
V0 . %
^
h
rH
rH
H rH rH rH rH rH r-H i
H rH
1-H
> >"
36600
43315
36683
1 .0 3 1
1 .1 4 8
30573
1 .0 9 5
28595
CN
in
in
vo
>n
rH
ON
00
cn
cn
ON
"sf o
r - oo
vo
o ^
CN cn
on
M i n vo h o
>o rn n (N t
wn
on vo wn
vo ^ oo On
o o 'sf m lo
on cn cn
vo H vo h (O i n m vo ov c s
cn cn cn ^
cn i n cn oo m i >
rH
rH rH
0 .1 0 8
0 .1 3 2
1 .2 2 2
0 .2 5 2 1
on
rH
1 .3 0 3
cn
0 .3 2 9
W
On tC
1 .2 5 4
' rf
27558
cn
H
t" O n
Os xn
H- oo
t-- i
1 .3 7 7
_ (N
o .i
2 ,X
t
1 .4 1 9
>
r
cn
vo
vo
in
rH
VO 00
170
rH
100
200
100
200
150
rH
00
o
oo
oo
rl
v f h f * VO
cn ^ oo ^
oo o \ wn vo
oo
m on
^H
r H rH
D e v ia tio n
For F R P
f'"
oo
h
fN
<b
m i n >n in cn in
CN CN CN CN ^
CN
o O
v/n m in i n n m >n
CN CN L CN CN CN CN CN CN
0 .6 8
0 .7 1
0 .7 1
O O O O
CN CN CN CN CN CN ov
n i n t i >n
in i- i
rH
0 .7 1
CN 0 0 CN CN CN
rH
r H r H rH
r r r* r - r - r - r r-i cn cn cn cn cn
rH rH rH rH rH
v o T f oo tn ^ O n T f CN OO OO
rn h c i h oo cn c-* wn o vd t-- vo
Nt n ^ cn cn
CN CN CN CN CN wn
Z JEF3
Z JFE 2
Z JE F7
ZJEF5
G la s s , 1 9 8 7
&
program )
in vo
Z JEF1
(p re sen t
Z JES
cn
Z a g h lo u l
on
G ilb er t
250
6 0 .0
8 2 .0
0 .3 9
0 .4 1
2 8 .4
4 8 .3
M ark
&
rH
rH
R esea rch
<N
A u th or
Table B.2 Continued
cn
R egan, 1 9 9 0
Cl,
d,
Mpa
Ro
vn
mm
VO
mm
o o
p rN H (NJ H
c
100
s Z
w
0 .7 1
>
0 .7 1
00
CN ON o o o O 00 00
00 h t ! i > ov o od o
o r s cn cn cn N -
C o e f . Of V , %
Standard
M ean
ON
H 00 H
cn on in
h
V alue
Mean
O n Nf vo
V a lu e
T >
O
C o e f . Of V , %
0 .1 3 5
m i n in
vo VO hh
CN CN

Standard
H (n
on c**:
Ov i n
^ CN
0 .1 3 1
cn c*^ ^ cn ^
iri
oo iri oo
os
N"
0 .1 7 3
>n >n
vo vo
CN CN

0 .1 9 3
m
vo
CN
0 .1 2 7
0 .1 3 1
o
rH
oo r VN CN
9 r< CN
! E o d
D e v ia tio n
>
oo
OS
oo
O
vo
CN
cn
^
rOS
o
^
os
CN
cn
o
vo
r~
V5
rH
o vo ' r s m
o
Ii vo o
oo o n in < t
i
H ( \| (SJ i-H ^H
l>
cN
Tjin
rH
r1 r-H
oo so
in m
H CN
cn
r-H rH
CN
rH
cn
so
r-
00
so
hh
os
^
i -h
os
os
os
cn
OO i-H
<t r t
^ os
1'
vo oo
iH
ncn
00
rH
Ov
in
Os
o
oo
^
in
os
cn
cn cn n r
c os cn os os cn
^ h vo os
oo os oo r - oo
so cn ^ cn
cn ^ cn cn in c*^
1-H r-H *-H r-H r-H r-H i-H i
H lH rH
(S
Tt
Tf
os
in
OO OO
m cn
oo
cN
rH rH
in oo
Os
CN t>
1 .3 1 4
0 .9 8 4
oo
<-<
O;
rH
2 .7 4 5
1 .5 8 3
so cn cn oo r cn cn r-- cn oo
q ' t vo ^
^H rH i C r-H rH
11839
14209
21306
17263
28925
44306
^
,
CX
w
rH IO
i on
wn so
r - wn
i cn
cn
Os
h;
CO
2 .1 1 8
1 .2 2 2
0 .9 9 9
1 .3 7 2
1 .0 1 3
0 .7 5 9
H
cn
oo
-h
cn
0 .7 4 1
0 .6 0 1
0 .8 0 3
0 .5 1 9
VO >
rH
tO
oo
oo
<N
so
24984
26839
24120
27030
1 .1 6 4
1 .7 1 9
1 .4 2 2
0 .4 2 6
0 .9 6 1
0 .7 7 9
1 .0 4 1
0 .6 7 3
SJ
H o
r- > >
pH
& *-
rH
cn
rH
c> *-<
CN OO OS
os un
rH ^H ^5
m
so
oo
in
in
o
cn
os in in
^
cn
oo n cn
cn *h cn
o
CN
^
SO
CN
so
co
o
oo ^ 00
v
h
oo
o o o
1 .2 2 7
0 .9 0 1
1 .1 7 6
0 .8 1 4
*Ns* 0
OS
cn
m
cn
CN
os
os
OS
1-H
oo
vo
in
C-"
r-H
cn
^
cn
CN
CN
oo
00
os
i>
CN
cn m OS so
CN os cn cn os
cn cn os oo in
so cn oo oo Os
os OS Hi (N
H rH
rH
cn
it
^
H
CN oo
os in
os r vo m

rH rH
c*in
cn
h
rH
rH
cn
i- h
cN
r-H
CN
sf
oo
r-H
Is* O (N wn cn cn cn
r** ^
o
cn M vs I f CO O -H oo I f
t> rH sq os
-<
vq in
i-H (M i-H r-H CN 'H h cN CN h h
2 .8 0 1
1 .6 0 0
0 .7 3 7
0 .9 7 3
0 .8 8 6
0 .7 9 9
&
>
i* so
os so
t-*- cn
x t i-h
cn cn
19567
23208
21341
22371
n-
cn o os SO
CN oo
r-H vo o o oo
m cn r - cn cn
i ii cn cn cn
oo
cn cn cn
15347
18419
27619
22377
37496
57434
m > >
i l s
^
^
rH o oo
Os Os
cn
^ cn ^
o
oo
Os
cn
0 .7 6 0
0 .6 1 5
0 .7 9 5
0 .9 1 4
0 .7 6 3
0 .5 9 1
cn in so vo
os cn cn
oo vq in
o
cn
N;
o
so so vo h
^ cn cn oo
oo os oo
rH
os o
H in rH
vo CN CN cn oo th 00 cn in
vo vo côo un
^H
H
CN cn ^
cn cn cn cn cn cn m
CN CN CN CN CN CN CN
o in
in wn
oo oo oo
Cn CN (N CN rH 04 rH
1 5 0 .0
1 5 0 .0
3 2 .5
2 2 .5
2 7 .6
3 0 .7
3 8 .0
4 3 .6
1 6 0 .0
1 6 0 .0
*
cn rH CM
rH rH
1 1 1 1
< < < < < ; c oo 00 00 U hJ
G osselin ( 1 9 8 4 )
so m
ni
in
sq in so sq
r-H
CN ^ CN CN *< ri
oo CV| CT\ CN vq
N; in oo cn
h o vi
S
oo r-J vo
(N m m N- CN (N rn i t cn cn cn
Z id a n e ta l(1 9 8 1 )
CN
in
rH
si
cn
Z - I V ( l)
Z -V (l)
Z -V ( 2 )
Z -V ( 3 )
Z -V (6 )
Z -V I (l)
Ph
CN
vn
r-H
h cn
co cn

wn in
0 .3 5
0 .3 5
0 .4 7
0 .6 7
1 0 0 .0
1 1 4 .0
1 1 4 .0
1 1 4 .0
Ro
CN
in
rH
in
hh i t vq in
oo c> in so cn oo in
VO hh VO rj- in oo oo cn CN
CN -H (N rH rH rH rH f\) rH rH
o so o
so so in
so so in in in in wn m in m
CN CN cn (N cn t cn (N N m
i> so o o o o
so so in
so so m in m vn m in m m
CN CN cn CN CN CN cn N- CN CN
^
^
00
*-<
C
N
CN
rH rH rH
cn
2 0 .0
2 1 .2
3 4 .7
4 3 .8
3 8 .1
3 9 .0
CN l> OS Os o q h n cn cn os
mi oo cN in so
cn n* rj*
wn cn -< CN CN CN 1-H (N hh
CN CN
oo
oo in in in
so so
C
N
N so r - t " r - r - so so
i
H CN
i-H CN
r-H C
i
H
- CN CN
o
oo
c*^
i> sd so
i>
5
t-.
vo
so
CN
CN
CN
C
N
c r-H rH ^H i^H
*-< CN CN
os os OS OS ^ ^
rH oo oo od
i> c*^
m in
m m ^ cn cn cn CN CN CN
rH rH i-h
1-0
M ark
CN
oo
in
rH
oo
t-
z-o
Author & R e s e a r c h
oo
so
o\
in!
rH
cn
oo
it
r-
i ii
CN
O
Oh
rf
h
cn
oo
Z a gh loo l ( 1971 )
xf
m
so
it
VO
in
o
cn ov so cn
os
oo in
cn cn cn

2 .0 3
1 .9 9
1 .9 9
1 .9 9
H
o
cn
t J-
mm
c2,
00 >
S ta m e n k o v ic '
C/E/1 and
C h a p m a n C /E /2
(1 9 7 4 )
!C /E/3
C /E /4
Kane ( 1 9 7 8 )
os
OS
rH
so
so
in
o
ZU
ZL
SO <N *-H oo t H V) 00
os oo CN CN CN ^
^H
a in
t
OS
oo
m cn
CN 1-H
oo
r-- o
>
vo
os
cn
os
oo
oo
cn
i-h
cn
r-*
^ 'If
o o
Z agh lou l and B e n Sasi ( 2 0 0 3 )

Lamb ( 1 9 8 4 )
o
rH
OS
VO
rH
oo
so
so
-H
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
1 1 8 .5
5 9 .0
5 9 .0
4 9 .0 1225.0
4 9 .0 2 2 5 .0
6 5 .0 2 2 5 .0
8 1 .0 2 2 5 .0
rr
OS
(N
so
m
m
(N
rH
m
o
N
0 .3 6 0
0 .3 6 0
0 .1 2 6
0 .1 6 7
0 .1 9 0
0 .2 5 6
rH
i
h
r-H
so
OS
cn
cn vo
cn
oo so
vo rjr1
i-H i-H
OO 'T
so in
oo
cn
CN rH r-*
rH Tt n

0 .0 9 9
0 .0 9 9
0 .0 9 9
0 .0 9 9
o'
CN >
f**
so
oo
l-H
11603
14061
37444
31539
42873
54545
cn > >
0091
0091
Table B.3: Comparison of predicted and observed punching shear capacity of steel and FRP reinforced edge column-slab
specimens using the refined method.
______
348
0.734
163610
180172
191479
167496
214387
197811
159922
212087
233556
248213
217124
277909
256422
207306
1"
133936 ' 0.897

| 159882
173557
140371
212468
187572
138883
0.457 0.182
rH 1-H l
H
th in c- os so
1' t00 Os
00 cn ^cn
rn t
0 0 0 0 0 0
rr M N1 rr n- 0
CN O CN CN CN O
in cn m m m vo
1.97 114.3 254.0 254.0 120.1

533.4
1.13
533.4
1.13
533.4
1.13
641.4
1.13
533.4
1.13
533.4
1.13
rn t 00 (N 0 t
N1*
vd 00 00 00 cn
in m r- cn oo r- v
CN CN CN CN CN CN
00 cn rH 0 ^ so
vd rH O Os CN
vo
m 00
00 so
rH ' rH
^H rH
rH
31. 6
26. 7
30.3
18.9
39. 9
39. 7
23. 4
rH
vo vo \b vd vd so
00 00 00 00 00 00
CN CN CN CN CN CN
CN CN CN CN CN CN
OS OS Os Os OS OS
m m in m m m
CN CN CN CN CN CN
-* CN cn ^ n so
B er e sfo r d , 1 9 6 7
^ 00
TJ'
00
1991
xn
0.714
0.851
0.691
0.680
0.711
0.794
'
45670
44249
90219
110394
189950
28154
61773
32204
0.330
1.561
1.662
1.943
1.987
1.205
0.985
0.751
36496
80076
41746
59202
57360
116951 I
143103 i
246232
0.511
1.680
1.751
2.006
2.086
1.454
1.383
23588
74423
39457
57317
54658
96876
101918
171120
0.125
0.605
0.637
0.698
0.698
0.557
0.412
0.147
p 0
m ^
-< -
rH
rH
IScavuzzo ( 1 9 7 8 )
Hanson and
^
D15
H a n sp n (1 9 6 8 )
X xx
E l-S a la k a w y ,
H xxx
Polak, a n d
S
F1
S o lim a n , (1998,
1999,02)
i S2
Mortin and G h a li,
i
rH
p
m os
cn vo
*-H
m r-- o\ 0 cs m
1 so os r-~ 00
0H- C
N 0 00 Os <
Sherif, 1 9 9 6
S l-2
M egally and G h a li,
2000
M G -2 A
49. 5 152.4 101.6
1.72
0.25
1.54
1.22
0.66
1.14
1.81
0.68
0.68
0.68
37. 1 1.03!
O ^
r - t c N ^ - w n ^ o c ^ o o o N i - H i < r-H
WWWW03WWWWW 1
Regan ( 1 9 8 1 )
MPa
fc,
CN
Mark
m N - ( N ^ * f n c n N , N, N , ' n
Author & R e s e a r c h
Table B.3 C o n tin u e d
in^voo\o\60HOjNin
i n N ,O N : c s o \ r i ^ - < r H
cn
rz i
\rz
10.5 0.872
0.300
0.66d
0.300
0.300
60. 5 0.429
60.3 0.428
43. 9 0.237
1
1.171 I
m oo in cn
<n ^ N*
cn rj* cn cn
t ^ , oioôootno\'oo
m(NO(NH(Nh(Nmh
CNONOc Nc n*' ^ v o v o v o
^h
o o o o o o o o o o
ovr-ûnunvoooovovo
trt
o\h O cn oo^ tov^ oo
or-H II w ^ c
CNCN**CNCNCNcncN
O O O O O O O O O O
;f
i n o i n ^ i n h h h q i n
I
S osôeohiH rnvivdos
os
cncncncncNcncncncncn
*
s
o o o o o o o o o o
43
!Z
-OsavdcnN-oo
00 8
2 oa ov cOs N('No N
v o ^ - c N cH
n c N i-H
^ ch
nH
hH r-H ^H r-H r-H r
>
0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0
o o o o o o o o o o
r- rof
o o o o o o m i n m
g
C N c N c n c n c n c n 'CNCNCN
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
S O
VO o
o o o o o o m i n m
c mcnCNCNCNCNcncNCNCN
p o o o o o p p o p
odrHooodooododododod
in xT
osoososososososovos
i1
152.4J
2 5 OX)
250.0
250.0
250.0
250.0 140.9
250.0 141.0
250.0 185.0
C
N o'
r-H
>
00
p
r-H
152.4
250.0
250.0
250.0
250.0
250.0
250.0
! 250.0
> >
57.^
94.4
94.4
83.1
83.1
121.0
122.0
"** y
cn
r-H ^ "
2.18
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.95 j
1.28
1.41
>
^
N-cN^HOsosvo
C
N o s on ooion N
, , o ^ ' f n t s inin
i-h N^ c nOvOOC^TTOs vOOs v O
OOOCNC^
CTNCNcn
(CN
N o o cCN
NC
^ r-H
m or-H
o wr-H
noooocv
rH
w*
'Ooooo(\|-Hinô\'0(N
r - r ^ r ' C N o o c n w n o o o v st
C N ' n o v ^ - j j o o c n c n c n ^
i< ^H
^H rH ^ I-H rH r-H r-H
(N to vn oo o cn H ^ M
sooosvooocnt^cncnos
rH
s f' nO^' O
^N
N -, o' o0 o nr 'HOtvno
i n ^t m
O MV I ^ C S ' O O O O O O O N
so cn SO CN CN Os
CN O OS 00 CN <N
Ov 00 00 0 \ 0
O -H O O O f<
31.1
33. 0
36. 5
33. 0
30. 0
43. 2
32. 2
29. 5
a.
99S0
a.
in s 2
rH eu
> >
^ o n in o \o o ^ H t^ ^
fN^-ôvnovooooN^r
^ OOr- HO^H' OWnCNÔvCN
ftôvcncN
m 'oov vo oo crN^t c^ ni -o' T
^fH- -Hôvor-*
^H i1f
i-H
O' r-(
W
ovN'CNcNôctnc^N-m
ostôocNcnooovr-oroor^vqos^vooocncn^r
O CN O O << O O t <r
( 1-H
27435 I
o*
>
0.145 0. 645 1 23234 1.382 1
so
21164
* O O O t O V O N O O O H O rH
'OfHoooNvoovÔheoH
H o o o o - H ^ o o H t N ^ o v in
rH
^H
^H rH HH |H H
r- ^ I
hh
> >
0. 428
2. 024
2.155
2.518
2.576
1.562
1.277
0.974
349
Table B.3: Continued

1
2
A u th o r & R e s e a r c h M a rk
3
fc ,
Ro
5
d,
6
c l,
7
c2,
V test; Mu test
10
e=
Mu(testy
11
Yv=
1-Yf
12
Vc,ACI
13
V ies/
Vc,ACI
14
Vc,Propl
15
V ies/
^c.Propl
16
V c,steel
17
V ies/
^c,steel
Vtest, m
B
R egan, 1 99 0
c1
2
3
4
G ilb e r t & G la s s ,
1987
Z a g h lo u l
(p r e se n t p r o g r a m )
6
ZJES
Z JE F 1
ZJEF5
ZJFE2
ZJEF7
Z JE F 3
M Pa
4 8 .3
2 8 .4
4 3 .9
3 7 .6
4 2 .4
3 7 .8
3 8 .5
4 2 .4
2 7 .9
2 5 .0
2 8 .4
2 6 .2
2 7 .8
5 6 .8
0 .3 9
0 .4 1
0 .7 1
0 .7 1
0 .7 1
0 .7 1
0 .7 1
0 .6 8
1 .4 0
1 .3 7
1 .3 7
0 .9 4
1 .3 7
1 .3 7
nun
8 2 .0
6 0 .0
5 2 .0
5 2 .0
5 2 .0
5 2 .0
5 2 .0
5 2 .0
1 1 9 .0
1 2 0 .0
8 1 .0
1 2 0 .0
1 2 0 .0
1 2 0 .0
mm
2 5 0 .0
1 7 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
2 0 0 .0
2 0 0 .0
1 5 0 .0
3 0 0 .0
3 0 0 .0
3 0 0 .0
3 0 0 .0
3 0 0 .0
3 0 0 .0
mm
2 0 0 .0
1 7 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 5 0 .0
2 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
2 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
2 5 0 .0
2 5 0 .0
2 5 0 .0
2 5 0 .0
4 2 0 .0
2 5 0 .0
k N k N .m
1 0 8 .2 2 7 .9
9 .4
2 1 .9
3 5 .0
4 .6
3 7 .0
4 .7
3 9 .0
5 .3
4 0 .0
7 .7
8 .4
4 8 .8
4 0 .8
5 .3
1 8 8 .1
5 4 .9
1 8 8 .3 5 4 .9
9 7 .1 2 7 .6
1 5 5 .9 4 5 .3
1 9 6 .2 5 6 .4
2 1 0 .9 8 5 .3
0 .2 5 8 0 .9 2 1
58018
0 .4 2 7 0 .8 0 4
12705
0 .1 3 1 0 .6 0 8
20351
0 .1 2 7 0 .4 5 1
27050
0 .1 3 5 0 .3 6 7
35068
22192
0 .1 9 3 0 .8 3 9
0 .1 7 3 0 .6 6 1
38035
0 .1 3 1 0 .7 0 2
26528
0 .2 9 2 0 .2 3 0
198603
0 .2 9 1 0 .2 1 5
186470
0 .2 8 5 0 .3 5 0
97138
0 .2 9 1 0 .1 3 2
214974
0 .2 8 8 0.000
262367
0 .4 0 4 0 .3 0 9
173461
M e a n V a lu e s
S T . D e v ia tio n
C o e f. V a r ia tio n
M e a n V a lu e s F o r F R P
S T . D e v ia t io n
C o e f. V a r ia tio n
1 .8 6 5
1 .7 2 4
1 .7 2 1
1 .3 6 7
1.111
1 .8 0 1
1 .2 8 4
1 .5 3 9
0 .9 4 7
1 .0 1 0
1.000
0 .7 2 5
0 .7 4 8
1 .2 1 6
1 .3 7 6
0 .4 6 6
0 .3 3 8
0 .9 4
0 .2 0 5
0 .2 1 8
E q . 5 .1 2
46543
11217
22725
28803
34504
22257
34785
27370
282908
213778
96086
215584
270855
173395
2 .3 2 5
1 .9 5 2
1 .5 4 1
1 .2 8 4
1 .1 2 9
1 .7 9 5
1 .4 0 4
1 .4 9 1
0 .6 6 5
0 .8 8 1
1 .0 1 1
0 .7 2 3
0 .7 2 4
1 .2 1 6
1 .1 4 5
0 .4 5 1
0 .3 9 4
0 .9 1 1
0 .2 0 9
0 .2 2 9
E q . 5 .1 4
35904
8653
17531
22219
26617
17170
26834
21114
218243
183238
82359
184786
232161
148625
3 .0 1 4
2 .5 3 1
1 .9 9 8
1 .6 6 5
1 .4 6 4
2 .3 2 7
1 .8 2 0
1 .9 3 3
0 .8 6 2
1 .0 2 8
1 .1 7 9
0 .8 4 4
0 .8 4 5
1 .4 1 9
1 .4 7 5
0 .5 9 0
0 .4 0 0
1 .0 6 3
0 .2 4 3
0 .2 2 9
u>
o
REFERENCES
ACI-ASCE Committee 326 Report, (1962), Shear and Diagonal Tension, ACI
Journal, proceedings, Vol. 59, January to March 1962, pp. 1-30 and pp. 352-396.
ACI- ASCE Committee 352, (1988), Recommendations for Design of SlabColumn Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 85, November - December, pp. 675- 696.
ACI-ASCE Committee 426 on Shear and Diagonal Tension, (1974), "The Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members - Slabs", Journal of the Structural
Division, Proceedings o f ASCE, Vol. 100, No. ST8, pp. 1543-1591.
ACI-ASCE Joint Task Committee 426, (1959), the shear strength of Reinforced
Concrete Members-slabs, Cement and Concrete Association, London, Technical
Report, TRA/321, July 1959, 5 pages. (Quoted from reference Zaghlool, 1971)
ACI Committee 318 Report, ACI standard, (1956), Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete, ACI (318-56), American concrete institute, July 1956,
pp 913-986.
ACI Committee 318 Report, ACI Standard, (1963),Building Code Requirements

for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318-63, American Concrete institute, June 1963,
pp. 144
ACI Committee 318 Report, Standard Building Code, (1965), Commentary on

building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318-63, American
Concrete institute, 1965.
351
352
8
ACI
Committee
318Report,
ACI
Standards,
(1971),
Building
Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete ACI 318-71, American Concrete Institute,

Feb. 1971
9
ACI
Committee 318, (1983), Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete, ACI 318-83, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1983.

10 ACI Committee 318, (1995), Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318 -95) and Commentary (ACI 318R- 95) American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1995
11
ACI
Committee 318, (2002), Building Code Requirements for structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2002
12 ACI
Committee 318, (2005), Building Code Requirements for structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2005
13
ACI Committee 421, (1992),Shear Reinforcement of Slabs ACI structural

Journal, Vol. 89, No.5, Sept-Oct 1992, pp.587-589
14 ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 421, (1999), Shear Reinforcement for Slabs,

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1999
15 ACI Committee 440H, ACI 440.1R-05, (2005). "Guide for the Design and
Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars." American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2005,44p.
16 Afhami, S., (1998),Strip Model for Capacity of Flat Plate-Column Connections
353
Ph.D thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Edmonton, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
17 Ahmad, S., H., Zia, P.,Yu, T.J., and Xie, Y., (1994) Punching Shear Tests of Slabs
Reinforced with 3-D Carbon Fiber Fabric, Concrete International, June 1994, pp3641.
18 Alexander, S.D. and Simmonds, H., (1986), "Shear- Moment Transfer in ColumnSlab Connections ", Structural Engineering Report No. 141, Department of Civil
Engineering, University o f Alberta, 95pp.
19 Alexander, S.D. and Simmonds, H., (1987), "Ultimate Strength o f Slab- Column
Connections", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 84, May -June 1987, pp. 255- 261.
20 Alexander, S.D. and Simmonds, S. H., (1992), "Tests of Column-Flat Plate
Connections ", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 89, September- October, pp. 495- 502.
21 Alexander, S.D., (1994), "Plastic Design of Column-Slab Connections ",
Proceedings CSCE, Winnipeg, Manitoba, pp. 214-223.
22 AUTOCON Canada, (1998), Product Data Sheet, CDN. PAT. NO. 12788699, 203
Toryork Drive, Weston, Ontario, Canada. M9L 1Y2.
23 Banthia, N., Al-Asaly, M., and Ma, S. (1995). "Behavior of Concrete Slabs
Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Grid." Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, V. 7, No. 4, pp.643-652.
24 Ben-Sasi, Omar Mohammed, (1999), Interaction between exterior and interior
columns and concrete slabs, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Structural Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
354
25 Beresford, F. D., (1967), Tests of Edge Column Connections of a Flat Plate
Structure, Civil Engineering Transaction, 1967. Paper No.2279, presented at the
Institutions Symposium on Concrete Structures, held in Sydnyon 22nd and 23rd
May, 1967. pp. 235-241.
26 Bresler, B., and Pister , K. S., (1957), "Failure of Plain Concrete under Combined
Stresses" American Society of Civil Engineers, Transactions, V.122, 1957, pp. 1049
- 1059.
27 Bresler , B., and Pister , K. S., (1958), "Strength of Concrete under Combined
Stresses, "A.C.I. Journal, Proceedings V.55, Sept. 1958, pp. 321-346.
28 BS 8110, (1987), Structural use of Concrete , Part 1: Code of Practice for Design
and Construction, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
29 CEB, (1993), CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Thomas Telford, 1993.
30 Collins, Michael P. and Mitchell, Denis, (1991), Prestressed Concrete Structures,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., p. 366
31 Cowan, H. J., (1953), "The strength of Plain, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
under the Action o f Combined Stresses, with Particular Reffence to the Combined
Bending and Torsion of Rectangular Sections" Magazine of Concrete Research
(London), V. 5, No. 14, Dec. 1953, pp. 75 - 86 .
32 CSA-A23.3-M94, (1994), "Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings," Canadian
Standard Association, 1994.
33
CSA Standard S806-02, (2002), Design and Construction of Building

Components with Fibre Reinforced Polymers, Canadian Standard Association,
355
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 2002,187 pp
34
Deitz, D. H., Harik, I. E., and Gesund, H., (1999), One-Way Slabs Reinforced
with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars, Fiber reinforced polymer
reinforcement for reinforced concrete structures, Proceedings of the fourth
international symposium SP-188, C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni
eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. pp. 279-286.
35
Dilger, W., and Ghali, Amin, (1981), Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Slabs,
Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 107, ST12, Dec. 1981, pp. 2403-2420.
36
Dilger, Walter; ElMasri, Mahmoud Z.; Ghali, Amin, (1978), Flat Plates with
Special Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Static Dynamic Moment Transfer,
ACI Journal, October 1978, pp.543-549
37
Distasio, J. and Van Buren, M.P., (1960), "Transfer of Bending Moment Between
Flat Plate Floor and Column", ACI Journal, Vol. 32. No. 3,1960, pp. 299-341.
38 Elstner R.C. and Hognestad E., (1956), "Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Slabs", Journal o f the American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, July 1956.
Proceedings Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 29-58.
39 Eurocode 2, (1992), Calcul des Structures en Beton, Swiss Society of Engineers
and Architects, Design Code, Zurich, Swisse.
40 European Committiee o f Concrete, (1966), (Comite' Europee du Beton), Bulletin
D'information No. 58, London, (in English).
41 El-Ghandour, A. W., Pilakoutas, K. and Waldron, P., (1997)Behaviour of FRP
Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab. Proceeding of the Third International Symposium
356
on Non-Metalic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures FRPRCS-3, Sapporo,
October, Volume 2, pp. 567-574.
42 El-Ghandour, A. W., Pilakoutas, K. and Waldron, P., (1998), Use of FRP
Reinforced for Concrete Plate Elements, Proceeding of the International
Conference on Advanced Composites ICAC98, Hurghada, Egypt.
43 El-Ghandour, A. W., Pilakoutas, K. and Waldron, P., (1998), Behaviour of FRP
Flat Slab with FRP Shear R einforcem entProceeding of 8th European Conference
on Composite Materils ECCM-8, Naples, Italy, Vloume2, pp. 399-406.
44 El-Ghandour, A. W., Pilakoutas, K. and Waldron, P., (1999), New Approach for
Punching Shear Capacity Prediction of FRP RC Flat Slab, Proceeding of the Fourth
International Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Polymer for Reinforced Concrete
Structures (FRPRCS-4), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 31 October to 5 November
1999, pp 135-144.
45
El-Ghandour,A. W., Pilakoutas, K. and Waldron, P., (2000), Punching Shear

Behaviour and Design of FRP RC Flat Slabs, International Workshop on
Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs-Proceedings Dedicated to Professor Sven
Kinnunen. Eds. Silfwebrand, J., Hassanzadeh, G., Royal Institute of Technology
Department of Structural Engineering SE-100 44 Stockholm, pp.359-366
46
El-Ghandour,A. W., Pilakoutas, K. and Waldrom, P . , (2003), Punching Shear

Behaviour of FRP Reinforced Flat Slabs: Experimental Study and Predictive
Model, The Journal of Composite for Construction, American Society of civil
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 7, No. 3, Aug 2003. pp 258-265
357
47
Elgabry, A.,(1991), "Shear and Moment Transfer o f Concrete Flat Plates", Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Calgary, February.
48 Elgabry A., Ghali, A., (1996), Moment Transfer by Shear in Slabs-Column

Connections, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, ppl87-196.
49 Elgabry, A. and Ghali, A., (1996), "Transfer of Moments Between Columns and
Slabs", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93, January- February 1996, pp. 56-61.
50 Elgabry, Adel A. and Ghali, Amin, (1987), Tests on Concrete Slab-column
Connections with Stud Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-Moment
Transfer, ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1987, pp.433-442
51 Elgabry, Adel A. and Ghali, Amin, (1987), Design of Stud-Shear Reinforcement
for Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No.3, May-June 1990, pp. 350-361
52 Emam, M. (1995). "Effect o f Shear Strength on the Behavior o f Slab-Column
Connections Subjected to Monotonic and Cyclic Loading." Ph.D. Thesis, Civil
Engineering Department, Cairo University, 203 p.
53 Emam, M.; Marzouk, H.: Hilal, Sameh, (1996), Effect of Highstrength
Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V.93, No. 5, September-October 1996, pp.
545-554
54 El-Salakawy, E.F., Polak, M.A. and Soliman, M.H., (1998). "Slab-Column Edge
Connections Subjected to High Moments." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 25, No. 4, pp 526-538.
55 El-Salakawy, E.F., Polak, M.A. and Soliman, M.H. (1999). Reinforced Concrete
Slab-Column Edge Connections With Openings. ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
358
96, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 79-87.
56
El-Salakawy, E.F., Polak, M.A., and Soliman, M.H. (2000). "Reinforced Concrete
Slab-Column Edge Connections with Shear Studs." Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 338-348.
57
El-Salakawy, E. F., (2005),Shear Strength O f FRP Reinforced Concrete Flat

Slabs, The Fourth Middle East Symposium, MESC-4, Alexandria, Egypt, May
20-23,2005
58
El-Sheikh, A. I., (1988), Effect of Spandrel Beam on Strength and Behavior of

Column-Floor Connection, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alexandria, Egypt, 1988.
59 Elstner, R. C. and Hognestad, E., (1956),
"Shearing Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs" A. C. I. Journal, Proceedings V. 53, July 1956, pp.29-58.

60 Elstner, R. C. and Hognestad, E., (1957),
"Shearing Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs" A. C. I. Journal, Proceedings V. 54, pp.265-298.

61
Eurocode 2, (1992), Calcul des Structures en Beton , Swiss Society o f Engineers

and Architects, Design Code, Zurich, Swisse.
62
European Committiee o f Concrete, (1966), (Comite1Europee du Beton), Bulletin

D'informationNo. 58, London, (in English).
63
Falamaki, M. and Loo, Y. C., (1992), Punching Shear Tests of Half-Scale

Reinforced Concrete Models with Spandrel Beams, ACI Structural Journal, MayJune 1992, pp.263-271.
64
Gardner, N.J., (1990), "Relationship of the Punching Shear Capacity of

Reinforced Concrete Slabs With Concrete Strength" ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
359
87, January- February, pp. 66- 71.
65
Gardner, N.J., (1995), "Discussion on Punching Shear Provisions for Reinforced

and Prestressed Concrete Flat Slabs", Proceedings, CSCE Annual Conference,
Ottawa, June, pp. 247-256.
66 Gardner, N.J. and Shao, X.Y., (1996), "Puching Shear of
Continuous Flat
Reinforced Concrete Slabs", ACI Structural Journal, Vol.93, No.2, March-April,

PP. 218-228.
67 Ghali, Amin, (1989), An Efficient Solution to Punching of Slabs, Concrete
International: Design & Construction, V. 11, No.6, June 1989, pp.50-54
68 Gilbert, S. G. and Glass, C., (1987), Punching Failure of Reinforced Concrete
Slabs at Edge Connections The structural Engineer, Volume 65B, No. 1, March
1987, pp. 16-22
69 Goli, H. B. and Gesund, H., (1979), Flexural strength o f Flat slabs at exterior
Columns, ASCE reprint 3459, April 1979.
70 Gosselin D., (1984), "The Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column
Structures with Drop Panels Subjected to Gravity and Lateral Loading", The
Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, 1984.
71 Guralnik,
S.,
(1959),
"Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams",
Proceedings o f the American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 85, No. ST1 , Jan.
1959, pp. 1-42.
72 Hammil, Neil and Ghali, Amin, (1992), Effectiveness of Shear Reinforcement in
slabs, Concrete International, January 1992, pp. 60-65
360
73 Hallgren, M., (1996), "Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength
Concrete Slabs", Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology JRITA-BKN.
Bulletin 23, Stockholm, pp.206.
74 Hanson, N.W. and Hanson, J.M., (1968), "Shear and Moment Transfer Between
Concrete Slabs and Columns", Journal of the Portland Cement Association
Research and Development Laboratories, Skoike, Illinois, Vo 1.10, No. 1,
January1968, pp. 2-16.
75 Hassan, T., Abdelrahman, A., Tadros., G., and Rezkalla., S., (2000), Design
Guidelines for Bridge Deck Slabs Reinforced by CFRP and GFRP, Egyptian
Society of Engineers, Bridge Engineering Conference, Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt,
pp.259-270.
76 Hassan, T., Louka, H., Abdelrahman, A., and Rezkalla., S., (1999), Behaviour of
Bridge Decks Reinforced by GFRP, 12th International Conference Composite
Material, Paris, France, ICCM-12 Europe.
77 Hawkins, N.M., (1974), Shear Strength of Slabs with Shear Reinforcement
American Concrete Institute Special Publication, SP - 42, Shear in Reinforced
Concrete, Detroit, Michigan, Vol. 2,1974, pp. 785- 816.
78 Hawkins, N.M. and Corely, W.G., (1971), Transfer of Unbalanced Moment and
Shear from Flat Plates to Columns SP 30, Cracking, Deflection, and Ultimate
Load of Concrete slab Systems, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.,
1971, pp. 147-176
79 Hawkins N.M., Fallsen H.B. and Hinojosa R.C., (1971), "Influence of Column
361
Rectagularity on the Behavior of Flat Plate Structures", American Concrete Institute
SP-30, Detroit, Michigan, 1971, PP. 127-146
80 Hawkins, N. M., and Mitchell, D., (1979), (Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate
Structures", ACI Journal, pp. 775 - 808.
81 Hawkins, N.M., Bao, A. and Yamazaki, J,M, (1989), Moment Transfer From
Concrete Slabs to Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V ol. 86, Nov.- Dec. 1989, pp.
705-716.
82 Hognestad, E., (1953), Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete column
Footings, ACI Journal, Proceedings V.50, Nov. 1953, PP. 189-208, Quoted from
Zaghlool 1973.
83 Hognested, E., Rachid. C., and Hanson, J.A. (1964). "Shear Strength of
Reinforced Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Slabs." Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 61, pp. 643-655.
84 Hussein, A.; Rashid, I. and Benmokrane, B., (2004) "Two-Way Concrete Slabs
Reinforced with GFRP Bars." Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Calgary, Alberta, July
2 0 - 2 3 2004.
85 Hepworth, A.J.W., (1969), "Theoritical Shear Analysis of Concrete Beams", Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1969.
86 Jirsa, J. O., Bumgarter, J. L. and Magbo, N. C., (1969), Torsional strength and
behavior of spandrel Beams, ACI Journal, November 1969, pp. 928-932, quoted
from reference El sheikh (1988)
362
87 JSCE, (1997), "Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete Structure
using Continuous Fibre Reinforced Materials", Concrete Engineering Series 23,
Japan Society of Civil Engineering, Tokyo
88 Kane K.A., (1978), "Some Model Tests on the Punching Action o f Reinforced
Concrete Slabs at Edge Columns", Honours Project, The Queen's University of
Belfast, 1978
89 Kinnunen S., Nylander H., (1960), "Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear
Reinforcement", Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, No. 158, Royal
Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden, pp.l 12.
90 Kruger, G., Brudet, O. and Favre, R., (2000), Punching strength of R.C. Flat slabs
with Moment Transfer, International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC
Slabs-Proceedings Dedicated to Professor Sven Kinnunen, Eds. Silfwebrand, J.,
Hassanzadeh, G., Royal Institute of Technology Department of Structural
Engineering SE-100 44 Stockholm, 2000. pp.333-341
91 Ketut, Sundarsana. I., (2001) "Puncing shear in edge and corner column slab
connections of flat plate structures", Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Ottawa, Ontario, 2001.
92 Lamb J.W., (1984), "Moment Transfer and Joint Stiffness in Reinforced Concrete
Flat Plate-Column Connections", The Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario,
1984.
93
MacGregor J.G., (2000), Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, Prentice

Hall Canada Inc, Scarborough, Ontario
363
94
Marzouk, H., and Hussien, A. (1991). "Punching Shear Analysis of Restrained

High Strength Concrete Slabs." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 18,
pp. 954-963.
95
Mast, P. E., (1970-a), Stresses in Flat Plates Near Columns, ACI Journal
Proceedings, Vol. 67, No. 10, October 1970, pp. 761- 768.
96
Mast, P. E., (1970-b), Plate Stresses at Columns Near the Free Edge, ACI
Journal Proceedings, Vol. 67, No. 11, November 1970, pp. 898- 902.
97 Masterson, D.M. and Long, A.E., (1974), The Punching Strength of Slabs, a
Flexural Approach Using Finite Elements, American Concrete Institute Special
Publication, SP- 42, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, V o l . 2, Part 4,pp.747-768.
98 Matthys, S., Taerwe, L., (1996), Behaviour of Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP
Grids Under Service And Ultimate Loading, First International Conference on
Fibre Composites in Infra Structures, Eds. Saadatmanesh H. & Ehsani M. R.,
Tucson, USA, pp.359-373.
99 Matthys, S., Taerwe, L., (1996), Punching Shear Behaviour of Concrete Slabs
Reinforced with FRP Grids. Proceeding of the Second International on Advanced
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Editor, M.M. Elbadry, Canadian
Society of Civil Engineering, Montreal, Quebec.
100 Matthys, S., Taerwe, L., (1997), Punching Tests on Concrete Slabs Reinforced with
FRP Grids. Proceeding of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metalic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Vol. 2, Sapporo, Japan.
101 Matthys, S., Taerwe, L., (2000), Verification of the Punching Resistance of
C o n c r e te S la h s R e in f o r c e d w it h F R P crrirte
I n te r n a tio n a l W o r k s h o n n n P u n c h in a
364
Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP grids , International Workshop on Punching
Shear Capacity Of RC Slabs-Proceedings Dedicated to Professor Sven Kinnunen.
Eds. Silfwebrand, J., Hassanzadeh, G., Royal Institute of Technology Department of
Structural Engineering SE-100 44, Stockholm, pp. 475- 483.
102 Matthys, S., Taerwe, L., (2000), Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP Grids - Part
I: Flexural Capacity, Part II: Punching Resistance, ASCE Journal o f Composite for
Construction, American Society of civil Engineering, August 2000, pp. 145-161
103 McGregor, J.G. and Wight, J.K., (2005), Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and
Design, 4th edition, Prentice Hall, N.J., 1132 pp
104 Megally, S., Ghali, A., (2000), Punching of Concrete Slabs Due to Column
Moment Transfere, Journal of Structural Engineering, February 2000. pp. 180-189.
105 Megally, S., Ghali, A., (2000), Punching Shear Design of Earthquake-Resistant
Slab-column connections, ACI Structural Journal. September-October 2000. pp. 111 .
106 Mituso Ozawa, Yuichi Uchida & Wataru Koyanagi, (2000), "Study on the Process
of Punching Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Slabs", International Workshop
on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs-Proceedings Dedicated to Professor Sven
Kinnunen. Eds. Silfwebrand, J., Hassanzadeh, G., Royal Institute of Technology
Department o f Structural Engineering SE-100 44 Stockholm, pp.277-284.
107 Moe, J., (1961), Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings
under Concentrated Loads, Development Department, Bulletin D 47, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, April 1961, pp. 130.
365
108 Moehle, J.P., (1988), Strength o f Slab- Column Edge Connections, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 85, January- February 1988, pp. 89-98.
109 Moehle, J.P., Kreger, M.E. and Leon, R., (1988), Background to Recommendations
for Design o f Reinforced Concrete Slab- Column Connections, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 8 5 ,November- December 1988, pp. 636-644.
110 Mokhtar, Abdel-Salam; Ghali, Amin; and Dilger, Walter, (1985) Stud shear
Reunforcement for Flate Concrete Plates, ACI Journal, Proceedings V.82, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 676-683
111 Mortin, John D. and Ghali, Amin, (1991), Connection of Flat Plates to Edge
Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V.88, No. 2, March-April 1991
112 Neville A.M., (1997), Properties of Concrete, Fourth Edition, John Wiley sons,
Inc.
113 NRC, (1994), "NEFMAC as Reinforcement for Concrete Bridge Decks and Barrier
Walls ", Client Report A-8007.3, Institute for Research Construction, National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1994.
114 Ospina, C. E., Alexander, S. D. B., Cheng, J. J. R., (2000), "Punching of ColumnSupported Two-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP," Third International
Conference On Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures. Eds.
Humer, J.L.and Razaqpur, A.G., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2000, pp.323-330.
115 Ospina, C. E., Alexander, S. D. B., Cheng, J. J. R., (2003), "Punching o f Two-way
Concrete Slabs with Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars or Grids ACI
Structural Journal, September-October 2003, pp. 589-598
116 Ospina, C. E., Alexander, S. D. B., Cheng, J. J. R., (2001), "Behaviour of

Concrete slabs with Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement Structural
Engineering Report No. 242, Department of Civil and Enviromental Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, 355 pp.
117 Park, R. and Islam, S., (1976), Strength of Slab Column Connection with Shear
and Unbalanced Flexure, Journal of the Structural Division. Vol. 102, No. ST9,
September 1976.
118 Pillai, S.U. and Kirk D.W., (1988), Reinforced Concrete, Second Edition,
McGREW-Hill PYERSON.
119 Pillai, S. U., Kirk, W. Scavuzzo, L., (1982), Shear Reinforcement at SlabColumn Connections in a reinforced concrete Flat Plate Structure, ACI Journal,
January 1982, pp. 36-42.
120 Rangan, B. V., (1990), Tests on slabs in the Vicinity of Edge Columns, ACI
structural Journal, V.87, No.6, November-March 1990, pp. 623-629.
121
Rangan, B. V. and Hall, A. S., (1983), Moment and shear transfer between slab
and edge column, ACI Structural Journal, Proceedings V.80, No. 3, May - June
1983, pp. 183-191, Quoted from reference Ben-Sasi (1999)
122 Razaqpur, A.G., (2000)," Provision of the Canadian Standard for the Design of
FRP Reinforced Concrete Building Component", 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures. Eds. Humer, J. L. &
Razaqpur, A. G., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp.865-872.
123 Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L, (1928), "A study of the Failure
367
of Concrete under Combined Compressive Stresses", University of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 185, Nov. 1928. quoted from
reference Zaghlool (1973).
124 Rosenthal, I, (1959), Experimental Investigation of Flat Plate Floors, ACI
Journal proceedings V.56, August 1959, pp. 153-166.
125 Regan P.E., (1981), "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs", Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, London, England, 1981.
126 Regan, P.E. and Braestrup, M.W., (1985), Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete:
A State o f Art Report, Commite Euro-International du Beton, Bulletin d
information, No. 168, Lausanne, January, 1985,232 pp.
127 Scavuzzo L., (1978), "Shear Reinforcement at Slab-Column Connections in a
Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate Structure", The Royal Military College, Kingston,
Ontario, 1978
128 Scordelis, A.C., Lin, T.Y. and May, H.R., Shearing Strength of Prestressed Lift
Slabs, ACI journal, proceedings V.55, October 1958, pp.485-506, quoted from
reference El-Sheikh (1988)
129 Seible, Frieder; Ghali, Amin; and Dilger, Walter H, (1980), Preassembled Shear
Reinforcing Units for Flat plates, ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 77, N o.l, JanuaryFebruaiy 1980. pp.28-35
130 Sherif, A. G., (1996), Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab, Ph.D. Thesis,
In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of doctor of philosophy,
Department of Civil Engineering, the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1996.
131
Sherif, A. G. and Dilger, W. H., (1996), Critical review of the CSA A23,3-94,
Puching Shear Strength Provisions for Interior Columns, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Volume 23, No. 5, pp. 998-1011.
132 Simmonds, S.H. and Alexander, S.D., (1987), Truss Model for Edge ColumnSlab Connections, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. July- August 1987, pp. 296- 303.
133 Sheikh, M. A., (1967), "Flexure - Shear Strength of Prestressed Concrete Beams",
Ph. D. Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada 1967. quoted from
reference Zaghlool 1971.
134 Sheikh, M. A., de Paiva, H.A.R. and Neville, A.M., (1968), "Calculation of
Flexure - Shear Strength of Prestressed Concrete Beams" Journal of Prestressed
Concrete Institute, V. 13, No. 1, Feb.1968. pp. 68 - 85.
135 Sozen, M.A. and Siess, (1963), Investigation of Multi-Panel Reinforced
Concrete Floor Slabs: Design Methods- their Evaluation and Comparison,
Proceeding ACI, Vol.60, August, pp. 999-1028.
136 Stamenkovic, A., (1969), Flat Slab Construction Column Head Strength under
Combined Vertical Load and Moment, Ph.D. Thesis, University of London,
London, Great Britain, 1969, Quoted by reference (Zaghlool (1971))
137 Stamenkovic A. and Chapman J.C., (1974), "Local Strength at Column Heads at
Flat Slabs Subjected to a Combined Vertical and Horizontal Loading",
Proceedings o f the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2 Research and Theory,
London, June 1974.
138 Svecova, D., (1994), "Serviceability and Strength of Concrete Parking Structures
369
Reinforced by Fibre-Reinforced Plastics," M.Eng. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Carleton University, Ontario, Canada, 1994.
139 Tsuboi, Y. and Kawaguchi, M., (1960), On Earthquake Resistance Design of Flat
Slabs and concrete shell Structures, Proceedings of the second World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. Ill, July 1960, pp. 1693 - 1708.
(Quoted from reference (Zaghlool 1971)
140 Tureyen, A.K. and Frosch, R.J., (2003). Concrete Shear Strength: Another
perspective. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 5, September-October 2003,
pp.609-615.
141 Vanderbilt, M. Daniel, (1972), Shear Strength of Continuous Plates, Journal of
the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 98, No. ST5, May 1972, pp.961-973
142 Van Dusen, M.H., (1985), Unbalanced Moment and Shear Transfer at SlabColumn Connections: A Literature survey, M. Sc. in Eng. Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto.
143 Walker, P. R. and Regan, P. E., (1987), Comer column-slab connections in
concrete flat plates, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 4, April 1987, pp. 704-720.
144 Walker, H.C. (1986), Design Fundamentals for durable parking structure floor
slabs. Reprinted in ACI (1986), PP. 98-31 to 98-40
145 Walther, R., (1964), "Calculations of the Shear Strength of Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Beams by The Shear Failure Theory", Cement and Concrete
Association (London), Translation No. 110 by C.V. Amerongen, 1964, quoted
370
from reference (Zaghlool 1971)
146 Wheeler, W. H., (1936), Thin Flat-Slab floors Prove rigid Under Test,
Engineering News-Record, Vol. 116, No. 2, Jan. 9 1936, pp. 49-50. quoted from
reference (Zaghlool 1971)
147 Yitzhaki, D., (1966), Punching strength of reinforced concrete slabs, ACI
journal, proceedings V.63, May 1966, pp. 527-542
148 Zaghloul, A.E.R., (2002), Behaviour and Strength of CFRP Reinforced Flat Plate
Interior Column Connections subjected to Shear and Unbalanced Moments, M.Sc.
Thesis, Department o f civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of
Carleton, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2002.
149 Zaghloul, A.E.R., Razaqpur, A.G., (2003), Punching Shear Strength of CFRP
Reinfoced Concrete Flat Plate, Fifth Alexandria International Conference on
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, December20-22, 2003.
150 Zaghloul, A.E.R., Razaqpur, A.G., (2003), Punching Shear Strength of CFRP
Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates under combined Action of Moment and Shear ,
Fifth Alexandria International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical
Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, 2003.
151 Zaghloul, A.E.R., Razaqpur, A.G., (2003), Punching shear behavior of CFRP
reinforced concrete flat plates, The CCC 2003 - Composites in Construction
International Conference, University of Calabria, Rende (CS), ITALY, 16-19
September 2003. pp. 439-444
152 Zaghloul, A.E.R., Razaqpur, A.G., (2004), Punching Shear Strength of Concrete
Flat Plates Reinforced with CFRP Grids , 4th International Conference on

Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Calagary, Alberta, July
20-23, 2004
153 Zaghloul, A. E., Razaqpur, A. G., and Zaghloul, E.R., (2004), Refined Prediction
of Punching Shear Strength of Slab-Column Connections: Applications to Slab
Reinforced with Steel or FRP , 4th International Conference on Advanced
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Calagary, Alberta, July 20-23,
2004
154 Zaghlool, E. R. F., (1968), Strength and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Flat
Plate Floor Slabs, M.Sc. thesis, University of Calagary, Calagary, Alberta,
Canada, 1968.
155 Zaghloul, E.R.F., Ben-Sasi, O.M., 2003,Shear and Behaviour of Slab-Interior
Column Connections Transferring Shear and Moment, Fifth Alexandria
International Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering AICSGE,
20-22 December 2003, Alexandria, Egypt, PP. (RC213-RC232)
156 Zaghloul, E.R.F. , Ben-Sasi, O.M., 2003/ Strength and Behaviour of Slab-Edge
Column Connections With Spandrel Beams, Fifth Alexandria International
Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering AICSGE, 20-22
December 2003, Alexandria, Egypt, PP.(RC299-RC213)
157 Zaghlool, E. R. F., de Paiva, H. A. R. and Glockner, P. G., (1970), Tests of
Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate floors, Proceedings of ASCE, Vol. 96, No. ST3
March 1970, pp. 487-507.
372
158 Zaghlool, E.R.F., de Paiva H.A.R., (1973-a), Strength Analysis of Comer
Column-Slab Connection, Journal of the Structure Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No.
ST1, Proc., pp.53-70.
159 Zaghlool, E.R.F., de Paiva H.A.R., (1973-b), Tests of Flat Plate Comer ColumnSlab Connection, Journal of the Structure Division, ASCE Proceedings, Vol. 99,
No. S T 3 ,1973, pp.551-572.
160 Zaghloul, E.R.F. (1982), Strength and Behaviour of flat plate edge column-slab
connections, Bulletin of the Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Vol.
XXI, 1982
161 Zaghlool, E.R.F., (1971), Strength and Behaviour of Comer and Edge ColumnSlab Connections in Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1971.
162 Zia, P., Ahmad, S.H., Garg, R. K., and Hanes, K., (1992), Flexure and Shear
Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced with 3-D Continuous Carbon Fibre
Fabric, Concrete International, V.14, No. 12, pp. 48- 52.
163 Zidan, S. A., (1981), Strength and Behaviour of Edge Column Slab connections in
reinforced concrete Flat Plates, M.Sc. thesis, University of Alexandria, Egypt,
1981.

Momenat I Proboj

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Momenat I Proboj

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE TO USERS

Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are

This reproduction is the best copy available.

Punching Shear Strength of Interior and Edge Column-Slab

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

The Doctor of Philosophy Program in Civil Engineering

395 Wellington Street

395, rue Wellington

The author retains copyright

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur

In compliance with the Canadian

Conformement a la loi canadienne

While these forms may be included

Bien que ces formulaires

Part I: Punching shear of FRP reinforced slabs......................................................................6

Experimental program ..................................................................... 74

3.5.1 Interior connections...................................................................................................... 89

Experimental results and discussion................................................133

4.1 General............................................................................................................................. 133

4.3.2.1 Crack development and propagation...................................................................... 150

Analysis of test results...................................................................... 236

5.2 Punching shear analysis of interior column-slab connections without shear

CHAPTER 6 Summary, conclusions and recommendations for future study ...315

Appendix A................................................................................................................... 322

Table 5.13: Predicted punching shear capacity of specimens

reinforcement based on (vc Pr0jtjl + v^)................................................................................ 299

in the current testing

reinforcement and column stub.......................................................................................... 105

Fig. 3.26: CFRP edge column specimen reinforcement................................................. 112

in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJF8... 192

Figure 4.13: Strain distribution

in the bottom reinforcement in specimen ZJF9... 192

Figure 4.19: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJF9.....................195

Figure 4.32: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF1, ZJEF5 and ZJEF7...............202

Figure 4.46: Load-deflection curves of shear reinforced samples.................................. 209

and ZJEFCS..................... 209

Figure 4.48: Load-deflection curves of specimens ZJEF3 and ZJEFSS.......................... 210

Figure 4.63: Strain distribution in

the bottomreinforcement parallel to south face of

column stub in specimen ZJEF7..........................................................................................217

the bottom reinforcement parallel to free edge in

specimen ZJEF7.................................................................................................................... 218

the bottom reinforcement parallel to south face of

column stub in specimen ZJES............................................................................................218

the bottom reinforcement parallel to free edge in

specimen ZJES...................................................................................................................... 219

the bottom reinforcement normal to south face of

column stub in specimen ZJEFCS...................................................................................... 219

the bottom reinforcement parallel to free edge in

reinforcement in specimen ZJEFCS,

(gauges 8,11,13 and 19)....................................................................................................... 224

reinforcement in specimen ZJEFSS,

(gauges 34,36,38 and 42)..................................................................................................... 225

25,26,27 and 28)...................................................................................................................225

24,25,26 and 27)................................................................................................................... 226

Figure 4.85: Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFCS, (gauges

Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFCS at

Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJEFSS at

Distribution of shear reinforcement strain in specimen ZJESCS at

slab strain in specimen ZJEF1............................. 231

Figure 4.91: Through-thickness

slab strain in specimen ZJEF2............................. 231

Figure 4.92: Through-thickness